This coming Sunday is the 2nd Sunday in Lent. In yesterday’s post we considered Peter’s response of offering to make three tents – one for Jesus as well as Moses and Elijah. Today, we listen to Jesus’ instructions to the disciples as well as his probing for their understanding of what they have just seen: “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.” Then the disciples asked him, “Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” 

The disciples have just experienced the Transfiguration and heard Jesus’ prediction of his death and Resurrection – and then the disciples ask about Elijah.  It may well seem an awkward shift in a conversation, but v.10 is not merely responding to v.9, but looks back at all of 16:13-17:9, portraying the advent of Jesus as the eschatological event, as the Messiah/Son of God who fulfills his ministry as the rejected and dying Son of Man, who will be vindicated by God at the resurrection. The disciples, who know already of Jesus’ identification of John as Elijah (11:10, 14), voice the objection of the scribal opponents of Matthew’s church to the Christian claims: How can the Christ have come already, since the Scripture says that Elijah must come first (Mal 3:23-34)?

In short, Jesus’ response is that Elijah has already come in the person of John the Baptist (vv.12-13). What is sometimes confusing is “Elijah will indeed come and restore all things” (v.11)  Hadn’t Elijah/John already come? Boring offers four suggestions (365):

1. The future tense simply reflects the quotation from Malachi,
2. The future tense may reflect the scribal expectations rather than Jesus’ own understanding,
3. While Elijah/John had come the restoration in its fullness is still a future event
4. More likely, the future restoration of all things has already begun in the advent of John the Baptist.

That Elijah had already come is an important declaration. The understanding that Elijah has not yet come will appear again in this gospel (16:14, 27:45).  Elijah/John is paralleled to Jesus:  he was sent from God, was opposed and killed by members of the kingdom of this world, was Messianic in that he was the forerunner of the Messiah.  And as it was with John, so with Jesus – this generation failed to recognize him because they were persuaded by the kingdom of this world.  Beginning with John/Elijah, the disciples are forming the new citizenry of the kingdom of God.

Image credit: Sunrise, Simon Berger, Pexels, CC

This coming Sunday is the 2nd Sunday in Lent. In yesterday’s post we looked at the theological elements of what Matthew likely intended in recounting the event. Today, we consider Peter’s response: Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, “Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”

As in 16:13-20, Peter again responds, again without a full understanding.  Consider Peter’s proposal to make three tents (skēnḗ; also “booth” or “tabernacle”). What did he intend? It has been variously understood as traveler’s hut, the “tent of meeting” where God spoke with Moses outside the camp (Exod 33:7), a more formal tent used in the Festival of Booths (cf. Lev 23:42–43; Zech 14:16ff), and even as the Jerusalem Temple tabernacle.  It is this last image that Matthew may have in mind as background – notwithstanding Peter’s intention.  It is the Temple tabernacle where the Shekinah, the fiery cloud that symbolized the continuing presence of God among the people, dwelt over the ark of the covenant.  The response to Peter’s proposal is three-fold (Boring, 364)

1. The heavenly cloud of God’s presence appears, as on the tabernacle of Moses’ day and the later Temple. As of old, the heavenly voice comes from the cloud, and the God who had previously spoken on Mount Sinai only to Moses speaks directly to them. The heavenly voice speaks in exactly the same words as at the baptism (see 3:17), confirming the identity and mission of Jesus declared there, and confirming the confession Peter himself had made in the preceding scene (16:16).
2. Although three transcendent figures are present, the heavenly voice charges the disciples to hear Jesus. As in the Shema (Deut 6:4), “hear” carries its OT connotation of “obey” and is the same command given with regard to the “prophet like Moses” whom God would send (Deut 18:15; cf. 13:57). The disciples fall on their faces in fearful response to the theophany, as in Exod 34:30; Dan 10:9; and Hab 3:2 LXX.
3. Jesus comes to them (only here and 28:18 in Matthew, another parallel between this scene and the resurrection appearances) and touches them, and they see no one but “Jesus alone.” To focus all attention on Jesus and to distinguish him from Moses and Elijah, who have now disappeared, Matthew subtly rewritten Mark so that the word alone might stand here as the emphatic closing word of the scene. The heavenly visitors depart, but Jesus stays—Jesus alone. Without heavenly companions, without heavenly glory, he is the “tabernacle” (skene), the reality of God’s abiding presence with us (cf. 1:23; 28:20). The disciples descend from the mountain into the mundane world of suffering and mission, accompanied by Jesus, God with us.

