Exodus 2:1-22

Birth and Youth of Moses (Heb 11.23)

2:1 Now a man from the house of Levi went and married a Levite woman. 2 The woman conceived and bore a son; and when she saw that he was a fine baby, she hid him three months. 3 When she could hide him no longer she got a papyrus basket for him, and plastered it with bitumen and pitch; she put the child in it and placed it among the reeds on the bank of the river. 4 His sister stood at a distance, to see what would happen to him.

5 The daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river, while her attendants walked beside the river. She saw the basket among the reeds and sent her maid to bring it. 6 When she opened it, she saw the child. He was crying, and she took pity on him."This must be one of the Hebrews' children," she said. 7 Then his sister said to Pharaoh's daughter, "Shall I go and get you a nurse from the Hebrew women to nurse the child for you?" 8 Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Yes." So the girl went and called the child's mother. 9 Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Take this child and nurse it for me, and I will give you your wages." So the woman took the child and nursed it. 10 When the child grew up, she brought him to Pharaoh's daughter, and she took him as her son. She named him Moses, "because," she said, "I drew him out of the water."

Moses Flees to Midian (Heb 11.24-25)

11 One day, after Moses had grown up, he went out to his people and saw their forced labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his kinsfolk. 12 He looked this way and that, and seeing no one he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand. 13 When he went out the next day, he saw two Hebrews fighting; and he said to the one who was in the wrong, "Why do you strike your fellow Hebrew?" 14 He answered, "Who made you a ruler and judge over us? Do you mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?" Then Moses was afraid and thought, "Surely the thing is known." 15 When Pharaoh heard of it, he sought to kill Moses.

But Moses fled from Pharaoh. He settled in the land of Midian, and sat down by a well. 16 The priest of Midian had seven daughters. They came to draw water, and filled the troughs to water their father's flock. 17 But some shepherds came and drove them away. Moses got up and came to their defense and watered their flock. 18 When they returned to their father Reuel, he said, "How is it that you have come back so soon today?" 19 They said, "An Egyptian helped us against the shepherds; he even drew water for us and watered the flock." 20 He said to his daughters, "Where is he? Why did you leave the man? Invite him to break bread." 21 Moses agreed to stay with the man, and he gave Moses his daughter Zipporah in marriage. 22 She bore a son, and he named him Gershom; for he said, "I have been an alien residing in a foreign land." (Exodus 2:1-22, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of March 7, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Lent, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from March 31, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Lent, Year Two).

Against the backdrop of yesterday’s description of Pharaoh’s attempt to hold in check the perceived threat to him and his country from the Israelites (Exod., chap. 1), we come to the story of the birth of Moses, who will win the release of Israel from bondage in Egypt. It is remarkably ironic that Moses is spared from death by Pharaoh’s edict (Exod. 1:22) when he is rescued by Pharaoh’s own daughter. We are first told of Moses’ parents and his birth. “Now a man from the house of Levi went and married a Levite woman. The woman conceived and bore a son” (Exod. 2:1, 2a). The parents, Amram and Jochebed, are named later (Exod. 6:20). Given the circumstances, in particular, Pharaoh’s edict, we are not surprised to learn that “when she saw that he was a fine baby (xUh bOF8-yK9, kî-tôv hû’ ), she hid him three months” (v. 2b). Judith E. Sanderson says that “saw that he was a fine baby, lit. ‘saw that he was good’ [as indicated with the Hebrew phrase], [is used] as in the creation story in Gen. 1. The meaning here is ‘healthy’ ” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Gen. 2:2-3). Moses was not the first child of Amram and Jochebed. The older sister–Miriam, as we learn later–appears in this episode (vv. 4, 7-8), and Aaron was three years older than Moses (7:7). According to Rabbi J. H. Hertz, “The king’s order to drown the Israelite children must have been promulgated after the birth of Aaron, as his life had not been in peril” (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2^nd ed., 24^th printing, 1981, on Exod. 2:2).

