The Master’s Ministers - Luke 9:28-36
INTRODUCTION
Luke’s story of the Transfiguration is a distinctively strange and mysterious event from the life of Jesus that causes the reader to first, scratch his head and second, read it again. However, the Gospels were originally meant to be read aloud. The option of going back and re-reading difficult sections wasn’t possible. For this very reason the Evangelists placed literary clues, and at times traps, to help the reader understand the reason for including each event they recorded from Jesus’ life, including the Transfiguration. However, despite the literary bread crumbs that have been left, this particular story has been interpreted in vastly different ways in the past. It has been considered a misplaced resurrection story, an exaggerated redaction, and even pure mythology. Luke’s account, which this paper will consider, adds some complexity to the job of the exegete as he differs significantly with Mark and Matthew with respect to the details of the event as well as adding additional information that is not found in either tradition.
Contextually there are a few points that need to be understood to properly interpret the story. First and foremost Luke is most likely not from Palestine and it is generally understood that he was writing for a non-Jewish, Gentile Christian audience1. Luke’s intended readers did not have access to the same cultural “schemas” and therefore Luke makes his references to past events in Jewish history in a different way than the other authors2. Despite this fact the concept of a mountain-top encounter with God would have been recognizable by the first century Christian community as their Jewish roots were still very strong because of the continued involvement of the Jewish community in the church. Luke’s writing as a whole tends to focus on the role of Jesus as the one who came to take the place of the law and the prophets, ushering in the hope of the coming eschaton for not only the Jew but also the Gentile.
Despite the fact that the book of Acts ends with Paul’s house arrest in Rome during the early 60’s it is generally believed that Luke’s books were written later than A.D. 70, after Jerusalem was destroyed. This is important for the shape of the Gospel as it backgrounds the prophecies of destruction that Jesus foretells about the city. These fulfilled prophesies give the book a sense of confidence and hope, which was critical for the early Christian communities that were suffering intense persecution.
Within the flow of the story, the placement of the transfiguration is not random. After the feeding of the 5,000, Jesus’ most notable miracle to date, he has a very important conversation with his disciples asking them two questions: (1) who do they say I am? And (2) who do you say I am? These two questions play an important role in backgrounding the events “some eight days later” on the mountain as in them the reader is told that, while the people think Jesus is just another prophet (perhaps even Elijah), they believe that he is the Messiah. With this understanding Jesus predicts his rejection, suffering and death as well as the high cost of discipleship. The prediction comes directly after the Peter’s confession and, in fact, seemed to be born out of it. It seems that it was appropriate to reveal certain hard things to the disciples at this time since they were ready to accept him as the Messiah. Verse 27 of Luke (Mark 9:1 NASB, Matthew 16:28) provides a transition from this story by way of a prophecy that Jesus will shortly fulfill when some of the disciples “see the kingdom of God” in the transfigured Jesus3.
The Transfiguration serves a very important role in two very different ways within Luke’s gospel account. Just as Jesus represents both natures, “of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time, of one substance with us as regards his manhood,”4 the story of his transfiguration deals with the heavenly, spiritual and the earthly, practical needs of those that hear the story. On the spiritual side the reader gains both confirmation and additional insight into the nature of the person who has so recently been recognized as the Messiah. On the practical side, the humanity of Jesus is seen on the mountain as he is ministered to in fellowship and prayer as he embarks on the difficult stage of his earthly ministry.
THE TEXT
Verse 28
Some eight days after these sayings, He took along Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray.
