The last respite
1 When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was a garden, and he and his disciples went into it.
The last desire of Jesus before his arrest was to go a place of intimacy with his disciples for respite before the storm of the world’s sin enveloped and penetrated him to his very core. Over their three years of journeying together, Jesus and his disciples had often gone to a quiet, secluded and naturally maintained small garden in an olive grove at the base of the Mount of Olives opposite the Temple Mount in the Kidron Valley[1]. He headed for there now. The small garden held many special shared memories. It was the ideal place for respite before having to face the coming storm brought on by Judas.
2 Now Judas, who was delivering him up, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples.
Judas read the desire of Jesus correctly and headed for the garden of Gethsemane to effect his betrayal with the least fuss from any onlookers. Enmeshed in his nurtured lust for money, Judas did not appear to hesitate to shatter the last intimacy of Jesus with his disciples. Possibly he did hesitate, but the power of nurtured material lust won his familiar inner war, as it does with many, and blinded him from seeing the spiritual consequences of his planned betrayal that would now come upon himself and all mankind.
Betrayal logistics
3 So Judas came to the garden, guiding a cohort of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.
This was no small group of friends Judas had collected for an incidental meeting to suit an intimate garden setting. He was accompanied by a cohort of soldiers, which he had procured from the chief priests and Pharisees along with some of their officials. John does not mention the size of this cohort or the number of officials, but it could have been a large number of armed soldiers joined with officials from the religious hierarchy[2]. It would not have taken Judas much persuasion of the chief priests and Pharisees to procure an arresting force from them. Judas was determined to gain a financial reward for delivering up Jesus to his religious opponents. He had seen Jesus resist capture by hostile crowds and Temple Guards before and needed to minimise, if not eliminate, the possibility of his escape.
Judas’ motivation for a successful betrayal dovetailed with the motivation of the chief priests and Pharisees to capture Jesus, which had already been seen to exceed by far the motivation of Judas. He was after money. They were after a life to kill and their religious authority restored. A cohort would make the capture certain. Their sudden appearance in the garden would have terrified some, if not all, of the disciples. The equipment they carried would have signalled instantly that this was an aggressive group intent on capturing Jesus and dispensing of anyone, who sought to resist them.
The Arrest
Response of Jesus
4 Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?”
Accountability for actions
Clearly, Jesus knew who the religious leaders wanted, and not just because of his divine foreknowledge, even though John comments on this as the framework for his challenging question, viz., “knowing all that was going to happen to him”… The composition of the assembled individuals made it obvious who this mob were after, due to their previous attempts to incriminate, arrest, then execute Jesus, e.g., 10:31-33. They had already dispensed with John the Baptist in this manner.
The purpose of Jesus challenging them with a direct question before they could control him and his disciples was to have them own full accountability for what they were about to do.
5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied.
“I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) 6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.
John made no attempt to record why these men trained in warfare drew back physically and fell to the ground. Instead, he maintained his focus on the capture upon the accountability of the captors, and, parenthetically, on the accountability of Judas among the captors.
John’s record of the arresting party falling to the ground upon the first response of Jesus to their search makes it obvious that John was fully aware of the impact Jesus’ declaration of his identity had on them. Significantly, John then recorded the second time Jesus asked same question about the identity of the person they were seeking.
7 Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?” “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said.
Jesus answered, “I told you[3] that I am he.”
Jesus responded assertively using a word that appears repeatedly in the gospels in the past tense to illustrate the sovereign authority of Jesus’ words that commanded nature, raised the dead, forgave sins and instructed the disciples. It was this authority in his words that had forced them to the ground. Jesus could use this authority at any time in their attempted capture and trial. He may have added additional authority in the tone of this second response, as if to say, “You know full well who I am by the power of my presence”. Physical force and swords could not overcome that power. (If I were present as one of the captors, I would have been thinking, “I don’t want to try this again. What chance would I have in an arm-to-arm attempt to capture this man with miraculous power?”)
Just then, Jesus added his other purpose for having his identity clearly recognised by the Roman cohort.
Protection of his disciples
If you are looking for me, then let these men go.”
