Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 18:15

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.

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 (Joh 1:40, Joh 13:23-25, Joh 19:26, Joh 20:2-8, Joh 21:20-24); and also with the fact that S. John frequently accompanies S. Peter (Luk 22:8; Act 3:1; Act 4:13; Act 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. Joh 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’ (Luk 2:44; Luk 23:49) is nowhere explained.

the high priest ] Caiaphas is probably meant ( Joh 18:13 ; Joh 18:24); but as deposed high priests still kept the title sometimes (Luk 3:2; Act 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 (Luk 22:55). The same word if used for the ‘sheep-fold’ (Joh 10:1; Joh 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 Joh 18:13).

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

See the notes at Mat 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.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 15. And – another disciple] Not THAT other disciple, for the article is omitted by AD, two others; some editions; Syriac, Persic, Gothic, and Nonnus. So the Vulgate is to be understood. There are many conjectures who this disciple was: Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Nonnus, Lyra, Erasmus, Piscator, and others, say it was John. It is true John frequently mentions himself in the third person; but then he has always, whom Jesus loved, as in Joh 13:23; Joh 19:26; Joh 21:7; Joh 21:20, except in Joh 19:35, where he has plainly pointed out himself as writer of this Gospel; but, in the place before us, he has mentioned no circumstance by which that disciple may be known to be John. To this may be added that John being not only a Galilean, but a fisherman by trade, it is not likely that he should have been known to the high priest, as it is here said of that disciple who followed Jesus with Peter. See Bishop Pearce and Calmet. The conjecture of Grotius is the most likely: viz. that it was the person at whose house Jesus had supped. St. Augustin, Tract. 113, speaks like a man of sound sense: We should not decide hastily, says he, on a subject concerning which the Scripture is silent.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

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.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

15-18. Simon Peter followedJesusNatural though this was, and safe enough, had he only”watched and prayed that he enter not into temptation,” ashis Master bade him (Mt 26:41),it was, in his case, a fatal step.

and . . . anotherdiscipleRather, “the other disciple”ourEvangelist himself, no doubt.

known unto the highpriest(See on Joh 18:10).

went in with Jesus into thepalace of the high priest.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

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, Mt 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, Joh 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.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Followed (). Imperfect active of , “was following,” picturesque and vivid tense, with associative instrumental case .

Another disciple ( ). Correct text without article (genuine in verse 16). Peter’s companion was the Beloved Disciple, the author of the book (Joh 21:24).

Was known unto the high priest ( ). Verbal adjective from , to know (Ac 1:19) with dative case. How well known the word does not say, not necessarily a personal friend, well enough known for the portress to admit John. “The account of what happened to Peter might well seem to be told from the point of view of the servants’ hall” (Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, p. 101).

Entered in with Jesus ( ). Second aorist active indicative of the double compound , old verb, in N.T. here and 6:22. With associative instrumental case.

Into the court ( ). It is not clear that this word ever means the palace itself instead of the courtyard (uncovered enclosure) as always in the papyri (very common). Clearly courtyard in Mr 14:66 (Matt 26:69; Luke 22:55). Apparently Annas had rooms in the official residence of Caiaphas.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Followed [] . Imperfect, was following.

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

Palace [] . Not palace, but court, as Rev. See on Mt 26:3; Luk 11:21.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

PETER’S DENIAL V. 15-18

1) “And Simon Peter followed Jesus,” (ekolouthei de to lesou Simon Petros) “Then Simon Peter followed Jesus,” a thing he had done for more than three years now, Mat 4:18-22; Joh 1:41-42.

2) “And so did another disciple:” (kai allos mathetes) “And another disciple,” or the other disciple, believed to be John, the writer of this Gospel, Joh 19:26-27; Joh 21:20; Joh 21:24.

3) “That disciple was known unto the high priest,” (ho de mathetes ekeinos hen gnostos to archierei) “Then the disciple , that one who was known to high priest,” as the disciple that Jesus loved, Joh 21:20; Joh 21:24. It is believed to have been the apostle John, who seems to have owned a home and had considerable influence in Jerusalem, Act 4:13; Joh 19:27.

4) “And went in with Jesus.” (kai suneiselthen to lesou) “And he entered with Jesus,” this one who knew also Malchus, the relative servant of the high priest Caiaphas, Joh 18:10; Joh 18:26.

5) “Into the palace of the high priest.” (eis ten aulen tou archiereos) “Into the court of the high priest,” where the night-time arraignment was held, as described as follows:

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

15. And another disciple. Some have been led astray, by a slight conjecture, to suppose that this disciple was the Evangelist (139) John, because he is accustomed to speak of himself without mentioning his name. But what intimacy with a proud high priest could John have, who was a mean fisherman? And how was it possible for him, being one of Christ’s household, to be in the habit of visiting the house of the high priest? It is more probable that he was not one of the twelve, but that he is called a disciple, because he had embraced the doctrine of the Son of God.

John is not very exact in arranging the narrative, being satisfied with drawing up a brief summary; for, after having related that Peter once denied Christ, he intermingles other matters, and afterwards returns to the other two denials. Inattentive readers were led by this circumstance to conclude that the first denial took place in the house of Annas. The words, however, convey no such meaning, but rather state clearly that it was the high priest’s maid that constrained Peter to deny Christ. We must, therefore, understand that, when Christ was brought before the high priest, admission was not granted to any person who chose, but that the disciple who was known to the high priest requested, as a personal favor, that Peter might be admitted. There is no reason to doubt that godly zeal was the motive that induced both of them to follow Christ; but since Christ had plainly declared that he spared Peter and the others, he who was so weak would have found it to be far better for him to groan and pray in some dark corner than to go into the presence of men. He now undertakes, with great earnestness, the performance of a duty from which Christ had released him; and when he comes to the confession of faith, in which he ought to have persevered even to death, his courage fails. We ought always to consider what the Lord requires from us, that those who are weak may not undertake what is not necessary.

