John 18:15
And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known to the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.
Jump to: AlfordBarnesBengelBensonBICalvinCambridgeChrysostomClarkeDarbyEllicottExpositor'sExp DctExp GrkGaebeleinGSBGillGrayHaydockHastingsHomileticsICCJFBKellyKJTLangeMacLarenMHCMHCWMeyerParkerPNTPoolePulpitSermonSCOTeedTTBVWSWESTSK
(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.)



John 18:15 - John 18:27

The last verses of the preceding passage belong properly to this one, for they tell us that Jesus was ‘first’ brought before Annas, a fact which we owe to John only. Annas himself and his five sons held the high-priesthood in succession. To the sons has to be added Caiaphas, who, as we learn from John only, was Annas’ son-in-law, and so one of the family party. That Jesus should have been taken to him, though he held no office at the time, shows who pulled the strings in the Sanhedrim. The reference to Caiaphas in John 18:14 seems intended to suggest what sort of a trial might be expected, presided over by such a man. But John 18:15 tells us that Jesus entered in, accompanied by ‘another disciple,’ ‘to the court,’ not, as we should have expected, of Annas, but ‘of the high priest,’ who, by the testimony of John 18:13, can be no one but Caiaphas. How came that about? Apparently, because Annas had apartments in the high-priest’s official residence. As he obviously exercised the influence through his sons and son-in-law, who successively held the office, it was very natural that he should be a fixture in the palace.

What John’s connection was with this veteran intriguer {assuming that John was that ‘other disciple’} we do not know. Probably it was some family bond that united two such antipathetic natures. At all events, the Apostle’s acquaintance with the judge so far condoned his discipleship to the criminal, that the doors of the audience chamber were open to him, though he was known as ‘one of them.’

So he and poor Peter were parted, and the latter left shivering outside in the grey of the morning. John had not missed him at first, for he would be too much absorbed in watching Jesus to have thoughts to spare for Peter, and would conclude that he was following him; but, when he did miss him, like a brave man he ran the risk of being observed, and went for him. The sharp-witted porteress, whose business it was to judge applicants for entrance by a quick glance, at once inferred that Peter ‘also’ was one of this man’s disciples. Her ‘also’ shows that she knew John to be one; and her ‘this man’ shows that either she did not know Jesus’ name, or thought Him too far beneath her to be named by her! The time during which Peter had been left outside alone, repenting now of, and alarmed for what might happen to him on account of, his ill-aimed blow at Malchus, and feeling the nipping cold, had taken all his courage out of him. The one thing he wished was to slip in unnoticed, and so the first denial came to his lips as rashly as many another word had come in old days. He does not seem to have remained with John, who probably went up to the upper end of the hall, where the examination was going on, while Peter, not having the entree and very much terrified as well as miserable, stayed at the lower end, where the understrappers were making themselves comfortable round a charcoal fire, and paying no attention to the proceedings at the other end. He seemed to be as indifferent as they were, and to be intent only on getting himself warmed. But what surges of emotion would be tossing in his heart, which yet he was trying to hide under the mask of being an unconcerned spectator, like the others!

The examination of our Lord was conducted by ‘the high priest,’ by which title John must mean Caiaphas, as he has just emphatically noted that he then filled the office. But how is that to be reconciled with the statement that Jesus was taken to Annas? Apparently by supposing that, though Annas was present, Caiaphas was spokesman. But did not a formal trial before Caiaphas follow, and does not John tell us {John 18:24} that, after the first examination, Annas sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas? Yes. And are these things compatible with this account of an examination conducted by the latter? Yes, if we remember that flagrant wresting of justice marked the whole proceedings. The condemnation of Jesus was a judicial murder, in which the highest court of the Jews ‘decreed iniquity by a law’; and it was of a piece with all the rest that he, who was to pose as an impartial judge presently, should, in the spirit of a partisan, conduct this preliminary inquiry. Observe that no sentence was pronounced in the case at this stage. This was not a court at all. What was it? An attempt to entrap the prisoner into admissions which might be used against Him in the court to be held presently. The rulers had Jesus in their hands, and they did not know what to do with Him now that they had Him. They were at a loss to know what His indictment was to be. To kill Him was the only thing on which they had made up their minds; the pretext had yet to be found, and so they tried to get Him to say something which would serve their purpose.

