Jesus alone refused to flee, fight, or summon the very angels that He long ago brought into existence. This is why we confess that salvation is of Christ alone. Peter and the other apostles who together with the prophets of old became the foundation of the Christ’s church are just as much recipients of God’s grace as we are. We are all poor and wretched sinners who would be damned eternally if Christ were not the all-sufficient and ever-triumphant Savior.

And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man. Seize him and lead him away under guard.” And when he came, he went up to him at once and said, “Rabbi!” And he kissed him. And they laid hands on him and seized him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the Scriptures be fulfilled.” And they all left him and fled.
And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.
Mark 14:43-52 ESV

The story of Joseph resounds with primordial echoes of Jesus’ own life. As Jacob’s most beloved son, Joseph’s brothers came to hate him. One day, when they were pasturing the flocks near Shechem, Jacob sent Joseph to check on them. Yet as they saw Joseph coming from a distance, the brothers plotted to kill him, and when he drew near, they stripped of his robe and threw him in a pit to die, since Reuben had convinced them not to shed his blood directly. Yet seeing a caravan of traders going to Egypt, Judah led the brothers into selling Joseph for twenty shekels of silver into slavery.
Of course, we already read in chapter 3 that Jesus was rejected by His own brothers, but in our present text, we find Jesus being betrayed by one of His closest companions and abandoned by the other eleven. As Matthew 26:15 notes, Judas traded the life of his Master away for thirty pieces of silver. Indeed, if our previous passage was Jesus resolving through prayer to submit to the Father, today’s passage finds the greater Joseph being cast into pit and sold for silver.
Betrayed with a Kiss // Verses 43-45
Just as verse 42 concluded our previous passage with Jesus telling His disciples, “Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand,” so do we now presently read:
And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
I find it tragic that because Judas came up to Jesus while He was still speaking, there is the possibility that he could have heard clearly Jesus’ final statement: See, my betrayer is at hand. But, of course, that is exactly what brought Judas to that hallowed garden. Jesus entered Gethsemane as the Seed of the woman, the long-awaited second Adam. Judas, however, entered Gethsemane as the Seed of the serpent, at continual enmity against the Maker and His images. Indeed, the craftiness of the serpent is evident in the manner of Judas’ betrayal:
Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man. Seize him and lead him away under guard.” And when he came, he went up to him at once and said, “Rabbi!” And he kissed him.
Is Judas not imaging the nature of his father here? Did the serpent openly call for Eve to rebel against God? No, he began with a seemingly innocent question: “Did God really say…?” We find the same approach whenever Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, where each temptation wore the masquerade of compassion. Could not the Son of God make stones into bread to satisfy His hunger? Would not everyone believe in Him if He threw Himself from the temple and was saved by angels? Would it not be better to worship the devil and receive the kingdoms of the world without having to endure the cross? Being entirely void of love himself, there is apparently nothing that Satan enjoys more than making a mockery of this glorious attribute of God Himself. Indeed, R. C. Sproul notes the twisted hideousness of Judas’ kiss:
It was a gesture of profound honor and affection, customarily given by disciples to their rabbi, that Judas used for his evil mission. The language here describes Judas’s kiss not as a brief peck on the cheek, but a kiss lavishly bestowed, signifying an especially deep sense of affection and honor. This kiss was an act of hypocrisy with a vengeance.[1]
In the Pilgrim’s Progress, Christiana looked upon the cross and begins to wish that others could look upon it as well. “Surely, surely,” she said, “their hearts would be affected.”[2] In moments when we freshly behold goodness and majesty of God, we easily think the same thing. “If only others could see this.” Sadly, reality teaches us another lesson. When faced with God’s holiness, some are drawn into worship, yet others are repelled away. So it was that the whole generation that heard God audibly speak from Sinai went on to perish in the wilderness. So it is that here at the most sacred moment in all of history we find Judas at his most satanic. Indeed, the light of the world can do no less. In His presence, shadows and shades pass away and all is exposed as being either of the light or of the darkness.
O brothers and sisters, let us be certain of this: all of creation is increasingly coming to a point. The day is ever nearer when all creatures will bow their knee to Christ as Lord, willingly or unwillingly. The great question that we must all answer is into which camp will we belong. Make no mistake, there are no neutral days. Each day we either step further into the light of His presence or step away into darkness.
Not of this World // Verses 46-47
After Judas’ kiss, we read:
And they laid hands on him and seized him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear.
So begins what Jesus had already told His disciples must happen: “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days, he will rise” (9:31). Yet the disciples still did not understand what was happening, and one disciples displayed this even more than the others by cutting off a servant of the high priest’s ear. John’s Gospel tells that this disciple was Peter and even that the servant’s name was Malchus. Luke’s Gospel also tells us that Jesus did one final earthly miracle by healing Malchus’ ear.
I have heard it said by some that Peter meant to cut Malchus’ ear off because since he was a servant of the high priest, he could no longer enter the temple to do his duty. Yet I think that runs against the plain reading of the text. It seems clear that Peter intended to split Malchus’ head in two, but whether from having little skill with a sword or from nerves (probably both!), Peter ended up taking off his ear.
It is as we said last week. Peter was not quite the outright coward that we might too readily paint him as being. Here he at least worked up in himself enough courage to begin fighting for Christ. He even seemed ready to die for Christ. But, of course, it is one thing to die swinging a sword; it is another thing entirely to go like a lamb to be slaughtered. Peter was still not prepared for the upside-down nature of God’s kingdom. John Calvin notes:
It is as I said, his mind is seething, and he is carried away by the mad desire to protect our Lord Jesus Christ as he chooses and in his own way. May his example teach us to walk according as God calls us, and may we not find it hard to do as God commands. Let us not, however, attempt to do anything, not even to lift a little finger, unless God approves and we have evidence that it is he who is guiding us.[3]
Read More
Related Posts:

I only know Jesus because God wrote it in the book. But, Jesus is not a book, daddy. The book describes Jesus as 100% man like any man and 100% God like the only God. And that 200% is a funny number. You said 100% truthful is like a cup all the way up. All man; all the way up. All God; all the way up. That cup sure is full. That sounds like one cup being fuller than two cups. You can know him 200% by living with His people, when we pray and sing and talk about him at the table– you listen, and you’ll start hearing how he is both but only one person.

Daddy, where is Jesus? I can’t see him. 

He returned to his father, and sent the Spirit to us.

I don’t like that, daddy. If Jesus loves me, I should see him. 

Jesus said it was better if he left and we couldn’t see him till later.

But how will I know about him, the things he did? 

The way I do, sweetie. God taught men; they teach me; I teach you.

But how will I know that he became a man, a real man, a man man?

The way I do, sweetie. Almost everything Jesus did is the same as me.

Watch me. Watch mom. Even watch the sour grouch who lives next door.

He did NOT just do what everybody does. A lot looked the same, but the OTHER stuff . . . And, the other things– remember that word from Thursday dinner, “trans-fig-u-ra-tion?” Well the best I could do was read what Scripture says and be pretty amazed-curious-wondering– just like any other child. Mark used that word, and it helps with the shining and the clothes and face-too-bright and the cloud. And Jesus talking to Moses and Elijah– just like people do.

Peter was scary scared. And the cloud told him to listen. I bet he had a headache after that.

Daddy, is all your knowing Jesus from the Bible?

I only know Jesus because God wrote it in the book.

But, Jesus is not a book, daddy.

The book describes Jesus as 100% man like any man and 100% God like the only God. And that 200% is a funny number.

You said 100% truthful is like a cup all the way up. All man; all the way up. All God; all the way up. That cup sure is full. That sounds like one cup being fuller than two cups.

