The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: S. John
Ver. 10. — But there was a servant named Malchus . He mentions the name of the servant to signify the mystery. For Malchus is the same as “ king.” But as the servant of the High Priest he signifies the Jewish people, which was formerly a kingly and free power, but afterwards became subject to the Priesthood, which burdened it with its traditions and ceremonies, and also preyed upon it. See Matt, xxiii. Now this man, when S. Peter and the Apostles preached the Gospel, lost his right ear on account of his unbelief and hatred of Christ : that is, he became deaf to the Gospel, and to those things which were necessary to salvation, till the Lord converted him, and healed his ear. So S. Cyril (in loc.), S. Ambrose on Luke xxii., and S. Jerome on Matt. xxvi. S. Ambrose adds that S. Peter wished to imitate the zeal of Phinehas, who slew a prince of Israel who committed fornication with the daughters of Moab : and thus obtained the High Priesthood (Num. xxv.) The love therefore of S. Peter, and his zeal for Christ, lessened his fault. And yet he sinned in drawing his sword without consulting Christ, more especially when he had heard just before from His own lips, that He was going of His own accord to His Passion and Death.
Ver. 12. — Bound Him . By Whom they should have wished to be set free. And maybe they were of the number of those who, when afterwards set free by Him, said, “ Thou hast burst my bonds in sunder” (Ps. cxv. 16), says S. Augustine. Christ, had He so willed, would have broken all the bonds of the Jews more easily than
Samson burst the hempen bonds of Delilah (Judges xv. 9). But He would not— (1.) In order to expiate the sin of Adam which he committed with His hands. For since the first Adam too readily stretched forth his hands to the forbidden fruit, Christ the second Adam was willing to be bound in order to expiate the sins of Adam and his posterity, which are most commonly wrought with the hands.
(2.) To fulfil the type : for Isaac, who was a type of Christ, was bound when about to be offered by Abraham. For the victims were bound, lest they should struggle against being offered (Gen.
(3.) That by having taken on Him these bonds from love of us, He might bind us with the cords of love, as is said (Hos. xi. 4), “ I will draw them with cords of a man, with bands of love.”
Moreover, it is clear that the Jews firmly and cruelly bound Christ, both from the intense hatred with which they, and their masters the Chief Priests, burnt against Him, as wishing to avenge their ignominious fall which they had suffered at His hands, and the violence of St. Peter towards Malchus and themselves. See notes on Matt,
Ver. 13. — And they led Him away to Annas first, for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas , which was the High Priest that same year . But why did Judas and the Jews lead Him first to Annas, and not to Caiaphas, when He had to be judged by Caiaphas (as High Priest), and not by Annas ?
I answer (1.) To pay honour to Annas, as being the elder, and father-in-law to Caiaphas, whom “ Caiaphas honoured as father,” says Euthymius, and by whose counsel he governed the people. (2.) The house of Annas was in the way to that of Caiaphas. (3.) Because Annas especially wished and arranged for the seizure of Christ. And hence the soldiers lead Him as it were in triumph, in order to delight him, and that they, in return, themselves might obtain some reward for so doing. (4.) To summon Annas (who on the previous evening had gone to his own house, on account of the cold) to attend the council which was about to be held the next morning at the house of Caiaphas to try Jesus. (5.) And specially, because Annas had promised Judas the reward of his betrayal, Judas therefore takes Jesus to his house, to obtain from him the thirty pieces he had promised, and, as S. Cyril thinks, he then actually received. And this is inferred from the fact that in the first agreement with the Rulers, the money was only promised, not paid (see Matt, xxvi. 15). Judas therefore received them this very night at the house of Annas, and shortly afterwards, in sorrow at what he had done, threw them down in the temple (Matt, xxvii. 3). For he could not receive them at the house of Caiaphas, who was so engaged in finding false witnesses, in examining Christ, in summoning the Council, &c., that he had no time to treat with Judas. And Judas does not appear to have gone with the soldiers further than to the house of Annas, or to have entered the house of Caiaphas. For if Judas had been there, Peter would not have gone in, for fear of Judas betraying him. For if Judas had been present in the house of Caiaphas when Peter thrice denied Christ, he would certainly have either publicly convicted him of falsehood, or have secretly informed the servants that Peter was a fellow-disciple of Christ, in order that they might apprehend him.
