“A most useful series of Handbooks. With such 
 helps as these, to be an inefficient teacher is to be 
 blameworthy.”—Rev. C. H. Spurgeon. 
 
 oct l class printers. 
 
 i (at. 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 Mil 
 
 . PROFESSOR SALMOND, D.D. 
 
 In cloth, 8 d. each ; 
 
 l. each ; fm 
 freely 
 
 ofessor Salmond, 
 
 !§| flU 
 
 
 THE LIFE OF CHRIST. By Ret 
 
 D.D. 
 
 Jf \ ■*. f 
 
 THE SHORTEh/<&TEGHISM. By Rev. Professor Sal- 
 
 RMf; 1. (Q. 1 to 38), The Summary 
 doctrine. Part If. (Q. 39 to 107), 
 " ip Christian Duty. Section 1 
 
 mond, D. 
 of ChristI 
 The Sumi 
 (Q. 39 to 
 
 ?he Le 
 
 [Section 2 in Preparation. 
 
 THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES. By the Rev. Professor 
 Paterson, M.A., Edinburgh. 
 
 - 3 1- OUTLINES OF PROTESTANT MISSIONS. By John 
 Robson, D.D. 
 
 “ We have found it all that a teacher could want .”—Ecclesiastical 
 Gazette. 
 
 c\ 
 
 i CL 
 
 LIFE OF THE APOSTLE PETER. By Rev. Professor 
 Salmond, D.D. 
 
 44 A work which only an accomplished scholar could have produced.” 
 —Christian Leader. 
 
 OUTLINES OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. By the late 
 Rev. Henry Wallis Smith, D.D. 
 
 44 An admirable sketch of early Church history.”— Baptist. 
 
 LIFE OF DAVID. By the late Rev. Peter Thomson, 
 M.A. 
 
 “ I think it is excellent indeed, and have seen nothing of the kind 
 so good.”—Rev. Stanley Leathes, D.D. 
 
 T. & T. CLARK, 38 George Street, Edinburgh. 
 
$5ible Class printers. 
 
 Continued. 
 
 LIFE OF MOSES. By Rev. James Iverach, M.A. 
 
 “Accurately done, clear, mature, and scholarly.”— Christian. 
 
 LIFE OF PAUL. By Paton J. Gloag, D.D. 
 
 “This little book could not well be surpassed .”—Daily Review. 
 
 LIFE AND REIGN OF SOLOMON. By Rev. Rayner 
 W lNTERBOTHAM, M.A., LL. B. 
 
 “ Every teacher should have it.” —Rev. C. H. Spurgeon. 
 
 THE KINGS OF 
 
 “ A masterpiece 
 
 THE KINGS OF 
 Ph.D. 
 
 Given, 
 
 “ Admirably arranged; the st y Id 1 !WWHll’ieiitly simple and clear to 
 be quite within the compass of young people .”—British Messenger. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION. By Rev. 
 Professor Witherow. 
 
 “ A vast amount of 
 manner .”—United 
 
 concise 
 
 JOSHUA AND THE CONQUEST. By Rev. Professor 
 
 Croskery. 
 
 “This carefully written manual will be much appreciated .”—Daily 
 Review. 
 
 BIBLE WORDS AND PHRASES, Explained and Illus¬ 
 trated. By Rev. Charles Michie, M.A. 18mo, 
 cloth, Is. 
 
 “Will be found interesting and instructive, and of the greatest 
 value to young students and teachers.”— Athenaeum. 
 
 T. & T. CLARK, 38 George Street, Edinburgh. 
 
Just 'published, in crown 8 vo, price 5s. 
 
 TTbe Dotce from the dross. 
 
 A SERIES OF SERMONS ON OUR LORD’S PASSION. 
 
 By Eminent Living Preachers of^Germany. 
 
 With Biographical Sketches, and Portrait of Rudolf Kogel, D.D., 
 Chief Chaplain to H.I.M. The Emperor of 
 Germany, at Berlin. 
 
 Edited and translated by William Macintosh, M.A., F.S.S. 
 
 “DR LUTH ARDT’S WORKS. 
 
 In Three handsome crown 8 vo Volumes, price 6s. each. 
 
 “ We do not know any volumes so suitable in these times 
 for young men entering on life, or, let us say, even for the 
 library of a Pastor called to deal with such, than the three 
 volumes of this series. We commend the whole of them with 
 the utmost cordial satisfaction. They are altogether quite 
 a specialty in our literature ”— Weekly Review. 
 
 APOLOGETIC LECTURES 
 
 ON THE . 
 
 FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 Sixth Edition. 
 
 By C. E. LUTHARDT, D.D,, Leipzig. 
 
 “ From Dr JLuthardt’s exposition even the most learned theologians 
 may derive invalnable criticism, and the most acute disputants supply 
 themselves with more trenchant and polish^ weapons than they have 
 as yet been possessed of.”— Bell’s Weekly Messenger. 
 
 APOLOGETIC LECTURES 
 
 ON THE 
 
 SAYING TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 Fifth Edition, 
 
 “ Dr Lutliardt is a profound scholar, but a very simple teacher, and ex - 
 presses himself on the gravest matters with the utmost simplicity, 
 clearness, and force.”— Literary World. 
 
 APOLOGETIC LECTURES 
 
 ON THE 
 
 MORAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 Third Edition. 
 
 “ The ground covered by this work is, of course, of considerable extent, 
 and there is scarcely any topic of specifically moral interest now under 
 debate in which the reader will not find some suggestive saying. The 
 volume contains, like its predecessors, a truly wealthy apparatus of notes 
 and illustrations .”—English Churchman. 
 
 T. & T. CLARK, 38 George Street, Edinburgh. 
 
Si<lonA*'?t 5 >o; 
 
 'orri 
 
 fkomztn 
 
 / '«W* ® 
 
 •<m/wrn 
 
 Beths auUtt*' 
 Chduis *y- 
 
 S.of Galilee 
 Lof Xiberja.so) 
 
 Ptoleniatsi 
 
 I’ohata 
 
 
 McCann el 
 
 Gadaza 
 
 nSCoJinx^ 
 
 Apollom 
 
 Fhafladis 
 
 rtiiliidelphia 
 
 flHeshborv 
 
 Bstbflch&n 
 
 faMasafla 
 
 J~.Barcholomaw, 23din?.' 
 
 PA 3 LEOTIHE 
 
 to Hhistra te lie j 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT f ' VF 
 
 ****** , A f \ i Wf\ 
 
 J1LT1 ASfi -w 
 
 ~7$f T is 77> to 
 
 Tyre 
 
 f.fka'ra, 
 
 .-.. 
 
 s c*~' C ' 
 
 f "‘ . f \ >/ r#sarea.Pi 
 
 Js? • "V { ySiX 'Funcae 
 
 Al.-.x-androacfanyU X *•••<:' Made^i (&# C> 
 
 »''.«: JSSelaicuiP ii..- - ^ .. 
 
 | \(Tc' \ 
 
 ^ . (Tfisenos ( 
 * ^ 
 
 ^ ,fC •- 
 
 Bostrcc. 
 
 Laru/itiule JCastt of Greenwich. a ® 
 
Bible Class printers. 
 
 EDITED BY PROFESSOR ^ALMOND, D.D., ABERDEEN. 
 
 THE LIFE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 APOSTLE PETER. 
 
 BY THE EDITOR. 
 
 S.T>.F. SeAmowJ. 
 
 Sbinbtrrgh: 
 
 T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 
 
•■= ' A 
 
 
 .gcB ^ 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Chapter I.— The Years of Obscurity, . 9-21 
 
 1. Interest of Peter’s Life—2. The Eminence of His 
 Position—3. His Name—4. His Parentage and Home— 
 5. His Early Occupation and Associates—6. His Educa¬ 
 tion—7. His Acquaintance with Greek—8. Value of His 
 Early Training—9. His Galilean Nativity—10. His Life 
 previous to his Introduction to Jesus. 
 
 Chapter II.— Early Association with Christ, . 21-32 
 
 11. His First Interview with Jesus—12. The New Name 
 and the Preparatory Call—13. The-Call by the Lake— 
 14. The Healing of Simon’s Mother-in-Law—15. His 
 Intrusive Zeal—16. Call to the Apostleship. 
 
 Chapter III.— From the Call to the Apostleship 
 
 on to the Great Confession, . . . 32-47 
 
 17. A Question and a Lesson—18. The Walk Upon the 
 Water—19. The Profession of Faith at Capernaum—20. 
 The Great Confession at Caesarea Philippi—21. The 
 Questions and Answers at Caesarea—22. The Great Pro¬ 
 mise to Peter—23. The Power of the Keys. 
 
 Chapter IV.— From the Great Confession to the 
 
 Supper, .47*57 
 
 24. Peter Rebuking and Rebuked—25. Peter in the 
 Transfiguration Scene—26. The Tribute Money—27. 
 The Law of Forgiveness—28. The Craving for Reward— 
 29. Peter and the Fig-Tree—30. The Question as to the 
 Fate of the Temple. 
 
Vlll 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Chapter V.— From the Supper to the Ascension, 57-75 
 
 31. The Preparation for the Passover— 32. Peter and 
 the Feet-Washing— 33. The Request Addressed by Peter 
 to John— 34. Peter Fore-warned— 35. Peter in the Gar¬ 
 den— 36. The Sword— 37. The Denials— 38. From the 
 Denials to the Miraculous Draught —39. The Public 
 Restoration—40. Peter’s Enquiry about John. 
 
 Chapter VI.— From Christ’s Ascension to the 
 
 Admission op Cornelius, . . . 75-89 
 
 41. The Vacancy in the Apostolate— 42. At Pentecost— 
 43. The Miracle at the Temple Gate— 44. The Beginnings 
 of Persecution— 45. The First Call for Discipline— 46. 
 The Renewal of Persecution— 47. Peter in Samaria— 
 48. Peter with Paul at Jerusalem— 49. Peter at Lydda 
 and Joppa—50. Peter and Cornelius. 
 
 Chapter VII.— From the Admission of Cornelius 
 
 to the End, .89-95 
 
 51. Peter’s Defence at Jerusalem—52. Peter’s Imprison¬ 
 ment and Deliverance—53. Peter and the Council at 
 Jerusalem—54. Peter Dissembling—55. Peter’s Later 
 History—56. The First Epistle—57. The Second Epistle. 
 
THE LIFE OF PETEK 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE YEARS OF OBSCURITY. 
 
 1. INTEREST OF PETER’S LIFE. The Apostle 
 whose career we are to study yields to none of 
 the Twelve in the interest of his life, the charm 
 of his character, or the importance of his work. 
 In the Gospel histories he retains a peculiar rela¬ 
 tion at once to Jesus and to the disciples. He is 
 the man whom the Master oftenest singles out for 
 special dealing, whether in honour or in rebuke, and 
 on whom he lays the burden of special responsibility. 
 As long as he appears in the narratives of the 
 New Testament, he moves among the brethren the 
 central figure, to whom all look. In the earliest 
 stage of the founding of the Church, he is the com¬ 
 manding influence, the pioneer whose work fills as 
 large a space in the first half of the Book of Acts as 
 that of Paul in the second. He is the Apostle of 
 the Circumcision in the same sense as Paul is that of 
 the Uncircumcision, and there is much to show that 
 the one was on terms of intimacy and confidence with 
 the other. It is under the shield of his name that 
 the Church of Rome has sought to establish her 
 exclusive claims. It is as his successors that the 
 proudest of the Popes have ventured to advance 
 their stupendous pretensions. One of the two fore¬ 
 most missionaries of the Cross to whose faith and 
 toil is mainly due the planting of the Christian 
 Church, and himself emphatically a man of action, 
 
10 
 
 he holds sacred rank also as a preacher and a writer. 
 His discourses are preserved for us in the Book of 
 Acts, and among the Epistles of the New Testament 
 there is a priceless legacy which we owe to him. 
 
 2. THE EMINENCE OF HIS POSITION. The 
 career of this man is the career of the leader of the 
 original Twelve. His eminence appears in many 
 ways and on most occasions. It is indicated by the 
 place which is given to his name in the lists of the 
 apostles. Of these we have four in the New Testa¬ 
 ment (Matthew x. 2-4; Mark iii. 16-19; Luke vi. 
 14-16; Acts i. 13); and in each this man is named 
 first as Judas the traitor is named last. He heads 
 the first of the three bands of four into which these 
 lists distribute the Twelve, as Philip heads the 
 second, and James, the son of Alpheus, the third. 
 He belongs to the two notable pairs of brothers, the 
 sons of John and the sons of Zebedee, who have the 
 distinction of the earliest and closest connection with 
 Christ, who are introduced at times as a company by 
 themselves, and address Him with the freedom of 
 confidential friends, as when on the Mount of Olives 
 they question Him privately about the fate which 
 He announced for the Temple (cf. Matthew xxiv. 3, 
 Luke xxi. 7, with Mark xiii. 3). He is one of the 
 three to whom those foremost four were reduced in 
 order to form the Lord’s most trusted companions, 
 the witnesses of His mightiest works, the selectest 
 associates, whose minds He illumined with the glory 
 of His transfiguration, whose fellowship and sympathy 
 He craved in the exceeding sorrow of His own soul. 
 He is one of the two who at times were chosen for 
 special service even out of that holy trio (Mark 
 xiv. 13 ; Luke xxii. 8), who were together on some of 
 the most momentous occasions both before and after 
 the Ascension (John xviii. 15, xx. 3-7, xxi. 20-23; 
 Acts iii. 1-11, iv. 13-22), and in whose friendship 
 characters as distinct as those of Martha and Mary 
 were consecrated to their common Lord. He is the 
 
11 
 
 one who repeatedly appears when out of the entire 
 number Christ brings forward only one. He is the 
 spokesman of the company, the choir-master of the 
 apostolic band, the chief accustomed to rule and ever 
 ready to act, whom Paul himself teaches us to regard 
 as a pillar of the Church (Gal. ii. 9). It cannot but 
 be of interest to study the character and trace the 
 course of such a man. It should be a matter of 
 thankfulness that the materials for the purpose are 
 so ample, that it is not too much to say that we are 
 told nearly as much about this one member of the 
 Twelve as about all the others together. 
 
 3. HIS NAME. The Gospels indicate that he was 
 known originally as Simon. This is but another 
 form of the Old Testament Simeon (= “ hearing ”), 
 the name given to the rough and venturesome son 
 of Jacob and Leah who founded the tribe called after 
 him. In the New Testament we find the name 
 Simeon or Symeon applied to the aged saint who 
 received the Infant Jesus into his arms in the Temple 
 (Luke ii. 25), to the son of Juda and father of Levi 
 who has a place in our Lord’s genealogy (Luke iii. 
 30), and to the prophet or teacher, called also Niger, 
 in the Church of Antioch (Acts xiii. 1). The term 
 Simon is supposed by some to have been borrowed 
 by the Jews from the Greeks, who certainly used it 
 freely. By others it is explained as a contracted 
 form of the older Hebrew Simeon. It was probably 
 the current Babbinical form. It was a favourite 
 personal name among the Jews in the times sub¬ 
 sequent to the Babylonian Exile, the liking for it 
 being probably increased by the fact that it was 
 borne by men like the great leader of the Maccabean 
 house (1 Macc. v. 17), and the Priest Simon (Ecclus. 
 i. 1-20), who held a deep place in the respect or the 
 patriotic sentiment of the Jewish nation. We may 
 gather even from the number of times it occurs in 
 the New Testament itself how popular a name it had 
 come to be. There it is borne, for example, by the 
 
12 
 
 Lord’s brother (Matthew xiii. 55 ; Mark vi. 3), by 
 Zelotes, or the Canaanite (Matthew x. 4; Mark 
 iii. 18), by the man of Cyrene (Matthew xxvii. 32; 
 Mark xv. 21; Luke xxiii. 26), by the leper 
 (Matthew xxvi. 6; Mark xiv. 3), by the Pharisee 
 (Luke vii. 40), by the father of Judas Iscariot 
 (John vi. 71), by the tanner (Acts x. 6, 32), by 
 the sorcerer of Samaria (Acts viii. 9). It is 
 possible that, even after the Apostle received his 
 new name from Christ, the form Simon continued 
 to be the current name in the Church of Jerusalem. 
 Some point to Luke xxiv. 34 (where the Eleven and 
 those with them meet the two disciples from Em- 
 maus with the tidings “ the Lord is risen indeed, and 
 hath appeared to Simon ”—as if that term came most 
 naturally to the lip) in proof that the original name 
 remained in general use in the circle of the disciples. 
 The more Hebrew-looking form, Symeon, is given 
 once or twice in the New Testament to our Apostle, 
 and then with evident appropriateness. The first is 
 in the account of the so-called Council of the Apostles 
 at Jerusalem, where it is used by James, the head of 
 the Jewisli-Christian Church (Acts xv. 14, Revised 
 Version). The second (where, however, the oldest 
 documents vary to some extent between Simon and 
 Symeon) is in the inscription of the Second Epistle 
 of Peter, where the writer may wish to enlist the 
 sympathy of his readers by setting in the foreground 
 his own Jewish origin and the common platform 
 of grace occupied equally by Jews like himself and 
 Gentiles like them. 
 
 4. HIS PARENTAGE AND HOME. His father’s 
 name is mentioned several times by Christ Himself, 
 and in slightly different forms. In Matthew xvi. 17 
 it is given as Jona, or rather Jonah ; in John i. 42, 
 xxi. 15, 16, 17, according to the best readings, as 
 John. There is a tradition that his mother was 
 called Johanna. But she is nowhere named in the 
 New Testament. He had a brother, Andrew (John 
 
13 
 
 i. 40), who is supposed by some to have been his 
 junior, as he is always named after him in the lists 
 of the apostles. It is impossible, however, to say 
 which of the two was the elder. There are only 
 three passages (in addition to the lists of the apostles 
 and the references in Matthew iv. 18; Mark i. 
 16, 29, xiii. 3) in which Andrew is prominent. 
 These are all in the fourth Gospel, and give the same 
 view of him as a man of “ ready helpfulness ” 
 (Green). Compare John i. 40-42, where he brings 
 “his own brother Simon” to Jesus, with vi. 8, 9, 
 where he suggests the number of loaves and fishes 
 available, and xii. 22, where along with Philip he 
 tells Jesus of the desire of the Greeks. The 
 native place of the brothers, as we learn from 
 John i. 44, was the Bethsaida to which also Philip 
 belonged. Two towns of this name seem to be 
 mentioned in the Gospels.® One of these, known as 
 Bethsaida of Galilee, lay on the western shore of 
 the Sea of Tiberias, not far from Capernaum. The 
 other was situated at the point where the Jordan 
 enters the lake, in the district of Lower Gaulonitis, 
 and was known as Bethsaida Julias, having been so 
 named by Philip, the Tetrarch, in honour of Julia, 
 the daughter of the Emperor Augustus. These 
 two towns were the scenes of some of Christ’s most 
 memorable deeds. In the neighbourhood of the 
 latter the feeding of the 5000 took place. The 
 former is described as the scene of mighty works, 
 the misuse of which brought Christ’s woe upon it 
 (Matt. xi. 21; Luke x. 13). It was to the former 
 that Simon belonged. It was within the terri¬ 
 tory of Naphtali. But we cannot infer from that, 
 or from any statement in the Gospels, the tribe to 
 which he belonged. It is rarely that the tribe 
 relation is mentioned in connection with the per- 
 
 a Dr W. Thomson, however, the author of the valuable work “ The 
 Land and the Book,” whose opinion is of great weight, supposes that 
 they were really parts, the eastern and western parts, of one town 
 planted at the spot where the Jordan falls into the lake. 
 
14 
 
 sonages of the New Testament (cf. Luke ii. 36 ; 
 Acts iv. 36 ; Rom. xi. 1 ; Phil. iii. 5; Heb. vii. 14 ; 
 Rev. v. 5). The place was beautifully situated on 
 the lovely, changeful Sea of Tiberias, known in 
 the Old Testament as the Sea of Chinneroth or 
 Chinnereth (Num. xxxiv. 11; Josh. xi. 2; 1st Kings 
 xv. 20), and in the New Testament as that of 
 Gennesaret, so noted for its picturesque shores and 
 busy populace. Simon’s childhood and youth, there¬ 
 fore, were spent among scenes well fitted to leave a 
 deep impression upon an open, susceptible mind such 
 as his was. Many have attempted to describe the 
 witchery of the Sea of Galilee. It has been compared 
 to the Lake of Lucerne, the peerless sea of the four 
 forest-cantons of Switzerland. It has been repre¬ 
 sented as “ the Windermere of Palestine in point of 
 size, its lake of Geneva in point of surroundings ” 
 (Reed). A recent traveller speaks of his first view 
 of it as recalling in miniature the sight of the latter 
 lake “from the crest of the Jura,as it is approached 
 by the old Besan§on road,—Hermon taking the place 
 of Mont Blanc, the plain of Gennesaret recalling the 
 Pays de Yaud, and the steep banks opposite, the 
 bold coast of Savoy .” a 
 
 5. HIS EARLY OCCUPATION AND AS¬ 
 SOCIATES. Fishing was the occupation that en¬ 
 gaged many of the people of these parts. Simon 
 seems to have been brought up to this occupation. 
 We find him plying it till he was summoned to 
 leave all and follow Christ. We find him resuming 
 it when Jesus ceased to journey with the Twelve 
 (John xxi. 3). From the circumstance that the 
 father is so seldom mentioned in the Gospels, and 
 then only by name, it has been inferred that he had 
 died when Simon and his brother were yet quite 
 young, and that Zebedee and Salome had acted the 
 
 a Tristram’s “ Land of Israel,” p. 410. He says that his “ first gaze on 
 the Sea of Galilee, lighted up with the bright sunshine of a spring 
 afternoon, was one of the moments of life not easily forgotten.” 
 
