Powered By Blogger

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Who Do You Say that I Am?--Exegesis of Mark 9:2-13


Mark’s core statement that that Jesus is the Son-of-God (Mark1:1) shapes the rest of the work. This theme is manifested throughout the narrative, beginning with the baptism of Jesus.  John’s baptism is followed by an apocalyptic opening of the heavens (Mark1:10) and a divine locution stating Jesus to be “my beloved Son” (Mark1:11). Jesus spends time in the wilderness (Mark1:12-13) arising from that temptation to begin the proclamation that the Kingdom of God is at hand (Mark1:15). A kingdom that the disciples behold in the transfiguration (Mk9:1). Overall the journeys are structured thematically rather than chronologically. Mark has a block specifically dedicated to religious purity (Mark2:18-3:6) and a block specifically dedicated to the kingdom (Mark3:20-4:34). These teachings are broken up with miracles. Themes change with healing of the blind in Bethsaida. Starting in Caesarea Philippi (Mark8:27) the theme is the nature and purpose of the Son-of-Man.

2) Mark’s use of six-days later connects the transfiguration with the Caesarea Philippi narrative. These stories connect grammatically with the use of “and,” as is found in the KJV, ASV, and ESV.  The question of the nature of Jesus (Mark8:27) is further considered in the transfiguration narrative.   The temporal connection, the grammatical connection and the thematic connection, establishes it as a literary unit for teaching about the Son-of-Man. Nevertheless, Marcus argues the time referent operates analogically, connecting the story to the six-days Moses was on the mountain (Exodus24:16).[1] While the theophany connection is certainly present, Mark does not establish Jesus as a new-Moses, as Marcus would indicate. As Tarrech, notes, Jesus does not descend with a glowing face, as the face is not even mentioned in Mark’s redaction, and unlike Moses (Exodus34:29), Jesus does not talk with God or anyone until the descent, among other dissimilarities.[2]

Jesus brought Peter, James and John. This group functions as the witnesses necessary to corroborate a story (Deuteronomy19:15). While many of the other disciples become static characters, these three are more dynamic. The group was selected for an intimate relationship (Mark5:37, 14:33) but they repeatedly transgressed (Mark8:32-33, 10:35, 14:29-31, 14:37, 14:66-72). Despite their faults, Jesus brought them up, by themselves, to witness the transfigured Son-of-Man. These are the righteous witnesses in contrast to the false witnesses at the trial (Mk14:56-59).

The group goes up on a high mountain. Evans argues, that the high mountain indicates a nearness to the heavens.[3] Mark used mountains for the selection of the twelve (Mark3:13), and as a place for prayer (Mark6:46), therefore mountains are not always about the relative proximity to heaven. In inter-testament writings, the use of mountains vary from military purposes (J.W. 1: 134-135), obstacles removed in the return from exile (TMos10:1-5, Bar5:4-9), a place of tranquility (SibOr3:786-793), a place of victory for God over Satan (Wis17:18-21), the place where Moses receives the divine commandments (SibOr3:253-260, Jub1:22-28), where the ark of the Covenant rests (2Mac2:3-9), where the Messiah establishes eternal rule (2Bar40:1-4) and where the arrogant individual that saw themselves like God rots (2Mac9:7-9). Of these inter-testament connotations the Mosaic connotation has the most latitude here, particularly given the appearance of Moses later in the narrative. The transfiguration narrative would function as an archetype, with Jesus either as the Mosaic Law or a renewed form of the Mosaic Law. However, none of these inter-testament connotations fit with the theme (Mark1:1). The best correspondence is with the Old Testament. On Mount Horeb, Moses and Elijah had intimate encounters with God (Exodus3:1, 1Kings19:8-14). If we equate Mount Sinai with Mount Horeb more could be added (Exodus19-34). Mount Horeb at least figuratively connects the transfiguration theophany with the previous ones.   

