Vanderbilt University
John as Elijah Second Coming? –
A Chinese-Malaysian Inculturated Interpretation of Luke 1:17a
Menghun Goh
Vanderbilt University
From the perspective of Chinese folk religion and popular cultures, this paper argues that Lucan representation of John (the Baptist) as “going before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17a) can be understood as the spirit of Elijah upon John in terms of “spirit influence or possession.” This “spirit influence” does not mean that John loses his autonomy in the sense that Elijah controls him. Rather, because the spirit of Elijah is influencing or working with him, John takes upon Elijah’s mission and “becomes” Elijah. Such notion is not unlike Iamblichus’s notion of “divine inspiration and possession” in which the “possession” is the result of “divine descent and illumination” and “human ascent and receptivity.”[1]
Moreover, if Luke “emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit in a way that the other Synoptic Gospels do not”[2] and if the biblical worldview considers “the seen” and “the unseen” worlds a “single continuum” where “spiritual beings were as much at home as humans,”[3] a worldview which is similar to that of the Chinese, then it is worthwhile to examine Lucan portrayal of spirit from the Chinese perspective. As such, Elijah is not just a figurative comparison or model for John in terms of the former’s mission and power, as what Ambrose and Bede suggested.[4] Neither is he a mere prophet-typology or a literary figure echoing the Elijah narrative in the Hebrew Bible, as many scholars argue as they highlight different theology, historico-critical criticism, and inter-textual literary analysis of Luke-Acts with Mark, Matthew, 1-2 Kings, Zechariah, Malachi, and Sirach or Ecclesiasticus.
Given this focus of the paper, I will not address the sociopolitical and rhetorical aspect of Luke 1:17a as a strategy or tactic to impose a certain authority and identity upon its audience, via an “ecstatic” narrative. The notions of “spirit” and “power” can certainly be viewed in terms of social structures and institutions, but this paper’s primary focus is on “spirit” and “power” as such, that is, “spirit” and “power” as real “spiritual” entities that interact with us concretely in our everyday lives, as Chinese Malaysians understand them.
“Spirit Influence or Possession” in Luke 1:17a?
en penumati kai dunamei Eliou ‘in the spirit and power of Elijah,’ i.e. “possessed by the spirit and power of Elijah” (NEB). En means here as in 2:27 ‘under the influence of,’ or ‘guided by’. The genitive Eliou is not possessive but qualifying: John will be possessed by the same spirit as Elijah. Pneuma does not refer to the human spirit but to the divine spirit, as usually when accompanied by a semantically related noun… dunamis ‘power’, often connected with pneuma (4:14; Acts 1:8; Rom. 15:13, 19; 2 Tim. 1:17) and here practically synonymous with it as 1:35. Hence both words may be rendered as one concept, ‘powerful spirit’.[5]
Most English translations render Luke 1:17a as “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (KJV; ASV; NAB; NIV; TNT) or “with the spirit and power of Elijah” (NJB; NRSV; NLT). The New English Bible, however, translates it as “possessed by the spirit and power of Elijah.” The Chinese Union Version, which most Chinese uses, translates it as “having the determination or mission and ability or power of Elijah” (他必有以利亚的心志能力). The Chinese New Version is very similar to most English translations, “having Elijah’s spirit and ability or power” (他必有以利亚的灵和能力). This rendering of “spirit possession” is also related to pimplēmi “to fill” in Luke 1:15 that speaks of John “being filled with the Holy Spirit” (cf. 1:41, 67), which Reiling and Swellengrebel in A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Luke translate as “the Spirit takes possession of the person who is filled by him (cp. Judg. 6:34) and enables him to prophesy.”[6]
This notion of “spirit influence or possession,” however, is neglected in scholarly works and the question of whether the Gospel of Luke portrays John as Elijah has given rise to many responses that mainly focus on the literary representation and construction of the figure Elijah in Luke (see Appendix for “History of Interpretations”). For some, the answer can be explicitly or implicitly affirmative in the sense that John is Elijah or John is like Elijah. For others (the majority), the answer is a “no” because Luke seems to focus more on presenting Jesus as Elijah. However, scholars who argue thus also contend that Elijah can be seen in terms of an eschatological or a non-eschatological prophetic figure. Another major group of scholars maintains that Luke actually reflects two different stages of traditions that depict both John and Jesus as Elijah. But if prophecy is related to some kind of “altered states of consciousness,” as David Aune points out[7] – we are not speaking of how such activities are used rhetorically and ideologically for power and authority legitimatization – then can we not speak of prophets as being influenced or possessed by the spirit?
Hermeneutical Lens: Spirit as Real Entities
Angels, spirits, principalities, powers, gods, Satan – these, along with all other spiritual realities, are the unmentionables of our cultures. The dominant materialistic worldview has absolutely no place for them. These archaic relics of a superstitious past are unspeakable because modern secularism simply has no categories, no vocabulary, no presuppositions by which to discern what is was in the actual experiences of people that brought these words to speech.[8]
In terms of Western thinking, that which is natural and susceptible to scientific analysis could be, in terms of African thinking, viewed within supernatural perspectives. In terms of Western thinking, that which is inherently supernatural and not susceptible to scientific analysis could be, in terms of African thinking, natural but bringing out the revelation of divine power(s).[9]
The “unmentionables” that Walter Wink mentions are still valid today in our Western cultures.[10] We in the West tend to reduce or explain them away as some sort of psychological manifestations, if not illusions or hallucinations or disorders, and expressions of sociopolitical deprivations and marginalization so that we can manage and grasp them. But as Kabiro wa Gatumu points out, what seem “natural” and “supernatural” really depend on one’s contextual perspectives. In fact, even when “what seem supernatural” are analyzed critically, such as what we have in the two-volume encyclopedia of Shamanism-related beliefs and practices,[11] the notion of “spirit” as real entities is still sidelined in scholarship, if not treated as superstitious, uncultured, and backward. Hence, we see scholars being apologetic in accounting for their personal encounter with the world of the spirits in their research,[12] despite the fact that spirit encounters and narratives have been taken seriously by all cultures since time immemorial, as the two-volume encyclopedia has made very clear. There seems to be a Weberian kind of sharp dichotomy between the unseen spiritual and seen material worlds, in which the world is seen as progressing and evolving from the former (primitive and irrational cultures) to the latter (developed and rational cultures).[13] Needless to say, one can easily see the colonial agenda in such notion.
