This will be the third posting for the discussion I am presently having with a young man by the name of Arthur. He holds to a teaching that considers the ministry of John the Baptist a failure, and that because John failed to prepare a people for Jesus, Jesus had to go to the cross. Our discussion began HERE, and I have posted my replies in the form of blog postings HERE, HERE and in this posting as well. I will put Arthur’s words in this discussion in bold italic, so that no one will confuse his words with my reply. In my earlier reply I made the statement that when asked whether or not he was literally Elijah, John replied he was not. Arthur responded with:
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.
…The Jewish people were asking John if he was the fulfillment of Malachi. Not if he were the actual literal Elijah.
Well this is not the understanding of the speaker in the video[1] on your website. He says about 5 to 10 minutes into his lecture: “…Hey, Zach, get it? Elijah, your son is the Elijah! Now, according to the traditional belief, of which Zechariah was certainly an arbiter of that belief as a chief priest. Their expectation was that the literal prophet Elijah would return out of the sky, and that would be the sign of Christ’s coming.”
His understanding also agrees with what I have been able to find about the Jewish beliefs of that period: “that in the second year of Ahaziah, Elias was hid; nor will he appear, till the Messiah comes; then he will appear, and will be hid a second time; and then will not appear, till Gog and Magog come.” [Seder Olam Rabba, p. 45, 46]
In my opinion when John was asked if he were Elijah (John 1:21), he responded according to the intent of their question. If they mistakenly understood a literal interpretation of Malachi 4:5, as seems to be the case according to the Seder Olam Rabba quotation above, then John should have denied he was that Elijah. John and Elijah the Tishbite were two different people. Therefore, the doctrine that John the Baptist was confused about his calling is a false doctrine. The teaching that John the Baptist was a failure at his ministry is also a false doctrine, because he was great in the sight of the Lord, according to the Scriptures, and Jesus had only praise for him. As far as I am concerned, the gentleman in the video is confused about John, his ministry and its value in the sight of God.
Smoodock's Blog 
21 responses to “Was John the Baptist Literally Elijah?”
Hi Arthur,
I am replying to all three of your comments in this one reply. I hope that is suitable.
I wasn’t objecting to your manner of reply, I was merely pointing out that the speaker had said, that the latter part of that sentence was typically omitted when in a discussion such as the one we are now enjoying. You then went on to also omit the latter part. I just found it interesting.
Then one thing should be obvious. Someone is either hiding something or completely ignorant of the meaning of the passage. Would you agree to this?
I do not see how you can say it’s taken out of context. It is after all, a statement, which stands on its own merit.
To be certain we are on the same page, which statement stands alone, and what does that statement mean?
Interesting verses, Jesus is saying did you go out to see a prophe?, and that is what they did go out to see. So John was the prophet. Yes John WAS that prophet, yet denied that he was.
According to the above Scripture, John denied nothing. You are inserting this opinion based upon your understanding of a different Scripture. Jesus has nothing but praise for John in Luke 7. Isn’t this true according to this particular Scripture? All Scripture must agree for God’s word cannot be made to contradict (John 10:35). You must believe this before you are able to make anything of your argument that John failed. If Scripture can be made to contradict then you actually have no authority for your opinion of any Scripture. Wouldn’t you agree? So, I must ask you: do you believe Scripture can contradict itself?
Also in the verses of Mathew 11:10, Mark 1:2 and Luke 7:27, Jesus is referring to Malachi 3:1, when speaking of John. Directly relating John to the role of Elijah.
I have no argument with your statement here.
Absolutely, he had a unique message, what was that message?, to tell the people that the Messiah was here. But, the people would NOT accept Jesus as the Messiah until they saw Elijah first.
First of all, your conclusion is wrong. Many Jews in the first century accepted Jesus as the Messiah without seeing John the Baptist (Elijah), and continue to do so today. Secondly, your interpretation of Malachi is wrong. God intended to send Elijah before the Day of Judgment in order to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers. He did not send John so that the people could **see** him. Seeing John/Elijah was not the point of Malachi 4.
The people were only holding true to their scriptures, given to them by God via Malachi.
According to the speaker in the video, the people in the first century held a wrong interpretation of Malachi 4, and I agree with him on this point, but you seem to deny this in saying: “the people were holding true to their scriptures…” I find it interesting that you do so, but it is difficult to debate a point, if you point me to a video that explains your point of view, but then deny what the video claims! :-)
Yes, Jesus really is saying that John was lower than the least. Yes, John WAS the greatest born of woman, I do not dispute that. He WAS the greatest born, but he failed to accomplish that for which he was born.
How is it possible for John to be among the greatest of prophets—no one greater than he—and yet be a failure? Could you please explain how one can be great in what he was, but at the same time be a failure at what he was?
