Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-LAW.filter - rwp Petros:

rwp@1Corinthians:1:12 @{Now this I mean} (\leg de touto\). Explanatory use of \leg\. Each has his party leader. \Apoll\ is genitive of \Apolls\ (Acts:18:24|), probably abbreviation of \Apollnius\ as seen in Codex Bezae for strkjv@Acts:18:24|. See on Acts for discussion of this "eloquent Alexandrian" (Ellicott), whose philosophical and oratorical preaching was in contrast "with the studied plainness" of Paul (1Corinthians:2:1; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:10|). People naturally have different tastes about styles of preaching and that is well, but Apollos refused to be a party to this strife and soon returned to Ephesus and refused to go back to Corinth (1Corinthians:16:12|). \Cph\ is the genitive of \Cphs\, the Aramaic name given Simon by Jesus (John:1:42|), \Petros\ in Greek. Except in strkjv@Galatians:2:7,8| Paul calls him Cephas. He had already taken his stand with Paul in the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:7-11; strkjv@Galatians:2:7-10|). Paul had to rebuke him at Antioch for his timidity because of the Judaizers (Galatians:2:11-14|), but, in spite of Baur's theory, there is no evidence of a schism in doctrine between Paul and Peter. If strkjv@2Peter:3:15f.| be accepted as genuine, as I do, there is proof of cordial relations between them and strkjv@1Corinthians:9:5| points in the same direction. But there is no evidence that Peter himself visited Corinth. Judaizers came and pitted Peter against Paul to the Corinthian Church on the basis of Paul's rebuke of Peter in Antioch. These Judaizers made bitter personal attacks on Paul in return for their defeat at the Jerusalem Conference. Songs:a third faction was formed by the use of Peter's name as the really orthodox wing of the church, the gospel of the circumcision. {And I of Christ} (\eg de Christou\). Still a fourth faction in recoil from the partisan use of Paul, Apollos, Cephas, with "a spiritually proud utterance" (Ellicott) that assumes a relation to Christ not true of the others. "Those who used this cry arrogated the common watchword as their _peculium_" (Findlay). This partisan use of the name of Christ may have been made in the name of unity against the other three factions, but it merely added another party to those existing. In scouting the names of the other leaders they lowered the name and rank of Christ to their level.

