Produced by Al Haines
Small Books on Great Subjects.--XI.
THE MAKING OF AN APOSTLE.
By R. J. Campbell.
LONDON: JAMES CLARKE & CO.,
13 & 14, Fleet Street.
1898.
_First Edition, October, 1898._
Contents.
The Making of an Apostle
Simon Meets with Jesus
The Call to Service
Simon's First Commission as a Preacher
Simon Acknowledges Jesus to be the Christ
Simon Peter Witnesses the Transfiguration
Peter Thinks his Sacrifice Complete
The Scene in the Upper Room
Gethsemane and After
The Power of the Resurrection
A New Commission
The Prince of the Apostles
THE MAKING OF AN APOSTLE.
The New Testament supplies us with little in the way of biography.
Even from the Gospels themselves we do not gather much concerning the
actual life of our Lord apart from His public ministry. It has been
justly said that no person has ever influenced the history of the world
on such a scale as Jesus of Nazareth, yet it would be impossible to
write a chronological life of the Founder of Christianity. What is
true of the Master is true of His followers. We know very little about
the Apostles themselves; apart from their life-work of preaching
Christ, the details of their circumstances and fortunes are most
meagre. Yet it is worth while from such materials as we have to
attempt to trace the influence of Jesus Christ upon those through whom
He founded His Church upon earth. The choice of Apostles, for
instance, is sometimes regarded as having been made in a very
exceptional or semi-miraculous way, that Jesus summoned to His side
individuals upon whom His gaze fell for the first time, and that these
men forthwith became the instruments of His service. But from
comparison of the Gospel narratives we discover that very interesting
life-stories might be written concerning the men who stood closest to
Jesus during His earthly ministry. We find, as we might have expected,
that Jesus took in them an active personal interest, that their lives
were shaped under His influence as clay in the hands of the potter,
that He had a plan with each of them, and patiently worked at it, that
He applied to them a discriminating treatment and placed upon each his
own individual value. Is not the same process going forward even now?
Does not the risen Lord still continue to issue His summonses to the
souls of men? We feel that it were better to think so, and that He by
whom the very hairs of our head are all numbered still gives to His
servants in the world individual care, interest and attention,
fashioning heroes and saints out of the most unpromising materials, and
making apostles as in the days of old.
As an example of Jesus's ways of dealing with His servants the life of
the Apostle Peter is most suggestive. In the first place, because he
was admitted to be the leader of the Apostles, or at any rate occupied
the position of greatest prominence amongst them, and also because we
are able by the comparative method to obtain from the Gospels
sufficient information for a history of his character, if not of his
career during the three most formative years of his life.
I.
Simon Meets with Jesus.
We are fortunate in possessing an account of the first occasion on
which Simon, the Galilean fisherman, met with Jesus of Nazareth. We
are told (John i. 35-42) that immediately after the Baptism of Jesus,
and, therefore, before His public ministry began, John the Baptist made
a semi-public declaration that He was the long-expected Holy One of
Israel. His words, as recorded in the Fourth Gospel, are: "I knew Him
not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, He said unto me, Upon
whomsover thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon Him,
the same is He that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen,
and have borne witness that this is the Son of God." With the
exception of the mother of Jesus, John the Baptist appears to have been
the only person, who, at this particular time, was perfectly convinced,
without a word from Jesus Himself, that the long-expected Messiah had
appeared. His declaration just quoted must have been made in the
presence of a certain number of His disciples, though with what effect
we are not told.
In a sense the ministry of Jesus begins with the declaration of John,
and a certain importance must therefore attach to the historicity of
the account of it. If John recognised, as we are entitled to think he
did, that Jesus was the very person whose advent it had been his
mission to inaugurate, then Jesus's own work must in its initial stages
have been greatly simplified. There could be no possibility of rivalry
between the teachers, nor was there any necessity for Jesus to exactly
imitate the procedure of John, and to commence unaccredited the work of
evangelising an unresponsive people. John had prepared the minds of
his more spiritual and earnest followers for just such a revelation as
Jesus was about to give. We may say without irreverence that our Lord
appropriated the results of the preaching of John. The latter beheld
without jealousy or disquietude the departure of his best disciples to
the side of Jesus, and his own magnanimous statement in view of this
change has exalted him to a high pinnacle in the esteem of Christendom:
"He must increase, but I must decrease." His work was not necessarily
done when Jesus arrived upon the scene. The austere and noble-hearted
prophet was still able to continue doing his best to prepare the way,
to strengthen the hands of Jesus and to stir the hearts and awaken the
spiritual susceptibilities of his countrymen. What a majestic
self-devotion!
