[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.

[Agrarian]

I'm really not sure what you would think that St. Theophylact would be misinterpreting in St. John. Maybe I'm missing a subtlety in your argumentation here.

What you highlight in St. Theophylact are his statements that Elijah the Tishbite will come as a forerunner of the second coming, and that he will bring the Jewish people (at least all that are teachable) to faith in Christ.

St. John says that "the Tishbite comes before that other advent, which hath the judgment..."

This identifies him as a forerunner of the second coming of Christ and the last judgment.

He also says that the reason for his coming is specifically to "persuade the Jews to believe in Christ" and that by saying 'he shall retore all things" Christ means that Elijah the Tishbite "shall correct the unbelief of the Jews that are then in being."

The section you highlight in St. John's writings basically makes the point I have been explaining all along about the Orthodox view of these things:

When Christ says that “'Elias indeed cometh, and will restore all things,' He means Elias himself [i.e. the Tishbite -- the same Elijah who appears in the OT], and the conversion of the Jews which is then [i.e. in the last days, prior to the second coming] to take place;"

When Christ says “'Which was for to come,” He calls John, Elias, with regard to the manner of his administration [i.e. he is an Elijah in his type of ministry and calling]."

Christ says that Elijah *will* come (i.e. the Tishbite) and that he *has* come (i.e. John the Baptist, who came with the same ministry, characteristics, and power as Elijah). One is literally Elijah the Tishbite (at the second coming), and one is "another Elijah" in a figurative sense.

Sts. Theophylact and John are saying exactly the same thing. Again, perhaps I'm missing a fine point that you are making. I think that at the root of Calvin's problem was the characteristically Protestant tendency to view prophecy in a single dimension. Prophecies occur in the OT, and then are checked off as they are fulfilled.

Orthodoxy just doesn't look at prophecy that way. When Christ is talking in the sections of the Gospels about the destruction of Jerusalem, we believe that he is in some cases referring only to the immediately coming destruction, in some places only to the tribulation and his second coming at the end of time, and in other places he is speaking simultaneously of events that will shortly take place *and* about events in the distant future. The Apocalypse speaks both of contemporary events and events at the end of time -- sometimes one, sometimes the other, much of the time both simultanteously.

This exercise we have gone through regarding Elijah is quite representative of general Orthodox understandings of Biblical prophecy.