11,153
edits
Matthew 17:11: Difference between revisions
→What did John the Baptist restore?
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
Only an interpretation of this kind can make possible Jesus’ identification of John the Baptist with Elijah in Matthew 17:12. In short, Jesus responds initially by fully agreeing with the scribes in their understanding of Malachi’s prophecy that Elijah is to come and accomplish his preparatory work. It is only in the astonishing conclusion now to be drawn that Jesus parts company with the scribes.<ref>Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, vol. 33B, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1995), 499.</ref> | Only an interpretation of this kind can make possible Jesus’ identification of John the Baptist with Elijah in Matthew 17:12. In short, Jesus responds initially by fully agreeing with the scribes in their understanding of Malachi’s prophecy that Elijah is to come and accomplish his preparatory work. It is only in the astonishing conclusion now to be drawn that Jesus parts company with the scribes.<ref>Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, vol. 33B, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1995), 499.</ref> | ||
The restoration he brought must thus have included his ministry of preaching and the widespread repentance to which it led. Full restoration of course awaits Christ’s return (Acts 1:6; 3:21)<ref>Craig Blomberg, Matthew, vol. 22, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 266.</ref> | |||
Elijah’s function is to usher in the events that will (through the atoning work of Jesus) restore the pristine blessedness.<ref>Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), 443.</ref> | |||
Jesus first takes up the Jewish expectation and formulates it “biblically” with the words of Mal 3:23* (LXX). As there, ἀποκαταστήσει appears in the future tense. Did Matthew think that Elijah would appear again before the parousia of Jesus? That is improbable, since the order of the two returns of Elijah in vv. 11–12* would then be reversed. | |||
Ulrich Luz, Matthew: A Commentary, ed. Helmut Koester, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2001), 400. | |||
| Line 98: | Line 106: | ||
But while some of the people had recognized the validity of John’s message, most of those in positions of religious leadership in Jerusalem had not (see Matthew 21:25, 32). If Jesus is carrying on where John left off, he cannot expect to meet with any better treatment at the hands of those who are threatened by their reforming zeal (though in Jesus’ case they will in fact be different hands; the vague “at their hands” leaves the reader with a sense of generalized opposition). So the appearance of Elijah on the mountain, while it has testified to the heavenly glory and authority of the Messiah, is also (through the experience of John, the second Elijah) a pointer to the earthly fate of the Messiah which he has so graphically predicted in Matthew 16:21.<ref>R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co., 2007), 654–655.</ref> | But while some of the people had recognized the validity of John’s message, most of those in positions of religious leadership in Jerusalem had not (see Matthew 21:25, 32). If Jesus is carrying on where John left off, he cannot expect to meet with any better treatment at the hands of those who are threatened by their reforming zeal (though in Jesus’ case they will in fact be different hands; the vague “at their hands” leaves the reader with a sense of generalized opposition). So the appearance of Elijah on the mountain, while it has testified to the heavenly glory and authority of the Messiah, is also (through the experience of John, the second Elijah) a pointer to the earthly fate of the Messiah which he has so graphically predicted in Matthew 16:21.<ref>R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co., 2007), 654–655.</ref> | ||
What was the meaning of Malachi’s prophecy? The scribes had done their job well in concluding “Elijah must come first.” Their insistence on this point, however, was determined to a large extent by their presupposition about how the prophecy's fulfillment had to occur, and it was probably motivated by their unwillingness to accept Jesus or his message. | |||
As they saw nothing in John’s fate in Herod’s prison that corresponded with their expectations of Elijah, so also they saw nothing in Jesus’ claims or in his humility that corresponded with their conception of the Messiah. And when he was crucified, that served only to confirm that he could not have been the Messiah. | |||
Thus their rigid, preconceived notions tragically caused them to be blind to the very heart of God’s mission in his Messiah. What was required of them was to revise their preconceptions and to understand, with Paul among other Jews, that “Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:23), rather than being a self-contained and intolerable contradiction, is the glorious high point of God’s promises to Israel—and through Israel to the nations of the world.<ref>Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, vol. 33B, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1995), 500.</ref> | |||
Followers of the message have similar pre-conceptions to the Pharisees. They see the truth only unfolding in one way and thus miss what God is doing in the world today. | |||