It is not surprising that attempts should have been made at intervals
to discredit the Gospel account of the close connection between John
and Jesus in doctrine and discipleship. M. Renan,[1] for instance,
regards the Messianic proclamation as unhistorical. He thinks the
story sufficiently refuted by the fact that John afterwards sent to
inquire whether Jesus really was the promised Messiah. (Matt. xi. 2
_et seq._, Luke vii. 18 _et seq._) John's inquiry in this case was
certainly very peremptory. "Art Thou the Christ, or look we for
another?" But an easy explanation is to be found in the history of the
time that lies between the Messianic proclamation after the Baptism and
the date of his own arrest and imprisonment. John's idea of
Messiahship did not exactly accord with that of Jesus. He was
surprised to find that Jesus went on quietly preaching and healing,
saying little or nothing about His own personal claims, and assuming
neither state nor retinue. This course of action puzzled the fiery
prophet who had foretold One mightier than himself, a Messiah who
should impress the imagination of the world, and render to every man
according to his deeds. Jesus's procedure disappointed, and perhaps
irritated him, hence the abrupt inquiry, which seems to contradict his
assurance at the outset of our Lord's ministry.
Supposing, therefore, that John really did proclaim Jesus as the
Messiah, we should expect the announcement to kindle a very great
interest in those who understood the Baptist best. From the first
chapter of the fourth Gospel we may infer that John had a school of
disciples to whom he gave esoteric teaching. These few intimates were,
no doubt, eagerly anticipating the near advent of Him who should
restore the kingdom to Israel. We do not know how many were included
in this group of enthusiasts, but it is more than probable that all, or
nearly all, of the names which formed the nucleus of Jesus's first band
of disciples were originally regarded as the followers of John the
Baptist. These were precisely the kind of men to whom Jesus would be
drawn and upon whom He could rely for the sort of exalted
disinterestedness which, in some degree at least, He required from them
at the very outset of their acquaintance with Himself.
But to return to the narrative of that introduction: "On the following
day," the writer of the Fourth Gospel goes on to say: "John was
standing, and two of his disciples; and he looked upon Jesus as He
walked, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God! And the two disciples
heard him speak, and they followed Jesus." Doubtless they were
influenced to do so because of the announcement of the day before. The
disciples of John were all well aware of the fact that John was the
herald of a greater to come. John's statement in regard to Jesus,
therefore, which statement he now repeated to themselves alone,
stimulated their eager interest, and leaving their master, they
followed the Nazarene. The opportunity was an easy one; there was no
crowd, John was simply talking to his two followers; Jesus was alone.
The sequence of events was very simple; Jesus turned, saw them
following, and asked what they sought. Their reply was the counter
question, "Rabbi, where abidest Thou?" "Come," said He, "and ye shall
see." "They came, therefore," continues the story, "and saw where He
abode, and they stayed with Him that day; it was about the tenth hour."
Here we have a complete little narrative, full of beautiful and natural
suggestion. These two men evidently had a long conversation with
Jesus, perhaps far into the night, nor did they leave Him the next day,
save for a purpose to which we must presently refer. A sacred intimacy
was begun in those hours of association with the new teacher.
"One of the two that heard Jesus speak and followed Him was Andrew,
Simon Peter's brother." Who was the other? Could it be the writer of
the Fourth Gospel himself, John the Divine? If so we have here the
record of the beginning of a holy friendship, which so long as the
Church of God lasts will be spoken of. John enjoyed the singular
privilege of being "the disciple whom Jesus loved," though he was not
the one chosen to lead the little band of adherents whom Jesus left
behind Him. To observe this first mention of John the Divine is not a
digression, for the life of the Apostle John is linked in a very
special way with that of the rugged fisherman whom Jesus called to the
foremost place.
Why Andrew and his brother Simon were to be found in this particular
neighbourhood just now we do not know. Probably they were in Jerusalem
for a special purpose, and before returning to Galilee went to listen
to John the Baptist, among whose disciples they counted themselves to
be. Andrew was certainly such, though possibly his brother was not.
