Peter's good confession.
The scene of this is worth notice. It lay to the northward of Bethsaida, amongst the villages in the neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi. This town, on the site of the ancient Paneas (now Bahias), was built by the tetrarch Philip in honor of Tiberius Caesar, and is to be distinguished from the Caesarea of the southern Mediterranean seaboard of Palestine. The country was magnificent; wild, wooded, and mountainous, and dominated by the royal castle of Subeibeh. Here, too, was the chief fountain-head of the Jordan. It was a region where the utmost seclusion could be enjoyed, pending the great things which were to take place in the near future. Immediately behind the disciples were the great works which had occasioned such universal wonder and speculation concerning their Master; and they were in a position of comparative leisure and quietude duly to recall and meditate upon them. No better opportunity had hitherto presented itself for the crowning question of Jesus," Whom say ye that l am? "
I. THE IDENTIFICATION WAS DISTINGUISHED FROM SEVERAL ALREADY CURRENT. So marvellous was the career of Jesus, that all ideas of explaining on ordinary grounds had to be abandoned. In the popular mind the only personages corresponding to Jesus, save John the Baptist, were those of ancient Jewish history, the heroic ages of the theocracy. All were agreed that in him there was a revival or reappearance of the religious spirit of the best days of Israel.
1. The knowledge of these opinions rendered the judgment of the disciples highly conscious and deliberate, and therefore of great critical importance. Each of them, as it came to their ears, would doubtlessly be considered and weighed. The popular guesses would be compared with the full and complete experience of Jesus and his work, which they alone possessed, and one by one rejected. But they would serve to awaken their critical attention and their spiritual discernment—constitute, in fact, a sort of ascending scale according to which to adjust their own thoughts.
2. The certainty to which they had arrived, notwithstanding the variety of opinions of which they were aware, proves how overwhelming the evidence must have been upon which they based their conclusion. There is no hesitation in Peter's answer. And as spokesman of the twelve he utters their unanimous conviction. How much previous examination and interchange of views does that imply?
II. How was THIS CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT?
1. Not from unscientific guessing. From their peculiar circumstances this was impossible.
2. Not from information furnished by Jesus himself. There is no trace of hinting or suggesting on the part of the Master. His withdrawal from that course of policy which might have enabled him to take advantage of popular influence was against the idea of his being the Messiah of the people's dreams. It was in spite of his mysterious behavior, therefore, and in complete absence of any information furnished by himself, that they formed their opinion.
3. It was by a twofold process, viz.:
III. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ITS ATTAINMENT.
1. It was but a recognition of certain correspondences between Jesus and the Messiah spoken of in Scripture. There was certainty and intelligent perception, so far as their knowledge went. But the full conception of his personality and work was reserved for the future. They knew that it was he of whom the prophets spoke, but about himself in his deeper nature and the spirituality, etc., of his work—in short, of what he was—they were not fully aware.
2. What they did arrive at altered their entire relation to him. A new, vague authority attached henceforth to him, and the future was full of a keen expectancy and interest. It gave a new meaning to every word and action proceeding from him, and prepared them for the special training and teaching which they had to receive as his apostles; just as the principle attained by induction of many facts, when its light is turned back upon them interprets them, and we see them as we could not before.—M.
Peter's self-contradiction.
I. WHEREIN IT CONSISTED.
1. In identifying Jesus with the Messiah and yet deprecating his sufferings. That Messiah should suffer was abundantly declared by the prophets. His death was the greatest testimony he could give to the righteousness of God. A comfortable, earthly, prosperous king could never occupy the spiritual position of the Christ; moral influence, the essential feature of the latter's reign, would be entirely wanting. To the thorough student of prophecy and contemporary life, Messiahship "connoted" suffering, not as an accidental but necessary qualification.
2. In identifying Jesus with the Messiah and yet assuming such an attitude and tone towards him. The utmost reverence and submission were not only due to his Lord, but would have been voluntarily rendered had he understood what was meant by his own declaration. In such a case he would never have presumed to dictate or chide.
II. TO WHAT IT WAS DUE.
1. Insufficient realization of what he knew. He had divined the true dignity of his Master, but what it involved was not yet felt. The doctrine is often correct when the sense of obligation it ought to produce is not awakened. A great spiritual truth may be perceived and adopted long ere its relations to practical life are recognized; just as a principle in mechanics or a law of nature. Deeper spiritual experience and more sympathetic agreement with Christ in his desire to abolish sin were needed ere this could take place.
2. Impulse and thoughtlessness. This was his temperament. He was a man of impulse and affection, rather than of calm, spiritual intuition, or careful, painstaking reflection. It was due to his forward and impulsive temperament that he generally spoke for the others, and was so confident respecting himself in the future. Christianity owes much to such spirits, but they have to be kept in check by more sober thinkers, and disciplined by the lessons of providence.
3. Worldly conceptions of the kingdom of God. Had he entertained purer and more spiritual hopes respecting his Master's work, the mischief of his impulsiveness might have been minimized, although it would still have been a source of danger. But with such habitual materialism of aim and desire (common to him with the others) he was constantly committing mistakes, and ready to compromise the cause of Christ. "This world has many Peters, who wish to be wiser than Christ, and to prescribe to him what it is needful to do" (Hofmeister). We ought riot to be too severe with Peter whilst we ourselves lean so much for the guidance of the Church to merely human wisdom, and set our own affections for particular persons, or for ourselves, above the well-being of the race; and estimate that well-being not from a spiritual but from a material standpoint.—M.