15 
 
 part of parents to the lads. If this inference is 
 accepted, it gives an interesting view of the rise of 
 the friendship between Peter and John, and leaves 
 us to imagine the four youths, Simon, Andrew, 
 James, and John starting in life together, beginning 
 to work together, united from their boyhood as 
 comrades and as learners of the fisherman’s art. 
 Pishing probably was a fairly remunerative trade. 
 The lake avrs full of fish. Bethsaida itself means 
 “ house of fish,” or Fislitown, as we might call 
 it; and, if we can trust the account of travel¬ 
 lers, it had a good right to the name. 8 There 
 was a good market, too, for the produce among 
 the villages and towns with which the neigh¬ 
 bourhood was studded. Simon’s family, there¬ 
 fore, is not to be regarded as altogether a poor one. 
 Andrew and he seem to have been partners with 
 John and James, and the ship in which Zebedee was 
 left, when the call of Jesus came to his sons, is stated 
 to have had “hired servants” on board (Mark i. 16-20). 
 Simon himself nowhere appears in the character 
 of a hired servant, but always in an independent 
 position. There is repeated mention of a house of 
 his in Capernaum, although the terms in which it is 
 referred to do not make it certain that it was his 
 own property (cf. Matthew viii. 14 ; Mark i. 29-30 ; 
 Luke iv. 38-39). When he speaks, too, of having 
 left all in order to follow Christ, he seems to speak 
 with the consciousness of having given up what was 
 of some value (Mark x. 28). These and other hints 
 point to Simon’s circumstances, in his father’s house 
 and later, as honourable in a social point of view, 
 and as elevated above penury, if not actually easy. 
 
 a The author of “ Rob Roy on the Jordan,” pp. 344-45, gives a lively 
 account of the great abundance of fish in the vicinity of Bethsaida, 
 and of the attractions which they find in the warm waters and 
 plentiful food furnished by the hot springs which flow in there. Ke 
 describes them as crowding the water in a large semi-circle “by 
 myriads round the warm river mouth,” basking, tumbling, jostling, 
 with their backs above the surface, dense shoals of them “ moving in 
 brigades as if by concert or command.” 
 
It) 
 
 6. HIS EDUCATION. The child of such a home 
 as that into which Simon was horn would not be 
 allowed to grow up entirely uneducated. It is 
 true that in Acts iv. 13 we read that the Jewish 
 dignitaries in Jerusalem were astonished at the 
 boldness of Peter and John when they “perceived 
 that they were unlearned and ignorant men.” But 
 nothing more is meant by this than that they made 
 no pretension to the professional knowledge in 
 which the Scribes prided themselves. Their speech 
 had nothing in it of the Rabbinical culture and 
 phraseology which went for learning in these 
 days, and this betrayed them to be mere laymen. 
 They might be this, however, and yet be by no 
 means without education. There is no reason to 
 suppose that the youthful Simon ever sat at the 
 feet of any eminent Rabbi as Saul of Tarsus did 
 with Gamaliel. But, though left quite unversed in 
 the painful niceties of the legal and theological lore 
 that made the Jewish ecclesiastic, he would, in all 
 probability, be instructed with care in the Scrip¬ 
 tures, in natural history, in the great Messianic hope 
 as it was then rudely understood, in the tradition of 
 Israel, and in other parts of ordinary education. The 
 Jews have ever been honourably distinguished for 
 their zeal in education, and for the esteem in which 
 they have held the teacher’s profession." 
 
 a A recent Jewish writer expresses himself thus:—“ Education, 
 both religious and secular, has, in all ages and in every country, occu¬ 
 pied a prominent position in the list of the more sacred obligations 
 which our forefathers were anxious to perform.” He speaks of 
 the Jewish sages of the early Christian centuries as having honoured 
 the school as “ the very essence of life,” the teacher’s calling 
 as “the highest and holiest of all pursuits,” and the work of 
 instruction as “Divine work.” The memory of Joshua, the son of 
 Gamla, is held in special regard as that of the man who, some 
 eighteen centuries ago, was mainly instrumental in perfecting the 
 ancient Jewish system, arranging for the erection of schools in every 
 town and village, and for the compulsory attendance of children from 
 the age of six or seven. The sayings of the sages include many like 
 the following:—“ The world exists only by the breath of our school 
 children”; “a town which has no school and no school children 
 6hould be demolished”; “When thou seest delightful gardens by a 
 
17 
 
 7. HIS ACQUAINTANCE WITH GREEK. It is 
 
 clear that our Apostle had not the culture or the 
 knowledge of letters which Paul had. There is 
 nothing to show that he had any familiarity with 
 Greek literature or any claim to book-learning. He 
 was able, nevertheless, in later life, as his First 
 Epistle very clearly indicates, to write a good 
 Greek style. Even though we may suppose 
 Mark to have assisted him in this, and even to 
 have written at his dictation, it still remains true 
 that he was no mean master of Greek. And this is 
 confirmed by other considerations, such as his con¬ 
 versation with Cornelius, the centurion of the Italian 
 band (Acts x.), which in all probability would be in 
 Greek. It is not unlikely, therefore, that in his 
 youth Simon had received some instruction in Greeks 
 In any case he must have acquired in youth, whether 
 in the school or otherwise, an acquaintance with 
 Greek which, in course of time, ripened into ability 
 to write as well as speak it with power. In those 
 times the Jews were, to a considerable extent, 
 bilinguar, like the Highlanders of Wales and Scot¬ 
 land at present. A degenerate form of the tongue 
 anciently spoken by the Hebrews, a form made up of 
 mixed elements derived from Syria and Chaldaea, 
 and known as the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic, was the 
 vernacular. But alongside of it Greek, which was 
 then the great language of the world, was spoken. 
 
 stream, and bright stars in the sky, then thou hast a picture of 
 faithful teachers who nurse, foster, and watch the tender plants, and 
 cause benign light to beam into the yet dark world of the growing 
 youth”; “ The teacher and the school children form the most beautiful 
 ornament of mankind, and, like a most costly coronet of pearls 
 intended for the adornment of queens and princesses, they are 
 worthy of occupying the highest and foremost place in society.” 
 The Jewish historian, Josephus, says: “ Our principal care of all is 
 this: to educate our children well.” See Spiers’, “ The School System 
 of the Talmud.” 
 
 a It is interesting to notice that the great Rabbis, at least those of 
 the early Christian centuries, recommended even for Jewish females 
 not only a sound training in religion and in domestic matters, but also 
 instruction in a foreign language, particularly Greek.—Spiers’ “ The 
 School System of the Talmud,” p. 10. 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 The Old Testament itself circulated so freely in a 
 Greek translation, that known as the Septuagint, that 
 the quotations made by our Lord and His Apostles 
 in the New Testament are found to be taken for the 
 most part from that version. In Northern Israel 
 Simon would have special opportunities for acquir¬ 
 ing a command of colloquial Greek, as that district of 
 the Holy Land was most visited by foreigners. It is 
 to be noticed, too, that Andrew and Philip , the names 
 of Simon’s brother and fellow townsman, are of Greek 
 form—a fact which, with many others, is taken to 
 point to the familiar use of Greek by Jews in the 
 great centres of population and industry. 
 
 8. VALUE OF HIS EARLY TRAINING. The 
 kind of life to which we see the youth accustomed, in 
 Bethsaida and on the lake, was exactly that which 
 would go to form and strengthen many of the ele¬ 
 ments of character afterwards seen in the man. It 
 has been said of the fisherman’s business in life that 
 “none other will commend itself so vividly to the 
 reflecting mind except, indeed, the occupation of a 
 shepherd,” in respect of “taste and poetical fitness 
 for association with the early life of the apostles” 
 (Howson). But it also formed a very positive and 
 helpful training of character. The toil, the danger, 
 the endurance, the watchfulness involved in it went 
 to make an open, energetic, hardy, courageous nature, 
 —a man of a practical turn, quick to see, ready to act, 
 apt, indeed, to feel keenly and move suddenly, but 
 also patient in working towards an end, capable of 
 adapting himself to new circumstances, and full of 
 resource. The intercourse which he enjoyed, too, 
 with all varieties of men, native and foreign, in 
 Bethsaida and the neighbouring towns and villages, 
 tended at the same time to make him less provincial, 
 and to give him both a knowledge of men and a 
 habit of placing himself alongside of them, which 
 proved gifts of great value to the future Apostle. 
 
 9. HIS GALILEAN NATIVITY. Like all the 
 
19 
 
 other members of the original Twelve, with the pro¬ 
 bable exception of the traitor, Simon was a Galilean, 
 and he was that out and out. Much is implied in 
 this. It means that he was brought up in the heart 
 of the densest and busiest population in the Holy 
 Land, in a district which has been compared to the 
 manufacturing parts of England, a country famed for 
 its industries, and so thickly peopled that nine cities 
 are said to have been planted on the margin of the lake. 
 The Galileans had a marked character of their own. 
 They had a reputation for an independence and energy 
 which often ran out into turbulence. They were, at 
 the same time, of a franker and more transparent 
 disposition than their brethren in the South. In all 
 these respects, in bluntness, impetuosity, headiness, 
 and simplicity, Simon was a genuine Galilean. The 
 people of Northern Israel also spoke a peculiar dialect. 
 They had a difficulty with the guttural sounds and 
 some others, and their pronunciation was reckoned 
 harsh in Judea. The Galilean accent stuck to our 
 Apostle all through his career. It betrayed him as a 
 follower of Christ when he stood within the judg¬ 
 ment-hall (Mark xiv. 70). It betrayed his own 
 nationality and that of those conjoined with him on 
 the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 7). Things had hap¬ 
 pened, too, in Galilee which, by report or by experi¬ 
 ence, may have impressed his mind. The rising of 
 Judas of Galilee, which took place about a.d. 6, 
 causing great popular ferment and intensifying the 
 political feelings connected with the Messianic hope, 
 was one of these. And he is always mindful of his 
 native district. When he declares the Gospel to 
 Cornelius, it is as the word which was published 
 beyond all Judea, and began from Galilee (Acts 
 x. 37). 
 
 10. HIS LIFE PREVIOUS TO HIS INTRODUC¬ 
 TION TO JESUS. Nothing is told us directly of 
 the events of his life up to the period of his first 
 meeting with Jesus. We may infer, how r ever, that 
 
20 
 
 he married during that period. Hie wife’s mother is 
 alluded to in the Gospels (Matthew viii. 14 ; Mark i. 
 30 ; Luke iv. 38). There is also a passage in one of 
 Paul’s Epistles (1 Cor. ix. 5), which speaks of him as 
 a married man. For, though some interpreters, 
 especially those of the Koman Catholic Church, have 
 taken that passage to point simply to the practice 
 of having a female attendant to look after his wants 
 when travelling, it undoubtedly refers to Peter as 
 having married a sister in the faith, and as being 
 accompanied by his believing wife on his missionary 
 journeys. Nothing further is known from the New 
 Testament about Peter’s wife, although it is supposed 
 by some that she is referred to in 1 Pet. v. 13, the 
 words there meaning, “ she that is in Babylon, 
 elected together with you, saluteth you.” There is a 
 tradition that her name was Perpetua or Concordia, 
 and that she was martyred along with her husband. 
 It has been inferred from Christ’s words to Peter in 
 Matthew xix. 29, that he had children, and some take 
 the phrase, “ Marcus my son,” in the closing saluta¬ 
 tions of the First Epistle of Peter (v. 13), in the 
 literal sense. These suppositions, however, have 
 very little foundation, and the last mentioned phrase 
 is best understood to refer to one whose spiritual 
 father Peter claimed to be, namely, the John Mark 
 who is mentioned as Paul’s companion on his first 
 missionary journey (Acts xii. 25), the cousin of Bar¬ 
 nabas (Col. iv. 10), and the son of that Mary in 
 whose house Peter found refuge on his deliverance 
 from prison (Acts xii. 12). During this early period, 
 too, Simon appears to have become one of the 
 Baptist’s disciples, or at least one of his hearers. 
 The Synoptical Gospels give us no account of the 
 men of Northern Israel who had been drawn south¬ 
 ward by the fame of the Baptist’s ministry. But the 
 Fourth Gospel offers a lively picture of these Gali¬ 
 lean adherents. It speaks distinctly of two of these 
 disciples of the Baptist—Andrew and another, who, 
 
21 
 
 being unnamed, is left to be identified, according to 
 the writer’s habit, with the evangelist John himself. 
 And as Simon was with them, and no other explana¬ 
 tion of his absence from his distant Galilean home is 
 hinted at, he is to be understood as being there for 
 the same reason as the others (John i. 35-40). What 
 he saw and heard while he waited on the ministry of 
 John, pondering his testimony to the Kingdom of 
 God, his call to righteousness and repentance, and 
 the significance of his baptism, formed his immediate 
 preparation for the recognition of the true Messiah. 
 
 Points for further Inquiry. 
 
 1. The tribal constitution in New Testament times. 
 
 2. The state of education among the Jews in our Lord’s 
 time. 
 
 3. The question as to the language usually spohen by 
 Christ and the Apostles. 
 
 4. The different modes of fishing and the various hinds 
 of nets employed by the Jews. References to these in the 
 Gospels. 
 
 5. The Messianic ideas prevalent immediately before 
 Christ’s advent. 
 
 6. The state of popular Jewish feeling in Peter’s boy¬ 
 hood. 
 
 7. Distinctions between the men of Northern and those 
 of Southern Israel. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 EARLY ASSOCIATION WITH CHRIST. 
 
 11. HIS FIRST INTERVIEW WITH JESUS 
 
 (John i. 40, 41). Simon comes very suddenly upon 
 the scene. He is brought upon the page of the 
 
22 
 
 Fourth Gospel in a way which has been compared to 
 the abrupt appearance of Elijah the Tishbite in the 
 current of the Old Testament history (1 Kings 
 xvii. 1). He is introduced to us just as he is himself 
 being introduced to Jesus. By this time he seems 
 to have been residing no longer in Bethsaida but in 
 Capernaum, the town which is spoken of as Christ’s 
 “own city” (Matt. ix. 1). Situated on the commer¬ 
 cial thoroughfare between Syria and the south, 
 occupied by a Roman garrison (Matt. viii. 5), 
 apparently a custom-house centre (Matt. ix. 9, 10; 
 xvii. 24; Mark ii. 1,14; Luke v. 27), it was in various 
 respects a place of great importance." We cannot 
 determine very precisely how old Simon now was. 
 The date of his birth is nowhere given. Early 
 Christian writers generally regarded him as well 
 advanced in years at the time of his death. From 
 what appears about his being married, it has been 
 assumed that “his life ran parallel in its earlier years 
 to that of our Lord and the Baptist.” 6 All that we 
 can safely say is that he may have been between 
 thirty and forty years of age when he was first intro¬ 
 duced to Christ . c The scene of this interview is in 
 the district near the J ordan where the Baptist was 
 preaching and baptising. The Fourth Evangelist is 
 careful to name a place of such solemn interest. 
 Our Authorised English Version calls it Bethabara 
 (John i. 28), but the Revised Version follows the 
 better authorities in preferring the name Bethany. 
 It lay in Perea, the territory across the Jordan . d 
 
 a Modem travellers are much divided in opinion as to its exact site, 
 some identifying it with the modern Tell Hum , which lies about a 
 couple of miles south-west of the point at which the Jordan enters 
 the Sea of Galilee; others with Khan Minyeh , about three miles 
 further south, close upon the Lake, and at the extremity of the Plain 
 of Gennesaret. Less likely places have also been proposed. 
 
 b So Dean Plumptre, Epistles of St Peter and St Jude , p. 6, and 
 others. 
 
 c So Canon Cook in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. 
 
 d It appears, therefore, that there were two places of the name of 
 Bethany, this obscure village beyond Jordan, and the well-known 
 Bethany of the Mount of Olives. The distance of the one from the 
 
23 
 
 Here the Baptist had given his great testimony in 
 depreciation of himself and in honour of Messiah 
 (John i. 19-28). Here on the following day he had 
 made his wonderful confession of Jesus as “the 
 Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” 
 (John i. 29-34). Here, too, the day after, in the 
 presence of two of his disciples, he had spoken again 
 of Jesus as the Lamb of God. On hearing this wit¬ 
 ness, Andrew and John, who are identified as the 
 disciples in question, followed Jesus, a and, on His 
 invitation, went with Him into the place where He 
 was then residing. We are not told where that was, 
 but it was during this abode with Him, if not earlier, 
 that they came fully to recognise Him as Messiah; 
 and it was on their leaving this dwelling-place of 
 Jesus that the interview took place between 
 Andrew and Simon, which resulted in the 
 bringing of the latter to the same Master. 6 
 
 other may he inferred from the fact that it took our Lord apparently 
 about three days to travel between them (cf. John x. 40, xi. 1,17). 
 As we have two places with the same name Bethany, so we have two 
 Canas, two Ramahs, two Antiochs, two Bethlehems, and, as we have 
 already seen, two Bethsaidas. 
 
 a How much is intended by the phrase “followed Jesus” in John i. 
 37,40 is matter of dispute. Some hold it to mean nothing more than 
 that they wished to know more about Him, and went after Him for 
 that purpose. Others take it to imply distinct discipleship. Even if 
 we cannot go the length of saying (with Westcott) that it expresses a 
 “ choice made once for all,” we can speak of this act of following Jesus as 
 the first step which was to decide their whole life (So Godet) and, in 
 the happy phrase of an older interpreter, as “ the first origins of the 
 Christian Church.” 
 
 6 There is some difference of opinion as to the chronology here. The 
 “tenth honr” referred to in John i. 39, is interpreted as 10 a.m. by 
 those who think that the Evangelist adopts the Roman reckoning, and 
 as 4 p.m. by those who think the Jewish mode is followed. The day 
 on which Andrew brought Simon is supposed by some to have been 
 the day after they abode with Jesus, by others to have been the same 
 day. The order of events at this point of the Gospel history has largely 
 been taken to be as follows: fii’st day, the Baptist with the deputation 
 from Jerusalem (John i. 19-28); second day, his testimony to Jesus 
 (John i. 29-34); third day, his second testimony to Jesus (John i. 
 36-39); fourth day, the bringing of Simon (John i. 40-42); fifth day, 
 the bringing of Nathanael (John i. 43-51); sixth day, no record, 
 seventh day, the marriage at Cana (John ii. 1-11). But some of the 
 best scholars identify the fourth day in this succession with the third 
 
The words, “he first findeth his own brother Simon” 
 (John i. 41), do not imply (although they are so 
 understood by not a few) that Andrew and John 
 both went in quest of Simon, and that Andrew 
 anticipated John in reaching him. They rather 
 mean that Andrew and John went each in quest of 
 his own brother, and that Andrew found Simon 
 before John found James. The Evangelist’s entire 
 method of narration, however, shows that in his view 
 Simon was the important figure, and the bringing of 
 him the event of foremost interest. The four com¬ 
 rades appear together here, as they also appear again, 
 e.g ., in Matt. iv. 18 (with the parallels), Mark 
 xiii. 3 ; and what the two of them in the glad sur¬ 
 prise of their own discovery burn to report to the 
 others is something that would profoundly move any 
 Israelite—the tidings of the advent of Messias. 
 
 12. THE NEW NAME AND THE PREPARA¬ 
 TORY CALL (John i. 42). Andrew, like John, had 
 been indebted to the Baptist for the joy of finding 
 the long-expected “Consolation of Israel.” It was 
 his own great work in life to make his brother a 
 partner in that joy. What happened at the memor¬ 
 able meeting between Simon and Jesus? The 
 vocation which lay before the man was intimated by 
 the announcement of a change of name. Jesus at 
 once recognising him,« declared that whereas at 
 present he was known as Simon, he would here¬ 
 after be called Cephas. As in the cases of Abram, 
 Sarai, and Jacob, changes in destiny or character 
 are not seldom indicated in the Bible by changes of 
 
 a John expresses this by a significant term (“beheld,” ch. i. 42), 
 which occurs only once again in John’s Gospel (in the “ looking upon” 
 of Verse 36 of the same chapter), and denotes a fixed look or pene¬ 
 trating gaze. It is supposed by some to imply that Christ’s recogni¬ 
 tion of Simon was due simply to His prophetic intuition, and that this 
 surprised and impressed him. It is more probable, however, that 
 Simon wa3 introduced as his brother by Andrew. The term then 
 would express the look of interest which Jesus fixed upon him, and 
 perhaps His prophetic insight into his character and capabilities, to 
 which expression was given in the new name. 
 
25 
 
 name. This name is taken from the Aramaic ver¬ 
 nacular, and corresponds to the Greek Peter, Petros, 
 which meaus a piece of rock—“ a mass of rock de¬ 
 tached from the living rock” (Westcott). It is a 
 term which becomes a natural emblem of firmness 
 and stability, and it is used as such by the classical 
 writers. On Christ’s lips it implied that He under¬ 
 stood the strength of Simon’s character,gauged the great 
 possibilities of his nature, and read beforehand what 
 he was destined to be to Himself and to the brethren. 
 Jesus speaks indeed in the future, “thou shalt be 
 called.” But not as if the possession of the name 
 was postponed till the future. His meaning rather 
 is that Simon was from that time forth to have the 
 new name, and that he would make his title to it 
 good. The importance of this occasion is indicated 
 by what has been fitly described as “the circum¬ 
 stantiality of the solemn ceremony of the name¬ 
 giving ” (Meyer). The act formed the first step in 
 that training for his high vocation which he was to 
 receive at Christ’s own hands, and prepared the way 
 for the more distinct and decided call which was soon 
 to follow. We are told nothing about the impression 
 made on Simon. No word uttered by him in reply 
 to Christ’s announcement is reported. “He leaves 
 the stage a mute actor, and we cannot tell with 
 what feelings he listened to the address” (Reed). 
 The new name lived alongside the old one, and gradu¬ 
 ally displaced it. The Aramaic form Cephas indeed 
 occurs nowhere else in the Gospels. In these, as well 
 as in the Book of Acts, he is Peter, or Simon Peter, 
 or “ Simon who also was named Peter.” But it is 
 the form preferred by Paul. See 1 Cor. i. 12; iii. 22 ; 
 ix. 5 ; xv. 5 ; Gal. i. 18 ; ii. 9, 11, 14. In all these, 
 even in the last two, the Revised Version follows the 
 best documents in adopting Cephas ; in Gal. ii. 7, 8, 
 however, the form Peter occurs. It is to be noticed, 
 too, that our Lord Himself for the most part continues 
 to use the name Simon. Luke xxii. 34 is an exception. 
 
26 
 
 There is a purpose, perhaps, in the selection which 
 He makes. Thus it is Simon, not Peter, that He 
 uses when He singles this disciple out for warning 
 (Luke xxii. 31, where also the transition to Peter 
 in verse 34 is not without its solemn significance), for 
 sorrowful reproach in the garden of the Agony 
 (Mark xiv. 37), and for public restoration to office 
 after a grievous fall (John xxi. 15, 16, 17). In each 
 of these cases the use of the old name of nature 
 instead of the new name of grace may have had its 
 own painful meaning for the Apostle. 
 
