John 18: 15,16. Who was the disciple known to the high priest?
- Thread starter tantalon
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus. Because this disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the high priest's courtyard, but Peter had to wait outside at the door. The other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the servant girl on duty there and brought Peter in. John 18:15-16
-
1
-
1
- Show all
It is not Judas the traitor, whom is identified earlier in the chapter when he leads the guards to arrest Jesus (and following this event he would go out and kill himself.) This disciple that witnessed the show trial and then later the crucifixion and resurrection is John, whom often in his Gospel does not refer to himself by name, identifying himself as the chronically unnamed disciple of his Gospel at the end.
John Gill:
(excerpt)
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
(here)
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0g...-15.html/RK=2/RS=J0fVlotJ6ldHg2fCH0ISMt4QF5c-
(excerpt)
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
(here)
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0g...-15.html/RK=2/RS=J0fVlotJ6ldHg2fCH0ISMt4QF5c-
-
1
- Show all
The ONLY ONE, who was known, and in league with the high priest was Judas. Don't get your doctrine from commentaries, what you think, believe or were taught. The commentary from John gill is purely speculations. STUDY the word, and pray for wisdom and insight, Gods word is The Truth and should be rightly divided, so we are not ashamed on our judgement day. John loved Jesus, and along with the others were warned repeatedly by Jesus of the doctrine of said priests, there was no fellowship there, except for Judas.
-
2
- Show all
The text does not say this one was "IN LEAGUE WITH" the high priest. It says he was "KNOWN UNTO" him.
There was another "disciple" that was in these general scenes... the one in Mark 14:52, the one who "fled naked" but only after (and because) they "laid hold on him" (i.e. onto his "linen cloth"). I do not believe this was "MARK" as many suggest. I believe it was "Lazarus," and Lazarus was now FAMOUS, you know... because after Jesus raised him from the dead, MANY JEWS now started to believe on Jesus, and the high priest (and the others in league with him, i.e. "the chief priests") wanted to KILL HIM TOO, per John 12:9-11 (which they weren't going to do, at THIS scene, Jesus' arrest and trials).
[I don't believe it was "JOHN," either, because later, much later in Acts 4:13, it says of John that "When they saw the boldness of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they marveled and took note that these men had been with Jesus." Saying "took note that these men had been" is not suggesting WELL-KNOWN unto them]
There was another "disciple" that was in these general scenes... the one in Mark 14:52, the one who "fled naked" but only after (and because) they "laid hold on him" (i.e. onto his "linen cloth"). I do not believe this was "MARK" as many suggest. I believe it was "Lazarus," and Lazarus was now FAMOUS, you know... because after Jesus raised him from the dead, MANY JEWS now started to believe on Jesus, and the high priest (and the others in league with him, i.e. "the chief priests") wanted to KILL HIM TOO, per John 12:9-11 (which they weren't going to do, at THIS scene, Jesus' arrest and trials).
[I don't believe it was "JOHN," either, because later, much later in Acts 4:13, it says of John that "When they saw the boldness of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they marveled and took note that these men had been with Jesus." Saying "took note that these men had been" is not suggesting WELL-KNOWN unto them]
Last edited:
-
1
- Show all
The same word "known [G1110]" is found in the following text:
18 (Now with the reward for his wickedness Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong and burst open in the middle, and all his intestines spilled out. 19 This became known [G1110] to all who lived in Jerusalem, so they called that field in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms:
‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’
and,
‘May another take his position.’
So the person was "KNOWN [G1110] UNTO / TO" the high priest... this isn't to say "IN LEAGUE WITH" him (or "IN FELLOWSHIP WITH" him, as though cooperating with his agenda, etc).
[see also Acts 4:16 and that word]
18 (Now with the reward for his wickedness Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong and burst open in the middle, and all his intestines spilled out. 19 This became known [G1110] to all who lived in Jerusalem, so they called that field in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms:
‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’
and,
‘May another take his position.’
So the person was "KNOWN [G1110] UNTO / TO" the high priest... this isn't to say "IN LEAGUE WITH" him (or "IN FELLOWSHIP WITH" him, as though cooperating with his agenda, etc).
[see also Acts 4:16 and that word]
Here are the scriptures that support that it was Judas that was "in, league with, fellowshipping, and cooperating with the priests for Jesus' demise. Matthew 26: 14-16. then Matthew 27: 3-8. then Luke 22: 3-6. John 18: 15-16. If you read carefully the scriptures I have given, you may untangle your understanding so as to know the proper sequences and identities of the question I asked: (Who was the disciple known of the high priest)?
No one is denying that.
What I am not convinced about, is your saying that this person in John 18:15-16 (where the ideas "IN LEAGUE WITH" and "FELLOWSHIPPING" and "COOPERATING WITH THE PRIESTS" is NOT in the text--it merely states "KNOWN [G1110] TO the high priest"--you are READING those others ideas INTO the text!) [your saying it] is "Judas"... I disagree, and remain unconvinced of your viewpoint. I supplied mine (in Post #6 and Post #7), which I believe makes better sense
[re: "the other disciple" v.16]
What I am not convinced about, is your saying that this person in John 18:15-16 (where the ideas "IN LEAGUE WITH" and "FELLOWSHIPPING" and "COOPERATING WITH THE PRIESTS" is NOT in the text--it merely states "KNOWN [G1110] TO the high priest"--you are READING those others ideas INTO the text!) [your saying it] is "Judas"... I disagree, and remain unconvinced of your viewpoint. I supplied mine (in Post #6 and Post #7), which I believe makes better sense
[re: "the other disciple" v.16]Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
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.
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.