Jesus describes exactly and clearly, what he meant if he used the phrase ‘Least in the kingdom.’ It has nothing to do with being out of context.
I have no doubt that Jesus explained very clearly what he meant. What I have trouble recognizing is that you know what Jesus meant. I don’t mean to be unkind with that statement. I am just having trouble seeing the validity of your point of view in these two Scriptures (Luke 7:28 & and Matthew 5:19). In Luke 7:28 Jesus is comparing apples with oranges to make a new point about the Kingdom, but you don’t seem to see it. John is NOT in the Kingdom. Jesus says the **least** IN the Kingdom are greater than John who is OUTSIDE the Kingdom. Jesus is talking about the kind of life in the Kingdom and the kind of life outside the Kingdom. Even the least important IN the Kingdom are better off than the most important OUTSIDE the Kingdom! In Matthew 5:19 Jesus is speaking about righteousness, that our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20) if we should ever ENTER the Kingdom. To try to wed Luke 7:28 with Matthew 5:19 for the purpose of comparison is to distort the meaning of both Scriptures. They are speaking of two different things.
Jesus said if someone breaks a commandment and teaches that, he shall be called ‘Least in the kingdom of heaven’. Jesus said that John was ‘Least in the kingdom of heaven’. Not out of context, not even close to being out of context. Just the words of the Jesus.
Arthur, look at what you are reading, please! Jesus **did not say** John was ‘Least in the kingdom of heaven.’ Jesus did say that even one who is ‘Least in the kingdom of heaven’ is greater than John who is not in the Kingdom! Do you see that? I don’t believe my translation is that much different than yours.
You offer a long explanation of just exactly what Jesus meant in Luke 7:28. Why do you need to explain this? Jesus already gives us His explanation…
Mathew 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.
You offer me a choice, to accept your explanation of what Jesus meant, or to accept Jesus’s own words about what he meant.
I choose to accept the explanation of Jesus.
Well, Arthur, obviously you seem to conclude my explanation is out of context with Jesus’ remarks in Luke 7:28. Yet, in your explanation just above your remarks here, you misquote Jesus. How can your conclusion about Jesus’ explanation be correct, if you misquote him to explain an agreement between Luke 7:28 and Matthew 5:19? :-)
They missed the Messiah, because they were waiting for the Elijah to come FIRST. Without an Elijah, they could not accept Jesus as the Messiah.
God told them Elijah would come first.
As I explained above, God did not send Elijah/John to be **seen** but to reconcile the hearts of the fathers and the children. Many Jews believed without ever having known John the Baptist.
God had placed John the Baptist in the position to say to the people that Elijah was here, that he was indeed the Elijah they were looking for.
The problem is the Jews misunderstood Malachi 4—this according to the speaker on the video at your site (and I agree with the speaker on this point), but you don’t seem to wish to admit there is a disparity in the Jewish understanding on this point. :-)
Lord bless,
Eddie
Hi Eddie
In referring to a previous point.
Quote from Eddie
“Well this is not the understanding of the speaker in the video[1] on your website. He says about 5 to 10 minutes into his lecture: “…Hey, Zach, get it? Elijah, your son is the Elijah!”
You are correct, the speaker does give the impression that John is the literal Elijah, in his defence, he does go on to say that that Elijah ‘is being fulfilled by your son’.
Your point is well taken, and shall be passed on to the speaker.
Quote from Eddie
“Then one thing should be obvious. Someone is either hiding something or completely ignorant of the meaning of the passage. Would you agree to this?”
A little harsh, but nfortunately I do agree.
Quote from Eddie
“To be certain we are on the same page, which statement stands alone, and what does that statement mean?”
Luke 7:28
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.
Jesus tells us what it means…
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.
Quote from Eddie
“According to the above Scripture, John denied nothing. You are inserting this opinion based upon your understanding of a different Scripture. Jesus has nothing but praise for John in Luke 7. Isn’t this true according to this particular Scripture? All Scripture must agree for God’s word cannot be made to contradict (John 10:35). You must believe this before you are able to make anything of your argument that John failed. If Scripture can be made to contradict then you actually have no authority for your opinion of any Scripture. Wouldn’t you agree? So, I must ask you: do you believe Scripture can contradict itself? “
Are you saying that John didn’t deny he was that Prophet?
John 1:21
And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
Mathew 17:11-13 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12 But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.
Matthew 11:14
And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
Do I believe that scripture contradicts itself? No, I do not.
Quote from Eddie
“First of all, your conclusion is wrong. Many Jews in the first century accepted Jesus as the Messiah without seeing John the Baptist (Elijah), and continue to do so today.”
Again, the words of Jesus…
Luke 19:42-44 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
43For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
Yes, many who were uneducated in the scriptures could accept Jesus. But Jesus came to all the people, and it was the influence of the educated people, (the religious leaders), that would make the decision as a nation, to ‘Believe in Him whom He had sent’, or reject Him.
Mathew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Also
John 5:43
I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
Quote from Eddie
“Secondly, your interpretation of Malachi is wrong. God intended to send Elijah before the Day of Judgment in order to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers. He did not send John so that the people could **see** him. Seeing John/Elijah was not the point of Malachi 4.”
So, what you are saying is that God (via Malachi) told the Jewish people to expect Elijah before the Messiah, but the people were not going to be able to ‘see’ the Elijah? Then how were the people to KNOW that Elijah had come first? How could the Elijah prepare the way, if he is not among them???
Why did Jesus say he had already come in the form of John…?
Matthew 11:14
And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
Quote from Eddie
“According to the speaker in the video, the people in the first century held a wrong interpretation of Malachi 4, and I agree with him on this point, but you seem to deny this in saying: “the people were holding true to their scriptures…” I find it interesting that you do so, but it is difficult to debate a point, if you point me to a video that explains your point of view, but then deny what the video claims! :-)”
Yes and no, the people were wrong in expecting a “literal” Elijah (which I addressed earlier), I was speaking about the fact that they were right to expect Elijah before the coming of the Messiah. Just not a literal Elijah. No contradiction.
Whether Elijah was to be literal or not, does not alter the fact that the people were holding true to their Bible, by first waiting for Elijah.
Quote from Eddie
“How is it possible for John to be among the greatest of prophets—no one greater than he—and yet be a failure? Could you please explain how one can be great in what he was, but at the same time be a failure at what he was?”
It was God’s intention that John fulfill his role as Elijah, God had given John the greatest task of any prophet. God wanted John to accept the role of Elijah, tell this to the people then testify to Jesus AS the Elijah. By his denial, the people had NO Elijah, therefore Jesus MUST be false, because they were waiting for Elijah to come FIRST.
Remember when God said that He was sorry that He had made Saul King? God’s expectation for Saul did not go the way God had wished (free will).
Quote from Eddie
“I have no doubt that Jesus explained very clearly what he meant. What I have trouble recognizing is that you know what Jesus meant. I don’t mean to be unkind with that statement. I am just having trouble seeing the validity of your point of view in these two Scriptures (Luke 7:28 & and Matthew 5:19). In Luke 7:28 Jesus is comparing apples with oranges to make a new point about the Kingdom, but you don’t seem to see it. John is NOT in the Kingdom. Jesus says the **least** IN the Kingdom are greater than John who is OUTSIDE the Kingdom. Jesus is talking about the kind of life in the Kingdom and the kind of life outside the Kingdom. Even the least important IN the Kingdom are better off than the most important OUTSIDE the Kingdom! In Matthew 5:19”
Can you point me to the scripture where Jesus says John is outside the kingdom? Jesus is saying that those who have taught broken commandments are called ‘least in the kingdom’.
Quote from Eddie
“Jesus is speaking about righteousness, that our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20) if we should ever ENTER the Kingdom.”
I agree.
Quote continued
“To try to wed Luke 7:28 with Matthew 5:19 for the purpose of comparison is to distort the meaning of both Scriptures. They are speaking of two different things.”
They are connected. It is just hard for you to accept the possibility.
In Mathew 5, Jesus is explaining how the people can enter into heaven, He explains that if someone breaks a commandment, and teaches that broken commandment, He shall call such a person least in the kingdom. Jesus is clearly saying such a person (Whosoever) WILL be called least…
Jesus called John ‘least in the kingdom’.
Quote from Eddie
“Arthur, look at what you are reading, please! Jesus **did not say** John was ‘Least in the kingdom of heaven.’ Jesus did say that even one who is ‘Least in the kingdom of heaven’ is greater than John who is not in the Kingdom! Do you see that? I don’t believe my translation is that much different than yours.”
A bit unfair I feel.
Quote from Eddie
“Jesus says the **least** IN the Kingdom are greater than John who is OUTSIDE the Kingdom”
Where is the above verse?
I shall endeavor, to adhere strictly to the letter of the law.
Quote from Eddie
“Well, Arthur, obviously you seem to conclude my explanation is out of context with Jesus’ remarks in Luke 7:28. Yet, in your explanation just above your remarks here, you misquote Jesus. How can your conclusion about Jesus’ explanation be correct, if you misquote him to explain an agreement between Luke 7:28 and Matthew 5:19? :-)”
You read too much into my answer, you offered an explanation, I see Jesus explaining what He meant, with no disrespect to yourself, I choose to accept the ‘actual’ words of Jesus.
I reply in kind, how can your conclusion about Jesus’ explanation be correct, if you misquote him to explain an agreement between Luke 7:28 and Matthew 5:19?
Re-quote from Eddie
“Jesus says the **least** IN the Kingdom are greater than John who is OUTSIDE the Kingdom”
I would rather our debate did not descend into such childishness.
Quote from Eddie
“As I explained above, God did not send Elijah/John to be **seen** but to reconcile the hearts of the fathers and the children. Many Jews believed without ever having known John the Baptist.”
Explanation offered earlier.
Quote from Eddie
“The problem is the Jews misunderstood Malachi 4—this according to the speaker on the video at your site (and I agree with the speaker on this point), but you don’t seem to wish to admit there is a disparity in the Jewish understanding on this point. :-)”
Again, Explanation offered earlier.
You impress me. Usually at this point of the debate on this particular subject, I am being accused of being the devil, or too stupid to continue in discussion. Or many others just resort to outright insults (at which point I gently end the discussion).
You on the other hand, have shown great restraint (well, just a few little quips here or there).
I would like to say thank you, for the way in which our conversation is going.
God Bless.
Arthur
Hi Arthur,
Sorry about the delay, but my daughter is getting married in two months, and we were doing wedding stuff all day.
Concerning the difference in our interpretation of Luke 7:28 and Matthew 5:19, I said one of us (the speaker on the video or me) is either hiding something or completely ignorant of the meaning of these Scriptures…
A little harsh, but unfortunately I do agree.
Well, I don’t mean to be harsh. I simply want to be clear. One of us is completely wrong, but God, not I, knows the heart. :-)
I asked you to go on record saying what statement in Luke 7:28 stands alone and what it means. You responded…
Luke 7:28
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.
Jesus tells us what it means…
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.
No! This is not what I asked. We both disagree on what Jesus is saying. You are saying Jesus tells us John is least in the Kingdom. I disagree. I am asking you to show me where you see that. Point to the phrase in Luke 7:28 that shows John is least in anything. Then point to the phrase that says John is least in the Kingdom.
This point is a significant one, because by claiming that John is least in the Kingdom, you are saying that he not only broke the least of the commandments but also taught others to do so as well. Nowhere does the text support this, so I am wondering how you can come to this conclusion.
Do I believe that scripture contradicts itself? No, I do not.
Good and I agree. Neither do I believe the Scriptures contradict.
Concerning the interpretation of John 1:21 and Matthew 17:11-13…
Are you saying that John didn’t deny he was that Prophet?
What I am saying is that John told his interrogators he was not the Elijah they were looking for. They were looking for Elijah to come out of the sky like the speaker in the video says they looked for. John told them he was not their man.
Concerning many Jews believing Jesus was the Messiah, even though they never heard John…
Yes, many who were uneducated in the scriptures could accept Jesus. But Jesus came to all the people, and it was the influence of the educated people, (the religious leaders), that would make the decision as a nation, to ‘Believe in Him whom He had sent’, or reject Him.
Yes, this is true. The leaders of the nation have always been responsible for leading the nation away from God. This was so throughout their history. What I find difficult to believe is that you hold John the Baptist responsible for the leaders rejecting Jesus. Didn’t the leaders have freewill?
So, what you are saying is that God (via Malachi) told the Jewish people to expect Elijah before the Messiah, but the people were not going to be able to ‘see’ the Elijah? Then how were the people to KNOW that Elijah had come first? How could the Elijah prepare the way, if he is not among them???
Why did Jesus say he had already come in the form of John…?
That is not what I said. God sent Elijah, according to Malachi to reconcile the hearts of the fathers and the children. Elijah was not sent as a personal “sign” of the Messiah. Look at Malachi 4. Where does it say Elijah was sent as a sign? God sent Elijah/John to reconcile hearts—before the Day of Judgment. It says nothing of Elijah being a “sign” that Messiah is here or will be here. Malachi 3 does say that the messenger (Elijah/John) would be sent to prepare the way of the Messiah. How would he prepare the way? Malachi 4 tells us by reconciling hearts. Elijah/John’s person was not a sign. The message was the sign. The Jews looked for Elijah with all kinds of miraculous power and missed the message.
Jesus told the disciples that John was Elijah. We agree with this point. However, the fact that Jesus had to tell them that John was the Elijah, shows that the Pharisees, whom the disciples were quoting, were looking for the wrong guy. Jesus had nothing but praise for John. At least two of Jesus’ disciples were former disciples of John. Everyone loved John and appreciated his ministry. The Jewish leadership was teaching the people to deny both John and Jesus. They, not John, were responsible for the curses that came upon their nation.
Concerning the coming of Elijah…
Yes and no, the people were wrong in expecting a “literal” Elijah (which I addressed earlier), I was speaking about the fact that they were right to expect Elijah before the coming of the Messiah. Just not a literal Elijah. No contradiction.
