John 18: The Jewish People v. Jesus Christ

As always, let’s start with the setting of John 18. Jesus and his disciples crossed the Kidron Valley to go to the Mount of Olives, and on the Mount of Olives, Jesus prayed in a garden on the mountain, the Garden of Gethsemane. It will be on the Mount of Olives, possibly in the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus will meet up with Judas Iscariot to be betrayed. The setting is important because of the irony. If you remember my discussion about Judas Iscariot in John 13, I mentioned that the original context of the Psalm 41 passage foretelling of the Messiah’s betrayer, in its original context, was most likely talking about Ahithophel, David’s trustworthy and honorable companion, who also betrayed David. I did much comparison between Ahithophel and Judas. The setting here is another one. Ahithophel also betrayed David somewhere between the Kidron Valley and the Mount of Olives, most likely the Mount of Olives (see 2 Samuel 15:30-31). Judas would fulfill the role of betrayer perfectly again by choosing to betray Jesus on the Mount of Olives. The text tells the Judas Iscariot was well aware that Jesus and the disciples would be there because Jesus had often gone to the Mount of Olives with his disciples when he was in Jerusalem.

Judas Iscariot came well prepared to take on Jesus. First, he made sure he had the right crowd of people, consisting of both Jews and Romans. For the Jews, John records Judas Iscariot bringing chief priests and Pharisee officials. Mark adds that there were teachers of the law and elders there, too. As for the Romans, John tells us Judas Iscariot had a large amount of Roman soldiers. The NIV uses the term “detachment of soldiers,” but a better translation would be “a cohort of soldiers,” like the NASB uses, because a cohort is a legitimate measure of soldiers in the Roman army. In the Roman army, a cohort was a subdivision of a legion. A legion would be divided into ten parts, and a tenth of a legion is a cohort. Since a legion is about 6,000 soldiers, a cohort would be about 600 soldiers. You might be thinking this is kind of large for arresting one man, even overkill, but this was nothing new for the Romans. If the Romans thought arresting one man might be dangerous, they would take along several soldiers to make sure nothing went wrong. Even Paul was accompanied by 200 soldiers when he was transferred (see Acts 23:23). If the Jews had made it sound like Jesus was declaring himself to be the new king and starting an insurrection with his disciples, the Romans might have thought that arresting such a man might start and insurrection, so they had to be prepared. Not only were they prepared in numbers of people, but also in equipment. John says everyone was carrying torches, lanterns and weapons. Matthew and Mark are more specific on the weapons: swords and clubs.

Now it may seem Judas Iscariot laid the perfect trap, know where Jesus was, but that’s far from the truth. Jesus, being the all-knowing God, knew what was going to happen to him, as stated in John 18:4. It is almost like Jesus allowed himself to be trapped. Jesus asks the mob “Who is it you want?” The mob replies, “Jesus of Nazareth,” to which Jesus answered. “I am he.” Truthfully, the NIV added the “he” part. In the original Greek, Jesus simply says, “ego eimi” which simply translated is “I am.” Yes, “ego eimi” is the exact wording Jesus says for all the “I AM” statements. We already agreed Jesus used the “I AM” statements to reveal himself to be the Great I AM himself, Yahweh. Perhaps Jesus was presenting himself as God himself one last time. When the Jew asked for Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus answered “Yahweh.” Maybe that’s why the Jews fell back – the reaction of the true name of God, which was sacred to them. But then why did the Romans fall back? For that I will remind you of a story in chapter 7 of John. In John chapter 7, the chief priests and Pharisees have asked temple guards to arrest Jesus. These temple guards were most likely Roman. Yet they come back empty handed. Why didn’t they come back with Jesus? Their answer is simply, “No one ever spoke the way this man does.” There was something about Jesus. Simply the way he spoke blew people away.

Now, before we go on, I want to make a note about the irony that the Bible Knowledge Commentary pointed out for me. On one side, you have Judas Iscariot, chief priests, Pharisees, teachers of the law, elders, and 600 Roman soldiers, all armed with lanterns, torches, clubs and swords. On the other side, you have Jesus, completely unarmed, with all his disciples asleep (see Luke 22:45-46). Yet who is the one in charge? Jesus is. The crowd cowers when Jesus speaks. The Gospel of Matthew records Jesus making everyone aware that he could have called 12 legions (about 72,000!) angels down to rescue Him. When you see the Jews and the Romans alike, you almost think like they were aware of it, or they were almost even expecting Jesus to use his miraculous powers against them. Yet Jesus doesn’t, and that adds to the irony. The one with the authority in this seen submits to his arrest. He willingly gave Himself up, and He does it with class. Jesus pretty much tells the mob, “I’m the one you want, so let my disciples go.” This has been foreshadowed all throughout John. In John 6, while preaching to the Jews, Jesus says that the will of His Father is not lose any of the disciples. In John 10, when preaching about the Good Shepherd, Jesus declares that like the Good Shepherd, he would not lose a sheep, even it meant laying his life down for the sheep. And one last time in John 17, while Jesus is praying to the Father, he prays that he will not lose a disciple to the end. Prayer request answered.

