Difference between revisions of "Peter"

<p> 1. Names.-Peter is known by four different names in the NT. By far the most common designation is simply ‘Peter’ (20 times in Matthew , 18 times in Mark , 15 times in Luke , 16 times in Jn., 52 times in Ac., twice in Gal. [&nbsp;Galatians 2:7 f.], and once in 1 Peter [&nbsp;1 Peter 1:1]). ‘Simon,’ standing alone, occurs less frequently (twice in Matthew , 5 times in Mark , 10 times in Lk., once in Jn.), and ‘Symeon’ but once (&nbsp;Acts 15:14)._ With two exceptions (&nbsp;Galatians 2:7 f.), ‘Cephas’ is the term uniformly employed by St. Paul (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 1:12; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 3:22; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 9:5; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:5, &nbsp;Galatians 1:18; &nbsp;Galatians 2:9; &nbsp;Galatians 2:11; &nbsp;Galatians 2:14); and John once speaks of ‘Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter)’ (&nbsp;John 1:42). ‘Simon’ and ‘Peter’ sometimes stand in conjunction with one another (3 times in Mt., once in Mk., twice in Luke , 18 times in John , 4 times in Acts, and once in 2 Pet. (&nbsp;2 Peter 1:1), where ‘Symeon’ rather than ‘Simon’ is, however, the better attested reading). Of the various names, ‘Symeon’ (‘Simeon’) and ‘Cephas’ are Semitic in origin, while ‘Simon’ and ‘Peter’ are Greek. ‘Symeon’ (Συμεών) appears frequently in the LXX_ as the rendering of the Heb. (Shimeôn = Simeon); but, since it is applied to Peter at most only twice in the NT (&nbsp;Acts 15:14; &nbsp;2 Peter 1:1), it can hardly have been his real name. In these two instances the usage, if not accidental, may have been designed to add solemnity and force to the narrative, and was made all the easier because the Greek ‘Simon’ (Σίμων), the name by which Peter probably had been known from childhood, was so like the [[Hebrew]] in sound. But among the [[Jews]] in [[Hellenistic]] times the Hebrew name had been largely supplanted by the Greek, and the latter was even written in Semitic characters (îÄéîæÉï). Some examples of Jews with the Greek name are Simon the Maccabaean, although his great-grandfather was called ‘Symeon’ (&nbsp;1 [[Maccabees]] 2:3); Simon the son of [[Onias]] (&nbsp;Sirach 50:1); a certain [[Benjamite]] (&nbsp;2 Maccabees 3:4); and Simon Chosameus (&nbsp;1 [[Esdras]] 9:32). In Josephus’ writings [[Jewish]] persons are very frequently called ‘Simon,’ less often ‘Symeon.’ Both names seem to have been employed, and usually with discrimination, by Jews in the Hellenistic period; but ‘Simon’ was the more common, and this in all probability was the Apostle’s original name. In the [[Apostolic]] Age, however, he was known chiefly by his surname, ‘Peter.’ That this usage had been established already within the primitive Aramaic-speaking community is amply attested by St. Paul’s frequent ‘Cephas’ (Κηφᾶς), a Graecized transliteration of the [[Aramaic]] ëÌÅéôÈà (Kepha’), which when translated into Greek becomes ‘Peter’ (Πέτρος, ‘stone’). </p> <p> There is some uncertainty as to the exact circumstances under which the [[Apostle]] first received this appellation. According to &nbsp;Mark 3:16, &nbsp;Luke 6:14, early in his [[Galilaean]] ministry Jesus set apart the Twelve to be His helpers and gave Simon the surname Peter (καὶ ἐπέθηκεν ὄνομα τῷ Σίμωνι Πἐτρον) In referring to the same incident, Matthew (&nbsp;Matthew 10:2) speaks of ‘the so-called Peter’ (ὁ λεγόμενος Πέτρος), but seemingly intends to make the Apostle’s famous confession at [[Caesarea]] [[Philippi]] the occasion for the [[Messiah]] to bestow upon him the name ‘Peter’ and to designate him formal head of the Church (&nbsp;Matthew 16:17-19). In the [[Gospel]] of John, when Simon was first brought to Jesus, the latter exclaimed, ‘Thou art to be called Cephas’ (σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς [&nbsp;John 1:42]), probably meaning from this time forth, since John does not recur to this subject and henceforth always (except in 21) uses ‘Peter’ either alone (16 times) or in conjunction with ‘Simon’ (18 times). Finally, there are intimations, though these are very vague, that the special recognition of Simon’s supremacy may at one time have rested upon his early belief in Jesus’ resurrection. He was generally thought to have been the first disciple to see-if not to believe in (&nbsp;John 20:8)-the [[Risen]] Lord (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:5, &nbsp;Mark 16:7, &nbsp;Luke 24:34), and, as St. Paul had attained apostleship through a similar vision, so Peter had been ‘energized’ for his work as an apostle (&nbsp;Galatians 2:8). There is here no statement that Simon received his surname on this occasion-indeed, he is already known as ‘Peter’ (or ‘Cephas’) in this connexion-but it is possible that his initial vision, which made him the corner-stone of the new community, established, if not for the first time, at least more completely, the custom of referring to him as ‘Peter.’ The infrequency of the word as a proper name at that time, and the fact that ‘Simon’ would readily have served all ordinary needs either in Jewish or in [[Christian]] circles, make it still more evident that the designation ‘Cephas’ (Peter) was called forth by special circumstances, uncertain though some of the details may be at present. The usage undoubtedly originated early, probably in the lifetime of Jesus; and the significance of the appellation was at the outset, or soon became, intimately associated with Peter’s prominent position within the company of early disciples. </p> <p> 2. Peter in the NT writings.-The earliest literature preserved from apostolic times, the letters of St. Paul, contains explicit and important information about Peter. These documents do not, to be sure, purport to give any detailed account of his career, and the data which they do preserve are usually incidental to other interests, but this very fact makes the information all the more significant. St. Paul’s statements clearly represent items of general knowledge current at that early date regarding ‘Cephas.’ While St. Paul’s references are relatively few in number, they contain implications of much importance. Peter is seen to have been the first to obtain a vision of the Risen Lord (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:5); and thus from the outset he occupied a position of primacy in the community and was also first among the apostles, while St. Paul reckons himself last (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:9). St. Paul vigorously resented the insinuation of his enemies, to the effect that Peter’s chronological priority carried with it a superior authority, particularly for [[Gentile]] Christians; but, on the other hand, St. Paul did not think his apostleship or mission at all different in kind or superior in authority as compared with that of Peter. The seducers in [[Galatia]] were not really preaching Peter’s gospel-they were perverting it (&nbsp;Galatians 1:7); it was as truly founded upon faith in Jesus the Messiah as was St. Paul’s (&nbsp;Galatians 2:16); and both apostles had been equipped in the same authoritative way for the performance of their respective apostolic duties (&nbsp;Galatians 2:8). Peter had been commissioned to preach the gospel to the Jews, and this work must have seemed to St. Paul quite as important as-perhaps in some respects more important than-his own specific task of Gentile evangelization. He never doubted that God’s primary concern was for the welfare of the Jews, and that He had even designed them to be the ultimate heirs of the Kingdom, notwithstanding their temporary rejection of the gospel (Romans 11). In the meantime, the [[Gentiles]] were reaping the profits to be derived from the Jews’ rejection, St. Paul being especially commissioned to carry on this temporary enterprise of evangelizing the Gentiles, but the original and fundamental task was still Peter’s. </p> <p> The importance of this phase of St. Paul’s thinking-an item sometimes obscured by a too one-sided emphasis upon the legalistic controversy-is further attested by the high estimate he continues to place upon Judaism, and the value he attaches to Christianity’s Jewish connexions. The Jew has had the advantage in every way (&nbsp;Romans 3:1; &nbsp;Romans 9:1 ff.), and St. Paul’s ancestry entitles him to a full share in that advantage (&nbsp;Romans 11:1, &nbsp;2 Corinthians 11:22, &nbsp;Philippians 3:5). True, his ancestral heritage must now be brought to its proper consummation in the new faith, toward which all the [[Divine]] purposes down through the ages had been tending. From St. Paul’s point of view it was altogether essential, however, that [[Christianity]] should have had this Jewish origin; and so it was especially fitting, he thought, that those olive branches which had been temporarily severed from the Jewish trunk-as was the case with all Jews who rejected Christianity-should one day be restored to their rightful place along with the few wild olive branches that had in the meantime been grafted upon the native stock (&nbsp;Romans 11:11 ff.). It fell to Peter’s lot to engage in the work of preserving, or restoring, the original branches, a work with which St. Paul was in full sympathy and to which he would gladly have given himself at all costs had circumstances permitted (&nbsp;Romans 9:3). Hence it is not strange that he should cite the Jewish churches as models (&nbsp;1 Thessalonians 2:14), that he should refer with manifest satisfaction to their approval of his initial missionary activities (&nbsp;Galatians 1:24), that he should reckon his own evangelizing activity as formally beginning at [[Jerusalem]] (&nbsp;Romans 15:19), that he should take occasion to pay Peter a two weeks’ visit in Jerusalem (&nbsp;Galatians 1:18), or that he should in all sincerity seek the approval of the Jerusalem Church upon his Gentile work (&nbsp;Galatians 2:1 ff.). Furthermore, his high estimate of the Jewish community’s significance found very tangible expression in the collection, which was no mere perfunctory keeping of a past agreement, but an expression of genuine appreciation of the Jewish Christians’ willingness to share their special prerogatives with the Gentiles who fulfilled the condition of faith (&nbsp;Galatians 2:10, &nbsp;Romans 15:26-28). These facts must be borne in mind when attempting to evaluate St. Paul’s testimony to the significance of Peter’s position in the early history of Christianity. It is quite erroneous to conclude, as some interpreters have done, that St. Paul’s controversy with the legalists really meant any conscious effort on his part to oppose or to supplant Peter, whose unique position in the early community and whose leadership in the work of evangelizing the Jews are clearly attested and highly esteemed by St. Paul. </p> <p> Unfortunately, St. Paul did not have occasion to mention Peter as often as we could wish; consequently, the latter’s career cannot be restored with any degree of fullness from the [[Pauline]] letters. Whether he was among the apostles in Jerusalem, whom St. Paul, had he so chosen, might have visited immediately after his conversion (&nbsp;Galatians 1:17), is not clear; but three years later he was there and entertained St. Paul for two weeks (&nbsp;Galatians 1:18). He was also in Jerusalem fourteen years later, when the legalistic controversy was going on (&nbsp;Galatians 2:1-10). Soon afterwards, perhaps accompanying St. Paul and [[Barnabas]] on their return, he came to [[Antioch]] in Syria, where his reactionary attitude upon the question of table-fellowship with Gentiles evoked St. Paul’s vigorous censure. An incidental reference to Peter as a travelling missionary accompanied by his wife and deriving support from those to whom he ministered (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 9:5), and mention of a [[Cephas]] party in [[Corinth]] (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 1:12; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 3:22), complete the list of Pauline data. These scanty particulars do not permit of any very extended interpretation, yet they do make it clear that Peter was prominent in the counsels of the mother Church, that he continued to prosecute his work as an evangelist, and that his fame had reached even to Asia Minor and [[Greece]] early in the fifties. </p> <p> Of the remaining Christian literature produced in apostolic times, the [[Gospels]] and Acts are the most important for our present purpose. In the first part of Acts, Peter is the leader of the apostolic company, and in the Gospels he occupies a position of prominence, commensurate with the dominant part he subsequently played in the life of the early Christian community. [[Remembering]] the ample attestation of Peter’s prominence given by his contemporary St. Paul, it is not at all surprising that the evangelists, in selecting gospel tradition and giving it written form, should mention Peter frequently and assign him a position second only to that of Jesus. His name does not appear in any of the non-Marcan sections common to Matthew and Luke (i.e. in the [[Logia]] [Q]), but in Mark he is a conspicuous figure from first to last. He, with his brother Andrew, is the first to answer Jesus’ call to discipleship (&nbsp;Mark 1:16); they entertain Him at their home in Capernaum, where He heals Simon’s mother-in-law (&nbsp;Mark 1:29 f.); and the company of the disciples is now known as ‘Simon and those with him’ (&nbsp;Mark 1:36). He heads the list of the Twelve (&nbsp;Mark 3:16), he is named first among the favoured few to witness the raising of Jairus’ daughter (&nbsp;Mark 5:37), he is granted similar favours at the time of the [[Transfiguration]] (&nbsp;Mark 9:2), and in [[Gethsemane]] on the night of the betrayal (&nbsp;Mark 14:33), and it is to him in particular that the women are instructed to announce the resurrection of Jesus (&nbsp;Mark 16:7). On several occasions he is chief spokesman for the disciples, and is mentioned first among those receiving private instructions or explanations (&nbsp;Mark 8:29, &nbsp;Mark 9:5, &nbsp;Mark 10:28, &nbsp;Mark 11:21, &nbsp;Mark 13:3). Notices which reflect somewhat unfavourably upon him are also preserved. Although he is the first of the Twelve to affirm belief in Jesus’ Messiahship, his failure to understand the true Messianic programme calls forth a sharp rebuke from Jesus (&nbsp;Mark 8:32 f.); he is found asleep when left on duty in Gethsemane (&nbsp;Mark 14:37); and during the course of Jesus’ trial Peter persistently denies his [[Master]] (&nbsp;Mark 14:29; &nbsp;Mark 14:54-72). </p> <p> With the exception of a few alterations and supplements, Matthew and Luke take over most of the Marcan statements regarding Peter. Matthew omits the paragraph in which ‘Simon and those with him’ seek Jesus to tell Him that the people of [[Capernaum]] desire His return to the city (&nbsp;Mark 1:36), nothing is said of Peter’s accompanying Jesus when the latter raised the daughter of [[Jairus]] (&nbsp;Mark 5:37), and Peter’s name is expunged from the instructions given to the women by the angel at the tomb of Jesus (&nbsp;Mark 16:7). These omissions are relatively insignificant when compared with the main body of Marcan material which Matthew has preserved. The additional data of Matthew are more important, especially the paragraph supplementing Mark’s account of Peter’s confession (&nbsp;Matthew 16:17-19). In comparison with this incident, the other chief Petrine additions of Matthew-Peter’s walking on the water (&nbsp;Matthew 14:28 f.), and the story of the coin found in the fish’s mouth (&nbsp;Matthew 17:24-27)-are of only secondary interest. Into Mark’s narrative of Peter’s confession, otherwise copied rather closely, Matthew interjects three verses, ascribing Peter’s exceptional perceptive powers to revelation, designating him the corner-stone of the Church, and committing to his keeping the keys of the Kingdom. These statements are manifestly Matthaean insertions, for they do not stand in Mark, which Matthew is copying in both the preceding and the following contexts, nor do they appear in Luke, where the Marcan narrative at this point is also followed. But from what source the First [[Evangelist]] derived his information, and whether the words were actually spoken by Jesus, are much-debated problems. The balance of critical opinion at present inclines to the view that this tradition arose subsequently to the death of Jesus and at a time when the first vivid expectations of an imminent catastrophic end of the present world were being displaced by a growing interest in ecclesiasticism. However this may be, it is perfectly clear from Matthew’s language that Peter had lost none of the prestige which was his in St. Paul’s day, while his exact position with reference to all other [[Christians]] and to the Christian organization itself has been more specifically defined. </p> <p> Luke furnishes scarcely any additional data to shed light upon the apostolic estimate of Peter. The Marcan account of the disciples’ call is omitted in favour of another tradition somewhat richer in descriptive details (&nbsp;Luke 5:1-11; cf. &nbsp;Mark 1:16-20); and in the account of Peter’s denial Luke seems to be following a slightly different source, yet the variations are formal rather than essential so far as the portrayal of Peter is concerned (&nbsp;Luke 22:31-62; cf. &nbsp;Mark 14:26-72). In copying Mark’s account of the [[Caesarea-Philippi]] incident, Luke omits the closing verses which tell of Jesus’ upbraiding Peter for his presumption in attempting to regulate the Messiah’s conduct (&nbsp;Mark 8:32 ff.). Similarly, in Luke’s version of the Gethsemane incident Peter is not singled out for rebuke as in Mark (&nbsp;Luke 22:46; cf. &nbsp;Mark 14:37). Nor does Luke report the special message of the angel to Peter, telling him that he will see the Risen Lord in [[Galilee]] (&nbsp;Luke 24:7; cf. &nbsp;Mark 16:7), because Luke records only [[Judaea]] n appearances; but he does note that the first appearance was made to Peter (&nbsp;Luke 24:34). </p> <p> It is in the early chapters of Acts that Peter’s portrait is drawn most distinctly. He heads the list of the Eleven, and takes the initiative in the election of a successor to [[Judas]] (&nbsp;Acts 1:13; &nbsp;Acts 1:15). He is also the chief speaker on the Day of [[Pentecost]] (&nbsp;Acts 2:14 ff.), the immediate agent in healing the lame beggar at the [[Temple]] gate (&nbsp;Acts 3:1-10), and the principal defender of the new faith during the subsequent period of persecution (e.g. &nbsp;Acts 3:12 ff., &nbsp;Acts 4:8 ff., &nbsp;Acts 5:29 ff.). His miraculous activity is especially noticeable. [[Ananias]] and [[Sapphira]] fall dead at his word (&nbsp;Acts 5:3-10), and he stands out so prominently among the apostolic wonder-workers that apparently his very shadow possesses therapeutic power (&nbsp;Acts 5:12-16). He is next seen in Samaria, where he represents the Jerusalem Church in supervising and bringing to completion the evangelistic work of [[Philip]] (&nbsp;Acts 8:14-25). Then we are told of missionary enterprises conducted by Peter himself ‘throughout all parts’ (&nbsp;Acts 9:32), and particularly of his wonderful miracles performed at [[Joppa]] (&nbsp;Acts 9:33-41). Here he experienced his remarkable vision, in which God showed him that he ‘should not call any man common or unclean,’ with the result that he went freely to the house of the Gentile Cornelius, preaching that God is no respecter of persons. Accordingly, Peter baptized [[Cornelius]] and his friends, thus establishing the first company of Gentile Christians (10). On returning to Jerusalem, Peter is criticized for having eaten with the uncircumcised, but he presents so adequate a defence of his conduct that the Jerusalem Church ultimately glorifies God for the establishment of Gentile missions through his work (&nbsp;Acts 11:1-18). Later we learn of his arrest and imprisonment by Herod [[Agrippa]] I., and his miraculous release, after which ‘he departed and went to another place’ (&nbsp;Acts 12:1-19). He is in Jerusalem again at the time of the Council, where he affirms, and James reiterates, that ‘a good while ago God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe’ (&nbsp;Acts 15:7; &nbsp;Acts 15:14). At this point Peter disappears completely from the history of the Apostolic Age as recorded in Acts. </p> <p> In the Fourth Gospel, likewise, Peter is a conspicuous figure, though he does not always occupy so unquestionably pre-eminent a position as in the Synoptists and early chapters of Acts. In the assembling of the first group of believers his brother Andrew takes precedence over him (&nbsp;John 1:40-44), and is also spokesman for the disciples on the occasion of the miraculous feeding (&nbsp;John 6:8). But Andrew is each time identified as the ‘brother of Simon Peter,’ thus implying that the latter was really the better known. He is also foremost in John’s account of the disciples’ confession of belief in Jesus (&nbsp;John 6:68); and, as in the Synoptists, it is Peter who objects on a certain occasion to Jesus’ procedure-this time the act of foot-washing (&nbsp;John 13:6-9). Peter’s denial is also recorded by John (&nbsp;John 13:36 f., &nbsp;John 18:17-27), and his impetuosity is displayed in cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant (&nbsp;John 18:10 f.). But Peter’s prominence is rivalled by that of the unnamed disciple ‘whom Jesus loved.’ He, together with Andrew, was the first to follow Jesus (&nbsp;John 1:35 f.); he had the position of honour at the Last Supper (&nbsp;John 13:24); he was acquainted with the high priest, and so procured Peter’s admission to the court (&nbsp;John 18:15); and he seems to have anticipated Peter in believing that Jesus had risen from the dead (&nbsp;John 20:2-8). In the so-called appendix to John (21) Simon Peter is the chief actor, but the beloved disciple standing in the background is certainly a formidable rival for the honour of first place. </p> <p> Except in the salutations of the two [[Epistles]] commonly ascribed to Peter, there is no further mention of his name in the NT. For one who evidently occupied so prominent a place in the life and thinking of the Apostolic Age, the amount of information about him preserved in the literature of the period is relatively meagre. St. Paul’s statements are exceedingly fragmentary; the Gospels do not, of course, pretend to give information about apostolic history, yet indirectly they furnish some indications of how Peter was regarded at the time the documents were being produced; and Acts, while tolerably full in its description of Peter’s earlier activities, consigns him to absolute oblivion after the Jerusalem Council. It is not at all probable that so important an individual would thus suddenly drop completely out of sight in the actual history of the Christian movement, nor can we assume that the information supplied by our extant NT sources is at all exhaustive-to say nothing of the difficulty of harmonizing what sometimes appear to be striking discrepancies. </p> <p> 3. Peter’s earlier activities.-A résumé of such facts as are apparently beyond dispute yields a very definite picture of Peter’s earlier activities, notwithstanding some uncertainty in details. He was a Galilaean fisherman living in Capernaum when Jesus began His public ministry. Soon after coming into contact with Jesus he abandoned his business as a fisherman in order to accompany the new Teacher on His preaching tours. How Jesus, who had left His carpenter’s bench, and Peter and others, who had similarly forsaken their ordinary daily pursuits to engage in this new enterprise, now supported themselves and their families is not clear from our present sources of information; but this uncertainty can hardly reflect any serious doubt upon the fact of their procedure. Peter was one of the most prominent members in the company of disciples, and so strongly did Jesus and His work appeal to him that he saw in the new movement foreshadowings of the long-looked-for Messianic Kingdom, and ultimately he identified Jesus with the Messiah. But Peter’s conception of the Messiah’s programme underwent some radical readjustments in the course of time. At first his view seems to have been largely of the political nationalistic type-the earthly Jesus would some day don Messianic robes and set up the new Kingdom. In this schema there was no place for Jesus’ death, hence that event proved a stunning blow to Peter’s faith. According to one tradition, regarded by many scholars as the more reliable, he returned disappointed to Galilee, where he probably intended to resume his work of fishing. [[Doubtless]] he had still kept his home in Capernaum, and thither he would naturally go after his great disillusionment. Then came the experience which constituted the real turning-point in his life: he saw his Master alive again-no longer an earthly but now a heavenly Being. This vision gave him a solution of his difficulties, since it enabled him to resume his belief in Jesus’ Messiahship and look forward to the establishment of the new Kingdom. It necessitated, however, considerable readjustment in his thinking, for the Messiah in whom he now believed was not an earthly figure who would demonstrate the validity of His claims by leading a revolt against the Romans; He was a heavenly apocalyptic Being who would come on the clouds in glory when the day arrived for the final establishment of God’s rule upon earth. </p> <p> This new way of thinking gave Peter a new conception of his mission. Now he, and the other disciples, must make haste in gathering members for the new Kingdom. Actuated by the genuinely altruistic motive of mediating this new knowledge to their Jewish kinsmen, and desiring to fulfil as quickly as possible the conditions preliminary to the Kingdom’s coming, they began a vigorous preaching activity to propagate the new faith. Whatever doubts may be entertained regarding the verbal accuracy of the speeches of Peter recorded in Acts, the accuracy of the main content is hardly to be disputed, so far at least as the interpretation of Jesus’ Messiahship is concerned. Here we have a primitive stage of thinking, when the expectation of the Coming is vivid, and when Christians have not yet come to see-as they did in later times-that Jesus had made an adequate display of His Messiahship while He was still upon earth. In these early discourses of Peter attention is fixed upon the future: the real manifestation