§22 The Identity of Jesus (Luke 9:18–36)
The question of Jesus’ identity, brought out into the open with Herod’s question in 9:9, is now answered. Whereas the Lucan account of the feeding of the 5,000 comes from Mark 6:30–44, Luke’s version of Peter’s confession has been taken from Mark 8:27–29. All of the Marcan material between these two episodes (Mark 6:45–8:26; Luke’s “Big Omission”) has been omitted by Luke not simply because of the appearance of certain repetitious materials, such as a second feeding miracle, but because of the evangelist’s desire to produce a unified section revolving around the theme of Jesus’ identity. This theme is seen especially in Herod’s question (9:9) and in Peter’s answer (9:20).
Luke 9:18–36 is made up of three parts: (1) Peter’s acknowledgment of Jesus’ messiahship (vv. 18–20), (2) Jesus’ prediction of his suffering and death and the hardships of following him (vv. 21–27), and (3) the transfiguration (vv. 28–36). In all three parts we learn something more about who Jesus is.
9:18–20 / Once again Jesus was praying before a special event took place (see also 3:21; 6:12). The question that Jesus asked of his disciples, “Who do the crowds say I am?” recalls Herod’s question in 9:9, “Who, then, is this?…” The disciples’ answer repeats what the others had been saying in 9:8. Jesus was thought to be John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the prophets of long ago (see note on 9:8 above). But the question is now put to the disciples: “Who do you say I am?” Is Jesus just one more prophet, or is he something more? Peter, as spokesman for the disciples, replies: “The Christ of God” (on the meaning of Messiah see note on 2:11 above). Peter’s confession is crucial, for it attests that in Jesus’ ministry the disciples (not just the readers who have been informed in advance) were able to recognize Jesus’ messianic identity. Others had recognized Jesus as a “great prophet” (7:16), perhaps even as Elijah (9:8). Even Herod had become interested. But the disciples, who had been appointed to preach, and upon whom power and authority had been conferred to cast out demons and to heal, had come to recognize that Jesus was none other than the long-awaited Christ (or Messiah).
9:21–27 / Peter’s confession is followed immediately by the command of secrecy and by Jesus’ announcement of his impending suffering, death, and resurrection (derived from Mark 8:30–9:1). The point that is being made here is defining what it means to be the Messiah. For Jesus, being Messiah has little to do with popular expectations; hence the command not to tell … anyone that he was the Messiah. Jesus is not about to become a popular hero, a champion of the Jewish cause against foreign domination. He has no plans to start a war for the liberation of Israel. His plans, instead, call for his own rejection and humiliation at the hands of the religious authorities, for his own trial and crucifixion by the authority of the Roman governor. Peter’s rejection of this idea and his rebuke in turn by Jesus (Mark 8:32–33) are omitted by Luke so that the evangelist may provide a closer link between Jesus’ passion pronouncement in vv. 21–22 and his teaching in vv. 23–26 on the suffering involved in being his follower. (It is also omitted because Luke wishes to present Peter and the other apostles in the best light possible.) Following Jesus means taking up one’s cross and being willing to lose one’s life for Jesus. Jesus is the Messiah, a Messiah who must suffer and die, and a Messiah whose followers must also be willing to suffer and even to die. All of these ideas are part of the question of who Jesus is.
Although the statement in v. 27, “some … standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God,” may have been understood as a reference to Jesus’ return and establishment of the kingdom (or the establishment of the kingdom shortly after the resurrection), it is possible that the primary reference is to Jesus’ resurrection, at which point the power of the kingdom of God is released upon earth through the Spirit (see Acts 2). The context suggests, however, that the transfiguration is in view (Leaney, p. 166), which is probably meant to be understood as a foreshadowing of the resurrection which Jesus had predicted in v. 22 (see note below).