Well, Simon Peter isn’t going without a fight. He remembers that he promised Jesus that He will fight for Jesus, even if it meant giving up his own life. Peter doesn’t want to become the denier that Jesus predicted him to be, so he takes his sword and chops off the ear of Malchus, the high priest’s servant. Notice the use of detail in the story. John gives the high priest’s servant a name. He also states it was the right ear cut off, aligning perfectly with Luke’s account. It really makes the story come alive.

Now I’ve seen movies, TV shows, even church plays, acting out the actions happening here, and neither of them really makes this scene action packed. You see Peter lunging at the servant, cutting off the ear, and nobody makes a move. They all watch. I kind of get a feeling that maybe a small scuffle or a small brawl broke out, for Jesus has to rebuke both sides. In John, Jesus disciplines Peter for not accepting God’s will for Jesus, but in Matthew, Jesus disciplines Peter for using a sword because (1) all who live by the sword die by the sword, (2) Jesus could have called down angels to help him if He needed help and (3) the Scriptures needed to be fulfilled. When the disciples see how Jesus reacted, they feel like Jesus has taken away their “fight,” and so they are left with “flight” and they flee the scene. (Note: For Jesus rebuking the mob, you’ll have to go to your Synoptic Gospels.) Jesus then turns to the mob and questions their method of arresting Jesus. Every day, Jesus was publicly and peacefully in Jerusalem. Why didn’t they quietly arrest him there? Why did they have to come in a large mob privately at night?

Now that Jesus is arrested, we begin with the trials of Jesus. For right now (this paragraph), I am going to speak in light of all 4 Gospels. From all 4 Gospels, Jesus undergoes 6 trials. 3 trials are with the Romans, and 3 trials are with the Jews. The first trial is before high priest Annas. The second trial is before high priest Caiaphas. The third trial is before the whole Sanhedrin, all 70 members. The fourth trial is before Pontius Pilate. The fifth trial is before Herod. The sixth trial is a re-trial before Pontius Pilate. In his Gospel, John does not tell about the third trial in front of the Sanhedrin or the fifth trial before Herod. John only mentions that Jesus had a trial with Caiaphas, but John does not go into detail about what happened there. This is a Bible study on John, so instead of bouncing back and forth between Gospels, we’re going just to read on the trials that John reported. But we can get a lot of what John has told us. It is widely believed that John did follow Jesus at a distance, from the Mount of Olives to Golgotha, maybe even watching in on all of the trials (John 18:15,16). And John is the only one to report on the trial before Annas the high priest. So let’s take a look at that trial.

But before we even get to that, we have to discuss the high priest in the 1st century AD. In all 4 Gospels, it will seem like there are 2 high priests. Luke seems to say it explicitly in Luke 3:2a, “during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas…” If you remember in the Old Testament, there was only 1 person who was the high priest. This 1 person was the 1 and only person who could enter Holy of Holies 1 time a year. As the title hints, he is the highest of all priests. So how is there 2 by the time of Jesus? Well, there are a few theories. The first one is probably the simplest. The one high priest got stepped down and retired, and the next high priest stepped up. The stepping down high priest would be Annas, and the stepping up high priest would be Caiaphas. There are 2 problems with this first theory. The first probably is the question: “When?” When did Annas step down and Caiaphas step up? Well, obviously, it has be sometime during the earthly life of Jesus. Some of the proponents of the first theory say it happened between the birth and infancy of Jesus and the start of the ministry of Jesus, when Jesus was an adult. Other proponents of the first theory will say it happened during the 3-4 year span of Christ’s ministry. Still, both sides can not pin down a certain day or week, or even a month. Why they can’t, well, that leads us to our second problem. The second problem of the first theory is: “Why?” Why would a high priest step down? In the Old Testament, the high priest served for his whole life, until the day he died. They did not retire. There was no such thing as being “too old” to be a high preist. So why would Annas retire or step down? After all, as we will see in John 18, Annas still has a pretty serious role among the priests. (The best way to explain this, is that it wouldn’t make sense for Pop Benedict XVI to step down or retire, but continue to work with the new pope.) The other theories try to explain the why.

