In Christian teachings, the transfiguration is a pivotal moment, and the setting on the mountain is presented as the point where human nature meets God: the meeting place of the temporal and the eternal, with Jesus as the connecting point, acting as the bridge between heaven and earth.[10] Moreover, Christians consider the transfiguration to fulfill an Old Testamentmessianic prophecy that Elijah would return again after his ascension (Malachi 4:5–6).Gardner (2015, p. 218) states:
The very last of the writing prophets, Malachi, promised a return of Elijah to hold out hope for repentance before judgment (Mal. 4:5–6). ... Elijah himself would reappear in the Transfiguration. There he would appear alongside Moses as a representative of all the prophets who looked forward to the coming of the Messiah (Matt. 17:2–9; Mark 9:2–10; Luke 9:28–36). ... Christ's redemptive sacrifice was the purpose for which Elijah had ministered. ... And it was the goal about which Elijah spoke to Jesus in the Transfiguration.
In the gospels, Jesus takesPeter;James, son of Zebedee; and James' brotherJohn with him and goes up to a mountain, which is not named. Once on the mountain,Matthew 17:2 states that Jesus "was transfigured before them; his face shining as the sun, and his garments became white as the light." At that point the prophetElijah (representing theprophets) andMoses (representing theLaw) appear and Jesus begins to talk to them.[1] Luke states that they spoke of Jesus'exodus (εξοδον) which he was about to accomplish inJerusalem (Lk 9:31). Luke is also specific in describing Jesus in a state of glory, withLuke 9:32 referring to "they saw His glory".[12]
Just as Elijah and Moses begin to depart from the scene, Peter begins to ask Jesus if the disciples should make three tents for him and the two prophets. This has been interpreted as Peter's attempt to keep the prophets there longer.[12] But before Peter can finish, a bright cloud appears, and a voice from the cloud states: "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him" (Mark 9:7). The disciples then fall to the ground in fear, but Jesus approaches and touches them, telling them not to be afraid. When the disciples look up, they no longer see Elijah or Moses.[1]
When Jesus and the three apostles are walking down the mountain, Jesus tells them to not tell anyone "the things they had seen" until the "Son of Man" hasrisen from the dead. The apostles are described as questioning among themselves as to what Jesus meant by "risen from the dead".[13]
In addition to the principal account given in the synoptic gospels; in2 Peter 1:16–18, the Apostle Peter describes himself as an eyewitness "of his magnificence". Elsewhere in the New Testament,Paul the Apostle's reference in2 Corinthians 3:18 to the "transformation of believers" via "beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord" became the theological basis for considering the transfiguration as the catalyst for processes which lead the faithful to the knowledge of God.[14][15]
AlthoughMatthew 17 lists the disciple John as being present during the transfiguration, theGospel of John has no account of it.[16][17] This has resulted in debate among scholars, some suggesting doubts about the authorship of the Gospel of John, others providing explanations for it.[16][17] One explanation (that goes back toEusebius of Caesarea in the 4th century) is that John wrote his gospel not to overlap with the synoptic gospels but to supplement them, and hence he did not include all of their narrative.[16] Others believe that the Gospel of John does in fact allude to the transfiguration, inJohn 1:14.[18] This is not the only incident not present in the fourth gospel, and the institution of theEucharist at theLast Supper is another key example, indicating that the author either was not aware of these narrative traditions, did not accept their veracity, or decided to omit them.[17] The general explanation is thus the Gospel of John was written thematically, to suit the author's theological purposes and has a less narrative style than the synoptics.[16][17]
Christian theology assigns a great deal of significance to the transfiguration, based on multiple elements of the narrative. In Christian teachings, the transfiguration is a pivotal moment, and the setting on the mountain is presented as the point where human nature meets God: the meeting place for the temporal and the eternal, with Jesus as the connecting point, acting as the bridge between heaven and earth.[10]
The transfiguration not only supports the identity of Jesus as the Son of God (as in his baptism), but the statement "listen to him", identifies him as the messenger and mouth-piece of God.[19] The significance of this identification is enhanced by the presence of Elijah and Moses, for it indicates to the apostles that Jesus is the voice of God "par excellence", and instead of Moses or Elijah (representing the Law and the prophets) he should be listened to, surpassing the laws of Moses by virtue of his divinity and filial relationship with God.[19]2 Peter 1:16–18 echoes the same message: at the Transfiguration God assigns to Jesus a special "honor and glory" and it is the turning point at which God exalts Jesus above all other powers in creation, and positions him as ruler and judge.[20]
The transfiguration also echoes the teaching by Jesus (as inMatthew 22:32) that God is not "the God of the dead, but of the living". Although Moses had died and Elijah had been taken up to heaven centuries before (as in2 Kings 2:11), they now live in the presence of the Son of God, implying that the same return to life applies to all who face death and have faith.[21]
