Commentary on Matthew 17:1-9

After the story of Peter’s confession (Matthew 16:13–20) and the subsequent passion prediction of Jesus (16:21–23), Matthew presents the episode of Jesus being transformed (metamorphoũsthai, verse 2) into a luminary figure.¹ If one follows the Two-Source Hypothesis, Matthew’s source for this passage is Mark 9:2–13, while the question of Mark’s source for this pericope cannot be answered. In his form-critical study of the synoptic traditions, Bultmann hypothesized that this “legend” was originally a resurrection-story (Auferstehungsgeschichte) interjected into the Galilean phase of Jesus’ ministry.²

An interesting parallel can be found in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, which is the only early Christian literature depicting the resurrection event itself. In verses 35–42, on the day of the resurrection, the heavens were opened and two (unnamed) men (duo andras in Greek), who were radiant, descended from the heavens and entered the tomb of Jesus. Then they brought Jesus out, each supporting him from one side, followed by a cross. The heads of the two unnamed men reached the heavens, while the head of Jesus reached beyond the heavens. A voice from the heavens was heard, “Have you proclaimed to those who have fallen asleep [tois koimomenois in Greek]?” An answer came forward from the cross, “Yes.”

This striking correspondence between the transfiguration narrative and the resurrection scene in the Gospel of Peter might be just coincidence, but it certainly renders significant support for Bultmann’s hypothesis cited above.

Whether this story was originally from the Easter Christophany tradition or not, its place in Matthew’s plot line—in other words, immediately after the passion prediction—clearly indicates that it offers a glimpse of the future glory of Jesus, which will eventually be manifested in the resurrection story at the end. In the passion prediction (16:21), Jesus foretells his great suffering at the hands of the Jewish leaders (stated) and his execution by the Roman authorities (implied).

The reason for this suffering and death is not provided, but perceptive readers will know that, just as John the Baptizer was executed by Herod Antipas, a puppet tetrarch appointed by the Roman emperor, because of his public ministry and message for the Kingdom of Heavens, Jesus will face the same persecution by the Romans and their Jewish collaborators because of his proclamation of the Kingdom of Heavens. Then, the brief moment of the earthly Jesus being transformed into a shiny figure in this passage functions as a presage for the final vindication by God for the life and ministry of Jesus that would cause his unjust execution.

The location of the transfiguration is on a high mountain (oros in Greek, verse 1). In Matthew, it is also on a mountain (oros) that Jesus gives his first and last great discourse (5:1; 24:3), as well as his final commission to the 11 disciples after his resurrection (28:16). This motif of mountain as the locus of important teaching in the narrative world of Matthew endows the transfiguration episode with the same symbolic significance as one of the most important revelations about Jesus.

Moses and Elijah in this scene are often understood as representatives of the Law and the Prophets.³ This line of interpretation has frequently led to the idea that Jesus is greater than Moses and Elijah and therefore the teaching of Jesus replaces the Hebrew Scriptures. It is certainly an overinterpretation that the text itself does not warrant. It seems to be more influenced by Christian supersessionist theology rather than exegetical observations.

One common aspect between Moses and Elijah is that they both encountered the presence of God on Mount Horeb/Sinai (Exodus 19:1–25; 24:9–18; 1 Kings 19:11–18). Especially, the description of Moses’ face shining after he came down from the mountain (Exodus 34:29–35) adds one more resemblance to the transfiguration story of Jesus. Exodus 34:29 makes it clear that Moses’ shining face is because he was talking with God, which means the glory in Moses’ face is not his own but is God’s glory temporarily reflected on Moses’ body. Likewise, Jesus’ shiny face and his dazzling white clothes also reflect God’s glory reflected in, not necessarily transferred to, the person of Jesus.

The heavenly voice from the cloud (verse 5) saying, “This is my son, my beloved one, in whom I am well pleased,” is a verbatim repetition of the same voice that was heard at the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:17). Therefore, it adds no new information for the readers who are hearing/reading the gospel from the beginning. However, it is a new revelation to Peter, James, and John as dramatis personae in the plot line of Matthew’s narrative, since they were recruited by Jesus to follow him only after his baptism (4:18–22).

After this indicative statement of Jesus’ divine sonship, the heavenly voice puts forth a brief, almost aphoristic command in the imperative: “Listen to him.” Again, this symbolizes God’s affirmation and endorsement of what Jesus says. What is remarkable is that in this immediate context Jesus does not say anything, which makes the command “Listen to him” a generic injunction to the audience/followers of Jesus to listen to his proclamation and teaching in general.

Then, in the rest of the gospel, Matthew will keep reminding his audience that the dominant theme of Jesus’ teaching and proclamation is the Kingdom of Heaven. That is, in Matthew’s gospel, Jesus consistently and unswervingly proclaims and teaches the Kingdom of Heavens, and the transfiguration episode demonstrates that this message of the Kingdom of Heavens is indeed a manifestation of God’s will and that God is well pleased with Jesus as the proclaimer of this critical kerygma.

Notes

1. The verb metamorphoũsthai appears only in the transfiguration story (Mark 9:2; Matthew 17:2) in the gospel corpus in the New Testament.
2. Rudolf Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (Harper & Row, 1963), 259. (German original, p. 278.)
3. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans, 2007), 649, correctly says, “Elijah, after all, was not one of the writing prophets of the OT.”