Whether Elijah was to be literal or not, does not alter the fact that the people were holding true to their Bible, by first waiting for Elijah.
Fine! This is great. So, we all agree that the Jews misunderstood Malachi 4. They knew Elijah was coming, but they expected a literal guy coming out of the sky with great miraculous power. However, we need to understand this key point: what the people, especially the powerful Jewish leaders, held to was a misinterpretation of what the Bible claimed about Elijah. So when the leaders interrogated John, asking if John was the literal Elijah who was to come out of the sky, John simply said, “No! He was not their man!” (John 1:21).
Concerning John, among the greatest of prophets, being a failure…
It was God’s intention that John fulfill his role as Elijah, God had given John the greatest task of any prophet. God wanted John to accept the role of Elijah, tell this to the people then testify to Jesus AS the Elijah. By his denial, the people had NO Elijah, therefore Jesus MUST be false, because they were waiting for Elijah to come FIRST.
Remember when God said that He was sorry that He had made Saul King? God’s expectation for Saul did not go the way God had wished (free will).
The Scripture tells us that God sent Elijah in the form of John. The Scripture does not tell us what John was to say except to prepare the way for the Messiah. Very few words of John are recorded and only a few verses in all four Gospel narratives are dedicated to John. What these few verses tell us is that John pointed to Jesus as the Christ and that the people believed John, but the leaders rejected him. John specifically denied that he was the Christ or ‘that’ Prophet (that Moses pointed to), and he denied that he was the Elijah who was to come out of the sky and perform all sorts of miracles that the Jewish leadership was expecting. That is pretty much all we are able to say for certain about John.
Can you point me to the scripture where Jesus says John is outside the kingdom? Jesus is saying that those who have taught broken commandments are called ‘least in the kingdom’.
Luke 7:28 is the Scripture that shows John was not in the Kingdom of God. Jesus says first that among all those born of women there was none greater than John. Isn’t this correct so far?
Then Jesus says: but he who is least in the Kingdom of God is greater than John. Who is least in the Kingdom of God? Matthew 5:19 tells us those who break the least of the commandments and teach others to do likewise. These people who are ‘least’ in the Kingdom of God are greater than John. Now you can have really great people in the Kingdom, and they would be greater than John, but the very least—the rock bottom—people in the Kingdom are also greater than John. Now logic tells us that John cannot be in the Kingdom of God, if everyone there, including the very least, are greater than he is. The only logical conclusion is that John is not (at that time of Jesus’ speaking) in the Kingdom of God. Look again at Luke 7:28.
Concerning comparing Luke 7:28 with Matthew 5:19 for the purpose of showing John is least in the Kingdom and a failure…
They are connected. It is just hard for you to accept the possibility.
In Mathew 5, Jesus is explaining how the people can enter into heaven, He explains that if someone breaks a commandment, and teaches that broken commandment, He shall call such a person least in the kingdom. Jesus is clearly saying such a person (Whosoever) WILL be called least…
Jesus called John ‘least in the kingdom’.
I agree that you can compare both Scriptures to show why those who are referred to as least in the Kingdom of God are called ‘least’. This is fine. But to show that John is a commandment breaker and teaches others to do so too?—no, that would be an error. The two Scriptures cannot be used in that way to show John is a failure, because Luke 7:28, as I claimed above, shows John is not in the Kingdom at the time of Jesus’ statement.
I said: “Arthur, look at what you are reading, please! Jesus **did not say** John was ‘Least in the kingdom of heaven.’ Jesus did say that even one who is ‘Least in the kingdom of heaven’ is greater than John who is not in the Kingdom! Do you see that? I don’t believe my translation is that much different than yours.” And you replied:
A bit unfair I feel.
Unfair? If you mean that I was unkind, I apologize. It was not my intention to be unkind to you. However, I do think my statement is fair. As I tried to show above upon your own request, John was not, at the time of Jesus’ statement, in the Kingdom of God. All those in the Kingdom of God, including the very least of them were greater than John—according to Jesus.
Concerning my saying that you misquoted Jesus in Luke 7:28…
You read too much into my answer, you offered an explanation, I see Jesus explaining what He meant, with no disrespect to yourself, I choose to accept the ‘actual’ words of Jesus.
I reply in kind, how can your conclusion about Jesus’ explanation be correct, if you misquote him to explain an agreement between Luke 7:28 and Matthew 5:19?
Okay, I will quote Jesus’ words here and pull them apart phrase by phrase, but it will all be a direct quote. If you would rather a different translation, quote the one you prefer in your reply and we’ll work with it:
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 KJV)
“Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist:”—I don’t think either of us will disagree with this. John is described as “among those born of women…” I assume we agree.
