The Transfiguration

Matthew 17:1-5

From Exegetical Commentary on Matthew, 2006, AMG Publishers.

Scholars are not certain which mountain Jesus and His three disciples ascended for this great event. Luke just calls it “a mountain” (Luke 9:28). We do know that Jesus was in northern Galilee, since immediately following the transfiguration, He went to Capernaum. Both Mount Tabor and Mount Hermon (the taller of the two) have been suggested as the site.

[1] Peter, James, and John were selected to witness “apart” (kat’ idían; privately; from katá [2596], according to; and ídios [2398], one’s own) from others the high point of Jesus’ visible glory as well as the low point of His humiliating agony in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:37; Mark 14:33). These were rare privileges for these three, who also stood nearby when Jairus’ daughter was raised from the dead (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51).

[2] In Philippians 2:6, 7, we learn that Jesus Christ subsisted in the “form (morphē [3444]) of God” but emptied Himself, taking the “form (morphēn) of a servant (doúlou [1401]).” Since sovereignty and service are antithetical concepts, the precise contrast in “form” seems to be between rule and obedience. The “form of God” is not service, and the “form of service” is not sovereignty. So Jesus added service to His sovereignty by becoming the God-Man, veiling His rule and accenting His service to the point of washing feet and dying on the cross.

Theologians call this “kenosis,” from the Greek word ekénōsen (2758), “He emptied Himself” (“made himself of no reputation” in the kjv), in Philippians 2:7. He emptied Himself by adding human—not subtracting divine—predicates, by adding service, not subtracting sovereignty.

The transfiguration is a momentary reversal of this humiliation, a temporary repositioning of the two permanent forms—one to the foreground, and one to the background. A complex verb derived from morphē is used here: “And [He] was transfigured (metemorphōthē, the aorist passive of metamorphóō [3339] from metá [3326], succession, change; and morphóō [3445], to form, to structure) before them.” Since the Lord Jesus is always God and man, the change is the relative positioning of forms, not the absolute replacement of one by the other.

The passive voice is used for the triune God’s action on Christ’s humanity. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all repositioned the human form of Jesus Christ, unveiling and forwarding His deity while veiling his humanity, placing it in the background. The Son of man, then, was passive from the standpoint that God the Father did this and yet active from the perspective that whatever the Father does, the Son of God does likewise (John 5:19). According to Luke 9:29, “The fashion (eídos [1491], appearance, sight; from eídōeídon [1492], the aorist of horáō [3708], to see and perceive with emphasis on perception) of his countenance was altered.”

In His new form, Jesus’ face “did shine (élampsen, the aorist tense of lámpō [2989], to shine) like the sun,” and His clothes became as white as light. Although Matthew uses the historic aorist to sum up the event, Mark chooses the present participle, stílbonta (from stílbō [4744], to radiate, glitter), “radiating,” to emphasize the durative glory of His white radiance, unmatched by any snow on earth (Mark 9:3). Luke the historian adds that the transfiguration occurred “as [Jesus] prayed (proseúxesthai, the aorist middle deponent infinitive of proseúchomai [4336] from euchē [2171], a wish; and prós [4314], toward [the Father]),” His clothing becoming “white and glistering (exastráptōn, the present participle of exastráptō [1823], to glisten, to shine forth]” (Luke 9:29).

In Romans 12:2, Paul defines the metamorphosis of believers as a renewal (anakainōsei [342] from aná [303], again; and kainós [2537], qualitatively new) of their minds, an internal change of form from flesh to spirit. In 2 Corinthians 3:18, he elaborates: “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.”

This spiritual transformation is as radically white as the face and clothing of the transfigured Lord Jesus. Believers, in whose hearts the grace of God reigns, never stop manifesting the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16). By using the word “all” (pántes, the plural adjective of pás [3956], all), Paul includes every believer. All Christians, then, behold the glory of the Lord and are changed into His glorious image—“predestin[ed] to be conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom. 8:29). Looking at Christ, recognizing His glory, is the occasion of our being conformed to His image (2 Cor. 4:4). And it is “from glory to glory” as it is “from faith to faith” (Rom. 1:17).

[3] As Jesus’ kenosis (self-emptying or humiliation) brought heaven to earth, so the transfiguration brought earth to heaven. We read that Moses and Elijah appeared, Luke adding “in glory” (Luke 9:31).

The verb “appeared” (ōphthēsan, the aorist passive of horáō, to see and perceive, or of optánomai [3700], to see physically) includes the ideas of physical sight and possibly also of understanding. Since there are no reported formal introductions or revelations, we wonder how the disciples knew it was Moses and Elijah. Matthew simply reports the fact, but Peter seems to cognize (we can’t say “recognize,” since the two were “in glory”) Moses and Elijah according to the next verse. As in other revelations, such as John’s visions in Revelation, he was “in the Spirit” without local transport (Rev. 1:10). The point is that heaven transcends earth in ways not reducible to physical dimensions. The local appearance of Moses and Elijah proves as much.

The verb translated “talking with” (Jesus) is sullaloúntes (the present participle of sullaléō [4814] from sún [4862], together, and laléō [2980], to speak, to interrupt silence. Moses and Elijah had obviously been silent for some time, at least on earth.

Concerning the destinies of these prophets following their earthly ministries, we have meager information from the biblical records: “So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he [God?] buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day” (Deut. 34:5, 6). “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee” (Jude 9). “And it came to pass, as they [Elijah and Elisha] still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kgs. 2:11).

From these verses, we glean that: 1) Moses died and was buried, inferentially by the Lord Himself. 2) Satan and Michael the archangel argued over Moses’ body, possibly a tussle over resurrection and ascension “to glory” (Luke 9:31). Or perhaps Satan wanted to display the corpse for idolatrous worship in Canaan, which could explain why the Lord buried him covertly in the first place. And 3) Elijah ascended to heaven in his natural body.

Even though both appear “in glory” according to Luke 9:31, there is no evidence that either was raised in a glorified body. In fact, this would seem to be eschatologically out of order with Paul’s prophecies in 1 Corinthians 15:42–55 and 1 Thessalonians 4:14–17. On the other hand, the absence of a resurrection does not explain how Moses as a “spirit [that] hath not flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39) would appear to the physical senses of the disciples. But then, Samuel somehow appeared to Saul (1 Sam. 28:11–19); the rich man in torment apparently had some sort of spiritual eyes (Luke 16:23) and tongue (v. 24) and was seen by Abraham and (probably) Lazarus; and the martyrs under the altar were given robes (Rev. 6:9–11). The problem is interesting, thorny, and beyond the prescribed limits of a commentary. Theologians have suggested speculations like “intermediate (i.e., pre-resurrection) bodies.”

We know Moses and Elijah appeared, because the text says so. One evidence for this is the fact that the two, according to Mark, “were talking with Jesus” (Mark 9:4). Luke, always given to historical detail, adds that they “spake of His [Jesus’] decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem” (Luke 9:31). Moses and Elijah had to exist contemporaneously with Jesus in order to discuss a concurrent future.

[4] Peter, as usual, was the first to speak. Only six days prior (v. 1), Jesus had rebuked him sternly for suggesting that He spare Himself the dangers in Jerusalem. Again he spoke with little significant forethought: “Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.”

Peter did not understand that neither Moses nor Elijah “in glory” required “tents” (skēnás, the accusative plural of skēnē [4633]) like the Word (Lógos) who, prior to being “received up into glory” (1 Tim. 3:16), “dwelt (eskēnōsen [4637], “tented”) among us” (John 1:14). Peter did not realize that this was a vision of another world—heaven itself. Perhaps based on Malachi’s prophecy that Elijah would return to earth before the Day of the Lord (Mal. 4:5, 6), Peter assumed that this appearance was the beginning of the fulfillment of that event. Actually, the appearance does carry some eschatological symbolic weight: Moses typified the dead and Elijah the living at the return of Christ for His people (1 Thess. 4:16).

