At or near the western slope of the Mount of Olives, the garden, unnamed and assumed to be Gethsemane, was approximately one and a quarter-mile from the city of Jerusalem. It was an easy and casual evening stroll. We find directions to it in John 18:1 and 2. You had to cross the brook Cedron to get to it. Whether or not there was a bridge in that time is for others to speculate. My focus is not so much on the physical details of an evening sojourn as it is on the popularity of the destination.
Jesus liked the place. He often took his disciples. Perhaps it was a popular place that many people enjoyed even if it was an undeveloped area. That a Rabbi with at least twelve disciples in tow frequented the area suggests that it was a good place to sit and teach. During warm weather, it may have been a popular choice for sleeping out. It was known that Jesus often went there but – known by exactly who is a matter for consideration. Obviously, the disciples knew and that, as is stated in verse two, included Judas Iscariot. To give the matter full consideration, does wording indicate that the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees did not know where Jesus often went with his disciples? Does it infer that the Sanhedrin did not resort to or teach in such settings?
It is certain that Jesus and his disciples had secured, if not rented, the upper room for the meal. That is not to say they had secured lodging. However, I think it only presumed that the last supper was eaten in Jerusalem. One fact about it is sure, that is to say, that it was recorded. That fact is that the last supper was eaten before the Passover commenced. John 13:1 sets the stage in this manner, “Now before the feast of the Passover.” That, in itself, suggests that it was not necessary to be in the city of Jerusalem.
Here are some things to consider. It is a fact that the precise location of the garden that Jesus was arrested in is not known today. It is a fact that modern experts cannot identify the exact location of the upper room in which Jesus ate his final meal with his disciples. The commonly traveled roads, trails, and pathways of old along the ridge that is known as the Mount of Olives cannot now be determined. While it is practical for large groups to walk along open, easily accessible, and commonly used trails, some of those trails, in time, may have been overgrown.
Bethany is located on the southeastern slope of the Mount of Olives, less than two miles from Jerusalem. It would have been nothing at all, if Jesus ate his last meal at Bethany, for he and his disciples to follow a trail around to the western slope of the ridge where the garden may have been located. It would have been a more logical route than through trees and thickets or through the cemetery. Lazarus and his family, friends of Jesus, lived in Bethany. When Lazarus died, no doubt, he was buried in the cemetery on the Mount of Olives. Jesus was quite familiar with the area. Who's to say that the Lazarus estate did not have an upper room?
Had it actually been during the Passover and not before the Passover, Jesus would have been required to be in Jerusalem. The people who wanted to detain and deal with Jesus would have had a better handle on his location. The fact that it was before the Passover better explains their need for someone like Judas to help them locate Jesus. Timing was another issue for their course of action as Jesus was very public during daylight hours. During the day, Jesus was often found surrounded by great crowds as he addressed the public. It is my suggestion here that Jesus went between Bethany and Jerusalem in the days before the feast for the purpose of openly speaking in public. If we go all the way back to John 12:1, we see that Jesus returned to Bethany six days before the beginning of the Passover. It was on the next day, five days before the Passover, that Jesus went to Jerusalem on a donkey.
Everyone knew that Jesus was staying with Lazarus. The crowd went from Jerusalem to see him in Bethany. That crowd went with him to Jerusalem crying “Hosanna.” It is no stretch to think that the Sanhedrin also knew he was staying in Bethany – but Bethany was not their jurisdiction. It is easy to determine, from chapter twelve, the extent to which they sought Jesus. They wanted him in the worst way. They were so vexed by him that they even sought to kill Lazarus who had, not that long ago, already been dead. It was in part due to the raising of Lazarus that many of the Sanhedrin's constituents had switched sides. Chief priests, Pharisees, and doctors of the law were believing and following Jesus. The Sanhedrin was losing the game and they were at the point of desperation.
It was actually from the lower ranks, the chief priests and the Pharisees, that Judas received his band of “men and officers,” suggesting the epicenter of distress was located more among the ranks who were losing their members. That further suggests that, while there was a more or less general consensus in regard to Jesus, desperate action was specific and localized rather than general.
Jesus arrived at Bethany on a Monday, six days before the beginning of the Passover which, as I understand it, began and ended on a Sabbath. It was on a Tuesday that Jesus made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. His arrest, therefore, took place between the triumphal entry on Tuesday and the evening following the last supper, which was still before the Passover. In other words, the arrest happened between Wednesday and Friday. If Jesus was tried and crucified before the Passover, his arrest occurred on the evening of Wednesday or Thursday. Was Jesus crucified before or during the Passover? According to the gospels, there was a custom of Pilate to commute a prisoner's sentence before the Holy feast. However, which Saturday in the week-long feast was the actual Passover?
Both Sabbaths in the week-long feast were holy days. I am aware that most studied scholars address the point of Jesus' crucifixion in a straightforward manner with all details progressing in an immediate manner. Thus, in their view, Jesus was arrested on Thursday night and crucified on the day of preparation, Friday. While I am certainly no bona fide scholar, my mind is open to expanded possibilities. It could well be that Pilate released a prisoner toward the end of the week if at all. There is disagreement on the issue of Pilate's 'custom.' There is a possibility, in my thinking, that Jesus was detained through the feast week and crucified toward the end of it by way of Rome rubbing the noses of the Jews in their occupation. However, for the present, I will treat the arrest and crucifixion as occurring before the first day of the feast week.
John, to me, is the most interesting of the four gospels. The life of Christ was a life that fulfilled old testament prophecies. It was a life that paralleled people and events from the old testament. As an example, one such parallel was between John the Baptist and Elijah the prophet. The parallel was so close that the two men's physical appearance and mannerisms were identical. There is, also, somewhat of a parallel between the arrest of Jesus and the arrest of Elijah. There is enough power evident in the incident that it knocked the men over. Verses four through nine provide the account of Jesus' arrest. Jesus demonstrates his power and asks that his disciples be set free.
There is no Judas kiss in John's account of the arrest. On the contrary, it is more like Judas is punched with an invisible fist. All the men are slapped down. Torches and weapons fall to the side. As they stand and collect themselves, smarting from, embarrassed by, and made afraid by the invisible power of the man before them, Jesus asks for safe passage for his disciples. According to verse nine, that is another parallel between the prophecies of the old testament and the facts of Jesus' life and ministry. I get the image of Jesus as confident, his disciples standing behind him. Peter, on the other hand, was not so confident. He took advantage of the confusion to draw a sword and attack a member of the band.
That person, Malchus, was a servant of the High Priest, Caiaphas – obviously a well-known person. There was also a relative of Malchus present among the men. He later accused Peter publicly. Malchus was, perhaps, not one of the officers but was in easy striking distance. What was Peter up to anyway? There was a group of armed men there to arrest his master. Peter rushed into the group. It shows that Peter was not a man used to the exercise of swordplay. He swung wild and hit the man's ear. It was neither precise nor lethal. It was a panic play. He may have stepped back to assess the situation and there may have been enough room for Jesus to step between Peter and the band of armed men. There was no immediate armed response to Peter's action. It had taken everyone by surprise. While it is said there were officers present, I suspect they were nothing like Roman soldiers who would have given an immediate armed response. Jesus talked them all down.
Even as the band and the captain and the officers of the Jews bound Jesus and led him away to Caiaphas, I get the impression that they did so respectfully. Was that because he had knocked them down with an invisible power or was it because Jesus held a place high in their estimation? It seems like the arrest, not of some stray wannabe but, of a person of high rank. Their handling of the arrest might be seen as similar to the same men having to arrest Caiaphas or one of the other higher-ups. Does the texture of this arrest suggest that Jesus was a bona fide Rabbi? I think so.
So who actually gave the order to arrest Jesus? Were there behind-the-scenes machinations at work? Why was it exactly that Jesus was led first to Annas rather than to the High Priest? Other accounts of the arrest give the impression of the armed band rushing in and grabbing people willy-nilly insofar as an innocent bystander was snatched in the raid and only escaped by the skin of his teeth or the linen of his covering, as it were. This account in John, however, seems tame in comparison, planned and by the numbers. I get the sense that it was intended to be quiet and secretive. Was it a gift from Annas to his son Caiaphas? Why is it suggested in this account that it was the son who got it started but it was the father who took action?
https://www.ritmeyer.com/2012/08/28/the-palace-of-annas-the-high-priest/ will provide more thoughts on this matter.
Two disciples follow Jesus to the house of Annas. One was Peter but the second is not named in the John account. Many, however, believe that the second disciple was the young John, the one who leaned against Jesus during the last supper. I take the following from Wikipedia: Generally listed as the youngest apostle, he was the son of Zebedee and Salome or Joanna. His brother was James, who was another of the Twelve Apostles. For some interesting thoughts on how John may have been known among the priests, see https://www.bethanybiblechurch.com/john-18a-was-john-related-to-the-priests/
Here is another thought about the unnamed disciple. What if that disciple was Judas? It does not stand to reason that, between the arrest and the house of Annas, Judas completely disappears. It appears that the majority of disciples scattered at the arrest of Jesus. Yet two followed. We know that Judas was known by the priests – he was the one that led the band of men to the Gethsemane location. Was he a sort of material witness? At any rate, his part in the matter may not have concluded with the arrest. It seems within the bounds of reason that Judas would have returned with the band that he led to Gethsemane. So – after ten disciples scamper away, two losers stand with faces downcast. One of them betrayed the master and the other shamed himself before the master with panicked violence. I am not saying the unnamed disciple has to be Judas, just that it would make sense. Also, it is possible that the unnamed disciple is neither John nor Judas but one of the other ten.
Verse fourteen is interesting in that such knowledge of the High Priest's words could only have been relayed in one of two channels. Most reasonably, the information was added from testimony after the fact. Said testimony would have been transmitted by a person present when the High Priest said what he said. Number one, then, is a person in the know. Number two is a more direct channel although not directly to the author but, rather, to the disciple that was known by the High Priest. It may have been a case that Caiaphas said what he said on more than one occasion. If it was repeated to the disciple that went in, we have to consider which makes the most sense. Was it said to John or was it said to Judas? If to the latter, it was a selling point for the proposed treachery. If to the former, it was in argument with a person who pleaded for the captive.
Another thing we must consider is the wording of the passage. Verses fifteen and sixteen repeat a fact about the unnamed disciple. These verses do not say that the disciple was known 'by' Caiaphas which would imply something of a relationship. If that was the case, priests generally running in the company of others of their own kind, then how might we reconcile a disciple of Jesus is also a priest or a Rabbi or a member of the Sanhedrin? What the verses actually say is that the disciple was known “unto” the High Priest. That is a different story altogether. The use of the word 'unto' implies knowledge without the personal relationship aspect. Judas was known unto Caiaphas if Caiaphas had a hand in hiring him. John was known to him if he was the son of a church official or was in some training program – say, to become a Rabbi.
Peter was not left out in the cold. The unnamed disciple had a thought for the man. How are we to see such concern for Peter if that disciple was Judas? John does speak of a closer relationship, on the other hand. We know that afterward, Peter and John worked together, and, as well, it was Peter and John who ran to the open tomb. However, such concern that brought Peter into the courtyard could just as easily be seen in other disciples. Andrew, for example, was Peter's blood brother. Also, it was Andrew who was seen in the active pursuit of a religious lifestyle. Before he followed Jesus, he followed another man who was called Rabbi by the priesthood. Andrew had as much history in that regard as John did. Finally, I want to consider the doorkeeper. Was she awakened and enlisted at the moment or was that her actual job? What does a doorkeeper say about the privilege of the priesthood? Why did she answer to the unnamed disciple? Did he approach her on his own or in the name of Annas?
It was the doorkeeper who first fingered Peter. I get the sense, from the word 'damsel', that she was perhaps a girl. It is not likely that she was among the men involved in the arrest. Her question was not an accusation so much as curiosity. It was another disciple that asked her to let Peter in. If she was concerned with doing her job correctly or about punishment if she did her job poorly, her question seems perfectly natural. I doubt that upon seeing Peter in the morning hours she could have, in any way, personally identified him.
Well, we all know the story of Peter's three denials. I will not dwell on that. I do, however, want a clear image in my mind's eye of the layout of the house. Jesus and Peter were in two separate locations, yet, they could see each other. Most houses of that time were built around a courtyard. The entrance into a courtyard, in many cases, was the only way in and out of the house. There was usually an upper story. Experts now believe they have an understanding of the layout of the house that Jesus was taken to after his arrest.
The complete statement that I am considering here is “Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest and Simon Peter stood and warmed himself.” If the house was large enough then it is reasonable to think that Annas lived there with his sons and daughters. If Caiaphas lived in the same large multi-layered house, then all Annas needed to do, he no longer being the High Priest, was to stand in the courtyard and be sure that Jesus was indeed arrested and bound. What's more, after the interrogation, the slap, the warming, and Peter's final denial to the kinsman of Malchus, verse twenty-eight concludes in this manner, “Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas.”
“Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early.” Well – the rooster had just crowed. It was dawn. In the John version of the Jewish trial, Peter did not go out and weep bitterly, there was no false witness, and Caiaphas did not rip his garment. Jesus had given the Jews nothing on which to base an assertion of blasphemy. He simply said 'I spoke openly, ask them.' So, at the crack of dawn, they all marched over to the hall of judgment and there was Pilate – up and ready to serve like no other public servant ever in the history of leaders and politicians. For the Jews, speed was essential. They wished to be done with the matter and move on to the preparations of the Passover.
Verse twenty-nine begins the interrogation by the Roman governor of Jerusalem. The Jews would not go in because that would make them unclean and then they would not get to celebrate the Passover. So, Pilate had to leave the confines of the building. Remember, the sun was barely up and it was cold. An unasked and unanswered question is this: did Peter and the unnamed disciple also go to the hall of judgment? I cannot for the life of me imagine getting up so early and jumping into the business of the day with both feet. Had Pilate even had a chance to eat breakfast and do the other things that people normally do to prepare for the day? I can imagine his temperament as he stood there in the cold, dressed only in a hasty robe thrown over his sleeping attire, having been roused too early.
As it was early and as it was cold, Pilate ran back into the building and called Jesus in for a cursory questioning. The Jews would not go in for fear of contamination. I have to ask, who went in with Jesus? Who was it that recorded his conversation with Pilate? Before I go there, let us take a moment to examine the brief exchange between Pilate and the Jews. As a large and noticeable body, they had marched across town. Had word gone ahead of them to Pilate or did they just show up and make a noise? Did Pilate know that it was Jesus who would be brought before him? If he was forewarned, he would have certainly known.
Guards and soldiers patrol the city in the early morning hours. They see a large crowd of the Sanhedrin ilk heading for the hall of judgment. The band of men and officers with the priests may have their torches held high. They run to Pilate in alarm. They wake the governor with word that the Rabbi, whose movements and teachings are all the news, has been arrested. Consider just how Pilate said what he said. He was a Roman, he might have cared nothing at all about issues concerning lesser men, but he came out into the cold and demanded, in verse twenty-nine, what charges do you have against “this man?”
Consider also the response of the Jews. When asked, they did not present a litany of individual charges. It was as if they expected Pilate to be on the same page with them. In the John account, they actually have no charges. Nonetheless, the Jews and Pilate have an exchange that presents them on opposite sides of an issue with obvious contention in the words of both parties. The Jews answer the challenge of Pilate by saying, in verse thirty, “If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.” What kind of answer is that? I don't buy it – and I don't think Pilate did either.
Pilate clearly did not want to be the judge of this matter. Let us ask why. Was it simply that he did not want to be at the beck and call of the Sanhedrin? Was it because he was cold and sleepy? He had more than likely dealt with other malefactors at the behest of the Sanhedrin but what if – what if this was a case of the priesthood, not delivering up a man of lower station but, rather, another of the priesthood, one of their own? Under the condition of the Sanhedrin delivering for judgment a bona fide Rabbi, and especially one known to be at odds with the priesthood, the words of Pilate, “Take ye him, and judge him according to your law,” makes absolute sense. Pilate was a civil governor. Matters of priest against priest or Rabbi against Rabbi, a cold and sleepy civil governor would not feel compelled to treat. He would have as much as told them, this is a religious matter, deal with it.
As I pointed out, the thing about Jesus and the religious authorities was a matter of public news. It was on everyone's lips. The issue was polarizing as many took sides, some with Jesus and some with the established order. People spoke about these matters on a daily basis and followed all the current news with intense interest. It is impossible that Pilate would not have known that the established order was gunning for a popular and well-loved Rabbi. Pilate was not fearful of a people subjugated to Rome. He was in charge and had trained soldiers to execute his every decree. Yet, he wanted no part of the Jew's turf war. It might have even been possible that Pilate secretly rooted for the underdog in this matter. It seems clear to me that Pilate did not want to be the judge in Jesus' trial.
Still, in verse thirty-one, the Jews answered Pilate, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” Well, I have to ask, if it was not lawful for them to put Jesus to death, why did they want to kill him? Were they asking the governor to help them commit a crime, to break their own laws? Were the Jews asking for Pilate to legitimize their lawlessness as a return favor for helps they had rendered to his governorship? If the governor and the religious elite were, at some level, in cahoots, why would he have sought to avoid just another small cooperation? I think that Pilate's wife was not the only one of them troubled by the turf war. Had Pilate taken sides? So, Pilate pulls Jesus inside, away from the Jews.
Consider their private exchange in verses thirty-three and thirty-four. It is no idle question that Pilate asks Jesus – are you the king of the Jews? It sounds very much like something Pilate needed to know. It is very likely that many people voiced around the nativity story of Jesus, attaching the story to prophecies from the old testament. It is likely that Romans submerged in Jewish daily culture would have heard of the same things spoken over the course of some years. It is not likely that the Jews could charge Jesus as a malefactor to the Roman governor on the basis of either folklore or religious titles for their own messiah. Pilate wants to know for personal reasons. He does not want to judge a man who might actually be the prophesied son of a god.
The use of the term King of the Jews is found twice in the four gospels. It is used during the trial and crucifixion. Pilate uses the term and it is written and placed on the cross. The term is also used in the nativity story by three wise men from the east. In its various forms, the titles are king of the Jews, king of the Judaeans, and king of Israel. When Pilate asks Jesus, are you the king of the Jews, he may really be asking, are you that king of the Jews. Either Pilate seeks a way out of the matter because of Jesus' actual status or because of religious labeling, neither of which is sufficient criminal activity against Rome to bring him in on it. Another way in which this question may have been asked is through familiar association. In other words, Jesus and Pilate may have had a sit-down in their past which was either not recorded or was removed by way of an editor's personal preference.
What if Pilate knew Jesus? What if Pilate actually liked Jesus? Consider the interesting response of Jesus. He answered Pilate, are you asking for yourself or just because you heard others say it? The response seems both familiar and casual. Jesus' response is not the only interesting response in this exchange. Pilate responds in kind, not speaking down to a criminal, but in a manner that is just as familiar and casual. Am I a Jew? Think about it. Why would a Roman, who knew he was a Roman, ask a Jew who knew also he was a Roman, such a question? It's like, 'Look, man, you've put me in a hard place. It's not me bringing accusations against you. Your own kind, Jewish priests, want you dead. What have you done to enrage them so?' That is in verse thirty-five. No one is there except Jesus, Pilate, and some soldiers standing guard by the door. Clearly, this was a Jesus/Pilate moment.
Jesus explains to a Roman governor looking for a way out of religious intrigues by telling him two things at the same time. One: yes he is that king. Two: his kingdom is not political. Further: if his kingdom had been political, his servants would have fought against the Romans – obviously, they had not. They would have fought the religious order also to keep him out of the hands of spiteful Jews. They had not done that either. Therefore, the kingdom of the king of Israel, as explained by Jesus, was a spiritual kingdom that was neither political or violent. Pilate reaches for certain confirmation when he asks, 'so then, you are a king?' Jesus answers, 'The word, king, is in your mouth. I came only to bear witness to the truth. Men who believe in and desire truth will hear my voice.' Still speaking man to man, Pilate asks, what is truth? There are many mindsets from which such a question will issue. The mindset of a violent and hateful Roman ready to persecute a subjected Jews at the drop of a hat is not one of them.
Before the private conversation between Pilate and Jesus, when Pilate had first come out to speak with the Jews, the first occasion of Pilate trying not to judge Jesus occurred. After the conversation, Pilate went back out to the Jews, in verse thirty-eight, and tried a second time to avoid being the judge in a religious squabble. These two actions put Pilate on the side of Jesus. What Pilate told the Jews, whether on a professional level or a personal level, deserves more than a cursory response on our part. Pilate said, “I find in him no fault at all.” What does that mean? It means, first, that he does not believe that Jesus is a malefactor. He thinks Jesus has done no wrong. He thinks the matter is a religious matter and that the title, king of the Jews, poses no threat to the authority of Rome. Since he had to judge, he made a judgment in favor of Jesus and not in favor of the accusing Jews.
Whether or not there really ever was a custom to release a prisoner at the Passover is still hotly debated. Some place the ball in the Roman court asserting that the alleged custom belonged to Pilate. In verse thirty-nine, Pilate asserts that the custom belonged to the Jews. Some say there was no custom at all. For typical scholarly views on the matter, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas#Etymology In the account by John, the offer to release an imprisoned robber in Jesus' stead was met with resistance but not from a crowd as Pilate was still only dealing with the chief priests and the band of men and officers that had arrested Jesus. With or without the Barabbas element, the story of exchanged political pressures surrounding the prisoner stands on its own feet.
No comments:
Post a Comment