Seeing the, Glory, Hearing the Son:

The Function of the Wilderness

Theophany Narratives in Luke 9:28-36

DAVID M. MILLER
Briercrest College and Seminary
Caronport, SK SOH OSO, Canada

Ti-rn MOUNTAIN, cloud, and heavenly voice of Luke’s transfiguration account

are widely regarded as stage pieces, designed to recall biblical theophany narratives
associated with Mount Sinai and to set up a comparison demonstrating Jesus’ supe
riority to Moses. From this christological perspective, Jesus appears as the new
and greater prophet like Moses who liberates his followers through a new exodus)
The transfiguration reveals Jesus’ true and lasting glory, which contrasts with
Moses’ merely external glory.2 Even the concluding irnperative—”Hear him!”—
becomes a statement about the authority of Jesus’ teaching, which surpasses the
authority of Moses and Elijah.3
Although the transfiguration undoubtedly makes a statement about Jesus’
identity, concentrating exclusively on Jesus and Moses is too constraining, for the
intertextual web is spun between events as well as people. Instead of dwelling only

‘Jindlich Mánek, “The New Exodus in the Books of Luke,” NovT2 (195$) 8-23, esp. 20-21;
Susan R Gatiett, “Exodus from Bondage: Luke 9:31 and Acts 12:1-24,” CBQ 52 (1990) 656-80.
Cf. Sharon H. Ringe, “Luke 9:28-36: The Beginning of an Exodus,” $emeia 28 (1983) 83-99.
2Hejns SchOrmann, DasLukasevangelium, vol. 1, Kommentarzu Kap. 1, 1—9, 50 (HTKNT 3/i;
4th ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1990) 556-57.
George B. Caird, “The Transfiguration,” &pflm 67(1955—56) 291-94, here 292; Joseph A.
fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke: Introduction, Thanslation, and Notes (2 vols.; AB 28, 28A;
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981, 1985) 1:803; John Paul Heil, The Transfiguration ofJesus:
Narrative Meaning andFunction ofMark9:2-8, Matt 17:1-8 andLuke 9:28-36(AnBib 144; Rome:
Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2000) 272.

498
 WILDERNESS THEOPHANY NARRATIVES IN LUKE 9:28-36 499
on similarities between Moses and Jesus, Luke wraps the entire transfiguration in
a series of allusions to the wilderness theophany narratives associated with Mount
Sinai. Determining the function of this theophany imagery requires tracing the
threads, noticing connecting links, and testing the various strands for strength, all
the while resisting the temptation to impose coherence where it does not exist or
to reject verbal parallels prematurely because they do not fit a preconceived pattern.
The sheer number of verbal parallels between the transfiguration and passages
in Jewish Scripture makes it difficult to discern a unified pattern—if indeed there
is one. As George B. Caird observed, “Every detail of the story is surrounded by
so great a wealth of association that explanations can be multiplied without depart
ing from the bounds of probability.”4 I make no claim here to exhaust the signifi
cance of the transfiguration. Instead, I will argue that echoes of the wilderness
theophany tradition in the transfiguration reflect a way of reading Scripture that is
common to other Second Temple Jewish writers, attentive to narrative cues within
Scripture and rooted in the Sinaitic covenant described in Exodus 19—24. These
echoes of Sinai shape the audience’s perception of Jesus as one who must be heard
and expose what is at stake for those who are summoned to respond. Just as hearing
and obeying the words of God mediated by Moses were at the center of the Sinaitic
covenant ceremony, so in the transfiguration hearing the Son now forms the basis
for God’s covenant relationship with the people. The main emphasis in Luke 9:28-
36 is not that Jesus is the prophet like Moses, or even that Jesus is superior to
Moses and Elijah, but that Jesus, the chosen Son, must, like Moses, be heard.
I. Evidence for the Wilderness Theophany Tradition in Mark
and Luke
A. Mark 9:2-10
According to Bruce D. Chilton, “it is beyond reasonable doubt” that the theo
phany in Exodus 24 forms the primary biblical background for the transfiguration
in Luke’s Marcan source.6 In both passages (1) three named people accompany
the primary figure; (2) there is an ascent up a mountain; (3) a cloud covers the
“Caird, “Transfiguration,” 291.
5This is not to suggest that the transfiguration alludes only to wilderness theophany narratives.
As John Nolland (Luke 9:21-18:34 [WBC 353; Dallas: Word, 1993] 490-97) demonstrates, the
transfiguration also links back to Jesus’ baptism and forward to the passion, resurrection, and ascen
sion narratives. Hellenistic readers may also have been reminded of Greek epiphany stories. See
Candida R. Moss, “The Transfiguration: An Exercise in Markan Accommodation,” Biblical Inter
pretation 12 (2004) 69-89.
t3rnce D. Chilton, “The Transfiguration: Domimcal Assurance and Apostolic Vision,” NTS
27(1980)115-24, here 122.
500 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY 72, 2010
mountain; (4) a time period of six days is mentioned; and (5) the participants hear
someone speaking “from the cloud.”7
The parallels look impressive, but on closer inspection what is distinctive
about them proves more apparent than real. First, and most obvious, the claim that
Jesus’ companions (Peter, James, and John) parallel Moses’ companions (Aaron,
Nadab, and Abthu) disregards the presence of the seventy elders as well as Joshua,
a fourth named figure who makes an appearance along with Moses in Exod 24:13,
and again in the LXX of 24:15.8 Second, the remaining similarities between the
two passages have nothing to do with Moses’ companions. Although the seventy-
three individuals go up to worship God (24:1, 9), they are required to “worship
from afar” (v. 1). The mountain (which is never mentioned in connection with the
elders’ ascent), the cloud, and the six days are all associated with Moses and
Joshua’s subsequent journey up the mountain while the elders wait below.9 Third,
the order of events is different in Mark and Exodus. In Exodus 24, the cloud covers
the mountain for six days, whereas in Mark there is at least a six-day period before
the cloud appears. In Exodus 24, Moses and Joshua ascend the mountain at the
beginning of six days; in Mark, Jesus and his companions ascend the mountain
after six days.’° Mark, of course, was not required to follow Exodus 24 slavishly,
yet the differences between the two passages raise questions about the existence
of an intended parallel between them. Although Mark may have been thinldng of
the description of Moses’ ascent in the last section of Exodus 24, the hasty con
clusion that Exodus 24 is primarily or exclusively in view has obscured potential
links with other related theophany narratives. Once the six days and three com
panions are removed from the comparison, the remaining elements—a mountain
ascent, a cloud, and divine speech—are not unique to this particular theophany.’1
See Ulrich Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness: The WIlderness Theme in the Second Gospel
and Its Basis in the Biblical Tradition (SBT 39; London: SCM, 1963)111-14; John A. Ziesler, “The
Transfiguration Story and the Markan Soteriology,” Expflm 81(1970) 263-68, here 265-67;
Richard T. France, The Gospel ofMark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (MGTC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdrnans, 2002) 348.
See Markus Ohler, “Die Verklämng (Mk 9:1-8): Die Anlcunft der Herrschaft Goftes aufder
Erde,” NovT38 (1996) 197-217, here 203; John C. Poirier, “Jewish and Christian Tradition in the
Transfiguration,” RB 111 (2004) 516-30, here 518.
Pace Heil (Transfiguration, 29, 134-36), it is most likely that the pronoun a&roiç (“them”)
in Mark 9:7 includes the disciples, who are the closest antecedent (9:6), and that the cloud over
shadows everyone on the mountain. In Mark, but not Exodus24, this includes the three named com
panions of the primaiy figure. See Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on HisApologyfor the
Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 460-61.
