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. Rénan,[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 Cæsarea 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 à 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,
{'title': 'The Making of an Apostle by R. J. Campbell', 'source': 'Project Gutenberg', 'lang': 'en'}