Chapter IV: Part 4

4. John takes no notice whatever of this scene by the lake of Galilee, but gives us, what is not found in the first three gospels, an interesting account, already quoted, of the first introduction of Peter to Christ, not choosing to incumber his pages with a new repetition or variation of the story of his direct call.

The office of an apostolic historian becomes at once most arduous and most important, and the usefulness of his labors is most fully shown in such passages as this, where the task of weaving the various threads and scraps of sacred history in one even and uniform text, is one to which few readers, taking the parts detailed in the ordinary way, are competent, and which requires for its satisfactory achievement, more aids from the long accumulated labors of the learned of past ages, than are within the reach of any but a favored few. To pass back and forth from gospel to gospel, in the search after order and consistency,――to bring the lights of other history to clear up the obscurities, and show that which fills up the deficiencies of the gospel story,――to add the helps of ancient and modern travelers in tracing the topography of the Bible,――to find in lexicons, commentaries, criticisms and interpretations, the true and full force of every word of those passages in which an important fact is expressed,――these are a few of the writer’s duties in giving to common readers the results of the mental efforts of the theologians of this and past ages, whose humble copyist and translator he is. Often aiming, however, at an effort somewhat higher than that of giving the opinions and thoughts of others, he offers his own account and arrangement of the subject, in preference to those of the learned, as being free from such considerations as are involved in technicalities above the appreciation of ordinary readers, and as standing in a connected narrative form, while the information on these points, found in the works of eminent biblical scholars, is mostly in detached fragments, which, however complete to the student, require much explanation and illustration, to make them useful or interesting to the majority of readers. Thus in this case, having given the three different accounts above, he next proceeds to arrange them into such a narrative as will be consistent with each, and contain all the facts. In the discussion of particular points, reference can be properly made to the authority of others, where necessary to explain or support.

Taking up the apostolic history, then, where it is left by John, as referred to above, and taking the facts from each gospel in what seems to be its proper place and time; the three narratives are thus combined into one whole, with the addition of such circumstances as may be inferred by way of explanation, though not directly stated.

Leaving Nazareth, Jesus had come to Capernaum, at the northwestern end of the lake, and there made his home. About this time, perhaps on occasion of his marriage, Simon had left Bethsaida, the city of his birth, and now dwelt in Capernaum, probably on account of his wife being of that place, and he may have gone into the possession of a house, inherited by his marriage, which supposition would agree with the circumstance of the residence of his wife’s mother in her married daughter’s family, which would not be so easily explainable on the supposition that she had also sons to inherit their father’s property, and furnish a home to their mother. It has also been suggested, that he probably removed to Capernaum after his introduction to Christ, in order to enjoy his instructions more conveniently, being near him. This motive would no doubt have had some weight. Here the two brothers dwelt together in one house, which makes it almost certain that Andrew was unmarried, for the peculiarity of eastern manners would hardly have permitted the existence of two families, two husbands, two wives in the same domestic circle. Making this place the center of their business, they industriously devoted themselves to honest labor, extending their fishing operations over the lake, on which they toiled night and day. It seems that the house of Simon and Andrew was Jesus’s regular place of abode while in Capernaum, of which supposition the manifest proofs occur in the course of the narrative. Thus when Jesus came out of the synagogue, he went to Simon’s house,――remained there as at a home, during the day, and there received the visits of the immense throng of people who brought their sick friends to him; all which he would certainly have been disposed to do at his proper residence, rather than where he was a mere occasional ♦visitor. He is also elsewhere mentioned, as going into Peter’s house in such a familiar and habitual kind of way, as to make the inference very obvious, that it was his home. On these terms of close domestic intimacy, did Jesus remain with these favored disciples for more than a year, during which time he continued to reside at Capernaum. He must have resided in some other house, however, on his first arrival in Capernaum, because, in the incident which is next given here, his conduct was evidently that of a person much less intimately acquainted with Simon than a fellow-lodger would be. The circumstances of the call evidently show, that Peter, although acquainted with Christ previously, in the way mentioned by John, had by no means become his intimate, daily companion. We learn from Luke, that Jesus, walking forth from Capernaum, along the lake, saw two boats standing by the lake, but the fishers having gone out of them, were engaged in putting their nets and other fishing tackle in order. As on his walk the populace had thronged about him, from curiosity and interest, and were annoying him with requests, he sought a partial refuge from their friendly attacks, on board of Simon’s boat, which was at hand, and begging him to push out a little from the land, he immediately made the boat his pulpit, in preaching to the throng on shore, sitting down and teaching the people out of the boat. When he had left off speaking, he said to Simon, “Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught.” And Simon answered, “Master, we have toiled all night and caught nothing; nevertheless, at thy word I will let down the net.” As soon as they did so, they took into the net a great multitude of fishes, and the net broke. They then beckoned to their partners, who were in the other vessel, that they should come and help them. And they came and filled both vessels, so that they began to sink. When Simon saw what was the result, he fell down at Jesus’s knees, saying, “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” For both he, and they that were with him, Andrew, James and John, were astonished at the draught of fishes they had taken. But Jesus said to Simon, “Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men;” and then gave both to him and his brother a distinct call, “Follow me――come after me, and I will make you fishers of men.” And as soon as they had brought their ships to land, they forsook their nets, ships and all, and followed him, not back into Capernaum, but over all Galilee, while he preached to wondering thousands the gospel of peace, and set forth to them his high claims to their attention and obedience, by healing all the diseased which his great fame induced them to bring in such multitudes. This was, after all, the true object of his calling his disciples to follow him in that manner. Can we suppose that he would come out of Capernaum, in the morning, and finding there his acquaintances about their honest business, would call on them, in that unaccountable manner, to follow him back into their home, to which they would of course, naturally enough, have gone of their own accord, without any divine call, for a simple act of necessity? It was evidently with a view to initiate them, at once, into the knowledge of the labors to which he had called them, and to give them an insight into the nature of the trials and difficulties which they must encounter in his service. In short, it was to enter them on their apprenticeship to the mysteries of their new and holy vocation. On this pilgrimage through Galilee, then, he must have been accompanied by his four newly chosen helpers, who thus were daily and hourly witnesses of his words and actions, as recorded by all the first three evangelists. (Matthew chapters iv.‒viii. Mark, chapters i.‒iii. &c. Luke, chapters v.‒vi.)

