One of the most challenging aspects of life, and particularly in a leadership capacity, is addressing confrontation in a positive manner. I can think of no better model of how to deal with adversarial issues than to see how Jesus dealt with the most challenging situation in his earthly life. Throughout the gospel of John, there is a running tension between what Jesus is teaching and doing and the response among the religious leadership of that hour. In John 18, we come to the culmination of that conflict and how Jesus addressed it in shifting from His upper room teachings and his intercessory prayer to His arrest and then to the denial of Peter. In the gospel of John, the account of the Gethsemane experience is very different in its emphasis than the other gospel writers. John does not bring out the agonizing prayer of Jesus in the garden, or the sleeping disciples, nor the betrayer’s kiss. What John brings out is the profound sense of Jesus’ willingness to give up his life for the sake of the disciples. This action of Jesus is the cornerstone of the Christian life. Jesus’ obedience in laying down his life will bring about the most important event in human history and the incredible implications for the human condition.
When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was a garden, and he and his disciples went into it.[i]
In this encounter with his enemies, Jesus is instructing us through His example. He teaches us some powerful truths in how we can go about confronting evil and injustice in a positive manner that could possibility bring about good outcomes.
THE FIRST TRUTH IN ADDRESSING EVIL, INJUSTICE AND DIFFICULT SITUATIONS IS THE COURAGE REQUIRED IN CONFRONTING THEM
We know from experience how difficult it is to correct, challenge and discipline others. If we don’t approach it in a proper manner, we will alienate others, so the temptation is one of avoidance. Jesus, on the other hand, addressed the issues with courage and grace with an eternal perspective in mind. Jesus knew that the only way to bring redemption to the evil in our world was to lay down His life as a sacrifice to atone for our sin.
John now tells us that Jesus crossed the Kidron Valley, a place where much sacrificial activity had transpired from the reign of King David, a thousand years earlier. We need to understand that places are significant in the bible. When we think about the central place Jerusalem played in the life of the nation because of the temple’s presence there, which spoke of the unique sense of God’s presence, is but one example. Another example is the nation of Egypt which was symbolic of a time of hard bondage and captivity where the nation of Israel emerged. What is fascinating here in our text is the context of this confrontation, between Jesus and the forces of darkness. One of the important lessons we need to remind ourselves in dealing with people issues is that we are not wrestling against ‘flesh and blood.’ Often what is transpiring is spiritual in nature and therefore we need to be spiritually alert when addressing challenging situations. Where, when, and how we go about confronting people and issues is critical in moving toward healthy resolutions. I would caution us to remember that not all situations work out the way we would like, but we need to work toward healthy resolutions if at all possible.
A. The setting of the confrontation.
John now brings us into the garden of Gethsemane. It should not be lost on us that in the opening scene of the bible and the beginnings of the human story, we find Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. It was in Eden, where Adam and Eve were tested, disobeyed God and the consequences of their action brought terrible consequences and judgment upon them, the created world, and all their descendants.
Now the LORD GOD had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.’[ii]
Paul certainly understood this interchange between what happened to Adam in the garden of Eden, and what happened in the garden of Gethsemane. While the first Adam sinned and hid and ran from God and brought the whole human family under the curse of sin, the second Adam, Jesus, resisted the temptation to sin by obeying God, the Father. We know that it is through Jesus’ sacrificial death that the means of salvation from the fall of humanity has been overcome, and it is the means by which we can experience eternal life.
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.[iii]
Roland Tasker explains that each of the gospel writers share different elements in this moment of Jesus’ life, but what John is trying to convey is that Jesus is taking the initiative in this exchange with the power of darkness.
So when He crosses the brook Cedron to a garden (v. 1), which had been a favourite resort for Himself and His disciples, what is happening is that the second Adam is deliberately entering upon the final conflict with the prince of evil, reversing the situation in the garden of Eden where the serpent took the initiative in the assault upon the first Adam.[iv]
While we often think of this experience in the garden as a moment of great struggle, suffering, and sacrifice, we should understand that this was a battlefield, where Jesus is marching forward toward the defeating the foes of darkness and releasing us from the sentence of death. Jesus needs to be seen here as a conqueror, not a victim.
