Introduction
There are seven great events
in the life of the Lord Jesus Christ recorded in the Gospels: His
birth, His baptism, His temptations, His transfiguration, His death,
His resurrection and His ascension.
The transfiguration is the middle one of
the seven. It is recorded in Peter’s second epistle and in all three
synoptic gospels, but not in John. Like all the great sevens of the
Bible, these seven events split into four and three: the first four
relate to earth and time; the latter three have far wider
connotations. But what was the transfiguration and why is it
recorded in Scripture? To answer these questions, we must first
consider a couple of background truths from the Bible.
The Background
The first background truth is
that the future presented in the OT prophecies for the nation of
Israel was limited to the kingdom
on earth in time.
There is little thought of eternity presented in the OT. The whole
future for the Jew and his nation was the kingdom under Messiah on
earth. This kingdom was proclaimed as being imminent by John the
Baptist, the Lord Himself and the twelve disciples (see Matt. 3: 1,
2; 4: 17; 10: 5–7) but its implementation was dependent on the
repentance of the nation as a whole. Throughout Matthew, Mark and
Luke the dominant subject is the kingdom on earth. But that kingdom
and its King were rejected, and the history of that rejection is
therefore traced out by all three synoptic evangelists. To confirm
the faith of the believing remnant of the nation, the answer to that
rejection is the certainty of the coming glory of the Christ (or
Messiah) and His kingdom—and
this was given in the transfiguration. That kingdom was
still on offer on the day of Pentecost and shortly after (see Acts
3: 19, 20). However, when John penned his Gospel decades later, all
hope of the imminent establishment of the kingdom in power on earth
had gone. John, accordingly, begins his Gospel with the rejection of
Christ (see John 1: 11) and so the public testimony to the kingdom
and the teachings associated with it are not reported. In keeping
with this, there is no account of the transfiguration in the fourth
Gospel.
The second truth we must
consider is the principle of suffering and glory, especially as
applied to Christ. Scripture often speaks of His glories apart from
His sufferings. For example, the glory without the sufferings is
seen in Hab. 2: 14, Zech. 6: 12, 13, John 1: 14; 2: 11 and in 2 Cor.
8: 19, 23. In keeping with what has just been said, while you get
the Lord’s glories in John, His sufferings are absent.
However, you never get the
sufferings without the glory. In Ps. 22: 1–21 in the OT we
have the sufferings of the Lord, but the glories follow in vs 22–31.
Again in Is. 53: 1–10 we have the sufferings, but the glories follow
in v 11. In the NT we get confirmation of this: “Ought not the
Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into his glory?”
(Luke 24: 26) and “testifying before of the sufferings which
[belonged to] Christ, and the glories after these” (1 Pet. 1: 11).
See also such Scriptures as Rom. 8: 18; Heb. 2: 9, 10; 1 Pet. 4: 13;
5: 1. The principle is also seen in the fact that the Lord’s first
coming was marked by suffering just as His second coming will be
marked by glory.
Now the first mention by
Christ of His sufferings in each of the synoptic records (see Matt.
16: 21; Mark 8: 31; Luke 9: 22) precedes the accounts of His
transfiguration in Matt. 17: 1–9; Mark 9: 2–10 and Luke 9: 28–36.
Thus, the transfiguration is the answering preview of His glory to
His sufferings. It had to be given because once the sufferings are
spoken of, the answering glories must follow. But His suffering
death was not understood by the disciples and this prompted Peter’s
outburst of Matthew 16: 22, 23 and Mark 8: 32, 33. Hence the Lord
explains to them the principle of suffering before glory in Matt.
16: 24–27, Mark 8: 34–38, and Luke 9: 23–26. We then have the Lord’s
promise in all three Synoptics, but given most emphatically in Mark:
“Verily I say unto you, There are some of those standing here that
shall not taste death until they shall have seen the kingdom of God
come in power” (Mark
9: 1, my emphasis)—where the word
come means ‘having come’
and not ‘coming’. That is, in the transfiguration, the kingdom is
viewed as
already come in
power. It was thus the foretaste for the believing remnant in Israel
of the coming glory of Christ and the kingdom and was given to help
the disciples accept the sufferings of the present in view of the
glories that will follow. Let us now look at some of the details of
the transfiguration.
The Accounts of Matthew
and Mark
A cursory reading of the
three Gospel accounts tell us that Luke in his record is somewhat
different to Matthew and Mark, which, although not identical, are
similar to one another. Hence, we will look at the accounts of
Matthew and Mark first, then Luke and finally Peter in his epistle.
