Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Transfiguration

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Transfiguration” utilice nuestra app.

TRANSFIGURATION

Mat 17:1-9 2Pe 1:16-18 . This remarkable event in the life of Christ probably took place on Hermon or some other mountain not far from Caesarea Philippi; the tradition which assigns it to Tabor not being sustained. See TABOR.The whole form and raiment of the Savior appeared in supernatural glory. The Law and the Prophets, in the persons of Moses and Elijah, did homage to the Gospel. By communing with Christ on the theme most momentous to mankind, his atoning death, they evinced the harmony that exists between the old and new dispensations, and the sympathy between heaven and earth; while the voice from heaven in their hearing gave him honor and authority over all. Besides its great purpose, the attestation of Christ’s Messiahship and divinity, this scene demonstrated the continued existence of departed spirits in an unseen world, furnished in the Savior’s person an emblem of humanity glorified, and aided in preparing both him and his disciples for their future trials.

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Transfiguration

Outside the Gospels the Transfiguration is only once directly referred to in the NT, in 2Pe 1:16 ff., where it is mentioned as showing the credibility of those who preached Christs Parousia, seeing that they had been eyewitnesses () of His majesty () and had heard the voice; cf. Joh 1:14, which also would seem to refer, inter alia, to the Transfiguration. Whatever view we take of the authorship of 2 Peter, the passage shows the importance of that event in the eyes of the early Christians. But why does not the writer appeal rather to the Ascension, of which the apostles were equally witnesses? The difficulty is the same, whether St. Peter or some later teacher wrote the Epistle. C. Bigg suggests, with much probability (International Critical Commentary , St. Peter and St. Jude, Edinburgh, 1901, pp. 231, 266), that those opponents who denied the Parousia perhaps denied the Resurrection as well, and that therefore it would have been useless for the writer to meet them by blankly affirming the fact of the Ascension; whereas they would acknowledge the truth of the events of our Lords ministry. At any rate, the Epistle appeals to an event witnessed by St. Peter. This neither proves nor disproves the Petrine authorship. If the author was St. Peter (whether or not he gave a free hand to the scribe), the reference is natural enough; if he was a later writer wishing to pose as the Apostle, he might equally well introduce a Petrine reminiscence. It seems likely that the author, whoever he was, did not use the Gospel records, or at least not those which we now have. We notice (a) that he says that Jesus received from the Father honour and glory, which is not mentioned in the Gospels; (b) that he uses the excellent glory for the bright cloud of Mat 17:5; (c) that he speaks of the holy mountain (the adjective has been thought to betray a later date, when sacred sites might have been held in reverence-but why not in the Apostolic Age?); (d) that he quotes the words of the voice differently from the Synoptists, though he is nearest to St. Matthew; he has (an unusual construction) for of Mat 17:5; he omits hear ye him, and in Codex B the order of the words is different. He also omits all reference to Moses and Elijah, but this does not affect the question of his source. The probable conclusion from these facts is that the writer, if he was not St. Peter, depended on oral tradition, and this would argue a comparatively early date. It has been noticed that in the context (2Pe 1:14) we read of St. Peters putting off his tabernacle () and of his departure (), which may have been suggested by the of Mar 9:5 and Mt. Lk., and the of our Lord in Luk 9:31, but this is very doubtful. It is possible that there is an indirect reference to the Transfiguration in 2Co 3:18 (note ; cf. Mar 9:2, Mat 17:2), but the reference is to the glory of the Ascended Lord.

A. J. Maclean.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

Transfiguration

The Transfiguration of Christ is the culminating point of His public life, as His Baptism is its starting point, and His Ascension its end. Moreover, this glorious event has been related in detail by St. Matthew (17:1-6), St. Mark (9:1-8), and St. Luke (9:28-36), while St. Peter (2 Peter 1:16-18) and St. John (1:14), two of the privileged witnesses, make allusion to it.

About a week after His sojourn in Cæsarea Philippi, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John and led them to a high mountain apart, where He was transfigured before their ravished eyes. St. Matthew and St. Mark express this phenomenon by the word metemorphothe, which the Vulgate renders transfiguratus est. The Synoptics explain the true meaning of the word by adding “his face did shine as the sun: and his garments became white as snow,” according to the Vulgate, or “as light,” according to the Greek text.

This dazzling brightness which emanated from His whole Body was produced by an interior shining of His Divinity. False Judaism had rejected the Messias, and now true Judaism, represented by Moses and Elias, the Law and the Prophets, recognized and adored Him, while for the second time God the Father proclaimed Him His only-begotten and well-loved Son. By this glorious manifestation the Divine Master, who had just foretold His Passion to the Apostles (Matthew 16:21), and who spoke with Moses and Elias of the trials which awaited Him at Jerusalem, strengthened the faith of his three friends and prepared them for the terrible struggle of which they were to be witnesses in Gethsemani, by giving them a foretaste of the glory and heavenly delights to which we attain by suffering.

LOCATION OF THE TRANSFIGURATION

Already in Apostolic times the mount of the Transfiguration had become the “holy mount” (2 Peter 1:18). It seems to have been known by the faithful of the country, and tradition identified it with Mount Thabor. Origen said (A.D. 231-54) “Thabor is the mountain of Galilee on which Christ was transfigured” (Comm. in Ps. lxxxviii, 13). In the next century St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech., II, 16) and St. Jerome (Ep. xlvi, ad Marcel.; Ep. viii, ad Paulin.; Ep. cviii, ad Eust.) likewise declare it categorically. Later St. Proculus, Patriarch of Constantinople (d. 447; Orat. viii, in Transfig.), Agathangelus (Hist. of Armenia, II, xvii), and Arnobius the Younger (d. 460; Comm. in Ps. lxxxviii, 13) say the same thing. The testimonies increase from century to century without a single dissentient note, and in 553 the Fifth Council of Constantinople erected a see at Mount Thabor (Notitif. Antioch. . . . patriarch.).

Some modern writers claim that the Transfiguration could not have taken place on Mount Thabor, which, according to Josephus, was then surmounted by a city. This is incorrect; the Jewish historian speaks neither of a city nor a village; he simply fortified, as he repeats three times, “the mount called Itabyrion” (“Bell. Jud.”, II, xx, 6; IV, i, 8; Vita , 37). The town of Atabyrion of Polybius, the Thabor or Celeseth Thabor, the “flank of Thabor” of the Bible, is situated at the foot of Mount Thabor. In any case the presence of houses on a wooded height would not have made it impossible to find a place apart.

