Why was Jesus baptized?

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Kevin H,

 

6 hours ago, Kevin H said:

As to Fundamentalism, I am talking about the views of inspiration that may have been somewhat subconscious over the centuries, but basically came into a conscious form in the late 1800s as a reaction to Modernism.

I appreciate your detailed history concerning Fundamentalism and the SDA Church. In my fellowship there was some discussion in the 1880s concerning inspiration, and there was one prominent advocate for partial inspiration and this eventually resulted in a split, but eventually the advocate left and this group again endorsed the inspiration of the Scriptures. I subscribe to the inspiration of the Scriptures.

 

On the other extreme is what is now called Higher Criticism, and I have not examined this in detail, but encountered some of this in the course of various studies. Possibly we are not aware that a writer holds some of these views when we read, and as a result we should be careful when reading commentaries. I have encountered Higher Criticism in Genesis with the JE theory, the concept that Isaiah has two authors, the claim that many of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings did not exist, that there were no writings as early as Moses, and that Luke was inaccurate with his historical and geographic detail in the Book of the Acts. All of these were popular in the Tubingen Higher Criticism School of the late 1800s, but all have now been adequately dismissed by archaeology and by various writers in commentaries. Yet many of these ideas, or the influence of some of these continue with some writers and commentaries and to some extent contribute to the view that the scriptures are not inspired.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[Gregory Matthews]

Higher Criticism:  Good or bad?

As to the Bible, there are major SDA officials who reject it out of hand.

As to EGW, the position of the White Estate, and also the denomination is that central elements of so-called Higher criticism are required in order to understand EGW.

This situation is an inconsistency that is problematic.

 

For an example of Higher Criticism applied to EGW, see the EGW Estate position on EGW's advice on the purchase of  a bicycle.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Greg,

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

For an example of Higher Criticism applied to EGW, see the EGW Estate position on EGW's advice on the purchase of  a bicycle.

First time I have heard that Higher Criticism could be associated with the purchase of a bicycle. SDAs certainly have something to worry about here. What about tricycles and motorised quad bikes.

Kind regards Trevor

[Gregory Matthews]

Many SDA leaders are worried about Higher Criticism due to how those early German theologians carried out their acceptance of Higher Criticism in a manner that destroyed faith in the Bible as being of God.

However, the foundation principles of Higher Criticism are important to understanding the Bible.  The truth is as I stated in regard to Ellen White and the example of her writing as to the purchase of a bicycle.

Just one example:  This one from TM 398.

Quote

 The money expended in bicycles and dress and other needless things must be accounted for. [See appendix.] As God’s people you should represent Jesus; but Christ is ashamed of the self-indulgent ones. My heart is pained, I can scarcely restrain my feelings, when I think of how easily our people are led away from practical Christian principles to self-pleasing. As yet many of you only partially believe the truth. The Lord Jesus says, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon,” . . .

 

[Kevin H]

Higher criticism has too often (even by Mrs. White) been interchangeable with Modernism. Too often people mean Modernism when they say Higher criticism. They are not both the same.

Modernism is the belief that the things in the Bible are not historical. They use higher criticism as one of their arguments basically saying that if the Bible were true should it not have been just perfect from the start?"

Higher Criticism is looking at how the text was edited. Lower criticism is studying the final form of the text. They originally started out as complementary to each other.

[Gregory Matthews]

The following quote, related to bicycles, is taken from a larger document published by the White Estate.  Both the quote and the larger document clearly lay out the idea, without using the words "higher criticism," that the foundational principles of Higher criticism should be followed in understanding the writings of Ellen White.

