John the baptist’s interview in 𝘑𝘰𝘩𝘯.

John 1.15, 19-28.

The Gospel of John doesn’t describe John the baptist’s appearance like Mark and the other synoptics; John’s just there, doing his ministry. The author assumed his readers would already know who John the baptist was—and already know a lot of the Jesus stories, which is why the gospel was largely written to fill in the blanks in those stories. John skips John’s birth story ’cause Luke already told it; skips what John looked like and preached ’cause the synoptics already told it; he just goes straight to what John taught about Jesus.

John 1.15 KWL

John witnesses about Jesusᴾ

and when he cried out, he’s saying,

“This is of whom I say,

‘The one who comes after me

came into being before me.’

Because he’s first over me.”

The author only cared about that.

So the gospel leapfrogged all John’s other teachings, and the first we see of John is verse 15, and his testimony to the Judean leadership who wanted to know who he was. As told in this part here:

John 1.19-28 KWL

19And this is John’s testimony,

when the Judeans of Jerusalem

send priests and Levites out to him

so they could ask him, “Who are you¹?”

20John is in agreement with them,

does not resist them,

and agrees with them:

“I’m not Messiah.”

21They ask John,ᴾ “So… what, are you¹ Elijah?”

He says, “I’m not.”

“Are you¹ the Prophet?”

He answers, “No.”

22So they say, “Who are you¹?—

so we can give an answer to those who sent us.

What do you¹ say about yourself¹?”

23John is saying, “I’m

‘a voice crying out in the wilderness:

Straighten the Lord’s path!’ Is 40.3

like the prophet Isaiah said.”

24Those who were sent are from the Pharisees,

25and are questioning John,ᴾ

and are telling him, “So why do you¹ baptize,

if you’re¹ not Messiah nor Elijah nor the Prophet?”

26John answers them, saying, “I baptize in water.

In your² midst, one has stood among you.²

You’ve² not known him.

27{He’s} the one coming after me,

{who has got in front of me}.

I’m not worthy to loose his sandal strap.”

28These events happen in Bethany-beyond-the-Jordan,

where John is baptizing.

Now y’might notice the three people John said he’s not:

• Messiah.
• Elijah.
• The Prophet.

These three are major figures in the Pharisee End Times Timeline.

Back then, same as now, people figured the End was coming, and might actually be upon us. And since John was getting a lot of attention, Pharisees wanted to know whether John considered himself any of these End Times guys. They likely had their doubts. But John silenced those doubts by quickly saying nope, he’s none of those guys. He’s just a voice in the wilderness, like Isaiah described, telling people to get ready ’cause the Lord is coming.

And no, this “voice in the wilderness” is not a specific prophecy about John the baptist. It’s just a verse John borrowed to describe what he was up to. Because anybody who speaks up for God in a lawless, fruitless, godless culture is a voice in the wilderness. Any Christian can be such a voice. Many Christians have been.

Likewise anyone who tells people to get ready for Jesus’s second coming—especially to a culture who’s more interested in looking like they follow God instead of bearing actual good fruit—is a similar voice in a wild, undeveloped, untended land. Wouldn’t hurt to have more of them.

Obadiah and the famine.

1 Kings 18.1-6.

The scriptures say this happened in “the third year,” 1Ki 18.1 which could either mean the third year of the reign of Ahab ben Omri, king of Ephraim; or the third year of the water being turned off. The apostle James presumed it was the third year of drought, Jm 5.17 and he’s probably right.

Elijah was hiding in Sidon, so the word of the LORD (whom we Christians know as Jesus) told him it was time to return to Ahab and present himself. Rain was coming.

1 Kings 18.1-2 KWL

1Many days came, and in the third year

the LORD’s word came to Elijah to say,

“Go appear to Ahab.

I will give rain to the face of the soil.”

2Elijah left, to appear to Ahab.

The hunger was hard in Samaria.

Verse 2’s וְהָרָעָ֖ב חָזָ֥ק/vᵉha-ra’av khazáq, “and the hunger [was] hard” tends to be translated, “The famine was severe,” but a shortage of food is one thing; it’s the fact people have to cut back on eating which causes the greatest amount of distress in a famine. In the United States, if money is tight, you gotta switch to cheaper food, or start visiting the food banks. In wealthy countries you don’t have to suffer during our years of famine. Ancient Ephraim was not a wealthy country; Ahab might be able to ride it out just fine, but his people were definitely feeling it. And unlike the other Israeli country of Judah, the Ephraimites didn’t consider their king divinely appointed by the LORD; they could totally overthrow him, same as Ahab’s last two predecessors had overthrown their predecessors. So in that sense, Ahab was feeing it too.

Anyway, while Elijah headed for Samaria, Ahab and his butler Obadiah—not the prophet; different Obadiah—started looking for grass for Ahab’s hungry livestock.

