Confused - Elijah's coming

[JRKH]

There is no evidence that the Pharisees ever asked a neutral question.

Jesus saw their hearts and called them a brood of vipers. Not because they had an erroneous understanding of scriptures, but because he taught them how to read the scriptures when he was 12 years old, and they knew who he was, and instead told lies about him.

So - are you sure that the Pharasees that came ot John on the Jordan were the same “teachers”, whom Jesus “taught” some 18 years earlier?

From all the other evidence it was a question to entrap John, just as every question asked of Jesus was intended to entrap him.

But Jesus never denied who he was. He usually turned the question around. John did not do this. John gave an unequivical “No” to the question.

I would prefer to call the Pharisees liars, since Jesus did, than to call John a liar. There is one scripture… as one reads it he distrusts God, and another finds confirmation in God’s goodness.

Please do not misread my intent. I do not distrust God. Nor is it my intent to call anyone a “Liar”. I am simply presenting issues that I see and allowing others to comment.

Peace
James

 

[pcromwell]

I suppose it could be possible, but consider this:

We are taught that Jesus knew who He was and what His mission was from childhood.
We Know that Elizebeth, John’s mother, knew that John’s cousin Jesus was the Messiah. (Luke 1:43) Also we see by John’s reaction in the womb that He was aware of the Jesus the Messiah (Luke 1:44). Luke even references Elijah in the announcement of John’s coming to Zecheriah. (Luke 1:17)

We also see John recognizing Jesus, his cousin, when Jesus came to the Jordan for Baptism. John tries to refuse Jesus saying, “…I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?” (Mt 3:14)

It would seem that John well knew, even in the womb. It also seems likely the Jesus and John, being cousins, and living not that far apart, had contact growing up. It seems heighly unlikely that they would not have discussed, over scripture, their coming mission.

In the face of all this, it seems unlikely that John did not know that he was intended as the Elijah “type”.

Peace
James

God the Father of God the Son, I believe revealed Jesus’s mission over time. When you read Mt 3:14 and compare that to Mt 11: 2-6, you get the sense, that it wasn’t as clear to John the Baptist as you think. Obviously we are not getting the entire story. I still believe that John did not know that he was “the Elijah type” fortold in Mal. Jesus, however, definitely knew. John, I believe, told the truth when asked the question: Are you Elijah?

Peter

 

[Benadam]

The Pharisees asked John the Baptist if he was Elijah because they understood that John had pronounced that he was performing the work attached to Elijah’s mission.

[

](Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 1)

John 1:23He said: I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord,** as said the prophet Isaias.**

He told them he was fulfilling this prophecy.

[ the paths of our God.**
**Isaias 40:3The voice wilderness

There was no ambiguity in what John revealed about himself for the Jewish lawyers. They were hoping for something they could debate and deny.

How is it that you are Elijah? Were you born into another body from another womb?

Anything more about how he was the person isiah wrote about would have only given fodder for Jesus’ enemies to scandalize the ears of those who could hear. A child could understand what John meant when he claimed to be that voice in the wilderness. The Pharisees only sought to cause doubt but John wouldn’t add words to what was already made as plain as could be.

](Douay-Rheims Bible, Isaias (Isaiah) Chapter 40)

 

[Benadam]

God the Father of God the Son, I believe revealed Jesus’s mission over time. When you read Mt 3:14 and compare that to Mt 11: 2-6, you get the sense, that it wasn’t as clear to John the Baptist as you think. Obviously we are not getting the entire story. I still believe that John did not know that he was “the Elijah type” fortold in Mal. Jesus, however, definitely knew. John, I believe, told the truth when asked the question: Are you Elijah?

Peter

We have to keep in mind that the Lord giveth He can take away. In the height of awareness that being ‘filled’ with the Holy Spirit is there is no doubt about what is true.

