|
|
| Line 94: |
Line 94: |
| ==What did John the Baptist restore?== | | ==What did John the Baptist restore?== |
|
| |
|
| The Greek verb ἀποκαταστήσει, “will restore,” is drawn verbatim from the Septuagint (LXX Mal 3:23), where, however, the object clause is “the heart of the father to the son and the heart of a man to his neighbor” (the Hebrew of Mal 4:6 is only slightly different). | | Let’s first look at the Greek. The Greek phrase in Matthew 17:11 to “restore all things” is “αποκαταστησει παντα”. |
|
| |
|
| The future tense, therefore, does not suggest that Jesus expects a future return of John the Baptist. The restoration of “everything” (πάντα) must here refer not to the renewal of the present order itself (which would make Elijah the Messiah himself, rather than the forerunner of the Messiah), as, for example, apparently in Acts 1:6 (especially the cognate noun ἀποκατάστασις, “restoration” or “establishing,” in Acts 3:21 in an allusion to the return of Jesus), but to a preparatory work of repentance and renewal (as in the Malachi passage; see especially Luke 1:17). | | The meaning of αποκαταστησει is to “reestablish, restore; cure, make well; send or bring back”<ref>Barclay M. Newman Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament. (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; United Bible Societies, 1993), 21.</ref>. As a result, we read the following alternate translations: |
|
| |
|
| 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>
| | John Wesley's Translation |
| | :''And Jesus answering said to them, Elijah truly doth come first, and will regulate all things. <ref> John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the Old and New Testament: Translation (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2012), Mt 17:11.</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>
| | Literal Translation from the Original Tongues |
| | :''And Jesus having answered, said to them, Elias truly comes first and will re-establish all things. <ref> Julia E. Smith, trans., The Holy Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments; Translated Literally from the Original Tongues (Hartford, CT: American Publishing Company, 1876), Mt 17:11.</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>
| | God's Word Translation |
| | :''Jesus answered, “Elijah is coming and will put everything in order again. <ref> GOD’S WORD Translation (Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 1995), Mt 17:11.</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.
| | The restoration of “everything” (πάντα) refers not to the renewal of the present order itself (which would make Elijah the Messiah himself, rather than the forerunner of the Messiah) but to a preparatory work of repentance and renewal (see Luke 1:17).<ref>Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, vol. 33B, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1995), 499.</ref> |
|
| |
|
| Ulrich Luz, Matthew: A Commentary, ed. Helmut Koester, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2001), 400.
| | The restoration that John the Baptist brought was the promised restoration we see throughout the prophets that God – a restoration that would bring the nation of Israel their Messiah. (Jer 15:19; 16:15; 24:6–7; 31:31–34; 50:19–20 [27:19–20 LXX]; Ezek 34–37; Hos 11:8–11; Amos 9:11–15).<ref> David Turner and Darrell L. Bock, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Vol 11: Matthew and Mark (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2005), 476.</ref> |
| | And Jesus goes on to observe that Elijah’s mission, to restore the people of God, was met with opposition, and that this same opposition will lead to the death of the Son of man.<ref>W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 2, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 715.</ref> |
|
| |
|
| | It is clear that Mark understands John the Baptist to have accomplished his mission successfully, since everyone in Judaea and Jerusalem went to him, confessing their sins and being baptized; the task of the promised Elijah was thus completed, and everything put in order.<ref>Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel according to Saint Mark, Black’s New Testament Commentary (London: Continuum, 1991), 220.</ref> |
|
| |
|
| ἀποκαθιστάνει πάντα summarises the account in Mal. 4:6 of Elijah’s mission of restoring (LXX ἀποκαταστήσει) family relationships, a mission which is further developed in Ben Sira 48:10 in the clause καταστῆσαι φυλὰς Ιακωβ. He was to prepare the people for the eschatological coming of God by removing sinful division from among them. The NT accounts of John the Baptist do not emphasise this theme, but at this point Jesus is not recounting the experiences of the new Elijah, but spelling out the content of the scribal expectation.
| | 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. |
| | |
| R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2002), 359.
| |
| | |
| The Gr. text speaks of the “restoration of all things.” This promise throughout the prophets that God would bring the nation of Israel into a golden era came to include messianic expectations (Jer 15:19; 16:15; 24:6–7; 31:31–34; 50:19–20 [27:19–20 LXX]; Ezek 34–37; Hos 11:8–11; Amos 9:11–15)
| |
| | |
| David Turner and Darrell L. Bock, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Vol 11: Matthew and Mark (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2005), 476.
| |
| | |
| The idea that Elijah would preach repentance was presumably common and can also be seen in Revelation 11:1–13.
| |
| | |
| Elijah has in fact already come. But Jesus goes on to observe that Elijah’s mission, to restore the people of God, was met with opposition, and that this same opposition will lead to the death of the Son of man.