The Transfiguration story does not begin as an independent section of text but rather Luke immediately points the reader back around eight days to the important discussion between Jesus and his disciples where Peter recognizes Jesus as the Christ5. In this conversation Jesus details his rejection, death and resurrection as well as the heavy cost of discipleship. Luke purposefully begins this story with those revealed truths as the backdrop for what is about to happen. With this background in place, Luke begins to introduce the cast of characters by showing Jesus personally selecting his three closest disciples Peter, James and John for a special trip up the mountain6 to pray. The mountain-top theophany experience was a very real experience not only for the Jewish population but also for the Hellenistic communities as well. Luke’s audience, traditionally believed to be more Greek than Jew, would have been open to this literary “trail of bread-crumbs” as waking-visions were a part of their religious reality. Moreover these visions were the unique domain of those who were “beloved by the gods”7 a suitable description of Jesus who was declared a “beloved Son” of the Father at his baptism (Luke 3:22). However, for the Jew the stage is more clearly set; just as Moses prepared to approach the Mountain of God with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu (Exodus 24), Jesus selects his three beloved companions and sets off to the place where God communicates with man.
Verse 29
And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming.
Luke immediately jumps over the details of the climb to a common scene in Luke’s writing: Jesus in the midst of prayer. As Jesus prays he is changed. Luke is careful to avoid any misinterpretation of the type of change that Jesus undergoes by choosing his words carefully. Where the other Evangelist’s choose the word μεταμορφόω to describe the transformation Jesus underwent on the mountain, Luke simply states that his face and appearance became different. The word μεταμορφόω had religious connotations that would have led to a potential misreading within the Hellenistic Roman world.8Luke is careful to ensure the readers understand that the change that Jesus underwent was ἕτερος, completely different, and not just an ἄλλος change in his physical characteristics. As Jesus prays he is changed, however, his change is out of the ordinary for those that are expecting the storyline of a theophany. In the theophany stories that we see recorded in Exodus 3, Exodus 24, and 1 Kings 19 we see a storyline that is similar. Both Moses and Elijah, righteous men is the tradition of Israel, climb the mountain where God appears to them commissioning them for the work that he was calling them to do. At this point it is important to keep in mind the close proximity of Peter’s confession because, though they had confessed that Jesus was the Messiah, they still did not fully understand what that meant about who Jesus was with respect to his divinity. At the point in which God is supposed to appear in the Theophany script, Jesus is transfigured, dropping the bottom out of the readers understanding. Luke heightens the effect of this “gotcha” by referring to Jesus in terms reserved for the divine. Luke tells the reader that Jesus becomes λευκὸς and ἐξαστράπτων9; this lightning/whiteness combination which is a construct used in appearances of the divine where it is representational, showing absolute power and absolute perfection. In this case these qualities are attributed to Jesus; he is more than just a recipient of the divine blessing of God’s presence, he is the presence of God.
Verse 30
And behold, two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah,
With the shock of the last verse still reverberating in the mind of the reader, the story takes another turn in an unexpected direction. From out of nowhere two men appear. Clearly their appearance is not surprise to Jesus who, the reader is informed, seems to have been already engaged in a conversation with them10>. In the midst of the conversation the narrator is suddenly given the ability to see the true nature of the scene11/a>. Just as Elisha’s prayer opened the eyes of his servant to the reality of God’s angelic armies at Dothan (2 Kings 6:17), as Jesus prays reality is peeled back for the eyes of the reader about the divine nature of Jesus Christ. The abruptness of the reader’s entry into the “vision” is quickly followed up by the startling revelation that the two men speaking with Jesus are none other than Moses and Elijah. This is extremely significant because only on one other occasion has scripture shown us the dead appearing to the living, when Saul sought help from Samuel by way of the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28). The context in 1 Samuel was negative but here it is most definitely positive; the two individuals that most represent the coming of God’s restoration now stand, speaking with the man that will usher that restoration into effect. The appearance of these two individuals is at the center of the many diverging interpretation regarding the meaning and function of the Transfiguration within the Gospel accounts. What does is mean that these specific figures appear here and now? One of the most common interpretations is that these two men simply represent the law and the prophets12. However, while there may be some validity to this assertation, to specifically see Moses as being representative of the law and Elijah of the prophets fails to take into account that Moses was, in fact, seen as the greatest prophet and a prototype for the messianic prophet that would usher in the restoration of the nation13. The truth about what Moses and Elijah represent in the story of the Transfiguration is far more complex than a simple one dimensional metaphor can represent. However, understanding their role within this event is critical to understanding its significance. The reader must fully track each layer of meaning in its context as each of them individually provides the clues necessary to understand the story. For non-first century readers this process is a bit cumbersome but it is important to recognize that today’s readers do not hold the appropriate cultural, historical and literary schemas.