“but he that is least in the kingdom of God…” Who is least in the Kingdom of God? I think we agree that it is the commandment breakers of Matthew 5:19 who teach others to do as they do. I assume we agree with this too.
“…is greater than he.” I believe we agree that “he” is John. Who is greater than John? Isn’t it those who are called ‘least’ in the Kingdom of God (Luke 7:28)? And I think we agree that the least in the Kingdom of God are the commandment breakers who teach others to do as they do according to Matthew 5:19?
If John is not as great as the commandment breakers who teach others to do as they do, then he could not be one of those people. Could he?
Toward the end of your reply it seemed you were a bit frustrated with my replies. I wasn’t trying to do that. I was merely replying to your comments as best I could. If you repeated a subject, I didn’t wish to ignore it, because some who read what we say might view that as my avoiding to reply to a different way that you put an idea.
Sorry to hear your comments were not received well by others. Sometimes it is difficult to see someone’s point of view. I have to admit that at times I don’t know how you can hold the viewpoint you express, but if we could all see the same things others see and they of us, there would be no discussions. Would there? :-)
Lord bless,
Eddie
Hi Eddie
Quote from Eddie
“No! This is not what I asked. We both disagree on what Jesus is saying. “We both disagree on what Jesus is saying” ???
You do? I don’t. (A Freudian slip?).
Quote from Eddie
“You are saying Jesus tells us John is least in the Kingdom. I disagree. I am asking you to show me where you see that. Point to the phrase in Luke 7:28 that shows John is least in anything. Then point to the phrase that says John is least in the Kingdom.”
The last sentence of Luke 7:28 is your answer. Who is Jesus referring to when He says “he”, if not John?
To be more accurate, Jesus is implying that John is lower than the least in the kingdom.
Quote from Eddie
“This point is a significant one, because by claiming that John is least in the Kingdom, you are saying that he not only broke the least of the commandments but also taught others to do so as well. Nowhere does the text support this, so I am wondering how you can come to this conclusion.”
The teachings John gave …
John 1:21
And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
The teachings of Jesus…
Matthew 11:14
And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
I’m not saying John broke ‘the least of the commandments’. What I am saying is, Jesus said if someone breaks a commandment and teaches that broken commandment, such a person will be called least in the kingdom. Jesus said of John, that even the least in the kingdom are GREATER than John. Quite strange, considering that John was the greatest ever born!!
Mathew 11:15, is quite significant here.
Quote from Eddie
“What I am saying is that John told his interrogators he was not the Elijah they were looking for. They were looking for Elijah to come out of the sky like the speaker in the video says they looked for. John told them he was not their man.
No, John did NOT say ‘who they were looking for’, he did say, he was not the Elijah; Full stop. But according to Jesus, he WAS the Elijah.
And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
Quote from Eddie
“Yes, this is true. The leaders of the nation have always been responsible for leading the nation away from God. This was so throughout their history. What I find difficult to believe is that you hold John the Baptist responsible for the leaders rejecting Jesus. Didn’t the leaders have freewill?”
Because the leaders were waiting for Elijah, John was in the position to give them their Elijah, John did not give them Elijah.
Matthew 11:14
And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
Quote from Eddie
“That is not what I said. God sent Elijah, according to Malachi to reconcile the hearts of the fathers and the children. Elijah was not sent as a personal “sign” of the Messiah. Look at Malachi 4. Where does it say Elijah was sent as a sign?”
Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way **BEFORE** me.
Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet **BEFORE** the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD
The Jewish people (Leaders), knew that Elijah was to precede Jesus, therefore the very act of Elijah’s appearance, was a sign in itself.
Why else do you think they were asking the disciples, where Elijah was?
Matthew 17:10
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
Quote from Eddie
“Jesus told the disciples that John was Elijah. We agree with this point. However, the fact that Jesus had to tell them that John was the Elijah, shows that the Pharisees, whom the disciples were quoting, were looking for the wrong guy”
Huh???
The scribes ask John if he was the Elijah, Jesus says that John WAS the Elijah, and that proves they were looking for the wrong guy?????
Jesus told the Disciples that John was the Elijah, because John denied he was the Elijah.
Quote from Eddie
“Jesus had nothing but praise for John. At least two of Jesus’ disciples were former disciples of John. Everyone loved John and appreciated his ministry. The Jewish leadership was teaching the people to deny both John and Jesus. They, not John, were responsible for the curses that came upon their nation.”
Ultimately, it was the responsibility of the Jewish leaders, but it was John who had the responsibility to prepare the Jewish leaders.
Luke1:1617 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.
John’s mission (as Elijah), was to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
Quote from Eddie
“So when the leaders interrogated John, asking if John was the literal Elijah who was to come out of the sky, John simply said, “No! He was not their man!” (John 1:21).”
