tells us, St. Peter ate with the Gentile disciples, treating them as on an equality with their Jewish brethren. Afterwards certain members of the Church at Jerusalem came from James, These men had been for the moment silenced by the decision of the conference, but they had not been satisfied with its spirit. Perhaps in Jerusalem under the strong rule of St. James they had hidden their discontent. Perhaps also in’ Jern- salem it was not necessary for them to be often brought into contact with Gentile Christians. At Antioch they saw what a predominantly Gentile Church was. How far they went in practical disloyalty to the decision of the ‘ Council’ we are not told. But the spirit of these malcontents had a disastrous effect on the conduct of St. Peter.* Under their influence he withdrew from the society of, Loads even from full fellowship in worship with, the Gentile Christians, not probably receding from his former doctrinal position, but practically treating these Gentiles as on a lower Noel than Jewish believers. He was guilty, not of false doctrine, but (as once before) of moral cowardice. But the effect of his example was disastrous. All the Jewish Christians at Antioch acted the same part as he did (see art. MARK). St. Paul saw that no less an issue was at stake than the real unity of the Church. He felt it his duty publicly to rebuke St. Peter.
St. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians (prob. A.D. 55), mentions the existence at Corinth of a ee who called themselves by the name of
ephas (1 Co 1 335. There is not the least reason, however, why St. Peter should be made responsible for their ‘heresy’ any more than St. Paul for the folly of those who assumed his name. Nor does the existence of a Cephas party at Corinth imply that St. Peter ever visited Corinth. The statement of Dionysius of Corinth (c. A.D. 170, op Eus. HE τι. xxv. 8), that St. Peter and St.
‘aul together planted the Church at Corinth and taught there, seems to be simply a mistaken infer- ence from St. Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians. There does not appear to be any other trace of a tradition that St. Peter worked in Greece.
The evidence supplies by 1 Peter as to the history of the apostle will be examined in the art. on that Epistle.
The invitation in Rev 18* to ‘ the saints and the apostles and the prophets’ to rejoice over the judg- ment of Babylon, i.e. Rome, ὅτι ἔκρινεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ κρίμα ὑμῶν ἐξ αὐτῆς (cf. 195), may not unreasonably be considered as an allusion to the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul under Nero. If it is urged that the juxtaposition of ‘the apostles’ and ‘the prophets’ points to a wider use of the former term, i as we find in the Didaché, it may be answered that the word ‘ apostle’ is used in its strictest sense in Rev 21".
* Hort, Judaistic Christianity p. 80f., supposes that ‘ James may have thought it most prudent to send cautions to Peter’ (i.e. as to the offending of Jewish susceptibilities), and that the persons mentioned in Gal 212 were the bearers of this message.
The present writer would hazard the conjecture that those messengers of James were the bearers of his Epistle. We have in this supposition an adequate explanation their mission. The date of St. James’ Epistle is commonly placed about this time (Mayor, p. cxxiv, gives a.p. 40-60; Zahn, Hind, i. p, ΟΣ gives c. a.D, 60). It would be very natural that, after the ( council at Jerusalem, the President of the Church there should ad- dress a letter to the Jewish converts in the Dispersion, to whom recent events must have been a trial of faith; not less natural
that he should not directly allude to those events. But at least in two points the Epistle may be thought to have an indirect bearing on the temptations and anxictios of the time, (1) It deals expecially with sins of temper and of speech—sins which would inevitably characterize a crisis of keen controversy.
2) It condemns a perversion of St. Paul's doctrine of fait
ft might be well for St. James (without touching on personal matters) to reassure Jowish converts by showing them that the acceptance of St. Paul's position in regard to the Gentiles did not involve the acceptance of doctrines which ther, however | mistakenly, were accustomed to associate with St Paul's name
766
PETER (SIMON)
4. The doctrinal position of the Petrine speeches in the Acts.—(i.) The historical witness.—(a) The Lord’s ministry fills only a little space in St. Peter’s speeches at Jerusalem (23). It was well known to his hearers, and it was overshadowed by more recent events. Its ες ape however, is briefly indicated. The Lord’s miracles were works of God wrought through Him (e.g. Jn 14"). They therefore not only answered to the general Messi- anic expectation (cf. Jn 7), but were proofs of His mission as God’s messenger to Israel (ἀποδεδειγμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ els duds). At Jerusalem, St. Peter appeals to the knowledge of his hearers; at Ceesarea, speaking before Gentiles, to the witness of himself and his Jewish companions (10°). (δ) The crucifixion had its assured place in the Divine counsels (233 3'8; of. 4%), and was not therefore the chance triumph of the Lord’s foes. But on the human side it was the act of Israel (233. 86 317 41 δ᾽), though done in ignorance (3). It involved absolute humiliation (e.g. 2% ἔκδοτον. . . προσπή- favres), scornful rejection by Israel (e.g. 3:5 4"), and to Jewish eyes the curse of God (5% κρεμάσαντες ἐπὶ ξύλου ; cf. Dt 21%). The last point is important. It suggests that in the earliest as in later times the Jews urged the words of Dt as a final proof of the Divine rejection of Jesus the Nazarene (hence probably the blasphemous creed ἀνάθεμα ᾿Ιησοῦς, 1Co 12%), and that St. Peter directly met the Jewish position. (c) The Resurrection was the immediate act of God the Father (2: 33 315 410 531 10”). It was the Divine refutation of Israel’s blasphemy, because it was the Divine reversal of Israel’s act of rejection. But a revelation of the risen Messiah had not been given to all (10%). It was therefore the primary duty of the apostles to bear witness to the things which ‘they saw and heard’ (4” 10"; cf. 1 Jn 118:) as proof of the fact of the Resurrection (22 316 430 582 1041) Further, the Resurrection involved the Exaltation—the session of ‘Jesus Messiah’ at God’s right hand as κύριος (233. 86 318-21 581), Thus the confession Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός (2%; cf. 1 Co 128, Ro 10%, Ph 2") is the direct antithesis of the Jewish blasphemy ἀνάθεμα ᾿Ιησοῦς, and an appeal to Israel to make it their own is the solemn conclusion of St. Peter’s first address to the Jews. The activity of the ex- alted Jesus is manifested in the gift of the Holy Bi (25) and in miracles of healing (315 410. cf. 45).