Our second theory does explain both the “when” and the “why.” The “why” has to deal with the political situation with the Romans. When the Romans were in charge, they didn’t mind the local regions or the local people groups having their own leader. They would even let them have their own king! But when all was said and done, that “king” reported to the local governor, who reported to Caesar. The best example would be Herod. Herod was the “king of the Jews,” but he ultimately had to report the governor, Pontius Pilate. I put “king of the Jews” in quotes because not every Jew received Herod as their king, including the religious leaders. First of all, it didn’t help that Herod wasn’t full-blood Jew, but rather half-Jew and half-Roman. The Jews expected their king to be fully Jewish. Second, and probably most important, it wasn’t the Jews that picked Herod as king, but rather the Romans. The Romans didn’t mind the local people groups having a king…as long as that king met their expectations and their approval. Between these two reasons, most Jews saw Herod as puppet to the Romans, so many Jews did not accept him. But what does this have to do with the high priests? Well, the Romans knew that the high priest had a strong leadership role. But the Jews refused to allow the Romans to touch it. They pretty much said to the Romans, “Oh no. We’ll let you pick and choose our king, but you will not touch our high priest. Our high priest has always been a descendant of Aaron, and he always will be.” Well, the Romans weren’t too pleased with that. They didn’t want a person being high priest for too long, in fear that the high priest will gain too much power over time and try something risky, like trying to overthrow the Roman government. So around 15 A.D., the Romans said to Annas, “Alright you’ve been high priest for 9 years. Your time is up. Select another high priest or we will.” Annas, not wanting to cause any problems, reluctantly submitted to the Romans. He chose Caiaphas to be his replacement. While this second theory answers the “when” and “why,” it still has holes. First of all, not everyone agrees with exactly what I wrote above. Some will say that it was the Romans who chose Caiaphas, not Annas. Others will claim that while Caiaphas stepped up, it doesn’t necessarily mean Annas stepped. These people will suggest that Annas and Caiaphas alternated as the high priest every year. The Romans were okay with this because they believed no high priest could amass a lot of power in one year, and then get it back after a year of not being high priest. So there are disagreements within the theory. Also, the second theory doesn’t fully answer the question, “Why Caiaphas?” Annas has 5 sons. So why didn’t he choose a son but rather his son-in-law Caiaphas?

The third theory attempts to answer that. This theory focuses in on the religious parties of the Jewish religion: the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Pharisees and Sadducees did sharply disagree on things, in both the political realm and the religious realm. According to the this theory, the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed so sharply in the first century that they did not trust a high priest of the opposite party. So the Pharisees would not trust a Sadducee high priest and the Sadducees would not trust a Pharisee high priest. So the Pharisees chose a Pharisee high priest and the Sadducees would choose a Sadducee high priest. This would result in 2 high priests and this is why you have 2 high priests in the time of Jesus. Caiaphas is believed to be the Sadducee high priest and the Pharisee high priest is Annas. There are a couple problems with this theory. If on the Day of Atonement, only one man was to enter the Holy of Holies, which one would it be? Wouldn’t it be wrong for both of them to enter? Also, Annas and Caiaphas seem to be agreeing to well to be of opposite parties. Even over Jesus, the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed about Jesus (see Luke 20:27-40).

If you made me pick between the 3 theories, I guess I would have to choose the second theory because it has the most scholars behind it, and it has the fewest objections. But I do believe all 3 theories show us something about Annas and Caiaphas. The biggest observation is Annas and Caiaphas are working together, almost as equals. If there is a hierarchy, it would be Annas over Caiaphas, as Annas sometimes seems to whisper into the ear of Caiaphas what decisions to make. The trial of Jesus would be a good example. Jesus has to first go in front of Annas. According to all 3 theories (or at least the first and second), Annas is not the high priest at the time, but rather Caiaphas is. But Jesus has to go to Annas so Annas can decide what Caiaphas should do. After all, Caiaphas does seem to follow suit with Annas.

Back to the text. When brought before Annas, Annas asks Jesus questions about His disciples and His teachings. These would be normal questions on the accusations of starting an insurrection. From the broader Gospel view of Christ’s trials, we know the trials Jesus faced were unfair and illegal (not up to legal standards), but there is a small proof of that in this text. In John 18:19, John records Annas asking question. According to Jewish tradition, the high priest was to act more like a judge, and less like a prosecuting attorney. Just as the judge is not allowed to ask the defendant questions, so the high priest was not allowed to ask defendant Jesus questions. Yet Jesus does not shy away from these questions. Jesus says to Annas that all His teaching has been public. So everything Annas heard is true, and there is nothing more to say. But defendant Jesus goes on to call witnesses for himself. He tells Annas that anyone who heard him will be able to testify everything that he has said. Perhaps Jesus was calling out Annas for setting up an improper trial. A proper trial would have real and honest witnesses, and they could attest that Jesus was innocent.

