The Harmony of the Gospels 3.12–3.26

Luke, however, did not state how many times he prayed; but he did say, what they passed over, that as he prayed he was strengthened by an angel, and that as he prayed more earnestly his sweat became like blood and drops ran down to the ground. When, then, he says, “And when he had risen from prayer and come to his disciples,” he did not state after which prayer; yet he in no way conflicts with those two. John, however, after saying that he entered the garden with his disciples, does not record what he did there until his betrayer came with the Jews to seize him.

These three, then, narrated the same thing as one man too could narrate it three times with some variety, yet with no contradiction. Luke, however, made clearer how far he went forward from them, that is, withdrew, to pray, saying, “about a stone's throw.” Mark, moreover, first narrated in his own words the same thing, that the Lord asked that, if it were possible, that hour might pass from him, that is, the hour of the passion, which he soon signified by the name of the cup. Then he gave the Lord's own words thus: “Abba, Father, all things are possible to you; remove this cup from me.” If you join to these words what the other two said, and what Mark himself also put above in his own person, the meaning becomes clear thus: “Father, if it is possible, for all things are possible to you, remove this cup from me”; so that no one would think he lessened the Father's power when he said, “if it is possible.” For he did not say, “if you can do it,” but, “if it is possible”; and what he wills is possible. So “if it is possible” was said as though it were said, “if you will.” For Mark made clear in what sense “if it is possible” is to be taken when he said, “All things are possible to you.” And what they recorded he said, “Yet not what I will, but what you will” (which has just the same force as if it were said, “Yet not my will but yours be done”), shows clearly enough that “if it is possible” was said not with reference to the Father's ability but to his will; especially since Luke conveyed this very thing more plainly, for he does not say, “if it is possible,” but, “if you will.” To this plainer statement what Mark put is joined still more plainly, so that it is said: “If you will, for all things are possible to you, remove this cup from me.”

As for Mark himself recording that he said not only “Father” but “Abba, Father,” abba is Hebrew for what in Latin is “father.” And perhaps the Lord said both for the sake of some mystery, wishing to show that he had taken up that sorrow in the person of his body, that is, the church, of which he was made the cornerstone, the church coming to him partly from the Hebrews, to whom “Abba” belongs, partly from the Gentiles, to whom “Father” belongs. The apostle Paul too does not pass over this mystery: “By whom we cry,” he says, “Abba, Father”; and again he says, “God sent his Spirit into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” For it was fitting that the good teacher and true Savior, sympathizing with the weaker, should show in himself that his martyrs ought not to despair if perhaps, through human frailty, sorrow should creep into their hearts at the time of suffering, provided they overcame it by putting God's will before their own; for he knows what is good for those he cares for. This is not the time to discuss this whole matter more fully; for we are now dealing with the agreement of the evangelists, from whose diversity of words we learn, to our profit, that in words nothing is to be sought for hearing the truth but the meaning of the speaker. For “Father” is the same as “Abba, Father”; but for conveying the mystery “Abba, Father” is plainer, while for signifying unity “Father” suffices. And it is to be believed that the Lord said “Abba, Father”; yet the meaning would not shine out unless, by others saying “Father,” it were shown that those two churches, from the Jews and from the Greeks, are such that they are also one. “Abba, Father,” then, was said in the same sense in which the same Lord says elsewhere, “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold,” certainly meaning the Gentiles, since he also had sheep among the people of Israel. But because he went on to add, “I must bring them also, so that there may be one flock and one shepherd,” what “Abba, Father” means for Israelites and Gentiles, “Father” alone means for the one flock.

While he was still speaking, then, as Matthew and Mark say, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and elders of the people. Now he who betrayed him had given them a sign, saying, “Whomever I kiss, that is he; seize him.” And at once coming up to Jesus he said, “Hail, Rabbi,” and kissed him. And he said to him first what Luke says: “Judas, do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?” Then what Matthew says: “Friend, for what have you come?” Then he said what John records: “Whom do you seek?” They answered him, “Jesus the Nazarene.” Jesus said to them, “I am he.” And Judas too, who betrayed him, was standing with them. When, then, he said to them, “I am he,” they went backward and fell to the ground. So he asked them again, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus the Nazarene.” Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If, then, you seek me, let these go,” so that the word might be fulfilled which he spoke: “Of those whom you gave me I have lost none.”

Now those who were around him, seeing what was going to happen, as Luke says, said to him, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them, as all four say, struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear, the right one, as Luke and John say. The one who struck, according to John, was Peter, and the one he struck was called Malchus. Then what Luke says: “But Jesus answered and said, ‘Let it go this far,’” and he added what Matthew records: “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot ask my Father, and he will at once furnish me more than twelve legions of angels? How then would the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?” To these words can be joined what John records he said in that place: “The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?” Then, as Luke says, he touched the ear of the one who had been struck and healed him.

