Why did not the Church share the fate of John's disciples, who
scattered like sheep without a shepherd when Herod chopped off their
master's head? Why did not the Church share the fate of that abortive
rising, of which we know that when Theudas, its leader, was slain,
'all, as many as believed on him, came to nought.' Why did these men
act in exactly the opposite way? I take it that, as you cannot
account for Christ except on the hypothesis that He is the Son of the
Highest, you cannot account for the continuance of the Christian
Church for a week after the Crucifixion, except on the hypothesis
that the men who composed it were witnesses of His Resurrection, and
saw Him floating upwards and received into the Shechinah cloud and
lost to their sight. Peter's change, witnessed by the words of my
text--these bold and clear-sighted words--seems to me to be a perfect
monstrosity, and incapable of explication, unless he saw the risen
Lord, beheld the ascended Christ, was touched with the fiery Spirit
descending on Pentecost, and so 'out of weakness was made strong,'
and from a babe sprang to the stature of a man in Christ.

II. Look at these words as setting forth a remarkable view of Christ.

I have already referred to the fact that the word rendered 'son'
ought rather to be rendered 'servant.' It literally means 'child' or
'boy,' and appears to have been used familiarly, just in the same
fashion as we use the same expression 'boy,' or its equivalent
'maid,' as a more gentle designation for a servant. Thus the kindly
centurion, when he would bespeak our Lord's care for his menial,
calls him his 'boy'; and our Bible there translates rightly
'servant.'