Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 18:2
And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.
2. which betrayed ] Better, who was betraying: he was at that moment at work. Comp. Joh 18:5.
knew the place ] Therefore Christ did not go thither to hide or escape, as Celsus scoffingly asserted. Origen ( Cels. ii. 10) appeals to Joh 18:4-5 as proving that Jesus deliberately surrendered Himself.
ofttimes ] Comp. Joh 8:1, and see on Luk 21:37; Luk 22:39. The owner must have known of these gatherings, and may himself have been a disciple.
resorted thither ] Literally, assembled there; as if these gatherings were for teaching of a more private kind than was given to the multitude.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Jesus ofttimes resorted thither – For what purpose he went there is not declared, but it is probable that it was for retirement and prayer. He had no home in the city, and he sought this place, away from the bustle and confusion of the capital, for private communion with God. Every Christian should have some place – be it a grove, a room, or a garden – where he may be alone and offer his devotions to God. We are not told much of the private habits of Jesus, but we are permitted to know so much of him as to be assured that he was accustomed to seek for a place of retirement, and during the great feasts of the Jews the Mount of Olives was the place which he chose, Luk 21:37; Mat 21:17; Joh 8:1.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 2. Judas – knew the place] As many had come from different quarters to celebrate the passover at Jerusalem, it could not be an easy matter to find lodging in the city: Jesus therefore chose to pass the night in the garden with his disciples which, from this verse, and from Lu 22:39, we find was his frequent custom, though he often lodged in Bethany. But, as he had supped in the city this evening, Judas took it for granted that he had not gone to Bethany, and therefore was to be met with in the garden; and, having given this information to the priests, they gave him some soldiers and others that he might be the better enabled to seize and bring him away.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
We read that Christ, when he was at Jerusalem, was wont at night for privacy to retire to the mount of Olives, Luk 21:37; 22:39 and it should seem that he was wont ordinarily to go to this garden, which made Judas know the particular place where he might find him.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. Judas . . . knew the place, forJesus ofttimessee Joh 8:1;Luk 21:37.
resorted thither with hisdisciplesThe baseness of this abuse of knowledge in Judas,derived from admission to the closest privacies of his Master, ismost touchingly conveyed here, though nothing beyond bare narrativeis expressed. Jesus, however, knowing that in this spot Judas wouldexpect to find Him, instead of avoiding it, hies Him thither, as aLamb to the slaughter. “No man taketh My life from Me, but I layit down of Myself” (Joh10:18). Besides, the scene which was to fill up the littlebreathing-time, the awful interval, between the Supper and theApprehensionlike the “silence in heaven for about the spaceof half an hour” between the breaking of the Apocalyptic Sealsand the peal of the Trumpets of war (Re8:1) the AGONYwouldhave been too terrible for the upper room; nor would He cloud thedelightful associations of the last Passover and the firstSupper by pouring out the anguish of His soul there. The garden,however, with its amplitude, its shady olives, its endearedassociations, would be congenial to His heart. Here He had roomenough to retirefirst, from eight of them, and then from the morefavored three; and here, when that mysterious scene was over, thestillness would only be broken by the tread of the traitor.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Judas also which betrayed him, knew the place,…. This character is given of Judas, to distinguish him from another disciple of the same name; and though as yet he had not betrayed him, yet it was determined he should, and Christ knew it, and he was now about to do it: and it is observed, that Judas was as well acquainted with the place of Christ’s resort, and knew the garden he frequently retired to, as the rest of the disciples; to show that Christ did not go there to hide and secure himself from him, but to meet him, and that he might have an opportunity of finding him with the greater case:
for Jesus often times resorted thither with his disciples; when at Jerusalem at any of the feasts, and at this festival; partly for refreshment and rest after he had been preaching in the temple, and partly for prayer, and also for private conversation with his disciples.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Resorted thither ( ). First aorist passive indicative of , old verb to gather together. A bit awkward here till you add “with his disciples.” Judas knew the place, and the habit of Jesus to come here at night for prayer (Lu 22:39). Hence his offer to catch Jesus while the feast was going on, catch him at night and alone in his usual place of prayer (the very spirit of the devil).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Which betrayed [ ] . The present participle, marking the betrayal as in progress. Literally, who is betraying.
Resorted [] . Literally, assembled. The items of this verse are peculiar to John.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
BETRAYED AND ARRESTED V. 2-11
1) “And Judas also which betrayed him, knew the place:” (edei de kai loudas ho paradidous auton ton topen) “Then Judas also, the one who betrayed him, knew the place,” the particular place of Gethsemane, on the Mount of Olives, the country estate, Mat 26:47; Mar 14:43.
2) “For Jesus ofttimes resorted thither,” (hoti pollakis sunechthe lesous ekei) “Because Jesus often assembled out there,” as also recounted Luk 22:39; Luk 22:47. Because Jesus on previous visits to Jerusalem had visited there, Luk 21:37.
3) “With his disciples.” (meta ton matheton autou) “With his new covenant fellowship of disciples.” for privacy, fellowship, and prayer, under the shade of the olive trees: It was surely associated in the traitors mind with many words of love and friendship that had there fallen from the lips of Jesus, who had chosen, him, ordained him, fed him, yet the traitor was now about to lift up his heel against Him, Psa 41:9, in the, greedy gain of the bargain of 30 pieces of silver, Mat 26:14-16; Mar 14:10-11: Luk 22:2-6.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(2) And Judas also, which betrayed.Better, . . . who was betraying Him. The original word is a present participle, and marks the Betrayal as actually in progress.
For Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.This is one of the instances of St. Johns exact knowledge of the incidents which attended the Jerusalem life of our Lord. (Comp. Introduction, p. 371.) All the Evangelists narrate the coming of Judas. John only remembers that the spot was one belonging, it may be, to a friend or disciple, where Jesus was in the habit of going with His disciples, and that Judas therefore knew the place, and knew that he would probably find them there.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. Jesus ofttimes resorted thither Where, beneath shadowing olive trees, he held discourse with his followers. Hence this is the place where Judas, whom we last saw departing from the supper-table, (xiii, 30,) was again to meet his Master. At this point, according to the other Evangelists, is to be inserted the narrative of the agony of Gethsemane. By a ruthless criticism, Strauss and others infer from the silence of John and the triumphant tone of the valedictory and prayer of the previous chapters, that the agony never took place. We apprehend that the answers are ample. Why should John insert what had been so fully given by his predecessors? And who cannot see that the sorrows of Gethsemane are truly preluded by the sad undertone, mentioned in our closing note to the last chapter, both of the valedictory and the prayer? Nor are we able to conceive how a scene so wonderful in its conception, so unparalleled and mysterious in its character, so surpassing any passage of classic antiquity, could have been framed without the basis of truth, either by the genius of the Evangelists or the mind of the early Christian Church. No truly Christian heart needs any defence of this passage from a criticism so utterly uncritical.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Now Judas also, who betrayed him, knew the place, for Jesus often went there with his disciples.’