‘The high priest therefore asked Jesus of His disciples, and of His teaching’! If they did not know about either, why had they arrested Him? Cunning outwits itself, and falls into the pit it digs for the innocent. Jesus passed by the question as to His disciples unnoticed, and by His calm answer as to His teaching showed that He saw the snare. He reduced Caiaphas and Annas to perpetrating plain injustice, or to letting Him go free. Elementary fair play to a prisoner prescribes that he should be accused of some crime by some one, and not that he should furnish his judges with materials for his own indictment. ‘Why askest thou Me? ask them that have heard Me,’ is unanswerable, except by such an answer as the officious ‘servant’ gave-a blow and a violent speech. But Christ’s words reach far beyond the momentary purpose; they contain a wide truth. His teaching loves the daylight. There are no muttered oracles, no whispered secrets for the initiated, no double voice, one for the multitude, and another for the adepts. All is above-board, and all is spoken ‘openly to the world.’ Christianity has no cliques or coteries, nothing sectional, nothing reserved. It is for mankind, for all mankind, all for mankind. True, there are depths in it; true, the secrets which Jesus can only speak to loving ears in secret are His sweetest words, but they are ‘spoken in the ear’ that they may be ‘proclaimed on the housetops.’

The high-priest is silent, for there was nothing that he could say to so undeniable a demand, and he had no witnesses ready. How many since his day have treated Jesus as he treated Him-condemned Him or rejected Him without reason, and then looked about for reasons to justify their attitude, or even sought to make Him condemn Himself!

An unjust judge breeds insolent underlings, and if everything else fails, blows and foul words cover defeat, and treat calm assertion of right as impertinence to high-placed officials. Caiaphas degraded his own dignity more than any words of a prisoner could degrade it.

Our Lord’s answer ‘reviled not again.’ It is meek in majesty and majestic in meekness. Patient endurance is not forbidden to remonstrate with insolent injustice, if only its remonstrance bears no heat of personal anger in it. But Jesus was not so much vindicating His words to Caiaphas in saying, ‘If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil,’ as reiterating the challenge for ‘witnesses.’ He brands the injustice of Caiaphas, while meekly rebuking the brutality of his servant. Master and man were alike in smiting Him for words of which they could not prove the evil.

There was obviously nothing to be gained by further examination. No crime had been alleged, much less established; therefore Jesus ought to have been let go. But Annas treated Him as a criminal, and handed Him over ‘bound,’ to be formally tried before the man who had just been foiled in his attempt to play the inquisitor. What a hideous mockery of legal procedure! How well the pair, father-in-law and son-in-law, understood each other! What a confession of a foregone conclusion, evidence or no evidence, in shackling Jesus as a malefactor! And it was all done in the name of religion! and perhaps the couple of priests did not know that they were hypocrites, but really thought that they were ‘doing God service.’

John’s account of Peter’s denials rises to a climax of peril and of keenness of suspicion. The unnamed persons who put the second question must have had their suspicions roused by something in his manner as he stood by the glinting fire, perhaps by agitation too great to be concealed. The third question was put by a more dangerous person still, who not only recognised Peter’s features as the firelight fitfully showed them, but had a personal ground of hostility in his relationship to Malchus.

