The Six and Eight Days of the Transfiguration
Question: This is a question about different day counts regarding the transfiguration of Christ. Matthew 17:1: "And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart." Mark 9:2: "And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves." Luke 9:28: "And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray." After six days, after six days, about eight days after these sayings. There is a difference between six days and eight days. Luke does use the word "about," but he also claims to write carefully and accurately. What is going on with this difference? Furthermore, could it be that the difference between six and eight is intended symbolically? Between the number six and eight lies the number seven. We know that 2 Peter 3:8 says, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Is God telling the Jews, via this discrepancy, something like the following? Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2: after 6,000 years—pay attention, my Jewish people—seven is the millennial messianic kingdom. Luke 9:28: it came to pass after 8,000 years—namely, in the eighth millennium, after the great white throne judgment, everything will be renewed into a new heaven and a new earth (compare Ephesians 1:10). Furthermore, Hosea 6:2 says, "After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up." Is this numerological reading a valid way to handle the six versus eight days in the transfiguration accounts?
The transfiguration accounts present a genuine numerical difference: Matthew and Mark say "after six days," while Luke says "about eight days after these sayings." The question is whether this should be handled by a symbolic, numerological scheme or by looking at differing ways of counting days in ordinary chronology.
Evaluating the numerological proposal
The proposal links:
- 6 days = 6,000 years,
- 7 as the millennial kingdom,
- 8 days = 8,000 years and the new creation,
- based on 2 Peter 3:8 and texts such as Hosea 6:2.
The difficulties with this approach are significant:
- Use of 2 Peter 3:8. That verse states, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." It is a statement about God’s relation to time, emphasizing that he is not constrained or hurried by human chronology. To turn this into a universal key for transforming any biblical day‑reference into 1,000 years is unwarranted. The context in 2 Peter does not authorize such a global numerological rule.
- Selectivity. If one insists that every "day" in narrative should be read as 1,000 years, then other passages, such as Christ’s "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," would have to be given the same treatment. Yet no one consistently does this. The numerological approach is therefore selective and driven by a system rather than by the text.
- Unnecessary for eschatology. We do not need Matthew 17, Mark 9, and Luke 9 to establish a thousand‑year kingdom. Revelation 20 repeatedly states the length of the millennial reign as 1,000 years. That clear text is sufficient for the doctrine. Building an elaborate 7,000‑ or 8,000‑year scheme from the transfiguration day counts adds very little, while greatly increasing speculation.
- Lack of exegetical control. The numerological reading is not grounded in the grammar or immediate context of the transfiguration accounts. Nothing in Matthew, Mark, or Luke indicates that the evangelists intend these numbers to be decoded as millennia. Arguments that depend on hidden codes or symbolic arithmetic, not evident from the text itself, are generally weak and unpersuasive.
For these reasons, the proposed 6,000/7,000/8,000‑year scheme is not a robust way to handle the differences between the Gospels here.
Future Subscription: In the future a subscription may be required to read the full answer. But for now it is free!
A more natural explanation: different ways of counting days
The discrepancy can be addressed more simply by considering differing conventions of day‑counting.
Ancient and even modern speech shows variety in counting intervals. We still struggle with terms like "this Sunday" versus "next Sunday." Depending on whether you count inclusively (including both the starting and ending days) or exclusively, the numerical total changes, though the actual span of time does not.
In the biblical world, inclusive reckoning—counting the current day as day one—was common. It is quite plausible that:
- Matthew and Mark count six full intervening days between the sayings and the transfiguration and simply state "after six days."
- Luke, using an inclusive count (counting the day of the sayings and the day of the transfiguration along with the intervening days), can describe the same interval as "about eight days after these sayings."
Luke also adds the qualifying word "about," signaling that his focus is approximate rather than mathematically exact. This is fully compatible with care and accuracy. A diligent historian may still use rounded or approximate expressions when the precise number is not central to his purpose.
Under this view, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referring to the same span of time, described with slightly different counting methods and with Luke’s characteristic use of an approximate expression. No mystical numerology is required.
On large‑scale chronological schemes
Attempts to tie these day counts into a fixed 7,000‑ or 8,000‑year world chronology face further problems:
- Textual complexity. Biblical chronology involves gaps, "Lo‑ammi" periods when Israel is reckoned "not my people," and other complications. As E. W. Bullinger argued, the problem cannot be solved by simple arithmetic from a chosen starting date, such as the date proposed by Bishop Ussher.
- Unrevealed timing. Scripture clearly affirms a future thousand‑year kingdom, but it does not clearly reveal the total length of world history prior to the eternal state. To insist on a 7,000‑year or 8,000‑year total timeline goes beyond what is written.
- Instability of calculations. Competing chronologies differ by centuries depending on assumptions. If key spans are subject to debate, using them to fix the nearness of the end is precarious.
While one may notice patterns and be interested in them, those patterns should not be used to override the plain sense of narrative time expressions in the Gospel accounts.
Conclusion
The most sound handling of the six‑versus‑eight‑day issue is to recognize different conventions of counting and Luke’s explicit use of "about." The numerological reading that transforms these days into millennia and constructs a 6,000–8,000‑year eschatological timetable is speculative, textually unsupported in this context, and unnecessary for biblical eschatology.
questiontransition