143
ON THE HOLY MOUNTAIN:
THE TRANSFIGURATION
IN SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGY1
Dorothy Lee
Introduction: the narrative
The transfiguration in New Testament tradition tells the story of Jesus ascent of the
mountain in company with three of his disciples, Peter, James and John; the sudden
change in his physical appearance; the presence of Moses and Elijah; the disciples
fear and incomprehension, symbolised in Peters proposal to build three tents; the
overshadowing cloud and the divine voice that issues from it, with its acclamation of
Jesus; the disappearance of the heavenly signs at the end of the story and the
descent of the disciples down the mountain with Jesus; and the subsequent silence
of the three until after the resurrection.2
It is remarkable how little attention this story has received in critical scholarship,
despite its central location in the narrative of the Synoptic Gospels. In each case, the
transfiguration stands at or near the beginning of the journey to Jerusalem (Mark
8:22 - 10:52 par), immediately following Peters confession of faith and Jesus revelation
of his own impending suffering, death and resurrection (Mark 8:27 - 9:1 pars). The
narrative is one of the few to be told in the epistles, where it is given an extraordinary
theological role (2 Pet 1:16-18). Moreover, there are parallels to the transfiguration
elsewhere in the New Testament, suggesting widespread use of its traditions and
symbolism. As a consequence of its neglect, however, this theological focus is all but
lost to contemporary biblical studies and theology, at least with the Western tradition.
While biblical scholarship tends to dismiss the narrative as ahistorical, its only function
1
This article was given as a paper at the ANZATS/ ANZSTS Conference, Melbourne, July
2004.
2
Further on the transfiguration in its New Testament setting, see D. Lee, Transfiguration
(London: Continuum, 2004).
143
ON THE HOLY MOUNTAIN:
THE TRANSFIGURATION
IN SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGY1
Dorothy Lee
Introduction: the narrative
The transfiguration in New Testament tradition tells the story of Jesus ascent of the
mountain in company with three of his disciples, Peter, James and John; the sudden
change in his physical appearance; the presence of Moses and Elijah; the disciples
fear and incomprehension, symbolised in Peters proposal to build three tents; the
overshadowing cloud and the divine voice that issues from it, with its acclamation of
Jesus; the disappearance of the heavenly signs at the end of the story and the
descent of the disciples down the mountain with Jesus; and the subsequent silence
of the three until after the resurrection.2
It is remarkable how little attention this story has received in critical scholarship,
despite its central location in the narrative of the Synoptic Gospels. In each case, the
transfiguration stands at or near the beginning of the journey to Jerusalem (Mark
8:22 - 10:52 par), immediately following Peters confession of faith and Jesus revelation
of his own impending suffering, death and resurrection (Mark 8:27 - 9:1 pars). The
narrative is one of the few to be told in the epistles, where it is given an extraordinary
theological role (2 Pet 1:16-18). Moreover, there are parallels to the transfiguration
elsewhere in the New Testament, suggesting widespread use of its traditions and
symbolism. As a consequence of its neglect, however, this theological focus is all but
lost to contemporary biblical studies and theology, at least with the Western tradition.
While biblical scholarship tends to dismiss the narrative as ahistorical, its only function
1
This article was given as a paper at the ANZATS/ ANZSTS Conference, Melbourne, July
2004.
2
Further on the transfiguration in its New Testament setting, see D. Lee, Transfiguration
(London: Continuum, 2004).
144 COLLOQUIUM 36/2 (2004)
being to underline the message of the cross, systematic theology regards it as
peripheral, possessing nothing like the existential import of the incarnation, cross,
resurrection or parousia. In either case, the story of the transfigurationhowever
central to the Gospel narrativeis swallowed up in shadow.
Each Gospel gives the transfiguration the same centrality and weight of significance,
even though narrating the story in very different ways. Marks version, probably the
earliest in the New Testament, uses characteristically simple yet dramatic language to
portray the transfiguration (Mark 9:2-9), depicting it as integral to the coming reign of
God (9:1). The event takes place on the mountain, the locus of divine revelation.3 The
imagery of light in Jesus garmentswhiter than any bleacher on earth could whiten
them (9:3)represents the drama of Gods eschatological future, breaking into the
harsh realities of the present in the person and ministry of Jesus, including his death
and resurrection. Elijah is the archetypal apocalyptic figure for Mark, associated with
John the Baptist, his presence (and prominence) signalling the advent of the end time
(9:4). Peters desire to construct tents for his heavenly guests reflects the disciples
misunderstanding, as elsewhere in Marks Gospel. The cloud and the voice set Jesus
apart from Moses and Elijah, directing the terrified disciples to Jesus unique and
cosmic identity, even as he begins the via dolorosa, and confirming his status as
both royal and divine.4 On their descent, the disciples are told sternly to keep silent
about what they have witnessed until after the resurrection (9:9), when the scattered
sheep will be regathered by the risen Christ (14:28; 16:7). At the transfiguration, Mark
presents Jesus as the divine Son and bearer of the kingdom in all his glory (8:38), the
one to whom the disciples must hearken above all others (9:7c). The context in which
Mark tells his talethe beginning of the portentous journey to Jerusalem and
following the first of Jesus three passion and resurrection predictions (8:31; cf. 9:31;
10:32b-34)makes clear that this glory is tied inextricably to suffering and the way of
the cross. In the same way, Jesus agony at Gethsemane (14:32-42),5 witnessed again
3
The New Testament nowhere designates the actual mountain of the transfiguration.
Beginning with Origen (185-254 CE) and Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386 CE), tradition
associates it with Mt Tabor, although it is not high (1,350 ft) and had a Roman fortification
on its summit in the first century CE. Other candidates are Mt Hermon, which is
considerably higher than Mt Tabor (9,200 ft) and close to Caesarea Philippi, or Mt Meron
in Upper Galilee, also higher than Tabor (3,926 ft.).
4
S. C. Barton, The Transfiguration of Christ According to Mark and Matthew: Christology
and Anthropology in AuferstehungResurrection (ed. F. Avemarie & H. Lichtenberger;
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) 241-42.
5
On the parallelism between the transfiguration and the Mount of Olives, see A. Kenny,
The Transfiguration and the Agony in the Garden, CBQ 19 (1957) 444-52.
144 COLLOQUIUM 36/2 (2004)
being to underline the message of the cross, systematic theology regards it as
peripheral, possessing nothing like the existential import of the incarnation, cross,
resurrection or parousia. In either case, the story of the transfigurationhowever
central to the Gospel narrativeis swallowed up in shadow.
Each Gospel gives the transfiguration the same centrality and weight of significance,
even though narrating the story in very different ways. Marks version, probably the
earliest in the New Testament, uses characteristically simple yet dramatic language to
portray the transfiguration (Mark 9:2-9), depicting it as integral to the coming reign of
God (9:1). The event takes place on the mountain, the locus of divine revelation.3 The
imagery of light in Jesus garmentswhiter than any bleacher on earth could whiten
them (9:3)represents the drama of Gods eschatological future, breaking into the
harsh realities of the present in the person and ministry of Jesus, including his death
and resurrection. Elijah is the archetypal apocalyptic figure for Mark, associated with
John the Baptist, his presence (and prominence) signalling the advent of the end time
(9:4). Peters desire to construct tents for his heavenly guests reflects the disciples
misunderstanding, as elsewhere in Marks Gospel. The cloud and the voice set Jesus
apart from Moses and Elijah, directing the terrified disciples to Jesus unique and
cosmic identity, even as he begins the via dolorosa, and confirming his status as
both royal and divine.4 On their descent, the disciples are told sternly to keep silent
about what they have witnessed until after the resurrection (9:9), when the scattered
sheep will be regathered by the risen Christ (14:28; 16:7). At the transfiguration, Mark
presents Jesus as the divine Son and bearer of the kingdom in all his glory (8:38), the
one to whom the disciples must hearken above all others (9:7c). The context in which
Mark tells his talethe beginning of the portentous journey to Jerusalem and
following the first of Jesus three passion and resurrection predictions (8:31; cf. 9:31;
10:32b-34)makes clear that this glory is tied inextricably to suffering and the way of
the cross. In the same way, Jesus agony at Gethsemane (14:32-42),5 witnessed again
3
The New Testament nowhere designates the actual mountain of the transfiguration.
Beginning with Origen (185-254 CE) and Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386 CE), tradition
associates it with Mt Tabor, although it is not high (1,350 ft) and had a Roman fortification
on its summit in the first century CE. Other candidates are Mt Hermon, which is
considerably higher than Mt Tabor (9,200 ft) and close to Caesarea Philippi, or Mt Meron
in Upper Galilee, also higher than Tabor (3,926 ft.).
4
S. C. Barton, The Transfiguration of Christ According to Mark and Matthew: Christology
and Anthropology in AuferstehungResurrection (ed. F. Avemarie & H. Lichtenberger;
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) 241-42.
5
On the parallelism between the transfiguration and the Mount of Olives, see A. Kenny,
The Transfiguration and the Agony in the Garden, CBQ 19 (1957) 444-52.
 LEE: TRANSFIGURATION 145
by Peter, James and John, foreshadows the dereliction of Jesus death (15:34) which
is the God-ordained path to life: to the glory of the empty tomb and Jesus risen
presence in Galilee (16:1-8). Since the kingdom in Mark arises from both suffering and
glory, it follows that the transfiguration in this Gospel is both a piece of Markan
soteriology,6 and a premonition of the New Creation.7
Matthews version follows Marks fairly closely but with a number of telling
differences. In Matthews transfiguration, for example, the parallels with Moses on
Mount Sinai are much more striking. These parallels are linked to the geographical
symbolism of Matthews Gospel, each of the six mountain scenes being numinous
and cosmic, associated intimately with revelation.8 Most significantly, Matthew
portrays Jesus metamorphosis in symbols that are redolent with light (Matt 17:1-9).
Not only are Jesus clothes white like light (fw'") but his face shines like the sun
(17:2); the overshadowing cloud is bright, radiant with light (fwteinhv, 17:5). This
splendour points to Jesus identity as the divine Son, a splendour that stands in the
tradition of, yet far exceeds, Moses on Mount Sinai.9 Matthew is also concerned
with the vocation of the Church, symbolised in Peter (16:13-20); though, as elsewhere,
Matthews depiction of the disciples is more sympathetic than Marks. The Matthan
Jesus, who is Lord of the Church, approaches the overawed disciples at the end of
the story with compassion and understanding, raising them up with reassuring words
(17:7). After the disappearing of the heavenly signs and during the descent of the
mountain, Jesus explains that what the disciples have witnessed is a vision of Gods
luminous future (17:9); here too they are enjoined to secrecy until after the resurrection.
