Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 18:15 - 18:15
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
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 John’s 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. 24—a proof of his independence of the Synoptics. Others have sought to explain the silence of John on the examination before Caiaphas differently, but in a more arbitrary manner, as e.g. Schweizer: that after ver. 14 this examination appeared to the apostle as a mere formality not worth consideration. But as the judicial process proper, it was nevertheless the principal examination. According to 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.