I Am He
Jesus was betrayed and arrested, but He was never overcome. Jesus would drink the cup the Father had prepared for Him, yet would remain the main character throughout.
The “disciple whom Jesus loved,” known as John, either John ben Zebedee (the Apostle), or John the Elder, wrote his recollections of his experiences with Jesus so that those who hear or read would believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and would find eternal life in His name (cf. John 20:31).
Jesus had prepared for this moment by dining with His disciples, speaking with them at length, and praying to the Father (John 13:1-17:26). In so doing He proved far less concerned about Himself and much more regarding His disciples lest they make very foolish decisions during the pivotal forty-eight-hour period which would change the world forever. Having encouraged them and entrusted them to His Father in prayer, He would now go out across the Kidron with His disciples to a garden (John 18:1).
The “garden” was no doubt the Garden of Gethsemane; John spoke of how Jesus had met there frequently with His disciples, and thus Judas Iscariot knew of the place as well (John 18:2). And so Judas arrived with some of the officers of the chief priests and Pharisees and a speiran of soldiers, the Greek technical term for a Roman cohort of soldiers (John 18:3). A cohort was normally six hundred men. Many have scoffed at the prospect of bringing six hundred men to bear in this situation and even wonder how they could all fit in the space. At the same time, it would not be entirely foolish to bring an overwhelming show of force to strike fear in Jesus and His disciples and therefore to discourage any attempt at starting a fight or making a scene.
Jesus was quite aware of all which was about to take place. He therefore deliberately asked the crowd who they were looking for, and they replied they sought Jesus the Nazarene (John 18:4-5a). He spoke and told them, “I am He” (John 18:5b). Upon doing so, the soldiers and others retreated and fell to the ground (John 18:6)!
The scene should strike us as humorous: this great show of force has come forth, and yet they are immediately knocked down by the mere word of Jesus. But perhaps it was no “mere” word: Scripture provides abundant witness to people falling down whenever they are confronted by a divine appearance, whether it be of an angel or the pre-incarnate Son of God (e.g. Judges 13:20, Ezekiel 1:28). Jesus is God in the flesh, and therefore His voice might have been far more profoundly heard than we can imagine, and all these forces falling down provide ironic witness to Jesus’ divinity and standing.
John likely also deliberately associated the scene in the garden with man’s original experience in the Garden of Eden (cf. Genesis 2:1-3:22). As God would go about in the midst of the Garden of Eden, so Jesus would meet with His disciples in the garden (Genesis 3:8, John 18:2). As God summoned Adam, so the soldiers summoned Jesus (Genesis 3:9, John 18:4). Therefore, as man suffered from the curse and was expelled from the Garden of Eden, so Jesus would be led out of the garden and would suffer for the sins of mankind to redeem them from the curse (Genesis 3:14-21, John 18:1-19:30).
Jesus and the soldiers would repeat themselves again, and Jesus then made provision for His disciples: if they sought Jesus, then they should let the others go (John 18:7-8). John confirmed Jesus did so in order to fulfill His promise of not losing any of His disciples (John 18:9; cf. John 17:12).
Simon Peter then pulled out a sword and cut off the ear of Malchus, a slave of the high priest (John 18:10). Jesus chastised Peter, telling him to return the sword to the sheath, since Jesus would drink the cup the Father gave to Him (John 18:11). Then Jesus was tied up and arrested (John 18:12).
In this way John narrated how Jesus was betrayed and arrested in the garden (John 18:1-12). Whereas Judas would betray Jesus with a kiss according to the Synoptic Gospels, Judas in John simply led the soldiers to the garden and otherwise remained a spectator (Mark 14:43-45, John 18:1-8). Only in John is the theophany scene described (John 18:4-8). We should not imagine John denied Judas’ betrayal by a kiss; if anyone seemed to want to make much of Judas’ treachery, it would be John the Evangelist (cf. John 12:4-6)! Instead, John wanted to keep the focus on Jesus as Lord, fully in charge even of the circumstances under which He would be arrested. Likewise, only in John do we learn of Malchus’ name, although John did not speak of Jesus healing the servant (John 18:11-12). Since we believe John to be the “another disciple” present in John 18:15-24, and therefore one known to the high priest’s family, it would make sense for John to have some personal experience with Malchus. Perhaps Malchus never forgot what Jesus had done in this circumstance and later became a disciple of Jesus, and thus his name has been preserved in the Gospel record.
