NTST 536

READINGS IN THE
GOSPELS: MARK

TRANSFIGURATION
Of
JESUS
Mark 9:2-8

Student:
Marius Mitrache

1
Introduction

The Transfiguration narrative is probably one of the most debated Christological

passages in the Scripture. Form critics have asserted that the Transfiguration narration

may have been a misplaced resurrection account. There may be parallels between the

resurrection and transfiguration accounts. Stein also firmly argues that there are stronger

dissimilarities between the transfiguration and resurrections than there are similarities.1

The Transfiguration is the climax and turning point of the life of Jesus till that

moment. The place of Jesus’s baptism and the mount of Transfiguration are the only

places where the heavenly Father himself speaks with a voice from heaven.

Transfiguration reveals Jesus Christ not only as distinct from prophets, but also as God

incarnated that sacrifices Himself, and as eschatological Redeemer. The literary context

is helpful for a better understanding, not only of the event itself, but also of the historical

and theological background of it.

The literary context

 Peter’s Confession: Mark 8:27

 Jesus foretells His passions: Mark 8:31(9:31)

It is noteworthy that Jesus discuss openly about His passions with disciples only

after Peter’s confession (Mark 8:29-30). Rightly Mark 8:27–30 is conventionally said to

be the watershed in Mark’s narrative.2 This is an important detail. Is noteworthy that

1
Robert H. Stein, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Yarbrough, Robert W., Stein
Robert H., Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 2008), 414-415.

2
R. T. France, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids:
MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 909.

2
Peter’s confession was a received revelation, not a personal conclusion. But did Peter

understand the revelation received from God? We may say, no. Here Jesus presents them

a different, a suffering, even a dying Messiah. This is the reason why Peter rebuked Jesus

for this new and “strange” messianic theology. The false understanding of Messiah is

shared by the twelve and threatens to corrupt them.3 Jesus’ reaction and the word spoken

to Peter remind us of the temptation in the wilderness. As Ben Witherington III puts it:

In fact, Mark has structured his narrative so that he stresses that Jesus faces a severe
temptation at the three most crucial turning points in the narrative: (1) the beginning of
the ministry; (2) at Caesarea Philippi where he is partially "unmasked" by a disciple; and
(3) at the Garden of Gethsemane. In each case the nature of the temptation is to try and
avoid what God wants Jesus to do and be.4

The severity of Jesus’ rebuke of Peter in Mark 8:33 corresponds to the magnitude

of Jesus’ temptation here: the rebuke is strong because the temptation is profound.

Although Jesus knows God’s plan for Him – through suffering, rejection, death, and

resurrection – this was one of Satan’s temptations so that the cross might be avoided.

The majority of Jews believed in a political and military Messiah. It was obvious

difficult for disciples to understand and accept a different messianic theology. This is the

reason why Peter refused Jesus’ prediction of suffering and death (Mark 9:32-33). In fact

all disciples have failed to understand Jesus’ prediction.5 It is possible that disciples

became doubtful concerning Jesus’ messianic identity. Was Peter wrong? This might be

3
James R. Edwards Jr., The Pillar New Testament Commentary, ed. Carson, D. A, The Gospel According
to Mark (Grand Rapids: MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 560.

4
Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: MI, William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 574.
5
Witherington III, 457.

3
one of the reasons why three of the disciples were taken up on the mountain to witness

who really was Jesus. Three of the disciples, Peter, James, and John were to witness this

unique event and later in the history they would be witnesses for this event. There is not

by chance that these three were chosen by Jesus to witness Transfiguration. The same

three disciples were called by Jesus to pray with Him in Gethsemane garden.

The transfiguration is tied to 8:27–34 by two themes: Peter’s Christological confession

(8:27–30) and Jesus’s passion prediction (8:31–33). The voice from heaven corroborates
Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi as to Jesus’s identity. … Thus the divine voice
from heaven confirms what Peter has said about Jesus in the preceding account and
serves as the second heavenly endorsement of Jesus’s divine sonship (cf. 1:11). The other
thematic tie with the preceding materials is found in the second part of the message from
heaven, “Hear him.” … This means that the two parts of the heavenly message function
as a confirmation of Peter’s confession in 8:27–30 and a rebuke of Peter’s rejection of
Jesus’s passion prediction in 8:31–33 (see 9:5–6).6

Moreover, the event of transfiguration is present in all synoptic gospels as an

inclusion. It begins and ends with foretelling the passion (8:31 – 9:31). Thus the main

theme of the transfiguration episode is the passion and death of Jesus, Luke 9:31

emphasizing this supposition. The purpose of transfiguration event was important for the

three disciples so that they might have a deeper understanding of who Jesus was, what

means Messiah and of God’s perspective.

Ch. 9:2-8 serves as a prelude to chs. 14:1-16:8 and corresponds in function to Isa. 52:13-
15 in relationship to Ch. 53:1-12: it offers assurance that despite apparent abandonment
by God, Jesus is the Lord's Servant who prospers in the task he has been sent to
accomplish. The revelation of Jesus' mysterious, transcendent dignity serves to confirm

6
Stein, 413-414.

4
 Peter's acknowledgment that Jesus is the Messiah (Ch. 8:29), and Jesus' own prophecy of
his impending passion and vindication (Ch. 8:31).7

The Transfiguration

Most probably, Jesus was aware of what would happen up on the mountain, for

He was permanently in communion with the Father. While He was in prayer, the heavens

were opened and a bright glory descended upon Jesus Christ. His divine nature shined

through His body. In Mark’s transfiguration narrative, μεταμορφόω does not signify a

change in Jesus’ nature but rather an outward visible transformation of his appearance to

accord with his nature.

The comparison of this event to a misplaced resurrection story seems misguided, for the
following reasons: (1) Jesus says absolutely nothing in this story, unlike in the
resurrection narratives; (2) all the resurrection stories begin with Jesus being absent, and
then appearing, but here he is present from the outset; (3) the presence of Moses and
Elijah are inexplicable if this was originally a resurrection narrative; (4) the lack of
recognition of Jesus' true significance by Peter (he calls Jesus only "rabbi" here) is
uncharacteristic of the way resurrection stories resolve themselves; (5) we are told at v. 5
that something dramatic but not permanent happened to Jesus.8

The fact that the event took place “after six days” might an allusion to Exodus

24:16, where Moses spent six days on the mountain, until the seventh day, when God

called him from the cloud.9 The Transfiguration scene offers a visual parallel and

confirmation of Jesus‘ testimony: (a) on the Mount of Transfiguration Jesus testified that

he is the light of the world (John 8:12), (b) he knew where he was going (proved by

7
William L. Lane, New International Commentary of the New Testament, The Gospel of Mark (Grand
Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 489.
8
Witherington III, 621-622.

9
Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Hendrikson Publishers, 2002), 177.

5
conversation with Moses and Elijah concerning his death); (c) the Father testified on his

behalf from the shining cloud; (d) and, to satisfy the Pharisee‘s legal expectations, two

witnesses also appear on the holy mountain: Moses and Elijah.10

Mark’s depiction of Jesus is also reminiscent of Daniel’s vision of the “Ancient of Days,”
whose “clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool” (Dan 7:9
NRSV). The “one like a son of man” approaches the Ancient of Days (i.e., God) and
receives authority and kingdom (Dan 7:13–14). Perhaps in his transformation we should
understand that Jesus, as the “son of man” in the presence of the Ancient of Days, has
taken on some of God’s characteristics (much as Moses’ face began to shine with God’s
glory). If this is correct, then the transfiguration should be understood as a visual
verification of Jesus’ claim to be the “son of man” who will come in the glory of his
Father with the holy angels (see Mark 8:38; Dan 7:10).11

Moses and Elijah

In Mark 9:4 is written: “And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were

talking with Jesus.”12 The presence of those two Old Testament prophets is both

interesting and unusually. In the gospels angels are seen as servants of Jesus in major

events of His ministry (in the wilderness, in Gethsemane garden). But for this mission

two human beings are sent to talk to Jesus.

It was appropriate for Jesus, whose ministry was inaugurated in the wilderness, to

be accompanied by two prophets that were prophets of wilderness.13 Robert H. Stein sees

10
Zoltán Dörnyei, Transfiguration, Beauty and Biblical Interpretation (Dissertation submitted as partial
requirement for the degree of MA in Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Nottingham,
2011), 42.

11
Craig A. Evans, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 34B, Mark 8:27-16:20 (Nashville, Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 2001), 36.

12
New Revised Standard Version.
13
Lane, 493.

6
an unusual order of those two prophets. According to him, Moses and Law preceded

Elijah and Prophets.14 A possible explanation is the role of Elijah as a forerunner of

Jesus. One cannot see a certain purpose of this order. This supposition is not supported by

Mark 9:5, where the order is like in the synoptic Matthew and Luke. Moreover, the Greek

text says “ … καὶ ὤφθη αὐτοῖς Ἠλίας σὺν Μωϋσεῖ … ”15, which seems to imply a sort of

subordination of Elijah to Moses. However, there is no clear evidence for certain

subordination.

Their mission meant more than an encouragement (most probably that an eventual

failure of Jesus would have determined their departure from heaven), more than a

discussion about the future events in Jesus’ ministry. We may say that these prophets

were very significant in Israel’s history. Old Testament Scriptures ends with a prophecy

about these two prophets. Malachi 4:4-6 describes the coming of the two prophets:

“Remember the teaching of my servant Moses, the statutes and ordinances that I

commanded him at Horeb for all Israel. Lo, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the

great and terrible day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of parents to their

children and the hearts of children to their parents, so that I will not come and strike the

land with a curse.”16

The connection between these two prophets at the end of Old Testament has a

profound significance for a Jewish or Old Testament reader. The presence of Moses and

Elijah on the mount of transfiguration was a remembrance both of the Sinai and Carmel

14
Stein, 417.

15
Nestle Aland 28.
16
NRSV.

7
events. Moses meant the moment of Israel’s birth as a people (the covenant between God

and people marked the people’s birth) and Elijah meant the moment of Israel’s rebirth

(remaking the covenant). Jesus’ radiant face evokes strong connotations of Moses’

radiant face in Exodus that needed to be veiled (Exodus 34:29–35).17 There were

proposed connections between Moses as representative of Law, and Elijah as

representative of Prophets. But, since Elijah was not a writing prophet, it is not clear

evidence.18 Elijah was, rather, connected to the messianic age. Moses was connected to

the prophecy he made in Deut. 18:15-19. Their presence announced that the messianic

age has come.

Moses
 Mt. Sinai episode
 Type of Jesus Christ
 Moment of people’s birth
 The past of Israel – Malachi 4:4
 The prototype of those resurrected at the second coming

Elijah
 Mt. Carmel episode (also Horeb – Sinai: 1 Kings 19:8-18)
 Prepared the way of Christ (see John the Baptist)
 Eschatological connotations
 The future of Israel – Malachi 4:4-5
 The prototype of those alive at the second coming

The second exodus

In Mark 9:4 it is written that Moses and Elijah “ … were talking with Jesus.” This

is the core of the inclusion. Perhaps Moses and Elijah were sent to encourage Jesus

17
Zoltán Dörnyei, Transfiguration, Beauty and Biblical Interpretation (Dissertation submitted as partial
requirement for the degree of MA in Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Nottingham,
2011), 15.

18
France, 968.

8
concerning His mission. Both Moses and Elijah were alone in their mission to bring the

people in Canaan, respectively to bring them back to worship Yahweh. Mark does not tell

what was the issue discussed by these. It may be possible that Mark was not interested on

that, due to non-Jewish audience. It is also possible that Mark’s context might suggests

that the conversation may have had to do with the approaching kingdom of God and

Jesus’ role in relation to it.19

However, in Luke 9:31 there is an important detail that may be helpful: “They

appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish

at Jerusalem.”20 This is the climax of the inclusion. The Greek text raises an interesting

issue that might determine new insights very significant for the history of Jewish people:

“οἳ ὀφθέντες ἐν δόξῃ ἔλεγον τὴν ἔξοδον αὐτοῦ ἣν ἔμελλε πληροῦν ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ.”21

Here Luke uses the word “ἔξοδος”, that is a euphemism for “death”. Although Mark did

not record the content of discussion, the two predictions of Jesus about His sufferings and

death support this theme.

There is a great truth revealed in the discussion between the two prophets and

Jesus: Jesus’ death is typologically related to the exodus from Egypt. There is a certainty

that Jesus typologically fulfill the history of Israel, including the exodus. There are some

typological relations with certain persons and events from Israel’s history in the ministry

of Jesus: (a) the Sermon on Olivet Mountain was linked to Sinai event, (b) the 40 days

spent in the wilderness of temptation was linked to both the temptation in Eden and the

19
Evans, 37.
20
NRSV.
21
NA 28.

9
40 years spent by Israel in the wilderness. Likewise, Jesus’ death on the cross is

typologically the great exodus, not from Egypt, but from the world of sin and rebellion.

Jesus was to succeed where Israel have failed. He lived both Israel’s live and everybody’s

live. “The transfiguration scene develops as a new "Sinai" theophany with Jesus as the

central figure.”22

Sinai event:
 Takes place up on the mountain
 The presence of Moses, who gives the Law to the people
 The presence of glorious cloud
 The voice of God
 In the valley – the golden calf
 Aaron is powerless
 Moses rebukes Aaron
 Moses destroys the golden calf

Transfiguration event:
 Takes place up on the mountain
 The presence of Moses
 The presence of glorious cloud
 The voice of the Father
 In the valley – the demoniac
 Disciples are powerless
 Jesus rebukes the disciples
 Jesus heals the demoniac

The exodus from Egypt was a temporal and limited in space event, but it was not

the solution for the sins of the people, or for the issue of death. The “exodus” Jesus was

to accomplish on the cross would be universal. The whole humankind is involved in this

exodus, because Jesus redeems every human being from the power of sin and death

(Rom. 5:18).

22
Lane, 490.

10
The glorious cloud

Mark 9:7 say, “ … a cloud overshadowed them … ”. The significance of cloud is

threefold: (a) the pillar of cloud in the wilderness (Ex. 14:24); (b) the tent of meeting,

which was filled with the cloud, the symbol of God’s presence - shekina (Ex. 40:34); (c)

image of the second coming (Mark 9:1; Rev. 1:7). The context of the second coming of

Christ is strengthened by the way the two prophets ascended to heavens. On one hand,

Moses who died and had been resurrected, is a type of those dead that will be resurrected

at the second coming. On the other hand, Elijah who has never experienced death is a

type of those that will be alive at the second coming.

Thus, in the transfiguration event Jesus typologically experienced some crucial

moments of salvation history: the exodus, Sinai, second coming. “The stress upon Jesus'

present status as the Son of God indicates that the transfiguration is more than an enacted

promise of future glory. The unchanging fact of his transcendent sonship is the constant

presupposition of his words, which reveal the will of God.”23 The Transfiguration,

therefore, serves to confirm that the suffering Jesus will endure is not incompatible with

his glory.24 Moreover, this was the goal of His incarnation, the climax of the Plan of

Redemption.

23
Lane, 496.
24
David E. Garland, Mark (Zondervan, 1996), 947.

11
Conclusion

Christology is the generative and driving force of the Markan narrative. While it

has other concerns (e.g., discipleship, eschatology, ecclesiology), it is Christological

issues that brought the Markan narrative into being and determined its comprehensive

structure.25 The Transfiguration story in Mark appears to have a significant function in

Mark’s gospel. It functions as a link between the periods of Jesus’ life. The

Transfiguration narrative represented the climax of Mark’s gospel. It functions more like

a prediction of events to come, the sufferings, the crucifixion, Jesus’ death, and an

introduction to the glorified Jesus Christ, as the One who is greater than all the prophets –

equal only to God.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
25
M. Eugene Boring, Mark (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 248.

12
1. Beavis, Mary Ann. Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament, ed. Parsons,
Mikeal P. and Talbert, Charles H., Mark. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,
2011.

2. Boring, M. Eugene. Mark. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

3. Edwards, James R. The Pillar New Testament Commentary, ed. Carson, D. A.,
The Gospel according to Mark. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2002.

4. Evans, Craig A. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 34B, Mark 8:27-16:20.

Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001.

5. France, R. T. The New International Greek Testament Commentary, The Gospel

of Mark. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002.

6. Garland, David E. The NIV Application Commentary Series, ed. Terry Muck,
Mark. Zondervan, 1996.

7. Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary, Mark. Grand Rapids, MI:

Baker Book House, 1975.

8. Lane, William L. New International Commentary of the New Testament, The

Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1974.

9. Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids, MI: Hendrikson

Publishers, 2002.

10. Stein, Robert H. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed.
Yarbrough, Robert W. and Stein Robert H., Mark. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2008.

11. Dörnyei Zoltán. Transfiguration, Beauty and Biblical Interpretation. Dissertation

submitted as partial requirement for the degree of MA in Theology and Religious
Studies at the University of Nottingham, 2011.

12. Witherington III, Ben. The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary.

Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.

13