Many years ago, a dear friend and second-Mother asked me an intriguing question. That question comes to my mind multiple times each year even to this moment. Paraphrased, the question would be something like:
"If you could hold a dinner party to talk with any ten people, living or dead, other than the obviously invited guests of Jesus and the disciples, who would you invite and why?"
--------------------------------
Dinner Guest #8: Malchus - A Servant of the High Priest, Caiaphas
The Introduction
And while He was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came accompanied by a large crowd with swords and clubs, who came from the chief priests and elders of the people. Now he who was betraying Him gave them a sign previously, saying, “Whomever I kiss, He is the one; arrest Him.” And immediately Judas went up to Jesus and said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed Him. But Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you have come for.” Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and arrested Him. And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear.
(Matthew 26:47-51)
And immediately, while He was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, came up, accompanied by a crowd with swords and clubs who were from the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders. Now he who was betraying Him had given them a signal, saying, “Whomever I kiss, He is the one; arrest Him and lead Him away under guard.” And after coming, Judas immediately went to Him and said, “Rabbi!” and kissed Him. And they laid hands on Him and arrested Him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear.
(Mark 14:43-47)
While He was still speaking, behold, a crowd came, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading the way for them; and he approached Jesus to kiss Him. But Jesus said to him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” When those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus responded and said, “Stop! No more of this.” And He touched his ear and healed him.
(Luke 22:47-51)
Now Judas, who was betraying Him, also knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with His disciples. So Judas, having obtained the Roman cohort and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, came there with lanterns, torches, and weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that were coming upon Him, came out into the open and said to them, “Whom are you seeking?” They answered Him, “Jesus the Nazarene.” He said to them, “I am He.” And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them. Now then, when He said to them, “I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground. He then asked them again, “Whom are you seeking?” And they said, “Jesus the Nazarene.” Jesus answered, “I told you that I am He; so if you are seeking Me, let these men go on their way.” This took place so that the word which He spoke would be fulfilled: “Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one.” Then Simon Peter, since he had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave’s name was Malchus.
(John 18:2-10)
The History
First, an etymology point:
As you might expect, apologia is a close relative of apology. Both words derive from Late Latin; apologia came to English as a direct borrowing while apology traveled through Middle French. The Latin apologia derives from a combination of the Greek prefix apo-, meaning "away from," and the word logia, from Greek lógos, meaning "speech." In their earliest English uses, apologia and apology meant basically the same thing: a formal defense or justification of one's actions or opinions.
Nowadays, however, the two are distinct. The modern apology generally involves an admission of wrongdoing and an expression of regret for past actions, while an apologia typically focuses on explaining, justifying, or making clear the grounds for some course of action, belief, or position.
(Credit: Merriam-Webseter.com, entry for Apologia)
In this sense, apologia is where we get the term for Christian apologetics: providing a defense of Christianity.
These verses recording the event in the Garden of Gethsemane at Jesus' arrest are perfect examples of how eyewitness testimonies are assessed and analyzed. Christian apologists, Lee Strobel and J. Warner Wallace, are excellent in the area of investigation and dealing with testimonies. Strobel, a former investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune, and Wallace, a former Los Angeles County cold-case homicide detective, address this issue in their books, A Case for Christ and Cold Case Christianity, respectively.
It is apparent in reading these four accounts of Jesus' arrest that they are recounting the same event. It is equally apparent that, while in agreement, they are not identical recollections. Investigators, like Strobel and Wallace, will state that if witness testimonies are identical, then there has been collaboration or coaching between the witnesses to come up with the same story.
An investigator more often depends on the nuances of the individualistic observations of independent witnesses to form a more complete understanding. Unrehearsed testimonies recount events from the unique perspective of the individuals providing them. Witnesses will highlight or focus on certain things that they deem important or that stuck out to them. They may also omit information they don't think is important enough to mention. While relaying the exact same event, witnesses will often provide information that other witnesses hadn't. Sometimes, that additional information may seem inconsequential and sometimes it reveals a larger piece of the puzzle.
