Jeffrey Miller

Luke 9:28b–36 ESV – The Transfiguration – Bible Gateway

This passage references that this event occurred eight days after the previous course in Luke with Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah and Jesus going on to say “Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.” In Matthew and Mark, the parallel passage indicates six days. This discrepancy is something some Church Fathers reconcile, but what is important here is how the promise about some of them seeing the kingdom of God is unlocked. Peter, John, and James did see this revealed in the Transfiguration. Each of the Synoptic Gospels provides this time cue to help us to connect the dots.

Luke provides us with some extra details not found in the parallel passages. For example, Jesus went up to the mountain to pray. We see this detail provided in the Gospels to emphasize the importance of what is happening. That Jesus always prays first before such events. In Luke, we see this also before The Sermon on the Mount.

As Jesus is praying his whole appearance changes and he is talking with Moses and Elijah. Luke also gives us a detail about what they were talking about. Specifically, they were talking about Jesus’ exodus and what he was going to accomplish. Just from this information, we don’t know if the two men were “in on his” plan before or if Jesus had just told them. I like the idea of his previously sharing his plan with them and what would be accomplished. Just how excited they would be in this regard.

Another important aspect is Jesus the new Moses and the new exodus. The original exodus starts in Egypt and ends in Jerusalem. The new exodus starts in Jerusalem and as Brant Pitre notes “His exodus is his passion, death, resurrection and ascension into the heavenly Promised Land.”[1]

In regards to Moses and Elijah’s appearance, I have typically read that the two men represent the “Law and the Prophets.” There might be a lot more going on than just this typology. In the Cathechism paragraph [# 2853](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2853.htm), it alludes to the fact that of all the people in the Old Testament, Moses and Eli’jah both went up Mt. Sinai and experienced theophanies with a desire to see the face of God, but they couldn’t do it.

We have two trios, Jesus, Moses, and Elijah along with Peter, John, and James. So why were these Apostles singled out to see this? We have seen taken along in other cases such as the raising of Jairus’s daughter. St. John Damascene has some interesting speculation to prevent Judas from seeing the glory of God, that he might have been provoked to greater wickedness.

But He took with Him three, that in the mouths of two or three witnesses every word should be established. He took Peter, indeed, because He wished to shew him that the witness he had borne to Him was confirmed by the witness of the Father, and that he was as it were to preside over the whole Church. He took with Him James, who was to be the first of all the disciples to die for Christ; but He took John as the clearest singer of the sacred doctrine, that having seen the glory of the Son, which submits not to time, he might sound forth, In the beginning was the Word. (John 1:1) [2]

This is such an important event, and yet Luke gives us the detail that while all this was happening they were heavy with sleep. At the Garden of Gethsemane, we see another instance of this behavior. It is an interesting question as to whether their sleep was natural, or like the passage in the First Reading where a deep sleep falls upon Abram before the covenant was made.

One thus wonders whether the three apostles’ sleep is a taste of death (see Luke 9:27), so that, becoming fully awake and seeing his glory, they have a taste of their future share in his resurrection. [3]

Still, the important detail is that they were fully awake when they witnessed the Transfiguration.

Peter Kreeft notes:

St. Peter, said about it years later when he wrote his second epistle: “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that unique declaration came to him from the majestic glory, ‘This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain” (2 Pet. 1:16–18).[4]

Peter’s reaction seems typical for him, that is, mouth engaging first before thinking this through. Yet he clearly sees this in connection with exodus and the later Feast of Booths in celebration of arriving in the promised land. His mistake, it seems to me, is equating Jesus with Moses and Elijah and not thinking through the implications of what he and the other two apostles witnessed. He and the others finally fall silent when they witness the theophany with the Holy Spirit present and God the Father saying “This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” The Apostles will keep their silence and not talk about this or tell others “anything of what they had seen.” In the face of mystery, that should also be our reaction and to do as Mary did, that she “treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart.” (Luke 3:19)

Sources

• The Gospel of Luke, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz
• Navarre, Saint Luke’s Gospel (2005)
• Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C
• Catholic Productions, Commentaries by Brant Pitre
• Jimmy Akin’s Studies on Mark (3 vols.) – Verbum
• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash>

---

1. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre  ↩
2. Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Luke  ↩
3. The Gospel of Luke, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz  ↩
4. Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C  ↩

Luke 4:1–11 ESV – The Temptation of Jesus – And Jesus, – Bible Gateway

This passage in Luke is just so rich in meaning and parallels it is difficult to limit it to some quick observations. Just the first line relates to Jesus being baptized by John and that the Holy Spirit descended and now Jesus is filled and led by the Holy Spirit is filled with mystery.

