Q1. Hassling John the Baptist

[Lisema Ralitsoele]

Q1. (John 1:19-23) Why do you think John the Baptist was being hassled by the religious leaders from Jerusalem?

• John the Baptist was a Nazarene marked for God’s service. His purpose was to announce the coming of Jesus the Savior, and he did this with such authority that the people came to him in the wilderness in great numbers. The leaders in Jerusalem, the Priests and the Pharisees, were naturally worried about this new kid in the wilderness who was threatening their power base. They also had ostensibly to verify the legality of his movement and to check out his CV. What were they afraid of? They were afraid that if unchecked, the growing popularity of John might evolve into an uncontrollable movement. There had been no prophet for a long time, and John spoke like a prophet so much that some people understood him to be the Messiah. How did John understand his own mission? John understood his mission to be to proclaim that the Kingdom of God is at hand, get people to repent and to baptize them for the forgiveness of sins. How much conflict do you think could be expected from John's mission? Considerable conflict could reasonably be expected because in Scripture there already was mention by Moses and Isaiah, of the coming of the Prophet, Elijah and the Messiah. That’s why people could need clarification as to who John really was.

[brianthedisciple]

Q1. (John 1:19-23)

Why do you think John the Baptist was being hassled by the religious leaders from Jerusalem?

• Possibly because he was drawing large crowds and the people were gravitating to him instead of them
• John was calling the religious leaders out because of their sins and hypocrisy

What were they afraid of?

Losing power

How did John understand his own mission?

His job was to prepare the people to receive the soon coming messiah

How much conflict do you think could be expected from John’s mission?

Anytime people are threatened, they are capable of doing just about anything to maintain their power and position.

[Raymond Soriano]

Q1. (John 1:19-23) Why do you think John the Baptist was being hassled by the religious leaders from Jerusalem? What were they afraid of? 

The religious leaders were commissioned by the Roman government to interrogate John the Baptist about the coming of the Messiah, who will establish his Kingdom on earth. The Roman government was threatened at the coming of the Messiah because it was prophesied that the Messiah would free the Israelite from the oppression of the enemy.

How did John understand his own mission? 

John understood his mission, which is to prepare the way for the coming of the Lord, by preaching about repentance from sin and baptizing the people.

How much conflict do you think could be expected from John’s mission?

There could be confusion that John the Baptist might consider the Messiah because he was preaching about the repentance from sin and he was baptizing the people, which Jesus was commissioned to do the same, but John the Baptist confessed that he is not the Messiah and his mission was only to prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah.

[Lousand1]

On 8/7/2014 at 2:27 PM, Pastor Ralph said:

Q1. (John 1:19-23) Why do you think John the Baptist was being hassled by the religious leaders from Jerusalem? What were they afraid of? How did John understand his own mission? How much conflict do you think could be expected from John’s mission?

John seems to think of himself as a lowly servant with a mission.He has been sent to prepare the way for Jesus. The religious leaders were concerned with the crowd he had as a following. Would John turn the people away from their teachings. Would John's ministry affect the Temple and take away from the vendors, if John was bapizing for the remission of sins. People would no longer need to buy peace offerings.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The reason why he was hassled by the religious leaders in Jerusalem is because he wasn't part of the status quo.  John the Baptist had no time to waste with a corrupt priesthood.   From my studies, even the Essenes were at odds with Jerusalem.

The authorities were hostile to John the Baptist. The whole Gospel of St John is a trial of Jesus Christ by the leaders of the people.  John is the first trial witness.  He is the Isaian voice in the wilderness,; he has an ordained mission to baptize in order to prepare the way for a greater One to follow.  John the Baptist sole concern was to proclaim that Jesus Christ is the Word incarnate perpetually I dwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Much conflict to be expected.  First half of the Gospel of John (1:1--12:50), we see the rejection of Christ by darkness and the Jewish authorities sum up thar rejection (John 1:9-11).   Yet we see that in the second half of John's Gospel, the new believers would be the new creation yo replace the old which rejected Christ.  The Father has given to Christ the new 'his own., a predestined elect of Yahweh (John 1:13).

 

[Irmela]

John 1:19-23) Why do you think John the Baptist was being hassled by the religious leaders from Jerusalem?

Jerusalem was the hub of the Jewish  lifestyle. It was here where the temple was, where the 'cream' of the religious leaders gathered. It was here where the sacrifices were made etc. 

Now John came out in the open. Living in the desert. Baptizing those of the people who took hold of what he was preaching about and who changed their lifestyle by setting aside their sins. There was a great many who followed John. 