The reader of Luke does not yet fully understand the relationship between Jesus and the “law and the prophets”. They do not yet understand that Jesus himself came to supersede the old covenant but in this short encounter Moses and Elijah begin to show the disciples that they are to be subordinated to Jesus just as the old covenant is to be subordinated to the new. Moses and Elijah do not individually represent the law or the prophets but rather collectively stand as symbols of the system that ended with John the Baptist (Luke 16:16). They stand as witnesses to the authority and position of Jesus, as Paul reminds us:
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; (Romans 3:21-22a)
However, the law and the prophets are not to be thrown away as useless, they are simply to be subordinated to the more complete revelation that is manifested in Jesus Christ. This is where the eschatological significance of the two men begins to make its presence known. Just as Moses and Elijah witness to the “righteousness of God being manifest” they also simultaneously announce the beginning of the final act in the drama that began to unfold when man rebelled against his perfect, righteous and gracious creator in the Garden of Eden. Both men will be called upon in this new period to serve as witnesses to the nature, role and authority of Jesus Christ. With this in mind the testimony of Peter which sits contextually in the background of the event, although important, is not sufficient to serve as a confirmation of Jesus’ messiahship as it is only on the evidence of two or three witnesses that a matter is confirmed (Deuteronomy 19:15). These two witnesses continue to play an important role in Luke’s writing, bearing witness to pivotal events in the life of Jesus: the Transfiguration, the Resurrection and the Ascension14. Luke ensures that the reader is clear about the role of the two men in each story by constructing his own witness “script” that begins with the repetition of the phrase καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνδρες δύο; a phrase only found in Luke’s writing in the context of the two heavenly ministers. It would be reasonable to characterize this layer of significance regarding Moses and Elijah as the “spiritual” and theological, which is notably different from the more “earthly” and practical layer that Luke codes over the theological base15.
Luke gives the reader a much more human Jesus to interact with during his gospel account. Only in Luke are we able to see the Messiah as a child and do we see the agony of anxiety in bloody sweat before the ordeal of the cross. Here too, Luke presents the reader with an intimate look into the personal journey of Jesus in his ministry. Luke’s heavy emphasis on prayer throughout his gospel certainly speaks to Jesus’ (and by extension, our) need for regular spiritual nourishment. Prayer is critical but for man it is only part of the Spirit-filled life. By adding the presence of Moses and Elijah Luke raises the reader’s awareness of the need, even for Jesus, for fellowship and support. These two men who had very similar life experiences to that of Jesus, are the perfect ones to encourage him in what lie ahead. Both men “prefigure Jesus in being rejected by the people and vindicated by God: the details of the rejection and vindication differ but the structure is the same”16. Both were rejected by Israel; both suffered extreme persecution in their ministry; and ultimately both were vindicated by God17. Coded over the prodigious theological imagery is the warmth of Jesus’ humanity in the form of a need of fellowship and encouragement from those that had “been through it before”.
Verse 31
who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.