Nor should it trouble anyone, as though contradictory, that Luke said that when the disciples asked whether they should strike with the sword, the Lord answered, “Let it go this far,” as if this was said after that blow, meaning that he was pleased that it had gone this far but did not want more done; whereas in the words that Matthew put it is understood rather that the whole deed in which Peter used the sword displeased the Lord. For the truer view is this: when they had asked him, saying, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” he then answered, “Let it go this far,” that is, “Do not be troubled by what is going to happen; they must be permitted to go this far,” that is, to seize me and fulfill what is written of me. But in the interval between the words of those questioning the Lord and his answer, Peter, in his eagerness to defend him and greater agitation for the Lord, struck; but things that could be done at the same time could not also be said at the same time. For he would not say, “But Jesus answered,” unless he was answering their question, not Peter's deed. For what he judged of Peter's deed Matthew alone tells. There too Matthew did not say, “Jesus answered Peter, ‘Put your sword back,’” but said, “Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back,’” which shows that the Lord said it after the deed. But what Luke put, “But Jesus answered and said, ‘Let it go this far,’” must be taken as the answer given to those who had asked; but because, as we said, the blow was struck in one stroke between the words of those asking and the Lord answering, he judged it should be narrated in this order, so as to insert it too between the words of question and answer. This, then, is not contrary to what Matthew said, “For all who take the sword will perish by the sword,” that is, those who use the sword. It could seem contrary if the Lord by that answer were shown to have approved the voluntary use of the sword, even as far as one wound, and that not lethal. Although the whole could also fittingly be understood as said to Peter, so that what Luke and Matthew reported are joined thus, as I recalled above: “Let it go this far, and put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword,” and so on. How “Let it go this far” is to be understood I have already explained; and if it can be better explained otherwise, let it be so, so long as the truthfulness of the evangelists stands.

Afterward Matthew continues and records that in that hour he said to the crowds, “You have come out as against a robber with swords and clubs to seize me. Daily I sat among you teaching in the temple, and you did not take me.” Then he adds also the words that Luke puts: “But this is your hour and the power of darkness.” “But all this happened,” as Matthew says, “so that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples left him and fled,” as Mark too says. “And a certain young man was following him, wrapped in a linen cloth,” as the same Mark records; “and when they seized him, he left the linen cloth and fled from them naked.”

And those who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and elders had gathered, as Matthew says. But first he was led to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, as John says. Mark and Luke do not give the high priest's name. He was led bound, since there were in that crowd a tribune and a cohort and officers of the Jews, as John records. “But Peter followed him at a distance as far as the court of the high priest; and going in, he sat with the officers to see the end,” as Matthew says, “and warmed himself at the fire,” as Mark says at that point of the narrative. Luke too records that Peter followed at a distance; “and when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the court and sat around it, Peter was in their midst.” And John says that Simon Peter followed, and another disciple. “Now that other disciple was known to the high priest and went in with Jesus into the court of the high priest,” as John says. “But Peter stood at the door outside,” according to the same John. “So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper and brought Peter in,” as the same John says. For so it came about that Peter too was inside in the court, as the others also say. And the chief priests and the whole council,

as Matthew says, sought false testimony against Jesus to put him to death, and did not find it, though many false witnesses came forward. For their testimonies did not agree, as Mark says when recording the same passage. “But at last two false witnesses came,” as Matthew says, “and said, ‘This man said, I can destroy the temple of God and build it after three days.’” Mark records that others also said, “We heard him saying, I will destroy this temple made with hands and in three days build another not made with hands”; and so their testimony did not agree, as the same Mark says there. “And the high priest stood up and said to him, ‘Do you answer nothing to what these testify against you?’ But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, ‘I adjure you by the living God, tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.’ Jesus said to him, ‘You have said it.’” This is Matthew. Mark says the same in other words, except that he is silent about the high priest adjuring him. But he shows that what Jesus said to him, “You have said it,” has the same force as if he said, “I am.” For it follows, as the same Mark says, “And Jesus said to him, ‘I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’” Matthew says this too, but does not say that Jesus answered, “I am.” “Then the high priest tore his garments, saying, ‘He has blasphemed; what further need do we have of witnesses?’” which Matthew records and goes on: “‘Behold, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?’ And they answered and said, ‘He deserves death.’” Mark too attests this. And Matthew continues: “Then they spat in his face and struck him with their fists; and others slapped his face, saying, ‘Prophesy to us, Christ, who is it that struck you?’” Mark says this too; he records also that they covered his face. Luke too testifies to these things.

