Bengel says on this verse, '' Whilst John denied himself, he did not deny Christ." — Luther makes some excellent remarks on the strong temptation which was here put in John's way, to take honour to himself, and the humility and faith which he showed in overcoming it.
21. — [Art tliou Elias ?] This question was not an absurd and unnatural one, as some commentators have thought fit to say. It was based upon that prophecy of Malachi, which speaks of God "sending EUjah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord." (Mai. iv, 5 ) The manner, dress, and ministry of John the Baptist, as well as his appearing in the wilderness, constituted a great similarity between him and Elijah, and sug- gested tlie idea that John might possibly be Elijah. " If this man," thought the Priests and Levites, " is not the Christ, per- haps he is his forerunner, the prophet Elijah."
[And he saith^ I am not.] This answer of John's deserves particular notice, and involv^es a grave difficulty. How could John say, " I am not Elias," when Christ says distinctly in ano- ther place, '' This is Elias." How shall we reconcile these two statements ? — To me it seems impossible to explain John's words, except on the simple theory, that there are two comings of Elijah the prophet. The first was only a coming in spjrit and in power, but not a literal coming. The second will be a literal and real appearance on earth of him whom Ehsha saw taken up into heaven. The first coming took place at Christ's first advent, and was fulfilled by John the Baptist going before Messiah's face in the spirit and power of Elijah. The second coming of Elijah will take place at the second advent of Jesus Christ, and will be fulfilled by Elijah himself once more coming as a prophet to the tribes of Israel.
It is of this second, future, literal coming of Elias that John speaks in this place. When he says, " I am not Elias," he means, " I am not that Elijah you mean, who was taken up to heaven 900 years ago. The coming of that Elijah is yet a future thing. I am the forerunner of the first advent in humiliation, not of the second advent in glory. I am not the herald of Christ coming to reign, as Elijah will be one day, but the herald of Christ com- ing to suffer on the cross. I am not come to prepare the way for a conquering Kin;r, such as you fondly expect, but for a meek and lowly Saviour, whose great work is to bear our tins and to die. I am not the Elias you expect."
In confirmation of this view, our Lnr "'s remarkable words in another Grospel. ought to be carefully studied. He says distinctly "Elias iruly sliall first cane, and rest >re all things," (Ma't. xvii. 11.) And yet He adds in the same breath, " I say unto you . that Elias is come already," that is, " He is come, in a certain
49
sense, by John the Baptist going before my face in the spirit and ] ower of Ehas." In short, our Lord says at the same time, "Eiias shall come," and "Elias is come!" — To me His words seem a plain proof of the theory I am here mninta-ning, that there are two comings of Elias. In spirit Elias came, when John the Baptist came, a man like to Elias in mind and habits. But in the flesh Elias has not yet come, and is yet to appear. And it was in the view of this future, literal coming, that John the Baptist saM, '' I am not Elias." — He knew th it the Jews were thinking of the times of Messiah's glory, and of the literal com- ing of Elijah, which would usher in those times. Therefore he says, "I am not the E ias you mean. I belong to a different dispensation."
The other view, which is undoubtedly ma'ntained by the vast majority of commentators, appears to me surrounded with insu- perable difl&culties. According to them, there never was to be more than one fulfilment of Ma'achi's prophecy about Elias. It was to be fulfilled by John the Baptist; and when he appeared, it had received its full accomplishment. How John the Baptist's answer in tli's place can be satisfactorily exp'ained, according to this theory, I am quite unable to see. The Jcavs ask him plaitdy, whether he is Elias, that is, whether he is the person who is to fulfil Malachi's prophecy. This, at any rate, was evidently the idea in their minds. He answers distinctly that he is not. And yet according to the theory against which I contend, he wds Elias, and he ought to have rephed, " I am." In short, he appears to say that which is i.ot true ! — Tliere never was to be any one after him, who was to fulfil Malachi's prophecy, and yet he declares in effect that he does not fulfil it, by saying that ho is not Elias !
About the future hteral coming of Elijah the prophet, when the Jews will at last see a living person, who will say, " I am EUas," this is not the place to speak. Whether or not he will minister to any but the Jews, — whether or not he will prove one of the two witnesses spoken of in Etvelation, (Rev. xi. 3,) are interesting and disputed questions. I will only remark, that the subject deserves far more attention than it ordinarily receives.
The following quotations from the Fathers will show that the opinion I have expressed is not a modern one :
Chrysostom, on Matt. xvii. 10, says, " As there are two com- ings of Christ, — first, to suffer, — secondly, to judg.^, so there are two com'ngs of Elias ; first of John before Christ's first coming, who is called Elias, l3ecause he came in the manner and spirit of Elias; secondly, of the person of Elijah, the Tishbite, bef>re Christ's second coming." — Jerome and Theophylact say just the same.
3