The Transfiguration
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
in Kerygmania
It is the Feast of the Transfiguration in the Orthodox calendar (6th August).
We clear the decks for this one and there are no Saints commemorated this day as far as I am aware.
I've been looking at the set Bible readings and pondering them.
I aim to attend Divine Liturgy later this morning where the set Gospel readings will be read and the Icon of the Transfiguration displayed for edification and veneration.
Here are the set readings:
From Vespers (the night before but I read them this morning):
Exodus 24:12-18 - Moses ascends into the cloud to receive the law and commandments, the glory of the Lord appears like 'a consuming fire on the mountain top.'
Exodus 33:11-23; 34:4-6, 8 - Moses speaks to God 'face to face just as a man speaks to a friend, Joshua remains in the tent, Moses reminds God that Israel are his people and receives a promise that God's promise will go with them. He then goes further and asks to see God's glory. The Lord 'hides him in the cleft of the rock and covers him there with his hand,' to paraphrase the old hymn. Moses does not see God's 'face' but only his 'back'.
(A thought: Joshua remains in his tent - does this have any linkage with Peter wanting to set up 'booths' or tabernacles for Moses and Elijah in the Gospel accounts of the Transfiguration? Yes, I know Peter possibly has the Feast of Booths in mind. Thoughts?)
1 Kings 19:3-9, 11-13, 15-16 - now we get to Elijah who has fled from Jezebel to Beersheba from whence he heads a day into the wilderness where he sits under a juniper tree and desires death. An angel feeds him and he proceeds further for 40 days to Mount Horeb where the 'word of the Lord' comes to him in a cave and we have the famous 'earthquake, wind and fire' and the 'still small voice of calm' (as the poem/hymn has it). The Lord sends Elijah to Syria to anoint Hazael king over Aram, Jehu king over Israel and Elisha to succeed him as prophet.
(Interesting: I've read this passage many times and often heard it preached on but this is the first time I remember noticing the reference to Hazael - a Gentile king - any thoughts?)
The Matins Gospel reading: Luke 9: 28-36 - an account of the Transfiguration - eight days after Christ's first reference to his Passion, he takes Peter, James and John up a mountain to pray. The 'appearance of his face' becomes different,' his clothing 'white and gleaming'.
Moses and Elijah appear and discuss the Passiontide events that Christ will 'accomplish' in Jerusalem.
A drowsy Peter and his companions awake and behold Christ's glory and the two men 'standing with him.' Peter, not knowing what he is saying, and with characteristic impetuosity asks whether they can make three tabernacles, one for Christ, one for Moses and one for Elijah.
As he's speaking they are enveloped in the cloud and become fearful. As well they might.
A voice from the cloud says, 'This is My Son, My Chosen One, listen to Him!'
The cloud seems to fade very quickly leaving the disciples alone with Christ. We are told they kept this event to themselves.
Readings from the Divine Liturgy:
2 Peter 1:10-19 where we are exhorted to 'make every effort to make our calling and election sure' and told that if we practice the things outlined in the opening of the epistle 'you will never stumble.' A big ask? Or a big promise?
We are told that these things are given by way of reminder and that the truth is 'already present' with those to whom the epistle has been sent. An echo of the requests and promises in the passages from Exodus.
The author - the Apostle Peter? - tells his readers that Christ has revealed to him that his death is imminent - he will soon lay aside his 'earthly dwelling' - his 'tent' or 'tabernacle' perhaps?
They are to be diligent to call his instructions to mind.
In verses 16-18 we have the claim of an eye-witness account of the Transfiguration. These are not 'cleverly devised tales' but 'we' were 'eyewitnesses' of Christ's majesty. They saw 'honour and glory' bestowed upon Christ by 'God the Father' and heard the 'utterance made from heaven.'
Matthew 17:1-9 - the second Gospel account of the Transfiguration. This contains the instruction that the disciples should tell no-one of this 'vision' until 'the Son of Man has risen from the dead.'
A few verses later we have the identification of John the Baptist as the one who would come 'in the spirit and power of Elijah'. And look what happened to him ...
