Continuation of 40: Transfiguration (2/4) and Mass
In this third consecutive Post on the Transfiguration, I would like to address an aspect of it that is rarely addressed by theology: the relationship between St. John (his writings) and the Transfiguration. Let me explain my point:
In this third consecutive Post on the Transfiguration, I would like to address an aspect of it that is rarely addressed by theology: the relationship between St. John (his writings) and the Transfiguration. Let me explain my point:
If
we accept (you don't have to) that all the writings of the Bible put
under the name of “John” are of the same person,
if
we accept that (you don't have to) that same person is John the
Apostle,
if
we accept that he was one of the three admitted to be the witness of
the Lord's Transfiguration, and
if
we consider the Transfiguration as something of a transcendental
meaning/importance
then
we seriously have to wonder:
“how
come John is not mentioning the Transfiguration in his Gospel?!”
In
other words we can say: “The Transfiguration certainly left
a great and living influence on St. John, and he most probably
meditated upon it, time and time again. Since the Transfiguration is
that central in Christ's message, one dares to think that most
probably John decided to insert it in his Gospel. He didn't do it in
an obvious, literal way: there is no account of the Transfiguration
in his Gospel. So he probably found a way to mention it, or at least
to mention it's essential message. He probably chose to place the
Transfiguration in a more “central way”. Indeed, the way the
“Transfiguration” is inserted in the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and
Luke) looks a bit off-centred, like a meteorite that
landed from nowhere.
The
more one deepens the Transfiguration (spending years on meditating on
it) the more one sees its transcendental importance, the more one is
convinced that: it is impossible for John - who witnessed it - to
remain totally silent about it.
It
is puzzling! unless one thinks that he probably found a solution
to say it, to present it, in a way that is “integral to the
message”, and all together “less abstract” (landing from
nowhere in the middle of the Gospel, with no other text related to
it), “less frightening” (hearing the Voice of the Father, falling
scared of the floor: “When the disciples
heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified” (Mt
17:6).)
What
would you say?
The
first thing that one notices in St John's Gospel is the way he
presents Jesus' Passion and the Cross. It is not all a suffering
moment, it is first and foremost the main moment where God reveals
His Glory. On the Cross God is glorified, and the Son is Glorified.
The Passion is a moment of Victory for Jesus. One would say that John
did meditate that much the Passion and the Cross that God introduced
him in a greater depth. You can see John's reaction when he sees
Jesus' side transpierced by a spear: “one of
the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden
flow of blood and water. The
man who saw it has given
testimony,
and his testimony is true.
He knows that he tells the
truth,
and he testifies
so that you also may believe.” (John 19:34-35)
More
texts about God's Glory at the Cross: “And now, Father, glorify me
in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world
began.” (John 17:5; see as well John 13:32) The death of Jesus
glorifies God the father. The death of Jesus' disciples does glorify
God as well: “Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by
which Peter would glorify
God” (John 21:19).
The
Cross is then for John the highest point of the manifestation of the
Glory of God in Jesus. In that sense, why would one put in the Gospel
an “off-centred event” that speaks about the Glory of God (the
Transfiguration). In that same vein, you can already see that Luke
starts to orientate the Transfiguration toward the Cross and its
Glory: “And behold, two men were talking with
Him; and they were Moses and Elijah, who,
appearing in glory, were speaking
of His Exodus [departure]
which He was about to
accomplish at Jerusalem.“
(Luke 9:30-31)
So,
reasonably, one has to find the essence of the Transfiguration and
its relationship with the Cross, and how did John plan his Gospel
according to this “combination”.
The
main structure of the Transfiguration in the the Synoptics (Mt, Mk
and Lk) is simple:
a-
A Promise of a vision (some who are present here
will see the Son of God coming in his Kingdom)
b-
The realisation of the Promise (the event itself of the
Transfiguration with its 3 steps: climbing, the transfiguration
(clothes, face, Moses and Elijah), and the overshadowing (the Cloud
and the Voice of the Father).
c-
Mentioning that that was a vision.
You'll be amazed to discover that in the Gospel of saint John you can find an event that has the same structure: Cana's wedding (John 2:1-11).
You'll be amazed to discover that in the Gospel of saint John you can find an event that has the same structure: Cana's wedding (John 2:1-11).
a- The wedding is preceded by a Promise: “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man” (John 1:51).
b- The wedding itself is the realisation (in a “symbolic” and prophetical way) of this Promise, waiting for the Cross to be the real realisation of it.
c- The wedding ends by a strong statement: “This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.” (John 2:11)
John
decides to structure his Gospel, all his Gospel with an event: a
wedding.
Note:
the least we can say is that this wedding is mysterious. We don't
know who is the Groom, who is the Bride. You can guess, but it is not
clear. It speaks about “Jesus' hour”. The text itself, if it is
read simply as the account of a wedding, it doesn't work. There are
too many “holes”/”bumps” that don't allow us to say that John
wanted to tell us about a simple miracle (and not a “sign” as he
says), and a miracle performed in a wedding. Did Jesus ever perform a
useless miracle?! Of course not. What is the point of having “new
wine” if the “new wine” didn't mean something else. This
mysterious wedding can only be understood at another level
because the text itself is not complete or intelligible if taken “to
the letter”.
John
decides to put something else equivalent to the Transfiguration not
only in the beginning of his Gospel, but as a structural event that
will dictate its structure to the whole Gospel (we will go through
that).
You
have the right to complain about these assertions, saying that: there
are not proofs. Just give me some time in order, not to proof
anything (because you are the one who can see it for yourself), but
just to show it.
(to
be continued...)
No comments:
Post a Comment