THE TRANSFIGURATION:
OLD TESTAMENT PRESENCE
IN NEW TESTAMENT EVENT
by
Jane M. deVyver, M.A., M.Th., Ph.D.
ON THIS FEAST OF THE TRANSFIGURATION OF OUR LORD, 2002, WE ARE OFFERING THIS
ESSAY TO OUR WEB SITE VISITORS, IN HOPES THAT IT WILL BE OF INTEREST TO YOU. IT IS IN A
MORE 'FORMAL' STYLE THAN THE OTHER ARTICLES ON OUR SITE. COMPLETED IN 1981, IT IS A
CHAPTER IN A LENGTHY STUDY OF THE SYMBOLISM OF THE SKÉNÉ ENTITLED:
"The Skéné — A
Universal Symbol of the Divine Presence: Perspectives on the Form and Function of a
Symbol." WE HAVE ADDED 9 ICONS TO
ILLUSTRATE WHAT IS BEING SAID IN THE ESSAY. WE HOPE THE ARTICLE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ICONS
ARE SPIRITUALLY REWARDING FOR YOU.
If you would like to see other articles such as this added to our web site, please let
us know. We have other previously-written essays that we are thinking of adding, if there
is interest, including: "Play and the Spiritual Life," "Icons:
Glimpses of Beauty and Truth," "Are Icons Necessary? Iconoclasm and the Triumph
of Orthodoxy," and "Symbol and Paradox in Hermann Hesse's Magister
Ludi." Are you interested? Please let us know. Thank you.
[REGARDING FOOTNOTES: Please note that due to the nature of the
Internet, where there are not separate pages, but one continuous flowing page, we have had
to move our 30 footnotes to the end of this article. Although some footnotes are simply
citations of a source, many are important, detailed expansions of ideas or information
mentioned before the footnote, some of which are vital to understanding the rest of the
essay. Therefore, you are greatly encouraged to read the footnotes, especially the ones
that have a descriptive comment following the numbers. To aid your ease of navigating back
and forth between the text and the footnotes, we have added hyperlinks to each of the
footnote numbers to take you to the footnote itself, and after the footnote to return you
back to where the footnote comes in the body of the essay.]
The Transfiguration of Christ is a rather neglected
(especially in the Western Church) and often, little understood event in the life of
Christ, and a major feast in the life of the Church. Indeed, the more one examines the
Transfiguration, the more its complexity is revealed. Yet, much may be gained by pursuing
its complexity, and by seeking to better decipher the meaning of so significant an event,
because it is basic to the theology of the Incarnation and Resurrection, to the theology
of icons, and to the theology of Christian spirituality. To that end, this study will
consider a few aspects of the Old Testament Presence in this New Testament event.
First the event. The New Testament presents three
almost identical accounts of the Transfiguration in each of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew
17:1-9; Mark 9:2-9; and Luke 9:28-36). They tell us that Jesus went up onto a mountain
(traditionally, Mount Tabor), with Peter, John and James, and in their presence He was
transfigured, where His face shone like the sun and his clothes became as dazzling white
as light itself. The three apostles saw Jesus conversing with Moses and Elias (Elijah),
whereupon Peter proposed: "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three
tabernacles (skéné), (l)
one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elias." At this point, a bright cloud
suddenly overshadowed them (or "cast a shadow over them") and a voice from the
cloud said, "This is my Son, my Beloved, on whom my favor rests (or,‘in whom I
am well-pleased’); listen to Him." (Please read footnote #1 now, about the meaning of the word skéné,
which is fundamental to an understanding of the rest of this article.)
In this study of the meaning of the
Transfiguration, we will deal with several issues: why did Peter suggest making three
tabernacles (skénai) and what is the
significance of the Greek word, skéné; and, why was it Elias and Moses who appeared
with Christ? In dealing with these two issues, we will be led to a consideration of the
Shekhinah (2) and of the significance of
the cloud from which God spoke. Essentially, the answers to these questions are rooted in
the Old Testament. (Please read footnote #2
now, about the meaning of the word Shekhinah, which is fundamental to an
understanding of the rest of this article.)
Let us first consider St.
Peter’s response to witnessing Christ’s Transfiguration. Why should Peter's
response be to build a skéné, and what type of skéné
might he have had in mind? Most likely he did not intend any type of tent in which a
person might literally dwell. But could he have meant three grass and twig huts such as
are used at the Feast of Tabernacles? Perhaps his was a natural response of wishing to
commemorate a theophany by creating some type of memorial associated linguistically, and
therefore, symbolically, with the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem where God’s Holy
Presence, His Shekhinah, dwelt. It seems to be a universal human experience
throughout history that people have wished to build some sort of memorial chapel or shrine
to commemorate a sacred event—a theophany or a miracle.
A second basic question about the accounts of the
Transfiguration is, of all the Old Testament prophets and saints, why was it Elias and
Moses who appeared with Christ? What is the significance of the appearance of these two
prophets, and might they be involved in some way with the experience of the Shekhinah?