At any rate, Andrew's first thought before returning home was to bring
Simon to Jesus. The narrative continues: "He findeth first his own
brother Simon, and saith unto Him, We have found the Messiah. He
brought him unto Jesus." And as in the case of Nathaniel, recorded in
the same chapter, Jesus seems to have anticipated an introduction. The
Gospel says, "He looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon, the son of
John, thou shalt be called _Rock_." No doubt Andrew had told Jesus the
name of his brother, and also that he was going to fetch him; possibly,
likewise, he had referred to his impulsive, wayward character, his
instability and irresolution. All the more surprising, therefore, must
have been the reception which Jesus gave to the newcomer: "Thou art
Simon (whom I have been expecting). Thou shalt be called _a rock_."
Jesus looked very far ahead when He welcomed poor, impetuous Simon with
such a prophecy. A _rock_ was the very last thing in the world which
in character he would ever be likely to resemble. The new Teacher
evidently saw possibilities in him which every one, including himself,
had ignored before.
This, then, is Simon's first meeting with Jesus, the commencement of a
training which was to yield him a destiny that the great ones of the
earth might well envy. To him it was given to see a day which many
prophets and righteous men had desired to see and had not seen. In
this apparently commonplace man who lived, possibly, a coarse and
sinful life, Jesus had discovered, though he did not say so, save in a
general prophecy, the prince of the Apostles, the leader of the Church
that was to be.
[1] "Life of Jesus," p. 156.
II.
The Call to Service.
We may assume that Peter's acquaintance with our Lord continued for
some time ere he was called to actual service. The Synoptists all
refer to this call, but with certain differences in detail. Matthew's
first mention of Simon (iv. 18) occurs in connection with his account
of the commencement of the preaching ministry of Jesus. He tells us
that after the temptation our Lord went to live in Capernaum. We know
little or nothing of His movements save that He began to preach, and
that the substance of His exhortation was, "Repent, for the Kingdom of
Heaven is at hand!" A great deal, however, is suggested here.
Capernaum was Simon's home, and by piecing the narrative in John i.
with that in Matthew iv. we are justified in thinking that after making
acquaintance with Andrew and Simon in Bethabara beyond Jordan, Jesus
went with them to Galilee and continued His association with them on
terms of intimacy, _vide_ John i. 43, John ii. _et seq._ John ii. 12.
Jesus's sojourn in Capernaum was not intended to be permanent, as we
see in John ii. 12. It is quite possible it was only undertaken for
the sake of drawing closer the relations between Himself and the two
brothers whose acquaintance He had made through the medium of the
Baptist. In Matt. iv. 18 we are informed that "walking by the sea of
Galilee He saw two brethren, Simon and Andrew his brother, casting a
net into the sea, for they were fishers. And He saith unto them, Come
ye after Me, and I will make you fishers of men. And they straightway
left the nets and followed Him."
But for the considerations presented above we might imagine that this
was the first time Jesus had ever seen Peter. Mark and Luke are more
explicit, Luke especially. In Mark i. 16, that is very early in this
particular Gospel, we read that after John was delivered up Jesus came
into Galilee. "And passing along by the Sea of Galilee, He saw Simon
and Andrew the brother of Simon, casting a net into the sea, for they
were fishers. And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after Me, and I will
make you _to become_ fishers of men." When we remember that Mark's
Gospel is really Peter's own Gospel, written in all probability under
his guidance, we are prepared for the early introduction of the call of
the first Apostle. A previous acquaintance is clearly presumed here.
Mark states with his usual simple directness and vividness, "He saw
Simon." The presumption is that Simon was already well known to Jesus,
and the fact that the two brothers left their nets and followed Him is
not so wonderful if we consider that their friendship with Jesus was
already well established, and their belief in His authority confirmed
by their increasing knowledge of Himself.
It is to Luke, however, that we must turn for a circumstantial account
of the crisis so briefly referred to by Matthew and Mark. Under the
guidance of Luke our conjectures as to the intercourse between Jesus
and Simon become certainty. In Luke iv. 38 we are told that after
preaching in the synagogue of Capernaum He entered into the house of
Simon. He healed Simon's wife's mother, who was suffering from fever.
This appears to have been one miracle among many of a similar kind that
day; possibly the news of it went forth, "And," Luke continues, "when
the sun was setting all they that had any sick with divers diseases
brought them unto Him." Evidently Jesus is here a familiar guest in
the house of Simon and makes it His head-quarters.
In the next chapter (Luke v. 1-11) we have Luke's account of the call
to service and the circumstances which led up to it. Jesus, as an
honoured guest, seems to have made use, not only of Simon's home, but
of his fishing-boat. This fishing-boat on occasions supplied him with
a pulpit from which He was able to address the crowds that lined the
seashore. On one such occasion, when He had finished speaking, He
asked His host to put out into the deep. Simon did so, no doubt
thinking that the new Teacher required to escape and rest after His
long exertions. But Jesus had another motive than this. Simon had
been obliged to wait His pleasure while He was preaching; he had been
out the whole of the previous night plying his calling, and was,
doubtless, weary and exhausted. Jesus knew all this and intended to
help him. By His direction Simon let down his net for a draught,
explaining, however, while he did so, that he expected no result in the
day-time since he had taken nothing through the hours of darkness. He
lowered the nets simply to please Jesus, to whom he had become, by this
time, much attached. The result was the miraculous draught of fishes.
The effect upon Simon of this beneficent exhibition of the super-human
power of Jesus was overwhelming. His impulsive character showed itself
at once. He threw himself down at the feet of his Master with the
ill-considered but earnest petition born of the feeling of the moment,
"Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!"
What was the reason of this strange outburst? The miraculous draught
of fishes was not of itself sufficient to account for it; it was the
occasion but not the cause of Peter's action. A better way of
explaining it would be to try to form a sympathetic estimate of the
working of this rude fisherman's mind under the influence of his short
acquaintance with Jesus of Nazareth. Like others of his class, Simon
had very likely been, until the day when Andrew introduced him to
Jesus, ill-disciplined and coarse. He may have thought very little
about high and holy things, and yet, as often happens in a rude but
generous nature, he felt an instinctive respect for goodness whenever
he saw it embodied in another. He was attracted to Jesus by Andrew's
assertion that He was the Messiah. In the increasing intimacy of
subsequent intercourse he must have come to feel that Jesus was the
best man he had ever met. Jesus came as a benediction to Simon's home.
His very presence must have stirred the better feelings latent in the
boisterous fisherman's heart. Simon came to love Jesus, and listened
no doubt with a simple, awe-struck interest to the words He was
accustomed to address to the crowds from the vantage-ground of Simon's
boat. Jesus discovered him to himself: he saw how poor and mean and
unsatisfactory his own life and ideals were when compared with the
character of this august stranger.
To these considerations Jesus added another. Out of pure
thoughtfulness and kindness for Simon He had asked him to put out to
sea and let down his nets, and poor Simon, totally unprepared for the
result, now saw that in his friend and guest were combined at once
marvellous goodness and marvellous power. Simon's first feeling was
that he wanted to get away from Him, that he was totally unfit to be in
the presence of such a Being, and, like the centurion afterwards, was
not worthy that He should come under his roof. The cry, "Depart from
me!" meant, doubtless, "Leave my home. Do not stay with me any more.
I am unfit for such a privilege, unworthy of such companionship.
Select another and a better associate, for I am a sinful man!"
We are beholden to Luke for this circumstantial account of an important
event in the life of an interesting man. Some persons think that Luke
has mixed up this story with the similar one recorded in John xxi.
There is no need to think so, the scene ends very naturally. Matthew
and Mark omit to say how it was that Jesus came to extend the call to
Simon and Andrew, James and John. According to their brief statement
Jesus saw them casting a net into the sea; according to Luke it was He
who told them to cast that net. Simon's confession and request
supplied Him with a further opportunity: "Fear not, He said, from
henceforth thou shalt catch men. And when they had brought their boats
to land they left all and followed Him."
We see from this beautiful sequence of dealings that Jesus bestowed
much tender thought and care upon the training of the men who were to
serve Him in the work of evangelising the world. His prophecy in
respect to Simon at their first meeting He set Himself to fulfil.
Peter was not then ready to be called, nor did Jesus call him; without
explaining His meaning He uttered a prophecy in regard to Simon's
future character which no one but Himself could understand. He
welcomed Simon's avowal of unworthiness as the first condition toward
the attainment of that character. Simon was fit to be used just in
proportion as he realised his own unfitness. "I am a sinful man," was
the utterance which made it possible for him to arise and become a
saviour.
III.
Simon's First Commission as a Preacher.
