‘And suddenly,two men. . .’: Moses and Elijah in Lukan Perspective 1

Abstract

This article argues that in the three instances in Luke-Acts where the phrase ‘And suddenly, two men. . .’ occurs, Luke 9, Luke 24 and Acts 1, the author expects us to understand that these men are Moses and Elijah, who are named in the first occurrence at the Transfiguration. This interpretation makes literary, audience expectation, and theological sense, creating a deeper understanding of the significance of the two prophets for the proclamation of the resurrection and the mission of the Church. It is argued that the interpretation that the ‘two men’ are ‘angels,’ like Gabriel, does not pay sufficient attention to the details of the text and reads across an understanding that the ‘men’ are ‘angels’ from Luke 24 to Acts 1 without warrant.

Introduction

In this article I hope to show two things. First, that on each of the three occasions Luke uses the words, ‘And suddenly, two Men. . .’, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνδρες δύο, ² in Luke 9:29, Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10, he intends his readers to understand that these two men are Moses and Elijah. I will argue that the passages have a climactic place in the structure of Luke-Acts, have linguistic and thematic links, and that the repeated dramatic wording, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνδρες δύο, would alert hearers to their identity.

The second aim is to show how this identification of Moses and Elijah in Luke 24 and Acts 1 might add to our understanding of the text. I will note their role in traditions and their connections to relevant themes, showing how this can not only enhance our understanding of these texts, but also speak to the church today.

The texts in their Lukan context

The story of the transfiguration of Jesus appears in all three Synoptic Gospels but each author narrates the event in a slightly different form. ³ This is done to emphasize aspects that are of particular interest to the three evangelists. For example, Mark’s order of the names of Jesus’s companions, Elijah and Moses, may be intended to strengthen the link between Elijah and John the Baptist, which is a feature of Mark’s earlier narrative (1:6). Matthew reverses that order to Moses and Elijah, possibly for chronological reasons, or to align with his phrase, ‘the law and the prophets,’ or because his Gospel makes so much of the role of Moses and how Jesus re-enacts and surpasses it. All use the story to highlight the superiority of Jesus, but it is Luke who further develops the transfiguration narrative by his additions to Mark’s account. ⁴ He expands the story with greater focus on Moses and Elijah than either of the other synoptic accounts. Thus he describes in greater detail the appearance of Moses and Elijah and their actions during the scene. Those details will be addressed shortly but, first, the story must be set in its Lukan context and within the structure of Luke-Acts to understand its wider theological significance for the evangelist.

The transfiguration is firmly linked in several ways to what has been recently narrated by Luke. First, this last section of the Gospel before the travel narrative is largely concerned with the revelation of the identity of Jesus, a question raised first by Herod (9:9) and then by Jesus (9:20). Various names are proposed including that of Elijah. ⁵ From the beginning of chapter nine, Elijah is mentioned by name twice, and possibly alluded to once in the miracle of feeding, ⁶ while Moses is alluded to in the lack of food in the wilderness and the miracle of feeding. ⁷ Luke’s narrative explores this question of identity, ending on the mount of transfiguration with a definitive answer from above and thus imparting to Luke’s audience a clear message about who exactly is making his way to Jerusalem.

Second, within the chronology of the narrative the transfiguration occurs a week or so after Peter’s declaration that Jesus is ‘the Messiah of God,’ ό χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. But Jesus recasts Peter’s confession of this identity in terms of ‘the Son of Man,’ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, who must suffer and be crucified, and then be glorified. In the transfiguration narrative, Luke picks up on the theme of glory, δόξα, ⁸ which is used not only to describe Jesus, but also his two interlocutors.

Third, before Luke relates the transfiguration, in 9:27 he records that Jesus said that some among his hearers will not see death before they see the Kingdom of God. Given Luke’s connecting link to the transfiguration story, it seems clear that he is portraying the transfiguration as that visual encounter with, and experience of, the Kingdom. ⁹

It is the larger context of Luke’s writings that is the most relevant for understanding the transfiguration’s connection to Luke 24 and Acts 1. ¹⁰ While the gospel can be divided into several sections across the whole, ¹¹ such as the Infancy Narratives and the Jerusalem ministry, it is clearly divided into two major parts, with a division at the end of 9:50. ¹² To this point, everything has been moving inexorably to the mount of transfiguration, but now the ministry of Jesus changes direction, literally, as he turns from Galilee towards Jerusalem and the path to his death and resurrection. In other words, the transfiguration story is part of the climax to this first section of Luke, setting out the definitive revelation of Jesus’ identity, through the declaration of the divine voice from above.

I would argue that the transfiguration account is intended as a parallel to the resurrection narratives which form a climax at the end of the gospel. Some scholars have rightly noted thematic connections between the two, ¹³ and this will be discussed later. The strategic positioning of the two stories, and the themes that connect them, indicates the likelihood that when discussing either or both, each might be used to shed light on the other, and each plays a climactic role to the two major sections of the Gospel.

In Luke’s second volume, with the departure of Jesus from the world, and the commissioning of the Apostles, the opening chapter of Acts is another strategically significant, if not programmatic passage at the very beginning of Luke’s sequal. ¹⁴

So, there are three occurrences of precisely the same words introducing two men in three of the most strategic contexts in Luke-Acts: Luke 9:30 and 24:4 and Acts 1:10. Each time Luke uses the dramatic exclamation, ‘And suddenly, two men. . .’, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνδρες δύο. This appears to be a deliberate literary pattern and we must ask what we make of it.

Linguistic and Thematic Links among the Texts: Lightning, Glory, Cloud, and Exodus

In Luke 9, as well as changes in Mark’s order of names, Luke’s redaction includes some vivid colour with the image of Jesus’s clothes ‘white as a flash of lightning,’ ¹⁵ λευκὸς ἐξαστράπτων. While conveying a similar idea to the other synoptic accounts about the radiance of Jesus’s clothing, by using ἐξαστράπτων Luke adds the dynamic of heavenly disturbances, setting the scene for heavenly visitors and actions. Drawing on the LXX descriptions of the Sinai traditions in Exodus 19:16 with its thunder, lightning, άστραπταί, and cloud, νεφέλη, it is a powerful signal to Luke’s readers acquainted with the LXX that God was present. The heavenly has broken through into the earthly realm. Yet it would also speak to those without a knowledge of the LXX and whose culture was rooted in the non-Jewish Greco-Roman world. Within that literature too, cosmic disturbances were an indicator of heavenly activity. ¹⁶

Much has been said about the significance of the two companions seen by the disciples on the mount of transfiguration, answering questions such as who are they, why are they here and what do they tell us? ¹⁷ They are identified first as Moses and Elijah by Luke as narrator, and then in his transmission of the words of Peter. Scholars have explored the links they have with Jesus: the long-dead Moses ¹⁸ and the long-absent Elijah are both closely associated with prayer, a major Lukan theme here; ¹⁹ their prophetic actions are associated with other mountains, Sinai and Carmel; both experience the dramatic and powerful presence of God on mountain tops, sheltered only by rock; ²⁰ both are intimately linked to the theme of God’s saving action as ἔξοδος. ²¹

It is in Luke’s additions that the greatest significance of these men is to be found. His way of alerting hearers to the identity of the men is his statement in 9:30f

Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. They appeared in glory and were speaking of his [exodus], which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.

καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνδρες δύο συνελάλουν αὐτῷ, οἵτινες ἦσαν Μωσῆς καὶ Ἠλίας, οἳ ὀφθέντες ἐν δόξῃ ἔλεγον τὴν ἔξοδον αὐτοῦ, ἣν ἤμελλεν πληροῦν ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ. (Lk 9.30–31).

The use of δόξα ²²  is not only an important link to what has been related immediately prior to this incident about the coming of the Son of Man in his glory (9:26) but also to the life-story of Moses. As he meets God on the mountain, Moses experiences the glorification of his face without realising it ²³ , requiring the veiling of his face. Although δόξα is not used of Elijah in the LXX, he does encounter the fiery chariots and horses of Israel ²⁴ as he is removed from earth. In Luke 9, it is the two men together who are seen ἐν δόξῃ and are thus pictured as among those ‘sharing in the status of those who belong to the heavenly court.’ ²⁵ While the purpose of the story is to reveal the glorious heavenly identity of Jesus, ²⁶ the δόξα of the prophets identifies them to be among those who dwell in the heavenly presence of God, sharing in that heavenly glory. ²⁷

It was noted above that, given the position of each as a narrative climax, the transfiguration story could be illuminated by the resurrection stories and vice versa. ²⁸ Luke-Acts is renowned for its intra-textual connections. ²⁹ There are several post-resurrection episodes in Luke 24, but it is the first (24:1–12) that is of most significance in supporting this understanding of Moses and Elijah because of the verbal links found between chapters nine and twenty-four.

