|Go to verse:|
|01 |02 |03 |04 |05 |06 |07 |08 |09 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |17 |18 |19 |20 |21 |22 |23 |24 |25 |26 |27 |
Go to Bible: Matthew 17
|Mat 17:1||- (top)|
“transformed.” The event described in Matthew 17:1-9 (Mark 9:2-9; Luke 9:28-36) when Jesus was “transformed” before Peter, James, and John is referred to as “the Transfiguration” because early influential English verisons used the word “transfigured” (cp. Tyndale’s New Testament, KJV). Today we would usually say “transformed,” or his “appearance changed” (GWN) or his “appearance was transformed” (NLT). The Transfiguration was a wonderful miracle of God’s grace, preparing Jesus for his torture and death by giving him a taste of his glorious future and by having him talk, via a revelation vision, with “Moses,” and “Elijah.” The Transfiguration shows how much God loved both Jesus and us, and it serves as a model and reminder that God is always at work behind the scenes to prepare people for the difficulties that they will face in life.
There are many aspects to the Transfiguration, and it raises many different questions, and these should be handled subject by subject. We will first consider whether the Transfiguration was the coming Kingdom. There are some theologians who say that the “Kingdom” Christ was referring to in Matthew 16:28 actually came in some form at the Transfiguration, because in verse 28 Jesus said that some of the disciples would not die until the Kingdom of God came.
There are several reasons why this cannot be correct. The first and foremost is that the Kingdom did not come at the Transfiguration. After all, none of the Kingdom promises were fulfilled and the angels that Jesus said would come did not come. Also, Christ did not sit on his throne and rule over the earth, lions do not eat straw like the oxen nor lie down with domestic animals, neither the deserts nor the people of earth have been healed, and no one has been rewarded at the Judgment. In fact, there is nothing about the Transfiguration that indicates it was the coming of the Kingdom in any sense.
Jesus had been teaching that the Kingdom was near since he first started teaching and preaching, and there is no theologian who says that Christ’s message, “the Kingdom is near,” is actually saying, “the Transfiguration is near.” Jesus started teaching about the Kingdom in Matthew 4:17, and mentioned it some 30 times between then and the Transfiguration. Not once did the “Kingdom” Jesus spoke of refer to the Transfiguration. The “Kingdom” in Christ’s preaching refers to the coming Messianic Kingdom on earth. There is no justification for changing the meaning of “Kingdom” in Matthew 16:28 to mean the Transfiguration, which was new, unexpected, and only seen by three men who were then told not to talk about it to anyone. The Transfiguration was not the “Kingdom.”
At the Transfiguration, Christ was given a taste of what he would be like in the future (he was clothed in white and he was glorious in appearance), but the subject being discussed was his death (Luke 9:31). The Kingdom could not come if the Messiah was an unacceptable sacrifice, and so his continuing to be without sin until his death was extremely important. God gave Christ the vision to help prepare him for “his departure.” Many of the prophets of old, and certainly Paul and John, had visions of the future Kingdom. But it would be wrong to say that because Isaiah, Zechariah, Paul or John got a vision of the future Kingdom that meant that the Kingdom had actually come in some way, and it is wrong to say that because Christ had a vision of the Kingdom it had come. Matthew 17:9 clearly calls the experience a “vision,” although the NIV translation makes that point a little less clearly, saying, “What you have seen.”
Another reason to believe that Scripture does not equate the Transfiguration with the coming Kingdom is that one place the Transfiguration is recorded in is Luke 9, but after that, in Luke 11 Christ prayed in the Lord’s Prayer, “Your kingdom come.” If Christ prayed for the Kingdom to come soon after the Transfiguration, then the Transfiguration was not the Kingdom. Also, other scriptures after the Transfiguration mention the coming Kingdom, for example, Luke 12:40 speaks of the Son of Man coming; Luke 13:29 speaks of the banquet in the coming Kingdom, etc.
Another reason that the Transfiguration cannot be “the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom” is that there is no evidence Jesus knew it was coming until shortly before it happened. It was a miracle done by God to help prepare Christ for his death. It was not foretold in prophecy nor anticipated in Scripture in any way. It certainly caught the only three witnesses by surprise. Jesus may have been given revelation that it was going to occur shortly before it happened, but none of the disciples knew anything about it. For Christ to tell his disciples that some of them would not die until he came in his Kingdom, and then somehow to expect them to realize that he was speaking about an unknown future event and not about the well-known Kingdom they and their ancestors had expected for years makes that interpretation unacceptable. There is simply no good reason to equate the well-known and expected “Kingdom” with an unknown and unexpected vision of that Kingdom.
Lastly, it needs to be stated that if Christ were speaking of the Transfiguration in Matthew 16:28, then what he actually said does not make sense and is not factual. He said, “There are some standing here which shall not taste death [i.e., die] before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom.” However, the Transfiguration occurred shortly after Christ made the statement. Luke 9:28 says it was about 8 days. It is almost certain that all of Jesus’ disciples were still alive 8 days later. Even if one of them had died, that is no justification for Jesus to say that only “some” would be alive eight days later.
Furthermore, Jesus foretold that “some” of his disciples would still be alive to see the Kingdom, but only Peter, James and John were present at the Transfiguration, and they were strictly told to keep it a secret (Matt. 17:9). If the Transfiguration was a secret between Jesus and 3 disciples, how could it be the fulfillment of Jesus’ public prophecy that only “some” of his disciples would be alive to see it?
It can be concluded that it makes no sense at all that Christ would say that only some of his disciples would see him come in his Kingdom if what he was actually talking about was his Transfiguration. However, Christ knew the Old Testament very well, and he knew that many people would die in the Tribulation and Battle of Armageddon (see commentary on Dan. 12:1), and thus they would not survive to see him set up his kingdom on earth; they would enter it by being in the Resurrection of the Righteous. Even if Jesus’ Second Coming was very soon, after only seven years of Tribulation, it was still probable that most of his disciples would be killed. Thus it makes perfect sense for Christ to say that after the Tribulation when the Son of Man came into his kingdom, only “some” would be alive to actually see it.
[For more on Christ’s coming kingdom on earth, see Appendix 3, “Christ’s Future Kingdom on Earth.” For more on the Resurrection of the Righteous and Resurrection of the Unrighteous, see commentary on Acts 24:15].(top)
“Look!” The Greek word is idou (#2400 ἰδού), and it is used to get our attention. See commentary on Matthew 1:20 (“Look!).
“Moses and Elijah.” To properly understand the Transfiguration, we must recognize that it was “a vision;” a spiritual experience. Moses and Elijah were not there in person, but only as part of the vision. Matthew 17:9 clearly calls the experience a “vision.” The Greek word translated “vision” is horama (#3705 ὅραμα), and besides here, it is used of visions in Acts 9:10, 12; 10:3, 17, 19; 11:5; 12:9; 16:9-10 and 18:9. Many Bible versions translate the Greek text as “vision” (cp. HCSB; Darby; ESV; KJV; NAB; NASB; NET; NKJV; RSV; YLT). The NIV is not as clear, saying, “What you have seen.”
In the revelation experience at the Transfiguration, Jesus was transported to the future, to the exalted state he would have after his resurrection. The Bible says, “and his face shone like the sun” (Matt. 17:2), which is exactly how it was after he was glorified when he appeared to the Apostle John (Rev. 1:16); in fact, the promise of God is that after the resurrection, all the righteous people “will shine like the sun” (Matt. 13:43). And just as on that mountain that day Jesus was not yet actually glorified, neither were Moses and Elijah actually there in person. But the promise was that if Jesus succeeded in being a sinless sacrifice for the sins of mankind, he would be glorified, and also Moses and Elijah would really be raised from the dead in the Resurrection of the Righteous (Luke 14:14; Acts 24:15). The vision God gave Christ would one day be a reality if Jesus endured to the end, which he did.
God gave Jesus a revelation vision of what things would be like in the future for the same reason that He gave many prophets a vision of the future—for encouragement, strength, and hope. God gave Christ the vision to help prepare him for “his departure,” and the subject that “Moses” and “Elijah” discussed with Jesus was his death (Luke 9:31). Jesus was not the only one to whom God gave courage and hope by giving them a revelation vision of the future. Prophets such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, had very clear revelations of the future, and so did New Testament figures such as Paul and John. So while what God did for Jesus at the Transfiguration was very graphic, it was not materially different from what God had done to encourage others. This should show us the importance of having a clear hope, and building hope in the lives of others.
Although it is commonly taught that Moses and Elijah appeared in person at the Transfiguration, they were only there in a vision, not in reality. The Bible teaches that when a person dies, he is dead in every way, and not alive in any form until God raises him from the dead at the Rapture or one of the resurrections [see Appendix 4: “The Dead are Dead”].
Another clear reason that Moses and Elijah could not have been on the Mount of Transfiguration is that they could not be alive before Christ paid the price for their sin. If Moses and Elijah could get up from the dead and be in a glorified state before Jesus paid for their sin, then anyone could be raised before Jesus paid for their sin. In that case, there would have been no point in Jesus dying. Some people say, “Well, the body does die, but the soul lives on.” That cannot be correct. If the “souls” of Moses and Elijah could be as glorious as they were on the Mount of Transfiguration before Christ died for sin, then anyone’s soul could live with God in a glorified state before Christ died, so we again arrive at the conclusion that there would have been no need for the death and resurrection of Christ. The Bible is clear that until the death of Christ, no one’s sin had been paid for, which is why no one who had died could be alive in any form before the death and resurrection of Christ.
