In taking up the study of the first epistle of John, a comparison of John's ministry with that of Peter and Paul will be helpful.

The words addressed to Peter in John 21 :18, 19 imply that in some sense his ministry was to have a character similar to that of the Lord Jesus. Is the implication supported by Scripture elsewhere ? If so, in what sense was Peter's ministry similar to the ministry of Jesus Christ ?

Light is shed on these questions in Romans 15:8 and Galatians 2:7,8. In the former passage Jesus Christ is called a "minister of the circumcision," the evident meaning being that His ministry was in connection with the people in the covenant of circumcision-that made with hands. In the latter passage there is mention of "the gospel of the circumcision " as having been committed to Peter. The thought evidently is that a gospel specially addressed to the circumcision was committed to Peter. Peter is also spoken of as having the " apostleship of the circumcision. " Undoubtedly the intention is to show that Peter exercised apostleship in connection with the circumcision. In this sense, then, Peter's ministry was similar to that of Jesus Christ.

But while this marks out the people for whom his ministry is intended, it does not define its theme and character, which are to be inquired into. If we refer again to Romans 15:8 we shall find it stated there that "Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy." This needs to be carefully considered.

In the Old Testament we learn about these promises to the fathers. It is plain we have a record there of a ministry of promises. Indeed there was a period which we may consider as specially characterized by the ministry of promises. From the call of Ab-ram until Jacob's going down into Egypt, at least, God was making or ministering promises.

For my present purpose I do not need to notice these promises in detail. I will merely cite the passages where they are found:Gen. 12:1-3; 13:14-17; 15:1-21; 17:1-22; 22:15-18; 26:2-5, 24; 28; 10-15; 35:9-12; 46:2-4 All these promises are absolute, made in the sovereignty of grace, and are entirely unconditional. It should be remembered that none of them are addressed to the Gentiles. God gave them no promises, no covenant (Eph. 2:12). It is true the Gentiles are contemplated in the promises, but the promises were not ministered to them. They were ministered to the fathers of the nation of Israel (Rom. 9:4),

Now while God ministered these promises to the fathers, the heads of Israel, the fulfilment of them was not yet to be. They heard them and believed them, but, if they were persuaded of them and embraced them, they saw them only as to be fulfilled in a time to them "afar off" (Heb. n:13). They died in faith, leaving these unfulfilled promises as a legacy to their children.

But God put their descendants on a different footing altogether. Promises and covenants He made to them also, but they were conditional, not absolute. The reason for this was the need of raising-not alone for their sake, but for all men-the question of man's ability to establish a righteousness on which to claim what had been promised. Under the Mosaic law the children of Israel were on the ground of responsibility. They took the responsibility of working out a righteousness they could call their own, by which a title to the things promised would be established, and which God Himself would necessarily recognize. But God not only would signalize by circumcision (as He had done and was still doing) the unprofitableness of the flesh, but He would practically demonstrate it. He would prove man's inability to claim as his own anything but his sins, and thus that he is shut up to sovereign grace, exercised on the principle of faith-not of works.

The trial was a long one, thus perfectly fair and conclusive. But while this question, raised by putting Israel under the law, was being worked out, to show how utterly void of righteousness man is in himself, the fulfilment of the sovereign, unconditional promises made to the fathers had necessarily to be delayed. The question raised had to be definitely answered once for all; and the lesson of the law now abides.

But on the ground of responsibility Israel lost the promises. If Israel was unable to establish a title to them, there is surely no power to recover them. No pleading of descent from Abraham could avail, no taking refuge under being circumcised could secure the forfeited promises (Matt. 3:9). Israel's only hope then is the sovereign grace of God.

Having demonstrated that Israel is in irretrievable ruin, having lost the promises beyond all hope of recovery, God then sent forth His Son, not only made of woman, but made also under the law (Gal. 4:4). This was God acting in the sovereignty of His mercy. It was raising up in Israel an Israelite in whom the promises were yea and amen. It was providing One who could establish a title to them. Jesus Christ was thus in their midst as maintaining the truth of God -His word, His promises. He was one of their fold -a minister connected with the circumcision, in behalf of the promises made to the fathers, to secure their establishment.

Having Himself a personal claim on them, He had also title to remove what was a hindrance to their fulfilment. He had a right to end the Mosaic dispensation and bring in the dispensation of the fulfilment of the promises. He had title to take the curse of the law, and thus be the end of the law as a way of getting righteousness for all who believe (Rom. 10:4). He had the right to be Israel's Substitute to sacrificially endure the judgment of their sins, and thus open the channel in which the grace of God could flow, in which God could in righteousness bestow the forgiveness of sins and fulfil the promises made to the fathers.

But, although Christ did thus establish or secure the promises, Israel continued in blindness and unbelief; therefore it became necessary to continue the dispensation of confirming the promises. It became necessary to appeal to facts in evidence that the promises have been permanently secured. It is this appeal that characterizes the ministry of Peter. Like Christ, he was connected with the circumcision. Like Christ, he was a minister in behalf of the truth of God:he announced to Israel the security of the promises and their permanent establishment. Like Christ, Peter had a ministry which was specifically addressed to the circumcision-to Israel as a nation.

The careful student of Peter's ministry as recorded in Acts, chapters 2 to 5, will readily see that his very first address to the Jews begins with a declaration that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the powers accompanying it are a beginning of the fulfilment of promise (Acts 2:16). When he says, " This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel," he does not mean that Joel's prophecy has had its complete fulfilment, but that what has occurred is of the nature and character of what was promised in Joel. It is fulfilment beginning. This announcement made by Peter means that the hindrance to fulfilment of promise has been removed, and the fulfilment has begun.

Next, in verses 22-36, he appeals to the resurrection of Jesus and His exaltation on high by the power of God as evidence that God has acknowledged His rights. This acknowledgment is conclusive proof that Israel must look to Him for the fulfilment of her promises. Accordingly, in verse 38, the nation is invited to submit to the One they have rejected, but whom God has made Lord and Christ, in order to receive the promise of the forgiveness of sins; and in verse 39, Peter encourages them to do so, by assuring them that the promise of forgiveness of sins has been made to them. He tells them plainly that if they will receive the forgiveness of sins in this way, 1:e., by submitting to Christ, they will also participate in the promise that accompanies forgiveness-the Holy Spirit.

Again, in chapter 3:19, still addressing himself to the nation as such, Peter tells them the promised
blotting out of their sins and " times of refreshing " are waiting on their repentance.

It is thus very clear that the ministry in which Peter addresses himself specifically to Israel partakes of the nature and character of our Lord's ministry in which He appealed to them. In both cases it was a ministry in behalf of the truth of God-a ministry of the security and establishment of the promises made to the fathers.

But Peter's ministry was rejected as that of Christ had been. The Israel of his day was a nation "stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears," as their fathers had been (chap. 7:51). Individuals submitted to Christ and became recipients of a blessing that was according to promise, but the nation in blindness and unbelief refused their blessings.

Peter had another ministry also, the character of which we shall now consider. C. Crain

(To be continued.)