2 Kings 2:1-12
1. Gil Bailie, Violence Unveiled, pp. 169-173: "Elijah: Anti-Sacrificial Sacrifice" (excerpt). Bailie's reading of the Elijah stories as portraying "anti-sacrificial sacrifice" is quite revealing. He helps us to see the sacrificial references by noting in 2 Kings 16:3-4 that euphemisms like "pass through fire" and "high places" were standard references to the sacrificial cult. Elijah himself says: "The god who answers with fire is God indeed." (1 Kings 18:24) Elijah's program, then, was clearly an anti-sacrificial one against the cults of Ba'al. But didn't he attempt his own programs of sacrificial violence in order to eradicate it? His central efforts were brutally bloody purges that carried out numerous slaughters in the name of God.
This being the case we might even wonder about this lectionary text (one which Bailie himself doesn't cover in these pages). What are the "chariots of fire" all about? Was the transfer of power from Elijah to Elisha actually a bloody coup covered over by mythological symbols of being taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot?! (It was a colleague in town, Blaine Johnson, who suggested in our pericope study three years ago this extrapolation from Gil's treatment of the Elijah complex. What do you think? Is this right? Is the chariot of fire a mythological cover-up for the bloody transition from Elijah to Elisha?) Another clue to the mimetic nature of this story might be Elisha's bald statement that he desires "a double share of your spirit." What was Elijah's spirit? Anti-sacrificial sacrifice? What is going on in the story? Is it as it appears on the surface, a peaceful transfer of power? Or is there something else that really happened below the surface?
2. Another excellent piece on Elijah is by James Alison, the opening pages of "Theology amidst the stones and dust," chapter 2 of Faith Beyond Resentment.
3. Andrew Marr, "On Being Bread from Heaven: The Way of Mimetic Participation" (online article).
Reflections and Questions
1. The connections with the Transfiguration story are intriguing and challenging. Peter considers Elijah and Moses to be positive figures, heroes, with whom to connect Jesus, and so he has the immediate response of the Sacred: let's build three shrines. He wants this to be a "high place" along the order of other sacred high places, and Jesus will have none of it.
What is Mark's or Jesus' take on these figures of Elijah and Moses? Are we to make a positive connection as did Peter? Or are we to begin to draw a contrast, i.e., that Jesus has come to offer us something completely different than Elijah and Moses? Our reading of the Elijah sagas above might suggest that we are to contrast Jesus with Elijah. Jesus did not come with a spirit of anti-sacrificial sacrifice, but with the Holy Spirit of anti-sacrificial self-sacrifice. Jesus did not slaughter others in exposing the futility of sacrifice; rather, he let himself be sacrificed, and God's raising him from the dead bears witness to the futility of sacrificial way. We will continue these threads of discussion as we take a look at the other lessons.
2. The "anti-sacrificial sacrifice" of Elijah might be compared to revolutionary or counter-revolutionary violence. Conservatives have always been quick to point out that Marxist revolutions have most often been more brutal than what they replaced. On the other hand, when the Contras were on a mission of ousting the Marxist revolutionaries in Nicaragua, those same conservatives called that patriotism. Elijah might be said to have been more brutal than what he was seeking to overthrow. Have we ignored that in our reading over the centuries? Is Elijah still a patriot hero to us, who stood for religious purity? We might also recall Sandor Goodhart's notion from his comments on the Jonah story several weeks ago (Epiphany 3B) about the sin of idolizing anti-idolatry. Here we have a version of sacrificing in the name of anti-sacrificial causes.
2 Corinthians 4:3-6
1. Robert Hamerton-Kelly, Sacred Violence, pp. 158-160, a crucial section entitled "Faith as the Fulfillment of the Law." Hamerton-Kelly presents Paul's basic approach to the Law as having been "hijacked by sin." Sin turns the Law from being "a bulwark against mimetic rivalry into an instrument of rivalry and scapegoating." It is only in Christ Jesus that we clearly come to see love (agape) as the fulfillment of the Law: "[Paul's] claim is not that faith in the crucified makes the Torah as text unnecessary, but that it enables us to read the text of the Torah according to its basic intentions for the first time."
Reflections and Questions
1. Hamerton-Kelly's comments make sense of this lectionary passage in terms of the Mosaic interpretation of the Law having put a veil over things. These particular verses (2 Cor. 4:3-6) rely on previous verses, such as 2 Cor 3:15-16 (NRSV): "Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed."
2. This veil of the Mosaic reading of the Torah brings in the other figure from the Transfiguration story. As we said about Elijah, Peter immediately makes a positive connection of Moses with Jesus, but the question is: Are we the readers supposed to make that same positive link? So many of the details of the story speak against it. We are specifically told that Jesus' appearance was transfigured; when Elijah and Moses appear, we are not told that of them. When Peter asks about building shrines, a cloud veils their vision and the voice once again singles out Jesus: Listen to him! When the veil is removed, only Jesus remains. Are we to ultimately read into the story the same kind of distancing of Jesus from Moses as we read in 2 Cor. 3-4?
(By the way, a quick word search on the Pauline references to Moses yields the following list: Rom 5:14, Rom 9:15, Rom 10:5, Rom 10:19, 1 Cor 9:9, 1 Cor 10:2, 2 Cor 3:7, 2 Cor 3:13, 2 Cor 3:15. I would characterize the first six occurrences as rather neutral citations of something that Moses said or did. And the latter three occurrences in 2 Cor. 3 paint the Mosaic interpretation of the Law in a negative fashion. In two places -- Rom. 4 and Gal. 3 -- Paul skips over Moses and goes back to Abraham to lift up a positive hero in the Jewish tradition.)
