February 13th, 2021

This year there are two options for the Old Testament reading for the Sunday of the Transfiguration, and those two readings connect with the two Old Testament figures who appear with Jesus, that of Elijah [2 Kings 2:1-12] and Moses [Exodus 34:29-35]. Both people are obviously significant within the Old Testament, but only in the Gospel according to Mark are the two initially described in this way: 'Elijah with Moses’ [verse 4]. In the two other (very similar) accounts, they are described as ‘Moses and Elijah’ [Matthew 17:3; Luke 9:30]. It may seem like a small difference, but little things may be important when the focus is ultimately the supposed ‘Son of God [Mark 1:1]’.
​
What perspective of Jesus in the Gospel according to Mark would put Elijah ahead of Moses? Elijah is usually compared to John the Baptist, and Elisha with Jesus; there are even some similarities with their names.

Jesus, in the Gospel according to Mark, has been compared to the living creature of the lion. The more actions that Jesus does within this account, and the distance that he puts between himself and his disciples, those two characteristics help to show Jesus as that lion figure. And perhaps it could be said of Elijah that he had some characteristics of a similar animal. This quote from the Concordia Self-Study Bible may be helpful:

Elijah’s rugged figure became a model of the ideal prophet in Israel. Jesus fulfilled 40 days and nights of desert fasting as Elijah had done; many believed he was a reincarnated Elijah (1 Ki 19:8; Mt 4:2; 16:14) [St. Louis, Missouri; Concordia Publishing House, 1986; page 512].

The typical text that is used for this Sunday [2 Kings 2:1-12] has Elijah handing over the work to Elisha. It seems like a pretty nice text. But there were lots of events that happened before and after that show how difficult it was for the prophets of the LORD in that situation. It may be good to review some of those events sometime.

There are also some significant differences between the Hebrew Old Testament of this historical section of the Bible and the intertestamental translation of those four historical books into Greek. What is interesting, first of all, is that some of those differences with the Greek have been seen in the Hebrew manuscripts found at Qumran. More work needs to be done in this area.

Another interesting point regarding this Greek translation is that the historic present is EXTREMELY frequent here. (That is when, instead of saying ‘he said this’, the text says, ‘he says this’.) To be more specific though, it is frequent within only SOME parts of the text.

Some have thought that this is just a matter of having two different translators, one earlier (who used the historic present) and one later (who did not). Another option would be two different literary themes within the book.

There are many times in Jesus’ ministry when the text in a particular gospel account has a lot of historic presents, but when he institutes the Lord’s Supper and when Jesus is on the cross, those are times that are basically without historic presents. (The only exception to this is Jesus’ speaking to John and his mother, so that he would take care of her after his death; see John 19:26-27.) These are very serious times, and the focus is on what is happening at that ONE time in ‘his story’.

Another literary possibility would be that sections of the historical text, those without the historical presents, the more serious and focused sections, those at approximate points of one-third and two-thirds, those two sections may imitate a layout of the tabernacle, that there is a place for sacrifice and then a place for the ‘Holy of Holies’. This serious progression through the text leads us on to a much better story, that of the Lord’s chosen people eventually returning from the Exile and coming back to the Promised Land. The point of all this is so that there can be the Promised ONE.