Introduction

The Transfiguration account is found in all three of the synoptic Gospels; Mark 9:213, Matthew 17:2-13 and Luke 9:28-36. The event denotes the time when Jesus glory was
shown. The following paper focuses on (1) an exegesis of the text found in Mark (9:2-13)
followed by some reflections of the (2) literary relationship between the three gospels, (3)
interdependence of the three text, (4) how Matthew and Luke clear the difficult readings
found in Mark and (5) the theological value taken from the text we are examining.

Exegesis of Mark 9:2-13

The time here is not so much the case of presenting an exact description of when
things took place as one commentator notes that it was just an indication of an
approximation of a number of days, meaning about a week, as we would say today. 1 But
Witherington would disagree here as he sees that it is unusual for Mark to be specific. He
comments that
... it has some specific symbolic significance: (1) it alludes to Exod. 24:16f., where six
days designates the time preparation for revelation from Sinai, (2) or is modelled on the
time period between the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles. This might
explain Peters reaction to the transfiguration.2
Craig A. Evans also connects the description of time to that of Exod. 24:16, where
like the experience that Moses another epochal epiphany 3 has happened. Other
commentators do not place much emphasis in Marks indication of time. 4 This could be the
case in which Luke (9:28) departs from the indication of a time following Marks and
1 Cole, R. Alan. TNTC Mark: Revised Edition. (Grand Rapids,IVP Eerdmans. 1997) pg 210
2 Witherington III, Ben. The Gospel of Mark: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.
2001) pg 262

3 Evans, Craig A. Word Biblical Commentary 34B Mark 8:27-16:20. (Nashville, Thomas Nelson
Publishers. 2001) pg 35
1

Matthews description which is indicated as eight days. So it we might as well follow through
and not read too much into the meaning of specification that Mark brings.
As for the specification of place Mark leaves us with only the mention of a high
mountain which scholars indicate not for the specificity of finding out the exact location but
in terms that it would be a place where stated in the bible of revelation 5 or simply a place
where Jesus took them for privacy.6 But if we follow Lukes rendition of the event he notes
the reason they went which was to pray which according to Darrel Bock, in Luke (9:28)
whenever prayer is mentioned, something significant usually follows 7 which in this case
the transfiguration experience.
The term transfiguration (v.2) used in Mark assumes an idea that seems to imply a
transformation from without which is closely tied with the Hellenistic background but
according to Witherington, this is not the case. Jesus clothes changing (v.3) can be
distinguished that the author of Mark wanted to differentiate his depiction over against
Hellenistic understanding8. It is not Jesus clothes that are changed but Jesus himself as the
way Mark is interpreted its warrants this idea, which is made clear by Matthew (17:2) and

4 See for example France, R. T. NIGTC: The Gospel of Mark. (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Paternoster. 2002) pg
347; Brooks, James A. NAC: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture NIV Text: Mark.
(Nashville, Broadman Press. 1991) pg 141

5 Brooks, James A. NAC: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture NIV Text:
Mark. Pg 141
6 France, R. T. NIGTC: The Gospel of Mark. Pg 350-351
7 Bock, Darrell L. ECNT: Luke 1:1-9:50. (Grand Rapids, Baker. 1994) Pg 866
8 Witherington III, Ben. The Gospel of Mark: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary. Pg 263
2

Luke (9:29) who mentions the change in Jesus appearance. 9 Here the idea can be conjured
that the messianic glory is being revealed10.
A rather odd pattern is found evident in v.4 where Elijah is mentioned first and then
followed by Moses whom Matthew and Luke do not follow in their Gospel accounts. Only
Mark renders them in this progression. The reason for Marks rendering is tied to the
progression of the narrative where questions about Elijah (v.11-13) is focused upon. These
two figures represented the law and the eschaton, because Elijah was anticipated as the
prophet of the end (Mal.4-5; Sir.48:10).11 There is no indication of the content of their
conversation mentioned in Mark but Luke tells us that they were talking about Jesus
departure or exodus12 (9:31).
In v.5 we have Peter, a witness of the scene, making a suggestion to build booths for
Jesus and his conversation companions. Evans explains Peters suggestion as him concluding that
the kingdom of God had arrived in its fullness. 13 Peters suggestion has its roots in the Feast of
Booths, which commemorates the exodus. This feast was also understood by many as looking ahead
to the glorious day of Israels deliverance. 14 Therefore, we can best describe Peters proposal was in
the frame of mind of prolonging the experience. 15 The reason given for Peters foolish suggestion
has to do with him not knowing what to say and the contribution of silence (v.6). V.7 on the other
9 France, R. T. NIGTC: The Gospel of Mark. Pg 350-351
10 Witherington III, Ben. The Gospel of Mark: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary. Pg 263
11 Bock, Darrell L. Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels.(Grand
Rapids, Baker. 2002) Pg 234
12 Ibid
13 Evans, Craig A. Word Biblical Commentary 34B Mark 8:27-16:20. Pg 37
14 Ibid
15 Bock, Darrell L. Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels. Pg 235
3

hand is the implication of God rebuking Peter 16 who, as the text implies to us wanted to honour Jesus
as equals with Moses and Elijah 17 but later on in v.8 only Jesus is present with the event over. The
cloud is a symbol of Gods presence and protection (Exod. 16:10; 19:9; 24:15-16; 33:10) 18 which in
the description separates the disciples from the three who are participating in the transfiguration. 19
The cloud is meant to be a sign of theophany, or divine endorsement of Jesus, as at the baptism,
where we also have the presence of God coming downand a voice from heaven giving endorsement
to Jesus.20 As with Jesus rebuking Peter earlier in 8:33 this verse which we are looking to now seems
to have some indication of a parallel which echoes the constant need to heed Jesus only this time a
divine voice from the cloud makes command clearer to the disciples. Although there seems to be
confusion with Jesus suffering the voice is a forceful reminder that he is not disqualified from his
messianic task.21
It seems clear that the transfiguration vision which the three disciples saw made a great
impression upon them. With that Jesus knew that they were still very much clueless as to the
significance of the event as a whole as we can see in v.9 where Jesus ordered them not to tell anyone
what they had seen which is probable because a premature publicizing of the Transfiguration could
counteract both the teaching of the Son of Man must suffer and the general summons to cross
taking.22 But as we understand that this secret had its expiry period which was after the resurrection
16 Evans, Craig A. Word Biblical Commentary 34B Mark 8:27-16:20. Pg 38
17 Bock, Darrell L. Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels. Pg 235
18 Witherington III, Ben. The Gospel of Mark: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary. Pg 264
19 Ibid
20 Ibid
21 Evans, Craig A. Word Biblical Commentary 34B Mark 8:27-16:20. Pg 38
22 Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary of His Apology for the Cross. (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.
1993) Pg 462
4

had taken place.23 V. 10 highlights the confusion and puzzlement that the disciples had with the term
rising from the dead which Witherington explains as their puzzlement not in terms that they did not
believe it but that the placement in where Jesus constantly explained the experience happening in the
midst of history.24 It is clearly depicted here that the disciples kept the matter to themselves.
The next three verses (v.11-13) deals with the question of Elijah. V.11 focuses on the disciples
question regarding the scribal teachings concerning Elijah which is probably based on Mal. 4:5-7. 25
The question arises because Elijahs presence during the transfiguration curbs their curiosity because
Jesus has come announcing the eschaton, yet Elijah seems not yet to have appeared. 26 Jesus
response to their queries about the issue affirms in part the scribal views concerning the coming of
Elijah but he adds another dimension of their question and connects Elijahs coming with that of the
suffering of the Son of Man. Again Jesus raises the suffering issue this time in combination with the
coming of Elijah. Witherington comments that it must have been perplexing to understand a suffering
messiah let alone connecting that with a suffering Elijah figure. 27 There is no idea that Elijah would

come and suffer first28 as he is seen as one who comes to restores Israel to their proper state
of repentance and faithand then the end is to follow. 29 But the idea that Jesus threw to the
disciples seems preposterous the idea that Elijah has already come and suffered. 30The part
23 Cole, R. Alan. TNTC Mark: Revised Edition. Pg 212
24 Witherington III, Ben. The Gospel of Mark: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary. Pg 264
25 Evans, Craig A. Word Biblical Commentary 34B Mark 8:27-16:20. Pg 43
26 Bock, Darrell L. Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels. Pg 235
27 Witherington III, Ben. The Gospel of Mark: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary. Pg 265
28 Ibid
29 Ibid
30 Ibid
5

where it says as the scripture says is perhaps an allusion to the death threat against Elijah
by Jezebel in 1 Kings 19:1-3. In Mark, the identity of Elijah being connected with John the
Baptist is nowhere mentioned. But the rendering of the same story in Matt. 17:10-13 clears
this for us in where the disciples understood that Jesus was indeed connecting Elijah with
John the Baptist.
Following the exposition above, we can explain in detail that the transfiguration
vision that the disciples witnessed came in response to the message of the suffering of the
Son of Man. In the seemingly confused frame of mind that the disciples might have had upon
Jesus teaching in 8:31-9:1 where suffering, death and the cost of following Jesus entails a
path towards that end which it seems to spell defeat. It is best to look at the Transfiguration,
which is a foretaste of his glory to come, as the validation of who Jesus is and what he is
called to do.
The resounding command to listen to him is the reemphasis of his messiahship. But
glory is not just the message to be born out of the transfiguration. The paradoxical balance
which suffering entails glory is reemphasised again, as Jesus strictly commanded that the
three disciples were not to conceal what they have witnessed after the resurrection from the
dead and with Jesus resounding the suffering theme in conjunction with the coming of Elijah,
which seems to be the continuation of 8:31-9:1. Although the cost of following Jesus is laid
out explicitly by Jesus, it is not without a sure hope of glory, which was revealed at the
transfiguration. Jesus messiahship is still intact and nothing has changed. As with the
personal affirmation on his baptism, comes a reaffirmation of who he is to his disciples and
with that the constant need to heed his words.

Literary Relationship
6

It cannot be denied that there are striking similarities that are compounded on the
three texts on the narrative that tells us about the Transfiguration of Jesus in the three
synoptic Gospels; Mark 9:2-23, Matt. 17:1-13 and Lk. 9:28-36. Amidst the similarities in
word, structure and progression, there are notable differences based on the three texts as well.
It can be noted on the onset that Mark and Matthew are quite similar in what they note, with
slight variations where Matthew alone mentions the prostration of the disciples 31 in 17:6
and his reconstruction (Mt. 17:11-13) of Marks explanation on Elijah in 9:11-13. On the
other hand Luke has material not found in both Mark and Matthew, which can be noted at
(Lk. 9:3133a).32 It can also be noted that Lukes description of the narrative is shorter as it
omits the disciples queries about Elijah. With that, one can attest that Mark has the harder
reading compared to the other two gospels. Some short examples, which will be explained
later in some detail, would be in 9:2 of Marks gospel on the word transfiguration. Marks
rendering is a general meaning where Matthew and Luke make clear that the transfiguration
entails that there is a change on Jesus face which might dispel notions of Hellenistic pagan
stories. Therefore, it can best be attested to that Mark is the first followed by either Matthew
and Luke. We should note further that Luke added some original material compared to Mark
and Matthew, in terms of order of relationship.

Inclinations of Interdependence
As stated above, on the similarities as well as the differences evident in the three
Gospels, Matthew seems to be the closest, in terms or relational account of the

31 Green, Joel B; McKnight, Scot; Marshall, I. Howard. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. (Downers Grove,
IVP. 1992)

32 Ibid
7

Transfiguration narrative with slight variations. Luke on the other hand seems to depart from
the rendering of the Transfiguration found in Mark. It can be assumed that Matthew and Luke
both knew Marks Gospel well enough as a text to build on their own accounts of the
narrative above. But some have attested that Luke might have used an earlier rendering of the
transfiguration account rather than using Marks as a basis for his framework. Some of the
unique features that are only evident in Luke are,
(1) the observation that the appearance of Moses and Elijah was in glory; (2) the
conversation of Moses and Elijah about Jesus departure, which he was about to bring
to fulfillment at Jerusalem; (3) the note that Peter and the other disciples were very
sleepy and then that they became fully awake; (4) the statement that they saw Jesus
glory and the two men who stood with him; and (5) the comment that Peter made his
proposal as the men were leaving.33
This view that Luke had at his disposal, an earlier account of the transfiguration was
what he used to reconstruct his version and then Mark used that same early source that Luke
used as the basis for his frame work as well. Mark further maintained the essence of this
earlier account and reconstructed what he saw necessary. This view further states that Luke in
his reconstruction, also had Marks rendition and used some of his material for his own
reconstruction.34 Although there may be some merit to explain the seemingly contras of
wording comparing Mark and Luke, there is still possibility that this hypothesis is still left
hanging.
A better rendering would be, still to hold Mark as an early text who had access to
another earlier text which Luke had access to both and from these weaved his narrative of the
transfiguration according to how he wanted to convey his Gospel.

33 Ibid
34 Ibid
8

Potential Difficulties in the Markan Account

If the Markan account is still thought of as the earlier rendering of the transfiguration
account, as it is argued earlier above, it does have places where the harder reading of the text
is evident in this particular narrative.
In Mark 9:2 where his use of the term transfiguration is used in a general sense is
further cleared up by Matthew, where although he also use the same term added that Jesus
face shone like the sun (17:2). Luke on the other hand does not use the term found in both
Mark and Matthew which Bock explains that he avoided the verb which to prevent
confusion with an epiphany, which might have polytheistic connotations to a Hellenistic
audience.35
Another point where Luke clears some difficulties in Mark is the point where it states
where the disciples started to fear. In Mark, Peters response to build booths for Jesus and his
two companions was because he did not know what to say and it was explained that they
were frightened (9:5). Both Matthew and Luke derived the feeling of the disciples as being
frightened after the cloud had appeared and enveloped upon them, whereas the description in
Mark explain them being frightened in connection to Peter not knowing what to say.
The final place where Marks rendering is cleared by reading the Matthean account is
the part where Jesus explains about Elijah. Matthew does not follow Marks path in the
asking of question. Matthew reworks Marks rendering. Matthews description clears the
ground for understanding that Elijah is to come first and straight away explains he had
already come, but he is not recognized. This explanation is only evident in Matthew. And
with that he connects the fate of the Son of Man to follow in his footsteps. Only in Matthew
as well is the description where the disciples understood that Jesus was indeed talking about
35 Bock, Darrell L. ECNT: Luke 1:1-9:50. Pg 867
9

John the Baptist which in Mark is left to assumption or rather those who read the passage
could already make the connection that Marks readers would connect this Elijah figure to
John the Baptist.
Therefore it can be attested that it is probable to assume that the Markan account is
the earlier rendering of the gospel use by both Matthew and Luke. It is quite evident that
there are significant changes that both Matthew and Luke made to clear up some of the
difficult readings in Mark that might clear and shed some light to a better understanding.

Theological Value of the Transfiguration

There are a number of theological values that can be derived from the Transfiguration
account which we have explored above. The first one is that in the midst of impending
calamity or uncertainty one can be rest assured in the future hope which is definite. As we
find in the transfiguration account, this experience was not for Jesus but for his disciples. The
transfiguration came into the onset of impending suffering which Jesus was to face soon and
this would be a drastic turn of events that the disciples would face when it happened. But for
the point of validation and reassurance, witnessing Jesus glory before his suffering and death
showed them hope that they could anchor their faith to when they understood the implications
of what it meant. As for us the readers, we see a glimpse of the narrative in full view unlike
the disciples. In the light of this the transfiguration can be a place for us to anchor our faith in
the midst of uncertainty and hear the validation of who Jesus is to help us pull through in life.
The second theological value would be an understanding of glory in tandem with
suffering. In the midst of the brimming moments of exuberance and glory which we might
feel in our relationship with Jesus, we forget sometimes that the reality of following Jesus

10

requires us to count the cost as we follow him. Before the transfiguration that Peter, John and
James witnessed happened, after the declaration from Peter that he was the messiah, Jesus
began to teach them about his impending suffering, death and resurrection. The thought of a
messiah that would go through all that Jesus mentioned must have baffled his disciples. As
with us, the thought of suffering sometimes is just a passing note we have holding on our
faith. Even from gleaning through the transfiguration narrative that we read, the theme of
suffering comes again to our attention at the end. With a glorious hope at hand, the journey
towards that entails a cost in following Jesus. In the transfiguration, the infusion of glory and
suffering take precedence, two paradoxical leanings being converged to relay truth. And in
that truth is the reality of glory is also followed by a period of impending reality of suffering.

Conclusion
As we have seen, based on the study above concerning the transfiguration, there are
many views that help construct a vision for us to gain understanding from the event by
interpreting the text (Mark. 9:2-13) and looking at its interdependence over against the other
two gospels. Each gospel has its own emphasis and way of reconstructing the narrative to fit
his depiction of that particular event. As with what has been argued above, it seem probable
to state that Mark is the first, having access to an earlier account of the transfiguration,
compared to Luke which was second, who used that earlier account and Mark for his
reconstruction and then Matthew is last. This seems probable in the many ways Marks
difficult readings are cleared up by both Matthew and Luke. All three gospels, although
having slight variations complement each other to make the narrative understandable. The
overall message gleaned from the transfiguration account affirms the identity of Jesus, the
messiah who is loved and chosen by God to do his work. This affirmation is revealed to the

11

disciples in what they witnessed; Jesus glory is revealed and a voice affirming the validation
of Gods approval of Jesus. Though glory was witnessed, which resuscitated their hope, an
impending passage of suffering and death must be endured before they understand Gods plan
in Jesus.

Bibliography
Books:
1
2
3
4
5
6

Bock, Darrell L. ECNT: Luke 1:1-9:50. (Grand Rapids, Baker. 1994)

Bock, Darrell L. Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels.
(Grand Rapids, Baker. 2002)
Brooks, James A. NAC: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture NIV
Text: Mark. (Nashville, Broadman Press. 1991)
Cole, R. Alan. TNTC Mark: Revised Edition. (Grand Rapids,IVP Eerdmans. 1997)
Evans, Craig A. Word Biblical Commentary 34B Mark 8:27-16:20. (Nashville, Thomas
Nelson Publishers. 2001)
France, R. T. NIGTC: The Gospel of Mark. (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Paternoster. 2002)

12

7
8

Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary of His Apology for the Cross. (Grand Rapids,
Eerdmans. 1993)
Witherington III, Ben. The Gospel of Mark: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand
Rapids, Eerdmans. 2001)

Electronic Resources:
1

Green, Joel B; McKnight, Scot; Marshall, I. Howard. Dictionary of Jesus and the
Gospels. (Downers Grove, IVP. 1992)

13