Matthew 17

Matthew 17

“THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW”

Chapter Seventeen The events recorded in this chapter begin with Jesus transfigured on the mountain (Matthew 17:1-13), referenced to later by Peter in his epistle (2 Peter 1:16-18). Afterward Jesus healed a demon-possessed boy when His disciples were unable due to a lack of faith and prayer (Matthew 17:14-21). Back in Galilee, Jesus once again predicted His death and resurrection (Matthew 17:22-23). Upon arriving in Capernaum, Jesus expounded on the payment of the temple tax (Matthew 17:24-27).

POINTS TO PONDER

• The significance of the transfiguration

• The reason for the failure of a miracle

REVIEW

1. What are the main points of this chapter?

• The transfiguration of Jesus Christ - Matthew 17:1-13- Jesus heals a demon-possessed boy - Matthew 17:14-21- Jesus again predicts His death and resurrection - Matthew 17:22-23- The payment of taxes - Matthew 17:24-27

2. When was Jesus transfigured on the mount? (Matthew 17:1)

• After six days of saying some would not die before seeing Him coming in His kingdom (cf. Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1-2; Luke 9:27-28)

3. Who appeared when Jesus was transfigured? What might they represent? (Matthew 17:3)

• Moses and Elijah; the Law and the Prophets

4. What did the voice from the cloud say about Jesus? What might it indicate? (Matthew 17:5)

• “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!”
• That Jesus would have priority over the Law and the Prophets

5. When were the disciples to tell others what they had seen? (Matthew 17:9)

• Not until Jesus had risen from the dead

6. Who did Jesus say had come? Who had fulfilled that prophecy? (Matthew 17:10-13)

• Elijah (cf. Malachi 4:5); John the Baptist

7. Why were the disciples unable to heal the demon-possessed boy? (Matthew 17:19-21)

• Because of their lack of faith and prayer

8. What did Jesus predict for the second time to His disciples? (Matthew 17:22-23)

• His betrayal, death, and resurrection from the dead

9. Did Jesus teach His disciples to pay taxes? How did He pay the tax? (Matthew 17:24-27)

• Yes (cf. Matthew 22:15-22); by having Peter catch a fish with a coin in its mouth

Matthew 17:1-27 Verse 1Mat 17:1-27THE ; THE COMING OF ELIJAH; THE ’ FAILURE WITH THE DEMON- BOY; THE PASSION AGAIN; JESUS PAYS TRIBUTE WITH THE MONEY IN THE FISH’S MOUTHAnd after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart. (Matthew 17:1)Luke makes the time interval “eight days” (Luke 9:28); but there is no discrepancy from Mark and Matthew. Luke used the inclusive method of reckoning time, counting the portion of a day at either end of the period, whereas Mark and Matthew counted only the complete days. A suggestion of this is in the precise terminology used. Matthew has it “after six days,” and Luke stated that it was “about eight days.” Today people might say, “six or eight days.” Matthew was omitted from that inner circle of three disciples who witnessed the marvel here related, and one can find only amazement at the complete detachment and objectivity of his narrative. Peter, James and John formed a kind of inner committee, or cadre, within the Twelve, and were the exclusive witnesses of the transfiguration, the raising of Jairus’ daughter, and the agony in Gethsemane. Peter would take the lead in establishing the church; James would be the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem; and John would receive the final revelation. The experience on the mount of transfiguration would better equip them for future duties and responsibilities. The Saviour’s prophecy of his approaching death and humiliation had doubtless imparted some measure of shock and disappointment to the Twelve, and that event was possibly designed to lift their spirits, strengthen their faith, and lead them into an acceptance of the approaching passion of our Lord. The location of the wondrous unveiling of his glory is not given; but there are excellent and convincing reasons for placing it at Mount Hermon, or one of its supporting peaks. Robertson stated that “The tradition that places the transfiguration on Mount Tabor is beyond question false."[1] He would appear to be correct for these reasons: (1) Tabor does not qualify as a “high” mountain, being only 1,800 feet in elevation, compared with Hermon’s 9,000 feet. (2) Tradition favoring Tabor, first advocated by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century,[2] is much too late to have much weight. (3) Mount Tabor was populated, having a fortress on top, during the time of Christ,[3] and was not suitable for such an event as the transfiguration. To have ascended Tabor would not have taken them “apart,” as Matthew expressed it. (4) Mount Tabor was three days journey removed from the last named geographical placement of Christ and his disciples; and, although a sufficient time interval of six or eight days had elapsed, none of the gospel narratives mentions a journey of any kind. Hermon, on the other hand, was nearby and is the most likely site. (5) Furthermore, when the gospels again take up the narrative, they were still in the vicinity of Hermon. Peter, in after years, called it the Holy Mount (2 Peter 1:18), and in the words of A.

L. Williams, “We may conclude that we are not intended to know more about it, lest we should be tempted to make more of the material circumstances than of the great reality."[4] [1] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 102, footnote. [2] A. Lukyn Williams, Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1961), Vol. 15 II, p. 171. [3] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 683. [4] A. Lukyn Williams, op. cit., p. 172.

Verse 2 And he was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun, and his garments became white as the light.The glory of Christ was revealed. The effulgence of the Godhead made his face luminous and shone through his garments. Again from Williams, It is a subjective vision that is here related, no mere inward impression on brain or nerve with nothing external to correspond, but a real objective occurrence, which was beheld by mortal eyes endued with no supernatural or abnormal powers, except insofar as they were enabled to look on this partial emanation of the divine effulgence.[5] The heavenly glory of Christ irradiated his face and clothing, demonstrating his eternal nature in a way to make the apostles who witnessed it absolutely certain that Christ was God in human form. The profound impression made by the event was permanent. Long afterward, John wrote, “We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). ENDNOTE:[5] Ibid.

Verse 3 And behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elijah talking with him.How did the apostles recognize Moses and Elijah? The conversation seems to be the most logical source of that information. It may be concluded from this incident that the saints will know the redeemed of all ages in their glorified state in heaven. The appearance of Moses and Elijah with Christ was strong proof of his deity, since Christ was able to recall from the hosts of righteous dead those typical representatives of previous dispensations. Moses the great lawgiver, and Elijah the great prophet, were there summoned from the dead to resign their commissions and to lay their homage at his feet. Then the apostles KNEW that Christ was not merely some great Elijah or other notable, and they were certain beyond all doubt that he was the One greater than all others, superior even to Moses and Elijah.

Verse 4 And Peter answered, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, I will make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.Again Peter was wrong, not so completely wrong as when he rebuked the Lord, but still wrong. Luke added the words, “not knowing what he said” (Luke 9:33). Peter was still thinking of Jesus AND Moses, or of Jesus AND Elijah, or of Jesus AND both of them. The suggested tabernacles were small booths used by the Jews for the feast of tabernacles. What Peter had in mind is not clear, but his error is glaring enough. He was proposing some kind of for Jesus to share with Moses and Elijah. Christ did not rebuke Peter, but what followed exposed his error in the most astonishing manner.

Verse 5 While he was yet speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.The triple “behold” is significant. Miracle was piled upon miracle in the succession of astounding occurrences. Here is a manifestation of the Trinity almost as definite as that at the baptismal scene in Matthew 3:16. Christ was present, radiant in heavenly light; the Father spake out of heaven; and the cloud strongly suggests the Holy Spirit, although it is not so identified. The frightened apostles fell on their faces in abject terror at that overwhelming display of divine power. The exact nature of the bright cloud is not known, but Peter called it “the excellent glory” (2 Peter 1:17). The words out of the cloud were the same as those at Jesus’ baptism, except that the words “Hear ye him” were added. Like all of God’s commandments, this is exclusive and means “Do not hear Moses; do not hear Elijah, etc.”

Verse 6 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.Christ’s touch was that like he used in healing and raising the dead. It imparted power and strength. It emphasizes the state of utter incapacity into which the apostles’ terror had plunged them. The message “Be not afraid” was the same which came to them over the storm-tossed waters of Galilee, dispelling their apprehensions and indicating the end of the experience.

Verse 8 And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one, save Jesus only.The big words in this whole passage are “Jesus only.” Moses and Elijah were no longer visible, having been caught away in the cloud; thus, the message was definite and emphatic, “Jesus only!” The significance of this is apparent in the consideration of other possibilities. They might have seen no one after the cloud lifted. How unhappy would have been their lot if all the glory had departed, leaving no one. In such a case, no salvation, no hope would have been indicated. They might have seen MOSES ONLY. This would have indicated the Law as still supreme, and forgiveness would yet have remained impossible. They might have seen ELIJAH ONLY.

What a catastrophe that would have been. James and John could have called down fire upon the villages; Herod would have been slain like Ahab; the Pharisees would have met their match; Herodias would have fared like Jezebel. They might have seen all three, as suggested by Peter’s rash proposal. His statement, “Lord, it is good for us to be here,” seems to indicate that he thought it was better to be there with Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, than to be there with Jesus only. At first glance, this may appear to have been an attractive possibility. It certainly was so for Peter; but such could not possibly be true.

Some things bespeak better conditions by their absence than by their presence. If one were able to see the sun, moon, and stars all at once, it would be a dreadfully dark day! Jesus only! This is the message humanity needs. He is the only Saviour, the only Mediator, the only Authority in heaven or upon earth. He is the only means of access to God (John 14:6), the only hope of the world, the only Judge of the world, and the only Atonement for man’s sin.

Verse 9 And as they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen from the dead.Silence was commanded because nine of the apostles had not witnessed the transfiguration, and there was a possibility of jealousy developing among them, as indeed it did a little later; also the primary reason, as noted earlier, was the need not to compromise the Saviour’s death which he would soon accomplish in Jerusalem. An extremely important supplement to Matthew’s account is in Luke who gave the subject matter of the conversation between Jesus and Moses and Elijah. “(They) spake of his decease which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem” (Luke 9:31). This conversation was calculated to encourage and reassure the apostles who had been severely shocked and disheartened by the Saviour’s revelation of his death and sufferings, to be followed by his resurrection. It seems that the apostles focused all their attention upon his death and continue not to realize, though they had been told, that he would also rise from the dead. The subject matter during the transfiguration showed that the death of Christ was a part of the Master Plan and that it was of the utmost concern and interest on the part of all previous generations as represented by Moses and Elijah. It also revealed Christ as the Great Architect of the crucifixion. Evil men, dominated by Satan, would have their part in it, but only Christ would accomplish his death. These events, coupled with the sublime conversation, should have enabled the apostles more readily to accept the somber events of his approaching passion.

Verse 10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come?This question shows that the evil insinuations of the scribes had done their work even in the apostles’ hearts. Their recognition of Elijah on the mountaintop probably caused them to think that Elijah would “restore all things” as was expected of him; but then, upon reflection, it appeared that such a momentary appearance as they had just witnessed would not allow time for such a mission. They promptly asked Jesus about it.

Verse 11 And he answered and said, Elijah indeed cometh, and shall restore all things: but I say unto you, that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they would. Even so shall the Son of man also suffer of them. Then understood the disciples that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.A difficulty, to some, appears in the use of the future tense in Matthew 17:11, causing the conjecture that there are two fulfillments of the prophecy of Elijah’s coming, the first being in the coming of John the Baptist, the other to come near the end of time when Elijah will appear (so goes the speculation) and “restore all things,” before the second advent of our Lord. Interesting as this speculation is, it is rejected on the simple words of the text to the effect that Christ was speaking of John the Baptist. The tense, whether future or not, should give no concern. In assigning a study of the Old Testament, a professor is well within the bounds of legitimate speech when he says, “Now Abraham comes before Moses, and Moses comes before David.” The utmost accuracy of our Lord’s word must be allowed; but the possibility of just such a misunderstanding was anticipated and eliminated by the plain assertion, “He spake unto them of John the Baptist.” Also, “Elijah is come already!”

Verse 14 And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a man, kneeling to him, and saying, Lord have mercy on my son: for he is epileptic, and suffereth grievously; for oft-times he falleth into the fire, and oft-times into the water.The word “epileptic” as used in the English Revised Version (1885) is an error, as may be seen by consulting any Greek lexicon or commentary. The word is “lunatic.” This class of disease was given separate listing in Matthew 4:24, and doubtless many of this kind were healed. In the case here, there is the additional complication of demon possession. The fact that there was a double affliction could have accounted for the difficulty the disciples had in healing the boy, failing, in fact, to do so. (See on Matthew 8:28).

Verse 16 And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him.The latent doubt planted in the apostles’ hearts by the Pharisees must surely have played a part in the inability to heal the lunatic. Their faltering faith, coupled with the double difficulty at hand, made them powerless to effect a cure. These same disciples had once returned with joy over the fact that demons were subject to them in the name of Christ (Luke 10:17 ff); but then they were powerless in the presence of that lunatic boy. This indicates the difficulty the apostles had in maintaining their faith under the rising attacks of the Pharisees, the revelation that Christ would suffer death, and the temporary absence of Jesus with three of their number on the Holy Mountain.

Verse 17 And Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you? bring him hither to me.This blanket indictment of all present, including the Twelve, especially the nine who had failed, gives an insight into the frustration which threatened the Master’s heaven-born mission to men. How long was this to continue? Had all the miracles and wonders gone for nothing? Instead of growing in faith, the apostles were obviously weakening under the withering climate induced by Pharisaical opposition to the Master and the waning of his popularity that resulted from the campaign of his foes in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, he did not lose patience with them but prepared to perform another mighty wonder before their eyes.

Verse 18 And Jesus rebuked him; and the demon went out of him: and the boy was cured from that hour.Christ succeeded, of course, even though his apostles had failed; thus his name and honor were vindicated. A strange sidelight on this cure is the obvious fact that not all demon-possessed persons were morally corrupt. There is no suggestion of such in the case here. Just how Satan’s servants were able to possess even innocents on some occasions is not revealed. The verse here is Matthew’s first intimation that a demon was involved, but Jesus’ words immediately afterwards left no doubt. Christ rebuked, not the disease, but the demon. As Trench observed, all disorders in nature are traceable to their fountain source in the kingdom of evil, whose head is Satan. Other graphic details are given by Mark, describing Jesus’ conversation with the father and the final tearing of the child as they brought him to Jesus. (See also Luke 9:42). Spurgeon saw in the intensified activity of the demon a pattern of Satan’s vigorously increased opposition against those who are in the act of coming to Christ for salvation. He wrote, “Sinners, when they approach the Saviour, are often thrown down by Satan and torn, so that they suffer exceedingly in their minds, and are well nigh ready to give up in despair."[6] Any gospel minister can recall instances of mighty oppositions to souls on the brink of decision for Christ. ENDNOTE:[6] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Sermons (New York: Funk and Wagnalls), Vol. 2,297.

Verse 19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast it out?They discreetly waited until they were alone with Christ, avoiding embarrassment that might have resulted from asking him publicly; and, in view of the reasons Jesus gave, they were correct in the exercise of such prudence.

Verse 20 And he said unto them, Because of your little faith: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.The reasons for the apostles’ failure were (1) their lack of faith, (2) the double difficulty of the case at hand, and (3) their failure to exercise the privilege of prayer and fasting. At this place in Matthew, some very ancient authorities include Matthew 17:21 which reads, “But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting.” Mark 9:29 reads, “This kind can come out by nothing, save by prayer.” The disciples had some faith, else they would not have tried to cast it out. The fact that they had previously cast out demons but could not cast out that one shows that some demons are more malevolent and stubborn than others. This opens a whole field of questions regarding the character and variety of demons, but the Scriptures afford little information on such a point. The necessity for prayer (certainly) and fasting (perhaps) was stressed. The child had long been possessed by the demon, and the usual pattern of demonic destruction was evident in the danger incurred from falls into the fire and into the water.

It is noteworthy that Satan’s purpose, wherever revealed in Scripture, invariably appears destructive. In the cases of Job (Job 1:16), Judas (Luke 22:3), the swine (Matthew 8:32), and in many others, death and destruction always resulted quickly when Satan or his emissaries had a free hand to work their will. Nothing shall be impossible unto you, is a very strong statement by the Lord. One is tempted to make our Lord’s remark about removing mountains mere hyperbole, but no such restriction seems justified from the text. To the true believer, and especially to the apostles, all things were possible through faith. To every true child of God, all moral and material difficulties vanish. The tragedy is that most disciples, like the nine in the case here, are hindered by seeds of doubt and unbelief, and perhaps also by the lack of fervent and devoted prayer.

Verse 22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be delivered up into the hands of men; and they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised up. And they were exceeding sorry.THE SECOND OF JESUS’ PASSIONOne additional and very significant detail is added by this recapitulation of the prophecy of his Passion. That is that he would be “delivered up,” or “betrayed” as the word is translated in Matthew 10:4 (English Revised Version (1885) margin). From Mark, it is known that Christ at that time had returned to Galilee and was in retirement there, using every possible means to instruct and prepare the apostles for the awful events looming so near in the future. The fact that they were “exceeding sorry” shows what enormous difficulty attended this revelation for them. It was, in fact, incomprehensible; and most of the things Christ taught them on that subject were to remain unrealized by them until after the events. Looming nearer and nearer were the dark scenes of Calvary, blotting out their view of the oft-repeated promises of his resurrection. The ability of finite men to understand so gargantuan a fact as God in Christ dying for the sins of the whole world was strained to the breaking point. Never was there a better example of the weakness of the flesh (all flesh) than in the shocked and perplexed attitude of the Twelve. They had been given all the facts, but full realization would come afterwards. The curtain rings down on the retirement in Galilee. We may suppose that Jesus stressed over and over the sad out of the Passion; and the apostles, unable to comprehend it, nevertheless remembered his words which would spring up in their hearts unto eternal life as soon as the gloom of Calvary was drowned in the light of his resurrection.

Verse 24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received the half-shekel came to Peter, and said, Doth not your teacher pay the half-shekel?This half-shekel was a Jewish poll tax levied annually for the support of the temple, a tax which Jesus perhaps had paid often in the past; but the appearance of the solicitors with an inquiry placed a different face on things. IF Christ paid the tax, it would mean, in a sense, that he was laying claim to no special dignity but was accepting the status of an ordinary Jew, rabbis being exempt. To be sure, Jesus might have claimed exemption as a Jewish rabbi, or teacher; but to have done so would have compromised his higher claim to be the Messiah, which claim was widely known, though disputed by his enemies. A refusal to pay it would have involved him as a technical lawbreaker; and it is likely that the dilemma involved in these various facets of the problem was what prompted the inquiry in the first place. The poll tax was generally left to voluntary compliance; for centuries no enforcement structure existed and no penalties for default were prescribed or enforced. However, about the time of Christ, regulations had been posted, with mild penalties; but these were rarely enforced.[7] ENDNOTE:[7] A. Lukyn Williams, op. cit., p. 179.

Verse 25 He saith, Yea. And when he came into the house, Jesus spake first to him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? The kings of the earth, from whom do they receive toll or tribute? from their sons, or from strangers? And when he said, From strangers, Jesus said unto him, Therefore the sons are free.Peter was probably completely unaware of the dilemma posed for Christ in the matter of payment, or non-payment, of the half-shekel; but, in his quick and ready impulsiveness, he accepted the obligation for Christ and himself also. Jesus’ speaking to Peter first showed that he knew what had taken place without need of any report from Peter. Only God has such omniscience; and this is therefore another instance in which the deity of Christ is implied and affirmed by all that was said and done.

Where did Christ learn the skilled Socratic method of teaching by asking questions, thus drawing from Peter’s own mouth the essential truth he sought to convey? His wisdom was from above, and he needed not that any man teach HIM. Peter had already confessed Jesus as God’s Son, making him a Son of the King, in the highest and truest sense of those words. The well-known fact that the children of kings’ palaces were exempt from taxation was thus elicited from Peter that he might see that Jesus was exempt from the half-shekel tax. The tax was for God, the true King; Jesus was his Son, therefore Jesus was exempt. Furthermore, the half-shekel was in the nature of a ransom or atonement; and how could he who came to give himself a ransom for all be required to pay this trifling temple tax as ransom for himself? Though Christ had perhaps paid this tax in the past (based upon Peter’s ready acceptance of the obligation), he was now the declared Messiah, and to pay it then would involve some inconsistency, hence the necessity for Jesus to be absolutely sure that Peter recognized his true status of exemption. In spite of all this, and to avoid focusing on an insignificant detail, Christ paid it anyway, although in such a manner that he could never be charged with having done so in any sense of renunciation of his high office as the world’s only Redeemer.

Verse 27 But, lest we cause them to stumble, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a shekel; that take, and give unto them for me and thee.In paying that temple tax, Jesus did so out of charity and good will, not out of obligation. Trench wrote: Christ was a Son over his own house, not a servant in another’s; the head of the Theocracy, not one of its subordinate members - so that it was TO HIM in his Father that offerings were to be made, not FROM HIM to be received.[8] Christ’s submission to this tax reminds one of his request for baptism at the hands of John the Baptist. There, he might likewise have claimed an exemption, which fact John strongly affirmed, but he did not claim it. It was his perfect observance of all obligations and, as in the case here, his going beyond all true obligations in order to do that which was becoming, thus leaving no cause for offense, that enabled him to say that he had come to “fulfill” the law and the prophets. Born under the law, he came not to destroy, but to fulfill, its every provision in the most perfect and exacting sense. The miracle of the coin in the fish’s mouth does not appear to be one of outright creation, but rather one of absolute and perfect control over all things in nature. The existence of a fish with a coin in its mouth, which it had swallowed and was too large to go down, is not hard to understand. There have been many examples similar to this; and Wilson tells of a cod caught with a watch in its stomach, and the watch was still running![9] The miracle is seen in the absolute power and knowledge of the Master who directed the fish to Peter’s hook and at the precise moment required. Trench wrote: We see here, as at Jonah 1:17, that in the lower spheres of creaturely life, there is unconscious obedience to him; that these also are not out of God, but move in him, and are, without knowing it, for grace or for judgment, the active ministers of his will.[10] Note also that Christ never touched the money. There is no evidence that he ever did. On the occasion of the question about the tribute money, he said, “Show me the tribute money!” Money was apparently something that others touched, but not the Saviour. [8] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Miracles (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1953), p. 409. [9] A. Lukyn Williams, op. cit., p. 181. [10] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 164.

J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter SeventeenThe Transfiguration, Matthew 17:1-13. (Mark 9:2-13; Luke 9:28-36)

1. after six days.—Six days after the time of the conversation last mentioned. Peter, James, and John.—There were two objects to be considered in selecting witnesses of the transfiguration; first, to insure the desired secrecy (verse 9); and second, to insure from the event itself the best final results. On account of the preeminence which these three apostles now had and were yet to acquire, they were the most likely to turn to good account the impression which the scene would make on themselves, and they were probably the most likely to keep the event a secret until the time should come for making it known. The present increase of their faith would also bring an indirect advantage to the entire company, even though the others knew not what had caused it. biThe scene of the transfiguration was formerly supposed to be Mt. Tabor, a very beautiful conical mountain west of the lake of Galilee; but as Jesus was on his tour to Cæsarea Philippi, which town was situated at the base of Mt. Hermon, it is now generally believed that the latter is the mountain mentioned in the text. Moreover, Mt. Hermon better corresponds to the designation “a high mountain;” for it is the highest mountain in Palestine, being about 10,000 feet above the level of the sea. Its top is covered with almost perpetual snow, and is visible from high points in all parts of Galilee and Judea. Some lofty terrace on its side would have been in every way a suitable spot for the transfiguration.
2. transfigured before him.—Transfigured means changed in form, yet the description indicates only a change in the appearance of his person. Though “his face did shine as the sun,” we suppose that the features maintained their natural form; and though “his raiment was white as light”— that is, light reflected from some polished surface— we suppose it was unchanged in other particulars. It is impossible for us to realize his appearance until we shall be like him and see him as he is. (1 John 3:2.)
3. Moses and Elias talking.—It must have been from the course of the conversation that the disciples learned that the visitors were Moses and Elias; for they could not have known them by sight. They talked, as we learn from Luke, about his decease, which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.
4. Then answered Peter.—There was a divine attraction in the scene, a foretaste of heaven’s own glory, and no wonder that Peter exclaimed. “It is good for us to be here.” But his proposition to build tabernacles (σκήνας, booths made out of branches from the trees) for the three glorified persons to dwell in, was hasty and inconsiderate. The best excuse for it is the one given by Mark: “He knew not what he should say: for they were frightened.” It shows that men in the flesh are not pro pared to judge of the fitness of things in the spiritual world. In all probability many of our most cherished conceptions of that world are as incongruous as that of the frightened Peter. 5, 6. While he yet spake.—The scene had been witnessed long enough by the disciples, and it was abruptly terminated by the introduction of another. The entire transaction, as we may safely infer from Luke’s narrative, occurred in the night. (Notice, that Jesus had been praying until the disciples were “heavy with sleep;” and that they came down from the mountain “on the next day.” Luke 9:28 Luke 9:32 Luke 9:37.) Out of the womb of darkness had suddenly appeared the three glowing forms of Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, and now, while the disciples were trembling at that sight, there floats near to them out of the same darkness a cloud all radiant with light like that which shone from the face of Jesus, and as it begins to overhang them, they hear that voice which has never yet been heard by mortals except with fear and trembling. It came just as Peter’s incongruous proposal had escaped his lips, and it is no wonder that the three fishermen “fell on their faces and were sure afraid.” This is my beloved Son.—The words uttered are a repetition of the oracle which was heard at the Jordan (3:17), with the addition of the significant words, “Hear him.” This command contains the chief significance of the entire scene. Uttered in the presence of Moses the lawgiver, and of Elijah the prophet, it meant that Jesus should be heard in preference to the law and the prophets. In the exalted preeminence thus bestowed on Jesus, accompanied by a change of his appearance harmonious with the glory of his position, his divine majesty was displayed in a manner never witnessed on earth before or since. Peter afterward presented this view of the transaction, when he wrote, “We followed not cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor 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.) 7, 8. they saw no man.—Their prostration when they heard the voice of God prevented them from seeing the departure of Moses and Elias, and the disappearance of the glory. When Jesus touched them and told them to arise, he alone was before them, and he was there in his natural appearance.
5. Tell the vision to no man.—To have published abroad the vision could at that time have done no good; for the people would have discredited the story and would have reflected adversely on the veracity of the three disciples. But to lock up the secret in the breasts of these three was to cause them to reflect on it much and to converse with one another about it often. Furthermore, the more intensely and the longer it burned within them as a secret, the more joyously would they speak of it when the proper time arrived, and their own miraculous powers rendered credible all that they said of it. That they told it then is evident not only from Peter’s words above quoted, but from its being recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, none of whom were witnesses of the event, and all of whom wrote before the publication of Peter’s epistle. 10-13. the disciples asked him.—Expecting a literal fulfillment of Malachi’s well known prediction concerning the coming of Elijah (Malachi 4:5-6), the disciples were surprised that when he appeared on the mountain he did not remain to do the work predicted of him; hence their question. Jesus teaches them a second time that Malachi used the name Elijah figuratively to represent John the Baptist. (12, 13. Comp. note on 11:14.) An Obstinate Demon Cast Out, Matthew 17:14-21. (Mark 9:14-29; Luke 9:37-43)14. to the multitude.—From the expression “When they were come to the multitude,” we infer that Jesus and the three had left a multitude when they went into the mountain, and that they now return to the same. 14-16. have mercy on my son.—The father’s description represents the son as a lunatic subject to fits. The term lunatic (moonstruck), and the Greek word which it here represents (σελνιαζω), came into use from the superstitious belief that the affliction was caused by a malign influence of the moon; and this idea arose from the fact that in some cases of insanity the symptoms vary at monthly intervals. But although the term originated in this way, it is applied in usage to all kinds of insane persons; consequently we can not infer from its use in this case that the young man’s insanity was periodic, or that his father supposed it to be caused by the moon. On the contrary, as we learn from Mark’s account, the father believed, as our text represents (18), that the affliction was caused by a demon. The failure of the disciples to cast out the demon increased the distress and anxiety of the father as he came to Jesus and kneeled down before him with his petition.
6. O faithless and perverse.—This lamentation, showing that Jesus had become wearied and saddened by the constant manifestations of insufficient faith among his disciples, was not addressed to the father of the youth, but to the disciples and the multitude. Some infidel writers have represented this speech as a manifestation of impatience and irritation inconsistent with the perfection of character ascribed to Jesus. If it were true that the speech exhibits impatience and irritation, it would still be a question whether these feelings, kept under proper restraint, are inconsistent with a perfect human character. The rebuke itself was certainly just, and, under the circumstances, altogether proper; then why should the feeling which naturally accompanies such a rebuke, be improper? The perfection of human character consists not in the impassiveness of a statue, but in the just and harmonious exercise of all the emotions which belong to our nature.
7. the child was cured.—The unsuccessful attempt of the disciples argues nothing against the miraculous powers of Jesus, seeing that the demon departed immediately when commanded by him. It proves only that the disciples did not at this time fully exert the power over demons which Jesus had imparted to them. 19, 20. Because of your unbelief.—In order to work a miracle it was necessary not only to have a miraculous endowment, but also to exercise faith. This is declared in the Savior’s answer, and it had already been indicated to the disciples at the time of Peter’s attempt to walk on the water. (14:31.) The faith in question was the belief that what was commanded would be done— faith in the power with which they were endued. When they spoke doubtingly to the demon he had power to resist them. faith as a grain of mustard seed.—Faith comparable to a mustard seed is very weak faith; and if this would enable them to remove “this mountain” (the lofty Mt. Hermon), how weak must be the faith they had exercised! This remark added a rebuke to the explanation.
8. by prayer and fasting.—As weakness of faith was the point of failure, we understand that the prayer and fasting would be effective, not by imparting directly the power in question, but by intensifying their faith, and thus enabling them to fully exert the power which had been imparted to them. That “this kind” goes not out but by prayer and fasting, shows that it was more difficult to cast out this kind than some other kinds. Demons, like spirits in the flesh, are characterized by different degrees of will-force, and the one in question was an obstinate demon. (See the parallel in Mark, where the account is more circumstantial.) Second Prediction of His Death, Matthew 17:22-23. (Mark 9:30-32; Luke 9:43-45)22. while they abode.—While they were yet abiding in Galilee, subsequent to the transfiguration, and before their departure into Judea. Again, as on the first occasion (see note on Matthew 16:21), Jesus makes the discouraging announcement of his death at a time when their faith in him was in liveliest exercise. Three of them had just witnessed his transfiguration, and all had seen a demon, whom they could not cast out, depart promptly at his command.
9. exceeding sorry.—The effect of the second prediction was quite different from that of the first. Then Peter rebuked his. master, and uttered an expression of incredulity (Matthew 16:21-23); but now they were exceedingly sorry. Their sorrow arose partly from the disheartening thought of his death, and partly, no doubt, from the fact that he persisted in repeating an announcement which they knew not how to credit. Argument of Section 12We have now reached the close of the tour to Cæsarea Philippi; for the first verse of the next paragraph (verse 24) locates Jesus again in Capernaum. The history of this tour and of the one to lyre and Sidon, contains proofs of the claims of Jesus not only conclusive but overwhelming. The casting out of two demons, one from the girl near Tyre and Sidon, and the other from a boy at the foot of Mt. Hermon, the innumerable cures at the lake shore, and the feeding of four thousand hungry men with seven barley loaves and a few little fishes, have once more exhibited his divine power; while his compassion for the woman of Canaan, and his unwillingness to send the four thousand away hungering, have exhibited once more his goodness. It is also shown, by the conversation at Cæsarea Philippi, that no one in Galilee, not even his enemies, counted him less than a prophet, while his immediate attendants, who had the best opportunity for judging, had reached the assured conviction that he was the Christ, the Son of the living God. The two predictions of his own death proved his divine foreknowledge, and his consciousness of being engaged in a mission of self-sacrifice; while the vision of the transfiguration at once displayed his divine majesty, and proclaimed him the supreme lawgiver and the prophet of prophets. Matthew here brings to a close his account of the public career of Jesus in Galilee, reserving for the next and last section of this general division of his narrative only a private conversation between him and his disciples. We think that the reader who will carefully review the arguments of the several sections will realize that they present an array of evidence that could not be honestly resisted; and that the Galileans who had seen them all, but still refused to believe and repent, most richly deserved the woes that Jesus uttered against them. And if the sentence pronounced on them was just, what shall be said of those in our day who repent not though they see all that the Galileans saw, and all yet to be related by Matthew and the other New Testament historians, and see all in the light which the accumulating evidence of centuries has thrown upon them? “How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?” The Temple Tribute, Matthew 17:24-2724. Doth not your master pay.—The question of the collectors implies that the tribute was not compulsory, but voluntary; and that consequently it was not the Roman poll-tax, for it was compulsory. (See further below, on 25, 26.)
10. Jesus prevented him.—The word prevent has here its primary, but now obsolete sense. Derived from the Latin prevenio, to go before, or to precede, it means here to anticipate. From the fact that you get before a man to hinder him, the word acquired the sense in which it is now currently used— a sense which it has acquired since our English translation was made. Everywhere in the Bible it means to precede, or to anticipate. 25, 26. of whom do the kings.—The argument is this: As the kings of the earth take tribute from strangers, and not from their own children, so I, being a Son of the King for whom this tribute is collected, should be free from paying it. It is clear from this argument that it was the Jewish temple tribute which was in question; for the force of the argument depends on the assumption that Jesus was a son of the king for whom the tribute was collected. (For an account of this tribute, see 2 Chronicles 24:5-6; Exodus 30:12-16.)
11. lest we offend them.—Basing his compliance now on the ground of expediency, and not on that of absolute right, Jesus tells Peter how to get the money, and directs him to pay it. When the hook was cast and almost instantly brought up a fish with a piece of money of the required value in its mouth, Peter saw another proof that Jesus was truly the son of the king for whom the tribute was demanded. His foreknowledge that Peter would catch the fish, and his power in putting the coin there were both exhibited. piece of money.—The Greek word (στατ́ηρ) is indefinitely translated, because the value of the coin would not be known to the common English reader from its name. It was the Attic stater, about equal to the Jewish shekel and to the American half-dollar. As this paid for Peter and Jesus both, the amount of the tribute for each person was the same that had been prescribed by Moses— a half-shekel. (Exodus 30:13.)

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 171. How many days till the next event? 2. Who were the witnesses? 3. To what place were they brought ? 4. What happened to Jesus? 5. Describe the appearance of his face. 6. And of his raiment. 7. Who appeared next? 8. What showed they were conscious ? 9. Where had Moses been? 10. What happened to Elias? 11. How was Peter impressed? 12. State his proposition. 13. What interrupted his speech ? 14. Repeat the words they heard. 15. How did they differ from those at his baptism ? 16. At this scene what did the disciples do? 17. How were they revived? 18. When it was done who were to be seen ? 19. What were they to keep secret? 20. Until when were they to do so? 21. Whom were they still expecting to come? 22. What subject would he talk about? 23. Would that have violated the charge just heard? 24. How was the confusion explained? 25. What experience like John’ s was Jesus to have? 26. Rejoining the multitude who came to Jesus? 27. What was his trouble ? 28. How did he show his respect for Jesus ? 29. What previous relief had he sought? 30. How did Jesus describe that generation? 31. He then performed what work? 32. What was the result ? 33. Who were puzzled by all this ? 34. State the explanation Jesus gave. 35. How should their faith have been manifested? 36. Are any miracles impossible because of greatness? 37. Where were they abiding? 38. Of what treachery did Jesus inform them? 39. After betrayal what would be done? 40. What about the third day? 41. How were they affected? 42. To what city did they come? 43. Who approached Peter ? 44. What was their inquiry? 45. State his answer. 46. Was Jesus aware of this conversation? 47. State the question he asked Peter. 48. And the answer. 49. Was it correct? 50. Why did Jesus not take advantage of the fact ? 51. How was the situation met?

Matthew 17:1

17:1 After six days means after the last conversation Jesus had with his disciples. There seems to have been a peculiar nearness between Jesus and these three apostles, for they are mentioned as a sort of trio a number of times (Mark 5:37; Mark 14:33). Jesus selected them to be witnesses of the unusual scene that he knew was coming, and took them with him into a high mountain.

Matthew 17:2

17:2 Transfigured is from META-MORPHOO which Thayer defines, “To change into another form, to transfigure, transform,” and he comments on the word as follows: “To be resplendent with divine brightness; used of the change of moral character for the better.” It is the word for “transformed” In Romans 12:2, and for “changed” in 2 Corinthians 3:18. It is the source of our English word “metamorphosis” which Webster defines, “2. A striking alteration in appearance, character, or circumstances.” With all this authoritative information before us, we understand the meaning of our verse is that Jesus underwent a change in his appearance so that his face shone, and even his raiment was glistening white. However, his body was not replaced literally, and the change in his appearance did not prevent the apostles from recognizing him.

Matthew 17:3

17:3 We have a very interesting assemblage here. The apostles had not died and hence represented the fleshly state. Elias (Elijah) had been transferred to heaven without death and represented the eternal state. Moses had died and represented the intermediate state. There were good men from each of the three states of intelligent creatures, thus representing the whole universe of beings responsible to God for their past or present conduct. A person in the flesh cannot see spiritual beings ordinarily, but God can adapt all circumstances to whatever purpose the case demands. He wished the apostles to see these men from the intermediate and eternal states and performed such miraculous changes as were necessary. That was (lone either upon the eyes of the apostles or the form of the other men.

Matthew 17:4

17:4 In Mark’s account of this event he states that Peter “wist not [knew not] what to say.” He was overcome by the scene, yet had a feeling of reverence towards the three great persons in the group; Jesus, Moses and Elias, and proposed providing a suitable housing place that they might be retained longer.

Matthew 17:5

17:5 This announcement was like the one that God made at the baptism of Jesus with the additional word hear ye him. (See chapter 3:17.) At the time of his baptism Jesus had not performed any of his great works nor done any of his teaching. He now was nearing the close of his earthly work and the apostles were supposed to be ready for an authoritative declaration concerning the rank and position of him with whom they had been so closely associated. The setting of the conversation was significant due to the importance of the main characters in the scene. Moses was the lawgiver of the Old Testament system and Elias (Elijah) was one of the great prophets who lived under that system. Those men were not to be regarded as the authorities under whom the apostles will be expected to work, but instead they were to take their instructions from the Son in whom the Father was well pleased; they were to hear him.

Matthew 17:6

17:6 Afraid is from PHOBEO and Thayer says the word in this place means, “to be startled by strange sights or occurrences.” The appearance of the two men from the other states did not overcome them, but this mighty voice and its announcement struck them with a feeling of awe so that they prostrated themselves on the ground.

Matthew 17:7

17:7 Jesus assured his apostles that nothing would harm them.

Matthew 17:8

17:8 The purpose of the great scene was accomplished and Moses and Elias returned to their proper places. They saw no man. The last two words are from OUDEN which Strong defines, “Not even one, i. e., none, nobody, nothing.” This indefinite form of speech was appropriate in view of the unusual manner in which Moses and Elias had appeared, for they were evidently not just like other men except to such a degree that they could be recognized by the apostles.

Matthew 17:9

17:9 For the explanation of this verse see the comments at chapter 16:20.

Matthew 17:10

7:10 The disciples mistook the Elias spoken of by the scribes to be that prophet literally, who was to announce the mission and divinity of Jesus. Now they were forbidden to make a like statement until after that divinity has been proved by the resurrection. If they were not allowed to make statements on that subject, why should Elias be permitted to do so.

Matthew 17:11

7:11 Shall oome is future tense in form but Jesus was only quoting the prophecy of Malachi. To restore means to bring about a reformation in the lives of the people of Israel (Malachi 4:6; Luke 1:16-17).

Matthew 17:12

7:12 Jesus then explained that it was not in person that Elias was to come. In other words. by describing the treatment that “Elias” received from the people who did not recognize his place in God’s plan, the disciples perceived the point of the Lord.

Matthew 17:13

7:13 The disciples did the proper kind of reasoning and it gave them the correct conclusion, and was a demonstration of the thoughts offered at chapter 13:1G, 17.

Matthew 17:14

7:14 The act of the man kneeling down to Jesus was one form of worship. The reader should see the various meanings of the word in the comments at chapter 2:2.

Matthew 17:15

7:15 Being possessed with a devil did not affect all people alike. That could be caused by either of two things; the peculiar condition of the victim at the time or the kind of devil that had entered into him. In the present case it caused the son to become a lunatick according to the Authorized Version. This word is from which Thayer defines, “To be moon-struck; to be epileptic,” and in commenting on the word be says, “epilepsy being supposed to return and increase with the increase of the moon.” Of course the people named the condition according to their theories as to the causes of disease, not knowing that it was the presence of the devil.

Matthew 17:16

7:16 Could not cure him denotes the belief that the son had some serious disease as was explained in the preceding verse. It is true that the being possessed with a devil would sometimes result in a disease, in which case the casting out of the devil would be equivalent to performing a cure.

Matthew 17:17

7:17 This criticism concerning the lack of faith was meant for the disciples as we shall see at verse 20. How long, etc., was an expression of displeasure at the amount of long-suffering he was called upon to show towards them. Then addressing the father of the child he told him to bring the afflicted one to him.

Matthew 17:18

7:18 When anyone is being dealt with because of some condition brought on by his own sin, he is the person who is rebuked. Being possessed with a devil was not a sin but an affliction, hence the Lord rebuked the- devil. The child was cured from that very hour which was unlike the performances of professed miracle workers today who insist on having “plenty of time.”

Matthew 17:19

7:19 When Jesus chose his twelve apostles and sent them out to preach, he told them also to perform certain miracles. Among them was that of casting out devils (chapter 10:8), hence it was natural for them to be concerned about their failure.

Matthew 17:20

7:20 The charge of their unbelief means their faith did not go far enough; it did not grow as it should. Jesus then used the mustard grain for an illustration of that subject. It will help us to grasp the meaning of the comparison if we consider the same event as recorded in Luke 17:6. The apostles asked the Lord to “increase” their faith, and in answer to the request he made the comparison to the grain of mustard seed. We also should remember the comparison between this grain and the kingdom of heaven in Matthew 13:31-32. It is clear, therefore, that the reference to the mustard seed was on the principle of growth.

Their faith should have grown instead of their expecting Jesus to “increase” it by some special means independent of their own part in the matter. Of course a grain of mustard seed or any other seed could not grow had not the Creator furnished it with the materials necessary for that growth in the earth and air. And likewise, Jesus had given abundance of evidence by his miracles and teaching to have caused them to have increase in their faith to the point where they could not only cast out this devil, but also remove a mountain if such needed to be done.

Matthew 17:21

7:21 Howbeit is an obsolete word meaning “nevertheless,” indicating that some special point is about to be made. This kind is from GENOS which Thayer defines, “The aggregate of many individuals, of the same nature, sort, species.” Goeth out is from which Thayer defines, “To go forth, go out, depart.” He explains the definition to mean, “demons, when expelled, are said to go out (to wit from the human body): Matthew 17:21.” Robinson defines the word, “To go out of, to go or come forth,” and he explains it to mean, “Spoken of demons, absolutely Matthew 17:21.” We do not know why this class of devils required the special performance of prayer and fasting before yielding and coming out of human beings. We are certain, however, that at some time Jesus had given his apostles the instructions that should have induced them to show the faith necessary to be patient and use the weapons of prayer and fasting against the devil. Their faith had not led them that far and hence they failed to overcome the devil.

Matthew 17:22

7:22 Before leaving Galilee Jesus predicted his betrayal.

Matthew 17:23

7:23 Not only was Jesus to be turned over to wicked men of the world, but he was to be killed and raised the third day. The apostles were exceeding sorry because of the prediction of his death, and that sorrow seemed to blind their minds to the other prediction of his resurrection. When the sad affair had taken place the disciples showed such forgetfulness as we may learn in Luke 24:13-27.

Matthew 17:24

7:24 Capernaum was a city of Galilee and the chosen residence of Jesus (chapter 4:13). When he and his apostles entered this city Peter was approached by those who collected the tax that was for the upkeep of the temple. Robinson says this was “the yearly tribute to the temple paid by every Jew,” hence Pete was asked if his master did not pay that tax.

Matthew 17:25

7:25 Peter answered in the affirmative and intended to speak to Jesus about it. But when he came into the house where Jesus was he prevented him which means he could read his mind and hence anticipated what he was going to say. But the Lord changed the subject somewhat and the tribute he mentioned is from a word that means custom or taxes that should be levied upon foreigners.

Matthew 17:26

7:26 Jesus and his apostles were citizens of that nation and would not rightly be under obligation to pay such a tax.

Matthew 17:27

7:27 While not strictly bound to pay this tax, Jesus decided to pay it rather than offend the collectors, and enabled Peter to get the money by a miracle.