Simon Peter followed Jesus, as did another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest; but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to her who kept the door, and brought in Peter. Then the maid who kept the door said to Peter, “Are you also one of this man’s disciples?” He said, “I am not.”
Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals, for it was cold. They were warming themselves. Peter was with them, standing and warming himself. The high priest therefore asked Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching. Jesus answered him, “I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where the Jews always meet. I said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them. Behold, they know the things which I said.”
When he had said this, one of the officers standing by slapped Jesus with his hand, saying, “Do you answer the high priest like that?”
Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken evil, testify of the evil; but if well, why do you beat me?”
Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas, the high priest. Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore to him, “You aren’t also one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it and said, “I am not.”
One of the servants of the high priest, being a relative of him whose ear Peter had cut off, said, “Didn’t I see you in the garden with him?”
Peter therefore denied it again, and immediately the rooster crowed.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27 15. And another disciple. Some have been led astray,…
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.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv15, 19, 25 A lively example of the fragility of man even…
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.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv15–27 15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did…
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.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv15–25 When Christ was apprehended, the other evangelists tell us,…
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.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On vv15, 19, 22 All the four evangelists give us an account of…
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.
Read full note →
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.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv15–27 And Simon Peter followed Jesus,.... It is certain, he…
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
Read full note →
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.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv17, 20, 21, 22, 24 Art thou also - As well as the others,…
Art thou also - As well as the others, one of this man's disciples - She does not appear to have asked with any design to hurt him.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 27 Verse 15. And - another disciple] Not THAT other…
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.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv15, 19 Joh 18:15-17. Simon Peter followed — See note on…
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.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 See the notes at Mat 26:57-58.
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.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv15, 17, 21, 24 Peter followed Jesus, but at a distance, for he…
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).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv15–27 Simon Peter followed Jesus--Natural though this was, and safe…
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.
Read full note →
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.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 15. Another disciple—Beyond all question John himself.
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.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv15–27 15. followed] Or, was following; the descriptive imperfect.
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.
Read full note →
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.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv15–27 (15) And Simon Peter followed Jesus.—Better, And Simon Peter…
(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.
Read full note →
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.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv15–26 Now. After the first dispersion of all the disciples,…
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.
Read full note →
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.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On v15 15–27. For the trial of Jesus before Caiaphas and…
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.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On v19 Mat 26:59-68; Mar 14:55-65; Luk 22:63-71;Joh 18:19-24. “Then the…
JESUS CONDEMNED BY THE SANHEDRIN
Mat 26:59-68; Mar 14:55-65; Luk 22:63-71;Joh 18:19-24. “Then the high priest asked Jesus concerning His disciples and teaching. Jesus responded to Him, I spoke boldly to the world. I always taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and I spoke nothing in secret. Why do you ask Me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; behold, they know the things which I said. He, speaking these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, Do you thus answer the high priest? Jesus responded to him, If I spoke wickedly, testify concerning the wickedness; but if truly, why do you smite Me? Then Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.” Evidently, Annas and Caiaphas had their tribunals in the same great quadrangular building standing on Mount Zion, and now visited by the thirty thousand pilgrims annually going to Jerusalem. Having first been arraigned at the tribunal of Annas, He is now, about day-dawn, led bound to the tribunal of Caiaphas. You see how the high priest endeavored to make Him confess, hoping to utilize His own testimony against Himself, as they had no witnesses to amount to anything, and thus condescended to a very cowardly stratagem, which even if he had succeeded, the law pronounces the weakest of all evidence. It was awfully barbaric for that officer to smite a prisoner in bonds. You see, Jesus vindicates Himself reminding the man of the criminal impropriety of this uncouth assault upon a defenseless prisoner illustrating the right of all His followers to vindicate themselves from false accusation, violence, and tyranny, and refuting the idea somewhat prevalent that we are never to advocate our rights and vindicate ourselves against the oppression of the wicked.
Read full note →
Luk 22:66. “And when it was day, the eldership of the people, the chief priests, and the scribes were assembled, and led Him into the Sanhedrin.” As they had been on His track, like bloodhounds, three years, eager to take, His life (but restrained by the fear of the people; and well they might be, because a bloody civil war would have broken out immediately), such is their fear of the people that they attack Him at midnight, aiming to secure the death-warrant and kill Him before day. In this they are disappointed and woefully disconcerted, being unable to convene the Sanhedrin till day dawn, though keeping couriers running at race-horse speed all night, (notifying and urging them up. The Sanhedrin was the highest court of the politico-ecclesiasticism, the successor of the eldership organized by Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, during their wilderness peregrinations.