It is again objected that Our Lord was transfigured on Mount Hermon, since He was at that time in its vicinity. But the Synoptics are all explicit concerning the lapse of time, six days, or about eight days including those of departure and arrival, between the discourse in Cæsarea and the Transfiguration, which would infer a somewhat lengthy journey. Moreover the summits of Hermon are covered with snow as late as June, and even the lesser peaks of 4000 or 5000 feet are likewise snow-covered in February and March, the period of the Transfiguration. Finally, the ancients judged of the height of mountains by their appearance, and Thabor especially was considered a “high mountain”, if not by David and Jeremias, at least by Origen and St. Jerome and the pilgrims who made the ascent.

———————————–

BARNABAS MEISTERMANN Transcribed by Paul T. Crowley Dedicated to Father Edward V. Rutowski

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XVCopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Transfiguration

The Greek word , well rendered was transfigured, signifies a change of form or appearance (Mat 17:2; Mar 9:2),.and is so explained in Luk 9:29, the fashion of his countenance was altered. This is one of the most wonderful incidents in the life of our Savior upon earth, and one so instructive that we can never exhaust its lessons. The apostle Peter, towards the close of his life, in running his mind over the proofs of Christ’s majesty, found none so -conclusive and irrefragable as the scenes when he and others were with his Master in the holy mount (2Pe 1:18) as eye-witnesses that he received from God the Father honor and glory when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. The apostle John likewise refers to the convincing power of the glory exhibited on that occasion (Joh 1:14). If we divide Christ’s public life into three periods the first of miracles, to prove his divine mission; the second of parables, to inculcate virtue; and the third of suffering, first clearly revealed and then endured, to atone for sin-the transfiguration may be viewed as his baptism or initiation into the third and last. He went up the Mount of Transfiguration on the eighth day after he had bidden every one who would come after him take up his cross, declaring that his kingdom was-not of this world that he must suffer many things, and be killed, etc.

The Mount of Transfiguration is traditionally thought to have been Mount Tabor; but as this height is fifty miles from Caesarea Philippi, where Jesus last taught, it has of late been supposed to have been a mountain much less distant, namely, Mount Hermon. As there was an interval, however, of a week between this and the preceding occurrence, we may naturally conclude that a part of this time was occupied in the journey. SEE TABOR.

The only persons thought worthy to ascend this mount of vision were Peter, James, and John, three being a competent number of witnesses, or they being more faithful and beloved than any others. Whatever the reason was, these three disciples appear on more than one other occasion as an elect triumvirateas at the raising of Jairus’s daughter, and during our Lord’s agony in the garden. The disciples, in all probability, ascended the mountain anticipating nothing more than that Jesus, as at other times (Luk 6:12), would continue all night in prayer to God. When the curtains of night closed around them, they were so worn out by their labors as to sink down in sleep, till startled from their slumbers by the glory of the Lord shining round about them; for, as Jesus prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light… And behold there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias, who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease, which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. Peter’s words, Master, it is good for us to be here, are a natural expression of rapture; and his proposal to build three tabernacles indicated his desire both to keep his Lord from going down to Jerusalem to die there, and to prolong the blessedness of beholding with open face the glory of God. Such is at least a plausible interpretation of his language, while he wist not what to say. It is worthy of remark that Peter had no thought of tents for himself and his companions, his only desire being that the beatific vision might endure forever. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them not a black cloud such as that which rested on Mount Sinai, but a cloud glistening as the Shechinah when the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle, or as the cloud that filled the house of the Lord when the priests were come out of the holy place. And behold a voice out of the cloud that is, out of the long-established symbol of Jehovah’s presence which said, This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased hear ye him. And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid like Daniel and all others who have felt themselves entranced by revelations of God. And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid showing such gentleness as proved him to be fitly named the Lamb of God. How long the glorification of our Savior continued it were vain to inquire; but it appears from the narrative of Luke that he did not lead down his disciples till the day following that on which they had ascended the height. As they descended, he bade his disciples keep what they had seen a secret till after his resurrection, doubtless because the whole vision, to those who had not seen it, would have been a rock of offence, appearing, as an idle tale. He also opened their eyes to see that. Elias whom they looked for in the future was to be sought in the past, even In John the Baptist, who was clothed with his spirit and power.

The final causes of the transfiguration, although in part wrapped up in mystery, appear to be in part plain. Among its intended lessons may be the following: First, to teach that, in spite of the calumnies which the Pharisees had heaped on Jesus the old and new dispensations are in harmony with each other. To this end the author and the restorer of the old dispensation talk with the founder of the new, as if his scheme, even the most repulsive feature of it, was contemplated by theirs, as the reality of which they had promulgated only types and shadows. Secondly, to teach that the new dispensation was superior to the old. Moses and Elias appear as inferior to Jesus, not merely since their faces did not, so far as we know, shine like the sun, but chiefly because the voice from the excellent glory commanded to. hear him in preference to them; thirdly, to gird up the energies of Jesus for the great agony which was so soon to excruciate him; as in Gethsemane itself an angel appeared unto him strengthening him; as the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the likeness of a dove before his temptation in the wilderness and as, when the devil left him, angels came and ministered unto him. Fourthly, to comfort the hearts of the disciples, who, being destined to see their Master, whom they had left all to follow, nailed to a cross, to be themselves persecuted, and to suffer their want of all things, were in danger of despair. But, by being eye-witnesses of his majesty, they became convinced that his humiliation, even though he descended into the place of the dead, was voluntary and could not continue long. Gazing at the glorified body of their Master, they beheld not only a proof but an express and lively image, of his resurrection, ascension, and exaltation above the heavens. As in a prophetic vision, they beheld him seated upon clouds; and seen by every eye as the Judge of the quick and the dead, or enthroned in heaven amid the host of his redeemed. Henceforth they ceased not questioning one another what the rising from the dead should mean. Fifthly, to teach that virtue will not allow supine contemplation, but demands the exercise and exertion of our several powers. To some this lesson may seem a refinement, but it is ingeniously deduced by Schleiermacher from the fact that while Peter yet spake in his ecstasy, the vision in which he longed to wear out his life vanished away as if the aim were to teach us that when we have ascended the mount of vision on the cherub-wings of contemplation, even if we burn to dwell there in a perpetual sweetness, yet We must shun all monastic seclusion that we-may mingle among men and do them good; even as the great Exemplar would not let his chosen repose in rapturous musings, and had scarcely come down from the mountain of his glory before he recommenced his works of usefulness.