Related Posts:

Deformed masculinity results from affirming a false antithesis. In so doing, two complementary aspects of manhood are wrongly made out to compete with one another inherently. When it comes to principles such as male headship and servant leadership, we must be quick to celebrate and affirm what God calls good. Simply put, we cannot pick and choose what aspects or characteristics of masculinity we prefer and leave the others aside, or reject principles of biblical masculinity due to ways in which other professing Christians may abuse such doctrines. Falling prey to a false antithesis on masculinity is a surefire way to become a caricature and overcorrect into error as we swing the pendulum violently the other direction. Instead, we ought to hold to all the Bible calls good, allowing God’s Word to have its sanctifying effect upon us, de-caricaturing us by conforming us into the image of Christ.[37]

In this essay, I take aim at a false antithesis pertaining to God’s purposes and calling for men. For true masculinity to be pursued and attained, we must not fall prey to a false antithesis, which wrongly posits an either/or in place of a both/and. As D.A. Carson asks and answers:
So which shall we choose? Experience or truth? The left wing of the airplane, or the right? Love or integrity? Study or service? Evangelism or discipleship? The front wheels of a car, or the rear? Subjective knowledge or objective knowledge? Faith or obedience? Damn all false antithesis to hell, for they generate false gods, they perpetuate idols, they twist and distort our souls, they launch the church into violent pendulum swings whose oscillations succeed only in dividing brothers and sisters in Christ.[1]
We could easily and legitimately add the following questions to Carson’s fine list: Which shall real men choose? Courage or gentleness?[2] Nature or cultural customs (stereotypes)?[3] Male headship or servant leadership? It is this last false antithesis I take on in this essay. Of course, the correct answer for each of these questions is: yes. As fallen human beings, we are liable to label masculine virtues as vices or to label male vices as virtuous. And as Carson does well to draw out, the damnable lie at the heart of such false antitheses breeds violent pendulum swings that divide the body of Christ. It seems to me that in the broader evangelical world, the common cycle relating to gender and sexuality (and more specifically for this essay, masculinity) debates, is a swing toward an egalitarian or narrow complementarian view on one side of the false antithesis, which is met by an equal and opposite overcorrection by the biblical patriarchy movement,[4] leaving evangelicals with whiplash and blame toward the other side for the injury.[5] In what follows, the “camps” of egalitarianism, narrow complementarianism, broad complementarianism, and biblical patriarchy provide a conceptual framework through which I will think through the false antithesis of male headship and servant leadership. I will begin by unpacking the historical movement from egalitarianism to complementarianism to biblical patriarchy in evangelical circles, arguing that broad complementarianism is closer to biblical patriarchy than it is egalitarianism or narrow complementarianism. I will then make the case as to why I find broad complementarianism the more viable label for conservative evangelicals to rally around in the last section of this essay.
Before I interact with other positions, let me put my cards on the table. I am convinced the root error in many (if not all) reductionistic presentations of masculinity is that the good, true, and beautiful are treated like a buffet rather than a full course meal. Manhood is indeed good, true, and beautiful, and therefore ought to be revered and celebrated as a crucial component in God’s good design for human flourishing. When this is not the case, men will plague society as domineering despots or apathetic abdicators. The question is not whether men will lead, but how? True to my complementarian leanings, I contend that rather than compete with one another, male headship and servant leadership complement one another, such that apart from both, true masculinity cannot be attained in theory or practice.
I am a broad complementarian, which means that I understand there to be a covenantal headship given to men in both the church and home. Furthermore, since grace restores nature, and in no way abrogates it or cuts against the grain of God’s design, the call for men to lead has necessary implications beyond the church and home. In other words, male headship in the church and home is a reflection of created order being restored, therefore it would be unnatural for egalitarian principles to ground the broader society. God’s gracious covenantal arrangements correspond with nature, meaning they are not arbitrary but fitting with who he has made men to be and what he calls them to do. This is not to suggest that all men are the head of all women, as the covenantal headship of men over women is limited to the husband and wife relationship, and the church under its male pastors/elders. What this means is that natural law or created order as it relates to the relationship between men and women in society does not speak with the applicational specificity that Scripture does regarding male headship in the church and home.[6] So, prudential reasoning and epistemic humility are required as to how we ought to apply the principle of male headship beyond the church and home. But let me be very clear, we must affirm and honor nature/created order in our reasoning and in our application via cultural customs for human flourishing to occur.[7] With my cards now on the table, it is time to engage others.
Egalitarianism, Complementarianism, and Patriarchy
Increasingly, egalitarians are charging complementarians with being patriarchal, and the biblical patriarchy movement is charging complementarianism with being functional egalitarians. This is due in part, I believe, to the reality that complementarianism has situated itself “between” egalitarianism and patriarchalism, not because we complementarians are attempting to be the perfect mean or “third way,” but because we find tendencies in these other movements to denigrate or reject good aspects of masculinity. This may be best evidenced by how egalitarians reject male headship; they and some narrow complementarians then confuse servant leadership for male servitude, and in response the biblical patriarchy crowd scoffs at servant leadership and doubles down on male headship.[8] I find there to be evidence of the false antithesis being wrongly affirmed in each of these reflexes. I by no means think that real and perceived abuses of male headship invalidates it as a principle. I also do not cede servant leadership to those who abuse it.[9]  Glad affirmation and promotion of all that God calls men to is the aim. Using two good doctrines/principles as a proxy war is not the way forward.
Egalitarians see male headship as a product of sin, not as a good component of God’s created order. Increasingly, to reject male headship, egalitarians are forced to not only denigrate the clarity of the created order,[10] but even more brazenly, Scripture too, by speaking of God’s Word as though it is an irreducibly cultural artifact.[11] In so doing, egalitarians undermine the reality that the Bible’s calling for men to lead in the home, church, and society is a reflection of nature. In other words, male headship cannot be summarily dismissed as merely an arbitrary and now-outmoded social construct of a bygone era. To reject male headship as a principle is akin to rejecting the institution of marriage on the false grounds that it is a mere social construct, because both are revealed in Scripture to be pre-fall/sin realities, both of which are ordained by God and called “good.” Mature Christians, whose powers of discernment are trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil, will recognize the feminist-egalitarian spirit of the age we live in as evil, and not partner with the works of darkness (Heb. 5:14; Eph. 5:6–12).
On the other hand, there is a growing trend to advocate for “biblical patriarchy” or “dominionism” in the Reformed sector of the evangelical world. Now, there is more agreement between a broad complementarian such as myself and the biblical patriarchy movement than with egalitarianism and even narrow complementarians. As Kevin DeYoung rightly argues, “The biblical vision of complementarity cannot be true without something like patriarchy also being true.”[12] What he means by this is that the reality of male headship in Scripture is inherent to complementarianism. Thus, if there were a scale with egalitarianism labeled as a 1, and biblical patriarchy a 5, broad complementarianism would not be a 3 right in the middle (a narrow complementarian would be a 2–3), but a 4, closer to patriarchy than to egalitarianism. The suitability of men and women for one another as affirmed in creation and redemption is hierarchical pertaining to their roles and calling. To not affirm this, DeYoung suggests, is to choose anarchy over God’s good design.[13] He is correct. As Herman Bavinck rightly explains, “Authority and obedience, independence and subordination, equality and inequality, correspondence and variation, unity of nature and diversity of gifts and callings—all these have been present in the family from the very beginning, and in no sense came into existence as a result of sin.”[14] This logic is grounded in a right reading of Genesis 1–2 and is affirmed in Paul’s clear teaching in places like 1 Timothy 2:12–15 and 1 Corinthians 11:7–12.
In fact, this is why I think egalitarian critiques of complementarianism (not to mention the increasing number of narrow complementarian critiques of broad complementarianism), tend to conflate patriarchy with broad complementarianism.[15] These critiques are both right and wrong in their conflation. Right, because broad complementarianism readily affirms the fatherhood of our Father in heaven.
Read More
Related Posts: