John 18.15
Milk
March 22nd 2015
Okay, welcome welcome – all who are here live and all who are watching through streaming or through the archives.
This is CAMPUS Milk Gathering and I am going to be leading a teaching in John Chapter 18.
We will first pray, listen to the Word of God set to music, sit in silence for a few minutes and when we come back start at verse 1 of chapter 18.
PRAYER
MUSIC
SILENCE
Okay. So according to John’s narrative Jesus and the eleven have been in the upper room and Jesus has just offered what we call the intercessory prayer on behalf of himself, the apostles, and all those who would believe on the Apostles words – and we talked about who they would be then – and now.
So verse one of chapter 18.
John 18:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.
2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.
3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.
6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.
7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.
8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:
9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,
13 And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.
14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.
15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.
16 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.
We are going to start moving at a quicker clip simply because John’s narrative explains for us what is happening and unless some sort of clarification is needed we will leave the passages as they are. So, verse 18
18 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.
The brook Cedron was a small stream that flowed to the east of Jerusalem, through the valley of Jehoshaphat, and divided the city from the Mount of Olives.
It was also called “Kidron” and “Kedron” in scripture.
In summer it is almost dry and the word used here by John describes an actual river that swells by rain or snow melt so obviously it is a seasonal river or stream.
The destination of the water is the dead sea.
The stream has historical significance because it is mentioned a lot in 1st Kings and was the brook David crossed over (according to 2nd Sam 15) when he was fleeing from Absalom his son.
Over the river and on the west side of the Mount of Olives was a garden called Gethsemane.
It was customary for rich men to have such gardens in and around the city and might be likened to a small city park in our day and age.
It is thought Jesus or one or some of the apostles knew the owner and was allowed to use it as a place of rest and meditation. We know that Jesus used the place frequently. How? (Verse 2)
2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.
We don’t know why Jesus and/or the apostles frequented this place but we might assume it was a place where they prayed or just relaxed.
I have a theory relative to their familiarity with the garden which we’ll talk about in a minute.
In ant case the place was known as a place the Lord and the apostles hung out. So much so that Judas knew they would be there.
We don’t get many insights to the Lord and his hangouts but this garden (and Mary and Martha’s) was one of them.
(verse 3)
3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
Did you notice something?
John went from telling us that Jesus and His disciples passed over the river to the garden, and now Judas is there with the temple guards. What’s missing?
John doesn’t cover the suffering Jesus experienced in the Garden that the synoptic gospels include.
Because the Gospel of John was written so much later than the others and because much of what John covers is unique to his account (meaning he includes a lot of what the other accounts miss) it seems that John omits the suffering in Gethsemane because it was included in the other accounts.
This is an important point because IF the suffering in the garden was “part of Jesus atonement,” or the place where He actually suffered for sin (as some religions claim) it would really be strange for one of the Gospel writers to not even mention it.
It mean that would be like Matthew, Mark Luke or John telling the story of Jesus and not mentioning the cross, right?
We might wonder if the Garden played any role in the atonement for sin. First, let’s look at what scripture says.
In Galatians 6:12-14 Paul mentions our
“. . . suffering persecution for the cross of Christ.”
In all the references to Jesus and His atoning work the events of the Garden are never mentioned.
Paul continues in Galatians and says . . .
“But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
You notice Paul says nothing about glorying in the Garden, that He glories in nothing other than the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Again in Ephesians 2:16, the cross is used metonymically as the thing that unifies sinful man to Holy God, saying:
“that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
Not by the Garden but the cross.
How about a few more?
Speaking of Jesus Philippians 2:8 says:
“And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”
Read Colossians 1:20:
“And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.”
And, having made peace through what? The blood of the garden? The blood of his cross!
Now listen to this. Listen.
Colossians 2:14
“Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;”
So there is one item relative to the Garden Experience and suffering for sin – the Garden is not ever included in the mix.
What else can we say?
In the Garden Jesus was tempted to abandon the cross that loomed ahead in his immediate future.