And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

67 And Zachary his father was filled with the Holy Ghost; and he prophesied, saying: 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; because he hath visited and wrought the redemption of his people: 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation to us, in the house of David his servant: 70 As he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets, who are from the beginning:

*Neither Elizabeth nor Zachary remained in a state like that. They were lifted up in union with the Holy Spirit and He shared with them what things looked like from His eyes. When it’s over it becomes a memory and a matter of faith. *

*In prison John was being prepared for a death that in it’s own way prepared the way. He was about to die for his faith in who he was in relation to Jesus. This is John’s final test, the less God has to give the more John’s love is revealed. *

*John asked for reassurance from Jesus during His personal Gethsamene. You are He and *I am the one who prepares the way?

 

[JRKH]

The Pharisees asked John the Baptist if he was Elijah because they understood that John had pronounced that he was performing the work attached to Elijah’s mission.

Quote:
John 1:23He said: I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaias.

Nicely answered. But then we come to the question (discussed elsewhere on this forum) of telling a lie, a falsehood, in order to gain a higher good. We as catholics are taught that we are not to do wrong in order to achieve right. That the end does not justify the means.
So based on this, we must presume that John did NOT know that he was Elijah or the Elijah “type”.
Yet even this causes problems when looking at how this effected the salvation, not of the Jewish nation per-se, but certainly of individuals.
John’s outright denial of being “Elijah” or the “Elijah type” who precedes the Messiah certainly prevented those of closed hearts from debating him on the matter, but it most certainly also caused others who may have believed in Jesus to deny Him because “Elijah” had not yet come.
John’s flat out denial of being what Jesus later revealed him to be (but only to three of the apostles) just seems rather misleading to some of the sheep that Jesus came to save.

As I have said before, I am rather dense on much of this - Which Is why I try to keep my faith very simple. So please forgive me if I seem “contrary”. But all of the discussion back and forth about “types” and “metaphors” and “who knew what when”, does not really alleviate my basic concern that there could be someone, perhaps even one of the lawyers sent by the Pharasees, who is in hell right now for not believing in Jesus based primarily on John outright denial of being “Elijah”.

And this can lead to another question in regard to the second coming.
Someone earlier said that Elijah will precede Christ at the second coming. So here again, will it be the literal Elijah or another Elijah “type”? How can we know which it will be since apparently the Jews were looking for a literal Elijah, but got an Elijah “type” who denied being Elijah. And if John did not know he was the Elijah type would any future Elijah type “Know”.
It’s enough to reduce one to - - blua, blua, blua, blua:hypno::hypno::banghead:

Peace
James

 

[rcjones]

Please do not misread my intent. I do not distrust God. Nor is it my intent to call anyone a “Liar”. I am simply presenting issues that I see and allowing others to comment.

Nicely answered. But then we come to the question (discussed elsewhere on this forum) of telling a lie, a falsehood, in order to gain a higher good. We as catholics are taught that we are not to do wrong in order to achieve right. That the end does not justify the means.
…

I don’t think I misread your intent. How else did I know you would eventually get around to calling someone a liar? As I said earlier, there is no such thing as a neutral question. Because there is no such thing as a neutral heart.

God clearly teaches that he speaks in riddles, so there is no excuse for those who wish not to delve into his allegory and metaphor. When you have been told the method of his communication, it is disingenuous to make speaking in riddles and lying a moral equivalent.

Prov 1:5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: 
6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.

Ps 49:3 My mouth shall speak of wisdom; and the meditation of my heart shall be of understanding. 
4 I will incline mine ear to a parable: I will open my dark saying <02420> upon the harp.

Pr 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Nu 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches <02420>; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? 

Ps 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings <02420> of old:

Eze 17:2 Son of man, put forth a riddle <02420>, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;

Da 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences <02420>, shall stand up.

Pr 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

As I have said before, I am rather dense on much of this - Which Is why I try to keep my faith very simple. So please forgive me if I seem “contrary”. But all of the discussion back and forth about “types” and “metaphors” and “who knew what when”, does not really alleviate my basic concern that there could be someone, perhaps even one of the lawyers sent by the Pharasees, who is in hell right now for not believing in Jesus based primarily on John outright denial of being “Elijah”.