The theology of the transfiguration received the attention of theChurch Fathers from the earliest times. In the 2nd century,Irenaeus was fascinated by the transfiguration and wrote: "the glory of God is a live human being and a truly human life is the vision of God".[22]Origen's theology of the transfiguration influenced thepatristic tradition and became a basis for theological writings by others.[23] Among other issues, given the instruction to the apostles to keep silent about what they had seen until the resurrection, Origen comments that the glorified states of the transfiguration and the resurrection must be related.[23]
Byzantine Fathers often relied on highly visual metaphors in their writings, indicating that they may have been influenced by the established iconography.[25] The extensive writings ofMaximus the Confessor may have been shaped by his contemplations on thekatholikon at Saint Catherine's Monastery – not a unique case of a theological idea appearing in icons long before it appears in writings.[26]
In the 7th century,Maximus the Confessor said that the senses of the apostles were transfigured to enable them to perceive the true glory of Christ. In the same vein, building on2 Corinthians 3:18, by the end of the 13th century the concept of "transfiguration of the believer" had stabilized andGregory Palamas considered "true knowledge of God" to be atransfiguration of man by the Spirit of God.[27] The spiritual transfiguration of the believer then continued to remain a theme for achieving a closer union with God.[15][28]
One of the generalizations of Christian belief has been that theEastern Church emphasizes the transfiguration while theWestern Church focuses on the crucifixion. However, in practice both branches continue to attach significance to both events, although specific nuances continue to persist.[29] An example of such a nuance is the saintly signs of theImitation of Christ. Unlike Catholic saints such asPadre Pio orFrancis of Assisi (who consideredstigmata a sign of the imitation of Christ) Eastern Orthodox saints have never reported stigmata, but saints such asSeraphim of Sarov andSilouan the Athonite have reported being transfigured by an inward light of grace.[30][31]
Origen's initial connection of the transfiguration with the resurrection continued to influence theological thought long thereafter.[23] This connection developed both within the theological and iconographic dimensions – which however, often influenced each other. Between the 6th and 9th centuries the iconography of the transfiguration in the East influenced the iconography of the resurrection, at times depicting various figures standing next to a glorified Christ.[32]
Most commentators in theMiddle Ages considered the transfiguration a preview of the glorified body of Christ following his resurrection.[33] As an example, in the 8th century, in his sermon on the transfiguration, theBenedictine monkAmbrosius Autpertus directly links theSupper at Emmaus appearance inLuke 24:39 to the transfiguration narrative ofMatthew 17:2, and states that in both cases, Jesus "was changed to a different form, not of nature, but of glory."[33]
The concept of the transfiguration as a preview and an anticipation of the resurrection includes several theological components.[34] On one hand it cautions the disciples, and therefore the reader, that the glory of the transfiguration and the message of Jesus can only be understood in the context of his death and resurrection and not simply on its own.[34][35] When the transfiguration is considered an anticipation of the resurrection, the presentation of a shining Jesus on the mount of transfiguration as the Son of God who should be listened to can be understood in the context of the statement by Jesus in theresurrection appearance inMatthew 28:16–20: "all authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth".[35]
The presence of the prophets next to Jesus and the perceptions of the disciples have been subject to theological debate. Origen was the first to comment that the presence of Moses and Elijah represented the "Law and the prophets", referring to the Torah (also called the Pentateuch) and the rest of the Hebrew Bible.[23]Martin Luther continued to see them as the Law and the Prophets respectively, and their recognition of and conversation with Jesus as a symbol of how Jesus fulfills "the law and the prophets" (Matthew 5:17–19, see alsoExpounding of the Law).[36]
More recently, biblical scholar Caleb Friedeman has argued that the appearance of Moses and Elijah together at the transfiguration was because both of them had witnessed similartheophanies atMount Sinai. Friedeman asserts that, in light of both Old Testament theophanies, the transfiguration must be considered a theophany in which Jesus manifests his divinity.[37] The connection between the Mount Sinai/Horeb theophanies of both Moses and Elijah and their presence at the Transfiguration is also made by theNew American Bible.[38]
The real presence of Moses and Elijah on the mount is rejected by those churches and individuals who believe in "soul sleep" (Christian mortalism) until resurrection. Several commentators have noted that the Gospel of Matthew describes the transfiguration using the Greek wordhorama (Matthew 17:9), according toThayer more often used for a supernatural "vision" than for real physical events[a] and conclude that Moses and Elijah were not truly there.[39] InLDS doctrine, Moses and Elijah ministered to Christ as "spirits of just men made perfect" (Doctrine and Covenants 129:1–3; see also Hebrews 12:23).
