Simon Peter Witnesses the Transfiguration.
At the close of the conversation referred to above our Lord stated, "There be some here of them that stand by which shall in no wise taste of death till they see the kingdom of God come with power." About a week after this promise—Mark says "six days" and Luke "about eight days"—"Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John, and went with them to a high mountain apart by themselves, and was transfigured before them." Matthew (chapter xvii.) says that "His face did shine as the sun and his garments became white as the light." Luke beautifully states that "as he was praying the fashion of His countenance was altered and His raiment became white and dazzling. And behold there talked with Him two men, which were Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory, and spake of His decease which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem." The three Apostles were in some danger of missing the vision, for, as happened afterwards in the hour of His agony, they slept, or at least were "heavy with sleep." However, as Luke continues, "when they were fully awake they saw His glory, and the two men who stood with Him." The three Galileans were awed by the sight, and Peter in his perturbation broke out with an offer to build three tabernacles. Mark says, "He wist not what to answer, for they became sore afraid." Matthew writes that, "While He was yet speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him. And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid. And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one, save Jesus only." In the Second Epistle of Peter (i. 16-18), we have a further account, purporting, indeed, to be the direct statement of Peter himself, in regard to this extraordinary vision. He says, "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to Him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: and this voice we ourselves heard come out of heaven, when we were with Him in the holy mount."
As they came down from the mountain Jesus "charged them to tell no man until that He should be risen from the dead." And according to Mark, "they kept the saying, questioning among themselves what the rising again from the dead should mean." It is evident that even at this point Peter had found himself unable to realise that his Master was really to be crucified and slain.
We cannot but regret that the immediate effect of this glorious vision upon Peter and James and John seems to have been a tendency to arrogance and ambition. We have now hints about a division in the Apostolic circle between the adherents of Peter and those of James and John. Peter and the sons of Zebedee now become rivals for supremacy; they had together been witnesses of the Transfiguration—a supposed foretaste of the earthly glory of their Master which was presently to appear. Mark is our chief authority for this supposition, and we may trust that in his account we have Peter's recollection of the true sequence of scenes and incidents. After his record of Jesus's prophecy in regard to His own death he continues, "And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house He asked them, What were ye reasoning in the way? But they held their peace: for they had disputed one with another in the way, who was the greatest. And He sat down and called the twelve; and He saith unto them, If any man would be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all. And he took a little child, and set him in the midst of them: and taking him in His arms, He said unto them, Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in My name, receiveth Me; and whosoever receiveth Me receiveth not Me, but Him that sent Me." Luke in fewer words confirms this story; Matthew makes a very brief reference to it, saying nothing of the dispute.
Mark and Luke add a reference to another incident which gives us a sidelight upon the then state of mind of him who came to be the "beloved disciple." "John said unto Him, Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. But Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not, for he that is not against you is for you." (Mark ix. 38-40, Luke ix. 49-50.) Luke subjoins a further statement about the two sons of Zebedee which, in company with the one just mentioned, leads us to imply that the three most favoured Apostles were at this time in a state of mind in which arrogance, ambition and intolerance kept company. Jesus and His followers had been refused hospitality in a Samaritan village, and James and John asked to be allowed to emulate Elijah and call down fire from heaven to consume them. Their Master at once rebuked them, adding regretfully (for He must have seen very plainly how matters were going in His circle), "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them." Mark (x. 35-45) relates another incident of a similar kind in which James and John made a bid for precedence, requesting on the strength of their intimacy with Him that it might be given them to sit, the one on His right hand, and the other on His left, in His Kingdom. Jesus rightly replied, "Ye know not what ye ask." Matthew (xx. 20) says that the mother of the sons of Zebedee preferred their request, and that the ten "were moved with indignation concerning the two brethren." Jesus was very patient with them. Looking beyond their foolish desire He prophesied that they should indeed drink of His cup and be baptized with His baptism, and closed with a general exhortation to the twelve to lay aside ambition, saying, "Whosoever would be great among you shall be your minister: and whosoever would be first among you shall be servant of all. For verily the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Mark x. 43-45.)
Poor human nature! The only evident effect so far of the high privilege accorded to the three foremost apostles has been to beget rivalry and jealousy between them. The Sons of Thunder display an intolerance and self-seeking which excite the anger of the others; Peter, we may be sure, included, since Peter was the person whose primacy was threatened. Peter had not yet reached the point of willing self-abnegation—far from it, as we shall presently see. Our Lord's object-lesson by means of a little child has, as yet, no result in the character of the "Prince of the Apostles." He was not prepared to exhibit the spirit of a little child, or to conform his own disposition to the heart of a little child. He was, as yet, unable to conceive how the first could be last, or how the master of all could be servant of all. The favour shown to him by his Divine Master has hitherto served but to raise him in his own estimation. From this point we shall see that only through the experiences of humiliation and failure was Peter able to attain to the true idea of Christian service.
The point at which we have now arrived is one of the most instructive in the New Testament record of our Lord's view of true manhood. It is frequently supposed that personal ambition is an essential to the progress of society. Great thinkers, before and after Christ, have agreed in recognising that this particular passion has been an instrument in the advancement of society, and hence has served a useful purpose. Before Christ the only alternative to this view seems to have been that of the duty of quiescence, and long after Christ the same theory has been very commonly held. As examples of the former view the reader has only to call to mind the sentiment of Homer's immortal epic, or the odes of Pindar, in order to see that ambition was regarded as the motor quality of heroism. Where this selfish passion was regarded as an evil and renounced in favour of a supposedly higher theory of life, the result nearly always took the form of asceticism or withdrawal from active service in the world. No via media was thought of as possible between thorough-going ambition and the
... fugitive and cloistered virtue,
which has exhibited to the world so different an ideal. In dreamy, mystical, Oriental cults we see this latter tendency carried to its extreme. Almost invariably the renunciation of ambition as an incentive to human action has meant the disuse of many noble human powers and gifts. So much has this been the case that even in our own day, with the Christian ideal in our possession, ambition has been regarded as an indispensable ingredient in most strenuous human efforts put forth on behalf of humanity. Edmund Burke classifies sympathy, imitation and ambition together as motors in the progress of the community.[[1]] Professor Lecky, in his great work, "The History of European Morals," seems to regard it as indispensable to a vigorous national life. This great thinker, accustomed to habits of exact observation, is, no doubt, right in the assumption that this position receives abundant confirmation in the field of history; but have we so "learned Christ"?
The fact is that in giving to the world a higher ethical ideal in regard to the sanction of service Jesus must have well understood the difficulties that lay before Him. Perhaps this is why He was so patient with the selfish hopes of His followers in regard to their personal preferment. He must have known that the whole trend of history was against the new teaching. It is easy for us now to say that the intrusion of self-interest in any good work vitiates its value to a great extent; but must we not reflect that we owe this conception to Christ? Society is now saturated with the ethical teaching of the Man of Nazareth. We are confronted with the observation that in its moral tendencies Society is moving toward an ideal which was exhibited to the world nearly nineteen hundred years ago. We are not reaching forward to an indeterminate something in the region of morals, we are moving toward a standard exhibited in a life. Further, it is easy for us, reading the New Testament, to hastily judge and condemn the obtuseness and unspirituality of the little band that surrounded Jesus. The arrogance of Peter and the selfish intrigues of the sons of Zebedee move us to impatience. How much worthier and kinder the attitude of our Divine Master! He knew that a moral revolution could not be effected in an hour. His object was to train the men who should transform the world. If He could possibly influence the twelve men whom His Father had given Him so that they could know what they ought to feel and do, He could afford to be content. The gates of Hades should not prevail against the advancing Gospel.
What, then, was His ideal? It was nothing less than complete renunciation of all self-interest without any diminution of energy and effort in service for the good of the world. Jesus repudiated ambition in any form as the dynamic of human aspiration and endeavour. He required from His disciples the completest self-renunciation, combined with enthusiastic self-devotion to the duty of making the world better. To give up self was not to give up service, it was simply the substitution of a higher motive for a lower. This explains in a measure why Christianity came to replace the Stoic and Epicurean philosophies. Stoicism is exhibited at its best, perhaps, in the nobly active life of the greatest of the Antonines. Its ideal was rigid devotion to duty, that of Christ was service inspired by love. Ambition is a mode of self service, yet if we may so expand the meaning as to make it include the Christian principle we might say that in the place of ambition for the sake of self Christianity substitutes ambition for the sake of God. In each case it is love for a person that supplies the motive for the highest human endeavours. But how incomparably grander and stronger is the Christian principle than that which it replaced! All useful or desirable things that men are accustomed to do for themselves Christianity requires them to do for God. When the apostles finally came to understand this new commandment their Gospel became a resistless force, and whenever since their day the Church has succeeded in doing the same Christianity has arisen in newness of life.
[[1]] Essay on the Sublime and Beautiful. Sect. xii.