The Sunday lectionary gospel reading for the last Sunday before Lent in this Year C is Luke 9.28–36, this gospel’s account of the Transfiguration, with the option of continuing to read the episode that follows immediately on the descent from the mountain. There some important things to note in relation to this passage as we think about preaching on it.
(Unusually, the lectionary NT epistle is connected with this reading: Paul uses similar language about transformation in 2 Cor 3.12–4.2. Link to the video discussion of this passage can be found here and at the end of this article.)
All three Synoptic accounts place this immediately after Peter’s confession of Jesus at Caesarea Philippi, where Jesus then starts to talk about his betrayal and death. They seem to want us to hold these two truths together: that the Son of Man is one who is humble and obedient even to death; and yet he is also the one spoken of in Daniel 7 where he comes to the Ancient of Days and receives a kingdom that will never end. Both of these are true about Jesus, and both must be held together. This is made clear by the final saying of Jesus in the previous pericope (section):
Amen I say to you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God (Luke 9.27).
Note that Mark adds ‘with power’ in his parallel (Mark 9.1), and Matthew uses the phrase ‘the Son of Man coming in his kingdom’ (Matt 16.28); this is the erchomenos language of Matt 24 referring to the Son of Man coming to the Ancient of Days, not the parousia language of Jesus’ return at the End, so we can see that all three understand Jesus’ comment as a reference to his exaltation and ascension, and the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost followed by the preaching of the gospel.
All three gospels then follow this by specifying the short time period of about a week between that and the revelation on the mountain (the difference between Luke’s ‘eight days’ and Matthew and Mark’s ‘six days’ being the difference between inclusive and exclusive ways of counting), and this is the only place in Matthew where he is so specific about a time period. The ‘some’ makes sense when we see Jesus taking with him only his inner circle of Peter, James and John, as he does later at Gethsemane. John then talks of having ‘seen [Jesus’] glory’ (John 1.14) and 2 Peter 1.17–18 also includes testimony to this incident. (It is also interesting to note the way that Paul connects issues of glory and suffering with Moses’ experience on Sinai and the language of being ‘transformed’, using the same verb metamorpheo that translated ‘transfigured’ in Matthew and Mark, in 1 2 Cor 3.18.)
Mikeal Parsons describes this narrative as having the form of a ‘dream-vision’ (and notes that Matthew uses the term horama, vision or sight, in Matt 17.9) but there is no sense that any of the gospel writers think of it as something different in kind from the events before and after. Luke is alone in specifying that Jesus took the three with him ‘to pray’; prayer is one of the distinctive focusses of Luke’s narrative (notice the Lukan mention of prayer earlier in the chapter in Luke 9.18 and the later mention of Jesus’ praying as the context for teaching the Lord’s Prayer in Luke 11.1).
The language of ‘transfiguration’ (which derives from the Latin of the Vulgate here) is rather unhelpful. There is a ‘transformation’, but in contrast to the other incident of divine revelation from heaven at Jesus’ baptism in Luke 3, the perspective is that of the disciples, not of Jesus himself. So he is transformed ‘before them’ and Moses and Elijah appear ‘before them’. In fact, the whole emphasis is on the disciples (count how many times ‘they’ or ‘them’ occur). As is clear from the ending of the episode, where Jesus is alone, the point is not a change in Jesus, but a change in their understanding of who he is. The full truth will only come after his death and resurrection, but these privileged three have a foretaste, an anticipation ahead of time, which will only really make sense later.
The three Synoptics vary considerably in the exact language that they use to describe Jesus’ appearance; it is difficult to know what it would have looked like had we been there and filmed it on our iPhones, but what the gospel writers want us to know is its significance. The language Matthew uses focusses on divine presence, picking up Old Testament language of God as clothed in light, but Luke draws more parallels with Moses’ face shining (Ex 34.29) and this fits with Moses also taking three named persons up a mountain with him (along with 70 others, Ex 24.1, 9), and God’s voice coming from an overshadowing cloud (Ex 24.15–18). (Note that Paul, in the parallel lectionary reading of 2 Cor 3, also draws the parallel and contrast between Jesus and Moses.)
The appearance of Moses and Elijah is introduced by Luke in a way that connects with other parts of his story. The phrase ‘And behold, two men’ (Luke 9.30) also occurs at the empty tomb (Luke 24.4) and at the ascension in Acts 1.10; we might translated the term ἰδοὺ as ‘take note!’ to capture its impact. This does not imply that the men at the same characters, but the phrase connects the three moments (transfiguration, resurrection and ascension) when Jesus’ divine identity is most clearly displayed. In popular readings, Moses and Elijah are often thought to represent the law and the prophets. But Elijah was not one of the writing prophets, and in Jewish tradition the mysterious circumstances of Moses’ death on Mount Nebo (Deut 34.5–6) and Elijah’s being taken up to God on a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2.11) earned them the title of ‘the deathless ones’. Their presence with Jesus is an anticipation of Jesus’ own conquest of death. They also signify the rescuing of God’s people from slavery to freedom (Moses) and the call to faithfulness (Elijah); both encountered God on the mountain (Sinai/Horeb) and both experienced rejection by and suffering at the hands of God’s own people, which makes the connection between the suffering Jesus has just spoken of and the glory which he will receive.
