John The Baptist. More than a Prophet?

by Steve J 33 Replies latest watchtower bible

Steve J

In bite me's recent post about the Virgin Birth I raised some serious questions which make us doubt that Jesus was conceived by Gods Holy Spirit. My research over the last few years, since leaving JW's has led me to believe Jesus was just a ordinary man, and to me that makes his sacrifice even more powerful. This post raises similar questions and challenges what we actually know about John the Baptist and the part he played in Jesus' life.
In Islam, John the Baptist and Jesus are as important as one another and in Arabic, the language of the Qur'an, John is known as Yahya the Infinite. He is called righteous, honorable and chaste, as well as the Prophet of the Righteousnes. According to the Qur'an, John came to confirm the word of God and both John and Jesus are great prophets, their births both being fortold by the angel Gabriel. (Qur'an 3:33-41. 6:84-90. & 19:1-15)
The 1st. cent. Jewish historian Josephus, only briefly mentions Jesus, saying he was a wise man who performed many astounding feats, but in describing John the Baptist, who he seems to have had an even greater respect for, he tells us much more, which suggests John was a more important figure of the time than Jesus was, in Josephus' time at least. (See Atiquities 18:3.3.63 & 5.2)
Josephus corroborates what we know about John from the Bible and we find John mentioned in all the canonical gospels. Those attributed to Matthew and Luke however, provide the greatest detial about his ministry and from Luke we can calculate the start of his ministry as being around the year 29C.E. (Luke 3:1-4) It was then that John began baptizing people as a sign of their repentance, confirming Josephus, who wrote;
(John was) a good man who commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as righteousness towards one another and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. (Antiquities 5.2)
When speaking of Jesus though, rather than giving us a precise date, as he did with the beginning of John's ministry, Luke simply states:
Jesus himself, when he commenced his work was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was of Joseph. (Luke 3:23 NWT)
It seems rather odd to me that we are given a precise date for the commencement of John's ministry and only a vague mention that Jesus was about 30 when he began his. Again, this seems to put more emphasis on John's ministry than Jesus'.
Matthew on the other hand, after telling us of John's ministry says;
Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, in order to be baptized by him. (Matthew 3:13)
Although we are then told how John protested saying that Jesus ought to be baptizing John, the fact is, Jesus was baptized by John as a symbol of repentance, for forgiveness of sins, or as Josephus says; "for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."
If Jesus had been conceived by Mary through Holy Spirit, and was the perfect son of God, why would he feel the need for John's batism in symbol of repentance?
Matthew 3:13 also suggests Jesus made the effort to come from Galilee and search John out "in order to be baptized by him." Jesus obviously knew what John's baptism was all about, especially as he was a relative, and it seems that he (Jesus) wanted to become John's disciple. Is there any evidence of this though?
The simple answer is yes, and we can see this when we compare John's message with that of Jesus. Matthew reports of John;
When he caught sight of the Pharisees and Saducees coming to the baptism, he said; 'You offspring of vipers, who has suggested that you are able to escape the coming anger of God? Produce the fruits that befits repentance first, and do not presume to claim (righteousness because) you have Abraham as your father, for God is able to raise children of Abraham from these very stones. The axe is lying at the roots of the trees already and every tree that does not produce fine fruit is to be cut down and thrown into the fire. I for my part baptize you in water, but the one coming after me will baptize with spirit and fire. (Matthew 3:7-11)
When we compare the above with Jesus' words, we find him using similar phrases in his own ministry, just any disciple would. At Matthew 7:15-20 Jesus warns of false prophets and warns; "by their fruits you will recognize them." At Matthew 23:33 he calls the Pharisees the "offspring of vipers," and attacks the religious leaders of Jerusalem in much the same way as John the Baptist did. In Luke 13 Jesus calls the people to repent and his teachings were so much like John's that after John's execution the people, and even Herod himself, seem to have thought John had been raised from the dead. (See Mattew 12:33,34. 23:1-33 Luke 13:3,5 Matthew 14:1,2 Mark 6:14-16 & Luke 9:7-9)
We know from the Gospels that Jesus held John the Baptist in very high regard indeed and on one occasion when speaking to the people in the wilderness who had come to hear John, he asks them who the had come to see; "A prophet?" Jesus asks; and then replies;
Yes, I tell you...and far more than a prophet. This is the man concerning whom it is written, 'Look! I myself am sending forth my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way ahead of you!' Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not been raised up anyone greater than John the Baptist....and if you want to accept it, he himself is Elijah who is destined to come. (matthew 11:2-14)
The ancient prophets were held in very high regard, but here Jesus was saying that John was far greater than any of them. In fact, when he told the people "among those born of women there has not been raised up anyone greater than John the Baptist," surely Jesus was including himself.
Here we have a clear indication then that Jesus though John was even greter than himself, or at least as great, yet Jesus is supposed to have been conceived by Mary through God's Holy Spirit. If Jesus was the son of God, why did he believe John was as great as him, if not greater?
Again, I am not saying I have found the "truth" about Jesus, just that the question of the Virgin Birth and Jesus being the Son of God is not as cut and dried as JW's and other "Christians" are led to believe and I would dearly appreciate you comments. My so-called JW "brothers" and Elders just labled me "Apostate," when I raised these questions with them, but were unable to provide answers, so I'm hoping to have better luck here.
Steve J
JosephMalik