This future is transmitted from the past by the symbolic importance of Moses and
anticipated in the present by the majestic, merciful figure of Jesus, the beloved Son.10
6
J. A. Ziesler, The Transfiguration Story and the Markan Soteriology, ExpT 81 (1970)
267.
7
W. Wink, Mark 9:2-8, Int 36 (1982) 65.
8
Excluding the transfiguration these are: the mount of temptation (4:8), the mount of
teaching (5:1; 8:1), the mount of feeding (14:13-16:12), the Mount of Olives (26:30), and
the mount of commissioning (28:16-20); see T. L. Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain. A
Study in Matthean Theology (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985) especially vi-vii.
9
According to A. D. A. Moses, Matthews Transfiguration Story and Jewish-Christian
Controversy (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 50-113, Matthews story is a
synthesis of Moses-Sinai and apocalyptic traditions.
10
The title Son of God is one of the most importantindeed, arguably the most important
in Matthews Gospel; see Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 40-83, and Moses, Matthews Transfiguration, 195-201.
LEE: TRANSFIGURATION 145
by Peter, James and John, foreshadows the dereliction of Jesus death (15:34) which
is the God-ordained path to life: to the glory of the empty tomb and Jesus risen
presence in Galilee (16:1-8). Since the kingdom in Mark arises from both suffering and
glory, it follows that the transfiguration in this Gospel is both a piece of Markan
soteriology,6 and a premonition of the New Creation.7
Matthews version follows Marks fairly closely but with a number of telling
differences. In Matthews transfiguration, for example, the parallels with Moses on
Mount Sinai are much more striking. These parallels are linked to the geographical
symbolism of Matthews Gospel, each of the six mountain scenes being numinous
and cosmic, associated intimately with revelation.8 Most significantly, Matthew
portrays Jesus metamorphosis in symbols that are redolent with light (Matt 17:1-9).
Not only are Jesus clothes white like light (fw'") but his face shines like the sun
(17:2); the overshadowing cloud is bright, radiant with light (fwteinhv, 17:5). This
splendour points to Jesus identity as the divine Son, a splendour that stands in the
tradition of, yet far exceeds, Moses on Mount Sinai.9 Matthew is also concerned
with the vocation of the Church, symbolised in Peter (16:13-20); though, as elsewhere,
Matthews depiction of the disciples is more sympathetic than Marks. The Matthan
Jesus, who is Lord of the Church, approaches the overawed disciples at the end of
the story with compassion and understanding, raising them up with reassuring words
(17:7). After the disappearing of the heavenly signs and during the descent of the
mountain, Jesus explains that what the disciples have witnessed is a vision of Gods
luminous future (17:9); here too they are enjoined to secrecy until after the resurrection.
This future is transmitted from the past by the symbolic importance of Moses and
anticipated in the present by the majestic, merciful figure of Jesus, the beloved Son.10
6
J. A. Ziesler, The Transfiguration Story and the Markan Soteriology, ExpT 81 (1970)
267.
7
W. Wink, Mark 9:2-8, Int 36 (1982) 65.
8
Excluding the transfiguration these are: the mount of temptation (4:8), the mount of
teaching (5:1; 8:1), the mount of feeding (14:13-16:12), the Mount of Olives (26:30), and
the mount of commissioning (28:16-20); see T. L. Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain. A
Study in Matthean Theology (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985) especially vi-vii.
9
According to A. D. A. Moses, Matthews Transfiguration Story and Jewish-Christian
Controversy (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 50-113, Matthews story is a
synthesis of Moses-Sinai and apocalyptic traditions.
10
The title Son of God is one of the most importantindeed, arguably the most important
in Matthews Gospel; see Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 40-83, and Moses, Matthews Transfiguration, 195-201.
146 COLLOQUIUM 36/2 (2004)
Lukes account of the transfiguration is significantly different from the other two
(Luke 9:28-37a). Unique to Luke are the context of prayer, the explicit mention of
glory, the discussion of Jesus departure, the lassitude of the disciples, the voice
naming Jesus as chosen, and the absence of conversation between Jesus and the
disciples on their descent of the mountain. The differences are so conspicuous that
some have suggested Luke is dependent on a separate source, earlier than, and
independent of, Marks account.11 It is at least as likely, however, that Luke has
creatively redacted and re-shaped Marks account for himself.12 Most importantly, in
Lukes version, the transfiguration occurs while Jesus is at prayer (9:28-29); this is
his purpose in ascending the mountain.13 In describing the change in Jesus face and
clothing (9:29), Luke avoids explicit language of metamorphosis.14 The transformation,
along with the presence of Moses and Elijah (9:30), and the dazzling glory that
surrounds them (which Luke mentions explicitly, 9:31-32), are manifestations of the
divine visitation and hospitality to Gods people which lie at the centre of Lukes
narrative and theology (cf. 1:68, 78). Luke alone gives the subject of conversation
between Jesus, Moses and Elijah: they are discussing Jesus e[xodon or departure
which he is about to fulfil in Jerusalem (9:31b). The disciples fail to grasp both the
transfiguration of Jesus person and the conversation between the heavenly figures;
as a consequence they become sleepy, or possibly fall asleep (literally, heavy with
sleep, bebarhmevnoi u{pnw/, 9:32).15 As with the suggestion of three tents, the
apostles insight is impeded by misunderstanding and fear. The cloud exacerbates
11
See, for example, B. Reid, The Transfiguration: A Source- and Redaction-Critical Study of
Luke 9:28-36 (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1993) 31-94, and J. Murphy-OConnor, What Really
Happened at the Transfiguration? Bible Review 3 (1987) 8-21.
12
Most commentators reject a second source; e.g. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to
Luke, Vol. 1 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1981) 1. 791-92, and I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of
Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 380-81.
13
Elsewhere in Luke-Acts, prayer is a major theme: Luke 3:21; 5:16; 6:12; 9:18; 10:21; 11:1-
4; 22:32, 41-42; 23:46; 24:53; Acts 1:14, 24; 4:24-31; 6:4, 6; 12:5, 12; 13:3. Further on this
theme, see D. Crump, Jesus the Intercessor: Prayer and Christology in Luke-Acts (Tbingen:
J.C.B. Mohr Siebeck, 1992) 42-48.
14
It may be that Luke wishes to avoid Roman-Hellenistic interpretations of metamorphosis
as, for example, in Ovids Metamorphoses (8 AD); see J. A. McGuckin, The Transfiguration
of Christ in Scripture and Tradition (Lewiston/Queenston: Edwin Mellen, 1986) 57-65.
15
This feature has suggested to some that the transfiguration occurred at night, though it is
also symptomatic of the disciples inability to comprehend what is happening (cf. Mark
14:32-42 pars).
146 COLLOQUIUM 36/2 (2004)
Lukes account of the transfiguration is significantly different from the other two
(Luke 9:28-37a). Unique to Luke are the context of prayer, the explicit mention of
glory, the discussion of Jesus departure, the lassitude of the disciples, the voice
naming Jesus as chosen, and the absence of conversation between Jesus and the
disciples on their descent of the mountain. The differences are so conspicuous that
some have suggested Luke is dependent on a separate source, earlier than, and
independent of, Marks account.11 It is at least as likely, however, that Luke has
creatively redacted and re-shaped Marks account for himself.12 Most importantly, in
Lukes version, the transfiguration occurs while Jesus is at prayer (9:28-29); this is
his purpose in ascending the mountain.13 In describing the change in Jesus face and
clothing (9:29), Luke avoids explicit language of metamorphosis.14 The transformation,
along with the presence of Moses and Elijah (9:30), and the dazzling glory that
surrounds them (which Luke mentions explicitly, 9:31-32), are manifestations of the
divine visitation and hospitality to Gods people which lie at the centre of Lukes
narrative and theology (cf. 1:68, 78). Luke alone gives the subject of conversation
between Jesus, Moses and Elijah: they are discussing Jesus e[xodon or departure
which he is about to fulfil in Jerusalem (9:31b). The disciples fail to grasp both the
transfiguration of Jesus person and the conversation between the heavenly figures;
as a consequence they become sleepy, or possibly fall asleep (literally, heavy with
sleep, bebarhmevnoi u{pnw/, 9:32).15 As with the suggestion of three tents, the
apostles insight is impeded by misunderstanding and fear. The cloud exacerbates
11
See, for example, B. Reid, The Transfiguration: A Source- and Redaction-Critical Study of
Luke 9:28-36 (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1993) 31-94, and J. Murphy-OConnor, What Really
Happened at the Transfiguration? Bible Review 3 (1987) 8-21.
12
Most commentators reject a second source; e.g. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to
Luke, Vol. 1 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1981) 1. 791-92, and I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of
Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 380-81.
13
Elsewhere in Luke-Acts, prayer is a major theme: Luke 3:21; 5:16; 6:12; 9:18; 10:21; 11:1-
4; 22:32, 41-42; 23:46; 24:53; Acts 1:14, 24; 4:24-31; 6:4, 6; 12:5, 12; 13:3. Further on this
theme, see D. Crump, Jesus the Intercessor: Prayer and Christology in Luke-Acts (Tbingen:
J.C.B. Mohr Siebeck, 1992) 42-48.
14
It may be that Luke wishes to avoid Roman-Hellenistic interpretations of metamorphosis
as, for example, in Ovids Metamorphoses (8 AD); see J. A. McGuckin, The Transfiguration
of Christ in Scripture and Tradition (Lewiston/Queenston: Edwin Mellen, 1986) 57-65.
15
This feature has suggested to some that the transfiguration occurred at night, though it is
also symptomatic of the disciples inability to comprehend what is happening (cf. Mark
14:32-42 pars).
 LEE: TRANSFIGURATION 147
this fear by (seemingly) embracing all six on the mountain top and the divine voice
acclaims Jesus as the Chosen Son of God (9:34-35; cf. Isa 42:1). Not unlike Matthew,
Luke portrays the three apostles sympathetically here: their awestruck silence at the
end is of their own volition and not instructed by Jesus (9:36b). Theologically, the
Lukan transfiguration empowers Jesus to confront his fate through prayer, leading
his disciples on the journey from death to life. Even more than the other two, Luke
binds the transfiguration to the story of the demon-possessed boy that follows
(9:37): Jesus radiance on the mountain is directed to the tragic realities of the world,
with all its suffering and need.