Indeed, it is not a cliché but an ethical responsibility and acknowledgment to reiterate and stress that our understanding and interpretation are always contextual and perspectival.[14] Even when biblical studies uses the name “altered states of consciousness (ASC)” – or “alternate states of consciousness” to highlight the dynamic state of such experience[15] – to speak of the manifestation of one’s interaction with the spirit, Pieter E. Craffert stresses that “There is no purely biological or neurophysiological core of such [ASC] experiences. Instead, they must be understood as fully human, and therefore, cultural.”[16] In fact, if “States of consciousness are also shaped by culture,”[17] then our perception, experience, cognition, understanding, and interpretation of such phenomena are also shaped by our cultures. As such, we need to be aware not to pre-judge and discriminate against ASCs because “in some cultures visions and auditory hallucinations are not signs of psychopathology but culturally approved means of obtaining knowledge from ancestors.”[18]
Another point that Gatumu underscores in his work is the continuum of the material and spiritual worlds in the sense that the “spirits reside in the spirit world but naturally permeate the physical world,”[19] a worldview that both Chinese[20] and the biblical world[21] hold. As such, “supernatural is used not to refer to a transcendent domain separate from the natural world of human habitation”[22] as if one can separate the sacred or spiritual from the profane or material sphere. On the contrary, for Africans, Chinese, and Israelites, the spirits – whether god, goddess, angels, demons, ancestral spirits, the deceased, or the ancient heroes – have tremendous relevance and impact on their daily lives. For example, as (Daoist) Chinese thinks that everything seen and unseen is made of Qi (and the different combinations of Yin and Yang) – with the exception of Dao, the primordial principle – even spiritual beings have material existence.[23] In other words, for the Chinese, everything is deeply intertwined. Likewise, in the Hebrew Bible, Paolo Xella notes that
The dead in Hebrew are called rephaim, analogous to the Ugaritic and Phoenician words… This etymology clearly shows that the dead, rather than being impotent spirits, are self-possessed numinous beings, endowed with beneficent powers and superior knowledge, who have the ability to communicate with the living… [In fact] The biblical text often refers favorably to a cult of the dead. The dead were often explicitly called “the divine” and were considered powerful and benevolent intermediaries by the living [cf. 1 Samuel 28; Isaiah 8:19; Leviticus 20:27].[24]
One last point that I want to address in this section is my avoidance of using the term “shamanism.” John Pilch replaces the word “shaman” with “holy man/holy woman” for two reasons. First, he agrees “with those anthropologists who believe that the word ‘shaman’ properly describes this figure among the Siberian Tungus and should be limited to that discussion.”[25] Secondly, he finds the terms “holy man/holy woman” more appropriate to describe such figures in “biblical and related traditions.”[26] In addition to its negative connotation in Chinese society, my hesitation to use the term “shamanism” is related to the fact that “shamanism” is only a part of Chinese folk religion, which is a mixture of Confucianism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Daoism.[27]
Now, if there is little or even no dualism between body and spirit nor dichotomy between profane and sacred in Chinese cultures, how do we read Luke 1:17a without the influence of Western dichotomy between spirit and body? Similarly, if the Bible views the worlds of spirit and human as a single continuum, how do we interpret 1:17a?
Spirit Influence or Possession
Spirit possession is a key practice in religions worldwide, yet it is a practice that is – perhaps inevitably – misunderstood. This misunderstanding can have disastrous consequences, leading to possible vilification of such experiences (where, for instance, those who ‘experience’ possession or trance are demonized or regarded as mentally unstable)… Ironically, rather than expose these misunderstandings, academic scholarship has inadvertently sustained them.[28]
First, I want to distinguish between bad “spirit influence” and good “spirit influence.” I avoid using “spirit possession” because possession seems to imply a rather passive receptivity of the human where she/he loses her/his personality, consciousness, identity, and agency when being influenced by the spirit. From the perspective of Chinese folk religion, such phenomenon does take place but it usually happens under the influence of evil spirits. But as Jojo M. Fung, a fellow Chinese Malaysian Jesuit, points out in his personal experiences with the good spirit or divine spirit, one needs to purify oneself and be prepared for such spiritual encounters.[29] As this paper focuses on the good spirit – we are speaking of the spirit of Elijah, who is the “Prophet and father of prophets” (St. Ephraem) and the “type of all prophets” (Jerome)![30] – it leaves aside the topic on bad spirit that coerces or invades a person and controls her/his actions and thoughts (e.g., Luke 4:33ff; 8:26ff; 9:37ff; 11:14ff; 13:10ff; etc.). Here, it is noteworthy to quote Erika Bourguinon’s comments on Kabbalisitic beliefs and practices.
… the idea of spirit possession is generally paired with the idea of soul that is replaced, temporarily, by an invading entity. The kabbalistic idea of sparks of a soul that can coexist with the host’s soul is quite special. Here the possession does not involve a change of consciousness, nor necessarily an awareness of it, nor any public demonstration of the gift thus acquired.[31]
In his study of “benevolent spirit possession in sixteenth-century Galilean village of Safed” – according to Matt Goldish, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries “were the heyday of possession accounts” for both Judaism and Christianity[32] – Lawrence Fine confirms this observation by Bourguignon. He, moreover, argues that “communication with [angels and good spirits are not only] socially, morally, and religiously acceptable, it also requires a period of cultivation of “intentional and purposely manner” demanded by the spirits.[33] For example, in the case of Joseph Karo (1488-1575), Fine points out that prior to Karo’s meeting with his angel-mentor, Karo needs to “ready himself by depriving his body of all pleasures, especially food and drink, not only as a general matter but most especially in the period immediately leading up to practice” of reciting “mishnayot (paragraphs of Mishnah).”[34] Similarly in the account of Isaac Luria (1534-1575), Luria taught his followers a series of ritual of atonement to cleanse the “polluted nature of the body” caused by partaking of “the imperfections of the material world” so that one can be purified to “become a repository of the holy.”[35] Also, in the case of Hayyim Vital (1542-1620), Vital detached himself “from ordinary life through the achievement of solitude and by cutting oneself off from all material sensation”[36] in order to practice reciting Mishnah so that he can “commune with the soul of the ancient sage who authored the particular Mishnah teaching.”[37]
This purification and preparation work is crucial and integral to one’s interaction with the divine spirit so that one can be “in a mental and physiological condition” to be “possessed by some spirit or soul other than their own,”[38] with the result of receiving inspirations, ability, and knowledge from the spirits. A similar account is also found in On the Mysteries by Iamblichus (c. 240-325 CE), who does not treat “‘divine possession’ and ‘inspiration’ as distinct states”[39] and regards spirit possession as a divine-human collaborative effort. As Crystal Addey points out, for Iamblichus, the reason that human beings can interact with the divine is because our soul – “which bears an imprint or reflection of divinity” – “is primarily linked with the intelligible, divine realm and which can therefore perceive intelligible or ‘divine’ truth” that is both transcendentally and immanently permeating the cosmos.[40] Moreover, depending on how we heighten our awareness and increase our capacity to receive the divine, which our soul is already in communication with, we will receive corresponding level of inspiration or possession. That is, the more that one prepares and purifies oneself, the more that one can “subsume” “his or her consciousness to that of the gods so that his or her soul is possessed by the divine” and be able to receive more inspiration and illumination.[41] Iamblichus writes,