None of the accounts identify the "high mountain" of the scene by name. Since the 3rd century, some Christians have identifiedMount Tabor as the site of the transfiguration, including Origen,[40] referencingPs 89:12. Tabor has long been a place ofChristian pilgrimage and is the site of theChurch of the Transfiguration. In 1868,Henry Alford cast doubt on Tabor due to the possible continuing Roman use of a fortress whichAntiochus the Great built on Tabor in 219 BC.[41] Others have countered that even if Tabor was fortified by Antiochus, this does not rule out a transfiguration at the summit.[42]Josephus mentions in theJewish War that he built a wall along the top perimeter in 40 days, and he does not mention any previously existing structures.[43][44]John Lightfoot rejects Tabor as too far but "some mountain nearCaesarea-Philippi".[45] The usual candidate, in this case, is Mount Panium, Paneas, orBanias, a small hill situated at the source of theJordan, near the foot of which Caesarea Philippi was built.
William Hendriksen in his commentary on Matthew (1973) favoursMount Meron.[46]Whittaker (1984) proposes that it wasMount Nebo, primarily on the basis that it was the location where Moses viewed thePromised Land and a parallelism in Jesus' words on descent from the mountain of transfiguration: "You will say to this mountain (i.e. of transfiguration), 'Move from here to there' (i.e. the promised land), and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you."France (1987) notes thatMount Hermon is closest to Caesarea Philippi, mentioned in the previous chapter of Matthew. Likewise, Meyboom (1861) identifies "Djebel-Ejeik",[b] but this may be a confusion with Jabal el-Sheikh, the Arabic name for Mount Hermon.Edward Greswell, however, writing in 1830, saw "no good reason for questioning the ancient ecclesiastical tradition, which supposes it to have been mount Tabor."[47] An alternative explanation is to understand the Mount of Transfiguration as symbolic topography in the gospels. As Elizabeth Struthers Malbon notes, the mountain is figuratively the meeting place between God and humans.[48]
Various Christian denominations celebrate theFeast of the Transfiguration. The origins of the feast remain uncertain; it may have derived from the dedication of three basilicas on Mount Tabor.[24] The feast existed in various forms by the 9th century. In the 15th centuryPope Callixtus III made it a universal feast celebrated on August 6 to commemorate the lifting of thesiege of Belgrade[49] in July 1456.
TheSyriac Orthodox,Indian Orthodox andRevised Julian calendars within the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, andAnglican churches mark the Feast of the Transfiguration on August 6. In those Orthodox churches which continue to follow theJulian Calendar, August 6 in the church calendar falls on August 19 in thecivil (Gregorian) calendar. Transfiguration ranks as a major feast, numbered among theTwelve Great Feasts in theByzantine rite. In all these churches, if the feast falls on a Sunday its liturgy is not combined with the Sunday liturgy, but replaces it.
In theRoman rite, the gospelpericope of the transfiguration is read on the second Sunday of Lent – the liturgy emphasizes the role the transfiguration had in comforting the Twelve Apostles, giving them both a powerful proof of Christ's divinity and a prelude to the glory of the resurrection on Easter and the eventual salvation of his followers in view of the seeming contradiction of his crucifixion and death. ThePreface for that day expounds this theme.[50]
^Louis Suson Pedro Meyboom (1817–74), Protestant theologian and pastor at Amsterdam. An adherent of the so-called "modern" school in theology, he wrote many books, includingHet Leven van Jezus (7 vols., 1853–61).
Barth, Karl (2004). Thomas Forsyth Torrance (ed.).Church Dogmatics. The Doctrine of Creation. Vol. 3, Part 2: The Creature. Bloomsbury Academic.ISBN978-0-567-05089-2.
van Oosterzee, Johannes Jacobus (1866).Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. Vol. 1.The only really formidable difficulty is that adduced by De Wette, from Robinson, that, at this period, the summit of Tabor was occupied by a fortress. But even if Antiochus the Great fortified this mountain BC 219, this by no means proves that a fortress existed in the time of Christ; while if, as Josephus tells us, it was fortified against the Romans, this must certainly have happened forty years later
Warren, Thomas S. (2005).Dead Men Talking: What Dying Teaches Us about Living. iUniverse.ISBN978-0-595-33627-2.The Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1–8) At first glance, this passage may seem to indicate that Moses and Elijah are alive even though Moses was ... The same Greek word, (Grk. orama), is used to describe the action in each scene...
.jpeg)
.jpg)