The second epistle of Peter contains the fourth explicit form of the transfiguration
story (2 Pet 1:16-18). This account may or may not be derived from one or other of the
Synoptic accounts, Matthews Gospel being the most likely candidate.16 The narrative
in 2 Peter is significantly different from the Synoptics: told in much abbreviated form,
with rather different language, and in the context of discourse rather than narrative.
The transfiguration according to 2 Peter is set within the framework of the apostolic
eyewitnesses (1:16, 18). The brief narration describing the transfiguration itself uses
very different imagery to the Synoptics: Jesus receives honour and glory from
God, imagery suggestive of enthronement.17 The story includes the divine voice
declaring Jesus to be the well-pleasing Son, the Beloved,18 as well as the mountain
setting, and the apostolic testimony (1:17-18). In its compressed form, 2 Peter omits a
number of details familiar from the Synoptic Gospels (e.g. the appearance of Moses
and Elijah, the tents, and the cloud), retaining those that are necessary for the authors
purposes.19 Instead of the resurrection functioning as the promise of eschatological
glory, as we might expect, the author of 2 Peter prefers to use the transfiguration. For
this author, the transfiguration thus lies at the core of apostolic faith, perhaps as
16
For the dependence view, see R. D. Miller, Is There Independent Attestation for the
Transfiguration in 2 Peter? NTS 50 (1996) 620-25; for the independence theory (that
includes the possibility that Peter himself was the ultimate source of the tradition), see R.
Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (Waco: Word Books, 1986) 205-12, and J. N. D. Kelly, A
Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (London: A. & C. Black, 1969) 319.
17
For the Old Testament background, see especially Ps 2:7, which is an enthronement psalm
(cf. Ps 8:6; Hebr 2:9); however, according to Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 219-20, there is no
adoptionism in 2 Peters use of the psalm.
18
Beloved is virtually a title in its own right here, unlike the Synoptics; so Bauckham,
Jude, 2 Peter, 207-209, 220; against this, cf. Miller, Transfiguration in 2 Peter, 623.
Note also the overtones of the baptism in the Petrine wording.
19
Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 210.
LEE: TRANSFIGURATION 147
this fear by (seemingly) embracing all six on the mountain top and the divine voice
acclaims Jesus as the Chosen Son of God (9:34-35; cf. Isa 42:1). Not unlike Matthew,
Luke portrays the three apostles sympathetically here: their awestruck silence at the
end is of their own volition and not instructed by Jesus (9:36b). Theologically, the
Lukan transfiguration empowers Jesus to confront his fate through prayer, leading
his disciples on the journey from death to life. Even more than the other two, Luke
binds the transfiguration to the story of the demon-possessed boy that follows
(9:37): Jesus radiance on the mountain is directed to the tragic realities of the world,
with all its suffering and need.
The second epistle of Peter contains the fourth explicit form of the transfiguration
story (2 Pet 1:16-18). This account may or may not be derived from one or other of the
Synoptic accounts, Matthews Gospel being the most likely candidate.16 The narrative
in 2 Peter is significantly different from the Synoptics: told in much abbreviated form,
with rather different language, and in the context of discourse rather than narrative.
The transfiguration according to 2 Peter is set within the framework of the apostolic
eyewitnesses (1:16, 18). The brief narration describing the transfiguration itself uses
very different imagery to the Synoptics: Jesus receives honour and glory from
God, imagery suggestive of enthronement.17 The story includes the divine voice
declaring Jesus to be the well-pleasing Son, the Beloved,18 as well as the mountain
setting, and the apostolic testimony (1:17-18). In its compressed form, 2 Peter omits a
number of details familiar from the Synoptic Gospels (e.g. the appearance of Moses
and Elijah, the tents, and the cloud), retaining those that are necessary for the authors
purposes.19 Instead of the resurrection functioning as the promise of eschatological
glory, as we might expect, the author of 2 Peter prefers to use the transfiguration. For
this author, the transfiguration thus lies at the core of apostolic faith, perhaps as
16
For the dependence view, see R. D. Miller, Is There Independent Attestation for the
Transfiguration in 2 Peter? NTS 50 (1996) 620-25; for the independence theory (that
includes the possibility that Peter himself was the ultimate source of the tradition), see R.
Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (Waco: Word Books, 1986) 205-12, and J. N. D. Kelly, A
Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (London: A. & C. Black, 1969) 319.
17
For the Old Testament background, see especially Ps 2:7, which is an enthronement psalm
(cf. Ps 8:6; Hebr 2:9); however, according to Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 219-20, there is no
adoptionism in 2 Peters use of the psalm.
18
Beloved is virtually a title in its own right here, unlike the Synoptics; so Bauckham,
Jude, 2 Peter, 207-209, 220; against this, cf. Miller, Transfiguration in 2 Peter, 623.
Note also the overtones of the baptism in the Petrine wording.
19
Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 210.
148 COLLOQUIUM 36/2 (2004)
important for this writer as the resurrection elsewhere in the New Testament. Although
the focus is primarily eschatological, there is also emphasis on the revelation of
Jesus identity.20
In addition to these explicit narrations, there are other places in the New Testament
that suggest a wider knowledge of the transfiguration story. In particular, the Gospel
of John shows ample signs of parallel symbolism and terminology, although the
narrative itself is absent.21 The central message of the Johannine Prologue could act,
indeed, as a superscription to the transfiguration story:22 And the Word became
flesh and pitched his tent among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only
Son from the Father (John 1:14). Note here the common motifs of revelation, glory
and beholding, divine yet human sonship, the voice/word of the Father, and even
tents.23 Other passages in John make similar connections,24 suggesting that the
whole Gospel can be read as a transfiguration story.25 Elsewhere there are similar
motifs, associated with light and glory, the most palpable being Pauls discussion of
the Sinai tradition and the veil on Moses face (2 Cor 3:12-4:6).26 Here we find imagery
that parallels not only Moses but also the transfiguration. The glory in the face of
Christ, says Paul, is seen by believers and reflects the divine light: For it is the God
20
J. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 37c;
New York: Doubleday, 1993) 172-74, sees the transfiguration in 2 Peter as a theophany;
against this, cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 215, 217-18.
21
On the transfiguration in Johns Gospel, see V. H. Kooy, The Transfiguration Motif in
the Gospel of John in Saved by Hope (ed. J. I. Cook; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 64-
78, and D. Lee, Transfiguration and the Gospel of John in In Many and Diverse Ways:
A Festschrift Honoring Jacques Dupuis (ed. D. Kendall & G. OCollins; Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis, 2003) 158-69.
22
Note that the eleventh century Ottonian manuscript pictures the nativity above the
transfiguration with the words of Jn 1:14; S. Nes, The Uncreated Light: An Iconographical
Study of the Transfiguration in the Eastern Church (Fairfax, VA: Eastern Christian
Publications, 2002) 19-23, 29-38.
23
As M. Ramsay observes: the glory which in the Synoptics flashes into the story on the
mountain is perceived by Saint John to pervade all the words and works of Jesus - The
Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ (2d ed.; London: Darton, Longman & Todd,
1967) 123.
24
See John 2:11; 6:3, 11, 35; 12:27-28; 17:1; also 1 John 2:28-3:10.
25
So Kooy, Transfiguration Motif, 64-78, G. B. Caird, The Transfiguration, ExpT 67
(1955-56) 294 and C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with
Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (2d ed.; London: SPCK, 1978) 53.
26
See also Rom 12:1-2; Phil 3:21; Rev 1:12-18.
148 COLLOQUIUM 36/2 (2004)
important for this writer as the resurrection elsewhere in the New Testament. Although
the focus is primarily eschatological, there is also emphasis on the revelation of
Jesus identity.20
In addition to these explicit narrations, there are other places in the New Testament
that suggest a wider knowledge of the transfiguration story. In particular, the Gospel
of John shows ample signs of parallel symbolism and terminology, although the
narrative itself is absent.21 The central message of the Johannine Prologue could act,
indeed, as a superscription to the transfiguration story:22 And the Word became
flesh and pitched his tent among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only
Son from the Father (John 1:14). Note here the common motifs of revelation, glory
and beholding, divine yet human sonship, the voice/word of the Father, and even
tents.23 Other passages in John make similar connections,24 suggesting that the
whole Gospel can be read as a transfiguration story.25 Elsewhere there are similar
motifs, associated with light and glory, the most palpable being Pauls discussion of
the Sinai tradition and the veil on Moses face (2 Cor 3:12-4:6).26 Here we find imagery
that parallels not only Moses but also the transfiguration. The glory in the face of
Christ, says Paul, is seen by believers and reflects the divine light: For it is the God
20
J. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 37c;
New York: Doubleday, 1993) 172-74, sees the transfiguration in 2 Peter as a theophany;
against this, cf. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 215, 217-18.
21
On the transfiguration in Johns Gospel, see V. H. Kooy, The Transfiguration Motif in
the Gospel of John in Saved by Hope (ed. J. I. Cook; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 64-
78, and D. Lee, Transfiguration and the Gospel of John in In Many and Diverse Ways:
A Festschrift Honoring Jacques Dupuis (ed. D. Kendall & G. OCollins; Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis, 2003) 158-69.
22
Note that the eleventh century Ottonian manuscript pictures the nativity above the
transfiguration with the words of Jn 1:14; S. Nes, The Uncreated Light: An Iconographical
Study of the Transfiguration in the Eastern Church (Fairfax, VA: Eastern Christian
Publications, 2002) 19-23, 29-38.
23
As M. Ramsay observes: the glory which in the Synoptics flashes into the story on the
mountain is perceived by Saint John to pervade all the words and works of Jesus - The
Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ (2d ed.; London: Darton, Longman & Todd,
1967) 123.
24
See John 2:11; 6:3, 11, 35; 12:27-28; 17:1; also 1 John 2:28-3:10.
25
So Kooy, Transfiguration Motif, 64-78, G. B. Caird, The Transfiguration, ExpT 67
(1955-56) 294 and C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with
Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (2d ed.; London: SPCK, 1978) 53.
26
See also Rom 12:1-2; Phil 3:21; Rev 1:12-18.
 LEE: TRANSFIGURATION 149
who said, From darkness light will shine, who has shone in our hearts for the
enlightening of the knowledge of Gods glory in the face of [Jesus] Christ (4:6). As
a consequence of beholding the glory of the image, believers are themselves
transfigured into glory through the Spirit; here Paul uses the same verb as the
Synoptics (metamorfouvmeqa, 3:18; cf. Mark 9:2 par.).
Despite its prevalence in the New Testament, the transfiguration has presented
modern critical scholarship with a number of difficulties. The first problem is that of
historicity. The traditional view, from the Patristic period to the Middle Ages and
Reformation, was that the transfiguration story reflects a genuine historical event,
with the three disciples as independent eyewitnesses. To the contemporary mind,
however, this view is untenable; most scholars regard the transfiguration as an event
that stands outside the experience of the historical Jesus: Even on its own terms, the
story does not seem plausible.27 As a consequence, the narrative is read as symbolic
or allegorical without historical grounding,28 despite the difficult elements of the
story which suggest, if anything, a stubborn degree of historical memory that cannot
be easily dismissed.29 Even the symbolic or mythic dimensions are not really taken
seriously.
The other question is that of genre. Early twentieth century scholarship, including
Bultmann, concluded that, given its peculiar place within the ministry of Jesus, the
genre of the transfiguration must be a resurrection story thrown back into the ministry
of Jesus.30 Yet as Dodd and others have shown, the transfiguration is very different
from the resurrection stories in a number of significant respects and clearly belongs
to another genre.31 More recent scholarship, rejecting the resurrection theory, has
27
R. D. Miller, Historicizing the Trans-Historical: The Transfiguration Narrative (Mark
9:2-8, Matt 17:1-8, Luke 9:28-36), Forum 10 (1994) 246. Miller argues that the
transfiguration contains nothing of value for re-constructing the life of Jesus (219-48).
28
See, e.g., J. M. Perry, Exploring the Transfiguration Story (Kansas City, MO: Sheed &
Ward, 1993).
29
Further on this, see W. D. Davies & D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (3 vols; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988-1997)
2.692. For traditions of holy people surrounded by inexplicable light, see Ramsay, Glory
of God, 102-103.
30
R. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (ET; Oxford: Blackwell, 1963) 259-61. See
the two later apocryphal versions of the transfiguration in the Ethiopic Apocalypse of
Peter and the Pistis Sophia, which locate the narrative in the resurrection context.
31
C. H. Dodd, The Appearances of the Risen Christ: An Essay in Form-Criticism of the
Gospels in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot (ed. D. E. Nineham;
Oxford: Blackwell, 1957) 9-35.
LEE: TRANSFIGURATION 149
who said, From darkness light will shine, who has shone in our hearts for the
enlightening of the knowledge of Gods glory in the face of [Jesus] Christ (4:6). As
a consequence of beholding the glory of the image, believers are themselves
transfigured into glory through the Spirit; here Paul uses the same verb as the
Synoptics (metamorfouvmeqa, 3:18; cf. Mark 9:2 par.).
Despite its prevalence in the New Testament, the transfiguration has presented
modern critical scholarship with a number of difficulties. The first problem is that of
historicity. The traditional view, from the Patristic period to the Middle Ages and
Reformation, was that the transfiguration story reflects a genuine historical event,
with the three disciples as independent eyewitnesses. To the contemporary mind,
however, this view is untenable; most scholars regard the transfiguration as an event
that stands outside the experience of the historical Jesus: Even on its own terms, the
story does not seem plausible.27 As a consequence, the narrative is read as symbolic
or allegorical without historical grounding,28 despite the difficult elements of the
story which suggest, if anything, a stubborn degree of historical memory that cannot
be easily dismissed.29 Even the symbolic or mythic dimensions are not really taken
seriously.
The other question is that of genre. Early twentieth century scholarship, including
Bultmann, concluded that, given its peculiar place within the ministry of Jesus, the
genre of the transfiguration must be a resurrection story thrown back into the ministry
of Jesus.30 Yet as Dodd and others have shown, the transfiguration is very different
from the resurrection stories in a number of significant respects and clearly belongs
to another genre.31 More recent scholarship, rejecting the resurrection theory, has
27
R. D. Miller, Historicizing the Trans-Historical: The Transfiguration Narrative (Mark
9:2-8, Matt 17:1-8, Luke 9:28-36), Forum 10 (1994) 246. Miller argues that the
transfiguration contains nothing of value for re-constructing the life of Jesus (219-48).
28
See, e.g., J. M. Perry, Exploring the Transfiguration Story (Kansas City, MO: Sheed &
Ward, 1993).
29
Further on this, see W. D. Davies & D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (3 vols; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988-1997)
2.692. For traditions of holy people surrounded by inexplicable light, see Ramsay, Glory
of God, 102-103.
30
R. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (ET; Oxford: Blackwell, 1963) 259-61. See
the two later apocryphal versions of the transfiguration in the Ethiopic Apocalypse of
Peter and the Pistis Sophia, which locate the narrative in the resurrection context.
31
C. H. Dodd, The Appearances of the Risen Christ: An Essay in Form-Criticism of the
Gospels in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot (ed. D. E. Nineham;
Oxford: Blackwell, 1957) 9-35.
150 COLLOQUIUM 36/2 (2004)
presented two very different solutions to the problem of genre. The first is that the
transfiguration is essentially an apocalyptic vision, the Old Testament background
being located in the visions of Daniel 7-12. 32 The second answer is that the
transfiguration is an epiphanya literary form found in the Old Testament, which
narrates the appearance of a heavenly being or beings on earth with a message from
God (e.g. Gen 18:1-15; Num 2:22-35).33
It is difficult, if not impossible, to choose between these explanations. Each genre
originates in the Old Testament and each makes sense of the transfiguration story in
its own right. The one has its focus on Gods eschatological future, as embodied in
Jesus; the other locates itself in the present, in Gods self-revelation through Jesus
identity. Given that, in general terms, it is possible for both dimensionsthe present
and the futureto exist side-by-side elsewhere in the Gospels, without direct
contradiction, the same may also be true of the transfiguration story. There is no
reason why the transfiguration cannot be read as both an apocalyptic vision and an
epiphany, the two symbolic frameworks coalescing within the one narrative. We will
explore both in turn, examining how each illuminates different aspects of the
transfiguration. Nevertheless, there is a third dimension to the transfiguration, the
anthropological or ecclesial, which flows directly from the other two. While the story
is not explicitly about the meaning of discipleship, the Synoptic context makes clear
that this is an important theme in the wider narrative that impinges on the
transfiguration story. The presence of the three disciples, Peter, James and John,
raises important issues about what it means to be a follower of Jesus, and part of the
family of Jesusthus raising the question of what shape humanity takes when it is
drawn into the revelation of divine glory in Jesus.
Theological significance: apocalyptic symbolism
In the transfiguration story, images of light and glory, shining clothes and face,
transformation and revelation, all point to Gods future kingdom. Its occurrence takes
place on the mountain, the boundary between heaven and earth, the outskirts of
32
See especially H. C. Kee, The Transfiguration in Mark: Epiphany or Apocalyptic Vision?
in Understanding the Sacred Text: Essays in Honor of Morton S. Enslin on the Hebrew
Bible and Christian Beginnings (ed. J. Reumann; Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1972) 135-
52.
33
J. P. Heil, The Transfiguration of Jesus: Narrative Meaning and Function of Mark 9:2-8,
Matt 17:1-8 and Luke 9:28-36 (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2000).
150 COLLOQUIUM 36/2 (2004)
presented two very different solutions to the problem of genre. The first is that the
transfiguration is essentially an apocalyptic vision, the Old Testament background
being located in the visions of Daniel 7-12.32 The second answer is that the
transfiguration is an epiphanya literary form found in the Old Testament, which
narrates the appearance of a heavenly being or beings on earth with a message from
God (e.g. Gen 18:1-15; Num 2:22-35).33
It is difficult, if not impossible, to choose between these explanations. Each genre
originates in the Old Testament and each makes sense of the transfiguration story in
its own right. The one has its focus on Gods eschatological future, as embodied in
Jesus; the other locates itself in the present, in Gods self-revelation through Jesus
identity. Given that, in general terms, it is possible for both dimensionsthe present
and the futureto exist side-by-side elsewhere in the Gospels, without direct
contradiction, the same may also be true of the transfiguration story. There is no
reason why the transfiguration cannot be read as both an apocalyptic vision and an
epiphany, the two symbolic frameworks coalescing within the one narrative. We will
explore both in turn, examining how each illuminates different aspects of the
transfiguration. Nevertheless, there is a third dimension to the transfiguration, the
anthropological or ecclesial, which flows directly from the other two. While the story
is not explicitly about the meaning of discipleship, the Synoptic context makes clear
that this is an important theme in the wider narrative that impinges on the
transfiguration story. The presence of the three disciples, Peter, James and John,
raises important issues about what it means to be a follower of Jesus, and part of the
family of Jesusthus raising the question of what shape humanity takes when it is
drawn into the revelation of divine glory in Jesus.
Theological significance: apocalyptic symbolism
In the transfiguration story, images of light and glory, shining clothes and face,
transformation and revelation, all point to Gods future kingdom. Its occurrence takes
place on the mountain, the boundary between heaven and earth, the outskirts of
32
See especially H. C. Kee, The Transfiguration in Mark: Epiphany or Apocalyptic Vision?
in Understanding the Sacred Text: Essays in Honor of Morton S. Enslin on the Hebrew
Bible and Christian Beginnings (ed. J. Reumann; Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1972) 135-
52.
33
J. P. Heil, The Transfiguration of Jesus: Narrative Meaning and Function of Mark 9:2-8,
Matt 17:1-8 and Luke 9:28-36 (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2000).
 LEE: TRANSFIGURATION 151
heaven.34 Jesus clothing reflects the garments of the righteous at the end time; his
face shines like the saints on the Last Day;35 Moses as well as Elijah have apocalyptic
significanceparticularly Elijah.36 Even Peters suggestion of three tents is interpreted
by some as indicating the dwellings of the righteous in Gods new age (1 Enoch 39:3-
8; Test. Abr. A 20:13-14),37 or it may refer to the eschatological overtones of the Feast
of Tabernacles (Lev 23:33-36; Deut 16:13-15).38 Apocalyptic is literally theo-logical in
its orientation: it focuses on God and Gods ultimate triumph. The vision on the
mountain, in this sense, is eschatological, pointing forward not just to the resurrection
and ascension but to the radiance of the end time and the final coming of Christ. It
reflects Old Testament imagery, especially in Isaiah, of the messianic banquet at the
end time (Isa 11:6-9; 25:6-10a) or the eschatological temple in Ezekiel from whence
living water flows (Ezek 47:1-12). In the transfiguration, therefore, the readers gaze is
turned towards the dawning of Gods future, bringing to an end the reign of evil, sin
and suffering. Yet the apocalyptic dimension does more than direct us to the future.
