Sion (Hastings' Dictionary)

1. Names.—The apostle bears the names Συμεών or Σίμων, Κηφᾶς or Πέτρος ; sometimes the names are combined—Ziuwy Πέτρος. (a) Συμεών, Σίμων, When the Jews were brought into con- nexion with Greek life, for the old Hebrew name of the patriarch (Gn 9933), -ὐ νον, Συμεών (LXX)— the true Greek name Σίμων was frequently sub- stituted (Sir 50). In 1 Mac the ancestor of the Maccabees is Συμεών (21, οὗ, Jos. Ant. XI. vi. 1); Simon Macc. himself is once called Συμεών (2%), Συμεών is found in Jos. BJ Iv. iii. 9, and in the NT (of persons other than the apostle) Lk 2", Ac 13". Σίμων is often transliterated into Aramaic as ΠΡ (see Dalman, Die Worte Jesu p. 41, Gram. Aram. p. 143; ef. Deissmann, Bibelstudien p. 184; it should, however, be noticed, that in the Syriac versions of the NT the old form ΣΤΟΝ alone is used). The apostle then bore the Hebrew name Symeon, but was much more often (see below) called by the Greek name Simon, which had be- come its common equivalent. (2) Κηφᾶς, Πέτρος. The plural of the Hebrew substantive (o'22= ‘rocks’) is found in Job 30°, Jer 4% (LXX πέτραι in both og eo ‘In the Targums (Buxtorf, Lexicon Chaldaicum 1032) [the word] occurs as 72, ΜΕΘ, for a rock or a stone (e.g. gems, hail- stones, thunderbolts), ora shore. The same senses recur in the Talmud and Midrashim (Levy- Fleischer, Newheb. u. Chald. Worterb. ii, 321 £2); where the word has also the meaning “ring”; apparently the sense ‘‘rock” is rare’ (Hort, First Ep. of St. Peter p. 152). There seems to be no evidence that the word was in any other case used as a name; it has no connexion with the name Caiaphas (Nestle in Expos. Times x. p. 185). Similarly, with regard to the Greek equivalent Πέτρος, there is little or no evidence of its occurrence as a proper name. Keim (History of Jesus of Nazara iv. p. 265, Eng. tr.) refers to Jos. Ané. XVII. vi. 3, where a freedman of Berenice, mother of Agrippa L, is in some texts named Πέτρος ; but PETER (SIMON), , ., . according to ἃ better supported ee the name is Πρῶτος (see Niese). From Rabbinic literature a very few instances of the occurrence of the name Peter are adduced (see Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah i. p. 475n.; Dalman, Gram Aram. p. 147). The usage of NT.—({a) Συμεών. In 2 P 11 the reading Συμεὼν Πίτρος (RAKLP and the mass of MSS) is perhaps better sup- ported than its rival Σίμων Π, (B curs. circ. 20, verss. pler.), and certainly, as a combination which occurs nowhere else in the NT, it is not likely to be due to copyists. In one passage of the NT the name stands above suspicion. St. James begins his speech in Ac 1614 with the words “Avdpis ἀδελφοί, ἀκούσατέ μου. Συμεὼν ἱξηγήσατο x.7.A. Here the Hebrew name Συμεών completely harmonizes with the intentional antiqueness of the opening appeal (cf. e.g. 20h 20202811), (Ὁ) The Greek Σήμων (apart from the combination Σ. Πέτρος) is not found in the narrative of the Gospels after the apostle’s call excepy in connexion with the lists of the apostles (Mt 418102, Mk 116. 29f. 36 316, Lk 438 68M. 10 614, Jn 141), On the other hand, Simon is the name by which our Lord addresses him (Mt 1725, Mk 1437, Lk 2241, and, with his father’s name added, Mt 1617, Jn 142 21160"), the exceptions (see below) being Mt 1618, Lk 2254; and by which the apostles are introduced as speaking of him (Lk 2434; but see Mk 167). Thus it would seem that during the months of discipleship the apostle was still commonly known by his name Simon; and this was the case even in much later days among those who, being outside the Church, could not under- stand the strange Πέτρος as in itself a sufficient designation (Ac 105-18. 32 1118), (c) After St. Peter had taken his place as leader in the earliest stages of the Church's history, that name—Kyees, [1érees—which his Master had given him as pro- phetic of his special functions, superseded, at least in Chris- tian circles, his original name Simon. So late as the time when St. Paul wrote to the Galatians and to the Corinthians, the great Apostle of the Circumcision was recognized among distant Gentile Churches under his Aramaic name Cephas (Gal 118 29. 11. 14, 1 Co 112 322 95 155)—a fact which suggests that at Jeru- salem, where St. Paul first knew him, and whence emissaries came to Corinth and to the Churches of Galatia, the name Cephas at least most frequently was used. At the same time, at any rate in Galatia, the Greek equivalent Πέτρος was not unknown (Gal 27%). Atall events, before the time when 1 Peter, the Synoptic Gospels, and the Acts were written, the Greek name Πέτρος was that one by which the apostle was known throughout the Christian Church. As to details, the name Πέτρος predominates in the Synoptic Gospels (narrative)—Mt 19 times, Mk 18 times, Lk 16 times; it is common in Jn (15 times); it is exclusively used in the narrative of the Acts, 51 times. As to the use of Πέτρος in speeches in place of the usual Σίμων (see above)—in Mk 167 the evangelist extends hisown usage into his report of the angel's message; in Lk 2234 [lécps seems designedly used to bring out the tragic contrast between the typical position of the apostle and his destined failure; in Ac 1018 117 (the voice from heaven), though it may at first sight seem simplest to suppose that the name was used by which he was then commonly known, yet it must be remembered that this first opening of the door of faith to the Gentiles was one of the occasions in view of which our Lord gave him the name Peter. (d) The combination Size» Πέτρος never occurs in Mk. It is found once in Mt (1616), once in Lk (58)—both passages recording a turning-point of the apostle’s life; in St. John it is used no fewer than 17 times; it is at least a well-supported variant in 2P 11, The combination then appears to be one which naturally suggested itself to two evangelists in con- nexion with two events closely bearing on St. Peter’s life-work, and which, partly perhaps as uniting current Christian usage with a distant past, was a favourite with St. John. In one part of the Church, as might have been expected, the name Cephas survived. In the Syriac versions of the Gospels and of the Acts the common name for the apostle is Simon Cephas. 