The Contribution Of The Transfiguration To A Literal View Of The Kingdom

By Jerry Hullinger

[Bible Teacher, Pensacola, Florida]

The transfiguration is one of the crucial episodes in the earthly life of Christ. Its collocation with other momentous events in the life of Christ such as the birth, baptism, temptation, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension demonstrates its signification. As S. Lewis Johnson suggests, “I am not so sure however, that it is not as important as the temptation and I think it is definitely as vital as the ascension.”[1]

There are several reasons, therefore, that the transfiguration merits serious study, but this article will focus on the vital truth which this event presents regarding the nature of the kingdom offered by Christ.[2] The thesis of this study is that the transfiguration buttresses the view of the dispensational premillennialist[3] regarding the nature of the kingdom presented to Israel by John the Baptist and Christ. In other words, this study will argue that the transfiguration supports the view of a literal earthly kingdom.[4]

The Pre-Transfiguration Prediction

Each of the Synoptic writers precedes his account of the transfiguration with a prediction made by Christ. For example, Matthew’s statement reads as follows: “Verily I say unto you, there are some standing here, who shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (16:28).[5] The interpretation of this prediction made by Jesus is the most discussed aspect of the transfiguration because the view one takes of this prediction will betray the interpreter’s system of hermeneutics and eschatology. If one believes in the literal reign of Christ, then the language is plain; but if one does not, then an alternative must be suggested.

The Resurrection View

Some have understood the transfiguration to be a picture of the resurrection of Christ. For instance Margaret Thrall writes, “I suggest, therefore, that Mark deliberately associates the transfigured Christ and the risen Christ, and that he presents the transfiguration as the prefigurement of resurrection.”[6] This position was also espoused by Calvin who believed that “by the coming of the kingdom of God we are to understand the manifestation of heavenly glory, which Christ began to make at his resurrection.”[7]

A full rebuttal of this view (and the others) will be given when the preferred position is developed. However, at this stage, a few additional factors can be given which militate against the “resurrection view.” First, in the post-resurrection appearances of Christ, his body does not reveal the overpowering glory which it revealed on the mount.[8] Second, if the transfiguration is a prefigurement of the resurrection, what purpose did the appearances of Moses and Elijah serve? Their presence at the transfiguration is much better explained in another way. Third, if the transfiguration was given to the disciples as a hope and an assurance of Christ’s resurrection, why were they commanded by Christ to remain silent until after the resurrection?[9] Fourth, the resurrection theory also leaves unexplained Peter’s question about constructing three booths. Fifth, the resurrection is not understood as an expression of the kingdom in the Scripture.[10] And sixth, this view fails to explain the force of tine” in light of the fact that after the resurrection Jesus appeared to all of the apostles as well as a multitude of others (1 Cor 15:5–8).

The Destruction Of Jerusalem View

Some hold that the glory of Christ revealed in the transfiguration finds its fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This judgment, then, becomes a manifestation of the glory shown by Christ on the mount. One proponent of this view is Lenski:

The promise here given refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. … The kingdom is never a place but always the royal rule of the Messiah. This is the rule of his grace in the hearts of all his believers and the fuel of his power in the world protecting his believers and bringing judgment upon the wicked. Ordinarily both are invisible; but in the judgment on the Jews this royal rule of Jesus would become visible.[11]

In a similar manner, Geldenhuys writes that the prophecy is “the destruction of Jerusalem. … In an unparalleled manner God revealed His kingly dominion over the unbelieving Jewish nation in that execution of judgment.”[12] This view is subject to the same criticisms as the preceding view. It will also be seen that this view does not fit as well with the details of the account to be discussed later.[13]

The Advance Of The Gospel View

This position insists that the best solution to the pre-transfiguration prediction is to say that it refers to the spread of the gospel in the days of the Roman Empire. This rich harvest of converts was a demonstration of the power as seen during the transfiguration. Thus Carson posited that the prophecy referred to the “… manifestation of Christ’s earthly reign exhibited after the resurrection in a host of ways, not the least of them being the rapid multiplication of disciples and the mission to the Gentiles. Some of those standing there would live to see Jesus’ Gospel proclaimed throughout the Roman Empire and a rich harvest of converts reaped for Jesus Messiah.”[14] Likewise, Henry Swete suggests that “a more satisfactory solution is that which finds it in the coming of the Spirit and the power manifested in that triumphant march of the gospel through the empire.”[15]

It should be emphasized again that evidence for the weaknesses of this view will be discussed below. However, it can be reiterated that (1) the eschatological language does not fit with the spread of the gospel, (2) the spread of the gospel was witnessed by many not just a few, and (3) this view will not be able to account for Peter’s interpretation of the event in 2 Peter 1.

The Transfiguration/Parousia View

This view holds that when Jesus predicts that some standing with him would “see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom,”[16] he is referring to the transfiguration to occur about a week later, which in turn is an eschatological picture of the future.[17] Hence, the prediction has double referent. Lane aptly states, “The immediate sequel to Jesus’ solemn promise is the account of the transfiguration. This indicates that Mark understood Jesus’ statement to refer to this moment of transcendent glory conceived as an enthronement and an anticipation of the glory which was to come.”[18]

Smalley also observes,

The natural point of reference … is the Transfiguration itself. A short while after this announcement, the disciples “see” a further irruption of the power and sovereignty of God, and this, in typically dynamic fashion is proleptic. … Immediate events in this way contain the eschatological future, and only the present is invested with chronological definition. As a result, this particular saying would cause no difficulty if its ultimate fulfillment were delayed since its immediate fulfillment, itself proleptic, … soon came to pass.[19]

