426

CHAPTER XII.

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF CHRIST VINDICATED.

THE transfiguration of Christ is one of those events against which Modern Infidelity has directed some of its most resolute attacks. It is recorded in the New Testament as one of those mysterious and impressive events which impart to the person and mission of Christ an air of inspiration and divinity. It pretends to draw back for a few moments, the veil which shrouds the invisible world from the view of mortals, and reveal some of the scenes and appearances which exist there. It presumes to bring man near to God, earth to heaven, time to eternity; while it reveals Christ to us in an attitude both unusual and sublime, and endeavors to teach that his religion is of an origin too noble and exalted for earth, and must be traced to its native skies.

The treatment which the Transfiguration of Christ has received at the hands of those who object, in the present day, to revealed religion, will serve as an illustration of the general mode of argument adopted by them. The objections which they propose on this point are a sample of their whole system of warfare. By exhibiting the achievements of their most eminent champions in this instance, and showing their applauded emptiness, we may form an estimate of their general fatuity. In discussing this event Strauss, in his Life of Jesus, first objects to the light, or the glittering appearance of the Saviour and the two per

sons who are represented as being in communion with him on the mount. He affirms that if the clothes of these persons possessed the illuminated appearance spoken of, it was no transfiguration of Christ, but only a splendor of raiment which might easily be accounted for. If, on the other hand, their persons became luminous through some extraordinary influence, it would be impossible for them to be seen through their garments, or hence the fact become known. In either case, therefore, the light spoken of is dubious and suspicious; and yet by denying this light, the completeness of the transfiguration is called in question, and the whole event impaired. This is his statement divested of its learned rubbish. It may be easily answered. If the countenance of Christ possessed a brilliant appearance, and that appearance constituted the transfiguration, he had it, for the sacred text declares that "the fashion of his countenance was altered." (Luke ix. 29.) If the transfiguration consisted in part in the luminous appearance of his clothes, he had that; for we are informed that his raiments (τα ιμάτια) were white as the light." The Sacred Writers employ a word which plainly and distinctly signifies an external change, and when they say Christ was transfigured (μstaμoppwon), the idea conveyed is the change of one's form (uoppy) in opposition to his substance. So far as this term is concerned, it furnishes no support to the popular idea that the body of Christ was here changed to that glorified state which it became after his ascension. The change here represents the display of some miraculous and extraordinary glory, or splendor of appearance, resulting from none of those ordinary or natural means which are sometimes suggested, but which, if it occurred at all, was wholly miraculous.

66

And what is there here to prevent the occurrence of this miraculous illumination? What is to hinder both face

and garments from being thus operated upon? If Christianity is possessed of any inspiration whatever, a miraculous influence could of course be exercised here. The same power which so constituted light and gave it its present principles of reflection and refraction, by which all colors are produced, could suspend for a time those usual principles, or alter them; and the person and garments of the Saviour could reflect and show forth a light foreign to their usual appearance, and more brilliant than that produced by the operation of ordinary causes. The only question is, whether any proper motive can be assigned for this departure from the ordinary course of nature. Strauss affirms that there is no motive which can be assigned. He rejects the ordinary explanation, that its purpose was to glorify Jesus, and considers this idea as childish; and supposes it insignificant thus to glorify in the eyes of two men, and they overcome with sleep, a being for whom the glory of Godhead is demanded.* But this objection is wholly unsatisfactory; for if we admit that in this transfiguration anything unnatural occurred at all we will grant that an external exhibition of what is extraordinary in the person of the principal personage is natural and in good keeping. Why did Moses appear with an illumined countenance after his interview with God on the mount, and why was there the supernatural voice of a trumpet waxing louder and louder on that occasion? Simply because these things added dignity and solemnity to a scene, the object of which was to impress the minds of the beholders. And so in the present case. The illumined appearance of the Saviour was in appropriate keeping with the accompanying events. It impressed the minds of two of his greatest disciples with a lasting conviction of his extraordinary

See his Life of Jesus, vol. iii. p. 3, Eng. ed.

character; and they felt it, and were not so far overcome with slumber but that they could speak and see. Besides this, the long-cherished ideas of these Jews here met with a fulfilment, which referred to the outward glory and majesty of the expected Messiah; who here accommodated himself to their prejudices, when they could not wholly be overcome, and thus accomplished a desirable purpose. This itself would have been a sufficient motive for permitting this event, on the part of God, with whom all things are possible.

The next objection of the learned Strauss has reference to the bodies of Moses and Elias-whence they came. If they were mere spirits, they could not speak, and be heard speaking. If they were genuine bodies, whence did they come? Moses had been buried; and must, therefore, have been reproduced from his crumbled dust. The fault in this objection is, that persons attempt to account for a professedly miraculous event by ordinary principles. It is granted that on ordinary principles, disembodied spirits cannot speak so as to be heard by our physical organs of hearing. But if we grant here a miracle, it being recorded as such by an inspired volume, the difficulty vanishes, and becomes quite reasonable. For if God permitted these persons to appear to Christ as spirits, it would doubtless be to hold communion with him, in such a way that they could be heard "talking" with the man Jesus, and hence be heard by the apostles. Hence as spirits have no physical organs of speech, they must be miraculously supplied to them. The term "talking" may also be figurative, and signify communing with him; and might not necessarily imply the process of the interchange of words. Besides the evangelists say nothing in reference to the bodies of these two persons being present with Christ; and, therefore, we are not responsible for the pro

duction of their bodies. These saints "appeared in glory," hence in their spiritual and glorified state; and if such spirits are naturally invisible to mortal eyes, they can be made miraculously visible by the power of the Being who ordains the whole event. Such we suppose to have been the fact, and it harmonizes well with the supernatural nature of the occurrence. The appearance of these Old Testament saints, and the communion which Christ held with them, are opposed on the ground that no suitable object or end can be assigned for it. There doubtless was an important object to accomplish. Was not Christ supported and comforted by this intercourse? And when they spake together of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem; when these illustrious men dwelt upon the great and good results which should follow from his sufferings; when they enlarged upon the victory which he should win over death and hell; yet omitted not to allude to the intense bitterness of the cup which he should drink; such meditations would naturally encourage Christ. For he suffered and he feared as a man; and hence, as a man, needed the aid of every attainable support. If the want of an appropriate end were the only objection which could be urged against the Transfiguration, it could easily be established.

Strauss objects to the voice, which, it is asserted, was heard; and urges that the narratives of the evangelists on this point are theopomorphic, and hence are to be figuratively understood. He asserts that God would not use a real human voice, and that it is unworthy of the dignity of God to employ such a voice and such a language. But we suppose that nothing is unworthy of the dignity of God, which is an honorable and blameless means to accomplish an important end. The Bible records many cases in which God accomplished an important purpose,