The cognate verb (apokalupsein) occurs in the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Initially (in the Pentateuch) its use matches the usual sense found in non-biblical sources, namely to uncover or reveal something. Often the sense is to reveal something shameful, i.e. human nakedness. In Exodus 20:26 Yahweh commands the priests not to climb up on an altar “so that you do not reveal (apokalupsēis) your shame on it.” The forbidden incestuous and other sexual relations discussed in Leviticus 18 and 20 are translated as “revealing shame.” God uncovers (apekalupse) the eyes of Balaam so that he sees what his donkey sees (Numbers 22:31). The spies sent to Jericho require Rachab to swear an oath that she will not disclose (apokalupsēi) their presence (Joshua 2:20). When David dances before the ark of God, Michael his wife scorns the fact that he has uncovered (apekaluphthē) himself in the eyes of his own slaves (2 Samuel 6:20-22).The use of the noun in 1 Samuel 20:30 aligns with these meanings.

Another frequent sense is to disclose the secrets of a person. In Sirach 27:16 we are told that “he who reveals (ho apokaluptōn) secrets (mustēria) has destroyed trust and will never find a friend for his soul.” This is how the cognate noun is used as well, warning against revealing the secrets of another person (Sirach 22:22; 42:1).

So in many contexts when humans are involved, the verb and the cognate noun have a decidedly negative connotation – disclosing something that should not be seen or known, and doing it for the wrong reasons.

When God is the subject of this verb, it describes the way He disclosed (apokaluphtheis apekaluphthēn) himself to Israel in Egypt (1 Samuel 2:27), but there is no specificity as to the method of disclosure used in that context. In the course of Samuel’s call to be a prophet, he does not know what is happening because “it was before Samuel knew God and a word of the Lord had been revealed (apokaluphthēnai) to him” (1 Samuel 3:7). Samuel’s relationship with God as prophet rests upon the fact that “the Lord had revealed (apekaluphthē) himself to Samuel” (1 Samuel 3:21). The idiom “uncover the ear” describes the disclosure of secrets (God to David 2 Samuel 7:27; people to other people (1 Samuel 20, 22)). The Psalmist prays that God will “uncover (apokalupson) my eyes” so he can study God’s laws (Psalm 118(119):18). God “has revealed (apekalupse)¹ his righteousness” before the nations (Psalm 97(98):2). What God does for Israel becomes evident to the surrounding nations.

God also discloses the shameful sin of his people to the nations (Hosea 2:10; 7:1; Nahum 3:7(8); Micah 1:6). This particularly is the usage in Ezekiel (16:36-37; 23:10,18,29). But in the midst of these occurrences we also discover that God “reveals (apokalupsēi) his instructions to his slaves the prophets” (Amos 3:7). And in Isaiah 52:10 Yahweh promises that he “shall reveal (apokalupsei) his holy arm before all the nations” and they will know that salvation has its source in him alone (cf. Isaiah 53:1). So there are occasions when the verb describes God’s disclosure of his power, his just actions, and his plans – sometimes for salvation and sometimes for judgment. Normally these disclosures are transmitted through prophets. However, anyone can study the law of God and to that person God will disclose wisdom through his law. But God also uncovers human sin and evil so that people see it for what is truly is. When God does this, usually it presages his judgment.

In the Greek translation of Daniel (the one attributed to “Theodotion”), the verb describes how God discloses to Daniel “deep and hidden things” (2:19) and “mysteries” (mustēria) (2:19,28,29,30,40) and in each case the accompanying verb is apokalupsein.² All of these occurrences in Daniel occur in the story where Nebuchadnezzar demands that the Babylonian wisemen tell him what his dream was and its significance, upon threat of death. God discloses the dream and its significance to Daniel in a vision at night (2:19). For Daniel this is a sign of God’s favour and praises God in 2:22 because He “discloses deep and hidden things.” In 2:28,29,30 Daniel reports to the king how God disclosed these secrets to Daniel, “things that must happen.” In response Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges that God is “God of gods and Lord of kings and a discloser of secret things” (2:47).³ The same verb is used once more in Daniel 10:1 to describe how “a word was disclosed to Daniel by God” in a vision.

In several contexts the disclosures, particularly those from God, come as a surprise. Consider the experience of Samuel to whom God disclosed himself and how it took some time for Samuel figure out what was happening. Prophets sometimes become the disclosers of these divine surprises, but in other cases God does this directly. In the case of Paul, his experience on the Damascus Road certainly fits the category of surprise! He had no sense that God was about to disclose this “mystery” that Jesus is Messiah to him in this remarkable way. One question that arises is whether Paul viewed this disclosure as God’s assignment to him of a prophetic role, as was the case with Samuel and other Old Testament prophets.

There is one Old Testament passage where the cognate verb does occur and which Paul cites, at least partially. As we noted above, Isaiah 53:1 asks to whom God “shall reveal (apekaluphthē) his holy arm?” This seems to echo the assertion in Isaiah 52:10 that “the Lord shall reveal (apokalupsei) his holy arm before all the nations and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation that comes from God.” Paul quotes the first part of Isaiah 53:1 in Romans 10:16, which indicates that he was aware of this text. Further, in Romans 15:21 Paul quotes Isaiah 52:15, which also talks about God’s use of the servant to enable the nations to see and understand the ways of God. And Paul used this text to ground his mission in the program of the Messiah. It is probable that Paul saw his conversion and call to ministry in connection with the mission of the Messiah, the Suffering Servant. Paul was one of those to whom God “disclosed his arm” and demonstrated that Jesus Messiah is the one through whom God was bringing salvation to all nations. Both the method of disclosure and the content of the disclosure by God to Paul was a complete surprise.

It is also the case that Paul talks about his conversion in terms similar to those used in Daniel 2. For example in Ephesians 3:3-6 he wrote:

“…that is, the mystery (to mustērion) made known to me by revelation (kata apokalupsin)….In reading this, then you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery (en tōi mustēriōi) of Christ which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed (apekaluphthē) by the Spirit….This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel….”

Similarly in Romans 16:25 he affirms that his gospel incorporates “the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery (kata apokalupsin mustēriou) hidden in long ages past but now revealed (phanerōthentos) and made known (gnōristhentos)…so that all nations might believe and obey him….” While it cannot be proven that Paul is dependent upon the Daniel narrative for this language, it is interesting that only in Daniel 2 do we find the expression “disclose the mysteries” in connection with a disclosure from God (the expression occurs in Sirach but in reference to human beings disclosing secrets). In the Daniel narrative God chooses to disclose his purposes to a Gentile monarch, Nebuchadnezzar and then uses a Jewish leader to explain what this disclosure means, with the result that the king acknowledges Yahweh as “God of gods and Lord of kings.” The possible parallel with Paul’s mission is interesting.

So in Galatians 1-2, when Paul describes his conversion, his calling, and his action to confer with the leaders of the Jerusalem church about the Gospel, he attributes it all to God’s disclosures (1:12,16; 2:2). The use of the verb in Galatians 3:23 describes the disclosure of “the faith” to those “who are locked up” and “walled about by law”. Paul characterizes the way of faith as surprise disclosure by and from God for human salvation. Galatians 4:4-5 demonstrates how God’s plan and timing were perfect, but from the human standpoint, these disclosures of the Messiah came as an astonishing surprise.

The use of this noun and verb by Peter (1 Peter 1:7,13; 4:13), most likely with reference to the second coming of the Messiah, similarly emphasizes the sense of a surprising disclosure by God of secret things. Jesus emphasized that he would return, but indicated that time and context were unknown, except to God the Father. Peter’s choice of this language expresses the same spirit of uncertainty as to the timing of God’s next disclosure of the Messiah.