See Gundry, Marlç 475-76, For alternative explanations of the precise reference to six days,
see Foster R. McCurley, “And after Six Days’ (Mark 9:2): A Semitic Literary Device,” JBL 93
(1974) 67-81, here 67; and Poirier, “Transfiguration,” 518-20,
This does not mean that the background for the transfiguration must be sought elsewhere
 WILDERNESS THEOPHANY NARRATIVES iN LUKE 9:28-36 501
For example, all three elements form part of the initial theophany on Mount
Sinai recorded in Exodus 19—20. (1) In both Mark 9 and Exodus 19, a divine rev
elation is located in proximity to a mountain.12 Although the primary theophany
occurs on Mount Sinai while all the people—apparently including Moses—remain
below, Moses does make several trips up and down the mountain in Exodus 19.13
(2) In both passages, a cloud descends on the mountain.’4 (3) And in both passages,
but not in Exod 24:9-18, the divine speech from the cloud is identified as a “voice”
(puvt).’5
All three elements also reappear in Exodus 34: (1) Moses ascends Mount
Sinai (v. 4); (2) Thwh descends in a cloud (v. 5) and (3) proclaims the divine name
to Moses from within the cloud (v. 5). In addition, Moses’ shining face (v. 29) may
be evoked by the description of Jesus’ transfiguration (Mark 9:2), despite the
absence of a verbal parallel.’6 And the disciples’ fear (Mark 9:6), which Mark links
more closely to their reaction to Jesus’ appearance than do the other evangelists,
mayrecall how Aaron and the elders “were afraid to come near” Moses when they
saw his face (Exod 34:30).’ An allusion to Exodus 34 is supported further by the
appearance of Moses and Elijah. Whatever the reason for their appearance at the
transfiguration, it is surely significant that both Moses and Elijah had theophany
experiences on a mountain, and that Elijah’s experience in 1 Kings 19 resembles
Moses’ experience in Exodus 34,18
(pace Poirier, “Transfiguration,” 521). As we will see, there are other distinctive echoes of the wilder
ness theophany tradition that point to Exodus as the primary source for the imagery.
‘2Mark 9:2 par. Matt 17:1; Luke 9:28; cf. Exod 19:2-3; Deut 5:4, 22-23.
Exodus 19:2-3, 14,20-21,24-25. In the Gospels, the transfiguration occurs with the viewers
on the mountain. The reference to the mountain may thus have more in common with one of the
other theophany narratives in Exodus, such as Moses’ ascent up the mountain in Exodus 24 or 34.
Still, the mountain is a prominent feature of the initial theophany at Mount Sinai as well as the trans
figuration.
Exodus 19:9, 13, 16; Mark 9:6-7.
‘ Exodus 19:19 (cf. Mark 9:7 par. Luke 9:35; Mart 17:5; Exod 19:5; 20:18; and the plural in
19:13, 16); the cloud is mentioned in Exod 19:16. Here one might point to the influence of both
passages, since Exod 24:18 and Mark 9:7, but not Exodus 19, specify that the audible sound came
“from the cloud” (x [Aaou] tfc vepéXic). On the other hand, apart from Exod 19:16-19 and the
Gospel transfiguration accounts, a divine voice (qavi) and cloud (vaqukr1) appear together in the
same contextonly in Num 9:20, and perhaps Ezek 1:28. In neither passage is there a reference
to a mountain, See Angela Standhartinger, “Jesus, Elija und Mose auf dem Berg: Traditions
geschichtlicheOberlegungen zur Verklanmgsgeschichte (Iv& 9,2-8),” BZ47 (2003) 66-85, here 81:
“Die Verbindung von Wolke und Stimme hat, biblisch gesehen vor allem in der Dekalogverkundi
gung thren Oa”
16 See France, Mark 348.
See Mauser, Wilderness, 113.
Elijah’s experience in 1 Kings 19 echoes Exod 34:1-8; the “still small voice” (1 Kgs 19:11-
13) stands in counterpoint to the thunder and lightning on Mount Sinai (Exod 19:16). See Dale C.
502 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY 72, 2010
Mark’s transfiguration account contains two other verbal parallels relevant
to our investigation, which at first seem unrelated: (1) As most scholars recognize,
the divine command, “This is my Son. listen to him [àKoEre airoi3]” (Mark
. .
9:7) recalls Deut 18:15, where Moses instructs the people to listen (a&roii
àicoiaea0e) to the prophet whom God will raise up. (2) Less often mentioned—
presumably because a ratiOnale for the allusion is more difficult to find—is that
only one biblical theophany narrative shares with the transfiguration the rare verb
éirtaxtálw (“cover”), which is used to describe the overshadowing cloud. Accord
ing to Exod 40:35, when the cloud envelops the “tent of meeting” after its com
pletion, Moses is not able to enter “because the cloud covered [itencIaav] it.”19
3. Luke 9:28-36
Luke shares with Mark almost all the verbal parallels with the wilderness
theophany narratives mentioned so far, including the mountain, the overshadow
ing cloud, and the voice that speaks from the cloud. But there are also differences,
one of which is the change from “after six days” in Mark to “about eight days”
in Luke 9:28, Evidently Luke did not notice an allusion to Exod 24:16, if that is
what Mark intended.20 Several additional redactional changes, however, enhance
the theophany-like quality of the passage:
1. Deut 18:15. Luke 9:35 reverses the order of Mark’s àKO1e-re airoO to
airov àKol5eEe, which aligns the phrase more closely with Deut 18:15. Given the
direct quotation from Deut 18:15 in Acts 3:22, an intentional allusion to this pas
sage in Luke’s transfiguration account can hardly be doubted..
2. The ascent up the mountain. Mark’s statement that “Jesus took with him
Peter and James and John, and led them up [àvappet airotcJ to a high mountain
Allison, Jr., The New Moses: A Matthean flpology (Minneapolis: fortress, 1993)41; Standhartinger,
“Verklanmgsgeschichte,” 74.
19 Elsewhere in the LXX, the verb
bttmudCw occurs only in Pss 90:4; 139:8; Prov 18:11. The
verbal parallel is mentioned but not explained by McCurley, “Literary Device,” 75-76; and Morna D.
Hooker, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1991)218. Cf. Ohier
(“Verklarung,” 210 n. 38), who allows “daB éiuaictáltv wohl bewuOt den Sprachgebrauch der LXX
auffiimmt.” It is tempting to see behind Peter’s suggestion to build three booths (rpeic mcrivdc) an
allusion to the tabernacle (lj aicqv) of Exod 40:34-35, but it is perhaps better to leave Peter’s com
ment undetenuined. Regardless of the motive for Peter’s suggestion, Mark’s explanatory comment
in 9:6 shows it tube misguided (so Heil, Transfiguration, 115-27).
20 Barbara E. Reid, The Transfiguration: A Source- and Redaction-Critical Study ofLuke
9:28-36 (CahRB 32; Paris: Gabalda, 1993) 100-102, for explanations of Luke’s “eight days.”
Whether it came from a special source, as Reid argues, “eight days” is most likely a general desig
nation for a period of about a week. See frederick W. Danker, Jesus and the New Age: A Commen
tary on St. Luke’s Gospel (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: fortress, 1988) 198.
