Traditions: Johannine and Matthean early Christian,Bahá’í interpretation in Some Answered Questions Motif: return of a prophet Connection verdict: explicit later Gospel interpretation Article status: Expanded Date: 2026-11-04
Summary
The Gospel sources create a tension between John’s denial of being Elijah and Jesus’s identification of John with Elijah’s expected coming.
Read the two scenes
John 1 makes the Baptist’s negative answer direct: asked whether he is Elijah, he says he is not, then describes himself as a wilderness voice. Matthew 17 records Jesus saying Elijah has already come, with disciples understanding this of John. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá explicitly places these answers together rather than discarding either. He resolves the apparent contradiction by distinguishing a recurring prophetic reality from the identity of a bodily individual. This is a later harmonizing interpretation of two early Christian witnesses. It does not erase the fact that each Gospel uses John’s role for its own narrative purposes.
What connects—and what does not
The Bahá’í explanation treats return as recurrence of prophetic qualities or station, not the numerical return of the same individual.
The table talk explicitly cites Gospel testimony; the texts are not independent versions of a prior Bahá’í doctrine, and John and Matthew have different narrative aims.
Why read them side by side?
Because the later source names both Gospel passages, this comparison establishes direct reception while showing a specific interpretive solution.
Sources and reading notes
- John 1:19-23 (NRSVUE) — John the Baptist denies being Elijah when questioned by priests and Levites.
- Matthew 17:10-13 (NRSVUE) — Jesus says Elijah has already come and the disciples understand him to mean John the Baptist.
- ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, ch. 33, The Return of the Prophets (2014 English edition) — The talk places John’s denial beside Jesus’s statement to explain return by attributes and office.
- Bahá’í Reference Library, Some Answered Questions publication overview — Official overview dates the ‘Akká table talks to 1904–06, first publication to 1908, and extensively retranslated English edition to 2014.
Research limit
A named parallel can establish literary reuse or related tradition; a general resemblance alone cannot prove borrowing. Linked editions and translations vary. Where a source is identified as secondary orientation, the comparison does not claim direct close reading of that tradition’s primary text.