The Leaders did NOT ask John if he was the ‘LITERAL’ Elijah!!
Quote from Eddie
“The Scripture tells us that God sent Elijah in the form of John. The Scripture does not tell us what John was to say except to prepare the way for the Messiah. Very few words of John are recorded and only a few verses in all four Gospel narratives are dedicated to John. What these few verses tell us is that John pointed to Jesus as the Christ and that the people believed John, but the leaders rejected him. John specifically denied that he was the Christ or ‘that’ Prophet (that Moses pointed to), “
John did point to Jesus, but that was not the point. John should have pointed to Jesus as THE ELIJAH, it was Elijah that was important to the people, not John.
Yes, the people did believe iJohn, and he told them there was NO Elijah.
Matthew 17:10
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias ***MUST*** first come?
Quote from Eddie
“..and he denied that he was the Elijah who was to come out of the sky and perform all sorts of miracles that the Jewish leadership was expecting. That is pretty much all we are able to say for certain about John.”
NO, John did NOT deny “that he was the Elijah who was to come out of the sky and perform all sorts of miracles that the Jewish leadership was expecting.”
He simply denied that he was Elijah.
Matthew 11:14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
My question..
[Can you point me to the scripture where Jesus says John is outside the kingdom? Jesus is saying that those who have taught broken commandments are called ‘least in the kingdom’.]
Quote from Eddie
“Luke 7:28 is the Scripture that shows John was not in the Kingdom of God. Jesus says first that among all those born of women there was none greater than John. Isn’t this correct so far?”
Nowhere in Luke 7:28 does the scripture say, that John is ‘outside the kingdom’. The latter part of your sentence I do agree with (so far, lol).
Quote from Eddie
“Then Jesus says: but he who is least in the Kingdom of God is greater than John. Who is least in the Kingdom of God? Matthew 5:19 tells us those who break the least of the commandments and teach others to do likewise. These people who are ‘least’ in the Kingdom of God are greater than John. Now you can have really great people in the Kingdom, and they would be greater than John, but the very least—the rock bottom—people in the Kingdom are also greater than John. Now logic tells us that John cannot be in the Kingdom of God, if everyone there, including the very least, are greater than he is. The only logical conclusion is that John is not (at that time of Jesus’ speaking) in the Kingdom of God. Look again at Luke 7:28.”
You are making an assumption, based upon your existing beliefs. This debate has been on that very issue, WAS John successful in his mission?
Further, it is not the only conclusion that can be reached, Jesus, can be saying those things, because the least in heaven ARE greater than John because of his failure.
I’m stating, that Jesus is calling John lower than the least as further evidence that John failed in his mission, which was to prepare a PEOPLE for the Messiah.
Quote from Eddie
I agree that you can compare both Scriptures to show why those who are referred to as least in the Kingdom of God are called ‘least’. This is fine. But to show that John is a commandment breaker and teaches others to do so too?—no, that would be an error. The two Scriptures cannot be used in that way to show John is a failure, because Luke 7:28, as I claimed above, shows John is not in the Kingdom at the time of Jesus’ statement.
If the scriptures we are discussing are as you say, concerning ‘outside the kingdom’, (from that viewpoint, EVERYBODY (including Jesus) is ‘outside the kingdom’, why does Jesus single out just John?
Quote from Eddie
“Unfair? If you mean that I was unkind, I apologize. It was not my intention to be unkind to you. However, I do think my statement is fair. As I tried to show above upon your own request, John was not, at the time of Jesus’ statement, in the Kingdom of God. All those in the Kingdom of God, including the very least of them were greater than John—according to Jesus.”
No I meant you were being unfair, because I have at least a scripture to uphold my viewpoint…
Luke 7:28. but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
While you do the very thing you chastised me for (And without a reasonable scripture to uphold your viewpoint)
You said…
[“Arthur, look at what you are reading, please! Jesus **did not say** John was ‘Least in the kingdom of heaven.’ Jesus did say . that even one who is ‘Least in the kingdom of heaven’ is greater than John who is not in the Kingdom! Do you see that? I don’t believe my translation is that much different than yours.”]
Jesus said no such thing. Show me the scripture where Jesus says…
“Jesus did say . that even one who is ‘Least in the kingdom of heaven’ is greater than John who is not in the Kingdom!”
That is what I meant by being unfair.
Quote from Eddie
“Okay, I will quote Jesus’ words here and pull them apart phrase by phrase, but it will all be a direct quote. If you would rather a different translation, quote the one you prefer in your reply and we’ll work with it:”
I think that might be best. Whatever translation you use, should be fine with me.