This important piece of information explains why Judas was able to find him so easily and why he was needed in order to obtain the arrest. They had tried to arrest Jesus in official places when people were present and had been unable to do so. Judas provided them with the opportunity of finding Him comparatively alone in a private and secluded place.
The fact that this was a regular rendezvous ties in with Luk 21:37 where we are told that Jesus taught in the Temple by day, and by night would go to the Mount of Olives. It is quite possible that some provision of accommodation was made for Him there. Alternately they may have slept in the open air or in tents.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus oft-times resorted thither with his disciples. (3) Judas then, having received a hand of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns, and torches, and weapons.
It is sweetly said, that Jesus oft-times resorted thither with his disciples. Yes! no doubt the Lord had enjoyed many blessed hours in communion with his Father in this hallowed spot. And no doubt had oft refreshed his faithful Apostles in it with his divine discourses. Here then, where Christ in his human nature had received the richest consolations, shall he now sustain the bitterest conflicts. And as in a garden his Church in her Adam-nature fell under the temptation of the devil, so in a garden will Jesus begin his triumph over hell, to take his Church out of the hands of Satan. Judas, it is said, knew the place. No doubt had often heard, in common with the other Apostles, the Lord’s heavenly discourses there. But what discourses of heaven, and heavenly things, can affect the minds of them w ho are earthly, sensual, devilish? Reader! depend upon it, if all the damned in hell were liberated from their chains, no other mind would they have, but what would be still hellish. And if the devils were permitted to change their place, there would be no change accomplished by this of their nature: devils they would still be. Nothing but a sovereign act of grace could alter their mind. And this we are told will never be accomplished. They are reserved, scripture saith, in everlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day. Jud 1:6 .
Of this awful character Judas, I have said so much already (Joh 13 .) as to render it unnecessary to enlarge in this place in adding to the account. But I cannot forbear observing, in this miserable man’s history, to what a desperate degree of hardness the mind of man, under hellish influence, is capable of arriving. It is very evident, from the relation which follows in this Chapter, that when the band of soldiers fell to the ground at the voice of Christ, Judas must have fallen with them, for the Evangelist is express in noting, that Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. Reader! pause over the trembling account. Here were chief priests and Pharisees, Roman soldiers and officers, and Judas the traitor, all standing together in conspiracy against the person of Christ. Now, I humbly ask, were not these the different heads and representatives of all the enemies of God, and of his Christ? The chief priests and Pharisees were the representatives of the Jewish church. The Roman soldiers of the Gentiles. And both were prophesied to join hand in hand to the death of Christ. See Psa 2 . And what was Judas? Was he not the awful representative of all the reprobate? Jud 1:4 .
I must not pass away from these verses, without first noticing the circumstance of this band of armed men coming to apprehend Christ, with lanterns, and torches, and weapons. What was this for? In all probability it was moon-light, being full moon according to the season of the Passover; yet, as if to make sure of their object, they bring lights with them, as well as weapons. Judas, their leader, no doubt had told them of some of Christ’s miracles, and therefore they used every precaution. But, if the Reader will attend to what is related in the following verses, he will discover how the Lord rendered all these circumstances, (as he did indeed every other) to minister to his own glory, the joy of his Church, and the confusion of his enemies. Luk 4:28-31 ; Joh 6:15 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
XXVI
JESUS BETRAYED, ARRESTED, FORSAKEN; TRIED BY ANNAS, BY CAIAPHAS, AND BY THE SANHEDRIN
Harmony, pages 186-196 and Mat 26:47-75
In the last chapter we considered the sorrow of Christ in Gethsemane, and dipped somewhat into the account of the betrayal of our Lord. Just here we call attention particularly to the supplemental testimony of John’s Gospel that the Roman band or cohort, under its own prefect or miltary tribune, or chiliarch, was present when Jesus was arrested, and participated therein, indeed, themselves arresting, binding, and conducting Jesus to the Jewish authorities. This is a little difficult to understand, but we find no difficulty in the presence of the Temple guard, under the leadership of the Sanhedrin, and the mixed multitude irregularly armed, that came out for the purpose of arresting Jesus. Our trouble is to account for so strong a Roman force, under a high Roman officer, and the part they played in the matter, inasmuch as it was not an arrest for violating a Roman law, nor did they deliver the prisoner to Pilate, but to Annas and Caiaphas. From this supplemental story of John (Joh 18:2-14 ), certain facts are evidenced:
Judas, the betrayer of Christ, and who guided the arresting party, “received the Roman cohort,” usually about 600 men, under its own commanding officers. This could not have been without the consent of Pilate.
They evidently did not go out to make an ordinary arrest under Roman law, else would the prisoner have been delivered to Pilate. Yet the facts show that they did seize and bind Jesus and deliver him to Annas, one of the acting high priests, and thence to Caiaphas. As it was not customary for Roman legionaries in conquered states to act as a constabulary force for local municipal authorities in making an arrest touching matters not concerning the Empire, and as it is evident there were present an ample force of the Jewish Temple guard, besides an irregularly armed Jewish multitude subordinate to the Sanhedrin, then why the presence of this Roman force at all, and more particularly, why their participation in the arrest? The answer is as follows:
First, both the Sanhedrin and Pilate feared tumults at the crowded feasts when the city swarmed with fiery, turbulent Jews gathered from all the lands of the dispersion. Doubtless the Sanhedrin had represented to Pilate the presence in the city of a dangerous character, as they would charge, yet one so popular with the masses they dare not attempt to arrest him in the daytime, and even feared a mob rising in the night.
Second, their presence and intervention was necessary to protect the prisoner himself from assassination or lynch law. When they came to the garden and found Jesus there with a following of at least eleven men disposed to resist the arrest, and when they saw the whole Jewish guard fall before the outshining majesty of the face of Jesus as if stricken by lightning, and when they saw at least one swordstroke delivered in behalf of Jesus, then only, it became proper for the Roman guard to intervene. This necessity might arise from the fact that they could not trust the turbulent Jews with the management of this case. “We will arrest this man and protect him from their violence until delivered to their authorities to be tried for whatever offense with which he may be charged under their laws.” Indeed, humanly speaking, if that Roman cohort had not been present, he would have been mobbed before he reached any kind of a trial. The case of Paul (Act 21:30 ), and the intervention of Lysias, the chiliarch, illustrates the grounds of Roman intervention. It must be borne in mind that the Romans were silent, and did nothing until they saw the Temple guard unable to face the dignity of Jesus, and that a commencement, at least, of the struggle had been made by Peter to resist arrest.
