Sed quid est quod hic habetur post sex dies, in Luca habetur, post octo dies? But why does it say here, and after six days, while in Luke it says, eight days after these words?(Luke 9:28). Planum est quod Lucas numerat diem quo dixit, et diem transfigurationis; Matthaeus vero dies solum intermedios; ideo, remoto primo et ultimo, non remanent nisi sex dies. Per sex dies significantur sex aetates, post quas speramus venire ad gloriam futuram. Item in sex diebus perfecit opera sua; ideoque post sex dies vult Dominus se ostendere, quia nisi elevemur ad Deum super omnes creaturas, quas Dominus his sex diebus creavit, non possumus pervenire ad regnum Dei. It is clear that Luke counted the day on which he said it, and the day of the transfiguration; but Matthew only counted the days in between; and so, with the first and last days removed, there remained only six days. The six days signify the six ages, after which we hope to come to future glory. Likewise, he perfected his work in six days, and so the Lord wished to show himself after six days, because unless we are lifted up to God above all the creatures which the Lord created in those six days, we cannot arrive at the kingdom of God. 1419. Item assumpsit Petrum, Iacobum et Ioannem. Quare non omnes? Ad designandum, quod non omnes, qui vocati sunt, pervenient; unde infra XX, 16: multi sunt vocati, pauci vero electi. Et quare tres tantum? Ad designandum, quod nulli pervenient nisi in fide Trinitatis. Marc. XVI, 16: qui crediderit, et baptizatus fuerit, hic salvus erit. Sed quare plus istos quam alios? Ratio est, quia Petrus magis fervidus erat. Ioannes, quia specialiter dilectus erat. Item Iacobus, quia praecipuus debellator erat adversariorum fidei; unde Herodes eum occidit primo, quia magnum aliquid credidit facere pro Iudaeis, ut in Act. XII, 2: occidit autem Iacobum etc., sequitur, cum videret, quia placeret Iudaeis et cetera. 1419. Likewise, Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John. Why not all? To indicate that not all who are called, arrive; hence below, for many are called, but few chosen (Matt 20:16). And why three only? To indicate that no one shall arrive except in the faith of the Trinity. He who believes and is baptized, will be saved (Mark 16:16). But why these men rather than the others? The reason is that Peter was more fervent; John, because he had been specially loved; likewise James, because he was especially a warrior against the adversaries of the faith; hence Herod killed him first, since he thought to do something great for the Jews: and he killed James (Acts 12:2), and there follows, seeing that it pleased the Jews (Acts 12:3). 1420. Et duxit eos in montem excelsum seorsum et cetera. Quare in montem? Ad designandum quod non inducitur ad contemplandum nisi qui ascendit in montem, ut in Gen. XIX, 17 de Lot: in monte salvum te fac. 1420. And brought them up into a high mountain apart. Why on a mountain? To indicate that no one is led to contemplation but he who goes up onto a mountain, as in Genesis, about Lot: save yourself in the mountain (Gen 19:17). Et dicit excelsum valde, propter altitudinem contemplationis. Is. II, 2: elevabitur super colles, et fluent ad eum omnes gentes, et ibunt populi, et dicent: venite, ascendamus ad montem Domini. Quia super omnem altitudinem scientiae et virtutis erit illa altitudo gloriae. And he says, high, because of the loftiness of contemplation. It will be exalted above the hills, and all nations will flow unto it. And many people will go, and say: come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord (Isa 2:2–3). For that loftiness of glory will be above every loftiness of knowledge and virtue. Item seorsum, quia se separaverunt a malis. Infra XXV, 32: separabunt eos, sicut agnos ab hoedis. Likewise apart, because they separated themselves from those who are evil. Below, he will separate them one from another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats (Matt 25:32). 1421. Sequitur transfiguratio et transfiguratus est ante eos. Et 1421. There follows the transfiguration: and he was transfigured before them. And primo ponitur transfiguratio; first, the transfiguration is set down; secundo testimonium, ibi adhuc eo loquente et cetera. second, the testimony, at and as he was still speaking. Circa primum Concerning the first, ponit transfiguratio; he sets down the transfiguration; secundo modus; second, the manner; tertio Petri admiratio. third, Peter’s wonderment. 