Peter on almost every occasion evincing the strength of his faith in
Jesus as the Messiah, and the most extraordinary zeal in his service, of
which many examples are extant in the Gospels. When Jesus in private
asked his disciples, first, what opinion the people entertained of him;
next, what was their own opinion: Simon Peter answered and said, Thou
art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Matt. xvi, 16. Having
received this answer, Jesus declared Peter blessed on account of his
faith; and in allusion to the signification of his name, added, Thou art
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and I will give thee
the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on
earth,” &c. Many think these things were spoken to St. Peter alone, for
the purpose of conferring on him privileges and powers not granted to
the rest of the Apostles. But others, with more reason, suppose that,
though Jesus directed his discourse to St. Peter, it was intended for
them all; and that the honours and powers granted to St. Peter by name
were conferred on them all equally. For no one will say that Christ’s
church was built upon St. Peter singly: it was built on the foundation
of all the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief
corner stone. As little can any one say that the power of binding and
loosing was confined to St. Peter, seeing it was declared afterward to
belong to all the Apostles, Matt. xviii, 18; John xx, 23. To these
things add this, that as St. Peter made his confession in answer to a
question which Jesus put to all the Apostles, that confession was
certainly made in the name of the whole; and, therefore, what Jesus said
to him in reply was designed for the whole without distinction;
excepting this, which was peculiar to him, that he was to be the first
who, after the descent of the Holy Ghost, should preach the Gospel to
the Jews, and then to the Gentiles: an honour which was conferred on St.
Peter in the expression, I will give thee the keys,” &c.
St. Peter was one of the three Apostles whom Jesus admitted to witness
the resurrection of Jairus’s daughter, and before whom he was
transfigured, and with whom he retired to pray in the garden the night
before he suffered. He was the person who in the fervour of his zeal for
his Master cut off the ear of the high priest’s slave, when the armed
band came to apprehend him. Yet this same Peter, a few hours after that,
denied his Master three different times in the high priest’s palace, and
that with oaths. In the awful defection of the Apostle on this occasion
we have melancholy proof of the power of human depravity even in
regenerate men, and of the weakness of human resolutions when left to
ourselves. St. Peter was fully warned by his divine Master of his
approaching danger; but confident in his own strength, he declared
himself ready to accompany his Lord to prison and even to judgment.
After the third denial Jesus turned and looked upon Peter;” that look
pierced him to the heart; and, stung with deep remorse, he went out, and
wept bitterly.” St. Peter, however, obtained forgiveness; and, when
Jesus had risen from the dead, he ordered the glad tidings of his
resurrection to be conveyed to St. Peter by name: Go tell my disciples
and Peter,” Mark xvi, 8. He afterward received repeated assurances of
his Saviour’s love, and from that time uniformly showed the greatest
zeal and fortitude in his Master’s service.
Soon after our Lord’s ascension, in a numerous assembly of the Apostles
and brethren, St. Peter gave it as his opinion, that one should be
chosen to be an Apostle in the room of Judas. To this they all agreed;
and, by lot, chose Matthias, whom on that occasion they numbered with
the eleven Apostles. On the day of pentecost following, when the Holy
Spirit fell on the Apostles and disciples, St. Peter, standing up with
the eleven, lifted up his voice; that is, St. Peter, rising up, spake
with a loud voice, in the name of the Apostles, as he had done on
various occasions in his Master’s lifetime, and gave the multitude an
account of that great miracle, Acts ii, 14. St. Peter now began to
experience the fulfilment of Christ’s promise to make him a fisher of
men, and also that he would give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
His sermon on this occasion produced an abundant harvest of converts to
Christ. Three thousand of his audience were pricked to the heart, and
cried out, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” St. Peter proclaimed to
them the riches of pardoning mercy through the divine blood of the Son
of God; and they that gladly received his doctrine were baptized and
added to the church, Acts ii, 37–43. The effects produced on the mind of
this great Apostle of the circumcision by the resurrection of his divine
Master, and the consequent effusion of the Holy Spirit, were evidently
of the most extraordinary kind, and such as it is impossible to account
for upon natural principles. He was raised superior to all
considerations of personal danger and the fear of man. And though all
the Apostles could now say, God hath not given us the spirit of fear,
but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind;” yet an attentive reader
of the Acts of the Apostles cannot fail to perceive that upon almost
every occasion of difficulty St. Peter is exhibited to our view as
standing foremost in the rank of Apostles. When St. Peter and John were
brought before the council to be examined concerning the miracle wrought
on the impotent man, St. Peter spake. It was St. Peter who questioned
Ananias and Sapphira about the price of their lands; and, for their
lying in that matter, punished them miraculously with death. It is
remarkable, also, that although by the hands of the Apostles many signs
and wonders were wrought, it was by St. Peter’s shadow alone that the
sick, who were laid in the streets of Jerusalem, were healed as he
passed by. Lastly: It was St. Peter who replied to the council in the
name of the Apostles, not obeying their command to preach no more in the
name of Jesus.
