Simon Peter’s machete.

Mark 14.47, Matthew 26.51-54, Luke 22.49-51, John 18.10-11.

When I translate the gospels, there’s a word, μάχαιρα/mákhera, which people tend to translate “sword” or “short sword” or “dagger.” Which is actually no such thing; it’s a long heavy single-bladed work knife. It’s a machete. So I translate it “machete.”

And I’ve gotten complaints about this: “He wasn’t wielding a machete!” Yes he was. You just prefer to think of it as a sword. You’ve seen art and movies where people are carrying swords or daggers, not work knives; you prefer to imagine people were using proper weapons of war instead of any tools they happened to own. Even though it’s far more realistic they’d use tools, instead of spending a bunch of denarii they didn’t have on fancy swords with scrollwork and macho-sounding names. And this has always been true. Farmers dragged off to war wouldn’t have proper weapons, so they’d bring their sharpest farm implements. Spontaneous rioters didn’t have a cache of swords, so they’d bring pitchforks and torches. They’d get mowed down by soldiers with swords, battleaxes, and spears, and later rifles. But they’d defend themselves—pitifully—as best they could with what they actually had.

When Jesus was arrested, his students had machetes on them. And one overeager kid whipped it out and started to use it on the mob who’d come to get Jesus.

Mark 14.47 KWL

One of the bystanders, pulling out a machete,

strikes the head priest’s slave, and cuts his ear off.

It’s often said the Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark, the nephew of Barnabas Cl 4.10 whom Paul initially refused to work with Ac 15.37-40 but later called useful. 2Ti 4.11 Tradition has it Mark became a student of Simon Peter, and Peter was the source for his gospel… and if that’s so, it kinda looks like Peter lied to Mark and got him to think this was some bystander, not him. But it’s more likely Peter simply didn’t tell Mark this part of the story, and Mark had to source it from someone else who didn’t know this was Peter.

How do we know it’s Peter? ’Cause Peter’s fellow student John outed him.

John 18.10-11 KWL

10Simon Peter, having a machete, draws it

and strikes the head priest’s slave.

He slices off his right ear.

The slave’s name was Malchus.

11So Jesus tells Peter, “Sheath your machete.

This is the cup the Father gave me.

Shouldn’t I drink it?”

John identifies, and possibly knew, the slave; Malchus is a Romanized form of the Hebrew name מֶלֶךְ/Melékh. John wrote his gospel to fill in the blanks in Luke, and Luke’s gospel is the only one which says Jesus cured poor Malchus right after his ear was lopped off.

Luke 22.49-51 KWL

49Seeing what those round them intend to do,

the students say, “Master, should we strike with a machete?”

50One hit a certain one of them—the head priest’s slave—

and cuts his right ear off.

51In response Jesus says, “That’s enough!”

and touching the ear, Jesus cures him.

And lastly let’s see Matthew, in which Jesus rebukes Peter with his famous line “He who lives by the machete shall die by the machete.” Okay, I realize that’s not how you remember the saying, and I swapped “machete” out with “arms” because I’m quite sure Jesus wasn’t referring to any specific weapon. He who lives by the gun will die by the gun; he who lives by biological warfare will die by biological warfare; he who smites one way will be smitten the same way. Same general idea.

Matthew 26.51-54 KWL

51Look, one of those with Jesus stretches out his hand,

draws his machete,

and, striking the head priest’s slave,

cuts off his ear.

52Then Jesus tells him, “Put your machete back in its place!

For everyone who chooses arms

will be destroyed by arms.

53Or do you think I can’t call out to my Father,

and he will give me, right now,

more than 12 legions of angels?

54Then how might the scriptures be fulfilled?

So this has to happen.”

This story is part of the stations of the cross, ’cause it happens during Jesus’s betrayal and arrest.

Armageddon.

ARMAGEDDON ɑr.mə'ɡɛ.d(ə)n noun. The last battle between good and evil before Judgment Day.

2. A dramatic, catastrophic conflict, likely to destroy humanity or the world.

3. The hill of Megiddo, an ancient city in northwestern Israel, south of present-day Haifa.

Revelation 16.12-16, 19.19-21, 20.7-10.

Whenever the United States goes to war in the middle east, American would-be “prophecy scholars” start talking about the biblical “Battle of Armageddon.” Oddly they never talk about Armageddon when other countries go to war in the middle east—when Saudi Arabia bombs Yemen, or Türkiye tries to annihilate Kurds, or Sudan or Syria has a civil war, or Islamic State terrorists try to fight anybody and everybody. It’s only when the United States or Israel get mixed up in things. It’s because these two specific countries are a big part of their End Times timelines.

Yep, even though the United States, or for that matter the entire western hemisphere, isn’t in the bible. At all. Anywhere. But these American “scholars” simply can’t imagine a future in which they and their homeland is not a big deal, so they shoehorn themselves into the End Times wherever possible. It’s why a majority of the characters in the Left Behind novels are American. But I digress.

Let’s first sort out what the “Battle of Armageddon” is, and of course I began this article with the dictionary definition. Next, the scripture which references it. This is part of John’s vision in Revelation of seven angels emptying saucers of “God’s anger” upon the earth. Rv 16.1. The sixth angel does so, and here’s what follows.

Revelation 16.12-16 KWL

12The sixth pours its saucer over the great river Euphrates,

and its water dries up

so the road might be prepared

for the kings of the eastern sun.

13I see, from the dragon’s mouth

and the beast’s mouth

and the fake prophet’s mouth

three unclean spirits,

like frogs.

14For the spirits are of the demons

which do “miracles,”

which come out of all the civilization’s kings

to gather them in the war

on the great day of Almighty God.

15“Look, I come like a thief.

How awesome for those awake,

guarding their clothing,

so they might not walk naked,

and might see themselves disgraced.”

16God gathers the kings

in the place called הַר מְגִדּוֹן/har-Megiddón in Hebrew.

Various preachers will claim Armageddon is “the plains of Megiddo” or “the valley of Megiddo,” 2Ch 35.22, Zc 12.11 but nope; הַר/har means “mountain, hill.” They’re not meeting on the plain, for battle; they’re meeting at the hill, to have a conference. To be fair, maybe they’re gathering to plan a battle, but any actual fighting takes place in other parts of Revelation, which I’ll get to. And these battles aren’t necessarily at Megiddo. Nor near Megiddo, nor anywhere around Megiddo. The first battle might not even be in Israel.

The ancient city of Megiddo was ultimately built on this hill, which is actually a tell, a hill which consists of all the previous civilizations which were built on that spot. When the ancients knocked down a building—or conquerers knocked it down for them—they simply flattened the rubble, then built something new on top. Keep doing this for hundreds of years, and you wind up on top of a hill. A hill is not a useful place for a battle; armies prefer plains, especially really big armies. Hence all the preachers who insist Armageddon is the valley of Megiddo, even though John quite obviously says it’s the hill.

Why Megiddo? Well it was along the major trade route between Europe, Africa, and Asia. People would travel through it to get to the other continents. Because of its strategic importance, different empires wanted to control it, so they conquered it throughout ancient history. Egypt owned it at the time of the Exodus. Then the Philistines fought them for it and eventually took it; then the Israelis under David took it; then the Assyrian Empire got it when they took northern Israel in 732BC; then Egypt conquered it again in 609BC. By the time the neo-Babylonian Empire conquered the area in 587BC, Megiddo had been abandoned. By Jesus’s day it was just a heap of ruins about 23km away from Nazareth. Someplace which used to be important, which no longer was, and was never rebuilt. Still isn’t.

So why would the kings go there? Not sure. Maybe the symbolism of being at an important trade route; maybe the symbolism of being someplace which used to be a big deal. Maybe because armageddon sounds like it begins with the Greek word ἅρμα/árma, “chariot,” and John was trying to make a pun and went over our heads. End times prognosticators think it’s because other major battles happened in the valley of Megiddo, so history’s just repeating itself. But again: Hill of Megiddo. Not valley. And no battle.

Jesus’s arrest, and his abuse begins.

Mark 14.45-52, Matthew 26.50-56, Luke 22.49-54, John 18.4-12.

The second station, in John Paul’s list of stations of the cross, is where Judas betrayed Jesus and Jesus was arrested. Same station for both. But different forms of suffering: Judas was about when your friends or confidants turn on you, and the rest was about the pain and dread people feel when their enemies have ’em right where they want ’em.

Let’s go to the gospels.

Mark 14.45-52 KWL

45Immediately going to Jesus,

Judas tells him, “Rabbi!” and kisses him hello.

46So the mob grabs and arrests Jesus.

47One of the bystanders, pulling out a machete,

strikes the head priest’s slave, and cuts his ear off.

48In reply, Jesus tells them, “You come out with machetes and sticks

to snatch me away, like I’m an insurgent.

49Daytime, I was with you in the temple, teaching.

You didn’t arrest me then.

But this—it’ll fulfill the scriptures.”

50Abandoning Jesus, everyone flees.

51There was some teenager following Jesus

who was naked, wearing a toga.

They seize him,

52but he abandons his toga and flees naked.

