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.
No comments:
Post a Comment