There are a number of supports which can be given which demonstrate the pre-transfiguration prediction to be fulfilled in the transfiguration itself.[20] First, all of the Synoptics placed the transfiguration immediately after the prediction, thus making a link between the two. Bruce notes that “the three evangelists who relate the event so carefully note the time of its occurrence with reference to that announcement and the conversation which accompanied it.”[21] Green concurs, “In all three gospels it [the transfiguration] follows immediately on the promise of Jesus that some of His hearers would not taste death until the kingdom came with power.”[22]

A second support concerns Jesus’ statement that “some” would not taste of death until they saw this event. The fact that only three of the apostles saw the glory of Christ on the mount fits much better with the transfiguration view than with any of the others since the multitudes witnessed them. Thus Plummer counsels that “no interpretation can be correct that does not explain eijsin tine”, which implies the exceptional privilege of some, as distinct from the common experience of all.”[23]

A third possible factor which favors this view is that the verb “to see” used by Christ is in harmony with the transfiguration event as witnessed by the disciples.[24]

Fourth, Peter interprets the significance of the event in this matter in 2 Peter 1:16–18. Peter’s words will be examined below.

A fifth reason is that this was the predominant view of the early church.[25] Probably the earliest evidence of this interpretation is found in the Apocalypse of Peter. In this text the story opens on the Mount of Olives where the disciples ask Jesus the same question which they ask preceding the Olivet Discourse, namely, “What are the signs of the parousia and of the end of the world?” Jesus’ answer consists of descriptions of the parousia and a lengthy description of the punishment of the wicked and the blessings of the righteous. Following this, Jesus takes the disciples to another mountain where two glorious men appear and Jesus is transfigured. Peter then asks where the other patriarchs are, in response to which Jesus shows him paradise and tells him the same glory awaits them all. Also included in the story are the request of Peter, the heavenly voice, the cloud, and the ascent of Jesus into heaven. Thus, it was not uncommon for the early church to see the pre-transfiguration prediction fulfilled in the transfiguration and in the transfiguration a picture of the second coming.

Sixth, as will be shown, the transfiguration is packed with eschatological terminology pointing to the kingdom age rather than to Christ’s resurrection, the church age, or the destruction of Jerusalem.[26]

Thus far it has been argued generally that the pre-transfiguration prediction made by Christ was fulfilled in the transfiguration. It has also been suggested that this event served as a preview of the coming earthly kingdom. If this be correct, then the transfiguration account provides another piece of support that the kingdom terminology in the gospels be understood primarily in its literal, earthly sense. It will now be necessary to see if the details of the transfiguration support this understanding.

The Transfiguration Proper

The Future Of The Kingdom

One of the prime purposes[27] of the transfiguration was to confirm to the disciples a future kingdom as prophesied in the OT.[28] Thus, regardless of the fact that this kingdom had been rejected by Israel, this event serves as a pledge that it would still be a reality some day. It therefore becomes a miniature picture of what lies in the future. In the words of McClain: “Christ gives to the three of His disciples a prevision, in miniature, of His coming in the Kingdom.”[29] And Ramsey observes that “all the imagery can be, and the imagery of light and shining garments is most readily, associated with an eschatological picture. … Peter and his companions on the mountain are spectators in advance of the glory that is going to be declared.”[30] The aspects in the text which deal with this fact will now be examined.[31]

Jesus’ Transformation

Jesus invited Peter, James, and John onto a high mountain to witness His glory. The high mountain is probably reminiscent of the theophanies seen by Moses and Elijah on Sinai and Horeb respectively (Exod 24; 1 Kgs 19).[32] While they were on the mountain, Jesus was “transfigured” (μεταμορφόω) or “changed in form”[33] before them. The idea of transformation from one appearance or form into another was common in classical literature. For example, Ovid presented a series of takes in which supernatural beings and humans experienced various transformations.[34] Apuleius described in autobiographical style of being transformed into an ass, and then later being restored back into a human by the power of the goddess Isis.[35] There are no significant linguistic data in the OT related to the word; however, some background to the idea can be seen in Exodus 34:29–35 when the face of Moses shone after his conversation with God on Mount Sinai.[36] The best way of understanding the transformation of Christ is to see his divine glory as shining through his flesh under which it was concealed (as opposed to his body temporarily changing into a heavenly, spiritual body). Bernardin explains this view:

The background of the idea is briefly this: The Messiah was a supernatural, heavenly, pre-existent figure dwelling in the presence of God. … As such He was clothed with glory….When the Messiah came down to earth, … His glory was concealed for the time being beneath the human flesh which He assumed. But here on the mount the glory was permitted to shine through.[37]

This view appears to fit better with the orthodox understanding of the incarnation. Harrison states it well:

This metamorphosis of Christ should be considered in the light of Philippians 2. There the word is morphe translated “form,” the same root word that is found in metamorphosis, occurs twice. Christ being originally in the form of God emptied himself taking the form of a servant. … But here on the mount He stands forth with the veil parted, the glory of His deity shining through.[38]

For the purposes of this study, it is also important to note that this glory in the transfiguration is to be viewed in an eschatological sense, namely, the glory of the coming kingdom. Betteridge explains that “it [glory] is also used to describe the ideal Messianic kingdom of the future. It is applied to Christ to describe His royal majesty when He comes to set up His kingdom. So James and John as to sit, one on His right hand and one on His left in His glory.”[39] Boobyer concurs, “Both in Judaism and in the New Testament, then, transformation into a glistening body of δοξα has outstanding reference to the events of the last days. It was a current apocalyptic hope, which in the New Testament focuses strongly upon the fashion of Jesus at His Second Coming.”[40] This is especially seen in Mark’s account when the references to δοξα are examined. He uses the term only three times and in each instance it refers to the coming of the kingdom (8:38; 10:37; 13:26).[41]