Quote

The bicycle craze. At the beginning of the twentieth century, “the American people were swept with a consuming passion which left them with little time or money for anything else. . . . What was this big, new distraction? For an answer the merchants had only to look out the window and watch their erstwhile customers go whizzing by. America had discovered the bicycle, and everybody was making the

13
most of the new freedom it brought. . . . The bicycle began as a rich man’s toy. . . . The best early bicycle cost $150, an investment comparable to the cost of an automobile today. . . . Every member of the family wanted a ‘wheel,’ and entire family savings often were used up in supplying the demand.” 40
With that background we may be better able to understand Ellen White’s counsel at that time when she wrote that “money expended in bicycles and dress and other needless things must be accounted for.” 41 She went further than the principle of exorbitant cost; she cautioned regarding the spirit of “bewitching” competition and the desire to “be the greatest.” 42
Thus, her policy on bicycles (which, if placed within today’s context, may seem odd, even ridiculous) was based on clear-cut Biblical principles. The wise and balanced expenditure of funds and the avoidance of the competitive spirit are principles that should impact on decisions in all ages. If Mrs. White were alive today, she might apply the principle of accountability to the way people spend money on luxury items, automobiles, sports equipment, electronic gadgets, or clothing.

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

8 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

published by the What Estate

lol ... I seem to be easily amused this evening.

[Gregory Matthews]

Well, you probably did not laugh as hard as I did.

I have corrected my typo.

 

[TrevorL]

There seems to be some difficulty in understanding when John the Baptist first recognised that Jesus was the Messiah, the Christ and thus the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world. The first is the testimony of John, that he did not know the identity of the Christ, the Son of God, until he saw the Spirit descending and abiding on him:

John 1:29-34 (KJV): 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 30  This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. 31  And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32  And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33  And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. 34  And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

Please also note that John the Baptist states this after Jesus returns from the 40 days in the wilderness.

 

Now how do we reconcile this with the following which occurred before Jesus’ baptism in the water, and before the Spirit descended in the form of a dove?

Matthew 3:13-17 (KJV): 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14  But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15  And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16  And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17  And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Now why would John the Baptist initially refuse to baptise Jesus, and acknowledge that Jesus was greater than he was, if he did not know that Jesus was the Christ?

 

One possibility is what Jesus said to John when asked as to what sins he had to confess. Jesus would have answered that he had no sins to confess, or that he had lived in perfect conscience until that day. Now I believe that John would have been given the Holy Spirit to discern the hearts of those that came to him for baptism, and this is one reason why he rejected the Pharisees, in their pride and non-repentance. John would have discerned what Jesus had said was the truth, and this is the reason for John’s response, that Jesus was greater than he was, not that he immediately fully recognised Jesus as the Messiah. Then after the baptism when the Spirit descended visibly upon him as a Dove, John was fully persuaded that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[TrevorL]

Greetings The Wanderer,

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

What you write is totally confusing.

I appreciate your comment. If you could spare the time it may be helpful to state where you disagree, or where you may need clarification. I would especially also like your perspective on the verses that I quoted, together with my previous Post on the explanation of the sequence in John 1:29-34 and the aspect of water baptism and this record in John. If you do this then I may agree that you have clarity of thought in your understanding of these verses, rather than simply labeling my comments as confusing. If I endorse your clear explanation, then this way we will both make progress.

Kind regards Trevor

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Wanderer,

 

I appreciate your response and meaningful questions. First I would like to say that I take any criticism seriously, and as a result I reviewed the whole thread and made a quick list of all the posts and what was covered and each contributor. For example you contributed to posts #8-10 and I thought your comments were interesting. I contributed a number of posts, and some of these were an expansion of the original question posed, but touched mainly on the subject of John the Baptist as a whole. In review, I partly regret two of my posts, but continue to endorse the other major posts.

 

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

There are several confusing elements as to the nature of your post, at least, confusing to me. I think initially, Id like to ask two clarification questions; if I may?

1/ Who is having this difficulty "understanding" the texts that you referred to here? Where is that comment coming from?

This is a general comment and it is no one in particular. If we read the various accounts the first impression that I gained at least is that there is some possible contradiction as to the sequence of events and as to when John the Baptist first recognised Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, the Lamb who would take away the sin of the world.

 

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

2/ This question that you posed about John The Baptist seems very important to you within the context of this thread. May I just simply ask why?

