John was sent by God to identify Jesus and to prepare the way before him. The Scriptures seem to show John was to comfort the common people, encouraging them and lifting them up because they were oppressed. On the other hand he was to confront the oppressors, those who ruled the Jews and eventually this cost him his life. It seems the Jewish leadership had a bone of contention with John concerning his baptism (John 3:25), because his baptism of repentance probably seemed to them to compete with the ceremonial cleansing performed in the Temple according to the Law of Moses (cp. Luke 2:22). Immediately after the dispute with the Jewish leaders, John was cast into prison (cp. John 3:24; John 4:1-3), so it is very possible that it was through the Pharisees’ conspiring with the Herodians that John was arrested (cp. Mark 3:6; 12:13).
There is no question that John was a rising leader, and for the most part it is the first leader of a movement that is considered to be the most important leader of all. All kings are compared with David; there is no question that Moses had no equal in Judaism; Elijah was considered to be the greatest of the prophets, and both he and Moses appear with Jesus during his Transfiguration. Nevertheless, John makes an interesting point involving his leadership, and his testimony about Jesus seems to declare Jesus’ pre-existence. Notice:
John 1:15 KJV John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
There is no question that John testifies that Jesus is the most important leader of the two, even though John came first. John said Jesus came after him, but is preferred before him. He also confirms this in John 3:28-31 when he tells his disciples that Jesus is the bridegroom, but John is the friend of the bridegroom. Jesus must increase, and John must decrease.
What I find interesting in John 1:15 is the tense of three verbs referring to Jesus. John begins by saying (Jesus) “comes after me…” The verb is present passive/middle participle, and is connected to the main verb (preferred) to derive its context. It is perfect indicative active. Long-story-short, it simply means what is clearly stated—though Jesus came after John, he is before him in rank. The interesting part is why this is so. John testifies: “…because he was before me!” The verb was is in the imperfect tense. What this means is that it is a continuous action in the past. In other words, John is saying Jesus has always been before John. But, what does John mean by Jesus being continually before John in rank in the past?
John is six months older than Jesus, so this could not be the meaning of his words. John began his ministry before Jesus began his, so this could not be the meaning of his words. So what does John mean? He must mean that Jesus’ outranked John, because he existed before John. This seems to be the only possible meaning of John’s words which he later testifies to his own disciples. Notice:
John 3:31 KJV He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
Here John testifies that his own ministry is earthly because it originates here, but Jesus ministry is above all because he comes out from heaven. If Jesus came out from heaven, he existed before his birth and outranks John, because he is God come in the flesh.
Smoodock's Blog 
10 responses to “Jesus Existed Before John!”
I thankyou for your integrity and honesty, in actually viewing this video, But you leave me confused.
Greetings once again, and thank you for your own heart to be willing to discuss a matter through. Many folks don’t do that. Some who disagree will say so and leave and not respond again. Your persistence, I take for a desire to express and know what you believe is true. That too shows integrity and honesty. :-)
Is it so hard to understand that a person can be born with a great mission, yet actually fail to complete that mission?
The possibility is not difficult to understand, but where does it say in the text that John did or would fail? Malachi 4:5-6 says that the ministry of John would be to turn the hearts of the fathers and children toward reconciliation, because if God didn’t do so, the people would not be prepared at all for the Messiah and he would have sent a curse upon them. Later Jesus evaluated John’s ministry after John was cast into prison. John’s ministry, as far as preparing anyone for Jesus was concerned, was over, and in Luke 7:24-26 Jesus said that John was a prophet and much more. In Luke 7:28 he said there was none greater than John born of women. Jesus said the only people that John had no success with were the same who gave Jesus trouble—the leadership. The people (the valleys) believed, but the leaders (the mountains) rejected both John and Jesus (Luke 7:29-30, 33-34).
The Jewish people of today still await Elijah, Why? Because John said there was no Elijah (IAre you Elijah? NO!), Yet Jesus said clearly, that Elijah had ALREADY come.