Luke alone reveals to the reader the content of the conversation between the three glorified men on the mountain. They spoke of his ἔξοδον which is rendered in the modern translations as “departure”. According to Kittel, this word simply refers to the end of Jesus’ life and does not carry any more complex meaning18. While ἔξοδον is used by Peter in his second epistle (2 Peter 1:15) in the context of his death, Luke’s selection of the word conveys much more than a simple reference to death. The word is hapax legomenon for Luke and who more often opts for the more straightforward θανάτος to refer to death and it is not found in either Mark or Matthew’s account so it is a detail that is of note. Mánek notes correctly that “it is best to leave this word in the original, untranslated”19 as the English word “exodus”. It is important to note that this is the same Greek word used in the LXX to denote the event by the same name when Israel was led out of Egypt by God. Exodus as a concept held great theological significance to the Jewish community. This theological significance was integrally tied to the concept of salvation; it was not just representative of the journey from Egypt but rather the full journey from slavery to the Promised Land “the high point of Old Testament redemptive history”20.
Jesus is at the height of his popularity; he has just been recognized as the long-awaited Messiah; and now, as his true divine nature is revealed, the reader also gets a glimpse of his ultimate purpose: to provide a salvation that the first Exodus only foreshadowed21>. Whereas Moses led the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage, Luke looks forward to Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension as mankind’s “exodus” from the greater bondage of Satan22. This is what Jesus is to accomplish in Jerusalem, not just the freedom from the oppression of sin but also entry into the true land of promise.
This understanding may also shed a bit of light on the timing and purpose for Elijah and Moses’ visit; as Jesus is about to begin the journey out from hope and popularity towards suffering and rejection, as a man, Jesus needs fellowship and encouragement. With this in mind, another thing that the two prophets have in common is that they were both, in the end, vindicated by God, a fact that would have been especially encouraging to Jesus who knew the heavy price he had to pay in obedience.
Verse 32
Now Peter and his companions had been overcome with sleep; but when they were fully awake, they saw His glory and the two men standing with Him.
At this point focus again shifts back to the three disciples who, Luke tells us were “burdened down” with sleep or as we might say in our own idiomatic way, they were “sound asleep”. As the story unfolds there is a sense that it is building towards a grand climax. Jesus, being first transformed into his resplendent form, is then accompanied by the two greatest Jewish prophets who appear on the scene speaking with him about a great salvation that he will accomplish in Jerusalem and then, with Beethoven’s Ode to Joy playing in the background, the skies open up and Yahweh crowns Jesus with Glory and honor we find the disciples slowly come out of their deep sleep, rubbing their sleep filled eyes trying to get a grasp on what they are looking at.
Verse 33
And as these were leaving Him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tabernacles: one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah”– not realizing what he was saying
Most likely still half asleep and seeing the two prophets leaving, Peter blurts out his recommendation to build three tabernacles so that they all might remain and continue their encounter. The narrator’s normally silent voice steps out to ensure that the reader not mistake Peter’s comments as in any way wise or appropriate. Peter’s statement shows a continuing and deep misunderstanding of the purpose of Jesus’ coming and failure to recognize the superiority of the Messiah in relation to those that had come before. Moses and Elijah are not here to stay; they have been superseded by one who is greater. Peter see’s three great men of faith conferring with one another, when in all reality Moses and Elijah stand in the presence of God as they had done before on the mountain-top. The reference to the tabernacles in this instance do not serve as a reference to the Feast of Tabernacles nor is this a reference to establishing three tabernacles like unto the one created for God at Sinai to house the men as gods as there is no other corroborating information outside of this passage to suggest these theories23. Rather the outburst is simply Peter’s impertinence as he interrupts the conversation in a misguided effort to show respect and keep the prophets from leaving. Instead, the reader is confronted once again with Peter’s clear lack of understanding of the significance of the events happening around him24. But let’s be fair to Peter, the two other disciples didn’t get it either. To be honest, neither did I; and admit it … neither did you. We as readers collectively benefit from Peter’s mouth moving faster than his brain. As we will see in the next verse, his mistake sheds great clarity on the situation.
Verse 34
While he was saying this, a cloud formed and began to overshadow them; and they were afraid as they entered the cloud.
