NOTA SOBRE EL DERECHO DE PROPIEDAD EN ELORDEN CRSITIANO DE LA JUSTICIA.

In exploring the meaning of the divine voice and thus to think about Jesus as God thinks of him, it is necessary the hear the second heavenly voice as well. But Peter's confession must be introduced first, for although it is not directly concerned with Jesus' divine sonship, it does have great importance for Mark's presentation of Jesus and is intimately connected with the transfiguration passage.

In this passage (8:27-30), in response to Jesus' question who he thinks Jesus is, Peter answers σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός (v.29) in contradistinction to others who say Jesus is John, Elijah, or one of the prophets. In Mark this confession of Jesus' identity is seen in a positive light and is thus 'correct' and not 'false' as argued by some Markan scholars.241 However, while this confession is 'correct' it is 'incomplete' as J.D.

Kingsbury has rightly argued, or in the terminology used above, is not 'thick' enough. This confession needs to be supplemented by two elements that follow it in the narrative: a definition of what messiahship would mean for Jesus (8:31) and that

235. Gamel, (2014), 203. 236. Hooker, (1991), 67.

237. Watson, Francis, “Ambiguity in the Marcan Narrative” King’s Theological Review 10 (1987), 11.

238. Aune, David E., The New Testament in its Literary Environment. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987), 55. Emphasis original.

239. Boring, (2006), 46. 240. Driggers, (2007), 1.

241. Kelber, Werner H., The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and a New Time. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 82-85. Weeden, Theodore J., Mark: Traditions in Conflict. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 56, 64-69, and Tyson, Joseph B., “The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark” JBL 80/3 (1961).

Jesus' identity as ὁ χριστός needs to be augmented by his divine sonship (9:7. Also 1:1, 15:39, 14:61-62). The designations Christ and Son of God do not stand "in opposition to"242 one another, nor can these designations used of Jesus be collapsed

into one, as does Boring, who argues that 'Christ' in all of its occurrences can be "equated with" "the king of Israel"243as well as being "interchangeable" with "Son of

God".244

In this passage Peter and Jesus rebuke each other in turn and the word ἐπιτιµάω appears three times: in v.30, when Jesus orders them to keep silent concerning his messiahship, in v.32 in describing Peter's opposition to Jesus' mention of suffering, and again when Jesus in v.33 rebukes Peter for his objection with the words "get behind me, Satan!". In this context it is significant that this is the same word used in describing Jesus' silencing of the demons in 1:25 and 3:12, and thus highlighting the parallel theme of silence with respect to Jesus' identity. Jesus' prohibition of the announcement of his messiahship not because Peter's confession was untrue, but on the contrary because it was true; as was also the case with the demons.245 Here the

description 'messianic secret' is apt. The demons are silenced for they are unauthorised to speak it, and here Jesus is reticent to openly be understood in messianic terms that are not qualified by his suffering. A perception of his messianic role was also in danger of being understood in purely militaristic terms.246 While

there is truth to the claim that Jesus redefines the meaning of true messiahship (v.31), there is more to the injunction. For while the confession is 'correct' Mark is careful to tie it to Jesus' divine sonship as revealed by God. Since, as J.D. Kingsbury argues, 'messiah' is the "most general of Mark's christological categories", it needs to be qualified.247 A proclamation of Jesus as Messiah without recognising his divine

sonship would be 'incomplete' and would not be viewing Jesus as God views him. Though it is too drastic to state that "Peter's confession is accurate only in its vocabulary,"248 the 'christ' designation needs to be connected to the Son of God title.249

242. Kelber, (1974), 85. 243. Boring, (1984), 129. 244. Boring, (1984), 130-131. 245. Marcus, (2009), 612.

246. Dunn, (1970), 111-112, 115. Nineham, D.E., Saint Mark. Pelican New Testament Commentaries. (London: Penguin, 1963), 225. France, (2002), 330. Wright, (1996), 481-486. Wright, (1992), 319-20. Marcus, (2009), 613-114, 1104-1107. Dunn, (2003), 619-622.

247. Kingsbury, (1983), 15. See also France, (2002), 331. Wright, (1996), 482. Wright, (1992), 307-308, 319-320.

248. Camery-Hoggart, (1992), 157. Cited in Garland, (2015), 382. 249. Frenschkowski, (1997), 156.

Peter's confession and the following dialogue should not be read in isolation, for it is intimately connected with the following 'transfiguration' passage. Gregg S. Morrison has argued extensively for the interconnectedness of 8:27-38 and 9:2-13 with 9:1 as a 'hinge', and argues that these together form the turning point of the book.250 His

arguments include vocabulary and grammatical links251as well as thematic links. He

notes that besides Jesus, Peter is the main character in both passages, though the other disciples are present. Both texts also have a reference to Elijah, other prophets/ Moses, and include the command to silence after the revelation of Jesus' identity. Both passages also contain anti-triumphalist teaching concerning the suffering Son of Man. But most importantly, both texts contain a revelation of Jesus' identity.252 In

the former passage it is as Christ and in the latter as the Son of God.253

While Wellhausen source-critically labelled the transfiguration episode a 'misplaced resurrection account',254 this view has also been appropriated narratively by Marcus

who, on the basis of 9:9, sees the transfiguration as the expectation of the resurrection.255An alternative view is that it is a preview of Jesus' future parousia. A

notable example of this view is C. Breytenbach who refers to the transfiguration as a 'prolepsis' and writes: "Hier wird auf die endzeitliche Würde Jesu vorgegriffen."256

But the question is whether the transfigured Jesus shows who he is or who he will be. In light of the secrecy motif and the divine voice at both the baptism and in this episode, Childs seems to be right in claiming that the transfiguration is "a momentary unveiling of Christ's true identity".257This can also rightly be described as

an epiphany, or as Schenke describes the passage: "Die Epiphanie der wahren Identität Jesu".258But this does not exclude that the transfiguration also points to the

parousia or to his post-resurrection heavenly state, but here the disciples and the

reader are given insights into "Jesu wahre Wirklichkeit".259 The epiphany does not

250. Morrison, Gregg S., The Turning Point in the Gospel of Mark: A Study in Markan Christology. (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014), 81.

251. Morrison, (2014), 84-85, 104-118. 252. Morrison, (2014), 85-91, 118ff. 253. See also Hooker, (2000), 82.

254. Stein, Robert H., “Is the Transfiguration (Mark 9:2-8) a misplaced resurrection-account?” JBL 95/1 (1976), 79.

255. Marcus, (2009), 637. Also Thrall, Margaret E., “Elijah and Moses in Mark’s Account of the Transfiguration”

NTS 16/4 (1970), 310-313. Garland, (2015), 362-363.

256. Breytenbach, (1991), 180. Also Focant, (2009), 5. 257. Childs, (1984), 90.

258. Schenke, (2005), 214. Also Heil, John Paul, The Transfiguration of Jesus: Narrative Meaning and Function

of Mark 9:2-8, Matt 17:1-8 and Luke 9:28-36. AnBib. 144. (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico,

2000), 38-49, 51-73. Guttenberger, (2004), 88.

259. Schenke, (1988), 110, 113. See also Schenke, (2000), 62. Gathercole, (2006), 49-50. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin,

make him a divine Son, for this he has already been revealed to be.260In this context

it is right to interpret 9:1 is a promise of revelation261 which is immediately, yet only

partly, fulfilled in the following episode.262 The promise in 9:1 does not need to be

restricted to a singular fulfilment, and can also anticipate the resurrection and the

parousia.263

This interpretation is also suggested by the location on the mountain, which is often a place of divine presence, revelation, and divine encounter both in the OT and the ancient orient more widely.264 The appearance of Elijah and Moses is likely for the

reason that both met God on Sinai/Horeb,265 and the point may be that they now

speak to Jesus like they spoke to God on the mountain in the past.266 The narrative

detail that this happened 'after six days', which is the only such reference in Mark, could also be an allusion to the theophany in Exod 24:16.267The statement that Jesus'

clothes are so white as no one on earth could bleach them (9:3) indicates his heavenly identity.268 Furthermore, the cloud indicates the divine presence,269 which

was typical on Sinai270 as well as in the tent of meeting,271 in the desert272 and the

Temple.273As Samuel Terrien notes: "the Markan audience could not miss the parallel

between the transfiguration of Jesus and the Horeb theophanies."274

As Focant also notes: "La parole prononcée par cette voix constitue la pointe du récit, de la révélation."275The voice from the cloud says in a clear echo of 1:11 οὗτός

260. Schenke, (2000), 62. 261. Marcus, (2009), 635.

262. Black, (2005), 39. R.T. France argues that the perfect shows that the kingdom has already come. France, (2002), 344.

263. Morrison, (2014), 142. See also Marcus, (2009), 635. France, (2002), 345. Cranfield, (1959), 287-288. France, (1990), 73. France suggests one should think in terms of "process" rather then "single event". 264. Exod 19:3-25, 24:12-18, 1 Kgs 19:8. Guttenberger, (2004), 85-87. Black, (2005), 39. Focant, (2010), 334. 265. Marcus, (2009), 632. Evans, (2001), 36. Gundry, (1993b), 458-459. Not because it refers to the law and the

prophets, as suggested by Nineham, (1963), 235 and Focant, (2010), 335. 266. Johansson, (2011), 129-130.

267. Black, (2005), 40.

268. Heil, (2000), 76ff. No, (1999), 107. Bauckham, (2008c), 264. Gundry, (1993b), 459. Telford says both 8:30 and 9:7 are revelations. Telford, (1999), 41-42.

269. Focant, (2010), 339. Heil, (2000), 27, 31. Guttenberger, (2004), 89. It is unlikely that the cloud has a "vehicular function" transporting Elijah and Moses to heaven as suggested by Heil, (2000), 143-149, 169, 315.

270. For instance in Exod 16:10-11, 19:9, 19:16, 24:15-18. 271. Exod 33:9-10.

272. Exod 40:36-38.

273. 1 Kgs 8:10-12. Gundry, (1993b), 460. Marcus, (2009), 634. Montague, George T., “The Fire in the Word: The Holy Spirit in Scripture,” in Advents of the Spirit: An Introduction to the Current Study of

Pneumatology. Eds. Bradford E. Hinze and D. Lyle Dabney (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press,

2005), 41. Heil, (2000), 132ff. Rowe, (2002b), 143.

274. Terrien, Samuel, The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology. (New York: Harper & Row, 1978), 423.

ἐστιν ὁ υἱός µου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ. But this time it is addressed to the three disciples on the mountain. The following clause ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ is likely an allusion to Deut 18:15, 18 which refers to the coming prophet promised to Israel after they requested a mediator on Horeb.276 But here the emphasis is that it is Jesus, and not

Elijah or Moses, who is the divine son. This scene, similar to the baptism episode, is a revelation of Jesus' identity as the Son of God to both the inner circle of disciples and to the reader.

Peter's suggestion to build three tents (σκηνή) probably refers to the feast of boots or tabernacles (Lev 23:39-43) but could also be a reference to the tabernacle, the place of God's presence.277L. Schenke thinks that Peter's suggestion indicates that they see

this events "als Einbruch des Himmlischen in die irdischen Welt" and he thus desired to remain in that condition continually and thus suggested raising the tents.278 But

three tabernacles or tents, would indicate equality between Moses, Elijah, and Jesus, which is Peter's misunderstanding.279J.P. Heil is likely right in seeing a deliberate and

ironic connection between Peter's suggestion to build three tents (σκηνάς) and the cloud which immediately overshadowed or 'tents over' them (ἐπισκιάζουσα).280 The

cloud is "symbolic of God's presence"281 and it is precisely God's presence which is

manifest at the transfiguration scene, in similarity with the baptism episode, the tearing of heaven, the coming of the Spirit, and the torn temple veil at the conclusion of the narrative. But while God's presence is a temporary phenomenon on this mountain, the Gospel of Mark communicates the coming of God and his reign in the Son Jesus.

Peter's confession and the voice from heaven, with their respective injunction to silence, are brought together with the rather precise 'after six days' (9:2),282 and the

statement that those "standing here" will see the coming of the kingdom with power

276. Stuhlmacher, (2012), 142. Marcus, (2009), 634. Johnson cites Deut 4:36-37. Johnson, Andrew M., “Error and Epistemological Process in the Pentateuch and Mark’s Gospel: A Biblical Theology of Knowing from Foundational Texts” (Ph.D., University of St. Andrews, 2011), 164.

277. Black, (2005), 41. 278. Schenke, (2000), 61. 279. Thrall, (1970), 308-309. 280. Heil, (2000), 164, 315. 281. Heil, (2000), 165.

282. Lightfoot, R.H., History and Interpretation in the Gospels. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935), 92. France, (2002), 326, 345-348.

(9:1).283 The 'some' are Peter, James, and John and they 'see' what was promised.284

The voice at the Transfiguration which is directed towards the disciples not only "endorses"285but also "completes" Peter's confession. The relationship between Jesus'

sonship and messiahship also comes to the fore in other places in Mark, namely at the baptism (1:11) and especially the trial (14:61-62).286