B. The betrayal of Jesus.
Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.[v]
Jesus had often met with His disciples in this garden, especially in the week leading up to the Passover. Judas obviously knew that this would be where Jesus and the disciples would be found.
On the night of the Passover itself, Jewish law required that observing Jews remain within an extended city limit that included Gethsemane but excluded Bethany. Probably this walled olive grove was set apart by some wealthy supporter for the use of Jesus and his disciples.[vi]
It is evident that Jesus, knowing what was about to happen, did not seek to avoid this confrontation by going to a place to hide, but to a place that was both known to Judas and advantageous in arresting Jesus. The idea in Judas’ mind was to avoid the crowds that could rise up and riot. John is the only gospel writer to mention that Jesus was arrested not only by Jewish officials and a crowd, but by a detachment of soldiers. There was certainly a deep concern that with someone as popular with the masses as Jesus, there was the possibility of a violent response which might be expected to protect Jesus from arrest. This is one of the reasons for their secrecy by coming at night to do this task. John often uses the symbolism of night to speak of the realm of darkness. I am sure that Judas had prepared the arresting force with stories that showed that Jesus was no ordinary person, as Judas had witnessed the power and authority of Jesus in supernatural ways. This may have created a greater degree of tension in coming to arrest Jesus.
C. The authority of Jesus manifested.
Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, ‘Who is it you want?’ ‘Jesus of Nazareth,’ they replied. ‘I am he,’ Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) When Jesus said, ‘I am he,’ they drew back and fell to the ground. Again he asked them, ‘Who is it you want?’ ‘Jesus of Nazareth,’ they said. Jesus answered, ‘I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.’ This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: ‘I have not lost one of those you gave me.’[vii]
Here we see the responsibility of Jesus stepping forward to protect His disciples, by laying down His life. He tells them that he is willing to be taken but that His men must be freed. This is a fulfillment that Jesus would not lose one of His followers. Roland Tasker describes this scene as one of the most dynamic scenes, revealing the authority and power of Jesus in the most trying of circumstance.
On the one hand we see Judas and his ‘army,’ representative of the world which is tainted by evil in its religion and politics and relies upon physical force to achieve its objects. On the other hand, we are confronted with Jesus unarmed, unbefriended, and apparently helpless in the face of overwhelming opposition, but having at His command invisible divine resources in virtue of His complete obedience to His heavenly Father.[viii]
Why did the arresting group draw back from Jesus and stumble? George Beasley-Murray relates the sense in which Jesus is in control of the event of his own arrest.
It was the hour ordained by the Father–hence he takes the initiative; Judas’ betrayal by a kiss is not mentioned, and Jesus himself advances toward the soldiers and the police to ask whom they want. The reply of Jesus, ‘I am he,’ may be seen as a normal self-identification, but we are almost certainly intended to recognize its overtones, as throughout the gospel. …The reality of the mysterium tremendum [awe inspiring mystery] before the presence of God (especially through a vision) is frequently illustrated in the Bible, and it is not a phenomenon limited to Jews. It is entirely comprehensible that the Jewish constables of the temple were awed by the ‘I am’ uttered by Jesus in the garden…[ix]
The Jews present would be struck by His ‘I AM’ statement, an affirmation of Deity. The Romans, who were in the majority, would be struck by His bearing, for it was obvious that He was in command. It was an emotionally charged situation, and we do not know what Judas had told them about Jesus to help prepare them for this confrontation. The Jewish leaders had tried to have Jesus arrested before and always without success. The band was prepared for conflict, and when they met with surrender and calm, they were overwhelmed.
