John the Baptist in the Insurrectionist Context

We have already scrutinized several blemishes in the storyline of John the Baptist, some of which we will here consider again, along with many new ones, to see that, for the most part, they can actually be made sense of in the insurrectionist context. At the same time, we will discover that they certainly cannot be made sense of in the context of John having been part of a “divine plan” to prepare the way for the “savior of the world.”

The New Testament makes a correlation between John the Baptist and Elijah the prophet, to the degree of even implying that John was literally Elijah himself. Where did this idea come from? For starters, it is necessary to understand that Jews had always believed that Elijah was taken up alive into heaven, without ever seeing death, as mentioned in 2 Kings 2:11: “…and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” Later on, Yahweh promised, in Malachi 4:5, that he would one day send Elijah back to earth on a special mission: “See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you [from heaven] before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes.” And so, when we turn to the gospels, we discover that many people did indeed believe that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of this prophetic promise—that he was literally Elijah returning to earth. And the main reason for this belief was Christ himself. Here are some references to this effect: 

• “For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John [said Jesus]. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.” - Matthew 11:13, 14.
• “‘But I [Jesus] tell you [the disciples], 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.’ Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.” - Matthew 17:12, 13. 

Jesus vividly proclaimed in these passages that John the Baptist was, of a surety, Elijah who had come in fulfillment of the Malachi prophecy. But there are some issues here. First of all, the “prophecy” from Malachi actually says that this “Elijah” would usher in the “dreadful day of the Lord.” That is, the “Day of Judgment.” But we know that John the Baptist did not do this. There is no question that the Malachi passage is talking about the supposed Day of Judgment, since verses 1 and 3 discuss the wicked being reduced to ashes under the souls of the feet of the righteous. So how could Jesus say that John was the fulfillment of this prophecy?

In spite of Jesus plainly stating that John was Elijah, we find that an angel, in Luke 1:17, told Zechariah the priest that John had merely come “in the spirit and power of Elijah,” indicating that John was to be understood as not being Elijah himself. And then we have this exchange recorded in John 1:21: “They [some priests and Levites] asked him [John the Baptist], ‘Then who are you? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not.’ ‘Are you the Prophet?’ He answered, ‘No.’” Why did John not at least explain that he was sent “in the spirit and power of Elijah”? The very fact that he did not do this, but instead outright denied being Elijah in any sense, when all the while Jesus identified him as such, is bewildering to the utmost. We are definitely being given some seriously incompatible messages here.

Though the Bible is loaded with implacable contradictions, perhaps these John the Baptist ones, as well as some others related to him, can be explained by the possibility that Jesus and John did not see eye-to-eye on the nature of John’s role, and maybe on some other issues as well—a prospect that we will be exploring in detail as we progress through this chapter.

In Luke chapter 1 we encounter a most outlandish story of the birth of John the Baptist. Here we see that even though Mary’s cousin, Elizabeth, was unable to conceive, Yahweh intervened so that she could indeed become pregnant, and thus she later gave birth to John. But that is not the outlandish part—this is: Skipping back a bit in this story, it turns out that Mary, just after becoming pregnant with Jesus, went to visit her cousin, and we are told that Elizabeth’s yet-unborn baby leaped for joy in her womb, upon Mary’s arrival. Not only is this story idiotic, but it captures our attention for another reason: There is no mention of Jesus being related to John the Baptist in any of the other gospels. This is the equivalent of Jesus’ alleged “virgin birth” being only mentioned by Matthew and Luke, only once in each of these gospels, and never being referred to ever again by any other New Testament writer in any other New Testament book. Should we suspect that some sort of cover-up was underway, trying to hide the fact that Christ and John were bound by family ties? But regardless, if we are to believe that John leaped in his mother’s womb when the pregnant Mary came to visit, then we should expect that John always knew, after he was born, that Jesus was the messiah, especially considering that John’s mission in life was (supposedly) to prepare the way for Christ. However, this is not what we consistently see in the gospel record. 

At the time just preceding Christ’s baptism, the Bible states most unambiguously, as we would expect, that John the Baptist knew exactly who Jesus was, and had a profound reverence for him: “Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’” - Matthew 3:13, 14. As brought up earlier, this is not the picture we get from reading the gospel of John. There we discover that John the Baptist did not recognize who Christ was until after he baptized him: “Then John gave this testimony: ‘I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’” - John 1:32, 33. How could John have not identified his own cousin that he knew since he was a child? Was John perhaps trying to hide the fact that he was related to Christ? If this be true, then somebody sure messed up in the above Matthew account, which indicates otherwise. 

Let us concentrate right now on the last two passages we just read in the books of Matthew and John. As contradictory as these accounts are, at least they agree in one aspect—they both depict John as having acknowledged Jesus as the messiah around the time that he was baptized (whether immediately before or shortly thereafter). However, as we saw a while back, John is shown as having been entirely ignorant of Christ’s messianic status years later (or at least having developed chronic doubts about it), while in prison awaiting his beheading: “When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples to ask him, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’” - Matthew 11:2. 

If we went by this passage alone, we would have to conclude that John did not begin considering that Christ was the messiah until the very end of his life, and only because he heard about Christ’s miraculous deeds. What was going on here? Is it possible that John initially did acknowledge Christ as the messiah, but later began to abandon the whole idea when he started to observe too many discrepancies between Christ’s words and actions? It is necessary to point out some other comments made by John about Jesus, to highlight just how significant his later prison-cell-doubts were: 

• “Behold the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.” - John 1:29.
• “I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.” - John 1:34. 
• “The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.” - John 3:35, 36.

It seems most unbelievable that John, after having made statements like these, would later have resorted to asking for confirmation from Christ as to who he was, unless something quite drastic happened between these two characters, which drove them apart (a notion that we will elaborate on shortly). 

As it turns out, the messianic expectations of first century Judea actually involved two messiahs, and not just one. The Jews of that era were awaiting both a priestly and a kingly messiah. The priestly messiah was to be the God-ordained religious leader, while the kingly one was to be the God-approved political leader. And the two of them, it was believed, were to jointly restore Israel to its alleged former glory days in the time of “champions” like Moses and David. This dualistic messianic anticipation was laid out in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the “Community Rule Scroll,” for example, we are told that the Essenes were anticipating a future in which the Priest Messiah would preside over a “messianic banquet,” with the King Messiah of Israel, whom they called the “Prince of the Congregation,” or the “Branch of David,” who would serve as his companion.

An expectation of two messiahs can also be found in the Old Testament. For instance, the sixth century BC “prophet” Zechariah foretold the coming of a man called “the branch” who would bear royal honor and sit on his throne, and that there would also be “...a priest by his throne with peaceful understanding between the two of them.” - Zechariah 6:13. Here we have a portrayal of the Davidic king and his divine stringpulling counselor, the anointed priest. In another vision (4:14), Zechariah referred to “two sons of fresh oil” (anointed ones, or messiahs) who would “stand before the Lord of the whole earth.” We can see from all of this that the idea of two messianic figures arising was common within Judaism several centuries prior to the Christian era. Likewise, one extra-biblical second century BC document, known as The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, thusly expressed this same expectation: “For the Lord will raise up from Levi someone as high priest and from Judah someone as king.” 

Of these two messiahs expected to arise, one of them—the kingly messiah—was to be subservient to the other. And because the priestly messiah was expected to be the more dominant figure, he had naturally received more attention and reverence in messianic prophecies than did the kingly messiah. In fact, in the same source as the last quote cited a moment ago (The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs), the patriarch Judah is depicted as saying: “For to me the Lord gave the kingship and to him the priesthood, and he set the kingship under the priesthood.”

With all this in mind, could it be possible that Jesus and John were originally supposed to jointly fulfill the dualistic messianic mission, where Jesus (the “son of David”) was to be the kingly messiah, and John (whose father Zechariah was of the priestly order of Abijah and his mother Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron the High Priest, according to Luke 1:5) was to be the priestly messiah? And can it be that, ultimately, there was a falling out of sorts between Christ and John, and that Jesus wound up emerging as the solitary messiah, once John was out of the picture? Might we also conclude that Christ desired for things to turn out this way, and that he may have even arranged for John’s demise so as not to have a rival for a position that he desired to hold single-handedly?

