083. Chapter 24 - The Transfiguration
Chapter 24 - The Transfiguration Matthew 17:1-13;Mark 9:2-13;Luke 9:28-36
Mount Hermon The good confession of Peter took place at Caesarea Philippi, which is on the southern slope of Mount Hermon. The mountain on which the transfiguration took place is described as a “high mountain.” Since Mount Hermon is by far the highest mountain in the whole region of Palestine, the conclusion is natural, but not inevitable, that the transfiguration took place on Mount Hermon. It is 9,200 feet high and commands attention from all parts of Palestine. The ascent is from the western slope. A leisurely journey around the southern end of the mountain would have given the time for private instruction and reflection, for which there was critical need. The week that elapsed would have sufficed for a journey through the entire length of Palestine, but the combination of background facts naturally leads one to choose Mount Hermon. When the crusaders selected “Little Hermon,” southeast of the Sea of Galilee, as the location, they showed customary ignorance of the Scripture. “Little Hermon” could not possibly qualify as “a high mountain” amid the surrounding terrain. The journey back south to the Sea of Galilee is plainly described as occurring after the transfiguration. A Mountaintop No one who has experienced the thrilling and breath-taking climb of a high mountain will feel the need to ask why the transfiguration took place on a mountaintop. Where else in this world may one find such awesome grandeur of nature? The high mountain offers challenge and vista. Once on the crest of the mountain, heaven itself seems to invite.
Luke informs us that they climbed the mountain one day and came down the next. This was not a mad race to reach the top, but a journey which afforded leisure for conversation, observation, and reflection. Although we are not told specifically that they climbed to the summit and that the transfiguration took place on the peak, this certainly is the implication. Mount Hermon is capped with snow each year until August. This raises the speculation as to whether they ascended through snow the last 1,000 feet. But when we examine the passage of time since the feeding of the five thousand in April and look forward to the Feast of Tabernacles not far ahead, we observe that it was now August, the very time when the peak of Mount Hermon would have been most inviting.
Days of Agony
Matthew and Mark say that the transfiguration took place six days after the good confession, but Luke says “eight days.” Evidently Matthew and Mark were counting the intervening days only; Luke counted also the terminal days. What a week this must have been, of sleepless nights and of “agonized reappraisal”! It is not surprising that the three apostles on the mountaintop were half asleep as Jesus prayed nearby. In the Garden of Gethsemane during the final week, they found themselves unable to keep awake because so many sleepless nights and so much grief had left them utterly exhausted. Likewise here on the mountain the climb, the rarefied atmosphere, and most of all the week of agony left them in a state where sleep was hard to fend off. Only Luke tells of Jesus’ season of prayer which preceded the transfiguration, and of the three disciples’ vain struggle to keep awake.
Jesus’ Prayer
Jesus frequently left His apostles in a camp while He went into a mountain or desert for private devotions, but this was a longer trip — two days instead of a few hours. Moreover, He took three of the apostles with Him.We cannot tell when Jesus was using His miraculous foresight and when He was accepting human limitations. Therefore, we cannot be sure whether He also went up into the mountain to be transfigured. Luke declares, “He went up into the mountain to pray. Further than this we cannot affirm. It was a most humiliating and difficult task to have to tell His disciples that He was about to permit His enemies to kill Him. Jesus must have encountered a profound struggle. There was great need for prayer in this crisis. His prayer on the mountain evidently lasted for a very considerable period. The drowsiness which overcame the three apostles as they waited reverently for Jesus to complete His devotions shows this.
Purpose The entire series of events suggests, but does not prove, that Jesus had definitely planned this entire scene. It could not be announced. The three apostles were even forbidden to report it to the others until a later time. Gould’s perverse argument that Jesus never worked miracles to prove His deity (this, in spite of all the assertions of Christ to the contrary) leads him to deny the possibility that Jesus deliberately planned this transfiguration scene:….it is quite out of character for him to deliberately set about such a transaction” (I.C.C. on Mark, p. 160). But is it any more out of character than for Him deliberately to enter Jerusalem in triumph, show Himself after His resurrection, or work any of the prodigious miracles which prove His deity? For what purpose did He come to earth? Was it not to lead men to faith and thus bring redemption? Why should He not plan here to show these three chosen apostles a glimpse of His heavenly glory to help rebuild their shattered morale?
