Many scriptural passages make our need for a better prophetic model obvious. They are like boulders in our interpretive paths. Our last post (here) discussed one of them (i.e., Matt 16:27–28).
Other passages are more subtle. Their obstacles lie below the surface. We must excavate to see how they show the inadequacies of the traditional prophetic models. When we do, inmillennialism—or something like it—becomes desirable.
We will see this phenomenon in Matthew 17. Jesus had promised to come in his kingdom in the lifetime of some who heard him speak (Matt 16:27–28). Six days later, three of the disciples saw Jesus, Elijah, and Moses on the mount of transfiguration (Matt 17:1–9).1 This led to a discussion of Elijah’s promised return (Matt 17:10–13). That conversation ended with Jesus’s rebuking his generation (Matt 17:14–21). In doing so, he quoted Moses.
Jesus—Elijah—Moses. Their interactions in this chapter confirm inmillennialism, but they do so in subtle ways. This post will dig deeper in the first of these events—the transfiguration (Matt 17:1–9). Lord willing, our next post will look at the other two.
The transfiguration confirms the inmillennial prophetic model in three ways.
The Parousia
The transfiguration revealed Christ’s parousia. Peter, writing about thirty-seven years later said,
We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming (Gk. parousia) 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 Pet 1:16–18)
Most biblical versions use “coming” to translate the Greek word parousia. This is misleading because its primary meaning is “presence.” (We defended this meaning here and used it in posts shown here.) Inmillennialism says the parousia of Christ is not his coming; it is his presence with his churches during the messianic age.
The transfiguration was a vision (Matt 17:9). It was not Christ’s parousia, but it said something about Christ’s messianic-age presence. What it said reinforces inmillennialism. But how did the transfiguration show the parousia?
Symbolism
The transfiguration spoke of the parousia through symbolism. The disciples saw Moses and Elijah with Christ. Peter wanted to honor all three (Matt 17:4). But God spoke from the glory cloud. He said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.… And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only” (Matt 17:5, 8; emphasis added).
Elijah and Moses represented the law and the prophets of the Mosaic age. Jesus represented the messianic age. In the vision, the law and the prophets symbolically disappear. The messianic age remains.
This symbolism is not unique to inmillennialism. C. H. Dodd said,
The Lord appears attended by the historic figures of Moses and Elijah. Then the cloud of the divine glory descends upon Him and a voice declares, “This is my beloved Son”; and forthwith Moses and Elijah are seen no more; the law and the prophets have vanished in the moment of their fulfilment, and “they saw no one but Jesus alone.”2
The Puritan Thomas Manton made a similar observation:
Moses and Elias appear talking with him, showing the harmony and agreement between them, and the subordination of their dispensation to Christ and salvation by him. Moses was the person by whom the law was given, and Elias was a principal prophet. The law is represented by Moses, and the prophets by Elias.”3
And, John Gill said,
The appearance of these two with Christ, was to shew, that Christ is the end of the law and prophets; that there is an entire agreement between him and them, and that they have their full accomplishment in him.4
Inmillennialism’s unique contribution does not lie in the symbolism itself. It lies in the link between this symbology and Christ’s parousia. Only inmillennialism accounts for Peter’s analysis of the transfiguration. He said it showed “the power and coming (Gk. parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Pet 1:16). It showed the passing away of the Mosaic age and the presence (i.e., parousia) of Christ with his churches in the messianic age.
All other prophetic models make the parousia a point-in-time event in our future. They divorce it from the end of the Mosaic age and the beginning of the messianic age. They break the connection the transfiguration established between the end of the Mosaic age and the parousia.
Exodus Typology
The transfiguration involved Exodus typology. This typology reinforces inmillennialism.
Luke’s account of the transfiguration says, “And behold, two men were talking with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure (Gk. exodus), which he was about to (Gk. mellō) accomplish at Jerusalem” (Luke 9:30–31 ESV).
Let’s examine the two Greek words shown here. “The word, rendered [departure], is Exodus … from the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt, … and which departure is expressed by this word, in Heb. 11:22 and to which the allusion is.”5 It can also refer to physical death (e.g., 2 Pet 1:15).
These two meanings show the transfiguration’s typology.6 The type was Israel’s Exodus from Egypt. God used Moses to redeem his people from physical bondage (e.g., Exod 15:13). The transfiguration mentioned the antitype—Jesus’s redemptive exodus. In it, he would redeem his people from spiritual bondage to sin and death (e.g., Heb 9:15).
The transfiguration exodus was part of a broader typology. Some of its leading elements follow.
In the type, Moses led Israel after the flesh (1 Cor 10:18) out of Egypt. This was the Exodus through the Red Sea. Fifty days later God gave the law. About three thousand people died. God supernaturally preserved his people for forty years, after which they entered their earthly kingdom. God blessed them to subdue the land.
In the antitype, Jesus led the Israel of God (Gal 6:16) out of spiritual Egypt. This was his exodus on the cross. Fifty days later God gave the Holy Spirit. About three thousand people received spiritual life. God supernaturally preserved his people for forty years as they entered their heavenly kingdom. God is blessing them to subdue the world.
A previous post, Typology and Inmillennialism, showed how this typology supports the inmillennial prophetic model. We have applied inmillennialism’s typology in several posts (here).
The second Greek word of interest here is mellō.7 Modern translations recognize mellō in this passage.8 This is as it should be, for Jesus would offer himself to God within a year.
But these translations hesitate to recognize this word in other prophetic contexts. Why not show that John the Baptist warned of “the wrath (about to) come” (Matt 3:7)? Or, that Jesus spoke of “the age (about to) come” (Matt 16:27)? Or, that Paul spoke of “the glory which (is about to be) revealed in us” (Rom 8:18)? Etc.
This hesitation is because of assumed prophetic models. These models cannot allow mellō to inject nearness in time in many prophetic contexts. Therefore, the word goes untranslated.
Mellō reinforces inmillennialism in these contexts. Luke’s transfiguration account uses mellō to show Jesus’s exodus was imminent. But so were the other elements of the transfiguration—the end of the Mosaic age and the messianic-age parousia (presence) of Christ with this people.
Conclusion
Matthew 17’s transfiguration account reinforces inmillennialism in subtle ways. This gospel does not link this vision to the parousia. But Peter does. And his statement links the parousia of Christ to the transition from the Mosaic age to the messianic age.
Matthew did not explain the transfiguration’s symbolism. But many writers have seen it. And this symbolism places the parousia in Jesus’s generation.
Matthew does not mention typology. But Paul does (1 Cor 10:6, 11). This typology said “the end of the ages has come” (1 Cor 10:11 ESV). Jesus’s exodus, according to Luke, was “about to come.”
Jesus later said the “end of the age” and the parousia would occur in his generation (cf. Matt 24:3, 27, 34). This agrees with the subtle lessons of the transfiguration.
These subtle lessons challenge the existing prophetic models. They invite us to consider inmillennialism as an alternative.
Footnotes
- The image in this post is The Transfiguration of Christ by Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640). This file (here) is in the public domain (PD-US).
- C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments, 2nd ed. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1954), 50.
- Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, 22 vols. (1870; repr., Worthington, PA: Maranatha Publications, n.d.), 1:358.
- John Gill, An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, 9 vols. (1809–1810; repr., Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1989), 7:191.
- Gill, “Exposition,” 7:586.
- We have discussed this subject in Typology and Inmillennialism, and other posts (here).
- Most translations overlook mellō. We have seen its importance in prophetic contexts here.
- Including the ESV, NKJM, HCSB, NASB, et al.
