Commentary on Matthew

Matthew 27

308 ST. JEROME ing. For if Peter did not deny him, then the Lord lied when he said: “Amen I say to you that on this night before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.”301 Observe what he says: “You will deny me,” not the man. 26.73. “Truly you also are one of them, for even your speech makes you known.” It is not that Peter spoke another language or that he was from an outside nation. For they were all Hebrews, both those who were accusing him and he who was being accused. Rather, they say this because each province and region has its own characteristics and could not avoid a vernacular sound of speaking. This is also why in the book of Judges the Ephrathites could not pronounce σύνθημα.302 26.74. Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear that he did not know the man. And immediately a cock crowed. In another Gospel we read that after Peter’s denial and the crowing of the cock, the Savior looked at Peter, and by his gaze he provoked him to bitter tears.303 For it was impossible for one on whom the Light of the world had looked to remain in the darkness of denial. 26.75. And he went out and wept bitterly. While sitting in the courtyard of Caiaphas, he could not do penance. So he goes outside from the council of the impious304 in order to wash away the filth of a cowardly denial with bitter weeping. Chapter 27 27.1–2. But when morning came, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus, in order to hand him over to death. And they brought him bound and handed him over to Pontius Pilate the governor. He was led not only to Pilate but also to Herod. Thus both men mocked the Lord. And notice the care with which the priests do evil. They stayed awake all night in order to commit a murder. “And they handed him over, bound, to Pilate.” For by their custom, anyone they had condemned to death they handed over, bound, to the judge. 301. Mt 26.34. 302. Cf. Jgs 12.6. Jerome uses the LXX translation of the Hebrew word “shibboleth.” 303. Cf. Lk 22.60–62. 304. Cf. Ps 1.1. BOOK FOUR (22.41–28.20) 309 27.3–4. Then, when Judas, who had handed him over, saw that he had been condemned, he was led by penitence to bring back the thirty silver pieces to the chief priests and elders, saying: “I have sinned in handing over just blood.” The burden of his impiety excluded the strength of his avarice. When Judas saw the Lord condemned to death, he returned the price to the priests, as if it were in his own power to change the verdict of the persecutors. And so, although he may have changed his will, nevertheless he did not change the outcome of the initial will. But if he who handed over just blood sinned, how much more did they sin who had paid for the just blood and who had provoked the disciple by offering a price for the betrayal? Let those who attempt to introduce [the doctrine of] diverse natures305 and who say that Judas became a traitor by his evil nature, and that he was unable to be saved by his election to the apostleship, explain how an evil nature could have repented. 27.4–5. But they said: “What is that to us? You see to it.” And when he had thrown down the silver pieces in the Temple, he withdrew and going away he hanged himself with a noose. It was of no benefit to have done an act of penance by which he was not able to correct the sin. If at some time a brother sins against a brother in such a way that he is able to amend the sin he committed, it can be forgiven him. But if the works remain, it is in vain that a penance is taken on with words. This is what is said in the Psalm about this same most wretched Judas: “And may his prayer be turned to sin.”306 Thus he was not only unable to amend the crime of betrayal, but to the first act of wickedness he added as well the sin of his own suicide. The apostle speaks...