Mark 8:27-30 And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying to them… 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 (Tristram, 'Land of Israel,' p. 586); wild, wooded, and mountainous, and dominated by the royal castle of Subeibeh. Here, too, was the chief fountain-head of the Jordan (ibid., p. 585). 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.: (1) Induction from their experience of his character and works. For this they were peculiarly fitted; and the searching training of the Master led them gradually but surely to make it. And they were well versed in Scripture. (2) Inspiration of God. Elsewhere (Matthew 16:17) we read the declaration, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." These two sources of information were not mutually exclusive, but mutually supplementary and confirmatory, as in every Christian mind to-day. Indeed, in a larger view of evidence the spiritual intuition - the most truly moral evidence of the conscience - is but an element of the general moral evidence upon which the induction is based. It is the conscience which is the ultimate judge of all spiritual questions the ordinary understanding cannot completely or satisfactorily settle. 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. Parallel Verses KJV: And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? |
    |