“His Face Shone Like the Sun”
The Transfiguration of Jesus
By Kyle Pope

One of the most wondrous events in the entire record of Jesus’ life on earth came near the end of His ministry. Jesus took three of His disciples with Him up onto a mountain and allowed them to see Him in radiant glory as Moses and Elijah appeared with Him. In writing about this event years later, two of these men, Peter and John, describe this as a pivotal moment in shaping their own faith. It was a time in which they “beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14). They were allowed to be “eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16) at that time “when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased’” (2 Pet. 1:17). John’s declaration that “God is light” (1 John 1:5) could have both visual and spiritual significance to these men who had seen Jesus’ face shine forth “like the sun” (Matt. 17:2). For that short moment of time they were allowed to see what France calls, “a brief glimpse behind the scenes” (262) as to some degree they were allowed to behold that glory God the Son shared with God the Father “before the world was”  (John 17:5).[1]

I. The Biblical Record of the Event

A curious phenomenon regarding the development of the New Testament record of Jesus’ life is the fact that although each of the synoptic gospels records this event (Matt. 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-13; Luke 9:28-36), the gospel written by the apostle John, who actually witnessed it, does not record it. This may be, if we are correct in understanding that the gospel of John was written last, due to the fact that John realized it had already been recorded. In many cases the Holy Spirit led John to record events the other gospel writers had not addressed, while choosing not to restate events they had previously chronicled. Another explanation may be that the wondrous nature of this event could easily have led to an exaltation of John (the man) to an extent that would not have been proper. In such a case, John’s omission of this account could be seen as an act of humility, not contradiction or “mythopoetic imagination.”[2]

A. The Timing of the Transfiguration.

All three synoptic writers record that this incident happened after three important events: 1) Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ (Matt. 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21), 2) the first explicit foretelling of His death (Matt. 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33; Luke 9:22)—when, as Matthew records it, they would begin their final trip towards Jerusalem (Matt. 16:21), and 3) Jesus’ teaching on self-denial as a necessity of discipleship (Matt. 16:24-28; Mark 8:34-9:1; Luke 9:23-27). Matthew and Mark record that the transfiguration occurred “after six days (meth’ hēmeras hex)” (Matt. 17:1; Mark 9:2) following these events. Luke, however, describes it as “about eight days (hōsei hēmerai oktō)” afterwards (Luke 9:28). There is no contradiction here but simply two ways of describing the same period of time. The Greek preposition meta in reference to time means “after, or behind” (BAGD). It is not so specific as to mean “the seventh day” but rather some period after the sixth day. By the same token, in Luke’s wording, the particle hōsei with numbers and measures means “about, nearly” (Thayer). A period of time after six days is nearly eight days.

B. The Witnesses of the Transfiguration.

This event is one of three incidents in which Peter, James, and John were the only apostles allowed to be with Jesus: 1) the transfiguration, 2) the healing of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51), and 3) Jesus’ agony in the garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:33). While it is generally thought that their inclusion in these events was because Jesus had a closer relationship with them that may be an assumption. Perhaps He saw in them a greater need to witness these events. Perhaps He was preparing them for leadership. Only John, in the gospel of John is referred to as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23), but even that may not necessarily be a mark of favored status. It could simply be John’s way of acknowledging the love God in Christ had shown to him. Whatever the case, the special inclusion of these men in no way reflected partiality on the part of Jesus. Just as different people serve different roles in the church and in the home, these men played a special role in these events in the life of Jesus. I appreciate James Burton Coffman’s observation that although “Matthew was omitted from that inner circle of three disciples who witnessed the marvel here related, ... one can find only amazement at the complete detachment and objectivity of his narrative” (261). What a great testimony this is to the divine inspiration of the biblical text.

C. The Location of the Transfiguration.

The gospel writers record that Jesus took these men “up on a high mountain by themselves” (Matt. 17:1; Mark 9:2).  By the fourth century both Cyril of Jerusalem (Lecture 12.16) and Jerome (Epistle 46, Paula and Eustochium to Marcella 13) record a tradition that placed this on Mount Tabor. This is unlikely, however, because Josephus tells us Tabor was fortified in the time of Jesus (Life of Flavius Josephus 37), which would not have allowed them to be “by themselves.” The most likely candidate for this “high mountain” is Mount Hermon, the tallest mountain in Palestine and quite near Caesarea Philippi, the last location mentioned in connection with Peter’s confession (Matt. 16:13; Mark 8:27). Rising to 9200 feet above sea level at its peak, with foothills descending towards Caesarea Philippi, the frequently snow-covered mountain (visible in much of the country) would certainly have been considered “high (hupsēlos)”—a term used elsewhere in the gospels, only of the mountain of Christ’s temptation (Matt. 4:8; Luke 4:5). Jesus and the three could have ascended the mountain or some of the foothills in its range during the days that followed Peter’s confession.

