In the dark of night, near
midnight, the moment of truth has arrived. But whose truth?
On one side stand Jesus
and 11 of his disciples. On the other side stand the 12th disciple -- Judas,
representatives from the Sanhedrin police serving three distinct sections -- the
chief priests, scribes and elders, and Malchus, the personal servant of the
High-Priest -- Caiaphas. Others in the armed crowd included a cohort of Roman
soldiers, "600 at full strength." [i] Although the entire cohort
wouldn't have been deployed, a significant number was there.
How did it come to this? With
Judas' notification, the Sanhedrin were provided "the opportunity"
for which they had waited. But with Romans at Gethsemane, as well? To secure soldiers
to help arrest Jesus, a prearrangement had to have been reached between
Caiaphas and the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate.
In his desperate desire to
be rid of Jesus, Caiaphas needed
Pilate on his side. While the Sanhedrin had certain rights with its own police
force, they were still under Roman jurisdiction. To carry out a death penalty
which they wanted, permission must be granted from Rome.
"A crowd with swords and clubs" had come to Gethsemane -- ready for battle. Were the
disciples armed as well? Walking in the dark from Jerusalem to Gethsemane
wouldn't have necessarily been safe -- either from thieves or from creatures. It
makes sense the disciples would have some type of protection with them.
Judas would've shared that
information with the Sanhedrin representatives. Plus with an earlier statement
made by the disciples to Jesus -- "Even
though we must die with you, we will not deny you" -- armed resistance
could well be a possibility.
Did You
Know…?
The "swords"
carried by the Roman soldiers were actually small hand weapons, and the
"clubs" were ordinary wooden weapons carried by the Jewish temple
police. [ii]
In this tense moment of
truth, what was to happen? If the arresting party forced their way on to the
grounds, chaos could erupt with their prey fleeing into the dark. It would be extremely
difficult to see which person was Jesus with only the light from lanterns and torches.
To make it more than obvious
for the purpose of absolute identification, Judas stated, "The one I will kiss is the man." As was the custom of
the day, a sign of respect between a rabbi and his followers was a greeting
with a kiss. It showed great affection and love. What kind of love was this
though? This wasn't a kiss of love. It was an exaggerated kiss. It was the kiss
of death.
What then ensues is a
struggle. Mark however keeps the description clean and simple. In fact, when Caiaphas'
servant is struck by a blade, the person committing the offense isn't named.
Only later in the Gospel of Matthew was it revealed "one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword" [iii] and hurt Malchus. The
Gospel of Luke cited the same. However, the Gospel of John was explicit. "Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it,
struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear." [iv]
As an eventual follower
and interpreter of Peter, why didn't Mark name the apostle as Jesus' defender?
It is believed at the time of this gospel writing that Peter was still alive.
To be "named" would've placed Peter in grave danger. Some 40 years
later when the Gospel of John was written, there was no concern in stating Peter's
involvement since the apostle had already died.
Regardless of who drew the
weapon, Jesus ordered, "Put your
sword back into its place." [v] In this garden scene of turmoil,
Jesus brought peace. He exhibited calm in this garden of angst, preventing
further bloodshed.
Just think, if Jesus had
made a run for it, if he had walked away during his evening prayers, there would've
been no church history. Instead, Jesus said, "Here I am. Take me."
"Then all the disciples deserted him and
fled." To where did most of them
flee? To their safe house in Bethany with Mary, Martha and Lazarus.
Yet another person fled
from the garden on this night -- "a
certain young man" -- which isn't in any other Gospel. Only Mark. And
for good reason. Because the teenager was Mark himself.
Curiosity piqued, Mark
could've slipped out of his father's house to follow Jesus and his disciples
after the Last Supper. Or he may have been stationed at the family's private
garden by his father to stay away from the secretive gathering of Jesus and the
disciples in the upper room. How else did anyone know about Jesus' prayerful
struggle -- given that the disciples had been asleep in the garden? Someone had
to have witnessed that evening's happenings -- start to finish. That someone
was Mark.
Considered by opposing
forces to be an advocate for Jesus, there was a rush to grab the youngster in
this dark night of mayhem. The linen cloth worn by the teenager was torn away
and he "ran off naked."
Could it be Mark was also making
a garden analogy between Eden and Gethsemane? In the Garden of Eden, Adam and
Eve were ashamed by their nakedness and hid from God. In the Garden of
Gethsemane, like the young man who "ran
off naked," the followers of Jesus hid.
Each had been exposed --
by their fear.
NEXT
So what if a few rules and
laws are broken; role reversal
No comments:
Post a Comment