As we are now coming to the climax of our Lord’s earth life, his betrayal, his trials, condemnation, execution, and resurrection, the literature becomes the richest in the world, and the bibliography most important. Particularly do we here find a unique and most powerful literature from the viewpoint of lawyers. They do not intrude into the theological realm to discuss the trial of Jesus as the sinner’s substitute before the court of God on the charge of sin, with the penalty of spiritual death, nor the trial of Jesus as the sinner’s substitute before the court of Satan on the charge of sin, with the penalty of physical death, but they discuss the legal aspects of his trial before the Jewish supreme court, the Sanhedrin, on the charge of blasphemy) with the penalty of stoning, and the trials of Jesus before the Roman courts of Pilate and Herod on the charges of treason and sedition. They answer the question: Under the Jewish law, which was not only civil and criminal, but ecclesiastical, was Jesus legally arrested, legally prosecuted, and fairly condemned, or was the whole case, as tried by the Sanhedrin, a case of malice, violating all the rights of the accused, and culminating in legal murder? In the same way these great lawyers and jurists expound the case before the Roman courts of Pilate and Herod, and from a lawyer’s viewpoint pronounce upon the Judgment of these cases under a judicial construction of the Roman law.
Under this first head of bibliography I give a list of these books by the great lawyers, every one of which ought to be in every preacher’s library. Do not waste money on inconsequential and misleading books. Do not fill your libraries with rubbish. Have fewer and greater books, and study them profoundly.
The Testimony of the Evangelists, by Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was a law partner of Chief Justice Story, was for quite a while professor of law in Harvard University, and the author of that noted book, The Law of Evidence, which has been accepted in two continents as the highest and safest authority OD this great theme. Indeed, when we consider this splendid contribution by Dr. Greenleaf, we may almost forgive Harvard for its erratic infidel president emeritus, Dr. Charles v. Eliot, and many of its radical critic professors. This book of Greenleaf’s, over 600 pages, is divided into the following distinct parts:
The legal credibility of the history of the facts of the case, as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, of which there are no known existing autographs, but only copies. The question he raises is from the lawyer’s standpoint: “Before a human court, could these confessed copies be accepted as legal evidence of the history of the case?” That part of the case he demonstrates affirmatively in the first fifty-four pages.
Then he gives a harmony of these histories, pages 55-503, in order to compare the several histories on each fact given, not only of our Lord’s life and death, but of his resurrection and appearances. The point of this section is to show that the books, having been accepted as legal evidence, then these are a legal harmony of the testimony of the books.
He gives on pages 504-549 Tischendorf’s discussion of the various versions or translations of these histories, with notes of variations from the King James Version, to show that the legal harmony is not disturbed.
Having thus shown the legal credibility of the histories, and their legal harmony as witnesses, he applies the case by giving his account of the trial of Jesus before these three earthly courts, demonstrating that it was a case of legal murder, pages 550-566.
Then on pages 567-574 he gives an account of the trial of Jesus from a Jewish viewpoint. Mr. Joseph Salvador, a physician and a learned Jew, published at Paris a work entitled A History of the Institutions of Moses and of the Jewish People, in which, among other things, he gives an account of the course of criminal procedure in a chapter on the administration of justice, which he illustrates in a succeeding chapter by an account of the trial of Jesus, which he declares to be the most memorable trial in history. This last is the chapter Mr. Greenleaf publishes. Mr. Salvador ventures to say that he shall draw all of his facts from the evangelists themselves, without inquiring whether their history was developed after the event, to serve as a form of new doctrine, or an old one which had received fresh impulse. This was a daring venture on the part of Mr. Salvador. Relying upon these historians Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John for the facts, he contends that Jesus was legally arrested, legally tried, according to all the forms of Jewish law, and legally condemned.
The rest of Mr. Greenleaf’s book, pages 575-603, he gives to a reply to Salvador by the very distinguished French advocate and doctor of laws, M. Dupin, which is a most overwhelming demonstration of the fallacy of Mr. Salvador’s argument. This sixth section of Mr. Greenleaf’s Kook makes it invaluable to a biblical student.
The late Judge Gaynor, a jurist, and who later became mayor of New York City, delivered a legal exposition on the trial of Jesus Christ, purely from a lawyer’s standpoint. His conclusions are in harmony with Dr. Greenleaf and Dr. Dupin.
In two octavo volumes Walter M. Chandler, of the New York bar, has written perhaps the most critical examination of the whole subject from a lawyer’s standpoint. He devotes his first volume to the Jewish trial, and his second volume to the trials before the courts of Herod and Pilate. On all substantial points, and after a most exhaustive investigation of the legal points involved, he agrees substantially with Dr. Greenleaf, Dr. Dupin, and Judge Gaynor.
In only one point would the author think it necessary to criticize this great book by Mr. Chandler, and that does not touch the merits of the law of the case he discusses. I refer to that part of his second volume where, after bearing his most generous testimony to the many excellencies of the Jewish character and its many illustrious men and women in history, whether as prime ministers, financiers, philanthropists, or as contributors to special forms of literature, and after denouncing the persecution to which the Jewish people have been subjected by all nations, except the United States, he then seems to deny national responsibility to God and, particularly, any connection of the worldwide sufferings of the Jews with their national sin of rejecting the Messiah.
All my life shows my abhorrence of the persecutions of Jews and my admiration for their great men and women who have conferred lasting benefits on the race. The only point upon which I would raise a criticism is that he does not write as a lawyer when he seems to deny that nations, like individuals, are under responsibility to God for what is done by them, and through their acknowledged leaders. That part of his book cannot be sustained in either nature, law, or revelation. To sustain his contention on this point he must repudiate the univocal testimony of the entire Jewish Bible, whether law, prophets, or psalms, as well as the entire New Testament, Christ and the apostles, universal history, and nature as interpreted by true science.
Among the general works on the trial of Jesus (i.e., not confined to the legal phases of the case), I commend Edersheim’s Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah , a part of Farrar’s Story of a Beautiful Life, with Broadus’ Commentary on Matthew. It would cover the limits of a whole chapter to even name the books on the cross.