Perhaps it was a manifestation of divine power, or an exhibition of the majesty of Jesus Christ. ‘When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell.’ (Ps. 27:2).[x]
The explanation of Jesus’ protection of His disciples seems to coincide with a certain prophecy of Scripture.
THE SECOND TRUTH IN ADDRESSING EVIL, INJUSTICE AND DIFFICULT SITUATIONS IS THE GENERAL HUMAN CONTRAST IN CONFRONTING THEM
The disciples’ response to this threat against Jesus and themselves demonstrates for us the ways in which we should not respond in confrontation. However, we often find ourselves dealing with these issues in a similar manner.
A. In Peter’s response we learn that force meeting force only escalates the conflict.
How do we manage crisis in our lives? Jesus was obviously in control and accepted what was about to happen as orchestra and ordained by His Father. Peter’s response is the natural fight or flight response when threatened. While Peter’s approach was one of violent action, the other disciples fled.
Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) Jesus commanded Peter, ‘Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?’[xi]
Here we see Peter’s response to the threat upon Jesus and His band of followers. Jesus had spoken earlier and asked them if they had a sword.
He said to them, ‘But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written; “And he was numbered with the transgressors”: and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.’ The disciples said, ‘See, Lord, here are two swords.’
‘That’s enough!’ he replied.[xii]
What did Jesus mean by this statement just before this garden encounter? Warren Wiersbe explains that what Jesus is saying is that the time had come for a change in what they could expect. However, Jesus certainly did not mean that the battles would be fought with material swords, but a new sword–the word of God.
He had warned them that from now on the situation would change, and men would treat them as transgressors. He was not suggesting that they use material swords to fight spiritual battles, but that they get a new mind-set and expect opposition and even danger. He had provided for them and protected them while He was with them on earth, but now He was returning to the Father. They would have to depend on the Holy Spirit and exercise wisdom. Peter apparently took His words literally and thought he was supposed to declare war![xiii]
Part of Peter’s response was a wrong understanding of what he thought would be the establishment of the kingdom of God. He was still in a paradigm that thought that an earthly kingdom was about to occur and that it would require warfare. He still did not grasp the idea of the Messiah as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53.
B. Jesus surrenders to the authorities.
Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jewish leaders that it would be good if one man died for the people.[xiv]
A little bit of history is needed to understand the relationship between Annas and Caiaphas, his son-in-law. Annas, was deposed from the position of being high priest by the Romans but remained the power behind the position. When Annas questioned Jesus and failed to intimidate Him, he passed the responsibility on to his son in law, Caiaphas. Gerald Borchert explains the relationship between Annas and Caiaphas and their moral culpability or guilt in the death of Jesus.
The statement that Caiaphas was the high priest ‘that year’ is not meant to suggest that the high priesthood changed every year. Rather, for John it meant that in the determinative year of salvation and world history Caiaphas was the high priest. He would be remembered for what he said and did.[xv]
What is stunning in this facade of justice is that they had already judged that Jesus must die. Where was the justice in this sham trial?
C. Peter’s denials when facing confrontation.
We discover that upon Jesus’ arrest, Peter now follows from a distance to see what is about to happen. Alone, Peter will be challenged regarding his discipleship.
Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus. Because this disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard, but Peter had to wait outside at the door. The other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the servant girl on duty there and brought Peter in.[xvi]
Some scholars believe that the other disciple mentioned here is John (Carson, Borchert, Tenney, and Tasker). The question is how does a fisherman from Galilee become known by the high priest? John’ family fishing business could have brought them into contact with people in Jerusalem. Now Peter is put on the spot. In this moment of uncertainty, Peter is questioned regarding his allegiance to Jesus.
‘You aren’t one of this man’s disciples too, are you?’ she asked Peter. He replied, ‘I am not.’ It was cold, and the servants and officials stood around a fire they had made to keep warm. Peter also was standing with them, warming himself.[xvii]
Gerald Borchert points out a number of powerful lessons from John’s account here.