It is important to me because I am interested in this subject. I re-endorse my Post #2, #11 on page 1, and adding 25, the second post on page 2, Post #27, #29, #31 and the one (or more) that you said was confusing #40. All of these were more or less an expansion on this subject of John the Baptist. These aspects are important to me as I have heard and discussed these matters with many in my fellowship over many years and consider a correct understanding of these as important because we come to share in the thinking and experiences of Jesus, John the Baptist, Isaiah the prophet, and the Divine revelation which has a moral transforming power when properly received. Part of my post on the sequence also comes from an address given in 1956 by a UK speaker when he toured Australia. In the context of his talk it was only a minor, incidental comment, but also partly important to his overall theme concerning the death and resurrection of Christ. I have transcribed his talk, and it is only one portion of my respect for what he stated on this occasion, a talk that I hold to be one of my many treasures.

 

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

What difference would either of several possible answers make to you?

I would welcome any other possible view so that I could compare and correct my view if necessary and thus learn. My present perspective as reflected in my major posts in this thread have been arrived at over many years by this process, but as yet none of these have been seriously challenged.

 

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I believe exploring these two questions first would help me to answer your question better. WDYT?

Yes, I would be pleased if any one else has any additional perspectives on John the Baptist. I also like discussing the verses that talk about when John the Baptist was in prison and he sent two of his disciples to Jesus to ask whether Jesus was the Messiah or not. Again another slight problem that could be beneficial to appreciate the possible answer to this, again with the benefit of understanding John the Baptist, Jesus and the Divine revelation.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[Kevin H]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

Trevor, is your main point stating the fact or the possiblity of "contradiction"  (which I would call paradox)  in the various accounts of John the Baptist baptizing Jesus? Or is something else your main point?

Well show me the chapter and verse in John where Jesus is baptized (this was a quiz question at college). The other gospels are how the disciples grew into the understanding of Jesus as God. John starts out with that assumption. But also the professors were using this to show the importance of understanding what a specific passage is saying and not reading into the text even if we are reading into the texts other parts of the Bible.

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Wanderer,

 

6 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Trevor, is your main point stating the fact or the possiblity of "contradiction"  (which I would call paradox)  in the various accounts of John the Baptist baptizing Jesus? Or is something else your main point?

Possibly paradox is more correct, but the various accounts were not written in such a way as to simply present a paradox. Each has its own simple message. Perhaps we are at fault if we try to too closely harmonise all the accounts. Concerning the last question that I raised, there has been some discussion amongst my brethren whether John simply sent his disciples to Jesus so that they would finally leave John the Baptist and join with Jesus. Others have suggested that John, even though he still believed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, in the extremity of his trial could not understand why Jesus would not act and establish his Kingdom then and there and thus have him released. Others suggest that John was human, and that in the extremity of his trial he started to doubt, and despite all of his experience at the baptism of Jesus, he started to imagine that the true Messiah had not yet appeared. At least he needed further comfort and assurance in the hour of his greatest trial. Jesus answers all three possibilities by demonstrating the miracles that marked out Jesus as the true Messiah who would fulfil Isaiah 35 and other prophecies, but in God's good time, and there is a hint in Jesus' reply that the Messiah would have yet to suffer.

 

Concerning Kevin H’s statement I suggest that the following indicates that the Apostle John is speaking about baptism by water, and that Jesus had been baptised in water at least 40 days previously. John certainly did not suggest that Jesus was not baptised in water.

John 1:29-34 (KJV): 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 30  This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. 31  And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32  And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33  And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. 34  And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

I am concerned that many colleges still teach higher criticism, or are affected by it.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[8thdaypriest]

On 3/27/2018 at 12:08 PM, The Wanderer said:

I got baptized a total of three times in my life. Once was the water drop method. Two were by immersion. Its a long story why that all happened, but for me, it was setting an example for others that no matter how many times we get it wrong; we can still committ or re-commit ourselves publicly in the way of baptism.

 

I was baptized the first time at 6 months gestation, when my mother was baptized.  Then again when I was 10.  Then again, along with my husband.   Figured I needed a new start, as an adult.  Now I realize that Passover is a renewal of our Covenant with God the Father - through Christ.   We host or attend a Seder every year. 

[8thdaypriest]

On 3/27/2018 at 10:05 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

Baptism without joining a congregation:

*  Such is generally considered to be against policy in the SDA Church.

*  Some SDA clergy do such.

*  I have never done  such.

*  I once stated that I was going to do such if. . . . . [No need to give the details.]

