..
Understanding The Transfiguration
Matthew 17:1-7
(Scanned from Guardian of Truth, April 18, 1996, p.#244)
The transfiguration of Jesus (recorded in Matthew 17 and its parallels) is a
unique scene in the gospels. Unlike many other events, Jesus did not announce
that it would happen, the disciples certainly did not expect it, and this event
was never repeated. There does not appear to be any Old Testament prophecy
connected with this event. It is not connected with any of the great discourses
of Jesus, and Jesus instructed those disciples who witnessed it to keep quiet
about what they had seen. Even today for many students it is an enigmatic event,
one that seems, at first glance, to be out of place. Expositions of this scene
often treat it abstractly, as if it had little or nothing to do with our
salvation. If we look carefully at this scene, however, we find that it was
anything but a random event and that it is not unconnected with Jesus' mission
or our salvation.
The Context
The context of Matthew 17 is extremely important in understanding the
transfiguration. In Matthew 16 Jesus had asked the disciples about how the
public and the disciples themselves perceived him (v. 13ff). The public response
had been that Jesus must be one of the great prophets of Israel returned (v.
14). This was really not a bad response, for the prophetic features of Jesus'
ministry are obvious to anyone familiar with the work of the Old Testament
prophets. The disciples, however, who had a more intimate knowledge of Jesus,
had begun to perceive that he was the promised Messiah. This was critical.
In Jesus' work of training the disciples there were two basic phases:
identification and understanding. In the first part of Jesus' ministry the
disciples accompanied him all over Galilee observing his power at work and
listening to his teaching. The design was to bring the disciples to identify
Jesus correctly, not as just another prophet but as the Son of God. The
disciples reached this plateau in Matthew 16:16, with Peter's confession.
The aim of the second phase of the training of the twelve was to teach the
disciples what it meant to say that Jesus was the Son of God. It is clear that
the disciples of Jesus harbored the same kinds of Messianic hopes as most other
Jews of their day. While there does not appear to have been any strict consensus
or uniformity in Messianic expectations in that time, people generally expected
a militaristic figure who would lead Israel against her enemies and establish
God's kingdom on earth (or, reestablish the glorious kingdom of Solomon). The
Jews expected a nationalistic revival and a period of unequaled glory. For
example, in Matthew 14 Jesus fed the 5000, and John tells us that this prompted
the crowds to try to make Jesus king immediately (John 6:15). However, Jesus
refused any part in such worldly expectations. In Matthew 15:29 we read of the
healing of the multitudes and the feeding of the 4000. This apparently prompted
the Pharisees to wonder if Jesus was the Messiah, for they came to him asking
for a sign (16:1ff). Jesus knew that the disciples were harboring the same
expectations of him (cf. Luke 22:37-38 and Acts 1:6), and so he asked them the
famous question in Matthew 16:15, "But who do you say that I am?"
Peter's confession in Matthew 16:16 was a great break-through, and Jesus
commended Peter for it (v.17). He wanted his disciples to believe that he was
the Son of God, the Messiah. Now, from this point onwards, there is a marked
change in the narrative. Up until this time Jesus had been working signs and
debating with the Pharisees, dropping hints as to his identity. Now, after
Peter's confession, Jesus is much more direct in the way he deals with the
disciples.
Immediately after Peter's break-through confession, Jesus announces, for the
first time in an explicit way, his coming death and resurrection (Matt. 16:21).
Here was a head-on collision between the popular idea of the Messiah (which the
disciples held) and the biblical concept (which Jesus held). The popular idea
involved a Messiah who came to earthly glory in victory over the Jews' enemies.
Jesus, now acknowledged as Messiah, tells his disciples that he will, in effect,
be the opposite of what they expected. He will die an inglorious death in
apparent defeat by his enemies. Although passages such as Isaiah 53 made this
clear, the popular Messianic expectation did not include this. Moreover, Jesus'
predicting his own resurrection must have sounded like nonsense to these men.
It is no wonder that Peter reacted as he did upon hearing this announcement
(Matt. 16:22). Peter could not imagine the Messiah dying at the hands of his
enemies. Jesus was mistaken, he thought. However, Jesus turns and rebukes Peter
sharply for not accepting the idea of his death and resurrection. He even goes
on to explain that not only will he die, but every disciple of his must follow
him into that same death (v. 24ff).
The Transfiguration
It is in this context of confusion among the disciples that we read the
transfiguration story. Six days went by after Peter's confrontation with Jesus,
apparently uneventful but no doubt filled with confusion on the part of the
disciples. Then Jesus took Peter, James, and John up "to a high mountain" where
they witnessed a most wonderful sight. Jesus was glorified before their eyes.
