John The Baptist. More than a Prophet?

by Steve J 33 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Steve J

  Hi Guys,

  Thanks for the post I've found it most interesting as usual.

  M.J. I've asked the same questions myself and still find v.12 hard to understand, so would be greatful if anyone can enlighten us.

  The NIV Stuby Bible renders v.12 as follows;

  From the days of John the Baptist until now, the knigdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it

  Joseph, could I please ask if you would be so kind as to explain your last comment. Are you saying that John was a violent man, who took the kingdom by force?

  I have certainly found parallels between Elijah and John and Jesus and Elisha come to that and that's what led me to believe that Jesus was John's disciple. It seems to me Elijah and Elisha were committed to restoring true worship in Israel and John the Baptist and Jesus had the same goal in mind...The restoration of true worship and adherence to the Law.

  Steve J
• 

  Leolaia

  M.J. ...There is a separate problem in v. 12 concerning the temporal frame apo tón hémerón ... heós arti "from the days ... until now", which seems hardly appropriate if John and Jesus are contemporaries (as it implies the passage of considerable time between the time of John's death and the moment the utterance is made). Either this is a vestige of an older tradition that John was a prophet from the past (which Josephus hardly supports), or this is a slip from a later writer (i.e. from c. AD 80-90) looking back to the days of John the Baptist in the 30s, the "now" being the time when the gospel was published (cf. the expression "down to this day" in Deuteronomy 34:6, Joshua 7:26, etc.). The parallel version in Luke 16:16 (if dependent on Matthew) gets rid of the problematic "now" and speaks only of the period "until John the Baptist".

  The NWT definitely waters down the violent imagery of the passage. The kingdom of the heavens is "forced upon violently" (biazetai) and "violent men" (biastai) are "seizing it" (harpazousin autén). There can be a weak sense of biazetai in the sense of "urge" (cf. Genesis 33:11 LXX, Judges 13:15-16 LXX, parabiazomai 1 Samuel 28:23 LXX, parabiazomai Acts 16:15, POxy 2.294.16-18, Joseph and Asenath 15:20), but harpazó decidedly weighs against it (as well as the kingdom itself being the object of the verb). The version of the saying in Luke connects this violent act to the preaching of the good news, such that everyone is "forcing themselves into it" (eis autén biazetai). This violent language recalls the statement in the previous chapter in which Jesus declares that "I have not come to bring peace but a sword, for I have come to set a man against his father and a daughter against her mother" (Matthew 10:34-35). The violent imagery in the Gospel of Thomas is also noteworthy; the Parable of the Assassin compares the kingdom to a "certain man who wanted to kill a powerful man," who "draws his sword and strikes it into the wall in order to find out whether his hand could go through" (98:1). This somewhat recalls the Lukan image of people violently forcing their way through "into [the kingdom]". Thomas 16:1 also is a parallel to Matthew 10:34-35 where Jesus says that he has come to cast "dissension" to the earth, "fire, sword, and war". Since Jesus contrasts this present-day violent seizing of the kingdom to the "days of John the Baptist," there is the implication that the kingdom of heaven could not be entered (cf. eis in Luke 16:16) in the days up to John the Baptist. I don't think this is a critique of John the Baptist per se, but rather a statement that highlights the role of Jesus as opening up the kingdom of heaven for people to enter. The critique is rather obliquely directed against the scribes and Pharisees who "sit in Moses' seat" and deliver halacha on the Law (Matthew 23:1; cf. the reference to "the Prophets and the Law until John the Baptist" in 11:13). Jesus is depicted as telling the Pharisees that "you shut (kleiete) the kingdom of heaven against men, for you neither enter (ouk eiserkhesthe) yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in (eiselthein)" (23:13). So until Jesus came to fulfill the Law and set right man's proper relationship with it (5:17), the Pharisees actually promoted the breaking of commandments, and without Jesus, "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (5:20). Compare also Thomas 39:1: "The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge and hidden them; they themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to".

  The violent imagery may reflect a dependence on Micah. Note that Matthew 10:34-39, wherein Jesus says that he has come to lay a sword on the earth, paraphrases a non-LXX Greek version of Micah 7:5-6, of "daughter rising up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law," and so forth. As early as Tertullian was it recognized that this gospel passage refers to a prediction of Micah (Contra Marcion, 4.29). As for concept of the kingdom being broken into violently (explicit in the Lukan version), there is a possible parallel in Micah 2:13:

  LXX: "The one who opens the breach (diakopés) will go up before them. They (= the sheep) will break through (diekopsan) and pass through the gate and go out by it. So their king (basileus) will go before them, and the Lord (kurios) at their head".

