[Agrarian]

I had time to pull St. Theophylact off the shelf. In the St. Matthew passage he follows St. John Chrysostom closely. I don't have other commentaries from other Fathers, but St. Theophylact became a standard commentary just as St. John of Damascus became a standard summary of Orthodox dogma, and for the same reasons -- both generally summarize the consensus patrum of what went before them:

"And if ye will receive it, this is Elijah, who was to come"

>> If you are willing, He says, to accept it, that is, if you judge the matter with a good disposition of mind, and not spitefully, he is the one whom the prophet Malachi called Elijah who was to come. For both the Forerunner and Elijah have the same ministry. The one was the Forerunner of the first coming, while Elijah will be the forerunner of the second coming. Then, showing that it is an enigma that John is Elijah, and requires wisdom to understand it, He says:

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear"

(Then, on Matthew 17):

"And his disciples asked Him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come?"

>>The scribes were deceiving the people, saying that Jesus was not the Christ, for if He were, Elijah would first have come. But they did not know that there are two comings of Christ, the Forerunner of the first being John, and of the second Elijah. Christ then explains this to the disciples. Listen:

"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they desired. Likewise shall also the Son of Man suffer at their hands. Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them of John the Baptist"

>>By saying, 'Elijah truly shall come,' Christ shows that he has not yet come, but that he will appear as the forerunner of the second coming; and when he appears, he will restore all teachable Jews to faith in Christ, as if restoring them to their paternal inheritance which they had lost. But when Christ says, 'Elijah is come already,' He is speaking of John the Forerunner; for the Jews 'did unto him whatsoever they desired' when they slew him; they slew him when they permitted Herod to slay John, though they could have prevented it. The the disciples became keener in perception and understood that He was calling John Elijah, as John was the Forerunner of the first coming, just as Elijah would be the forerunner of the second coming.

(From St. Mark 9)

"And they asked Him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elijah must first come? And he answered and told them, Elijah cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how is it written of the Son of Man, that He must suffer many things, and be set at nought? But I say unto you, that Elijah is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they pleased, as it is written of him."

>>It was commonly said among the Jews that Elijah would return before the Messiah came. But the Pharisees were not interpreting correctly the prophecies concerning Elijah, but of their own will and evil disposition they hid the truth. For there are two comings of the Messiah: this one, which had already taken place, and the one to come. John the Baptist was the Forerunner of the first coming; Elijah will be the forerunner of the second coming.

Christ call John 'Elijah', because, like Elijah, John was an admonisher, a zealot, and a desert-dweller. The Lord therefore refutes the opinion of the Pharisees who held that Elijah would be the forerunner of the first coming of the Messiah. How does He refute? 'Elijah cometh first, and restoreth all things: and how is it written of the Son of Man, that He must suffer many things?'

What Christ is saying is this: when Elijah the Tishbite comes, he will make peace with the unbelieving Jew, and will bring them to faith. thus he will be the forerunner of the second coming. For if the Tishbite, who shall restore all things, were the forerunner of the first coming, how then is it written that the Son of Man shall suffer this and that?

Logically it comes to this: if we believe the Pharisees' teaching that Elijah will be the forerunner of the first coming, then the Scriptures are false which say that Christ will suffer. But if these Scriptures are true, then the Pharisees are wrong in teaching that Elijah will be the forerunner of the first coming. For Elijah shall restore all things, and then there will be no Jew who remains an unbeliever, but as many as hear Elijah's preaching will believe. The Lord confounds the opinion of the Pharisees when he says that Elijah, meaning John, has already come, and they did unto him whatsoever they pleased. For they did not believe in him, and in the end his head was cut off, as the trophy of some game.

[HarleyD]

Your explanation seems odd with its focus on the dispensation of the Jews. I was trying to research Chrysostom for this reference and have not been able to track it down. I noticed what John Calvin (who frequently quotes Chrysostom and seems to be a great fan of his) had to say:

Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first? The gross mistakes which they committed as to the person of Elijah have been pointed out on two or three occasions. Perhaps, too, they cunningly and wickedly endeavored to lessen the authority of Christ by bringing forward Elijah; for as it had been promised that Elijah would come as the forerunner of Messiah, to prepare the way before him, (Malachi 3:1; 4:5,) it was easy to excite a prejudice against Christ, by saying that he came unaccompanied by Elijah. By a trick closely resembling this, the devil enchants the Papists of the present day not to expect the day of judgment till Elijah and Enoch have appeared. It may not usually be conjectured that this expedient was purposely resorted to by the scribes, in order to represent Christ as unworthy of confidence, because he wanted the legitimate badge of the Messiah.

11. Elijah indeed will come first. We have stated elsewhere the origin of that error which prevailed among the Jews. As John the Baptist was to resemble Elijah by restoring the fallen condition of the Church, the prophet Malachi (4:5,6)had even given to him the name of Elijah; and this had been rashly interpreted by the scribes, as if Elijah the Tishbite (1 Kings 17:1) were to return a second time to the world. Christ now declares that every thing which Malachi uttered was true, but that his prediction had been misunderstood and distorted from its true meaning. “The promise,” says he, “that Eliah would come was true, and has been already fulfilled; but the scribes have already rejected Elijah, whose name they idly and falsely plead in opposing me.”

And will restore all things. This does not mean that John the Baptist restored them perfectly, but that he conveyed and handed them over to Christ, who would complete the work which he had begun. Now as the scribes had shamefully rejected John, Christ reminds his disciples that the impostures of such men ought not to give them uneasiness, and that it ought not to be reckoned strange, if, after having rejected the servant, they should, with equal disdain, reject his Master. And that no one might be distressed by a proceeding so strange, our Lord mentions that the Scripture contained predictions of both events, that the Redeemer of the world, and Elijah his forerunner, would be rejected by false and wicked teachers.

This is not to say that Theophylact is wrong but only that Theophylact's and Calvin's interpretations seem to be at odds. There is no indication that Calvin is in anyway referring to Chrysostom's writings. But Calvin often cites Chrysostom and is familiar with his writings. I find Calvin and Theophylact differing views interesting.

Having failed to find any reference in Chrysostom's writings, I was reading Iraeneus writings this morning trying to seek for clues. While it too offers no clues to this particular passage, Iraeneus does talk about the destruction of Jerusalem in the past tense and references Josephus, indicating John the Baptist was "in the spirit of" Elijah. It does not appear from his writing (albeit, it was vague) that he felt Elijah and Enoch would return and all Jews would be saved.

I will admit I might have missed a work that describes all this.

[HarleyD]

Hmmmmm....this is certainly a puzzlement. I might be misinterpreting St. Theophylact’s writings and I certainly don’t wish to make a mountain out of a molehill. But this was the part that bothered me in Theophylact’s writings that you posted:

“By saying, 'Elijah truly shall come,' Christ shows that he has not yet come, but that he will appear as the forerunner of the second coming; and when he appears, he will restore all teachable Jews to faith in Christ, as if restoring them to their paternal inheritance which they had lost. …What Christ is saying is this: when Elijah the Tishbite comes, he will make peace with the unbelieving Jew, and will bring them to faith. thus he will be the forerunner of the second coming.” – St Theophylact

Calvin states that this isn’t true; that John was Elijah:

“The promise,” says he, “that Eliah would come was true, and has been already fulfilled; but the scribes have already rejected Elijah, whose name they idly and falsely plead in opposing me.” – Calvin

As you suggested I read through Chrysostom’s view on this. To be fair, Chrysostom’s Homily tends to be a bit convoluted but I believe Theophylact is misinterpreting what Chrysostom is saying. I would reference the following:

To show therefore that the Tishbite comes before that other advent, which hath the judgment, He said this. And the reason too of his coming He teaches withal. And what is this reason? That when He is come, he may persuade the Jews to believe in Christ, and that they may not all utterly perish at His coming. Wherefore He too, guiding them on to that remembrance, saith, “And he shall restore all things;” that is, shall correct the unbelief of the Jews that are then in being.

…

And whence did the disciples know this? He had already told them, “He is Elias, which was for to come;” but here, that he hath come; and again, that “Elias cometh and will restore all things.” But be not thou troubled, nor imagine that His statement wavers, though at one time He said, “he will come,” at another, “he hath come.” For all these things are true. Since when He saith, “Elias indeed cometh, and will restore all things,” He means Elias himself, and the conversion of the Jews which is then to take place; but when He saith, “Which was for to come,” He calls John, Elias, with regard to the manner of his administration. Yea, and so the prophets used to call every one of their approved kings, David; and the Jews, “rulers of Sodom,” and “sons of Ethiopians;” because of their ways. For as the other shall be forerunner of the second advent, so was this of the first. Chrysostom

I would suggest that Chrysostom isn’t talking about all the Jews being saved at the second coming of Christ as Theophylact suggest. Rather Chrysostom seems to be saying that John the Baptist came in the same “manner of his [Elijah] administration” and the conversion of the Jews (who walk by faith) had converted to Christianity as Calvin suggest.

[Forest Keeper]

"And his disciples asked Him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come?" >>The scribes were deceiving the people, saying that Jesus was not the Christ, for if He were, Elijah would first have come. But they did not know that there are two comings of Christ, the Forerunner of the first being John, and of the second Elijah. Christ then explains this to the disciples.

This is a very interesting take on this whole story. Thanks for posting it.