The first Sunday in Lent always uses a reading dealing with an account of Jesus’s temptations in the desert. Since it is year C, we are using Luke’s account. In scripture, we see the significance of the number “40” as it relates to a period of purification, testing, and also of preparation. We see this first used as it related to Noah and we especially see this in the Exodus account. In Exodus, the Israelites start their journey by passing through the Red Sea before entering the wilderness. St. Paul in 1 Corinthians (10:1–4) describes this event as them being baptized into Moses. An allusion that was also picked up by the Church Fathers. Jesus is baptized and then also enters into the desert.

Jesus spend these 40 days fasting from all food and at the end, Luke says “he was hungry.” This seems like such an understatement while also pointing to the humanity of Jesus. He is then presented with a series of temptations from the devil.

Jimmy Akin notes:

The Greek verb used here (peirazō) means not only tempt but also test. The devil can be seen as testing Jesus—putting pressure on Jesus to see whether it is possible to get him to give in to sin. [1]

As he also notes this could be a test by the devil to find out if Jesus is actually the Son of God or that this is just done out of sheer spite, without actual hope of corrupting him.

In Luke’s account, the order of the three temptations is different than that of Matthew. In Mark, it is only mentioned briefly that Jesus was tempted by Satan. Brant Pitre writes that “we don’t exactly know which order they happened in but you can make a strong case—is that in Luke’s account, he’s highlighting the order that corresponds to the order of Adam’s fall.”[2] In Luke, “Jesus’ genealogy is presented, going back to Adam. Like Adam, Jesus is tempted by the devil. Unlike Adam, Jesus is victorious over temptation, thus revealing that he is the one who can save humanity from sin.”[3]

In 1 John 2:16, we see a formulation of three dominant temptations. “For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life.”

We can see this plainly in Genesis 3:6:

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

Brant Pitre’s summary of the Threefold Concupiscent states:

It’s basically the universal, human, experience of a disordered desire for pleasure (the pleasure of the flesh, that’s the lust of the flesh), whether it be sexual pleasure or the pleasure of food and drink. Number 2, a disordered desire for possessions, that’s the lust of the eyes. We see something that doesn’t belong to us and we want to possess it, like Eve saw the fruit and wanted to possess it, even though it didn’t belong to her. And the third one is pride or vanity. It’s a disordered love of self to the exclusion of the love of God, and that’s what happens to Adam and Eve. It was desirable to make one wise like God. In other words, they want the wisdom of God, they want to be wise like God, by breaking God’s commandment (which is irrational, but it’s what drives them). So they choose three things that are actually good. The fruit is good, food’s good; possessions are good, God gives Adam and Eve the whole word; and even the desire to be like God is a good thing, to be wise is a good thing. But in this case, they want good things but in a bad way.[2]

The devil’s first question seems to be a test of Jesus if he will serve his own needs or those of others? In the second question, the devil assumes what Jesus would later call the Prince of the World. That he has authority over the kingdoms and thus control over their ultimate destination. That if only Jesus would bow down to him, he would release his grip on the world and give control to him. Jesus again answers him again with scripture in that it is only God we should worship and serve.

Peter Kreeft offers what he calls an original and unusual interpretation of the second temptation.

If you do things your way, only some of your beloved children will be saved and I will keep some of them forever in hell. But if you do things my way—if you bow down to me and my will—I will release all those souls from hell and you will get what you most want: to save everybody, all these children you so dearly love. And that—universal salvation—would be the very best thing that could possibly happen, the greatest good in the world. So that was a real temptation to Christ. But the means to that end would be the worst sin, idolatry, worshiping a false God instead of the true God. So this is a temptation to let the good end justify an evil means, to be a moral relativist, a utilitarian, a pragmatist.[4]

The third time the devil decides to quote scripture himself and uses part of Psalm 91 as a proof text. A test of pride to see who Jesus is. That if he is really the Son of God why go through this slow reveal and get right to it and show his power. Possibly hoping that Jesus might have a “Don’t you know who I am?” moment. The fallen angels, who are beings of pure intellect, fell through the only sin they could seem to commit—pride. To place oneself always before others. Jesus’ humility was something he could not grasp.

Philippians 2:8: And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Ironically the devil quotes from a Psalm that was used in Jesus’ time for exorcisms and he leaves out a subsequent verse.

You will tread on the lion and the adder; the young lion and the serpent you will trample underfoot.

This is a good reminder that when someone throws a proof text at you, to read for context.