♦ “visiter” replaced with “visitor”

The accounts which Matthew and Mark give of this call, have
seemed so strikingly different from that of Luke, that Calmet,
Thoynard, Macknight, Hug, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Marsh, Paulus,
(and perhaps some others,) have considered Luke’s story in v.
1‒11, as referring to a totally distinct event. See Calmet’s,
Thoynard’s, Macknight’s, Michaelis’s, and Vater’s harmonies,
in loc. Also Eichhorn’s introduction, 1. § 58, V. II.,――Marsh’s
dissertation on the origin of the three gospels, in table
of coincident passages,――Paulus’s “Commentar weber das Neue
Testament.” 1 Theil xxiii. Abschnitt; compare xix. Abschnitt,
――Hug’s “Einleitung in das Neue Testament,” Vol. II. § 40.
“Erste auswanderung, Lucas, iii.,” compare Mark.

These great authorities would do much to support any arrangement
of gospel events, but the still larger number of equally
high authorities on the other side, justifies my boldness
in attempting to find a harmony, where these great men could
see none. Lightfoot, Le Clerc, Arnauld, Newcome, with all his
subsequent editors, and Thirlwall, in their harmonies, agree in
making all three evangelists refer to the same event. Grotius,
Hammond, Wetstein, Scott, Clarke, Kuinoel, and Rosenmueller,
in their several commentaries in loco,――also Stackhouse in his
history of the Bible, and Horne in his introduction, with many
others, all take the view which I have presented in the text,
and may be consulted by those who wish for reasons at greater
length than my limits will allow.

“_Peter and Andrew dwell together in one house._”――This appears
from Mark i. 29, where it is said that, after the call of the
brothers by Jesus, “they entered the house of Simon and Andrew.”

“_Sat down and taught the people out of the ship_,” verse 3.
This was a convenient position, adopted by Jesus on another
occasion also. Matthew xiii. 2. Mark iv. 1.

“_Launch out._”――Luke v. 4. Επαναγαγε, (Epanagage,) the same
word which occurs in verse 3, there translated in the common
English version, “_thrust_ out.” It was, probably, a regular
nautical term for this backward movement, though in the classic
Greek, Εξαναγειν, (exanagein,) was the form always used to
express this idea, insomuch that it seems to have been the
established technical term. Perhaps Luke may have intended this
term originally, which might have been corrupted by some early
copyist into this word, which is in no other place used with
this meaning.――“_Let down_,” (Χαλασατε, khalasate, in the plural;
the former verb singular.) More literally, “_loosen_,” which is
the primary signification of the verb, and would be the proper
one, since the operation of preparing the net to take the fish,
consisted in _loosening_ the ropes and other tackle, which, of
course, were drawn tight, when the net was not in use, closing
its mouth. “MASTER, _we have toiled_,” &c. verse 5. The word
Επιστατα, (Epistata,) here translated _Master_, is remarkable,
as never occurring in the Testament, except in this gospel.
Grotius remarks, (_in loc._) that doubtless Luke, (the most
finished and correct Greek scholar of all the sacred writers,)
considered this term as a more faithful translation of the
Hebrew רבי, (_Rabbi_,) than the common expressions of the
other evangelists, Κυριε, (_Kurie_, _Lord_,) and διδασκαλε,
(_didaskale_, _teacher_.) It was a moderate, though dignified
title, between these two in its character, rather lower than
“Lord,” and rather higher than “Teacher.” It is used in the
Alexandrian version, as the proper term for a “steward,” a
“military commander,” &c. (See Grotius theol. op. Vol. II. p.
372; or Poole’s Synopsis on this passage.) “_Toiled all night._”
This was the best time for taking the fish, as is well known to
those who follow fishing for a living.

