THE order in which the names of the apostles are arranged in this book,
can make little difference in the interest which their history will
excite in the reader’s mind, nor can such an arrangement, of itself,
do much to affect his opinion of their comparative merits; yet to their
biographer, it becomes a matter of some importance, as well as interest,
to show not only authority, but reason, for the order in which he ranks
them.
Sufficient _authority_ for placing Simon Cephas first, is found in
the three lists of the apostles given respectively by Matthew, Mark
and Luke, which, though differing as to their arrangement in some
particulars, entirely agree in giving to this apostle the precedence of
all. But it would by no means become the earnest and faithful searcher
into sacred history, to rest satisfied with a bare reference to
the unerring word, on a point of so much interest. So far from it,
the strictest reverence for the sacred record both allows and urges
the inquiry, as to what were the circumstances of Peter’s life
and character, that led the three evangelists thus unanimously and
decidedly to place him at the head of the sacred band, on all whom, in
common, rested the commissioned power of doing the marvelous works of
Jesus, and spreading his gospel in all the world. Was this preference
the result of mere incidental circumstances, such as age, prior calling,
&c.? Or, does it mark a pre-eminence of character or qualifications,
entitling him to lead and rule the apostolic company in the name of
Christ, as the commissioned chief of the faithful?
The _reason_ of this preference, as far as connected with his character,
will of course be best shown in the incidents of his life and conduct,
as detailed in this narrative. But even here much may be brought
forward to throw light on the ground of Peter’s rank, as first of the
apostles. It is no more than fair to remark, however, that some points
of this inquiry have been very deeply, and at the same time, very
unnecessarily involved in the disputes between Protestants and Papists,
respecting the original supremacy of the church of Rome, as supposed to
have been founded or ruled by this chief apostle.
Of the many suppositions which might be made to account for Peter’s
priority of station on the apostolic list, it may be enough to notice
the following: That he was by birth the oldest of the twelve. This
assertion, however boldly made by some, rests entirely on conjecture,
as we have no certain information on this point, either from the
New Testament or any ancient writer of indisputable credit. Those
of the early Christian writers who allude to this matter, are quite
contradictory in their statements, some supposing Peter to be the
oldest of the apostles, and some supposing Andrew to be older than his
brother;――a discrepancy that may well entitle us to conclude that they
had no certain information about the matter. The weight of testimony,
however, seems rather against the assertion that Peter was the oldest,
inasmuch as the earliest writer who alludes at all to the subject, very
decidedly pronounces Andrew to have been the older brother. Enough,
then, is known, to prevent our relying on his seniority as the true
ground of his precedence. Still this point must be considered as
entirely doubtful; so doubtful that it cannot be considered as proof,
in the argument.
The oldest Christian writer, who refers in any way to the
comparative age of Peter, is Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, as
early as A. D. 368. In his great work against heresies, (book ii.
vol. 1, heresy 51,) in narrating the call of Andrew and Peter,
he says, “The meeting (with Jesus) happened first to Andrew,
Peter being less than him in age,” (μικροτερου οντος τω χρονῳ
της ἡλικιας.) “But afterwards, when their complete forsaking of
all earthly things is mentioned, Peter takes precedence, since
God, who sees the turn of all characters, and knows who is fit
for the highest places, chose Peter as the chief leader (αρχηγον)
of his disciples.” This, certainly, is a very distinct assertion
of Peter’s juniority, and is plainly meant to give the idea that
Peter’s high rank among the apostles was due to a superiority of
talent, which put him above those who were older.
