No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2024
The Transfiguration of Christ—both the narrative (Matt 17:1—8, par.) and the feast we celebrate on 6 August—has such an importance in the Eastern Church today that we do not always realize that it emerged relatively late in the theological thought of the first centuries of the Church. However, if it took the Church several centuries to realize the central importance of the Transfiguration to Christian life, modern western Christianity seems to have forgotten it. In a world where men are tempted to seek the goal of human destiny in systems worked out by the human mind alone—be these systems philosophical or technological—we are tempted to focus on what can be accomplished here and now and tend to ignore the reality of death, which frustrates the plans of so many individuals. Christians, to say nothing of the world as a whole, must be reminded that, however laudable activity to better the human lot here and now may be, the ultimate goal of the human race is bound up with what God has wrought in Christ Jesus. The interpretation of the Transfiguration, as the Church’s awareness of its importance grew, makes a fascinating chapter in the history of theology. A re-examination of the past role of the Transfiguration in Christian thought may help Western Christians to recapture in our own lives the fascination which this event from the life of Christ once had for the whole Church. God’s revelation at this unnamed mountain is as important for understanding human destiny in Christ today as it was to Peter, James and John.
1 Sources Chretiennes (=SC) 1 bis, 364A, 381A.
2 Meyendorff, J. Introduction à l'Etude de Gregoire Palamas (Patristica Sorbonensis 3), Paris: Seuil, 1959, 196–99Google Scholar. Meyendorff, J. St Grégoire et la mystique orthodoxe, Paris: Seuil, 1959, 41–45Google Scholar. While one should not minimize the influence of Origen on hesychasm, it is often difficult to prove with great certainty (Meyendorff, J. Introduction, 196). Often Origen's influence is mediated by Greogry of Nyssa (Daniélou, J. Grégoire de Nyssa. Contemplation sur la Vie de Moise ou Traité de la Perfection en Matière de vertu (SC 1 bis. Paris: Cerf, 1955. 26)Google Scholar.
3 PL 85:806. See Pintard, J. ‘Remarques sur la Transfiguration dans l'oeuvre de Saint Augustin. Une influence de l'Orient?’Studia Patristica II (1972) 335Google Scholar. Nevertheless, it is odd, that with all of Nyssa's fascination with the glory of God, that he should have made no use of the imagery of the Transfiguration.
4 Pintard, J. Remarques, 335; Habra, G. La Transfiguration selon les Pères Grecs, Paris: Editions S.O.S., 1973, 17Google Scholar. It should be noted that neither of the latter categories is the exclusive property of the Eastern or Western Churches respectively. They should not be interpreted as diametrically opposed positions.
5 Heimann, D.F. ‘The Polemical Application of Scripture in St Jerome’, Studia Patristica 12 (1975) 309Google Scholar.
6 The earliest use made of the Transfiguration for polemical or apologetic purposes can be found in Scripture itself, in 2 Pet 1:16–21. While there is no agreement as to whether the account herein contained is drawn from the Synoptics or a separate tradition, it is clear from the context that the writer of 2 Peter is appealing to the Transfiguration in order to authenticate his own apostolic authority (see Coune, M. ‘La Transfiguration dans l'exégèse des sept premiers siècles,’Assemblées du Seigneur 28 (1963) 65–66Google Scholar.
7 Irenaeus, Contra Haereses IV.20.10 (PG 7:1038–39).
8 Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem IV.22, Corpus Christianorum—Series Latina (=CCSL) 1:600–04.
9 Tertullian, De praescriptionibus adversus haereticos XXII.6 (CCSL 1:203–04). Elsewhere Tertullian writes that, the revelatory words ‘hear him’ are proof of the unity of the Father and the Son (Liber adversus Praxeam XIX.4, CCSL 2:1185; see ibid. XXIII.3, XXIV.3, CCSL 2:1192, 1194).
10 Excerpta ex scriptis Theodoto II—IV (SC 23, 19.1–27.3).
11 Expositio in Lucam VII. 13 (CCSL 14:219).
12 De Anima XVII. 13 (CCSL 2:806).
13 Jerome, In Matthaeum, 3.17.2, (CCSL 77:147).
14 ‘Sic et Dominus noster in monte transfiguratus est in gloria, non ut manus ac pedes caeteraque membra perderet, et subito in rotunditate vel solis, vel sphaerus volveretur: sed eadem membra solis fulgore rutilantia, apostolorum oculos praestingerent …’ (Contra Johannes Hierosolymitanum ad Pammachium, 29, PL 23:397–98).
15 Contra Joannes Hierosolymitanum, 29 (PL 23:398). Although later authors do not have the same anti‐docetic concerns as Jerome, the apologetic importance of moses and Elijah continues, ‘Hugh of St. Cher and St Thomas Aquinas take for granted that the presence of the two figures signifies the fulfilment of Law and Prophets in Christ (Hugonis de Sancto Charo Opera Omni Tomus Sextus. In Evangelia secundum Matthaeum, Lucam, Marcum & Joannem, Venetis: Apud Nicolaum Pezzana, MDCCLIV, 59; cura P. Raphaelis Cai, O.P.: S. Thomas Aquinatis super Evangelium S. Matthaei Lectura, editio V revisa, Taurini: Marietti, 1951, 219—in par. 1428 Aquinas gives six possible explanations for the appearance of Moses and Elijah). John Calvin, who is here taken as a representative of the Reformation, takes the presence of Moses and Elijah to signify that Christ is the end of the Law and the Prophets (Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersent omnia ad fidem editionum principium et authenticarum ex parte etiam codicum, Vol. XLV. Commentarius in Harmoniam Evangelicam, Brunsvigae: A. Schwetschke, 1891, 486). John Lightfoot in the seventeenth century comments that the transfigured Christ is the splendour of the gospel in the face of the Law and the Prophets (Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in Quatuor Evangelistas, Leipzig: Carpzov, 1679, cited in Poole, M. Synopsis Critcorum aliorumque Sacrae Scripturae Interpretum et Commentatorum.… Vol. IV. Complectens quatuor Evangelia & Acta Apostolorum ex recensione Johannis Leusden, Utrajecti: Johannis Ribbii, Johannis van de Water, & Francisci Halma Sociorum, 1686, 433).
16 Origen takes katoptrizomenoi to mean ‘reflect’ in the active sense of ‘contemplation’ rather than in the passive sense of ‘to reflect, as in a mirror’. See Crouzel, H. Théologie de l'Image de Dieu chez Origène, (Théologie. Etudes publiées sous la direction de la Faculté de Théologie S.J. de Lyon‐Fourviere, 34), Aubier: Montaigne, 232–233Google Scholar.
17 Origen. De principiis, I, 1, 2 (PG 11:122).
18 SC 1 bis, 364A.
19 Origen. In Lucam, SC 87, Frag. 65.
20 SC 1 bis, 381A.
21 Gregory of Nazianzen, De moderatione in disputando, XVIII (PG 36:193–96).
22 Se Lossky, V. ‘Le Probième de la “Vision face à face” et la Tradition patristique de Byzance’, Studia Patristica 2 (1957) 524–25Google Scholar.
23 In Matthaeum, XII. 37–38 (PG 13:1067–72).
24 De divinis nominibus 1.4 (PG 3:591–92).
25 Ambiguorum Liber sive de variis difficilibus locis SS. Dionysii Areopagitae et Gregorii Theologi (PG 91: 1273, 1360).
26 Homilia in Transfiguratione. XII (PG 96:564).
27 Meyendoff, J. Introduction, 279–310; Meyendorff, J. Grégoire Palamas, 120–25; Lossky, V. Problèms. 524. For a summary of Gregory's contemporaries’ difficulties over the question of the difference between divine essence and energy see Meyendorff, J. Introduction 132–134, 141–145, 147–148. The Latin opposition to Gregory is based on his supposedly saying that the imparted energies preclude the blessed ever seeing the divine essenceecf Benedict XII's declaration on the Beatific Vision (D—S 1000)).
28 Vision is a function of the Incarnation. See Mevendorff, J. Introduction, 223–56; Lossky, V. Problème, 528.
29 De resurrectione mortuorum LV. 10 (CCSL 2:1002).
30 In Matthaeum, III.17.8 (SC 259, 34); Contra Joannem ierosolymitanum, XXVI (PL 23:395).
31 In Matthaeum 17.1 (SC 258, 60–63).
32 Sermo L I, sive Homilia habita sabbato ante secundum Dominicam Quadesimae, cap. III (CCSL 138A:299).
33 In Marci Evangelium Expositio, 9.2 (CCSL 120:543, 545).
34 Pintard, J. Remarques, 338–39.
35 ibid. 337–40.
36 Here Augustine divides the tupes of vision into the corporal (‘secundum oculos corporis’), the imaginative (‘secundum quod imaginamur ea quae per corpus sentimus’), and the spiritual. To the first type belong Abraham's vision of angels at Mamre, Moses and the burning bush, and the disciples’ vision at Tabor. An example of the second is Isaiah's temple vision. The third refers to the genuine apprehension of truth and wisdom ‘secundum mentis intuitum’ (Contra Adimantum XXVIII.2, PL 42:171–72.
37 See, for example, Hugh of St. Cher, In Marcum 9:2 (Venetis: MDCCLIV, 104); Aquinas, Thomas, Super Evangelium S. Matthei Lectura (Taurini: Marietti, 1951, 217)Google Scholar and ST 3a, q.45, a.4, ad 3.
38 In Matthaeum, (PL 196:57).
39 John Chrysostom, Homilia in Matthaeum 56 (PG 58:550); ST III, q.45, a. 1c.
40 ibid. a.2c.
41 ibid. a.4 (espec. ad 4).
42 ST 1, q.93, a.1, ad 2.
43 ibid. a.5c.
44 ST 1, q.12, a.5. This divine illumination is what makes possible both the knowability of things and of God. As Pieper puts it, ‘Die Helligkeit und Lichtheit, die aus der scöpferischen Erkenntnis Gottes in die Dinge einströmt, zugleich mit ihrem Sein … diese Helligkeit, sie allein, macht die seienden Dinge gewahrbar für menschliches Erkennen’ (Pieper, J. Über das “nagative” Element in der Philosophie des heiligen Thomas von Aquin’, in Philosophia Negativa, München: Kösel‐Verlag, 1953, 26)Google Scholar.
45 It is not necessary to dwell on the contribution of later Western commentators, as they do not advance beyond the work of the medievals in this discussion. One finds in Calvin an echo or Origen: just as God did not appear to the patriarchs as He was in Himself, but only insofar as they could endure, so Christ appears under external symbols, so that the disciples may taste according to the limited capacity of their flesh what cannot be fully comprehended (Ioannis Calvini Opera XLV, 485–6). With Hugo, Grotius and Maldonatus one finds reflected the critical concerns aroused by the study of biblical languages, namely the use of the meaning of words within a given text as interpreted by other biblical uses of that word. So, on the basis of Dan 10:6, Hab 3:4 and other texts they conclude that morphè refers to the facies rei exterior. Hence, it is not the body of Jesus that is changed by his Transfiguration but rather his external aspect and figure (Grotius and Maldonatus as cited in Poole, M. Synopsis, 432).
46 Rahner, K. ‘Hermeneutics of Eschatological Assertions’, in Theological Investigations 4, London: DLT & New York: Seabury, 1966, 342–43Google Scholar.
47 Compare Rahner. ‘It is the nature of eschata to be hidden. Eschatological revelation concerns the making known of the existence of hidden realities so that they can no longer be ignored. But insofar as the future as such is concerned, it cannot be presented as a known inevitable, or man loses the essential free side of his nature. All eschatological assertions address man as a totality. However, we do not yet experience our total being, finding ourselves still in the process of shaping our destinies. Hence revelation of the last things addresses both something begun in us which we can know at this moment, as well as something which awaits us when our being achieves total fulfilment.’ Rahner, K. Hermeneutics, 329, 333, 340–41.
48 Rahner, Hermeneutics, 336. ‘… (B)iblical eschatology must always be read as an assertion based on the revealed present and pointing towards the genuine future, but not as an assertion pointing back from an anticipated future to the present’ (ibid., 337).
You have
Access