On this journey, they saw some of his most remarkable miracles, such as the healing of the leper, the paralytic, the man with the withered hand, and others of which the details are not given. It was also during this time, that the sermon on the mount was delivered, which was particularly addressed to his disciples, and was plainly meant for their instruction, in the conduct proper in them as the founders of the gospel faith. Besides passing through many cities on the nearer side, he also crossed over the lake, and visited the rude people of those wild districts. The journey was, therefore, a very long one, and must have occupied several weeks. After he had sufficiently acquainted them with the nature of the duties to which he had consecrated them, and had abundantly impressed them with the high powers which he possessed, and of which they were to be the partakers, he came back to Capernaum, and there entered into the house of Simon, which he seems henceforth to have made his home while in that city. They found, that, during their absence, the mother-in-law of Simon had been taken ill, and was then suffering under the heat of a violent fever. Jesus at once, with a word, pronounced her cure, and immediately the fever left her so perfectly healed, that she arose from her sick bed, and proceeded to welcome their return, by her grateful efforts to make their home comfortable to them, after their tiresome pilgrimage.

“_Immediately the fever left her._”――Matthew viii. 15: Mark
i. 31: Luke iv. 39. It may seem quite idle to conjecture the
specific character of this fever; but it seems to me a very
justifiable guess, that it was a true intermittent, or fever and
ague, arising from the marsh influences, which must have been
very strong in such a place as Capernaum,――situated as it was,
on the low margin of a large fresh water lake, and with all the
morbific agencies of such an unhealthy site, increased by the
heat of that climate. The immediate termination of the fever,
under these circumstances, was an abundant evidence of the
divine power of Christ’s word, over the evil agencies, which
mar the health and happiness of mankind.

During some time after this, Peter does not seem to have left his home for any long period at once, until Christ’s long journeys to Judea and Jerusalem, but no doubt accompanied Jesus on all his excursions through Galilee, besides the first, of which the history has been here given. It would be hard, and exceedingly unsatisfactory, however, to attempt to draw out from the short, scattered incidents which fill the interesting records of the gospels, any very distinct, detailed narrative of these various journeys. The chronology and order of most of these events, is still left much in the dark, and most of the pains taken to bring out the truth to the light, have only raised the greater dust to blind the eyes of the eager investigator. To pretend to roll all these clouds away at once, and open to common eyes a clear view of facts, which have so long confused the minds of some of the wisest and best of almost every Christian age, and too often, alas! in turn, been confused by them,――such an effort, however well meant, could only win for its author the contempt of the learned, and the perplexed dissatisfaction of common readers. But one very simple, and comparatively easy task, is plainly before the writer, and to that he willingly devotes himself for the present. This task is, that of separating and disposing, in what may seem their natural order, with suitable illustration and explanation, those few facts contained in the gospels, relating distinctly to this apostle. These facts, accordingly, here follow.

HIS FIRST MISSION.

The next affair in which Peter is mentioned, by either evangelist, is the final enrolling of the twelve peculiar disciples, to whom Jesus gave the name of apostles. In their proper place have already been mentioned, both the meaning of this title and the rank of Peter on the list; and it need here only be remarked, that Peter went forth with the rest, on this their first and experimental mission. All the first three gospels contain this account; but Matthew enters most fully into the charge of Jesus, in giving them their first commission. In his tenth chapter, this charge is given with such particularity, that a mere reference of the reader to that place will be sufficient, without any need of explanation here. After these minute directions for their behavior, they departed, as Mark and Luke record, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, that men should repent. And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them. How far their journey extended, cannot be positively determined, but there is no probability that they went beyond the limits of Galilee. Divided as they were into couples, and each pair taking a different route, a large space must have been gone over in this mission, however brief the time can be supposed to have been. As to the exact time occupied, we are, indeed, as uncertain as in respect to the distance to which they traveled; but from the few incidents placed by Mark and Luke between their departure and return, it could hardly have been more than a few weeks, probably only a few days. The only affair mentioned by either evangelist, between their departure and return, is, the notice taken by Herod of the actions of Jesus, to whom his attention was drawn by his resemblance to John the Baptist. They then say, that the apostles, when they were returned, gathered themselves together to Jesus, and told him all things,――both what they had done and what they had taught. As this report was received by Jesus, without any comment that is recorded, it is fair to conclude, that their manner of preaching, and the success of their labors, had been such as to deserve his approbation. In this mission, there is nothing particularly commemorated with respect to Peter’s conduct; but no doubt the same fiery zeal which distinguished him afterwards, on so many occasions, made him foremost in this his earliest apostolic labor. His rank, as chief apostle, too, probably gave him some prominent part in the mission, and his field of operations must have been more important and extensive than that of the inferior apostles, and his success proportionably greater.

It is deserving of notice, that on this first mission,
Jesus seems to have arranged the twelve in _pairs_, in which
order he probably sent them forth, as he certainly did the
seventy disciples, described in Luke x. 1. The object of this
arrangement, was no doubt to secure them that mutual support
which was so desirable for men, so unaccustomed to the high
duties on which they were now dispatched.

Their _destination_, also, deserves attention. The direction
of Jesus was, that they should avoid the way of the heathen,
and the cities of the Samaritans, who were but little better,
and should go to the _lost sheep_ of the house of Israel. This
expression was quoted, probably, from those numerous passages in
the prophets, where this term is applied to the Israelites, as
in Jeremiah l. 6, Isaiah liii. 6, Ezekiel xxxiv. 6, &c., and
was used with peculiar force, in reference to the condition of
those to whom Jesus sent his apostles. It seems to me, as if
he, by this peculiar term, meant to limit them to the provinces
of Galilee, where the state and character of the Jews was
such as eminently to justify this melancholy appellative. The
particulars of their condition will be elsewhere shown. They
were expressly bounded on one side, from passing into the
heathen territory, and on the other from entering the cities
of the Samaritans, who dwelt between Galilee and Judea proper,
so that a literal obedience of these instructions, would
have confined them entirely to Galilee, their native land.
Macknight also takes this view. The reasons of this limitation,
are abundant and obvious. The peculiarly abandoned moral
condition of that outcast section of Palestine,――the perfect
familiarity which the apostles must have felt with the people
of their own region, whose peculiarities of language and habits
they themselves shared so perfectly as to be unfitted for a
successful outset among the Jews of the south, without more
experience out of Galilee,――the shortness of the time, which
seems to have been taken up in this mission,――the circumstance
that Jesus sent them to proclaim that “the kingdom of heaven was
at hand,” that is, that the Messiah was approaching, which he
did in order to arouse the attention of the people to himself,
when he should go to them, (compare Luke x. 1,) thus making
them his forerunners; and the fact, that the places to which
he actually did go with them, on their return, were all in
Galilee, (Matthew xi., xix. 1, Mark vi. 7, x. 1, Luke ix. 1‒51,)
all serve to show that this first mission of the apostles,
was limited entirely to the Jewish population of Galilee. His
promise to them also in Matthew x. 2, 3, “you shall not _finish
the cities of Israel_, before the son of man come,” seems to
me to mean simply, that there would be no occasion for them to
extend their labors to the Gentile cities of Galilee, or to the
Samaritans; because, before they could finish their specially
allotted field of survey, he himself would be ready to follow
them, and confirm their labors. This was mentioned to them in
connection with the prediction of persecutions which they would
meet, as an encouragement. For various other explanations of
this last passage, see Poole’s Synopsis, Rosenmueller, Wetstein,
Macknight, Le Sainte Bible avec notes, &c. in loc. But Kuinoel,
who quotes on his side Beza, Bolten, and others, supports the
view, which an unassisted consideration induced me to suggest.

“_Anointed with oil._” Mark vi. 13. The same expression occurs
in James v. 14, and needs explanation from its connection
with a peculiar rite of the Romish church,――extreme unction,
from which it differs, however, inasmuch as it was always a
hopeful operation, intended to aid the patient, and secure
his recovery, while the Romish ceremony is always performed in
case of complete despair of life, only with a view to prepare
the patient, by this mummery, for certain death. The operation
mentioned as so successfully performed by the apostles, for the
cure of diseases, was undoubtedly a simple remedial process,
previously in long-established use among the Hebrews, as
clearly appears by the numerous authorities quoted by Lightfoot,
Wetstein, and Paulus, from Rabbinical Greek and Arabic sources;
yet Beza and others, quoted in Poole’s Synopsis, as well as
Rosenmueller, suggest some symbolical force in the ceremony, for
which see those works in loc. See also Kuinoel, and Bloomfield
who gives numerous references. See also Marlorat’s Bibliotheca
expositionum, Stackhouse’s History of the Bible, Whitby, &c.

THE SCENES ON THE LAKE.