The account of their conversation in Luke 9.31–33 is unique to the third gospel; looking at the three passages in parallel very clearly shows the gap in Matthew and Mark where Luke includes his commentary on both the conversation of Jesus with Moses and Elijah and the sleep of the disciples. The language of Jesus’ ‘departure’ uses the Greek term exodus which both connects Jesus with Moses once more, but also ties this episode into the wider narrative, both looking back to the hope of deliverance in the Benedictus in Luke 1, and anticipating everything Jesus is to ‘accomplish’ in Jerusalem, and so once more confirms Luke’s focus on the importance of Jerusalem. The sleepiness of Peter and his companions anticipates their sleepy failure in Gethsemane (Luke 22.45).
Peter’s clumsy interjection, offering to make shelters and capture the moment, is ameliorated by both Mark and Luke in their explanation that he didn’t know what to say in the context of such an unsettling experience. He appears to want the experience to persist, or perhaps to try and make his own contribution when he really should have been simply attending to what was before him. (There is a possibility that Peter’s action reflects a Jewish tradition arising from Ps 43.3: ‘Send your light and your truth; let them bring me to your holy mountain and your tents’; in a later Midrash, the ‘light’ is understood to be Elijah and the ‘truth’ to be the anticipated Messiah.) He has not yet understood that this is a momentary drawing back of the curtain, giving him and the other two a glimpse of the heavenly reality of who Jesus really is, but that this is not the end of the story—yet.
They are covered with a ‘cloud full of light’; all through the story of scripture, clouds signify the presence of God (which is more easy to understand if you live in a country where the sky is blue for much of the time) and this evokes fear as well as awe (compare Ezek 1.4). The voice of God here echoes what was said at Jesus baptism (Luke 3.22), and this time there is no ambiguity as to whether the words are addressed to Jesus or to those watching—the audience of the three disciples are commanded or invited to listen to him. Jesus is not simply one like Moses or Elijah; he far transcends them as the Son of the Living God, the one in whom we encounter God’s own presence and glory. The words also echo Is 42.1, making again the connection between suffering and glory.
Luke moves on to the next episode of Jesus’ ministry, but both Matthew and Mark fill out the details of the disciples’ puzzlement. They still do not understand the significance of this vision or insight—and indeed, they will not until they have begun to make sense of Jesus’ death and resurrection. They are slowly putting together the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of Jesus’ identity and how he is fulfilling the purposes of God. We are like those who have been given the puzzle box, with the finished picture on the outside so that we can see with hindsight where the pieces fit together.
This leaves two major issues as a challenge for contemporary discipleship. The first arises from the juxtaposition of this episode with what immediately preceded it, and the links Luke makes by use of his ‘Behold, two men…!’. The transfiguration, the resurrection, and the ascension are linked together, but in every case the moment of glory follows from and arises out of a revelation or a moment of suffering. We find these two themes intertwined all through the Scriptures, including in the stories of Moses and Elijah themselves. John sums it up neatly in Revelation 1.9: ‘I, John, your brother and companion in suffering, kingdom, and patient endurance that are in Jesus…’ Some object to the idea that ‘suffering’ is ours ‘in Jesus’, but Luke leaves us in no doubt. Are we ready to embrace both suffering and glory? And in those hard and testing times will we continue to look to the exalted Jesus and allow our hardship to be take up in praise?
Secondly, in any relationship, it takes time to understand and get to know someone, and even with people we know well, there are times when we gain particular insight into their character by something they do or say which gives us fresh insight into who they are. This seems to be how the Transfiguration functions for the three disciples, and offers key insight into who Jesus is. Is it an insight we have yet gained for ourselves? All too often we end up choosing which aspects of Jesus we like or find convivial, and ignore other aspects of who he is, thus making Jesus in our own image. But, just as with the first disciples, he will not allow us to pick and choose; if he is not Lord in all the ways he claims, he is not Lord at all.
Join us for our video conversation in which we explore all these issues and reflect on reading, preaching, and application:
And for our conversation about the NT epistle in 2 Cor 3.12–4.2:
Moses and Elijah are also the supreme Shining Ones of the Old Testament (at least how people imagine Elijah’s majestic ascension – in Moses’ case it is explicit).
Connection betweenthe two readings
The Law and the Prophets and the Glory of the Gospel is transformative by which we become partakers of the divine nature.
It is not always apparent but we never know until God takes away the vail in our brother and amaze us.
Is this not a revelation of the reversal of the “narrative of the eastward expulsion from the garden.”
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/day-atonement-return-eden/
The passage also amusingly counters this underlying philosophy in an inventive dialogue fiction :
“And Jesus said unto them, ‘And who do you say that I am?’ They replied, ‘You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed’
And Jesus replied, ‘What?’
From http://www.quodlinet
Indeed Geoff!
The Law teaches us how to live our best life
The Prophets tell us we are not living our best life
(Telling that to religious people,
whose god is their religion often proved fatal!)
The Gospel is Life, in Christ,
whom to feed on Is health to your bones.
John puts this front and center in his gospel.
That life is transformational.
There is a sublime poem by F W H Myers called”Saint Paul”
of which L Ravenhill said “You ‘ought to get a hold of the poem
and memorize it”.Found at
sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=2386&forum=35
OR who can forget Brother Lawrence’s “Practice of the Presence of God”
As Brother Lawrence had found such comfort and blessing in walking in the Presence of God, it was natural for him to recommend it earnestly to others;
but his example was a stronger inducement than any arguments
he could propose. His very countenance was edifying;
such a sweet and calm devotion appearing in it as could not but affect all beholders.
And it was observed that in the greatest hurry of business in the kitchen,
he still preserved his recollection and his heavenly-mindedness.
He was never hasty nor loitering, but did each thing in its season,
with an even, uninterrupted composure and tranquillity of spirit.
“The time of business,” said he, “does not with me differ
from the time of prayer, and in the noise and clatter of my kitchen,
while several persons are at the same time calling for different things,
I possess God in as great tranquility as if I were upon my knees at the Blessed Sacrament.” [ Brother Lawrence The Practice, of the Presence of God.]
Shalom.
My MA dissertation was on Elijah at Horeb. I will not attempt to discuss the various arguments which took 18,000 words to explore, but my conclusion was that the encounter was essentially concerned with covenant theology. It is generally accepted that the covenant was the central concern of the author of Kings; in the original Hebrew Elijah’s encounter is formulated in a highly stylised quasi-poetic format with a distinctive chiastic centre, which in my opinion is presented in such a way as to be the crux of the covenantal discourse of Kings. I concluded that Elijah’s encounter was presented as a deliberate sequel to Moses on the same mountain. Moses was the recipient of a conditional covenant at Sinai, Elijah was called to the same mountain to testify to Israel’s disobedience and to witness the invocation of that conditionality, a process of covenant reversal which (as far as the author of Kings was concerned) would lead to the Exile.
My paper only touched on the Transfiguration briefly, but it offered the proposition that whatever else was happening, the presence of Moses and Elijah implies a covenant significance regarding Israel’s history. Moses represents the inauguration of the Sinai covenant, Elijah its demise; together they discuss with Messiah the New Covenant which he is about to install. A third mountaintop event which has significant theological resonances with the previous two.
Apologies that this comment can only summarise briefly ideas which my paper explored in far greater detail, but it will have to suffice in this context.
Thanks—how interesting. But how does that relate to Luke’s language of ‘exodus’?
I have nothing to offer in that context, I was not coming from a Lukan perspective, simply exploring an extrapolation of my involvement with 1 Kings 19. However I was interested in the comments linking the language of the passage to Isaiah 61, which Luke offers as a central tenet of his understanding of the Messianic mission, (in both Luke 4 and Luke 7), so that would certainly make a good fit.
The exodus motif parallels of Moses and of Elijah are considered here by Peter Leithart:
https://theopolisinstitute.com/elijah-and-moses/
Thank you. A very good brief summary of some major points. Many scholars have commented on the deliberate Mosaic parallels in the Elijah sagas (1 Kings 17-19). however I would not personally choose to use the word “Exodus” in that context. I don’t think the author of Kings is interested in the Exodus theme as such; he is greatly concerned in exploring the validity (or otherwise) of the Sinai covenant. I think Peter Leithart makes a common mistake in defining Elijah’s ministry as being the renewal and restitution of Israel. That may certainly have been how Elijah originally understood his mission, but at Horeb that commission was rescinded and from then on he was tasked rather with initiating a process of judgement against Israel (1K19:15-17); leading eventually to the Exile. It is the Exile not the Exodus which is the central concern of Kings.
Perhaps you could therefore expand these thoughts to say that the Transfiguration symbolically covers both the Exodus and the Exile; and looks forward to the next stage in Israel’s salvation history, but I’m not sure I would choose to express it quite like that myself.
Thanks—that is a very interesting observation.
