Scottish Journal of Theology

http://journals.cambridge.org/SJT

Additional services for Scottish Journal of

Theology:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

The returned Elijah? John the Baptist's angelic

identity in the Gospel of Mark

Christine E. Joynes

Scottish Journal of Theology / Volume 58 / Issue 04 / November 2005, pp 455 - 467

DOI: 10.1017/S003693060500150X, Published online: 31 October 2005

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S003693060500150X

How to cite this article:

Christine E. Joynes (2005). The returned Elijah? John the Baptist's angelic identity
in the Gospel of Mark. Scottish Journal of Theology, 58, pp 455-467 doi:10.1017/
S003693060500150X

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/SJT, IP address: 169.230.243.252 on 11 Apr 2015

SJT 58(4): 455–467 (2005) Printed in the United Kingdom

C 2005 Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd

doi:10.1017/S003693060500150X

The returned Elijah? John the Baptist’s angelic

identity in the Gospel of Mark
Christine E. Joynes
Trinity College, Oxford, OX1 3BH christine.joynes@trinity.ox.ac.uk

Abstract
Assertions of John the Baptist’s identity as the returned Elijah are commonplace
in New Testament scholarship. Attention has then tended to focus on whether the
returned Elijah was regarded as the forerunner of the Messiah or of God himself.
Surprisingly, the logically prior question of how someone could be regarded as
Elijah returned has received scant investigation. This article explores what it might
mean to describe John the Baptist as the returned Elijah, suggesting that we need
clearly to distinguish this concept from Elijah typology. If, as is argued here, the
expectation of Elijah’s return in Mark’s Gospel points to John the Baptist’s angelic
identity, this has interesting ramifications for other NT issues such as Christology
and eschatology.

The expectation of Elijah’s return

The career of Elijah, the ninth-century BCE prophet and renowned miracle
worker, is narrated in the books of Kings (1 Kgs 17:1–2 Kgs 2:12). One
particularly distinctive feature of his ministry is that, according to 2 Kgs 2:11,
Elijah did not die but was taken up into heaven in a whirlwind. However,
no mention is made in Kings of Elijah’s future return; indeed the passing
of his spirit to Elisha might seem to exclude this idea. The first reference to
an expectation of Elijah’s return appears at the end of the book of Malachi
(Mal 3:23–4 = RSV 4:5–6), where the prophecy is recorded that Elijah is to
be sent before the day of the Lord with the task of reconciliation:

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day
of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children
and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land
with a curse.

Markus Öhler’s interpretation of this text is striking:

The idea that appears to be behind Mal 3:23 and which we should assume
was fundamental for Judaism of the first century is namely that the

455
scottish journal of theology

translated Elijah would come again at the end of time . . . it therefore follows
that this concerns not a person like Elijah, but the Tishbite himself.1

Support for Öhler’s reading of Malachi can be found in the Septuagint

rendition of Mal 3:23–24, where the translators insert ‘the Tishbite’ to make
the connection with the Kings narrative clear (cf. 1 Kgs 17:1). Moreover, this
addition simply makes explicit an implicit feature of the Masoretic text,
since the use of the definite article (‘Elijah the prophet’) also suggests that
he is readily identifiable and not one of many possible contenders for the
position.2 The Malachi reference to Elijah as harbinger of the day of the Lord
thus identifies this figure as the prophet who escaped death and ascended to
heaven: we are therefore justified in referring to the idea of Elijah’s return.
The expectation of Elijah’s return was subsequently picked up in a range
of texts, varying in date and provenance, such as Sirach 48:10, 4Q558 at
Qumran, Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities 48, and Sibylline Oracles 2:187–9.
It is beyond the scope of the present article to discuss these passages in
any detail. Nevertheless their existence is noteworthy and indicates that the
expectation of Elijah’s return was not an isolated idea found only in Malachi,
but one which gained broader acceptance.

