Mark 14:53-72 - Homilies By J.j. Given

Parallel passages: Matthew 26:57-75 ; Luke 22:54-62 ; John 18:13-27 —

The denial by Peter.

I. THE CAUSES THAT LED TO PETER 'S SIN

1. —The first cause of Peter's sin. The first cause, as we may infer from this very chapter, was self-confidence. Our Lord foretold the smiting of the Shepherd, as predicted long before in ancient prophecy—of himself the good Shepherd, appropriating the title; and along with the smiting of the Shepherd, he foretold, as a consequence, the scattering of the sheep. Peter, yielding to the impulses of his own ardent and impetuous nature, repudiated the notion of desertion thus implied. He did so in a manner that involved an invidious comparison of himself with others, and an overweening opinion of his own strength of will and purpose of fidelity. "Although" ( καὶ ει) , equivalent to "even if," viz. a supposed case not likely to exist; εἰ καὶ read by Tregelles, equivalent to "although," viz. a case really existing) "all shall be offended, yet will not I," were his somewhat boastful or egotistical words. The smiting of the Shepherd may be a stumbling-block to others—to all of them, but not to me; the others may fall ever it, yet will not I the rest may act the cowardly, unmanly part indicated, breaking and scattering like feeble sheep soon as the wolf is seen to approach, but not I. I will prove myself the rock-man, and stand my ground in face of all danger, and in spite of all enemies. Thus Peter exalted himself at the expense of others; he also presumed too much on his own strength, and took too much credit for his own courage. Peter possessed physical courage, we have good reason to believe, but he lacked moral courage; nor do these two qualities always go hand in hand. There may be great physical courage with but little moral courage, and much moral courage where physical courage is defective. Peter was courageous enough—or rash enough, some might be disposed to say—to cut off the ear of a manservant of the high priest; but he was cowardly enough to quail before the glance of one of the maids of the high priest, tie had physical courage enough to do the deed of violence, but not moral courage enough to tell the truth to an inquisitive, intermeddling, though perhaps light-hearted, thoughtless girl. If we contrast the conduct and character of two comrade apostles, John and Peter, we shall find a confirmation of our view. As compared with Peter, John had less physical courage, for on a subsequent occasion, as we read, "Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulcher. So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulcher.… Yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulcher." This is a very interesting and instructive statement. They both ran, in their eagerness and expectancy, to the rifled sepulcher; but John, being the younger and therefore swifter man, outran Peter, and reached the sepulcher before him. But there he paused; he had not the physical courage to enter that gloomy abode; a sudden awe arrested him. At length Peter came up, and as soon as he arrived at the place, without fear, or dread, or hesitancy, without stop, or stay, or a moment's pause, he dashed in. "Then went in also that other disciple which came first to the sepulcher." On this occasion Peter proved himself the physically bold, courageous man; while John, though younger and stronger probably, was the physically timid and hesitating. The scene shifts to the palace of the high priest; and these two apostolic men change places. John is now the bold, courageous man—morally so, for he "went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest; but Peter stood at the door without." John was known to the high priest, and known to him as a disciple of Jesus, and yet he went boldly into the palace, neither ashamed nor afraid to acknowledge his discipleship. Not only so, he spoke to the portress, and got Peter admitted. But now came Peter's turn and time of weakness. Though John, a man of much less physical courage, had gone in boldly, and then gained admission for his companion, yet Peter, with far less moral courage, is frightened into sinful denial of his discipleship in the first instance by the brusque boldness of a somewhat pert maid. And yet, notwithstanding all this, a certain cause, or at least somewhat of an excuse, may be found for Peter's moral cowardice, as com- pared with the moral courage of John at this juncture. Peter was conscious of a crime with which John had no complicity or connection—a crime that might shape itself into a constructive charge of an attempt at rescue. He had cut off the ear of Malchus, and so he may have dreaded the consequence of that act, or the more serious charge of interfering with the officers in the discharge of their appointed duty, in order to prevent the capture of his Master. These considerations may have increased the apprehensions of Peter, and added to the supposed danger of his position. The fact of discipleship of itself did not involve peril of any kind, and so John breathed more freely and moved about at large in the palace of the high priest without dread of danger.

