John the Baptist - Replies to Rene, Dawn, Steve, Ear, and Greg

 

Some people want to deny that John the Baptist was Elijah, at least for most of his life, even though Jesus said he was, and even though if he wasn't Elijah, Jesus could not be the Christ, according to Malachi.  Which the scribes well knew and reminded the disciples of that fact.  Which is why the disciples questioned Jesus concerning this very thing.

 

I pray that I have a soft answer and also that answering these questions is better than leaving them unanswered.  One may win an argument but lose a friend.  I also pray that if after you read the "John the Baptist - Conclusion" which was printed yesterday on Five Doves, you still do not have all your questions or arguments answered, then to read the replies.

 

Shalom,

Ted Porter

 

To Rene - 2/28

And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.  Matthew 18:3

 

Just because we must become as little children to enter into the kingdom of Heaven does not mean that little children who die as little children are all in heaven.  You must have a child-like faith to enter the kingdom of Heaven.  For without faith it is impossible to please God.  Some have asserted that babies and little children are saved and going to heaven and then they sin and lose their salvation and aren't going to heaven until they get their sins forgiven and are in a pure state again with the blood of Jesus.  Don't know what kind of yo-yo salvation belief this is, but it is certainly not scriptural and hopefully not anyone on Five Dove's belief.  It is the belief that your phrase "little children being great in heaven" seems to imply.

 

John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.  Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.  He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.  John 3:27-29     

 

John is giving testimony that he was sent before Jesus Christ, which was a fulfillment of the scripture in Malichi 4:5 that Elijah would be sent before the Christ.  Jesus Christ in Matthew 17:9-13 confirms that John was Elijah.  John the Baptist in John 3:27-29 is using an ANALOGY of the Bridegroom and it is PRESENT TENSE, not future tense.  He is saying he is not the Christ but he is like the friend of the bridegroom who rejoices for the bridegroom at his wedding.  He doesn't have to be the bridegroom to have his joy complete.  John the Baptist never says HE is the friend of the bridegroom.  His joy is complete when He is saying this.  John the Baptist states, "this my joy therefore is fulfilled".  John the Baptist never states, my joy is not complete now but will be fulfilled in the future when I stand as the "friend of the bridegroom" when the bridegroom, Jesus, marries His bride the Church.  One may consider John a "friend of the bridegroom" but John the Baptist never says that he is.

 

Jesus himself uses the ANALOGY of him being a bridegroom at the time He was on earth.  Not talking about a future event.

 

And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.  Matthew 9:15

 

In regard to the assertion that Jesus Christ wasn't saying that John the Baptist was Elijah who came before Jesus Christ, preparing the way for him.  But that Jesus Christ was saying that John the Baptist was just John the Baptist who came before Jesus, preparing the way for him.  However, had Jesus Christ been accepted by the Jews as the Christ, then and only then would the real Elijah the prophet come on the scene.  Hadn't heard that one idea before.  Let's examine it.  

 

Wouldn't Elijah have to retroactively come BEFORE Jesus was rejected and prepared the way for him to fulfill Scripture?  And isn't Jesus still the Christ, regardless of whether He is rejected?  And why replace John the Baptist who according to Jesus was the greatest Prophet who ever lived?  Why bring in a "second-string"?  So the disciples questioned Jesus because they knew what the scribes were saying that Elijah had to "come before"  (Matthew 17:9-13) the true Christ.  But since Jesus foreknew that the Jews would reject Him as Christ, he didn't send Elijah?  

 

Personally, I can't make sense of this assertation.  However, regardless of whether Jesus foreknew the Jews would reject Him as Christ, the Scriptures testify that Elijah had to "come before".  If Elijah didn't come before, then Jesus, no matter what he foreknew, could not be the Christ according to Scripture.  And He was and is the Christ.     

 

To Dawn 2/29

Hopefully what I wrote in the "conclusion" post helps flesh out some of the details that were a concern to you.  I agree with everything you say except that the least in the kingdom of Heaven are those that believe without actually seeing Jesus.  As you point out, the scripture says, "blessed are those who believe yet have not seen".  If one is blessed, that would be the opposite of being the least.

 

To Steve 2/29

Wow - What a long response.  Guess you started with "a couple of comments" and it kind of grew?

 

In regard to you highlighting "thee" in:

 

But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.  Luke 1:13

 

I don't know if the point being made is that, even though the scripture doesn't say, "shall bear thee your son", "thee" implies that the son in the womb must be biologically Zachiarias'?  Although it is also true that wives bore husbands sons for them, to carry out their name, even when they were unable to do so for themselves.

 

And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.  Deuteronomy 25:6

 

A small point I suppose.

 

In regard to your statement:

 

I do not see any hint that this is a miraculous Holy Spirit conception as was the case with Jesus.

 

I don't know if you are holding the same position as Rene that John the Baptist was not Elijah the Prophet, but if so, then you can read my response above.  Also, in the scriptures below you should see more than a "hint" of a miraculous Holy Spirit conception:

 

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.  Luke 1:15

 

Can we find anywhere else recorded in Scripture of someone being filled with the Holy Ghost in their mother's womb?  Was this ever said about Isaac?

 

And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:  Luke 1:41

 

Does this sound like a regular baby?

 

In regard to your statement:  "No such things were said of John"

 

What about what the Angel of the Lord said to Zacharias?

 

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.  And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.  And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.  Luke 1:15-17

 

In regard to your statement:  That John the Baptist is at the wedding of the bride is clearly seen in St. John 3: 29. 

 

Let us look at John 3:29 and include 3:28 and 3:30 for context.

 

Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.  He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.  He must increase, but I must decrease.  John 3:28-30 

 

I already covered this in some detail in the comments above for Rene.  However, you use the interesting word "is", that John the Baptist "is" at the wedding of the bride.  You don't say that John the Baptist "will" be at the wedding of the bride.  But I assume you mean the future marriage supper of the Lamb to the Church?  If so, you will note that John the Baptist states that "my joy therefore is fulfilled."  That means it was fullfilled when John the Baptist said it.  John doesn't say his joy will be fulfilled in the future when the Bride of Christ is married to the Lamb of God.  In addition, John the Baptist makes no reference to the marriage supper of the lamb.  How can one go from John the Baptist using an ANALOGY to compare his current joy to that of the friend of a bridegroom at a wedding, to saying John the Baptist was saying he was going to BE the future friend of Jesus at Jesus' future wedding, 2000 some years from then?  It doesn't follow.  (I just read farther and you state "That John the Baptist might be best man is speculation on my part")  Yes, but speculation on what?  Only an analogy John used to describe his feelings.

 

In regard to "He was one of the OT saints resurrected in Matthew 15: 51-52" 

 

I did not recall ever reading about John the Baptist being resurrected anywhere in the Bible.  And I don't have a Matthew 15:51-52 in my Bible.  However, I did find:

 

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,  Matthew 27:52

 

Again, no mention of John the Baptist.  If this is the verse to which you were referring, then could this also be speculation on your part?  I hope so because I don't think the Bible would contradict itself and Jesus was very specific in that John the Baptist was not in Heaven, so why would he be resurrected?

 

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.  Matthew 11:11

 

For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.  Luke 7:28

 

The next few paragraphs about the Godhead, angelic kingdom, angels, etc.  I found no basic disagreement.  Hopefully, what I wrote way above will clarify specific details about God's genetic manipulations.

 

In fact I enjoyed reading quite a few paragraphs and got down to:

 

The Spirit of God told John from the womb that Jesus was the Son of the most high God. 

 

I agree, well the Spirit of God told John, maybe not in the womb, but sometime anyway.  Don't want to go too far beyond Scripture so the Spirit of God or the Spirit of Elijah, or both, something anyway, caused the baby John the Baptist to move in his mothers womb when Mary entered.

 

I think the Spirit of God and I'd surmise Elijah also, based on Zacharias' prophecy in Luke 1:15-17, entered John the Baptist at conception.  You think when Mary entered the room.  You may be right.  Both could enter after conception just as both could leave before death.  In fact, I think the Spirit of God and Elijah left John the Baptist, much in the same way the Spirit of God left King Saul, a while before death.  I think the Spirit of God and Elijah left him before John the Baptist asked his disciples to ask Jesus if He was the one.  How could John the Baptist question otherwise.  The Spirit of God may have left him before he was imprisoned.  How exactly did John the Baptist "decrease" that John the Baptist said that he must?  It makes sense that the "spirit and power of Elias" also left at the same time as the Holy Spirit.  We know God can separate spirit of Elijah from the soul of Elijah.

 

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.  Hebrews 4:12

 

Regarding:

 

But he did not fall away, else he would have gone to Herod, repented of his teachings and thrown himself at his mercy. 

