The Gospel of John: The Arrest of Jesus

And so, 1 Peter chapter 5, if you may turn there in your Bibles please, and probably next week we'll continue with 2

Peter, so 1 Peter chapter 5. 1

Peter chapter 5, so I exhort the elders among you as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you, not for shameful gain, but eagerly, not domineering over those in your examples to the flock.

And when the chief shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise you who are younger, be subject to the elders.

Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, so that at the proper time He may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on Him, because He cares for you.

Be sober -minded, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of sufferings are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.

And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will

Himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. To Him be the dominion forever and ever.

Amen. By Silvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God.

Stand firm in it. She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does

Mark, my son. Greet one another with the kiss of love. Peace to all of you who are in Christ Jesus.

Let's pray. Our Heavenly Father, we do thank

You that we are found in Christ Jesus, that our union is with Christ Jesus.

We thank You, Lord, for what that means, that every spiritual blessing that we have is found in the

Lord Jesus Christ, and we are in Him, and He is in us. And we pray,

Lord, that as we live our lives, that our lives would reflect this, that our actions and our attitudes would reflect this, that we belong to Christ.

And we pray, Lord, that we would experience this truth.

We thank You, Lord, for the grace that is in Christ Jesus. We thank You that He set a perfect example for us.

We thank You, Lord, that He is returning one day for us. And Lord, we ask that until that day that we live for Your glory and Your honor.

So help us, Lord, as we traverse the difficulties of this world. Help us remember the sufferings that are happening across the world by other brothers and sisters in Christ.

And we pray, Lord, that we would look to the eternal, not to the temporal. So help us now,

Lord, as we continue our study of John. Help us to see the truth that is contained. We pray that as Lars preaches the sermon, that the

Spirit would take that truth and implant it deep within our hearts. Instruct us, Lord, how we must live in light of this truth.

Give us wisdom and guidance. Thank You, Lord, in Jesus' name, amen. Well, let's turn to John 18, please.

We're hoping to have a—to baptize before long. And so next Saturday morning, a quarter after nine, after men's group, those that are—that we've spoken with about baptism, or if you're interested in this matter, we're going to meet in my office for about an hour or so, and we'll go over what the

Bible teaches about this matter next Saturday morning at 9 .15. And if that's your interest or desire, let me know.

And perhaps early in September, maybe the mid -September, we'll attempt to baptize.

Beginning with John 18, verse 1 and following, we read of our

Lord's hour having arrived, and to begin to unfold before us, and He has mentioned this hour,

His hour, a number of times thus far in the Gospel. It's the passion of our

Lord Jesus, of course, the passion account. And this passion account of Jesus is really the climax of the story of this entire

Gospel. Actually, the passion of Jesus, which is the account of His arrest,

His trials, His crucifixion, burial, and resurrection, is the climax of each of the four

Gospels. It's really what defines the Gospel. And we have cited before the well -known saying, the

Gospels are passion stories with extended introductions. And I think that capsulates it quite well, the importance of these passion narratives.

And so the passion of Jesus records the manner in which our Savior accomplished salvation for us.

Of course, the Lord Jesus had humbled Himself, became obedient to the point of death, as one wrote, even the death of the cross.

Therefore, God, oh, this is Scripture, therefore God has also highly exalted Him, given

Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, of those on earth, of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is

Lord to the glory of God the Father. That really describes the passion.

He humbled Himself, was obedient to the Father, even to death. And as a result of His obedience,

God the Father enthroned Him as King of kings and Lord of lords.

And so God, of course, has promised in the Gospel that whosoever believes on Jesus, the Son of God, is his or her

Savior, who turns, repents from sin, submits to Jesus Christ as Lord, that God will grant the forgiveness of sins and the gift of everlasting life freely and fully.

The Lord Jesus Himself taught, for this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the

Son and believes in Him should have eternal life, and I will raise

Him up on the last day, the day of the resurrection. And so this passion, of course, is the working out of our salvation by our

Savior. Now, in our examination of John's record of these events, we'll consider some similarities, but also some distinctions with the accounts of our

Lord's passion recorded in the synoptic Gospels. Of course, we have four

Gospels, the Gospel of John, the synoptic Gospels are Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

They're synoptic because they are very similar in order and in the content in which they relate the story of Jesus.

John's Gospel is quite different in many ways. If you have ever examined a book that contains

Gospel parallels, where there's like four columns across the page, you'll see

Matthew, Mark, and Luke very similar in addressing the same episodes and generally of the same order.

But John's Gospel, oftentimes that fourth column is quite blank for many, many pages on end.

And then it'll show a couple pages where it only has John's Gospel in that column, and then the other three are blank.

There's a great deal of distinction between John's Gospel and the synoptic

Gospels. And so every Gospel is different from the others in the details they narrate, in some cases the order in which they are recorded.

I just listed a summary of the major events of the Passion, gleaned, conflated from all four

Gospels. And we're not going to, of course, recite the passages, but as you look over that, you'll notice that some of the events are recorded only by John, some are recorded by all four

Gospels, some only by a couple of the Gospels, synoptic Gospels. And so no one

Gospel has the entire account. When you consider a composite, these are all of the various details or episodes that are recorded for us.

Page two of your notes, if you happen to be following. In John's Gospel, before us, there are six major sections to this

Passion narrative. And so these pericopi, or episodes, include the following.