Jesus Transfigured
Matthew and Mark record that Jesus was transfigured before them on this mountain. Luke adds that this change came over Jesus as He was praying.It instantly is apparent that Jesus was not far distant from the three as He engaged in prayer and meditation. He was within sight; for, when the three suddenly became conscious of a strange situation which brought them suddenly out of their drowsiness into acute observation, they could see Jesus. Perhaps in reverence they had faced in the opposite direction as Jesus departed for a season of prayer and as they seated themselves to wait patiently for His return. Undoubtedly they also had tried to pray with perseverance, but had been unable to continue so long. It would seem that the intense brilliance of the light that was emitted from the person of Jesus was what suddenly brought them wide awake in intense amazement. The Greek verb transfigured, used by Matthew and Mark, means changed in form, which probably means He was changed back into a measure of His heavenly glory. If His features remained the same, there must have been a profound change in His face, His garments, and His whole person as an intense light irradiated from His person. All three writers struggle to state the mysterious change in an understandable manner. Luke says, “The fashion of his countenance was altered,” but he does not make clear just exactly how His countenance was changed, except that intense light shone forth. Matthew says, “His face did shine as the sun.” The change in the appearance of His garments is described: “white as the light” (Matt.); “glistering, exceeding white so as no fuller on earth can whiten them” (Mark); “white and dazzling” (Luke). The heavenly glory which gleamed through the veil of the flesh exceeds human understanding and description.
Moses and Elijah
Moses and Elijah “appeared in glory” and talked with Jesus. We wonder what this phrase means. Does it refer to the fact that they came from Paradise, ordoes it refer to the glorious form in which they appeared? What is “glory”? How closely the limitations of our earthly lives obscure our vision of the infinite. How did the disciples recognize Moses and Elijah? Had details of their physical appearance been handed down through the generations so that the apostles instantly identified them, or did they have to wait to hear Jesus address the two before they could ascertain their identity? Moses and Elijah “are still ‘men’ with bodies resembling, both in size and form, the old body of earth”; even though they pass through the air from heaven and finally vanish in a moment, this does not prove that celestial bodies will retain the image of the earthly. They may, but Paul says that the nature of our heavenly and immortal bodies has not yet been revealed (1 Corinthians 15:35-50). And he was quite familiar with the facts of this appearance of Moses and Elijah. After all, their appearance is not more or less difficult to explain than any of the appearances of angels. The Conversation The conversation of Jesus with Moses and Elijah was of breathless interest to the disciples.It centered upon the very topic which was breaking their hearts — the death of Christ. Luke gives us this detail: “...spake of the decease which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem.” Decease is not an effective translation. The Greek word is exodus — the going forth from earth back to heaven. It was more than the decease — the going down in death into the grave. Jesus’ resurrection and ascension were also about to be accomplished in Jerusalem. The grave was not the terminus of Jesus’ glorious ministry. “Earth’s exodus is heaven’s genesis, and what we call the end, celestials call the beginning” (Burton, Com. on Luke, p. 289). The Death of Christ
Jesus did not talk with Moses and Elijah about the ancient days when these two great leaders had trying experiences and glorious victories. They did not bring tidings to Jesus from the celestial world. They discussed the redemption of mankind which Jesus was about to accomplish in Jerusalem and His return to heavenly glory. “The cross of Jesus was the one central thought of heaven as it is the one central hope of earth.” The crucifixion of Jesus was on the heart of all six individuals present on the mountain. The disciples, who needed especially to hear this discussion, must have secured great comfort and strength from it. Note the force of the phrase which he was about to accomplish; its plain expression of Christ’s death fits with His foregoing prediction that He “must.” The word accomplish means fulfill; it suggests the fulfillment of all the types and prophecies of the Old Testament which had foreshadowed or predicted the death of the Messiah. The oft-discussed question as to whether those in Paradise can see and know what is going on in this world, finds its clearest answer here where Moses and Elijah discuss with Jesus the situation He faces and the outcome.