Before long it became necessary for our Lord to make a selection from
amongst the number of His disciples of those who were to represent Him
and be clothed with His authority, after His visible presence was
withdrawn from the infant Church. In Matthew x., Mark iii., and Luke
vi., we have the Gospel accounts of the appointment of Apostles. The
choice was very solemnly entered upon, the Master "continued all night
in prayer to God, and when it was day He called His disciples: and He
chose from them twelve, whom also He named Apostles." In this little
band Simon was permitted a special prominence. In the lists severally
given by the Synoptists, Simon's name is always at the head. Matthew
especially opens with the distinctive words, "But first, Simon who is
called Peter." Simon's precedence was evidently the wish of Jesus
Himself. The twelve, moreover, accepted it without demur; Simon is
almost invariably their spokesman. If ever Jesus had occasion to ask a
question of all Simon usually made reply in the name of the others.
The only case in which his leadership was disputed was during the
rivalry with the sons of Zebedee. To this, however, we must make
reference presently.
The newly-appointed apostles were now sent forth on a preaching
mission; their business was to herald the advent of Jesus Himself in
the districts into which He was about to come. Their theme was to be,
"The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Certain miraculous powers were
bestowed upon them; they were to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers,
raise the dead, cast out demons. They were to travel without gold or
silver; they were not to take two coats or shoes or a staff, but were
to trust to the hospitality of those to whom they preached. They were
to regard themselves as sheep sent forth in the midst of wolves; they
were to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. They were to expect
persecution; and here their Master foreshadowed what was to take place
long afterwards, namely, that they were to expect to be brought before
governors and kings for His sake and for a testimony to the heathen
world. They were not to be over-anxious as to the form of their
message; "for," said Jesus, "it is not ye that speak, but the spirit of
your Father that speaketh in you." They were not to fear opposition,
they were bidden to have a high courage and a simple faith. They were
to yield themselves in the most thorough obedience and submission to
the Leader in whose service they were now enrolled. Jesus expected to
be the supreme interest in their lives. He asked for a devotion which
should shrink from no sacrifice, reaching the climax of His exhortation
in the statement that "He that doth not take his cross and follow after
Me is not worthy of Me. He that findeth his life shall lose it, and he
that loseth his life for My sake shall find it."
This preaching journey was Simon's first trial in the work of the
ministry. Jesus had not only called him, He had given him work to do.
It was but a simple duty, yet the faithful discharge of this
preliminary obligation was by-and-by to lead to greater things. There
is no doubt that it was Jesus's intention to test in this way the men
whom He had summoned to His side. This preaching tour was the humble
beginning of the heroic days of the early Church.
IV.
Simon Acknowledges Jesus to be the Christ.
So far our Lord seems to have said little or nothing to His disciples
in regard to His own personality. He must have had certain reasons for
this course, the principal one being, no doubt, that He shrank from
arousing mistaken expectations in the minds of His followers. They
looked for a hero Messiah, a great liberator, a secular prince. Jesus
knew from experience how extremely difficult it is to change any man's
point of view, or to dislodge a prepossession from his mind, hence He
preferred to allow His character to produce its own impression, and
from this new standing ground to raise men's ideas of the functions of
Messiah. His ministry would have been seriously maimed by any
premature insistence upon His supernatural claims, indeed, the danger
was on certain occasions only narrowly averted. At one time the people
would have taken Him by force to make Him a king, at another time they
welcomed Him to Jerusalem with hosannas. He was often addressed as the
Son of David, a description applicable only to the Christ, as the ready
reply of the Pharisees to His own question on a critical occasion
clearly shows. "What think ye of Christ? Whose son is He?" They
answered without hesitation, "The Son of David." Jesus had no wish to
conceal His pretensions, but on the other hand He was careful not to
arouse misconception as to His real character by declaring them. This
reticence puzzled the religious leaders a good deal, as is evident from
their somewhat peremptory demand, "How long dost Thou make us to doubt?
If Thou art the Christ, tell us plainly."
With the disciples themselves Jesus pursued the same course, for they
were liable to the same danger, the danger of misapprehending the real
nature of Messiahship. How long He refrained from speaking plainly on
the subject we cannot determine; but some time after the return of the
Apostles from the preaching mission He thought the time had come to
elicit from them a theory of His Person. One day, on His way through
the villages of Caesarea Philippi, He suddenly put to His followers the
question, "Who do men say that I am?" and they answered, "Some say John
the Baptist, some Elijah, and others one of the prophets." Jesus
continued His interrogation by the further inquiry: "But whom say _ye_
that I am?" Matthew, Mark and Luke[1] are all agreed that Peter
furnished the desired response, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God." Matthew's account is the most circumstantial and conveys
most distinctly the impression that Jesus was pleased with the answer.