The arrest of Jesus, verses one through, actually one through eleven, most of the paragraph designations have verses one through eleven.

I included twelve because twelve really appears to be a concluding sentence to the episode, and yet the beginning of the next, it's kind of difficult.

And so the arrest of Jesus, the Jewish trial and its witnesses, thirdly, the

Roman trial before Pilate, fourth, the episode in which you have the verdict, crucify him, and then the actual crucifixion of Jesus, and then the death and burial of Jesus, and of course, we did not include the resurrection accounts in this list.

Today, we'll begin to address the arrest of Jesus, which took place in the Garden of Gethsemane, and so here is

John 18, verses one through twelve, and this is from the New King James Version.

When Jesus had spoken these words, he went out with his disciples over the brook Kidron, where there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered.

And Judas, who betrayed him, also knew the place, for Jesus often met there with his disciples, and then

Judas, having received a detachment of troops and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, came there with lanterns, torches, and weapons.

Jesus, therefore, knowing all things that would come upon him, went forward and said to them, whom are you seeking?

They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus said to them,

I am he, and Judas, who betrayed him, also stood with them.

Now, when he said to them, I am he, they drew back and fell to the ground. Then he asked them again, whom are you seeking?

They said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he, therefore, if you seek me, let these go their way, that the saying might be fulfilled, which he spoke of those whom you gave me,

I have lost none. I didn't mention this in our later notes, but I want you to notice that verse 9.

Here we have an expression of fulfillment of Jesus's words, and the way it's set out, it's just like Jesus was fulfilling

Old Testament scripture, but here you have Jesus fulfilling his own word, and so his own word is really set forth as authoritative as scripture, which it is, of course, but it's kind of an interesting way in which that's set forth.

I should have mentioned that in my notes. Verse 10, then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear, and the servant's name was

Malchus. So Jesus said to Peter, put your sword into the sheath, shall

I not drink the cup which my father has given me? Then the detachment of troops and the captain and the officers of the

Jews arrested Jesus and bound him. Now before we begin to consider these verses,

I'd like us to be aware of a few matters respecting the literary and historical nature of our four gospels.

Of course, the gospels record the historic events of the person in ministry of Jesus Christ, who he is, that he came into the world to save sinners from their fallen state into his everlasting kingdom, but having said that they are historical in nature, we need to define more carefully what we mean and what we do not mean by the idea of being historical documents.

During the period of the Enlightenment, sometimes called the

Age of Reason, 17th and 18th centuries, a new way of thinking became the predominant worldview in the

Western hemisphere. Along with the radical questioning of authority, people came to believe that the human condition could improve and civilization would advance through rational thought.

Rationalism. We can come up with the answer. The scientific method was developed and it became the standard by which all matters were assessed and evaluated.

What you can see, what you can measure, what you conclude. This way of thinking affected the manner in which people viewed and wrote history as well.

Unfortunately, I would argue, in all of history, reading history. The nature and goal of history writing was regarded as an effort, or at least it should be, an effort to describe and record precisely events of the past as rational people would have observed them taking place.

And so with this Age of Enlightenment, the miraculous was rejected as unscientific.

We don't see people walking on water, so Jesus must not have walked on water. Those were the kinds of conclusions they would draw.

Predictive prophecy was regarded as an impossibility. That affected the dating of documents of the

Bible. Historical documents were assessed and evaluated whether they related chronologically actual events as they transpired.

And so history is, if I can use an analogy, was viewed like a photograph of a scene, an exact representation.

And they thought all of history should be this way, where we would say, no, that history is recorded in the

Bible is not intended for that purpose, but rather it's more of an impressionistic image, as it were, to tell us something, to inform us about things in the light of historic events.

I'll explain a little further. And so biblical scholars, so -called, applied this view of history to the books of the

Bible, most commonly to the four Gospels. And so coming to the Gospels with their assumptions and assertions about history, they evaluated the

Gospels and then declared them to be poor history, unreliable documents. And they brought out the various differences between the accounts of the four

Gospels, professing them to be inaccurate and unreliable historical documents. And the result is that skepticism of the

Bible and deism as a religion permeated the Western world. And the fact is, historically, some of the most anti -Christian writers of the age were biblical scholars, so -called.

And this manner of understanding the Gospels has continued into the world today. Most people today were still affected by that view of history.

And when we come to the Bible and we read it, particularly non -Christians, they will tend to impose that, we would argue, an unjust standard for reading and interpreting the

Bible. And so they justified by rejecting it, saying these things are not historically reliable, unreliable, when they completely misunderstand the nature of the documents themselves.

And so later, in response and reaction to the claims of these biblical skeptics and opposers, biblical scholars, who believed in the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, as we do, responded to these higher critic claims.

For example, they examined and evaluated the Gospels as literature. And they showed that the liberal scholars had imposed and applied an incorrect and unjust standard of history upon the

Scriptures. What was concluded was that the documents we call

Gospels are a unique genre of literature. In other words, the

Gospel, the four Gospels we have in our New Testament, God moved these writers to invent that style of writing for the purpose of relating to us the life of Jesus.

It wasn't like Josephus, who was attempting to record actual history. The Gospel writers, inspired by the

Holy Spirit, interpreted these events and conveyed these events through the Gospels in order to reveal truth to us.

