April 3, 2016                  John 18:1-24

Download discussion questions:  John 18_1-24 Annas

For a relatively short passage (twenty-four verses, about 500 words in English, fewer in Greek) this passage contains a surprisingly large cast of characters.  Many played a part, some named, some anonymous, multiple groups, at least fifteen distinct participants.  I imagined the roll of credits at the end of a movie naming all the characters.  With that many characters and given the relational nature of John’s storytelling, it makes sense to look at the encounters among the different persons.  What we can learn about the individuals from how they engage others in the various situations?

One member of our discussion group pointed out the wide range of the social status of the characters, from slaves to disciples to Jewish officials to temple guards.  The passage gives a cross section of how the various people encounter Jesus, how they react to Him, and how He responds to them.  They all have the opportunity to see Jesus, but the results of those opportunities are quite diverse.

Naturally, our attention is first drawn to Jesus.  Several people offered their impressions of Him from this passage.  He was submissive to the Father’s will (v. 11).  He was in command of the situation (for example, twice He “went forth” and took the initiative, vv. 1, 4).  He acted with full knowledge of what He was facing (v. 4a), boldly trusting God’s providential plan.  He was protective of His disciples (v. 10).

Jesus had a powerful impact on others.  They fell to the ground when He spoke (v. 6).  We discussed that scene.  Was there some supernatural effect on the arresting crowd?  If they had heard about this person who raised the dead and walked on water and healed diseases (and maybe other exaggerated rumors), they might have been apprehensive about approaching Him.  When He spoke and clearly, confidently identified Himself, “they drew back” (v. 6).  If you have ever been in a group that suddenly changed direction, it is not difficult to imagine the slaves and guards and officers tripping over each other as they backed away from this mysterious person.  Picture Jesus patiently waiting for them to get back up and reorganize themselves and their lanterns and torches and weapons (v. 3) so that He can ask them again, “Whom do you seek?”  Did the disciples wonder when He missed such a great opportunity to escape?

One person in our group asked an interesting question (a frequent part of our discussions).  Why did Jesus describe His submissive obedience as drinking the cup the Father had given Him (v. 11)?  Why the image of a cup?  Why not be more direct, something like “Do the work” or “Fulfill the mission” of the Father?  There were numerous suggestions (another common factor in the group).  Perhaps there is a reference back to the cup of Communion they had shared (although John had not included that part of the story in his Gospel).  Another idea connected the cup to the Passover meal, but once again there is not a specific mention for John’s readers to see that possible link.  It may be that drinking a cup of anything was a way of expressing trust, more personal than doing work or even fulfilling a mission.  Picture the Father handing a cup to the Son, who drinks it in trusting obedience, even knowing its bitter contents.  Jesus spoke often of the work the Father had sent Him to do and the mission He was on, but at this crucial moment the image He uses is much more intimate.

Looking at Peter in this passage is more about confirming what we have seen before rather than learning something new about him.  Jesus is challenged by the arresting assembly.  After they fall down and Jesus gives them another chance to arrest Him, Peter decides to act.  Jesus had just asked the officers to let His disciples leave peacefully, yet Peter chose that moment to draw a sword and cut off a slave’s ear.  The consensus of our group was that fishermen/disciples were probably not well trained in sword skills and cutting off the ear was not a matter of careful aim.  Peter seemed desperate to gain control of the situation, to do something, to do anything to manage the circumstances.  What a contrast with the calmness of Christ!  We also thought how odd it seems that the armed guards did not respond immediately to Peter’s action with overwhelming (and probably fatal) force.  “Impetuous” was the most frequent word used to describe Peter in our discussion.  In spite of Jesus’ teaching about His hour coming and His submissive demeanor in the face of arrest, Peter felt it was up to him to manage the situation, to make unpleasant circumstances go away, to gain control over difficulties.

