Ship of Fools: Transfiguration

Thread: Transfiguration Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029687

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

For those following the Lectionary Calender, next Sunday is Transfiguration Sunday.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%209:2-9&version=NIV

There is so much to unpack in this Gospel lesson, it is hard to begin.

I guess the question I have is what part of the story is most important to you? Why?

For me the most important part is that Jesus and the three disciples came down from the mountain. Of course, this meant the eventual crucifixion of Jesus, but he did come down the mountain.

When Peter asks Jesus if it would be okay to build three booths for Moses, Elijah, and Jesus I wounder if Jesus saw this as yet another temptation--oh it would have been so easy just to stay on that mountain.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

I have to admit I've always had difficulty understanding the Transfiguration, and what the point of it was supposed to be.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I regard the Transfiguration as very exciting, but have long been puzzled why it appears in the readings now as well as on the 6th August which is the Transfiguration. Does anyone know?

The disciples, obviously, normally saw Jesus with his human nature visible. Briefly on the mountain, three of the disciples saw Jesus in his divine nature. They also saw him endorsed by Moses and Elijah, the Law and the Prophets.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

It's one of the ways in which Christ manifested his glory, which is pretty much the theme of the Epiphany season. For Lutherans, as that season draws to its close, the final Sunday is Transfiguration, although I understand a lot of other folks do it in August.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

Interesting lectionary divergence. For us, next Sunday is just the next Sunday in OT. The gospel happens to conclude Mark 1, but that's just because we're reading Mark's account of Jesus' earthly ministry in order. And Epiphany isn't a season, but one of the five solemnities that make up the Christmas season. Is this "Transfiguration Sunday" always the third Sunday of February, or always the Sunday before Ash Wednesday, or something else I can't think of?

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

The last Sunday before Ash Wednesday. The RCL calls it "Last Epiphany" (so it could be the 6th, 7th or 8th depending on date of Easter) and the Transfiguration story from Matthew, Mark or Luke are used in years A, B, and C, respectively. Interestingly the same passage is also the Gospel indicated for Lent 2 in each of the years, although an alternate passage is also indicated. It seems strange to me that the same passage would be read just a few weeks apart!

In the Episcopal lectionary, the Luke account of the Transfiguration is used in all 3 years, but (I'm not sure how many Episcopal parishes are still using that as opposed to the RCL. I guess that would be an Eccles question.)

I had once heard the Transfiguration story described as "a misplaced story of a post-Easter appearance," although I'm skeptical about that.

[ 09. February 2015, 20:19: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
I guess that would be an Eccles question.)
...

I'll try and avoid being too ecclesiantical here, but I've a longstanding interest in lectionaries as a form of exegesis. The way scripture is chopped up, paired up, re-sequenced and re-narrativized is a form of interpretation that fascinates me.

I can see a fittingness to reading the Transfiguration before Lent: regrounding ourselves in Christ's glory and splendor before we trudge with him through the humiliation he endured for our sake. The Roman lectionary takes up this impulse in having the Transfiguration read on Lent 2, as preparation for the more Passion focused latter part of Lent. Really, this is taking up a structuring impulse that's already there in the synoptics.

I have to say I agree that it does seem a little odd to have it post as a pre-Lent reading and as Lenten pre-Passion reading. I wonder where the RCL got the idea from?

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
I can see a fittingness to reading the Transfiguration before Lent: regrounding ourselves in Christ's glory and splendor before we trudge with him through the humiliation he endured for our sake.

In a sense, this for me is "the point" of the Transfiguration story...but allow me a digression to get to that point.

Jesus' first "public" miracle at the wedding at Cana has always struck me as odd. Imagine you are Jesus. For your first miracle what would you do? Cure a leper? Restore sight to the blind? Make the mute speak? Raise the dead? But what does Jesus do?

He makes sure that a party can go on a little longer.

Really?? And what was the point of that? It isn't very splashy as a way to show the power of God. It doesn't seem to serve any deep religious purpose ("Because you believe in me...have some wine!"). But what we are told is that, even then, he had disciples with him. And the miracle at Cana was done for their benefit. Unlike the host of the party, who apparently had no idea anything was going on, the disciples were present for the miracle.

So I figure the purpose of the Cana miracle was to show to the disciples, just starting off with this man Jesus, that he wasn't just an ordinary rabbi. He was something different.

Now we move forward to the Transfiguration. They are about to head to Jerusalem and, frankly, what happens to Jesus there is enough to shake one's faith that he is anything special. He is whipped, and he seems powerless to stop it. He is sentenced to die and mocked, and no miracle happens to prevent it. He carries his cross and stumbles along the way. He is nailed to the cross and dies. Just like any ordinary human. That is more than enough to make even the most fervent believer doubt.

So, prior to undergoing all of this, Jesus stops with a select important few of his followers and gives them something to hold on to...the Transfiguration. This is the Messiah. This is The One. No matter what happens in Jerusalem, they always have this knowledge. They saw and heard it themselves. The suffering and death on the cross will still happen, but the Transfiguration lets them know that it is happening because Jesus is letting it happen.

This doesn't mean that they really understood, at the time, what he was doing, but the Transfiguration served to bolster their faith during the trial that was to come. So, too, it is altogether fitting for it to be read as we head into Lent.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

"As they were coming down from the mountain,, he ordered them to tell no one about what they had seen until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead" Mark 9

This is why the reading comes near the beginning of Lent, as a sort of preview of the Pascal mystery.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
"As they were coming down from the mountain,, he ordered them to tell no one about what they had seen until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead" Mark 9

This is why the reading comes near the beginning of Lent, as a sort of preview of the Pascal mystery.

I think that you're right. The Transfiguration is one of the key moments - from here everything seems to point towards Holy Week.

Back to the question of understanding the Transfiguration, I have long shared the puzzlement of Trudy Scrumptious. I don't find it an easy incident to preach on. I offer one thought. What if it wasn't Jesus who changed, but the disciples? Is this more a story of how their understanding and perception was changed?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

That God tells us that Jesus is his beloved son - and by implication, all of us

Eastern Orthodox Churches say that the Transfiguration points to the restoration of the divine image in humanity.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That God tells us that Jesus is his beloved son - and by implication, all of us

Eastern Orthodox Churches say that the Transfiguration points to the restoration of the divine image in humanity.

But, of course, according to the synoptic gospels, God had already said this when Jesus was baptised by John.

I also think it is interesting that John's Gospel doesn't have this incident. Is this because the WHOLE of that Gospel is an affirmation of the Transfiguration?

I think it is also worth bearing in mind 2 Peter 1:16-18, which is a clear reference to this story. What significance you give to it will depend upon your views on the authorship and dating of 2 Peter. But at the very least, it indicates how the early church understood the message of the story: "eyewitnesses of his majesty."

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

First--I did not realize that in this one instance there can be so much variance in the lectionary. I would say this could be a topic for the Ecclesiasantics board.

I agree that the perceptions of the disciples changed at least for the moment, but it did not take very long before they could not see beyond their noses, eventually hiding in backrooms for fear.

I find it interesting Mark says Peter blurts out about building the booths because he did not know what to say because they were so afraid. In the previous story, when Jesus announces he is about to be crucified and then rebukes Peter, calling him the devil, but here Mark and the other synoptics are willing to give Peter a pass. Peter keeps messing things up, why give him a pass here?

Just as an aside about the wedding at Cana--yes John claims this was Jesus' first miracle (more of a sign), it does not continue an old, tired party in my mind, it changes the party, making it anew. (Let's drink some wine!--oops slipping into Godspell here)

[ 11. February 2015, 02:43: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That God tells us that Jesus is his beloved son - and by implication, all of us

Eastern Orthodox Churches say that the Transfiguration points to the restoration of the divine image in humanity.

Leo that's really good. There's one thing, though, that you say that I'm going to disagree with you about.

quote:
"On the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus was bathed in light."

I think that rather than being bathed in light, the light came from inside him. I think he let the disciples see the divine light that was always there, but which normally was veiled in flesh.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I think that rather than being bathed in light, the light came from inside him. I think he let the disciples see the divine light that was always there, but which normally was veiled in flesh.

That's interesting - I didn't think much about the 'bathed' bit.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I find it interesting Mark says Peter blurts out about building the booths because he did not know what to say because they were so afraid. In the previous story, when Jesus announces he is about to be crucified and then rebukes Peter, calling him the devil, but here Mark and the other synoptics are willing to give Peter a pass. Peter keeps messing things up, why give him a pass here?

What Peter had to say about building booths was merely silly. When Jesus says that he will be put to death, what Peter had to say was a rejection of very important information that the disciples needed to hear.

I think it was entirely appropriate for Jesus to ignore the silliness and insist that the serious matter not be denied.

Moo

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
What Peter had to say about building booths was merely silly.

Possibly it was silly; he was scared witless and babbling. There are more sympathetic ways of viewing Peter's proposal. One concerns the natural human reaction to an amazing moment: the desire to 'pin it down' and make it last just a little while longer. Another is the recognition that, while building booths may have not been quite the right thing, Peter was offering to serve Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. Offers of service and generosity to Jesus are worth something, IMO, even if the content needs to be redirected.

quote:
When Jesus says that he will be put to death, what Peter had to say was a rejection of very important information that the disciples needed to hear.