It was a trial of His faith and resolve to do the will of the Father. It was not part of doing the will but a Satanic challenge to do His own will.
Of course Jesus asked the Father about his options but added, “Not my will but thine be done.”
And THEN He went out and His suffering began AFTER He turned Himself over into the hands of sinners.
Additionally, we know that while Jesus was in the Garden that the Lord sent an angel to support Him in the temptation.
In other words Satan was tempting Him to walk from the coming trial and God was strengthening Him in His resolve.
But once Jesus was in the hands of the temple guard, then the Romans, we read of no support. Instead we read of Him breaking down to the point where, bearing the sin of the world, He actually cried out, “My God, My God why have you forsaken me?”
We can see from this that in atoning he was alone but in the garden He was not – another proof that atonement was not going on in the garden.
Finally – and this is my own observation – I think that if Peter, James and John – who he took with Him when he went off to pray – were aware of what was coming I’m not so sure they would have fallen asleep while Jesus prayed and asked them to remain alert.
Think about this for a minute. If you had traveled and witnesses all the miracles Jesus had done and then that night, before going into the Garden Jesus said:
“I am going to go and pray and while I am doing so Judas is leading are small platoon of temple guards armed with swords and staves to take me away to die,” I seriously doubt Peter, James and John would have slept.
However, IF the apostles were used to going to this garden with Jesus, and if they were accustomed to Jesus spending long spans of time in prayer in that setting, I am inclined to believe that even though He was asking them to pray for Him they did not know the urgency of the request and sleep overtook them time and time again.
In any case, John does not cover the events of Gethsemane but only tells us that
3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
The band of men and officers from the chief priests were a combination of Romans soldiers assigned to the temple to keep peace during the Passover when crowds were at their height (this is according to Josephus) and a group of what were called temple guards who were the officers of the chief priests.
John adds that they born lanterns (which were more like torches and the word for weapons signifies swords (which would have been carried by the Roman soldiers) and staves (which were wood clubs and other scary implements).
There’s nothing like the bravado of a well armed crowd of zealots with a cause, right?
It is thought that this was a time when there was a full moon so it might have been cloudy, and their taking torches with them shows their determined preparation to capture him.
4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, “Whom seek ye?”
I like this. John lets us know that Jesus is fully aware of what is going down but He still openly asks them who they were out after. It seems like He is forcing them to say what they are up to rather than just walking up and handing Himself over to their chains.
There’s a very important principle here but I’m not sure that I can say what it is – something to do with keeping everything on the up and up, not playing games, not playing the martyr, but working in and through the evil machinations that undergirded this scene and making sure everyone involved clearly understood their ole and culpability.
In response (verse 5)
5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.
Of course we note that the “HE” here in the King James (as in I am he) was added and so in reality Jesus asked:
Whom do you seek?
They said, “Jesus of Nazareth.”
And He said, “I am.”
EGO-AMII
The very same words God told Moses to use when he was asked the name of God.
I personally do not think this is coincidental. I think it was purposeful and quite frankly believe that the name (when spoken by God) has power because (verse 6 says)
6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am they went backward, and fell to the ground.
We don’t know why they had this reaction to His name. We could certainly make some fanciful and motivational reasons up.
Some have suggested that they had all heard of His miracles and power and when He admitted to them that He was the man they were terrified and fell backward over each other.
Others, of course, suggest that they were overwhelmed by the power of His stated name and some think that His open and fearless reception of them terrified them the most.
Again, we don’t really know.
Some have even thought that their guilt rendered them a big pool of mush in the face of the Truth He represented.
Whatever it was they fell backward and to the ground.
In some ways – I know this is horrible – but in some ways I find the whole falling backward scene hilarious.
I mean Matthew and Luke say that it was a large multitude that came out to get Him, some of them were armed – clubs, staves, swords, torches – some were Roman soldiers and when He identifies Himself they all fall backward to the ground?
