Two Questions about John the Baptist
September 26th, 2010 by Brian Keating
Introduction
One of the key figures in the New Testament is John the Baptist. For one thing, Scripture tells us that John the Baptist fulfilled the Old Testament prophesy, about the one who would “prepare the way of the Lord”:
Matthew 3:1-3 (ESV):
1 In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, 2 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” 3For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said,
“The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord;
make his paths straight.’”
In addition, John the Baptist is the very first person to identify Jesus as the promised Messiah, in the Gospel of John:
John 1:29 (ESV):
29The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
However, there are a few rather “confusing” items about John the Baptist – i.e., items that don’t seem to “add up”. Two such items are listed in Luke chapter 7:
Luke 7:18-23, 28-30 (ESV):
18 The disciples of John reported all these things to him. And John, 19calling two of his disciples to him, sent them to the Lord, saying, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?” 20And when the men had come to him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?’” 21In that hour he healed many people of diseases and plagues and evil spirits, and on many who were blind he bestowed sight. 22And he answered them, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them. 23And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.”
28I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” 29( When all the people heard this, and the tax collectors too, they declared God just, having been baptized with the baptism of John, 30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)
There are two specific questions that arise about John the Baptist, from the above passage:
Question 1: Why did John ask: “Are you the one who is to come”?
In verses 18 and 19 of the above passage, John instructs his followers to ask Jesus if he is the “one who is to come” – i.e., if Jesus is the Messiah. On the face of it, that doesn’t make sense to me – because after all, John, himself, explicitly identified Jesus as the Messiah! So, what’s going on here – why does John want his disciples to ask Jesus if he is the Messiah, when John already knows that Jesus is the Messiah?
I can see three potential reasons, for why John would have his disciples ask Jesus if he is the Messiah.
Possible reason #1: At the time that John asked that question, he was being held prisoner by Herod. As it turns out, John never got out of that prison – because Herod murdered him while he was imprisoned. Needless to say, being held prisoner – and never knowing when you will be killed – is a very depressing and stressful situation to be in.
So, one possible reason why John asked that question is that he simply wanted to “lift his spirits”. In other words, perhaps John wanted Jesus to confirm he was the Messiah, so that John could get a “morale boost”. Certainly, receiving confirmation that the Messiah is currently on the earth, performing miracles, is extremely comforting news.
Possible reason #2: John was very well aware that once Jesus began his ministry, John’s own ministry would diminish. In fact, in John 3:30, John explicitly told his followers: “He [Jesus] must increase, but I must decrease.” So, apparently John knew that once Jesus “came on the scene”, people should start following Jesus – rather than following him.
Of course, we can see in Scripture that John had a dedicated group of followers of his own – and presumably, those followers were very loyal to him. So, it seems likely that John’s followers would not want to “abandon” him – and start following Jesus – even after John was thrown in prison.
As a result, John might have told his followers to ask Jesus if he is the Messiah, because he knew that that question would “prompt” Jesus to perform many miracles, in the presence of John’s followers. Those miracles would then provide firsthand evidence to John’s followers, that Jesus is God’s chosen Messiah – and that, in turn, would (presumably) cause them to start following Jesus.
In other words, John may have asked Jesus that question, in order to try to convince his followers to start following Jesus - rather than following him.
Possible reason #3: One of the beliefs that some Jews have held – both in ancient times, and currently – is that there will be two separate Messiahs, rather than just one Messiah. Basically, this view states that the first Messiah would be the “Messiah son of Joseph”, who would suffer and die for his people. Then, the second Messiah would be the “Messiah son of David”, who would conquer the earth, and restore the kingdom to Israel. A concise description of this “two Messiahs” doctrine can be found here.
This “two Messiahs” belief dates back to at least the second century before Christ. As a result, it is possible that John the Baptist was familiar with that doctrine.
So, if John was familiar with the “two Messiahs” doctrine, then he might have been asking Jesus this, when he asked Jesus if he is “the one who is to come”:
“Jesus, I understand that you are the Messiah son of Joseph. However, are you also the Messiah son of David – or do we have to wait for someone else to come along, to fulfill that role?”
Question 2: What does “The least in the kingdom is greater than he” mean?
In Luke 7:28, Jesus makes this statement, about John the Baptist: “I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
That is a rather cryptic statement to me. What, exactly, does Jesus mean, when he says that John is “greater” than those “born of women”. And even more importantly, what does he mean when he says the one who is “least in the kingdom” is “greater” than John?
First, let’s see if we can determine what the adjective “greater” means, in this context. In other words, what qualities make a person “great”, according to Jesus?
Matthew 23:11-12 (ESV):
11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Mark 9:33-35 (ESV):
33And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” 34But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. 35And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.”
Luke 22:24-27 (ESV):
24 A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. 25 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. 27For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.