Could the answers to these two questions also explain St. Peter's impulse to create three skénai to commemorate the Shekhinah?
Indeed, we suggest that there is an important relationship, as shall be explained.
In considering possible answers to these questions,
let us first outline some customary interpretations. Reflecting a Protestant perspective, The
Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible states that "The Transfiguration is the
paradise and the despair of commentators;" (3)
that the event is very enigmatic, and conflicting interpretations exist.
(For Orthodox, the exact opposite is true: the Transfiguration is a joy for commentators;
it is not enigmatic, and neither are there conflicting interpretations. In fact, the
meaning is made very clear in the very liturgical texts for the feast, and in many
spiritual writers.)
Some Protestant interpreters accept the synoptic
Gospels’ accounts of the Transfiguration as historically factual. Others discount any
objective historicity and argue for a totally symbolic treatment. Still others consider it
as a post-resurrection event that was transposed to an earlier place in the Gospels. The
Interpreters Dictionary proposes that it "was a visionary moment that revealed to
the disciples Jesus’ true nature (symbolized by the light) and his future glorious
state after death." (4) The
commentator continues, saying that the presence of Moses and Elias are to be
understood as verification that Hebrew law and prophecy supported Jesus and His mission.
The Interpreters Bible, in the commentary on
Luke’s account, stresses the close relationship between the Transfiguration and the
Resurrection, stating that "the earthly life of Jesus could not be seen truly except
when it was looked at from the standpoint of the Resurrection." (5) Furthermore, after the
Resurrection, the disciples’ perception and understanding of Jesus’ historical
life was transfigured, and they saw Him as invested with heavenly light and power. The
Protestant commentator of The Interpreters Bible also views the Transfiguration as
Christ’s spiritual experience of praying before His Passion, where he gained strength
to face His coming ordeal, and where He experienced a vision of Moses and Elias (law and
prophecy) which vindicated and validated His mission and purpose.
The Interpreters Bible exegesis of Luke
9:34-35 briefly makes what we consider to be a most significant point, that the Shekhinah
(manifested as a cloud) was expected to reappear in the messianic period, according to 2
Maccabees 2:8, (6) which states that
"the glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear, as they were shown in the case of
Moses ..." The commentator also states that Moses was the prototype of the Messiah,
according to Malachi 4:5, and that they both seem to be the two witnesses of the Messiah
in Revelation 11:3-12.
In The Interpreters Bible commentary on
Exodus 34:29-35 it is stated that "when Moses talked with God, the skin of his face
shown. The Septuagint translation says it was ‘glorified.’ The light of the Shekhinah
or Divine Presence was communicated to him. This account is the antitype for the account
of the Transfiguration in the New Testament." (7)
We will return shortly to a more extensive discussion of the role of the Shekhinah
in the Transfiguration.
Again, we ask, why was it Elias and Moses who
appeared with Christ? A common interpretation in the Orthodox Church is that Moses
represents the Law and Elias represents the prophets. (8)
An additional explanation is that 
Moses represents the dead, while
Elias symbolizes the living, because he did not die, but was taken up into heaven in a
chariot of fire (icon to the left). Icons of the Transfiguration sometimes show
this by depicting Moses being brought by an angel to Mount Tabor from a grave, and Elias
being brought in a chariot or cloud in the upper left and right corners. (See the
Transfiguration icon at the top.) The theology implied here is that Christ is lord of
both the living and the dead, present and future. Such an eschatological character is
implied by the presence of Elias, because, as St. John the Forerunner (the Baptist)
heralded Christ’s first coming "in the spirit and power of Elias" (Luke
1:17), so likewise, Elias is the herald for Christ’s second coming in glory." (9) (See this footnote for further
discussion about St. Elias, and another icon of him.)
St. Basil the Great comments that
the Transfiguration is an anticipation of Christ’s glorious second coming, (10) which is the thrust of
the reference to the Transfiguration in 2 Peter 1:16-18, (11) (See this footnote for the text
of this passage.) and thus one of the early interpretations.
Vladimir Lossky is one of the few contemporary authors, who, in explaining why Elias and
Moses are present, mentions an additional reason—that it is because they both had a
"secret vision of God." (12) Lossky states that he is following St. John Chrysostom in his
explanation—one of the formulators of the patristic tradition of the Orthodox Church.
However, in a short essay, Lossky could only barely mention this parallel in a few words.
We would like to develop this last idea more fully
in order to gain a clearer understanding of the meaning of the Transfiguration, and of the
role of the skéné as a symbol to commemorate places where God
has manifested Himself to man.
The Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor (or
Mount Hermon as some traditions say), is a theophany, and in fact, it is the only time
before His Resurrection that Christ was manifested in His full divine Glory. (13) (Glory is very important
as a major characteristic of the manifestation of the Shekhinah.) Both Moses and
Elias were worthy and appropriate Old Testament saints to behold and share in
Christ’s theophany on the mountain top, because in their own lifetimes they both had
experienced a theophany of God’s holiness and glory on another mountain—Mount
Sinai (Exodus 3:1-6; 33:18-34:9
and I Kings 19:8-14). (14) Both Moses and Elias
could encounter the manifestation of God while still in the body because they themselves
had become so transfigured by holiness, that they could actually stand within the divine
aura of God’s holiness itself, and not be consumed. Thus, in most icons of the
Transfiguration, Moses and Elias stand touching the outer edge of Christ’s glory,
while the Uncreated Light bathes the two prophets on Mount Tabor, as it had done on Mt.
Sinai previously. (See the icon to the right and the one at the top of this article.)
(15) (See this footnote for
further explanation about the Uncreated Light.)
There are two major theophanies to
Moses on Mt. Sinai, in addition to the rather regular encounters with the Shekhinah
in the Tabernacle. The first time, prior to the Exodus, God appeared to Moses in the form
of a flame of fire coming from the middle of a bush, and revealed to Moses His Name (and
thereby His Nature) as Yahweh (Exodus 3:lf.), usually translated as "I Am Who I
Am," or "I Am What I Am," or from the Septuagint — "I Am the One
Who Is" (egó eìmí ho Ón). (16) Moses
experienced countless manifestations of God on Mt. Sinai and in the Tabernacle.
Whenever Moses entered the Tabernacle of Meeting, the Shekhinah, in the form of a
pillar of cloud, stood at the entrance of the Tabernacle. And "the Lord used to speak
to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend" (Exodus 33:9-11). But Moses
requested an even greater degree of the manifestation of God, when he wished to see the
glory of the Lord (Exodus 33:18f.). In response to Moses plea, the Lord replied:
I will let all my glory pass in front of you, and I will
pronounce before you the name of YHWH ... You cannot see my face, for man cannot see me
and live ... Here is a place beside me. You must stand on the rock, and when my glory
passes by, I will put you in a cleft of the rock and shield you with my hand while I pass
by. Then I will take my hand away and you shall see the back of me, but my face is not to
be seen (Exodus 33:19-23).
And further on the theophany continues:
And Yahweh descended in the form of a cloud and Moses stood with
Him there. He called upon the name of Yahweh. Yahweh passed before him and proclaimed,
"Yahweh, Yahweh, a God of tenderness and compassion, slow to anger, rich in kindness
and faithfulness ..." (Exodus 34:5-6, Jerusalem Bible ).
After this theophany God gave to Moses the second Tablets of the Law.
God also revealed Himself to St. Elias on Mt.
Sinai/Mt. Choreb (I/III Kings 19:1-14, especially vs. 8-14). According to St. Gregory of
Nyssa’s Life of Moses (De Vitae Moysis), (17) written in the
late fourth century, Elias is hidden in the same cleft in the rock where God had hidden
Moses, (a fact that seems extremely significant and pertinent to understanding why it is
Moses and Elias who appear with Christ at the Transfiguration, but which seems not to be
mentioned today). God tells Elias that He will pass by as Elias stands before Him. And
there was a rushing wind, and earthquake, and fire, but the Lord was not in these, but in
"the voice of a gentle breeze" (King James: "in the still, small
voice").
Both Moses and Elias responded to the manifestation
of God’s glory by wrapping their faces in their cloaks (Exodus 3:6 and I Kings
19:13). Likewise, the three apostles on Mt. Tabor also are shown in icons covering their
faces (with their hands), because no one can bear to gaze upon the glory of the Lord. (18) (See this footnote for an
extended explanation about early icons of the Transfiguration and observance of the Feast
in the Western/Latin Church.)
That the primary reason why Elias
and Moses appear with Christ at the Transfiguration is due to their own prior experience
of a theophany is further supported by the fact that it is accounts of three of these
theophanies that are read for the three Old Testament readings in Vespers for the feast of
the Transfiguration in the Orthodox Church. (19)
(Please read this important, extended footnote now for further information about
Vespers and Matins in the Early Church, especially for the Transfiguration Feast, and
about observance of the feast in East and West.)
Now that we have suggested why
Moses and Elias appeared with Christ at the Transfiguration, let us proceed to suggest
what relationship exists between the Transfiguration and the Shekhinah. After
Christ was transfigured in glory, when His face shown like the sun and His garments were
more brilliant than the sun, God spoke out of a bright cloud that covered the three
apostles with shadow. (20) We
suggest that this reference to God speaking from a cloud is a reference to the Shekhinah,
because one of the two ways in which the
Shekhinah
was experienced in the Old Testament was as a pillar of cloud, such as led the Israelites
by day in the wilderness, and resided in the Holy of Holies. (The other manifestation was
in the form of fire, as when God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, and as the visible
form of God’s Presence in the wilderness that led the Hebrews by night.) At the
Theophany that occurred at Christ’s Baptism, God the Father also spoke out of a cloud
(icon to the right).