Why Moses and Elijah? The selection of Moses and Elijah out of all the great leaders of the Old Testament period naturally leads one to think of these two as the greatest: Moses the great lawgiver; Elijah the greatest of the prophets. Moses was also a prophet, but he was chiefly known as the lawgiver. Any poll of opinion among Christians or Jews would undoubtedly name Moses first among all the great leaders of the Old Testament. As to the second greatest figure a difference of opinion would immediately develop. But this scene seems to point Elijah out as second in stature and achievements. This is not stated; it is merely a conclusion. Elijah called the people back to the keeping of the law, but he was first of all a prophet. Some commentators suppose that Moses and Elijah were present here because both disappeared mysteriously from the earth, but it is hard to see any possible connection. The Three Accounts The independence of the three narratives is especially remarkable. Look at the details given only by Luke: (1) Christ came up into the mountain to pray and He was transfigured as He was praying. (2) Moses and Elijah appeared in glory and talked with Christ concerning His approaching exodus. (3) The disciples were heavy with sleep as they waited for Jesus to complete His devotions, but they became wide awake as the scene occurred. (4) It was when Peter saw Moses and Elijah about to leave that he spoke, trying to bring about a continuation of the marvelous scene. (5) It was the next day when they came down.
Mark and Luke state that Peter did not know what he was saying; Mark adds, “...because they were so full of fear.” Matthew alone tells that they fell on their faces, and that Jesus touching them was what caused them to look up. Matthew and Mark tell of the conversation concerning Elijah and John the Baptist as they came down from the mountain. Luke says that the disciples obeyed Jesus’ command not to tell anyone about the things they had witnessed. The passage is as prickly as a chestnut bur for the “source” theorists to handle.
Peter’s Proposal
While Peter’s proposal to prolong the wonderful scene was absurd, he probably thought he had some practical ideas. If they were on the summit of Mount Hermon, then the coming of night would probably bring cold winds. Scraggy material could he carried up from the timber line if the building of three rough huts to protect from the wind proved desirable. At least Peter should be given credit for not suggesting four tabernacles — the fourth for the three disciples. Jesus and the disciples probably descended to the timber line to secure some such protection from the cold wind before night came upon them. Its Absurdity
Matthew and Mark say, “Peter answered.” He was not responding to any word addressed to him, but to the wonderful scene. Peter was the kind of person who felt called upon to answer whenever he heard anything which interested him. What he heard enthralled him and filled him with fear and awe. Mark and Luke say that he did not know what he was saying (did not realize the absurdity of his proposition). His proposal to build three temporary structures, or huts, was absurd, for what need would Moses and Elijah, from the spirit world, have for such things? They must return whence they came. Were they to be put on a level with the Son of God by such a proposal? What of the nine apostles left in the valley? Were they to be forgotten? should Jesus break faith with them? What of the waiting multitudes and all suffering humanity? should Christ forget and desert? Peter received no answer from Christ; God, rather, answered from heaven. The Cloud
“A bright cloud” drifted over and around them enveloping them in its soft mist (Matthew 17:5). It was the symbol of the divine presence. It suggests the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night which guided Israel through the wilderness. All three narrators speak of the cloud “overshadowing” them. Since the cloud emitted a brilliant light, it probably shut out all vision from the mountaintop, so fascinating in its vista. The world disappeared; they could see only Jesus, who was close at hand. The same heavenly light which had clothed Jesus in heavenly glory was now shining out of this cloud. There is a light above the brightness of the sun.
Luke says, “They feared as they entered into the cloud.” Any mountain climber knows that a cloud may mean loss of the trail and death in a perilous climb. One can well understand the fear of the apostles as the supernatural completely outweighed the natural. As the voice of God spoke out of the cloud, the climax of terror and exaltation arrived; they fell on their faces.
God’s Answer
Peter’s foolish proposal had put Moses and Elijah on a level with the Son of God. God’s answer corrected this and set Jesus above all. They were to hear Him rather than seek to hear a continuation of the words of Moses and Elijah. Jesus had been with them for three years. He would continue to be with them as they descended from the mountain. His words were very hard to hear and accept just now, but they must listen and heed. The law and the prophets were only temporary; the gospel of Christ is final and eternal.
Night or Day?
Since they spent two days on the mountain, the question arises as to whether this scene occurred during the daytime or at night. The following arguments are advanced by commentators who think it occurred at night:
He was accustomed to praying at night in the mountains (but He was also accustomed to praying in the day. Witness the fact that He was praying just before the good confession was made, and that a public service and sermon followed). His disciples were sleepy (but they could become sleepy in the daytime because of their strenuous life; the heartbreaking sorrow of the past week, which could have kept them from sleeping; the climb through the rare atmosphere; and the long wait during Jesus’ devotion).
Luke says they came down the next day, showing that they spent the night on the mountain (but leisurely ascent and descent would have required the two days. They probably camped out in some protected place and awaited daylight for the main descent). The bright cloud would have been more brilliant at night (but the brightness of heaven exceeds that of the sun. The bright light that overwhelmed Saul was at midday, Acts 9:5; Acts 22:6, Acts 22:11; Acts 26:13). One cannot tell whether the transfiguration was during the day or at night, but it seems to have been in the daytime.
Purposes The following purposes of the miraculous scene are suggested: (1) The transfiguration scene served to strengthen the faith of the apostles after the critical pressure of Jesus’ open revelation of His death. The miracle of walking on the water, which came after Jesus’ refusal to be king, helped relieve the disappointment and frustration of the apostles. The transfiguration came in just such a time of great need. The nine apostles would have received no direct help because the three were not permitted to tell what had happened on the mountain. The startling change in the demeanor of the three apostles, however, would have been communicated unconsciously to the others, as their downcast attitude was now suddenly changed to radiance and exalted confidence.
(2) On Mount Hermon God gave the disciples information sorely needed in this crisis. When Jesus had refused the crown offered by the Zealots, and especially when He had openly predicted His death to the apostles, they received hard blows to their hopes. On the Mount of Transfiguration it was made plain that the death of Christ would not mean that the glory of the kingdom would be lost. They beheld a glory of which they had not dreamed and which caused earthly pomp and circumstances to become insignificant. They were helped to understand that the glory of the kingdom would be of heaven and not of earth. To accept the spiritual aims and program of Christ would not be so difficult. As time went on and became more difficult, the scene on Mount Hermon faded from view. On Golgotha it must have been completely lost to sight as they looked upon three crosses from afar. And yet this mountaintop experience would keep coming back to them with a mighty surge. After the resurrection and the explanations of Jesus made everything plain, the transfiguration became a permanent bulwark of their faith.
Jesus Only
They learned by the transfiguration that, although Jesus had been rejected by His people, He had not been rejected of God. The conversation with Moses and Elijah showed that the projected death of Christ was in harmony with the law and the prophets. The three had talked together of His approaching exodus in the capital. Moses and Elijah were not shocked or horrified at the prospect. While the three apostles had felt it meant the end of all their hopes, they found this marvelous scene sending them back for renewed study of the Old Testament. But the climax of the scene was not the conversation with Moses and Elijah. The climax was the voice of God speaking from heaven and warning them not to put Jesus on the same plane with Moses and Elijah, nor to hesitate to follow Him now even as He went to His death, nor to turn back from accepting His every word, for God the Father was well pleased with the conduct and course of His Son. At the last they could see Jesus only and were warned that. He is the supreme arbiter of human destiny. Moses and Elijah appeared only to disappear. The law and the prophets were in process of passing away as the new revelation was being given. Jesus only!
(3) The transfiguration gave to all the ages this strength and information which the three apostles received on the mountain. Our need may not be so critical as theirs, since the full gospel is in our hands at the start of our consideration of the Christian religion. But the modern enemies of Christ are many and have infiltrated the churches. We need the help of this tremendous event. The Experience of Jesus
(4) The transfiguration brought Jesus comfort and consolation, such as the angels brought to Him in the wilderness and in the Garden of Gethsemane. When the voice of God spoke from heaven to confirm Jesus as He was delivering His final sermon to the nation on that last day of His ministry in the temple, Jesus declared that the voice had been for the sake of the people, rather than for His sake (John 12:30). We conclude the same is true when God spoke from heaven commending His Son at the baptism. Yet in all these cases where heavenly fellowship was restored for a time, we can be sure that they had meaning for Jesus. Their primary purpose was to bring us faith and knowledge, but the experiences of Jesus were actual and exceedingly precious.
(5) The transfiguration must have had meaning for Moses and Elijah also. Perhaps this should be stated as a result, rather than a purpose. And yet they were chosen of God to have a part in this scene. It was a very real experience. We do not know enough about the state of the blessed in Paradise to affirm very much of this phase of the event, but this experience now must be one of the most cherished memories of these two great leaders as they await the final consummation. And so through all eternity.
Subjective Vision?