The Holy Spirit revealed to Luke that Jesus went up on the mountain “to pray” and the transfiguration took place, “as he was praying” (Luke 9:28-29). It isn’t clear whether this event happened in response to Jesus’ prayer or in conjunction with it. A. B. Bruce argues, “It was an aid to faith and patience, specially vouchsafed to the meek and lowly Son of Man, in answer to His prayers to cheer Him on His sorrowful path towards Jerusalem and Calvary” (192). Jesus would not have needed “faith,” but we see two other examples in the gospels of heavenly comfort offered to Jesus (cf. Matt. 4:11; Luke 22:43). If Bruce is correct this could constitute a third example.

D. The Meaning of the Term “Transfigured.”

Matthew and Mark both describe it that Jesus was “transfigured (metamorphōthē) before them” (Matt. 17:2; Mark 9:2). In English we call this incident the transfiguration because of the Latin word transfiguro, meaning, “to change in shape, to transform” (Lewis & Short). The Latin Vulgate, the primary translation used in Western Europe for centuries, used this word to translate the wording of Matthew and Mark. The term transfigured came into English as early as the 14^th century and by 1525 was used by William Tyndale to translate both passages as we now commonly see them in our English Bibles. In modern English, however, we now commonly use the word metamorphosis, a transliteration of the Greek noun derived from the verb used by Matthew and Mark, which means, “to change into another form” (Thayer). Luke did not use this word, recording simply that “the appearance of His face was altered” (Luke 9:29). As a Gentile writer, led by the Holy Spirit to write his gospel to Gentiles there may have been a good reason for this. The first century Roman poet Ovid wrote a book entitled Metamorphoses, describing the mythical transformations of pagan gods into human and animal forms. Gentiles who once lived in idolatry would well know these myths about their false gods. Stephen Williams notes, “Luke does not use the word ‘transfigure,’ a fact usually put down to his desire to avoid giving his readers the impression that Jesus was metamorphosed, changed from one form into another in a fashion that might be assimilated to pagan mythology” (20). Luke may seek to make it clear that this was not a fanciful pagan myth, but a revelation of spiritual realities.

Vincent explains that the verb used here must be understood in light of a conceptual distinction in Greek between the terms “form” (morphē—“the distinctive nature and character on an object”) and “fashion” (schēma—“the changeable outward fashion”) (99). In writing to the Romans, using a form of the latter word, Paul commanded Christians not to be “conformed (suschēmatizesthe) to this world” (Rom. 12:2). Vincent explains, “a change in the inner life is described as a change in the morphē, never of the schēma. Hence Romans 12:2, ‘Be ye transformed (metamorphousthe); the change taking place by renewing the mind’” (ibid.). Vincent argues that its use in the accounts of the transfiguration indicates that in Christ being “transfigured (metamorphōthē),”—“the visible change gets its real character and meaning from that which is essential in our Lord—His divine nature” (100).

Not only did His body look different, but His clothes became “white as the light” (Matt. 17:2). Mark and Luke both elaborate on this fact. Luke says, “His robe became white and glistening (exestraptōn)” (Luke 9:29). Mark writes, “His clothes became shining (stilbonta), exceedingly white, like snow, such as no launderer on earth can whiten them” (Mark 9:3).[3] The use of the terms “glistening (exastraptō)” meaning, “to flash out like lightening” (Thayer) and “shining (stilbō)” suggest that there was not simply a coloration of the clothing but a radiance that projected from Jesus’ body and clothing.

Spiritual beings are often described as shining or radiating light. Daniel saw an angelic being “clothed in linen, whose waist was girded with gold of Uphaz! His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like torches of fire, his arms and feet like burnished bronze in color” (Dan. 10:5-6). After Jesus’ resurrection the women saw two angels “in shining garments” (Luke 24:4). The promise of a resurrection unto everlasting life in Daniel, was followed by the declaration, “Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who turn many to righteousness like the stars forever and ever” (Dan. 12:3). In the transfiguration, to some degree the glorious divine nature of Jesus was allowed to shine forth for a time. John on another occasion would be blessed to see the glory of Jesus again. In the vision revealed to him on Patmos he saw the “Alpha and the Omega” of whom he wrote, “His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength” (Rev. 1:16). Stephen Williams writes, “The three disciples are granted by God at a particular point in time and space a perception of who and what Jesus really is in His being and role” (18).