The Lord is understood to have suffered these things until morning in the house of the high priest to which he was first brought, where Peter too was tested. But about Peter's testing, which took place amid these insults to the Lord, they do not all narrate in the same order. For Matthew and Mark record the insults first, then Peter's testing; but Luke sets out Peter's testing first, then the insults to the Lord; while John begins to tell of Peter's testing, inserts some things about the insults to the Lord, adds that he was sent from there to Caiaphas the high priest, and from there recapitulates, to set out the testing of Peter that he had begun, in the house to which he was first brought, and returns to the order, where he shows how the Lord was led to Caiaphas.

Matthew, then, continues thus: “Now Peter was sitting outside in the court, and a servant girl came to him, saying, ‘You too were with Jesus the Galilean.’ But he denied it before all, saying, ‘I do not know what you are saying.’ And as he went out to the gate, another saw him and said to those who were there, ‘This man too was with Jesus the Nazarene.’ And again he denied with an oath, ‘I do not know the man.’ And after a little while those who stood by came and said to Peter, ‘Surely you too are one of them, for your speech also makes you known.’ Then he began to curse and swear that he did not know the man. And immediately the cock crowed.” This is what Matthew says. But it is understood that after he went outside, having already denied once, the cock crowed for the first time, which Matthew passes over and Mark tells.

But he did not deny a second time outside before the gate, but when he had returned to the fire; and when he returned there was no need to record. Mark, then, narrates it thus: “And he went out before the court, and the cock crowed. And again the servant girl, when she had seen him, began to say to those standing by, ‘This man is one of them.’ But he denied again.” This servant girl is not the same, but another, as Matthew says. Certainly this too is understood, that in the second denial he was accosted by two, both by the servant girl whom Matthew and Mark record and by another man whom Luke records. For Luke narrates it thus: “But Peter followed at a distance. And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the court and sat around it, Peter was in their midst. And a certain servant girl, seeing him sitting at the light and looking closely at him, said, ‘This man too was with him.’ But he denied him, saying, ‘Woman, I do not know him.’ And after a little while another, seeing him, said, ‘You too are one of them.’” So in what Luke says, “after a little while,” Peter had already gone out of the gate and the cock had crowed for the first time, and he had already returned, so that, as John says, he denied again standing at the fire. For John, in Peter's first denial, not only is silent about the first cockcrow, as are the others except Mark, but also does not record that the servant girl recognized him sitting at the fire. For he says only this: “So the servant girl who kept the door said to Peter, ‘Are you not also one of this man's disciples?’ He said, ‘I am not.’” Then he inserts what was done with Jesus in the same house, which he thought should be recorded, narrating thus: “Now the servants and officers were standing at the coals, because it was cold, and warming themselves; and Peter too was with them, standing and warming himself.” Here, then, it is understood that Peter had already gone out and returned; for at first he was sitting by the fire, afterward, having returned, he had begun to stand.

But perhaps someone says: he had not yet gone out, but had risen to go out. Someone who thinks he denied the second time when questioned outside before the gate can say this. Let us see, then, what follows in John: “The high priest, then,” he says, “asked Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. Jesus answered him, ‘I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and I said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; behold, these know what I said.’ When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, ‘Is that how you answer the high priest?’ Jesus answered him, ‘If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike me?’ And Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.” Here it is certainly shown that Annas was a high priest; for he had not yet been sent to Caiaphas when it was said to him, “Is that how you answer the high priest?” And Luke too, at the beginning of his Gospel, mentions these two, Annas and Caiaphas, as high priests. Having said these things, John returns to what he had begun about Peter's denial, that is, to the same house where the things he narrated were done and from which Jesus was sent to Caiaphas, to whom he was being led from the beginning, as Matthew said. John recorded these things that he inserted, recapitulating about Peter, and returning to that narrative he speaks thus, to complete the threefold denial: “Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, ‘Are you not also one of his disciples?’ He denied it and said, ‘I am not.’” In this place, then, we find that Peter denied the second time not before the gate but standing at the fire, which could not have happened unless he had already returned after going outside. For it was not that he had already gone out and the other servant girl saw him outside; but she saw him as he was going out, that is, when he rose to go out she noticed him and said to those who were there, that is, those who were with him at the fire inside in the court, “This man too was with Jesus the Nazarene.” And he who had gone outside, hearing this, returned and swore to them, as they pressed against him, that he did not know the man. For Mark too says this of the same servant girl: “And she began to say to those standing by, ‘This man is one of them.’” For she was saying it not to him but to those who had remained there as he went out, yet so that he heard; from which, returning and standing again at the fire, he resisted their words by denying. Then, in what John says, “They said, ‘Are you not also one of his disciples?’” which we understand was said to him when he had returned and was standing, this too is confirmed: that not only that other servant girl, whom Matthew and Mark record in this second denial, but also another man, whom Luke records, dealt with Peter. Hence John says, “So they said to him.” Therefore, whether, after the servant girl, as he went out, said to those who were with her in the court, “This man is one of them,” he heard it and came back, so as to clear himself, as it were, by denying; or, which is more credible, he did not hear what was said of him as he went out, and after he returned the servant girl and that other man whom Luke records said to him, “Are you not also one of his disciples?” and he said, “I am not,” while that man whom Luke mentions insisted more stubbornly, saying, “You too are one of them,” to whom Peter said, “Man, I am not”: in either case it is clearly gathered, when all the evangelists' testimonies on this matter are compared, that Peter denied the second time not before the gate but inside in the court at the fire, and that Matthew and Mark, who recorded that he went outside, were silent about his return for brevity's sake.