The transfiguration is so fine a subject for the painter that we are not surprised to learn that it employed Raphael’s best hours, and that his portraiture of it is confessedly the highest of all efforts of pictorial genius. The original work, still unfaded, though more than three centuries have passed over it, hangs in the Vatican. A copy of it in mosaic on a colossal scale, and which might pass with most men for the original, fills the head of the left aisle in St. Peter’s at Rome. The design is as simple as the artless narrative of the evangelists. In the center, and in raiment white as the light, is he, the fashion of whose countenance was altered. On either hand, and floating on the air, appear in glory Moses and Elias. Beneath, the disciples, overshadowed by a bright cloud, their hands shielding their dazzled eyes, are fallen on their faces, sore afraid of the voice proceeding out of the cloud, but catching glimpses of Jesus transfigured before them.

For monographs on the transfiguration, see Volbeding, Index Programmatum, p. 47.; Hase, Leben Jesut, p. 161; Bagot, On the Transfiguration (Lond. 1840); Anon. Tabor’s Teachings (ibid. 1867, 1868); also the (Am.) Free-will Baptist Quarterly, Jan. 1858. SEE JESUS CHRIST.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

TRANSFIGURATION

Jesus transfiguration took place on a high mountain, possibly Mt Hermon, not far from Caesarea Philippi in northern Palestine (Mat 16:13; Mat 17:1). The event was a revelation of Christs glory, witnessed by only three chosen disciples. In coming into the world, Jesus had laid that glory aside, but now it reappeared briefly, displayed through a human body. It was also a foretaste of the glory that Christ would receive after he had completed the work that he had come to do (Mat 17:2; Joh 17:4-5).

Moses and Elijah, the two people of the Old Testament era who appeared with Jesus, possibly symbolized the law and the prophets (Mat 17:3). Jesus was Gods chosen one, to whom the Old Testament pointed. Their conversation with Jesus about his coming death confirmed what Jesus had told his disciples a few days earlier, namely, that though he was the Messiah, he was also the suffering servant. Though he was a glorious figure of heavenly origins, he had to die a shameful death (Luk 9:30-31; cf. Mat 16:16; Mat 16:21).

This was further confirmed in the words that the Father spoke from heaven. His statement of approval of his Son combined words from one of Davids messianic psalms with words from one of the servant songs of Isaiah (Mat 17:5; cf. Psa 2:7; Isa 42:1).

The Fathers final words, Hear him, indicated that this one, besides being the kingly Messiah and the suffering servant, was the great prophet who announced Gods message to the world (Mat 17:5; cf. Deu 18:15; Act 3:22-26). The entire transfiguration event showed Gods satisfaction with all that Jesus had done and with all that he intended to do as the climax to his ministry approached. (See also MESSIAH; SERVANT OF THE LORD.)

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Transfiguration

TRANSFIGURATION.The name given to that event in the course of Christs ministry in which He was visibly glorified in the presence of three selected disciples. Difficulty has always attached to any attempt to explain it. That it represents a singular enhancement of His Person and a singular attestation of His message was seen from the beginning (2Pe 1:16-18). As such it took its natural place among the evidences of His Divinity. To that position its significance has been very generally limited, and there conceived for the most part in a purely external manner. The paucity of essential ideas associated with it has diverted attention to its details, which have lent themselves to much conjectural and picturesque description, too realistic in character to be serviceable to knowledge. In recent NT scholarship a new interest in the event has sprung up, directed by the modern analytical study of Christs self-consciousness, and discerning in the experience it embodies a moment of profound import in His self-development.

1. Narratives of the event.(1) The evidence for the Transfiguration is remarkably strong. It is recorded by all three Synoptics in its incidents, and by the Fourth Gospel in its inner mood (Mat 17:1-9, Mar 9:2-10, Luk 9:28-36, Joh 12:23-41). In the first three Gospels both the precision of detail and the agreement are striking, including the following facts: the occasionsix days after the preceding incidents just narrated; the placea high mountain apart; the chosen threePeter, James, John; the supernatural light; the heavenly visitants and their speech; the suggestion of Peter; the overshadowing cloud and the Divine voice from its midst; the awe, yet joy, of the disciples; the return of Christ to ordinary conditions of human life; the charge of silence. Additional features of importance are given by Lk. (Joh 9:28 f.): the motive of the ascent, viz. prayer, during which the unearthly lustre appeared; the subject of discourse, viz. the decease which He should accomplish at Jerusalem (Joh 9:31); the physical state of the disciples, viz. heavy with sleep, and, having kept themselves awake, they saw his glory (Joh 9:32); together with two points of time, viz. about eight days (Joh 9:28), and the descent from the hill the next day (Joh 9:37). Touches, less important, peculiar to the others, are Christs allaying the fear of the disciples (Mat 17:7), and Peters embarrassment and agitation (Mar 9:6). The silence of Jn. has been specially commented on as weakening the authority of the Synoptic witness (cf. Strauss, Leben Jesu, pt. ii. c. [Note: circa, about.] 10). But when we recognize the totally different animus narrandi in his case from that which we discover in the Synoptics, we may be reassured. The Fourth Gospel separates itself from the others in making prominent the fact that the motif and explanation of Christs words and acts are to be found, not in the circumstances and persons around Him, but in a higher necessity incumbent on Him in virtue of His nature or His office or His work or the will of God, i.e. a higher law at work. Accordingly we may expect in the Fourth Gospel, less the outward incidents* [Note: the omission of the Temptation narrative.] and more the interior mood corresponding to them, to be emphasized. There can be little doubt that the Johannine counterpart of the Synoptic narration is to be found in Joh 12:23-41, the passage which stands between the record of Christs public ministry and the ensuing scenes of His glorifying through death, resurrection, and ascensiona position identical with that occupied by the Transfiguration event in the Synoptics.

The details of the Transfiguration are seldom referred to throughout the rest of the NT. Explicit allusion is made only once, viz. in 2Pe 1:16-18, a writing whose authenticity is seriously doubted. [Note: Moffatt, Historical New Testament, pp. 596598; per contra, Swete, Epistles of St. Peter.] The effort (Jannaris, ExpT [Note: xpT Expository Times.] xiv. [1903] 462) to find in the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel a direct reference to the Transfiguration is of interest, but unconvincing. Better material may be found in such passages as 1Jn 1:1-4, Rev 1:13-17, Heb 1:3-4; Heb 3:3; Heb 3:6-7, 2Co 4:6, in which we have statements obviously coloured from immediate conviction of Christs visible glorification; even here, however, we have only indirect testimony. The extra-Synoptic reticence is not to be denied. It is quite explicable. It is a reticence only as to details: the idea of the Transfiguration story is so manifestly accepted that he who runs may read. In the Epistles the aim of the writers is not historical statement, but doctrinal elucidation and practical edificationan aim which calls for but slight advertence to the outward facts of Christs earthly life. There is, too, the clear belief in the minds of the writers that all those facts pale in impressiveness and meaning before that of the Resurrection, the event which is not simply analogous to them, but that in which they find their rationale and explanation. By that fact more than by any other the glory of Christs Person was revealed, and the Divine purpose and message in Him realized. In the light of it, the Transfiguration appeared but its pledge and forecast (cf. Mat 17:9, Mar 9:9). It is probably true to affirm that the central idea of the event lay in its significance for Christ Himself rather than for His disciples, who are brought in more as spectators of its marvel than as participants in its meaning.

