Peter–Phenice

(a rock or stone). The original name of this disciple was Simon, i.e. “hearer.” He was the son of a man named Jonas, (Matthew 16:17; John 1:42; 21:16) and was brought up in his father’s occupation, that of a fisherman. He and his brother Andrew were partners of John end James, the sons of Zebedee, who had hired servants. Peter did not live, as a mere laboring man, in a hut by the seaside, but first at Bethsaida, and afterward in a house at Capernaum belonging to himself or his mother-in-law, which must have been rather a large one, since he received in it not only our Lord and his fellow disciples, but multitudes who were attracted by the miracles and preaching of Jesus. Peter was probably between thirty and forty pears of age at the date of his call. That call was preceded by a special preparation. Peter and his brother Andrew, together with their partners James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were disciples of John the Baptist when he was first called by our Lord. The particulars of this are related with graphic minuteness by St. John. It was upon this occasion that Jesus gave Peter the name Cephas, a Syriac word answering to the Greek Peter, and signifying a stone or rock. (John 1:35-42) This first call led to no immediate change in Peter’s external position. He and his fellow disciples looked henceforth upon our Lord as their teacher, but were not commanded to follow him as regular disciples. They returned to Capernaum, where they pursued their usual business, waiting for a further intimation of his will. The second call is recorded by the other three evangelists; the narrative of Luke being apparently supplementary to the brief and, so to speak official accounts given by Matthew and Mark. It took place on the Sea of Galilee near Capernaum, where the four disciples Peter and Andrew, James and John were fishing. Some time was passed afterward in attendance upon our Lord’s public ministrations in Galilee, Decapolis, Peraea and Judea. The special designation of Peter and his eleven fellow disciples took place some time afterward, when they were set apart as our Lord’s immediate attendants. See (Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:13-19) (the most detailed account); Luke 6:13 They appear to have then first received formally the name of apostles, and from that time Simon bore publicly, and as it would seem all but exclusively, the name Peter, which had hitherto been used rather as a characteristic appellation than as a proper name. From this time there can be no doubt that Peter held the first place among the apostles, to whatever cause his precedence is to be attributed. He is named first in every list of the apostles; he is generally addressed by our Lord as their representative; and on the most solemn occasions he speaks in their name. The distinction which he received, and it may be his consciousness of ability, energy, zeal and absolute devotion to Christ’s person, seem to have developed a natural tendency to rashness and forwardness bordering upon resumption. In his affection and self-confidence Peter ventured to reject as impossible the announcement of the sufferings and humiliation which Jesus predicted, and heard the sharp words, “Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offence unto me, for thou savorest not the things that be of God but those that be of men.” It is remarkable that on other occasions when St. Peter signalized his faith and devotion, he displayed at the time, or immediately afterward, a more than usual deficiency in spiritual discernment and consistency. Toward the close of our Lord’s ministry Peter’s characteristics become especially prominent. At the last supper Peter seems to have been particularly earnest in the request that the traitor might be pointed out. After the supper his words drew out the meaning of the significant act of our Lord in washing his disciples’ feet. Then too it was that he made those repeated protestations of unalterable fidelity, so soon to be falsified by his miserable fall. On the morning of the resurrection we have proof that Peter, though humbled, was not crushed by his fall. He and John were the first to visit the sepulchre; he was the first who entered it. We are told by Luke and by Paul that Christ appeared to him first among the apostles. It is observable; however, that on that occasion he is called by his original name, Simon not Peter; the higher designation was not restored until he had been publicly reinstituted, so to speak, by his Master. That reinstitution—an event of the very highest import-took place at the Sea of Galilee. John 21. The first part of the Acts of the Apostles is occupied by the record of transactions in nearly all forth as the recognized leader of the apostles. He is the most prominent person in the greatest event after the resurrection, when on the day of Pentecost the Church was first invested with the plenitude of gifts and power. When the gospel was first preached beyond the precincts of Judea, he and John were at once sent by the apostles to confirm the converts at Samaria. Henceforth he remains prominent, but not exclusively prominent, among the propagators of the gospel. We have two accounts of the first meeting of Peter and Paul— (Acts 9:26; Galatians 1:17,18) This interview was followed by another event marking Peter’s position—a general apostolical tour of visitation to the churches hitherto established. (Acts 9:32) The most signal transaction after the day of Pentecost was the baptism of Cornelius. That was the crown and consummation of Peter’s ministry. The establishment of a church in great part of Gentile origin at Antioch and the mission of Barnabas between whose family and Peter there were the bonds of near intimacy, set the seal upon the work thus inaugurated by Peter. This transaction was soon followed by the imprisonment of our apostle. His miraculous deliverance marks the close of this second great period of his ministry. The special work assigned to him was completed. From that time we have no continuous history of him. Peter was probably employed for the most part in building up and completing the organization of Christian communities in Palestine and the adjoining districts. There is, however strong reason to believe that he visited Corinth at an early period. The name of Peter as founder or joint founder is not associated with any local church save the churches of Corinth, Antioch or Rome, by early ecclesiastical tradition. It may be considered as a settled point that he did not visit Rome before the last year of his life; but there is satisfactory evidence that he and Paul were the founders of the church at Rome, and suffered death in that city. The time and manner of the apostle’s martyrdom are less certain. According to the early writers, he suffered at or about the same time with Paul, and in the Neronian persecution, A.D. 67,68. All agree that he was crucified. Origen says that Peter felt himself to be unworthy to be put to death in the same manner as his Master, and was therefore, at his own request, crucified with his head downward. The apostle is said to have employed interpreters. Of far more importance is the statement that Mark wrote his Gospel under the teaching of Peter, or that he embodied in that Gospel the substance of our apostle’s oral instructions. [Mark, Gospel Of] The only written documents which Peter has left are the First Epistle— about which no doubt has ever been entertained in the Church— and the Second, which has been a subject of earnest controversy.

