Why Isn't John The Baptist Just As Likely The Messiah?

Great Debates
1

I’ve been doing a bit of reading re: the Johannites, online lately, and while theories abound, some of the ideas given for recognizing John the Baptist as the Messiah, who was maybe usurped by the upstart Jesus, seem quite possible to me. John was born first (of the tribe of Judah), clearly started his ministry before Jesus, and had a wide group of followers as well as disciples. By the time Jesus came along and was baptised by John, John’s own group was pretty well established. John is repeatedly mentioned by historical writer Josephus, who didn’t seem to mention Jesus all that much, if I recall correctly (this may speak to the fact of John’s certain existence, over Jesus even having existed at all).

John seems to have been more of a true pacifist than Jesus, and he certainly had a different theory on sin-cleansing, preferring to see himself as an intermediary between the sinning human who was cleansed by baptism, and God, rather than an actual vehicle for containing the sins of his fellows and redeeming them by his death (altho my own personal jury is still out on whether Jesus actually believed this, or it was some kind of interpretation by the disciples or early Christians, based on the alleged miracle of the Resurrection).

But even barring all of that, clearly he met the criteria for being the Jewish Messiah, did he not? Was it an absolute “must” that the Messiah be born of the house of David, and if so, wouldn’t John, Jesus’s cousin, also have David’s blood in him?

And if John truly felt, as is written in John’s Gospel, that Jesus was the Lamb of God, and that he was the predecessor meant to usher the true Messiah in, why did he have some of his own followers, much later while he was imprisoned, ask Jesus if he really, truly, thought he was “the one”? I think this is in John’s Gospel as well. Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus as “the one” or didn’t he? This contains the barest whiff of contention between Jesus’s faction and the followers of John, and some scholars speculate that the two teacher’s groups were, in fact, rivals.

I personally think it’s cool that there were a couple of guys, maybe more, who were potential Messiahs around the same time frame a couple thousand years ago, who had some radical (for the times) ideas, and who were able to live and teach their principles, many of which are still around for us to ponder in this time.

I don’t buy the Jesus-as-divine thing at all, and I wouldn’t buy a John-as-divine thing either, but isn’t it possible that John could have had an equal shot at being the Messiah?

2

Well, as a strictly Jewish prophet who made no left turns into divinity, John could not have been the Messiah because he did not restore the Jewish state and establish an order of peace and beneficence extending out from the Jewish people to the whole world.

(Obviously, the same criticism can be leveled at Jesus, but Christianity explains that in terms of divinity and a second coming. Without those amendations to the original prophecies, John is just out of luck as Messiah.)

3

John would need someone to come before him to pave the way.

I am not aware of any documents that form a John as Messiah ‘bible’, so I’m just going with the gospels here:
-John said that he is not - another much higher then him is coming.
-God’s Spirit descended onto Jesus, God spoke about Jesus at that time.
-John was beheaded, IIRC the OT has the Messiah not having a broken bone. Now I’m not sure of the method of beheading, but it would seem if you bash a ax on the back of someone’s neck you may break some bones.

4

Hmmm…I’m thinking John just didn’t have the right “press”. Perhaps he needed a follower such as Peter/a brother such as James/a promoter such as Mary Magdelene (who many accounts agree saw the risen Jesus) to spread the word after his death. Simply because he said, according to the Gospel writers, that someone higher than himself was coming, why would that someone have HAD to be Jesus, or even in his same time-frame of existence?

And pounding nails thru hands & feet, which contain myriad bones, wouldn’t have broken ANY of them? This is the first I have heard of that particular OT criterion, but then I am not a biblical scholar. Still, I am doubtful that Jesus could have made it thru crucifixion without breaking any bones.

5

Crucifixion is through wrists, not hands.

6

Again just going with the gospel:
In John 1: 20 John the Baptist says “I am not the Messiah”
(partial verse)
We just aren’t going to get to far using the Gospel in making this case

Practically speaking I could see a chip fracture, but again practically speaking the way you could support someone on a cross involved going inbetween bones - but pushing them aside and perhaps dislocating them, both in the wrists and ankles. If you ever had a lamb bone section where is joins to the socket, you could easily see how a nail could go through the space between without breaking the bones.

7

The OT doesn’t say anything about the Messiah not having his bones broken Psalms 34:19-20 says this:

A righteous man may have many troubles,
but the LORD delivers him from them all;

20 he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken.

But these verses have nothing to do with the Messiah.
More importantly to the OP, neither Jesus or J the B fulfilled the criteria for the Jewish Messiah. The Jewish Messiah isn’t the Messiah until he restores the kingdom of Israel, rebuilds the Temple, brings world peace, returns all Jews to israel and causes the whole world to worship one God.

The Jewish Messiah is a human king, not God, and he is not a redeemer of sins. He also isn’t supposed to suffer or die or be resurrected.

JBap probably preached the imminence of the Messiah, but his predictions came to naught. Jesus did not deliver on any of the OT expectations.