And at Christ's Ascension He ascended
in a cloud (icon to the left). Moreover, it is a common convention in Christian
iconography, inherited from its Jewish antecedents, to illustrate that an event or action
occurred "by the hand of
God," by depicting a semi-circular cloud in the heavens with a hand in or
protruding, as, for example, in icons of as St. George slaying the dragon (icon to the
right).
Also, authentic icons of the
Nativity of Christ (icon to the left) depict a mountain [almost] touching a cloud
Shekhinah, reflecting the realization that heaven and earth are reconciled by
God’s Incarnation. That the Shekhinah is manifested on earth in Christ is
indicated by rays of light emanating from the Shekhinah and illuminating the
darkness of the cave (the world), and sometimes even touching Christ, who lies in a
manger/sarcophagus at the mouth of a cave. (21)
In addition to his encounters with
God on Mt. Sinai, Moses also encountered Him in the Tabernacle. Moses always pitched the
Tent/Tabernacle of Witness/Meeting (skéné martyríou) outside the camp while sojourning
in the wilderness, and whenever Moses entered the skéné
martyríou, the people could see a pillar of cloud descend and stand at the entrance
of the Tabernacle, while Moses talked with God (Exodus 33:9-10). Moreover, we must recall
(as was mentioned in Footnote #2) that the Hebrew root of the word Shekhinah
is sakan, which means to "pitch a tent," and thus, by its very etymology,
the word is "suggestive of the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness where God’s
Glory abode." (22)
There are a variety of different
manifestations of the Divine Presence that constitute the Shekhinah. They are: the
invisible Presence that dwelt between the Cherubim over the Ark of the Covenant in the
Holy of Holies; the visible pillar of cloud and fire; the burning bush; the cloud out of
which God spoke at the Theophany (Baptism) and Transfiguration, and the cloud of the
Ascension, etc.; plus the possibility that the Uncreated Light of Mt. Tabor may also be a
manifestation of the Shekhinah. What is the relationship between these different
manifestations?
The rather extensive and very excellent essay on the
Shekhinah in the Encyclopedia Judaica defines the Shekhinah as
"the numinous immanence of God in the world." (23)
The consequence of that Divine Presence is that a place, an object, an
individual, or a whole people are sanctified; that the Presence constitutes a
"revelation of the holy in the midst of the profane." (24)
In addition to the appearance in
the form of a cloud, according to the essay, there is another prominent image associated
with the Shekhinah—that of light, radiance and glory. (25) Let us
attempt to apply this most elucidating concept.
Obviously, fire is a very concentrated form of
light. When Moses came down from Mt. Sinai after conversing with the Lord, his face was so
brilliant and radiant that the people could not bear to look at him. On Mt. Tabor, Christ
shone with such a radiance and glory brighter than the sun, that the apostles could not
bear to gaze directly at the sight. In the theophanies to Moses and Elias discussed above,
where the Glory of the Lord passed by, the visible (to some) Divine Glory may well be
understood as being one aspect of one type of manifestation of the Shekhinah. There
are countless references to "glory" in the Bible, as well as throughout
hymnography, and in prayers—such as the Glory that filled the Temple, or the Glory
of the Lord that shone when the angels proclaimed "Christ is born!", plus all
the references of ascribing glory to the Lord and to the Holy Trinity.
Perhaps the encounter with God’s Glory, which
apparently not everyone can see, is a manifestation of the Shekhinah, that is
closely related to the vision 
of the Uncreated Light.
(26) In icons of the
Transfiguration (see the icons above -- at the top and between footnotes #14 and
#15) and the Resurrection (icon to the left) the huge aura surrounding Christ is
called a "glory." Could there possibly be degrees of the manifestation of the Shekhinah,
which vary according to the spiritual level of the perceiver and his ability to see and
understand and tolerate the vision? Repeatedly in the texts for the Feast of the
Transfiguration (in the Orthodox Church) there is the statement that the apostles saw
Christ's Glory "insofar as they could bear it." (27) (Please read this footnote for a
description of how these words of the hymns of the Feast are reflected in its icon.)
Might there be an underlying
ordering principle which could unify the complexity of the experiences of the Divine
Presence, the Shekhinah? I propose that perhaps the cloud, fire, and created light
may be understood as grosser, more corporeal manifestations, closer to the material
existence of the world, and that the Glory of the Lord witnessed by Moses and Elias on Mt.
Sinai, and again on Mt. Tabor when the Glory of the Uncreated Light surrounded Christ as
He was transfigured, is a more rarified, less corporeal form of the Shekhinah.
In attempting to understand the nature of the Shekhinah,
we find that it is integrally connected with the meaning of the skéné.
