The Transfiguration forms a beautiful counterpart to the first prophecy of the Passion and is materially well connected with the prophecy concerning the return of the Lord. For by it Jesus shows that the promised reward at His return has, in His divine omnipotence, a sure guarantee of fulfillment, although He now still voluntarily endures the state of humiliation. Just as He Himself, after recalling the events in Jerusalem, stood in need of consolation and strengthening (Schegg, Keil, Wichelhaus), so He also wished to inspire His disciples with courage through a passing glimpse into glory.
Not all the disciples are witnesses of the Transfiguration, but the most prominent and otherwise specially favored ones (Mark 5:37; Matthew 26:32), and especially Peter, who in all difficult situations represented and encouraged the whole college and therefore also stood in need of such strengthening of faith (2 Peter 1:16 ff.).
Mt 17:1: μεθ᾿ ἡμέρας ἕξ (“after six days”), as in Mark 9:1. Such precise indications of time are rare in Matthew and show that in this particular case he attached special importance to it. The memory of the first prophecy of the Passion, together with the Transfiguration, remained so firmly in the disciples’ minds that even later they especially emphasized the sixth day of their stay in the region of Caesarea Philippi. Luke says (9:28) ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτώ (“about eight days”), whereby the dies a quo and ad quem are counted (Chrysostom).
For a more precise determination of the high mountain, historical reports are lacking. A tradition reaching back to the fourth century (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 12.16; Jerome) names Tabor, about ten kilometers east of Nazareth and about 580 meters high, as the mountain of the Transfiguration. Against this, however, stands already the fact that on Tabor there was a small fortified town (Robinson, Ritter, Schegg, Holzammer, Schuster, Mislin, Sepp). Although uncertainty about the fortification in the time of Christ has been argued, Schegg, even after investigation on site, remains doubtful about the correctness of the tradition, which is already exegetically untenable.
Peter’s confession was made six days earlier in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi. In verse 22 Matthew again reports the wandering in Galilee (cf. Mark 9:30), to which already Lucas Brugensis appeals against the tradition; therefore the Transfiguration cannot have taken place in Galilee. If one gives any weight at all to the geographical indications, this conclusion can scarcely be avoided. Since Jesus comes from Caesarea and afterward goes to Capernaum, a mountain north of that city, perhaps a spur of Hermon, is to be assumed.
Mt 17:2: μετεμορφώθη (“He was transformed, transfigured”), because the transformation was a transition into the glorified state (2 Peter 1:16 f.). One can conceive of this only as a temporary anticipation of the glorification that occurs after the Resurrection (John 12:16, 23; 17:5; 2 Corinthians 3:18). An analogy is found in Deuteronomy 34:29 f., where it is told that Moses came down from the mountain with a shining face; yet this is only external, for in Moses the appearance of God caused the radiance, whereas in Jesus it is an outflow of the divine glory concealed by the human nature. The state is, however, to be referred to the action of the Father (Schegg), without assuming a transformation of the body into the body of glory.
Mt 17:3: ὤφθη … ὤφθησαν αὐτοῖς (“appeared … appeared to them”). It is expressly said “to them,” because for Jesus no appearance was necessary. Moses and Elijah appear as representatives of the Law and the Prophets. Maldonatus departs from this explanation, characteristic of the Fathers with slight variations, in favor of the interpretation of a contemporary (cf. Jansenius), that Christ wished to represent an image of His future coming; before His second coming Moses and Elijah will come, as is not obscurely gathered from Revelation 11:3–6. Some modern critics likewise find here, and in the rabbinic belief in the return of Moses (Deut 18:15; Josephus; 4 Ezra; Debar Rabbah), the reason for their mention (Keim, Wünsche), but thereby deny the historical character of the Transfiguration.
