New Thoughts (08/01/12-08/06/12)
Before I begin pursuing my thoughts in earnest, I should just like to leave my self a bit of a journal note here. This has been one of the most disrupted periods of my study schedule that I can recall. To begin, the initial days were spent in a hotel in Virginia, with a much reduced toolset for considering words and such. Then, the schedule while I was there also put a bit of pressure on my morning times, so there are a few days one might note are missing from the dates here, and others which might seem to have taken rather longer than reasonable. The end result is that I’ve also rushed a few things trying to catch up. So, I come to this point noticing that I neglected Malchus under the “People and Places” considerations. But, as is my wont, I’ll let things stand as they are and proceed onward.
As it happens, Malchus is actually one of the first things I would like to think about; in particular, how is it that John comes to not only know his name, but mention it? And that occurs not only here, but arises again in the narrative that follows, concerning Peter’s denials. It seems to me that I have heard it suggested that John was (for reasons unexplained) more familiar with Jerusalem, perhaps a bit more upscale than the others. Yet, this seems wholly at odds with the record of his introduction to Jesus. There, he is but a fisherman and the son of fishermen, much like Peter. If anything, it would seem Peter was better off financially, given he owned his own business, was married, and such. John’s family might be doing alright by Galilean standards, but there’s just nothing there that suggests to me a more metropolitan existence.
I could be wrong, clearly. But, I see nothing to suggest that I must be. So, I consider an alternative explanation. It seems unlikely to me that the disciples were aware of this man’s particulars in the brief moments of melee. They were, after all, just coming out of an exhausted and overwhelmed sleep. They were not at their most coherent. Further, they had little to no cause to be familiar with the priests themselves, let alone their servants. They might, I suppose, have been able to identify that Malchus was indeed a servant to the temple hierarchy, but even that seems debatable.
On the other hand, there’s that encounter ‘round the fire barrel later (Jn 18:26). Here, we learn that it was a relative of Malchus who had confronted Peter. That one was apparently present in this garden scene as well. So, the thought arose that maybe John, being less directly involved in what had transpired with Malchus, was able to engage this one in conversation after Peter had left, and thereby learned his relationship to Malchus, as well as Malchus’ name. However, I ask myself, were I one who had so recently fled the scene of an arrest which could quite easily have swept me up and into Roman custody, would I be so swift to speak with one who could easily identify me? Particularly when that one has shown his recognition of my partner? I think not. These guys were scared, remember? They fled the scene rather than stand by their Man. From what follows, it does not appear they regained their confidence with any great speed. It’s hardly likely that John had a sudden burst of courage leading him to begin a friendly conversation now. Far more likely that he was seeking to make his own quiet departure, if he was even there at the fire. We are not, after all, told that he was, unless I am much mistaken.
There arises, then, a third potential explanation. This one, as I see it, turns on the answer to another question, that being why John alone sees fit to reveal that Peter was the man with the sword. Is that just a means of heightening the drama? I think not. John is not interested in drama, although he is a gifted narrator. He’s interested in the progress of the Kingdom. Yet, it is also a striking feature of his gospel that rather than relate once more that which others have covered quite sufficiently, he is inclined to fill in the gaps, to relate events that were overlooked by the others, or perhaps that he was particularly privy to, and could therefore relate on a more intimate level. Then, there is the factor that John writes, quite probably, at a point when all the others known to be present at that scene are gone to their reward.
That last point strikes me as being significant. At the time John writes, no further harm can come to Peter if he is revealed as the arm behind the sword. He has already suffered the worst that man can do, and now it can be told. If we would tie this reveal to the fire barrel scene, it might also give us cause to be just a bit more compassionate towards Peter. Maybe that relative had said more than is given to us on the page. Maybe he had mentioned his relationship to Malchus, and his knowledge of what had happened. If he was there, he surely took note of some madman charging into the crowd with sword drawn. The cutting off of that ear could not have been missed, being it was the only action at the time. Ask yourself what you would do, there in the midst of the enemy, as it were, and being recognized as the guy who attacked the officials.
But, here, I return to the reason John knew Malchus’s name, for I’m not completely convinced that it was heard ‘round the fire. I’m thinking that perhaps it was heard at a later date. I’m thinking a servant like Malchus, experiencing what he did, wasn’t likely to walk away unchanged. I’m thinking that as events unfolded, and he heard more of this Jesus Who had reattached his ear, this was likely to have profound impact on him, rather like the impact of bearing the cross of Jesus seems to have had on that one randomly pulled from the crowds to bear it. And, if he was moved, he was moved towards Christ, touched by the Spirit and just maybe granted the great gift of faith. If this be so, it is all but certain that he would have made his way to the church that was in Jerusalem, the church where Peter, James and John were first elders. It’s also quite possible that his relative, that other servant, had come along with him. Certainly, were this the case, John would be perfectly well aware of his name. He would just as certainly be as protective of that one’s name during his lifetime as he was of Peter’s. Here, the same explanation for the revealing of his name in John’s gospel alone comes forward. Malchus, too, had passed to his reward. There could be no further concern for any retaliation by the temple authorities he had once served, and so, it did no harm to expose those further details that surrounded Peter’s part in the action.