St. Peter’s fame was now become so great, that the brethren of Joppa,
hearing of his being in Lydda, and of his having cured Eneas
miraculously of a palsy, sent, desiring him to come and restore a
disciple to life, named Tabitha, which he did. During his abode in
Joppa, the Roman centurion, Cornelius, directed by an angel, sent for
him to come and preach to him. On that occasion the Holy Ghost fell on
Cornelius and his company, while St. Peter spake. St. Peter, by his zeal
and success in preaching the Gospel, having attracted the notice of the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, Herod Agrippa, who, to please the Jews, had
killed St. James, the brother of St. John, still farther to gratify
them, cast St. Peter into prison. But an angel brought him out; after
which he concealed himself in the city, or in some neighbouring town,
till Herod’s death, which happened about the end of the year. Some
learned men think St. Peter at that time went to Antioch or to Rome. But
if he had gone to any celebrated city, St. Luke, as L’Enfant observes,
would probably have mentioned it. Beside, we find him in the council of
Jerusalem, which met not long after this to determine the famous
question concerning the circumcision of the Gentiles. The council being
ended, St. Peter went to Antioch, where he gave great offence, by
refusing to eat with the converted Gentiles. But St. Paul withstood him
to the face, rebuking him before the whole church for his pusillanimity
and hypocrisy, Gal. ii, 11–21.
In the Acts of the Apostles, no mention is made of St. Peter after the
council of Jerusalem. But from Gal. ii, 11, it appears that after that
council he was with St. Paul at Antioch. He is likewise mentioned by St.
Paul, 1 Cor. i, 12; iii, 22. It is generally supposed that after St.
Peter was at Antioch with St. Paul, he returned to Jerusalem. What
happened to him after that is not told in the Scriptures. But Eusebius
informs us that Origen wrote to this purpose: St. Peter is supposed to
have preached to the Jews of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia,
Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia; and at length, coming to Rome, was
crucified with his head downward.
We are indebted to this Apostle for two epistles, which constitute a
valuable part of the inspired writings. The first epistle of St. Peter
has always been considered as canonical; and in proof of its genuineness
we may observe that it is referred to by Clement of Rome, Hermas, and
Polycarp; that, we are assured by Eusebius, that it was quoted by
Papias; and that it is expressly mentioned by Irenæus, Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and most of the later fathers. The
authority of the second epistle of St. Peter was for some time disputed,
as we learn from Origen, Eusebius, and Jerom; but since the fourth
century it has been universally received, except by the Syriac
Christians. It is addressed to the same persons as the former epistle,
and the design of it was to encourage them to adhere to the genuine
faith and practice of the Gospel.
PETHOR, a city of Mesopotamia, of which the Prophet Balaam was a native.
The Hebrews call this city Pethura. Ptolemy calls it Pachora; and
Eusebius, Pathara. He places it in the Upper Mesopotamia.
PHARAOH, a common name of the kings of Egypt. We meet with it as early
as Gen. xii, 15. Josephus says, that all the kings of Egypt, from
Minæus, the founder of Memphis, who lived several ages before Abraham,
always had the name of Pharaoh, down to the time of Solomon, for more
than three thousand three hundred years. He adds, that, in the Egyptian
language, the word Pharaoh means _king_, and that these princes did not
assume the name until they ascended the throne, at which time they
quitted their former name.