John could not resist adding an editorial comment gleaned from his previous journeying alongside of Jesus:
9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me.”[4]
John was present when Jesus miraculously fed a crowd of 5,000 on a Galilean mountainside and used the miracle to identify himself as the true bread of God that had come down from heaven to do the will of the Father who had sent him. Jesus explained on that occasion,
… this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” (6:39-40)
It is important to note that this promise was not given to the person who merely glances at Jesus but only to the one who gives him concentrated and considered assessment that results in spiritual perception capable of seeing the Father dwelling in him as the Son, e.g., the explanation by Jesus:
“Whoever sees me sees[5] the One who sent me” (12:45)
This seeing goes beyond physical seeing to spiritual insight. In contrast, unbelief results in glancing and blindness even in the face of clear evidence. We either see or remain blind. Jesus repeatedly called the Pharisees blind (e.g., Matthew 23: blind guides, blind fools, blind men, blind Pharisee).
Even though the scriptures they searched presented clearly the path to eternal life through the coming Saviour. They never saw it. So close, yet so far from it. Their will would not allow any transfer of popularity or power to Jesus.
You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. (5:39)
Unyielding pride controlled their will and cancelled insight into the scriptures they studied. Eternal life was lost. It continues to be lost in the same way today.
Good intention – Bad timing
9 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)
10 Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”
Simon Peter must be admired for taking action to protect Jesus. He was someone who did not shrink from his responsibilities and was quick to take action. However, in this situation he did not choose to tackle a trained warrior with his own amateur swordsmanship, but instead he chose to swipe impulsively at a servant. I doubt that Peter was intending to demonstrate his capability to control a sword stroke with the finely tuned accuracy needed to slice off an ear. The response of Jesus certainly showed his displeasure with another one of Peter’s inappropriate impulsive actions – meaning well, but misplaced. For Jesus, the well-intended action of Peter was a distraction from his pressing need to process the level of commitment necessary for him to remain obedient to his Father’s desire for him to sacrifice his life for the sins of the world. He went to the garden to bolster his commitment.
Consequently, Jesus responded forcefully with a command followed by a rhetorical question to focus Peter on the spiritual context for what was happening:
“Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”
Simon Peter had not yet accepted the cup of sacrificial death laid on Jesus. He was out of step with Jesus who had. We similarly jump rapidly to any available path of diversion from a current trial or a command of Jesus, in order to reject the cup of salvation being handed to us. This cup comes in the form of a cross laid upon our whole inner being. Pride in our image must surrender all control. We must die for spiritual life to occur. Paul expressed his sacrificial spiritual death in this way,
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)
The cross of Jesus becomes the battleground of our pride and doorway to eternal life that can begin now when we invite and trust the living Spirit of Jesus to come and live within us to become fully unified with our spirit.
Arrest accomplished
12 Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him 13 and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. 14 Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jewish leaders that it would be good if one man died for the people. (11:49-50)
So from that day on they plotted to take his life. (11:53)
They gathered evidence. They made plans and set traps. The day had come. Judas provided the gateway to Jesus for the religious leaders.
Peter’s failed following
15 Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus.
Even though Jesus had rebuked Peter for attempting to prevent his arrest, Peter’s love for Jesus kept him nearby ready to rescue him once he had finished drinking the cup given to him by the Father. Another disciple made that possible in this situation. They are not identified by John except for their personal association with the high priest.
Because this disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard, 16 but Peter had to wait outside at the door.
Peter followed into potential danger with the opportunity given to him to enter the high priest’s courtyard, because of his love of Jesus and commitment to his welfare. He would still have had ringing in his ears his promise of devotion to Jesus expressed in terms of life and death, coupled with the immediate response given by Jesus negating his boast of blind devotion, viz.,
Peter asked, “Lord, why can’t I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you.” Then Jesus answered, “Will you really lay down your life for me? Very truly I tell you, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times!
Peter still had a point to prove. He would follow Jesus to the point of laying down his life for him. The identity of the other disciple enabling Peter to enter the hostile environment of the high priest is not recorded by John, other than to indicate that he paved the way for Peter by using his existing amenable relationship with the high priest. It may have been John himself. Peter did not have to wait long to be tested on his sincere boast.
Peter test 1
The other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the servant girl on duty there and brought Peter in.