9:28–36 / Several features of the transfiguration have led commentators to conclude that this passage has some sort of typological connection to Exodus 24 and 33–34, passages which describe Moses’ ascent up the mount where he meets God and then descends with a shining face. The following specific parallels between Mark’s account (9:2–8) and Exodus are evident: (1) the reference to “six days” (Mark 9:2; Exod. 24:16); (2) the cloud that covers the mountain (Mark 9:7; Exod. 24:16); (3) God’s voice from the cloud (Mark 9:7; Exod. 24:16); (4) three companions (Mark 9:2; Exod. 24:1, 9); (5) a transformed appearance (Mark 9:3; Exod. 34:30); and (6) the reaction of fear (Mark 9:6; Exod. 34:30). Another suggestive item that should be mentioned is that in Exod. 24:13 Joshua is singled out and taken up the mountain with Moses. Since “Joshua” in the Greek OT is “Jesus,” the early church may have seen in Exod. 24:13 a veiled prophecy, or typology, that came to fulfillment in the transfiguration, where once again Moses and Jesus are together.
There are several noteworthy modifications in Luke’s version of the transfiguration, modifications which only enhance and strengthen the connection between the transfiguration and Moses. (1) In v. 30 Luke reverses the order of the names of the two heavenly visitors by mentioning the name of Moses first. This reversal is likely designed to place more emphasis upon the Law-giver. (2) That Luke intends such emphasis is confirmed when it is noted that in v. 31 the two visitors speak with Jesus of “his departure.” The word “departure” translates the Greek word exodos, the very word that gives the Book of Exodus its name. (3) Only Luke mentions Jesus’ “glory” seen by his disciples (v. 32). Luke may very well intend this to recall Moses’ request to see God’s glory (Exod. 33:18–23). Also, in Exod. 24:16 we read that the “glory of the LORD rested on the mount.” This glory not only looks back to the glory manifested upon the mount in Exodus, but also anticipates the glory into which the Messiah will enter at his resurrection (see Luke 24:26). (4) Luke notes in v. 29 that Jesus’ face was changed, which may recall more specifically the change in Moses’ face (Exod. 34:30, 35). (5) Luke introduces the episode by saying “about eight days after” (v. 28), instead of Mark’s “six days later” (9:2). There is seemingly only one plausible explanation for this alteration. The rules for observing the Feast of Booths are laid down in Lev. 23:33–44. According to Lev. 23:36 there are to be offerings for seven days and then on the eighth day there is to be “a holy convocation” or gathering. During this time the people are to dwell in booths (tents or tabernacles) (Lev. 23:42), the purpose of which is to remind the people of the exodus long ago (Lev. 23:43). (6) Finally, Luke has slightly modified the wording of the heavenly voice in v. 35. Instead of Mark’s “My beloved Son” (9:7), Luke has “My chosen Son.” This modification is likely meant to recall the chosen servant of Isa. 42:1 (see notes and commentary on 3:22 and 4:18 above).
What are we to make of all of this? I would suggest that Luke has taken the raw materials that he found in the Marcan version of the transfiguration and has enriched the parallels in such a way as to enhance the presentation of Jesus as God’s Son (and Servant) whose authority and significance greatly surpass those of Moses and Elijah. Luke shows his readers that the two greatest OT figures appeared in order to discuss with Jesus his own impending “exodus.” Moses, who may represent the Law, and Elijah, who may represent the Prophets, bear witness to Jesus’ identity and to his destiny awaiting him at Jerusalem. Even the heavenly voice is probably meant to allude to both major parts of the OT. The first part of the voice’s declaration, This is my Son whom I have chosen, echoes Isa. 42:1 and so represents the Prophets. The second part, listen to him, is a phrase taken from Deut. 18:15 (where Moses commands the people to listen to the great prophet that God would some day raise up) and so would represent the Law. This idea of the “Law and the Prophets” bearing witness to Jesus is seen explicitly in Luke 24:27 (and 24:44). Moses and Elijah bear witness to Jesus and then fade away from the scene, leaving Jesus alone, because the era of the “Law and the Prophets” is over (Luke 16:16a). Now it is the era of the “good news of the kingdom of God” (Luke 16:16b). Just as God’s glory appeared on Mount Sinai, so now God’s Son, in all of his glory, has appeared on the mount (cf. John 1:14–18). Whereas only the face of Moses shone, Jesus’ entire personage is transfigured. Finally, because the disciples wish to build three shelters (i.e., “tents” or “booths”) for Jesus and the two visitors, Luke has likely seen the connection with the Feast of Booths, a festival in commemoration of the exodus. Hence, Luke begins his episode on the eighth day, the day on which a “holy convocation” was to take place (Lev. 23:36, 42). Undoubtedly, in the evangelist’s mind there could be no holier convocation than the meeting of Moses, Elijah, and Jesus; God’s Law-giver, Prophet, and Son. The climactic feature in the transfiguration episode is the declaration of the heavenly voice. Here at last is the dramatic answer to Herod’s question in 9:9: “Who, then, is this I hear such things about?” He is the Son of God.
