Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 17:10
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come
10. Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? ] The truth of the resurrection was new to the disciples, see Mar 9:10. “If thou art the Messiah,” they say, “and shalt rise from the dead, surely the scribes are wrong in teaching that Elijah must precede the Messiah.”
Jesus shews that the prophecy of Mal 4:5 was fulfilled in John the Baptist. Others contend that our Lord’s words do not necessarily mean this, but that Malachi’s prediction, though partially fulfilled in John the Baptist, should have a more literal accomplishment before Christ’s second coming.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
See also Mar 9:11-13.
Why then say the scribes … – The disciples appear to have been satisfied now that he was the Messiah. The transfiguration had taken away all their doubts, but they recollected that it was a common doctrine among the Jews that Elijah would appear before the Messiah came, and they did not then recollect that he had appeared. To this difficulty the word then refers. We are satisfied that thou art the Christ, but Elijah has not yet come, as was expected; what, then, is the meaning of the common opinions of our learned men, the scribes? Were they right or wrong in their expectation of Elijah? See the notes at Mat 11:14.
Mat 17:11
Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things – He did not mean by this that Elijah was yet to come, for he tells them immediately Mat 17:12 that he had come; but he meant to affirm that it was a true doctrine which the scribes taught, that Elijah would appear before the coming of the Messiah. To restore means to put into the former situation. See Mat 12:13. Hence, it means to heal, to correct, to put in proper order. Here it means that Elijah would put things in a proper state; he would be the instrument of reforming the people, or of restoring them, in some measure, to proper notions about the Messiah and preparing them for his coming. Before the coming of John their views were erroneous, their expectations were worldly, and their conduct were exceedingly depraved. He corrected many of their notions about the Messiah (see Matt. 3), and he was the instrument of an extensive reformation, and thus restored them, in some degree, to correct views of their own system and of the Messiah, and to a preparation for his advent.
Mat 17:12
Elias is come already – That is, John the Baptist has come, in the spirit and power of Elias. See Luk 1:17.
They have done unto him whatsoever they listed – The word list is an old English word, signifying to choose, to desire, to be inclined. See Jdg 3:8. It means, here, that they had done to John as they pleased; that is, they had put him to death, Mat 14:10.
Mark adds Mar 9:12 that Jesus told them that it was written of the Son of man that he must suffer many things, and be set at naught. This was written of him particularly in Isa 53:1-12. To be set at naught is to be esteemed as worthless or as nothing; to be cast out and despised. No prophecy was ever more strikingly fulfilled. See Luk 23:11, Luk 23:14-21. This narrative, with some additions, is found in Mark 9:14-29, and Luk 9:37-43.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 10. His disciples] instead of HIS disciples, some MSS., with the Coptic, Armenian, Vulgate, all the Itala except two, and Origen, read simply, , THE disciples, i.e. those only who had been with him on the mount, Peter, James, and John.
Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?] As the disciples saw that Elijah returned to heaven, knowing the tradition of the elders, and the prophecy on which the tradition was founded, Mal 4:5-6, Behold I send you Elijah the prophet, before the great and terrible day of the Lord shall come; and he shall turn the hearts, &c., it was natural enough for them to inquire what the meaning of the tradition, and the intention of the prophecy, were.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Before these words, Mark saith, Mar 9:10, And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean. Then he addeth, And they asked him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come. The disciples (as appeareth) were as yet very imperfectly instructed in the doctrine of mans redemption by Christ, though Christ had before told them, that as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so he should be three days and three nights in the belly of the earth. How dull the best of men are to apprehend spiritual mysteries, which are above the reach of our reason! The Jews had a tradition, and retain it to this day, That before the coming of the Messias Elias should come; they build it upon Mal 4:4,5. That they had such an expectation appeareth by their sending to John the Baptist, Joh 1:21, to know if he were he, meaning Elijah the Tishbite (for him they expected); and this was their great error, and still blindeth them. The disciples had now seen Elijah, and possibly might wonder at our Saviours forbidding them to speak of the vision, as thinking that nothing could more conduce to the receiving of him as the Messiah: or possibly they might wonder at Elijahs so soon leaving the earth, the Messiah being come, whom they expected he should come before. So as though they were fully satisfied that Christ was the true Messiah, yet they knew not how to reconcile their faith to the promise, or to their tradition built upon the promise. This causeth the question.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And his disciples asked him, saying,…. That is, these three, Peter, James, and John, before they came to the rest; whilst they were going down the mountain, or from it, to the place where the others were; for the rest knew nothing of the appearance of Elias, and so cannot be thought to join in a question concerning him.
Why then say the Scribes, that Elias must first come? That is, come before the Messiah comes; for certain it is, that this was the sense of the Scribes, as it was of the ancient Jews, and is still the opinion of the modern ones. They say h,
“that in the second year of Ahaziah, Elias was hid; nor will he appear, till the Messiah comes; then he will appear, and will be hid a second time; and then will not appear, till Gog and Magog come.”
And they expressly affirm i, that
“before the coming of the son of David, , “Elias will come to bring the good news” of it.”
And this, they say k, will be one day before the coming of the Messiah. And Maimonides l observes,
“that there are of their wise men that say,
, “that before the coming of the Messiah, Elias shall come”.”
So Trypho the Jew, the same with R. Tarphon, so often mentioned in Talmudic writings, disputing with Justin Martyr, tells him m, that the Messiah,
“shall not know himself, nor have any power,
, “till Elias comes”, and anoints him, and makes him known to all.”
