About eight days after he said this, he took Peter, John, and James and went up the mountain to pray. While he was praying his face changed in appearance and his clothing became dazzling white. And behold, two men were conversing with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem. Peter and his companions had been overcome by sleep, but becoming fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. As they were about to part from him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good that we are here; let us make three tents, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” But he did not know what he was saying. While he was still speaking, a cloud came and cast a shadow over them, and they became frightened when they entered the cloud. Then from the cloud came a voice that said, “This is my chosen Son; listen to him.” After the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. They fell silent and did not at that time tell anyone what they had seen.
THE TRANSFIGURATION of Jesus wasn't made much of in the Catholic Church when I was growing up, my understanding is that the Orthodox tradition considers it as far more important an event. I recall reading someone who said it was a good example of the difference between the light-filled Orthodox tradition and the Western gloom that grew out of Augustine's late writings, due to his own confessed inadequate education in Greek. I don't know if that's accurate though I'm no big fan of Augustine.
Reading it and commentaries today, something jumped out at me that I'd failed to see in the decades that I'd heard it in Church and read it. Probably because of the way the text is translated in this version. I'd never thought of what Jesus, Moses and Elijah (representing The Law and the Prophets) were doing while the Apostles watched in amazement and fear, they were talking about, "his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem."
I wonder what they said about it, especially what Moses would have said. Maybe warning him that the People he was to lead out of the past were going to be a lot more trouble than the ones who he led out of slavery in Egypt.
Looking at other translations, hardly any of them use the word "exodus" to describe what was going to happen in Jerusalem, I don't know if this modern Catholic translation is better or worse than those but I like the connection with the Jewish prophetic tradition being emphasized in it. Having noticed that, I'm sure it will figure into any further thinking about it.
Also, there is the dark cloud that envelops the clueless Peter and John and James which is like the terrifying darkness that enveloped Abraham as part as his experience in sealing the Covenant with God. Fr. Scott Lewis says about that:
Covenants were serious affairs in the ancient world and were sealed in blood. God had promised Abram (he had not received his name change yet) land and many descendants. He would become the father of a great nation. God told him that his descendants would be more numerous than the stars in the sky.
That was a huge promise and most people would have laughed at such a preposterous idea. After all, he was getting on in years and there was no sign of an heir. But he believed the impossible; he believed God, despite all contrary evidence. And in God’s eyes, that counted for righteousness.
That promise would become his guiding light and lodestar for his entire life. But he hesitated a moment — how would he know that all of this would come to pass? A heifer, goat and a ram were sacrificed and cut in two, and placed with a turtledove and a pigeon.
All of this is very alien to our own thinking, but it was significant then. Abram fell into a trance — a deep sleep — and was surrounded by terrifying darkness, which was understood as the divine presence.
The light and the torch passing between the halves of the sacrificial animals sealed the deal. Abram could rest easy. His life took many twists and turns, not all of them positive, but he remained faithful to the promise.
God does not grant us such dramatic signs of affirmation to bolster our faith. God is much more subtle — our reassurance might come in an ordinary event or sign or might even be an inner feeling of peace and joy. But the principle is the same: It is not enough merely to believe in God — we also need to believe God. That means believe God’s promises, God’s presence in the world and in our lives, and God’s goodness and fidelity to us.
Our continual embrace of God’s grace, despite our weaknesses and mistakes, counts for righteousness in God’s eyes. We do not have to win the race, but we must complete it regardless of how long it takes.
In the story, also, is something that I've thought about here recently in regard to the descriptions of the body of the risen Jesus in the various Gospels. The description of the body of the transfigured Jesus, Moses and Elijah aren't merely the usual physical bodies we're used to, they don't look the same, they appear "in glory" different enough so the Apostles know the difference and it scares them. It is like the risen Jesus telling people not to touch him because there is something different about his body than before - maybe he made an exception for the doubting Thomas.
This is another of the Scripture texts that are a problem for those who deny the resurrection on the basis of physical science, it's clear that while the bodies of the three might be physical, in some sense, they are more than that - appearing and disappearing, changed in appearance, dazzlingly light producing, etc. So the post-enlightenment demotion of religion on the basis of science would have to explain that or reject the passage.
I will point out that if these bodies "in glory" were not merely physical in our everyday sense that they could be expected to have qualities and properties that aren't covered by physics and our everyday experience of the physical universe. So that's not a real means of denying them. Though you don't have to believe it. But anyone who does can respond to materialist derision with that point.
It also is another problem for those within Christianity who deny the salvation of those who came before Jesus, Moses and Elijah weren't Christians and there's no record of their Baptism or First Communion in evidence. It also is a problem for those Christians who claim that the resurrection will come only with the last judgement because both of those dead guys were awake in their glorified bodies standing and talking with Jesus who wasn't dead. And apparently they were going to go on their way, perhaps by walking. Any self-identified believer would have to test their theological ideological positions against this story and I don't see how they can overcome what it says on those counts.
It's a short passage in the Gospels but it's something that's full of interesting points. I'm sure I won't think about it the same way again.
No comments:
Post a Comment