It was a strange episode of the young man in the linen garment: “And a certain young man followed with him, having a linen cloth cast about him, over his naked body: and they lay hold on him; but he left the linen cloth and fled naked” (Mar 14:51-52 ). Commentators have supposed that this young man was John Mark, who alone recounts the fact. They account for his presence and state thus: The upper room in which the Lord’s Supper was established was the house of his mother. When Judas gathered his arresting force he could not yet know that Jesus had left that room, and so first, he led his armed force to that house. This aroused the house, and Mark, himself a Christian, threw a linen robe about him and followed to Gethesame and so was present at the arrest of Jesus.
It is at least worthy of notice, that Melville, a great Scotch preacher, preached a sermon on the passage (Mar 14:51 f), contending that the young man in the linen robe was the antitype of the scapegoat (Lev 16 ). The sermon is a classical model in diction and homiletics, but is absolutely visionary. There is not a hint anywhere in the New Testament that his conjecture is at all tenable. I cite this fact to show you that preachers, in their anxiety to select texts that have the suggestion of novelty in them, will sometimes preach a sermon that will be sensational in its novelty, and yet altogether unscriptural in its matter, and to warn you against the selection of texts of that kind.
The next thought is the manner in which Judas identified the person of Christ, that he might be arrested. They were sure that some of the disciples would be with him, and they wanted to get the right man. So Judas gave this sign: “When we get to them I will step out and kiss the One that we want to arrest: that will be the sign to you. When you see me step out from you and kiss a certain Man in the group, that is the Man you want.” Christ submitted passively to the kissing of Judas, but said to Judas, “Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” And that has gone down into history. Traitors betray with a kiss. It is to that incident Patrick Henry refers in his famous speech before the House of Burgesses in Virginia, when he said to them, “Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss,” that the English government would furnish bouquets in compliments, while mobilizing armies and fleets for conquest.
The incident of the sword. Some-find, it difficult to reconcile Luk 22:22 with Mat 26:51-55 ; Luk 22:51 ; Joh 18:10-11 ; Joh 18:24 . The explanation seems to be simple. In his charge (Mat 10 ), while he was alive and they were in his service, they must depend upon him for defense and support. But while he was dead they must defend and support themselves. This, of course, could apply only after his death and until his resurrection. Peter was both too soon to fight, for he was not yet dead, and too late to go back to his fishing, for Christ was then risen.
Only those preachers whose Christ is dead should use the sword or resume self-support.
When Christ was arrested, all the disciples, without any exception (and there were eleven of them), forsook him and fled, and now at midnight he is led through the silent streets of Jerusalem, hemmed in by a cohort of Roman soldiers, who are attended by officers of the Sanhedrin and their servants. They bring him, strange to say, first to the house of Annas. This man Annas is one of the most remarkable men in Jewish history. He had himself been high priest; his son-in-law, Caiaphas, is high priest at this time; six of his sons became high priests. It made no difference to him who was official priest, he, through sons and sons-in-law, was the power behind the throne. He was very wealthy, lived in a palatial home, and was a Sadducee, like Dr. Eliot, and believed in neither angel, spirit, nor resurrection of the dead. He believed also in turning everything over to the Romans. That is, he aligned himself with what is called the “Herod party,” or “Roman party.” The patriot Jews hated him. Josephus draws an awful picture of him.
Mr. Salvador, in alleging that Christ was tried according to the forms of Jewish law, forgets that the Jewish law forbade the employment of spies in their criminal trials, and yet they brought Judas. He forgets that Jewish law forbade a man’s being arrested at night that it forbade any trial of the accused person at night. He forgets that an accused person should be tried only before a regular court. And yet the first thing they did was to bring Jesus to the house of Annas for a private examination, while the guard waited outside at the door till Annas got through with him. On page 190 of the Harmony we have an account of what took place in the house of Annas. The high priest catechised Jesus. Annas is called the high priest as well as Caiaphas. He asked Jesus about his disciples and about his doctrines. Jesus said, “I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the Temple, where all of the Jews came together; and in secret spake I nothing. Why asketh thou me? Ask them that have heard me.” So to conduct an examination of that kind at all; to conduct it at night; to conduct it not in the presence of a full court; to allow the prisoner to be struck, were all violations of the Jewish law concerning the administration of justice.
Notice what the Jewish trial is. Dr. Broadus shows the preliminary examination before Annas; second, the trial before the Sanhedrin that night, in the house of Caiaphas; third, the meeting of the Sanhedrin the next morning. It was not proper that a man should be tried except in the place of meeting, the Sanhedrin, and in this they violated the law. It was not proper that he should be tried at night, as Jesus is tried this night in the house of Caiaphas.
Let us now see what were the developments that night at the house of Caiaphas. “Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together” (Joh 18:24 ; Mat 26:57 ). That constituted the Sanhedrin chief priests, elders, and scribes. The chief priests were Sadducees; the scribes were Pharisees. The Sanhedrin, according to a Jewish account, consisted of seventy-two twenty-four chief priests, twenty-four elders, and twenty-four scribes. The Sanhedrin was the supreme court in matters ecclesiastical and criminal. They had some lower courts that were appointed by the Sanhedrin. Any town of just 100 or 200 population had a court of three. If it was a larger population it had a court of twenty-three, but the Sanhedrin was the high or supreme court in all matters ecclesiastical and criminal. When the Romans conquered Judea, as was usual with the Romans, they took away from the people the right of putting anybody to death by a sentence of their own courts. They refer to this, saying, “We are not allowed by the Romans to put a man to death under sentence of our law.” That is, when Pilate had said to them, “Why do you not try him before your own law?” they said, “We are not permitted to put a man to death under our law.” That night there were assembled the Sanhedrin, as the record says: “Now the Sanhedrin was seeking [imperfect tense, denoting continued action, not only sought, but were seeking] false witnesses against Jesus.” They were seeking these witnesses with a view to putting him to death. They had previously decreed his death; and now they were simply trying to find somebody that would swear enough to justify them. Not even that Sanhedrin, when they heard the multitude of these false witnesses, could find two of them agreed upon any one point. And the Mosaic law solemnly declared that there must be two witnesses to every fact. But at last there came two false witnesses, and here is what they testified: “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’ “
That is the sum of the evidence, and all the other testimony was thrown out as incompetent. Both these men lied. He never said that, but away back in his early ministry, when he first cleansed the Temple, and when he first came into conflict with these people, he had said these words: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it again.” He was speaking of the temple of his body, but he never said that he would destroy that Temple (of Jerusalem) and in three days build another.