In the above passages, Jesus states that the quality that makes a person “great” is his willingness to serve others – and to serve God.
In addition, Jesus links serving others to being humble. In other words, it appears that being a servant requires humility - i.e., the quality of humility is a “prerequisite” for being a good servant.
John the Baptist certainly served others, and served God – he baptized and preached to the people, in order to “prepare the way of the Lord”. In addition, John reproved Herod for the evil he had done, even though that caused Herod to imprison – and eventually kill – him. In other words, John was such a dedicated servant, that he did the will of God – even though it cost him his life.
John also displayed extraordinary humility. As mentioned above, John did not try to exalt his own ministry – on the contrary, in John 3:30 he states that Jesus’ ministry must increase, and his must decrease. In addition, John refers to Jesus as someone who is much greater than he is – in fact, in Luke 3:16, John states that he is not even worthy to untie Jesus’ sandals.
So, John the Baptist certainly appears to fulfill Jesus’ requirements for being “great”.
Next, let’s see if we can determine what the phrases “born of women” and “in the kingdom” mean.
In the first half of John chapter 3, Jesus has a very interesting conversation with the Pharisee Nicodemus. Here is an excerpt of that conversation:
John 3:3-8 (ESV):
3Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Jesus appears to be referring to two different “types” of birth here: The birth “of the flesh”, and the birth “of the Spirit”. In addition, he states that a person who is born “of the flesh” cannot enter the kingdom of God.
From the context, it appears that the birth “of the flesh” refers to our “natural” births, to our human mothers. The birth “of the Spirit” is something entirely different, of course.
Paul also refers to the concept that people who are born “of the flesh” cannot inherit the kingdom:
1 Corinthians 15:50 (ESV):
50I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
In addition, Paul refers to a distinction between “natural” (or fleshly) bodies, and “spiritual” bodies:
1 Corinthians 15:42-44 (ESV):
42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
So, the birth “of the Spirit” appears to refer to being given spiritual bodies. In other words, a person becomes completely “born of the Spirit”, when he receives a spiritual body.
Note: so far, there is only one person who has been completely born of the Spirit – and that one person is Jesus.
Let’s take a look at Jesus’ statement about John the Baptist in Luke 7:28 again: “I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
From all of the above information, I understand the following about that statement:
- When Jesus uses the phrase “among those born of women“, he is referring to people who have natural bodies.
- When Jesus uses the phrase “the least in the kingdom“, he is referring to people who have spiritual bodies.
If the above assertions are true, then it seems to me that a paraphrase of Luke 7:28 could be expressed this way:
“Among all of the people who have natural bodies, no one has ever served God as wholeheartedly as John did. However, everyone who obtains a spiritual body will serve God even more wholeheartedly than John did.”
Note: a blog post which discusses the differences between “natural” bodies and “spiritual” bodies can be found here.
Hi Brian
Thanks for an interesting article. For question 1, I think possible reasons #1 and 2 are possibly valid. As he was imprisoned, he would have wanted reassurance that Jesus WAS the messiah- I don’t believe he doubted it at all, but was rather just being sure. I’m also convinced that the account of the healing that Jesus did, isn’t just slotted into the middle of the account by chance, I agree that Jesus was giving them visible proof to relay to John. I don’t buy #3. I’m sure John would not have believed there would be a second messiah.Your paraphrase of Luke 7:28, I think, is spot on.
I have a question about 1 Corinthians 15:50, maybe you or one of the bloggers could help. If “flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom”, and Jesus was resurrected as flesh, what happened to his fleshly body when he ascended to heaven. I know that it’s not pertinent to this article, but it would be great if someone could explain it to me, thanks
Fiona
About the first question as to why John send disciples to ask Jesus if he is the one while he was in prison, it seems to me that he just wanted to hear the word, that he wanted to hear from Jesus. I don’t see it so much as that he needed some confirmation, but more as that he simply wanted to hear from Jesus, that he simply wanted to hear his voice as sheep may miss their shepherd. I see it as John’s way of saying it and that Jesus knew it.
About the second question about he that is least in the kingdom is greater than John, it causes me to consider also , that where John was about to go, there was a change, something different, something greater, where even the least there are greater than the greatest men on this earth are today.
Fiona, after I read your question I began thinking of the transfiguration.
Brian
The 2 messiah theory you mentioned is not the earliest one, I recall reading that in the dead sea scrolls a slightly different view that might means a 3 messiah comings.
But what i see john inquiring about is Jesus more than just the lamb and would he be the first of the first fruits which would comfort john to know that if Jesus was also the one to come than the resurrection was a reality which he could look forward too which Jesus confirmed in his answer that John would be least but nonetheless a part of the first fruits resurrection.
this is the only explaination that makes any sense to me.
Hi Fiona,
From what I have seen, there are two “schools of thought” about what happened to Jesus’ fleshly body that died on the cross:
- One view holds that God completely destroyed Jesus’ fleshly body – and then God created a brand new spiritual body for Jesus. In other words, in this view, the body that Jesus has now has no relation whatsoever to the body that he had on the cross.
- The other view states that God transformed Jesus’ fleshly body. In other words, God changed that very body from a natural body, to a spiritual body, when He resurrected Jesus. So, in this view, Jesus still has the body that he had on the cross; but his body is now immortal – and it is kept alive by Holy Spirit, rather than by blood. (In other words, his body has been “born of the Spirit”.)
Some groups (such as the JWs) claim that the second view cannot be correct – because they claim that that body was the atonement for mankind’s sins. However, when we look back at the Old Testament, we can see that when an animal was sacrificed for people’s sins, it was not the body of the animal that atoned for people’s sins – rather, it was the blood of the animal that provided the atonement.
Similarly, it occurs to me that it was the blood of Jesus that atoned for our sins – not his body. So, the second view certainly looks possible to me.
In addition, one of the prophesies about the Messiah is contained in Psalm 16. In the second half of verse verse 10, David states: “you will not let your holy one see corruption”. To me, that verse means: God will not let Jesus’ fleshly body decompose in the grave – instead, God will resurrect that body, before it has decayed.
Generally speaking, it takes several days, before any visible signs of decay appear on a dead person’s body. So, God may very well have resurrected that body, in order to prevent it from decomposing – in fulfillment of Psalm 16.
Not only that, but if God was going to create a brand new, spiritual body for Jesus, then why would David even mention “you will not let your holy one see corruption”? After all, spiritual bodies can never decompose – because they can never die – right?
So, I tend to lean towards the second view – that Jesus’ fleshly body was transformed into a spiritual body.
In any case, regardless of which view is correct, Jesus is apparently able to change the appearance of his body now. For example, Mark 16:12 states that Jesus appeared in “another form” to two of the disciples.
This “changing of his form” apparently allows him to re-create the wounds in his hands, feet and side, whenever he wants to – because he showed those wounds to Thomas. (I certainly do not believe that Jesus still has those wounds right now – God would not force His beloved Son to retain those wounds for thousands of years, would he?)
Brian
Brian writes- it appears that the birth “of the flesh” refers to our “natural” births, to our human mothers. The birth “of the Spirit” is something entirely different, of course… So, the birth “of the Spirit” appears to refer to being given spiritual bodies. In other words, a person becomes completely “born of the Spirit”, when he receives a spiritual body.
Response….Do you see the birth of the spiritual body as literal or symbolic and do you see the use of seed in this spiritual birth and does not this birth come about by resurrection?
Hi Brian
Thanks for your explanation. Yes, as an exJW, I was taught that Jesus was resurrected in a spirit body- they claim that is why Jesus was able to change his appearance to others, after his resurrection. (They also say this is why Jesus “suddenly appeared in their midst” in Luke24:36,37). They also use 1Cor 15:50 to argue Jesus must have been a spirit, in order to enter the Kingdom of heaven. You are right about the blood of sacrifices being the atonement, but if the body of the animal had not been consumed by the fire, the sacrifice would not have been complete, would it? How foolish I am to even ponder such things-we know that nothing is impossible for our God, especially with regard to His beloved Son!
Fiona
Fiona
You said, “You are right about the blood of sacrifices being the atonement, but if the body of the animal had not been consumed by the fire, the sacrifice would not have been complete, would it?”
I might be wrong, but I thought parts of the animals sacrificed was fed to the priests and the people in and around the temple. From what I understand on any given day thousands of people would have been in and around the temple, and on special holidays tens of thousands of people would have been in and around the temple. All these people had to be fed, and from what I understand part of the sacrificed animals was saved in order to feed the multitudes.
These holidays were generally feasts, where there was plenty of food…
Hi Fiona and DT,
OK, I did some additional research on the animal sacrifices in the OT – and the exact specifics of what was done varies quite a bit, depending on the exact ceremony being performed.
In every case I can find, the blood of the animal was poured, sprinkled or smeared on the altar. (In some cases, other things were done with the blood as well, such as sprinkling it on people.)
For the body of the animal, though, generally only the fat, kidneys, liver and tail of the animal was burned on the altar as a sacrifice. The rest of the animal was not burned; and its flesh (i.e., the meat) was eaten by the priests. Also, in a few cases – notably during the Passover festival – the flesh of the animal could be eaten by non-priests as well.
There is one big exception to this – there is one case I can find where the entire body of the animal had to be burned. That exception is the animal sacrifice for unintentional sin. In that case, the fat of the animal was burned on the altar – and then the rest of the animal’s body was burned outside the camp. So, for that sacrifice, the meat (evidently) could not be eaten at all.
So, how does the above information relate to this thread? Well, if Jesus’ sacrifice is the ultimate Passover sacrifice, then it seems possible that Jesus’ fleshly body could have been transformed into a spirit body – because in a Passover sacrifice, the body of the animal was not burned up.
However, if Jesus’ sacrifice is the ultimate “unintentional sin” sacrifice, then perhaps Jesus’ fleshly body needed to be completely destroyed - similar to the bodies of the animals that were sacrificed during that particular ceremony. In that case, Jesus’ fleshly body presumably could not be transformed – and so God would have had to create a brand new, spiritual body for Jesus.
I suspect that Jesus’ sacrifice was the ultimate Passover sacrifice – in fact, many researchers believe that Jesus was crucified on the exact day that the Passover lambs were sacrificed. If so, that may explain why Jesus told us “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves.” Remember – Passover was one of the few times when non-priests could eat the flesh of the animal sacrifice.
This thread is generating lots more information that I expected – which is good!
Brian
Hi Brian and DT
Thanks for all your research, so great that we can all learn together! Yes, I’m inclined to agree with you about Jesus being the ultimate Passover sacrifice,especially as all are now told to take of Jesus’s body and blood.
DT-Thanks for your comment. I did think of the fact that the meat of the sacrifices was eaten, but that still boils down to it being consumed, doesn’t it, even if not by fire?
I pray that one day, in the Kingdom, we will have the opportunity to ask this of Jesus directly!
Hi
the article and the various comments appear to me sort of like a typical “word study” and 2000 year later theological “compare scripture with scripture” attempt in order to understand what (a) John was asking, and what (b) Jesus was telling John’s disciples and some other most likely non-theologically inclined, non-word study oriented, and more or less simple folks at the time.
Can one really introduce things mentioned in Paul’s writing of 1Co (the matter of natural body and spiritual body) to arrive at a true understanding of what Jesus told those folks at the time in reply to the question John the baptist had asked via his messengers? This question is especially of importance since it is not even clear if the understanding proposed for the 1Co 15 section about those two types of “bodies” is correct or not …
I would say that a correct understanding and the answers to those questions would be connected to understanding the immediate context correctly … and I am admitting that I don’t quite have a good answer at this time.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Brian
The more I read this passage starting with Luke 7:18 the clearer it gets.
John inquires if Jesus is ALSO the one to come who will re-establish the Kingdom Of Israel which even was a question by the apostles. Jesus doesnt or cant answer this question because He doesnt know, only Yahweh Knows.
So Instead of answering the question of John He provides proofs that He is the first messiah and then goes on to address the reason for John’s question which was Is there going to be the re-establishing of the Kingdom of Israel. Jesus provides John with the answer to the purpose for his question by stating that John was going to be a part of this Kingdom when it is established which must of been a comfort to John to know it was a reality.
So there should be no doubt that the thought in those days was that of 2 messiah’s coming or a messiah coming twice
Hi
about this “2 Messiahs” theory …. is it based in Scripture? or is it based in Jewish tradition/interpretation at the time?
I certainly don’t read (thus far at least) anything about 2 Messiahs being prophesied in the Scriptures … therefore the idea doesn’t compute well with me in order to arrive at a proper understanding of the Scriptures.
It seems to me more that the Scriptures speak of 1 Messiah who was to come and be both (put in short) “the lamb of God” and also “the king of kings over God’s kingdom”.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi All,
Indeed, the “2 Messiahs” theory is not listed in Scripture – it was the brainchild of some ancient rabbis. Basically, some rabbis were not able to accept the idea that the Messiah would suffer and die for his people – and that that same Messiah would conquer the world and restore the kingdom to Israel. So, those rabbis theorized that there would be two separate Messiahs; in order to try to reconcile those concepts in their own minds.
Also, note that the two men on the road to Emmaus did not seem to understand that the one Messiah would both suffer and die, and be the conquering king. (See Luke 24:13-35 – especially verses 20 and 21.)
Brian
I was reading Luke 24:13-35, and I noticed something I had never noticed before in Luke 24:33-34, where it says, “(33) And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem. And they found the eleven and those that were with them gathered together, (34) saying, ‘The Lord has risen indeed and has appeared to Simon!”
They were talking about this appearance to Simon even before the two of them told the eleven, and those gathered with them, about what had happened to them on the road to Emmaus. Does this mean that Yeshua/Jesus appeared separately to Simon (Peter) before this???
I have just never noticed this before…
Thomas,
Yes, we are told that he was seen by Cephas (another name for Peter) and then of the twelve, in I Cor. 15:5.
Thanks Mark! I didn’t know that Cephas was another name for Peter…
Thomas,
Cephas is from the Aramaic word kephas, while Peter is from the Greek word petros. Both mean “a stone.”
John 1:42 –
KJV – “And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.”
NASB – “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).”
Mark C.
I guess it’s not too hard to tell that it’s been many years since I have read the writings of John…