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.