 13. THE CALL BY THE LAKE (Matt, iv. 18-22; 
 Mark i. 16-20 ; Luke v. 1-11). Events followed this 
 first interview, such as the wedding miracle at 
 Cana, the visit of Jesus with Mary and others to 
 Capernaum, the purging of the Temple at the Pass- 
 over season, the journey through Samaria, arid others 
 (John ii.-iv.), in which Peter may have taken part, 
 although he is not specially mentioned in the 
 narrative. When we next meet him the scene has 
 shifted to Galilee. The first meeting, with the 
 solemn name-giving, had opened terms of personal 
 connection between Jesus and Simon. But it had 
 not attached the latter to the former as a constant 
 companion.® It would seem that Simon, as well as 
 others, had by-and-by found his way to the Galilean 
 home, and had resumed his ordinary work as a 
 fisherman. So, after an interval which it is not easy to 
 measure, we find him along with Andrew, James, and 
 John by the Lake of Galilee. We have three differ¬ 
 ent narratives to take account of here, and it is a 
 question how these are related to each other. Those 
 three synoptical narratives (Matt. iv. 18-22 ; Mark i. 
 
 a “ It was desirable," saysNeander, “that the first impression made 
 on Peter’s mind should continue to act on him in quiet—on which 
 account Christ at first left him to himself; and when, by repeated 
 operations, everything in his disposition was sufficiently prepared, he 
 received him into the number of his disciples who afterwards accom¬ 
 panied Him everywhere .”—Planting of Christianity , i., p. 369, Bohn’s 
 translation. 
 
27 
 
 16-20 ; Luke v. 1-11) appear clearly to deal with an 
 incident quite distinct from that in John i. 35-51. 
 The circumstances are very different. In John, 
 e.g., the scene is in Judea or Perea, in the Synoptists 
 Galilee ; in John there is no accompanying miracle, 
 in the Synoptists there is; in John the time seems 
 somewhat earlier (nearer Christ’s baptism) than in 
 the Synoptists ; in John two persons are introduced 
 —viz., Philip and Nathanael—who do not appear in 
 the Synoptists ; in John no previous acquaintance is 
 suggested between Jesus and Simon, while in the 
 Synoptists that seems to be the case. But the 
 question is also raised whether the three Synoptical 
 Gospels report here one and the same event. It is 
 affirmed by some excellent scholars that Luke’s 
 account is distinct from the others, that it records a 
 meeting subsequent to the one dealt with by Matthew 
 and Mark, and that the words “ they forsook all and 
 followed him,” with which Luke (v. 11) closes his 
 narrative, indicate that only then did the final and 
 determining call come to Simon and his comrades. 
 The three records certainly exhibit interesting points 
 of difference. Luke’s is fullest, dwelling with more 
 detail upon the earlier section of the scene, and 
 giving a vivid statement of the impression produced 
 on Peter. Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, 
 fix our attention more especially on the way in 
 which Christ’s call was conveyed to the several 
 friends, and pass over various things instanced by 
 Luke. It is best, nevertheless, with many of the 
 most competent interpreters, to take the three 
 narratives as reports of the same event. Thus it 
 would seem that the partners have had a toilsome 
 and unsuccessful night’s fishing, and are engaged, 
 two of them in mending the nets, and two of them 
 in trying what is meant perhaps for a final cast in 
 shallow water, when Jesus, pressed by the crowd, 
 comes after them, and takes refuge in Simon’s boat. 
 He addresses the people from the vessel, and then 
 
28 
 
 bids the crew launch out anew into deep water. 
 Simon, prompt as ever with speech, explains at once 
 the small promise of success which the experience of 
 the night held out, and his readiness, nevertheless, 
 at the Master’s® word to try another draught. The 
 mighty haul is taken which threatens to rend the 
 nets and sink the boat. The point of the miracle 
 was not the mere mass of fish ; for the lake swarmed 
 with fish, and vast hauls might often be secured. 
 “ The shoals,” says a recent traveller, describing his 
 own experience, “ were marvellous—black masses of 
 many hundred yards long, with the black fins pro¬ 
 jecting out of the water as thickly as they could 
 pack. No wonder that any net should break which 
 enclosed such a shoal” (Tristram’s Land of Israel , 
 p. 414). The miraculous lay in the coming of the 
 mass in such circumstances and at Christ’s word. 
 The effect on Simon’s receptive mind is instan¬ 
 taneous. 6 The Master’s possession of a holy, super¬ 
 human power suddenly reveals itself to him, and 
 provokes the overwhelming sense of his own sinful¬ 
 ness. He fears the nearness of a holy majesty so 
 different from what he is himself conscious of, and 
 gives quick expression to this in a request (so like 
 that of the Gadarenes in terms, so unlike it in spirit; 
 cf. Matthew viii. 34) that Jesus might depart from 
 
 a Luke’s word here (v. 5) for Master is one which is used by 
 him alone among the New Testament writers, and only in application 
 to Christ. See ch. viii. 24, 45; ix. 33, 49; xvii. 13—the other passages 
 in which it occurs. It means superintendent , and is used by Luke 
 perhaps as better suited to Gentile readers than the ordinary term 
 Rabbi or teacher, which occurs in the other evangelists, but never in 
 Luke. It may be noticed, too, that in Luke v. 4, while the second 
 command, “ let down,” is in the plural, as requiring several hands for 
 its execution, the first command, “launch out” (which also is the 
 proper nautical term for getting out into deep sea), is in the singular, 
 being addressed to Simon as steersman or pilot. 
 
 b “ The manifestation of the Divine power to him in the exercise of 
 his own trade was characteristic of the Divine operations generally in 
 the history of Christianity; he was thus led from the carnal to the 
 spiritual. All his previous impressions were revived and deepened by 
 this sudden exhibition of the power of a word from Christ.”— 
 Neander, Life of Christ, p. 172. 
 
29 
 
 him. How much must an experience of this kind, 
 which discovered him in humbling fashion to himself, 
 and gave him to see more than he had yet recognised 
 in Jesus, have contributed to the preparation of the 
 man for the appointed work ! How much, too, the 
 Master’s “ Fear not ” (so frequent a reassuring charge 
 in the Bible), and the distinct call, couched in terms 
 borrowed from the event itself, which now follows ! 
 The previous call had been simply personal and pre¬ 
 paratory. This one is official. It is the call to 
 become a disciple in the full sense of the word, and 
 to give the constant personal attendance upon Jesus 
 which the Jewish Rabbi expected of a disciple. It 
 is instantly and completely obeyed by Simon and the 
 rest, and the miracle becomes a sign of the work to 
 which the call designates them. 
 
 14. THE HEALING OF SIMON’S MOTHER- 
 IN-LAW (Matt. viii. 14-17; Mark i. 29-34; Luke 
 iv. 38-40). From the scene on the shore we are 
 carried next to Capernaum. Jesus and his friends 
 went perhaps direct from the lake, or soon after the 
 call there, to Capernaum, and into the Synagogue 
 there, where the demoniac was cured (Mark i. 21-28; 
 Luke iv. 31-37). From the Synagogue, as we learn 
 from Mark and Luke, they came into a house which 
 is called “ Peter’s house ” by Matthew, the “ house 
 of Simon and Andrew” by Mark, “Simon’s house” 
 by Luke. Here Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a 
 fever, to which Luke, “ the beloved physician,” gives 
 the professional name of “ great fever,” i.e, “ violent, 
 burning fever.” a The same type is said to prevail 
 still in these parts. Magical cures were in vogue 
 among the Jews. We get some idea of what 
 these were from the prescriptions detailed in the 
 Talmud. This kind of fever is dealt with there, and 
 a remedy is prescribed for it, of which “ the prin¬ 
 ce Luke’s familiarity with the terms and the matters of the 
 physician’s profession comes out repeatedly. See, e.g., chap. v. 12; 
 vi. 6; xxii. 50, 51; Acts iii. 6-8; iv. 22; xxviii. 8. 
 
30 
 
 cipal part is to tie a knife wholly of iron by a braid 
 of hair to a thorn bush, and to repeat on successive 
 days Exod. iii. 2, 3, then verse 4, and finally verse 
 5, after which the bush is to be cut down, while a 
 certain magical formula is pronounced” (Edersheim’s 
 Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah , i. p. 486). Only 
 when one knows something of the condition of 
 medical science so called in the Holy Land in our 
 Lord’s time, can he understand the pathos of such 
 statements in the Gospels as that about the woman 
 who “had suffered many things of many physicians” 
 (Mark v. 26). Jesus simply “rebuked the fever,” 
 and a cure was effected, so instantaneous and so 
 complete, that the sufferer at once rose and minis¬ 
 tered to the Healer and those with Him. This 
 miracle wrought in Simon’s own house, followed as it 
 was by a multitude of others at even, must have 
 deepened the impression of the divine in Jesus, 
 which had already been made so remarkably by the 
 draught of fishes. 
 
 15. HIS INTRUSIVE ZEAL. These incidents in 
 Capernaum seem to have been followed by a number 
 of events which served to prepare the disciples for 
 the approaching call to the greater responsibilities 
 of apostles. Simon probably accompanied Jesus in 
 various journeys in Galilee and elsewhere, hearing 
 Him preach the gospel of the kingdom, and witness¬ 
 ing such miracles as the cleansing of the leper and 
 the healing of the paralytic, and such events as the 
 call of Matthew (Matt. viii. 2-4; ix. 2-9; Mark i. 
 30-45; ii. 1-14; Luke v. 12-28). One incident 
 belonging to this period brings Simon forward again 
 in character. After the evening spent in works of 
 healing in Capernaum, J esus had an opportunity for 
 retirement and prayer. Simon, at the head of 
 others, broke in upon the Master’s solitude. It was 
 as if in his precipitate zeal he would reproach Him 
 for quitting a scene where there was much to do and 
 where He was sought by all. Simon spoke like one 
 
31 
 
 who feared that Jesus had thought to leave him. 
 He failed to understand what these secret com- 
 munings with His Father were to the Son of man, 
 and how far even His day’s work depended upon 
 them for its discharge. 
 
 16. CALL TO THE APOSTLESHIP (Matt. x. 
 2-4; Mark iii. 13-19; Luke vi. 12-19). The next 
 scene in which Simon is specially mentioned also 
 takes place apparently in the vicinity of Capernaum. 
 It is one in which he appears along with others, but 
 with an obvious pre-eminence. The hostility of the 
 ruling classes in Judea to Jesus had now taken 
 pronounced form. The scrupulous legalists had 
 joined hands with the worldly court-party. The 
 Pharisees had taken fierce offence at Christ’s teach¬ 
 ing on questions like the Sabbath law, and had 
 been in counsel with the Herodians for His destruc¬ 
 tion. The time had come for the Master to summon 
 around Him a select body of followers who were to 
 be more to Him than disciples. This solemn act was 
 preceded by the consecration of another night to 
 solitary prayer. He chose twelve to whom He gave 
 the name of Apostles, on whom He was to bestow 
 supernatural powers, and who were to be sent out 
 as His special envoys or delegates. Among these 
 Simon holds the first place. Each of the three 
 Synoptists pauses also to mention the new name 
 which he had received, as if from that time he was 
 publicly acknowledged to be what the name implied. 
 He obtains this precedence, neither because he was 
 older than others, nor because he had been the first 
 to enter the ranks of the disciples (in this Andrew 
 and John were both before him), but because He, 
 who knew what was in man, recognized him to 
 be the representative Apostle, and appointed him as 
 such to the foremost position. 
 
 Points for further Inquiry. 
 
 1. Peter's debt to the Baptist. 
 
32 
 
 2. The question as to the modes of reckoning time in 
 the Gospels. 
 
 3. The division oj the night into watches. 
 
 4. Comparison of Peter’s “Depart from me” with the 
 petition of the Gadarenes in Matt. viii. 34. 
 
 5. The importance oj name-givings in the Bible. 
 
 6. The state oj medical practice in Nejv Testament 
 times. 
 
 7. The great Jewish parties, Pharisees , Sadducees , 
 Herodians, their distinctions , and their hold upon 
 Northern Israel. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 FROM THE CALL TO THE APOSTLESH1P ON TO THE 
 GREAT CONFESSION. 
 
 17. A QUESTION AND A LESSON (Luke xii. 
 22-48). The Call of the Apostles seems to have 
 been followed by the Sermon on the Mount, a great 
 series of parables, a second circuit in Galilee, and a 
 number of events, such as the healing of the Cen¬ 
 turion’s servant, the raising of the widow’s son, the 
 Baptist’s delegation, the reception of the woman who 
 was a sinner, the stilling of the tempest, the raising 
 of Jairus’ daughter, the occurrence with the Gadarene 
 demoniacs, and others. These would all be helpful 
 in deepening and enlightening Peter’s faith as well 
 as that of the rest, and in preparing him and them 
 for the mission on which they were soon to be sent 
 forth alone. During this period Peter seldom ob¬ 
 tains separate or prominent mention. In the miracle 
 on Jairus’daughter he shares the same honour as 
 James and John. In one incident, belonging pro¬ 
 bably to this date, he appears in the characteristic 
 position of spokesman (Luke xii. 35-48). Jesus had 
 
33 
 
 been speaking of the necessity of watchfulness on the 
 part of His disciples. He had conveyed His warn¬ 
 ings in figurative terms, using first the image of ser¬ 
 vants waiting to welcome the master on his return 
 from the wedding, and then that of the good man of 
 a house and the guardian of his dwelling against the 
 entrance of thieves. Peter’s active mind, which 
 had been following the Lord’s words intently, was 
 arrested by something which he wished explained 
 to him. It was not that he found a difficulty, as 
 some suppose, with the strange change from the 
 emblem of servants to that of the goodman. That 
 would not stagger Peter; for the people of the 
 East were no doubt accustomed then, as they are 
 still, to the use of the most mixed and dissimilar 
 figures in illustrating the same truth. What was in 
 his mind was rather the honour which Jesus had 
 held out as in store for the watchful servant (Luke 
 xii. 37). He broke in, therefore, with a question 
 (which is reported only by Luke, ch. xii. 41) addressed 
 to Jesus with his usual frank impetuosity. He would 
 know whether the parable, and therefore the distinc¬ 
 tion of which it spoke, were meant only for the Apostles 
 or were intended for all. It was a question essentially 
 the same in spirit as a subsequent appeal by Peter, of 
 which Matthew (ch. xix. 27) preserves the record. 
 Jesus does not pause to notice the interruption and 
 give a direct reply. He proceeds to describe the faith¬ 
 ful servant and the unfaithful, but does this in such a 
 way as to expose the mistake that lay at the root of 
 Peter’s question, and to point the truth that in His 
 kingdom the measure of honour bestowed is the 
 measure of service expected. He “ makes as if He 
 were continuing His discourse without regard to 
 Peter’s enquiry. But in reality He gives to His 
 exhortation to vigilance such a turn that it results in 
 an exact answer to that enquiry. Compare a similar 
 form, ch. xix. 25, 26; John xiv. 22, 23, and else¬ 
 where ” (Godet). And the unlordly estimate which 
 
 c 
 
34 
 
 his great epistle proves Peter at last to have taken 
 of himself, shows how he profited by lessons like this. 
 See, e.g.y 1 Peter v. 1-3. 
 
 18. THE WALK UPON THE WATER (Matt. xiv. 
 22-33 ; cf. Mark vi. 45-56 ; John vi. 15-21). The 
 time came at length when Jesus could send forth His 
 Apostles on their honourable but novel work. It 
 was not until He had made His third circuit in 
 Galilee (Matt. x. 1-42; Mark vi. 6-12), and had well 
 prepared them for their vocation, that He carried 
 out the intention which He had expressed when He 
 chose them. They went forth gifted with miraculous 
 powers and fortified by special instructions. They 
 had to go upon their mission of healing and preach¬ 
 ing without the Master Himself. But they were 
 sent out considerately two by two, and were not 
 asked to venture on unfamiliar ground among 
 Gentiles or Samaritans. They were to limit them¬ 
 selves to the house of Israel, and to the territories of 
 Judea and Galilee. No special notice is taken of 
 Peter in the record of this event. But we can 
 imagine him to have gone forth with John as his 
 companion. Whom could the Lord more fitly unite 
 as one of the apostolic pairs than these two ? And 
 the finishing of this first mission of the Twelve at 
 once leads to an occurrence in which Peter takes the 
 foremost place. On the return of the Apostles with 
 the report of their work, Jesus, with a watchful 
 regard for their need, brings them privately by ship 
 to a desert place in the neighbourhood of Bethsaida, 
 where they may have retirement (cf. Mark vi. 32 ; 
 Luke ix. 10). This must have been the Bethsaida 
 Julias, the ruins of which are supposed yet to be 
 seen at Telui, at the north-east end of the Lake of 
 Gennesaret, and near which, as recent travellers 
 report, there is found a secluded tract which meets 
 the circumstances of the case. Here Jesus feeds, 
 with the five loaves and the two fishes, the multitude 
 of 5000 people who, in their eagerness to hear, have 
 
35 
 
 travelled round the head of the lake and anticipated 
 even the boat. After this great miracle He con¬ 
 strains the disciples to cross the sea again to the 
 other Bethsaida, or to the neighbourhood of Caper¬ 
 naum (Mark vi. 45 ; John vi. 17), while He Himself 
 seeks a quiet place where He may pray. Darkness 
 sets in. The disciples are distressed by the tossing 
 wave and the contrary wind. From the solitary spot 
 which He has made His oratory for the night, away 
 up on one of the neighbouring hills, He keeps the 
 lake in view. About the fourth watch of the night 
 (Mark vi. 48), or somewhere between 3 a.m. and 
 6 a.m., when they have been toiling apparently 
 some eight or ten hours, and are yet little more 
 than half across, a the beaten mariners discover a 
 figure walking towards them on the sea in the grey 
 and uncertain dawn. Sharing the superstitions of 
 the time, they cry out in terror as if it were a spirit 
 or phantom, perhaps the Spectre of the deep boding 
 shipwreck. The voice of Jesus reassures them, per¬ 
 haps all the more that they had probably already 
 seen His power over the winds and waves in the 
 miracle of the Stilling of the Tempest. There is one 
 heart, too, in the startled company that leaps up in 
 a singular response to the Master’s words. The 
 evangelist Matthew, and he alone of the four, intro¬ 
 duces Peter here by name, and relates at length a 
 scene which we should be sorry to miss, the precise 
 point of which, however, is not very easy to catch. 
 Perhaps with some lingering doubt whether this is 
 indeed his Lord, and promptly proposing a test 
 which will bring the matter to a conclusion, perhaps 
 supposing that as he has received power over unclean 
 spirits he may also have power over the elements, 
 perhaps impatient to come at once close to the 
 person of Jesus, as afterwards on the same lake 
 (John xxi. 7), Peter impetuously exclaims, “Lord, 
 
 a Compare here John’s statement of the furlongs rowed with the 
 width of the lake. 
 
36 
 
 if it be Thou, bid me come unto Thee on the 
 water.” Receiving the Lord’s invitation, he steps 
 unhesitatingly over the boat’s side, and begins to 
 walk upon the sea. But, as afterwards in the judg¬ 
 ment-hall, the confidence which had borne him up 
 bravely for the moment, suddenly fails him at the 
 pinch. Terror rushes in as his attention turns to 
 the boisterous elements. Feeling himself sink he 
 cries out for the Master, and is rescued and rebuked. 
 The courage in which he seemed to excel others is 
 discovered to be open to panic and surprise, because 
 beady and unreflecting. His confidence is seen to 
 be self-confidence. The incident is a severe dis¬ 
 cipline of his faith, revealing to himself and others 
 the uncertainties in the man who was the Rock 
 among the brethren. The apparent hero of the occa¬ 
 sion is reproached for his littleness. The peril 
 which besets the ambition to do great things for which 
 there is no call, and which serve no sufficient end, is 
 at the same time impressed on a mind that emi¬ 
 nently needed such a lesson. “ It was a useless 
 miracle,” says a thoughtful writer, “ for which Peter 
 asked ; the result was an exhibition not of his 
 strength, but of his weakness. . . . And the lesson 
 appears to me to be, True faith never attempts won¬ 
 ders for the sake of doing them. It relies on God 
 for everything in time of need, but never seeks or 
 manufactures occasions for marvellous experiences 
 or exhibitions of faith.” a 
 
 19. THE PROFESSION OF FAITH AT CAPER¬ 
 NAUM (John vi. 66-71). In words spoken in 
 Capernaum, in whole or in part in the synagogue 
 there (John vi. 59), Jesus had warned the people 
 against following Him for the sake of His miracles, 
 or for the loaves which He could provide. He 
 
 a See Lyman Abbott’s Commentary on Matthew and Mark, p. 192. 
 He remarks, too, on the way in which the Gospels narrate, without the 
 slightest reserve, and as no unhistorical records would, repeated in¬ 
 stances of failure in faith, in understanding Christ, and in miraculous 
 power. See e g , Matt. xvi. 10,11, 23; xvii. 16; Mark ix. 16-33. 
 
37 
 
 had described Himself as u the Bread which came 
 down from heaven,” and had checked the mur- 
 murings of the Jews. He had spoken of giving 
 His flesh for the life of the world, and had affirmed 
 the peculiar relation in which He stood to the 
 Father. His words proved an offence to many, 
 and were received as hard sayings not only by the 
 Jewish leaders and the volatile populace, but even 
 by some of His followers. “From that time,” 
 says John, “ many of His disciples went backward 
 and walked no more with Him.” a It was the first 
 serious secession, and it marked a crisis in His mis¬ 
 sion which Christ Himself profoundly felt. He 
 turned to the Twelve, as He saw others drawing off, 
 and in a pathetic question addressed to them the 
 test which had discovered so much unreality even 
 in disciples. But, as if He knew them too well to 
 believe it possible that they could act in the way 
 which His experience of others might suggest, He 
 gave His question a turn which expected a nega¬ 
 tive reply. It is as if He had said, “ Surely ye 
 also do not purpose to go away, do you 1 ?” Such 
 an appeal was certain to go straight to the heart- 
 of the warm, devoted Peter, with whom also the 
 impressions of the last scene upon the lake had 
 not yet faded. He answered the question of Jesus 
 by another of his own, which revealed how deep 
 a root his attachment to Christ now had, and how 
 much lie was conscious of having found in Him 
 —“ Lord, to whom shall we go V ’ He gave his rea¬ 
 son, too, for this. It was what he had seen Christ’s 
 words to be. They might stagger and repel others ; 
 
 a The phrase in John vi. 66, which the Authorised Version renders 
 “ from that time,” and the Revised Version “upon this,” is taken by 
 some of the best interpreters rather in the sense of “ on this account.” 
 As Meyer points out, the Evangelist has not in view a gradual process 
 of desertion, but rather a positive withdrawal which took place then 
 and at once, and was due to this discourse of Jesus, which “so 
 thoroughly undeceived them as regarded their earthly Messianic 
 hopes.” 
 