For either the god possesses us, or we become wholly the god’s property, or we exercise our activity in common with him. And sometimes we share in the god’s lowest power, sometimes in his intermediate, and sometimes in his primary power. And sometimes there is a mere participation, sometimes a communion, and sometimes even a union (Mysteries, 3.5 [111.7-11]).[42]
Now, if one’s reception of divine inspiration and possession can be seen in terms of this collaboration of “divine descent and illumination” and “human ascent and receptivity,” then Luke’s ascetic description of John as a prophetic figure who “must never drink wine or strong drink” (1:15) and lives in the wilderness (3:2) is not insignificant, as Luke-Acts is the only book in the New Testament that uses the term “askein” (Acts 24:16).[43]
Moreover, if asceticism is defined as “performances within a dominant social environment intended to inaugurate a new subjectivity, different social relations, and an alternative symbolic universe,”[44] then such belief and practice to inaugurate “an alternative symbolic universe” are not unlike what we have briefly seen about “alternate state of consciousness,” “shamanism,” and “spirit possession or inspiration.” Indeed, if Luke is an “advocate for ascetic practice” to heal one’s soul sickness, desire, passion, and bondage through “prayer as a guard against Satanic temptation,” “watchfulness in preparation for the coming of the Son of Man,” and “self-denial to ward off greed and arrogance,”[45] then such disciplinary efforts are a means to overcome trials and temptations so that one can be closer to the divine. It will, furthermore, be intriguing to see “divine spirit inspiration or possession” as a manifestation of ascetic practices, which in Greco-Roman societies are often associated with the art of self-mastery and prudence, two socio-cultural values that carry tremendous sociopolitical capital and honor as well as religio-political legitimacy and authority.[46]
“In the Spirit and Power of Elijah”
When the prophetic group looking at these episodes observes Elisha’s gesture, they exclaim: “The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha” (2 Kgs [4 Kgdms] 2:15). The verb used (επαναπέπαθται) is overcharged with particles that mean “on” and “up” (επι-ανα-παύω). It is not the Spirit “in” the interior of an individual, with a meaning of purification (Isa 4:4b; Ezek 36:26, 27), but the Spirit resting “on/over” someone, appointing this person for concrete function of leadership (as in the case of the elders in Num 11:17) or communication (as in the case of the prophets in Isa 61:1).[47]
Just as the notion of “spirit” can refer to a real being, the notion of “power” also carries similar connotations. Walter Wink finds that while “In Jewish sources of the period, dynamis is most often used of military or political power or forces,” the New Testament, “with the exception of Rev. 13:2 and 17:12-13,” “ignores the military, political, and economic uses of the term,” and uses it to denote “evil spirits, the spirits of the dead, stars, spiritual powers, Godhead, and delegated authority”[48] (cf. Acts 8:10). And in Luke, the verses that speak of “spirit and power” are 1:7 and 4:14 (cf. Luke 1:35; Acts 1:8).[49] While the former talks about John “in (en) the spirit and power of Elijah,” the latter speaks of Jesus “in (en) the power of the spirit.” In Acts, 10:38 also speaks of God anointing Jesus with the holy spirit and power, and at 4:7, the religious leaders questioned Peter and John about the “power or name” that they used to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus. And as Wink points out, “name” is another term of power, which can refer to the being or office associated with such being.[50] In other words, to acknowledge the name is to recognize the being or office associated with that being (cf. Luke 9:48-49).
This worldview of spirit and power as a real entity interacting with humans in our concrete life situations should also be apparent in Luke’s writings, especially when Luke begins his Gospel with the announcement and activities by angel(s). As such, the announcement by Gabriel concerning John going before the Lord “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (1:17a), the praise and prophecy by Zechariah regarding John being called a prophet of the Most High who will go before the Lord (1:76), as well as Jesus’ explanation about John as more than a prophet who prepares the way (7:27) must have reflected Luke’s conviction.[51] However, in addition to these associations of John with Elijah, Luke also links Jesus with Elijah. Hence, Robert Miller argues, “judgments made by ‘the people’ may or may not be trustworthy, whereas comparisons and contrasts made by Jesus (or by Luke himself) certainly carry Luke’s endorsement.”[52] That is, while we have verses compare and contrast Jesus with Elijah, they do not necessarily tell us about Luke’s conviction. Rather, as Miller contends, verses that link Jesus with Elijah serve to highlight the role and authority of Jesus like that of Elijah.[53]
While I agree with this assessment of Miller, I disagree with Miller’s analysis about “Luke does not literally identify John with Elijah”[54] simply because Elijah also appears alongside Moses at the “transfiguration” event (9:28ff). Here, Miller seems to take Luke’s identification of John as Elijah as only a literary construction instead of reflecting the socio-cultural understanding of spirit. But, as J. Severino Croatto maintains, if “the Spirit resting ‘on/over’ someone [is like] appointing this person for concrete function of leadership (as in the case of the elders in Num 11:17) or communication (as in the case of the prophets in Isa 61:1),”[55] then John is still John and Elijah is still Elijah even though John is “in the spirit and power of Elijah,” just like Elisha is still Elisha even when the “spirit of Elijah” rests on him. In other words, if we view the spirit as real entities and if we see prophet from the viewpoint of Iamblichus’s notion of “spirit inspiration or possession” and asceticism, which is not unlike what we see in many “shamanistic” beliefs and practices, then Luke 1:17a can be understood as because of John’s (spiritual) qualification, he is thus able to receive the power and mission of Elijah for the Elijah to work with him to prepare the way. As such, the identification of Elijah in Luke is not a matter of literary construction. Neither is it just an issue of who is playing and fulfilling the role and function of Elijah.
Conclusion
What do Christians mean when we ask to be inspired or filled by the Holy Spirit? Do we mean that we desire to be influenced and even possessed by the Holy Spirit? Though we in the West do not like the idea of “possession,” being filled with the Holy Spirit, as Reiling and Swellengrebel argue, can also mean being possessed by the Holy Spirit.[56] This possession, however, does not mean random possession in the sense that we lose our consciousness, and hence, identity and agency. Rather, such possession depends how much we prepare, purify, and train ourselves to be adequate vessels for the Holy Spirit to work through. Understood thus, to be filled by the Holy Spirit can then be understood as our desire to let go of ourselves so that we can create a space for the Holy Spirit to work with us and to guide us.[57] But as Luke 1:17a shows us, spirit possession or guidance is not merely a personal matter. It is also a communal matter, as people who were waiting for Zechariah also found out about the event (1:21-22, 59-66). As such, spiritual encounter does not just concern the individuals, but the society as well (1:5-25),
The notion of “spirit” as a real being, instead of just some sort of ambiguous force, idea, or personality, can also help us to interact with the “spirit” as a concrete other; an “other” who confronts us as the “other.” That is, the experience and encounter with the spirit can pull us out of our everyday routine and limited horizon so that our visions are not delimited by what we can tangibly see and hear. The fact that after some seven hundred years the spirit of Elijah, according to Luke, can still work with John, reflects a worldview that sees the past, present, and future as a continuum in which time is a matter of patience and hope, as time is always open to possibilities. That is, the past is not just a forgotten past but a past that we can take hold of in the present to prepare for a better condition for the future. Spirit possession or influence, therefore, reveals an “other” who breaks into our present from the outside so that we have no choice but to be always open to new “horizon of fusions.”