(139) “ Nostre Evangeliste.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(15) And Simon Peter followed Jesus.Better, And Simon Peter was following Jesus. (Comp. Mat. 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. Joh. 1:40; Joh. 13:23; Joh. 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 (Luk. 22:8; Act. 1:13; Act. 3:1; Act. 3:3-4; Act. 3:11; Act. 4:13; Act. 4:19; Act. 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 (Joh. 13:23; Joh. 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 Act. 4:6.

Into the palace of the high priest.Better, perhaps, into the court of the high priest. (Comp. Mat. 26:3; Mat. 26:58; Mat. 26:69.) St. John uses the word elsewhere only of the sheepfold (Joh. 10:1; Joh. 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 Joh. 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 Joh. 18:13, that Annas was father-in-law to Caiaphas. (See Note there.)

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

15. Another disciple Beyond all question John himself.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And Simon Peter followed Jesus and so did another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the High Priest and entered in with Jesus into the court of the High Priest.’

In view of the writer’s particularity about names, even to the naming in this very chapter of the servant of the High Priest, the failure to give a name to this disciple throughout the Gospel stands out, especially in view of his prominence. It is extremely probable therefore that we must identify this ‘other disciple’ with the deliberately anonymous ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’, who was at Jesus’ right hand at the Last Supper and that he must be John, one of the ‘inner three’ who is never mentioned in the Gospel. If this unknown disciple is John, as seems almost certain, then it explains fully his knowledge of things not known to the other Apostles.

‘Entered into the court of the High Priest with Jesus.’ The large houses in those days were built around a central courtyard protected by a gate. He clearly had access to the court of Annas’ house and was able to witness some of what went on. The large house was probably the home of the extended family with Annas and Caiaphas both having their own set of rooms in different parts of the house. There are no real grounds for arguing that such a position was unlikely for ‘a Galilean fisherman’. We know that John’s family owned their own fishing business and had ‘hired servants’ to help in the boat, and we have no way of knowing how wealthy they were. Nor do we know what his background was, or what kind of situation intermarriage may have produced. He may well have been the nephew of someone who had married into Chief Priestly circles. Thus all such judgments are highly subjective and based simply on surmise, not fact. The one clear fact in the case is the description here. Connection with the High Priestly family was hardly something for a Christian to boast of, so that this may even be seen as evidence of his humility.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Arraigned, and the Denial of Peter.

The first denial:

v. 15. 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.

v. 16. But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.

v. 17. Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not.

v. 18. And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold; and they warmed themselves.

And Peter stood with them, and warmed himself. As Jesus was led away from Gethsemane, all the disciples having left Him according to His prophecy, there were two of their number that stopped in their flight and turned to follow the captors of Jesus at a distance. One of these men was Simon Peter; the other is not mentioned by name, but it was very likely John himself, of whom there is other evidence that he was well acquainted with, the Temple, its appointments, its usages, and its officers. It is possible that John was related to Caiaphas. This fact gave him immediate access to the palace of the high priest. The entrance opened upon the court, around which the residence was built, and the word was often used to designate the entire palace. Though the high priest’s palace now officially belonged to Caiaphas, Hannas still had his apartments there. Peter, who was not known to the household, was not admitted to the court But John soon missed his companion, and, returning to the door, gave the janitress some assurance as to Peter’s character, and thus gained admission for him. But as Peter stepped into the circle of light shed by the fire, the doorkeeper had an opportunity to look at him closely. And, probably without any serious intention, she asked him the question: Are you also one of this man’s disciples? And smoothly and glibly the lie rolled from Peter’s lips I am not. The denial had been uttered so thoughtlessly that Peter’s conscience may have pricked him only a little, causing him to move back to some distance from the servants and guards that were assembled in the court. Nevertheless he did not leave. The fire which the house servants and the Sanhedrin ministers had kindled in the open section of the palace’s court was most pleasant on this cool spring night, and so Peter gradually edged up more closely, also for the purpose of finding out the trend of the remarks. Note: It is always foolish and often dangerous for a disciple of Christ to join the ranks of gossiping unbelievers. If one’s faith is challenged when engaged in the exercise of his duty, the defense may be swift and sure, but when one affiliates himself with his enemies, half the defense is taken away in advance.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Joh 18:15. And so did another disciple: This, as we have before observed, is supposed to have been St. John himself. See on Mat 26:69 and Luk 22:54. Grotius however is of opinion, that this disciple was not one of the twelve, but rather an inhabitant of Jerusalem; possibly the person at whose house our Lord ate the paschal supper. Whitby likewise thinks it was not John. These authors found their opinion on this circumstance, that the twelve being Galileans, and men of mean stations, 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 of so much business. However, when we consider that St. John was to write a history of Christ’s life, it will appear very proper, but by no means necessary, that in the course of Providence he should have an opportunity afforded him of being an eye-witness of this most solemn scene before the council.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Joh 18:15 . ] correlative to the , . . ., Joh 18:13 , and the imperfect is descriptive .

. .] 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 Joh 20:2-3 (Weizscker would conclude from this passage that a scholar of John was the writer); it is a simple reproduction of the contents of the history.

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

, and then , cannot, after . . , Joh 18:13 , and , . . ., Joh 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 Luk 3:2 ; Act 4:5 ), to whom Jesus was brought. The observation on the acting . Caiaphas ( , Joh 18:13-14 ) was indeed only an intermediate observation , which the reference demanded by the course of the history of . to Annas cannot alter. Accordingly, both the following denial of Peter (Joh 18:16-18 ) and the examination (Joh 18:19-21 ), and the maltreatment (Joh 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 Joh 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 Joh 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 Mat 26:75 ), is opposed to the older and modern system of harmonizing (Cyril, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, and many others, including Lcke, 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 Joh 18:24 ), the leading away to Caiaphas is already presupposed in Joh 18:15 , and then Joh 18:24 is disposed of with forced arbitrariness, partly on critical, partly on exegetical grounds; see on Joh 18:24 . The above exegetic conclusion is confirmed even on harmonistic principles, namely, from the side of the examination, by the fact that Joh 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, Joh 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 Joh 18:24 , and the place of which is by no means supplied, as respects Caiaphas, by Joh 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 Brckner, 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, Mat 26:64 . As if this would have required the omission of the whole history! And the confession of Jesus, Mat 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.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

15 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.

