John 18:15

John 18:15-17 . Simon Peter followed — See note on Matthew 26:58 ; Luke 22:54-62 ; and so did another disciple — Generally supposed to have been John himself, it being the manner of this evangelist to speak of himself in the third person. Grotius however, is of opinion, that the disciple intended was not one of the twelve, but rather an inhabitant of Jerusalem; possibly, the person at whose house our Lord ate the passover. Whitby likewise thinks it was not John. “These authors found their opinion on this circumstance, that the twelve being Galileans, and men of mean station, could not any of them be so well acquainted in the high-priest’s family, as to procure admission for a friend at a time when there was so much ado there. Nevertheless the common opinion may still be adhered to. For though John was a Galilean, and a person in a mean station, there is neither impossibility nor improbability in the notion, that he might have had a relation, friend, or acquaintance in the station of a servant at the high- priest’s, who might not only give him admittance, but, at his desire, admit Peter also. Further, when we consider that John was to write a history of Christ’s life, it will appear extremely proper that, in the course of providence, he should have an opportunity afforded him of being an eye- witness of our Lord’s trial before the council.” — Macknight. That disciple was known unto the high-priest, and therefore was admitted into the palace, without any objection or impediment

. But Peter stood at the door without — Having no interest or acquaintance in the high-priest’s house. Then went out that other disciple — Namely, out of the inner room, into which Jesus had been carried in order to his examination; and spake unto her that kept the door — Desiring her to open it, and admit Peter, whom he brought in. Then saith the damsel unto Peter, Art not thou also — As well as the other; one of this man’s disciples — Of Peter’s sundry denials of Christ, and of the manner in which the accounts given thereof by the different evangelists may be reconciled, see the notes on Matthew 26:69-75 ; Mark 14:66-72 ; Luke 22:54-62 .

John 18:15 . Ἠκολούθει … μαθητής . “There followed Jesus Simon Peter”—with whom the narrative is now concerned—“and another disciple,” in all probability John. He is mentioned to explain how Peter found access to the high priest’s residence. “That disciple was known to the high priest,” i.e. , probably to Caiaphas, and accordingly went in with Jesus εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως , “into the palace (or court) of the high priest”. αὐλή , originally the court or quadrangle round which the house was built, was used of the residence itself. Apparently, and very naturally, Annas had apartments in this official residence now occupied by Caiaphas.

15-18. Simon Peter followed Jesus—Natural though this was, and safe enough, had he only "watched and prayed that he enter not into temptation," as his Master bade him (Mt 26:41), it was, in his case, a fatal step. and … another disciple—Rather, "the other disciple"—our Evangelist himself, no doubt. known unto the high priest—(See on [1893]Joh 18:10). went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.

When Christ was apprehended, the other evangelists tell us, all the disciples forsook him and fled; but it should seem that Peter, who all along the gospel history hath appeared more forward, and bold, and daring than any of the rest, came back; but who that other disciple was that went in with him, and in favour of whom Peter was admitted, we are not told. It is but a conjecture of those who think that it was John, for John was a Galilean as well as Peter, and would have been as much to be questioned upon that account as Peter was. They judge more probably who think it was the master of the house where Christ had ate the passover, and celebrated his supper; or some person of note in Jerusalem, who by reason of his reputation might have more free access to the chief magistrate than one of the apostles, who were but mean persons in the account of the Jews. This disciple, whoever he was, was one that had some familiarity and acquaintance with Caiaphas, which it is no way probable that either John or any of the apostles had.

John 18:15 . Ἄλλος ) without the article, another , indefinitely, as being here first mentioned.[380] For presently after ὁ has a relative force. See E. Schmid. on this passage.— τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ , to the High Priest ) and on that ground they were admitted in. [380] But B confirms the ὁ before ἄλλος , as read in Rec. Text; and so Tisch. Besides, it is John’s way to speak of himself in the third person; ch. John 21:20 ; John 21:24 ; and in John 20:2 expressly using the words, τὸν ἄλλον μαθητήν . A reads ἄλλος , which would refer to some other disciple, not John: so Lachm.—E. and T.