 WILDERNESS THEOPHANYNARRATWES N LUKE 9:28-36 503
apart, by themselves” (Mark 9:2) is reworded in Luke to emphasize Jesus’ own
ascent: “taking along Peter, John, and James, he went up to the mountain [àvé3r1
tic rà ôpocJ” (Luke 9:28). The same expression is used repeatedly in the LXX to
describe Moses’ ascent up Mount Sinai—notably in Exod 19:3, when the Israelites
first arrive at the mountain.21 The same phrase is used of Moses’ and Joshua’s
ascent in Exod 24:13 and of Moses’ ascent alone in 24:18. It appears again in Exod
34:4 and Deut 10:3, when Moses returns up the mountain with two newly cut
tablets and is granted a vision of God’s glory. The phrase is seldom used elsewhere
in the LXX in relation to anyone else.22 Luke, then, has linked Jesus’ ascent up
the mount of transfiguration with an activity typical of Moses.
3. Glory. One of the most striking distinctives of Luke’s account is the double
reference to “glory” in 9:31-33. Matthew and Mark focus on Jesus’ transfigured
appearance, mentioning only that his conversation partners, Moses and Elijah,
appear; Luke adds that they appear “in glory” (év M) and that Peter and his com
panions also see “his [Jesus’] glory” (óeav airtoU). Most scholars conclude that
Luke presents Jesus’ glory as a preview of the heavenly glory, now shared by
Moses and Elijah, which Jesus obtains after his suffering and death—and they are
correct. Immediately before the transfiguration (9:26), Jesus had predicted the
coming of the Son of Man in “his glory” (öó a&rofi).23 In Luke 24:26, the res
urrected Jesus explains that it was necessary for “the Messiah to suffer these things
and to enter his glory [oav a1rrofi].” Peter’s speech in Acts 3:13 and Stephen’s
vision in Acts 7:55 confirm that the resurrected Jesus, now exalted in heaven, has
already entered into “glory.”24 But the heavenly glory experienced by Moses,
Elijah, and Jesus is more precisely God’s own glory (Acts 7:55); it is “the glory of
the Lord” (ôoa icvp(ou) that shone around the shepherds at Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:9),
which is associated by extension with anything belonging to God’s realm. In the
LXX, &Sa icupiou takes on a technical meaning as the translation for mv 772D,
the “glory of Yhwh,” which is used to express God’s presence or self-manifestation
21
Whereas the MT says “Moses went up to God” (T% T’711 rT1LaJ), the LXX is more
circumspect: “And Moses went up to the mountain of God” (Kin Mwuaic àvI3q dc rô öpoc ro0
OeoO).
The mention of law in Isa 2:3 and Mb 4:3 recalls Moses’ ascent of Sinai. The remaining
occurrences of the phrase are as follows: the people are forbidden to ascend (Exod 19:12; cf. Deut
5:5); ascending the hill country (Num 13:17; Deut 1:24, 41); Moses ascends Mount Nebo (Num
27:12; Deut 32:49); ascending Mount Zion (Ps 23:3 [Eng. 24:3]; 1 Macc 4:37; 5:54); Isa 37:24;
4Kgdms 19:23.
23 Cf. Mark 8:38; Matt 16:27; also Luke 21:27 (par. Mark 13:26; Matt 24:30).
24 Acts 3:13 most likely refers to the glorification of Jesus that resulted from his resurrection
rather than from the healing miracle. See C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
theActs of theApostles (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1994, 1998) 1:195.
504 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 72, 2010
at Sinai, and in the tabernacle after its consecration.25 Thus, although Luke is pri
marily interested in Jesus’ own future glory, the biblical connotations of the word
still resound in his transfiguration account.26
4 Jesus appearance Mark’s description of the transfigured Jesus concen
trates on the whiteness of Jesus’ gannents (9 2-3), Luke refers to a change m Jesus
face and, in so domg, introduces a minor verbal parallel with Exod 34 29 Accord
ing to the LXX, the appearance of the skin of his [Moses ] face [roil xpoawnou
nuroil] was glorified [&óoaarat],’ when he descended Mount Sinai with the two
stone tablets Luke states that the form of his [Jesus ] face [toO itpoawitov auroO]
was changed’ (9 29) The reference to “his glory (&av ciuroil) (9 32) suggests
further that Luke saw in Jesus’ glorious appearance a parallel with the glorified
face of Moses.27
5. Fear on entering the cloud. Mark mentions that the disciples are afraid
after they see Elijah and Moses conversing with Jesus; Luke mentions the disci
ples’ fear after the “cloud came,” adding “and they were afraid as they entered the
cloud” (9:34). This recalls Moses’ entry into the cloud as he climbs the mountain
in Exod 24:1828 though there is no mention there of fear. Fear is a typical response
25 See Gerhard Kittel, “óóct,” TDNT 2:232-37, 242-55, here 244; H. Hegermann, “6a,”
EDNT 1:344-47, here 345. Significantly, in the first biblical reference to the phrase, which occurs
before the Israelites arrive at Sinai, the “glory ofYhwh [mm 71D/5óa. lcup(ou] appears in the cloud
[p37/v vpéA0]” outside the camp in “the wilderness” (Exod 16:10; of. the description of the cloud
in Exod 33:7-11). for the association with Sinai, see Exod 24:16 and Deut 5:24, and the discussion
below. Every pentateuchal occurrence of the “glory of Yhwh” after Exod 40:34-35 is associated
with the tabernacle. Occurrences elsewhere in the LXX often recall the wilderness theophanies in
some way (of. Isa 4:2-6; 1 Kgs 8:10-il; 2 ChrS:13-14; 7:1-3; 2 Macc 2:7-8).
26 See Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:794; David?. Moessner, Lord ofthe Banquet: The Literary and Theo
logical Sign ificance ofthe Lukan Travel Narrative (Minneapolis: fortress, 1989) 61.
27 Since the phrase toO npoathnou aOroO is common, it is the other similarities with Exodus 34
that suggest a deliberate echo. See SchOrmann, Lukasevangetium, 1:556; I. Howard Marshall, The
Gospel ofLuke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 383.
Heil (Transfiguration, 79, 92) objects that Moses’ “glorification” occurs after his meeting with God,
white Jesus’ occurs before his meeting with Moses and Elijah; but this is to confuse the role of
Moses and Elijah with God’s role. Reid (Transfiguration, 105) regards the parallel as “abstruse,”
but Luke’s expression may be understood as a simplification of the LXX’s convoluted expression
il ôwtc toO xpthscsroc mu npoathnou a&roi3 (“the appearance of the skin of his face”) by omitting
y,pthia (“skin”) and changing &jitc (“appearance”) to elóoc (“form”), a term applied by Luke to
Jesus in 3:22. This is more likely than the suggestion of Moessner (Lord, 61) that sI6oç in 9:29 and
ôóa in 9:32 recall the description of the “form of the glory of the Lord” (aI&c r]c a6ç icvplou)
in Exod 24:17 (cf. 24:10).
28 Compare v tcj) diadXOdiv airroOc etc
lily veptAiv (“as they entered the cloud”) (Luke 9:34)
and dtaiiXOev Mwuatic dc to 1jéov rljc vEq)Aflc (“Moses entered the middle of the cloud”) (Exod
 WILDERNESS THEOPHANY NARRATIVES IN LUKE 9:28-36 505
to the appearance of a heavenly being, but it may also redirect attention to the
initial theophany narrative of Exodus 19—20, where those who “saw the voice, the
flashes and the voice of the trumpet, and the smoking mountain” (Exod 20:18
LXX) responded with fear.29
In sum, Luke appears to have recognized many of the similarities between
the transfiguration and the wilderness theophany narratives that were present
already in his Marcan source; he reworded several of them to make the connections
more obvious.30 The ascent up the mountain, the cloud, the glory, the divine speech
from the cloud, and the entry into the cloud are reminiscent of the theophanies in
Exodus 19—20; 24; and 34. Luke alludes also to the description of Moses’ face in
Exodus 34; the reference to the disciples’ fear may recall the response to the initial
Sinai theophany in Exodus 20. He retains also the verbal link with Exod 40:34-35
and strengthens the echo of Deut 18:15. The overall effect is a heightened corre
spondence between the transfiguration and the wilderness theophanies.
II. Reading the Wilderness Theophany Narratives through
Deuteronomy 18:15
We have, then, a seemingly bewildering collection of verbal parallels to a
variety of different theophany narratives. Before turning to examine the function
of the imagery in Luke, it is worth considering whether there are grounds for this
combination of verbal parallels in the LXX.3 The following review of the plot of
the Book of Exodus and of Second Temple Jewish discussion will demonstrate
that the theophany passages in Exodus make up one of the book’s central themes,
that they are all connected in Exodus to the Sinai theophany recorded in chaps.
19—20, and that other ancient readers noticed the connections. We will see also
that the promise of a prophet like Moses in Deut 18:15 is related in its own context
to the initial Sinai theophany in a way that foregrounds Moses’ role as covenant
mediator.
24:18). The verb tic4xoat (“enter”) does not occur together with vrpaki (“cloud”) anywhere else
in the’LXX. See Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:802; Heil, Thansfiguration, 136, 267.
29 Exodus 20:18, 20; cf. Deut 5:5; Nolland, Luke, 501.
Even if, as Reid (Transfiguration, 146) argues, Luke 9:28-36 is “more complex” than “a
simple reworking of the Marcan source by Luke,” the evangelist is responsible for the final form of
the ‘text
311 assume that Luke’s close familiarity with Scripture came from reading the LXX (see
Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:113-25), and therefore quotations in the following discussion of Exodus are from
the Greek text unless otherwise noted. Although the LXX of Exodus sometimes differs markedly
from the MT, the basic themes and plot structure remain the same. No attention is paid here to
source-critical questions, as these would not have occurred to Luke or his earliest readers.
506 THE CATHOLIC BiBLICAL QUARTERLY 72, 2010
A. The Wilderness Theophany Narratives in Exodus
After the Israelites arrive at Mount Sinai, God initiates the covenant by
demanding the people’s obedience and promising God’s own faithfulness:
And now, if you hear my voice and keep my covenant, you will be to me a special
people from all the nations. For the whole earth is mine. And you will be to me a royal
priesthood and a holy nation. (Exod 19:5-6)
The people’s affirmative response—”we will do and we will hear” (19:8 LXX)—
is followed by God’s descent on Mount Sinai (19:9). Though the term “glory” does
not actually figure in Exodus 19—20, the description of the initial Sinai theophany—
“voices and lightuings and dark cloud,” the “voice of a trumpet” (19:16), and the
mountain that is smoking “like the smoke of a furnace” because “God had
descended on it in fire” (19:1 8)—was no doubt understood as the “glory of the
Lord.” The parallel account in Deut 5:24 and the more detailed description of the
glory of the Lord as a “burning fire” in Exod 24:17 make this clear.32 During the
theophany, God declares the Ten Commandments in the hearing of all the people
(see Exod 19:9; 20:1). The peoplerespond with fear and ask Moses to speak on
God’s behalf. The scene ends with Moses entering “the darkness where God was”
(Exod 20:2 1).
following three chapters of legal material (Exod 20:22—24:2), presumably
delivered to Moses while he is on the mountain,34 Moses relates to the people what
God told him. Their response, and the subsequent ceremony (24:4-8), ratifies the
covenant to the repeated refrain “we will do and we will hear” (24:3, 7). This
refrain ties the ceremony to the people’s initial response five chapters earlier (19:8
LXX) before the Sinai theophany began.35 With the public ceremony complete,
Aaron, Nadab, Abthu, and the seventy elders go up to worship God (24:9-11). Six
days afler the “glory of God” and the cloud settle on the mountain, Moses is sum
moned up the mountain again, remaining there forty days and forty nights
32 Exodus 33:12—34:10 is another passage that describes God’s gloty without using the term:
Although Moses’ request, “Show me your glory” (33:18; cf. 33:19 LXX; 33:22), is surely granted,
the term itself does not appear in 34: 1-10.
u The singular “voice” (pwvlj) in Exod 20:18 LXX indicates that the divine voice speaks in
intelligible language. Deuteronomy 5:4-5, 22-23 maintains simultaneously that the Lord speaks with
Moses’ audience “face to face” (5:4) and that Moses acts as intermediary (5:5), but more directly
identifies the singular “great voice” (‘?Vn ‘1p/puvu1 iia’yáAq) with the voice of God (5:22-23). See
John I. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3; Waco: Word, 1987) 283.
See Durham, Exodus, 342. Apart from Exod 20:21, the text offers no cues to assist the
reader in relating,the Book of the Covenant (20:22—23:33) to the surrounding narrative. When the
narrative resumes in Exod 24:1, Moses is once again at the foot of the mountain.
Unlike the MT, Exod 23:22 LXX reiterates the necessity of hearing and doing, and also
repeats the promise of Exod 19:6 that God will choose them as “a royal priesthood and a holy
nation.”
 WILDERNESS THEOPHANY NARRATWES iN LUKE 9:28-36 507
(24:12-18) as he receives instructions about building the tabernacle, sacrifices, and
priestly service (Exodus 25—31).
In the next narrative sequence, the disastrous worship of the golden calf nearly
ruins the reason for building the tabernacle in the first place. As a result of Moses’
intercession, God agrees not to harm the people (32:14) but refuses to accompany
them, “lest I consume you on the way” (33:3). Not satisfied, Moses pleads for God
to go with them. God’s consent is sealed by a revelation of divine glory on the
mountain (33:17—34:10). Forty days and forty nights later, Moses reappears with
the Ten Commandments in hand (34:29). This time the Israelites respond to Moses
with fear because “his face was glorified [&ôóaatat]” (34:29-30).
The remaining five chapters in Exodus narrate the construction of the taber
nacle as God had commanded, and the book concludes with its consecration: “the
cloud covered the tent of witness, and the tent was filled with the glory of the
Lord” (40:34). Henceforth, the people moved as God led them “whenever the cloud
ascended from the tent” (40:36; cf. vv. 37-38). The coming of the “overshadowing”
cloud and the “glory of the Lord” to the tent forms a fitting conclusion to chaps.
19—40, for it confirms God’s presence with the people along their journey and com
pletes a transition of the divine presence from Mount Sinai to the tabernacle.36
Thus, all the theophany narratives in the second half of Exodus are related to the
initial theophany of chap. 19 and to God’s covenant choice of the Israelites as “a
royal priesthood and a holy nation” (19:6).
B. The Wilderness Theophany Narratives in Second Temple
Jewish Literature
A few early Jewish writers notice the theme of the transition of God’s pres
ence from Sinai to sanctuary that, as we have seen, unites the theophanies in Exo
dusand focuses attention on the initial experience at Sinai. Josephus explains that
the tabernacle’s purpose was to be the location for God’s presence among the peo
ple, “in order that when we move to another place we may take it with us and no
longer have need of the ascent to Sinai, but that He Himself, frequenting the Tent,
may be present at our prayers” (A.J. 3.5.8 § 100). As in Exodus, a detailed descrip
36 for the importance of the theme of God’s presence in Exodus, see especially Durham, &o
thLs, xxi-xxiii. The theme is more emphatic in the MT because the Hebrew text, unlike the LXX,
explicitly mentions God’s desire to dwell with the people in Exod 25:8; 29:45-46. for the transition
from the mountain to the sanctuary, see Terence E. Fretheim, The Pentateuch (Interpreting Biblical
Texts; Nashville: Abingdon, 1996) 108.