His words of commendation to Simon on this occasion are a remarkable
extension of the prophecy contained in His first greeting to him as set
forth in John i. 42. Matthew's version is "Blessed art thou Simon
Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My
Father which is in heaven. And I also say unto thee that thou art
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of
Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven."
From this point Simon the fisherman becomes merged in Peter the
Apostle. His training had now reached a point when his spiritual
perceptions were sharpened and his faith in Jesus had led to the
ejaculation which is the fundamental article of the creed of
Christendom. Jesus's reference to Simon on this occasion has advanced
somewhat in fulness since the day of their first meeting. Then He had
stated, "Thou _shall be called_ a rock," now He avers, "Blessed art
thou. Thou hast been taught of God; thou _art_ a rock, and on this
rock will I build My Church." Here was a high distinction for the
first apostle; a trust was committed to him, the guardianship of the
newly-formed Church, and how much was involved in that he himself at
this particular moment could not by any means foresee. Much discipline
is yet needed ere he becomes fit to undertake the grand responsibility.
Probably he does not shrink from the task, for he knows not its
magnitude, neither is he modest in regard to his own qualifications for
it, as will presently appear. He is to be taught by failure and
humiliation that to follow Jesus is a way of the cross, that power for
the duty is resident, not in Peter the Apostle but in Christ who gave
the commission and in the Father who revealed to him the truth about
the Son of God.
The period upon the consideration of which we have now entered was a
time of spiritual ups and downs for the Apostle Peter. He seems to
have been too easily elated, though as easily abased. He now began to
feel his importance, and was doubtless somewhat exalted in spirit by
our Lord's emphatic commendation of him in the presence of the Twelve.
He had declared Jesus to be the Christ, but a Christ who learned
obedience through sufferings was as yet unthinkable to him. This crude
perception is the explanation of the mistake into which he immediately
fell. No sooner had Jesus elicited the declaration that He Himself was
the Christ than, after charging the disciples to say nothing to any man
in regard to it, He began to teach them the true nature of Messiahship.
In their several accounts of what follows the Synoptists differ a
little. Matthew (xvii. 21) implies that some time may have elapsed ere
Jesus began to systematically instruct His disciples concerning His
vocation and death. Luke (ix. 22) states that He continued at once in
the same interview to prepare them for His coming humiliation, shame,
and death. Luke--who, as Dr. Bruce remarks always spares the
Twelve--says nothing about any further interference of Peter in the
conversation.
It is to Mark that we must turn this time for the clearest account of
what took place. Peter, at any rate, never spares himself in his
narrations. In chapter viii. 31, Mark tells us that after Peter's
avowal, "Thou art the Christ," Jesus began to teach them that "The Son
of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the
chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise
again." It is noteworthy that in this Gospel Peter says not a word
about the extraordinary blessing and promise bestowed upon himself in
consequence of his acknowledgment of the Messiahship of Jesus. He
does, however, faithfully and humbly tell us of the severe rebuff he
received for his presumption. He was very sorry to hear Jesus predict
His own sufferings and death. Such a fate did not at all accord with
Peter's idea of the destiny of the Christ. He could not understand it,
and we may suppose he loved Jesus too much to be willing that He should
suffer anything at all, either of humiliation, rejection or failure.
He was not prepared, either, to believe that his own new primacy over
the Apostles was to result in nothing better than tragedy and defeat.
He clung, as we shall observe, for a long time to the notion of worldly
honour and advancement. Such rewards he conceived to be in the natural
order of things; they were the result of his preconception of the
functions of the Christ of God.
Perhaps, too, Peter felt somewhat elated and self-important on account
of the words which Jesus had just applied to him, and pluming himself
upon his exceptional privilege he undertook the duty of reproving his
Master. For, Mark tells us, "Peter took Him and began to rebuke Him."
