144
T H E K I N G ' S B U S I N E S S
April, 1938
G lo ry Tod ay for Conquest T om o rrow
By ROBERT G. LEE* Memphis, Tennessee
I
md*
tabernacles on the mountain which he later called “the holy mount” (2 Pet. 1:18). Foolish was Peter yonder in the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, when, as Jesus began to describe His future sufferings, Peter “took him, and began to rebuke him” (Matt. 16:21, 22). Jesus showed how foolish Peter was when He said: “ Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me.” Foolish was Peter when Christ’s enemies, a great multitude, came “ with lanterns and torches and weapons” to arrest Jesus (John 18:3, 10, 11). And please let me ask you never to think that Peter meant to cut the poor man’s ear off. Do not ever accuse him of meaning to do that. He just meant to split his head wide open. And the only reason he did not was that his aim was bad. Foolish was Peter the night of the betrayal when he denied Jesus and “ began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak” (Mk. 14:71). Foolish was Peter, too, when, concerning John, he asked of Jesus, “Lord, and what shall this man do?” (John 21:21). But Peter never spoke more foolishly, in my judgment, than he did amidst the glory of the transfiguration hour when he sug gested the building of three tabernacles— one for Christ, one for Moses, and one for Elijah. Furnishing us an example of a piety that has not “ been burdened in his death,” not yet has “ risen with Christ,” he spoke “not knowing what he said.” Peter’s talk was trivial twitter and twaddle. Not because what he said was impractical. Not because he desired to stay in that elect heavenly company. Though I do not walk with the presumptuous. step of a know-it- all, I do not believe Peter was thinking so much about how much better it was to be there on the mount than to descend into the plain and to wrestle with sin, unbelief, and disease. Selfishness, I believe, was not the sin of Peter and his thoughtless suggestion on the mountain. But I believe it was this: In the panic of his soul, he laid hold mentally on Moses and Elijah, those two great men vouchsafed from the unseen, as means of estimating Christ, “ instead of clinging to Jesus as the one personal Fact which then and there flooded the whole past with such a radiance that all its steps must seem a .divine path.” He was foolishly guilty of putting Jesus on a level with the greatest of men— finding no infinite difference when the leader and lawgiver of Israel and God’s prophet of fire were compared with Jesus, the Saviour of men. And Peter was guilty of what many who dwell on some Hermon- height of culture -are guilty of today—pos sessing a soul whose spiritual life knows no difference between the touch of the in finite Christ and the influence of the mighty
spirits who cleared the way for Him. Peter was guilty of the terrible foolishness and sin' of Pharaoh of Egypt, who said to Moses, “ Sacrifice . . . in the land,” when God was saying, “ Go three days’ journey into the wilderness.” Just as Pharaoh was guilty of putting the religion of Jehovah on a par with the religion of Egypt— put ting God on a level with the gods o f Egypt land— so Peter was guilty of the terrible sin and foolishness of putting Jesus on a level with the greatest of men. Peter was putting Jesus on a level with the prophets — and no man can do that with impunity. No man can speak a word that puts Jesus on a level with the greatest that ever lived among men without speaking in sin. No man can preach a sermon that puts Jesus on a level with earth’s greatest without preach ing a sermon that approaches blasphemy. No man can write a line that puts Jesus on a level with the greatest figures of history without writing sinful words. No man can publish a book that puts Jesus in the same scales of earth’s noblest characters without having in that book that which is foul to the holy nostrils of God. Jesus is forever the Great Unlike. When we mention Jesus, there is no one to stand beside Him. He stands alone, august, unique, supreme. His name is above every name, and with him no mortal can compare among the sons of man. Charles Lamb was right who said: “ If all the illus trious men were gathered together and Shakespeare should enter their shining com pany, they would all rise to do him honor. But, if Jesus Christ should come, we would all kneel to worship Him.” And Napoleon was right when he confessed: “ I know men, and I tell you Jesus is not a man. Compari son is impossible between Him and any other being in the world. He is truly a being by Himself.” It is only as the Son of God that Christ in His wonderful life and character and person can be comprehended in the least. That is the reason that Paul, by the Holy Ghost, wrote: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with G od: But made himself of no reputa tion, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and be came obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth: And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:6-11).
P a r t I I . \ln the March issue of T he K ing ’ s B usi ness , there was pub lished. the first sec tion of Dr. Lee’s dis cussion of the trans figuration account as recorded by Matt hew, Mark, and Luke. Part 1 dealt with the high privilege of the three disciples who were invited to wit-
Dr. Lee
ness the transfiguration; the meaning of the^ transfiguration as a revelation of the deity and sinless humanity of Jesus; the significance of the presence of Moses and Elijah as representing the law and the prophets, and the subject of the conversa tion on the mount—the coming death, resur rection, and ascension of Christ. This sec ond and concluding portion carries forward the story and its application to men’s lives today .—E ditor .] I F PEOPLE can go to mountain lands and cross mountain heights and come back without bringing the mountains with them, they have gone there and have been there in vain. But when people can bring the mountain with its cooling snows and spiritual experiences back with them, the mountain will be the root and source of sustenance during the whole period of suffering and of divers ministries. On a “ high mountain apart,” the mount of the transfiguration, our Lord gave to Peter, James, and John a vision of glory that was to illumine all their later testi mony concerning Him. Having covered the themes of “ The Taking,” “The Transfigu ration,” and “ The Talking,” let us turn to a consideration of a further phase— the pro posed tabernacles and their significance. IV. The Tabernacles “ Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three taber nacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias” (Matt. 17:4). Luke tells us that Peter said this “not knowing what he said” (Lk. 9:33). Peter knew the words he was speaking, but he did not know the significance thereof. Now Peter had said and had done some foolish things in his life. But never said he, never did he a more foolish thing, than when he suggested the building of three
* Pastor, Bellevue Baptist Church.
Made with FlippingBook Annual report