Ver. 15. That disciple was known to the high priest ] Perhaps for that he and his father Zebedee were wont to serve the fat priests with the best and daintiest fish (for this other disciple was John, who had first fled with the rest, and now came sculking in to see what would become of his master). Of the ass-fish Aristotle affirmeth (De Nat. Animal.) that he of all other creatures hath his heart in his belly; such a thing was this priest.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

15. ] [ ] . is here mentioned for the first time. There is no reason to doubt the universal persuasion that by this name John intends himself , and refers to the mention in ch. Joh 13:23 of a disciple whom Jesus loved. The idea that it was Judas Iscariot (Heumann), is surely too absurd to need confutation. The [ ] , . ., . (as a matter of individual notice), and the whole character of the incident, will prevent any real student of St. John’s style and manner from entertaining such a supposition for a moment. How John was known to the High Priest we have no means of forming a conjecture.

The palace of the High Priest was probably the dwelling of both Annas and Caiaphas.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Joh 18:15 . . “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 , “into the palace (or court) of the high priest”. , 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.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

John

JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS

Joh 18:15 – Joh 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 Joh 18:14 seems intended to suggest what sort of a trial might be expected, presided over by such a man. But Joh 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 Joh 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 Joh 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 1Co 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.

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 18:15-18

15Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest, 16but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought Peter in. 17Then the slave-girl who kept the door said to Peter, “You are not also one of this man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.” 18Now the slaves and the officers were standing there, having made a charcoal fire, for it was cold and they were warming themselves; and Peter was also with them, standing and warming himself.

Joh 18:15 “Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple” There has been much discussion as to the identity of this other disciple.

1. The traditional theory has been that it is the Apostle John because of a similar phrase used of him in Joh 20:2-4; Joh 20:8. Also, another possible connection is with Joh 19:25, which names John’s mother, who could possibly be a sister of Mary, which means he may have been a Levite and, therefore, from a priestly family (cf. Polycarp’s testimony).

2. This may have been a local unnamed follower like Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea because of their association with the high priest and his family (cf. Joh 18:15-16).

“Now that disciple was known to the high priest” This is a very strong term for “acquaintance” and seems to mean a “close friend” (cf. Luk 2:44; Luk 23:49). If John, this may relate to his fishing business which would have involved his family in regularly bringing fish to Jerusalem.

Joh 18:17 “the slave-girl who kept the door said to Peter, ‘You are not also one of this man’s disciples, are you'” This grammatical form, like Joh 18:25, expects a “no” answer. It shows the contempt of those involved by not using Jesus’ name. She may have asked this because of (1) Peter’s connection with John or (2) Peter’s Galilean accent.

“I am not” Peter may have been prepared to die for Jesus, but he was not prepared to truthfully answer the question of a slave girl! In the Synoptic Gospels these three denials are placed together, but in John they are separated by the questioning of Jesus by Annas (cf. Joh 18:24).

Peter’s “I am” statement is the exact opposite of Jesus’ “I am” statement” (cf. Joh 18:5).

Joh 18:18 This story is told with such vivid eyewitness details. Both Joh 18:18; Joh 18:25 have two periphrastic imperfects.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

followed = was following.

another. Greek. altos. App-124.

known. Greek. gnostos. Compare ginosko. App-132. That this was John himself is highly improbable. He always designates himself “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Joh 13:23; Joh 19:26; Joh 21:7, Joh 21:20). It is more probable it was some one of influence, as Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathtea, both members of the Sanhedrin.

palace = Greek. aide. Originally the court, open to the air, around which the house was built, then the house itself.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

15.] [] . is here mentioned for the first time. There is no reason to doubt the universal persuasion that by this name John intends himself, and refers to the mention in ch. Joh 13:23 of a disciple whom Jesus loved. The idea that it was Judas Iscariot (Heumann), is surely too absurd to need confutation. The [] , . ., . (as a matter of individual notice), and the whole character of the incident, will prevent any real student of St. Johns style and manner from entertaining such a supposition for a moment. How John was known to the High Priest we have no means of forming a conjecture.

The palace of the High Priest was probably the dwelling of both Annas and Caiaphas.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Joh 18:15. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple:

That is John, of course; he never mentions his own name if he can help it.

Joh 18:15-16. That disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.

I always fancy that John had a greater tenderness for Peter because he was the means of getting him into the palace of the high priest. Peter could not have got in if he had been alone, but John was known to the high priest, and so secured his admission. He must always have felt sorry that he took Peter into a place where he was so strongly tried. Hence John sought him out after his great fall; when perhaps the other apostles were inclined to leave him by himself, John cheered him up, and brought him back to the faith.

Joh 18:17-18. Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this mans disciples? He saith, I am not. And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.

That was a very dangerous place for Peter to be in; he would have been safer out in the cold.

Joh 18:25. And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself.

Twice over, we are told that, while his Master was being buffeted, Peter stood in the midst of the ribald throng, and warmed himself.

Joh 18:25-27. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not. One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

Thus was Christs prediction literally fulfilled, and thus, by what seems the humble instrumentality of a cock crowing, was Peter brought to repentance. There is many an eloquent divine who has missed the mark when he has been preaching, but God has spoken by a very humble voice. You, dear friend, though you have no gifts of speech, may go and tell the story of Jesus Christ to someone, and God may bring him to repentance through you, as he brought Peter back to himself through the agency of this bird. May God make us all useful, and keep us from falling into transgression as Peter did! Amen.

This exposition consisted of readings from Mar 14:27-31; Mar 14:53-54; Mar 14:66-72; and Joh 18:15-18; Joh 18:25-27.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

Joh 18:15. ) without the article, another, indefinitely, as being here first mentioned.[380] For presently after has a relative force. See E. Schmid. on this passage.- , to the High Priest) and on that ground they were admitted in.

[380] But B confirms the before , as read in Rec. Text; and so Tisch. Besides, it is Johns way to speak of himself in the third person; ch. Joh 21:20; Joh 21:24; and in Joh 20:2 expressly using the words, . A reads , which would refer to some other disciple, not John: so Lachm.-E. and T.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Joh 18:15

Joh 18:15

And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple.-Another disciple here is generally understood to be John. It seems that Peter and John recovering from their fright at his first arrest, now returned, and followed the band having him in charge to the courtroom of the high priest.

Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest;-John was known to the high priest and went in with Jesus as his friend to be present at his trial. The rashness of Peter in striking off the ear of the servant likely made him the more fearful now.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Joh 18:15-27

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. But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this mans disciples? He saith, I am not. And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself. The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said. And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest. And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not. One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

In this section we have two narratives enfolded together in a very striking way. The apostle Peters great failure, his denial of his Lord, and our Lords trial- His mock trial-before the high priest, Caiaphas.

First, we are concerned with the apostle Peter. What a wonderful man Peter was! As we read all that the Word tells us of him, and then add some few instances that have come down to us through what seems to be reliable church history, we cannot help but be filled with admiration for this bold, energetic man who loved his Lord so loyally and yet who failed so terribly at times, but who eventually became the most outstanding of all the apostles until Saul of Tarsus was converted and given his special ministry to the Gentiles.

We last considered the scene in the garden, closing with the arrest of our blessed Lord and His being taken away to Annas and Caiaphas. The Lord Jesus had foretold that Peter would forsake Him, but Peter declared, Although all [men forsake thee], yet will not I (Mar 14:29; see also Mat 26:33). But Jesus said to him, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not The cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me (Luk 22:31-32; Luk 22:34).

This is a very interesting statement: Satan hath desired [it is literally, demanded^ to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. Satan, then, is the sifter of Gods wheat. In other words, when some of Gods children need to have the chaff and the wheat separated, the Lord turns them over temporarily to Satan. You remember in 1 Corinthians 5 we read of a man who was delivered unto Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (1Co 5:5). This man, a professing Christian, had failed so terribly and had brought such grief and dishonor upon the name of the Lord that the Spirit, through the apostle Paul, commanded the church at Corinth to refuse to have any further Christian fellowship with him. They were to put him back into the world from which he once professed to be separated, and there he would be in Satans realm, who would put him through a course of trouble and sorrow. We know what the result was: the man broke down before God and confessed his sin and failure. He no more thought himself worthy of Christian fellowship and would not have come back had not the people of God been careful to show him special grace and favor. Paul wrote again urging them to this in 2Co 2:4-11.

We have often heard people ask, Why does God not kill the Devil? Well, God has use for him. When God no longer has use for him, He will do away with him in the lake of fire. But until that time, God not only makes the wrath of man to praise Him, but there is a certain sense in which He even makes Satan to serve His purpose. When He sees pride and self-sufficiency in believers, He permits Satan to sift them, even to causing some grievous fall that they may be awakened and brought to their senses. Jeremiah says, Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee (Jer 2:19). God allowed Israel to fall so grievously that they would realize as never before how far from Him they had wandered and how they needed to get right.

And so in Peters case the Lord permitted the failure to take place that he might be corrected, and He has related it here that it might be a warning and an encouragement for us at the same time.

We read, And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest [This other disciple is undoubtedly John himself. He used this expression as a means of keeping himself in the background.], and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. But Peter stood at the door without (Joh 18:15-16a). There he was in the place of danger. If he had been inside with John and Jesus, he would have been safe. How was it he chose to stay there instead of definitely identifying himself with Christ? Backsliding is never a matter of a moment. Sometimes one whom we have esteemed as a Christian seems to suddenly fall into some grievous sin. We throw up our hands and say, What a shame, that that one should have suddenly stumbled so terribly! We are wrong in thinking of it in that way. It is never sudden. Backsliding is always a gradual declension.

Now with Peter, his backsliding really began immediately following one of his greatest experiences. Often when God has dealt with us in some special way, it proves to be the time of the greatest danger. Sometimes with a servant of God when the Lord gives him special victory and uses him in an unusual way for the salvation of souls, that is the time when he is in the greatest peril. There is the danger of spiritual pride, the danger of self-occupation, the danger, in other words, of confidence in the flesh.

In the sixteenth chapter of Matthew we hear the Lord saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? (v. 13). They answer, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias (v. 14). Jesus then said, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God (vv. 15-16).

That was a wonderful confession. Up to that moment no one else had ever made such a fervent and complete confession. The Savior turns to Peter and says, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven (v. 17). If Christ is ever made known to any human soul as the Son of the living God, it is not simply through the intellect. It must be a divine revelation. That is why you cannot convince men of the Deity of Christ by argument. You may marshal Scripture after Scripture and down all their objections, and yet if the Spirit of God does not reveal the Deity of God, people will go away just as unbelieving as before. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to make the truth real to the hearts and consciences of men. So the Lord Jesus says, Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Then the Lord said, And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock [the great truth that Christ is the Son of the living God] I will build my church (v. 18). Now do not misunderstand the Lord there. Strange that anybody would think that our Lord meant He would found His church on a mere man. Not Peter, but Christ is the Rock. Peter agrees with this, for in his first epistle he speaks of Christ as the living stone, and of himself and all believers as living stones who have come to Christ and are built upon Him.

And so the Lord says, I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (v. 19). That was a wonderful honor, which many have misunderstood. You have often seen pictures-have you not?-of Peter with a key at the gate of heaven. But Jesus did not give Peter the keys of heaven. Jesus gave to Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of heaven is not heaven, it is that sphere on earth where Christ is owned as Lord. On Pentecost Peter used the keys to open the door of the kingdom of heaven to the Jews. In the house of Cornelius he used them to open the door to the Gentiles.

In Matthew 18 we learn that all the disciples were given the power of binding and loosing. That is, they were authorized to go to men in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and say, If you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, you are loosed from your sin, and if not, your sin remains upon you. That commission is given to all of Christs servants.

That was indeed a wonderful revelation which the Father gave to Peter, and the Lord recognized it in a very special way. But it is a remarkable fact that in the same sixteenth chapter of Matthew you hear the Lord say a little later to that very man, Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men (v. 23). He had been telling them of His coming trial and crucifixion, and Peter turned to Him and dared to counsel the Son of God, as though he were wiser than He. He said, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee (v. 22). And Jesus said, Get thee behind Me, Satan. What does this mean? Why, Peter was so carried away, so lifted up and self-exalted, he became spiritually proud and dared to rebuke the One whom but a short time before he had confessed as the Son of God.

Suppose the Lord had acted on that, and said, Well, I wont go out and die. What a condition Peter would have been in! Jesus realized it was the Devil speaking through Peter. We trace the record of Peter from that time on, and find that every time he opens his mouth he says the wrong thing. It was on the Mount of Transfiguration that he said, Let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias (Mat 17:4; see also Mar 9:5; Luk 9:33). And God then said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him (Mat 17:5; see also Mar 9:7; Luk 9:35). Then when Jesus said to His disciples, All ye shall be offended because of me (Mat 26:31; see also Mar 14:27). Peter said, [Oh, no, Lord, not I.] Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended (Mat 26:33; see also Mar 14:29). This man did not really know his own weakness. He loved his Lord and meant to be true to Him. But he failed his Master in the garden. He slept when he should have prayed. He used the sword in fleshly energy when he should have been quiet. He followed afar off when he should have been close to the Lord. Backsliding always begins with neglect of prayer. If you want to be kept from backsliding, then you want to be sure you spend much time in secret with God.

We read that Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple and spake unto her that kept the door (Joh 18:16). Now he is just inside on the porch. And the girl took a good look at Peter and said, Art not thou also one of this mans disciples? He saith, I am not (v. 17). He never meant to say that, but when he thought of all the people looking on when this girl challenged him, suddenly his courage failed him and out came the lie-he who had said, Though all men forsake Thee, yet will not I forsake Thee. How good that God did not take him at his word! God knew Peter and allowed him to go down deeper yet.

The servants and the officials stood there who had made a fire of coals. Remember that fire of coals. When you come to Peters restoration it is at a fire of coals. And Peter stood with them-stood with the world, stood with the enemies of His Lord-and instead of speaking up for Christ, he was silent. And the high priest asked Jesus of His disciples and His doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing (v. 20). Everything with Christ was like an open book. He had nothing to hide, nothing that could only be whispered in dark places, but everything was open and above board: In secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said. And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? (vv. 21-22).

But on the part of the Lord Jesus there is no anger, no retaliation, but perfect lowliness. Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest. And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? (vv. 23-25). There was something strange about this man, Peter. He might be one of the company, but they felt that after all, there was something different about him. So they asked again, but he denied it, and said, I am not. What an opportunity! He could have said, Yes, I am one of His, and if need be, I am ready to die for Him. But he had not the courage for it now in the hour of testing. He denied and said, I am not.

Now there was another in the crowd who was particularly interested in Peter, for it was this mans relative whose ear Peter had cut off in the Garden. Jesus had said when He took Peter, James, and John into the garden with Him, Sit ye here, and watch and pray, and He went on. Then He bowed before God in that time of agony. Then He came back and found them sleeping for sorrow. There they were prayerless when they should have been alert. Then when the Lord so quietly put Himself into the hands of the soldiers, Peter drew his sword and cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest. That was the activity of the flesh, and now that comes back to him. The relative of this man said, Did I not see thee in the garden with him? (v. 26). Now Peter is down to the very lowest depth the Lord will allow him to go. Three times he denied his Lord, and, as other Gospels tell us, even with oaths and curses (see Mat 26:74; Mar 14:71).

But there is a great difference between a backslider and an apostate. A backslider is really a child of God who has failed and eventually the Lord will restore him. An apostate is one who is never reborn at all. Judas was an apostate; Peter was a backslider.

Oh, if there is any backslider reading this today, let me say to you that He who restored Peter is waiting to restore you. He says, Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you (Jer 3:14). If you confess your backsliding, you can be sure He will restore. He did it for Peter, He will do it for you.

In another gospel we are told that the Lord turned and looked on Peter, and Peter went out and wept bitterly. Those tears indicated the beginning of his restoration, and in the last chapter we shall see how wonderfully the Lord restored him.

Return, O wanderer, return,

And seek an injured Fathers face;

Those warm desires that in thee burn

Were kindled by reclaiming grace.

Return, O wanderer, return,

And seek a Fathers melting heart;

His pitying eyes thy grief discern,

His hand shall heal thine inward smart.

Return, O wanderer, return;

Thy Savior bids thy spirit live;

Go to His bleeding feet, and learn

How freely Jesus can forgive.

Return, O wanderer, return,

And wipe away the falling tear;

Tis God who says, No longer mourn;

Tis mercys voice invites thee near.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

Simon: Mat 26:58-68, Mar 14:54, Luk 22:54

Reciprocal: Mat 26:56 – Then Mar 14:66 – One

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

5

The other disciple evidently was John, judging from the indirect way he is mentioned in other connections. (See chapter 13:23; 21:20, 24.) Was known denotes that he had some personal acquaintance with the high priest that gave him more freedom in approaching his presence. By reason of this special intimacy, when they led Jesus into the palace of the high priest, John went in also.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

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.

[And Simon Peter followed Jesus, etc.] there are some that apprehend in this place some interruption in the order of the story: they would therefore have the twenty-fourth verse Joh 18:24 weaved in here, “Annas sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas”: because what is here related and so on seems all to have been done in Caiaphas’ hall, and not in Annas’.