rwp@Info_1Peter @ SOME BOOKS Alford, H., Vol. IV. 1 of his _Greek Testament_ (1870). Baldwin, _The Fisherman of Galilee_ (1923). Barnes, _St. Peter in Rome and His Tomb on the Vatican Hill_. Beck, J. T., _Erklarung der Briefe Petri_ (1895). Bennett, W. H., _New-Century Bible_ (1901). Bigg, C., _Intern. Crit. Comm_. (1901). Birks, _Studies in the Life and Character of St. Peter_ (1887). Blenkin, _The First Ep. General of St. Peter_ (1915). Camerlinck, _Commentarius in epistolas catholicas_ (1909). Cooke and Lumby, _Speaker's Comm_. (1881). Couard, _Commentaire_ (1895). Couard, _Simon Petrus der Apostel des Herrn_. Davidson, _St. Peter and His Training_. Elert, _Die Religiositat des Petrus_ (1911). Erbes, _Die Todestage der Apostels Paulus and Petrus_ (1899). Foakes-Jackson, F. J., _Peter Prince of Apostles_ (1927). Foster, Ora D., _The Literary Relations of the First Epistle of Peter_ (1913). Fouard, C., _St. Peter and the First Years of Christianity_ (1892). Gallagher, M., _Was the Apostle Peter Ever at Rome?_ (1894). Goutard, _Essai critique et historique sur la prem. e'pitre de S. Pierre_ (1905). Green, S. G., _The Apostle Peter: His Life and Letters_ (1880). Guignebert, _Lamentations:Primaute' de Pierre et la Venue de Pierre a Rome_ (1909). Gunkel, H., _Die Schriften d. N.T_. 3 Aufl. (1917). Hart, J. H. A., _Expos. Greek Test_. (1910). Henriott, _Saint Pierre_ (1891). Hort, F. J. A., _The First Epistle of St. Peter strkjv@1:1-2:17_ (1898). Howson, J., _Horae Petrinae_ (1883). Jenkins, R. C., _The Apostle Peter. Claims of Catholics_ (1875). Johnstone, _The First Epistle of Peter_ (1888). Kasteren, Van, _Deuteronomy:Eerste Brief Van d. Ap. Petrus_ (1911). Keil, C. F., _Comm. uber die Briefe des Petrus und Juda_ (1883). Knopf, R., _Die Briefe Petri und Juda_ (1912). Kogel, J., _Die Gedankenheit des Ersten Briefes Petri_ (1902). Kuhl, E., _Die Briefe Petri und Judae_ (Meyer Komm., 6 Aufl., 1897). Lietzmann, _Petrus and Paulus in Rom_. Lumby, J. R., _Expositor's Bible_ (1893). Masterman, J. H. B., _Epistles of St. Peter_ (1900). McInnis, J.M., _Simon Peter Fisherman and Philosopher_ (1928). Meyer, F. B., _Peter: Fisherman, Disciple, Apostle_ (1920). Moffatt, James, _Moffatt Comm. on N.T._ (1930). Monneir, J., _Lamentations:premiere e'pitre de l'apotre Pierre_ (1900). Perdelwitz, _Die Mysterienreligion und das Problem des ersten Petrusbriefes_ (1911). Plumptre, _Cambridge Bible_ (1879). Reagan, _The Preaching of Peter, the Beginning of Christian Apologetics_ (1922). Robinson, C. G., _Simon Peter: His Life and Times_ (1889). Ross, J. M. E., _The First Epistle of Peter_ (1913). Salmond, A. D. F., _Schaff's Comm_. (1883). Scharfe, _Die petrinische Stromung der neut. Literatur_ (1893). Schmid, _Petrus in Rome_ (1879). Seeley, _The Life and Writings of St. Peter_. Soden, Von, H., _Hand-Komm_. (3 Aufl., 1899). Taylor, W. M., _Peter the Apostle_ (1876). Thomas, W. H., Griffith, _The Apostle Peter_ (2nd ed., 1905). Thompson, _Life-Work of Peter the Apostle_. Upham, _Simon Peter Shepherd_ (1910). Usteri, J. M., _Wiss. und prakt. Komm. uber den I Petrus- brief_ (1887). Volter, D., _Der I Petrusbrief_ (1906). Weiss, B., _Die erste Petrusbrief und die Kritik_ (1906). _Der petrinische Lehrbegriff_ (1855). Williams, N. M., _American Comm_. Windisch, H., _Die Katholische Briefe. Handbuch zum N.T._ (2 Aufl., 1930). Wohlenberg, G., _Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief_. (Zahn Komm., 2 Aufl., 1915.) strkjv@1Peter:1:1 @{Peter} (\Petros\). Greek form for the Aramaic (Chaldaic) \Cphs\, the nickname given Simon by Jesus when he first saw him (John:1:42|) and reaffirmed in the Greek form on his great confession (Matthew:16:18|), with an allusion to \petra\, another form for a rock, ledge, or cliff. In strkjv@2Peter:1:1| we have both \Simn\ and \Petros\. Paul in his Epistles always terms himself Paul, not Saul. Songs:Peter uses this name, not Cephas or Simon, because he is writing to Christians scattered over Asia Minor. The nominative absolute occurs here as in strkjv@James:1:1|, but without \chairein\ as there, the usual form of greeting in letters (Acts:23:26|) so common in the papyri. {An apostle of Jesus Christ} (\apostolos Isou Christou\). This is his official title, but in strkjv@2Peter:1:1| \doulos\ is added, which occurs alone in strkjv@James:1:1|. In II and III John we have only \ho presbuteros\ (the elder), as Peter terms himself \sunpresbuteros\ in strkjv@1Peter:5:1|. Paul's usage varies greatly: only the names in I and II Thessalonians, the title \apostolos\ added and defended in Galatians and Romans as also in I and II Corinthians and Colossians and Ephesians and II Timothy with "by the will of God" added, and in I Timothy with the addition of "according to the command of God." In Philippians Paul has only "\doulos\ (slave) \Christou Isou\," like James and Jude. In Romans and Titus Paul has both \doulos\ and \apostolos\, like II Peter, while in Philemon he uses only \desmios\ (prisoner) \Isou Christou\. {To the elect} (\eklektois\). Without article (with the article in strkjv@Matthew:24:22,24,31|) and dative case, "to elect persons" (viewed as a group). Bigg takes \eklektois\ (old, but rare verbal adjective from \ekleg\, to pick out, to select) as an adjective describing the next word, "to elect sojourners." That is possible and is like \genos eklekton\ in strkjv@2:9|. See the distinction between \kltoi\ (called) and \eklektoi\ (chosen) in strkjv@Matthew:22:14|. {Who are sojourners} (\parepidmois\). Late double compound adjective (\para, epidmountes\, strkjv@Acts:2:10|, to sojourn by the side of natives), strangers sojourning for a while in a particular place. Songs:in Polybius, papyri, in LXX only twice (Genesis:23:4|; 38 or 39 12), in N.T. only here, strkjv@2:11; strkjv@Hebrews:11:13|. The picture in the metaphor here is that heaven is our native country and we are only temporary sojourners here on earth. {Of the Dispersion} (\diaspors\). See strkjv@John:7:35| for literal sense of the word for scattered (from \diaspeir\, to scatter abroad, strkjv@Acts:8:1|) Jews outside of Palestine, and strkjv@James:1:1| for the sense here to Jewish Christians, including Gentile Christians (only N T. examples). Note absence of the article, though a definite conception (of the Dispersion). The Christian is a pilgrim on his way to the homeland. These five Roman provinces include what we call Asia Minor north and west of the Taurus mountain range (Hort). Hort suggests that the order here suggests that Silvanus (bearer of the Epistle) was to land in Pontus from the Euxine Sea, proceed through Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, to Bithynia, where he would re-embark for Rome. This, he holds, explains the separation of Pontus and Bithynia, though the same province. Only Galatia and Asia are mentioned elsewhere in the N.T. as having Christian converts, but the N.T. by no means gives a full account of the spread of the Gospel, as can be judged from strkjv@Colossians:1:6,23|.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ BOOKS ON II PETER BESIDES THOSE ON I PETER ALSO Abbott, E. A., _The Expositor_ (Jan. to March, 1822). Chase, F. H., _Hastings D B_ (Second Peter). Deuteronomy:Zwaan, _2 Peter en Judas_ (1909). Dietlein, W. O., _Der 2 Brief Petri_ (1851). Grosch, H., _Die Echtheit des zweiten Briefes Petri_ (1889). Henkel, K., _Der zweite Brief des Apostelfursten Petrus_ (1904). Hofmann, J. C., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda (1875) Hundhausen, _Das zweite Pontifkalschreiben des Apostels Petrus_ (1873). James, M. R., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Cambridge Greek Testament, 1912). Lumby, J. R., _2 Peter and Jude_ (in Bible Commentary). Mayor, J. B., _The Epistle of St. Jude:and the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1907). Plummer, A., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude_ (Vol. 3, N.T. Commentary for English Readers by Ellicott). Robson, E. I., _Studies in the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1915). Schott, Th., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda_ (1863). Schott, _Der 2 Br. Petri und der Br. Juda Erkl_. (1863). Schweenhorst, H., _Das Verhaltnis des Judasbriefes zum zweiten Petrusbriefe_ (1904). Snyman, D. R., _The Authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter_ (thesis in 1923 for Th.D. degree at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). Spitta, F, _Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1885). Strachan, R. D., _Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910), Ullman, C., _Der 2 Brief Petri Krit. untersuch._ (1821). Warfield, B. B., _A Defence of 2 Peter_ (Southern Presbyterian Review, January, 1882).,_Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the Genuineness of Second Peter (Southern Presbyterian Review_, 1883). Werdermann, _H., Die Irrlehrer des Judasbriefes und 2 Petrusbriefes_ (1913). Wiesinger, J. T. A., _Der zweite Brief des Apostels Petrus und der Brief des Judas_ (1862). strkjv@2Peter:1:1 @{Simon Peter} (\Simn Petros\). Aleph A K L P have \Symen\ as in strkjv@Acts:15:14|, while B has \Simn\. The two forms occur indifferently in I Macc. strkjv@2:3, 65 for the same man. {Servant and apostle} (\doulos kai apostolos\). Like strkjv@Romans:1:1; strkjv@Titus:1:1|. {To them that have obtained} (\tois lachousin\). Dative plural articular participle second aorist active of \lagchan\, old verb, to obtain by lot (Luke:1:9|), here with the accusative (\pistin\) as in strkjv@Acts:1:17|. {Like precious} (\isotimon\). Late compound adjective (\isos\, equal, \tim\, honor, price), here only in N.T. But this adjective (Field) is used in two ways, according to the two ideas in \tim\ (value, honor), either like in value or like in honor. This second idea is the usual one with \isotimos\ (inscriptions and papyri, Josephus, Lucian), while \polutimos\ has the notion of price like \tim\ in strkjv@1:7,19; strkjv@2:4,6f|. The faith which they have obtained is like in honor and privilege with that of Peter or any of the apostles. {With us} (\hmin\). Associative-instrumental case after \isotimon\. Equal to \ti hmn\ (the faith of us). {In the righteousness} (\en dikaiosuni\). Definite because of the preposition \en\ and the following genitive even though anarthrous. The O.T. sense of \dikaiosun\ applied to God (Romans:1:17|) and here to Christ. {Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ} (\tou theou hmn kai stros Isou Christou\). Songs:the one article (\tou\) with \theou\ and \stros\ requires precisely as with \tou kuriou hmn kai stros Isou Christou\ (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in strkjv@1:11| as in strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:2,18|. Songs:in strkjv@1Peter:1:3| we have \ho theos kai patr\ (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, _Grammatik_, p. 158) admits: "Grammar demands that one person be meant." Moulton (_Prol._, p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of \theos\ for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in strkjv@Titus:2:13|. The use of \theos\ by Peter as a predicate with Jesus Christ no more disproves the Petrine authorship of this Epistle than a like use in strkjv@John:1:1| disproves the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the same use in strkjv@Titus:2:13| disproves the genuineness of Titus. Peter had heard Thomas call Jesus God (John:20:28|) and he himself had called him the Son of God (Matthew:16:16|).

rwp@Acts:12:18 @{As soon as it was day} (\Genomens hmeras\). Genitive absolute, day having come. {No small stir} (\tarachos ouk oligos\). Litotes (\ouk oligos\), occurs eight times in the Acts as in strkjv@15:2|, and nowhere else in the N.T. \Tarachos\ (stir) is an old word from \tarass\, to agitate. In the N.T only here and strkjv@19:23|. Probably all sixteen soldiers were agitated over this remarkable escape. They were responsible for the prisoner with their lives (cf. strkjv@Acts:16:27; strkjv@27:42|). Furneaux suggests that Manaen, the king's foster-brother and a Christian (13:1|), was the "angel" who rescued Peter from the prison. That is not the way that Peter looked at it. {What was become of Peter} (\ti ara ho Petros egeneto\). An indirect question with the aorist indicative retained. \Ara\ adds a syllogism (therefore) to the problem as in strkjv@Luke:1:66|. The use of the neuter \ti\ (as in strkjv@Acts:13:25|) is different from \tis\, though nominative like \Petros\, literally, "what then Peter had become," "what had happened to Peter" (in one idiom). See the same idiom in strkjv@John:21:21| (\houtos de ti\). {But this one what} (verb \gensetai\ not used).

rwp@Acts:15:7 @{When there had been much questioning} (\polls ztses genomens\). Genitive absolute with second aorist middle participle of \ginomai\. Evidently the Judaizers were given full opportunity to air all their grievances and objections. They were allowed plenty of time and there was no effort to shut off debate or to rush anything through the meeting. {Peter rose up} (\anastas Petros\). The wonder was that he had waited so long. Probably Paul asked him to do so. He was the usual spokesman for the apostles and his activities in Jerusalem were well-known. In particular his experience at Caesarea (Acts:10|) had caused trouble here in Jerusalem from this very same party of the circumcism (Acts:11:1-18|). It was fitting that Peter should speak. This is the last time that Peter appears in the Acts. {A good while ago} (\aph' hmern archain\). From ancient days. The adjective \archaios\ is from \arch\, beginning, and its actual age is a matter of relativity. Songs:Mnason (Acts:21:16|) is termed "an ancient disciple." It was probably a dozen years since God "made choice" (\exelexato\) to speak by Peter's mouth to Cornelius and the other Gentiles in Caesarea. His point is that what Paul and Barnabas have reported is nothing new. The Judaizers made objection then as they are doing now.

