Who Was John Again?

'
Background
After Jesus informed us that the Kingdom of God was coming soon (sometime before everyone to whom He was speaking had died), and after Jesus briefly turned into the one-man light show, known as the Transfiguration, a couple of the Gospels take a moment to remind us just who John the Baptist was.

Who Was John Again?

There are those who theorize that the Synoptic Gospels were created in a succession, usually starting with Mark, followed by Matthew, followed by Luke, and that each one drew on its predecessor(s) for resource material. I do not think that it is quite that simple, because I suspect that the versions which were shared were earlier revisions, a little different than how we find today. Yet to my (imperfect) knowledge, other than versions of Mark which end without anyone seeing Jesus resurrected (Mark 16:9-20), there are no extant early copies to prove my theory.

In the following study, we will find what appears to be evidence of progressive assembly. As I have pointed out in prior studies, here we again will see indirect evidence of Matthew's aggregation, and direct evidence of Luke's editing skills. So let us begin with the alleged primary source, Mark.

Right after the Transfiguration, Mark 9:11-13 records this:

And [Peter, James, and John] asked [Jesus], "Why do the Teachers of the Law say that Elijah must come first?"
Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected? But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him." NIV

So in Mark's version, the Disciples are ignorant of the prophesy about Elijah. Jesus replying that Elijah had come, and that "they" did what they wished to him is a tacit reference to John the Baptist, who was recently beheaded in the storyline, but readers of Mark and the Disciples have to connect those dots themselves.

In the middle, there is that awkward rhetorical question posed by Jesus, about the "Son of Man" suffering and being rejected. This is just to say; yes, Elijah came, just as it was written, and I (Jesus) will be rejected, just as it is also written; the prophesies cannot be broken.

Now, let us move on to the parallel passage of Matthew 17:10-13, where we find:

The Disciples asked Him, "Why then do the Teachers of the Law say that Elijah must come first?"
Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." Then the disciples understood that He was talking to them about John the Baptist. NIV

There are many interesting differences in Matthew's account, but the major two are a refinement in Jesus' reply (getting rid of the awkward rhetorical question and emphasizing the similar treatment Jesus would experience) and the explicit mention that John the Baptist was Elijah. It was then that these Disciples realized John the Baptist was Elijah.

Now, quickly on to Luke, and quick it will be, because Luke edited out this snippet of dialog from his Gospel. Why would he do that?

To answer that question, we have to step back in Gospel-time. This is the closest, and the only time, that Mark ever approaches referring to John the Baptist as Elijah. However, both Matthew and Luke have explicit references to John the Baptist being Elijah earlier in the storyline which are not found in Mark. Their shared material, excluded from Mark, begins with John the Baptist questioning if Jesus was the Messiah, which then prompts Jesus to explain how John the Baptist was the preparatory agent prophesied by Malachi, the one who Malachi would later call (and to whom Jesus would refer as) Elijah.

Here is where it gets interesting. In Matthew's version, that earlier extra material, where Jesus ultimately declares that John the Baptist is Elijah, happened while the Disciples were away on their First Mission, so it kind of makes some sense that they would not have understood about the prophesy of Elijah coming first or John the Baptist's alleged real identity until the moment of this post-Transfiguration discussion.

However, in Luke's version, John the Baptist questioned Jesus' Messiah status before the Disciples had gone on their First Mission, meaning that they were all present when Jesus explained that John the Baptist was Elijah. So Luke had to edit out this conversation which took place after the Transfiguration in order to remain internally consistent in his Gospel, because it would have been illogical for the Disciples to ask such a question if they had already heard Jesus explain John the Baptist's position in prophesy, but that potential error which he edited out is now made manifest when looking at the other Gospels.

We find that Matthew was willing to make refinements in the language for clarity. However, Luke went much further in his changes, preserving the chronologically earlier, more detailed reference to John the Baptist being Elijah while dropping out this post-Transfiguration discussion because it conflicted with his own version of the legend's timeline.

I have heard some believers claim that, when compared against Matthew and Mark, Luke really got the timeline correct. Well, if so, he did it at the abuse and expense of the veracity of those prior accounts.

Beheading a Legend

'
Background
Recently in our studies, Jesus was rejected in His hometown, and John had Jesus deliver convoluted truth while condemning some Pharisees. The event in the following study happens after the hometown rejection, according to Matthew that is.

Beheading a Legend

It is difficult to come up with a good, believable story. If you focus too much on the plot, the plausibility of the story can suffer as unreasoned details strike against the credibility of the tale. Take the beheading of John the Baptist, for example.

Matthew 14:1-12 and Mark 6:14-29 similarly record the story: King Herod had put John the Baptist in jail because John the Baptist had kept telling Herod that he should not have married Herodias, Herod's brother's wife. On Herod's birthday, the daughter of Herodias danced for Herod. She was such a good dancer that Herod promised to give her whatever she wanted. Her mother told her to ask for the head of John the Baptist on a platter. Herod, begrudgingly bound by his promise, had John the Baptist beheaded. Now, Herod thinks that a local miracle worker (Jesus) is John the Baptist who has come back from the dead.

It is a good story, for sure, but it is not very believable. Why? Well, let us take a look at some of the details.

The first, and possibly weakest, objection is the simple question of who witnessed this event? Obviously, none of Jesus' disciples were there, and it is unlikely that John the Baptist's followers were invited to Herod's birthday party either. Yet if such a spectacle did really happen, I am sure that the rumors would have spread quickly, so this episode could have been relayed by word of mouth. That can work, but Mark 6:22-25 records both public dialog between the king and the daughter and private dialog between the daughter and her mother. To have such detail suggests embellishment at best, or downright fiction at worst.

Next, consider why John the Baptist was in jail. Matthew 14:3-4 and Mark 6:17-18 both say that he was arrested because he had been telling Herod (repeatedly and in person) that his marriage to Herodias was sinful. This is certainly possible, but very unlikely. Herod was a king living in a palace. John the Baptist was supposedly a prophet preaching in the desert in order to fulfill prophesy (Matthew 3:1-3, Mark 1:2-4, Luke 3:1-6, John 1:23). Why would Herod travel out to the desert to see John the Baptist, repeatedly, when John the Baptist kept accusing Herod of having a sinful marriage? Flavius Josephus records a more believable version of history, recording that Herod had John the Baptist killed because the people flocked to John the Baptist like a leader, and Herod was concerned that he might start a rebellion.

Next, consider the wild promise Herod made to this dancing girl. Matthew 14:6-7 suggests that, because of her dancing, Herod promised to give her anything she asked for. This might seem like hyperbole, and that Herod had not intention of giving her anything she wanted. But with the qualifier of “up to half of my kingdom” in Mark 6:22-23, it does seem that Herod had full intention of granting this girl nearly any desire. Just for that one dance. One dance. Not a promise to become his love slave, his concubine, his next wife, etc. Not even a promise for her to “keep him company” later that evening. It was just one dance, and the dance was already done. For Herod to give such a rich and boundless offering for the sake of some temporary and already complete entertainment seems highly unlikely.