And hence the Targumist n often speaks of Messiah and Elias as together, and of things done by them; and in their prayers, petitions are put for them, as to come together o: this is founded upon a mistaken sense of Mal 4:5 and which is the general sense of their commentators p. Now the Scribes made use of this popular sense, to disprove Jesus being the Messiah: they argued, that if he was the Messiah, Elias would be come; but whereas he was not come, therefore he could not be the Messiah. The disciples having just now seen Elias, are put in mind of this tenet of the Scribes, and of their use of it; and inquire of Christ, not so much about the truth of it, and the reason of their imbibing it, as why they were suffered to make use of it, to his disadvantage; and especially why they, the disciples, should be forbid publishing what they had seen; whereas, were they allowed to divulge this vision, and bear their testimony to this truth, that Elias had appeared, and they had seen him, it might be a means of stopping the mouths of these Scribes; and of convicting men of the truth of the Messiahship of Jesus, upon their own principles, and of confirming them that believed it: or else the sense is, whereas they had seen Elias, and he was gone again, without making any public appearance in the nation, their question is, how came the Scribes to say, that he should come first? and if there was any truth in this, how came it to pass, that he did not come sooner, even before Christ came in the flesh; and inasmuch as he did now appear, why he did not appear more publicly, as the person that was to come, at least, before the setting up of the kingdom and glory of the Messiah; which they might hope were at hand, and that Elias was come to usher it in: but that he did not appear publicly, and they were not allowed to speak of it, they wanted to know Christ’s sense of these things; and took this opportunity as they came from the mountain, to converse with him about it.
h Seder Olam Rabba, p. 45, 46. i Gloss. in T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 43. 2. k R. Abraham ben David in Misn. Ediot, c. 8. sect. 7. l Hilch. Melacim, c. 12. sect. 2. m Dialog. cum Tryph. p. 226. n In Exod. xl. 10. Deut. xxx. 4. & Lam. iv. 22. o Seder Tephillot, fol. 56. 2. & 128. 2. p Aben Ezra, Kimchi, & Abarbinel in loc.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Elijah must first come ( ). So this piece of theology concerned them more than anything else. They had just seen Elijah, but Jesus the Messiah had come before Elijah. The scribes used Mal 4:5. Jesus had also spoken again of his death (resurrection). So they are puzzled.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
10. And his disciples asked him, saying. No sooner is the resurrection mentioned than the disciples imagine that the reign of Christ is commenced; (482) for they explain this word to mean that the world would acknowledge him to be the Messiah. That they imagined the resurrection to be something totally different from what Christ meant, is evident from what is stated by Mark, that they disputed with each other what was the meaning of that expression which he had used, To rise from the dead Perhaps, too, they were already under the influence of that dream which is now held as an undoubted oracle among the Rabbins, that there would be a first and a second coming of the Messiah; that in the first he would be mean and despised, but that this would be shortly afterwards followed by his royal dignity. And, indeed, there is some plausibility in that error, for it springs from a true principle. The Scripture, too, speaks of a first and a second coming of the Messiah; for it promises that he will be a Redeemer, to expiate by his sacrifice the sins of the world (483) And such is the import of the following prophecies:
Rejoice, daughter of Zion, behold, thy King cometh, poor, sitting on an ass, (Zec 9:9.)
We beheld him, and he had no form or beauty, and he resembled a leper, so that we had no esteem for him, (Isa 53:3.)
Again, Scripture represents him as victorious over death, and as subjecting all things to his dominion. But we see how the Rabbins corrupt the pure word of God by their inventions; and as every thing was greatly corrupted in the time of our Lord, it is probable that the people had also embraced this foolish notion.
Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first? The gross mistakes which they committed as to the person of Elijah have been pointed out on two or three occasions. (484) Perhaps, too, they cunningly and wickedly endeavored to lessen the authority of Christ by bringing forward Elijah; for as it had been promised that Elijah would come as the forerunner of Messiah, to prepare the way before him, (Mal 3:1,) it was easy to excite a prejudice against Christ, by saying that he came unaccompanied by Elijah By a trick closely resembling this, the devil enchants the Papists of the present day not to expect the day of judgment till Elijah and Enoch have appeared. (485) It may not usually be conjectured that this expedient was purposely resorted to by the scribes, in order to represent Christ as unworthy of confidence, because he wanted the legitimate badge of the Messiah.
(482) “ Ils imaginent que c’est l’entree du regne de Christ, et leur semble qu’ils y sont desia;” — “they imagine that it is the commencement of the kingdom of Christ, and think that they are already in it.”
(483) “ Faisant par son sacrifice satisfaction pour les pechez du monde;” — “making satisfaction by his sacrifice for the sins of the world.”
(484) Among other passages in which our Author has treated of the erroneous notions entertained by the Jews respecting Elijah, the reader may consult his Commentary on John 1:21, 25. — Ed.
(485) “ Iusques a ce qu’on voye Elie et Henoch retourner en ce monde;” — “till Elijah and Enoch are seen returning to this world.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(10) His disciples asked him.The context clearly implies that the question came not from the disciples at large, but from the three who had seen the vision, and were brooding over the appearance, and yet more, perhaps, the disappearance, of Elijah, as connected with the tradition of the scribes. If Elijah was to come and prepare the way, why had he thus come from the unseen world for a moment only?
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
10. Why then say the scribes The word then seems to imply something previously said in their conversation, contradictory to this opinion of the scribes that Elias should first come. This transient appearance was not a coming at all commensurate with the views of the scribes. What foundation then have the scribes, and how is their view reconcilable with the facts?
The Jews still, in accordance with their interpretation of Malachi, expect the coming of Elias as the forerunner of their Messiah, and pray for his appearance in their synagogue worship. They hold that, since his translation, Elias invisibly revisits the world perpetually. They believe him present at circumcisions; and a seat is provided at the right hand of the child which he is supposed to occupy. It is therefore not so much for his coming that they pray as for his manifestation.
‘And his disciples asked him, saying, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must first come?” ’
But the disciples were puzzled. They now accepted that He was the greater than Elijah, and that the last days were here, but why then had Elijah not come as the Scribes had declared? Were they wrong in that belief? Furthermore if Elijah was to restore all things as the Scribes taught, why would the Son of Man be treated in such a way that He needed to be raised? Surely that would mean that the Scribes would be on His side? None of it seemed to make sense. This last would be especially relevant if they had caught on to the fact that it was these very Scribes who would cause Jesus’ death.
The question of the disciples:
v. 10. And His disciples asked Him, saying, Why, then, say the scribes that Elias must first come?
v. 11. And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias, truly, shall first come, and restore all things.
v. 12. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of Man suffer of them.
v. 13. Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them of John the Baptist.