Now the three disciples chosen by the Lord to witness the
transfiguration were Peter, James and John (see Matt. 17: 1; Mark 9:
2). We should remind ourselves that they were Jews, for the scene
they were about to witness has nothing to do with Christianity as
such. The event took place on a mountain and mountains are often
identified with kingdoms (see Dan. 2: 35, etc.). Thus, even the
principles of the kingdom were set out by the Lord on a mountain in
Matt. 5–7 when He delivered the co–called
Sermon on the Mount.
Matthew records of the Lord that “he was
transfigured before them” (Matt. 17: 2)—that is, His outward
appearance was transformed or radically changed. The verb used for
transfigured (metamorjow)
is a word from which we get the English noun
metamorphism. It denotes an extreme change in outward appearance—in
the case of the Lord a supernatural alternation in His bodily form
such that “his face shone as the sun” (Matt. 17: 2). Now the sun was
the great light made “to rule the day” (Gen. 1: 16) and the kingdom
is expressed as “the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1: 8).
Again, prophetically the Lord is “the Sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4:
2). All this is language suited to the supreme place Christ will
have in the kingdom. In keeping with his transfiguration, “his
garments became white as the light” (Matt. 17: 2) and “shining,
exceeding white [as snow], such as fuller on earth could not whiten
[them]” (Mark 9: 3).
Matthew also tells us that “Moses and Elias
appeared to them talking with him” (Matt. 17: 3) or as Mark puts it,
“And there appeared to them Elias with Moses, and they were talking
with Jesus” (Mark. 9: 4). We must take account of the precision of
the language here. It does not say, ‘And Moses and Elijah
were there with Him’.
While the Lord was clearly there, it says no more than that they
appeared with Him.
The Lord’s transfiguration is presented first and is distinct. Then
we have they “appeared to them”. There are about a dozen Greek verbs
that can be translated appear
but the one employed in all three Gospel accounts (optomai)
carries with it the idea of
perception. The word
appeared thus suggests
that, while seen by the three disciples, Moses and Elijah were not
actually there—as the Lord said later it was a vision (see Matt. 17:
9), because the word itself does not guarantee literal presence (see
Acts 2: 7; 16: 9).
Optomai
is often used of the perception of supernatural
events such as the appearance of an angel in Luke 1: 11.
Furthermore, the words appear
(optomai)
and
vision sometimes occur in
the same incident (see Acts 7: 30, 31; 16: 9, 10; 26: 16, 19). As
for the word vision, this occurs about 80 times in the Bible and
nearly always refers to a supernatural event. Visions can be given
when the recipient is asleep (see Job 4: 13; Acts 16: 9) or wide
awake (see Luke 1: 11, 22). It is important to keep all this in mind
when we go on to consider Luke’s account. But why Moses and Elijah?
Moses represented the law and Elijah the prophets (see Mal. 4: 4,
5). The phrase “the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7: 12; 22:40; Luke
16: 16; Rom. 3: 21) is used in Scripture to express the whole of the
OT. Hence, in Moses and Elijah we have a
representation of all
the OT saints in the kingdom (the reader must remember that these
events took place when the concept of the Assembly would have meant
no more to the disciples than a called–out remnant from Israel).
Peter had already acted wrongly regarding the
Lord’s sufferings (see Matt. 16: 22, 23; Mark 8: 32, 33), and now
blunders regarding His glory by suggesting the construction of three
tabernacles (see Matt. 17: 4; Mark 9: 5, 6). Yes, he would give the
Lord the first place but at the same time it was putting the Lord on
the same level as Moses and Elijah. However great they were, this
could never be. A voice from heaven had been heard at the Lord’s
baptism when He was presented to Israel at the commencement of His
public pathway—a pathway indelibly marked by suffering. That same
voice is now heard once again with the very same message: “This
is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight: hear him” (Matt.
17: 5; see also Mark 9: 7). After this, the two OT saints are no
longer seen and the disciples saw no one “but Jesus alone” (Matt.
17: 8; Mark 9: 8). Finally, the Lord told the three disciples “Tell
the vision to no one, until the Son of man be risen up from among
[the] dead” (Matt. 17: 9)—that is until His sufferings were finished
for ever.
Luke’s Account
Luke’s account differs from
that of Matthew and Mark in the details he gives. The timing given
by Luke is different, for while Matthew and Mark say that “after
six days” Jesus takes
His disciples up a high mountain (Matt. 17: 1; Mark 9: 2, my
emphasis), Luke says “after these words, about
eight days, that
taking Peter and John and James he went up into a mountain to pray”
(Luke 9: 28, my emphasis). Here the English word
taking masks the fact
that the tense in Greek is the aorist, a past tense. Accordingly,
many translators give the English word as
took—unlike Matthew and
Mark who both use the present tense
takes. This difference
may account for the
discrepancy in the number of days recorded between the writers.
