Biblical commentary on the New Testament - The Christian ...

Matthew XVII. 9-13. 563
This little trait singularly confirms the truthfulness of the nar-
rative,
Ver. 10-13.—Luke here closes the narrative, but Matthew and
Mark give a selection from a most important conversation which
arose in consequence of the occurrence just recorded. It referred to
Elias, whom the learned among the Jews usually associated with
the appearance of the Messiah. There is an obscurity however in
the introduction to the discourse, which commenced, according to
Matthew, with the question of the disciples, ri ovv ol ypafinareTg k.
T. X. ; loJiy then say the scribes ? etc. The ovv, then, points back to
something that had gone before, and the whole inquiry leaves the
impression that the disciples believed the opinion of the learned
Jews to have been incorrect, for which reason Christ confirms it as
right. It is most natural certainly to view the reference as pointing
back to ver. 4, where Peter hoped that Elias would now remain with
them, and enter on his labours. Instead of that, he at once disap-
peared, and for this reason .he asks what they were to make of the
above opinion.* Jesus declares it, according to Mai. iv. 5, to be
wholly correct, and defines the kind of labours in which he was to
engage by the words aTTOKa-aarTJoei iravra, he shall restore all things
(= a-«»n, in the passage referred to). For as ""the Tishbite once
laboured of old as an emendator sacrorum, so shall he also come
forth at his second appearance. He is no creator of a new order of
things in the spiritual life, but (by legal strictness and severity) he
stems the course of sinful confusion, and re-introduces a state of
order. Into this scene the Messiah steps forth as a Creator. Christ
however intimates that one had already exercised for him this ofiice,
but the scribes had put him to death. The disciples (according
to earlier intimations, see on Matth. xi. 14) understood him to mean
the Baptist. What is expressed however so decidedly here, that
Elias is already come, must be modified according to the statement
of Matth. xi. 14. (Compare the remarks on the passage referred
to.) For, the appearance of Elias at the transfiguration as little
exhausted the prediction of the prophet (Mai. iv. 5), as did the
sending forth of the Baptist. [?] Each was merely a prefiguration,
adapted to Christ's first appearance in his humiliation (which the
Old Testament never clearly distinguishes from his second coming in
glory), but the prophecy itself remains awaiting its fulfilment at
Christ's future appearance (compare on Eev. xi. 3, seq,)f While
* Peter appears merely to wish to know this, whether this appearance of Ehas is tlie
one referred to in prophecy. Jesus corrects him. " Elias certainly cometh (= it is pre-
dicted that he shall come), but I tell you that he is come already (the prophecy is already
fulfilled in John the Baptist"), eorap. Luke i. 17.— ^That the real Elias is to appear before
Christ's second coming, is not intimated in the passage.— [E.
I As to the history of the interpretations which have been given of the passage in
Malachi, compare Hengstenberg's Christology, vol iii., p. 444, seq.