How did I know that you choose not to trust God? I can guarantee that anyone in Hell deserves to be there, because God is a just God.

 

[the_Assyrian_1]

And this can lead to another question in regard to the second coming.
Someone earlier said that Elijah will precede Christ at the second coming. So here again, will it be the literal Elijah or another Elijah “type”? How can we know which it will be since apparently the Jews were looking for a literal Elijah, but got an Elijah “type” who denied being Elijah. And if John did not know he was the Elijah type would any future Elijah type “Know”.
It’s enough to reduce one to - - blua, blua, blua, blua:hypno::hypno::banghead:

Hi James,

In reference to the above query, I think I need to start by declaring the following; " A lot of people have mis-understood Malachi 3:19-23, it referrs to the ENd of the WORLD rather than the first coming of Christ… (if we take into account what people have mentioned in this forum) AND more importantly God expounds scripture Himself when He explains in verse 19 referring to that Day as “the Day is coming, glowing like a furnace”…

I have read in Early Christian Documents/texts that it will be the Literal decent of BOTH Enoch and Elijah as the two witnesses to be slain by the Anti-Christ at the ENd of the world. They will die, become equal in death to every other man, before the “great and awesome Day of Yahweh” as quoted in verse 23 (Malachi 3)…These two witnesses are mentioned in Revelation.

So I dont believe God was quoting John the Baptist when he spoke of Elijah in this verse…! The rest you can figure out, using some discretion and wisdom…

But excellent opening question, its something I certainly myself have wondered, but whenever I dont understand something, I always given A) God the benefit of the doubt. And if Im honest over the years, God has answered ALL my questions. Thanks be to GOD. Amen.

Peace to you…
Mark out xx

 

[Benadam]

So based on this, we must presume that John did NOT know that he was Elijah or the Elijah “type”.
Yet even this causes problems when looking at how this effected the salvation, not of the Jewish nation per-se, but certainly of individuals.
John’s outright denial of being “Elijah” or the “Elijah type” who precedes the Messiah certainly prevented those of closed hearts from debating him on the matter, but it most certainly also caused others who may have believed in Jesus to deny Him because “Elijah” had not yet come.

s

Theology hadn’t developed an understanding of ‘types’ untill the real thing ( who was among them) was revealed. As for your thinking John lied he didn’t. If he told them he was Elijah he would have lied. Elijah is alive and well just out of sight. Elijah didn’t stop being Elijah and change into John. Just as you couldn’t stop being you and change into someone else. If someone asked a friend of yours if they were you and your friend said " I am" he lied. John may not have had words to attach to the concepts surrounding how his vocation is perfectly formed by the spirituality of Elijah, especially since he seemed so remote from him in their sight. The last of the diciples of Elijah, also known as the brotherhood of prophets, and the first, because he was given that double portion so coveted by Elijah’s son Elisha.

The Pharisees didn’t know of these things, and these things didn’t have words yet so that they could be uttered.
Besides what the Pharisees meant when they asked their question wasn’t what John the Baptist was ,or could be, so instead of lieing to them he told them all he was given to tell them.

 

[JRKH]

I don’t think I misread your intent. How else did I know you would eventually get around to calling someone a liar? As I said earlier, there is no such thing as a neutral question. Because there is no such thing as a neutral heart.

God clearly teaches that he speaks in riddles, so there is no excuse for those who wish not to delve into his allegory and metaphor. When you have been told the method of his communication, it is disingenuous to make speaking in riddles and lying a moral equivalent.

How did I know that you choose not to trust God? I can guarantee that anyone in Hell deserves to be there, because God is a just God.

While I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut rc, I must ask that you stick to answering the questions,
Your assumptions as to my intent are wrong - period.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Theology hadn’t developed an understanding of ‘types’ untill the real thing ( who was among them) was revealed. As for your thinking John lied he didn’t. If he told them he was Elijah he would have lied. Elijah is alive and well just out of sight. Elijah didn’t stop being Elijah and change into John. Just as you couldn’t stop being you and change into someone else. If someone asked a friend of yours if they were you and your friend said " I am" he lied.