This order the Syriac, Arabian, Vulgate Interpreters, and others do still observe: Nonnus, [Dionysius] carthusianus, Beza, and, as he quotes him, St. Cyril, invert it. It is true there is here a tacit transition, and a trajection of the words in Joh 18:24, which is not very usual; but neither the one nor the other seems to be without some reason for it.

I. It is told us, Mat 26:56; and Mar 14:50; that “all the disciples forsook him, and fled.” So that probably ‘Peter and that other disciple’ was amongst the number when it is said they all fled. The transition of our evangelist therefore seems to teach us that neither ‘Peter nor the other disciple’ followed Christ to Annas’ house; but being surprised and confounded with a very great fear, hid themselves for a while; and (not till after some time) recollecting themselves, they put forward amongst the crowd to Caiaphas’ hall, or else came thither after them.

II. Annas alone could determine nothing judicially concerning Christ: for when an inquiry must be made concerning his disciples, and the nature of his doctrines, when witnesses must be produced pro and con; this necessarily required a session of the Sanhedrim. He sent him therefore to Caiaphas, where the Sanhedrim also was; and the evangelist lets the mention of that alone till he came to relate their way of proceeding.

But why, or by what right, should Annas be absent from the Sanhedrim? Could there be any right or legal proceeding in the great council, if the whole number of seventy-one elders were not complete? Let Maimonides give the answer: “It is not necessary that the whole bench of seventy-one should all sit together in their places in the Temple; but when it is necessary for them all to meet, let them be called together. But at other times; if any one of them have any business of his own, he may go out and do his affairs and return again. This provision is made, that there might never be fewer than twenty-three sitting together during the whole session. If any have occasion to go forth, let him look about him and see if there be twenty-three of his colleagues in the court, then he may go out; if not, he must stay till some other enter.” We give another reason of Annas’ absence by and by.

[That disciple was known unto the high priest.] Nonnus supposes that other disciple known to the high priest, from his fishing trade. Others guess other reasons; but to determine any thing in this matter would look rashly. However this knowledge of the high priest came about, it is certain this disciple had the greater opportunity to have stood in the defence of his Master as a witness in his behalf. For,

“Capital judgments begin always on the defendant’s side, and not on the accuser’s. It is lawful for all to plead on the defendant’s side, not so on the accuser’s.”

“They begin on the defendant’s side. One of the witnesses saith, I have something to say in his defence. If any of his disciples say, ‘I have wherewith to accuse him,’ they enjoin him silence. If the disciple say, ‘I can offer something in his defence,’ they call him up and place him among themselves, and suffer him not to go down thence the whole day after.”

Did they thus proceed with our Saviour? did they endeavour first for the clearing his innocency? and were there any witnesses produced for this purpose? If so, then here were ‘Peter and that other disciple,’ who could have witnessed in his behalf: but Peter denies that he ever knew him.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Joh 18:15. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Although not certain, it is upon the whole most probable that the other disciple thus unnamed is John himself. He and Peter may have fled at first with the others; but, if so, they had immediately returned. The name given to Simon is again important. We have already seen at Joh 18:9 the manner in which the Evangelist brings out the force of Peter. Of that force we must not here lose sight. Simon is still the rock, notwithstanding what he is about to do. It is the very fact indeed that he is Peter which shows how terrible is the moment, and how deep the stab inflicted upon Jesus. But so far is John from wishing to depreciate his fellow-apostle that he regards him, even in the midst of his greatest defection, as the lion of the apostolic band, the man to whom Jesus had given the name Peter in order to indicate his boldness, the man with whom he had himself stood side by side, in years at the time he wrote long gone by, fronting undismayed the very judges who made him tremble now. At the door opening into the high priests court Peter is stopped. It is indeed only for a few moments, but they are full of weight for the understanding of the narrative. During them Jesus passes through. The two apostles do not pass through at the same instant: John alone finds immediate admittance; and we are justified in saying that, before Peter has well begun his parley at the door, Jesus will be out of sight. Had it not been for an accidental circumstance the two apostles would not have been admitted at all. This circumstance is next related.

And that disciple was known unto the high priest, and he went in with Jesus into the court of the high priest. Reserving until we come to the close of Joh 18:37 any inquiry into the question whether the high priest here spoken of was Annas or Caiaphas, we remark only that it is unnecessary to ask by what means John was known to him. There is no improbability in the circumstance, especially when we remember that the relatives of the Apostle were persons in easy circumstances (Mar 1:20). Thus Known, he finds no difficulty in obtaining entrance into the court.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

All the four evangelists give us an account of Peter’s fall in denying his Master.

And therein we have observable, 1. The sin itself which he fell into, the denial of Christ, and this backed with an oath; he sware that he knew not the man.

Lord! how may the slavish fear of suffering drive the holiest and best of me to commit the foulest and worst of sins!

Observe, 2. The occasion of his fall.

1. His presumptuous confidence of his own strength and standing: Though all men forsake thee, yet will not I.

Lord! to presume upon ourselves, is the ready way to provoke thee to leave us to ourselves. If ever we stand in the day of trial, ’tis the fear of falling must enable us to stand; we soon fall, if we believe it impossible to fall.

2. His being in bad company, amongst Christ’s enemies: Peter had better have been acold by himself alone, than warming himself at a fire which was compassed in with the blasphemies of the soldiers, where his conscience, though not seared, was yet made hard.

Observe, 3. The reiteration or repetition of this sin: he denied Christ again and again; he denied him first with a lie, then with an oath and curse.

O, how dangerous is it not to resist the beginnings of sin! If we yield to one temptation, Satan will assault us with more and stronger.

Observe, 4. The heinous and aggravating circumstances of Peter’s sin.

1. From the character of his person; a disciple, an apostle, a chief apostle, yet he denies Christ.

2. From the person whom he denies: his Master, his Saviour.

3. The time when he denied him: soon after Christ had washed his feet; yea, soon after he had received the sacrament from Christ’s own hand.

How unreasonable then is their objection against coming to the Lord’s table, that some who go to it dishonour Christ as soon as they come from it!

Such examples ought not to discourage us from coming to the ordinance, but should excite and increase our watchfulness after we have been there, that out after-deportment may be suitable to the solemnity of a sacramental table.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Joh 18:15-17. Simon Peter followed See note on Mat 26:58; Luk 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-priests 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- priests, 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 Christs 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 Lords 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-priests 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 mans disciples Of Peters 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 Mat 26:69-75; Mar 14:66-72; Luk 22:54-62.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Vv. 15-18. Now Simon Peter followed Jesus, as well as another disciple, and that disciple was known to the high-priest, and he entered in with Jesus into the court of the high-priest. 16. And Peter was standing without at the door; the other disciple, who was known to the high-priest, went out therefore and spoke to her who kept the door, and brought in Peter. 17. The maid that kept the door, therefore, says to Peter, Art not thou also of this man’s disciples? Peter answers, I am not. 18. Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of charcoal, because it was cold; and Peter was standing among them and warming himself.

While the Synoptics relate in a consecutive way the three denials of Peter, probably because in the oral preaching the narrative of this event formed an altogether peculiar little story, an , John separates the three acts of denial in the course of his narration, passing alternately from Peter to Jesus and from Jesus to Peter. This better articulated narrative certainly reproduces the true course of things, and nothing more clearly reveals in the author of our Gospel the witness of the facts, who through his own recollections exercised power over the received tradition. The same superiority, says Renan, rightly, in the account of Peter’s denials. All is more circumstantial, better explained.

With the article , the, the term the other disciple could only be referred to the disciple whom Jesus loved, whose particular connection with Peter we have already ascertained in Joh 13:21; Joh 13:24. But this article is wanting in the Alexandrian documents and in the ancient Versions. Nothing, moreover, in the context justifies the use of the definite article. If we read, as we should, an other disciple, it may be John himself; this is the more common supposition. The periphrasis, however, of which he makes use in order to preserve his anonymous character is rather this: the disciple whom Jesus loved (Joh 13:23, Joh 19:26). I formerly attempted to justify this change of expression by saying that it was not the occasion for using a term of tenderness when the disciples had just abandoned their Master; but this explanation is somewhat subtle. Did not John designate by this phrase some other disciple, his brother James, for example, whom he does not mention by nameanywhere in his whole Gospel, any more than he does himself or his mother?

We do not know the relations which Zebedee and his sons may have had with the household of the high-priest. Perhaps the very profession of Zebedee had furnished the occasion for it. Thanks to these relations, this disciple had been able to enter within the priestly palace with the company, and soon he was able to gain admission for Peter, who had undoubtedly asked of him this service.

But of what high-priest does John mean to speak when he says in Joh 18:15 : into the court of the high-priest (, more probably here the interior court than the palace itself)? On the one hand, if the relation of ,followed, Joh 18:15, to , led him away, Joh 18:13, is considered, it seems that there can be no question except of the palace of Annas. On the other hand, according to Joh 18:13-14, how can we suppose that there can be a question of another high-priest than Caiaphas, who has just now expressly received the title? Undoubtedly, Annas is also called (Act 4:6). Schurer has even shown that this title might be applied to all the members of the privileged families from which the high-priests were ordinarily taken. Nevertheless, this title has nowhere in our Gospel this broad sense, and it would be difficult indeed to believe that after having contrasted, as he has done in Joh 18:13, Caiaphas as the high-priest of that year, with Annas, his father-in-law, John would designate this latter person, a few lines farther on, simply by the title of high-priest. How could the readers, who had never heard of Annas, have supposed that he also bore this title? It is, therefore, clearly the house of Caiaphas of which John means to speak, if he has not written in an unintelligible way. But, in that case, it is asked how the relations which the disciple sustained to the high-priest Caiaphas and the members of his household could open to him the entrance into the abode of Annas, to whom Jesus was first led. There is but one solution to this question, which the narrative of John itself suggests, setting aside that of the Synoptics; it is that these two personages lived in the same palace. The bond of close relationship which united them explains this circumstance, and it is for this reason, undoubtedly, that John has so expressly noticed this particular. Meyer is wrong, therefore, in saying that the text does not offer the least indication in favor of this opinion. John’s account leads directly to it.

The Hebrews very commonly had female doorkeepers (Josephus, Antiq. 7.2, 1; Act 12:13; 2Sa 4:6, according to the text of the LXX).

The , also (Art not thou also), shows that this woman already knew the unnamed disciple as one of the adherents of Jesus.

The three denials of Peter, as Luthardt observes, have three distinct historical starting-points, which are more or less distributed among the four evangelists: 1. The introduction of Peter into the court by a friend, who was himself known as a disciple of Jesus; 2. The recollection which had been retained of Peter by those who had seen him at the time of the arrest of Jesus; 3. His Galilean dialect. To these external circumstances, which called forth his trial, was added an internal one which facilitated his fall: the recollection of the blow which he had struck, and which exposed him, more than all the rest, to the danger of being involved in the judgment of his Master. Fear therefore combined with presumption; and thus was the warning which Jesus had given him verified: The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

The , servants, Joh 18:18, designate the domestic servants attached to the priestly house; the , officers, are the official servants of the Sanhedrim, charged with the police duties of the temple.

The last words of Joh 18:18 : Peter was standing with them and warming himself, are repeated literally in Joh 18:25. They are placed here, as a stepping-stone with a view to the approaching resumption of the story relating to Peter, after the appearance of Jesus in the house of Annas. Hence it follows: 1. That there is an absolute impossibility in the way of placing the last two denials in another locality than the first; and 2. That these last two denials took place, not after, but during the examination of Jesus.

The verbs in the imperfect tense are picturesque, and signify that the situation described continues during the whole examination which is about to be related, so that, according to the narrative, the scene of Joh 18:25-26 (Peter) took place simultaneously with that of Joh 18:19-23 (Jesus).

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

CXXVII.