(2) The place of the Transfiguration is not definitely located in the Gospels. The phrases are in Mt. and Mk. unto an high mountain apart, and in Lk. into a mountain. Earlier tradition almost [Note: There appears to have been another, identifying the site with the Mt. of Olives.] unanimously fixed on Mt. Tabora tradition which has enshrined itself in the calendar of the Eastern Church, where the Festival of the Transfiguration is celebrated on 6th Aug. as . Modern opinion almost as unanimously regards as more likely Mt. Hermon, either one of its spurs or even its summit (Conder, Tent-Work in Palestine). The argument relies mainly on the fact of the distance of Mt. Tabor, lying near Nazareth, far to the south from Caesarea Philippi in the N.W., in whose neighbourhood the immediately preceding incidents took place. The departure of Christ and His company from Caesarea is not mentioned till later (Mat 17:22, Mar 9:30). There is, perhaps, a certain fitness in the Transfiguration scene having occurred in the vicinity of its intimate antecedents, and in the intense atmosphere charged with their novel and perplexing intimations. It is perhaps, too, not a mere fancy that Hermons glittering cone of snow suggested Mk.s expression, , if the last words are to be admitted into the text.* [Note: For a fuller discussion on the site, consult Keim, Jesus of Nazara, iv. 306, n.; Edersheim, LT; Farrar, Life of Christ. For an interesting note against Hermons claims, see ExpT xviii. [1907] p. 333. The facts are too few for anything beyond conjecture.]

(3) There is a little more definiteness about the occasion. Each of the three narrators connects it by time with what goes before: six days, eight days; the latter (Lk.) evidently, according to the common Jewish reckoning, inclusive. The note of time is not without a purpose. The link is intentional between the new wonder and the surprising revelations recounted. Those were three in number: (a) the great confession by Peter of Christs Messianic dignity (Mat 16:13-20, Mar 8:27-30, Luk 9:18-21); (b) our Lords solemn announcement of His near suffering (Mat 16:21-26, Mar 8:31-37, Luk 9:22-26); and (c) the definite prediction of His coming in His Kingdom (Mat 16:27-28, Mar 8:38; Mar 9:1, Luk 9:26-27). Compare with these the statements concerning His mind in (a) Joh 11:27, (b) Joh 11:47-52, Joh 12:7, and (c) Joh 12:12-26.

(4) As for the time of the day when the occurrence took place, the favoured view is that it was by night. For (a) night was generally the time of His retirement for prayer (cf. Luk 6:12 with Luk 9:28); (b) the disciples were heavy with sleep, and had to keep themselves awake; [Note: = having kept themselves awake throughout.] and (c) they descended the mountain the next day, i.e. after spending the night on its summit.

On the high land, [Note: may mean simply the high land.] then, close by Caesarea, possibly in the early dawn, withdrawn a stones cast from the disciples (cf. Luk 22:41), communing face to face with the Father, Christ yielded His heart, wholly preoccupied with self-discovery and tragic anticipation, to the experience of the hour, and received the illumination and strength for which He was ripe. To the disciples it seemed as if a Divine splendour beamed around Him, lighting up the departing darkness, imparting its brightness to His raiment, and suffusing His features with a wondrous lustre, so that He appeared to be transformed. [Note: : change of, the abiding form.] And with it, from within the veil, came, standing forth as men (Luk 9:30), the greatest of OT men of God, Moses and Elijah, to talk with Him of His decease (), and to manifest the absorbing interest of the spirit-world in His work (cf. 1Pe 1:12). Then, to the overwhelming awe of the three, there drew near a still Greater Presence, for the cloud which now cast its shadow over them all was the cloud of God Himself, and the voice heard was His, proclaiming the Sons high state and attesting His heavenly call.

2. Reality of the occurrence.The narratives throw upon the mind of the reader the most powerful sense of the reality of the event. Their primary impression is of the outward actuality of the scene. The structure defies dissection,|| [Note: | Of its textual construction, criticism has, so far, failed to give any clear account. Cf. the divergent theories of, e.g., Strauss, Keim, Bacon, Schmiedel.] the substance invention. The simple naturalness of the one, the stupendous magnitude of the other, betray no indications of artificiality, while the story as a whole is as inextricably embedded in the surrounding records as the supernatural element in the historical setting of the Gospel itself. It presents accordingly a problem to faith and unfaith alike. For the former its substance is too thin, for the latter its form too full; both are often in; danger of missing its inner force.

With the external details of the Transfiguration of Christ primitive opinion concerned itself but slightly. It dwells on the fact they served to portrayhis majesty, with the assured conviction of which the whole attitude of the early Church was animated. Patristic and mediaeval expositors connect the event with the prediction preceding, defining it as the inauguration of His Kingdom, not indeed in its actual working, but in that personal condition of their Lord which should be the cause and signal of its commencement. Doubt of the objective reality of the glorification of Christ does not occur, and only rarely even any doubt of the literal realism of its accompanying details.* [Note: Tertullian is the most outstanding exception.]

