|
Chapter 11 | Table
of Contents | Chapter 13
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
Alfred Edersheim
1883
Book V
THE CROSS AND THE CROWN
Chapter 12
GETHSEMANE
(St. Matthew 26:30-56; St. Mark 14:26-52;
St. Luke 22:31-53; St. John 18:1-11.)
We turn once more to follow the steps of Christ, now among the
last He trod upon earth. The 'hymn,' with which the Paschal Supper ended, had
been sung. Probably we are to understand this of the second portion of the Hallel,1
sung some time after the third Cup, or else of Psalm cxxxvi., which, in the
present Ritual, stands near the end of the service. The last Discourses had
been spoken, the last Prayer, that of Consecration, had been offered, and Jesus
prepared to go forth out of the City, to the Mount of Olives. The streets could
scarcely be said to be deserted, for, from many a house shone the festive lamp,
and many a company may still have been gathered; and everywhere was the bustle
of preparation for going up to the Temple, the gates of which were thrown open
at midnight.
1. Ps.
cxv. to cxviii.
Passing out by the gate north of the Temple, we descend into a
lonely part of the valley of black Kidron, at that season swelled into a winter
torrent. Crossing it, we turn somewhat to the left, where the road leads towards
Olivet. Not many steps farther (beyond, and on the other side of the present
Church of the Sepulchre of the Virgin) we turn aside from the road to the
right, and reach what tradition has since earliest times - and probably
correctly - pointed out as 'Gethsemane,' the 'Oil-press.' It was a small
property enclosed (cwrion), 'a
garden' in the Eastern sense, where probably, amidst a variety of fruit trees
and flowering shrubs, was a lowly, quiet summer-retreat, connected with, or
near by, the 'Olive-press.' The present Gethsemane is only some seventy steps
square, and though its old gnarled olives cannot be those (if such there were)
of the time of Jesus, since all trees in that valley - those also which
stretched their shadows over Jesus - were hewn down in the Roman siege, they
may have sprung from the old roots, or from the odd kernels. But we love to
think of this 'Garden' as the place where Jesus 'often' - not merely on this occasion, but perhaps on previous visits to Jerusalem - gathered with His
disciples. It was a quiet resting-place, for retirement, prayer, perhaps sleep,
and a trysting-place also where not only the Twelve, but others also, may have
been wont to meet the Master. And as such it was known to Judas, and thither he
led the armed band, when they found the Upper Chamber no longer occupied by
Jesus and His disciples. Whether it had been intended that He should spend part
of the night there, before returning to the Temple, and whose that enclosed
garden was - the other Eden, in which the Second Adam, the Lord from heaven,
bore the penalty of the first, and in obeying gained life - we know not, and
perhaps ought not to inquire. It may have belonged to Mark's father. But if
otherwise, Jesus had loving disciples even in Jerusalem, and, we rejoice to
think, not only a home at Bethany, and an Upper Chamber furnished in the City,
but a quiet retreat and trysting-place for His own under the bosom of Olivet,
in the shadow of the garden of 'the Oil-press.'
The sickly light of the moon was falling full on them as they
were crossing Kidron. It was here, we imagine, after they had left the City
behind them, that the Lord addressed Himself first to the disciples generally.
