Part 7 (1/2)

Standing in marked contrast to the opinion of the people is the ”recognition” of the disciples, which expresses itself in acknowledgment, in confession. How is this confession worded? Each of the three Synoptics formulates it differently, and John's formula is different again. According to Mark, Peter simply says to Jesus: ”You are the Messiah [the Christ]” (Mk 8:29). According to Luke, Peter calls him ”the Christ [the anointed one] of G.o.d” (Lk 9:20), and according to Matthew he says: ”You are the Christ [the Messiah], the Son of the living G.o.d” (Mt 16:16). In John's Gospel, finally, Peter's confession is as follows: ”You are the Holy One of G.o.d” (Jn 6:69).

One could be tempted to construct a history of the evolution of the Christian confession from these various versions. There is no doubt that the diversity of the texts does reflect a process of development through which something at first only tentatively grasped gradually emerges into full clarity. Among recent Catholic exegetes, Pierre Grelot has offered the most radical interpretation of the contrasts between the texts: What he sees is not evolution, but contradiction (Les Paroles de Jesus Christ). According to Grelot, Peter's simple confession of Jesus' Messiahs.h.i.+p as transmitted by Mark is doubtless an accurate record of the historical moment; for, he continues, we are still dealing here with a purely ”Jewish” confession that saw Jesus as a political Messiah in accordance with the ideas of the time. Only the Markan account, he argues, is logically consistent, because only a political messianism would explain Peter's protest against the prophecy of the Pa.s.sion, a protest that Jesus sharply rejects, as once he rejected Satan's offer of lords.h.i.+p over the world: ”Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of G.o.d, but of men” (Mk 8:33). This brusque rebuff, says Grelot, makes sense only if it applies also to the confession that went before, and declares this too to be false. Placed after the theologically mature version of the confession in Matthew's Gospel, the rebuff no longer makes sense.

The conclusion that Grelot draws from this is one that he shares with those exegetes who disagree with his rather negative interpretation of the Markan text: namely, that Matthew's version of the confession represents a post-Resurrection saying, since, in the view of the great majority of commentators, it was only after the Resurrection that such a confession could be formulated. Grelot goes on to connect this with his special theory of an appearance of the Risen Lord to Peter, which he places alongside the encounter with the Lord that Paul regarded as the foundation of his own apostolate. Jesus' words to Peter, Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, ”for flesh and blood flesh and blood has not has not revealed revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17), have a remarkable parallel in the Letter to the Galatians: ”But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17), have a remarkable parallel in the Letter to the Galatians: ”But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood flesh and blood” (Gal 1:15f.; cf. 1:11f.: ”The gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ”). Common to both the Pauline text and to Jesus' commendation of Peter are the reference to Revelation and the declaration that this knowledge does not derive ”from flesh and blood.”

Grelot now concludes from all this that Peter, like Paul, was honored with a special appearance of the risen Christ (to which several New Testament texts do in fact refer) and that, just like Paul, who was also granted such an appearance, he received his specific commission on that occasion. Peter's mission was to the Church of the Jews, while Paul's was to the Church of the Gentiles (Gal 2:7). The promise to Peter, Grelot maintains, properly belongs to the risen Christ's appearance to him, and its content has to be seen as a strict parallel to the commission that Paul received from the exalted Lord. There is no need to enter here into a detailed discussion of this theory, especially since this book, being a book about Jesus, is primarily concerned with the Lord himself, and deals with the topic of the Church only insofar as it is necessary for a correct understanding of the figure of Jesus.

Anyone who reads Galatians 1:1117 attentively can easily recognize not only the parallels but also the differences between the two texts. Paul clearly intends in this pa.s.sage to emphasize the independence of his apostolic commission, which is not derived from the authority of others, but is granted by the Lord himself; what is at stake here for him is precisely the universality of his mission and the specificity of his path as one engaged in building up the Church of the Gentiles. But Paul also knows that if his ministry is to be valid, he needs communio communio ( (koinonia) with the original Apostles (cf. Gal 2:9), and that without this communio communio he would be running in vain (cf. Gal 2:2). For this reason, after three years in Arabia and Damascus following his conversion, he went up to Jerusalem in order to see Peter (Cephas); thereafter he also met James, the brother of the Lord (cf. 1:18f.). For the same reason, fourteen years later, this time together with Barnabas and t.i.tus, he traveled to Jerusalem and received the sign of he would be running in vain (cf. Gal 2:2). For this reason, after three years in Arabia and Damascus following his conversion, he went up to Jerusalem in order to see Peter (Cephas); thereafter he also met James, the brother of the Lord (cf. 1:18f.). For the same reason, fourteen years later, this time together with Barnabas and t.i.tus, he traveled to Jerusalem and received the sign of communio communio from the ”pillars,” James, Cephas, and John, who extended to him the right hand of fellows.h.i.+p (cf. Gal 2:9). First Peter, and then later the three pillars, are thus presented as the guarantors of from the ”pillars,” James, Cephas, and John, who extended to him the right hand of fellows.h.i.+p (cf. Gal 2:9). First Peter, and then later the three pillars, are thus presented as the guarantors of communio, communio, as its indispensable reference points, who vouch for the correctness and unity of the Gospel and so of the nascent Church. as its indispensable reference points, who vouch for the correctness and unity of the Gospel and so of the nascent Church.

But this also brings to light the indisputable significance of the historical Jesus, of his preaching and of his decisions. The Risen Lord called Paul and gave him his own authority and his own commission, but the same Lord had previously chosen the Twelve, had entrusted Peter with a special commission, had gone with them to Jerusalem, had suffered there on the Cross, and had risen on the third day. The first Apostles guarantee this continuity (Acts 1:21f.), and this continuity explains why the commission given to Peter is actually fundamentally different from the commission given to Paul.

The special commission of Peter figures not only in Matthew, but in different forms (though always with the same substance) in Luke and John and even in Paul. In his pa.s.sionate apologia in the Letter to the Galatians, Paul very clearly presupposes Peter's special commission; this primacy is in fact attested by the whole spectrum of the tradition in all of its diverse strands. To trace it back purely to a personal Easter appearance, and thus to place it in an exact parallel to Paul's mission, is simply not justified by the New Testament data.

But it is now time to return to Peter's confession of Christ and so to our actual topic. We saw that Grelot presents the confession of Peter transmitted in Mark as completely ”Jewish,” and hence bound to be repudiated by Jesus. There is, however, no such repudiation in the text, in which Jesus merely forbids the disciples to speak openly of this confession, given that it would undoubtedly have been misinterpreted in the public climate of Israel and would necessarily have led on one hand to false hopes in him and on the other hand to political action against him. Only after this prohibition does the explanation of what ”Messiah” really means then follow: The true Messiah is the ”Son of Man,” who is condemned to death as the precondition for his entrance into glory as the one who rose from death after three days.

Scholars speak of two types of confessional formula in relation to early Christianity, the ”substantive” and the ”verbal”; perhaps it would be clearer to speak of an ”ontological” and a ”salvation history” type of confession. All three forms of Peter's confession transmitted to us by the Synoptics are ”substantive”-you are are the Christ, the Christ of G.o.d, the Christ, the Son of the living G.o.d. The Lord always sets a ”verbal” confession alongside these substantive statements: the prophetic announcement of the Paschal Mystery of Cross and Resurrection. The two types of confession belong together, and each one is incomplete and ultimately unintelligible without the other. Without the concrete history of salvation, Christ's t.i.tles remain ambiguous: not only the word ”Messiah,” but also ”Son of the living G.o.d.” For this t.i.tle is equally capable of being understood in a sense that is opposed to the mystery of the Cross. the Christ, the Christ of G.o.d, the Christ, the Son of the living G.o.d. The Lord always sets a ”verbal” confession alongside these substantive statements: the prophetic announcement of the Paschal Mystery of Cross and Resurrection. The two types of confession belong together, and each one is incomplete and ultimately unintelligible without the other. Without the concrete history of salvation, Christ's t.i.tles remain ambiguous: not only the word ”Messiah,” but also ”Son of the living G.o.d.” For this t.i.tle is equally capable of being understood in a sense that is opposed to the mystery of the Cross.

Conversely, the bald ”salvation history” statement remains without its full depth unless it is made clear that he who suffered here is the Son of the living G.o.d, who is equal to G.o.d (cf. Phil 2:6), but emptied himself and became like a slave, abasing himself to death, even death on the Cross (cf. Phil 2:7f.). It is therefore only the combination of Peter's confession and Jesus' teaching of the disciples that furnishes us with the full, essential Christian faith. By the same token, the great creedal statements of the Church always linked the two dimensions together.

Yet we know that through all the centuries, right up to the present, Christians-while in possession of the right confession-need the Lord to teach every generation anew that his way is not the way of earthly power and glory, but the way of the Cross. We know and we see that even today Christians-ourselves included-take the Lord aside in order to say to him: ”G.o.d forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to you!” (Mt 16:22). And because we doubt that G.o.d really will forbid it, we ourselves try to prevent it by every means in our power. And so the Lord must constantly say to us, too: ”Get behind me, Satan!” (Mk 8:33). The whole scene thus remains uncomfortably relevant to the present, because in the end we do in fact constantly think in terms of ”flesh and blood,” and not in terms of the Revelation that we are privileged to receive in faith.

We must return once more to the t.i.tles of Christ used in the confessions. The first important point is that the respective form of the t.i.tle must be read within the total context of the individual Gospels and the specific form in which they have been handed down. In this regard, there is always an important connection with the trial of Jesus, in which the confession of the disciples reappears in the form of question and accusation. In Mark, the high priest's question takes up the t.i.tle Christ (Messiah) and extends it: ”Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?” (Mk 14:61). This question implies that such interpretations of the figure of Jesus had found their way from the circle of the disciples into public knowledge. The linking of the t.i.tles ”Christ” (Messiah) and ”Son” was in keeping with biblical tradition (cf. Ps 2:7; Ps 110). Looked at from this perspective, the difference between Mark's and Matthew's versions of the confession now appears only relative and far less significant than Grelot and other exegetes would claim. According to Luke, as we have seen, Peter confesses Jesus as ”the Anointed One [Christ, Messiah] of G.o.d.” Here we see again what the old man Simeon had known concerning the child Jesus, it having been revealed to him that this child was the Anointed One (Christ) of the Lord (cf. Lk 2:26). The rulers of the people present a counterimage of this when they mock Jesus under the Cross, saying, ”He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of G.o.d, his Chosen One!” (Lk 23:35). There is thus an arc stretching from Jesus' childhood up over the confession at Caesarea Philippi and down to the Cross. Taken together, the three texts display the unique sense in which the ”Anointed One” belongs to G.o.d.

There is, however, another incident from the Gospel of Luke that is important for the disciples' faith in Jesus: the story of the abundant catch of fish that ends with the calling of Simon Peter and his companions into disciples.h.i.+p. These experienced fishermen have caught nothing during the whole night, and now Jesus instructs them to put out to sea again in broad daylight and cast out their nets. This seems to make little sense according to the practical knowledge of these men, but Simon answers: ”Master, we toiled all night and took nothing! But at your word I will let down the nets” (Lk 5:5). This is followed by the overflowing catch of fish, which profoundly alarms Peter. He falls at Jesus' feet in the posture of adoration and says: ”Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord” (Lk 5:8). In what has just happened, Peter recognizes the power of G.o.d himself working through Jesus' words, and this direct encounter with the living G.o.d in Jesus shakes him to the core of his being. In the light of this presence, and under its power, man realizes how pitifully small he is. He cannot bear the awe-inspiring grandeur of G.o.d-it is too enormous for him. Even in terms of all the different religions, this text is one of the most powerful ill.u.s.trations of what happens when man finds himself suddenly and directly exposed to the proximity of G.o.d. At that point, he can only be alarmed at himself and beg to be freed from the overwhelming power of this presence. This inner realization of the proximity of G.o.d himself in Jesus suddenly breaks in upon Peter and finds expression in the t.i.tle that he now uses for Jesus: ”Kyrios” (Lord). It is the designation for G.o.d that was used in the Old Testament as a subst.i.tute for the unutterable divine name given from the burning bush. Whereas before putting out from the sh.o.r.e, Peter called Jesus epistata, epistata, which means ”master,” ”teacher,” ”rabbi,” he now recognizes him as the Kyrios. which means ”master,” ”teacher,” ”rabbi,” he now recognizes him as the Kyrios.

We find a similar situation in the story of how Jesus approaches the disciples' boat across the storm-tossed lake. Peter now asks the Lord to bid him walk upon the waters as well-toward Jesus. When he is about to sink, he is rescued by the outstretched hand of Jesus, who then also gets into the boat. But just at this moment the wind subsides. And now the same thing happens that we saw in the story about the abundant haul of fish: The disciples in the boat fall down before Jesus, in an expression at once of terror and adoration, and they confess: ”Truly you are the Son of G.o.d” (Mt 14:2233). These and other experiences, found throughout the Gospels, lay a clear foundation for Peter's confession as reported in Matthew 16:16. In various ways, the disciples were repeatedly able to sense in Jesus the presence of the living G.o.d himself.

Before we attempt to put together a complete picture out of all of these pieces of mosaic, we still must cast a brief glance at the confession of Peter in John's Gospel. Jesus' eucharistic discourse, which John places after the multiplication of the loaves, could be considered as a public continuation of Jesus' No to the tempter's invitation to transform stones into bread-the temptation, that is, to see his mission in terms of generating material prosperity. Jesus draws attention instead to the relations.h.i.+p with the living G.o.d and to the love that comes from him; therein lies the truly creative power that gives meaning, and also provides bread. Jesus thus interprets his own mystery, his own self, in light of his gift of himself as the living bread. The people do not like this; many go away. Jesus thereupon asks the Twelve: Do you want to leave me as well? Peter answers: ”Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of G.o.d” (Jn 6:68f.).

We will need to ponder this version of Peter's confession more closely in the context of the Last Supper. It clearly reveals Jesus' priestly mystery (Psalm 106:16 calls Aaron ”the holy one of G.o.d”). This t.i.tle points backward to the eucharistic discourse and it points forward, along with this discourse, to the mystery of Jesus' Cross; it is thus anch.o.r.ed in the Paschal Mystery, in the heart of Jesus' mission, and it indicates what makes the figure of Christ completely different from the then current forms of messianic hope. The Holy One of G.o.d-that also reminds us, however, of how Peter quails when brought face-to-face with the proximity of the holy after the abundant catch of fish, when he dramatically experiences his wretchedness as a sinner. We find ourselves immersed in the context of the disciples' experience of Jesus, which we have tried to understand on the basis of certain key moments of their journey in fellows.h.i.+p with him.

So what firm conclusion can we draw from all this? The first thing to say is that the attempt to arrive at a historical reconstruction of Peter's original words and then to attribute everything else to posterior developments, and possibly to post-Easter faith, is very much on the wrong track. Where is post-Easter faith supposed to have come from if Jesus laid no foundation for it before Easter? Scholars.h.i.+p overplays its hand with such reconstructions.

It is during Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin that we see what was actually scandalous about him: not a political messianism-that had manifested itself with Barabbas and would do so again with Bar-Kokhba. Both men gained a following and both movements were put down by the Romans. What scandalized people about Jesus was exactly what we have already seen in connection with Rabbi Neusner's conversation with the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount: He seemed to be putting himself on an equal footing with the living G.o.d himself. This was what the strictly monotheistic faith of the Jews was unable to accept. This was the idea to which even Jesus could only slowly and gradually lead people. This was also what permeated his entire message-while preserving unbroken unity with faith in the one G.o.d; this was what was new, characteristic, and unique about his message. The fact that Jesus' trial was then presented to the Romans as the trial of a political Messiah reflects the pragmatism of the Sadducees. But even Pilate sensed that something completely different was really at stake here-that anyone who really seemed to be a politically promising ”king” would never have been handed over to him to be condemned.

But we have stepped too far ahead here. Let us go back to the confessions of the disciples. What do we see when we put together the complete mosaic of texts? Now, the disciples have recognized that Jesus does not fit into any of the existing categories, that he is more than, and different from, ”one of the Prophets.” From the Sermon on the Mount, from his mighty deeds and his authority to forgive sins, from the sovereign manner of his preaching and his way of handling the traditions of the Law-from all of this they were able to recognize that Jesus was more than one of the Prophets. He is the the Prophet who, like Moses, speaks face-to-face with G.o.d as with a friend; he is the Messiah, but in a different sense from that of a mere bearer of some commission from G.o.d. Prophet who, like Moses, speaks face-to-face with G.o.d as with a friend; he is the Messiah, but in a different sense from that of a mere bearer of some commission from G.o.d.

In him, the great messianic words are fulfilled in a disconcerting and unexpected way: ”You are my Son; today I have begotten you” (Ps 2:7). At certain key moments, the disciples came to the astonis.h.i.+ng realization: This is G.o.d himself. They were unable to put all this together into a perfect response. Instead they rightly drew upon the Old Testament's words of promise: Christ, the Anointed One, Son of G.o.d, Lord. These are the key words on which their confession focused, while still tentatively searching for a way forward. It could arrive at its complete form only when Thomas, touching the wounds of the Risen Lord, cried out, in amazement: ”My Lord and my G.o.d” (Jn 20:28). In the end, however, these words send us upon a never-ending journey. They are so vast that we can never grasp them completely, and they always surpa.s.s us. Throughout her entire history, the pilgrim Church has been exploring them ever more deeply. Only by touching Jesus' wounds and encountering his Resurrection are we able to grasp them, and then they become our mission.

THE T TRANSFIGURATION.

All three Synoptic Gospels create a link between Peter's confession and the account of Jesus' Transfiguration by means of a reference to time. Matthew and Mark say: ”And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his brother” (Mt 17:1; Mk 9:2). Luke writes: ”Now about eight days after these sayings” (Lk 9:28). Clearly, this means that the two events, in each of which Peter plays a prominent role, are interrelated. We could say that in both cases the issue is the divinity of Jesus as the Son; another point, though, is that in both cases the appearance of his glory is connected with the Pa.s.sion motif. Jesus' divinity belongs with the Cross-only when we put the two together do we recognize Jesus correctly. John expressed this intrinsic interconnectedness of Cross and glory when he said that the Cross is Jesus' ”exaltation,” and that his exaltation is accomplished in no other way than in the Cross. But now we must try to delve somewhat more deeply into this remarkable time reference. There are two different interpretations, though they do not have to be considered mutually exclusive.

J.-M. van Cangh and M. van Esbroeck have explored the connection with the calendar of Jewish festivals. They point out that only five days separate two major Jewish feasts that occur in the fall. First there is the feast of Yom ha-Kippurim Yom ha-Kippurim, the great feast of atonement; the celebration of the weeklong Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth) follows six days afterward. This would mean that Peter's confession fell on the great Day of Atonement and should be interpreted theologically against the backdrop of this feast, on which, for the one time in the year, the high priest solemnly p.r.o.nounced the name YHWH in the Temple's Holy of Holies. This context would give added depth to Peter's confession of Jesus as the Son of the living G.o.d. Jean Danielou, by contrast, sees the Evangelists' references to the timing of the Transfiguration exclusively in relation to the Feast of Tabernacles, which-as we have seen-lasted an entire week. On this reading, Matthew, Mark, and Luke would all be in agreement about the chronology of the event. The six or eight days would then designate the weeklong Feast of Tabernacles itself; Jesus' Transfiguration would accordingly have taken place on the last day of the feast, which was both its high point and the synthesis of its inner meaning.

Both interpretations have in common the idea that Jesus' Transfiguration is linked with the Feast of Tabernacles. We will see that this connection actually comes to light in the text itself and that it makes possible a deeper understanding of the whole event. In addition to the specific elements of these accounts, we may observe here a fundamental trait of Jesus' life, which receives particularly thorough treatment in John's Gospel. As we saw in chapter 8, the great events of Jesus' life are inwardly connected with the Jewish festival calendar. They are, as it were, liturgical events in which the liturgy, with its remembrance and expectation, becomes reality-becomes life. This life then leads back to the liturgy and from the liturgy seeks to become life again.

Our a.n.a.lysis of the connections between the Transfiguration story and the Feast of Tabernacles ill.u.s.trates once again the fact that all Jewish feasts contain three dimensions. They originate from celebrations of nature religion and thus tell of Creator and creation; they then become remembrances of G.o.d's actions in history; finally, they go on from there to become feasts of hope, which strain forward to meet the Lord who is coming, the Lord in whom G.o.d's saving action in history is fulfilled, thereby reconciling the whole of creation. We will see how these three dimensions of Jewish feasts are further deepened and refas.h.i.+oned as they become actually present in Jesus' life and suffering.

Contrasting with this liturgical interpretation of the timing of the Transfiguration is an alternative account that is insistently maintained by H. Gese (Zur biblischen Theologie). This interpretation holds that there is insufficient evidence for the claim that the text alludes to the Feast of Tabernacles. Instead, it reads the whole text against the background of Exodus 24-Moses' ascent of Mount Sinai. Now, this chapter, which recounts how G.o.d seals the Covenant with Israel, is indeed an essential key to interpreting the story of the Transfiguration. There we read: ”The glory of the LORD dwelt on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days. And on the seventh day he called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud” (Ex 24:16). The Exodus text, unlike the Gospels, mentions the seventh day. This is not necessarily an argument against connecting it with the story of the Transfiguration. Nevertheless, I do consider the first idea-that the timing is derived from the Jewish festival calendar-to be more convincing. It should be pointed out, though, that it is not at all unusual for different typological connections to converge in the events occurring along Jesus' way. This makes it plain that Moses and the Prophets all speak of Jesus. dwelt on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days. And on the seventh day he called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud” (Ex 24:16). The Exodus text, unlike the Gospels, mentions the seventh day. This is not necessarily an argument against connecting it with the story of the Transfiguration. Nevertheless, I do consider the first idea-that the timing is derived from the Jewish festival calendar-to be more convincing. It should be pointed out, though, that it is not at all unusual for different typological connections to converge in the events occurring along Jesus' way. This makes it plain that Moses and the Prophets all speak of Jesus.

Let us turn now to the text of the Transfiguration narrative itself. There we are told that Jesus took Peter, James, and John and led them up onto a high mountain by themselves (Mk 9:2). We will come across these three again on the Mount of Olives (Mk 14:33) during Jesus' agony in the garden, which is the counterimage of the Transfiguration, although the two scenes are inextricably linked. Nor should we overlook the connection with Exodus 24, where Moses takes Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu with him as he climbs the mountain-though seventy of the elders of Israel are also included.

Once again the mountain serves-as it did in the Sermon on the Mount and in the nights spent by Jesus in prayer-as the locus of G.o.d's particular closeness. Once again we need to keep together in our minds the various mountains of Jesus' life: the mountain of the temptation; the mountain of his great preaching; the mountain of his prayer; the mountain of the Transfiguration; the mountain of his agony; the mountain of the Cross; and finally, the mountain of the Risen Lord, where he declares-in total ant.i.thesis to the offer of world dominion through the devil's power: ”All power in heaven and on earth is given to me” (Mt 28:18). But in the background we also catch sight of Sinai, h.o.r.eb, Moriah-the mountains of Old Testament revelation. They are all at one and the same time mountains of pa.s.sion and of Revelation, and they also refer in turn to the Temple Mount, where Revelation becomes liturgy.

When we inquire into the meaning of the mountain, the first point is of course the general background of mountain symbolism. The mountain is the place of ascent-not only outward, but also inward ascent; it is a liberation from the burden of everyday life, a breathing in of the pure air of creation; it offers a view of the broad expanse of creation and its beauty; it gives one an inner peak to stand on and an intuitive sense of the Creator. History then adds to all this the experience of the G.o.d who speaks, and the experience of the Pa.s.sion, culminating in the sacrifice of Isaac, in the sacrifice of the lamb that points ahead to the definitive Lamb sacrificed on Mount Calvary. Moses and Elijah were privileged to receive G.o.d's Revelation on the mountain, and now they are conversing with the One who is G.o.d's Revelation in person.

”And he was transfigured before them,” Mark says quite simply, going on to add somewhat awkwardly, as if stammering before the Mystery: ”And his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them” (Mk 9:23). Matthew has rather more elevated words at his command: ”His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light” (Mt 17:2). Luke is the only one of the Evangelists who begins his account by indicating the purpose of Jesus' ascent: He ”went up on the mountain to pray” (Lk 9:28). It is in the context of Jesus' prayer that he now explains the event that the three disciples are to witness: ”And as he was praying, the appearance of his face was altered, and hisclothing became dazzling white” (Lk 9:29). The Transfiguration is a prayer event; it displays visibly what happens when Jesus talks with his Father: the profound interpenetration of his being with G.o.d, which then becomes pure light. In his oneness with the Father, Jesus is himself ”light from light.” The reality that he is in the deepest core of his being, which Peter tried to express in his confession-that reality becomes perceptible to the senses at this moment: Jesus' being in the light of G.o.d, his own being-light as Son.

At this point Jesus' relation to the figure of Moses as well as the differences between the two become apparent: ”As he came down from the mountain, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with G.o.d” (Ex 34:2935). Because Moses has been talking with G.o.d, G.o.d's light streams upon him and makes him radiant. But the light that causes him to s.h.i.+ne comes upon him from the outside, so to speak. Jesus, however, s.h.i.+nes from within; he does not simply receive light, but he himself is light from light.

Yet Jesus' garment of white light at the Transfiguration speaks of our future as well. In apocalyptic literature, white garments are an expression of heavenly beings-the garments of angels and of the elect. In this vein the Apocalypse of John-the Book of Revelation-speaks of the white garments that are worn by those who have been saved (cf. especially 7:9, 13; 19:14). But it also tells us something new: The garments of the elect are white because they have washed them in the blood of the Lamb (cf. Rev 7:14); this means that through Baptism they have been united with Jesus' Pa.s.sion, and his Pa.s.sion is the purification that restores to us the original garment lost through our sin (cf. Lk 15:22). Through Baptism we are clothed with Jesus in light and we ourselves become light.