After receiving the report of his apostles’ labors, Jesus said to them, “Come ye yourselves apart into a retired place, and rest awhile:” for there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat. And he took them and went privately by ship aside, into a _lonely_ place, near the city called Bethsaida. And the people saw him departing, and many knew him, and went on foot to the place, out of all the country, and outwent them, and came together to him as soon as he reached there. And he received them, and spoke unto them of the kingdom of God, and healed them that had need of healing. It was on this occasion that he performed the miracle of feeding the multitude with five loaves and two fishes. So great was the impression made on their minds by this extraordinary act of benevolence and power, that he thought it best, in order to avoid the hindrance of his great task, by any popular commotion in his favor, to go away in such a manner as to be effectually beyond their reach for the time.――With this view he constrained his disciples to get into the ship, and go before him to the other side of the lake, opposite to Bethsaida, where they then were; while he sent away the people. After sending the multitude away, he went up into a mountain, apart, to pray. And after night fall, the vessel was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on the land. Thence he saw them toiling with rowing, (for the wind was contrary to them, and the ship tossed in the waves:) and about three or four o’clock in the morning, he comes to them, walking on the sea, and appeared as if about to pass unconcernedly by them. But when they saw him walking upon the sea. they supposed it to have been a spirit, and they all cried out, “It is a spirit;” for they all saw him, and were alarmed; and immediately he spoke to them, and said “Be comforted; it is I; be not afraid.” And Peter, foremost in zeal on this occasion, as at almost all times, said to him, “Lord, if it be thou, bid me come to thee upon the water.” And he said, “Come.” And when Peter had come down out of the vessel, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, “Lord, save me.” And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him; and said to him, “O thou of little faith! wherefore didst thou doubt?” And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased; and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered. And all they that were in the vessel came and worshiped him, saying, “Of a truth, thou art the Son of God.” This amazement and reverence was certainly very tardily acknowledged by them, after all the wonders they had seen wrought by him; but they considered not the miracle of the loaves, the most recent of all, which happened but a few hours before. For this thoughtlessness, in a matter so striking and weighty, Jesus himself afterwards rebuked them, referring both to this miracle of feeding the five thousand, and to a subsequent similar one. However, the various great actions of a similar character, thus repeated before them, seem at last to have had a proper effect, since, on an occasion not long after, they boldly and clearly made their profession of faith in Jesus, as the Christ.

“_A lonely place._”――The word _desert_, which is the adjective
given in this passage, in the common English version, (Matthew
xiv. 13, 15, Mark vi. 31, 32, 35, Luke ix. 10, 12,) does not
convey to the reader, the true idea of the character of the
place. The Greek word Ερημος (_eremos_) does not in the passages
just quoted, mean “_desert_,” in our modern sense of that
English word, which always conveys the idea of “desolation,”
“wildness” and “barrenness,” as well as “solitude.” But the
Greek word by no means implied these darker characteristics. The
primary, uniform idea of the word is, “_lonely_,” “_solitary_,”
and so little does it imply “barrenness,” that it is applied
to lands, rich, fertile and pleasant, a connection, of course,
perfectly inconsistent with our ideas of a _desert_ place.
Schleusner gives the idea very fairly under Ερημια, (_eremia_,)
a derivative of this word. “Notat locum aliquem vel tractum
terrae, non tam _incultum_ et _horridum_, quam minus habitabilem,
――_solitudinem_,――locum vacuum quidem ab hominibus, _pascuis_
tamen et _agris abundantem_, et _arboribus obsitum_.” “It means
a place or tract of land, not so much uncultivated and wild, as
it does one thinly inhabited,――a solitude, a place empty of men
indeed, yet rich in pastures and fields, and planted with trees.”
But after giving this very clear and satisfactory account of
the derivative, he immediately after gives to the primitive
itself, the primary meaning “_desertus, desolatus, vastus,
devastatus_,” and refers to passages where the word is applied
to ruined cities; but in every one of those passages, the
true idea is that above given as the meaning, “stripped of
inhabitants,” and not “desolated” or “laid waste.” Hedericus
gives this as the first meaning, “_desertus, solus, solitarius,
inhabitatus_.” Schneider also fully expresses it, in German,
by “_einsam_,” (_lonely, solitary_,) in which he is followed by
Passow, his improver, and by Donnegan, his English translator.
Jones and Pickering, also give it thus. Bretschneider and Wahl,
in their New Testament Lexicons, have given a just and proper
classification of the meanings. The word “_desert_” came into
our English translation, by the minute verbal adherence of the
translators to the Vulgate or Latin version, where the word is
expressed by “_desertum_” probably enough because _desertus_,
in Latin, does not mean _desert_ in English, nor any thing like
it, but simply “lonely,” “uninhabited;”――in short, it has the
force of the English participle, “_deserted_,” and not of the
adjective “_desert_,” which has probably acquired its modern
meaning, and lost its old one, since our common translation was
made; thus making one instance, among ten thousand others, of
the imperfection of this ancient translation, which was, at best,
but a servile English rendering of the Vulgate. Campbell, in his
four gospels, has repeated this passage, without correcting the
error, though Hammond, long before, in his just and beautiful
paraphrase, (on Matthew xiv. 13,) had corrected it by the
expression, “_a place not inhabited_.” Charles Thomson, in
his version, has overlooked the error in Matthew xiv. 13, 15,
but has corrected it in Mark vi. 31, &c., and in Luke ix. 10;
expressing it by “_solitary_.” The remark of the apostles to
Jesus, “This place is lonely,” does not require the idea of a
barren or wild place; it was enough that it was far from any
village, and had not inhabitants enough to furnish food for
five thousand men; as in 2 Corinthians xi. 26, it is used in
opposition to “city,” in the sense of “the country.”

HIS DECLARATION OF CHRIST’S DIVINITY.

Journeying on northward, Jesus came into the neighborhood of ♦Caesarea Philippi, and while he was there in some solitary place, praying alone with his select disciples, at the conclusion of his prayer, he asked them, “Who do men say that I, the son of man, am?” And they answered him, “Some say that thou art John the Baptist:” Herod, in particular, we know, had this notion; “some, that thou art Elijah, and others that thou art Jeremiah, or one of the prophets, that is risen again.” So peculiar was his doctrine, and so far removed was he, both in impressive eloquence and in original views, from the degeneracy and servility of that age, that the universal sentiment was, that one of the bold, pure “spirits of the fervent days of old,” had come back to call Judah from foreign servitude, to the long remembered glories of the reigns of David and Solomon. But his chosen ones, who had by repeated instruction, as well as long acquaintance, better learned their Master, though still far from appreciating his true character and designs, had yet a higher and juster idea of him, than the unenlightened multitudes who had been amazed by his deeds. To draw from them the distinct acknowledgment of their belief in him, Jesus at last plainly asked his disciples, “But who do ye say that I am?” Simon Peter, in his usual character as spokesman, replied for the whole band, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus, recognizing in this prompt answer, the fiery and devoted spirit that would follow the great work of redemption through life, and at last to death, replied to the zealous speaker in terms of marked and exalted honor, prophesying at the same time the high part which he would act in spreading and strengthening the kingdom of his Master: “Blessed art thou, Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art a ROCK, and on this _rock_ I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” In such high terms was the chief apostle distinguished, and thus did his Master peculiarly commission him above the rest, for the high office, to which all the energies of his remaining life were to be devoted.

♦ “Cesarea” replaced with “Caesarea”

_Who do men say that I am._――The common English translation,
here makes a gross grammatical blunder, putting the relative
in the objective case,――“_Whom_ do men say,” &c. (Matthew xvi.
13‒15.) It is evident that on inverting the order, putting the
relative last instead of first, it will be in the nominative,
――“Men say that I am who?” making, in short, a nominative after
the verb, though it here comes before it by the inversion which
the relative requires. Here again the blunder may be traced to
a heedless copying of the Vulgate. In Latin, as in Greek, the
relative is given in the accusative, and very properly, because
it is followed by the infinitive. “Quem dicunt homines esse
Filium hominis?” which literally is, “Whom do men say the son of
man to be?”――a very correct form of expression; but the blunder
of our translators was, in preserving the accusative, while they
changed the verb, from the infinitive to the finite form; for
“_whom_” cannot be governed by “_say_.” Hammond has passed over
the blunder; but Campbell, Thomson, and Webster, have corrected
it.

_Son of Man._――This expression has acquired a peculiarly exalted
sense in our minds, in consequence of its repeated application
to Jesus Christ, and its limitation to him, in the New Testament.
But in those days it had no meaning by which it could be
considered expressive of any peculiar characteristic of the
Savior, being a mere general emphatic expression for the common
word “man,” used in solemn address or poetical expressions. Both
in the Old and New Testament it is many times applied to men
in general, and to particular individuals, in such a way as
to show that it was only an elegant periphrasis for the common
term, without implying any peculiar importance in the person
thus designated, or referring to any peculiar circumstance as
justifying this appellative in that case. Any concordance will
show how commonly the word occurred in this connection. The
diligent Butterworth enumerates eighty-nine times in which this
word is applied to Ezekiel, in whose book of prophecy it occurs
oftener than in any other book in the Bible. It is also applied
to Daniel, in the address of the angel to him, as to Ezekiel;
and in consideration of the vastly more frequent occurrence
of the expression in the writers after the captivity, and its
exclusive use by them as a formula of solemn address, it has
been commonly considered as having been brought into this usage
among the Hebrews, from the dialects of Chaldea and Syria,
where it was much more common. In Syriac, more particularly, the
simple expression, “man,” is entirely banished from use by this
solemn periphrasis,

Illustration: (‡ Syriac word)

(_bar-nosh_,) “SON OF MAN,” which every where takes the place
of the original direct form. It should be noticed also, that in
every place in the Old Testament where this expression (“son of
man”) occurs, before Ezekiel, the former part of the sentence
invariably contains the direct form of expression, (“man,”)
and this periphrasis is given in the latter part of every such
sentence, for the sake of a poetical repetition of the same idea
in a slightly different form. Take, for instance, Psalm viii. 4,
“What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man,
that thou visitest him?” And exactly so in every other passage
anterior to Ezekiel, as Numbers xxiii. 19, Job xxv. 16, xxxv. 8,
Isaiah li. 12, lvi. 2, and several other passages, to which any
good concordance will direct the reader.

