Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 17:12 - 17:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_17:12. Οὐκ ἐπέγνωσαν αὐτόν ] that is, as the expected Elias. The subject is the γραμματεῖς , Mat_17:10.
ἐν αὐτῷ ] towards him, not classical, but comp. LXX. Gen_40:14; Dan_11:7; Luk_23:31.
ὅσα ἐθέλησαν ] indicating the purely arbitrary manner in which they treated him, in contradistinction to the way in which God desired that he should have been received.
REMARK.
The incident of the transfiguration has been regarded as a vision by so early a writer as Tertullian, c. Marc. iv. 22, by Herder, Gratz, Krabbe, Bleek, Weizsäcker, Pressensé, Steinmeyer; it would have been nearer the truth if a distinction had been made between the real and the visionary elements contained in it. We have no vision, but a reality in the glorious change which came over the outward appearance of Jesus, Mat_17:1-2, that objective element to which the ecstatic subjective manifestation owed its origin. On the other hand, we cannot but regard as visionary the appearing of Moses and Elias, and that not merely in consequence of ὤφθη , Mat_17:3 (Act_2:3; Act_7:26; 1Ti_3:16; 1Co_15:5 ff.), but owing to the vanishing away of the heavenly visitants in the cloud, and the impossibility of any bodily manifestation, at least of Moses (whose resurrection would, according to Deu_34:5 f., have to be presupposed).[461] Moreover, Matthew and Mark themselves represent the manifestation of both in such a way, that it is impossible to assert that they regarded it in the light of an actual fact; notice, on the contrary, the different modes of conception as implied in καὶ μετεμορφώθη ἔμπροσθεν αὐτῶν (not: Κ . ὬΦΘΗ ΑὐΤΟῖς ΜΕΤΑΜΟΡΦΩΘΕΊς ) and ὬΦΘΗ ΑὐΤΟῖς ΜΩΣῆς , etc. Only in the case of Luke is it manifest that he has followed a tradition which has divested the incident of its visionary character (Luk_9:30-31). The of course obvious and common objection, that three persons must be supposed to have witnessed the same phenomena and to have heard the same voice, is deprived of its force if it is conceded, as must necessarily be done, that a supernatural agency was here at work with a view to enable the three leading disciples to have a glimpse beforehand of the approaching glory of Him who was more to them than Moses and the prophets. However, it is attempting too much to attempt to show the higher naturalism of the incident (Lange, L. J. II. p. 904 ff., thinks that the heavenly nature of Jesus flashed forth from under the earthly; that the disciples had actually had a peep into the spirit world, and had seen Moses and Elias, which was rendered possible in their case through the peculiar frame of Christ’s mind and the intercourse with those spirits which He enjoyed), in opposition to which Ewald insists that the event was altogether of an ideal character; that the eternal perfection of the kingdom of God was unquestionably disclosed to view, in such a manner, however, that everything of a lower nature, and which was at all calculated to suggest the form which the narrative ultimately assumed, was lost sight of amid the pure light of a higher sphere of things (Gesch. Chr. p. 462). To assume as the foundation of the story (Baumgarten-Crusius) only some inward manifestation or other in Jesus Himself, such as led to His obtaining a glimpse of the glory that was to follow His death, is as decidedly at variance with the statements of the Gospels as it is to trace the matter to a vision in a dream (Rau, Symbola ad ill. ev. de metamorph., etc., 1797; Gabler in the neuest. theol. Journ. 1798, p. 517 ff., Kuinoel, Neander), in connection with which view some have likewise had recourse to the idea of a thunderstorm (Gabler), and the presence of two secret followers (Kuinoel). This way of looking at the matter is not favoured by Luk_9:32. No less inconsistent with the gospel narrative is the hypothesis of a secret interview with two unknown personages (Venturini, Paulus, Hase, Schleiermacher), in connection with which, again, a good deal has been made of atmospheric illumination, and the effect of the shadows that were projected (Paulus; Theile, z. Biogr. J. p. 55; Ammon, L. J. p. 302 ff.). The mythical view (Strauss, Scholten, Keim)—which regards the narrative as a legendary invention, and substantially ascribes its origin to a desire to see the glory of Moses on Sinai repeated in a higher form in the case of Jesus, and to represent the latter as the fulfilment of the law and the prophets—can least of all be justified here, where it is not only at variance with the studied unanimity of the evangelists in regard to the date of the occurrence, but also with the fact that the testimony of the three apostles must have gone far to prevent the myth from finding its way into the circle of their brethren; while, as regards the silence of John, it is certainly not to be explained on anti-docetic grounds (in answer to Schneckenburger, Beitr. p. 62 ff., see Strauss, II. p. 250), but it is explicable, to say the least of it, on the ground of his ideal conception of Christ’s mundane δόξα , and no more disproves the reality of the incident in question than his silence regarding so many other important historical facts already recorded by the Synoptists. Further, we must regard as purley supjective, and subversive of the intention and meaning of the evangelists, not merely the rationalistic explanation of the incident, according to which Jesus is represented as telling the three disciples in what relation He stood to Moses and Elias, and as thereby bringing them “into the light of His Messianic calling” (Schenkel), but likewise the imaginary notion of an admonitory symbol, after the manner of Rev_1:12 ff; Rev_11:3 ff., the historical basis of which is supposed to be contained in the fact that Peter and the first disciples had seen the risen Lord appear in heavenly radiance (Volkmar); and lastly, also the allegorical view (Weisse), according to which we are understood to have before us the symbolical conception, originating with the three enraptured apostles themselves, of the light which then dawned upon them in regard to the mission of Jesus, especially in regard to His relation to the old theocracy.
But, according to Bruno Bauer, the incident is to be regarded as the product of the conviction on the part of the church, that, in the principle on which it is founded, the powers of the past have found their glorified centre of unity.
The passage 2Pe_1:16-18 can be of no service in the way of confirming the historical character of the incident, except for those who see no reason to reject this Epistle as spurious; but it is of great importance, partly as furnishing, all the same, an ancient testimony in favour of the occurrence itself, and the significance attached to it as a historical event; partly in reference to the telic point of view from which it is to be regarded, namely, as a foreshadowing of the impending δόξα of the Lord, in which He is to come back again, and into which His most intimate disciples were in this wonderful way privileged to gaze previous to His sufferings, in order that they might be strengthened for fulfilling the difficult task that would devolve upon them after His ascension. So far as the object of the incident is concerned, it must have been intended expressly for the disciples, as is evident from ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ .
According to what has been said above, and judging from what is stated in Mat_9:31 as to the subject of conversation, it may be affirmed that Luke’s account bears the impress of a later stage of development (Fritzsche, Strauss, de Wette, Weisse, Ewald, Weiss), so that in point of originality we must give Matthew the preference (in answer to Schulz, Schleiermacher, Holtzmann, and others), and that even over Mark (comp. Ewald, Köstlin, p. 90; Keim, II. p. 588). See also note on Mar_9:2 ff.
[461] It is thus that Origen, Jerome, and other Fathers consistently argue. According to Hilgenfeld, the “Ascension of Moses” (N. T. extra canon. I. p. 96; Messias Judaeor. p. 459) was already known to the evangelist; but the Ascensio Mosis belongs, in any case, to a somewhat later period. Grotius saw himself driven to adopt the expedient of supposing that “haec corpora videri possunt a deo in hunc usum asservata,” very much as Ambrose had maintained that the body of Moses had been exempted from putrefaction. According to Calvin, God had raised the bodies ad tempus. Thomas and several other expositors refer the appearing of Moses to the category indicated by the words: “sicut angeli videntur.” Similarly Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 427 [E. T. 499], according to whom the form in which Moses appeared, and which bore a resemblance to His earthly body, was the immaterial product of his spiritualized psychic nature. Gess, with greater indefiniteness, speaks of the manifestation as a coming forth on the part of Moses and Elias from their state of invisibility. But neither Delitzsch nor Gess satisfies the requirements of the words μετʼ αὐτοῦ συλλαλ ., which in any case presuppose a glorified corporeity, or else it amounts to nothing else than a mere appearance. Comp. Beza, who adds: nisi malumus ecstaticam fuisse visionem.