2. Family, home, education.—(a) The name of the apostle’s father appears as Ἰωνᾶς in Mt 16”, as ᾿Ιωάνης in Jn 121)". 16.“ Tt is generally supposed that "Iwas is a contraction of "Iwdyns. It is, how- ever, possible that we have here an instance of a double name, Jona-Jochanan or Jonas-Johannes, see art. JOHN (FATHER OF SIMON PETER). (0) The brother of Simon Peter, like his fellow-townsman Philip, bears a true Greek name—Avdpéas. It is, perhaps, to be noticed that Andrew, with Philip, appears in connexion with certain Ἕλληνες (the word may mean Gentiles, or, in the stricter sense, Greeks) in Jn 12%, It is certainly significant that both brothers were known by Greek names. (c) That the apostle was married in the earliest days of the gospel history appears from Mt 8", Mk 1, Lk 48, His wife in ee years was the companion of his missionary journeys (1 Co 9°). “In each of the four passages in Gal the name Peter is substituted by some inferior authorities. PETER (SIMON) (2) The Syoptists clearly place ‘the house of imon’ (in which it appears that his wife, his brother, and his mother-in-law lived) at Capernaum (Mt 814, Mk 121-29, Lk 481-83), With this state- ment that of St John (1% ἣν δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος ἀπὸ Βηϑσαιδά, ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ᾿Ανδρέου καὶ Πέτρου) is often thought to be at variance. We may, however, suppose that the brothers originally came from Bethsaida, but were now living at Capernaum (so Swete on Mk 115). It may be questioned, however, whether St. John does not intend to distinguish Bethsaida from ‘the city of Andrew and Peter,’ the former being the present home (ἀπό; so 1221), the latter the birthplace (ix), of Philip. A similar question arises as to Jn 111 Λάζαρος ἀπὸ Βηθανίας ix τῆς χώμης Μαρίας x. Maples. Here it is to be noticed that (1) if the κώμη was Bethany, there seems to be little reason why it should be mentioned at all; (2) Lk 1038 says that the χώρη where Mary and Martha lived was visited by our Lord ‘as they were journeying’ (iv τῷ πορεύεσθαι αὐτούς), a notice which appears to distinguish it from Bethany. According to this view Tecaens lived at Bethany (cf. Jn 121), but was a native of the villagé where his sisters lived, at some distance from Jerusalem. St. John, it may be added, is fond of using ix and ἀσό side by side; but a study of the passages where they so stand shows that each ι een retains its roper meaning—see Jn 145f 688. 38. ν 212), 17.41f 1623.30 (cf, (e) St. Peter is described as ‘a fisherman’ in Mt #8 || Mk 116 (cf. Lk 57), and the same thing is im- lied in Jn 218. He owned ‘a boat’ (Lk 5°), which e worked with his brother. The sons of Zebedee were his partners (Lk 510); and thus the four apostles were friends before—probably long before ey followed Jesus. It is not necessary to draw out at length the traits—vigour, courage, resource- fulness—which the life of a tisherman on the lake would necessarily develop in a naturally healthy character. It is more important to ask what was the apostle’s relation to the culture of his time and country. Probably the traditional view of him asa rough, uneducated peasant is a consider- able exaggeration of one side of the truth. He was, of course, without such a formal training as fell to the lot of St. Paul. But, on the other hand, the influence of a religious home and of the synagogue must have had a foremost place in forming the apostle. A significant phrase of St. Andrew’s (Jn 1") suggests that both brothers had felt the spell of the Messianic hope. In these early days St. Peter must have gained his close knowledge of the OT, and it is very far from improbable that he was acquainted with the LXX (see art.on 1 PETER). It has been already pointed out as a significant fact that the apostle, like his brother, was commonly known by a Greek name. His home was on the Sunk populated shore of the lake, where trade brought together representatives of many nation- alities, and where (to say the least) Greek must have been to some extent a medium of communi- cation (see e.g. T. K. Abbott, Hssays p. 129 ff. ; Zahn, Hinl. i. p. 28f.). But whatever Greek St. Peter learned in Galilee must have been rather of a conversational than of a literary kind; it was nevertheless an important foundation. Two, and (as it would seem) only two, notices are preserved in the Gospels and Acts bearing on this subject: (1) St. Peter was recognized in Jerusalem as a Galilean by the accent and perhaps the idiom of his Aramaic (see Swete’s note on Mk 14” with references), (2) The members of the Sanhedrin regarded St. Peter and his companion St. John as, from their point of view, illiterate men (Ac 4%), The words are καταλαβόμενοι Sri ἄνθρωποι ἀγράμματοί εἶσιν καὶ Ricra . The term ἀγράμματος looks back to the facta of a man's past early life. Toa Greek it meant one who was an duaures (0.97 Prato. Tim, 23 B), one who has had no part in either side of Greek education ; to s Jew it meant one eh had had no training in the Rabbinic study of Scripture (cf. Jn 715), The term Dierne rather regarded a man’s present position. With a Greek it was the antithesis to πολιτικός; in the mouth of a Jew (who trans- literated it ΘΛ} it expressed the contrast between the man who could understand and take part in religion as conceived of by PETER (SIMON) 757 the scribes and one of the ὄχλος (Jn 749), an ‘am ha-'a: see especially Weber, Die Lehren des τάμα Φ11, ‘Der plato Character der 11, Religiositit"). Compare the gaying of the Fathers : ‘ No boor isa sin-fearer, nor is the vulgar (am ha ‘drez) pious’ elhod Aboth, ed. Taylor, p. 30). Thus the words are strictly relative to the point of view of the high priests. Th = pay: ea oho specially called forth by the ἀροῦν ness in expounding a Ὁ of Scripture in the presence and in application to, thie ules ᾿ ν Ὁ 8. The calls of St. Peter.