In both Gospel accounts we have a return to the toil and turmoil of this world as the disciples struggle to heal a severely troubled boy brought to them by his father. Even after a mysterious heavenly vision there is the need for diligence and struggle - 'this kind does not go out but by prayer and fasting.'
Ok, those last observations take us beyond the set readings themselves but featured in my cogitations.
Let's open this up. I don't want to get into Purgatorial territory although in my own Christian tradition we cannot 'disaggregate' the text from its understanding and application in a communal and ecclesial sense - it's all Holy Tradition.
That said, what can we make of these passages from our various perspectives?
Why Peter, James and John and not other disciples?
Why the instruction for a post-Resurrection 'reveal'?
In my Tradition as well as representing the Law and the Prophets, Moses represents those who 'sleep in the Lord' and Elijah those who will be 'alive at his appearing' (for he was taken up to heaven rather than dying in the 'normal' way).
The Law and the Prophets both 'testify' to Christ. The impending Passion has been foreshadowed and foretold in the Law (by types and 'shadows') and in the Prophetic writings (interpreted from a Christian perspective).
Hence the 'discussion' between Moses, Elijah and Christ. They are all 'in on it' as it were. They know God's eternal plan.
There's more I could say but over to you?
How do you read and interpret these passages?
We clear the decks for this one and there are no Saints commemorated this day as far as I am aware.
I've been looking at the set Bible readings and pondering them.
I aim to attend Divine Liturgy later this morning where the set Gospel readings will be read and the Icon of the Transfiguration displayed for edification and veneration.
Here are the set readings:
From Vespers (the night before but I read them this morning):
Exodus 24:12-18 - Moses ascends into the cloud to receive the law and commandments, the glory of the Lord appears like 'a consuming fire on the mountain top.'
Exodus 33:11-23; 34:4-6, 8 - Moses speaks to God 'face to face just as a man speaks to a friend, Joshua remains in the tent, Moses reminds God that Israel are his people and receives a promise that God's promise will go with them. He then goes further and asks to see God's glory. The Lord 'hides him in the cleft of the rock and covers him there with his hand,' to paraphrase the old hymn. Moses does not see God's 'face' but only his 'back'.
(A thought: Joshua remains in his tent - does this have any linkage with Peter wanting to set up 'booths' or tabernacles for Moses and Elijah in the Gospel accounts of the Transfiguration? Yes, I know Peter possibly has the Feast of Booths in mind. Thoughts?)
1 Kings 19:3-9, 11-13, 15-16 - now we get to Elijah who has fled from Jezebel to Beersheba from whence he heads a day into the wilderness where he sits under a juniper tree and desires death. An angel feeds him and he proceeds further for 40 days to Mount Horeb where the 'word of the Lord' comes to him in a cave and we have the famous 'earthquake, wind and fire' and the 'still small voice of calm' (as the poem/hymn has it). The Lord sends Elijah to Syria to anoint Hazael king over Aram, Jehu king over Israel and Elisha to succeed him as prophet.
(Interesting: I've read this passage many times and often heard it preached on but this is the first time I remember noticing the reference to Hazael - a Gentile king - any thoughts?)
The Matins Gospel reading: Luke 9: 28-36 - an account of the Transfiguration - eight days after Christ's first reference to his Passion, he takes Peter, James and John up a mountain to pray. The 'appearance of his face' becomes different,' his clothing 'white and gleaming'.
Moses and Elijah appear and discuss the Passiontide events that Christ will 'accomplish' in Jerusalem.
A drowsy Peter and his companions awake and behold Christ's glory and the two men 'standing with him.' Peter, not knowing what he is saying, and with characteristic impetuosity asks whether they can make three tabernacles, one for Christ, one for Moses and one for Elijah.
As he's speaking they are enveloped in the cloud and become fearful. As well they might.
A voice from the cloud says, 'This is My Son, My Chosen One, listen to Him!'
The cloud seems to fade very quickly leaving the disciples alone with Christ. We are told they kept this event to themselves.
Readings from the Divine Liturgy:
2 Peter 1:10-19 where we are exhorted to 'make every effort to make our calling and election sure' and told that if we practice the things outlined in the opening of the epistle 'you will never stumble.' A big ask? Or a big promise?
