Peter finds himself in that situation when he experiences, along with James and John, the transfiguration of Jesus. Here they are on a mountain, a likely setting for the experiencing of the divine. After all, it was Mount Sinai where Moses received the Law from God. The Temple Mount in Jerusalem was the location of the Holy of Holies, the sanctuary of Yahweh. Even Gentiles would see mountains as homes for their gods. Mount Olympus loomed large in the Greek-speaking world as the home of the pagan pantheon, and many Gentiles made use of "high places" in their worship of pagan deities. But this was no ordinary church service. Here, before the very eyes of Peter, James, and John, Jesus is transfigured so that His appearance is over-whelming. It is here, in describing Jesus' appearance, that the word for gleam, glitter, or glisten makes it's only appearance in the New Testament. Christ literally changes forms, or undergoes a metamorphosis, albeit temporarily. Perhaps the effects of Philippians 2, where it says Jesus emptied Himself, are being momentarily rolled back so that Peter, James, and John can get a glimpse of Jesus' true identity.
Whatever is happening, it's clear that it's big, and Peter feels that he must say something. Feeling as he did that some response is necessary, Peter responds in a way familiar to him. The Festival of Booths was a annual Jewish religious celebration where dwellings were made, and here, Peter suggests that dwellings be made for not only Jesus, but Isaiah and Moses as well. Peter's suggestion is offer with the best of intentions, yet it inadvertently elevates Moses and Isaiah to the same status as Jesus. I once heard it suggested that instead of offering to build three booths, Peter should have offered to build one throne. Theologically that response is more appropriate, but I think it misses one of the points of the passage. The main point is of course that Jesus is indeed God's Son. It's emphasized by God speaking from the cloud, the symbol of God's presence, saying "this is my beloved Son, listen to him." It's important that we not miss this. However, what's also important is that we learn from Peter's response. Peter responds in a clumsy and inappropriate way, because he fails to give himself time to process what he has just witnessed.
Furthermore, Peter doesn't fully understand what it is Jesus must suffer to fulfill his mission as not just Israel's, but the world's Messiah. In all fairness, it's a confusing thing to think about. Why must Jesus suffer after he has been glorified in such a visible way? In a way, the transfiguration helps to reassure the disciples, and specifically Peter, James, and John, that despite what Jesus will endure very shortly, he is indeed the Son of God. The commentator William L. Lane states that “the place of Jesus’ passion and death, together with his resurrection, was the unexpected and incomprehensible middle term between the present and the magnificent future assured by the transfiguration.” By revealing who Jesus is, even if it was just temporarily, God is bracketing the passion of Jesus with Christ's glorification. Jesus' suffering is neither the beginning or the end of his story, but rather a difficult middle, which is outshone by his transcendent glory.
Fast-forward a few decades and we find on Peter's pen a much more appropriate, and well thought-out reaction to the events of that day:
"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
- II Peter 1:16-21
Is this really the same man who offers such a hasty response to Jesus transfiguration? I think the contrast in Peter's initial response and the one he offers years later demonstrates that it takes a lifetime to comprehend the glory of Jesus Christ, and even then, we have only scratched the surface. In a world where speaking before thinking seems to be the norm, perhaps as disciples of Christ we should be non-conformists and think deeply before we speak. Perhaps instead of rushing to offer a response, we should spend more time reflecting on Christ, allowing that reflection to shape our witness to the world. We find Peter writing at a time in his life when he had come to understand that Jesus' glory and suffering relate to one another. In a very real way, Peter was participating in that suffering as Jesus' disciple, and was hoping that one day he would also share in Jesus' glory as witnessed in the resurrection. It's not just that Peter became a writer in the intervening years between the transfiguration and the writing of his epistles. In many ways, his life had undergone a transfiguration of its own. Peter's experience on the mountain had shaped him over time, so that he finally realized that no matter how much we turn to other things or people- even if they are the most respected of people, like Moses and Elijah- there will come a time when Jesus is the only thing left standing in our life.
