PMW 2026-030 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
John the Baptist was a remarkable saint, though he was not the Messiah as some believed. But he very knows very clearly who is. For he declares of Jesus “This was He of whom I said, He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me” (John 1:15). Thus when he sees Jesus coming to him, he declares “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).
He also baptizes Jesus — though with great reluctance because he knows of Jesus’ superiority (Matt. 3:13–15). God confirms Jesus’ identity to John by the heavens being opened, the Spirit descending on Jesus like a dove, and by God’s voice declaring to Jesus, “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased” (Mark 1:9–11; cp. John 1:32–34).
Yet despite of all of this positive confirmation, something surprisingly unexpected happens:
John’s Confidence Wavers
Despite John’s confidence in his identifying the Messiah, after he is thrown into prison he wavers with doubt:
“Now when John, while imprisoned, heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples and said to Him, ‘Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?’” (Matt. 11:2–3).
The Book of Revelation and Postmillennialism (Lectures by Ken Gentry)
In the first of these three 50-minute lectures Gentry explains Revelation’s judgments to show they do not contradict postmillennialism. In the next two lectures he shows how the Millennium and the New Creation themes strongly support the gospel victory hope found in postmillennialism.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com
Most modern commentators recognize that John is truly shaken by doubt here. [1] The minority of scholars [2] who doubt John’s doubt (you might say) propose several alternative reasons for his question. They usually suggest something along the lines of J. C. Ryle (1856: 79) from a century ago: “This question was not because John doubted Jesus. It was asked for the benefit of his disciples. It was meant to let them hear Christ give his own evidence of his divine mission.”
Or as Joseph Excell (1952 ad loc.) puts it: “It will appear odd that John should entertain any doubt, or require any satisfaction about this matter.… John sent this message, not from any doubt which he himself entertained of the matter, but in order that the doubts which his disciples had conceived about it might receive an answer and satisfaction from the fountain head” (1952: ad loc.). In fact, Davies and Allison (1988: 2:241) note that “most of the Fathers convinced themselves that John was inquiring for the sake of his disciples” (cp. Gibbs 2010: 555).
The Truth about Salvation By Ken Gentry
A study guide for personal or small group Bible study. Deals with the Christian doctrine of salvation from a Reformed theological perspective. It opens with a study of God as loving Creator, the shows how the first man fell into sin. Shows God’s righteousness requires that sin be dealt with. Presents Jesus as both God and man so that he can be man’s Savior. Includes review questions and questions for further study.Twelve chapters are ideal for one quarter of Sunday School.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com
The Grammatical Evidence
However, John’s grammar suggests otherwise. Gundry (1982: 205) provides some helpful exegetical details in this regard by analyzing John’s question: “Are you the Coming One, or shall we look for someone else?” (Matt. 11:3):
“su [‘you’] is emphatic; [and] because of its position, heteron is also emphatic: ‘Are you the Coming One, or should we expect another [heteron]?’ Though Matthew likes allon (14,4—So Luke), here he writes heteron ,,, to emphasize difference: ‘… or should we expect a different kind of Coming One?’”
Here we should understand “the adversative use” by which “heteros points to a pertinent alternative” (EDNT 2:66). Or as TDNT (2: 702) explains: the use of heteros in Matthew 11:3 speaks of “the qualities which Jewish expectations attributed to the Messiah might better fit another than Jesus.” Keener (2009: 335), Gibbs (2010: 555), and Turner (2008: 291) agree with this exegetical analysis.
The biblical evidence opposing any attempted explanation and defense of John’s question is quite strong. Gibbs (2010: 555–56) argues in his characteristically thorough fashion:
“Grammatically, it is John who is the subject of the verb ‘he said’ (eipen) in 11:3. Further Jesus replies ‘Go and announce to John…’ (11:4). Finally, the closing beatitude [v. 6] is singular and in the first place refers to John himself. Grammatically, Jesus has asked a question, and Jesus has answered him.”
Dispensational Distortions
Three Lectures by Kenneth Gentry. Reformed introduction to classic dispensationalism, with analysis of leading flaws regarding the Church, kingdom, redemptive history, and Christ. Helpful for demonstrating errors to dispensationalists.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com
Why Does He Doubt?
But why does John doubt? His doubt arises, at least partly, due to his own apocalyptic expectations. As Schreiner (2010b: 23) understands the situation:
“John the Baptist voiced doubts about Jesus, presumably because he languished in prison, and his expectations regarding the kingdom were not being realized. John perceived that the political impact of Jesus’ ministry was relatively inconsequential and so began to question whether he was truly ‘the coming one.’”
Davies and Allison (1988: 2:241) explain: “Jesus’ deeds do not match those of the somewhat judgemental figure portrayed by John in Mt 3:10–12. Blomberg (1992: 185) surmises: “John also wondered why there were no signs of the imminent judgment of the wicked that he had predicted (Matt 3:10)” ( cp. Hagner 1993: 300; Hendriksen 1973: 483).
Covenantal Theonomy
(by Ken Gentry)
A defense of theonomic ethics against a leading Reformed critic. Engages many of the leading objections to theonomy.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com
Green (1997: 295–96) agrees: “apparently, John’s interest lies on the faultline between his eschatological expectations and the realities of Jesus’ performance…. For John (and, no doubt, for others), the nature of Jesus’ activity seems to disqualify any claim he might have” as Messiah. For Jesus was acting in a way “not anticipated by John” (Nolland 1989: 327).
