We have seen that the Lord was sustained in the garden of Gethsemane by a number of considerations. But after the great decision had been made to carry out his Father’s will, there lay before him the onerous task so poignantly revealed in the Old Testament. As we endeavor to look at the records of our Lord’s arrest, his trial and his crucifixion, we feel a heavy responsibility. We are examining the price of our redemption. What he bore, he bore for each of us. In a well-known passage, Paul declares of his Lord, “He loved me, and gave himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20). We should not miss the way in which the Apostle, knowing full well the wider bearing of Christ’s sacrifice, sees it as referring to himself in a personal way. This each of us should do.
“He that hath seen me…”
While we think understandably of the cross as a sign of man’s rejection of our Lord, let us not forget that it was also a rejection of the Lord God Himself. So faithfully did our Lord portray the character of his Father, that when men looked at him, they were seeing God at the same time. That is the sense of our Lord’s words to Philip, “…he that hath seen me, hath seen the Father; how sayest thou then, shew us the Father?” (John 14:9).
But there is another statement by our Lord which merits our attention in this connection; “He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father” (John 15:23-24). In the light of these words, may we then dare to say that when they crucified the Lord, they were in a sense crucifying his Father at the same time? That appears to be the implication of the passage.
Long before, when the Israelites were apparently rejecting the leadership of Samuel and clamouring for a king, the Lord God declared to Samuel, “Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee:’ for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them” (I Sam. 8:7). What a deeper sense this declaration assumes when we reflect upon the closeness of the relationship of God and His Son. This is an aspect of the cross which we do well to ponder with a profound feeling of reverence.
“Be not overcome of evil…”
As we embark upon a summary review of the circumstances which preceded and accompanied the crucifixion, we see increasingly how much the darker side of human nature is revealed. We have already commented briefly on the contrast between our Lord’s behaviour and that of all who were involved in his arrest, trial and crucifixion. This will emerge with greater force as we look at the records in more detail. Our Lord does not merely submit in humility to what men inflict upon him, he triumphs over the various forms of humiliation he endures. In the most difficult of situations he illustrates wonderfully how Paul’s injunction to the Romans can be put into practice, “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:21).
There is an opinion that God abandoned Jesus on the cross. We believe that this notion is untenable. While it is true that he uttered the cry of dereliction, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46, Mark 15:34), we must also bear in mind that from the records of Luke and John, to be considered in due course, the Lord was in communion with his Father. He foresaw that the apostles would abandon him, but he knew that this would not be true of his Father. “Behold, the hour cometh, yea is come, that ye shall be scattered every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me” (John 16:32).
In Gethsemane
We turn now to the records of Gethsemane, and note first the arrival of Judas in the garden. It is probable, if not certain, that the Jewish leaders had waited for nightfall, lest their evil purpose would be frustrated. They were well aware that Jesus had a number of followers, and the more unobtrusively they pursued their wicked plan the more likely they were to succeed in their designs. For this reason, Judas was ideal for their scheme as he was so familiar with the Lord’s habits.
Jesus, having resolved to do his Father’s will to the full, came to his tired followers and, with characteristic thoughtfulness, said to them, “Sleep on now, and take your rest” (Matt. 26:45). But scarcely had he uttered these words when he saw the light of lanterns and torches piercing the darkness. Judas had given a prearranged sign — the one he kisses is the man they want to arrest. It was apparently the custom to greet a rabbi with a kiss, but that would be a token of respect, whereas now it was a gesture of betrayal. The Lord could not conceal his surprise, “Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” (Luke 22:48). Impetuously Peter draws his sword and strikes out against the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear (John 18:10).
While John alone identifies the apostle (Peter) who smote the servant, and gives the name of the latter, Malchus, (John 18:10), Luke is the only one to record that Jesus healed the wound inflicted by Peter (Luke 22:52). With the Lord focusing the attention of those apprehending him upon himself (see John 18:4-9), the apostles were able to flee from the garden (see Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50).
Peter and John follow “afar off’
Here we should take note of the contrast between the Lord’s nobility in attracting attention to himself so that his followers could go free, and the apostles’ typically human concern with their own safely. But Peter did not go far from his Lord. He could not have lost sight of the company arresting him, for we read that he followed Jesus “afar off” (Matt. 26:58; Mark 14:54; Luke 22:54; John 18:15). This should not have proved difficult, for the band which arrested the Lord was large and was carrying a number of lanterns and torches (cf. John 18:3).
Here is one of the details which we find alone in John’s record. It is he, too, who informs us that Peter was accompanied by “another disciple” (John 18:15), who could have been none other than John himself. He was known to the high priest, and presumably to members of his entourage, for he was able to enter the court of the high priest and to secure Peter’s entry, (John 18:15-17). We can only speculate as to how the apostle John had become known to Caiaphas, but one theory is that the young John had sold fish to the high priest and his household.
The knowledge that John was personally present at the trial helps us to understand why he is able to mention interesting and illuminating details peculiar to his record, for he alone also speaks of an appearance before Annas, who was also high priest. The reference is the briefest mention (see John 18:13), and one can conclude that nothing of consequence took place.
Late into the night
It is the trial before Caiaphas which really mattered. We pause for a moment to take note of some important chronological details. It was already dark when Judas left the upper room (John 13:30). Thus it must have been later than 6 p.m. After the departure of Judas, the Lord speaks those sublime words preserved in John 13:31- 17:26. In the course of these, the Lord leaves the upper room, accompanied by the eleven (14:31).
They make their way down to the Kidron valley and arrive eventually in the garden. It is impossible to calculate the exact time this journey would take, but we are obviously much further into the night. The apostles are weary and fall asleep (Matt. 26:43,45). Then the company arrives, led by Judas. The Lord is arrested and escorted back to Jerusalem to appear before Caiaphas. All this has taken time. If the apostles had earlier felt tired previously, we can be sure that the Lord was also fatigued.
The time factor
But no concession was to be made to his physical condition. The various forms of trials, both figurative and literal, continued throughout the night until eventually, after his scourging, he was taken away to be crucified. Mark is helpful for he gives the times when the sequence of events took place. He informs us that it was the third hour when our Lord was impaled upon the cross (Mark 15:3). Then he tells us that darkness descended at the sixth hour and continued until the ninth, when the Lord died.
In contemporary terms, we usually interpret these time notations as meaning the crucifixion took place at 9 a.m., darkness descended at midday, and the Lord’s death took place at 3 p.m., the traditional hour of prayer (cf. Acts 3:1). The details concerning the onset of darkness and the time of death are confirmed by Matthew (27:45), and by Luke (23:44).
It is true John speaks of the appearance of Jesus before Pilate at “about the sixth hour” (19:14). This discrepancy is normally resolved by pointing out John was employing a different system of timing, adapted to the province in which he was writing.
When we take into account these details, we realize that the Lord was awake all night before his scourging, and that he was on the cross for six hours. When Joseph of Arimathaea made his request to Pilate, asking for the Lord’s body, the governor was amazed and required confirmation from the centurion in charge of the crucifixion whether Jesus was really dead (Mark 15:43-45). But can we be surprised at the Lord’s death when we reflect upon all he had endured?
In our next study, we hope to engage in a closer examination of the events leading up to the crucifixion, giving special attention to the way in which our Lord responds to the various challenges confronting him.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One