The fact that they had seen the prophet Elijah in the vision on the mountain recalled to their minds the saying of the scribes, probably based on Mal 4:5, as to the coming of Elijah. Their understanding was that Elijah would reappear in person, settle the quarrels between the various Jewish schools, bring back the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod, and sanctify the people by an extraordinary washing. Jesus concedes the correctness of the idea: Elijah, according to the prophecy, was indeed to come for the purpose of restoring everything among the Jews to its proper state, as the Lord wanted it to be. He was to prepare the way for the Lord Himself. But the Lord finds fault with the fact that the scribes and the Jewish people in general did not recognize the second Elijah as such, but did what they pleased with him. The leaders of the people rejected him, and the dissolute, adulterous tetrarch put him to death. He shared the fate of most prophets that place the fearless confession of truth above the concern for their own safety and welfare. From the rejection of His herald to the denial of the Messiah Himself is only a small step; and even in the same manner will they cause Him to suffer. This explanation was sufficient to open the eyes of the disciples; they understood that John the Baptist was the Elijah who was to come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
Mat 17:10 . ] can have no other reference than to the foregoing prohibition (comp. Mat 19:7 ): “Seeing that we are forbidden to tell any one about the appearing of Elias which we have just witnessed, and so on, what reason, then, have the scribes for saying that Elias must first come (before the Messiah appears, to establish His kingdom)?” Does it not follow from Thy prohibition that this teaching of the scribes must be erroneous, seeing that, if it were not so, Thou wouldst not have enjoined us to keep silence regarding this manifestation of Elias? This is likewise in harmony with the answer of Jesus, which is to this effect: “That teaching is quite correct; but the Elias whom it speaks of as being the Messiah’s forerunner is not the prophet who has just been seen upon the mount, but John the Baptist, whom they did not recognise, and so on.” This view is so entirely in accordance with the context as to exclude any others, as, for example, that of Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Kuinoel, who, emphasizing , interpret thus: . ., ; ; or that which ascribes to the disciples the idea, of which there is not the remotest hint, that Christ is going to be revealed before the world in His glory, and that therefore there is really no further room for the manifestation and the services of Elias (Hofmann, Schriftbew . II. 1, p. 518); or that of Grotius, Michaelis, Fritzsche, Lange, Olshausen, Bleek, Hengstenberg, who understand the question of the disciples as referring to the circumstance that Elias had not remained, but had so quickly disappeared again (it was believed, though of this the question contains no hint whatever, that Elias would teach the Jews, settle the disputes among their instructors, restore the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod, and so on; Lightfoot on this passage; Winzer, de , II., 1821, p. 9); or, again, that of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Neander, Krabbe, Ebrard, who suppose that the object of the question was to know whether the manifestation of Elias, which the scribes had in view, was that which had just taken place, or whether it was some other one yet to come; or, lastly, the expedient of Schleiermacher and Strauss, who think that the whole conversation originated in the disappointment felt in consequence of the prediction regarding the coming of Elias not having been fulfilled, and that it has only found its way into the present connection through an erroneous process of combination. According to Kstlin, p. 75, does not refer back to the transfiguration at all, but seems to say: “Seeing that the Messiah is already come,” which is the idea supposed to be contained in Mat 16:13-27 . He thinks the connection has been interrupted by the evangelist interpolating the story of the transfiguration between Mat 16:27 and Mat 17:10 .
D. The Church as wholly unknown and hidden. Mat 17:10-13
(Mar 9:11-13.)
10And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias [Elijah] 11must first come? And Jesus [he]14 answered and said unto them,15 Elias [Elijah] trulyshall first16 come [cometh], and [shall] restore all things.17 12But I say unto you, That Elias [Elijah] is come already,18 and they knew him not, but have done unto him [with him, ] whatsoever they listed [would, ]: likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of [by, ] them. 13Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Mat 17:10. Why then?Although the particle seems at first sight to connect this query with the preceding prohibition of Christ (Meyer), it rather refers to the fact that Elijah had departed, and was not accompanying them (Grotius, Michaelis, Fritzsche, Olshausen, and the author in his Leben Jesu).19 Euth. Zigaben., and others, erroneously interpret the clause: Why did Elijah not come before Thee (not till now)?Equally untenable is the view of Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Neander, who understand it as implying the inquiry, whether the appearance of Elijah which had just taken place was that to which the scribes referred, or whether another was till to be expected. Still more erroneous is the glossary of Schleiermacher and others, that the disciples remarked that Elijah had not yet appeared. Light-foot observes (on the passage): It was expected that Elijah should come and settle the controversies pending between the various Jewish schools, bring back the pot of manna and Aarons rod, and sanctify the people by a lustration.
Mat 17:11. Elijah truly shall first come, or lit. and according to the true reading: Elijah indeed cometh.Jesus confirmed this doctrine, which was based on Mal 3:13; Mal 4:5. He adds: , which is derived (says de Wette correctly) and somewhat enlarged from Mal 4:6, he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers (compare Luk 1:17); and Mat 3:1, and he shall prepare the way before Me (Luk 3:4). Properly speaking, the (according to the Sept. Mal 4:6), comp. Act 3:21, is specially the work of the Messiah, and Elijah could only be said to prepare the way for it. Of course the expression must be understood as merely implying such a preparation. Meyer: A restitutio in integrum of the position and circumstances of the theocracy, which was to be effected by the Messiah, and prepared and introduced by Elijah.In the confirmatory reply of Christ, the present is used in the tense of the future, while the future tense in the next clause indicates that the Lord enters into this dogma. Hence it is not incompatible with what follows: Elijah is already come.
Mat 17:12. But I say unto you.A more distinct explanation of the disclosure which He had already made on an earlier occasion, Mat 11:14. Hence we conclude that the prophecy of Malachi concerning the advent of Elijah was fulfilled, in the proper sense, in the appearance of John the Baptist, who had accomplished the preparatory by his preaching of repentance, by his testimony to Jesus and by pointing his disciples to Him, as well as by his martyrdom.
They knew him not.In his peculiar character as the forerunner of the Messiah (or in respect of the fulfilment of the prophecy concerning Elijah). The persons here alluded to were his contemporaries generally, more especially the scribes ( Mat 17:10). Comp. Matthew 11.
Done unto him, or better: with him.20 , not classical, taken from the Septuagint, Gen 40:14; Dan 11:7; [Luke 33:39].Whatever they would, .In wilful apostasy from their living connection with the prophets, and in opposition to the obedience due to him. A prelude this to the similar and decisive rejection of the Messiah Himself.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. On the fulfilment of the prophecy of Malachi, see the preceding notes and Matthew 11. Otto von Gerlach remarks: It refers to the ministry of one or more messengers of God, in the spirit and power of Elijah. In this sense, Elijah had reappeared in John and in the same sense will another Elijah precede the second coming of the Lord. But we must maintain: 1. That the prophecy of Malachi was distinctly fulfilled in John the Baptist. 2. That in the same sense no other Elijah can come, as the Old Covenant, which both represented, is abrogated by the gospel.Still, in every age, the Lord has His forerunners of the order of Elijah, and especially before His final appearance.
2. On descending from the mountain, the fact of Christs future sufferings is immediately brought forward again. Gladly would the disciples have taken the glorified spirits down with them into the conflict with the unbelief of the world. The question seems to have haunted their minds, Could not Elijah prevent the impending conflict and sufferings? To this mental objection, Christ replied, according to Mark, How it is written of the Son of Man, that He must suffer many things, and be set at nought. In other words, they were to read the prediction concerning Elijah in the light of those concerning the Son of Man. Then follows the declaration: Elijah is indeed come; but, so far from preventing the sufferings of the Messiah, he himself has fallen in the service and ministry of God. From this the disciples might infer what His future would be. And now, more than ever before, were they to feel that they were about to witness the most solemn and awful conflict, and that a deep abyss of suffering, into which they were immediately to descend, intervened between the old and the new order of things. HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The fresh perplexities of the disciples on descending from the Mount of Transfiguration.After the barrier which separates this life from the other has fallen, the deep abyss of the cross opens, intervening between the old and the new order of things.How the scribes by their false literality perverted even the word of God into traditions, and transformed it into dangerous error.The Scripture has been fulfilled in a much wider sense than that elicited by the dead learning of the letter only.How traditionalism fails to recognize Elijah, even while studying his description as given in the word.Self-seeking under the garb of traditionalism.The true Church of the Lord hidden and unknown amidst the old and formal community of Israel.The great messengers of God, known only by report in the world: 1. They were announced, but not properly expected. 2. They came, but were despised and ill-treated. 3. While actually in the world, their future coming was still expected with fanatical anticipations.Even in this world, a distance wide as the poles intervenes between the children of God and the servants of the devil.Traditionalism persecuting and murdering the living prophets, and at the same time adorning the graves of the old prophets whom their fathers had murdered (Mat 23:29).The glorious day of God is hid in this mortal life from the children of darkness.Elijah had just been among them; yet they still continued to expect and to teach that Elijah would come. All Gods dealings and works are spiritual, and pass by unknown and unnoticed on account of the carnal services which men mistake for the reality.The spirit of true religion, and a dead ministry and services.John the Baptist the Elijah of his age: 1. The affinity of their character; 2. of their mission; 3. of their success (Elijah prepared the way for the Messianic propheciesJohn, for Christ Himself).The age of Elijah and that of John 1. The external difference between them (in the one case, unbelief and apostasy from the law; in the other, traditionalism). 2. Their internal agreement (in the one case, worldliness, apostasy, and hatred of the prophets; in the other, obduracy against the voice and reproofs of the Spirit).The sufferings of John a foretaste of the sufferings of Christ.Preserve in your hearts the blessed mystery of the Mount of Transfiguration, and then boldly descend into the terrors of the valley.
Starke:Majus: We must not take in a literal sense what is intended to be spiritually understood in Holy Writ, as this would necessarily give rise to errors.Quesnel: There never was an age which had not its Elijah, zealous and jealous for the honor of God; but woe to him who stops his ears!The world knows not the children and the servants of God, 1Jn 3:1.All witnesses to the truth must suffer sorrow, ignominy, and tribulation, Act 14:22.Jesus the best expositor of Scripture.
Heubner:All preachers of repentance are forerunners of Christ.Great men have commonly the same fate.From the fate of His forerunner, the Lord Jesus might anticipate what awaited Himself., i.e., to restore the ancient, divine, and original order of things. But the main point is, to determine the right date, and what the genuine original really is.Thus we are to go back for our authority to the time of the Apostles, and not, like the Roman Catholics, to the state of things immediately before the Reformation.
Footnotes:
[14] Mat 17:10. is omitted in Codd. B., D., L., Z., etc [also in Cod. Sinait., and in all the modern crit. editions See Tregelles and Alford.P. S.]
[15] Mat 17:11., unto them, is omitted in B., C., D., etc., and by Lachmann and Tischendorf. [The literal tranaslation, therefore, according to the oldest reading, would be: And He answering said.P. S.]
[16] Mat 17:11. , first, is wanting in B.,D., and many other witnesses [also in Cod. Sinait.], and looks like a repetitious insertion from Mat 17:10 and Mar 9:12. [So also Meyer and Alford.]
[17] Mat 17:11.[ ; Lange: Elias kommt freilich und wird Alles wi-derherntellen;, Ewald: Elia zwar kommt und wird Alles wieterherstellin; Conant: Elijah indeed comes and shall restore all things. The present tense in the first verb is simply an assertion of the certainty at the coming of Elijah without reference to the past or future, and involves, therefore, no contradiction with in Mat 17:12. The verb , however, like the English to come, and the German kommen, includes in the nature of the case the significance of the future tense, comp. Joh 4:23 : ; Joh 4:21; Joh 14:8; Joh 16:2, and the part. prs. of the Messiah, Mat 3:11, and the apocalyptic formula: . There is, therefore, no necessity whatever to resort in such cases, after the old fashion, to a supposed Hebraism, an arbitrary enallage temporum. which falls with the assumption that the Hebrew language uses promiscus the past for the future and vice vers, an error which has been amply refuted by Ewald, Krit. Grammat., p. 523 sqq. Comp. also Winers Grammat., 40, p. 237; and Alex. Buttmanns Grammat. des N. T. (Berlin, 1859), p. 176.P. S.]
[18] Mat 17:12.[Better: already come, .]
[19][Alford refers to both, the withdrawal of Elijah from the eyes of the disciples, and the injunction of the Lord lot to tell the vision. How should this be? If this was not the coming of Elijah, was he yet to come? If it was, how was it so secret and so short[illegible]P. S.]
[20][Lange: an ihm gethan]
DISCOURSE: 1378 Mat 17:10-13. And his Disciples asked him. saying. Why then say the Scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him Whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the Disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
IT is desirable that the evidences of our holy religion should be candidly examined, and clearly understood. The three favoured Disciples, Peter, James, and John, had just been admitted to behold a most extraordinary vision of their Lord in a state of transcendent glory, and had received from heaven this direct and audible testimony to his Messiahship, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye him. They had seen, also, Moses and Elias on the holy mount with him, both of them in their embodied state, sent from heaven to converse with him on the subject of his future sufferings and glory [Note: Luk 9:30-31.]. Now, it had been foretold that Elias, i. e. Elijah, should come as the forerunner of the Messiah [Note: Mal 4:5.]; and an expectation of his arrival at that time very generally prevailed among the Jewish people. Yet the Disciples were forbidden by their Lord to report what they had seen and heard, till all the other things which had been predicted respecting his death and resurrection should have been accomplished. The reasons of this prohibition the disciples could not comprehend; since, in effect, it prevented them from giving to the Jews a very strong testimony to the truth of their Masters divine mission. Hence they asked of their Lord an explanation of this matter: Why, then, say the Scribes that Elias must first come, when we are not at liberty to attest his advent? Here was a real difficulty; and it is felt no less by the Jews at this day than it was at that time; it being with them a very principal objection against the Messiahship of Jesus, that Elias, who was foretold as his harbinger, has never yet arrived.
Let us then consider,
I.
The difficulty proposed
Nothing can be more clear than that, if Christ be the Messiah, every prophecy concerning him must be fulfilled But, in the instance before us, it seemed to the Apostles, as it does also to the Jews of the present day, that an important prophecy still needed to be accomplished The solution given of it
Our Lord, in reply to his Disciples, acknowledged that Elias was certainly foretold as his harbinger, but affirmed that he was already come, in the person of John the Baptist Again: In John was fulfilled all that Elias was ordained to execute. He bore the most ample testimony to Christ, as the Son of God, in whom all were to believe, and who by his atoning blood should expiate the sins of the whole world [Note: Joh 1:29-34. with Act 19:4.], and by his Spirit transform men into the image of their God, in righteousness and true holiness [Note: Mat 3:11. These references in h, i, k, should be cited at length.]. Thus he fulfilled the office which God, by the Prophet Malachi, had assigned to the Forerunner of our Lord, Behold, I send my Messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and thus shewed himself a fit representative of that person whom the same prophet afterwards speaks of under the name and character of Elias [Note: Mal 3:1; Mal 4:5.].
To this it is objected, and a strong objection it appears, that John, when interrogated by the Priests and Levites whether he was Elias, distinctly declared that he was not [Note: Joh 1:19-21]; from whence it is said, and with great appearance of reason, that, supposing him to have been Elias, as our Lord affirms him to have been, he, by denying it, betrayed his office, and sanctioned the rejection of his Divine Master: but, as we cannot suppose that so good a man would have acted thus, we must believe what he says, and conclude, of course, that Elias is not yet come.
But it must be remembered, that the Jews expected Elijah the Tishbite to come, and inquired whether John were he: consequently, John was right in denying himself to be that identical person: and the time for the fuller and more explicit development of this point was not yet arrived, their minds being not yet sufficiently prepared for it; as our Lord afterwards said, I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now [Note: Joh 16:12.]. But at this very time did John fully open his office as the Forerunner spoken of by the Prophet Isaiah; saying, I am the voice crying in the wilderness: make straight the way of the Lord, as said the Prophet Isaiah [Note: Joh 1:22-23.]. And, if this declaration of his be compared with the testimonies respecting him by the Prophet Malachi [Note: Mal 3:1; Mal 4:5-6.], he will be found to have given the true answer to the inquiry of the priests, and that which alone, at that time, they were able to receive.
If it be still objected, that because neither Elias in person came, nor did John ever bear his name, the prophecy has therefore not been fulfilled; I answer, that to speak of one person under the name of another whom he represents, is not uncommon, either in the Scriptures or in classic authors. Of the Jews, after their return to their own land, God says, I will set up one Shepherd over them, even my servant David; and I will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them [Note: Eze 34:23-24; Eze 37:24-25 and Hos 3:5.]: yet was it never supposed by the Jews that David was to come again in person to reign over them in that day; but only, that their Messiah should come under the name of David, by whom he was typically represented. Let this be conceded, as it must of necessity be; and the whole difficulty is solved at once: and we are prepared for that which we are next to contemplate,]
III.
The inference to be deduced from it
We say, then, without fear, that Jesus is the Christ, the Saviour of the world 10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
Ver. 10. Why then say the scribes, &c. ] Christ had answered them this question once before; but they were unsatisfied by anything he could say, because strongly possessed with the conceit of an earthly kingdom. But the occasion of the question might be this. Our Saviour had forbidden them to tell any man the vision; hence they might thus debate it. Forasmuch as Elias must first come (so the scribes teach, and they have a text for it, Mal 4:5 ), and now he is come, as we have seen in the mount, why shouldest thou, Lord, forbid us to tell it abroad, since this might be an effectual argument with the Jews to move them to acknowledge thee for the true Messiah? To this our Saviour answereth.
10. ] The occasion of this enquiry was, that they had just seen Elias withdrawn from their eyes, and were enjoined not to tell the vision. How ( ) should this be? If this was not the coming of Elias, was he yet to come? If it was, how was it so secret and so short?
On Mat 17:12 , see note on ch. Mat 11:14 .
