Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 15

Matthew 11:13, 14, Jesus is made to say, "All the prophets and the law prophesied until John, and if ye will receive it, this is Elijah which was for to come." See the same passage in Luke 16:16. From this it would seem that it was intended to inculcate a belief, that the law and the prophecies had only a certain temporary object in view, which was to find its point of completion in John, a contemporary of Jesus. On the other hand, Jesus declared in Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (see our opinion on this subject in Chapter 19 of the First Part of this work). We would ask the question, how did he fulfil the predicted ingathering of the Ten Tribes, and the carrying on of the war against Gog and Magog? We would also notice a discrepancy between the opinion held out in this chapter of Matthew, that John was the Elias (Elijah) of the Bible, and the following statement made by the author of the Gospel of John: "And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Art thou the Prophet? And he answered. No."

Let's remember that fulfillment ≠ prediction, as I have already argued. I would also respond to Troki's question with a question: which prophecies is Jesus disqualified from fulfilling? If he was indeed resurrected, then he has as much time as he wants to fulfill prophecies in any order that he chooses. Who is Troki to insist that Jesus fulfill everything within the span of 40 years, instead of 4,000 years?

The really interesting question here is whether John the Baptist was Elijah or not. Jesus said that he was, and John said that he was not. Let's look at the two quotes in context and see if that helps.

Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. (Matthew 11:11-15)

And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.” So they said to him, “Who are you? We need to give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” He said, “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.” (John 1:19-23)

As you can see, merely quoting the two passages in context does not solve the dilemma, although it does shed some light on it. Matthew emphasizes the coming of the age, while John is emphasizing the man's humility. Because John denies being Elijah, this should eliminate the possibility of saying that John is Elijah reincarnated. The Tanakh teaches resurrection, which is not compatible with reincarnation. As we can see in Daniel 12, "coming again" means being resurrected in a glorified body, not reborn into a different form.

Luke clarifies the dilemma:

But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb. And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.” (Luke 1:13-17)

This is the distinction that we were looking for. John is not literally Elijah, as he himself noted. Instead, he occupies the office of Elijah, as the great prophet of his day. This is in the same context that Tiberius was Caesar. He was not literally a member of the Caesar family, but he held the position, rank, and office that both Julius and Augustus held.

Notice also that John is not denying that he is a prophet. He is denying that he is THE Prophet. This is a reference to Deuteronomy 18:15 "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen." John was not denying that he was a prophet, but that he was Messiah.

I'll conclude with a quote from A. Lukyn Williams:

John is the greatest of the prophets, yet the least in the kingdom of heaven; the weakest and most insignificant of those who believe in Me, has greater privileges than he. For a great change has taken place. True religion is no longer a matter of birth and early training. It is obtained by personal grasp of faith. Only men of real determination seize the kingdom for themselves. For now has come that consummation to which the prophets, and even also the Law itself, looked forward, so that their work is done. If we may explain the meaning in another way, we may say that as the moon and the stars are not abolished by the advent of the dawn, yet do become insignificant in the rays of the sun, so it is with the prophets and the Law now that the Light of the world has appeared. And the herald of the dawn was John, foretold under the name of Elijah.