of the Messiah is an affair of the future, and the Jews are exhorted to repent so that God may send Jesus to discharge His full Messianic functions (&nbsp;Acts 3:19 f.). While upon earth He had been a ‘Servant’-a highly honoured messenger of God-who conducted a propaganda of preparatory prophetic preaching (&nbsp;Acts 3:13; &nbsp;Acts 3:22-26); He had been a ‘man approved of God by mighty works and wonders and signs, which God did by him’ (&nbsp;Acts 2:22), the great and ultimate sign of Divine approval being the elevation of Jesus to a position of heavenly Messianic dignity and lordship through the [[Resurrection]] (&nbsp;Acts 2:36). Since the Messiah’s coming awaited the restoration of all things (&nbsp;Acts 3:21), Peter threw himself energetically into the task of preaching the restorative message. [[Henceforth]] this constituted, both for him and for his companions, their great mission, and in this propaganda Peter was undoubtedly the leader. The general situation described in Acts is corroborated by St. Paul when he affirms that Peter had been especially equipped for carrying on the work of Jewish missions (&nbsp;Galatians 2:8). </p> <p> Peter’s equipment consisted not merely in some new command received from the Risen Lord, or in a new stock of Messianic beliefs; he now possessed a new power, an endowment by the [[Holy]] Spirit, as the first believers called it. This phase of the new community’s life, as described in the Pentecostal experience of Acts 2, has doubtless been somewhat formalized; but that the early disciples, in the glow of their new faith in the Risen Lord, did experience an elation of feeling which sometimes expressed itself in ecstasy and the performance of miracles, seems beyond question._ In Jewish thinking the work of the Holy Spirit had already come to be very closely associated with the Messiah and His Kingdom. Isaiah had pictured the ideal ruler as one who would be richly endowed by the Spirit (&nbsp;Isaiah 11:2; &nbsp;Isaiah 41:1; &nbsp;Isaiah 61:1 ff.), and Joel (&nbsp;Joel 2:28 ff.) predicted, among the displays to precede the advent of the Messianic Age, an outpouring of the Spirit upon all flesh, equipping the sons and daughters of [[Israel]] with power to prophesy and inspiring dreams and visions in the old and young. Later Jewish Messianic literature retained and heightened this emphasis upon the functions of the Spirit. [[Enoch]] represented the Messiah as a spiritually endowed being (49:1-4, 62:2), and according to the [[Testament]] of Judah this pneumatic Messiah would similarly equip his subjects (Judah, 24; cf. Levi, 18). It was perfectly natural that the disciples, who had now come to believe in Jesus as the Messiah elevated upon His throne in heaven, should become conscious of the new power which was theirs by right of membership in the new [[Kingdom]] about to be more fully revealed. Their inherited Jewish thinking, together with their visions of the Risen Jesus, supplied a very fitting background for the Pentecostal phenomenon. In view of Peter’s preeminence in the early community, we may safely assume that he was one of the first to attain this type of experience. </p> <p> This unique spiritual endowment normally expressed itself in miraculous activities. On this subject it may be well to supplement the generous testimony of Acts with the somewhat less extravagant, but quite specific, corroborative evidence from St. Paul. Christianity as a historical phenomenon is defined by him largely in terms of spiritual endowment, with its resultant activities. While all Christians share the one Spirit in common, its power is manifested variously in different persons, and among these manifestations ‘miracles’ and ‘gifts of healings’ occupy a prominent place (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 12:28). In controverting his opponents St. Paul appeals especially to miracles as the unique differentia of the new religion and the final evidence of his own right to be reckoned among the genuine apostles. In denouncing the Judaizers’ gospel of the flesh St. Paul (&nbsp;Galatians 3:5) asks the Galatians a test question designed to prove beyond doubt the genuineness of his gospel of the Spirit: ‘He therefore that supplieth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, dceth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?’ Nor was this miraculous power peculiar to the Christianity of St. Paul, for he replies to his opponents in Corinth: ‘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 works’ (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 12:11 f.). Thus the power to work ‘miracles’ (δυνάμεις) was an inherent characteristic of the new religion, and the exercise of this function belonged particularly to its leaders, among whom Peter had preeminence. </p> <p> [[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’ (q.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 (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 1:2); sinning members of the community are delivered over to Satan in the name, and so through the authority, of our Lord Jesus (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 5:3 f.); and God has exalted Jesus to a position of authority so supreme that every knee is to bend ‘in the name of Jesus’ (&nbsp;Philippians 2:9 f.). Peter not only shared 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 doubt that he performed miracles in the name of Jesus. The words put into Peter’s mouth by Acts, to the effect that the lame man had been cured through the efficacy of Jesus’ powerful name (&nbsp;Acts 3:16), are wholly consonant with the primitive situation when Peter was prominent in the activities of the new spiritual community. </p> <p> This procedure soon caused him and his associates serious trouble. Belief in dynamic personalities, the use of whose name enabled one to effect 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 dceth these things is an abomination to Jahweh’: Israel’s God is alone worthy of recognition (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 18:9 ff.; cf. &nbsp;Exodus 20:3; &nbsp;Exodus 20:7, &nbsp;Leviticus 19:26; &nbsp;Leviticus 19:31; &nbsp;Leviticus 20:6, &nbsp;Isaiah 2:6, &nbsp;Jeremiah 27:9 f., &nbsp;Ezekiel 20:26, &nbsp;Malachi 3:5, Philo, 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 (&nbsp;Acts 3:12; &nbsp;Acts 3:16; &nbsp;Acts 4:7-10). Peter replied that the Christians were not breaking the Law, but were bringing it to fulfilment, because Jesus was that [[Prophet]] to whom Moses had referred in the Deuteronomic context as the One to whom Israel should listen. His elevation to heaven was said to justify this affirmation, hence it was quite proper to work miracles in His ‘name’ (&nbsp;Acts 3:22 ff.; cf. &nbsp;Deuteronomy 18:15 ff.). But the Jews were unwilling to accept Peter’s interpretation of Moses, and consequently they tried to restrain the Christians’ dynamic activities. </p> <p> 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 offence to the [[Sadducees]] (&nbsp;Acts 4:2), but the reverence with which early believers regarded the Risen Jesus might easily seem to many Jews to endanger the supremacy of Jahweh. Apparently this was one of the most important items inciting St. Paul’s persecution, judging from those phases of the new religion which he sets 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 the 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 (&nbsp;Romans 1:4; &nbsp;Romans 10:9, &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:5 ff., &nbsp;Galatians 1:1; &nbsp;Galatians 1:15 f.). 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!’ [&nbsp;1 Corinthians 16:22]). This prayer was especially appropriate on the lips of Peter and his companions in those early days of persecution when Jesus was expected to appear suddenly as Messiah and vindicate the faith of His loyal disciples. </p> <p> 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. &nbsp;Acts 1:13; &nbsp;Acts 3:1 ff; &nbsp;Acts 4:13; &nbsp;Acts 8:14), 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 (&nbsp;Acts 12:17), and henceforth he appears to be the generally acknowledged leader (&nbsp;Acts 15:13 ff., &nbsp;Acts 21:18). Yet his presence among the believers at a much earlier date is attested by St. Paul, who remarks that James-in all probability meaning the Lord’s brother-was the one to witness Jesus’ fourth appearance (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:7). He was also a member of the new brotherhood when St. Paul, three years after his conversion, paid a visit to Peter in Jerusalem (&nbsp;Galatians 1:18). At the time of the Jerusalem [[Council]] he was not only the head of the Church (&nbsp;Galatians 2:9), but was so influential that his objections caused both Peter and Barnabas to withdraw from their former liberal position (&nbsp;Galatians 2:11-13). 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. </p> <p> But neither St. Paul nor Acts gives the particulars of the process which issued in this result. For an answer to this problem we must rely upon inference, supplemented by later tradition. [[Eusebius]] (HE_ II. i. 3) states, on the authority of [[Clement]] of Alexandria, that Peter, James (the brother of John), and John, not coveting honour for themselves, chose James to be bishop of Jerusalem soon after Jesus’ ascension; but so formal an appointment at this early date is hardly probable. It is far more likely that a gradual development of circumstances produced the later situation in which James supplanted Peter. Peter’s work as an evangelist and the opposition which his public preaching aroused among the Jews probably resulted in his leaving the city for longer and longer periods, so that the task of local leadership devolved increasingly upon James. The Jewish opposition which broke out afresh under Herod Agrippa I., and from which Peter barely escaped with his life, was the occasion of his going to ‘another place’ after he had sent James a message regarding the situation (&nbsp;Acts 12:17). It has been conjectured with some degree of plausibility that James became actual head of the Jerusalem Church about this time. Clement of [[Alexandria]] (Strom. VI. v. 43) reports a tradition to the effect that Jesus had instructed the apostles to preach to Israel for twelve years before going forth to the world-which may signify that the original apostles’ departure from Jerusalem, thus leaving James in charge, was virtually coincident with Herod’s persecution. But aside from the question of the historicity of Clement’s tradition, James probably supplanted Peter in Jerusalem about this time. This seems to be the most satisfactory explanation of the NT data. James’s blood relationship to Jesus would give him a unique position among Christians, and his vision of the Risen Lord would add to his prestige, while his conservative attitude toward [[Judaism]] would be a valuable asset to the community in those days of persecution (cf. Eusebius, HE_ II. xxiii.1ff.). The impetuous Peter sought other fields of activity. Yet we must not assume that there was any rivalry between these two individuals, notwithstanding the contrasts in their personalities. Between the extremes of Pauline liberalism and Jacobaean conservatism Peter (and Barnabas) sometimes vacillated, but on the whole they seem to have inclined toward the position of James. </p> <p> A second problem left unsolved by our NT information is the question of Peter’s real attitude toward the Gentile missionary enterprise. According to Acts 10 f., he had been instructed by God in a vision not to call any man common or unclean, and as a result he went to the house of Cornelius, where he ate with Gentiles and established a Gentile church. On returning to Jerusalem he was arraigned for his conduct, but presented so strong a defence that the mother Church glorified God for the conversion of the Gentiles accomplished through Peter’s action. St. Paul, on the other hand, in writing to the Galatians, represents that this problem had been fought out-manifestly for the first time, as St. Paul describes it-over the missionary activities of himself and Barnabas. Even then it was merely the question of admission, and not the question of table-fellowship, that had been discussed at Jerusalem. Not until later, when Peter came to Antioch, did the latter question become acute, and then Peter took the conservative position in line with the wishes of the Jerusalem Church (&nbsp;Galatians 2:11 ff.). If St. Paul’s representation is correct, it becomes difficult to believe, as the narrative of Acts would seem to demand, that Peter and the Church at Jerusalem had taken exactly the opposite stand a few years earlier. </p> <p> Different attempts have been made to obviate the difficulty. [[Appeal]] is sometimes made to the proverbial fickleness of Peter, but in order to meet the situation we should have to predicate a similar characteristic for the leaders in Jerusalem. Or, again, it is urged that Cornelius was already a ‘God-fearer,’ that he prayed to Jahweh, gave alms, and wrought ‘righteousness’ in good Jewish fashion (&nbsp;Acts 10:30; &nbsp;Acts 10:35), and so his case was quite different from that of ordinary Gentiles. Yet it must be remembered that the specific thing for which Peter was called to