Our Lord speaks here plainly in the future , and uses the very word of the prophecy Mal 4:6 . The double allusion is only the assertion that the Elias (in spirit and power) who foreran our Lord’s first coming, was a partial fulfilment of the great prophecy which announces the real Elias (the words of Malachi will hardly bear any other than a personal meaning), who is to forerun His greater and second coming.
Mat 17:10 . , etc.: does the refer to the prohibition in Mat 17:9 (Meyer), or to the appearance of Moses and Elias, still in the minds of the three disciples, and the lateness of their coming (Euthy., Weiss), or to the shortness of their stay? (Grotius, Fritzsche, Olsh., Bleek, etc.). Difficult to decide, owing to fragmentariness of report; but it is most natural to take in connection with preceding verse, only not as referring to the prohibition of speech pro tem ., but to the apparently slighting tone in which Jesus spoke. If the recent occurrence is not of vital importance, why then do the scribes say etc.? To lay the emphasis (with Weiss) on , as if the disciples were surprised that Moses and Elias had not come sooner, before the Christ, is a mistake. The advent would appear to them soon enough to satisfy the requirements of the scribes just at the right time, after they had recognised in Jesus the Christ = Thou art the Christ we know, and lo! Elias is here to prepare the way for Thy public recognition and actual entry into Messianic power and glory. The sudden disappearance of the celestials would tend to deepen the disappointment created by the Master’s chilling tone, so that there is some ground for finding in a reference to that also.
Mat 17:11 . : present, as in Mat 2:4 , praesens pro futuro , Raphel ( Annotationes in S.S.), who cites instances of this enallage temporis from Xenophon. Wolf ( Curae Phil. ), referring to Raphel, prefers to find in the present here no note of time, but only of the order of coming as between Elias and Christ. It is a didactic, timeless present. So Weiss. . This word occurs in Sept [103] , Mal 4:5 , for which stands in Luk 1:17 : ; the reference is to restitution of right moral relations between fathers and children, etc. Raphel cites instances of similar use from Polyb. The function of Elias, as conceived by the scribes, was to lead Israel to the Great Repentance. vide on this, Weber, Die Lehren des T. , pp. 337 8.
[103] Septuagint.
10.] The occasion of this enquiry was, that they had just seen Elias withdrawn from their eyes, and were enjoined not to tell the vision. How () should this be? If this was not the coming of Elias, was he yet to come? If it was, how was it so secret and so short?
On Mat 17:12, see note on ch. Mat 11:14.
Our Lord speaks here plainly in the future, and uses the very word of the prophecy Mal 4:6. The double allusion is only the assertion that the Elias (in spirit and power) who foreran our Lords first coming, was a partial fulfilment of the great prophecy which announces the real Elias (the words of Malachi will hardly bear any other than a personal meaning), who is to forerun His greater and second coming.
Mat 17:10. , …, how then, etc.) To the mention of His death they oppose the restitution of all things by Elias, whom (see 17:31) they suppose to have come; and they think that this fact ought not to be concealed, but, on the contrary, published for the promotion of the faith, that the event may be recognised as already corresponding to the expectation of the Scribes.-, first) sc. before the Messiahs kingdom.
Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come
Cf Mat 11:14; Mar 9:11; Mar 9:12; Mar 9:13; Luk 1:17; Mal 3:1; Mal 4:5; Mal 4:6 All the passages must be construed together.
(1) Christ confirms the specific and still unfulfilled prophecy of Mal 4:5; Mal 4:6 : “Elias shall truly first come and restore all things.” Here, as in Malachi, the prediction fulfilled in John the Baptist, and that yet to be fulfilled in Elijah, are kept distinct.
(2) But John the Baptist had come already, and with a ministry so completely in the spirit and power of Elijah’s future ministry Luk 1:17 that in an adumbrative and typical sense it could be said: “Elias is come already.” Cf; Mat 10:40; Phm 1:12; Phm 1:17 where the same thought of identification, while yet preserving personal distinction, occurs. Joh 1:27
Why: Mat 17:3, Mat 17:4, Mat 11:14, Mat 27:47-49, Mal 4:5, Mal 4:6, Mar 9:11, Joh 1:21, Joh 1:25
Reciprocal: Mal 3:1 – and he Mar 6:15 – it is Elias Luk 9:8 – General Rev 20:4 – the souls
7:10
The disciples mistook the Elias spoken of by the scribes to be that prophet literally, who was to announce the mission and divinity of Jesus. Now they were forbidden to make a like statement until after that divinity has been proved by the resurrection. If they were not allowed to make statements on that subject, why should Elias be permitted to do so.
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
[Why therefore say the scribes that Elias must first come?] I. It would be an infinite task to produce all the passages out of the Jewish writings which one might concerning the expected coming of Elias: we will mention a few things in passing which sufficiently speak out that expectation, and the ends also of his expected coming.
I. Let David Kimchi first be heard upon those words of Malachi, “Behold, I send you Elias the prophet”: “God (saith he) shall restore the soul of Elias, which ascended of old into heaven, into a created body, like to his former body: for his first body returned to earth when he went up to heaven, each element to its own element. But when God shall bring him to life in the body, he shall send him to Israel before the day of judgment, which is ‘the great and terrible day of the Lord’: and he shall admonish both the fathers and the children together to turn to God; and they that turn shall be delivered from the day of judgment,” etc. Consider whither the eye of the disciples looks, in the question under our hands. Christ had commanded in the verse before Mat 17:9; “Tell the vision” of the transfiguration “to no man, until the Son of man be risen from the dead.” But now, although they understood not what the resurrection from the dead meant, (which Mark intimates,) yet they roundly retort, “Why therefore say the scribes that Elias shall first come?” that is, before there be a resurrection and a day of judgment: for as yet they were altogether ignorant that Christ should rise. They believed, with the whole nation, that there should be a resurrection at the coming of the Messias.