We are told that these things are given by way of reminder and that the truth is 'already present' with those to whom the epistle has been sent. An echo of the requests and promises in the passages from Exodus.
The author - the Apostle Peter? - tells his readers that Christ has revealed to him that his death is imminent - he will soon lay aside his 'earthly dwelling' - his 'tent' or 'tabernacle' perhaps?
They are to be diligent to call his instructions to mind.
In verses 16-18 we have the claim of an eye-witness account of the Transfiguration. These are not 'cleverly devised tales' but 'we' were 'eyewitnesses' of Christ's majesty. They saw 'honour and glory' bestowed upon Christ by 'God the Father' and heard the 'utterance made from heaven.'
Matthew 17:1-9 - the second Gospel account of the Transfiguration. This contains the instruction that the disciples should tell no-one of this 'vision' until 'the Son of Man has risen from the dead.'
A few verses later we have the identification of John the Baptist as the one who would come 'in the spirit and power of Elijah'. And look what happened to him ...
In both Gospel accounts we have a return to the toil and turmoil of this world as the disciples struggle to heal a severely troubled boy brought to them by his father. Even after a mysterious heavenly vision there is the need for diligence and struggle - 'this kind does not go out but by prayer and fasting.'
Ok, those last observations take us beyond the set readings themselves but featured in my cogitations.
Let's open this up. I don't want to get into Purgatorial territory although in my own Christian tradition we cannot 'disaggregate' the text from its understanding and application in a communal and ecclesial sense - it's all Holy Tradition.
That said, what can we make of these passages from our various perspectives?
Why Peter, James and John and not other disciples?
Why the instruction for a post-Resurrection 'reveal'?
In my Tradition as well as representing the Law and the Prophets, Moses represents those who 'sleep in the Lord' and Elijah those who will be 'alive at his appearing' (for he was taken up to heaven rather than dying in the 'normal' way).
The Law and the Prophets both 'testify' to Christ. The impending Passion has been foreshadowed and foretold in the Law (by types and 'shadows') and in the Prophetic writings (interpreted from a Christian perspective).
Hence the 'discussion' between Moses, Elijah and Christ. They are all 'in on it' as it were. They know God's eternal plan.
There's more I could say but over to you?
How do you read and interpret these passages?
Comments
Historically, the Western Church, represented by the Roman Catholic Church, Anglican and Lutherans, fixed the Feast of Transfiguration on August 6th in the 15th century
However, using the current RCL calendar, most western churches today observe the feast on the last Sunday of Epiphany, just before the beginning of Lent.
I am not really clear why the Western Church has the two different observances.
For us American (PCUSA) Presbyterians, on the other hand, it is indeed the last Sunday before Lent that is observed as “the Transfiguration.”
17 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”
5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”
6 When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. 7 But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.” 8 When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.
9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”
10 The disciples asked him, “Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”
11 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12 But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.
Broadly similar accounts appear in Luke 9 and Mark 9.
It’s a remarkable scripture. I’ve always thought the significance was that Jesus was revealed to the those disciples as divine. The fact that all three synoptic gospels have it shows that it must have been regarded from very early on that Jesus was more than fully human.
It was a journey from there to Trinitarian belief. but strongly aided from the first chapter of John’s gospel. John’s gospel doesn’t have the transfiguration but it does have this from John Chapter 1.
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
They beheld His glory.
For us American (PCUSA) Presbyterians, on the other hand, it is indeed the last Sunday before Lent that is observed as “the Transfiguration.”
[/quote]
I have seen evidence that the Feast of the Transfiguration was at some stage in history celebrated on the first Sunday of Lent, which is 40 days before Good Friday, and hence the move to August 6, which is 40 days (depending on how you count them) before the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross on September 14th.
Moving back to associating Transfiguration with the beginning of Lent looks like an attempt to restore an ancient usage (whilst taking the actual Feast out of the Fast of Lent - or alternatively removing Sundays from the count of 40 days).
I'm puzzled why Mark's account doesn't appear in the Orthodox lectionary readings for the Feast of The Transfiguration. I'll make some enquiries about that.
As @Barnabas62 it broadly follows the narrative in the other two Synoptic Gospels but with the event taking place 'six days' rather than 'eight days' after Christ's first recorded reference to his Passion.
I have no idea why the Transfiguration is commemorated on a different date in Western Christian traditions.
The Transfiguration is given additional significance in Eastern Orthodox Christianity as it is linked with the Palamite distinction between God's essence and energies which has been discussed in Purgatory.
Otherwise the understandings of the Transfiguration strike me as being pretty much identical between East and West.
Unless someone is going to correct me if I'm wrong.
(I’ll note that the quote attributed to me was actually from @Gramps49. My comment is what comes after.)
There is only room for two Gospel readings on the Feast. I presume that the Matthew and Luke accounts were preferred as coming from the more substantial of the Synoptic Gospels. The English Gospel lectionary in our church (published by the Antiochian Orthodox in North America) gives the Mark account as an optional extra reading for August 7th. I have not seen that suggested anywhere else.
The pre-lent time lectionary makes some sense, in the general progression from remembering Birth at Christmas to death at Easter.
Hazeel and the associated murder of Ben Hadad does sit rather uncomfortably in me perhaps there's a thread there.
For the arcane, it also seems to have been upgraded some time between 1662 and the present from a Lesser Festival/Day to a Festival/Day (i.e. an Ordinary one, like an ordinary Sunday or a 'Red Letter Saint' rather than a Principal one like Christmas, Easter or Ash Wednesday).
I have speculated that one of the reasons why Peter and the booths is recorded is that Peter wanted to catch the experience, to make three shrines so as to encapsulate the holy moment so that he and the others could come back to it. The way the event is told demonstrates that this is not possible, is 'not on'.
Two other things I have speculated about with regard to the Transfiguration are:-
1. In all three synoptics, it comes just after Peter's confession that Jesus is the Messiah. Is it Peter, James and John's reward for Peter's recognition, for Jesus to reveal himself in his divine nature? Or is it that Jesus was not prepared to reveal that until at least one of the disciples had recognised who Jesus was without needing supernatural endorsement? Or perhaps a bit of both. And
2. If you had met Jesus on the road or attended one of his teaching occasions, you would have seen someone much like anyone else. His human nature was on the outside and his divine nature was on the inside and invisible. Just briefly on the mountain Jesus revealed himself the other way round, with his divine nature on the outside and visible.
1. Moses represents the Law, Elijah represents the Prophets and both rejoice to see Jesus's day, and
2. Both Moses and Elijah are people who did not, or may not have died and been buried in the conventional way. Elijah was swept up to heaven in a chariot. Moses mysteriously seems to have disappeared on a mountain in the wilderness. Nobody knew where or if he had been buried at all.
In the Orthodox hymnody for the Feast, the Kontakion is:
You were transfigured on Mount Tabor, Christ our God,
and your disciples saw your glory as much as each one could
they would know that you willingly accepted suffering.
and they would go and proclaim to the whole world,
that you, O Lord, are truly
¬ the brilliant Light that shines from the Father.
Why those three? Peter already dominant among the disciples, James the 'kinsman of the Lord' (and future Bishop of Jerusalem), and John 'the beloved disciple' to whom Christ would later entrust his Mother: the same three had privileged access at the raising of the daughter of Jairus, and later in the Garden of Gethsemane.
The obvious early hypothesis for the date would be that they tried to pick an anniversary.
If the association was present at the time of the first feasts, you wouldnt be surprised if the dates vaguely lined up.
I'd heard the booths idea a lot, but now I'm thinking if it was near the feast are they in the right place?
I'm not sure why you'd see Elijah and Moses and think of a feast that's six months away. I know they aren't thinking 100%, but you'd think there'd be some train of thought (if the king randomly came into work, would I jump to wrapping a present?).
At that point I wonder if disciples setting up temporary accomodation was a fairly standard procedure.
"Were going up the hill, while the rabbi prays we set up somewhere to camp afterwards then join in. Oh there's 5 of us now..."
There doesn't seem an obvious logical jump from the two to booths (obviously Moses instituted it, but he did plenty other things).
