Ivis clear that in 10443 we have a summary of a speech which was early interrupted (1115 ; cf. 41 754 2222),
(1) V.46, The apostle declares that now he s the truth that God is the moral ruler (not of Israel only, but) of men belonging to every nation.
(2) Vy.8841, There follows a historical statement as to the Divine message through Christ, the sovereign of all men,
rimarily addressed to Israel, His unction by the Holy Spirit, Fis ministry of miracles attested by witnesses, His shameful death, His Resurrection and manifestation through God’s direct action to witnesses chosen by God, who by clear proofs were convinced that He was alive.
(3) Vv.42. #8. He Himself commanded the apostles to proclaim to Israel His appointment by God as Judge of living and dead. The prophets’ universal witness to Him implies the truth that every man (Gentile as well as Jew) may have through faith in Him the gift of forgiveness.
Doubtless, the prophets’ witness was meant to be the preface to a statement of our Lord’s commands as to ‘all the nations.’ Throughout the speech we notice two contrasted lines of thought—{1) the wider scope of revelation: ἐν σαντὶ ἔθνει: v.35, παντῶν κύριος V.%8, φσάντα τὸν πιστεύοντα v.43 ; (2) the insistence on Israel's being the primary destination of the gospel (vv.36- 39. 42), It is significant that in regard to the universality of the Divine ee an appeal is made to the witness of the prophets (v.48),
ne reference to Israel's priority in blessing and to the prophets is very natural in the Jewish apostle, to whom the reconciliation of the old revelation and this new manifestation of God's pur- poses wasa fresh problem. It probably had also an apologetic meaning in reference to the Jewish companions of St. Peter (v.49),
As the apostle was speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon his hearers, His presence being attested by the gift of tongues. The apostle at once inter- prets this miraculous endowment as a Divine sign of their admission within the Christian body, and directs their baptism.
Thus the Spirit at Cesarea, as at Jerusalem at the first, was bestowed apart from any act of human ministry. The occasion is marked as the Gentile Pentecost.+ It will be noticed that the three outpourings of the Spirit signalize the com- mencement of the three stages of the progress of the gospel—Jerusalem, Samaria, the Gentile world —and that with each of them St. Peter is intimately connected.
News of the events at Caesarea soon reached Jerusalem, and the circumcised Christians com-
* The apostle’s remonstrance is Probably & conscious remini- scence of Ezk 414; cf. also Dn 18, 1 Mac 162f, 2 Mac 6186. 71, The description of the animals in the ‘ vessel’ is taken from Gn 124.28, and carries the mind back to the Divine act of creation yet) ef. Mk 719), The command θῦσον x φάγε is an echo of
t 1215,
+ Note the use of the Pentecostal keyword ἐχχέχυτα, (ν. 45), εἴ. ἰχχιῶ 217, ἐξίχειν 233 (Tit 36); and the Phrase ἡ δωρεὰ τοῦ ενιύματοι τοῦ ἁγίου, οἵ. 235 (1117, He 64),
PETER (SIMON)
plained of St. Peter’s conduct in eating witn uncircumcised Gentiles. Apparently a formal assembly of those in authority was held, and the apostle answered the charge aA against him by a simple narrative of what had taken
lace. The gainsayers were convinced. They con- eal that ‘God had granted to the Gentiles also repentance unto life’ (11'8)—a confession clearly falling very far short of an acknowledgment of the equal standing of Jew and Gentile in the Christian society.
These events took place in the months succeed- ing St. Paul’sconversion. At the end of three years (i.e. A.D. 37 or 38 probably), St. Paul went up to Jerusalem (Gal 118, ef. Ac 9% 92917 9620) His special object was ‘to visit Cephas,’ whose guest he was for fifteen days. His reference to this visit seems to show that St. Peter alone of the Twelve was at Jerusalem at this time.
Of St. Peter’s life during the next six or seven ears no notice is preserved. Shortly, however, efore the death of Herod Agrippa, in the spring of
44, that king, whose policy it was to conciliate the Pharisaic party (Jos. Ant. XIX. vii. 3), made an attack on the Church. It would appear that the growth of the Christian body had excited the ue of the Jews (12° 1"), and the enthusiasm with whic
they welcomed the execution of one of the apostles encouraged the king to throw St. Peter into prison. On the night before the great popular spectacle of which the apostle’s trial was to be the occasion, he was miraculously freed from his chains and led by an angel out of the prison. At length, roused com- pletely from sleep and conscious of the situation,
e goes to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark. With difficulty gaining admission, he tells those who had gathered there to intercede for him of his wonderful escape, and bidding them inform ‘ James and the brethren of these things’ ‘ he went to another place.’
In this narrative three points call for a brief notice. (1) The fact that St. Peter so immedi- ately and naturally hastens to ‘the house of Mary,’ coupled with the fact that he was obvi- ously well known there, and that it was the place where many met together to pray for him, suggests that this house was his home when he was in Jerusalem. The guest had become in a sense the head of the household, and hence his expression of fatherly regard towards John Mark (1 P 5%), (2) The reference to James confirms the conjecture (see above) that he was already in a position of official leadership. (3) There is no word added to define the ἕτερος τόπος to which the apostle retired. Conjecture has been bee Antioch, Cesarea, Rome have all been named. With the last guess we may connect the belief that St. Peter went to Rome in the reign of Claudius (e.g. Eus. HE τι. xiv. 6; see below).