John 18:15

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-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 Mat 26:69-75; Mar 14:66-72; Luk 22:54-62.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18:15 That other disciple is unnamed but was probably the “disciple Jesus loved” (13:23)—John, the author of this Gospel.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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

[380] But B confirms the ὁ before ἄλλος, as read in Rec. Text; and so Tisch. Besides, it is John’s way to speak of himself in the third person; ch. Joh 21:20; Joh 21:24; and in Joh 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.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_18:15. Ἠκολούθει] correlative to the ἀπήγαγον, κ.τ.λ., Joh_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 Johns manner. A tendency to elevate John above Peter is here as little to be found as in Joh_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, Joh_18:13, and ἠκολούθει, κ.τ.λ., 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 ἀρχιερ. Caiaphas (ὃς ἦν, Joh_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 (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 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 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. 24a 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, 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.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

15. ἠκολούθει, a descriptive impf. The Synoptists say that Peter was following (ἀπὸ μακρόθεν) at a safe distance (Mar 14:54, Mat 26:58, Luk 22:54), but they do not mention a companion.

Σίμων Πέτρος. Jn. likes to use the double name (see on 1:42) when Peter has been absent from the picture for some little time, but he generally relapses into the simple “Peter” as the story proceeds; see, e.g., 13:24, 36, 18:10, 11, 20:2, 3, 4 21:3, 7, 15, 17, 20, 21. Jn. never gives the short title “Peter” to this apostle at the beginning of an incident in which he is concerned. In the present passage we have Simon Peter (v. 15), followed by Peter (vv. 16, 17, 18); then there is an interval, and so when the courtyard scene is resumed, we have Simon Peter again (v. 25), followed by Peter (vv. 26, 27).

καὶ ἄλλος μαθητής. So א*ABDsuppW. The rec. has ὁ ἄλλος (from v. 16) with אcbCLNOΓΔΘ, thus identifying Peter’s companion here with “the Beloved Disciple.”

This “other disciple” was “known to the high priest,” and so was admitted into the courtyard or αὐλή of the house where Jesus had been brought. He was sufficiently well known to the portress, at any rate, to persuade her to admit his companion. It does not follow that he was a personal friend of Annas or of Caiaphas, or of the same social class, although this is possible. As Sanday put it: “The account of what happened to Peter might well seem to be told from the point of view of the servants’ hall.”1 The word γνωστός as applied to persons is uncommon, as Abbott points out (Diat. x. ii. p. 351 f.), but it is to press it too far to interpret it here as meaning “a familiar friend,” with an allusion to Psa 55:13. Abbott adopts the curious view that the “other disciple” was Judas Iscariot, whose face would have been familiar to the portress, because of his previous visit or visits to the high priest in pursuance of his scheme of betrayal. But that Judas should wish to introduce Peter, or that Peter would have tolerated any advances from him or accepted his good offices, is difficult to believe.

The view most generally taken2 as to the personality of this ἄλλος μαθητής is that he was John the Beloved Disciple, whose reminiscences are behind the Gospel, and whose identity is veiled in some degree (see on 13:23; and cf. 1:27, 21:24). This agrees with the close association elsewhere of Peter and John (see Introd., p. xxxvi). Indeed, John the son of Zebedee had priestly connexions. His mother was Salome, the sister of the Virgin Mary (see pp. 73, 84 f., and note on 19:35); and Mary was a kinswoman (συγγενίς, Luk 1:36) of Elisabeth, who was “of the daughters of Aaron” (Luk 1:5). Hence John was connected with a priestly family on his mother’s side, and there is no improbability in his being “known to the high priest.”3

But the available evidence does not permit us securely to identify the ἄλλος μαθητής, as Augustine saw (Tract. cxiii. 2), saying that it is not plain who he was. This unnamed disciple was probably some one of influence and social importance; if we were to guess, the names of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathæa suggest themselves at once. There were disciples outside the circle of the Twelve, some of them men of rank, members of the Sanhedrim itself (see 12:42); and it is quite likely that Peter was known, by sight at least, to one of these who had attended at the house of Annas.1 It is probable that it is to this unnamed disciple (whether John or another) that the details given in vv. 19-23 about the private examination of Jesus at night by the high priest, and also perhaps about the private examination before Pilate (vv. 33 f.), are ultimately due. There are also traces of first-hand information in the statements that “it was cold” (v. 18), and that a kinsman of the slave Malchus identified Peter (v. 26).

εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν κτλ., “into the courtyard.” All the evangelists represent this courtyard as the scene of Peter’s denial. He was not admitted even so far, until his unnamed friend intervened, but was standing outside at the door. See on 10:1 for αὐλή and θύρα. The examination of Jesus was not conducted in the outer court where all the servants were, but in a chamber of the house of Annas. Mk. implies that this chamber was not on the ground floor, as he says that Peter was κάτω ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ, “below, in the court” (Mar 14:66).

Additional Note on 18:15

Delff identified the ἄλλος μαθητής of v. 15 with the Beloved Disciple, whom he distinguished from John the son of Zebedee. In connexion with the remark that he was “known to the high priest,” Delff cited the statement of Polycrates (see Introd., p. l) that the Beloved Disciple wore the priestly frontlet; and inferred that he belonged to an aristocratic priestly family in Jerusalem, it being thus easy for him to obtain access to the high priest’s house.2 We have already treated the problem of the ἄλλος μαθητής.

But a larger question is raised by the words of Polycrates, to which some reference may be made at this point. Polycrates says of the Beloved Disciple ἐγενήθη ἱερεὺς τὸ πέταλον πεφορεκώς, an observation difficult to explain. This πέταλον was a golden plate attached in front to the turban or mitre of Aaron (Exo 28:36f., Exo 29:6, Exo 39:30f., Lev 8:9), and in later times was part of the official dress of the high priest (cf. Josephus, Antt. III. vii. 6).1

Similar statements are made about James the Just, and about Mar_2

Of James the Just, Epiphanius says: τὸ πέταλον ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἐξῆν αὐτῷ φορεῖν (Hær. xxix. 4). He adds that his authority was the ὑπομνηματισμοί of former writers of repute; and Lawlor3 has shown that he is alluding to the ὑπομνήματα of Hegesippus. Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius (H.E. ii. 23), said that to James alone was it allowed to enter εἰς τὰ ἅγια of the Temple, which he used to frequent in prayer for the people, and that his custom was to wear not woollen but linen garments.4 Epiphanius may be reproducing other words of Hegesippus when he tells (Hær. xxix. 4) that James exercised the priestly office according to the old priesthood (ἱερατεύσαντα κατὰ τὴν παλαίαν ἱερωσύνην); but he is probably in error when he says that James alone was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies once a year, as the high priest did, διὰ τὸ Ναζωραῖον αὐτὸν εἶναι καὶ μεμίχθαι τῇ ἱερωσύνῃ (Hær. lxxviii. 13). He adds explicitly, ὁ Ἰάκωβος διέφερε τῇ ἱερωσύνῃ, and πέταλον ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἐφόρεσε.

Of Mark, Valois quoted a legend as a note on Eus. H.E. v. 24, as follows: “beatum Marcum iuxta ritum carnalis sacrificii pontificalis apicis petalum in populo gestasse Iudaeorum … ex quo manifeste datur intelligi de stirpe eum Leuitica, imo pontificis Aaron sacrae successionis originem habuisse.”5 Mark was probably of Levite race (compare Act 4:36 with Col 4:10), and the Vulgate Preface to his Gospel speaks of him as “sacerdotium in Israhel agens,”6 so that it is quite possible that he was one of the Jewish priests who accepted Christ (Act 6:7; cf. Act 21:20).

The language of Polycrates, then, about John ἐγενήθη ἱερεὺς τὸ πέταλον πεφορεκώς is almost identical with what is told about James and Mark. If the πέταλον were worn by the high priest only on great occasions, it is impossible to suppose that John, James, or Mark ever wore it. But if it was (even occasionally) worn by the ordinary Jewish priest in N.T. times, Mark may have worn it. And if John and James were eligible for the priesthood, they too might have had the privilege. But while James and John were certainly akin to the priestly race on their mother’s side, the argument of Epiphanius to prove that James also was “mingled with the priesthood” by blood is not convincing. Yet we know so little of the insistence upon hereditary qualifications for the Jewish priesthood in the first century, that it is not easy to reject the explicit statements made about John and James as well as about Mar_1

Jerome, when discussing the statement of Polycrates about John, understands ἱερεύς to mean a Christian priest, and translates: “qui supra pectus domini recubuit, et pontifex eius fuit, auream laminam in fronte portans” (de script. eccl. 45). This explanation will not apply to the parallel traditions about James and Mark, upon the Jewish character of whose priesthood stress is laid. It is conceivable (although improbable) that the Beloved Disciple might have been allowed by his Christian brethren to wear the insignia of a Jewish priest at Ephesus, where he was so greatly venerated. But neither James nor Mark would ever have been allowed such a distinction as Christian priests at Jerusalem while the Temple was yet standing. Further, it would be strange that Polycrates should call John a Christian ἱερεύς, while studiously avoiding in his case the title ἐπίσκοπος, which he gives to others of repute.2 And, finally, that the mitre or πέταλον should have been used as an ornament of Christian bishops in the first century, but never heard of again until three centuries later at least, is highly improbable.

Others interpret the wearing of the πέταλον by John and the others as metaphorical only.3 The dress of the high priest is used in Rev 2:17 as the symbol of the investment of the true Christian with the sacerdotal character; cf. Exo 28:31, Exo 28:36 with the “white stone” and the “new name” of Rev 2:17. This idea is worked out in detail by Origen (in Lev. Hom. vi.), who treats the πέταλον as symbolic of the knowledge of divine things by all baptized persons; cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 6. If we pursue this line of thought, we recall that engraved on the πέταλον were the words “Holy to Yahweh,” ἁγίασμα κυρίου (Exo 28:36), and the command to Moses was ἁγιάσεις αὐτούς, ἵνα ἱερατεύωσίν μοι (Exo 28:41). The πέταλον, in short, was the symbol of consecration, which was the topic of Christ’s intercession for His apostles (Joh 17:2). John, James,1 and Mark were all ἡγιασμένοι (Joh 17:19); and the tradition of wearing the πέταλον in their case might have grown out of a metaphorical statement as to their personal holiness. But this view does not explain why the πέταλον symbol should have been used only of John, James, and Mark among the saints of the apostolic age.

We are inclined to accept the tradition that James, John, and Mark literally wore the πέταλον, at least occasionally, in virtue of their service as Jewish priests. It is to be remembered that James, John, and Peter were the “pillars” of the Jerusalem Church (Gal 2:9); they were the heads of the conservative or Judaising party as contrasted with Paul. Of these, Peter was suspect by the more rigid Jews (Act 11:3). But his disciple Mark was under no such suspicion, for he had actually separated himself from Paul because of the latter’s liberal policy (Act 13:13, Act 15:37). John had, indeed, incurred the hostility of the Temple authorities in early days (Act 4:3, Act 4:13); but there is no later indication of opposition to him by them, or any trace of distrust of him by his fellow-disciples. James was thoroughly respected by all. James, John, and Mark were, then, the three Christian leaders who were most fully trusted by the conservatives at Jerusalem.2 While whole-hearted disciples of Jesus, they were Jews who were understood to have pride in their Jewish heritage. Provided that they were qualified for the priesthood, there would be nothing surprising in their occasional discharge of priestly offices; for by the first disciples the Christian faith was not regarded as inconsistent with Judaism. Thus the tradition that they had been privileged to wear the priestly πέταλον is less improbable in their case than it would be in that of any other early leader of the Church of whom we have information.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 ἀπομνημόνευμα, 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 ὁ, 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 (αὐλή, more probably here the interior court than the palace itself)? On the one hand, if the relation of ἠκολούθει,followed, Joh 18:15, to ἀπήγαγον, 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 ἀρχιερεύς (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 καί, 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 δοῦλοι, servants, Joh 18:18, designate the domestic servants attached to the priestly house; the ὑπηρέται, 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).

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A lively example of the fragility of man even in the best, when they be once left to themselves.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

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 (Mat 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 Joh 18:10).

went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

15. And another disciple. Some have been led astray, by a slight conjecture, to suppose that this disciple was the Evangelist 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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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.)

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 (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).

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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, Mat 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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Peter followed Jesus, but at a distance, for he was afraid. And so did another disciple. St. Jerome, and St. John Chrysostom, and after him, Theophylactus, with some others, believe that this other disciple was St. John himself. (Calmet)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

15. Another disciple—Beyond all question John himself.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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" ewv , the court of the high priest" (say Matthew and Mark). The account of Matthew implies that, having come up to the door, he went esw , 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 (eiv thn , 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 allov , 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).

Vers. 15-18, 25-27. The three denials of Peter.

After all the disciples had fled, some, like John and Peter, returned to the scene of our Lord"s last trials. This fact must be remembered to Peter"s credit.

I THE HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF PETER"S FALL.

1. The first circumstance was his introduction into the court of the high priest by John. This brought him into dangerous association with Christ"s enemies.

2. The second was his recognition by those who had seen him in the garden at the time of our Lords arrest.

3. The third was his Galilaean accent.

4. The fourth was the injury he had done with the sword to Malchus. There was thus a combination of fear and presumption in his presence among Christ"s enemies.

II PETER"S FALL The denial of Christ was:

1. A serious crime, regarded by itself and its repetition, and in the light of the warning that preceded it, and the oaths and the curses that followed it. It was a crime full of ingratitude, cowardice, and lies.

2. Mark the peculiarity of this crime.

(1) Consider it in the light of Peter"s calling.

(a) He was an apostle, a chosen "fisher of men.

(b) He was admitted to the closest intimacy with our blessed Lord, and honored with his deepest confidence and affection. He might well say, To whom shall we go but unto thee? Thou hast the words of eternal life.

(2) Consider Peter"s crime in the light of his circumstances, and his transgression is somewhat extenuated.

(a) He had passed the previous night in watching. He was nervous and excited from the want of sleep, as well as from the prospect of losing the best of Masters.

(b) He was deserted by the other apostles, who were scattered everywhere. Peter"s courage was of that character that rises when the danger is to be encountered with surrounding circumstances of sympathy.

(c) The personal help of Jesus was, besides, now suddenly withdrawn.

(d) His attack upon Malchus weakened his courage. When a man does a wrong thing or takes up a wrong position, he is from that moment a weaker man.

(e) He did not yet comprehend the necessity of Christ"s death. "Far be it from thee." He was not, therefore, himself in a position to die.

(3) Consider Peter"s crime in the light of his character, and it is easily explained. He was

(a) confident and zealous, but

(b) wanting in firmness and resolution. His character was a curious mixture of courage and fear.

III PETER ROUSED FROM THE SLUMBER OF HIS CONSCIENCE. The crowing of the cock, and our Lord"s look, awakened him to his true state. The look had a penetrative force in his soul.

1. It was a look of lasting remembrance. "Did I not tell thee that thou wouldst deny me?

2. It was a look of inward sorrow. "Is this thy sympathy f or thy Friend?

3. It was a look of blessed consolation. "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.

4. It was a look that, perhaps, gave a timely hint to the apostle to depart at once from the scene of danger.

IV THE EFFECTS OF PETER"S FALL.

1. He went out, and wept bitterly.

a. Solitude was the only resource after such a crisis.

b. The flow of penitential tears, so honoring to Jesus, would be refreshing to the apostle.

2. His fall made him humble and sympathizing and consolatory in his relations with the Church. His Epistles contain traces of the effects of his fall and his restoration.

Vers. 15-17. Ardent affection and timorous falsehood.

The inconsistency of which human nature is capable is proverbial. In the conduct of Peter we have a very striking instance of this characteristic quality of man. In Peter we have extremes meeting. None of Christ"s disciples showed a quicker and clearer appreciation of the Master"s claims; none showed a more fervent attachment to the Master himself. Yet, strange to say, Peter was conspicuous above the rest for his faint-heartedness in the time of trial and of danger. The two dispositions are equally apparent upon occasion of the incident recorded in this passage.