38 
 
 but to him they brought eternal life.® And to this 
 he added a declaration of faith, the remarkable deci¬ 
 sion and elevation of which must have been a sea¬ 
 sonable satisfaction to his Lord. Its exact terms, as 
 the Eevised Version and the best ancient authorities 
 put them, were these—“ And we have believed, and 
 know that Thou art the Holy One of God.” It was 
 given emphatically as the testimony of those who 
 ought to have known the Master best—“ we,” i.e., 
 “ we Apostles.” It gave faith its proper place as 
 prior to knowledge and the condition thereof in 
 the spiritual kingdom—“we have believed, and so 
 have come to know.” It recognised Christ as “ the 
 Holy One of God ” (not “ the Son of the living God,” 
 as the Authorised Version gives it)—an Old Testa¬ 
 ment title which described Him as the One “ who is 
 consecrated of God to be the Messiah through the 
 fulness of the Spirit and salvation vouchsafed Him ” 
 (Meyer). It was a testimony which showed how 
 much at least one of the Twelve had learned from 
 what Christ had been teaching and doing, and how 
 his convictions as to His claims had been deepening. 
 
 20. THE GREAT CONFESSION AT CAESAREA 
 PHILIPPI (Matt. xvi. 13-20; Mark viii. 27-30; 
 Luke ix. 18-21). Another profession of faith fol¬ 
 lows, and one of supreme importance as regards 
 Peter. Matthew gives the fullest account of the 
 circumstances, and to him we owe the completest 
 report of the terms of Peter’s memorable reply. 
 Mark and Luke narrate the whole more briefly, and 
 
 a In the expression—“ Thou hast the words of eternal life,” the 
 phrase “the words (or perhaps simple words, without the article) of 
 eternal life ” may mean either “ words about eternal life,” or “ words 
 which bring with them eternal life.” Professor "VVestcott shows that 
 the analogy of similar forms in John’s writings (e.g., the bread of life, 
 vi. 35; the light of life, viii. 12; the water of life, Rev. xxi. 6, xxii. 1, 
 17; the tree of life, Rev. ii. 7, xxii. 2, 14) is on the side of the second 
 meaning. He also points out that Peter “ does not speak here of the 
 completed gospel (“the word”), but of specific sayings which had 
 been felt to carry life in them. See Speaker's Commentary, on John 
 vi. 66. 
 
39 
 
 omit the words of honour addressed by Christ to 
 His follower. It has been affirmed, indeed, that this 
 declaration of faith which appears in the Synoptical 
 Gospels is really identical with the one which we 
 have already found recorded by John. But, while 
 they belong apparently to the same period, a careful 
 comparison shows them to be so different in circum¬ 
 stances, occasion, and object, that they must be 
 regarded as distinct. There is nothing strange in 
 having Christ represented as drawing forth such a 
 profession of faith on more than one occasion, nor 
 can it be said to be in any degree unnatural that the 
 apostle should repeat it. These two confessions, 
 indeed, are separated, according to some of the best 
 of those who have attempted to draw up a harmony 
 of the four Gospels, by various events of deep 
 interest, such as our Lord’s justification of His dis¬ 
 ciples for eating with unwashen hands, the healing of 
 the daughter of the Syrophenician woman, the cure 
 of the deaf and dumb man along with others, the 
 feeding of the 4000, the Pharisees’ demand for a 
 sign, the cautions against the leaven of the Pharisees, 
 the healing of the blind man of Bethsaida (Matt, 
 xv. 1—xvi. 12; Mark vii. 1—viii. 26). There is a 
 manifest difference, too, in the point and purpose of 
 the two, the former referring to the “ inward 
 character in which the apostles found the assur¬ 
 ance of life,” while this one is a confession of the 
 “public office and theocratic Person of the Lord.” a 
 Jesus was now in the neighbourhood of Caesarea 
 Philippi, a town occupying a magnificent site in the 
 far North, under the shadow of Hermon, and near 
 the more easterly of the two waters, which were 
 regarded as the sources of the Jordan. It is thus 
 described by the traveller Bobinson (vol. iii. p. 404) : 
 —“ The situation is unique ; combining in an un¬ 
 usual degree the elements of grandeur and beauty. 
 
 a They are thus distinguished by Westcott. See his Commentary 
 on John vi. 69. 
 
40 
 
 It nestles in its recess at the southern base of the 
 mighty Hermon, whiuh towers in majesty to an 
 elevation of 7000 or 8000 feet above. The abundant 
 waters of the glorious fountain spread over the 
 terrace luxuriant fertility and the graceful inter¬ 
 change of copse, lawn, and waving fields.” This 
 Caesarea, a which received its name in honour, partly 
 of the emperor and partly of the Tetrarch Philip 
 (the latter having greatly extended and adorned it), 
 is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament, except 
 in Matthew and Mark’s narratives of the present 
 incident. Neither has it any place in Old Testa¬ 
 ment history, unless it can be identified, as some 
 excellent authorities suppose, with Baal-Gad, the 
 spot noted as the northern or north-western limit 
 of Joshua’s march of conquest (Josh. xi. 17 ; xii. 7; 
 xiii. 5). In many respects it was a place of extra¬ 
 ordinary interest, with a history extending far back 
 into heathen times. It was the seat of a famous 
 sanctuary of the great god Pan. There was a 
 fitness, therefore, in selecting for the scene of so 
 decisive an acknowledgment of Christ’s claims, a 
 place so remarkably connected with the worship of 
 a deity held in peculiar honour in the later periods 
 of Greek and Roman heathenism. Its ancient 
 name Panium was retained in the form Paneas, 
 under which it was known as the seat of a Christian 
 bishopric in the time of the Crusades. It reappears, 
 too, in the modern Banias, which attracts the notice 
 of all travellers, both for its historical associations, 
 and for the immense fortress which has survived all 
 the changes in the fortunes of the town, and still 
 ranks as the greatest stronghold in the Holy Land. 
 
 21. THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS AT 
 CAESAREA. Here, then, on the borders of the 
 
 a To be carefully distinguished from the Caesarea of the Book of 
 Acts, which was built by Herod the Great, named after the Emperor 
 Augustus, and known as Caesarea Augusta, Caesarea Palestinae, or 
 Caesarea on the Sea 
 
41 
 
 Gentiles, at the point which marked the northern 
 boundary of His circuits, Jesus took His disciples 
 with Him, away from the busy populace and the 
 thronging hearers, to a secluded place where He 
 might pray (Luke ix. 18), and having them alone, 
 there put to them two solemn questions. Both the 
 questions and the answers are given in brief and gene¬ 
 ral form by Mark and Luke. But Matthew records 
 them more fully and definitely. From him we learn 
 that Jesus asked them first who men said that He, 
 the Son of man, was. a He wished to hear what 
 meaning was put by the people generally on 
 the title Son of Man , which He had been claim¬ 
 ing for Himself, and with which the people were 
 familiar from its use in the Book of Daniel. 
 The answer showed that the people had not 
 understood it to apply to Him in the Messianic 
 sense which it had in Daniel, but that, perplexed as 
 to who He was, some were saying that He might be 
 the Baptist risen, others Elijah returned, others 
 Jeremiah the Prophet, who was then very much in 
 the popular mouth, others still some other prophet 
 unnamed. Turning from these disappointing re¬ 
 ports of what others thought of Him, He asked the 
 disciples what they themselves took Him to be. 
 The question was Peter’s opportunity. Taking the 
 reply for all into his own mouth he declared that 
 Jesus was the Christ , the Son of the living God. The 
 former title showed that, in the general bluntness of 
 popular perception, the Twelve at least recognised 
 Jesus to be what Daniel meant by the name Son of 
 man , to wit, the Messiah. The latter showed that, 
 having received Him as the anointed Son of man, 
 they had now been led to see in Him more than 
 even that. For in this connection the title Son of God 
 
 a As the Revised Version indicates, ancient authorities vaiy, in 
 Matt, xvi, 13, between the form—“ Who do men say that the Son of 
 man is?” and the form—“Who do men say that I, the Son of man, 
 am?” 
 
42 
 
 appears to be more than a synonym for Messiah , and 
 to imply that Peter had come to recognise something 
 of his Master’s higher nature and peculiar relation 
 to God. It was a confession which came most fitly 
 from Peter’s lips, and one for which Christ had 
 waited long. Not until He had carried His Apostles 
 through a lengthened training, and now saw the 
 crisis hastening which was to be their trial as well as 
 His, did He seek the opportunity to bring it out. 
 Now that He had drawn it from the leader, it was to 
 be in its largeness and decisiveness at once a satis¬ 
 faction to himself, and to them a confirmation of 
 convictions which would immediately have to bear 
 the strain of all that He had to say about His suffer¬ 
 ings and death. 
 
 22. THE GREAT PROMISE TO PETER. 
 
 Various confessions of what Jesus was had been 
 made before this one. The Baptist had publicly 
 acknowledged Him as the Lamb of God. The 
 disciples had hailed Him as the Messiah. They that 
 were in the ship in the storm had even worshipped 
 Him as the Son of God (Matt. xiv. 33). But this 
 confession at Caesarea was something distinct from 
 all that had preceded it. Christ recognised its 
 supreme importance not only by pronouncing the 
 man who made it blessed , and addressing him with 
 marked solemnity, a but also by signalising it as made 
 only in virtue of a divine revelation. Peter had 
 had something to declare of Him. He had now some¬ 
 thing to declare of Peter. The disciple had said of 
 Him, “ Thou art the Christ.” He now said of the 
 disciple, “ Thou art Peter.” Taking up this name of 
 grace, Peter , which had been given previously, and 
 speaking (notice the force of the words, “And I 
 
 a Jesus calls him on this occasion Simon Bar-Jona (or Bar-Jonah, 
 with the Revised Version), using not only the personal name, but also 
 the patronymic, the form compounded of the term Bar , meaning son , 
 with the father’s name. We have similar patronymics in Bartholomew. 
 Bartimaeus, Barnabas, Bar-Jesus, &c. 
 
43 
 
 also say unto thee,” verse 18) as if He was to make 
 a solemn declaration on His side corresponding 
 to that just made by His apostle, He intimated 
 how this man was to prove himself worthy of the 
 name, and what He was to be to the Church 
 or whole fellowship of believers. Around this 
 memorable sentence, “ Thou art Peter, and upon this 
 rock I will build My Church,” the fires of contro¬ 
 versy have raged for ages. It has been dragged into 
 the great dispute between Protestantism and Popery, 
 and has suffered loss thereby. The difficulty lies in 
 the play of words between the name Peter and the 
 term rock, which two words in Greek differ from 
 each other only in the one being the masculine and 
 the other the feminine form, and in the former de¬ 
 noting a stone or piece of rock, the latter the rock 
 itself. It is as if Jesus had said, “Thou art Petros, 
 by name a Piece of Rock, and upon this Rock, this 
 Petra, I will build My Church.” It cannot be that 
 by this Jesus meant to point to Himself as the 
 Rock, as if He had said, “Thou art indeed Peter, 
 a stone in the structure, but it is upon Me, the Rock, 
 that the Church must have its foundation.” Great 
 names, it is true, are connected with this interpreta¬ 
 tion. But it is not consistent with the directness 
 with which the other terms are addressed to Peter, 
 particularly the subsequent “ I will give unto thee 
 the keys,” &c. Neither did Jesus mean by the phrase 
 “this rock” merely the faith witnessed in the 
 Apostle, the confession made by him, or the truth to 
 which he gave expression. Not to mention other 
 considerations adverse to this widely-accepted view, 
 it is enough to notice that it is the habit of the New 
 Testament writers to speak of persons, not of truths 
 or sentiments, as the stones, the pillars, or the founda¬ 
 tions of the Church (cf. 1 Pet. ii. 4-6; 1 Tim. iii. 15; 
 Gal. ii. 9; Eph. ii. 20; Rev. iii. 12; xxi. 14). It was 
 to Peter himself that Christ pointed, as if He had 
 said, “Thou art Petros, which means a Rock ; and 
 
44 
 
 as thy name is, so shalt thou be among the brethren 
 —the Petra, the Rock on whose strength the 
 whole community of My disciples shall lean and 
 be built up. As elsewhere the Apostles are de¬ 
 scribed as the foundation where Christ is the chief 
 corner-stone (Eph. ii. 20), so this man was now 
 spoken of as the one among the Twelve on whom 
 Christ, the great Architect or Master-builder, would 
 rear His Church. The words, therefore, assigned to 
 Peter a position of fundamental dignity and import¬ 
 ance, a primacy, if men choose so to call it, in the 
 history of the Church. But it was a primacy utterly 
 unlike that asserted in the interests of the Popish 
 claims, one which was not declared to carry any 
 lordship with it, to which no extraordinary jurisdic¬ 
 tion was attached, and for which no perpetuity or 
 succession was promised. Nowhere in the New 
 Testament is any exclusive authority either claimed 
 by Peter, or recognised in him by others. In his 
 great epistle he speaks of himself as nothing more 
 than an elder among elders, and repudiates the idea 
 of any lordship over God’s heritage (1 Pet. v. 1, 3). 
 There is nothing in history to show that he was 
 ever bishop of Rome, or ever held any official position 
 there, or transmitted anything like episcopal rule to 
 a successor. His primacy was that of the man who 
 bad the elements of character fitting him for a lead¬ 
 ing position, and who had shown by his great con¬ 
 fession of Christ that he had the spiritual insight and 
 the stedfastness of faith that marked him out for the 
 first place in the planting of Christ’s Church. How 
 this primacy was made good appears from the posi¬ 
 tion which Peter at once took after the Ascension, 
 from the accessions secured for the Church by his 
 preaching at Pentecost, from the firm stand which 
 he made before the Sanhedrim at the crisis which 
 held the life of the infant Church at stake (Acts iv. 
 8-22), from the part which he played in opening the 
 Church to the Gentiles (Acts xv.), and from many 
 things else in his career. 
 
45 
 
 \ 
 
 23. THE POWER OF THE KEYS. The church 
 which Christ was to build upon this rock was to be 
 stable and secure. The gates of Hades (not hell in 
 our present use of the word) were not to prevail 
 against it. In other words, it was to be safe against 
 every hostile power, even that of the invisible world 
 or the kingdom of death." Provision was to be made 
 for its due administration when Christ Himself should 
 no longer visibly guide and govern it. A promise 
 was added of a power which was to be put into 
 Peter’s hands, described as the possession of “the 
 keys of the kingdom of heaven.” With this was to 
 be connected a prerogative of binding and loosing , 
 which would be recognised in heaven. The language 
 is figurative, and has been subjected to very strange 
 handling in controversial interests. But the figures 
 are familiar enough. Jesus still thinks of the church 
 as a building or house, although He passes from 
 the term “ church ” to that of “ kingdom of heaven. 6 
 But as regards Peter himself, there is a change from 
 the idea of a foundation to that of a house-steward. 
 The figure of the keys is a somewhat common one, 
 being specially characteristic of the Book of Revela¬ 
 tion (cf. i. 18, iii. 7, ix. 1, xx. 1); but also occurring 
 elsewhere, as in Luke xi. 52 and Isaiah xxii. 22, 
 where Eliakim has the power of admitting to or ex¬ 
 cluding from the house of David. The other terms, 
 
 a As the gate in eastern cities was the place for public deliberation, 
 the “ gates of Hades” may mean the schemes of the nether world, or 
 it may be a figure for the empire or sovereignty of Hades, as we speak 
 of the Turkish empire as “ the Sublime Porte.” Some of the best 
 interpreters, however, take the point of comparison to be simply that 
 of strength. Meyer, e.g., takes the sense to be that strong as the 
 solid gates of Hades may be, they will not be so strong or stable as the 
 Church; when the latter is perfected at Christ’s Second Coming, the 
 former will not avail to keep back the Church’s departed members 
 from rising to be partakers of Christ’s glory. The idea will thus be 
 much the same as in 1 Cor. xv. 26, 54-57. 
 
 b It is doubtful whether much is intended by this change. Some 
 suppose that the Church becomes the “kingdom of heaven” only at 
 Christ’s Second Advent. The phrase “kingdom of heaven” is an 
 expression for the Messianic kingdom, and so for the spiritual kingdom 
 founded and to be perfected by Christ. 
 
46 
 
 binding and loosing , have been supposed to refer to 
 the power of remitting or retaining sins, and there¬ 
 fore to be analogous to the declaration in John xx. 
 23. This interpretation, however, although supported 
 by great names, is opposed to two plain facts : first, 
 that the term sin is not introduced here ; and second, 
 that while the phrase ‘‘loose sin” may mean “ forgive sin,” 
 there is no instance of the phrase “ bind sin ” with 
 the sense of retaining sin. Other doubtful meanings 
 have also been put upon these expressions. But 
 they are best understood as figures for forbidding 
 and allowing. They were used in this sense among 
 the later Jews, as when it was said of the two great 
 Babbis, Shammai and Hillel, in the debate about the 
 binding obligation of certain points of Jewish law, 
 that the one bound and the other loosed. The whole 
 statement, therefore, implied the bestowal upon 
 Peter, as the leader among the Apostles, of a power 
 like that held by the steward in a great house—the 
 power of deciding who were to be allowed and who 
 were to be denied, admission into the Church, and of 
 declaring what was to be permitted and what was to 
 be prohibited in it. And this power, exercised in the 
 Holy Ghost, was to have Divine sanction. It was 
 not absolute or arbitrary in its nature, nor was 
 it even limited to Peter. The same prerogative 
 was promised in much the same terms to the others 
 (Matt, xviii. 18). What Christ made over to the 
 representative Apostle in this promise was something 
 more than the commission to preach among all men 
 the Kingdom of God (which is all that some recognise 
 in the words) ; and something vastly less than the ab¬ 
 solute rule over the Church, or the prerogative of mak¬ 
 ing grants out of the Church’s treasury of grace, which 
 is the Popish gloss upon the sentence. It meant that 
 Peter, in conjunction with the other Apostles, and as 
 taught by the Holy Ghost, was to be to the Church, 
 after the Lord’s Ascension, in a secondary and derived 
 sense what the Lord had been to it in a primary 
 
47 
 
 sense before His Ascension. In cases like those of 
 Simon Magus and Ananias and Sapphira, and on 
 occasions like that of the opening of the Church to 
 the Gentiles, we shall find Peter exercising this power 
 in its most distinct and Divinely sustained form. 
 
 Points for Further Inquiry. 
 
 1. The force of the term “ living God ” in the Old Testa¬ 
 ment. 
 
 2. The title “ Son of Man ”—its use in the New Testa¬ 
 ment, its roots in the Old Testament. 
 
 3. The title “ Son of God ”—its various senses, its 
 Messianic applications. 
 
 4. The meaning of the phrase ‘ ‘ flesh and blood ” as ex¬ 
 plained by the Old Testament. 
 
 5. Illustrations of the figurative use of the term “ gate” 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 FROM THE GREAT CONFESSION TO THE SUPPER. 
 
 24. PETER REBUKING AND REBUKED (Matt, 
 xvi. 21-28; Mark viii. 31—ix. 1 ; Luke ix. 22-27). 
 It might have seemed likely that Jesus would make 
 the great confession at Caesarea an occasion for pro¬ 
 claiming what He was. But the people were not 
 ready for that. The little glimmering that came to 
 them tempted them only to make Jesus king by 
 force. The Apostles themselves had but a dim idea 
 of the truth. So instead of sending them forth to 
 publish to the Jewish world His Messiahship and 
 Divine Sonship, He forbade them (observe the 
 strength of Luke’s statement, ix. 21) to say anything 
 of this to any man (Matt. xvi. 20; Mark viii. 30), 
 and surprised them with the announcement of His 
 sorrows. Matthew is careful to state that it was 
 
48 
 
 “from that time forth ” that Jesus began to speak 
 plainly to them of His sufferings and death. It was 
 necessary now that they should know the trials which 
 were upon the wing, and they were themselves now 
 better prepared than ever before to receive the inti¬ 
 mation. Yet the grossness which still weighted their 
 Messianic expectations at once betrayed itself. The 
 man, who had just given voice to the loftiest con¬ 
 victions of faith yet expressed to Christ, was the man 
 who made this plain. As on other occasions, so now 
 Peter’s action showed what obtuseness of spiritual 
 perception clung even to his times of highest attain¬ 
 ment and most singular honour. The height to which 
 he had so lately risen revealed more plainly his unre¬ 
 flecting precipitancy. He went to the extreme 
 of rebuking his Master because He spoke of death, 
 and put himself forward as if he would save his 
 Lord from Him self. a The Pock had become the 
 stumbling stone. In sterner terms than He ever 
 applied to any other follower, Jesus rebuked His 
 rebuker and repelled the intrusion. For the 
 moment the man who had stood so high was as Satan 
 to One, who saw the biddings of the Tempter in the 
 wilderness, in favour of a short and easy way to 
 kingship, repeat themselves in the Apostle’s offence at 
 the thought of suffering in the Messiah, and his 
 desire to make that impossible. It is Mark again 
 that reports all the details of this incident which 
 were least in the Apostle’s favour, he alone saying 
 expressly that Jesus “rebuked” Peter, he alone 
 noticing that the rebuke was administered in a way 
 that all should hear it—when Jesus “ had turned 
 about and looked on his disciples .” b 
 
 a “We are reminded of the Frankish chief who, when t~ld of our 
 Lord’s sorm>ws, exclaimed, 1 Would that I had keen there with my 
 legions.’”—(Green, p. 33.) 
 
 b Observe the use of the old English word savour (Matt. xvi. 23; 
 Mark viii. 33), from the French savoir and the Latin sapere , with the 
 sense of thinking or minding. Latimer quotes 1 Cor.xiii.il, thus— 
 “When I was a child I savoured as a child.” (See Aldis Wright's 
 Bible Word-Book.) 
 