We can scarcely call it either prediction or warning. Rather, as we think of
that last Supper, of Christ passing through the streets of the City for the
last time into that Garden, and especially of what was now immediately before
Him, does what He spake seem natural, even necessary. To them - yes, to them
all - He would that night be even a stumbling-block. And so had it been
foretold of old,2
that the Shepherd would be smitten, and the sheep scattered. Did this prophecy
of His suffering, in its grand outlines, fill the mind of the Saviour as He
went forth on His Passion? Such Old Testament thoughts were at any rate present
with Him, when, not unconsciously nor of necessity, but as the Lamb of God, He
went to the slaughter. A peculiar significance also attaches to His prediction
that, after He was risen, He would go before them into Galilee.3
For, with their scattering upon His Death, it seems to us, the Apostolic circle
or College, as such, was for a time broken up. They continued, indeed, to meet
together as individual disciples, but the Apostolic bond was temporarily
dissolved. This explains many things: the absence of Thomas on the first, and
his peculiar position on the second Sunday; the uncertainty of the disciples,
as evidenced by the words of those on the way to Emmaus; as well as the
seemingly strange movements of the Apostles - all which are quite changed when
the Apostolic bond is restored. Similarly, we mark, that only seven of them
seem to have been together by the Lake of Galilee,4
and that only afterwards the Eleven met Him on the mountain to which He had
directed them.5
It was here that the Apostolic circle or College was once more re-formed,
and the Apostolic commission renewed,6
and thence they returned to Jerusalem, once more sent forth from Galilee, to
wait the final events of His Ascension, and the Coming of the Holy Ghost.
2. Zech.
xiii. 7.
3. St.
Matt. xxvi. 32; St. Mark. xiv. 28.
4. St.
John xxi. 2.
5. St.
Matt. xxviii. 16.
6. u.
s. vv.18-20.
But in that night they understood none of these things. While all
were staggering under the blow of their predicted scattering, the Lord seems to
have turned to Peter individually. What he said, and how He put it, equally
demand our attention: 'Simon, Simon'7
- using His old name when referring to the old man in him - 'Satan has obtained
[out-asked, exhthsato] you, for
the purpose of sifting like as wheat. But I have made supplication for
thee, that thy faith fail not.' The words admit us into two mysteries of
heaven. This night seems to have been 'the power of darkness,' when, left of
God, Christ had to meet by himself the whole assault of hell, and to conquer in
His own strength as Man's Substitute and Representative. It is a great mystery:
but quite consistent with itself. We do not, as others, here see any analogy to
the permission given to Satan in the opening chapter of the Book of Job, always
supposing that this embodies a real, not an allegorical story. But in that
night the fierce wind of hell was allowed to sweep unbroken over the Saviour,
and even to expend its fury upon those that stood behind in His Shelter. Satan
had 'out-asked,' obtained it - yet not to destroy, nor to cast down, but 'to
sift,' like as wheat8
is shaken in a sieve to cast out of it what is not grain. Hitherto, and no
farther, had Satan obtained it. In that night of Christ's Agony and loneliness,
of the utmost conflict between Christ and Satan, this seems almost a necessary
element.
7. St.
Luke xxii. 31.
8. It
is very probable that the basis of the figure is Amos ix. 9.
This, then, was the first mystery that had passed. And this
sifting would affect Peter more than the others. Judas, who loved not Jesus at
all, has already fallen; Peter, who loved Him - perhaps not most intensely,
but, if the expression be allowed, most extensely - stood next to Judas in
danger. In truth, though most widely apart in their direction, the springs of
their inner life rose in close proximity. There was the same readiness to
kindle into enthusiasm, the same desire to have public opinion with him, the
same shrinking from the Cross, the same moral inability or unwillingness to
stand alone, in the one as in the other. Peter had abundant courage to sally
out, but not to stand out. Viewed in its primal elements (not in its
development), Peter's character was, among the disciples, the likest to that of
Judas. If this shows what Judas might have become, it also explains how Peter
was most in danger that night; and, indeed, the husks of him were cast out of
the sieve in his denial of the Christ. But what distinguished Peter from Judas
was his 'faith' of spirit, soul, and heart - of spirit, when he apprehended the
spiritual element in Christ;9
of soul, when he confessed Him as the Christ;10
and of heart, when he could ask Him to sound the depths of his inner being, to
find there real, personal love to Jesus.11
9. St.
John vi. 68.
10. St.
Matt. xvi. 16.
11. St.
John xxi. 15-17.
The second mystery of that night was Christ's supplication for
Peter. We dare not say, as the High-Priest - and we know not when and where it
was offered. But the expression is very strong, as of one who has need of a
thing.12 And that
for which He made such supplication was, that Peter's faith should not fail.