Appendix
History of Interpretations
This overview shows that most scholars prioritize their theology and inter-textual analysis in their interpretation of how Luke uses the figure of Elijah to portray John and Jesus. Instead of addressing Luke 1:17a as a literary construction or representation, this paper focuses on the socio-cultural aspects of the (con)text, in particular the notion of “the influence of spirit,” which is not only prevalent in Chinese folk religion and popular cultures. It is also not uncommon in Greco-Roman literature and the Bible.
John as Elijah
As Max Turner finds the phrase “spirit and power (of Elijah)” “stands in tension with Luke’s view” – because the word “power” usually refers to the “power of miracles,”[58] which for Luke John did not do any – he concludes that “Luke has taken over traditional material that presented John the Baptist as the eschatological prophet.”[59] In fact, as John “articulates, expands and applies that ‘word of God’ that came to him, and does so with charismatic and compelling power,”[60] his prophetic preaching – which is a manifestation of the spirit – signifies not only “the return of full prophecy to Israel, and itself the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy”[61] (Isaiah 40:1), but also a “repentant reconciliation in Israel.”[62] As such, this eschatological emphasis suggests that Luke “understands Jesus as the messianic prophet, which for him means not Elijah… but the prophet-like Moses.”[63]
While Robert Miller agrees that Luke affirms John as Elijah (1:17, 76 and 7:27), he takes Luke’s omission of Mark 9:9-13 as denying “John the role of eschatological ‘restorer;’” that is, John is only a forerunner of Jesus, “not an eschatological forerunner of God.”[64] Miller, however, also qualifies that “Luke does not literally identify John with Elijah (i.e., that John is not Elias redivivus)” as “Elijah appears in person at the Transfiguration.”[65] As of whether Luke portrays Jesus as Elijah, as many scholars opine, Miller maintains that we need to pay attention to how Luke uses Elijah narrative to highlight the “specific function” and “degree of authority” of Jesus because “Luke can invoke the memory of Elijah either to compare him to Jesus or to John, or to contrast him with them.”[66] From his analysis of the “three ways in which Luke uses Elijah for comparison” and “two ways in which Luke uses Elijah for contrast,”[67] Miller concludes that “Luke’s association of Jesus with Elijah does not amount to a specific or distinctive Elijah-Jesus typology” as such association “serves the important but limited purpose of enhancing Jesus’ prophetic status.”[68]
This emphasis on the prophetic feature of Elijah is highlighted by Adrian Hastings, Eric Franklin, David Ravens, and J. Severino Croatto, albeit they argue that Luke portrays Jesus as Elijah. Franklin and Croatto, furthermore, argue that Luke, because of his theological agenda, has no problem presenting both John and Jesus as Elijah.
John and Jesus as Elijah
J. Severino Croatto argues that while Luke focuses on the prophetic dimension of Jesus, Acts highlights the messianic dimension of Jesus”[69] Moreover, while Jesus in the Synoptic tradition “imitated” the preaching and healing “Elijah of the Deuteronomistic cycle (1 Kgs 17 – 2 Kgs 2),” John the Baptist in the Synoptic tradition is Elijah redivivus, the “precursor of Yahweh’s eschatological ‘visit’” (Mal 3:1 and 23; cf. Luke 1:17, 76 and 7:27).[70]
Eric Franklin also argues that “Luke describes Jesus in terms of Elijah and Moses,” but he stresses that Jesus was not “a new Moses or a new Elijah, for he does not see him as taking the place of the old but as linked closely it.”[71] This continuity with the role of prophets in the Hebrew Bible allows Luke to highlight Jesus “as the supreme representatives of the prophetic line” without superseding them.[72] As such, “Luke’s Jesus is controlled by Old Testament categories which are used to present him as the climax of Israel’s saving history.”[73] That is, it was not because Luke wanted to defer the End indefinitely that he did not portray Jesus as “the prophet of the End-time” but rather because he sought to describe “Jesus as a prophet person whose ministry and person are one with those of the prophets of old.”[74] This focus on the prophetic character is what allows Luke to present both John and Jesus as Elijah the prophet instead of Elijah the eschatological prophet, where John is the bridge “which binds together Jesus and the Old Testament history of God’s action.”[75]
Jesus, not John, as Elijah
Published in 1958, Adrian Hastings’ Prophet and Witness in Jerusalem attempts to treat the Gospel of Luke as a complete theological and ecclesiastical work in its own merit.[76] As he writes that a prophet is someone called by God and sent to speak “in God’s name to the people,” Hastings argues that “the word is his characteristics” of being a prophet.[77] Signs and miracles are indications of such mission authentication, but the power and proclamation of “God’s way to men [sic]” are the primary function of a prophet.[78] This emphasis on the role of prophet is significant as “all the figures appearing in Luke’s first two chapters are prophetical.”[79] And in the Hebrew Bible, who else can stand next to Moses but Elijah the “Prophet and father of prophets” (St. Ephraem) and the “type of all prophets” (Jerome)![80] As such, Hastings argues that Luke portrays Jesus in terms of a Moses-type prophet (Deuteronomy 18:13-22), of the notion of universalism in the Suffering Servant of the Lord (Isaiah 53:3-5), and of an Elijah-type prophet.[81] Hence, despite the “first two chapters [of Luke] brought out sharply John’s Elianic character… he avoids mention of John’s role of new Elias, and nowhere makes an explicit identification of one with the other;”[82] Luke “more evidently” depicts Jesus as the new Elijah (cf. Luke 4:23-26; 7:11-16; 9:51, 52-56, and 61-62; 3:16 cf. 12:49 and Acts 2:3-4).[83] This new Elijah, moreover, “possesses the characteristics of the historical Elias [=Elijah], but in a transcendentally original way,”[84] in which “Elias appears less as [a] precursor than as another predecessor, almost more important than Moses himself.”[85]
David Ravens also argues that because Luke attempts to persuade his Jewish Christians he presents Jesus not simply as the earthly “χριστός but as the prophet who followed the role described by Isaiah and the prophet promised by Moses.”[86] That is, by linking Jesus with Moses and Elijah, Luke not only seeks to show Jesus as the prophet spoken of in the Hebrew Bible, he also tries to explain how Jesus will indeed restore Israel so that “Jewish Christians in the rightness of their decision” would “join the Way and, at the same time, act as a warning to those believers who seem to claim too much” about Jesus having restored everything.[87] In short, Jesus was Elijah in the sense of fulfilling the role of Elijah as the “non-fiery” “forerunner of the day of the Lord.”[88] As such, Luke, according to Ravens, “avoids the explicit identification of John with Elijah that is found in Mt. 11:14 and 17:11-13”[89] as Jesus is the “true Elijah figure” of restoration.[90]
John as Elijah, Implicitly
The following scholars contend that while Luke explicitly presents Jesus as Elijah, the Gospel also implicitly portrays John as Elijah, as a result of mixing different traditions together. For example, Raymond Brown argues that because Luke depicts Jesus as God’s Son in a later stage instead of “the Elijah-like eschatological prophet” in the earlier stage, the role of Elijah becomes “freed” for John.[91] The fact that Luke omits Mark 9:9-13 further shows that Luke deliberately does not want to equate John with Elijah, not to mention Luke 4:25-26 and 9:54 emphasize that “it was Jesus, not JBap, who had the Elijah role.”[92]
