McGee: Peter's Blunder on the Mount of Transfiguration

The Best of McGee ^ | 12/31/03 | Zechariah 11

[Zechariah11]

Please feel free to "jump on the thread" with extraneous comments, I'd like this to be a pleasant refuge from some of the others.

The following is an excerpt from The Best of McGee.

The honest expression from Simon Peter (amounts to saying), "We're so glad we're here!"Do you feel that way when you come to church on Sunday? If not, you shouldn't go. You shouldn't go to a place (where you are not edified). Instead, you should go where your heart and soul are blessed and refreshed.

Then Peter says something that is wrong."If Thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles: one for Thee, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." Now, you would think that would be a very excellent suggestion where John would jump up and say I second the emotion. "Let's do this! It's a wonderful thing! We'll make a tabernacle here for You, for Moses, and for Elijah!"

What a monument that would be on the Mount of Transfiguration! And I've often wondered why these ritualistic religions haven't settled on the Mount of Transfiguration and built three tabernacles up on top. It's a wonder they haven't done such a thing because Peter wanted to do it...

That seems very complimentary, but I tell you it wasn't very complimentary.And God does not appreciate it. God doesn't want this suggestion from Simon Peter at all.

"While he yet spake, behold, a white cloud overshadowed them. Behold a voice out of the cloud said, "This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. Hear, ye, Him." You just don't make tabernacles for all three of them. The Lord Jesus is unique. And -- THIS is My beloved Son. I am putting Him ABOVE Moses, I put Him ABOVE Elijah. The Lord Jesus stands out unique. Hear HIM.

[Zechariah11]

Points I liked:

(1) The comment about not attending non-edifying churches. This is a serious decision I continue to face as local churches get further and further away from the mission of teaching Scripture.
(2) The anger of God when there is a hint of equating the Lord with other notables,

[RnMomof7]

Yes, it seems the emphasis is on the Law and the prophet and the Savior being present to display the 3 roles embodied in Jesus .

It reminds me of the teaching of some that the ark of the covenant is a typology of Mary . The ark contained the Law , The bread , and the staff within and the Mercy seat where God met His people on top .
The same signs as seen on the mount .

Look to Jesus.

Peter was a man that always wanted to impress , that often meant he missed the message

[Zechariah11]

It seems to me strangely apropriate that this awful buisness of elevating others to such lofty levels is addressed to Peter.

[IGNATIUS]

Your rant/comments re Peter,the Virgin Mary and her "several children",infallible Scripture,apostolic succession,etc ---should be considered bearing in mind the NT was not written yet(much less assembled) when the Transfiguration was happening.

[Zechariah11]

t reminds me of the teaching of some that the ark of the covenant is a typology of Mary.

Since the ark is a type of Christ, I think that is a perfect example.

Along those lines, God is very protective of His types. Remember that when Moses struck the Rock -- an action foreshadowing of the death of Christ --TWO times on a single occasion, God was so angry that He denied Moses entry to Canaan.

[siunevada]

I like Peter:

We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty.

For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that unique declaration came to him from the majestic glory, "This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased."

We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain.

Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

[RnMomof7]

Along those lines, God is very protective of His types. Remember that when Moses struck the Rock -- an action foreshadowing of the death of Christ --TWO times on a single occasion, God was so angry that He denied Moses entry to Canaan.

God demands complete and exact obedience ..but I think it gives us great hope to know that we may have a temporal consequence to our sin and failure..but that God will still bring us to Him.

Think of the OT sinners that are in the Book of Faith ..and yes I think we can include NT saints like peter as well :>)

[RnMomof7]

Your rant/comments re Peter,the Virgin Mary and her "several children",infallible Scripture,apostolic succession,etc ---should be considered bearing in mind the NT was not written yet(much less assembled) when the Transfiguration was happening.

I do not understand your point??? When it was placed on paper has nothing to do with Michael's remarks

[Zechariah11]

I was baffled by this comment as well.

[Zechariah11]

We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that unique declaration came to him from the majestic glory, "This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain

Great rejoinder. That's it. Peter learned the lesson, didn't he? He'd probably have some harsh criticism for many today.

[IGNATIUS]

When it was placed on paper has nothing to do with Michael's remarks.

Imvho it is a stretch and unwarranted to use the Transfiguration event as basis for a little rant against Mary's perpetual virginity,apostolic succession,the RC church,and the Papacy(and as you know Mom, I'm no RC). More accurate to say those remarks prove only Michael's anti-Catholic bias and have absolutely nothing to do with the Holy Transfiguration of God the Son.

[Zechariah11]

Imvho it is a stretch and unwarranted to use the Transfiguration event as basis for a little rant against Mary's perpetual virginity,apostolic succession,the RC church,and the Papacy(and as you know Mom, I'm no RC). More accurate to say those remarks prove only Michael's anti-Catholic bias and have absolutely nothing to do with the Holy Transfiguration of God the Sonblue text.

Thanks! And you are right that we don't need to step on the feelings of others. On the thread "McGee: Peter, James . . .There is some great advice directed by McGee about this very point.Yet, sensitivity in matters of faith is something that is REALLY hard to master. I recently had to apologise to another poster for being too caustic. This person was someone who agreed with me 90% of the time. So I'm not going to be too critical of Michael..

On the other hand, I think that the broader point being made in the Scripture is not too far off from where Michael went. And that is that that no notable (Mary, Moses, the Chief Rabbi of Ultra-Orthodox) should be given a veneration or regard even remotely close to that of the Lord Jesus Christ.

[marbren]

What about linkage to the feast of tabernacles and Peter assuming the establishment of the Messianic kingdom.