- Common Material shared between the gospel accounts
- Uniquely Matthew
- Uniquely Mark
- Uniquely Luke
- Uniquely John
When the other disciples saw what was about to happen, they exclaimed, “Lord, should we fight? We brought the swords!” And one of them struck at the high priest’s slave, slashing off his right ear. But Jesus said, “No more of this.” And He touched the man’s ear and healed him.
Luke 22:49-51
Does this segment make you feel like you are having a dejà vu experience? It should do. We have been through this before. It was only a few verses ago in this chapter that there was significant discussion about the use of swords with Jesus finishing with the statement, “That’s enough.” We covered this in Gem 1208 when we looked at Luke 22:35-38. Now we are dealing with the issue of swords and violent reactions again. It appears to be an element of the story that Luke focuses on.
The element starts with “When the other disciples saw what was about to happen . . . ” Which other disciples are we talking about? Remember from the accounts of the other synoptic gospels the disciples were separated into two groups, the three, Peter, James and John and the eight others. It is clear therefore that the other eight disciples had joined Jesus and the three by this time. Clearly the moment of testing or trial was upon them. “So what are we going to do?” The “we” here is exclusive not inclusive, I.e. it does not include Jesus. The question is not: what are we going to do Jesus, we disciples and You together with us. But rather what are we disciples to do? Shall we strike, I.e. fight and defend ourselves (and by inference You too)? How quickly the earlier conversation has been forgotten. They only had it a short few hours before. It seems they learned nothing from the discussion before they came to the garden to pray.
See we have swords with us. We have brought the swords Lord. Literally the text reads “shall we strike with the sword?” The form of sword is singular but the reference is to swords collectively. Shall we resort to the sword, or shall we use swords? Go back to the earlier conversation. They had two swords at their disposal. Hardly enough when Matthew and Mark tell us they were up against a crowd of men armed with swords and clubs. But they did indeed have two swords and it is clear they did not get rid of those two swords after the previous conversation with Jesus about the swords. The future indicative tense of “shall we fight” indicates in the mind of the disciples, or at least the one who asked the question, that this is an imminent action likely to take place. They have returned to the mindset of a few hours before. Impetuous Peter (according to John) didn’t wait for Jesus to respond to the question but rather takes the sword and lashes out with it. What was Peter doing carrying the sword? Or did he grab it hastily from one of the two disciples carrying the swords?
Following that the question has to be what did he intend to do with it? This is a fisherman wielding a sword who is not likely to be an expert swordsman. Was Peter aiming to strike a blow to his head and kill him? Therefore the only reason that the High Priest’s servant’s ear was struck was because of Peter’s inept swordsmanship – was that what happened? Or did Peter mean just to cut off the servant’s ear? Did Peter aim at his head and got his ear instead because the servant ducked to avoid the fatal blow to his head but instead lost his ear? We must also ask the question, “Why?” What could the servant have done that caused Peter to respond like he did? Was he targeted because he was near at hand? One would think not. Was he targeted because he was the High Priest’s servant? Or was it that the servant was wielding a sword himself? – I don’t think that was likely unless he was more body guard than servant. What seems more likely is that the servant was just that, a servant to the High Priest, no more no less. Luke has taken pains to point that out to us.
As I said in the earlier Gem, the blow with the sword was sufficient to CUT OFF the ear. The Greek verb is clear that the ear was severed from the servants head. It brings a vivid scene to mind for me. If the ear was cut off then the blow has to be a downward one with some force which should have then continued to dig deep into the servant’s shoulder. It seems the servant must have had armour on to prevent that from happening. Why, what was he or the high priest expecting? Did they expect armed resistance? I can’t imagine that they expected much resistance from a rag tag bunch of fishermen and a motley crew of others. Maybe with the exception of Simon the Zealot. He is the one most likely to have had the sword in his possession.
I have more questions than answers that is true. But what I do know from Luke, the doctor’s account, is that Jesus healed the ear. How typical for Luke to focus on the aftermath of the sword blow. This “innocent” by-stander would have been left earless but for Jesus’ action. The scene that is depicted if we extrapolate from the story given to us is that Jesus must have picked up the severed ear from the ground and then had it in His hand when He “touched the man’s ear” and healed him. Assumedly He placed the ear back in position on the man’s head and restored it to its former place and function. If that is not what happened it must have been that the ear was hanging by a sliver of flesh and Jesus repositioned it and healed it. Either way it is Luke who records the poignant moment while all other gospel writers omit this part of the incident. Luke alone with John makes the point that this was the man’s right ear. I am not sure if there is a significance behind the “right ear” as opposed to the left. I don’t think so. If it had been the High Priest himself then it may have been significant. The right ear, right thumb and right big toe was ceremonially daubed with anointing oil as a symbolic act in the priesthood. But I hardly think it carries any significance for the servant of the High Priest.
Finally Jesus closed this section with what He said before: “That’s enough.” Again it is only Luke who has included this snippet. But then it was only Luke who included the first reference to “Enough of that” in 22:38. When I covered the first discussion about swords in Gems 1210 I concluded there were two possibilities for interpretation.
Jesus was meaning:
- either that two swords were enough. That they didn’t need more than two between them.
- Or “enough of this discussion about swords”. “That’s enough of this sort of talk. You won’t be needing swords.”
I suspect it was more the later meaning that was in Jesus mind at the time of the first discussion.
Now we have a similar statement only there is a significant difference between them.
In Luke 22:38 the construction used is:
ἱκανόν εστιν.
enough {it is}
Where as in Luke 22:51 the construction is:
ἐᾶτε ἕως τούτου·
leave as this
That’s enough or enough of that compared with Leave it at that or Enough of that.
I think Jesus has taken the ambiguity out of it and made His feelings clear but still there is debate as follows.
“Leave it there”, “let it alone” can be interpreted as:
Stop, this far and no further. Leave it there, no more of this in reference to the use of swords. (Said to the disciples)Stop, let the temple police have their way. This refers to an implicit “them” as the object. Let the guard do their job. (Said to the disciples)Permit me to do this . . . Allow me to do this I.e. Said to the temple guard so that Jesus be allowed to heal the servant’s ear
While the Greek construction is different between 22:38 and 22:51 it is wise to make a link between them. It is not by chance that Luke has recorded a similar utterance on each occasion. There is a link there, so having both segments to read “enough of that” or “stop that’s enough” is appropriate. We just need to realize there is more at stake than a simplistic understanding of the statement although I personally think it is clearer than some commentators would have us think.
But ultimately I will leave it to you to decide that you think.
Enough of this. Tomorrow we will move on to the last segment of this unit which requires comment.
Men who have pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They’ve experienced pain and bought jewelry. (Sorry closest quote I have to ears being cut off)
Anon
Never let a problem to be solved become more important than a person to be loved.
Barbra Johnson
Never let a problem be solved by violent means; love your “enemies” and let God take care of the rest.
Ian Vail
Don’t panic, pray! Don’t worry, worship! Don’t give up, grow up! Don’t lash out, heal.
Ian Vail