2.1. Traditions

Difficulty in interpreting the episode of the transfiguration is especially obvious when one re-examines scholarly positions concerning its literary genre and the traditions that might have given rise to it. The results of Formgeschichte-based analysis are somewhat disappointing. D. Zeller includes them under an epigraph which he ironically calls ‘aporias of interpretation’,Footnote ⁶ and C. Focant endorses the conclusion of Ansaldi-Cuvillier: ‘the account [of the transfiguration] to some extent eludes classification’.Footnote ⁷ However, one must also say that an approach based on Redaktionsgeschichte, which tries to distinguish various layers in an attempt to sketch out an earlier form of the episode, has not led to certain or widely accepted conclusions.Footnote ⁸ In fact, attempts to characterize the pericope have made it veer from one extreme to the other: an Easter appearance transposed to the life of Jesus for messianic ends (Wellhausen, Bultmann), a modified account of the ascension, in the context of which the miracle is the epiphany of Jesus himself (Theissen), a ‘story about Jesus’ that may appropriately be categorized as ‘myth’ (Dibelius, Bornkamm), a vision of the disciples turned into a narrative event (Harnack), a particular type of ‘Christological story (Legende)’ (Luz). All this shows that in the history of interpretation the transfiguration episode has often not passed the test of historicity.

The results are no better once we start looking at the underlying traditions.Footnote ⁹ Doubt remains because there is not a single tradition that can explain the origin of the episode. At best, examination of the traditions can clarify some, often minor, aspects of the account. Although tradition might seem to explain everything in the Gospel account, detailed analysis reveals the differences that exist between that account and the underlying traditions. The most striking example relates undoubtedly to the typology of Moses and the exodus tradition. A reading of chs. 24, 33, and 34 of Exodus can lead to the conclusion that, in the transfiguration, Jesus is presented as the new Moses and the prophet of the last times (for this last aspect, compare Deut 18.15, ‘it is to him that you will listen’, with ‘listen to him’ of Mark 9.7).Footnote ¹⁰ Indeed, the parallels do not seem to be lacking: the three who ascend Sinai with Moses, the mountain covered by cloud for six days, Moses called by the Lord from the cloud, Moses descending from Sinai with his face radiant after speaking with God. The informed reader can hardly be ignorant of the relationship between the events on Mount Sinai and the transfiguration on the high mountain.

However, the same reader will also be aware of the difference between the figure of Moses and that of Jesus: Moses ascends the mountain with three (Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu) but also with the seventy elders of Israel (Exod 24.1, 9) and with Joshua (24.13); the cloud does not cover the mountain when Jesus is transfigured;Footnote ¹¹ in contrast to Moses,Footnote ¹² Jesus descends from the mountain with his face unchanged: he has not spoken with God; rather, it is God who has spoken about him to the disciples after his appearance was changed.Footnote ¹³ These observations lead us to the fundamental difference: if Jesus is to be compared with Moses, the comparison should not be with Moses the prophet who ascends the mountain but to the glorious, heavenly, Moses, who accompanies Jesus in his transfiguration. In fact it is the three disciples who ‘see’ the transfigured Jesus (comp. Mark 9.2: ‘before them’), just as Moses and those who accompanied him ‘saw the God of Israel’ (Exod 24.9–10). With regard to the heavenly voice, it is the three disciples who hear it as it addresses them and tells them who Jesus really is (Mark 9.7). Again, at Sinai Moses spoke (λαλέω) with God (Exod 34.29), whereas in the episode of the transfiguration he discusses (συλλαλέω) with Jesus (Mark 9.4). In conclusion, when one applies the typology of Moses to Jesus transfigured on the mountain, the differences seem to be greater than the resemblances. It is hardly possible, therefore, to maintain that in the account of the transfiguration Jesus is presented as the new Moses. Deuteronomy 18.15 does not alter this conclusion.Footnote ¹⁴ In any case, even if some features from the exodus narratives might have inspired the synoptic accounts, especially in Luke,Footnote ¹⁵ the episode of the transfiguration does not seem to have been based on the idea of Jesus as the new Moses.