These brief portions of the story of these gospel accounts attest to that. For example:
- John mentions the torches, but others omit it apparently as an obvious issue since it was night.
- Three of the witnesses mention the crowd came bearing weapons, but Luke doesn't mention that; again probably as an obvious point.
- All four witnesses address Judas' betrayal of Jesus
- Matthew and Mark indicated Judas betrayed Him with a greeting and kiss.
- Luke indicates Judas approached to kiss Jesus in greeting.
- John doesn't mention verbal greeting or kiss of greeting, just his leading the Romans and others coming to arrest Jesus.
- All four witnesses address the crowd came to take Jesus into custody.
- Matthew states the crowd contained chief priests and elders of the people.
- Mark adds that scribes were present.
- Luke doesn't specify who was in the crowd.
- John includes Roman soldiers and elaborates that Pharisees were present.
- All four witness report the servant's ear was cut off by Peter.
- Luke and John specify it was his right ear while Matthew and Mark do not make any indications.
- John was the only one to mention the servant by name: Malchus, which is the Greek form of the Hebrew word melech meaning king or kingdom.
To show how seemingly insignificant data from a witness can have a larger bearing on the event, imagine this was an LA County crime investigation. With the specified information of Malchus' right ear being cut off reported by two of the four witnesses, detectives would bring into question whether the attacker was left-handed or if he might have struck at Malchus from behind.
In a case of attempted murder vs self-defense, that kind of evidence could have a crucial bearing on judgement.
The Person
It is interesting that John alone names the servant. It is traditionally believed that John was the disciple mentioned in John 18:15-16:
Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and he entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought Peter in.
However, this is an issue that is more assumption and presumption than there is good evidence for. Regardless, John was at least familiar enough with Malchus in some manner to identify him by name. Potentially then, John's original audience would have been familiar with him also that John had a purpose (as guided by the Holy Spirit's inspiration) to mention him specifically by name.
Despite being written of in all four of the gospel accounts, we know next to nothing about Malchus. What we are told is:
+ He was a servant of the high priest, ie: Caiaphas
+ He was among the crowd that included the chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, elders of the people, and Roman soldiers that came to arrest Jesus.
+ He was attacked by Peter and had his right ear cut off by Peter's sword.
+ He was immediately healed by Jesus.
The Conversation
It is amazing that Jesus performed the miraculous healing in front of this crowd, which included the chief priests, and yet the crowd stayed focused on their desire to eliminate Him.
It isn't amazing in the sense that He performed it in front of the chief priests. It was amazing that they had such a stranglehold on their power that they would hear reports of Jesus's miracles, see these things themselves, and yet continue to make conscious decisions and plans against Him in order to kill Him.
But what of Malchus? These are a few things I would love to learn from him first hand.
+ How familiar was he with Jesus before encountering him in Gethsemane?
+ Had he ever listened to Jesus speak, or had he ever seen one of His miracles?
+ What had happened that Peter would focus his attack on him when there were armed soldiers right there?
+ What were his initial thoughts immediately after Jesus' healing his wound?
+ What were his eventual conclusive thoughts about that healing?
+ Did he come to faith in Jesus as the Son of God?
+ What was life like after such an encounter with Jesus?
+ Oh, and who was that unnamed disciple that arranged for Peter to get inside the courtyard that night?
The Why
Of course, miracles involving raising the dead are in a category all their own. But many miracles we hear of Jesus performing were of healing those already sick, or already blind, already leprous, or already lame. No doubt, years-long pre-existing conditions are a more debilitating condition physically as well as emotionally. But here, Jesus heals someone of an immediate wounding.
Just try imagining the trauma of being stricken - with a sword - in your head - and then feeling the immediate healing touch of Jesus before even the shock of being wounded can fully settle in your mind. That instantaneous trauma and healing has got to have as profound effect on a person.
But the compassion that Jesus displayed - knowing what He would be suffering in the coming hours and culminating with His crucifixion - performing this final miracle before His death for a person who came at Him as an enemy speaks loudly to how we as Christians are to be also.
I hope it wasn't as lost on Malchus as it was on his boss.
---
---
Posts