49 
 
 25. PETER IN THE TRANSFIGURATION 
 SCENE (Matt. xvii. 1-13; Mark ix. 2-13; Luke ix. 
 28-36). Another, and still more exceptional scene 
 quickly followed. It was one in which Peter’s figure 
 stood out strongly, and which formed a marked stage 
 in the training by which he was led step by step to 
 know Christ and His mission. At Caesarea Philippi 
 Jesus enjoyed a week’s repose, the last that was to 
 be His before the hastening sorrows of the end. 
 After this space He took the three privileged 
 Apostles with Him, in the cool, still evening, up to a 
 high mountain, probably one of the more accessible 
 ridges of the snowy Hermon, and was transfigured 
 before them. Amid the mysteries of the occasion,— 
 the light irradiating the Master’s person, the en¬ 
 trance, the converse, the vanishing of the great Legis¬ 
 lator and the great Prophet, the overshadowing 
 cloud, the voice attesting the Sonship of Jesus and 
 His right to be heard, one of the three witnesses 
 was unable to keep silence. It does not appear what 
 exactly he had in view by his exclamation about the 
 opportuneness of being there, and his proposal to 
 make three tabernacles, as if to detain the visitants 
 and prolong the scene. It may be that his thoughts 
 turned simply to the booths which it was the custom 
 to erect at the Feast of Tabernacles. It maybe that the 
 ancient days of Israel rose upon his mind, the times 
 of early privilege when the Lord spake with Moses in 
 the sacred tent (Exod. xxxiii. 7-10), and that these 
 dimly suggested the possibility of establishing similar 
 centres of holy intercourse and worship here. He 
 spoke in bewilderment, under the mingled joy and 
 terror of the scene, and as one startled out of sleep, 
 not knowing what he said. But his words, half 
 incoherent as they were, discovered his inclination to 
 cling to the past; and he was taught^here that the 
 past was merged in Christ, and only He could 
 stay. In the scene near Caesarea Pniiippi he had 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 taken offence at the mention of his Master’s death, a 
 and here he found it to be the theme of converse 
 between the great representatives of the Law and the 
 Prophets. Luke, to whom we owe the fullest nar¬ 
 rative here, tells us that it was in order to pray that 
 Jesus ascended the mount. What took place there 
 bore upon His own preparation for His Passion. It 
 was His solemn installation, as it has been termed, 
 to that Passion and its issues. But it was addressed 
 also to the spiritual education of the disciples, and 
 especially to the equipment of one of them for the 
 burden he was to bear after his Lord’s departure. 
 The glimpse now caught of the majesty of Christ’s 
 Person, the foregleam of a glory in Him afterward 
 to be revealed, the command to hear Him, were 
 fitted to give new clearness and certitude to Peter’s 
 faith. The whole scene is interpreted to this effect 
 in the Second Epistle which bears his name (chap. i. 
 15-18). 
 
 26. THE TRIBUTE MONEY (Matt. xvii. 24-27;cf. 
 Mark ix. 33). Certain events follow, such as the 
 healing of the demoniac, and the renewed announce¬ 
 ment of the death and resurrection (Matt. xvii. 14- 
 23 ; Mark ix. 14-32 ; Luke ix. 37-45), in which the 
 Evangelists do not particularize Peter. Thereafter we 
 come at once upon another incident exhibiting him 
 in character, which is reported only by Matthew. A 
 certain tax was due, which Peter’s quick reply seems 
 to represent Jesus as accustomed to pay, but which 
 had not been paid for the present season. This may 
 have been due to the fact that Jesus and His 
 disciples had left Capernaum before the former 
 Passover, and seem not to have revisited it, but for a 
 Sabbath, till now. The tax in question was the 
 
 a The word used by Peter, in Luke ix. 31, for “ decease,” is a very 
 uncommon term, meaning literally exodus. It is used again in 2 Pet. 
 i. 15, with the same meaning, and in connection with the same event. 
 It occurs nowhere else in this sense in the New Testament, although 
 it is found once in the literal sense of “ departing,” Heb. xi. 22. 
 
51 
 
 Temple-tax, or didrachma, a contribution, originally 
 voluntary, of half a sacred shekel (from Is. 4d. to 
 Is. 6d. of our money) which, on the ground of 
 Exodus xxx. 13, &c., every male Israelite of twenty 
 years of age and upwards was expected to pay for 
 the maintenance of worship, and which, appears to 
 to have been levied on the 15th of the month 
 Adar. a Jesus and His disciples being again in 
 Capernaum, one of the great centres for tax gatherers, 
 it was natural that application should be made for 
 the contribution. The collectors came to Peter, 
 because he was the recognised leader, or because 
 Jesus was most likely to be found in his house. It 
 is not quite apparent what they intended by the 
 question which they put to him—whether it was 
 meant simply to remind him of the obligation, or 
 expressed some doubt that, among other claims which 
 He had now put forward, Peter’s Master might pro¬ 
 fess Himself exempt even from so sacred a debt as 
 this. Peter at least, with a promptitude which might 
 well expect to be approved, spoke to his Master’s 
 loyalty in discharging this religious obligation. 
 It was, nevertheless, only a modified approval 
 that was given him when he went within. Jesus 
 “prevented him,” that is, anticipated him in his 
 statement of what had occurred, and gave him to 
 understand that in his well meant haste to undertake 
 for Him, something had been forgotten. Pointing to 
 the exemption which kings allowed their children 
 from custom and tribute (the terms now used being 
 those for two kinds of civil tax, the duty on exports 
 and imports, and the poll-tax payable to the Romans), 
 He indicated that, if Peter had realised all that he 
 
 a The tax is generally supposed to have been half a shekel before 
 the Captivity, and also at a much later date. But it seems from 
 Neh. x. 32, 33, that the sum levied immediately after the return from 
 the Captivity was only one-third of a shekel, the reduction being due 
 perhaps, as Dr Ederslieim supposes, to the extreme poverty of the 
 people. See his Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah , ii., p. Ill, for 
 details about this tax. The Pharisees are said to have succeeded in 
 making it compulsory. Vespasian applied it to the use of the Capitol. 
 
52 
 
 had so recently declared Him to be, he might have 
 claimed for Him, as God’s Son, freedom from the 
 Temple-tax. Yet the freedom which was His, He 
 would surrender rather than make it a stumbliDg- 
 block to others. The people could not yet recognise 
 His Sonship, and He would, therefore, pay this due 
 both for Himself and for Peter. He would pay it, 
 too, in a way bearing witness at once to His poverty 
 and to His Divine power, by bidding His Apostle 
 find the exact sum that was needed (the stater , which 
 was equivalent to two half-shekels), in the mouth of 
 the first fish he should hook. Peter was thus re¬ 
 minded that he had yet to learn all that his great 
 confession implied. He received a lesson also in the 
 royal law of liberty—the divine law of foregoing 
 privilege and abnegating right, if by the reverse a 
 brother stumbletli, or is offended, or is made weak 
 (Eom. xv. 21). He was taught to “ put no stumbling- 
 block in the way of his fellow-men, even as before 
 he had been taught to put none in his Lord’s path ” 
 (Peed). We are probably justified in thinking that 
 the impression made upon Peter’s mind by this in¬ 
 cident, is reflected in the counsels which he gives in 
 his First Epistle on the right use of Christian 
 freedom, and on the Christian’s duty in regard to 
 civil ordinances (ch. ii. 13, 17). 
 
 27. THE LAW OF FORGIVENESS (Matt, 
 xviii. 21, 35). Peter is not mentioned as having taken 
 any notable part either in the contention which 
 broke out among the disciples at this same time, as 
 to who should be greatest, or in the difficulty started 
 by John about the non-believer who cast out devils 
 in Christ’s name (Matt, xviii. 1-5; Mark ix. 33- 
 41; Luke ix. 46-50). These things had led Jesus, 
 however, to speak of the child-like spirit which 
 became His Kingdom, of the nobility of service, and 
 of the way in which the erring were to be dealt 
 with. In connection with this, Peter again came 
 forward. Jesus had commended the duty of trying 
 
53 
 
 to gain an offending brother by private converse 
 with him, and then by putting his fault before him 
 in presence of witnesses, and if that failed, by sub¬ 
 mitting the case to the Church. The matter some¬ 
 how was not clear to Peter, and he addressed Jesus 
 with questions about the duty of forgiveness. He 
 would know how far this duty was to be carried. 
 Would it be enough to carry it twice as far as the 
 Rabbis proposed ? They spoke of three times as the 
 proper limit, and Jesus had specified three steps 
 which ought to be taken ere an offending brother 
 should be regarded as a “ heathen man and a pub¬ 
 lican.” Peter probably took Jesus to have been 
 speaking in terms of the Rabbinical precepts, and 
 would know whether a more liberal limit approved 
 itself to Him—not three times but seven times. Or 
 his thoughts may have been running on familiar 
 sayings of the Old Testament, like the “ three trans¬ 
 gressions and four” of Amos (ch. i. 3), or the seven 
 times of the Book of Proverbs (ch. xxiv. 16). For¬ 
 giveness was to him still a matter of times and 
 numbers. With a frankness and simplicity quite his 
 own, his question expressed how strangely even he 
 had missed the spirit of what Jesus had been saying. 
 To forgive one seven times over seemed to his Jewish 
 prepossessions the utmost extent to which one could 
 undertake to go. The “ sevent}'' times seven ” (or, as 
 the margin of the Revised Version puts it, seventy 
 times and seven) with which Jesus met the question, 
 and the parable which He proceeded to speak, were 
 meant to undeceive Peter, and to teach him that, as on 
 God’s side, so on man’s, forgiveness was not a thing 
 of measurement and computation. How Peter him¬ 
 self profited by this will appear from the way in 
 which he submitted to be gained by Paul in their 
 great contention (Gal. ii. 11-14), and from his own 
 subsequent exhortations to others (1 Peter iv. 8). 
 
 28. THE CRAVING FOR REWARD (Matt. xix. 
 27-30; Mark x. 28-30; Luke xviii. 28-30). A con- 
 
54 
 
 siderable stretch of the Gospel story now intervenes in 
 which Peter is not specially named. This embraces 
 such miracles as the cleansing of the lepers, the 
 healing of the blind man on the Sabbath, and the 
 raising of Lazarus; such parables as those in Luke 
 x., xv., xvi., xviii. ; such incidents as the mission of 
 the seventy, the converse with Martha and Mary, the 
 blessing of little children. At length when we reach 
 the interview between Christ and the rich young 
 ruler, we come upon Peter anew. He is again in the 
 attitude of interrogator of his Lord. The young 
 man had left Jesus rather than resign wealth and 
 gain eternal life. His departure and the solemn 
 comment made upon it by Jesus prompted Peter (in 
 this again the interpreter of thoughts stirring in other 
 minds) to speak of the very different choice he and 
 his fellows in the Apostleship had made, and to ask 
 what reward they were to have for all that they had 
 left. There was unspiritual misconception, if not 
 mercenariness, in the question. Jesus corrected it 
 in kindness rather than rebuke, addressing His reply 
 not to Peter individually, but to all. He spoke of 
 his Apostles as destined to have the honour of sharing 
 His own royal prerogative of judging Israel at His 
 coming, and of all who endured sacrifice for Him as 
 certain to have, even in this life, a return of blessing 
 (although, as Mark significantly adds, with 'persecu¬ 
 tions ), and eternal life hereafter. The parable which 
 follows in Matt. xx. was designed further to chasten 
 this craving for the reward of sacrifice and service, 
 which had its seat even in the most generous heart 
 among the Apostles. The echoes of what Jesus said 
 on this occasion about the future recompense and 
 “the regeneration ” seem to linger in various sections 
 of Peter’s discourses and letters (cf. Acts iii. 21; 
 1 Pet. i. 5; v. 4; 2 Pet. iii. 13). 
 
 29. PETER AND THE FIG TREE (Matt. xxi. 18- 
 22 ; Mark xi. 12-26). The crisis is at hand now for 
 Peter as for Christ. The discipline of the Apostle 
 
55 
 
 deepens as the death of the Master draws near. The 
 discourse induced by Peter’s question—“ What shall 
 we have 1 ” is followed by the ambitious request of 
 James and John, the progress to Jerusalem, the 
 healing of Bartimeus, the incident with Zaccheus, 
 the parable of the pounds, the anointing at 
 Bethany, the entry into the Holy City, the purga¬ 
 tion of the Temple. So far Peter is not par¬ 
 ticularised. It is supposed indeed by some that he 
 was one of the unnamed two who were sent to 
 Bethphage to procure the colt on which Jesus was to 
 ride into Jerusalem (Matt. xxi. 1; Mark xi. 1; Luke 
 xix. 30), but this is quite uncertain. At least from 
 the Tuesday of Passover week, however, he appears 
 as the subject of the most varied experiences, the 
 recipient of the deepest lessons. As they passed into 
 the city on the morning of that day the disciples 
 saw that the fig-tree which J esus had cursed the day 
 before, and which apparently had begun to wither 
 forthwith, had dried up from the roots” (Mark 
 xi. 20). Peter impetuously called the attention of 
 Jesus to the fact—“Master, behold the fig-tree which 
 Thou cursedst is withered away.” They were words 
 of amazement at the rapidity and completeness of 
 the blight. Curiosity as to the means mingled, 
 perhaps, with the wonderment at the result. Jesus 
 said nothing to satisfy such feelings, but made 
 Peter’s exclamation the occasion of enforcing on him 
 and on all the supreme importance of faith as the 
 instrument of all power in the Kingdom of God. 
 Only Mark names Peter as the speaker. It is only 
 Mark, too, that gives Christ’s reply in the form of a 
 direct charge, “ have faith in God,” and makes it 
 clear that the incident did not take place on the day 
 that witnessed the cursing of the tree. 
 
 30. THE QUESTION AS TO THE FATEOFTHE 
 TEMPLE (Matt. iv. 1-14; Mark xiii. 1-13; Luke 
 xxi. 5-19). Among other things which occurred on 
 this Tuesday there was one in which Peter’s brother 
 
56 
 
 held a characteristic position. The Greeks who 
 came up to the feast, according to John xii. 20-22, 
 had their memorable wish to see Jesus communi¬ 
 cated to Him by Andrew (here again acting the part 
 of medium between Christ and others), in conjunc¬ 
 tion with Philip. On the evening of the same day 
 we find the two brothers in private converse with 
 Jesus. The parables of the two sons, the wicked 
 husbandman, the king’s son, the poor widow, had 
 been spoken. The voice from heaven had been 
 heard, and Jesus had finally quitted the Temple 
 (John xii. 28, 36). On the way the disciples, pro¬ 
 bably recalling what Jesus had said to the Pharisees 
 about the desolation of their house (Matt, xxiii. 38), 
 had called His attention to the strength and mag¬ 
 nificence of the building, and had drawn from Him 
 only a more distinct prediction of its absolute over¬ 
 throw. Their minds full of gloomy and doubtful 
 thoughts, they pursued their way until the Mount of 
 Olives was reached. There in the evening twilight 
 Jesus sat down, and the disciples, with the city and 
 the Temple itself in their eye, unburdened them¬ 
 selves. We can imagine with what perplexity 
 and distress the idea of the destruction of the shrine 
 with which God’s covenant presence and Israel’s 
 privilege of worship were so sacredly associated, 
 would press upon a mind so utterly Jewish as Peter’s. 
 The question put to Jesus about the time and the 
 signs of an event so hard to credit sprang not from 
 mere curiosity, but from keenest personal interest. 
 He met it not, indeed, with a direct reply, but with 
 warnings of deceivers and perils to come, promises of 
 help for them in the Holy Ghost, and assurances of 
 the world-wide proclamation of the Gospel of the 
 Kingdom. Mark alone names the disciples who 
 came thus to private converse with Jesus. They are 
 the four who were conjoined on the first recognition 
 of the Messiah, and among them Peter is named 
 first. 
 
57 
 
 Points for Further Inquiry. 
 
 1. The transfiguration in its hearing on the training oj 
 the Apostles. 
 
 2. The different hinds of tribute money. 
 
 3. Jewish ideas on the subject of the forgiveness of 
 injuries. 
 
 4. The Old Testament doctrine of Divine rewards and 
 punishments. 
 
 5. The cursing of the barren fig-tree—its meaning to 
 the Apostles , its analogies to others of Christ's deeds. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 FROM THE SUPPER TO THE ASCENSION. 
 
 31. THE PREPARATION FOR THE PASSOVER 
 
 (Matt. xxiv. 17-19; Mark xiv. 12-16; Luke xxii. 7-13). 
 Peter is not named in connection with the Wednes¬ 
 day, the fourth day in Passion Week. But when 
 we reach the Thursday, the day of unleavened bread, 
 we come upon a series of incidents of the most 
 solemn interest, in which he is a foremost figure. 
 The first of these is the preparation for the Pass- 
 over.® As was the case with all Jews at such a time, 
 the thoughts of the disciples turned to the great 
 Festival. Anxious to see all in readiness for it, they 
 came to Jesus Himself for instructions. He gave 
 directions which indicated how He foreknew and had 
 pre-arranged all, but which also had an affecting 
 personal interest. “Evidently neither the house 
 where the Passover was to be kept, nor its owner 
 w T as to be named within hearing of Judas. That 
 last meal, with its institution of the Holy Supper, 
 
 a We cannot enter here iota the question whether this Paschal 
 Supper was held on the usual day or not. 
 
58 
 
 was not to be interrupted, nor their last retreat be¬ 
 trayed, till all had been said and done, even to the 
 last prayer of agony in Gethsemane.”" From Mark 
 we learn that Jesus selected two of His disciples to 
 go into the city and announce His need of a room to 
 a man whom they should meet bearing a pitcher of 
 water. Luke informs us that the two were Peter 
 and John. These two, in whom the reflective 
 nature of the one was the complement of the prompt 
 activity of the other, and who were to be so much tc 
 each other hereafter, were now for the first time 
 formally united in service by the Lord Himself.6 
 32. PETER AND THE FEET-WASHING (John 
 xiii. 1-20; cf. Luke xxii. 24-30). At the Supper 
 which He had been helpful in preparing, Peter is 
 seen in unmistakeable character, drawing all eyes 
 upon himself, full of reverence for Jesus, but slow to 
 grasp the meaning of His acts and words, and leap¬ 
 ing from one exaggerated protestation to another at 
 the opposite extreme as he is swayed by the intense 
 feelings of the moment. It is John that furnishes us 
 with all the picturesque details. His narrative bears 
 all the traces of vivid personal recollection. “ The 
 portraiture of St Peter is instinct with life ; he acts 
 arid is acted upon” (Westcott). The meal, which was 
 to have so peculiar a place in the memory of 
 Christ’s Church, begins miserably with a strife among 
 the brethren. Painful importance seems to have 
 been attached, especially by the Pharisees, to the 
 seating of the guests in strict accordance with their 
 social claims. It may have been a contention of this 
 kind that broke out among the disciples. Its keen¬ 
 ness would be all the greater if, as there is some 
 reason to suppose, Judas had secured a place of 
 honour near Jesus Himself at the table. When all 
 are seated Jesus brings home to them the unseemli- 
 
 n Sec Edersheim's Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah , ii. p. 482. 
 
 b It is supposed by some that the person to whom the two Apostles 
 were guided was the father of John Mark. 
 
59 
 
 ness of the strife for precedence by a discourse in 
 which He again explains how the measure of greatness 
 in His kingdom is the measure of service and 
 humility (Luke xxii. 25, 26), and by an act which 
 reads the same lesson in a form exciting deepest 
 wonder in Peter. The ceremonial of hand-washing 
 took place twice during the ordinary Paschal Supper; 
 first, on the part of the master of the feast alone, 
 when He had taken the first cup and had spoken over 
 it the words of thanksgiving; and secondly, on the 
 part of the company as a whole when the service was 
 much farther on. At the former of these two 
 stages a Jesus rises and girds Himself with a towel, 
 but instead of observing the usual ceremonial of 
 hand-washing, proceeds to wash the disciples’ feet. 
 The first that He approaches is probably Peter 
 himself. It is difficult to believe that the act, if 
 performed on others before him, would not have 
 drawn from him some other exclamation; and it is 
 not unreasonable to suppose that a sudden revulsion 
 of feeling had led him to seek the lowest place of all, 
 and so to seat himself in the position opposite Jesus 
 and John, where it would be natural for the Master 
 to begin. He shrinks in utmost astonishment from 
 what Jesus is about to do, not perceiving the moral 
 lesson of which it is a parable in action. Jesus 
 declares that, though he fails at present to catch the 
 real meaning of the act, it will become clear to him 
 hereafter. Peter only protests that the “hereafter” 
 can make no difference in this matter—that, as long 
 as the world lasts, he will never let this thing be 
 done to him, which is infinitely too much for him. 
 His hasty, self-confident disclaimer is met by the 
 solemn intimation that unless Christ so washes him 
 
 t 
 
 a Some suppose that the ceremony in view took place earlier still, 
 being the feet-washing, which it was the host’s duty to provide for 
 before the guests went to table. But John’s words in ch. xiii. 2 (which 
 are rightly rendered “during supper" by the Revised Version, not 
 “supper being ended," as in the Authorised), are inconsistent with 
 this. 
 
60 
 
 he has no part in Him—that is to say, that unless he 
 will yield himself to Him even in things which he 
 understands not he can have no claim to be His 
 disciple, no place in the Kingdom in which the first 
 law is self-surrender to the King. Smitten with the 
 instant fear of loss, yet failing to read the half of his 
 Master’s meaning, now he will not only yield but 
 will have greatly more than Jesus offered—the 
 washing not of feet alone but also of hands and head. 
 In words borrowed from familiar Jewish practices 
 Jesus corrects the error into which the Apostle’s 
 impetuosity hurries him on the other side, and gives 
 him to understand that as the man who has once 
 bathed his whole body in preparation for feast or 
 ceremony needs nothing more than to remove inci¬ 
 dental stains by washing the part, so he who is 
 once made Christ’s by the complete surrender of self 
 which makes his life new, needs henceforth but to con¬ 
 tinue to yield himself to Christ in the demands which 
 each day brings for submission, service, and humility.® 
 In all that he said and did on this occasion, Peter 
 was eminently true to himself. We are not told 
 how far he grasped the sense of those mystic sayings 
 of his Lord at the time. We find him afterwards a 
 counsellor of the humility which was taught himself 
 now. See 1 Pet. v. 5, where he selects an uncommon 
 verb, “be clothed,” or “gird yourselves,” which 
 many suppose to embody the idea of meek submis¬ 
 sion to a slave’s service. 
 
 33. THE REQUEST ADDRESSED BY PETER 
 TO JOHN (John xiii. 21-26; cf. Matt. xxvi. 21-25, 
 
 a “ The action,” says Edersheim, ii. p. 500, “ was symbolic, and 
 meant that the disciple, who was already bathed and made clean in 
 heart and spirit, required only this—to wash his feet in spiritual con¬ 
 secration to the service of love which Christ had here shown forth in 
 symbolic act. And so His words referred not, as is so often supposed, 
 to the forgiveness of our daily sins—the introduction of which would 
 have been wholly abrupt and unconnected with the context—but, in 
 contrast to all self-seeking, to the daily consecration of our life to the 
 service of love after the example of Christ.” Westcott takes much the 
 same view. 
 