And so the Gospels are a unique genre, style of literature, form of literature.

And although they reflect actual historical events, certainly they do, these documents were not to be regarded or interpreted as historical documents as the rationalists understood history.

Rather, God intended the Gospels to be theological interpretations of historical events.

That's extremely important to understand. The Gospels are not concerned necessarily with matters of chronology.

Now there, you know, there are a couple of the Gospels that are more concerned with chronology, but sometimes the episodes are grouped in the

Gospels according to subject matter. And so if you come to them and you read them and assume it's got to be chronological, and Matthew doesn't agree with Mark, say, in chronology, it would be an unjust criticism to argue they're not historical and they're errant.

No, you're not reading them rightly. And so the

Gospels are not concerned necessarily with matters of chronology, nor were they necessarily intended to relate events as they were observed, but rather God intended the record of these events to be interpreted history by inspired men who were superintended by the

Holy Spirit. The Gospels are theological documents designed to convey spiritual truth through historic persons and events.

And each of the Gospels, therefore, may vary in the manner that they relate the historical events in order to convey spiritual truths to their readers.

And most of the people in the world, they don't understand this. I know of a young man, well, he's probably now in his 30s, who grew up in church, was homeschooled all his life.

He went to college, a secular university, went to a class, the

Bible of literature, and they presented the Bible as we have just described to this aberrant view of history.

He concluded the Bible is not historical. He abandoned the faith, and today he is in the world.

And he doesn't understand that the philosophy of the world deceived him.

And as a result, he fell into unbelief. It's very common, happens all the time.

Christians go out of churches, they're raised in churches, they go off to university, and they're exposed to this kind of nonsense, and they're not taught or instructed well in the churches to deal with this.

And, you know, the churches seem to be so much involved in entertaining and keeping these kids excited, you know, to keep them through their teenage years.

And then they get thrown into this kind of so -called intellectual setting, and they're not capable of dealing with it.

And they're overwhelmed. It's satanic. You know, and I trust that, you know, that talking about things like this will give us a, you know, preventive to that, maybe a measure of protection, also a manner in which we dealt with this.

I spoke with the mother of this son a handful of years ago and wrote a little document explaining exactly this, and she really appreciated it.

Now she knows how to, she then knew how to respond to her son when he threw up these accusations.

So, the Gospels are theological documents. This is God's purpose in having recorded them and transmitted them to us.

The nature of the Gospels as literature may be better understood by us through the passion narrative of the Gospel of John, primary text by which we can show this.

When it, John's Gospel, John's passion, is set by side with the accounts in the Synoptic Gospels, it's apparent that there are significant differences in what it conveys to the reader.

There is a general unanimity between the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but John's account provides us with another perspective with different details that are not contradictory to those in the

Synoptics, but rather they're supplementary to them. And so, one once described the character of John's account, the whole of the peculiarities of the substance of John's Gospel are to be explained on the two grounds that he was writing a supplement to, not a substitute for, or a correction of the

Gospels already in existence, and that his special business was to narrate such facts and words as set forth the glory of Christ as the only begotten of the

Father. That is John's emphasis. That's not necessarily the emphasis of the

Synoptics. In fact, I recall that there was an early church father in the second century,

I believe, who actually declared that John wrote his

Gospel with the intention not to cover what was already addressed in the

Synoptics, but rather to speak of and embellish those things that he felt needed to be conveyed to prove that Jesus was the

Christ, the Son of God. And so, it was intentionally not to be identical to Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

And of course, we believe that God superintended this whole business to fill out our understanding of who

Jesus Christ is, and so we have the Gospel of John as well. And so, an illustration of this can be seen when we compare the

Passion accounts. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is shown to have come to the

Garden of Gethsemane, resolved to fulfill his calling to fulfill and suffer and die in order to redeem his people.

He is shown to be in need of great strength and assistance. He's praying in the Garden, remember?

Father, may this cup pass from me, but not my will, but your will be done. And then

God sent the angels to strengthen him, to enable him to pray more. There was great struggle, difficulty that he endured and overcame and went to his cross triumphantly.

That's what's conveyed in the Synoptics. The Father gave him strength and assistance.

Jesus is set forth as being betrayed, of course, in the Synoptics, and then unjustly tried, abused, sentenced by the sinful

Jewish leadership. And yet, in his resurrection in the Synoptics, God, his Father, vindicated him.

The world said, no, crucify him. God the Father said, no, I'm exalting him.

The Father vindicated him as deserving of all authority and glory. And so he's set forth in the

Synoptics as a faithful suffering servant, like Isaiah 52 -53, who died in the place of and on behalf of his people to save them from their sins.

Now, what about John's Gospel? What's the main thrust of John's Gospel? What is the major thrust of the

Passion account of the fourth Gospel? Well, John is set forth, Jesus, as a conqueror who has come forth to his hour in order to drink the cup of suffering from the

Father for the salvation of his people from the world. Jesus Christ is shown as the one who is in command of all that transpires here in John's Gospel.

And we'll show that. Even over those who maltreated him with contempt and injustice, Jesus is

Lord. He's calling the shots. He's in control. He's not a helpless, passive person in prison and bound.

We'll see that he's actually, even over those that are coming to arrest him, he is the one who is in charge.

