Welcome to my new category of posts: Scripture Impressions and Digressions. At times when I teach, there are rabbits I would love to chase while interpreting Scripture which time does not always permit. In these doxologies, time is relative. So let the chasing commence.
This past Sunday (3/18/12), I preached on the story of Jesus’ arrest on the edge of the Garden of Gethsemane as recorded in John 18:1-11. We paid particular attention the latter part of the story during which John records the story of Simon Peter and the “ear-echtomy” of Malchus. The garden scene is one of darkness which evolved into chaos, confusion, and desperation on the part of Simon Peter.
So Judas, having procured a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons . . . Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, “Whom do you seek?”They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am he” . . . “So, if you seek me, let these men go.”
Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (John 18:1-11, abbreviated)
Indeed, Peter drew his sword and struck a blow for Jesus. John Chrysostom, one of my favorite Church leaders of all time, asks a great series of questions here: Why did Peter even have a weapon? Did Jesus not command his followers to refuse to carry items of value?
Then Jesus sent out the twelve, instructing them . . . “Acquire no gold or silver or copper for your belts, no bag for your journey, or two tunics or sandals or a staff . . . ” (Matthew 10:5-10)
And . . .
After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them out . . . And he said to them . . . “Carry no moneybag, no knapsack, no sandals . . . ” (Luke 10:1-4)
Jesus had commanded his followers to neither carry nor accept anything of value. This included money, extra clothing, or anything made of metal that was attached to their belts. In other words, Simon Peter probably should not have been carrying a sword. Chrysostom’s conclusion was that Peter had armed himself that evening fearing these events might come to pass.
Peter tried to take control of a situation that was not about him. This was not his time, it was Jesus’ time. Jesus was ready to be taken. Thus he corrected Peter, called off the uprising, and healed Malchus’ ear (Luke 22:51).
I like what Campbell Morgan says about this passage. He reminds us that Jesus still treats the wounds that His followers carelessly inflict on others. From Morgan:
“Simon drew his sword and struck a blow for Jesus. I like Simon. He had something in him. I know it was wrong. It was honest zeal; it was just zeal without knowledge. Jesus’ last miracle, a divine surgery on Malchus’ ear, was rendered necessary by the blundering zeal of a disciple. I sometimes think that our Lord is still often healing wounds that zeal-without-knowledge people make on other souls.”
Eric|Costanzo Author Page 
Fantastic article and analysis, Eric. I’ve seen him do that same surgery.
Stranger than strange that Peter would be armed: He fell asleep three times while Jesus was praying to the Father before His arrest. And after that, Peter denied Jesus three times. Before those happened, Jesus told Peter and the others that He was going to the Father, and still no realization on their parts.
Could Peter have taken the sword of one of the guards? That sword seems to be a prop in a saga beyond my comprehension. Listen to Jesus in Matthew 26:52 (NCV). Jesus said to ‘the man,’ “Put your sword back in its place. All who use swords will be killed with swords. Surely you know I could ask my Father, and he would give me more than twelve armies of angels. But it must happen this way to bring about what the Scriptures say.”
But what about Luke 22:36 ”Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.“
Sorry for commenting on this post this late.
Maybe I’m a simpleton, but doesn’t Luke 22:35-38 answer the question of why Peter had a sword?
Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[a]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That’s enough!” he replied.
I think Luke wraps things up nicely, first giving the prohibition, then its lifting and finally that that led to.
(By the way, love your blog!)
Nelima,
I’m so glad you commented on this post. And yes, I was actually waiting for someone to mention that passage. Wheras I think it could be an obvious answer to the text, I also think there might be something else going on in the Luke passage. Perhaps Jesus was telling them symbolically – now you are going to be on your own. Make preparations. And perhaps the disciples, especially Peter, misinterpreted his meaning. Thus Jesus words, “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who take the sword will die by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52).
Jesus seems to rebuke Peter in Luke’s account as well as in the other gospels for taking his instructions to utilize a sword literally. Why would he want them to carry swords if they were not to use them? In Luke 22:38, Jesus says two swords are enough – as if to say, No, you don’t need to carry more swords!
I have also heard that Jesus in fact told the disciples to carry swords and other possessions so they too might be “numbered with the transgressors”. I don’t like that interpretation with the John passage, though, when Jesus says ‘let these other men go.’
Then again, maybe Jesus was only rebuking Peter’s blow to the servant’s ear and not carrying a sword. Maybe Jesus really did want them to have more possessions for the next step.
Either way, a great passage to consider. The journey to understanding these texts is the best part!
Thanks for reading…
Eric
So I stepped right into a trap. 😳
You said: “Then again, maybe Jesus was only rebuking Peter’s blow to the servant’s ear and not carrying a sword.” I’m more inclined toward that explanation because if Jesus wasn’t talking of literal swords, then He probably wasn’t talking of literal moneybags or traveling bags either. That’s quite a stretch, in my opinion.
It also occurred to me that we don’t read of the apostles resorting to the sword in Acts and beyond. They died by the sword, even though they hadn’t lived by it. I’m not sure what the significance of that is, if any.
the notion is that if one draws the sword…to do violence, he will die for that reason. The apostles did in their pursuit of sharing the Gospel, love, and peace. They died by the sword…but not because of it.
Wow…. it’s a mind blowing passage. I wonder why Jesus would ask His followers to buy a Sword!!
Just read how Muslim extremist beat, kill some christians and burn churches and my heart breaks a million times in a second….
I am wondering….. Should we sit quiet and allow these fellows beat, kill, destroy and even asking us sometimes to choose to become Muslims or be kill?🤦🤔
Seriously my soul is restless on this issue among several decadence in our societies today….
Shalom…. Merlin -TSO
Hey. Continue reading Luke 22:36. Jesus instructs the disciples to sell their garment if they have to get a sword.
Actually if you read the parallel account in Luke 22:35-38 Jesus instructs his disciples to sell their clothes and buy a sword if they did not already have one. Whether this was meant to be taken literally or not I do not know however it is possible that Peter took it literally and therefore may explain why he was in possession of a sword at Jesus’ arrest.
My question has always been how the ear-echtomy (love the word!) was apparently the only injury. Peter presumably cut with a downward stroke to sever the ear, but apparently managed to do so without cutting into Malchus’ shoulder or neck, which would have been more severe and thus likely to have been commented upon. Did Peter cut with a forward thrust? Was Malchus wearing leather armor on his torso that protected his shoulder?
I think this is one of the more interesting passages in the gospel account. I especially like that, as mentioned in this article, Jesus is willing to repair the damage of his over-zealous followers. I just think about the scene… Jesus is in the garden giving his if you had one last chance to say something to the people you care most about speech. An armed militia shows up demanding to take Jesus. I mean I think I’d be with Peter here. I’m throwing whatever and working out the wrongs and rights later on. So Peter presumably tries to chop the guys head off. Imagine the tension in this moment. How powerful is the Word of Christ that the whole scene stops on his say-so. Then, taking the parallel passages into the account he just heals the guys and off they go. It’s really unfathomable. I mean how is Peter also not arrested? It’s extremely interesting to think about.
Have been seeking a better understanding of this incident… if Jesus was against the open carring of weapons on the person, He centainly missed a great oppurtunity. Gun owners are being told today that Jesus would not condone the carring of weapons, but this incident clearly demostrates otherwise.
I have never heard any explanation as to why Peter was carrying a sword. Now it all makes sense.
Well we are never too old to learn.
Very interesting makes one think.
Lest we forget what else Jesus said to Peter… in the Luke 22 account 31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” (Satan was at work here. Then Peter replies.)
33 … “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” When Jesus said he would deny him three times. I can imagine Peter looking down at his sword when he said to Jesus “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” I don’t blame Peter at all for drawing and using that sword. I have asked many christian men “should a christian man know how to fight?” I am puzzled that none want to take on that question. The Church does applaud veterans though, some of whom may have killed the enemy in defense of our nation. I think it may be time we open up “Aunt Dora’s Box.” Are there times when I as a christian should be ready willing and able to kill another human made in the image of God? (Invade my home at your own peril.)
Hello Everyone. I greet you with a Hug from the Heart. Nelima, you are far from a simpleton. You are a Crusader! I would like to carry on from your first E-missive if I may. In verse 37 Jesus declares to them that, “….things concerning Me have an end.” I believe He was now preparing them to be on their own, as He will soon be leaving them, physically. In Mat. 26:31, ” I will smite the shepherd and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.” I feel Jesus was preparing them for dangerous times soon to come for them. As they would be traveling on foot, there would be robbers who wouldn’t think twice to kill them for their purse or shoes and clothing. So, a sword would give them some self defense. As we know they were under Roman Rule and more than likely had to serve in the military. Peters’ character as we have been shown, shows his qualities as a Leader. I feel he may have served as an Officer during his time in the Service. With this train of thought, the cutting off the ear of the servant of the high Priest wasn’t an accidental cut. Peter would have been very proficient in the use of a sword, and even more so in knowing his character, he would have trained himself to be the best he could be with it’s use. (comparable to a Japanese Soldier.) So, cutting off an ear wasn’t an accidental miss. I thought the same as Jim did. If Peter was swinging hard enough to cleave the mans’ head and missed either by ineptness or the man moved, the blade would have severely damaged his shoulder. This servant wasn’t wearing armour. Being in the presents of his Boss, the High Priest, the servant would have worn full armour, being fully dressed and not minus his helmet. In Luke 22:38 Jesus says two swords are, “enough”. I feel if at this moment in time, if each did have a sword they all would have fought to the dead to save Jesus. Of course Jesus knew this. Thus two swords would have made them think twice. So, two was, “enough”. As Jon shared with us, that living by the sword is living a by a violent frame of mind, greed, taking, causing oppression. It isn’t wrong to defend oneself and your Loved ones, or, for someone who can’t defend themselves. Rev. 19:11, Jesus comes riding a white Horse and is called, Faithful and True, and in Righteousness He Judges and makes “War”. verse :16, And He has on His Vesture and on His thigh a name written, ‘KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.’ As far as being asked to fight and kill, this is left to those who can. God/Jesus says those who don’t want to do so to stay home. (It they do go to battle they are a danger to there fellow comrades, as well as themselves.) We are So Very fortunate to live in the western world of freedom as much as we complain. Just take a moment and a close look at other Countries that don’t have what we have. Praise be to Jesus Christ.
