article22

§17 The Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1–27)

17:1–3 / Following Peter’s great messianic confession, Jesus begins to teach his disciples that his messiahship would involve rejection by the religious authorities and lead to death (16:21). To encourage his followers and to provide hope that victory lies beyond defeat, Jesus takes Peter, James and John to a high mountain, where he is transfigured before them. There is no particular reason why this account should be considered “a creation of mythopoetic imagination” that leaves us without “the slightest hope of recovering any element of historical fact that might conceivably lie behind it” (Beare, p. 361). We take it to be a reliable account of a supernatural transformation, the purpose of which is entirely appropriate to the ministry of Jesus the Messiah.

That Matthew locates the event after six days (following Caesarea Philippi) underscores the vivid impression that it left. Some view the time reference in a less historical manner and see the influence of Exodus 24:16, where after six days God called Moses into the cloud of glory that covered Mount Sinai. In biblical times divine revelation often took place on a mountaintop. Elijah was sent to the mountain to learn that the Lord was not in the wind, the earthquake, or the fire (1 Kings 19:11–12). The tradition that identifies Tabor as the Mount of Transfiguration is quite unlikely, because of its distance from Caesarea Philippi and because a castle and great fort dominated the summit at that time. Mount Hermon (fourteen miles from Caesarea Philippi and rising 9400 feet above sea level) is more likely. Luke tells us that Jesus went up the mountain in order to pray (Luke 9:28). Peter, James and John form an inner circle of the disciples and are found with Jesus at times of crucial importance (e.g., 26:37).

As the three disciples were watching, a change came over Jesus. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light (v. 2). Behm describes the transfiguration of Jesus as “the miracle of transformation from an earthly form into a supraterrestrial” (TDNT, vol. 4, p. 758). The radiance of Moses’ face when he came down from Mount Sinai (Exod. 34:29ff.) anticipated in a partial way this transfiguration. Apart from this scene, the Greek metamorphoō occurs in the New Testament only in Romans 12:2 and 2 Corinthians 3:18.

The three disciples now see Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus (v. 3). Luke 9:31 tells us that they were talking about his “departure” (his exodos, used regularly in the LXX for the departure of God’s people into the unknown en route to the land of promise). Moses and Elijah represent two of the great figures of the Old Testament. Moses was the supreme lawgiver, and Elijah the first of the great prophets. Gundry’s argument that these two Old Testament stalwarts do not represent the Law and the Prophets is less than persuasive (p. 343). Their presence on this occasion indicates that the path to the cross that Jesus is taking corresponds with the intention of God as revealed in the Old Testament.

17:4–8 / Peter responds (Gk. apokrinomai, “to answer”) to the heavenly scene by offering to build three booths or shrines for Jesus and his guests. What he intended were temporary shelters such as those prepared for the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth was a major autumn festival). As he spoke a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him! In the Old Testament the Shekinah was a cloud of glory that indicated the presence of God (Exod. 24:15–18). Unlike a natural cloud, it was luminous: it simultaneously revealed and concealed the presence of God (Schweizer, p. 349).

The voice from the cloud is God’s. The utterance is an exact repetition of what was spoken by the voice from heaven at the baptism of Jesus (3:17). Peter has once again “blurted out” (Taylor, Mark on 9:5) an idea that typifies the human approach. It is critical that those who follow Jesus listen to him. He is the beloved Son on whom God’s favor rests. Pay attention to him. Terrified at the sound of the voice, the disciples fall prostrate to the ground (cf. Dan. 10:5–12). Jesus steps forward, touches them, and encourages them to rise unafraid. When they look up, Moses and Elijah are no longer there, and they see only Jesus. From the transfiguration experience they would learn that even though the Messiah would be put to death (16:21), glory and exaltation would follow his resurrection.

17:9–13 / As they were coming down the mountain Jesus ordered his disciples not to tell anyone what they had seen until he had risen from the dead. To preclude the possibility of an uninformed messianic uprising it was necessary that news of what took place on the mountaintop not be spread abroad.

Jesus’ disciples ask why the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come before the Christ. Malachi prophesied that God would send the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord (Mal. 4:5). By claiming that the restoration of all things by Elijah had not taken place, the scribes could cast doubt on the messiahship of Jesus. Jesus answered that Elijah has already come but was mistreated in the same way that the Son of Man is “destined to undergo suffering at men’s hands” (TCNT). Then they made the connection. He was talking to them about John the Baptist. John was the Elijah who came first in order to set things in order (cf. 11:14). The argument of the teachers of the law against his messiahship would not hold.

17:14–16 / On the following day (cf. Luke 9:37) as Jesus and the three disciples (Peter, James, and John; cf. 17:1) came down from the mountain, they encountered a scene of confusion not unlike that which greeted Moses on his descent from Mount Sinai (cf. Exod. 32). Mark tells of a great crowd and the scribes arguing with the disciples who had not been on the mountain with Jesus (Mark 9:14–16). A man with an epileptic son comes to Jesus and, falling on his knees, pleads with him for mercy. In calling him Lord the man is making a christological confession. If Jesus were simply another man (cf. GNB, “sir”), why would he seek healing from him?

In ancient days epileptic seizures were commonly connected with the changing phases of the moon. Selēniazomai means “to be moonstruck” (from selēnē, moon). All three Synoptic Gospels understand the boy’s condition to be the result of a demon (Matt. 17:18; Mark 9:17, 25; Luke 9:39, 42). What we are dealing with is a case of epilepsy that, in this instance, was the result of demon control. Under the influence of an evil spirit, the boy would often “throw himself into the fire” (Knox) or into the water. The father had brought his son to the disciples, but they were unable to heal him (exorcize the demon, Mark 9:18; Luke 9:40).

17:17–21 / Jesus responds, O unbelieving and perverse generation. This phrase comes from the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:5) and is used by Paul in Philippians 2:15. It refers both to the disciples and to the crowd in general. The disciples were perverse (Gk. diastrephō means “to make crooked/pervert”) in that they lacked the faith to believe that the power of God would work through them. Green suggests that their lack of faith must be attributed “to their involvement in a people hostile to Jesus and to what he stands for” (p. 156). The two rhetorical questions in verse 17 picture Jesus as visiting the world to establish his church. How long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you?

Jesus orders the boy to be brought to him and, with a single command, orders the demon to depart (v. 18). Mark’s account describes in detail the exorcism (Mark 9:20–27). In private, the disciples ask about their inability to perform the healing. It was because you have so little faith, answers Jesus. If they had faith as small as a mustard seed (understood as the smallest of all seeds), they would be able to move a mountain. Ancient people thought of mountains as pillars that supported the sky, and thus mountains were natural symbols of stability (Gundry, p. 353). To move a mountain was a proverbial expression for overcoming a great difficulty (cf. Isa. 54:10; 1 Cor. 13:2). With faith, nothing is impossible. Tasker writes, “The meaning of the verse is that strong faith can accomplish the apparently impossible, for the man of faith is drawing upon divine resources” (p. 168).

17:22–23 / When the disciples gather in Galilee (reading systrephomenōn rather than anastrephomenōn), Jesus speaks to them for the second time in specific terms of his coming death and resurrection (see also 16:21 and 20:18ff.). The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life. Upon hearing this the disciples were greatly distressed. They could understand Jesus being put to death, but apparently they were incapable of grasping the promise of resurrection. Paradidōmi (v. 22) in this context probably means no more than “to be handed over,” although later it came to be part of the theological language of the Passion narrative.

17:24–27 / In New Testament times every male Jew twenty years of age or older was required to pay a half-shekel per year for the maintenance of the temple service (cf. Exod. 30:11–16). This was equivalent to two day’s pay for the average worker. When Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, those who collected the temple tax approached Peter to ask whether Jesus would be paying the required tax. The question, as stated in the Greek text, calls for an affirmative answer: “Your teacher, he pays the temple tax, does he not?” Peter answers, Yes, he does. Refusal to pay the tax would indicate a decision to withdraw from the religious community. Even the Essenes at Qumran, who had separated from Jerusalem in protest against the temple and its priesthood, paid the half-shekel tax.

Peter then “joined the rest indoors and was about to say something when Jesus spoke” (Rieu). What do you think, Simon? Do rulers of this world collect taxes from their own sons or from others? Peter answers correctly, From others. Then the sons are exempt. Duties (Gk. telē) were indirect and local, whereas taxes (Gk. kēnsoi; cf. English “census”) were paid to the imperial treasury. The GNB understands their own sons as “citizens of the country” and others as “foreigners.” It is much more probable that Jesus is comparing those who belong to the royal family and court with those who do not. Taxes are regularly imposed on citizens!

Jesus’ point is clear. As those who belong to God’s kingdom, they are under no obligation to pay the temple tax. Yet, there is another principle involved. In order that others may not be influenced to do something wrong (skandalizō means “to cause to stumble”) Peter is told by Jesus to catch a fish, and in its mouth he will find the necessary tax money. Though there is no necessity for Jesus and his disciples to pay the temple tax (they belong to another kingdom), it is important that they do not set a bad example for others. To insist upon one’s rights in a case like this would be to indulge in what Schweizer calls a “negative legalism,” which holds that fundamental freedom must be demonstrated at all costs and is therefore no better than “positive legalism” (p. 357).

It has often been noted that this is the only miracle story in which the reader is left to infer that the miracle actually happened. It is therefore held by some to be a “bit of folk-tale” (Beare, p. 372). A somewhat similar tale is told of Polycrates, who throws his ring into the sea to satisfy the gods and when he is served fish for dinner gets it back. Others take it in a figurative sense. What Jesus actually means is that Peter should return to fishing for a day and by selling the fish be able to pay the tax. The “miracle” is held to be contrary to the moral principle that God does not do for us what we can do for ourselves. It is also thought to violate Jesus’ own decision not to use miraculous power for his own benefit. Although we may acknowledge the distinctiveness of this miracle, the recommended solutions are inadequate. To declare that a historical narrative is folklore has far-reaching implications for the reliability of the text. To suggest that the whole event is no more than an example of Jesus’ sense of humor makes a farce of serious exegesis. Better to assume that Peter did exactly what Jesus told him to do and in fact found a four-drachma coin in the mouth of the first fish he caught.