Luke presents the Lord as the dependant man and
hence he records the Lord as praying more than any other Gospel. His
record of the transfiguration fits this pattern, and thus the Lord
is recorded as praying when He was transfigured: “And as he prayed
the fashion of his countenance became different and his raiment
white [and] effulgent” (Luke 9: 29). Uniquely, we are then told that
the disciples were heavy with sleep: “And lo, two men talked with
him, who were Moses and Elias, who, appearing (optomai)
in glory, spoke of his departure which he was
about to accomplish in Jerusalem. But Peter and those with him were
oppressed with sleep: but having fully awoke up they saw his glory,
and the two men who stood with him.” (Luke 9: 30–32). Luke alone of
the Synoptics speaks of this glory in the transfiguration.
The first major point that must be taken
account of is that twice Moses and Elijah are described as
men. As they were
seen by the three
disciples, whether in a vision or actuality, they
must be in their
bodies to be seen. They could not be in the “unclothed” (2 Cor. 5:
4) state—that is, spirits without a body. As Elijah did not die (see
2 Kings 2: 11), he presents no difficulty. But Moses did die for
“Moses the servant of Jehovah died there in the land of Moab,
according to the word of Jehovah. And he buried him in the valley in
the land of Moab” (Deut. 34: 5, 6). In response, some commentators
say that Moses was raised from the dead in order to appear on the
transfiguration mount. But if that was so then Christ could not be
the first man free from death forever for it says of Him “he
… who is [the] beginning,
firstborn from among the dead,
that he might have the
first place in all things” (Col. 1: 18, my emphasis). Was Moses then
raised in his natural body to return to the grave after this event?
I do not think so, for while it does not actually say that Moses and
Elijah had bodies of glory, the passage does describe them as
“appearing in glory” (Luke 9: 31)—and the natural body would be
inconsistent with this scene of glory. Furthermore, we must not
forget that the whole event is a preview of the kingdom and the OT
saints will be in bodies of glory in that kingdom, having been
raised from among the dead.
When the kingdom is actually established on
earth, it will be the same with Christian saints: “When the Christ
is manifested who [is] our life, then shall ye also be
manifested with him in glory”
(Col. 3: 4, my emphasis). Christ’s manifestation is in the kingdom.
What sort of bodies will we have? The Lord Jesus Christ “shall
transform our body of humiliation into conformity to his body of
glory, according to the working of [the] power which he has even to
subdue all things to himself” (Phil. 3: 21). And John, who was on
the mount of transfiguration, writes “Beloved, now are we children
of God, and what we shall be has not yet been manifested; we know
that if it is manifested we shall be like him, for we shall see him
as he is” (1 John 3: 2). Thus, I conclude that as the scene on the
mount of transfiguration was a display of the kingdom come in power,
and as Moses and Elijah had to be in bodies to be seen by the three
disciples, so Moses and Elijah both appeared in their bodies of
glory.
As
others have noted, we can also view all five men on the mountain
with the Lord as representatives of those who will be in the
kingdom: Elijah representing those who never pass through death,
Moses those who have died and will be raised from the dead, and
Peter, James and John representing those who will enter the kingdom
in their natural bodies (such as those of the Jewish remnant who
will pass through the tribulation without being martyred).
But what of the conversation that took place?
It says they “spoke of his departure which he was about to
accomplish in Jerusalem” (Luke 9: 31). Greek has about a dozen words
that can mean departure.
The word employed for
departure here is
exodoς
and is only used in two other places in the NT:
in Heb. 11: 22 for the exit of Israel from Egypt, and in 2 Pet. 1:
15 by Peter for his death. Here it may be limited to the Lord’s
death, but I rather think it includes also his resurrection and
ascension, for those last two events were also involved in His
departure. The Lord’s death would be one of suffering and it is
Peter that reminds us “for Christ indeed has once suffered for sins,
[the] just for [the] unjust, that he might bring us to God; being
put to death in flesh, but made alive in [the] Spirit” (1 Pet. 3:
18). But “his departure” could also involve his resurrection and His
ascension, both of which are associated with glory:
“Christ has been raised up from among
[the] dead by the glory of the Father” (Rom. 6: 4) and Christ “has
been received up in glory” (1 Tim. 3: 16). Be all this as it may,
this conversation between the Lord, Moses and Elijah clearly
belonged to the
present, that is
before the Lord was
crucified—“his departure which he was about to accomplish in
Jerusalem” (Luke 9: 31). Thus, the scene that Peter, James and John
beheld belonged to the
future, but the
accompanying conversation (which they
may have heard—it is
not said so explicitly) took place in the present.