Well, one of the officials took that as Jesus sassing the high priest and that official struck Jesus in the face. Here we see another error in the trial. It was illegal to bring any kind of physical pain or harassment to a defendant who was still considered innocent. At this point (and throughout all of the trials), Jesus remains innocent. Jesus proceeds to call this official out, too. Jesus knows that the slap would only be necessary if He did something wrong. So he asks the official what he did wrong to deserve it. I can almost picture the official dumfounded because he knew Jesus did nothing wrong. Then Jesus continues to pressure for his witnesses to be brought for, even asking the official to be his witness.

From here, Annas has gotten all he needed. Annas probably was hoping for more out of his end of the trial, in order to give Caiaphas the decision he needs to make. All that happens, however, is Annas’s trial is put under question by Jesus. He’s not really getting anything, so Annas just moves him on to his “real-er” trial with Caiaphas. But I think at this point Annas has also declared Jesus guilty in his mind, even without proof or witnesses.

John doesn’t record either of the other Jewish trials. He doesn’t record the trial with Caiaphas, and he doesn’t record the trial in front of the Sanhedrin (most likely led by Caiaphas). Yet John is the only Gospel writer to write about the trial with Annas. Why would John mention the trial with Annas, and not the other trials? Although John may not necessarily be painting a picture of Jesus as God or the Christ, I do believe John is trying to look at the Jewish trials from another point of view, and it kind of goes back to what we see at Christ’s arrests. Remember how I pointed out the irony of Jesus, the one who seems to be in power and have control, ends up being the lowly, submissive one? Well, the trial at Annas portrays the same Jesus. Annas tries to question the teachings of Jesus, but Jesus ends up questioning Annas’s motives and his trial. Annas tries to make Jesus look guilty, but Jesus ends up proving His innocence. Annas attempts to win the trial, but Jesus ends up being the winner. John keeps on adding onto the irony that while Jesus is bound, he is the one in control. If in any way this shows Jesus is God, this is the proof. On the earth as a man, Jesus might be submissive and humbled, but in heavenly realm as God, Jesus is the king, judge and ruler over Annas, Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin.

I’m going to stop right there. Once again, I will remind you that while the text of the Scriptures are the inerrant, inspired revelation from God, the numbering of the chapters and verses are not. I believe it would have been better to end chapter 18 at verse 27 and began chapter 19 where John 18:28. Why? John 18:28 begins a new phase of the trials for Jesus. Jesus has gone through 3 Jewish trials, and all trials have found him guilty, even though they are unjust and illegal. Even though the Jews want to pass the death penalty, they cannot, for they need Roman permission to do so. So it’s up to the Romans to decide whether or not Jesus deserves death. Will they pass the same judgment? We’ll have to see in chapter 19, but I will pick up again in chapter 18.

John 13: A Betrayer and A Denier

Last chapter focused around the events of Palm Sunday, as well as other surrounding events. John does not see any important events happening in the Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday following, so he skips right to Thursday evening, in which traditional Christians call Maundy Thursday or Holy Thursday. The Jews know this meal to be Passover, but Christians know it to be the Lord’s Supper or the Last Supper. Interesting enough, John does not mention the Last Supper at all. He must have assumed his readers read about it in the Synoptic Gospels, and with nothing more to add, he leaves it out. Instead, John decides to add a lot of the last teachings of Jesus, which the Synoptic Gospels do not give. John 13-17 are all the last teachings of Jesus, given at the Last Supper. Right now we’ll just focus on John 13, and I want to focus in on Jesus predicting both his betrayer and denier.

Since Jesus talks about the betrayer before the denier, let’s start off with the betrayer, since that’s who Jesus started off with. There’s no need to be hidden with the identity of the betrayer in John. It’s clearly Judas Iscariot. John has been foreshadowing a lot. In John 6:70,71, Jesus calls one of the disciples the devil, which John reveals to be Judas Iscariot. In John 12:4-6, Judas calls out Mary for wasting money. John interprets this to be Judas Iscariot exposing his evil heart. In John 13:2, John tells the reader the devil had prompted Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus. This could simply be interpreted as Judas Iscariot making the deal with the Jewish leaders to betray Jesus. Even in John 13:10, while John does not specifically mark Judas as the betrayer, John remembers Jesus saying not everyone was clean, and John interprets it to mean that the betrayer, Judas Iscariot, was not the clean one. So clearly both Jesus and John have been foreshadowing what Judas Iscariot will do in the whole book, but now it will come fully out in a prediction in John 13:18-30. Interesting enough, John, along with Matthew, are the only 2 who specifically and explicitly mention Judas Iscariot as the betrayer by name. Mark and Luke do not mention Judas Iscariot by name in the prediction. Only when he actually betrays Jesus is his name used. Between Matthew and John, Matthew is more specific and more explicit, as Matthew records Judas Iscariot asking if he’s the betrayer, to which Jesus affirms.