1 Kings 18.3-6 KWL

3Ahab summoned Obadiah,

who supervised the house.

Obadiah greatly respected the LORD.

4Jezebel was cutting off the LORD’s prophets.

Obadiah took a hundred prophets

and hid them by fifties in a cave.

He provided bread and water for them.

5Ahab told Obadiah, “Go to the land,

to all the water springs

and all the wadis.

Perhaps we might find grass,

and keep alive the horse and mule,

and not cut off the domestic animals.”

6They divided the land between them,

to pass through it:

Ahab went one way to his part,

and Obadiah went one way to his part.

Most bibles translate verse 5, “horses and mules,” but the Hebrew is singular. Ahab might have been down to only one of each by now. I should point out the Israelis were forbidden to breed mules, Lv 19.19 and the king was forbidden to overdo it on owning horses. Dt 17.16 But as an unrepentant pagan, we can’t expect Ahab to care much about God’s commands.

Fundamentalism.

FUNDAMENTALIST fən.də'mɛn.(t)əl.ɪst noun. One who believes in the literal, strict interpretation of a religion’s scriptures.

2. One who strictly adheres to the basic principles of any subject or discipline.

3. One who is theologically (and politically) conservative in their religion.

4. [capitalized] An adherent of the 20th-century movement which considers certain Christian beliefs mandatory.

[Fundamentalism fən.də'mɛn.(t)əl.ɪz.əm noun, Fundie 'fən.di adjective.]

Most of the time you’re gonna find people use “fundamentalist” as a synonym for conservative, as you see in definition #3 above. Which isn’t quite accurate. True, fundamentalists are typically conservative. But if the things you consider fundamental are liberal principles, you’re gonna be liberal.

Properly, it’s someone who believes in fundamentals, in non-negotiable doctrines or principles which people have to adhere to. And in that sense nearly every Christian is fundamentalist, ’cause we insist upon certain ground-floor things a Christian must have, or they’re not Christian.

Here’s a very obvious example: Jesus is Lord. You’re not Christian if you don’t acknowledge this at the very least. It should go without saying. And yet there are certain theological liberals who aren’t even sure Jesus existed; who claim his teachings are great ideals but we don’t have to actually obey them; who adopt the term “Christian” because they like Jesus, and approve of him, but they’d never treat him as Lord. Are these people even Christian?—fundamentally? No.

As a creedal Christian, I consider the creeds to be non-negotiable fundamentals. We gotta beleive in God the Father; in the man Christ Jesus who is himself God, equal not subordinate to the Father, with a divine nature and a human one, who was really born, really died, really rose from the dead (as will we), is currently at the Father’s right hand, and is definitely coming back; in the Holy Spirit who is also himself God, and equal not subordinate to the Father. The creeds spell out Christianity’s fundamentals, and Christians can’t nullify them.

But I also grew up Fundamentalist with a capital F, and that refers to a 20th-century movement in which American Evangelicals were trying to re-emphasize the non-negotiable fundamentals of Christianity. But instead of pointing to the creeds, they point to a list of beliefs they came up with. Most of them overlap with the creeds, but the early Fundamentalists added a few things… like a formal embrace of the scriptures and an emphasis on a more literal interpretation of them; and a formal rejection of theological liberals, Darwinism and evolution, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Christian Science, Spiritualism, socialism, and various modern philosophies.

The early Fundies published a 12-volume series called The Fundamentals to promote their doctrines. Fundamentalists since have added to these doctrines. Some have considerably added to these doctrines. And because all these “fundamentals” are considered mandatory beliefs, they insist you’re not a real Christian—and aren’t saved—unless you believe ’em. All of them.

Fundamentalists worry Christianity’s ground-floor ideas have been heavily compromised, and want no part of any “Christianity” which won’t defend ’em. But here’s the catch; here’s why Christians and pagans alike are confused as to what a Fundamentalist is: Not every Fundie is pointing to the first-century apostolic church of Christ Jesus, and the creeds of ancient Christianity. They’re pointing back to their own traditions. “The way we’ve always done things,” meaning the way they remember they’ve always done things, and some of these traditions may only go back 20 years. The Pharisee “tradition of the elders” only originated 50 years before Jesus began to critique it. Some traditions are hardly that ancient.

And way too many conservative American traditions date back to the upper-class customs of the American South during slavery or segregation. In other words, they’re not pointing to Christianity at all. Just a particularly heinous form of Christianism, which they remember fondly only because it wasn’t persecuting them.

That is the form of fundamentalism I object to most. Not the folks who wanna keep Christianity orthodox—who wanna make sure we follow Jesus, know our bibles, understand him to the best of our ability, and strive to do the good deeds God laid out for us to do. I’m all for that! What I’m not for, is the false religion of conforming to a social standard which only appears moral, but is really patriarchy, racism, political control, Mammonism, and hypocrisy.