I must make plain that this is very speculative on my part. I cannot claim it as truth, only as theory. It is intriguing, though, to consider what lies between the lines in this account. And, I don’t really think it does any great harm to recognize the humanity of those involved, to realize that they were not robots who walked onto the stage of history, acted their brief part, and walked off wholly unaffected by what had happened. I should be extremely careful not to project my own perspectives and proclivities upon these men when pursuing such thoughts, but neither should I leave them as desiccated beings on the dissection table. These were real men with real thoughts and emotions experiencing real events, events sufficient to overwhelm the strongest of us. To suppose them unchanged by experience is to deny the historicity of the accounts.
That historicity also consists in the setting. The event took place in a real grove on a real mountainside outside of the very real city of Jerusalem. Consider, just briefly, the number of witnesses already involved just in this scene of arrest. It is not even a reasonable construction to suppose that these eleven men of Israel would start fashioning tales as to what happened. Names are named, even. You want to know if this is how it went? Go find Malchus, or one of his relatives. (I understand that I have just finished arguing that Malchus was likely dead by the time of this writing. But, relatives? And, he is but one data point among many in this regard.) That setting, as John notes, included crossing the Kidron Valley, or the ravine of the Kidron, as the NASB has it. The Amplified offers, “the winter torrent of the Kidron.” Perhaps. The events in view are associated with the Passover, after all, and this is an event of early spring. I am not aware of snow in the immediate vicinity, but perhaps the early rains would swell the brook, as it is generally termed.
It is interesting, I suppose, that John chooses to describe it in such a term. It is not the brook Kidron, as the Old Testament writers would have called it. A very quick concordance check turns up no such term used in the New Testament by which to compare. Is John using a term typical of such a wadi, or is he using a term to describe it’s state at the time? I cannot say.
What is more intriguing to me is the history of that place. Consider even the name, which means “dark”. And what does Jesus say of this moment? It is the hour of the power of darkness. Then, there are those events which seem to typify the locale, as the history of Israel unfolds. But a few examples serve to paint the picture. Josiah, as he moved to cleanse the Temple, took the Asherah that had been raised right there in the Temple, and took it down to the brook Kidron, “outside Jerusalem,” and burned it there. The ashes, he caused to be scattered on the graves of the commoners (2Ki 23:6). Again, in Hezekiah’s reign, there is a clearing out of the abominations that had been allowed into the Temple. The priests, it is written, went in to cleanse the inner house of the Lord, and took all the unclean objects from there out into the courtyard of the Temple. From there, the Levites took them to the Kidron for disposal (2Chr 29:16).
Again, these are but two examples. If Gehenna was the local garbage dump, and a place for disposing of the bodies of those too poor even for the commoner’s graveyard, the Kidron does not appear to have been much better used, only perhaps for a higher calling. Here, it seems, was the place for demonstrable rejection of those powers of darkness. Here, it seems, the filth cleansed from the temple must be scattered. It is the valley of darkness. One supposes it to be a fit place to cast off the remains of darkness. There is, perhaps, reason to take note of that phrase, “outside Jerusalem,” that comes up in the account of Josiah’s work. The cleansing of God’s people is ever done outside the camp of God’s people, is it not so? There was a reason why the crucifixion must needs be done outside the city walls, quite apart from political or even hygienic considerations. It was the way of the Lord, in some wise the instruction of His Law. If Jerusalem was His chosen city, as the Temple was His house, one could hardly achieve cleanness by simply moving the filth out of the Temple and into the city at large. It must be completely removed from His demesnes.
And so, Jesus, the bearer of our sins, the fulfillment of the scapegoat set forth in the Mosaic Law, must needs be removed entirely from God’s demesnes, wholly and utterly excluded from His presence. And so, it was done. But, here, I would note a most interesting addition to the record of the Kidron. For this, I move from the historical to the prophetic texts. Jeremiah writes, “And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the Lord; it shall not be plucked up, or overthrown anymore forever” (NASB). A glance at the map of ancient Jerusalem sets the Horse Gate to the southeast of the palace, If I am comparing the maps of OT and NT Jerusalem correctly, it would about where the Pinnacle of the Temple was located. The NT map shows Gethsemane being about due east from the northern extent of the Temple courtyard. That prophecy, then, could be seen as referring to the valley that lay between the temple precincts and the Mount of Olives.
Notice the references made. It is a valley of dead bodies and ashes. Well, the ashes we have heard about, the result of those occasional kings who took to God’s ways, and took away the reproach of idolatry as best they could. The bodies, too, are mentioned in passing, if we accept that the commoner’s graves mentioned in connection with Josiah’s work, were located here. I do note that there are tombs marked on the map as arising from the period after Israel returned from exile. It’s not unthinkable that there may have been burials here before the exile as well.