Mar 14:55-59. “And the high priest and all the Sanhedrin continued to seek testimony against Jesus to put him to death, and they found none.” Matthew says “false testimony.” Of course, they preferred true testimony if they could get it; but as there was none, they were anxious to take any kind they could get. “For many continued to testify falsely against Him, and their testimonies were not equal,” i. e., they contradicted one another, which in law invalidates both, so that they are thrown out of court. “And certain ones, rising up, falsely testified against Him, saying, We heard Him saying, That I will destroy this temple, made with hands, and in three days I will build another, made without hands. Indeed their testimony was not equal;” i. e., they contradicted one another. Perhaps some of the witnesses gave it correctly; but you have only to look at Joh 2:19, “Destroy this temple, and I will build it in three days,” to see that the above witnesses were false, as they testified that He said, “I will destroy this temple, made with hands, and build another, made without hands.” By comparison, you see that these witnesses did not quote Him correctly, as their testimony would make it mean that great stone edifice standing on Mount Moriah; while He did not mean that at all, but the temple of His body. Why did He not correct them when so grossly misrepresenting Him? Because it would have done no good, as Satan was in them, and they were thirsting for His blood.
Mat 26:62-66. “The high priest, standing up, said to Him, Do You answer nothing? What are they witnessing against Thee? And Jesus was silent.” Under temptation, the better policy is, like Jesus, to keep silent. You should never speak while under severe provocation. “The high priest, responding, said to Him, I assure Thee by the living God, that Thou mayest tell us if Thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus says to him, Thou sayest it.” That is an Oriental form of affirmation. Here, you see, Jesus answers while under oath of affirmation, administered by the high priest. Hence you see His indirect approval appertaining to the civil oath of affirmation. Paul (1Th 5:23) administers a solemn oath to the Thessalonian saints to read his letter to all the members of the Church.
“Moreover I say unto you, Hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven.” The first clause of this wonderful prophecy of our Lord was fulfilled when they saw Him rise from the dead and ascend up to heaven from Mount Olivet; while the second clause, “coming in the clouds of heaven,” will be fulfilled when Jesus shall ride down on a cloud and receive all the kingdoms of this world (Dan 7:9-14) and reign forever. In this wonderful sentence there is not so much as a comma, yet those two clauses are separated by many centuries, the former being verified in a few days, and the latter still pending.
“Then the high priest tore His robes, saying, That He blasphemed; what need of testimony have we yet? Behold, now , you have heard His blasphemy. What seems good to you? And they, responding, said, He is worthy of death.” Mark says this verdict was unanimous, So here you see the issue of His prosecution before the Sanhedrin They unanimously condemned Him to die for blasphemy, according to the law of Moses. (Lev 24:16.) Thus you see, good and just laws become vehicles of tyranny and persecution when in the hands of bad men, and are no guarantee of fight and justice when the devil is in the administrators. Jesus died under the verdict of Divine law, and so did all the martyrs, there being no trouble about the law; but Satan was in the preachers and ruling elders. So it is this day. Some of the brightest saints that walk beneath the skies, have been excommunicated, while drunkards, libertines, blasphemers, and thieves have been retained without impeachment. Such was the case in the days of Luther and Wesley, and always will be so when Diabolus gets into the clergy and official laity.
Luk 22:63-65. “And the men who had charge of Jesus began to mock Him, beating Him; and covering Him, continued to strike His face, and ask Him, saying, Prophesy, who is the one smiting thee? And blaspheming Him as to many other things, they continued to speak against Him.” The truth of it is, Jesus had no trial, it was a mockery; to their infinite shame, barbarically abusing Him while a prisoner in chains, which is revolting to the very idea of civil, not to say ecclesiastical administration. Nicodemus certifies that Jewish law never condemned a man till he met his accusers face to face, and had a fair and impartial trial. Festus, the Roman proconsul, makes the same statement in reference to imperial law. Hence, Jesus was mobbed and outlawed. But did He not come into the world to die? Most assuredly; and He would have died to redeem the world from sin, death, and hell if neither Judas nor Caiphas had ever been born. Yet that is no apology for the diabolical treason, perfidy, and murder which they committed, overtly, without excuse.
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v15 Joh 18:15 - Joh 18:27.
John
JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS
Read full note →
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.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On vv15, 24 J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CXXVII. Peter Thrice…
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.
Read full note →
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.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv19–20 The high priest
The high priest
For the order of events on the day of the crucifixion, (See Scofield "Mat 26:57").
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv15, 19, 25 Jesus Arraigned, and the Denial of Peter.
Jesus Arraigned, and the Denial of Peter.
The first denial:
Read full note →
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.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv15, 17, 19, 22, 25 Now that disciple was known to the high priest,…
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)
Read full note →
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.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25 18:15 That other disciple is unnamed but was probably…
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.