Jesus’ rebuke of Peter deserves our strong consideration. John spoke of the moment in terms of Jesus being willing to suffer what the Father had determined was necessary (John 18:12), and such was certainly a significant part of the motivation. But Jesus’ words in Matthew should also ring in our ears: Peter should put the sword away because those who live by the sword also die by it (Matthew 26:52). Jesus’ reign would not be inaugurated with the blood of His enemies through institutional violence like every other kingdom; it would be inaugurated through His own blood shed for others. There can be no justification or rationalization of violence in the name of Jesus; in the garden at this very moment, Jesus repudiated all such violence as the ways of the world which would soon put Jesus on the cross. Christians should find themselves utterly transformed by what God has thus accomplished in Jesus and should resist responding to evil with evil but instead doing good to all and to love their enemies (cf. Luke 6:31-37, Romans 12:19-21).
Having been arrested, Jesus was led to Annas, father-in-law of Caiaphas, high priest of Israel at the time (John 18:13-14). This is consistent with the evidence we have regarding the high priesthood at this time. While it was God’s purposes for the high priest to serve for life, the Romans would install and depose high priests according to their desires. Annas was high priest from 6-15; despite being deposed in 15, he remained highly influential because his sons and son-in-law would serve as high priests at various times after him (cf. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1). Joseph Caiaphas, Annas’ son-in-law, served as high priest from 18-36; John reminded us how Caiaphas had spoken in John 11:49-50 how it would be better for Jesus to die for the people.
John would then proceed to narrate simultaneous action throughout John 18:15-27: the scene inside Annas’ house, in which Annas questioned Jesus, and the scene outside, in which Peter, “another disciple” (whom we believe is John the Evangelist), and some of the soldiers and slaves of the chief priests outside.
Inside the house, Jesus was questioned about His disciples and teaching (John 18:19). Jesus, seeking to protect His disciples, deferred to all the times He had spoken publicly and thus invited questioning those who had heard Him (John 18:20-21). He was struck by one of the officers of the high priest as if He had spoken insolently; Jesus demanded to know what He had said which was wrong and merited the abuse and insult (John 18:22-23). We learn nothing about what Annas felt about the whole thing, but we do know he would send Jesus on to Caiaphas the high priest (John 18:24).
While all this is happening, Peter and “another disciple,” John the Evangelist most likely, were just outside: they had followed the motley crew which had arrested Jesus to the house of Annas (John 18:15). John was acquainted with Annas, and so was able to enter Annas’ courtyard (John 18:15). Peter did not have that kind of privilege, so John went out and spoke to the slave girl at the door to let Peter in (John 18:16). The slave girl asked Peter if he was a disciple of Jesus, but Peter denied it (John 18:17).
It can be cold at night in Jerusalem in March/April, and so a good number of those in the courtyard were standing around a charcoal fire: slaves of the high priest, guards, including some of those who had arrested Jesus, and Peter and John join them (John 18:18). Some of them seemed to recognize Peter and asked him if he were one of Jesus’ disciples, and he denied it (John 18:25). Then one of the slaves of the high priest, a relative of Malchus no less, asked him if he had seen him in the garden with Jesus; Peter denied it again, and a rooster crowed (John 18:26-27).
