JOHN'S STORY OF THE “ARREST” IS MORE LOGICAL

By Hugh Fogelman

You must first understand the setting at the time of Jesus' arrest. Rome had been having trouble with the Jews in Judah for almost a hundred years. In the year 6 CE, a Jewish "savior named Judas of Galilee, led an unsuccessful Jewish revolt against Rome (and was crucified on the cross). 38 years later, in the year 44, another self-proclaimed "messiah," Theudas, again led a rebel army against Rome, which was also defeated, and he too died on the cross. Ten years later still another Jewish revolt led by Benjamin the Egyptian was crushed by Rome and he also was crucified. So you can clearly see the unrest in Judah before, during and after the time of Jesus between the Jews and Rome.

How then, could it be possible that a "great multitude with swords and staves" came to arrest Jesus as the Gospels mention? Mark wrote, regarding the arrest of Jesus, "while he yet spoke came Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders" (Mark 14:43). Matthew wrote, "and while he spoke, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people" (Matthew 26:47). Luke writes a little different, "And while he yet spoke, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him" (Luke 22:47). Luke continues with Jesus saying to the "chief priests, and the captains of the temple and the elders, do you come out as against a thief with swords and staves" (22:52)? Can you imagine the Roman garrison allowing a large assembly of armed Jewish men marching around the countryside? That is not logical! 

John's account of the arrest of Jesus is much more logical even though not correct. He wrote that Jesus went out with his disciples and stayed in a garden where Judas and the other disciples often met. "Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priest and Pharisees came with lanterns and torches and weapons" (John 18:3). In the Greek Septuagint, John's story is told using a Greek word "speira,” which means a detachment of soldiers or troops. This can only refer to a Roman military unit. In other words, Judas guided these Roman troops together with Jewish police to arrest Jesus. This way, the Romans still maintained control over the armed Jewish police. The most important point in John's story is that John involves the Romans in Jesus' arrest, which the other Gospel writers failed to mention. 

Looking back in history, you can see how the Gospels, which were written either during or after the fall of Jerusalem, are pro-Roman and seek to minimize the role of the Romans in Jesus' arrest, trail and execution. Now, John's story is acceptable, but he did make a big mistake. He involves the Pharisees in Jesus' arrest, a fact that was not true and a detail that appears in none of the other Gospels. The Pharisees represented the common people while the Sadducees were the High Priests and the upper society of Jews. Roman history tells us the Sadducees acted for the eyes and ears of Rome. As a puppet ruler for Rome, they were the only Jewish group that had police power and were allowed to have any weapons. To say that the Pharisees, meaning most of the Jewish people, were involved in Jesus' arrest and carrying weapons is blatantly untrue. Only the High Priest, who happened to be a Sadducee―not a Pharisee―deployed police with swords in his capacity of "looking for unrest and any insurrection against Rome.”  

Other than that, John's picture of Jesus being arrested by Roman troops ties in well with the rest of the story. Unlike the other Gospel writings, John's Jesus does not undergo any Sanhedrin (the Jewish high court) trial. Instead, Jesus is interrogated first by Annas, the High Priest's father-in-law, then was taken and interrogated by Caiaphas, who was the High Priest. When they were finished with Jesus, they led Jesus into "the hall of judgment.” In other words, Pilate's palace. This is confirmed when John wrote; "and they (Caiaphas and the others) went not into the judgement hall, lest they should be defiled as they might eat the passover.” Notice that John does not even capitalize the high Jewish holiday, using the small "p.” It's like not capitalizing Easter and Christmas. This only shows his contempt for the Jews. The reason why they didn't enter Pilate's palace and be "defiled,” is because before any high Jewish holiday Jews must not be in contact with any dead bodies and as history tells us, pagans (Pilate) buried their dead under their homes. 

The alleged Sanhedrin trial described in all three of the Gospels is full of improbabilities and many scholars have regarded it as unhistorical. If John is correct, Jesus was never tried by the Jewish High Court on a religious charge. Rather, he was arrested by the "puppet" Jewish police along with a detachment of Roman soldiers on a political charge of subversion against the Roman occupation of Judah, because they found weapons in Jesus' camp. It is very important to note that John did not mention the trial by the Jewish High Court. He knew the laws the Sanhedrin had to follow would prohibit such a trial. The Pharisees found no fault in Jesus as he did not break any Jewish laws that would require him to be brought up for trail. It was the high priest, a Saducee, who was appointed by the Romans to question any person he thought a threat to Roman rule. The Priests appointed the Temple police, who according to John, arrested Jesus. The high priests did not represent the Jewish people, they were collaborators of Rome. The only Jewish leadership was the Pharasic Sanhedrin which, according to John had nothing to do with the trail. 

In John's story, this now makes the role of Judas very different from that described in Mark, Matthew and Luke's account of the arrest of Jesus. John tells Judas is arm in arm with the Romans and their Jewish collaborators, not with the main Jewish religious establishment. This is very important, because all of a sudden, the emphases shifts from all the Jews being involved with Jesus' arrest, to only the very small amount of Jewish traitors (to their own people) and their employers, Rome.  

John, however, does reveal some valuable historical facts:

1. That Jesus was never tried on a religious charge in a religious court of law,

2. Jesus instead, was arrested as a rebel against Rome and was convicted as a rebel, and

3. Jesus died crucified on a tree just like all the other Jewish rebels.

4. A small detachment of Roman soldiers along with some Sadducees arrested Jesus, not a "great multitude" of Jews.  

I hope you are now seeing how the New Testament systematically paints ALL Jews as being the ones responsible in Jesus’ arrest and trail and finally death.

RETURN