What is striking to me is that as God speaks through Jeremiah, this place is mentioned explicitly as a place that shall be holy to the Lord, a place that shall never again be overrun by His enemies. Tempting though it is, I am not inclined to try and map this prophecy into current events. Far more telling to me is the mapping of that prophecy to the scene in the garden of Gethsemane. Here, in the valley of darkness, it is the hour of the power of darkness, as Jesus says. All the forces of hell are abroad and seeking the death of this Son of God, Son of Man. And, they shall succeed in that, so far as it goes. They shall witness His death, and by means both gruesome and illegal in every regard. What could be more pleasing to them? Why, they even enjoy the after effects of their work on Judas, and even Peter must have provided them a good deal of amusement. Oh, yes. They figured that this time they had finally, once for all, outwitted God. What a witless conclusion to reach, but there it is.
The reality, however, is that the day of which Jeremiah spoke had effectively arrived. From this point forth, the darkness would no more prevail. They had their hour, but that hour was all they had. And even that, they had only on the authority of the very One they sought to destroy. I love that point Jesus makes to His disciples. Don’t you realize this? I could call down angels by the thousands and they would be here of an instant, were that to the purpose. This little army they’ve sent out? They are as nothing. You knew that when you drew your sword. It remains true when I tell you to knock it off. They are to be granted their little victory here, by My Father’s command. It must be this way, for His own Word has said so.
Of course, He left unsaid on this occasion that this was not the end of that command. But, He had already told them many times. “I am authorized to lay down My life. And, I am authorized to take it back. Indeed, this is the command of My Father” (Jn 10:18). This is only part one. Part two will be much more to your liking, and much less to theirs! They may be granted a win in this skirmish, but the battle belongs to the Lord, and His victory is absolutely assured! The Kidron, the valley of darkness, will once more serve as the place where idols and demons are destroyed, their ashes scattered, and the darkness vanquished once for all. No more will it be overrun. No more will it be taken captive. It is, as of this moment we are witnessing, made holy to the Lord. Think about what that means. It is reserved for His exclusive use, just as the particular formulation of oil used in the temple was for His purposes alone, just as the priests were to be men set apart for His use alone, just as the Levites were consecrated to His service – just as we proclaim ourselves to be, as we are counted His children, His bondservants. We proclaim it, but it is in Him, in His power, that truth finds a place in what we proclaim.
In His words, we find a consistent proclamation of Truth. With that in mind, the details of the arrival of Judas are particularly striking. In rereading the texts this morning, I was struck afresh by the specifics that John brings forth. I am not certain (how could I be?) whether these come before, during or after Judas’ personal actions, but they are powerful in their own right. Jesus, knowing full well what is happening, asks the crowd that has come who it is they are seeking, and they reply with His name. To this, He responds, ego eimi – I AM. And, John notes two items here: First, Judas is with the crowd, whether having yet to step forward or having returned with is vile deed done. Second, to a man, that crowd “departs towards the back” and then falls prostrate on the ground.
Now, let me just say this. There is a great deal said about the grammatical construct of ego eimi, and many texts insist that we should infer an object applied thereafter. Thus, for instance, the NASB supplies it. “I am He.” Those who require this translation then suggest that it was because Jesus was stepping towards them, or because Peter and whoever the other disciple was were clearly armed and going for their weapons. But, come on! We are told there is a cohort present. If we are to take that literally, then there are 600 trained and seasoned soldiers above and beyond the guards supplied by the temple. Even if, as NET suggests, it is more properly a maniple, that would still be 200. Let us suppose it is quite a bit less, perhaps twenty or so. By now, they can see the twelve men who stand opposite, and can see pretty clearly that all but two are unarmed. Frankly, even were they armed, I have trouble believing the military men sent out for this occasion would be particularly concerned about them as being some sort of threat.
But, the “I AM”! That proclamation Jesus makes is, I believe John would have us to understand, something far more than an admission of being the one they seek. It is a proof of His power and of His control over this whole situation. Think about what He says to His disciples shortly. “Don’t you realize that I could have twelve legions of angels at My back instantly, were that My purpose?” There’s 200 or 600 of them? If I was interested in battle here, there would be 72,000 angels, any one of which would be more than sufficient to repel the whole of this mob. This first “I AM” makes the point for Him. The merest breath of His nostrils is sufficient to destroy His enemies. The merest few words and they are all of them prostrated on the ground. It may not be the fulfillment of the prophetic words that every knee will bow and every tongue confess His Lordship, but it’s certainly a down payment! Like it or not, they would acknowledge His sovereignty. Wittingly or not, they would have to have understood at some level that in spite of their numbers, and His disarmed condition, He remained the One in control.
The second “I am” I would be inclined to hear with that unstated object, the “I am He.” It must be so, for they are able to come forward at that point and finish their immediate task of arresting Him. It is the same two words, but something has changed the situation. In one case, it is but the statement of a fact. I am the one you speak of. I go by that name, and if it is Me you are after, then surely, your justice requires that you let the rest of these with Me depart. But, the first time lays down the authority of His Name. I AM. You call Me Jesus of Nazareth, but My proper name is I AM. And that name is drenched in all power and authority. It is so loaded with the very power of deity that to a man, they quell before it. This rather lends cause for them to give His later requirement a hearing. Let these go, as it is Me you are after. Seems to me, that those who arrested Him would hear an unspoken “or else” in that request. Indeed, they would understand it as a requirement.
Now, then, let us consider Judas in his moment. He has arranged a sign by which he can identify the One they should arrest, and he has apparently taken pains to make them understand that when they have arrested Him, they had best have a strong guard on His person. Again, I find my thoughts going in an unexpected direction, so I shall divert and pursue. The thing that strikes me is this: Why? What need had he of offering a sign? He could simply have pointed Jesus out and said, “seize Him!” How hard was that? Why the need for this elaborate scheme? For all that, he having been companion to Jesus these last few years, on what basis does he suggest the need for such close guard? Is he thinking of the number of times even this week that Jesus has simply walked away from those who would have arrested Him? Is he thinking back to that earliest of occasions when they were ready to toss Jesus from the cliff, but He just walked off? Or, is he seeking to stoke the danger level a bit? The Romans, as I have already said, would see little cause for concern in these twelve men. The temple guards would likely be more concerned with any potential issues this event might result in, as concerns their careers than with any threat perceived in those they have been sent against. Maybe they would be a bit more apprehensive, given the great success they have had with prior attempts at arresting this Man by Himself. But, Judas seems to be playing up the danger of this midnight mission.
As to the why of his chosen methods, I find no reasonable explanation, apart from the demand of Scripture. The act comes in fulfillment of further prophecy, and this alone is reason enough to understand why things have fallen out the way they have. God has said it. Therefore, whether it makes sense to the mind of man or not, it shall be. Just so, then, Judas comes striding forward, and gives Jesus a big hug, just such a greeting as we would give to a parent, or a close friend. Being a man of his culture, that hug includes the kiss of friendship. The typical interpretation of such a greeting would be that it was a mark of friendship, perhaps even a token of respect. Even in our own society, at least in some circles, one would give such a greeting. To one’s parents and near relatives, certainly! We hug them, perhaps thump them on the back, being men, and declare our pleasure at seeing them again. To others, perhaps we stop short with but a handshake. But, even that is a token of, if not friendship, then at least respect, honor. With just such symbolism, then, the betrayer greets his victim. And to this gesture he adds words of greeting. “Hail, Rabbi!” Consider that. Hail: I wish you well, I bless you. Rabbi: Most honorable sir, respected teacher. All of this speaks of dear friendship, high honor, good will. And all of it is a lie. There may have been a time when these words fit Judas’ estimate of Jesus, but that time is in the past, if ever it existed.
But look at this: Look at the response Jesus makes. “Friend, do what you have come for.” What? Is Jesus playing the same game? Should we hear that word spit out and dripping with sarcasm? Only if we are going to project our own proclivities on the Son of God, and this, I dare say, we ought never to do! No, as I said a few paragraphs back, the Son of God speaks only Truth. If He has called this one friend, He has meant it. Wow! We could read that as merely an acknowledgement of the previous arrangement they have had. Yes, you have been a comrade of Mine, a partner in My work. But, in this situation, such a reading makes little sense at all. No, He speaks that word in the fullness of its signification. He still, in spite of what He knows full well is happening, is willing to count Judas as His friend.
Is that about the most shocking thing you can imagine? Do you recognize the instruction about turning the other cheek being demonstrated in full here? This is an amazing thing! I look at this, and it becomes evident to me that even Judas, had he the wisdom to have understood this exchange, could have known forgiveness. This is something that bears pondering as we proceed through the final day of Jesus on earth. All those who are seen as the villains in this passion play, Judas, Pilate, Herod, choose whom you will; they are all candidates for redemption. There is not a one of them who could not have experienced what Peter would experience, not a one of them who was so great a sinner that there was no hope for them. Now, I say that advisedly, fully understanding what Scripture tells us about Pharaoh, and about others who walked the stage of redemptive history. There are assuredly those over whom God has said, “not this one.” They shall be hardened, shall once for all time reject the once for all time sacrifice of His Son. Faith shall not be imparted, and they shall not be drawn to the Light. Judging by the end of Judas, I must assume that he is one who received this very sentence.
Yet, I would note something here: All those others, like Pharaoh, God points out explicitly. Moses, you will talk to him, and he will eventually relent and let My people go, yet his heart will be hardened, and he will not accept Me. He is here to be destroyed, and his destruction will serve to My glory even as your redemption from Egypt will serve to My glory. Nebuchadnezzar is much the same, and Sennecherib. They are pointed out, set under the ban, as it were, and we are given to understand that for these there is no hope. I was inclined, for a moment only, to suggest that for Judas, there was no such statement, the door had not slammed shut. But, then I consider what Jesus just finished praying at the end of dinner. Of those you gave Me, I lost not a one, except… OK. He was pointed out. For the others, though? I do not recall any such final decree over their outcome.
Now, it is time and past time that I move this discussion out of the historical and into my own present. I have become rather poor at doing this of late, it seems to me. There is that within me which wishes to sheer off when the implications begin to come too close. Perhaps this time, I can overcome my weak flesh. The thing is that while I find it very easy to identify the fault in Judas, and to roundly condemn him for his actions towards Jesus, I am guilty of much the same. I am pleased to speak of Jesus as my friend, and more pleased still to count myself His friend. Yet, have I not too frequently reviled that friendship by my actions? I have called Him my beloved Lord, and yet I seem ever inclined to ignore His commandments and do as I please. How can that be? If this is my Lord, my Husband, how is it that I am so swift to set aside His commands? How is it that I am so willing to ignore His desires?
Oh, I know. The agony of soul that this realization brings upon me is but proof that He is yet within me, and that is a comfort, to be sure. But, it is hardly an answer to the dilemma. Or, if it is, then it is an answer that I still balk at accepting. You see, what happens is that the real extent of my depravity is laid clear in seeing these events at the close of Jesus’ ministry. For, I cannot look at Judas, or even at Peter and the rest, without seeing myself quite clearly reflected. Would I betray Jesus as Judas did? Oh, I would vastly prefer to say not. I would honestly like to believe I would not do so. But, I betray Him daily. I betray Him when I fail to stand as His representative to a lost world. I betray Him when I find myself contemplating the opportunity to throw aside His yolk even in the midst of these studies. I betray Him, it sometimes seems to me, with most every waking breath, and probably a fair portion of those I breathe in sleep.
But, lo! Let me ease my burden. Let me look at the other disciples, instead of Judas. I mean, their biggest crime is that they ran away. Just so. In a way, I could almost count that the greater crime. Judas brought the trouble to a head, but these eleven, seeing the trouble, ran away. What Peter did more explicitly in the scene that lies ahead of this one, the others did implicitly. It may have been for no more than that moment of greatest danger, but they all of them did their utmost to deny having anything to do with Jesus.
To be fair to these men, it’s quite possible that they were reacting to Peter’s impetuous assault rather than Jesus’ arrest. I suppose any of us with a misspent youth to recollect might remember similar moments. We’re all doing something stupid, but then somebody does something beyond stupid, and suddenly what was a harmless bit of misbehaving has become something more. There was no risk in the prank. But, now there’s significant risk of a visit by the authorities, and nobody wants that, even if there were a valid claim to innocence. So, it’s brave Sir Robin, time, and we all shout, “Run away!”
But, let me bring this back around. How many times have I metaphorically fled the scene? How many times have I missed the opportunity that had been set before me, the work of the kingdom which was prepared beforehand for me to do, if I am to accept the testimony of Scripture? I’m not even counting those times one recognizes only in retrospect. Let’s stick with the ones that were recognized. I knew this was a time to speak of God, and yet something in me just wouldn’t do it. Nope. Let this one remain condemned. I’m not sticking my neck out. What is this fear? What is this perversity that denies Him so swiftly? Do I really value the acceptance of those around me so highly?
Yes. Yes, I do. I know this. I have seen it as part of myself since my youth. It is spoken of as peer pressure. But, what is the nature of this thing? It is like this. There are those activities and interests that define what is perceived as normal for a young person. If one fits that mold, all is well, and friends, it would seem, abound. Of course, I can only speak of this from supposition, for my own experience was different. I was not the sportsman. Never was, never will be. I did not play the cool instrument in band. Really, being in band was bad enough for the reputation. Playing clarinet? Why, even the other clarinet players were unlikely to come to your aid when the ridicule was flying. And, perhaps, most embarrassingly, I actually rather enjoyed schoolwork and learning. This was hardly the path to popularity. More like the path to pariah. So, one develops techniques for ‘fitting in’. One becomes a jokester. That gets you somewhere, at least so long as you can keep ‘em laughing. Alternately, one turns to defining his own cool, finds the group where he’s accepted, the clan of the misfits. By and large, this is the bad-boy crew. We’ve been rejected and we reject the rejecters. We will not be defined by you, but we will defy you. We will shock you, if we can, but we will defy you.
In short, our younger years, at least my younger years, teach us to fit in at all cost. If pushed into a group whose interests are as good as alien, fake it. When in Rome, and all that. If you’re with a bunch of sports fanatics, I don’t advise you attempt to join the parry and thrust of the conversation. You cannot fake knowledge and awareness of the sport. On the other hand, injecting your own interests into the discussion isn’t going to work either. Silence works well. The knowing smile, the occasional nod.
Now, we enter the workplace, and for most of us, we will recognize that the workplace is not particularly open to hearing religious talk anymore. Not sure it ever was, but if it was, I was doubtless disinclined to the topic myself at the time. But, most of us are in fairly cosmopolitan settings at work. We must coexist with Muslims, Hindus, atheists and who knows what else, or at least it seems that way. Our employers, oddly enough, find no benefit to be had by stirring up whatever controversy might come of religious debates between their employees, so it is quietly (for the most part) discouraged. Part of me says that this is rightfully so, and we as Christians ought not to be burning our employers’ time on things apart from that for which we were hired. After all, is that not part of our instruction? Slaves, prove your worth to your masters. Yes, I paraphrase heavily, but the point is accurate. Employees, give your employers their money’s worth.
But, this does not excuse a complete lack of effort. Indeed, I lose sight of the fact that I work for a higher Employer. I have no King but Jesus. I have no Lord but God. Whatever the signature on the paycheck, it is He who signs. I have known this. I have held this as a lifeline in past times. Yet, now, that awareness seems to have faded, and work is about working. I have, it seems, accepted the bifurcation that this society would thrust upon me, and this is not as it should be. Look! We are under a great deal of pressure in this multi-cultural society, with our insistence upon religious freedom. It has been turned against us, made to be not religious freedom, but freedom from religion. This should hardly surprise. For, the workers of darkness are forever twisting what is good so as to make it serve for evil.
Let me hold to this, though: He Whom I serve is even more adept at turning evil intent to good purpose. And, though I have failed Him so often, and fear I shall continue to do so, much to my chagrin, still He calls me friend. He is faithful. In this alone is all my hope and confidence. Though I flee the scene, yet He accepts me back. He knows that my apologies are sincere, my desire to do better is sincere. He knows, as well, that my flesh is weak though my spirit is perhaps strong. There is but one thing to do, and it was frankly laid out before the disciples before this mob came to arrest Jesus. “Pray that you might not enter into temptation” (Lk 22:40).
What a marvelous bit of advice! I must take note. He is not saying to pray that we would endure the temptation unscathed. He is not instructing us to pray for the strength to stand in the face of it. He is advising us to pray that we never even come to that point. “Lead us not into temptation.” See? It is no new thing He is teaching, but rather, it is what He has taught from the outset. Yet, we are inclined to wait until the temptation has long since overwhelmed us, and then pray for a hand getting back out of the mud pit that we’ve so happily thrown ourselves into. Pray that you might not enter into that pit! What a novel idea! But, Lord, if I prayed that, You just might answer, and then where would I be? I’d not have the pleasure of my sin before the joy of Your forgiveness. Oh, well, yes. That is rather the point isn’t it?
How much better, could I know the joy of His pleasure in me without the requisite forgiveness! How much better if I found the purported pleasures of sin less enticing, even disgusting. For, this is their true nature, and well do I know it. Yet the flesh, it seems, is far more stupid, and still crushed with desire for that which can only be its destruction. Oh! Wretched man that I am! How well I understand Paul’s agony in those words. How well, I must needs lay hold of the understanding which follows upon those words: “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! My mind serves God, even though my flesh serves sin in spite of me. But, there is no longer any condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Ro 7:25-8:1). Thanks be to God, indeed! It is not that I have been granted a permit to sin with abandon. No, indeed! I have been empowered and enabled to abandon sin. But, I have a High Priest familiar with my temptations and my weaknesses. I serve a God Who does not demand the impossible of me, but rather does the impossible in me. He forgives! He understands and has mercy. He continues to work upon me, strengthening every weak spot in my character and in my makeup. And, He is faithful! He shall indeed finish this work He has begun in me. I shall, in time, know myself perfected in Him, though it be not in this lifetime. I shall be accepted when I arrive at the gates of home, for He has called me His own, and He has never lost a one yet, nor ever shall!
In the meanwhile, Lord, help me to take that command, at least, to heart: Pray that I might not enter temptation. How often have I heard my brethren joke about praying for forgiveness later, and we chuckle over it. Yet, that is so wrong. Though it reflects the reality of my thought process often enough, it is wrong. It ought not even to be made sport of when we meet. Let me be such a one, Father God, as would stand for what You consider right, even when I know I myself get it wrong. Let me not celebrate my weak fallen state, but rather, Your strong and upright being. Lead me not into temptation, Lord, but rather far from it. For You do indeed know my weaknesses and You comfort me in my despair. Blessed be Your name today and always.
Having considered Judas briefly, Peter stands out in great contrast. If Judas was all about shattered hopes and disillusionment, then Peter is all about faithful confidence. The very fact that he was willing to draw sword against this small army makes the point. On what basis did he do anything apart from throw down his weapon at first recognition of the impossibility of victory? It is, I suggest, because he saw no such impossibility. He is, after all, the one who was given to recognize that the Son of Man was truly the Son of God. He has seen what this One can do. Honestly! He’s the One who spoke two words to the world at large and the Sea of Galilee was becalmed when moments before it had been tossed by a raging gale. He commands the very elements, and these men are supposed to concern Peter? Not if he is mindful of this Man by his side!
It is a testimony of faith, then, that the sword was drawn. It may be a somewhat misguided faith as concerns the way it plays out. It may be zeal without knowledge in that regard. But, it is a very real faith and very well placed. This is, in its own way, a statement that Jesus is assured of being the victor. He is God’s Man, and Peter, by drawing his sword and striking out, bespeaks his confidence in that truth.
I would note, as well, what the only reasonable response would have been to such an action. Here was armed resistance. There were men trained for battle, honed and conditioned to react without hesitation. That Peter had hacked off the servant’s ear might have been missed in the dark and confusion of arrest, but that he had drawn and swung? I think not. Yet, he is not struck down. So far as we are told, he is not even subdued or restrained, apart from the command of his Lord. We ought surely to recognize the hand of God in this outcome. Peter acted in expectation that the power of God was with him, that God Himself was with him. Peter was correct in his expectation, only incorrect in how he thought that would play out. And, isn’t that a common sensation for us? How often do we find ourselves so certain as to how God will move in a certain situation, how He will respond to certain actions on our part? And act, He does. Respond, He does. But, so often it comes to pass that His response bears no resemblance to our prediction, our expectation. It is ever and always far superior to our expectation, although we may, again like Peter, fail to recognize it at the time.
So it is here. Peter expects the power of God at his side t sweep away these enemies. Instead, the power of God is there to hold back these enemies from Peter, preserving his liberty along with that of the other ten. Jesus has prayed for them, and He has spoken to these soldiers, as the NET suggests it, to point out to them that the eleven are not their concern, their object. Only Himself. You came to arrest Me? Fine. Arrest Me. But, these eleven are no concern of yours. Let them be. Right up until Peter’s outburst, that was a pretty reasonable approach, and might have worked. Following Peter’s outburst, it should shock us that things worked out the way they did. That little comment about how they all ran away, rather than offending us because of the weakness of the disciples, should surprise us because of the power of God displayed.
Herein is a particular evidence of the point Paul later made to his friends in Ephesus. “Our struggle is not with flesh and blood, but with rulers, powers, and forces of darkness; against spiritual wickedness in the heavens” (Eph 6:12). Precisely! Jesus is not here to show up the Romans. He is here to defeat the darkness for which this valley is named, the darkness which has, for far too many centuries, made itself felt here, of all places. Those who have served Him in centuries past have had their occasional victory, depositing the crushed remains of the idols of darkness in the waters of this stream. But, they have been occasional and temporary victories. In part, this is perhaps because the battle had continued to be against flesh and blood. The idols had been vested with more importance than they deserved. Paul, I would note, recognized that idols were powerless things, being as they represented powers that were of no account when set next to God. It is not the object that corrupts, but the views we have towards the object. It is not the source of the food that is at issue, it is the prayer offered up as we consume it. Do we pray to the god on whose altar that food was lain? If not, then what issue can there be in taking sustenance? But, if there is even the least twinge of conscience on our part, far better to abstain.
Here in the garden, the battle is not against flesh and blood. If that were the sum of it, the outcome would have been as Peter expected. If that were the sum of it, Judas might not have found cause to turn traitor. The battle is against powers of darkness in heavenly places. Notice that comment at the end of Luke’s coverage. “This hour is yours, and the power of darkness.” I admit that at first glance, my inclination was to assign the ‘power of darkness’ clause as an additional property or possession of those to whom the hour belonged. I would read it as, “It is your hour and you wield the power of darkness.” But, the reality is quite a bit different isn’t it? The reality is, “It is your hour and the power of darkness wields you.” It is almost an exculpatory statement. You can’t help yourselves any more than my friend Judas here. He is being used by that same dark power as has corrupted you, caused you to violate everything you hold to be right as you have pursued Me.
But, the fact remains that, as that first I AM demonstrated, He is the One in control. The powers of darkness may move men as pawns upon the board of life, but God Himself restricts the moves left open to those powers. Listen! These men who came out against Jesus are fearful. They are heavily armed, yes. Yet, they bring torches against the night in spite of having their guide. Do they fear an ambush? On what basis? Certainly it is possible that they harbor such fears, having built up this Man in their imaginations to be so much greater a threat than He is to them. Oh, He is a threat to their prestige and self importance right enough. But, against their physical well-being? He is Life! He has, by His own statement, come to save. And, quite apart from that, He is but a backward Galilean, as they would mark Him, as are His companions. How much trouble could they be, really?
But, the fact remains that, as that first I AM demonstrated, He is the One in control. The powers of darkness may move men as pawns upon the board of life, but God Himself restricts the moves left open to those powers. Listen! These men who came out against Jesus are fearful. They are heavily armed, yes. Yet, they bring torches against the night in spite of having their guide. Do they fear an ambush? On what basis? Certainly it is possible that they harbor such fears, having built up this Man in their imaginations to be so much greater a threat than He is to them. Oh, He is a threat to their prestige and self importance right enough. But, against their physical well-being? He is Life! He has, by His own statement, come to save. And, quite apart from that, He is but a backward Galilean, as they would mark Him, as are His companions. How much trouble could they be, really?
Yet, so fearful are those from the temple that they have found it necessary to involve the Romans. I could be misreading this. It could be that they involved the Romans because they feared Roman reprisal if they acted on their own. Yet, this had not stopped their previous attempts. No, I am rather more inclined to suppose that they had some inkling of Who they were dealing with even as they denied it. They had, after all, heard about the many miracles He had performed. They had experienced the power of His arguments right there in their own courtyards. They had, as well, witnessed Him escaping their nets before. They may reject His claim, but somewhere down inside, they know they are wrong. So, they bring backup. And Rome! Pilate! My goodness, the fear that must be in him that he feels the need to send sufficient men that John would speak of them as a cohort!
