Charles Spurgeon Commentary Matthew 17:4

"And Peter answered, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, I will make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah." — Matthew 17:4 (ASV)

Then answered Peter, and said to Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you will, let us make here three tabernacles; one for you, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

The sight spoke to the three beholders, and they felt bound to answer it. Peter had to speak: Then answered Peter. That which is uppermost comes out: Lord, it is good for us to be here.

Everybody was of his opinion. Who would not have been? Because it was so good, he would gladly stay in this beatific state and get still more good from it. But he has not lost his reverence, and therefore he would have the great ones sheltered suitably. He submits the proposal to Jesus: If you will. He offers that, with his brothers, he will plan and build shrines for the three holy ones: Let us make here three tabernacles. He does not propose to build for himself, James, and John; but he says, One for you, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. His talk sounds rather like that of a bewildered child. He wanders a little, yet his expression is a most natural one.

Who would not wish to remain in such society as this? Moses, Elias, and Jesus: what company! Yet how unpractical Peter is!

How selfish the one thought, It is good for us! What was to be done for the rest of the twelve, and for the other disciples, and for the wide, wide world? A sip of such bliss might be good for the three, but to continue to drink of it might not have been really good even for them. Peter did not know what he said. The same could be said of many other excited utterances of enthusiastic saints.

The sight spoke to the three beholders, and they felt bound to answer it. Peter had to speak: Then answered Peter. What is uppermost comes out: Lord! it is good for us to be here. Everyone shared his opinion. Who would not have been? Because it was so good, he wished to stay in this beatific state and get still more good from it. But he had not lost his reverence and therefore wanted the great ones to be sheltered suitably. He submits the proposal to Jesus: If thou wilt. He offers that, with his brothers, he will plan and build shrines for the three holy ones: Let us make here three tabernacles.

He does not propose to build for himself, James, and John, but he says, One for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. His talk sounds rather like that of a bewildered child. He wanders a little, yet his expression is a most natural one. Who would not wish to remain in such society as this? Moses, Elias, and Jesus—what company! But yet how unpractical Peter is! How selfish the one thought: It is good for us! What was to be done for the rest of the twelve, for the other disciples, and for the wide, wide world? A sip of such bliss might be good for the three, but to continue to drink from it might not have been really good even for them. Peter did not know what he said. The same might be said of many other excited utterances of enthusiastic saints.

Then Peter answered and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if you will, let us make here three tabernacles; one for you, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

If Peter had known that hymn by Dr. Watts –

"My willing soul would stay
In such a frame as this,
And sit and sing herself away
To everlasting bliss;"

he would have thought it appropriate to sing at that moment; and whenever we get up on the mount, we have no desire to go down again. Our one thought is, "Oh, that this happy experience would last! Oh, that we might keep in this blessed company forever!" Yet our highest religious excitements cannot continue, even as the sea is not always at flood tide.

The talk between those three – Jesus, Moses, and Elijah – must have been well worth hearing. I would like to have been one of the three untransfigured, unglorified apostles, to listen to the conversation of the three glorified ones.

We know what they talked about, for Luke tells us that they spoke of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem; and it is very singular that the Greek word which he used to describe Christ's decease is the word "exodus." They spoke of his exodus which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

Moses knew all about the exodus out of Egypt, and what a type that was of Christ's departure out of this world: the death of the lamb, the sprinkling of the blood, the slaying of the firstborn among the Egyptians (even as Christ struck sin, death, and hell), and the triumphant coming out of Israel with silver and gold, setting forth Christ's ascension to his Father with all his precious treasures captured from the hand of the enemy.

How changed Elijah's feelings must have been since the day when he said, I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away; for now he was seeing the King in his glory, and talking with him about his approaching departure. How did Peter, and James, and John know that these two men were Moses and Elijah?

They had never seen them in the flesh, yet they evidently recognized them. So, as they knew people whom they had not known on earth, I am sure that I will know in heaven those whom I knew here; I will have the advantage of them in that respect.

I suppose they said to one another, as soon as they saw these men, "That is Moses, and that is Elijah." Yet they had never seen them.

And will we not, when we meet our dear kindred and friends, say at once, "That is So-and-so, with whom I took sweet counsel on earth when we walked to the house of God in company"? Surely, the mutual recognition of the saints hardly needs a better support than this passage supplies.