Skip to main content

Jesus Is Betrayed And Arrested (John 18:1-11)

 St. John says that after they ate the Passover in the Upper Room, they went to the Kidron Valley. It was a familiar place, likely where they would get away to pray. Judas Iscariot knew the place, too.

Judas Iscariot brought soldiers and representatives from the chief priests and Pharisees. Apparently, they were expecting a more violent confrontation.

Jesus stepped forward, asking the soldiers who they were looking for. Why did they draw back, after Jesus identified himself? Did Jesus knock them over with some sort of power, or did his name somehow carry a special significance? Did some of the soldiers believe in him, or hear stories of his miracles? Based on what we have right here in the text, we don't know. I would like to think that a certain voice of conscience offered the soldiers an opportunity not to participate in this evil betrayal. Eventually, though, they got off the ground and did what they were ordered to do.

Jesus bargains for the release of the rest of the apostles, and St. John sees it as a fulfillment of a prophecy that Jesus made in the high priestly prayer, that none of his true apostles will be lost. In this way, St. John is telling us that Jesus was worshiped already, when St. John wrote his Gospel. I suppose we could claim that St. John is only claiming Jesus is a prophet, but given what he wrote in the prologue (John 1:1-18) and in the rest of this Gospel, this seems unlikely.

St. Peter didn't like the way things were going. Maybe he thought he could stop Jesus from getting arrested. So he drew a sword, and he cut off the right ear of the high priest's slave, Malchus. St. John probably wants to give us this information because someone in the original audience could back up the story. In St. John's account, Jesus doesn't fix the man's ear, but in others, he does.

St. Peter doesn't see the Father's plan in the way this is unfolding. Jesus had rebuked him earlier--as recorded by St. Matthew--by saying, "Get behind me, Satan!" (Matthew 16:23) at Peter's first suggestion of rescuing him from being arrested. Like us, St. Peter doesn't really see the point of suffering and injustice. Sometimes our first response is to fight against it, but succeeding may not be possible. And in this case, fighting against the suffering of Jesus is fighting against the will of God.

We will have plenty of opportunity to reflect upon this mystery before the end of the Gospel. In fact, we could spend the rest of our lives contemplating the mystery of the suffering of Jesus in the will of God, and it would not be a waste.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...