Now, John is not a military man, nor is he a Roman. He is unlikely, then, to be using this term with technical accuracy. It is exceedingly unlikely that 600 plus Roman soldiers have accompanied this arresting party from the temple. For one thing, it would seem to pay too much respect to the officers of the temple. It’s one thing for Pilate to be appeasing the Jews, but to be honoring them? It is unthinkable. Even a maniple, with its 200 odd soldiers seems a bit large, but perhaps this is what we ought to find presented. At any rate, we must recognize an overwhelming show of force, intended to ensure that this event does not raise riot – that most reprehensible disruptor of the Roman peace.
They have come, and they have found eleven men, most of them wiping sleep from their eyes, and One standing apart to ask them who they are looking for. They have replied, and this one man has answered, “I AM.” Then comes this marvelous phrase in John’s account. When He spoke, they drew back and fell to the ground (Jn 18:6). That phrase, ‘drew back’, I find much more telling when rendered a tad more literally. They departed toward the back. That is not the action of a confident, overwhelming force. That is the reaction to a greater, truly overwhelming Force. That is the response to real power, the bit of Light biting into the enclosing darkness. I have to imagine that even those powers of darkness that moved these men into position, even the prince of that dark realm, likewise found cause to depart toward the rear and cringe. They would creep back, yes, but only when He Whose name is I AM declared His intentions of going along with their plan. Fine. Arrest Me. It is your hour, and I am commanded to comply by a much higher power than is here represented.
I cannot let that be set aside without recognizing as well the second clause in John’s description. They didn’t merely run away, which would have been entertaining in the extreme. They backed off and bowed down. No, they prostrated themselves. They lay flat on the ground in the manner of supplicants, of men seeking to assure the one before them that they offer no threat, indeed offer every honor due Him. I dare say this is not an action they have undertaken willingly, but rather it stands as down payment on that day when every knee will bow. It is never said that every such knee will have acted willingly, nor that the tongues which confess His Lordship are universally pleased to do so. It is to say instead that it shall prove impossible not to comply. Just as these men, despite their apparent superiority in force, were compelled to prostate themselves and at least for this one moment give the Lord of all Creation His due.
Then we have that other comment, given us in Luke 22:51. There is clearly cause for some debate as to how Jesus’ words are to be understood here. The NASB makes of it a command of, “No more!” Knock it off, Peter, and put that useless toy away. But, other translations take a different tack with the phrase. The Amplified, amongst others, finds cause to understand it as, “Permit them to” do what they aim to do. This certainly fits with the rest of the scene. Judas has come with his reprehensible action, and Jesus says only, “Do what you have come for.” There, too, there is permission given. Here, this one lone Man is giving the massed opposition permission to follow their plans. He is, as well, speaking to those who move that opposition.
Everything about this makes a very clear point: His enemies may continue as they have planned, but only because He has permitted it. Bear in mind that marvelous declaration Jesus made back in John 10:18. “No one has taken My life from Me. I lay it down on My own initiative. I am authorized to do this, and I am authorized to take it up again. This is the command I received from My Father.” This continues to hold true here in the moment that the four Gospels have captured. To all appearances the darkness holds sway and the light is retreating. But, the truth is far otherwise.
What a word of encouragement that ought to be for us in our own day! Looking about us, we see a world in decay, a moral decrepitude such as we would like to believe has never before appeared. Truth be told, we are not the most rotten of civilizations, we just smell that way. No, the darkness has been upon the earth for many long centuries, and man, fallen as he is, has ever proven himself capable of great evil, or of lesser evils on a great scale. The powers and principalities which have held sway in this realm for so long have not changed, nor has their grip weakened. But, the kingdom of God has broken in, and continues to break through. We need to recognize the reality that is revealed in this dark moment of treachery in the Garden. God is in control. He has never not been in control. He never shall cease to be in control. Neither is He likely to allow the light of His gospel to be lost.
As I was reading in relation to Amos yesterday, our own possession of those common graces of the Gospel is by no means guaranteed us, nor ought we to take them for granted, ever. But, the Light cannot be doused. The darkness cannot prevail. God wins. There is no alternate ending. There is only the question of which side we are on, which family we are part of. For us, for those whom God has called His own, I offer the word He spoke through Isaiah. “Your Lord, the Lord God Who contends for His people, says, ‘Behold! I have taken the cup of reeling from your hand; the chalice of My anger, and you will never drink it again’” (Isa 51:22). If I might borrow from Jesus’ words at the opening of His ministry, “Today, this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (Lk 4:21). That cup which God has assigned to Jesus, of which He has prayed that perhaps, if there were another means to achieve God’s good purpose, that might be taken, He has resigned Himself to drink to the full. Nay, He has set Himself to that task, and He does not fail. And, because he has drunk from that cup in obedience, God’s anger has been removed from those He calls His own. Take heart, oh sinner! Take heart! For, to those upon Whom He has chosen to demonstrate His mercy and compassion, though sinners yet, He says, “you will never drink it again.” He Whom we see commanding the situation in the garden as the darkness gathers has done it. It is finished! The darkness, in the very moment it thought to obtain victory, has been vanquished once for all time, and our guilt has been taken from us. Behold the Lamb! He sits even now upon the throne of heaven, and continues to plead our case ever more.
