Chapter # 9 Paragraph # 2 Study # 3
February 21, 2023
Moss Bluff, Louisiana
(382)
1901 ASV
9:11 And they asked him, saying, [How is it] that the scribes say that Elijah must first come?
9:12 And he said unto them, Elijah indeed cometh first, and restoreth all things: and how is it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be set at nought?
9:13 But I say unto you, that Elijah is come, and they have also done unto him whatsoever they would, even as it is written of him.
- I. The Necessity Of Elijah's Coming Before The Kingdom Does.
- A. The question's roots.
- 1. Are not really in the "ignorance" of the disciples regarding Malachi 4:5.
- a. They may have actually been ignorant of the Malachi prophecy, but it is highly unlikely.
- 1) They knew the scribes taught that Elijah had to precede Messiah.
- 2) This strongly implies that they also knew that the scribes had a basis in Scripture for that teaching.
- b. But, for sure, their very recent experience (in which Elijah was present), and their knowledge that some of the people were saying that Jesus might be Elijah (6:15), is an indicator that "Elijah must come first" was a cardinal doctrine of the scribes and may have been a part of their rationale for their arrogance in 3:22 (if "Elijah" hasn't come, Jesus is not the Messiah, so His power must be from Beelzebul).
- 1) Thus, what is the biblical doctrine regarding the coming of Elijah?
- 2) The issue of a predecessor whose coming would "prepare" the people for the coming of The Christ has its foundation in Isaiah 40 where Isaiah prophesies of a "voice" that will summon the people to the "attitude" that is necessary for the coming of "The Lord".
- a) In Malachi 3:1 the prophet declares that "The Lord of Hosts" says "...I will send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me...".
- b) It is not until Malachi 4:5 that this "messenger" is given a name: Elijah. Up to this point, the "messenger" could be anyone.
- c) Neither John the Baptizer, nor Mark in his introduction to John in his prelude, claim John was a fulfillment of Malachi 4:5, but both identify him as Isaiah's "voice in the wilderness".
- d) In the prophecies of Daniel, the "Messiah" is "cut off and has nothing" after the sixty-ninth set of seven. This has to mean that "Messiah" is going to come, but He will be "cut off" and denied the establishment of the Kingdom at that time. These same prophecies indicate that Messiah will come to destroy the human imperial kingdoms after they have run their determined courses and establish the Kingdom so that the saints can inherit that promised Kingdom.
- 2. Are actually in the experience to which Jesus had just exposed them: they saw the Kingdom having come with power.
- a. If Jesus' transfiguration on the mountain was "the Kingdom's coming with power", then Jesus had to be the Messiah.
- b. So, were the scribes just deceived about the timing of the coming of Elijah?
- 1) They were not deceived about the necessity of Elijah's coming "before the great and terrible Day of the Lord": that is what Malachi declared would happen.
- 2) But they were obviously ignorant of the fact that there was to be a prior coming that would result in Messiah being "cut off" so that He has nothing. It is to this reality that Jesus points The Three when He quizzes them on the doctrine of The Son of Man's suffering of many things and being "set at naught". This is the same issue that Jesus addressed on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:25-27.
- c. If the Kingdom could come on the mountain, why could it not come upon the whole earth?