E. Participants in the Transfiguration.

This experience would have been remarkable enough if it only involved this manifestation of Jesus’ divine nature by the alteration of His appearance. The Holy Spirit records for us, however, the additional fact that two pillars of Old Testament faith—Moses and Elijah, “appeared to them” and talked with Jesus (Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30). We should note that while Scripture says Jesus was “transfigured” (Matt. 17:2; Mark 9:2) or that His appearance was “altered” (Luke 9:29), the two figures with Him are said to have “appeared to them.” Their appearance was not changed, rather they were revealed in their spiritual state. Luke indicates that their appearance was also wondrous, explaining that they “appeared in glory” (Luke 9:31).

The Holy Spirit has not preserved a single word spoken between Jesus and these two Old Testament figures. Luke alone records that they were:

... Speaking of His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. Now Peter and his companions had been overcome with sleep; but when they were fully awake, they saw His glory and the two men standing with Him. And it came about, as these were parting from Him, Peter said to Jesus... (Luke 9:31-33, NASB).

A few details here are important to note. Their discussion concerned His coming “departure (exodos),” from this world that He would accomplish “at Jerusalem.” Alfred Edersheim notes that Luke uses exodos for Jesus’ death and eisodos (“coming in”) of Jesus’ entrance into the world in Acts 13:24 (97). We will explore later in this study the possibility that the presence of Moses and Elijah illustrate Christ’s relationship to the Old Testament. Shane Scott, in a lecture on this topic at Florida College in 2001, commented, “If Moses and Elijah represent the Law and Prophets, there is no event they could discuss which would be more important than the atoning death of Christ, the key event foretold in the Law and Prophets” (122). Whether their purpose was to comfort Jesus (cf. Luke 22:43) or to learn from Him what would soon take place (cf. 1 Pet. 1:10-12) is not revealed. It is clear that this happened over a long enough span of time for the three apostles to be “heavy with sleep.” In fact, Peter’s words come only after they are “fully awake” and he spoke “as they departed” (KJV).

In studying this, the question often arises how did the apostles recognize these men? Obviously Peter, James, and John had never seen Moses and Elijah. Did the disciples discover their identity from Jesus’ conversation with them? Was this part of the miracle? Meyer argues:

It was not from what Jesus told them afterwards that they came first to know who those two were, but they themselves recognized them at once (v. 4), though not from their conversation, as has been arbitrarily supposed (Theophylact). The recognition was immediate and directly involved in the marvelous manifestation itself (434).

We are not told how they recognized Moses and Elijah, but Peter and Zebedee’s sons realized the monumental nature of this event. What they did not yet realize was what this event revealed about Jesus Himself. Tom Roberts, playing off of the Hebrew writers description of Christ’s flesh as “the veil” (Heb. 10:20), puts it beautifully:

... Peter later said, “We were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16). The veil was parted for a moment and Christ’s divine majesty was partly revealed. We should not believe for a moment that Jesus’ manhood robbed Him of His Deity for the voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear Him” (v. 5). Jesus was as much God in the flesh as He was in heaven before being born to Mary (7).

F. Peter’s Presumptuous Suggestion.

Peter, true to form, acts with zealous impulsiveness. He proposes the construction of three “tabernacles” for each of them: Jesus, Moses, and Elijah (Matt. 17:4; Mark 9:5; Luke 9:33). Luke says he spoke, “not knowing what he said” (Luke 9:33). Mark explains, “they were greatly afraid” (Mark 9:6). Olen Holderby suggests, “The circumstances, here on the mount, may well suggest that they were horrified; sometimes we say or do things under pressure that we might not otherwise say or do” (1). Peter’s desire was probably to honor all those who stood before him. Perhaps, as Root writes, “The word tabernacles does not necessarily imply places of worship. Here it probably means shelters made from branches of trees, such as the Jews used as dwellings during the feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 23:39-43)” (139). As we have noted, the disciples saw Moses and Elijah “as they were parting” (Luke 9:33). Peter’s appeal may have been an attempt to compel them to stay longer.