PHARISEES, a sect of the Jews. The earliest mention of them is by
Josephus, who tells us that they were a sect of considerable weight when
John Hyrcanus was high priest, B. C. 108. They were the most numerous,
distinguished, and popular sect among the Jews. The time when they first
appeared is not known, but it is supposed to have been not long after
the institution of the Sadducees, if, indeed the two sects did not
gradually spring up together. They derived their name from the Hebrew
word _pharash_, which signifies separated,” or set apart;” because they
separated themselves from the rest of the Jews to superior strictness in
religious observances. They boasted that, from their accurate knowledge
of religion, they were the favourites of Heaven; and thus, trusting in
themselves that they were righteous, despised others, Luke xi, 52;
xviii, 9, 11. Among the tenets inculcated by this sect, we may enumerate
the following: namely, they ascribed all things to fate or providence;
yet not so absolutely as to take away the free will of man; for fate
does not coöperate in every action, Acts v, 38, 39. They also believed
in the existence of angels and spirits, and in the resurrection of the
dead; Acts xxiii, 8. Lastly: the Pharisees contended that God stood
engaged to bless the Jews, to make them all partakers of the terrestrial
kingdom of the Messiah, to justify them, and make them eternally happy.
The cause of their justification they derived from the merits of
Abraham, from their knowledge of God, from their practising the rite of
circumcision, and from the sacrifices they offered. And as they
conceived works to be meritorious, they had invented a great number of
supererogatory ones, to which they attached greater merit than to the
observance of the law itself. To this notion St. Paul has some allusions
in those parts of his Epistle to the Romans, in which be combats the
erroneous suppositions of the Jews, Rom. i-xi.
The Pharisees were the strictest of the three principal sects that
divided the Jewish nation, Acts xxvi, 5, and affected a singular probity
of manners according to their system; which, however, was, for the most
part, both lax and corrupt. Thus many things which Moses had tolerated
in civil life, in order to avoid a greater evil, the Pharisees
determined to be morally right: for instance, the law of divorce from a
wife for any cause, Matt. v, 31, &c; xix, 3–12. (See _Divorce_.)
Farther: they interpreted certain of the Mosaic laws most literally, and
distorted their meaning so as to favour their own selfish system. Thus,
the law of loving their neighbour, they expounded solely of the love of
their friends, that is, of the whole Jewish race; all other persons
being considered by them as natural enemies, whom they were in no
respect bound to assist, Matt. v, 43; Luke x, 31–33. They also trifled
with oaths. Dr. Lightfoot has cited a striking illustration of this from
Maimonides. An oath, in which the name of God was not distinctly
specified, they taught was not binding, Matt. v, 33; maintaining that a
man might even swear with his lips, and at the same time annul it in his
heart! And yet so rigorously did they understand the command of
observing the Sabbath day, that they accounted it unlawful to pluck ears
of corn, and heal the sick, &c, Matt. xii; Luke vi, 6, &c; xiv. Many
moral rules they accounted inferior to the ceremonial laws, to the total
neglect of mercy and fidelity, Matt. v, 19; xv, 4; xxiii, 23. Hence they
accounted causeless anger and impure desires as trifles of no moment,
Matt. v, 21, 22, 27–30; they compassed sea and land to make proselytes
to the Jewish religion from among the Gentiles, that they might rule
over their consciences and wealth; and these proselytes, through the
influence of their own scandalous examples and characters, they soon
rendered more profligate and abandoned than ever they were before their
conversion, Matt. xxiii, 15. Esteeming temporal happiness and riches as
the highest good, they scrupled not to accumulate wealth by every means,
legal or illegal, Matt. v, 1–12; xxiii, 5; Luke xvi, 14; James ii, 1–8;
vain and ambitious of popular applause, they offered up long prayers in
public places, but not without self-complacency in their own holiness,
Matt. vi, 2–5; Luke xviii, 11; under a sanctimonious appearance of
respect for the memories of the prophets whom their ancestors had slain,
they repaired and beautified their sepulchres, Matt. xxiii, 29; and such
was their idea of their own sanctity, that they thought themselves
defiled if they but touched or conversed with sinners, that is, with
publicans or tax-gatherers, and persons of loose and irregular lives,
Luke vii, 39; xv, 1.
But, above all their other tenets, the Pharisees were conspicuous for
their reverential observance of the traditions or decrees of the elders:
these traditions, they pretended, had been handed down from Moses
through every generation, but were not committed to writing; and they
were not merely considered as of equal authority with the divine law,
but even preferable to it. The words of the scribes,” said they, are
lovely above the words of the law; for the words of the law are weighty
and light, but the words of the scribes are _all_ weighty.” Among the
traditions thus sanctimoniously observed by the Pharisees, we may
briefly notice the following: the washing of hands up to the wrist
before and after meat, Matthew xv, 2; Mark vii, 3; which they accounted
not merely a religious duty, but considered its omission as a crime
equal to fornication, and punishable by excommunication: the
purification of the cups, vessels, and couches used at their meals by
ablutions or washings, Mark vii, 4; for which purpose the six large
water pots mentioned by St. John, ii, 6, were destined: their fasting
twice a week with great appearance of austerity, Luke xviii, 12; Matt.
vi, 16; thus converting that exercise into religion which is only a help
toward the performance of its hallowed duties: their punctilious payment
of tithes, (temple-offerings,) even of the most trifling things, Luke
xviii, 12; Matt. xxiii, 23. And their wearing broader phylacteries and
larger fringes to their garments than the rest of the Jews, Matt. xxiii,
5. See PHYLACTERIES.
With all their pretensions to piety, the Pharisees entertained the most
sovereign contempt for the people; whom, being ignorant of the law, they
pronounced to be accursed, John vii, 49. Yet such was the esteem and
veneration in which they were held by the populace, that they may almost
be said to have given what direction they pleased to public affairs; and
hence the great men dreaded their power and authority. It is
unquestionable, as Mosheim has well remarked, that the religion of the
Pharisees was, for the most part, founded in consummate hypocrisy; and
that, at the bottom, they were generally the slaves of every vicious
appetite, proud, arrogant, and avaricious, consulting only the
gratification of their lusts, even at the very moment when they
professed themselves to be engaged in the service of their Maker. These
odious features in the character of the Pharisees caused them to be
reprehended by our Saviour with the utmost severity, even more so than
the Sadducees; who, although they had departed widely from the genuine
principles of religion, yet did not impose on mankind by a pretended
sanctity, or devote themselves with insatiate greediness to the
acquisition of honours and riches. A few, and a few only of the sect of
the Pharisees in those times, might be of better character,--men who,
though self-righteous and deluded and bigoted, were not like the rest,
hypocritical. Of this number was Saul of Tarsus; but as a body their
attachment to traditions; their passionate expectation of deliverance
from the Roman yoke by the Messiah, and the splendour of his civil
reign, their pride, and above all their vices, sufficiently account for
that unconquerable unbelief which had possessed their minds as to the
claims of Christ, and their resistance to the evidence of his miracles.
The sect of the Pharisees was not extinguished by the ruin of the Jewish
commonwealth. The greater part of the Jews are still Pharisees, being as
much devoted to traditions, or the oral law, as their ancestors were.
PHARPAR. See ABANA.
PHEBE, a deaconess of the port of Corinth, called Cenchrea. St. Paul had
a particular esteem for this holy woman; and Theodoret thinks the
Apostle lodged at her house for some time, while he continued in or near
Corinth. It is thought she carried the epistle to Rome, which he wrote
to the church of that city, in which she is so highly commended, Rom.
xvi, 1, 2. It is thought that, in quality of deaconess, she was employed
by the church in some ministrations suitable to her sex and condition;
as to visit and instruct the Christian women, and attend them in their
sickness, and distribute alms to them in their necessities.
PHENICIA, a province of Syria, the limits of which have been differently
represented. Sometimes it has been defined as extending from north to
south, from Orthosia as far as Pelusium. At other times its southern
limit is said to have been Mount Carmel and Ptolemais. It is certain
that, from the conquest of Palestine by the Hebrews, its limits were
narrow, containing no part of the country of the Philistines, which
occupied all the coast from Mount Carmel along the Mediterranean, as far
as the borders of Egypt. It had also very little extent on the land
side, because the Israelites, who possessed all Galilee, confined it to
the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. The chief cities of Phenicia were
Sidon, Tyre, Ptolemais, Ecdippe, Sarepta, Berythe, Biblos, Tripoli,
Orthosia, Simira, Aradus. They formerly had possession of some cities in
Libanus: and sometimes the Greek authors comprehend all Judea under the
name of Phenicia. Phenicia may be considered as the birthplace of
commerce, if not also of letters and the arts. It was a Phenician who
introduced into Greece the knowledge and the use of letters. Phenician
workmen built the temple of Solomon; Phenician sailors navigated his
ships; Phenician pilots directed them; and before other nations had
ventured to lose sight of their own shores, colonies of Phenicians were
established in the most distant parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa. These
early advantages were owing, doubtless, in part to their own
enterprising character, and in part also to their central situation,
which enabled them to draw into their own narrow territory all the
commerce between the east and the west. Bochart has laboured to show
that they sent colonies to almost all the isles and coasts of the
Mediterranean Sea; but the most famous of all their colonies was that of
Carthage.
