Charles Ellicott Commentary John 18:15

"And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and [so did] another disciple. Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest;" — John 18:15 (ASV)

And Simon Peter followed Jesus.—It is better to read, And Simon Peter was following Jesus. .

Another disciple.—The reading is not certain, but the majority of the better manuscripts support the text of the Authorized 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 regarding him. (John 13:23; John 19:26; and Introduction, p. 375.) It also agrees with the fact that Peter and John are elsewhere found in special connection with each other (Luke 22:8; Acts 1:13; Acts 3:1; Acts 3:3–4; Acts 3:11; Acts 4:13; Acts 4:19; Acts 8:14).

We are warranted, therefore, in saying that this opinion is probable, but not in assuming that it is necessarily true, as is often done. It may be, for instance, that by this term the Evangelist indicates his brother James, who is never mentioned in this Gospel. The fact that he is himself called the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 13:23; John 19:26; compare to 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 to 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 relatives of the high priest in Acts 4:6.

Into the palace of the high priest.—It is perhaps better to read, into the court of the high priest. (Matthew 26:58; Matthew 26:69.) St. John uses the word elsewhere only for the sheepfold (John 10:1; John 10:16).

It has been established beyond doubt that the title “high priest” may have been and often was given to those who had held the sacred office. We cannot, therefore, say positively that it is not here given to Annas. It is, however, in the highest degree improbable that it is given in this chapter to Annas and Caiaphas without distinction, after the words of John 18:13. The writer has in that verse clearly marked out Caiaphas as the high priest that year, and consistency requires that we should uniformly understand him to be designated by the title.

The apparent difficulty here is met by the remark in John 18:13, that Annas was father-in-law to Caiaphas. (See Note there.)