3. Christians often follow Paul's negative assessment of the Mosaic Law, which has made Jewish-Christian dialogue a challenge and a much debated issue in the modern setting of ecumenical dialogue. I am suggesting yet another NT passage that might be asking the reader to consider the figure of Moses in a less than favorable light, the Transfiguration story. But a Girardian reading can help place this critique in a more universalistic context. The Mosaic Law is "hijacked by sin," just as all other religion is hijacked, including Christianity to the extent that it is religion.
1. Robert Hamerton-Kelly, The Gospel and the Sacred, pp. 103-104. Hamerton-Kelly takes the whole passage of 8:27-9:30 together, with his most expansive discussion centering on the episode of "The Healing of the Boy with a Spirit," which itself centers on the issue of belief. Thus, he sums up the import of the Transfiguration story with these words: "The transfiguration takes place while the rest of the disciples are enclosed by a crowd that demands a miraculous service they are unable to give. Thus, revelation takes place within a narrative context of unbelief (9:19)." Hamerton-Kelly's exegesis of the following story is an enlightening one that gives a different angle on the transfiguration than I am taking here.
2. Robert R. Beck, Nonviolent
Story, pp. 94-96. See also the commentary from Beck on
Christological titles for Advent
2B and Epiphany 3B.
3. Robert Hamerton-Kelly, sermon
from March 2, 2003 (Woodside Village Church).
4. Tom Truby, a member
of Theology &
Peace, used Girardian insights to offer a sermon in 2012, titled "Listen to Him."
5. In 2012 I concluded an Epiphany theme on healing with the sermon "Curing Our Deafness and Blindness."
Reflections and Questions
1. I'd like to begin my comments by first repeating a portion from the first week in Cycle B (Advent 1B), which lays out what I see as a basic structuring principle in Mark. There are only two 'sermons' of substantial length in Mark: ch. 4 & 13. And each features a keyword: "Listen!" in ch. 4 and "Watch!" in ch. 13. This derives from, I believe, Mark's prominent usage of the quote from Isaiah 6 regarding people who have ears but cannot hear and eyes but cannot see. Disciples are called to hear in the opening chapters, to listen to the preaching and teaching of Good News, climaxed by the healing of a deaf person in ch. 7. Ch. 8 begins the movement toward the cross in which disciples are called to watch and see. The famous section in 8-10 that contains three passion predictions is flanked by two healings of blind men. The sermon in ch. 13 brings this to a climax under the keyword "Watch!" In the next chapter, the narrative will find Jesus specifically asking his disciples to watch with him in the Garden of Gethsemane -- and, of course, they fall asleep. But the linking of this keyword is significant: in watching for the traditional signs of Judgment Day (ch. 13) the disciples only need to watch the signs of the next several days (chs. 14-16). What they are about to witness will be the revealing of the Son of Man.
2. To these comments on the structure of Mark's gospel I would add the three moments of theophany: the baptism of Jesus (1:9-11), the Transfiguration (9:2-9), and Jesus' response to the high priest (14:62: Jesus said, "I am; and 'you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power,' and 'coming with the clouds of heaven.'") The first theophany emphasizes listening, as the heavenly voice says, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased." The final theophany focuses on what they will see. I think that this middle theophany, the transfiguration, combines both elements: the heavenly voice adds a command to the baptismal theophany, "This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!"; and the dramatic change in visage prefigures the Son of Man coming in his glory.
The problem in interpretation comes from identifying which event Mark has in mind for the Son of Man coming in his glory. The most common suggestion I see in the commentaries is that the transfiguration event prefigures the Resurrected Jesus. But against this interpretation I would point out that Mark's gospel never shows us the Resurrected Jesus. We only get a young man dressed in white robe telling the women where they might find the Risen Jesus -- to which they respond by running away afraid and not telling anyone. Better, I think, is the Centurion looking up at the crucified Jesus against the clouds of a darkened sky and uttering words of revelation: "Truly this man was God's Son!" (15:39) The Centurion is willing to see, and to speak himself, what the high priest refuses to see when Jesus foretells to him the coming theophany. The transfiguration prefigures the glory of the cross. This is an explicit theme in John's gospel (cf., John 3:14-15, 12:40-43 -- the latter passage carrying John's quotation of the Is. 6 passage that structures Mark's gospel). Is the glory of the cross implicit as a theme in Mark's gospel in this story of the transfiguration? Isn't Mark's gospel essentially about the difficulty of seeing and hearing God's glory through Jesus because it comes to us through the glory of the cross?
3. Mark's text nevertheless immediately turns to the matter of the resurrection. Jesus tells his disciples not to tell anyone what they have seen until the Son of Man is raised from the dead. Does this speak against the transfiguration prefiguring the cross, and in favor of the resurrection? I don't think so. But the resurrection remains a pivotal point because, without it, no one will ever understand the cross as the moment of truly revealing God's glory. Perhaps we shouldn't choose; the cross and resurrection must go together, meaning the transfiguration prefigures both.
4. The epilogue to the transfiguration story in Mark 9:9-13 poses, I suggest, Jesus' death and resurrection as a moment of clear difference between Jesus and Elijah. Let me close these remarks by simply repeating what was said earlier regarding the first lesson: Our reading of the Elijah sagas might suggest that we are to contrast Jesus with Elijah. Jesus did not come with a spirit of anti-sacrificial sacrifice, but with the Holy Spirit of anti-sacrificial self-sacrifice. Jesus did not slaughter others in exposing the futility of sacrifice; rather, he let himself be sacrificed, and God's raising him from the dead bears witness to the futility of sacrifice. (Link to the 1997 sermon, "A Downer of a Mountaintop Experience," that raises these themes through a monologue account by Peter.)
Return to Year B Index
Return to "Girardian Reflections on the Lectionary" Home Page
Link to "The Text This Week" -- the Most Comprehensive Lectionary Site on the Internet