Matthew 17:1-13

Who Does the Father Say I Am?

Matthew 17:1-13     Jesus Transfigured

Matthew continued to adhere closely to the order of Mark’s narrative.  The following story had already been heavily theologised by Mark – making it very difficult to have a confident sense of its origins. The story is a rich collage of phrases, images, persons and themes drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures.  It may have been a mystical experience of Jesus viewed in common by the three disciples.  More probably it was Mark’s own composition, or one originating in Mark’s community, serving to underline for the readers the significance of the events that were about to unfold.  Matthew, contrary to Mark and Luke, would refer to it as a vision [17:8].

Jesus had just stated that followers of his would have to take up their cross.  Before they would willingly do that, they would need a clear and firm faith in Jesus.  The background of pending suffering provided the context for the story.

The mountain location was Matthew’s way to alert careful readers of the Gospel to the special importance of what would follow.  That the mountain was unidentified served to highlight its symbolic significance.

The mention now of six days and of the high mountain (along with the presence of a cloud) echoed Moses’ experience on Mt Sinai when God had appeared to him and given him the Ten Commandments:

That Jesus’ face shone like the sun was Matthew’s addition, perhaps serving to call to mind the glory of the Lord like a devouring fire (according to the Exodus story).  The description drew heavily on the account of Moses’ encounter with God.  When Moses conversed with God on Mt Sinai, “the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God” [Exodus 34:29].  The brilliance of Jesus’ face reflected the glory of the God he encountered in his mystical prayer.  Jesus embodied the glory of God, but it was a glory that could be perceived only by disciples who had faith.

Why Moses and Elijah?  There may have been a number of reasons:

• Moses represented the Torah, the Law; and Jeremiah personified the prophets – together they symbolized the fullness of the Hebrew Scriptures;
• both men had encounters with God on Mt Sinai/Horeb [Exodus 33:21-23;1 Kings 19:11-13];
• Moses had contended with the political and religious might of Egypt; Elijah with the political and religious powers in Israel;
• both were instrumental in the formation and reformation of God’s People;
• both were brought close to depression and despair by the faithlessness of the people;
• both left their work unfinished, to be continued by disciples – Joshua, and Elisha;
• both suffered hardship and rejection – Elijah suffered persecution.

Jesus would be one with them on all of these issues.  Fulfilment of the prophecies would be at a price.

Contrary to Mark, Matthew interpreted Peter’s response positively.  Peter’s offer to construct three temporary tents connected their experience with the Feast of Tabernacles (Tents), which, in turn, remembered and celebrated Israel’s time of formation in the desert.

Jesus was in the process of forming the small community of disciples, his Church.  Peter showed clear insight in making the Sinai connections; but he would be slow to recognise that the discipline of the desert would become the more common experience of authentic discipleship than would the enjoyment of the Promised Land.  Peter’s problem would become the problem of the Church across the centuries.

The cloud was an accepted symbol of the presence of the unknowable, but ever-present and protective, God.  A cloud had led Israel through the desert by day, a fire by night.

The voice from the cloud was the voice of God, the same voice that had identified Jesus in his post-baptismal experience at the Jordan [3:17].  Matthew made the connection even more clearly than Mark had done, by including the title the Beloved.  Clearly, his addition carried a clear allusion, also, to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah’s prophecies.  Earlier in the narrative [12:18], Matthew had used the prophecy to illustrate and to justify Jesus’ merciful approach to his ministry. Here it served to emphasise the rejection and suffering soon to confront Jesus (and the disciples).

Though Matthew, following Mark, had the voice clearly warn the three disciples to listen to him, Peter, James and John all found the task too difficult.  The Father’s message was the purpose of the story.

Certainly, Matthew was concerned that his readers get the message.   Clearly, the disciples’ difficulty would be the dilemma of Matthew’s community.  It would become the perennial problem confronting the Church: how to hear the truth through the distorting filters of contrary expectations.  People find it hard to heed the truth that they do not particularly want to hear.

The cause of their fear was not so much the message, but the fact of the voice and their closeness to ultimate mystery.  Their response mirrored their terror at the sight of Jesus walking on water [14:26].

No one except Jesus himself alone would be their only experience of Jesus until his resurrection.  Indeed, they would see him brought close to desperation and despair in Gethsemane: deeply grieved even to death [26:38].

Like the faith experience of Jesus that Matthew’s community would have, disciples across the centuries would know only on faith the mystery at the heart of Jesus.  Jesus is always known only in the obscurity of faith.

Matthew remained faithful to the story as told by Mark, though he did not share Mark’s reason for keeping the vision secret.  However, the truth of Jesus, illustrated by his transfiguration and vindicated by his resurrection, could be appreciated only in the light of his crucifixion.  The Christian disciple needed to learn that Jesus revealed and shared in the glory of God to the extent that he loved humanity to the point of death.  God is love – unconditional and absolute love, a love that is practical and engaged with the sin of the world.  To see only the transfigured Jesus, his face like the sun, and his garments white like light  would be to miss the deepest truth of God.  Yet, without resurrection, to recognise the glory of God in the tortured face of the dying Christ would require a faith beyond the reach of most.

The prophet Malachi, the last of the Hebrew prophets, had concluded his prophecies with a promise of the return of Elijah: 

The prophecy reflected the  general understanding that Elijah had not died, but been taken up alive to heaven in a fiery chariot [2 Kings 2:11].  Elijah, consequently, was in a position to return again.

Malachi’s prophecy explained: 

• the general expectation of the eventual appearance of Elijah;
• John the Baptist’s reason for dressing like Elijah;
• and John’s expectation that Jesus would deal vigorously with evil doers.

Effectively, Jesus was saying that the Day of the Lord was fast approaching, though it would take a shape different from that anticipated.

Next >> Matthew 17:14-27