As is evident from 2 Peter, the transfiguration is not just a sneak preview. It enters
definitely into the present from its home in the future, already anticipating that divine
future. In the ministry of Jesus, as the Synoptic Gospels show, the new age has
already begun. The transfiguration thus conveys a profound message of hope, in
view of Gods eschatological future manifest in Christ.
34
M. E. Thrall, Elijah and Moses in Marks Account of the Transfiguration, NTS 16
(1969-70) 312. For Old Testament associations of the mountain, see especially Donaldson,
Jesus on the Mountain, 30-50, 82-83.
35
See, e.g., 1 Enoch 62:15; 2 Enoch 22:8-10; 4 Ezra 2:39; Rev 3:5; 6:11; 7:9, 13-14; 19:14.
36
The apocalyptic significance of Elijah, in particular, may explain his name appearing
before that of Moses in Marks account (Mk 9:4); see J. Marcus, The Way of the Lord:
Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville: Westminster/
John Knox, 1992) 83-84.
37
See, e.g., Thrall, Elijah and Moses, 308-309 and M. hler, Die Verklrung (Mk 9:1-
8): Die Ankunft Der Herrschaft Gottes Auf Der Erde, NovT 38 (1996) 208-209. For a
summary of the various suggestions, see Heil, Transfiguration, 116-118.
38
For this view, see G. H. Boobyer, St. Mark and the Transfiguration Story (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1942) 76-79, and H. Riesenfeld, Jsus Transfigur: Larrire-Plan Du Rcit
vanglique De La Transfiguration De Notre-Seigneur (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1947)
265-80. A third possibility is that Peter is thinking of the tent of meeting (Exod 33:7-11;
Deut 31:14-15). According to Heil, Peter himself is unsure what he means (Transfiguration,
118-27).
LEE: TRANSFIGURATION 151
heaven.34 Jesus clothing reflects the garments of the righteous at the end time; his
face shines like the saints on the Last Day;35 Moses as well as Elijah have apocalyptic
significanceparticularly Elijah.36 Even Peters suggestion of three tents is interpreted
by some as indicating the dwellings of the righteous in Gods new age (1 Enoch 39:3-
8; Test. Abr. A 20:13-14),37 or it may refer to the eschatological overtones of the Feast
of Tabernacles (Lev 23:33-36; Deut 16:13-15).38 Apocalyptic is literally theo-logical in
its orientation: it focuses on God and Gods ultimate triumph. The vision on the
mountain, in this sense, is eschatological, pointing forward not just to the resurrection
and ascension but to the radiance of the end time and the final coming of Christ. It
reflects Old Testament imagery, especially in Isaiah, of the messianic banquet at the
end time (Isa 11:6-9; 25:6-10a) or the eschatological temple in Ezekiel from whence
living water flows (Ezek 47:1-12). In the transfiguration, therefore, the readers gaze is
turned towards the dawning of Gods future, bringing to an end the reign of evil, sin
and suffering. Yet the apocalyptic dimension does more than direct us to the future.
As is evident from 2 Peter, the transfiguration is not just a sneak preview. It enters
definitely into the present from its home in the future, already anticipating that divine
future. In the ministry of Jesus, as the Synoptic Gospels show, the new age has
already begun. The transfiguration thus conveys a profound message of hope, in
view of Gods eschatological future manifest in Christ.
34
M. E. Thrall, Elijah and Moses in Marks Account of the Transfiguration, NTS 16
(1969-70) 312. For Old Testament associations of the mountain, see especially Donaldson,
Jesus on the Mountain, 30-50, 82-83.
35
See, e.g., 1 Enoch 62:15; 2 Enoch 22:8-10; 4 Ezra 2:39; Rev 3:5; 6:11; 7:9, 13-14; 19:14.
36
The apocalyptic significance of Elijah, in particular, may explain his name appearing
before that of Moses in Marks account (Mk 9:4); see J. Marcus, The Way of the Lord:
Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville: Westminster/
John Knox, 1992) 83-84.
37
See, e.g., Thrall, Elijah and Moses, 308-309 and M. hler, Die Verklrung (Mk 9:1-
8): Die Ankunft Der Herrschaft Gottes Auf Der Erde, NovT 38 (1996) 208-209. For a
summary of the various suggestions, see Heil, Transfiguration, 116-118.
38
For this view, see G. H. Boobyer, St. Mark and the Transfiguration Story (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1942) 76-79, and H. Riesenfeld, Jsus Transfigur: Larrire-Plan Du Rcit
vanglique De La Transfiguration De Notre-Seigneur (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1947)
265-80. A third possibility is that Peter is thinking of the tent of meeting (Exod 33:7-11;
Deut 31:14-15). According to Heil, Peter himself is unsure what he means (Transfiguration,
118-27).
152 COLLOQUIUM 36/2 (2004)
The apocalyptic symbolism is complicated by the concurrent interplay of past
and future, old age and new age, and also by the centrality of the cross. In the
Synoptic Gospels, as we have seen, the transfiguration marks the beginning of the
journey to Jerusalem, a theme made explicit in Luke where Jesus discusses his
departure with Moses and Elijah (Luke 9:31)most likely referring to the entire
salvation events in Jerusalem and not just Jesus death.39 Jesus descends into the
sin and suffering of the old age and rises into the new age which he inaugurates. The
one who ascends the cosmic heights also descends to the cosmic depths, as Jesus
baptism anticipates (Mark 1:9-11 pars).40 In the Synoptic Gospels, there is no glory
without the cross, and no cross without glory. The one who is transfigured on the
mountain is the one disfigured by pain and death on the cross. Only in the context of
Gods ultimate triumph can the Synoptic Jesus walk the way of the cross, in obedience
to the Fathers will, waging the final battle against evil, taking on the demons and the
anguish of suffering and despair. The glory of the mountain is the glory Jesus will
receive on the other side of death, risen and ascended, and also at the worlds end,
where he receives sovereignty over the living and the dead (Rev 1:12-18). The
transfiguration, from this perspective, is profoundly eschatological.
Christological significance: epiphany
The second aspect of the transfiguration derives from its character as an epiphany.
In addition to the apocalyptic indications of his radiant garments, the intense whiteness
of Jesus body indicates that his identity is to be framed, not only in terms of his
human existence, but also in relation to the divine world. Jesus belongs elsewhere as
much as he belongs here. Indeed his stance on the mountain, on the boundary
between heaven and earthin Lukes account, in prayerconfirms that his home is
to be found on both sides of the divide. The presence of Moses and Elijah reveals his
communion with the celestial world, a world in which time and space have no
boundaries.41 The overshadowing cloud, which is miraculous in all three Synoptic
accounts and, in Matthews version, paradoxically shares the same brightness as
39
So I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 384-85, and J. H.
Nolland, Luke 9:21 - 18:34 (Dallas: Word Books, 1993) 2.503; for the more restricted
meaning, cf. W. Michaelis, ei[sodo", e[xodo", dievxodo" in Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament (ed. G. Kittel; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967) 107.
40
McGuckin, Transfiguration, 78.
41
On the complex significance of Moses and Elijah in the transfiguration tradition, see Lee,
Transfiguration, 17-19. 47-49, 71-73.
152 COLLOQUIUM 36/2 (2004)
The apocalyptic symbolism is complicated by the concurrent interplay of past
and future, old age and new age, and also by the centrality of the cross. In the
Synoptic Gospels, as we have seen, the transfiguration marks the beginning of the
journey to Jerusalem, a theme made explicit in Luke where Jesus discusses his
departure with Moses and Elijah (Luke 9:31)most likely referring to the entire
salvation events in Jerusalem and not just Jesus death.39 Jesus descends into the
sin and suffering of the old age and rises into the new age which he inaugurates. The
one who ascends the cosmic heights also descends to the cosmic depths, as Jesus
baptism anticipates (Mark 1:9-11 pars).40 In the Synoptic Gospels, there is no glory
without the cross, and no cross without glory. The one who is transfigured on the
mountain is the one disfigured by pain and death on the cross. Only in the context of
Gods ultimate triumph can the Synoptic Jesus walk the way of the cross, in obedience
to the Fathers will, waging the final battle against evil, taking on the demons and the
anguish of suffering and despair. The glory of the mountain is the glory Jesus will
receive on the other side of death, risen and ascended, and also at the worlds end,
where he receives sovereignty over the living and the dead (Rev 1:12-18). The
transfiguration, from this perspective, is profoundly eschatological.
Christological significance: epiphany
The second aspect of the transfiguration derives from its character as an epiphany.
In addition to the apocalyptic indications of his radiant garments, the intense whiteness
of Jesus body indicates that his identity is to be framed, not only in terms of his
human existence, but also in relation to the divine world. Jesus belongs elsewhere as
much as he belongs here. Indeed his stance on the mountain, on the boundary
between heaven and earthin Lukes account, in prayerconfirms that his home is
to be found on both sides of the divide. The presence of Moses and Elijah reveals his
communion with the celestial world, a world in which time and space have no
boundaries.41 The overshadowing cloud, which is miraculous in all three Synoptic
accounts and, in Matthews version, paradoxically shares the same brightness as
39
So I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 384-85, and J. H.
Nolland, Luke 9:21 - 18:34 (Dallas: Word Books, 1993) 2.503; for the more restricted
meaning, cf. W. Michaelis, ei[sodo", e[xodo", dievxodo" in Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament (ed. G. Kittel; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967) 107.
40
McGuckin, Transfiguration, 78.
41
On the complex significance of Moses and Elijah in the transfiguration tradition, see Lee,
Transfiguration, 17-19. 47-49, 71-73.
 LEE: TRANSFIGURATION 153
Jesus appearance, is symbolic of the heavenly realm and its nearness to Jesus.
Lastly, the voice from the cloud (or, as in 2 Peter, from heaven) corroborates the
christological meaning of the other symbols, specifying that Jesus is not just one
heavenly being among many, nor on the same level as Moses and Elijah.
From this perspective, the mountain symbolism does not bestow a new identity
on Jesus. Rather, the transfiguration reveals Jesus full identity. Johns Gospel, with
its analogous symbolism, emphasises that in the incarnation, the glory of God gleams
through the flesh of Jesus. The single moment of epiphany in the Synoptics reveals
to the disciples Jesus divinely human glory, enabling them to interpret the whole of
his life and death in that light. Sharing a distinct relationship to God, Jesus is the
chosen or beloved Son. While at one level, Jesus as Son is representative of Israel,
there is a deeper sense in which that sonship spans the realms of earth and heaven.
From this angle, the transfiguration may be termed a theophany, the revelation of the
Father through the divinely human person of the Son.42
The epiphanic dimension of the transfiguration, moreover, has as its centre the
symbol of light. As Marks Gospel makes plain in its imagery of bleach (Mark 9:3), the
light of transfiguration is not a natural light. There is no material cause that can
explain the symbols on the mountain, least of all the radiance of the light. What
Eastern Orthodox theology refers to as the uncreated light of God, flaming from the
mountain, is neither material nor spiritual, because it transcends entirely the order of
creation.43 Nor can it be apprehended by the intellect alone. So the light of the holy
mountain shines from the eternal realm, an epiphany that also defines the shape and
form of Gods eschatological presence in Christ.
Yet it is not only the intensity of the epiphany that renders the disciples prostrate.
It is also the beauty of Christ on the mountain, a beauty associated with light and
glory. This aspect of the transfiguration has not always been taken seriously,
especially in those traditions which regard beauty with suspicion.44 According to
Hans Urs von Balthasar, beauty in a theological understanding consists of the union
of form (species) and splendour (lumen),45 the external structure and the interior
42
This interpretation of the transfiguration is present from the earliest days in both East and
West, including the Protestant Reformers (Luther, Thomas Mntzer). See U. Luz, Matthew
8-20: A Commentary (ET; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) 400-402.
43
See V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (ET; London: 1957) 67-90,
222-24.
44
See K. Barth, Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of God. Vol. II.1 (ET; Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1957) 651-52.
45
H. U. von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord. A Theological Aesthetics. Vol I: Seeing the
Form (ET; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1982) 19-20, 118-19.
LEE: TRANSFIGURATION 153
Jesus appearance, is symbolic of the heavenly realm and its nearness to Jesus.
Lastly, the voice from the cloud (or, as in 2 Peter, from heaven) corroborates the
christological meaning of the other symbols, specifying that Jesus is not just one
heavenly being among many, nor on the same level as Moses and Elijah.
From this perspective, the mountain symbolism does not bestow a new identity
on Jesus. Rather, the transfiguration reveals Jesus full identity. Johns Gospel, with
its analogous symbolism, emphasises that in the incarnation, the glory of God gleams
through the flesh of Jesus. The single moment of epiphany in the Synoptics reveals
to the disciples Jesus divinely human glory, enabling them to interpret the whole of
his life and death in that light. Sharing a distinct relationship to God, Jesus is the
chosen or beloved Son. While at one level, Jesus as Son is representative of Israel,
there is a deeper sense in which that sonship spans the realms of earth and heaven.
From this angle, the transfiguration may be termed a theophany, the revelation of the
Father through the divinely human person of the Son.42
The epiphanic dimension of the transfiguration, moreover, has as its centre the
symbol of light. As Marks Gospel makes plain in its imagery of bleach (Mark 9:3), the
light of transfiguration is not a natural light. There is no material cause that can
explain the symbols on the mountain, least of all the radiance of the light. What
Eastern Orthodox theology refers to as the uncreated light of God, flaming from the
mountain, is neither material nor spiritual, because it transcends entirely the order of
creation.43 Nor can it be apprehended by the intellect alone. So the light of the holy
mountain shines from the eternal realm, an epiphany that also defines the shape and
form of Gods eschatological presence in Christ.
Yet it is not only the intensity of the epiphany that renders the disciples prostrate.
It is also the beauty of Christ on the mountain, a beauty associated with light and
glory. This aspect of the transfiguration has not always been taken seriously,
especially in those traditions which regard beauty with suspicion.44 According to
Hans Urs von Balthasar, beauty in a theological understanding consists of the union
of form (species) and splendour (lumen),45 the external structure and the interior
42
This interpretation of the transfiguration is present from the earliest days in both East and
West, including the Protestant Reformers (Luther, Thomas Mntzer). See U. Luz, Matthew
8-20: A Commentary (ET; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) 400-402.
43
See V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (ET; London: 1957) 67-90,
222-24.
44
See K. Barth, Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of God. Vol. II.1 (ET; Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1957) 651-52.
45
H. U. von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord. A Theological Aesthetics. Vol I: Seeing the
Form (ET; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1982) 19-20, 118-19.
154 COLLOQUIUM 36/2 (2004)
light. The presence of such beauty at the transfiguration is palpable in the body of
Jesus as it becomes translucent, redolent with light, depicting the union of divine
and human, glory and flesh. The transfiguration is the epitome of incarnate beauty,
the central symbol of form and splendour, uniting heaven and earth. Thus the beauty
of the transfiguration is not decorative but substantial, grounded in the being of
God, an aspect of divine glory. The close association between the glory on the
mountain and the suffering of the cross indicates that this divine beautyunlike
secular understandingsembraces, in the words of Karl Barth, death as well as life,
fear as well as joy, what we might call the ugly as well as what we might call the
beautiful.46 In the embrace of suffering love, form itself (movrfh) is trans-formed
(metamorfou'sqai).
For von Bathasar, this kind of beauty gives rise to a subjective experience of
rapture: being transported beyond the boundaries of the self.47 There is no neutral or
disinterested stance here. The rapture is linked to divine love (e!rw"/amor), the ground
of both creation and incarnation, which draws God out of heaven to earth and also
draws the believer out of an enclosed selfhood into the luminous beauty of God, and
thus into community. Jesus leads his disciples, as he ascends the mount of
transfiguration, towards this rapture, which is the beauty of the life of God. This
beauty includes desirability, the physical form that inhabits yet transcends the sensory
world, and also goodness which is inseparable from truth.48 The adjective kavlo"
originally meant beautiful in Classical Greek. Peters exclamation, It is good for us
to be here (Mark 9:5 pars) thus conveys a sense of the beauty of the transfiguration
as well as its inherent goodness. What the transfiguration reveals is thus the beauty
and glory of revelation itself. But it is also the beauty of a humanity and a creation
restored in Christ. The language of the Fourth Gospel at this point embodies the
same sense of epiphany, lying at the heart of the transfiguration tradition: the
revelation of divine glory and beauty in the flesh of the incarnate Son.
The Anthropology of the Transfiguration
The third dimension of the transfiguration is its anthropology and thus, by implication,
its ecclesiology. The consequence of Jesus metamorphosis is the transformation of
46
Barth, Church Dogmatics, II.1.665.
47
von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, 1.32-33.
48
See von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, 1.18, who argues for the connection between beauty,
goodness and truth, since beauty dances as an uncontained splendour around the double
constellation of the true and the good and their inseparable relation to one another.
154 COLLOQUIUM 36/2 (2004)
light. The presence of such beauty at the transfiguration is palpable in the body of
Jesus as it becomes translucent, redolent with light, depicting the union of divine
and human, glory and flesh. The transfiguration is the epitome of incarnate beauty,
the central symbol of form and splendour, uniting heaven and earth. Thus the beauty
of the transfiguration is not decorative but substantial, grounded in the being of
God, an aspect of divine glory. The close association between the glory on the
mountain and the suffering of the cross indicates that this divine beautyunlike
secular understandingsembraces, in the words of Karl Barth, death as well as life,
fear as well as joy, what we might call the ugly as well as what we might call the
beautiful.46 In the embrace of suffering love, form itself (movrfh) is trans-formed
(metamorfou'sqai).
For von Bathasar, this kind of beauty gives rise to a subjective experience of
rapture: being transported beyond the boundaries of the self.47 There is no neutral or
disinterested stance here. The rapture is linked to divine love (e!rw"/amor), the ground
of both creation and incarnation, which draws God out of heaven to earth and also
draws the believer out of an enclosed selfhood into the luminous beauty of God, and
thus into community. Jesus leads his disciples, as he ascends the mount of
transfiguration, towards this rapture, which is the beauty of the life of God. This
beauty includes desirability, the physical form that inhabits yet transcends the sensory
world, and also goodness which is inseparable from truth.48 The adjective kavlo"
originally meant beautiful in Classical Greek. Peters exclamation, It is good for us
to be here (Mark 9:5 pars) thus conveys a sense of the beauty of the transfiguration
as well as its inherent goodness. What the transfiguration reveals is thus the beauty
and glory of revelation itself. But it is also the beauty of a humanity and a creation
restored in Christ. The language of the Fourth Gospel at this point embodies the
same sense of epiphany, lying at the heart of the transfiguration tradition: the
revelation of divine glory and beauty in the flesh of the incarnate Son.
The Anthropology of the Transfiguration
The third dimension of the transfiguration is its anthropology and thus, by implication,
its ecclesiology. The consequence of Jesus metamorphosis is the transformation of
46
Barth, Church Dogmatics, II.1.665.
47
von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, 1.32-33.
48
See von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord, 1.18, who argues for the connection between beauty,
goodness and truth, since beauty dances as an uncontained splendour around the double
constellation of the true and the good and their inseparable relation to one another.
 LEE: TRANSFIGURATION 155
believers. The three disciples in the Synoptics are representative figures, their
misunderstanding illustrating their own need of transfiguration. 49 Matthew
emphasises the ecclesial dimension, with the close link to Jesus founding of the
Church in the preceding episode (Matt 16:18-19). For 2 Peter, the apostolic testimony
to the parousia shapes Christian living into Gods future, as against those in the
community who deny such hope. For Mark, the misunderstanding of the disciples is
most painfully apparent, requiring nothing less than the transforming presence of
the risen Christ in Galilee (Mark 14:28; 16:7). For Luke, Jesus and the disciples descend
the mountain following the transfiguration to find a situation of desperationa
demon-possessed child whom the disciples cannot heal (Luke 9:37-43). In Johns
Gospel, it is the community of believers which beholds the glory, the we who are born
not of blood or of will of flesh or of the will of man but of God (John 1:13), as against
those who tragically reject the advent of the Light (1:10-11).
The symbols of the transfiguration address the world, in other words, precisely at
the point of its disfiguration. This disfiguration is apparent in the Synoptic placing of
the transfiguration at the beginning of the journey to Jerusalem, where Jesus will be
handed over to the destructive power of sin. In this sense, the cross can be seen as
the revelation both of divine beauty and of the tragedy of sin and suffering in the
world. The community of faith is summoned out of this tragedy to live the life of God;
in the language of 2 Peter, called to become sharers in the divine nature (qeiva"
koinwnoiV fuvsew", 2 Pet 1:4); or, as for Paul, transfigured from glory to glory (2 Cor
3:18). Peter, James and John represent the Church at the transfiguration and therefore
the breadth of humanity in its vocation to stand before the purifying fire and the light
of the holy mountain.
In this hope of transfiguration in a disfigured world, the perception of the reader
is central to an anthropological understanding of the narrative. A number of exegetes
have classified the transfiguration as a pronouncement story,50 a story whose real
point is an utterance by God or Jesus; yet this view detracts from the wealth and
complexity of the narrative. The symbols of the transfiguration are as much concerned
with seeing as with hearing; the transfiguration depicts not just the words of the
49
From a female point of view this symbolic language may be deemed problematical: the
representative figures of this story are all seemingly male. Yet at its deepest level, the
transfiguration has a theological import that, while not rendering them irrelevant, ultimately
transcends questions of ideology. The symbols have as much pertinence for women as for
men, who possess the same capacity to represent the people of God and whose bodies are
likewise destined for metamorphosis and light.
50
See, e.g., Reid, Transfiguration , 98.
LEE: TRANSFIGURATION 155
believers. The three disciples in the Synoptics are representative figures, their
misunderstanding illustrating their own need of transfiguration. 49 Matthew
emphasises the ecclesial dimension, with the close link to Jesus founding of the
Church in the preceding episode (Matt 16:18-19). For 2 Peter, the apostolic testimony
to the parousia shapes Christian living into Gods future, as against those in the
community who deny such hope. For Mark, the misunderstanding of the disciples is
most painfully apparent, requiring nothing less than the transforming presence of
the risen Christ in Galilee (Mark 14:28; 16:7). For Luke, Jesus and the disciples descend
the mountain following the transfiguration to find a situation of desperationa
demon-possessed child whom the disciples cannot heal (Luke 9:37-43). In Johns
Gospel, it is the community of believers which beholds the glory, the we who are born
not of blood or of will of flesh or of the will of man but of God (John 1:13), as against
those who tragically reject the advent of the Light (1:10-11).
The symbols of the transfiguration address the world, in other words, precisely at
the point of its disfiguration. This disfiguration is apparent in the Synoptic placing of
the transfiguration at the beginning of the journey to Jerusalem, where Jesus will be
handed over to the destructive power of sin. In this sense, the cross can be seen as
the revelation both of divine beauty and of the tragedy of sin and suffering in the
world. The community of faith is summoned out of this tragedy to live the life of God;
in the language of 2 Peter, called to become sharers in the divine nature (qeiva"
koinwnoiV fuvsew", 2 Pet 1:4); or, as for Paul, transfigured from glory to glory (2 Cor
3:18). Peter, James and John represent the Church at the transfiguration and therefore
the breadth of humanity in its vocation to stand before the purifying fire and the light
of the holy mountain.
In this hope of transfiguration in a disfigured world, the perception of the reader
is central to an anthropological understanding of the narrative. A number of exegetes
have classified the transfiguration as a pronouncement story,50 a story whose real
point is an utterance by God or Jesus; yet this view detracts from the wealth and
complexity of the narrative. The symbols of the transfiguration are as much concerned
with seeing as with hearing; the transfiguration depicts not just the words of the
49
From a female point of view this symbolic language may be deemed problematical: the
representative figures of this story are all seemingly male. Yet at its deepest level, the
transfiguration has a theological import that, while not rendering them irrelevant, ultimately
transcends questions of ideology. The symbols have as much pertinence for women as for
men, who possess the same capacity to represent the people of God and whose bodies are
likewise destined for metamorphosis and light.
50
See, e.g., Reid, Transfiguration , 98.
156 COLLOQUIUM 36/2 (2004)
divine voice from the cloud but the sight of the glory in Jesus face and clothing.
Matthew, for example, describes the transfiguration as a vision (o{rama, Matt 17:9),
not in the sense of a subjective or imaginary experience but, literally, something
seen, real and tangible, at least to the eyes of faith. For the Synoptics and 2 Peter, the
visual aspects are as important as the aural: both combine to disclose the identity of
the well-pleasing Son. In the same way, the Fourth Gospel speaks both of the Word,
which is to be heard, and of the glory, which is to be beheld (John 1:14). The revelation,
grounded in the incarnation, opens the eyes and ears of the believer to gaze upon the
vision of divine light as well as to hearken to the divine voice.
In Eastern iconographic depiction of the transfiguration story, the radiant person
of Christ is set within a mandorla, sometimes including three beams of light aimed at
each of the prostrate disciples. The mandorla represents the numinous and the
revelatory, including the cloud and the voice that issues from it. Often dark at its
centre, signifying the God who in the biblical world remains holy and transcendent,
the mandorla symbolises paradoxically the light and the darkness of God, the
accessibility yet absolute otherness of God. The cloud is also interpreted symbolically
as the Spirit in later tradition, so thatas with the baptismthe transfiguration takes
on a trinitarian hue, disclosing the presence of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.51 The
luminous figure of Christ stands at the centre of the icon, the whiteness of his
garments flecked with gold.
The mandorla indicates also that the symbolism is perceptible only to the gaze of
faith. A person of no faith eavesdropping on the event might miss the symbols
entirely, perceiving little more than the human Jesus with his three disciples. The fact
that the disciples do see, even if they are confused and overcome by fear, indicates
that they possess some faith, albeit partial. In the Synoptic accounts, they recognise
the splendour of Christ and in 2 Peter are the appointed eyewitnesses, perceiving
with both the physical senses and the senses of faith (2 Pet 1:16). The Fourth Gospel
confidently asserts that we beheld his glory (John 1:14); later in John, when the
Father speaks from heaven, some of the crowd, who lack faith, mistake the voice for
thunder (John 12:29). In the transfiguration tradition, faith is thus essential to see and
hear aright. To grasp the symbols is to be drawn into a theophany and a transforming
sharing in the divine nature.
51
Note that, in Luke, the verb overshadow, used of the cloud at the transfiguration
(ejpeskivazen, Luke 9:34), is also used of the Holy Spirit in relation to Mary at the
annunciation (1:35); also the cloud at the transfiguration, associated with the proclamation
of Jesus sonship, parallels the descent of the dove at Jesus baptism (Mark 1:10-11 pars).
See, e.g., Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew 17:3, and John of Damascus, Akrostich,
18, in McGuckin, Transfiguration, 258, 222.
156 COLLOQUIUM 36/2 (2004)
divine voice from the cloud but the sight of the glory in Jesus face and clothing.
Matthew, for example, describes the transfiguration as a vision (o{rama, Matt 17:9),
not in the sense of a subjective or imaginary experience but, literally, something
seen, real and tangible, at least to the eyes of faith. For the Synoptics and 2 Peter, the
visual aspects are as important as the aural: both combine to disclose the identity of
the well-pleasing Son. In the same way, the Fourth Gospel speaks both of the Word,
which is to be heard, and of the glory, which is to be beheld (John 1:14). The revelation,
grounded in the incarnation, opens the eyes and ears of the believer to gaze upon the
vision of divine light as well as to hearken to the divine voice.
In Eastern iconographic depiction of the transfiguration story, the radiant person
of Christ is set within a mandorla, sometimes including three beams of light aimed at
each of the prostrate disciples. The mandorla represents the numinous and the
revelatory, including the cloud and the voice that issues from it. Often dark at its
centre, signifying the God who in the biblical world remains holy and transcendent,
the mandorla symbolises paradoxically the light and the darkness of God, the
accessibility yet absolute otherness of God. The cloud is also interpreted symbolically
as the Spirit in later tradition, so thatas with the baptismthe transfiguration takes
on a trinitarian hue, disclosing the presence of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.51 The
luminous figure of Christ stands at the centre of the icon, the whiteness of his
garments flecked with gold.
The mandorla indicates also that the symbolism is perceptible only to the gaze of
faith. A person of no faith eavesdropping on the event might miss the symbols
entirely, perceiving little more than the human Jesus with his three disciples. The fact
that the disciples do see, even if they are confused and overcome by fear, indicates
that they possess some faith, albeit partial. In the Synoptic accounts, they recognise
the splendour of Christ and in 2 Peter are the appointed eyewitnesses, perceiving
with both the physical senses and the senses of faith (2 Pet 1:16). The Fourth Gospel
confidently asserts that we beheld his glory (John 1:14); later in John, when the
Father speaks from heaven, some of the crowd, who lack faith, mistake the voice for
thunder (John 12:29). In the transfiguration tradition, faith is thus essential to see and
hear aright. To grasp the symbols is to be drawn into a theophany and a transforming
sharing in the divine nature.
51
Note that, in Luke, the verb overshadow, used of the cloud at the transfiguration
(ejpeskivazen, Luke 9:34), is also used of the Holy Spirit in relation to Mary at the
annunciation (1:35); also the cloud at the transfiguration, associated with the proclamation
of Jesus sonship, parallels the descent of the dove at Jesus baptism (Mark 1:10-11 pars).
See, e.g., Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew 17:3, and John of Damascus, Akrostich,
18, in McGuckin, Transfiguration, 258, 222.
 LEE: TRANSFIGURATION
It is clear from this that faith, and the ability to perceive, is itself a divine gift. Sight
and hearing are given from above so that, alongside the revelatory brightness of
Jesus flesh, comes the capacity to perceive it. Mark makes this clear by setting the
journey to Jerusalem, in which the transfiguration plays so major a part, in the context
of the miraculous giving of sight to two blind men (Mark 8:22-26; 10:45-52).52 On this
journey, the disciples will fail to see, exposing their need for a miracle of faith: for the
transfiguration of their eyes and ears. In 2 Peter, such perception comes from the
capacity of the apostolic eyewitnesses to interpret the transfiguration aright and to
hand it on as part of the received yet dynamic body of faith. In the end, faith is not
something we manufacture but a gift of grace.
In this sense, the anthropological dimension is not separate from the first two
aspects of the transfiguration, but integrally connected. From an apocalyptic
perspective, the holy mountain is the symbolic place of revelation, promising and
anticipating a future world without suffering or violence, a place redolent with
reconciliation, harmony, beauty and joy. The very air is eschatological and the reader
breathes the atmosphere of Gods new world. This experience of being pierced by the
celestial light of Christ is transformative. The mountain is a numinous place which
instils hope in the unexpectedly happy ending of the human story. Tolkien, in his
essay on fairy tales, called this hope in its vibrant certainty the eucatastrophe or
good outcome of Gods kingdom, where the violence and misery of the world is
overturned and replaced by a piercing glimpse of joy, and hearts desire that has
its origins in God alone.53
As an epiphany, the transfiguration also draws the reader into the dynamic of the
incarnation. The Synoptic motif of the radiance of Jesus clothing acts as a metonymy
for Jesus whole person (Mark 9:3 pars). The metamorphosis of Jesus body makes of
his physical reality the symbol through which divine splendour shines: his physicality
becomes the icon of his celestiality. Jesus bodily identity is not presented on the
mountain peak as unreal or illusory. Rather, his humanity remains tangible, even
while another identity illuminates it: Jesus remains on earth, while standing on the
threshold of heaven. The transfigured Jesus on the mountain thus acts as the bridge
between heaven and earth. He is as conversant with the heavenly world as with the
earthly, able to speak concurrently with both the living and the dead. In this sense,
the very presence of the divine glory in human flesh, gleaming from the eschatological
52
M. D. Hooker, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: A. & C. Black, 1991) 251-53.
53
J. R. R. Tolkien, On Fairy Stories, in Tree and Leaf (London: Unwin Books, 1964) 60-
61.
157 LEE: TRANSFIGURATION 157
It is clear from this that faith, and the ability to perceive, is itself a divine gift. Sight
and hearing are given from above so that, alongside the revelatory brightness of
Jesus flesh, comes the capacity to perceive it. Mark makes this clear by setting the
journey to Jerusalem, in which the transfiguration plays so major a part, in the context
of the miraculous giving of sight to two blind men (Mark 8:22-26; 10:45-52).52 On this
journey, the disciples will fail to see, exposing their need for a miracle of faith: for the
transfiguration of their eyes and ears. In 2 Peter, such perception comes from the
capacity of the apostolic eyewitnesses to interpret the transfiguration aright and to
hand it on as part of the received yet dynamic body of faith. In the end, faith is not
something we manufacture but a gift of grace.
In this sense, the anthropological dimension is not separate from the first two
aspects of the transfiguration, but integrally connected. From an apocalyptic
perspective, the holy mountain is the symbolic place of revelation, promising and
anticipating a future world without suffering or violence, a place redolent with
reconciliation, harmony, beauty and joy. The very air is eschatological and the reader
breathes the atmosphere of Gods new world. This experience of being pierced by the
celestial light of Christ is transformative. The mountain is a numinous place which
instils hope in the unexpectedly happy ending of the human story. Tolkien, in his
essay on fairy tales, called this hope in its vibrant certainty the eucatastrophe or
good outcome of Gods kingdom, where the violence and misery of the world is
overturned and replaced by a piercing glimpse of joy, and hearts desire that has
its origins in God alone.53
As an epiphany, the transfiguration also draws the reader into the dynamic of the
incarnation. The Synoptic motif of the radiance of Jesus clothing acts as a metonymy
for Jesus whole person (Mark 9:3 pars). The metamorphosis of Jesus body makes of
his physical reality the symbol through which divine splendour shines: his physicality
becomes the icon of his celestiality. Jesus bodily identity is not presented on the
mountain peak as unreal or illusory. Rather, his humanity remains tangible, even
while another identity illuminates it: Jesus remains on earth, while standing on the
threshold of heaven. The transfigured Jesus on the mountain thus acts as the bridge
between heaven and earth. He is as conversant with the heavenly world as with the
earthly, able to speak concurrently with both the living and the dead. In this sense,
the very presence of the divine glory in human flesh, gleaming from the eschatological
52
M. D. Hooker, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: A. & C. Black, 1991) 251-53.
53
J. R. R. Tolkien, On Fairy Stories, in Tree and Leaf (London: Unwin Books, 1964) 60-
61.
158 COLLOQUIUM 36/2 (2004)
mountain, represents the realised accomplishment of human renewal. The flesh that
is already formed by God is now transformed to image the divine being, precisely in
and through the incarnation.
An essential aspect of this transformation, therefore, is that it is not restricted to
so-called spiritual realities. The body is not irrelevant in a theology that embraces
incarnation and transfiguration. The body shares in the hope of redemption, just as
Jesus human body/flesh, shining with divine glory, remains palpable. Being suffused
with light, the body reveals its sacramental capacity to symbolise the light and love
of God. The salvation into which the transfiguration draws the three disciples is as
much physical as spiritual, as inclusive of the body as of the soul. As the bridge
between heaven and earth, the incarnate Son draws human beings into his glory, a
divine glory manifest in and through the flesh.54 Jesus body is clothed in the garments
of light, revealing not just his own identity but ours, not just the destiny of the soul
but also the body. In this sense, the transfiguration implies a profound theological
anthropology, with the Church at its centre, an anthropology that finally extends to
all creation.
Conclusion
The transfiguration with its wealth of symbolism is a central story in New Testament
theology, standing at the heart of biblical faith. It is not just one event in Jesus
ministry, nor is it out of place within that ministry; indeed, it possesses a wider
function that goes beyond any episode in the Synoptic portrait of Jesus. Taken
together with Johns theology of the divine glory manifest in the flesh of Jesus, the
transfiguration rightly stands at the heart of New Testament Christology. As both an
epiphany and an apocalyptic vision, it articulates both the identity of Jesus as the
divinely human Son and anticipates Gods future, eschatological transformation of
the world in Christ.
In this sense, the symbols of the transfiguration cross the divide, bringing together
apocalyptic and epiphanic, spirit and matter, divinity and humanity, glory and suffering,
beauty and fear, present and future, the old age and the new. Most of all, the
transfiguration bridges the gulf between Creator and creation, facing two directions
at one and the same time: backwards to the vision of the incarnation and forwards to
the hope of the resurrection and parousia. The transfiguration is thus vitally connected
to the major events of Jesus adventpast, present and future. Through the Spirits
54
The language here is distinctly Johannine; further on this, see D. Lee, Flesh and Glory.
Symbol, Gender and Theology in the Gospel of John (New York: Crossroad, 2002) 29-64.
158 COLLOQUIUM 36/2 (2004)
mountain, represents the realised accomplishment of human renewal. The flesh that
is already formed by God is now transformed to image the divine being, precisely in
and through the incarnation.
An essential aspect of this transformation, therefore, is that it is not restricted to
so-called spiritual realities. The body is not irrelevant in a theology that embraces
incarnation and transfiguration. The body shares in the hope of redemption, just as
Jesus human body/flesh, shining with divine glory, remains palpable. Being suffused
with light, the body reveals its sacramental capacity to symbolise the light and love
of God. The salvation into which the transfiguration draws the three disciples is as
much physical as spiritual, as inclusive of the body as of the soul. As the bridge
between heaven and earth, the incarnate Son draws human beings into his glory, a
divine glory manifest in and through the flesh.54 Jesus body is clothed in the garments
of light, revealing not just his own identity but ours, not just the destiny of the soul
but also the body. In this sense, the transfiguration implies a profound theological
anthropology, with the Church at its centre, an anthropology that finally extends to
all creation.
Conclusion
The transfiguration with its wealth of symbolism is a central story in New Testament
theology, standing at the heart of biblical faith. It is not just one event in Jesus
ministry, nor is it out of place within that ministry; indeed, it possesses a wider
function that goes beyond any episode in the Synoptic portrait of Jesus. Taken
together with Johns theology of the divine glory manifest in the flesh of Jesus, the
transfiguration rightly stands at the heart of New Testament Christology. As both an
epiphany and an apocalyptic vision, it articulates both the identity of Jesus as the
divinely human Son and anticipates Gods future, eschatological transformation of
the world in Christ.
In this sense, the symbols of the transfiguration cross the divide, bringing together
apocalyptic and epiphanic, spirit and matter, divinity and humanity, glory and suffering,
beauty and fear, present and future, the old age and the new. Most of all, the
transfiguration bridges the gulf between Creator and creation, facing two directions
at one and the same time: backwards to the vision of the incarnation and forwards to
the hope of the resurrection and parousia. The transfiguration is thus vitally connected
to the major events of Jesus adventpast, present and future. Through the Spirits
54
The language here is distinctly Johannine; further on this, see D. Lee, Flesh and Glory.
Symbol, Gender and Theology in the Gospel of John (New York: Crossroad, 2002) 29-64.
 LEE: TRANSFIGURATION 159
presence, the revelation on the holy mountain displays the divinity and humanity of
God, in radiant beauty, giving eschatological hope for our own humanity and divinity
in Christ. This metamorphosis is not only for humanity but extends theologically to
the breadth of creation. The transfiguration, in its apocalyptic and epiphanic
dimensions, holds a key place in New Testament theology. It anticipates that day
when all things will be illuminated by the holy light on the mountain, when all people
will share the glory of Gods well-beloved Son.
LEE: TRANSFIGURATION 159
presence, the revelation on the holy mountain displays the divinity and humanity of
God, in radiant beauty, giving eschatological hope for our own humanity and divinity
in Christ. This metamorphosis is not only for humanity but extends theologically to
the breadth of creation. The transfiguration, in its apocalyptic and epiphanic
dimensions, holds a key place in New Testament theology. It anticipates that day
when all things will be illuminated by the holy light on the mountain, when all people
will share the glory of Gods well-beloved Son.
160 COLLOQUIUM 36/2 (2004) 160 COLLOQUIUM 36/2 (2004)

THE THE
AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND
THEOLOGICAL REVIEW THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

COLLOQUIUM COLLOQUIUM

you s you
vites nvite
in i
to write: to write:
send your manuscript (hard copy and electronic/attachment) send your manuscript (hard copy and electronic/attachment)
to Prof William Loader, Theology to Prof William Loader, Theology
Murdoch University, Murdoch 6150, Australia Murdoch University, Murdoch 6150, Australia
Fax: +61 8 9360 6480; email: w.loader@murdoch.edu.au Fax: +61 8 9360 6480; email: w.loader@murdoch.edu.au
(see details on information page inside back cover) (see details on information page inside back cover)

Colloquium is a refereed publication and the official journal of the Colloquium is a refereed publication and the official journal of the
Australian New Zealand Society for Theological Studies
Australian New Zealand Society for Theological Studies