Whatever the reason, Peter failed to recognize that this would not honor Jesus, but bring Him down to a status equal to that of Moses and Elijah. This was no menial status. Moses was the great lawgiver of Israel. Elijah was the brave prophet who stood up to Ahab and Jezebel during Israel’s rebellion. Yet, Moses and Elijah were mere men. Scott observes further, “Peter’s suggestion reveals a very materialistic way of thinking, the same plane of thought that rebuked the Lord of His prediction of death” (122). Although Peter had previously confessed that Jesus was the “Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16), he did not yet grasp the fullness of that statement. Jesus was God’s Son, but He was also Immanuel, “God with us” (Matt. 1:23). His incarnation brought Him down from heaven. Peter’s words failed to give Him the honor due to Him.

G. The Heavenly Response.

Peter’s proposal received a dramatic and awesome response from heaven itself. Matthew and Luke indicate that while he was still speaking (Matt. 17:5; Luke 9:34) a cloud “overshadowed them” (Mt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:34). This was no ordinary cloud. Matthew describes it as a “bright cloud (nephelē phōteinē)” (Matt. 17:5). The Greek word phōteinos means “composed of light” or “full of light” (Thayer). Luke alone records that the disciples were afraid as they “entered the cloud” (Luke 9:34). From within the cloud a “voice” spoke declaring “This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” (Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). Matthew and Peter record that the additional words also heard at Jesus’ baptism were repeated—“This is My Beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased. Hear Him!” (Matt. 17:5; cf. 3:17; 2 Peter 1:17).

The appearance of a “bright cloud” from which a heavenly voice speaks carried great significance during the Old Testament period. When God told the Israelites that He would feed them with manna, “the glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud” (Exod. 16:10). When Moses went up to Sinai, a cloud covered the mountain (Exod. 24:15), the “glory of the Lord” rested on the mountain (Exod. 24:16), its appearance was “like a consuming fire” (Exod. 24:17), God spoke from the cloud (Exod. 24:16), and Moses went into the midst of the cloud (Exod. 24:18). B. W. Johnson (97) and Kenneth Chumbley (312) both note that the “bright cloud” may correspond to the Jewish concept of the Shekinah,[4] a term used to describe the “divine presence” of the Lord that rested in the burning bush (Deut. 33:16), on Sinai (Exod. 24:15-18), in the tabernacle (Exod. 40:34-35), among the people (Exod. 29:45), and in the temple (2 Chron. 7:1-3). Coffman sees in this event, as in Jesus’ baptism, action on the part of all three persons of the Godhead. He writes:

Miracle is piled upon miracle in the succession of astounding occurrences. Here is a manifestation of the Trinity almost as definite as that at the baptismal scene in Matthew 3:16. Christ was present, radiant in heavenly light; the Father spake out of heaven; and the cloud strongly suggests the Holy Spirit, although it is not so identified (264).

In the Old Testament, while God is clearly described as speaking from the cloud (Num. 11:25; Deut. 5:22), there is no explicit identification that the cloud was a manifestation of God’s Spirit.[5] Even so, the similar divine proclamations of the transfiguration and Jesus’ baptism surely infer the cooperation of all three persons of the Godhead in this wondrous event.

This is the second time in Jesus’ recorded ministry that a voice from heaven identified Him as “My beloved Son (ho huios mou ho agapētos)” literally “My Son, the beloved.” The first happened at His baptism when the Spirit descended on Him as a dove (3:17). Later in His teaching, Jesus Himself used this phrase in the parable of the wicked vinedressers, to whom the owner sent his “beloved son” hoping they would respect him (Luke 20:13). We will consider later in this study the significance of this declaration as it relates to Christ’s relationship to God the Father and what it tells us about Christ’s nature.

H. The Aftermath of the Transfiguration.

Peter’s words did not interrupt Jesus’ meeting with Moses and Elijah. He spoke “as they were parting” (Luke 9:33). Jesus accomplished what He intended with these two pillars of the Mosaic Age and then they went their way. Unlike the supposed claims of modern man, when God truly speaks to human beings it is an evident and often frightening experience. When God spoke to Israel from Sinai the Israelites in terror begged Moses from that point on to speak to them for God (Exod. 20:18-19). This very event is referred to in the context of Moses’ promise of a new Prophet like himself whom Israel was to hear (Deut. 18:18-19). Mark indicates that the three apostles were afraid even before Peter spoke (Mark 9:6). After the voice came from the cloud “they fell on their faces and were greatly afraid” (Matt. 17:6). Luke adds, “they kept quiet” (Luke 9:36).