John lovingly spares telling of the oaths and curses accompanying the denials, but dares not spare the narration of the fact. It has too precious lessons of humility, of self-distrust, of the possibility of genuine love being overborne by sudden and strong temptation, to be omitted. And the sequel of the denials has yet more precious teaching, which has brought balm to many a contrite heart, conscious of having been untrue to its deepest love. For the sound of the cock-crow, and the look from the Lord as He was led away bound past the place where Peter stood, brought him back to himself, and brought tears to his eyes, which were sweet as well as bitter. On the resurrection morning the risen Lord sent the message of forgiveness and special love to the broken-hearted Apostle, when He said, ‘Go, tell My disciples and Peter,’ and on that day there was an interview of which Paul knew {1 Corinthians 15:5}, but the details of which were apparently communicated by the Apostle to none of his brethren. The denier who weeps is taken to Christ’s heart, and in sacred secrecy has His forgiveness freely given, though, before he can be restored to his public office, he must, by his threefold public avowal of love, efface his threefold denial. We may say, ‘Thou knowest that I love thee,’ even if we have said, ‘I know Him not,’ and come nearer to Jesus, by reason of the experience of His pardoning love, than we were before we fell.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 22:54-62.18:13-27 Simon Peter denied his Master. The particulars have been noticed in the remarks on the other Gospels. The beginning of sin is as the letting forth of water. The sin of lying is a fruitful sin; one lie needs another to support it, and that another. If a call to expose ourselves to danger be clear, we may hope God will enable us to honour him; if it be not, we may fear that God will leave us to shame ourselves. They said nothing concerning the miracles of Jesus, by which he had done so much good, and which proved his doctrine. Thus the enemies of Christ, whilst they quarrel with his truth, wilfully shut their eyes against it. He appeals to those who heard him. The doctrine of Christ may safely appeal to all that know it, and those who judge in truth bear witness to it. Our resentment of injuries must never be passionate. He reasoned with the man that did him the injury, and so may we.See the notes at Matthew 26:57-58.

Another disciple - Not improbably John. Some critics, however, have supposed that this disciple was one who dwelt at Jerusalem, and who, not being a Galilean, could enter the palace without suspicion. John, however, mentions the circumstance of his being known to them, to show why it was that he was not questioned as Peter was. It is not probable that any danger resulted from its being known that he was a follower of Jesus, or that any harm was meditated on them for this. The questions asked Peter were not asked by those in authority, and his apprehensions which led to his denial were groundless.

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. And Simon Peter followed Jesus,.... It is certain, he first fled with the rest, and forsook him, as they all did, notwithstanding his resolution to abide by him; however, he was very desirous to know what would become of Jesus, and what would be the issue of things; with this view he followed him, and not to deny him; though that was the consequence. Other evangelists say he followed him afar off, at a distance, Matthew 26:58; which showed some fear; and yet to follow him at all discovered love and zeal. To follow Christ is a property of his sheep, and is highly commendable, especially to follow him in sufferings; a greater character a person cannot well have, than to be a follower of Jesus, in the exercise of grace, in the discharge of duty, and in bearing the cross; and yet it does not appear that Peter did well in following Christ now; for Christ had cautioned him of his over confidence, had hinted to him that he should deny him, and had dismissed him, and took his leave of him, and the rest, on whose discharge he insisted, when he was apprehended, John 18:8;

And so did another disciple, and that disciple was known unto the high priest. This is thought to be the Apostle John, because he frequently speaks of himself, without mentioning his name; and these two, Peter and John, were generally together; and certain it is, that John was present at the cross at the time of Christ's crucifixion; and who is supposed to be known to the high priest, by carrying fish to his house, and selling it to him; so Nonnus says, he was known from his fishing trade: but it is not probable that he was known, or could be known by the high priest, so as to have any intimacy with him; nor is it likely that he, being a Galilaean, would venture in; he was discoverable by his speech, and would have been in equal danger with Peter; rather it was some one of the disciples of Christ, who had not openly professed him; one of the chief rulers that believed in him, but, for fear of the Pharisees, had not confessed him; it may be Nicodemus, or Joseph of Arimathea, or the man at whose house Christ had eaten the passover. In the Syriac version he is called one of the other disciples; not of the twelve, but others. However, through his knowledge of the high priest, he

went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest; not Annas, but Caiaphas; for Christ was now brought from Annas's house to Caiaphas's, where the Scribes and elders were assembled together.