Now let us look at their agreement about the third denial, which, let us remember, Matthew alone has already set out. Mark, then, continues and says: “And after a little while those who stood by said to Peter, ‘Surely you are one of them, for you too are a Galilean.’ But he began to curse and swear, ‘I do not know this man of whom you speak.’ And immediately the cock crowed a second time.” Luke narrates the same thing, continuing thus: “And after an interval of about an hour, another man insisted, saying, ‘Surely this man too was with him, for he too is a Galilean.’ And Peter said, ‘Man, I do not know what you are saying.’ And immediately, while he was still speaking, the cock crowed.” John, continuing, sets out Peter's third denial thus: “One of the high priest's servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter cut off, said, ‘Did I not see you in the garden with him?’ Peter again denied it, and immediately the cock crowed.” So how much time the “after a little while” of Matthew and Mark was, Luke makes clear by saying, “after an interval of about an hour.” John is silent about this interval. Likewise, as to Matthew and Mark speaking of those who dealt with Peter not in the singular but in the plural, while Luke says one, and John too one, a relative of the man whose ear Peter cut off, it is easy to understand either that Matthew and Mark used the plural for the singular by a common manner of speaking, or that one man insisted most, as one who knew and had seen him, while the others, following his assurance, pressed Peter together; hence two evangelists briefly put the plural, while the other two chose to signify only the one who was foremost in this. Further, as to Matthew asserting that it was said to Peter himself, “Surely you too are one of them, and your speech makes you known,” as John asserts it was said to the same Peter, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” while Mark says they spoke among themselves about Peter, “Surely he is one of them, for he too is a Galilean,” as Luke too says not to Peter but about Peter, “Another man insisted, saying, Surely this man too was with him, for he too is a Galilean”: either we understand that those who say Peter was addressed kept the meaning (for what was said about him in his presence had as much force as if it were said to him), or it was done both ways, and some recorded one way and others the other. And we understand the cock's crowing after the third denial to be the second, as Mark expressed.

Matthew, then, continues, saying, “And Peter remembered the word of Jesus which he had said, ‘Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.’ And he went out and wept bitterly.” Mark, however, says thus: “Peter remembered the word that Jesus had said to him, ‘Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.’ And he began to weep.” And Luke says thus: “And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.’ And Peter went out and wept bitterly.” John is silent about Peter's remembering and weeping. Certainly how Luke's statement that the Lord turned and looked at Peter is to be taken must be considered more carefully. For although there are also said to be inner courts, Peter was in the outer court among the servants who were warming themselves together at the fire. It is not credible that the Lord was being heard by the Jews there, so that it was a bodily look. For when Matthew had said, “Then they spat in his face and struck him with their fists, and others slapped his face, saying, Prophesy to us, Christ, who is it that struck you?” he went on to say, “Now Peter was sitting outside in the court,” which he would not say unless those things were being done to the Lord inside. And, as far as is gathered from Mark's narrative, they were being done not only in the inner parts but also in the upper parts of the house. For after Mark had narrated such things, he went on, “And while Peter was below in the court.” So, just as by Matthew's saying, “Now Peter was sitting outside in the court,” he shows that those things were done inside, so by Mark's saying, “And while Peter was below in the court,” he shows that what he had said was done not only in the inner but also in the upper parts. How, then, did the Lord look at Peter with a bodily face? Therefore it seems to me that this look was done divinely, so that it came into his mind how many times he had already denied and what the Lord had foretold him, and so, as the Lord mercifully looked on him, he repented and wept for his salvation. Just as we say daily, “Lord, look on me,” and, “The Lord looked on him,” of one freed by divine mercy from some danger or trouble; and as it is said, “Look and hear me,” and, “Turn, O Lord, deliver my soul”: so, I think, it was said, “The Lord turned and looked at Peter, and Peter remembered the word of the Lord.” Indeed, although in their narratives they more often put “Jesus” than “the Lord,” here Luke put “the Lord,” saying, “The Lord turned and looked at Peter, and Peter remembered the word of the Lord,” while Matthew and Mark, who were silent about this look, said that he remembered not the word of the Lord but the word of Jesus; so that from this too we may understand that this look was done by Jesus not with human eyes but divinely.