Studia Antiqua

Volume 2 Number 2 Article 9

February 2003

The Mount of Transfiguration

Rebecca Lynne Sybrowsky

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/studiaantiqua

Part of the Biblical Studies Commons

BYU ScholarsArchive Citation

Sybrowsky, Rebecca L. "The Mount of Transfiguration." Studia Antiqua 2, no. 2 (2003).
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/studiaantiqua/vol2/iss2/9

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Studia Antiqua by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information,
please contact scholarsarchive@byu.edu, ellen_amatangelo@byu.edu.
This is the earliest surviving figural representation of the Transfiguration, a.d.
565–66. Its preservation is due to its remote location at Saint Catherine’s
monastery at Mount Sinai. Christ raises his right hand in the usual benediction
while seven shafts of light radiate out to the world. The intense cerulean blue
of the mandorla, or oval halo, around Christ is the artist’s representation of the
literary image in Exodus 24:10: “Under his feet . . . lapis lazuli clear as the sky,”
thus connecting the two sacred mountains where prophets saw God.
 The Mount of Transfiguration

Rebecca Lynne Sybrowsky

The sacred events on the Mount of Transfiguration solidified

Simon Peter’s authority to lead the nascent Church. By examining,
the scriptural account of the Transfiguration, with Old Testament
parallels and modern revelation, this article demonstrates that
Peter received the authority and the governing keys requisite to lead
the kingdom of God on the earth.

This article is a chapter of a thesis entitled “The Leadsership of

Peter in the Early Christian Church.”

We made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he re-
ceived from God the Father honour and glory, when there came
such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came
from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy
mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto
ye do well that ye take heed. (2 Pet. 1:16–19)

Although each of the synoptic gospels recorded an account of

the events on the Mount of Transfiguration, the details included
in the New Testament accounts are cursory (Matt. 17:1–9; Mark
9:2–13; Luke 9:28–36). The command that Christ gave Peter,
James, and John not to tell anyone of the events until after his res-
urrection can explain some of this: “And as they came down from

Rebecca Lynne Sybrowsky graduated in December 2002 with a

Masters in Ancient Near Eastern Studies from Brigham Young University.
She emphasied in New Testament Studies, examining the issues of authority
and leadership in the early Christian Church.
56 STUDIA ANTIQUA • Vol 2 No 2 • FALL 2002

the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no

man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead” (Matt.
17:9; Mark 9:9). Although they discussed the transfiguration
among themselves (Mark 9:10), Luke added that, “they kept it
close, and told no man in those days any of those things which
they had seen” (Luke 9:36). However, in addition to the synoptic
gospels, Peter and John elsewhere refer to the witness of the glory
of Christ they received on the mount (John 1:14; 2 Pet. 1:16–19; 1
John 1:1–3). Speaking of the experience upon the Mount of
Transfiguration, Joseph Smith explained that we do not yet have a
record of the full account of the apostles’ experiences on the
mount.1
While the limited records imply that there is much we do not
know about what occurred on the Mount of Transfiguration, this
experience, following the events a week earlier at Caesarea
Philippi, was foundational in Peter’s preparation to succeed Christ
in becoming the leader of the Church. It is significant that the
synoptic authors placed the transfiguration passage immediately
following Peter’s declaration of Christ, thus linking Peter’s prom-
ised keys to guide the church with his presence on the Mount of
Transfiguration. Terence Smith asserts, “The transfiguration is
often interpreted as a divine confirmation of Peter’s confession of
Jesus’ Messiahship.”2 Therefore, the events at Caesarea Philippi
and at the mount legitimized Peter’s administrative and ministe-
rial authority of leadership.3 Peter’s declaration of Christ and the

1
Concerning the account, Joseph said: “of which account the fulness ye
have not yet received.” Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, vol. 1, comp. B. H. Roberts (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book,
1973), 208.
2
Terence V. Smith, Petrine Controversies in Early Christianity: Attitudes to-
wards Peter in Christian Writings of the First Two Centuries (Tübingen, Germany:
Gulde-Druck GmbH, 1985), 170.
3
See Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, and John Reumann, eds., Peter
in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic
Scholars, 155; T. Smith, 139–40; Jerome H. Neyrey, The Anchor Bible: 2 Peter,
Jude, vol. 37c (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 171–72.
SYBROWSKY: MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION 57

Mount of Transfiguration are related events in which Peter re-

ceived the authority over the kingdom of God on the earth, or
keys of the kingdom. These keys were the directing power of the
Church. The basis of Peter’s authority centered on the fact that he
received both the governing keys and the requisite divine revela-
tion to direct the young Church.

Literary Context

One week after Peter’s declaration of Jesus as the Christ at

Caesarea Philippi, Peter, James, and John accompanied Jesus up a
high mountain where the keys to the kingdom Christ promised to
Peter were conferred upon all three of them (Matt. 17:1; Mark 9:2;
Luke 9:28). Both Matthew and Mark placed the ascension of the
Mount of Transfiguration six days after the events at Caesarea
Philippi, while Luke recorded that these events were eight days
apart. Presumably, Luke included the terminal days while
Matthew and Mark only counted the days between the two
events.
At Caesarea Philippi, Jesus had taught his disciples about his
impending death and resurrection. His teachings, undoubtedly,
were fresh on the minds of all involved in the transfiguration,
which partially explains why there were other references to Jesus’
death and resurrection at the transfiguration. It is significant to
note that both Peter’s confession of Jesus at Caesarea Philippi and
the transfiguration occurred as Jesus was preparing to leave Galilee
and begin his Judean ministry, six months before Jesus’ crucifix-
ion. Thus, these experiences transpired at a pivotal time in the
ministry of Jesus and in the preparation of Peter and the apostles
to lead the church after his death.

Historical Context

Exodus 24 records an account of Moses on Mount Sinai

which paralells the New Testament account of Christ, Peter,
58 STUDIA ANTIQUA • Vol 2 No 2 • FALL 2002

James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration. Moses selected

three worshipers, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, to confirm the
covenant as well as seventy Elders.4 They were to worship from a
distance while Moses alone would go near to the Lord (Ex.
24:1–2). As they went up Mount Sinai, “they saw the God of Israel:
and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire
stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness” (Ex.
24:10). Moses then ascended Mt. Sinai alone and as a cloud over-
shadowed him he heard the voice of the Lord:

And Moses went up into the mount, and a cloud covered the
mount. And the glory of the Lord abode upon mount Sinai,
and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he called
unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud. And the sight of the
glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the top of the
mount in the eyes of the children of Israel. And Moses went
into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount:
and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights. (Ex.
24:15–18)

This passage and the transfiguration account described simi-

lar circumstances surrounding sacred experiences. Most signifi-
cantly, both included the ascent up a mountain to remove the par-
ticipants from the people in order to participate in a sacred
experience in which a covenant was given and the glory of the
Lord was manifested by his presence there. Both biblical accounts
emphasize that a cloud accompanied the glory of the Lord (see
Matt. 17:2, 5; Mark 9:2, 7; Luke 9:29, 34–35). Just as the transfig-
uration was six days apart from Peter’s confession of Jesus as the
Messiah and his receiving the promised of governing keys of the
kingdom, there was also a six-day time period between Moses’ ini-
tial ascent up into the mount and his second entry into the cloud

4
Bruce Chilton, “Transfiguration,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 6, ed.
David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 640–42.
SYBROWSKY: MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION 59

when he received the law. Thus, the parallels between the Mount
of Transfiguration and Moses’ experiences on Mount Sinai indi-
cate that the sacred events on the mountains were similar in sig-
nificance. Just as Moses was the receiver of sacred revelation on
Sinai which included the divine dispensation of the law,
covenants, and commandments which governed Israel, so also
would Peter, James, and John receive sacred covenants and teach-
ings which would enable them, with Peter at their head, to lead
the Church after the death of Christ.

Synoptic Accounts

Each of the Synoptic gospels included an account of the ex-

periences upon the Mount of Transfiguration. While the synoptic
writers agreed on the general events that transpired on the mount,
each writer presented unique details. For example, while each
noted that Peter, James, and John were afraid while on the mount,
each offered a different reason as to why. Mark recorded their fear
as the reason why Peter suggested the building of the tabernacles
for Christ, Moses, and Elias (Mark 9:5–6); Luke stated “they
feared as they entered into the cloud” which overshadowed them
(Luke 9:34); while Matthew said they were afraid after hearing the
voice of the Father from the cloud declaring the divinity of Jesus
(Matt. 17:5–7). Both Matthew and Mark included a conversation
between the three apostles and Christ regarding the meaning of
the rising from the dead and Elias (Mark 9:10–13). Matthew
recorded that when the Father witnessed that Jesus was his beloved
son, he stated: “in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 17:5). Luke
added the greatest number of unique details to his account of the
transfiguration. He opened his account by noting that Christ as-
cended the mount to pray (Luke 9:29). The Lucan account also
includes that while Moses and Elias spoke with Jesus about his up-
coming death, Peter, James, and John “were heavy with sleep”
(Luke 9:31–32).
60 STUDIA ANTIQUA • Vol 2 No 2 • FALL 2002

Terence Smith points out that in the Matthean account, in

connection with Matt. 16:17–19, “the transfiguration appears to
have been interpreted as an additional assurance of Peter’s author-
ity, granted on this occasion by means of a vision of the transfig-
ured, heavenly Jesus.”5 Of the transfiguration accounts, Matthew’s
appears to contain the most common elements of the three gospel
accounts, as Mark’s and Luke’s both include several verses unique
to their records.

And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his
brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the
sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there
appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. Then
answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to
be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for
thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. While he yet spake,
behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice
out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom
I am well pleased; hear ye him. And when the disciples heard
[it], they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. And Jesus came
and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid. And
when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus
only. And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged
them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man
be risen again from the dead. (Matt. 17:1–9).

The Mountain of Transfiguration

The New Testament accounts of the transfiguration record, as

the setting for the event, that Jesus took Peter, James, and John to
a high mountain apart from others by themselves (Matt. 17:1;
Mark 9:2; see also Luke 9:28). The JST Mark account adds that
Peter, James, and John “asked [Jesus] many questions concerning

5
T. Smith, 203.
SYBROWSKY: MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION 61

his sayings” before he led them up into the mountain (JST Mark
9:1). Luke includes that one of Jesus’ purposes for ascending the
mountain was to pray (Luke 9:28–29), lending itself to the inter-
pretation that the transfiguration was to take place in a sacred, set
apart place. Jesus’ injunction to Peter, James, and John emphasized
the sacredness of the experience: “Tell the vision to no man, until
the Son of man be risen again from the dead” (Matt. 17:9; see also
Mark 9:9; Luke 9:36).
“After six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother,
and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart” (Matt. 17:1).
Here, Matthew emphasized Christ’s removal of Peter, James, and
John to a sacred space in a secret setting. Jesus took παραλαµ-
βáνει Peter, James, and John unto himself. This removal has the
connotation of being taken to oneself, being taken with, or being
received with favor.6 Matthew stressed this taking of Peter, James,
and John as Jesus “bringeth (ναφéρει) them up into a high
mountain.” This emphatic repetition of being taken or led up is
reminiscent of religious, sacrificial rituals and could also be trans-
lated as “to bring up,” “to uphold,” “to offer” (in sacrifice), or “to
restore.”7 The fact that Jesus took them “into a high mountain
apart” emphasizes the secrecy of this removal to a sacred location.
The phrase κατ δíαν literally means “privately, by oneself.”8
Mark emphasized that Jesus took them “apart by themselves,”
illustrating the desire for solitude during these events.9 The

6
Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature, 2d ed., trans. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 619. See also F. Wilbur Gingrich,
Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 2d ed., rev. Frederick W. Danker
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 149.
7
Henry George Liddell, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon: Founded
upon the Seventh Edition of Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1997), 64. See also Bauer 1979, 63.
8
Liddell, 375. See also Bauer 1979, 371.
9
C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Mark (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1986), 361.
62 STUDIA ANTIQUA • Vol 2 No 2 • FALL 2002

experiences on the mount were limited to only Jesus, Peter, James,

and John. Thus, as Jesus conferred authority upon Peter to lead
the Church, the presence of James and John with Peter indicated
that they would jointly hold the keys and use them to direct the
church under Peter’s leadership.
From Moses’ experiences upon Mount Sinai to Peter, James,
and John’s experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, moun-
tains have always been symbolic of temples or the house of the
Lord.10 “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the moun-
tain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the
mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations
shall flow unto it” (Is. 2:2; see also Ps. 48:2). This mountain im-
agery illustrated the successive ascent toward deity that the temple
enables. In ancient Near Eastern cultures, high mountains as tem-
ples expressed the idea of a successive ascent toward heaven.
Stephen Ricks asserts that “Jesus and his earliest followers, unable
to perform their sacred ceremonies in temples, were obliged, as the
Prophet Joseph Smith said, to resort ‘to the mountain top as did
Moses,’ which itself was a type of temple.” 11
Thus, in the temple context, their ascension up the Mount of
Transfiguration was a progressive ascent into sacred space. Sacred
space is a place where the divine has been manifested. The follow-
ing points have characterized it: a set apart place, a restricted en-
trance with guards, a meeting point between heaven and earth, a
dwelling place for deity on earth, a performing of sacred rituals, an
observatory or place of learning, and ascending degrees of

10
For a discussion of what constitutes a temple and its ritual in the ancient
Near East, see John M. Lundquist, “What Is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology,”
Temples of the Ancient World: Ritual and Symbolism, ed. Donald W. Parry (Salt
Lake City: Deseret Book, 1994), 83–117.
11
Stephen D. Ricks, “Christ and the Temple,” unpublished article in pos-
session of author, 9. See also Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, vol. 4 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1980), 608; hereafter
cited as J. Smith 1980a.
SYBROWSKY: MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION 63

sacredness.12 Joseph Smith taught that one reason why Christ re-
moved Peter, James, and John to the high mountain was so they
could receive the fulness of the priesthood,13 often described as re-
ceiving the temple endowment.14
Although the location of the mountain does not determine
the occurrence of sacred events upon it, traditions of a mountain
location for sacred events are significant in establishing a strong
precedent for future sacred events on the same mountain. New
Testament accounts do not name the mountain upon which the
transfiguration occurred; however, tradition holds to two possible
sites: Mount Tabor and Mount Hermon. Although the Old
Testament texts associated both mountains with holy and sacred
locations of righteousness, the arguments for Mount Hermon as
the location of the transfiguration are more convincing.
Mount Tabor. Moses identified Tabor as a place of worship for
the tribes of Zebulun and Issachar. “And of Zebulun he said,
Rejoice, Zebulun, in thy going out; and, Issachar, in thy
tents. They shall call the people unto the mountain; there they shall
offer sacrifices of righteousness: for they shall suck of the

12
Donald W. Parry, “Sacred Space and Profane Space,” Temples of the
Ancient World: Ritual and Symbolism, ed. Donald W. Parry (Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book, 1994), 415–16.
13
For a discussion on Christ also receiving the fulness of the priesthood on
the mount, see Joseph Smith, The Words of Joseph Smith, comp. Andrew F. Ehat
and Lyndon W. Cook (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young
University, 1980), 246, 307, n. 38; hereafter cited as J. Smith 1980b.
14
See Ricks, 10. To the significance of Peter, James, and John receiving their
temple endowment on the mount, he quotes Heber C. Kimball,
Jesus took Peter, James, and John into a high mountain, and there gave them
their [temple] endowment. . . . For the same purpose has the Lord called us up
into these high mountains, that we may become kings and priests unto God,
which we never can be lawfully until we are ordained and sealed to that power,
for the kingdom of God is a kingdom of kings and priests, and will rise in
mighty power in the last days.
Heber C. Kimball, “Proclamation of the Gospel to the Dead,” Journal of
Discourses, vol. 9 (London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot, 1854–86), 327.
64 STUDIA ANTIQUA • Vol 2 No 2 • FALL 2002

abundance of the seas, and of treasures hid in the sand” (Deut.

33:18–19). While this reference does not specifically mention Tabor
as a mountain where the people were to offer sacrifices, the
boundaries of Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali met at Mount
Tabor, and, consequently, Tabor is likely the sacred mountain
mentioned in this passage.15
Perhaps this Old Testament tradition combined with Tabor’s
location near Galilee gave rise to the Christian tradition, dating to
the fourth century a.d., which cited Tabor as the location of the
transfiguration.16 Although this tradition identified Tabor as the
Mount of Transfiguration, the arguments for Hermon as the loca-
tion are more convincing than those for Tabor. Edersheim explains
the reasons for choosing Mount Hermon over Mount Tabor as the
transfiguration site:

There can scarcely be a reasonable doubt that Christ and His

disciples had not left the neighborhood of Caesarea,1 and
hence, that 'the mountain' must have been one of the slopes of
gigantic, snowy Hermon. In that quiet semi-Gentile retreat of
Caesarea Philippi could He best teach them, and they best
learn, without interruption or temptation from Pharisees
and Scribes, that terrible mystery of His Suffering.

1
According to an old tradition, Christ had left Caesarea Philippi, and
the scene of the Transfiguration was Mount Tabor. But (1) there is no
notice of His departure, such as in generally made by St. Mark; (2)
on the contrary, it is mentioned by St. Mark as after the
Transfiguration (ix. 30); (3) Mount Tabor was at that time crowned by
a fortified city, which would render it unsuitable for the scene of the
Transfiguration. 17

15
See also Rafael Frankel, “Tabor, Mount,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 6,
ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 305.
16
Ibid.
17
Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. 2, (Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1950), 92.
SYBROWSKY: MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION 65

Thus, the arguments for Mount Hermon as the site of the

transfiguration seem to be more compelling largely because
the Hermon range is in the region of Caesarea Philippi, where
Christ and his disciples had been the week prior, and its remote
location was more likely to provide a sacred retreat than Tabor
with a fortified city on its summit.
Mount Hermon. Most Old Testament references to Hermon
described the range as one of the northern borders of the lands
which the Israelites possessed (see Deut. 3:8–9; 4:48; Josh. 11:3, 17;
12:1, 5). However, one passage associated Mount Hermon with the
location where the Lord pronounced the blessing of eternal life:
“As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the
mountains of Zion: for there the Lord commanded the blessing,
even life for evermore” (Ps. 133:3).18 This passage is significant be-
cause it referred to Hermon not only as a sacred location of wor-
ship, but also as a location where recipients receive blessings which
give them the promise of eternal life.
Jewish tradition associates Mount Hermon with “a place of
cursing and vowing.”19 Both 1 and 2 Enoch identify Mount
Hermon as the location where two hundred “watchers,” or fallen
angels, made mutually-binding vows. Upon deciding to choose
wives from among the children on men, the leader of these angels
feared that all would not follow him and he alone would pay the
penalty of this sin. They all answered, “‘Let us all swear an oath,
and bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this
plan but to do this thing.’ Then sware they all together and bound
themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all
two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit
of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because

18
This reference is one of only two Old Testament references to eternal life:
“life for evermore” (Ps. 133:3) and “life everlasting” (Dan. 12:2).
19
R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament
in English, rev. ed., vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), 440.
66 STUDIA ANTIQUA • Vol 2 No 2 • FALL 2002

they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations

upon it” (1 Enoch 6:3–6).
2 Enoch presents a similar scenario of fallen angels upon the
mount; however, it differs from the 1 Enoch account in that only
three break their vows on Mount Hermon and are faced with great
punishment from God. “Three of them went down on to earth
from the Lord’s throne, to the place Ermon [Mount Hermon],
and broke through their vows on the shoulder of the hill Ermon
and saw the daughters of men how good they are, and took to
themselves wives, and befouled the earth with their deeds. . . . And
therefore God judged them with great judgement, and they weep
for their brethren and they will be punished on the Lord’s great
day” (2 Enoch 18:4–6). These pseudepigraphal Enoch accounts es-
tablish Mt. Hermon as a location upon which sacred events—or
their reversal—took place, including the taking of sacred vows as-
sociated with mutual imprecations.
Jewish legends also associate Mount Hermon as a spot worthy
of revelation, one of the four mountains contending for the
Shekinah of God to rest upon it (as also was Mount Tabor), and a
possible location upon which the heavenly Jerusalem would de-
scend.20 Archaeological evidence supports Mount Hermon as a lo-
cation for sacred temple experiences. Ritual centers, Baal-gad and
Baal-hermon, were located at the base of Hermon. The highest of
Hermon’s three peaks houses the remains of a temple dating from
the first to fourth century a.d., Qasr ash-Shabib. Additionally,
archaeological excavations have uncovered more than twenty tem-
ple sites on Mount Hermon and its surrounding areas, which,
when compared with other regions of the Phoenician coast, is an
unprecedented number.21 Not only do these traditions lend

20
Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, trans. Henrietta Szold, vol. 3
(Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1937), 83; vol. 6, 31–32.
21
Rami Arav, “Hermon, Mount,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 3, ed. David
Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 158–59.
SYBROWSKY: MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION 67

themselves to the interpretation that it was Mt. Hermon, not

Tabor which was the site of the transfiguration, but they also es-
tablish a precedent for sacred experiences, including obtaining di-
vine revelation, making sacred vows, and receiving the blessings of
eternal life.

The Transfiguration

Upon their arrival on the Mount, Jesus was transfigured be-

fore Peter, James, and John. “The fashion of his countenance was
altered” (Luke 9:29) “and his face did shine as the sun” (Matt.
17:2). The word ‘transfiguration’ (µεταµορφẃθη) literally refers
to a change in form.22 As a part of the transfiguration, his clothing
shone brightly. The synoptic gospels recorded: “And his raiment
was white as the light” (Matt. 17:2); “And his raiment became
shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can
white them” (Mark 9:3); “And his raiment was white and glister-
ing” (Luke 9:29).
Later in his narrative, Luke identified this transfiguration as
“glory” which had come upon Christ (Luke 9:32). The symbolism
of Christ’s glory and the transformed countenance and clothing
reflects both the divinity of Christ and the sacredness of the
event.23 In biblical usage, the word “glory” is a symbolic descrip-
tion of “splendor, beauty, magnificence, radiance, and rap-
ture, . . . primarily a quality ascribed to God and places of his pres-
ence, including places of worship and heaven. The glory of God is
an image of his greatness and transcendence.”24 Thus, the

22
Bauer 1979, 511.
23
Ricks describes how the transfiguration of Christ itself was a type of a sa-
cred garment used in rituals and temple settings. “The white linen clothing that
the priests wore while performing their ceremonies and the white linens of the
Dead Sea Scrolls covenanters were but a pale reflection of the blinding brightness
of the raiment of Christ’s clothing.” Ricks, 9.
24
Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, Dictionary
of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 330.
68 STUDIA ANTIQUA • Vol 2 No 2 • FALL 2002

transfiguration was a literal, visible change in which a manifesta-

tion of his divinity descended upon Jesus.
Other biblical and apocryphal accounts use similar language
to describe this divine glory. In Enoch’s vision, as he approached
the throne of God, he states: “And the Great Glory was sitting
upon [the throne]—as for his gown, which was shining more
brightly than the sun, it was whiter than any snow” (1 Enoch
14:20). 2 Enoch uses the phrases “their faces were like the shining
sun” and “their faces were more radiant than the radiance
of the sun” to describe heavenly messengers (2 Enoch 1:5; 19:1).
Furthermore, Albright and Mann point out that the book of
Revelation employs similar language sixteen times in conjunction
with both heavenly beings and heavenly things.25
Peter and John would later refer to this experience as a time
when they witnessed Jesus’ glory. John opened his gospel account
by witnessing of the glory of Christ, “And the Word was made
flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as
of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (John
1:14; see also 1 John 1:1–3). In his second epistle, Peter stated, “[we]
were eyewitnesses of [Christ’s] majesty. For he received from God
the father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him.
. . . And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we
were with him in the holy mount” (2 Pet. 1:16–19).
There is a precedence for the idea that all those who were
present on the mount received this divine glory so that they could
withstand being in its presence. The JST Genesis account of
Moses’ vision explains that “Moses was caught into an exceedingly
high mountain. And he saw God face to face, and he talked with
him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses
could endure his presence” (Moses 1:1–2). Moses described the
glory of God descending upon him as a transfiguration: “But now

25
W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, vol. 26 (New
York: Doubleday, 1971), 220. See also Esdras 7:97; and Rev. 1:14–16.
SYBROWSKY: MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION 69

mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spir-
itual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should
have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon
me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him”
(Moses 1:11). As Moses descended Mount Sinai with the covenant,
he “wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with
[God]”; however, Aaron and all the children of Israel witnessed
that his face shone after being in the presence of the Lord (Ex.
34:29–35). Joseph Smith taught that Peter, James, and John were
also transfigured on the mount.26 In both cases, the transfiguration
before the presence of the Lord was likely a result of divine glory
being extended to mortals in a divine presence so that they could
withstand his glory.

Moses and Elias

During the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah27 appeared in

glory and talked with Christ “of his decease which he should ac-
complish at Jerusalem” (Luke 9:31; see also Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4).
Moses and Elijah, and their presence at the transfiguration, are
symbolic of the Jewish Law and Prophets, respectively.28 The Old
Testament describes the significant role Moses and Elijah held in
history and, consequently, the keys which they held: Moses as the
ancient gatherer of Israel, and Elijah as holding the power to seal
the heavens (see Ex. 3:7–17; 1 Kings 17:1–7; 18:1). Significantly, the
translations of both Moses and Elijah at the end of their mortal

26
J. Smith 1980a, vol. 3, 387.
27
While Elias is also used as a title of one who is sent to prepare the way for
the coming of Christ, in this context, it is the Greek version of the Hebrew name
Elijah. Elijah would be known as an Elias, As was John the Baptist, both of
whom had roles in preparing for the mission of Jesus Christ. See Bauer 1979, 345.
See also JST Mark 9:3 which states that John the Baptist also appeared during the
transfiguration.
28
Ryken, 859. Albright, 220. See Rebecca L. Sybrowsky, “The Leadership of
Peter in the Early Christian Church” (master’s thesis, BYU, 2002), ch. 4, for the
historical context of the Jewish respect for the Law and Prophets.
70 STUDIA ANTIQUA • Vol 2 No 2 • FALL 2002

lives enabled their presence on the Mount of Transfiguration so

that they could physically give to Peter, James, and John some of
the keys which govern the kingdom of God.
As we have seen, keys are biblical symbols of power and au-
thority held by prophets for governing the kingdom of God.
Ryken, Wilhoit, and Longman discuss the meaning of keys in bib-
lical texts: “Keys symbolize power because they are given to those
who are judged trustworthy. . . . In the Old Testament keys belong
to the steward of the house, the trusted servant, the one that the
master has chosen for the household affairs.” Thus, in the biblical
context, keys are dual images of trust and responsibility. “For the
one who gives the keys, they are symbols of trust and belief in the
character of the steward. For the one who receives the keys, they
are symbols of responsibility.” While Jesus taught the Jewish lead-
ers that keys control access to revelation (see Luke 11:52), his state-
ment implied that, because the Jewish leaders did not fulfill their
responsibility in accessing and teaching the truth, they had lost the
keys which they had once held.29 The biblical references to keys
(Is. 22:22; Matt. 16:13–20; Luke 11:52; Rev. 1:18; 3:7) imply that
there are several keys associated with the kingdom of God.30
As two of the foremost prophets in the Old Testament with
roles that embodied trust and responsibility, both Moses and
Elijah held keys for the governing of the kingdom. Joseph Smith
recorded that it was on the Mount of Transfiguration that Peter,
James, and John received some of these governing keys of the
kingdom. “The Savior, Moses, and Elias, gave the keys to Peter,
James, and John, on the mount when they were transfigured be-
fore him.”31 These keys were presumably the “keys of the king-
dom” which Christ had previously promised to Peter with which
he would lead the kingdom of God (Matt. 16:19). The Old

29
See also Ginzberg 1937, vol. 4, 286, 303.
30
Ryken, 859. See ch. 4, “Upon this Rock,” for a discussion of keys, specif-
ically those which were promised to Peter.
31
J. Smith 1980a, vol. 3, 387.
SYBROWSKY: MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION 71

Testament accounts reveal that Moses held the keys to the law and
to the gathering of Israel while Elijah held the keys to the sealing
of the heavens (see Ex. 3:7–10, 16–17; 1 Kings 17:1–7; 18:1). As
Peter, James, and John received the governing keys of the king-
dom, Moses and Elijah’s presence on the mount suggested that it
was at this time that they conferred their keys upon the apostles.
The Law and the Prophets. As the receiver of the law, Moses
typified the commandments of the Lord and adherence to the
Jewish customs that distinguished Israel from other nations. The
Law of Moses was so significant that Jesus taught several times
that he would not destroy the law but that he would fulfill it.
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I
am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt. 5:17–18; see also Luke
16:16–17; 24:44). John later testified that Jesus fulfilled the law:
“For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by
Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). As the leader who received the law,
Moses also held the responsibility to gather Israel to their prom-
ised land (Ex. 3:7–10, 16–17). While this commission was physical,
it also typified a spiritual gathering through obedience to the law,
commandments, and covenants. Thus, Moses not only was sym-
bolic of the Law, but he also represented the physical and spiritual
gathering of Israel to the Savior.
Like Moses, Elijah stands out among the Old Testament
prophets of Israel, being “traditionally held to be the greatest
Hebrew prophet” whose return would be a necessary prelude to
the deliverance and restoration of Israel.32 Malachi spoke of both
Moses and Elijah as he prophesied of the destruction of the
wicked before the coming of Christ in the final days of the earth’s

32
F. L. Cross, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2d edition,
rev. F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978),
451–52.
72 STUDIA ANTIQUA • Vol 2 No 2 • FALL 2002

history. “Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I com-

manded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and
judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the
coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall
turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the
children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a
curse” (Mal. 4:4–6). This prophecy of an appearance of Elijah be-
fore the coming of the Lord led to a Jewish tradition that Elijah
would return as a forerunner before the coming of the Messiah, a
tradition to which the New Testament also strongly attests (see
Matt. 16:13–14; Mark 6:14–15; 8:27–28; Luke 9:7–8, 18–19; John
1:21–23).33 Discussing this prophecy, Joseph Smith explained that
“Elijah was the last Prophet that held the keys of the Priesthood.”
Consequently, Elijah would return before the great and dreadful
day of the Lord “because he holds the keys of authority to admin-
ister in all the ordinances of the Priesthood; and without the au-
thority is given [sic], the ordinances could not be administered in
righteousness.”34 Elijah was to restore these keys so that the hearts
of the fathers could be turned to the children and the children to
the fathers or, in other words, so that what was bound (or sealed)
in the heavens might also be sealed on earth.
Elijah was renowned for the miracles he performed, specifi-
cally that of sealing the heavens for over three years (1 Kings
17:1–7; 18:1). This key, or power and authority, of sealing the heav-
ens which Elijah held is perhaps what Jewish tradition referred to
as Elijah’s “keys of rain.”35 Tradition also holds that, at the time of
the Babylonian captivity, the keys were taken from the Jewish
leaders and returned to Jehovah, whose hand appeared in a cloud
to remove them because of the unworthiness of the servants who
held those keys.36 This tradition implies that the keys could return

33
Jerome T. Walsh, “Elijah,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2, ed. David Noel
Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 465. See also Louis Ginzberg, Legends
of the Bible (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1956),
600–01.
34
J. Smith 1980a, vol. 4, 211.
35
Ginzberg 1937, vol. 6, 318–19.
SYBROWSKY: MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION 73

to a worthy servant from the hand of the Lord in a cloud. The di-
alogue in Matthew 16:13–20 and Peter’s presence on the Mount of
Transfiguration reveals that Jesus had judged Simon Peter to be
such a servant who was worthy to hold the keys of the kingdom
of God (see Matt. 16:13–20). Thus, these keys are likely the keys of
the binding and loosening of the heavens which Jesus had prom-
ised Peter that he would receive for the governing of the Church
(Matt. 16:18–19).
The Translation of Moses and Elijah. The traditions of their
translations partially explain Moses and Elijah’s physical presence
on the mount. While the Old Testament text attested to the trans-
lation of Elijah, it recorded that Moses died, but left some uncer-
tainty because no one knew where his sepulcher was: “So Moses
the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according
to the word of the Lord. And he buried him in a valley in the land
of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepul-
chre unto this day. And Moses was an hundred and twenty years
old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force
abated” (Deut. 34:5–7).
Although Deuteronomy offered a vague account of Moses’
death, Josephus repeated a tradition that Moses “disappeared” or
was translated:

Now as soon as they [Moses, Eleazar, and Joshua] were come to

the mountain called Abarim, (which is a very high mountain,
situated over against Jericho, and one that affords, to such as are
upon it, a prospect of the greatest part of the excellent land of
Canaan,) he dismissed the senate; and as he was going to em-
brace Eleazar and Joshua, and was still discoursing with them,
a cloud stood over him on the sudden, and he disappeared in a
certain valley, although he wrote in the holy books that he died,
which was done out of fear, lest they should venture to say that,
because of his extraordinary virtue, he went to God. (Ant.
4.8.48 §326)

36
Ibid., vol. 4, 286, 303.
74 STUDIA ANTIQUA • Vol 2 No 2 • FALL 2002

Josephus’ description of the transfiguration of Moses offers a

likely explanation for his disappearance, as the inability to locate
the tomb of a revered prophet is unusual in biblical culture.37
Both the Old Testament text and Josephus’ history attest to
Elijah’s translation. 2 Kings records that Elijah and Elisha jour-
neyed together prior to Elijah’s translation. “There appeared a
chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder;
and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11).
Josephus also speaks of Elijah’s translation: “Now at this time it
was that Elijah disappeared from among men, and no one knows
of his death to this very day; but he left behind him his disciple
Elisha, as we have formerly declared. And indeed, as to
Elijah, . . . it is written in the sacred books that [he] disappeared,
but so that nobody knew that [he] died” (Ant. 9.2.2 §28). It is sig-
nificant that both Moses and Elijah were translated because their
translations made possible their appearance on the Mount of
Transfiguration with physical bodies which enabled them to con-
fer the keys which they held upon the three apostles.

Peter, James, and John

Of the twelve apostles, only Peter, James, and John witnessed

the transfiguration. Scholars often refer to their inclusion at
37
Speaking of the Alma the Younger’s translation, The Book of Mormon
records: “And it came to pass that he [Alma] was never heard of more; as to his
death or burial we know not of. Behold, this we know, that he was a righteous
man; and the saying went abroad in the church that he was taken up by the spirit,
or buried by the hand of the Lord, even as Moses. But behold, the scriptures saith
the Lord took Moses unto himself; and we suppose that he has also received Alma
in the spirit, unto himself; therefore, for this cause we know nothing concerning
his death and burial” (Alma 45:18–19). Referring to both this passage and Deut.
34:5–7, Bruce R. McConkie concludes that Moses and Alma the Younger were
both translated. McConkie suggests that the phrase “buried by the hand of the
Lord” was a figure of speech which meant that the individual was translated.
Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d edition (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft,
1966), 805.
SYBROWSKY: MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION 75

several sacred, closed-door events as an inner circle among the

twelve apostles.38 Thus, the presence of the three on the Mount of
Transfiguration leads to the idea that it was a very sacred event,
exclusively for the training of those who would hold all of the
keys necessary to lead the church.39 The synoptic accounts illus-
trate that the apostles did not have a full understanding of the
significance of the events which transpired during the transfigura-
tion (Mark 9:6, 10; Luke 9:33). However, they provided an
explanation for the apostles’ incomplete understanding of the
transfiguration by describing the reactions of Peter, James, and
John on the mount, including their falling asleep for a time,
Peter’s comment on the building of tabernacles, and their fear.
Sleeping Disciples. One of Luke’s unique additions to the
Mount of Transfiguration narrative is in regards to the disciples
sleeping during the visit of Moses and Elijah. Moses and Elias
conversed with the Lord “of his decease which he should accom-
plish at Jerusalem. But Peter and they that were with him were
heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory,
and the two men that stood with him” (Luke 9:31–32). Hengel
suggests that Peter’s sleeping at the transfiguration scene “has
probably been drawn from the Marcan Gethsemane scene” in an
attempt to place Peter in a softer light by removing mention that
he slept while Christ suffered at Gethsemane.40 However, the ex-
haustion of Peter may be more significant to an understanding of
the events on the Mount of Transfiguration and, in light of Luke’s
concern for historical accuracy, deserves more examination than
merely excusing it as drawn from another scene.
There is a strong modern-day and scriptural precedent for re-
cipients of heavenly visions to experience physical weakness and

38
Pheme Perkins, Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church (Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina Press, 1994), 60.
39
See J. Smith, vol. 1, 36; vol. 5, 152.
40
Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, trans. John Bowden
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 62.
76 STUDIA ANTIQUA • Vol 2 No 2 • FALL 2002

exhaustion as Peter, James, and John did at both the Mount of

Transfiguration and the Garden of Gethsemane. In February 1832,
Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, in a room with twelve others,
received the vision of the three degrees of glory in which the heav-
ens were opened to them (D&C 76). Philo Dibble, who was pres-
ent, recorded, “Joseph sat firmly and calmly all the time in the
midst of a magnificent glory, but Sidney sat limp and pale, appar-
ently as limber as a rag, observing which Joseph remarked smil-
ingly, ‘Sidney is not used to it as I am.’”41
Several prophets have recorded similar weakness following a
vision. Joseph Smith, in his account of the First Vision, remarked,
“when the light had departed, I had no strength.”42 After his vision
of the glory of the Lord, Daniel recounted, “I was left alone, and
saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me: for
my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained
no strength. Yet heard I the voice of his words: and when I heard
the voice of his words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and
my face toward the ground” (Daniel 10:8–9). Lehi, following a vi-
sion, returned home and “cast himself upon his bed, being over-
come with the Spirit and the things which he had seen” (1 Nephi
1:7). Moses also records similar weakness following his experience
when he ascended the high mountain to converse with God face
to face. “As he was left unto himself, he fell unto the earth. And it
came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before Moses
did again receive his natural strength like unto man” (Moses
1:9–10). Therefore, Luke’s addition that Peter and those with him
were heavy with sleep during the transfiguration scene attests to a
divine presence during the vision, and implies that the apostles re-
ceived a significant vision, effectively declaring the prophetic
stature of Peter, James, and John as ones worthy to receive such a
vision.
41
Philo Dibble, “Recollections of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” Juvenile
Instructor 27, no. 10 (15 May 1892): 303–4.
42
J. Smith 1980a, vol. 1, 6.
SYBROWSKY: MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION 77

Tabernacles. As Moses and Elias departed, Peter declared that

“it is good for us to be here” and suggested building three taber-
nacles on the mount for Jesus, Moses, and Elias (Matt. 17:4; Mark
9:5; Luke 9:33).43 Both Mark and Luke recorded that Peter did not
know what to say when he put forth the idea of building taberna-
cles; however, Mark added the detail that “he wist not what to say;
for they were sore afraid” (Mark 9:6; see also Luke 9:33).
Peter’s comment on the building of three tabernacles links the
experiences on the mount with the celebrations of a sacred Jewish
festival. Three times a year all Israelite males were to “appear be-
fore the Lord God” and keep feasts unto him, one of which was
the feast of the tabernacles (Ex. 23:14–17; see also Deut. 16:16),
which Josephus described as “the most sacred and greatest feast
among the Hebrews” (Ant., 8.4.1 §100). The feast of tabernacles
was also called the “feast of the ingathering” or the “feast of the
harvest” (Ex. 23:16). The feast began on the fifteenth day of the
seventh month with its celebrations lasting for seven days, begin-
ning on the Sabbath (Lev. 23:34, 39).44 It commemorated the
dwelling of the children of Israel in booths or tents (σκνη) dur-
ing the exodus (Lev. 23:43); the feast also celebrated the gathering
in of all their “labours out of the field,” or the harvest (see Ex.
23:16). The Mount of Transfiguration occurred at the time of the
feast of the tabernacles. As the feast was celebrated at the time of
the harvest, one of its characteristic rituals was the building of and
dwelling in huts or booths constructed from boughs of trees.
Thus, Peter’s suggestion at the building of tabernacles may have

43
Fitzmyer discusses Luke’s word choice in the phrase “gradually withdrew
from him” (vs. 33). He identifies it as literally meaning “‘in their withdrawing
from him.’ Luke uses en to + [infinitive]. . . . The [infinitive] is present, suggest-
ing gradual withdrawal.” Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Anchor Bible: Luke, vol. 28
(New York: Doubleday, 1981), 801.
44
There are references to an eighth day of the festival celebrations, which
may explain why Luke placed the transfiguration eight days after Peter’s confes-
sion at Caesarea Philippi while Matthew and Mark place the events six days
apart. See Lev. 23:37, 39; Num. 29:35.
78 STUDIA ANTIQUA • Vol 2 No 2 • FALL 2002

indicated his confusion over the purpose of Moses and Elijah’s ap-
pearance and the current festival.
Terrence Smith discusses the significance of Peter’s comment
in Mark 9:5–6, as these verses, like Mark 8:29–33, “single Peter out
for special mention. His proposal to build tabernacles for the three
heavenly figures (v.5) elicits the Markan comment ‘for he did not
know what to say, for they were afraid’ (v. 6) which would seem to
indicate that the writer thought the proposal was inappropriate for
the occasion.” Smith goes on to propose some possible interpreta-
tions of Peter’s suggestion to build three tabernacles. He argues
that “it does seem clear that Peter wished to construct more per-
manent dwelling-places for the heavenly figures;” however, what is
unclear are Peter’s motives behind the suggestion. Perhaps Peter
merely wished to observe the rituals of the festival, or maybe he
was expressing hope that the building of tabernacles would “en-
sure that the presence of the transfigured Jesus would not be tem-
porary.” A final reason suggested by Smith is that Peter was show-
ing an incorrect assumption in looking at the transfiguration as
the parousia, or the coming of Christ, instead of recognizing it as
a preview of the parousia.45 While there are several possible mean-
ings of and motives behind Peter’s suggestion to build tabernacles
on the mount, the only explanation the New Testament offers is
simply that which Mark proposed: “he wist not what to say; for
they were sore afraid” (Mark 9:6).
Fear. Although they noted the apostle’s fear at different times
during the course of events on the mount, each of the Synoptics
recorded that the disciples were afraid during at least some of the
events. Luke tells us that they were within the cloud which over-
shadowed them, and “and they feared as they entered into the
cloud” (Luke 9:34). Mark described their fear at the time of Moses
and Elias’ appearance. Matthew recorded their fear after they
heard the voice of God the Father: “And when the disciples heard

45
T. Smith, 171–72.
SYBROWSKY: MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION 79

it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. And Jesus came and
touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid” (Mark 17:6–7).
Mann suggests that a better translation of Mark’s word for fear,
εκφοβοι, would be “religious awe.”46 This is significant because it
indicates that the events on the mount were of so sacred a nature
that they inspired religious awe from Peter, James, and John.
Because such an emotion would likely not be a momentary sensa-
tion, it is probable that their “religious awe” continued during sev-
eral of the forthcoming events on the mount.

God the Father

As Peter spoke, a cloud overshadowed them. The appearance

of a cloud in sacred settings is a sign of the presence of God.47
Mann argues that Matthew’s description of a “bright cloud” was
referring to the Shekinah (literally, the dwelling place of Jehovah)
which was a visible manifestation of divine presence identified by
a bright shining cloud and signifying the glory of the Lord.48 As on
the Mount of Transfiguration, the appearance of the Shekinah, or
cloud marked the presence of the Lord when Moses received the
Law on Sinai (see Ex. 14:19; 16:10). When Moses was preparing the
people to receive the covenants that would make them a kingdom
of priests and an holy nation, the Lord told Moses that he would
come in a thick cloud so that the people could hear as he spoke to
Moses and so that they would believe Moses forever (Ex. 19:9). On
Sinai, “the Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with [Moses]
there” (Ex. 34:5). And as Moses set up the tabernacle for Israel to
worship the Lord, a cloud covered the tent and the glory of the
Lord filled the tabernacle.

46
Mann, 360.
47
Albright, 220.
48
Mann, 361.
80 STUDIA ANTIQUA • Vol 2 No 2 • FALL 2002

Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the

glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able
to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud
abode thereon, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.
And when the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the
children of Israel went onward in all their journeys: But if
the cloud were not taken up, then they journeyed not till the
day that it was taken up. For the cloud of the Lord was upon
the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night, in the sight
of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys. (Ex.
40:34–38; see also Ex. 13:21–22)

Thus, the cloud covering over the tabernacle as they jour-

neyed was a symbol of the presence of the Lord with Israel.
2 Maccabees recorded a prophecy that the glory of the Lord would
return with the appearance of a cloud when God would show his
mercy and gather his people again as he did in the time of Moses
(2 Macc. 2:7–8). Therefore, as it did on Sinai, the appearance of
the cloud on the Mount of Transfiguration signified the presence
of God.
As the cloud came upon them, Peter, James, and John heard
God the Father as he declared, “This is my beloved Son in whom
I am well pleased; hear ye him” (Matt. 17:5; see also Mark 9:7;
Luke 9:34–35). Peter later described the voice as “a voice from
heaven” (2 Pet. 1:18), adding detail to Luke’s description of it as
“out of the cloud” (Luke 9:35). The voice of God the Father gave
the same declaration of Jesus as at the time of his baptism (Matt.
3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Fitzmyer notes that, in the transfigu-
ration narrative, the voice is addressing Peter, James, and John
rather than addressing Jesus as it did at his baptism.49 Thus, the
voice of God the Father witnessed to Peter, James, and John of
both the divine Sonship of Jesus and of his approval of the life and
works of his son. After attesting to the divinity of Jesus, the Father
gave the disciples a simple command: “hear ye him” (Matt. 17:5;
see also Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). This injunction of the Father to
SYBROWSKY: MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION 81

the disciples implies that Jesus likely gave instruction to the apos-
tles in that sacred setting; however, while some gnostic texts pur-
port to contain the Savior’s revelation to the disciples on the
mount,50 the New Testament accounts did not record the instruc-
tions the Savior gave his disciples on that occasion. The cloud left
suddenly, enabling them to see. As they looked around, they
found themselves alone with Jesus on the mount who enjoined
them not to be afraid (Matt. 17:8; Mark 9:8; Luke 9:36).
Although there is no biblical record of Jesus’ instructions to
his disciples at that time, it is clear that on the mount, “the three
disciples are represented as witnessing an event with eschatologi-
cal significance.”51 Joseph Smith recorded that those who endure
in faith and obey God’s will, “the same shall overcome, and shall
receive an inheritance upon the earth when the day of transfigu-
ration shall come; When the earth shall be transfigured, even
according to the pattern which was shown unto mine apostles
upon the mount; of which account the fulness ye have not yet
received.” 52

The Commission

“And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged

them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be
risen again from the dead” (Matt. 17:9; Mark 9:9). “And they kept

49
Fitzmyer, 802.
50
Gnostic sources identify the transfiguration as the source of Peter’s au-
thority, when he received the gnosis, or knowledge, from Christ. “Then a great
light appeared so that the mountain shone from the light of him who had ap-
peared. And a voice called out to them saying, ‘Listen to my words that I may
speak to you. . . . I am Jesus Christ who am with you forever.” “The Letter of
Peter to Philip” 8.134.9–18 in The Nag Hammadi Library, rev. ed., ed. James M.
Robinson (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1990), 434.
51
T. Smith, 171.
52
J. Smith 1980a, vol. 1, 208.
82 STUDIA ANTIQUA • Vol 2 No 2 • FALL 2002

it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which
they had seen” (Luke 9:36). After they descended the mountain,
the disciples kept the charge the Savior gave them to keep the
events both sacred and secret. While Peter, James, and John ques-
tioned among themselves the meaning of the phrase “the rising
from the dead,” they asked the Savior “Why say the scribes that
Elias must first come?” Jesus replied, “Elias truly shall first come,
and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come
already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatso-
ever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.”
Thus, Jesus, in teaching of his coming crucifixion, testified that
just as Elias suffered at the hand of the scribes and the leaders of
the Jews, the Son of Man also “must suffer many things, and be
set at nought.” The disciples then understood that Jesus was iden-
tifying the Elias which the scribes referred to as John the Baptist
(Matt. 17:10–13; Mark 9:10–13).

Peter’s Account of the Transfiguration

In his second epistle, Peter referred to his experience on the

Mount of Transfiguration as an event at which he obtained not
only a more sure word of prophecy, but he also obtained the au-
thority to interpret scripture. Peter opened the discussion of the
transfiguration by exhorting the people to work to make their call-
ing and election sure so that they may receive an inheritance in the
kingdom of God (2 Pet. 1:10–11). He taught that he wished the
people to retain in their memories his witness of the glory of Jesus
and of his calling and election made sure as he expected his own
death shortly (2 Pet. 1:13–15). Thus, as Peter looked toward mar-
tyrdom, he declared the truthfulness of his witness of Jesus Christ
by offering his testimony as an eyewitness of Jesus’ majesty and
glory on the Mount of Transfiguration.
SYBROWSKY: MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION 83

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we

made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received
from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such
a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son,
in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from
heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do
well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark
place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.
(2 Pet. 1:16–19)

Peter declared that they were eyewitnesses to Christ’s majesty

as the Father gave honor and glory to him on the mount when he
proclaimed, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
Peter added that the disciples received a more sure word of
prophecy and authority there: καì χοµεν βεβαιóτερον τòν
προφητικòν λóγον. The literal rendition of this phrase is
“and we have the more sure prophetic word.” The root adverb,
βεβαιος, refers to a sure, certain, dependable confirmation.53
With the adverb’s comparative ending, Peter is describing a
prophetic assurance which is more certain than prior prophetic
blessings the disciples had received.
Although Peter identified the voice of God as accompanying
their more sure word of prophecy, Joseph Smith taught that this
sure word of prophecy required more than hearing the voice of
God; a second witness was also necessary.

“Now, there is some grand secret here, and keys to unlock the
subject. . . . And though they had heard an audible voice from
heaven bearing testimony that Jesus was the Son of God, yet he
says we have a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do
well that ye take heed as unto a light shining in a dark place.

53
Bauer, 1979, 138.
84 STUDIA ANTIQUA • Vol 2 No 2 • FALL 2002

Now, wherein could they have a more sure word of prophecy

than to hear the voice of God saying, This is my beloved Son.

“Now for the secret and grand key. Though they might hear the
voice of God and know that Jesus was the Son of God, this
would be no evidence that their election and calling was made
sure, that they had part with Christ, and were joint heirs with
him. They then would want that more sure word of prophecy,
that they were sealed in the heavens and had the promise of
eternal life in the kingdom of God. Then, having this promise
sealed unto them, it was an anchor to the soul, sure and stead-
fast. Though the thunders might roll and lightnings flash, and
earthquakes bellow, and war gather thick around, yet this hope
and knowledge would support the soul in every hour of trial,
trouble and tribulation. Then knowledge through our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ is the grand key that unlocks the glories and
mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.”54

Thus, a more sure word of prophecy is the assurance that one

will be sealed up to eternal life with the Savior, a promise which is
bound both on earth and in heaven. In addition to the Father’s
voice declaring the divinity of his Son, the more sure word of
prophecy was an extra assurance, a promise of eternal life, ratified
and sealed in the heavens.55
This more sure word of prophecy which Peter received on the
Mount of Transfiguration also indicates his authority to receive
revelation pertinent to the governing of the Church. Brown,
Donfried, and Reumann make a connection between Peter’s more
54
J. Smith 1980a, vol. 5, 388–89.
55
Several discourses in The Journal of Discourses associate the “more sure word
of prophecy” with divine revelation, direct communication between God and hu-
mans, and living oracles. See Joseph F. Smith, “The Sacrament of the Lord's
Supper,” Journal of Discourses, vol. 15, (London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot,
1854–86), 327–28; Charles W. Penrose, “The Church of Christ,” Journal of
Discourses, vol. 24, (London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot, 1854–86), 86–87;
Brigham Young, “How Divisions Were Introduced into the Christian World,”
Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, (London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot, 1854–86), 65.
SYBROWSKY: MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION 85

sure word of prophecy received on the mount (2 Pet. 1:19) and his
“authority to interpret the words of Scripture, especially the
prophecies (1:20–21).”56 Terence Smith also discusses Peter’s expe-
riences at the transfiguration as the source of his authority. “In 2
Peter, Peter’s authority rests upon his vision of the Lord’s majesty
at the Transfiguration (1:16–18), an experience which legitimizes
his role as a sure foundation against the ‘myths’ and ‘false words’
of the opponents.” Smith goes on to discuss how in the
Apocalypse of Peter, the transfiguration is used to emphasize
Peter’s position as the founder of the gnostic community. This
portrayal of Peter includes his capacity to convey authoritative in-
terpretations not only because he was the ruler of the community
but also because the Savior explained to him the meanings of key
religious events.57 “And [Christ] said unto [Peter], ‘Be strong for
you are the one to whom these mysteries have been given, to know
them through revelation.’”58 Thus, both 2 Pet. and some extra-bib-
lical sources asserted that the revelation which Peter received on
the mountain, in part, provided a basis for his authority.59

Conclusion

The Mount of Transfiguration was a decisive event in

Peter’s training to become the leader of the Church, for it was

56
Brown, 155.
57
T. Smith, 139–40.
58
“Apocalypse of Peter,” 7.3 in The Nag Hammadi Library, rev. ed., ed.
James M. Robinson (San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers, 1990), 377.
59
While some gnostic texts attest to the leadership of Peter, they base Peter’s
leadership on the gnosis he received from Christ. In the tradition of Matthew
16:13–20, Peter was described as the one who received revelation; however, the
gnostic interpretation replaced the leadership keys and authority Peter received
with the gnosis or understanding of the mysteries. For a more in-depth discus-
sion of the gnostic interpretation of the Matthew 16 and 17 passages to solidify
their claim for pre-eminence by declaring that Peter was given the “gnosis” rather
than revelation see T. Smith, 131–33.
86 STUDIA ANTIQUA • Vol 2 No 2 • FALL 2002

upon the mount that Peter received the governing authority over
the church. In addition to the appearance of Moses and Elijah, the
transfiguration of Jesus, and the voice of the Father witnessing
the divinity of the Son, it was there that Old Testament prophets
endowed the keys of the kingdom upon Peter, James, and John.60
Besides receiving the governing keys, Peter, James, and John were
witnesses to an eschatological vision and recipients of revelation
pertaining to the governing of the kingdom, including temple ex-
periences. Peter would later testify that upon the mount, they re-
ceived the more sure word of prophecy, an assurance that they
would be joint heirs with Jesus Christ, being sealed up to eternal
life (2 Pet. 1:16–19).61
The experiences on the Mount of Transfiguration were a
preparation for the coming crucifixion of Jesus—not only for
Jesus who conversed about his death with Moses and Elijah (Luke
9:28, 31), but likely also for the disciples. Although they did not
fully understand the significance of the events on the mount
(Mark 9:6, 10; Luke 9:33), Christ taught them of his impending
crucifixion and endowed them with all the keys and knowledge
necessary for the governing of the Church. Thus, while Peter,
James, and John did not receive a full understanding of the events
to come, the transfiguration experience led the disciples to a
clearer knowledge and understanding of the mission of Jesus
Christ, the saving ordinances, and the ruling of the kingdom of
God on the earth. This event was so significant for Peter’s devel-
opment as the leader of the early Christian Church that later,
when testifying of his authority, he referred to his experience on
the mount as a witness to his right to testify of Christ and to lead
his Church.

60
J. Smith 1980a, vol. 3, 387; see also vol. 5, 152.
61
J. Smith 1980b, 201–02, 204–08.