61 
 
 Mark xiv. 18-21, Luke xxii. 21-23). We find Peter 
 next in anxious converse with John at the same 
 table. Jesus spoke of a traitor in the company. 
 The thought that one of themselves should betray 
 Jesus struck the disciples dumb with amazement for 
 the moment. As they “looked one on another” in 
 silent bewilderment, Peter caught John’s attention, 
 and said to him, “ Tell us who it is of whom He 
 speaketh.” Por so the words are rightly given by 
 the Revised Version, instead of the less direct form 
 adopted by the Authorised. He imagined that John, 
 lying on Jesus’ breast, had got the name of the 
 traitor in a whisper which others could not hear, and 
 he would have the confidant communicate to others 
 the information which would remove their painful 
 perplexity. We can suppose at least two positions 
 which would have made this interchange possible. 
 The place occupied by the head of the company 
 seems to have been the central of the three places 
 nearest the one end of the table. If Jesus, therefore, 
 occupied this seat, and had on His left hand John 
 (whose head then would recline on Jesus’ breast), 
 and on His right hand Peter, all would be clear. 
 Or, as already hinted, Peter may have taken the seat 
 at the opposite end of the table (the places next 
 Christ being occupied, as some think, by John and 
 Judas), and have beckoned across to John. The 
 Lord’s ready response to the appeal made by John 
 on Peter’s behalf shows that the request of the 
 latter was not due, as some have strangely thought, 
 to mere curiosity, far less to his being afraid to ask 
 for himself, but sprang out of his belief that J esus 
 had already told the secret to John, and his anxiety 
 that all should have the relief which one had obtained 
 from torturing suspense. 
 
 34. PETER FORE-WARNED (Matt. xxvi. 31- 
 35 ; Mark xiv. 27-31 ; Luke xxii. 31-38 ; John xiii. 
 36-38). If the Lord’s act or an indication from 
 John relieved Peter from the nameless terror, if he 
 
62 
 
 ever entertained such terror, of being the possible 
 traitor, he was speedily met by an announcement 
 scarcely less painful or incredible, and directed 
 unmistakably to himself. The four gospels each 
 report the Lord’s prediction of Peter’s fall, and it is 
 difficult to determine the exact relation in which 
 these several accounts stand to each other. It has 
 been a question whether all the four deal with one 
 and the same occasion, whether Matthew and Mark 
 have one incident in view and Luke and John an¬ 
 other, or whether John reports one instance, Luke 
 a second, and Matthew and Mark a third. There 
 would be a fitness in Peter’s receiving three distinct 
 warnings, as he was suffered to make three distinct 
 denials, and was at last restored by a thrice-repeated 
 question and a thrice-repeated commission. There 
 is some reason to believe that he was the object of 
 at least a two-fold warning. For Luke and John 
 seem to give Christ’s words as spoken while the 
 company was still in the upper room, whereas 
 Matthew and Mark appear to give them as spoken 
 when Jesus was now on the way to Gethsemane. 
 There is nothing strange in the repetition of so grave 
 an intimation twice or even thrice to one who held 
 such a position among the brethren. That recorded 
 by John has the appearance of being the first. 
 Jesus had spoken of going where His disciples could 
 not come, and of love as their duty and their strength 
 in the trial of separation. Peter, too impatient, or 
 too bewildered by what had already happened, to 
 pause and think out the Master’s meaning, bluntly 
 asks Him whither He was going. Jesus gives a 
 second time, in the same mystic terms, but more 
 fully, the statement which provoked the question. 
 As if it touched his honour, Peter will not hear of 
 his inability to follow Christ now. He protests his 
 readiness to lay down his life at any time for Christ, 
 but only to find his protestation taken up sadly by 
 Jesus in his own words, and met by the startling 
 
G3 
 
 declaration that before cock-erow he would deny his 
 Master thrice (John xiii. 36-38). In the same con¬ 
 nection, and perhaps at the same point, he hears the 
 words which are recorded only by Luke (chap. xxii. 
 31), in which Jesus, addressing him pointedly and 
 twice over by the old name Simon, tells him of 
 Satan’s desire to have all the disciples, of His 
 own prayer in behalf of himself in particular 
 that his faith may not fail, and of what he intended 
 him to be after the crisis was over to the brethren. a 
 Those words, speaking as they do of danger and loss, 
 though also of recovery and of a great mission in 
 the future, draw from Peter nothing but a renewed 
 declaration of readiness to go with his Master, even 
 to prison or death. Jesus, calling him now by the 
 name (Luke xxii. 34) which expressed what he was 
 meant to be among the brethren (the only occasion, 
 as far as the Gospels show, in which He does so 
 use the name), repeats His anticipation of the 
 speedy and miserable failure of all this self-con¬ 
 fidence. In the supper-room He had spoken of 
 one among the disciples as His betrayer. When 
 they now quit the chamber, and take their way 
 across the Kedron, heavy with doubtful and boding 
 thoughts, He speaks not of one but of all as certain 
 to be offended. Peter cannot brook the idea. For 
 himself at least, thoughtlessly no doubt, but in 
 simple sincerity, he repudiates it (Matt. xxvi. 33 ; 
 Mark xiv. 29). The lofty assertion shows how little 
 he has learned by what was said at the table, and 
 how like he is to others in discovering least danger 
 from sins which lie nearest us. He is answered by 
 another pointed prediction of the impending denials. 
 
 a Notice the change from the plural (the Revised Version is 
 followed), “Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as 
 wheat,” to the singular, “ I made supplication for thee, that thy faith 
 fail not”; the past tense, “made supplication,” is very significant. 
 Satan is not quicker with his asking than is Christ with His supplica¬ 
 tion. The temptation is not conceived before provision is made 
 against it by Christ. 
 
64 
 
 Bat the ardent, impulsive nature, so strong on the 
 side of affection, so weak on that of unreflective 
 haste, is not yet schooled to distrust itself or calculate 
 possibilities. The conversation, which has broken 
 in so solemnly upon the stillness of their anxious 
 march, closes with words from Peter still more 
 unmeasured, if that were possible, in their self- 
 assurance ; and his fellow-disciples, caught by the 
 heat of his boastfulness, all take up the same pro¬ 
 testation. Hastening events soon showed how blind 
 Peter had been to his Lord’s meaning at the time. 
 He had been singled out for special warning, and 
 had been made the subject of special intercession, 
 because underneath the finer elements of his char¬ 
 acter there was that in him which exposed him to 
 peculiar peril.® His later history shows how the 
 lessons, which were not accepted at the time, rose 
 afterwards upon his memory, making him a new 
 man, finally beaten out of self. The impression 
 made upon his mind by Christ’s words about Satan’s 
 desire is reflected in the strength and directness of 
 the terms in which he speaks of a personal spirit of 
 evil (cf. 1 Pet. v. 8, 9). The charge which he received 
 from Christ to “ strengthen” the brethren became 
 the key-note of his subsequent career. Its echoes 
 
 a The Gospels, it is held hy some, show that, however different in 
 their ultimate careers, there was a singular likeness in certain im¬ 
 portant elements of nature between Peter and Judas, depth of affection 
 and the capacity of faith saving the former from being altogether 
 such an one as the latter. Edersheim, e.g., remarks as follows upon 
 the two:—“Judas, who loved not Jesus at all, had already fallen; 
 Peter, who loved Him—perhaps not most intensely, hut, if the expres¬ 
 sion he allowed, most extensely—stood next to Judas in danger. 
 In truth, though most widely apart in their directions, the springs of 
 their inner life rose in close proximity. There was the same readiness 
 to kindle into enthusiasm, the same desire to have public opinion 
 with him, the same shrinking from the cross, the same moral inability 
 or unwillingness to stand alone, in the one as in the other. Peter had 
 abundant courage to sally out, but not to stand out. Viewed in its 
 primal elements (not in its development), Peter’s character was, 
 among the disciples, the likest to that of Judas. If this shows what 
 Judas might have become, it also explains how Peter was most in 
 danger that night.” (Vol. ii. p. 534-5). 
 
65 
 
 are heard in his writings (1 Pet. v. 10). The fidelity 
 with which he fulfilled it is seen in the Book of 
 .A.ct;S 
 
 35! PETER IN THE GARDEN (Matt. xxvi. 
 36-46; Mark xiv. 32-42; cf. Luke xxii. 39-46). 
 Their march under the melancholy moon in the deep 
 silence of the late evening brings them soon to 
 Gethsemane, the garden of the “ oil-press ” at 
 the foot of the hill. Here Jesus leaves all but the 
 former witnesses of His power in the raising of 
 Jairus’ daughter and of His glory in the Transfigura¬ 
 tion. Taking with Him those favoured three (of 
 whom Peter is named first by both Matthew and 
 Mark), He enters the dark privacy of the grove and 
 wrestles with His agony. In the mysterious fluctua¬ 
 tions of feeling with which He is tossed, He with¬ 
 draws from the companionship even of the three and 
 passes alone into the still deeper shadow of the 
 olives, but only to come back and seek again and 
 yet again the solace of their sympathy and watchful¬ 
 ness. Thrice He parts from them, and thrice He 
 returns. While He prays and struggles “with 
 strong crying and tears 55 (Heb. v. 7), they slumber. 
 As once the glories of the Mount, so now the sorrows 
 of the Garden make them heavy with sleep. Peter 
 and his comrades apprehend something, but only 
 something, of that awful conflict, the intense pres¬ 
 sure of which the Evangelists describe in terms so 
 suggestively varied. They see the first rising of the 
 flood upon His sinless soul. In their drowsiness they 
 vaguely hear some of the words which fall from Him. 
 It is perhaps Peter’s quicker hearing and livelier 
 memory that are reflected in the fuller narrative of 
 Mark, and in the report of the “Abba, Father” as the 
 precise term of invocation. It is Peter, however, 
 that is singled out, according to both Matthew and 
 Mark, as the special object of those sorrowful and 
 surprised remonstrances which break from the lips 
 of Jesus when He finds the three forgetful of His 
 
 E 
 
66 
 
 charge and unable to watch with Him. The 
 Evangelist whose Gospel bears most the impress of 
 Peter’s recollections, gives us the most vivid idea of 
 the startling directness with which Jesus addressed 
 Himself to this Apostle. It is the same Evangelist 
 who adds the significant fact that Jesus called upon 
 him by the old name Simon (Mark xiv. 37). From 
 this man, if from any, the Master might have ex¬ 
 pected constancy, watchfulness, and support for 
 Himself and for the brethren. The old nature had 
 been too much for the new responsibility. The 
 Rock had again proved less than stedfast. Yet it 
 was gathering the forces for future strength and 
 stability from shakings such as these. 
 
 36. THE SWORD (Matt. xxvi. 48-54; Mark xiv. 
 44-47; Luke xxii. 47-51; John xviii. 10, 11). The 
 lack of self-control which yielded to faithless sleep in 
 solitude, became heady violence in presence of the 
 threatening multitude. When the armed band 
 broke in and laid hands on Jesus, there was one at 
 least prepared to meet force by force and sell his 
 own life, if need were, for the Master’s. The 
 Synoptists leave the man unnamed. It is John who 
 states explicitly what it would have been easy to 
 guess,—that Peter was that one. The men of 
 Northern Israel were in the habit of carrying short 
 swords hidden under their robes. There were at 
 least two swords in the possession of those who went 
 with Jesus from the supper-room to Gethsemane 
 (Luke xxii. 38). One of these seems to have been 
 Peter’s, and it was too much for him not to use it 
 now that he was thoroughly awake, and had his 
 Master’s danger confronting him. Seized perhaps 
 with the sudden impulse to vindicate the courage 
 which his slumbers had belied, or acting in simple 
 thoughtlessness on the spur of the moment, he dealt 
 a blow which smote off the ear of a bystander occupy¬ 
 ing a position of some prominence in the band, a 
 servant of the high priest, whose name, Malchus, 
 
67 
 
 we owe to John. It was the only blood shed in 
 defence of Christ. Others had thought of the same 
 defence, and had put the question—“ Lord, shall we 
 smite with the sword 1 ” (Luke xxii. 49). Peter had 
 acted without pausing for the answer. He must 
 have received with surprise the rebuke which his 
 bold deed drew from Jesus, both in word and in the 
 instant healing of the wounded ear. There was 
 much in what his Lord said that even Peter could 
 not understand. But a brief space before, during 
 this same eventful night, He had declared that the 
 man who had no sword should “sell his garment 
 and buy one” (Luke xxii. 36). He now bade the 
 sword be sheathed again, because they who took the 
 sword should perish by it (Matt. xxvi. 52). His 
 former teaching on the subject of His kingdom as 
 not one of this world, was not as yet clear to Peter. 
 It would require more than all he yet had passed 
 through to make it plain to him that the weapons of 
 his warfare were not carnal but spiritual (2 Cor. x. 
 4). Now he and the rest forsook the Master for 
 whom there was no defence, even by the sword. 
 
 37. THE DENIALS (Matt. xxvi. 57-58, 69-75; 
 Mark xiv. 53-54, 66-72; Luke xxii. 54-62; John xviii. 
 13-18, 25-27). All had fled from Jesus. But it 
 appears that at least some had not fled far or long. 
 Besides the young man who is stated by Mark 
 (ch. xiv. 51, 52) to have followed Jesus until he was 
 laid hold of and had to escape naked (who is sup¬ 
 posed by many to have been Mark himself), two of 
 those who were with Jesus seem to have speedily 
 regained their courage. Peter is represented by all 
 the Evangelists as having followed Jesus afar off, 
 and we may, perhaps, infer from the several notices 
 in the Gospels that he was the first to rally. The 
 fourth Evangelist mentions another disciple, who is 
 easily identified with John himself, as having done 
 the same. The two enter the high priest’s palace, 
 John in virtue of being known to the high priest, 
 
68 
 
 Peter in virtue of John’s interest. It is not easy to 
 harmonise the four reports of the trial and discom¬ 
 fiture to which Peter was subjected there. The 
 details are so various that some have gone the length 
 of affirming that there were six denials. These dis¬ 
 crepancies make it difficult, but by no means impos¬ 
 sible, to construct a consistent narrative. They have 
 their own value, too, as witnesses to the naturalness 
 and honesty of the reports. Here, as he moves rest¬ 
 lessly about, now in the glare of the fire kindled 
 in the centre of the court against the sharp spring 
 air, again in the shadow of the porch, now mingling 
 with the crowd of retainers and servants who were 
 standing about and talking over the events of the 
 morning, again retreating to escape observation, 
 Peter is thrice put to the test, and thrice discovers 
 how easily the sudden courage which has carried 
 him so far can fail him at the pinch. First the 
 maid who kept the door charges him, in questioning 
 rather than positive form (John xviii. 17), with be¬ 
 ing one of the disciples of Jesus, and he is betrayed 
 into a prompt denial of the fact. A second time, 
 after an interval which we cannot measure, he is met 
 by a similar charge, repeated by another maid, and 
 taken up apparently by several. He repels it more 
 loudly, and even with an oath. A third time, after 
 the space of an hour (Luke xxii. 59), during which 
 much has happened, he has to face the same im¬ 
 peachment enforced now by appeal to his Galilean 
 speech, and by the testimony of a kinsman of Mal- 
 chus. Now, beyond all self-control, he answers the 
 stronger assertion with a stronger denial, mingled 
 with oaths and curses. The cock crowing, already 
 heard once unheeded, is heard the second time, and 
 wakes up the memory of Christ’s fore-warning. 
 The startled Apostle looks up to what is passing 
 at the other end of the court. He catches the eye 
 of Him whom he has so miserably denied fixed on 
 him in sorrowful, loving reproach, and he rushes 
 
69 
 
 out a broken, beaten man, to weep tears of godly 
 penitence in solitude. We judge him too harshly, 
 perhaps, when we say that he had no call to 
 penetrate into the high priest’s court, and entangle 
 himself in risks so great. It would have been a 
 poor love that, in such circumstances, could have 
 paused to calculate possibilities. a Who can tell the 
 thoughts that divided his mind and prompted his 
 denials—thoughts of bewilderment and fear, doubt¬ 
 ful thoughts of the effect of a confession of Christ 
 in such circumstances, or of the use of identifying 
 himself further with a ruined cause % But the 
 denials themselves were of the gravest guilt, rising 
 in boldness and in aggravating circumstance one 
 after the other, unrelieved by any such apology as 
 might have been found had the charges been all 
 flung out with a rapidity which made reflection 
 impossible. They showed, as nothing else could, 
 how little he knew himself. They were to be the 
 painful means of making him a stronger, because 
 a less self-reliant, disciple, and of arming him 
 against similar failures in the future. 6 
 
 a “ To have fled to his home and shut the door behind him, by way 
 of rendering it impossible to deny that he knew Christ, would not have 
 been Peter, nor any true disciple. Nay, it would itself have been a 
 worse and more cowardly denial than that of which he was actually 
 guilty.”— Edersheim , ii., p. 550. 
 
 b The fall of Peter and the look of Jesus are nobly interpreted in 
 Mrs Browning’s three sonnets, entitled The Two Sayings , The Look, 
 The Meaning of the Look . We transcribe the first of the three:— 
 “Two sayings of the Holy Scriptures beat 
 Like pulses in the Church’s brow and breast 
 And by them we find rest in our unrest, 
 
 And, heart-deep in salt tears, do yet entreat 
 God’s fellowship as if on heavenly seat. 
 
 The first is Jesus wept, —whereon is prest 
 Full many a sobbing face that drops its best 
 And sweetest waters on the record sweet; 
 
 And one is where the Christ, denied and scorned, 
 Looked upon Peter. Oh, to render plain, 
 
 By help of having loved a little and mourned, 
 
 That look of sovran love and sovran pain 
 Which He, who could not sin yet suffered, turned 
 On him who could reject but not sustain! ” 
 
70 
 
 38. FROM THE DENIALS TO THE MIRACU¬ 
 LOUS DRAUGHT (Luke xxiv. 9-12; John xx. 1-10; 
 1 Cor. xv. 5). The Evangelists tell us nothing of 
 how it fared with Peter immediately after the dismal 
 hour, when 
 
 “-he went out speechless from the face of all, 
 
 And filled the silence, weeping bitterly.” 
 
 We are left to imagine how he bore the burden of 
 his surpassing faithlessness, what relief he found in 
 the recollection of Christ’s look, what reception he 
 had with the brethren. We know not whether he 
 was among those who looked upon the awful tragedy 
 of the Crucifixion. John is mentioned as standing 
 by the cross with Mary and others (John xix. 25, 26), 
 but Peter is not named in that connection. It is 
 not unlikely, however, that he found refuge in the 
 house of John, and could mingle his tears there with 
 those of the beloved disciple and those of the soul- 
 pierced mother. We find him, in any case, in John’s 
 company early on the resurrection morning, hurrying 
 with him to the tomb on receiving Mary Magdalene’s 
 tidings, and returning with him after its inspection. 
 Instinct bore Mary at once to these two with her 
 story of the stone taken away. And the action of 
 each is characteristic—John outrunning Peter, but 
 pausing outside the sepulchre ; Peter entering at 
 once without a moment’s hesitation, and embolden¬ 
 ing John to follow (John xx. 1-10). It is not easy 
 to gather from the Evangelists the exact impression 
 produced on Peter when he found the tomb empty, 
 and the “ linen clothes laid by themselves.” Luke 
 speaks of him as departing, “wondering in himself 
 at that which was come to pass.” The fourth Gospel 
 says of John that he “saw and believed.” But it 
 does not make the same statement of Peter, and 
 leaves even the sense of the term “ believed ” some¬ 
 what uncertain, by what it adds about the two not 
 knowing the Scripture prophecies of Christ’s resur¬ 
 rection. From this point, however, the erring 
 
71 
 
 apostle is followed by the most touching tokens of 
 his Master’s mindful, solicitous interest in him. 
 From the opened tomb itself a word of comfort is 
 spoken to him in the angelic message entrusted to the 
 women, in which a distinct place is given to one of 
 the band—“Go your way, tell His disciples and 
 Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee ” (Mark 
 xvi. 7). From Luke and Paul (Luke xxiv. 34; 1 Cor. 
 xv. 5) we gather that Jesus appeared specially to 
 Simon, bestowing on him the honour of being the 
 first of the apostles to whom the risen Lord revealed 
 Himself; and we cannot doubt that when they so 
 met it was in reconciliation. He was present doubt¬ 
 less also with the other apostles on those two occasions 
 when Jesus mysteriously presented Himself among 
 them (Matt. xvi. 14-18; Luke xxiv. 36-49; John 
 xx. 19-29 ; 1 Cor. xv. 5). 
 
