Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that the witnesses of the transfiguration were unfittingly chosen. For everyone is a better witness of things that he knows. But at the time of Christ's transfiguration no one but the angels had as yet any knowledge from experience of the glory to come. Therefore the witnesses of the transfiguration should have been angels rather than men.

Objection 2: Further, truth, not fiction, is becoming in a witness of the truth. Now, Moses and Elias were there, not really, but only in appearance; for a gloss on Lk. 9:30, "They were Moses and Elias," says: "It must be observed that Moses and Elias were there neither in body nor in soul"; but that those bodies were formed "of some available matter. It is also credible that this was the result of the angelic ministries, through the angels impersonating them." Therefore it seems that they were unsuitable witnesses.

Objection 3: Further, it is said (Acts 10:43) that "all the prophets give testimony" to Christ. Therefore not only Moses and Elias, but also all the prophets, should have been present as witnesses.

Objection 4: Further, Christ's glory is promised as a reward to all the faithful (2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21), in whom He wished by His transfiguration to enkindle a desire of that glory. Therefore He should have taken not only Peter, James, and John, but all His disciples, to be witnesses of His transfiguration.

On the contrary is the authority of the Gospel.

I answer that, Christ wished to be transfigured in order to show men His glory, and to arouse men to a desire of it, as stated above (Article 1). Now men are brought to the glory of eternal beatitude by Christ---not only those who lived after Him, but also those who preceded Him; therefore, when He was approaching His Passion, both "the multitude that followed" and that "which went before, cried saying: 'Hosanna,'" as related Mt. 21:9, beseeching Him, as it were, to save them. Consequently it was fitting that witnesses should be present from among those who preceded Him---namely, Moses and Elias---and from those who followed after Him---namely, Peter, James, and John---that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses" this word might stand.

Reply to Objection 1: By His transfiguration Christ manifested to His disciples the glory of His body, which belongs to men only. It was therefore fitting that He should choose men and not angels as witnesses.

Reply to Objection 2: This gloss is said to be taken from a book entitled On the Marvels of Holy Scripture. It is not an authentic work, but is wrongly ascribed to St. Augustine; consequently we need not stand by it. For Jerome says on Mt. 17:3: "Observe that when the Scribes and Pharisees asked for a sign from heaven, He refused to give one; whereas here in order to increase the apostles' faith, He gives a sign from heaven, Elias coming down thence, whither he had ascended, and Moses arising from the nether world." This is not to be understood as though the soul of Moses was reunited to his body, but that his soul appeared through some assumed body, just as the angels do. But Elias appeared in his own body, not that he was brought down from the empyrean heaven, but from some place on high whither he was taken up in the fiery chariot.

Reply to Objection 3: As Chrysostom says on Mt. 17:3: "Moses and Elias are brought forward for many reasons." And, first of all, "because the multitude said He was Elias or Jeremias or one of the prophets, He brings the leaders of the prophets with Him; that hereby at least they might see the difference between the servants and their Lord." Another reason was " . . . that Moses gave the Law . . . while Elias . . . was jealous for the glory of God." Therefore by appearing together with Christ, they show how falsely the Jews "accused Him of transgressing the Law, and of blasphemously appropriating to Himself the glory of God." A third reason was "to show that He has power of death and life, and that He is the judge of the dead and the living; by bringing with Him Moses who had died, and Elias who still lived." A fourth reason was because, as Luke says (9:31), "they spoke" with Him "of His decease that He should accomplish in Jerusalem," i.e. of His Passion and death. Therefore, "in order to strengthen the hearts of His disciples with a view to this," He sets before them those who had exposed themselves to death for God's sake: since Moses braved death in opposing Pharaoh, and Elias in opposing Achab. A fifth reason was that "He wished His disciples to imitate the meekness of Moses and the zeal of Elias." Hilary adds a sixth reason---namely, in order to signify that He had been foretold by the Law, which Moses gave them, and by the prophets, of whom Elias was the principal.

Reply to Objection 4: Lofty mysteries should not be immediately explained to everyone, but should be handed down through superiors to others in their proper turn. Consequently, as Chrysostom says (on Mt. 17:3), "He took these three as being superior to the rest." For "Peter excelled in the love" he bore to Christ and in the power bestowed on him; John in the privilege of Christ's love for him on account of his virginity, and, again, on account of his being privileged to be an Evangelist; James on account of the privilege of martyrdom. Nevertheless He did not wish them to tell others what they had seen before His Resurrection; "lest," as Jerome says on Mt. 17:19, "such a wonderful thing should seem incredible to them; and lest, after hearing of so great glory, they should be scandalized at the Cross" that followed; or, again, "lest should be entirely hindered by the people" ; and "in order that they might then be witnesses of spiritual things when they should be filled with the Holy Ghost" .

Articulus 3

Argumentum 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non convenienter inducti fuerint testes transfigurationis.

Unusquisque enim maxime perhibere potest testimonium de notis.

Sed qualis esset futura gloria, tempore transfigurationis christi nulli homini per experimentum erat adhuc notum, sed solis Angelis.

Ergo testes transfigurationis magis debuerunt esse Angeli quam homines.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, testes veritatis non decet aliqua fictio, sed veritas.

Moyses autem et elias non ibi vere affuerunt, sed imaginarie, dicit enim quaedam Glossa super illud Luc. IX, erant autem Moyses et elias etc., sciendum est, inquit, non corpus vel animas Moysi vel eliae ibi apparuisse, sed in subiecta creatura illa corpora fuisse formata. Potest etiam credi ut angelico ministerio hoc factum esset, ut Angeli eorum personas assumerent. Non ergo videtur quod fuerint convenientes testes.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, Act. X dicitur quod christo omnes prophetae testimonium perhibent.

Ergo non soli Moyses et elias debuerunt adesse tanquam testes, sed etiam omnes prophetae.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, gloria christi fidelibus omnibus repromittitur, quos per suam transfigurationem ad illius gloriae desiderium accendere voluit. Non ergo solos Petrum et Iacobum et ioannem in testimonium suae transfigurationis assumere debuit, sed omnes discipulos.

Sed Contra

In contrarium est evangelicae Scripturae auctoritas.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod christus transfigurari voluit ut gloriam suam hominibus ostenderet, et ad eam desiderandam homines provocaret, sicut supra dictum est.

Ad gloriam autem aeternae beatitudinis adducuntur homines per christum, non solum qui post eum fuerunt, sed etiam qui eum praecesserunt, unde, eo ad passionem properante, tam turbae quae sequebantur, quam quae praecedebant ei, clamabant, hosanna, ut dicitur Matth. XXI, quasi salutem ab eo petentes. Et ideo conveniens fuit ut de praecedentibus ipsum testes adessent, scilicet Moyses et elias; et de sequentibus, scilicet Petrus, Iacobus et ioannes; ut in ore duorum vel trium testium staret hoc verbum.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod christus per suam transfigurationem manifestavit discipulis corporis gloriam, quae ad solos homines pertinet. Et ideo convenienter non Angeli, sed homines pro testibus ad hoc inducuntur.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod illa Glossa dicitur esse sumpta ex libro qui intitulatur de mirabilibus sacrae Scripturae, qui non est liber authenticus, sed falso adscribitur Augustino. Et ideo illi Glossae non est standum. Dicit enim Hieronymus, super Matth., considerandum est quod Scribis et Pharisaeis de caelo signa poscentibus, dare noluit, hic vero, ut apostolorum augeat fidem, dat signum de caelo, elia inde descendente quo conscenderat, et Moyse ab inferis resurgente. Quod non est sic intelligendum quasi anima Moysi suum corpus resumpserit, sed quod anima eius apparuit per aliquod corpus assumptum, sicut Angeli apparent. Elias autem apparuit in proprio corpore, non quidem de caelo empyreo allatus, sed de aliquo eminenti loco, in quem fuerat in curru igneo raptus.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., Moyses et elias in medium adducuntur propter multas rationes.

Prima est haec. Quia enim turbae dicebant eum esse eliam vel ieremiam aut unum ex prophetis, capita prophetarum secum ducit, ut saltem hinc appareat differentia servorum et domini. Secunda ratio est, quia Moyses legem dedit, elias pro gloria domini aemulator fuit. Unde per hoc quod simul cum christo apparent, excluditur calumnia Iudaeorum accusantium christum tanquam transgressorem legis, et blasphemum dei sibi gloriam usurpantem.

Tertia ratio est, ut ostendat se habere potestatem mortis et vitae, et esse iudicem mortuorum et vivorum, per hoc quod Moysen iam mortuum, et eliam adhuc viventem, secum ducit. Quarta ratio est quia, sicut Lucas dicit, loquebantur cum eo de excessu, quem completurus erat in ierusalem, idest de passione et morte sua. Et ideo, ut super hoc discipulorum animos confirmaret, inducit eos in medium qui se morti exposuerunt pro deo, nam Moyses cum periculo mortis se obtulit Pharaoni, elias vero regi Achab. Quinta ratio est, quia volebat ut discipuli eius aemularentur Moysi mansuetudinem, et zelum eliae.

Sextam rationem addit Hilarius, ut ostenderet scilicet se per legem, quam dedit Moyses, et per prophetas, inter quos fuit elias praecipuus, esse praedicatum.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod alta mysteria non sunt omnibus exponenda immediate, sed per maiores suo tempore ad alios debent devenire.

Et ideo, ut chrysostomus dicit, assumpsit tres tanquam potiores.

Nam Petrus excellens fuit in dilectione quam habuit ad christum et iterum in potestate sibi commissa; ioannes vero in privilegio amoris quo a christo diligebatur propter suam virginitatem, et iterum propter praerogativam evangelicae doctrinae; Iacobus autem propter praerogativam martyrii. Et tamen hos ipsos noluit hoc quod viderant aliis annuntiare ante resurrectionem, ne, ut Hieronymus dicit, incredibile esset, pro rei magnitudine; et, post tantam gloriam, sequens crux scandalum faceret; vel etiam totaliter impediretur a populo; et ut, cum essent spiritu sancto repleti, tunc gestorum spiritualium testes essent.