John 18: what would we have done?

John 18 covers the arrest of Jesus, him before the high priests and before Pilate, and also Peter's denials.  To anyone familiar with the events of the first Easter, these are well known.  I expect many of us have sometimes wondered what we would have done if we had been around at the time of Jesus.  Would we have followed him?  Would we have been those shouting 'crucify him!'? 

Here's the reactions we see in John 18.

Judas - betrayal

When Jesus had spoken these words, he went out with his disciples across the Kidron Valley, where there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered. Now Judas, who betrayed him, also knew the place, for Jesus often met there with his disciples. So Judas, having procured a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons. (John 18:1-3)

I expect we don't imagine ourselves to be Judas.  Why did Judas betray Jesus - we will never know quite what was going on in his mind.  Luke says that 'Satan entered Judas' (Luke 22:3), Mark simply states that Judas went to the chief priests to betray him (Mark 14:10-11), and Matthew's account could possibly suggest that money was a motivation (“What are you willing to give me if I deliver him over to you?”, Matthew 26:15).  Maybe Judas was starting to realise that Jesus wasn't the saviour he wanted - he preached some controversial things that threatened to disrupt everything else people put their trust in.  Perhaps he was weak and fancied the money, or perhaps he was offended by Jesus and thought it better for him to be taken out of action.

The Jewish leaders - moral high ground

“If this man were not doing evil, we would not have delivered him over to you.” (John 18:30)

Earlier on. when the Jewish authorities start to plot to kill Jesus, Caiaphas makes an interesting statement: You do not realise that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.’ (John 11:50). John comments that this statement was inspired by God - and of course we know that Jesus died so that we may live. But for Caiaphas and his colleagues, the statement would have had another meaning. They also wanted to sacrifice Jesus for the supposed good of the Jewish nation - to save losing the small autonomy they currently had from the Romans, to save the traditions of the Pharisees and their authority over the people.

You could argue that the leaders had genuine concern for the Jewish people, not wanting them to deviate from what they believed to be the correct path, or you could argue that their wish to remain in power was simply vain conceit.   They weren't a homogenous group - the were all individuals - so it is likely that both ends of the spectrum were represented, along with everything in between.  However, whatever the nuance of their justifications, the fact was that they wanted to trust in themselves and their way:  their own religious credentials were what they thought saved them and gave them the right to rule.

Can we imagine ourselves wandering into a state of self-righteousness, believing that our own credentials are what saves us?  Wanting to remove any moral impurity from our religious communities?

Pilate - nothing to do with me

“Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” (John 18:31)

“What is truth?” (John 18:38)

Pilate is an interesting character to think about.  He is reluctant to get involved - first telling the Jewish leaders to deal with Jesus under their own laws.  When he is forced to look into the matter because because the Jewish leaders want him killed and do not have the legal authority to do so, he looks into the matter half-heartedly and finds that Jesus has, according to the law, done nothing wrong.  But he doesn't care enough to fight for Jesus' cause - he lets the Jewish leaders have him.

Why does Pilate behave the way he does?  Because he thinks Jesus has nothing to do with him.  The Jesus problem is a Jewish problem and not his concern - he washes his hands of it (literally, according to the other gospel writers). 

Like many people today, Pilate remarks what is truth? (John 18:38). It's a rhetorical question, because maybe he's given up finding the truth.  Many people think Jesus was a good man, but he's only for Christians.  It's nothing to do with me.

Peter - the sword

Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.) So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (John 18:10-11)

Peter loved Jesus. He followed him and was devoted to him. He had professed his willingness to die for him. And here he wants to fight on Jesus' behalf. But Jesus stops him. Peter does not trust God's plan. Matthew records Peter rebuking Jesus when the latter says he must die. saying "Never Lord...this shall never happen to you" (Matthew 16:22). Peter wants Jesus to win, but he thinks he knows what that should looks like and wants to fight alongside Jesus to make it happen.

The other gospel writers record Jesus saying: those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. I've always been taught and believed that this was Jesus teaching against physical warfare and violence. But on thinking about Peter and his motivations today, I realise it's nothing to do with that.  Jesus is saying that the sword will not save you.  We cannot win the spiritual battle with physical means.  Peter wants to roll up his sleeves and help, not understanding that this is not the way the battle is won.

Peter - fear and denial

...they said to him, “You also are not one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it and said, “I am not.” One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” Peter again denied it, and at once a cock crowed. (John 18:25-27).

Being so powerless in the face of the authorities and watching Jesus go meekly to be arrested must have knocked the wind out of Peter's sails somewhat.  He is fearful: he has lost the things that gave him hope - Jesus and the ability to follow him (for he could not follow Jesus physically into the house of the high priest, and neither could he follow Jesus to his death - that was something only Jesus could do).

So Peter does what so many do when feeling weak and ashamed - he denies everything.  The other gospel writers note that he 'wept bitterly' when he realises what he has done.  He doesn't mean to deny Jesus, but he is weak and fearful.  We may think we love Jesus, but when it comes to crunch time, do we have the strength to stick with him?

~~

Not everyone was shouting 'crucify him', but no-one truly trusted Jesus and remained faithful to him.  Not even Peter, who was devoted to Jesus.  And my opinion is that if we think we know the right way to have responded to Jesus' arrest and that we would have done it, we have not understood the gospel.  Each of the responses we see here show people trying to trust in themselves, whether they wanted Jesus or not.

If we could have been able to stand by Jesus, un-swayed in our faith, then he would not have needed to die for us.  But the truth is that it was all up to Jesus.  He did not need the army that Peter wanted to be - it was he and he alone who won eternal life for us.  It's only through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the church was and is emboldened to defend him later - we cannot do it on our own strength.  There are no heroes in this story apart from Jesus.