account was ‘eating with the uncircumcised’ (&nbsp;Acts 11:3). He affirmed that the Spirit had instructed him to make no distinction in respect to table-companionship between circumcised and uncircumcised believers, and this was the very point in debate at Antioch. We are quite ignorant of any extenuating circumstances which made the [[Antiochian]] situation different in principle from that of Caesarea, and so the difficulty of squaring the narrative of Acts with the representation of St. Paul remains unsolved. </p> <p> Still another method proposed for relieving the difficulty is to appeal to the alleged apologetic purpose of the author of Acts, who, it is said, desired to bridge the chasm separating Peter from St. Paul, and tried to accomplish this result by ‘Paulinizing’ Peter in the early part of the book and by ‘Petrinizing’ St. Paul in the latter part. Thus Peter is credited with inaugurating the Gentile mission, and the Jerusalem Church is made to put the stamp of its approval upon his undertaking. In Acts’ account of St. Paul, on the other hand, the Antiochian incident is absolutely ignored. St. Paul voluntarily circumcises Timothy (&nbsp;Acts 16:1), he also accepts and imposes upon his churches the decrees issued from Jerusalem (&nbsp;Acts 16:4), and in still other respects his loyalty to Judaism is made evident (e.g. &nbsp;Acts 21:17 ff.). Thus ‘Theophilus’ has been assured-and this is assumed to be the author’s chief aim-that the new religion is firmly established through a line of unbroken descent from antiquity, Gentiles having been designed from the first to be its legitimate heirs. Gentile Christianity is not an offshoot from the main movement-the ingrafting of a wild olive branch, as St. Paul says-but an integral part of the whole, having full ecclesiastical supervision and approval from the first. In favour of this interpretation it is possible to cite the manifest interest of Acts in the formal organization of the early community and in Jerusalem as the official centre from which the new religion expands. The appearances of Jesus, both in Luke and Acts, are located in or near Jerusalem; the disciples are instructed to wait in Jerusalem until Pentecost, when the adherents of the new movement are to be formally equipped with the Spirit; in the meantime, the waiting company fills the vacancy in the apostolate, so that the new church may be properly and fully officered from the start; and throughout the entire history of the early period the matter of official apostolic supervision is constantly in evidence. It certainly was not the intention of the writer of Acts to dwell upon differences of opinion among early Christians; and, further, it was quite natural that he should so select or interpret his source materials as to indicate that the certainty and stability attaching to his thought of this movement in his own day were but a continuation of an earlier state of affairs. Consequently it is not improbable that there was a disposition on his part to believe that the proper officers of the church had formally approved the Gentile mission from its very inception, and this feeling quite probably influenced his account of the Cornelius incident. But this fact does not warrant us in concluding that Peter did not come into contact with Gentiles at an early date, although he is not likely to have settled formally the ultimate problem of the whole dispute before it was pushed into the foreground by the work of the [[Judaizers]] in Pauline territory. </p> <p> The foregoing discussion suggests another of the main difficulties in the present study, viz. the exact nature of the relationship between Peter and St. Paul. The so-called [[Tübingen]] School has placed great stress upon the supposed cleft between these two apostles, the former representing Jewish and the latter Gentile Christianity._ But this way of interpreting early Christian history is open to some serious objections. We have already noted the vital and important place which St. Paul’s Jewish heritage continued to hold in his thinking as a Christian, even to the end of his career. It is a natural, but none the less serious, mistake to assume that the legalistic controversy which bulks so largely in St. Paul’s letters to Galatia and Rome furnishes the proper perspective in which to set the whole of the Apostle’s activity and thinking. In fact, all his extant writings are designed chiefly to meet some occasional or exceptional problem rather than to set forth comprehensively the character and content of his religion. Common possessions and generally accepted items are mentioned only incidentally, if at all, while debated points are treated at length. It is no doubt true that St. Paul strongly insisted upon the Gentiles’ freedom from the ceremonial Law, but still he had much in common with his Jewish predecessors, particularly with Peter. Nor is it correct to think that St. Paul was alone responsible for the whole propagation of the gospel in Gentile lands. The missionary activities of ‘the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas,’ as well as of Barnabas, are mentioned in &nbsp;1 Corinthians 9:5; yet it may be that only their fame, and not their actual work, extended to Corinth. But it is plain from Romans that an important church had been established in the capital of the [[Empire]] without the aid of St. Paul (cf. &nbsp;Romans 1:8-15). Even in the East he and his immediate companions were not the only workers in the field, and with some of these his relations were altogether friendly (e.g. &nbsp;Acts 18:2; &nbsp;Acts 18:24 ff., &nbsp;Acts 19:1). It is quite inconceivable that Peter, Barnabas, Mark, and others less well known, ceased proclaiming the new faith in different parts of the [[Mediterranean]] world at the moment their names disappear from the pages of Acts. Nor is it likely that they confined their efforts exclusively to Jewish territory. But even if they did work only with Jewish audiences in the Diaspora, they would inevitably be brought into contact with Gentiles attending the services of the synagogue as interested outsiders. There were certainly Gentile Christians in the Church at Rome before St. Paul visited the city (e.g. &nbsp;Romans 1:5 f., &nbsp;Romans 1:13, &nbsp;Romans 11:13); and probably these were uncircumcised Gentiles, else the Judaizers would have had no occasion to raise the agitation which St. Paul’s letter is evidently designed to counteract. We must conclude that the Antiochian incident is not a safe criterion by which to judge the entire history of the relationship between Peter and St. Paul, and their respective conceptions of the character of the new movement as a whole. </p> <p> Still we must ask what relation Peter bore to the various disturbers who from time to time caused St. Paul so much trouble. The Judaizers of Galatia were not, even on St. Paul’s own showing, representatives of Peter, although they may have used his less radical but still evident conservatism for the purposes of their self-authentication. It would have been more nearly correct for them to have laid claim to the authority of James, as perhaps they did, but St. Paul does not even identify their position with that of James. They maintained the absolute necessity of circumcision for all Gentiles, while both Peter and James yielded to St. Paul’s demands for the Gentiles’ freedom. Apparently this was the principle upon which Barnabas had also been working before the Judaizers caused trouble, and there is no reason to suppose that Peter had observed any different practice, in so far as his missionary activities had brought him into contact with Gentiles. It was the work of the reactionary Judaizers that made the problem acute, but in the nascent period of the missionary enterprise the liberal attitude probably prevailed, not by design, but because it was a natural feature in the spontaneous growth of the new movement. Even while the new gospel was being preached to Jews the fundamental condition of membership in the new society was acknowledgment of Jesus’ Lordship; consequently, when Gentiles heard this preaching-at first probably in connexion with the Jewish synagogue-and responded by confessing their belief in the Messiahship of the Risen Jesus, they were straightway reckoned among the chosen company to receive the Lord at His coming. This was the prevalent situation until the Judaizers appeared upon the scene. They represented the ultra-conservative position of certain Jewish converts, but whether or not their propaganda emanated in the first instance from Jerusalem is not perfectly clear. In Pauline territory they seem to have claimed the authority of Jerusalem, but St. Paul put their claim to the test by a personal visit to the mother Church, the result of which demonstrated that the Judaizers were not backed either by James or by Peter. On the secondary question of free intercourse between Jewish and Gentile believers in the same community, particularly at table, James and Peter-the latter at least temporarily-and even Barnabas were less ready to follow St. Paul to the logical conclusion of their common position; but their action in this respect does not at all mean their desertion to the ranks of the Judaizers. </p> <p> So far as the [[Judaizing]] movement is concerned, the situation reflected in Romans is in the main similar to that in Galatians; but in the [[Corinthian]] correspondence the opposition to St. Paul seems to have developed new features. This is not the place to discuss at length the perplexing problem of the Corinthian parties; we are here concerned only with the question of Peter’s relation to these factions. The presence of a group of persons in the Corinthian Church who said they were ‘of Peter,’ side by side with groups which affirmed allegiance to [[Apollos]] and St. Paul respectively, might imply that Peter, like St. Paul and Apollos, had preached in Corinth. This inference-probably it was only an inference-was drawn by [[Dionysius]] of Corinth (c._ a.d. 170), who spoke of this church as ‘the planting of Peter and Paul’ (Eusebius, HE_ II. xxv. 8). Some modern scholars regard this conclusion as historically correct (e.g. K. Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, London, 1911, p. 112 ff.), but most interpreters are of the opinion that St. Paul’s language does not justify it. He says so little about the Cephas-party, mentioning it only once, or possibly twice (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 1:12; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 3:22), and then without adequate description, that there is no means of knowing positively whether these sectaries we </p>

<p> (See [[Jesus]] CHRIST.) Of [[Bethsaida]] on the sea of Galilee. The Greek for Hebrew Κephas , "stone" or "rock." Simon his original name means "hearer"; by it he is designated in Christ's early ministry and between Christ's death and resurrection. [[Afterward]] he is called by his title of honour, "Peter". Son of [[Jonas]] (&nbsp;Matthew 16:17; &nbsp;John 1:43; &nbsp;John 21:16); tradition makes Johanna his mother's name. [[Brought]] up to his father's business as a fisherman on the lake of Galilee. He and his brother Andrew were partners with Zebedee's sons, John and James, who had "hired servants," which implies a social status and culture not the lowest. He lived first at Bethsaida, then in Capernaum, in a house either his own or his mother-in-law's, large enough to receive Christ and his fellow apostles and some of the multitude who thronged about Him. In" leaving all to follow Christ," he implies he made a large sacrifice (&nbsp;Mark 10:28). The rough life of hardship to which fishing inured him on the stormy lake formed a good training of his character to prompt energy, boldness, and endurance. </p> <p> The Jews obliged their young to attend the common schools. In &nbsp;Acts 4:13, where Luke writes the Jewish council regarded him and John as "unlearned and ignorant," the meaning is not absolutely so, but in respect to professional rabbinical training "lairs," "ignorant" of the deeper sense which the scribes imagined they found in Scripture. Aramaic, half Hebrew half Syriac, was the language of the Jews at that time. The [[Galileans]] spoke this debased Hebrew with provincialisms of pronunciation and diction. So at the denial Peter betrayed himself by his "speech" (&nbsp;Matthew 26:73; &nbsp;Luke 22:59). Yet lie conversed fluently with Cornelius seemingly without an interpreter, and in Greek His Greek style in his epistles is correct; but Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and Tertullian allege he employed an interpreter for them. He was married and led about his wife in his apostolic journeys (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 9:5). </p> <p> The oblique coincidence; establishing his being a married man, between &nbsp;Matthew 8:14, "Peter's wife's mother ... sick of a fever," and &nbsp;1 Corinthians 9:5, "have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as Cephas?" is also a delicate confirmation of the truth of the miraculous cure, as no forger would be likely to exhibit such a minute and therefore undesigned correspondence of details. Alford translated &nbsp;1 Peter 5:13 "she in Babylon" (compare &nbsp;1 Peter 3:7); but why she