Moses, Elijah, and Jesus! Oh My!

[paradox3]

Could be. It seems to be six days after Peter's confession Jesus being the Messiah, and being corrected after trying to tell Jesus what the Messiah would or wouldn't do. Maybe as a way of affirming that Peter was still loved, even after being scolded like that?

Yes Peter was rebuked in the previous chapter. Jesus did quite a bit of this with the disciples.

Peter has also demonstrated insight into the divine nature of Jesus and been given special responsibilities. He is the rock upon which the church will be built and he has been given the keys to the kingdom of heaven

This trip up the mountain might have been about showing Peter.what was expected of him. He wanted to rush and build three tents but was redirected. Echoes of the Mary and Martha story from Luke?

Speaking of echoes, what about those tents? Is anyone else reminded of the booths from the Feast of Tabernacles?

 

[GordW]

Why just Peter, James and John? Why not all of the disciples? What did this event show to them?

I have always understood that the repeated separating out of P,J, and J in the Gospel accounts grows out of a recognition that in the earliest church those three had a pre-eminent role and maybe to explain why that is. The inner circle of the inner circle as it were?

What about the connection between Moses, Elijah, and Jesus? Why were the two Hebrew notables involved along with Jesus?

Moses=Law Elijah= Prophets so the story encompasses Law and Prophets and Jesus' relationship with both (at least that is how it was once explained to me). Certainly Moses and Elijah have a special place in the Hebrew Scriptures

Why were the disciples not to tell anyone about this, until after the raising from the dead? Why the veil of secrecy?

Would anybody understand the story before experiencing Easter (for that matter did P, J and J understand it as it was happening)? COuld they even have tried to describe what the event was until post-resurrection?

 

[GordW]

Coincidentally, I am just opening up my template to start working on the order of worship for T-fig Sunday. The sermon title I slotted in is "GLory Revealed". I wonder what that will mean......

 

[Mendalla]

Moses=Law Elijah= Prophets so the story encompasses Law and Prophets and Jesus' relationship with both (at least that is how it was once explained to me).

That's how I have heard it, too, with Jesus joining them as the fulfillment of both. It is rather like talking about an American presidential candidate meeting with Washington and Lincoln or something. Establishes their place in the continuity and lets them show how they connect to the ideals associated with both. At least that's the spin doctor reason for a scene like this.

 

[paradox3]

Was reading that this story is extremely important in both Orthodox and Catholic theology. Can't say I have ever considered it to be more than a curious story with a bit of foreshadowing.

It doesn't appear in John's Gospel. It is in all the synoptics plus it is mentioned in one of Peter's letters.

 

[Mystic]

The location and significance of the Transfiguration Mount will be the subject of a future post.

The scholarly consensus recognizes that Matthew (16:28-17:9) copies Mark (9:1-9) here and Matthew (16:28) significantly changes Jesus' introductory saying from "the kingdom of God come in power" to "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Jesus' original saying reads:

"Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God COME WITH POWER (Mark 9:1)."

The unusual specification of the time interval ("6 days later") between this saying and its fulfillment in the Transfiguration implies that the kingdom comes in power" through the Transfiguration. Jesus specifies that only "some [disciples] standing here" of the 12 who are with Him will actually see "the kingdom come with power" and "some" turns out to be Jesus' inner circle, Peter, James, and John. Moses and Elijah represent "all the prophets in the kingdom of God (Luke 13:28)." Moses appears as the forerunner of Jesus, "the prophet like Moses" prophesied in Deuteronomy 18:15-20. Elijah's return as the forerunner of the Messiah fulfills the prophecy of Malachi 3:5, but John the Baptist fulfills Elijah's earthly prophetic role (Matthew 17:10-12; Luke 1:17).

Peter celebrates his role as an eyewitness of the Transfiguration and picks up on its meaning as the glorified Jesus coming in kingdom power:
"We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the POWER AND COMING of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were EYEWITNESSES of His majesty. For He received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to Him by the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, the Beloved, in whom I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice while we were with Him on the holy mountain (2 Peter 1:16-18)."

In Vol. 3 of his magisterial New Testament Introduction (pp. 143-171). Donald Guthrie carefully considers and refutes all the arguments against 2 Peter's authenticity. The relevant issues are too intricate to detain us here.

 

[Redbaron]

That's how I have heard it, too, with Jesus joining them as the fulfillment of both. It is rather like talking about an American presidential candidate meeting with Washington and Lincoln or something. Establishes their place in the continuity and lets them show how they connect to the ideals associated with both. At least that's the spin doctor reason for a scene like this.

Yes, it does serve as a connection to the sacred story, yet the sacred story, which encompasses Moses and Elijah, is far more than just a rehash of what has been before.

 

[paradox3]

Coincidentally, I am just opening up my template to start working on the order of worship for T-fig Sunday. The sermon title I slotted in is "GLory Revealed". I wonder what that will mean......

Are glorification and transfiguration the same thing? Or is transfiguration a forerunner of glorification?

 

[jimkenney12]

Glorification is a desired outcome of transfiguration but might not always be the outcome. In Paradise Lost, was the change of Lucifer fron the brightest of the angels to an enemy of God a kind of transfiguration?

 

[Luce NDs]

Imagine the darkening of thoughts as laid out in word ... between the sheets none-the-less!

Is Daniel as fire tender the one looking after the conversion of fire to light? Primitive ide-ar?

Some much lost as Steller observation of dismissed observation of what out there ... beyond earth links?

With dislike and Haides for sophistication ... where would stray intellect go? Imaginative phoque could seal this up ...

Thus grinding black lines ... they follow the side facing the son*tag ... demands immersion into distant alien matter and how it fuses in star dust! Fallout or fallacy of failed thoughts to take flight ...

I one speaks of mental things when in company of the simple ... will a KISS, or quires be affected? Hooc Ares ...

May related to chiral definitions as sequestering of powers ... stuff of nucleic acids, etc.

Some say don't go there ... and knowing is stuff meant to be suspended between pages ... Hokey? Lit e rapture ... and a hoot split the darkness ... shock ends ... perhaps with a trill!

 

[Mendalla]

Transfiguration is etymologically just "change of form" (Merriam-Webster: "a great change of form or appearance, especially : a change that beautifies, glorifies, or makes more spiritual") and has sometimes been used in non-religious contexts, so using it for Lucifer to Satan would be within the technical definition, but the strong association between the word and this event in the Gospels would make it a tough sell for some Christians, I suspect. And did Lucifer become more beautiful or spiritual as Satan? Not sure that's the case. Still, it would be an interesting argument to have, I suppose.

 

[Luce NDs]

Imagine the darkening of thoughts as laid out in word ... between the sheets none-the-less!

Is Daniel as fire tender the one looking after the conversion of fire to light? Primitive ide-ar?

Some much lost as Steller observation of dismissed observation of what out there ... beyond earth links?

With dislike and Haides for sophistication ... where would stray intellect go? Imaginative phoque could seal this up ...

Thus grinding black lines ... they follow the side facing the son*tag ... demands immersion into distant alien matter and how it fuses in star dust! Fallout or fallacy of failed thoughts to take flight ...

I one speaks of mental things when in company of the simple ... will a KISS, or quires be affected? Hooc Ares ...

May related to chiral definitions as sequestering of powers ... stuff of nucleic acids, etc.

Some say don't go there ... and knowing is stuff meant to be suspended between pages ... Hokey? Lit e rapture ... and a hoot split the darkness ... shock ends ... perhaps with a trill!

The icons churn as denied signs ... Alice don't read it to it ... it could be a market ploi ... or maybe something further!

Are you familiar with ploistirring as a posture ... outstanding in a field ... ghastly or gasification ... vapours ensue ...

