A Comparison Between the Transfiguration Accounts of Matthew and Luke

Aleks Clark

New Testament Survey I - Gospels

Instructor: Stein

December 31, 2019

 1

Introduction

Possibly no event in Jesus’ life, other than his passion and resurrection, is as significant

as the Transfiguration. The foretaste of glory that the disciples received in those moments is

so striking, that some have said that the story is in fact a misplaced resurrection account.1

While the details of the account are sufficient to discredit that theory, its very existence is

a testimony to the significance of the Transfiguration. In comparing the two accounts of

Matthew and Luke, we can discover much about the intentions of each Evangelist, while

appreciating their shared desire to make much of the Son of Man in their accounts.

Context

In all three Synoptic Gospels, the Transfiguration is strongly connected to the account

of Peter’s confession of Jesus the Christ, Jesus’ foretelling of his own death, and the sayings

on discipleship. Not only do these accounts precede the Transfiguration account in all three

Gospels, but they are connected by the relatively rare temporal indication “after six days”

(Luke’s account uses 8 days, this will be discussed at a later point).

This sequence of events is highly significant in the narrative flow, whatever the theo-

logical emphases the individual evangelists bring to bear. As R.T. France observes,2 Peter’s

confession and the excitement that must have followed was immediately blunted by the rev-

elation that Jesus would suffer and die. The sayings of discipleship then provide a pathway,

for both the disciples and the reader, through the suffering of the Cross and into the glory

1. Robert H. Stein, “The Transfiguration,” Journal of Biblical Literature 95, no. 1 (1976).

2. R. T. France, Matthew, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (InterVarsity Press, USA, 1985),
p. 265.
 2

of the Father. However, the true nature of Jesus’ relationship to the Father has not yet been

made clear.

In the case of Matthew, the Evangelist brings this lack of clarity to the surface in

the words of Peter: “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.”.3 Not as

concerned with preserving the dignity of the disciples as Luke will prove to be, Matthew

records Jesus’ rebuke in the strongest terms: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance

to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of

man.”.4 With this reproach, Jesus makes plain what might otherwise be hidden: despite

Peter’s respectful form of address,5 his reproach or remonstration of Jesus demonstrates a

profound lack of understanding of Jesus’ mission, so much so that while his initial confession

is attributed to God the Father, his followup is attributed to the father of lies.

In the Lucan narrative, this same concern with the identity of Jesus is presented via

different means. As scholars have noted since at least the 19th century,6 the Synoptic Gospels

can be considered passion narratives with extended introductions. Luke plays true to this

form by weaving the question “Who is this Jesus?” into his account of Herod’s perplexity

in vv. 7-9. Here Luke sets the stage for both Peter’s confession, and the Transfiguration.

Immediately before Peter confesses Jesus to be the Messiah, sent by God, the disciples

mention the same possibilities that Herod had considered: John the Baptist, and Elijah. In

3. The Holy Bible, ESV (Crossway Bibles, 2001), Matt. 16:22b.

4. Ibid., Matt. 16:23b.

5. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992), 16:23.

6. W. R. F. Browning, ed., “Kähler, Martin,” 2019, http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/

article/opr/t94/e1055.
 3

the Transfiguration, it will be made clear that these answers are not simply incorrect, but

they are woefully insufficient.

Students of the Synoptic Problem will find an interesting tidbit to gnaw on at this

point: while both Luke and Matthew make reference to the confusion of John the Baptist,

Elijah, and Jesus, only Luke records the involvement of Herod, the executor of John the

Baptist. However, it is only in Matthew and Mark that Jesus links the death of John the

Baptist with his own impending death. If the Two-Document theory is to be preferred,

7
why would Luke omit this obvious connection? Conversely, given the minimal reference

to Herod in Mark, the connection between the death of John the Baptist and the Passion is

not well-established, as it was Herod who “did what he pleased” with John.8

Matthew 17:1 / Luke 9:28

When comparing the two accounts of the Transfiguration, the first point of disagree-

ment one encounters is that of the period of time between the events immediately preceding,

and the Transfiguration. Mark and Matthew open almost identically with “And after six

days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John9 , and led them up a high mountain

by themselves. And he was transfigured before them.”.10 Luke on the other hand has the

7. If any at all, some manuscripts read “the herodians”The Holy Bible, Mark 8:15

8. Ibid., Matt. 17:12.

9. Here Matthew adds “his brother.” Is Matthew attempting to distinguish John the son of Zebedee
and brother of James from another disciple named John? Perhaps the identity of the Beloved Disciple was
already known to be distinct from the John who was one of the Twelve. The deviation from Mark, if one
assumes Marcan priority, must be intentional as the text is otherwise identical.

10. The Holy Bible, Matt. 17:1, Mark 9:2.

 4

interval as “about eight days”.11 In reckoning with this disparity, the influence of redaction

criticism on modern Gospel scholarship becomes quite clear. As far back as Chrysostom,

this question had been evident:

Now another says, after eight, Luke 9:28 not contradicting this writer,
but most fully agreeing with him. For the one expressed both the very day on
which He spoke, and that on which He led them up; but the other, the days
between them only.12

This method of reconciling the two accounts, by including the days on which the events

happened in the number of days between, persisted at least until John Calvin13 . This

resolution has much to be said for it: simplicity of explanation, as well as harmony between

the authors. On the other hand, more recent commentaries stress the precision of this time

interval,14 and the potential for literary intention in selecting this precise number.

Of the two alternatives, the “six days” of Matthew and Mark is the easiest to explain.

The Transfiguration accounts in all three Gospels are rife with references to Moses’ experience

on Mount Sinai in Exodus, and the six days may represent a “subtle allusion to the six days

spent by Moses on mount Sinai.15 ” Even this connection is tenuous – the six days may be

simple historical recollection, preserved in two Gospels. Divining Luke’s intentions is an even

11. The Holy Bible, Luke 9:28.

12. John Chrysostom, “Homily 56 On Matthew,” Sec. 2, http://newadvent.org/fathers/200156.

htm.

13. “Matthew and Mark reckon six entire days, which had elapsed between the events. Luke says
that it happened about eight days afterwards, including both the day on which Christ spake these words,
and the day on which he was transfigured. We see then that, under a diversity of expression, there is a
perfect agreement as to the meaning.”John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew,
Mark, and Luke (The Edinburgh Printing Company, 1846), Vol II, Matt 17:1

14. France, Matthew, p 266, 1.

15. G. B. Caird, “The Transfiguration,” The Expository Times, Expository Problems, 1956, I, par.
2.
 5

murkier proposition. Some have suggested a translation between Jewish 6-day weeks and

Hellenistic 8-day weeks, or a reference to the eight day in the Feast of Tabernacles16 (Peter’s

suggestion about building booths would be slightly excused by this connection).

While ultimately most scholars agree that this disparity is nothing to be concerned

about, this difference in interpretive method highlights the weaknesses and strengths of

each: the earlier commentaries found a simple, straightforward explanation which has the

side-effect of muting the distinctive concerns of the Evangelists, while the modern scholars

offer an explanation that is vague precisely because it is difficult to deduce the intent of Luke

in altering the temporal reference.

Prayer in Luke

In Luke alone are we given the detail that Jesus went up on the mountain to pray.

Taken on its own, the reference in vs. 28 would seem a mere colorful detail, but in fact

prayer is an important motif in Luke. As we have seen in the previous discussion, the Trans-

figuration’s placement in all three Synoptics follows Peter’s confession. Luke, in contrast

to Matthew and Mark, places Peter’s confession in the context of prayer as well.17 The

emphasis on prayer, then, reinforces the closeness of Jesus to the Father, and drives home

Jesus’ status as the Son of God.18

16. Robert H. Stein, Luke, The New American Commentary (Broadman Press, 1992), p 283.

17. The Holy Bible, Luke 9:18.

18. Joel B. Green, The Theology of the Gospel Of Luke (Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 59.
 6

Matthew 17:2 / Luke 9:29

At the moment of the Transfiguration itself, another Lucan distinctive is evident:

while Mark and Matthew say that Jesus was “transfigured” (literally, metamorphosed),

Luke simply says that “the appearance of his face was altered”. It is possible that Luke is

attempting to avoid any point of comparison with pagan myths,19 but the central aspects of

the change that came over Jesus (his face, and clothing) are preserved nonetheless.

The details of the Transfiguration are themselves significant. While even the begin-

nings of the accounts have possible allusions to Moses’ experience on Sinai20 , by this point

they become inescapable. Jesus’ face shines like the sun, a reference to Moses’s face shining

that Matthew’s Jewish readers would not have missed for a moment. Luke’s emphasis on

glory21 is brought out in his description of Jesus’ clothing: it is not merely white, or bright,

but so bright as to dazzle.

Matthew 17:3 / Luke 9:30-32

A second morsel for those interested in the Synoptic Problem is found in the opening

of this segment. While Matthew’s account of the appearance of Moses and Elijah is terse

almost to a fault, it shares with Luke, against Mark, the exclamatory “And behold.” While

this usage is typical of Matthew, in keeping with his frequent allusions to the OT, it is far

less frequent in Luke, leaving one to ponder its presence in Luke’s extended account.

19. Stein, Luke, p 284.

20. Aside from the significance of the number of days leading up to the Transfiguration, Moses was
also accompanied by three named companions. See The Holy Bible, Deut. 24:1,9 and Stephen Williams,
“The Transfiguration,” Themelios, no. 28.1 (2002): p. 22.

21. Ibid., p. 20.

 7

The discussion of Moses and Elijah with Jesus is noted in all three Synoptic accounts,

however Luke is the only one to reveal its contents. After adding the detail that Moses and

Elijah also appeared in glory 22 , Luke explains that they conversed with Jesus about his

impending departure, or literally, exodus. This is a crucial point in the narrative of Luke,

because although Jesus had already indicated that he was to die, this is the first time that

the location of his suffering and death is mentioned..23

In addition to the details of the conversation, Luke is also unique in providing some

explanation for Peter’s outburst in v. 32. Having omitted Jesus’ potent rebuke of Peter,

otherwise found in Matthew 16:22-23 and Mark 8:32-33, Luke continues by explaining that

Peter and the other two disciples were at this point “heavy with sleep.” These unique

editorial comments by Luke may pass unremarked, where it not for Luke 22:45. In this

passage, Luke also provides a more sympathetic view of the disciples, saying that their

torpor is due to being “heavy with sorrow.”

The argument that Luke is merely apologizing for the disciples at this point may

have some merit (see Stein, Luke, 9:32), however it is counterbalanced by Luke’s unique

contributions to the narrative. There is no narrative explanation for why the disciples should

have been half-asleep. If Luke had truly wished to excuse the disciples, some reference to

an extended journey, or the time of day would have been apropos. Thus the drowsiness of

22. Luke emphasizes glory repeatedly throughout this narrative, see v. 32, and previously in v. 26.

23. Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, The New American Commentary (William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1997), 4.6.3 28-29.
 8

the disciples is likely to represent their spiritual torpor, being slow to understand who Jesus

truly was.24

Seeing His Glory

As the most extensive diversion from the other Synoptic accounts of the Transfigu-

ration occurs here in Luke, the material here must be seen to have a special significance.

The most eloquent summary of the entire narrative, from the confession of Peter through to

Transfiguration, is captured by Luke in a few words: “when they came fully awake they saw

his glory.” Until now, despite the many signs and wonders of Jesus’ ministry, the disciples

have been asleep, dull to perceive Jesus’ true nature. Now, progressively, Jesus ensures that

they have understood who he really is. Confession and explanation prove inadequate to

bring the truth home to Jesus’ companions, and so finally in the Transfiguration, the Son of

Man is revealed “under symbols which were adapted to the capacity of the flesh, he enabled

them to taste in part what could not be fully comprehended.”25

Matthew 17:4 / Luke 9:33

Peter’s suggestion, or outburst, as it is variously held to be, is often the subject of

comment. The form of address varies between the three accounts: Mark has it “Rabbi,”

Matthew uses “Lord,” and Luke “Master.” Matthew’s form of address is here most ap-

propriate, given the revelation of Jesus’ glory the disciples have just witnessed. The term

24. Green, The Gospel of Luke, 4.6.3 33.

25. Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Matt 17:2.
 9

Peter uses in Luke is notably inappropriate, possibly indicating that Luke is painting a

less-favorable view of the disciples than one might initially assume.26

The proposal to construct the tents is itself an indication of Peter’s lack of under-

standing. Not only has Peter rejected the words of Jesus about his mission,27 by suggesting

a semi-permanent residence on this mountain, but he has also equated Jesus’ position with

that of Moses and Elijah. Quoting again from the Gold-Tongued Preacher:

What do you say, O Peter? Did you not a little while since distinguish
Him from the servants? Are you again numbering Him with the servants?
Do you see how exceedingly imperfect they were before the crucifixion? For
although the Father had revealed it to him, yet he did not always retain the
revelation, but was troubled by his alarm...28

Luke’s censure at this point is clear: Peter does not know what he is saying. Whatever

Luke’s empathy for the disciples, it does not extend to pardoning this grievous error of

equivalency29 .

On Tents

As noted earlier, some scholars see in Luke’s choice of “eight days” a reference to the

Feast of Tabernacles, or Booths. The constructions of this feast are thus supposed to be

rough equivalents to the tents of Peter’s suggestion. While not completely without merit, this

suggestion seems to have more to do with explaining the difference in days than it does with

26. Green, The Gospel of Luke, 4.6.3 33.

27. The Holy Bible, Mark 9:31, Matt. 16:21, Luke 9:22.

28. Chrysostom, “Homily 56 On Matthew,” 4.

29. For a more lenient take on Luke, where Peter’s lack of understanding is more akin to the “wisdom
of babes,” see James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke, The Pillar New Testament Commentary
(William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2015), JESUS: THE HUMAN TABERNACLE OF GOD (9:28-
36)
 10

the tents themselves. Given the obvious points of comparison between the Transfiguration

narrative, and Moses’ experience on Sinai, it seems more reasonable to conclude that Peter’s

suggestion is as translated, an actual tent akin to the Tabernacle of Exodus.

Matthew 17:5-7 / Luke 9:34-5

No matter how dim a view of Peter one might have, at this point the Synoptic

narratives should elicit some sympathy even from the hardest of hearts. Having gotten

Jesus’ identity and purpose wrong yet again, Peter doesn’t even have a chance to finish what

he is saying when the Divine prerogative interjects a correction. In addition to the evident

brightness of Jesus’ face and clothing, a cloud descends and the voice of the Almighty rings

out. We have it from Matthew that the cloud is bright - most likely a typically Matthean

reference to the Shekeinah glory of the Old Testament.30 Whatever their mental condition

at this point, the terrified prostration recorded in Matthew is eminently understandable!

This is My Son

These words, spoken from the bright cloud, encapsulate the purpose of the Trans-

figuration. As previously noted, everyone involved with Jesus, from the distant Herod to

the intimate disciples, is confused and uncertain as to the relationship of Jesus and God.

While Luke omits the additional description of “beloved,” his omission should not be seen

as a slight but more of an editorial choice. Luke seeks to highlight Jesus’ authority in inter-

preting God’s divine purpose,31 and so uses the phrase “my Chosen One.” This title is not

30. France, Matthew, p. 267.

31. Green, The Gospel of Luke, Intro, 2, par. 6.

 11

found elsewhere in the NT, but has rich connotations for those in Luke’s audience familiar

with the OT.32

Matthew’s unique contribution of “in whom I am well pleased” may be linked to

the author’s desire to show that Jesus is the fulfillment of all God’s purposes,,33 or a bald

reference to Isaiah 42:1: “’Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I

delight.” Whatever the case, it is clear that the Father is validating Jesus’ ministry with

unquestionable directness.

Listen to Him

Having established the identity of Jesus, and his relationship with God the Father, the

voice from the cloud goes on to validate the authority of Jesus. While it is certainly valid to

take this authority as being essentially boundless, since God does not include any qualifying

statements in his assertion of Jesus’ authority to teach and pronounce, the editorial work of

the Evangelists is not to be discounted. While Mark’s Gospel links this statement to Peter’s

refusal to listen to Jesus with regards to his suffering and eventual death, Luke widens the

scope to include all of Jesus’ teachings..34

In addition to the literal injunction to accept the words of Jesus, it seems likely that

we have here an implicit comparison between Jesus, and Moses and Elijah. While these two

Old Testament figures loomed large in the consciousness of the population in Jesus’ day,

32. Stein, Luke, 9:35.

33. France, Matthew, p. 41.

34. Stein, Luke, 9:35.

 12

both in eschatological and doctrinal terms, it is Jesus that is singled out. Here the Gospels

speak in unison and not harmony, telling us, in the words of John Calvin:

There is an implied contrast of Moses and Elijah with Christ, and ...
the disciples of God’s own Son are here charged to seek no other teacher.35

He Touched Them

Matthew alone tells us that Jesus came to the disciples and reassured them. Having

witnessed the glory of the Son of God, and heard the voice of God, they were doubtless

shaken. Here perhaps Matthew seeks to illustrate not simply the fact of the arrival of the

Kingdom of Heaven, but also its essentially personal nature..36 In this moment, Calvin sees

a portrait of Jesus’ ultimate purpose, coming to this earth to raise us up, so that we may

no longer fear God’s majesty but enter confidently.37

Matthew 17:8-9 / Luke 9:36

As the account of the Transfiguration draws to a close, the Evangelists here re-

emphasize the focus of the narrative. The disciples, and eventually the readers of the Gospels,

are to focus on Jesus, and Jesus alone. While Moses and Elijah are remarkable figures, their

purpose in the story is subordinate: they point to the Messiah.38 The fascination of the Jews

with the Law and the Prophets is clearly intended to be supplanted by a fixation on the

culmination of God’s work in Jesus.

35. Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Matt. 17:5.

36. Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, p. 4.

37. Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Matt. 17:5.

38. Stein, Luke, 9:36.

 13

Silence

Jesus’ command to keep silent about these matters, omitted from Luke’s account,

is often assumed to be part of Mark’s attempt to explain why so few responded to Jesus’

public ministry..39 Matthew agrees with Mark in this portion of the account, and one

would imagine he does it gladly, as it plays well into his overall theme of fulfillment. Luke’s

omission of the command is likely intended to point forward to the further misunderstandings

of the disciples. Yet again, when Jesus foretells his death in vv. 43-45, the disciples remain

incapable of understanding Jesus’ true purpose.

Conclusion

After a thorough analysis, it is clear that Luke’s account of the transfiguration is in

harmony with that of Matthew, while preserving his distinctive emphasis on prayer and the

ongoing account of lack of understanding.

Matthew has an account that is much more akin to that of Mark, but in his choice of

descriptive detail, such as Jesus’s shining face, the brightness of the cloud, and the touch of

the Beloved, presents an account that is fundamentally Jewish, and concerned with Jesus’

fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.

39. France, Matthew, p. 157.