When Jesus was led away to the house of the high priest (Mark 14:53), Peter followed at a distance (Mark 14:54), in order to see the end of the matter. In other words, he wanted to know how things would turn out for Jesus. This is a surprise, more or less, because the text had already said everyone, which included Peter, abandoned Jesus and fled (Matthew 26:56; Mark 14:50). Okay, we need to pause here in order to understand what had taken place, and what had to have occurred in order allow what followed. Most of us have either read these accounts or have listened to them preached so often, that a real danger exists for missing helpful details due to an over familiarity with the text.
If we back up a bit, we can see that the Apostles cannot be accused of cowardice, because, not only did they ask Jesus, if they should attack the band of armed men sent by the high priest (Luke 22:49), but Peter, being the spontaneous person he was, didn’t wait for Jesus to reply. He jumped right into the affair by cutting off the right ear of one of the high priest’s servants (John 18:10). The Synoptics, however, mention the incident without naming Peter (Matthew 26:51; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:50.[1] Moreover, if we consider the Greek word translated fled (G5343) in Matthew and Mark, we are able to see that the disciples didn’t literally flee the scene of Jesus’ arrest. The word, according to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon has a metaphorical meaning: “to flee (to shun or avoid by flight) something abhorrent, especially vices.” Paul uses the same word to tell the Corinthians to flee fornication and to flee idolatry (1Corinthians 6:18; 10:14). The sense seems to be that the disciples simply let Jesus be taken by a bunch of strangers, when he told his disciples they weren’t to fight (Matthew 26:52-53; John 18:11). The point is, no one went with Jesus for moral support, like a parent would their child, who was in trouble with the authorities, or a friend would under such circumstances.
Another interesting point that the texts leave out is what did the other disciples say to Judas, and how did he defend what he did? We know something occurred, because later, after Jesus’ resurrection Judas had to have been among the other disciples, when Jesus appeared to them (Mark 16:14), because eleven were there, and Thomas was absent (John 20:19, 24). Therefore, if Jesus appeared to the Eleven, without Thomas, Judas had to have been present to see the resurrected Christ, and this was perhaps the impetus that provoked his suicide (Matthew 27:3-5). So, if Judas was with the other disciples after Jesus’ resurrection, this probably means no one knew what he had done, even by the time of Jesus’ post resurrection appearances. If this is so, some kind of explanation had to have been demanded of him in the garden after Jesus’ arrest.
Judas must have told the others that something along the order of: he thought he was brokering a reconciliation between Jesus and the Jewish authorities, and the armed militia was to be at Jesus’ disposal. Moreover, Judas had to have been the other disciple who followed after those who arrested Jesus, because he was known by the high priest (John 18:15-16; cp. Mark 14:10-11), and none of the disciples seem to have been known to the Jewish authorities after Pentecost (cp. Acts 4:13; 5:17-18, 26-28).
Of course, much of this is guess work, and perhaps the logic could be worked out a little differently, but something like this must have occurred. For example, all the disciples must have agreed that both Peter and Judas would go after Jesus in order to know how things would transpire (Matthew 26:58). After they understood what they were facing, perhaps they could get the multitudes of Jews who had expressed their support for Jesus to force the Jewish authorities to release the Lord. Judas went ahead of Peter, but Peter remained at a distance and would remain unknown to the others who were present at Jesus’ trial. This way it might be possible for him to pick up some useful information to effect Jesus’ release. So, Judas would see to it that Peter was able to enter Caiaphas’ house (John 18:15-16), while Peter preserved his anonymity in an effort to gain Jesus’ swift release. Nevertheless, as Peter would soon come to realize, following Jesus and preserving one’s anonymity cannot be done. There is a spiritual reality that comes with following the Lord, and that is the reality of shame. One needs to bear the stigma of being a known disciple of Jesus, if one is going to be used by him to bring his will to pass in this world. No one is able to do the will of God and remain anonymous at the same time. Judas couldn’t do it, and neither could Peter!
_______________________________________________________
[1] The Gospel narrators often use code names for people in their accounts or leave their names out entirely, because of possible repercussions by the Jewish authorities. The fact that John names Peter may be indicative that he was already executed at Rome by Nero.
Smoodock's Blog 