THE TRANSFIGURATION. MATT. 17:1-9.
When our Lord was transfigured, on a high mountain of Galilee, before
Peter and James and John, there appeared with him two other glorified
personages, talking with him. These, the inspired narrator says, were
Moses and Elias, as the disciples understood them to be. Luke 9:30-33.
With what pleasure does the immaterialist meet with an account of any
manifestation or action on the part of those who have long been dead; it
has so specious an appearance of sustaining his views, or at least of
furnishing him ground for an argument; for, says he, the person was
dead, and this manifestation was by his conscious spirit or immortal
soul.
So far as the case of Elias is concerned, as he appeared at the
transfiguration, it affords that theory no benefit; for he, being
translated, never saw death, and so could appear in the body with which
he ascended. This is conceded by all; and for this reason his case is
never put in as a witness on this question, except by those who are so
unfamiliar with the record as to suppose that he, too, once died, and
here appeared as a disembodied spirit.
But with Moses the case is different; for we have in the Bible a plain
account of his death and burial; yet here he appeared on the mount,
alive, active, and conscious; for he talked with Christ. And so with an
air of triumph, perhaps sincere, Landis asks (p. 181), “What then have
our opponents to say to this argument? for they must meet it or renounce
their theory.”
Were we Sadducees, denying the resurrection, and any future life beyond
the grave, this case would lie as an insuperable barrier across our
pathway; but so long as the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is
taught in the Bible, the incident is not necessarily against those who
deny the existence of any such thing as a conscious, disembodied human
spirit, since the presence of Moses on the mount can be accounted for
otherwise than through such a medium.
This scene was either a representation, made to pass before the minds of
the disciples, or it was a reality as it appeared. The view that it was
merely a representation receives some countenance from the fact that it
is called a vision. “Tell the vision to no man,” said Christ; and, while
the word, vision, is sometimes applied to real appearances, as in Luke
24:43, it also is taken to represent things that do not yet exist, as in
John’s vision of the new heavens and new earth. Again, Luke says that
they (Moses and Elias) “appeared in glory.” Our Lord himself has not yet
attained unto the full measure of glory that is to result to him from
his work of redemption, 1 Pet. 1:11; Isa. 53:11; and it may well be
doubted likewise if any of his followers have reached their full state
of glory. If, then, the expression quoted from Luke refers to the future
perfected glory of the redeemed, we have another evidence that this was
only a representation, like John’s visions of future scenes of bliss,
and not then a reality. But, if this was only a vision, no argument can
be drawn from it for the intermediate existence of the soul; for, in
that case, Moses and Elias need not have been even immaterially present.
But let us consider it a reality. Then the presence of Moses can be
accounted for by supposing his resurrection from the dead. Against this
hypothesis our opponents have nothing to offer but their own assertions;
and they seem determined to make up in the amount of this commodity what
it lacks in conclusiveness. Thus Landis says, “Moses had died and was
buried, and as his body had never been raised from the dead, he of
course appeared as a disembodied spirit.” And Luther Lee says, “So far
as Moses is concerned, the argument is conclusive.” But against these
authorities, we bring forth another on the other side, as weighty, at
least, as both of them together. Dr. Adam Clarke says, on the same
passage, “The body of Moses was probably raised again, as a pledge of
the resurrection.”
Before presenting an argument to show that Moses was raised, let us look
at one consideration which proves beyond a peradventure that what
appeared on the mount was not Moses’ disembodied spirit. It will be
admitted by all that the transfiguration was for the purpose of
presenting in miniature the future kingdom of God, the kingdom of glory.
Andrews (Life of our Lord, p. 321) says: “The Lord was pleased to show
certain of the apostles, by a momentary transfiguration of his person,
the supernatural character of his kingdom, and into what new and higher
conditions of being both he and they must be brought ere it could
come.... They saw in the ineffable glory of his person, and the
brightness around them, a foreshadowing of the kingdom of God as it
should come with power; and were for a moment ’eye-witnesses of his
majesty.’ 2 Pet. 1:16.”
Who are to be the subjects in this heavenly kingdom? Ans. Those who are
translated at Christ’s coming, and the righteous dead who are raised
from their graves at that time. Will there be any disembodied spirits
there? None; for the theory is that at the resurrection, which precedes
the setting up of this kingdom, the disembodied spirits again take
possession of their reanimated bodies. Of this kingdom, the
transfiguration was a representation. There was Christ, the glorified
king; there was Elias, the representative of those who are to be
translated; and there was Moses; but, if it was simply his disembodied
soul, then there was a representation of something that will not exist
in the kingdom of God at all; and the representation was an imperfect
one, and so an utter failure. But if Moses was there in a body raised
from the dead, then the scene was harmonious and consistent, he
representing, as Dr. Clarke supposes, the righteous dead who are to be
raised, and Elias, the living who are to be translated.
The question now turns upon the resurrection of Moses from the dead; and
if scriptural evidence can be shown that Moses was thus raised, this
passage immediately changes sides in this controversy. That Moses was
raised, we think is to be necessarily inferred from Jude 9: “Yet Michael
the archangel, when contending with the devil, he disputed about the
body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but
said, The Lord rebuke thee.” It will be noticed that this dispute was
about the _body_ of Moses. Michael (Christ, John 5:27-29; 1 Thess. 4:16)
and the devil, each claimed, it appears, the right to do something with
his body.
Some have endeavored to reconcile Jude’s testimony with the
non-resurrection of Moses, by claiming that the devil wished to make
known to the children of Israel the place of Moses’ burial, in order to
lead them into idolatry; and that the contention between him and Michael
had reference to this. But such a conjecture cannot be entertained, as
in this case the contention would have been about the _grave_ of Moses,
rather than about his _body_.
But this dispute did have reference solely to the body of Moses. Then we
inquire further what the devil has to do with the bodies of men. He is
said to have the power of death; hence the grave is his dominion, and
whoever enters there he claims as his lawful prey. On the other hand,
Christ is the Life-giver, whose prerogative it is to bring men out from
under the power of death. The most natural conclusion, therefore, is,
that the dispute took place on this very point; that it had reference to
the bringing back to life of that dead body, which the devil would
naturally wish to keep, and claim the right to keep, in his own power.
But Christ rebuked the adversary, and rescued his victim from his grasp.
This is the _necessary_ inference from this passage, and, as such, is
entitled to weight in this argument.
The chief objection to this view, is this: If Moses was raised so many
years before the resurrection of Christ, how can Christ be called the
first-fruits of them that slept, as in 1 Cor. 15:20, 23? how can he be
said to be the first that should rise from the dead, as in Acts 26:23?
or be called the first-begotten, and first-begotten of the dead, as in
Heb. 1:6, and Rev. 1:5? or the first-born among many brethren, the
first-born of every creature, and the first-born from the dead, as in
Rom. 8:29, and Col. 1:15, 18?
In answering these queries, we first call attention to an important
fact: Several individuals, of whom we have explicit account, were raised
to life before the resurrection of Christ. The following cases may be
cited: (1) The widow’s son, 1 Kings 17, (2) the son of the Shunammite, 2
Kings 4, (3) the son of the widow of Nain, Luke 7:14, (4) the ruler’s
daughter, Luke 8:40, 55, and (5) the resurrection of Lazarus.
These instances cannot be disposed of by making a distinction between a
resurrection to mortality and one to immortality; for where does the
Bible make any such distinction? or where does it give even an
intimation of anything of the kind? Christ, in sending word to John of
the results of his work, told the disciples to tell him, among other
things, that _the dead_ were _raised up_. And when the wicked are
restored to life, it is called a _resurrection_, no less so than the
restoration of the righteous. See John 5:29; Acts 24:15; Rev. 20:5. But
the wicked are not raised to immortality; therefore in the matter of
being raised from the dead, the Bible recognizes no distinction on
account of the different conditions to which the different classes are
raised. Hence the cases referred to above were resurrections from the
dead just as really as though they had been raised to immortality; and
the distinction which some attempt to make is thus shown to be wholly
gratuitous, and is excluded from the controversy.
The objection now lies just as much against the cases of those of whose
resurrection we have the most explicit account, as against that of
Moses; and the question next to be met is, Can those passages which
declare that a number of the dead were raised before the resurrection of
Christ, and those which speak of Christ as the first to be raised, be
shown to be free from contradiction?
It will be noticed that the objection, so far as the words,
first-fruits, first-begotten, and first-born, are concerned, rests
wholly upon the supposition that these words denote exclusively priority
in time. It instantly vanishes before the fact that these words are not
confined to this meaning.
Christ is called the first-fruits in 1 Cor. 15, solely in reference to
his being the antitype of the wave-sheaf, and in contrast with the great
harvest that will take place at his second coming. This word is used in
different senses, as we learn from Jas. 1:18, and Rev. 14:4, where it
cannot have reference to antecedence in time. This is all that need be
said on this word.
The word rendered first-begotten and first-born is πρωτοτοκος
(_prototokos_). This word is defined by Robinson thus: “Properly the
first-born of father or mother;” and, as the first-born was entitled to
certain prerogatives and privileges over the rest of the family, the
word takes another meaning, namely, “first-born, the same as _the
first_, _the chief_, one highly distinguished and pre-eminent. So of
Christ, the beloved Son of God. Col. 1:15.” Greenfield’s definition is
similar. This word is used in the same sense in the Septuagint. In Ex.
4:22, Israel is called the first-born; and in Jer. 31:9, Ephraim is
called the first-born; but, in point of time, Esau was before Israel,
and Manasseh before Ephraim. Their being called the first-born must
therefore be owing to the rank, dignity, and station, to which they had
attained.
And hence the conclusion is not without foundation that these words,
when applied to Christ, denote the pre-eminent rank and station which he
holds in the great work, rather than the order of time in which his
resurrection occurred, a point to which no importance whatever can be
attached. All hinges upon Christ, and all is accomplished by his power,
and by virtue of his resurrection. He stands out foremost and
pre-eminent in all these displays, whether they take place before or
after his advent to this world.
The expression in Acts 27:23, presents apparently the greatest
difficulty of any. The verse reads: “That Christ should suffer, and that
he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show
light unto the people and to the Gentiles.” As it stands in our common
version it is difficult to reconcile this statement with the fact that a
number were raised from the dead previous to the resurrection of Christ
as already noticed, and we are led to wonder why Paul, knowing of all
these cases, should make such a statement. But, if we mistake not, the
original presents a different idea. In Greenfield’s Testament, the text
stands thus:--
Εἰ παθητὸς ὁ Χριστὸς, εἰ πρῶτος ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν φῶς μέλλει
καταγγέλλειν τω λαῷ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσι.
We call the attention of those familiar with the Greek to this passage,
and submit that it can be properly rendered as follows: “That Christ was
to suffer, [and] that first from the resurrection of the dead he was to
show light to the people and to the Gentiles.”
Bloomfield, in his note on this verse, says that the words “may be
rendered, either ‘after the resurrection from the dead,’ or ‘by the
resurrection;’ but the latter is preferable.” And Wakefield translates
it thus: “That the Christ would suffer death, and would be the first to
proclaim salvation to this people and to the Gentiles by a resurrection
from the dead.”
This is in accordance with what the same apostle declared to Timothy (1
Tim. 1:10), that Christ brought life and immortality to light through
the gospel. And viewed in this light, the text is freed from all
difficulty. It simply teaches that Christ would be the first to
demonstrate before the people, by a resurrection from the dead, future
life and immortality for the redeemed.
The resurrection of Lazarus, and other similar cases, though they might
show that the power of death could be so far broken as to give us a new
lease of mortal life, shed no light on our existence beyond this mortal
state. And the resurrection of Moses, supposing him to have been raised,
was not a public demonstration designed to show the people the path to a
future life. So far as we have any account, no one knew that he had been
raised till he appeared upon the mount of transfiguration. Christ was
the first one to show to the world, by his rising from the dead, the
great light of life and immortality beyond the grave.
Thus the last seeming objection against the idea that Moses had a
resurrection is taken away; while in its favor we have his appearance on
the mount, and the language of Jude, which can be explained on no other
ground.
Let us then take that view which a consistent regard for scriptural
harmony demands, though another supposed strong column on which rests
the dogma of the immortality of the soul, goes down before it with a
crash to the very dust.