T. H. Robinson holds that this whole scene is subjective, not objective, since Matthew says, “a vision” (Commentary on Matthew, p. 144). Such reasoning is in harmony with the customary rejection by modernists of all appearances of angels to men. At times the Scripture informs us that an angel does appear to a man in a dream, as the angel who appeared to Joseph to warn and instruct him concerning Mary (Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:21). Peter on the housetop at Joppa is specifically said to have been in a trance when the sheet was let down from heaven. We are not to suppose that there were actually all kinds of wild animals on the housetop with Peter. When Paul saw in a vision at night the man of Macedonia, the man was not actually present with him at Troas (Acts 16:9). But these revelations given in the mind are separate and distinct from the actual appearance of angels or the appearance of Moses and Elijah and the transfiguration of Jesus. To say that this scene was “subjective” means that nothing actually happened on the mountain except the journey and the season of prayer. All the rest was simply in the minds of the apostles. But three people do not see the same vision at the same time. Jesus condensed the entire event into one word — vision — that which they actually saw. It is very perverse to take this brief word as a contradiction of the entire threefold account of what actually happened. As Jesus talked with the three concerning the sublime event which had just taken place, He did not say what they had thought or what they had seen in their mind’s eye.
Testimony of Peter
There is only one account of the transfiguration by an eyewitness. Mark and Luke were not of the company at this time. Even Matthew was not chosen to be one of the three to ascend the mountain with Jesus. Looking back across the many years from the vantage point of his old age, Peter selected one single event of supreme, thrilling power out of the ministry of Jesus; it was the transfiguration. With slashing blows he storms at the enemies of Christ who will try to deny the historical verity of the prodigious miracles that occurred during Jesus’ ministry. They will attempt to make out that these are merely “cunningly devised fables” (a la Dibellius, Bultmann Form Criticism “myths,” “legends,” “miracle tales,” “fables”). Solemnly Peter delivers his eyewitness testimony: “But we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there was borne such a voice to him by the majestic glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: and this voice we ourselves heard borne out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount” (2 Peter 1:16-18). John is silent concerning this event, as he is concerning most of the scenes recorded in the early portion of the Synoptics. His entire Gospel presents the glorification of Jesus. He does not repeat this thrice-told event, but records new scenes and evidence which they have not given.
Historical Proof The historical character of the transfiguration is confirmed by the following: (1) If it is an invention, then those who so hold are obligated to show a source which suggested it to the inventors. There is nothing like this in the Old Testament or the literature of the world.
There is nothing in the previous life of Jesus which could have produced it. The prediction of the return of Elijah was not responsible for it, for Moses appeared also. In the discussion that followed, it is explicitly denied by Jesus that this is a fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy. The manner in which the scene fits into the crisis in Jesus’ ministry is very convincing. His preceding revelation of His death and the fact that Moses and Elijah talk with Him about His approaching death, fit together. The dating of this event by all three writers as one week after the good confession is remarkable in the independence of their manner of stating it. The frankness with which Luke states that they were sleepy when the scene began is a strong item of evidence. No one inventing such an account would ever think of allowing such a thing to be recorded. The vivid details of Jesus’ praying and the disciples seated nearby, the characteristic impulsiveness of Peter, the perplexity of the disciples as they came down the mountain are all convincing details. The prohibition to speak of the scene cannot be explained if the account is an invention. The historical narrative which follows fits as completely as that which precedes, i.e., the failure of the nine apostles and Jesus’ miracle of casting the demon out of the lad.
There are four strong, clear, harmonious, but independent accounts of the transfiguration. “Whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts” (2 Peter 1:19).
Aftermath
Luke merely records that the three apostles “held their peace, and told no man in those days any of the things which they had seen” (Luke 9:36). But Matthew and Mark give further details of their instruction as they came down the mountain. Observe that where Matthew says “vision,” Mark says “what things they had seen.” Jesus strictly forbade them to tell any man what they had seen “save when the Son of man should have risen again from the dead” (Mark 9:9). Mark alone tells that a discussion broke out among the three as to what Jesus meant by “the rising again from the dead.” “They kept the saying”; they did not forget it, even though they did not understand it. This discussion must have occurred at some break during the long trip down the mountain. Jesus evidently was not close at hand as they had this discussion.
They did not question Jesus as to what He meant by the rising again from the dead. Perhaps they dreaded to bring up in any way the fearful topic of His death. They believed in the life after death as all faithful Jews did. But they could not tell whether Jesus was now speaking of the final resurrection or some event near at hand which they could not understand. They had seen Jesus raise the dead, and yet the death of Jesus Himself was so appalling that they simply could not go beyond it to picture anything further.
They did question Jesus about the significance of the appearance of Elijah. It is not recorded that they asked about the meaning of the appearance of Moses. The secret of this concentration of their interest is the probability that they had been in some heated discussions with the scribes over this prophecy in the Old Testament. There is evidence that the scribes attempted to influence the apostles. It was inevitable that heated discussions would occur between the apostles and scribes when they were separated from Christ on some mission. Here was a point where they had not been able to answer the argument that Jesus could not possibly be the Christ, for Elijah had not yet come.