In addition to the exact repetition of the words introducing the two men, there is a link in the description of the brightness of the clothes of Jesus and the two men. In Luke 9 ἐξαστράπτων, is predicated of Jesus at his transfiguration and a related though not identical term ἀστραπτούσῃ is used of the two at the scene of the resurrection. There appears to be an intentional echo in the language with the ἐξαστράπτων describing Jesus reflecting a difference in the intensity of the δόξα with Moses and Elijah, Jesus shining more brightly. Siebenthal notes that έκ as a prefix can indicate intensity. ³⁰ The transfiguration story does, after all, emphasise the superiority of Jesus to Moses and Elijah. Whatever difference Luke implies, the sense is that the two men at the tomb share in a similar glorious heavenly existence as do Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration. The same can be said of the two men in Acts 1 where the less dramatic ‘in white robes,’ ἐν ἐσθήσεσιν λευκαῖς, is used.

A further linguistic connection is to be found in Luke’s use of cloud, νεφέλη. In Luke 9:34, a cloud envelopes the group who are standing, and in Acts 1:9, a cloud envelopes Jesus. ³¹ Once more these narrative statements evoke the exodus traditions of the cloud of the presence and the cloud at Sinai.

Among Luke’s thematic additions to the transfiguration narrative, it is ‘exodus’ that stands out. On the mount, Moses and Elijah speak with Jesus about the exodus he will fulfil at Jerusalem. Does this exodus theme then recur in Luke 24 and/or Acts 1? I think it recurs in both, but in slightly different forms. While Luke 9 looks forward to the exodus of Jesus, Luke 24 is, in essence, a declaration of its fulfilment. By his death and resurrection, heard in the light of the Last Supper Jesus has effected the previously discussed exodus, and what could be more appropriate than that Moses and Elijah declare this fact to the women at the tomb? They say, ‘Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, he has been raised. Do you not remember what he said to you in Galilee?’ Jesus has broken the bonds of death.

In Acts 1, the situation is different. Here, through the cloud, Jesus is making his personal exodus from the world to the heavenly realm and is passing on the mantle of declaring the Gospel of the Kingdom to the Apostles. It is, in effect, the culmination of his exodus, leaving the world for the heavenly presence of God. ³²

These linguistic echoes and thematic links suggest that there is such a strong connection among all three passages that the two men in each of them could be the same.

Hearers’ Expectation

It must be asked how early hearers of the Gospel and Acts would understand καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνδρες δύο in these three passages in a culture where literacy was low and reliance on memory was high. I believe it would be difficult to expect Luke’s hearers to think that Luke 24 and Acts 1 were anything other than additional references to Moses and Elijah when they heard the clarion textual alert ‘And suddenly, two men. . ..’ Although Luke uses the verbal signal ἰδοὺ in other places, ³³ nowhere else in his writings does Luke use καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνδρες δύο. Gadenz ³⁴ observes that these three instances of the phrase are the only instances in Luke-Acts, and the only instances in the whole of the canon of Scripture. As such, they are a powerful textual indicator that the men referred to in the first instance are to be inferred in instances two and three. Having spoken with Jesus about his exodus, they are now here to bear witness to its reality.

Adopting the perspective of hearer expectations, I will refer to two traditions in which Moses and/or Elijah appear that would link them thematically to the succession narrative of Acts 1. In his monumental commentary, Craig Keener, among others, ³⁵ notes connections between the story of Jesus’s ascension, passing on responsibility for the continuing work of the Gospel, with other such ‘succession’ narratives. He argues that the Elijah-Elisha narrative, with the ascension of Elijah in a whirlwind and the passing on of prophetic responsibility to Elisha, is the closest parallel to the ascension of Jesus and his commissioning of the Apostles. ³⁶ He then compares Jesus and Elijah in Luke-Acts, showing how Jesus, although more often John the Baptist, is like Elijah, but greater. While Keener then dismisses the possibility that one of the ‘two men’ is Elijah, ³⁷ for him, the shadow of Elijah hovers over this succession narrative. Contrary to Keener, I believe Luke’s portrayal of the story is creating the expectation in the minds of hearers that one of the two men is Elijah. Given the thematic echoes of the Exodus evoked by the cloud, and since he has already linked the two men at the transfiguration, the other may be identified as Moses.

The second tradition is from Revelation 11. Dating NT writings is fraught with complexity, and little is certain. The range of dates for Luke-Acts stretches from before 70 ce and the fall of Jerusalem to the early decades of the Second Century ce. If this date range is the case, then the Apocalypse of John could be a rough contemporary of Luke. There are many who think that, although they are unnamed in the text, from the description of the two witnesses in Revelation 11 they are to be identified as Moses and Elijah. Several references point in this direction: using fire to consume their foes could refer to both prophets; ³⁸ having authority to shut up the sky so that no rain falls is without doubt intended to refer to Elijah; ³⁹ the mention of all kinds of plagues brings to mind the stories of Moses and the Exodus. ⁴⁰ John the Seer may intend the identities of the witnesses to be more composite than this, including, for example, Enoch, but however composite the identity he intended, he clearly included Moses and Elijah within it. ⁴¹

It seems from Revelation 11 and elsewhere that there are traditions of eschatological appearances of ancient prophets, including Moses and Elijah, circulating. ⁴² At least four themes link the Moses and Elijah of Revelation 11 to themes in Luke 24 and Acts 1: testimony, the suffering of death, resurrection, and ascension. Did Luke know of this kind of tradition? We cannot say for certain, but with traditions swirling in the imagination of the Church of that era, it would not at all be surprising if he did. Regardless, the thematic links between Luke-Acts and these two traditions at least open the possibility that Luke has Moses and Elijah in mind in Luke 24 and Acts 1 since such traditions were ‘in the air’ at the time.

On several occasions recently, I have undertaken an unscientific experiment in which I asked people to identify the character I described to them, a man who was tall, thin, wore a deerstalker, smoked a large pipe, played the violin well and had a liking for opium. On every occasion they answered, ‘Sherlock Holmes.’ While I did not name this character to them, they had heard or read about him in the past and recognised his description. This is exactly what I think happens in Luke 9, 24 and Acts 1: the names and descriptions were heard in Luke 9 and the descriptions recognised in Luke 24 and Acts 1, introduced with the same textual cue. Luke expects his hearers to make the connection.

‘But the two in Luke 24 and Acts 1 are angels.’

Among many recent commentators in English consulted, only one, Luke Timothy Johnson, affirms that the two men of Luke 24 and Acts 1 are the same as the two men of Luke 9, but he does not have the space to set out his arguments fully. ⁴³ Others either do not consider it or dismiss the idea. There are two main objections. The first, in two parts, is that in neither Luke 24 nor Acts 1 are the men named, and that in Acts 1 there is not enough information to identify them. ⁴⁴

Part one of the first objection fails to take seriously the abundant intratextuality of Luke-Acts, and part two assesses Acts as a book standing alone. ⁴⁵ When Luke-Acts is read as a whole, after the first mention in Luke 9, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνδρες δύο would make the hearers alert to the identification in Luke 24 and Acts 1 on the basis that they were named and described in Luke 9. Theophilus would have no trouble identifying them.

The second objection is that, since they are identified in Luke 24:23 as angels, they cannot be Moses and Elijah. ⁴⁶ Many accept that the descriptive language shared between Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 indicates that it is the same two personages at the tomb and the ascension, but that they are angels. ⁴⁷ This objection calls for some reflection on Luke’s use of ἄγγελος.

No Gospel writer tells exactly the same resurrection narrative as another, and the stories differ on the number of men or angels encountered. In the case of Luke, in Luke 24:4 he writes of ‘two men.’ They are then identified as angels in the reported speech in Luke 24:23. ⁴⁸ But we cannot get round the fact that Luke, as ‘omniscient narrator,’ calls them ‘men’. So, are they men, according to the narrator, or angels according to the reported speech, or are they both?

Luke is the NT author most interested in angels in both volumes of his work, mentioning them almost fifty times. When he wishes to denote the presence of an angel of the Lord/of God, such as in the Annunciation narratives, he uses ἄγγελος. But not every instance of its use refers to heavenly beings like the Angel Gabriel. In the resurrection story we have noted that Luke uses ‘two men,’ ἄνδρες δύο, and in reported speech the two are seen as ‘a vision of angels,’ ὀπτασίαν ἀγγέλων. There is a similar double identification of the messenger in the story of Cornelius. In Acts 10:3 Luke narrates that Cornelius saw ‘an angel of God,’ ἄγγελον τοῦ θεοῦ, while in 10:30 Cornelius says to Peter ‘suddenly a man in dazzling clothes stood before me,’ καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ ἔστη ἐνώπιόν μου ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ. Again, there is a double identity showing that Luke’s understanding of ἄγγελος is not necessarily either angel or man. As Stephen prepares to give his witness to the Sanhedrin in Acts 6:15, his face appeared as that of an angel. Similarly, when Peter is rescued from prison by an angel of the Lord (Acts 12:7) and knocks on the door of John Mark’s house, those inside did not believe it could be Peter, but rather it was his angel (Acts 12:15). Luke’s use of ἄγγελος is more blurred than might at first be assumed and it cannot be ruled out that he sometimes means ‘messenger’ rather than ‘heavenly being.’

Identifying the two ‘men’ solely as angels, such as Gabriel, would rule out the possibility that they are Moses and Elijah. This is what many commentators do. In Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 they note similarities of language and themes with Luke 9, but in Luke 24 they privilege the identity as ‘angels’ and read that identity across to the men in Acts 1:10, side-lining the specific wording of the text. Given the varied ways that Luke uses ἄγγελος, there is no reason to assume that when Luke speaks of ‘two men,’ he means ‘two angels (like Gabriel) that look like men’. At the tomb and the ascension, it is two men, ἄνδρες δύο, or two men-angels (unlike Gabriel), rather than two angels (like Gabriel) who are present. This attention to the detail of the text weighs against the objection that the two are heavenly beings rather than Moses and Elijah. Their identity as men should be privileged.

Drawing the Threads Together

I have argued that on the three occasions Luke uses, ‘And suddenly, two men. . .’ he intends hearers to understand that since they are referred to by name in Luke 9, these names can be inferred in Luke 24 and Acts 1. This interpretation makes sense at different levels.

First, on a literary level, it makes good structural and narrative sense. Because the words occur at three extremely strategic points in the framework of Luke-Acts, the author has created a literary pattern that invites the hearers to assume that Moses and Elijah appear in all three places. That identification does not make the narrative jar in the mind. It is consonant with what has gone before.

Second, with the very specific repeated wording, strong linguistic and thematic links it makes sense for audience expectation in a culture where reliance on memory and verbal cues is high, pointing in the direction of a continuity of dramatis personae.

Finally, the identification makes good theological sense for Luke is the one who records that on the Emmaus Road, ‘beginning with Moses and all the prophets, [Jesus] interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures (24:27).’ The prophets of the Hebrew Bible bear witness to Jesus as the one who effects a new exodus. There are none greater than Moses and Elijah.

Why it Matters

The identification of Moses and Elijah in all three passages that I have argued for heightens the important symbolic and theological significance of these two men in Luke 24 and Acts 1. Within much contemporary scholarship, it is diminished, and that diminishment has its roots in the most frequent explanation for the appearance of Moses and Elijah on the mount of transfiguration, that they are simply representatives of the Law and the Prophets. ⁴⁹ While this is an obvious truth, it is an identity that lacks the profundity I believe Luke is seeking to convey. Through the episodes from their lives to which Luke alludes, noted above, and the traditions in Scripture and beyond with which these two men were associated, their importance lies in how Luke uses the themes of these events and traditions to speak to the church of his time and beyond.

First, there is the theme of exodus fulfilment. At the Transfiguration, it is clear from Luke’s language that there was a discussion about Jesus’s exodus, rather than a monologue. While the content of that discussion is not recorded, the context suggests that it is likely to have included the suffering and cost that Jesus must endure in the days ahead. Moses and Elijah were not strangers to the costs of prophetic action. In the resurrection scene, there is a sense of triumph over suffering as well as rebuke in the words, ‘Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here but has risen.’ ⁵⁰ Having adapted the Passover meal to speak of his own death on the cross, and having emerged in triumph from the tomb, Jesus has experienced suffering by which he has effected the exodus of his people from the slavery of sin and death. It is surely no accident that in Acts, following Jesus is called ‘the way,’ ἡ ὁδός, a way that also proved to be one of suffering.

Second, Moses and Elijah each had a successor appointed to continue their activity. In addition to the appointment of Joshua to lead the entry to the land, Moses speaks of another prophet like himself who will arise. Elijah’s successor, Elisha, had a double portion of his spirit. These succession narratives point to high expectations for the future ministry of the successor. At the Ascension, the Apostles received from Jesus the prophetic succession and are to bear witness to Jesus through the Spirit in ways that may result in opposition and suffering. Moses and Elijah challenge them to take up that role immediately in a way that will prove to be faithful and true. Having them at the scene heightens the expectation of the dynamic prophetic activity to come that Luke records in the pages of Acts.

Third, there were times when both Moses and Elijah were sustained in their activity by the divine provision of nourishment for the pilgrim journey that took a route through wilderness experiences. As Luke relates, the believers in Acts, and beyond, faced their own trials, and hearing of the presence of Moses and Elijah at the Ascension would have been reassurance that God does not leave his people without spiritual sustenance for ‘the way’ they must take.

It can be seen, then, that the identification of Moses and Elijah at these three crucial points in Luke’s narrative can be developed in ways that speak not only of the exodus of Jesus himself, but also of what is expected of a prophetic, suffering church as the successor of his mission, now in his physical absence. Luke, speaking to a church in volatile and challenging times, uses Moses and Elijah to help it understand the significance of what has happened, to challenge it to prophetic ministry in the present and to reassure it of God’s capacity to sustain it in the days to come.