I wonder if there was a soldier who got knocked over by the others that was like:
“Get off me, you imbeciles! This is embarrassing!”
Jesus (verse 7) asks them again, “Whom seek ye?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.”
Verse 8 and Jesus replied, “I have told you that I am (again not “he” here): if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:
You’ve found who you’ve been looking for with your swords and your torches. If you are looking for me how about letting these guys go their way?
This, to me, is another subtle insight into why the Garden experience had nothing to do with paying for sin.
Inside the garden walls he was requesting that the disciples assist him, pray for Him, stay awake and help him through temptation – but once the decision was made, and His eyes were fixed on the cross, He made absolutely no appeal for their continued support.
It was a burden He was going to face alone – without angels, without apostles, and even at one point without God.
When we look at cult leaders they are always seeking to take people down with them because they were never selfless to start.
They would rather have everyone die with them than spare their flock and they alone go.
We saw this with the Japanese “Aum Karinko,” with “Po and Halle Bop,” with “Jim Jones, with “Waco” and even with Joseph Smith who, surrounded by his brother and friends, tried to face his demise by and through a fire fight where others lives would certainly be lost.
Not so with the Only True Messiah. Instead He says, “You’re seeking me –let these men who are with me – who are obviously in my camp and supportive of me and my mission and by association guilty – let them go.
I am certain these men had the providence of God on their side as it seems like anyone associated with Christ the insurrectionist would have otherwise been taken too.
But these men – from the beginning – were not in control. They thought they were, but God was in control from the beginning and because of this I think the apostles were spared.
I think we also are brought back to John 10 – especially in light of the examples I just cited of corrupt men leading people – when Jesus said of Himself:
John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
These words were literally fulfilled right here in these apostles literal lives and would be fulfilled for their spiritual lives too – and for anyone who believes on Him.
Men will fail us – especially in terms of saving us spiritually – there is nothing a man or woman can do but urgently point all people to Christ, the “Good Shepherd who gave his life for the sheep.”
John reiterates something that Jesus said in the upper room prayer back in chapter 17 at the recollection that Jesus requested that His apostles be freed: (verse 9)
9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
Well (beat) we almost can’t enter into an important event in the Gospels – one where everything Jesus does is so poignant and perfect – without good old Peter bringing the whole thing back to the flesh. So after Jesus asks that his own would be let go (verse 10)
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
Two things about John’s account here.
First of all no other gospel account reveals either the name of the Apostle who did the lopping nor the name of guy who got lopped.
The suggestion is that both Malchus and Peter were alive when the synoptics were written and to mention them by name may have put either or both of their lives in danger.
Not mentioning Peter is obvious – he could have been implicated in resisting and taken. But why Malchus?
Some believe that Malchus converted (due to the healing) and he would have been sought out to erase his testimony.
The thinking is once Jesus was taken and killed that anyone recognizable who remained behind would have become fair game in short order.
11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, “Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?”
This verse is yet (in my estimation) another evidence that what Jesus was going to do for the sins of the world had not yet begun.
I say this because what Jesus asks Peter is the cup the Father has given Him should he refrain from going forth and drinking it?
In Matthew 26:53 Jesus asks Peter:
“Don’t you think that I can pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?”
As if to ask impetuous Peter: “Don’t you think if physical warfare was the way we are going to go about this that I could call down enough angels to wipe these guys out in one fell swoop?”
Now, how to reconcile Peter and his actions here – an action of great courage – with his denying Christ three times in the very near future?
I can explain the two situations in a couple of ways – maybe you’ve got more.
First of all, maybe Peter was full of courage because He saw Jesus as a source of immense strength and fortitude and when he saw the multitude coming to take him he mistakenly assumed that things were going to get physical and he was going to defend the Lord at all costs.
I truly believe this is the mindset of the man in attacking Malchus in this manner.
Remember, he was a salty dog fisherman and he was also a Jew who had a 1500 year history under his belt of fighting.