2. Let Aben Ezra be heard in the second place: “We find (saith he) that Elias lived in the days of Ahaziah the son of Ahab: we find also, that Joram the son of Ahab and Jehoshaphat, inquired of Elisha the prophet; and there it is written [2Ki 3:11], ‘This is Elisha the son of Shaphat, who poured water upon the hands of Elijah.’ And this is a sign that Elias was first gone up into heaven in a whirlwind: because it is not said ‘who poureth water,’ but ‘who poured.’ Moreover, Elisha departed not from Elijah from the time that he first waited upon him until Elias went up. And yet we find that, after the death of Jehoshaphat, in the days of Ahaziah his son it was written, ‘And a letter came to him from Elijah the prophet.’ And this proves that he then writ and sent it: for if it had been written before his ascension, it would be said, a letter was found or brought to him, which Elias had left behind him. And it is without controversy, that he was seen in the days of our holy wise men. God of his mercy hasten his prophecy, and the times of his coming.” So he upon Malachi 4.
3. The Talmudists do suppose Elias keeping the sabbath in mount Carmel: “Let not the Trumah (saith one), of which it is doubted whether it be clean or unclean, be burnt; lest Elias, keeping the sabbath in mount Carmel, come and testify of it on the sabbath that it is clean.”
4. The Talmudical books abound with these and the like trifles: “If a man finds any thing that is lost, he is bound to declare it by a public outcry; but if the owners come not to ask for it, let him lay it up by him until Elias shall come.” And, “If any find a bill of contract between his countrymen, and knows not what it means, let him lay it up until Elias shall come.”
5. That we be not tedious, it shall be enough to produce a few passages out of Babylonian Erubhin; where, upon this subject, “If any say, Behold, I am a Nazarite, on the day wherein the Son of David comes, it is permitted to drink wine on the sabbaths and feast-days,” it is disputed what day of the week Messias shall come, and on what day, Elias: where, among other things, these words occur, Elias came not yesterday; that is, the same day wherein he comes he shall appear in public; and shall not lie hid to day, coming yesterday. The Gloss thus: “If thou sayest, perhaps he shall come on the eve of the sabbath, and shall preach the gospel on the sabbath; you may answer with that text, ‘Behold, I send you Elias the prophet, before the day of the Lord come’: you may argue, that he shall preach on that very day in which he shall come.”
“The Israelites are certain that Elias shall come, neither on the sabbath eves, nor on the eves of the feast days, by reason of labour.” And again, Elias cometh not on the sabbath day. Thus speak the scholars of Hillel: “We are sure Elias will not come on the sabbath, nor on a feast day.” The Glossers give the reason, “Not on the sabbath eves, or the eves of the feast days, by reason of labour”; that is, by reason of the preparation for the sabbath; namely, lest they should leave the necessaries for the sabbath unfinished, to go to meet him: “Nor on the sabbaths, by reason of labour” in the banquets; that they omit not those feastings and eatings which were esteemed so necessary to the sabbath, whiles they went out to meet Elias.
Let these three observations out of the Glossers upon the page cited serve for a conclusion: —
1. Before the coming of the Son of David, Elias shall come to preach of him.
2. “Messias cometh not on the first day of the sabbath; because Elias shall not come on the sabbath.” Whence it appears that Elias is expected the day before the Messias’ appearing.
3. Is not Messias Ben Joseph to come first?
II. We meet with numberless stories in the Talmudists concerning the apparitions of Elias: according to that which was said before by Aben Ezra, “It is without controversy that Elias was seen in the days of our wise men.” There is no need of examples, when it may not be so much doubted who of these wise men saw Elias, as who saw him not. For my part I cannot esteem all those stories for mere fables; but in very many of them I cannot but suspect witchcrafts, and the appearances of ghosts, which we also said before concerning the Bath Kol. For thus the devil craftily deluded this nation, willing to be deceived; and even the capacity of observing that the coming of the Messias was now past was obliterated, when here and there, in this age and in the other, his forerunner Elias appeared, as if he intended hence to let them know that he was yet to come.
Mat 17:10. Why then? The connection with what precedes is, according to Alford: If this was not the coming of Elijah, was he yet to come? If it was, how was it so secret and so short?
Here we have the disciples’ question, and our Saviour’s answer. They ask our Saviour, how the observation of the Jewish doctors holds good, that Elias must come before the Messias come? We see the Messias, but we see no Elias; our Saviour answers, that Elias was come already: Not Elijah in person, but one in the spirit and powers of Elias; one of his spirit and temper; to wit, John the Baptist, who was prophesied of under the name of Elias. And great indeed was the resemblance between the Elias of the Old Testament, and of the New, namely John the Baptist; they were both born in bad times; they were both zealous for God and religion; they were both undaunted reprovers of the faults of princes; and they were both hated and implacably persecuted for the same.
Learn, that hatred and persecution, even unto death, has often been the lot and portion of such as have had the zeal and courage to reprove the faults of princes; Elias is come, and they did unto him whatsoever they would.
Mat 17:10-13. His disciples asked, &c. Being much surprised at the sudden departure of Elias, and at their Masters ordering them to keep his having appeared a secret, they had no sooner finished their dispute about what the rising from the dead should mean, than, addressing themselves to Jesus, they said, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come Before the Messiah, if no man must know of his coming? As if he had said, Since Elias has gone away so soon, and since thou orderest us to keep his appearing a secret, how come the scribes to teach, on all occasions, that Elias must appear before the Messiah erects his empire? As they supposed that Elias was to have an active hand in modelling and settling the Messiahs kingdom, they never doubted that he would abide a while on earth; and knowing that the scribes affirmed openly that Elias was to appear, they could see no reason for concealing the thing. Jesus answered, Elias truly shall first come, and restore, or regulate, all things Jesus not only acknowledged the necessity of Elijahs coming before the Messiah, according to Malachis prediction, but he assured his disciples that he was already come, and described the treatment he had met with from the nation in such a manner as to make them understand that he spake of John the Baptist. At the same time he told them, that though the Baptists ministry was excellently calculated to produce all the effects ascribed to it by the prophets, they need not be surprised to find that it had not all the success which might have been expected from it, and that the Baptist had met with much opposition and persecution. For, said he, both the person and the preaching of the Messiah himself shall meet with the same treatment.
Verse 10
The sublime and solemn scene which these disciples thus witnessed completed to their minds the proof that Jesus was the Messiah. They, however, knew not how to reconcile this truth with the fact that Elijah had not yet reappeared; as he, according to the general understanding of prophecy, was personally to precede Christ.