See Frank Polak, “Theophany and Mediator: The Unfolding of a Theme in the Book of
Exodus,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction Reception Interpretation fed. Marc
— —
Vervenne; BETL 126; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996) 113-48.
38 Unless otherwise noted, quotations of Josephus, Antiquities books 1—4, are from Louis H.
Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1—4 (Ftavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 3; Leiden: Brill,
508 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 72, 2010
tion of the tabernacle and the priestly vestments is followed by a manifestation of
God’s presence in the cloud through which “God demonstrated that He was pleased
with the work of the Hebrews and that. He was a guest and,dwelt in thistemple”
. .
(A.J. 3.8.5 §202; cf. Exod 40:34-38). A similar movement occurs. in Ben Sira,
where wisdom, identified with the law of Moses (24:23), describes how she was
enthroned “in a pillar of cloud” (24:4) before she made her “dwelling in Jacob”
(24:8). Wisdom eventually settles in Jerusalem (24:10), but the reference]to a “holy
tent” unmistakably recalls the coming ofthe cloud on the wilderness tabernadle in
Exod 40:34-38.
Even when the movement from Sinai to the tabernacle is not in view, Second
Temple literature frequently highlights the relationship between the initial Sinai
theophany and Moses’ forty-day sojourn on Mount Sinai. Josephus’s omission,
rearrangement, and combination of the biblical raw material results in a stream
lined narrative, comprising only one three-day trip up the mountain during the ini
tial Sinai theophany before the giving of the Ten Commandments (A.J. 3.5.1-2
§75-82), and a single forty-day stay on the mountain. This allows him to pass
over the golden calf incident in silence, but it also eliminates any references to the
covenant ratification ceremony in Exod 24:1-8, the meal in 24:9-11, or Moses’
entry into the cloud in 24:12-18. Readers move directly from Moses’ ascent up the
mountain after the public proclamation of the Decalogue (A.i 3.5.4-7 §89-95)
to his return with the written commands “inscribed on the two tablets” (A.i 3.5.8
§99-10l).
Associating Moses’ entry into “the thick darkness where God was” (Exod
20 21) with his ascent up Mount Sinai in Exod 24 12 1$ is, m fact, common Like
Josephus, Pseudo-Phito rewrites Exodus in a way that presents Moses’ forty-day
stay on the mountain as the immediate sequel to the initial Sinai theophany (L.A.B.
11:15); he also associates Moses’ “glorious” face (12:1) with this first experience
on the mountam Jubitees identifies the ratification of the Smai covenant pnmanly
with the events described in. Exod 24:1-8, but although Jubitees never describes
the initial Sinai theophany, James C. VanderKam has plausibly suggested that the
author of Jubitees believedthat the theophany of Exodus 19—20 occurred on the
same day as the covenant ratification ceremony of Exod 24:1 8.40 Verbal parallels
2000); quotations of the Apocrypha are from the NRSV and quotations of the Pseudepigrapha are
from 0Th
On the echoes of Exodus, see James K. Aitken, “Sanctus Matthaeus, magister sapientiae,
summa cum laude,” in Intertextuat Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor ofAtexanderA.
Di Lella fed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp; CBQMS 38; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical
Association, 2005) 264-79, here 276-78.
James C. VanderKam, “Covenant and Pentecost,” Calvin Theological Journal 37 (2002)
23 9-54, here 242; see also idem, The Book ofJubilees (Guides to Apoctypha and Pseudepigrapha;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 27, 125.
 WILDERNESS THEOPHANY NARRATWES IN LUXE 9:28-36 509
indicate that 4QApoctyphon Pentateuch B (4Q377) also identifies Exod 20:21 with
Exod 24:12-18. After a description of the Sinai theophany and the assembly’s fear
ful response, 4Q377 mentions that “they stood at a distance,” which echoes Exod
20:2 1, and that “Moses, the man of God, was with God in the cloud and the cloud
covered him,” which recalls the description of the cloud in Exod 24:15l8.41
Early Jewish readers of Exodus frequently emphasize the centrality of the
initial events at Sinai in other ways as well. The importance of the Sinai theophany
for Philo is confirmed by his repeated references to the statement about “seeing”
the voice in Exod 20:18, and by his claim that the entire law is summed up in the
Decalogue (Mos. 2.213; Decal. 46-47, 175; Migr. 47; Spec. 3.125). In Liber Anti
quitatum Biblicarum several passages refer back to the burning mountains, earth
quakes, and the “folded up” heavens that, according to Pseudo-Philo, occurred
before God established “the Law of his eternal covenant” at Sinai.42 4 Ezra also
mentions cosmic distress at the Sinai theophany in connection with the giving of
the law and, significantly, mentions glory in connection with this event:
You bent down the heavens and shook the earth, and moved the world, and caused
the depths to tremble, and troubled the times. Your glory passed through the four gates
of fire and earthquake and wind and ice, to give the law to the descendants of Jacob,
and your commandment to the posterity of Israel. (4 Ezra 3:18-19)
4Q377 2 ii.9 states similarly that the assembly responded in fear before the “glory
of God” (m7l ‘mD) and the “wonderful sounds” (7D] flJ7’1p).43
Both Pseudo-Philo and Jubitees repeatedly identify the initial Sinai theophany
as the time when God established the covenant with the people and gave them the
law (Jub. 1:1-5; 6:11, 17; L.A.B. 11:5; 23:10-11; 32:7-8; cf. 30:1).” Perhaps
‘
Compare friJ’i? Vfl?32’ (“and they stood at a distance”) (4Q377 2 ii. 10) and pwn
(“and the people stood at a distance”) (Exod 20:2 1); as well as ‘fl’7X i rn17K] tV’t 1WJ7D
31TT V’77 DD’ (“Moses, the man of God, was with God in the cloud and the cloud covered him”)
(4Q377 2 ii. 10-11) and •fl;T Z1t 0D’ (“and the cloud covered the mountain”) (Exod 24:15); KY1
p171 JT12 rTtz (“and Moses entered the cLoud”) (Exod 24:18). See James C. VanderKam and Monica
Brady, “4Q377,” in Qumran Cave 4.XXVHL Misceltanea, Part 2 (cdi Eileen Schuller et al.; DJD 28;
Oxford: Clarendon, 2001) 205-17, here 215-16. Cf. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, which dates the giv
ing of the Decalogue on the sixth day of the month (Tg. Ps-i Exod 19:16), and the ascent up the
mountain in Exod 24:1 on the seventh day (Tg. P5.-i Exod 24:1). Philo juxtaposes the divine voice
at Sinai with the written Decalogue that Moses received on the mountain (Decal. 32-50; cf. Mos.
2.213; Spec. 3.125; Q.E. 2.49), but there is not enough evidence to determine how he understood
the relationship between Exod 20:21 and 24:12-18.
42See LA.3. 11:5, 6, 14 for the initial description, and 15:6; 23:10; 32:7; 44:6 for later sum
maries of the same event.
“ “Glory”
is mentioned in connection with the initial Sinai theophany also in the Targumim.
See Tg. Neof Exod 19:20; Exod 20:21; Tg. Onq. Exod 20:18; and Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 20:21.
For the importance of the covenant theme in Jubitees, see VanderKam, Jubitees, 120-26.
For the theme in Liber Antiquitatum Bthticarum, see Bruce Norman Fisk, Do You Not Remember?