PETER THRICE DENIES THE LORD.

(Court of the high priest’s residence. Friday before and about dawn.)

aMATT. XXVI. 58, 69-75; bMARK XIV. 54, 66-72; cLUKE XXII. 54-62;

dJOHN XVIII. 15-18, 25-27.

a58 But {d15 And} Simon Peter followed Jesus [leaving Jesus in the palace of the high priest, we now turn back to the garden of Gethsemane at the time when Jesus left it under arrest, that we may follow the course of Simon Peter in his threefold denial of the Master], and so did another disciple. [This other disciple was evidently the apostle John, who thus speaks of himself impersonally.] Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest [John’s acquaintanceship appears to have been with the household as well as with the high priest personally, for we find that it is used as a permit at the doorway. It is likely that the high priest knew John rather in a business way– Act 4:13]; b54 And Peter had followed him afar off, aunto the court of the high priest, d16 but Peter was standing at the door without. So the other disciple, who was known unto the high priest, went out and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. beven within, into the court of the high priest [For courts of houses see Act 12:13. John would have shown a truer kindness to Peter had he let him stay out]; d17 The maid therefore that kept the door saith unto Peter, Art thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not. aand [Peter] entered in [The doorkeeper evidently recognized John as a disciple, and was therefore suspicious of Peter. The cowardly “I am not” of Peter is a sad contrast to the strong “I am he” of Jesus], [700] d18 Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals; for it was cold; and they were warming themselves: and Peter also was with them [they were gathered around a little smokeless charcoal fire], c55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the court, and had sat down together, Peter asat with the officers, cin the midst of them. ato see the end. [Though his faith in Christ was shaken, he still loved him enough to see what would become of him.] band he was sitting with the officers, and warming himself in the light of the fire. c56 And a69 Now bas dSimon Peter awas sitting {dstanding} awithout bbeneath in the court, there cometh {acame} unto him, ca certain bone of the maids of the high priest; 67 and seeing Peter cas he sat in the light of the fire, bwarming himself, she looked {cand looking} stedfastly upon him, said, {bsaith, asaying,} Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilaean. bthe Nazarene, even Jesus. cThis man also was with him. a70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. bI neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: cWoman, I know him not. dThey said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of his disciples? He denied, and said, I am not. band he went out into the porch; and the cock crew. a71 And when he was gone out into the porch, cafter a little while another saw him, and said, Thou also art one of them. But Peter said, Man, I am not. b69 And aanother bthe maid saw him, and began again to say {asaith} unto them that were there, bthat stood by, This is one of them. aThis man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. b70 But {a72 And} again he denied bit. awith an oath, I know not the man. [Peter’s second denial was of a quadruple nature. He denied to four different parties, but in such quick succession that the event is regarded as one.] 73 And after a little cafter the space of about one hour another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a [701] truth this man also was with him; for he is a Galilaean. 60 But Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. bAgain they that stood by acame and said to Peter, Of a truth thou also art one of them; bfor thou art a Galilaean. afor thy speech maketh thee known. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. d26 One of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? b70 But d27 Peter therefore denied again: a74 Then began he to curse and to swear, I know not the {bthis} aman. bof whom ye speak. 72 And straightway cimmediately, while he yet spake, bthe second time the cock crew. [Exasperated by the repeated accusations, Peter loses his temper and begins to emphasize his denial by profanity. Desire to make good his denial is now supreme in his thoughts and the Lord whom he denies is all but forgotten.] c61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered bAnd Peter called to mind the word, cof the Lord, awhich Jesus had said, bhow that he said unto him, aBefore the cock crow, btwice, cthis thou shalt deny me thrice. 62 And he went out, bAnd when he thought thereon, he wept. cbitterly. [When Peter remembered the loving tenderness of Jesus manifested when he foretold Peter’s crime it formed a background against which the sin appeared in all its hideous enormity.]

[FFG 700-702]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

18:15 {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.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

2. The entrance of two disciples into the high priests’ courtyard and Peter’s first denial 18:15-18 (cf. Matthew 26:57-58, 69-70; Mark 14:53-54, 66-68; Luke 22:54-57)

As the other evangelists, John alternated his account of the events surrounding Jesus’ religious trial. He described what was happening in the courtyard (Joh 18:15-18), then what was happening inside (Joh 18:19-24), then what happened outside again (Joh 18:25-27). This literary technique contrasts Jesus with Peter.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Evidently Peter and another disciple had followed the arresting party from Gethsemane back into Jerusalem to the high priests’ palace (Gr. aule, "court" or "courtyard," cf. 10:16).

Traditionally commentators have understood the "other disciple" to have been John, the "beloved disciple" (cf. 13:23; 19:26-27; 20:2-9; 21:1, 20-23, 24-25). However because John described this "other disciple" as someone who had a close relationship with the high priest (Gr. gnostos, cf. 2Ki 10:11; Psa 55:13; Luk 2:44) many modern interpreters question the traditional view. It has seemed incredible to some of them that a fisherman from Galilee would have had the close relationship with the high priest (i.e., Caiaphas, Joh 18:13) that this passage presents. Nevertheless it is entirely possible that John as the son of a supposedly prosperous fisherman (cf. Mar 1:19-20) did indeed have such a relationship.

"Salome, the mother of John, was a sister of Mary, Jesus’ mother (cf. Joh 19:25 with Mar 15:40), and would have been equally related to Elizabeth, whose husband, Zechariah, was a priest (Luk 1:36)" [Note: Tenney, "John," p. 172.]

Moreover the New Testament presents Peter and John as having the close relationship that this passage describes (e.g., 13:23-24; 20:2-10; 21:20-24; Act 3:1; Act 3:11; Act 4:13; et al.). Therefore the traditional view may be correct. [Note: Cf. Frans Neirynck, Evangelica: Gospel Studies-Etudes d’Evangile. Collected Essays, pp. 335-64.] The correct identification of the "other disciple" is not essential to a correct interpretation of the events, however.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)