I ARDENT AFFECTION. The sincerity and strength of Peter"s love for Jesus cannot be questioned.

1. It was this which had impelled him to draw the sword in his Master"s defense.

2. It was this which impelled him to follow Jesus when his colleagues and companions had fled.

3. It was this which urged him to accompany John without having the guarantee of safety which John possessed.

4. It was this which led him to dare the risk attaching to the neighborhood of the court and high priest"s dwelling. No motive save the pure motive of affection could have induced Peter to act as he did.

II TIMOROUS FALSEHOOD.

1. This was apparently upon a slight occasion and inappreciable danger. The charge brought by a maid who kept the door was enough to throw off his guard the boldest and chief of the apostles.

2. It was in contrast with his previous confessions. None of the twelve had been more forward to apprehend and to acknowledge the claims of Jesus to Messiahship and to Divinity than had Peter.

3. It was a poor recompense for the distinguishing favor which had been shown to Peter in common with two other of the twelve. He who had been on the mount and in the garden with Jesus now denied him.

4. It was the occasion of bitter remorse and true repentance on the part of the offender against conscience and against Christ.

5. It became a recollection, which in his after-ministry stimulated Peter to watchfulness and to prayer.

LESSON. The narrative is a warning against relying too much upon religious feeling. Peter felt deeply and warmly towards Christ; yet he fell. Many Christians think that they are secure because the gospel touches their emotions. The counsel of Jesus himself must not be forgotten: "Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation! T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CXXVII. Peter Thrice Denies the Lord].

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 i 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]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

15–27. For the trial of Jesus before Caiaphas and the denial of Peter, see notes on Matt. 26:57–75. Compare Mark 14:53–72; Luke 22:54–71.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and he entered with Jesus

You can translate this in an active form. AT: "Now the high priest knew that disciple so he was able to enter with Jesus" (See: Active or Passive)

So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest

You can translate this in an active form. AT: "So the other disciple, whom the high priest knew" (See: Active or Passive)

translationWords

Peter

Jesus

disciple

high priest

court

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

15. ἠκολούθει. Was following; the descriptive imperfect. Some good authorities (א3 C) insert ὁ before ἄλλος, but the balance is decidedly against it. There is no very strong reason for rejecting the almost universal opinion that this ἄλλος μαθητής is S. John himself. It agrees with his habitual reserve about himself (Joh 1:40, Joh 13:23-25, Joh 19:26, Joh 20:2-8, Joh 21:20-24); with his being often found with S. Peter (Luk 22:8; Act 3:1; Act 4:13; Act 8:14); and with his knowledge of the high-priest’s servant’s name (Joh 18:10). Yet the opinion is not a certainty; the facts just mentioned would fit his brother S. James almost equally well; and the fact of S. John’s elsewhere designating himself as the μαθητὴς ὂν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς is slightly against the opinion. But on the other hand that designation would have no point here; the unnamed disciple is not receiving any mark of favour from Jesus. See Introduction, p. xxxiv.

γνωστὸς τ. ἀρχ. Comp. Luk 2:44; Luk 23:49. The nature of the acquaintance is not explained: in connexion with it we may remember the tradition that S. John himself wore the high-priestly badge in later life; p. xvii. Τῷ ἀρχ. is probably Caiaphas (Joh 18:13; Joh 18:24): deposed high-priests were thus designated sometimes (Luk 3:2; Act 4:6), but never by S. John. Possibly Annas lived in his son-in-law’s official residence; but if not, there is nothing improbable in his conducting a preliminary examination there. The αὐλή (Joh 10:1; Joh 10:16) is the court or open space in the centre or in front of the house (Luk 22:55): ἔξω (Joh 18:16) agrees better with an interior court.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

15.] [ὁ] ἄλλος μαθ. 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. 13:23 of a disciple whom Jesus loved. The idea that it was Judas Iscariot (Heumann), is surely too absurd to need confutation. The [ὁ] ἄλλος, συνεις. τῷ Ἰησ., ἦν γνωστὸς τῷ ἀρχ. (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.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Followed [ηκολουθει] . Imperfect, was following.

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

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

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.