“Coming down from the mountain” corresponds to going up the mountain in 17:1 and rounds off vv. 1-9 as a complete scene. Jesus’ calling the event a “vision” (only so in Matthew) does not imply the modern contrast between subjective experience and objective reality, which reduces the event to the disciples’ subjectivity. Jesus raises no questions about the reality of the event. Rather, the designation “vision” relates the event to the visionary/apocalyptic tradition, as has 16:17 (cf. Dan 8:16-17; 10:9-12, 16-19). The mention of the Passion/Resurrection as the end of the scene is not an expression of the messianic secret, as in Mark, but it reminds the disciples of all the barriers they themselves have experienced in believing Jesus as Messiah will suffer and die.  If they have had such problems comprehending and trusting Jesus’ revelation to them, then how much more so will others have trouble believing the good news.  Yet, it will be from a post-Easter perspective that others will be called to identify themselves with the disciples in the story.

Also laying in the background, another lesson each disciple, good and faithful Jews, needed to absoirb was that as great as Moses and Elijah were, each was only God’s servant, not his Son (3:17). Moses was the prototypical prophet, but he spoke of Jesus as the definitive eschatological prophet whose words must be heeded (Deut 18:15–19). Elijah’s ministry courageously stood for the law of Moses, but Jesus as the definitive teacher of that law brings it to its ultimate goal (5:17–19). 

Image credit: Sunrise, Simon Berger, Pexels, CC

This coming Sunday is the 2nd Sunday in Lent. In yesterday’s post we considered the event of the Transfiguration itself. In today’s post we look at the theological elements of what Matthew likely intends in recounting the event: And he was transfigured before them; his face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as light.  

The Transfiguration is a familiar account appearing in all three synoptic gospels. Perhaps it is  too familiar and thus we are tempted to accept it and not stop and consider the significance of it.  A limited number of modern scholars describe the narrative as a misplaced story of Jesus’ resurrection, his second coming, his heavenly enthronement, and/or his ascension. In other words, Matthew inserted/retrojected a story here for his own narrative purposes.  Under such a provision lies some misgivings about miraculous and extraordinary events.  But should we really have been surprised by the events of the Transfiguration and their location in the Matthean narrative?

The transfiguration of Jesus is an amazing event but not totally unexpected for Matthew’s readers. After all, Jesus had a miraculous birth, and his ministry began with the divine endorsement of his heavenly Father at the River Jordan baptismal scene (3:17). Jesus had done extraordinary works of compassion, demonstrated power over nature, and had taught the Law with an authority that was above and beyond any earthly authority. He had demonstrated supernatural power by feeding thousands of people with a few loaves of bread.  Thus, Jesus’ transfiguration seems consistent with all that has been revealed so far in the gospel.  Among the many things Matthew has narrated, we know this: Jesus is the Son of God, the fulfillment of Old Testament patterns and predictions, and he has promised a future Kingdom – a Kingdom whose proclamation and promotion will face continued conflict in Jesus’ remaining time as well as during the ministry of the disciples.