But they were not satisfied with that, so the high priest violated the law by asking Jesus to speak. It was a principle of the Jewish law that one should not be forced to testify against himself. A man might testify for himself) but he is protected by the judge who sits on the bench from giving evidence against himself. Jesus knew all that, so he paid no attention. So the chief priest had to get at that matter in another way He did have a right in certain cases, to put a man on oath before God, and this is what he did: “I adjure thee [which means to swear by the living God, the highest and most solemn form of the judicial oath put thee on thy oath] before the living God that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.” To that Jesus responded.
Under the solemn oath before God he swore that he was the Messiah, and that hereafter that very crowd of people would see him sitting at the right hand of the throne of God in heaven.
I preached a sermon once from this text: “I adjure thee by the living God.” A young lawyer was present. He had never heard such a thing before. In the sermon I presented the character of Christ, against whom no man could prove an accusation; the devil himself found nothing in him; all the enemies of the great doctrines of the New Testament admitted the spotless character of Jesus of Nazareth. And yet this Man swore by the living God that he was the Messiah. All of the latent infidelity in the lawyer disappeared under that sermon. To this day he will testify that there got on his mind in the discussion of that single fact that Jesus was the Son of God. Would such a man swear to a false-hood? Is it credible that he would? He knew what “Messiah” meant that it meant he was the God-anointed One, to be the Prophet, the Sacrifice, the Priest, and the King, and he swore that he was. After his oath they should have tried his claims by the law, the prophets, and the facts of his life.
When he had given that testimony under oath the high priest rent his robe. The law required that whenever they heard a blasphemy they were to rend their clothes, and unless Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God; unless God was his Father, while Mary was his mother; unless he was the God-anointed Prophet, Sacrifice, Priest, and King, then it was blasphemy. And therefore Mr. Greenleaf, who is the author of The Law of Evidence, a law book which passes current in all the law books on this continent and in Europe, in mentioning the trial of Jesus Christ, says, No lawyer of any reputation, with the facts set forth in the Gospels, would have attempted to defend Jesus Christ, except on the assumption that he was the Messiah and divine, because all through the Book that is his claim. If he was not divine, he did blaspheme. Therefore when he took that oath, that court should have investigated the character of his claim as the Messiah, but instead of that they assumed the thing that they should have investigated and called it blasphemy.
Another great violation of the law takes place: “What further need of witnesses have we? We have heard the blasphemy; what think ye?” And now they vote that he is worthy of death; they condemned him to be worthy of death. Their law declared that a vote of condemnation should never be taken the day of the trial. There had to be at least three intervening days, and here at night they pass sentence on no evidence but the oath of Jesus Christ, and that without investigating the matter involved. Then they allowed the following indignities: They spat in his face and buffeted him; they smote him with the palms of their hands after they had blindfolded him. Then one would slip up and slap him, saying, “Prophesy who hit you.”
I shall omit in my discussion here all this testimony concerning the denial of Peter, because I want to bring all of the history of Peter together. I pass that point for the present. I merely remark that the case of Judas and the case of Peter, connected with the arrest and the trial of Jesus Christ, have an immensity of pathos in the tragedy of the twelve the first one and the last one on the list.
That is the Jewish trial except this one additional fact: When it was morning, or as soon as it was day, they held their final meeting, and confirmed their night decision. They had a law that the Sanhedrin must come together for a final meeting in a case of this kind, and that if anybody had voted to acquit in the first meeting he could not change his vote, but if anybody had voted to condemn in this meeting he might ratify or he might change his vote and acquit. There were to be three days between these meetings. Having thus finished the Jewish trial, which was in violation of all the forms of the law, as soon as daylight comes they carry Jesus to Pilate.
The first trial of Jesus, then, was before the Jewish Sanhedrin; the accusation against him was blasphemy; the penalty under that law was to be put to death by stoning, but they had not the power to put to death. So now they must bring the case before the court of Pilate. And here Mr. Salvador says that the Jewish Sanhedrin’s condemnation of Jesus Christ on the charge of blasphemy was confirmed by Pilate. There never was a statement more untrue. Pilate declined to take into consideration anything that touched that Jewish law. When he tried him he tried him ab initio, that is, “from the beginning,” and he did not consider any charge that did not come under the Roman law. Therefore, we see this people, when they bring the case before Pilate, present three new charges. The other case was not touched on at all, but the new charges presented were as follows: First, “he says that he himself is King”; the second is, “he teaches that Jews should not pay tribute to Caesar”; and third, “he stirreth up the people,” which was one of the things that the Roman was always quick to put down anywhere in the wide realm of the Roman world. A man who stirred up the people should be dealt with in a speedy manner. Treason was a capital offense. So they come before Pilate and try him in this court on the threefold charge, viz.: “He says he is King; he forbids this people to pay tribute to Caesar,” interrupting the revenue coming into Rome, which was false, for he taught to the contrary; and “he stirreth up the people.” We have had, then, the history of his case, so far as his trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin is concerned. In the next chapter we will take up his first trial before the court of Pilate.
QUESTIONS 1. What two facts concerning the arrest of Christ are evident from John’s supplemental story?
2. Why the presence of the Roman legionaries and their participation in the arrest of Jesus?
3. What illustration in Acts of the intervention of the chiliarch to protect a prisoner?
4. What unique and powerful literature on the trials of Jesus is mentioned?
5. What question do they answer?
6. What three books from the viewpoint of the lawyer commended?
7. What are the six distinct parts of Greenleaf’s Testimony of the Evangelists?
8. On what one point does the author dissent from Mr. Chandler?
9. What general works on the trials of Jesus commended?
10. Who was the young man spoken of in Mar 14:51-52 , and how do the commentators account for his presence and state on this occasion?
11. What noted Scotch preacher preached a sermon on this incident, what was his interpretation of this young man and what the lesson here for the preacher?
12. How did Judas identify Christ as the one to be arrested, what saying originated from this incident and what reference to it in the early history of our country?
13. How do you reconcile Luk 22:22 with Mat 26:51-55 ; Luk 22:51 ; Joh 18:10-11 ; Joh 18:24 ?
14. Upon Christ’s arrest what prophecy of his was fulfilled?
15. After his arrest where did they lead him, why to him, and what were the characteristics of this man?
16. Of what did the Jewish trial consist?
17. Give an account of what took place at the house of Annas.
18. Where did they take Jesus when they left the house of Annas, by what body was he tried there, of what was that body composed, and what were the limitations of its power under the Roman government?
19. Describe the trial of Jesus before this court.
20. What was the testimony of Jesus under oath, what should have been their course after his oath, what charge did they bring instead, and under what circumstances would their charge have been sustained?