Perhaps it is for these reasons that Luke edited out these questionable details from his version of the story. In Luke 9:7-9, you find a much more abbreviated tale where Herod had heard of the activities of Jesus and wondered who this was, because he had beheaded John the Baptist and some other people thought it was perhaps the resurrected John the Baptist. Very limited hearsay testimony. No strange imprisonment. No dancing girl. No silly oath.

Yet Luke does not escape all of the oddity seen in Matthew and Mark. Matthew 14:1-2, Mark 6:14-16, and Luke 9:7-9 show that Herod puzzled about who Jesus may be. Matthew and Mark explicitly, and Luke implicitly, show that Herod was thinking that this may be John the Baptist resurrected. That would be plausible if Herod was just some guy on the street, but Herod, as king, would have access to people who report the news to him (which is kind of important as a king). People with eyewitness accounts would be sharing what Jesus was doing, what His back story was, and what he looked like (as in He looks different from John the Baptist and is noticeably missing the scars of a beheading).

Finally, we will close out with yet another significant oddity. This is one point where the storyline of the Synoptic Gospels merge again. After this note about the beheading, all three continue on to the story of Jesus feeding the 5000 men.

Before these three Gospels come together, Mark and Luke had already synchronized with the sending of the Twelve Apostles on their first mission. So for Mark and Luke, the events which Herod hears about is (presumably) in relation to the work of Jesus and the Apostles on this mission. And right after this tale of beheading, the Apostles return to report to Jesus what they had accomplished on their mission (Mark 6:30, Luke 9:10).

Matthew, on the other hand, records Jesus' hometown rejection immediately prior to this, which makes Herod's inquisitiveness regarding Jesus seem misplaced. Yet it becomes even more anachronistic as Matthew's story continues. Matthew 14:12 records that right after John the Baptist was beheaded, John the Baptist's disciples told Jesus what had happened. Matthew 14:13 states:

When Jesus heard what had happened [regarding John the Baptist's beheading], He withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed Him on foot from the towns. NIV

This feeds right into the feeding of the 5000 men, as they were the crowds who were supposedly following Jesus.

Did you catch the time loop? Herod thinks some teacher/miracle worker is possibly John the Baptist resurrected, implying that some time and events had passed since the beheading. Yet as the beheading story, and the rest of Matthew, continues, it reads as though the beheading had just happened, to which Jesus reacts by looking for a little alone time. Quite a tangled web.

Elijah-On

'
Background
Jesus sent the Twelve Apostles on a mission while He continued to teach and perform miracles in Galilee. This prompted John the Baptist to ask if Jesus was really the Messiah. After proving His powers to John the Baptist's messengers, Jesus went on to explain that John the Baptist is the prophet spoken of in prophesy who was to prepare the way for God.

Elijah-On

Picture this: You are in a restaurant for breakfast, and you order a glass of fresh-squeezed orange juice because you had heard that this place had amazing orange juice, perfectly sweet and tangy, and extra high in vitamin C too! When the waiter returns, he sets down a single-serve bottle of apple juice. When you ask the waiter about it, his reply is “this is the juice which was to come.” Something is obviously not right. We will see a similar case of mistaken identity in this study of the Bible.

After Jesus spoke about just how wonderful John the Baptist was, He dropped some peculiar verbiage about how since John the Baptist had been active, people were forcing their way into the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 11:12, Luke 16:16). It is hard to know the exact meaning here, but I think it may be best rendered like this: “Since people have started learning about the Kingdom of Heaven, they are doing everything they can to ensure that they get into it.” The words speak of a much more dramatic change than simply believing something new, and may also imply a dire urgency to make such a conversion, as if the end of the world was nigh.

Then, much like the previous tying of John the Baptist to prophesy, in Matthew 11:13-14 Jesus goes one step further to try to remove all doubt:

“For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John[ the Baptist]. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.” NIV

You should know that in the original Greek text, “he is the Elijah” is actually rendered “he Elias.” Elias is another name for Elijah, so there are no problems there. The words “is” and “the” were added by interpreters. The “is” is no big change, as that state of being Elijah is implicit. However, the “the” is a major change found in the New International Version (NIV), and a dishonest one at that. It is dishonest both because the Greek language had a definite article which would have been put there if it was needed to be accurate, and because it changes the meaning to suggest that John the Baptist is not actually Elijah, but rather a prophet similar to Elijah, thereby implying that that was the original intent of the prophesy from Malachi 4:5.

Enough quibbling about words. Who was John the Baptist supposed to be, or be like? Who was Elijah? He was only one of the greatest prophets EVER! Check this out:

Elijah first appears in the Bible in 1 Kings 17, and he makes an impressive entrance! In 1 Kings 17:1, God uses Elijah to announce a three year drought, and gives Elijah the power to make it rain on command during that drought. Being a rather unpopular announcement, God directs Elijah where to hide, and has ravens bring him meat and bread (1 Kings 17:2-6)!

After the water source dried up in the hiding spot, God directed Elijah to stay with a widow and her son. The widow said that they did not have enough flour and oil for themselves, let alone Elijah. So Elijah reveals to her that God has promised to keep her flour and oil jars full throughout the drought. And presto! They had unlimited flour and oil (1 Kings 17:7-16).

When the widow's son later became deathly ill and died, she accused Elijah of reminding her of her sins and killing her son! Elijah, knowing that God caused all death, questioned God as to why He would kill this widow's son when she was hosting Elijah, and asked God to bring the child back to life. God God must have realized that the situation was not a fair, and He did want to support Elijah, so He brought the widow's son back to life. Then the widow knew that Elijah was a man of God for sure (1 Kings 17:17-24).

In the time of Elijah, Ahab was king of Israel. (This is not to be confused with the entire Promised Land. There had been a schism which split the land into two kingdoms; Israel/Samaria and Judah.) Ahab was pretty evil in God's eyes, which in no small part was due to him marrying Jezebel and converting to Baal worship (1 Kings 16:29-32).

Anyway, God commanded Elijah to confront King Ahab, and so Elijah went to Ahab and told him that the king himself has caused great trouble to fall on Israel for promoting Baal worship. He tells the king to summon all of the prophets of Baal and Asherah to a showdown on Mount Carmel. Amazingly, the king summons them without protest (1 Kings 18:1-21).

Once all of the prophets are at Mount Carmel, Elijah challenged them to prove that their god was real with a contest. They would prepare a bull for an offering, and Elijah would do the same. Then they would each call for their god to consume the offering with fire. The god who does this would be proven to be the real God. The other prophets agreed. They prepared their bull, and solicited Baal to torch the chopped carcass. After about half a day without an answer, Elijah taunts them, telling them that they should shout louder in case their god is busy or sleeping. After a full day without an answer from Baal, Elijah ups the stakes. He prepared a fire pit with wood, lined it with stones, put his bull pieces on the wood, and then had the prophets of Baal pour water on his offering until the fire pit was flooded. At the appropriate time, Elijah stepped forward and prayed to God to consume this sacrifice to convert the hearts of the people of Israel to worship God again. With that, fire pours down from the sky, consuming the bull, the wood, the water, and even the stones lining the pit! The people repented. Flush with victory, and with support of the people, Elijah had the prophets of Baal rounded up and slaughtered (1 Kings 18:22-40).

