THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
his trust became ardent devotion; and his quick resolution was strengthened and steadied. Yet in the account of his walking on the water (Matt. xiv. 28-31) his natural instability of character, even after being long under the influence of Jesus, comes clearly to the fore; while his denial of Christ still more strongly marks his wavering and his weakness. Nevertheless, he had already shown himself worthy of his title, as when at Cresarea Philippi he boldly declared Jesus to be the Christ, not a mere precursor of the Messiah (Matt. xvi. 13 sqq.; Mark viii. 27 sqq.; Luke ix. 18 sqq.; John vi. 66 sqq.), especially as this was the very time when many, disappointed in Jesus, were abandoning him. Yet even the faith of Peter was not uncommingled with hopes of the earthly power and glory of Christ, and from the first foreshadowing of the sufferings of Christ, made at Csesarea Philippi, until their close the alternate strength and weakness of Peter appear in ever-increasing clearness. He incurred the severe rebuke of his master by deprecating the necessity of such sufferings (Matt. xvi. 23-24; Mark viii. 33), yet on the mount of transfiguration he again wished to make permanent the glory there apocalyptically revealed (Matt. xvii. 3; Mark ix. 5; Luke ix. 33). Equally typical was his desire to extend forgiveness as far as possible, though he still fell far short of the Christian ideal (Matt, xviii. 21-22); and the same statement holds true of the words in which he reminds Christ how both he and the other disciples had left all to follow him (Matt. xix. 27; Mark x. 28; Luke xviii. 28). As the time of the passion approached, the moral perils of Peter thickened. In the scene recorded in John xiii. 6 sqq. his impetuosity is revealed, as well as a certain lack of understanding of the love of Jesus which was to reach its culmination in the passion. Immediately afterward he vowed, despite the prophecy of the denial, to remain faithful to Jesus even unto death (Matt. xxvi. 33 sqq.; Mark xiv. 29 sqq.; Luke xxii. 33-34; John xiii. 37-38). But he had overestimated his strength, nor could he even keep awake for his master's sake in. Gethsemane (Matt. xxvi. 40; Luke xxii. 45). It is true that he drew his sword when Jesus was seized (Matt. xxvi. 51; Mark xiv. 47; Luke xxii. 50; John xviii. 10-11), but when he saw that this was useless, he fled with the other disciples (Matt. xxvi. 56 and parallels). Nevertheless, he made his way into the palace of the high priest, where he was put to the real test, only to deny Jesus with the utmost vehemence (Matt. xxvi. 69 sqq.; Mark xiv. 66 sqq.; Luke xxii. 56 sqq.; John xviii. 15 sqq.). This last fall receives only a partial explanation from the vacillating character of Peter; the real reason seems to lie in the fact that inaction undermined his resolution, which activity would have kept consistent. Yet in all this he never really lost faith in Christ for an instant, and when he became aware of what he had almost unconsciously done, his remorse and shame, while finally purifying his character, kept him away from Christ until after the resurrection. Then, however, his old energy reappeared, and though at the tomb he was outstripped in running by the younger disciple John, he was still the first to find that the grave was empty (John xx. 3 sqq.).
and in the account of the appearance of the risen Christ at the Sea of Tiberias, the old character of Peter once more becomes manifest (John xxi. 7 sqq.). The temperament of Peter, as here outlined, was inseparably connected with his position of preeminence among the apostles. Not only was he closely associated with the two sons of Zebedee James and John, and once with his own brother Andrew, as one of the favorite and most trusted disciples of Jesus (Mark v. 37, ix. 2, xiii. 3 sqq., xiv. 33 sqq.; Luke viii. 51, ix. 28), and not only were he and John commissioned to make preparations for the Last Supper (Luke xxii. 8 sqq.), but the entire content of the Gospels mark him as preeminent over the other disciples. This position seems to have been due essentially to his quick resolution and to his energy, and it was confirmed by Jesus both for the present and for the future; for the present by addressing to him questions and answers which concerned the other disciples as well (Matt. xvii. 25 sqq., xviii. 22, xxvi. 40; John xiii. 36); and for the future by the remarkable words recorded in Matt. xvi. 18-19, a prerogative which even temporary wavering and recreancy could not annul (cf. Luke xxii. 31-32).
The apostolic activity of Peter in Judea and the neighboring districts after the resurrection of Jesus is recorded chiefly in Acts, although the Pauline epistles contain a few valuable allusions. It must be borne in mind that a certain amount of editorial change may be traced in the speeches 4. Activity ascribed to Peter in Acts, but there is and Posi- no reason to doubt the essential aution in thenticity of the facts there recorded. Palestine. After the ascension, Peter, undismayed by the threats of the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, preached and worked in Samaria and along the Syro-Phenician coast, especially in Lydda, Joppa, and Csesarea (Acts viii. 14 sqq., ix. 32-x. 48), performing many miracles (Acts iii. 4 sqq., v. 15, ix. 34, 40). Returning to Jerusalem, he was imprisoned under Herod Agrippa after the death of James, the brother of John (Acts xii. 1 sqq.), but escaping, he left the city, though he seems again to have taken up his residence there after Herod's death. Paul visited him there three years after his conversion (Gal. i. 18), and he was there at the time of the council of the apostles recorded in Gal. ii. 1-9. With Jerusalem as a base, he visited other churches (Gal. ii. 11), accompanied by his wife (I Cor. ix. 5). Despite the existence of a Petrine faction in Corinth (I Cor. i. 12; cf. ix. 5), there is no reason to suppose that Peter ever labored there (cf. also I Cor. iv. 15), and the tradition, preserved by Eusebius, that Peter founded the church in the Syrian city of Antioch is refuted by Acts xi. 19 sqq. As to the position of Peter as the leader of the apostolic church, Acts and the Pauline epistles are in full accord. He took first place in the meeting which chose Matthias to succeed Judas Iscariot (Acts i. 15 sqq.), he was the spokesman of the whole company of apostles both in winning a large body of Jewish converts (Acts ii. 14 sqq.) and in defending the Gospel against the Jewish hierarchy (Acts iv. 8 sqq., 19 sqq., v. 29 £ sqq.), he reformed conditions within the mother