This, and not that something new might be given him, or the trial removed from
Peter. We mark, how Divine grace presupposes, not supersedes, human liberty.
And this also explains why Jesus had so prayed for Peter, not for Judas. In the
former case there was faith, which only required to be strengthened
against failure - an eventuality which, without the intercession of Christ, was
possible. To these words of His, Christ added this significant commission: 'And
thou, when thou hast turned again, confirm thy brethren.'13
And how fully he did this, both in the Apostolic circle and in the Church,
history has chronicled. Thus, although such may come in the regular moral order
of things, Satan has not even power to 'sift' without leave of God; and thus
does the Father watch in such terrible sifting over them for whom Christ has
prayed. This is the first fulfilment of Christ's Prayer, that the Father would
'keep them from the Evil One.'14
Not by any process from without, but by the preservation of their faith. And
thus also may we learn, to our great and unspeakable comfort, that not every
sin - not even conscious and wilful sin - implies the failure of our faith,
very closely though it lead to it; still less, our final rejection. On the
contrary, as the fall of Simon was the outcome of the natural elements in him,
so would it lead to their being brought to light and removed, thus fitting him
the better for confirming his brethren. And so would light come out of
darkness. From our human standpoint we might call such teaching needful: in the
Divine arrangement it is only the Divine sequent upon the human antecedent.
12. This
even philologically, and in all the passages in which the word is used. Except
in St. Matt. ix. 38, it occurs only in the writings of St. Luke and St. Paul.
13. Curiously
enough, Roman Catholic writers see in the prediction of his fall by implication
an assertion of Peter's supremacy. This, because they regard Peter as the
representative and head of the others.
14. St.
John xvii. 15.
We can understand the vehement earnestness and sincerity with
which Peter protested against of any failure on his part. We mostly deem those
sins farthest which are nearest to us; else, much of the power of their
temptation would be gone, and temptation changed into conflict. The things
which we least anticipate are our falls. In all honesty - and not necessarily
with self elevation over the others - he said, that even if all should be
offended in Christ, he never could be, but was ready to go with Him into prison
and death. And when, to enforce the warning, Christ predicted that before the
repeated crowing of the cock15
ushered in the morning,16
Peter would thrice deny that he knew Him, Peter not only persisted in his
asseverations, but was joined in them by the rest. Yet - and this seems the
meaning and object of the words of Christ which follow - they were not aware
terribly changed the former relations had become, and what they would have to suffer
in consequence.17
When formerly He had sent forth, both without provision and defence, had they
lacked anything? No! But now no helping hand would be extended to them; nay,
what seemingly they would need even more than anything else would be 'a sword'
- defence against attacks, for at the close of His history He was reckoned with
transgressors.18
The Master a crucified Malefactor - what could His followers expect? But once
more they understood Him in a grossly realistic manner. These Galileans, after
the custom of their countrymen,19
had provided themselves with short swords, which they concealed under their
upper garment. It was natural for men of their disposition, so imperfectly
understanding their Master's teaching, to have taken what might seem to them
only a needful precaution in coming to Jerusalem. At least two of them - among
them Peter - now produced swords.20
But this was not the time of reason with them, and our Lord simply put it
aside. Events would only too soon teach them.
15. This
crowing of the cock has given rise to a curious controversy, since, according
to Rabbinic law, it was forbidden to keep fowls in Jerusalem, on account of
possible Levitical defilements through them (Baba K. vii. 7). Reland has
written a special dissertation on the subject, of which Schöttgen has
given a brief abstract. We need not reproduce the arguments, but Reland
urges that, even if that ordinance was really in force at the time of Christ
(of which there is grave doubt), Peter might have heard the cock crow from Fort
Antonia, occupied by the Romans, or else that it might have reached thus far in
the still night air from outside the walls of Jerusalem. But there is more than
doubt as to the existence of this ordinance at the time. There is repeated
mention of 'cock-crow' in connection with the Temple-watches, and if the
expression be regarded as not literal, but simple a designation of time, we
have in Jer. Erub. x. 1 (p. 26 a, about middle) a story in which a cock
caused the death of a child at Jerusalem, proving that fowls must have been
kept there.