Also in John's Gospel, there's a greater attention and emphasis given to the Roman authorities and soldiers in John's account, rather than the primary role of the

Jews in the Synoptic accounts. There's a universalism in John's Gospel.

The world, not just Jews, but the Gentiles of the world are also taken in view. And so what

John does is he includes details about the Roman soldiers involved that the

Synoptic Gospels don't include. Liberal scholars would say that's a contradiction.

No, we would say it's supplementary and they're complementary, designed to reveal things to us, truths to us.

It's very rich theologically. We shouldn't just view them as historic documents, but they reveal

God's truth to us. And so as one wrote, the Romans play a more central role in John than in the

Synoptics. They appear even in the arrest scene, the Romans. And so in this way,

Jesus is set forth as the one who is dying for sinners of the world, even as he is the

Lord of all flesh, of all the world. In all that is recorded of Jesus, he set forth as the one in whom the glory of God is manifested.

He is the Son of God. Again, as one wrote, Leon Morse, good older commentary on John, as in the other

Gospels, it is the events surrounding the crucifixion and the resurrection that form the climax of the whole book.

John had his own way of handling these events, a way which stresses the divine overruling.

This account of the arrest stresses Jesus' complete mastery of the situation, and there are touches like, it is finished, of the dying

Savior, which indicate plainly that the outcome was completely in God's control. Here, supremely, we see the purpose of God worked out, and here, supremely, is the glory of Jesus displayed.

But again, there are distinctions in the passion account before us, and those of the synoptic Gospels. Consider these differences, and I put that in quotation marks.

These are not contradictions, but they are differences between John and the other three Gospels.

Not only is there no record in John of Jesus' agony in the Gethsemane, that's predominant in the synoptics, isn't it?

No mention of it by John. Jesus goes forth to his arrest, chapter 18, controls the flow of events.

He interrogates his captors, displays enough of his glory that they fall backward to the ground.

You don't have that recorded in the synoptics. There are several passes in John that have no parallel whatsoever in the synoptics, bringing

Jesus to Annas, the high priest. That's in John only. His answer to the high priest and to the official who slapped him.

Conversations between Jesus and Pilate, and between Pilate and the Jews. The statement that Jesus carried his own cross is emphasized in John, and excursus on the significance of the inscription on the cross is found in John.

The forging of the link between his mother and the beloved disciple, and the cry from the cross recorded in John 19 .30.

Again, there is genuine insight in the observation that John portrays Jesus in control of his destiny as he makes his way to the cross.

And so the whole Passion account conveys this setting.

And, you know, as we read it, we may not be able to see these distinctions in the importance, but when you see them in contrast, you know, or set side by side by the synoptics, then they begin to show themselves forth.

And so as we look over the account of our Lord's arrest, we may consider the following divisions. Now we're looking at John 18, 1 through 11 or 12.

We see first, the betrayal in the garden, verses 1 through 3. Secondly, Jesus stepped forward to face his captors, verses 4 through 9.

And thirdly, Jesus speaks of the cup of his father, verses 10, 11. And then we throw in this last verse too, where it seems to be a conclusion of the episode where Jesus is arrested and bound.

Let's begin to work through these. First, the betrayal of Jesus in the garden.

We read in the opening of this Passion narrative, which sets forth the arrest of Jesus.

Here we read of the place in which the arrest takes place. The people involved and the manner in which they came to Jesus.

And so this is the introduction to the episode, verses 1 through 11 or 12. The people came with lanterns, torches, and weapons.

As we read, once again, these three verses. When Jesus had spoken these words, he went out with his disciples over the brook

Kidron, where there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered. And Judas, who betrayed him, also knew the place, for Jesus often met there with his disciples.

And then Judas, having received a detachment of troops and officers from the chief priests Pharisees, came there with lanterns, torches, and weapons.

The account is rather brief and concise. John chose not to embellish this account of our

Lord's betrayal and arrest. As one reformed commentator rightly assessed, the narrative in John is extremely concise.

The focus is on a few high points in a story with which his readers were undoubtedly familiar.

They had the other three gospels. There's no attempt to give a comprehensive account of the course of events.

That wasn't the intention. The moments highlighted are those in which Jesus most clearly manifests his glory.

The light falls successively on Judas, the band of soldiers, the disciples, and Peter.

Notice the first clause, verse one, when Jesus had spoken these words. Well, that refers to everything in John 17, his high priestly prayer.

John did not record our Lord's prayer while in Gethsemane. We have that in the synoptic gospels.

He prayed, Father, may this cup pass from me. There's no prayer in the garden in John's account.

It might surmise, I kind of thought about this, I wonder if the high priestly prayer in John 17 was prayed by Jesus in the garden, and, you know,

Peter heard that and recorded that. But no, because verse one says, it was really after Jesus spoke these words of John 17, then they went out to go to the garden.

He didn't pray those words in John 17 while in the garden, but rather afterwards.

He went out with his disciples, says, for Jesus says the principal actor in his episode.

John didn't say, John didn't write, and they went out. Jesus went out, his disciples went with him.

That's a little, you know, narrative subtlety, but you can see this is one way in which the

Holy Spirit moved John to present Jesus out there in front. Jesus went out, his disciples went with him.