 39. THE PUBLIC RESTORATION (John xxi. 
 1-19). Much had thus been done to remove the 
 shadow under which Peter moved. But something 
 was wanting still. If there had been a reconciliation 
 between the forgiving Lord and the broken disciple, 
 it had been in private. There were obvious reasons, 
 however, why his restoration should be made openly 
 and publicly, as he had been openly forewarned, and 
 had been suffered openly to fall. This was met by 
 the interview which is described, with all the 
 minute and graphic touches indicating the quick 
 and living recollection of a profoundly impressed 
 spectator, in the closing chapter of the Fourth Gospel. 
 The brethren are again in Galilee, and at their old 
 occupation. Led by Peter, so many of them have 
 gone a-fishing, and have had an unsuccessful night. 
 In the early morning, as they look to the shore, 
 preparing to return with their empty boat, they 
 suddenly catch sight of a solitary figure standing out 
 in the grey light upon the beach. A call is heard 
 from the shore, but they fail to recognise the figure. 
 A second time the voice sounds across the water, in 
 
72 
 
 the tone of one familiar with the lake and the trade, 
 giving instructions for another cast. The counsel is 
 adopted ; the mighty haul is taken; thoughts of a 
 former night’s fishing, tenderly associated with the 
 presence of Jesus, stir within them; and the truth 
 flashes upon them. The eagle-eye of John is the 
 first to recognise the Lord. But Peter is the first 
 to act. Hastily throwing his coat around him, 
 which had been laid aside for purposes of toil, he 
 plunges at once into the sea, the boat’s motion 
 being all too slow for the impetuous longings of his 
 affection. Soon all come to land, and Peter, still 
 restlessly active, draws in the net. After they have 
 eaten of the early morning meal (“ breakfasted,” as 
 it should be, rather than “ dined ”) strangely provided 
 for them, and are gathered about the fire mysteriously 
 kindled on the beach, Jesus suddenly turns upon the 
 man who has been so prompt to give proof of his 
 fearless, self-forgetful devotion, and in the hearing of 
 all puts to him the startling question about his love for 
 Him. Such a question, coming in such circumstances, 
 and after previous reconciliation, must have fallen 
 upon Peter with painful surprise, and everything in 
 the narrative seems so put as to convey the im¬ 
 pression not only that the Apostle was grieved, but 
 that it was the intention of Jesus that he should be 
 grieved. The threefold repetition of the question 
 would sorrowfully recall the triple denial. The 
 words “ more than these ” would remind Peter of his 
 protestation that though all should be offended he 
 would never be offended in Jesus. The pointed 
 address—“ Simon, son of John,” would sadly bring 
 up the memory of the hour, when, by the same lake, 
 Jesus gave him a new name, and called him to be 
 a fisher of men. And besides all this there is a 
 significant change in the Lord’s question, not to be 
 gathered from the English version, which has its own 
 painful meaning. In all three replies Peter uses one 
 and the same word for love,— one expressing a simple 
 
73 
 
 fond, familiar affection. The time is past when he 
 can think of claiming any superiority over others 
 in devotion to Jesus. All that he ventures to affirm 
 now is that, spite of the miserable past which seems 
 to belie it, his love survives, and of this he is so 
 conscious that he dares appeal to Christ’s own know¬ 
 ledge of all things in proof of it. In His first two 
 questions Jesus uses a different term for love, one 
 expressing the love tempered with reverence, which 
 rests upon a due recognition of the dignity of its 
 object. But in his third question He adopts Peter’s 
 own term, and thus seems to doubt whether the 
 apostle has even that fond, personal affection which he 
 has declared, not to speak of the higher order of love 
 which a proper knowledge of what He is should 
 prompt. It is this,—not simply the repetition of the 
 question for the third time, but the apparent doubt 
 cast by the change of terms upon the profession 
 already made twice, that grieves Peter. Yet it is not 
 the intention of Jesus to question the honesty of Peter’s 
 declarations. The commission which He gives 
 him shows that he accepts them as genuine, and that 
 He means to restore him openly and completely in the 
 sight of all. But in so restoring him He recalls the 
 bitter, humbling past,—lest this signal act of honour 
 should become a fresh stumbling-block in his way, 
 reviving the perilous ambition to be foremost, or 
 tempting him to think too lightly of the faithlessness 
 which is so frankly forgiven. Peter’s replies show 
 that he has unlearned so far the self-confidence 
 which misled him in the past. The discipline to 
 which he is subjected now is needed to drive him 
 finally out of self. The interview is the open re¬ 
 cognition, needful at once for Peter’s own comfort 
 and for the good understanding of the brethren, of a 
 reconciliation already effected in private. The charges 
 to feed the lambs and the sheep are the seal of the 
 completeness of the restoration. They are given 
 in varied terms, embracing both the young and the 
 
*74 
 
 mature in the flock, both the function of feeding or 
 edifying and that of tending or ruling.® They are 
 followed by the announcement, couched in figura¬ 
 tive terms, that the martyr’s crown is to be his. All 
 is so put as to make it clear to Peter and to the rest, 
 that, in spite of his dismal fall, this Apostle is still 
 to be the Pock among the brethren; that he is to be 
 nothing less to Christ and to the Church than he 
 might have been had he never fallen. 
 
 40. PETER’S ENQUIRY ABOUT JOHN (John 
 xxi. 20-22). Ere the group parts from the sacred 
 scene by the lake, Peter once more appears in char¬ 
 acter. When Jesus has spoken the words which 
 bear that the old terms of confidence, the old respon¬ 
 sibilities and honours, are completely given back to 
 Peter, He adds the brief command, “Follow me.” 
 The charge had been given to others before (Matt, 
 viii. 22 ; ix. 9 ; xix. 21 ; John i. 43). It is given to 
 Peter now with a new fulness of meaning, in imme¬ 
 diate connection with the announcement of the death 
 by which he shall yet glorify God, and perhaps in 
 a way intimating that only now is he able to do 
 what formerly he had desired to do, but was pro¬ 
 nounced unfit for (John xiii. 36, 3V). Peter seems, 
 however, to take the charge literally. Turning round 
 as he quits the group, his eye falls on John also 
 following. The sight prompts a question, the broken 
 terms of which show the rush of feeling which brings 
 it instantly to the lips, and which runs literally thus 
 —“ Lord, and this man, what 1 ” Something of the 
 old Simon comes out in the enquiry. Natural in¬ 
 terest, concern about the course of one who is more 
 than a brother to him, may express itself in the 
 question. But there is something more—the curi¬ 
 osity, the impatience of the old nature, still requiring 
 chastening. The craving to read the future is re- 
 
 a The charge on the first occasion and on the third is “ feed.” On 
 the second it is “ tend ’’ or “ shepherd,” as in 1 Pet. v. 2, Acts xx. 28, 
 Matt. ii. 6. 
 
75 
 
 buked. The question which diverts attention from 
 present duty is quickly checked, and the restored 
 apostle’s thoughts brought promptly back to the 
 immediate call to follow his Risen Lord. 0 
 
 Points for Further Enquiry. 
 
 1. The Passover—its origin , its design , the method of 
 its celebration in Christ's time. 
 
 2. The 'probable arrangement of the apostles at the 
 Last Supper. 
 
 3. The Jewish purifications. 
 
 4. The apparent discrepancies in the narratives oj 
 Peter's denials, and the modes of harmonising them. 
 
 5. The correspondence of the incidents of Peter’s fall 
 with the terms of Christ’s forewarning. 
 
 6. The points of similarity and dissimilarity between 
 the two miraculous draughts on the Sea of Galilee. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 from Christ’s ascension to the admission of 
 
 CORNELIUS. 
 
 41. THE VACANCY IN THE APOSTOLATE 
 
 (Acts i. 15-26). The Gospels tell us nothing of 
 Peter’s history during the interval between the scene 
 by the Lake and the Ascension. Neither do the 
 notices which we have elsewhere of events during 
 the forty days introduce him by name. We may 
 imagine him as with the other apostles when the 
 
 a Keble has expressed part of the meaning of this scene in his poem 
 for St John’s day. We give the opening stanza:— 
 
 “ * Lord, and what shall this man do ? ’ 
 
 Ask’st thou, Christian, for thy friend? 
 
 If his love for Christ he true, 
 
 Christ hath told thee of his end: 
 
 This is he whom God approves, 
 
 This is he whom Jesus loves.” 
 
76 
 
 Eisen Lord met them on the mountain appointed in 
 Galilee, and when they received the great commission 
 to go and teach all nations (Matt, xxviii. 16-20) ; as 
 probably with the 500 brethren to whom He mani¬ 
 fested Himself in Galilee (1 Cor. xv. 8) ; and again 
 as with his fellow apostles when the cloud received 
 the ascending Eedeemer out of their sight (Mark xvi. 
 19-20; Luke xxiv. 50-53 ; Acts i. 9-12). When 
 he is first introduced in the Book of Acts he 
 occupies the foremost place. His name is mentioned 
 first in the enumeration of the little company of 
 believers who met in Jerusalem in prayerful waiting 
 for the fulfilment of the promise of the descent of 
 power upon them from on high. He is coupled 
 immediately with John in that list, as the Eevised 
 Version and the best authorities give it (Acts i. 13). 
 He comes forward naturally as actor and leader, 
 and is as naturally accepted as such. On one of those 
 occasions when the Apostles, and Mary (whose last 
 appearance in the sacred history is in this connection), 
 and the women, and the brethren or cousins of Jesus 
 (at length believers in Him, made such probably by 
 His Eesurrection and His appearances during the 
 forty days), and the other disciples are gathered 
 together in the upper room for fellowship and 
 prayer, Peter proposes that the vacancy created by 
 the apostacy of Judas should be filled up. The pro¬ 
 posal is acceded to in a way which shows how easily 
 he takes up again the functions which seemed to 
 have gone from him for ever on his fall, and how 
 complete is the recognition which his Lord’s open 
 act of restoration has secured for him among the 
 brethren. The election is gone calmly about with 
 prayer for Divine direction, and the choice falls on 
 Matthias. The address which Peter delivers on 
 this occasion is memorable in various respects. It 
 contains a clear definition of the requisites in an 
 apostle. It gives accounts of the death of Judas 
 and the purchase of the field of blood, which seem 
 
77 
 
 at first sight strangely at variance with those in the 
 Gospels, but are not incapable of reconciliation there¬ 
 with. It exhibits the use of the Old Testament, 
 which we shall find to be characteristic of Peter. 
 He appeals to the Scriptures in proof that the 
 counsel of God was seen in the fall of Judas. He 
 finds in that event, and its attendant circumstances, 
 fulfilments of words spoken in more than one of the 
 Psalms (xli. 9, lxix. 25, cix. 8), with reference to the 
 enemies of the godly, and the familiar friend lifting 
 up his heel against the righteous. The incident is 
 also remarkable for giving the only New Testament 
 instance of an appeal to the lot. In the Old Testa¬ 
 ment we find the lot used in a variety of connections 
 (cf. Levit. xvi. 8 ; Num. xxvi. 52 ; 1 Chr. xxiv. 5, 
 xxv. 8 ; Prov. xvi. 33, xviii. 18, &c.). Neither in the 
 appointment of deacons, nor in any case of election or 
 decision subsequent to Pentecost, is the lot employed. 
 It is adopted on this critical occasion surely not 
 as Peter’s own fond idea, as some have strangely 
 imagined, but because he believed it to have Divine 
 warrant, or had received special directions from the 
 Bisen Saviour.® 
 
 42. AT PENTECOST (Acts ii. 14-40). In the 
 wonderful events of that memorable day which has 
 been termed “ the birthday of the Christian Church,” 
 the central figure is again “ the pilot of the Galilean 
 lake.” The state of expectancy ends when the 
 disciples, assembled again probably in the upper 
 room (the chamber already consecrated, as many 
 think, by the Last Supper), are taken possession of 
 by the new power which has for its signs the 
 rushing wind and the parting fire-like tongues, and 
 for its immediate effect that gift of tongues 
 about which so much variety of opinion still subsists. 
 The mysterious gift, and all the strange excitement 
 are explained by some as the frenzy of intoxication. 
 
 a Let the renderings of the Revised Version in verses 17, 20, 22 he 
 noticed. 
 
78 
 
 Peter stands forth to repudiate the base interpreta¬ 
 tion, a and expound what the wonderful phenomena 
 mean. The great discourse which he delivers to the 
 vast crowd is notable for the boldness with which he 
 speaks of Jesus as the Christ, and charges his hearers 
 with the guilt of crucifying the Holy One of God. 
 He points to the events of the day as fulfilments of 
 the promise, given by one of their own prophets, of an 
 outpouring of the Spirit of God. He speaks of the 
 counsel of God and the wickedness of men as meet¬ 
 ing in the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth ; of the 
 great assurance expressed in the xvi. Psalm as 
 finally realised in the resurrection of Christ; and 
 of David’s word in the cx. Psalm as a prophecy of 
 Christ’s reign at Jehovah’s right hand. The result 
 of this discourse, and of Peter’s exhortations to 
 repentance, was the baptism of some three thousand 
 souls. The Day of Pentecost completes the change 
 in Peter himself, which the painful discipline of his 
 fall, and all the lengthened process of previous train¬ 
 ing have been slowly making. He is now no more 
 the unreliable, changeful, self-confident man, ever 
 swaying between rash courage and weak timidity, 
 but the stedfast, trusted guide and director of the 
 fellowship of believers, the intrepid preacher of 
 Christ in Jerusalem and abroad. And now that he 
 is become Cephas indeed we hear almost nothing of 
 the name Simon (only in Acts x. 5, 32 ; xv. 14), and 
 he is known to us finally as Peter. 
 
 43. THE MIRACLE AT THE TEMPLE GATE 
 (Acts iii.). The apostle’s gifts of rule and adminis¬ 
 tration must have been put to a severe test by the 
 sudden enlargement of the Church by so great a 
 multitude of converts. The picture given (cf. Acts 
 ii. 41-47) of the inner life of the Church shows that 
 these gifts were happily exercised. After an interval, 
 
 a The third hour of the day ” was the hom* for the morning 
 sacrifice. It was the Israelite's duty to fast every day till this hour, 
 and till mid-day at the great festivals. 
 
7 9 
 
 the extent of which is not stated, we find Peter and 
 John again associated at a critical time. Still con¬ 
 forming to the ancestral Jewish modes of worship, 
 they go up together to the Temple at the hour for 
 the evening sacrifice (cf. Exod. xxix. 41; Numb, 
 xxviii. 3). Amid the crowd usually found in and 
 about the Temple at that hour they come upon a 
 lame beggar, laid in his misery and helplessness at 
 one of the gates, which was known popularly by 
 the name Beautiful. This is identified by some 
 with the Shushan Gate, between the Women’s 
 Court and that of the Israelites, by others more pro¬ 
 bably with the Gate of Nicanor,—a magnificent 
 structure of Corinthian brass, the most splendid and 
 the most crowded of all. They answer his cry for 
 alms by healing him in the name of Jesus Christ of 
 Nazareth . a The marvel of so instant and complete a 
 cure, effected on one well known to many as a cripple, 
 draws together a great concourse in the porch which 
 was called Solomon’s, because it was built on a mound 
 erected by him. Peter seizes the opportunity, and 
 in this busiest section of the Temple, the cloister 
 which was hallowed by recollections of Christ’s own 
 testimony to Himself (John x. 23), delivers his second 
 great discourse to the people. This discourse is 
 remarkable among other things for its doctrine of 
 Christ, and not less for its view of the issues depend¬ 
 ent on repentance. It presents Christ in official 
 rather than personal aspects. It speaks of Him, 
 indeed, as “ the Holy One and the Just” (cf. Isaiah 
 xliii. 3 ; Luke iv. 34 ; Mk. i. 24 ; Pev. iii. 7, xv. 4 ; 
 James v. 6 ; John ii. 1). But it describes Him specifi¬ 
 cally as the “Prince of Life” (i.e., the leader or author 
 of life ; cf. ch. v. 31, and Heb. ii. 10, xii. 2, where the 
 same term is used). It gives Him the Old Testament 
 title (Isaiah xlii., liii., being probably in Peter’s 
 mind), “Servant” of God, which expressed His 
 
 a Observe Luke’s use of technical terms in verse 7, and the point of 
 the “ leaping ” in verse 8. 
 
80 
 
 official relation to God, not his Divine Sonship. It 
 cites the great prophecy of the rising of a Prophet 
 like unto Moses (Deut. xviii. 15) as fulfilled in Christ. 
 It speaks again of “seasons of refreshing,” which 
 Messiah’s Second Coming is to usher in, and of 
 “ times of restoration of all things,” times of moral 
 renewal and rectification, which must precede that 
 Advent. But it represents that Advent itself, and 
 those seasons and times, as well as the blotting out 
 of Israel’s sins, as events suspended on Israel’s 
 repentance. Peter presses Israel’s brightest hopes 
 and most characteristic ideas as irresistible reasons 
 for the instant repentance of his hearers. a 
 
 44. THE BEGINNINGS OF PERSECUTION 
 (Acts iv.). The miracle at the Temple Gate is 
 selected, out of others wrought by the apostles (cf. 
 ch. ii. 43), for detailed recital by reason of the crisis 
 which it hastened. It convinced the Jewish authori¬ 
 ties that the rise of the new religion could not be let 
 alone, and became the turning-point between suffer¬ 
 ance and persecution. The prime movers in the 
 policy of intolerance are not the bigoted Pharisees, 
 but the rationalistic Sadducees. Alarmed at the 
 access which the apostles are having to the people, 
 and offended by the preaching of the resurrection, 
 this party comes with the priests and the captain of 
 the Temple (the officer charged with the care of the 
 night - watches and the command of the Levites 
 on duty), and carries the preachers off to prison. 
 The apprehension does nothing to check the growth 
 of the Church. The ranks of the believers numbered 
 already 5000 men, besides women and children, and 
 additions continued to be made to them (cf. ch. v. 
 14, vi. 1-7, xxi. 20). Peter takes the spokesman’s 
 place at the bar, and speaks so boldly and convinc- 
 
 a Notice the important corrections of the Authorised Version, which 
 are adopted by the Revised in this chapter, specially “servant” for 
 “son” in verses 13, 26; “that so” for “when” in verse 19; and 
 “ that he may send” for “ he shall send ” in verse 20. 
 
81 
 
 ingly that the rulers are fain to do no more than 
 dismiss their prisoners with a threatening. The two 
 apostles meet the command to speak or teach no 
 more with the memorable reply (verses 19-20), in 
 which the rights of conscience—rights which princes 
 have been so slow to allow to subjects, which one 
 religious belief has been so slow to allow to another— 
 are intrepidly asserted. Their return to the brethren 
 is followed by a burst of prayer, in the sublime 
 terms of which, as it has been said with some reason, 
 “ we seem to recognise Peter’s voice as the leader 
 of the supplication ” (Green). The designation of 
 his Lord again as God’s Servant (verse 20, not 
 “child” as in the Authorised), the appeal to the 
 Second Psalm (compare the citation of Psalm cxviii. 
 in verse 11), the reference to the rulers and people 
 as doing only what the hand and counsel of God 
 “ determined before to be done ” (cf. ii. 23), bear the 
 impress of Peter’s mind. 
 
 45. THE FIRST CALL FOR DISCIPLINE (Acts 
 v. 1-16). The writer of the Book of Acts leads us 
 at once from the beautiful picture of the life of 
 concord and self-sacrifice in the Church, of which 
 Barnabas the Levite is an illustrious instance, to the 
 first great danger to the Church from within itself. 
 The community of goods which prevailed was simply 
 the form in which the first fresh sense of brother¬ 
 hood in Christ naturally expressed itself, a purely 
 religious and spontaneous resignation of private 
 rights, in no way akin to the wild Communistic 
 schemes of later days. It seems to have taken 
 shape, too, only within the Church of Jerusalem, 
 and the deep poverty of the mother Church has 
 been supposed by many to have been due to evils 
 which soon emerged in connection with the custom. 
 In any case it was this community of goods that 
 planted the first root of bitterness in the infant 
 Church. There were those who were equally unable 
 to resist the popular current, and to cherish the grace 
 
 F 
 
82 
 
 that gave it meaning. When Ananias and Sapphira 
 came with a show of liberality, offering the part as 
 if it were the whole, Peter recognised the gravity 
 of the occurrence. He interpreted their act as an 
 attempt to deceive the Holy Ghost, who ruled within 
 the Church and guided the apostles, and pronounced 
 first upon the one and then upon the other the doom 
 of swift and sudden death. It has been thought to 
 explain their fate as due to a stroke of paralysis, or a 
 rush of sudden terror. But the writer clearly refers 
 it to Peter’s sentence, and regards it as the effect of 
 a power committed to him. It was the first and 
 most terrible exercise of discipline within the Church 
 which is recorded in the New Testament. The 
 severity of the judgment is in strong contrast with 
 subsequent cases, even those of Elymas and Simon 
 Magus. It had its justification in the deep aggrava¬ 
 tions of the offence,—an offence so gratuitous, so 
 deliberately premeditated, implying so impious a 
 defiance of God, perpetrated in the sacred circle of 
 faith and charity. It had its justification still more 
 in the peculiar position of the offence, at the begin¬ 
 ning of a new order of the Kingdom of God. On 
 the outbreak of idolatry at the giving of the Law, 
 on the usurpation of Nadab and Abihu, and on 
 the rebellion of Korah, extraordinary judgments 
 vindicated the ordinances and official servants of 
 God. So in the case of the first attempt to in¬ 
 sinuate evil into the new development of the Divine 
 Kingdom, God’s “strange work” was needed to 
 vindicate Apostolic authority and protect the 
 Church. Its effect was to secure the brotherhood 
 against the intrusion of false members, to inspire the 
 populace with fears, which meant safety for the mass 
 of believers, and to carry Peter’s influence and name 
 to such a height that men credited his very shadow 
 with miraculous powers. 
 
 46. THE RENEWAL OF PERSECUTION (Acts 
 v. 17-42). The growth of the Christian cause led to 
 
83 
 
 a fresh outburst of passion and violence, in which 
 the Sadducees again were the leaders. The Apostles 
 (the whole body now, as we may probably infer from 
 verse 29), were thrown into the common prison. A 
 wonderful deliverance befell them in the night, and 
 when the Council met in the morning they were 
 found teaching in the Temple the words that brought 
 the gift of eternal life. They were seized a second 
 time, but now without violence, and were charged 
 with the crime of resistance to constituted authority. 
 The prisoners, led by Peter, repeated in still more 
 decisive terms the assertion, which was formerly made 
 by Peter and John (ch. iv. 19), of the supreme claims 
 of God and conscience, and again testified of the Risen 
 Christ. The high priest and the Sadducean party, 
 though roused to furious hate (“cut to the heart” in 
 verse 33 is the rendering of a verb which expresses 
 the cutting of a saw, as in Heb. xi. 37), dismissed 
 the Apostles after beating them. The counsel of a 
 distinguished member of the opposite party, who 
 pointed to the issue of two former popular risings, 
 restrained them from more violent measures. The 
 Pharisee who intervened in the interests of prudence 
 and tolerance has been usually identified (although 
 positive historical evidence is wanting) with the 
 Gamaliel under whom Saul of Tarsus was a learner,— 
 the great Rabban, grandson of Hillel, the celebrated 
 head of the school which opposed the narrow fana¬ 
 ticism of that of Shammai. 
 
