William H. Taft, the 27th President of the United States, was a
big man in more ways than one. When he was inaugurated in 1909
at age 51 he weighed 325 pounds. His goal was not to become
President, however, but to be the chief justice of the Supreme
Court. In 1921 he achieved his goal and became the only man in the
history of our nation to hold the countries 2 most powerful offices.
Peter was like Taft in being the big man among the Apostles. He
was physically a big fisherman, but he was also the only man
selected to be the head of the 12, and the only man to be considered
the first head of the church.
The Catholic Church considers Peter to be the first Pope. Peter
also had the reputation of being the biggest human power on earth
with the keys to the kingdom. All of the stories about coming to the
golden gate of heaven involved dealing with Peter, and so he was
like Taft in the Christian realm. He was the only man in Christian
history to ever hold the 2 highest offices. He was the President of
the 12 and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Christian
faith. He could bind up or set loose and so determine who would or
would not be in heaven.
Peter was a big man, but as we have seen in previous studies, he
made more mistakes than all the rest of the Apostles put together.
A big man can make big mistakes and make himself look small, and
Peter was a pro at it. His most violent mistake is the one is the one
we want to focus on. It happened in the account of the arrest of
Jesus. In Peter's impulsive act of drawing his sword and cutting off
the ear of the servant of the high priest, he taught a multitude of
lessons about the Christian and violence. We can only look at some
of them.
No situation is necessarily like another situation. Peter could
have said that Gideon with just a handful of men defeated a large
army, and so even though we have only two swords among us, by
God's power we can defeat this army of enemies who come to take
our Lord unjustly. It is a biblical truth that God can lead the
minority to victory over the more powerful majority. It runs all
through the Old Testament. This is the setting we have here in the
arrest of Jesus. We need to get the picture to see the high side Peter
was taking in coming to the defense of his Master. Peter was being
as bold and courageous as he ever was in his life, but it was zeal
without knowledge. The fact is, he was demonstrating his
willingness to die for Jesus. All 4 Gospels reveal this scene, and
Mark and Luke both used the word multitude. There was a vast
crowd of people who came to arrest Jesus. John tells us of the band
of soldiers and officers of the chief priests and Pharisees, but the
other Gospels tell of a multitude of people with swords and staves.
Matthew even calls it a great multitude.
Get the idea out of your head that the arrest of Jesus was by a
hand full of Roman guards, and that it was like a police officer
picking up a disturber of peace. This was a crusade, and the troops
were lined up to march as to war. We are talking hundreds of
people ready to engage in fierce battle to subdue and take Jesus into
custody. The enemies of Jesus expected and all out conflict with
heavy casualties, and so they came with an army. Peter had
delusions of grandeur to think he could fight this army. It is a
wonder he was not cut to ribbons. Jesus did a quick miracle to
restore the one victim of Peter's violence. Otherwise Peter would
have been killed on the spot.
The point here is that you cannot just transfer truth to any
situation and try to apply it where it does not fit. Every piece of a
puzzle fits somewhere, but it does not fit everywhere. You can't
take a biblical truth or principle and just squeeze it in anywhere
you like. It is true that one man with God is a majority, and that
God can use one man, like Samson, to win a battle over a thousand
Philistines. Does this mean a Christian can in every situation take
on a thousand enemies and be assured of victory? Not at all. A
Christian can take on foe, and if he uses violence out of God's will,
he will be a loser even if he draws first blood as did Peter in this
context. There is a time for war and a time for surrender, and this
was a time for surrender for Jesus. If Peter would have stopped
and talked with Jesus, he would have known that Jesus was ready
to surrender and go the cross.
Peter saw the setting as a power struggle, but that struggle was
already over and Jesus told Peter to put up his sword. He was
ready to drink the cup the Father had given Him. This was a
setting where fighting was not appropriate. When the disciples
grasped this they all fled, and their lives were spared. Matthew
records that Jesus said to Peter that he could have called for 12
legions of angels. One angel destroyed an army of 85 thousand in
the Old Testament. 12 legions equals 72 thousand angels. Jesus is
saying that if the issue here was power I have at my disposal enough
power to wipe out the entire human race millions of times over.
Jesus told Peter to put up his sword for violence only leads to more
violence.
Violence only produces revenge and retaliation, and the end
result is that everybody eventually loses. Peter was probably
aiming for the whole head, but as a fisherman he was not skilled in
swordsmanship. John tells us that the man's name was Malchus.
He has the distinction of being the only person who suffered injury
in this mini-war. He could have been the only man among the
enemies of Christ who ever experienced a miracle. Jesus made sure
His enemies did not suffer any loss. This was His last miracle
before the cross. Malchus is the only New Testament victim of
Christian violence. This is the only battle in history I am aware of
where one side guaranteed that the enemy would lose no blood,
while the other side would shed the most important blood in
history.