There is no question that Christ did wind up being assigned both messianic roles—kingly and priestly. Hebrews 4:14 speaks of Jesus as high priest: “Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.” And Revelation 17:14 portrays Christ as king: “…the Lamb…is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with him are the called and chosen and faithful.” This is how things wound up, but presumably it was not originally to have been this way. Jesus changed the whole playbook, and we can see by reading between the lines in the gospels how a behind-the-scenes contention had enshrouded Christ and John—a contention that Christ inaugurated and ultimately won through a dogged determination. Though later editors of the gospels made a valiant effort to expunge references to this rivalry from the gospel record, they do not appear to have done a thorough enough job. For this conflict can still be discerned with clarity. 

For starters, in John 3:22-24 we read: “...Jesus and his disciples went into the country of Judea and there he remained with them and baptized. And John was also baptizing in Aenon near Salim because there were pools of water there, and people kept coming and were baptized. John of course had not yet been thrown into prison.” Here we see that, early on, Jesus and John were “partners,” if you will. But look how they both had their own set of disciples, and they were both baptizing. We can understand, therefore, how tensions would have started to emerge, before too long, as Jesus began amassing more of a following than John, and had even stolen away some of John’s disciples, as we see from this citation found in the gospel of John: “The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God!’ When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus.” - John 1:35-37.

The ever-increasing popularity that Jesus had been enjoying, far exceeding that of John, had not only changed the dynamics of the relationship between these two messianic figures (inciting a bit of jealousy and / or resentment on John’s part), but it created a problem for Christ as well. His swelling throng of followers caught the attention of the elite Jewish religionists, who began justifiably suspecting Christ of being a more potentially threatening insurrectionist than John was. Understand that the fact of John also being a messianic figure had automatically made him a target of insurrectionist suspicions (and we will be looking at evidence that he indeed was an insurrectionist, like Christ). But anyway, as Christ began to emerge as a greater possible threat, he felt compelled to go into hiding for a time, back to his favorite refuge—the terrorist haven of Galilee, as we see from this scripture: “Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John....So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.” - John 4:1, 3.

It was not long before John wound up in prison, supposedly for angering Herod by speaking out against his illicit sex life. But what if Jesus, behind the scenes, and with some help from his wealthy and influential friends in Galilee, actually arranged for John to be locked up, sensing that John was jealous of him and / or getting in his way? This would explain why Jesus never did or said anything on John’s behalf, to help get him released, or at least to prevent him from being beheaded. Quite shockingly, Jesus had a complete lack of concern for John’s plight, never even having paid him a visit. 

John was seemingly struggling at this time with an inner conflict, vacillating back and forth between, on the one hand, not wanting to harbor doubts about Christ being the kingly messiah, and on the other hand, thinking that he might be a fraud and a traitor.

The very fact that John still had his own disciples at this point is very telling. Why did he not inform them that they needed to be following Jesus by this time, if Jesus was the all-in-one, singular messiah? Why, instead, was he sending his followers to ask Christ who he was? Obviously John did not see himself as the one sent to pave the way for Christ. He saw himself, instead, as the priestly messiah, and Christ, once again, as (at least potentially) the kingly messiah.

After Jesus told John’s disciples to relay the message that he assuredly was the “promised one,” based on the “miracles” he was performing, he said this to those standing around: “…what did you go out [in the wilderness] to see [when you went to hear John the Baptist preach]? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written: ‘I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’” - Matthew 11:9, 10. Jesus was playing it up big here, acting as though he was lavishing John with praise, but at the same time diminishing his role as simply a messenger whose job was to clear the path for someone of much greater importance—himself. Just look what Jesus said in John 5:36: “I have testimony weightier than that of John.” Christ was here aiming to move people away from the idea of two messiahs, and replace it with the concept of only one, all-encompassing messiah. He was hoping, in the process, to pick up most, if not all, of John’s disciples. 

The gospel authors (or later editors) made it out like John actually wanted Christ to be exalted above himself, having him say things like “He [Christ] must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30) and “…the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie” (John 1:27). But it seems likely that John never made such comments. After all, John, as the priestly messianic figure, was supposed to have been superior to his messianic partner. So these comments ascribed to John must have been added to hide the rivalry that was going on behind the scenes between John and Christ. It was not John, but Christ, along with Christ’s disciples, who wanted John pushed in the background, with Christ taking center stage.

Another statement attached to John that he probably never voiced is one we looked at a short time ago where, addressing Jesus, he allegedly said: “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” - Matthew 3:14. The reason for these words being placed in John’s mouth was the same as for the last examples we just looked at—to hide John’s and Christ’s dispute. 

 Two more statements falsely attributed to John the Baptist are as follows:

• “I am not the messiah.” - John 1:20.
• “I am not the Messiah but am sent ahead of him.” - John 3:28.

These lines, also, were obviously later inserted to conceal the reality that there were originally two messianic figures, as well as to hide Christ’s initial subordinate position in relation to John.

It is of profound importance to note that it was only after John was put in prison—advantageously out of the way—that Jesus began his messianic ministry. And where did he commence it? Right in the insurrectionist haven of Galilee, as we read in Mark 1:14: “After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God.” Is not this timing just a little too convenient? It was only at this point that Christ felt confident to begin proclaiming bold and self-exalting things like: 

• “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” 
• “No man comes unto the father but by me.”
• “Ye are my disciples if you do whatsoever I command you.” 

If John—Christ’s competition—was still in the picture, there is no way that Christ would have spoken so forcefully and arrogantly in public like this.

Matthew 14:13 provides us with a significant insight surrounding John’s death and Christ’s reaction thereto: “When Jesus heard what had happened [that John was beheaded], he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the towns.” In other words, with John now out of the way, Christ’s next move was to fill the gap left by John’s absence. And what better way to do that than to retreat to a private spot so he could speak more openly and forcefully, without attracting unwanted attention from the Jewish leaders.

Turning back the clock a bit in our story: Not only had there been contention between John and Christ, but there was also contention between the two camps of disciples of Jesus and John, as we now will document.

John the Baptist and his disciples began to see Christ and his disciples as being less and less like their own selves, and more and more like the hypocrites that they really were. The next passage serves as a good indicator of the striking irreconcilable differences that existed between these two camps: “They [the Jewish leaders] said to him [Jesus], ‘John’s disciples often fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours go on eating and drinking.’” - Luke 5:33. Furthermore, Matthew 9:14 has John’s disciples asking Jesus: “How is it that we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?” Do you not see the gaping chasm that had developed between these two messianic figures and their recruits?

Luke 3:15 informs us that John’s disciples, along with others who were gathered near to hear John preach, began to reason that John himself might very well be the messiah (the priestly messiah, anyway): “The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Messiah.” Why would they have wondered this if John was supposed to be leading them to Jesus as the one and only messiah?

As time marched forward, John’s closest core-group of followers never showed any sign of ever breaking ranks with John to follow Jesus. This further shows that John was not serving the function of a trailblazer for Christ. Not only did John’s closest disciples give no hint of rallying behind Christ, but they actually came into conflict with him, as we see from John 3:25, 26: “An argument developed between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing. They came to John and said to him, ‘Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—ook, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him.’” What we have here is a clear sign of jealousy on the part of John’s disciples over Christ gathering a larger following. They were viewing Christ as competition for their own messianic leader. Such sentiments should never have been expressed by them if John was supposedly “preparing the way” for Christ. No wonder we have statements like this in the apocryphal PseudoClementine Recognitions: “Yea, some even of the disciples of John [the Baptist], who seemed to be great ones, have separated themselves from the people, and proclaimed their own master [John] as the Christ.” 

Another point that catches our attention from the John 3 passage cited above is the vagueness with which John’s disciples made reference to Christ, merely calling him “a certain Jew,” “that man who was with you [John] on the other side of the Jordan,” and “the one you [John] testified about.” These designations further support our thesis that John the Baptist was not leading his disciples to follow Christ. For here we see that they did not even know Christ’s name, let alone the central position that he was supposed to have held.

When we read further in the New Testament, we discover that John’s diehard disciples never disbanded, even after his death, and they were, for the most part, entirely ignorant of Jesus and his claim to be the messiah. Notice what we read in the book of Acts: “While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples [of John the Baptist] and asked them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’ They answered, ‘No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.’ So Paul asked, ‘Then what baptism did you receive?’ ‘John’s baptism,’ they replied. Paul said, ‘John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.’ On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied” (19:1-6). They did not even know that there was an alleged entity called the “Holy Spirit”? Realize that John the Baptist is supposed to have told his disciples that Jesus would later come to baptize them with the Holy Spirit, as we read in Matthew 3:11: “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I….He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” So how is it that John’s disciples, in Acts 19, did not know anything about the Holy Spirit, when they were allegedly told by John that Christ would baptize them with this Spirit? We have here yet more proof that John did not say a lot of the things ascribed to him in the gospels.

The puzzle of the ignorance of John’s disciples regarding the Holy Spirit is compounded even further when we consider that an angel assumedly told John’s mother Elizabeth, before his birth: “…he [John] will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.” - Luke 1:15. How could John have been filled with the Holy Spirit, and before birth at that, yet never inform his disciples about that same Spirit? Anyway, did you catch how Paul, in Acts 19, had to tell John’s disciples to believe in the one (meaning Christ) who came after John? Why did John not tell them about Christ already? How could it be said that John’s mission was to “prepare the way” for Christ when he obviously did no such thing? These discrepancies can only be accounted for when we accept the notion that John, like Christ, was not the person that centuries of Christian propaganda have made him out to be.

As we just saw from Acts 19, as well as another passage we cited earlier (John 1:35-37), there were at least a few of John’s disciples that changed course and decided to follow Christ. However, they were the exception, and not the rule. It so happens that, till this day, there still exists a group of people in the Middle East (modern-day Iraq) who exclusively follow John the Baptist, known as the Mandeans. They must be the remnants of John’s original flock, who accepted him and him alone as the messiah, and never (for the most part) came to terms with the claim of Jesus to be such. This group has their own gospel—The Mandean Book of John—that contains an entirely different portrayal of John and Christ which, for all we know, might be a far more historically accurate rendering than what is found in the canonical gospels. Here is one particularly enlightening passage from this text: “Jesus…came to the bank of the Jordan and said to John: ‘Baptize me with your baptism, by the name which you pronounce, pronounce over me. If I become your disciple, I will mention you in my written decree. If I do not become your disciple, erase my name from your scroll.’ John spoke to Jesus Christ in Jerusalem, and said, ‘You lied to the Jews and you have deceived the men, the priests. You cut the seed from men and childbirth and pregnancy from women. You loosed the Sabbath that Moses ordained.’” John apparently really did come to not only doubt Christ, but to reject him altogether as a deceiver. 

This same passage then goes on to further quote John the Baptist as making these comments to Jesus: “‘In Jerusalem you lied to them with horns and sounded tooting with a trumpet.’ Jesus Christ said to John in Jerusalem, ‘If I lied to the Jews, let flaming fire consume me. If I deceived the men, the priests, may I die two deaths in one. If I cut off the seed from men, may I not pass to the great day of the end. If I cut off childbirth and pregnancy from women, may a judge be established in my presence. If I loosed the Sabbath, let flaming fire consume me. If I lied to the Jews, let my path be through thistle and thorn. If I sounded with a tooting trumpet, let my eyes not fall on Abatur. You, baptize me with your baptism, from the name that you pronounce, pronounce upon me. If I become a disciple, I will mention myself in my written decree. If I do not become a disciple, erase my name from your scroll.’” Here we are given the clear impression that Jesus, at least initially, was seeking to be a disciple of John, and was indeed subservient to him. We also gather from this that John was not impressed with Christ’s tactics.

If Christ, in the beginning, had truly aspired to be a disciple of John, we would expect John to have exerted an influence on Christ’s later teachings. And this is just what we find. For example, notice what Luke 11:1 has to say: “He [Jesus] was praying in a certain place, and when he had finished, one of his disciples said to him, ‘Lord, teach us how to pray, just as John taught his disciples.’” In response, Jesus cited “The Lord’s Prayer” back to them. But why would he have done this in response to a request to teach prayer “just as John taught his disciples,” unless Jesus had learned this very prayer from John himself, when he was one of John’s acolytes? Thus, should this prayer not instead be called “John’s Prayer,” instead of “The Lord’s Prayer”? 

Along with borrowing “The Lord’s Prayer” from John, Christ had also repeated several expressions that he clearly picked up from John. Here are some examples:

•  “But when he [John the Baptist] saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, ‘O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?’” - Matthew 3:7.

Jesus later used this same phrase, directing it at the selfsame crowd: “O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” - Matthew 12:34. And again he said to this same group in Matthew 23:33: “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”

• John was the first in the gospels to preach the soon-coming “kingdom of heaven,” presaged by a warning to repent: “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea. And saying, ‘Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’” - Matthew 3:1, 2. After John was put in prison, Jesus began to preach the exact same message, in verbatim fashion: “From that time [when John was locked away] Jesus began to preach, and to say, ‘Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’” - Matthew 4:17. Notice the insurrectionist connotations in this statement, by the way—“the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” This shows that both of these individuals were prepping the people for the coming messianic reign. 
• In Matthew 3:10 John stated: “...every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and cast into the fire.” The good student that he was, Jesus also proclaimed: “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” - Matthew 7:19. This message also reeks of insurrectionism, of course.

Josephus made several references to John the Baptist in his writings, which collectively indicate that this individual was far more of a significant figure in the first century than what the New Testament would have us believe. But one particular reference that Josephus made to John is worth noting here, since it states that the real reason for his death was a fear that he might set off a rebellion (or insurrection). The reference in question is from Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, where he wrote: “Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or inspired] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure to him.” Was this destruction of Herod’s army truly the result of some of John’s dedicated followers conducting an uprising in retaliation for Herod executing John? In any case, we have here the ultimate confirmation that John, just like Christ, was a dedicated insurrectionist.

If this story from Josephus is accurate, then perhaps Christ personally had nothing to do with John’s death (although he would surely have deemed it a most convenient occurrence). At the same time, we might imagine that Christ helped to egg on John’s demise, not only because he sought to be free from competition over the claim of the title of “messiah,” but because he wanted to carry out his insurrectionist aims in his own way, and in his own time. John undoubtedly had his own ideas about when and how such an effort should be undertaken, which would have been yet another area where these two messianic figures parted ways, perhaps vehemently so. 

Baptism and Receiving the Holy Spirit

Earlier we discussed some of John the Baptist’s disciples getting re-baptized because they had not received the Holy Spirit, and in fact did not even know what the Holy Spirit was. As strange as this story is, the Bible’s teaching on how and when a believer is supposed to “receive the Holy Spirit” is even more strange, adding yet another piece to the jigsaw puzzle of biblical confusion. As you will recall, in the Acts 19 account of John’s disciples getting re-baptized, it was stated by Paul that their first baptism by John was allegedly only a “baptism of repentance,” and that they needed a second baptism, so that they could receive the Holy Spirit. This baptism, said Paul, was to be performed “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” after which time the Spirit fell on them as Paul laid his hands on them. This is mostly consistent (minus the laying on of hands part) with what we find in Acts 2:38, where Peter said: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” So the message seems clear enough: Be baptized in the name of Jesus, and then the Holy Spirit is given to the believer (with or without the laying on of hands). But this was not the case in the story of Simon Magus, as recorded in Acts chapter 8. Here we find out that a bunch of Samaritans, along with Simon, were baptized. But then notice what it says in verses 14-17: “When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” Do you see the massive, in-your-face problem here? One minute we are given the impression that being baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus” was a prerequisite to receiving the Holy Spirit. But then we find that having “simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” did not result in receiving the Spirit at all, but that Peter and John had to first pray and then lay their hands on the baptized believers before the Spirit could be received. What kind of garbage is this?

 Give your head a moment to stop spinning, and then consider another dizzying passage regarding how the Holy Spirit is supposed to be received, as recorded in Luke 11:13, where Jesus said: “If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” So now a person needs only to ask for the Spirit in order to receive it, without any mention of baptism being required—whether in Jesus’ name or not (to say nothing of any need for the laying on of hands or the petitioning prayer of a “certified” believer). 

In Ephesians 1:13 Paul made matters even more complicated by saying that “…after…ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.” So, is merely believing enough to receive the Spirit? What a hopelessly beguiling mess.