Then, Elijah made it rain, thereby ending the drought (1 Kings 18:41-46).

Jezebel wanted to kill Elijah for slaughtering Baal's prophets. So Elijah fled. God feeds Elijah bread and water (despite Elijah's request just to let him die) until he had enough strength to travel to Mt. Horeb (1 Kings 19:1-9). There, God showed Himself to Elijah, although it is unclear whether or not Elijah actually saw God. After a little discussion, God gives Elijah the task of anointing the next king of Aram, the next king of Israel, and the man who would become Elijah's successor, Elisha. He grabs Elisha first (1 Kings 19:10-21).

Later, Ahab and Jezebel have a man named Naboth killed under false charges in order to take his vineyard. Because of this, God told Elijah to tell Ahab that God says dogs would lick his blood in the same spot that Naboth was killed, Jezebel would be eaten by dogs, and God would kill all of Ahab's lineage. Ahab humbled himself, donned a sackcloth and fasted, and went around meekly. God then told Elijah that because Ahab had humbled himself, He decided that He would wait until Ahab's son was ruler to kill all of Ahab's lineage (1 Kings 21). Ahab later gets killed battle, and dogs lick up his blood as prophesied (1 Kings 22).

Ahab's son Ahaziah took over as king of Israel (a.k.a. Samaria). He had a bad accident, so he sent messengers to the prophets of Baal-Zebub to ask if he would recover. God had Elijah intercept the messengers, and told them to tell the king that he will not get up, but would instead die in his bed because he had consulted Baal-Zebub instead of God. The messengers relayed this, and the king asked who this man was. The messengers replied that he was a man with a garment of hair (or perhaps just a very hairy man) and he had a leather belt. The king recognized him as Elijah (2 Kings 1:1-8).

Ahaziah sends a captain and 50 men to go get Elijah. When they find him on a hill and request that he go with them, Elijah asks God to consume these men with fire, which God does. Ahaziah sends another captain and 50 men to go get Elijah. When they find him on a hill and request that he go with them, Elijah asks God to consume these men with fire, which God does again. Ahaziah sends yet another captain and 50 men to go get Elijah. When they find him on a hill, the captain pleads for Elijah to spare their lives and go with them. Elijah gets a message from God to go with them. When Elijah meets with Ahaziah, he tells him that Ahaziah will die because he wanted to consult with Baal-Zebub. Ahaziah dies without an heir (2 Kings 1:9-18).

At some point in time, Elijah also sent a letter to Jehoram, who was king of Judah at that time. In the letter, Elijah told him that God was very mad at him for how sinful he was, and that God would strike a “heavy blow” to everything of his (including his wives and sons) and that he himself would be afflicted with a festering disease which would cause his bowels to fall out (2 Chronicles 21:12-15).

Closing out the story of Elijah, on his way to being called up into Heaven, God led Elijah to Bethel, Jericho, and finally to the Jordan River. Elisha insisted on going with him despite being told to stay behind 3 times. At the Jordan, Elijah rolled up his cloak and struck the water with it, causing it to part so that Elijah and Elisha could walk across on dry ground. Elijah asked Elisha if there is anything he can do for him before going up to Heaven. Elisha asks for a double portion of Elijah's spirit. Elijah says that will be difficult, but if Elisha sees him after he has gone to Heaven, then it will be so. Then a chariot of fire, with horses of fire, appeared and took Elijah up to Heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2:1-12).

Elijah never died. He just went right up to Heaven, even without the blood of Jesus to wash away the stain of his sins. If he never died, then, it stands to reason, that he could come back at any time (as himself) like what Malachi 4:5 seems to suggest.

OK, so now the time has come to see just how closely John the Baptist resembled Elijah:

	Elijah	John the Baptist
Birth Legend	None	Foretold of by Gabriel (Luke 1:5-25), related to Jesus (Luke 1:36), John leaped in womb upon hearing Mary pregnant with Jesus (Luke 1:39-45), father was mute until John was named (Luke 1:57-80)
Food	Bread and meat brought by divine help, plus normal food	Locusts and honey (Matthew 3:4)
Clothing	Hair garment with leather belt	Hair garment with leather belt (Matthew 3:4)
Miracles Performed	Controlled rain, made never-empty oil and flour jars, resurrected a dead boy, called fire from the sky multiple times, parted the River Jordan, and rode to Heaven on a chariot of fire.	None
Purpose	Confront the wicked leaders of that time	Ready the people for Jesus
Biggest Impact	A showdown with the prophets of Baal, whereby great numbers of people converted back to worshiping God.	Water baptism for the repentance of sins of those who already worship God.
Type of Prophesy	Planned punishment for sins	Call for repentance to avoid the “coming wrath”(Matthew 3:7-10, Luke 3:7-9), identification of Jesus (Matthew 3:11-12, Luke 3:15-17, John 1:29-34)
Men Killed	450 prophets of Baal and over 100 of Ahaziah's soldiers	None
Divine Protection?	Yes	No
Imprisoned	No	Yes
Death	Wanted to die, but God kept him alive. Never died.	Beheaded because of a foolish vow (Matthew 14:1-12, Mark 6:17-29)

Other than their fashion sense and working for God, Elijah and John the Baptist were nothing alike. This certainly makes it difficult to accept Jesus' words that John the Baptist was Elijah, or “the” Elijah for that matter. Elijah was fresh-squeezed orange juice compared to John the Baptist's reconstituted, bottled apple juice.

Have you ever noticed that Elijah sounds a lot like “he lied yeah” all smushed together?

Preparing the Way Out of Context

'
Background
After Jesus sent out the Twelve Apostles on there first mission, He worked alone in Galilee preaching and performing miracles. When John the Baptist heard about this, he sent messengers to ask if Jesus was the prophesied Messiah for which all of the Jews were anxiously waiting. Jesus told them to tell John the Baptist what they had seen Jesus do.

Preparing the Way Out of Context

Context. It is the most useful tool in determining the intended meaning of words in a sentence, or the meaning of a sentence within a .paragraph, or, Biblically speaking, the real meaning of a prophesy. Ripped out of context, a single verse of prophesy can be bent to the will of the quoting authority. Yet if the original context still exists, we can come to the true meaning, as we will in this study.

Matthew 11:7-11 and Luke 7:24-28, in nearly identical wording, record what Jesus began to say after John the Baptist's disciples left. According to Jesus, John the Baptist was a prophet, but not just any prophet. John had a specific purpose. In Matthew 11:10/Luke 7:27 Jesus reveals that purpose:

“[John the Baptist] is the one about whom it is written:
'I will send My messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.'” NIV

Wow! John the Baptist was spoken about in the prophesies! How exciting it must have been for people living in those times, seeing prophesy fulfilled! So if Jesus has identified a specific applicable prophesy, and the specific person attached to that prophesy, it seems that we should be able to look at that prophesy for a match of what happened around the time of Jesus, especially as it pertains to John the Baptist and Jesus. That sounds reasonable, right?

You may remember from a previous study, regarding John the Baptist leading the way for Jesus, that this quote originates from Malachi 3:1. At a length of four brief chapters, Malachi is a small book in the Bible attributed to a prophet by the same name. More importantly, based on both content and structure, the entire book appears to be a contiguous revelation from God through Malachi, with the possible exception of the first five verses. Let us take a closer look into this book.

Malachi 1:1-5 speaks of how God chose Jacob (the Israelites) over Esau (the Edomites). Consequently, God's wrath will forever be against the Edomites, which will prove to the Israelites that God is great.

In Malachi 1:6-14, we find that God is pretty angry with the priests because they are sacrificing crippled and diseased animals to Him. God also reminds us that every place will eventually burn incense and make pure offerings (implicitly animal offerings) to Him because His name will be great among all nations. All nations are to fear God.

Malachi 2:1-9 continues on that theme, with God promising to make the priests despised and humiliated for breaking the covenant that He had made with Levi (Exodus 32:27-29, Numbers 3:5-10), and for not obeying God's Law and showing partiality in the Law's execution. This admonition will come so that the covenant that God had made with Levi can be preserved.

(You caught that, right? God was doing this to preserve the covenant with Levi, or in other words, to preserve the Levitical priesthood! If so, there would be no use for the priest of the order of Melchizedek described in Hebrews 5:5-10, Hebrews 6:19-20, and Hebrews 7)

Now in Malachi 2:10-16, God rebukes the general populous of Judah. In the metaphorical language of marriage, God claims that they are having an adulterous affair with a foreign god while still trying to worship Him. They should stop weeping at the altar over the fact that God no longer accepts their offerings. Their polytheism is the reason God no longer accepts their offerings.

Malachi 2:17 is a “by the way” message from God that He is tired of them complaining that God appears to be pleased with evil-doers, and complaining that there is no justice from Him.

Now, up the line which Jesus (partially) quotes. In Malachi 3:1, God will send a messenger before Him, and then suddenly the God they are seeking will come to His Temple. From the previous context, we remember that the Israelites had been seeking God the altar of the Temple of Jerusalem, and mourning because God had not accept their offerings. God is reassuring them that He will be back there.

Malachi 3:2-4 states that the day when God comes, he will purify the Levites so that God will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness, so that the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem would again be acceptable, just like they had been in the old days. (Line up the bulls and goats!)

Malachi 3:5 says that when God does show up, it will be in judgement of sinners.

All of this is not going to just automatically happen. According to Malachi 3:6-7, God does not change, so if the Israelites will obey His decrees and return to Him, then He will return to them.

How are the Israelites to return to God? In Malachi 3:8-12 God gets them started down the right path by telling them to stop stealing... from God. God has cursed the whole nation because they have not been giving all of the appropriate offerings and tithes which are owed to Him. If only they would give what the Law directs them to give, then God would “throw open the floodgates” of blessings from Heaven (including keeping their crops pest- and rot-free) and make it so that all nations consider their nation blessed.

Then, in Malachi 3:13-18, God provides reassurance for those who are weary of following God's Law without receiving any benefit for their good behavior, while the wicked prosper without punishment. God knows who they are and will spare His loyal followers and bless them. They will again see a distinction the wicked and the righteous. (“Again,” as in like it had been before.)

The message in Malachi 4:1-3 explains that distinction a little more. The day when God shows up, He will consume the wicked like a fire and will help the righteous people trample the wicked ones down.

Malachi 4:4 is a brief reminder to obey God's Law.

Wrapping it all up, in Malachi 4:5-6 God implicitly identifies the messenger from Malachi 3:1 as Elijah. Elijah will turn peoples hearts towards their own families, or else God will strike the land with a curse.

OK, now a quick and concise recap. As you read this, think of whether or not this is applies to Jesus' Salvation and the New Testament story:

God will forever demonstrate His wrath against the Edomites to show the Israelites His great power. God is angry with the priests for sacrificing defective animals, for not fully obeying God's Law, and for showing partiality. God will rebuke the priests with humiliation in order that the Levitical priesthood can be purged of impurity, and then the priesthood promised to the Levites could be continued by righteous Levites.

God is angry with the Israelites for trying to worship idols and God, for saying that God is withholding justice and rewarding the wicked, and for not giving all of the tithes and offerings which they should be giving. If they correct these sins and obey God's Law, then God will return to them. At that time, God will accept their offerings just like He did before and richly bless them. There will come a time when all nations burn incense and make offerings to God.

The day when God returns to the Temple in Jerusalem, He will come with punishment for those who persist as evil-doers, and He will help those who are righteous to take down these wicked people. God will send a messenger, Elijah, ahead of God's re-appearance. Elijah will turn people's hearts to their own families, or else when God returns He will strike the entire land with a curse.

That is the full prophetic context of John the Baptist, at least according to Jesus. At best, you could gleam some loose parallels with the Gospels. John the Baptist did warn about about the coming divine Judgement, which to him seemed imminent, but he is not recorded as saying anything which would turn the hearts of fathers to their own children, nor children's hearts to their fathers. Jesus said you must be ready to forsake your entire family in preference to Him, and Jesus did not appear with a Judgement Day, although He too preached it was imminent. Malachi's prophesy speaks of earthly and temporal reward and judgement, whereas Christianity holds that Jesus' message was about compensation in the afterlife. Far from preserving the covenant God had made with the Levites, Jesus terminates that promise. As opposed to perpetuating the system of burning incense and animal offerings, Jesus supersedes it all. These, and many more incongruous points of this prophesy, are an ill fit.

Is it really any wonder why the Jews expected something other than what Jesus was offering? No, not when you look at the context.

Are You the One?

'
Background
Jesus sent out the Twelve Disciples on their first mission, to convert the Jews, with a lot of instructions. In summarizing those instructions, He reminded them to do good in order to not lose their reward. With those Twelve Apostles gone, Jesus continued on His mission to spread the good word.

Are You the One?

Will the true story of Jesus ever be known? It is unlikely, especially when there are points within each of the four Gospel accounts which disagree with and discredit each of the other Gospel accounts. We will see a shining example of this conflict, and grab one more piece of that puzzling character, John the Baptist. Buckle up, this very detailed study is a bumpy ride.

While the Twelve Apostles were on their first mission, Jesus was busy teaching and preaching in the towns of Galilee (Matthew 11:1). John the Baptist had been put in prison when he angered the ruler, Herod (Luke 3:19-20), but John the Baptist's own disciples were ministering to him and keeping him informed of the events in the world while he was in prison. Those disciples told him about what Jesus was doing (Matthew 11:2), which prompts John the Baptist to send messengers to Jesus to ask, in Matthew 11:3:

“Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?” NIV

If you remember our study of the baptism of Jesus, you may remember that God had opened up Heaven and proclaimed in the hearing of John the Baptist, and others, that Jesus was the Son of God. So this question becomes a bit of an enigma to determine its motivation. The classic Bible commentaries yield a myriad of possible reasons:

• The question was on behalf of John's doubting disciples.
• This was just a tool to better acquaint John's disciples with Jesus.
• Because John was having a lapse of faith in Jesus in prison.
• Because John was getting impatient while in prison waiting for Jesus' promised judgment and deliverance.
• Possibly John was wondering if someone else may be scheduled to bring in the events associated with the Second Coming.
• Because John, like the majority of Jewish scholars at the time, thought that the Messiah would rule a temporal kingdom, and was wondering why He had not yet seized power.

John the Baptist was human, subject to all human faults, so all of these explanations are at least plausible, but they are not likely. You have got to keep in mind John's character according to the Gospels. From within the womb John the Baptist had recognized Jesus (Luke 1:39-45), they had grown up as cousins (Luke 1:36), John had devoted his life in service to God as a prophet while wearing camel hair and eating bugs (Matthew 3:4, Mark 1:6), he recognized his role to prepare the way for God (John 1:23), and he recognized that the one coming after him was worthy of absolute and unquestionable respect (Matthew 3:11, Matthew 3:13-14, Mark 1:7-8, Luke 3:16, John 1:26).

All of that circumstantial evidence could be swept aside in a moment of human weakness, if not for one more tidbit. John 1:29-34 testifies that John the Baptist knew exactly who Jesus was, and what His purpose was. John the Baptist proclaims that Jesus is the Son of God, and that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit and take away the sins of the world. John the Baptist identifies the source of this information as none other than God Himself. To question Jesus, to doubt that Jesus was the one, was to doubt God's own word; an action which simply does not agree with his character.

Now, add to that the passage of John 3:22-36 where John the Baptist rejoices that his mission is now complete, explains that God put everything in Jesus' control, and ultimately explains that Jesus will bring Salvation including eternal life. You have the picture that John the Baptist fully understood that Jesus was here to establish the eternal Kingdom of the afterlife, and that Jesus would do things whatever way that He wanted to do things. This again makes John the Baptist's question unrealistic, and thus makes the accuracy of the Gospels doubtful.

From the skeptical perspective, there is an easier fit for John the Baptist's question than any reason suggested above. What if this episode comes to us from a time which was earlier in the construction of the overall legend of Jesus; a time before John the Baptist was identified as Jesus' cousin, a time before the anecdote of Jesus' baptism was a part of the story, a time before John had heard from God that Jesus was the one and the Son of God? If the recorded story of Jesus involves fabrication, and this episode is an artifact of its construction, we would expect to find a tie made to prophesy by the author to bolster the credibility of Jesus' story.

In Matthew 11:4-6, we find Jesus' reply:

"Go back and report to John[ the Baptist] what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of Me." NIV

So basically Jesus says to tell John the Baptist about all of the good things He is doing, and blessed is the man who does not lose faith because he thinks that Jesus is doing the wrong things. That reply supports the ideas that John the Baptist was asking out of impatience, or out of expectation for Jesus to set up an earthly Kingdom, which, again, appears to counter the perspective given within the Gospel of John. It also supports the theory of John's question being an artifact of fabrication.

John the Baptist's disciples were not just supposed to be relaying words, but rather their actual experiences. This implies that in their presence, Jesus was preaching to the poor, performing these healings, and raising the dead. It seems odd that no accounts outside of the Bible speak of a man, Jesus or otherwise, performing all of these healings or raising the dead at that time.

Note that Jesus' list of good deeds is not arbitrary. At least three of them are tied to prophesy regarding the Salvation of the Messiah; giving the blind sight, hearing to the deaf, and preaching the good news to the poor.

Hearing and sight are a reference from Isaiah 35:5. Indeed, the chapter of Isaiah 35 speaks of God coming back with vengeance to save a people. The wastelands will be transformed into inviting and prosperous lands. God will take His redeemed and ransomed people there. However, as Isaiah 35:10 explicitly says, these people will be returning to this land. Taken within the full context of the Old Testament, this can be none other than the Promised Land, Zion, the combination of the lands of Israel and Judah; and if people are returning to it then that people can be none other than the Jews.

Preaching the good news to the poor is a reference from Isaiah 61:1. Indeed, the chapter of Isaiah 61 speaks of God comforting those who now mourn and endowing them with righteousness. God will make an eternal covenant with them and bless them with everlasting joy. However, Isaiah 61:4 speaks of rebuilding the ancient ruins of cities, Isaiah 61:5 speaks of non-Jews being the source of their manual labor in the restored land, and Isaiah 61:9 speaks of these blessed people having descendants and offspring for generations to come. Obviously this conflicts with the Christian concept of the afterlife.

One final question regarding Matthew's account of this interaction: Who was there to record it? The Twelve Apostles, including Matthew, were off on their First Mission. How could we know that Jesus' words were accurately recorded, or John the Baptist's words for that matter?

Here is where it gets funny. The author of the Gospel of Luke, who was not an eyewitness to Jesus, also happens to record this incident of John the Baptist questioning Jesus. Amazingly, you will find that Luke 7:18-23 records what Jesus and John the Baptist said almost word-for-word with what Matthew recorded, and Luke adds details to the story such as the precise number of disciples which John the Baptist sent to Jesus.

Yet perhaps what is most funny about Luke's account are the circumstances around it. Specifically, according to Luke this happens while all Twelve Apostles are still with Jesus. Luke does not send the Apostles out on their mission until two chapters later in Luke 9.

Neither the Gospel of Mark nor of John record this episode. It is just between Matthew and Luke. If we give credence to Matthew over Luke, Luke is clearly a fabricator of details and someone who appears not to be concerned with the accuracy of what he writes. If we give Luke the priority, then he accuses the actual eyewitness, Matthew, of either being a liar or being someone with such a horrible memory that he could not even recall if he was present for an event in history which he recorded!

And to think, some people still consider the Gospels inerrant.

Forsake All but One

'
Background
The Twelve Apostles were sent out in their first missionary capacity prior to Jesus being crucified. Jesus prepared them for the mission with a speech including instructions, precautions, and reminders, and we are nearing the end of that speech in our studies. Recently we observed how Jesus' message would not bring peace, but rather division, even among family members, which was odd for the so-called Prince of Peace.

Forsake All but One

There were Twelve Apostles, so the story goes, but the Apostles were also known as disciples. Disciple was a title open to all, and sometimes used in this general sense in the Gospels. Disciple means student, or pupil; and in the Biblical context usually means a follower of Jesus. That is not just someone who walks behind Jesus, going where He goes, but rather a person who has learned from Scripture and from Jesus, and put that learning into practice. These Christ-following disciples would today be known as Christians. Really, really good Christians. Or would they?

In Matthew 10:37, Jesus tells us that anyone who loves their parents or their children more than they love Jesus is not worthy of Jesus. Basically, if someone held Jesus and your mom hostage and gave you the choice to kill one in exchange for the other one's freedom, you have to opt to save Jesus, despite the fact that Jesus has supposedly conquered death.

OK, so maybe that is not exactly what it means, but the point is that Jesus should take priority in you heart over anything and anyone. Those who cannot do that are not worthy of Jesus, according to the Man Himself.

Jesus goes on to say in Matthew 10:38 that anyone who will not take up his cross (metaphorically the heavy burden of following Jesus' teaching) is not worthy of Jesus. In Matthew 10:39 Jesus concludes His thought by saying anyone who “finds his life” (that is, finds a type of fulfillment in this world in this life, like The Purpose Driven Life) will loose that life, but people who loose their life for Jesus will find eternal life as a reward. In summary, Jesus is saying that you had better be ready to suffer and die for your faith to be considered worthy of Salvation, but simply being prepared is not the full meaning here...

This passage in Matthew has its parallel Luke 14:25-27, which speaks in an even stronger tone:

Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them He said: "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be My disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow Me cannot be My disciple. NIV

First you will note that contrary to the Matthew 10:37-39 passage where Jesus is addressing the Twelve Apostles, here Jesus is speaking to the large crowd following Him, but the message is essentially the same. So this is not some special instruction given for the Twelve Apostles only, but rather a global message to anyone who would follow the ways of Jesus; to anyone who would like to be worthy of Salvation.

As mentioned, Luke's version is in stronger language, for sure. Now, instead of simply preferring Jesus over your own immediate family, you are required to hate your own family members, and your own life. Biblical scholars spin this as not so much “hate” of others (especially in light of the Sermon of the Mount where Jesus equated hate with murder), but instead see it as rather a very, very strong priority and preference for the ways of Jesus over all else.

Adding this up provides a clear meaning: Forsake all of the world and follow Jesus. This is not a message about becoming securely and comfortably couched in your belief that Jesus is the Savior while maintaining all other things constant. This is a message about complete submission, and leaving everything about the life you knew before you knew Jesus; everything from your job to your family.

To drive this point home, Luke's parallel continues on with a couple of parables. In Luke 14:28-33, you will find Jesus saying that deciding to be a Christ-follower is not something you do halfheartedly. Instead, you need to do some reckoning and make sure you are fully prepared to follow His ways, with the kind of serious deliberation that you would use when planning to build a tower or wage a war. Jesus closes the parables with this thought in Luke 14:33:

“In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be My disciple.” NIV

Give up everything to follow Jesus. Only then will you be worthy of Salvation. Leave your garden. Leave your job. Leave your wife. Leave your kids. Obey God and spread the Word. Is such a person really a good Christian, or would you rather expect a Christian to fulfill his responsibilities and stand by his obligations?

This kind of all or nothing philosophy is only practical if the Kingdom of Heaven truly is near; if very soon after Jesus' resurrection there would be His glorious return. After all, what good could come from propagating broken homes and unemployment for 2000 years?

Thankfully, this is one teaching from which the church has deviated.

Making John about Jesus

'
Background
Again, we are picking up right where we left off in the Gospel of John. Previously, we covered the beloved verse John 3:16, and the verses before it which compare Jesus to a bronze serpent. Jesus has finished speaking to Nicodemus for now, and has decided to take a walk in the Judean countryside where He bumps into that ever-enigmatic figure, John the Baptist, once more.

Making John about Jesus
The great thing about telling the truth is that you do not have to lie about it. You do not have to worry about creating gaps of logic. You do not have to worry about making sense. That is not to say that everything in the real world makes logical sense; truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. However, poorly conceived stories can reveal themselves as lies when their fundamental building blocks just do not stack up.

Enter John 3:22-36. After telling Nicodemus how He was like a bronze serpent, Jesus takes a walk in the Judean countryside and starts baptizing people in the big spring of Aenon. (John 4:1-3 corrects that statement, saying that only His disciples did the baptizing.) It just so happens that John the Baptist was baptizing at the same time in the very same spring!

Right away we hit a minor glitch in the matrix. Obviously (and explicitly in John 3:24) this is before John the Baptist was put in prison. According to John 1:35-51, this is after Jesus picks up some of His fabled Fishers of Men, including Simon-Peter and Andrew, Simon-Peter's brother. That would be fine if Mark 1:14-17 did not put John the Baptist in prison prior to picking up any of the Apostles, including Simon-Peter and Andrew.

So what? There is a minor error in chronology, but that does not defeat the underlying truth, right? Right. For that, we go back to the Scripture, where once again the Gospel of John yields enough rope to hang itself. Consider John 3:25-26:

An argument developed between some of John[ the Baptist]'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—well, He is baptizing, and everyone is going to Him." NIV

Did you happen to notice how utterly clueless John the Baptist's disciples are rendered in this text? They identify Jesus as “that man” and “the one you testified about” instead of the Son of God, which is supposedly what John the Baptist testified about Him in John 1:34 after His baptism. Furthermore, they are actually portrayed as being concerned about people going to Jesus.

Let us put this in perspective. Since John the Baptist identified Jesus as the Son of God at His baptism, Jesus was tempted by Satan, preached that the time has come for the Kingdom of God, picked up disciples, changed water in wine, purged the Temple, and debated some of the finer points of redemption with Nicodemus.

Now during that time (let us very conservatively say about two months), we are expected to believe that John the Baptist, the man supposedly preparing the way for Jesus, was so ineffective in communication of God's plan and Jesus' role that his own disciples were actually concerned about people going to Jesus, even those same disciples who witnessed Jesus' baptism!

This is simply untenable. Furthermore, it is not just a matter of being untrue, but rather it is a matter of deception. This is a lie with a purpose, and that purpose is illuminated in the verses which follow.

John 3:27-36 is packed full of propaganda. In John 3:27-30, John the Baptist reportedly explains how his role is meant to be subservient to Jesus, and how he is quite happy about that. Then John 3:31-36 plays up the importance of Jesus; how Jesus is from Heaven, and how belief in Him is the key to achieving everlasting life.

That is precisely the kind of message you would expect John the Baptist to be repeating over and over and over again if he was really preparing the way for Jesus and directing people to Him; and that is why it is inconceivable that his own disciples would be so clueless about Jesus after hearing such a message repeated over the past couple of months (at least).

The author of the Gospel of John was obviously trying to make John the Baptist's message all about Jesus. However, as we have previously discussed, John the Baptist does not quite fit the prophesies for the Messianic forerunner and his water baptism appears to stand in contrast to Jesus' message when put under scrutiny. Furthermore, part of the legacy John the Baptist left behind with the Mandaeans was the identification of Jesus as a false prophet. Clearly, the real John the Baptist was not all about Jesus.

This section of the Gospel of John shows itself as a poor attempt to persuade those people who were somewhat familiar with John the Baptist to switch over to the Jesus camp, as well as to use John the Baptist's inherent credibility to bolster the image of Jesus. It was a celebrity endorsement, so to speak. Had King Herod not killed John the Baptist early in his life, it seems unlikely that such a tactic would have been successful.

The Square Peg of Baptism

'
Background
John the Baptist is an enigmatic character for Christianity to grasp. As we've seen, he offered a water baptism for the remission of sins, contradicting God's Plan of sin remission through both the Temple system and what was to come through Jesus. Furthermore, what he taught didn't really match the Old Testament prophesies or do much to prepare the way for Jesus' revolutionary system of Salvation.

In this study, we'll cover one of the most controversial episodes involving John the Baptist; the Baptism of Jesus.

The Square Peg of Baptism
You've likely heard the expression before: It's like trying to drive a square peg into a round hole. The only ways you can get a square peg to go into a round hole is to enlarge the hole or remove the squared edges of the peg. Metaphorically speaking, this puzzle accurately describes John the Baptist's baptism of Jesus.

According to the prophesies we covered last time, Jesus couldn't just magically show up on the earth to set things right. He needed a forerunner in the form of Elijah to prepare the way for Him. Who could that be? In the time in which Jesus reportedly lived, there was really only one possible, well-known candidate; John the Baptist.

Being outside of the Temple system's perpetuation of the status quo, John the Baptist seemed to be the only suitable man around who could have been considered a prophet of God at that time. There were false Messiah's of the time trying to lead rebellions, but there were no other men who could be seen as even remotely preparing the way for God to be in accordance with the scriptural prophesies. By necessity (and possibly in an attempt to garnish some of John the Baptist's popularity and credibility) John the Baptist played a part in the story of Jesus.

The problem was that if you include John the Baptist, his namesake, his baptism must somehow play an integral role. You may remember from the previous study that his baptism was for the repentance of sins. Enter; the square peg. That baptism would need to directly apply to Jesus, but Jesus is sinless. Enter; the round hole.

Three of the Gospels record that Jesus was baptized; Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, and Luke 3:21-22. Curiously, you'll see that Luke's account doesn't claim that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Perhaps he was just using the preceding text to imply that John the Baptist was doing the baptism, or perhaps Luke is intensionally vague to alter this incongruency and make it theologically possible that the only baptism Jesus had was one from the Holy Spirit.

If Jesus was sinless, what was the point of His baptism? Matthew 3:13-15 is the only account which seems to regard this conundrum. We see that Jesus requests a baptism, but John the Baptist tries to refuse and instead suggests that Jesus baptize him. Jesus tells him to go on and baptize Him to “fulfill all righteousness”. This seems to appear as though Jesus needed to be baptized with water to fulfill some prophesy, but no such prophesy exists. Perhaps instead this was just to fulfill a necessary part of God's non-communicated Plan. The baptism of Jesus still confounds scholars and ossifies critics to this day.

Immediately following the baptism, the three accounts (Matthew 3:16-17, Mark 1:10-11, Luke 3:21-22) claim that Heaven was opened up and the dove-shaped Holy Spirit incarnate came out of that Heavenly hole. This is a rather interesting concept to grasp; not the Dove-Spirit (which is odd in itself to have part of God join with another part of God), but rather the hole in Heaven. That's quite a worm hole! This linguistic artifact preserves the antiquated belief of that time that God's Heaven was situated right above the earth, and that if you could peal back the canopy of the sky, you would see God.

After the dove comes down, God's voice comes from Heaven saying that He is happy with His Son Jesus. Whether or not anyone else heard God's voice at that time is left for speculation.

The Gospel of John isn't entirely left out of the picture here. While John 1:29-32 does not mention Jesus being baptized, it does say that John the Baptist saw the Holy Spirit come down and remain with Jesus. Because the only mention of this happening is when Jesus gets baptized according to the other Gospels, it seems logical to say that John's Gospel implies a baptism by John the Baptist as well. However, given that John the Baptist was somewhat shocked by getting to baptize Jesus per Matthew 3:13-17, it seems very strange that John's account of John the Baptist's testimony doesn't include such an unforgettable and momentous occasion as the baptism itself.

Perhaps the strangest part of John's account of John the Baptist's testimony is in the verse immediately preceding the anointing of the Holy Spirit. In John 1:31, John the Baptist claims that he did not know Jesus prior to His anointing of the Holy Spirit. It's too bad that John did not have a copy of Luke's Gospel handy. Luke 1:36 tells us that Mary (Jesus' mother) and Elizabeth (John the Baptist's mother) were related. Luke 1:39-45 goes on to say how the fetus of John the Baptist leaped in Elizabeth's womb when Mary spoke to her, and how Elizabeth knows that Mary is the mother of yet-to-be-born Jesus (as God). Then Luke 1:56 tells us that Mary stayed for three months with Elizabeth. Yet somehow the author of John expects us to believe that John the Baptist never met Jesus in the nearly 30 year timespan after that. While it is certainly possible, it seems implausible when you consider that Luke paints Elizabeth and Mary as having a tight relationship. After all, Elizabeth was the first person that Mary went to after finding out that she was going to have her holy child.

All of this contextual evidence supports the supposition of skeptics that at least parts of the story of Jesus were fabricated, if not the whole thing. The ill-fitting peg of John the Baptist's baptism was whittled down and glossed over in order to wedge it into the story of Jesus. The fact that the baptism story is similar in Matthew, Mark, and Luke suggests that they had early sources which they shared. The fact that John's Gospel skips the actual baptism and incongruently pieces together with Luke suggests that the story was evolving and developing in different locations which did not always have access to the same original sources.

John the Baptist Leads the Way?

'
Background
It is good to know at least a little about the fertile climate for the proclamation of many would-be Jewish Messiahs which existed around the time when Jesus supposedly entered the picture. The Roman occupation, with their Pagan practices, exploitation of resources, and often brutal governing, gave an impetus for Jewish unrest among pockets of the populous. Revolt and rebellion were constant threats, and such acts which were squashed unmercifully when possible.

The Jewish Messiah was to be an Anointed King, one which would rule the nation of Israel in a manner such that all the nations of the world would come to know God. Much, much more was associated with the coming Messiah, but I can't cover it all here. Suffice it to say, people were looking for him with desperation. In this vein, some rebels claimed to be the Messiah, either because they were deranged or in order to solicit support for their cause, such as one man who had claimed to be Moses resurrected, Simon of Peraea, and Athronges the shepherd.

Aside from the two major Jewish sects, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, several smaller ones splintered off; such as the Essenes, the Zealots, and the Nasaraioi, a.k.a. the Nazarenes (which would seed the Mandaeans). The Essenes were an ascetic, communal sect which shunned wealth, sex, and other carnal pleasures. John the Baptist is thought by many scholars to have been an Essene whom had left the communal life.

John the Baptist Leads the Way?
The first point on which all four Gospels converge is on how John the Baptist prepared the way for Jesus' coming. Per Luke 1, we are told that John the Baptist is Jesus' cousin and we find the miraculous story of his birth. John 1:6-8 and John 1:15 record a couple of brief lines subjugating John the Baptist under Jesus. But, finally, all four accounts focus on John the Baptist at Matthew 3:1-12, Mark 1:2-8, Luke 3:1-19, and John 1:19-28. So what exactly do they agree on? Let's find out.

Let's start with Mark, the shortest account. In this segment, Mark is the only one of the four Gospels claiming that “It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send My messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way"”. That's good thing, because Mark is wrong. This is actually a mis-quote from Malachi 3:1, not Isaiah, and the “you” should be Me; with Me referring to God. The other Gospel reference for this quote is Luke 7:26-27, where Jesus is talking about John the Baptist. Jesus wisely leaves off the origin of the quote.

Does the Malachi 3:1 prophesy apply? If you will, take a moment to read Malachi 3. What you'll find is something which would be difficult to directly apply to Jesus. In fact, the entire first verse shuts out such an interpretation: “See, I will send My messenger, who will prepare the way before Me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to His Temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty.” This verse, and the remainder of Malachi are quite clearly referring to how God will reenter the Temple of Jerusalem and dwell there like He used to do, and will provide judgement of the evildoers while He is there. God, through Malachi, even tells the Israelites that they should offer proper sacrifices in order for His return to occur.

In Malachi 4, God goes on to implore the Israelites to follow the laws which He gave to Moses, and He reveals that the messenger who will come before “that great and dreadful day of the LORD” will be Elijah, a Jewish prophet who (reportedly) had previously ridden to Heaven on a whirlwind (2 Kings 2). Contrary to this prophesy, John the Baptist openly admitted that he was not Elijah (John 1:21) and when Jesus appears, it is not a “great and dreadful day” because Jesus didn't dwell in the Temple passing judgement and He didn't restore Israel as the prophesy predicts.

Proceeding in the prophesy department, all four Gospels quote Isaiah 40:3 to some extent. Luke 3:4-5 goes two verses further, covering and misquoting Isaiah 40:3-5 with an obvious bias. Is this an applicable prophesy? Check out Isaiah 40. You'll see how this “voice” is supposed to be a comforter to the Israelites, to speak tenderly to them, and to tell them that the nation's sins have been paid for (twice!) and so God will come and rule them with His omnipotent glory. This is not exactly Jesus' intention revealed later in the Bible. Plus, if you look at Matthew's and Luke's quotes of John the Baptist, such as “You brood of vipers!”, you see that John the Baptist was reportedly not a gentle and comforting messenger, and his message was quite different than what one would expect from a fulfillment of Isaiah 40.

When you look at Isaiah 40:4, which Luke almost quotes correctly, this “voice” is supposed to do some major works; filling in valleys, leveling hills, etc. Even if that text is meant to be figurative, it speaks of awesome achievements, and perhaps even miracles. Contrary to Elijah, who raised a dead boy and parted the Jordan River among other miracles, John the Baptist is not noted for great achievements or miracles. Even the extent to which he reportedly prepared the Jews to receive their Messiah is questionable, given how the Bible records the Jewish reaction to Jesus.

Moving on, Matthew (3:1 + 3:6 + 3:11), Mark (1:4), and Luke (3:3) record that John the Baptist's baptism was for repentance and forgiveness of sins, while John's Gospel is silent on the reason for baptism. But when you think about it, this is an affront to Jesus' offer of salvation. After all, God had already created a way to atone for sins through the Temple sacrifices. So John the Baptist's baptism was essentially offering the same deal repackaged. John the Baptist's baptism provided the same type of forgiveness of sins, because we are told that only Jesus could permanently forgive sins.

If John the Baptist was really trying to prepare the way for Jesus, he should have been telling the Jews that the atonement through Temple sacrifices was imperfect, as sins will continually need sacrifices. He should have been urging the Jews to look to God to provide an ultimate sacrifice for the remission of all sins once and for all. The words of Hebrews 10 should have been rolling off his tongue, but they weren't. John the Baptist is reportedly inexplicably silent on how Jesus will revolutionize the forgiveness of sins.

Instead, Matthew (3:11), Mark (1:7), and Luke (3:16) record that John the Baptist's significant contribution in leading the way for Jesus was the baptism itself. (John's Gospel is again silent on the matter.) The water baptism which John the Baptist was performing was stated as a parallel of the baptism of the Holy Spirit that Jesus would provide, but this is incongruent for a couple reasons. The need for a foreshadowing parallel is strange in and of itself, as John the Baptist was a same-age contemporary of Jesus. Why foreshadow something which (relatively speaking) already exists? Also, it's a rather poor parallel when you consider that John the Baptist's baptism reportedly washed away sins while the baptism of the Holy Spirit supposedly fills you with the presence of God giving you Holy powers. These two are just a little different, don't you think? You could call the water baptism a prerequisite for the Holy Spirit baptism, but then that negates the utility of Jesus' death on the cross.

Curiously, Matthew's account (3:1) is the only Gospel claiming that John the Baptist said “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.” What makes this even more curious is that Matthew's Gospel is also the only one which records Jesus as saying this exact same line (4:17 + 10:7). However, while Mark and John are relatively quiet about it, both Matthew (3:7-12) and Luke (3:7-9 + 3:15-17) expound upon this apocalyptic theme in John the Baptist's message in identical words (except for a slight sandal variance), as if they came from the same source. We find words like “the coming wrath”, “the ax is already at the root”, and “His winnowing fork is in His hand”, imparting a sense of urgency that God's judgement is going to occur within the lifetime of John the Baptist's audience. Amazingly, close to 2000 years later, we're still waiting for that to happen. According to Deuteronomy 18:14-22 on discernment of false prophets, I guess that John the Baptist deserved to be killed.

As you can see from reviewing these Gospel accounts, while they mostly agree with one another, the associated prophesies (mis-quoted by the Gospels) don't seem to mesh with the Gospel accounts. At best, you could take the lines of the prophesies out of their context and applied some nuanced meanings to bring them into alignment. Yet still the effectiveness and utility of John the Baptist's efforts are questionable in preparing the Jews for Jesus. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke paint John the Baptist as claiming a very-soon-coming apocalypse, which never happened, and therefore brands him as a false prophet. So, did John the Baptist prepare the way for Jesus? In a word: No.

Footnotes
Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian, records in Jewish Antiquities (c. 94 AD) that John the Baptist worked to promote “righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to Him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.” This is not exactly a message in line with Jesus' plan. Note that Josephus wrote long after these events had occurred, so his accuracy could be questionable. Plus, he was Jewish, not Christian, and therefore may have skewed the record with Jewish bias. And finally, some scholars believe that his original texts have been altered where they regard anything relating to Christianity.

It is peculiar that, if John the Baptist was really only there to promote Jesus, a sect would develop which would hold John the Baptist the greatest prophet of God while considering Jesus to be a false prophet. Such is the case with the Mandaeans.