16. St.
Matthew speaks of 'this night,' St. Mark and St. Luke of 'this day,' proving,
if such were needed, that the day was reckoned from evening to evening.
17. St.
Luke xxii. 35-38.
18. Omit
the article.
19. Jos.
War iii. 3, 2.
20. The
objection has been raised, that, according to the Mishnah (Shabb. vi. 4), it
was not lawful to carry swords on the Sabbath. But even this Mishnah seems to
indicate that there was divergence of opinion on the subject, even as regarded
the Sabbath, much more a feast-day.
They had now reached the entrance of Gethsemane. It may have
been that it led through the building with the 'oil-press,' and that the eight
Apostles, who were not to come nearer to the 'Bush burning, but not consumed,'
were left there. Or they may have been taken within the entrance of the Garden,
and left there, while, pointing forward with a gesture of the Hand, He went
'yonder' and prayed21
According to St. Luke, He added the parting warning to pray that they might not
enter into temptation.
21. St.
Matt. xxvi. 36.
Eight did He leave there. The other three - Peter, James and
John - companions before of His glory, both when He raised the daughter of
Jairus22 and on
the Mount of Transfiguration23
- He took with Him farther. If in that last contest His Human Soul craved for
the presence of those who stood nearest Him and loved Him best, or if He would
have them baptized with His Baptism, and drink of His Cup, these were the three
of all others to be chosen. And now of a sudden the cold flood broke over Him.
Within these few moments He had passed from the calm of assured victory into
the anguish of the contest. Increasingly, with every step forward, He became
'sorrowful,' full of sorrow, 'sore amazed,' and 'desolate.'24
He told them of the deep sorrow of His Soul (yuch)
even unto death, and bade them tarry there to watch with Him. Himself went
forward to enter the contest with prayer. Only the first attitude of the
wrestling Saviour saw they, only the first words in that Hour of Agony did they
hear. For, as in our present state not uncommonly in the deepest emotions of
the soul, and as had been the case on the Mount of Transfiguration,
irresistible sleep crept over their frame. But what, we may reverently ask, was
the cause of this sorrow unto death of the Lord Jesus Christ? Not fear, either
of bodily or mental suffering: but Death. Man's nature, created of God
immortal, shrinks (by the law of its nature) from the dissolution of the bond
that binds body to soul. Yet to fallen man Death is not by any means fully
Death, for he is born with the taste of it in his soul. Not so Christ. It was
the Unfallen Man dying; it was He, Who had no experience of it, tasting Death,
and that not for Himself but for every man, emptying the cup to its bitter
dregs. It was the Christ undergoing Death by man and for man; the Incarnate
God, the God-Man, submitting Himself vicariously to the deepest humiliation, and
paying the utmost penalty: Death - all Death. No one as He could know what
Death was (not dying, which men dread, but Christ dreaded not); no one could
taste its bitterness as He. His going into Death was His final conflict with
Satan for man, and on his behalf. By submitting to it He took away the power of
Death; He disarmed Death by burying his shaft in His own Heart. And beyond this
lies the deep, unutterable mystery of Christ bearing the penalty due to our
sin, bearing our death, bearing the penalty of the broken Law, the accumulated
guilt of humanity, and the holy wrath of the Righteous Judge upon them. And in
view of this mystery the heaviness of sleep seems to steal over our
apprehension.
22. St.
Mark v. 37.
23. St.
Matt. xvii. 1.
24. We
mark a climax. The last word (adhmonein)
used both by St. Matthew and St. Mark seems to indicate utter loneliness,
desertion, and desolateness.