should be called "elected together with you in Babylon," as if there were no Christian woman in Babylon besides, is inexplicable. Peter and John being closely associated, Peter addresses the church in John's province, Asia, "your co-elect sister church in Babylon saluteth you"; so &nbsp;2 John 1:13 in reply. [[Clemens]] Alex. gives the name of Peter's wife as Perpetua. Tradition makes him old at the time of his death. His first call was by Andrew his brother, who had been pointed by their former master John the [[Baptist]] to Jesus, "behold the Lamb of God" (&nbsp;John 1:36). </p> <p> That was the word that made the first Christian; so it has been ever since. "We have found ''(Implying They Both Had Been Looking For)'' the Messias," said Andrew, and brought him to Jesus. "Thou art Simon son of [[Jona]] ''(So The Alexandrinus [[Manuscript]] But Vaticanus And Sinaiticus 'John')'' , thou shalt be called Cephas" (&nbsp;John 1:41-42). As "Simon" he was but an hearer; as Peter or Cephas he became an apostle and so a foundation stone of the church, by union to the one only [[Foundation]] Rock (&nbsp;Ephesians 2:20; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 3:11). [[Left]] to nature, Simon, though bold and stubborn, was impulsive and fickle, but joined to Christ lie became at last unshaken and firm. After the first call the disciples returned to their occupation. The call to close discipleship is recorded &nbsp;Luke 5:1-11. The miraculous draught of fish overwhelmed Simon with awe at Jesus' presence; He who at creation said, "let the waters bring forth abundantly" (&nbsp;Genesis 1:20), now said, "let down your nets for a draught." </p> <p> Simon, when the net which they had spread in vain all night now broke with the multitude of fish, exclaimed, "depart from me, for I am a sinful man, [[O]] Lord!" He forgot &nbsp;Hosea 9:12 end; our sin is just the reason why we should beg Christ to come, not depart. "Fear not, henceforth thou shalt catch to save alive (zoogroon ) men," was Jesus' explanation of the typical meaning of the miracle. The call, &nbsp;Matthew 4:18-22 and &nbsp;Mark 1:16-20, is the same as Luke 5, which supplements them. Peter and Andrew were first called; then Christ entered Peter's boat, then wrought the miracle, then called James and John; Jesus next healed of fever Simon's mother-in-law. His call to the apostleship is recorded &nbsp;Matthew 10:2-4. Simon stands foremost in the list, and for the rest of Christ's ministry is mostly called "Peter." His forward energy fitted him to be spokesman of the apostles. So in &nbsp;John 6:66-69, when others went back (&nbsp;2 Timothy 4:10), to Jesus' testing question, "will ye also go away?" Simon replied, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life, and we believe and are sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." Compare his words, &nbsp;Acts 4:12. </p> <p> He repeated this testimony at Caesarea Philippi (&nbsp;Matthew 16:16). Then Jesus said: "blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee (&nbsp;John 1:13; &nbsp;Ephesians 2:8) but My Father in heaven, and ... thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of [[Hades]] shall not prewill against it." Peter by his believing confession identified himself with Christ the true Rock (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 3:11; &nbsp;Isaiah 28:16; &nbsp;Ephesians 2:20), and so received the name; just as Joshua bears the name meaning "Jehovah Saviour", because typifying His person and offices. Peter conversely, by shrinking from a crucified [[Saviour]] and dissuading Him from the cross, "be it far from Thee," identified Himself with Satan who tempted Jesus to take the world kingdom without the cross (&nbsp;Matthew 4:8-10), and is therefore called "Satan," cf6 "get thee behind Me, Satan," etc. Instead of a rock Peter became a stumbling-block ("offense," scandalous). "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," namely, to open the door of faith to the Jews first, then to Cornelius and the Gentiles (&nbsp;Acts 10:11-48). </p> <p> Others and Paul further opened the door (&nbsp;Acts 14:27; &nbsp;Acts 11:20-26). The papal error regards Peter as the rock, in himself officially, and as transmitting an infallible authority to the popes, as if his successors (compare &nbsp;Isaiah 22:22). The "binding" and "loosing" power is given as much to the whole church, layman and ministers, as to Peter (&nbsp;Matthew 18:18; &nbsp;John 20:23.) Peter exercised the power of the keys only in preaching, as on Pentecost (Acts 2), He never exercised authority over the other apostles. At Jerusalem James exercised the chief authority (&nbsp;Acts 15:19; &nbsp;Acts 21:18; &nbsp;Galatians 1:19; &nbsp;Galatians 2:9). Peter "withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed," "not walking uprightly in the truth of the gospel," but in "dissimulation" (&nbsp;Galatians 2:10-14). ''(On The Miraculous [[Payment]] Of The Temple [[Tribute]] Of The Half [[Shekel]] (Two Drachms) Each, See Jesus Christ.)'' </p> <p> Matthew alone (&nbsp;Matthew 17:24-27) records it, as appropriate to the aspect of Jesus as theocratic king, prominent in the first Gospel. Peter too hastily had answered for his Master as though He were under obligation to pay the temple tribute; Peter forgot his own confession (&nbsp;Matthew 16:16). Nevertheless, the Lord, in order not to "offend." i.e. give a handle of reproach, as if lie despised the temple and law, caused Peter the fisherman again to resume his occupation and brought a fish (&nbsp;Psalms 8:8; &nbsp;Jonah 1:17) with a starer, i.e. shekel, in its mouth, the exact sum required, four drachmas, for both. Jesus said, "for ME and thee," not for us; for His payment was on an altogether different footing from Peter's (compare &nbsp;John 20:17). Peter needed a "ransom for his soul" and could not pay it; but Jesus needed none; nay, came to pay it Himself (&nbsp;John 20:28), first putting Himself under the same yoke with us (&nbsp;Galatians 4:4-5). Peter, James, and John were the favored three alone present at the raising of Jairus' daughter, the transfiguration, and the agony in Gethsemane. </p> <p> His exaltations were generally, through his self sufficiency giving place to weakness, accompanied with humiliations, as in Matthew 16. In the transfiguration he talks at random, "not knowing what to say ... sore afraid," according to the unfavourable account given of himself in Mark (&nbsp;Mark 9:6). Immediately after faith enabling him to leave the ship and walk on the water to go to Jesus (&nbsp;Matthew 14:29), he became afraid because of the boisterous wind, and would have sunk but for Jesus, who at the same time rebuked his "doubts" and "little faith" (&nbsp;Psalms 94:18). His true boast, "behold we have forsaken all and followed Thee," called forth Jesus' promise, "in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel," and Jesus' warning, illustrated by the parable of the labourers in reproof of the hireling spirit, "the last shall be first and the first last ... many be called ... few chosen" (&nbsp;Matthew 19:27-20;&nbsp;Matthew 19:16). </p> <p> Peter, Andrew, James, and John heard the solemn discourse (on the second advent (Matthew 24). At the last supper Peter shrank with a mixture of humility and self will from Jesus' stooping to wash his feet. Jesus replied, cf6 "if I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me" (John 13). With characteristic warmth Peter passed to the opposite extreme, "Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head." Jesus answered, cf6 "he that is bathed ''(All Over, Namely, Regenerated Once For All, '' leloumenos '')'' cf6 needeth not save to wash (nipsasthai , a part) cf6 his feet, but is clean every whit." Simon in anxious affection asked, "Lord, where guest Thou?" when Jesus said, cf6 "where I go, ye cannot come." Jesus promised Peter should follow Him afterward, though not now. Then followed his protestations of faithfulness unto death, thrice repeated as well as the thrice repeated warnings (&nbsp;Matthew 26:33-35; &nbsp;Mark 14:29-31; &nbsp;Mark 14:72; &nbsp;Luke 22:33-34; &nbsp;John 13:36-38). </p> <p> Satan would" sift" (&nbsp;Amos 9:9) all the disciples, but Peter especially; and therefore for him especially Jesus interceded. Mark mentions the twice cockcrowing and Peter's protesting the more vehemently. Love, anti a feeling of relief when assured he was not the traitor, prompted his protestations. [[Animal]] courage Peter showed no small amount of, in cutting off Malthus' ear in the face of a Reman band; moral courage he was deficient in. Transpose the first and second denials in John; then the first took place at the fire (&nbsp;Matthew 26:69; &nbsp;Mark 14:66-67; &nbsp;Luke 22:56; &nbsp;John 18:25), caused by the fixed recognition of the maid who admitted Peter (&nbsp;Luke 22:56); the second took place at the door leading out of the court, where he had withdrawn in fear (&nbsp;Matthew 26:71; &nbsp;Mark 14:68-69; &nbsp;Luke 22:58; &nbsp;John 18:17); the third took place in the court an hour after (&nbsp;Luke 22:59), before several witnesses who argued from his [[Galilean]] accent and speech, near enough for Jesus to cast that look on Peter which pierced his heart so that he went out and wept bitterly. The maid in the porch knew him, for John had spoken unto her that kept the door to let in Peter (&nbsp;John 18:16.) </p> <p> On the resurrection morning Peter and John ran to the tomb; John outran Peter ''(Being The [[Younger]] Man; '' &nbsp;John 21:18'' Implies Peter Was Then Past His Prime, Also The Many Years By Which John Outlived Peter Imply The Same)'' , but Peter was first to enter. John did not venture to enter until Peter set the example; fear and reverence held him back, as in &nbsp;Matthew 14:26, but Peter was especially bold and fearless. To him Jesus sends through Mary [[Magdalene]] a special message of His resurrection to assure him of forgiveness (&nbsp;Mark 16:7). To Peter first of the apostles Jesus appeared (&nbsp;Luke 24:34; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:5). "Simon" is resumed until at the supper (John 21) Jesus reinstates him as Peter, that being now "converted" he may "feed the lambs and sheep" and "strengthen his brethren." Peter in the first 12 chapters of (See [[Acts]] is the prominent apostle. His discourses have those undesigned coincidences with his epistles which mark their genuineness. (&nbsp;Acts 2:20; &nbsp;2 Peter 3:10. &nbsp;Acts 2:23-24; &nbsp;1 Peter 1:2; &nbsp;1 Peter 1:21. &nbsp;Acts 3:18; &nbsp;1 Peter 1:10-11.) </p> <p> As in the Gospels, so in Acts, Peter is associated with John. His words before the high priest and council (&nbsp;Acts 4:19-20), "whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard," and again &nbsp;Acts 5:29, evince him as the rock-man; and after having been beaten in spite of Gamaliel's warning, Peter's rejoicing with the other apostles at being counted worthy to suffer for Christ (&nbsp;Acts 5:41) accords with his precept (&nbsp;1 Peter 4:12-16; compare &nbsp;1 Peter 2:24 with &nbsp;Acts 5:30 end). Peter's miracle of healing (Acts 3) was followed by one of judgment (Acts 5) (See [[Ananias]] .) As he opened the gospel door to penitent believers (&nbsp;Acts 2:37-38), so he closed it against hypocrites as Ananias, Sapphira, and Simon Magus (Acts 8). Peter with John confirmed by laying on of hands the [[Samaritan]] converts of Philip the deacon. (See [[Baptism]] ; LAYING ON HANDS.) </p> <p> Insofar as the bishops represent the apostles, they rightly follow the precedent of Peter and John in confirming after an interval those previously baptized and believing through the instrumentality of lower ministers as Philip. The ordinary graces of the Holy Spirit continue, and are received through the prayer of faith; though the extraordinary, conferred by the apostles, have ceased. Three years later Paul visited Jerusalem in order to see Peter (&nbsp;Galatians 1:17-18; historeesai means "to become personally acquainted with as one important to know"; &nbsp;Acts 9:26). Peter was prominent among the twelve, though James as bishop had chief authority there. It was important that Paul should communicate to the leading mover in the church his own independent gospel revelation; next Peter took visitation tour through the various churches, and raised [[Aeneas]] from his bed of sickness and [[Tabitha]] from the dead (&nbsp;Acts 9:32). A special revelation, abolishing distinctions of clean and unclean, prepared him for ministering and for seeking the gospel (Acts 10). (See [[Cornelius]] .) </p> <p> Peter was the first privileged to open the gospel to the Gentiles, as he had before to the Jews, besides confirming the Samaritans. Peter justified his act both by the revelation and by God's sealing the Gentile converts with the Holy Spirit. "Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as He did unto us who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ ''(The True Test Of Churchmanship)'' , what was I that I could withstand God?" (&nbsp;Acts 11:17-18.) The Jews' spite at the admission of the Gentiles moved Herod Agrippa I to kill James and imprison Peter for death. (See [[Herod]] .) But the church's unceasing prayer was stronger than his purpose; God brought Peter to the house of Mark's mother