* See S. J. Case, Evolution of Early Christianity, Chicago, 1914, p. 127 ff.
PETER
PETER
195
' In nothing was I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I am nothing. Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, by signs and wonders and mighty worUs' (2 Co 12'"'). Thus the power to work 'miracles' (Suvd/ieis) was an inherent characteristic of the new religion, and the exercise of this function belonged particu- larly to its leaders, among whom Peter had pre- eminence.
Miracles were performed in the name of Jesus, who had been exalted to a position of peculiar authority in the angelic realm. All sickness, especially demon possession, and death itself were believed to be the result of Satanic activity within the present evil age ; but now that Jesus had been elevated to a position of heavenly Lordship, His spiritually endowed followers were equipped with a new authority. When they spoke in Jesus' name they could heal the sick, cast out demons, and even raise the dead. This unique efficacy of the ' Name ' (t/.v.), as a characteristic of the new religion, is clearly evident in St. Paul. Christians are those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Co I'') ; sinning members of the community are delivered over to Satan in the name, and so through the authority, of our Lord Jesus (5^') ; and God has exalted Jesus to a position of authority so supreme that every knee is to bend ' in the name of Jesus' (Ph 2"'-). Peter not only shai'ed this belief in the exaltation of Jesus, but was commonly credited with having been the first to receive convincing proof of this fact ; and there can be no reasonable doiibt that he performed miracles in the name of Jesus. The words put into Peter's mouth by Acts, to the etiect that the lame man had been cured through the efficacy of Jesus' powerful name (Ac 3'^), are wholly consonant with the primitive situation when Peter was prominent in the activi- ties of the new spiritual community.
This procedure soon caused him and his associ- ates serious trouble. Belief in dynamic person- alities, the use of whose name enabled one to eB'ect wonders, was already a familiar phenomenon to the Jews,* and was viewed with some suspicion by the authorities. Since Jews who adopted magical practices of any sort were strongly tempted to employ names of heathen deities in their formulae of exorcism and the like, it had been decreed in the Law that ' whosoever doeth these things is an abomination to Jahweh ' : Israel's God is alone worthy of recognition (Dt IS^'^- ; cf. Ex 20=- '. Lv 19=6. aiQOS, Is 2«, Jer 27J"-, Ezk 20=«, Mai 3^ Pliilo, de Spec. leg. i.). When Christians, believing in Jesus' Lordship, proceeded to use His powerful name, the Jewish authorities naturally suspected them of violating the Deuteronomic Law, and questioned them to learn by what authority, by what ' name,' they performed their wonders (Ac 312. 16 47-10) Peter replied that the Christians were not breaking the Law, but were bringing it to ful- filment, because Jesus was that Prophet to whom Moses had referred in the Deuteronomic context as the One to whom Israel should listen. His ele- vation to heaven was said to justify this affirmation, hence it was quite proper to work miracles in His 'name' (Ac S--"- ; cf. Dt 18'™- )• But the Jews were unwilling to accept Peter's interpretation of Moses, and consequently they tried to restrain the Christians' dynamic activities.
Doubtless also the content of Peter's preaching aroused opposition at a relatively early date. This would be particularly true of his insistence upon Jesus' elevation to a position of Lordship in the angelic sphere. Acts intimates that the Christians' preaching about the Resurrection caused ott'ence to the Sadducees (4-), but the reverence with which
• See W. Heitmiiller, Im Nanien Jesu, Gbttiiigen, 1903, p. 132 ff.
early believers regarded the Risen Jesus might easily seem to many Jews to endanger the suprem- acy of Jahweh. Apparently this was one of the most important items inciting St. Paul's persecu- tion, judging from those phases of the new religion which besets in the foreground after his conversion. That which he most vigorously antagonized as a persecutor was very probably the thing which he later set forth as tlie characteristic feature of his new faith. This was confession of Jesus' Lordship, based upon belief in His resurrection. This was the distinctive mark of the new movement, the fundamental condition for the attainment of salvation (Ro 1^ lO^, 1 Co 15™-, Gal !'• '"■)■ St. Paul adopted so thoroughly this phase of his predecessors' thinking that he even taught his Gentile converts the characteristic prayer of the Aramaic-speaking Christians, Marana tha (' Our Lord, come ! ' [1 Co 16--]). This prayer was especially appropriate on the lips of Peter and his companions in tlio.se early days of persecution when Jesus was expecteil to appear suddenly as Messiah and vindicate the faith of His loyal disciples.
4. Peter's later activities, as reported in the NT. — Such in general are some of the more evident items in Peter's career during the earlier years of apostolic history. Of his later activities we are less well informed, and the information which has been preserved is sometimes difficult to interpret. To begin with, what were the relative positions of Peter and James in the Jerusalem Church ? While Peter is manifestly the most prominent person in the early chapters of Acts, the name of John is sometimes mentioned as one of the leaders of the new cause (e.g. V^ 3'*' 4'^ 8"), but James is never once singled out for notice. Not until Peter goes to ' another place ' does Acts hint that James takes precedence in the Jerusalem community (12"), and henceforth he appears to be the generally acknow- ledged leader (15""'- 21'*). Yet his presence among the believers at a much earlier date is attested by St. Paul, who remarks that James — in all proba- bility meaning the Lord's brother — was the one to witness Jesus' fourth appearance (1 Co 15'). He was also a member of the new brotherhood when St. Paul, three years after his conversion, paid a visit to Peter in Jerusalem (Gal 1'*). At the time of the Jerusalem Council he was not only the head of the Church (Gal 2'), but was so influential that his objections caused both Peter and Barnabas to withdraw from their former liberal position (Gal 211-13), Thus from St. Paul's statements it becomes clear that Peter and James were both present in the early company of believers, that the former was the leader in the earliest period of the history, and that James by the middle of the century had become the actual head of the mother church.