John’s narration of Peter’s denials remains dramatic, vivid in its details with far less commentary than one might have expected. We should imagine the level of questioning and the drama to intensify as the events unfolded. The slave girl most likely meant nothing accusatory by her question; she probably knew John had association with Jesus, and she was therefore likely asking if Peter did too. Peter was in almost no danger whatsoever had he told the slave girl the truth. In this way, his denial of Jesus before the slave girl proved most discordant, but likely gives us an insight into Peter’s mindset at the moment. He is somewhere he should not be, and he is aware of the danger in which he finds himself. And yet he cannot help himself; he wants to see what is going on. By denying Jesus to a slave girl of little consequence, he is exposing his mindset and heart at the moment.
The charcoal fire scene is almost comical: all kinds of people who were in the garden, once opposed to one another, now sharing the same space, trying to keep warm. It makes sense for the guards and the slaves of the high priest to be there. John might be taking a risk by being there, but we can assume he feels sufficiently safe on account of his connections with Annas; but Peter has no reason whatsoever to be there, and all the more so on account of his stunt with Malchus (John 18:11-12).
And so we do well to understand the two questions as ever more intense accusations. “They” were not looking for information; “they” were looking to confirm something of which they were already confident. We can be quite sure Malchus’ relative would have remembered what Peter looked like, and even if Malchus were healed, there would have been little love or forgiveness for Peter.
Peter had put himself in an impossible position: if he did confess he was a disciple of Jesus in John 18:25-26, the guards would have no doubt grabbed him, led him in to Annas’ house, and Peter would have been crucified along with Jesus.
And so, in a twisted way, the will of God was accomplished and satisfied by Peter’s fear and impulse toward self-preservation in denying Jesus at the charcoal fire. It would not have been necessary had Peter not followed Jesus into Annas’ courtyard. Peter put himself into an impossible position and had to make an impossible choice. In so doing he denied Jesus his Lord and Messiah; he knew what that meant, as did Jesus.
Some want to make much of how Jesus protected Peter and His disciples through all of this; others want to make much of Peter’s reckless impetuousness. What should impress us regarding this situation is the danger of being in places we should not be. None of this would have been an issue had Peter run away like the rest of the disciples: Jesus had made provision for this very thing, it was a “hot” situation and the male disciples were in quite extreme danger; God was providing protection by the very means of running away and taking shelter until all had been accomplished. Peter may have felt as if he was motivated by his faith to find out what would happen to Jesus, but in the end, he did not act according to faith; if he really had trusted Jesus, he would have run away as well. For this kind of reason Jesus counseled Christians to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves in Matthew 10:16 precisely because He sent His disciples out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, and we should not presume we are always so strong in faith as to be willing to put ourselves in just any and every situation. We, also, have some places in which we should not be found. If we throw ourselves headlong into that kind of danger, we should not be surprised to discover we are choosing between betrayal or great, and perhaps even unnecessary, suffering.
John normally proved eager to make the connections to the fulfillment of all Jesus had spoken; yet John did not mention how Jesus had prophesied Peter’s denials in John 13:38, or how Jesus looked over at Peter when Peter had denied him and Peter ran off in tears, as Luke did in Luke 22:61-62. But John did not have to do any of these things, because such witness had already been offered.
Instead, John would continue on with the story of what would happen to Jesus in John 18:27 and following. John himself would not be seen again in the narrative until Jesus was hanging on the cross in John 19:26; Peter will only return to the scene after Mary Magdalene told him the tomb was empty in John 20:1-2. But these events would not be forgotten. As Peter would deny Jesus before a charcoal fire; Jesus would gently restore him before a charcoal fire (John 18:18, 21:9).
Nevertheless, John would not want us to be distracted at this moment in Jesus’ story. Jesus remained the main character throughout: He would suffer betrayal and arrest, but would be handed over on His own terms, having demonstrated who He was and what He was about. He would suffer indignities from the religious authorities, yet unjustly; the irony would remain thick and pervasive throughout. Jesus would now be under the power of the religious authorities and the Romans, but would remain the Son of God and Lord throughout, fully drinking the cup God had prepared for Him. May we put our trust in Jesus as Lord and find eternal life in Him!
Ethan R. Longhenry
The post I Am He appeared first on de Verbo vitae.