Maybe it would give the other disciples the wrong idea. I'm currently reading Mark and it's repeatedly mentioned that Jesus spoke plainly about his death but the disciples couldn't or wouldn't accept it. Maybe the glory of the Transfiguration would lead them further up the garden path.
But in that case, why do it at all? Why should this problem not apply to Peter, James and John too?
Wrong James, I think. James, first Bishop of Jerusalem, is not named in the Gospels. This James is the son of Zebedee and brother of John.
I suspect the reason for the order not to speak about till after the Resurrection is because, if they DID speak about it earlier, the story would very likely get out beyond the Twelve--and get Jesus crucified early, messing up his mission plans. I mean, imagine the power such a story would have on people looking for a political/divine Messiah who would lead a revolt against the Romans and restore Israel to her proper place as God's chosen and favored people! No doubt they would take the story as confirmation that he was the one--in all the wrong senses, as Jesus saw it--and they had already at least once (after the feeding of the 5,000) made an effort to forcibly make him king. (I suspect this was a kind of riot, or the beginning of one--Jesus seems to have shut it down, probably by escaping from the scene up the mountain.)
An early crucifixion would certainly screw up Jesus' plans for training his disciples, who needed all the time with him they could get. Even if he avoided the cross till the proper time, having to avoid not only the religious leaders but also the revolutionary wannabees would have messed up his plans. I mean, he certainly couldn't have taught in the temple that final week of his life--and it would have screwed up Palm Sunday as well.
The reason it's safe to talk about it after the Resurrection is that Jesus' enemies all (mostly) think he's safely dead; and Jesus himself has no intentions of altering that impression, at least until Pentecost comes around. He spends a lot of those 40 days before his Ascension in Galilee with his disciples safely away from Jerusalem, his enemies' stronghold; and once he has ascended and the Spirit has come, the issue is moot. The disciples are proclaiming everything Jesus did or said, private or public; and the Transfiguration isn't going to be any more explosive than the bare fact of the Resurrection, let alone the Ascension. At that point they can say everything, because there is no longer any danger of Jesus' mission going off the tracks.
That's not a specifically Anglican understanding. I'm sure it's standard across many Christian confessions.
There's the intriguing reference to the apocryphal Book of Enoch in Jude, of course, the allusion to an angelic/demonic tussle over the body of Moses. The Ethiopians have that in their Bible alongside other texts nobody else includes as canonical.
@jay_emm - is there any indication in scripture (or Tradition) as to the time of year that the Transfiguration took place?
That would help us with the booths reference if it were a matter of weeks away rather than months, say.
The placing of commemorations in ecclesial calendars doesn't always correspond to their chronology as it were. Not sure whether it does or not in this instance.
@Lamb Chopped - interesting suggestions.
From my limited reading it looks like people were expected to go to Jerusalem.
As for a biblical date
(As someone said before) Matthew has it six days after peters affirmation (near Caesarea phillipi), is that associated with anytime? There's quite a few 'around that times' before Jesus goes 'east of the jordan' and palm Sunday.
Mark is basically the same, but explicitly has them back in Galilee after the transfiguration.
Luke is "about eight days later" and seems to go straight into the journey to Jerusalem (but has a lot in there, so many include what Matthew implies is another trip).
John does have Jesus going to booths in Jerusalem, but whether that's before, or after (or contradicting). There's a lot of movement also, including a fake stay in Galilee just before (which doesn't sound totally unlike the transfiguration period of the synoptics)
OK this makes a fair amount of sense to me - so then, what makes James, John and Peter different? What is the Father's purpose in revealing it to these three - who don't seem to quite understand it anyway - at this particular time?
Going back to the question of its historic status in the CofE, I checked in old editions of the 1662 Prayer Book (see my earlier post). In addition to having the Transfiguration as a lesser day on the 6th of August, they also have the 7th of August shown as 'the Name of Jesus'. again as a lesser day. That has now gone from the CofE calendar or more accurately, has been tacked onto the Circumcision which is the 1st January, New Years Day, and the eighth day after Christmas.
Clearly, and obviously, that gets its date by being numbered off from Christmas.
Intrigued, I did a search and discovered from Wikipedia that the Name of Jesus had been on the 7th of August because it had been a date carried over from the practice at Salisbury, Durham, and York before the Reformation.
As they say 'not many people know that', but if you happen to read this post you have now entered those august ranks.
I suspect that, among the twelve disciples, James, John, and Peter were both the longest-established in Jesus' friendship and also the keenies--the ones who were most likely, when Jesus said, "Who wants to go?" to jump up and down like a puppy dog and say, "Me, Lord, me!" They formed a double set of brothers (with Andrew); they had a pre-existing fishing partnership with one another; they had ties to John the Baptist before Jesus got going (see John 1); they were among the first called. And so maybe it's not surprising that they turn up as a group for special events like this one multiple times-- at the healing of Peter's mother-in-law; at Transfiguration; at Jairus' house when Jesus raised his daughter; on the Mt. of Olives for an explanation about his second coming (there with Andrew included); at Gethsemane, closest to Jesus.
The real question to me is why Andrew isn't included more often--and that could easily be explained if Andrew had some individual issue--EDS? asthma? extreme shyness? something--that made him less willing to put himself forward for things like mountain climbing, pushing through crowds, etc. Heck, maybe Andrew was the one that was gone the most often, dealing with family issues for the four of them (because they clearly have ties back home that probably get tended regularly--otherwise, how do they have both the free use of a valuable fishing boat pretty much whenever they want it, AND housing in Capernaum?
As for why the Father chooses this time--I'm not at all sure he chose these three, that seems more Jesus' doing, though of course, anything one member of the Trinity does, the whole Trinity is involved in--
I suspect it's for a couple of reasons. First, there's the general structure of Jesus' training for his disciples. It seems to come in two major parts (which are reflected in the structure of the synoptic Gospels). The first part is, "Who is Jesus?" which begins with his baptism (or infancy stories) and continues structurally to the turning point of Peter's confession "You are the Christ, the Son of God." At which point Jesus immediately moves into part two, "What is Jesus here to do?" with his prediction of his suffering, death and resurrection. That part ends with the actual passion, resurrection, and ascension.
The Transfiguration itself comes right after Peter's confession and underscores the lesson they've finally mastered (well, as far as they can master it, prior to the resurrection and ascension!) and also leads into the new lesson (notably, when Elijah and Moses are said to be speaking about Jesus' "departure (aka Greek "exodus"), which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem." (Luke 9:31) It puts divine confirmation to Peter's answer, and it points them again to the new focus on the passion. So you can see how this event fits beautifully into the whole structure of what Jesus is teaching the Twelve--and more intimately, the three who will be playing major roles in the work of the earliest church. They will certainly share this story with the others as soon as they are let, which is to say, after the resurrection. Certainly they'll have plenty of time for it as they walk to Galilee roughly ten days after the resurrection!
There are other possible reasons why God would put this episode right at this point and not later. It forms a nice bookend with Jesus' baptism and the voice that spoke from heaven saying "This is my beloved Son," etc. (framing the "who is this?" bit of the training, and also of our own Gospel reading). By coming now and not later, it prevents the disciples (and us!) from losing our focus on what Jesus is doing as he gets ready for the passion and resurrection. I mean, this is definitely a case of "Oooh, shiny!" and if it came a few weeks or even months before the crucifixion, I think it would have been a huge distraction. Better to put it as far forward as possible.
There's yet another possible reason why the Trinity might have put it as far forward as sensible, and that is to head off adoptionism, as much as it could be headed off. Suppose this had happened nearer in time to the cross. Certainly some fool would have said, "Oh, this is proof that God adopted the man Jesus as a reward for his faithfulness in accepting his suffering." The earlier the Transfiguration comes, the less possibility there is of anybody saying that, for the simple reason that the cross is not yet on anybody's mind (except for Jesus' own). It's hard to make that ridiculous statement when up to that time all Jesus had done was to work miracles and preach just as any number of previous prophets had done. (Certainly to a much greater extent; but still, it's hardly grounds for adoptionism!)
I hope this makes some sort of sense.
(Oh, and by the by, re an earlier post--Joshua did not remain in his own tent, as I read it; he remained at "the Tent"--that is, the tabernacle. Which is to be expected in someone who prefigures Christ.)