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).