You ask a question and then presume without authority that you have answered your own question accurately. I have no trouble believing you are sincere, but you have not proved your case with Scripture. Jesus said in the above Scriptures that the problem was not with John but with the unbelief of those in authority. Later, Jesus called it an evil, unbelieving generation. If man has freewill, then he can reject the prophet that God sends him—no matter how well that prophet performs his ministry. John (the Gospel writer) said that this is the judgment of the world, that Light has come into the world, but men preferred darkness (John 3:19).
John said he was not Elijah, because he was not the literal Elijah. The then current Jewish interpretation was that Elijah would return from heaven in a chariot. John was not that person. Elijah lived and died long ago. John was another person. The Bible denies reincarnation. Gabriel told Zechariah that John would come in the “spirit and power” of Elijah. In other words, the same Spirit and Power that distinguished Israel’s first prophet would be upon Israel’s final prophet. You seem to be judging John’s ministry simply because he didn’t encourage the false doctrine the Jews believed.
Mary KNEW that Jesus was special from God, why did she not support Jesus in His religious life.
You are presuming an understanding for Mary that God’s people are given after Pentecost due to the Holy Spirit being within us. She could understand only as much of the Scriptures that her father had correctly taught her. She received no such teaching in the synagogues. She would hear others speak, but she would not be able to ask questions. She couldn’t study the Scriptures. The undo emphasis placed upon the Messiah’s single work of bringing peace to Israel and saving them from their enemies was what she knew. Jesus was judged by this single teaching. It was why the Hellenist Jews in John 12 rejected him, though just before this they enthusiastically sought an audience with him. Jesus was telling the people something they didn’t want to hear. Mary probably didn’t understand many of the things Jesus said, and she certainly wouldn’t want to believe that her Son, who was supposed to be the Messiah, was going to be crucified.
As the speaker said, The parents of both John and Jesus knew about Jesus’s mission. Didn’t they mention this fact to John? HOW could John say he didn’t know Jesus?
No doubt they mentioned it to him. Nevertheless, how can darkness know Light? Where one is the other is not. The prevailing understanding of what the Messiah was to accomplish was not really true. So when the Truth presented himself, he was not believed. John couldn’t believe, because he was trying to interpret anything Jesus may have told him, while they were growing up, through the understanding of a lie. The truth cannot be recognized in a lie. Hence, the vision John was given that pointed out who Jesus really was. John was astonished. They may have debated with one another while growing up during the annual Jewish Festivals, but he honestly didn’t think Jesus was the one. He didn’t recognize him as the Messiah. He said it twice in John 1:31, 33. I think John really thought that, when the Messiah would come along, he would have been able to pick him out without the help of the vision. The vision would act only as a confirmation. Yet, John was absolutely astonished that it was Jesus.
Again, I thank you for taking the time to look.
God Bless.
The pleasure is all mine; I assure you. I thoroughly enjoy a discussion like this one among brethren who love the Scriptures.
Lord bless you, as well. :-)
Hello again,
I enjoy a good discussion, as I see you do too. It was not my intention for this discussion to have grown as it has (From small beginnings come great things…), yet I feel compelled to continue in the hope that we both may learn from the other, and at the very least; enjoy a mature debate.
“Malachi 4:5-6 says that the ministry of John would be to turn the hearts of the fathers and children toward reconciliation, because if God didn’t do so, the people would not be prepared at all for the Messiah and he would have sent a curse upon them”
I do not recognize your words as those of Malachi. How can you speak about what John’s role was, then say ‘because if God didn’t do so…’?
It was not God who was to turn the hearts of the fathers…, it was Elijah/John. God would send the curse if Elijah/John failed in that task. God would send the curse IF, “Lest I come….” In other words, God is saying there is a choice; get it right otherwise I will send a curse.
“the people would not be prepared at all for the Messiah and he would have sent a curse upon them”
The people were to be prepared by recognizing Elijah had come. Jesus knew Elijah had come, but the Jewish leaders (the authority) did not know Elijah had come, because John did not accept his role and denied that he was Elijah. They clearly ask John, are you the Elijah? No was the reply. Either Jesus was wrong, to say that Elijah had already come (referring to John), or John was confused in saying he was not the Elijah.
The Jewish authorities are hearing opposing views, John is saying he is not, and Jesus is saying he is.
