Llorente 1

Rodrigo Llorente

Fr. Stephen Clovis, S.T.L

SS 52-Synoptics Gospels

16 April 2015

The Transfiguration in the Gospel of Luke

One of the most important events in Jesus’ public life is his Transfiguration. Occurring during

his public ministry, this event had a deep impact on the minds and hearts of the apostles that

witnessed it. The following is a study of the pericope (Lk 9, 2-8) trying to find how the account

of the Transfiguration fits in the whole structure of the Gospel. Knowing that Luke wrote his

Gospel with a specific theological view, I want to find what role the Transfiguration has in this

view.

The first part of the study will present Hans Conzelmann’s exegesis. The second, Joseph

Fitzmyer’s point of view and finally, the interpretation of Benedict XVI on the account.

Hans Conzelmann’s view. According to Hans Conzelmann, Luke has a proper eschatological

conception. Even though he has taken material from Mark, he has reformulated to fit his own

idea of redemptive history. Apparently, Luke was writing for a Christian community in a critical

time. The delay of the second coming of Jesus produced a new understanding of God’s salvation

plan. Luke adapted the synoptic tradition to the spiritual needs of the community. Conzelmann’s

studies divide God’s salvation plan in three stages: 1. the period of Israel, 2. the period of Jesus’

ministry and 3. the period of the Church, from the ascension till the present. The Parousia is not a

part of the redemptive history but the end of it. He points out: “Although Luke gives no explicit

description of this structure, his whole account is based on a definite conception.” (Conzelmann

193)
 Llorente 2

The most significant element of God’s redemptive plan is the life of Jesus, positioned at the

center of redemptive history.

Conzelmann also divides Jesus’ ministry into three stages, each one preceded by a manifestation:

The period of the gathering of the witnesses in Galilee, preceded by the baptism at the Jordan

River; the journey of the Galileans to the temple, opening with the narrative passage and with

disclosure that Jesus must suffer and the Transfiguration; and the period of teaching in the

temple and of the passion in Jerusalem, preceded by the triumphal entry into Jerusalem.

The Transfiguration is part of a unit of events with Peter’s confession and the prophecy of the

Passion. Conzelamnn says that this is a climax point in Jesus’ ministry: “a paradoxical

manifestation of his Glory.” (Conzelmann 196)

Conzelmann highlights several compositional elements present in another manifestation

accounts: the setting of the mountain, Jesus separation from the people and the heavenly

manifestation. Other motifs suggest a connection with the story of the Passion, in particular with

the prayer in the Garden of Olives: the sleeping of the disciples, the incidents taking place at

night, the heavenly apparition and the psychological explanation of the sleeping.

The whole scene has a double meaning: a heavenly announcement directed to Jesus of the

Passion and an announcement to the disciples concerning Jesus’ nature. The heavenly voice

speaks to them, so as to hear Jesus’ prediction of the Passion. This is a corroboration of Peter’s

confession in the past, but also a strengthening for the future that the apostles will have to face.

“The whole episode has a typological meaning which points forward to the events in

Jerusalem…The mount of Transfiguration foreshadows the mount of Olives.” (Conzelmann 59)

So for Conzelmann, the Transfiguration marks the beginning of the Journey to Jerusalem but

also predicts the end of the journey: Jesus’ death in the cross. In the pericope, Luke reveals the
 Llorente 3

paradox of Jesus’ sonship. Because he is the Son of God, he is destined to suffer. The

Transfiguration is speaking about Messiaship.

Joseph Fitzmyer’s comment. Fitzmyer’s division of the Gospel of Luke is very similar to

Conzelmann’s. While he holds that Conzelmanns point of view in salvation history is correct, he

disagrees in the interpretation he makes on the Transfiguration.

For Fitzmyer, the episode is related to the disciples seeing the kingdom come in power. It is an

important phase in the training of the Galilean witness. It connects to the larger context of the

chapter that begins with Herod’s question on Jesus’ identity. As an explicit answer to Herod’s

question, Heaven speaks forth through the voice in the cloud: “this is my son, my chosen one…”

Fitzmyer analyzes the different elements of the pericope for his conclusions. The appearance of

Moses and Elijah is significant, one is representing the Law and the other, the prophets. Moses’

and Elijah’s disappearance from the scene, leaving Jesus alone and the heavenly voice speaking

to the disciples, means that Jesus is the one that humans must now listen.

All these elements are not far from Conzelamn’s exegesis but he does not share the final

conclusions. While Fitzmyer acknowledges that Conzelamnn’s connection with the baptism at

the Jordan River and the Transfiguration is correct, he says that he missed the intention of both

scenes. The baptism is not an introduction of Jesus’ awareness of messiaship and neither is the

Transfiguration an awareness of the passion. To see this episode as a messianic enthronement is

to “miss a major point of the episode.” (Fitzmyer 793)

Luke’s intention is revealed by his use of the word “Glory”. This term doesn’t appear in any

other account of the Transfiguration and in the overall context of the New Testament, it is related

to the condition of the risen Christ. Luke has related the Transfiguration to the Resurrection

status of Jesus more than to his messianic mission. The Transfiguration serves as a clarification
 Llorente 4

of Jesus’ identity for the disciples. If, at this stage of his ministry, he has already been regarded

as the one in which God’s power is present, as the one who must suffer and die, he is

nevertheless heaven’s Son, to “whom human beings must now listen for their relation to the

kingdom of God” (Fitzmyer 794). The first announcement of the passion did not end on the

death of Jesus but in his Resurrection. It is wrong to say that the Transfiguration speaks about

messiaship. For Fitzmyer, it speaks about Jesus’ divine sonship and his “Glory”, one of the

mysteries of the Kingdom of God.

Benedict’s view on the Transfiguration. On his book, Jesus of Nazareth, Benedict XVI makes

some remarks that can be helpful to set Luke’s intention for the pericope. Even though his work

is not limited to the Gospel of Luke, his analysis can be helpful to find the evangelist’s intention

and his role in the Gospel.

Benedict links the account with the narrative of Exodus (Ex 33, 7), where Moses sets a tent

where he would encounter God. There, the cloud descended and Moses spoke with God face to

face, as a friend. Peter’s comment (v33) is intended to make permanent the reality of the divine

encounter he was experiencing on the mount. Another key to understand the meaning of the

Transfiguration is the calendar of the Jewish feasts. The Transfiguration occurred the last day of

the Feast of the huts. This was a feast with a tridimensional meaning. It began to implore God for

rain the crops, then it was a memorial of the Passover of the Jews by way of the desert, where

they dwelled in huts and finally it acquired an eschatological meaning. Jews believed that when

the eschatological times would arrive, God’s just ones will dwell in huts (sukkot). For Benedict,

Peter’s experience in the Transfiguration made him recognized the realities prefigured in the

feast that had become real on the mount. In this sense, the Transfiguration scene indicates the

arrival of the messianic time. When he descends, Peter has to learn that the messianic time is
 Llorente 5

related with the cross and that the Transfiguration requires that we be embraced by the light of

the Passion. Benedict finds another meaning to the account. In the previous narrative, Jesus had

promised that some will see the Kingdom of God (v27). In the Transfiguration, the apostles

experience that Jesus is the living Tora, the whole of God’s word. “In the mount they see the

power (dynamis) of the Kingdom that arrives in Christ.”(Benedict 369) This power of the

Kingdom is shown in the Transfigured Jesus that speaks with Moses and Elijah of the necessity

of the Passion as a road to the Glory. For Benedict, the Transfiguration speaks about the

Parousia. It’s an anticipation of it for the apostles that little by little are introduced to the mystery

of Jesus.

Conclusion. We’ve seen that Conzelmann view relates the pericope with Jesus’s Passion and

his mission as a Messiah. Fitzmyer does not share this interpretation and by his exegesis on the

word “Glory”, links the Transfiguration to the Resurrection and to the condition of being God’s

son. Benedict XVI has the advantage of not narrowing his study only to the Gospel of Luke, but

uses the whole of the Gospels to interpret it. In his analysis, the advantage of allowing the

spiritual meaning of the text to become a factor of interpretation is very evident. Benedict does

not restrain the meaning of the Transfiguration to one, what works with the fact that the text can

have several meanings. The Transfiguration carries more than one meaning for the believers: it

is related with the Passion, with the Kingdom of God and with the new relation between God and

man that Jesus brought with his death and resurrection. Luke could have used this account for

more than one reason, having itself more than one meaning. Even though the mentioned scholars

present excellent reasons for their hypotheses, it is hard to narrow Luke’s intention just to one.

The Transfiguration can be related to the Passion, to the Resurrection and also to the Parousia.
 Llorente 6

Regarding to the role it plays in the Gospel, I think Fitzmyer’s argument is more convincing than

Conzelmann’s. Conzelmann’s division of the Gospel in three parts, each one with a preceding

manifestation doesn’t seem to fit the text. The baptism at the Jordan River and the

Transfiguration are heavenly manifestations, while the triumphal entry into Jerusalem is a human

manifestation of Jesus’ identity. On the other hand, a close reading of the text reveals the literary

unit Fitzmyer states is formed by Herod’s question, Peter’s confession, the prediction of the

Passion and the Transfiguration. The Transfiguration seems to be an answer to Herod’s question

on Jesus’ identity. The pericope is closely linked to discipleship and it seems to work as the

beginning of a new stage in the training of the apostles in the Gospel of Luke. To Peters’

profession of faith, there is a heavenly response: “this is my beloved son, listen to him.” While

they see the Kingdom coming in power, in the next stage of the Gospel they will learn that the

Passion is a necessary step for its arrival. It was necessary that Peter, James and John witnessed

this before the Passion and Resurrection so that they knew Jesus’ identity as a Son existed before

he embraced the cross and res it is very evident it is very evident urrected. For me, the pericope

speaks about the Kingdom of God coming in the person of Jesus.

Works cited

Benedict and Carmen Bas Álvarez. Jesús De Nazaret: Desde El Bautismo a La Transfiguración.

New York: Doubleday, 2007. Print.

Conzelmann, Hans. The Theology of St. Luke. New York: Harper, 1961. Print.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke. New York: Doubleday, 1981. Print.

The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version. San Francisco: Thomas Nelson for Ignatius, 2006.

Print.