Mat 17:12 . ] that is, as the expected Elias. The subject is the , Mat 17:10 .

] towards him , not classical, but comp. LXX. Gen 40:14 ; Dan 11:7 ; Luk 23:31 .

] indicating the purely arbitrary manner in which they treated him, in contradistinction to the way in which God desired that he should have been received.

REMARK.

The incident of the transfiguration has been regarded as a vision by so early a writer as Tertullian, c. Marc . iv. 22, by Herder, Gratz, Krabbe, Bleek, Weizscker, Pressens, Steinmeyer; it would have been nearer the truth if a distinction had been made between the real and the visionary elements contained in it. We have no vision, but a reality in the glorious change which came over the outward appearance of Jesus, Mat 17:1-2 , that objective element to which the ecstatic subjective manifestation owed its origin. On the other hand, we cannot but regard as visionary the appearing of Moses and Elias, and that not merely in consequence of , Mat 17:3 (Act 2:3 ; Act 7:26 ; 1Ti 3:16 ; 1Co 15:5 ff.), but owing to the vanishing away of the heavenly visitants in the cloud, and the impossibility of any bodily manifestation, at least of Moses (whose resurrection would, according to Deu 34:5 f., have to be presupposed). [461] Moreover, Matthew and Mark themselves represent the manifestation of both in such a way, that it is impossible to assert that they regarded it in the light of an actual fact; notice, on the contrary, the different modes of conception as implied in (not: . ) and , etc. Only in the case of Luke is it manifest that he has followed a tradition which has divested the incident of its visionary character (Luk 9:30-31 ). The of course obvious and common objection, that three persons must be supposed to have witnessed the same phenomena and to have heard the same voice, is deprived of its force if it is conceded, as must necessarily be done, that a supernatural agency was here at work with a view to enable the three leading disciples to have a glimpse beforehand of the approaching glory of Him who was more to them than Moses and the prophets. However, it is attempting too much to attempt to show the higher naturalism of the incident (Lange, L. J . II. p. 904 ff., thinks that the heavenly nature of Jesus flashed forth from under the earthly; that the disciples had actually had a peep into the spirit world, and had seen Moses and Elias, which was rendered possible in their case through the peculiar frame of Christ’s mind and the intercourse with those spirits which He enjoyed), in opposition to which Ewald insists that the event was altogether of an ideal character; that the eternal perfection of the kingdom of God was unquestionably disclosed to view, in such a manner, however, that everything of a lower nature, and which was at all calculated to suggest the form which the narrative ultimately assumed, was lost sight of amid the pure light of a higher sphere of things ( Gesch. Chr . p. 462). To assume as the foundation of the story (Baumgarten-Crusius) only some inward manifestation or other in Jesus Himself, such as led to His obtaining a glimpse of the glory that was to follow His death, is as decidedly at variance with the statements of the Gospels as it is to trace the matter to a vision in a dream (Rau, Symbola ad ill. ev. de metamorph. , etc., 1797; Gabler in the neuest. theol. Journ . 1798, p. 517 ff., Kuinoel, Neander), in connection with which view some have likewise had recourse to the idea of a thunderstorm (Gabler), and the presence of two secret followers (Kuinoel). This way of looking at the matter is not favoured by Luk 9:32 . No less inconsistent with the gospel narrative is the hypothesis of a secret interview with two unknown personages (Venturini, Paulus, Hase, Schleiermacher), in connection with which, again, a good deal has been made of atmospheric illumination, and the effect of the shadows that were projected (Paulus; Theile, z. Biogr. J . p. 55; Ammon, L. J . p. 302 ff.). The mythical view (Strauss, Scholten, Keim) which regards the narrative as a legendary invention, and substantially ascribes its origin to a desire to see the glory of Moses on Sinai repeated in a higher form in the case of Jesus, and to represent the latter as the fulfilment of the law and the prophets can least of all be justified here, where it is not only at variance with the studied unanimity of the evangelists in regard to the date of the occurrence, but also with the fact that the testimony of the three apostles must have gone far to prevent the myth from finding its way into the circle of their brethren; while, as regards the silence of John, it is certainly not to be explained on anti-docetic grounds (in answer to Schneckenburger, Beitr . p. 62 ff., see Strauss, II. p. 250), but it is explicable, to say the least of it, on the ground of his ideal conception of Christ’s mundane , and no more disproves the reality of the incident in question than his silence regarding so many other important historical facts already recorded by the Synoptists. Further, we must regard as purley supjective, and subversive of the intention and meaning of the evangelists, not merely the rationalistic explanation of the incident, according to which Jesus is represented as telling the three disciples in what relation He stood to Moses and Elias , and as thereby bringing them “ into the light of His Messianic calling ” (Schenkel), but likewise the imaginary notion of an admonitory symbol, after the manner of Rev 1:12 ff; Rev 11:3 ff., the historical basis of which is supposed to be contained in the fact that Peter and the first disciples had seen the risen Lord appear in heavenly radiance (Volkmar); and lastly, also the allegorical view (Weisse), according to which we are understood to have before us the symbolical conception, originating with the three enraptured apostles themselves, of the light which then dawned upon them in regard to the mission of Jesus, especially in regard to His relation to the old theocracy.