As Jesus was left alone before them His reaction is significant: 1) He touched them (Matt. 17:7a); 2) He told them to “arise” (Matt. 17:7b); and 3) He told them not to fear (Matt. 17:7c). Paul told Timothy, “There is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). The incarnation of Jesus put Him in a unique position to comfort man before the awesome and fearful presence of God’s majesty. All men need the touch (so to speak) of Christ, in order to be reconciled to God. In Christ those who abide in Him one day will hear His voice calling them to “arise” unto eternal life (John 5:28-29). Only in Christ can one find the “perfect love” that “casts out fear” (1 John 4:18). Only in Christ can one have “boldness to enter the holiest by the blood of Christ” (Heb. 10:19). Only in fellowship with God in Christ can one have the hope that assures us “do not be afraid.”

As Jesus came down from the mountain with the three disciples, Matthew records that Jesus commanded them, “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead” (Matt. 17:9). Although He had previously foretold His death and resurrection (Matt. 16:21-23; Mark 8:31-33; Luke 9:22), Mark records that this made them question among themselves what Jesus meant by referring to the “rising from the dead” (Mark 9:10). Jesus’ command of silence likely suggests that even the other disciples did not learn about this experience until after the resurrection. We are not told why Jesus commanded them not to tell anyone about this experience. Chounard reasons, “The command to silence is motivated by the inappropriateness of proclaiming Jesus’ glorious status apart from the reality of the cross. It is only after the cross, and His vindication by God in the resurrection, that the significance of the transfiguration can rightly be understood” (313).

I. The Apostles’ Questions About Elijah.

Both Matthew and Mark record that on their way down from the mountain either Jesus’ words or the events they had just witnesses inspired the apostles to ask Jesus, “Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” (Mark 9:11; cf. Matt. 17:10). The fact that Peter, James, and John had just seen Elijah may have called to their minds Old Testament prophecies about the great prophet. Malachi had declared, “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord” (4:5). Jesus had already told them He would die (Matt. 16:21), and just now they had witnessed His divinity on the mountain (Matt. 17:2). He then referred once again to being “raised from the dead” (Matt. 17:9). All of this must have been very confusing to these men.

In spite of their confusion, however, the disciples’ question is puzzling. Jesus had already told them of John, “he is Elijah who is to come” (Matt. 11:14). Did they forget this prior identification? Did the appearance of Elijah on the mountain make them question whether John was truly the promised Elijah? Perhaps, in light of Peter’s previous confession of Jesus as the Christ (Matt. 16:16), they simply wanted His explanation of Malachi’s prophecy. Whatever the motive, Jesus offered them for a second time an identification of John as the Elijah that “must come first.” At the time Jesus would speak these words, He could declare that Elijah “came already” (Matt. 17:12, NASB).

In Jesus’ identification of John as the prophesied Elijah He revealed that this prophecy had never promised Elijah’s actual return to earth, or some reincarnation of Elijah. This is why, when John was asked if he was Elijah he said, “I am not” (John 1:21). Instead, John came, as was declared before his birth, “in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to walk in the wisdom of the just; to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for him” (Luke 1:17, ASV). God told Moses of the seventy elders, “I will take of the Spirit that is upon you and will put the same upon them” (Num. 11:17, NKJV). While this obviously referred to divine inspiration the seventy elders did not literally possess Moses’ spirit. In Scripture a shared disposition and purpose is described as a shared spirit (cf. Luke 9:55). After Elijah was taken into heaven, it was said of Elisha, “the spirit of Elijah rests upon him” (2 Kings 2:15). The same was true of John, and in this he fulfilled all the prophecies about Elijah.

Matthew indicates that this led the apostles to understand that He was talking about John the Baptist (Matt. 17:13). Whatever doubts or questions they had about Elijah were satisfied by Jesus’ words. John was obviously the one whom the leaders of his own generation had not recognized, “they did to him whatever they wished” (Mark 9:13). Scripture records no further questions from the apostles on this subject.

