Mark 9:11- | Session 33 | Mark Rightly Divided

Click below for a PDF version

https://humble-sidecar-837.notion.site/Mark-9-11-Session-33-Mark-Rightly-Divided-8b1cc61ecbca42009844e47bbbec4c53?pvs=4

The Coming Of Elias | Mark 9:11-13

Verse 11 -

Here, we encounter a perplexing question. In Malachi 4:5-6, it is explicitly stated that Elijah (Elias in the Greek spelling found in KJV) will come. It is reasonable to assume that the apostles were well aware of this clear verse from Malachi. One might be tempted to simply state, "The scribes declare that Elias must come because the prophets said so, and they would be irresponsible not to hold such a position!" However, we must not attribute ignorance to either the apostles or the scribes. The scribes, as they always have been, were meticulous in their adherence to the text, and it is unlikely that the apostles were ignorant of this prophecy.

It seems that the disciples were expecting Jesus to fulfill the Messianic prophecies imminently, which made the absence of Elijah puzzling to them. Their question, as I interpret it, was: "If you are the Messiah, and Elijah is prophesied to come first, then where is Elijah?" Given their assumptions, this question was entirely reasonable.

The Lord’s response will be revealing!

Verse 12 -

In response to the disciples' question, The Lord affirms the prophecy and the scribes' interpretation: "Elias verily cometh first." He goes a step further to state that Elias "restoreth all things." This is a profound statement that isn't explicitly taught in any Christian end-times doctrine that I am aware of, especially in the sense of Elijah restoring all things. This poses a challenge for us: we can either rethink our eschatology to align with this declaration of Jesus, or we must reconsider these words of Jesus in a different light.

While many prophecy teachers assign a future role to Elijah, this is typically as one of the two witnesses described in the book of Revelation. However, the ministry of these two witnesses does not align with the concept of restoring all things, as described by Jesus. In fact, their ministry, as described in Revelation, ends largely in dismal failure, with the world rejoicing over their deaths. The only element of triumph is their subsequent resurrection and ascension. Thus, if we hold to the interpretation of Elijah as one of these witnesses, we must reconcile this with Jesus' words about Elijah restoring all things.

If Elijah is to come and set things right (restore all things), then Jesus poses another question: "Why does the Scripture speak about the suffering of the Son of Man, 'that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought'?" Jesus wants his disciples to see that these things do not themselves seem fully compatible. If Elijah comes first and restores everything, then why the suffering of the forthcoming Messiah?

Jesus might have been referring to scriptures from the Old Testament that prophesied about the suffering of the Messiah. A notable example is Isaiah 53, which provides a vivid prophecy of the suffering of the "Servant of the Lord", who many interpret as a prophecy about Jesus. Verses 3-5 state:



The fact that Jesus wants His disciples to grapple with these seemingly incompatible prophecies should tell us that we, too, need to grapple with them. It's important to remember that Jesus often taught in ways that were meant to provoke thought, challenge assumptions, and lead to deeper understanding. As students of the scriptures, we should not shy away from these paradoxes but rather embrace them as opportunities for growth and increased understanding of God's Word.

So, how can two incompatibles become compatible? How can Elijah restore all things, and then the Messiah suffer after that point? Such a scenario doesn't fit any view of Messianic thought. Rather, the Jewish view is that Elijah will come as the herald or precursor of the Messiah, and the Messiah will restore all things, while the Christian view is virtually void of Elijah and sees the Messiah (Jesus) coming to do the work of restoration Himself.

Clearly, neither view fits the scenario Jesus puts forth in verse 12. So, perhaps what we should do is follow the instruction of Paul, to engage as a student of the Word who is "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). We can do this by dividing these two “potential realities,” seeing them mutually exclusive of one another. That is, one or the other but not both will take place.

Consider this scenario: Elijah comes first to restore all things, as Jesus affirmed. His restoration work sets the stage for the acceptance or rejection of the Messiah - the Son of Man. If the people were to accept Elijah and his restoration work, then the Son of Man could have immediately established the kingdom, fulfilling the Messianic prophecies.

However, if the people rejected Elijah - as they did - then the Son of Man would be subjected to suffering. The suffering servant passages in scriptures, such as Isaiah 53, were contingent on the people's response to Elijah. In this way, the rejection of Elijah triggered the prophecies about the suffering Messiah.

Therefore, the suffering of the Son of Man was not an inevitable outcome, but a result of the people's rejection of Elijah. Once Elijah was rejected, the Messiah's path towards suffering was set, and the other prophecies about His suffering were set in motion to be fulfilled. This scenario aligns with Jesus' words and presents a way to reconcile the seemingly incompatible prophecies about the coming of Elijah and the suffering of the Messiah.

However, will it work Biblically.

