Matthew 17:10

10 . Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? ] The truth of the resurrection was new to the disciples, see Mark 9:10 . “If thou art the Messiah,” they say, “and shalt rise from the dead, surely the scribes are wrong in teaching that Elijah must precede the Messiah.” Jesus shews that the prophecy of Malachi 4:5 was fulfilled in John the Baptist. Others contend that our Lord’s words do not necessarily mean this, but that Malachi’s prediction, though partially fulfilled in John the Baptist, should have a more literal accomplishment before Christ’s second coming.

Matthew 17:10-13 . His disciples asked, &c. — Being much surprised at the sudden departure of Elias, and at their Master’s ordering them to keep his having appeared a secret, they had no sooner finished their dispute about what the rising from the dead should mean, than, addressing themselves to Jesus, they said, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come — Before the Messiah, if no man must know of his coming? As if he had said, Since Elias has gone away so soon, and since thou orderest us to keep his appearing a secret, how come the scribes to teach, on all occasions, that Elias must appear before the Messiah erects his empire? As they supposed that Elias was to have an active hand in modelling and settling the Messiah’s kingdom, they never doubted that he would abide a while on earth; and knowing that the scribes affirmed openly that Elias was to appear, they could see no reason for concealing the thing. Jesus answered, Elias truly shall first come, and restore, or regulate, all things — Jesus not only acknowledged the necessity of Elijah’s coming before the Messiah, according to Malachi’s prediction, but he assured his disciples that he was already come, and described the treatment he had met with from the nation in such a manner as to make them understand that he spake of John the Baptist.

At the same time he told them, that though the Baptist’s ministry was excellently calculated to produce all the effects ascribed to it by the prophets, they need not be surprised to find that it had not all the success which might have been expected from it, and that the Baptist had met with much opposition and persecution. For, said he, both the person and the preaching of the Messiah himself shall meet with the same treatment.

Matthew 17:10 . τί οὗν , etc.: does the οὖν refer to the prohibition in Matthew 17:9 (Meyer), or to the appearance of Moses and Elias, still in the minds of the three disciples, and the lateness of their coming (Euthy., Weiss), or to the shortness of their stay? (Grotius, Fritzsche, Olsh., Bleek, etc.). Difficult to decide, owing to fragmentariness of report; but it is most natural to take οὖν in connection with preceding verse, only not as referring to the prohibition of speech Proverbs tem ., but to the apparently slighting tone in which Jesus spoke. If the recent occurrence is not of vital importance, why then do the scribes say etc.? To lay the emphasis (with Weiss) on πρῶτον , as if the disciples were surprised that Moses and Elias had not come sooner, before the Christ, is a mistake. The advent would appear to them soon enough to satisfy the requirements of the scribes—just at the right time, after they had recognised in Jesus the Christ = Thou art the Christ we know, and lo! Elias is here to prepare the way for Thy public recognition and actual entry into Messianic power and glory. The sudden disappearance of the celestials would tend to deepen the disappointment created by the Master’s chilling tone, so that there is some ground for finding in οὖν a reference to that also. Matthew 17:11 . ἔρχεται : present, as in Matthew 2:4 , praesens pro futuro , Raphel ( Annotationes in S.S.), who cites instances of this enallage temporis from Xenophon.

Wolf ( Curae Phil. ), referring to Raphel, prefers to find in the present here no note of time, but only of the order of coming as between Elias and Christ. It is a didactic, timeless present. So Weiss.— ἀποκαταστήσει πάντα . This word occurs in Sept[103], Malachi 4:5 , for which stands in Luke 1:17 : ἐπιστρέψαι ; the reference is to restitution of right moral relations between fathers and children, etc. Raphel cites instances of similar use from Polyb. The function of Elias, as conceived by the scribes, was to lead Israel to the Great Repentance. vide on this, Weber, Die Lehren des T. , pp. 337–8. [103] Septuagint.

(10) His disciples asked him. —The context clearly implies that the question came not from the disciples at large, but from the three who had seen the vision, and were brooding over the appearance, and yet more, perhaps, the disappearance, of Elijah, as connected with the tradition of the scribes. If Elijah was to come and prepare the way, why had he thus come from the unseen world for a moment only?

Matthew 17:10 . Τί οὖν , κ . τ . λ ., how then , etc.) To the mention of His death they oppose the restitution of all things by Elias, whom (see 17:31) they suppose to have come; and they think that this fact ought not to be concealed, but, on the contrary, published for the promotion of the faith, that the event may be recognised as already corresponding to the expectation of the Scribes.— πρῶτον , first ) sc. before the Messiah’s kingdom.

Matthew 17:10 . Οὖν ] can have no other reference than to the foregoing prohibition (comp. Matthew 19:7 ): “Seeing that we are forbidden to tell any one about the appearing of Elias which we have just witnessed, and so on, what reason, then, have the scribes for saying that Elias must first come (before the Messiah appears, to establish His kingdom)?” Does it not follow from Thy prohibition that this teaching of the scribes must be erroneous, seeing that, if it were not so, Thou wouldst not have enjoined us to keep silence regarding this manifestation of Elias? This is likewise in harmony with the answer of Jesus, which is to this effect: “That teaching is quite correct; but the Elias whom it speaks of as being the Messiah’s forerunner is not the prophet who has just been seen upon the mount, but John the Baptist, whom they did not recognise, and so on.” This view is so entirely in accordance with the context as to exclude any others, as, for example, that of Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Kuinoel, who, emphasizing πρῶτον , interpret thus: διατί οἱ γρ . λέγ ., ὅτι Ἠλίαν χρὴ ἐλθεῖν πρὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ; πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἠλθεν οὗτος πρὸ σοῦ ; or that which ascribes to the disciples the idea, of which there is not the remotest hint, that Christ is going to be revealed before the world in His glory, and that therefore there is really no further room for the manifestation and the services of Elias (Hofmann, Schriftbew .

II. 1, p. 518); or that of Grotius, Michaelis, Fritzsche, Lange, Olshausen, Bleek, Hengstenberg, who understand the question of the disciples as referring to the circumstance that Elias had not remained, but had so quickly disappeared again (it was believed, though of this the question contains no hint whatever, that Elias would teach the Jews, settle the disputes among their instructors, restore the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod, and so on; Lightfoot on this passage; Winzer, de ἀποκαταστάσει πάντων , II., 1821, p. 9); or, again, that of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Neander, Krabbe, Ebrard, who suppose that the object of the question was to know whether the manifestation of Elias, which the scribes had in view, was that which had just taken place, or whether it was some other one yet to come; or, lastly, the expedient of Schleiermacher and Strauss, who think that the whole conversation originated in the disappointment felt in consequence of the prediction regarding the coming of Elias not having been fulfilled, and that it has only found its way into the present connection through an erroneous process of combination. According to Köstlin, p. 75, οὖν does not refer back to the transfiguration at all, but seems to say: “Seeing that the Messiah is already come,” which is the idea supposed to be contained in Matthew 16:13-27 . He thinks the connection has been interrupted by the evangelist interpolating the story of the transfiguration between Matthew 16:27 and Matthew 17:10 .

Before these words, Mark saith, Mark 9:10 , And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean. Then he addeth, And they asked him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come. The disciples (as appeareth) were as yet very imperfectly instructed in the doctrine of man’s redemption by Christ, though Christ had before told them, that as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so he should be three days and three nights in the belly of the earth. How dull the best of men are to apprehend spiritual mysteries, which are above the reach of our reason! The Jews had a tradition, and retain it to this day, That before the coming of the Messias Elias should come; they build it upon Malachi 4:4,5 . That they had such an expectation appeareth by their sending to John the Baptist, John 1:21 , to know if he were he, meaning Elijah the Tishbite (for him they expected); and this was their great error, and still blindeth them. The disciples had now seen Elijah, and possibly might wonder at our Saviour’s forbidding them to speak of the vision, as thinking that nothing could more conduce to the receiving of him as the Messiah: or possibly they might wonder at Elijah’s so soon leaving the earth, the Messiah being come, whom they expected he should come before.