II. The Meaning of the Transfiguration.

Question arises from Matthew’s description of this as a “vision (horama)” (Matt. 17:9) whether it indicates this was an actual or visionary experience for the disciples. Michaelis tells us of horama, from the verb horaō meaning “to see,” while “the sense is usually ‘vision’...the meaning can often be ‘what is seen’ (in a natural way)” (371). He argues that the parallels from Mark 9:9 and Luke 9:36, which both speak of “the things they had seen” suggests a meaning here of “what is seen” (372). We can conclude, therefore that this was an actual event that the disciples witnessed.   

How are we to understand the significance of this beautiful event? It would not be until after the resurrection that those who witnessed it revealed what they had seen. As we noted at the beginning, the impact of this event on Peter was unmistakable. Explaining his teaching years later he wrote:

For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. (2 Pet. 1:16-18, NKJV).

Peter offers the transfiguration as a piece of evidence that confirmed the validity of his own faith. Of the other witnesses, James was martyred early in church history (Acts 12:1-2) and, as we observed above, John did not record this event in his gospel. John may, however, indirectly refer to it in the opening words of his gospel, declaring, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

The transfiguration demonstrated a number of fundamental truths upon which the gospel of Jesus Christ is established. H. Leo Boles summarizes, “Three great doctrines were taught in the transfiguration, namely, the Divinity of Christ, the end of the Jewish covenant, and the resurrection” (357). Let’s explore Boles’ suggestion regarding what the transfiguration teaches about these three great doctrines:

A. The Divinity of Christ.

If Vincent is correct that the transfiguration itself demonstrated a temporary unveiling of the underlying “essential” character of Jesus’ “divine nature” (100), this event alone revealed that Jesus was more than just a man—He was God “manifested in the flesh” (cf. 1 Tim. 3:16, NKJV). Yet, beyond this fact we can also recognize what the heavenly proclamation revealed about the nature of Christ. The identification by God the Father of Jesus as “My beloved Son” was heaven’s testimony to Jesus’ divine nature.

Occasionally Scripture identifies others as “sons of God.” For example, angels are identified as “sons of God” (Job 1:6; 2:1), as well as those faithful to the Lord (Gen. 6:2, 4), those who obey the gospel (Gal. 3:26-27), and those who will be “sons of the resurrection” (Luke 20:36). It is a different thing, however, to be identified as “the Son (singular) of God.” This is seen in the demand of the High Priest at Jesus’ trial, “tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God!” (Matt. 26:63). This distinction roughly equates to our use in English of the definite article—“the” in contrast to the use of an indefinite article—“a” or “an.” The definite article indicates an exclusive status (i.e. “the only Son of God”) while indefinite article indicates one of many (i.e., “a son of God”). Koine Greek had no indefinite article “a” or “an” and often did not use the definite article as we do in English. The context determined if the sense was definite or indefinite. For example, in the confession of the centurion at the cross and the apostles after Jesus calmed the storm, the sense is clearly definite, that Jesus is “the Son of God (Theou huios)” but there is no definite article in the Greek (Matt. 14:33; 27:54). On the other hand, when Paul declared that “the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God (ton huion tou Theou)”—with the definite article (Rom. 8:19). In Paul’s words, while the meaning is definite in the sense of separation (i.e., those who are saved) it is not teaching that the saved will be Deity as is true of “the Son of God.”

The divine declaration “this is My beloved Son” echoes the Messianic pronouncement of Psalm 2:1-12. This Psalm connects God’s “Anointed,” i.e., His Messiah or Christ (Christou—LXX), with His “Son.” The Holy Spirit revealed, “The Lord has said to Me, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten You’” (Ps. 2:7). The Psalm ends with the command, “Kiss the Son” (Ps. 2:12). This clearly connects the promise of a Messiah with One who was the Son of God in a special and unique sense. A manuscript from Qumran, 4Qflorilequium (4Q174), shows that Jews from the first century connected Psalm 2 with Messianic expectation. Bateman sums all of this up succinctly:

What then can we conclude from God’s declaration of Jesus as “Son” at the baptism and again at the transfiguration? First, both include a divine declaration to or about Jesus from Psalm 2:7. In keeping with first-century Jewish expectations for an Anointed One, we can safely say “Son” in Psalm 2:7 was seen as another way to refer to “the Christ” or God’s chosen king (549).

B. The End of the Jewish Covenant.

The appearance of Moses and Elijah, particularly in light of the declaration from heaven that would follow it, affirmed Jesus’ superiority to the Law and the Prophets. Unlike modern divisions, the Jews grouped the Hebrew Scriptures into three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (cf. Luke 24:44). Often, however, we see in Scripture that the Old Testament revelation as a whole could be described with reference to only two of these sections—“the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; Luke 16:16; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23; Rom. 3:21). The early church commentator Origen explained this as a use of the figure of speech known as synecdoche, by which a part of something is used for the whole. He wrote that in the transfiguration there appeared, “Moses, the law and Elijah, in the way of synecdoche, not one prophet only, but all the prophets holding converse with Jesus” (Commentary on Matthew 12.38). Moses had declared in the law, “The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear” (Deut. 18:15). Moses was allowed to see the fulfillment of this as he talked with Jesus. Although Elijah did not write any books of prophecy, as one of the foremost Old Testament prophets he symbolized the work and purpose of the prophets in general. In addition to immediate temporal prophecies, the prophets had foretold the coming of the Messiah. How fitting that one of the prophets was allowed to see Jesus on the earth—the fulfillment of what had been revealed to them.[6]

While the heavenly proclamation “Hear Him” constitutes a type of rebuke to Peter, it is also a powerful declaration of Christ’s relationship to the Old Covenant. Boles writes, “The withdrawal of Moses and Elijah was suggestive; a greater than both of these remained” (356). David McClister suggests:

The transfiguration was a statement about the authority of Jesus. On that mountain 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) (21).

The declaration on the mountain, followed by the visible absence of the representatives of the Law and the Prophets, declared to the entire world from that point onward that Christ alone is now the only way to a relationship with God. The Old Testament is no longer the binding standard of faith and conduct. Christ’s doctrine, the New Testament, is now the standard by which all mankind will be judged. 

We have noted a few times already that the Law of Moses promised that a prophet would appear to Israel like Moses. They were commanded, “Him you shall hear” (Deut. 18:15). This command is echoed in the divine voice proclaimed on the mountain “Hear Him.” Although these three men alone witnessed these events, God’s voice resounds to all the earth, Jew and Gentile alike. Jesus Christ is the Prophet “like” Moses whom all the earth must hear. The Law promised:

I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him. (Deut. 18:18-19, NKJV).

To refuse to hear the One whom God declared from heaven, “Hear Him,” is an act of defiant rebellion, for which God will require judgment.

C. The Resurrection.

Boles’ suggestion that the transfiguration testifies to the resurrection draws an inference about something that is not specifically addressed from the evidence of what that is clearly demonstrated: the eternal nature of the soul. Jesus’ discourse with Moses and Elijah settles once and for all any question about the existence of man’s soul after death. These men who had lived centuries before Jesus’ time on earth had not passed out of existence. Rather, they continued to live. Stephen Williams, echoing Boles’ argument, suggests that in this fact, the transfiguration teaches us about the resurrection:

Jesus forces people to consider as follows: Is it conceivable that God, having steered the patriarchs through so many ills and sufferings by binding Himself to them in a covenant relationship, should, at their death, simply abandon them to eternal decay? The logic of God’s relationship with them and His power on their behalf requires the resurrection (20).

Alfred Edersheim draws the same conclusion seeing in the transfiguration a declaration of how Christ’s true nature offered promise of deliverance from death. He notes, “It points us forward to that transformation of which that of Christ was the pledge, when ‘this corruptible shall put on incorruption’” (101).

Many have struggled to understand the form of Moses and Elijah as they appeared to the disciples. Zerr supposed that Elijah (since he never died) was in an “eternal state” while Moses (having died) was in an “intermediate state” (61). The text indicates no difference in the nature or appearance of either man. Meyer argues that, if the appearance of Moses and Elijah had not been “visionary” in light of Deuteronomy 34:5-6, a bodily resurrection on the part of Moses would “have to be presupposed” (1.439). That assumes that what the three disciples saw were material bodies. The text does not indicate that. When God allowed Samuel to come out of Sheol to rebuke Saul there was no indication that a bodily resurrection took place. Nonetheless, his appearance was similar to that of his former body (cf. 1 Sam. 28:7-25). The same is true of the rich man, Lazarus, and Abraham in Hades (cf. Luke 16:19-31). Hoyt Houchen, in his study, “Shall We Know One another in Heaven?” points out, “The body of Moses turned to dust and Elijah had been changed. These men were clothed with different bodies from what they had here on earth, but they appeared to the disciples and were talking with Jesus. They were both recognized” (624). Paul, in speaking of the future resurrection, indicates that there are different types of “bodies” including “terrestrial” and “celestial” (1 Cor. 15:40). Delitzsch may have it right discussing the relationship between the soul and the body, claiming, “It continues,... in the other world in that form which, as the living principle of the body, it had assumed. Its appearance remains a corporeal one, although immaterial” (504-505). What is clear in all of this is the fact that the presence of these two Old Testament figures, conscious, living, and capable of thought and discourse foreshadows that time in the judgment when there will be “a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust” (Acts 24:15).