Implications:

1. God has secrets, some of which he has disclosed to humans, but others he keeps to Himself. We live in between two of these disclosures, namely the incarnation of the Messiah and his second coming. Salvation in Christ is only possible because God decided to disclose this Messianic secret. When one of your friends has secrets that he or she will not share, how does that make you feel? How does the fact that God has secrets, some of which He has not disclosed, shape your relationship with Him?
2. Why does God keep some things secret? Is it in the very nature of deity that God  must know things that humans do not, otherwise He would cease to be God? When we get to heaven will God disclose all of his secrets to his people or will He still keep some things to himself?
3. If the presence of the Spirit give us access to “the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthian 2:16) and “God’s secret wisdom” (2:7), what does this mean in practical terms?

• ¹In this verse it is used in parallel with a verb meaning “make known.”
• ²The alternative Greek translation of Daniel used ekphainō (2:19,30,47) which means “bring to light, disclose, reveal” or anakaluptō (2:22,28,29) a similar verb meaning “uncover, expose, make bare.”
• ³In these contexts in Daniel the Greek verb is rendering the same Aramaic verb which means to uncover, reveal.

In the Greek translation of the Old Testament the phrase “man of God” does describe Moses (Joshua 14:6). It also occurs in Judges 13:6,8 to describe the angel who appeared to Manoah and his wife. A prophet, “a man of God,” delivers a message to Eli in 1 Samuel 2:27. Saul seeks help from “a man of God”, a prophet, in order to locate his father’s lost donkeys (1 Samuel 9:7-10). In 1 Kings 12:22 Shemaiah, Rehoboam’s advisor, is defined as “the man of God.”¹ David is given this epithet in 2 Chronicles 8:14 (cf. Nehemiah 12:24,36). The phrase in terms of Old Testament usage describes a person, normally a male, who has received a special mandate from God to represent Him as leader or prophet, able to express in life and deed the way of the Lord. Occasionally it describes an angelic messenger. This is a Jewish expression and not a phrase found in Greco-Roman literature.

In Jewish writers of the Second Temple period, this phrase comes to apply to all Jews. For example, in the Letter to Aristeas (c. 150 B.C.) Eleazar, the Jewish High Priest explains the Jewish law to the ambassadors from Ptolemy’s court. In the course of his response he claims that “the priests who are the guides of the Egyptians, have looked closely into many things and are conversant with affairs” and “ have named us ‘men of God’ (anthrōpous theou), a title applicable to none others but only to him who reveres the true God.”² Philo, when commenting on the accounts in Genesis of “Giants” states that there are three classes of human beings: earth-born, heaven-born, and God-born.³ And then he indicates that “the men of God (theou de anthrōpoi) are priests and prophets…”⁴ who reject worldly passions. In another context Philo argues that a peaceful person is “God’s man (anthrōpon theou), who being the Word of the Eternal must needs himself be immortal.”⁵ We discern the gradual extension of this phrase in Hellenistic Judaism from describing only key leaders and spokespersons for God, to its application to every Jewish person who is living in covenant obedience. As Marshall observes “for Philo the phrase has become a description of those who are truly the people of God.”⁶

In the context of 1 Timothy Paul is encouraging his protégé, Timothy, to attend to his spiritual life and ministry leadership responsibilities well. Yet in the midst of these personal instructions, there are also many admonitions addressed to diverse groups of Christians – widows, slaves, elders, false teachers, the wealthy, etc. He intersperses this spiritual advice with specific instruction for Timothy. This is the pattern we discover in 1 Timothy 6:6-19. He urges believers to be content and not lust for wealth (6:8-10). This is particularly important for Timothy as a ministry leader, “man of God (anthrōpe theou)” (6:11-16). He then shifts again to addressing wealthy Christians and the attitude they must cultivate towards their wealth so that they truly serve God. When we compare Paul’s instructions to Timothy, “the man of God” in 6:11-16 with his instructions to rich Christians in 6:17-19, we discover that he repeats most of his advice, but emphasizes in the case of Timothy the importance of a good witness and perseverance in the truth – qualities important for a Christian leader. So while the phrase “man of God” may be used by Paul to identify a Christian leader, the piety and ethics of that leader are the same essentially as that expected from all Christians.

Further in this context there may be reference to Timothy’s baptism – “when you made your good confession before many witnesses” (1 Timothy 6:12). Paul advises Timothy to continue to “flee” from sin and “pursue” spirituality. These spiritual experiences and responsibilities are necessary for every sincere believer.

With respect to 2 Timothy 3:10-17 Paul rehearses for Timothy the nature of his piety and what ministry has meant for him (vv.10-11). A general statement follows reminding us that “everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted…” (v.12). Paul then shifts focus to Timothy, whom he regards as one of these godly people and urges him to hold fast to the faith commitments he has learned from his family, Paul and the Scriptures. “The man of God”, i.e. the one who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus, will have constant recourse to the Scriptures because in them he will find everything he needs to serve God well. Again what Paul says specifically about Timothy, he also applies in general terms to all believers. As Marshall writes with reference to 1 Timothy 6:11, “Timothy is being addressed as a typical believer (2 Tim 3.12) rather than as a church leader.”⁷

Christian leaders must be “men of God” in every sense of the word. However, every believer in the New Testament because the Holy Spirit is resident within, is similarly representing God in this world. The other metaphors that Paul, for instance, used to identify believers, i.e. temple of the Holy Spirit, instrument of righteousness, servant of God, all point to this same reality. This phrase “man of God” used in the Old Testament to describe prophets, priests and kings, is applied to an emerging Christian leader such as Timothy. But in doing so Paul is not creating two classes of Christians. Rather, he emphasizes the standard of holy living that Christian leaders must commit to, if they are to serve God and Christ well. But at the same time, the same spirituality and ethics expected of Christian leaders are also urged for every believer. The Scriptures are beneficial for every believer and their preparation to serve God, not just church leaders. There are not two standards of spirituality in the Kingdom. We confess one faith; we serve One Christ; we possess One Spirit; we pursue one mission. We are all together “the holy ones of God.”

Implications:

1. are you conscious of your role as “man of God” today? What are you doing intentionally to equip yourself for this role?
2. if you serve in a specific capacity of ministry leadership, are you modeling the holy living that God desires?
3. the second part of this phrase, i.e. “of God”, can mean possession and/or representation. When you think about being God’s representative, God’s servant, how does this shape your identity, your decisions, your priorities?

• ¹Many other examples of this usage occur in 1 Kings 13,14,17; 2 Kings 1,4,8,23
• ²Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas), section 140. In the Wisdom of Solomon 18:13 the writer says that the Egyptians, when God destroyed their firstborn, acknowledged “your people to be God’s son (theou huion laon),” a commentary on Exodus 12:31.
• ³Philo, De Gigantibus, 60.
• ⁴Ibid., 61.
• ⁵Philo, De Confusione Linguarum, 41-43.
• ⁶I.Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (London: T & T Clark, 1999), 656.
• ⁷I.H.Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 657.

The Apostle Paul

One of the intriguing questions about the early church is the nature of the relationship between Paul and Peter. Without doubt both men, committed Christian leaders, made a huge impact upon the shape of the Christian church. Their writings document this clearly. Yet, their pathway into faith and leadership in the church are very different – Peter, the Galilean fisherman and Paul, the rising Jewish scholar and leader. One followed Jesus from the beginning; the other became a follower of Jesus only after seeking to destroy the memory and mission of Jesus following his death and resurrection.

