The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 106

fo~ fea~ at the ~ppar~ti?n of Jesus walking on the _sea, Peter, forerunning his Master, cned with most msufficient self-knowledcre (Matt. xiv. 28) " If it be thou, bid ma oomo to thee upon the water;" the permissio1~ rather than the' command (lMl) led hlm to demonstrate that his little faith was soon the occasion of bewildering doubt. When Jesus warned all his disciples that they would be offended at him (Matt. xxvi. 31--35), eleven receive at first the rebuke in humble silence; Peter, with habitual boldness, virtually exclaims, "Thou art not right this time, O my Master. Tliough all men should be offe:nde~ at thee, yet will I never be offended ; thou~h all men deny thee, though I should die with thee, I will not by any means deny thee ' (vers. 33--36). On the way t? the ~rden of Gethsemane he thought and suggested that two swords would be of service ~g~mst the Roman ~ard, nud in the melee at the entrance of the garden on~. of the d1sc1ples (the synoptlsts do not say which of them) drew a sword (Luke xxu: 50 and parallels), and smote off the ear of the servant of the high priest, only to receive the solemn rebuke of Jesus. While other disciples fled, Simon Peter followed to the door of the high priest's palace (Luke xxii. 54), but, having entered it, he could not bear, alas! the first charge or insinuation that he was one of the disciples of the insulted and condemned Master, and he added oaths and curses to his base denial (Mark xiv. 70, 71). All the synoptists indicate that his contrition was almost as sudden as his fall. After the Resurrection (while John stood trembling at the entrance of the sepulchre), Peter (Luke xxiv. 12) went hurriedly into it, to search for the wounded corpse of the Master whom he had so basely deserted. The Evangelist Luke carries forward the story of the Apostle Peter's splendid courage on Pentecost, of his rea.dy insight, of his eagerness to be the mouthpiece of his fellow- disciples (Acts ii.), and then to speak for John as well as for himself (Acts iii, and iv.). His prominence in the scenes with Ananias and Simon Magus all show the same impetuous energy, but the history reveals the same curious blending of somewhat con- tradictory elements ; e.g. Peter's reply to the heavenly voice, " Rise, Peter, slay and eat," is eminently characteristic: "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything common or unclean." His language to the Sanhedrin, to Ananias, to Simon Magus, to 1Eneas, to Cornelius, is curiously in harmony with all that we know of the noblest part of his character; but the energy with which "Peter continued knocking" in the dead of night at the door of Mark's house was enough to have brought the whole quaternion of soldiers after him; and his ready obedience to the will of God at Cies&rea and at Jernsalem in the matter of the circumcision of Gentile Christians, and of social intercourse with them, reflects the generous and gracious side of his character, open to new ideas and surrounding influences. " Who am I that I should withstand God?" Facts are stronger than fictions and old prejudices. Nevertheless, St. Paul's account of Peter's conduct at Antioch (Gal. ii.) draws in a sentence a portrait of the same deeply marked character. "When certain from James arrived, Peter withdrew and separated himself, and refused to eat with the Gentiles, fearing them of the circumcision." Even tradition tells 1iS that Peter fled from Rome in the midst of the Neronian per- secution, and, seeing a vision of the Lord apparently making his way towards the city, was ready with his characteristic question, "Domine, quo vadis?" And the last thing recorded of him is equally so. He refused to be crucified after the manner of his Lord, but besought to be impaled with his head downwards. Such a marked individuality is one of the most striking notes of accuracy. There is nothing exactly like it in any other portion of the biblical history. Does the author of tl1e Fourth Gospel reflect the same general characteristic in his representation of St. Peter'/ If he had given us another Peter, a mystical conception, a fancy portrait to fill out some theological theory, if he had shown himself ignorant of these numerously attested peculiarities, the pressure of the argument against the historicity of the narrative woultl have been strong. But, on the contrary, the fourth evangelist records the earliest conference upon Peter of the name of Cephas, and a brief citation of Peter's great confession (eh. vi. 68-70), "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; we have believed and we have come to know that thou art the Son of the living God [or, 'thou art the Holy One of God'];" but when we come to the Last Sapper (eh. xiil. 6-11), the composite nature of Peter is touched off with a characteristic scene. The Lord prepares to wash his disciples' feet. St. Peter says, "Thou shalt never wash my feet," and repeats it after remonstrance; but he  TIIE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN. cxvff