But, according to Bruno Bauer, the incident is to be regarded as the product of the conviction on the part of the church, that, in the principle on which it is founded, the powers of the past have found their glorified centre of unity.

The passage 2Pe 1:16-18 can be of no service in the way of confirming the historical character of the incident, except for those who see no reason to reject this Epistle as spurious; but it is of great importance, partly as furnishing, all the same, an ancient testimony in favour of the occurrence itself, and the significance attached to it as a historical event; partly in reference to the telic point of view from which it is to be regarded, namely, as a foreshadowing of the impending of the Lord, in which He is to come back again, and into which His most intimate disciples were in this wonderful way privileged to gaze previous to His sufferings, in order that they might be strengthened for fulfilling the difficult task that would devolve upon them after His ascension. So far as the object of the incident is concerned, it must have been intended expressly for the disciples , as is evident from .

According to what has been said above, and judging from what is stated in Mat 9:31 as to the subject of conversation, it may be affirmed that Luke’s account bears the impress of a later stage of development (Fritzsche, Strauss, de Wette, Weisse, Ewald, Weiss), so that in point of originality we must give Matthew the preference (in answer to Schulz, Schleiermacher, Holtzmann, and others), and that even over Mark (comp. Ewald, Kstlin, p. 90; Keim, II. p. 588). See also note on Mar 9:2 ff.

[461] It is thus that Origen, Jerome, and other Fathers consistently argue. According to Hilgenfeld, the “Ascension of Moses” ( N. T. extra canon . I. p. 96; Messias Judaeor . p. 459) was already known to the evangelist; but the Ascensio Mosis belongs, in any case, to a somewhat later period. Grotius saw himself driven to adopt the expedient of supposing that “haec corpora videri possunt a deo in hunc usum asservata ,” very much as Ambrose had maintained that the body of Moses had been exempted from putrefaction . According to Calvin, God had raised the bodies ad tempus . Thomas and several other expositors refer the appearing of Moses to the category indicated by the words: “sicut angeli videntur.” Similarly Delitzsch, Psychol . p. 427 [E. T. 499], according to whom the form in which Moses appeared, and which bore a resemblance to His earthly body, was the immaterial product of his spiritualized psychic nature. Gess, with greater indefiniteness, speaks of the manifestation as a coming forth on the part of Moses and Elias from their state of invisibility. But neither Delitzsch nor Gess satisfies the requirements of the words ., which in any case presuppose a glorified corporeity , or else it amounts to nothing else than a mere appearance. Comp. Beza, who adds: nisi malumus ecstaticam fuisse visionem .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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.

Ver. 12. But I say unto you, that Elias is come ] All that is likely to come, however the Papist Bellarmine (as it were to thwart Christ), by depraving that prophecy in the Revelation touching the two witnesses, which they say are Enoch and Elias, will needs persuade themselves and others, that Elias the Tishbite must come ere Antichrist be revealed. Their arguments I recite not; their author is Papias, who first devised and divulged this fable. Now Papias that ancient millenary, scholar to St John, was a man much respected for opinion of his holiness and learning, but yet homo ingenii pertenuis, saith Eusebius, not much oppressed with wit. But had he been never so absolute otherwise, he was surely out in this. And herein we may truly say of him as the Papists falsely said of another, Berengarius cum esset multum peritus, multum erravit. a But if Papias or any other ancient or modern writer should have said so much against the Popish dotages as this man hath done for them, Bellarmine, likely, would have answered, as in like case he did to Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and Luther, I answer, “they are all arrant heretics.” Omnes manifesti haeretici sunt.

