Chapter Twenty-Two
Objection based on the escape of S. Peter from prison (Acts xii. 5-11) and S. Paul's words about him (Gal. ii. 12 and 2 Cor. xi. 13).
This man who stood first in the band of the disciples, taught as he had been by God to despise death, but escaping when seized by Herod, became a cause of punishment to those who guarded him. For after he had escaped during the night, when day came there was a stir among the soldiers as to how Peter had got out. And Herod, when he had sought for him and failed to find him, examined the guards, and ordered them to be "led away," that is to say, put to death. So it is astonishing how Jesus gave the keys of heaven to Peter, if he were a man such as this; and how to one who was disturbed with such agitation and overcome by such experiences did He say "Feed my lambs"? For I suppose the sheep are the faithful who have advanced to the mystery of perfection, while the lambs stand for the throng of those who are still catechumens, fed so far on the gentle milk of teaching.1 Nevertheless, Peter is recorded to have been crucified2 after feeding the lambs not even for a few months,3 although Jesus had said that the gates of Hades should not prevail against him.4Again, Paul condemned Peter when he said, "For before certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles, but when they came he separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision; and many Jews joined with him in his hypocrisy"5 (Gal. ii. 12). In this likewise there is abundant and important condemnation, that a man who had become interpreter of the divine mouth should live in hypocrisy, and behave himself with a view to pleasing men. Moreover, the same is true of his taking about a wife, for this is what Paul says: " Have we not power to take about a sister, a wife, as also the rest of the apostles, and Peter?" (1 Cor. ix. 5). And then6 he adds (2 Cor. xi. 13), "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers." If then Peter is related to have been involved in so many base things, is it not enough to make one shudder to imagine that he holds the keys of heaven, and looses and binds, although he is fast bound, so to speak, in countless inconsistencies.
Chapter Twenty-Nine
Answer to the objection based on S. Peter's escape from prison (Acts xii. 5-11) and other inconsistencies.
[After killing James, in his hostility to Christ, Herod wanted to wreak public vengeance on Peter. It was not that Peter fled in fear; rather he was waiting to preach Christ in Rome and then welcome the glorious cross. It was not fit that Herod's malice should thus hinder the kindling of that Gospel torch which was to be lighted among the Gentiles.
As for the death of the soldiers, Peter was no more responsible for it than the stag would be, if the shepherd killed his dogs because it escaped from them. Herod did not owe his savagery to Peter, it was his own.
The object Peter continually had in view was to do and say what was most profitable. It is this which must explain that conduct of which Paul speaks. His inconsistency was not for his own sake, but for the sake of saving both Jews and Gentiles alike. For the only way properly to influence the Jews was by showing reverence for the Mosaic law. Had he rejected it in favour of the Gospel, they would naturally have turned away from him. So he skilfully avoids the Gentiles' table while there is the chance of the Jews being scandalised, hoping in time to persuade the latter to walk according to the evangelic instead of the Mosaic rule. On the other hand, in order to attract the Gentiles, he ate with them when the Jews were not there. The result was profitable to both parties.7
When Paul speaks of "false apostles,"8 he does not refer to Peter, but to those who were sent about the world by the Jews with encyclical letters.9]
The list of charges against Peter is a long one, but what I have said should suffice for you and those who sit with you. But if there lurks anywhere some other passage of the New Testament that is in dispute, announce it without delay.
Footnotes:
1The opponent here shows considerable knowledge both of Christian methods of exegesis, and of the language of the Epistles.
2This is mentioned again in Bk. IV. ch. iv when he says, "Peter, though he received authority to feed the lambs, was nailed to the cross and impaled." Macarius in his answer accepts the fact./p>
3This seems to have been a Christian tradition, as he states it unhesitatingly. Macarius tacitly refutes it by saying that the crucifixion was at Rome.
4It will be noticed that he puts a new and impossible sense in the words, necessitating the change of αὐτῆς (i. e. the church) into αὐτοῦ.
5This was a favourite subject of attack, and it will be remembered that the theory of a permanent cleavage between Peter and Paul has been built upon it.
6It is strangely unfair thus to imply that one passage follows after the other. The objector scarcely ever resorts to such subterfuges.
7In his anxiety to whitewash S. Peter from all charges, Macarius here may be said to overstate his case, for he fails to consider S. Paul's point of view.
8He misses the chance of scoring a point, for he might have pointed out the unfairness of the objection.
9The text adds the curious suggestion that they were consequently called στόλοι(expeditions): ους ἐξαποστέλλοντε στόλους ἐκάλουν.