*  I can think of rare occasions to include there not being an available congregation for one to  join, when I might do so.

*  I am aware of an Islamic who accepted Christ, who was sentenced to death by public stoning, which was carried out, due to his conversion to Christianity.  [NOTE:  the stones that the people threw at him failed to kill him.  Finally the Imman (sp) stopped the execution with a statement that Allah had spared this persons life.]  Later a SDA clergy person baptized him under conditions where he knew nothing about Adventism and there was no opportunity for him to learn about Adventism.  The SDA clergyperson has not been disciplined by the SDA Church  for doing so.  There is more that cannot be told.  It is clear that God not only saved his life during the stoning, but also placed the SDA clergyperson in a position to baptize him.

I liked the story you shared Gregory.  I do not agree with the SDA position that one must join the SDA Church. 

One is "baptized into Christ" - not into a denomination. 

As you know, I baptized a woman who worked for me, because we could not find any minister who would baptize her without prior indoctrination in those doctrines held by his denomination, and intention to join his church.   That was three years ago.  It was a year after she left my employ.   She has held to faith, despite her large Catholic extended family, and attended our Passover Seder on Friday evening.

[8thdaypriest]

5 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

There is a lot more that could be said but because of the stance that some here take on what has been coined as “the trinity doctrine” much has to be left out of my comments here. What we can know here is that John the Baptist was six months older than his cousin Jesus (see Luke1:26, Luke1:36). He must have known Jesus, and even seen Him at some point before this baptism. The reference you gave us from John, chapter one is clearly telling us that John recognized Jesus when he saw Him approaching to get baptized. And I don’t know of any really important reason to decide how many days before this passage in John that Jesus was baptized. The passage in John is a simple testimony of events as they unfolded, and time-frames are not needed there, or they would have put something definitive in that text

Joh 1:29  The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Joh 1:30  This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

 

I think it likely that John's parents told him about the miraculous birth of his cousin.   John knew that Jesus was something more than the usual "man". 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Wanderer and 8thday priest,

 

I appreciate your thorough overview of the subject. I would like to comment on only a few aspects.

5 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I dont know what you mean by this comment, and how it implicates what we are studying/discussing. I guess I could state, in brief my ideas so far which would answer atleast some of your points raised.

I use the term Higher Criticism in the sense that mainly in the period 1850-1900 there arose a school of thought that did not endorse the traditional view that the Bible was inspired. Thus they would allow that John's record disagrees with Matthew's account. I will copy and paste what I said previously

“I have encountered Higher Criticism in Genesis with the JE theory, the concept that Isaiah has two authors, the claim that many of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings did not exist, that there were no writings as early as Moses, and that Luke was inaccurate with his historical and geographic detail in the Book of the Acts. All of these were popular in the Tubingen Higher Criticism School of the late 1800s, but all have now been adequately dismissed by archaeology and by various writers in commentaries. Yet many of these ideas, or the influence of some of these continue with some writers and commentaries and to some extent contribute to the view that the scriptures are not inspired.”

To give a few examples, this school of thought claimed that Moses did not write Genesis, but it was a collection from two sources, based on two different traditional gods, Jehovah and Elohim. Later another source was identified, and the theory then spoke of JEP sources. One writer ended up with LJEBDHP sources. There has been a swing away from this theory amongst some scholars, and for example Derek Kidner in the Tyndale or IVP series argues against the theory and advocates that Moses is the author under Divine inspiration. In the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, in the Isaiah 40-66 commentary, there is a detailed attempt to support that Isaiah 40-66 is not written by Isaiah the son of Amoz, but by an anonymous writer during the Babylonian captivity. Alec Motyer in his IVP Commentary argues against this, and gives strong evidence for the unity of the Book of Isaiah. Higher Criticism also claimed that The Acts was inaccurate in its geographical and historic detail, and claimed that it was written in the 2nd Century. William Ramsay closely examined and verified the accuracy of Luke’s detail and argued strongly that the record is a remarkable historical account and has all the elements of an eye witness account.

 

5 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

You asked how do we reconcile the two accounts, and my reply is that there is nothing there that needs to be reconciled; especially if we start to think about using words like paradox, rather than “contradiction.”  As humans, we like to jump hastily to words like “contradiction” and we often carry same to realms far beyond that which was/is intended by the Biblical author in question.