Furthermore, as we commented in Footnote #2, mishkan, Shekhinah, and skéné
are related etymologically by means of the common "s k n," and the linguistic
involvement with the "tent." But, I contend, they are related linguistically
precisely because their natures are related: they each reveal the Divine Nature and
Presence. The mishkan/skéné provide the place wherein the Shekhinah
may dwell and be among mankind on earth.
The New Testament declares that Christ Himself is to
be regarded as the divine skéné — as the Temple or Tabernacle of God
— within whom the Shekhinah dwelt among mankind on earth, as indicated in
Revelation 21:3 — "Behold, the Tabernacle (skéné)
of God is with men, and He shall dwell (tabernacle or skénósei)
with them" (AV). The author of Hebrews presents a similar understanding of
Christ’s nature. Hebrews 8:1-2 says: "We have such a High Priest who sat at the
right of the throne of the majesty in the heavens; a minister of the Holy Things, and of
the true Tabernacle (skéné) which the Lord pitched, and not man."
The writer is making an analogy between the high priest who is a minister of the Holy
Things in the earthly tabernacle, and Christ, the High Priest, who is a minister of the
Holy Things in the True Tabernacle in heaven. Continuing this theme in 9:11, the author
also states that Christ is the High Priest of the greater and more perfect tabernacle (skéné)
not made by hand, and not of this creation.
That there is indeed such a close and significant
interconnection between the skéné martyríou—the Tent of Meeting or
Witness—and the Shekhinah Who dwelt there, and Christ as the skéné
within Whom the Shekhinah dwelt (as is revealed in the Transfiguration), is made
clear in the Prologue of St. John’s Gospel, where he says: "....and the Word
became flesh and tabernacled (eskénósen) among us (or "pitched His tent among
us"), and we saw His Glory...." (John 1:28). (28)
(Please read this footnote for further comments about how this vital phrase is
translated into English.) In other words, Christ's body is a
skéné
that dwelt on earth, through Whom the Shekhinah was made known. In his essay on the
"Shekhinah" in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Burtchaell states that John
1:14 is a clear reference to the Tent of Meeting." (29)
In that skéné/Tent of Meeting, the Glory of the Lord
was made visibly manifest and experienced under the name of Shekhinah. The New
Testament maintains that Jesus Himself is a skéné, a Tabernacle, in Whom the Glory of the Shekhinah
is likewise visibly made manifest.
Did Peter have in mind the involved incarnational
theology of John’s Gospel, the Apocalypse and Hebrews when he impulsively blurted out
— "Let us make three skénai:
one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elias" (Mark 9:5)? It is most unlikely, since
at that time Peter did not yet understand Christ’s Nature, nor his mission, not to
mention the theology that would only evolve later on. However, Peter was speaking as a
devout Jew, who probably instinctively associated the skéné
form (some type of tabernacle/memorial) with a manifestation of the Divine Presence as
experienced by Moses, and made concrete in the Tabernacle of Meeting/Witness in the
wilderness. Since Peter was too poor to build a stone monument, perhaps he really did
think of building three huts, such as are built at the Feast of Tabernacles. Yet, as
strange as it first sounded when we mentioned it at the beginning of this study, this
would be appropriate, since the feast commemorates the forty years wandering in the
wilderness, when the Tabernacle was not a permanent structure, but a movable tent. (30) (See this footnote for a further
comment about the relationship between the Transfiguration Feast and the Jewish Feast of
Tabernacles.)
However, at the Transfiguration,
when God spoke out of the Shekhinah/cloud (perhaps a lower vibration of the
Uncreated Light), Peter realized that he was totally missing the point to think about
grass and twig huts. Does one construct a puny man-made skéné,
when the divine skéné Himself in all His Glory is made manifest
before one’s very eyes?
In conclusion, we sought to demonstrate in this
study how prominent is the Old Testament presence in this New Testament event of the
Transfiguration: the presence of the Shekhinah; the presence of Elias and Moses;
the presence of the Septuagint translators in their choice of skéné
for rendering mishkan, and the consequent impact of that decision on New Testament
theology; and the presence of the Old Testament experience that a skéné/mishkan
is where the Glory of the Shekhinah is made manifest.
- IF YOU LIKED THIS ARTICLE, PLEASE LET US KNOW.
- WOULD YOU LIKE OTHER SUCH ARTICLES?
-
FOOTNOTES
(1) Skéné
is a Greek word, whose oldest and primary meaning is "tent." Another ancient use
of the word is to designate the wooden or stone stage, or stage building, and
"scenery" back-drop where actors performed in the ancient Greek theater. (Our
words scene/scenery remind us of this early meaning of skéné.)
Later meanings include: booth, tabernacle, dwelling-place, temple, and canopy-like covers.