A second example is the connection suggested by a good number of writers between the episode of the transfiguration and the festival of Tabernacles. In support of this idea are Peter's words to the transfigured Jesus who has just been joined by Moses and Elijah. Enraptured by what his eyes are contemplating, the disciple, in the name of the other two disciples as well, proposes setting up three tents for the three celestial figures: Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. Moreover, as has been noted, the festival of Tabernacles, according to Lev 23.27, 34, was to be celebrated on the sixth day (the fifteenth of the seventh month) after the Day of Atonement (observed on the tenth day of the same month). One might argue, then, that the chronological indication at the beginning of the transfiguration episode (‘six days later’, Mark 9.2, par. Matt 17.1; ‘about eight days after these words’, Luke 9.28) brings the event into relationship with the festival of Tabernacles. The transfiguration would have occurred on the last of the eight days that the festival lasted (Lev 23.36) or on the sixth day of the same week, and should, therefore, be interpreted as having had messianic and eschatological significance.Footnote ¹⁶ Peter would in this way have fulfilled the prophecy of Zech 14.16–19 about the festival of Tabernacles, according to which all the nations were to celebrate this festival in Jerusalem.Footnote ¹⁷ Or, as Ch. Grappe believes, Peter, in the context of the festival of Tabernacles that Jesus and his disciples were, as good Jews, celebrating in the area of Caesarea, would have seen in the transfiguration of Jesus an absolutely clear sign of the great divine revelation, and his enthusiastic reaction to this would have been tangibly demonstrated in the proposed construction of the three tents.Footnote ¹⁸

The issue turns on whether Peter's reference to the three tents should be read against the background of the Jewish festival of Tabernacles. The presence of the Greek term σκηναί is not decisive, since it does not function as a technical term.Footnote ¹⁹ Moreover, the chronological data about the six or eight days at the beginning of the account do not inevitably relate to a Jewish holiday, let alone to the festival of Tabernacles, which would have coincided, according to the Jewish calendar, with the ascent by Jesus and his disciples of the high mountain. Consequently, the three synoptic accounts do not present clear evidence that demands an interpretation informed by reference to the festival of Tabernacles.Footnote ²⁰ Clearly, what Peter says about the three tents deserves an explanation, which should be sought within the framework of his reaction to two uncommon and fascinating events: the transformation undergone by Jesus and the appearance alongside him of Moses and Elijah. It is the vision of the three heavenly figures that provokes, in Peter, an unexpected, albeit understandable, reaction.

2.2. Analogies

If an appeal to the traditions does not lead to a generally satisfactory result,Footnote ²¹ the search for possible analogies to the episode of the transfiguration is also limited in its yield. One has the impression of identifying correspondences that, at first sight, appear to be real parallels but, in the end, only represent a more or less general and allusive relationship. Nonetheless, such analogies do not cease to attract the attention of writers; they come in two types: those based on systems of apocalyptic and mystical representation, and those relating to the epiphany of a divine or celestial figure in human form.Footnote ²²

The literature relating to the Hechalot and to visions of the heavenly throne has offered an alluring background for the transfiguration episode. Jesus would have been on the mountain where he would have had a mystical vision of the chariot of fire, that is, of the glorious throne of God, and would have shared this with the three accompanying disciples, who would thus have been initiated into this overwhelming experience.Footnote ²³ The motif of the celestial journey, which has as its goal the receipt of revelations about the divine mysteries, is common in apocalyptic.Footnote ²⁴ For example, it is said that Moses ascended from the mountain to the heavens, where he underwent a glorification and, according to some texts, was enthroned and clothed in royal garments.Footnote ²⁵

However, it is difficult to maintain this position in the face of the three synoptic texts relating to the transfiguration—and also 2 Pet 1.16–18. First of all, Jesus does not receive any revelation on the high mountain; rather, it is the three disciples who see the glory of the transfigured Jesus. The disciples are witnesses to what happens but do not undergo any transformation. They are simply recipients of a revelation about the identity of Jesus, and this revelation leads them to a profound understanding of the one whom they knew only as teacher and healer. Jesus, moreover, is not taken up to heaven and does not experience a mystical rapture or make a heavenly journey (such as that which Paul mentions in 2 Cor 12.2).Footnote ²⁶ Despite all attempts to construct a strictly apocalyptic scenario from the pericope of the transfiguration, it remains resistant to such treatment. Although one can detect some elements that are shared with apocalyptic, or sometimes mystical, revelations, their presence does not mean that the episode should be interpreted as a revelation of an apocalyptic type.Footnote ²⁷

Staying in the realm of analogies, attempts have been made to set the transfiguration of Jesus against a history of religions background and to include it in the category of an epiphany of a divinity in human form.Footnote ²⁸ Neither texts nor examples are lacking. The stories of the gods and heroes of hellenistic and Roman antiquity offer many examples of epiphanies and metamorphoses that do not seem so distant from the Gospel episode. Following M. Dibelius, it may be recalled that very often the manifestation of a divine being that has taken on human form results in a scene where the divine being's glory, and, thus, his or her true identity, is revealed. At this moment, the divine beauty illuminates face, eyes, and clothing. For example, A. Yarbro Collins quotes an incident from the Odyssey where the hero, who has arrived at Ithaca, is protected by the goddess Athene, disguised first as a young girl carrying an earthenware jar and then as a young shepherd. Finally, the goddess appears as a tall, beautiful, woman, who is skilled in making beautiful things by hand.Footnote ²⁹ In the Jewish apocalyptic world, too, a heavenly personality, such as the eschatological judge, can be presented as a marvellous figure, radiant as the sun, similar to a son of God, in other words, to an angel.Footnote ³⁰

However, when these attractive analogies are applied specifically to the interpretation of the transfiguration episode the results are questionable. One might, for example, like to read into Peter's proposal to build three tents (Mark 9.5) his desire to commemorate the triple epiphany with the construction of three sanctuaries where one could offer worship to Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. Indeed, according to the hellenistic model, an epiphany is often associated with the founding of a particular cult.Footnote ³¹ Having said that, it is not obvious that it is Peter's intention on the mountain to establish such a cult. Apart from this, as already pointed out, the episode of the transfiguration differs from the motif of the return to the celestial world. From Mark 9.2–8 one can deduce only that Jesus remained transfigured during a rather short time and that, after that, in contrast to Moses and Elijah, he did not undertake a heavenly journey or return to heaven but stayed on earth, alone, with the three disciples, after his appearance had returned to its ‘normal’ state.

In short, the traditions and analogies that one may detect in relation to the transfiguration demonstrate its historical and cultural context and origins but do not lead to conclusive results. Another type of analysis is called for, which takes account of the data provided by the three synoptic accounts and which, at the same time, does not break the relationship between the transfiguration episode and other episodes that are probably associated with it. As has already been suggested, our interpretation will be based on the relationship of Jesus and the disciples, especially Peter. This relationship develops through a sequence of events that take place in the area of Caesarea Philippi and that are associated with a chronological datum (‘six days after’, Mark 9.2) that appears to provide a temporal connection between these events: Jesus' question to the disciples and Peter's answer and confession of faith (Mark 8.27–29), Jesus' announcement to the disciples, Peter's rejection of Jesus' words, and Jesus' harsh response (Mark 8.31–33), Jesus' ascent of a mountain, with the three disciples, and transfiguration, witnessed by Moses and Elijah, Peter's intervention, the heavenly voice, and the abrupt end of the vision (Mark 9.2–8). We may take as the basis of the analysis, then, three narrative units from the Gospel according to Mark (8.27–29; 8.31–33; 9.2–8).

3.1. The Choice of Jesus

The episode of the transfiguration begins with Jesus' decision to go up a high mountain accompanied onlyFootnote ³² by three disciples: Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, James and John.Footnote ³³ Indeed, if the material in vv. 2ab, 5b and 7d must be understood together, one may consider as an element from the earliest tradition the fact that Jesus decides to take three of his disciples (Peter, James, and John) with him onto the high mountain.Footnote ³⁴ What needs to be clarified is the purpose of this choice.

Although at the outset it is Jesus who makes the decision to ascend the mountain, it is not so obvious that he has also asked God to be transfigured in front of the three disciples accompanying him. The change comes through an agent that desires and achieves the transformation, the agent here being God himself. The transformative power must be identified with a divine intervention: it is God who decided that Jesus was to be transfigured on a high mountain. The link between mountains and revelations, visions, or mystical experiences on the part of human beings, is widely attested in the most varied religious systems and this link is repeated in the episode of the transfiguration of Jesus. In a general way, therefore, one may say that the ascent of Jesus and the disciples to the ‘high mountain’ has as its goal an encounter with the divine. The combination of the ascent of the mountain with the motif of prayer, which is found explicitly in Luke, only serves to reinforce this idea. Moreover, there is a striking contrast between Luke, on the one hand, and Mark and Matthew, on the other. Whereas in Luke 9.28 it is said that Jesus ‘ascended the mountain’ (ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος), in Mark 9.2 par. Matt 17.1 it is stated that Jesus ‘takes them (the three disciples) onto a high mountain’ (ἀναφέρει αὐτοὺς εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλόν). In Mark and Matthew the goal of the ascent has, to begin with, to do with the disciplesFootnote ³⁵ and only then to the person of Jesus, who, it appears, does not through this ascent seek or expect anything specific for himself, even though transfiguration is, in fact, awaiting him: God will change his appearance.

It is here that we must find the reason why Jesus considered it necessary that his three closest disciples should have such a ‘powerful’, mystical, experience of encounter with God. The answer can only be in the preceding events in the area of Caesarea Philippi. This backward glance at earlier events is expressed in, and justified by, the chronological reference, already noted, in Mark 9.2 par. Matt 17.1 (‘six days afterwards’) or in Luke 9.28 (‘eight days afterwards’). Leaving aside the disputed significance of the figure (six or eight), the three synoptic Gospels agree in setting the transfiguration a few days after the events that had previously occurred.

Jesus had asked the disciples to make a pronouncement about his identity, after he had asked the same question with regard to the opinion of other people. But it is Peter who in answering reflects an opinion that all seem to share.Footnote ³⁶ In the same way, after Jesus' teaching about his destiny—which, according to Mark 9.31 par. Matt 16.21 par. Luke 9.22, includes suffering, rejection, death, and resurrection on the third dayFootnote ³⁷—Peter takes the initiative in drawing Jesus aside and reacting to this teaching with a reprimand. Just as all the disciples had shared in the confession of faith that Jesus is the Messiah, we may say that they all now share in the refusal to accept his destiny of suffering and death. All, accordingly, have become ‘deserving’ of Jesus' counter-reprimand.Footnote ³⁸

Jesus' harsh words to Peter and, by extension, the other disciples, show how seriously Jesus takes their reaction: ‘Get behind me, Satan, for your views are not those of God, but those of men’ (Mark 8.33 par. Matt 16.23, where there is also the phrase ‘you are obstructing me’). The problem thus comes fully to the surface: Peter and the other disciples have lapsed into a kind of insubordination about what Jesus says concerning his future, apparently using what seems to be a decisive argument: God could not wish for Jesus' death! Jesus is mistaken when he proclaims for himself a future of suffering and death!Footnote ³⁹ The problem concerns, then, the interpretation of the will of God.

After these events filled with tension between Jesus and the disciples, a sign is needed, an explanation, a legitimizing of Jesus' intentions and those of God. It is not enough to put Peter in his place with a vigorous ‘Get behind me, Satan!’ It is not enough to remind Peter that his thoughts are far from the views and thoughts of God. Any trace of rebuke has to disappear from the hearts of the disciples, who have been thrown into consternation by the destiny of suffering and death that awaits the one whom they themselves have come to recognize as the Messiah. And the only way to do this is to lead the disciples—at least some of them, the most important, the ‘leaders’ of the group—to an experience of encounter with God, of an as yet unknown kind. God has to speak to them, God must take them to an unquestioning recognition of Jesus, the Jesus who has announced that he would undergo terrible suffering and would die. Jesus trusts in God's response. He does not know how it will occur but he is fully confident that the ascent of the mountain will be associated with an action of the Father, to which only three disciples will be privy.Footnote ⁴⁰

3.2. The Answer of God

God's answer comes suddenly and unpredictably. Jesus undergoes a transformation in his clothing (Mark) and, almost certainly, in his face (Matthew and Luke). The transformation in Jesus' appearance occurs ‘before them’ (ἔμπροσθεν αὐτῶν) (Mark 9.2c par. Matt 17.2a), that is, in front of the three disciples. Mark 9.3 uses the image of the fuller who bleaches garments. Matthew 17.2 refers in general to the dazzling of the sun and the whiteness of the light.Footnote ⁴¹ Clearly, the image of the fuller is more direct, expressive, and concrete, and seems to depend on eyewitness material from the oral tradition.Footnote ⁴² The point of the comparison is conveyed by the words ‘on earth’ (ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, Mark 9.3): no fuller here on earth can bleach garments in such a way; consequently, Jesus' appearance shows that he now belongs to the heavenly world.Footnote ⁴³ The identification of Jesus as a heavenly character, the result of God's acting upon him, is to be complemented by the appearance of these two figures. Their appearance, too, depends on the divine will. Moses and Elijah arrive, even if this is not stated explicitly, because it was God's intention for them to do so: they are God's envoys to the transfigured Jesus. Their primary and most obvious identity is that of heavenly figures, inhabitants of the heavenly dwelling-places.

Moreover, Moses and Elijah are undoubtedly the two best-known figures of this type, much more so than Enoch, who was also taken up to heaven (cf. Gen 5.24). They have an important presence in the Scriptures, Moses being the prophet associated with the Law (indeed, the author of the Pentateuch according to Jewish tradition) and Elijah the prophet connected with miracles and healings (in particular the miracle of the fire that fell from heaven).Footnote ⁴⁴ Their lives and their exploits are known, above all the fact that they were taken up to heaven without experiencing death, and the three disciples apparently recognize them immediately.Footnote ⁴⁵ The disciples are the recipients and the witnesses of this irruption of the heavenly realm: Jesus' transfiguration and the appearance of Moses and Elijah occur in front of them, they are the ones destined to behold this vision of the three heavenly figures.Footnote ⁴⁶ It could be said that the disciples understood Jesus to be the central figure, since the two others had come to meet him: Jesus has not undertaken a journey to heaven; it is Moses and Elijah who have come from heaven down to the earth. Despite this, the greatest honour pertains to the one who has stayed in his place, not to those who go to meet him: Jesus receives, from the two most important prophetic figures in the Scriptures, both witness and honour.Footnote ⁴⁷

The glory of Jesus shines on the high mountain. God has spoken to the disciples: Jesus has been formally shown as a heavenly and glorious figure, close to God and belonging to the heavenly realm. He is the Messiah of Israel, as Peter had recognized (Mark 8.29), but is also someone who belongs to the divine world, and it is God who proclaims him to be such by transfiguring him (9.3). Jesus' identity in its profoundest aspect is not of this earth, and his choice of a future beset by suffering and death, which he has openly expressed to the disciples, is part of this identity. God has acted before them after Jesus had announced his choice. However, the disciples will not understand the significance of all this immediately and will need a second revelation. They have stopped at the vision of the transfigured Jesus and at the appearance of Moses and Elijah, unaware of the consequences of the transfiguration that God has granted to Jesus, and do not move beyond the enthusiasm that the vision generates among them in order to see how the revelation will in practice bear on the life of Jesus and on God's design.

4.1. The Disciples' Reaction

The disciples react in a way that is at the same time surprising, understandable, and inadequate.Footnote ⁴⁸ They cannot move beyond the extraordinary vision that has unfolded before their eyes. Peter's intervention comes at a particular point in the episode, between the vision and the audition, the vision of the glorious characters that God allows the disciples to see (Mark 9.2c–4) and the divine voice, which, when it issues from the cloud, resounds for them on the mountain (Mark 9.7). The disciple's intervention does no damage to the unfolding of the theophany and introduces a rather unusual but not improbable element. Moreover, Peter's words are reported in almost exactly the same way in all three synoptic accounts (Mark 9.5 par. Matt 17.4 par. Luke 9.33). From a critical perspective, then, the tradition relating to these words seems rather reliable.Footnote ⁴⁹

Writers are somewhat reluctant to interpret the words in a positive, or even neutral, way. First of all, it is obvious that Peter's intervention causes a slowing down in the narrative action,Footnote ⁵⁰ but not a cut. Secondly, the beginning of his intervention is completely positive. The use of the term ‘Rabbi’ indicates that he recognizes in the one who has been transfigured the master who led the three disciples onto the mountain. The phrase ‘it is good that we are here’ expresses a kind of anticipation of heavenly blessedness.Footnote ⁵¹ The three disciples are overwhelmed by an extraordinary, enrapturing, and unknown happiness, which they would like to be never-ending, eternal, a genuine experience that takes root deep inside those who encounter an unearthly, heavenly, reality.Footnote ⁵²

Peter, with the others, proposes making three tents, that is to say, three stone shelters, made with the rocks scattered upon the high mountain where the disciples now are and on the majority of Palestinian—and indeed all Mediterranean—mountains. Indeed, if the disciples are aiming for a solid and stable dwelling-place, stone is a much better choice than fragile branches. Whatever the type of material to be used, their ‘project’ has just one goal: to set up on earth what the celestial figures have in heaven. There is a dual purpose in this: these heavenly figures should have on earth a dwelling-place appropriate to their honour; at the same time, the disciples wish the state of happiness they are experiencing due to the glorious vision to continue.Footnote ⁵³ They want to reproduce on earth the eternal dwelling-places of the saints and the righteous, according to a tradition widespread in Jewish apocalyptic (1 En. 39.4–8; 41.2; 71.16; 2 En. 61.2; T. Abr. 20.14) and not completely alien to the NT either (cf. Luke 16.9; John 14.2). This tradition, popular in Jesus' time, functions as sufficient background to the disciples' surprising suggestion.

In any case, Peter and the other two disciples do not realize that their suggestion is inappropriate to the transient nature of the vision. The meeting of the three heavenly figures takes place not in heaven, where eternal realities are to be found, but on earth, where the merely ephemeral happens: the vision of Jesus' glory cannot last indefinitely. They do not realize either that it was the divine will that granted them this vision, which, consequently, remains subject to divine initiative: the disciples are not in control of it and cannot extend it as they please. Finally, the three disciples, and in particular Peter, do not realize the relationship that exists between the status of Jesus as a heavenly figure alongside Moses and Elijah, whom they immediately recognize, and the status of Jesus as a human being destined for suffering and death, a notion they utterly rejected a few days before. With the transfiguration, the disciples seem to have forgotten their disagreement with the words of Jesus when he announced this destiny. It becomes apparent, then, that they need the auditory element, that they have to hear the divine voice. The theophany must be fully accomplished, in order to arrive at the understanding that they still lack.

4.2 God's Design with Regard to Jesus

Matthew (17.5) and Luke (9.33) both report that Peter cannot continue making his proposal because he is effectively interrupted by a cosmic phenomenon, a cloud (Matthew adds ‘shining’). It seems that the vision of the three celestial figures disappears behind the cloud. There is only one voice coming from the cloud and it is heard speaking about Jesus. The vision leads to hearing, and hearing will lead in a sudden and abrupt way to the ending of the theophany (Mark 9.8). After Peter's words, the whole episode draws swiftly to a close. However, who actually entered the cloud—only the three heavenly figures; or they and the three disciples as well? The wording of Mark 9.7 (ἐπισκιάζουσα αὐτοῖς) (par. Matt 17.5 par. Luke 9.34) is ambiguous, and scholars are divided about it.Footnote ⁵⁴ Luke solves our problem by mentioning that ‘they’ (the disciples) were afraid ‘at the time they entered into the cloud’; obviously, such fear cannot overtake the three heavenly figures.Footnote ⁵⁵ Appeal to Jewish sources proves indecisive.Footnote ⁵⁶ The only possibility is, perhaps, to argue from the fact that the divine voice comes from the cloud (ἐγένετο φωνὴ ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης), which might imply that those who hear it are not in it. The closest parallel to the episode of the transfiguration, namely that of the baptism (Mark 1.11: φωνὴ ἐγένετο ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν), is in this regard rather illuminating.Footnote ⁵⁷ It should, thus, be concluded that the pronoun αὐτοῖς (Mark 9.7) refers only to the three heavenly figures: Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. It is they who belong to the divine world and it is over them that the sign of the divine shekinah extends. The three disciples, who hear the voice that comes from the cloud, remain outside the cloud but are privileged witnesses to the heavenly glory.

Attempts have been made to find for the words pronounced by the divine voice a parallel in Scripture that might serve as a background to their interpretation. The words from the cloud are closest to those of Gen (LXX) 22.2, 12, 16, where the expression ‘your beloved son’ refers to Isaac, the only son of Abraham.Footnote ⁵⁸ The following expression ‘listen to him’ is often associated with Deut 18.15 (‘it is him to whom you will listen’, in the future) in connection with the eschatological prophetic successor of Moses. These OT parallels constitute the starting-point for a number of different interpretations of the transfiguration. If Ps 2.7 is taken as the point of departure then the transfiguration could be interpreted as a Messianic enthronement ceremony.Footnote ⁵⁹ A background in Deut 18.15 has been regarded as an argument in favour of the identification of the transfigured Jesus with the eschatological prophet, specifically Elijah, who is par excellence the prophet of the end-time (cf. Matt 3.22–24).Footnote ⁶⁰

However, beyond the actual words used, we notice that the utterance attributed to the divine voice contains two core elements: ‘Son’ and ‘listen to him’. Jesus is called ‘Son’ (a word found in both Ps 2 and Gen 22) following a gesture that constitutes an extraordinary sign of God's closeness to Jesus, not only of Jesus' closeness to God. This sign is the transfiguration with radiant light that God, the Father, has granted to Jesus before the eyes of his disciples. But they have simply seen that he is a heavenly figure, like Moses and Elijah. At this point, God, the Father, formally proclaims the status of Jesus with the voice that comes out from the cloud and that, in the presence of the disciples, designates Jesus as ‘the Son’, as the one who has a uniquely close relationship with God, the Father. The divine glory is manifested on the mountain by means of the cloud and the voice, a measured theophany, without ‘a blazing fire, and darkness, and gloom, and a tempest’ (Heb 12.18 [nrsv]; cf. Exod 19.16–19). What is especially apparent is, rather, the personal engagement of God with his transfigured Son.Footnote ⁶¹

The second element at the heart of the divine declaration is a command: ‘listen to him’. The divine command is quite clear: one should not set up stone shelters but should listen to Jesus, a command that, accordingly, refers to the same disciples' reaction of rejection to Jesus' announcement about his suffering and death. The command to listen to Jesus takes on a profound dimension when it is set against the failure to listen and the rebuke Peter had addressed to the Master. It is especially to Jesus that one must listen, even before Moses and Elijah. All three were in conversation at the beginning of the theophany, but it is only Jesus, the divine voice affirms, to whom it is necessary to listen.Footnote ⁶² The theophany began with three heavenly figures but closes with the mention of just one: Jesus, the only Son. Because of that, he is the only one (or the first one) to whom one must listen.

After an episode of disobedience, where Peter and the other disciples have come out openly against Jesus' words concerning his passion and death, it is very likely that the two episodes should be viewed in combination. This relationship is reflected in the strong, albeit flexible, bond that exists between the imperative ‘Get behind me’ (Mark 8.33) and another imperative, ‘listen to him’ (Mark 9.7c), both addressed to the disciples, and especially to Peter. The first is pronounced by Jesus; the second, by the divine voice. The first comes after the disciples' reaction of complete refusal to accept Jesus' announcement concerning his tragic destiny. The second occurs after an inadequate, albeit understandable, reaction of the disciples, in which they propose making three stone shelters for the heavenly figures.

By taking up once more the language of Mark 8.33 on the views of God and of men, we may say that in the episode of the transfiguration God, the Father, in the glorification of the image of his Son and in making that Son's words the main point of reference for the disciples, has revealed his thoughts and his design, his feelings and his emotions. Jesus' announcement of his suffering and death is not just Jesus' choice but is also part of God's design.Footnote ⁶³ As a result, Peter's rebuke to Jesus and his rejection of Jesus' words is something that belongs to the views of human beings, which have nothing to do with those of God. Now that the divine voice has confirmed Jesus as the one to whom they must listen, Peter and the others must re-establish themselves as disciples and position themselves once more to follow Jesus.