John the Baptist
They evidently had not understood the discussion of this prediction by John the Baptist. In fact, his answer of “no” to the perverse questioners from the capital may have helped to confuse them (John 1:21). John had answered that he was not Elijah in the sense that the priests and Levites had asked the question. They deserved no clearer answer. If the apostles were present when Jesus answered John’s question and preached the tremendous sermon on John and the unbelief of the generation, then they had heard Jesus say that John was the fulfillment of this prediction of the return of Elijah: “And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, that is come” (Matthew 11:14).
Return of Elijah
They were so thrilled now by what had taken place on the mountain that they felt there must be some connection between this event and the prophecy of Malachi 4:5. Jesus informed them that Malachi was not predicting the event that had just taken place. “Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they would. Even so shall the Son of man also suffer of them. Then understood the disciples that he spake unto them of John the Baptist” (Matthew 17:12, Matthew 17:13). The former instruction they had received helped them to fit together the identification that Jesus made. There was evidently a longer discussion of this between them. The variant accounts of Matthew and Mark indicate this.
Jesus pointed out to them that the scribes were quite correct in saying the Old Testament predicted that Elijah would come and restore all things — fulfill the preparations for the coming of the Messiah (Matthew 17:11; Mark 9:12; Malachi 4:5, Malachi 4:6). But the scribes, who were so insistent in offering this prophecy as a ground for rejecting Jesus as the Christ, needed to study the Old Testament prophecies about the sufferings of the Messiah and see that their whole idea of the Christ was wrong (Mark 9:12). The Old Testament prophecy concerning Elijah had already been fulfilled. Elijah had already come; the scribes had failed to recognize him and had rejected his counsel. John the Baptist, rejected and slain by the nation’s leaders, was the fulfillment of the predictions of Elijah’s return (Matthew 17:12; Mark 9:13).
Death of the Messiah
Now the fate of John was to be re-enacted in the death of the Messiah at the hands of the disobedient nation. Whatsoever they would is an expressive phrase indicating man’s rebellion against God (Mark 9:13). Man had expected that when the Messiah came, God would exert His power so that men could not do to His servants as they pleased, even as it shall be at the second coming. But the Jews did not distinguish between the predictions of the first and second comings in the Old Testament. This was veiled. Jesus made clear to His disciples (the inference is plainly stated in Matthew) that the Jews would treat the Messiah in like fashion as they had treated John.
Even as it is written of him refers to John. Where is there any prediction of John’s fate in the Old Testament? Jesus seems to say that the fate of John is parallel to that of the Old Testament prophets. Elijah had experienced rejection and long years of suffering. Many of the prophets had been killed.
They would refers to the unbelieving leadership of the nation, not to the multitude of godly Jews who had heard and obeyed John and who now mourned his death. Herod Antipas was directly responsible for John’s death, but the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees were indirectly responsible. They had scornfully rejected John’s message and opposed his ministry. They had done nothing to protest his imprisonment. Their voices were soon to be raised to rescue the vicious Barabbas, but they had not lifted up a hand to help John. His death from their point of view was a good riddance. The angel Gabriel in announcing to Zacharias in the temple the birth of John had identified the forerunner as the fulfillment of the prophecy of Malachi. John came “in the spirit and power” of Elijah (Luke 1:17). There are many impressive parallels between the careers of the two great leaders.
While the understanding and faith of the apostles was helped by the explanation from Jesus, there was again raised this dreaded proposition of His death. Here was another prediction. The transfiguration was granted to them in order to help them recover from the shock of the first clear prediction. But they were not permitted to be so elated over this scene on the mountaintop that they would forget the tragedy just ahead. Mark shows that Jesus called to their minds this fact.
Jesus reminded the three disciples that the Old Testament prophets had predicted His death: “And how it is written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be set at nought” (Mark 9:12). In Peter’s presentation of testimony concerning the transfiguration, He seems to make an abrupt change of topic over the divine source, authority, and verity of the prophecies of Scripture. But it is not a real change of topic. As Peter tells of the glorious change in the appearance of Jesus and the voice of God speaking out of the cloud, he welds recollections and reflections about the conversation between the two great prophets and Jesus, and about the Old Testament prediction of death that Jesus had given them as they came down the mountain: “And we have the word of prophecy made more sure….For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:19, 2 Peter 1:21).