The Attack on Malchus

[Wm777]

I have been reflecting upon Jesus’ arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane (in John), and the more I reflect upon it - it seems to become more and more clear to me how bitterly opposed each “side” was in the events that unfolded that night. But what seems most intriguing is the exposition and order of events across the different gospels, although John’s account seems most revealing.

In John, when Jesus is arrested, he says “If it is me you want, then let these men go.” That one line essentially describes a perfect example of the way Christian redemption works. Christ ransoms himself to save his apostles, disciples and followers.

But in John - and only in John - the next lines have Peter attacking Malchus with a knife and cutting off his ear, while Christ turns around and stops Peter only to heal Malchus. Other gospels mention the attack on Malchus, but none of the others attribute the attack directly to Peter.

Matthew and Luke make it clear an attack took place, and it was initiated by one of Christ’s disciples. But they don’t mention Malchus’ name. In Mark’s gospel account, he refers to Peter as a “bystander”, and the victim is simply called “the High Priest’s servant”.

My first question is, why wasn’t both Peter and Malchus identified in the other Gospels but only in John? This may sound bad of me, but aren’t those pretty important details? I mean, if this was a current event , the media would be all over such omissions, especially about the first Pope; they would also be protective of the intended audience for the gospels when they were released.

My second question is about Peter’s behavior in and of itself. It’s understandable Peter, who had sworn to follow Christ to the end, was prone to being defensive; it is true that even Christ had told Peter to “get behind Me, satan”. But - in John - it is just after Christ speaks his redeeming words on the apostles behalf that Peter attacks Malchus, which seems like an absurd move on Peter’s behalf. Jesus seems to have been the only level-headed figure on either side, and He had just gotten the apostles a sort of reprieve. So why would the man who would become first Pope have been destined to launch a failed-brawl? Even Christ predicted and warned against these denials of Peter well-beforehand, so why is it that Peter had to undergo this tribulation?

Sometimes it seems like - we can become so zealous that we are indeed ready to take up arms; but, if we fight, then we are somehow doing things incorrectly. There seems to be a lesson in Peter’s denial for all of us. But I’m still struggling to understand what it was?

Pax.

Wm

 

[poche]

If you get four witnesses in a room and ask each one to describe the events you will get minor divergences on tiny details but you will get substantially the same story.

 

[Wm777]

Minor divergences?

They all knew each other, and they would have especially known Peter. If not before the fact, then after the fact (as the first Pope).

All eyes would have been on Jesus. It could have been a side brawl, but Jesus spoke to both Peter (to tell him to stop) and Malchus (to heal him).

So how could an accountant, like Matthew, whos’ gospel is very detailed, and who’s job it was to make note of such things; and a Doctor, like Luke, who is also very clear, and who’s job it was to take care of people - how could they have failed to have known the events that transpired and the identities of the people involved?

The event is mentioned in all four gospels, and it was a pivotal moment in the Christ’s life. One would think - when it came to such a major issue - they would all instead be attending to every minor detail possible.

 

[FOG]

In John, when Jesus is arrested, he says “If it is me you want, then let these men go.” That one line essentially describes a perfect example of the way Christian redemption works. Christ ransoms himself to save his apostles, disciples and followers.

Thanks, WM777

I never pondered this part passage until you brought it up, and it, as you presented, is glorious! Thanks!

 

[Wm777]

You’re welcome.

It came to me in a flash during this Divine Mercy Sunday’s Mass just before communion. Christ’s mercy is unfathomable and infinite, so that one statement really is only a particular example of his redemptive mercy. But it is a perfect example, too.

I still dont get why Peter had to go through so many denials, though.

As for the accounts listed in the Gospels, the only thing I can fathom is, the authors probably wanted the matter suppressed to some extent because Jesus had forgiven Peter, and yet Jesus made Peter’s role “to tend My sheep” (thus, also fulfilling the promise to make Peter “a fisher of men”).

In a way, also, St Paul had to go through the same thing, after he fell off his horse. Since he’d been persecuting Christians, no Christians wanted to be around him, and yet it turned out they had to visit him (post conversion).

It may have happened (although I cant say for sure) John’s account of Peter ultimately made plain the whole truth about the violations surrounding both men (Peter and Paul) when the time was right (post conversion) and substantial penitential proof of their conversion.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Like you, I used to focus on St Peter in this passage. But now I like to think that Malchus was a zealous Jew and had never met Jesus. So this attack and the ensuing miracle was for Malchus’s benefit. So that he would accept Jesus as the Messiah through the miracle. I picture Malchus being in the Temple assisting with the festivities when the earthquake shook it at Jesus’s death and him quitting his job and joining the Christians.

 

[Wm777]

That’s an interesting take on the storyline, which I hadn’t considered, although I do seem to recall Malchus (like Longinus, and I think even Barabbus) was one of the adversarial characters who converted.

I’m still not ready to let go of the question about Peter’s denials, though.

The only thing I can really fathom is, Peter was (in a way) a divided man, when it came to actually understanding what Jesus was trying to teach him. It seems he had to learn mercy the hard way. By experiencing and expressing the denial (even to the point of standing corrected by Jesus himself for cutting Malchus right there in front of everyone) in order to resolve the divide and carry out his future mission as the first Pope.

What a hard lesson to learn.

 

[Joe_5859]

The Gospels are not news stories out to lay out every detail an inquiring public wants to know to satiate their own curiosity. The identity of Peter and Malchus in that scene are not the most significant details with regards to the general narrative.

 

[Wm777]

The Gospels are not news stories out to lay out every detail an inquiring public wants to know to satiate their own curiosity. The identity of Peter and Malchus in that scene are not the most significant details with regards to the general narrative.

Let’s put it this way as regards my concern over what Peter did to Malchus… when you have walked a mile in my mocasins, then you’ll know why I asked…

Pray you dont…

That said, I’m sure St Peter and St Paul would agree with me, when I say - its best to work out one’s salvation with fear and trembling, and not sit in judgement of a serious issue (by dismissing and omitting it)…

 

[knightfall]

Hi William,

Regarding why only John gives the finer details and the other Gospel writers don’t, I don’t know for sure. Could it be possible that the earlier Synoptic writers didn’t want to give much detail about the leader of the Christian community, given that authorities were looking for opportunities to capture him? Is it possible that John, writing much later, after Peter’s death, had no such reservations? Is it possible that the various Gospel writers each had a different intended audience and purpose for their writing, and such detail was deemed necessary or not depending on this?

Thank you for raising the point though. Much to think about.

Yours in Christ

 

[Wm777]

Regarding why only John gives the finer details and the other Gospel writers don’t, I don’t know for sure. Could it be possible that the earlier Synoptic writers didn’t want to give much detail about the leader of the Christian community, given that authorities were looking for opportunities to capture him?

This is one of the points (and it is a serious one) that I hadn’t considered prior to posting the question. It occurred to me in our dialogue here.

We are obligated to believe public revelation. That is to say, we are to hold as truth what is revealed to us in the New Testament.

Additionally, what we see in the life of Jesus is supposed to be the complete fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.

Further, we have a lot of scholars, like St Jerome, come along saying “There are no contradictions. It must all make perfect sense”. If that is held true, then it’s very evident we have to look at what we see in the scriptures, whether we like it or not.

Peter’s actions before the last supper, and then at Christ’s arrest, and then his consequent denials - right up until the cock crowed - ultimately left him in a terrible position. Even after the wounding and curing of Malchus, Peter still tried to stay with Jesus right up until the scenes in the courtyard, but Peter had to have been confused. And, I think, he must have been trying to hide his identity (especially because of what he did to Malchus) in order to continue to stay with Jesus, although all he also knew was that he couldn’t fight at that point. Again, it had to be terribly confusing for Peter - so, even when a maid brings his identity to light, it’s like he just blew up to try to get out of it somehow. What I mean by “get out of it” seems more like “to make sense of the situation, yet not to betray Jesus.” But, then, the cock crowed, and it was daylight for him - if no one else but Jesus.

I guess, what I am trying to figure out here is - since Peter was to be the rock upon which Christ’s church was built, i.e. our first Pope… and given all the religious violence we see in the world… we do need someone to fight for us, but such a person would have to know how to fight the good fight - the right way… Even Saint Paul, who often disagreed with Peter, but who also was no angel in his earlier days - would attest to this too, since he actually said “fight the good fight” after repenting…

Christ told Peter “tend my sheep”, and then Peter was eventually crucified like Jesus himself, although upside down (because he saw himself unworthy to be crucified like Jesus).

Any laws that were broken could have been incomplete human laws at first, even if by possibly omitting information in earlier gospels, but then divine law ultimately had to take precedence in the end.