My search (that brought me here) was regarding would it have taken great skill to wield the sword and take off an ear, only? Peter was not a soldier, so curious as to why he had seemingly obvious practice with the sword? Was it common to carry a sword?
DUE TO THE PRESENT SERIOUS INCIDENT, AN ATTACK ON THE CHRISTIANS IN NIGERIA MISSION FIELDS IS WHAT ACTUALLY BROUGHT ME HERE…
SINCERELY I APPRECIATE THE WISDOM OF THE MOST HIGH IN THE LIVES OF ALL THE PREVIOUS CONTRIBUTORS.
IN RELATION TO THE INSTRUCTION FROM JESUS IN HIS DISCIPLES IN SELLING THEIR CLOAK AND OTHERS TO BY 🗡️🗡️ SWORDS, PLEASE, I WANT US TO QUICKLY CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING BRIEFLY;
1) ACCORDING TO THE END PART OF THE BOOK OF JOHN: he wrote that, if all that happened then were to be written, you and I wouldn’t be able to carry our BIBLES … IN THIS CONTENT I WANT US TO BELIEVE THAT THE PROCESS OF ARRESTING OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST WAS VERY MUCH THAN ONE DAY, THIS COULD’VE BEEN THE REASON OF ASKING THEM TO BUY SWORD, REMEMBER WHEN HE WAS TO GO FOR PRAYERS ON THE MOUNTAIN 🏔️, HE WAS SPECIFIC ABOUT WHOM TO FOLLOW HIM.
2) BUYING OF THEIR SWORDS 🗡️ 🗡️, COULD ALSO BE TRACED FOR HIS BEING IN FLESH KNOWING WHAT IS GOING ON ON THEIR MINNDS, ( FEAR AND TREMBLE ) OF COURSE PHYSICAL SWORD 🗡️ OF THIS WORLD COULDN’T SAFE OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST BUT TO KEEP HIS DISCIPLES MIND TOGETHER… remember HE called them; people of little Faith….
My reasons of coming here;
THE CHURCHES IN NIGERIA NEEDS ENLIGHTENMENT ON THIS VERY HERE… In Nigeria church founders are protected like the State Governors , whereas those IN THE CHRISTIAN MISSION FIELDS ARE LEFT OPENED FOR PREY TO CATCH …
Therefore, if there’s any one here who have access to Nigeria Church founders, PLS HELP US TO REMIND THEM THAT AFTER WINNING SOULS FOR CHRIST JESUS,, ESPECIALLY THOSE CONVERTING FROM OTHER RELIGION , THAT SUCH SHOULD BE CARED AND PROTECTED IN ALL MEANS… when HE was going, HE SAID FATHER I THANK YOU THAT ALL THAT YOU GAVE ME WERE NOT LOST…..
please sir/ma, kindly check on YouTube how Nigerian Christians are being murdered in large numbers on a daily basis….
MAY THE GOOD LORD JESUS CHRIST CONTINUE TO BE WITH YOU ALL IN JESUS MIGHTY NAME… AMEN
I can understand your distress. But just know that Jesus told us that whatever he suffered we may also suffer as Christians. But God has not turned away. My bible tells me not even one sparrow falls to the ground that is not in God’s hands
I will carry my sword and defend my brothers and sisters because I am not Jesus. I am a different person with my own destiny promised by the Most High. We will die for Christ one way or another. I choose to die by the sword willingly. I do not fear death. I fear He who controls my destiny and eternity. It is no accident that Christians are at odds with the answer to this “dilemma”…. that’s what happens when you let wordly Kings commission religious texts to be compile for the peasants… hope you’re awake now. God bless
I will carry my sword and defend my brothers and sisters because I am not Jesus. I am a different person with my own destiny promised by the Most High. We will die for Christ one way or another. I choose to die by the sword willingly. I do not fear death. I fear He who controls my destiny and eternity. It is no accident that Christians are at odds with the answer to this “dilemma”…. that’s what happens when you let wordly Kings commission religious texts to be compile for the peasants… hope you’re awake now. God bless
An interesting analysis , but isn’t the reference to “two swords being enough” (Luke 22 35-38) explained simply by the fact that Jesus’ close “bodyguard” in the area further into the garden comprised only three disciples (Matthew 26:36-56)? Isn’t Jesus simply indicating that two swords amongst the three (not twelve) men (ie having two armed men close to him) should be adequate?
That, of course, begs the question of why Jesus thought it was necessary to have an armed bodyguard at all. However, he was being hailed as the “messiah” who according to the Old Testament (Psalm of Solomon 17 21-32) was predicted to be a “warrior king” (not God) who would rid Israel of oppressors (in context, the Romans), restore peace, and dominate the world.
Significantly, Jesus was crucified which was a form of execution reserved for political crime ( ie insurrection). His crime was regarded as political (“King of the Jews”) not religious ( although Herod and Pilate were clearly not personally convinced he was a threat).
The two who were crucified alongside Jesus were not simply “thieves” (which is a mistranslation of the Greek) but “brigands”, the term applied to Zealots, a group dedicated to the violent overthrow of the Roman invaders (the Zealots led two uprisings in the early and mid 1st century CE and were eventually brutally suppressed by the Romans).
Probably at least three of the 12 disciples were Zealots ( Judas Iscariot, Simon the Zealot, and Jude). Peter was also obviously pre-disposed to violence (indeed Jesus denounced him as “Satan” and pre-occupied with “human concerns” Mark 8: 31-33). Peter, therefore, could also have been a Zealot.
So, it could well be that the authorities saw Jesus and his group as being what we might term today a group of “terrorists”.
I ,too, am curious about the injury inflicted by Peter being confined to the ear. Some have commented on the savagery of the blow struck. I’ve read one commentator stressing that the original Greek indicates a strong, downward blow. So why did the victim not sustain far more serious (potentially fatal) injuries (eg to the neck and shoulder? Van Gogh , of course, famously cut off his own ear yet survived and presented the ear as a gift ). I very much doubt that a “servant” of a high priest would be wearing armour.
“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who take the sword will die by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52).
Could Jesus not simply be taking a pragmatic view of the situation?
According to John 18 1-14,
“So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons”.
At the point of arrest, Jesus would have had no more than twelve and probably only three disciples with him (Matthew 26:36-56). Jesus had already surrendered (John 14:4-8). Peter strikes the slave/servant AFTER Jesus has already been arrested (John 18:10). As an aside, it’s interesting that Peter targets the (unarmed?) slave/servant not one of the armed detachment of soldiers. Did Peter simply go for the easy target?
In telling Peter to put his sword away, is Jesus not in effect saying “ We are heavily outnumbered. We’ve got no chance against them. They’ve got the one they’ve come for (me). Carry on like that and we are all going to be killed. So put your weapon away”?
Greetings to you all. Persecution of Christians especially Nigeria is increasing greatly.I am still amazed for the fact that an apostle of Christ in Christ presence had swords. It is a fact, that’s first thing to acknowledge.I think they were for self defense, for protection. I have to recall the events on 7th October happened in Israel when rape, slaughter, torture and children were burned alive.What would you do to protect your loved ones knowing these very things happened and may come to your door? Many translations of the Bible says “you shall not kill” that’s a command. In fact the correct translation from what I researched it is “you shall not commit crime”. Miss translations and miss understanding leads to wrong ideology and practice. Turning the other cheek, it is not for you to let yourself beaten to death, in my humble opinion, it is saying that do not judge with the cheek which hurts in anger and revenge. Judge with the cheek which is not hurting and try to find a peaceful solution. Blessings to you all, may we never have to use violence as ultimate form of defence.
Peter did not deal with the isuses of his own heart,and kept on interfering with God work,we as Christians do the same today,it looks Godly and feel Godley but not to say it is from God..
Only those who are led by the spirit are the sons of God…we nead God Holy Spirit more in our life’s than we can think,and trust and leen into God Holy Spirit to guid us,and not by our own understanding..
But what realy stand out for me is,everything in Peter life was a building up to fall in the end were he sayed at the fire I DONT KNOW HIM…when someone told him that he was one of Jesus decipels..he renouched Him..
And here is my question what happend to Him after he s eye’s met Jesus..and he renouched Him swearing cursing..
its like theres a gap,because after this,he rose up and starting to lead pray for the dead and a hole new Peter came onto a sceen..
WHAT HAPPEND TO HIM!!!
man this is fasinating,i dig it..