Chapter # 9 Paragraph # 2 Study # 4
February 28, 2023
Moss Bluff, Louisiana
(384)
1901 ASV
9:12 And he said unto them, Elijah indeed cometh first, and restoreth all things: and how is it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be set at nought?
9:13 But I say unto you, that Elijah is come, and they have also done unto him whatsoever they would, even as it is written of him.
- I. Jesus' Answer To The "Elijah Question".
- A. "And He was saying (Imperfect Indicative Active) to them...".
- 1. Again, not the expected Aorist Indicative ("He said").
- 2. Rather, the use of the Imperfect to present on-going action in the past time, suiting the norms for "historical narrative", but adding some level of intensity.
- B. "...Elijah, indeed, having come (Aorist Participle) first, is restoring (Present Indicative Active) all things...".
- 1. Jesus does not contradict the historical future event of Malachi 4:5, but actually reinforces it.
- 2. Mark's language puts the Aorist Participle before the Present Indicative so that the "coming" is presented as "a done deal" before the pertinent "activity" presented in the Present Tense.
- a. This indicates that Elijah's "coming" is a real, historical, future, pre-condition of the critical activity of "restoring".
- b. That the "activity" is the focus of attention is given as the use of a Present Tense, rather than a Future Tense, verb. The "coming" is not the "big deal"; it is merely the pre-requisite event that must be in place before the "big deal".
- c. The "big deal" is the impact of Elijah's ministry: "a 'restoration' of the requisite attitude on the part of the people who will benefit from Messiah's "coming".
- 3. Jesus' focus on the really important issue of heart/mind preparation for what is to come.
- a. This "really important issue" is exactly what is missing in the "scribes'" use of the absence of "Elijah" in order to discount Jesus' identity as The Christ.
- b. This "really important issue" is identified by "apokathistemi".
- 1) Mark used this word first in 3:5 where the "withered hand" of the man in that record was "restored". The context is "Pharisaical" hardness of heart (3:5-6). The Herodians are also indicated as co-conspirators of the plot to destroy Jesus.
- 2) Mark's next use is in 8:25 where the blind man's vision was 'restored" after Jesus' second action to "restore" and the man's "intent effort".
- 3) Mark's third and final use is this text/context where the issue is getting "all things" back to their initial condition. This "initial condition" is somewhat ambiguous. It is a fact that Jesus has reference to some "condition" that existed in the past in respect to the people's attitudes toward God and themselves. But which "past setting" is in Jesus' mind? It could be the immediate outcome of "Elijah's" Mount Carmel actions (1 Kings 18) when the people repeated the statement "Yahweh is Elohim" (1 Kings 18:39) and the false prophets of Baal were put to death. However, it actually might be the impact of "John/Elijah" as he prepared the people for Jesus' "coming" as "The Lamb of The God". In both cases, the people were "of a mind" to acknowledge Yahweh as God.
- C. "...but I am saying to you that indeed Elijah has come (Perfect Indicative Active)...".
- 1. This is an example of a "type of meaning" that reaches beyond any specific individual example of it.
- 2. The "type of meaning" involved here is that of "forerunner-as-preparer"; specifically in respect to "the coming of the Christ" and the need of the people to be "prepared to receive Him".
- D. "...and they did to him whatsoever things they were wishing, just as it stands written of him".
- 1. The "written" things included the persecution of Elijah by Jezebel, the Queen, and the desire to kill Elijah by the Queen (just as John the Baptizer was treated).
- 2. The difference between Elijah and John-as-Elijah is that the queen's persecution and desire to kill was ineffective in regard to Elijah but effective in regard to John-as-Elijah. Jesus' "they did to him whatsoever things they were willing" is the key phrase: in Elijah's case "they were willing", but prevented by God; in John's case, "they did to him whatsoever things they were willing" and there was no intervention by God.