            3) The conjunction “and” connects this verse with, and elaborates upon, the statement that Jesus was transfigured before the disciples. The use of “and” throughout this verse connects the details that are revealed to the transfigured garments of Christ. While other Gospels give attention to the face of Jesus (Luke9:29, Matthew17:2), Mark is entirely focused on the garments. The dependent clause, stipulating a super-natural occurrence, connects the verse with the overall theme. It is a portrayal of the fully glorified, resurrected Son-of-Man. The KJV tries to harmonize the account with Matthew, by making the garments “white as snow.” However, the ESV, NIV, and the NASB, all translate it white. Mark’s emphasis on the garments, establishes a contrast between Jesus’s transfigured garments and the garmentless Jesus on the cross (Mark15:24-26).[4] This illustrates the apparent contradiction between the glorified Jesus and the crucified Jesus.

            4) Verse four begins with the appearance of Moses and Elijah. Appearance ὤφθη (Strongs#3708) is primarily defined as the use of the optical sense to witness a particular person, people group, phenomenon or object(Mark1:2, 1:16, 2:5, 2:12, 2:16, 2:24, 3:32, 4:3, 4:12, 5:6, 5:22, 5:32, 6:34, 6:48,  7:2,  8:33, 9:1, 9:8, 11:20, 12:15). Other times it is used to check on the availability of something (Mark6:38), to make certain that a particular task is accomplished (Mark1:44), to be cautionary of a particular group (Mark8:15), or to take notice of a particular situation for consideration (Mark10:28, 15:4).  Because the direct object of the appearance is Moses and Elijah, it makes the optical the most probable in this case. The emphasis is therefore on the witnessing by the disciples.

In Mark’s redaction, Moses and Elijah spoke with Jesus. Luke’s redaction has them talking about the departure (Luke9:31). Mark’s emphasis therefore is to convey the divinity of Jesus; the suffering piece will come later. In putting it later, the contrast between the Jesus that is talking with Moses and Elijah, and the Jesus on the cross, being mocked by the criminals (Mark15:32) is more apparent.[5]

5) Peter directs a statement to ‘Rabbi’, about building three tabernacles. In other Gospels, Peter directs it to “Lord” (Matthew17:4) and “Master” (Luke9:33). Mark uses Rabbi at targeted points to emphasize teaching moments in Jesus ministry, the resurrection in the transfiguration, prayer in the fig tree (Mark11:21), and fulfillment of mission in the arrest narrative (Mark14:45). Peter goes on to state that it was good for them to be there and expresses a desire to build tabernacles for Jesus, Moses and Elijah that they might be able to stay in the glory. However, this question is not answered by Rabbi, but by the cloud, who corrects this faulty understanding.

6) Peter did not know how to respond to this saturated phenomenon, and the entire group was terrified by the phenomena. Peter did not understand what it meant to be the Son-of-Man, as was the case at Caesarea Philippi. A similar portrayal is given in Gethsemane (Mark14:40).[6] This connects these stories by establishing the transfiguration as a foreshadowing of the resurrected Son-of-Man. Out of fear, Peter operated from understanding the Son-of-Man, as one who is glorified (Daniel7:13) and expresses a desire to stay in that glory. Mark places the terror after the transfiguration itself, whereas in other Gospels, it occurs when the cloud comes (Luke9:34) and after the cloud has come (Matthew17:6). The terror comes from seeing God; Mark establishes that Jesus is God by placing it before the appearance of the cloud. It is not the God in the cloud that is causing the fear, but the God incarnate that is transfigured before the disciples.