In the modern period the historical credibility of the Transfiguration has been ably contested by rationalistic criticism, and unwisely defended by spiritualistic theory. The prepossession of naturalistic thought against the supernatural has pushed it to a variety of shifts. There is the hypothesis of fraud, according to which Jesus had arranged a secret meeting on the hill, when a peculiar play of light and of clouds, perhaps also a thunderstorm, caused the disciples to suppose they had perceived the transfiguration of Jesus, and helped them to mistake the two confederates [Note: One writer, Venturini, identifies them with Joseph of Arimathaea and Joseph father of Jesus.] in the plot for Moses and Elijah (Paulus, Schleiermacher)an unfounded conjecture, which has justly lost all repute. There is the hypothesis of myth. Here the incident is taken in connexion with the subsequent Elijah conversation (Mat 17:10-13, Mar 9:11-13) as its duplicate, and regarded as originating at a later date, when it was not held sufficient that in the Messianic time of Jesus, Elijah should only have appeared figuratively in the person of the Baptistwhen it was thought fitting that he should also have shown himself personally. The legend was constructed skilfully from OT figures and analogies (especially from the parallel illumination of Moses countenance on Sinai), and from the prophecies as to the appearance of the Messiah and His forerunner (Mal 4:5) Elijah. The aim of the story was to glorify Christ over Moses, and to exhibit His message as the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets (Strauss). With inconsiderable modifications, the foregoing view is maintained by Keim and others. The mythical hypothesis has the merit of directing attention to the probable sources from which the descriptive details were drawn, and to the natural character of their application in the picture of the event. There is the hypothesis of allegory, which finds in the incident a symbolization of the disciples intoxicated perception of the destiny of Jesus and His relation to the OT. The high mountain symbolizes the height of knowledge which the disciples then attained; the metamorphosis of the form of Jesus and the splendour of His clothes are an image of their intuition of the Messianic idea; the cloud which overshadowed the appearances signifies the dimness and indefiniteness in which the new knowledge faded away, from the inability of the disciples to retain it; the proposal of Peter to build tabernacles is the attempt of this Apostle to fix at once in dogmatic form the sublime intuition (Weisse)an absurd suggestion of ill-fitting symbols. There is the hypothesis of dream-vision. During or after prayer offered by Jesus or by themselves, in which mention was made of Moses and Elias, and their advent as Messianic forerunners desired, the three disciples slept, and dreamed that Moses and Elijah were present, and that Jesus conversed with theman illusion which continued during the first confused moments after waking (Neander and others)a most superficial perception of the situation.

The latest attempts have more interest, as discovering a certain measure of independent fact in the event. One finds the substratum of real history embodied in it in the confession of Peter made previously, which was elaborated by idealizing tendency into a vision and attributed to the disciples (Bacon, AJTh [Note: JTh American Journal of Theology.] , 1902, pp. 236265). A second regards as the reality underlying the occurrence an inner revelation made to Jesus alone, a short time before Peters confession and in his presence; Peter had discernment enough to recognize its effect on the Masters mind and intuitively grasped its meaning (Rville, Jsus de Nazareth, ii. 204206). A third holds that the story reflects the crisis when Jesus became convinced that He was the chosen heir of God. The event admits very easily of being regarded as having taken place in the inner consciousness of Jesus; probably in the company of the three, who, after awaking from sleep perhaps, received a powerful impression of the wondrous majesty with which Jesus came to meet them after He had heard the heavenly voice, the terms of which He afterwards made known to them (Schmiedel, EBi [Note: Bi Encyclopaedia Biblica.] 4571). A fourth sees in the scene a report by men who were confessedly in great agitation when they witnessed it, who yet were well aware that what they saw was not reality but vision. It is to be regarded as symbolic, and consequent on the determination of Jesus to go to Jerusalem and possibly encounter a fate which, to the ordinary Jewish mind, would entirely destroy His claim to be the Messiah, or in any way a chosen instrument of Deity. It is at this moment that He puts on, to the eyes of His most intimate friends, heavenly radiance, and appears as One whose true nature is not to be judged by His human mien or His outward fortunes. It is then that His figure becomes framed to His friends eyes in the same picture with the principal figures of the sacred history of Israel: Elijah, because of his prominence in Messianic thought, and Moses, the founder of the Old Covenant: their presence indicating that He is not to destroy their work, but to carry it further. The Transfiguration is the enthronement of the Apostolic Christology (Menzies, Earliest Gospel, p. 174). Akin in one respect to the foregoing is the theory of Wimmer and Holtzmann, that we have here Dichtung, truth in a picture. The glorified conception of Christ reached by His followers after His death is transferred to the time of His ministry, and in this picture represented as foretold then. The attractive aspect of these efforts is that they seek to identify the Transfiguration of Christ with a fresh increase of His self-realization. The event centres in His Person, and for it marks a period. All the foregoing hypotheses prove inadequate in failing to recognize the super-terrestrial powers which are represented as appearing, and as communicating a sense of their presence, to the disciples.

The lacuna is filled by Spiritualism, which finds a congenial theme in the very facts which rationalism would dissipate. The super-terrestrial is its special delight. It sets forth principles which are alleged to account for the unaccountable features of the light, the visitants, the voice. The existence of a spiritual body is asserted, by means of which man may pass out of his ordinary mode of being, of sight and of hearing, into the spirit-sphere or unseen world which is everywhere around him, and there be and see and hear, in the unusual conditions subsisting in that sphere, what he never can in this. The notion seems to be that in each man there is a spirit, made of a sort of thin matter, existing within the outward body, but having a purer existence.

Deep within,

Some say, the spirit has another frame,

Invisible, magnetic, beauteous, thin,

And fine as any ether, scent, or flame.

(J. C. Earle, Light leading unto Light).

In the Transfiguration the spiritual body in Christ shone forth in its native might and splendour, overpowering the dimness of the flesh which He had assumed. And by the spirit-body in them, the disciples were enabled to contemplate His and those of Moses and Elijah.

Scarcely so materialistic, yet quite in the same plane of thought, are the ideas of the spiritualization and subtilizing of the bodily frame until it became luminous by some inherent law connecting the physical radiance with the ripened image of God in man* [Note: Olshausen has a theory that all through the earthly life Christs body was being etherealized, and that here we have a glimpse into the process.] (cf. e.g. George Macdonald, Miracles of our Lord, xii.). The error of such theorizing springs from imagining the two as existences of the same kind, and from not realizing the conception of spirit as mind or self-consciousness, which is the only way of conceiving its actual presence in our world. Spirit exists in the medium of consciousness, not in a peculiar kind of matter. The spiritualization of the natural body is not to be looked for in an astral or angel-body, but in the gesture, dignity, and noble mien that make the body of the civilized man the outward image of his soul. When we leave this track we land in vulgar mysticism,and that way madness lies.

