Now Simon Peter followed Jesus, and the other disciple. But that disciple was known to the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest;
Two disciples trail behind the arresting party as it leads Jesus to the high priest's house. Only one of them has the connections to get inside. That small detail about who knew whom opens the door to Peter's collapse.
Peter did follow. Another Gospel adds that he kept his distance. Together they give an honest picture of a disciple in trouble.
Verse 15 assures us that Simon Peter followed Jesus, though Luke 22:54 speaks of his following "afar off." He was true, but he wavered. Sadly, that is the case with too many of us who believe.
Peter did not lack courage. He lacked a strength his own nature could not supply.
We have seen Peter's natural energy; now we are to see the weakness of that same nature. Peter did follow Jesus, but he followed in self-confidence, only to learn his own weakness… To follow the Lord we need a power beyond nature to hold us up. The Lord had just prayed to the Father to keep His disciples from evil. So often it is the same with us. Peter thinks he can keep himself, and he is allowed to fall, so that he learns his own weakness.
Many have taken the unnamed second disciple to be the man who wrote this Gospel.
The writer of this Gospel never gives his name. He calls himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved" or "another disciple." It fits the style of the whole book that we should find him here, close to the One on whose chest he had leaned. It was through him that Peter was able to go in to the Jewish council, but this nearness only gave the occasion for his denial.
Not everyone agreed on who that disciple was.
"Known to the high priest." Chrysostom and Cyril regard the disciple "known to the high priest" as the writer of this Gospel. Augustine and others have questioned that; Bengel supposed Nicodemus was meant; Zahn thinks James… In any case, "known" is not the same word as "kinsman" in verse 26. If it is the writer of this Gospel, any trade connection he may have had with the high priest would be enough to explain the word used here.
Being an acquaintance opened a door that discipleship never would have. Commentators differ on whether that was a mercy or a trap. One takes the connection as worldly influence used at the worst possible moment:
Again we see Simon Peter following the Lord, but not in the Spirit. Nor was the other disciple there to his own honour, still less to the Lord's. He gets into the high priest's palace as a man known to that official, and in no way as a follower of Jesus. And how he must soon have grieved over the kind influence he used to get Peter let in, when Peter had to stay outside!
Another writer sees no compromise in him at all.
Though he is never named, he surprises us with the quiet boldness of faith and love. It carries him through untouched and unquestioned, while the seemingly bolder disciple breaks down so badly. He is known to the high priest, and to the gatekeeper, and known as a follower of Christ too. Her question to Peter shows it: "You also are not one of this man's disciples, are you?"
Whatever the motive, the effect on Peter was ruinous. The same access that sheltered one man exposed the other.
His acquaintance with the high priest gave him a little worldly status and privilege, which he used to introduce Peter into the place of danger… That which trips up one disciple may leave another unmoved. And Satan knows exactly how to set his traps.
Inside the courtyard, the two men went different ways. One closed the gap; the other settled by a stranger's fire.
Then he sees Peter at the door. He speaks to the servant girl who kept the door, and so gets Peter in. I am sure that once John and Peter were inside, John made straight for his Master, to get as near to Him as possible. May the Lord keep us near Him too! To be near Him is the only place of safety for the soul that knows Him. I believe that if Peter had been near Him that day, he would never have fallen.
- Following. Peter did follow, and that was real — but at a distance, and the distance is where the danger began.
- Weakness. He followed in self-confidence. He thought he could keep himself, and he was allowed to fall so that he would learn his own weakness.
- Access. The unnamed disciple got in because he knew the high priest, not because he followed Jesus. Commentators differ on whether that showed worldly connection or quiet courage.
- Danger. A small privilege, kindly used, put a friend right where the enemy had set his trap. What trips one disciple may leave another untouched.
- Nearness. One disciple pressed close to his Master and stood; the other stayed back and denied Him. Nearness to Christ is the only safe place.
but Peter stood at the door without. The other disciple therefore, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the porteress and brought in Peter.
Peter can get no further than the gate of the high priest's court. Another disciple — one the high priest knows — goes out and brings him in, and that small kindness raises two questions: who was this disciple, and what did his help cost Peter?
Commentators have never agreed on who this second disciple was.
While Chrysostom and Cyril regard the disciple "known to the high priest" as the Evangelist, Augustine and others have questioned the identity. Bengel supposed Nicodemus to be meant; Zahn thinks James... In any case, we must distinguish "known" from "kinsman" (verse 26). If it is the Evangelist, any trade connection he may have had with the high priest would sufficiently explain the word used here.
Some object that a high priest would never know a fisherman.
We may utterly reject the assumption that the high priest was too great a person to have the son of Zebedee as an acquaintance. John was not "a mean fisherman," though Calvin says it. And even if he had been, how strange to ignore that the proudest may have close relations with the lowly, for reasons too many and too obvious to need another word.
The disciple is most likely John, and his standing with the high priest did Peter no good.
The "other disciple" known to the high priest was pretty clearly John himself. His acquaintance with the high priest gave him a little worldly status and privilege, which he used to bring Peter into the place of danger. The word "also" in verse 17 seems to imply that the girl keeping the door knew that John was a disciple of Jesus. He had not been tempted to deny it as Peter had. What trips up one disciple may leave another unmoved.
A kind word to the doorkeeper had consequences John never intended.
How he must soon have grieved over the kindly influence he used to get Peter in! Until then Peter had to stay outside. Little did he think that his word to the doorkeeper would give occasion for the terrible and repeated fall of his beloved fellow-servant. But every word of the Lord had to be fulfilled. It seems the maid who kept the door knew John was a disciple, since she says to Peter, "Are you also one of this man's disciples?" But she put the testing question to Peter, not to John. And Peter, so bold in the garden, now gives way completely before this woman.
Peter trusted himself to hold out, and the courtyard proved him wrong.
Another disciple enters the palace, not as a disciple of Jesus, but as an acquaintance of the high priest. So he becomes the means of leading Peter into a false position, and Peter breaks down at the simple question of a serving girl... To follow the Lord we need a power beyond nature to sustain us. The Lord had just prayed to the Father to keep His disciples from evil. As so often with ourselves, Peter thinks he can keep himself, and is allowed to fall so that he may learn his own weakness.
One writer sets John's favour to Peter beside a far greater introduction, and marks where the comparison ends.
He does not bring us just to the edge of the place of favour — to "some low place within the door." That is what might happen if our Introducer had only limited influence there. We can hardly suppose that John the son of Zebedee, though known to the high priest, was especially close to him. His influence was just enough to get his friend Simon Peter admitted to the high priest's palace... Through John, Peter obtained access into the palace of the high priest, but not into his favour. This John could not do, and so the illustration falls short of our subject.
Christ gives what John could not.
The right of admittance to this favour we have by Christ Jesus. What we could not have in ourselves He has secured to us permanently... In ourselves we can offer no claim to such favour, but in Christ what claims are found! How great is the favour of God in which Christ Jesus stands! Is He not the One whom God delights to honour? And He is our Introducer.
- Known — the other disciple knew the high priest but was not his relative. Most take him to be John; others have suggested Nicodemus or James.
- Influence — a little worldly standing opened the door, and it brought Peter into the place of danger.
- Kindness — John meant well at the door, yet his word opened the way to Peter's repeated denial.
- Position — inside the court Peter stood in a false position. One servant girl's question broke him. Following the Lord needs power beyond nature.
- Contrast — John's influence reached only as far as the door. Christ brings us not to the edge of God's favour but right into it.