Paul provides the most detailed information about their relationship in the first two chapters of his letter to the Galatian churches. Luke complements what Paul provides in Acts 9-15. In his second letter Peter does mention Paul and the value of his writings in the church, even though they contain things hard to grasp (2 Peter 3:15-16), but he regards him as “a beloved brother.” Luke makes it clear in the early chapters of Acts that Peter became the de facto leader of the church immediately following Pentecost. However, when he was forced to leave Jerusalem because of threat of death, James, the brother of Jesus, steps into that role. So it is that in Galatians 1-2 Peter and James along with John, and Paul in his partnership with Barnabas, form the two primary leadership teams in the early church, around 50 AD.

The Apostle Peter

But how did Paul first meet Peter and what was the purpose of this meeting? We only have Paul’s account of this, found in Galatians 1:18.¹ According to his recollection his first encounter with Peter happened in Jerusalem, three years after his dramatic conversion. Paul emphasizes the time factor because he is establishing that he “did not even receive it [the Gospel] from a human person, nor was I taught, but through revelation of Jesus Messiah” (Galatians 1:12). His first contact with the apostles of Jesus and Peter in particular occurred three years after the Damascus Road revelation of Jesus as risen Lord to Paul. The point is that Paul’s understanding of the Gospel comes directly from Jesus, as the apostles’ full understanding of that same Gospel came directly from post-resurrection encounters with the risen Lord. When the three leading Jerusalem apostles “add nothing” to Paul’s grasp of the Gospel (Galatians 2:6), they agreed that Paul too “was entrusted with the Gospel” (Galatians 2:7).

Paul says that his initial interaction with Peter came upon his own initiative. He “went up to Jerusalem to inquire (historēsai) of Cephas” “(Galatians 1:17) and visited with him for fourteen days. What exactly happened during those exchanges is confined to our interpretation of this verb historēsai, variously interpreted as “visit” (NRSV), “get acquainted with” (NIV), “get to know” (NLT). Paul’s use of this word indicates that his visit was more than a social call. But can we be any more specific?

The verb has various uses. People used it to describe their desire “to enquire” of the gods some direction or desired outcome. For example, in a IV/III B.C. inscription a woman named Nikokrateia “enquires (historei), to which of the gods she should sacrifice in order to be better and stronger and cease from her illness.”² Herodotus (5^th century B.C.) used the cognate noun to mean “presentation of research (historiēs apodexis).”³ It takes on the sense of a “narrative” presentation that is based upon enquiries a person has made. This probably the meaning of the verb in 1 Esdras 1:31 (CHASAOT) where it says that the actions of King Josiah “have been recorded (historētai) in the book of the kings of Israel and Ioudas.”⁴ A narrative account of Josiah’s reign is provided in that document, according to the author of 1 Esdras. The writer of 2 Maccabees notes the challenge of figures and details that face a person who composes “narratives of history (tēs historias)” (2:24), using the noun.⁵

Moulton and Milligan reference several inscriptions that were made by people who visited (historein) a specific site or region and because of what they observed and discerned they express amazement (thaumazein).⁶

A third sense can be traced in writings contemporaneous with that of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, namely “to visit for the purpose of making someone’s acquaintance. Josephus says that he “became acquainted (historēsa) during the war” with Julianus, a Bithynian centurion in the Roman army.⁷ When he retells the story of Lot’s escape from Sodom, Josephus says he “has visited and become acquainted (historēsa) with this pillar which remains to this day.”⁸ The sense of the verb is that Josephus was acting almost like a tourist, visiting ancient remains, but his intent probably was somewhat more serious.

It seems that we have at least two options to consider when seeking to define this verb’s usage in Galatians 1:18. On the one hand, Paul could be saying that he visited Peter with the intent of becoming acquainted with him and his experience in the Gospel. On the other hand, Paul may be saying that he went to give an account to Peter of what his own experience in the Gospel had been. Given that this was their first meeting, perhaps a bit of both occurred during this encounter. Paul uses this verb to express the personal discoveries and interchange of information that both enjoyed during this fourteen day visit. We might calculate, based on the information Paul shares in Galatians 1-2 that this initial meeting occurred around 37-38 AD.

The information we have about the interactions among the early Christian leaders is very meager. So we must consider every piece of data that we possess in order to define these relationships as accurately as possible. Paul considered it important to establish a relationship with Peter and probably James, leaders in the new Christian community.

Implications:

1. it is important for Christian leaders to share their faith stories with one another. Such interactions have potential to generate trust, strengthen faith, and encourage perseverance;
2. it may be going too far in the particular instance of Galatians 1:18 to suggest that Paul was developing something of an accountability relationship with Peter in his visit to Jerusalem. While his opponents sought to use this visit as a point of weakness and inferiority, for Paul it was an opportunity to learn, confirm his own experience in the faith, and receive the support and encouragement of a key Christian leader. What accountability relationship have you established to keep your Christian walk on track and your leadership suffused with integrity?

• ¹ Luke makes general reference to various visits that Paul makes to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26-30; 11:27-30), but only in chapter 15 does he explicitly mention Peter’s engagement.
• ² G.H.R. Horsley, ed. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, Volume 4 (Macquarie University, Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, 1987), 135. However, he is quick to assert that this is “not the way it is employed in the NT at Gal.1.18.
• ³ Herodotus, I.1.1; II.118, 1; 119.3
• ⁴ A. Pietersma and B.Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 394. The verb is used twice in this verse. A further usage comes in 1:40 where the actions of Nebchadnezzar are described as “the things recorded (ta…historēthenta) about him.”
• ⁵ Additional usages occur at 2Maccabees 2:32 where the writer says he will shorten his preface because he wants to devote most of the space to his “narrative” (tēn historian). The author of 4 Maccabees states that his purpose is to provide “a narrative demonstration (epi tēn apodeixin tēs historias) of temperate reason” (3:19). Note that this is the same phrase found in Herodotus, five centuries earlier.
• ⁶ J. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources (London; Hodder and Stoughton Ltd., 1972 repr.), 308. For example, a man named Hermogenes writes a graffiti on the tomb of the late New Kingdom Ramses VI and says that when he toured it (historēsas), he was completely astounded (hyperethaumasa).
• ⁷ Jewish Wars VI.81.
• ⁸ Antiquities, I.203. The Loeb edition translates this verb here as “have seen.”

Hawthorne states that Paul has coined this terminology (summorphizō) for his own purposes.¹ However, in doing this Paul probably is reflecting his prior use of the phrases morphē theou (“in very nature God” Phil.2:6) and morphē doulou (“the very nature of a servant” Phil. 2:7) by which he seems to define the pre-existent nature of Jesus as Son of God and his incarnational existence.²

The usage in 3:10 occurs in an extended sentence that covers verses 8-11. While it is not possible to be dogmatic, the verbal form summorphizomenos in v.10, probably modifies the action of the verb in verse 8: “I consider them rubbish…(v.10) in order to know him and the power of his resurrection and fellowship of his sufferings, becoming like him in his death…”(NIV). If this is the correct understanding of Paul’s statement, then this shaping of life such that it embraces the scandal of the cross shows the value that he places on his relationship with Jesus Christ in comparison to his former way of life.

The reference to the Messiah’s death in connection with summorphizomenos in v.10 also expands in some sense what Paul means by the expression “in order to know…the fellowship (koinōnian) of his sufferings.” To share in something and to become like something are related ideas. The Messiah’s suffering and death are also related concepts. What does the suffering and death of the Messiah represent? It is the context in which “righteousness” for Paul and the rest of believing humanity was won. It brought “the righteousness of God” into reach for sinful humanity through “faith in the Messiah.”