Who should they believe, the carpenters son, who mixes with sinners, or the son of a high priest who upholds the laws of Moses?
“Later Jesus evaluated John’s ministry after John was cast into prison. John’s ministry, as far as preparing anyone for Jesus was concerned, was over, and in Luke 7:24-26 Jesus said that John was a prophet and much more. In Luke 7:28 he said there was none greater than John born of women”
Are you aware, that you cut the sentence of Jesus, just as the speaker in the video said?
Jesus as you know, went on to say ‘least in the kingdom….’ Jesus also stated that if he called someone ‘least in the kingdom..’ it meant….
Matthew 5:19
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus said this of John. You said I had not proven my case with scripture, perhaps not proven, but as my witness are the words of Jesus….
Forgive me, but I shall stop at this point, as this reply is quite long and it’s getting late. I shall respond to the remainder of your points within 24 hours if that is ok.
God Bless.
Arthur
Hello again,
As promised, I shall attempt to address the remainder of your post.
[“John said he was not Elijah, because he was not the literal Elijah. The then current Jewish interpretation was that Elijah would return from heaven in a chariot. John was not that person. Elijah lived and died long ago. John was another person”]
I know that John was not the ‘literal’ Elijah of 900yrs earlier. The Jewish people were not asking John if he was the literal Elijah. Malachi had said that Elijah MUST come before the Messiah, John was dressed as Elijah, saying the same words as Elijah, and had testified to Jesus at the river Jordon, it was a natural question for them to ask if John were that Elijah.
Neither am I speaking about reincarnation.
God had sent another person in the role of Elijah, thus fulfilling Malachi. This is why Jesus could say, Elijah had already come;
Matthew 17:13
Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.
If John was not the Elijah spoken of by Malachi, who was Jesus referring too, when He stated that “Elijah had ALREADY come”? . It could not have been the Elijah of 900yrs previous, because that Elijah did not suffer in the way that Jesus describes.
The Jewish people were asking John if he was the fulfillment of Malachi. Not if he were the actual literal Elijah.
[“You are presuming an understanding for Mary that God’s people are given after Pentecost due to the Holy Spirit being within us. She could understand only as much of the Scriptures that her father had correctly taught her. She received no such teaching in the synagogues”]
Is it really being presumptuous when I say that Mary knew from the angel that her son was directly from God?
[“…and she certainly wouldn’t want to believe that her Son, who was supposed to be the Messiah, was going to be crucified.”]
Forgive me here, but is it not yourself who is making the presumption here…
Luke 1:46-48
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
[“Nevertheless, how can darkness know Light? Where one is the other is not. The prevailing understanding of what the Messiah was to accomplish was not really true. So when the Truth presented himself, he was not believed. John couldn’t believe, because he was trying to interpret anything Jesus may have told him, while they were growing up, through the understanding of a lie. The truth cannot be recognized in a lie. Hence, the vision John was given that pointed out who Jesus really was. John was astonished”]
I’m sure that John’s parents must have mentioned to John the amazing events which took place while in the womb. I only use my common sense to indicate, why should John be astonished?
[“I think John really thought that, when the Messiah would come along, he would have been able to pick him out without the help of the vision”]
Or perhaps he had doubts about what his parents had been telling him?
It is not my intention, to cause hurt or to upset anyone, or even to try and disprove someone’s faith.
My view is this, if one is a Hindu, then be the best Hindu you can be, if one is Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or Jew, my advice would always be the same. Be the best in your religion whatever your faith and set the highest of standards. Aim for God’s heart and love your brothers/sisters whatever faith or no faith.
Thank you for your patience.
God Bless.
Arthur.
Greetings Arthur, thank you for your response. Give me some time, and I shall respond as soon as I can. Since any reply that would address all of what you have given me to consider would be quite lengthy, I am thinking I will respond in the form of a blog post. I hope that is agreeable with you. In this way our discussion will become available to all who come to my blog, rather than just those who would read this particular posting. If you have no objection, I think that is what I’ll do.
Lord bless,
Eddie
Hi Eddie,
No objection at all.
Arthur.