Thus, Ridderbos (1957: 14) states that “Christ’s appearance and preaching in no way seemed to answer [the] eschatological character of the Kingdom. That is the difference between Jesus and John, and that is John’s problem: ‘Art thou he that cometh, or look we for another?’ (Matt. 11:2). For Jesus does not come with a winnowing fork in His hand, but He walks the land as a physician.”
Additional Observations
But there is more. And this is quite relevant to my particular concerns. Not only is Jesus behaving in a way that does not match with John’s own expectations, but he acts in a way contrary to current apocalyptic expectations. Hendriksen (1973: 483) notes that contrary to apocalyptic scenarios, “Jesus’ ‘messiahship’ little resembled the political and military program of liberation many Jews anticipated.” Hill (1972: 197–98) agrees, suspecting that “John’s question may have been prompted by a current conception of an apocalyptic or political messiah” (cp. Keener 1993: 75).
M. Horton (2011: 54) comments on the two age backdrop of John’s doubt: The Pharisees “divided history into this present age, under sin and death, and the age to come, which would be dominated by life and righteousness…. This is one reason why John the Baptist got a little bit impatient and frustrated with Jesus.” Though this doctrinal division of redemptive history, was true, the Jews held that at the time the Messiah comes he will bring the current age to a catastrophic end while establishing the perfect eternal age.
Beasley-Murray (83) points out the widespread nature of such apocalyptically-induced doubt and disappointment: “nor was this true only of John the Baptist; the Pharisees, Zealots, and many other among the Jews had been nourished by an unqualified apocalypticism.””
J. Brown (2018: 112) points out that John is confused about Jesus’ healing actions in that “these do not exactly fit the expectations for messianic claimants in the first-century context.” This is because apocalyptic messianism “casts a vision of a royal, triumphant Messiah who would bring restoration for Israel and vanquish its present enemy, Rome.” She proposes this while citing the apocalyptic work The Psalms of Solomon 17:21–24. Concerning the report of John’s disciples regarding Jesus’ peaceable healing ministry, the healing “may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected” (D. Carlson 1988: 1203).
J. Lightfoot (1674: 2:191) expresses the problem rather boldly: “perhaps [John the Baptist] labored under the dim-sightedness which the disciples of Christ and the whole nation did concerning his earthly kingdom, victories, and triumphs.”
God Gave Wine (by Ken Gentry)
A biblical defense of moderate alcohol consumption. Considers all key biblical passages and engages the leading objections.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com
Is This a Problem for Scripture?
As Gibbs (2010: 555–56) argues, we should be aware that this failure on John’s part should not cause us a problem regarding the coherence of Scripture. For he points out that often men of great faith have been shaken by doubt for a time. For instance, consider Moses when Israel endured suffering under Pharaoh (Exo. 5:22–23), Elijah under Ahab (1 Kgs. 18–19), and Jeremiah when being persecuted by Pashhur the priest (Jer. 20:14–18). Thus, because of both his own circumstances and popular expectations, John “needed further confirmation” (Liefeld 1984: 147). The Jewish apocalyptic understanding of the structure of the two ages causes John’s confusion, leading to his doubt.
Though John had much evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, he briefly stumbled and doubted. This reminds us of the Lord’s disciples. They were taught for three plus years by the greatest teacher to ever live, and yet they often stumbled in their understanding. Jesus clearly informed them of his approaching death, the central purpose of his incarnation and ministry. Yet on one occasion Peter rebuked Jesus for this!
We read this in Matthew 16:21–23:
“From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, ‘God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.’ But He turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.’”
That was a serious failure on Peter’s part, deserving a serious rebuke on Jesus’ part. Strong believers can fail. But the Lord will pick them up again.
Notes
- See for example: G. Beasley-Murray (1986: 81); D. Turner (2008: 291); J. Gibbs (2:555–56); R. Gundry (1982: 305); C. A. Evans (2012: 236); M. Wilkins (2004: 413); D. Carson (1984: 8:261); R. Mounce (1991: 103); J. Nolland (2005: 450–52); C. Keener (2009: 335); F. Beare (254, 256); R. Tasker (1961: 114); Green (1997: 195–96); J. Brown (2015: 119); G. Osborne (2010: 414); W. Hendriksen (1973: 484–85); A. Robertson (1930: 1: 87); M. Horton (2011: 54); D. Garland (2011: 310); Schreiner (2010b: 23); Hare (1993: 120); Hagner (1993: 300); Davies and Allison (1988: 2:241); I. Marshall (1978: 291); Filson (1960: 137); Blomberg (1992: 183–85).
- Broadus (1886: 236) lists several significant names who do not believe that John is doubting: Chrysostom, Cyril, Augustine, Jerome, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, and Maldodnatus. Over against these, Broadus also mentions some notables accepting John’s personal doubt: Neander, Meyer, Bleek, Ewald, Keim, Resuss, Godet, Plumptre, and Schaff. We can also add Lenski (1943: 426) and Excell (1952: ad loc.).
Leave a Reply