Matthew 26.50-56 KWL

50Jesus tells Judas, “Brother, why have you come?”

Then the approaching mob throws their hands on Jesus

and seizes him.

51Look, one of those with Jesus stretches out his hand,

draws his machete,

and, striking the head priest’s slave,

cuts off his ear.

52Then Jesus tells him, “Put your machete back in its place!

For everyone who chooses arms

will be destroyed by arms.

53Or do you think I can’t call out to my Father,

and he will give me, right now,

more than 12 legions of angels?

54Then how might the scriptures be fulfilled?

So this has to happen.”

55At this time, Jesus tells the crowd, “You come out

with machetes and sticks to snatch me away,

like I’m an insurgent.

Daytime, I was sitting in the temple, teaching.

You didn’t arrest me then.

56This is all happening so the prophets’ writings can be fulfilled.”

Then all the students abandon Jesus and run.

Luke 22.49-54 KWL

49Seeing what those round them intend to do,

the students say, “Master, should we strike with a machete?”

50One hit a certain one of them—the head priest’s slave—

and cuts his right ear off.

51In response Jesus says, “That’s enough!”

and touching the ear, Jesus cures him.

52Jesus tells those who come for him—

head priests, temple guards, and elders—

“You come out with machetes and sticks

like I’m an insurgent.

53Daytime, I was with you in the temple.

You didn’t grab me then.

But this is your hour—

the power of darkness.”

54They arrest Jesus, lead him away,

and bring him to the head priest’s house.

Simon Peter is following at a distance.

John 18.4-12 KWL

4So Jesus, who already knew everything coming upon him,

comes forth and tells them, “Whom are you looking for?”

5They answer him, “Jesus the Nazarene.”

Jesus tells them, “I’m him.”

Judas his betrayer had been standing with them.

6So when Jesus tells them, “I’m him,”

they move backward and fall to the ground.

7So again Jesus asks them, “Whom are you looking for?”

They say, “Jesus the Nazarene.”

8Jesus answers, “I tell you I’m him,

so if it’s me you look for,

leave these others alone to go away,”

9so he might fulfill the word which he says, namely this:

“I’ve not lost anyone whom you’ve given me.” Jn 17.12

10Simon Peter, having a machete, draws it

and strikes the head priest’s slave.

He slices off his right ear.

The slave’s name was Malchus.

11So Jesus tells Peter, “Sheath your machete.

This is the cup the Father gave me.

Shouldn’t I drink it?”

12 So the 200 men, the general, and the Judean servants

arrest Jesus and tie him up.

Weary? Come to Jesus. [Mt 11.28-30]

Matthew 11.28-30 KJV

28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Some Christians describe Christianity as really easy: All we gotta do is believe Jesus is Lord. That’s all. We need do nothing more. Needn’t change our lifestyles or behavior; needn’t believe anything new; needn’t even study bible, pray, or go to church regularly. All we gotta do is believe Jesus is Lord. And we’re saved! And that’s all.

You’ll soon discover these particular Christians really suck at being Christian. Because they really don’t do anything more. They do the bare minimum so they can consider themselves Christian: They own a bible, which they only open when they’re trying to prove the bible says or doesn’t say something (and since Google is way faster at determining this, they now don’t open those bibles). They consider one of the churches in town to be theirs, even though they never go. They don’t know any Christian doctrine, or might, but only believe ’em if they like ’em. They pray when they’re in a jam, but otherwise don’t. Definitely don’t change their lifestyles or behavior; they’re indistinguishable from pagans. You don’t even know they’re Christian till you call them pagan, and they loudly object: “No I’m Christian!” Really? Couldn’t tell.

Then there’s the other extreme. These are the Christians who describe Christianity as really hard. Because they’re trying so hard to be Christian. Not necessarily follow Jesus, which is what it properly means to be Christian: They’re trying to do as their fellow Christians do. They go to all the church services and functions. They pray like Pastor encourages ’em to. They vote as Pastor encourages ’em to. They frown upon unpopular sins. They wear Christian T-shirts and sport Christian bumper stickers. And sometimes they get mixed up in white nationalism, which claims it’s really Christian nationalism, but since God’s kingdom includes every people, nation, tribe, and language, Rv 5.9 why are any of these “Christians” promoting anti-immigrant stuff at their functions? Y’all just swapped white hoods for red hats. But I digress.

The reason these Christianists think Christianity is so very hard is because they’re pursuing public approval. Not Christ Jesus. What’s he say about following him?

Matthew 16.24-25 KJV

24Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Okay he does say that too. But he also says today’s memory verse up top: His yoke is easy. His burden is light. Way easier and lighter than society’s burdens and yokes, because Jesus is steering us in the right direction, and they are easily swayed by whatever angry preacher is most popular lately.

The legality of Jesus’s trial.

When you read the gospel of John, but skip the other three synoptic gospels, y’might get the idea Jesus never even had a trial. In John:

• Jesus gets arrested.
• He’s taken right to the former head priest Annas’s house for an unofficial trial.
• From there, to Joseph Caiaphas’s house for interrogation.
• Then to Pontius Pilate’s prætorium for interrogation.
• Then to Golgotha for crucifixion.

No conviction, no sentence; just interviews followed by execution. Same as would be done in any country with no formal judicial system: They catch you, they interrogate you, they free or shoot you.

But both Judea and Rome did have a formal system. John doesn’t show it because the other gospels do. John was written to fill in the gaps in the other gospels’ stories—which include Jesus’s formal trials. There were two: The one before the Judean senate, and the other before the Roman prætor. The senate, presided over by head priest Caiaphas, found Jesus guilty of blasphemy and sedition. In contrast Pilate publicly stated he didn’t find Jesus guilty of anything—but he didn’t care enough to free him, and sent Jesus to his death all the same.

Is Jesus guilty of blasphemy? Only if he isn’t actually the Son of Man, and of course the senate absolutely refused to believe that’s who he is.

But Jesus actually is guilty of sedition.

I know, I know: Christians wanna insist Jesus is absolutely innocent. He never sinned y’know. But this “sedition” has nothing to do with sin against God and the Law of Moses. It has to do with human laws, Roman laws. Jesus is the legitimate Messiah, the king of Israel and Judea, anointed by God to rule that nation and the world. He’s Lord; he’s the Lord of lords. And that’s a threat to everyone who figures they’re lord—particularly the lords of Israel at that time. To Caiaphas, Herod, and Cæsar Tiberius, “Jesus is Lord” is sedition.

To leadership today it still is. Many of them don’t realize this, ’cause they don’t think of Jesus as any threat to their power. Especially after they neuter him, by convincing his supporters he’d totally vote for them and their party—and his so-called followers buy it, and follow their parties instead of Jesus. So it stands to reason our leadership isn’t worried about Jesus. Yet.

But in the year 33, Jesus was tangibly standing on the earth, in a real position to upend the status quo. He was therefore a real threat to the lords of Israel at the time—whether we’re talking emperors, prefects, tetrarchs, senators, synagogue presidents, or scribes who were used to everyone following their spins on the scriptures. To all these folks, Jesus was competition who needed to be crushed.

Following Jesus instead of these other lords: Sedition. Totally sedition. Flagrant, indefensible sedition. But it’s not against God’s Law. It’s only against human customs, so Jesus isn’t guilty of sin in God’s eyes; still totally sinless. Relax.

Thing is, Christians don’t wanna think of Jesus as guilty of anything. We wanna defend him against everything. We don’t wanna think of his conviction and trials as valid. We don’t wanna imagine his execution was a function of a corrupt system; worse, that perhaps our own existing systems are just as corrupt, and if his first coming had taken place today, we’d’ve killed him too. Nor do we wanna recognize sentencing him to death is in any way parallel to the way we depose him as the master of our lives, and prioritize other things over him. We don’t wanna think of his trial as a miscarriage of justice; we’d rather imagine it as illegal.

This is why, every Easter, you’re gonna hear various Christians claim Jesus’s trial wasn’t legal. That the Judeans had broken all their own laws in order to arrest him and hold his trial at night, get him to testify against himself, and get him killed before anyone might find out what they were up to. It certainly feels illegal: If you ever heard of a suspect arrested at midnight, tried and convicted at 2AM, and hastily executed by noon, doesn’t the whole thing smell mighty fishy?

“You can’t do this without prayer.”

Last time I wrote about prayer, I brought up the story of Jesus curing a demonized boy. When Jesus comes upon the scene, his students had been trying to exorcise the boy, with no success. Whereas when Jesus gets involved, this happens:

Mark 9.25-27 GNT

25Jesus noticed that the crowd was closing in on them, so he gave a command to the evil spirit. “Deaf and dumb spirit,” he said, “I order you to come out of the boy and never go into him again!”

26The spirit screamed, threw the boy into a bad fit, and came out. The boy looked like a corpse, and everyone said, “He is dead!” 27But Jesus took the boy by the hand and helped him rise, and he stood up.

We don’t know how long the evil spirit pitched its fit—a few seconds or a few minutes; certainly not the hours and hours we see in bad movies. But it obeyed Jesus and came out of the boy. Jesus cured him.

