Why Moses and Elijah were at the transfiguration.
- Thread starter Lifted_by_the_word
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I just saw that in some show very recently..
-
1
- Show all
Consider the following...
...I just pulled this from one of the Commentaries on this verse... see if it helps make sense of this text (it seems so, to me, considering the wider context of what Jesus was saying here):
[quoting from the Pulpit Commentary - John 3:13]
"[...] but Jesus says none have done it in the only sense in which they would have been thereby fitted to discourse on the heavenly things. Two things are needed for this in the main - to be in heaven, and come thence charged with its Divine communications. Enoch, Elijah, may have been translated that they should not see death, but they are not so lifted into the abode of God that they might come thence charged with heavenly truth, and able to explain the "how" of Divine grace. No one hath ascended into heaven except he who has by living there as in his eternal home come down from heaven. Meyer, Luthardt, Westcott, etc., all call attention to other and analogous usage of εἰ μὴ, which fastens upon a part of the previous negative, not the whole assertion, and therefore here upon the idea of living in heaven and coming thence (Matthew 12:4; Luke 4:26, 27; Galatians 1:7). Man, if he should presume to come with a full revelation of Divine and heavenly things, must come down from a height to which he had previously ascended; but no man has thus and for this purpose ascended, except he who has descended from heaven, having been there before his manifestation in the flesh, having been "in God." "with God," "in the bosom of the Father," and having come thence, not losing his essential ego, his Divine personality, even though calling himself the Son of man. For any other to have come down from heaven, it was necessary that he should first have ascended thither; but the Son of man has descended without having ascended. He calls himself "Son of man," and he claims to have come down from heaven without ceasing to be what he was before."
[end quoting from the Pulpit Commentary, on John 3:13 - https://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/john/3.htm ; - https://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/3-13.htm ; Bold and underline mine]
____________
John 3:13 -
Berean Standard Bible
No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven—the Son of Man.
Berean Literal Bible
And no one has gone up into heaven except the One having come down out of heaven, the Son of Man.
King James Bible
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
New King James Version
No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.
...I just pulled this from one of the Commentaries on this verse... see if it helps make sense of this text (it seems so, to me, considering the wider context of what Jesus was saying here):
[quoting from the Pulpit Commentary - John 3:13]
"[...] but Jesus says none have done it in the only sense in which they would have been thereby fitted to discourse on the heavenly things. Two things are needed for this in the main - to be in heaven, and come thence charged with its Divine communications. Enoch, Elijah, may have been translated that they should not see death, but they are not so lifted into the abode of God that they might come thence charged with heavenly truth, and able to explain the "how" of Divine grace. No one hath ascended into heaven except he who has by living there as in his eternal home come down from heaven. Meyer, Luthardt, Westcott, etc., all call attention to other and analogous usage of εἰ μὴ, which fastens upon a part of the previous negative, not the whole assertion, and therefore here upon the idea of living in heaven and coming thence (Matthew 12:4; Luke 4:26, 27; Galatians 1:7). Man, if he should presume to come with a full revelation of Divine and heavenly things, must come down from a height to which he had previously ascended; but no man has thus and for this purpose ascended, except he who has descended from heaven, having been there before his manifestation in the flesh, having been "in God." "with God," "in the bosom of the Father," and having come thence, not losing his essential ego, his Divine personality, even though calling himself the Son of man. For any other to have come down from heaven, it was necessary that he should first have ascended thither; but the Son of man has descended without having ascended. He calls himself "Son of man," and he claims to have come down from heaven without ceasing to be what he was before."
[end quoting from the Pulpit Commentary, on John 3:13 - https://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/john/3.htm ; - https://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/3-13.htm ; Bold and underline mine]
____________
John 3:13 -
Berean Standard Bible
No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven—the Son of Man.
Berean Literal Bible
And no one has gone up into heaven except the One having come down out of heaven, the Son of Man.
King James Bible
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
New King James Version
No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.
-
1
- Show all
Hi Pilgrim
Your Zechariah reference is speaking to the same symbology Paul uses of two olive trees (a good and
a wild olive) to represent Israel and the Gentiles, which are the two great families of God on the earth. The former is His
firstborn as Pharoah was reminded in Exodus 4:22 and the latter is yet to be incorporated into His family and cultivated for His pleasure. Read Rom. 11:17, Hosea 4:6 for the use of the symbol
It's really important you dont misrepresent the symbol as Revelation 11:4 is quoting Zechariah 4:3 and is speaking of both Jews and
Gentiles are symbolised as "olive trees" (see Rom 11:17). It is from mankind generally, and not from Jews alone, that
the two witnesses are drawn.
In Zechariah 4:11, the two "olive trees" are shown as standing in juxtaposition with a lampstand; and the oil of the former is
shown as passing into the latter through two notable branches of the trees (Zech 4:12). These two branches represent
those separated from the Jewish and Gentile olive trees, to supply oil for the lampstand, and therefore signify the
church as distinct from the trees, or humanity generally.
As you say Revelation is highly symbolic and the two witnesses are not two individuals, but rather representing many peoples who stood against the religious tyranny of their time.
Hope that helps.
F2F
Your Zechariah reference is speaking to the same symbology Paul uses of two olive trees (a good and
a wild olive) to represent Israel and the Gentiles, which are the two great families of God on the earth. The former is His
firstborn as Pharoah was reminded in Exodus 4:22 and the latter is yet to be incorporated into His family and cultivated for His pleasure. Read Rom. 11:17, Hosea 4:6 for the use of the symbol
It's really important you dont misrepresent the symbol as Revelation 11:4 is quoting Zechariah 4:3 and is speaking of both Jews and
Gentiles are symbolised as "olive trees" (see Rom 11:17). It is from mankind generally, and not from Jews alone, that
the two witnesses are drawn.
In Zechariah 4:11, the two "olive trees" are shown as standing in juxtaposition with a lampstand; and the oil of the former is
shown as passing into the latter through two notable branches of the trees (Zech 4:12). These two branches represent
those separated from the Jewish and Gentile olive trees, to supply oil for the lampstand, and therefore signify the
church as distinct from the trees, or humanity generally.
As you say Revelation is highly symbolic and the two witnesses are not two individuals, but rather representing many peoples who stood against the religious tyranny of their time.
Hope that helps.
F2F
Exactly.There's many scripture that the water and blood are present during the times God uses his remnant.Even in some death that might seem random in scripture could have the spirit,water and the blood present if God is making a way for someone.
I've seen this in a lot in scripture and never made the connection before.But it's what God does.
Like I said in another post,the water and the blood are easily associated with Moses because like the covenants they are as one.So Moses will be associated with the water and the blood just like Elijah is.
Don't you think that in my second example,that would be a prime example?only a remnant of the earth will be saved.There's nothing new under the sun.This is history repeating itself.Coming out of Mystery Babylon is similar to coming out of Egypt.
For me I see this this way and it makes sense.But I'm not very good at explaining things.I like to keep my understanding of scripture as simple as possible.
Moses and Aaron are are a remnant and two witnesses.In their story they are also used in the image of the water and the blood.
Like his Two Witnesses in Egypt, God will use his remnant,the 144,000 to ceremonially clean his people with the water and the blood,just like he instructed Moses to ceremonially clean the Levites.The water and the blood is the testimony of Jesus.His Two Witnesses of Revelation.Only a remnant will repent and be spared.
Why didn't God just use Moses and Aaron at the transfiguration?he did.They were a remnant like the two at the transfiguration.
The same way God promised the Levite's a everlasting priesthood.It was given to the remnant.Not the Levites themselves.
We are told we are to be Kings and priests.Cause only a remnant will be saved.
Moses and Elijah stand at the transfiguration as Gods Two Witnesses.The water and the blood.
I've seen this in a lot in scripture and never made the connection before.But it's what God does.
Like I said in another post,the water and the blood are easily associated with Moses because like the covenants they are as one.So Moses will be associated with the water and the blood just like Elijah is.
Don't you think that in my second example,that would be a prime example?only a remnant of the earth will be saved.There's nothing new under the sun.This is history repeating itself.Coming out of Mystery Babylon is similar to coming out of Egypt.
For me I see this this way and it makes sense.But I'm not very good at explaining things.I like to keep my understanding of scripture as simple as possible.
Moses and Aaron are are a remnant and two witnesses.In their story they are also used in the image of the water and the blood.
Like his Two Witnesses in Egypt, God will use his remnant,the 144,000 to ceremonially clean his people with the water and the blood,just like he instructed Moses to ceremonially clean the Levites.The water and the blood is the testimony of Jesus.His Two Witnesses of Revelation.Only a remnant will repent and be spared.
Why didn't God just use Moses and Aaron at the transfiguration?he did.They were a remnant like the two at the transfiguration.
The same way God promised the Levite's a everlasting priesthood.It was given to the remnant.Not the Levites themselves.
We are told we are to be Kings and priests.Cause only a remnant will be saved.
Moses and Elijah stand at the transfiguration as Gods Two Witnesses.The water and the blood.
Moses & Elijah were "solely" dependent on the Lords exodus (from sin's flesh) so the nature of their encouragement would be to share the burden of that death, which he was about to suffer. You see, Jesus had his disciples but they failed to understand this death however, Moses and Elijah understood the efficacy his sacrifice would bring for without it they would remain but dust! Imagine having two men who were dead and buried (dust) stand before you knowning their whole future existence relied on you doing your Fathers will and not your own? There very presence would be encouragement enough, but as to the nature of their conversation, I suggest it was all about what his death would accomplish and the glory it would bring God.
Do you think the LORD God of all creation enfleshed was worried, scared or doubtful?
i don't.
When i myself am doubtful, lacking faith, i see it as sin in myself.
i do not ascribe sin to Jesus.
So when i read of Moses and Elijah speaking with Him i don't think they were saying 'there there poor Lord God Almighty, don't worry, it'll be okay'
-
2
-
1
-
1
- Show all
That was a brief relief from the incredible burden of serving above and beyond what any other human has performed in history!
The transfiguration brought select disciples to a life with Jesus after the finite. Peter was so dumbfounded that he said,
"Peter responded and said to Jesus, 'Lord, it is good that we are here. If You want, I will make three tabernacles here: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah."
The ultimate "mountain top experience"!
The transfiguration brought select disciples to a life with Jesus after the finite. Peter was so dumbfounded that he said,
"Peter responded and said to Jesus, 'Lord, it is good that we are here. If You want, I will make three tabernacles here: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah."
The ultimate "mountain top experience"!
-
1
- Show all
Okay, its an interesting record.
Peter said “Three tabernacles” based on that time when God spoke to Moses in the tabernacle Exodus 33:9-10.
He makes three mistakes:
1. He equates Moses and Elijah with the Lord, see Mark 9:7 “This is my beloved son”
2. He allocated a temporary structure (tabernacle) for the Lord (pointless!). Note how later he recognizes his error in thinking! read 2 Peter 1:15 where Peter uses the same word after “my decease” (Grk: “Exodus”) Peter had learned there is no earthly tabernacle/booths made with hands!
3. The three appeared in glory as per Luke 9:31, but Jesus alone had a “glory which excelled” Read 2 Peter 1:17 for the lesson learned.
Hope that helps...the voice out of the cloud cleared it all up!
Love Peter - i'm often reminded of being like him.
God bless
F2F
Peter said “Three tabernacles” based on that time when God spoke to Moses in the tabernacle Exodus 33:9-10.
He makes three mistakes:
1. He equates Moses and Elijah with the Lord, see Mark 9:7 “This is my beloved son”
2. He allocated a temporary structure (tabernacle) for the Lord (pointless!). Note how later he recognizes his error in thinking! read 2 Peter 1:15 where Peter uses the same word after “my decease” (Grk: “Exodus”) Peter had learned there is no earthly tabernacle/booths made with hands!
3. The three appeared in glory as per Luke 9:31, but Jesus alone had a “glory which excelled” Read 2 Peter 1:17 for the lesson learned.
Hope that helps...the voice out of the cloud cleared it all up!
Love Peter - i'm often reminded of being like him.
God bless
F2F
-
1
- Show all
Being asleep it's kinda hard to do wouldn't you say? Also, he wasn't capable - like you he was still in ignorance of the Lords sacrifice....thankfully in time he learned a great deal - read Acts 2 - his testimony (Matt 16:16) became the rock upon with the body of Christ would be established.
Enjoy.
F2F
Enjoy.
F2F
If anything, Moses and Elijah were discussing future events with Christ. His "exodus" (departure) would mean His departure from earth -- Christ's ascension after His death, burial and resurrection. But perhaps they were looking at events even farther into the future, when they would return to earth to preach the Gospel. We are simply not told what was discussed. What was clearly evident to those two was the fact of the glorious appearance of Christ. Peter calls it His majesty.
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. (2 Peter 1:16-18)
Peter, James, and John were probably stunned beyond description. They saw their Teacher (Rabbi)-- a man -- transfigured into the likeness of God. This was shock and awe to their systems. So if they could not deal with this rationally they cannot be blamed. But Christ admonished them not to disclose this glorious revelation until after His resurrection. But they immediately connected the future coming of Elijah to this event.
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. (2 Peter 1:16-18)
Peter, James, and John were probably stunned beyond description. They saw their Teacher (Rabbi)-- a man -- transfigured into the likeness of God. This was shock and awe to their systems. So if they could not deal with this rationally they cannot be blamed. But Christ admonished them not to disclose this glorious revelation until after His resurrection. But they immediately connected the future coming of Elijah to this event.
-
3
-
1
- Show all