These later meanings seem to be a result of the Septuagint translators’ choice of the
Greek word, skéné, to render three different Hebrew words when
the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek during the third-second centuries B.C. The
first of those three Hebrew words is ‘ohel, the characteristic term for tent,
and the only one that we would normally expect to be rendered as skéné in
Greek. The second Hebrew word is sukkah, which means "booth." This is the
word used in the Feast of Booths (or, sometimes called the Feast of Tabernacles), where
"booths" refers to the grass and twig huts constructed annually to commemorate
the forty years wandering in the wilderness by Moses and the Hebrew people, when the
Tabernacle was a tent, and the people lived in tents. The third Hebrew word translated as skéné
is mishkan. This is the most interesting translation, because the Hebrew word means
"tabernacle" or "dwelling-place," connoting a permanent dwelling,
whereas a tent connotes an impermanent structure. In Kittel’s Theological
Dictionary of the new Testament. Vol. 7 (Ed. by Gerhard Friedrich and Gerhard Eittel,
Trans. G.W. Bromiley, Eerdman Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1964), the author
proposes that the reason that the Septuagint translators chose skéné
as the natural, inevitable word-equivalent of mishkan is that they both contain the
same three consonants, s k n, in the same sequence. Consequently, the meaning and
use of the word skéné in the New Testament is shaped and molded by
its antecedents in the Septuagint.
Furthermore, we propose that the skéné,
and various visual forms associated with it (tabernacle, temple, canopy, dome,
iconostasis, shell and niche, triumphal arch and portal) is a universal symbol of the
conflict and reconciliation of opposites, and is used to commemorate the Divine Presence,
Truth and Wisdom, and Divine Order, which manifests itself by achieving the victory of
good, life, order, and creation over evil, death, chaos, and destruction. Moreover,
whenever someone has wished to commemorate a theophany (a manifestation of God), or the
activity or presence of the Divine, some skéné form is to be found. [Click here to return to your place in the
article.]
(2) The Hebrew word, Shekhinah (sekina),
which became a substitute for the Holy Name of Yahweh, is an important term for
understanding the biblical conception of the nature of God. Shekhinah signifies all
the awesome, mystical, Power and Holiness of God's Presence, especially as localized in
the Holy of Holies, first in Moses’ Tabernacle in the wilderness, and later in the
Temple in Jerusalem. The word is derived, interestingly, from the Hebrew root, sakan,
meaning "to pitch a tent," which is the same root from which mishkan (the
most common Hebrew word used to refer to the Tabernacle of Moses) is also derived.
Furthermore, Shekhinah has the same three consonants, s k n, as does mishkan
and skéné (the Greek word usually chosen to Translate mishkan).
For further discussion of the Shekhinah, see the articles in: The
New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. S, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1962; The Encyclopedia
Judaica, Vol. 14, Macmillan Co., New York, 1972; The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol
XI, Funk and Wagnalls, New York, 1916. [Click
here to return to your place in the article.]
(3) Abingdon Press, New York, 1962,
Vol. IV, p. 686. [Click here to return to your
place in the article.]
(4) Ibid., p. 687. [Click here to return to your place in the
article.]
(5) Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, New
York, 1951, Vol. VIII, p. 173. [Click here to
return to your place in the article.]
(6) Ibid., p. 75. [Click here to return to your place in the
article.]
(7) Vol. I, p. 1091. [Click here to return to your place in the
article.]
(8) Leonid Ouspensky and Vladimir
Lossky, The Meaning of Icons. Boston Book and Art Shop, Boston, 1969; and Konrad
Onasch, A.S. Barnes and Co., New York, 1969. [Click
here to return to your place in the article.]
(9) Ouspensky and Lossky, op.
cit., pp. 107 and 142f. (in Lossky's essay on St. John the Forerunner, and in
Ouspensky's essay on St. Elias).
The theophany to St. Elias on Mt. Choreb (Sinai) is understood by the
Fathers as a foreshadowing of the Transfiguration, which in turn, refers to Christ's
return at the end and fulfillment of time, when the Kingdom of God will be 
fulfilled, and the natural order of
the fallen cosmos will be altered by God and restored to its original order. St. Elias is
viewed as the prototype and prophet of the second coming, because for Elias the natural
order was changed by his love for God: a rapacious bird of prey — the raven —
brought food for Elias (icon to the left); fire from heaven consumed water-soaked
wood; Elias did not die, but was carried to heaven in a fiery chariot (see icon in
body of the article, between footnotes #5 and 6); a dead son was brought back to
life; waters parted when struck by his cloak; and most especially, Elias encountered God
Himself in a theophany on Mt. Sinai. That the "very laws of nature are changed by the
will of God, is in itself a prophetic prefiguration of the coming of that Kingdom in
power" (p. 145). [Click here to return to
your place in the article.]
(10) St. Basil the Great's
"Homily on Psalm 44, V." Quoted by Lossky in his essay on the Transfiguration, ibid.,
p. 212. [Click here to return to your place
in the article.]