It is no wonder that the disciples fled the scene, for they could
not understand what Jesus was doing. We know the whole story
and so we can understand, but for them it was pure mystery. Jesus
calls Judas friend, and then He heals the injured enemy, and
rebukes the only one to strike a blow in His defense. Whose side is
Jesus on anyway? Would be the question in their minds. The only
record of Jesus ever doing any miracle surgery whereby He
attaches a body part back on is done here in the context of His
arrest. This was an eraser miracle to undo one of Peter's mistakes.
Peter had to be shocked at the action of Jesus. It is true that one
less ear in an army does not lessen its strength measurably, but a
few more whacks and he might have got in a direct hit, taking
Malchus out of the battle. But Jesus commanded him to put up his
sword. Jesus stopped the fight before it even got a start.
The Christian does not win in the war with evil by making the
enemy suffer. He wins by suffering for the sake of the enemy. This
is the new message of the cross. You don't make the enemy pay for
their evil, but you pay the penalty for them and offer them peace.
You won't find this in any military manual or strategy for warfare,
but this is the principle for Christian warfare. The blood now shed
is not to be that of the enemy, but it is to be your own for their good.
The goal is not to win over them, but to win them over, and to make
them a part of the Christian army. The cross way is the only way to
win an enemy.
Jesus could have won the victory easily if defeating the enemy
was His way. He could have won in second, and all of the enemy
would have been dead or prisoners of war. It could have been the
fastest won war ever fought, but that was not the way Jesus wanted
to win. Someone said, "He who strikes the first blow admits he has
run out of ideas." Peter was quick to run out of ideas and strike the
first blow. Peter felt violence was justified because it was
self-defense. They were minding their own business. It was a
normal response of self-defense. Any of us would defend ourselves
if attacked, and so Peter is just told to put up his sword and not
take that approach. Self-defense can be legitimate, but there are
times when even that only adds to the misery of friend and foe alike.
Satan almost used Peter again to wipe out all the labor of the
Son of God and sink His church in one battle. Starting a war, even
for the right reasons, can be foolish, for nobody wins most wars.
Wallace Viets says that asking who won a war is much like asking
who won the San Francisco earthquake? You survive a war, but
you seldom win a war, for as Jesus said, those who take the sword
will perish by the sword. War is never the best answer. It may be
an answer forced on you that you cannot prevent, but it is never the
best. Jesus has a better way.
Bernard Clausen, the great Baptist preacher back in the 50's and60's,
served in World War II on an American sub chaser. One of
the German subs, which they encountered was led by Captain
Martin Niemoller. One of the best things to come out of their
battles was the same thing that came out of the encounter of Jesus
with His enemies in Gethsemane, for nobody was injured or lost.
Clausen went on to become an American pastor and Niemoller went
on to become a German pastor, who became famous for his
opposition to Hitler. These two men could have killed each other,
but by God's grace they did not, and they became a part of God's
team to fight evil the world over. Malchus and Peter could have
gone at it and killed each other had Jesus not prevented it. Such a
loss Jesus was not going to let happen, but Christians like Peter
have gone their own way and have suffered such loss.
Marcus Aurelius said, "The best way to avenge yourself is not
to become like the wrong doer." The enemies of Jesus took the
sword. There were likely hundreds of swords in the multitude
coming to take Him. If Peter's way was to be permitted, there
would be loss of life on both sides, and all would lose, for nothing of
value would have been accomplished by a battle. Jesus prevented a
battle of swords and illustrated His own teaching by loving His
enemy and healing one of them. Augustine said, "In no way can
thine enemy so hurt thee by his violence as thou dost hurt thyself if
thou love him not." Peter hurt himself more than Malchus, for
Malchus was restored and lost nothing, but Peter lost his chance to
be Christ like in loving his enemy.
If you want to know why Christians do not always do what is
wise and beneficial, but often do what is folly, look to the life of
Peter. We learn from him, the number one Apostle, that Christians
often just do not listen to their Lord. They have their own agenda,
and their own value system, and they operate on that rather than
submit to the Lordship of Christ. This minor incident in the garden
is much ado about nothing. It had no impact on the arrest of Jesus
or His crucifixion. It led to a quick miracle, but nobody seemed to
be impressed. It is seldom seen in books dealing with miracles. It
accomplished nothing, and yet it is recorded in all four Gospels, and
this is very rare for such a minor incident with no obvious value or
purpose.
Peter made enough other blunders, and so we really didn't need
this one to convince us that he was the king of mistaken judgments.
I am convinced that the Bible has a number of trivial details in it
because God wants us to pay attention to details and realize that
there are valuable lessons for life in things we tend to dismiss as
irrelevant. For example, this little incident reveals something we
seldom think of. A Christian can be sincerely wrong in his defense
of the faith, and do more harm than good. This text becomes the
basis for self-criticism. Can we so approach the non-Christian in a
way that we do injury to them? Can a Christian be a part of the
problem, and actually drive the non-Christian away from the faith?
Why are there so many people in the world who claim to be injured
by Christians? Malchus was restored, but even so he probably
resented the fact that he almost died at the hands of Peter. The
miracle only got him back where he was before, and apparently did
nothing to turn him toward the faith. Those who wish for more
miracles in the world to change the world live in fantasy, for there
is no evidence that miracles move men to faith.
We cannot say that any good came out of this miracle except
that it teaches us how wrong we can be as Christians when we are
not sensitive to the purpose of our Lord. Zeal without knowledge is
a major problem in the history of Christianity. When Christians
choose to use force to fight evil they often become a part of the evil
rather than the answer to it. It is not likely that Malchus is the only
victim of Christian zeal. He is the only one in the Bible, however,
and we can assume that he is there as an example of how risky it
can be to fight for the Lord when his goal is peaceful surrender.
I believe that self-defense is right, and that the just war is right,
but the fact is, most victims of war are like Malchus. They are
people who have no choice. They are in the midst of violence
because of the choices of their leaders. Most victims of war are
innocent of the cause of the war. The people who actually cause
wars often escape the hell of them, while people who don't even
know why there is a war get killed and maimed. Therefore, it is
rare for violence to be justified unless you know it can be done in
such a way as to punish the guilty and not the innocent. Violence
toward innocent people is an injustice that is greater than
submitting to injustice.
Peter reveals the folly of risk that is not in obedience to Jesus.
Peter was bold and was ready to risk his life for Jesus, but Jesus is
not impressed, for Peter is ready to throw away all that Jesus had
spent His life preparing for. Sacrifice can be stupid when it does
not accomplish a purpose worthy of sacrifice. A Christian can
make sacrifices that are more harmful than good because they only
hinder the cause of Christ and give Satan the advantage. In the
light of this John Calvin said, "..in the person of Peter, Christ
condemns everything that men dare to attempt out of their own
fancy....for nothing is more common than to defend, under the cloak
of zeal, everything that we do, as if it were of no importance
whether God approved, or not, what men suppose to be right."
Calvin says that Christians are often so eager, like Peter, to do
something great for God, and they end up doing more harm than
good, as did Peter.
We would rather be wrong, however, than follow the way of the
cross, for this goes against our grain. To surrender to an enemy
and let them win over us is totally contrary to our human pride.
But the fact is, that may be the only way you will win that enemy
and make them a friend. We are often so busy trying to prove we
are superior to the world that we seldom impress the world that we
love them. The message of Peter and Malchus is to make us look at
our pride and recognize we can be as bad as the bad guy, and be as
out of God's will as he is. Peter had good intentions, but his goal
was as bad as his aim. His focus was on self and not on the enemy,
or the ultimate goal of Christ. You do not win as a Christian by
hurting an enemy. You only win by making that enemy a friend,
and this means you don't sacrifice the enemy, but, like Jesus, you
sacrifice self for the sake of the enemy. This is the message of the
cross.
It is a Christian obligation not to hurt non-Christians. Jesus did
not say to Peter that it is only a servant you hurt and so it is no big
deal. He stopped him and healed that servant. He was going
through the most momentous moments in history, and yet Jesus
stopped to do His final miracle on a mere servant caught in the
crossfire between Christians and Jews. Jesus never met an
insignificant person. There was no one so insignificant that they are
unworthy of His compassion and miracle power. In the midst of
His greatest suffering Jesus never misses the chance to minister to
the needs of others. It is not just the leading characters, but even
the most miner players on the stage that He cares for. He heals
Malchus, and soon the dying the thief by His side will receive from
Him the gift of eternal life. We tend to ignore the little guy and
those who are of no importance to us, but Jesus loved them and was
going to the cross to die for all people.
Peter cut off the ear of Malchus, but it was his own ears that
were closed to the message of Jesus about compassion. Peter did
finally get his ears back and later he wrote of the very lesson he had
been deaf to. In I Peter 2:19-21 he wrote, "For it is commendable if
a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is
conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a
beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing
good and you endure it, this is the commendable before God.
To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an
example, that you should follow in His steps."
Peter finally learned to stop doing for Jesus what Jesus does not
need done. If Jesus needs to judge His enemies and wipe them out
in wrath, He can do that at any time. What He needs is followers
that will so love the enemy that they will suffer in order to win
them. Peter went on to suffer for sinners and never again attack
them as enemies of Christ. He took up the cross and suffered for
them that they might see God's love and come to Christ as Savior.
The way of the cross is not easy, but if you ever expect to win a
non-Christian to Christ you are going to have to stop rejecting and
attacking them. You need to suffer for them to win in Christian
warfare.
You need to ask yourself if you are more concerned about
fighting evil, or of saving evil people? Most of us are more
concerned about fighting evil, but Jesus wants us to go the way of
the cross. He wants us to be willing to pay a price to see that people
are saved, and not only be concerned that people pay a price for
their own evil. The way of the sword says, "I am going to make
people pay." The way of the cross says, "I am going to pay for
people." May God help us to choose the way of the cross and be
successful in Christian warfare.