2 . A second cause leading to Peter's sin. A second cause leading to Peter's sin was unwatchfulness and neglect of prayer. When our Lord, in the Garden of Gethsemane, found the three disciples sleeping, he addressed himself specially to Peter, with the words, "Simon, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour?" and then he spake words of warning to all: "Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation." A curious incident, in a certain respect the converse of this, though generally over- looked, deserves well, we think, to be noticed in this connection. In the warning just referred to, our Lord passed from the particular to the general, from the singular to the plural—from Simon to the associated apostles. In the warning recorded by St. Luke ( Luke 22:31 , Luke 22:32 ), and which introduces the passage of that Gospel parallel to Mark 14:1-72 : 37, 38, of the Gospel before us, our Lord passes in reverse order from the plural to the singular—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 thee, 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 ὑμᾶς , while our Lord's supplication embraced him in particular, as must be inferred from the singular σοῦ . 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 them all was the most imperilled of them all. Some, like Judas, were soon to be blown away, or had already been 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 Savior'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 Savior'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 ἐκλείπῃ , or, according to the critical editors, ἐκλίπῃ , which signifies to fail out and out, utterly, or finally. Thus this utter and final failure was exactly the thing prevented by the Savior'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 temptation, 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 defense. 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; for in his First Epistle ( 1 Peter 5:8 ) 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 off. 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 unnerved him; it was the fear of man that prevented him coming immediately after his Master, 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 follow him freely and of a ready mind; instead of following him for a short space of time, we are to follow him all our life, and so always. From Peter's disastrous fall and foul denial of his Master, we learn the important lesson of following Christ freely, fully, fearlessly, faithfully, and forever. Distance from Christ is real danger, nearness to him is true safety. Distance from the Sun of Righteousness is coldness, darkness, and spiritual death; nearness to him is love, light, and life. In Canticles the question is asked, "Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her Beloved?" If this refer to the Church, as we are of opinion it does, it is a picture of her true attitude. The world is the wilderness through which the Christian is passing, and from which he is ascending to a better and promised land; while it is on the arm of Christ that he leans. Thus leaning on Christ, looking to Christ, and living by the faith of Christ, we journey safely from the wilderness of earth to the promised land of heaven. Away from his presence, away from his power, we are every moment in greatest peril; away from the range of his protection and the guidance of his providence, we expose ourselves to the temptations of the evil one, and speedily become his easy prey.

4 . The fourth cause of Peter's sin . The fourth cause of Peter's sin was bad company. "He sat," we read, "with the servants" of the high priest, "and warmed himself at the fire." What was this but going into the company of his Master's enemies? This was mixing, and without necessity, with the enemies of the Savior. He thus went with his eyes open into the place of peril, among the attendants of the high priest and the adversaries of his Lord and Master. Here there is every reason to believe he would hear little good of any kind spoken; while he would be sure to hear his Master's name vilified, his character slandered, and his cause reproached. In all this contempt and reproach there is too much cause to believe Peter must for the time have concurred. Possibly he not only agreed with them, but acted as they did, the better to conceal his real connection with Christ. It is shocking even for a moment to suppose that Peter was so weak and so wicked, during the short space he consorted with such company, as to join them in reviling his Master. Suspecting him, as they did, of being Christ's disciple, and finding him thus readily uniting with them in heaping scorn upon his Master, what must they have thought of that Master? What estimate could they form of either disciple or Teacher? Must they not have concluded that Christ's discipleship was neither happy nor honorable? Must they not have inferred, and inferred with reason, that the disciple of such a Master was knave, or fool, or villain? When, on the other hand, we consider what Peter should have done and what he might have done at the time of his Master's difficulty and danger, we almost blush for the name of disciple so degraded and disgraced! Had he been true to his confession of the Christ, had he been staunch in his adherence to his Master, he would either have kept out of the company which he knew consisted of his Master's bitter enemies, or, if he found it necessary to stand by or sit among them, he would have defended him at whatever risk.

II. THE AGGRAVATIONS OF PETER 'S SIN .

1 . Ingratitude . Peter had been on the most familiar terms with his Master, and had been highly favored by him. Of the chosen, he was one of the choicest; of the elected, he was one of the elite. With James and John he shared the Savior's closest intimacy. Like them, he was with him on the Mount of Transfiguration, and was privileged to witness that wondrous scene and see that glorious sight. Like them, he was admitted to the solemnities of the death-chamber, and was present at the restoration to life of the daughter of Jairus. Like them, he had been invited to accompany his Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane, and to watch with him during the agony and bloody sweat. Still more, our Lord had commended his good confession of the Christ the Son of God, and traced it to heavenly revelation; he had bestowed on him the honorable surname of "Rock-man," in acknowledgment of his firmness and the foundation he should help to lay; besides, he had promised him a high position and also distinguished privileges in his kingdom. Peter had walked to him on the water, and been kept from sinking by his Master's hand. Yet now, for all these special marks of friendship and favor that had been lavished on him, he shows himself utterly and basely ungrateful. He turned his back on his best and kindest Friend, denying all knowledge of him. Now, when a return of friendship was most needed, he not only failed to act the part of a friend in need, and reciprocate the kindness he had received, but actually consorted with his bitterest enemies.