 

[paradox3]

Glorification is a desired outcome of transfiguration but might not always be the outcome. In Paradise Lost, was the change of Lucifer fron the brightest of the angels to an enemy of God a kind of transfiguration?

Maybe a transformation rather than a transfiguration? I am not sure of the precise definition of any of these words.

Often an issue when we get into the nitty gritty of theological questions!

 

[Luce NDs]

In short form ... what do we really know of eternal matter? It extends ...

 

[paradox3]

And as often happens on these bible study threads @Mendalla & I have responded at the same time.

The definition he provided for transfiguration gives us an "especially" for the positive aspect of the change. So I think technically we could speak of the transfiguration of Lucifer.

But transformation would be more correct or at least more clear.

 

[Mystic]

Most Christians have no idea where the Mount of Transfiguration actually is. For centuries the church accepted Origen's claim that Mount Tabor near Nazareth was the site. But this must be rejected in favor of Mount Hermon on 2 grounds:
(1) Mark identifies the site as "a high mountain (9:2)" to set it apart from the other much lower mountains. Mount Hermon is 5 times higher than Mount Tabor.
(2) More importantly, Jesus and His disciples are at Caesarea Philippi at the time (Mark 8:27), which is near the base of Mount Hermon 40 miles north of the Sea of Galilee.

On my tour of the Holy Land, our Israeli guide took us up to Caesarea Philippi and Mount Hermon. Every New Year's Druse and Christian pilgrims hike up Mount Hermon to commemorate the Transfiguration. We drove by the Druse Temple of Elijah by the mountain's base.

At Caesarea Philippi we gazed at the waterfall gushing out of the cave devoted to Pan in antiquity, which was called the "Gates of Hades." Jesus' famous installation of Peter at Caesarea Philippi as "the Rock on which I will build my Church" plays off this cave identification:

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my Church, and the GATES OF HADES shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18)."

Jesus didn't take His disciples up to Caesarea Philippi just to see this paganized cave. So we need to ask: Why would Jesus choose Mount Hermon for His Transfiguration? I will address that question in my next planned post.

 

[paradox3]

The geography is interesting but I am not convinced that understanding it is crucial in any way. If @Mystic is correct and most Christians have no idea re: the location of a certain mountain, I don't think it's a big deal.

On my last thread in this forum I was puzzled by the references to "down to Cana" and "up to Jerusalem". A bit of searching online showed me the text refers to elevation. Not north and south as I had supposed.

 

[Mystic]

The geography is interesting but I am not convinced that understanding it is crucial in any way. If @Mystic is correct and most Christians have no idea re: the location of a certain mountain, I don't think it's a big deal.

How can you make that claim when you know nothing about the spirituality of Mount Hermon? And If Jesus took His disciples 40 miles north of the Sea of Galilee to go to Caesarea Philippi precisely because it is at Mount Hermon, this is surely significant.

 

[paradox3]

How can you make that claim when you know nothing about the spirituality of Mount Hermon? And If Jesus took His disciples 40 miles north of the Sea of Galilee to go to Caesarea Philippi precisely because it is at Mount Hermon, this is surely significant.

Perhaps I will change my mind then when you explain the spiritual significance of Mount Hermon.

By the way, I am not making claims so much as expressing an opinion. There's a difference, right?

 

[unsafe]

He is the rock upon which the church will be built

Just want to clarify this

-----Jesus is the rock that the church is built on --------not Peter

The Greek word for Peter is ---Petros ----Peter, one of the twelve apostles
HELPS Word-studies
4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros ("small stone")


I say
The Rock mentioned in this Scripture below is -----Not ----Petros ------it is PETRA------

Matthew 16:18
New International Version
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

From -----Strong's Concordance ---Petra

HELPS Word-studies
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – "a mass of connected rock," which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is "a detached stone

metaphorically, a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul: Matthew 16:18