Likewise, Joseph Fitzmyer argues that as Luke uses numerous images of Elijah to underscore Jesus as a great prophet who healed and performed miracles (Luke 4:25-27, cf. 1 Kgs 17:8-16 and 2 Kgs 5:1-14; Luke 7:16, cf. 1 Kgs 17:23),”[93] “Luke never explicitly identifies John with Elijah, as does Matt 11:14.”[94] Rather, the Gospel implicitly identifies John as Elijah in a toned-down manner (cf. Luke 7:27).[95] Fitzmyer also argues that even though “Luke treats Jesus as Elijah returned,”[96] the Gospel does not portray him as a “fiery social reformer” in Sirach 48:10 (cf. Malachi 4; 1 Kings 18:36-38; and 2 Kings 1:9-14).[97]
John as a Precursor to Elijah
While J. A. T. Robison in 1958 already argues that Luke-Acts reflect different traditions concerning the identification of John as Elijah, he maintains that “if [the historical] John saw anyone as Elijah, it was not himself but the one coming after him,” namely, Jesus![98] Robinson points out that as Malachi 4 and Sirach 48 do not equate the Lord or God with the Messiah, we cannot assume that the John’s notion of the “coming one” figure in the Gospels is the Messiah.[99] And if the work of restoration is characteristic of Elijah’s mission, then Acts 3:12-26 identifies Jesus as Elijah, despite Lucan explicit mention of John as Elijah in the beginning of Luke. Moreover, Jesus’ answer to John’s question whether Jesus was the “coming one” shows that Jesus later on disagreed with John’s message and reinterpreted Malachi 4 in terms of Isaiah 28:18ff, 35:5f, and 41:1ff (Luke 7:18ff).[100]
John as not Elijah
Focusing on Luke-Acts as a literary whole and comparing Luke with Mark, Hans Conzelmann popularizes and reads Luke-Acts as a church theology in terms of a three-stage salvation history (Israel–Jesus–Church) to explicate the delay of Parousia.[101] And as Conzelmann considers Luke 1-2 inauthentic and does not discuss them as they are very different, if not contradictory, from the rest of Luke-Acts,[102] he does not see Luke portray John as Elijah at all.[103] In fact, as the End would come “suddenly” in the end of the three-stage salvation history, Conzelmann argues that there is no need for a forerunner in the Gospel, especially when Luke omitted Mark 9:11ff that speaks of Elijah must come first; as such, the quotation of Malachi 3:1 in Luke 7:27 is also a rejection of such claim.[104] John was just a regular and non-eschatological prophet “belongs entirely to the past epoch of redemptive history” (cf. Luke 16:16).[105]
Also taking Luke as a whole in which “Luke’s theology can be summed up in a phrase: ‘Christology is ecclesiology, and ecclesiology is Christology,’” Frederick Danker argues that as Luke 1:17 does not use the word “restore” from Malachi 4:6 but uses the term “prepare,” also found in 7:27, the Gospel “wished to separate John from Elijah.”[106] In fact, Danker thinks that Luke wants to portray Jesus as the only one on whom “the Messianic and apocalyptic hopes are merged,” instead of being evaluated in terms of any “intermediary apocalyptic figures or apocalyptic events.”[107] As such, Luke 4:25-27, 7:11-17, 9:51 and Acts 1:2, 11, 22 can all be compared to the Elijah accounts in 1 and 2 Kings. For Danker, the hermeneutical key to this interpretation lies with “Luke’s editorial decision” in using “Mark’s association of the cry with talk about Elijah (Mark 15:35).”[108]
Neither John nor Jesus as Elijah
This focus on “restoration” is also highlighted by Walter Wink in his use of redaction criticism to analyze the Four Gospels. In addition to omitting Mark 1:6, 9:9-13, and 15:34f that identify John with Elijah, Luke, according to Wink, also indicates that both John and Jesus did not “fulfill anything as ‘new Elijahs’” because such restoration not only did not happen but will only be actualized in the End (cf. Acts 3:21).[109] And even with three Lucan additional references to Elijah in 1:17 and 4:25-26, the verses suggest Luke’s rejection of Elijah’s eschatological mission depicted in Malachi 4. In the end, “Luke uses Elijah purely as a basis for comparison” to show how John and Jesus are like Elijah,[110] in the sense that John is like Elijah who preaches repentance while Jesus is like Elijah whom “in no other Old Testament prophet did the Spirit of God work so mightily.”[111] That is, John’s role is only limited to a general preaching of repentance. But given Lucan numerous references to Elijah,[112] Wink argues that Luke focuses more on comparing Jesus with Elijah to show how much greater Jesus is than Elijah. In short, “Luke develops not an Elijah typology but rather an Elijah-midrash based on the account of Elijah in the Books of Kings.”[113]
-----------------------
[1] Crystal Addey, “Divine Possession and Divination in the Greco-Roman World: The Evidence from Iamblichus’s On the Mysteries,” in Spirit Posession and Trance: New Interdisplinary Perspectives. Edited by Bettina E. Schmidt and Lucy Huskinson (London and New York: Continuum, 2010), 171-85.
[2] Mark Allan Powell, Introducing the Gospels (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998), 94. Emphasis original. For an overview of scholarship on the role of spirit in Luke-Acts, see Max Turner, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 20-79.
[3] Walter Wink, Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament. Vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 15.
[4] Arthur A. Just, Jr., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. New Testament III: Luke (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2003), 9-10. For example, Ambrose wrote, “John walks with the Lord on earth, Elijah appears with the Lord in glory. Elijah is a herald of the first coming of the Lord, and John of the second. Elijah after three years watered the earth with rain, John after three years sprinkled the arid soil of our body with the stream of faith” (Idem). Likewise, Bede wrote, “Both Elijah and John were celibate. Both wore rough dress. Both spent their lives in the wilderness. Both were heralds of the truth. Both underwent persecution for justice’s sake at the hands of a king and queen – the former at the hands of Ahab and Jezebel, the latter at the hands of Herod and Herodias. The former, lest he be killed by the wicked, was carried up to heaven in a fiery chariot. The latter, lest he be overcome by the wicked, sought the heavenly kingdom by his martyrdom, which was accomplished in spiritual combat” (9).
[5] Reiling, J. and J. L. Swellengrebel, A Translator s Handbook of the Gospel of Luke (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971), 36.
[6] Ibid., 33. Marshall Swellengrebel, A Translator’s Handbook of the Gospel of Luke (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971), 36.
[7] Ibid., 33. Marshall also comments that “Πίμπλημι is almost exclusively Lucan; it is used of filling, especially with the Spirit (1:41, 67; Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9), but also with fear, anger, et al. (4:28; 5:17, 26; 6:11); it can mean ‘to fulfill’ (1:23, 57; 2:6, 21, 22; 21:22); cf. πληρής, 4:1; 5:12; πληρόω, 1:20; et al… In John’s case the gift of God was present with him from his mother’s womb… The language expresses divine choice and care of a person from his very birth, but here in connection with 1:41-44 a prenatal sanctification of John is implied; even before he was born, the hand of God was on him to prepare him for his work. Thus in the strongest possible way the divine choice of John for his crucial task is stressed.” I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983), 58. Emphasis added. Also, Fitzmyer argues that being “filled with a/the holy Spirit” (e.g. 1:41, 67; Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9) is a “typical Lucan expression” to denote “the gift of God’s creative or prophetic presence.” Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke (I-IX): Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB 28 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1981), 326.
[8] David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983), 19-21.
[9] Walter Wink, Unmasking the Powers: The Invisible Forces that Determine Human Existence (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 1.
[10] Kabiro wa Gatumu, The Pauline Concept of Supernatural Powers: A Reading from the African Worldview. Foreword by James D. G. Dunn. Paternoster Biblical Monographs (Milton Keynes, UK; Colorado Springs, CO (US); India: Paternoster, 2008), 5.
[11] However, this does not mean that we do not have many ghost or apparitions stories in the West. For example, see Andrew MacKenzie, The Seen and the Unseen (London: George Weidenfeld & Nicolson Limited, 1987); Hilary Evans and Patrick Huyghe, The Field Guide to Ghosts and Other Apparitions (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 2000).
[12] Mariko Namba Walter and Eva Jane Neumann Fridman, Shamanism: An Encyclopedia of World Beliefs, Practices, and Culture. 2 Volumes (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2004).
[13] For example, Sandy Yule, “’Honour Your Father and Your Mother’: The Case of Christianity and Shamanism,” in Ecumenism in Asia: Essays in Honour of Feliciano Carino. Edited by K. C. Abraham (Bangalore, India: Association for Theological Education in South East Asia (TESEA) and Board of Theological Education – Senate of Serampore College (BTE-SSC), 1999), 41-67. Also, Jojo M. Fung, “Glimpses of Murut Shamanism in Sabath,” Shaman vol. 8 No. 2 (Autumn 2000): 181-93 (see also a series of articles at , accessed October 2, 2010). Of course, the difficulty lies with how we can communicate such personal and mystical experiences with the others intelligibly. But my contention is with our tendency to discredit them outright. The following two articles provide a glimpse to such difficulty. Robert H. Sharf, “Experience,” in Critical Terms for Religious Studies. Edited by Mark C. Taylor (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1998), 94-116. Catherine Bell, “Performance,” in Critical Terms for Religious Studies. Edited by Mark C. Taylor (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1998), 205-24.
[14] Laura Nasrallah, “An Ecstasy of Folly”: Prophecy and Authority in Early Christianity. Harvard Theological Studies 52 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), 1-28. Nasrallah’s critique of this Weberian notion, however, is to highlight the sociopolitical rhetoric in power struggle in Early Christianity.
[15] Van A. Harvey, The Historian and the Believer: The Morality of Historical Knowledge and Christian Belief (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1996); also, Mary Gerhart and Allan M. Russell, Metaphoric Process: The Creation of Scientific and Religious Understanding. Foreword by Paul Ricoeur (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1984).
[16] John J. Pilch, “Holy Men and Their Sky Journeys: A Cross-Cultural Model,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 35 (2005): 106-11.
[17] Pieter F. Craffert, “Altered States of Consciousness: Visions, Spirit Possession, Sky Journeys,” in Understanding the Social World of the New Testament. Edited by Dietmar Neufeld and Richard E. DeMaris (London and New York: Routledge, 2010), 142.
[18] Ibid., 136.
[19] Ibid., 139. For example, see Toelken’s own personal narrative in encountering “the improbable” in Navajo culture. Barre Toelken, “The Moccasin Telegraph and Other Improbabilities: A Personal Essay,” in Out of the Ordinary: Folklore and the Supernatural. Edited by Barbara Walker (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1995), 46-58.
[20] Ibid., 6. As such, “speaking about the natural or the supernatural from the African worldview is to speak about the same reality. It is to speak about the head and the tail as two sides, which make up one coin” (6-7).
[21] Alan J. A. Elliott, Chinese Spirit-Medium Cults in Singapore. Monographs on Social Anthropology, No. 14 (England: Department of Anthropology of the London School of Economics and Political Science, 1955), 26-29. Also, Jean DeBernardi, The Way that Lives in the Heart: Chinese Popular Religion and Spirit Mediums in Penang, Malaysia (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006).
[22] Walter Wink, Naming the Powers, 15.
[23] Kabiro wa Gatumu, The Pauline Concept of Supernatural Powers, 6.
[24] Robert Ford Campany, Making Transcendents: Ascetics and Social Memory in Early Medieval China (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2009), xvi.
[25] Paolo Xella, “Death and the Afterlife in Canaanite and Hebrew Thought,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Jack M. Sasson, John Baines, Gary Beckman, and Karen S. Rubinson. 4 Vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1995), Vol. III: 2068.
[26] John J. Pilch, “Holy Men and Their Sky Journeys: A Cross-Cultural Model,” 107.
[27] Idem.
[28] As Elliott points out, “the vast majority of Chinese do not follow either one or other of the great traditions [i.e., Confucianism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Daoism] with any regard for its purity. There are, instead, numerous religious practices in which elements from all three traditions can be discerned. It would be unwise, moreover, to consider contemporary religion as derived solely from the three best-known traditions.” Alan J. A. Elliott, Chinese Spirit-Medium Cults in Singapore, 26-27.
[29] Lucy Huskinson and Bettina E. Schmidt, “Introduction,” in Spirit Possession and Trance: New Interdisplinary Perspectives. Edited by Bettina E. Schmidt and Lucy Huskinson (London and New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010), 12.
[30] ; accessed October 2, 2010.
[31] Adrian Hastings, Prophet and Witness in Jerusalem: A Study of the Teaching of Saint Luke (London Longmans, Green and Co Ltd, 1958), 56.
[32] Erika Bourguignon, “Foreword,” in Spirit Possession in Judaism: Cases and Contexts from the Middle Ages to the Present. Edited by Matt Goldfish. Foreword by Erika Bourguignon (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 2003), 9-10.
[33] Matt Goldish “Preface,” in Spirit Possession in Judaism: Cases and Contexts from the Middle Ages to the Present. Edited by Matt Goldfish. Foreword by Erika Bourguignon (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 2003), 13.
[34] Lawrence Fine, “Benevolent Spirit Possession in Sixteenth-Century Safed,” in Spirit Possession in Judaism: Cases and Contexts from the Middle Ages to the Present. Edited by Matt Goldfish. Foreword by Erika Bourguignon (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 2003), 103.
[35] Ibid., 105.
[36] Ibid., 104 (for all the quotes in this sentence).
[37] Ibid., 105.
[38] Ibid., 103.
[39] Ibid., 106-07.
[40] Crystal Addey, “Divine Possession and Divination in the Greco-Roman World,” 172.
[41] Ibid., 175 (for all the quotes in this sentence). Although for different reasons, this conception of soul is similar to that by Watchman Nee, one of the most popular, respected, and prolific Chinese theologians and pastors in twentieth-century Chinese Christianity. Nee argues for a tripartite constitution of a human being, in which the body is “world consciousness,” the soul “self-consciousness,” and the spirit “God-consciousness.” Due to this nature of human beings, we can therefore communicate with God with our spirit, with our soul acting as a bridge between the body and spirit when we are still alive. Nee writes, “The soul is the meeting point; here the spirit and the body join. Man [sic] communicates with God’s Spirit and the spiritual realm through the spirit and receives and expresses power and life in the spiritual realm through this spirit. He [sic] communicates with the outside world of senses through the body; the world and the body interact with one another. The soul lies in between these two worlds and belongs to these two worlds. On the one hand, it communicates with the spiritual realm through the spirit, and on the other hand, it communicates with the physical world through the body… It is impossible for the spirit to control the body directly; it requires a medium. This medium is the soul, which was produced when the spirit touched the body. The soul is in between the spirit and the body; it binds the spirit and the body together as one. The spirit can rule over the body through the soul and subject it under God’s power. The body can also induce the spirit through the soul to love the world.” Watchman Nee, The Spiritual Man. Volume 1 (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1998), 8-9.
[42] Crystal Addey, “Divine Possession and Divination in the Greco-Roman World,” 177.
[43] Ibid., 180.
[44] Susan R. Garrett, “Beloved Physician of the Soul? Luke as Advocate for Ascetic Practice,” in Asceticism and the New Testament. Edited by Leif E. Vaage and Vincent L. Wimbush (London and New York: Routledge, 1999), 72.
[45] Richard Valantasis, “Constructions of Power in Asceticism,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 63 (1995): 797. Quoted from Susan R. Garrett, “Beloved Physician of the Soul? Luke as Advocate for Ascetic Practice,” 72.
[46] Ibid., 82-88.
[47] Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality. Volume 2: The Use of Pleasure. Translated by Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage Books, 1990); also, Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality. Volume 3: The Care of the Self. Translated by Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage Books, 1988). As such, Stanley Stowers even “considers Jewish elite writings [e.g., Philo’s Legum Allegoriae, Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of Job, Sirach, etc.] to be ‘a philosophy for the passions, a school for self-mastery.’” Stanley K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994), 58. Quoted from Abraham Smith, “‘Full of Spirit and Wisdom’: Luke’s Portrait of Stephen (Acts 6:1–8:1a) as a Man of Self-Mastery,” in Asceticism and the New Testament. Edited by Leif E. Vaage and Vincent L. Wimbush (London and New York: Routledge, 1999), 100.
[48] J. Severino Croatto, “Jesus, Prophet Like Elijah, and Prophet-Teacher Like Moses in Luke-Acts,” JBL 124/3 (2005), 457-58.
[49] Walter Wink, Naming the Powers, 17 (for all the quotes in this sentence). Also, see Kabiro wa Gatumu, The Pauline Concept of Supernatural Powers, 133-35.
[50] Nolland comments that “The juxtaposition of πνεũμα, ‘spirit,’ and δύναμις, ‘power,’ is Luke… and the present phrase does not reflect Hebrew idiom. It is likely that καί δύναμει, ‘and power,’ is a Lukan addition, perhaps specifically inspired by 1:35.” John Nolland, Luke 1 – 9:20. Word Biblical Commentary. Volume 35A (Dallas, Texas: Word Books Publishers, 1989), 31.
[51] Walter Wink, Naming the Powers, 21-22.
[52] Robert J. Miller, “Elijah, John, and Jesus in the Gospel of Luke,” New Testament Studies 34 (1988), 619-20.
[53] Ibid., 611-22.
[54] Ibid., 612-21.
[55] Ibid., 619-n. 3.
[56] J. Severino Croatto, “Jesus, Prophet Like Elijah, and Prophet-Teacher Like Moses in Luke-Acts,” 458.
[57] Reiling, J. and J. L. Swellengrebel, A Translator’s Handbook of the Gospel of Luke, 33.
[58] As Coakley points out, to let go of oneself does not mean to condone victimization. Rather, the relationship between power and vulnerability is paradoxical. Being vulnerable “is not an invitation to be battered; not is its silence a silencing. (If anything, it builds one in the courage to give prophetic voice.) By choosing to ‘make space’ [through prayer and meditation] in this way, one ‘practises’ the ‘presence of God’ – the subtle but enabling presence of a God who neither shouts nor forces, let alone ‘obliterates.’” Sarah Coakley, “Kenōsis and Subversion: On the Repression of ‘Vulnerability’ in Christian Feminist Writing,” in Swallowing a Fishbone?: Feminist Theologians Debate Christianity. Edited by Daphne Hampton (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1996), 108.
[59] Max Turner, Power from on High, 152-n.45. Also, “For Luke, such ‘power’ can be a quality of the Spirit’s own activity (as at 1:17; 4:14; Acts 1:8; 10:38) and so occasionally (1:35; 24:49) even a referential term for the Spirit. Of these instances, three might be argued to pertain to cases where the ‘power’ of the Spirit is evinced in preaching alone (1:17; 24:49; Acts 1:8). Only the first of these, however, is a convincing case (Luke does not think John the Baptist worked miracles)…” (254).
[60] Ibid., 152. Underline added.
[61] Ibid., 153.
[62] Ibid., 171.
[63] Ibid., 172. “John the Baptist’s ministry to be undertaken in the ‘Spirit and power of Elijah’ (1:17) evidently comes closest to the notion of prophet ‘empowering for mission’… He is sent to initiate Israel’s restoration by addressing ‘the people’ of God and calling them to radical repentance (1:76-69)…” (405).
[64] Ibid., 235-36. Underline added. Turner argues for “three types of use of Elijah in ‘messianic contexts: (1) There was a Jewish tradition based on Mal. 3:24… which looked to Elijah as ‘the coming one’ who would ‘restore’ Israel in repentance ready for God’s own advent at the day of the Lord (so Sir. 48:9-10, and possibly 4Q521)… but there is little sure evidence that Luke knew such hopes, and he nowhere explicitly identifies Jesus as the Elijah to come – at most one might speak of possible Elijah-messiah overtones in his sources… (2) Later in Judaism Mal. 3:24 was harmonized with hopes which expected some other messianic figure to play the decisive role: Elijah then simply prepares for the end-time figure… This is the role that Luke attributes to the Baptist at 1:17, 76, and 7:27… (3) Elijah may be used as an example of the man of God, or aspects of his prophetic career may be used typologically, without any attempt to formally to identify Elijah with the antitypical figure(s). This appear to be how Luke uses Elijah material with respect to Jesus, and within this framework he is also free to develop an exegetical analogy between Elisha and Jesus, as well as one between Elijah and John.” (235-36, n. 63).
[65] Robert J. Miller, “Elijah, John, and Jesus in the Gospel of Luke,” New Testament Studies 34 (1988), 621 (for both quotes). Underline added.
[66] Ibid., 619-n. 3 (for both quotes).
[67] Ibid., 614.
[68] The three ways are “(1) to identify John or Jesus with him [Elijah], (2) to attribute his role to one of them, or (3) not so much to compare Jesus specifically with Elijah, but more to embellish the general characterization of Jesus as a prophet by pointing to other figures along with Elijah” (615). The two ways are to “(1) qualify it in some way, or (2) criticize it outright” (615).
[69] Ibid., 621.
[70] “The activity of Jesus as prophet – outstanding in the Third Gospel – comes to an end in the book of Acts. The symbolic, transcendent Messiah replaces the historical prophet.” J. Severino Croatto, “Jesus, Prophet Like Elijah, and Prophet-Teacher Like Moses in Luke-Acts,” 454. Thus, in Acts, “Jesus is no longer Elijah, but the eschatological prophet who inspires in the ekklesia the new interpretation of the Scriptures” (464).
[71] Ibid., 454 (for all the quotes in this sentence). Moreover, “The risen Jesus will replace both the prophet-teacher Moses and the prophet Elijah. Jesus alone remains” (461).
[72] Eric Franklin, Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1978), 68 (for both quotes). Underline added.
[73] Ibid., 69.
[74] Idem.
[75] Ibid., 68 (cf. page 6).
[76] Ibid., 84 (cf. page 200-n. 41). Coming to a somewhat similar conclusion but with the approach of narrative criticism, Robert Tannehill argues that “While the Gospel of Luke suggests parallels between Jesus and Elijah, this does not prevent the narrator from suggesting that John fulfills some of the functions of the eschatological Elijah. The narrator not only refers to Elijah in describing John’s mission in 1:17 but also attributes to John Elijah’s function of turning the hearts of the fathers, mentioned in Malachi 3:22-23 (4:5-6 ET).” Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Volume 1: The Gospel according to Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 24. Underline added.
[77] Adrian Hastings, Prophet and Witness in Jerusalem: A Study of the Teaching of Saint Luke, 2-11.
[78] Ibid., 52 (for both quotes).
[79] Ibid., 53. Hastings even wrote that “The history of prophetism in Israel is nearly identical with the history of the chosen people itself…” (54).
[80] Ibid., 62.
[81] Ibid., 56.
[82] Ibid., 54ff.
[83] Ibid., 62. Underline added.
[84] Ibid., 70.
[85] Ibid., 74.
[86] Ibid., 75.
[87] David Ravens, Luke and the Restoration of Israel. JSNT Supplement Series 119 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd, 1995), 136. In fact, Jesus was the post-Easter anointed prophet who is yet come to restore Israel after his resurrection. Ravens wrote, “Luke knew something of Jewish expectations of a messianic figure and he knew that his Christian contemporaries spoke and wrote of Jesus as the Messiah yet, in spite of all that Jesus had done, he had not brought all those expectations to fulfillment… And those Christians who were most vulnerable to this realization of the partial fulfillment of the hopes and promises would be those from a Jewish background… There can be no doubt that Luke reflects the sense of anticlimax that must have been felt by many… This is why Luke looks forward to the time when the Messiah will come…” (120-21).
[88] Ibid., 138.
[89] Ibid., 132. Ravens listed three places that support this argument: Luke 7:11-17 (cf. 1 Kgs 17:10-24); Luke 9:51-55; and Acts 1 (2 Kgs 2).
[90] Ibid., 32-33. Underline added.
[91] Ibid., 33.
[92] Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New updated version (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 276.
[93] Idem.
[94] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke (I-IX): Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB 28 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1981), 214. The other two places that Fitzmyer argues for a Jesus-Elijah comparison are Luke 9:59 and 1 Kgs 19:19-21 as well as Luke 9:51 and 2 Kgs 2:11.
[95] Ibid., 216. Underline added.
[96] Ibid., 186.
[97] Ibid., 213. Underline added
[98] Ibid., 214. For example, in responding to John’s question in Luke 7:19ff whether he was the “coming one,” Jesus seems to have rejected John’s portrayal of him in 3:16 (cf. 9:54-55, where Jesus rebuked James and John for wanting to “call fire down from heaven to destroy” those in a Samaritan village who did not welcome them).
[99] J. A. T. Robinson, “Elijah, John and Jesus: An Essay in Detection,” New Testament Studies 4 (July 1958): 264.
[100] Moreover, if the Messiah is not understood as the Lord or God, then the “coming one” figure can refer to Elijah (Malachi 4:5), not to mention the fire imagery associated with Elijah (1 Kings 18:30-39; cf. Malachi 4:1) is related to the work of Jesus (Luke 3:16, par. Matthew 3:11; cf. Luke 12:49).
[101] Ibid., 270ff.
[102] Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke. Translated by Geoffrey Buswell (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961).
[103] Ibid., 18-n.1, 118, 172.
[104] Richard Zehnle agrees with this conclusion of Conzelmann’s analysis, but argues that John in the role of Elijah was a “forerunner of Jesus, not of the eschatological times.” Richard F. Zehnle, Peter’s Pentecost Discourse: Tradition and Luke Reinterpretation in Peter’s Speeches of Acts and 3. SBL Monograph Series 15 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1971), 59.
[105] Ibid., 167-1.
[106] Ibid., 167.
[107] Frederick W. Danker, Luke. Proclamation Commentaries: The New Testament Witnesses for Preaching (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 29. Moreover, as Acts 13:24 makes clear, John was not “a forerunner in terms of whom the messianic credentials of Jesus could be verified;” rather, he was a forerunner who preached repentance “before the face of his (Jesus’) entrance” (Idem).
[108] Ibid., 30.
[109] Ibid., 29 (for both quotes). Underline added.
[110] Wink apparently refers to Conzelmann’s scheme of three-stage salvation history. Walter Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (London and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 42. Wink wrote, “…when John the Baptist and Jesus came, all things were not ‘restored,’ the Kingdom did not come, the fathers were not turned to the sons…” (45).
[111] Ibid., 42.
[112] Ibid., 43.
[113] For example, Luke 4:25; Luke 7:11-17 cf. 1 Kgs 17:24; Luke 9:54 cf. 2 Kgs 1:9-12; Luke 9:51 cf. 2 Kgs 2:1; Luke 9:61f cf. 1 Kgs 19:20f; Luke 12:24 cf. 1 Kgs 17:1-7; Luke 12:49 cf. 1 Kgs 18:20-40 and 2 Kgs 1:9ff; Luke 12:50-53 cf. Malachi 4:5ff; Luke 12:54-56 cf. 1 Kgs 18:44; Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:4f cf. 2 Kgs 2:4, 6, and 9; Luke 24:50-53 and Acts 1:9 cf. 2 Kgs 2:11; Acts 1:9 and Luke 9:34-36 cf. 2 Kgs 2:12; etc.
[114] Walter Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition, 43. Emphasis original.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
Related searches
- gloria vanderbilt satanic artwork
- gloria vanderbilt religion
- gloria vanderbilt pool
- gloria vanderbilt swimming pool
- gloria vanderbilt child sacrifice
- gloria vanderbilt religious practices
- gloria vanderbilt cult
- gloria vanderbilt witchcraft
- gloria vanderbilt illuminati
- was gloria vanderbilt a satanist
- vanderbilt satanic family
- gloria vanderbilt and the occult