It might be obvious to us, but it wasn’t obvious to the disciples. The only reason John makes it so obvious is because he is writing this after the events went down (also, since he’s assumed his readers has read the Synoptic Gospels and know who the betrayer is, instead of keeping a surprise, he shows how it could have been foreshadowed). But John, as well as the rest of the disciples, has no clue. They are lacking a clue so much, that in the synoptic Gospels, each disciple asks Jesus if he himself is the betrayer. Yes, each disciple accused himself before anyone else. Despite all the foreshadowing that made it obvious to the reader, in the mind of the disciples, Judas Iscariot is probably the least likely candidate. He was the treasurer of the group, and a treasurer is a highly valued position in any group. The job, in theory, shows that the group trusts you with their money and their finances. If the disciples were mostly unaware of the embezzlement Judas Iscariot was guilty of, they trusted him with their money and finances, so they saw Judas Iscariot as a trustworthy man. Later on, the text will show the reader that Judas Iscariot was within arm’s reach of Jesus. When it came to seating guests at the table during Bible times, the closer the person was to the host, the more honored the guest was. If Judas was within arm reach of Jesus, he was one of the higher up guests. The disciples must have thought Judas Iscariot was an honorable man. Already we have described (at least, by outward appearances) Judas Iscariot as trustworthy and honorable, which are not the qualities of a betrayer. Although a weak argument, we can even use an argument from the silence to show Judas wasn’t a suspect. Quickly skim through all your Synoptic Gospels. Besides when the Twelve Disciples are called, you’ll notice Judas isn’t mentioned until the Last Supper or the Betrayal. From the Gospels, he doesn’t seem to have an active role in the ministry of Jesus. Besides the words of Jesus, which are only mentioned in John, nothing seems to stick out with him. If you were one of Twelve Disciples in the 1st century, you wouldn’t have suspected Judas Iscariot either. The disciples are so unaware, they have to ask Jesus who it is.

To reveal the identity of the betrayer, Jesus dips a piece of bread in a dish and gives it to the betrayer. This was to fulfill the Scriptures, but also in irony of the custom of the day. In Biblical times, “sharing bread” or “breaking bread” (better translation) was an act done between two close people, like family or best friends. When it was done among 2 strangers, it was to acceptance and welcoming. It’s so ironic because here it represents the opposite. Jesus is not saying Judas Iscariot is a friend or a brother to him. Jesus is not welcoming Judas Iscariot, nor is He showing acceptance of Him. Instead, Jesus breaks breads with him to reveal a betrayer, a enemy or an antagonist. The action of breaking bread also fits very well with the context of the fulfilled Scriptures. Most Bibles will say that the Scripture Jesus is referring is Psalm 41:9. Most scholars will tell you that Psalm 41:9 is about Ahithophel, David’s trustworthy and honorable table companion, who betrayed David and then hanged himself for doing so. The parallels fit very well between Ahithophel and Judas Iscariot. Both betrayed a close companion, and both committed suicide over the guilt of the betrayal.

At the sign, John 13:27 tells the reader that Satan entered Judas Iscariot. Now most scholars will agree (although a few have said differently) that the bread that Jesus gave Judas Iscariot is not what caused Satan to enter Judas Iscariot. The issue is how to define “Satan entered.” The question is how much control Judas Iscariot had. Was Judas Isacariot possessed by Satan, or was he acting upon his own free will, but being tempted by Satan? Scholars have been split 50/50 on the two. A few liberal scholars have taken this metaphorically, simply stating it means that from this point on Judas Iscariot was no longer a disciple of Jesus. While in some contexts it fits, it really denies the evil present in this situation. We can’t go to the Greek, for the best literal translation of the Greek is “Satan entered.” Let’s try the other Gospels. Luke 22:3 does also say that Satan entered Judas Iscariot, but the Matthew and Mark passages paralleling the Luke passage do not mention Satan. In fact, Luke and John seem to be the only ones suggesting that Satan had any kind of hand on this. Since Matthew and Mark do not mention the devil with Judas Iscariot, it would almost seem like the Devil has no role at all. On top of that, in Matthew chapter 26, Jesus calls Judas Iscariot “friend.” It would be odd to call a Satan-possessed person “friend.” Possibly the best answer we can get it combining all the answers in harmony. Yes, Satan did play a role. Yes, Satan did enter him. Yet Satan did not have to put up a fight with Judas Iscariot’s free will. Judas Iscariot did not resist the temptations to betray Jesus. In fact, he entertained them. I think James 1:14 accurately describes what happened to Judas Iscariot. Judas entertained his own evil desires, he was enticed by his evil desires, and his evil desires dragged him into sin. Whether Judas Iscariot intended it or not, I think Judas virtually allowed Satan (“handed over the keys of his body” to Satan, if you will) by giving into sin. Judas Iscariot allowed Satan to use him as a tool, and Satan took full control of the opportunity. Even if Judas wanted to change his mind, it was too late, he was stooped into sin.

But our conversation doesn’t end there. Our next prompt is to ask why. Why would Judas do such a thing? Why would Judas betray a close friend and his messiah and savior? I think this is why many people would simply say “Satan entered him.” Their answer to the question would be, “He wouldn’t and he didn’t. Satan did.” Yet that denies Judas Iscariot’s free will. In the paragraph above, we decided Judas Iscariot’s free will to sin that led him to be controlled by Satan. So now we have to ask what would cause Judas to sin and betray Jesus. There’s been lots of theories on why Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus, beside that he was Satan-possessed. First, it could be the sin coveting money. John 12 already revealed Judas Iscariot was concerned about his own personal wealth, so much he would steal from the disciples’ money bag. When the chief priests put a price on Jesus, Judas Iscariot was more than willing to hand Jesus over to get richer. Second, Judas Iscariot might simply have been a good Jew, respecting the Jewish leaders. Judas might have believed that Messiah and the Sanhedrin would get along in perfect harmony. When Judas saw Jesus, who he believed was the Messiah, disagreeing with the Jewish leaders, he had to decide whether the Jewish leaders were wrong or Jesus was wrong. He would decide Jesus was wrong. So when the Jewish leaders requested that anyone with information about Jesus should report it to them, Judas, being the good Jew, followed his leaders and handed Jesus over. Third, Judas Iscariot might have been a zealot, disappointed that Jesus was not the warrior Messiah he was expecting, which in turn could 2 results: either Judas handed over Jesus because Judas saw his an antichrist (false Christ), which is blasphemy, or Judas was trying to force the hand of Jesus, hoping to force him to violence. The last option is not a fourth option, but a combination of all of them. Maybe it was multiple reasons, such as the ones above, that led Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus. Yet I can hear people saying that these all excuses to take the blame off of Judas Iscariot and say it’s not his fault.

That leads us to an even bigger question: How much responsibility does Judas Iscariot assume in the betrayal of Jesus? This question is usually put in the form of asking about Judas Iscariot’s eternal whereabouts. Most people have put Judas in Hell. In Dante’s Inferno, Judas is put in the center and worst part of hell. Very few people will say Judas Iscariot is in heaven. I had a friend who did believe and he explained it to me quite well. To believe Judas is in heaven, you have to have a belief somewhere between Calvinist and fatalist. Judas Iscariot destined, even predestined to be the one to betray Jesus. He had to betray Jesus, for it was the only way for Scripture to be fulfilled and for salvation to be brought along properly. If Judas didn’t do this, then salvation would never come. So why should Judas Iscariot be punished for fulfilling Scripture and helping to bring salvation? Why should Judas be punished for a will predestined to him? He should be rewarded because he did what he was destined to do. May I also add to believe this, you have to have a strong belief in double predestination, the belief that not only does God select people for heaven, but also selects people for hell. While I understand their logic, there is holes in their logic that the Scriptures point out. In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus proclaims woe on him, saying it would be better for him to not be born. Some scholars have further contested this view, claiming that while Scripture does say there needs to be a betrayer, it didn’t have to be Judas Iscariot. Other scholars say the sin of betraying Jesus is not an unforgivable sin. What got Judas Iscariot in trouble was that he did not seek repentance, forgiveness or reconciliation. He instead committed suicide. That is why Judas is in hell, not because he betrayed Jesus, but because he did not seek repentance, forgiveness or reconciliation. While I’m satisfied with the Biblical proof, I am not fully satisfied with the logic the scholars give either. I’ll play along with the scholars who say it didn’t have to be Judas, but if it was any of the other 11 disciples, would they have been off the hook for betraying Jesus? And if you ask me, if you read Matthew 27:3-10, Judas does try to seek repentance and forgiveness. When the chief priests do a bad job and condemn him, he believes he is condemned and hangs himself in remorse. I’ve heard a lot of Calvinist scholars, both single and double predestination, say Judas was predestined to betray Jesus, but he still was accountable to his sin of betrayal, so he is in hell. On the other side, Armenian scholars will say that Jesus foreknew Judas Iscariot as the traitor, but he did not predestine him as the traitor. Thus, Judas Iscariot is guilty for his own sin, and thus in hell. Both views seem to be compromising, and I’m not comfortable with either.

There are other questions we do have concerning Judas Iscariot. I don’t have the time or space to go over every option, but one more I will throw out is “When Jesus selected Judas Iscariot as a disciple, did he truly select him as a disciple, or did he merely select Judas Iscariot be the betrayer?” I remember a while back watching a movie made for TV on Jesus from the eyes of Judas Iscariot. When it came time for the calling of the disciples, Jesus cheerfully called each disciple by name, giving them a hug. Last, he called Judas Iscariot, in a solemn tone, merely giving him a pat on the back. Did it go down like that? Did Jesus merely drag Judas along to fulfill Scripture, keeping an emotionless relationship with him? (Interesting note: According to this movie, Judas Iscariot could not perform the miraculous the disciples did when sent out. I believe they did the further the idea Judas was not a legitimate disciple.). The New Bible Dictionary suggests that Jesus did choose legitimately choose Judas Iscariot as a real disciple, yet Judas Iscariot never really met the title of disciple and apostle. For example, Judas Iscariot never called Jesus “Lord” but only “Rabbi.” Judas never saw Jesus as anything more than a teacher. Therefore, Judas was never really saved in the first place. For the most part, I like what they are saying, but they do seem to bounce back and forth between Calvinistic and Armenian, predestination and free will.

Here’s my grand conclusion. Judas Iscariot was legitimately chosen as a disciple by Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, being God, was just like God and gave Judas Iscariot a fair and honest chance to do the right thing. Judas Iscariot, however, did not meet the expectation of a disciple of Jesus. He got caught up in his own selfish and sinful desires, whether those selfish and sinful desires be coveting money or overthrowing the political system. In accordance to James 1:14, those selfish and sinful desires enticed Judas Iscariot to sin and dragged Judas Iscariot into sin on his own free will. In accordance to Romans 1:24,26, God handed Judas Iscariot over to his own sinful desires and his own sin. Judas Iscariot got so caught up in his sin that no longer he controlled himself, but he was a slave to sin and a slave to Satan. He got in too deep, so deep, it led him to betraying Jesus Christ. But it didn’t stop there. Judas Iscariot was so steeped into sin that even after betraying Jesus, he could not fully repent or forgive himself. He instead committed suicide. Sin left unforgiving only led him to hell.

Back to the Judas Iscariot in the story. After Jesus gives Judas Iscariot the bread, he gives Judas the nod to do whatever he needs to do. Many scholars believe this is Jesus giving Judas Iscariot permission to excuse himself to set up to betray Jesus. Notice how Jesus excuses Judas Iscariot before any of Christ’s last teachings. If you have a Harmony of the Gospels, you’ll notice Jesus excuses Judas Iscariot even before Communion happens. I do believe these are signs that go back to our questions about Judas Iscariot, mainly his end whereabouts. Jesus excuses Judas Iscariot before Communion or the last teachings because Jesus knows Judas Iscariot will have no part in either of them. This time of communion and teaching is just for the true disciples of Jesus. What do the rest of the disciples think about this? They think Jesus is excusing their treasurer to do something with the money, either buy more food for the Passover Feast or give money to the poor. Both would fit the customs of the day. It was the treasurer’s job to make sure there was enough food and supplies for everyone at the Feast. To fail to do so would bring embarrassment upon the host and the treasurer. The disciples might have thought perhaps Judas Iscariot had to go pick up more food in case they ran out. Also, it was custom to give money to the poor during the Passover feast. The disciples might have thought that maybe Jesus was giving Judas Iscariot permission to leave the Feast to perform that task. Judas Iscariot’s part of the chapter ends with the sentence, “And it was night.” Scholars think John puts this in here for metaphorical purposes, although the Feast did happen during the dinner hours of the evening. Remember that both John and Jesus called Jesus “the [true] light” and call the ways of the world and the ways of sin “darkness.” John is stating that Judas Iscariot went from the light of Jesus Christ into the darkness of sin.

Now Judas Iscariot isn’t the only bad example among the disciples. There’s another highlighted in John 13. Believe it or not, it’s Simon Peter. Let’s take a quick look at him.

Now that Judas Iscariot has exited the building, Jesus wants to get more intimate in his conversation with his disciples. Now Jesus wants to reveal personal and deep secrets about Him and His Kingdom. Jesus makes His disciples aware that He is leaving soon, so he wants to also pass on new, important instruction, as well as remind them of old, important instruction. Jesus emphasizes all important teachings because He knows He will not be with the disciples for much longer, and he needs the disciples to keep following His teachings.

Right here, in John 13:36, I believe is one of those moments where all the disciples are thinking about it, but only one gets the nerve to say it out loud. All the disciples are not listening to the instruction, but rather, they are caught up on the sentence, “Where I am going, you cannot come.” They are in great distress because of this, and if you understand the context, you’ll understand why. These men have left their whole lives behind them 3 or 4 years ago to follow Jesus. They banked their whole lives on following Jesus for the rest of their lives. Most of them have nothing to go back to. If they tried to go back, they’d start all over again. So when Jesus says He is leaving, there is much reason for distress. Some of them might have felt like they threw their whole lives away for nothing. So Simon Peter, as concerned as everyone, speaks up, “Where are you going?” From his tone (as well as verse 37), you can tell he’s trying to figure out a way to go with Jesus.

Now if you have a Harmony of the Gospels, here’s where it gets interesting. Harmony of the Gospel books can be helpful tools to compare parallel passages in the Gospels, however, they are far from inerrant. There is no one right Harmony of the Gospel. All these books will have their own interpretation on the order of events and which passages parallel one another. Such is Peter’s denial. Each Gospel has a prediction of Peter’s Denial: Matthew 26:31-35, Mark 14:27-31, Luke 22:31-38, and John 13:37-38. These books will disagree whether they parallel one another. There are 2 main camps of thought. The first is all 4 Gospel writers are telling the same story from 4 different points of view. The second is that Matthew and Mark are telling about one prediction, while Luke and John are talking about another prediction. Let’s examine each camp closely, first the one that puts them all together, then the one that separates Matthew and Mark from Luke and John.

The first camp does have good evidence to put all 4 together. All 4 have Peter making a pledge of allegiance to Jesus. All 4 Gospel accounts have Jesus saying that Peter will disown or deny him. All 4 Gospel narratives have Jesus telling the reader the denial will happen before the rooster crows. With so many parallels, it’s easy to see why all 4 described as retelling the same exact event.

The second camp also has good evidence to bunch Matthew and Mark together and bunch Luke and John as a separate bunch. Read Matthew 26:31-35 and Mark 14:27-31 together. They are about 98% to 99% the same thing, even down to Zechariah prophecy. Both Luke and John are nowhere near the same wording. Where they do talk about the same things, notice the small detail differences. In Matthew and Mark, Peter simply says he will never fall away. In Luke, Peter tells Jesus he will go to prison and death for Jesus. In John, Peter claims he will lay down his life for Jesus. While you might say they are small details, I see big differences. In both Matthew and Mark, Peter denies Christ’s prediction, while in Luke and John, Peter does no such thing. Context also helps. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus seems to be talking to all the disciples (minus Judas Iscariot). In Luke and John, Jesus seems to be talking directly to Peter. The biggest evidence, though, would be the location. Matthew and Mark record the events happening at the Mount of Olives, before going into the Garden of Gethsemane. Luke and John record the events happening in the upper room during the Last Supper.

Therefore, despite the parallels in all 4 Gospel stories, the best view is to say they happened at 2 different times. This is not a contradiction, but rather a repeat. Jesus predicted Peter’s denial first in the upper room, when Peter claimed that he would go wherever Jesus went, even if it meant giving up his life. The second time Jesus predicted Peter’s denial was on the Mount of Olives, before the Garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus told the disciples they will all scatter. In response to the second accusation of denial, Peter once again claims he will never disown Jesus, even if it means giving up his life for him. Perhaps there’s a parallel happening there: Peter declares 3 times he will stick with Jesus, Peter denies Jesus 3 times. Maybe Peter denied Jesus for each time he said he would stick up for Jesus. We’ll talk about that more when we get to the actual event.

In closing this chapter, we know there is a betrayer and a denier among the Twelve Disciples. The betrayer is Judas Iscariot and the denier is Simon Peter. This was no new news to Jesus, as Jesus foreknew Judas Iscariot would betray him and Simon Peter would deny him. But Jesus, being the all-knowing God, knew more than just that. Imagine Jesus at the dinner table of the Last Supper. He looks at Judas Iscariot, and He knows Judas will betray Him. He looks at Simon Peter, and He knows Peter will deny him 3 times before the rooster crows twice. He looks at Thomas (called Didymus), and He knows that Thomas will doubt Him when He rises from the dead. Then Jesus looks at all the rest of disciples, and He knows they will all scatter when He gets arrested. In a sense, they will all betray him, they will all deny him, and they will all doubt him. I wonder if Jesus ever questioned himself to why He was sticking with this sad, sorry bunch. Yet Jesus knew that this was totally worth it, for His disciples, and for all mankind. So He stayed true for His disciples, as well as mankind, to bring everyone salvation.