7) A cloud is formed, it overshadows them and it voices a statement. Mark personifies the cloud, having a voice come out of it. Implied within this is that God is the one speaking through the cloud. This divine locution distinguishes itself from the former (Mark1:10-11) in several ways. Instead of the sky opening up, a cloud forms. The Spirit does not descend, in this account and everyone, not just Jesus, is able to behold it.  Both have the voice confirming that Jesus is the beloved Son. Luke uses “chosen one” instead of “Son” illustrating Mark’s emphasis of Jesus being the Son-of-God (Mark1:1).  The baptismal account has the voice expresses being ‘well-pleased’ with the Son (a sentiment picked up in Matthew’s transfiguration (Matthew17:5)), whereas in the transfiguration account the voice issues a command, to listen to the Son. Listen ἀκούετε (Strongs#191) has three primary uses with some degree of overlap between them, first the receiving of an auditory transmission of information (Mark2:1, 3:8, 3:21, 4:9,  4:33, 5:27, 6:20, 6:55, 7:16, 10:47, 11:18, 12:28, 14:58, 15:35) second, to give consideration to an auditory transmission of information (Mark4:3, 6:2, 6:16, 7:14, 10:41) and third, to understand an auditory transmission of information (Mark4:9, 4:15, 7:16, 8:18, 12:29, 14:11). Listen is used, here in a context of discussing the nature of the Son-of-Man to which the disciples cannot understand. Therefore, the cloud is beckoning the disciples to understand the mission of the Son-of-Man. However, Marcus believes there is an element of praxis to the clouds statement, relating it to taking up one’s cross and following Jesus from prominence to disgrace (Mark8:34).[7] However, this section is not about the disciples, this section is about the Son-of-Man and listen used in this fashion elsewhere in Mark.

            There is a noticeable contrast between the Jesus that here is confirmed and glorified by God as a beloved Son, and the Jesus on the cross that asks why God has forsaken him (Mark15:34).[8] These contrasts point to a proper understanding of the Son-of-Man as encompassing glory and suffering. The one that wishes to be the greatest must be the slave of all (Mark10:43-45). It is a rejection and reversal of human conceptions of glory and righteousness. 

8) Suddenly, occurring simultaneously, everything went away. As the disciples witnessed what was around them, they saw no one. Grammar excludes Jesus from the statement, Jesus remained, but Moses, Elijah and the cloud had departed.

Because the glory did not last, Stein suggests, that this was not a pre-Marcan resurrection account.[9] Stein points to several dissimilar elements using the common depictions of the resurrected Jesus. Ultimately, it is an empty exercise in source criticism, on both sides, speculating about narrative origins. Mark uses this story as a foreshadowing of the crucifixion and resurrection as is seen in the many contrasts and linguistic connections being implemented. Beyond, this Mark is not organized chronologically, but topically. The empty tomb is only properly understood in the light of the discussion in this section. Mark is linking this narrative with the cross and resurrection. Giving merit to the claim that this is Mark’s depiction of the resurrected Son-of-Man.

9) On the way down the mountain, Jesus instructs the disciples not to convey what they witnessed to anyone. However, there are conditions attached to it. The information may be divulged only after the Son-of-Man rose from the dead. The Son-of-Man reference connects it explicitly with the Caesarea Philippi discussion. Rise ἀνίστημι (Strongs#450) is defined primarily as an ascent of a human being, typically from a seated position to a standing position(Mark1:35, 2:14, 5:42, 7:24, 9:27, 10:1; Matthew9:9; Luke1:39, 4:16, 4:38). Second, it is taking an adversarial position against another (Mark3:26, 14:57, 14:60; Matthew26:62; Luke4:29, 10:25, 23:1). Third, it is the ascent from Sheol of a being or principality into a restored, renewed and resurrected existence (Mark8:31, 9:9, 9:10, 9:31, 10:34, 12:23, 12:25, Matthew12:41).  Because it is rising from the dead, the ascent from Sheol, best addresses its meaning.

Because the glorified, transfigured Son-of-Man is only properly understood in the light of the completion of the Son-of-Man’s mission, the disciples must not reveal the phenomenon. Beyond this, the disciples did not understand the mission of the Son-of-Man (Mark9:22), without this proper understanding they were incapable of relating the nature of the Son-of-Man in its proper context.[10]

10) The disciples seized upon Jesus statement about rising from the dead. Mark also used “seized” with the arrest narrative (Mark14:46) connecting these stories. The disciples seized upon the thought of the Son-of-Man dying and being resurrected only to see later guards seize the Son-of-Man to carry out that death and resurrection. The disciples discussed the concept of the Son-of-Man dying and rising, not necessarily as part of the dead in the general resurrection, but rather from among the dead in a particular resurrection.[11] Hence, the following verses are eschatologically driven.

11) They, the group of disciples that were present, then formulate a question related to their understanding of the Son-of-Man. They ask Jesus why the scribes say that Elijah must come first. Here the disciples have in mind Malachi 4:5-6 where Malachi prophesies that before the day-of-the-LORD comes, Elijah would come and convert the people. Essentially, the disciples are having troubles with believing it is the day-of-the-LORD when Elijah has not returned.

12) Jesus response is two-fold, first Jesus affirms that Elijah does come first, but second directs their attention away from Elijah’s part in the day-of-the-LORD to the Son-of-Man, who ultimately plays the commanding role. Jesus affirms that Elijah does first come and that Elijah’s role is to restore all things. Elijah does participate in the restoration of all things and that restoration occurs before the day-of-the-LORD. And yet, Elijah is not the One that will bring forth the day-of-the-LORD, rather the Son-of-Man. The pathway to the day-of-the-LORD is not a glorious path, but a path of suffering and contempt. While it is written that Elijah will restore all things it is also written that the Son-of-Man must suffer. The glory that the disciples had just seen only comes about after the suffering and contempt being shown to the Son-of-Man. Mark therefore is emphasizing the contrast between the glorified Son-of-Man with the pathway to that glorification being suffering and contempt.

13 Jesus returns to the question of Elijah. The Son-of-Man has to suffer like Elijah. As the disciples understanding of the Son-of-Man required some adjustments, so did their understanding of Elijah.  Mark has established John the Baptist as an archetypal Elijah (Mark1:6, 2Kings1:8) and the one that came before the day-of-the-LORD (Malachi4:5-6, Mark1:2-3) pointing to Jesus who would surpass him (Mark1:7). Matthew’s redaction establishes Elijah as John the Baptist (Matthew17:13). John the Baptist was imprisoned and eventually beheaded (Mark6:14-29) illustrating the suffering that the Elijah-archetype endured. They did to John the Baptist what was written about Ahab’s intentions for Elijah, death (1Kings19:1-2).  The claim is that only through the suffering of the archetypal Son-of-Man and Elijah, does the day-of-the-LORD come.

Conclusion) After the descent, the disciples re-unite and a crowd gathers around (Mark9:14). There is an argument between the scribes and the disciples over the inability to cast out a spirit (Mark9:18). The boy is brought to Jesus and immediately has a convulsion (Mark9:20). Jesus rebuked the spirit (Mark9:25). The boy became like a corpse with those around thinking he was dead (Mark9:26). However, foreshadowing the raising of the Son-of-Man, Jesus raised this boy (Mark9:27). The central point is re-emphasized that the Son-of-Man must be delivered and killed, but will rise (Mark9:31). However, the disciples were unable to understand (Mark9:32). The theme then shifts to discipleship.    

Bibliography

Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27-16:20. WBC 34b. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001.
Marcus, Joel. Mark 9--16. Anchor Bible Commentary 27a. New York: Doubleday, 2009.
Stein, Robert H. "Is the Transfiguration (Mark 9:2-8) a Misplaced Resurrection Account." Journal of Biblical Literature, 1976: 79-96.
Tàrrech, Armand Puig i. "The glory on the mountain: the episode of the transfiguration of Jesus." Translated by John F Elwolde, & Roberto Martinez. New Testament Studies, April 2012: 151-172.


[1] Marcus,631
[2] Tarrech,155-156
[3] Evans, 35
[4] Ibid,641
[5] Marcus,641
[6] Ibid,633
[7] Ibid,639
[8] Ibid,641
[9] Stein,91-92
[10] Evans,42
[11] Marcus,643