The time would soon come when hiding the child would be impossible, and the story tells us that “When she [Jochebed] could hide him no longer she got a papyrus basket (xm,Go tbaT26, tēvath gōme’ ) for him, and plastered it with bitumen and pitch; she put the child in it and placed it among the reeds on the bank of the river” (v. 3). This was not, of course, the “exposure” of the child, left to die, common in some ancient societies (cf. William Stearns Davis, “The Exposure of Infants; a Day in Old Athens, ” on the Internet site Ancient/Classical History at http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_wsd_sec45.htm, accessed again March 17, 2010). Rabbi Hertz points out that “the Heb. for ‘ark’ [JPS 1917, translating hbATe, tēvāh, for ‘basket’ NRSV] is elsewhere used only for Noah’s Ark [cf. Gen. 6:;14-9:18]” (op. cit., on Exod. 2:3). According to Jeffrey H. Tigay, “All the actions to thwart Pharaoh’s decree are taken by women–Moses’ mother and sister, the midwives (1:17), and Pharaoh’s daughter (2:5-10); the Hebrew men have been reduced to inactivity” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Exod. 2:2-4).

Surely with the mother’s approval, “His sister [Miriam] stood (bc0ataT2%va, wattētatstsav) at a distance, to see what would happen to him” (v. 4). William L. Holladay says to read the verb as bc0eyat4T9va (wattithyatstsēv) hitp, and he defines the verb as “take one’s stand, position; stand (firm)” (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. bcy, y-ts-b, meaning no. 1; cf. BHS [Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia], apparatus). So the sister–Miriam, as we later learn (Ex. 15:20)–was on guard, so to speak, and the intention was to preserve Moses’ life.  The “righteous Gentile” (cf. comments on the midwives, yesterday) turns out to be Pharaoh’s daughter, who “came down to bathe at the river, while her attendants walked beside the river” (v. 5a). “She saw the basket among the reeds,” we are told, “and sent her maid to bring it” (v. 5b). “When she opened it,” we are told, “she saw the child (dl,y0,ha, hayyeled, lit. ‘the boy’). He was crying (hk,5Bo rfan1-hn02h9v4, w ^ehinnēh na‘ar bōkeh, lit. ‘and behold, a crying boy’) and she took pity on him” (v. 6a), though she realized, as she said, “This must be one of the Hebrews’ children (Myd9lAy4, y ^elādîm, lit. ‘boys’). According to Edward L. Greenstein, “He was crying, rather ‘and here: a lad crying,’ indicating that that is what she saw. Children, lit. ‘boys.’ Although ‘boy’ in Hebrew is a generic term for ‘child,’ she seems to recognize him as a boy. The daughter’s compassion contrasts with her father’s brutality” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Exod. 2:6).

Observing the compassion of Pharaoh’s daughter, Miriam sees her opportunity. “Then his sister said to Pharaoh’s daughter, ‘Shall I go and get you a nurse from the Hebrew women to nurse the child for you?’ ” (v. 7). According to Rabbi Hertz, quoting Driver, “A native Egyptian woman would not have undertaken to nurse a Hebrew child” (op. cit., on v. 7). One wonders whether the placement of the child was determined in order to bring about this happy consequence, but then, how were Jochebed and Miriam to know what the reaction of the Egyptian princess would be? In any event, her response is affirmative. “Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, ‘Yes.’ So the girl (hmAl4fah!&, hā‘almāh) went and called the child’s mother” (v. 8). “Girl,” says Greenstein, means “one who is past puberty (cf. Gen. 24:43; Isa. 7:14)” (op. cit., on v. 8). As it turns out, Moses is to be nursed by his own mother. “Pharaoh’s daughter said to her [i.e., to Jocebed], ‘Take this child and nurse it for me, and I will give you your wages.’ So the woman took the child and nursed it” (v. 9). And at the appropriate time Pharaoh’s daughter took the child. “When the child grew up (dl,y0o,ha lD16g4y09va, wayyigdal hayyeled), she brought him to Pharaoh's daughter, and she took him as her son (Nb27l4 h0lA-yh9y4v1&, way ^ehî-lāh l ^evēn). She named him Moses, ‘because,’ she said, ‘I drew him out of the water’ ” (v. 10). According to Tigay, “Moses is an Egyptian name meaning ‘gave birth’; it is a shortened form of names compounded with names of deities, such as Thut-mose and Rameses, meaning ‘Thut/Ra gave birth (to this child).’ Here, in a popular etymology typical of biblical and other ancient Near Eastern literature, it is interpreted as if it were derived from Heb. ‘m-sh-h,’ ‘draw out’ (cf. Isa. 63:;11)” (op. cit., on v. 10). Commenting on “the child grew” (JPS, for “the child grew up” NRSV, NJPS 1985, 1999), Rabbi Hertz says,