The high Priest that same year. Because the Roman Governors often changed the High Priests every year, and created new ones ; though it was peculiar to Pilate that he did not remove Caiaphas whom he found High Priest : who accordingly held the High Priesthood for the whole three years of Christ’s ministry.
Ver. 22. — One of the servants struck Jesus . S. Augustine (in loc.) having enumerated many punishments which a slave deserved, says, “ But which of these could He not have commanded by His power (since the world was made by Him), unless He preferred to teach us patience by which the world is overcome?” See on Matt. xxvi. 59. Moreover, Christ turned not the other cheek, lest He should appear to admit His fault. As S. Paul, too, when smitten unjustly said, in his zeal for justice, “ God shall smite thee, thou whited wall” (Acts xxiii.) “ He offered not,” says S. Augustine, “ His other cheek to the smiter, but made His whole Body ready for being nailed to the Cross, in order to confirm His own teaching, by His example (Matt.
Ver. 24. — Now Annas sent Him bound unto Caiaphas the High Priest. The Syriac and Arabic versions, as also S. Cyril, read “ had sent Him,” and so too the English version. But it seems as if S. John had forgotten to mention the sending of Jesus from Annas to Caiaphas, and here inserted it out of place, whereas it should come in after ver. 13.
Ver. 28. — Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the praetorium . To the house and hall of Pilate ; for he was Praetor, that is, both civil and criminal judge of Judaea. S. Augustine reads (inaccurately) unto Caiaphas into the Praetorium , and therefore was obliged to say either that Caiaphas came to the house of Pilate, or that they both lived in the same house, though the contrary is plain from the Gospel.
Every magistrate who had an army under him, was called Praetor, a praeeundo . And the place in which he held trials was called Praetorium; a place in which criminals were tried, for which purpose Jesus was brought thither by the Chief Priests.
But they themselves entered not into the judgment-hall lest they should be defiled (by entering the house of the heathen governor), but that they might (as pure and clean) eat the Passover. The Passover does not here mean the Paschal Lamb (as SS. Chrysostom and Cyril suppose), for that they had eaten the day before; but the Paschal victims, which were sacrificed during the whole seven days, which could be eaten only by those who were clean. See here the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who wished to appear most religious, though in truth utterly wicked and the murderers of Christ. S. Augustine exclaims, “O impious and foolish blindness! for forsooth they would be defiled by a dwelling which was another’s, and not be defiled by a crime which was their own.” See S. Cyril.
Ver. 31. — It is not lawful for us to put any one to death . For the Romans, it appears, had deprived the Jews, as a conquered people, of the power of capital punishment, and claimed it for themselves.
This is the meaning of the words. See Rupertus, S. Thomas, Jansen, Suarez, and others. You will say the Jews stoned S. Stephen, and threw down S. James headlong. But this was not in course of law, but in a popular tumult. Josephus (Ant. xx. 8, al. 16) says that Annas was deposed from his office by the Roman governor for ordering S. James to be killed, and (Acts xviii.) the Jews did not dare to kill Paul, but handed him over to the Proconsul Gallio. But you will urge that Pilate had already given the Chief Priests liberty to judge and to put Him to death, when he said, “Take ye Him and judge Him according to your law.” I answer, that they could have done so, but were unwilling to accept his offer. They said, as it were, in their minds, Ye Romans have taken away from us altogether the power of the sword. We therefore do not wish to exercise it in this particular case. Either restore us this power absolutely, or else take your part in the deed. This they said as wishing Jesus to suffer the most ignominious death, that of crucifixion as a seditious person, and aiming at kingly power. And they wished to transfer from themselves to Pilate the unpopularity of His death. For they feared they should be stoned by the people, who were in favour of Jesus, or else be assailed by their revilings.
Others reply (as S. Augustine and S. Cyril, and Suarez after them , par. iii. Quaest. lxvii., art. 4), that it was not lawful for the Jews to put Him to death at the Passover (being a solemn feast), but that it was lawful at other times. But Ribera replies, that it was specially the practice of the sect of the Pharisees not to condemn any one to death (see Josephus Ben-Gorion, Hist. Jud. iv. 6). They said therefore, “It is not lawful for us,” under the cloak of religion. For many, and the chief of those who aimed at the death of Christ, were Pharisees. And because they had authority with the people, others followed their lead.
Ver. 32. — That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled which He spake signifying by what death He should die, viz. that He was to be delivered up to the Gentiles, and to be crucified by them. See