In favor of the assertion that Peter was older than Andrew, the
earliest authority that has ever been cited, is John Chrysostom,
bishop of Constantinople, about A. D. 400. This Father, in his
homily on Matthew xvii. 27, (Homily 59,) says that Peter was a
“first-born son,” (πρωτοτοκος.) In this passage, he is speaking
of the tribute paid by Jesus and Peter for the expenses of the
temple. He supposes that this tribute was the redemption-money
due from the first-born sons of the Jews, for their exemption
from the duties of the priesthood. But the account of this
tax, in Numbers iii. 44‒51, shows that this was a tax of _five_
shekels apiece, while that spoken of by Matthew, is called the
_didrachmon_, a Greek coin equivalent to a _half_-shekel. Now
the half-shekel tax was that paid by _every_ Jew above the age
of twenty years, for the expenses of the temple service, as
is fully described in Exodus xxx. 12‒16; xxxviii. 26. Josephus
also mentions this half-shekel tax, as due from _every_ Jew, for
the service of the temple. (See Hammond on Matthew xvii. 24.)
Chrysostom is therefore wholly in the wrong, about the nature of
the tax paid by Jesus and Peter; (verse 27, “give it for me and
thee,”) and the reason which he gives for the payment, (namely,
that they were both first-born sons,) being disproved, his
belief of Peter’s seniority is shown to be based on an error,
and therefore entitled to no credit whatever; more particularly,
when opposed to the older authority of Epiphanius.
Lardner, in support of the opinion that Peter was the oldest,
quotes also Cassian and Bede; but it is most manifest that a
bare assertion of two writers, who lived, one of them 424, and
the other 700 years after Christ,――an assertion unsupported by
any proof whatever, cannot be received as evidence in the case.
The most natural _conjecture_ of any one who was accounting
for the eminence of Peter, would be that he was older than the
brother of whom he takes precedence so uniformly; and it is no
more than just to conclude, therefore, that the ground of this
notion was but a mere guess. But in the case of Epiphanius,
besides the respect due to the early authority, it is important
to observe, that he could have no motive for inventing the
notion of Andrew’s seniority, since the uniform prominence
of Peter would most naturally suggest the idea that _he_ was
the oldest. It is fair to conclude, then, that an opinion, so
unlikely to be adopted without special proof, must have had the
authority of uniform early tradition; for Epiphanius mentions it
as if it were a universally admitted fact; nor does he seem to
me to have invented the notion of Andrew’s seniority, to account
for his being first known to Jesus, though he mentions these two
circumstances in their natural connection. Yet Lampius, in his
notes on John i. supposing that Epiphanius arranged the facts on
the principle “post hoc, ergo, propter hoc,” has rejected this
Father’s declaration of Andrew’s seniority, as a mere invention,
to account for this apostle’s prior acquaintance with Jesus. The
reader may judge between them.
Lardner, moreover, informs us that Jerome maintains the opinion,
that Peter was preferred before the other apostles on account
of his age. But a reference to the original passage, shows that
the comparison was only between Peter and John, and not between
Peter and the rest of the apostles. Speaking of Peter as the
constituted head of the church, he says that was done to avoid
dissensions, (_ut schismatis tollatur occasio_.) The question
might then arise, why was not John chosen first, being so pure
and free from connections that might interfere with apostolic
duties? (Cur non Johannes electus est virgo? Aetati delatum
est, quia Petrus _senior_ erat; ne adhuc adolescens ac pene
puer progressae aetatis hominibus praeferretur.) “It was out
of regard to age, because Peter was _older_ (than John;) nor
could one who was yet immature, and little more than a boy, be
preferred to a man of mature age.” The passage evidently does
not touch the question of Peter’s being the oldest of all, nor
does it contradict, in any way, the opinion that Andrew was
older, as all which Jerome says is, merely, that Peter was older
than John,――an opinion unquestionably accordant with the general
voice of all ancient Christian tradition.
The character of Epiphanius, however, it must be acknowledged,
is so low for judgment and accuracy, that his word is not
of itself sufficient to establish any very doubtful fact, as
certain. Yet in this case, there is no temptation to pervert
facts on a point of so little interest or importance, and one on
which no prejudice could govern his decision. We may therefore
give him, in this matter, about all the credit due to his
antiquity. Still, there is much more satisfactory proof of
Peter’s not being the oldest apostle, founded on various
circumstances of apostolic history, which will be referred to
in their places.