9:19 / Some say …: Various prophetic figures from the past were viewed as candidates to appear on the scene to announce the dawn of the messianic kingdom; see note on 9:8 above.
9:21 / This verse is derived from Mark 8:30 and is part of the so-called messianic secret in Mark’s Gospel (see note on 4:41 above). In the Lucan context (and probably in the Marcan as well) the prohibition applied only to the time of Jesus’ pre-Easter ministry. After the resurrection the disciples will be commanded to preach Jesus as God’s Messiah and humankind’s Savior (Luke 24:46–48; Acts 1:8; 2:36).
9:22 / This is the first announcement of Jesus’ impending passion (two others are found in 9:43–45; 18:31–34). There is the possibility that the reference to “suffering” may be an allusion to the Suffering Servant Song of Isa. 52:13–53:12 (esp. 53:3–8, 11; so Ellis, p. 140). Fitzmyer (p. 780) notes that the Targum to Isaiah cannot be dated any earlier than A.D. 500 and therefore its identification of the Servant as the “Messiah” (in 52:13; 53:5) tells us nothing of how this Isaianic Servant Song was understood in the first century, much less whether or not Jesus (and/or the early church) applied it to himself. However, in a recent study on this Targum, Bruce D. Chilton (The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum, JSOTSup 23 [Sheffield: JSOT, 1982]) has concluded that although containing traditions well into the Middle Ages, most of this Targum may be traced back to the period between the two Jewish wars against Rome (i.e., A.D. 70 and 135). Thus, the suggestion that a messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 was known in the first century is more plausible than Fitzmyer has allowed. Moreover, Luke’s references to this Servant Song elsewhere in his writings (Luke 22:37; Acts 3:13; 8:32–33) add further support to the idea that he at least, if not the Gospel tradition before him, saw a connection between Jesus’ suffering and the suffering of the Lord’s Servant in Isaiah 53.
Many interpreters believe that Jesus’ passion predictions derive not from Jesus but from the early church as it struggled to explain the crucifixion; see E. Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), pp. 77–78. Others, however, think that Jesus did anticipate his suffering and death; see Raymond E. Brown, “How Much Did Jesus Know?—A Survey of the Biblical Evidence,” CBQ 29 (1967), pp. 315–45; I. Howard Marshall, “The Son of Man in Contemporary Debate,” EvQ 42 (1970), pp. 12–21. Tiede (pp. 182–83) notes that Jesus would have had to have been “naive or ignorant” not to have been aware of the peril that he faced as he approached Jerusalem. His proclamation of the reign of God would have represented a direct challenge, in the minds of Romans and Palestinian Jews alike, to Rome’s imperial authority.
9:23 / take up his cross: Some commentators think that this saying could have originated only in the early church, after Jesus’ death on the cross. For example, Fitzmyer (p. 786) suspects that the saying was originally, “Take up my yoke” (Matt. 11:29); but after the crucifixion it became, “Take up my cross.” If Jesus had anticipated his death, however, and there is no compelling reason that would preclude such a possibility, he most likely would have had in mind Roman crucifixion and its practice of making the condemned person carry the main beam on which he would be hanged. This debate revolves around the larger question of whether or not Jesus anticipated his death and whether or not he spoke of it. If one assumes that Jesus could not or did not anticipate his death, then the passion predictions are usually rejected out of hand (but see above note).
9:27 / some who are standing here will not taste death: This curious statement is really an idiom of emphasis, meaning “most surely,” and is not a prediction of some sort. It is quite possible, however, that this saying was understood among early Christians as a prediction that some of Jesus’ contemporaries would still be living when Jesus returned to inaugurate the kingdom (see John 21:21–23; Schweizer, p. 158).
9:29 / his face changed, and his clothes became … bright: The closest parallel is probably to the shining face of Moses (Exod. 34:30), but the faces of other saints are describes as shining; see 2 Esdras 7:97, 125; 1 Enoch 37:7; 51:5. The clothing of the saints also will shine; see Dan. 12:3; Rev. 4:4; 7:9; 1 Enoch 62:15; Ecclesiastes Rabbah 1.7.
9:30–31 / Moses and Elijah … talking with Jesus … about his departure: This “departure” (or exodus) probably has in view Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension (see commentary and note on 9:51 below). Moses and Elijah are often paired up. The two witnesses of Rev. 11:3–12 could very well be Moses and Elijah (on Moses cf. v. 6 with Exod. 7:17, 19; on Elijah cf. vv. 5–6 with 2 Kings 1:10). (However, Elijah is sometimes paired with Enoch; see 2 Esdras 6:26; Apocalypse of Elijah 4:7–19, which appears to be dependent on Revelation 11.) According to one rabbinic midrash, God promises in the future to bring Moses with Elijah (Deuteronomy Rabbah 3.17). The rabbis compared Moses and Elijah at many points: “You find that two prophets rose up for Israel out of the tribe of Levi; one the first of all the prophets, and the other the last of all the prophets: Moses first and Elijah last, and both with a commission to redeem Israel.… You find that Moses and Elijah were alike in every respect.… Moses went up to God [cf. Exod. 19:3]; and Elijah went up to heaven [cf. 2 Kings 2:1].… Moses: ‘And the cloud covered the mountain six days’ [Exod. 24:16]; and Elijah went up in a whirlwind [cf. 2 Kings 2:1]” (Pesiqta Rabbati 4.2); translation based on William G. Braude, Pesikta Rabbati, 2 vols., Yale Judaica 18 (New Haven: Yale University, 1968), vol. 2, pp. 84–85.
In Luke’s account of Jesus’ ascension (Acts 1:2–11), there are possible points of contact with both the Elijah and Moses ascension traditions. Just before the risen Christ ascends, his apostles asks: “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (v. 6). This question probably echoes Elijah tradition (see Mal. 4:5–6, where Elijah will “restore the heart of the father to the son”; and Mark 9:12, where Elijah is to “restore all things”); see Michael D. Goulder, Type and History in Acts (London: SPCK, 1964), p. 148. According to Acts 1:2, Jesus “was taken up,” the same expression used of Elijah when he was taken up by the chariot (2 Kings 2:9; a word from the same root occurs in Luke 9:51). When Moses ascended the mountain and entered the cloud, he was with God for “forty days” (Exod. 24:15–18). Similarly, after “forty days” Jesus is taken up into a cloud (Acts 1:3, 9). If Luke 9:51 does allude to these ascension traditions, then the passage undoubtedly anticipates Jesus’ ascension which the evangelist later recounts (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:2, 9–11, 22).
9:32 / Only the Lucan account tells us that Peter and his companions were very sleepy. This may be Luke’s way of explaining why Peter would not know “what he was saying” (v. 33). It also could have more to do with providing a contrast with v. 29: that is, while Jesus prayed, the disciples slept. The same contrast will occur again in Luke 22:44–45.
9:33 / three shelters: In all likelihood Peter had concluded that the Last Day had arrived when some of the great events of the first exodus would be repeated (such as manna in the wilderness and God’s presence among the people). To commemorate the exodus Jews celebrated the Feast of Booths by living in small booths or huts (“shelters,” NIV) for seven days (Lev. 23:42–44; Neh. 8:14–17). But the feast was also understood by many as looking ahead to the glorious day of Israel’s deliverance (Ellis, p. 143; Marshall, p. 386; Tiede, 189–90).
9:35 / The heavenly voice interrupts Peter (v. 34) and may be partially intended as a rebuke (listen to Jesus, not to Moses or Elijah). The time of Moses and Elijah is over. It is time to heed the words of Jesus.
9:36 / The disciples kept this to themselves, and told no one: What they had experienced was to be kept secret until Easter. This idea comes from Mark and is part of Mark’s secrecy theme (see note on 4:41 above), but for Luke it probably meant that because the transfiguration foreshadowed Easter, it would not be appropriate to tell of it until Easter. At that time (lit. “in those days”) refers to the time of Jesus’ pre-Easter ministry.