The external evidence of authenticity of this epistle is of the strongest kind and the internal is equally strong. It was addressed to the churches of Asia Minor which had for the most part been founded by Paul and his companions, Supposing it to have been written at Babylon, (1 Peter 5:13) it ia a probable conjecture that Silvanus, By whom it was transmitted to those churches, had joined Peter after a tour of visitation, and that his account of the condition of the Christians in those districts determined the apostle to write the epistle. (On the question of this epistle having been written at Babylon commentators differ. “Some refer it to the famous Babylon in Asia, which after its destruction was still inhabited by a Jewish colony; others refer it to Babylon in Egypt, now called Old Cairo; still others understand it mystically of heathen Rome, in which sense ’Babylon’ is certainly used in the Apocalypse of John.”—Schaff.) The objects of the epistle were—

The following is a brief outline of the contents of this epistle: The customary opening salutation is followed by an enumeration of Christian blessings and exhortation to Christian duties. (2 Peter 1:1-13) Referring then to his approaching death, the apostle assigns as grounds of assurance for believers his own personal testimony as eye-witness of the transfiguration and the sure word of prophecy—that is the testimony of the Holy Ghost. vs. (2 Peter 1:14-21) The danger of being misled by false prophets is dwelt upon with great earnestness throughout the second chapter, which is almost identical in language and subject with the Epistle of Jude. The overthrow of all opponents of Christian truth is predicted in connection with prophecies touching the second advent of Christ, the destruction of the world by fire, and the promise of new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. ch. 3. This epistle of Peter presents questions of difficulty. Doubts as to its genuineness were entertained by the early Church; in the time of Eusebius it was reckoned among the disputed books, and was not formally admitted into the canon until the year 393, at the Council of Hippo. These difficulties, however, are insufficient to justify more than hesitation in admitting its genuineness. A majority of names may be quoted in support of the genuineness and authenticity of this epistle. (It is very uncertain as to the time when it was written. It was written near the close of Peter’s life—perhaps about A.D. 68—from Rome or somewhere on the journey thither from the East—Alford .)

(freed by Jehovah).

(soothsayer), a town of Mesopotamia, where Balaam resided, and situated “upon the river,” possibly the Euphrates. (Numbers 22:5; 23:4) Its position is wholly unknown.

(vision of God), the father of the prophet Joel. (Joel 1:1) (B.C. before 800.)

(my wages) properly Peullethai, the eighth son of Obed-edom. (1 Chronicles 26:5) (B.C. 1020.)

(division). Peleg the son of Eber. (Luke 3:35)

(distinguished), Pallu the son of Reuben is so called in the Authorized Version of (Genesis 46:9) (B.C. about 1706.)

(my deliverance), the son of Laish of Gallim, to whom Saul gave Michal in marriage after his mad jealousy had driven David forth as an outlaw. (1 Samuel 25:4-1) In (2 Samuel 3:15) he is called Phaltiel. With the exception of this brief mention of his name, and the touching little episode in (2 Samuel 3:16) nothing more is heard of Phalti. (B.C. 1061.)

The same as Phalti. (2 Samuel 5:15)

(face of God), the father of Anna, the prophetess of the tribe of Aser. (Luke 2:36) (B.C. about 80.)

the common title of the native kings of Egypt in the Bible, corresponding to P-ra or Ph-ra “the sun,” of the hieroglyphics. Brugsch, Ebers and other modern Egyptologists define it to mean ’the great house,” which would correspond to our “the Sublime Porte.” As several kings are mentioned only by the title “Pharaoh” in the Bible, it is important to endeavor to discriminate them:

The wife of one Pharaoh, the king who received Hadad the Edomite, is mentioned in Scripture. She is called “queen,” and her name, Tahpenes, is given. [Tahpenes; Pharaoh, 6]

Three Egyptian princesses, daughters of Pharaohs, are mentioned in the Bible:—

The son of Judah. (Matthew 1:3; Luke 3:33)

(Perez, (1 Chronicles 27:3) Phares, (Matthew 1:3; Luke 3:33) 1 Esd. 5:6), twin son, with Zarah or Zerah, of Judah and Tamer his daughter-in-law. (B.C. 1730.) The circumstances of his birth are detailed in Gen. 38. Pharez occupied the rank of Judah’s second son, and from two of his sons sprang two new chief houses, those of the Hezronites and Hamulites. From Hezron’s second son Ram, or Aram, sprang David and the kings of Judah, and eventually Jesus Christ. In the reign of David the house of Pharez seems to have been eminently distinguished.

a religious party or school among the Jews at the time of Christ, so called from perishin, the Aramaic form of the Hebrew word perushim, “separated.” The chief sects among the Jews were the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes, who may be described respectively as the Formalists, the Freethinkers and the Puritans. A knowledge of the opinions and practices of the Pharisees at the time of Christ is of great importance for entering deeply into the genius of the Christian religion. A cursory perusal of the Gospels is sufficient to show that Christ’s teaching was in some respects thoroughly antagonistic to theirs. He denounced them in the bitterest language; see (Matthew 15:7,8; 23:5,13,14,15,23; Mark 7:6; Luke 11:42-44) and compare (Mark 7:1-5; 11:29; 12:19,20; Luke 6:28,37-42) To understand the Pharisees is by contrast an aid toward understanding the spirit of uncorrupted Christianity.

(Ezra 8:3) [See PAROSH]

(swift), the second of the “two rivers of Damascus”—Abana and Pharpar—alluded to by Naaman. (2 Kings 5:18) The two principal streams in the district of Damascus are the Barada and the Awaj, the former being the Abana and the latter the Pharpur. The Awaj rises on the southeast slopes of Hermon, and flows into the most southerly of the three lakes or swamps of Damascus.

the descendants of Parez the son of Judah. (Numbers 26:20)

(Nehemiah 7:51) [Paseah, 2]

a town on the coast of Asia Minor, on the confines of Lycia and Pamphylia, and consequently ascribed by the ancient writers sometimes to one and sometimes to the other. 1 Macc. 15:23.

[Phoebe]

(Acts 27:12) (more properly Phoenix, as it is translated in the Revised Version), the name of a haven in Crete on the south coast. The name was no doubt derived from the Greek word for the palm tree, which Theophrastus says was indigenous in the island. It is the modern Lutro . [See Phoenice, Phoenicia; PHOENICIA]