His body took on a different appearance (Matt. 17:2). Then there appeared Moses
and Elijah. When we think about it, these two characters fit perfectly in this
scene. Moses was the great lawgiver in Israelite history, but he was also the
first of God's great prophets (cf. Deut 18:14ff). Elijah was a great prophet
too. Furthermore, both of them saw an appearance of God in their lifetimes
(Moses: Exod 33:17ff; Elijah: 1 Kings 19:9ff), and both of these occurred on a
mountain (Mt. Sinai). Both of them, like Jesus, had performed mighty works in
the name of the Lord God of Israel, and both had experienced, to some degree,
the rejection of their own people. These two characters have symbolic
significance as well. Together they represent the Law and the Prophets, both of
which pointed to Jesus (cf. Rom. 3:21).
Then there was the heavenly voice speaking the same words that were heard at
Jesus' baptism (Matt. 3:17). It is important to note that the heavenly voice
sounded while Peter was suggesting the building of three tents (no doubt as
"shrines") for Jesus and the other two figures. It seems that Peter thought the
kingdom could be established right there and then. Just a few days earlier he
had heard Jesus say that some of them would live to see it (Matt.16:28), and no
doubt he assumed this was it. But whereas Peter wanted to give Jesus, Moses, and
Elijah equal treatment, the divine voice corrects him. The voice from heaven
singled out Jesus as the new and sole source of authority. Again, Peter stood
corrected. Then, just about as quickly as it had happened, it was over (Matt.
17:7f).
The Meaning
What did this mean? First, it was a lesson for the
disciples about who Jesus was. Recall the context here. The disciples
(Peter speaking for them) had confessed that Jesus was the Messiah but they had
a mistaken idea of what that meant, and Jesus' speaking of his death had
confused them. The transfiguration served to confirm Peter's confession. It
showed Peter, James, and John that Jesus was no ordinary man nor even a great
prophet, but that he was indeed no less than the Son of God, the Messiah of
Israel. God was confirming the disciples' confession.
Second, this scene demanded that men hear Jesus as one who
had authority to speak to them. Peter later came to understand this
point. In 2 Peter 1:16-21 he acknowledges that the word of Jesus is sure and
confirmed and that we must not move away from it. In that passage he tells us
that the transfiguration, of which he was a witness, carried this significance.
The transfiguration was a statement about the authority of Jesus. On that
mountain it was demonstrated that it is now Jesus alone who has authority over
men. Moses and Elijah served only a temporary purpose in the plan of God (cf.
Rom. 3:21). I think that it is interesting that it was this very point (the
passing away of the Law and Prophets) that caused so much trouble in the early
church (cf. Acts 15, Galatians, etc.), yet God had already settled this question
in the transfiguration of Jesus.
Third, the transfiguration confirmed that the kingdom of
the Messiah would be characterized by glory. In the transfiguration the
three selected disciples saw a foretaste of the glory and victory of Jesus. This
posture of victory would be even clearer to them after Jesus' resurrection, and
it was really only then that the disciples began to put it all together. But for
now this scene encouraged the disciples. It showed them that Jesus was indeed
the glorified Son of God.
Fourth, this scene is the key to understanding the cross
of Jesus and his commitment to it. In Luke's version of the story he
tells us that Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah about his approaching death in
Jerusalem (Luke 9:31). This is an important piece of information, for it shows
us the proper context in which to view this scene. The sequence of events in the
narrative here in Matthew also shows us very plainly that the transfiguration
was meant to be interpreted in light of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
References to Jesus' death literally surround the transfiguration story
(Matt.16:21; 17:12, 22f), and Jesus told his disciples not to discuss what they
had seen until after his resurrection (Matt. 17:9). Clearly, he wanted them to
view the transfiguration in that specific context.
Jesus wanted his disciples to know that he would, indeed, be glorified, but it
would not at all be the kind of glory most people were expecting (a worldly kind
of supremacy). Nor would he gain that glory in the way most people thought he
would (by physical war with Rome). The glory that lay in store for Jesus, which
the disciples previewed in the transfiguration, would come through his death and
resurrection. The transfiguration was therefore meant to be a lesson on the
cross, to show its necessity. It would only be through his death and
resurrection that he would attain glory. That's why Jesus committed himself to
the cross: it was the path to glory (cf. John 12:24). The disciples needed to
begin to learn this new, biblical but unheard-of idea of glory.
Thus with the transfiguration began phase two of the disciples' training. The
transfiguration was not a random event, but was a precisely timed and executed
manifestation of glory that was to serve as a lesson to the disciples about what
kind of Messiah Jesus was, and how he would attain his greatness. It was the
first lesson in Jesus' attempt to get them to understand his Messiahship and
what it entailed. They had to unlearn the physical, worldly notions of their day
and come to terms with the biblical concept of the Messiah that Jesus would
fulfill in the days ahead of them.
By David McClister
From Expository Files 4.11; November 1997