{7} And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.

(7) A graphic example of the fragility of men, even the best of them, when they are left to themselves.

John 18:15. Ἠκολούθει] correlative to the ἀπήγαγον, κ.τ.λ., John 18:13, and the imperfect is descriptive.

ὁ ἄλλ. μαθ.] The other disciple known to the reader, whom I do not name. Self-designation; not a citizen of Jerusalem (Grotius), not Judas Iscariot (Heumann), not some unknown person (Augustine, Calovius, Calvin, Gurlitt). Only the first rendering corresponds to the article, and to the peculiarity of John’s manner. A tendency to elevate John above Peter is here as little to be found as in John 20:2-3 (Weizsäcker would conclude from this passage that a scholar of John was the writer); it is a simple reproduction of the contents of the history.

γνωστός] whence and how is undetermined. Nonnus: ἰχθυβόλου παρὰ τέχνης; Ewald: because he was related to the priestly stock (see Introd. § 1); Hengstenberg: from earlier religious necessities. γνωστός does not mean related.

τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ, and then τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, cannot, after ἀπήγ. αὐτ. πρὸς Ἀνναν, John 18:13, and ἠκολούθει, κ.τ.λ., John 18:15, refer to Caiaphas, but, as Ewald also assumes, though Baeumlein groundlessly disputes it, only to Annas, as the high priest (he had been so, and still enjoyed the title, see Luke 3:2; Acts 4:5), to whom Jesus was brought. The observation on the acting ἀρχιερ. Caiaphas (ὃς ἦν, John 18:13-14) was indeed only an intermediate observation, which the reference demanded by the course of the history of ἀρχιερ. to Annas cannot alter. Accordingly, both the following denial of Peter (John 18:16-18) and the examination (John 18:19-21), and the maltreatment (John 18:22-23), took place in the dwelling of Annas. Of the synoptic examination before Caiaphas, John gives no account, and only briefly indicates in John 18:24 that Jesus was sent away to Caiaphas; a step which followed after the examination before Annas, presupposing as well known the trial before Caiaphas, which took place after this sending away. On the second and third denials, which are likewise to be placed in the court of Annas, see on John 18:25. This exegetic result, according to which John does not give any account of the hearing in the presence of Caiaphas,[210] but indicates as the locality of the three denials the court of Annas (see on Matt., note after Matthew 26:75), is opposed to the older and modern system of harmonizing (Cyril, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, and many others, including Lücke, Tholuck, Klee, De Wette, Maier, Baeumlein[211]), according to which, if one common court be not assigned to the dwellings of the two high priests (so again Hengstenberg in particular; comp. on John 18:24), the leading away to Caiaphas is already presupposed in John 18:15, and then John 18:24 is disposed of with forced arbitrariness, partly on critical, partly on exegetical grounds; see on John 18:24. The above exegetic conclusion is confirmed even on harmonistic principles, namely, from the side of the examination, by the fact that John 18:19-21 present no resemblance at all to the Synoptic examination before Caiaphas, as also that there is no trace in John of judicial proceedings before the Sanhedrim. Further, we are not to conclude, from the silence of the Synoptics as to the examination before Annas, that they knew nothing of it (Schweizer); but because it was no judicial examination, it might easily fall into the background in the circle of tradition followed by them. On the other side, the credibility of John (against Weisse) must turn the scale as well in favour of the historical character of the above examination as of the occurrence of the three denials in the court of Annas, without granting that the Synoptic and Johannean denials are to be counted together as so many different ones, beyond the number of three (Paulus). But when Baur takes the account of the examination in Annas’ presence to proceed from the design of strengthening the testimony of the unbelief of the Jews by the condemnatory judgment of the two high priests, and (see in the Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 285) of bringing into prominence the surrender of Jesus by the Jewish authority into the hands of the Roman, as brought about by both high priests, this is opposed by the fact, setting aside the entirely incidental manner in which Caiaphas is mentioned, John 18:24, and the arbitrary character of such inventions generally, that John as little mentions a sentence delivered by Annas as by Caiaphas, which nevertheless suggested itself so naturally in John 18:24, and the place of which is by no means supplied, as respects Caiaphas, by John 11:50.