1422. Dicit ergo et transfiguratus est, idest figuram mutavit, ante eos. Transfigurari idem est quod a propria figura mutari, ut habetur II ad Cor. XI, quod satanas transfigurat se in angelum lucis. Ideo non est mirum si iusti transfigurentur in figuram gloriae; ideo transfiguratus est, quia quod suum est deposuit. 1422. He says then, and he was transfigured, i.e., he changed his figure, before them. To be transfigured is the same as to be changed from one’s own figure, as it is written that satan transforms himself into an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14). So it is no marvel if the just shall be transfigured into a figure of glory; and so he was transfigured, because he laid aside what is his own. Aliqui dixerunt, quod aliud corpus assumpsit, quod falsum est; sed in figura quisquis immutetur de exteriori aspectu, dicitur transfiguratus: sicut cum aliquis est sanus et rubicundus, cum infirmus est fit pallidus, et sic dicitur transfiguratus; sic Christus, quia in alia forma quam appareret, apparuit, quia corpus eius non erat lucidum, sed tantum claritatem accepit, ideo dicitur transfiguratus. Some have said that he assumed another body, which is false; but whoever is changed in figure, in his exterior appearance, is called transfigured, just as when someone is healthy and ruddy and then becomes sick and pallid, and thus is called transfigured. In the same way Christ was transfigured, because he appeared in another form than the one in which he was appearing before, since his body was not luminescent, but only took on a brightness; this is why he is called transfigured. 1423. Ideo sequitur et resplenduit facies eius sicut sol; ubi tangitur modus. Et 1423. So there follows and his face shone as the sun; here the manner is touched upon. And primo demonstratur quantum ad claritatem faciei; first, it is described as regards the brightness of his face; secundo quantum ad nitorem vestium; second, as regards the brightness of his clothing; tertio quantum ad testimonium. third, as regards the testimony. 1424. Dicit ergo et resplenduit facies eius sicut sol. Hic futuram gloriam revelavit, ubi erunt corpora clara et splendentia. Et haec claritas non erat ab essentia, sed ex claritate interioris animae plenae caritate; Is. c. LVIII, 8: tunc erumpet quasi mane lumen tuum, et sequitur, et gloria Domini colliget te. Unde erat quaedam refulgentia in corpore. Anima enim Christi videbat Deum, et super omnem claritatem a principio suae conceptionis; Io. I, 14: vidimus gloriam eius. 1424. It says then, and his face shone as the sun. Here he revealed the future glory, where bodies will be brilliant and splendid. And this brilliance was not from the essence, but from the brilliance of the interior soul, full of charity; then will your light break forth as the morning, and there follows and the glory of the Lord will gather you up (Isa 58:8). Hence there was a certain splendor in his body. For Christ’s soul was seeing God, and beyond all brilliance, from the beginning of his conception; and we saw his glory (John 1:14). 1425. Si ergo in beatis aliis derivatur claritas ab anima ad corpus, quare non in Christo qui Deus erat et homo? 1425. If then, in the blessed, a brilliance descends from the soul to the body, why not in Christ, who was God and man? Dicendum quod quia Deus erat, ordo humanae naturae erat in sua potestate. Hic autem est ordo quod partes sibi communicent, ut laeso corpore, compassio sit in anima, et ex anima afficiatur corpus. Sed hic ordo subiectus erat Christo. Unde ita perfectum erat gaudium in parte superiori quod non egrediebatur extra: unde et perfecte erat viator, et perfecte comprehensor. Unde quando volebat, non fiebat reflexus, sed quando volebat, reflexus fuit, et apparuit splendidus. One should say that since he was God, the order of human nature was in his power. But the order is that the parts communicate among themselves, so that when the body is wounded, the soul suffers together with it, and the body is affected by the soul. But here the order was subject to Christ. Hence the joy in the superior part was perfect in such a way that it did not go out from the superior part: hence he was both perfectly a viator, and perfectly a comprehensor. Hence when he wished, there was no reflection, but when he wished, there was a reflection, and he appeared resplendent. 1426. Sed nonne dos fuit in Christo? Quidam dicunt quod sic, et quod omnes dotes accepit in via: dotem subtilitatis in nativitate, agilitatis in undarum calcatione, claritatis hic, impassibilitatis in administrando sacramentum altaris. 