The Son Of Man

A further point that supports the fact that the transfiguration relates to a literal kingdom is the fact that Christ (in the pre-transfiguration prediction) referred to himself as the “Son of Man.” The key to this title is Daniel 7:13–14 where the Son comes in the clouds of heaven to establish his kingdom. Peters observes,

To Jewish hearers who invariably linked the coming of the Son of Man in glory with the prediction of Daniel 7:13–14 … our Saviour proceeds now to give His disciples … an assurance that He will give some of them a specimen of this coming in glory. … The scene enacted in the transfiguration is a representation of the very appearance that the Son of man will assume when He comes in glory at His Second Coming in His kingdom.[42]

The Question Of Peter

When Christ was transfigured before the disciples, Peter asks the Lord if they should build three booths. Quite often Peter is chided for this question by commentators. For example, Caird states that “Peter’s offer was a very foolish one, which he would never have made if he had not been bewildered; he simply blurted out the first thing that came to his head.”[43] Lenski suggests that Peter was foolish because he thought that those in an exalted state needed shelter like ordinary mortals.[44] Those who feel that Peter’s question was foolish usually take one of two approaches. The first is that Peter was trying to dissuade Christ from going to the cross. Johnson advocates this understanding in these words: “The counsel that comes from Peter at this point is not only not infallible, it is senseless and sinful. … In effect, they would turn Him from His destined earthly goal, the cross. Our Lord thinks so little of the suggestion that He does not answer it.”[45]

A second approach (and related to the preceding) is that Peter was simply trying to prolong the situation on the mount. Hiebert feels that “it may mean that the experience was good and one which he wished to prolong.”[46] Plummer agrees that Peter “wishes to make present glory and rapture permanent.”[47] While there is no doubt that Peter wished to perpetuate the situation, there is probably a better explanation.

The word Peter uses for “booths” is skhnav”. The term is particularly used in the OT to refer to the tabernacle. However, it is also used to refer to the booths made out of leafy branches by the Israelites during the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev 23:42ff; Neh 8:14–17). The Feast of Tabernacles was the last in the cycle of Israel’s annual feasts and was a memorial of their deliverance out of Egypt and their wilderness wanderings when Israel celebrated God’s sovereignty and provision.[48]

Besides the historical implications to this celebration, there is also an eschatological implication as well, namely the time during the kingdom age when all nations would celebrate this feast together as God himself dwells among his people (Ezek 37:27; 43:7, 9; Joel 3:21; Zech 2:10; 8:3, 8; 14:16–19). Boobyer states this point well:

Frequently in Judaism, the day of salvation was depicted as a day when Yahweh would once more pitch His skene with His people, as He had done in forty years of wilderness wandering … The Feast of Tabernacles itself had in fact … acquired eschatological significance. Not only did it look back to the deliverance from Egypt and God’s preservation. … It also looked forward to the New Age when Yahweh would again tabernacle with His people; and one of the special features of that great day would be the muster of members of all nations in Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles and worship God as King.[49]

During Peter’s day the nation was being oppressed by Rome and was anticipating deliverance (possibly even to a fault which caused them to downplay the spiritual basis of the kingdom). Naturally, therefore, when Peter sees the glory of the Son of Man, his mind goes to the Feast of Tabernacles. Thus Peter’s suggestion “about building three tabernacles is not, of course, a gauche remark, as it used so often to be said to be: it is a natural part of the eschatological symbolism of the story. The Jews had come to look forward to the tabernacling presence of the Messiah with his righteous elect ones.”[50] If Peter’s request were legitimate, then why was he rebuked? The answer is that while Peter was correct in his eschatology, he was incorrect as to the timing of that eschatology (cf. Acts 1:6–7). The fulfillment of what was anticipated in the Feast of Tabernacles was conditioned on the repentance of Israel. Liefeld corroborates this understanding:

There can be no doubt that the Feast of Tabernacles had eschatological significance. One might, therefore, surmise that this proposal was not wrong in itself, but simply wrong in its timing. That is, Jesus the Messiah was to usher in the time of eschatological rest, but the anticipated festival of Tabernacles could not yet be celebrated. The response to his suggestion then, should be understood as, ‘yes, but not yet.’[51]

Moses And Elijah

The disciples not only saw the glorification of the Lord, but they also witnessed the appearance of Moses and Elijah. One of the more common explanations concerning their presence is that Moses and Elijah represent the Law and the Prophets.[52] However, as pointed out by McCurley, “The argument that these two heroes of antiquity represent the Law and the Prophets respectively leaves something to be desired for neither in the Old Testament or in later Jewish literature are they designated in such a way.”[53]

It seems better to explain their appearance in light of the eschatological overtones of the passage. Moses had predicted that God would raise up a prophet to whom the people would listen (Deut 18:15, 18). This fact is probably echoed in the words of the Father “hear ye him.” Since this passage was given Messianic implications, Moses became the prototype of the Messiah. He was the model of the eschatological Prophet. Manek explains the significance of this:

For Luke it is very important to construct a positive relation between Moses and Jesus. Moses is the leader of the Exodus—Jesus is the leader of the Exodus … Moses was chosen by God to lead the Exodus from Egypt to the Promised Land. Christ was chosen by God to lead the new and final exodus, and so He introduced into history the eschatological era.[54]

If Moses was the model of the eschatological prophet, then Elijah was the forerunner of that prophet. When Jesus and Elijah are mentioned together in the NT, the eschaton or the preparation for it is in view. It is clear in Jewish expectation that Elijah plays this role of being an eschatological figure of announcing the end. Kee states the case thusly:

The evidence [Apocalypse of Elijah; Ecclesiasticus; Assumption of Moses; Malachi] thus points to the conclusion that Elijah was considered in first century Judaism as an almost exclusively eschatological figure. There is no hint of his being numbered among the prophets, but his roles in relation to the establishment of God’s rule are manifold, and all of them crucial. It is in this history-of-religions backgrounds that we must look for light on the meaning of Elijah as one of the companions.[55]

2 Peter 1:16–18

Also important to the thesis of this study is the recollection of Peter of the transfiguration event in his second epistle. One of the prime purposes of the writing of 2 Peter was to buttress the hope of the second coming of Christ in his kingdom and glory (1:11; 3:3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13). This fact was being scoffed at by false teachers (3:3–4). Neyrey comments on this occasion: “The real occasion is the advent of heretics scoffing at the parousia-traditions. The opponents charge that the parousia prophecy is but a humanly concocted myth. … The transfiguration is functioning in the apologetic argument as a prophecy of the Parousia. … The transfiguration is the premier prophecy of the parousia.”[56] This being the case, it is most significant that Peter uses the transfiguration as an authentication of the OT prophecies. Peter does not relate the transfiguration to the resurrection, the destruction of Jerusalem, or the church age.[57] Rather, he relates it to the future coming of Christ in his kingdom. As Ramsey states, “It bore witness to the prophetic word. It confirmed the truth of the whole body of prophetic teaching which spoke of the Messianic Age. This for Peter is the supreme importance of the transfiguration. … It shows that the prophets are not annulled. Vindicated and confirmed by the Transfiguration, their word endures.”[58] Or, in the words of Johnson, “The transfiguration, then, is a foretaste and a foreshadowing of the Messianic Kingdom to come and, thus a convincing pledge of its consummation according to its Old Testament terms of description.”[59]

Conclusion

The nature of God’s kingdom has long been and continues to be a subject of intense debate. While God has always been the eternally sovereign king, dispensationalists have argued that it is God’s desire to institute a literal[60] reign on earth which is traditionally what they mean when referring to the kingdom. Though there have been a vast range of proofs for this position, this article has sought to marshal one more bit of evidence for this view of the kingdom from the transfiguration of Christ. Each of the Synoptics recorded Christ’s pre-transfiguration prediction that some would not taste of death until they saw the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. Each writer links the fulfillment of that prediction to the transfiguration experience. Thus, the events of the transfiguration should provide some definition as to how the concept of the kingdom is to be understood. When the transfiguration itself is examined, it is discovered that the event is laden with eschatological overtones in keeping with the literal concept of the kingdom as described in the OT rather than some spiritual reign of Christ. Hence the transfiguration offers one more piece of evidence that the concept of the kingdom was understood as an earthly reign of the Messiah.

Notes

1. S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “The Transfiguration of Christ,” BSac 124 (1967): 135.
2. Other reasons which show this event to merit further study include (1) each of the Synoptic writers mention it, (2) Peter refers back to this event in his second epistle, (3) the transfiguration provides a test for one's hermeneutics and is thus considered a “theological touchstone” (Walter Liefeld, “Theological Motifs in the Transfiguration Narrative,” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. Richard N. Longnecker and Merrill C. Tenney [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974], 163), and (4) the pre-transfiguration prediction in each Synoptic is a crux interpretum in the Gospels.
3. The writer is not attempting necessarily to address normative versus progressive dispensational issues but literal versus nonliteral issues regarding the kingdom.
4. It is not being suggested that this is the crowning affirmation for the dispensational view, but only that this is one more bit of evidence that an earthly kingdom was in view in the Gospels.
5. Mark's prediction is essentially the same; he, however, records the last part: “… until they have seen the kingdom of God come with power” (9:1); Luke writes, “… until they see the kingdom of God” (9:27).
6. Margaret Thrall, “Elijah and Moses in Mark's Account of the Transfiguration,” NTS 16 (1970): 311.
7. John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, trans. William Pringle (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 1:307; though Calvin saw this glory beginning at the resurrection, he saw this glorious kingdom coming more fully by the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (ibid.); Hendriksen takes the same view, suggesting that “the reference is in all probability to Christ’s glorious resurrection, his return in the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, and in close connection with that event, his position, with great power and influence, at the Father’s right hand” (William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984], 333; see also for the resurrection view J. P. Lange, “The Gospel According to Matthew,” in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 8:304; Jindrich Manek, “The New Exodus in the Books of Luke,” NovT 2 (1957): 10; I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 381; R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 163.
8. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark (Cambridge UP, 1963), 293.
9. G. H. Boobyer, “St. Mark and the Transfiguration,” JTS (1940): 126.
10. Walter Liefeld, “Luke,” in vol. 8 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary, gen. ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 924.
11. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1961), 649.
12. Norval Geldenhuys, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 277. This view is also supported by Alford: “the destruction of Jerusalem, and the full manifestation of the Kingdom of Christ by the annihilation of the Jewish polity” (Henry Alford, Alford's Greek Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980], 1:177). See also Richard C. Trench, Studies in the Gospels, 6th ed. (London: Kegan Paul, 1896): 198.
13. Though it is not felt by the writer that the destruction of Jerusalem is in view in the transfiguration, that is not to say that the destruction of Jerusalem was not a momentous event anticipated in the NT (Matt 12:45; 23:38; Luke 21:12–24; Acts 2:40 [?], and possibly Heb 10:25 where “the day” could refer to A.D. 70 in which the destruction of Jerusalem would be a historic “day of the Lord” acting as a precedent for the ultimate Day of the Lord).
14. D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” 382.
15. Henry Swete, Commentary on Mark (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977), 186.
16. A word of explanation is needed as to why this writer is blending together the transfiguration and parousia views. Normally in the literature on this subject, these two are treated as separate positions. It is obvious that Jesus was not saying that the second advent would occur before those of his generation tasted death. This is clear because the kingdom prophesied in the OT was not fulfilled during the lifetime of his disciples. Therefore, if this is what Jesus had in mind, he was mistaken. As Brower points out, “If Jesus promised that the kingdom would come in power during his lifetime or shortly thereafter, the inevitable consequence is that he erred raising serious questions about his own eschatology and its ultimate validity” (Kent Brower, “Mark 9:1: Seeing the Kingdom in Power,” JSOT 6 [1980]: 19-20). Because of this, on the one hand, those who hold to the parousia view see it anticipated and guaranteed by a momentary picture in the transfiguration (thus they are not saying that Jesus was necessarily predicting the parousia during the lifetime of his hearers). On the other hand, those hold to the transfiguration view also see the transfiguration as a small picture of the parousia. Therefore, in essence, these two views both see the transfiguration as eschatological and in some way connected to the prediction of Christ. The only difference that would be pointed out by dispensationalists is that while they agree with the “parousia view” to a degree, they would add that the transfiguration also pictures the literal kingdom to be established at that parousia. As Peters notes, “referring this to the parousia is correct as far as it goes, but the transfiguration embraces much more, viz.: the glory of that Second Advent as manifested in His kingdom” (George N.H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus [New York: Funk and Wangalls, 1884; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952], 5:554). Therefore, since this study is concerned with showing the eschatological nature of the transfiguration incident as it relates to the kingdom idea contained in the prediction, these two views are being combined here.
17. The sense of the verse, therefore, stated interpretively is that Jesus was introducing the “transfiguration of chapter 17, which anticipated, in vision, the glory of the Son of man coming in His kingdom” (John Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come [Chicago: Moody, 1974], 126; see also A. C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of Matthew [Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux, 1961], 358).
18. William Lane, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], 313–14.
19. Stephen Smalley, “The Delay of the Parousia,” JBL 83 (1964): 46; for further support of the prediction being fulfilled in the transfiguration, see J. F. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come, 126; D. Edmond Hiebert, Mark: A Portrait of the Servant (Chicago: Moody, 1974), 211; A. C. Gaebelein, Gospel of Matthew, 358; F. C. Synge, “The Transfiguration Story,” ExpTim 82 (1970): 83; Walter Wessell, “Mark,” in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, 8:698. (Wessell holds to the parousia view but understands the transfiguration as an anticipation and guarantee of the parousia). See also Darrell Bock who suggests, “The remarks anticipate the transfiguration, with its glimpse of the future glory of Jesus. This kind of ‘patterned’ event, where a short-term event patterns one coming later, is common in Jesus’ teaching” (Darrell Bock, Jesus According to Scripture [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002], 234). Bock also combines with this view, though, an “already form of the inaugurated kingdom” based on Jesus’ words that the disciples would “see” the kingdom (Luke 1:1–9:50 [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999], 859).
20. S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “Transfiguration of Christ,” 140–41.
21. A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971), 191.
22. Michael Green, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 82. It is not germane at this point whether those cited agree with the writer's view of the kingdom and the eschatological ramifications of the transfiguration account. At this point a link is simply being demonstrated between the prediction and the event. See also W.L. Liefeld, “μεταμορφόω,” NIDNTT 3:862; Stanley Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1981), 210. Concerning the phrase “after six days,” McCurley suggests that this was a common literary device in Semitic literature which “points to a climactic action on the seventh day after a preparatory period of six days” (Foster McCurley, “And After Six Days: A Semitic Literary Device,” JBL 93 [1974]: 81). For a discussion of this temporal phrase, as well as Luke's about “eight days” and OT parallels, see McCurley and Charles Carlston, “Transfiguration and Resurrection,” JBL 80 (1961): 238 and B. D. Chilton, “The Transfiguration: Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Vision,” NTS 27 (1980): 120-21.
23. Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 249; see also Cranfield, Gospel According to St. Mark, 288.
24. Johnson, “Transfiguration of Christ,” 140–41; Cranfield, Gospel According to St. Mark, 288; Hiebert, Mark: Portrait of the Servant, 211–12.
25. Boobyer, “St. Mark and the Transfiguration,” 119; Trench, Studies in the Gospels, 120; Hiebert, Mark: A Portrait of the Servant, 211; Jerome Neyrey, “The Apologetic Use of the Transfiguration,” CBQ 42 (1980): 510, 513. For general comments on the value and cautions of appealing to the early church views, see Bill Heth and Gordon Wenham, Jesus and Divorce (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1984), 19–22; Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1989), 403; Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983–1985), 26–27.
26. One view that is not as widespread as the ones discussed is held by Brower who appears to relate the prediction to the crucifixion. He writes, “Mark 9:1 can best be understood as a combination threat/promise that the kingdom of God would come in power in the lifetime of at least some of the hearers. These shall see the kingdom in power, albeit power in weakness, and it may not be perceived as power. Nevertheless, in the cross of Jesus, God's rule has been decisively established, shown by the darkness at noon and the rending of the veil, and witnessed to by the Roman centurion” (Brower, “Mark 9:1: Seeing the Kingdom in Power,” 41). This position has recently been argued for by Michael Bird, “The Crucifixion of Jesus as the Fulfillment of Mark 9:1, ” TJ, n.s., 24 (2003): 23-36. This interpretation must redefine what the kingdom has been throughout Scripture until this point. Furthermore, even after the transfiguration, the kingdom is still being defined as an earthly entity (Matt 19:28; 25:34; 26:29; Mark 10:40; Acts 1:6). Another view is that held by Dodd (and others) from their perspective of realized eschatology. Dodd argues that the kingdom had already arrived when Jesus was speaking, but that the disciples would come to recognize this later at Pentecost (C.H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom [London: Nisbet, 1936], 28). For a full listing of all of the views see Darrell Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 858–60; Hiebert, Mark: Portrait of the Servant, 211–212; Plummer, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke, 249; Lange, “Gospel According to Matthew,” 8:304; Liefeld, “Theological Motifs,” 162–65.
27. There certainly were several purposes for the transfiguration of Christ. Involved in the broad context, as far as theological chronology is concerned, the King and kingdom had been rejected by Israel. In the narrow context (Matt 16:13–28; Mark 8:27–38; Luke 9:18–26), Peter’s confession, the passion prediction, and the prediction of the coming of the Son of Man all must be taken into account (see comments by E.F. Harrison, “The Transfiguration,” BSac 93 [1936]: 316-17; Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980], 2:91; Walter Liefeld, “Luke,” 166. The fact that the covenanted kingdom was now in abeyance, combined with Jesus’ prediction of his death, called for some stunning event which would verify that God's theocratic program for the nation was not forever gone (L.S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary, 1978], 5:89; G. N. H. Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, 5:558; Alva McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom [Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1983], 337; Harrison, “The Transfiguration,” 317). Thus, at least three things were confirmed by this event: (1) the faith of the disciples as expressed in Peter’s confession, (2) the person of Christ in light of his coming death, and (3) the future of the kingdom. In fact, Johnson sees the following purposes: the authentication of the Son by the Father’s voice, the anticipation of the kingdom as a prelude and pledge, an illustration of the inhabitants of the kingdom, an illustration of personal resurrection, confirmation of OT prophecy, a proclamation of the costliness of his sacrifice for sin, and an evaluation of the strength of his passion for souls (Johnson, “Transfiguration of Christ,” 139–43). Baltensweiler lists the following purposes: Christological, Heilsgeschichtlich—a new covenant is begun; proof of Messianic claim; pedagogical regarding the resurrection body; and eschatological (Heinrich Baltensweiler, Die Verklarung Jesu: Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments [Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1959], 9–10).
28. Chafer points out correctly that “unless the transfiguration is approached with the background of all that the Old Testament revelation concerning the earthly Davidic Kingdom presents, there can be no understanding of this major event in the life of Christ. The premillenarian alone is able to give this peculiar portrait its full and worthy signification and explanation” (L.S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, 5:85)
29. Alva McClain, Greatness of the Kingdom, 336.
30. Arthur Ramsey, The Transfiguration and the Glory of Christ (London: Longmans, Green, 1949), 118. It is noteworthy that many nondispensationalists see far eschatology portrayed in the transfiguration proper. Because of this they are usually forced to deny that the transfiguration is the fulfillment of the pre-transfiguration prediction speaking of the kingdom; otherwise, they would be forced to see that the transfiguration lends support to the fact that the kingdom consists of more than God’s invisible rule in the world or in the heart of the believer. For example, D. A. Carson is representative when he comments on Matthew 16:28 that the prediction is a manifestation of Christ’s kingly reign which is exhibited by the rapid multiplication of disciples. But then in expounding Matthew 17 he speaks of the parousia, Jesus’ coming exaltation, the eschatological overtones of the Feast of Tabernacles, and the eschatological associations of the “cloud” terminology (“Matthew,” 382, 384–86).
31. There are two other suggested purposes referred to in the literature which deserve mention. The first is that of Thrall who feels that Mark’s readers were reducing Christ to the level of Moses and Elijah. The purpose of the evangelist then is to show Jesus’ infinite superiority to them. Therefore, he sets Moses and Elijah side by side with Christ to display Jesus’ true status (Margaret Thrall, “Elijah and Moses,” 305–17). This view fails to relate the transfiguration to the argument of the book and is pressed to give the significance of Moses and Elijah in Matthew and Luke. The second one is traceable at least as far back as Godet (A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1976], 1:426–29), and has been argued for in the twentieth century by William Groves. He suggests that the transfiguration was solely for the purpose of Christ and not the disciples. By virtue of Christ’s perfect life, he deserved to have a glorious translation from this life to heaven. His death, however, was necessary to secure atonement. And further, this atonement would be valid only if it were entirely voluntary by Christ. Groves proceeds to suggest that the transfiguration was an offer of escape from the suffering of the cross, which if refused, would show his voluntary taking of the cross and make the atonement valid. He writes, “The glorious change which passed over our Lord’s person and countenance was the indication that the offer was genuine, not made in words only. The gates of glory stood open to Him; His foot was on the threshold; He had but to take a step. … Our Lord was explaining to His two great forerunners that He could not accompany them along that glorious and easy path to bliss, but must follow rather that of death upon the cross” (William Groves, “The Significance of the Transfiguration of our Lord,” Theology 11 [1925]: 89-91). This view is highly speculative and fails to take into account Christ's steadfastness on the way to the cross as seen throughout the Gospels.
32. Lane, Gospel of Mark, 318; Boobyer notes that the mountain has prominence both in the NT and in other Christian and Jewish literature as an appropriate place for eschatological revelations—Matthew 24:3; Mark 13:3; Revelation 21:10 (G. H. Boobyer, “St. Mark and the Transfiguration,” 127). While mountains can have other associations, in this context, the point is valid.
33. BAGD, 511.
34. See Ovid, Metamorphoses.
35. Apuleius, The Golden Ass.
36. The word is used four times in the NT (Matt 17:2; Mark 9:2; Rom 12:2; 2 Cor 3:18).
37. Joseph Bernardin, “The Transfiguration,” JBL 52 (1933): 183-84.
38. E. F. Harrison, “Transfiguration,” 318–19; see also D. Edmond Hiebert, Mark: A Portrait of the Servant, 213. Thus what happened to Christ was “a revelation of the glory which [He] possessed continually but not openly” (S. Aalen, “δοξα,” NIDNTT 2:48). Not only was this glory preincarnate but also the same glory revealed of deity in the OT when there was a manifestation (J. D. Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981], 256; Bernard Ramm, Them He Glorified [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963], 40; John 12:41).
39. Walter Betteridge, “Glory,” in ISBE 2:1239.
40. Boobyer, “St. Mark and the Transfiguration,” 130. Likewise, Kee explains that “the only thing that can be inferred from the radiance is that Jesus was seen as entering proleptically in the eschatological glorification that Jewish apocalyptic expected the righteous to share in” (Howard Kee, “The Transfiguration in Mark: Epiphany or Apocalyptic Vision?,” in Understanding the Sacred Text: Essays in Honor of Morton S. Enslin on the Hebrew Bible and Christian Beginnings, ed. John Reumann [Valley Forge, PA: Judson P, 1972], 144. This point is even conceded by Thrall who does not take this view (“Elijah and Moses,” 309).
41. Boobyer, “St. Mark and the Transfiguration,” 129; Wessell, “Mark,” 8:698.
42. George N. H. Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, 2:554–55.
43. G. B. Caird, “The Transfiguration,” ExpTim 67 (1956): 292.
44. Lenski, Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, 657. Close to this idea is that Peter erred in putting Jesus on par with Moses and Elijah since he advocated building a booth for all of them. Thus Trench comments, “Putting those other two at all on the same level with Him, he plainly declared that he did not yet perceive how far that Master transcended all other, even the princes of the elder dispensation” (R.C. Trench, Studies in the Gospels, 217); see also Walter Liefeld, “Luke,” 8:927.
45. Johnson, “Transfiguration of Christ,” 138; see also J. P. Lange, “Gospel According to Matthew,” 307.
46. Hiebert, Mark: A Portrait of the Servant, 214.
47. Plummer, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke, 252; see also Liefeld, “Luke,” 927; Geldenhuys, Gospel of Luke, 282; F. L. Godet, Luke, 1:429; I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 380.
48. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 386; Pentecost, Words and Works, 257; Mitch Glaser and Zhava Glaser, The Fall Feasts of Israel (Chicago: Moody, 1987), 157.
49. Boobyer, “St. Mark and the Transfiguration,” 134. The eschatological aspect to this feast is well attested: Ernst Lohmeyer, “Die Verklarung Jesus nach dem Markus-Evangelium,” ZNW 21 (1922): 191ff; Norman Hillyer, “1 Peter and the Feast of Tabernacles,” TynBul 21 (1970): 63, 67; Kee, TynBul “The Transfiguration in Mark: Epiphany or Apocalyptic Vision,” 147; Lane, The Gospel of Mark, 317.
50. Alan Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1958), 183; see also Carlston, “Transfiguration and Resurrection,” 239; Wessell, “Mark,” 699; Lane, The Gospel of Mark, 319; Carson, “Matthew,” 383–86; Pentecost, Words and Works, 257; Boobyer, “St. Mark and the Transfiguration,” 134. Roehers made the interesting point that the transfiguration and the Feast of Tabernacles should be seen in the perspective of God's eternal plan to dwell among his people, and that the glory of God was tabernacles in Israel provisionally by way of anticipation (Walter Roehers, “God Tabernacles Among Men,” CTM 35 [1964]:18, 20–21).