And so he gave emphasis to Jesus. They traveled east of the gate in the eastern wall of Jerusalem, descended into the

Kidron Valley. The New King James Version refers to the brook Kidron. This is the only place here in John 18 verse one, the only place

Kidron is named in the New Testament. Although it's referenced in 10 verses in the

Old Testament, David fleeing Jerusalem, remember, he goes over down through the valley of Kidron.

The Greek word translated brook is commonly used to describe a wadi, which was just, of course, a seasonal stream.

It dry most of the year, but could become torrential with a significant rainfall. And so Kidron was a chimeras, literally, winter flowing stream.

As a noun denoting a torrent that flowed during the rainy season of winter. There may have been a flow at this time.

It was, of course, in early spring, Passover, you know, but probably not as great a flow as earlier.

On the other side of the brook, there was a garden. Neither John nor Luke named the garden as Gethsemane.

Matthew does. Mark does. John doesn't, nor Luke. Gethsemane means oil press, in which olives would be processed.

And so no doubt this garden was situated on the Mount of Olives, which is mentioned in several places in both the

Old and New Testaments. And Jesus and his disciples entered this garden.

Now, some have suggested that John sets forth Jesus as the faithful second Adam, who goes into the garden and achieves what the first Adam failed to do in the garden.

Interesting. I'd never seen that before, never read that before, never heard that before.

Maybe I should have, but I didn't. And so one wrote, succeeding where Adam failed,

Jesus Christ entered into a garden, surrendered himself to the betrayal of the world, not by force, but by a self -surrendered will, in order to drink the cup of suffering from the

Father for the salvation of the world. And here's another who wrote that this was quite a popular teaching in the early churches for second, third century

AD. The author, though familiar with the prayer in Gethsemane, he knew about the prayer in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, omits both it and the falling asleep of the disciples.

He states simply that the place was a garden. The garden is important to him, for he carefully records that not only the arrest took place there, but also the resurrected, resurrection, he was resurrected in the garden too.

And it was in the place where he was crucified. The comments of the fathers, this would have been in the early churches, second, third century writers, the comments of the fathers may have elucidated the symbolism correctly, the passion and the resurrection which affected the salvation of the world are contrasted with the fall in the garden of Eden.

That's interesting. However, although this was a popular teaching in the early centuries of the

Christian era, some today espouse it, its contrast between the garden of Eden and the garden of Gethsemane, it may be somewhat of a stretch.

A few of the better commentators of John don't mention this idea at all. And I have to admit,

I would have never concluded it if I hadn't read it in a commentary. So I don't know how overt it is.

George Beasley Murray, he was a Baptist scholar. He died in 2000.

He wrote a good technical commentary on John. He wrote, he dismissed this as a spurious idea.

Early expositors could not resist linking the garden wherein man fell in sin with the garden of the Savior's struggle to obey his father, which was also the scene of his arrest and that garden where he burst the bands of death at Easter.

The connection, however, is scarcely to be viewed as intended by the evangelist. He just thought that was reading in a bunch of symbolism.

And again, I'd hesitate to take the position one way or another. Again, it's noteworthy that John does not record of Jesus in the garden.

In distinction from the accounts in the synoptics, John does not mention several matters of importance that are found in the other gospels.

Unlike the synoptics, John mentions neither the mound of olives nor the name of the garden. And the synoptics do not mention the kid -drawn brook in their description of the place.

Of course, they're referring to the same place. But from the start, John's presentation is independent of the synoptics.

This independence is even more evident from the narrative of Jesus's arrest. John does not mention

Jesus's agony in Gethsemane before the arrest. Only the word cup in verse 11 is clearly reminiscent of the synoptic prayer of Gethsemane.

And this undoubtedly linked with the perspective from which the evangelist wants the reader to understand the narrative that Jesus's authority and power with which he, in obedience to the

Father, now surrenders himself into the hands of humans. And all that we've said thus far,

I'm tempted to show that, you know, this passion of John's gospel, I think we're going to find to be very enriching and informative as well.

You're probably like I am, most familiar with the synoptic accounts. And so I'm looking forward to examining

John's account a little more carefully. We read of Judas's familiarity with the garden in verse 2.

And Judas, who betrayed him, also knew the place where Jesus often met there with his disciples.

Jesus probably spent the night there on more than one occasion. We read earlier in John's gospel, they each went to his own house, but Jesus went to the

Mount of Olives. No doubt this garden and his disciples with him. Perhaps Judas had first led this official mob on this night to the upper room, but it was vacant.

I can imagine Judas saying, oh, I know where he probably is. He's out there in the garden. And then he took the mob out there.

We then read of those Judas brought with him in order to apprehend Jesus. We read in verse 3, then

Judas, having received a detachment of troops and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, came there with lanterns, torches, and weapons.

It's interesting that nothing much is said of Judas by John in this account.

Yes, Judas is brought forward in the account, but clearly Judas is set forth as a rather insignificant, albeit treacherous, fellow.

Now, notice the subject and verb of this sentence in verse 3. Then Judas came there with lanterns.

In other words, there's a singular subject, Judas. A singular verb matches that.

Judas came. Everything in between is really a subordinate clause. The focus is on Judas.

Judas came and he came with bringing all these people with him. So Judas is being set forth.

And so John did not write something like this, a detachment of troops and officers, along with Judas came.

Judas is a single subject of a single verb. Judas came there. But he was not alone, of course.

Troops and officers are in a subordinate clause. Judas had received this detachment, presumably from the

Jewish authority, to apprehend the Lord Jesus. But then nothing much more is said about Judas by John.

He's referenced in verse 5. Judas, who betrayed him, also stood with them. Once Judas brought this mob to Jesus, the mob had assumed control and took action.

Judas fades away and is simply standing there with the mob. John recorded nothing of the kiss whereby

Judas betrayed Jesus. John wrote nothing of the later remorse of Judas in his attempt to return to the blood money, 30 pieces of silver.

Always think of my old friend Leland Davidson. He was with the Lord now. He was old when

I knew him, back in 1980. And every Easter he'd come to church, he'd have 30 silver dollars.

And with a loud noise, he'd throw them in the offering plate. He says, I'm doing that just to spite Judas and the devil.

Every year at Easter, that's back when silver dollars were pretty common. There's no mention of Judas's end in suicide and the ignoble event concerning his body.

And so Ritterbos, again, a reformed commentator, wrote of Judas. Later in verse 5, it said of Judas only that he was standing with them, namely with those whom

Jesus was identifying himself. He was standing, that is, on their side over against Jesus as the one who had then lost the initiative and no longer had any role left to play.

And that is where the evangelist, that is, John, leaves him. There's not a word about Judas's repentance or death, nor any reflection on his mysterious role in the gospel.

However important the often attempted reflection on that subject might be, what matters for the evangelist, that's

John, is only that Judas disappeared into the power of this world as it came out against Jesus in clear correspondence with the word with which

Jesus had gone on his way with his own. There's disagreement in the interpretation of the description of a detachment of troops.

Or a band of soldiers, as in the ESV. The Greek word for detachment is teen spiram.

And this Greek word is often used to depict a Roman cohort, a

Roman assembly of soldiers. A detachment of hundreds, even upwards to a thousand.

Taken this way, these Roman soldiers would be distinguished from the officers who would be

Jewish from the high priests and Pharisees. If these are Romans who accompanied the

Jewish temple police, the Jewish police, then we have representatives of the fallen world, not just the

Jews coming to arrest Jesus, Gentiles also. Not all believe that John was speaking of both

Romans and Jews. They would say, no, no, these are all Jews. Uh, Donald Carson was convinced that this was what occurred.

These were Romans along with Jews. Those who object say, well, that means they would have approached

Pilate beforehand about apprehending Jesus. And there are some that didn't believe that that would be fitting.

Carson, I think is right. Only John specifies that in addition to bringing the Jewish official,

Jewish Iscariot also guided a detachment of soldiers. The Greek makes it clear that these were not

Jews, but the cohort. A full auxiliary cohort had a paper strength of a thousand men.

In other words, 760 soldiers, 240 cavalry, and was led by a chiliarch, literally a leader of a thousand.

Chili is a Greek word for a thousand, often translated tribune. In practice, a cohort normally numbered 600 men, but in any case, the noun spira can refer to a maniple of only 200 men.

And it's not necessary to assume that entire maniple was present. Roman auxiliary troops were usually stationed at Caesarea.

That would be on the coast. But during the feast days, they were garrisoned in the fortress Antonio to the northwest of the temple complex.

It actually sat higher than the temple. And so these Gentile Roman soldiers could look down on the temple precincts, which just irritated the

Jews to no end. This move to Jerusalem not only ensured more efficient policing of the huge throngs that swelled the population of Jerusalem during the high priest, but guaranteed that any mob violence or incipient rebellion bred by the crowding and the religious fervor would be efficiently crushed.

That is probably the reason why they were called out to support the temple officials. They would be the Jewish police, temple police.

The risk of mob response was doubtless rather high in the case of an arrest of someone with Jesus popularity.

And so where the synoptics just simply referred to a crowd coming from the Jewish leadership to arrest

Jesus, John alone set forth this great band of Jews and Gentiles to make their arrest. This is another way in which

John presents the entire world against Jesus, the very world he came to save from sin.

And although there was a full moon this night of the Passover, this band of men led by Judas came equipped to capture

Jesus at night. They came there with lanterns, torches, and weapons. It would seem that the great number of this arresting party and the manner in which they were so heavily prepared at arm served to show forth the glory of the one whom they came to capture.

This was a significant person. And so John is enhancing the glory of Christ by showing the greatness of this number and the equipped number that are coming to capture him.

Let's move into the second section of this episode. Jesus confronts his captors.

Notice Jesus steps forward to meet them. This is an important detail. Jesus, therefore, knowing all things that would come upon him, went forward and said to them, whom are you seeking?

They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus said to them, I am he. Notice I put the he in italic as the

New King James Version does. I think King James does too, I think. And Judas, who betrayed him, also stood with them.

Now when he said to them, I am he, they drew back and fell to the ground. And then he asked them again, whom are you seeking?

They said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I told you that I am he. There's repetition there to show the importance of this matter.

And therefore, if you seek me, let these disciples go their way, that the saying might be fulfilled, which he spoke of those whom you gave me.

I have lost none. If we consider the accounts of the

Synoptic Gospels, we there read quite a different response and reaction of Jesus. Again, we're not saying it's contradictory.

We're saying that it's a different perspective. We do not see fear or cowardice, of course, anywhere recorded of Jesus.

For our Lord was incapable of such things. But we do see a recoil from what lay before him, which we would attribute to his human nature, not his divine nature.

For example, we read in Matthew 26 of the approach of the band. They would arrest him. Again, a second time,

Jesus went away and prayed separate from the others. He took three with him, saying, Oh, my father, if this cup cannot pass from me, unless I drink it, your will be done.

And he came and found them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy. So he left them, went away again and prayed the third time, saying the same words.

And then he came to his disciples, said to them, Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand.

The Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going. See, my betrayer is at hand.

And while he was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, with a great multitude with swords and clubs, came from the chief priests and elders of the people.

Mark and Luke record the same events in similar words. There seems to be in the synoptics a struggle for Jesus to continue his course, a struggle which, of course, he settled through prayer.

He overcame all that threatened him and all forces that might deter him. We see that it was with apprehension and with difficulty that he endured such hostility from sinners against himself.

He was to be commended for the courage and the fidelity to his father's will and honored that he overcame his natural difficulty in entering his conflict with sin and sinners.

We see his human nature displayed for us. But in John's gospel, we have portrayed a different scene, as it were.

Jesus, in his regal authority, steps forward to face his enemies, confronting and challenging them regarding their intended duty and purpose.

Jesus, therefore, knowing all these things, they would come upon him, went forward and said to them, Whom are you seeking?

They told him, and then he responded, I am he. And then we read in verse six,

Now when he said to them, I am he, they drew back and fell to the ground. Perhaps his advance toward them caused those directly in front of him at the front of the crowd to falter, and due to his boldness, what they may have perceived of his indignation toward them.

So they fell back. They stumbled over one another back in a way. This is the view of some, including the classic writer,

Alfred Edersheim. He wrote the classic work, The Life and Times of Jesus the

Messiah. Leaving the traitor and ignoring the signal which he had given them, Jesus advanced to the band and asked them,

Whom do you seek ye? To the brief spoken, perhaps somewhat contemptuous, Jesus the

Nazarene. He replied with infinite calmness and majesty, I am he. And the immediate effect of these words was, we shall not say magical, but divine.

They had no doubt been prepared for quite other, either compromise, fear, or resistance. But the appearance and majesty of the calm

Christ, heaven in his look and peace on his lips, was too overpowering its effects.

And on that untutored heathen soldiery, who perhaps cherish in their hearts, secret misgivings of the work they had in hand, the foremost of them went, in other words, one at the front, in the front of the crowd, went backward, they fell to the ground, but Christ's hour had come.

And once more he now asked them the same question as before. And on repeating their former answer, he said,

I told you that I am he. If therefore you seek me, let these go their way.

And so some interpret that event as simply the presence and authority of Jesus boldly confronting this crowd, and it causes them to fall back like they were surprised and kind of didn't know how to respond to that.

However, that does not go far enough to explain the account in John's gospel.

Here in John's account, we have a revelation of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. In other words, the manner in which

Jesus appeared to them and spoke to them, caused them to be struck that the glory of God was manifested through this

Jesus of Nazareth who stood before him. And this may be quite clearly, seen quite clearly when we consider the precise words that Jesus spoke.

The New King James Version reads, I am he. And again, I put that pronoun he in italic font, because that's the way it is in the

New King James and the King James. I don't think it's that way in the ESV. Maybe they have a different reason for italicizing words.

But the pronoun he is an italic font, which indicates it was not in the original Greek. It was applied by the

English translators. And so for those of us who've been in the study of this gospel for some time, we should readily recognize the importance of Jesus's words.

This is one more of a number of instances in John's gospel when Jesus declared himself, I am.

He didn't say I am he. We're after Jesus of Nazareth, I am. And the very words that Jesus spoke revealed the glory of God that he was

God incarnate speaking to them. And that's why they fell back as they were, because they were struck with the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

This is the same God who revealed himself to Moses in the burning bush. Jesus declared himself to be

God before these men who were about to arrest him. They were smitten and humbled when it was made apparent to them whom they were addressing, whom they were arresting.

So here's a footnote from the New English translation that I'm reading through this year, the study

Bible. When Jesus said to those who came to arrest him, I am, they retreated and fell to the ground.

Leon Morris says it's possible that those in front recoil from Jesus's unexpected advance so that they bump those behind them causing them to stumble and fall.

Perhaps this is what in fact happened on the scene. But the theological significance given to this event by the author, that's

John, implies that more is involved. The reaction on the part of those who came to arrest Jesus comes in response to his affirmation that he is indeed the one they are seeking,

Jesus of Nazarene. But Jesus makes the affirmation of his identity using a formula which the reader has already encountered before in the fourth gospel.

Jesus has applied to himself the divine name of Exodus 3 .14, I am. Therefore, this amounts to something of a theophany which causes even his enemies to recoil and prostrate themselves so that Jesus has to ask a second time, who are you looking for?

This is a vivid reminder to the reader of the gospel that even in this dark hour,

Jesus holds ultimate power over his enemies and the powers of darkness because he is the one who bears the divine name.

See, so this is a whole theme or matter that is emphasized in John's gospel that we don't see and read in the synoptics.

And so this is something the Holy Spirit has communicated through John the gospel writer in order to show forth the divine nature of the

Lord Jesus. He is eternal God, even the Son of God from eternity. And so even at the

Lord's most vulnerable moment in his earthly life, when his life hung in the balance, humanly speaking, we see the royal and divine dignity of Jesus Christ on display.