[210] Considering that this examination was well known from the older Gospels, of which he was fully aware, it was quite sufficient for him to recall the recollection of it simply by the observation inserted in ver. 24—a proof of his independence of the Synoptics. Others have sought to explain the silence of John on the examination before Caiaphas differently, but in a more arbitrary manner, as e.g. Schweizer: that after ver. 14 this examination appeared to the apostle as a mere formality not worth consideration. But as the judicial process proper, it was nevertheless the principal examination. According to Brückner, John has directed his principal aim to the denial of Peter and to the proceedings before Pilate. But this needed not, nevertheless, to have led him to be entirely silent on the examination before Caiaphas. According to Schenkel, Jesus, according to the present Gospel, underwent no examination at all before Caiaphas. But why then does John relate that Jesus was led away to Caiaphas? According to Scholten, John has kept silence regarding the examination before the latter in order not to cause Jesus to make the confession that He was the (Jewish) Messiah, Matthew 26:64. As if this would have required the omission of the whole history! And the confession of Jesus, Matthew 26:64, is sublime enough even for John.

[211] Also Brandes, Annas u. Pilat., Lemgo 1860. See in opposition, Weiss in the Lit. Bl. d. allg. K. Z. 1860, Nr. 39.John 18:15. Ἠκολούθειμαθητής. “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. 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 ‘another.’ 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).John 18:15. Ἄλλος) without the article, another, indefinitely, as being here first mentioned.[380] For presently after 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 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.Verse 15. - Now. After the first dispersion of all the disciples, two of them gathered up their courage. Simon Peter was following Jesus "afar off" (say all the synoptists), "even up to" εὤς, the court of the high priest" (say Matthew and Mark). The account of Matthew implies that, having come up to the door, he went ἔσω, and sat down to see the end; he does not say how he was admitted, though, by the use of the two prepositions, he implies there was a cause. And also another disciple: but that disciple was known to the high priest, and therefore to the officials, and went fix with Jesus into (εἰς τὴν, right within) the court of the high priest; for he was well known to be, and from the first did not pretend to be anything else than, one of the disciples of Jesus. From the known habit of the evangelist in other places, the vast majority of commentators at once conclude (see Introduction, p. 54.) that the writer designates himself by this reference. Godet and Watkins are disposed to question it, and imagine that it may have been the author's brother James. With the absence of the article before ἄλλος, the matter is left in doubt. But by this supposition much of the justification is lost, which the writer of the Gospel quietly supplies, touching his own ability to describe what otherwise would never have entered into the evangelic narrative. The supposition we have made above, that Annas and Caiaphas occupied the same palace, or different portions of the same edifice, solves the chief difficulty. Annas held his preliminary unofficial inquiry in his department of the building. The difficult question arises whether Annas was assisted or not by the reigning "high priest" in conducting this examination (see Ver. 19). Followed (ἠκολούθει)

Imperfect, was following.

The other disciple

The correct reading omits the article. Another. Probably John himself.

Palace (αὐλὴν)

Not palace, but court, as Rev. See on Matthew 26:3; see on Luke 11:21.

John 18:15 Interlinear
John 18:15 Parallel Texts

John 18:15 NIV
John 18:15 NLT
John 18:15 ESV
John 18:15 NASB
John 18:15 KJV

John 18:15 Bible Apps
John 18:15 Parallel
John 18:15 Biblia Paralela
John 18:15 Chinese Bible
John 18:15 French Bible
John 18:15 German Bible

Bible Hub

John 18:14
Top of Page
Top of Page