 

I suppose I've commented on enough at this point.  Was wondering what you mean by "fall away".  Do you mean, he did not lose faith that Jesus was the one, the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world?  This faith though would be different from him going to Herod and telling him he now approved of Herod's marriage to Herodias.

 

For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife.  Matthew 14:3

 

To EAR - 3/3

May I say, valient effort.  Your solution to the conundrum of getting John the Baptist into the Kingdom of Heaven and him still be lower than the least of those in Heaven is that  "he was ONLY BORN OF WOMAN, not OF THE SPIRIT "

 

Only problem, scripture records that he was born of the Spirit, in fact before he was born of woman, i.e. "he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb".

 

The challenge I'll leave you is to find anyone else in Scripture that the Bible records as being born of the Spirit before being born of water.

 

To Greg - 3/3

Good Intro.  I'll agree, when John the Baptist asks the disciples to ask Jesus whether he is the Messiah, he uses the term "the one".  John could have thought there would be two Messiah's, one of the suffering servant, and one that would be the conquering Kingly ruler.  John could have recognized by the Holy Spirit that Jesus was only the Messiah that was to suffer.  The point being that the reason John the Baptist was asking was not because the Spirit of Elijah had left him, much like the Spirit of God left Saul, or an evil Spirit came later off and on to torment Saul, but that John the Baptist was asking about being the Kingly Messiah.  It is interesting though that the reply Jesus gives His cousin is not yes and no, but for John's disciples to report His actions for John to reach his own conclusions.  The actions described are much more along the lines of the suffering servant.  Of course we are reading alot into the term, "the one" to first assume Messiah has a dichotomy of meanings, and then the meaning meant by, "the one" was the conquering Kingly ruler.  Although in a sense Jesus answered this charge of not being a kingly ruler when He said His kingdom was not of this world.  And above His cross it proclaimed that He was indeed the King of the Jews.

 

You state, "John was called a friend of the Bridegroom."  As "iron" sharpens "iron", so if you don't mind what could be a stupid question from me, or at least me showing my ignorance, could you show me where in Scripture John is called a friend of the Bridegroom, and by whom?  I have heard this comment from more than just you so either this is in scripture or this is being preached alot from the pulpits.  The only thing I see is Jesus using an analogy of His disciples being children of the bridegroom as to why they do not fast when John the Baptist disciples are fasting. 

 

Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?  And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.  Matthew 9:14-15  

 

It seems to beg the question as to why John's disciples were fasting when the Lamb of God had already been proclaimed by John to the World.  But going as far in the above verse as calling Jesus' disciples are "children of the Bridegroom", and John the Baptist's are not, where does that leave John? 

 

In regard to the following statement, which keeps getting repeated, I guess to drum it into us since it is so unbelievable, and I realize you (Greg) did not say it:

 

John had to baptize Jesus in order to blot out the sins of the world. God had to let John pass all sins onto Jesus so that people who believed in Him could be saved.

 

So Jesus begins His ministry with being immersed in water, which is a ritual of CLEANSING.  But instead of being cleansed, all the sins of the world somehow got passed on to Jesus from John?  We know that since Adam, without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, so Jesus had to carry the weight of the sins of the world on His back for the duration of His earthly ministry which began when He was baptized and ended when His blood was shed on the cross?  And when Jesus received all the sins of the world, God not only did not "forsake" Jesus as Jesus proclaimed on the cross when I believe the majority of Christians thought Jesus took on the sins of the world, (as God could not look upon sin), but God opened up Heaven and the Holy Spirit descended?  Unbelievable.  Actually blasphemous.  I had never heard of such a thing.  I'm sorry, John the Baptist did NOT blot out the sins of the world when he baptized Jesus.  John the Baptist was not a pure unblemished sacrificial lamb without sin to be able to blot out the sins of someone else, let alone the world, let alone His own.  Only Jesus.  And Jesus took on the sins of the world at the end of His ministry, with the shedding of His blood on Calvary, not the beginning of His ministry when He was baptized. 

   

Greg - I think you wrote many good thoughts.  And the one thing I vehemently disagree with, violently disagree with, is something that you did not write. 

    

 

Okay - I think the Holy Spirit is nudging me to quit, so I will.

 

Prayfully, "iron" will sharpen "iron".

 

May we all meet in Heaven,

 

Shalom,

Ted Porter