But Paul seems to take these ideas at least one step further.  If we do not become like the Messiah in his death, then we will not be able to share in the resurrection from the dead. Verse 11 seems to presuppose this similarity with the death of the Messiah. Our identification with the Messiah in this present life brings us the privilege of experiencing resurrection in the future. The participle summorphizomenos is a present form, indicating a current, continuing activity or condition. This ‘conforming’ is a process that extends throughout the rest of Paul’s life and gives the context for explaining the various things that he is encountering. While he is spiritually “becoming like” the Messiah, it is the Messiah in his incarnational role as morphē doulou in which death expresses the Messiah’s obedience to God the Father, enabling God to provide righteousness for humanity. As his life is embedded in the life of the Messiah Paul realizes that circumstances such as imprisonment for Jesus’ sake are part of this “conforming in his death.” Perhaps Paul here references some of Jesus’ teaching about discipleship in which “taking up one’s cross” is the paramount expression of faithfulness. Death for the Messiah defined his rejection and Paul’s suffering similarly defines his rejection in the Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds because of his loyalty to the Messiah.

Present conformity in death engenders assurance of future conformity in resurrection, when the Lord Jesus Christ “will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like (summorphon) his glorious body” (v.21). Paul does not pause here to explain more fully what this transformation means for Christians. It is accomplished by the hard-at-work powerful activity of the Messiah and includes us in the Messiah’s glory, a glory that God himself grants to the Messiah (2:9-11). So while our current likeness to the Messiah may be shaped by suffering and humiliation, even as we experience “the power of his resurrection” (v.10), the future will be far more wonderful than anything we can imagine currently.

I think Paul wants the Philippian Christians to understand that the pattern of the Messiah’s “form/nature (morphē)” (Phil.2:6-7), finds replication in the experience of the believer now, “becoming like him in his death” (Phil. 3:10) , but whose future life “will be like his glorious body” (Phil. 3:21), when the Messiah returns. It is this reality that generates within him peace, contentment and confidence and presses him to an evangelistic and ethical lifestyle.

Implications:

1. in what ways is your current life circumstance as a believer expressing “a likeness to  the Messiah’s death,” i.e.  pressure and suffering that results from loyalty to the Messiah in the midst of a culture that is God-rejecting? Do you accept this reality as a sign of your partnership with the Messiah and does this generate joy or resentment within you?
2. how eagerly are you awaiting Jesus Christ’s return? Does your confidence in future “conformity to the Messiah’s glorious body” empower you today to live  “in conformity with the Messiah’s death?” How does this shape your daily ethical decisions?

• ¹Gerald Hawthorne, Philippians. Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 43 (Waco, TX: Word Books, Pub., 1983), 145. “Paul creates a new word….”
• ²I commented on this usage in Internet Moments with God’s Word # 23

The first chapter of Philippians is filled with contrasts. Shame or greatness (v.20); living or dying (v.21); preaching the Gospel out of rivalry or out of love (vv.15-17); striving well or being intimidated (vv.27-28). While Paul has much to say about his own inner wrestlings as he endures imprisonment, his primary concern is with these Philippian believers, with whom he has a special bond of friendship. The initial clause of v.27 summarizes the entire message of his letter: “whatever happens, conduct yourselves [tNIV reads “as citizens of heaven live (politeuesthe)”; cf. 3:20] in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.” The way they do this is defined in the remainder of vv. 27-28.

Paul used two present participles to describe how they were to “stand firm in one [S]pirit”, something necessarily arising from their new status as citizens of God’s kingdom. The first participle, “contending (sunathlountes),” is linked explicitly with their commitment to the Gospel (“for the faith of the Gospel”). Paul emphasizes their collective engagement with the phrase “as one man” (tNIV reads “with one accord”)  and the use of this compound verbal form sunathleō, whose prefix indicates joint effort. This verb only occurs in the New Testament here and in Phil. 4:3, where again Paul links it with partnership in the Gospel (“women who have contended (sunēthlēsan) at my side in the cause of the gospel…whose names are in the book of life”). In 1:30 Paul summarizes their life in Christ as “the same struggle (agōna)” which he himself is contesting.

In the literature you discover that some read this term in the context of athletic contests, others set the contention in military contexts, and still others see little, specific referential meaning associated with the word and just consider its sense to be “working together”. This last sense is how Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, Volume 1, understand its meaning, linking it with other words that imply work or toil, but adding the nuance of doing this together in the face of opposition or competition.¹ The simple form of the verb athleō (2 Timothy 2:5) and its cognate noun athlēsis (Hebrews 10:32) convey a sense of athletic context when used in the New Testament. In 2 Timothy 2:5 the picture is of an athlete striving in a contest and winning the competition. Similarly in Hebrew 10:32 we should place this term alongside the metaphor of athletic competition that comes in Hebrew 12:1 (“let us run with patience the race that is set before us”). However, in Philippians 1 Paul presents few clues that define the nature of the competition or contention. The mention of citizenship and his concern that they “stand together in one spirit” might suggest more of a military context, where the citizens act together to defend their city. However, we also have the juridicial context of Paul’s imprisonment and it is just as likely that Paul is encouraging them to defend themselves against false accusations, just as he is doing. This compound term occurs very infrequently and so we have little evidence, apart from the Philippian context, to help us define its specific nuance. Perhaps the fact that Paul links the same ideas of citizenship, standing firm, and struggle in Philippians 3:20-4:3 should be noted. In that context we have the additional phrase “names in the book of life” which supports the concept of citizenship as the primary context for these terms.

In IV Maccabees this terminology defines Jewish resistance to Seleucid pressure to abandon their religious practices, a writing that is roughly contemporaneous with Paul and probably written by a Jew living outside of Palestine (the same context in which Paul is operating). In particular this writing describes in graphic terms the martyrdom of Eleazar, his wife, and their seven sons by Antiochus Epiphanes. For example, Eleazar, as he dies is compared to an athlete:

But he bore the pains and scorned the punishments and endured the tortures. Like a noble athlete the old man, while being beaten, was victorious over his torturers;…(6:9-10).

As the writer reflects on their perseverance, he exclaims:

Reverence for God was victor and gave the crown to its own athletes. Who did not admire the athletes of the divine legislation? Who were not amazed? (17:15-16)

Whether Paul’s use of cognate terms to describe how the Philippian believers must contend for the Gospel had similar overtones of potential martyrdom is a debated question. However, we can say that Paul’s language in Philippians does indicate the seriousness of the religious contest in which these believers were engaging.

The other participle Paul used in this context, “being frightened (pturomenoi)”, similarly occurs rarely in Greek literature before or during his time. The entry in Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, notes that it describes a horse shying at a noise or a person alarmed at death. Since it is passive in most of its occurrences, some suggest a kind of permissive sense might be appropriate, i.e. “do not let yourself be intimidated by, alarmed at, scared.” Something in the context of a person has potential to scare or intimidate. If this is the notion Paul is expressing, then in Philippians 1:28 he would be encouraging these believers not to let themselves be intimidated by the opposition they experience because of their Christian commitments. When they embraced the Gospel, they entered a serious, extended struggle and elements in that struggle had potential to alarm or scare the believers such they might give up or abandon the struggle. Thus Paul’s exhortation to “stand” and not let anything scare them from pursuing “the goal to win the prize for which God has called [us] heavenward in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:14).

Whether these threats of intimidation arise from within the Christian movement or outside of that community, Paul clearly desires the Philippians believers to maintain their loyalty towards the Gospel. God has set them on their faith journey and He will see them finish well. He used the phrase “in nothing” to define the comprehensiveness of his desire. There is nothing that should deter them from their struggle, no matter who the opposition might be. Paul sees a positive outcome to all of this as the struggle and its intimidation becomes a “demonstration or proof (endeixis) of their deliverance or salvation (sōtēria)”(1:28).