Jesus prays for we who are “not of the world.”

John 17.13-19.

Jesus prayed his John 17 prayer before he went to Gethsemane, and prayed for his students because he was about to leave them and wanted his Father to protect them, same as he’d protected them. Because thanks to Jesus’s influence, they were now holy—they were uniquely set apart to serve God; they were no longer common or secular.

That’s what Jesus means when he says they’re no longer “of the world,” in the same way Jesus isn’t “of the world”—they don’t (or are certainly not meant to) follow the crowd anymore, but follow Jesus. And that’s gonna rub the world the wrong way. And rub fellow Christians the wrong way when they love the world, and wanna compromise with it and its godless politics, instead of prioritizing Jesus and his kingdom.

John 17.13-19 KWL

13“Now I come to you,¹

and I speak these things in the world

so they might have my joy fulfilled in them.

14I gave them your¹ message

and the world hates them,

for they’re not of the world

same as I’m not of the world.

15I don’t ask so you’d¹ take them out of the world,

but so you’d¹ guard them from the evil.

16They’re not of the world

same as I’m not of the world.

17Make them holy with the truth.

Your¹ message is truth.

18Same as you¹ send me into the world,

I also send them into the world.

19I make myself holy for them,

so they might already be holy with me

with the truth.”

We don’t pray Jesus’s prayer here as a rote prayer. But we can base our own prayers on it, and pray for the same things Jesus wants. He wants the Father to guard us from evil; Jn 17.15 he taught us in the Lord’s Prayer to pray, “Deliver us from evil.” He wants us to be holy with the truth; Jn 17.17, 19 we can pray that we steadfastly stick to what’s true, and recognize lies and falsehood.

John the baptist’s appearance in the other synoptics.

Matthew 3.1-6,
Luke 3.1-6.

The synoptic gospels are the three gospels which tell the same stories, largely because they take their outline from Mark. We’ve seen how Mark introduced us to John the baptist: First Exodus and Isaiah quotes, then John baptizing in the wilderness and preaching repentance and forgiveness, everybody in Jerusalem and Judea coming to him, his clothes, his food, and his “One stronger than me” teaching. Mk 1.2-6

In Matthew and Luke, John teaches a bit more than just about the “One stronger than me.” There’s a bit about good fruit, the immolation of bad fruit, and some practical examples, and then the “One stronger than me,” who will judge them. I’ll get to the teachings in another article. This one is their introduction to John.

Matthew 3.1-6 KWL

1In those days John the baptist appears,

preaching in the Judean wilderness,

2saying, “Repent!

For heaven’s kingdom has come!”

3For this is the saying of the prophet Isaiah:

“A voice shouting out in the wilderness:

‘Prepare the Lord’s road!

Make him a straight path!’ ” Is 40.3

4John himself has

his clothing of camelhair,

and a leather moneybelt round his waist.

Locusts and undomesticated honey

are his food.

5Jerusalem is going out to John,ᴾ

and all Judea,

and all the Jordanian region,

6and they’re being baptized in the river Jordan by John,ᴾ

confessing their sins.

Luke 3.1-6 KWL

1In the 15th year of the rule of Cæsar TIberius,

with Pontius Pilate ruling Judea,

Herod Antipas as tetrarch of the Galilee,

Herod Philip his brother as tetrarch of Ituræa

and the land of Trachonitas,

Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene,

2Annas and Joseph Caiaphas as head priests,

the word of God comes to John bar Zacharias

in the wilderness.

3John comes to the whole Jordanian region,

preaching a baptism of repentance—

to have one’s sins forgiven.

4Like it was written in the bible,

in the words of the prophet Isaiah:

“A voice shouting out in the wilderness:

‘Prepare the Lord’s road!

Make him a straight path!’

5All ravines will be filled.

All roads and hills knocked down.

The crooked will be straightened.

The rough into smooth roads.

6All flesh will see God’s salvation.” Is 40.3-5

Names, and those fascinated by them.

Every once in a while I attend a baby dedication. One of my siblings made another kid, or one of the people in my church wants to get up on stage and have the pastor bless their newborn, and promise before God ’n everybody they’re gonna raise that kid Christian. Hopefully they do!

And sometimes the pastor is really, really into what that kid’s name is. Weirdly into it.

“Oh, you’ve named her Frances! Well, Frances means ‘of France,’ but it also means ‘free person,’ and that means she’s gonna…”

Followed by some prophecy-style declarations over this baby’s future. What kind of person she’s gonna be, what kind of things God’s gonna emphasize in her life, what possible ministries she might do. Something reminiscent of Simeon’s declarations over Jesus, Lk 2.29-32 or Zacharias’s declarations over John. Lk 1.76-79

Did the Holy Spirit tell the pastor any of this stuff? Sometimes! You can kinda tell when

• the pastor has a track record of prophecies which actually come to something—’cause if they’re legitimately from the Holy Spirit, they’d better.
• the declarations veer wildly from what the name literally means. (I’ll explain in a bit why this happens.)