Some commentators
argue that as Moses and Elijah were in conversation with the Lord
while the three disciples were still asleep, this must mean that the
whole scene was actual and not a vision. They then conclude that
this proves that the saints who have died will be able to converse
with the Lord in the “unclothed” state (2 Cor. 5: 4). This argument
collapses because we are distinctly told that the transfiguration
scene, whether real or a vision, was that of “the kingdom of God
come in power” (Mark 9: 1). Hence, as Moses and Elijah are viewed as
in that kingdom, they could not appear in their “unclothed” state
and had to be in their bodies of glory (as I have already argued).
The conversation therefore did not take place in the “unclothed”
state.
Peter’s Account
Before turning to Peter’s
account, we should note how the subject of suffering and glory is
presented in his epistles. In the first epistle Peter speaks of
himself as “witness of the sufferings of the Christ, who also [am]
partaker of the glory about to be revealed” (1 Pet. 5: 1) and we
have the words suffer and
glory in their various
forms occurring exactly 16 times each. In the second epistle we just
have the glory—the word glory
occurring four times.
Significantly, it is in that epistle
that we have Peter’s record of the transfiguration.
Touchingly, Peter introduces his recollection
by referring to his own near departure (exodoς)
or exodus, from this scene by death: “I will
use diligence, that after my departure ye should have also, at any
time, [in your power] to call to mind these things. For we have not
made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
following cleverly imagined fables, but having been eyewitnesses of
his majesty. For he
received from God [the] Father honour and glory, such a voice being
uttered to him by the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in
whom I have found my
delight;
and this voice we heard uttered from
heaven, being with him on the holy mountain.
And we have the prophetic word [made]
surer, to which ye do well taking heed (as to a lamp shining in an
obscure place) until [the] day dawn and [the] morning star arise in
your hearts” (2 Pet. 1: 15–19).
We should note what his record includes
and what it omits. He has learnt much since that occasion decades
before when he was on the transfiguration mount with the Lord,
although the event is still vividly fresh in his mind. There is no
mention of his proposal for three tabernacles for the lesson of that
mistake has been duly learnt. Again, the conversation involving
Moses and Elijah is entirely absent—indeed, from Peter’s account we
would not know that the two patriarchs had appeared at all. He does
not speak of the kingdom as such, only of “the power and coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ”, of the King and of “his
majesty” (v16). The three disciples had seen Moses and Elijah “in
glory” but this was nothing compared with “his
majesty” (my emphasis). In speaking of the event, Peter uses a
unique word for eyewitnesses
(εποπτης),
a word found nowhere else in the NT. We are told that this word was
used by the Greeks for those admitted into the highest grade of the
mysteries. Surely a fitting word in view of the magnitude of what
the three disciples were admitted into, and a clear indication that
the scene that they witnessed was not an ordinary one but
supernatural!
The command from heaven to
“hear him” recorded by all three Synoptic writers (see Matt. 17: 5;
Mark 9: 7; Luke 9: 35) is also absent from Peter’s account for he no
longer needed that command. From the synoptic gospels it is not
clear whether or not the three disciples actually heard what was
said in the conversation between the Lord and Moses and Elijah. This
may be the reason that we have the emphatic we when Peter says,
“this voice we heard uttered from heaven” (2 Pet. 1: 18). Yes, the
two patriarchs had appeared “in glory” (Luke 9: 31), but it was
Christ’s “honour and glory” (2 Pet. 1: 17) that engages the apostle
now.
Conclusion
The transfiguration was a radical alteration in
the outward appearance of Christ demonstrating the manner of His
manifestation in glory in the future kingdom on earth. It also
included Moses and Elijah representing all the OT saints. These
appeared in their glorified bodies with Christ to be seen by the
three disciples as a representative company of the remnant in
Israel. While the Lord was actually there, the appearance of Moses
and Elijah was in a vision. This foretaste of the coming glory of
the kingdom was given to encourage the remnant to accept the
suffering now in view of the compensating glory of the coming
kingdom, and Peter reiterates this to the Jews of the dispersion to
whom he wrote later.
But what is in the
event for you and I? For Christ, the sufferings are forever over,
but His glory is yet to be manifested in this scene. Thus, like the
three disciples on the mount we need to accept that while the
present time is one of suffering, the glories will surely follow. As
Paul says, “For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time
are not worthy [to be compared] with the coming glory to be revealed
to us” (Rom. 8: 18).