1426. But did not Christ have the gifts? Some say that this is so, and that he received all the gifts in via: the gift of subtility at his birth, of agility when he walked on the waves, brilliance here, and impassibility when he administered the sacrament of the altar. Ego autem hoc non credo, quia dos est quaedam proprietas ipsius gloriae. Unde quod super mare ambulavit, quod resplenduit, totum fuit ex virtute divina, quia dos gloriae repugnat viatori, sed habuit aliquam similitudinem, quia resplenduit facies eius sicut sol; Apoc. I, 16: facies eius sicut sol refulget in virtute sua. But I do not believe this, because a gift is a certain property of glory itself. Hence that he walked on the sea, that he was resplendent, all happened by the divine power, since the gift of glory is incompatible with a viator; but he had a certain likeness to a glorified body, since his face shone as the sun. And his face was as the sun shines in his power (Rev 1:16). Sed potest obiici, quia iusti fulgebunt sicut sol. Ergo splendor Christi maior non erit aliis. But it can be objected that the just will shine like the sun. Therefore Christ’s splendor will not be greater than others’ splendor. Dico quod sic. Sed quia in his sensibilibus non est clarius cui possit comparari; ideo soli comparatur. I say that it will be. But since there is nothing more brilliant among sensible things to compare him to, he is compared to the sun. 1427. Vestimenta autem eius facta sunt alba sicut nix. Hic de vestimentis. Hoc apparet quod non fuit per mutationem Christi, nec per dotem, quia vestimenta non sunt perceptiva dotis. Per vestimenta significantur sancti; Is. XLIX, 18: vivo ego, dicit Dominus, quia his omnibus sicut ornamento vestieris. 1427. And his garments became white as snow. Here he treats of the clothing. It is clear that this was not due to a change in Christ, nor due to one of the gifts, since clothes do not receive the gifts. Clothing signifies the saints; I live, says the Lord, you will be clothed with all these as with an ornament (Isa 49:18). Et dicit facta sunt alba sicut nix. Nix habet candorem et frigiditatem, sic sancti habent candorem gloriae; Sap. III, 7: fulgebunt iusti et tamquam scintillae in arundineto discurrent et cetera. Item habebunt refrigerium ab ardore concupiscentiae; in Ps. LXVII, 15: nive dealbabuntur in Selmon. Vel per vestimenta intelligitur littera Sacrae Scripturae. And it says, and his garments became white as snow. Snow has radiance and coldness, as the saints have the radiance of glory; the just will shine, and will run to and fro like sparks among the reeds (Wis 3:7). Likewise, the fire of concupiscence is cooled in them; they will be whited with snow in Selmon (Ps 67:15). Or by clothing is understood the letter of Sacred Scripture. 1428. Et ecce apparuerunt illis Moyses et Elias. Et quare apparuerunt? Chrysostomus assignat rationes. Prima ratio est ad confirmandum fidem discipulorum. Quaesierat supra: quem dicunt homines esse filium hominis? et cetera. Et dixerunt: alii Eliam et cetera. Ut vero ostenderet differentiam sui ad illos, ideo voluit eos adducere; Ps. LXXXV, v. 8: non est similis tui in diis, Domine et cetera. Secunda ratio est ad confutandum Iudaeos. Dicebant enim quod erat transgressor legis; item dicebant quod erat blasphemator, ut habetur Io. X, 33: de bono opere non lapidamus te, sed de blasphemia. Ideo quia Elias omnibus prophetis sanctior fuit, et Moyses legislator; coram Moyse et Elia ostendit, quia non erat Deo contrarius, nec transgressor legis. Tertia ratio est, ut ostendat se iudicem vivorum et mortuorum, quia Elias vivus erat, Moyses mortuus. Quarta ratio est ad certificationem Petri; quia Petrus increpaverat Dominum de morte, ideo ostendit quod non sunt increpandi qui exponunt se morti, invocando istos duos; quia Elias morti se exposuit coram Iezabel, similiter Moyses exposuit se propter legem. Quinta ratio est, quia duo erant in eo quod voluit ostendere in his duobus, scilicet mansuetudo, quam ostendit in Moyse, exemplum zeli Dei, quem ostendit in Elia, de quo dicitur quod surrexit Elias quasi ignis, et verbum ipsius quasi facula ardebat. Sexta ratio assignatur in Glossa, quia omnis lex et prophetae testimonium dixerunt Christo. Unde Lc. XXIV, 44: omnia oportet impleri de me quae sunt in lege et prophetis. 1428. And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elijah. And why did they appear? Chrysostom gives reasons. The first reason is to confirm the disciples’ faith. He had asked above, who do men say that the Son of man is? (Matt 16:13). And they said, some Elijah. But so that he might make clear the difference between himself and them, he willed to bring them; there is none among the gods like unto you, O Lord (Ps 85:8). The second reason is to refute the Jews. For they said that he was a transgressor of the law; they also said that he was a blasphemer: not for a good work do we stone you, but for blasphemy (John 10:33). So since Elijah was holier than all the prophets, and Moses was a legislator, he made clear in the presence of Moses and Elijah that he was not contrary to God, nor a transgressor of the law. The third reason is to show that he is the judge of the living and the dead, because Elijah was living, Moses dead. The fourth reason is to assure Peter. For Peter had reproached the Lord about death, so by calling these two in, he showed that those who expose themselves to death are not to be reproached; for Elijah exposed himself to death before Jezabel, and Moses similarly exposed himself for the sake of the law. The fifth reason is because there were two things in him which he wished to point out in these two, namely meekness, which he pointed out in Moses, and an example of zeal for God, which he pointed out in Elijah, of whom it is said in Sirach that Elijah the Prophet stood up, as a fire, and his word burnt like a torch (Sir 48:1). The sixth reason is given in the Gloss, that all the law and the prophets gave witness to Christ. Hence, all things must be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets (Luke 24:44). 1429. Sed tunc est quaestio. De Elia non est mirum si ibi fuit, quia est vivus; sed de Moyse est quaestio quomodo ibi erat. 1429. But then there is a question. It is no marvel if Elijah was there, because he was alive; but there is a question about Moses, how he was there. Quidam dixerunt quod angelus fuit ibi loco ipsius. Sed hoc nihil est, quia Moyses fuit ibi in anima solum. Sed qualiter visus est? Dicendum, quod sicut angeli videntur. Some say that an angel was there in his place. But this amounts to nothing, because Moses was there in soul only. But how was he seen? One should say that he was seen just as angels are seen. 1430. Sequitur affectus Petri respondens autem Petrus dixit et cetera. Et possumus exponere torquendo ad carnalitatem, vel ad devotionem. 1430. There follows Peter’s affection: and Peter answering, said. And we can explain this either by referring it to carnality, or to devotion. Chrysostomus retorquet ad carnalitatem. Supra Christus dixerat se passurum, et Petrus increpaverat eum, cum reprehendit eum. Unde apparuerunt Moyses et Elias loquentes de passione eius; ideo cum audivit Petrus referre, non poterat audire. Unde non voluit se opponere; ideo cogitavit quod si ibi maneret, evaderet mortem: ideo ne cito recederent, dixit faciamus hic tria tabernacula. Chrysostom refers it to carnality. Above, Christ had said that he was going to suffer, and Peter had reproached him, when he rebuked him. Hence Moses and Elijah appeared, speaking of his passion; so when Peter heard them refer to the passion, he could not listen. Now, he did not wish to set himself against them, so he thought that if he were to remain there, he would avoid death. Therefore, lest they leave quickly, he said, let us make here three tents. Et quare dixit Moysi unum, Eliae unum? Quia videbat eum affectuosum ad mortem, volebat quod isti impedirent mortem eius. De Elia legitur IV Reg. I, 10, quod quando misit rex quinquagenarium, fecit descendere ignem de caelo. Item legitur de Moyse Num. c. XVI, 32, quod quando iurgium occurrit in tabernaculo, quod descendit nubes. Ideo cogitavit, quod per Moysen poterat impetrari nubes, et per Eliam ignis. And why did he say, one for Moses, and one for Elijah? Since he saw that Jesus was inclined toward death, he wanted these men to impede his death. Of Elijah it is written that when the king sent fifty men, he made fire come down from heaven (2 Kgs 1:10). Likewise, it is written of Moses that when a quarrel arose in the tabernacle, a cloud descended (Num 12:10). So he thought that a cloud could be gotten through Moses, and fire through Elijah. 1431. Alii vero reducunt ad devotionem Petri. Et secundum hoc duo facit. Quia primo tangit affectum; secundo consilium, ibi si vis et cetera. 1431. But others refer it to Peter’s devotion. And in accord with this, he does two things: first, he touches upon the affection; second, the advice, at if you wish. Dicit ergo Domine, bonum est nos hic esse. Ex nimio fervore videns gloriam, ita affectus erat quod numquam voluisset separari, si Deus voluisset. He says then, Lord, it is good for us to be here. Out of an exceedingly great fervor, when he saw the glory, he was so affected that he wanted never to be parted from it, God willing.