The language of the apostles was of course the form of Aramaic spoken in Northern Palestine, a sort i f patois, partly Hebrew, but more nearly allied to the Hebrew, even in its debased form, was then Bpoken only by men of learning, the leaders of the Pharisees and Scribes. 'I lu- men of Galilee were, however, noted for rough and inaccurate language, and especially for vulgarities of pronunciation (Matt, sxvi, 78). It i- .Ion I it ful whether our apostle was ac- quainted «',th Greek in early life. It is certain, how- ever, that there wa- more intercourse with foreigners in Galilee than in any district of Palestine, and Greek appears to have been a common, if not the principal, me, bum of communication. Within a few years aftei his call Peter Beemsto haveci nversed fluently in Greek
PETER
with Cornelius, at least there is no intimation that an interpreter was employed, while it is highly improbable that Cornelius, a Roman soldier, should have used the language of Palestine. The style of both of Peter's epis- tles indicates a considerable knowledge of Greek ; it is pure and accurate, and in grammatical structure equal to that of Paul. That ma}', however, be accounted for by the fact, for which there is very ancient author- it}', that Peter employed an interpreter in the compo- sition of his epistles, if not in his ordinary intercourse with foreigners. There are no traces of acquaintance with Greek authors, or of the influence of Greek lit- erature upon his mind, such as we find in Paul, nor could we expect it in a person of his station, even had Greek been his mother-tongue. It is on the whole probable that he had some rudimental knowledge of Greek in early life, which may have afterwards been extended when the need was felt, but not more than would enable him to discourse intelligibly on practical and devotional subjects. That he was an affectionate husband, married in early life to a wife who accom- panied him in his apostolic journej's, are facts inferred from Scripture, while very ancient traditions, recorded hy Clement of Alexandria (whose connection with the Church founded by Mark gives a peculiar value to his testimony), and by other early but less trustworthy writers, inform us that her name was Perpetua, that she bore a daughter, and perhaps other children, and suffered martyrdom. (See below.)
2. As a Disciple merely. — It is uncertain at what age Peter was called by our Lord. The general impression of the fathers is that he was an old man at the date of his death, A.D. 61, but this need not imply that he was much older than our Lord. He was probably between thirty and forty years of age at the date of his first call, A.D. 2G. That call was preceded by a special prep- aration. He and his brother Andrew, together with their partners, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were disciples of John the Baptist (John i, 35). They were in attendance upon him when they were first called to the service of Christ. From the circum- stances of that call, which are recorded with graphic minuteness by St. John, we learn some important facts touching their state of mind and the personal character of our apostle. Two disciples, one named by the evan- gelist Andrew, the other in all probability St. John himself, were standing with the Baptist at Bethany on the Jordan, when he pointed out Jesus as he walked, and said, Behold the Lamb of God ! that is, the anti- type of the victims whose blood (as all true Israelites, and they more distinctly under the teaching of John, believed) prefigured the atonement for sin. The two at once followed Jesus, and upon his invitation abode with him that day. Andrew then went to his brother Simon, and said to him, We have found the Messias, the Anointed One, of whom they had read in the proph- ets. Simon went at once, and when Jesus looked on him he said, "Thou art Simon the son of Jona; thou Shalt be called Cephas.'" The change of name is of course deeply significant. As son of Jona (a name of doubtful meaning, according to Lampe equivalent to Joh'inan or John, i. e. grace of the Lord; according to Lange, who has some striking but fanciful observa- tions, signifying dove) he bore as a disciple the name Simon, i.e. hearer; but as an apostle, one of the twelve on whom the Church was to be erected, he was here- after ((c\»/3-)'/(T{/) to be called Rock or Stone. It seems a natural impression that the words refer primarily to the original character of Simon : that our Lord saw in him a man firm, steadfast, not to be overthrown, though severely tried ; and such was generally the view taken by the fathers. But it is perhaps a deeper and truer in- ference that Jesus thus describes Simon, not as what he was, but as wh;it he would become under his influ- ence— a man with predispositions and capabilities not unfitted for the office he was to hold, but one whose permanence and stability would depend upon union
PETER
with the living Rock. Thus we may expect to find Simon, as the natural man, at once rough, stubborn, and mutable, whereas Peter, identified with the Rock, will remain firm and immovable to the end. (See below.)