5 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

The reference you gave us from John, chapter one is clearly telling us that John recognized Jesus when he saw Him approaching to get baptized. And I don’t know of any really important reason to decide how many days before this passage in John that Jesus was baptized. The passage in John is a simple testimony of events as they unfolded, and time-frames are not needed there, or they would have put something definitive in that text

When we come to John’s record, there seems to be a different sequence of events, and this could be the basis of the claim that from John’s perspective that Jesus was not baptised. In my opinion such a comment could only be based upon the concept that the Bible is not inspired. But I also disagree with your comment, because I believe that what John records is when Jesus has returned after the 40 days in the wilderness. I ask you to compare the record in John with the other accounts of the baptism of Jesus.

 

I would like to suggest that the preaching of John included the following, and I believe that it is relevant to why Jesus volunteered to be baptized.

Isaiah 40:6-8 (KJV): 6 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: 7  The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. 8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

I do not know the SDA position on this, but I believe that Jesus was a man, the Son of God by birth, but nevertheless through Mary he was a descendant of Adam, human, subject to death and needed to overcome in himself the lusts of the flesh that had been awakened in the transgression in Eden, and this was passed on to all of Adam's descendants including Jesus - all flesh. In submitting to baptism Jesus was acknowledging that all flesh is grass, and the need to put to death the flesh and its lusts and living unto God through the power of the word of God. The crucifixion, death and resurrection epitomises this lesson and becomes our example.

Galatians 5:24 (KJV): And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

 

37 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I think it likely that John's parents told him about the miraculous birth of his cousin.   John knew that Jesus was something more than the usual "man". 

But John’s record states that John the Baptist did not know the identity of the Christ and would know his identity when the Spirit descended upon him after his baptism in water.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[8thdaypriest]

26 minutes ago, TrevorL said:

But John’s record states that John the Baptist did not know the identity of the Christ and would know his identity when the Spirit descended upon him after his baptism in water.

John 1:33 And I did not recognize him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining – this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' (NET)

Seems like John knew about the One to come, but he did not know him by sight.  He could not recognize Him, having not seen Him during his lifetime thus far.  Jesus did not introduce Himself with  "Hello cousin". 

[Gregory Matthews]

My personal position:  I am reluctant to baptize someone who states that they do not intend to become part of a congregation.  I consider the Bible to be clear that there is great benefit from becoming a part of a congregation and I tell people to find a congregation to which they feel led to join, and ask the pastor of that congregation to baptize them.

However, there are some situations in which the issue is that there is no congregation to which that person could join.  In such a case I might  consider doing such.

NOTE:  I know of one SDA congregation that is in the process of developing an outreach to people who do not  intend to join a congregation.  This effort is in the developmental stage,  But, that is part of that congregations goal.  If anyone reading this would like to participate in such an experiment, contact me and I will give you more specific information.   This also includes any SDA congregation that would like to be part of an outreach of this nature.

 

[8thdaypriest]

I believe Jesus came to be ceremonially "washed  with water," in preparation for the anointing of God, to the office of priest and king. 

As Moses poured oil on Aaron, and Samuel poured oil on David, so God the Father poured His own spirit upon His Son, while He pronounced Him worthy. 

God could have told John that the One was coming, or was already come, but John had never laid eyes on Him.  John was just expecting Him. 

John could not have "known" every person who came to him for baptism.  That would mean John somehow personally "knew" them all.  I don't believe that.  Sometimes the manner of dress denoted societal role or station.  That John could have identified, but not the life history of each person. 

Question:  Did John also baptize women?

[8thdaypriest]

4 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Lol Rachel. That last question might be dangerous. Ill have to think about whether or not I should answer. But my gut instinct is to say yes  What made you ask that?

Just an awareness of how women were excluded from serious religious discussion, were relegated to the "Court of Women", stayed home while their husbands went to the synagogue, etc. etc.   Weren't women "saved" as an extension of their husbands or fathers (much as Mormonism teaches today). 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Wanderer,

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

May I ask where you get the 40 days from?

Matthew 3:17 - 4:1-2 (KJV): 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.  2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

Mark 4:11-13 (KJV): 11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, 12 And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. 13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I would also like to know how you would tie these thoughts in with the OP re why did Jesus submit to baptism?

I have responded fairly thoroughly to the OP and also discussed some other aspects that I was interested in regarding John the Baptist.

Kind regards Trevor

[Gregory Matthews]

The direction that  this discussion has taken, has challenged me on one point:  Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus as the Messiah prior to his baptizing Jesus?  IOW, I had never caught the emphasis of John 1:33-35 which can reasonably be taken to suggest that John the Baptist did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah until John saw that Spirit descending upon Jesus as a dove?

The story of the baptism of Jesus is also recorded in Matthew 3:13-17.  Verses 13 & 14, at first sight seem to answer this question.  These verses seem to say that John the Baptist recognized Jesus as the Messiah  as Jesus requested baptism.  It appears that John the Baptist is responding to that request by stating the Jesus should baptize John, as opposed to John baptizing Jesus--verse 14. 

However, upon further study of that verse, there is another way in which the 14th verse could be understood!    The Greek (I am told as I am not an expert in Greek.) could be translated in any of the following ways:

*   ". .. .but John attempted to prevent him. . ."

 *   ". . . but John had a preconceived belief that he should not baptize the Messiah. . ."

*   ". . . but John had a mind to prevent him. . ."

*   ". . . but John would have prevented him from being baptized. . ."

That verse understood in the above allows for the idea that John the Baptist had never seen Jesus until that time, did not recognize him and therefore first recognized him as the Messiah at the moment the     Spirit in the form of a dove rested upon Jesus.

This is a new idea to me.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Wanderer,

 

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

With so many verses stating how John did indeed recognize Jesus, whom he was about to baptise, how can just one verse be used to void all the ones that say it differently? It doesn’t make sense.

I was interested in your explanation, but I believe that John 1:29-34 is at least 40 days after the baptism of Jesus as I mentioned earlier. The other accounts state that after Jesus was baptised, he spent 40 days in the wilderness. But here in John’s record it mentions three consecutive days, v29, v35 and in 2:1 Jesus is in Cana of Galilee. If you have a commentary or a harmony of the gospels in your library, these may also indicate this sequence. I have checked two reasonably readily available and they indicate this sequence, and will look at others if necessary.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[TrevorL]

Greetings again The Wanderer,

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Your point is moot because I already mentioned the fact that the book of John was not written by John the baptist and that it was the Apostle John giving testimony about something from the past. It doesnt matter whether it was 4 or 400 years

I do not know why you are saying this, as I believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures. You seem to refuse to see the significance of the 40 days temptation in the wilderness and the sequence stated in Matthew and Mark that I mentioned.

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

it does not change the evidence I gave to show that John did know who he was baptizing when he baptized Jesus. There is really no way to get around it

Except John the Baptist did not fully recognise Jesus as the Messiah, the Lamb of God, the Son of God until the Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove, and abode upon him. There is no getting around it. Don’t take my word for it read a simple commentary or a harmony of the gospels.

Here are a few readily available, the first two on the internet, possibly e-Sword but I have looked at these on Bible Hub for the first time a few minutes ago:

Matthew Henry’s Commentary: John 1:29: The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Verses 29-36 “We have in these verses an account of John’s testimony concerning Jesus Christ, which he witnessed to his own disciples that followed him. As soon as ever Christ was baptized he was immediately hurried into the wilderness, to be tempted; and there he was forty days. During his absence John had continued to bear testimony to him, and to tell the people of him; but now at last he sees Jesus coming to him, returning from the wilderness of temptation. As soon as that conflict was over Christ immediately returned to John, who was preaching and baptizing.”

Ellicott’s Commentary: “We pass on to the witness of John on the second day, when he sees Jesus coming unto him, probably on the return from the Temptation. Forty days had passed since they met before, and since John knew at the baptism that Jesus was the Messiah.”

Tyndale NT Commentary – RV Tasker, page 50: “On the second day, John sees Jesus approaching. It soon becomes apparent to the reader that John has already baptised Jesus …”

Kind regards Trevor