He remained under his mother’s care till he was quite a lad. During these most impressionable years of his life, his mother must have instilled into him the belief in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, an Eternal Spirit without any shape or form that the mind of man could devise; and imparted to him the sacred traditions of Israel, the story of the Fathers in Canaan, of Joseph in Egypt, and of the Divine promise of deliverance from Egyptian bondage. When Moses returned to the Palace, he received, as the adopted child of the princess, the education of boys of the highest rank, probably at Heliopolis–‘the Oxford of Ancient Egypt’ (Stanley). There he ‘must have learnt many things which from a Hebrew point of view would be extremely undesirable for him to know’ (Driver). But whenever the priests undertook to initiate him into their fantastic idolatry, he remembered the teachings of his childhood; and he remained a Hebrew. (op. cit., on v. 10)

While this likely represents inference, or speculation, it reflects knowledge of scholars about ancient Egypt. Compare the statement of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews: “By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called a son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to share ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin” (Heb. 11:24-25).

As a young adult, Moses is apparently surprised to learn the condition of his (Hebrew) people. “One day (MhehA Mym9%y0!v1, wayyāmîm hāhēm, lit. ‘[in] those days’), after Moses had grown up (lDag4y09va, wayyigdal, the same verb as in v. 10), he went out to his people and saw their forced labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his kinsfolk” (v. 11). According to Tigay, the “Egyptian” was “presumably one of the taskmasters (1:11)” (op. cit., on 2:11). It appears that their condition is new to him, that his days were spent up to this time in the royal setting of his adoptive mother and/or, as suggested above, in his education at Heliopolis. But he takes sides with the Hebrew who was undergoing a beating. “He looked this way and that, and seeing no one he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand” (v. 12). The Rabbi cites Kent, “Moses resembles ‘the great patriots of the past and the present, who have taken the sword to deliver their people from the hands of tyrants. His act may be condemned as hasty. In its immediate results it was fruitless, as is every intemperate attempt to right a wrong by violence. However, it allied Moses definitely with his kinsmen’ ” (op. cit., on v. 12). Moses thought he had not been observed, but he soon learns otherwise. “When he went out the next day, he saw two Hebrews fighting; and he said to the one who was in the wrong, ‘Why do you strike your fellow Hebrew?’ ” (v. 13). But the response is not what Moses expected. “Who made you a ruler and judge over us? Do you mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?” (v. 14a). Rabbi Hertz sees her “a typical attitude of a small but persistent Jewish minority towards anyone working for Israel. The Rabbis speak of it as the Dathan-and-Abiram type of mind (cf. Num. XVI)” (ibid., on v.14). “Then,” says the narrator, “Moses was afraid and thought, ‘Surely the thing is known” (v. 14b), as it indeed was, for “When Pharaoh heard of it, he sought to kill Moses” (v. 15a). Tigay summarizes: “In the first two episodes (vv. 11-12, 13-14) Moses plays the royal role of defending his people and adjudicating among them (cf. 1 Sam. 8:5, 20) [but, as we know, not really succeeding], and in the third [looking ahead] he defends foreigners and strangers (vv. 16-17), showing that his passion for justice makes no distinctions between nations” (op. cit., on vv. 11-22).

“But Moses fled from Pharaoh,” we are told, and “He settled in the land of Midian, and sat down by a well” (v. 15b). According to Sanderson, “Gen. 25:2 identifies the Midianites as descendants of Abraham and Keturah, and thus relatives of Israel (contrast Judg. 4:11). Their homeland was in northwestern Arabia” (op. cit., on v. 15). The Rabbi locates Midian “in the south-eastern part of the Sinai peninsula. Here,” adds the Rabbi, “he [i.e., Moses] would be beyond Egyptian jurisdiction. The main home of the Midianites appears to have been on the east side of the Gulf of Akabah” (op. cit., on v. 15), which would be in northwestern Arabia. At the well, Moses meets the one whom he will marry. “The priest of Midian had seven daughters. They came to draw water, and filled the troughs to water their father's flock” (v. 16). This strikes us as a familiar seen; we are reminded of Abraham’s servant at the well where he meets Rebekah (Gen. 24) and Jacob at the well where he meets Rachel (Gen. 29). But at the well, Moses also meets with trouble again. “

At the well, Moses meets with trouble again. “But some shepherds came and drove them [i.e., the flocks of the priest of Midian’s seven daughters, v. 16] away” (v. 17a). The Rabbi refers ironically to “these ‘chivalrous’ Arabs [who] wished to water their own sheep first, although the women had already filled the troughs” (ibid., on v. 17). “Moses,” add the Rabbi, “again takes the part of the injured side, but this time without violence” (ibid.). “Moses got up and came to their [i.e., the priest’s daughters’] defense (NfAw9Oy08va, wayyôš ^e‘ān) and watered the flock” (v. 17b). “Came to their defense,” says Greenstein, “rendered saved in 14:30, foreshadows the rescue of Israel” (op. cit., on v. 17). “Having been rescued by the daughter of the Egyptian king,” says Sanderson, “Moses now rescues the seven daughters of a Midianite priest. Zipporah (v. 21) will later return the favor (4:24-26)” (op. cit., on v. 17).

The seven daughters’ father is here called Reuel (v. 18). According to Sanderson, “Moses’ father-in-law (v. 21) is elsewhere called either Jethro (3:1; 4:18; 18:1) or Hobab (Judg. 4:11), while Reuel is Zipporah’s grandfather (Num. 10:29). Tigay says, “These different names reflect different ancient traditions” (on v. 18), but Rabbi J. H. Hertz has a different explanation.

Reuel seems to have been their father, while Jethro was the father-in-law of Moses. The word Jethro means, ‘His Excellence,’ and may be regarded as a title borne by the priest or chief of Midian, whose proper name is given in Num. X, 29, as Hobab. Reuel, therefore, was the grandfather (often called ‘father’ in Scripture; see Gen. xxviii, 13 and xxxii, 10) of the shepherdesses. If Jethro and Reuel are taken as one person, there is nothing unusual in one man having two names (e.g. Jacob, Israel); and South Arabian inscriptions show many chieftains having two names. (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2^nd ed., 24^th printing, 1981, on Exod. 2:18)

When the daughters return “to their father Reuel,” he asks, “How is it that you have come back so soon today?” (v. 18). And they answered, “An Egyptian helped us against the shepherds; he even drew water for us and watered the flock” (v. 19). “Raise in Pharaoh’s household,” says Greenstein, “Moses still looks Egyptian” (op. cit., on v. 19). This answer leads to an invitation and hospitality for Moses. Reuel “said to his daughters, ‘Where is he? Why did you leave the man? Invite him to break bread’ ” (v. 20). The question, “Where is he?” says the Rabbi, “expresses displeasure that they had failed in hospitality towards the stranger who had befriended them” (op. cit., on v. 20). We are left to assume that the daughters invited Moses as they were told. The narrator continues, compressing the events. “Moses agreed to stay with the man, and he gave Moses his daughter Zipporah in marriage” (v. 21). Rabbi Hertz says, “One cannot help contrasting the breadth with which the wooing of both Isaac and Jacob is recounted, with the extraordinary, nay irreducible, brevity with which the wooing of Moses is told. What we would call the ‘romantic’ element in the story of Moses disappears like a bubble; it is the woe of his People that engrosses his mind” (ibid., on v. 21). Of the name, “Zipporah,” he adds, “The meaning of this name is ‘bird.’ The Midianites spoke a language kindred to Hebrew” (ibid.). As today’s reading concludes, we are told that Zipporah “bore a son, and he [i.e., Moses] named him Gershom; for he said, ‘I have been an alien residing in a foreign land’ ” (v. 22). Rabbi Hertz explains the name Gershom as from “ger, ‘a stranger’, and sham, ‘there,’ in a strange land,” and adds that Moses’ “heart was with his suffering brethren in Egypt” (ibid., on v. 22). “Since Moses was raised as an Egyptian,” says Tigay, “it is only in Midian that he begins to feel the sense of alienness that his kinsfolk have experienced in Egypt” (op. cit., on v. 22).

1 Corinthians 12:27-13:3

27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But strive for the greater gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way.

The Gift of Love

13:1 If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. (1 Corinthians 12:27-13:3, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of October 10, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year One), and earlier comments as indicated there.

Earlier, Paul has appealed to the Corinthian Christians to be in unity and harmony within their diversity of gifts, using the analogy of the body that is “one and has many members” (1 Cor. 12:12). He reminded them that the body needs all its members; that “God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior members, that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another” (vv. 24-25). The reminder is repeated as today’s reading begins. “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it” (v. 27). Then Paul returns to the subject of the gifts of the spirit, this time beginning with reference to different offices, gifted persons, rather than a list of gifts as such. He says, “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets (cf. prophecy, v. 10), third teachers (cf. “utterance of wisdom . . . utterance of knowledge,” v. 8). But this list reverts again to naming gifts or deeds rather than offices: “then deeds of power [cf. ‘working of miracles,’ v. 10], then gifts of healing [cf. v. 9], forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues [cf. v. 10]” (v. 28b). From the fact that there is some repetition between the two lists, but not an exact one-to-one correlation, I take it that the list is not definitive and complete, presenting an exact, complete list of all the gifts; but rather is representative and exemplary. Compare the lists in Romans 12:6-8, also followed by an emphasis on love (v. 9; 13:8-10), and Ephesians 4:11, where the list identifies different church officers: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.

In the present reading, Paul repeats the list again with rhetorical questions: “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?” (vv. 29-30). In Greek, rhetorical questions that begin with the negative particle ouj (ou) imply that, from the questioner’s perspective, an affirmative answer is expected. On the other hand, rhetorical questions that begin with the other negative particle, mhv (mē), imply that , from the questioner’s perspective, a negative answer is expected. In English, for example, the question, “Don’t all work miracles?” would imply the answer, “Yes, of course.” But the form in the translation, “Do all work miracles?” if it is not a genuine request for information, would normally imply a negative answer. Certainly the form of the questions in Greek here implies the answer “No, of course not!” The following translation of verses 29 and 30 brings out the force of these questions: “All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All don’t work miracles, do they? All don’t possess gifts of healing, do they? All don’t speak in tongues, do they? All don’t interpret, do they?” In this passage, at least, Paul clearly implies that there is no one gift that everyone must have. It is the Spirit himself that all should have, but not any one of his gifts (cf. Rom. 8:9). For each question, the implied answer, “No, of course not!” further emphasizes the need each of the members of the Christian community has for the others.

We are exhorted to “strive for the greater gifts,” and Paul will point out “a still more excellent way (v. 31). Later, he will emphasize the relative importance of the gift of prophecy as compared to the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians, chapter 14. Here (12:27-13:3), the transition begins to prepare for that, but first directs our attention to the supreme importance of love, the “still more excellent way” (12:31 and chapter 13). Without love (ajgavph, agape), the best speaking in tongues is mere noise. “If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” (v. 13:1). And in the same way, without love (ajgavph, agape) the best of prophetic powers, or the faith for working of miracles, is of no avail. “And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” (v. 2). Paul speaks in the first person here, with reference to himself. But clearly, he has in mind some at Corinth who have made extravagant claims for themselves with respect to some of the spiritual gifts. Still, Paul continues by referring to himself as an example. “If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing” (v. 3 NRSV; cf text note a, “body to be burned,” as in the AV/KJV). There is some uncertainty here about the choice of readings. The NRSV text , “if I hand over my body so that I may boast,” is based on the somewhat older and better manuscripts (cf. UBS Greek New Testament 3^rd ed., 1975, apparatus for 1 Cor. 13:3), but the editors qualify their decision with a “C” rating, which means “there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text or the apparatus [i.e., in this case, the other reading, “body to be burned”] contains the superior reading” (p. xiii). C. S. C. Williams anticipated this judgment of uncertainty. “The variant ‘that I may boast’ is better attested textually, especially by Alexandrian MSS, than ‘that I may be burnt,’ though the latter suits the context well and if it is original may show that Paul was thinking of Indian gymnosophists who burned themselves alive, like the Indian who accompanied Porus’ embassy to Athens, where Paul may have seen his grave” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprinted, 1972, sec. 840b, p. 962, on 1 Cor. 13:3). In Greek the two readings would sound very similar, i{na kauchvswmai (hina kauchēsōmai, “that I may boast”) and i{na kauqhvswmai (hina kauthēsōmai) or kauqhvsomai (kauthēsomai, “that I may be burned”).

In any event, as Ben Witherington III observes, there is hyperbole here.

To some extent, Paul’s hyperbole, especially in vv. 1-3, is a mocking of the Sophistic boasting going on among the inspired and eloquent ones in Corinth. . . . Paul ultimately believes that love, not freedom or knowledge, is the final watchword for Christians, both as a key to understanding the mysteries of the faith and as a guide to behavior. (Conflict & Community in Corinth, 1994, pp. 268-269, on 1 Cor. 12:31b-13:13)

Witherington cites C. A. Holladay in this connection:

The hyperbole recasts the self-portrait so that each item is stretched to the limit of incredibility because it is recast with the assumptions of the Corinthian enthusiasts. That is, even if he were to allow his apostolic work to be shaped by the assumptions of those Corinthians who are not content with speaking, but insist the apostle must speak with eloquence surpassing human capabilities . . . , yet . . . unmotivated by agapē it would be for nought. (“1 Corinthians 13: Paul as Apostolic Paradigm,” in Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition, 1979, cited by Witherington, p. 269)

Although Paul says to “strive for the greater gifts” (12:31), nothing from these lists is singled out as “greater.” (Later he will emphasize the value of “prophecy” for “upbuilding and encouragement and consolation,” 14:3, in a way that suggests “preaching.”) The “more excellent way” is “love” (chapter 13), which is not one of the gifts, but should characterize the exercise of all of the gifts, whether “prophetic powers” or “faith, so as to remove mountains” (13:2), or, presumably, any of the other gifts. Whether we discuss the character of God or of Christian holy living, love is fundamental.

Mark 9:2-13

2 Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, 3 and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them. 4 And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. 5 Then Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." 6 He did not know what to say, for they were terrified. 7 Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, "This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!" 8 Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with them any more, but only Jesus.

9 As they were coming down 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. 10 So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what this rising from the dead could mean. 11 Then they asked him, "Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" 12 He said to them, "Elijah is indeed coming first to restore all things. How then is it written about the Son of Man, that he is to go through many sufferings and be treated with contempt? 13 But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written about him." (Mark 9:2-13, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of August 6, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 3, Year One), and earlier comments as indicated there.

Parallel accounts of Jesus’ Transfiguration from Matthew, Mark and Luke are presented in the separate file, the Transfiguration, which includes the discussion of the Coming of Elijah from Matthew and Mark. The latter is the one section from Mark omitted by Luke in the current series (cf. comments yesterday). For recent discussion of the Transfiguration from Matthew’s perspective, see the comments in the Archive for November 16, 2009 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 16, Year One); for a recent discussion from Luke’s perspective, see the comments in the Archive for May 22, 2009 (Friday in the week of the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year One):

Mark dates the Transfiguration in relation to the First Passion Prediction and the subsequent discussion of the need to take up one’s cross and follow him (yesterday’s reading). “Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves” (Mk. 9:2a; cf. Mt. 17:1). According to G. W. H. Lampe, by Luke’s reference to “about eight days” (Lk. 9:28), he seeks “to indicate the first day of the week and to underline the relation of the Transfiguration to the Resurrection” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprinted 1972, sec. 727b, on Lk. 9:28-36). The Transfiguration anticipates the glorious status of the resurrected Lord, and Mark’s Gospel is clearly moving toward the climactic events of the final week in Jerusalem. Mark describes the transfiguration. “And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them” (Mk. 9:2b-3). Luke says, “And while he was praying [a typical Lukan emphasis upon spirituality], the appearance of his face changed,” adding, with Mark and Matthew, “and his clothes became dazzling white” (Lk. 9:29). Matthew adds the words “and his face shone like the sun” (Mt. 17:2). All report the presence of Moses and Elijah. “And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus” (Mk. 9:4; cf. Mt. 17:3; Lk. 9:30).

Richard A. Horsley comments on the Transfiguration:

The mountain setting is reminiscent of Moses and the elders of Israel on Sinai (Ex. 24). . . . In the disciples’ visionary experience, Jesus appears as a vindicated martyr (see Dan. 11:36; Rev. 3:5 [etc.]), linked to what he had just told the disciples in 8:31 [about his imminent suffering and death]. With him are Elijah and Moses, the prophetic restorer and founder of Israel, respectively, whose great actions of deliverance Jesus’ actions, just performed in 4:35-8:26, resemble. (Richard A. Horsley, NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mk. 9:2-4)

Only Luke tells us that Jesus, Moses and Elijah “were speaking of his [Jesus’] departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem” (Lk. 9:31). Only Luke tells us that “Peter and his companions were weighed down with sleep,” which, however did not prevent them from seeing the Lord’s glory, “since they had stayed awake” (v. 32). The three Gospels all report Peter’s suggestion to “make three dwellings, one for you [Jesus], one for Moses, and one for Elijah” (Mk. 9:5; cf. Mt. 17:4; Lk. 9:33a). Mark explains that Peter “did not know what to say, for they were terrified (Mk. 9:6; cf. Lk. 9:33b). The voice from the cloud says, “This is my Son, the Beloved [‘my Chosen’ Lk.]; [‘with him I am well pleased’ Mt.] listen to him!” (Mk. 9:7b; Mt. 17:5b; Lk. 9:35b). Matthew adds that “when the disciples heard this, they fell to the ground and were overcome by fear” (Mt. 17:6), and that “Jesus came and touched them, saying, ‘Get up and do not be afraid’” (v. 7). Matthew and Mark report Jesus’ directive to tell no one, Matthew with direct quotation, “Tell no one about the vision (to; o{rama, to horama) until after the Son of Man has been raised from the dead” (Mt. 17:9; cf. Mk. 9:9); Mark and Luke report that they kept silent about it (Mk. 9:10; Lk. 9:36b).

The second and third century Christian theologian Origen (A.D. 185-232) comments on the Transfiguration:

Listen spiritually that it is not said simply, “he was transfigured,” but with a certain necessary addition, which Matthew and Mark have recorded; for, according to both, “he was transfigured before them” [in the presence of Peter, James and John]. The text suggests that it would be possible for Jesus to be transfigured before some of his disciples, and not before others. But if you wish to see the transfiguration of Jesus as seen by those who went up into the lofty mountain apart from the others, view with me the Jesus in the Gospels. Remember that Jesus was more literally apprehended by those below “according to the flesh” [footnote: Cf. 2 Cor. 10:2]–by those who did not go up to the lofty mountain of wisdom, who did not go up through words and deeds that are uplifting. But there were others by whom he became known no longer after the flesh, but in his divinity. To this all the Gospels attest. He was beheld in the form of God according to their spiritual knowledge. It was before these who ascended and in their presence that Jesus was transfigured, not to those who remained below. (Commentary on Matthew 12:37, cited in Thomas C. Oden & Christopher A. Hall, edd., Mark, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, II, 1998, p. 117)

As noted above, Luke omits the section in which Jesus discusses the Coming of Elijah with the disciples (Mk. 9:11-13; Mt. 17:10-13). When Matthew reports that Jesus identified John the Baptist with “Elijah who is to come” (Mt. 11:14), Luke lacks the saying in his parallel account (Mt. 11:7-19; Lk. 7:24-25; cf. Lk. 16:16). Luke apparently distinguished distinct periods, one concluded by John, and another inaugurated by Jesus. “The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the news of the kingdom is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force” (Lk. 16:16; cf. Mt. 11:12-14). But Luke, as noted above, does include Elijah in the Transfiguration scene.

Matthew and Mark report essentially the same conversation about Elijah. “Then they asked him,” says Mark, “ ‘Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?’ ” (Mk. 9:11; cf. Mt. 17:10). Jesus replies first that Elijah is, then has come. “He said to them, ‘Elijah is indeed coming first to restore all things’ ” Mk. 9:12a; cf. Mt. 17:11). Mark presents a question of Jesus. “How then is it written about the Son of Man, that he is to go through many sufferings and be treated with contempt?” (Mk 9:12b). According to C. Clifton Black, revised by Adela Yarbro Collins, “The claim that it is written in scripture that the Son of Man is to be treated with contempt may be an allusion to Ps. 22:7, which has similar wording in the Greek version. The divine necessity of Jesus’ many sufferings is also expressed in 8:31 (cf. 14:21; Lk. 18:31; 24:44, 46; Acts 13:29)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mk. 9:12). Jesus’ second point is, “But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written about him” (Mk. 9:13; cf. Mt. 17:12a). Matthew turns Mark’s rhetorical question (Mk. 9:12b) into a statement, “So also the Son of Man is about to suffer at their hands” (Mt. 17:12b). Matthew’s version emphasizes the failure to recognize John the Baptist as “Elijah”: “Elijah is indeed coming and will restore all things; but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but they did to him whatever they pleased” (Mt. 17:11-12a). J. Andrew Overman says, “The expectation that Elijah would precede the coming of the messiah (Mal. 4:5-6) becomes in the Synoptic Gospels the belief that John the Baptist was that Elijah. His execution anticipates the suffering and death of the messiah ([Mt.] 14:1-2)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 17:9-13).

Horsley calls Mark 9:9-13 a “correction of scribal teaching about Elijah”:

The disciples, still not understanding the necessity of [Jesus’] martyrdom, remain oriented toward the teachings of the Jerusalem scribes, as in Sir. 48:10 (cf. Mal 4:4-5) [on vv. 9-11]. First pointing to the obvious contradiction between the official scribal teaching and what he has just told them, mockingly couching it in scribal terms as scriptural, “it is written,” he asserts that in fact Elijah has already come in John [the Baptist], and he was ignominiously killed. (op. cit., on Mk. 9:9-11 and vv. 12-13)

The text from Sirach cited (above) by Horsley says that Elijah “was taken up by a whirlwind of fire, in a chariot with horses of fire” (Sir. 48:9, citing 2 Kgs. 2:11), and adds: “At the appointed time, it is written, you are destined / to calm the wrath of God before it breaks out in fury, / to turn the hearts of parents to their children, / and to restore the tribes of Jacob” (Sir. 48:10).

Lord, increase our understanding, and our appreciation for those who prepared the way of the Lord, as well as for our Lord himself.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net