 47. IN SAMARIA (Acts viii. 5-25). The mother 
 Church was now securely planted, the difficulty with 
 the Hellenists (ch. vi.) was settled, and the appoint¬ 
 ment «f deacons carried through. The time had 
 come when Peter could leave Jerusalem and carry 
 his gifts elsewhere. A door was opened for him first 
 in Samaria, a province distinguished for its enmity 
 to the Jews, its half-pagan, half-Judaic worship, and 
 its liking for the tricks and juggleries of the many 
 sorcerers and wizards who wandered from land to 
 
84 
 
 land over the East. Jesus Himself had travelled 
 through this alien territory, and at Syehar had 
 taught a Samaritan woman the worship of God 
 (John iv.). But when He first sent forth His 
 apostles two by two (Matt. x. 5), He had charged 
 them to enter into no Samaritan city. This con¬ 
 siderate restriction was removed when He in¬ 
 structed them, after His Resurrection, to be witnesses 
 of Him not only in Jerusalem and all Judea, but in 
 Samaria , and “unto the uttermost part of the 
 earth” (Acts i. 8). The way was now open for 
 taking up this larger commission. The persecution 
 in Jerusalem had driven Philip (not the apostle, but 
 the deacon or evangelist; cf. ch. vi. 5, xxi. 8), to a 
 place described as “ the city of Samaria,” which 
 some identify with the capital, known then as 
 Sebaste, others with Syehar. Here he gathered and 
 baptised many converts. When the tidings reached 
 Jerusalem, Peter and John were deputed to visit 
 them and impart the gift of the Holy Ghost, which 
 seems then to have been dependent on the prayers of 
 the apostles and the laying on of their hands. The 
 two were thus again in the territory in which one of 
 them once would have had fire called down from 
 heaven upon an inhospitable village (Luke ix. 51-56). 
 Here Simon Peter had to confront another Simon, a 
 notable sorcerer who had formerly wielded vast in¬ 
 fluence over the people, but had now professed belief 
 in J esus. It was probably the wonders wrought by 
 Philip’s hand that occasioned the sorcerer’s vague 
 adhesion for the time to the new faith. The greater 
 wonders wrought by the two apostles, wonders 
 which might seem to Simon Magus tokens of the 
 possession of magical powers surpassing any formerly 
 professed by himself, tempted him to crave, with an 
 offer of money, a share in the marvellous gift. Peter’s 
 stem rejection of the bribe, his call to repentance, 
 his declaration of the man as one still in the bitter¬ 
 ness of enmity to grace and in the chains of iniquity, 
 
85 
 
 were the fit answer to a request which had its motive 
 in covetousness of a power which would add eclat to 
 the sorcerer’s art. They drew from him the entreaty 
 that by the prayers of the Apostles he might escape 
 what was threatened him. But they drew from him 
 nothing more. a 
 
 48. PETER WITH PAUL AT JERUSALEM (Acts 
 ix. 26-30; Gal. i. 17-24 ; cf. also Acts xxii. 17-21, 
 xxvi. 20). After their work among the Samaritan 
 villages, the two apostles returned to Jerusalem, and 
 reported the results. Here we lose sight of John, 
 so far as the Book of Acts is concerned. Peter 
 probably continued to exercise his ministry in 
 Jerusalem for a period. At this juncture occurred 
 the memorable meeting between Peter and Paul, of 
 which the latter speaks in one of his letters. For the 
 narrative given in the first chapter of the Epistle to 
 the Galatians, though it deals with the event in an 
 entirely independent manner, is rightly taken to 
 refer to the occasion recorded in Acts ix. 26-30. 
 
 a Simon, it is said, gave out that “himself was some great one” 
 (verse 9). According to Irenasus, one of the earlier fathers, Simon 
 claimed that in him the Three Persons of the Trinity manifested 
 themselves. The people, it is stated in verse 10 (according to the 
 correct reading adopted by the Revised Version), said of him, “This 
 man is that power of God which is called great." This is explained as 
 indicating that they held him to be the highest of the Divine powers 
 “ emanating from God, and appearing and working among them as a 
 human person ” (Meyer)—an opinion which may have to some degree 
 prepared them for the preaching of an Incarnation of Deity. Tradition 
 has vastly added to the account of Simon which is given in the Book of 
 Acts. So early as the second century it was affirmed that he visited 
 Rome; by another century Peter and he were held to have met a 
 second time in controversy, the scene being Cajsarea; the encounter 
 is next shifted by tradition from Caesarea to Rome: and at last the 
 tradition developes into the grotesque form of a description of the 
 sorcerer challenging Peter, the bishop of Rome, to settle then' rival 
 claims by flying through the air. A very circumstantial story is 
 given by Justin Martyr to the effect that a statue was erected in 
 Rome in honour of Simon, and that it bore the inscription, Simoni 
 Deo Sancto , i.e., To Simon, the Holy God. That this stoiy originated 
 in a misreading of the inscription appears from the fact that an altar 
 was dug up in the vicinity three centuries ago having the title, 
 Semoni Deo Sanco, i.e., To the god Semo Sancus,—a Sabine deity 
 anciently worshipped there. 
 
86 
 
 That Paul attached great importance to this 
 interview with Peter, appears from the terms in 
 which he describes his object in going up to 
 Jerusalem. It was “to see Cephas” (Gal. i. 18; 
 according to the better supported reading), and the 
 word which Paul uses here for seeing or visiting is 
 one generally used, as was long ago observed, of 
 those “ who go to see great and famous cities.” The 
 brethren in the mother Church seem to have hesi¬ 
 tated how to receive him. But the kindly help of 
 Barnabas introduced him to the fellowship of the 
 apostles. He had fifteen days’ brotherly intercourse 
 with Peter ere he had to leave the city in consequence 
 of the plot against him. This was not the only 
 occasion on which the two great apostles met. But a 
 surpassing interest attaches to this first meeting 
 between Peter and Paul after the conversion of the 
 latter. We long to know what they talked of 
 during this eventful fortnight. But we are not told 
 what took place between them. 
 
 49. PETER AT LYDDA AND JOPPA (Acts ix. 32- 
 43). A period of rest had come to the Church (Acts 
 ix. 31), due, as some think, to the impression pro¬ 
 duced by the conversion of so notable a persecutor as 
 Saul, but more probably to the fact that the attention 
 of the Jews was absorbed by the mad attempt of the 
 Boman Emperor, Caligula, to place his statue in the 
 Temple. During this period Peter felt free to leave 
 Jerusalem, and resume his missionary journeys. We 
 find him at Lydda (afterwards Diospolis), a large 
 village in the fertile plain of Saron or Sharon, which 
 lies along the Mediterranean Coast. Here he wrought 
 a great miracle of healing on the palsied Eneas, which 
 was followed by the general conversion of the dis¬ 
 trict. We find him next at the important seaport, 
 Joppa, the modern Jaffa, in which town, as also in 
 Lydda, the foundations of a Christian Church seem 
 already to have been laid. What brought him there 
 was an urgent summons sent him by the disciples 
 
87 
 
 (quickened perhaps by the report of what had taken 
 place at Lydda), who were in grief over the death of 
 a Christian sister, by name Tabitha in Aramaic, 
 Dorcas in Greek (= gazelle), who had been dis¬ 
 tinguished for her charitable works. Joppa became 
 the scene of the first miracle of the raising of the 
 dead which was wrought, so far as we learn from 
 the Book of Acts, by the hand of an apostle. 
 Attempting it in the name of Christ, Peter seems, in 
 his method of performing it, to have followed his 
 own recollections of what Christ Himself did in 
 the calm and privacy of the chamber of Jairus’ 
 daughter. 
 
 50. PETER AND CORNELIUS (Acts xv.). The 
 time had now come when practical effect was to be 
 fully given to the breaking down of the middle wall 
 of partition between the Jew and the Gentile, and 
 the latter was to be admitted into the Christian 
 Church on equal terms with the former. The man 
 by whom the step at last was taken, which was so 
 alien to all ancestral religious sentiment, was the 
 Galilean Peter. It was not taken, however, until 
 his mind had been well prepared for it. The fact 
 that Peter, who remained iu Joppa, lodged in the 
 house of a Simon, whose trade was that of a tanner, 
 a trade reckoned unclean among the Jews by reason 
 of its having to do with dead animals, shows that 
 there had been a great loosening of the Jewish ex¬ 
 clusiveness in this Apostle. The critical importance 
 of the event leads the historian to record with un¬ 
 common detail the circumstances under which it took 
 place. It turned upon two visions which made two 
 very different men, living in two different seaport 
 towns, ready for it. One vision appeared to a devout 
 soldier in command of a cohort of the Poman forces 
 which was known as the Italian band (probably 
 so called as consisting not of Jews but of natives 
 of Italy), and was stationed in Caesarea, the great 
 maritime city, some forty miles north of Joppa, 
 
88 
 
 which was the seat of the Roman procurator. As 
 the centurion’s messengers, despatched in obedi¬ 
 ence to the Divine intimation, neared Joppa, 
 another vision was sent to Peter on the house¬ 
 top, whither he had retired for prayer. The vision 
 took its shape from the circumstances in which the 
 apostle was then found—alone, praying, probably 
 brooding over the problem of the Gentiles, and fast¬ 
 ing. He failed at first to understand its message. 
 With the old precipitance which had flamed forth in 
 the solemn feet-washing (John xiii. 8) he started 
 back from the idea of eating what was common or 
 unclean. The thrice recurring voice overcame his 
 bluntness, and made him ready to meet the messen¬ 
 gers and go with them to Caesarea. He went, 
 accompanied by a band of fellow-believers from 
 Joppa, and was welcomed in Caesarea. Checking 
 the centurion’s impulse to worship him, he spoke 
 freely of the way in which his Jewish difficulty had 
 been overcome, and as he was speaking the Holy 
 Ghost fell upon his Gentile hearers. His discourse 
 is remarkable for the simple account it gives of 
 Christ as One who did good, who was anointed with 
 the Holy Ghost and had God with Him, who died 
 and rose again, and was “ordained to be the Judge of 
 quick and dead.” It is interesting, too, for expres¬ 
 sions and ideas which meet us again in the Epistles, 
 e.g., that God is no respecter of persons (1 Pet. i. 17). 
 It has been disputed whether Cornelius was a Jewish 
 proselyte or a pure Gentile. If he was the latter 
 (and ch. x. 28, 34, 35; xi. 1,18; xv. 7, seem to favour 
 that), he was the first instance of a Gentile convert 
 being admitted at once into the Christian Church 
 without having to submit to anything belonging 
 to the Jewish theocracy, and the importance of the 
 event in which Peter was the prime mover becomes 
 the greater. 
 
80 
 
 Points for Further Enquiry. 
 
 1. The apparent discrepancies between the Gospels and 
 the Booh of Acts as regards the fate of Judas. 
 
 2. The use of the lot in Old Testament times. 
 
 3. Peter's interpretation of Psalm xvi. in his Pente¬ 
 costal address. 
 
 4. Particulars of the risings under Theudas and 
 Judas. 
 
 5. Explanation of the differences in the two accounts of 
 Paid's first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion. 
 
 6. The question whether Cornelius was a proselyte or 
 not. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 FROM THE ADMISSION OF CORNELIUS TO THE END. 
 
 51. PETER’S DEFENCE AT JERUSALEM 
 
 (Acts xi. 1-18). Peter seems to have remained some 
 time at Caesarea, and to have mingled freely with 
 his Gentile brethren. On his return to Jerusalem 
 his disregard of the old Jewish restrictions was made 
 matter of complaint. No fault was found with his 
 preaching to the Gentiles. What the stringent party 
 of the circumcision could not brook was his hav¬ 
 ing eaten with the uncircumcised. The statement 
 which he gave at a gathering of the disciples in 
 Jerusalem of the simple facts of the case, however, 
 carried his hearers with him. The difficulty was set 
 aside for the time. Peter’s defence is notable for 
 his appeal to words of the Lord Jesus which he had 
 in remembrance. His First Epistle contains many 
 sentences which read like echoes of sayings of Christ, 
 which, once heard by the Apostle in the holy days 
 of the circuits in Judea and Galilee, lived in his 
 memory and came naturally to his mouth. 
 
90 
 
 52. PETER’S IMPRISONMENT AND DELIVER¬ 
 ANCE (Acts xii. 1-19). We hear nothing of Peter 
 in connection either with the publication of the 
 Gospel to the Grecians, or with what followed on 
 the prophecy of Agabus (Acts xi. 19-30). When 
 he is next mentioned, he is again in Jerusalem, 
 and at the post of danger. Herod Agrippa, the 
 son of Aristobulus and Berenice, and grandson 
 of Herod the Great, was at the head of affairs. 
 This wily, pleasure-loving, and inconstant prince, 
 among other things which his thirst for popularity 
 led him to attempt in order to secure the favour of 
 his Jewish subjects, martyred James, the brother 
 of John, and next threw Peter into prison. The 
 king’s jealous orders, which had set sixteen soldiers 
 to keep guard over his notable prisoner in relays of 
 four, and had chained him to a soldier on either 
 side (double the ordinary precaution) in the night, 
 were of no avail. The Church had given itself to 
 prayer, and the Apostle was led out, not realising 
 what was befalling him, by the angel of God. Luke 
 describes with the most graphic truthfulness Peter’s 
 arrival at the house of Mary, the mother of John 
 Mark, the knocking at the gate, the surprised flight 
 of Rhoda, the incredulity of those within, who took 
 it to be his guardian angel, and the anxiety of Peter, 
 when he was once admitted, that tidings of his de¬ 
 liverance should be conveyed to James (that is, the 
 Lord’s brother) and the brethren." It is added that 
 he “ departed and went into another place.” The 
 historian gives no hint of what place this was to 
 which Peter betook himself for safety. It is certain 
 enough, however, that it was not that which the Romish 
 Church has been wishful to make it—Rome. We 
 find him too soon again in Jerusalem to make that 
 a reasonable conjecture. 
 
 53. PETER AND THE COUNCIL AT JERU¬ 
 SALEM (Acts xv. 1-31; Gal. ii. 1-10). Peter’s voice 
 
 a See Keble’s stanzas for St Peter’s Day in the Christian Year. 
 
91 
 
 is heard next on the side of liberality and charity 
 in connection with what is rightly described as 
 “ the most burning question of the time ” (Meyer). 
 The old difficulty which had been settled for a 
 time by Peter’s frank defence at Jerusalem, rose 
 afresh. It broke out now in Antioch, the strong¬ 
 hold of Gentile Christianity. The Church here 
 had been invaded by men from Judea, whom Paul 
 speaks of as false brethren, who came in surrepti¬ 
 tiously with the intention of forcing the yoke of the 
 Mosaic law upon the Gentile converts, and demanded 
 the circumcision of Titus. The Church of Antioch, 
 unable to set the matter at rest, deputed Paul and 
 Barnabas to consult the mother Church on the sub¬ 
 ject. At a meeting at Jerusalem, over which James 
 presided, and which consisted of all the apostles and 
 elders and the whole Church, the question was con¬ 
 sidered, and a unanimous decision reached. This 
 gave the Gentiles the liberty which was their Gospel 
 right, and imposed nothing upon them beyond the 
 law of abstinence from certain things, to the sinful¬ 
 ness of which the Gentile conscience might not be 
 over sensitive, and from others which, while not sinful 
 in themselves, might form stumbling blocks in social 
 intercourse. To this wise conclusion Peter made an 
 important contribution. His was the first word of 
 formal counsel. His testimony to the mission he had 
 himself received, to the gift of the Holy Ghost be¬ 
 stowed on the Gentiles, to the fact that God made no 
 difference between circumcised and uncircumcised in 
 the purifying power of His Grace, and to the danger 
 attending the imposition of the Mosaic yoke, was 
 taken up by the president, and decided the question. 
 Thus, Peter again met Paul in the capital city, and 
 proved himself in harmony with his large and liberal 
 reading of the Gospel message. From this point 
 Peter disappears from the page of the Book of Acts, 
 and Paul engrosses its narrative. 
 
 54. PETER DISSEMBLING (Gal. ii. 11-16). The 
 
92 
 
 Epistle to the Galatians gives us a glimpse of 
 another meeting between Peter and Paul. This 
 time it was like the “ collision of two thunder 
 clouds” (Peed). After the great Convention at 
 Jerusalem Peter visited Antioch, the very heart of 
 the Gentile Churches, and at first kept true to the 
 principles he had so nobly affirmed in the heart 
 of the Jewish Churches. There came men from 
 Jerusalem, however, perhaps using James’s name, 
 who took offence at Peter’s freedom. What they 
 rose against may have been not the liberty allowed 
 the Gentile Christians themselves, but the spectacle 
 of an apostle conforming to Gentile custom, and 
 disregarding the sacred requirements of the Jewish 
 law. Once more Peter’s firmness failed him. Per¬ 
 haps in mere inconsiderateness, perhaps from false 
 deference to the scruples of others, he withdrew 
 from the free terms on which he had been living 
 with the Gentile brethren. The mistake threatened 
 to carry serious consequences in its train. Even 
 Barnabas was carried off by it. Paul saw the danger 
 of the policy, and publicly rebuked Peter to his face. 
 He does not tell us in his great Epistle how the 
 rebuke was taken. But there is no reason to sup¬ 
 pose that it disturbed the brotherly relations of the 
 two men (cf. 2 Peter iii. 15), and on no other occasion 
 does Peter seem ever to have faltered in his practice 
 in this matter. 
 
 55. PETER’S LATER HISTORY. From this 
 
 point the New Testament gives no light upon Peter’s 
 career beyond what may be gathered from a few 
 references in the Epistles. We learn that he was 
 joined by Mark, who had worked with Barnabas, 
 and been with Paul at Pome (1 Pet. v. 13 ; Col. 
 iv. 10), and that Silvanus, the associate of Paul, was 
 the bearer of one of his letters (1 Pet. v. 12). It is 
 left uncertain how far his missionary labours ex¬ 
 tended. If the Babylon mentioned in 1 Pet. v. 
 13 is to be taken in the mystic sense which it has 
 
93 
 
 in the Apocalypse, we must trace him to Rome. If 
 it is to be taken in the literal sense, we must suppose 
 him to have carried the Gospel as far East as the 
 city on the Euphrates which represented the great 
 Babylon of imperial times. A vast edifice of tradi¬ 
 tion and legend has reared itself in the soil left 
 vacant by the New Testament history. The Papal 
 tradition is to the effect, that he was the founder 
 and first bishop of Rome, that he ruled there some 
 five and twenty years, and that he suffered martyr¬ 
 dom there along with Paul, being crucified at his 
 own request with his head downwards. Among 
 other legends there is one to the effect, that when the 
 Neronic persecution set in, he yielded to the pres¬ 
 sure of his disciples to seek safety by flight, but that 
 as he got beyond the gate, he had a vision in which 
 Christ appeared to him, and in answer to his ques¬ 
 tion, “ Lord, whither goest Thou % ” spake the words, 
 “ I go to Rome to be crucified yet again ; ” on hear¬ 
 ing which the apostle retraced his steps, to meet his 
 fate in the city. But for this and much more there 
 is no historic foundation. The most that can be 
 said is, that it is not altogether improbable that he 
 may have been in Rome toward the end of his career, 
 and that his death probably took place between 64 
 and 67 a.d. 
 
 56. THE FIRST EPISTLE. There is an early 
 tradition, which has not a little to support it, that 
 Mark was so closely associated with Peter as his 
 amanuensis or the interpreter of his words that the 
 Second Gospel bears the impress of Peter’s version 
 of the facts of his Lord’s life. The direct authorship 
 of two of the New Testament Epistles is ascribed to 
 him. The first of these is so strongly attested by 
 early external testimony, that the Church accepted 
 it from the first as undoubtedly Peter’s. There are 
 many unsolved problems, however, still connected 
 with it. It is uncertain whether the Churches to 
 which it is addressed consisted, as the opening desig- 
 
94 
 
 nation at first suggests, mainly of Jews, or, as such 
 passages as ch. i. 14-18; ii. 9-10; iii. 6; iv. 3, seem 
 rather to imply, mainly of Gentiles. The place 
 from which it was sent is stated to be Babylon (ch. 
 v. 13). But opinion is divided, as has been already 
 indicated, between the literal reading of the word, 
 as the Babylon on the Euphrates, and the figurative 
 reading of it as Borne. As to the date of the Epistle, 
 the most reasonable opinion is that it was written 
 near the close of the apostle’s life, probably about 
 66 a.d. The Churches to which it is directed are 
 planted either in countries into which the Gospel was 
 carried by Paul, or in territories which had received 
 the Gospel by hands unknown to us. The former is 
 the case with those in Galatia (cf. Acts xvi. 6 ; 
 xix. 10) and Asia (cf. Acts xviii. 23 ; xix. 1). The 
 latter is the case with those in Pontus, Cappadocia, 
 and Bithynia. The Epistle has ever been recog¬ 
 nised as among the most precious of all in the New 
 Testament. It has many points of affinity with the 
 Epistle of James, the First Epistle of John, and the 
 Epistles to the Bomans and the Ephesians. But it 
 has a marked individuality. It contains not a few 
 ideas and phrases which are peculiar to Peter, such 
 as the “ living hope ” (ch. i. 3), the “ conscience 
 toward God ” (ch. ii. 9), the description of baptism 
 as “the answer of a good conscience toward God” 
 (ch. iii. 21), the “gone into heaven” as used of 
 Christ (ch. iii. 22), the “kiss of charity” (ch. v. 14), 
 the profoundly difficult statements about the preach¬ 
 ing to the spirits in prison (ch. iii. 19-20), and the 
 preaching of the Gospel to them that are dead (ch. 
 iv. 6), &c. It has its own method of expressing the 
 truth as to the Person and the work of Christ. It is 
 constructed on a less systematic plan than any of 
 Paul’s great Epistles. It is distinguished by its 
 constant reflection of the language and ideas of the 
 Old Testament. Its prevailing tone is that of ani¬ 
 mation. Its prevailing object is to cheer and 
 
95 
 
 strengthen tried disciples, by recalling the great facts 
 of grace. It is so hopeful in tone that its author 
 has been called distinctively the Apostle of hope. 
 
 57. THE SECOND EPISTLE. The claim of the 
 Second Epistle to rank as Peter’s has been almost as 
 much doubted as the claim of the First has been 
 allowed. It was doubted at a very early period, 
 decidedly so by the fourth century. Gradually, how¬ 
 ever, it secured recognition as canonical, and held that 
 position for many centuries until the question was 
 again raised at the Reformation. The grounds on 
 which these doubts proceed have been partly the 
 scantiness of early historic testimony, partly things in 
 the Epistle itself which are taken to imply depend¬ 
 ence upon other writings, partly points on which it 
 is supposed to differ materially from the First Epistle. 
 These doubts have been met with so fair a measure 
 of success that the Church of Christ for the most 
 part has given it a place in the list of canonical books. 
 It seems to be addressed to the same Churches as 
 the former Epistle, and, if written by Peter, it must 
 belong to the very close of his life. It has touching 
 references to his old age and his impending death. 
 It recalls the memorable scene on the Mount of 
 Transfiguration. It is remarkable for the picture it 
 gives of the unity of the Christian graces, for its 
 view of prophecy, for its description of the last days, 
 its doctrine of the final purification of the world by 
 fire, its mention of Paul and his Epistles. 
 
 Points for Further Enquiry. 
 
 1. The meetings between Paul and Peter in Jerusalem 
 —their number and circumstances. 
 
 2. Herod Agrippa’s career. 
 
 3. The Jewish belief in guardian angels. 
 
 4. The Old Testament doctrine of angels. 
 
 5. The precepts of abstinence commended to Gentile 
 Christians by the Council of Jerusalem, and the so-called 
 Noachian precepts. 
 
 6. Points of likeness and difference between the two 
 Epistles.