A bit later Jesus’s students had a question for their master:

Mark 9.28-29 GNT

28After Jesus had gone indoors, his disciples asked him privately, “Why couldn't we drive the spirit out?”

29“Only prayer can drive this kind out,” answered Jesus; “nothing else can.”

The Textus Receptus has Jesus say “This kind cannot come out except by prayer and fasting,” Mk 9.29 MEV adding the word νηστείᾳ/nisteía, “fasting,” as is found in a few fourth-century New Testaments. A lot of ancient Christians saw fasting as evidence of devotion: A wishy-washy Christian didn’t fast regularly, but a hardcore Christian did. And prayed regularly. And only hardcore Christians were formidable enough to throw out such evil spirits.

Which… is probably quite accurate. And probably just what Jesus meant when he said this. He wasn’t trying to teach his kids, “Okay, whenever you find yourself dealing when an especially ornery demon, pray. Right then. Really hard. Oh, and start fasting—don’t eat anything while you’re trying to perform an exorcism.” The more we imagine Jesus teaching such a thing to his students, the more ridiculous it sounds. That’s how we know Jesus wasn’t talking about just then, in the moment, taking up prayer and fasting. There should already be prayer—and, optionally, fasting—in the Christian’s life, before that Christian is ready to face off against evil spirits.

Wasn’t there prayer and fasting in Jesus’s students lives? Maybe a little. Certainly not enough. Pharisees had already noticed they didn’t fast, and complained to Jesus about it, and Jesus’s response was they really didn’t need to. (This is why I’m inclined to say fasting is optional, and likely not part of the original text of Mark.) As for prayer, I’ve no doubt they prayed, but none of them were at Jesus’s level; not yet. They’d get there.

How about us? Are we trying to get there? Hope so.

Upbuilding takes priority over “freedom in Christ.”

Romans 14.19-23

Many a Christian likes to point to Romans 14 as the “freedom in Christ” chapter, and claim Paul therein teaches us we can do as we please so long that it doesn’t violate our consciences. And while that idea is certainly in there, it’s actually the opposite of what Paul’s trying to teach.

True, we’re free to do what doesn’t violate our consciences. But, more importantly, more the point of this chapter, we’re not free to do what violates others’ consciences. If they’re weak in faith, these things do violate their consciences. To their minds these things are sin. To their minds, when we exercise our “freedom in Christ” to do as we please in violation of their consciences, we’re sinning. To their minds, if we push them to do these things too—“Stop being such a spiritual baby and just eat and drink what I do”—we’re tempting them to sin. To their minds, if they listen to us, we got them to sin.

Their under-developed consciences are gonna bug them about it, and it’s gonna monkey with their Christian growth. They’re not gonna trust their consciences, instead of learning to hear the Holy Spirit through ’em. Rather than naturally move on to the next step, they’re gonna think every next step has to be offensive and uncomfortable—exactly like we made ’em feel by demanding they “grow up” too soon—and sometimes take “next steps” that don’t actually go in Jesus’s direction. Then live with those errors for a while… and hopefully realize they’re wrong and correct themselves, instead of leaping to the conclusion Christianity as a whole is wrong, and quit Jesus altogether.

Worst case, they’re gonna ditch all the Christians who are “leading them astray,” and go find a church full of fervent legalists who tell them yes, everything they believe is sin really is sin; plus hundreds of other things are sin, and the only safe thing they can do is give away all their possessions and move onto their compound and join their pastor’s harem. Yes of course I’m describing a cult. What’d you think the worst-case scenario was, apostasy? That’s awful too, but it’s actually not worst.

Ultimately this sort of callous disregard for newbies’ feelings tears them up, not builds them up, and Paul wants us to build one another up. As he says right here:

Romans 14.19-23 KWL

19So for peace, then,

we should also pursue building one another up.

20Don’t destroy God’s work over food!

“Everything is clean,”

but it’s evil for a person

to eat what trips them¹ up.

21It’s good to not eat meat

nor drink wine

nor whatever trips up your¹ fellow Christian,

{or makes them scandalized or sick.}

22You¹ have a belief of your¹ own:

Have it between yourself and God.

You who don’t condemn yourselves¹

for what you think is right

are awesome.

23One who still doubts it’s okay when they¹ eat,

was condemned because it’s not their belief.

Everything which isn’t their belief

is sin.

Instead of telling them, “Oh that’s not a sin; do it anyway” we need to recognize for them, for now, it is sin. And accommodate them, not mock them for their immaturity. Build them up till they can recognize on their own it’s not sin—not impatiently tell them, “You need to function on my level,” and ignore they’re not ready.