My research over the last few years, since leaving JW's has led me to believe Jesus was just a ordinary man, and to me that makes his sacrifice even more powerful.
Steve J,
I enjoyed your post but it is a bit long and I am not interested in what the Muslims think who have corrupted scriptures the way that the Mormons have in our time. So I will only cover a few points. I would have put your statement shown above this way. Jesus was born as a human being but contained within his human flesh the sinless life of the Word. In time this mortal man attained the immortality that Adam lost for us. This is what makes his sacrifice even more powerful.
This must sound strange and I left out a lot of detail but it was derived from statements appearing in the Gospels and helps explain many things hidden within them. Both John and Jesus had one thing in common. They were both in the same faith, a faith that was now destined to change from one supported by what was then Judaism to one supported by what came to be called Christianity. And in keeping with principles established within this faith such as the "laying on of hands" and "anointing," this Jesus submitted to the prophet John who came before Him to receive the anointing that the faith required for anyone holding any real authority in this faith. John was capable of supplying such "anointing" and in fact was selected by God to provide it so Jesus submitted to it for this reason. And in proof of acceptance, His anointing was verified from above. Thus John could now say: The axe is lying at the roots of the trees already and every tree that does not produce fine fruit is to be cut down and thrown into the fire. I for my part baptize you in water, but the one coming after me will baptize with spirit and fire. (Matthew 3:7-11) Judaism would soon pass from favor. The faith would now be supported by other means much more powerful and influential in the lives of those that believed in it.
You said: The ancient prophets were held in very high regard, but here Jesus was saying that John was far greater than any of them. In fact, when he told the people "among those born of women there has not been raised up anyone greater than John the Baptist," surely Jesus was including himself.
The answer to that is No!. By this time John had completed his ministry while still supporting the Law and the statement was true. But Jesus was continuing his ministry which would terminate this Law and have much greater results than John. In fact He said: Joh 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. Comparisons you show that were made by others in their writings simply confirms what I said above about the way such men have corrupted scripture and what it teaches. We should be careful to avoid them. There is one other thing that may be of interest. Would John be included in the Kingdom (administration) or would he be excluded because he died too soon? What did Jesus really say about it? Matt 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Is Jesus saying that John would not make it for this reason? No! This kingdom will be shared by others of equal or more importance as Jesus teaches and not dominated by someone like John. Read on then for Jesus also said: 12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. 13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. 14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. Was John violent? Would he be included with the others considered violent from his time onward that would take it by force? Yes! He did not conform to the norms of the day. He was the Elias that many are still expecting but had already appeared before them. It was not from Jesus death but from the time of John that those violent would determine who takes it by force. 15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Joseph
Leolaia

Josephus presents John as a prophet in his own right without connecting him to any other religious movement and has no main interest in him either, only mentioning him incidentally in his description of Herod Antipas' administration. Josephus also minimizes the eschatological dimension of John's preaching (attested in the synoptic gospels) and translates the ethical dimension of his teaching into the philosphical language of Hellenistic Judaism. Thus, no mention is made that John was thought by his followers to represent the foretold return of Elijah (cf. Malachi 4:5, Sirach 48:1-10, 1 Enoch 90:31, 4Q382, 31).
The synoptic gospels portray John as the forerunner of Jesus and they assimilate his movement to that of Jesus. They probably do not interpret John as literally Elijah (who elsewhere appears in the transfiguration scene with Moses, but cf. Mark 9:13), but portray John as assuming the prophetic role of Elijah (cf. especially Luke 1:17, which cites Malachi 4:5-6) and Jesus as assuming the role of Elisha. This gives the Jesus' baptism its key significance in the narrative: it corresponds to the moment in which Elijah's successor was appointed, which incidentally occurs in the same location for both: the Jordan River (2 Kings 2:7-8, Mark 1:9). Thenceforth Jesus acts like Elisha, curing leprosy (Mark 1:40-45; cf. 2 Kings 5), multiplying loaves (Mark 6:30-44; cf. 2 Kings 4:42-44), etc. John's independence from Jesus however is still plain from such passages as Matthew 11:2-6, 11:18-19, and Acts 19:1-5.
The Fourth Gospel, on the other hand, depicts John as a herald of Jesus (as his first witness, cf. John 1:7-8, 15, 19, 32-34, 5:33-36) without according him the Elijah role (1:21), and it depicts John and Jesus as working side by side (3:22-23), more fully linking the two movements together (note also that John's baptism is no longer for repentance but in order to make Christ manifest to Israel, cf. 1:31). This gospel appears to make Jesus the eschatological Elijah instead of John.
Narkissos

From a slightly more critical perspective, another puzzling fact is that, according to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus was identified by some as John the Baptist redivivus (Mark 6:14ff; 8:28//) -- in the second case John, who is supposed to have been killed recently, is mentioned along "Elijah" and "one of the prophets," i.e. characters from a distant past. A notion which is also echoed in the phrase "From the days of John the Baptist until now" (Matthew 11:12//), and makes little sense if John and Jesus were, as other Gospel traditions suggest, contemporaries, partners and even relatives (Luke).
Also, the main narrative which makes John Jesus' willing forerunner clashes with the other attestations (in the NT, Mark 2:18ff//; Acts 19 and much later, e.g. the Mandeans) that his discipleship continued outside of and against "Christianity". How can that be if John himself pointed to Jesus as the one who will baptise in fire and spirit, the one whose sandal he was not worthy to (un)tie?
One is left with the impression that early Christianity had to deal with John the Baptist and his movement and developed a number of contradictory narrative strategies to this end. Having Jesus baptised by John as the forerunner sounded like a good idea, until baptism itself was regarded as problematic (cf. the awkward explanation in Matthew 3 about why Jesus doesn't need baptism, and the avoidance of any mention of baptism in John). Similarly, some texts identify John with Elijah (Mark 9:13//) while others dismiss this suggestion (John 1:21ff).
The matter is further complicated if you throw in another Jewish figure also mentioned by Josephus, James the Just -- whom the NT texts seem to have made either a brother or a disciple/apostle of Jesus, or the head of a very strange "Jerusalem Church" comprised of Pharisees and priests in Acts. Squeezing a historical Jesus between John and James was apparently a pretty difficult task for the storymakers of early Christianity.
myelaine