—{i.) The apostle’s first meeting with the Lord, and the call to Sriendshyp. — The history is recorded only in St. John (1-), Andrew and John (for he clearly is the unnamed actor in the scene)—one of each of the two pairs of brothers who together were in partnership—are expressly spoken of as belonging to the number (ἐκ) of the Baptist’s disciples (vv.%), Since St. Peter and, as the language (πρῶτον, τὸν ἴδιον, v.!) seems to imply, St. James were close at hand, it is a natural inference that St. Peter had become a disciple of the Baptist, and through the gate of this einetip passed into friendship with Jesus of Nazareth. It is more than probable, then, that St. Peter had been a witness Bas Lord’s baptism (Ac 1” 10°), On this day—which Edersheim (i. p. 3441.) gives some reason for supposing to have been a Sabbath—after Andrew fiat neard the Baptist’s witness (v.%) and had followed Jesus, he went in quest of Simon, and, telling him that he had found the Messiah, brought him to Jesus. Jesus fixes upon him that piercing, scrutinizing gaze (ἐμβλέψας) which was to rest upon him at a ater crisis of his life (Lk 22%), and greets him—it does not appear from the narrative whether Jesus had known Simon before or not (ef. v.)—Zv εἴ Σίμων ὁ vids ᾿Ιωάνου, σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς (for the use of the patronymic on solemn occasions cf. Mt 16}7, Jn 21%), Thus the Lord receives him as bein just what he was in himself, as the product ait heir of a past over which he had had no control, as destined to a peculiar office. In the last clause the Lord does not bestow a new name (see Mt 16"); He rather reveals a character which He already claims for future service. As yet no permanent bond united Jesus and the men whom He had gathered round Him. For, after being His com- nions in His journey to Galilee and again in is visit to Jerusalem at the Passover, St. Peter and the rest resumed, as they did on a much later occasion (Jn 21), their work as fishermen. (ii.) Zhe call to discipleship.—This call must be placed some time after, as the earlier call some time before, the first Passover of the sar fe It is not possible to decide what is the precise relation of the history of the call as related in Mt 4% Mk 1'* (clearly based on a common source) to that given in Lk 5'4, The essential points com- mon to the two accounts are that Jesus calls St. Peter while he is at work (see Plummer on Lk 5'®), that he makes the apostle’s present work a parable of his future work, and that the apostle’s obedience is immediate. As to points of difference, Mt and Mk record the Lord’s summons δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου; Lk uts the call in another setting—a miracle of fleeing leads up to the act of obedience. It is possible that Mt and Mk on the one hand, and on the other Lk, give the history of tio ooccasions—one when the apostle followed the Lord then and there, but did not finally leave his occupation; the other when the decisive step of renunciation was taken, In support of this view it may be urged (1) that the two narratives seriously differ ; (2) that the Lord certainly did repeat on a later occasion the call ἃ κολούδι 4, When added experiences would interpret ite deeper mean- ng (Jn 211% 2%), But it is much more probable that Mt and Mk follow a document or a tradition which brought together in a summarized narrative the calling of the four chief aposties, and that thus the story of St. Peter's call is the same as that which Lk, on the strength of fuller information (cf. 4!®), narrates in detail. In either case, it is important to notice the vividness of | Lk's narrative as itself a witness to ite truthfulness—especially the two sayings of St. Peter: (a) v.® (of. Jn 25); (6) ν᾿ ifm =... (an undesigned contrast to Jn ΟΕ, and an impulsive ory | which has parallels in St, Peter's later history). PETER (SIMON) In close connexion with this call (assuming that there was but one) to discipleship, on a Sabbath either just before it (Lk 455) or just after it (Mk 12.) we must place the miracle which the Lord wrought in His disciple’s home—the healing of Peter's mother-in-law. From the phrase διηκόνει αὐτῷ (αὐτοῖς) in each of the three accounts we ma: infer that our Lord ate there that day; and it 18 likely enough that the disciple’s home was ‘the house’ where He regularly stayed when at Caper- naum (Mt 17%, Mk 95). (iii.) The call to apostleship.—If the call to discipleship must have been somewhat later than the first Passover of the ministry (Jn 2"), the call to apostleship must be placed somewhat earlier than the (presumably) second Passover (see Mk 6™: 595... Jn 6‘). The interval therefore separating the two calls cannot have been much more than six months. The history is given in Mt 10", Mk 35%, Lk 6", The details must be passed over here. It must suffice to note that the Twelve were chosen from the whole body, and that the Lord’s choice constituted them (1) in an especial sense His com- ions—tva dow μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ (Mk 3"; cf. Lk 22%, Jn 15”); (2) His envoys, when the occasion came, to Israel, with authority to preach and heal. The primary place in our Lord’s purpose was_ their education for future work. The lists of the Twelve given by the Synoptists v in many ways, but in each of them St. Peter holds the first place (Mt πρῶτος Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος II. ; cf. Jn 213, Ac 113). Some time after this selection had been made, the Lord sent out the Twelve to execute their double office as heralds of the kingdom and healers of the sick, two by two, marking as the scope of their mission ‘ the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Mt 101. 