The servant girl was the gate warden of the high priest’s property on shift duty at the time.
It was her task to ensure that persons seeking entry to the property had a valid relationship with the owner and posed no threat. John vouched for Peter. The gate warden fulfilled her role by running a check.
17 “You aren’t one of this man’s disciples too, are you?” she asked Peter.
He replied, “I am not.”
Peter clearly was not willing to be identified with Jesus at this stage but instead positioned himself among the other employees of the high priest to warm himself by their fire. Did he think that being identified with Jesus would automatically cause the gate keeper to ban his entry? Was he building up courage to be identified with Jesus, or waiting for the most appropriate timing to rescue him? Was the delay in declaring his relationship with Jesus for his benefit, or for Jesus? Either way, if Peter stayed put, the challenge of his association with Jesus would come again. History is full of those who have stayed put after considering the identity of Jesus and remained trapped in the compromise of denial just like Peter.
Testing of Jesus
19 Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
Jesus stood his ground and did not hide his identity. He had nothing to hide. He immediately placed their assessment of him into the public arena.
20 “I have spoken openly[6] to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. 21 Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Behold, they know what I said!”
The Pharisees now had to face the public’s assessment of Jesus and not seek to challenge his claims. Jesus had given them an easy task, because he had spoken openly, frankly, repetitively and boldly in the sacred worship centres of the Jews throughout Israel (Matthew 4:23, 9:35, Luke 4:15, 44). There was a multitude and wide variety of people, who the high priest could interview to assess the intentions of Jesus he had consistently demonstrated in public over 3 years.
The reaction of one of the officials was predictable, and most likely representative of the rest.
When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby slapped him in the face. “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” he demanded.[7]
Jesus would not let this reaction stand without challenging the motive behind it. He set communicating the truth, and no other motive, to be the ground rule for any interaction.
22 “If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?”
Truth about our personal motives and actions is the only basis upon which anyone can approach Jesus to know him in person, instead of choosing to limit him within our desired social image, or our knowledge of religions, philosophy, history, and theology, none of which can give us eternal life.
It seems that the official was left speechless by the challenge by Jesus, or John was not interested in recording his response. Annas passed Jesus over to Caiaphas whose agenda was that it was better for one man to die for all the people to remove the threat of the Romans seizing control of the Temple from the Pharisees and Sadducees.
24 Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.
Peter tests 2 and 3
Simon Peter remained unaware of the sustained bold stance Jesus was holding before the Pharisees and Sanhedrin while he warmed himself incognito by a fire. He was close, but not following close enough to witness any treatment of Jesus by his captors. Peter had shifted his focus from following Jesus to responding to his personal needs for physical and social comfort. When we choose such a mind-set and relationship environment, temptations arise with ease in a steady flow. Peter was hit with two more in rapid succession.
25 Meanwhile, Simon Peter was still standing there warming himself. So they asked him, “You aren’t one of his disciples too, are you?”
The question came with emphasis seeking to pinpoint Peter’s identity relative to Jesus.
He (Peter)[8] denied it, saying, “I am not.”
His response was not satisfactory to the group gathered around the fire and instantly surfaced a more damning exposure of Peter’s relationship with Jesus.
26 One of the high priest’s servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, challenged him, “Didn’t I see you with him in the garden?” 27 Again Peter denied it, and at that moment a rooster began to crow.
The second question fired at Peter had less chance of being guesswork. The relative of the high priest’s servant, who Peter had attacked with his sword, would have felt strongly protective of Peter’s victim and angered by his actions. Other workers in the group would have known their coworker investigating Peter was a relative of the wounded servant. Peter could not let the question stand and ferment in the minds of the other household servants gathered around the fire.
His denial was swift and emphatic. So also was the gap between his denial and the crowing of a rooster. To communicate the immediacy of this crowing after the denial, John used the adverb εὐθέως (eutheos)that occurs 87 times in the Greek New Testament to communicate the immediacy of the arrival of the kingdom of God in all its expressions. The extensive use of the adverb εὐθύς (euthus) signals the swift execution of God’s purposes that call for an equally swift human response. For example, its use by Mark 12 times gives his account of the life of Jesus a sense of action-packed tempo of the inbreaking of God’s kingdom to demonstrate that where the King Jesus is present, no delay in obedience is acceptable and no barrier to him can last. The announcement of the arrival of the kingdom at hand (i.e., on the doorstep of our life ready to enter), baptism, temptation, exorcism and healing unfold “immediately”. The instant crowing of the rooster immediately exposed Peter to himself.