The return of Elijah and Elijah typology

Elijah is named twenty-seven times in the gospels and many more allusions
to Elijah have been suggested. The named references to this OT prophet
in the gospels immediately reveal the emphasis given to his ‘coming’ or
‘appearance’. We might note as examples Mark 9:13 (‘Elijah has come’),
Mark 15:36 (‘Let us see whether Elijah will come’), Matt 11:14 (‘he is Elijah
who is to come’), and Luke 9:8 (‘some [said] that Elijah had appeared’).3
Scholarly discussion of Elijah’s return has often been confused by appeal
to Elijah typology. This is illustrated in readings of Mark 9:13 (‘But I tell
you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it
is written of him’) which interpret the text to mean, ‘Jesus said that Elijah

1
M. Öhler, Elia im Neuen Testament: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des alttestamentlichen Propheten im
Neuen Testament, BZNW 88 (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1997), 108. My italics.
2
A. E. Hill, Malachi: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ABC (New York:
Doubleday, 1998), 50, also equates Malachi’s Elijah with the prophet in Kings, but his
use of reincarnation terminology to describe this is inappropriate, since Elijah did not
die.
3
There are of course significant differences of emphasis in the gospels with regard to
Elijah’s return, but these are not the subject of our present inquiry.

456
 The returned Elijah? John the Baptist’s angelic identity in the Gospel of Mark

was the type of John the Baptist’.4 However, this is by no means the most
obvious reading of the Markan passage. It would be more accurate to describe
Mark 9:13 as a reference to Elijah’s return as John the Baptist, a statement
about identity which should be clearly differentiated from typology. This
kind of statement raises questions about how one person could be thought
of as embodying another. Recognition of the significant difference between
typology and language of return is crucial for interpreting the role of Elijah in
the gospels. Therefore, a brief discussion of typology is required to provide
a way forward in the debate.

Defining typology
The term ‘typology’ can act as a cloak to cover a multitude of different
agendas. There is little agreement about how typology can and should
be defined. Indeed, it has been argued that typology was not an emic
concept which the writers in the early church would have understood.5
This methodological purity, where typology is rejected as anachronistic,
does not need to be adopted, since many hermeneutical approaches applied
to ancient texts are not defined by the ancient authors themselves. They are
not thereby invalid, and can often make explicit, and give a name to, an
implicit practice which is apparent in a text.
When defining typology, a distinction should be made between composi-
tional typology (attributed to the author’s intention) and exegetical typology
(proposed by a reader). In its strongest form, scholars ascribe compositional
typology to the gospel writers, arguing that they intentionally modelled one
story upon another. This is defended on the basis of an accumulation of
points of correspondence between narratives. An example can be found in
W. Roth’s book Hebrew Gospel,6 where it is argued that the books of Kings acted
as a compositional constraint on Mark the evangelist, with 1 Kgs 17–2 Kgs
13 serving as a ‘conceptual-narrative paradigm’. Compositional typology is
often problematic because authorial intention is difficult (if not impossible)
to establish. Thus possible typological connections are often claimed to be
more definite than is demonstrable, distorting the overall interpretation of
the text.

4
M. Goulder, Type and History in Acts (London: SPCK, 1964), 1. Similarly M. Tilly, Johannes der
Täufer und die Biographie der Propheten: Die synoptische Täuferüberlieferung und das jüdische Prophetenbild
zur Zeit des Täufers (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1994), 31.
5
A. Louth, ‘Return to Allegory’, in Discerning the Mystery (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983),
118; F. Young, ‘Typology’, in S. Porter, P. Joyce and D. Orton(eds.), Crossing the Boundaries:
Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 33.
6
W. Roth, The Hebrew Gospel: Cracking the Code of Mark (Illinois: Meyer-Stone Books, 1988).

457
scottish journal of theology

The following definition of typology reflects many traditional assumptions

of the secondary literature:

A type is a biblical event, person or institution which serves as an example

or pattern for other events, persons or institutions. Typology is the study of
types and the historical and theological correspondences between them;
the basis of typology is God’s consistent activity in the history of his
chosen people.7

A few general observations about definitions of typology which have some

bearing on our discussion are pertinent here. First, history has played a large
part in many definitions of typology. Until recently the assertion was prevalent
that typology is concerned with historical events, people and institutions, in
contrast to allegorical concentration on abstract philosophical truths. This
then led to comments about typology as an indication of the unity of
the divine purpose and the historically concrete nature of ongoing divine
revelation, as apparent in Baker’s definition. In contrast, Michael Goulder’s
definition reacts against this approach and moves to the opposite extreme,
namely asserting that the presence of typology points to lack of historicity
in the text. He suggests:

A type is the accumulation of points of correspondence between two

narratives, including exact coincidence of actual Greek words between
type and antitype and the rarer the better . . . The thicker the types the
less likely is the passage to be factual; i.e. it is a literary device which
casts suspicion on the historicity of the narrative . . . [hence] typology
refers to the shaping of texts, conscious or unconscious, so that they are
invested with meaning by corresponding with other texts of a ‘mimetic’
or representational kind.8

Goulder’s conclusion that the presence of typology indicates lack of

historicity is not entirely convincing, since other criteria are required to
determine issues of historicity; but his point that typology is a literary device,
focusing on the textual juxtaposition of scriptural passages is an important
one. As such typology represents a completely different hermeneutical
approach to language of Elijah’s return.

7
D. Baker, ‘Typology and the Christian use of the Old Testament’, SJT 29 (1976), 153.
My italics.
8
Goulder, Type, 7–10. For other definitions see G. W. H. Lampe and K. J. Woollcombe,
Essays on Typology (London: SCM, 1957), 31; M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient
Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 350; Young, ‘Typology’, 31.

458
 The returned Elijah? John the Baptist’s angelic identity in the Gospel of Mark

Secondly, it is noteworthy that a one-to-one correlation between type

and antitype is often assumed in definitions of typology. This assumption
needs to be challenged, since it is possible for there to be more than one
fulfilment of a type. Statements which support the exclusivity of typology
are not uncommon. Commentators frequently state that Luke removed Elijah
traits associated with John the Baptist so that he could attach them instead to
Jesus. For example, Walter Wink argues, ‘It is only because John is not Elijah
that Luke is free to develop the exegetical analogy between Elijah and Jesus’.9
Such remarks again illustrate the blurring of the categories of typology
and return. Similarly, typology is often described in terms of promise and
fulfilment but this is also inadequate, since it too is exclusive, implying that
there is only one fulfilment of a type. This approach is probably derived
from the understanding of Christ as the perfect and exclusive fulfilment of
various scriptural promises, a perspective which has then been applied more
generally. However, it is a presupposition that is not inherent to typology
itself. With a typological reading then there are potentially lots of Elijahs.
The working definition of typology proposed here is as follows:
Typology is the juxtaposition of types (people, institutions or events). The
relationship between type and antitype is suggested by the accumulation
of points of correspondence between two or more narratives. The type
and the antitype are not identical and cannot be one and the same person,
institution or event since, by definition, typology is describing one thing
in terms of another. The correspondences can be of difference as well as
similarity,10 and establishing a typological relationship does not involve
evaluation of the historicity of a text.
The most important feature of the above definition to highlight is that type and
antitype are not identical and cannot be one and the same person.11 This is not introducing
a new idea; it is well established, but it has been overlooked in discussions
of Elijah typology. The corollary of this definition is as follows: if we opt

9
W. Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1968), 44.
10
Baker, ‘Typology’, 150. Cf. R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (London:
Yale University Press, 1989), 101. Contra R. P. C. Hanson’s definition of ‘similarity of
situation’ in Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of the
Scripture (London: SCM, 1959), 7.
11
Similarly M. Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel: The Rejected Prophet Motif in Matthean
Redaction (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 230, who defines typology as ‘the perception of
significant correspondences between the characters and circumstances of two different
historical individuals . . . so that each is understood either as an anticipation or as a
fulfilment of the other’.

459
scottish journal of theology

to classify all the Elijah references as typology, and if typology concerns the
juxtaposition of two different figures, then any reference to Elijah’s return
should be abandoned. However, the second step in our argument is that
it is not necessary to place all the Elijah references in the same category:
some, but certainly not all, Elijah references in the gospels can be classified
as typology.

Elijah typology in Mark’s Gospel

I have suggested above that we should recognize diversity amongst the Elijah
references and allusions in the gospels, with typology being only one of
the ways in which Elijah functions in these texts. Typology and language of
return both occur and are not mutually exclusive alternatives.
As we have seen, typology is the construction of one narrative following
the pattern of other narratives. Elijah typology has often been suggested by
commentators on Mark, particularly in Mark 1:1–8 and 6:17–29. Similarities
between Mark’s narrative and the books of Kings can indeed be identified.
For example, the parallel between Mark’s description of John the Baptist’s
dress at 1:6 provides a verbal parallel with 2 Kgs 1:8:12
1:7 He [Ahaziah] said to them, ‘What sort of man was he who came
to meet you and told you these things?’ 1:8 They answered him, ‘A
hairy man, with a leather belt around his waist’. He said, ‘It is Elijah the
Tishbite’. (2 Kgs)
1:6 Now John was clothed with camel’s hair, with a leather belt around
his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. (Mark)
Moreover, this parallel is rare, since a leather belt (ζώνην δερµατίνην)
occurs nowhere else in the LXX and Elijah’s dress is obviously regarded
as an identifying feature according to the Kings narrative. This example
provides a good illustration of the interpretative difficulties in distinguishing
between typology and language of return. In some ways the reference to
John the Baptist’s attire clearly fulfils typological criteria by linking together
two passages. However, it is equally possible that John the Baptist really
did dress in this way because of his ‘Elijah consciousness’ and that this
fact was accurately reported by Mark. This illustrates that the presence of
typology is not an adequate basis for determining historicity. Typology is
possible within a fictional composition, but its presence does not constitute a
fictional composition. Nevertheless, cumulatively, the above features indicate

12
So Öhler, Elia, 36. Contra J. A. T. Robinson, ‘Elijah, John and Jesus: an essay in
detection’, in Twelve New Testament Studies (London: SCM, 1962), 29.

460
 The returned Elijah? John the Baptist’s angelic identity in the Gospel of Mark

that Elijah typology can be found in Mark 1:1–8 where it is applied to John
the Baptist.
Reference to Elijah typology in Mark 1:1–8 is uncontroversial, but the
application of Elijah typology to Jesus in the immediately following verses
(1:12–13) is less often mentioned. The following parallels between Mark
and Kings are noteworthy: Jesus is said to be ‘cast out by the Spirit’, echoing
1 Kgs 18:12 and 2 Kgs 2:16. ‘Forty days’ is mentioned as a significant period
of time (cf. 1 Kgs 19:8) and angelic nourishment in the wilderness (’ερήµoς)
is also a common feature (1 Kgs 19:5–7). Moreover, Mark 1:16–20 has close
structural similarities to 1 Kgs 19:19–21: Jesus appears, Elijah appears; the
disciples are at work, Elisha is at work; a call to discipleship occurs in
both narratives; the disciples follow Jesus, Elisha follows Elijah.13 Elijah’s
appointment of a disciple who follows after him is a unique example within
the OT and thus provides a striking parallel to Jesus’ call of the disciples. This
multiple application of Elijah typology to two figures supports the challenge
made earlier to a singular, exclusive promise-fulfilment approach to typology.
Mark’s account of John the Baptist’s death (6:17–29) is also commonly
appealed to as Elijah typology, with evident parallels between the Kings
account of tensions between Elijah, Ahab and Jezebel and the Markan
narrative.14 As Jezebel persecuted Elijah (1 Kgs 19), so Herodias demonstrates
intense hostility towards the Baptist. There are also similarities in the portrayal
of a weak ruler who fears a prophet but succumbs to his wife’s direction
(1 Kgs 21:5–29, cf. Mark 6:17–29). However, whereas Jezebel fails in her
ambition to destroy Elijah, Herodias finally triumphs in disposing of her
enemy; thus the typology functions by way of contrast as well as similarity.
Alongside the Elijah typology in Mark 6:17–29 we also find parallels
with the book of Esther.15 There are some verbal similarities, including

13
M. Hengel, Nachfolge und Charisma (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1968), 18–20; J. Nützel,
‘Elija und Elischa im Neuen Testament’, BK 41 (1986), 170; D. Allison, The New Moses:
A Matthean Typology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993), 19–20.
14
So A. Farrer, A Study in St. Mark (Westminster: Dacre Press, 1951), 92; P. M. K. Morris,
‘Elijah and Jesus in Mark’s Gospel’, Trivium 1 (1966), 126; R. Pesch, Markusevangelium,
vol. 1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1976), 339; Morna Hooker, A Commentary on the Gospel According
to St Mark (London: A. & C. Black, 1991), 160, Tilly, Johannes, 60; Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8
(New York: Doubleday, 2000), 400.
15
See for example Pesch, Markusevangelium, 339; R. Aus, Water into Wine and the Beheading
of John the Baptist: Early Jewish–Christian Interpretation of Esther 1 in John 2.1-11 and Mark 6.17–
29(Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988), 41–64; S. von Dobbeler, Das Gericht und das
Erbarmen Gottes: Die Botschaft Johannes des Täufers und ihre Rezeption bei den Johannesjüngern im
Rahmen der Theologiegeschichte des Frühjudentums (Frankfurt-am-Main: Athenäum, 1988), 212;
R. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26 (Dallas, T: Word Books, 1989), 332.

461
scottish journal of theology

–
the promise8 of a king (βασιλεὺς) to give half his kingdom ( έως
η
‘ µισoυς της βασιλείας µoυ) to a relative, in both cases a κoρασίoν (Mark
6:23; Esth 5:3). These parallels indicate that Mark 6:17–29 story can be
interpreted in terms of more than one typological narrative, combining
references from both the books of Kings and Esther.
Whilst acknowledging the presence of Elijah typology in Mark 6:17–29,
it is important to note that this stands in stark contrast to the immediately
preceding passage, where Elijah and John the Baptist are clearly differentiated
from each other (Mark 6:14–15). Here the popular expectation of Elijah’s
return is focused on Jesus rather than John the Baptist.
6:14 King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’ name had become known. Some
were saying, ‘John the baptizer has been raised from the dead; and for
this reason these powers are at work in him’.
6:15 But others said, ‘It is Elijah’. And others said, ‘It is a prophet, like
one of the prophets of old’.
6:16 But when Herod heard of it, he said, ‘John, whom I beheaded, has
been raised’.
It is this passage I suggest, with its emphasis on the debate about Jesus’
identity, which provides the key to understanding the role of Elijah in Mark’s
Gospel. For when we examine the named references to Elijah in Mark’s
Gospel it is apparent that their focus is most often associated with the issue
of the identities of both John the Baptist and Jesus. We must therefore turn
now to explore further the identity of John the Baptist in Mark’s Gospel.

John the Baptist’s angelic identity in Mark’s Gospel

As highlighted above, the category of typology is by itself insufficient to
explain all the Elijah traditions in the gospels. We have pointed to an emphasis
in many gospel texts on the expectation of Elijah’s return, an expectation for
the fulfilment of Malachi’s prophecy which anticipated the coming of the
Tishbite himself. The perception that John the Baptist fulfilled this prophecy
has consequently led to some striking assertions about his identity as Elijah:
for example Molin states, ‘John the Baptist is not just a new Elijah, but Elijah
himself’.16
So how are we to interpret John the Baptist’s Elijah identity? One possibility
which I would like to suggest, in answer to the question how could someone
be described as Elijah returned, is that Elijah could be seen as an angelic figure

16
Cf. G. Molin, ‘Elijahu: Der Prophet und sein Weiterleben in den Hoffnungen des
Judentums und der Christenheit’, Judaica 8 (1952), 89. Cf. Öhler, Elia, 27, who
frequently refers to the ‘return of the Thesbite’ with reference to John the Baptist.

462
 The returned Elijah? John the Baptist’s angelic identity in the Gospel of Mark

who was identified with both John the Baptist and Jesus in the first century
CE. The remainder of this article will develop this suggestion.

Angels in Mark
»
John the Baptist is introduced in Mark’s Gospel as an άγγελoς, sent ‘to
prepare your way’ (Mark 1:2), a conflated quotation of Mal 3:1 and Exod
23:20. Mark’s description of John the Baptist as an angelos can be inter-
preted as either ‘angel’ or ‘messenger’, but, surprisingly, historical-critical
commentators always opt for the latter translation.17 Obviously this gives the
text a different nuance, excluding a potentially problematic description of
John the Baptist as an angel. So for example Joel Marcus comments on Mark
1:2:

In Exodus the words refer to the angel whom God promises to send before
the Israelites in the desert. The Greek angelos, like the Hebrew mal’ak, can
mean either an earthly messenger or a heavenly one, i.e. an angel; contrary
to the sense of the original, Mark understands it as a reference to a human envoy, John the
Baptist.18

In the same way that Exod 23:20 is usually interpreted as a reference to an

‘angel’ so too Mal 3:1, the other passage quoted in Mark 1:2, is also often
understood to represent an angelic figure rather than an earthly messenger.19
Indeed many commentators regard the reference to Elijah in Mal 3:23–4 as
»
the same άγγελoς figure introduced in Mal 3:1, functioning to clarify the
meaning of that text.20
So, strikingly, in spite of the interpretation of both Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1
as references to angelic figures, there is a reluctance to accept a similar reading
of Mark 1:2. However, supporting evidence for this reading is apparent when
we examine the earliest reception history of Mark 1:2 found in Matt 11:9–14.
Matt 11:13–14 is one of the clearest references to the return of Elijah,
where he is identified with John the Baptist:

17
This position is adopted for example by D. Nineham, Saint Mark (Harmondsworth:
Penguin, 1963), 56; Guelich, Mark, 6; R. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for
the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 35; Hooker, Commentary, 32; C. Myers,
Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997),
124.
18
Marcus, Mark, 142. My italics.
19
Evidence of rabbinic and later Jewish exegetes, such as Rashi and Ibn Ezra, interpreting
both Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1 as angelic figures is cited by W. Horbury, Jewish Messianism
and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM, 1998), 84, and Hill, Malachi, 287.
20
See Hill, Malachi, 383.

463
scottish journal of theology

For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John; and if you are
willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come.
Interestingly, it is to this context (Matt 11:10) that Matthew has transferred
the passage from Mark 1:2, consequently making the identification of John
the Baptist as the angelic figure of Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1 even clearer.21
»
Furthermore, if we examine Matthew’s use of the term άγγελoς elsewhere
in his gospel we discover that it occurs twenty times, but never in the sense
of messenger, always with reference to heavenly beings.22 Thus Matthew’s
»
general use of the word άγγελoς supports the idea that at Matt 11:10 the
term is being used to refer to a heavenly being who is identified with John
the Baptist. Moreover, this angelic identity is directly associated with his
appearance as Elijah. Matthew thereby clarifies the implicit meaning of the
Markan text.
»
If we examine Mark’s use of the term άγγελoς some key results emerge:
»
1:2 As it is written in the prophet Isaiah, ‘See, I am sending my άγγελoς
ahead of you, who will prepare your way’.
1:13 He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was
»
with the wild beasts; and the άγγελoι waited on him.
8:38 Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous
and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when
»
he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy άγγελoι.
12:25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given
»
in marriage, but are like άγγελoι in heaven.
»
13:27 Then he will send out the άγγελoι, and gather his elect from the
four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
»
13:32 But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the άγγελoι in
heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
»
Here we see that, like Matthew, Mark also uses the term άγγελoς to refer to
a heavenly being rather than a messenger. This strengthens our suggestion

21
There is no space here to explore the identification of Elijah with Phinehas in Jewish
tradition. However, we might note that similar statements to that found in Matt
11:14 (He ‘is’ Elijah) provide an interesting comparison to the Elijah–John the Baptist
identification. See especially Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities,
48.
22
See C. C. Rowland, ‘Apocalyptic, the poor and the Gospel of Matthew’, JTS 45 (1994),
512.

464
 The returned Elijah? John the Baptist’s angelic identity in the Gospel of Mark

that Mark 1:2 refers to an angelic rather than an earthly figure.23 The internal
evidence of our Markan text is also corroborated by external evidence from
the Prayer of Joseph.

The Prayer of Joseph

Confirmation that angelic figures could be identified with human beings can
be found within the Prayer of Joseph, a Jewish apocryphon preserved in the
writings of Origen. This text informs us that the patriarch Jacob was the
earthly incarnation of the angel Israel:

I Jacob who am speaking to you am also Israel, an angel of God and

a ruling spirit. Abraham and Isaac were created before any work. But I
Jacob . . . whose name is Israel . . . am he whom God called Israel, which
means a man seeing God, because I am the first-born of every living thing
to which God gives life . . . I descended to earth and tabernacled among
humanity and I was called Jacob.24

It is especially noteworthy that Origen relates this text directly to ‘the belief
concerning John the Baptist which maintains that he . . . being an angel, took
a body in order to bear witness to the light’ (Commentary on John, Book 2.31).
Whilst due caution should be exercised regarding the relationship between
sources, J. Z. Smith has presented a powerful case for accepting the Prayer of
Joseph as representative of Jewish thought in the first century CE.25 This
conclusion has also been reached by Bühner, Rowland and recently Horbury
amongst others.26 Hence this text could also be appealed to for support
of our thesis that Elijah’s return was interpreted in angelic terms. Indeed,
Morton Smith goes so far as to suggest that this kind of identification was
not particularly unusual during this period. He comments:

23 »
We might also note here I. Broer’s assertion that of 175 references to άγγελoς in the
New Testament only three are to be translated ‘messenger’ (Luke 7:24, 9:52 and Jas
»
2:25). As an afterthought Mark 1:2 is then added to this list. See ‘ άγγελoς’ in Exegetical
Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. H. Balz and G. Schneider, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1990), 14.
24
C. Blanc, Origène: commentaire sur Saint Jean, vol. 1 (Livres I–V), Sources Chrétiennes 120.
(Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1966), 334.
25
‘The Prayer of Joseph’ in Map Is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1993), 64.
26
J.-A. Bühner, Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium: Die kultur- und religionsgeschichtlichen
Grundlagen der johanneischen Sendungschristologie sowie ihre traditionsgeschichtliche Entwicklung
(Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1977), 344–5, Rowland, ‘Apocalyptic’, 512, Horbury,
Messianism, 89.

465
scottish journal of theology

The notion that a particular historical human being was actually the
appearance or incarnation of a particular supernatural power seems also
to have been common in Palestine during the first century AD. No less than
five Palestinian teachers of this century–Dositheus, John, Jesus, Simon and
Menander–were believed by their followers to have been such supernatural
beings.27
We might also note at this point that the tradition of John the Baptist as an
angel is a continuing one in the church of the orthodox East and is represented
in artistic form by the depiction of John the Baptist with wings.28

The return of Elijah and the transmigration of souls

I have suggested that one possible way to interpret the reference to Elijah’s
return in Mark is in terms of angelic indwelling. The expectation of Elijah’s
return certainly continued to arouse considerable interest in the early church.
Indeed, in some circles the identification of John the Baptist with Elijah was
interpreted as evidence for the transmigration of souls, as illustrated by the
vehement reaction against this suggestion by figures such as Tertullian and
Origen.
In De Anima 35, Tertullian rejects the idea of metempsychosis on the
grounds that Elijah is to come again not after dying, but rather after his
translation without dying. Thus Elijah is not to be transferred into another
body, since he did not leave his body; he is simply to revisit the world. This
highlights the problems with describing Elijah’s return as reincarnation,
although somehow the continuity between Elijah who ascended to heaven
and the figure who returns needs to be expressed. Interestingly, whilst Origen
rejects the suggestion that the Elijah–John the Baptist relationship is to be
interpreted in terms of transmigration of souls, he clearly places angelic
incarnation in a different category which he does not condemn.29
If we now return to reflect on the significance of Mark 6:14–16 in the light
of our investigation, the evidence proves suggestive. Mark clearly indicates
in Mark 6:14 that the popular expectation of Elijah’s return was associated
by some with Jesus. He repeats this popular view about Jesus’ identity at
8:28, where its appearance at such a key point in the narrative indicates
its significance. The evangelist is evidently keen to confront the debate

27
‘The Account of Simon Magus in Acts 8’, in The Harry Austryn Wolfson Jubilee Volume: On
the Occasion of His Seventy-fifth Birthday, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish
Research, 1965), 743.
28
See for example K. Onasch and A. Schneiper, Icons (New York: Riverside Book Company,
1997), 78.
29
Commentary on Matthew, 10.20, cf. Commentary on John, 2.31.

466
 The returned Elijah? John the Baptist’s angelic identity in the Gospel of Mark

concerning Jesus’ identity directly, airing various misunderstandings that

circulated about who he was. We suggest that Mark’s way of correcting
these misconceptions was by presenting John the Baptist as the angelic
embodiment of Elijah at the outset of his gospel (Mark 1:2), and then
emphasizing that the Baptist fulfilled Malachi’s prophecy of Elijah’s return at
different stages through the gospel (as at Mark 9:13). The ironic reference to
Elijah in the crucifixion scene further underlines Mark’s central concern to
emphasise that Elijah has indeed come, in the person of John the Baptist.30

Conclusion
The above survey has attempted to illustrate the significant expectation
of Elijah’s return in the gospels by focusing on Mark in particular. This
expectation is derived from Mal 3:23–4, a text which anticipates the return
to earth of Elijah the Tishbite himself, not just a figure like Elijah.
We outlined the importance of differentiating between Elijah typology
and the expectation of Elijah’s return, arguing that if all the Elijah references
are classed as typology then language of return should be abandoned,
since typology can only apply to the juxtaposition of two different figures.
However, we suggested that it is not necessary to place all the Elijah references
in the same category, as typology and the eschatological expectation of Elijah’s
return are not mutually exclusive alternatives.
After establishing the diversity of Elijah references and allusions, we then
considered how the expectation of Elijah’s return could be understood. In
»
the light of Mark’s own use of the term άγγελoς, the interpretation of Exod
23:20 and Mal 3:1, Matthew’s interpretation of Mark 1:2, and the evidence of
the Prayer of Joseph, we suggested that John the Baptist’s identity as the returned
Elijah should be interpreted as a reference to his angelic identity.
Above all this article has aimed to provoke further discussion about how
the expectation of Elijah’s return might be interpreted. It is our hope that
this will prompt further reflection about exactly how John the Baptist could
be described as Elijah returned: assertions of John the Baptist’s identity as
Elijah now need to be clarified and can no longer be assumed.

30
Contra M. Whitters, ‘Why did the bystanders think Jesus called upon Elijah before
he died (Mark 15:34–36)? The Markan position’, Harvard Theological Review 95 (2002),
124. His argument that the bystanders were confusing Jesus with Elijah misses the
important point in Mark’s text that the bystanders think Jesus is calling for Elijah, not
that he is Elijah himself.

467