Kelly Reddy: Did Jesus' transfiguration occur as documented in the gospels? Peter argues for the Parousia from the fact the transfiguration happened before their eyes and not in their imaginations.

Peter argues to the hope of the Parousia from the fact of the transfiguration, clearly implying that, whatever the nature of the event, it happened before their eyes, not in the depth of their imaginations.

The Transfiguration (1520) is the last painting by the Italian High Renaissance master Raphael. Moses died at least 1,300 years before Jesus and Elijah died 800 years before Jesus, yet all three are depicted in this painting: Jesus (center), Moses (right) and Elijah (left).

The writer of 2 Peter clearly regarded the transfiguration as a historical event of considerable significance. (see 2 Peter 1:16-18). As J. B. Mayor points out, what Peter (assuming him to be the author) is seeking to establish here is the ground of belief, particularly belief in the second coming of Christ. This is why he refers to the transfiguration: "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eye-witnesses of his majesty." The usual procedure in the New Testament is to ground the hope of the Parousia in the fact of the resurrection. Nothing in 2 Peter 1:16ff contradicts this. In fact, the same essential emphasis on personal testimony remains, on this time it refers to the transfiguration. They saw him receive "honour and glory"; and they heard a voice address him from the Majestic Glory. None of that was a myth or a fable, Peter insists. It was as real as the resurrection appearances; it confirmed the word of prophecy; and it gave the community a basis for faith in the Parousia. It is with the latter that Peter is particularly concerned. The Parousia could be no greater wonder than what they had already seen, which was, after all, a vision of the kingdom of God (Mark 9:1). Besides, it was only to be expected that one so majestic as the Christ of the transfiguration should receive final honour and glory on the scale envisaged in the Parousia. The important thing, however, is Peter's logic. He argues to the hope of the Parousia from the fact of the transfiguration, clearly implying that, whatever the nature of the event, it happened before their eyes, not in the depth of their imaginations.

The problem of the modern critic is that he cannot see how one who washes feet can be his Lord. From both directions, the conclusion is the same: there can be no incarnation of the divine

Transfiguration of Christ by Giovanni Bellini (c 1480).
Transfiguration of Christ is the subject of two paintings by the Italian Renaissance master Giovanni Bellini.

Transfiguration (c. 1455-1460) by Giovanni Bellini. Museo Correr, Venice.

Finally, the transfiguration is fully congruous with the portrait of Christ painted by the synoptics. This is the crucial issue. As A. M. Ramsey points out, "If the view of his person which was held by the evangelists and the apostolic church in general is true, then a frankly supernatural occurrence in the course of his earthly ministry will be credible." In its own setting, the transfiguration is entirely "natural", because It refers to one to whom God was Abba, to whom disease, death and demons yielded, and to whom at least the grace itself surrendered. To those who believe such things, the transfiguration presents no difficulty. On the other hand, for those to whom such a view of Jesus is incredible, the transfiguration will be incredible. This brings us back to the basic assumptions of Christology. The issue is the same as the one posed by Peter in John 13:98: "You shall never wash my feet." Peter's problem was that he did not see how one who was his Lord could wash his feet. The problem of the modern critic is that he cannot see how one who washes feet can be his Lord. From both directions, the conclusion is the same: there can be no incarnation of the divine. It is along this road that the general argument against the transfiguration proceeds. Christ is human, therefore he cannot be divine and therefore events such as the transfiguration must by mythical.

Georgian manuscript of Transfiguration in the Gospel of Mark, 1300.

Accepting the historicity of the event, however, what does it mean? For our present purpose the crucial thing is the Voice from heaven: "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!" (Mark 9:7). Matthew's version adds the words, "with him I am well pleased". Luke substitutes "chosen/ choice" (eklelegmenos) for "beloved" (agapetos). None of these variations makes any substantial difference to the sense.

Peter's confession was intended to strengthen the disciples for the ordeal which lay before them. They were to see the Passion in the light of Glory.

Transfiguration by Alexandr Ivanov, 1824

The words serve, first of all, to confirm Peter's confession of Christ at Caesarea Philippi: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). As we have seen, the two incidents are placed in close proximity in all three synoptics. There was obviously some danger of the impression made by Peter's confession receding. As a matter of supernatural insight (Matthew 16:17) it was something which even Peter himself might not be able to sustain. The narrative of the transfiguration is certainly at pains to stress that the incident was directed mainly at the disciples. He was transfigured before them; there appeared unto them Elijah with Moses, there came a cloud and overshadowed them. Even the Voice strikes the same note: "listen to him". Considered on its divine side, Peter's confession (or, more precisely the revelation which lay behind it) was intended to strengthen the disciples for the ordeal which lay before them. They were to see the Passion in the light of Glory. The transfiguration has the same functions, the only difference being in this case the procedure is more vivid. The transfiguration itself was memorable, imparting to Jesus' "form" an unsurpassable majesty. The presence of Moses and Elijah talking with Jesus underlined the augustness of his native sphere and the exaltedness of his office. The cloud, reminiscent of the Shekinah, spoke of the divine presence residing upon Jesus. Above all, the Voice gave an unforgettable endorsement of his sonship: "This is my Son, whom I love"' adding (according to Luke) that he is elect and precious; and adding further that he, the promised prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15; Acts 3:22), is the only voice they are to listen to.

The lesson, "Listen to him!" was taken to heart.

12th-century icon of the Transfiguration.The Transfiguration of Christ: Part of an iconostasis in Constantinople style. Middle of the 12th century. Saint Catherine's Monastery, Sinai (Egypt).

In the immediate historical outworking, of course, the transfiguration failed of its purpose. The disciples did not, in the event, see the passion in the light of the transfiguration. Instead, they deserted him (Mark 14:50). But this is no proof that the incident itself was not fitted to strengthen and encourage. In fact, if we were to judge Jesus by the short-term progress of his disciples we would have to conclude that he was a very poor teacher. When we take a longer view, however, the picture is different. The lesson, "Listen to him!" was taken to heart. Furthermore, it is clear from 2 Peter 1:16ff. that the fundamental Christological message, too, went home, and that the disciples continued to derive support from it to the very end of their lives. They never forgot the "majesty" they had seen. Nor did they ever forget the honour and glory he received from the Father. This, as Peter indicates, made them confident of his power and Parousia, his lordship and his divine sonship.

The cross stands between the transfiguration on the one side and the resurrection on the other.

Mosaic of the Transfiguration, Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai.

But the message was not only for the original disciples. True, unlike the identical words spoken at the baptism, the Voice at the transfiguration was oriented specifically to the three apostles. But it was undoubtedly heard by Jesus as well. This is brought out clearly in Peter's account: he received from God the Father honour and glory. The Voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory. These details make it plain that the Son, too, was to see the passion in the light of the transfiguration. He was to take the cup as one encouraged by the knowledge of his own identity, reassured as to his Father's on-going love and fortified by heaven's endorsement ("I am well pleased"). "What the Baptist is to the public ministry of Jesus," wrote A. M. Ramsey, "the Transfiguration is to the passion." The cross stands between the transfiguration on the one side and the resurrection on the other.

The suffering of Jesus is precisely what the heavenly visitors, Moses and Elijah, do want to talk about

Pietro Perugino, c. 1500: Collegio del Cambio (Trasfigurazione). Cat. no. 52 in Vittoria Garibaldi: Perugino. Catalogo completo. Octavo, Firenze 2000

Yet the transfiguration is more than a confirmation of the glory of Christ. It also reinforces the prediction of the passion. To the consternation on the disciples, Jesus had responded to Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi by declaring that "the Son of Man must suffer many things" (Mark 8:31). These words were hard to take. The disciples did not want to hear such nonsense (Mark 8:33). They certainly did not want to talk about it. Yet in Luke's account of the transfiguration the suffering of Jesus is precisely what the heavenly visitors, Moses and Elijah, do want to talk about. They discussed with Jesus the "departure" he was to accomplish at Jerusalem (Luke 9:31).

It would be fascinating to know what aspects of the cross Moses and Elijah discussed.

Lorenzo Lotto, 1510-1520

Whether or not Peter wrote 2 Peter (including the reference to the transfiguration, 1:16-18), it is interesting that in 1 Peter 1:12 the apostle refers to the angels' interest in the sufferings of Chri8st: "angels long to look into these things". The lesson on the Mount had been well learned: the cross was the talk of heaven. It would be fascinating to know what aspects of it Moses and Elijah discussed. They would certainly have expressed gratitude and assured him of the interest (and indeed the astonishment) of heaven. Nor is it inherently impossible that Moses and Elijah were able to enhance Jesus' understanding of the "departure". They had been prophets and now they enjoyed the insights of glorified humanity. Just as they had earlier ministered to Jesus through their written words, so, now, they probably ministered to him face to face. Such a ministry of encouragement on their part poses no more theological problems than the ministry of the angel who comforted him in Gethsemane (Luke 22:43).

Calvary is to be an achievement

Transfiguration icon by Theophanes the Greek, 15th century

Yet there is no doubt that in the encounter with Moses and Elijah the passion, too, is transfigured. The very word "departure" suggests this. So does the word "accomplish" (pleroun). The cross is to be no mere passion, and Jesus no helpless victim. Calvary is to be an achievement, a mighty redemptive act, securing deliverance and salvation. The cross is to be the instrument of that Exodus which calls into being the New Israel.

Some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power

Carl Bloch, c. 1865

But even this is not all. The transfiguration also represents the fulfilment of the words of Mark 9:1: "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power". All three synoptic accounts are prefaced by some such words, linking the incident to a special manifestation of the kingdom of God.

They saw Jesus as he is

Nativity, above, and Transfiguration below, 1025–50, Cologne

One possible interpretation of this is to link the transfiguration with the resurrection. From this point of view, the glory on the Mount is proleptic: a pre-vision of the Lord's resurrection body. But there are difficulties with this. One is the injunction to silence (Mark 9:9). By the time of the transfiguration, the resurrection was no longer part of the Messianic Secret: Jesus had referred to it openly at Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:31). Another difficulty is that the resurrection did not, by itself, lead directly to such a transformation of Jesus' body as in indicated here. The risen Christ could be mistaken for a gardener (John 20:15) or for an ordinary traveler (Luke 24:16ff.). It is better to say that the transfiguration is proleptic of the entire exaltation of Jesus, including resurrection, ascension, and heavenly session; and including also the Parousia. Taken together, these constitute the glory which was to follow the sufferings of Christ. From this point of view, what the disciples saw on the Mount corresponds with what Paul saw on the Damascus Road (Acts 9:3) and John saw on the Isle of Patmos (Revelation 1:12ff.). They saw Jesus as he is (1 John 3:2). The Parousia does not, as such, add anything to the glory already possessed by Jesus. It is a revelation (apokalypsis) or appearing (epiphaneia) of the glory; it makes it present (the root meaning of Parousia), but it does not enhance it. In effect, the church on the Mount was given a foretaste of the glory which, for Jesus, lay on the far side of his sufferings.