226
a Mk. viii. τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγερθῆναι. 22. καὶ ™ προσλαβόµενος αὐτὸν 6 Πέτρος Kets rit Aptato ἐπιτυμᾷν αὐτῷ λέγων, “°"INeds σοι, κύριε: οὐ μὴ ἔσται σοι
5; xviii. 26.
o Cf. Heb. viii. 12. p Mk. viii,
33. Rom. vill. 5.
a ” τουτο.
Phil. ii. 5; iii. 19.
23. Ὁ δὲ στραφεὶς εἶπε τῷ Nétpw, ““Yraye ὀπίσω µου, Σατανᾶ, σκάνδαλόν µου εἶ ΄: ὅτι οὗ P φρονεῖς τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὰ
1 For np. επιτιµαν a. λεγων, which conforms to Mk., B has λεγει a. επιτιµω»
(W.H. marg.). ει εµου in SB (Tisch., W.H.).
Passion with relative conversation (Mk. viii. 31—ix. 1 ; Lk. ix. 22-27).—Ver. 21. ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο (vide iv. 17) marks pointedly a new departure in the form of explicit intimation of an approaching final and fatal crisis. Time suitable. Disciples could now bear it, it could not be much longer delayed. Jesus could now face the crisis with composure, having been satisfied by Peter's con- fession that His labour was not going to be in vain. He then began to show, etc., for this was only the first of several communications of the same kind.—
Χριστὸς after Ιησοῦς in ΝΒ is an in-
trinsically probable reading, as suiting the solemnity of the occasion and greatly enhancing the impressiveness of the announcement. Jesus, the Christ, to be crucified! But one would have expected the article before Χρ.- πολλὰ παθεῖν, the general fact.—awd . . . γραμματέων, the three constituent parts of the Sanhedrim— elders, priests, 5οτῖθες.-- ἀποκτανθῆναι : one hard special fact, be killed.— ἐγερθῆναι: this added to make the other fact not altogether intolerable. Ver. 22. Peter here appears in a new character; a minute ago speaking under inspiration from heaven, now under, in- spiration from the opposite quarter.— ἤρξατο, began to chide or admonish. He did not get far. As soon as his meaning became apparent he encountered prompt, abrupt, peremptory contradiction.—ta- εώς σοι: Elsner renders sis bono placi- doque animo, but most (Erasmus, Grotius, Kypke, Fritzsche, etc.) take it = absit/ God avert it! Vehement utterance of a man confounded and horrified. Perfectly honest and in one sense thoroughly creditable, but suggesting the question: Did Peter after all call Jesus Christ in the true sense? The answer must be: Yes, ethically. He understood what kind of man was fit to be a Christ. But he did not yet understand what kind of treatment such a man might expect from the world. A noble, benignant, really
*
righteous man Messiah must be, said Peter; but why a man of sorrow he had yet to learn.—od μὴ ἔσται, future of perfect assurance: it will not, cannot be.—Ver. 23. ὕπαγεό.μ. Σ.: tremendous crushing reply of the Master, showing how much He felt the temptation; calm on the surface, deep down in the soul a very real struggle. Some of the Fathers (Origen, Jerome) strive to soften the severity of the utterance by taking Satanas as an appellative = ἀντικείμενος, adversarius, contrarius, and pointing out that in the Temptation in the wilderness Jesus says to Satan simply ὕπαγε = depart, but to Peter tw. ὀπίσω pov = take thy place behind me and be fol- lower, not leader. But these refinements only weaken the effect of a word which shows that Jesus recognises here His old enemy in a new and even more dangerous form. For none are more formidable instruments of temptation than well-meaning friends, who care more for our comfort than for our εΠαταςίετ.---σκάνδαλον: not “ offensive to me,” but ‘“‘a temptation to me to offend,’’ to do wrong; a virtual apology for using the strong word Σατανᾶ.- -οὐ φρονεῖς τὰ, etc., indicates the point of temptation = non stas a Dei partibus (Wolf), or ppovetv, etc. = studere rebus, etc. (Kypke), to be on God’s side, or to study the Divine interest instead of the human. The important question is: What precisely are the two interests ? They must be so conceived as not entirely to cancel the eulogium on Peter’s faith, which was declared to be not of man but of God. Meyer's comment on τὰ τ. &—concerned about having for Messiah a mere earthly hero and prince (so Weiss also)—is too wide. We must restrict the phrase to the instinct of self- preservation = save your life at all hazards. From Christ’s point of view that was the import of Peter’s suggestion ; preference of natural life to duty = God’s interest. Peter himself did not see that . these were the alternatives; he thought