John/Elijah

**revkev** · 01-23-2012, 11:41 AM

Matthew 11:14 (AMP) - "And if you are willing to receive and accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come [before the kingdom]."

Tough scripture to stand up on its own. Or is it?

Luke 1:17 (AMP) - "And he will [himself] go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn back the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient and incredulous and unpersuadable to the wisdom of the upright [which is the knowledge and holy love of the will of God]—in order to make ready for the Lord a people [perfectly] prepared [in spirit, adjusted and disposed and placed in the right moral state]."

Does this one solve the issue of the first one?

How can we reconcile the two passages? In the message yesterday I skirted along these references as part of a different focus, but as I preached, the Spirit was having me land more decisively on one interpretation more than the other.

I know what the tradition has been, and the pat generic answer (which might be absolutely correct). I however NEVER settle for the traditional pat answer.

I don't think this is as easy dismissed as some commentators pretend. I'm just looking to see if anyone else has ever wrestled with these words, and if so, have you put it to rest?

**Ezekiel 33** · 01-23-2012, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by revkev

Matthew 11:14 (AMP) - "And if you are willing to receive and accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come [before the kingdom]."

Tough scripture to stand up on its own. Or is it?

Luke 1:17 (AMP) - "And he will [himself] go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn back the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient and incredulous and unpersuadable to the wisdom of the upright [which is the knowledge and holy love of the will of God]—in order to make ready for the Lord a people [perfectly] prepared [in spirit, adjusted and disposed and placed in the right moral state]."

Does this one solve the issue of the first one?

How can we reconcile the two passages? In the message yesterday I skirted along these references as part of a different focus, but as I preached, the Spirit was having me land more decisively on one interpretation more than the other.

I know what the tradition has been, and the pat generic answer (which might be absolutely correct). I however NEVER settle for the traditional pat answer.

I don't think this is as easy dismissed as some commentators pretend. I'm just looking to see if anyone else has ever wrestled with these words, and if so, have you put it to rest?

Well, unless you subscribe to re-incarnation John came in the spirit and power of Elijah. The mantle that was handed down to Elisha.
I can't find any scripture that points towards Elizabeth carrying and giving birth to Elijah. That would have to mean that either God had 2 begotten Sons (which goes against scripture), or that the Holy Spirit somehow impregnated Elizabeth with Elijah and he was re-incarnated (which also goes against scripture).

**revkev** · 01-23-2012, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Ezekiel 33

Well, unless you subscribe to re-incarnation John came in the spirit and power of Elijah. The mantle that was handed down to Elisha.
I can't find any scripture that points towards Elizabeth carrying and giving birth to Elijah. That would have to mean that either God had 2 begotten Sons (which goes against scripture), or that the Holy Spirit somehow impregnated Elizabeth with Elijah and he was re-incarnated (which also goes against scripture).

That's just it. Reincarnation NEVER comes into play. Elijah is not dead.

**FLAME** · 01-23-2012, 02:26 PM

John is the one it is refering to in a spiritual sense the one who came crying in the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord. He wasnt a re-incarnation

**revkev** · 01-23-2012, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by FLAME

John is the one it is refering to in a spiritual sense the one who came crying in the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord. He wasnt an incarnation

What do you base that on? Jesus says he was.

**Ezekiel 33** · 01-23-2012, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by revkev

That's just it. Reincarnation NEVER comes into play. Elijah is not dead.

And Elijah appeared on the Mt with Jesus and Moses. Here is a thought for you. Peter knew that it was Moses and Elijah. Wouldn't he have thought that it was John the baptist and Moses if John were actually Elijah? Peter had seen and known John, but never laid eyes on Elijah, and yet he knew it was Elijah and not John. Matthew 17:1-13

**revkev** · 01-23-2012, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Ezekiel 33

And Elijah appeared on the Mt with Jesus and Moses. Here is a thought for you. Peter knew that it was Moses and Elijah. Wouldn't he have thought that it was John the baptist and Moses if John were actually Elijah? Peter had seen and known John, but never laid eyes on Elijah, and yet he knew it was Elijah and not John. Matthew 17:1-13

Well, no. That's because it was Elijah.

**Ezekiel 33** · 01-23-2012, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by revkev

Well, no. That's because it was Elijah.

But if John were actually physically Elijah, wouldn't Peter have recognized him?

**revkev** · 01-23-2012, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Ezekiel 33

But if John were actually physically Elijah, wouldn't Peter have recognized him?

Jesus said John was Elijah. He didn't say Elijah was John. John was already dead by this time. Was he not?

**Ezekiel 33** · 01-23-2012, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by revkev

Jesus said John was Elijah. He didn't say Elijah was John. John was already dead by this time. Was he not?

Yes, he was dead and verse 12 attests to that. But Peter didn't know that He was even supposed to be Elijah (or the spirit/likeness of) until Jesus made His statement in verse 12. In verse 4 Peter had no clue. In the belief of re-incarnation you come back as something or someone DIFFERENT than who you were before. But like you said, Elijah wasn't dead.