(11) According to the Jerusalem
Bible translation, Peter says: "It was not any cleverly invented myths that we were
repeating when we brought you the knowledge of the power and the coming (parousia)
of our Lord Jesus Christ; we had seen his majesty for ourselves. He was honored and
glorified by God the Father, when the sublime Glory itself spoke to him and said,
‘This is my Son, the Beloved; he enjoys my favor.’ We heard this ourselves,
spoken from heaven, when we were with him on the holy mountain." [Click here to return to your place in the
article.]
(12) op. cit., p. 212. [Click here to return to your place in the
article.]
(13) The Icons of the
Transfiguration and the Resurrection portray Christ with a "glory" around Him. [Click here to return to your place in the
article.]
(14) Mt. Sinai is also known as Mt.
Choreb in the Eloist tradition. [Click here
to return to your place in the article.]
(15) The "Uncreated
Light" or the "light of Mount Tabor" refers to the mystical light of
God’s visible Presence, such as surrounded Christ in His Transfiguration on Mt.
Tabor. To achieve the vision of the Uncreated Light was regarded by the Eastern Christian
school of mysticism called "Hesychasm" to be a result of achieving a very high
state of spirituality. The theological exposition of the nature of the Uncreated Light
includes the distinction between God’s Energies and His Essence: the Uncreated Light
was a vision of God’s Energies, but not of His Essence, which is unapproachable and
unknowable by mortal man. (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, Penguin Books,
Baltimore, 1969, Chapter 3.) [Click here to
return to your place in the article.]
(16) Thus "ho ón" is the
Greek translation of Yahweh, and it is this form that is customarily found within the
cross of Christ’s nimbus in icons, thus indicating the theological view that Christ
shares one Essence with God the Father — Yahweh. [Click
here to return to your place in the article.]
(17) As discussed in: Robert Payne,
The Holy Fire: The Story of the Fathers of the Eastern Church, Harper and Brothers,
New York, 1957, Chapter 6 – "St. Gregory of Nyssa;" and Danielou and
Musurillo, "From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s Mystical
Writings, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, New York, 1979. [Click here to return to your place in the
article.]
(18) In this discussion we
have been referring only to icons of the Transfiguration, because little else exists,
particularly from the early centuries. The feast of the Transfiguration and its theology
is basic to the theology of the icon, and hence, holds a prominent position in Eastern
Christian theology, spirituality, and liturgical life. Contrariwise, few portrayals of the
Transfiguration exist in western art, for the feast enters little into Latin Western
Christian consciousness. In fact, as mentioned in the next footnote, the feast's
observance was not universal in the West until 1457, and then, its observance was for
political, not theological reasons. (In Western practice the Gospel for the second Sunday
in Lent has long been an account of the Transfiguration.) Yet this neglect of the feast is
entirely consistent with the West's rejection of icons and their accompanying theology.
The theology of the icon was given systematic formulation largely during the eighth-ninth
centuries’ iconoclastic controversy, and was endorsed formally by the Seventh
Ecumenical Council in 787. The decisions of this council were rejected by Charlemagne for
several reasons. A strong iconoclastic tendency has remained prevalent in Western
Christianity, and received vigorous expression in the sixteenth century and later.
There are only three extant early representations of the
Transfiguration. The oldest dates from the fifth century Baptistry in Albenga, on the
Ligurian coast, in northwest Italy. It is a symbolic portrayal, showing three concentric
circles, which are like inundating waves of glory, emanating from a giant Chi-Rho (XP).
The second is from the time of Emperor Justinian and the Monophysite
controversy. It is an apse mosaic from 549 in Sant’ Apollinare in Classe, in Ravenna,
Italy. This stylized mosaic portrays Christ in glory, with Moses and Elias (depicted from
the waist up only), surrounded by clouds, with the hand of God in the midst of the clouds.
The three Apostles, Ss. Peter, John and James, are represented by three sheep.
The third dates from about 600, and is at St. Catherine’s
Monastery on Mt. Sinai. This also is an apse mosaic, and it portrays the Transfiguration
according to the traditional iconographic canon: Christ is in a glory, flanked by Moses
and Elias; the three Apostles are on the ground in different positions; and the Uncreated
Light radiates from Christ towards the apostles. [Click
here to return to your place in the article.]
(19) Although it is not known exactly when all
the different propers for Vespers and Matins for feast days were composed, by mid-fourth
century Vigils (Vespers and Matins) were already well established. In 364 at the Council
of Laodocia it was decided that the established order for the different daily services
must be observed, including Vespers and Matins, in order to maintain order in the
churches. We know from the writings of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great, and
from others of the fourth century, that daily Vespers was well attended. Having evening
services which people could attend after work was already customary in the first century.
The Christian practice of praising God seven times a day was inherited from the Jewish
custom, based on the Psalms, and itself existed in Christian circles from the first
century also. Most of the voluminous hymnography for the cycles of feasts and Sundays were
composed between the fourth and eighth centuries. However, the biblical dominical feasts,
of course, were established at an early date. (See D.J. Grout, A History of Western
Music, Norton & Co., New York, 1960, Chapter one; Egon Wellesz, A History of
Byzantine Music and Hymnography, Oxford, 1949; H.J.W. Tillyard, Byzantine Music and
Hymnography, London, 1923; and the essay "Sacred Music" in Constantine
Cavarnos, Byzantine Thought and Art, The Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek
Studies, Mass., 1968.)