Ian
On reflection, I would like to add two more observations. Firstly, we have overlooked the significance of Elijah as the eschatological symbol par excellence in Second Temple Judaism, and secondly I suggest an important strand in Luke’s treatment of the incident is what we might call “succession planning”.
Taking the second point first. A noticeable feature in the narratives of both Moses and Elijah concerns succession. Moses had Joshua as his appointed protege, Elijah was told to “anoint” (unusual terminology for prophetic succession) Elisha as his successor, which somewhat bizarrely he does by bashing the chap with a rolled up cloak, rather than anointing him with oil. (But then nothing in the Elijah narratives is ever quite what it seems.) Elisha famously asks for and receives a double portion of his master’s spirit. The lesser prophet, in every degree, nonetheless receives a double anointing. I suggest Luke must have this in mind when he (alone) evidences Jesus’ Ascension (Luke 24:50-51; Acts 1:1-11), and where in both cases he notably cites passing on devolved power (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-8). In literary terms, two mountain top incidents, Transfiguration and Ascension, having the Elijah/Elisha parallel in mind.
Once we examine Luke’s literary structure in this context, we uncover more evidence of Luke’s intent. Once we look for it, there is a clear inclusio with the Transfiguration at the centre, a deliberate literary construct. Luke 9:1-6 and Luke 10:1-23 are both “sending out” pericopes (the twelve and the seventy-two). I take the view that the Gospel writings are sophisticated literary constructions, not accidental ramblings on a loose chronology. Using this A-B-A structure then Luke is talking about succession, as well as everything else the Transfiguration references. Once we accept this, then all the pericopes which follow the Transfiguration are not accidental happenings, they are purposefully examining elements of Jesus succession plan. Luke 9:37 to 10:41 are all in different ways asking and answering questions of what being a follower of Jesus looks like. We cover who is the greatest / a little child (again enclosed in an A-B-A inclusio involving demonic exorcism), principles of inclusion (9:50), right use of power (51-55), cost of following (57-62), and so on to 10:42 (inclusion of women and different forms of service). The Transfiguration nominates Peter, James and John as joint successors, rather than a single “pope”, then Luke embarks on a structured examination of what succession looks like. The Transfiguration is more than a stand alone incident, it deserves more consideration within the greater structure of Luke’s narrative intent than can be covered here.
In my opinion Luke’s whole enterprise (Luke/Acts) is very much concerned with succession, especially dealing with issues surrounding Pauline/Petrine followers, a topic far too big to address here. But if this is only partially correct, then the succession issues discussed above sit at the heart of Luke’s narrative purpose.
I will come back and touch on Elijah separately, if I may.
Frank Booth
Ian
A little more on the person of Elijah. Elijah was the iconic eschatological figure in Second Temple Judaism. Following not only Malachi (Malachi 4:3 in Christian Bibles) but also similar references in other contemporary Jewish writings, it was widely understood that “Elijah must come first” before the Messiah, the harbinger of the Messianic age. This was so firmly entrenched that all four Gospel writers find it necessary to reference John the Baptist as fulfilling the Elijah expectation before they can properly establish Jesus as the Messiah. Even today when Jewish families celebrate Passover, they prepare a place for Elijah (or reference him otherwise) as part of their celebration. I am not sure if this custom was fully established in Luke’s time, nor of his significance in a Passover context, (there are plenty of folk around who can answer those questions), but it does very much place Elijah in an Exilic setting, so may well have a bearing on your query why Luke chooses to use the word “Exile” in his text.
Frank Booth
Is not Jesus the true Israel/Son covenant keeper, not exiled in the inauguration of the new covenant on his blood.
He, at the same time inverts the exile, and embodies the exodus, from slavery, to sin,: from death to resurrection life.
I’ve been unable to post the past few days due to a glitch with my laptop. If I had I would have posted this comment earlier and elaborated on it:.
The Transfiguration of Our Lord ties the Old and New Testaments together into one continuous revelation of God’s Providential plan for creation and for us; the Good News in unveiled in its fullest. A bridge between the earthly and Divine realms is provided. Understanding And just as the eyes of Peter, James, and John were opened when they woke up and they were enclosed by the cloud, ours can be too by prayerful meditation on its significance. The more we learn of Elijah and Moses and how they prefigured Christ, the more we understand with our mind, our “nous”, and spirit Jesus and the Good News!
Thanks for this – very helpful for Sunday’s sermon.
The other two men who see the hidden Jesus more fully revealed are the unnamed disciples on the way to Emmaus in Lk 24.
Perhaps Elijah also represents the threat of royal power (Ahab, Jezebel) and resistance to it in the name of God.
Saul/Paul’s encounter with the glory of the risen Jesus resulted on both!; exile and exodus.
As with him, so with all believers… as we encounter, look, gaze, ruminate on the Glory of Jesus.