42, Mk 67-18, Lk 9'6; it is clear that Matthew places the mission immediately after the appoint- ment of the Twelve from a characteristic desire to bring together the notices of the selection, the instruction, and the dismissal of the Twelve). As tc the use of the name ἀπόστολος in reference to the Twelve in the Gospels (except Lk 175 22!4 241) only in connexion with this mission, see Hort, Ecclesia, p. 22 ff. We cannot but ask, Who was St. Peter's companion? The answer is almost certainly St. John. For (1) the Lord sent them together on a peculiarly solemn commission at a later time, Lk 228; ~_ they appear as companions in the gospel history, Jn 1 208i, and in the apostolic history, Ac 31-419 314 (mission to Samaria), Gal 29; (3) they were closely associated in the upper room (Jn 132), and on the occasion of the Lord’s appearance by the Lake (Jn 2120), and together formed part of an inn2r circle of the apostles in Jairus’ house (Mk 537), on the Mt. of Bee, err Mk 92), on the Mt. of Olives (Mk 13%), in Gethsemane (Mk 143%); and in this connexion the order in Lk 891 923 (Πέτρον καὶ ᾿Ινάνην καὶ ᾿Ιάκωβον) and Ac 113 is to be specially noticed. It is impossible at this point to refrain from re- marking that a mere notice of the occasions when St. Peter’s name is mentioned in the Gospels is apt to make us forget the all-important fact that it was in daily fellowship with the Lord, in the daily contemplation of His acts and words, public and private, that the real significance and power of this period lay. Without some intimation of this obvious truth, a brief review of the specific evidence of the Gospels as to St. Peter’s life during this time may become positively misleading. It has been convenient to consider the mission of the Twelve in close connexion with their selec- tion. But between the two occasions we must, as it appears, place a miracle with which St. Peter was brought into close relation—the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mt 918-35. Mk 5-4, Lk 841-85), Tt is the first of three occasions when ‘Peter and James Mt 814 introduces the account without any indication of time. It would appear that at this point le is bringing together typical works of healing (81-17), just as he has brought se single discourse (6-7; cf. 13) typical utterances of the PETER (SIMON) and John’ were chosen from among the Twelve as witnesses of a «vorijpiov—here of a revelation of Christ the Life. It may have beer designed as a special preparation for some crisis in their mission soon to follow (Mt 108 νεκροὺς éyelpere). It is difficult not to trace the vividness of the narrative in Mk to the influence of St. Peter. ἃ, St. Peter as the Lord’s companion during the (apparently) last year of the ministry.—The Twelve returned to Christ about the time when He received news of the Baptist’s murder. The re- tirement across the Lake and the Feeding of tke Five Thousand immediately followed. This who.e series of events prepared the way for a period the general character of which is expressed by the words ‘the proving of faith’ (1 P 1%). (i.) The storm on the Lake (Mt 147%, Mk 64, Jn 6'-).—It is remarkable that Matthew alone reserves the record of St. Peter’s boastful chal- enge (behind which there lay a deep love for His Master, and impatience of separation from Him), his sudden fear and piteous appeal for help. Christ Himself sums up the meaning of the apostle’s failure in the word ὀλιγόπιστες It would be quite in accordance with the character of St. Peter if, when the boat came to land, he was the spokesman of ‘those who were in the ship’ in their confession, ἀληθῶς θεοῦ vids εἴ (Mt). (ii.) The Lords hard sayings at Capernaum.— St. John records (6) that the sequel of the Lord’s teaching at Capernaum about the bread of life was that many of His disciples left Him. Jesus turns to the Twelve and asks them if they too are intending to go away. Simon Peter at once answers for the rest. is reply brings out the apostle’s belief in the Lord (1) as superior to all other teachers (πρὸς τίνα ἀπελ.; cf. Jn 3°) ; (2) as the source of a life-giving revelation (ef. v.®); (3) as the embodiment of Divine holiness. This, the last element in the confession, is introduced w th the emphatic ἡμεῖς πετιστεύχαμεν καὶ ἐγνώχαμεν. The apostles (ἡμεῖς) with their sure conviction are placed in contrast to the faithless seceders. Their present assured belief is the out- come of past experience deliberately interpreted. What is the meaning of the title ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ ἢ In a wholly independent context it is put into the mouth of the demoniac (Mk 1%), It would therefore appear to be a recognized title, probably a title of the Messiah. This is confirmed when we turn to Ac 814 (τὸν ἅγιον x. δίκαιον ἠρνήσασθε), Where it is placed beside τὸν . . « δίκαιον (which is certainly used of Messiah; see below, on Theology of St. Peter’s Speeches). In this (apparently) Mes- sianic title two lines of thought, as it would seem, converge. (a) Jehovah is ‘the Holy One of Israel’ (e.g. Is 14), (Ὁ) The messengers of Jehovah, the typical priest ᾿Ααρὼν τὸν ἀγιον κυρίου, Ps 106 (106) 17) and the prophet (2 K 49) are holy; the whole theocratic nation is holy (e.g. Ex 198, Nu 163 ; note in this connexion the mysterious phrase ‘ the Saints’ apparently of the members of the nation, Zec 145, Dn 718. 22. 25.27), This holiness is conceived of by current Jewish expectation as actually realized in the Messianic people, Ps-Sol 1786 (ὅτ, πάντες ἅγιοι, % βασιλεὺς αὐτῶν χριστὸς κύριος). The Messiah Himself, then, who was regarded at once as the special messenger of Jehovah, and also as the flower and crown of the Messianic nation, was naturally described as ‘the Holy One,’ ‘ the Holy One of God.’ But just as the Messianic title ὁ δίκαιος was raised to a higher and more absolute meaning by later NT writers (e.g. 1Jn 21), so it was in the case of ὁ ἅγιος (Rev 87,1 Jn 22), To return to St. Peter’s use of the phrase at Capernaum, though the words are an official title, yet their ethical and spiritual meaning is not lost here or in Mk 124, Messiah’s sinlessness and purity were a magnet to faithful disciples (cf. 1 P 222). And the avowed realization of this, as contrasted with Lk 58, marka a stage in the apostle’s spiritual education. (iii.) The questions at Cesarea Philippi.—There are three stages in the history—(A) The Confes- sion (Mt 1618-°8, Mk 87-88, Lk 918-27), The account in Mt is the fullest ; on the omission of the promise to St. Peter in Mk see Swete on 8%. The Gali- lean ministry was drawing to a close (see Swete, p. 166). Our Lord was farther from Jerusalem than at any other time of His ministry, and on the borders of the purely Gentile world. The time and place, then, of themselves suggest the question whether Israel, generally and as_repre- sented by His immediate disciples, accepted Him PETER (SIMON) whether the foundation for the t work of the future was being solidly laid. The occasion was felt by the Lord to be a great crisis, and He prepared for it as such by prayer (Lk 918. The confession of St. Peter at Capernaum was the impulsive response of the disciple to the Master’s anxious, foreboding question. But now the stage in the education of the Twelve had been reached when it was well that they should deliberately and definitely face the question of the Lord’s Person. In the outskirts (Mk 8”), therefore, of Cesarea the Lord put two questions to the Twelve —(a) What were men generally saying of Him? Here they all contributed something to the answer. They had seen different sides of Jewish opinion. (6) What was the thought of the Twelve themselves about Him? Here the answer of one is the answer of all, and St. Peter is their natural spokesman. The Twelve regarded Him as the ivine Messiah. Th 18 to th rds—®D εἶ ὁ ὅς , τὸ cade τοῦ λον LAD, Lod ὁ χα ὦ οἶδε τεῦ ῥωῦ τοῦ Revver (Mt). The mportant (era , Was St. Peter commended for con- f the Divinity of Jesus or His Messiahship? It is probably true that ‘the Son of God’ was not a common designation of the Messiah, but (1) the langu: of 2 Es 728. Ὁ (‘My Son Messiah ') 1322.87.62 149; comp. Enoch 1052; (2) the language which the evangelists put into the mouths of persons who can hardly be conceived of as one and all rising to the absolute meaning of the title ‘Son of God,’ but who would naturally use Messianic lan t 829 || Mk Lk, Mt 1433 see above, Mt 2740. 43 (2754 | Mk}, Mk 341, Lk 2270, Jn 184 49 1127 197); (3) the language of Lk 441 (σὺ a] δ᾽ υἱὸς τοῦ θιοῦ. . . ἤδισαν τὸν χριστὸν αὐτὸν elves) ; (4) the language of St. Matthew in the immediate context, v.20 ive μηδενὶ εἴπωσιν ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός, Seem to make it clear that the title ‘Son of God’ was used as bearing a Messianic meaning in our Lord’s day. Hence it matters little whether we consider ¢ υἱὸς τοῦ θιοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος 88 part of the . original confession, or as an addition of St. Matthew. In either case it is as Messiah that St. Peter confesses Jesus. See especi- ally Dalman, Die Worte Jesu pp. 219-226. Thus the revelation of suffering which follows in 1 Gospel is the earliest insistence on that side of the true Messiah’s work which became the greatest stumbling-block to the Jew. (B) Our Lord’s welcome of the Confession (Mt 167-9 only).—It is clear that our Lord regarded the deliberate confession of His Messiahship as marking a crisis in His relations with the Twelve, and as a pledge of the growth of the kingdom. He answers it with a solemn beatitude addressed to St. Peter (μακάριος el—the only occasion when the Lord pronounces a beatitude on an individual), and by a declaration that his confession had no lower source than a revelation from the Father Himself (cf. Gal 1). And then speaking, as it would appear, as King Messiah (κἀγὼ 5é—‘ The Father has revealed Me as Messiah to the dis- ciple ; I in turn reveal My disciples’ place in the kingdom’), He opens out the future under four metaphors— ᾿ (a) St. Peter as the foundation of the new einen Taking the Syriac versions as our guide, we may conclude that our Lord’s words, spoken in Aramaic, run thus: ‘Thou art Cepha, and upon this Cepha I will build my congregation.’ ere there are three points to be briefly considered—(a) τὴν ἐκκλησίαν μου. The word is used in its ancient theocratic sense, and the meaning is best repre- sented by the paraphrase, ‘I will build my Israel.’ It must be sufficient to refer to Hort’s The Chris- tian Ecclesia pp. 3-18, esp. p. 10f. (8) οἰκοδομήσω. The metaphor of building, to express the idea of creating and giving unity and permanence to a society of men, is not uncommon in the oT (ε.σ. Ps 28°, Jer 18°). It is important to notice that the Lord reserves to Himself the prerogative of activity. He alone is the builder. Compare the Messianic parable in Sibyll. Orac, v. 420 ff. (y) In what sense is Cepha the foundation? Does die word point to the first stone of the building, the foundation-stone, or to the soil, the rock on which the first stones are laid? We may say, in view of our Lord’s earlier saying (Mt 7, Lk 6“), PETER (SIMON) 759 that almost certainly the latter is the true inter- pretation. Thus the Rock is, so far as the sco of the parable is concerned, separated from the stones reared thereon. This last point helps us to answer the question as to the interpretation of the Rock. It is the apostle who has just made the confession that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. The parable itself limits its application. When the foundation has been laid, the apostle’s function as described by the metaphor will have ceased. He will support the first stones of the ecclesia. ae true comment on the Lord’s promise is Ac Other interpretations of these famous words can be onl briefly noted. (1) The Rock is Christ. This interpretation excluded by the fact that in the Aramaic there is no variation (Cepha . . . Cepha) as in the Greek (wires . . . πέτρᾳ), and that Christ Himself speaks of Himself as the builder. (2) The Rock is St. Peter's confession. This interpretation is excluded by the fact that the confession considered in itself was wholly inadequate. It does not include either the Resurrection or the Divinity of the Lord. Its value was strictly relative to the time when it was made. The same consideration excludes the modification of the above view which explains the Rock of St. Peter's faith. That faith was a quality which varied from time totime. (3) St. Peter as the type of, or in combination with, the other apostles, is the Rock. So Hort (Ecclesia p. 161, e.g. ‘In virtue of this personal faith vivifying their disciple- ship, the Apostles became themselves the first little Ecclesia, constituting a an or upon which,’ etc.). But our Lord's words, as reported by St. Matthew, could not be more per- sonal. To a ine that the Lord addresses St. Peter here as a type of his fellow-apostles, is in effect to imply that no words could be personal unless a Ate reference were explicitly excluded. See also ‘ Additional Note’ on p. 795%. A clear statement as to the exposition of the words and the lines of pee interpretation is to be found in Lightfoot, Clement ii. pp. 481-490. (δ) The new Israel as the conqueror.—The ἐκκλησία is an aggressive power. Death—the adversary of Christ—is in possession of his stronghold. But ‘his gates’ (cf. Ps 915 107', Job 38”, Is 38”) cannot withstand the attack. The new Israel is victorious against ‘ walled cities’ like the first Israel (ef. ¢.g. Dt 3.5). Such appears to be the meaning. The clause, however, has no special bearing on St. Peter’s functions. (c) St. Peter as the steward of the kingdom.+— δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν. The words seem to be an intentional reminiscence of the message of Jehovah as to Eliakim (Is 22%): ‘The key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder.’ The words are paraphrased in the LXX text represented by B (καὶ δώσω τὴν δόξαν Δαυεὶδ αὐτῷ), but § has καὶ δώσω καὶ αὐτῷ τὴν κλῖδαν οἴκου A., and A has a conflate reading. (d) St. Peter as the scribe who ‘binds’ and ‘looses.’ —xal ὃ ἐὰν Shops κιτιλ. In this use of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ there cannot be but a close reference τὸ the current technical use of these words to express the authoritative decision of a scribe on a matter of obligation (cf. Mt 5; ef. Edersheim, Life and Times ii. p. 84f.). Such de- cisions on St. Peter’s part in the new kingdom shall be the echoes of decisions already promul- vated in heaven. On these two verses see especially alman, Die Worte Jesu pp. 174-178. In regard to the essential meaning of this series of metaphors as applied to St, Peter, the following points howl be noted: (1) They seem to be all conditioned by the scope of the first of them, the It is true that the word cepha is not used by the Syriac versions in these two But that the word cepAa does mean ‘a rock’ as well as ‘a stone’ is clear from the fact that it is used to render mirpa in Mt 27@ (Pesh.) 27% (Syr#® Peah.); it may therefore have been used by our Lord in the saying In question. See additional note on the Rabbinical use of Rook in reference to Abraham at end of art. 1 Perma. 4 Com; the remarkable legend preserved in Apoe, Baruch 1018 and (in a somewhat different form) in the Kest of the Words of Baruch 4, ‘Jeremiah took the keys of the sanctuary of God and went out of the city and cast them away before the sun, saying, ‘To thee 1 say, Osun, take the keys of the sanctuary of God . . . forasmuch as we were not found worthy to keep them, because we were false stewards.”’ PETER (SIMON) rock-foundation, ἔνε. our Lord is dealing with the first stage of the history of the new ecclesia. The relation of St. Peter to the new Israel is in some sense to correspond to the relation of Moses and Joshua to the ancient Israel. (2) The promise as to ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ given here to St. Peter is in Mt 1818 given to the disciples. It would seem, therefore, if the words in the two places are to be understood in precisely the same sense, that St. Peter is, on the former occasion, singled out from the other disciples because he would be the first to exercise, or would be the leader in the exercise of, a power common to all. At the same time it must be noted that (a) the context in ch. 18 (viz. vv.!5-17- 2-) deals with the forgiveness of sins ; (8) Dalman (p. 177) shows that in Jewish Aramaic the word ‘to loose’ (xz), at any rate, is used meta- phorically in various senses. It does not then seem certain that the terms must bear the same meaning in both passages. (3) The Bk. of the Acts records the historical fulfilment of the promises to St. Peter. But it must be remembered that in that Book we have not a complete history of the earliest days of the Church, and that the writer is himself familiar rather with somewhat later developments. There may well have been occasions, unnoticed by the author of the Acts, which contributed to the ἀραῖς οὺς fulfilment of the Lord’s promises to St. eter. (C) The Lords rebuke of St. Peter.—The con- fession of St. Peter and our Lord’s announcement that He Himself would be the founder of a new Israel form the turning-point in the education of the Twelve. Mt marks the transition by the phrase ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο (v."1), which in 4!7 stands at the beginning of the ministry, and occurs nowhere else. Henceforth the Lord reveals to the apostles the mystery of the Divine purpose (δεῖ) as to the Messiah —His humiliation in His rejection by the repre- sentatives of Israel at Jerusalem (the centre of Israel’s life) and His death, His exaltation in the Resurrection. The idea of a suffering Messiah was alien to current Jewish expectations (cf. Schiirer, HJP τι. ii. p 184 ff.). St. Peter at once rotests as ae his Master’s appropriation of it to imself. His action (προσλαβόμενος) and his words alike zoply, a position of kindly patronage towards the Lord. The Lord turns immediately upon him, and the sight of the other disciples (Mk) necessi- tates