Then we see Peter in another interaction, this time with a slave girl.  The text says that “the other disciple” (discussed below) “brought Peter in” to the courtyard of the high priest (v. 16).  The text doesn’t say if Peter wanted to go in, and probably he wished he had not.  The brash sword-wielding crisis manager is now intimidated by a slave girl’s question.  (Both persons Peter engaged in this passage were slaves, and neither occurrence showed him in a good light.  As has been mentioned before, these kinds of embarrassing details usually are not included in propaganda or legend, but only in historically accurate accounts.)

Doesn’t it seem odd that the writer names an obscure slave who is injured in the arrest (v. 10), but he fails to identify a close disciple of Jesus, mentioning only “another disciple” (v. 15, 16).  This unnamed follower of Jesus had some social status, since he was known by the high priest and could freely enter his residence, even bringing along a friend (Peter).  Traditionally, the “other disciple” is considered to be John exhibiting a writer’s humility in not naming himself.  John does confirm this at the end of the book (John 21:24), identifying himself as “the disciple Jesus loved” (v. 20) in another scene with Peter.

Jesus is brought before the Jewish officials, more specifically to Annas, who technically was not the high priest but related to the official high priest (Caiaphas) by marriage.  That seems like another odd fact in this story.  One member of the group who had done some research before we met explained that Annas had been the high priest, but the Romans had removed him and installed their own political appointee, Caiaphas.  Perhaps the loyal temple guards who arrested Jesus still thought of Annas as the real power and chose not to take Him first to the Roman replacement.

The contrast between the authorities and Jesus was part of our discussion.  The arrest at night, the obviously shady interrogation before the former high priest who had no official authority – everything was done in secret and in underhanded ways.  When questioned, Jesus pointed to the openness and public nature of His works and His teaching (v. 20-21).  The not-so-subtle contrast with the covert action of the high priest could be taken as an insult.  A guilty conscience may have prompted the nearby officer to strike the Prisoner (v. 22).  The questioning itself was a no-win situation.  Jesus encouraged His accusers to seek out other witnesses to answer their charges about His disciples and His teaching (v. 19).  Earlier, Pharisees had rejected Jesus because, “You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true” (John 8:13).  The authorities didn’t want to hear His own testimony; and when He suggested other witnesses He was slapped.  The self-protective interests of those in charge outweighed any desire they might have had for truth or justice.  Even John’s narrative (v. 14) includes a reminder of Caiaphas’s unknowing prophecy (John 11:50) which grew out of the council’s fear of losing “our place and our nation” (John 11:48).

A theme that runs through this passage is the numerous stressful encounters:  Judas and the arresting crowd confronting Jesus, Peter with his sword, the slave girl’s question, the authorities interrogating Jesus, the officer’s slap.  The responses to stress show a variety of how individuals try to control unpleasant situations – by retreating (the crowd), by forceful action (Peter), by denial (Peter again), by exercising authority (the chief priest), by personal assault (the officer’s slap).  The seeming anomaly in these scenes is Jesus.  He is the only one who knows for sure where the story is going (v. 4), and He will be the most impacted by the unfolding events.  Yet the stressful circumstances have the least effect on Him.  We considered what we might learn from Him about handling stressful situations in our own lives.

Jesus had clarity on several key issues.  He knew His calling and direction from the Father (John 12:44-46, etc.).  He was committed to obedience to the Father rather than control of circumstances (John 18:11).  He understood that His identity was in His relationship with the Father (John 13:1-3; 14:9-11).  Themes we have seen continually repeated in John’s Gospel all contribute to this moment.  Jesus’s calm, measured responses to stress in the fast moving story grow from that clarity.  Perhaps our stressful reactions and desire to control unpleasant circumstances grow out of a lack of clarity in those issues.  Knowing who we are in the Father’s love expressed in the Son’s sacrifice and experienced through the Spirit’s work does not remove painful circumstances.  But our relationship with the Triune God can change our perspective from stress to trusting obedience as it did for Jesus in the garden.