So then how does this square with Jesus statement that "**Elijah had come **and they did with him as they wished?
Do you see what I mean?
Each time someone offers an explanation on one end of this, it opens a problem on the other. I suppose it is a conumdrum without a fully satisfactory solution.

John may not have had words to attach to the concepts surrounding how his vocation is perfectly formed by the spirituality of Elijah, especially since he seemed so remote from him in their sight. The last of the diciples of Elijah, also known as the brotherhood of prophets, and the first, because he was given that double portion so coveted by Elijah’s son Elisha.

The Pharisees didn’t know of these things, and these things didn’t have words yet so that they could be uttered.
Besides what the Pharisees meant when they asked their question wasn’t what John the Baptist was ,or could be, so instead of lieing to them he told them all he was given to tell them.

In all honesty I think that you have perhaps hit closest to home with this - There were not (indeed may still not be) words to adequately explain this. At least not to expalin it to this simple brain of mine.

Peace
James

 

[rcjones]

While I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut rc, I must ask that you stick to answering the questions,
Your assumptions as to my intent are wrong - period.

Peace
James

Then I apologize. You started with a question implying that God was a liar, then accidentally ignored good responses by all others, and accidentally conclude that God must be a liar.

I am sorry that I attributed intent to you. I will have to pay much closer attention to what I am reading. Please forgive my carelessness. There probably aren’t words to explain how I could make such a mistake. I am over 50 so sometimes us old folks just go off wild.

By the way, it is called “concept feeding in the question”. It is a well known technique for manipulation. All the accusations against God are implied rather than stated plainly to give the speaker a shield from culpability.

But since you have used it accidentally, I certainly won’t attribute intent in the future.

Peace, Love, Brotherhood, Puppies

 

[the_Assyrian_1]

dear James,

Another thought for you to consider;

How would you pronounce the coming of Christ? Through a Prophet? Through Elijah?

Under the heading in John 1:19 it reads “The witness of John”, where he both denies being both Prophet and Elijah, how about you, have you ever denied the Prophetic gift in You to someone who is offensive? I know I have.

To Christians, He is Both, Prophet and Elijah (as further referred to)… that doesnt change a thing in regards to the Jews. What did Christ say of them…? "the Children of the kingdom will be cast out! " It is highly probable they had drifted away from the precepts of God, and they had become loathsome to Him. Who was the gospel coming to? A rebuke for the ungodly and the gospel for the sheep. Furthermore John testified that He is the chosen One of God. If you simply read John 1:19 - 34, I cant put it better than that, it dispells any confusion and explains his position beautifully. I see no conflict here.

As the saying goes, ]“The head of prophecy was cut off with John the baptist” thats why for instance we dont accept Islam…

Good luck.

 

[chosen_people]

Thank you.

Could you please provide the references to Elijah’s and whether it was seen as “Literal” or “figurative” by the Jews?

Peace
James

Biblical source: Malachi 3:23-24

The second messianic criterion of the Messiah ben David is that he will be anointed King of Israel. The Messiah ben David must descend from David who was King of Israel and therefore his descendant must also be anointed King of Israel. Normally Jewish prophets or a High Priest anoint Jewish kings with oil. In fact the term “messiah” means anointed with oil and in a messianic context refers to an anointed king. Prophets anoint Jewish kings because they are messengers of God and authenticate the right to kingship (see the examples of prophets anointing Jewish kings in 1 Samuel 15:1 and 1 Samuel 16:1,13).

One of the reasons that the prophet Malachi prophesied that Elijah would return prior to the coming of the Messiah ben David is to anoint David’s messianic descendant King of Israel.

(based on “Twenty-six reasons why Jews don’t believe in Jesus” by Asher Norman)

 

[JRKH]

Then I apologize. You started with a question implying that God was a liar, then accidentally ignored good responses by all others, and accidentally conclude that God must be a liar.

I am sorry that I attributed intent to you. I will have to pay much closer attention to what I am reading. Please forgive my carelessness. There probably aren’t words to explain how I could make such a mistake. I am over 50 so sometimes us old folks just go off wild.

By the way, it is called “concept feeding in the question”. It is a well known technique for manipulation. All the accusations against God are implied rather than stated plainly to give the speaker a shield from culpability.

But since you have used it accidentally, I certainly won’t attribute intent in the future.

Peace, Love, Brotherhood, Puppies

Apology accepted.
I too am “over 50” and have been known to make “rash judgements”. Spending time here though has helped me learn to be very careful about attributing motives to the posts of others. Especially people with many posts. In sincere people do not generally hang around as long as I have.

I will not deny that the, “Lieing concept”, crossed my mind as we have been discussing, however I dismiss such things outright since God is not a Liar, nor is Jesus Christ, nor would be John, acting as he was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Yet in spite of all of that, my mind struggles to grasp how two such opposing statements could be in the bible.

As to the “concept feeding…” thingie that you mention above, I never heard of it. I am not philosophically trained, in fact I have a high school diploma and an assciates degree in Machine Design. I spent the last 15 plus years of my career working in Quality Control. None of which taught me any formal philosophy, theology, or the “techiniques” of debate or argumentation. With me, what you see is what you get, with no "underlying intents or agenda’s, except for my desire to learn more about My God and to share His Love.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

dear James,

Another thought for you to consider;

How would you pronounce the coming of Christ? Through a Prophet? Through Elijah?

Under the heading in John 1:19 it reads “The witness of John”, where he both denies being both Prophet and Elijah, how about you, have you ever denied the Prophetic gift in You to someone who is offensive? I know I have.

I am sorry to say that I too have denied, even to myself, the truth of the faith in the past. I have also been silent when I should have spoken up. I fully accept these things as faults within me.
So are you saying that John’s denial of being either prophet or Elijah were a fault in the same vein as our own faults? I will admit I had never thought of that.

To Christians, He is Both, Prophet and Elijah (as further referred to)… that doesnt change a thing in regards to the Jews. What did Christ say of them…? "the Children of the kingdom will be cast out! " It is highly probable they had drifted away from the precepts of God, and they had become loathsome to Him. Who was the gospel coming to? A rebuke for the ungodly and the gospel for the sheep. Furthermore John testified that He is the chosen One of God.

You will note that Christ’s statement above is “future tense”.
Who was John baptizing in the Jordan? Was it not the Jews that he was calling to repentance?
Jesus also said that the Gospel was to go first of all to the Jews. That was His primary mission. It was left it the Apostles and to The Church to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles.

If you simply read John 1:19 - 34, I cant put it better than that, it dispells any confusion and explains his position beautifully. I see no conflict here.

OK

As the saying goes, ]“The head of prophecy was cut off with John the baptist” thats why for instance we dont accept Islam…

Can’t say that I ever heard that before. It seems to bring up another question - If prophesy stopped with John, then how could St Paul speak of Prophesy as a Gift of the Holy Spirit and How can you, in your post, speak of “denying the Gift of prophesy that is in you”?
Sounds like another thread brewing here.

Good luck.

Thanks and to you as well.

Peace
James

 

[the_Assyrian_1]

Hi James,

Thanks for your reply, read with much interest…

So are you saying that John’s denial of being either prophet or Elijah were a fault in the same vein as our own faults? I will admit I had never thought of that.

You got my point (since I believe I am filled with the Holy Spirit) but I will let you consider the following; Also, I am saying that John’s denial is because God was angry at their conduct because His wisdom is revealed to “babes” and not to the “learned of the world”, John denying being both is evidence to this… because God has issues with their conduct in denying the more important parts of the Law, (how) if I may say; they misunderstood it, or annulled it by their conduct as Christ points out in Luke 11 verses 39 & onwards I think. I also would not refer to the “denial” as a fault, because of the Holy Spirit within him and his wisdom. Besides being God fearing, he gave them an accurate description of who he was. Its ironic how a heading detailing “the witness of John” starts with an accussation from the pharisees, questioning his integrity, they did the same to Christ, *“we dont know where this fellow is from!” * they said. God is the victim in this line of questioning and had been for a long time. The witness is in Isaiah, “the voice of one crying in the desert” repeated in Matthew Mark Luke and John.

You will note that Christ’s statement above is “future tense”.
Who was John baptizing in the Jordan? Was it not the Jews that he was calling to repentance?
Jesus also said that the Gospel was to go first of all to the Jews. That was His primary mission. It was left it the Apostles and to The Church to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles.

Good question. As a semi-seasoned Christian, I will attempt to give you an answer. Yes His statement was future tense, but if they did they not repent and believe they would be the fulfilment of being cast out of the kingdom. Remember “the stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone” He spoke this against them, argueably this is future tense as well…? But in my mind it refers to the past, because He knew his destiny. Spoken of (in scripture) 500/thousand years before it happened… does that make it future tense? present or past now? Its concurrent (i.e relevant) where ever you are. If you believe it now, it has power and true, it has revelance to the past, and future in my mind.

I acknowledge that the Gospel was first for the Jew before the gentile. I will come to my point, in that I believe God was calling sinners to repentance, not the wicked which is what they were. In my mind their is a distinction between a sinner and a wicked person. God is forgiving of the sinner, but is against the wicked. There is evidence for this throughout the Pslams. Though be it they were the house of Isreal. Still wicked. Who persecuted the Prophets before Him? But we read later that (through Paul) that God had given them over to disobediance in order to have compassion on them. I believe the call today is to still evangelise the Jew and dispell any myth. Again Im not referring to the wicked, but the unsaved, the sinner by definition, i.e without Christ.

Can’t say that I ever heard that before. It seems to bring up another question - If prophesy stopped with John, then how could St Paul speak of Prophesy as a Gift of the Holy Spirit and How can you, in your post, speak of “denying the Gift of prophesy that is in you”?

Im not denying the “gift” of prohecy that comes from the Holy Spirit. We as Christians have this gift (to varying degrees), I acknowledge this. You have a point. Perhaps the teaching is inaccurate? I would be ready to discuss this. I suppose I see Christians as the Children of God rather than prophets of God. Since the Revelation of the Son of God, we are Now all Sons (adopted sons) of God. I believe this is a better way of referrencing the people. Those “gifts” we talked about remain as gifts but we are more than the gift we posses… that is the point I making… So it sounds inaccurate to my trained ear and furthermore deceptive, and a little simple also; since we are to test those who claim themselves to be Prophets… Also, Paul said, if an angel appears to you and preaches another gospel, let it be accursed" in my mind this “other gorspel” could/ would only be in prophetic format, so I look sceptically over this type of thing. We have revelation, the future, the Holy Ghost, God inside, why call your self a “lover” if you posses love? Well as you can see this is a little subjective. Im not argueing, this is just a question of language/ English.

Peace to you James…

 

[Benadam]

Prophecy as speaking of the present related exclusively to a future, is over. Prophecy as speaking of the present is always in relation to Jesus who for us is both in the past and the future. How many people still think of foreseeing future events as the the only expression of the prophetic spirit.

 

[alitaptap]

Did Elijah represent a prophet other than Jesus?

 

[NotWorthy]

Did Elijah represent a prophet other than Jesus?

John the Baptist.

Just as Elijah brought Elisha to the Jordan river and gave him a double portion of his Spirit as he transferred his power over to Elisha,

John met Jesus at the River Jordan, where Jesus received the Holy Spirit and John began to “decrease as Jesus increased”.

 

[alitaptap]

John the Baptist.

I think Elijah is a prophet from OT. Was the event of Elijah’s death documented?