This article was first published in 2009.

We re-join Luke at chapter 9, a hugely important chapter in Luke’s Jesus’ story. Luke uses this chapter as a hinge for his gospel, neatly bookending the first part of Jesus’ ministry and signalling a change of focus. After Lk 9 we begin the long journey to Jerusalem and the inexorable sense that the story is moving to its climax. But before we begin this journey, Luke’s Jesus poses the fundamental question: ‘who am I’? What follows is some pretty dense Jewish theology – so hang on to your hats as we enter the murky waters of apocalyptic, inter-testamental literature. Again, I would encourage us to try to suspend our inherited systematic propositions, and listen closely to what Luke might be saying.

In this chapter, Jesus once again characteristically challenges inherited ideas, giving them a new twist, and fusing together previously unfriendly nouns and adjectives to create new meanings. The first one he introduces is Messiah.

Messiah

My son is 19 months old and is slowly emerging from the world of baby babble to coherent(ish) speech. He currently has around 30 words, ranging from mummy to (I think very impressively) helicopter. One of most fun things is watching his reaction when he encounters something new, something which he doesn’t have a category for yet. You can see his little brain working over time until eventually he just says ‘WOW’ (and then birdie – everything is currently ‘birdie’…). In many ways I see this same bewilderment and head-scratching going on in this chapter, as the disciples try to grapple with who Jesus is without ready-made categories available to them.

Our passage starts with Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah. As we have seen from Matt’s posts on Matthew and Mark, Messiah had specific connotations in 1st century Palestine. We should also remember that there was no agreed systematic theology concerning Messiah. Rather there were a number of idea-clusters which cohered around the Messiah. Messiah was a political figure with associations to kingship and the house of David. Messiah had eschatological (that is to do with end times) overtones, with a new kingdom being established under his rule. Some thought the Messiah figure was pre-existent; some thought there would be two Messiahs, one who will be the ideal Priest, one who will be the ideal King; some looked back to the Maccabean dynasty as a model. So when Peter confesses that Jesus is the Messiah it is not as cut and dried as we might imagine.

However, this is not to down play the significance of Peter’s confession. Far from it – for this is perhaps the first time Jesus accepts Messiah as a title. But having done this he does something strange – he forbids the disciples to use it. Instead Jesus proceeds to call himself the Son of Man. So the question is firstly why, and secondly what does ‘Son of Man’ language add to our understanding of who Jesus is?

To answer the first question, there is the pragmatic reason that if Jesus was to proclaim himself Messiah publicly this would irrevocably change his public ministry. He would attract the attentions of the authorities and he would not be able to continue his ministry in the same manner. Perhaps a parallel today would be if someone were to proclaim themselves a terrorist – this would certainly affect their relationship with the authorities.

But secondly, I think that Jesus, the consummate communicator, is going easy on the exhausted brains of his disciples! Peter has finally managed to adjust to the notion that a Jewish Messiah is dining out with prostitutes and tax collectors, to Jesus’ healing outside of the temple system, forgiving sins willy-nilly. To introduce the thought that the Messiah would suffer and die, as he does in v21, would just be too much for the disciples to cope with! Using Son of Man language gives Jesus access to a whole new cluster of ideas which are better able to incorporate the idea of suffering.

The Son of Man

Some interesting things to know about the phrase Son of Man – it is only found in the gospels, it is only found coming from the mouth of Jesus himself, and it is an unusual Greek phrase unknown outside of the Bible.

So what did the Son of Man mean in the 1st century? You will not be surprised to know that this is fiercely contested. However, without going into the ins and outs of the argument the consensus is that the Son of Man does not function as a title in the gospels. That is, when Jesus uses Son of Man he was not drawing on an agreed identity but more a general description emphasizing his humanity. There are allusions to Daniel 7; however these can be easily overplayed. For instance, Son of Man does not appear anywhere else in early Christian literature which is more than a little strange if it functioned as a title in the gospels. Also the only other place the phrase appears in the NT is Revelation 1 which is a direct allusion to Daniel 7, the phrase used is ‘one like the Son of Man’, the direct quote from Daniel 7. There are many other allusions which the Lukan version of Son of Man is drawing on; Psalm 8, Psalm 80.17, for example.

By using the Son of Man language together with the foretelling of suffering, rejection and death, Jesus was bringing the suffering servant strand of Jewish theology to the foreground and into creative connection with Messiah and Son of Man language. This suffering servant strand of Jewish thought had its roots in Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac, in the righteous suffering of the psalms of lament, in Isaiah 53 and latterly in the Maccabean revolt (see 4 Macc 6.29 and 17.21). While not a dominant strand of thought, it was certainly present and increasingly influential.

Jesus was fusing together three previously disparate figures in this passage - Messiah, Son of Man and Suffering Servant - in order to introduce his peculiar sense of vocation: that is, to suffer rejection and to die.

Transfiguration

Next comes the transfiguration, which adds another layer of meaning. Jesus appears transfigured next to Moses and Elijah on a mountain. As Matt has previously said in his thoughts on Mark, that this transfiguration took place on a mountain recalls the events at Sinai in the desert, underlined with the appearance of Moses.

Why do Moses and Elijah appear? Why not Noah, why not Elisha? Well the answer to this is found in the intertestamental Jewish belief in ‘exalted patriarchs’ of which Moses and Elijah were two of the most popular. Put simply, there was a belief that God acted through agents (wisdom, logos, angels, patriarchs), and some of these agents were ancient patriarchs (see for instance Sirach 44-49). So for Peter, James and John seeing Jesus transfigured with Moses and Elisha would have suggested that Jesus himself is in some way a divine agent. A point spelled out in verses 34-36, mirroring and confirming Jesus baptismal experience in the Jordan.

A New Exodus

And finally the last point to note in these verses is the connection with the Exodus. The ‘departure’ of v.31 is the same word for exodus. And given the appearance of Moses on the mountain, the cloud and the ensuing journey to Jerusalem, it is more than likely that Luke is alluding to the Exodus narratives and suggesting that in some way there are parallels with Jesus ministry. This is a new Exodus in which God’s agent who has a unique vocation, which draws on Messiah, Son of Man and Suffering servant imagery, will return to Jerusalem, but not in triumphal militarism; instead he will suffer.

What a strange Messiah this is! As we have seen over the past few weeks, Jesus’ identity is made up of many pieces. Some are slowly coming together but we must again wait for Luke to guide us further until we get the whole picture and the jigsaw becomes complete.

Reflection:

Jesus suffered. This is an endlessly miraculous, shocking fact. As we approach holy week perhaps this poem by George Herbert captures some of the wonder and mystery which we encounter here foreshadowed in Lk 9 and realised in terrible truth later in Luke’s story.

The Agony

Philosophers have measured mountains,
Fathom'd the depths of seas, of states, and kings,
Walk'd with a staff to heaven, and traced fountains
But there are two vast, spacious things,
The which to measure it doth more behove:
Yet few there are that sound them; Sin and Love.

Who would know Sin, let him repair
Unto Mount Olivet; there shall he see
A man, so wrung with pains, that all his hair,
His skin, his garments, bloody be.
Sin is that Press and Vice, which forceth pain
To hunt his cruel food through every vein.

Who knows not Love, let him assay,
And taste that juice, which on the cross a pike
Did set again abroach; then let him say
If ever he did taste the like.
Love is that liquor sweet and most divine,
Which my God feels as blood; but I, as wine.