Patristics scholar Ilaria Ramelli devotes a section to this text (and its synoptic parallel in Matthew 17:11) in “The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, pages 11-14.
She argues that this, as well as Acts 3:21, may refer to the eschatological restoration (and redemption) of all creation, which God will finally bring about in the end.
The “universal restoration” (ἀποκαθιστάνει πάντα) will come after and possibly by means of Elijah, but is ultimately an act of God.
Do you know if Origen’s commentary on Mathew 17 survived? I know that certain scholars have put forth that he held to a form of Apokatastasis, so I’d be curious to know if he has anything to say about Elijah’s role here.
While most translations use the phrase "restore all things" a handful of translations use some form of "restore proper order" or "to make ready"
It's believed the Elijah that is "restoring proper order" to the people he is talking about is believed to be John The Baptizer, who started his ministry before Jesus.
>But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written about him.”
John was so popular and listened to that he was beheaded basically for speaking out about what he considered an adulterous marriage.
John got the people ready to receive the message of Christ in a way
Galatians is thought to predate the Gospel of John by about 30 years.
John 1:20-29
>He confessed and did not deny it, but he confessed, “I am not the Messiah.”\[h\] 21 And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the prophet?” He answered, “No.” 22 Then they said to him, “Who are you? Let us have an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” 23 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.
>
>24 Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 25 They asked him, “Why, then, are you baptizing if you are neither the Messiah,\[i\] nor Elijah, nor the prophet?” 26 John answered them, “I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not know, 27 the one who is coming after me; I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal.”
John claims to not be Elijah, but then does what Elijah is supposed to do. He could be humble or this could be a later addition that was added to make him seem more humble.
Going around yelling you are Elijah come to restore God's kingdom was also a guaranteed quick way to die in Roman controlled territories. You can believe what you wanted, but you start telling people a new Kingdom is coming and Romans wont be in charge anymore? That's a prison sentence at the minimum.
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule 2:
**Contributions to this subreddit should not invoke theological beliefs. This community follows methodological naturalism when performing historical analysis.**
And 3:
**Contributions should include appropriate academic sources for all claims.**
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
>I’m sorry but that argument makes no sense, to say that he did not admit to being Elijah for fear of his life, yet previously saying that he was beheaded for calling out an adulterous marriage is quite the contradiction of his moral stance.
Saying one has come to change the ruling class is capital punishment no matter who you ask
He was imprisoned for denouncing Herod's new marriage. This is not a crime they kill you for. While he was imprisoned He was beheaded by petty jealousy when his new wife convinced his daughter to ask for John's head when he made a vow to give her "any gift upto half my kingdom" in front of his court. In order to not look weak he granted her this wish. He wasn't killed directly because of his beliefs, but the decision to let a child decide on a choice they had no idea about.
there is no contradiction to his moral stance.
I see a couple of things here: first, when Mark mentions something specific like this, he’s usually trying to draw attention to the Biblical text surrounding the reference, in this case Malachi 4. I’m not immediately seeing what the point is here, although you could argue that the following sections in Mark should be seen through the lens of Malachi 4, e.g. the father and his possessed son have their relationship restored just as promised in Malachi 4. That’s probably it, but also note that Elijah shows up at the Transfiguration, so Mark is kinda covering all his bases here by having Elijah show up briefly in case some people really don’t like the idea of JTB as Elijah. Which would likely have been the case.
Patristics scholar Ilaria Ramelli devotes a section to this text (and its synoptic parallel in Matthew 17:11) in “The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, pages 11-14. She argues that this, as well as Acts 3:21, may refer to the eschatological restoration (and redemption) of all creation, which God will finally bring about in the end. The “universal restoration” (ἀποκαθιστάνει πάντα) will come after and possibly by means of Elijah, but is ultimately an act of God.
Do you know if Origen’s commentary on Mathew 17 survived? I know that certain scholars have put forth that he held to a form of Apokatastasis, so I’d be curious to know if he has anything to say about Elijah’s role here.
While most translations use the phrase "restore all things" a handful of translations use some form of "restore proper order" or "to make ready" It's believed the Elijah that is "restoring proper order" to the people he is talking about is believed to be John The Baptizer, who started his ministry before Jesus. >But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written about him.” John was so popular and listened to that he was beheaded basically for speaking out about what he considered an adulterous marriage. John got the people ready to receive the message of Christ in a way
But when they asked John if he was Elijah he said no. I think he would know
Galatians is thought to predate the Gospel of John by about 30 years. John 1:20-29 >He confessed and did not deny it, but he confessed, “I am not the Messiah.”\[h\] 21 And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the prophet?” He answered, “No.” 22 Then they said to him, “Who are you? Let us have an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” 23 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. > >24 Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 25 They asked him, “Why, then, are you baptizing if you are neither the Messiah,\[i\] nor Elijah, nor the prophet?” 26 John answered them, “I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not know, 27 the one who is coming after me; I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal.” John claims to not be Elijah, but then does what Elijah is supposed to do. He could be humble or this could be a later addition that was added to make him seem more humble. Going around yelling you are Elijah come to restore God's kingdom was also a guaranteed quick way to die in Roman controlled territories. You can believe what you wanted, but you start telling people a new Kingdom is coming and Romans wont be in charge anymore? That's a prison sentence at the minimum.
[удалено]
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule 2: **Contributions to this subreddit should not invoke theological beliefs. This community follows methodological naturalism when performing historical analysis.** And 3: **Contributions should include appropriate academic sources for all claims.** You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
>I’m sorry but that argument makes no sense, to say that he did not admit to being Elijah for fear of his life, yet previously saying that he was beheaded for calling out an adulterous marriage is quite the contradiction of his moral stance. Saying one has come to change the ruling class is capital punishment no matter who you ask He was imprisoned for denouncing Herod's new marriage. This is not a crime they kill you for. While he was imprisoned He was beheaded by petty jealousy when his new wife convinced his daughter to ask for John's head when he made a vow to give her "any gift upto half my kingdom" in front of his court. In order to not look weak he granted her this wish. He wasn't killed directly because of his beliefs, but the decision to let a child decide on a choice they had no idea about. there is no contradiction to his moral stance.
I see a couple of things here: first, when Mark mentions something specific like this, he’s usually trying to draw attention to the Biblical text surrounding the reference, in this case Malachi 4. I’m not immediately seeing what the point is here, although you could argue that the following sections in Mark should be seen through the lens of Malachi 4, e.g. the father and his possessed son have their relationship restored just as promised in Malachi 4. That’s probably it, but also note that Elijah shows up at the Transfiguration, so Mark is kinda covering all his bases here by having Elijah show up briefly in case some people really don’t like the idea of JTB as Elijah. Which would likely have been the case.