and the little dove doesn't get another mention?...
love michelle
JCanon

Hello Steve J, interesting commentary:
Jesus himself, when he commenced his work was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was of Joseph. (Luke 3:23 NWT)
It seems rather odd to me that we are given a precise date for the commencement of John's ministry and only a vague mention that Jesus was about 30 when he began his. Again, this seems to put more emphasis on John's ministry than Jesus'.
As far as "about" thirty is concerned, it is likely more specific than you think. A more direct translation is "as if" and thus would be considered to mean he was not yet 30 but very close to being 30. But we can calculate that rather precisely if we apply the fulfillment of Jesus' circumcision on the 8th day to the 8th day of the Festival of Booths. These are the only two instnces in Jewish lithurgy where the 8th day is celebrated; the 8th day of circumcision and the 8th day of the Festival of Booths, which is a special sabbath day. During Passover week, the 1st and the 7th days are made special sabbath days. Jesus' ministry ends specifically on Nisan 20th, the day of his death, which makes the Day of Pentecost a fulfillment of the 1335 days considering that Jesus' ministry is symbolized by the "time, times and half time" of 1290 days. In that case, one would suspect that his ministry might have begun specifically in relation to the 8th day of the Festival of Booths and after 43 months (1290 days) ending the day before the 7th day of unfermented cakes make up the 1290 days. This is symbolic and would be rounded off, of course, since each month would average 30 days.
At any rate, with that presumption, since Jesus would be baptized 40 days before his ministry began, presumably during or at the end of the Festival of Booth, we can compare his age in 29 CE based upon when 40 days prior to the 8th day of the Festival of Booths would have been to see if he really would have still been 29 and "not yet" 30. That is, if we presume that he was circumcised on the 8th day of the Festival of Booths in 2 BCE, which we can calculate by lunar observation.
But just on general reference, obviously if we presume Jesus' ministry would have begun at least by the 8th day of the Festival of Booths and he was born on 8 days earlier, even with the flexibility of the month of about 30 days during different years, 40 days prior to the 8th day of the Festival of Booths, that is, Tishri 22 would always occur prior to Jesus' birth 8 days prior.
But let's be specific. The 15th day of the Festival of Booths in 2 BC fell on the 15th of September, interestingly.
METHOD: Using Redshift astroprogram, it shows that the Full Moon for Tishri would fall on October 11/12th, let's call it the 12th. The first day of the Festival of Booths falls on the Full moon, so we are looking at the 19th of October for the 8th day of the festival. Jesus was born on September 15th. So what we are checking for is whether or not 40 days prior to the 19th of October was before the 15th of September to confirm that Jesus was "almost, but not quite 30." 30 days earlier than the 19th of October is the 19th of September and 10 days earlier would be the 9th of September. So Jesus would have presumably been baptized on or about the 9th of September which would have been about 6 days before his 30th birthday. Less than a week.
Clearly, he was 30 years of age by the time he started his ministry though.
So, granted "about 30" as we read it in English can be distortional, especially if based upon that wording one presumes the Bible is being nonspecific, when in fact, it is being more specific, thus rather than "about 30" the text should be "almost" or "nearly"; those terms render he was at least less than a month from being 30 but was still 29. "About" is too vague and indeed sounds like the gospel writers somehow lost track of his age. ROFL! Not the case. "As if" means "just before" or "nearly" thus Jesus specifically was 39 but only six days from his 30th birthday. Thus "as if" in that culture may have been understood as a reference to someone say within a week or two of their 30th birthday, maybe even within a month of their 30th birthday, but not likely more than that.
In fact,you can apply the common experience concept to our own culture. That is, when would we ourselves if asked our age start relating our approaching birthday? I think this is what "as if" means here. Jesus was 29, true, but only six days from his 30th birthday so, so he was "as if" 30. I think anyone within 2 weeks of their birthday would certainly consider themselves "as if" the age they would become for their upcoming birthdate. I think those reading this back then would understand culturally that Jesus was just a few days from his 30th birthday by this reference, thus it was actually more specific than saying he was "29." That is, "he was 29" is less specific than "he was almost 30". That's because 29 is the length of a full year, and "almost 30" is specific to within two weeks, a month at the most.
So the nonspecificity point here probably is a moot point for chronologists who have figured out precisely Jesus' birthdate and every other significant date relating to Jesus' ministry, including his death on Nisan 20th (rather than Nisan 14th as so many including JWs inaccurately teach).
My pleasure, pal.
JCanon
JCanon

there has not been raised up anyone greater than John the Baptist....and if you want to accept it, he himself is Elijah who is destined to come. (matthew 11:2-14)
OOPS! This is a big OOPS! too. Do you realize what this means? Notice it says that John the Baptist is the "Elijah who is destined to come." That means that John the Baptist will reappear as the coming Elijah. That is the Elijah forerunner of Christ at the second coming!!!
How is this possible? It is possible because all those who have died before the second coming will have to be resurrected before the second coming, that is, before Christ himself takes up the human flesh again. BUT, they are like "seeds" that are sown into the bodies of modern anointed ones. That is, they have modern identities at the second coming just like the Christ does.
SO, that means whoever the ELIJAH is of the second coming, that person is the identity of the "sown" (implanted) spirit of John the Baptist!
In other words, I think OBVES claimes he's some prophet right? Well, let's say he claimed to be "Elijah" and what if Jehovah was really using him as "Elijah". If that were the case and he truly is the "Elijah" of the second coming, and I'm not confirming that he is, then he would be the person in which John the Baptist was reimplaned, downloaded, "sown," "transmigrated into" whatever you want to describe it as.
There is no other way around this. John the Baptist would be "Elijah to come" in a future life.
So it could be OBVES, but if not, it is someone else who was a forerunner to the messiah, and thus known to the JW discussion boards which is where the messiah would "teach in the broadways."
Who can it be? WOW! (I'm thinking out loud here, I'm sooo excited!)
OH! I know who it is. I know. It's not OBVES.
Some of the oldies who use to post at H20 can figure out who he must be. Actually, I was hoping it would be OBVES since I like him, but its not him. The "forerunner" appears before the Christ arrives and "goes on decreasing while the christ goes on increasing", so it is not someone who is really in the thick and fray at the last minute right now like me and OBVES. So that prophecy was fulfilled.
But if OBVES isn't "Elijah" then who IS HE?
The only other specific identities of resurrected ones mentioned in the Bible that I know of are Daniel and Peter, both who know me personally.
Wonderful. THANKS!!! This makes my day!
HA!!! That's right, another "Elijah" has to appear during the end times, and he's the resurrected John the Baptist!
He makes the 4th person who people who have been posting on the boards since way back has a specific Biblical fulfillment (i.e. Ray Franz(Luke 16:1-8), someone who posts here currently whom I won't mention but he knows who he is (Matt 22:11), me of course , and this "Elijah" who used to post a lot but doesn't post anymore that much. Hmmmm! If we figure out who OBVES really is, then that would make five! ) This is very alarming though as well, since if these identities are now coming out then it means the work is basically over and the great tribulation is about to strike--just my assessment. There is a different "energy" in the JIOR taking place now as well....(just a heads up!)
Cheers, JC
myelaine

so anyways...if it wasn't for Agatha Christie I wouldn't have noticed the disappearing dove...
...how is the Holy Spirit represented after this encounter?...fire...
as an aside, so to speak...Song of Solomon 2:14...
O my dove, in the clefts of the rock,
In the secret places of the cliff,
Let me see your countenance,
Let me hear your voice;
For your voice is sweet,
And your countenance is lovely.
love michelle
tmo1965

there has not been raised up anyone greater than John the Baptist....and if you want to accept it, he himself is Elijah who is destined to come. (matthew 11:2-14)
Stop reading the New World Translation and get yourself a regular Bible. That alone would clear up a whole lot. Let's look at Matthew 11:14 in a few regular translations:
NASB - 14 "And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.
NIV - 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.
KJV - 14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
NLT - 14 And if you are willing to accept what I say, he is Elijah, the one the prophets said would come.
You see, John The Baptist (Elijah) was prophesied about in the OT. (Malachi 3:1, Matthew 11:10). So Matthew 11:14 is confirming that John The Baptist was in fact the prophesied return of Elijah.
M.J.

I've been a bit perplexed recently regarding Matt 11:11-12 (NASB):
Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the
Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent
men take it by force.

Yet, the NWT translates v12 as:

But from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward
which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it.

The NWT version seemingly supports the WT teaching that John the Baptist (and anyone who came before him) was not heaven-bound. And assuming these verses are an explanation of the opening of the "heavenly hope" as the WTS teaches, v11 turns into a statement that John the Baptist (as one who is not heaven-bound) is lesser than the least of those who are. But is this what these verses are trying to convey?

First off, I am puzzled by the purpose or meaning of Christ's assertion that John doesn't measure up to any of those who are "in the kingdom of heaven"...Perhaps this has do to with the historical points brought up already?

Secondly, what is up with the huge discrepancy between the NWT translation of v12 and, say, the NASB? And if the NWT's version is a distortion, what is this verse really getting at?

Sorry if this is a bit of a tangent from the initial discussion.

John The Baptist. More than a Prophet?

Share this