The reality of the Transfiguration may be reasonably maintained on the basis of such considerations as these:(a) that it primarily displays the state of the inner consciousness of Christ at its height; (b) that it was the direct resultant of the preceding events; and (c) that in the description, on the face of it, there is much that is symbolical. The Transfiguration is the transcript of an exalted spiritual experience, and only in the form of symbol can such be portrayed. To the writers it was the natural mode where their Master was concerned (cf. the Temptation and Christophanies). They were but following illustrious models on which their faith had been nurturedof Abraham (Genesis 15), of Jacob (Gen 28:10-22), of Elijah (1 Kings 19), of Isaiah (ch. 6), of Jeremiah (Jer 1:4-10; Jeremiah 20), and above all of Moses (Exo 34:1-10; Exo 34:27-35), of Daniel (ch. 10), and of later Jewish Apocalyptic. The story is written in one mould; it is not manufactured; it tells its truth in words and images that come easily for the purpose, and wed themselves to the truth so freely that it is not possible to divorce them. Material fact and impalpable vision shoot through each other and cannot be dissevered. But this at least is plain, the body [Note: It is a just instinct which relates the lustre to the inner life. No satisfactory explanation has yet been given of it. For hints, but only hints, cf. Dean Churchs sermon on Sense of Beauty a witness to Immortality in his Cathedral and University Sermons. Cf. also Brownings fine passage in Easter Day, In which he suggests the thought of Michael Angelo painting in heaven.] shared in the experiences. There is no attempt to picture more than has been seen, but it is implied that what has been seen is nothing in comparison with what has been felt.* [Note: the disciples awe.] It is the picture of an exalted emotion quickened by the sense of contact with a fact so vast that the spectators are absorbed in contemplation of it. The thought of it cannot be recaptured or recounted, because it is so unexpected, so surprising, so new, so unlike all else. Everything is swallowed up in awe and in joy, the joy of feeling face to face with a tremendous experience, an adventure beside which all the glory of the world sinks into insignificance. [Note: Mat 17:2, Mar 9:3.] Accordingly we find two unique characteristics, the absence of imagination, and the sober insistence on circumstance. Both testify to reality. The fact to which the narrators point transcends experience, and imagination can create nothing which transcends experience. Then, odd as it may seem, the mind in recovering from transcendent wonder and retailing it, continues to regard as impressive details which are really immaterial, but without whose aid the wonder itself would remain hid. Here, then, we have no dream of a fevered twilight, but the fit expression of a mystery, beyond thought and observation, of insight and vision, [Note: The name used by Christ Himself (Mat 17:9) = vision, not in the sense of dream, but that which has been seen. For the closing reflexion, cf. Tennyson, The Higher Pantheism.] where the soul is like a dreamer, enthralled by sleep, and struggling with all his might to make some familiar motion.

3. Significance of the Transfiguration.The inner meaning of the Transfiguration is best brought out by considering it in relation to Christs Person and Ministry. In relation to His Person it denotes (a) a sublime self-discovery, and (b) a supreme self-dedication. In relation to His Ministry it initiates important departures in the purpose, method, and sphere of His activity.

The event was naturally led up to. We can distinguish the several moments of its development. There was, to begin with, Jesus gradual enlargement of the Messiah-ideal. Neither Moses nor the prophets satisfied Him. This is one of the most certain results of contemporary NT learning. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah of prophecy, but declined the current expectations of what the Messiah should be. His own thought immensely enriched both the prophetic and the popular forecasts. The Temptation implies that consciousness. The interval between the Temptation and Transfiguration, i.e. His public ministry in Galilee, reveals it partly in acts, partly in hints, partly in explicit reserves. At the beginning we see the clearcut decision; throughout its course the deepening realization of what the decision involved: there He is neither simply working, nor simply instructing, He is also manifesting Himself. In the life of that Self the lines are complex and interwoven. They include, but are not circumscribed by, those specifically appropriate to the Messianic Hope. His Self is greater. That at the Baptism and the Temptation Christ saw the plenitude of its greatness and the multiplicity of its interior self-relationships is not to be believed. It revealed itself in the living process of His mental and practical powers which it excited to constant energy, and which all radiate from and converge again into it. It is a Self which has its definite stages of progression, whose outward signs are traceable, [Note: His expressions: His time not come, His hour, His being straitened to accomplish, He must work the works of God, His raising Lazarus for the glory of God, His cure of the blind man that the works of God be made manifest, etc. etc.] but which finds within the veil of outward seeming its proper home, living there a concurrent life on a higher plane, with peculiar relations to an unseen world, holding power over it, and bringing power from it; and in such wise that men, observing His external attitudes, grew in wonder, debate, belief, or unbelief. His Self grew. Day by day it enlarged its domain, and took on an extraordinary presence of which He was conscious, a secretly luminous life known to Himself, only glimpses of which He could bring within the ken of the disciples.

Nor was this whole process secret from the disciples. We have to note in them a growing perception of the mystery of His life. They began their following of Him with their own mental prepossessions. These He was daily disturbing. Their attention He was continually arresting. The particulars of His life they were driven to scan eagerly from their various points of view, curious concerning it, questioning regarding it, taking sides about it, some slowly rising towards a clear knowledge of the reality, others hardening into the exact reverse. A calm and unimpassioned looking at the material outside manifestation of His Life without any reference to the inward reality of it, was precisely the one thing that did not happen. That it was more than human they divined, but what, how, to what extent the more came in, they could not explain; they were earnestly inquiring. And thus they reached the stage when they could acknowledge His Messianic proportions: the confession at Caesarea. That great avowal precipitated the crisis. It was bound to be followed by a further revelation of His purposes. Then came the startling announcement of the Death, opening before their eyes a dark foreground of repudiation and suffering, of whose features Christ Himself, it is probable, could at the moment furnish no clear picture: an announcement whose effect was not mitigated by the further revelation of Resurrection and the coming of the Kingdom. It was a memorable week that followed. The silence of the narrative tells of the intensity of the time. They were on the summits where life absorbs the soul. Thither the juncture of events had brought them. The Master must be lucid.

But first to Himself. A necessary hour is upon Him. Knowing it, He, according to His wont, restrains not the inevitable, but seeks solitude and God. He spends the night in prayer. In the light of His peoples destiny, in the face of His prophetic forerunners, conscious of a deeper need and a more desperate struggle than theirs, He presses His life closer to Gods, reaching out after completer sympathy and perfect understanding of His purposes and of His own part in fulfilling them, and receives in return that wonderful and beautiful inflow of life which stirs up unfathomable springs of purity within, and transmutes even His face and form. It was as when in the sunlight, peering into the heart of a gem, we see depth opening beyond depth until it looks as if there were no end to the chambers of splendour that are shut up in the little stone; flake after flake of luminous colour floating up out of the unseen fountain which lies somewhere in its heart. In that high hour Christ knew Himself.

He likewise learned His task. In the same self-revealing hour the issue of His life was registering itself in the sight of God, who seeth the end in the beginning, and won His approval. The issue was inevitable. For Christ to know Gods will was to do it. There was neither doubt nor debate, but immediate decision. He had no instinctive unwillingness like Jeremiah. Rather He resembled Isaiah, who, when he had seen the Majesty of Jehovah, came forth from His presence with an awe upon him that never left him, and a force of conviction that never deserted him, and with the feeling of an imperative necessity lying on him to speak His word to men which he could not resist. So Christ. He had seen His own glory and felt its power in Him, and was uplifted with a radiant energy before which, as it seemed, no wickedness could stand, and which inspired with a joy deep and strong and solemn. The sweet and awful gladness of His consecration fills His heart and shines out in His face. The Transfiguration was the Divine defiance of the coming darkness (cf. 2Co 4:6).* [Note: Matheson (Studies in the Portrait of Christ, vol. ii.) interprets the Transfiguration as designed solely to inspire and comfort Christ in prospect of His approaching Sufferings by providing an anticipation of the glory of the Resurrection [decease = exodus by resurrection and ascension]. Dr. Mason (Faith of the Gospel, p. 194) thinks the Transfiguration an opening of the door of heaven for a splendid departure, His earthly probation being now ended. An ingenious writer in the Church Quarterly Review (July 1901, A Study of our Lord) draws out these parallels:transfiguration of body in face of maltreatment of body, appearance of Elijah and Moses in face of rejection by rulers and people, the cloud and voice in face of the hiding of the Fathers face. Such exegesis is exaggeration and misses proportion.]

The Transfiguration event transformed His mind: it transformed also His ministry. Its fascination was upon Him, impelling Him to make it manifest with a certain eager wistfulness. The motive is not: Death is before Me, the sooner it is over the better; but, The beauty of the Fathers face has risen upon Me, let it shine out into the hearts of men, and draw all men unto it.

The endeavour to bring this home to the disciples now dominates His thought and directs His activity, dividing both from His Galilaean teaching and work by the clearest line of demarcation. Themes original to the Law and the Prophets yield to the excellent glory of the Cross, and the nature of the Kingdom His death would introduce. Miracles [Note: Miracles are now rareand enter exceptionally.] and parables cease as an integral part of His ministry. Public addresses, which hitherto had been the rule, are now limited, so far as we read, to the Temple courts and the Sanhedrin; their place is taken by more private converse. There is a less obvious calling of attention to Himself, in view of a keener anxiety to concentrate attention on the Spirit that animates Himself and the Father, and is needful for that higher form of fellowship of men with God than Israel had known, which He Himself enjoyed, and which He promises will glorify them as it had glorified Him. [Note: John 16, 17.] From this last consideration we deduce the significance of the event for us. It is the same as for Christ and His disciples. We shall be like him, says the disciple who had felt most effectually the power of His personal presence (1Jn 3:2).

That points to an organic change that will take place in us at His coming. It has to be taken in conjunction with this other, Christ in you the hope of glory (Col 1:27). The moral transformation is the root and beginning of the organic. Christ not only so acts upon us as to conform us to His holy and exalted pattern now; when He comes again, it shall be to reflect His glory into the persons of His believing followers. The Church of the redeemed will mirror His surpassing loveliness and majesty, He shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be marvelled at in all them that believe (2Th 1:10).

Literature.The literature of the Transfiguration is not large, and is found chiefly in sermons, for a bibliography of which see ExpT [Note: xpT Expository Times.] xviii. [1907] p. 313, adding, Ruskin, Frondes Agrestes, 178; Rendel Harris, Memoranda Sacra, 87. For critical discussion consult Strauss, Leben Jesu, pt. ii. c. [Note: circa, about.] 10; Keim, Jesus of Nazara, vol. iv.; JThSt [Note: ThSt Journal of Theological Studies.] , Jan. 1903, July 1903, Jan. 1904; AJTh [Note: JTh American Journal of Theology.] , 1902. For expository articles see ExpT [Note: xpT Expository Times.] xvii. [1906] p. 372 ff., xiv. [1903] p. 442 ff.; Trench, Studies in the Gospels, Essay 8; Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible , art. Transfiguration; the Lives of Christ, specially, those by Farrar, Edersheim, and Matheson.

A. S. Martin.

Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels

Transfiguration

TRANSFIGURATION.The Transfiguration is a mysterious occurrence in the life of our Lord, which must be seen and felt, rather than understood. It produced a sense of awe in the hearts of the disciples (Mat 17:6). Its value is symbolic. Silence regarding it is enjoined by Jesus, and practised by the disciples until the Resurrection, with which it is closely connected in significance. The problem of the transfigured body of Jesus and of the Resurrection body is the same. The event is referred to by Jesus Himself as a vision (horma, Mat 17:9); it is vouched for by the three Synoptists (Luk 9:28-38, Mar 9:2-13, Mat 17:1-13). Elsewhere in the NT it is referred to only in 2Pe 1:16-18. The Fourth Evangelist, after his own manner, undoubtedly expresses its inner significance for faith in Joh 12:23-36. The mountain on which it took place was probably Hermon. The time was night (Luk 9:32). It was as he was praying that the transfiguration of face and raiment appeared.

As regards the inner significance of the occurrence, one expression in St. Lukes narrative is of great importanceleukos exastraptn (Luk 9:29), was white and glistering (AV [Note: Authorized Version.] ). The sense is really gieamed out white. The glory is not that of reflected light; its source is inward. It is the manifestation of a mental process. The note of time (six days after [Mt. Mk.]; about eight days after [Lk.]) affords the key to His thoughts and the subject of His prayers. After what? After Peters confession (Luk 9:18-27), and the prediction of Christs death (Luk 9:22). Recognized as Messiah by the disciples, He must now prepare them to meet the stumbling-block of the cross. Thus the Transfiguration had (1) a deep significance for Jesus Himself. He was strengthened by the appearance of Moses and Elias, who spoke of His decease (Luk 9:31). They represented the saints in heaven, who understood. Again the Voice stood for the acceptance of His work by God, and He was enabied to yield up His heart and life anew to the will of God. (2) The great lesson for the disciples was that the dreadful shame of His cross was really glory, and that all suffering is ultimately radiant with heavenly beauty, being perfected in Christ. Peters suggestion of the three tents is an attempt to materialize and make permanent the vision, to win the crown without the cross. The vision vanished, and they saw Jesus only. It was real, but only a glimpse and foretaste. By loyaity once more to the Master, in the common ways of life to which they returned, the disciples would come to share the eternal glory of the Risen Lord.

R. H. Strachan.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Transfiguration

This relates to that glorious scene recorded by three of the Evangelists, in which the glory of Christ’s person broke out in the presence of the disciples in Mount Tabor. All description of it fails, I can only therefore refer the reader to the Scripture account of it, as the Holy Ghost hath recorded it, (Mat 17:1-27 Mar 9:1-50 Luk 9:1-62)

Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures

Transfiguration

trans-fig-u-rashun (, metamorphoomai, to be transformed): Used only with reference to the transfiguration of Christ (Mat 17:2; Mar 9:2) and the change wrought in the Christian personality through fellowship with Christ (Rom 12:2; 2Co 3:18).

