Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Moses appeared from where? | Matt 17:3 | drbloor | 225372 | ||
Thank you all for your replies on the subject of The Transfiguration. There are quite a few and I am going to try and address them all in one go, so forgive me if I miss anything. I believe that the vision was just that - visual - so yes it could be described as "illusory" as 00123 mentions, but I do not believe a vision is simply a figment of imagination as Ariel states. I believe a vision to be a divinely granted and controlled visual and auditory revelation received while awake or asleep and which has no physical, material substance. This would class it as a communication from God and far more than simply an individuals personal ruminations. Ariel mentions several types of Biblical incidents but for now I am going to concentrate solely on the Horama visions of the New Testament and this vision in particular. Furthermore on the matter of substance of visions mentioned by Tim I see no evidence of material substance in the other examples of New Testament Horama visions. They appear to be visual, audible apparitions the content of which tends to preclude them from having any physical manifestation. Pauls vision of Ananias, Peters vision of the sheet, Pauls vision of the man of Macedonia etc. - none of these things would have physically existed in front of the people receiving the vision. It is possible that the burning bush existed in miraculous physical reality, but certainly not provable. Therefore the weight of evidence would remain with the event being a vision. In addressing Brads post, I believe that the context of the passage does support the proposal that Moses and Elijah were seen in a vision. If we take a look at the context starting in the previous chapter we have two or three events I believe are related to the transfiguration (not all of which prove the vision, but all of which build the contextual picture). In Matt 16:1 we have the Pharisees tempting Jesus to show them "a sign from heaven" to prove that he was the Christ; Jesus refuses. Juxtaposed with this we find his disciples who do not request such a sign, and yet are shortly to receive one in the transfiguration - the transfiguration being a divinely bestowed confirmation that Jesus was indeed the Christ. The next event begins in verse 13 with Jesus questioning his disciples on who people believe him to be and with Peter on behalf of the disciples confessing him to be the Christ, the Son of God. In the last verse of chapter 16 Jesus tells his disciples, "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Then six days later we have the transfiguration when some of those standing there were present and saw what I believe to be a vision of Christ in his kingdom. The immediate context of chapter 17 is that not only do we have Moses and Elijah miraculously appearing, but we also have Christ transfigured (Greek: Metamorphosis) into his post-resurrectional glory. At the time of the transfiguration he was not yet risen in glory so the way in which the disciples saw Jesus at this point was with attributes which he did not at that time possess. Therefore with a miraculous vision enveloping Christ himself I see no contextual issue with Moses and Elijah being part of the same apparition. The reason for the transfiguration seems to be to reward the disciples for their faith in confessing Christ and to supernaturally confirm to them that Jesus was the Christ and had come in fulfilment of the law (Moses) and the prophets (Elijah). It appears allegorical of Malachi 4 in which Malachi depicts Messiah in his kingdom as the radiant "Sun of Righteousness", commends his readers to remember the Law of Moses and to await the return of Elijah. Would a plain, straight-forward reading of the text reveal that this was a vision? That depends on your definition of "plain" and "straight-forward". If you mean "superficial" then maybe, maybe not. I admit that the proposal that the transfiguration is a fulfilment of Mat 16:28 is not provable, but I do not believe that would have any necessary bearing on whether or not this was a vision. Bringing the passage down to basics I think it is fairly plain that if we read the word Horama that the New Testament consistently uses to refer to visions and if we realise that Christ applies this word to the appearance of Moses and Elijah, then we should accept that it was a vision. I think that this is the simplest reading and explanation. The alternative is to arbitrarily declare without corroborating evidence that the transfiguration is somehow an exception to the rule and that we should be inconsistent with our reading and understanding of the event. That, to me, requires more convolutions than to simply accept the words as read. I submit these considerations in the humility and knowledge that I am certainly not infallible and would be pleased to hear and learn from anyone else with a love of Gods word. |
||||||
2 | Moses appeared from where? | Matt 17:3 | BradK | 225378 | ||
Hello drbloor, Thank you for your time and the spirit in which you answered the questions from the forum on Matt. 17:9. I appreciate the discussion and study. You initially stated, “You will note that in Matt. 17:19 Jesus tells his disciples, "Tell the vision to no one", indicating that the appearance of Moses and Elijah was in fact a "vision" and not a reality - hence neither Moses nor Elijah came from anywhere as they were not actually present.” So, to reiterate I replied that I was, “…understanding that you take this passage in Matthew as figurative vs. literal?” Is this correct? Here would be my further concerns/questions based on your argument: 1. By a “plain”, “straight-forward” reading I am not implying anything “superficial” but an understanding by someone of average or better intelligence with a basic knowledge of scripture- myself for instance! Frankly, I’ve never heard nor understood the meaning you’re implying? How would someone such as this understand what Matthew is saying? In this vain, what is the authorial intent- what did Matthew mean by what he said?; 2. You are correct about the 11 usages of 'horama’ in the NT. While this can and should be strongly considered, I understand that meaning is determined by the use of a word in context, and how the writer uses the term. In other words, context determines meaning!; Vision(s) in the Bible would generally be a visual experience of any kind, but usually refer to supernatural revelations of a prophet; 3. In verse 9, ‘horama’ could mean a ‘sight’ or ‘vision” but may also be rendered “something seen”. Vincent renders it as “spectacle”. I see nothing in the previous verses that would lead me to believe he’s referring merely to a “vision” and not a reality! It seems pretty straight forward that Matthew is speaking to an actual event!; 4. Then, back in verse 3, we have “And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him” (ESV). What about this is suggestive that this is only a vision? Quite the contrary, the grammar seems to indicate otherwise. ‘Horao’ means ‘to see’- to see with the eye referring to the thing seen (objectively). The use of the indicative mood would further indicate it is a fact, describing it as real and actual; 5. What about the parallel passage in Mark 9:9? As previously mentioned by another poster, how do you factor this account? It reads, “And as they were coming down the mountain, he charged them to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.” Tell no one what they had seen to me does not imply any vision, but in fact a reality. We have a different Greek word for ‘see’ used, ‘eidon’ but again in the indicative mood indicating a simple statement of fact! Wuest’s Expanded Translation adds this clarity, “And while they were coming down out of the mountain, He charged them that they should narrate the things which they saw to not even one person, except when the Son of Man should arise out from amongst the dead.”(WWSGNT); 6. Lastly, does your conclusion agree with what others who have studied this passage? Of note, John Gill says in his Exposition of the Bible, “by the "vision" is meant, as it is explained in Mark, "what things they had seen"; as Moses and Elias, and the bright cloud that overshadowed them, and Christ transfigured before them, in a surprising, glorious manner. These Christ strictly ordered Peter, James, and John, to speak of to no man whatever; no, not their fellow disciples; who either would be apt to disbelieve them, on account of the greatness of them, as Thomas did the resurrection of Christ afterwards; or lest they should be troubled and displeased, that they were not admitted to the same sight; and especially not to the multitude, or to any other person,” With all due respect, I do not arrive at the conclusion you’re proposed based upon my reading and study of this passage:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3 | Moses appeared from where? | Matt 17:3 | lionheart | 225379 | ||
Brad,Tim; Excellent observations on both accounts. Mk 9:9 ties it all together quite nicely. Good job guy's. In Him, lionheart |
||||||