Alone, as in His first conflict with the Evil One in the
Temptation in the wilderness, must the Saviour enter on the last contest. With
what agony of soul He took upon Him now and there the sins of the world, and in
taking expiated them, we may learn from this account of what passed, when,
'with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from death,'
He 'offered up prayers and supplications.'25
And - we anticipate it already - with these results: that He was heard; that He
learned obedience by the things which He suffered; that He was made perfect;
and that He became: to us the Author of Eternal Salvation, and before God, a
High-Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Alone - and yet even this being
'parted from them' (apespasqh),26
implied sorrow.27
28
And now, 'on His knees,' prostrate on the ground, prostrate on His Face, began
His Agony. His very address bears witness to it. It is the only time, so far as
recorded in the Gospels, when He addressed God with the personal pronoun: 'My
Father.'29 30
The object of the prayer was, that, 'if it were possible, the hour might pass
away from Him.'31
The subject of the prayer (as recorded by the three Gospels) was, that the Cup
itself might pass away, yet always with the limitation, that not His Will but
the Father's might be done. The petition of Christ, therefore, was subject not
only to the Will of the Father, but to His own Will that the Father's Will
might be done.32
We are here in full view of the deepest mystery of our faith: the two Natures
in One Person. Both Natures spake here, and the 'if it be possible' of St.
Matthew and St. Mark is in St. Luke 'if Thou be willing.' In any case, the
'possibility' is not physical - for with God all things are possible - but
moral: that of inward fitness. Was there, then, any thought or view of 'a
possibility,' that Christ's work could be accomplished without that hour and
Cup? Or did it only mark the utmost limit of His endurance and submission? We
dare not answer; we only reverently follow what is recorded.
25. Heb.
v. 7.
26. St.
Luke xxii. 41.
27. Comp.
Acts. xxi.
28. The
Vulgate renders: 'avulsus est.' Bengel notes: 'serio affectu.'
29. St.
Matt. xxvi. 39, 42.
30. St.
Jerome notes: 'dicitque blandiens: Mi Pater.'
31. St.
Mark xiv. 36.
32. This
explains the apo thV eulabeiaV
of Hebr. v. 7.
It was in this extreme Agony of Soul almost unto death, that
the Angel appeared (as in the Temptation in the wilderness) to 'strengthen' and
support His Body and Soul. And so the conflict went on, with increasing
earnestness of prayer, all that terrible hour.33
For, the appearance of the Angel must have intimated to Him, that the Cup could
not pass away.34
And at the close of that hour - as we infer from the fact that the disciples
must still have seen on His Brow the marks of the Bloody Sweat35
- His Sweat, mingled with Blood,36
fell in great drops on the ground. And when the Saviour with this mark of His
Agony on His Brow37
returned to the three, He found that deep sleep held them. While He lay in
prayer, they lay in sleep; and yet where soul-agony leads not to the one, it
often induces the other. His words, primarily addressed to 'Simon,' roused
them, yet not sufficiently to fully carry to their hearts either the loving
reproach, the admonition to 'Watch and pray' in view of the coming temptation,
or the most seasonable warning about the weakness of the flesh, even where the
spirit was willing, ready and ardent (proqumon).
33. St.
Matt. xxvi. 40.
34. Bengel:
'Signum bibendi calicis.'
35. The
pathological phenomenon of blood being forced out of the vessels in bloody
sweat, as the consequence of agony, has been medically sufficiently attested.
See the Commentaries.
36. No
one who has seen it, can forget the impression of Carlo Dolce's picture,
in which the drops as they fall kindle into heavenly light.
37. They
probably knew of the Bloody Sweat by seeing its marks on His Brow, though those
who did not follow Him on His capture may have afterwards gone, and in the
moonlight seen the drops on the place where He had knelt.