510 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 72, 2010
because Josephus depicts Moses working on a compilation of the laws after
the completion of the tabernacle, or in the interests of simplifying his account,
Josephus postpones a public ratification of the Jewish constitution (itoAtrela) until
Moses’ final address to the people at the Jordan just prior to his death (A.J. 3.8.8
§212-13; 3.8.10 §222; 4.8.44 §302; 4.8.5 §309-10; cf. Deut 29:2—30:20). But
one of Josephus’s primary aims in the Antiquities is to demonstrate the superiority
of the Jewish way of life,45 so it is significant that even though Josephus does not
depict the Sinai theophany as the beginning of a covenant, he suggests that the
purpose of Moses’ experiences on Mount Sinai is to begin the process of formu
lating the constitution on which that way of life is based.46
C. The Covenant Mediator in the Wilderness Theophanies and in
Deuteronomy 18:15-19
Although it is not itself a theophany narrative, the surrounding context of
Deut 18:15 explicitly refers back to the covenant initiated at the Sinai theophany:47
The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your broth
ers; you shall hear him. ‘6According to all that you requested of the Lord your God
at Choreb on the day of the assembly, saying: “We shall not any more hear the voice
of the Lord our God, and again see this great fire—and we shall not die.” (Deut
l8:l5l6)
Moses’ promise that God will raise up another prophet is grounded in the peo
ple’s earlier request in Deut 5:5, 22-33 for a covenant mediator. The command to
“hear him” (18:15, 19) repeats the fundamental requirement of the covenant to
“hear and obey” God’s voice.49 In Deuteronomy this requirement is expressed in
Scripture, Story and Exegesis in the Rewritten Bible of Pseudo-Phito (JSPSup 37; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 45-50.
‘ Steve Mason,
“Should Any Wish to Enquire Further’ (Ant, 1.25): The Aim and Audience
of Josephus’s Judean Antiquities/Lfe,” in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives (ed. Steve
Mason; JSPSup 32; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 64-103, here 80-87.
After the first trip before the giving of the Decalogue, Moses explains to the people that
God “prescribed. a well-ordered constitution [srnXLrEIac Kba).LovJ” (A.J. 3.5.3 §84); after the sec
. .
ond, he announces “that during these days He had advised him in what manner they would be happy
in their form of government [itoXttevbieotJ” (3.5.8 §99). Paul Spilsbury (“God and Israel in Josephus:
A Patron—Client Relationship,” in Understanding Josephus [ed. Masonj, 172-9 1) has shown that
Josephus did not abandon a covenantal framework but presented it in terms of a patron—client rela
tionship.
“
See Moessner, Lord, 77 n. 82.
4tQuotation from Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation
of the Septugaint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2007).
“
for the combination of “hearing” and “doing,” see Deut 5:1; 6:3-6; cf. 5:27; 7:12.
 WILDERNESS TI{EOPHANYNARRATWES IN LUKE 9:28-36 511
the Shema (6:4); in Exodus 19 it forms the basis of the covenant. In both Deuteron
omy and Exodus, God’s voice and the voice of the covenant mediator are closely
connected. After God exhorts the people through Moses to “hear my voice” (Exod
19:5), and the people respond by affirming “we will do and we will hear” (19:8),
God explains the surprising purpose in addressing Moses in the hearing of the peo
ple: “I am coming to you in a pillar of cloud, so that the people may hear me speak
ing to you and believe you forever” (19:9). Then, in v. 19, the LXX states that
“Moses was speaking, and God answered him with a voice.” The fearful response
of the people and their request for Moses to speak on God’s behalf thus fulfill
God’s purpose in addressing them directly (Exod 20:18-21). The instructions about
transferring leadership to Joshua in Num 2 7:20 LXX would have suggested to later
readers that Moses’ lasting share in God’s glory is connected to the need for the
people to listen to him: “You shall place some of your glory [óoqcJ upon him that
the sons of Israel may hear him [ELGUK0I)rwrnv a&toU].”
The covenantal implications of Deut 18:15-19 are seldom mentioned
directly,5° but early Jewish writers do comment frequently on the role that Exodus
19—20 assigns to Moses as covenant mediator. The vivid description of the Sinai
theophany in 4Q377, which is preceded by an exhortation to “hear” (2 ii.3) and a
curse on anyone who fails to guard or do the commands spoken by Moses (2 ii.4-5),
encourages obedience to the Mosaic law. It also exalts Moses, who, in contrast to
the people, is covered by the cloud and who, “as an angel,” speaks what comes
from God’s mouth.5’ Moses’ role as lawgiver and prophetic mediator is especially
prominent in Philo of Alexandria.52 Josephus also stresses the importance of “hear
ing” in connection with the Sinai theophany (A.i 3.5.4 §89-90) and explains that
God’s coming to the camp is intended to confirm Moses as the mediator of the
laws (3.5.3 §85-88). In L.A.B. 11, God first proclaims that Moses will “give a
light to the world and illumine their dwelling places” (11.1), and then adds that he
“will enlighten my people, for I have given an everlasting Law into your hands”
(11.2).
5° 4QTest 5-8 quotes Deut 18:18-19; the Samaritan Pentateuch
appends Deut 18:18-19 after
Exod 20:21; 4QReworked Pentateuch (4Q158) frg. 6 lines 6-9, which is similar to the Samaritan
Pentateuch of Exod 20:19-2 1, shows that this tradition is ancient. Other texts that refer to Deut
18:15-19 include Philo Spec. 1.65; 1QS 9.11. Cf. Josephus AJ. 4.7.2 §165; 4.8.46 §311; 1 Macc
14:41; Sir 46:1. For further discussion, see David M. Miller, “Luke’s Conception of Prophets Con
sidered in the Context of Second Temple Literature” (Ph.D. diss., McMaster University, 2004; avail
able from University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Ml) 53-74.
‘ Cf. ima r’ DJ (“and he spoke as an angel
from his mouth”) (2 ii. 11). On this ren
dering of the clause, see VanderKam and Brady, “4Q377,” 216. The repeated references to Moses
both before and after the description of the theophany confirm that Moses is the primaty subject in
this text. See Daniel K. Falk, “Moses, Texts of,” in Encytopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed.
Lawrence Schiffinan and James C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 1:577-81, here 581.
52 See Post. 143-44; Her 14-19; Mut. 125-29; Somn.
1.143; and Mos. 2; cf. Ass. Mos. 1:14.
512 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 72, 2010
finally, in a short encomium rich with biblical allusion, Ben Sira draws on
the description of Moses’ glorified face (Exod 34:29-3 0, 35) before mentioning
his role in receiving commandments for the people (Sir 45:3). The statement “He
allowed him to hear his voice” (45:5a) echoes the command to listen in Exod 19:5,
but applies it to Moses’ task as mediator after the giving of the Ten Command
ments. For Ben Sira, Moses’ experience as mediator takes place when God “led
him into the dark cloud” (Sir 45:5b; cf. Exod 20:2 1) “and gave him the command
ments face to face . . so that he might teach Jacob the covenant, and Israel his
.
decrees” (Sir 45:5; cf. Exod 33:11; Num 12:8; Deut 4:1).
D. Conclusion
There is therefore strong evidence that ancient readers noticed the connections
between the theophany narratives in Exodus and recognized their relationship to
the first Sinai theophany. The connection between Moses’ entrance into God’s
presence in Exodus 20 and Moses’ ascent up Sinai in Exodus 24is especially close.
Early Jewish writers also associated the initial Sinai theophany with God’s
covenant with Israel. The role of Moses as covenant mediator is connected with
the Sinai theophany in the biblical text and widely acknowledged in later Jewish
literature.
The combination of verbal parallels between the transfiguration accounts and
different passages in Exodus resembles the piling up of allusions in Ben Sirs and
increases the lilceithood that the evangelists were also aware of these connections.
Both the text of Exodus and early Jewish reflections on the wilderness theophanies
suggest that the theophany imagery in the transfiguration account would have
recalled the theophany in which God initiated the covenant with the Israelites at
Sinai. If the allusion to Deut 18:15 at the transfiguration’s climax was heard with
an awareness of its context in Deuteronomy, it would focus attention on the
covenant’s fundamental demand to listen to God and the covenant mediator. It
remains to demonstrate that Luke was, in fact, interested in the covenantal signif
icance of the theophany imagery and, finally, to consider its function in Luke’s
narrative.
III. The Function of the Theophany Imagery in Luke-Acts
A. “Hearing” Jesus as Covenant Language
Commentators often regard the transfiguration’s concluding imperative as
evidence that Luke identified Jesus with a christological title such as the “prophet
like Moses” or the “chosen Son,” or they restrict the application of the imperative
to Jesus’ prior comments concerning his own death and the requirements of disci
 WILDERNESS THEOPHANYNARRATWES IN LUKE 9:28-36 513
pleship (9:21-27). Whatever their other merits, these suggestions consistently
overlook that within Luke-Acts, the command to hear Jesus is no unique moun
taintop imperative; it is one of the author’s central themes.54
Jesus’ public ministry is characterized by crowds ofpeople who come in order
to “hear” (àxrn)w) him, but we learn soon enough that not all those who come per
ceive correctly.55 At the conclusion of the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus contrasts the
fate of those who hear and do with that of those who hear and fail to do (Luke
6:47, 49 par. Matt 7:24, 26).56 The interpretation of the parable of the sower
explores this distinction further. Those who hear and fail to do are represented by
the first three soils, “who hear” but do not believe or endure and are not saved
(8:12-14). By contrast, the seed sown in the good earth represents those who “hear
the word” and “hold it fast in a noble and good heart, and bear fruit with
endurance” (v. 15). After the insistence on a believing and fruitful response to what
is heard (vv. 11-15), one might expect an exhortation to “watch how you obey”
instead of “watch how you hear” a few verses later (v. I But although “hear
ing” and “doing” are often combined to show what true perception entails, the verb
àKrn)w can stand by itself for both audition and an obedient, believing response.58
The next pericope (8:19-21) clarifies that the “hearing” Jesus calls for goes
beyond simple audition and reveals that Jesus’ true family consists of those “who
hear [àKo1ovreç] and do the word of God” (8:21; diff. Mark 3:35; Matt 12:50).
After the transfiguration, this same idea continues: It is not only Jesus’ mother who
will be blessed (11:28) but also those—like Martha’s sister Mary, sitting at the feet
of Jesus, “hearkening [icouevj to his word” (1 0:39)—”who hear lol àKolovrEc]
the word of God and keep it.” Jesus then defines the word of God in relation to
himself:
E.g., Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 384;
Hans Conzelmann, The Theology ofSt. Luke (trans. Geoffrey Buswell; New York: Harper & Row,
1961) 57; Marshall, Luke, 38$.
for an excellent discussion of the theme with a view to its impact on Luke’s “authorial
audience,” see John A. Darr, “Watch How You Listen’ (Lk. 8.18): Jesus and the Rhetoric of Per
ception in Luke-Acts,” in The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament (ed. Elizabeth Struthers
Malbon and Edgar V. McKnight; JSNTSup 109; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) 87-
107. See also Paul S. Minear, “Jesus’ Audiences, according to Luke,” NovT 16 (1974) 81-109. Nei
ther of these studies, however, stresses the covenantal significance of “hearing.”
For those who come to hear Jesus, see Luke 5:1; 5:15 (duff. Mark 1:45); 6:1 $ (cliff. Mark
3:8); 15:1; 21:38; cf. Luke 7:3 (duff. Mats 8:6); 7:22 (par. Mats 11:4); 19:48 (duff. Mark 11:18). Cf.
Minear (“Audiences,” $9), who distinguishes between disciples “who hear and obey” and the crowds
who come to hear but have not yet made a decision to respond.
56 Cf. Luke 7:1 (duff. Mats 7:28).
That is, one might expect BXneia n&ç intaKOierE instead of BXiraie nthç àKoetE. Cf.
Luke 8:10 and the example of Lydia in Acts 16:14.
58
See Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon ofthe New Testament
Based on Semantic Domains (2nd ed.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1989) §131.56, 36.14.
514 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 72, 2010
The queen of the South will rise at the judgement with the people of this generation
and will condemn them because she came from the ends of the earth to hear [àxoiiqaj
the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here, (11:31
par. Mats 12:42)
The necessity of hearing Jesus is thus combined with an emphasis on the
exalted position of the messenger. This emphasis first appears after the c1imacti
statement at the transfiguration that identifies Jesus not as a new Moses or a
prophet like Moses but as God’s “chosen Son” (Luke 9:35). The Son is uniquely
qualified for his role as messenger because, as Luke (10:22 par. Mart 11:27)
explains, “no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is
except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” Thus Jesus
can declare: “The one who hears you hears me and the one who rejects me
. .
rejects the one who sent me” (Luke 10:16; duff. Mart 10:40; cf. Luke 10:24 par.
Mart 13:17).
The undercurrent of coming judgment for those who refuse to hear continues
in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, which concludes with Abraham’s verdict:
“If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if
someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31; cf. 16:29). In Acts 3:22-23, Peter
quotes Deut 18:15 in order to show that “hearing” Jesus determines whether one
will share in the covenant blessings promised to Abraham. Those who do not listen,
says Peter, “will be destroyed from the people.” Stephen’s much longer speech
includes the same idea: Moses, who predicted that God would raise up “a prophet
like me,” “received living oracles to give to us,” but “our ancestors were unwilling
to obey him” (7:37-39). Stephen insists that the failure to obey Moses was no iso
lated incident. It typified Israel’s response to all the prophets, culminating in the
murder of the one whom Moses and the prophets predicted (7:51-52). Although
many of those who “hear” the “word” as it is proclaimed in Acts by Jesus’ follow
ers do respond positively (4:4),60 the final speech of the book concludes with a
quotation from Isa 6:9-10 lamenting the people’s failure to hear, followed by the
comment: “this salvation of God has been sent to the gentiles, and they will hear!”
(Acts 28:26-28).
The repetition of hearing and doing, the positive portrayal of those who hear,
and the threat of judgment on those who do not, signal that “hearing” Jesus is
covenant language. This covenantal framework is put together gradually over two
volumes, and the transfiguration is one of Luke’s main building blocks. Jesus
emphasizes the importance of hearing and doing his words, and the transfiguration
offers divine confirmation that he is the one to whom people must listen. For read
In the same way, the quotation of Deut 18:15 inActs 3:22 supports Peter’s identification of
Jesus as the Messiah (3:20) and the servant of God (3:26).
°
Cf. Acts 8:6; 10:22, 44; 13:7, 44,48; 14:9; 15:7; 16:14; 18:8; 19:10.
 WILDERNESS THEOPHANYNARRATWES iN LUKE 9:28-36 515
ers of Luke’s Gospel, the mountain, the cloud, and Jesus’ transfigured face would
do more than the heavenly voice in conveying why listening to Jesus is necessary.
These are threads connecting the Mount of Transfiguration to the establishment
of the covenant at Mount Sinai. In this context, it is not simply the voice of God
that Luke’s readers would hear; it is the voice of God who spoke at Sinai now
establishing the terms of the covenant around Jesus.
B. The Sinai Covenant and the Nature ofHearing Jesus
Scholarly reluctance to associate the transfiguration with the Sinai covenant
points to a failure to perceive connecting links between the transfiguration and
Exodus 19—20. But it also reflects the fact that, with the exception of the “new
covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20), Luke always applies the term “covenant” to
the Abrahamic covenant (Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25; 7:8).61 Although Luke combines
“the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants together into one”62 and sees their fulfill
ment in the community of Jesus’ followers, scholars tend to assume that Luke did
not integrate the events at Sinai into his conception of covenant.63 To the extent
that echoes of the Sinai covenant in the transfiguration are acknowledged, they are
normally viewed as contrasting with the new covenant brought by Jesus. For exam
ple, the requirement to hear and respond to the law of Moses is thought to be
replaced by the “new Torah” of Jesus’ teaching or by the message of salvation to
which one must respond in faith.64
To be sure, the importance of faith is anticipated in Luke’s depiction of Mary,
who is blessed for believing what was spoken to her (1:45), and in the inter
pretation of the parable of the sower, where Luke—unlike Mark and Matthew—
61 With most recent commentators, I accept the longer reading of Luke 22:19-20. See
Fitzmyer, Luke, 2:1387-88.
62Robert L Brawley, “For Blessing All Families of the Earth: Covenant Traditions in Luke-
Acts,” Currents in Theology and Mission 22 (1995) 18-26, here 20. See also Robert F, O’Toole,
“Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost,” JBL 102 (1983) 245-58, here 257.
63 See Francois Bovon, Luke the Theologian: f(fty-Five Years ofResearch (1950—2005) (2nd
rev. ad.; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006) 119; O’Toole, “Pentecost,” 257.
See C. F. Evans, “The Central Section of St. Luke’s Gospel,” in Studies in the Gospels:
Essays in Memory ofR, H. Lighfoot (ed. D. E. Nineham Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955) 37-53,
here 51; Robert F. O’Toole, “The Parallels between Jesus and Moses,” BTB 20(1990) 22-29, here
24-25, 28; Reid, Transfiguration, 118; Francois Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of
Luke 1:1—9:50 (trans. Christine M. Thomas; Hermeneia Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002) 380. Moessner
(Lord, 68-69) recognizes the covenantal significance of listening to Jesus, but argues that—as with
the wilderness generation in Deuteronomy—no one “hears” Jesus until after his atoning death, when
the people are given a second chance to be saved through faith in his name. However, (1) the theme
of “hearing” is introduced well before the transfiguration and remains consistent through Luke and
Acts, and (2) Luke 8:21; 10:16, 24, 39 imply that some individuals already during Jesus’ ministry
exercise proper perception.
516 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 72,2010
mentions the faith of those who hear (8: 12-13). In Acts, responsive “heating” is
consistently paired with faith, and salvation through faith in Jesus is contrasted
with the way of the law (13:38-39; 15:10_11).65 Criticism of the law, however, is
at most implicit in Luke’s GospelP Instead of replacing Moses, Jesus commends
obedience (10:28; duff. Mark 12:34), and Luke implies that those who truly hear
Moses will also listen to Jesus (16:29-31; cf. Acts 7:51-53). Instead of distinguish
ing the Mosaic covenant from the covenant with Abraham, the reference to the
Abrahamic covenant immediately after the quotation from Deut 18:15 in Acts 3
suggests rather that Luke, like other Second Temple Jews, held the two together.67
Indeed, Luke indicates that the purpose of both covenants is identical. According
to Luke 1:74, the “holy covenant” promised to Abraham would result in the free
dom to worship (Aarpei)atv) “without fear”; according to Acts 7:7, the purpose of
the exodus from Egypt was to worship (Xatpei)ciouatv) God. That the people turned
instead to worship (XaTpel)Etv) the “host of heaven” at Sinai (7:42) was the tragic
result of their unwillingness to be obedient to Moses (7:39).68 The replacement Of
Moses by Jesus is therefore not in view in Luke’s transfiguration; the point is rather
the necessity of “hearing” the Son.
Suggesting that the voice from the cloud refers to the message of salvation,
as expressed in Acts, also overlooks the immediate context, which clarifies what
it is that believers should hear when they listen to the Son. The other allusions to
the wilderness theophany narratives make almost inevitable a comparison between
Jesus’ impending exodus (o&c; Luke 9:31), which in this context refers prima
rily to his “departure” from earth,69 and the Israelites’ departure from Egypt. The
65 For hearing and faith, see Acts 2:22,37, and 44; 3:22-23 and 4:4; 8:6, 12; 10:43-44; 13:7-8,
48; 14:9; 15:7; 18:8; 19:10, 18; cf. 16:14.
Craig L. Blomberg (“The Law in Luke-Acts,” JSNT 22 [1984] 53-80, here 70) correctly
emphasizes the salvation-historical appropriateness of law keeping in Luke’s Gospel, but his search
for anticipations in Luke of the viewpoint of Acts results in an unduly negative portrayal of the law
in Luke’s first volume.
67 See, e.g., VanderKam, Jubilees, 123: “In Jubilees, a single and eternal covenant joins the
Lord and his chosen in a special relationship.”
See John Kilgallen, The Stephen Speech: A Literary and Redactional Study ofActs 7,2-53
(AnBib 67; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1976) 44, 87. Note also that the “covenant of circumcision”
given to Abraham (Acts 7:8) is related to the promise in v. 7 that the people “will come out and will
worship RarpeaouatvJ me in this place.” Acts 7:17 connects the fulfillment of this covenant prom
ise with Moses. See Barrett, Acts, 1:338.
69 That is, it refers to his death, resurrection, and ascension when he enters his “glory.” See
Garrett, “Exodus,” 656-80; Reid, Transfiguration, 126. The view that Jesus’ o6oc most naturally
includes his long journey to Jerusalem CRinge, “Exodus,” 83-99; Moessner, Lord, 57-63) is unlikely
because (1) the word Io&c is used in the LXX for the actual departure from Egypt rather than for
the wilderness wandering (Exod 19:1; Num 33:38; Pss 104:38 [Eng. 105:38]; 113:1 [Eng. 114:1]),
and (2) Jesus’ exit (Io&c) corresponds to his entrance (ctao&c), which, according to Acts 13:24,
refers to the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry.
 WILDERNESS THEOPHANY NARRATIVES IN LUKE 9:28-36 517

analogy, however, is not developed in the manner we would expect if Luke envis
aged Jesus as a new Moses who leads a new exodus. Luke’s main emphasis here
is on Jesus’ own departure (oäoc arroO). For Luke, the Son of God who must be
heard is also the suffering Son of Man (9:22, 26), and the form that Jesus’ o&c
takes is a cross. As John Nolland observes, “The link between Jesus’ exodus and
that of others is specified in vv 23_27.70 There Jesus requires his followers to
“lose their life” (9:24), “deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow
me” (9:23). After laying down the requirements for discipleship (14:25-33), Jesus
proclaims again, “Let anyone who has ears to hear, hear” (14:35; diff. Mark 9:50;
Mart 5:13). Following Jesus to his death is, for Luke, the response of faith that
“hearing him” entails.

IV Conclusion
Jesus’ superiority to Moses and Elijah is visually displayed when the lawgiver
and prophet depart, leaving Jesus alone as the one who must now be heard. Yet a
more important function of the wilderness theophany imagery is to connect the
voice from the cloud with the voice on Mount Sinai, and to set the requirement to
hear Jesus within the framework of God’s covenant relationship with the people.
Rather than replacing Moses with Jesus, the biblical allusions create an echo cham
ber that emphasizes the Son’s exalted role as mediator and amplifies the transfig
uration’s concluding demand. As the theme of hearing Jesus is developed in
Luke-Acts, it becomes clear that both the basic covenant requirement and the con
sequences of failing to listen are the same as they were at Sinai. For Luke, those
who “hearken”—who respond to Jesus’ summons to lose their lives for his sake—
are included among God’s people; those who reject the messenger are excluded.

°
Nolland, Luke. 500.