Quote from Eddie
“If John is not as great as the commandment breakers who teach others to do as they do, then he could not be one of those people. Could he?”
This is going to come across as very rude, believe me, I do not wish to be rude, but I do have to ask. If John is ‘not as great’ as the commandment breakers, is this not the same as saying, the breakers of Gods commandments are greater than John? In other words, people who break God’s commandments are greater than John? Which implies that they are greater than John because John broke even bigger or more commandments than they did.
I do not understand what you mean by ‘he could not be ‘one of those people’. Aren’t ALL people, people?
Jesus’ sentence is very simple; those who have broken God’s commandments are greater than John.
Quote from Eddie
“Sorry to hear your comments were not received well by others. Sometimes it is difficult to see someone’s point of view. I have to admit that at times I don’t know how you can hold the viewpoint you express, but if we could all see the same things others see and they of us, there would be no discussions. Would there? :-)”
I am in total agreement with you. Yes, I do experience frustration as you must do, but in all honesty, my frustration is not of anger.
There is further evidence from the gospels of why I believe as I do on this point of John’s ministry.
I shall post that further evidence, directly after posting this page. You can reply or ignore as you see fit. But it will (I think) help clarify why I believe as I do.
God Bless.
Arthur
The Video touched on this.
James 2:24
“You see that a person is justified by what he does…”
John’s initial testimony to Jesus was direct, assertive and unequivocal.
But what were the real results of John’s ministry? That is, how many people came to Jesus as a result of John’s testimony? How many of Jesus’ disciples started out as John’s disciples? Was John a follower of Jesus?
There is no question that John amassed a large following. According to some historical records, John baptized hundreds of thousands of people. Mathew 3:5 “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordon”
Even though he denied that he was the Elijah, we can see in his choice of clothing that he in fact, had at least a modicum of awareness that he and the prophet of old shared some sort of common destiny.
Mathew 3:4
John’s clothes were made of camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey.
2 Kings 1:8
They replied, “He was a man with a Garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist.”
What was John’s impact on his own disciples?
John 1:35-37
Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
This is the only known account of anyone following Jesus as a direct of John’s testimony. Two disciples. Yes, technically “two” is a “a people” as in “make a people prepared for the Lord”. However, even this result is debatable. One of the two is Andrew.
Matthew’s gospel, records Jesus witnessing directly to Andrew and his brother Peter with no mention whatsoever of John playing a role. The other disciple spent the day with Jesus, but we never find out if he remained beyond that one day. So maybe two, maybe one, or maybe even none.
We see that John’s disciples, even after his initial testimony to Jesus, maintain their separate identity as “John’s disciples.” Weren’t they supposed to be “a people prepared for the Lord”?
Matthew 9:14
Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?
This does not sound like the disciples have been influenced by John’s initial testimony. Notice that they identify more closely with the Pharisees than with Jesus. And, by the way, why does John still have disciples at this late date anyway?
The conclusion is that though John’s initial testimony was powerful, for some reason it exerted little moral authority over his disciples to drop their nets and follow Jesus. Of course, the fact that John, himself, was not dropping his net and following may have contributed to that climate of hesitation.
John’s impact on the nation
What was the real influence of John’s testimony on the nation? There are two scriptures that give us an insight on this.
Matthew 16:13-14
When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
What does this reveal? What is missing from this information? Was anyone saying “Jesus is the lamb of God”?
Clearly they are familiar with the name and work of John. Obviously, they never heard John proclaiming that Jesus was the lamb of God.
What had John been testifying to while in Caesarea Philippi, if not about Jesus?
We see the same in Judea.
Mark 6:14-15
And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad:) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.
15Others said, That it is Elias. And others said, That it is a prophet, or as one of the prophets.
No one was saying “Jesus? Isn’t that the person John said was the lamb of God?
Given the scope of John’s mission as expressed by Gabriel, “to make a people prepared for the Lord,” this appears to fall short of that measure.
The most telling measure, is John’s experience with Herod.
Mark 6:19-20
Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him; but she could not: For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.
John had the kings ear. Herod “feared John”, “protected John” and “heard him gladly”. What was the most important bit of information that John could say to Herod? Perhaps, John needs to explain who Jesus is?.
Yet, after John is beheaded, we see Herod strangely confused by the presence of this new figure: Jesus of Nazareth.
Mark 6:16
But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.
It was John, risen from the dead? How could Herod be so incorrect about Jesus if John had been testifying effectively? Obviously, John never witnessed to the king. Not a word? Not, “behold the lamb of God”? Not, Herod, come and worship Jesus?
No impact on his own disciples, No impact in Caesarea Philippi, No impact in Judea, No influence with king Herod.
Given these circumstances, how could anyone conclude that John accomplished his mission?
God Bless.
Arthur