The conflict had been virtually, though not finally, decided,
when the Saviour went back to the three sleeping disciples. He now returned to
complete it, though both the attitude in which He prayed (no longer prostrate)
and the wording of His Prayer - only slightly altered as it was - indicate how
near it was to perfect victory. And once more, on His return to them, He found
that sleep had weighted their eyes, and they scarce knew what answer to make to
Him. Yet a third time He left them to pray as before. And now He returned
victorious. After three assaults had the Tempter left Him in the wilderness;
after the threefold conflict in the Garden he was vanquished. Christ came forth
triumphant. No longer did He bid His disciples watch. They might, nay they
should, sleep and take rest, ere the near terrible events of His Betrayal -
for, the hour had come when the Son of Man was to be betrayed into the hands of
sinners.
A very brief period of rest this,38
soon broken by the call of Jesus to rise and go to where the other eight had
been left, at the entrance of the Garden - to go forward and meet the band
which was coming under the guidance of the Betrayer. And while He was speaking,
the heavy tramp of many men and the light of lanterns and torches indicated the
approach of Judas and his band. During the hours that had passed all had been
prepared. When, according to arrangement, he appeared at the High-Priestly
Palace, or more probably at that of Annas, who seems to have had the direction
of affairs, the Jewish leaders first communicated with the Roman garrison. By
their own admission they possessed no longer (for forty years before the
destruction of Jerusalem) the power of pronouncing capital sentence.39
It is difficult to understand how, in view of this fact (so fully confirmed in
the New Testament), it could have been imagined (as so generally) that the
Sanhedrin had, in regular session, sought formally to pronounce on Jesus what,
admittedly, they had not the power to execute. Nor, indeed, did they, when
appealing to Pilate, plead that they had pronounced sentence of death, but only
that they had a law by which Jesus should die.40
It was otherwise as regarded civil causes, or even minor offences. The
Sanhedrin, not possessing the power of the sword, had, of course, neither
soldiery, nor regularly armed band at command. The 'Temple-guard' under their
officers served merely for purposes of police, and, indeed, were neither
regularly armed nor trained.41
Nor would the Romans have tolerated a regular armed Jewish force in Jerusalem.
38. It
will be noticed that we place an interval of time, however brief, between St.
Matt. xxvi. 45 (and similarly St. Mark xiv. 41) and the following verse. So
already St. Augustine.
39. Sanh.
41.
40. St.
John xviii. 31; St. John xix. 7.
41. Jos.
War iv. 4. 6.
We can now understand the progress of events. In the fortress
of Antonia, close to the Temple and connected with it by two stairs,42
lay the Roman garrison. But during the Feast the Temple itself was guarded by
an armed Cohort, consisting of from 400 to 600 men,43
so as to prevent or quell any tumult among the numerous pilgrims.44
It would be to the captain of this 'Cohort' that the Chief Priests and leaders
of the Pharisees would, in the first place, apply for an armed guard to effect
the arrest of Jesus, on the ground that it might lead to some popular tumult.
This, without necessarily having to state the charge that was to be brought
against Him, which might have led to other complications. Although St. John
speaks of 'the band' by a word (speira)
which always designates a 'Cohort' - in this case 'the Cohort,' the definite
article marking it as that of the Temple - yet there is no reason for believing
that the whole Cohort was sent. Still, its commander would scarcely have sent a
strong detachment out of the Temple, and on what might lead to a riot, without
having first referred to the Procurator, Pontius Pilate. And if further
evidence were required, it would be in the fact that the band was led not by a
Centurion, but by a Chiliarch,45
which, as there were no intermediate grades in the Roman army, must represent
one of the six tribunes attached to each legion. This also explains not only
the apparent preparedness of Pilate to sit in judgment early next morning, but
also how Pilate's wife may have been disposed for those dreams about Jesus
which so affrighted her.
42. Jos.
War v. 5, 8.
43. The
number varied. See Marquardt, Röm. Alterthumsk. vol. v. 2, pp. 359, 386,
441. Canon Westcott suggests that it might have been, not a cohort, but
a 'manipulus' (of about 200 men); but, as himself points out, the
expression as used in the N.T. seems always to indicate a cohort.
44. Jos.
Ant. xxv. 5. 3.
45. St.
John xviii. 12.
This Roman detachment, armed with swords and 'staves' - with
the latter of which Pilate on other occasions also directed his soldiers to
attack them who raised a tumult46
- was accompanied by servants from the High-Priest's Palace, and other Jewish
officers, to direct the arrest of Jesus. They bore torches and lamps placed on
the top of poles, so as to prevent any possible concealment.47
46. Jos.
War ii. 9. 4.
47. St.
John xviii. 3.
Whether or not this was the 'great multitude' mentioned by St.
Matthew and St. Mark, or the band was swelled by volunteers or curious
onlookers, is a matter of no importance. Having received this band, Judas
proceeded on his errand. As we believe, their first move was to the house where
the Supper had been celebrated. Learning that Jesus had left it with His
disciples, perhaps two or three hours before, Judas next directed the band to
the spot he knew so well: to Gethsemane. A signal by which to recognise Jesus
seemed almost necessary with so large a band, and where escape or resistance
might be apprehended. It was - terrible to say - none other than a kiss. As
soon as he had so marked Him, the guard were to seize, and lead Him safely
away.
Combining the notices in the four Gospels, we thus picture to
ourselves the succession of events. As the band reached the Garden, Judas went
somewhat in advance of them,48
and reached Jesus just as He had roused the three and was preparing to go and
meet His captors. He saluted Him, 'Hail, Rabbi,' so as to be heard by the rest,
and not only kissed but covered Him with kisses, kissed Him repeatedly, loudly,
effusively (katefilhsen). The
Saviour submitted to the indignity, not stopping, but only saying as He passed
on: 'Friend, that for which thou art here;'49
50
and then, perhaps in answer to his questioning gesture: 'Judas, with a kiss
deliverest thou up the Son of Man?'51
If Judas had wished, by thus going in advance of the band and saluting the
Master with a kiss, even now to act the hypocrite and deceive Jesus and the
disciples, as if he had not come with the armed men, perhaps only to warn Him
of their approach, what the Lord said must have reached his inmost being.
Indeed, it was the first mortal shaft in the soul of Judas. The only time we
again see him, till he goes on what ends in his self-destruction, is as he
stands, as it were sheltering himself, with the armed men.52
48. St.
Luke.
49. St.
Matt xxvi. 49; comp. St. Mark xiv. 45.
50. We
cannot, as many interpreters, take the words in an interrogative sense. I
presume that Christ spoke both what St. Matthew and what St. Luke record. Both
bear internal marks of genuineness.
51. St.
Luke xxii. 48.
52. St.
John xviii. 5.
It is at this point, as we suppose, that the notices from St.
John's Gospel53
come in. Leaving the traitor, and ignoring the signal which he had given them,
Jesus advanced to the band, and asked them: 'Whom seek ye?' To the brief
spoken, perhaps somewhat contemptuous, 'Jesus the Nazarene,' He replied with
infinite calmness and majesty: 'I am He.' The immediate effect of these words
was, we shall not say magical, but Divine. They had no doubt been prepared for
quite other: either compromise, fear, or resistance. But the appearance and
majesty of that calm Christ - heaven in His look and peace on His lips - was
too overpowering in its effects on that untutored heathen soldiery, who perhaps
cherished in their hearts secret misgivings of the work they had in hand. The
foremost of them went backward, and they fell to the ground. But Christ's hour
had come. And once more He now asked them the same question as before, and, on
repeating their former answer, He said: 'I told you that I am He; if
therefore ye seek Me, let these go their way,' - the Evangelist seeing in this
watchful care over His own the initial fulfilment of the words which the Lord
had previously spoken concerning their safe preservation,54
not only in the sense of their outward preservation, but in that of their being
guarded from such temptations as, in their then state, they could not have
endured.
53. xviii.
4-9.
54. St.
John xvii. 12.
The words of Christ about those that were with Him seem to have
recalled the leaders of the guard to full consciousness - perhaps awakened in
them fears of a possible rising at the incitement of His adherents.
Accordingly, it is here that we insert the notice of St. Matthew,55
and of St. Mark,56
that they laid hands on Jesus and took Him. Then it was that Peter,57
seeing what was coming, drew the sword which he carried, and putting the
question to Jesus, but without awaiting His answer, struck at Malchus,58
the servant59
of the High-Priest - perhaps the Jewish leader of the band - cutting off his
ear. But Jesus immediately restrained all such violence, and rebuked all
self-vindication by outward violence (the taking of the sword that had not been
received) - nay, with it all merely outward zeal, pointing to the fact how
easily He might, as against this 'cohort,' have commanded Angelic legions.60
61
He had in wrestling Agony received from His Father that Cup to drink,62
63
and the Scriptures must in that wise be fulfilled. And so saying, He touched
the ear of Malchus, and healed him.64
55. St.
Matt. xxvi. 50 b.
56. St.
Mark xiv. 46.
57. St.
John xviii. 11, 26.
58. The
name Malchus, which occurs also in Josephus (Ant. i. 15. 1.; xiv.
5.2; 11. 4; War i. 8. 3), must not be derived, as is generally done, from Klm
a king. Its Hebrew equivalent, apparently, is Malluch, 'Counsellor,' a
name which occurs both in the Old Testament and in the LXX. (1 Chron. vi. 44;
Neh. x. 4, &c.), and as a later Jewish name in the Talmud. But both Frankel
(Einl. in d. Jer. Talm. p. 114) and Freudenthal (Hell. Stud. p. 131)
maintain that it was not a Jewish name, while it was common among Syrians,
Phœnicians, Arabians, and Samaritans. The suggestion therefore lies near, that
Malchus was either a Syrian or a Phœnician by birth.
59. The
definite article here marks that he was, in a special sense, the servant
of the High-Priest - his body-servant.
60. St.
Matthew.
61. A
legion had ten cohorts.
62. St.
John.
63. This
reference to the 'cup which the Father had given Him to drink' by St. John,
implies the whole history of the Agony in Gethsemane, which is not recorded in
the Fourth Gospel. And this is, on many grounds, very instructive.
64. St.
Luke.
But this faint appearance of resistance was enough for the
guard. Their leaders now bound Jesus.65
It was to this last, most underserved and uncalled-for indignity that Jesus
replied by asking them, why they had come against Him as against a robber - one
of those wild, murderous Sicarii. Had He not been all that week daily in the
Temple, teaching? Why not then seize Him? But this 'hour' of theirs that had
come, and 'the power of darkness' - this also had been foretold in Scripture!
65. St.
John.
And as the ranks of the armed men now closed around the bound
Christ, none dared to stay with Him, lest they also should be bound as resisting
authority. So they all forsook Him and fled. But there was one there who joined
not in the flight, but remained, a deeply interested onlooker. When the
soldiers had come to seek Jesus in the Upper Chamber of his home, Mark, roused
from sleep, had hastily cast about him the loose linen garment or wrapper66
that lay by his bedside, and followed the armed band to see what would come of
it. He now lingered in the rear, and followed as they led away Jesus, never
imagining that they would attempt to lay hold on him, since he had not been
with the disciples nor yet in the Garden. But they,67
perhaps the Jewish servants of the High-Priest, had noticed him. They attempted
to lay hold on him, when, disengaging himself from their grasp, he left his
upper garment in their hands, and fled.
66. sindwn. This, no doubt, corresponds to
the Sadin or Sedina which, in Rabbinic writings, means a linen
cloth, or a loose linen wrapper, though, possibly, it may also mean a
night-dress (see Levy, ad voc.).
67. The
designation 'young men' (St. Mark xiv. 51) is spurious.
So ended the first scene in the terrible drama of that night.
Chapter 11 | Table
of Contents | Chapter 13
research-bpr@philologos.org
|