15 . followed ] Or, was following ; the descriptive imperfect. another disciple ] Some good authorities read ‘ the other disciple,’ but the balance is very decidedly in favour of ‘ an other.’ There is no reason for doubting the almost universal opinion that this ‘other’ was S. John himself; an opinion which agrees with the Evangelist’s habitual reserve about himself ( John 1:40 , John 13:23-25 , John 19:26 , John 20:2-8 , John 21:20-24 ); and also with the fact that S. John frequently accompanies S. Peter ( Luke 22:8 ; Acts 3:1 ; Acts 4:13 ; Acts 8:14 ). But it must be allowed that the opinion is short of certain; although the fact that S. John elsewhere designates himself as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ is in no degree against the identification. Here the description, ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved,’ would explain nothing and would therefore be out of place (see Introduction, chap. John 2:3 (3) b ). S. Augustine, Calvin and others suppose some person otherwise unknown to be meant. Other conjectures are, S. James, the Evangelist’s brother, and (strangely enough) Judas Iscariot. was known ] The nature of this ‘acquaintance’ ( Luke 2:44 ; Luke 23:49 ) is nowhere explained. the high priest ] Caiaphas is probably meant ( John 18:13; John 18:24 ); but as deposed high priests still kept the title sometimes ( Luke 3:2 ; Acts 4:6 ), it is possible that Annas is intended. the palace ] Rather, the court or open space in the centre or in front of the house ( Luke 22:55 ).

The same word if used for the ‘sheep-fold’ ( John 10:1 ; John 10:16 ). It is not improbable that Annas lived in a portion of the official residence of his son-in-law; but even if this was not the case, it is no violent supposition that Annas conducted a preliminary examination in the house of Caiaphas (see on John 18:13 ).

(15) And Simon Peter followed Jesus. —Better, And Simon Peter was following Jesus. (Comp. Matthew 26:58 .) Another disciple.—The reading is not certain, but the majority of the better MSS. support the text of the Authorised version. Others have, “The other disciple,” which would mean, “The well-known disciple.” It has been usual to understand that John himself is intended by this designation, and this opinion agrees with the general reticence of the Gospel with regard to him. (Comp. John 1:40; John 13:23; John 19:26; and Introduction, p. 375.) It agrees also with the fact that Peter and John are elsewhere found in special connection with each other (Luke 22:8; Acts 1:13; Acts 3:1; Acts 3:3-4; Acts 3:11; Acts 4:13; Acts 4:19; Acts 8:14). We are warranted, therefore, in saying that this opinion is probable, but not in assuming that it is necessarily true, as is often done. It may be, for instance, that by this term the Evangelist indicates his brother James, who is never mentioned in this Gospel. The fact that he is himself called “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23; John 19:26; comp. Introduction, p. 375), is against rather than for the opinion that he is here called “another disciple.” If we adopt the reading, “the other disciple,” the opinion has more support. Was known unto the high priest.—How he was known we have no means of judging. We may, however, note that the name “John” occurs among the names of the kindred of the high priest in Acts 4:6.

Into the palace of the high priest.—Better, perhaps, into the court of the high priest. (Comp. Matthew 26:3; Matthew 26:58; Matthew 26:69.) St. John uses the word elsewhere only of the sheepfold (John 10:1; John 10:16). It has been established beyond doubt that the title “high priest” may have been and often was given to those who had held the sacred office. We cannot, therefore, say positively that it is not here given to Annas. It is, however, in the highest degree improbable that it is given in this chapter, after the words of John 18:13, to Annas and Caiaphas without distinction. The writer has in that verse clearly marked out Caiaphas as the high priest that year, and consistency requires that we should uniformly understand him to be designated by the title. The apparent difficulty here is met by the remark in John 18:13, that Annas was father-in-law to Caiaphas. (See Note there.)