21. What indignities did Jesus suffer in this trial?
22. What two pathetic cases connected with the arrest and trial of Jesus?
23. What the last act of the Jewish trial?
24. After the Jewish trial where did they lead Jesus, how did Pilate try him, what the threefold charge brought by the Jews against Jesus, and what the legal name of these offenses?
25. In what great particulars did the Jews violate their own law in the arrest and trial of Jesus as defined by Mr. Salvador?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.
Ver. 2. And Judas also which betrayed him ] No such danger to Christ’s Church by any as by apostates and false brethren,Gal 2:4Gal 2:4 . Julian of a forward professor became a furious persecutor, and drew more from the faith by fraud and craft than all the heathen emperors before him had done by their force and cruelty. He persecuted by his persuasions, as Nazianzen witnesseth, and called back the bishops that were banished by Constantine, that, by their mutual wranglings among themselves they might embroil and overthrow the Church. Eo tantum fine ut ipsi ob mutuam inter se contentionem bello intestine oppugnarent ecclesiam. (Sozom.) About the year of grace 1240, one Robert, a Bulgarian, fell away from the Waldenses, and, turning to be a Dominican, he proved to be a sore enemy to the Church of Christ, in Flanders especially. Bishop Bonner was at first advanced by Cromwell, and seemed much to dislike Stephen Gardiner for his Popery. His words to Grafton at Paris when he was newly made bishop of London were these, Before God, the greatest fault that I ever found in Stokesly (who was his predecessor) was for vexing and troubling poor men for their religion, as Lobly the bookbinder, and others, for having the Scripture in English and (God willing) he did not so much hinder it, but I will as much further it, &c. Baldwin the renegade and Bolsecus (that was hired by the Papists to write Calvin’s life) were desperate enemies to the truth they had formerly professed. Harding, that had conference with Jewell, was once a zealous Protestant, and chaplain to Lady Jane Grey. Champian of St John’s college in Oxford, proctor of the University, 1568, dissembled the Protestant religion, which he afterwards opposed to his utmost. So did Parsons, who was of Baliol college, till he was for his dishonesty expelled with disgrace, and fled to the Papists. Christ’s greatest enemies are usually those of his own house. He was of the society of Jesus that betrayed him.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2. ] often, see Luk 21:37 [ch. Joh 8:1 ]. These accurate notices of our Evangelist are especially found in this last portion of his Gospel: cf. Joh 18:13 ; Joh 18:24 ; Joh 18:28 ; ch. Joh 19:14 ; Joh 19:20 ; Joh 19:41 , &c.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 18:2 . . “And Judas also knew the place, because Jesus and His disciples had frequently assembled there” on previous visits to Jerusalem, Luk 21:37 . This is inserted to account for what follows, and to remind the reader of the voluntariness of the surrender. There was no attempt to escape or hide.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
knew. Greek. oida. App-132.
with. Greek meta. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
2.] often,-see Luk 21:37 [ch. Joh 8:1]. These accurate notices of our Evangelist are especially found in this last portion of his Gospel: cf. Joh 18:13; Joh 18:24; Joh 18:28; ch. Joh 19:14; Joh 19:20; Joh 19:41, &c.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 18:2. ) the place, and the plan of the whole place. [It is truly the worst of all sins, when one perverts to a bad use the knowledge of a good cause, which he had formerly possessed.-V. g.]-, there) in the scene of His approaching agony.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 18:2
Joh 18:2
Now Judas also, who betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus oft-times resorted thither with his disciples.-This garden of Gethsemane was a retired, quiet spot which Jesus and his disciples in passing from the city to Mount Olivet seem often to have entered and enjoyed a season of instruction and prayer. So Judas knew his custom and seems to have selected his visit to this place as the time in which he would betray Jesus into the hands of the priests and scribes away from the multitude as they had stipulated should be done.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
for: Mar 11:11, Mar 11:12, Luk 21:37, Luk 22:39
Reciprocal: 1Sa 23:23 – take knowledge Psa 55:12 – then I Mat 10:4 – and Mat 26:2 – betrayed Mat 26:14 – Judas Mar 14:42 – General Luk 22:47 – while Joh 6:71 – being Joh 12:4 – Judas Iscariot Act 1:16 – spake
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2
This garden had often been the resting place of Jesus with his disciples. A quiet retreat, he would retire to its shade amid the olive and other fruit trees, and there talk to his beloved disciples about the great work of the future. Had Jesus wanted to evade the mob that he knew would be hunting for him, he would never have come into this place on the present occasion. He knew that Judas knew the place, and would bring his officers to it. But after his time had come, he made no effort to escape or to resist his capture, but submitted like a lamb being led to the slaughter.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 18:2. And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes assembled thither with his disciples. The ofttimes must refer to many previous visits to the garden, and not to those connected with the present brief sojourn in Jerusalem. The omission at this point of all mention of the Agony in the garden has often occasioned great surprise, and been even used as an argument against the fidelity of the narrative of the Fourth Gospel. Yet it may be observed(1) That, while the supplementary theory (see Introduction) cannot, as a whole, be received in explanation of the structure of our Gospel, it is quite natural to think that the Evangelist may have felt himself justified in the omission of particular scenes, because he was aware that they were already well known, through his predecessors, to the Church. (2) That his relation of the similar mental conflict and prayer in chap. 12a relation in which he stands alonemade it both more possible and more natural for him to omit this section here. (3) That his object being now to bring prominently forward the calm majesty with which Jesus met His final sufferings, he was led to select those parts of His actions and words which peculiarly illustrate this, and to say nothing of other parts by which the picture might seem to be disturbed. Such a proceeding is consistent with the most perfect faithfulness. It was not the aim of any one of the Evangelists to present us with a complete narrative of all the life of Jesus, or of all the aspects of His character and work. Each drew rather out of His infinite fulness what was peculiarly appropriate to the design which he had himself in view, or to the range in which he felt himself called upon to work. What we have to ask is not that each shall tell us all, but that the several narratives shall not be inconsistent with each other. No such inconsistency can be urged here. The Agony is the illustration of the words, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: the narrative before us is the illustration of the words, Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt; and we know that both these sentences were uttered at the same moment by the lips of Jesus (Mat 26:39).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
CCXXIV.
JESUS BETRAYED, ARRESTED, AND FORSAKEN.
(Gethsemane. Friday, several hours before dawn.)
aMATT. XXVI. 47-56; bMARK XIV. 43-52; cLUKE XXII. 47-53; dJOHN XVIII. 2-11.
d2 Now Judas also, who betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples. [See 2Ki 6:8-12). Jesus asked, “Whom seek ye?” (1) To openly and manfully declare his identity; (2) to make the Jewish rulers fully conscious that they were arresting him, an innocent man; (3) to confine the arrest to himself and thus deliver his disciples. The older commentators regard the falling to the ground as a miracle, but modern scholars look upon it as a result of sudden fear. Jesus merely manifested his dignity and majesty, and the prostration followed as a natural result.] a48 Now he that betrayed him gave {bhad given} them a token, aa sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he: take him. band lead him away safely. cand he drew near unto Jesus to kiss him. 48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? b45 And when he was come, astraightway he came to Jesus, and said {bsaith,} aHail, Rabbi; and kissed him. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, do that for which thou art come. [Some place this event before the preceding paragraph. It comports better with the fitness of things to place it here. Jesus made Judas feel his utter nothingness, and his worthlessness even as a betrayer. Before Judas can in any way identify Jesus, the Lord had twice declared himself to be the party whom they sought. When he approaches to carry out his contract, the Lord’s question exposes him before all as a betrayer, and not a disciple as he wished to appear to be (for kissing was the common mode of salutation between men, especially between teacher and pupils), and when Judas brazenly persists in completing the sign, Jesus bids him do it, not as a friend, but as a traitor. Little did the betrayer think that the kiss of Judas would become a proverb in every nation.] Then they came [690] and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. [The sight of Judas touching him no doubt reassured them, and they laid hands on Jesus.] c49 And when they that were about him saw what would follow, they said, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? b47 But {a51 And} behold, d10 Simon Peter ba certain one of them that stood by athat were with Jesus dtherefore having a sword astretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and smote {dstruck} athe servant of the high priest, and struck {dcut} off his right ear. [We have seen that the apostles were but scantily armed, there being only two swords in their possession. See Joh 18:16). He knew Malchus by name, and he also knew his kindred– Joh 18:26.] c51 But Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye them thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him. [Some think that Jesus spoke these words, “Suffer ye thus far,” to those who held him, asking them to loose him sufficiently to enable him to touch the ear of Malchus. But the revision committee by inserting “them” make Jesus address his disciples, commanding them not to interfere with those who were arresting him, making it a general statement of the idea which the Lord addressed specifically to Peter in the next sentence.] a52 Then d11 Jesus therefore said {asaith} dunto Peter, aPut up again thy {dthe} sword into the sheath: aits place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. dthe cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? [By the healing of Malchus’ ear and the words spoken to Peter, Jesus shows that the sword is not to be used either to defend the truth or to advance his kingdom. Had he not thus spoken and acted, Pilate might have doubted his words when he [691] testified that his kingdom was not of this world ( Joh 18:36). While we know better than to rely upon the aid of the sword for the advance of truth, we are often tempted to put undue trust in other “carnal weapons” which are equally futile. Wealth and eloquence and elaborate church buildings have but little saving grace in them. It is the truth which wins. By using the word “cup” John gives us an echo of the agony in Gethsemane, which suggests that he expects his readers to be conversant with the other Gospels. The other Evangelists, having shown that Jesus was fully resolved to drink the cup, do not regard it as necessary to repeat these words.] a53 Or thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 How then should the scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be? [Jesus still addresses Peter. Had it accorded with the divine purpose that Jesus should resist this arrest, angels and not men would have been his proper and infinitely more effective rescuers. But, on the contrary, it was God’s purpose that he should be arrested, as the Scripture had foretold.] 55 In that hour bJesus answered and said unto them athe multitudes, cthe chief priests, and captains of the temple, and elders, that were come against him, Are ye come out, as against a robber, with swords and staves? ato seize me? c53 When aI sat {bwas} daily with you in the temple teaching, cye stretched not forth your hands against me: band ye took me not: cbut this is your hour, and the power of darkness. a56 But all this is come to pass, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. [The party which came to arrest Jesus was large. The word “band” used by John to describe part of it is speira, which is the Greek name for the cohort, a division of the Roman army which in the time of Augustus contained 555 men. Ten cohorts, or a legion, were usually quartered in the castle Antonia, at the northwest corner of the temple enclosure. That the whole cohort was present is not likely ( Mat 27:27), but there was a large enough body to represent it. The [692] Evangelists therefore properly style it a great multitude. Moreover, it was a motley crowd. Its strength and diversity suggest the fear that Jesus might miraculously defend himself. Each part of the crowd found courage in the strength possessed by the other part, the priests relying upon the solidity of the soldiers, the soldiers superstitiously trusting to some spiritual power residing in the priests, etc. Now, because of these fears, the preparation was as great as if some band of robbers was to be taken. The questions of Jesus, therefore, show two facts: 1. By their extensive preparation the rulers bore an unintentional testimony to his divine power. 2. By their failure to arrest him openly in the temple, they bore witness to his innocence. With his divinity and his innocence, therefore, Jesus challenges them, referring to their own conduct for testimony thereto. In conclusion, he cites them to the Scriptures which they were fulfilling. Our Lord’s dual reference to the Old Testament at this sacred time should cause us to handle them with awe and reverence.] b50 And aThen all of the disciples left him, and fled. b51 And a certain young man followed with him, having a linen cloth cast about him, over his naked body: and they lay hold on him; 52 but he left the linen cloth, and fled naked. [All the predictions of Jesus had failed to prepare the apostles for the terrors of his arrest. Despite all his warnings, each apostle sought his own safety. The young man who fled naked is usually presumed to be Mark himself, and it is thought that he thus speaks impersonally after the manner of Matthew and John. The manner of his description shows that he was not an apostle. As Mark’s mother resided in Jerusalem ( Act 12:12, Act 12:25), Canon Cook advances the theory that the Lord’s Supper was eaten in the upper room of her house, and that when the disciples retired with Jesus from thence to Gethsemane, Mark slipped from his bed, threw his sindon about him, and followed after them. The sindon, or linen vestment, was very costly, not being worn even by the middle classes: no apostle would be thus attired.] [693]
[FFG 689-692]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
THE ARREST
Mat 26:47-56; Mar 14:43-52; Luk 22:47-53;Joh 18:2-12. And Judas, the one betraying Him, knew the place, because frequently, Jesus, with His disciples, had resorted thither. Then Judas, taking a band and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, comes thither with lanterns, torches, and arms. The lantern was a closed- up light of some kind, fortified against the wind, while the torches were large, blazing flambeaux. Though the moon was very bright, as she was nearly full, it was exceedingly important to have plenty of light as a fortification against the liability of mistaking the wrong person, as they surmised that an effort would be made on the part of the disciples to elude them in that way; their great confidence, however, being in Judas, who was so intimately acquainted with Him. Thus they had taken every precaution to make sure that they arrested the One whom they had been pursuing these three years, and who had baffled them so frequently by rendering Himself invisible, and in various ways eluding their grasp till His work was done.
