St. Peter’s Discourses—More recent German criticism has departed far from the standpoint of the early Tibrigen school, who could only see in these dis- courses the free composition of a lates
120
> “cc ΔΝ a s 3 , - ε ‘ Αβραάμ, “Kal τῷ σπέρµατί σου ἐνευλογηθήσονται πᾶσαι αἱ πατριαὶ
τῆς γῆς.”
age, whilst Dr. McGiffert, in spite of his denial of the Lucan authorship of Acts, inclines to the belief that the discourses in question represent an early type of Christian teaching, derived from primi- tive documents, and that they breathe the spirit of St. Peter and of primitive Jewish Christianity. Feine sees in the contents of the addresses a proof that we have in them a truthful record of the primitive Apostolic teaching. Just the very points which were of central interest in this early period of the Church’s life are those emphasised here, e¢.g., the proof that Jesus of Nazareth, the Crucified One, is the Messiah, a proof attested by His Resurrection, the appeal to Israel, the chosen people, to repent for the remission of sins in His name. Nor is there any- thing against the speeches in the fact of their similarity; in their first and early preaching, as Feine urges, the Apostles’ thoughts would naturally move in thesame circle, they would recur again and again to the same facts, and their addresses could scarcely be otherwise than similar. Moreover we have an appeal to the facts of the life of Jesus as to things well known in the immediate past: “ Jesus of Nazareth” had been working in the midst of them, and Peter’s hearers were witnesses with him of His signs and wonders, ‘“‘as ye yourselves know,” ii. 23: we become conscious in such words and in their context of all the moral indignation and the deep pain of the Apostles at the crucifixion of their Mas- ter, just as in ili. 13 we seem to listen to another personal reminiscence of the Passion history (see Beyschlag, Neutest. Theol., i., pp. 304, 305; Scharfe, Die Petrinische Strémung, 2 ¢., pp. 184, 185).
The fact that no reference is made to, or at all events that no stress is laid upon, the doctrinal significance of the death of Christ, as by St. Paul, is again an intimation that we are dealing with the earliest days of Apostolic teach- ing—the death of the Cross was in itself the fact of all others which was the insuperable offence to the Jew, and it could not help him to proclaim that Christ died for his sins if he had no belief in Jesus as the Christ. The first and necessary step was to prove to the Jew that the suffering of the Messiah was in accordance with the counsels of God and with the voices of the prophets (Lechler, Das Apostolische Zeitalter, pp.
26. ὑμῖν πρῶτον 6 Θεὸς ἀναστήσας τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ
230, 231). But the historical fact accep- ted, its inner and spiritual significance would be imparted, and there was nothing strange in the fact that disciples who had themselves found it so difficult to overcome their repugnance to the men- tion of their Master’s sufferings, should first direct their main efforts to remove the like prejudice from the minds of their countrymen. But we cannot adduce from this method that the Apostles had never heard such words as those of Christ Matt. xx. 28, Mark x. 45, cf. 1 Peter i. 18) cf. the striking passage in Beyschlag, u. S.. pp. 306, 307), or that they were entirely ignorant of the atoning signi- ficance of His Death. St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 1-3, speaks of the tradition which he had received, a tradition in which he was at one with the Twelve, ver. 11, viz., that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (Feine, Die vorkan- onische Ueberlieferung des Lukas; see Ρ. 230).
When we pass to the consideration of St. Peter’s Christology, we again see how he starts from the actual experience of his hearers before him: ‘ Jesus of Nazareth, a man,” etc.—plainly and fearlessly St. Peter emphasises the man- hood of his Lord—the title which is never found in any of the Epistles leads us back to the Passion and the Cross, to the early records of the Saviour’s life on earth, Acts xxiv. 9, xxii. 8. And yet the Crucified Nazarene was by a startling paradox the Prince or Author of Life (see note on ἀρχηγός); by a divine law which the Jews could not discern He could not save Himself—and yet— another paradox—there was no other Name given amongst men whereby they must be saved.