A severe reprimand followed. "Jesus turned about, and, seeing His
disciples, rebuked Peter, and saith, Get thee behind Me, Satan, for
thou mindest not the things of God but the things of men." Matthew
adds that Jesus also said, "Thou art a stumbling-block unto Me." Luke
kindly omits all reference to the painful moment. Thus, in the course
of a few moments, Peter achieved a great spiritual success and was
guilty of an unspiritual blunder--he was exalted and humiliated,
commended and reproved. In after days he remembered with peculiar
distinctness his lack of the true spirit at this hour, and by Mark's
agency, therefore, faithfully reproduced for the Church of Christ the
record of his well-deserved abasement. All three Synoptists conclude
their account of this scene by repeating the great saying of Jesus: "If
any man would come after Me let him deny himself and take up his cross
and follow Me. For whosoever would save his life shall lose it, and
whosoever shall lose his life for My sake and the Gospel's shall save
it. For what doth it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit
his life? For what should a man give in exchange for his life?" Most
of us find this lesson as difficult to learn as apparently Peter did.
The singular eminence of the religion of Jesus depends upon a right
apprehension of the principle just illustrated. The Christian life is
and must be a _Via Crucis_, yet at the same time is the way that
leadeth unto life. The principle of dying to live as enunciated by
Christ differs from that of even the greatest of His predecessors in
the recognition that true gladness is conditioned by self-crucifixion.
Human nature has been slow to learn the lesson. The great renunciation
of Gautama Buddha, for example, consisted in the repression of
individuality and the destruction of the natural desires. The effect
of his system was negative; the higher life was to be one of
self-suppression, a very different thing, surely, from
self-crucifixion. Gautama placed the ideal in ceasing to live; Christ,
on the other hand, taught His followers to live more deeply, truly and
grandly than before. To follow Jesus, now as always, means to feel
more and not less, to add to the sum of our interests, and not to take
from them, to raise the standard of our hopes, not to depress it. Like
Gautama, He calls for a renunciation, but that renunciation is the
gateway into larger life. The solemn gladness of Christian experience
finds its parallel in no other teaching that the world has ever
received. How can we be surprised that ascetics and hedonists within
the bosom of the Christian Church itself have so frequently and
lamentably mistaken the spirit of their Master's teaching? The ideal
of Thomas a Kempis, in spite of its beauty, is no more that of Jesus
than was the ideal of Gautama. How slowly men come to learn that peace
and tribulation, joy and suffering, gladness and the Cross, are not
incompatible, but the very conditions of each other!
Before we visit Peter with our censures because of his unmistakable
reluctance to accept Christ's vision of the cross let us give heed to
ourselves. The same mistakes may take very different form. With many
of us the ideal of human felicity which we call Christian is
essentially Pagan. Our very thanksgivings show it. We are grateful to
God for troubles averted, happiness preserved, fortune assured; we
tacitly assume that the opposite of these things would have been an
evil. We praise the goodness of God in shielding us from the untoward
and calamitous, and though it may seem hardly worth while to say it,
some naturally amiable characters with a bias toward holy things have
lost their faith and lost their sweetness at one and the same time with
the arrival of sorrow. Far be it from me to insist that men should
cease to thank God for the sweetness and the joy of life, but if we lay
the stress here and refuse to take the cross when it is presented to us
we have shut ourselves off from the attainment of that highest good,
which is to know the fellowship of the sufferings of Christ. "Strait
is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there
be that find it." If the clear truth of the necessary connection
between the assumption of the cross and the attainment of true
blessedness were to be grasped by those who seek to follow Christ,
there would be fewer of the sad failures so frequently apparent amongst
those who are disappointed with the result of their faith in God.
I do believe, what you call trust
Was self-delusion at the best: for, see!
So long as God would kindly pioneer
A path for you, and screen you from the world,
Procure you full exemption from man's lot,
Man's common hopes and fears, on the mere pretext
Of your engagement in His service--yield you
A limitless licence, make you God, in fact,
And turn your slave--you were content to say
Most courtly praises! What is it, at last,
But selfishness without example? None
Could trace God's will so plain as you, while yours
Remained implied in it; but now you fail,
And we, who prate about that Will, are fools!
In short, God's service is established here
As He determines fit, and not your way,
And this you cannot brook.[2]
Peter's remonstrance here is but an example of a very common human
feeling in regard to the things of Christ. It exhibited a certain
immaturity of character and crudeness of perception such as, in spite
of his genuine affection for his Master, disqualified him at this stage
from understanding Him.
[1] Matt. xvi. 16, Mark viii. 29, Luke ix. 20.
[2] Browning, "Paracelsus."
V.
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.