8

Neither John the Baptists or Jesus could be the Jewish Messiah, because they didn’t usher in the messianic age, but rather got killed by the cops and the preachers.

Or is the question, why didn’t John the Baptist’s followers found a new religion, while Jesus’s did? Probably because the movements coalesced into one.

9

You know, phrases in the Gospels such as, “I have need to be baptized of you, and you come to me?” or “He was not the light but he came to bear witness to the light,” have always struck me as . . . protesting a bit too much. As though John still had vocal followers when the books were written, followers who might have protested, “How could Jesus be greater then John when all the world knows Jesus was baptized by John?” and the authors were trying to pre-empt their arguments.

10

Jesus’ baptism by John is one of the few things in the Gospels that most historians agree probably happened historically. The criterion of embarrassment that you allude to is the reason why. The argument holds that the evangelists would not have put Jesus in such a subordinate position to JBap unless it had really happened (and the Gospel accounts become increasingly more defensive about it, the later the they get).

11

Also Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12 refer to the passover lamb not having broken bones.

The statement I made comes from the Gospel of John “Not a bone of him shall be broken.”

12

Though Jesus died, He was resurrected, ascended into heaven, currently alive, and will return to earth, so Jesus still could (and will IMHO) preform those things.

13

Besides the Gospels what info do we have on John the Baptist?

14

The Paschal lamb has nothing to do with the Jewish Messiah.

The Gospel of John quotes from the Psalms verse I cited.

15

Josephus.

16

Your statement is opinion.

17

For me, the real question would be, why did Paul see Jesus on the Damascus Road, and not John the Baptist. Obviously, no one can say. Maybe the Jesus and JtB movements coalesced. Maybe JtB didn’t push his case. Maybe Jesus making a fuss at the temple, and then getting executed, resulted in a huge PR splash.

It’s possible that Paul never heard of JtB, even though his mention by Josephus would suggest that he was a figure of some notoriety. I don’t think (but I’m not sure) that there’s any biblical reference to JtB outside the gospels and Acts.

Whatever the reason, the idea of Jesus as messiah had to come from Paul and his followers, who completely reinvented the whole concept in a way that was ultimately friendly to the Helenistic (and, by extension, Roman) world. Jesus as messiah doesn’t pass muster when one looks at the requirements of Jewish tradition.

18

Yes, this is one of the recent things I have read. Idea being just as you have said, that since the baptism DID occur, why not avoid any potential confrontation later by making sure the Gospels support the disciples’ (or the early church beginnings’) view that Jesus was definitely “the one”.

Just amazes me that Jesus’s followers were able to create the whole mystery/miracle thing around HIM, when clearly as you say, DtC , he was not a “messianic” fit either.

19

Even if you think it refers to Exodus, it’s still quoting something which has nothing to do with Jewish Messiah. Yes, it’s true that the Paschal lamb was supposed to be unblemished and unbroken for the sacrifice (I’ll go ahead and give you that it might be the more likely referent for John) but the interpretation of the Messiah as a Paschal-surrogate is a Christian innovation not found in OT prophecy or Jewish expectation.

20

Except then he won’t be the JEWISH messiah, but rather the CHRISTIAN messiah. But we’re using two definitions of “messiah” here.

Christians (to state the obvious) believe Jesus was God incarnated on Earth as a human being, and that he rose from the dead, and will return to earth, etc, etc. So from a Christian perspective, the answer to why John the Baptist couldn’t be the messiah is pretty obvious.

Jews also believe in what they call the Messiah, but they believe the Messiah will be a normal human being in the same way Noah, Abraham, Moses and Elijiah were normal human beings. The Messiah will unite the entire world in peace, restore the Temple, convert the world to monotheism, and usher in a new age. But he will still be a mortal man.

So for nonChristians, asking why John the Baptist wasn’t the messiah makes more sense than if you were Christian.

If you’re Jewish, then it is clear that John the Baptist didn’t unite the world in monotheism, didn’t restore the Temple (it still existed when he lived), and so forth, so he couldn’t have been the Messiah. And Jesus couldn’t have been the Messiah either, not because Jews don’t believe Jesus was God incarnated on Earth (although they don’t), but because Jews don’t expect the Messiah to be God incarnated on Earth, and Jesus didn’t create a new age, yadda yadda yadda. So the answer there is simple.

For Muslims, they believe Jesus was a human prophet second only to Mohammed, but they don’t have a concept of a Messiah, so the question is moot. I have no idea whether Muslims have any traditions about John the Baptist.

From a non-Abrahamic perspective, the question becomes more like: Why did the followers of Jesus create a religion that still exists 2000 years later, and not the followers of John the Baptist? And this question doesn’t have any clear answers, but we can argue and pontificate about it.

Naturally, if Jesus really does return to Earth and fulfill the prophecies, then I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong. However, until that happens I see no reason to suspect it will happen.