298 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S2. MARK. [cn. xiv. 1—72, ci lak he ead de dn ON SRT e aoe DP LS a A ate te siugular—from the whole of the apostles to Peter; thus: “The Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked [or ‘demanded’] to have you, that he might sift you as wheat : but I made supplication for ¢hee, that thy faith fail not,” where it is remarkable that Satan’s demand comprehended all the apostles—the rest as well as Peter, as seems clearly implied in the plural suas, while our Lord’s supplication embraced him in particular, as must be inferred from the singular god, Just as Satan had demanded all the apostles, including Peter, so our Lord prayed for all the apostles, but for Peter in particular. It was not without reason that our Lord thus individualized in his supplication for Peter, for he it was that stood in greatest peril, The most confident of the: ail was the most imperilled of them all. Some, like Judas, were soon to be blown away, or had already beeu-blown away, as chaff, and had been separated from the good grain; but the word “ wheat” applied to the remainder had in it both comfort and encouragement, while the Saviour’s great intercessory prayer was a guarantee of safety. The fact, moreover, that he prayed for Peter specially and individually, affords strong consolation to all the children of God in every age and clime. Not one of all is forgotten by him who ever lives to intercede ; not one of all is forsaken by the all-prevailing Intercessor. No doubt some may be disposed to object, and say that after all, and notwithstanding all, Peter fell) How is this reconcilable with the prevalence of the Saviour’s prayer? He fell, but he rose again; he fell, and fell far, but did not fall away; he fell sadly for a time, but he did not fall finally and for ever. And this is the very thing implied in the form of the word rendered “ fail;” for it is not the simple verb, but édAelap, or, according to the critical editors, é«Almp, which signifies to fail out and out, utterly, or finally. Thus this utter and final failure was exactly the thing prevented by the Saviour’s intercession. But, reverting to Peter’s want of watchfulness, we can find no hint nor indication of any kind in all this chapter, or in the parallel sections of the other Gospels, that would lead us to believe that Peter paid proper, or indeed any, attention to the warning of our Lord. We search in vain for proof that he watched against going into the place of tempta- tion, or that he watched against the company where he might expect to be assailed with temptation. There is no evidence whatever that he either watched against the approach of temptation, or that he prayed for grace to resist the tempter or strength to overcome his temptations. He seems, in fact, to have had no idea whatever of the danger that was drawing near him so stealthily and so suddenly, and no suspicion of the snares which Satan was so subtly drawing round him; neither does he seem to have used the means which his Master had urged on him as necessary for safety and defence. He appears to have let the warning entirely slip, or for a time to have let it sink into oblivion. Accordingly, we find that, when years afterwards he called to mind his fearful neglect and its well-nigh fatal consequences, he addresses to’ others a most solemn warning, in words that echo his own mistakes, and the means he should have taken to avoid it; forin his First Epistle (v. 8) he writes, “Be sober, be watchful: your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” 3. A third cause of Peter’s sin. A third cause of Peter’s sin was his following Christ afar of. This, of course, refers literally to the fact that Peter followed our Lord at a distance, keeping considerably aloof. He followed him, but at a long interval between ; he followed him, but not close or near at hand. Instead of walking side by side, or close behind him, he kept away and afar off. It was, doubtless, the fear of man that kept Peter at this distance; it was the fear of man that thus unnerred him; it was the fear of man that prevented him coming immediately after his Mastc~ as he should have done. He wished to be near his Master, but his heart failed him. He wished, we are sure, to be with his Master, but he lacked moral courage to share the reproach of Jesus of Galilee. It was not the personal risk so much as the ridicule he shrank from. This physical distance was a sign of moral distance, and a symbol of the condition of others as well as Peter, when they follow Christ afar off. Peter’s duty was to have been at his Lord’s side, or close behind him, or in some way near at hand. So with ourselves, Instead of following Christ afar off, we are bound by privilege as well as duty to follow him closely; instead of following him afar off, we must follow him faithfully ; instead of following him fitfully, we are to follow him fully ; instead of following him sneakingly, we are to follow him fearlessly ; instead of following him by constraint, we are to fallow him freely and of a ready mind; instead of following
OH, XIV. 1—72.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. 299