Implications:

1. Paul’s instruction to the Philippians reminds us of the serious nature of our faith relationship with Jesus. How do you experience this contention for the faith of the Gospel in your life?
2. The corporate nature of this struggle seems to be important for victory. In what ways are you contending “in one [S]pirit”? Whether “spirit” here refers to the Holy Spirit or a human attitude is unclear, but Paul certainly recognizes the importance of unity in successful perseverance.
3. Where do you discern the greatest points of intimidation? What strategies have you discovered that help you face and defeat these forces of fear?

____________________
• ¹Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, editors, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, Volume I (New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1989, second edition), 515.

The adjective bebaios defines something as solid, firm, steady. Etymologically it is related to the verb bainō, which in the perfect form means “stand or be in place, established.” When applied to friendship, it signifies constancy; if used in connection with an oath, it means it is inviolable; when found in reference to divine words, it can mean immutable. For example, when Philo describes the Law of God given to Moses he declares it to be superior to all other human institutions because it is “firm (bebaia), unshaken (asaleuta), immovable (akradanta),…”¹ Similarly Josephus in his response to the attacks of Apion declares that Moses “prepared the [framework of the law] to be preserved most securely (babaiotatēn) for ever.”² The term confirms that a law or institution or promise/oath is secure and certain. In Romans 4:16 Paul argues that God has made faith the basis of human response to himself “in order that the promise might be secure/firm/guaranteed (bebaian) for all the seed…to those who are of the faith of Abraham.” The writer of Hebrews compares our hope in God to an anchor “firm (asphalē) and secure (bebaian),” embedded in the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus now serves as our High Priest.  Philo used these two expressions to describe God himself:

The sure (asphalēs) God is the support and stay, the firmness and stability (bebaiotēs) of all things, imparting as with the impress of a seal to whom He will the power of remaining unshaken.³

Philo was a contemporary of Paul, a Hellenistic Jew living in Alexandria. It is interesting to note how similarly they use this terminology of security, steadfastness and sealing to encourage human confidence in God’s provisions for salvation.

God’s wisdom is “steadfast (bebaiov) and unfailing (asphalēs).”⁴ Those who pursue wisdom and demonstrate this by keeping wisdom’s laws are assured that “attention to the law is a surety (bebaiōsis) of immortality.”⁵ When his soul experiences exhaustion, the Psalmist asks God to “keep me steady/established (bebaiōson) in your words.”⁶

The writer to the Hebrews picks up this sense of God’s total trustworthiness in 6:16. God swore an oath to Abraham that He would bless him (Genesis 22:17). God used Himself as the guarantor for this oath. In doing this God, just like a human person, used an oath to “confirm (eis bebaiōsin) what is said and put an end to all argument.”

The author of 2 Peter 1:16-19 refers to the Transfiguration of Jesus as an event that demonstrates the validity of Jesus and his message, as well as the prior prophecies, as Elijah and Moses joined with Jesus in that extraordinary event. So he rejoices that “we have the word of the prophets made more certain (bebaioteron).” The writer includes himself among the eyewitnesses of this event, seeing the change, observing Elijah and Moses, and hearing God’s voice directly from heaven. This confirms for him that Jesus is truly the one prophesied.

This terminology also has a long history of usage in commercial, taxation, and legal settings. For example, when individuals in the Roman Empire bid for the right to collect taxes, they had to provide some surety to the government that they would reach their quota. Sometimes those who won the auction entered into private agreements with other individuals who served as guarantors (bebaiōtai).⁷ Twice in Greek Leviticus this terminology is used in this commercial/legal sense. In Leviticus 25:23 Israel is reminded that while they might sell their land, they really have no right to do so because “the land shall not be sold irrevocably (eis bebaiōsis) for the land is mine [Yahweh].” Any such sale cannot be definitive, absolute, or legally guaranteed, because the Israelites were only tenants, not land-owners in Palestine. When one buys a house in a walled city, the prior owner has a year within which to redeem it. After the year has elapsed, “the house that is in a city that has a wall shall be confirmed irrevocably (bebaiōs) to belong to its purchaser, throughout his generations,…”

To what degree this commercial/legal referential sense of ‘guarantee’ should be read in New Testament passages is disputed and must be determined on contextual grounds. For example in the text cited from Wisdom 6:18, is attention to the law a “guarantee” of immorality such that no agent can rob such a person of this treasure? Or in the case of Hebrew 6:16 is God’s oath to be construed as a guarantee, proof against any accusation? When the Psalmist appeals to God for help in the face of his opponents (Psalm 40(41):12) he confesses that God has “secured (ebebaiōsas) me forever.” God will ensure that the Psalmist wins his case and is declared innocent.

When we come to Paul’s letters, we discover him using these terms frequently in various ways. For example, in 1 Corinthians 1:6 he claims that “the witness of Christ has been confirmed (ebebaiōthē) in you.” Presumably this refers to the apostle’s presentation of the Gospel, whose power has been established in the conversion of these people and their formation into the body of Christ. And then two verses later Paul writes (1:8) that Christ himself is the one “who also will keep you secure (bebaiōsei) to the end, free from any charge in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” I think the use of the legal term anegklētous, free from any charge, adds judicial colour to the context. God-in-Christ will confirm our status as innocent in the final judgment. No charge will stick because we are in Christ.

Similarly in the initial chapter of 2 Corinthians Paul again incorporates this language. In v.21 God himself is the one “who makes us together with you secure (bebaiōn) unto Christ and anoints us, who also sets his seal of ownership on us and gives us his Spirit as the guaranteed deposit in our hearts.” God is the agent here, doing all of these things to assure us of our position in Christ. Notice how Paul piles up the terms here that focus our attention on this certain, secure status. This is why his hope for them is secure and firm (bebaia) (1:7). God stands as the guarantor for it all.

Paul also used the noun in Philippians 1:7. He links together his imprisonment, his defense, and the validation of the Gospel, i.e. warranty that the Gospel is valid. I do not think it going too far to suggest that Paul’s successful appeal of the charges can be seen as a legal validation, formal confirmation of the Gospel. He is an apostle, a witness of the Gospel and so how God works through him becomes a confirmation of the Gospel. To the extent that the Philippine believers participate with him, they too contribute to this work of Gospel validation.

Implications:

1. If God is the One Who “affirms” our place in his family, how does He do that?
2. If you are struggling with your position in the family of God, then perhaps a text like 2 Corinthians 1:21 can be of great encouragement.
3. Is our testimony for Jesus part of the warranty that demonstrates the reality of the Gospel?

____________________
• ¹Philo, De Vita Mosis, II.14
• ²Josephus, Contra Apionem, II.156
• ³Philo, De Somniis, I. 158
• ⁴Wisdom of Solomon 7:23
• ⁵Wisdom of Solomon 6:18
• ⁶Psalm 118(119):28
• ⁷S.R. Llewelyn, editor. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Volume Eight (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 50-51 (specifically footnote 19).

The content of the verse is straightforward. The message of the “young man” at Jesus’ tomb and the state of things in the tomb cause the women to flee in astonished fear. Mark then explains why – “for trembling and ekstasis was taking hold of them.” The result of all of this is that “they said nothing to no one [Greek has a double negative for emphasis here], for they were afraid.”

Mark’s use of the compound expression “trembling and ekstasis” has generated a large debate. Did Mark intend to communicate that the women were terrified by everything they were experiencing and remained silent? Or does his use of ekstasis suggest that their fear is similar to that experienced by people in the Old Testament when they met God, a kind of awestruck astonishment and bewilderment, leading to a temporary silence as they reflected on this encounter? Is Mark making a more negative or a more positive comment about the women’s experience and subsequent behaviour?