PHILADELPHIA, a city of Lydia, in Asia Minor, and one of the seven
churches of Asia. It derived its name from Attalus Philadelphus, its
founder; and was seated on a branch of Mount Tmolus, about twenty-five
miles south-east of Sardis, and seventy, in nearly the same direction,
from Smyrna. It suffered greatly, in common with all this part of Asia,
in the terrible earthquake during the reign of Tiberius, and in the
seventeenth year of the Christian era. It has, however, retained a
better fate than most of its neighbours; for under the name of Alahsher,
or the city of God, it is still a place of some repute, chiefly
supported by trade, it being in the route of the caravans to Smyrna.
Among the Greek colonies and churches of Asia,” says Gibbon,
Philadelphia is still erect, a column in a scene of ruins.” Although
this city is now in the possession of the Turks, it has about a thousand
Christian inhabitants, chiefly Greeks; who have five churches with a
resident bishop, and inferior clergy.
PHILEMON was an inhabitant of Colosse; and from the manner in which he
is addressed by St. Paul in his epistle to him, it is probable that he
was a person of some consideration in that city. St. Paul seems to have
been the means of converting him to the belief of the Gospel, Philemon
19. He calls him his fellow-labourer; and from that expression some have
thought that he was bishop or deacon of the church at Colosse; but
others have been of opinion, that he was only a private Christian, who
had shown a zealous and active disposition in the cause of Christianity,
without holding any ecclesiastical office. We learn from this epistle
itself, that it was written when St. Paul was a prisoner, and when he
had hope of soon recovering his liberty, Philemon 1, 22; and thence we
conclude that it was written toward the end of his first confinement at
Rome. This epistle has always been deservedly admired for the delicacy
and address with which it is written; and it places St. Paul’s character
in a very amiable point of view. He had converted a fugitive slave to
the Christian faith; and he here intercedes with his master in the most
earnest and affectionate manner for his pardon; he speaks of Onesimus in
terms calculated to soften Philemon’s resentment, engages to make full
compensation for any injury which he might have sustained from him, and
conjures him to reconciliation and forgiveness by the now endearing
connection of Christian brotherhood. See ONESIMUS.
PHILIP, the Apostle, was a native of Bethsaida in Galilee. Jesus Christ
having seen him, said to him, Follow me,” John i, 43, 44. Philip
followed him; he was present at the marriage of Cana in Galilee. Philip
was called at the beginning of our Saviour’s mission. He is mentioned,
Luke vi, 13; Matt. x, 3; John vi, 5–7. Some Gentiles having a curiosity
to see Jesus, a little before his passion, addressed themselves to
Philip, John xii, 21, 22, who mentioned it to Andrew, and these two to
Christ. At the last supper Philip desired the Saviour to show them the
Father, John xiv, 8–10. This is all that we find concerning Philip in
the Gospel.
2. PHILIP, the second of the seven deacons, Acts vi, 5, was, some say,
of Cæsarea in Palestine. It is certain his daughters lived in that city,
Acts xxi, 8, 9. After the death of Stephen all the Christians, except
the Apostles, having left Jerusalem, and being dispersed in several
places, Philip went to preach at Sebaste or Samaria, where he performed
several miracles, and converted many persons, Acts viii, 1–3, &c. He
baptized them; but informed the Apostles at Jerusalem that Samaria had
received the word of God, that they might come and communicate the Holy
Ghost to them. Peter and John came thither for that purpose. Philip was,
probably, at Samaria, when an angel commanded him to go on the road that
leads from Jerusalem to old Gaza. Philip obeyed, and there met with an
Ethiopian eunuch, belonging to Candace, queen of Ethiopia, whom he
converted and baptized, Acts viii, 26. Being come out of the water, the
Spirit of the Lord took away Philip, and the eunuch saw him no more.