Unfortunately this is not a mistake that Peter will be allowed to make publicly without correction. Cementing the references to God’s prior appearances on the mountain, the Father appears in the midst of Peter’s comment. The scene has changed from a glorious revelation of the nature of Jesus to one of horror as the cloud falls upon the group in seeming response to the inane comments that were, at that very moment, falling from Peter’s mouth.
Verse 35
Then voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!”
The voice of God comes from the cloud to clarify to Peter and the other disciples the true order of things. Peter’s outburst presumed to put Jesus on equal ground with the two prophets but God, from out of eternity, comes down and informs them that it is Jesus that they need to give honor and attention to. Jesus supersedes the law and the prophets, he is not just another prophet - he is The Chosen One, God’s Son. As Jesus would declare shortly in Luke’s gospel:
“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. (Luke 16:16)
This voice silences the many questions about the identity of Jesus once and for all. He is not John the Baptist, he is not Elijah, he is not just a prophet like Moses; he is the Messiah, the Son of the most high God. The voice that comes from the cloud not only corrects Peter’s mischaracterization of Jesus’ preeminence but also commands them to listen to him. The command stretches beyond simply listening to Jesus teaching and rather speaks to the position of authority that the new exodus holds over the old. The law and the prophets are not gone but they stand subordinated, ministers of the new covenant that Jesus brings. The panorama of Jesus’ ministry is unfolded for the reader. The voice in the cloud hearkens back to the baptism, the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and his glorified form points towards his resurrection and parousia. The Transfiguration marks a vital stage in the revelation of Jesus as the Messiah. It looks back to the Old Testament and points forward to the New Testament glory25.
Verse 36
And when the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent, and reported to no one in those days any of the things which they had seen.
As suddenly as the event started, it ends, leaving Jesus and the three disciples alone on the mountain once again. It is the final punctuating moment of the experience, the reader sees Moses and Elijah disappear while Jesus remains to finish his work. As the Father finishes his correction of Peter, the vision ends; the law and prophets pass away as Jesus’ ministry continues. The prophets are his help, and they will continue to have a ministry in Luke’s writings but their names won’t be mentioned again because, as John the Baptist stated “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). The ministry of the prophets, in fact, always has been one that is a shadow of the Messiah’s ministry to come as Peter reminds us in his first epistle:
Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven–things which angels desire to look into. (1 Peter 1:10-12)
CONCLUSION
As a postscript to Luke’s Transfiguration story he makes one final redaction to his Marcan source. He skips immediately to the story of demon possessed boy that the disciples cannot heal. While this paper does not intend to fully exegete this encounter, it serves as an important concluding message, reminding the reader that Jesus correctly leveraged the mountain-top experience to spiritually fuel his earthly ministry. This is also consistent with Luke’s more social theology and his concern with the disenfranchised; Jesus, though Messiah and God, still comes down from the mountain to accomplish what the Disciples cannot.
Ultimately Luke’s account succeeds in communicating to the reader the lessons that he intended: Jesus is confirmed to be the Messiah, the Messiah is confirmed to be God, and God is confirmed, in the person of Jesus, to be man. The mountain-top theophany form gives both effective guidance as well as a little subtle misdirection to the reader. Where Moses went up, encountered God and came down with the old covenant, Jesus goes up and is revealed as God, the embodiment of a new covenant. The story is not finished and the exodus is not yet complete but there is now a clearer understanding of the purpose and mission that is to be achieved.
There must have been a lot of pressure on the preachers that had to read these gospel accounts. To tell the story with passion, bringing the language to life would have made all of the difference in the world to those listening. If the story was told correctly the layers of meaning would have erupted in the mind of the listener confirming their suspicions about who he was while at the same time leaving them with a sense of dread of the things to come. While it is true, the story of the Transfiguration is not an easy event to understand on the surface. With careful consideration, and a grateful nod to Peter’s rash comment, the Spirit is faithful to keep his promise and teach us “all things” that need to know.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Best, Thomas F. “The Transfiguration: A Select Bibliography.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 24 (1981) 157-61.