Mark used this word in one other context (5:42). In that setting he links it with the cognate verb, existēmi. The New International Version translates that entire expression as “they were completely astonished (exestēsan ekstasei megalēi).” This describes the reaction of the disciples and the parents when Jesus raised Jairus’ daughter from the dead. Literally “they were astonished with great astonishment.” Perhaps it is noteworthy that Mark used this noun in the two contexts in his gospel where he describes the reaction of people to resurrection events.

The more extensive use of the cognate verb existēmi in Mark’s Gospel causes us to pause before reaching a conclusion. Two occurrences seem to reflect a similar sense of awe and astonishment: 2:12 (the healing of the paralyzed man) and 6:51 (the response of the disciples when Jesus climbs into the boat after walking to them on the water and calming the wind).¹ Its use in 3:21 (the accusation that Jesus was exestēi) is not paralleled elsewhere in Mark’s narrative.²

When the crowds in Mark 2 saw the paralyzed man arise and walk, carrying his pallet, the writer says that as a result “all [including the religious leaders?] were astonished (existasthai) and glorified God.” Such an event had never occurred in their experience. They attribute the power to do such a thing to God himself, presumably in their view, acting through Jesus. Their response of awesome wonder to the miracle causes them to praise God.

Similarly the disciples “are extremely awestruck (existanto)” when Jesus, having walked across the Sea of Galilee in the early morning hours as strong wind impeded the progress of disciples’ boat, climbed up into the boat to be with them and the wind calmed (6:51). His appearance, like a phantom, initially generated great agitation (etarachthēsan, deeply disturbed) within them; but as Jesus identifies himself, encourages them “not to be afraid,” and decides to join them, this agitation was turned into awe and wonder. They seem to struggle to comprehend what has just happened and fit it into their definition of Jesus.

This pattern of prior usage of the noun and verb in Mark’s Gospel leads us to conclude that probably in 16:8 the author intends us to understand part of the women’s response to the messenger, his message and the empty tomb to be awe and wonder. These things were totally unexpected and beyond the realm of their experience. Deity is responsible for these things. But raw fear is also mingled with their astonishment and so Mark describes them as possessed by “trembling and astonishment…for they were afraid.” The noun tromos, “trembling” occurs with phobos, “fear” in Exodus 15:15-16 to describe the response of the leaders of Edom, Moab and Canaan to the news of what God did to the Egyptians in the Red Sea and leads Moses to desire “fear and trembling [to] fall upon them” as they discover God’s intent to lead Israel into their territories.

Mark has used the verb exethambēthēsan in 16:5 as he narrates the women’s response to the young man sitting in the opened, empty tomb. This verb seems to indicate a kind of astonishment that generates serious alarm, perhaps rendered best by our English word “dread”. So Mark has signaled earlier in this account the kind of fearful encounter that is occurring here. No wonder they “fled from the tomb.”

I think when Mark used the noun ekstasis and the verb existamai the astonishment described arises because people are surprised at the extraordinary things they are experiencing. Jesus does the totally unexpected. In Mark 6:52 the response of astonishment to Jesus walking on the water, climbing into the boat and calming the water is said to result from their failure to comprehend the significance of the loaves, i.e. their heart was hardened. They just did not perceive Jesus having the ability to do these kinds of things. So when they happen, they are caught off guard and struggle to integrate what they are observing with how they are understanding Jesus and his mission. For many, it does not compute. The extraordinary actions generate an astonishment and wonder that is embedded simultaneously in fear, uncertainty, surprise, and awe. In the case of the women their experience stuns them into silence.

In Mark 16:8 the author has carefully expressed this combination of dread and awe by using words that describe flesh-quivering fear and mind-numbing astonishment. This language speaks of incomprehension when people encounter God’s power and authority in Jesus. His mystery overwhelms. No wonder the women “say nothing to no one!”

If my evaluation of Mark’s language is correct, then I am not sure we can say that Mark is speaking negatively or positively in 16:8 about the women’s experience. He describes it in language he has used previously. The motif of silence is also found in previous stories, but in those cases the silence is usually something Jesus commands, not something that happens as a result of people’s experience. Perhaps the women’s silence is intended to show that this event they experienced had an impact that supersedes anything else narrated in the story.

What I think Mark does in 16:8 by this reference to “trembling and astonishment,” as well as silence and fear, is signal their incomprehension at what they have seen and heard. It raises the question how their incomprehension will be resolved and by whom? None of the apostles are around to offer explanation. Jesus is not present, the one who elsewhere in Mark’s Gospel provides answers to the mysteries people experience in his presence. If the women “remained silent,” then the instructions of the young man in the tomb for his disciples to go to Galilee where they will see Jesus were not communicated.

The mystery of Jesus only gets fully resolved in his resurrection appearances and discourses.

Implications:

1. is there still mystery for you in the person and work of the Lord Jesus such that it generates awe and wonder in your heart? Our hymns often express “the wonder of it all;”
2. discerning God’s extraordinary actions for the advancement of his plans and our salvation should create within us the response of awe-filled worship, whether it is the terrible events of Calvary, the reality of the empty tomb, the vindication and promise of Jesus’ resurrection, or the presence of God’s Spirit within us. What will you praise God for today in your worship?
3. perhaps you no longer sense the awe and wonder of Jesus’ person and ministry. If so, it is time to reread the Gospels and recapture the astonishment that he generated among his contemporaries.

____________________










• ¹Luke used this verb even more extensively (Luke 2:47; 8:56; 24:22; Acts 2:7,12; 8:9,11,13; 9:21; 10:45; 12:16). In several contexts it describes the response of people to acts of magic or sorcery performed by Simon Magus (Acts 8:9,11). The verb, in many contexts, seems to convey the idea of wonder induced by an extraordinary event. Whether in every case the event was thought to be generated by divine power is another question.
• ²Space forbids consideration of this context.

The biblical background to Paul’s comments here is the experience of Moses narrated in Exodus 33-34. Because of his direct interaction with God when He inscribed the Ten Commandments on the stone tablets, some of God’s radiant splendour transferred to Moses. He was unaware of this and when he descended from Mount Sinai, the text says that his face shone to such an extent that the Israelites were afraid to approach him. This radiance persisted for so long as Moses “entered the Lord’s presence to speak with him” (Exodus 34:34). In between these occasions Moses veiled his face. Moses’ special relationship with God and his role as God’s spokesperson resulted in this reflection of divine radiance in his face.

Paul’s point in drawing attention to this story in Israel’s history is to argue for the superiority of the new covenant made by the Messiah. Now every follower of the Messiah reflects God’s glory – not just  singular individuals such as Moses. The presence of God’s Spirit in the life of the believer generates this remarkable transformation. Contrary to Moses, God expects the Messiah’s followers to give constant expression to this transferred glory so that all might see and be drawn into relationship with Him. It is at this point that Paul used the participle katoptrizomenoi to describe metaphorically how God’s glory is revealed to and by believers.

Let’s consider the meaning of this verb (katoptrizomenoi), which only occurs here in the New Testament. The syntax indicates that in this verse this verbal form defines more carefully some aspect of of the main verb —  our current transformation “from glory to glory.” Both the participle and the main verb are in the present tense indicating that “being transformed” is currently happening and the activity expressed through katoptrizomenoi is occurring at the same time as the main verb, with perhaps a sense that it is ongoing. Our personal transformation by God as believers is occurring as this mirror activity, whatever its precise nature, occurs. The transformation may be said to depend upon, be caused by, or result from this mirror activity. The exact nuance will depend upon contextual elements in 2 Corinthians 3.

The verb form katoptrizomenoi is cognate with the noun katoptron, which means “a mirror.” The verb does not occur very frequently. Philo (a contemporary of Paul) used the noun frequently, but the verb only once. In that singular context, he is commenting upon how humans gain knowledge of God from his creative work. However, God did something special through Moses, so that Moses apprehended God directly. He asked God to reveal himself (Exodus 33:13) and God agreed. Moses desired direct knowledge of God and God graciously granted him his desire. Philo observes that Moses wanted to discern the reflection (katoptrisaimēn) of God’s person, not just indirectly in created things, but directly in the Uncreated One.¹ He wanted to see the direct mirror image of God, not the image of God reflected indirectly through the mirror of what God had created. Whether Paul was aware of Philo’s commentary or similar Jewish speculation about God’s appearance to Moses is a matter of conjecture, but it is interesting that Philo, and then Paul in 2 Corinthians 3, use this rather rare verb in contexts that discuss Moses’ interaction with God. Both writers used the verb in the sense of seeing a reflection in a mirror.

What believers “see in the mirror” (katoptrizomenoi) is nothing less than “the glory of the Lord” (3:18). But what is the mirror? In the case of Israel, the mirror that reflects God’s glory is the face of Moses. In the case of Christians, the original mirror is Jesus Messiah. As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:6, we see the “light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.” Because Jesus is God’s son, God’s glory is mirrored through him more completely, more perfectly, than in the case of Moses. The quality of Jesus’ person, i.e. God in human form, enables God’s glory to be perceived more directly.

The Jewish author of the Wisdom of Solomon, writing in the late second century BC, employed similar language to describe Wisdom.

She is an exhalation from the power of God,
A pure effluence from the glory of the Almighty;
Therefore nothing tainted insinuates itself into her.
She is an effulgence of everlasting light,
An unblemished mirror of the active power of God
And an image of his goodness. (7:25-26)

One his five images defining the relationship of Wisdom to God is that of “an unblemished mirror.” Wisdom is God’s agent of creation and the one who sustains creation. As people discern wisdom, they also discern God. Similar language is used to describe Jesus in Hebrews 1:1-3.

Today people observe God’s glory in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and its lively expression in his followers who are empowered by his Spirit. The ability to appreciate fully the knowledge of God in Jesus depends upon heart attitude. Sin places blinders on people and so they do not see God in Jesus. It takes the work of God’s Spirit to remove that veil so that we can respond to God’s personal revelation in Jesus. When this happens and we acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Saviour revealed in the mirror of the Gospel, God’s Spirit takes up residence within us. We then have the capacity to mirror the glory of God too, because we are being transformed from our current glory as God’s human creations, into the glory that we will have as God’s re-created, resurrected people.

Paul expresses these dynamics as he describes our transformation into God’s image, all of it dependent upon our discernment of the Lord’s glory in the mirror of the Gospel.

Implications:

i. what aspects of God’s radiant splendour are you enjoying today in your relationship with Jesus? Is your “knowledge of the glory of God” growing?

ii. when you examine your own life, how well are you mirroring God’s glory, enabling others to discern God’s love, peace, goodness and justice in your words and actions?

iii. consider some of the ways that God has transformed you the last six months. What further transformations should be praying for?

____________________




























• ¹Philo, Legibus III, 101.

The essential idea conveyed by this verb is transformation that affects the way something is perceived. Philo, for example, discusses how people can change and transform the nature (metamorphōsei to eidos) of piety, producing impiety.¹ He comments on Moses’ actions to save the daughters of Jethro and remarks how Moses in his warning to the abusive shepherds “grew inspired and was transfigured into a prophet (metamorphoumenos eis prophētēn).”² There was a transformation in his demeanour that caused these men to submit to him. In his description of the Emperor Gaius, Philo criticizes his pretensions to deity. Gaius would dress himself in the regalia associated with various Greek gods. Philo says that when he did this Gaius “changed his figure (metemorphouto).”³ Symmachus in translating Psalm 34(33):1 describes David’s change of demeanour (feigning insanity) in the presence of Abimelech, the Philistine ruler, with this verb. The nature of the transformation can vary significantly, extending from a very literal change to a metaphorical alteration.

In Greek mythology there are many legends told about gods assuming human or animal forms as they interact with humanity. Such stories abound in Hellenistic times with collections being made (e.g. Ovid’s Metamorphoses). Such abilities were also associated with magicians, who claimed to possess divine powers.

In the case of Jesus’ metamorphosis, however, there is no hint of magic nor is it a case of a god becoming human, because Jesus was already fully human. Rather, in this instance we need to discern the event more from the background of Jewish religious experience than Hellenistic mythology or magic. It is Luke’s account that provides us with a direct connection to the Old Testament context because he used the term doxa (glorious splendour) to describe Jesus’ transformation. First, he says that Moses and Elijah “appeared in glorious splendour (doxai)” (9:31) and secondly he notes that the three apostles “saw his [Jesus] glorious splendour (tēn doxan autou)” (9:32). The glory motif coupled with the appearance of Moses encourages comparison with Moses’ experience at Sinai with God. When he returns from the second inscribing of the law on two tables of stone by Yahweh, his face shines with Yahweh’s divine splendour. The Septuagint translated this as “the appearance of the skin of his face was charged with glory (dedoxastai) while Yahweh was speaking with him” (Exodus 34:29-30). It was so bright that he had to place a veil over it (cf. 2 Corinthians 3). Something of Yahweh’s glorious splendour transferred to Moses as he transmits Yahweh’s covenantal revelation to the people of Israel. God and glorious, majestic splendour go hand-in-hand.

Mark in his Gospel puts all of the focus on Jesus. “He was transfigured (metemorphōthē) before them” (Mark 9:2). He used the aorist passive formation which indicates that some other agent, presumably God, did this to Jesus and that this activity is viewed as a whole, i.e. this is what happened. Mark gives no suggestion that this took any amount of time. Right in the presence of the three apostles on the mountain Jesus is transformed. Mark then gives some additional information about what this looked like. His clothes became “radiant, very white,” a white so pristine that no laundry agent could produce. He radiated light like the sun radiates light.

Matthew adds further details to emphasize the brightness that Jesus displayed. “His face shone like the sun” (Matthew 17:2), similar to Mark’s idea of radiant. His garments became “white as the light.” Luke describes the whiteness as “flashing like lightning” (Luke 9:29). The dazzling light comes from Jesus and suffuses his garments so that they become iridescent.

So in the case of Jesus this transformation is not merely external, i.e. a change of clothes, nor is it metaphorical, i.e. a change of mind or attitude. The descriptions indicate that Jesus in his essence is transformed by some external power, i.e. this is something that happens to him. Further, this essential change becomes visible because it is marked by glistening, dazzling light that makes his face and his clothing irradiate blazing splendour.

But what does this dramatic and unexpected alteration signify? Why is Jesus changed and what does this reveal about him? Space does not allow a detailed response. However, we do note that God makes a declaration about Jesus. “This is my beloved son; with him I am well-pleased. Listen to him” (Matthew 17:5). God affirms that Jesus is directly, uniquely and specifically related to Him. The appearance of Moses and Elijah, two Old Testament figures whose deaths were unusual and who occupied special places in Jewish eschatological expectations, give witness to Jesus’ particular place in God’s Kingdom plans, plans that are in continuity with what God had done in Israel’s history.  In an anticipatory act God reveals to the three apostles the post-resurrection glory of Jesus, his deity.