Peter was right about one thing: “It is good (kalón [2570], intrinsically good) for us to be here.” Yes, it was good; but the construction of tents—like churches—would not serve as a good reminder that “here have we no continuing city” (Heb. 13:14). The transfiguration was a momentary revelation of glories to come, not the beginning of Elijah’s ministry on earth before the Day of the Lord (see the “two witnesses” in Rev. 11:3–12). But Peter was not altogether without humility, for he said, “Lord,… if thou wilt (théleis, the present tense of thélō [2309], to determine).” At least, he submitted his proposal to the sovereignty of His Master.

[5] The present participle, “speaking” (laloúntos from laléō [2980], to break silence), coupled with the adverb “yet” (éti [2089], yet, still), shows that Peter’s eloquent speech was cut off short of its finale. “While he yet spake,” the Father interrupted. Assuming all the words in verse 4 were aired, Peter evidently had more to say.

Before the Father spoke, a bright cloud appeared: “Behold (idoú [2400] from eídon, the aorist of horáō, to perceive sensibly and mentally), a bright (phōteinē [5460] from phōs [5457], light) cloud (nephélē [3507], a cloud formation) overshadowed them.” Such clouds of glory received Christ at His ascension (Acts 1:9) and will accompany His return (cf. Matt. 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Rev. 1:7). Living believers will be “caught up together with [the believing dead] in the clouds” (1 Thess. 4:17). The transfiguration prefigured this return.

The exclamatory “behold” occurs twice in this verse, once before the verb “overshadowed” (epeskíasen, the aorist tense of episkiázō [1982] from epí [1909], upon; and skiázō [n.f.] from skiá [4639], shadow, shade) which implies that the bright cloud produced shade. The second “behold” calls our attention to “a voice (phōnē [5456], the emphasis on the sound) out of the cloud.” Since the Son of God was not “declaring” (exegeting) the Father (John 1:18) who was now speaking on His own, how does this “voice” harmonize with Jesus’ words, “Ye have [neither] heard His [i.e., the Father’s] voice at any time” (John 5:37)? Possibly, the voice of the Father at this instant was mediated through angels—a theme common to both Testaments—just as the vision of the Father was mediated by the bright cloud.

This is the second time Matthew records a voice speaking from heaven (Matt. 3:17). “This (hoútos [3778], this) is my (mou [1473]) beloved (ho [3588], the definite article; agapētós [27], beloved one; “The beloved One” is a title used only of God the Father or of the Lord Jesus Christ; see Matt. 3:17; Eph. 1:6; et al.) Son.” The two pronouns strengthen Christ’s status as the only begotten Son. Hoútos is singular, literally “this One,” meaning no others are in the class. Also, hoútos as opposed to ekeínos ([1565], “that One”) highlights the unique proximity of the trinitarian Persons, as do prós, in John 1:1; kólpos ([2859], “bosom”) in John 1:18, and pará ([3844], “with”) in John 17:5. Furthermore, mou (“my”) implies a unique possession differentiated from the Father’s (and Son’s, for that matter) ownership of all things (John 16:15). Finally, the definite article in the title, “the beloved One,” also sets the Son apart as the particular object of the Father’s love, wholly distinct from His general love for creatures.

The Father added, “In whom I am well pleased (eudōkēsa, the aorist active tense of eudokéō [2106]).” The problem with this reading is that the verb is taken as present and passive, when it is actually aorist and active. An alternative reading would be, “by (en [1722], “is”, frequently the instrumental  “by”) whom I thought well,” meaning “by Him (i.e., His atonement and intercession) I thought well” toward fallen humankind. The Father’s good thoughts toward humanity were captured in His plan to send the Son to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10).

Based on His evaluation of the Son, the Father added, “Hear ye (akoúete, the present imperative of akoúō [191], to listen) Him.” This means more than just hearing the sound of Christ’s voice. It means obedient listening to His will.

Dr. Spiros Zodhiates (1922-2009) served as president of AMG International in Chattanooga, Tennessee for over 40 years, was the founding editor of Pulpit Helps Magazine, and authored dozens of exegetical books.