Since it was a great pre-occupation of the second and third century
theologians to comb the Old Testament for prototypes of New Testament occurrences and
symbols, it seems to be a logical hypothesis to suggest that the prototypes of the Old
Testament theophanies of the glory of God experienced by Moses and Elias would early have
been associated with the New Testament theophanies of the glory of God in Christ’s
Transfiguration. Furthermore, it seems logical, since Bible readings formed an integral
part of the Christian liturgical life from the beginning, that these readings most likely
would have been included in the liturgical observances of the feast from a very early
date—long before the hymnography had been established. (St. John of Damascus composed
the Octoechos and many other canons for Matins in the eighth century.)
It is not known exactly when the Transfiguration was first observed.
Cross indicates (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University
Press, London, 1958, p. 1371) that the feast originated in the Eastern Church, and had
become widely adopted before 1000, but in the West observance of the feast started at a
much later date, and its general observance was not until 1457, when the pope ordered its
observance to commemorate the victory over the Turks at Belgrade on the feast day, August
6, 1456. I would suspect that in the East the observance of the Transfiguration became
even more important and gained greater significance after the victory over iconoclasm in
843, since, as already mentioned, the theology of the Transfiguration is essential to the
theology of the icon. Also, since it is a biblical feast, its observance most likely
originated in Jerusalem at an early date, and probably would have included a
procession-pilgrimage to Mt. Tabor, a hypothesis supported by the evidence that St. Helena
built a church on Mt. Tabor in 326. [Click
here to return to your place in the article.]
(20) Kittel suggests in his
Theological Dictionary (op. cit., vol. 7, p. 349f.) that the Greek word for
shade or shadow (skiá /skié) probably
is derived from the same Indo-European root as skéné (e.g. a tent gives shade). [Click here to return to your place in the
article.]
(21) Also there is a fifth century
mosaic at Sta. Maria Maggiore in Rome, which depicts the Shekhinah as a cloud
surrounding Moses and his companions, with the hand of God at the top in a cloud. [Click here to return to your place in the
article.]
(22) Burtchaell, essay on the
"Shekhinah" in The New Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., vol. S, p.
169. [Click here to return to your place in
the article.]
(23) op. cit., vol. 14, pp.
1349-1354; quote is on p. 1349. [Click here
to return to your place in the article.]
(24) Ibid., p. 1350. [Click here to return to your place in the
article.]
(25) Ibid., p. 1350. [Click here to return to your place in the
article.]
(26) In Medieval Jewish
thought philosophers attempted to understand the Shekhinah as created light, but
perhaps that is a lower, more corporeal manifestation, and the vision of the Uncreated
Light is a higher vibrational level of the same phenomenon. [Click here to return to your place in the
article.]
(27) For example, this phrase
occurs in the Troparion and Kontakion of the feast. To show this gradation of spiritual
receptivity in icons of the Transfiguration, St. James is usually portrayed thrown to the
ground, frequently on his back, with his hand covering his face; St. John is also thrown
to the ground, face down, with his hand covering only the lower-part of his face; and St.
Peter, on his knees, is looking towards Christ, but shielding his eyes with his up-raised
hand. The three rays of light that emanate from Christ’s Glory may be understood as
the agent of the energy that strikes the three apostles to the ground. (Might those three
rays also be understood as a visualization of the cloud/Shekhinah that cast a
shadow over them, and might these both really be aspects of the same Reality?) Anyway, at
the Transfiguration, the apostles did not fully perceive the meaning of what they
encountered; it wasn't until the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost that they fully
understood. [Click here to return to your
place in the article.]
(28) Most translations (King
James, RSV, New English Bible, The Jerusalem Bible, Phillips Translation) render the
verse either as He "dwelt among us," or "lived among us." However, a
footnote for the verse in The Jerusalem Bible gives "pitched his tent among
us" as an alternative translation, and in the Interlinear Greek-English New
Testament (Alfred Marshall, ed., Samuel Bagster and Sons, Ltd., London, 1960) the
literal English translation actually adheres to the Greek, and the verse is rendered
"and tabernacled among us." [Click
here to return to your place in the article.]
(29) op. cit., p. 169. [Click here to return to your place in the
article.]
(30) We suggest that the Transfiguration is the
Christian form of the Feast of Booths/Tabernacles, not only due to the common use of the
word skéné, but also because both are late summer
harvest festivals where grapes and other summer fruits are blessed (in Eastern Christian
practice), and most importantly, because both commemorate the manifestation of the Glory
of the Divine Presence in an earthly Tabernacle. [Click
here to return to your place in the article.]
ST. INNOCENT/
