So, if you've read the previous page on Elijah, you're probably wondering why I would argue that Elijah died. This would have Elijah's soul appearing on the mount after his death and would illustrate the very thing, continuing-consciousness-after-death, that I am arguing AGAINST. Good point. Read on!​ Mathew 17:1f: 

 

And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. And Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is well that we are here; if you wish, I will make three booths here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah."
 

He was still speaking, when lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."
 

When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces, and were filled with awe. But Jesus came and touched them, saying, "Rise, and have no fear." And when they lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only.
 

Matthew 17:9:
 

• As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, 'Do not tell the vision to anyone until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.'

 

It was a VISION! Visions are not literal. They are not physically objective. Sometimes they seem like they are. For instance, Peter was delivered from prison by an angel in Acts 12. In verse 9 it says,

 

• ...he (Peter) did not know that what was being done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision.

 

A vision can seem so real that you can't tell the difference. Yet, a vision does not have physical objectivity - though it sometimes can SEEM like it does. A vision can be thought of as a language. It's a visual language. And what's important about a vision is what is being said; what is being seen is analogous to words. Words are important, but they are not the point. The point is the meaning that the words communicate. So it is with the visual "words" of a vision.
 

In this case, the parallel account in Luke 9:28f. tells us that the content of what was said in the vision concerned "...his departure which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem." In Mark's account (Mark 9:1f.) it says,
 

• ...he gave them orders not to relate to anyone what they had seen, until the Son of Man rose from the dead. They seized upon that statement, discussing with one another what rising from the dead meant.

 

Obviously there was some question about "rising from the dead." It seems totally clear to us - but that is in hindsight, and a literal understanding is our natural default. But the Hebraic paradigm, and the understanding that what is seen in a vision is not necessarily to be taken literally, plus Jesus' tendency to speak figuratively and not literally (e.g. Jn 11:11-14) would understandably give rise to "discussing what rising from the dead meant." This is another indication that what happened on the mount was symbolic - a vision - and the fact that Moses and Elijah were present in the vision does not mean that they were REALLY there.
 

I would say that Moses and Elijah represent the Law and the Prophets, respectively, and that the Law and the Prophets testify to Jesus, and his death and resurrection. On the road to Emmaus, Jesus, "beginning with Moses and with all the prophets...explained to them the things concerning himself in all the scriptures." (Luke 24:27)
 

Another important aspect of the content of this vision concerns the Father's affirmation of the Son, "This is my beloved son...listen to him." So Jesus has the affirmation of the Law and the Prophets, and he also has the affirmation of the Father Himself.
 

In 1 Peter 2:16-19, Peter gives his version of this event. Notice that the whole point is that he was an eyewitness to the affirmation  - the "honor and glory" - of Jesus by God the Father. He emphasizes what God said,
 

• "This is my beloved son with whom I am well-pleased" - and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with him on the holy mountain."

 

In Peter's recounting of the experience, he says that he (Peter), James and John were "with him" (Jesus) on the mountain. Why does Peter not say that they were with Moses and Elijah also? This would give even greater credibility to the 3 apostles, especially with the Jews. But there is not a single word about Moses and Elijah. Why? Perhaps it is because Peter understood that the appearance of Moses and Elijah on the mountain was a vision, and therefore not physically real - see Acts 12:9:  "...he (Peter) did not know that what was being done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision." Peter's obvious understanding is that a vision is "not real", i.e. does not have physical objectivity.
 

Conclusion: Moses and Elijah weren't LITERALLY standing on the mount, it was a vision. Moses and Elijah were dead, in the grave, awaiting the resurrection. God was communicating through a vision to the apostles that Jesus had the testimony and affirmation of the Law (Moses) and the Prophets (Elijah).