And I found this little comment from Alexander McLaren, a 19th century Baptist preacher in London.

He wrote these words, the evangelist, and this would be John, of course, is always careful to bring out the glory of Christ, especially when that glory lies side by side with his lowliness.

The blending of these two is one of the remarkable features in the New Testament portraiture of Jesus Christ, where wherever in our

Lord's life, any incident indicates more emphatically than usual, the lowliness of his humiliation.

There, by the sight of it, you get something that indicates the majesty of his glory. I'd never noticed this the way he expressed it here.

For instance, he's born a weak infant, but angels herald his birth. He lies in a manger, but a star hangs trembling above it, lead sages from afar with their myrrh, incense, and gold.

He submits himself to the baptism of repentance, but the heavens open and a voice proclaim, this is my beloved son.

He sits wearied on the stone copying of the well and craves water from a peasant woman, and he gives her the water of life.

And he gives her the water of life. He lies down and sleeps from pure exhaustion in the stern of a little fishing boat, but he wakes to command the storm and it is still.

He weeps beside the grave, but he flings his voice into its innermost recesses and the sheet of dead come forth.

He well nigh faints under the agony of the garden, but an angel from heaven strengthens him. He stands a prisoner at a human bar, but he judges and condemns his judges.

He dies and at that hour defeat his hour of triumph and the union of shame and glory is most conspicuous in that hour when on the cross, the son of man is glorified and God is glorified in him.

His humility, his glory, and we have that in John's gospel here in this passion account.

Jesus then speaks of his cup. We're gonna have to run through this quickly and wrap it up. Verses 10, 11 record the action of Simon Peter and the response and reaction of our

Lord to his deed. Simon Peter having a sword, drew it, struck the high priest servant, cut off his right ear.

The servant's name was Malchus. Jesus said to Peter, put up your sword into his sheath.

Shall I not drink the cup which my father has given me? All four gospels record this action of one of Jesus' disciples striking one of the armed persons who came to arrest

Jesus, but John is the only gospel writer who mentions who it was. It was Peter.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke don't identify Peter and John is the only one that named the man who was struck with the sword.

His name is Malchus. Matthew, Mark, and Luke don't record that detail and so this is something unique to John's gospel.

Our Lord reacted to Peter and by the way, only Luke records that Jesus then healed him.

Luke, the physician. Jesus healed Malchus of his severed ear, but that's not recorded in Matthew, Mark, or John in Luke only.

Our Lord reacted to Peter with this rebuke. Jesus said to Peter, put your sword in the sheath.

Shall I not drink the cup which my father has given me? And so the reason Peter was rebuked, the course that Jesus was taking, he knew he must take, he must be arrested, tried, and crucified.

There was one other occasion when Jesus had rebuked Peter similarly. Earlier, Jesus announced to his disciples that they were going to Jerusalem where he'd be arrested, tried, killed, and he'd rise a third day.

We read of this in Matthew 16. From that time, Jesus began to show his disciples he must go to Jerusalem, suffer many things.

How did Peter respond? Peter took him aside, began to rebuke him, saying, far be it from you, Lord. This shall not happen to you.

This action of Peter to knock off the ear of Malchus, trying, probably going after his head, really was the same effort.

He didn't want Jesus to go through what was coming upon him, but the

Lord turned to Peter, get behind me, Satan. You're an offense to me. You're not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.

And then he declared that he must drink of this cup that the Father had given him. And so here,

Jesus is shown to be willing to drink of this cup, the cup, an emblem of the judgment of suffering and death that he must encounter in order to do his

Father's will in saving sinners. He was willing to endure it, continue with it.

And we might just close with this thought. Perhaps God has called you to drink a cup that you'd just as soon decline.

This kind of cup is not welcome. It's difficult. May we seek

God's grace to enable us to drink it as it has come from our Father, who has good and grand purposes to assist us and enable us through faith in Jesus Christ to overcome it.

Jesus Christ drank this cup, a cup containing a far greater matter of judgment than any cup you or I might be called to drink.

But he's able to give you grace in your time of need to react and respond according to his will, submitting.

Yes, it's proper and okay to try and find relief in an end, but at the same time, not murmuring or complaining or compromising the will of God in your efforts to do so.

We humble ourselves and say, well, Lord, if this is what you've called me to do,

I pray you take it away. But until you do, I'm going to follow you as even the

Lord Jesus did. And I think that's a good lesson that we can all glean from this in a measure.

And then lastly, Jesus is arrested and bound. The simplest description of his actual arrest was recorded and no doubt, our

Lord submitted to their efforts without resistance, but he did so with a sense of dignity and authority that was apparent to everybody.

And we'll read in John's gospel as he continues now to face the Jewish leaders and the Roman leaders, he's in control.

And he's submitting even to their unjust and cruel intention and actions toward him.

Let's pray. Thank you, Father, for your word. And we thank you, our God, for the richness of your accounts before us.

And we just pray that you would give us, Lord, better insight and understanding into these matters and help us, our

God, as a result, glorify Jesus Christ in our minds and our souls, our

Lord, as we reflect on these matters. Thank you, our Lord, for having given us

John's account, Lord, which enriches our understanding of these events. And so bless us, our

God, help us in our meditation upon our Savior throughout this coming week in the light of this account of his arrest.