The disciples in view seem to be Peter, James, and John (cf. Mat 17:14). It seems unlikely that the disciples viewed Elijah’s appearance in the Transfiguration as the fulfillment of Mal 4:5-6. If they did, their question would have been, Why did Messiah appear before Elijah when the scribes taught the reverse order of appearances? Moreover Elijah’s appearance in the Transfiguration did not turn the hearts of the people back to God.
Peter, James, and John’s question evidently arose over an apparent inconsistency involving Jesus’ announcement of His death. Elijah’s appearance on the mountain probably triggered it. Elijah was to come and turn the hearts of the people back to God before Messiah appeared (Mal 4:5-6). If that restoration happened, how could Jesus die at the hands of Israel’s leaders (Mat 16:21)? The disciples were struggling to understand how Messiah’s death could fit into what they believed about the forerunner’s ministry.
Notice that from the Transfiguration on these disciples had no further doubts about Jesus’ messiahship.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
3. All mere traditionalism and ritualism are here denounced as arbitrary will-worship, and a demoniacal service of the flesh and of self. The blessed spirits who represented genuine and divine traditionthe prophets, restorers and reformers of the kingdom of Godreceived the same treatment at the hands of these guardians of outward and legal traditionalism, as civilized men do who land on inhospitable shores, inhabited by savages and cannibals. In short, they failed to understand and see what their own symbols implied, nor did they acknowledge their living embodiments, because their will was perverted, and, while feigning the strictest adherence to the letter of the law, they in reality served the will of the flesh.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
ELIJAHS ADVENT IN JOHN BAPTIST
[St. Peter, affirming that he and his fellow-Apostles had not followed cunningly-devised fables, appeals to this very evidence which he and they had been favoured with, when, on Mount Tabor, they were made eye-witnesses of Christs Majesty, and heard from the excellent glory the voice which bare witness to him. But, aware that they might be suspected of having conspired together to propagate and maintain a falsehood in confirmation of some favourite system of their own, he appeals further to the more sure word of prophecy, which never did, nor could, issue from men, (since it was delivered at such distant periods and places as to preclude a possibility of a conspiracy between the persons delivering the predictions,) but which proceeded entirely from the Holy Spirit of God, who, at many distant ages, stirred up and inspired holy men to speak the things which should afterwards, in due season, be brought to pass [Note: 2Pe 1:16-21. This I judge to be the true scope and meaning of this difficult passage.]. And doubtless prophecy, taken in this view, is the strongest of all evidences, that the religion established by it, proceeds from God. On the other hand, if there were so much as a single prophecy unfulfilled, that one failure would be sufficient to subvert all the fabric that was built on ten thousand prophecies; since God cannot but fulfil his own word, nor can so much as a jot or tittle of it ever fail of its accomplishment [Note: Luk 16:17.]. Hence, when all things relating to our Lords death had been fulfilled, except the offering of vinegar to him in his extremity, he said, I thirst: and then, after tasting of the vinegar, he gave up the ghost [Note: Joh 19:28-30.]. We may assume it, therefore, as an unquestionable truth, that the Scripture cannot in any single instance be broken [Note: Joh 10:35.].]
[We wonder not that the Apostles were unable to account for the prohibition which they had received, and which seemed to disappoint the reasonable expectations of the Jews. Nor do I wonder that the Jews at this day lay a considerable stress on this, as invalidating the claims of Jesus to the Messiahs office. I grant them all that they can desire; and willingly concede to them, that if this difficulty cannot be removed, they are justified in rejecting the Lord Jesus, and in looking for a Messiah yet to come.]
But let us, for the removing of this difficulty, attend to,
[John was born in a preternatural way, of parents who were at an advanced period of life. And the Angel who announced his formation in the womb declared, that he should turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God; and should go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to (with) the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord [Note: Luk 1:13-17.]. Now this distinctly applied to John the very prophecy on which the Jews founded their expectation of Elias, [Note: Mal 4:5-6.] and which our blessed Lord declares in my text to have been fulfilled in him.
[To the testimony of John our Lord himself appealed [Note: Mat 21:25-26.]: but he had greater witness than that of John, even the works which he wrought [Note: Joh 5:33; Joh 5:36.]; and to these he appealed, for the satisfaction of the messengers whom John sent to him, to inquire whether he were the Christ [Note: Mat 11:2-6.]. He acknowledged indeed, that, under existing circumstances, there was some difficulty in receiving John the Baptist as the representative of Elijah: If ye will receive it, this is Elias which was for to come [Note: Mat 11:14.]. But that difficulty being removed, I will bear the same testimony to Christ as this Elias did: He is the Son of the Living God, even Emmanuel, God with us [Note: Mat 1:21-23.]. He is that Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world: nor is there a person in the world whose iniquities, though red like crimson, shall not, when washed in his blood, become white as snow [Note: Isa 1:18. Zec 13:1. 1Jn 1:7.] Moreover, if only we believe in him, he will baptize us with the Holy Ghost and with fire, even as he did the three thousand on the day of Pentecost. Beloved brethren, think of all that ye can need, for body or for soul, for time or for eternity; and assure yourselves that ye shall find it all in him: for there is a fulness of it all treasured up in him; and out of that fulness shall ye all receive, according to the utmost extent of your necessities or desires. Nor would I have you discouraged by the reception which this testimony receives from an ungodly world. John Baptists testimony was rejected by the Scribes and Pharisees, who said, He had a devil [Note: Mat 11:18. Luk 7:30.]: yet was his testimony true. And the wise and mighty of this world may reject our testimony also: yet is it true; and it shall be found true ere long, to the grief and shame of those who reject it, and to the unutterable comfort of all who truly and cordially receive it. Our testimony, in few words, is this; That God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son: he that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath, not the Son of God hath not life [Note: 1Jn 5:11-12.]. And so far are we from wishing any one to receive it without inquiry, that we challenge inquiry from every living man; and pledge ourselves, that the more the evidences of this blessed truth are examined, the more satisfactory will they be found; and that the more cordially the truth itself is embraced, the more influential will it become, for the comforting and sanctifying and saving of every believing soul.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)