2 . Falsehood . When our Lord stood in most need of sympathy, Peter, as we have seen, stood aloof or ranged himself on the side of his enemies. When he might have given valuable testimony in favor of his Master, silence sealed his lips, and he refused to acknowledge him. Nor was this all; he falsified to the most fearful extent and in the foulest manner. He denied all or any knowledge of Jesus; he repeated the denial in the most positive way; he backed his repeated falsehood with an oath. When challenged the third time, he "began to curse and swear, saying, I know not the man." Surely one falsehood of the kind indicated would have been bad enough and wicked enough, but its repetition once, again, a third time, greatly aggravated the sin and augmented Peter's guilt. The violence of language which was prompted by, and which gave expression to, his virulence of feeling is difficult to account for. There was fear of detection and imagined danger, but there must have been rage as well, to explain his violent and passionate language. Several of the bystanders recognize him; a kinsman of Malchus is there who had seen him in the garden; his Galilean dialect bewrays him; accusations crowd upon him; proofs multiply against him. Peter gets irritated, and completely loses his temper and self-control. At the supposed discrepancy, or at least difficulty, in Peter's denial of his Master we can only glance. The place of the first denial was by the fire in the high priest's hall, or quadrangular court under the open air ( αὐλή ), while that of the third is not specified. The place of the second was in the προαύλιον according to St. Mark, and the πυλῶνα according to St. Matthew; while St. John tells us that he was standing and warming himself. Now, the fire was in the open court ( αὐλή ), the passage from this to the street was προαύλιον , and the portal or entrance door of this passage was πυλών . He had removed to a short distance from the fire, but not so far as to lose the influence of its heat or warmth. With respect to the persons, the first question that called forth his denial was put by the portress. On the occasion of the second denial the same maid addressed the bystanders, who echoed her words, so that several persons (male ἕτερος ) and (female ἄλλη ) another maid different from the portress—all ( εἶπον , plural) assailed Peter with their inconvenient and unwelcome questions. In replying to or repelling these, Peter kept denying ( ἠρνεῖτο , imperfect). At the third denial more of the bystanders, with some other different person ( ἄλλος τις of St. Luke) as ringleader, drew attention to his being a Galilean; while the relative of Malchus confirmed this by alleging that he had seen him in the garden. There is thus neither real difficulty nor discrepancy of any kind.

3 . Profanity and perjury . By this time Peter is excited and enraged. Goaded to madness, he breaks out into language of shocking profaneness. The falsehood already repeated he backs by an imprecation. He also swears the lie, invoking the name of Jehovah and calling the omniscient One to witness his reiterated untruth, and thus lays foul perjury on his soul. He began, we read, to anathematize, that is to say, he used a formula of imprecation such as "God do so to me and more also," thus cursing himself if what he said was untrue; but, besides this, he employed the customary formula of an oath, invoking God as witness of his words, false as he knew them to be. Naturally impetuous and passionate, and in youth, or before his discipleship, perhaps addicted to profane swearing, he relapsed into his old sin in order to corroborate his statements and to force credence on the incredulous. One sin leads to another; one lie especially needs another to support it. The bystanders must have known little of Jesus' character and teaching, or Peter's profanity of itself would have convinced them that he knew not that Teacher—nothing, at least, of his spirit and doctrine. Could it be possible that Peter, in the madness of his rage and fear, meant by his profanity to leave this impression on his questioners, and that there was thus a method in his madness? At all events, he spoke as one who was a stranger to the fear of God and the ordinary dictates of religion, not to speak of discipleship to a Teacher who said, "Swear not at all … but let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay."

4 . Other aggravating circumstances . There were several other circumstances of aggravation which we can only indicate, and may not dwell on, among them the following:—The faithful and frequent warnings he had received, and had received so recently; his own vehement protestations of loyalty and fidelity to his Master—that if all others should be offended he would not, that if be should die with him he would not deny him in any wise. There were also other considerations connected with the denial that greatly added to the sin: there were the circumstances and time—our Lord being now deserted, delivered into the hands of cruel enemies, and dragged before inexorable judges; there were the persons to whom the denial was addressed, namely, servants and other humble officials, with little influence and less power, not magistrates or functionaries invested with authority; there were the flagrant breaches of Peter's own positive and repeated promises. All are forgotten or falsified! Alas, what is man! At the strongest but weakness, and at the best but imperfection!

III. PETER 'S REPENTANCE .

1 . Extenuating circumstances . We may just notice, very briefly, in connection with Peter's repentance, certain extenuations of his sin. His sin, largely the outcome of his own impulsive nature, came on him with the suddenness and strength of an unexpected impulse. There had been no premeditation, no deliberate plan, and no deceitful design, as in the case of Judas. His plans and purposes had all been of the very opposite character; his determination and resolutions had all tended in the very contrary direction. He did not remain in his sin, nor ever afterwards repeat it. The sin was exceeding great and the guilt enormous, but it would have been still more so had he continued it, or persevered in it, or subsequently returned to it. Satan took him by surprise, as though asleep or off his guard; but once roused from the lethargy into which he had fallen, or brought back to the post which he had abandoned, he never again wandered from the path of duty or sank in sin.

2 . How he was recalled to duty . Two circumstances were the means externally, or the occasions of reminding Peter of his sin and recalling him to duty. But, while all the evangelists record Peter's sin, St. Mark alone records the second crowing of the cock, which was one of the two circumstances referred to; and St. Luke alone records our Lord's look at Peter, saying, "And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter." The first crowing of the cock had passed unheeded. St. Mark, who gives us such an exact transcript of Peter's fall and feelings, probably from Peter's own lips, informs us that it was not till the second or regular morning cockcrow that Peter was brought to the recollection of his Lord's warning and his own sin. It was then he awoke as from a troubled dream or terrible nightmare; while much about the same time our Lord, either from the open front of the chamber in which the trial bad been proceeding, or as he passed across the courtyard from the apartments of Annas to the palace of Caiaphas, turned towards Peter and looked him into repentance.

3 . His repentance . The same evidence of repentance is found in the words, "He went out, and wept bitterly" ( ἔκλαιε , he continued weeping aloud; not ἐδάκρυε , he shed tears). The participle ( ἐπιβαλὼν ) attached to this verb is variously rendered. The most usual and probable meaning assigned to it is that of our version," When he thought thereon," that is, cast (his mind) on it. Some explain it, "He began to weep," as in the margin of the Revised Version, as well as of the Authorized Version; others, "He flung his mantle over his head;" others, again, "He flung himself forth [ i.e. on the ground] and wept." Further, it is understood by others in the sense of abundantly, that is, "He wept abundantly," also in the margin of Authorized Version; while a more interesting explanation, if well founded, is, "He cast his eyes on him and wept," as if Peter reciprocated his Lord's look, and consequent compunction of soul vented itself, not in a transient outburst, but in a long-continued, copious flood of tears. Thus, while the Evangelist Luke records the look of Christ Peter, the Evangelist Mark, if this rendering be at all tenable, records the corresponding look of Peter on Christ; so that, when eye met eye, Peter was overpowered by strong emotion, and gave way to his deep grief by bitter ( πικρῶς , St. Matthew and St. Luke) weeping.

4 . Real repentance distinguished from remorse . It is very important to distinguish true repentance from mere regret or remorse; while a contrast of the ease of Peter with that of Judas will materially help us to see and clearly comprehend the difference. Certain elements are common to both, and these we must eliminate before we can rightly distinguish them. On the part of Judas there was sorrow of the intensest kind—remorse of the most distressing nature; there was the fullest and most ingenuously candid confession; there was also the strongest possible desire to make any and all the reparation that was possible. All these elements are found in true repentance; but as they are found also in the remorse of Judas, they are common alike to genuine repentance and mere remorse. The first material point of difference is that the sorrow of the true penitent is caused by the sight of sin in itself, apart altogether from its consequences; the sorrow of remorse is occasioned chiefly, if not entirely, by those consequences. Judas did rot foresee the terrible consequences of his sin; he little dreamt, perhaps, that it would lead to Jesus being evil entreated, condemned, and crucified. When he pocketed the reward of iniquity, he felt satisfied with the bargain and sure that the Master would find some way of escape. Had this been the case; had no ill consequences resulted from his treachery; had nothing beyond the arrest of Jesus taken place, and no worse results followed;—Judas, there is reason to believe, would have felt neither sorrow nor shame at what he had done; nay, he would have had a feeling of satisfaction rather than a sense of sin. He would scarcely have shrunk from the society of the apostles; he would have been able to find some pretext or frame some excuse for all that had happened. But the consequences of his treachery—the terrible consequences—made all the difference. Greedy as Judas was, and mean as he was, and treacherous as he was, he was by no means a cruel man or a man of blood. When, however, contrary to his expectation, the most appalling consequences were certain to ensue; when a judicial murder and a cruel death awaited the Master whom he had betrayed; then Judas for the first time saw his sin in its consequences, and was overwhelmed with the sight. It was quite different with Peter. His sin, heinous as it was, did not produce any such fearful effects as the sin of Judas. His denial of his Master did not lead to his apprehension; it had nothing to do with his condemnation; it did not cause his death. Peter saw it not in any such consequences, but in its own baseness and sinfulness. He saw the iniquity of his sin as committed against his loving Lord, as a sin against truth and righteousness, as a sin against goodness and justice, as a sin by which he wronged conscience and hurt his own soul. The sight filled his heart with sorrow and shame, while his eyes brimmed over again and again with salt and bitter tears. The next point of difference is that the true penitent seeks mercy, but the subject of remorse sinks in despair. Of this also we have a striking illustration in Judas and Peter respectively. The former confessed his guilt, acknowledged the innocence of his Master and the injury he had done him; not only so, in self-abhorrence and loathing he flung back the price of blood. But all this sorrow and remorse fell short of repentance; true penitence was as far off as ever. He had no heart to pray; no heart to seek God's face and favor free; no heart to sue for mercy. His heart was hardened, not softened, by sin; the blackness of despair enveloped him; blank ruin stared him in the face. Not so Peter: he sorrowed, but after a godly sort; instead of giving himself up to despair, he sought mercy. He was humbled, not hardened; the tears he shed washed his eyes, and his spiritual vision became clearer; he saw the blackness of his sin, but he saw also the benignity of the Savior. That look of his Master had pierced his heart with a feeling of his guilt, but brought withal a sense of Divine grace; he was fully alive to the misery of sin, as also to the mercy of the Savior. After the terrible storm which had swept across the horizon of his soul, the rainbow of hope remained upon the cloud, reflecting the sunshine of heaven on the tears of sorrow shed by the penitent. He saw his iniquity to be very great, yet he sued for pardon. He looked not away from, but to, the Savior whose heart his sin had pierced, and mourned in bitterness.

IV. PRACTICAL LESSONS .

1 . A picture . Our Lord and his apostles are often seen grouped together in a picture; the Gospels exhibit a moral picture of the group. this picture there is much dark shading; but this dark shading helps to bring out more clearly the bright and brilliant colors of the picture and to enhance its beauty. If there were no dark shading in it, it would represent angelic life in heaven rather than human life on earth; in that case, the very perfection of the figures would diminish its fitness for our warning or comfort.

2 . Good educed from evil. Peter, when restored ( ἐπιστρέψας ), was better fitted to help others. His own weakness became by grace a source of strength to others. When he had turned again, and been restored (as those referred to in ἐπεστράφητε , 1 Peter 2:25 ) to the Shepherd and Bishop of souls, he was better able from his own experience to keep other sheep from straying, or restore them from their wanderings.

3 . A lesson never forgotten. The circumstances connected with Peter's sin were so engraven on the tablet of his memory as never to be forgotten, as is evident from several passages of his Epistles and his speech as recorded in Acts. When he would warn men against one of those mistakes which caused his sin, he says ( 1 Peter 5:8 ), "Be vigilant," or "watchful" (Revised Version). When he charged the Jews with the foulest crime, he expresses that charge in words that echo his own dark deed: "Ye denied the Holy One and the Just;" "Ye denied him in the presence of Pilate," as we read in Peter's speech ( Acts 3:13 , Acts 3:14 ). When he pictured the highest state of spiritual prosperity, he describes it as freedom from falling: " If ye do these things, ye shall never fall" ( 2 Peter 1:10 ). His most solemn warning is, "Beware lest ye also … fall from your own steadfastness" ( 2 Peter 3:17 ). The change that was effected in Peter after the descent of the Holy Spirit is wonderful, for in the early part of Acts we find him possessed of moral courage equal to his natural physical courage, and on all occasions acting a bold, manly, and courageous as well as prominent part. Whatever grace we need, we are thus encouraged to seek the Spirit to supply.

V. THE OMITTED PORTIONS OF THIS CHAPTER .

1 . For section verses 51, 52, peculiar to St. Mark, see Introduction.

2 . For section verses 55-65, containing the account in part of the Jewish trial, see beginning of next chapter, where that trial is concluded.—J.J.G.