51. Walter Liefeld, “Theological Motifs,” 175. Randall Otto has argued strenuously against this position. He cites Davies and Allison who write that no one has yet put forward a convincing theological or literary explanation for Peter’s remarks about the booths. Otto then rejects the notion that the feast of booths or the eschatological dwelling of God is in view. Rather, building on a strict Sinaitic background to the narrative, he suggests that Peter’s request for booths is made out of a fear of death. Essentially, the booths are desired for protection (Randall Otto, “The Fear Motivation in Peter’s Offer to Build trei” skhnav”,” WTJ 59 [1997]:102-12). It is certainly true that this was one of the functions of the tabernacle and that God is biblically viewed as a numen tremendum, but the view presented above finds its justification in the kingdom context and expectation of the entire narrative. Penner also denies that Peter was thinking of the Feast of Tabernacles, writing that “though possible, this seems unlikely.” One of the reasons given is that “eschatological characteristics also appear to be downplayed in Matthew’s account, with an emphasis on Mosaic allusions instead” (James A. Penner, “Revelation and Discipleship in Matthew’s Transfiguration Account,” BSac 152 [1995]: 205). While it may be true that there are Mosaic motifs in the account, this does not argue against the eschatology of the passage, but instead argues for it since Moses was the model of the eschatological prophet. Moreover, if any gospel writer were to downplay prophetic allusion, it certainly would not be Matthew since that and kingdom themes are two of his major concerns.
52. Johnson, “The Transfiguration of Christ,” 137; Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, 1:311; Geldenhuys, Gospel of Luke, 281; Plummer, St. Luke, 251; Hiebert, Mark: A Portrait of the Servant, 213–14; Lenski, Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel, 654; Swete, Commentary on Mark, 189; A. C. Gaebelein, Gospel of Matthew, 363. For still other views see Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 868–69.
53. McCurley, “And After Six Days,” 80; see also Liefeld, “Theological Motifs,” 171.
54. Jindrich Manek, “The New Exodus in the Books of Luke,” NovT 2 (1957): 20-21; see also Caird, “The Transfiguration,” 292. This point is also brought out by the fact that in Luke's account it is said that they discussed Jesus’ “decease” (or better “exodus”). This shed light on how Jesus viewed his death, and is reminiscent of the exodus out of Israel from the bondage of Egypt. Significantly, Luke speaks of the birth of Christ as his “incoming” (Acts 13:24). When the imagery is taken as a whole, the bondage to which Christ was subject was his incarnate state (Phil 2), and his “exodus” would refer not only to his death, but to his resurrection and ascension as well—back into his state of glory and liberty. On this discussion and further validation see Harrison, “Transfiguration,” 320; Manek, “New Exodus in the Books of Luke,” 13, 19; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah 2:97; Plummer, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 251; Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke 1:427–28; Marshall, Commentary on Luke, 380, 384; Lenski, Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, 656; Pentecost, Words and Works, 257.
55. Kee, “Transfiguration in Mark,” 146; Wessell, “Mark,” 679; Carson, “Matthew,” 385; Hiebert, Mark: A Portrait of the Servant, 213. One could also conclude from the eschatological significances to Elijah that since John the Baptist did not accomplish his work because of the rejection by the nation, it would follow that the kingdom is also postponed until the future. Thus, this fits with the contention of this article that the transfiguration is a proleptic preview of the millennium. In his superb article, Boobyer also pointed out that there were many prominent figures in Hebrew history who were associated with Hebrew eschatology—Enoch, Elijah, Moses, Ezra, Baruch, Jeremiah, and perhaps even Job (130; see also Hermann Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum neuen Testament, vol. 1: Das Evangelium nach Matthaus erlautert aus Talmud und Midrash [Munich: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1961], 753–58; Lohmeyer, “Die Verklarung Jesu nach dem Markus-Evangelium,” 191). Moreover, Matthew 8:11 speaks of those who will come from the east and west to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom. However, Luke adds in 13:28ff that they shall see “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the prophets in the kingdom.” Surely, then, Moses and Elijah are included and therefore are related to the consummation of the kingdom and not to some point in religious history. This interpretation is also strengthened by the question asked by the disciples after the transfiguration regarding the coming of Elijah and Jesus’ response concerning the restoration of all things (John A. McClean, “Did Jesus Correct the Disciples’ View of the Kingdom?” BSac 151 [1994]: 219-20; John Walvoord, “Interpreting Prophecy: Part 4—The Kingdom of God in the New Testament,” BSac 139 [1982]: 305). See also the discussion by Walter C. Kaiser, “The Promise of the Arrival of Elijah in Malachi and the Gospels,” GTJ 3 (1982): 233.
56. Jerome Neyrey, “The Apologetic Use of the Transfiguration,” CBQ 42 (1980): 519. Kelly also notes that “the rest of the letter shows that the future coming was what was raising doubts in the readers’ minds” (J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987], 317–18).
57. It should again be observed that there are nondispensationalists who see the transfiguration as a reference to the parousia. However, as has been pointed out previously, the pre-transfiguraton prediction relating to the kingdom was fulfilled in the transfiguration. This being the case, it is best to invest the term “kingdom” with the qualities found in the transfiguration which are most consistent with the OT description of it. Thus when writers are cited who are not dispensational but who hold the parousia view, this is strictly for their contribution of placing the transfiguration in the realm of far eschatology and not necessarily to their understanding of what the kingdom is in the present age.
58. Ramsey, Glory of God, 126.
59. Johnson, “Transfiguration of Christ,” 141; see also Gaebelein, Gospel of Matthew, 361; Caird, “The Transfiguration,” 292; Blum, “2 Peter,” 273; Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, 317; McClain, Greatness of the Kingdom, 336. There are a few other miscellaneous indications in the transfiguration narrative which could lend support to the far eschatological argument: (1) the color white was used of heavenly dwellers (Mark 16:5; Acts 1:10; Rev 3:4–5; 7:9–13) and because of this had possible eschatological ramifications (Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentary zum neuen Testament 1:752; T. D. Angel, “leuko”,” in NIDNTT, 1:204–5), (2) so perhaps also is the reference of Matthew to “light,” (3) clouds are often associated with the future coming of the Son of Man (Isa 4:5; Dan 7:13; 2 Baruch 53:1–12; 4 Ezra 13:3; Mark 14:62; Luke 21:27 and with the two prophets in Rev 11:12). It could rightly be argued that clouds have other significances in the Bible, namely the divine presence, but the divine presence, of course, will be dwelling on earth during the kingdom age and would go along nicely with the “kingdom” overtones of the passage, and (4) the fact that the disciples are later instructed to tell no man of this event fits nicely with the dispensational understanding of the rejection of the kingdom.
60. The issue is not technically a literal reign versus a spiritual reign, for the theocracy throughout history has always had spiritual requirements.