Nor can priority of calling be offered as the reason of this apparent
superiority; for the minute record given by the evangelist John, makes
it undeniable that Andrew became acquainted with Jesus before Peter,
and that the eminent disciple was afterwards first made known to Jesus,
by means of his less highly honored brother.
The only reasonable supposition left, then, is, that there was an
intentional preference of Simon Cephas, on the score of eminence
for genius, zeal, knowledge, prudence, or some other quality which
fitted him for taking the lead of the chief ministers of the Messiah.
The word “_first_,” which accompanies his name in Matthew’s list,
certainly appears, in the view of some, to have some force above the
mere tautological expression of a fact so very self-evident from the
collocation, as that he was first on the list. The Bible shows not an
instance of a list begun in that way, with this emphatic word so vainly
and unmeaningly applied. The analogies of expression in all languages,
ancient and modern, would be very apt to lead a common reader to think
that the numeral adjective thus prefixed, was meant to give the idea
that Simon Peter was put _first_ for some better reason than mere
accident. Any person, in giving a list of twelve eminent men, all
devoted to a common pursuit, and laboring in one great cause, whose
progress he was attempting to record, would, in arranging them, if
he disregarded the circumstances of seniority, &c., very naturally
give them place according to their importance in reference to the
great subject before him. If, as in the present case, three different
persons should, in the course of such a work, make out such a
list, an individual difference of opinion about a matter of mere
personal preference, like this, might produce variations in the minor
particulars; but where all three united in giving to one and the same
person, the first and most honorable place, the ordinary presumption
would unavoidably be, that the prior rank of the person thus
distinguished, was considered, by them at least, at the time when they
wrote, as decidedly and indisputably established. The determination
of a point so trifling being without any influence on matters of faith
and doctrine, each evangelist might, without detriment to the sanctity
and authority of the record which he bears, be left to follow his
own private opinion of the most proper principle of arrangement to be
followed in enumerating the apostles. Thus, while it is noticeable that
the whole twelve were disposed in six pairs by each of the evangelists,
yet the order and succession of these is somewhat changed, by different
circumstances directing the choice of each writer. Matthew modestly
puts himself after Thomas, with whom he seems by all the gospel
lists, to have some close connection; but Mark and Luke combine to
give Matthew the precedence, and invert the order in which, through
unobtrusiveness, he had, as it would seem, robbed true merit of its due
superiority. And yet these points of precedence were so little looked
to, that in the first chapter of Acts, Luke makes a new arrangement of
these names, advancing Thomas to the precedency, not only of Matthew,
but of Bartholomew, who, in all other places where their names are
given, is mentioned before him. So also Matthew prefers to mention the
brothers together, and gives Andrew a place immediately after Peter,
although, in so many places after, he speaks of Peter, James and
John together, as most highly distinguished by Christ, and favored by
opportunities of beholding him and his works, on occasions when other
eyes were shut out. Mark, on the contrary, gives these names with
more strict reference to distinction of rank, and mentions the favored
trio together, first of all, making the affinities of birth of less
consequence than the share of favor enjoyed by each with the Messiah.
Luke, in his gospel, follows Matthew’s arrangement of the brothers,
but in the first chapter of Acts puts the three great apostles first,
separating Andrew from his brother, and mentioning him after the
sons of Zebedee. These changes of arrangement, while they show of how
little vital importance the order of names was considered, yet, by the
uniform preservation of Peter in the first rank, prove that the exalted
pre-eminence of Peter was so universally known and acknowledged, that
whatever difference of opinion writers might entertain respecting more
obscure persons,――as to him, no inversion of order could be permitted.
How far Peter was by this pre-eminence endowed with any supremacy over
the other apostles, may of course be best shown in those places of his
history, which appear either to maintain or question this position.
That Simon Cephas, or Peter, then, was the first or chief of the
apostles, appears from the uniform precedence with which his name is
honored on all occasions in the Scriptures, where the order in which
names are mentioned could be made to depend on rank,――by the universal
testimony of the Fathers, and by the general impressions entertained on
this point throughout the Christian world, in all ages since his time.