while they were in the act of praying for him (&nbsp;Isaiah 65:24). It was not Peter but his persecutor who died, smitten of God. From this point Peter becomes "apostle of the circumcision," giving place, in respect to prominence, to Paul, "apostle of the uncircumcision." Peter the apostle of the circumcision appropriately, as representing God's ancient church, opens the gates to the Gentiles </p> <p> It was calculated also to open his own mind, naturally prejudiced on the side of Jewish exclusiveness. It also showed God's sovereignty that He chose an instrument least of all likely to admit Gentiles if left to himself. Paul, though the apostle of the Gentiles, confirmed the Hebrew; Peter, though the apostle of the Jews, admits the Gentiles (See the "first" in &nbsp;Acts 3:26, implying others); thus perfect unity reigned amidst the diversity of the agencies. At the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) Peter led the discussion, citing the case of Cornelius' party as deciding the question, for" God which knoweth the hearts bore them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit even as He did unto us, and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith," "but we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they"; compare his epistles in undesigned coincidence (&nbsp;1 Peter 1:22; &nbsp;2 Peter 1:9). James gave the decision. </p> <p> Peter neither presided, nor summoned, nor dismissed the council, nor took the votes, nor pronounced the decision; he claimed none of the powers which Rome claims for the pope. ''(On His Vacillation As To Not [[Eating]] With Gentiles, And Paul'S Withstanding Him At Antioch (Galatians 2), See Paul.)'' The Jerusalem decree only recognized Gentiles as fellow Christians on light conditions, it did not admit them necessarily to social intercourse Though Peter and Paul rightly inferred the latter, yet their recognition of the ceremonial law (&nbsp;Acts 18:18-21; &nbsp;Acts 20:16; &nbsp;Acts 21:18-24) palliates Peter's conduct, if it were not for its inconsistency (through fear of the Judaizers) which is the point of Paul's reproof. His "dissimulation" consisted in his pretending to consider it unlawful to eat with Gentile Christians, whereas his previous eating with them showed his conviction of the perfect equality of Jew and Gentile. </p> <p> Peter's humility and love are beautifully illustrated in his submitting to the reproach of a junior, and seemingly adopting Paul's view, and in calling him '"our beloved brother," and confirming the doctrine of "God's longsuffering being for salvation," from Paul's epistles: &nbsp;Romans 2:4 (&nbsp;2 Peter 3:15-16). Peter apparently visited Corinth before the first epistle to the Corinthians was written, for it mentions a party there who said "I am of Cephas" (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 1:12). Clemens Romanus (1 Corinthians 4) implies the same, Dionysius of Corinth asserts it, A.D. 180. Babylon, a chief seat of the dispersed Jews, was his head quarters when he wrote &nbsp;1 Peter 5:13, not Rome as some have argued. (See [[Babylon]] , (See MYSTICAL.) </p> <p> The mixture of Hebrew and Nabathaean spoken there was related to his Galilean dialect. The well known progress that Christianity made in that quarter, as shown by the great Christian schools at [[Edessa]] anti Nisibis, was probably due to Peter originally. Mark (&nbsp;Colossians 4:10), Paul's helper at Rome, from whence he went to Colosse, was with Peter when he wrote &nbsp;1 Peter 5:13. From [[Colosse]] Mark probably went on to Peter at Babylon. Paul wished Timothy to bring him again to Rome during his second imprisonment (&nbsp;2 Timothy 4:11). Silvanus, also Paul's companion, was the bearer of Peter's epistle (&nbsp;1 Peter 5:12). All the authority of Acts and epistle to the Romans and 1 and 2 Peter is against Peter having been at Rome previous to Paul's first imprisonment, or during its two years' duration (otherwise he would have mentioned Peter in the epistles written from Rome, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians), or during his second imprisonment when he wrote to Timothy. </p> <p> Eusebius' statement (Chronicon, 3) that Peter went to Rome A.D. 42 and stayed twenty years is impossible, as those [[Scriptures]] never mention him. [[Jerome]] (Script. Ecclesiastes, 1) makes Peter bishop of Antioch, then to have preached in [[Pontus]] (from &nbsp;1 Peter 1:1), then to have gone to Rome to refute Simon Magus (from Justin's story of a statue found at Rome to Semosanctus, the [[Sabine]] Hercules, which was confounded with Simon Magus), and to have been bishop there for 25 years (!) and to have been crucified with head downward, declaring himself unworthy to be crucified as his Lord, and buried in the [[Vatican]] near the triumphal way. John (&nbsp;John 21:18-19) attests his crucifixion. Dionysius of Corinth (in Eusebius, H. E. 2:25) says Paul and Peter both planted the Roman and Corinthian churches and endured martyrdom in Italy at the same time. So Tertullian (contra Marcion, 4:5; Praeser. Haeret., 36:38). [[Caius]] Romans Presb. (in Eusebius, H. E. 2:25) says memorials of their martyrdom were still to be seen on the road to Ostia, and that Peter's tomb was in the Vatican. </p> <p> He may have been at the very end of life at Rome after Paul's death, and been imprisoned in the Mamertine dungeon, crucified on the [[Janiculum]] on the height Pietro in Montorio, and buried where the altar in Peter's now is. But all is conjecture. [[Ambrose]] (Ep. 33) says that at his fellow Christians' solicitation he was fleeing from Rome at early dawn, when he met the Lord, and at His feet asked "Lord, where goest Thou?" His reply "I go to be crucified afresh" turned Peter back to a joyful martyrdom. The church "Domine Quo Vadis? " commemorates the legend. The whole tradition of Peter and Paul's association in death is probably due to their connection in life as the main founders of the Christian church. Clemens Alex. says Peter encouraged his wife to martyrdom, saying "remember, dear, our Lord." Clemens Alex. (Strom. 3:448) says that Peter's and Philip's wives helped them in ministering to women at their homes, and by them the doctrine of the Lord penetrated, without scandal, into the privacy of women's apartments. (See [[Mark]] on Peter's share in that Gospel.) </p>

<p> <strong> PETER. [[Simon]] </strong> , surnamed Peter, was ‘the <em> coryphÅ“us </em> of the Apostle choir’ (Chrysostom). His father was named <strong> Jonah </strong> or <strong> John </strong> (&nbsp; Matthew 16:17 , &nbsp; John 1:42; &nbsp; John 21:15-17 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ). He belonged to Bethsaida (&nbsp; John 1:44 ), probably the fisher-quarter of Capernaum (Bethsaida = ‘Fisher-home’). There he dwelt with his wife, his mother-in-law, and his brother Andrew (&nbsp; Mark 1:28-31 = &nbsp; Matthew 8:14-15 = &nbsp; Luke 4:38-39 ). He and Andrew were fishermen on the Lake of Galilee (&nbsp; Matthew 4:18 = &nbsp; Mark 1:18 ) in partnership with [[Zebedee]] and his sons (&nbsp; Luke 5:7; &nbsp; Luke 5:11 , &nbsp; Matthew 4:21 ). </p> <p> Simon first met with Jesus at [[Bethany]] beyond [[Jordan]] (&nbsp;John 1:28 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ), the scene of the Baptist’s ministry (&nbsp; John 1:35-42 ). He had repaired thither with other Galilæns to participate in the mighty revival which was in progress. Jesus was there; and Andrew, who was one of the Baptist’s disciples, having been directed by his master to Him as the Messiah, told Simon of his glad discovery, and brought him to Jesus. Jesus ‘looked upon him’ (RV [Note: Revised Version.] ) with ‘those eyes of far perception’; and the look mastered him and won his heart. He was a disciple from that hour. Jesus read his character, seeing what he was and foreseeing what the discipline of grace would make him; and He gave him a surname prophetic of the moral and spiritual strength which would one day be his. ‘Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas.’ <strong> Cephas </strong> is the Aram. [Note: Aramaic.] = Gr. <em> Petros </em> , and means ‘rock.’ He was not yet Peter, but only Simon, impulsive and vacillating; and Jesus gave him the new name ere he had earned it, that it might be an incentive to him, reminding him of his destiny and inciting him to achieve it. In after days, whenever he displayed any weakness, Jesus would pointedly address him by the old name, thus gently warning him that he should not fall from grace (cf. &nbsp; Luke 22:31 , &nbsp; Mark 14:37 , &nbsp; John 21:15-17 ). </p> <p> [[Presently]] the Lord began His ministry at Capernaum, and among His first acts was the calling of four of the men who had believed in Him to abandon their worldly employments and attach themselves to Him, following Him whithersoever He went (&nbsp;Matthew 4:18-22 = &nbsp; Mark 1:16-20 , &nbsp; Luke 5:1-11 ). Thus he began the formation of the Apostle-band. The four were James and John, Simon and Andrew. They were busy with their boats and nets, and He called them to become ‘fishers of men.’ It was the beginning of the second year of Jesus’ ministry ere He had chosen all the Twelve; and then He ordained them to their mission, arranging them in pairs for mutual assistance (&nbsp; Mark 6:7 ), and coupling Simon Peter and Andrew (&nbsp; Matthew 10:2 ). </p> <p> The distinction of Peter lies less in the qualities of his mind than in those of his heart. He was impulsive, ‘ever ardent, ever leaping before his fellows’ (Chrysostom), and often speaking unadvisedly and incurring rebuke. This, however, was only the weakness of his strength, and it was the concomitant of a warm and generous affection. If John, says St. Augustine, was the disciple whom Jesus loved, Peter was the disciple who loved Jesus. This quality appeared on several remarkable occasions. (1) In the synagogue of Capernaum, after the feeding of the five thousand at Bethsaida, Jesus delivered His discourse on the [[Bread]] of Life, full of hard sayings designed to test the faith of His disciples by shattering their Jewish dream of a worldly Messiah, a temporal King of Israel, a restorer of the ancient monarchy (&nbsp;John 6:22-65 ). Many were offended, and ‘went back and walked no more with him.’ Even the Twelve were discomfited. ‘Would ye also go away?’ He asked; and it was Simon Peter, ‘the mouth of the Apostles’ (Chrysostom), who answered, assuring Him of their loyalty (&nbsp; John 6:66-69 ). (2) During the season of retirement at Cæsarea Philippi in the last year of His ministry, Jesus, anxious to ascertain whether their faith in His Messiahship had stood the strain of disillusionment, whether they still regarded Him as the Messiah, though He was not the sort of Messiah they had expected, put to the Twelve the question: ‘Who do ye say that I am?’ Again it was Peter who answered promptly and firmly:’ Thou art the Christ,’ filling the Lord’s heart with exultant rapture, and proving that he had indeed earned his new name Peter, the rock on which Jesus would build His Church, the first stone of that living temple. Presently Jesus told them of His approaching Passion, and again it was Peter who gave expression to the horror of the Twelve: ‘Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall never be unto thee.’ Even here it was love that spoke. The Sinaitic [[Palimpsest]] reads: ‘Then Simon Cephas, <em> as though he pitied Him </em> , said to Him, “Be it far from Thee” ’ (&nbsp; Matthew 16:18-23 = &nbsp; Mark 8:27-33 = &nbsp; Luke 9:18-22 ). (3) A week later Jesus went up to the Mount with Peter, James, and John, and ‘was transfigured before them,’ communing with Moses and Elijah, who ‘appeared in glory’ (&nbsp; Matthew 17:1-8 = &nbsp; Mark 9:2-8 = &nbsp; Luke 9:28-36 ). Though awe-stricken, Peter spoke; ‘Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, I will make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah’ (&nbsp; Matthew 17:4 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ). It was a foolish and inconsiderate speech (&nbsp; Mark 9:6 , &nbsp; Luke 9:33 ), yet it breathed a spirit of tender affection. His idea was: ‘Why return to the ungrateful multitude and the malignant rulers? Why go to Jerusalem and die? [[Stay]] here always in this holy fellowship.’ (4) When Jesus washed the disciples’ feet in the Upper Room, it was Peter who protested (&nbsp; John 13:6-9 ). He could not bear that the blessed Lord should perform that menial office on him. (5) At the arrest in Gethsemane, it was Peter who, seeing Jesus in the grasp of the soldiers, drew his sword and cut off the ear of [[Malchus]] (&nbsp; John 18:10-11 ). </p> <p> The blot on Peter’s life-story is his repeated denial of Jesus in the courtyard of the high priest’s palace (&nbsp;John 18:12-17; cf. &nbsp; Matthew 26:69-75 = &nbsp; Mark 14:66-72 = &nbsp; Luke 22:54-62 ). It was a terrible disloyalty, yet not without extenuations. (1) The situation was a trying one. It was dangerous just then to be associated with Jesus, and Peter’s excitable and impetuous nature was prone to panic. (2) It was his devotion to Jesus that exposed him to the temptation. He and John were the only two who rallied from the panic in Gethsemane (&nbsp; Matthew 26:56 b) and followed their captive Lord (&nbsp; John 18:15; cf. &nbsp; Matthew 26:58 = &nbsp; Mark 14:54 = &nbsp; Luke 22:54 ). (3) If he sinned greatly, he sincerely repented (&nbsp; Matthew 26:75 = &nbsp; Mark 14:72 = &nbsp; Luke 22:62 ). A look of that dear face sufficed to break his heart (&nbsp; Luke 22:51 ). (4) He was completely forgiven. On the day of the Resurrection Jesus appeared to him (&nbsp; Luke 24:34 , &nbsp; 1 Corinthians 15:5 ). What happened during this interview is unrecorded, doubtless because it was too sacred to be divulged; but it would certainly be a scene of confession and forgiveness. The Lord had all the while had His faithless disciple in His thoughts, knowing his distress of mind (cf. &nbsp; Mark 16:7 ); and He had that solitary interview with him on purpose to reassure him. </p> <p> At the subsequent appearance by the Lake of Galilee (&nbsp;John 21:1-25 ) Peter played a prominent part. On discovering that the stranger on the beach was Jesus, impatient to reach his Master, he sprang overboard and swam ashore (cf. his action in &nbsp; Matthew 14:28-31 ). And presently Jesus charged him to make good his protestation of love by diligent care of the flock for which He, the Good Shepherd, had died. ‘Be it the office of love to feed the Lord’s flock, if it was an evidence of fear to deny the Shepherd’ (Augustine). Jesus was not upbraiding Peter. On the contrary, He was publishing to the company His forgiveness of the erring Apostle and His confidence in him for the future. </p> <p> Peter figures conspicuously in the history of the Apostolic Church. He was recognized as the leader. It was on his motion that a successor was appointed to Judas between the [[Ascension]] and Pentecost (&nbsp;Acts 1:15-26 ), his impetuosity appearing in this precipitate action (see Matthias); and it was he who acted as spokesman on the day of Pentecost (&nbsp; Acts 2:14 ff.). He wrought miracles in the name of Jesus (&nbsp; Acts 5:15 , &nbsp; Acts 9:32-42 ); he fearlessly confessed Jesus, setting the rulers at naught (&nbsp; Acts 4:1-18 ); as head of the Church, he exposed and punished sin (&nbsp; Acts 5:1-11 , &nbsp; Acts 8:14-24 ); he suffered imprisonment and scourging (&nbsp; Acts 5:17-42 , &nbsp; Acts 12:1-19 ). </p> <p> The persecution consequent on the martyrdom of Stephen, by scattering the believers, inaugurated a fresh development of Christianity, involving a bitter controversy. The refugees preached wherever they went, and thus arose the question, on what terms the Gentiles should be received into the Church. [[Must]] they become Jews and observe the rites of the [[Mosaic]] Law? In this controversy Peter acted wisely and generously. Being deputed with John to examine into it, he approved Philip’s work among the hated Samaritans, and invoked the Holy Spirit upon his converts, and before returning to Jerusalem made a missionary tour among the villages of [[Samaria]] (&nbsp;Acts 8:1-25 ). His Jewish prejudice was thoroughly conquered by his vision at Joppa and the conversion of Cornelius and his company at Cæsarea; and, when taken to task by the Judaistic party at Jerusalem for associating with uncircumcised Gentiles, he vindicated his action and gained the approval of the Church (&nbsp; Acts 10:1 to &nbsp; Acts 11:19 ). </p> <p> The controversy became acute when the Judaizers, taking alarm at the missionary activity of Paul and Barnabas, went to Antioch and insisted on the converts there being circumcised. The question was referred to a council of the Church at Jerusalem; and Peter spoke so well on behalf of Christian liberty that it was resolved, on the motion of James, the Lord’s brother, that the work of Paul and Barnabas should be approved, and that nothing should be required of the Gentiles beyond abstinence from things sacrificed to idols, blood, things strangled, and fornication (&nbsp;Acts 15:1-29; cf. &nbsp; Galatians 2:1-10 ). By and by Peter visited Antioch, and, though adhering to the decision at the outset, he was presently intimidated by certain Judaizers, and, together with Barnabas, separated himself from the Gentiles as unclean, and would not eat with them, incurring an indignant and apparently effective rebuke from Paul (&nbsp; Galatians 2:11-21 ). </p> <p> There are copious traditions about Peter. [[Suffice]] it to mention that he is said to have gone to Rome [which is quite possible] and laboured there for 25 years [utterly impossible], and to have been crucified (cf. &nbsp;John 21:18-19 ) in the last year of Nero’s reign (a.d. 68); being at his own request nailed to the cross head downwards, since he deemed himself unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord. According to the ancient and credible testimony of [[Papias]] of Hierapolis, a hearer of St. John at Ephesus, our Second Gospel is based upon information derived from Peter. Mark had been Peter’s companion, and heard his teaching and took notes of it. From these he composed his Gospel. He wrote it, Jerome says, at the request of the brethren at Rome when he was there with Peter; and on hearing it Peter approved it and authorized its use by the Church. </p> <p> David Smith. </p>

<p> Simon Peter was one of the earliest believers in Jesus. Like his brother Andrew, he was probably a disciple of John the Baptist, till John directed them to Jesus (&nbsp;John 1:40-41; cf. &nbsp;Acts 1:15; &nbsp;Acts 1:21-22). Jesus immediately saw the man’s leadership qualities and gave him a new name, Peter (or Cephas), meaning ‘a rock’ (&nbsp;John 1:42). (The two names are from the words for ‘rock’ in Greek and Aramaic respectively.) </p> <p> This initial meeting with Jesus took place in the Jordan Valley (&nbsp;John 1:28-29; &nbsp;John 1:35). Not long after, there was another meeting, this time in Galilee, when Peter became one of the first believers to leave their normal occupations and become active followers of Jesus (&nbsp;Matthew 4:18-22). When Jesus later selected twelve men from among his followers and appointed them as his special apostles, Peter was at the head of the list (&nbsp;Matthew 10:2). </p> <p> '''Peter and Jesus''' </p> <p> The son of a man named John (or Jonah) (&nbsp;Matthew 16:17; &nbsp;John 1:42; &nbsp;John 21:15), Peter came from Bethsaida on the shore of Lake Galilee (&nbsp;John 1:44). [[Either]] he or his wife’s parents also had a house in the neighbouring lakeside town of Capernaum, which became a base for Jesus’ work in the area (&nbsp;Mark 1:21; &nbsp;Mark 1:29-30; &nbsp;Mark 2:1). Peter and Andrew worked as fishermen on the lake, in partnership with another pair of brothers, James and John (&nbsp;Matthew 4:18; &nbsp;Luke 5:10). These men all became apostles of Jesus. Although they had never studied in the Jewish religious colleges, they developed skills in teaching and debate through their association with Jesus (&nbsp;Acts 4:13). </p> <p> From the beginning Peter showed himself to be energetic, self-confident and decisive. Sometimes he spoke or acted with too much haste and had to be rebuked (&nbsp;Matthew 14:28-31; &nbsp;Matthew 16:22-23; &nbsp;Matthew 19:27-28; &nbsp;Mark 9:5-7; &nbsp;Luke 5:4-5; &nbsp;John 13:6-11; &nbsp;John 18:10-11; &nbsp;John 21:7), but he never lost heart. He went through some bitter experiences before he learnt of the weakness that lay behind his over-confidence. Jesus knew that Peter had sufficient quality of character to respond to the lessons and so become a stronger person in the end (&nbsp;Mark 14:29; &nbsp;Mark 14:66-72; &nbsp;Luke 22:31-34). </p> <p> As Jesus’ ministry progressed, Peter, James and John became recognized as a small group to whom Jesus gave special responsibilities and privileges (&nbsp;Mark 5:37; &nbsp;Mark 9:2; &nbsp;Mark 14:33). Peter was the natural leader of the twelve and was often their spokesman (&nbsp;Mark 1:36-37; &nbsp;Mark 10:27-28; &nbsp;Luke 12:41; &nbsp;John 6:67-68; &nbsp;John 13:24; &nbsp;John 21:2-3; &nbsp;Acts 1:15-16). On the occasion when Jesus questioned his disciples to see if they were convinced he was the Messiah, Jesus seems to have accepted Peter’s reply as being on behalf of the group. In responding to Peter, Jesus was telling the apostles that they would form the foundation on which he would build his unconquerable church (&nbsp;Matthew 16:13-18; cf. &nbsp;Ephesians 2:20). </p> <p> When Peter’s testing time came, however, he denied Jesus three times (&nbsp;Luke 22:61-62). Jesus therefore paid special attention to Peter in the days after the resurrection. He appeared to Peter before he appeared to the rest of the apostles (&nbsp;Luke 24:34; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:5; cf. &nbsp;Mark 16:7), and later gained from Peter a public statement of his devotion to his Lord (&nbsp;John 21:15). </p> <p> In accepting Peter’s statement and entrusting to him the care of God’s people, Jesus showed the other disciples that he had forgiven and restored Peter. At the same time he told Peter why he needed such strong devotion. As a prominent leader in the difficult days of the church’s beginning, Peter could expect to receive the full force of the opposition (&nbsp;John 21:17-19; cf. &nbsp;Luke 22:32). </p> <p> '''Peter and the early church''' </p> <p> The change in Peter was evident in the early days of the church. He took the lead when important issues had to be dealt with (&nbsp;Acts 1:15; &nbsp;Acts 5:3; &nbsp;Acts 5:9), and he was the chief preacher (&nbsp;Acts 2:14; &nbsp;Acts 3:12; &nbsp;Acts 8:20). But no longer did he fail when his devotion to Jesus was tested. He was confident in the living power of the risen Christ (&nbsp;Acts 2:33; &nbsp;Acts 3:6; &nbsp;Acts 3:16; &nbsp;Acts 4:10; &nbsp;Acts 4:29-30). Even when dragged before the Jewish authorities, he boldly denounced them and unashamedly declared his total commitment to Jesus (&nbsp;Acts 4:8-13; &nbsp;Acts 4:19-20; &nbsp;Acts 5:18-21; &nbsp;Acts 5:29-32; &nbsp;Acts 5:40-42). On one occasion the provincial governor tried to kill him, but through the prayers of the church he escaped unharmed (&nbsp;Acts 12:1-17; cf. &nbsp;1 Peter 2:21-23; &nbsp;1 Peter 4:19). </p> <p> Peter had been brought up an orthodox Jew and did not immediately break his association with traditional Jewish practices (&nbsp;Acts 3:1; &nbsp;Acts 5:12-17). Yet he saw that the church was something greater than the temple, and he readily accepted [[Samaritans]] into the church on the same bases as the Jews (&nbsp;Acts 8:14-17). He showed his increasing generosity of spirit by preaching in Samaritan villages and in the towns of [[Lydda]] and Joppa on the coastal plain (&nbsp;Acts 8:25; &nbsp;Acts 9:32; &nbsp;Acts 9:36). </p> <p> In spite of all this, a special vision from God was necessary to convince Peter that uncircumcised Gentiles were to be accepted into the church freely, without their first having to submit to the Jewish law (&nbsp;Acts 10:9-16). As a result of the vision he went to Caesarea, where a God-fearing Roman centurion, along with his household, believed the gospel and received the Holy Spirit the same as Jewish believers (&nbsp;Acts 10:17-48). More traditionally minded Jews in the Jerusalem church criticized Peter for his broad-mindedness. Peter silenced them by describing his vision and telling them of the events at Caesarea (&nbsp;Acts 11:1-18). </p> <p> Another factor in Peter’s changing attitudes towards Gentiles was the influence of Paul. The two men had met when Paul visited Jerusalem three years after his conversion (&nbsp;Galatians 1:18). They met again eleven years later, when Peter and other Jerusalem leaders expressed fellowship with Paul and Barnabas in their mission to the Gentiles (&nbsp;Galatians 2:1; &nbsp;Galatians 2:9). </p> <p> Although Peter understood his mission as being primarily to the Jews (&nbsp;Galatians 2:7), he visited the mainly Gentile church in [[Syrian]] Antioch and ate freely with the Gentile Christians. When Jewish traditionalists criticized him for ignoring Jewish food laws, he withdrew from the Gentiles. Paul rebuked him publicly and Peter readily acknowledged his error (&nbsp;Galatians 2:11-14). When church leaders later met in Jerusalem to discuss the matter of Gentiles in the church, Peter openly and forthrightly supported Paul (&nbsp;Acts 15:7-11). </p> <p> '''A wider ministry''' </p> <p> Little is recorded of Peter’s later movements. He travelled over a wide area (accompanied by his wife) and preached in many churches, including, it seems, Corinth (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 1:12; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 9:5). Early records indicate that he did much to evangelize the northern parts of Asia Minor. The churches he helped establish there were the churches to which he sent the letters known as 1 and 2 Peter (&nbsp;1 Peter 1:1; &nbsp;2 Peter 3:1). </p> <p> During this time Mark worked closely with Peter. In fact, Peter regarded Mark as his ‘son’ (&nbsp;1 Peter 5:13). There is evidence that at one stage they visited Rome and helped the church there. When Peter left for other regions, Mark remained in Rome, where he helped the Christians by recording for them the story of Jesus as they had heard it from Peter. (For the influence of Peter in Mark’s account see MARK, GOSPEL OF.) </p> <p> Later, Peter revisited Rome. Mark was again with him, and so was Silas, who acted as Peter’s secretary in writing a letter to the churches of northern Asia Minor. In this letter Peter followed the early Christian practice of referring to Rome as Babylon (&nbsp;1 Peter 1:1; &nbsp;1 Peter 5:12-13). The letter shows how incidents and teachings that Peter witnessed during Jesus’ life continued to have a strong influence on his preaching (cf. &nbsp;1 Peter 1:22 with &nbsp;John 15:12; cf. &nbsp;1 Peter 2:7 with &nbsp;Matthew 21:42; cf. &nbsp;1 Peter 2:12 with &nbsp;Matthew 5:16; cf. &nbsp;1 Peter 3:9 with &nbsp;Matthew 5:39; cf. &nbsp;1 Peter 4:15-16 with &nbsp;Mark 14:66-72; cf. &nbsp;1 Peter 4:7 with &nbsp;Luke 22:45-46; cf. &nbsp;1 Peter 4:19 with &nbsp;Luke 23:46; cf. &nbsp;1 Peter 5:1 with &nbsp;Mark 9:2-8; cf. &nbsp;1 Peter 5:2 with &nbsp;John 21:16; cf. &nbsp;1 Peter 5:5 with &nbsp;John 13:4; &nbsp;John 13:14; cf. &nbsp;1 Peter 5:7 with &nbsp;Matthew 6:25). </p> <p> At this time [[Nero]] was [[Emperor]] and his great persecution was about to break upon the Christians. Peter wrote his First Letter to prepare Christians for what lay ahead. He wrote his Second Letter to give various reminders and warn against false teaching. (For details see PETER, [[Letters]] OF.) By the time he wrote his Second Letter he was in prison, awaiting the execution that Jesus had spoken of about thirty years earlier (&nbsp;2 Peter 1:13-15; cf. &nbsp;John 21:18-19). According to tradition, Peter was crucified in Rome some time during the period AD 65-69. </p>

<p> '''Pe'ter.''' ''(A Rock Or Stone).'' The original name of this disciple was [[Simon]] , that is, ''"Hearer".'' He was the son of a man named Jonas, &nbsp;Matthew 16:17; &nbsp;John 1:42; &nbsp;John 21:16, and was brought up in his father's occupation, that of a fisherman. He and his brother, Andrew, were partners of John and James, the sons of Zebedee, who had hired servants. Peter did not live, as a mere laboring man, in a hut by the seaside, but first at Bethsaida, and afterward, in a house at Capernaum belonging to himself, or his mother-in-law, which must have been rather a large one, since he received in it not only our Lord and his fellow disciples, but multitudes who were attracted by the miracles and preaching of [[Jesus]] . </p> <p> Peter was probably between thirty and forty years of age at the date of his call. That call was preceded by a special preparation. Peter and his brother, Andrew, together with their partners, James and John, the sons,of Zebedee, were disciples of John the Baptist, when he was first called by our Lord. The particulars of this are related with graphic minuteness by St. John. It was upon this occasion that [[Jesus]] gave Peter the name [[Cephas]] , a Syriac word answering to the Greek, Peter, and signifying ''A Stone'' or [[Rock]] . &nbsp;John 1:35-42. </p> <p> This '''first call''' led to no immediate change in Peter's external position. He and his fellow disciples looked, henceforth, upon our Lord as their teacher, but were not commanded to follow him as regular disciples. They returned to Capernaum, where they pursued their usual business, waiting for a further intimation of his will. The '''second call''' is recorded by the other three evangelists; the narrative of Luke being apparently supplementary to the brief and, so to speak official accounts given by Matthew and Mark. It took place on the Sea of Galilee near Capernaum, where the four disciples Peter and Andrew, James and John were fishing. </p> <p> Some time was passed, afterward, in attendance upon our Lord's public ministrations in Galilee, Decapolis, [[Peraea]] and Judea. The special designation of Peter, and his eleven fellow disciples, took place some time afterward, when they were set apart as our Lord's immediate attendants. ''See '' &nbsp;Matthew 10:2-4''; '' &nbsp;Mark 3:13-19'','' (the most detailed account); &nbsp;Luke 6:13. They appear to have then first received formally the name of apostles, and from that time, Simon bore publicly, and as it would seem all but exclusively, the name Peter, which had hitherto been used rather as a characteristic appellation than as a proper name. </p> <p> From this time, there can be no doubt that Peter held the first place among the apostles, to whatever cause his precedence is to be attributed. He is named first in every list of the apostles; he is generally addressed by our Lord as their representative; and on the most solemn occasions, he speaks in their name. </p> <p> The distinction which he received, and it may be his consciousness of ability, energy, zeal and absolute devotion to '''Christ's''' person, seem to have developed a natural tendency to rashness and forwardness, bordering upon resumption. In his affection and self-confidence, Peter ventured to reject, as impossible, the announcement of the sufferings and humiliation which [[Jesus]] predicted, and heard the sharp words, "Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offence unto me, for thou savorest not the things that be of God but those that be of men." It is remarkable that, on other occasions when St. Peter signalized his faith and devotion, he displayed at the time, or immediately afterward, a more than usual deficiency, in spiritual discernment and consistency. </p> <p> Toward the close of our Lord's ministry, Peter's characteristics become especially prominent. At the last supper, Peter seems to have been particularly earnest, in the request, that the traitor might be pointed out. After the supper, his words drew out the meaning of the significant act of our Lord in washing his disciples' feet. Then too, it was that he made those repeated protestations of unalterable fidelity, so soon to be falsified by his miserable fall. </p> <p> On the morning of the resurrection, we have proof that Peter, though humbled, was not crushed by his fall. He and John were the first to visit the sepulchre; he was the first who entered it. We are told, by Luke and by Paul, that [[Christ]] appeared to him first among the apostles. It is observable; however, that on that occasion, he is called by his original name, Simon and not Peter; the higher designation was not restored until he had been publicly reinstituted, so to speak, by his Master. That reinstitution - an event of the very highest import - took place at the Sea of Galilee. John 21. </p> <p> The first part of the Acts of the Apostles is occupied, by the record of transactions in nearly all, Peter came forth as the recognized leader of the apostles. He is the most prominent person, in the greatest event after the resurrection, when on the '''Day of Pentecost''' , the Church was first invested with the plenitude of gifts and power. When the gospel was first preached beyond the precincts of Judea, he and John were, at once, sent by the apostles to confirm the converts at Samaria. Henceforth, he remains prominent, but not exclusively prominent, among the propagators of the gospel. </p> <p> We have two accounts of the first meeting of Peter and Paul - &nbsp;Acts 9:26; &nbsp;Galatians 1:17-18. This interview was followed, by another event marking Peter's position - a general apostolical tour of visitation to the churches, hitherto established. &nbsp;Acts 9:32. The most singlular transaction after the '''Day of Pentecost''' was the baptism of Cornelius. That was the crown and consummation of Peter's ministry. The establishment of a church in great part of Gentile origin at Antioch, and the mission of Barnabas between whose family and Peter, there were the bonds of near intimacy, set the seal upon the work thus inaugurated by Peter. </p> <p> This transaction was soon followed, by the imprisonment of our apostle. His miraculous deliverance marks the close of this second great period of his ministry. The special work assigned to him was completed. From that time, we have no continuous history of him. Peter was probably employed, for the most part, in building up, and completing the organization of Christian communities, in [[Palestine]] and the adjoining districts. There is, however strong reason to believe that he visited Corinth at an early period. </p> <p> The name of Peter as founder or joint founder is not associated with any local church, save the churches of Corinth, Antioch or Rome, by early ecclesiastical tradition. It may be considered, as a settled point, that he did not visit Rome, before the last year of his life; but there is satisfactory evidence that he and Paul were the founders of the church at Rome, and suffered death in that city. </p> <p> The time and manner of the apostle's martyrdom are less certain. According to the early writers, he suffered at or about the same time with Paul, and in the Neronian persecution, A.D. 67, 68, all agree that, he was crucified. Origen says that Peter felt himself to be unworthy to be put to death, in the same manner as his Master, and was therefore, at his own request, crucified with his head downward. </p> <p> The apostle is said to have employed interpreters. Of far more importance is the statement that Mark wrote his Gospel, under the teaching of Peter, or that he embodied in that Gospel, the substance of our apostle's oral instructions. ''See '' '''Mark; Mark, The Gospel of''' ''.'' The only written documents which Peter has left are the First Epistle - about which no doubt has ever been entertained in the Church - and the Second Epistle, which has been a subject of earnest controversy. </p>

<p> [[Peter]] (''Pç'Ter'' ), ''Stone,'' or ''Rock;'' Syriac ''Cephas;'' Greek ''Petros'' . One of the twelve apostles, one of the three favorite disciples, with John and James. His original name was "Simon" or "Simeon." He was a son of Jonas (John, so read the best manuscripts), a brother of Andrew, probably a native of Bethsaida in Galilee. He was a fisherman and lived at Capernaum with his wife and mother-in-law, whom Christ healed of a fever. See &nbsp;John 1:42; &nbsp;John 21:15; &nbsp;Matthew 16:18; &nbsp;Luke 5:3-10; &nbsp;Matthew 8:14-15; &nbsp;Mark 1:29-31; &nbsp;Luke 4:38. Peter forsook all to follow Christ. His new name "Peter" ("rock-man") was given him when he was called to the apostleship. &nbsp;John 1:42. He made a remarkable confession of the divinity of our Lord. &nbsp;Matthew 16:18. The name "Peter" or "Cephas" was a prophecy of the prominent position which he, as the confessor of Christ, would occupy in the primitive age of the church. The church was built (not on Petros, but Petra—a rock), on his confession of the foundation, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." &nbsp;Matthew 16:16; &nbsp;Matthew 16:18. The keys of the kingdom of heaven, to bind, and to loose, on earth and in heaven, were given to the church. &nbsp;Matthew 18:17-18; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 5:11; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 5:13; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 2:7; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 2:10. Peter was not infallible, for Paul "withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed." &nbsp;Galatians 2:11. He laid the foundation of the church among the Jews on the day of Pentecost, &nbsp;Acts 2:1-47, and, after a special vision and revelation, among the Gentiles also, in the conversion of Cornelius. &nbsp;Acts 10:1-48. He appears throughout in the Gospels and the first part of the Acts as the head of the twelve. He was the first to confess and the first to deny his Lord and Saviour, yet he repented bitterly, and had no rest and peace till the Lord forgave him. He had a great deal of genuine human nature, but divine grace did its full work, and overruled even his faults for his advancement in humility and meekness. The labors of Peter are recorded in the Acts, chaps. 1 to 12 and chap. 15. He was the leading apostle from the day of Pentecost to the Council of Jerusalem, in a.d. 50. After that time his labors are involved in obscurity. According to the testimony of Christian antiquity, Peter suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero, but his residence in Rome is disputed, and the year of his martyrdom is uncertain. When Paul arrived at Rome, a.d. 61, and during his imprisonment, a.d. 61-63, no mention is made of Peter. He is said to have been crucified, and thus he followed his Lord literally in the mode of his death. Comp. &nbsp;John 21:18-19. Origen adds, however, that Peter, deeming himself unworthy to suffer death in the same manner as his Master, was at his own request crucified with his head downward. </p> <p> Epistles of Peter. The genuineness of 1 Peter has never been seriously questioned. It was addressed to Christian churches in Asia Minor, and written probably at Babylon on the Euphrates. &nbsp;1 Peter 5:13. Some, however, interpret this of Some, and others of a town in Egypt called Babylon, near Old Cairo. 2 Peter was less confidently ascribed to Peter by the early church than the first epistle. There is no sufficient ground, however, for doubting its canonical authority, or that Peter was its author. &nbsp;2 Peter 1:1; &nbsp;2 Peter 1:18; &nbsp;2 Peter 3:1. Compare also &nbsp;1 Peter 3:20; &nbsp;2 Peter 2:5. In many passages it resembles the Epistle of Jude. Both epistles attest the harmony between the doctrines of Peter and Paul. "The faith expounded by Paul kindles into fervent hope in the words of Peter, and expands into sublime love in those of John." </p>