Camery-Hoggatt, Jerry. Reading the good book well. Nashville: Abington Press, 1997.
Chilton, Bruce D. “The Transfiguration: Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Vision.” New Testament Studies 27 (1980) 115-24.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. Vol. 38 The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1981.
Garrett, S. R. “Exodus from Bondage: Luke 9:31 and Acts 12:1-24.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990) 656-80.
Geldenhuys, Norval. The Gospel of Luke. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1979
Hooker, Morna D. “‘What Doest Thou Here, Elijah?’: A Look at St Mark’s Account of the Transfiguration.” Pages 59-69 in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology. Edited by L. D. Hurst et al. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987.
Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. “The Transfiguration of Christ.” Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (1967) 133-43.
Kittel, Gerhard and Friedrich, Gerhard, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1989
Lasor, William S., David A. Hubbard and Frederic Wm. Bush. Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1996.
Mánek, Jindřich. “The New Exodus in the Books of Luke.” Novum Testamentum, 2 (1958) 8-23.
McCurley, Foster R., Jr. “‘And after Six Days’ (Mark 9:2): A Semitic Literary Device.” Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (1974) 67-81.
Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “What Really Happened at the Transfiguration?” Bible Review 3 (1987) 8-21.
Pamment, Margaret. “Moses and Elijah in the Story of the Transfiguration.” Expository Times 92 (1980-81) 338-39.
Pilch, John J. “The Transfiguration of Jesus: An experience of alternate reality.” Pages 47-64 in Modeling Early Christianity: Social-scientific studies of the New Testament in its context. Edited by Philip F. Esler. Routledge: London, 1995.
Ramsey, Arthur Michael. The Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1949.
Reid, Barbara O. “Voices and Angels: What Were They Talking about at the Transfiguration? A Redaction-Critical Study of Luke 9:28-36.” Biblical Research 34 (1989) 19-31.
Rogness, Michael. “The Transfiguration of Our Lord: Luke 9:28-36.” Word & World 9 (1989) 71-75.
Stein, Robert H. “Is the Transfiguration (Mark 9:2-8) a Misplaced Resurrection-Account?” Journal Biblical Literature 95 (1976) 79-96.
Trites, Allison A. “The Transfiguration in the Theology of Luke: Some Redactional Links.” Pages 71-81 in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology. Edited by L. D. Hurst et al. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987.
_____. “The Transfiguration of Jesus: The Gospel in Microcosm.” Evangelical Quarterly 51 (1979) 67-79.
NOTES
1. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. (Vol. 38 of The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1981) 35,57-58
2. For a discussion on schemas and their role in biblical interpretation see - Jerry Camery-Hoggatt, Reading the good book well. (Nashville: Abington, 1997), 83-97.
3. Allison A. Trites, “The Transfiguration of Jesus: The Gospel in Microcosm” EvQ 51 (1979): 69
4. Taken from the Chalcedon definition.
5. Luke’s eight days approximation and Mark and Matthew’s absolute six days are not a conflict. Luke includes the time between the two preceding incidents (about two days) adding them to the six that he most likely had from his Marcan source. Mark and Matthew’s cultural understanding of the importance of the seventh day in Semitic literature would most likely have eluded Luke who was notably unaware of many of these types of cultural patterns. For more information on this please see Trites “Microcosm,” 72; and Foster R. McCurley Jr. “‘And after Six Days’ (Mark 9:2): A Semitic Literary Device.” JBL 93 (1974) 67-81.
6. Of the candidate mountains that are generally considered, two rise to the top as most likely: Mt. Tabor and Mt. Hermon. Although Tabor is generally considered, Josephus makes note that the top of that mountain was the location of a walled fortress at the time. Alternately, Hermon better fits the “high” mountain as described in Mark (over 9,000 feet, while Tabor is only slightly more than 1,800 feet) and better fits in with the previous activity in and around Caesarea Philippi. Luke most likely did not have a sufficient understanding of the geography of the reason and therefore any of these specifics would not have played a part in his rendering of the event. For Luke it was sufficient to note that this was a mountain-top experience. Trites, “Miscrocosm,” 72.
7. For more on the subject of waking-visions as a possible parallel to the Transfiguration experience please see: John J. Pilch, “The Transfiguration of Jesus: An experience of alternate reality.” in Modeling Early Christianity: Social-scientific studies of the New Testament in its context. (ed. Philip F. Esler. Routledge: London, 1995), 47-64.
8. “In the Hellenistic mystery religions transfiguration is a parallel idea to regeneration or deification. To be changed into a god-like being is the great goal which the initiate, moving from one stage to another, strives to reach by vision of the deity.” Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., “μεταμορφόω” TDNT.
9. λευκὸς and ἐξαστράπτων are unique in Lukes writing with the former being found only twice, here and at Jesus’ ascension describing the robes of the “angelic beings”, and the latter which is hapax legomenon for Luke and only found in the LXX when referring to God or angelic beings that are in the presence of God.
10. The imperfect indicative tense indicates that this was an in progress conversation, not one that started when the narrator saw they were there with Jesus.
11. Whether or not this was a waking dream or a physical transformation would not have affected the readers understanding of it as a valid experience. The tendency to rationalize the experience as poetic description of Jesus inner enlightenment (Murphy-O’Conner “What really happened,” 18) does not take into account these vision experiences as being an understood and accepted part of ancient near-eastern life despite the fact that western minds and conceptions of reality generally tend to disregards any such experience as unreliable and unscientific. (Pilch, “Alternate Realities,” 53-56)
13. Morna D. Hooker, “‘What Doest Thou Here, Elijah?’: A Look at St Mark’s Account of the Transfiguration.” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology. (ed. L. D. Hurst et al. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 63; Margaret Pamment, “Moses and Elijah in the Story of the Transfiguration.” ExpTim 92 (1980-81) 338.
14. Luke 9:30, 24:4 and Acts 1:10 respectively.
15. Moses and Elijah’s significance from an eschatological standpoint are not limited to Luke’s writing, nor is the concept of the two fulfilling the role of witnesses to the role Jesus plays in the last days. John’s references to the two witnesses in the book of Revelation 11:6 is a clear reference to the two men as they are described by having the very same powers that they exhibited in their lifetime.
16. Pamment, “Moses and Elijah,” 339.
17. See Exodus 17:4, 32:32; 1 Kings 19:2
19. Jindřich Mánek, “The New Exodus in the Books of Luke,” NovT, 2 (1958), 12.
20. William S. Lasor, David A. Hubbard and Frederic Wm. Bush, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1996) 63-64.
21. Mánek has an extreme comparison between the Exodus from Egypt and the exodus that Jesus is about to accomplish in Jerusalem. According to Mánek, for Luke, In the light of its recent destruction, Jerusalem becomes the theological “Egypt” of the new exodus. Instead of Egypt’s oppression and hard-hearted attitude we see Jerusalem’s; It is not Moses but Jesus that leads the captives free with the Ascension foreshadowing the entry into the promised land; and lastly, instead of the Egyptian’s being destroyed at the Red Sea we see the destruction of Jerusalem with a 40 year delay that is somehow supposed to represent the 40 years of wandering.
22. S. R. Garrett, “Exodus from Bondage: Luke 9:31 and Acts 12:1-24.” CBQ 52 (1990) 659.
23. Michael Rogness, “The Transfiguration of Our Lord: Luke 9:28-36,” WW 9 (1989) 72; Hooker, “Elijah,” 65.
25. Allison A. Trites, “The Transfiguration in the Theology of Luke: Some Redactional Links.” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology. (ed. L. D. Hurst et al. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987) 78.