Paul twice used this verb, once in Romans 12:1-2 and once in 2 Corinthians 3:18. Both passages describe the change that followers of Jesus experience as God’s Spirit is working in their lives. In Romans 12 the change occurs at the decision-making and thinking centre of a human being – the renewing of the mind. As God is active in a person, their life demonstrates God’s will, not human notions and this generates a remarkable transformation. The old mold of this present evil age is shattered and followers of Jesus live in the promise of God’s good, pleasing, perfect will.

In 2 Corinthians 3 Paul is contrasting life for Jewish people under the framework of the old covenant. Moses gave Israel an indirect experience of God’s glory, but they could not tolerate this exposure. Moses had to veil his face. Paul compares Moses’ veil to the lack of response by Israel to Messiah Jesus. Their minds remain dull. But Jesus removes this veil. Followers of Jesus personally now “all reflect the Lord’s glory,…being transformed (metamorphoumetha)into his likeness with ever-increasing glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18). Every follower of Jesus enjoys an intimate relationship with God and God is pouring his glory into their lives through his Holy Spirit. Whether Paul here also is reflecting the transfiguration experience of Jesus is debated.

What is clear is that for Paul believers through their salvation experience also participate in a “transfiguration,” so that they reflect the very form of Jesus. What an awesome reality and prospect.

Implications:

1. the transfiguration of Jesus gives an incredible glimpse into his divine person. If as Paul describes Jesus had not “emptied himself” and become fully human, how could we have perceived God’s incredible love for us. In this event God assures us that Jesus is God and we can trust his words completely, despite what his imminent crucifixion might suggest. Do you need to reaffirm your belief that Jesus is God and commit to obeying his teachings?
2. if you are a follower of Jesus, then already God is at work in your life transfiguring you so that you express aspects of his radiant splendour right now. The more we obey our Lord and Saviour, the more we reflect his glory. What do you need to do today to make sure that Jesus’ glory is shining through you as brightly as possible?

____________________




• ¹Philo, De Specialibus Legibus IV.147.
• ²Philo, De Vita Mosis I.57.
• ³Philo, De Legatione ad Gaium I.95.

In Matthew 4:24 following Jesus’ summons to the four fishermen and the narrator’s summation of Jesus’ mode of ministry – teaching, proclaiming, and healing (v.23), we learn that Jesus’ reputation was spreading quickly. Matthew indicates that “the entire region of Syria” heard about Jesus’ exploits. Whether this refers to the specific Roman Province or a small, more focused area to the north and north-east of Galilee is debated. However, it certainly defines an area where Jewish and non-Jewish populations lived. Some of those who heard the reports seized the opportunity to get help for themselves or loved ones. Matthew describes these who come as “ill with various diseases, …suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures (selēniazomenous), and the paralyzed.”¹ Without exception Jesus heals every case.

After his transfiguration experience Jesus encounters a father who is pleading with his disciples to release his son from demonic influence. They have had no success. When the man sees Jesus, he pleads for a merciful response because his son “has seizures (selēniazetai) and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water” (17:15). Matthew does not expand the story at this point. Mark, however, describes the demonic attack in these terms (9:18): “it throws him to the ground, he foams at the mouth, he gnashes his teeth and he becomes rigid.” When Jesus acts to exorcise the demon in Mark 9:20, these symptoms become manifest as the boy convulses on the ground, foaming at the mouth.

I have not found earlier occurrences of this term in extant Greek literature.² This does not mean that Matthew created the term. It may well have been part of common speech but not regarded as a literary term. Astrological texts in the second century A.D. use the term. Its use by Matthew in distinction from but connected with daimonizesthai (to be under the influence of a demon) may suggest to some that people who manifest these symptoms were not necessarily regarded as demonized, but affected by some other force, presumably of a supernatural nature. However, it is clear from Matthew 17:15 and Mark 9:18-20 that the authors considered the boy demonized and his symptoms arose from this demon’s activity. Note that in Matthew 17:18 Jesus commands to daimonion, i.e. the demon, to leave. So this verb describes some kind of demonization, at least as perceived by people in the first century.

The description of the demonized boy in Mark 9:18-20 has many symptoms comparable to the condition we term epilepsy. In materials contemporary with Matthew’s Gospel or a century later selēniazomai is linked with the term epilēpsis, a term in ancient Greek medical treatises that describes an epileptic fit. And epilepsy was traced by many in antiquity to the influence of the moon. In modern Greek selēniasmos means epilepsy.³ However, we are not sure that selēniazomai carried this medical connotation when Matthew was composing his narrative (probably sometime 70-80AD). Nor should we draw the conclusion that all epileptic seizures were considered in the first century Jewish context as demonically inspired. What we can say is that in some cases demonic activity manifested itself in the form of seizures that were comparable to epileptic attacks.

Perhaps Matthew intends by using this term in these two contexts to make quite clear that this kind of behaviour, however its origins might be explained, was dealt with by Jesus. If Matthew’s contemporaries considered the cause to be some kind of spiritual force, Jesus was equal to the task. Not even the power of the heavenly bodies, astrologically speaking, could stand against the authority of the Son of God. Just as the Magi discovered that the heavenly bodies were in the service of God and pointed to his son Jesus, in the ministry of Jesus the heavenly forces continue to be subservient to him.

The astounding mosaic on the floor of the 3rd century synagogue discovered at Dura-Europus, Syria, featured a fully developed zodiac. This is not unique. Six synagogues excavated in Palestine, dated to the fifth-sixth centuries also have zodiac mosaics incorporated into their designs. We must not carelessly extrapolate Jewish religious perspectives from the 3rd to 6th centuries back to the 1st century. The only point I want to make is that astrological interests were alive and well, even in the first century. If Matthew’s Gospel, as many think, was written in Syria, then this might also indicate that some particular local interest in astrology, particularly within Jewish communities, motivated the author to deal with these religious ideas in some subtle ways within his narrative.

Zodiac mosaic on the floor of the 3rd Century A.D. synagogue at Tiberius

Whatever motivated Matthew to use this terminology, he wants to make it absolutely clear that Jesus had complete power over all of these forces – demons, heavenly bodies, illnesses and death. As he demonstrates God’s powerful reign, Jesus liberates humans from these terrible calamities and burdens.

Implications:

1. in our western cultural milieu we tend to tolerate only medical explanations for illness. We discount the possibility that ‘spiritual’ forces could create such symptoms. However, we need to pray for discernment about these matters;
2. both Paul and Peter affirm that Jesus is Lord of all – including the principalities and powers. Matthew affirms this same reality. Fresh from his encounter with Satan Jesus heals all. Perhaps some of our spiritual impotence arises from our failure to claim Jesus’ lordly power in our spiritual endeavours;
3. countless people in our culture believe that spiritual forces do affect their lives for good and ill. To what degree do elements such as illegal drugs and alcohol become vehicles for demonic forces to control people is debated. The Gospels make it clear that more of this is occurring among us than we probably realize or desire to admit.

____________________
• ¹This is the New International Version translation. There is a textual issue as to whether the conjunction “and” (kai) comes before “the demon-possessed.” If the conjunction is original then Matthew describes two kinds of people – those having bodily illness or pain and those whose symptoms have a supernatural origin. If the conjunction is omitted, then Matthew provides three examples of bodily illnesses and pain. The textual evidence is evenly divided.
• ²J.M.Ross, “Epileptic or Moonstruck?” The Bible Translator 29(1978), 126-128 says that it occurs only in “a treatise by the astrologer Vettius Valens who wrote in the second century A.D….In Vettius Valens some specific disease seems to be referred to, but it is not described” (126). Note that Donald Hagner, Matthew 1-13 Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 33A (Dallas, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1993), 79 mis-states the pagination for Ross’ article as 121-128.
• ³Ross, op.cit.