rwp@John:1:42 @{Looked upon him} (\emblepsas auti\). See verse 36| for same word and form of John's eager gaze at Jesus. Luke uses this word of Jesus when Peter denied him (Luke:22:61|). {He brought him} (\gagen auton\). Effective second aorist active indicative of \ago\ as if Andrew had to overcome some resistance on Simon's part. {Thou shalt be called Cephas} (\su klthsi Kphs\). Apparently before Simon spoke. We do not know whether Jesus had seen Simon before or not, but he at once gives him a nickname that will characterize him some day, though not yet, when he makes the noble confession (Matthew:16:17f.|), and Jesus will say, "Thou art Peter." Here the future passive indicative of \kale\ is only prophecy. The Aramaic \Cphs\ (rock) is only applied to Simon in John except by Paul (1Corinthians:1:12; strkjv@Galatians:1:18|, etc.). But the Greek \Petros\ is used by all. In the ancient Greek \petra\ was used for the massive ledge of rock like Stone Mountain while \petros\ was a detached fragment of the ledge, though itself large. This distinction may exist in strkjv@Matthew:16:17f.|, except that Jesus probably used Aramaic which would not have such a distinction.

rwp@Luke:12:41 @{Peter said} (\Eipen de ho Petros\). This whole paragraph from verse 22-40| had been addressed directly to the disciples. Hence it is not surprising to find Peter putting in a question. This incident confirms also the impression that Luke is giving actual historical data in the environment of these discourses. He is certain that the Twelve are meant, but he desires to know if others are included, for he had spoken to the multitude in verses 13-21|. Recall strkjv@Mark:13:37|. This interruption is somewhat like that on the Mount of Transfiguration (Luke:9:33|) and is characteristic of Peter. Was it the magnificent promise in verse 37| that stirred Peter's impulsiveness? It is certainly more than a literary device of Luke. Peter's question draws out a parabolic reply by Jesus (42-48|).

rwp@Luke:22:55 @{When they had kindled a fire} (\periapsantn pur\). Genitive absolute, first aorist active participle of \periapt\, an old verb, but here only in the N.T. Kindle around, make a good fire that blazes all over. It was April and cool at night. The servants made the fire. {And had sat down together} (\kai sunkathisantn\). Genitive absolute again. Note \sun-\ (together), all had taken seats around the fire. {Peter sat in the midst of them} (\ekathto ho Petros mesos autn\). Imperfect tense, he was sitting, and note \mesos\, nominative predicate adjective with the genitive, like strkjv@John:1:26|, good Greek idiom.

rwp@Mark:10:28 @{Peter began to say} (\rxato legein ho Petros\). It was hard for Peter to hold in till now. strkjv@Matthew:19:27| says that "Peter answered" as if the remark was addressed to him in particular. At any rate Peter reminds Jesus of what they had left to follow him, four of them that day by the sea (Mark:1:20; strkjv@Matthew:4:22; strkjv@Luke:5:11|). It was to claim obedience to this high ideal on their part in contrast with the conduct of the rich young ruler.

rwp@Mark:11:21 @{Peter calling to remembrance} (\anamnstheis ho Petros\). First aorist participle, being reminded. Only in Mark and due to Peter's story. For his quick memory see also strkjv@14:72|. {Which thou cursedst} (\hn katras\). First aorist middle indicative second person singular from \kataraomai\. It almost sounds as if Peter blamed Jesus for what he had done to the fig tree.

rwp@Mark:14:54 @{Peter had followed him afar off} (\Hosea:Petros apo makrothen kolouthsen auti\). Here Mark uses the constative aorist (\kolouthsen\) where strkjv@Matthew:26:58|, and strkjv@Luke:22:54| have the picturesque imperfect (\kolouthei\), was following. Possibly Mark did not care to dwell on the picture of Peter furtively following at a distance, not bold enough to take an open stand with Christ as the Beloved Disciple did, and yet unable to remain away with the other disciples. {Was sitting with} (\n sunkathmenos\). Periphrastic imperfect middle, picturing Peter making himself at home with the officers (\hupretn\), under rowers, literally, then servants of any kind. strkjv@John:18:25| describes Peter as standing (\hests\). Probably he did now one, now the other, in his restless weary mood. {Warming himself in the light} (\thermainomenos prs to phs\). Direct middle. Fire has light as well as heat and it shone in Peter's face. He was not hidden as much as he supposed he was.

rwp@Matthew:16:18 @{And I also say unto thee} (\k'ag de soi leg\). "The emphasis is not on 'Thou art Peter' over against 'Thou art the Christ,' but on \Kag\: 'The Father hath revealed to thee one truth, and I also tell you another" (McNeile). Jesus calls Peter here by the name that he had said he would have (John:1:42|). Peter (\Petros\) is simply the Greek word for Cephas (Aramaic). Then it was prophecy, now it is fact. In verse 17| Jesus addresses him as "Simon Bar-Jonah," his full patronymic (Aramaic) name. But Jesus has a purpose now in using his nickname "Peter" which he had himself given him. Jesus makes a remarkable play on Peter's name, a pun in fact, that has caused volumes of controversy and endless theological strife. {On this rock} (\epi tauti ti petri\) Jesus says, a ledge or cliff of rock like that in strkjv@7:24| on which the wise man built his house. \Petros\ is usually a smaller detachment of the massive ledge. But too much must not be made of this point since Jesus probably spoke Aramaic to Peter which draws no such distinction (\Kph\). What did Jesus mean by this word-play?

rwp@Matthew:16:22 @{Peter took him} (\proslabomenos auton ho Petros\). Middle voice, "taking to himself," aside and apart, "as if by a right of his own. He acted with greater familiarity after the token of acknowledgment had been given. Jesus, however, reduces him to his level" (Bengel). "Peter here appears in a new character; a minute ago speaking under inspiration from heaven, now under inspiration from the opposite quarter" (Bruce). Syriac Sinaitic for strkjv@Mark:8:32| has it "as though pitying him." But this exclamation and remonstrance of Peter was soon interrupted by Jesus. {God have mercy on thee} (\hiles\. Supply \ei\ or \est ho theos\). {This shall never be} (\ou m estai soi touto\). Strongest kind of negation, as if Peter would not let it happen. Peter had perfect assurance.

rwp@Matthew:17:4 @{And Peter answered} (\apokritheis de ho Petros\). "Peter to the front again, but not greatly to his credit" (Bruce). It is not clear what Peter means by his saying: "It is good for us to be here" (\kalon estin hms hde einai\). Luke (Luke:9:33|) adds "not knowing what he said," as they "were heavy with sleep." Songs:it is not well to take Peter too seriously on this occasion. At any rate he makes a definite proposal. {I will make} (\pais\). Future indicative though aorist subjunctive has same form. {Tabernacles} (\sknas\), booths. The Feast of Tabernacles was not far away. Peter may have meant that they should just stay up here on the mountain and not go to Jerusalem for the feast.

rwp@Matthew:26:75 @{Peter remembered} (\emnsth ho Petros\). A small thing, but _magna circumstantia_ (Bengel). In a flash of lightning rapidity he recalled the words of Jesus a few hours before (Matthew:26:34|) which he had then scouted with the proud boast that "even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee" (26:35|). And now this triple denial was a fact. There is no extenuation for the base denials of Peter. He had incurred the dread penalty involved in the words of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:10:33| of denial by Jesus before the Father in heaven. But Peter's revulsion of feeling was as sudden as his sin. {He went out and wept bitterly} (\exelthn ex eklausen pikrs\). Luke adds that the Lord turned and looked upon Peter (Luke:22:61|). That look brought Peter back to his senses. He could not stay where he now was with the revilers of Jesus. He did not feel worthy or able to go openly into the hall where Jesus was. Songs:outside he went with a broken heart. The constative aorist here does not emphasize as Mark's imperfect does (Mark:14:72|, \eklaien\) the continued weeping that was now Peter's only consolation. The tears were bitter, all the more so by reason of that look of understanding pity that Jesus gave him. One of the tragedies of the Cross is the bleeding heart of Peter. Judas was a total wreck and Peter was a near derelict. Satan had sifted them all as wheat, but Jesus had prayed specially for Peter (Luke:22:31f.|). Will Satan show Peter to be all chaff as Judas was?