What Does Malachi 4: 5-6 Mean?

[Blueskye2]

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Matt 11:10-15 in Roman Catholic tradition refers to Malachi 3 as Malachi 4 refers to the 2nd coming.  This is the exegesis taught by all the Fathers - even Augustine, Aquinas, etc.  Malachi 4 is a prophecy in Judicium Universale.

See here if you want references:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08552a.htm

 

Yes this is my understanding.

BTW, my NABRE has 3 chapters for Malachi. http://www.usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm

[Blueskye2]

21 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Matt 11:10-15 in Roman Catholic tradition refers to Malachi 3 as Malachi 4 refers to the 2nd coming.  This is the exegesis taught by all the Fathers - even Augustine, Aquinas, etc. - that answers the "reincarnation of Elijah into John" challenge against the Church's position of the error of the belief in reincarnation in addition to the challenge that "the price of original sin is death" as Elijah was born with original sin but did not die. Malachi 4 is a prophecy in Judicium Universale.

See here if you want references:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08552a.htm

 

Reincarnation of Elijah? John the Baptist was a figurative Elijah, not a reincarnated Elijah.

The Church itself does not have an authoritative teaching on Elijah entering Heaven/state of redemption, which is what you're getting at I think by referencing original sin. There are three generally accepted views. 1) Christ's redemption applied to Elijah. This idea gets into the Catholic understanding of God existing outside of time. 2) That Elijah was not assumed into Heaven but into a limbo, such as Limbo of the Fathers and 3) scripture is not clear on the point, but views 1 and 2 are doctrinally acceptable, as is not worrying about.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

2) That Elijah was not assumed into Heaven but into a limbo, such as Limbo of the Fathers

This is an interesting concept.  It seems parallel to the LDS version of Translated beings.  I've never thought of it as a Limbo.  But I guess one could see it that way.

[anatess2]

8 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Reincarnation of Elijah? John the Baptist was a figurative Elijah, not a reincarnated Elijah.

The Church itself does not have an authoritative teaching on Elijah entering Heaven/state of redemption, which is what you're getting at I think by referencing original sin. There are three generally accepted views. 1) Christ's redemption applied to Elijah. This idea gets into the Catholic understanding of God existing outside of time. 2) That Elijah was not assumed into Heaven but into a limbo, such as Limbo of the Fathers and 3) scripture is not clear on the point, but views 1 and 2 are doctrinally acceptable, as is not worrying about.

Reincarnation, yes.  Lots of confusion back in the day.

Referring to the 3 accepted views... the magisterium is clear on the point that the gate to heaven is closed before Christ opened it by his death on the cross.  Elijah (and Enos for that matter) could not have entered heaven prior to Christ's atoning sacrifice.  The issue is, therefore, not whether he entered heaven but whether Elijah died or didn't and its import on John the Baptist.

So, for the belief that Elijah did die, there was confusion in the early Church about John the Baptist being the reincarnation of Elijah due to Matt 11.  For the belief that Elijah didn't die, there was confusion about Elijah and Enos having left the earth without death contradicting Gen 3 which led some to believe that John is literally Elijah whose death came by beheading.  The Fathers settled this by their teaching that John has the spirit of Elijah (call to repentance) not the literal spirit of Elijah hence making the death of Elijah argument irrelevant.

Edited July 21, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

This is an interesting concept.  It seems parallel to the LDS version of Translated beings.  I've never thought of it as a Limbo.  But I guess one could see it that way.

Carb, this is another divergence in teaching between LDS and Catholic - Matt 16.  In LDS, it means death shall not prevail against revelation which then makes post mortal baptisms possible.  In Catholic it means death shall not prevail against Christ's atonement.  Christ's atonement then opened the gates of heaven to those who have died in righteousness before His atoning sacrifice.  So, limbo of the Fathers is where the righteous who died went before Christ's death on the cross.  So, if Elijah did die, this is where he would have gone until Christ's resurrection.

Edited July 21, 2016 by anatess2

[Blueskye2]

16 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Reincarnation, yes.  Lots of confusion back in the day.

Referring to the 3 accepted views... the magisterium is clear on the point that the gate to heaven is closed before Christ opened it by his death on the cross.  Elijah (and Enos for that matter) could not have entered heaven prior to Christ's atoning sacrifice.  The issue is, therefore, not whether he entered heaven but whether Elijah died or didn't and its import on John the Baptist.

So, for the belief that Elijah did die, there was confusion in the early Church about John the Baptist being the reincarnation of Elijah due to Matt 11.  For the belief that Elijah didn't die, there was confusion about Elijah and Enos having left the earth without death contradicting Gen 3 which led some to believe that John is literally Elijah whose death came by beheading.  The Fathers settled this by their teaching that John has the spirit of Elijah (call to repentance) not the literal spirit of Elijah hence making the death of Elijah argument irrelevant.

Thre are those who believe Elijah entered heaven. As I said it goes to the teaching of God being the creator of all things, including time. Heaven, existing outside of time, is not constrained by "before", "after" or "now".

I agree it has its problems, doctrinally, but some Christains including Catholics hold this view. 

Edited July 22, 2016 by Blueskye2

[anatess2]

6 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Thre are those who believe Elijah entered heaven. As I said it goes to the teaching of God being the creator of all things, including time. Heaven, existing outside of time, is not constrained by "before", "after" or "now".

I agree it has its problems, doctrinally, but some Christains including Catholics hold this view. 

But doesn't that go against the magisterium?

[Blueskye2]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

But doesn't that go against the magisterium?

I see that it does and have found more than one lengthy explanation on the Internet as to why. It is usually your point along with the Blessed Virgin Mary being the only one of us with an immaculate conception.

But this thread isn't about what Catholics believe it is about what Christians believe.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Blueskye2

[LeSellers]

13 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

this thread isn't about what Catholics believe it is about what Christians believe.

Emoji notwithstanding, this is offensive to Catholics who are Christians.

Lehi

[Blueskye2]

5 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Emoji notwithstanding, this is offensive to Catholics who are Christians.

Lehi

Oh my heck I don't know how you read it otherwise.  I mean I did not say anyone was not a Christian. I said this thread was not just about what Catholics who follow the magisterium believe. 

Edited July 22, 2016 by Blueskye2

[Blueskye2]

And with that I'll leave you all to it. 

[NightSG]

14 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Emoji notwithstanding, this is offensive to Catholics who are Christians.

Meanwhile, Catholics who are Zen Buddhists just don't care, and Catholics who are Rastafarians are too stoned to reply.

[estradling75]

12 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

I said this thread was not just about what Catholics who follow the magisterium believe. 

I still don't see how Catholics who follow the magisterium is not a subset Christian beliefs that this thread is about...  Now if you are worried about dominating the discussion then I can understand stepping out.

 

[Blueskye2]

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Now if you are worried about dominating the discussion then I can understand stepping out.

 

I said, "But this thread isn't about what Catholics believe it is about what Christians believe. ".

Which, isn't implying anyone isn't Christian, as certainly, I believe Catholics (following the magisterium or not) are Christians.

I see it as those who have a non-orthodox view also answers the OP's question, and so discussing what is normative for Catholics following the magisterium, really has no relevance to the OP's question.

 

Edited July 22, 2016 by Blueskye2

[zil]

3 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Oh my heck

Spoken like a true Utah Mormon!

As for that other stuff, given that you listed your religion as "Roman Catholic", I understand what you meant.  Others might have been looking for "But this thread isn't about only what Catholics believe, it is about what all Christians believe."  (Which I assume is what you meant all along, so I say we all let go and move on.)

[Blueskye2]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

Spoken like a true Utah Mormon!

As for that other stuff, given that you listed your religion as "Roman Catholic", I understand what you meant.  Others might have been looking for "But this thread isn't about only what Catholics believe, it is about what all Christians believe."  (Which I assume is what you meant all along, so I say we all let go and move on.)

I live in Utah!

Yes, thank you, that is exactly what I meant! Also why I'm bowing out as my communication skills seem to be non existent. Maybe they'll come back, some day.

[zil]

8 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

I live in Utah!

Yes, thank you, that is exactly what I meant! Also why I'm bowing out as my communication skills seem to be non existent. Maybe they'll come back, some day.

Don't sweat it - you communicated just fine.  I hope it's only this thread you're bowing out of and not the forum.

[anatess2]

20 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

I live in Utah!

Yes, thank you, that is exactly what I meant! Also why I'm bowing out as my communication skills seem to be non existent. Maybe they'll come back, some day.

You're communication skills are excellent.  Don't bow out.  I love talking to you.

[prisonchaplain]

This shouldn't be a huge side track, but I doubt any Catholics would have been offended by the, "This is about Christian--not Catholic teaching" thing.  Often, especially among Hispanic Catholics, you'll have this conversation:

Are you Christian?

Oh no!  I'm Catholic!

 

Of course, the priests I ask about this all say they would like to correct the parishioners--that Catholics are Christians. However, the understanding is that "Christian" means Protestant.  During my three-months in the Philippines, there were some locals (Baguio City) who considered "born-agains" ti be a religious cult.

 

Perception is everything.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

This shouldn't be a huge side track, but I doubt any Catholics would have been offended by the, "This is about Christian--not Catholic teaching" thing.  Often, especially among Hispanic Catholics, you'll have this conversation:

Are you Christian?

Oh no!  I'm Catholic!

 

Of course, the priests I ask about this all say they would like to correct the parishioners--that Catholics are Christians. However, the understanding is that "Christian" means Protestant.  During my three-months in the Philippines, there were some locals (Baguio City) who considered "born-agains" ti be a religious cult.

 

Perception is everything.

Correct.

Just like Mormons are often excluded from the Christian designation as they are not Trinitarians, Catholics are often excluded from from the Christian designation as they are not sola scriptura believers.

[Blueskye2]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

You're communication skills are excellent.  Don't bow out.  I love talking to you.

Thanks.

[Blueskye2]

5 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

This shouldn't be a huge side track, but I doubt any Catholics would have been offended by the, "This is about Christian--not Catholic teaching" thing.  Often, especially among Hispanic Catholics, you'll have this conversation:

Are you Christian?

Oh no!  I'm Catholic!

 

Of course, the priests I ask about this all say they would like to correct the parishioners--that Catholics are Christians. However, the understanding is that "Christian" means Protestant.  During my three-months in the Philippines, there were some locals (Baguio City) who considered "born-agains" ti be a religious cult.

 

Perception is everything.

Russians have the same view of "born-agains", Mormons and everyone not Russian Orthodox or Roman Catholics, and Roman Catholics are Christian heretics.

Then there was the Pilipino Bishop who talked of ecumenism with the local Mormons.

[Guest]

So, I found this commentary by one, Matthew Henry.

Quote

 

Here is a solemn conclusion, not only of this prophecy, but of the Old Testament. Conscience bids us remember the law. Though we have not prophets, yet, as long as we have Bibles, we may keep up our communion with God. Let others boast in their proud reasoning, and call it enlightening, but let us keep near to that sacred word, through which this Sun of Righteousness shines upon the souls of his people. They must keep up a believing expectation of the gospel of Christ, and must look for the beginning of it. John the Baptist preached repentance and reformation, as Elijah had done. The turning of souls to God and their duty, is the best preparation of them for the great and dreadful day of the Lord. John shall preach a doctrine that shall reach men's hearts, and work a change in them. Thus he shall prepare the way for the kingdom of heaven. The Jewish nation, by wickedness, laid themselves open to the curse. God was ready to bring ruin upon them; but he will once more try whether they will repent and return; therefore he sent John the Baptist to preach repentance to them. Let the believer wait with patience for his release, and cheerfully expect the great day, when Christ shall come the second time to complete our salvation. But those must expect to be smitten with a sword, with a curse, who turn not to Him that smites them with a rod. None can expect to escape the curse of God's broken law, nor to enjoy the happiness of his chosen and redeemed people, unless their hearts are turned from sin and the world, to Christ and holiness. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with us all. Amen.

I can see elements of what @prisonchaplain was saying.  This is most curious.

[Guest]

On 7/22/2016 at 6:19 PM, Blueskye2 said:

Russians have the same view of "born-agains", Mormons and everyone not Russian Orthodox or Roman Catholics, and Roman Catholics are Christian heretics.

Then there was the Pilipino Bishop who talked of ecumenism with the local Mormons.

Yeah, don't bow out.  Lehi just loves to pick nits.

[prisonchaplain]

@Carborendum Matthew Henry is a classic commentary--one of the most commonly available ones "public domain." I believe it is in the neighborhood of 100 years old. He would probably qualify as Evangelical, though obviously not Pentecostal (No prophets/prophecy today...)