Transfiguration, Luke, and Theophilus?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stope

Puritan Board Sophomore
What do you think were Theophilus' observations and take-aways when he read the Transfiguration account?



[28] Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James and went up on the mountain to pray. [29] And as he was praying, the appearance of his face was altered, and his clothing became dazzling white. [30] And behold, two men were talking with him, Moses and Elijah, [31] who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. [32] Now Peter and those who were with him were heavy with sleep, but when they became fully awake they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. [33] And as the men were parting from him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good that we are here. Let us make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah”—not knowing what he said. [34] As he was saying these things, a cloud came and overshadowed them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. [35] And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!” [36] And when the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent and told no one in those days anything of what they had seen.

(Luke 9:28-36 ESV)
 
Well, I think it certainly is providential that Theophilus ("lover of God," perhaps an individual, perhaps not) was given an account of the transfiguration that was not of Matthew 17.

For one, we must understand that Theophilus is very likely a Greek or Gentile of some sort. He would not necessarily view it the same way as the Greek Jews reading Matthew would.

Readers of Matthew would see it simply: "Moses?! Elijah?! Why, that means that this Jesus has the approval of the very Law and Prophets of God!" Think, for a moment, why the three needed to be seen together, and then Jesus alone. It's almost as if God is saying, "Behold, my Son is the sum of these two men's life work." He is their fulfillment!

Now onto Theophilus, who likely would not have had as thorough and studied an understanding of God's law as the Greek Jews reading Matthew would.

Remember that the Greek concept of "Hades" is something touched upon by the New Testament. A place where you are only alive insofar as you are remembered. A place no man can emerge from, the eternal goodbye either into immortality by remembrance or obscurity as people forget you.

To a Greek, the fact that two men known to be dead appearing alive would be mind-boggling: it is a question of life and death. And that these two men revere Christ in all His authority sends one spectacular message: This Jesus holds the keys that lock the realm of the living from the realm of the dead. Surely He must have had some hand in their creation, then! He is the giver of life and death! And if He is the giver of life and death... indeed, he must be a god.

I can imagine that the poor among the Greeks that subscribed to traditional polytheism would have struggled at this (the rich were known well for their respect of the fables, but not to their strict factual adherence).

Essentially, to the Greek, what it says is this: "This Jesus holds authority over life and death, and divinity as you understand it is not truth."

By this gospel's end, it will have become clear that christos was not a god, but THE God.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
That this Jesus had real power over life and death, was a real Son of God, and not like those Greek fable gods he grew up hearing about!
 
Theophilus could be an individual, a patron; Luke's dedication would fit an ancient pattern in that case. He could also be a cypher for an "everyman" in one of Paul's church-plants: whether he is one already professing the Faith, or one who is in process of being drawn by the Spirit to that profession. The question to him, and to us, is this: You are called Lover-of-God; do you call yourself a Christian?

The Christian believes the gospel of Jesus Christ; and that is the story Luke undertakes. Now, I'm not sure that Theolphilus' as a character has any more to do specifically with the content of this or any passage. All three Synoptic Gospels relate the transfiguration; therefore, we can assume that as a "piece" of the overall apostolic narrative, it was thought "primary."

So, Luke is probably not flipping a coin as to whether this element will make it through his "what's important" filter. He's not judging his likely audience--of one or many--and deciding if the transfiguration will "suit" Gentile ears or expectations. He might tailor the language to accommodate the alien ear, but not his sensibilities. The transfiguration in all cases follows immediately Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Christ. In all three Synoptics, Peter's confession is the chief turning point in the whole gospel narrative.

It is far more important to understanding what is going on in the text to see how the transfiguration fits in the structure of the witness to Jesus, than attempting to psychologize Theophilus as if he had some sort of "typical Greek mind." We know nothing of this person, or what influences he could have had until now. Whatever collective social conditioning is worth--even assuming we could know an ancient culture well enough to make such generalizations--we shouldn't impute to Luke too much prior concern for what his readers will make of his effort at telling Christ's mission.

Setting Theophilus aside, then, what should any lover-of-God who reads this passage in Luke take from it? The following details are important to Luke.

1) The event takes place up on a mountain, a remote place but also proximally "closer" to heaven than down among the rest. This has some significance to the incident; but it takes on added significance as Jesus' final journey to Jerusalem commences, v51.

2) Jesus, praying, is gloriously affected before PJ&J, and then attended by two other men "from heaven," one of whom is Moses. And they talk about Jesus "exodus," v31.

3) Peter does some confused babbling for the observers, and they are overcome with fear as a cloud envelops them atop the mountain, and a voice speaks forth from the blind, "Listen to my Son!" The OT prophets, represented by Moses and Elijah, are superseded by the Prophet, cf. Dt.18:15; but they bear witness of him, therefore men must accept all actual divine revelation, whether old or new. It is all one message.

4) This experience was kept in confidence among the participants until all was accomplished.
 
It is far more important to understanding what is going on in the text to see how the transfiguration fits in the structure of the witness to Jesus, than attempting to psychologize Theophilus as if he had some sort of "typical Greek mind."

Reverend Buchanan:

To clarify, my intention was not to paint a portrait of a scholarly Luke biting the eraser end of his pencil thinking, "Hm, how should I say this to Gentiles?" Luke's concern is empirical fact. You're correct to say that his painstaking eye for detail demonstrates his concern for the truth instead of any cultural considerations.

My examination of the text in question comes from the principle that there are lessons to be learned in how a proposed audience would receive a message; the things they would stumble over, what would come easy and what wouldn't, etc. (Don't missionaries employ this manner of preparation today?)

In the case of the gospel of Luke, we can glean that this gospel was very likely directed toward the Gentiles because of its sophistication in langauge in comparison to the writings of the non-native Paul.

On what basis, then, do we examine things from a "typical Greek" mind? Easy: the psychology, philosophy and culture of the Koine-speaking Greeks is well-documented in art, literature and history. Greek culture was the idol of a jealous Rome in the west, and many times we can make insinuations about Greek thinking just by how the Romans tried to copy it.

I agree wholeheartedly on the futility of theologizing that which can be only speculation at best. I do think, however, that viewed through the lens of the missionary journeys of the first century church, an understanding of the unconverted audience is a beneficial thing to have.
 
Great response you guys, both very helpful.

Indeed, the Bible was written for us but not to us. In this case it was written to "Theophilus". We are listening in on only one end of the phone conversation and so some (much?) is left to trying to piece together the mindset help. The reason why I asked what it is that Theophilus might have observed and took as take-aways had to do with the fact that this story is quite powerful in a Greek sense (namely Theophilus), but even more so for a Jewish reader, and so we can assume that Theophilus knew who "Elijah" and "Moses" are but other aspects might have been confusing to him (and me for that matter, and that's why I ask), what was significant about Peters wanting to set up camp there for a spell... From everyone I have read on this passage they just kind of write off this statement from Peter as Pete's "confused babbling" (or similar concept/language), but I always thought there had to be more there to Peters statement (if it was just some bizarre rambling then why would Luke have even mentioned this "folly"?).
 
It could be said that Luke mentioned it because it demonstrates the incomprehensible glory of God. I genuinely think Peter was just confused, but that's just me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
In the case of the gospel of Luke, we can glean that this gospel was very likely directed toward the Gentiles because of its sophistication in langauge in comparison to the writings of the non-native Paul.
The conclusion doesn't follow; and the statement itself makes hardly any sense. Luke's Gospel is likely oriented to support of the missionary thrust of Paul's ministry; which was to Jew first, and also to the Gentile. If Luke's language shows any exceptional sophistication at all (especially in comparison to Paul), it might be related to his training as a physician.

On what basis, then, do we examine things from a "typical Greek" mind? Easy: the psychology, philosophy and culture of the Koine-speaking Greeks is well-documented in art, literature and history.
I'd venture to say there'd be nothing easy about it. Facile, maybe. It's like saying that anyone today who communicates in English can be effectively psychologized; this notion being further backed-up by observing that American pop-culture is shipped around the world along with merchandise. Such a conclusion is wildly inaccurate today, and it would be the more so in the ancient world, in spite of a dominant culture out of Rome, and much influence spread over the nearEast by the conquests of Alexander over three hundred years earlier.

My point is, that the text of Luke will not preselect for any particular cultural "reaction." It is not written to meet particular needs of a homogenous culture. Luke might be a native Koine speaker, or maybe not. We don't know his ethnicity or linguistic extraction. We may guess at what "Greek speakers" from various cultures, or even Greeks themselves might think, vaguely. But Luke, the author, has little to tell us culturally outside of the Jewish world until we visit various places with Paul in Acts.
 
I always thought there had to be more there to Peters statement (if it was just some bizarre rambling then why would Luke have even mentioned this "folly"?
Peter's statement will tell us about his psychology. But it is bizarre for us to suppose Luke says what he says because he is "getting in the head" of Theophilus.

The Christian message is something that had from the very beginning to be taught, explained into a foreign context from out of the Jewish world, with all of its oddities. That's the preacher's job. It's not the task of the author. Of course, he wants to connect and speak clearly. But the writer is sovereign, and the hearer is obliged to submit. It is the latter who must labor to understand authorial intent; and it is the office of the minister to make the message as plain as possible, overcoming obstacles wherever possible.

We would further say the Holy Spirit is necessary in order to achieve real spiritual engagement with the meaning and purposes of the text. It isn't entirely natural for Jew or Gentile to apprehend the signs in the bare words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top