WAS MOSES LITERALLY ON THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION? by John Norton Loughborough

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 16, 1860

WAS MOSES LITERALLY ON THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION?

By John Norton Loughborough

THE question with us at this time is not whether Moses' soul was on the mount; for there is nothing but assumption to sustain any such position. Moses' soul is not questioned in the text. But there are some who claim that this was a vision, and in this vision the disciples saw what looked like Moses, but Moses was not really there. Our position is that Moses was literally seen on the mount, and we propose in this article to advance some arguments to sustain this position, and look at some objections which have been urged against that view.

Our claim is that a literal construction of the record of the transfiguration [Matt. xvii, 3] will lead to the conclusion that Moses was literally on the mount. "And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him." Comparing this with Luke's testimony the same idea is more fully confirmed. "And behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias." Luke ix, 30. Here it is positively stated that two men appeared. Elias of the New Testament is Elijah of the Old. Elijah was one who never died, and all are agreed that Elijah was literally on the mount. The same language that proves Elijah there proves the same concerning Moses. It does not say there was an appearance like Moses and Elias; but "there appeared unto them two men which were Moses and Elias."

Peter's application of this circumstance to prove the second coming of Christ is evidence of its literality. Peter says [1 Pet. i, 16], "We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his majesty," and then refers us to the transfiguration and the voice which the disciples heard when they were with Christ in the holy mount as proof that Christ is really to come again. By comparing this with the statement of Christ, "There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" [Matt. xvi, 28], we see that this circumstance of the transfiguration is an illustration before the eyes of the disciples of how persons would appear in the kingdom of God. Jesus was transfigured. His face and garments had that glorious appearance which they will have when the kingdom is established. Elijah appeared as a representative of those who will be alive at Jesus' coming and never taste of death. Moses (if raised from the dead) would be a representative of those who will be raised from the dead at the last trump. If Moses was not literally there, in this scene of the transfiguration, he could not represent the resurrected saints.

The dispute between Michael the Archangel, and the Devil, about the body of Moses, gives a reasonable ground for the claim that Moses had a resurrection. The Devil having the power of death [Heb. ii, 14] would at once dispute the claim of one who should come to raise Moses.

Several objections have been urged against the position advocated above: that Moses had a resurrection previous to his appearance on the mount. Christ, this said, was to be the "first-born among many brethren." All the objection there is in this text is in the expression, first-born, and this to weigh anything is made to mean that Christ was the first resurrected. To claim that Christ was the first resurrected, is to deny the plainest statements of the Bible, for we have the record of the resurrection of no less than three individuals both in the past and present age. But Paul does says [Rom. viii, 29] that Christ was "the first-born among many brethren." We do not suppose Paul to teach in the above text, however, that Christ was the first to rise, although [Acts xxxi, 23] "he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people and to the Gentiles." Among many brethren Christ is "the first born." In the past dispensation the first-born was entitled to peculiar privileges and blessings. The birthright belonged to the first-born. So with Christ; he is the one whose right the kingdom is, and yet he grants to his brethren the privilege of being joint-heirs with him.

Again, we read in Col. i, 18, "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence." Here we learn that Christ has the pre-eminence by being the head of the body, the church, and he has become the head by being the first-born from the dead. Not by being the first raised, or the first raised immortal, but by being the first-born. We understand he has been the first-born in the family of Adam since the time it was said to the serpent, the seed of the woman "shall bruise thy head." Every resurrection which has taken place since this promise was made in Eden has been by virtue of the work which Christ was to accomplish when he came in breaking open the prison-house of the Devil, and thus through death obtaining power to "destroy him that had the power of death." Heb. ii, 14. Christ is the first-born from the dead virtually, although his literal resurrection may have been after that of Moses and others.

In Rev. i, 5, Christ is said to be "the first begotten of the dead." This will not prove that he is the first resurrected, for in other testimonies he is said to be "the only begotten of the Father." If being the first begotten makes him the first resurrected, being the only begotten would make him the only one resurrected, Christ is said to have been raised by the Father, but we understand all other resurrections have been by virtue of his resurrection. The power of resurrection is now conferred on Christ; therefore we read, "The hour is coming when all that are in their graves shall hear his voice and come forth." John v, 28, 29. So he has the pre-eminence. "As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also because he is the Son of man." Again, "Thou hast given him power over all flesh that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." These testimonies place Christ at the head of the family, therefore he is "the head of the body," "first born from the dead," and "the first begotten of the dead."

The text which has been relied on as furnishing the best evidence that Christ's resurrection was prior to that of Moses, is in 1 Cor. xv, 23. "Christ the first-fruits." But he can only be called the first fruits because he met the typical first-fruits by himself becoming the antitype, and presenting himself before the Lord for acceptance the morrow after the Sabbath. Christ our passover is sacrificed for us, so also Christ is our first-fruits, and the great harvest is at the coming of Christ. But all these texts which have been noticed above, if they prove what they are quoted to prove, namely, that Christ was the first one raised, prove too much; for the Bible shows that six at least besides Moses had been resurrected before Christ's resurrection. It has been urged, they all probably died again. That is all probability, as neither you nor I have direct evidence on the point. But suppose they did die; that does not touch the fact that they were made alive by virtue of Christ's work which was yet to be accomplished. If Christ can be the first-born from the dead virtually, when six had literally been born from the dead before him, might not a seventh be born immortal by virtue of his death, and he still be "the first-born," "the first fruits," and "the first begotten?" We say, yes; and therefore there is no evidence in these expressions against the idea that Moses was resurrected and appeared literally on the mount of transfiguration.

J. N. Loughborough.

Brookfield, N. Y.