Peter’s answer was a sharp ouk eimi (‘I am not!’). For the evangelist who has focused repeatedly on the affirmations of Jesus as eg eimi (‘I am’) and most immediately at the arrest (18:5, 8), the contrast here is very striking. The denial is especially significant in light of Peter’s earlier forceful statement that he would be willing to die for Jesus (13:37) and his impulsive attempt to defend Jesus (18:10). When Jesus was present, Peter was filled with boldness and sought to interfere in Jesus’ mission. But when he was alone and challenged, he lost his courage and abandoned his discipleship.[xviii]
Once again, we see the contrast between Jesus’ courage and the human response in confrontation, where earlier Peter was in fight mode, now we see him in a flight mode. Fear has taken hold of Peter, and he denies knowing Jesus, not once, but as Jesus foretold, three times. Once again, we see the contrast between Peter and Jesus in these confrontations.
D. Jesus’ courage before the former High Priest, Annas.
Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. ‘I have spoken openly to the world,’ Jesus replied. ‘I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.’ When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby slapped him in the face. ‘Is this the way you answer the high priest?’ he demanded. ‘If I said something wrong,’ Jesus replied, ‘testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?’ Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.[xix]
Gerald Borchert explains the courage of Jesus in his response to Annas.
Jesus’ response to the high priest’s questioning is not really to answer the high priest’s question… Jesus’ response is to remind the high priest that he had plenty of opportunity to gather the information he wanted in using against Jesus because Jesus was a very public figure and spoke openly to the world. Indeed, Jesus boldly asserted that he had taught in both synagogue and the Temple itself, the special domain of the high priests. When this statement of Jesus is read in the context of Annas’s peremptory show of authority, it comes across clearly as a verbal challenge to the high priest by Jesus. There is here no sense that Jesus is threatened by this human authority figure. …Because the hearing from the high priest’s perspective did not seem to accomplish anything except call into question his own procedural irregularities, the reader gets the impression that Annas turns the task of trying or interrogating Jesus over to his son-in-law, Caiaphas. This verse thus basically concludes the Jewish hearing in John.[xx]
There are so many lessons we can learn from this amazing account. We see the sham of a trial and the arrest of Jesus by night. Jesus, the defendant, is deemed dangerous and needing to die in order to ‘save the nation’ from Roman interference, but the reality is that Jesus is saving the human family from sin. We see in this confrontation the courage and willingness of Jesus to lay down His life in humble obedience and become the atoning sacrifice for our sin. The disciples’ response is typical of our human nature in confrontation. We either fight or flee, both of which are not the correct response. Rather we ought to face the issues in a loving and self-giving manner, addressing them truthfully and hopefully bringing about positive outcomes. We must realize that we cannot change others, but we must remain steadfast in doing what is right, but in a loving manner.
https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2016/07/10/02/50/softball-1507225_640.jpg
[i] John 18:1, The New international Version of the Bible, Zondervan, 2011.
[ii] Genesis 2:8, 16-17.
[iii] Romans 5:17-19.
[iv] R. V. G. Tasker, John, TNTC, (Grand Rapids, Mi: William Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960), 194.
[v] John 18:2-3.
[vi] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, Mi: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), 576.
[vii] John 18:4-9.
[viii] Tasker, John, TNTC, 194-95.
[ix] George Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary, (Waco, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1987), 322.
[x] Warren Wiersbe, The Bible Expository Commentary, Vol. 1, (Victor Books, 1996), 373.
[xi] John 18:10-11.
[xii] Luke 22:36-38.
[xiii] Warren Wiersbe, The Bible Expository Commentary, Vol. 1, 373-74.
[xiv] John 18:12-14.
[xv] Gerald Borchert, John 1B11 Vol. 25B, (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 227.
[xvi] John 18:15-16.
[xvii] John 18:17-18.
[xviii] Gerald Borchert, John 1B11 Vol. 25B, 230.
[xix] John 18:19-24.
[xx] Gerald Borchert, John 1B11 Vol. 25B, 233-234.