III. Conclusion.

The transfiguration served as a final flash of glory just prior to the events that would lead to Jesus’ death in Jerusalem. David McClister in his study, entitled “Understanding the Resurrection” offered a beautiful summation of the purpose accomplished in the transfiguration. He wrote:

Jesus wanted the 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 that most people thought He would (by physical war in Rome). The glory that lay in store for Jesus, which the disciples previewed in the transfiguration, would come through His death and resurrection (22).

The biblical narrative the Holy Spirit has left us about the transfiguration leaves many questions unanswered. We are not told why only three disciples were allowed to witness this event. We are not told God’s exact motive for offering this experience to mankind. Yet, in what is revealed we are allowed to see a glimmer of the eternal glory and majesty that belongs to our Savior. Undoubtedly, for Peter and John the memory of that underlying glory which they had once witnessed must have sustained them through the dark and temporary trials this life so often hurled at them. If we too will cling to the revealed memory of that glorious moment when the face of God in the flesh “shone like the sun,” perhaps whatever darkness we must face will seem a little easier overcome.  

Works Cited

Bateman, Herbert W. IV. “Defining the Titles ‘Christ’ and ‘Son of God’ in Mark’s Narrative Presentation of Jesus.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50.3 (Sept. 2007) 537-559.

(BAGD) Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Beare, Francis Wright. The Gospel According to Matthew: Translation, Introduction, and Commentary. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981.

Boles, H. Leo. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Co., 1952.

Bruce, A. B. The Training of the Twelve. Garden City: Doubleday, Doran and Co., 1928.

Chounard, Larry. The College Press NIV Commentary: Matthew. Joplin, MO: College Press Pub., 1997.

Chumbley, Kenneth L. The Gospel of Matthew. Nashville: Self-published, 1999.

Coffman, James Burton. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Abilene: ACU Press, 1984.

Comfort, Philip W. New Testament Text and Translation Commentary. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Pub., 2008.

Delitzsch, Franz. A System of Biblical Psychology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1867.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Vol. 2. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907.

France, Richard T. The Gospel According to Matthew: Introduction and Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985.

Holderby, Olen. “Hero Worship.” Guardian of Truth 41.7 (Apr. 3, 1997) 1.

Houchen, Hoyt. “Shall We Know One Another in Heaven?” Guardian of Truth 35.20 (Oct. 17, 1991) 623-624.

Johnson, B. W. The People’s New Testament with Notes. St. Louis: Christian Publishing Co., 1891.

(Lewis & Short) Lewis, Charlton T. and Charles Short. A Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958.

McClister, David. “Understanding the Transfiguration.” Guardian of Truth 40.8 (Apr. 18, 1996) 20-22.

Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhem. Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1880.

Michaelis, Wilhem. “Horama.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 5. Ed. Gerhard Kittel, and Gerhard Friedrich. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1967. 371-372.

Pope, Kyle. The Gospel According to Matthew. Athens, AL: CEI Books, 2013.

Roberts, Tom M. “Philippians 2:5-11: Did Jesus Divest Deity?” Guardian of Truth 40.4 (Feb. 15, 1996) 6-7.

Root, Orrin, Ed. Standard Bible Commentary: Matthew. Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Co., 1967.

Scott, Paul Shane. “‘We Beheld His Glory’—The Transfiguration.” Jesus for a New Millennium: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew. Ed. Ferrell Jenkins. Florida College Annual Lectures, Feb. 5-8, 2001. Temple Terrace: Florida College Bookstores, 2001, 119-126.

(Thayer) Thayer, Joseph H. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1985.

Vincent, Marvin R. Word Studies in the New Testament. Vol. 1. Peabody, MS: Hendrickson Publishers, 1985.

Williams, Stephen. “The Transfiguration of Jesus Christ (Part 1).” Themelios 28.1 (Autumn 2002) 13-25.

Zerr, E. M. Bible Commentary: Matthew–Romans. Vol. 5. Bowling Green: Guardian of Truth Foundation. 2006.