To summarize this section of Luke we can look at Paragraph 539 of the Catechism:

The evangelists indicate the salvific meaning of this mysterious event: Jesus is the new Adam who remained faithful just where the first Adam had given in to temptation. Jesus fulfills Israel’s vocation perfectly: in contrast to those who had once provoked God during forty years in the desert, Christ reveals himself as God’s Servant, totally obedient to the divine will. In this, Jesus is the devil’s conqueror: he “binds the strong man” to take back his plunder. Jesus’ victory over the tempter in the desert anticipates victory at the Passion, the supreme act of obedience of his filial love for the Father.[5]

And then Paragraph 540:

Jesus’ temptation reveals the way in which the Son of God is Messiah, contrary to the way Satan proposes to him and the way men wish to attribute to him. This is why Christ vanquished the Tempter for us: “For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sinning.” By the solemn forty days of Lent the Church unites herself each year to the mystery of Jesus in the desert.[5]

Sources

• The Gospel of Luke, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz
• Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C
• Catholic Productions, Commentaries by Brant Pitre
• Jimmy Akin’s Studies on Mark (3 vols.) – Verbum
• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

---

1. Jimmy Akin. (2014). Mark, A Commentary  ↩
2. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre  ↩
3. The Gospel of Luke, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz  ↩
4. Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C  ↩
5. Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed). United States Catholic Conference.  ↩

Luke 6:39–45 ESV – Bible Gateway

In today’s Gospel, Jesus set forth a series of what Peter Kreeft calls comic analogies. Humor often uses the element of surprise or a reversal, and this follows up well considering the Beatitudes and this third part of the Sermon on the Plain. We have, likely, heard these short parables multiple times, and they have become proverbial such that we can miss what quite funny contrasts they are. The blind leading the blind is such a great mental picture, and the idea of a guy with a builder’s plank in his eye taking a splinter out of someone else’s eye seems more Looney Tunes than sacred scripture. We can quickly think of Jesus always being so severe and can miss the playfulness in his preaching at times. On this aspect, I think of the end of G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy:

He never concealed His tears; He showed them plainly on His open face at any daily sight, such as the far sight of His native city. Yet He concealed something. Solemn supermen and imperial diplomatists are proud of restraining their anger. He never restrained His anger. He flung furniture down the front steps of the Temple, and asked men how they expected to escape the damnation of Hell. Yet He restrained something. I say it with reverence; there was in that shattering personality a thread that must be called shyness. There was something that He hid from all men when He went up a mountain to pray. There was something that He covered constantly by abrupt silence or impetuous isolation. There was some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth; and I have sometimes fancied that it was His mirth.

This is not simply a case of Jesus telling his listeners to mind their own business because you also have similar or other sins. It is a call to repentance to help out our brother truly. A call to self-knowledge, which is a path to humility. To be aware of our spiritual blindness and how it hinders our lives in giving ourselves to others.

Jesus continues on this theme by comparing the good tree and the bad tree and the fruits they bear. A theme used in the Old Testament and one Jesus uses elsewhere regarding the fruit we should be bearing. The early Christians also used this biblical theme of two ways as a means of instruction in moral conduct.

I partly see this comparison as the full integration of our Christian lives. By building up the virtues through grace and constant practice, we build up that good treasure within our hearts. These virtues will subsequently provide the means for us to act in adverse situations. If we provide ourselves with the toxins of rash judgment, constantly attacking others, and imbibing in various forms of tribalism—we can not help but create evil fruits.

In contrast, St Bede explains:

“A person who has a treasure of patience and of perfect charity in his heart yields excellent fruit; he loves his neighbour and has all the other qualities Jesus teaches; he loves his enemies, does good to him who hates him, blesses him who curses him, prays for him who calumniates him, does not react against him who attacks him or robs him; he gives to those who ask, does not claim what they have stolen from him, wishes not to judge and does not condemn, corrects patiently and affectionately those who err. But the person who has in his heart the treasure of evil does exactly the opposite: he hates his friends, speaks evil of him who loves him and does all the other things condemned by the Lord” (In Lucae Evangelium expositio, 2, 6).

If we are indeed to be a disciple of Jesus, we have to learn our strengths and weaknesses. With Lent upcoming, it provides us with a time of reappraisal in where we are along the path. This discernment is not easy, and with our spiritual blind spots, we can be blind in leading ourselves.

Paragraph 2005 in the Catechism says:

We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved.[1] However, according to the Lord’s words—“Thus you will know them by their fruits”[2]—reflection on God’s blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.

A pleasing illustration of this attitude is found in the reply of St. Joan of Arc to a question posed as a trap by her ecclesiastical judges: “Asked if she knew that she was in God’s grace, she replied: ‘If I am not, may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there.’ ”[3]

Sources

• The Gospel of Luke, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz
• Navarre, Saint Luke’s Gospel (2005)
• Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C
• Catholic Productions, Commentaries by Brant Pitre
• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

---

1. Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1533–1534.↩︎  ↩
2. Mt 7:20.↩︎  ↩
3. Acts of the trial of St. Joan of Arc.  ↩