Another reason we know it was not really Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus is that 1 Corinthians 15:23 says that Christ is the “firstfruits” from the dead. However, if Moses and Elijah were alive on the Mount of Transfiguration in glorified bodies, then they were alive and glorified before Jesus got up from the dead. In that case, Jesus would not have been the “firstfruits” from the dead, but Moses, Elijah, or even some other godly person who died before they did would have been the real “firstfruits.” That cannot be the case. Moses and Elijah were not “firstfruits” before Jesus; they were a vision of the future.
Another reason that we know the Transfiguration event was a “vision” was that neither Jesus nor the Apostles would have known Moses and Elijah by sight. So part of the revelation vision was that Jesus, Peter, James, and John actually understood who and what they were seeing. God did not need to say, “Hey everyone, this is Moses and Elijah.” It often happens that when God gives someone a revelation vision, He also gives him an understanding of what he is seeing in the vision, and that is what happened on the Mount of Transfiguration.
It is sometimes taught that Elijah could be on the Mount of Transfiguration because he never died, but was taken directly up to heaven by God. This idea comes from 2 Kings 2:11, which says that Elijah “goeth up in a whirlwind, to the heavens” (YLT). To understand this verse we need to understand that the word “heaven” (“heavens” in the Hebrew), can refer either to the dwelling place of God or to the air above the earth. That is why the Bible speaks of the birds of heaven (often translated “birds of the air), the rain from heaven, and the snow from heaven (2 Sam. 21:10; Deut. 11:11; Isa. 55:10). Elijah was taken by God’s whirlwind into the air, and in that manner moved away from Elisha, who could then take over his position as head prophet. Culturally, Elisha could never replace Elijah as long as Elijah was there, so God took Elijah away in a dramatic fashion.
The prophets with Elisha knew that God did not take Elijah to heaven, but to somewhere else on earth, and they begged Elisha to let them go look for him, which he finally allowed them to do. Of course they never found Elijah—God made sure of that, and Elisha stepped into the leadership role over the prophets of Israel. In any case, Moses and Elijah appeared in a vision at the Transfiguration, and even if Elijah never died that does not explain how Moses could have been there.
Elijah eventually died somewhere on earth. We know that because the wages of sin is death, and Elijah was not sinless; no person has ever lived a sinless life except Jesus Christ. If God could take Elijah to heaven and give him everlasting life without Jesus dying for his sins, then God could have taken any good person to heaven before Christ paid for their sins, and the death of the Christ would have been unnecessary. In summary, Moses and Elijah were visions. If Moses and Elijah could have been alive in glorified bodies before Christ died, then Christ did not need to die.(top)
|Mat 17:4||- (top)|
“Look!” The Greek word is idou (#2400 ἰδού), and it is used to get our attention. See commentary on Matthew 1:20 (“Look!).(top)
|Mat 17:6||- (top)|
|Mat 17:7||- (top)|
|Mat 17:8||- (top)|
“from among the dead.” See commentary on Romans 4:24. Wuest says, “from among those who are dead.”(top)
“Then why do the experts in the law say that Elijah must come first?” The religious leaders of Christ’s day taught that Elijah would come before the Messiah, a doctrine based on a misinterpretation of Malachi 4:5: “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes.” However, Elijah was long dead, and God did not raise him from the dead to live again before the time of the Messiah. To properly understand Malachi 4:5, we need to know that the name “Elijah” in that verse is the figure of speech antonomasia, or “name change” (cp. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible). Antonomasia is the figure of speech in which one person is called by the name of another person in order to ascribe the characteristics of the second person to the one we are addressing. For example, we might say to a child who is jumping on the couch, “Stop that, Tarzan!” We know the child’s name is not “Tarzan,” but by calling him “Tarzan,” we ascribe the jungle behavior of Tarzan to the child. Some examples of antonomasia in the Bible include:
That John would be like Elijah was made clear to Zechariah by the angel Gabriel. When Zechariah was ministering in the Temple, Gabriel appeared to him and said that Elizabeth would have a son they were to name “John,” and he would go before God “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17). For those who remembered the angel’s words years later when John started his ministry, it was clear that John was indeed the “Elijah,” who was to come.
“Elijah comes, and will restore all things.” Jesus knew that John the Baptist was “Elijah.” Here Jesus used the words of the doctrinal formula commonly used about Elijah by the religious leaders to show they were quite correct—Elijah was coming, but now he had already come. The Scribes had not been wrong when they said “Elijah is coming,” they just did not know to whom they referred and thus missed it when he was among them. Jesus, however, knew that “Elijah” was John the Baptist, as is clear from Matt. 17:12-13.
In this verse Jesus was referencing the promise in Malachi that Elijah would come. The verb “will restore” (ἀποκαταστήσει) appears here in the same form as in the Septuagint text, an echo of the fact that Jesus, speaking Hebrew or Aramaic, would have been using the same vocabulary as Malachi. The Apostles were not confused by Jesus saying John “will restore” things because they knew the Old Testament text and Jesus immediately followed up what he said by adding that “Elijah” was John. Since John was already dead (see Matt. 14:1ff), it was clear that he was not going to restore anything. That was now left to Jesus. We learn from Mark that John the Baptist came to restore things, and tried unsuccessfully to do so, thus being one of the reasons that the Messiah would have to suffer (see commentary on Mark 9:12).(top)
|Mat 17:12||- (top)|
|Mat 17:13||- (top)|
|Mat 17:14||- (top)|
|Mat 17:15||- (top)|
|Mat 17:16||- (top)|
|Mat 17:17||- (top)|
“And Jesus subdued him.” The “him” refers to the demon. This is a good example of how spiritual insight and being a “sympathetic listener” (one who is looking for the author’s meaning, not stumbling at every “possible meaning) is necessary to understand the text. Jesus did not “subdue” the child.
“subdued.” The Greek word translated “subdued” is epitimaō (#2008 ἐπιτιμάω). Usually epitimaō means to express strong disapproval of someone: rebuke, reprove, censure; or to speak seriously, and thus warn in order to prevent or end an action. It can also mean “punish” (cp. BDAG Lexicon). However, in this context, epitimaō has the technical meaning it has in Greek religion of gaining control over a spirit, a demon. Robert Guelich (Word Biblical Commentary: Mark) notes that in contexts like these epitimaō is “a commanding word uttered by God or by his spokesman, by which evil powers are brought into submission.” Jesus subdued the demon by the power of God that he wielded, his power, which he expressed in words.
The demon would not respond to just being “rebuked.” Therefore, we cannot agree that Jesus “reproached the demon for having taken possession of the boy” (Meyer). For a “rebuke” to be effective, the hearer must have a heart to listen to and obey God, and demons do not have that kind of heart. The demon had to be dealt with by spiritual power. See commentary on Mark 1:25.(top)
|Mat 17:19||- (top)|
“trust like a mustard seed.” This phrase has been mistranslated in a number of versions, resulting in confusion and Jesus giving a teaching contradictory to the context. The context of Jesus’ statement is that Jesus’ disciples were not able to cast a demon out of a boy (Matt. 17:16) and wanted to know why (Matt. 17:19). Jesus told them it was because of their little trust (Matt. 17:20). At that point the Greek text says: “If you have trust [faith] like a mustard seed….” How much trust does a mustard seed have? Total trust! It may look small to the world, but it has no doubt that it can do what God created it to do and become the largest garden herb. That is the point Jesus is trying to make. It does not matter what he, or his disciples, looked like to the world, if they have the same kind of total trust that a mustard seed does, they could move mountains.
Unfortunately many translations entirely miss the point that Jesus was making. For example, the NIV84 has Jesus saying, “…if you have faith as small as a mustard seed….” But they added the word “small,” which is not in the Greek text, and that added word completely turns the parable upside down. Other versions that add words about the size of the mustard seed include the HCSB, NET, and NRSV. The problem the disciples had was that their trust was too small for them to cast out the demon. So Jesus is not saying if they had small faith they could move mountains—that is the opposite of what he is saying! Small faith won’t cast out demons or move mountains. But total trust, like the tiny mustard seed has in its ability to grow into a huge plant, will cast out demons and move mountains.(top)
This verse was added to some texts by being copied from Mark 9:29. The textual evidence is quite clear that it was not in the original version of Matthew.(top)
“about to be.” (Lenski; Wuest’s Expanded New Testament).
“handed over.” Jesus’ teaching that he (the Messiah) was going to be betrayed, suffer, and die, was so contrary to what the disciples believed that they could not grasp his clear teaching about it. See commentary on Luke 18:34.(top)
“kill him.” For more on Jesus’ clear teaching that he would suffer and die, see commentary on Luke 18:34.(top)
“the two drachma Temple tax.” This tax was paid by every Israelite male 20 years old and older for the maintenance of the Tabernacle and later the Temple (Ex. 30:13; 2 Chron. 24:9; Neh. 10:32). During the Greek control of Palestine, the tax was paid with a coin referred to as the didrachmon (“double drachma”) and the tax took on that name. At the time of Christ the didrachmon coin was no longer in circulation and the tax was paid with other coinage, but the name of the tax remained the same. The tax was equivalent to about 2 days wages.(top)
“poll-tax.” The Greek word is kēnsos (#2778 κῆνσος). In the NT it referred to the tax or tribute levied on individuals, and it was to be paid yearly. See commentary on Mark 12:14.(top)
|Mat 17:26||- (top)|
“lake.” The Sea of Galilee, see context, Matt 17:24. They were in Capernaum, right beside the Sea of Galilee.(top)