  Although the verb is not biazetai in the LXX, interestingly these words render the Hebrew word prts "break through" in Micah in other contexts in the LXX (cf. 2 Samuel 13:25, 27; 2 Kings 5:23). In the Christian exegesis of this verse, the one "opening the break" may then have been John the Baptist and the "king" or "Lord" would represent Jesus who leads the sheep breaking through into the kingdom. The image of people "forcing themselves" into the kingdom conforms well with the image of sheep struggling through a narrow breach, as well as with the command to "enter through the narrow gate" in Matthew 7:13 and the image of a camel going through an eye of a needle in 19:24. See especially the wording in Luke 13:24 which relates that those who want to enter into the narrow gate must struggle (agónizesthe) and have strength (iskhusousin). The Matthean wording however is not of people violently entering the kingdom but violently seizing it. However, the use of the verb harpazousin "seize" later in the verse suggests a different image: that of soldiers breaking through a city's outer defenses and plundering the treasures within. In fact, this is exactly the interpretation in the Gospel of the Nazoreans which renders this final clause as "the kingdom of heaven is plundered" (cf. the Zion Gospel). The Hebrew word that is equivalent to harpazó, namely 'chztm, interestingly appears throughout the OT as referring to the Israelites' seizure of Canaan as their inheritance (cf. Genesis 17:8, 48:4; Leviticus 25:34; Joshua 22:9), raising the possibility that the metaphor in the passage is that of Joshua (=Jesus) leading his followers into the kingdom, forcibly entering it with war as the Israelites fought their way into the Promised Land.
• 

  bite me

  did I not press "send " after my repsonse--dang it!

  What i was saying.. i cannot remember what I was saying but I was saying something on the lines of that my post sure got people thinking, not so much myself.. but what I have read so far of the posts is quiet interesting. I'll have to go back and take a further look at them.
• 

  M.J.

  Thanks for the info, Leo. I'll take a few more passes at it until it sinks in!
  
  (edited out a question that you already answered)
• 

  JosephMalik

  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?

  M.J.

  The NWT is saying the same thing as the AV and others. The wording is a bit different but the message is not as if this is some big deal. Where is the real problem? The doctrines developed from it and the explanations as to what it means is where you should look. Those seizing it or who through violence obtain it did not go to heaven. This is because nowhere does the Bible teach that human beings will go to a literal place like heaven and exist as a non-human being. Look all you want, but you will not find such texts. Am I dreaming or on something? No! It is simply how we see words and the context in which they are used. Go ahead and try! They get into this Kingdom of Heaven (a Jewish adaptation for the word God) or Kingdom of God (a literal and Gentile use for this same word) which will be located right here on earth as promised. Now I read Leolaia’s post very quickly but it looked like she did a very good job of explaining what was meant by violence or seize is you choose to use that substitute. The Faith was now in a transition from the Law Covenant to the New Covenant. No easy task for those dedicated to preaching it as shown. There is no need to elaborate on that further. Just try and tell the WT they are wrong and must change their ways and repent. Have fun doing that if you dare.

  Then you said: 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?

  There are several things that could be said here. I picked one to show that despite John’s greatness, that he would not dominate others like the Apostles or other disciples that would administrate this Kingdom. Another thing that could be said about it is that everyone found in this Kingdom was chosen by Christ to be there good or bad. No one can simply walk in on their own as the WT erroneously teaches which makes them greater than John. A third thing that can be said about it is that once you are in this Kingdom, you will by one means or another become an immortal human being, something that John was not. Even the thief that died alongside our Lord will be immortal at that time. As such even this thief will be greater than John.

  Steve J,

  Joseph, could I please ask if you would be so kind as to explain your last comment. Are you saying that John was a violent man, who took the kingdom by force?

  Yes, if you do not mistake what was meant by violent. Jesus was violent in His ministry and I am not even talking about what happened with the money changers.

  But you also said: John the Baptist and Jesus had the same goal in mind...The restoration of true worship and adherence to the Law.

  True worship Yes, and the Law No! It was the time that Malachi predicted when: 4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. It was a dreadful time for the Jews, the Day of the Lord for them. Such an expression could be used for other Judgment times as well but not here.

  Joseph
• 

  M.J.

  Thanks Joseph.
• 

  Steve J

  Brilliant explanation Leolaia. Thanks for that.

  Joseph,

  John the Baptist and Jesus had the same goal in mind...The restoration of true worship and adherence to the Law.

  True worship Yes, and the Law No! It was the time that Malachi predicted when: 4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. It was a dreadful time for the Jews, the Day of the Lord for them. Such an expression could be used for other Judgment times as well but not here.

  I found Malachi interesting reading, but why do you suggest John the Baptist & Jesus didn't have adherence to the Law as their goal?

  In v.4 Malachi urges; Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel." Then in V.5 he says; "I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes." (NIV)

  If Jesus identified John the Baptist as the Elijah Malachi prophesied would come in the great and dreadful day of the Lord, surely he would also have had in mind Malachi's admonition to "remember the law of my servant Moses" ?

  I can't recall anywhere in the gospels where Jesus teaches anything other than obedience to the law and Matthew 5:17-19 seems to make it quite clear that he didn't come to abolish it, but rather, to fulfill the law and that anyone breaking the law, or the least of the commandments would be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

  Steve J
• 

  JosephMalik

  I can't recall anywhere in the gospels where Jesus teaches anything other than obedience to the law and Matthew 5:17-19 seems to make it quite clear that he didn't come to abolish it, but rather, to fulfill the law and that anyone breaking the law, or the least of the commandments would be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

  Steve J

  But you just did. For some reason you cannot see it just as the Jews could not in their day. But the working out of this plan would take time and a successful sacrifice. Even most of the Jews that embraced Christianity could not see it and give it up for most of the first century as taught in scripture. John knew this as did Jesus for it was foretold at Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: And our Lord was not supporting the Law when He said to his disciples: Lu 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. And there is a lot of information in scripture this like: 2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. Too many verses to bother with here. And as already shown John broke away from the norms of Judaism and the Law. He was seeking the Kingdom another way apart from provisions of the Law and appointed officials like this: Mt 3:1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, Both of them realized that history was now rolling back to promises made much earlier than this Law that Hebrews for one finally supplied when it said: Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

  You said: If Jesus identified John the Baptist as the Elijah Malachi prophesied would come in the great and dreadful day of the Lord, surely he would also have had in mind Malachi's admonition to "remember the law of my servant Moses" ?

  Sure, because this is where we learn about Abel and what he did. The law of Moses was much more than just regulations and commandments. It also contained the history of man his attempts at worship like Abel and his failures like the one in the wilderness. For this reason this Law which was eventually given in the book of Moses was needed. But Malachi gave them warning that things would not always be this way. Malichi taught things would change and their judgment would come if you can also see this in the texts.

  Joseph
• 

  RubaDub

  If John the Baptist were alive today I bet he would drive a hybrid.

  Rub a Dub
• 

  Steve J

  Hi again Joseph,

  I'm not sure if its my insomnia, a stinking cold, or the fact that the evidence just isn't there, but I still can't see how you can suggest John the Baptist and Jesus did anything but uphold the law. Jeremiah 31 when speaking of the new covenant doesn't suggest that the law would be abolished, but rather that it would be enhanced by God, for he declares in v.33; "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts." This is exactly what Jesus, (and no doubt John the Baptist also) did and evidence of this is found in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus teaches, by firstly reminding the people of the law on adultery and then saying; "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart." (Matt 5:27,28)

  As Jesus and the crowds came down the mountain, Matthew also reports his encounter with the leper. After curing the man Jesus then instructed him; "Go show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded." (Matt 8:1-4) Similarly when questioned over healing on the Sabbath, Jesus didn't suggest the law was obsolete, but he used a common sense approach to it asking if it was lawful to do good or bad, to save life, or kill on the Sabbath. (Mark 3:4) He also reasoned that if an animal fell into a pit on a Sabbath, they wouldn't think twice about lifting it out, so what harm was there in healing on the Sabbath also. (Matt. 12:11-12) These are hardly the actions of someone who didn't uphold the law.

  You also mentioned the Lords Supper and the new covenant found at Luke 22, but I can't even see how this abolished the law. All it did was establish a promise that if Jesus' disciples remained faithful they would have a share in the atonement of his redeeming death. This idea of a new covenant was not something new in Judea either, and the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that the Essenes, also believed they had entered into a new covenant with God, to become a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. They seem to have believed that only they had the correct undrestanding of the Scriptures and that their Teacher of Righteousness was the prime interpreter of the Law and the Prophets. There seems to be many paralells with the Essenes, or Dead Sea Scroll community and Jesus' teachings, but my point is, they also looked to Jeremiah 31, but believed fidelity to the covenant demanded strict obedience to the law and the prophets.

  Finally, I suppose I ought to lay my cards on the table and tell you where I come from, and some would say not on this planet no doubt. But in a previous post (360 re: Matt 5:17-20) I mentioned that I'd come to the conclusion that the apostacy in the early church was down to Paul. I know you take the opposite view and suggest the Jerusalem Elders became apostate for a time, before Paul brought them back into line. I base my conclusions, (although they're not set in stone and I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong, if I see the proof, I hasten to add) but I base them on the fact that I can't find anything other than in Paul's writings which suggests Jesus intended to do away with the law. He came to fulfil the law by living to the very letter of it, even to his crucifixion and death, and thereby provide atonement for our sins and a way back to a closer relationship with God. To me, Jesus proved that it was possible for an ordinary man to live by the law and he was instrumental in writing the law on our hearts, certainly not in abolishing it.

  If I'm right, this would have some rather dramatic consequences for "Christianity" and turn it on its head, as to me, it seems to be based more on Pauline teaching than on the teachings of Jesus. I think the clues are all there in the Scriptures, but it requires us to stand back and look at them from a fresh angle before we truly appreciate just how remarkable they are. Again, I'm not claiming I'm right, or that I have any divine inspiration, its just that these are the conclusions I have drawn after leaving JW's and attempting to look at the Scriptures again as if for the first time.

  Regards

  Steve J