Exegesis
by Russell Pregeant
Luke 9:28-36 (37-43)
All three versions of the transfiguration story (see Mk 9:2-8, Mt 17:1-8) provide a glimpse of Jesus’ post-resurrection glory. In each case it comes just after Jesus has made his first prediction of his death and resurrection, issued a call to discipleship as cross-bearing, and proclaimed that some of those present will live to see the coming of the kingdom. The effect is therefore to place Jesus’ death and the potential suffering of his followers in the context of the promise of future vindication and heavenly bliss. There are, however, distinctive features in Luke’s version that reflect particular emphases of Luke-Acts.
In keeping with Luke’s emphasis on prayer (e.g. Lk 3:21, 11:1-13, 18:1-8; Acts 1:14, 4:23-31), we find that Jesus takes the three disciples up the mountain specifically to pray and that Jesus’ transformation occurs during his prayer. Interestingly, Luke does not say that Jesus was transfigured but instead reports that "the appearance of his face changed." The Greek term rendered "transfigured" in Mark and Matthew is metamorphousthai, and Alfred Plummer suggests that Luke has avoided this word because of its association with "the metamorphosis of heathen deities."1 In any case, the Lucan version emphasizes the heavenly quality of the vision by using the term "glory" (doxa) of Moses and Elijah in verse 31 and of Jesus in verse 32. It preserves the sense religious awe or mysterium tremendum et fascinans ("fearful and fascinating mystery")2 by reporting the disciples’ terror. In fact, the shifting of that element to the point at which the disciples are overshadowed by a cloud increases its force, since in Luke’s version the disciples actually enter the cloud.
Luke alone relates the content of Jesus’ conversation with Moses and Elijah. They speak "of his departure (exodos), which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem" (v. 31). The reference is to Jesus’ ascension, an event narrated only in Luke-Acts (Lk 24:50-51; Acts 1:6-11), but the term exodos plays into the theme of prophecy and fulfillment by evoking the memory of the Hebrews’ escape from bondage. The notation that this exodos will take place in Jerusalem also reflects Luke’s understanding of the city’s role in God’s plan of salvation-history. It is the point from which the mission of Jesus’ followers must begin (Acts 1:4, 8) and where Jesus—as is appropriate for a prophet—must die (Lk 13:33). All three synoptic gospels present the disciples’ grasp of the vision as inadequate, and in all three this point is underscored by their failure to cast out a demon in a story that follows shortly (Mt 17:14-21; Mk 9:14-29; Lk 9:37-43a). Although Luke moderates Mark’s harsh treatment of the twelve in the course of the gospel, the editing of Peter’s response to the vision actually sharpens the negative implications. In place of Mark’s, "He did not know what to say" (Mk 9:6), Luke has, "not knowing what he said" (Lk 9:33), which emphasizes the inappropriateness of Peter’s suggestion of building three dwellings or booths for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. As in all versions Peter misses Jesus’ superiority over Moses and Elijah. His statement that "it is good for us to be here" (v. 33) reveals his failure to grasp that the present moment, however glorious, is but a prelude to the ominous event in the future that must precede the final glory: Jesus’ crucifixion. As in 13:33, Jesus cannot tarry but must be on his way to fulfill the prophecies necessary to the completion of God’s plan.
The figures of Moses and Elijah clearly connect Jesus to the Israelite heritage and thus to God’s plan for the redemption of Israel, but more specific associations are also possible. Luke Johnson suggests "that they represent the Law and the Prophets, or figures who have ascended into heaven, or eschatological figures who are expected to return."3 Alan Culpepper adds that they "may have christological significance in that Jesus has demonstrated his mastery over the sea and fed the multitude in the wilderness (fulfilling the pattern of Moses at the Exodus) and has multiplied loaves, cleansed lepers, and raised the dead (fulfilling the prophetic works of Elijah and Elisha)."4 In any case, although the two figures play the positive role of linking Jesus to the Israelite past, Jesus stands apart from them as the climactic moment in the ongoing history of salvation. All three versions of this event underscore this point with the concluding notation that in the end Jesus stands alone before the disciples.
The story has an obvious significance in relation to Jesus’ interactions with the disciples. Although they do not fully grasp that significance at this point, the heavenly voice highlights Jesus’ divine status. Also, Luke’s substitution of "My Chosen" for Mark’s "the Beloved" emphasizes his unique role in God’s plan. Robert Tannehill suggests that in Luke’s version the scene also has significance for Jesus, since he "is discussing with Moses and Elijah the future course of his own life." The reader must therefore imagine that Jesus’ prayer and the conversation entail "a process of preparation and planning…a search for God’s will disclosed in scripture" through which Jesus "is seeking and being given the clarity of purpose which will enable him to ‘set his face to go to Jerusalem’ (9:51)."5 If Jesus here is truly setting "his face to go to Jerusalem," then the story also introduces a note of contingency in a narrative that generally stresses God’s predetermined plan and the necessity of events that fulfill prophecy. Jesus’ obedience is not automatic and he does not have an innate knowledge of God’s will. He must exercise discernment and make decisions. This discernment is not the only point in the story at which this note of contingency emerges. We can discern it also in the temptation by Satan (4:1-12) and even more clearly in the scene on the Mount of Olives before Jesus’ arrest where he prays "let this cup pass from me, yet not my will but yours be done"(22:39-45).
- Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke. 5th ed. (The International Critical Commentary ; T&T Clark International: London and New York, 1989), 251.
- See Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the non-rational factor in the idea of the divine and its relation to the rational. Trans. John W. Harvey. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958), esp. 82-93.
- Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (Sacra Pagina; Collegeville, MN: The Litugical Press, 1991), 155.
- R. Alan Culpepper, "The Gospel of Luke: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections" in The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, Vol. IX (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 206.
- Robert Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Volume One: The Gospel According to Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 225.
(from www.goodpreacher.com/blog/)