Meanwhile I’ll point out this other oddity: The pastor making all these prophetic declarations over the child, solely based on their name? In some cases he (it’s always a he) doesn’t believe prophecy happens anymore; he’s full-on cessationist. He thinks God turned off the miracles after the bible was completed, and all prophecy ceased until the End Times. But somehow a special exception has been carved out when we’re naming our children. So now he gets to prophesy! Although he’ll never, ever call it that. This is only a “blessing.” A really prophetic-style blessing, same as done by actual prophets in the bible, but still.

So why are name declarations an acceptable cessationist exception to prophecy? Well, ’cause in the scriptures, names are profoundly meaningful. They regularly, accurately predict the namebearer’s behavior and future. Cessationists believe this still holds true today, cessation of prophecy notwithstanding. So they can prophesy over babies all they like. As for actual prophets standing up, telling ’em what the Holy Spirit says to his church, and interfering with his belief he, not the Spirit, runs things around here: Cessationism still totally applies. Isn’t that handy.

Elijah raises the Sidonian widow’s son.

1 Kings 17.17-24.

There’s some debate about this story: Whether Elijah raises a boy from the dead, or whether Elijah just cures a boy who’s gravely ill. Since the LORD has to put the boy’s soul—his lifeforce—back into his body, 1Ki 17.22 and a body without a soul is dead, I’m gonna say it looks like he died.

1 Kings 17.17 KWL

After these things happened,

the son of the woman fell ill;

she was head of the house.

The illness became very serious,

until there was no breath remaining in him.

“The woman” was the Sidonian widow whom the LORD had ordered to provide for Elijah. 1Ki 17.9 Verse 17 points out she’s the head of the house, which either means she’s in charge of the family—there are no adult men to lead it—or simply that she’s a homeowner. ’Cause she did own a house, and verse 19 tells us Elijah was living in its upper room.

We knew from verse 12 she had a son. We don’t know how old he was, but she could put him on her lap, 1Ki 17.19 so it looks like he was still little. We also don’t know what illness he had, but it stopped him from breathing. It must’ve come upon him suddenly, because Elijah appears to not have known about it till the woman confronted him in the next verse:

1 Kings 17.18 KWL

The woman said to Elijah,

“What are you¹ to me, man of God?

Did you¹ come to me to remind me of my wrongdoing,

and to put to death my son?”

I don’t think there’s any other way to read this, than to interpret it as a really angry reaction. So… what’s that all about?

“What are you to me?” is an ancient middle eastern saying, found in both testaments of the bible. Jesus actually says it to his mom. Jn 2.4 People presume it’s a light rebuke when Jesus says it, because we can’t imagine him yelling at his mom; she’s only trying to help! Jn 2.3 But every time the saying appears otherwise in the bible, it’s not light; it’s an outright rejection. It’s their version of “Get the [EXPLETIVE DELETED] away from me!”

But why does the widow want Elijah out of there? Because she thinks God’s at fault for her son dying. And why would she leap to that conclusion? She says it herself: עֲוֹנִ֖י/aöní, “my wrongdoing.” Not her רַע/ra, “evil”; not her חָטָא/khatá, “sin.” She didn’t break a command or anything. But she believed she did go farther in some way than she should have; she trespassed. Something so egregious, Elijah’s god took it out on her kid. Although you notice she never directly rebukes Elijah’s god. The ire is all directed towards the prophet. She probably didn’t wanna risk further smiting.

I have no idea what this trespass might be, ’cause the bible doesn’t say. I just know she really didn’t understand what kind of character the LORD has. He’s not a petty, vengeful god like the Baals the Sidonians usually worshiped. He’s not eagerly waiting for us to slip up so he can slap us down and send us to hell. God is love. But if the sort of gods you’re used to, or were raised to believe in, are the angry smitey sort, stands to reason you’d think any of your bad karma would unleash his wrath upon you.

Now you’d think because the LORD was miraculously providing them food, she’d have a better idea of what God’s like. But not necessarily. Sometimes it takes an awful lot to get the idea of God’s grace through our thick skulls. Some Christians never really get it, and spend the rest of their lives as legalists because they think God keeps a tally of our sins, and sends us to hell when the points get too high. Or kills our kids.

People regularly assume, wrongly, God’s gonna make us suffer a bit to restore our karmic balance. Yeah we’re repentant, but we owe the universe a little something for our wayward life before. That’s how people behave, so that’s how we presume God behaves. But that’s not who God is. So learn who God is. Don’t just assume it; read your bible and learn what he’s like.

So let’s see Elijah reveal what God’s like.