It was also a rejection of something horrifying and incomprehensible. None of the disciples had heard of or seen resurrection before. Peter showed that he grasped very well the first half of what Jesus was saying; after "death" panic and rejection would be pretty understandable reactions.

Following Western tradition, I see the Transfiguration as prefiguring the Resurrection. It was a demo, if you like - Jesus drawing a picture for the disciples of what resurrection would be like, because words were failing to convey the content.

I also found some richness in Orthodox iconography about the Transfiguration. It's usually depicted as happening in a
mandorla, that pointy-ended oval shape. This indicates a mystical occurrence. This is also called a vesica piscis and represents the overlap of two circles in a Venn diagram. One way of thinking about the Transfiguration, then, is as the mystical overlap of heaven and earth, with Jesus in the middle of it. This blog post on Transfiguration and iconography was interesting.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

I was at Taizé last year for the feast of the Transfiguration. The brother doing the Bible introduction for Old People™ (means over 30 [Biased]

) explained to us that this feast is a very big deal in the Eastern churches and therefore they always celebrate it.

Anyway, onto the text… the main reflection of the day was that what is transfigured is Jesus’ humanity – his face and his clothes. Apparently Brother Roger was fond of saying that what God wants to transfigure is our frailty and vulnerability. Most of us try to hide and cover our weaknesses and vulnerabilities but actually if we’re prepared to be up front about them, God can transfigure that vulnerability and make something very beautiful out of it. We are very close to God (and also useful to other people) if we will expose our frail, soft side instead of pretending to be stronger and more in control than we really are.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I think that rather than being bathed in light, the light came from inside him. I think he let the disciples see the divine light that was always there, but which normally was veiled in flesh.
That's interesting - I didn't think much about the 'bathed' bit.

I thought some more about this - even wondered if I am heretical in thinking that the glory was derivative.

Then I thought of John;'s gospel where Jeesus talks of the glory thou has given me.'

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

I think the most important part of the story is the actual experience of the disciples - which for each one was probably unique. The theological interpretations - then and now - are for the theologians.

What many Christians will relate to is the numinous feeling of being in the presence of someone who was more than a man. A feeling which many ordinary Christians may well have shared - and which many learned theologians may not have.
I had one such experience myself. It brought tears to my eyes.

I heard a vicar preaching on this (the biblical event, not my own vision), and his sermon provoked tears of a different kind. It was patently obvious that he had not had a similar blessing, and his dog-in-a-manger attitude to those who had was to belittle it, and urge them to come down off the mountain and live in the same sordid world that he was stuck in.

Had I lived a few centuries ago, I would probably have witnessed to having stood in the presence of Christ - a similar reaction to that of Peter and his booths.

All I can say with hindsight is that it was real, it was authentic, and I still feel enormously privileged and thankful for the gift. And nothing will ever make me talk it down.

A fellow non-theist might say "But weren't you mistaken?" And I would say "No. I was a Christian then. These things happen to Christians sometimes, and the best response is not, I think, to shout about it. Jesus, after all, would have told me to go home and not say a word.

[ 14. February 2015, 20:12: Message edited by: pimple ]

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I think the most important part of the story is the actual experience of the disciples - which for each one was probably unique. The theological interpretations - then and now - are for the theologians.

This is probably a large tangent, but...

I'm not sure I can accept the distinction between the disciples and theologians. Everyone interprets their experiences. And if one does so in the framework of working out where God fits in, then it is a theological interpretation.

In this passage, Peter's confused remarks about tents are theological interpretation. Perhaps (and I speculate entirely here) as a good Jew, he recognised the cloud, the light as the presence of God. And thus, the mind would go to a tent - the tent of meeting from the Exodus. Though he is clearly confused in needing three, but, nonetheless there is some theological interpretation going on.

Likewise, (picking at random, partly because Denys Turner's biography of him is to hand) Thomas Aquinas, Summa is a reaction to his experience of the divine - a working through of what he had experienced of God. Theology is not divorced from 'mysticism'. Mother Julian of Norwich is just as much a theologian as Thomas!

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

All points taken. In Peter's case I guess it was very much due to the inherent, ingrained theology that led to his enthusiastic outburst. But I think the outburst was spontaneous, as it is likely to be with any vision (inwards or outwards). And there are (at least) two levels of theology at work once the event(s) are shared with others. The hearers/readers may want to add their own five eggs to the original visionary, which is probably why Jesus so often told the recipients of his blessing to keep shtum! I read of an excellent local drama on Lazarus (which, sadly, I wasn't able to attend) in which poor Lazarus himself was sent crazy by the conflicting demands of the onlookers and the ensuing "media circus, first-century-style!

[ 16. February 2015, 18:42: Message edited by: pimple ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

It's true that, in the Est, the Transfiguration is a Very Big Deal. One of the Twelve Great Feasts. And it's in August. I couldn't figure out why it was up for discussion now!

In the Orthodox Church, we understand that the Light of the Transfiguration is the divine, uncreated Light of God's energies. And, as others have suggested here, the source of that Light is the Word Himself.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It's true that, in the Est, the Transfiguration is a Very Big Deal. One of the Twelve Great Feasts. And it's in August. I couldn't figure out why it was up for discussion now!

Because it was the gospel reading for last Sunday for those who follow the Revised Common lectionary (excepting RCs who read it on Lent 2)

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomM:

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I think the most important part of the story is the actual experience of the disciples - which for each one was probably unique. The theological interpretations - then and now - are for the theologians.

This is probably a large tangent, but...

I'm not sure I can accept the distinction between the disciples and theologians. Everyone interprets their experiences. And if one does so in the framework of working out where God fits in, then it is a theological interpretation.

Absolutely.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
All points taken. In Peter's case I guess it was very much due to the inherent, ingrained theology that led to his enthusiastic outburst. But I think the outburst was spontaneous, as it is likely to be with any vision (inwards or outwards). And there are (at least) two levels of theology at work once the event(s) are shared with others. The hearers/readers may want to add their own five eggs to the original visionary, which is probably why Jesus so often told the recipients of his blessing to keep shtum! I read of an excellent local drama on Lazarus (which, sadly, I wasn't able to attend) in which poor Lazarus himself was sent crazy by the conflicting demands of the onlookers and the ensuing "media circus, first-century-style!

Absolutely
not , venbede? Just askin'.

[ 20. February 2015, 18:43: Message edited by: pimple ]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

The changing of water into wine is the first miracle according to John.

However, the first miracle according Mark is when he confronted a demon possessed man in a synagogue.

None of the Synoptic Gospels record the changing the water into wine. This is a unique Johanine story. I would not try to harmonize John's gospel with the other Gospels. It is a stand alone gospel.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It's true that, in the Est, the Transfiguration is a Very Big Deal. One of the Twelve Great Feasts. And it's in August. I couldn't figure out why it was up for discussion now!

In the Orthodox Church, we understand that the Light of the Transfiguration is the divine, uncreated Light of God's energies. And, as others have suggested here, the source of that Light is the Word Himself.

No disagreement from us about that understanding. In our calendar, the Feast can be observed at the last Sunday before Lent, or with you in August. Most churches here that follow a calendar would opt for the pre-Lenten observance. It seems to be a better fit there, a good prelude to the solemnity of Lent.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Picking up on the Transfiguration/Passion connection:

'The Three' (Peter, James & John) are with Jesus on the mountain -- presumably all shared the experience/vision/teaching, etc.

Peter and John have huge roles on the Passion narratives, but WHAT HAPPENS TO JAMES? -- he seems to simply disappear. No commentary I have read (which is by no means all of them) deal with this.

Ideas on this? Leads to follow up?

(Or am I simply exposing my ignorance!)

(Deleted duplicate post. Mamacita, Host)

[ 07. May 2015, 02:28: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

A couple of points: Jesus had six days before the Transfiguration asked, "Who do people say that I am?" and then "Who do you say that I am?", leading to Peter's confession that "You are the Christ." In a sermon I heard a couple of years back, the homilist brought in references to Moses and Elijah, noting that they were not thought of as dead in Jesus' time, but that they were expected to play a major role in the Messiah's reign. When the voice from the cloud says, "This is my Son in whom I am well-pleased; listen to him," it confirms both Peter's confirmation, and the confirmation that Moses', and Elijah's presence brings to the event: that Jesus will usher in the Kingdom of God.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Regarding James. He and his brother were called Sons of Thunder by Jesus probably because they were all sound and fury. In Mark 10:35 ff. James and John wanted Jesus to rain brimstone on a Samaritan town because they had rejected Jesus.

In Acts 12:2 we hear that James was executed by Herod. One of the few deaths recorded in the Books of Acts, btw.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
What Peter had to say about building booths was merely silly.

I think it is neither silly, nor unimportant. To start with the latter: if it were not for this comment by St Peter, we could assume that the mentioning of Elijah and Moses was purely figuratively. That is to say, these names formally represent the Prophets and the Law here, respectively, but were not "really there". Of course, these two figures do represent the Jewish religious tradition to the disciples. But by St Peter's reaction we know that in their vision they were really present as embodied persons, Jesus really was chatting with two human beings known as Elijah and Moses, respectively, during their time on earth. So unless we want to accuse God of trickery and lies, God here showed the disciples an instance of the bodily resurrection in the afterlife. God shows Himself as God of the living, concretely through these two human persons. And furthermore, God de facto endorses here a personal rather than abstract view of salvation history. We witness an actual "physical" meeting of the old and new faith, represented by embodied persons. The disciples do not see for example some core doctrines illustrated by some abstract light play, they see three people chatting to each other, person to person.

Now, given this St Peter's reaction - while certainly confused by fear, as the gospel says - does make a certain practical sense. St Peter wishes to accommodate the people, the masters of his faith, who are really standing there right before him. It's a bit like being a Communist, and one evening coming home from work finding Marx, Engels and Trotsky chatting with each other on your backyard lawn. It is hardly amazing if your responded with a "Dear Comrades, fantastic to have you here, shall I prepare three beds for your stay?" That does not mean that you are desperately holding on to the moment, or whatever, that simply means that the only other thing that is coming to your mind other than "Holy shitballs, WTF is going on here?!" is to run some basic hospitality for your glorious leaders.

I would add that this also means that the transfiguration cannot have been so mind-blowing as to blast the disciples into catatonic silence. OK, perhaps St Peter was particularly resistant to shock, but still... This says to me that we shouldn't think of a rock concert like light show with magnified figures on gigantic screens speaking with the power of a thousand loudspeakers. I think it is just as described, Jesus turned dazzling white and two people (whom the disciples somehow recognised as Elijah and Moses) appeared next to him and began talking to him. If there was anything like a "tear in spacetime" moment, then it was rather when they were engulfed by the Divine cloud. But the transfiguration itself in fact seems relatively "ordinary", still quite "human" to me. At least ordinary and human enough for St Peter to think about providing accommodation...

Note also that the Divinity of Christ is affirmed by the Divine cloud, not (just) by the transfiguration. Indeed, all this of course parallels Christ's baptism (Mk 1:9-11). And if we take this parallel seriously, then the transfiguration shows a Divine aspect of a human activity, which is then explicitly confirmed by God's words from the cloud. In baptism the Holy Spirit (as dove) appears and comes down on the baptised. In the transfiguration, the representatives of the faith come and chat to the transfigured. So I think we see here a Divine endorsement of the passing on of the faith, both in the sense of "from person to person", and in the sense of "from Jews to Christians". Note also that God's reaction is subtly different: Mark has God being pleased with Christ's baptism, but after Jesus chats to Elijah and Moses, God tells the disciples to listen to him. Jesus will transmit the Prophets and Law to them, personally. It is the process of passing on the faith to another, and from Jews to Christians, that gets endorsed here. (As soon as God says that the disciples should listen to Christ, Elijah and Moses disappear - their Jewish faith will come to the disciples through Christ, not from Elijah and Moses themselves.)

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Happy Epiphany! Bumping this thread because Epiphany is as short as it gets this year, and The Transfiguration will be coming up in the lectionary in just a month's time.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

I have often wondered whether the response of Jesus to Peter's outburst might not have been to pre-empt any fear on Peter's part that he might have just given vent to an unforgiveable blasphemy. I can imagine the startled looks of his companions.

And Peter did tend to go off at half-cock, didn't he. Jesus nick-named him "Rock" not because he was the steady type, IMO, but to steady him, and boost his obviously fragile self-esteem.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Blasphemy? How is it blasphemy to offer to build someone a hut? Ill-considered, maybe...

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Just compulsive, I think, without malicious intent. I read Peter's exclamation as something like, "This is so cool - let's stay here forever!"

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Many commentaries and study guides I have read tie Peter's suggestion to Sukkot , the Feast of Booths, which had strong Messianic overtones. Some sources seem to assume that the Transfiguration occurred during Sukkot. As I understand it, the Orthodox churches consider the Feast of the Transfiguration to correspond with Sukkot, and celebrate it as a feast of first fruits.

If this is the case, Peter is saying "Wow! The prophecied time of the Messiah, when God will dwell ("tabernacle") with humans, has arrived! Shall we build the tabernacles/booths/sukkot?"

The implicit (pre-crucifixion and resurrection) answer, of course, is "not yet."

[ 09. January 2016, 12:50: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Well it did come straight after Peter had declared Jesus to be Messiah, So Sukkot or not, Messianic ideas would have been in Peter's mind.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Fruits are certainly blessed on the feast of the Transfiguration and I've been present when it happens. But I would have thought that is because 6 August is a date when fruits would begin to become available in Constantinople.

I don't know the exact reason why the Byzantine church chose 6 August, but the typical reason for choosing the dates of Biblical saints or events would be the anniversary of the dedication of a church.

But it's a nice coincidence with the first fruits and booths.

[ 10. January 2016, 20:28: Message edited by: venbede ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

FWiW, I found this at the OrthodoxWiki page on the Transiguration

quote:
It is believed that Christ's transfiguration took place at the time of the Jewish Festival of Booths, and that the celebration of the event in the Christian Church became the New Testament fulfillment of the Old Testament feast. Presently it is celebrated on the sixth of August, forty days before the feast, Elevation of the Holy Cross. Just as Peter, James, and John saw the transfiguration before the crucifixion so that they might know who it is who will suffered for them, the Church connects these two feasts to help the faithful understand the mission of Christ and that his suffering was voluntary.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I don't know the exact reason why the Byzantine church chose 6 August, but the typical reason for choosing the dates of Biblical saints or events would be the anniversary of the dedication of a church.

According to The Catholic Encyclopedia the Transfiguration was celebrated on different dates in different corners of Christendom, but in 1456 Pope Callixtus III had it transferred to August 6 in thanksgiving for the defeat of the Ottoman Empire at Belgrade. The sources I've looked at don't explain the Pope's theological reasoning for it, but there you are.

I think it's a stretch to try to draw a direct line between the actual timing of the Transfiguration and Sukkot (based on the Jewish calendars I checked, it seems to fall somewhere in late September to mid-October). But it does make sense to me that Peter, having had the lifelong experience of celebrating Sukkot, could have thought immediately of booths as a familiar and religiously observant way of building a temporary shelter.

[ 11. January 2016, 00:08: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

All that said, the Transfiguration appears in the Revised Common Lectionary at the end of Epiphany, which this year is Feb. 7. And it also appears as at least an optional reading during one of the Sundays of Lent, depending on whether you are Episcopalian, RC, or various Protestant traditions. Being a cradle Episcopalian, I associate it with the run up to Lent and the placement of it within the sequence of the events of Jesus' life. But maybe that's just me!

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
According to The Catholic Encyclopedia the Transfiguration was celebrated on different dates in different corners of Christendom, but in 1456 Pope Callixtus III had it transferred to August 6 in thanksgiving for the defeat of the Ottoman Empire at Belgrade.

That's why the Pope chose that date. He was adopting a major feast of the Byzantine church. My question was why the Byzantine church chose that date in the first place.

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
According to The Catholic Encyclopedia the Transfiguration was celebrated on different dates in different corners of Christendom, but in 1456 Pope Callixtus III had it transferred to August 6 in thanksgiving for the defeat of the Ottoman Empire at Belgrade.
That's why the Pope chose that date. He was adopting a major feast of the Byzantine church. My question was why the Byzantine church chose that date in the first place.

To be 40 days before Holy Cross.
(And to the following question, the date for Holy Cross is based on the invention of the relics of the True Cross by St. Helena, mother of Constantine).

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

The date of Holy Cross Day, 14 September, is based not only on the finding of the cross, but the dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.

I didn't know it was associated with the feast of the Transfiguration. What's the authority for that fact? I’m not doubting you. I’d just like to know.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
All that said, the Transfiguration appears in the Revised Common Lectionary at the end of Epiphany, which this year is Feb. 7. And it also appears as at least an optional reading during one of the Sundays of Lent, depending on whether you are Episcopalian, RC, or various Protestant traditions. Being a cradle Episcopalian, I associate it with the run up to Lent and the placement of it within the sequence of the events of Jesus' life. But maybe that's just me!

This association is relatively recent - before the year 2000, it was the gospel for Lent 4 but tended to get squeezed out by Mothering Sunday.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
That's why the Pope chose that date. He was adopting a major feast of the Byzantine church. My question was why the Byzantine church chose that date in the first place.

Here is a Byzantine Church source that gives this explanation:

quote:
Christian tradition since the fourth century has placed the site of the Transfiguration as the top of Mount Tabor, near Nazareth. There, St. Helen (approx. 250-330 AD) built the church of the Holy Transfiguration, solemnly dedicated on August 6.

In the Byzantine Rite the feast of the Holy Transfiguration has been traditionally celebrated on August 6 since at least the 8th century. In 1457 Pope Callistus III extended celebration of the feast to the entire Latin Rite Church. Thus the feast became a universal holy day, celebrated by both Eastern and Western churches on August 6.

So that ties it to the dedication of a church, as you had earlier suggested.

The same source gives this explanation of the custom of blessing fruits (italics mine):

quote:
In 680-681 the sixth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople prescribed that the "wheat and grapes" were to be blessed in church on the feast of the Holy Transfiguration. In accordance with Byzantine tradition, on this date fruits are blessed, originally apples, plums, and pears, but now especially grapes, because they are symbolic of the perpetually new transfiguration of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist and they act as a reminder of the transfiguration we must daily undergo as committed, baptized followers of Christ.

Which, personally, I find a more satisfying explanation than trying to link the date to Sukkot based on Peter's exclamation about booths (which, as I said above, seems tenuous at best).

[ 11. January 2016, 15:31: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Thanks, Mamacita. That's nice to have my speculations confirmed.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Thinking I should contribute something to this thread about the text rather than the liturgical context, I’ve been looking up Evans’ commentary on St Luke.

The reference to tents/tabernacles taken in conjunction with the cloud all suggest the Israelites travelling through the desert with God’s presence in a tent covered by a cloud.

That sounds more likely than the tents at Sukkot which recall the domestic tents of the Israelites.

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Thanks, Mamacita. That's nice to have my speculations confirmed.

Seconded. I knew I knew, but I wasn't going to be doing well to corroborate!

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
This association is relatively recent - before the year 2000, it was the gospel for Lent 4 but tended to get squeezed out by Mothering Sunday.

Perhaps in England. I imagine few people in the States have a clue what Mothering Sunday is. We're used to Mother's Day in May.

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
That sounds more likely than the tents at Sukkot which recall the domestic tents of the Israelites.

Well FWIW, I have read Jewish sources that relate the sukkot to both the domestic tents and to the Sheknah as seen in the cloud.

I have also seen a few sources—all Messianic, I think—that relate the Transfiguration to the lighting of the four seventy-five foot candelabra in front of the Temple. I have no clue whether anyone outside Messianic groups draws this connection.

Personally, I think there isn't much more than speculation that links the timing of the Transfiguration to Sukkot. But I don't think it's a stretch at all to think that Peter's comment about building booths was, in his mind, related to Sukkot. It wouldn't be the only example in the gospels. The crowd's reaction in the Palm Sunday narrative, and the significance given it by the four evangelists, has some fairly strong undertones of Sukkot, even though it happened in Spring rather than Autumn.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I have also seen a few sources—all Messianic, I think—that relate the Transfiguration to the lighting of the four seventy-five foot candelabra in front of the Temple. I have no clue whether anyone outside Messianic groups draws this connection.

Sorry. I neglected to specifically say that these candelabra were lit during Sukkot.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

OK, one last liturgical comment.

Leo refers to the wretched C of E 1980 – 2000 lectionary now, DG, confined to the dustbin of liturgical history.

The innovation was this:

Up to Rome’s revisions in the 1960s, there were three Sundays of preparation for Lent, Septuagesima, Sexagesima and Quniqugesima. They were duly in the C of E 1662 BCP. There is a comparable period of preparation in the Orthodox calendar.

In the Tridentine missal, with earlier precedent, the gospel for Lent 2 was the Transfiguration, as it looked forward to the passion.

The medieval Sarum missal, from which the BCP readings were derived, did not have that reading. As a result it did not appear in the BCP or its derivatives.

I have a bound copy of the RCL complete but with the C of E options indicated. The Transfiguration is an option for Lent 2 and also for the Sunday before Lent. If it is not used on the Sunday before Lent, the ordinary readings can be read in course.

Obviously the Transfiguration is an epiphany, even to the extent of having a comparable heavenly message as at the Baptism. If you want to keep it as a feast, OK, but that is not why the gospel reading comes at that point of the year in the RCL. And IMHO an Epiphany season stretching from Epiphany to Lent is far too prolonged and artificial.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
And IMHO an Epiphany season stretching from Epiphany to Lent is far too prolonged and artificial.

Well, fwiw, in the Presbyterian calendar (at least as expressed in the liturgical books of the PC(USA)), the last Sunday before Lent (and not August 6) is indeed observed as the the Transfiguration, with an emphasis on turning toward Lent and the passion. But Epiphany is not considered a season for us; it is a single day.

And yes, I realize I just cited Presbyterian liturgical practices. I'm sure some turning in graves could be heard.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

(I’d got the impression that Transfiguration Sunday was being kept as a climax to an Epiphany season. Hence my concern. Good on liturgical Presbyterians.)

Back to exegesis.

It is only in Luke we have the passage “They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem” which specifically identifies the Transfiguration with the passion. But I heard a sermon on the Sunday before Lent a couple of years ago which made the point that presence of Peter, James and John link the passage with the garden of Gethesemane, a different sort of revelation of God’s glory.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
In the Tridentine missal, with earlier precedent, the gospel for Lent 2 was the Transfiguration, as it looked forward to the passion.

It is still at Lent 2 in all 3 years of the current Roman Missal

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
(I’d got the impression that Transfiguration Sunday was being kept as a climax to an Epiphany season. Hence my concern. Good on liturgical Presbyterians.)

I think it is in some calendars. (Lutherans and Methodists, perhaps?)

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Here are links to the Transfiguration story in the Synoptics, if you'd like to compare/contrast:

Mark 9:2-9
Matthew 17:1-9
Luke 9:28-36

[ 12. January 2016, 16:49: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
It is only in Luke we have the passage “They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem” which specifically identifies the Transfiguration with the passion.

I really like Luke's version because he tells us what Jesus, Moses, and Elijah were talking about (or at least how he imagines it). After this, we see Jesus talking more with his disciples about how he is going to suffer and die. Perhaps Moses and Elijah were giving him strength to get through this next part.

Also, all three evangelists position this event as taking place about a week after Peter's confession that Jesus is the Messiah, that pivotal moment in the disciples' journey. Perhaps God figured, "OK, now they are ready to see what that really means."

quote:
But I heard a sermon on the Sunday before Lent a couple of years ago which made the point that presence of Peter, James and John link the passage with the garden of Gethesemane, a different sort of revelation of God’s glory.

That is interesting. So many parallels and yet the contrast of light and dark, the pristine setting up in the clouds versus the sweat, tears and blood in Gethsemene. (Also, I just noticed that Luke throws in this little detail about the disciples being sleepy at the Transfiguration. It's probably too much of a stretch to think that the lack of sleep is an intentional parallel, but it's kind of interesting.)

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I don't think that's too much of a stretch at all.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

All three accounts mention the garments being very white. For Matthew they are white as the light. (For Luke they are just dazzling. For Mark they are whiter than they could be from human washing.) These must be references to the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7 with clothing white as snow (except Christ’s garments are even whiter. Matthew’s garments are the whitest.)

But only Matthew says “his face shone as the sun. “ I can’t find any other references to faces shining like the sun. Is it a reference to Moses? Going up a high mountain (or for Luke just the mountain as though we all know which one he means) certainly suggest Moses.

The sermon I heard at Epiphany suggested that Matthew particularly wants to make the point that Christ is a new Moses, with Herod as Pharaoh slaughtering baby boys, five blocks of teaching and the teaching starting on a mountain.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
I really like Luke's version because he tells us what Jesus, Moses, and Elijah were talking about (or at least how he imagines it).

Not so much "how he imagine it" as "how he is making a theological point through symbolism and narrative.

Surely Moses and Elijah are there to show Jesus fulfills both the Law (Moses) and the Prophets (Elijah).

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

But only Matthew says “his face shone as the sun. “ I can’t find any other references to faces shining like the sun. Is it a reference to Moses? Going up a high mountain (or for Luke just the mountain as though we all know which one he means) certainly suggest Moses.

.. yes and whilst Moses had to go about unveiled, least the Israelites get struck down, whereas now the disciples are able to see the reflected glory unveiled.

Or alternatively, it's some kind of Ascension story that has been recast.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Compare Rev 1:16, and all the OT references to the light of God's face (e.g. "let the light of your face shine upon us, o God!")

Allusions are all very interesting, but I think the primary reason he wrote it was because that's what it looked like.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Why does Luke say "the mountain" as though it is obvious which one?

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

Precisely because it doesn't matter which one. It's "the mountain," the place of God's theophany.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Allusions are all very interesting, but I think the primary reason he wrote it was because that's what it looked like.

When different people describe the same incident, it is inevitable that they will emphasise different details according to their understanding.

The evangelists are not writing to provide the equivalent of the videotape of a Very Important Person. They are writing for Christian believers “that they might have faith” to demonstrate the nature of God as revealed in the life of Jesus. In other words, they are writing theologically.

They are also writing pre-protestant and pre-Enlightenment in which meaning is not only conveyed through verbal concepts but through imagery as well, or indeed primarily.

They are also writing, as they continually insist, that Christ fulfils the scriptures.

It is therefore perfectly appropriate to analyse the Biblical allusions, as was done by patristic writers as much as by post structuralist Biblical critics

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I am aware of all these things, thanks. But I do think it important to occasionally revisit the fact that a real occurrence underlies the text.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

At Candlemas I heard the reading from Malachi 3 "For he is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap; 3 he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the descendants of Levi".

The only other reference to a fuller I could remember was Mark 9, although I notice the NRSV doesn't mention a fuller.

This would make sense that Jesus if purifying the priestly tradition.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

This is a long shot, but it is possible that supported by Moses representing the Torah and Elijah representing the prophets, Jesus with his purified robes represents the priesthood.

Or rather the Jewish concept of priesthood illuminates the gospel writer's understanding of Jesus.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

The Transfiguration is coming up this Sunday ... anybody here preaching?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0