The New Testament writers too, apply this expression in other
ways than as a name of Jesus Christ. It is given as a mere
periphrasis, entirely synonymous with “man,” in a general or
abstract sense, without reference to any particular individual,
in Mark iii. 28, (compare Matthew xii. 13, where the simple
expression “men” is given,) Hebrews ii. 6, (a mere translation
of Psalm viii. 4,) Ephesians iii. 5, Revelation i. 13, xiv. 14.
In the peculiar emphatic limitation to which this note refers,
it is applied by Jesus Christ to himself about eighty times in
the gospels, but is never used by any other person in the New
Testament, as a name of the Savior, except by Stephen, in Acts,
vii. 56. It never occurs in this sense in the apostolic epistles.
(Bretschneider.) For this use of the word, I should not think
it necessary to seek any mystical or important reason, as so
many have done, nor can I see that in its application to Jesus,
it has any very direct reference to the circumstance of his
having, though divine, put on a human nature, but simply a nobly
modest and strikingly emphatic form of expression used by him,
in speaking of his own exalted character and mighty plans, and
partly to avoid the too frequent repetition of the personal
pronoun. It is at once evident that this indirect form,
in the third person, is both more dignified and modest in
solemn address, than the use of the first person singular
of the pronoun. Exactly similar to this are many forms of
circumlocution with which we are familiar. The presiding
officer of any great deliberative assembly, for instance, in
announcing his own decision on points of order, by a similar
periphrasis, says “The chair decides,” &c. In fashionable forms
of intercourse, such instances are still more frequent. In many
books, where the writer has occasion to speak of himself, he
speaks in the third person, “the author,” &c.; as in an instance
close at hand, in this book it will be noticed, that where it is
necessary for me to allude to myself in the _text_ of the work,
which, of course, is more elevated in its tone than the _notes_,
I speak, according to standard forms of scriptorial propriety,
in the third person, as “the author,” &c.; while here, in
these small discussions, which break in on the more dignified
narrative, I find it at once more convenient and proper, to use
the more familiar and simple forms of ♦expression.

♦ “expresssion” replaced with “expression”

This periphrasis (“_son of_”) is not peculiar to oriental
languages, as every Greek scholar knows, who is familiar with
Homer’s common expression υιες Αχαιων, (_uies Akhaion_,) “sons
of Grecians,” instead of “Grecians” simply, which by a striking
coincidence, occurs in Joel xiii. 6, in the same sense. Other
instances might be needlessly ♦multiplied.

♦ “multipled” replaced with “multiplied”

_Thou art a Rock_, &c.――This is the just translation of Peter’s
name, and the force of the declaration is best understood by
this rendering. As it stands in the original, it is “Thou art
Πετρος, (_Petros_, ‘a rock,’) and on this Πετρα (_Petra_, ‘a
rock’) I will build my church,”――a play on the words so palpable,
that great injustice is done to its force by a common tame,
unexplained translation. The variation of the words in the
Greek, from the masculine to the feminine termination, makes
no difference in the expression. In the Greek Testament, the
feminine πετρα (_petra_) is the only form of the word used as
the common noun for “rock,” but the masculine πετρος (_petros_)
is used in the most finished classic writers of the ancient
Greek, of the Ionic, Doric and Attic, as Homer, Herodotus,
Pindar, Xenophon, and, in the later order of writers, Diodorus
Siculus.

H. Stephens gives the masculine form as the primitive, but
Schneider derives it from the feminine.

After this distinct profession of faith in him, by his disciples, through Peter, Jesus particularly and solemnly charged them all, that they should not, then, assert their belief to others, lest they should thereby be drawn into useless and unfortunate contests about their Master, with those who entertained a very different opinion of him. For Jesus knew that his disciples, shackled and possessed as they were with their fantasies about the earthly reign of a Messiah, were not, as yet, sufficiently prepared to preach this doctrine: and wisely foresaw that the mass of the Jewish people would either put no faith at all in such an announcement, or that the ill disposed and ambitious would abuse it, to the purposes of effecting a political revolution, by raising a rebellion against the Roman rulers of Palestine, and oversetting foreign power. He had, it is true, already sent forth his twelve apostles, to preach the coming of the kingdom, (Matthew x. 7,) but that was only to the effect that the time of the Messiah’s reign was nigh,――that the lives and hearts of all must be changed,――all which the apostles might well preach, without pretending to announce who the Messiah was.

HIS AMBITIOUS HOPES AND THEIR HUMILIATION.

This avowal of Peter’s belief that Jesus was the Messiah, to which the other apostles gave their assent, silent or loud, was so clear and hearty, that Jesus plainly perceived their persuasion of his divine authority to be so strong, that they might now bear a decisive and open explanation of those things which he had hitherto rather darkly and dimly hinted at, respecting his own death. He also at this time, brought out the full truth the more clearly as to the miseries which hung over him, and his expected death, with the view the more effectually to overthrow those false notions which they had preconceived of earthly happiness and triumph, to be expected in the Messiah’s kingdom; and with the view, also, of preparing them for the events which must shortly happen; lest, after they saw him nailed to the cross, they should all at once lose their high hopes, and utterly give him up. He knew too, that he had such influence with his disciples, that if their minds were shocked, and their faith in him shaken, at first, by such a painful disclosure, he could soon bring them back to a proper confidence in him. Accordingly, from this time, he began distinctly to set forth to them, how he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. There is much room for reasonable doubt, as to the manner in which those who heard this declaration of Christ, understood it at the time. As to the former part of it, namely, that he would be ill-treated by the great men of the Jewish nation, both by those ruling in the civil and religious government, it was too plain for any one to put any but the right meaning upon it. But the promise that he should, after this horrible fate, rise again from the dead on the third day, did not, as it is evident, by any means convey to them the meaning which all who read it now, are able to find in it. Nothing can be more plain to a careful reader of the gospels, than that his disciples and friends had not the slightest expectation that he would ever appear to them after his cruel death; and the mingled horror and dread with which the first news of that event was received by them, shows them to have been utterly unprepared for it. It required repeated positive demonstration, on his part, to assure them that he was truly alive among them, in his own form and character. The question then is――what meaning had they all along given to the numerous declarations uttered by him to them, apparently foretelling this, in the distinct terms, of which the above passage is a specimen? Had they understood it as we do, and yet so absolutely disbelieved it, that they put no faith in the event itself, when it had so palpably occurred? And had they, for months and years, followed over Palestine, through labors, and troubles, and dangers, a man, who, as they supposed, was boldly endeavoring to saddle their credulity with a burden too monstrous for even them to bear? They must, from the nature of their connection with him, have put the most unlimited confidence in him, and could not thus devotedly have given themselves up to a man whom they believed or suspected to be constantly uttering to them a falsehood so extravagant and improbable. They must, then, have put some meaning on it, different from that which our clearer light enables us to see in it; and that meaning, no doubt, they honestly and firmly believed, until the progress of events showed them the power of the prophecy in its wonderful and literal fulfilment. They may have misunderstood it in his life time, in this way: the universal character of the language of the children of Shem, seems to be a remarkable proneness to figurative expressions, and the more abstract the ideas which the speaker wishes to convey, the more strikingly material are the figures he uses, and the more poetical the language in which he conveys them. Teachers of morals and religion, most especially, have, among those nations of the east, been always distinguished for their highly figurative expressions, and none abound more richly in them than the writers of the Old and New Testament. So peculiarly effective, for his great purposes, did Jesus Christ, in particular, find this variety of eloquence, that it is distinctly said of him, that he seldom or never spoke to the people without a parable, which he was often obliged to expound more in detail, to his chosen followers, when apart with them. This style of esoteric and exoteric instruction, had early taught his disciples to look into his most ordinary expressions for a hidden meaning; and what can be more likely than that often, when left to their own conjectures, they, for a time, at least, overleaped the simple literal truth, into a fog of figurative interpretations, as too many of their very modern successors have often done, to their own and others’ misfortune. We certainly know that, in regard to those very expressions about raising the dead, there was a very earnest inquiry among the three chief apostles, some time after, as will be mentioned in place, showing that it never seemed possible to them that their Lord, mighty as he had showed himself, could ever mean to say to them, that, when his bitter foes had crowned his life of toil and cares with a bloody and cruel exit, he――even HE, could dare to promise them, that he would break through that iron seal, which, when once set upon the energies of man, neither goodness, nor valor, nor knowledge, nor love, had ever loosened, but which, since the first dead yielded his breath, not the mightiest prophet, nor the most inspired, could ever break through for himself. The figure of death and resurrection, has often been made a striking image of many moral changes;――of some one of which, the hearers of Jesus probably first interpreted it. In connection with what he had previously said, nothing could seem more natural to them, than that he, by this peculiarly strong metaphor, wished to remind them that, even after his death, by the envious and cruel hands of Jewish magistrates, over but a few days, his name, the ever fresh influence of his bright and holy example――the undying powers of his breathing and burning words, should still live with them, and with them triumph after the momentary struggles of the enemies of the truth.