Mar 14:43 : And immediately, He speaking, Judas, being one of the twelve, comes, and a great multitude with him, with swords and clubs, from the chief priests, scribes, and elders. A huge club, four or five feet long, is an exceedingly common weapon in that country now. I saw persons incessantly thus armed quite a formidable weapon in the hands of a stalwart man.
Joh 18:4-9. Then Jesus, knowing all things which are coming upon Him, having gone out, said to them, Whom do you seek? They responded to Him, Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus says to them, I am He? Never did the world see another such a man as Jesus. When they came to crown Him King, He fled away; but when they came to kill Him, He went out to meet them. Judas, the one betraying Him, also stood with them. Then, when He said to them, I am He, they went back, and fell upon the ground. This is His last miracle, except healing the amputated ear, which speedily followed. Though He boldly comes out from the dense shade of those great olive-trees into the clear light of the moon, shining so brightly from that cloudless, Palestinian sky, and also into the strong light of a hundred flambeaux, so that it was as bright as day, and there was no trouble about recognition, yet, lo! an awful panic strikes them, so they retreat back and fall upon the ground like dead men. How easily He could have utterly baffled and defeated them, striking them all with the paralysis of incorrigible terror! But the time has come for Him to meet the bloody avalanche from the bottomless pit, and lay down His life for a lost world.
Then again He asked them, Whom do you seek? And they said, Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus responded, I said to you that I am He. If then you seek Me, let these retire in order that the word which He spoke may be fulfilled, That I lost none of them whom Thou hast given Me. They did not consider His disciples sufficiently important to deserve their attention at that time, as they were satisfied if they could only get the One who had given them so much trouble, and whose life they had so long been seeking in vain. Really, all their energies, aspirations, and wits were laid under contribution to secure the arrest and execution of Jesus.
Mat 26:48-50. And the one having betrayed Him gave them a sign, saying, Whom I shall kiss is He; hold Him fast. And immediately coming to Jesus, he said, Hail, Master; and kissed Him copiously. Jesus said to him, Comrade, for what do you come? Then they, coming, laid hands on Jesus, and bound Him. Joh 18:12. Then the band, the chiliarch, and the officers of the Jews took Jesus and bound Him. Such was their fear, solicitude, and anxiety for success that they all united in arresting and binding Him. Joh 18:10 : Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the servant of the high-priest, and cut off his right ear. And the name to that servant was Malchus. Mat 26:52 :
Then Jesus said to Peter, Put up thy sword into its place; for all taking the sword shall perish by the sword. (Gen 9:6.) Of course, those who use the sword are all liable to perish in that way. Luk 22:51 : Jesus said, Hold on a little, and touching his ear He healed it. The moment Peter smote Malchus, Jesus ordered him to put up his sword, stepped instantly to the wounded soldier, touched his ear and healed it, thus in His last miracle manifesting His loving kindness even to His enemies, who had that moment arrested Him, and He knew they were going to take His life. You see in the assault Peter made on the enemies of Jesus a brilliant manifestation of his native heroism. He feared the face of no man, but was brave enough to fight that whole army. It is a great mistake to conclude that he was deficient in natural courage because in the subsequent events of that awful night he displayed so signal cowardice. All this was because Jesus would not let him fight, and consequently he felt he was at the mercy of His enemies, who knew no mercy.
Mat 26:53-56. Do you not think that I am able now to call on My Father, and He will send Me more than twelve legions of angels? How then can the Scriptures be fulfilled, because it behooveth it thus to be? Those angels were ready, hovering around, and eager for the opportunity to snatch Him away from the cruel manacles of the bloodthirsty rabble and bear Him on pinions of light to the home of the glorified. Right there at Jerusalem a solitary angel had slain a hundred and eighty-five thousand Assyrian soldiers in one night. Doubtless the same angels who ministered to Him when tempted in the wilderness were hovering round. At that hour Jesus said to the multitudes, You have come out as against a thief with swords and clubs to take Me. I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple, and you laid not hands on Me. But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled. Then all of His disciples, leaving Him, fled. When the mob first came they surrounded them altogether. Now that they have secured the only One they wanted, they break ranks, leaving an opening for the others all to run away, as they did not want to be encumbered with them at that time. If Jesus had not risen from the dead, thus creating a great popular sensation and weakening the hands of His enemies, they would have arrested and executed every one of His apostles, except Judas, as accomplices in the criminality in which they had falsely implicated Jesus. Now the apostles see that He is arrested and bound, completely in the hands of His enemies; hence, yielding to desperation and affright, they flee away.
Luk 22:53. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness. His enemies had repeatedly tried to arrest Him, stone Him, and destroy Him in any way they could; but invariably suffered utter defeat till now, when He is turned over to the powers of earth and hell to execute their vilest venom against His innocent person, and He thus becomes the vicarious substitute for every guilty sinner.
Mar 14:51-52. And one certain young man follows Him, clothed with a linen cloth on his naked body. The young men arrest him; but he, leaving the linen cloth fled from them in a state of nudity. It is believed that this young man was none other than the Apostle John and it is said that he fled away to the house of Rabbi Amos in the city, and there procured the robe of a Jewish priest, invested in which he returned, and remained with the Savior in all of His troubles, walking by His side to the tribunal of Annas, thence to the judgment-hall; of Caiaphas, thence to Pilates bar and to Herods tribunal, then back to Pilate, and on His way to Calvary. Standing by His side when He hung bleeding on the cross all this time hoping that He would revive, exercise His wonderful power, and extricate Himself from the hands of His enemies, till the Roman soldier came along and plunged the spear into His side, thus tearing His heart to pieces. It is said that when this cruel deed was done, all hope of His reviving taking its flight, John, yielding to despair, fainted. Let this be as it may, we see here that John was with Him after the flight of the other ten.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
John apparently recorded this detail because it shows that Jesus was not trying to avoid arrest. Instead He deliberately went to a place where Judas evidently anticipated that He would go (cf. Luk 21:37; Luk 22:39).
"This probably means that he and the disciples used to bivouac, sleeping in the open air, and probably in this very garden." [Note: Morris, p. 656. See Wiersbe, 1:372, for contrasts between what happened in the Garden of Eden and the Garden of Gethsemane.]