So, in my opinion, Peter was like, “Ain’t nobody gonna get to my Lord unless they wanna lose a body part.”
And while this is certainly not the route the Lord wanted to take it was certainly an act that human beings have gotta appreciate at some level or another.
I sometimes wonder if Jesus and Peter don’t have a hearty laugh over the whole thing – being Jesus healed Malchus and all in the end.
So, in the first sense, Peter must have gotten a bit crazy and forgetting all Jesus had taught them about where He was going and the need for Him to go there, he gets physical.
So what gives with Peter and the denials? Two thoughts:
The first reason might be due to Jesus words to Him:
“the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?”
Maybe Peter realized what was about to happen was supposed to happen and he resigned himself to it to some extent.
And maybe in that resignation he slipped into self-protection mode – especially since he took the offensive and chopped off an ear on Jesus behalf. So when he was asked if he knew the Lord it was really easy to say no.
On the other hand, it may be that Peter did not realize that Jesus was going to be returning to them anytime soon and feeling really abandoned – when he watched the Lord being taken away – he was in utter self-protection mode and was just ready to get back to his nets to fish and leave the whole thing behind him.
We’ll touch on the denials a bit more next week. (verse 12)
12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,
I can’t help but see the irony of why Jesus came to earth when I read this passage.
Do you remember when Jesus was in the synagogue and He stood and read? Do you remember what passage he read and then said:
“Today this is fulfilled in your ears?”
It was Isaiah 61 which says in part:
“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.”
The irony, of course, is that in order to bind up the broken hearted he would have to have His heart broke, to proclaim liberty to the captives He would have to surrender His liberty and become captive in flesh, and as a means to open the prison for those who are bound He would be bound.
Which is exactly what John 18:12 says:
They took the creator of the universe and bound Him. (verse 13)
13 And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.
It is assumed that Annas house was close by and because he had great authority and influence in the Jewish nation they took Jesus to Him first.
From AD 7 to AD 14 Annas was the High Priest over the Nation of Israel but was removed from that office by the Romans.
In A.D. 25 Caiaphas was put in that place as he had married the daughter of Annas.
At the same time it is believed that Annas probably served as the president of the Sanhedrim or some sort of deputy and just sort of retained the title of High Priest (along with his son in law Caiaphas).
Why would he retain the title? According to the Mosaic law the high-priesthood was held for life (Numbers 3:10) and so since the Romans were the ones who removed him the Jews probably still believed he was the man ( too).
Therefore the Lord was brought to him first and then to the functioning high priest, Caiaphas, Annas’ son in law.
John is the only one who mentions that Jesus was first taken to Annas.
We don’t know what happened there but whatever it was Jesus was quickly taken to Caiaphas, of whom John writes (verse 14)
14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.
Back in John 11, beginning at verse 47 that the Sanhedrim were worried about the influence Jesus was having over the people. And it says:
47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.
It is probable that John mentions what Caiaphas said here to show that he had already made up his mind that Jesus should die and that there was no way possible He would have received a fair trial.
What is really interesting about Caiaphas and his words is that they were absolutely true.
It seems like while evil was in his heart he still, as High priest over the nation, prophesied when he said of Jesus:
“that it is expedient (for us), that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.”
I think it is also interesting that the High Priest’s job was to offer up a blood sacrifice for the nation of Israel and this in fact is what He was doing. (I think Dave made mention of this a few weeks ago). (verse 15)
8:15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.
So we have an account of two of the disciples following Jesus.
Most believe that the one John calls “another disciple,” was John who is typically resistant in using his own name.
Some have thought that this disciple was another one who lived in Jerusalem, and since He was not a Galilean he could enter the palace without suspicion.
Because John says that this “other disciple” was known to the High Priest (and was therefore allowed into the Palace without being questioned) it seems doubtful that the non-Galilean theory holds water and instead John was the unnamed disciple and was allowed in because he knew (or was possibly related distantly to Caiaphas).
16 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.
We’ll end there for today –
Questions / Comments
qu
