Why doesn't John's Gospel have the Transfiguration?

  • Thread starter Thread starter irishcolleen45
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

irishcolleen45

Guest
I’ve always wondered about that since John was the only one of the Evangelists who was present at the Transfiguration.
 
Found this blog entry, something to ponder:

THE TRANSFIGURATION ELSEWHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The Gospel of John

The Gospel of John is missing the transfiguration narrative. Why is that? George Ladd says, “John differs from the Synoptics in making the entire ministry of Jesus a manifestation of glory.”[28] It is clear that John seeks to portray the glory of Jesus throughout his Gospel, so why does he not include the narrative? It is hard to say. However, there is some evidence that John may have this event in mind in a couple of places.

John testifies to seeing the “glory of the one and only” (1:14). This could refer to the transfiguration, or he might be speaking of the entire life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Also, there is the Father’s voice from heaven, which proclaims that he had “glorified” the name of Jesus, and would do it again (12:27-33).

There is no way to be certain if John is referring to the transfiguration, but it does seem unlikely that such an event would not find its way into his Gospel, considering his theological emphasis and having experienced something as glorious as Jesus being transfigured before his very eyes.

Lee writes the following on the “absence” of the transfiguration:

If there is cross-fertilization between the two traditions, the Synoptic and the Johannine, the question of why John did not use the transfiguration story becomes more insistent. And here an answer can be suggested: that John did know something of the transfiguration and chose to use it, not as a single tale, but as a motif—a series of symbols—throughout his Gospel. If so, this would mean that, instead of re-telling the story with his own editorial changes, John has chosen to weave the threads of the transfiguration into the warp and woof of his tale, so that the main symbols are rehearsed again and again throughout the Johannine narrative. If so, the whole Gospel could be viewed as a ‘transfiguration’ story: ‘the glory which in the Synoptics flashes into the story on the mountain is perceived by Saint John to pervade all the words and works of Jesus.’[29]

Lee’s suggestion to view the entire Gospel as a transfiguration story is profound. This only further highlights the sheer beauty of John’s Gospel. John didn’t include the transfiguration narrative because it is not his style. He prefers to stretch such a grand event throughout his work.
 
Thank you for the info.

Not sure I understand the comment of John weaving the Transfiguration in his Gospel though.
 
John’s Gospel much like Revelation is salvation history written into a garment of truth.
They mean…he infuses his writing with elements of all of the history he witnessed and ties it together.
 
irishcolleen45 said:
I’ve always wondered about that since John was the only one of the Evangelists who was present at the Transfiguration.
Click to expand...
There were other things which St. John didn’t mention. The temptation of Jesus and the Last Supper, for example.

So, if you consider the types of things that St. John omitted, you might come up with a good answer. As for me, I don’t know why he left those things out. I’ve always thought that since his was the last Gospel, he might have wanted to supplement things that he thought the others left out. For example,
  1. Although he didn’t write about the Last Supper, he is the only one who mentioned the Bread of Life discourse (St. John Chapter 6) where Jesus says, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” And repeats this several times.
  2. St. John is the only one that mentions that we are born again in Baptism. (St. John 3).
  3. The resurrection of Lazarus (St. John 11).
  4. The Footwashing, the Vine and the Branches, etc.
What do you think?
 
What do I think? That the more I read about the Gospels, the more I realize how little I know. 😁
 
I do wonder about Revelation’s part in John’s Gospel.
 
John wrote Revelation. It’s where he connects all the dots.
 
irishcolleen45 said:
I’ve always wondered about that since John was the only one of the Evangelists who was present at the Transfiguration.
Click to expand...
Peter James and John were present with Jesus at the Transfiguration. And what did Jesus say to them after what they saw?

Mt 17: 9 And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of man is raised from the dead.”

Matthew, Mark, and Luke told of the vision.
 
Yes, that’s my point. The other Gospels mention it but John’s didn’t
 
Good point. Do you know when the Gospel of John was written? I believe Revelation was written late in John’s life.
 
Last edited:
The Transfiguration was such an extraordinary event at which John was present that I thought he would have mentioned it.
 
True. He probably omitted it out of humility. As St. Paul said in another verse:

2 Corinthians 12:
1 I must boast; not that it is profitable, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know someone in Christ who, fourteen years ago (whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows), was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know that this person (whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows) 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard ineffable things, which no one may utter. 5 About this person I will boast, but about myself I will not boast, except about my weaknesses. 6 Although if I should wish to boast, I would not be foolish, for I would be telling the truth. But I refrain, so that no one may think more of me than what he sees in me or hears from me 7 because of the abundance of the revelations. Therefore, that I might not become too elated,[c] a thorn in the flesh was given to me, an angel of Satan, to beat me, to keep me from being too elated.
 
I wonder about whom Paul was referring? We know that Paul spoke with Peter in Acts but I don’t recall if Paul ever mentioned John. Could Revelation be the events in the Transfiguration?
 
“irishcolleen45 said:
I wonder about whom Paul was referring?
Click to expand...
I think he meant himself.
We know that Paul spoke with Peter in Acts but I don’t recall if Paul ever mentioned John.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it wasn’t a very pleasant conversation in Galatians 2.
7 [g]On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised, 8 for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles, 9 and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John,[h] who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, we were to be mindful of the poor, which is the very thing I was eager to do.
Click to expand...

Could Revelation be the events in the Transfiguration?
Click to expand...
Do you mean the revelations he mentions in this verse?

2 Corinthians 12:
1 I must boast; not that it is profitable, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord.

No, I think he’s talking about the revelations he received after his conversion:
1 Cor 2:10 this God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. 11 Among human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person that is within? Similarly, no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God.
Click to expand...
But he could be making reference to all the revelations which the Apostles were receiving.
13 And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms.[g]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I’ve always believed that since John’s Gospel was the last to be written, he knew about the other Gospels and didn’t want to waste ink repeating what had already been said. He “filled in the blanks,” if you will.

Also, tradition teaches that Mark was an associate of Peter, so it could be argued that the account of the Transfiguration in the Gospel of Mark was from the eyewitness testimony of Peter and written down by Mark. Peter also explicitly describes the Transfiguration in 2 Peter 1:16-18, if you’re looking for firsthand testimony.
 
But the Transfiguration was such an extraordinary event. That’s why I asked the question.

Thank you for the info in 2 Peter 1:16-18.
 
I did a bible search of the word ‘Glorify’

I found the word is only used by Luke and John in their gospels.

Luke uses it a handfull of times to describe people praising God. One example below

Luke 5:26
26 [a]They were all struck with astonishment and began glorifying God; and they were filled with fear, saying, “We have seen remarkable things today.
Click to expand...
”Every time the word is in John’s gospel it is in reference to the Father glorifying Jesus. He used it a handfull of times too. A couple of examples:
John 13:32

32 [a]if God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify Him in Himself, and will glorify Him immediately.
Click to expand...
John 17:5
5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
Click to expand...
 
It does since there is a lot to learn with Scripture.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top