a public and severe rebuke—a reversal for the time of the words of commendation just pro- nounced ;—a sentence of rebufl, pronounced as upon an enemy, takes the place of the beatitude; the rock-foundation of Messiah's Israel has become Messiah’s stumbling-stone; a temper of mind capable of receiving the revelation of the Father has been succeeded by a temper of mind wholly earthly. A week after these events at Cxsarea (Mk 92%, Mt 17", Lk 9°5-), the three disciples, who had been witnesses of a previous revelation of Christ as the Life, are allowed, on the Mount of Transfiguration, to learn the ‘mystery’ of Christ as the Glory of God. The impulsive and inopportune request of St. Peter sprang from a dread oF the withdrawal of the outward signs of revelation (cf. 2 Co 3738); it was the prayer of a consciously weak and earthly faith. he revelation on the mountain confirmed both elements in the disclosure of the issues of Messiah’s life on earth which the Lord gave at Cesarea. The uniqueness of His Person was brought home to the Three by (a) the glory of the Lord Himself; (6) His mysterious converse with the Founder and the Reformer of Israel’s polity, Syrn in Mk 852 reads, ‘But Simon Cepha, as if sparing Him, said to Him, (God) spares Thee.’ The last words, a formula af deprecation (cf. 6.5. Ac 1014 118), render the ἵλεώς σοι of Mt 1 in Syreur Pesh. From this formula the remarkable paraphrase, ‘as if sparing Him,’ is derived. PETER (SIMON) in which He is seen to be the mediator between the living and the departed; (c) the voice from heaven attesting His Sonship. In the period. between the Transfiguration and the Entry into Jerusalem St. Peter is mentioned on four occasions. At Capernaum, his home, the collectors of the temple dues am to him the ques- tion whether his Master did not pay the half- shekel, and St. Peter is made by his Master the means of its payment. The Lord uses the incident to lead up His disciple’s mind to the conception of His Divine Sonship (Mt 1738), On the three re- maining occasions St. Peter is representea as ques- tioning the Lord as to the practical and immediate bearing of His words,—asking as to the scope of the parables of the faithful slaves and the sudden coming of the thief (Lk 12", cf. Mk 13%); asking as to the number of times a brother should be for- iven (Mt 18%); asking as to the reward in store or the Twelve in view of their absolute self- renunciation, as contrasted with the refusal of the young ruler to surrender his wealth and follow Christ (Mt 1957, Mk 10%, Lk 1838). These questions reveal the apostle’s impulsiveness, the practical bent of his character, something perhaps of a lack of reverence towards his Master; while the last of them shows an undue sense of the deserts of himself and his fellow-apostles. 5. The week before the Passion.—Nothing is told us of St. Peter in connexion with the Triumphal Entry. Mk preserves two words of his addressed to Christ on the Tuesday. To St. Peter the sight of the withered fig-tree recalls (ἀναμνησθείς) the incident of the previous day, and he points his Master to the effect of His prophecy ( 1121, cf. Mt 21%), Again, after the Lord that same day had left the temple and crossed the Kidron on His way to Bethany, He sat down on the Mt. of Olives. The main body of the apostles apparently continued their way. Four of their number—Peter, James, John, and Andrew—possibly deputed by the rest, asked Him privately a question as to the ¢ime when His prophecy just spoken should have its fulfilment, and as to the events which should herald it (Mk 13%; cf. Mt 24°, Lk 217). The form of the sentence (ἐπηρώτα αὐτὸν... Πέτρος καὶ ᾿Ιάκωβος x.7.d.) suggests that St. Peter was the spokesman. Luke preserves the detail that on the Thursday it was St. Peter and St. John whom the Lord sent to ‘prepare the passover’ (228; cf. Mt 9618, Mk 14"), In the Upper Room and in the events which followed St. Peter took a prominent part. It apresss that at the Paschal meal the Lord took the place of host, St. Peter the second place, reclining on Christ’s left, St. John the third, on the Lord’s right hand (Westcott on Jn 13%), When, then, Christ washed the disciples’ feet (Jn 13), St. Peter must have been either the first or the last to whom He came. The former alternative is the more probable, Jn’s favourite ody here (y.®) as elsewhere simply de- noting immediate sequence. In the dialogue which follows, different traits of the apostle’s character are vividly brought out in his question express- ing startled humility (v.° Κύριε, σύ μου. . .;), im his emphatic προ (8 uh... els τὸν αἰῶνα) to allow Christ to wash his feet, in his sudden change of mind and the eager prayer in which, giving a material meaning to Christ’s words, he asks for what he considers a larger blessing. Later on in the meal, when the eet speaks of the presence of the traitor (v.24), St. Peter, assuming that He had whispered the secret to St. John, abruptly asks the latter to tell it openly to the rest. Later still, when the traitor had gone out, St. Peter, taking up Christ’s words (ν. 3) about His ‘ going,’ inquires with his old literalness whither He is going ; and again, asserting his absolute devotion, why he cannot at once follow his Master in His mysterious PETER (SIMON) PETER (SIMON) 761 eee journey (v.™-), At this point Jn inserts the pro- phecy of the three denials. Lk (22*) also puts the warning at this time, though his version of the Lord’s words is different from that in Jn. In Lk Christ solemnly addresses Peter and unveils the world of spiritual conflict. Satan had demanded the surrender to himself of all the apostles, as he had demanded Job (Job 113 25), that he might sift them all—the metaphor bringing out their weakness and their separation (cf. e.g. bs 1. But Peter had been the subject of urgent supplication on his Master’s part that his faith might not wholly and finally fail (ἐκλίπῃ). It is implied that the apostle would not pass through the trial unscathed. But beyond the trial a return to former spiritual relationships is promised—a return which would bring with it the duty of ‘stablishing his brethren.’ In answer to Peter’s protestation of absolute fidelity, Christ explicitly foretells that before the cock crowed (twice, Mk) the next morning, Peter would thrice deny Him. It is remarkable that in Jn, though three other of the Twelve (14° 8: 33 inter- rupt the Lord’s words with questions, St. Peter remains silent, Bl a and saddened, it would seem, by his Master’s unexpected doubt of his loyalty. At length Christ and the Eleven go out into the Mount of Olives. It is at this point that, according to Mt (26°-) and Mk (14"-), the Lord warned them that they all would ‘be made to stumble,’ and foretold in detail Peter’s faithless- ness—a prophecy prefaced and followed by Pee ate protestations on the apostle’s part. Thus it ecu that we have three different accounts— t || Mk, Lk, Jn—of Christ’s words to Peter as to the denial. A not improbable solution of the cemtenlty is that Christ warned His followers several times that night that their loyalty towards Him- eel: would be sorely tested; that He only once explicitly foretold Peter’s fall; but that the several evangelists connected that prophecy with different words of warning. When the Lord and His apostles reached Gethsemane (Mt 26°, Mk 14%"), e took Peter and James and John aside from the rest and admitted them to a knowledge of the μυστήριον of His human sorrow and perfected obedience, the last of the three revelations which were crises in their spiritual education. On His return to them the first time, finding them sleeping, He singles out Peter for rebuke, tacitly contrast- ing his inability to ‘watch one hour’ with his earlier boast. One other detail is preserved as to Peter’s conduct in the garden, at the moment of the Lord’s arrest (Mt 26°", Mk 14", Lk 22", Jn 18%), Not waiting for an answer to the question, ‘Lord, shall we smite with the sword?’ (Lk, ef. 2258), and going near to frustrate the Lord’s care for His followers’ safety (Jn 185), he snatches his sword out of its sheath and, striking at the head of a slave of the high priest who had, as we may suppose, taken hold of Christ, he wounds him. Christ’s last miracle secures the safety of the apostles by undoing the misdoing of His impetuous follower. Jn, when all reasons for reticence were over, gives us the names, ‘Simon Peter,’ ‘ Malchus’ ; Lk alone records the healing. When Christ was led away to the high priest’s official residence, St. Poter, striking a balance between his fears for himself and his love for his Master, ‘ followed afar off’ (Mt, Mk, Lk). Apparently, as he drew near the high priest’s pela he overtook St. John (Jn 18"), and was by him brought into the court. The latter, it would seem, passed on into the audience- chamber. Then follow the three denials, the whole oup of incidents taking ap about an hour (Lk 5090), On the relation to each other of tle narra- . δ © Harnack in Texte εἰ. Untersuch, Ve aie ΠΟΙ ΕΟ Hore letters to the Times (June 25, July 16, 1885). tives in the four Gospels see Westcott, Additional Notes to Jn 18. The second cock-crow (Mk) and the sudden piercing pane of the Lord (ἐνέβλεψεν, Lk) recalled to Peters mind the prophecy of Christ, ‘and he went out and wept bitterly’ (Mt, Lk; on Mk’s ἐπιβαλών see Field’s interesting note in Notes on the Translation of the NT p. 41). There is no further reference to St. Peter in the history of the Passion. 6. The period between the Resurrection and the Ascension. —In the accounts of the day of the Resurrection St. Peter is twice mentioned. From these notices it appears that after his fall he did not separate himself from the other apostles, and that he was still regarded as their natural leader. (i.) Early on that morning Mary Magdalene hurried from the garden to Simon Peter and to John, to tell them that the tomb was empty. The two apostles went together to the tomb, as they had gone together to the high priest’s court three days before. They both ran, et St. Peter, the older man, fell behind. St. John came first to the sepulchre, but did not enter. St. Peter, practical and impetuous, went into the sepulchre, and took note (θεωρεῖ) of the orderly arrangement of the cloths and the napkin. Then they returned, still (it would seem) perplexed, to their own homes (Jn 901-10), (ii.) Later in the day, some time before the evening, the Lord appeared to St. Peter—alone —to seal his repentance with forgiveness (Lk 945, ef. 1 Co 15°, where the appearance to Cephas has the first place). (iii.) In the third appearance of Christ to the apostles as a body (Jn 21 ; cf. 201% 35). at the Lake of Tiberias, Peter takes a conspicuous part. The quick intuition of faith is characteristic of John (v.7; cf. 208). But when another has dis- cerned the Lord, the rapid act of preparation, the leap into the sea that he may reach his Master the uicker, then, when all have landed, the return to the ship that he may begin the necessary work of bringing the net to land,—all these acts belong to a ἘΠΕ portrait of St. Peter. After the meal, provided by Christ, there follows St. Peter’s public restoration, corresponding to the private assurance of forgiveness given him on the day of the Resur- rection.t To the thrice-repeated denial there answers the thrice-repeated question as to his love towards Christ and the thrice-repeated charge, covering the whole sphere. of pastoral activity. So far the official and the personal have been blended together. Now in a solemn ‘ oracle’ (ἀμὴν, ἀμήν) the Lord deals with the tae issue of the apostle’s life of service—the helplessness and the devotion of a martyr’s death. The last recorded word of St. Peter addressed to Christ is an im- ulsive, unselfish question (v.™). The last word of Phrist to St. Peter is an echo of the earliest call interpreted in the light of the cross—dxodod@e: μοι νον σύ μοι ἀκολούθει (vv. 5). II. History oF St. PETER AFTER THE ASCEN-