Even if Revelation 11 borrows individual features from the histories of Moses and Elijah, it does not follow that the two witnesses must be these themselves, just as Josephus merely reports that Moses was taken away by a suddenly appearing cloud, whereas Scripture says he died—an explanation of Deuteronomy 34:6 that also passed from the Rabbis into Christianity. Already ancient theologians (Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Basil, Theodore, Procopius, etc.) give as the reason for the removal of the body: ἵνα μὴ τὰ ὀστᾶ ἐκείνου … θεοποιήσωσιν αὐτά (“lest those who worshiped the calf should take his bones and deify them”).
Regarding the manner of the appearance of Moses and Elijah, the Fathers do not speak precisely but incline to the view that both appeared corporally. Yet against the resurrection of Moses one must recall Acts 26:23; 1 Corinthians 15:20; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5, for such would have a different character from the resurrections narrated in Scripture, since the body had long since undergone corruption. The explanation is easier with Elijah, who did not taste death. Therefore, with Thomas (ST, loc. cit.), it is to be said: Quod non est sic intellegendum quasi anima Moysi suum corpus resumserit, sed quod anima eius apparuit per aliquod corpus assumptum sicut angeli apparent; Elias autem apparuit in proprio corpore (“This is not to be understood as though the soul of Moses resumed its body, but that his soul appeared through some assumed body, as angels appear; Elijah, however, appeared in his own body”).
The disciples probably recognized those who appeared not from the content of the conversation but by sight, because they corresponded to the image they had formed from the Old Testament accounts. According to Luke 9:31 they spoke with Jesus about the “departure” (ἔξοδος) which He was to accomplish in Jerusalem.
Mt 17:4: καλόν ἐστιν ἡμᾶς ὧδε εἶναι (“it is good that we are here,” or “our being here is good”). The address has no reference to the prophecy of the Passion in order to deter Jesus from going to Jerusalem, but is an expression of joy at the beginning of the messianic glory; Peter has completely forgotten suffering and death. The shift from plural to singular (ποιήσω …) expresses Peter’s zeal well and fits his character. The motive is not the pleasantness or security of the place, but the supernatural glory which Peter would like to enjoy permanently.
Mt 17:5: νεφέλη φωτεινή (“a bright cloud”) overshadowed them; for even a bright cloud can conceal the object. God appears in the Old Testament in a cloud (Exod 16:10; 19:9; 24:15, etc.) to reveal or to veil His majesty, since no one sees God and lives. The cloud is bright not in contrast to a dark cloud, but because the Transfiguration is presented as a manifestation of light; thus the light of the cloud becomes a sign of grace and glory of the new life. αὐτούς may refer either to the disciples or to Jesus, Moses, and Elijah; the latter is more probable, since the cloud was regarded as the seat of divine majesty and the voice is heard ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης (“from the cloud”). ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ (“listen to Him”) includes more than mere hearing; obedience is implied, especially now when Jesus is about to fulfill His messianic office through the Cross. Hence also the prominence of the command. In Deuteronomy 18:15 it is said αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε (“you shall listen to him”), emphasizing the promised prophet in distinction from Moses.
Mt 17:6: They fell on their faces because in the voice they recognized the nearness of God, before whom sinful man is always seized with fear (Isa 6:5; Dan 10:9–10; Rev 1:17).
Mt 17:7: Instead of προσελθών ἥψατο, some read καὶ προσῆλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἁψάμενος αὐτῶν εἶπεν, which is preferable, since προσελθών is a favorite expression of Matthew. By the touch the disciples were brought back to natural consciousness (cf. Dan 10:10).
Mt 17:9: ὅραμα (“vision,” “what is seen,” “spectacle”). Among the prophets it refers to what they have beheld. The reason for the prohibition is the same as in 16:20. The Fathers also explain it as avoiding scandal, referring “to no one” to the people; Hilary grounds it in the weakness of the three disciples. Even to the other apostles they were not yet to communicate it, since they were not sufficiently receptive; otherwise Jesus Himself would have made them witnesses of the Transfiguration. Instead of ἀναστῇ some read ἐγερθῇ, since ἀναστῆναι in this sense is nowhere undisputed in Matthew, though it is in Mark.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment