Matthew 17 commentary

MATTHEW 17 COMME TARY
Written and edited by Glenn Pease
The Transfiguration
1After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James
and John the brother of James, and led them up a
high mountain by themselves.
1. One wonders how the others felt when Jesus selected just three to go with him up
the mountain. These three were very close to Jesus, and to each other, for they were
all partners in the fishing business. John became very famous later as the author of
the Gospel of John, his three letters, and the book of Revelation. But at this time he
was just known as the brother of James. They were just three guys, and not big
shots with any reputation among the people. ow they are on their way to
experience what no man has ever experienced, and none has ever done so since.
They are going to see the glory of the supernatural Christ.
2. Barnes, “And after six days. That is, six days from the conversation recorded in
the last chapter. Luke 9:28 says, about eight days after. Matthew mentions the six days
that intervened between the day of the conversation and the transfiguration. Lukeincludes
both those days, and thus reckons eight. Besides, Luke does not pretend to fix the
precise time. In the Greek it is "about eight days after." “These three disciples were
with him also in the garden of Gethsemane, Mark 14:33. He designed to fit them, in
an eminent degree, for the work of the gospel ministry, by the previous manifestations of
his glory, and of his patience in suffering.”
3. Barnes adds, “It is right to have particular affection for some Christians more
than others, at the same time that we should love them all. Christ loved all his
disciples; but he admitted some to peculiar friendship and favors, Matthew 17:1.
Some Christians may be more congenial to us in feeling, age, and education, than others;
and it is proper, and may be greatly to our advantage, to admit them among our peculiar
friends.”
4. Barclay, “There is a tradition which connects the Transfiguration with Mount
Tabor, but that is unlikely. The top of Mount Tabor was an armed fortress and a
great castle; it seems almost impossible that the Transfiguration could have
happened on a mountain which was a fortress. Much more likely the scene of the
Transfiguration was Mount Hermon. Hermon was fourteen miles from Caesarea

Philippi. Hermon is 9,400 feet high, 11,000 feet above the level of the Jordan valley,
so high that it can actually be seen from the Dead Sea, at the other end of Palestine,
more than one hundred miles away.
It cannot have been on the very summit of the mountain that this happened. The
mountain is too high for that. Canon Tristram tells how he and his party ascended
it. They were able to ride practically to the top, and the ride took five hours. Activity
is not easy on so high a summit. Tristram says, "We spent a great part of the day on
the summit, but were before long painfully affected by the rarity of the
atmosphere."
It was somewhere on the slopes of the beautiful and stately Mount Hermon that the
Transfiguration happened. It must have happened in the night. Luke tells us that
the disciples were weighted down with sleep (Lk.9:32). It was the next day when
Jesus and his disciples came back to the plain to find the father of the epileptic boy
waiting for them (Lk.9:37). It was some time in the sunset, or the late evening, or the
night, that this amazing vision took place.”
5. What was the purpose of Jesus in going there? Barclay gives this answer: “He
had to make quite sure, sure beyond all doubt, that he was doing what God wished
him to do. He had to make certain that it was indeed God's will that he should go to
the Cross. Jesus went up Mount Hermon to ask God: "Am I doing your will in
setting my face to go to Jerusalem?" Jesus went up Mount Hermon to listen for the
voice of God. He would take no step without consulting God. How then could he
take the biggest step of all without consulting him? Of everything Jesus asked one
question and only one question: "Is it God's win for me?" And that is the question
he was asking in the loneliness of the slopes of Hermon.
It is one of the supreme differences between Jesus and us, that Jesus always asked:
"What does God wish me to do." we nearly always ask: "What do I wish to do?"
We often say that the unique characteristic of Jesus was that he was sinless. What
do we mean by that? We mean precisely this, that Jesus had no will but the will of
God. The hymn of the Christian must always be:
"Thy way, not mine, O lord,
However dark it be!
Lead me by thine own hand;
Choose out the path for me.
I dare not choose my lot,
I would not if I might:
Choose thou for me, my God,
So shall I walk aright.
ot mine, not mine the choice
In things or great or small;
Be thou my Guide, my Strength,
My Wisdom and my All."

6. College Press Harold Fowler commentary, “ Why He chose only three Apostles,
and only these three, becomes clearer only as the larger picture is seen. His reasons
may have been some, or all, of the following:
1. To guarantee the necessary privacy, He chose three and no more.
Any larger group would render silence more difficult to maintain.
(17:9)
2. To guarantee that the Transfiguration would accomplish its purpose.
Whereas it was desirable for all the Apostles to behold His
glory, it was imperative that at least some have unquestionable
proof of His triumphant glory. But such a vision could not be of
value unless enough of them could testify to having seen it. Thus,
the choice of three men is to provide witnesses sufficient in number
to establish the reality of the fact in any court. (Cf. Dt. 19:15;
Mt. 18:16; Jn. 8:17; Cf. Ac. 10:41)
3. To have men who could best interpret and make best use of
the Transfiguration's impression on themselves. Jesus apparently
judged the rest of the group not to be qualified to witness it nor
to hear of it afterwards. The three chosen were not necessarily
elected because better loved by the Lord, but because qualified,
in that they were more open, more ready to accept and obey Him.
4, These men, together with Andrew, Peter’s brother, had been the
earliest disciples of Jesus, (Cf. Jn. 1:35-51) Only they were allowed
into the room with the parents to behold the raising of Jairus’
daughter from the dead. (Mk. 5:37; Lk. 8:51) Only they were
invited to share the Lord’s sufferings in Gethsemane. (Mt. 26:37;
Mk. 14:33) They had been nearest longest and were most intimately
linked to Jesus in heart and thought. In the Master’s plan each
was to become a pillar supporting the truth:
a. Peter was to swing wide the gates of the Kingdom of Christ to
Jew (Ac. 2) and Gentile alike (Ac. 10) and record his eye-witness
testimony to this pre-passion revelation of Jesus’ glory before he
too suffered martyrdom. (2 Pet. 1:16-18)
b. James would be the first Apostle to lay down his life rather than
deny Jesus’ resurrection. (Ac. 12:2)
c. John, also a pillar of the Jerusalem Church (Gal. 2:9), would
probably be the last Apostle to die, having bridged the gap from
the personal ministry of Christ on earth until the Church was
well-established throughout the world. To him would be granted
the privilege of relating the Messiah’s triumphant glory seen in

the visions of the Revelation. (Rev. 1:9)
5. Indirectly to bless the other Apostles who were not privileged to
be present. The others would feel the changed attitude of these
three, and because of their positive influence, the others would
hold firmer to Jesus in their turmoil, even if they could not identify
the source of what blessed them.
Whether these are the reasons Jesus chose them or not, is not clear.
To choose these and no others was Jesus’ right and was done in
His wisdom.
For the Hebrew reader of Matthew’s Gospel, the imagery of the
event itself would far outweigh any problems connected with His
choice. In fact, the imagery would lead the thoughtful Jewish reader
to see allusions to events in Hebrew history, beginning with the ascent
upon the high mountain, symbol of Sinai (Horeb) on which Moses
and Elijah received revelations from God. (See on 17:3.)
7. Plummer, “The historical character of this mysterious event is guaranteed
(i) by the improbability of invention^ for there had been nothing
in Christ's previous life to make an appearance of Moses and
Elijah probable, and there is nothing like it in the O.T., the
glorification of Moses at Sinai being very different; (2) by its
intrinsic suitability to the crisis in the Ministry which has just
been reached ; (3) by the testimony of all three Synoptisis and
(4) by the remarkable injunction to silence (see above on zvi. 20).
Whatever date we assign to 2 Peter, the allusion to the Trans- '
figuration (2 Pet. i. 16-18) is evidence of what was believed at
that date respecting the incident, and is so far a confirmation of
it.”
8. John Macarthur, “After they arrived at their destination, the disciples were soon
sleeping (Luke 9:32). While they were sleeping, Jesus was praying (Luke 9:28). We
this same scenario when the Lord poured out His heart to the Father in the Garden
of Gethsemane. The disciples were asleep on that occasion also. Jesus rebuked them
and said, "Couldest not thou watch one hour?" (Mark 14:37). Luke 22:45 tells us
they were "sleeping for sorrow." When people are depressed they often find they
want to sleep. Unfortunately, some people become so depressed that they want to
sleep for good, so they take their lives. Some people take sleeping pills so they can
escape from their problems. Perhaps the disciples slept because it was the only way
to deal with their sorrow. The same thing might have been true on the mount of
transfiguration. Only a few days before, Jesus predicted He would be killed, and
that they would follow Him by taking up their cross (Matt. 16:21, 24). They often
viewed their circumstances in the worst light. On one occasion Thomas said, "Let us
also go, that we may die with him" (John 11:16).When the three disciples came out
of their sleep, an incredible thing happened--unlike anything that has ever

happened in the history of the world.”
9. CALVI , "Matthew 17:1.And after six days. We must first inquire for what
purpose Christ clothed himself with heavenly glory for a short time, and why he did
not admit more than three of his disciples to be spectators. Some think that he did
so, in order to fortify them against the trial which they were soon to meet with,
arising from his death. That does not appear to me to be a probable reason; for why
should he have deprived the rest of the same remedy, or rather, why does he
expressly forbid them to make known what they had seen till after his resurrection,
but because the result of the vision would be later than his death? I have no doubt
whatever that Christ intended to show that he was not dragged unwillingly to death,
but that he came forward of his own accord, to offer to the Father the sacrifice of
obedience. The disciples were not made aware of this till Christ rose; nor was it even
necessary that, at the very moment of his death, they should perceive the divine
power of Christ, so as to acknowledge it to be victorious on the cross; but the
instruction which they now received was intended to be useful at a future period
both to themselves and to us, that no man might take offense at the weakness of
Christ, as if it were by force and necessity that he had suffered. (477) It would
manifestly have been quite as easy for Christ to protect his body from death as to
clothe it with heavenly glory.
We are thus taught that he was subjected to death, because he wished it to be so;
that he was crucified, because he offered himself. That same flesh, which was
sacrificed on the cross and lay in the grave, might have been exempted from death
and the grave; for it had already partaken of the heavenly glory. We are also taught
that, so long as Christ remained in the world, bearing the form of a servant, and so
long as his majesty was concealed under the weakness of the flesh, nothing had been
taken from him, for it was of his own accord that he emptied himself, (Philippians
2:7;) but now his resurrection has drawn aside that veil by which his power had
been concealed for a time.
Our Lord reckoned it enough to select three witnesses, because that is the number
which the Law has laid down for proving any thing;
at the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses,
(Deuteronomy 17:6.)
The difference as to time ought not to give us uneasiness. Matthew and Mark reckon
six entire days, which had elapsed between the events. Luke says that it happened
about eight days afterwards, including both the day on which Christ spake these
words, and the day on which he was transfigured. We see then that, under a
diversity of expression, there is a perfect agreement as to the meaning.
10. BE SO , "Matthew 17:1-2. After six days — Reckoning exclusively from that

in which the discourse recorded in the preceding chapter was delivered, to that on
which the transfiguration took place, or, including those two days, about eight days
after, as Luke has it: Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother — The three
disciples whom he honoured with a peculiar intimacy, (see Mark 5:37; and Matthew
26:37,) and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart — From the people and
his other disciples. Jerome tells us, that there was a tradition in his days, handed
down from the times of the apostles, that this was mount Tabor, famed in ancient
history for the victory which Deborah and Barak gained over Sisera, 4:14. Dr.
Macknight, however, thinks “the order of the history determines the transfiguration
to some mountain not far from Cesarea Philippi, rather than to Tabor, which was
situated in the south of Galilee. For after the transfiguration, it is said, Mark 9:30,
that they departed and passed through Galilee, and then came to Capernaum. ow
it is not very probable that the evangelist would in this manner have narrated our
Lord’s journey from the mount of transfiguration to Capernaum, if that mountain
had been in Galilee, the region in which Capernaum stood. Yet upon the faith of the
tradition mentioned above, the Christians very early built a monastery and church
on the top of Tabor, which church was dedicated to Jesus and his two attendants,
Moses and Elias. And from 2 Peter 1:18, they called the mountain itself, the holy
mountain. And he was transfigured before them — amely, before these three
disciples. It was necessary that so remarkable an occurrence should be supported by
sufficient witnesses; and hence it was that the three above mentioned were chosen,
because so many were required among the Jews to establish a fact, and no more
were chosen, because this number was sufficient. The word µετεµορφωθη, rendered
here, transfigured, may either imply that there was a transformation made in the
substance of his body, according to the import of the word in Ovid, and other
writers; or that the outward appearance only of his body was altered, which seems
most probable from the expression used by Luke, who says, το ειδος του προσωπου
αυτου ετερον, the appearance of his countenance, or person: was changed: and this
change, according to that evangelist, took place while he was praying, chap.
Matthew 9:29. And his face did shine as the sun — Became radiant and dazzling,
and shone like the sun in its unclouded, meridian clearness; and so was
incomparably more glorious than the face of Moses at the giving of the law. And his
raiment was white as the light — Became, says Mark, shining exceeding white, as
snow, so as no fuller on earth could white it. Was white and glistering, says Luke, or
white as lightning, as λευκος εξαστραπτων properly signifies. It seems it was bright
and sweetly refulgent, but in a degree inferior to the radiancy of his countenance.
“The indwelling Deity,” says Mr. Wesley, “darted out its rays through the veil of his
flesh: and that with such transcendent splendour, that he no longer bore the form of
a servant. His face shone with divine majesty, like the sun in its strength; and all his
body was so irradiated by it, that his clothes could not conceal his glory, but became
white and glistering as the very light, with which he covered himself as with a
garment.”
COFFMA , "Luke makes the time interval "eight days" (Luke 9:28); but there is
no discrepancy from Mark and Matthew. Luke used the inclusive method of
reckoning time, counting the portion of a day at either end of the period, whereas
Mark and Matthew counted only the complete days. A suggestion of this is in the

precise terminology used. Matthew has it "after six days," and Luke stated that it
was "about eight days." Today people might say, "six or eight days."
Matthew was omitted from that inner circle of three disciples who witnessed the
marvel here related, and one can find only amazement at the complete detachment
and objectivity of his narrative. Peter, James and John formed a kind of inner
committee, or cadre, within the Twelve, and were the exclusive witnesses of the
transfiguration, the raising of Jairus' daughter, and the agony in Gethsemane. Peter
would take the lead in establishing the church; James would be the recognized
leader of the church in Jerusalem; and John would receive the final revelation. The
experience on the mount of transfiguration would better equip them for future
duties and responsibilities. The Saviour's prophecy of his approaching death and
humiliation had doubtless imparted some measure of shock and disappointment to
the Twelve, and that event was possibly designed to lift their spirits, strengthen their
faith, and lead them into an acceptance of the approaching passion of our Lord.
The location of the wondrous unveiling of his glory is not given; but there are
excellent and convincing reasons for placing it at Mount Hermon, or one of its
supporting peaks. Robertson stated that "The tradition that places the
transfiguration on Mount Tabor is beyond question false."[1] He would appear to
be correct for these reasons: (1) Tabor does not qualify as a "high" mountain, being
only 1,800 feet in elevation, compared with Hermon's 9,000 feet. (2) Tradition
favoring Tabor, first advocated by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century,[2] is
much too late to have much weight. (3) Mount Tabor was populated, having a
fortress on top, during the time of Christ,[3] and was not suitable for such an event
as the transfiguration. To have ascended Tabor would not have taken them
"apart," as Matthew expressed it. (4) Mount Tabor was three days journey removed
from the last named geographical placement of Christ and his disciples; and,
although a sufficient time interval of six or eight days had elapsed, none of the
gospel narratives mentions a journey of any kind. Hermon, on the other hand, was
nearby and is the most likely site. (5) Furthermore, when the gospels again take up
the narrative, they were still in the vicinity of Hermon. Peter, in after years, called it
the Holy Mount (2 Peter 1:18), and in the words of A. L. Williams, "We may
conclude that we are not intended to know more about it, lest we should be tempted
to make more of the material circumstances than of the great reality."[4]
[1] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels ( ew York: Harper and Brothers,
1922), p. 102, footnote.
[2] A. Lukyn Williams, Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1961), Vol. 15 II, p. 171.
[3] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary ( ew York: The Macmillan

Company, 1937), p. 683.
[4] A. Lukyn Williams, op. cit., p. 172.
COKE, "Matthew 17:1. And after six days— That is, about six days if we reckon
exclusively, and about eight days if we reckon inclusively, after our Lord had
accepted the title of Messiah. See Luke 9:28 who has it, about eight days after. The
two accounts differ only, as if one should say, that Christ appeared to his disciples
after his death, another after his resurrection: the connection with the end of the
former chapter must be attended to here, as in many other places. Heylin. Tradition
has generally conferred the honour of the transfiguration on mount Tabor, famed in
ancient history for the victory which Deborah and Barak gained over Sisera, Judges
4:14. Roland observes, that this tradition took its rise from Mark 9:2 where it is
said, that Jesus carried Peter, James, and John into a high mountain apart by
themselves. It seems the original words κατ ιδιαν, apart, were thought to describe
the position of the mountain; and because Tabor is very high, and stands in the
plain of Esdraelon, at a distance from other hills, they thought it could be said of no
other mountain so properly, that it is an high mountain by itself. Hence the tradition
of our Lord's being transfigured on this mountain might arise; especially as this
mountain is not only high, but verdant also, and woody, and of a beautiful regular
form; nevertheless the whole account determines the transfiguration to some
mountain not far from Caesarea Philippi, rather than to Tabor, which was situated
in the south of Galilee: for after the transfiguration, when Jesus had cured an
epileptic who was also possessed by a demon, it is said, Mark 9:30 that they
departed and passed through Galilee, and then to Capernaum. ow it is not very
probable that the Evangelist would in this manner have related our Lord's journey
from the mount of transfiguration to Capernaum, if that mountain had been in
Galilee, the region in which Capernaum stood, especially if, as the continuators of
Chemnitz's Harmony affirm, the word παραπορευεσθαι signifies to pass through
quickly, secretly, and as it were in a journey: yet, upon the faith of the tradition
mentioned above, theChristians very early built a monastery and church on the top
of Tabor, which, according to the account of travellers, spreads itself into an ample
plain, surrounded with a wood. The church was dedicated to Jesus, and his two
attendants Moses and Elias; and from 2 Peter 1:18 they call the mountain itself the
Holy Mount. Our Lord admitted to the singular honour of his transfiguration, Peter
his most zealous, James his most active, and John his most beloved disciple. It was
necessary that this remarkable occurrence should be supported by sufficient
evidence: hence it was that three of the disciples were chosen, because so many
witnesses were required to establish a fact by the Jews; and no more were chosen,
because this number was sufficient. Besides this reason for electing these three
persons in particular, we may add, that Peter was the most sanguine and the most
forward speaker among the apostles, that James was the first martyr, and that
John, being the survivor of all the other Apostles, gave a sanction to this record, as it
is most probable that he had a sight of all the other Gospels, and likewise confirmed
it by his personal testimony as long as he lived. See Macknight, Renald's Palaest.
Illust. lib. 1 and Maundrell's Journey, p. 112.

PETT, "‘And after six days Jesus takes with Him Peter, and James, and John his
brother, and brings them up into a high mountain apart.’
‘After six days.’ Here we must ask the question, six days from when? The answer
could possibly be ‘after the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi’, or it could
signify six days ‘after saying these words’. The fact that Luke has it as ‘about eight
days after’, however, possibly warns against our trying to read too much into the
‘six days’. (Luke’s ‘about eight days’ includes a part day at the beginning and a part
day at the end, and is therefore the equivalent of these six days). It would thus
appear simply to literally indicate the passing of time an unusual situation in
Matthew, although of course taken from his source. evertheless as he could easily
have abbreviated it out, as he so often does with extraneous material, this suggests
that at the very minimum it is because he wants to maintain the link between the
Transfiguration and what has gone before. This would seem to confirm the fact that
he sees the Transfiguration as at least a partial fulfilment of the promise in Matthew
16:28, if not the whole.
Some have seen the six days as connected with the six days in Exodus 24:16, but
surely if Matthew had intended us to identify with those he would have introduced
‘and on the seventh day’ as it does in Exodus. or are the circumstances anything
like identical. In Exodus 24:16 Moses was already higher up the mountain prior to
waiting for the six days, and the waiting was in order to enter the cloud.
Furthermore Moses did not initially take up only three people, he took up seventy
four, Aaron, adab, Abihu, the seventy elders and Joshua. The differences are thus
significant. If Jesus (or Matthew) had wanted us to identify the two scenarios surely
more effort would have been put into some kind of nearer parallelism. The emphasis
in Matthew, as in the other Gospels, is on Moses A D Elijah, even if Moses does
come first, in other words on the Law and the Prophets.
‘Peter and James and John.’ It is clear that these three are selected out as special
and especially trustworthy witnesses from among the disciples (compare Matthew
26:37; Mark 5:37). Three is a number indicating completeness which is why we so
often find threes in Scripture.
‘Into a high mountain apart.’ The suggestion of a high mountain indicates an ‘other
worldly’ experience for Him. Compare Matthew 4:8. This in the same way as going
up into ‘the mountain’ always seems to indicate a specially blessed experience for
His disciples, although at a lower level.
The mountain where the Transfiguration happened is traditionally said to have
been Mount Tabor, a 600 metre (1,900 foot) hill that rises conspicuously at the east
end of the Jezreel Valley. However as Josephus wrote that in those days there was a
walled fortress on its summit it would not really have been the place to go for peace
and solitude, and it is not really describable as ‘a high mountain’. Others have
suggested Mount Hermon. This was close to Caesarea Philippi, and was 3000 metres
(9,232 feet) high. But that would be an unlikely place to find Scribes and a crowd
waiting at the bottom (although crowds did go long distances seeking Jesus).

Another suggestion is Mount Miron, the highest mountain in Israel between
Caesarea Philippi and Capernaum at 1,000 metre (3,926 feet) high. A fourth
possibility is Mount Arbel on the west side of the Sea of Galilee. This is a high
mountain from which the whole of the Sea of Galilee is visible. Mount Miron would
appear a likely candidate, but clearly no one thought the question important, which
tends to confirm that we are to learn a lesson from the fact that it was a ‘high
mountain’.
BURKITT, "The former part of this chapter gives us an account of our Saviour's
glorious transfiguration, he laid as it were the garments of frail humanity and
mortality aside for a little time, and assuming to himself the robes of majesty and
glory, the rays of his divinity darted forth, his face shined with a pleasing
brightness, and his raiment with such a glorious lustre, as did at once both dazzle
and delight the eyes of the beholders.
Here observe, 1. The reasons of our Lord's transfiguration,
1. To demonstrate and testify the truth of his divinity; that he was Christ the Son of
the living God; according to St. Peter's confession just before. This divine glory was
an evidence of his divine nature.
2. Christ was thus transfigured, to prefigure the glory of his second coming to
judgment, when he shall be admired of his saints, as here he was admired by his
disciples.
Observe, 2. The choice which our Saviour makes of the witnesses of his
transfiguration, his three disciples, Peter, James and John. But why disciples? Why
three disciples? Why these three?
1. This transfiguration was a type and shadow of the glory of heaven: Christ
therefore vouchsafes the earnest and first fruits of that glory only to saints; upon
whom he intended to bestow the full harvest.
2. Three disciples were witnesses sufficient to testify this miracle. Judas was
unworthy of this favour, yet lest he should murmur or be discontented at his being
left out, others are also left out besides him.
3. These three, rather than others; because,
1. These disciples are more eminent for grace, zeal, and love to Christ; and,
consequently, are most highly dignified and honoured by him. The most eminent
manifestations of glory, are made by God to those that are most eminent in grace.
2. These three were witnesses of Christ's agony and passion, to prepare them for
which, they are here made witnesses of his transfiguration. This glorious vision from

Mount Tabor fitted them to abide the terrors of mount Calvary.
Learn, that those whom God singles out for the greatest trials, he will sit beforehand
with the best enablements.
2There he was transfigured before them. His face
shone like the sun, and his clothes became as
white as the light.
1. We talk about people have a bright face, and a face that lights up the room, but
here we see the face of Christ being made brighter than any human face has ever
been. It shone like the sun, and his clothes reflected the light on his face so that they
became just as white as his bright face. It had to look scary to the three as they
beheld the ordinary Jesus clothed in the light so obviously supernatural.
2. Barnes, “(1.) His face shone as the sun; that is, with a peculiar brightness. A
similar appearance is described respecting Moses when he came down from the
mount,Exodus 34:29,30. See also Hebrews 1:3, where Christ is called the brightness of
the glory of God; in the original, the splendour, or shining, like the brightness of the
sun.
(2.) The second change was that of his garments. They were white as the light. Mark
says, white as snow, so as no fuller on earth could whiten them. The word "fuller"
means, commonly, one who dresses cloth, or fulls it, so as to make it more thick and
strong. Here it means one who bleaches cloth, or makes it white; one who cleanses
garments, when by wearing they become soiled. Among the Greeks, that was a
distinct trade. Luke says, white and glistering; that is, resplendent, shining, or a
very bright white. There is no evidence here that what is commonly said of him is
true, that his body was so changed as to show what his glorified body is. His body,
so far as the sacred writers inform us, underwent no change. All this splendor and
glory was a change in appearance only. The Scriptures should be taken just as they
are, without any attempt to affix a meaning to them which the sacred writers did not
intend.
Raiment. Clothing; apparel. John refers to this transfiguration in John 1:14; and

Peter in his second Epistle, 2 Peter 1:16,17.
3. Broadus, “As the three disciples were oppressed with
sleep during the scene (Luke), and his return
to the other disciples was on the next day
(Luke9:37), it seems clear that the Transfigura
tion occurred at night. The shining of our
Lord s face and garments, and the bright
cloud, would thus be more manifest, and the
whole scene more striking.”
3B. CALVIN, "2.And was transfigured before them. Luke says that this happened while
he was praying; and from the circumstances of time and place, we may infer that he had
prayed for what he now obtained, that in the brightness of an unusual form his Godhead
might become visible; not that he needed to ask by prayer from another what he did not
possess, or that he doubted his Father’s willingness, but because, during the whole course
of his humiliation, he always ascribed to the Father whatever he did as a divine Person,
and because he intended to excite us to prayer by his example.
His transfiguration did not altogether enable his disciples to see Christ, as he now is in
heaven, but gave them a taste of his boundless glory, such as they were able to
comprehend. Then his face shone as the sun; but now he is far beyond the sun in
brightness. In his raiment an unusual and dazzling whiteness appeared; but now without
raiment a divine majesty shines in his whole body. Thus in ancient times God appeared to
the holy fathers, not as He was in Himself, but so far as they could endure the rays of His
infinite brightness; for John declares that not until
they are like him will they see him as he is, (1 John 3:2.)
There is no necessity for entering here into ingenious inquiries as to the whiteness of his
garments, or the brightness of his countenance; for this was not a complete exhibition of
the heavenly glory of Christ, but, under symbols which were adapted to the capacity of
the flesh, he enabled them to taste in part what could not be fully comprehended.
COFFMAN, "The glory of Christ was revealed. The effulgence of the Godhead made his

face luminous and shone through his garments. Again from Williams,
It is a subjective vision that is here related, no mere inward impression on brain or nerve
with nothing external to correspond, but a real objective occurrence, which was beheld by
mortal eyes endued with no supernatural or abnormal powers, except insofar as they were
enabled to look on this partial emanation of the divine effulgence.[5]
The heavenly glory of Christ irradiated his face and clothing, demonstrating his eternal
nature in a way to make the apostles who witnessed it absolutely certain that Christ was
God in human form. The profound impression made by the event was permanent. Long
afterward, John wrote, "We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the
Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14).
PETT, "‘And He was transfigured before them, and his face shone as the sun, and his
garments became white as the light.’
And there in that high mountain the disciples saw an amazing transformation take place.
They saw Jesus transfigured before them. Before their eyes His face shone like the sun,
and His clothing became ‘white as light’, glistening and other worldly, and glorious. And
they must have been shaken to the core, for this was not what they had been expecting
when they went up with Him into the mount. It was true that Peter had declared Jesus to
be ‘the Christ, the Son of the living God’. But those had been words which manifested a
conviction that had taken hold of his heart. This was something different. They were
seeing that He was. They were being made to recognise as never before the uniqueness of
Jesus.
And well they might for there is no other occasion in Scripture where this kind of
appearance is seen as being true of a human being. It is seen to be true to some extent of
heavenly figures (see Matthew 28:3; Daniel 10:5-6; Revelation 1:13-15), but never of an
earthly One. For here there is no thought that it is the presence of God in glory that has
caused it. This is no reflected glory, as it was with Moses when his face, and only his
face, shone in Exodus 34:29, when he had been face to face with God in the cloud. (We
should note also that that was semi-permanent and that Moses brought it down from the
mountain with him. It was not a once for all revelation. It was borrowed glory intended to
impress the people below. So its source was different, its aim was different, and the detail
of the description is very different). The idea here is rather that the inward glory of Jesus
is being revealed to His disciples. In that ‘high mountain’, having come closer, as it were,
to Heaven, what He was in Himself could not remain hidden. The sun was the brightest
light then known to man, and beyond man’s reach, and spoke of heavenly glory, while

garments as white as light indicated total purity and unearthliness. He was thus here being
revealed as of absolute glory and purity, and as basically One Who was from Heaven.
The description is, of course, making clear what was seen, not defining it. Glory shone
out from Him. The parallels in the other Gospels mainly concentrate on the clothing.
Mark says it was unearthly. It was ‘as no scourer on earth could whiten it’. Luke says it
was ‘glistening’ (exastraptown), a word used in Daniel 10:9 of the glistening feet of a
rather spectacular angel. But ‘white as light’ here in Matthew goes further. It brings to
mind Psalms 104:2, ‘You are clothed with honour and majesty, Who cover yourself with
light as with a garment’. This confirms that the aim here is to bring out Jesus’
‘unearthliness’, and here in Matthew even His divinity.
Daniel 7:9 speaks of the Ancient of Days (God) as having ‘raiment as white as snow’
(compare Matthew 28:3), and this is in fact picked up by copyists who later incorporated
it in the Transfiguration text of both Matthew (D and versions) and Mark (A D and
versions). But even if we reject those readings on the basis of the evidence the
comparison does confirm the heavenly nature of the ‘whiteness’. So Jesus is being
revealed as a heavenly figure, and more.
This is backed up by the fact that the word for ‘white’ (leukos), when used elsewhere in
the New Testament, either refers to the clothing of angels, or else to the clothing of
glorified saints who have been cleansed by the blood of Jesus. It symbolises what is pure
and is not of earth.
However Luke also confirms that ‘the appearance of His countenance was altered’, and
Matthew here describes it as ‘shining like the sun’. This connects Him with the righteous
who will in the future shine forth as the sun in the Kingly Rule of their Father (Matthew
13:43), but here it is seen as His already, not something that He has to receive in the
future. He is already the Righteous One (compare Acts 3:14) shining like the sun. One
day all the righteous ones, made righteous by His coming and the divine activity upon
them (see on Matthew 5:6), will be like Him for they will see Him as He is (1 John 3:2).
Matthew may well also have had in mind the Sun of righteousness Who would arise with
healing in His wings (Malachi 4:3).
This growing in righteousness and glory of His people so that they become ‘the
righteous’ is in fact revealed in similar terms to the Transfiguration in 2 Corinthians 3:18.
There it comes about through beholding/reflecting the glory of the Lord. But there it is we
and not the Lord whose shining is likened to the shining of Moses’ skin.
Comparison can be made with the faces which were ‘as lightning’, again of the angels in
Matthew 28:3; Daniel 10:9. But as the sun is brighter and more permanent than the
lightning, so was His glory seen to be more glorious as compared with theirs. If the ideas

are being borrowed and to some extent improved on in order to bring out what is unique,
the outshining of the glory of Jesus (compare Hebrews 1:3), they are not just being
duplicated. In contrast with them He is the outshining of the glory of God and the
‘stamped out image’ of His substance (Hebrews 1:3). As Peter puts it, ‘we were
eyewitnesses of His majesty’ and ‘He received honour and glory from God the Father’ (2
Peter 1:16-17).
However, the main immediate comparison that would probably have been made by the
Apostles as they saw Him in His glory on the Mount, would be with the glory of the Lord
as He came down on the Tabernacle (and later the Temple). There He met with the
children of Israel, and there His holiness was manifested. See Exodus 29:43; Exodus
40:34-35; 1 Kings 8:11. But here the glory is seen rather to have emanated from Jesus,
revealing that Jesus Himself was, in His humanity, God’s Dwellingplace, and it is
important in this regard to note that the glory is seen as being that of Jesus Himself, for
the voice of the Father ‘came out of Heaven’ (2 Peter 1:18), from the cloud, not from
Jesus Himself.
This ‘vision’ might well also have reminded the disciples of another vivid scene in Isaiah
6:1-8. That too was a glorious vision of a King in His glory, for although His glory is not
mentioned there, it is implied in the fact that the seraphim covered their faces before Him
and in the moving of the foundations, and there can be little doubt that the disciples
would have seen that appearance in Isaiah in the light of the Shekinah, the revelation of
the glory of God in His Dwellingplace. And there too He was accompanied by heavenly
attendants who spoke to Him. There too the cloud came down (the house was filled with
a smoke cloud), and there too a voice spoke from Heaven, referring to the need to listen
(which would not be heeded in the case of Isaiah’s listeners). So there are a number of
similarities. Of course here on the Mount Jesus could not yet be on a throne because He
had not yet been glorified, but that is how He will be depicted in Matthew 25:31. Here He
is being depicted rather as the beloved Son, prior to His coronation (Matthew 28:18), but
it is probably still in terms of that vision of Isaiah (compare also Isaiah 60:19). This ties
in again with Matthew’s emphasis on Isaiah and his prophecies in Matthew 3:2 to
Matthew 20:28.
Later in Revelation 1:13-16 similar descriptions will be used of Jesus, in a similar
manifestation of glory, there described in terms of His face shining as the sun and as
walking in the midst of His ‘congregation’, (seen in terms of seven ‘congregations’ which
represent the universal congregation), and having the keys of Death and of Hades. These
are concepts which tie in with this whole passage from Matthew 16:13 to Matthew 17:8,
which reveals as it does the increasing manifestation of Christ, first as the Son of the
living God (Matthew 16:16) revealed in power in establishing His congregation and
bringing the keys which release from Hades (Matthew 16:18), and then as the glorious

Son making known His glory (Matthew 17:2; Matthew 17:5; Revelation 1:17). And all
this in terms of tribulation and kingship (Matthew 16:24-25; Matthew 16:28; Revelation
1:9). It is no coincidence that the Apostle John was present at both visions. Revelation 1
was an even greater (because totally heavenly) manifestation of what happened here.
4. College Press Harold Fowler Commentary, “He needed to be’with the Father
after the disciples’ jarring rejection of His clear revelation of His death. It cost Him
to tell them the
unwelcome truth, but He must remain true to His mission, so He
took refuge in the Father’s presence. But what need had He to be
transfigured for His own personal benefit? Jesus was not an angel,
but a MA ! (Heb. 2:9, 14-18) He needed whatever encouragement
the Father could give. (Cf. Jn. 12:27f in context.) He may have
prayed that God would help Him to succeed in making His own
glory more evident to His Apostles, and so defeat the discouragement
He could not help but feel because of their obtuseness. The
Transfiguration, whether desired or sought by Jesus or not, would
serve to brace His courage to face the bitterness ahead in two ways:
a, The foretaste of the glory which would follow His suffering (Heb.
12:2) would be like being back home for just an instant, making
His voluntary obedience. even unto death (Phil. 25-11) to be
seen, by comparison, as something to be despised.
b. The Father’s loving voice, even speaking directly to the Apostles,
would reaffirm His pleasure in His Son, warm His heart and encourage
Him in His lonely mission among unsympathetic men.
It is like the encouragement felt by an expert pilot flying through
a storm-tossed night with no visible landmarks, when suddenly
a voice comes over the radio, saying, “We’ve picked you up on
radar, friend, and you're right on course!”
Peter testifies that “he received honor and .glory from God the
Father.” (2 Pt, 1:17)
2. His disciples needed further evidence of His true glory: could He
not request the Father to grant them this, even in words similar
to those in Jn. 17:1, 5? These men who believed the Good Confession
which God had revealed to Peter (Mt. 16:17) did not accept
the Messiah’s mission to suffer (Mt. 16:22), although He had
guaranteed them His vindication in glory (16:27). So they needed
the direct teaching that a brief, but convincing, revelation of His
divine majesty and a word from God would convey. The immediate
and imperative significance of this Transfiguration before His
status-seeking, materialistic Apostles is to give them a glimpse of

a majesty they had never dreamed, a glory that would make all
earthly grandeur and magnificence to fade away into insignificance,
In perspective, the Transfiguration would confirm the program
of Jesus in a moment when, according to every human prediction,
He was headed for failure. (Cuminetti, Matteo, 233) Peter, interpreting
this golden memory in his life, offered it as a supreme
illustration and convincing proof of the deity of Christ, as well as
the solid kind of evidence upon which we base our faith. (2 Pt.
1: 16-19) The understanding of their discipleship depended upon
their concept of His Lordship.”
5. The College Press Harold Fowler Commentary goes on, “The three Evangelists
grasp for adequate terminology to communicate the grandeur of this
transformation. They emphasize the splendor of the dazzling white
light radiating from His entire being. Although His features retained
their recognizably human form, everything else about Him took on
a blinding light, blazing with sun-like glory. This is the incident which
so marvelously encapsules what the Apostles meant when they said:
“We have beheld His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father”
(Jn. 1:14), and “We were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Pt. 1:16ff).
This is something of that majestic dignity for which Jesus longed:
“. . , the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.”
(Jn. 175) It is that unbearable, blinding splendor which shone above
the brightness of the noonday sun on the Damascus road that convicted
Saul of Tarsus that he lay prostrate in the presence of ‘‘Jesus
of azareth, the Lord of glory” (Ac. 9:3; 22:6, 9, 11; 26:13; 1 Co.
2:8) This is a foretaste of that radiant beauty recognized by the elder
Apostle when Jesus dictated the Revelation to him. (Rev. 1:9-19)
He was transfigured means that when people saw Jesus, they
normally saw nothing different from a normal Galilean, like a
thousand others they could name. But for this brief, splendid moment
the three disciples beheld “the glory of God in the face of Jesus”
(2 Co. 4:6) He was transfigured (rpetemorf6the) means that the “form
of God” (morfi theoii) shone through the “form of a servant.” (mog2
d o 6 h ) (See Phil. 2:6, 7; Edersheim, Life, 11, 96.)
The effects on the reader would be at least two:
1. The common reader would see that here in the glory of Jesus is a
suggestion of the awe-inspiring glory with which He would be surrounded
as He began to reign at the right hand of the Father and
in which He will return, (Mt. 16:27; Lk. 9:26) Is this a foretaste of
the glory that one day we too shall share? (Cf. Phi. 3:20, 21;
Col. 3:4; 1 Co. 1535-58; 1 Jn. 3:2, 3)
2. If the Transfiguration reminded the Hebrew reader of the shining
face of Moses after his conversations with God on Mt. Sinai (Ex.
34:29ff), it would be a comparison by contrast. The luminousness

of Moses’ face was relatively so feeble that a veil easily concealed
it. (Ex. 34:33-35; 2 Co. 3:12-18) Contrarily, the brilliance of the
person of our Lord was such that every part of His entire being
was radiant. A greater than Moses is here.”
5. Gibson, “It seems probable that the idea was to spend the
night in prayer. We know that this was a not in
frequent custom with Him ; and if ever there seemed
a call for it, it must have been now, when about to
begin that sorrowful journey which led to Calvary.
With this thought agree all the indications which
suggest that it was evening when they ascended, night
while they remained on the top, and morning when
they came down. This, too, will account in the most
natural manner for the drowsiness of the apostles ;
and the fact that their Lord felt none of it only proved
how much more vivid was his realization of the
awfulness of the crisis than theirs was. We are to
think of the four, then, as slowly and thoughtfully
climbing the hill at eventide, carrying their abbas, or
rugs, on which they would kneel for prayer, and which,
if they needed rest, they would wrap around them, as
is the Oriental custom. By the time they reached the
top, night would have cast its veil of mystery on the
grandeur of the mountains round about them
5B. Gibson gives us his impression of what happened.
“A careful reading of all the records leads us to think
of the following as the order of events. Having gone
up to pray, they would doubtless all kneel down
together. As the night wore on, the three disciples,
being exhausted, would wrap themselves in their cloaks
and go to sleep ; while the Master, to whom sleep at
such a time was unnatural, if not impossible, would
continue in prayer. Can we suppose that that time
of pleading was free from agony ? His soul had been
stirred within Him when Peter had tempted Him to
turn aside from the path of the Cross ; and may we not
with reverence suppose that on that lonely hilltop, as
later in the Garden, there might be in His heart the
cry, " Father, if it be possible " ? If only the way
upward were open now ! Has not the kingdom of
God been preached in Judaea, in Samaria, in Galilee,
away to the very borderlands ? and has not the Church
been founded ? and has not authority been given to the
apostles ? Is it, then, absolutely necessary to go back,
back to Jerusalem, not to gain a triumph, but to accept

the last humiliation and defeat? There cannot but
have been a great conflict of feeling ; and with all the
determination to be obedient even unto death, there
must have been a shrinking from the way of the cross,
and a great longing for heaven and home and the
Father s welcome. The longing cannot be gratified :
it is not possible for the cup to pass from Him ; but
just as later in Gethsemane there came an angel from
heaven strengthening him, so now His longing for
heaven and home and the smile of His Father is
gratified in the gladdening and strengthening
experience which followed His prayer a foretaste of the
heavenly glory, so vivid, so satisfying, that He will
thenceforth be strong, for the joy that is set before
Him, to endure the Cross, despising the shame. …...
…...We need not wonder, then, that it should have
been so with our Lord, only in an immeasurably
higher degree : that His face should have shone even
"as the sun"; and that, though He could not yet
ascend to heaven, heaven s brightness should have
descended on Him and wrapped Him round, so that
even " His raiment was white as the light." And not
only heavenly light is round, but heavenly company ;
for " behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias
talking with Him."
6. J. C. Ryle, “In the first place, we have in these verses a striking pattern of the glory
in which Christ and His people will appear when He comes the second time.
There can be little question that this was one main object of this wonderful vision. It
was meant to encourage the disciples, by giving them a glimpse of good things yet to
come. That "face shining as the sun," and that "clothing white as the light," were
intended to give the disciples some idea of the majesty in which Jesus will appear to
the world, when He comes the second time, and all His saints with Him. The corner
of the veil was lifted up, to show them their Master's true dignity. They were taught
that, if He did not yet appear to the world in the semblance of a king, it was only
because the time for putting on His royal apparel was not yet come. It is impossible
to draw any other conclusion from Peter's language, when writing on the subject.
He says, with distinct reference to the transfiguration, "We were eye-witnesses of his
majesty." (2 Peter 1:16.)
7. So many authors say the same thing about this being a sort of preview of His
second coming, but I think Calvin is more on the mark of believing that this was far
from what he will be in his coming again. He wrote, “His transfiguration did not
altogether enable his disciples to see Christ, as he now is in heaven, but gave them a
taste of his boundless glory, such as they were able to comprehend. Then his face
shone as the sun; but now he is far beyond the sun in brightness. In his raiment an

unusual and dazzling whiteness appeared; but now without raiment a divine majesty
shines in his whole body. Thus in ancient times God appeared to the holy fathers,
not as He was in Himself, but so far as they could endure the rays of His infinite
brightness; for John declares that not until
they are like him will they see him as he is, (1 John 3:2.)
There is no necessity for entering here into ingenious inquiries as to the whiteness of
his garments, or the brightness of his countenance; for this was not a complete
exhibition of the heavenly glory of Christ, but, under symbols which were adapted
to the capacity of the flesh, he enabled them to taste in part what could not be fully
comprehended.”
8. Gill, “and his raiment was white as the light:
he did not put off his clothes, nor were the nature and substance, and fashion of
them changed; but such rays of glory darted through his flesh, and through his
clothes, as made them as bright and shining, as the light of the sun at noon day.
Mark says, they became "exceeding white as snow, so as no fuller on earth can white
them". The Vulgate Latin reads, "as snow", here; and so do the Ethiopic version,
and Munster's Hebrew Gospel. Snow has a peculiar whiteness in it, and is therefore
made use of, to express the glittering brightness of Christ's raiment; and the fuller is
mentioned, who by the Jews is called, and means one that whitens wool, or raiment,
and such an one is here designed: not that any fuller makes garments of another
colour white; for though this may be done, it is not the work of fullers, but dyers:
but fullers, whatever colour garments are of, if sullied and spotted, can restore them
to their native colour; and if white, can bring them to their former whiteness: now
Christ's garments were as white, yea, whiter, than any such men could possibly
make garments, that were white at first: what colour Christ's garments were of
before, is not certain; now they appeared white, to the greatest degree of whiteness.
Dr. Hammond F2 has a conjecture, that in the phrase "on earth", reference is had to the
earth fullers make use of in cleaning, and which is called "fullers' earth"; and that the
words are to be rendered, "as no fuller, by or with earth can white them"; but if this will
not bear, the sense is, that there is no fuller, nor ever was, or ever will be upon earth, that
can make raiment so white as Christ's was.”
9. Macarthur, “Jesus was totally changed before the three disciples. The Greek root
of metamorpho[ma]o is morph[ma]e, which refers to form. His form was totally
changed. The glory of God was unveiled, radiating from the inside of Christ
outward. He was like a supernatural light bulb. The light from within Him was as
brilliant as the sun.
The scene leaves little doubt regarding who Christ is. Whenever God, who is spirit
(John 4:24), chose to manifest His invisible essence in the Old Testament, He did so
as light. In Exodus He manifested Himself in a pillar of fire and a cloud.
a) 2 Peter 1:16--"We have not followed cunningly designed fables when we made
known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were

eyewitnesses of his majesty."
b) John 1:14--"We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,
full of grace and truth."
c) Matthew 24:30--"They shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven
with power and great glory" (cf. Matt. 25:30).
d) Revelation 1:14-16--The apostle John gave the following description of Jesus
Christ in his vision: "His head and his hair were white like wool, as white as snow;
and his eyes were like a flame of fire; and his feet like fine bronze, as if they burned
in a furnace; and his voice like the sound of many waters. And he had in his right
hand seven stars; and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword; and his
countenance was as the sun shineth in its strength."
When Christ came into the world, He used the veil of humanity to cloak His divine
nature. The body is a wall that veils one's inner nature. But when Christ pulled
back the veil, the blazing glory of God became visible. That's what the three
disciples saw, and that's what we see in this text. The transfiguration leaves no
doubt about who Christ is. So don't let anyone tell you Jesus isn't God.”
10. Henry, “ ow his transfiguration appeared in two things:
1. His face did shine as the sun. The face is the principal part of the body, by which
we are known; therefore such a brightness was put on Christ's face, that face which
afterward he hid not from shame and spitting. It shone as the sun when he goes forth
in his strength, so clear, so bright; for he is the Sun of righteousness, the Light of the
world. The face of Moses shone but as the moon, with a borrowed reflected light,
but Christ's shone as the sun, with an innate inherent light, which was the more
sensibly glorious, because it suddenly broke out, as it were, from behind a black
cloud.
2. His raiment was white as the light. All his body was altered, as his face was; so that
beams of light, darting from every part through his clothes, made them white and
glittering. The shining of the face of Moses was so weak, that it could easily be
concealed by a thin veil; but such was the glory of Christ's body, that his clothes
were enlightened by it.”
11. Plummer, “During these last months of His earthly career the shadow of the
Cross was falling on Him more and more, and He may have needed this foretaste of
His glory to help Him to endure the foretaste of His sufferings. He accepted the
strengthening of an Angel in the garden ; and He may have accepted similar
strengthening on the mount.”
12. Scougal, “When once the soul by contemplation is raised
to any right apprehension of the Divine perfections and

the foretastes of celestial bliss, how will this world and
all that is in it vanish and disappear before his eyes ?
With what holy disdain will he look down upon things,
which are the highest objects of other men's ambitious
desires ? All the splendor of courts all the pageantry
of greatness will no more dazzle his eyes than the faint
luster of a glow-worm will trouble the eagle, after it hath
been beholding the- sun. eh. vi. 3 ; John iv. 32. — “
13. COKE, "Matthew 17:2. And was transfigured before them— The word
µεταµορφωθη implies either that there was a transfiguration made on the substance
of his body, according to the import of the word in the best classic writers; (See
Philippians 3:21.) or that the outward appearance only of his body was altered, as
seems most probable from the manner in which St. Luke has expressed it. In this
transfiguration the face of Jesus became radiant and dazzling; for it shone like the
sun in its unclouded meridian clearness, and so was incomparably more glorious
than the face of Moses at the giving of the law: at the same timehis garments
acquired a snowy whiteness bright as light, and sweetly refulgent, but in a degree
inferior to the radiancy of his countenance. Thus for a little while, during the state
of his humiliation, the Son of God permitted the glory of his divinity to break forth,
as it were, and shine through the veil of his human nature with which it was
covered. See Macknight and Calmet.
3Just then there appeared before them Moses
and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
1. Jesus was talking to dead people on the mountain. It is good to know that even
after we are dead we can still climb mountains, or maybe just appear there, or
anywhere else, for that matter. What we know for sure is that Moses was a dead
man. Deuteronomy 34:5-6 says, “So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in
the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And he buried him in a
valley in the land of Moab, opposite Bethpeor”And in Joshua 1:2 God said:

“Moses my servant is dead”
2. Those who believe in soul sleep, which means the dead are asleep until the
resurrection, teach that Moses and Elijah are not really here, but are still sleeping in
their graves, and this vision is just that-a vision produced by supernatural means.
This is how they escape the reality of the dead still being alive and conscious.
2B. Calvin, “It is asked, Were Moses and Elijah actually present? or was it only an
apparition that was exhibited to the disciples, as the prophets frequently beheld
visions of things that were absent? Though the subject admits, as we say, of
arguments on both sides, yet I think it more probable that they were actually
brought to that place. There is no absurdity in this supposition; for God has bodies
and souls in his hand, and can restore the dead to life at his pleasure, whenever he
sees it to be necessary. Moses and Elijah did not then rise on their own account,
“Moses and Elijah did not then rise for themselves, and with respect to the last
resurrection.” but in order to wait upon Christ. It will next be asked, How came the
apostles to know Moses and Elijah, whom they had never seen? The answer is easy.
God, who brought them forward, gave also signs and tokens by which they were
enabled to know them. It was thus by an extraordinary revelation that they
obtained the certain knowledge that they were Moses and Elijah.”
2C. Calvin implies that Moses and Elijah were raised up for this special assignment,
but this supports soul sleep. Better is the view that the dead, such as these two great
men, are always in a state of consciousness after death, and they were brought to
this mountain to encourage Jesus. They knew of the cross and what he was facing,
and they talked to him about it giving him assurance of what lies ahead beyond the
cross and grave. These two men were up on what the future held, and so were not
asleep in death, but awake and fully aware of what God was doing in history.
2D. Clarke, “Elijah came from heaven in the same body which he had upon earth,
for he was translated, and did not see death, 2 Kings 2:11. And the body of Moses was
probably raised again, as a pledge of the resurrection; and as Christ is to come to judge
the quick and the dead, for we shall not all die, but all shall be changed, 1
Corinthians 15:51, he probably gave the full representation of this in the person of Moses,
who died, and was thus raised to life, (or appeared now as he shall appear when
raised from the dead in the last day,) and in the person of Elijah, who never tasted
death. Both their bodies exhibit the same appearance, to show that the bodies of
glorified saints are the same, whether the person had been translated, or whether he
had died. It was a constant and prevalent tradition among the Jews, that both Moses
and Elijah should appear in the times of the Messiah, and to this very tradition the
disciples refer, Matthew 17:10.”
3. Barclay, “It is fascinating to see in how many respects the experience of these two
great servants of God matched the experience of Jesus. When Moses came down
from the mountain of Sinai, he did not know that the skin of his face shone
(Exo.34:29). Both Moses and Elijah had their most intimate experiences of God on a
mountain top. It was into Mount Sinai that Moses went to receive the tables of the

law (Exo.31:18). It was on Mount Horeb that Elijah found God, not in the wind, and
not in the earthquake, but in the still small voice (1Kgs.19:9-12).”
4. What could they be talking about? Dr. Luke gives us an insight here, and Barclay
goes there to give us his understanding of what this conversation was all about.
“Once again we must turn to Luke's account of the Transfiguration. He tells us that
Moses and Elijah spoke with Jesus, as the Revised Standard Version has it, "of his
departure which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem" (Lk.9:31). The word which is
used for departure in the Greek is very significant. It is exodos (GS 1841), which is
exactly the same as the English word exodus.
The word exodus has one special connection; it is the word which is always used of
the departure of the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt, into the unknown way
of the desert, which in the end was going to lead them to the Promised Land. The
word exodus is the word which describes what we might well call the most
adventurous journey in human history, a journey in which a whole people in utter
trust in God went out into the unknown. That is precisely what Jesus was going to
do. In utter trust in God he was going to set out on the tremendous adventure of that
journey to Jerusalem, a journey beset with perils, a journey involving a cross, but a
journey issuing in glory.
In Jewish thought these two figures, Moses and Elijah, always stood for certain
things. Moses was the greatest of all the law-givers; he was supremely and uniquely
the man who brought God's law to men. Elijah was the greatest of all the prophets;
in him the voice of God spoke to men with unique directness. These two men were
the twin peaks of Israel's religious history and achievement. It is as if the greatest
figures in Israel's history came to Jesus, as he was setting out on the last and
greatest adventure into the unknown, and told him to go on. In them all history rose
up and pointed Jesus on his way. In them all history recognized Jesus as its own
consummation. The greatest of the law-givers and the greatest of the prophets
recognized Jesus as the one of whom they had dreamed, as the one whom they had
foretold. Their appearance was the signal for Jesus to go on. So, then, the greatest
human figures witnessed to Jesus that he was on the right way and bade him go out
on his adventurous exodus to Jerusalem and to Calvary.”
4B. College Press Harold Fowler Commentary, “They discussed His “departure
which He was
about to accomplish at Jerusalem.” (Lk. 9:31) This is the entire point
of this personal appearance of the chief representatives of the Law
and the Prophets. Whereas the Apostles refused Jesus’ predictions
of His death as an idea contradictory to the basic concepts of the
Old Testament, here Moses and Elijah unhesitatingly discuss His
death as perfectly in harmony with all they taught. Were they talking
about His victory from their own point of view? After all, they too
would have been redeemed by His suffering, and now that their
Redeemer was nearing his final goal, His accomplishment of their

salvation would undoubtedly have been on their minds and cause
for their gratitude.
The “departure” (kxodos) was no unavoidable accident, but something
He Himself was shortly to “fulfil,” Le. carry out of His own
free choice. (Remember “must” [dei] of Mt. 16:21) But what, exactly,
is this “departure” or kxodos?
1, Exodos can be a military term, referring to an expedition, a march,
a sally or a sortie, a sudden issuing of troops from a defensive
position to attack the enemy, (Rocci, 670) Does Luke mean Jesus
was conferring with Moses and Elijah about the “breakthrough”
which He would accomplish at Jerusalem? The plan of God, while
holding Satan’s forces at bay for millennia, had moved steadily
forward in a defensive posture. Even God’s Son had preached
positively, limiting Himself merely to skirmishes with Satan. But at
the battle of Jerusalem, Jesus would launch an all-out attack that
would permanently destroy Satan’s capacity to win. (Gen. 3:15;
Isa. 42:l-4) Since our Lord intended to win this battle in the only
way it could be won, Le. by giving His own innocent life for the life
of the world, “the Just for the unjust that He might bring us to
God,” the breakthrough must necessarily take place at the cross
and the open tomb. (See also on 17:22.)
This way, Jesus stands at approximately the same place Moses
stood on Mount Horeb reflecting upon his exodus which he would
accomplish in Egypt. (Ex. 3, 4) The Son of God must go to His
Egypt too, Jerusalem (Rev. 11:8). There He would become the
new Deliverer to lead the new Israel of God (Gal. 6:16) out of their
593
17:3, 4 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
bondage to sin. Thus, all that Jesus accomplished at Jerusalem,
His death as the perfect Pascal Lamb of God, His burial, His
resurrection and ascension to glory, was but the accomplishment
of the actual departure. This is His praiseworthy victory, not over
a defeated Pharaoh (Ex. 15:1-18), but over Satan himself. (Cf.
Rev. 7:l-17; 14~1-51; 52-4) Then, the Mediator of a New Covenant
would lead His people past Mount Zion, the new Sinai, where His
new Law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Ro. 8:2) would be
“once and for all delivered to the saints” (Heb. 13:18-24; Jude 31,
and then on through the wilderness trek (Heb. 13:14), and right
on into our Promised Land, the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the
living God. The departure of Israel from Egypt was an exodus
in triumph by the power of God, and so is “His exodus which He
was to accomplish at Jerusalem!”
In short, the Apostles needed to return to their Bible and re-evaluate
their own concepts, bringing them into harmony with what Moses in
the Law and the prophets really believed and taught. What we have
learned as a common characteristic of Matthew’s Gospel, and not
uncommon in the others, was a real revelation to these disciples:

“EVERTHI G written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets
and the psalms MUST BE FULFILLED’.’ (Lk. 24:44; see also Mt. 26:54,
56) If the prophets are not shaken at the thought of a crucified
Messiah, why should the disciples? In fact, Peter later admitted:
“The prophets prophesied . . . predicting the sufferings of Christ
and the subsequent glory.” (1 Pt. 1:lOf)
5. Balmer, “The Transfiguration scene is like an announcement or fore-
shadowing of the future glory just mentioned. Jesus takes the
three disciples who were closest to him "up a bigfr mountain
apart.** He appears to them resplendent with light as he will one
day appear as the glorified Son of Man. What does the presence
of Moses and Elijah signify? We have seen earlier that Jesus is
considered in the Gospel as a new Moses; he is also the prophet
of the ew Age proclaiming the charter of the Kingdom of God.
Moses had announced Jesus* coming (Deut. 18:15-19; see John
5:45-46; Luke 24:27). Elijah is the forerunner who is to prepare
for the coming of the Messiah (Mai. 4 : 5-6) . These two great figures
by their presence confirm the Messianic mission of Jesus and the
indissoluble bond which binds the ew Covenant to the Old, the
fulfillment to the promise. The Mount of the Transfiguration cor-
responds to Mount Sinai. It is there that God descends and reveals himself.
6. College Press Harold Fowler Commentary, “This is the second encouragement of
Jesus. At last
He is able to converse with men who really understand and share
His aims. Just why, of all the illustrious giants of OT history, Moses
and Elijah should have been distinguished for this appearance is not
easily ascertained. Certain instructive factors stand out, however, to
suggest a motive for their selection:
1. Their lives and ministry paralleled that of Jesus at precisely this point:
a. Moses was discouraged by the faithlessness and perversity of the people of God.
( U. 20~1-13).
Elijah was discouraged by the faithlessness and perversity of the people of God. (1
Kg. 19:1-10).
Jesus was discouraged by the faithlessness and perversity of the people of God. (Mt.
16:22ff; 17:17).
All three talked with God on the mountain, and all three were glorified on the
mountain.
Another lesson from the appearance of the heavenly pair is that

death, or removal from the earth, is not the final end of one’s place
in God’s plan. Moses and Elijah, although separated in time by
many centuries, are suddenly united and ushered into Jesus’
presence for this specific mission. The dismayed disciples, horrified
at the thought of Jesus’ abandoning them by voluntary death, are
suddenly reminded that death does not bring man to an end, nor
does it terminate his mission and service to God.”
7. J. C. Ryle, “ ow we have in the transfiguration the clearest evidence that the
dead will rise again. We find two men appearing on earth, in their bodies, who had
long been separate from the land of the living--and in them, we have a pledge of the
resurrection of all. All that have ever lived upon earth will again be called to life, and
render up their account. ot one will be found missing. There is no such thing as
annihilation. All that have ever fallen asleep in Christ will be found in safe keeping;
patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs--down to the humblest servant of God in our
own day. Though unseen to us, they all live to God. "He is not a God of the dead,
but of the living." (Luke 20:38.) Their spirits live as surely as we live ourselves, and
will appear hereafter in glorified bodies, as surely as Moses and Elijah in the mount.
These are indeed solemn thoughts! There is a resurrection, and men like Felix may
well tremble. There is a resurrection, and men like Paul may well rejoice.”
8. Gill, “ ow they came. Luke says, they appeared "in glory": in glorious bodies, in
a glory upon their bodies; like, though inferior, to the glorious body of Christ, now
transfigured: that they appeared in their own real bodies, no doubt need be made;
about the body of Elijah, or Elias, there is no difficulty; since he was carried soul
and body to heaven, he died not, but was changed; and has ever since remained in a
glorious body, in which he doubtless now appeared: and why this should not be the
case of Moses, or why he should appear in another body, and not his own, I see not;
for though he died, yet he was buried by the Lord, and no man ever knew the place
of his sepulchre; and there was a dispute about his body, between Michael and the
devil, all which are uncommon circumstances: so that it might be, that his body was,
quickly after his death, raised and restored to him; or at this time, as a pledge of the
resurrection of the dead, as Christ's transfiguration was of his glory. The Jews have
a notion that Moses is not dead, but is ascended, and stands and ministers to God, in
the highest heavens F5: the appearance of these two with Christ, was to show, that
Christ is the end of the law and prophets; that there is an entire agreement between him
and them, and that they have their full accomplishment in him; and also shows, that he
was neither Elias, nor any of the prophets, as some took him to be; since he was distinct
from them, and the chief and more glorious than any of them. If it should be asked; how
came the disciples to know these two to be Moses and Elias, since they never saw them
before, nor could have any statues or pictures of them, these being not allowed among the
Jews; nor do the accounts of them in Scripture seem to be sufficient to direct them to such
a thought; especially, since by their glorification, they must be greatly altered: it may be
replied, they knew them, either by immediate divine revelation, or by the discourse that
passed between them and Christ...”
9. Macarthur, “God was telling Peter to keep quiet--it was not the right time for

stupid suggestions. But what was wrong with what Peter said? His attitude wasn't
wrong, but there was something foolish about his request. Peter didn't understand
two things: first, he didn't realize that he had experienced a preview only. He still
had to go down the mountain and live through suffering and hardship. The Messiah
still had to suffer and die. Second, Peter didn't understand that Jesus, Moses, and
Elijah can't be given equal treatment. When Peter offered his suggestion, Moses and
Elijah were departing from Jesus (Luke 9:33). The appearance of Moses and Elijah
was temporary because their purpose was to salute their divine successor--the One
who fulfilled the law and the prophets--and then to leave Him alone in the glory of
unchallenged supremacy. To build booths for all three didn't fit God's plan. Peter
simply didn't know what he was talking about.
10. Brian Bell stimulates some interesting issues in his comments. He calls Moses
and Elijah extraterrestrials, for they came from a different world than this one
where they once lived in the flesh. When Jesus expounded on who he was after his
resurrection he went to these two, and other prophets. Luke 24:27 says, “And
beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures
the things concerning Himself.” All of the Old Testament people were looking to the
day the Messiah would come, and now it is here and these two represent the whole
of God's Old Testament people. They greet Jesus and acknowledge him to be the
fulfillment of all the Old Testament pointed to. These two had momentous
experiences on the mountain, and Jesus did as well. Below is a partial list of the
events they each experienced on mountains.
11.Moses - (Ex.34:29) “When Moses came down from Mnt. Sinai, He knewest not
that his skin of his face shone.”
(Ex.31:18) “It was on Mnt. Sinai that he received the tables of the Law. 36 times in
Exodus Mnt. is used.
Elijah - (1 Kings 19:9-12) “It was on Mnt. Horeb that Elijah found God, not in the
wind, & not in the earthquake, but in the still small voice!”
(1 Kings 18) “It was on Mnt. Carmel where Elijah saw God respond visually w/fire
to defeat his enemy.”
Jesus - (Mt.5-8) He gives the Beatitudes on a mnt.
(Mt.14) Found praying on a mnt.
(Mt.15) Found resting & healing on a mnt.
(Mt.28) After His Res. He meets the disciples on a mnt. in Galilee.

His 3 famous discourses were given on a mnt.
Bread of life[Jn.6]; Sermon on the mnt.[Mt.5-8]; Olivet [Mt.24,lk21,Mrk.13].
He also Ascends from Mnt. Olivet/ His Return is to the same.
Mnt. top experiences aren’t Consistent, but are Unforgettable! {steal away!}
12. Henry, “He will come, at last, with ten thousands of his saints; and, as a specimen
of that, there now appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him, Matthew
17:3. Observe, 1. There were glorified saints attending him, that, when there were three
to bear record on earth, Peter, James, and John, there might be some to bear record
from heaven too. Thus here was a lively resemblance of Christ's kingdom, which is
made up of saints in heaven and saints on earth, and to which belong the spirits of
just men made perfect. We see here, that they who are fallen asleep in Christ are not
perished, but exist in a separate state, and shall be forthcoming when there is
occasion. 2. These two were Moses and Elias, men very eminent in their day. They
had both fasted forty days and forty nights, as Christ did, and wrought other
miracles, and were both remarkable at their going out of the world as well as in
their living in the world. Elias was carried to heaven in a fiery chariot, and died not.
The body of Moses was never found, possibly it was preserved from corruption, and
reserved for this appearance. The Jews had great respect for the memory of Moses
and Elias, and therefore they came to witness of him, they came to carry tidings
concerning him to the upper world. In them the law and the prophets honoured
Christ, and bore testimony to him. Moses and Elias appeared to the disciples; they
saw them, and heard them talk, and, either by their discourse or by information
from Christ, they knew them to be Moses and Elias; glorified saints shall know one
another in heaven. They talked with Christ. ote, Christ has communion with the
blessed, and will be no stranger to any of the members of that glorified corporation.
Christ was now to be sealed in his prophetic office, and therefore these two great
prophets were fittest to attend him, as transferring all their honour and interest to
him; for in these last days God speaks to us by his Son, Hebrews 1:1.”
The whole incident is Glory! {His face Glowed w/Gamma Rays; His
Garments Glistened & Gleamed!}
This is the only record we have of Him reveling His Glory while on earth.
He was “Transfigured”{metamorphosis} “a change on the outside that comes
from the inside.
Our Lord’s Glory was not Reflected but Radiated from within!
Heb.1:1-3 esp.“who being(not reflecting) the brightness of His

glory..”
The Shekinah of His heart was for the most part hidden, but
here it burst thru the veil of flesh.
We must also be “Transfigured/Transformed”! Not that we should for a brief
moment see & reflect our Lord’s face! But, that we would Enshrine Him in our
hearts! That we would rid ourselves of all hindering veils. And let the light of the
knowledge of the glory of God make even the garb of daily drudgery beautiful!
“Here is the Great Climax of our Lord’s earthly life, when He definitely turned
away from the Glory that was set before Him, to endure the Cross for our
Redemption!”
BE SO , "Matthew 17:3-4. And behold — To heighten the grandeur and
solemnity of the scene; there appeared unto them — That is, unto the disciples as
well as Jesus; Moses and Elias — Luke says, two men, which were Moses and Elias,
and Mark, Elias with Moses. Moses, the great lawgiver of the Jews, and Elijah, who
had been a most zealous restorer and defender of the law, appeared in the glories of
immortality, wherewith the blessed above are adorned: talking with him — And,
according to Luke, the subject of their conversation was, the decease which he
should accomplish at Jerusalem, that is, his departure out of the present life, or the
sufferings and death whereby he was to atone for sin, and effect the redemption of
mankind: a subject the most important of all others, and therefore the most proper
to employ the thoughts and tongues of these illustrious personages, the most
illustrious, certainly, that had ever met together on earth in one place. But the three
disciples were seized with an irresistible drowsiness, and fell into a deep sleep. They
awoke, however, time enough to see Christ’s glory, and that of the two men who
stood with him. Probably the streams of light which issued from Christ’s body,
especially his countenance, and the voices of Moses and Elias talking with him,
made such an impression on their senses as to awake them. Lifting up their eyes,
therefore, they must have been amazed beyond measure when they beheld their
Master in the majesty of his transfigured state, and his illustrious attendants, whom
they might know to be Moses and Elias by revelation, or by what they said, or by the
appellations which Jesus gave them in speaking to them. Peter, particularly, being
both afraid and glad at the glorious sight, was in the utmost confusion. evertheless,
the forwardness of his disposition prompted him to say something, and just as
Moses and Elias were departing from Jesus, he said, Lord, it is good for us to be
here — So doubtless they found it. Both before and after this transfiguration they
had many refreshing seasons with their Master, heard many ravishing sermons, and
saw many wonderful miracles; yet in no place, and on no occasion but this, were
they ever heard to say, It is good for us to be here. Peter fancied, doubtless, that
Jesus had now assumed his proper dignity; that Elias was come, according to
Malachi’s prediction; and that the kingdom was at length begun. Wherefore, in the
first hurry of his thoughts, he proposed to provide some accommodation for Jesus

and his august attendants, intending, perhaps, to bring the rest of the disciples, with
the multitude, from the plain below, to behold his matchless glory. He thought this
was better for his Master than to be killed at Jerusalem. He said, therefore, If thou
wilt, let us make here three tabernacles — He says, three, not six, because the
apostles desired to be with their Master. They were words of rapturous surprise,
and, as Mark observes, very improper. But, perhaps, few in such an astonishing
circumstance could have been perfectly masters of themselves.
COFFMA , "How did the apostles recognize Moses and Elijah? The conversation
seems to be the most logical source of that information. It may be concluded from
this incident that the saints will know the redeemed of all ages in their glorified state
in heaven. The appearance of Moses and Elijah with Christ was strong proof of his
deity, since Christ was able to recall from the hosts of righteous dead those typical
representatives of previous dispensations. Moses the great lawgiver, and Elijah the
great prophet, were there summoned from the dead to resign their commissions and
to lay their homage at his feet. Then the apostles K EW that Christ was not merely
some great Elijah or other notable, and they were certain beyond all doubt that he
was the One greater than all others, superior even to Moses and Elijah.
PETT, "‘And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah talking with him.’
And then to cap His glory Moses and Elijah appeared before the amazed eyes of the
disciples and talked with Him. Men of Heaven came down to earth. ‘Behold’
indicates something new that is happening of which note should be taken. His
glorious Transfiguration had undoubtedly revealed His heavenly nature and status
(compare John 17:5), but now the question is, what did the presence of Moses and
Elijah reveal, and what did it mean? ote that they were ‘talking with Him’. It was
not just to be seen as a series of strange visions, but as something that actually took
place in which Moses and Elijah had a part to play.
It is quite possible that the disciples did not know who the visitors were at first,
although it is equally possible that both Moses and Elijah wore things that identified
them. Elijah’s prophetic dress would certainly have been very distinctive. But their
conversations would probably be the sealing factor.
Unquestionably the first significance of their presence is that it indicated that both
the great Lawgiver of Israel, and the great representative of the Prophets who, as
the greatest of all the prophets, was to return again to turn many to God (Malachi
4:5), were there to witness to Jesus. And they were both there in their heavenly
state, supporting Jesus, and seeing Him as the central figure, and as the One to
Whom they looked, and to Whom they offered their support. It confirms that both
of them supported what Jesus was doing, and that in Him a greater than Moses, and
a greater than Elijah (compare Matthew 12:41-42), had come, in order to ‘fulfil the
Law or the Prophets’ (Matthew 5:17). And that is no doubt what they were talking
to Him about. In this regard it should be noted that the book of the Prophets had
closed with the words ‘Remember you the law of Moses My servant --- behold I will
send you Elijah the prophet’ (Malachi 4:4-5). ow they were both there testifying to

Jesus.
A further point that might be significant was that both of these men had previously
gone into mountains for the very purpose of experiencing the mighty presence of
God in person (Exodus 24:15; 1 Kings 19:8-18). And now here they were again in
the mountain, but this time sharing in the glory of Jesus.
Matthew, like Luke, has reversed the order from ‘Elijah and Moses’ as found in
Mark. Part of the reason for this might have been in order to fit in with the order in
Matthew 5:17. But it may also signify that as a Jew he is putting a greater emphasis
on Moses. To the Jews Moses had an unparalleled pre-eminence.
However, the grounds for seeing a ‘second Moses’ motif, rather than a second
exodus motif, are not solid, unless we simply see by that that Jesus ‘fulfilled’ both
Moses and Elijah, and more. While there are superficial similarities to the book of
Exodus they are not exact enough to indicate that. Jesus is not here to be seen as a
second Moses nor as a second Elijah. He is greater than both and fulfils both, and
both point to Him. In Him ‘Israel’ are finally ‘coming out of Egypt’ for good
(Matthew 2:15). And we should note in this regard that Matthew deliberately omits
the fact that they were speaking of His coming ‘exodus’ (Luke 9:31) which He was
to accomplish at Jerusalem, which would be strange if he particularly wanted to
emphasise Jesus as a second, or even superior, Moses. Furthermore the reversal of
the order actually makes it more difficult to see a pointer forward to a new Elijah
(John), followed by a new Moses (Jesus) as lying behind the two names.
So what the presence of Moses and Elijah is accomplishing is the confirmation of
Jesus’ unique status as the One to whom they had pointed as representatives of the
Law and the Prophets. They had pointed forward. He is the fulfilment of it all. And
what Matthew’s order may be intended to suggest is that he saw them as
representing salvation history from its commencement to that time, with Moses as
the great initial Deliverer, and Elijah as the final preparer of the way. And now the
One has come for whom both have prepared, and they must point to Him and then
withdraw. Their task is done. For Elijah’s work has been completed by John the
Baptist. But none of the three disciples would ever forget that they had seen these
great men bear witness to their Master. It threw new light onto many things.
But there is possibly a further significance in the mentioning of these two, for Moses
was the one who originally formed ‘the congregation of Israel’ into a cohesive unit,
and miraculously fed them with bread in the wilderness, and Elijah had been
responsible in the northern kingdom of Israel for establishing ‘the sons of the
prophets’ and for taking care of the seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to
Baal whom God had reserved to Himself (1 Kings 19:18), who represented what was
left of the congregation of Israel that was still acceptable to God, thereby
establishing a new ‘congregation’ from the remnant. And he also miraculously fed a
woman and her son with bread (1 Kings 17:12-16), while his successor too, who
shared his spirit (2 Kings 2:9; 2 Kings 2:15), miraculously fed a hundred of his
followers with bread (2 Kings 4:42-44, compare Matthew 4:1-7). Thus these two
may be seen as pointing ahead to the One who will form and miraculously feed in a
far greater way the final new ‘congregation of Israel’, preserved out of the old.

BURKITT, "Observe here, the glorious attendance upon our Saviour at his glorious
transfiguration; they were two men, Moses and Elias. This being but a glimpse of
Christ's glory, not a full manifestation of it, only two of the glorified saints attend
upon Christ at it; when he shall come in his full glory, ten thousand of thousands
shall attend him. These two attendants were two men, not two angels; because men
were more nearly concerned in what was done; they were not only spectators but
partners. Man's restoration was Christ's principal aim: the angels' confirmation his
less principal design. But why Moses and Elias?
1. Moses the giver of the law, and Elias the chief of the prophets, attending both
upon Christ, did shew the consent of the law and the prophets with Christ,and their
fulfilling and accomplishment in him.
2. Because these two were the most laborious servants of Christ, both adventured
their lives in God's cause, and therefore are highly honoured by Christ. Such as
honour him, he will honour.
4Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be
here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one
for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."
1. Barclay, “Peter must have learned two lessons that night. When Peter woke to
what was going on, his first reaction was to build three tabernacles, one for Jesus,
one for Moses and one for Elijah. He was always the man for action; always the man
who must be doing something. But there is a time for stillness; there is a time for
contemplation, for wonder, for adoration, for awed reverence in the presence of the
supreme glory. "Be still, and know that I am God" (Ps.46:10). It may be that
sometimes we are too busy trying to do something when we would be better to be
silent, to be listening, to be wondering, to be adoring in the presence of God. Before
a man can fight and adventure upon his feet, he must wonder and pray upon his
knees.
(iii) But there is a converse of that. It is quite clear that Peter wished to wait upon
the mountain slopes. He wished that great moment to be prolonged. He did not want
to go down to the everyday and common things again but to remain for ever in the
sheen of glory.

That is a feeling which everyone must know. There are moments of intimacy, of
serenity, of peace, of nearness to God, which everyone has known and wished to
prolong. As A. H. Mc eile has it: "The Mountain of Transfiguration is always more
enjoyable than the daily ministry or the way of the Cross."
But the Mountain of Transfiguration is given to us only to provide strength for the
daily ministry and to enable us to walk the way of the Cross. Susanna Wesley had a
prayer: "Help me, Lord, to remember that religion is not to be confined to the
church or closet, nor exercised only in prayer and meditation, but that everywhere I
am in thy presence." The moment of glory does not exist for its own sake; it exists to
clothe the common things with a radiance they never had before.”
2. Broadus, “Full of strange, bewildered, but
delightful feelings, Peter wanted to
stay there permanently, and not have the
Master go to Jerusalem for the predicted
sufferings and death. Keim fancies that Peter
wished to summon the other disciples and the
people from every direction to witness this
opening manifestation of the Messianic glory
which is pure hypothesis, but not impossible.
Meyer and Weiss imagine that Peter
means, " It is a good thing that we are here,"
so as to take the necessary steps. The Greek
will bear this sense, but the tone of the narrative
will not. It was indeed good to be there,
but they could not stay. Down again must
Jesus and his disciples go, amid human sorrow
and sin , down to witness distressing unbelief ,
and presently to set out on the journey towards
Jerusalem and the cross.”
2B. Peter could be so simple that he was silly. He said it is good for us to be here.
This is like saying to the man who hands you the forty million dollar check you won
on the lottery-it is good for me to be here. It was such an understatement, for they
had just witnessed what no human has ever witnessed in all of history, and they had
the greatest confirmation of Christ's deity than anyone could ask for. And he
responds to this unbelievable awesome experience with, it is good for us to be here.

That is what you say when you happen to walk into a store just as they are
announcing a special sale on the very item you are coming to buy. When deity lights
up like the sun in your face, you had better come up with something closer to Wow!
This is absolutely amazing! I am blown away! Hallelujah, I am so thankful to God I
could be here for this! It is good for us to be here. Duh, Peter. This was goofy
enough, but then he goes on to offer his building skills to erect shelters for these men
who have roamed the universe of God's kingdom in heaven for centuries. You
would think it would dawn on him that they were probably doing alright without
him, being alive and well for a millennium and more. He had no clue that he was
offering the equivalent of a cardboard box to the likes of Bill Gates. You can count
on it that Moses and Elijah never sent him a thank you card for his offer. The funny
thing is, you and I may have been just as silly had we been there to witness this
awesome supernatural event.
3. Gibson, “That the conversation was intended for their benefit
as well, seems indicated by the way in which Peter s
intervention is recorded : " Then answered Peter, and
said unto Jesus." What he said is quite characteristic
of the impulsive disciple, so ready to speak without
thinking. On this occasion he blunders in a very
natural and pardonable way. He feels as if he ought
to say something ; and, as nothing more to the purpose
occurs to him, he blurts out his thoughtless proposal
to make three tabernacles for their abode. Besides
the thoughtlessness of this speech, which is manifest
enough, there seems to lurk in it a sign of his falling
back into the very error which a week ago he had
renounced the error of putting his Master in the same
class as Moses and Elias, reckoning Him thus, as the
people of Galilee had done, simply as " one of the
prophets." If so, his mistake is at once corrected ;
for behold a bright luminous cloud fit symbol of the
Divine presence : the cloud suggesting mystery, and
the brightness, glory wraps all from sight, and out
of the cloud there comes a voice : " This is My beloved
Son, in Whom I am well pleased ; hear ye Him."

4. Calvin, “But his desire was foolish; first, because he did not comprehend the
design of the vision; secondly, because he absurdly put the servants on a level with
their Lord; and, thirdly, he was mistaken in proposing to build fading tabernacles
“earthly tabernacles.” for men who had been already admitted to the glory of
heaven and of the angels.” “Justly, therefore, is it stated by two of the Evangelists,
that he knew not what he said; and Mark assigns the reason, that they were afraid;
for God did not intend that the apostles should, at that time, derive any advantage
from it beyond that of beholding for a moment, as in a bright mirror, the divinity of
his Son. At a later period, he pointed out to them the fruit of the vision, and
corrected the error of their judgment. What is stated by Mark must therefore mean,
that Peter was carried away by frenzy, and spoke like a man who had lost his
senses.”
5. The other two Apostles did not know what to say either, but they chose to say
nothing, and that was fine. It was rambunctious Peter who had to blurt out
something, and that something was nonsense. Wise are those who have nothing to
say and just don't say it. Peter was not always wise, and he said whatever came into
his head.
6. Henry offers this positive note about Peter's offer: “It argued great respect for his
Master and the heavenly guests, with some commendable forgetfulness of himself
and his fellow-disciples, that he would have tabernacles for Christ, and Moses, and
Elias, but none for himself. He would be content to lie in the open air, on the cold
ground, in such good company; if his Master have but where to lay his head, no
matter whether he himself has or no.” But then he went on, “Yet in this zeal he
betrayed a great deal of weakness and ignorance. What need had Moses and Elias of
tabernacles? They belonged to that blessed world, where they hunger no more, nor
doth the sun light upon them. Christ had lately foretold his sufferings, and bidden
his disciples expect the like; Peter forgets this, or, to prevent it, will needs be
building tabernacles in the mount of glory, out of the way of trouble. Still he harps
upon, Master, spare thyself, though he had been so lately checked for it. ote, There
is a proneness in good men to expect the crown without the cross. Peter was for
laying hold of this as the prize, though he had not yet fought his fight, nor finished
his course, as those other disciples, Matthew 20:21. We are out in our aim, if we look
for a heaven here upon earth. It is not for strangers and pilgrims (such as we are in our
best circumstances in this world), to talk of building, or to expect a continuing city.”
College Press Harold Fowler
PETER’S PRESUMPTUOUS PERPETUATIO OF A
PERNICIOUS PANTHEON
17:4 Until this moment the disciples had been passive participants
in the pageant. Now, however, Moses and Elijah began to take their
departure. (Lk. 9:33) Peter suddenly came alive to try to capture the
rapture of that precious moment. The fisherman’s ecstatic outburst

Matthew 17 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Matthew 17 commentary

Similar to Matthew 17 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Matthew 17 commentary