John did not record Peter’s next action but instead switched focus to Jesus being delivered up by the high priest to the palace of the Roman governor to be executed.
The trial of Jesus
28 Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the praetorium[9], because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.
The hypocrisy of their loveless religion was now in full bloom. While in the act of delivering up Jesus for execution, although having not proven him guilty of any sin, these religious leaders would not enter the pagan palace, because they wanted to be ceremonially clean to eat the Passover. What a blind conflict of morals! – viz., they were choosing to give priority to their religious rules and practices above giving love. They were therefore morally corrupt examples of the kingdom of God, which operates by the power of love. More precisely, their ego insecurity fearing loss of control of their religious position was choosing to discard love, in order to justify manipulation of the Governor to commit their unjustifiable murder.
Presentation to Pilate
29 So Pilate came out to them and asked, “What charges are you bringing against this man?”
They dodged the question and pronounced their leading strategy to corner Pilate into executing Jesus.
“If he were not a criminal,” they replied, “we would not have handed him over to you.”
In other words, “We have already assessed Jesus to be a criminal. We are presenting him to you as the next step in your law process.” Pilate was not interested becoming embroiled in trivial matters, possibly because his title of “Prefect” implies that his usual duties had been primarily military, although now his duties as Governor extended beyond military matters. The Romans allowed a degree of local control by the countries they had conquered. Even though the Sanhedrin formally shared civil and religious power with him, they would have known that he had power in the Roman hierarchy to inflict capital punishment.[10] Pilate’s response, however, suggests that his attitude was that these Jewish lawgivers steeped in their own law could surely administer a criminal matter using their shared control.
30 Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.”
Now was the time for the Pharisees and Sadducees to reveal their clear intentions. They declared their own legal conclusion about Jesus to be outside of their judicial authority under Roman occupation. In other words, they had already tried him to their satisfaction and concluded that his crimes required execution.
“But we have no right to execute anyone,” they objected.
John adds an editorial comment to his record of this life and death event. It was no accident that had taken Jesus by surprise and was out of his control.
31 This took place to fulfill what Jesus had said about the kind of death he was going to die.
What had John heard Jesus say previously about his death?
John had been party to the collective teaching of the disciples by Jesus concerning his and their futures, viz., that he would one day be killed by his opposition, and that every future disciple wanting to declare his gospel would have to embrace the same potential end. For example,
When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life.” (Matthew 17:22-23)
“We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!” (Matthew 20:18-19)
They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. (John 16:2)
Luke likewise records the clear declaration of Jesus that his end would be execution by the religious authorities,
And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.” (Luke 9:22)
Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. 24 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it.” (Luke 9:23-24)
Interrogation by Pilate
33 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
Pilate began his investigation of the criminal with a closed question on their legal status that required either a positive or negative answer. He wanted to pin point where Jesus fitted in Jewish society that would cause those with legal authority to judge and conclude that this man was a criminal. Had he been misrepresenting himself politically as being their king? Jesus treated Pilate’s question in the same manner by which he had treated the captors in the garden. He replied with an open question that required Pilate to give his own opinion of his identity. Why would Pilate raise the issue of regal status at the start of their encounter? Had he heard Jesus referenced by citizens greeting him as king entering Jerusalem riding on a donkey (12:12-15), or was he simply checking that he was not overstepping his authority as a Roman governor by interrogating and judging a king.
34 “Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”
Pilate responded by dismissing any personal ownership of the legal investigation of Jesus. He took control of the interaction by asking an open question that would require Jesus to declare the specifics of what he had done to cause his national leaders to bind him as a criminal and seek to engage the authority of the governor to execute him.
35 “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”
Jesus did not answer the question but instead lifted any political consequence off Pilate for engaging with him. Instead of describing his actions as those of a national king, he described the kingdom that he ruled in non-political terms. He posed no military threat to Pilate.
36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest[11] by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
Pilate immediately grabbed the implication that Jesus must be a king, if he had a kingdom in some form of existence other than in this world, and servants who would fight to prevent his betrayal.
37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.
His eager response seemed to indicate that he felt that his original question about the regal identity of Jesus had at last been answered through his questioning. Jesus, however, did not describe his rule in the political terms that Pilate could understand and utilize with the Jews using the Roman practice of shared administration of its conquered nation. Pilate needed not to feel threatened by him as a king. Jesus described his birth as having a non-political specific purpose, which he lived to fulfill.
Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
He had entered this world by birth, precisely in order to proclaim and define truth for those people who were committed to finding and protecting truth. The response of Pilate was typical of the mass ignorance of mankind that has spawned a multitude of national and personal, lifeless, religious definitions of truth, which have often degenerated into disillusioned cynicism in many, then and now.
38 “What is truth?” retorted Pilate.
Pilate seemed to respond with flippant confidence. He did not wait for an answer from Jesus so confident was he that there was no absolute answer to his rhetorical question of the ages.
With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him”.
Pilate was emphatic. He found no alleged legal crime committed by Jesus that justified any penalty, and considered him to be the king of the Jews.[12] Accordingly, he presented the Jewish accusers with an option to enable the release of Jesus with Roman approval, even though they had classified him to be a criminal according to their law.
39 But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release ‘the king of the Jews’?”
40 They shouted back, “No, not him! Give us Barabbas!” Now Barabbas had taken part in an uprising.
By vehemently rejecting Jesus for release, and choosing a revolutionary instead, the Jewish leaders took on the full culpability for the later execution of Jesus. This would unquestionably be a crime of the Jews against God and not a crime of Pilate.
A deep ravine that ran down the Eastern side of the Temple Mount separating it from the Mount of Olives. It enabled winter rains to clear out sediment build up from the rest of the year. Hence, “Kidron” derives from a root meaning of “turbidity” or “darkness”. The garden was called Gethsemane (Hebrew: “oil presses”) and would have been a source of freshly picked olives for the production of anointing oil to use in Temple rituals. ↩︎
The Roman Legion of 1,000 seasoned soldiers was comprised of various specialised subdivisions as cohorts that could number up to six hundred men created to execute a specialty in warfare and later occupation of a defeated enemy’s territory. ↩︎
εἶπεν (eipen) ↩︎
Note: This is the eternal will of God for everyone for all time, who places their trust in Jesus. No life surrendered to Jesus today in considered trust, regardless of their background, will be lost for eternity. ↩︎
Our word “theory” is based upon the word Jesus uses for “see”. Every serious academic spends considerable time observing before creating a theory to explain the causation of phenomena he is seeking to understand. ↩︎
Παρρησία (parrésia) meaning openly, publicly, confidently, boldly. ↩︎
The Mosaic Law required a verdict before corporal punishment within Temple precincts (Deuteronomy 25:1-2). This open palm blow therefore violated Jewish legal protocol, underscoring the illegality of the nighttime trial. ↩︎
John highlights Peter denying the implication of the question by inserting ἐκεῖνος, used as a grammatical spotlight to highlight “that man” denying it. ↩︎
The area ahead of a military camp that was used for drills and exercise was occupied by the large structures called praetoria housing the commander’s officers. Each praetorium was designed with two open courts to corresponded to the atrium and peristyle of the Roman house and were surrounded by many arches and vertical columns. The Roman officers could use their praetorium to conduct official business associated with the military unit, such as processing fees and taxes. ↩︎
They would also have been aware that Pilate may have felt less confident in rejecting their request for the execution of Jesus, because he could not immediately refer the matter for assessment to his superior, the Legate of Syria, Lucius Aelius Lamia, who was currently absent from the region. Interestingly, Lucius remained away from the region for the full term of Pilate’s governorship, which probably indicated his confidence in Pilates demonstrated ability to transition from prefect to governor. ↩︎
Παραδίδωμι (paradidómi) from para and didomi meaning to give over, yield up or betray ↩︎
αἰτία (aitia) meaning cause, reason, provable or alleged crime ↩︎