The account of Transfiguration echoes what has come before it in Matthew’s gospel and points to what is still to come.  Consider the following:

• The transfiguration story recalls the baptism of Jesus and the voice from heaven designates him both the powerful Son of God and the weak suffering Servant (cf. 3:17). This commission is reconfirmed as Jesus begins to instruct his disciples on the meaning and cost of discipleship (16:24–28). Thus it is important that the scene follows the first passion prediction, confirming from heaven what had been questioned by Peter (16:23).
• The transfiguration story recalls and confirms Peter’s confession (16:16). Although Peter was divinely inspired to confess, he still did not seem to grasp the full significance of that revelation. The transfiguration is its own witness to the fullness of the revelation.
• The transfiguration story connects the confession of Jesus as Son of God and Jesus’ self-identification as Son of Man who suffers, is killed, and is vindicated by God, and will appear as judge at the parousia
• The transfiguration is a momentary uncovering of the Son of God’s own intrinsic glory, which has been temporarily veiled and will be revealed again at the resurrection and ascension (John 17:4–5, 24; Phil 2:5–11; Col 1:16–19; Heb 1:1–4).  The transfiguration story anticipates the events of the Resurrection.
• The transfiguration is an integral part of Matthew’s high Christology and his eschatology. It authenticates both Jesus’ divine identity and God’s plan to occupy this world and rule it forever. 

By the transfiguration, the disciples were given a glimpse of not only who Jesus is but also what he will one day bring to this world (see 2 Pet 1:16–18). Moses and Elijah are important figures, but they are not the main actors in the redemptive drama the disciples witness. As the scene ends, Moses and Elijah have exited, and only Jesus remains in the center of the stage. The “listen to him” of the transfiguration will become the “teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you” of the Great Commission (28:18-20)

And thus the transfiguration has significance for us. It gives us a glimpse into our destiny. Transformation begins already in this life. Seeing the glory of the Lord in the Spirit, the disciples are reminded that they were created in the image of him whose glory they see (2 Cor. 3:18). This is not mystical deification but a recovery/re-recognition of the divine likeness. It takes place in the ministry of the Spirit. It is not for an elite few but for all Christians. It is not just a hope for the future (cf. 1 Cor. 15:44ff.) but begins already with the Resurrection and the coming of the Spirit. It carries with it an imperative: “listen to him.”  A significance of the transfiguration is that we obtain a glimpse of what we are and are becoming.  As St Irenaeus famously said centuries ago:  “The glory of God is the human person fully alive.”

Image credit: Sunrise, Simon Berger, Pexels, CC

This coming Sunday is the 2nd Sunday in Lent. In yesterday’s post we reviewed the theme of conflict which is a recurring theme throughout Matthew’s gospel – a conflict which is building heading toward the events of Holy Week, a week in which the faith of the disciples will be sorely tested. In today’s post we consider the event of the Transfiguration itself.

Matthew 17:1-13 is an instructional session for all the disciples – note that in v.10, Peter, James and John have joined the remainder of the group. Just as the preceding scene (16:13-28) juxtapositions the divine transcendence of Peter’s confession of Jesus as Son of God based on a revelation from heaven (16:17) with Jesus’ own teaching about the suffering Son of Man, so also in this scene the confession of the heavenly voice is juxtaposed with Jesus’ self-confession as suffering Son of Man.

The description of the Transfiguration is brief—just the first three verses of Matthew 17. But the incident becomes the context for two significant incidents for the disciples. 

• In the first, Peter’s hasty response to the glory of the Lord (…make three tents) is corrected by the same heavenly voice heard at Jesus’ baptism (17:4–8; cf. 3:17). 
• In the second, Jesus once again forbids the disciples to make him known (cf. 16:20), which leads to their question about the future coming of Elijah (17:9–13). 

Jesus answers their question cryptically in terms of a past coming of “Elijah,” and when he compares his own future suffering to what has happened to this “Elijah,” the disciples finally grasp that he is speaking of John the Baptist. Thus, the passage contains the transfiguration proper (17:1–3), a lesson on the fulfillment by Jesus of all that is promised in the Hebrew scriptures (17:4–8), and a lesson on the continuity of John the Baptist with Elijah of old and with Jesus himself (17:9–13).

Image credit: Sunrise, Simon Berger, Pexels, CC

This coming Sunday is the 2nd Sunday in Lent during Lectionary Cycle A. The Lenten readings have their own pattern. Regardless of the Cycle, the reading of the 1st Sunday in Lent is one of the Temptation in Desert accounts. The account of the Transfiguration is proclaimed on the 2nd Sunday of Lent, while the following three Sundays each reveal something about the covenant or salvific mission of Jesus. The sixth Sunday is always the Palm Sunday/Passion Sunday account.

The “Transfiguration” is the traditional gospel reading for the 2^nd Sunday in Lent and is taken from Matthew 17. Jesus and his disciples are no longer in Galilee – they have withdrawn to the area of Tyre and Sidon (15:21).  But they have not escaped on-going conflict with different sectors of secular and religious life.  Conflict is one of Matthew’s key themes which occur throughout the gospel. This key motif moves the plot and portrays the struggles involved in the advance of the Kingdom (cf. 11:12). At the outset of Matthew’s story, there was conflict between Herod the Great and the infant Messiah just born in Bethlehem (ch 2). John the Baptist announces Jesus and conflict arises between him and Israel’s religious leaders over genuine righteousness (3:7ff). Satan himself tries to tempt Jesus to gratify his human needs and accomplish his messianic mission in ways that were disobedient to the Father (4:1–11). 

Once Jesus’ public ministry began, his teaching about righteousness in the Sermon on the Mount clashed with that of the religious leaders (5:20–6:18), and the people were quick to pick up on the contrast (7:28–29). This led to further, more intense controversies about the forgiveness of sins (9:1–8) and Jesus’ associating with sinners (9:9–13). His ministry of exorcism led to the Pharisees’ charges that he was collaborating with the devil (9:34; 12:22–24). Soon he had to warn his followers that their ministries would be attended with much opposition (10:16ff; cf. 24:9). 

Many of the people who heard Jesus’ teaching and saw his miracles did not repent and follow him, and he denounced them for their unbelief (11:16–24). The rules of Sabbath observance occasioned a heated dispute (12:1–14); and after that, skeptical religious leaders with evil motives asked Jesus for a sign (12:38; cf. 16:1–4). Jesus’ parables of the Kingdom of Heaven also spoke of conflict engendered by varying responses to the message of the Kingdom (13:19–21, 38–39). Even the people in his own synagogue in Nazareth did not believe in his message (13:53–58). Jesus’ teaching about inner purity clashed with the Pharisaic tradition of ritual purity through washing hands before meals (15:1–20; cf. 16:5–12). 

Yet Jesus draws the good from the conflict: he prepares his disciples for mission (Mt 10) and for leadership following his own eventual departure – and the conflict they will face during their ministry.  A key aspect of that preparation is that the disciples clearly know the identity of Jesus. This is made clear in Matthew 16:13-21 when Jesus asks his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is…But who do you say that I am.”

With Jesus’ identity confirmed among the disciples, their formation continues. R.T. France refers to the section surrounding our gospel readings as “Private Ministry In Galilee: Preparing The Disciples” and outlines it as follows:

A. Teaching on Jesus’ mission (16:21–17:27)
i. First announcement of Jesus’ suffering and death (16:21–23)
ii. Discipleship will also involve suffering (16:24–28)
iii.A vision of Jesus’ glory (17:1–13)  ⭠our reading
iv. The power of faith (17:14–20)
v. Second announcement of Jesus’ suffering and death (17:22–23)
vi. The question of the temple tax (17:24–27)

B. Teaching on relationships among the disciples (18:1–35)
i. True greatness (18:1–5)
ii. On stumbling-blocks (18:6–9)
iii. Care for the ‘little ones’ (18:10–14)
iv. ‘If your brother sins …’ (18:15–20)
v. Forgiving personal offenses (18:21–35)

At the beginning of Mt 19, Jesus and the disciples return to Judea.

Image credit: Sunrise, Simon Berger, Pexels, CC