And they knew him not ] As neither did they the Lord of glory, because God had hid him under the carpenter’s son. Christians are all “glorious within,” like the tabernacle, which was gold within and goat’s hair without: like Brutus’ staff, which, as Plutarch reporteth, was gold within, horn without. They are princes in all lands, but as princes in foreign lands, they are untaught and therefore unknown, as the northern proverb hath it. But as, had they known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory: so, did the world know the worth of a saint, of such a one as was the Baptist especially, b they would have given him but too much honour, as Cornelius did Peter, as Chrysostom did Babylas, and as Tertullian did some other martyrs, to whom writing he says, Non tantus sum ut vos alloquar, I am not worthy once to speak unto you.

a Antoninus apud Ussierium, de Christ. Eccles. success, et slatu.

b Magnus atque admirabills vir, si modo viri nomine designari illum fas est. Chrysost. Orat. contra Gentiles.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Mat 17:12 . : Jesus finds the prophecy as to the advent of Elias fulfilled in John the Baptist, so still further reducing the significance of the late vision. The contrast between the mechanical literalism of the scribes and the free spiritual interpretation of Jesus comes out here. Our Lord expected no literal coming of Elijah, such as the Patristic interpreters (Hilary, Chrys., Theophy., Euthy., etc.) supposed Him to refer to in Mat 17:11 . The Baptist was all the Elijah He looked for. : they did not recognise him as Elijah, especially those who professionally taught that Elijah must come, the scribes. , etc. Far from recognising in him Elijah, and complying with his summons to repentance, they murdered him in resentment of the earnestness of his efforts towards a moral (Herod, as representing the Zeitgeist. ). : literally, in him, not classical, but similar construction found in Gen 40:14 , and elsewhere (Sept [104] ). : Jesus reads His own fate in the Baptist’s. How thoroughly He understood His time, and how free He was from illusions!

[104] Septuagint.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

knew = recognized. Greek. epiginosko. App-132.

not. Greek. ou.

have done = did.

unto him = in his case. Greek. en. App-104.

listed = pleased, or willed. Greek. thelo. App-102.

shall . . . suffer = is about . . . to suffer. So in Mat 17:22 and Mat 20:22.

also the Son of man. = the Son of man also.

of = through or by. Greek. hupo. App-104.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Mat 17:12. , but) He teaches that there is not only no inconsistency, but also an actual congruity, between the coming; of Elias and the death of the Messiah.- , they knew him not) although Jesus (Mat 11:14) had openly told it them.[785]- , whatsoever they listed[786]) The death of John is not ascribed to Herod alone; cf. Gnomon on ch. Mat 14:9. Jesus asserts that Elias has come in the person of John the Baptist; John denies it; both truly, if you compare these apparently conflicting statements with the questions to which they were replies. The Jews asked John, whether he were Elias (cf. ch. Mat 27:49)-he, that is to say, who was to come before the second advent, or great and terrible day of the Lord. John therefore replies in the negative. The disciples, comparing the opinion of the Scribes with the discourses of Christ, and endeavouring to reconcile them together, fancied that Elijah the Tishbite would come before the first advent; therefore Jesus replies, that he[787] has already come in the person of John the Baptist.[788]

[785] The world either altogether disbelieves the truth, or else, clinging to mere expectations, refuses to believe the actual fulfilment itself.-V. g.

[786] Whatsoever they listed, and that too owing to their evil and wanton lust. It is this very blind perversity of the world which causes the necessity that one must burst through so many obstacles to a good cause. It not seldom happens, that one who has effected some good, waits in expectation of most splendid recompences from the world on that account. But the man who knows God, the world, and himself, cannot long persist in such an expectation. The merits which receive remuneration of this kind are not spiritual, but worldly.-V. g.

[787] i.e., The Elias, who was appointed to precede the first advent.-ED.

[788] Mat 17:13. , concerning John) not concerning that Elias, or Elijah, whom they had seen, as recorded in Mat 17:3.-V. g.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

and they: Mat 11:9-15, Mat 21:23-25, Mat 21:32, Mar 9:12, Mar 9:13, Mar 11:30-32, Luk 7:33, Joh 1:11, Joh 5:32-36, Act 13:24-28

but: Mat 11:2, Mat 14:3-10, Mar 6:14-28, Luk 3:19, Luk 3:20, Act 7:52

Likewise: Mat 16:21, Isa 53:3-12, Luk 9:21-25, Act 2:23, Act 3:14, Act 3:15, Act 4:10

Reciprocal: Mat 3:1 – John Mat 14:10 – and beheaded Mat 21:25 – baptism Luk 1:17 – in Luk 9:22 – General Luk 20:4 – baptism Act 3:21 – the times

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

7:12

Jesus then explained that it was not in person that Elias was to come. In other words. by describing the treatment that “Elias” received from the people who did not recognize his place in God’s plan, the disciples perceived the point of the Lord.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Mat 17:12. Elijah is come already. Comp, chap Mat 11:14. The prophecy of Malachi had been fulfilled in John the Baptist, so far as the first coming of the Messiah was concerned.

They knew him not. They recognized, neither John the forerunner of the Messiah, nor the Messiah himself. Like persecution followed like unbelief.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 12

Listed; chose.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament