John the Baptist and the Kingdom of Heaven

philologos

Can I request this thread to be Christian only please?

I was just reading the Gospel of Matthew today and I came across an interesting Bible quote.

Matthew 11:11 -
"Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he."

Why is John the least in the Kingdom of Heaven, and yet the greatest amongst men? Or is it related to the following verse:

Matthew 19:30 "But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first"

PDN

I would think Jesus was referring to the fact that John was still part of the Old Covenant. Although he appears in the NT he is very much an OT prophet.

The least gifted and most hesitant Christian who shares their faith has a fuller message than that of John the Baptist. This reminds me of the statement at the end of Hebrews Chapter 11 that the OT saints can only be made perfect together with us.

Splendour

Jakkass wrote: »

Matthew 11:11 -
"Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he."

Why is John the least in the Kingdom of Heaven, and yet the greatest amongst men? Or is it related to the following verse:

Matthew 19:30 "But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first"

I take it to mean that while still on earth John was not as 'great' as the least person in heaven-that is until John gets to heaven. When Jesus said those words John was still alive, therefore telling us how wonderful heaven will be for Christians who have not lived as John did.

Brings me back PDN to your theory of the Heaven/Paradise thing.Why would Jesus use the word Heaven instead of Paradise if he hadn't been resurrected yet? Is it that Jesus was talking 'out of time'-something that we mere mortals can't get our heads around..?

PDN

Splendour wrote: »

Brings me back PDN to your theory of the Heaven/Paradise thing.Why would Jesus use the word Heaven instead of Paradise if he hadn't been resurrected yet? Is it that Jesus was talking 'out of time'-something that we mere mortals can't get our heads around..?

If you compare Matthew to Mark you will see that Matthew repeatedly uses 'the Kingdom of Heaven' where Mark uses 'the Kingdom of God'. This was because Matthew was written for a Jewish readership whereas Mark was written for Romans.

Jews believed that the Name of the Lord was so holy that they should not even speak or write it. You still see this in some Jewish websites today where they write 'G-D'. So Matthew, not wanting to upset Jewish sensibilities, used 'Heaven' as a euphemism for 'God'. Mark, of course, had no such worries when it came to his Roman readership.

In fact, this may give us a clearer idea of what the Bible means by 'heaven'. Heaven may not be a specific place at all - but simply wherever God happens to be. Therefore, since believers go to be with God when they die, we speak of them as being 'in heaven' (ie wherever God is).

Splendour

PDN wrote: »

If you compare Matthew to Mark you will see that Matthew repeatedly uses 'the Kingdom of Heaven' where Mark uses 'the Kingdom of God'. This was because Matthew was written for a Jewish readership whereas Mark was written for Romans.

Jews believed that the Name of the Lord was so holy that they should not even speak or write it. You still see this in some Jewish websites today where they write 'G-D'. So Matthew, not wanting to upset Jewish sensibilities, used 'Heaven' as a euphemism for 'God'. Mark, of course, had no such worries when it came to his Roman readership.

In fact, this may give us a clearer idea of what the Bible means by 'heaven'. Heaven may not be a specific place at all - but simply wherever God happens to be. Therefore, since believers go to be with God when they die, we speak of them as being 'in heaven' (ie wherever God is).

Excellent reply, thanks PDN. Much clearer for me now.

That G-D explanation you mention is very interesting. I've often seen it but not had a clue as to why it's written this way...

hivizman

I find the following three verses (Matt. 11:12-14) more puzzling than v. 11:

From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John came; and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come.

(NRSV, Anglicized Edition)

The parallel passage in Luke 16:16-17 (as indicated in the edition of the Bible that I am using) is less obscure, but even here I'm not clear about the allusions to people trying to enter the kingdom of heaven/God by force:

The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped.

I've seen v. 17 interpreted as a statement that Jesus came to uphold rather than to change the old Judaic law, but that doesn't seem consistent with v. 16. Leaving aside the verses in Luke, what does Matthew mean in the quoted verses?

medeame

"Can I request this thread to be Christian only please?"

This was the first thing that I read on this thread and it sparked my interest enough to ask why?

Christian or not, this is a democratic world is it not? well, to answer my question for us who live mainly in the west it is.

I object to the start of this thread to confine it to 'Christians' only.

TEXT DELETED BY MODERATOR

I am a child of this universe with a right to be here as are you and it is my right is to speak in a public forum and it is my right to object to you telling me I may not speak in this forum unless I am Christian. (if I were Christian I would not even dignify you with that fact, why should I? who are you to tell me I must be Christian to comment in this open forum?

Wishing you all love and light and may your god who ever or whatever he/she is, go with you or not, your choice to believe or not but not your choice to insist I should be Christian to speak here.

hivizman

It's possible that Jakkass was thinking of the first rule of this forum's charter:

The purpose of this board is to discuss Christian belief in general, and specific elements of it, between Christians and non-Christians alike. It has the additional purpose of being a point on boards.ie where Christians may ask other Christians questions about their shared faith.

My reading of his original question was that he was seeking clarification on the interpretation of a particular verse of the gospel of Matthew. If he had been posting on a forum relating to car maintenance, and had a particular query about a car problem, he might have asked for responses from car mechanics only. It would not really be helpful for someone to post saying that he or she didn't believe that cars were appropriate means of transport and advocating that Jakkass should give his car up and take up cycling.

A non-Christian could have an interesting comment on the meaning of the verse quoted. A critical non-Christian view would be interesting even if this was a specific claim, supported by careful argument, that the verse as translated misrepresented the original Greek text or that the Greek text of the Gospel could have misrepresented the Aramaic in which Jesus probably expressed the ideas reflected in the verse quoted. So perhaps Jakkass should not have been so explicitly exclusive.

However, Christians usually believe that the Gospels do report, albeit in translation, what Jesus actually said. That the Gospels were written some decades after Jesus died and have come down to us through a chain of manuscripts into which a few copying errors may have crept does not rule out their use as historical evidence of what Jesus said (or if it does, then applying the same standards we have no valid evidence for most of the events of ancient history).

PDN

medeame wrote: »

"Can I request this thread to be Christian only please?"

This was the first thing that I read on this thread and it sparked my interest enough to ask why?

Because this board is infested by trolls who use every thread as an excuse to attack Christianity. Therefore it becomes impossible for Christians to discuss issues in depth because the threads always get dragged off topic into having defend one's faith against the same old attacks.

I have edited out the rest of your post because it is exactly the kind of attacks that I have just referred to. A lot of it is the same old stuff that has been asserted, and refuted, in many other threads.

I object to the start of this thread to confine it to 'Christians' only.

I am a child of this universe with a right to be here as are you and it is my right is to speak in a public forum and it is my right to object to you telling me I may not speak in this forum unless I am Christian. (if I were Christian I would not even dignify you with that fact, why should I? who are you to tell me I must be Christian to comment in this open forum?

If you object to the charter and practices of this forum then that's OK - nobody is forcing you to post here. But if you refuse to abide by the rules then you will receive infractions and will ultimately be banned. I've given you a pass this time because you appear to be new to the forum. Consider this your one and only 'Get Out of Jail free' card.

BTW, no-one has the right of free speech on boards.ie. This is a community of posters where we are all constrained by the Charters and by the usual rules of courtesy and respect for one another.

philologos

Look, I've requested for this thread to be Christian only, because I want Christian explanations, instead of what may have come in terms of people saying "Oh well, God doesn't exist so it doesn't matter about the Kingdom of Heaven, just enjoy your life". I want a Christian explanation, not an atheistic one. I think that is reasonable for me to appeal to other believers to discuss faith every so often.

I was just puzzled that such a wise and such a prophetic figure, could lesser than others in the Kingdom of Heaven, I can't help but be inspired at the way he spoke to the Pharisees and the Sadducees by the Jordan, telling them that God could even raise Children of Abraham from the stones. However, it's nice to hear Christian views on this

hivizman

It's interesting to compare the verses on John the Baptist with a later reference in Matthew (chapter 18, verses 1-5) to status in the kingdom of heaven:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, 'Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?' He called a child, whom he put among them, and said, 'Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whovever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

[NRSV, Anglicized Edition]

Perhaps this could be reconciled with the verses on John the Baptist in the way suggested by PDN, that John, as the last of the Old Testament prophets, carried with him the characteristics of the old dispensation. His prophethood was characterised by asceticism ('For John came neither eating nor drinking' - Matt. 11:18) but not by humility. Jesus brings the new dispensation, which overturns what went before.

A more radical interpretation would be that the disciples were asking the wrong question - that the kingdom of heaven is not a place where people are ranked and classified. Thus there are no least or greatest in the kingdom of heaven. In Matt. 11:11, then, Jesus is implicitly saying: "Your natural assumption is that John the Baptist will have one of the highest places in the kingdom of heaven, but that's not the way in which the kingdom of heaven works, because it's not a place of hierarchy."

Finally, is the "kingdom of heaven" the same as "heaven"? Arguably, the kingdom of heaven (or kingdom of God) is what becomes established on Earth at the Second Coming. If John the Baptist does not undergo bodily resurrection and become a dweller in the kingdom of heaven, but rather has already been raised to heaven itself, then the "least in the kingdom of heaven" would in a sense be "greater" than John the Baptist in that they would enjoy the resurrection of the body.

santing

hivizman wrote: »

Finally, is the "kingdom of heaven" the same as "heaven"? Arguably, the kingdom of heaven (or kingdom of God) is what becomes established on Earth at the Second Coming.

See Matthew 13 for several parables relating to the Kingdom of Heaven. In short you could say that the Kingdom of Heaven is there where the Rule of Heaven is obeyed, so it is already here and now in the lifes of many individuals. The Kingdom of Heaven also contains individuals taht will be purged out at a later date...

hivizman wrote: »

If John the Baptist does not undergo bodily resurrection and become a dweller in the kingdom of heaven, but rather has already been raised to heaven itself, then the "least in the kingdom of heaven" would in a sense be "greater" than John the Baptist in that they would enjoy the resurrection of the body.

John the Baptist never obtained the additional priviledges granted to Christians, such as Sonship, Heavenly Citizenship. He will however undergo bodily resurrection, and imho be taken up when Christ calles His own before the tribulation.

hivizman

santing wrote: »

See Matthew 13 for several parables relating to the Kingdom of Heaven. In short you could say that the Kingdom of Heaven is there where the Rule of Heaven is obeyed, so it is already here and now in the lifes of many individuals. The Kingdom of Heaven also contains individuals that will be purged out at a later date...

Am I getting this right? (1) The Kingdom of Heaven is already here with respect to believers; (2) the Kingdom of Heaven will come for all upon Christ's second coming; (3) at the end time, the Last Judgement will lead to the population of the Kingdom of Heaven being separated into those who go to Heaven and the rest who are consigned to Hell.

Soul Winner

Jakkass wrote: »

Can I request this thread to be Christian only please?

I was just reading the Gospel of Matthew today and I came across an interesting Bible quote.

Matthew 11:11 -
"Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he."

Why is John the least in the Kingdom of Heaven, and yet the greatest amongst men? Or is it related to the following verse:

Matthew 19:30 "But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first"

I know it was already alluded to but I hope I might be able to add something else.

John the Baptist was probably the greatest among men as measured by the standard of the Old Testament law. i.e. John kept it more than anyone else, and if righteousness could come by works of it then John would be closest to it. But in order to be righteous by the standard of the Old Testament law you could not miss one jot of it - ever!. Now as great as John was as a prophet and all, I'm sure he wasn't “perfect” by the standard of the old law. I'm sure he missed the mark a few times in his life. If not then why would he say of Him who was to come that he (John) was not worthy to undo his latchet? So we can be sure he fell short of the law, great and all that he was. So if that's true and he were to be judged by that law then he would miss out on eternal life and because of this fact he would not actually be part of the Kingdom of God.

In the New Testament however we are not justified by the law. Paul said if righteousness came by works of the law then Christ died in vain. Only in Christ do we have salvation, forgiveness of sins and an entry point into the Kingdom of God/Heaven. So by all means John can be the greatest among those born of women – flesh and blood man - because of his performance under the law, but if he were to be judged by that standard alone then the least in the Kingdom truly is greater than he.

Why? Because the least in the kingdom (or the greatest for that matter) is not viewed by God as under that old law, because when Jesus died the law died. He was the law incarnate. Which is why He said that the law cannot pass away until every jot of it be fulfilled and that was accomplished when He said on the cross: "It is finished"

So now God can view everyone who is in Christ by faith as if they are Christ Himself. Because of their faith in Him rather than to whatever degree they measure up to the old law. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." If you are part of the "All" then you have fallen short of that perfect old standard and no amount of backtracking can change that. You need Christ, we all do, from the most perfect of us like John the Baptist to the worst sinner around.

All under law die because associated with that law is the curse of death for not keeping it perfectly and perpetually your whole life. Of the law it is said, those who do these things shall LIVE in them. Nobody does these things hence why everyone dies physically and spiritually.

However, everyone under the grace of Christ does not have to go by that law because they have access by faith into eternal life through and only through the sacrifice that Jesus Himself made, which was the giving of His own life's blood as a ransom that saved us from the curse of that old law. "That handwriting of ordinances which was against us" as Paul calls it.

That’s why what Christ did is called the Gospel, the Good News. To not have your sins held against you on the day of judgment simply because you have faith in God’s promise that Christ died in order to pay for them in, by and through Himself is why Paul calls the Gospel "the power of God unto salvation."

Anyway that’s my take on the whole John the Baptist being the greatest that was born of woman thing.