Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Matthew 17:3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Matthew 17:3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Jesus. |
Subject: Moses appeared from where? |
Bible Note: 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. |