The synoptic gospels' versions of this story are very similar Both Matthew and Luke borrow heavily from Mark for this one. There are only a few differences between them. Who came to arrest Jesus? All three have Judas leading a crowd (great crowd in Matthew) armed with clubs and swords. Who makes up this crowd? Mark and Matthew say they were people from the chief priests and the elders. (Mark adds "and the scribes".) Luke just says a crowd, but later Jesus speaks directly to the chief priests, the captains of the temple and the elders who "had come out against him". In other words, the chief priests, the captains and the elders are the crowd or at least part of it and not just people they had sent to represent them.
At this point someone draws a sword and cuts off the ear of the high priest's slave. None of the synoptic gospels identifies this person. For Mark, it's "one of those who stood by". For Matthew, it's "one of those who were with Jesus". For Luke, it's "one of them". It would seem unlikely the assailant would have been anyone from the crowd as they were the arresting party. Could some of Jesus' followers have tagged along? I suppose it's possible, but I don't think it is very likely since this happened after dark and I doubt the priests or elders would have advertised what they were up to. That would leave us with one of the disciples as the assailant since Jesus had been with them in the Garden of Gethsemane just before the arresting party arrived. This time it's Luke, not Matthew who embellishes the story. It's the high priest's slave's right ear that is cut off and Jesus says, "No more of this." and he touches his ear and heals him. It's not made clear whether he just stopped the bleeding or picked up his ear and reattached it or gave him a new ear. This is a significant embellishment.
John's author tells this story quite differently than the others. In his story, Judas procures a band of soldiers complete with their captain, as well as some officers from the chief priests and Pharisees. This is a very different "crowd" with a lot more power and authority. Jesus asks them, "Whom do you seek?" They tell him, "Jesus of Nazareth". Jesus replies, "I am he". When they hear this, they draw back and fall to the ground. The author provides no explanation for why this happens. It would seem there are only two possibilities. They do this on their own for some reason, or an external force does it to them. If it's the former, it would be hard to make sense of it. They're here to find Jesus. Jesus tells them they have. So why not just arrest him and take him away? Why fall to the ground? No surprise, they found who they were looking for. Was there something about Jesus that struck terror into them, that made them think they might be about to arrest someone who had awesome powers that they should fear? Evidently not, because they got up and Jesus asks them again, "Whom do you seek?" and again they reply, "Jesus of Nazareth". Jesus tells them, "I told you that I am he; so, if you seek me, let these men go", and they arrest him. If it's the latter, it still doesn't make any sense. No one else fell down so it couldn't have been an earthquake or a giant gust of wind or any other natural event that caused their fall. What's left but divine intervention? If that were the case they'd have taken off running for fear something far worse would happen to them if they continued with their plans to arrest Jesus. But they didn't do that. This appears to me to be another case of an author inserting a not very well thought out embellishment to his narrative. Perhaps he added it to make the story more miraculous, as Luke did with his healing miracle.
The assailant who attacks the high priest's slave is identified by John's author. It was Simon Peter. He also knows the name of the slave, Malchus. Jesus doesn't heal Malchus' ear in this version but, like Luke's author, John's identifies the lost ear as his right one.
Interesting notes:
1. Only in Luke does Jesus heal Malchus' ear.
2. The soldiers that Judas procures in John aren't identified. I think that they must be Roman soldiers since the Romans were in control of Judea at this time. Anyone else's "soldiers" would have been called rebels or enemies. What would have been the chances of Judas, a Jew, talking a Roman captain into coming out during the night and bringing some of his soldiers with him to arrest somebody the Romans didn't have their own orders to arrest. I'd think fairly slim.
3. I have problems believing any of the disciples would be armed with swords or any other weapons much less believe they would actually use them to attack someone. Jesus was preaching love your neighbours, your enemies, and to turn the other cheek, and do onto others, etc. So why would they be armed? Although in Luke (22:36), Jesus tells his disciples that if they don't have a sword they should sell their mantles and buy one. They say to him, "Look Lord, here are two." Jesus says, "It is enough." For what? Jesus says it is to fulfill the scripture in him, "And he was reckoned with transgressors". I still don't think it makes any sense.
4. In Mark and Matthew, Judas identifies Jesus by giving him a kiss so the arresting party will know who to apprehend. In Luke, he tries to kiss Jesus, but Jesus puts him off by saying, "Judas, would you betray the Son of man with a kiss?" In John, Jesus identifies himself. Judas doesn't have to. No Kiss.
5. In Matthew, Jesus says to Judas, "Friend, why are you here?" This seems redundant. Jesus already knows why he's there. He's just finished saying to his disciples, "...Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand." Jesus' greeting of "friend" is a little strange under the circumstances. Perhaps he is being sarcastic, although, that's not really his style.
No comments:
Post a Comment