The religious leaders from Jerusalem were afraid of losing out in popularity and that the people would no longer see the need to come to the temple to do the sacrifices for sins. They would lose out financially with their temple taxes and money-changers etc. 

What were they afraid of?

See above. 

I guess they were also afraid of the Romans in case there was suddenly a case of disgruntled, disharmony among the crowds gathered around John. He did not believe in mincing his words, but spoke the truth. He called things what they were. 

Brood of vipers

White washed sepulchers

How did John understand his own mission?

John understood that he was not the Messiah. He made that very very clear. He was THE VOICE OF THE ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, " MAKE STRAIGHT THE WAY OF ADONAI". 

He was preparing the way for the coming of the Messiah. 

How much conflict do you think could be expected from John's mission?

Those who were not prepared to change, who were blinded, gave him much opposition and conflict. 

The Romans also did not understand that he was proclaiming the coming of the Messiah whose aim was not to overthrow them, but to overthrow the enemy of the soul, satan. 

[Sparrow12Seven]

Q1. (John 1:19-23) Why do you think John the Baptist was being hassled by the religious leaders from Jerusalem? What were they afraid of? How did John understand his own mission? How much conflict do you think could be expected from John's mission?

I.  I Believe John the Baptist was being hassled by religious leaders because he was teaching outside of Jerusalem (not under the direction of the religious leaders there), and many people were coming to him to hear him preach and to be baptized. He was becoming famous so the leaders decided they had to find out who he was.  I think they were jealous of John the Baptist, too.

II.  I think they were afraid that God was making a move without them, he wasn't afraid to point out sin, and that the people would begin following him instead of them.

III.  John clearly understood his own mission to be to prepare the hearts of God’s people to receive their Messiah, and to point Him out to them. Further ahead in his Gospel, John quotes John the Baptist, 

John 1:30-34
“30This is the One I told you about: ‘After me comes a man who has surpassed me, because He existed before me.’ 31I didn’t know Him, but I came baptizing with water so He might be revealed to Israel.” 32And John testified, “I watched the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He rested on Him.cb 33I didn’t know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The One you see the Spirit descending and resting on — He is the One who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34I have seen and testified that He is the Son of God! ”

IV.  I believe John would have expected nothing less than what his ultimate fate turned out to be.  I believe he knew how dangerous the Jewish leaders could be when they were threatened.  Although it was Herod and not the High Priest that imprisoned and beheaded him, I think he knew they would not be receptive to his message and ministry, especially as he knew he must call out the Pharisees and Sadducees as vipers and demand their repentance from relying on birth and traditions of men to save them rather than obedience to God.
 

[Krissi]

John threatened the existing political order; he was a figure who upset the delicate balance of power existing in Jerusalem and its surrounding areas. Existing authorities/leaders thus felt they had to keep John within controllable bounds, as well as make certain that John supported them and did not usurp their authority. The religious authorities had instilled fear in the populace to keep them in a position of servile submission; their goal was to make certain their own precarious political position would NOT be challenged.

John had a mesmerizing effect on audiences. Furthermore, his simple message and primitive clothing made him appear like a mysterious Old Testament prophet or messenger from God Himself. When John answered questions about his identity, he quoted from Isaiah -- this was a very provocative thing to do. John could have just used his own words to describe himself but chose to sacralize his social function by insinuating he was either Isaiah himself or a contemporary copy of Isaiah. John's otherworldly behavior and strange words attracted ordinary men and women starved for his message of preparing the way for a new king.

There are times in history when people become collectively ripened for change,. At this time, they are vulnerable to a powerful and transforming figure either religious or autocratic.

The line between church and state -- secular and religious power – was quite thin in Israel. Religious leaders at that time had the political function of validating the actions of political authority. In exchange, political leaders gave religious leaders privileged status and limited power in society.

In the contemporary West, we tend to think of the government as secular and church as “sacred.” We assume that their functions in society do not overlap. This assumption is unusual. In the past, political leaders worked in a system which included a privileged/state church which supported the state. For example, India has a program called Hindutva – the establishment of Hinduism as a state-sponsored and encouraged religion; Russia has Eastern Orthodoxy as a state religion; the now-secular European countries formerly had state churches; and Catholicism is now an odd political-like enclave within Italy.

 My point is that for most of human history, religious and political power were conjoined. The jury is out on the wisdom of our “lively experiment” -- having a disestablished church and wholly secular state. This set-up in the west seems to be failing. A secular state enforces secularism. People may need more than this.

Perhaps a country or nation needs an established religion, a set of moral boundaries supported by an empowered church?