Consider Jeremiah 18:7-10 (KJV):



This passage could provide the basis for a scenario where, had the ministry of "Elijah" been successful, the kingdom would have been established. God states that He will "build and plant" a nation if it does good, and "pluck up, and pull down, and destroy it" if it does evil. In this light, the acceptance or rejection of "Elijah" by the people could determine the path of the Messiah.

Furthermore, Isaiah 40:3-5 (KJV) is often associated with the "Elijah" ministry:



These verses seem to portray a successful "Elijah" ministry, one that prepares the way for the Lord and ends with the revealing of the Lord's glory and the establishment of His kingdom. This further supports the idea that the establishment of the kingdom could have occurred had the "Elijah" ministry been successful.

Could it be that if the people had accepted John the Baptist's ministry, he would have fulfilled the role of Elijah, and Jesus would have been ready to establish the Kingdom?

The scripture presents such a scenario. In fact, Malachi 4:5-6 speaks of the Elijah role as successful in every way, and if not, the Lord would "come and smite the earth with a curse" (v. 6). It seems like we need to take that as a bona fide promise/threat. Then Luke 1:17 explicitly links John the Baptist with Elijah’s prophesied role, emphasizing his mission to prepare the people for the Lord. Couldn't we surmise that if the people had fully turned back to God that the conditions for establishing the Kingdom could have been met? Furthermore, John preached, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Doesn't this require that the Kingdom's immediate realization was a real possibility? Would anyone have understood “at hand” to mean some 2,000 years or more into the future?

Regarding the question of whether this contradicts the concept of the Lord being slain from the foundation of the earth, we will revisit this after verse 13.

Verse 13 -

Jesus stated, "Elias is indeed come," employing the perfect tense, which signifies a past and completed action. Consequently, this tense cannot refer to a future event. Therefore, He is either discussing Elijah's initial appearance during the era of King Ahab, or something different. In Matthew 17:12-13, it is explicitly clarified that Jesus was referring to John the Baptist. When Jesus mentioned that "they have done unto him whatsoever they listed," it appears to imply that they had rejected his message. Having rejected his message, the prophecies concerning the suffering servant would now engage.

Could this be the intended meaning of Matthew 11:12? In this verse, Jesus says, "from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." This could be interpreted as a reference to the violent approach to the Kingdom and the King that ensued after the rejection of John. If John's mission was to prepare the people for the imminent arrival of the Kingdom, then the violent opposition toward the Lord could be the beginning of the fulfillment of the contingent suffering servant prophesies. If the people had accepted John's message and his role as the forerunner of Christ, this violent resistance would not have occurred, and the establishment of the Kingdom could have proceeded without the need for the Messiah's suffering.

Summarizing The Conundrum

The apostles find themselves in a conundrum. They anticipate Jesus, as the Messiah, to establish His kingdom, but they also expect Elijah to precede this event. However, since Elijah's coming isn't apparent to them, they are left perplexed about Jesus' role. To add to their bewilderment, they remain unaware of Jesus' impending death/suffering, despite his recent attempts to explain it. Jesus clarifies that Elijah has indeed come, embodied in John, but was rejected. Consequently, the kingdom will not be established immediately, but later. In the meantime, the Messiah is destined to suffer and die.

The question we're grappling with is: does this make sense? Scriptures like Revelation 13:8 refer to Jesus as being "slain from the foundation of the world." So, how can the Messiah's suffering be conditional? Genesis 3:15 also alludes to the Messiah's suffering, albeit in a cryptic manner. However, there are instances of seemingly predestined events that turned out to be contingent.

For example, Jonah proclaimed, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" (Jonah 3:4). But this overthrow was conditional on the people not repenting, and it didn't occur because they received Jonah's message positively. In another instance, in 2 Kings 20:1, Isaiah told Hezekiah, "Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live." Despite this categorical "thus saith the LORD" declaration, Hezekiah's life was extended by 15 years after he prayed.

There are many other examples. Could it be that even the death, burial, and resurrection of the Messiah, though prophesied, were contingent on whether Israel would respond to the forerunner's message?

While this interpretation is undoubtedly a minority view, it does provide a coherent explanation of the significant statements made in these three verses. This perspective allows us to reconcile seemingly incompatible prophecies and gives us a new lens to understand the timing and sequence of events related to the coming of Elijah and the suffering of the Messiah.

This interpretation may also shed light on modern Jewish expectations. Reading the Hebrew Scriptures meticulously, they do not see a suffering Messiah. Instead, they expect Elijah to come and prepare their hearts, even looking longingly for his arrival. Could it be that they, too, missed both the arrival of Elijah in John the Baptist and the consequent suffering of the Messiah? This perspective raises fundamental questions about the understanding and interpretation of prophecy, and challenges us to engage deeply with the scriptures, always open to new insights and revelations.