Matthew 17:1

MATT. 17

THE TRANSFIGURATION; THE COMING OF ELIJAH; THE DISCIPLES' FAILURE WITH THE DEMON-POSSESSED BOY; THE PASSION PROPHESIED AGAIN; JESUS PAYS TRIBUTE WITH THE MONEY IN THE FISH'S MOUTH

And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart. (Matthew 17:1)

Luke makes the time interval "eight days" (Luke 9:28); but there is no discrepancy from Mark and Matthew. Luke used the inclusive method of reckoning time, counting the portion of a day at either end of the period, whereas Mark and Matthew counted only the complete days. A suggestion of this is in the precise terminology used. Matthew has it "after six days," and Luke stated that it was "about eight days." Today people might say, "six or eight days."

Matthew was omitted from that inner circle of three disciples who witnessed the marvel here related, and one can find only amazement at the complete detachment and objectivity of his narrative. Peter, James and John formed a kind of inner committee, or cadre, within the Twelve, and were the exclusive witnesses of the transfiguration, the raising of Jairus' daughter, and the agony in Gethsemane. Peter would take the lead in establishing the church; James would be the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem; and John would receive the final revelation. The experience on the mount of transfiguration would better equip them for future duties and responsibilities. The Saviour's prophecy of his approaching death and humiliation had doubtless imparted some measure of shock and disappointment to the Twelve, and that event was possibly designed to lift their spirits, strengthen their faith, and lead them into an acceptance of the approaching passion of our Lord.

The location of the wondrous unveiling of his glory is not given; but there are excellent and convincing reasons for placing it at Mount Hermon, or one of its supporting peaks. Robertson stated that "The tradition that places the transfiguration on Mount Tabor is beyond question false."[1] He would appear to be correct for these reasons: (1) Tabor does not qualify as a "high" mountain, being only 1,800 feet in elevation, compared with Hermon's 9,000 feet. (2) Tradition favoring Tabor, first advocated by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century,[2] is much too late to have much weight. (3) Mount Tabor was populated, having a fortress on top, during the time of Christ,[3] and was not suitable for such an event as the transfiguration. To have ascended Tabor would not have taken them "apart," as Matthew expressed it. (4) Mount Tabor was three days journey removed from the last named geographical placement of Christ and his disciples; and, although a sufficient time interval of six or eight days had elapsed, none of the gospel narratives mentions a journey of any kind. Hermon, on the other hand, was nearby and is the most likely site. (5) Furthermore, when the gospels again take up the narrative, they were still in the vicinity of Hermon. Peter, in after years, called it the Holy Mount (2 Peter 1:18), and in the words of A. L. Williams, "We may conclude that we are not intended to know more about it, lest we should be tempted to make more of the material circumstances than of the great reality."[4]

[1] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 102, footnote.

[2] A. Lukyn Williams, Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1961), Vol. 15 II, p. 171.

[3] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 683.

[4] A. Lukyn Williams, op. cit., p. 172.