| |
| | |
| <ref>W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 2, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 715.</ref>
| |
| | |
| | |
| The account of John’s ministry in Matthew 3 supplies clear links with the prophecy of Mal 4:5–6: John preached the coming of judgment and warned people to repent so that they would escape its terror, and his requirement of baptism as a mark of that repentance and new beginning was a potent symbol of the “restoration” of those of the tribes of Israel who were willing to respond.
| |
| | |
| 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>
| |
| | |
| | |
| The reference is to the final verses of Malachi, where Elijah is sent by God before the “great and terrible day of the LORD” to restore righteousness and harmony in human relationships (Mal 4:5–6;
| |
| | |
| James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Mark, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: Eerdmans; Apollos, 2002), 274.
| |
| | |
| Jesus indeed affirms Elijah’s role of restoration. “ ‘To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things.’ ” The hope of the disciples, in other words, is ultimately correct. But something equally essential must happen before the final restoration on the Day of Yahweh. There is another testimony in Scripture, less welcome but no less important. It is raised in a counterquestion of Jesus in 9:12b. If the restoration of righteousness and peace for which all people long is immediate and impending, then why do the Scriptures testify that a righteous suffering figure must necessarily precede the final restoration of the Day of the Lord?
| |
| | |
| James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Mark, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: Eerdmans; Apollos, 2002), 274.
| |
| The fact that the Scripture also affirms that the Son of Man must experience suffering and rejection, however, indicates that Elijah’s task as the restorer cannot signify what the disciples apparently believe it to mean. The reference to the sufferings of the Son of Man is undeniably abrupt, but serves to qualify the facile assumptions of the disciples as well as the scribes and responds to the more fundamental, unexpressed question concerning the necessity for suffering which lies hidden in the question of verse 11.
| |
| | |
| William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 325.
| |
| | |
| The response to the disciples’ question concerning Elijah by a further question concerning the rejection of the Son of Man has a deeper intention, however. Basic to Jesus’ understanding of Elijah’s function is the restoration through repentance promised in Mal. 4:6, and fulfilled in the prophetic ministry of John the Baptist. Verse 12b serves as a warning that the sufferings of John and his shameful rejection do not disqualify him from fulfilling the role of Elijah nor do Jesus’ sufferings discredit him as the transcendent Son of Man.
| |
| | |
| William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 326.
| |
| | |
| One difficulty with this reply is the statement that Elijah puts everything in order (ἀποκαθιστάνει πάντα). How can John the Baptist be said to have put all things in order? The difficulty has led some to punctuate v. 12a as a question, but since this is a clear reference to the Old Testament, it is better to understand it as an affirmation. In his presentation of John in 1:2–8, Mark clearly understands him to have accomplished his mission successfully, since everyone in Judaea and Jerusalem went to him, confessing their sins and being baptized; the task of the new Elijah was thus completed, and everything put in order.
| |
| | |
| Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel according to Saint Mark, Black’s New Testament Commentary (London: Continuum, 1991), 220.
| |
| | |
| If Elijah has indeed come, the disciples must rethink what it means for him to “restore all things.” They can no longer think in terms of eschatological triumphalism.
| |
| Elijah’s mission, according to Malachi 4:6, was to restore the hearts of the fathers to their children (see also Sir. 48:10). Did John the Baptizer/Elijah successfully execute that purpose when all Judea and Jerusalem came for baptism, confessing their sins (Mark 1:5)? Or did he fail because so many refused to repent (see 11:31)? If he failed, it bodes ill for the land because Malachi’s prophecy also threatens destruction: God sends Elijah to transform hearts “or else I will come and strike the land with a curse” (Mal. 4:6). According to Mark 13:12, this transformation has not taken place. Jesus predicts, “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death,” and warns that the holiest site in all the land, the temple, will soon lie in ruins (13:2).
| |
| | |
| | |
| David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 347.
| |
| | |
| the Markan Jesus is not affirming that Elijah restores all things, as in the usual interpretation (“Elijah is indeed coming first to restore all things” NRSV), but questioning it. Denniston (Greek Particles, 366–68), to be sure, implies that men invariably expects a positive answer, but as Weisse (Geschichte, 1.545) already noted in 1838, men can be used for questions that presuppose an affirmative answer on the part of the addressee but a negative one on the part of the questioner (see, e.g., Aristophanes, Birds 1214, and Euripides, Ion 520). When 9:12a is taken as a question, the verse as a whole makes better sense, since the continuation, which speaks of the suffering of the Son of Man, does not confirm the reference to Elijah’s restoration of the world but contradicts it. If Elijah had already restored everything before the Messiah came, if the breach in human relations had already been healed, as promised in Mal 4:5–6, what need would there be for the Son of Man’s suffering (cf. Wellhausen, 76; Marcus, Way, 99)?
| |
| | |
| Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 27A, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2009), 644–645.
| |
| | |
| | |
| 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. | | 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. |