(1) About midway of His active ministry Jesus, accompanied by Peter, James and John, withdrew to a high mountain apart (probably Mt. Hermon; see next article) for prayer. While praying Jesus was transfigured, his face did shine as the sun, and his garments became glistering, exceeding white, so as no fuller on earth can whiten them. It was night and it was cold. The disciples were drowsy and at first but dimly conscious of the wonder in progress before their eyes. From the brightness came the sound of voices. Jesus was talking with Moses and Elijah, the subject of the discourse, as the disciples probably learned later, being of the decease (exodus) which Jesus was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. As the disciples came to themselves, the figures of Moses and Elijah seemed to withdraw, whereupon Peter impetuously demanded tents to be set up for Jesus and His heavenly visitants that the stay might be prolonged and, if possible, made permanent. Just then a cloud swept over them, and out of the cloud a voice came, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear ye him. In awe the disciples prostrated themselves and in silence waited. Suddenly, lifting up their eyes they saw no one, save Jesus only (Mat 17:1-13; Mar 9:2-13; Luk 9:28-36).

Such is the simple record. What is its significance? The Scripture narrative offers no explanation, and indeed the event is afterward referred to only in the most general way by Peter (2Pe 1:16-18) and, perhaps, by John (Joh 1:14). That it marked a crisis in the career of Jesus there can be no doubt. From this time He walked consciously under the shadow of the cross. A strict silence on the subject was enjoined upon the three witnesses of His transfiguration until after the Son of man should have risen again from the dead. This means that, as not before, Jesus was made to realize the sacrificial character of His mission; was made to know for a certainty that death, soon and cruel, was to be His portion; was made to know also that His mission as the fulfillment of Law (Moses) and prophecy (Elijah) was not to be frustrated by death. In His heart now would sound forever the Father’s approval, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. The scene, therefore, wrought out in Jesus a new fervor, a new boldness, a new confidence of ultimate victory which, as a source of holy joy, enabled Him to endure the cross and to despise the shame (Heb 12:2). In the disciples the scene must have wrought a new faith in the heavensent leadership of Jesus. In the dark days which were soon to come upon them the memory of the brightness of that unforgettable night would be a stay and strength. There might be opposition, but there could be no permanent defeat of one whose work was ratified by Moses, by Elijah, by God Himself. Indeed, was not the presence of Moses and Elijah a pledge of immortality for all? How in the face of such evidence, real to them, however it might be to others, could they ever again doubt the triumph of life and of Him who was the Lord of life? The abiding lesson of the Transfiguration is that of the reality of the unseen world, of its nearness to us, and of the comforting and inspiring fact that spirit with spirit may meet.

The transfigured appearance of Jesus may have owed something to the moonlight on the snow and to the drowsiness of the disciples; but no one who has ever seen the face of a saint fresh from communion with God, as in the case of Moses (Exo 34:29-35) and of Stephen (Act 6:15), will have any difficulty in believing that the figure of Jesus was irradiated with a light that never was on sea or land. See Comms. and Lives of Christ; also a suggestive treatment in Westcott’s Introduction to the Study of the Gospels.

(2) The transfiguration of Christians is accomplished by the renewing of the mind whereby, in utter abandonment to the will of God, the disciple displays the mind of Christ (Rom 12:2); and by that intimate fellowship with God, through which, as with unveiled face he beholds the glory of the Lord, he is transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit (2Co 3:18).

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Transfiguration

One of the most wonderful incidents in the life of our Savior upon earth, and one so instructive that we can never exhaust its lessons, is the Transfiguration. The apostle Peter, towards the close of his life, in running his mind over the proofs of Christ’s majesty, found none so conclusive and irrefragable as the scenes when he and others were with him in the holy mount, as eye-witnesses that He received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to Him from the excellent glory, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’ If we divide Christ’s public life into three periodsthe first of miracles to prove His divine mission, the second of parables to inculcate virtue, and the third of suffering, first clearly revealed and then endured, to atone for sinthe transfiguration may be viewed as His baptism or initiation into the third and last. He went up the Mount of Transfiguration on the eighth day after He had bidden everyone who would come after Him take up His cross, declaring that His kingdom was not of this world, that He must suffer many things, and be killed, etc.

The Mount of Transfiguration was long thought to have been Mount Tabor; but as this height is fifty miles from Caesarea Philippi, where Jesus last taught, it is now supposed to have been a mountain much less distant, namely, Mount Hermon.

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Transfiguration

A word indicating the change which took place in the appearance of Jesus in the vision on the holy mount. The Lord, speaking to His disciples prior to the transfiguration, said that some should see “the Son of man coming in his kingdom;” “the kingdom of God come with power;” and Matthew records that Christ “was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.” Peter says he was an eyewitness of His majesty. It was therefore a short glimpse of the Lord Jesus invested with glory, as He is now on high, and as he will be in His kingdom. The law and the prophets were represented by Moses and Elias; but when Peter proposed to make three tabernacles, he was silenced by a voice from heaven, saying “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye him.” Mat 17:1-8; Mar 9:2; Luk 9:28; 2Pe 1:16. The same Greek word is applied to the Christian as being ‘transformed’ in Rom 12:2, and as being ‘changed’ in 2Co 3:18: metamorphosed.

Early writers fixed on Mount Tabor as the Mount of Transfiguration; but it is more probable that it was on some part of Mount Hermon, which would have been more private. The Lord was also in that locality.

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary

Transfiguration

Of Moses

Exo 34:29-35

Of Jesus

Mat 17:2-9; Mar 9:2-10; Luk 9:29-36; 2Pe 1:16-18

Of Stephen

Act 6:15

Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible

Transfiguration

Transfiguration, The. Mat 17:1-13; Mar 9:2-13; Luk 9:28-36. Though tradition locates the transfiguration on Mount Tabor, there is little to confirm this view, and modern scholars favor some spur of Mount Hermon, Jesus frequently went to the mountains to spend the night In prayer. Mat 14:23-24; Luk 6:12; Luk 21:37. The apostles are described as heavy with sleep, but as having kept themselves awake. Luk 9:32. Moses the lawgiver and Elijah tie chief of the prophets both appear talking with Christ the source of the gospel, to show that they are all one and agree in one. Luk 9:31 adds the subject of their communing: “They spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.” Among the apostles the three favorite disciples, Peter, James, and John, were the sole witnesses of the scene. The cloud which overshadowed the witnesses was bright or light-like, luminous, of the same kind as the cloud at the ascension. It is significant that at the end of the scene the disciples saw no man save Jesus only. Moses and Elijah, the law and the promise, types and shadows, pass away; the gospel, the fulfilment, the substance, Christ remainsthe only one who can relieve the misery of earth and glorify our nature, Christ all in all.

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles