Old Testament Prophets

[Ron Beron]

'inquiringmind' writes,

His mortal name aside, is there any evidence from the standard works that all the Old Testament prophets knew about the incarnation and atonement.

If we strictly adhere to the theology of the OT then we have little evidence that the Jews felt they needed an universal atonement, but rather concentrated on a personal one as on the Day of Atonement. Since there wasn't a feeling that Adam's transgression forced the need for an universal atonement then Jesus' sacrifice was completely different.

(And do the standard works say anything about whether Solomon is saved or lost?)

I don't believe Solomon was ever considered a prophet.

[Kevin Christensen]

From my essay, The Deuteronomist De-Christianzing of the Old Testament, here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=2&id=547

Barker makes use of nonbiblical writings that have been rediscovered, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the apocalyptic writings to show the appropriate expectations for the anointed one in the Palestinian background. For example, in an essay called "Atonement: The Rite of Healing," she discusses passages from Deuteronomy, the Assumption of Moses, and the Melchizedek text (the Qumran Melchizedek) that are "mutually consistent, and show that the heavenly high priest was the Lord who came from his holy place on the Day of Atonement in order to save his people from the power of the fallen angels, to punish their enemies and to kpr [Heb. "atone"] the land."⁴⁹

That creation rituals should be performed by the Lord is hardly surprising. If the Lord had bound the creation at the beginning with the great covenant which kept the forces of chaos in their place and gave security to his people, any covenant renewal ceremony must have involved the Lord performing these acts. Atonement rituals repaired the damage to the created order caused by sin which "wrath" could have broken in with such disastrous consequences. Again,

The Jewish Encyclopedia

makes an interesting observation: "But while, according to Scripture, the high priest made atonement,

tradition transferred the atoning power to God

."

50

Of particular interest to Latter-day Saint studies is Barker's assertion that the traditions that do account for the appropriate messianic expectations go back to the First Temple in preexilic Israel. This roots the Book of Mormon in the key time and place. What is more, the vagueness that Charles correctly attributes to the Old Testament descriptions of a messiah should be considered given Barker's observation that the "distribution of unreadable Hebrew texts is not random; they are texts which bear upon the Christian tradition."⁵¹ And, it turns out, "Scholars seem not to consider the major implications for Christian origins of the Qumran readings in, say Deuteronomy and Isaiah, which are not in the MT. The original assumption had been that the Qumran evidence represented sectarian or vulgar versions of the Hebrew text, but scribes updating texts and producing uniformity must mean that some things were being altered, some things were being removed."⁵²

Citing

Atonement: The Rite of Healing

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Atonement.pdf

And Text and Context, which is interesting reading alongside 1 Nephi 13.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Freedom]

There was apostasy or a lack of prophets from time to time throughout the history of mankind; however there cannot have a prophet who does not have a clear understanding of the gospel. This would be like having a professional hockey player who does not know how to skate. Knowledge of the atonement is, as I stated earlier, fundamental to the gospel and one could not be a prophet and not know this. Helaman records: and now behold, Moses did not only testify of these things, but also all the holy prophets, from his days even to the days of Abraham.’ And Mosiah records : ‘Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord...” or Jacob: ‘not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets...’. And in D&C 20:26 is explains ‘...the words of the holy prophets who truly testified of him in all things...’

What purpose, exactly, would a prophet of the Lord have if he did not understand the plan of salvation? What exactly would he teach? Could you be a mathematician and not know how to add? If you have the impression that it could have been otherwise, you will have to provide a reference to support your theory. If knowledge of the Savior was lost, it was because of a lack of God’s prophets. Where there is a prophet of God, there is a true understanding of the plan of salvation.

[Freedom]

That's it.

And they are made known unto us in plain terms, that we may understand, that we cannot err; and this because of our being wanderers in a strange land; therefore, we are thus highly favored, for we have these glad tidings declared unto us in all parts of our vineyard. Alma 13:23.

Does it follow that the incarnation and atonement wasn't made plain to Solomon, Jonah, and other Old Testament Prophets?

Is it possible they may not have known about these doctrines?

Is there anything in the standards works, or the teachings of Joseph Smith that would require us to believe they did?

I think you have to put this verse in context:

22 Yea, and the voice of the Lord, by the ^amouth of angels, doth declare it unto all nations; yea, doth declare it, that they may have glad tidings of great joy; yea, and he doth sound these glad tidings among all his people, yea, even to them that are scattered abroad upon the face of the earth; wherefore they have come unto us.

23 And they are made known unto us in ^aplain terms, that we may understand, that we cannot err; and this because of our being^bwanderers in a strange land; therefore, we are thus highly favored, for we have these glad tidings declared unto us in all parts of our vineyard.

24 For behold, ^aangels are declaring it unto many at this time in our land; and this is for the purpose of preparing the hearts of the children of men to receive his word at the time of his coming in his glory."

Thus, when you read the context, it is made clear that the doctrine is taught to everyone. The Nephites are not rejoicing because they have special knowledge, but rather they are rejoicing because they received the same doctrines that are taught in the holy land. That is, even though they are in a strange land, they still receive the same teachings that is delivered in Jerusalem and its environs.

[William Schryver]

There was apostasy or a lack of prophets from time to time throughout the history of mankind; however there cannot have a prophet who does not have a clear understanding of the gospel. This would be like having a professional hockey player who does not know how to skate. Knowledge of the atonement is, as I stated earlier, fundamental to the gospel and one could not be a prophet and not know this. Helaman records: and now behold, Moses did not only testify of these things, but also all the holy prophets, from his days even to the days of Abraham.’ And Mosiah records : ‘Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord...” or Jacob: ‘not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets...’. And in D&C 20:26 is explains ‘...the words of the holy prophets who truly testified of him in all things...’

What purpose, exactly, would a prophet of the Lord have if he did not understand the plan of salvation? What exactly would he teach? Could you be a mathematician and not know how to add? If you have the impression that it could have been otherwise, you will have to provide a reference to support your theory. If knowledge of the Savior was lost, it was because of a lack of God’s prophets. Where there is a prophet of God, there is a true understanding of the plan of salvation.

It's possible that I've misunderstood you to some degree, but I think when it comes to the definition of a "prophet," I'm not so sure things are as cut and dried as you seem to want to make them:

Alma 29

8 For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true.

It's one thing to give a people, through its prophets, an understanding of and hope for a Messiah. (See Kevin's post above yours.) It is another thing altogether to suggest that all the prophets, in all ages of time, had "a clear understanding of the gospel" in the sense that we do today--else what meaning would there be in the phrase "the dispensation of the fulness of times"?

[Freedom]

The question I am responding to was "Did they all know that Christ was coming in the flesh to redeem them from their sins?" not, did they all know all the doctrines of the gospel that we have today. I would agree with you about the definition of 'prophet'. A prophet is a teacher, but I am of the opinion that where there are prophets of what ever definition, there is an organized priesthood authority with a presiding high priest at its head. Consequently, the plan of salvation would have been known and readily taught. This is the beautiful truth we learn from the Book of Mormon. I am not convinced that 'fullness of times' implies that previous dispensations lacked doctrines. Fullness eludes to completion. We have all the keys and this is the dispensation with the plan will be fulfilled or completed. Of course, this is all conjecture. One could argue that these basic truths were not available but I find this unlikely and contradictory.

It's possible that I've misunderstood you to some degree, but I think when it comes to the definition of a "prophet," I'm not so sure things are as cut and dried as you seem to want to make them:

It's one thing to give a people, through its prophets, an understanding of and hope for a Messiah. (See Kevin's post above yours.) It is another thing altogether to suggest that all the prophets, in all ages of time, had "a clear understanding of the gospel" in the sense that we do today--else what meaning would there be in the phrase "the dispensation of the fulness of times"?

[zerinus]

Were all the Old Testament Prophets baptized Christians?

We know that baptism was not unheard of among the Jews before Christ, because when John the Baptist came and started baptizing, the Jews did not question the practice, but many of them (including many Pharisees) accepted and submitted to it. But whether that means that all the earlier prophets knew of and received some kind of baptism in the name of Christ, is something that cannot be said with certainly.

Did they all know that Christ was coming in the flesh to redeem them from their sins?

According to these verses, all the major prophets at least know:

Luke 24:

25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

John 8:

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Acts 3:

24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

3 Nephi 20:

24 Verily I say unto you, yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have testified of me.

Isaiah obviously knew. David evidently knew. And so did many other prophets. But whether that means that all the prophets knew without exception, or whether a specific prophet know, no one can tell. It is conceivable that some of them might not have known.

Did Jonah and Solomon know that Jesus was gonna die for their sins, and were they baptized into His death (like the Nephites were)?

I am sure some of them did; but no one can be sure if all of them did.

I'm asking about Old Testament prophets who lived centuries later, and I don't believe the answer to my question can be found in the Old or New Testaments.

My question is whether it can be found in Latter day revelation, or the teachings of Joseph Smith?

Did prophets like Jonah, Joel, and Haggai know that Jesus was coming in the flesh to die for their sins?

See the references I gave earlier. All the major prophets evidently knew, and no doubt many other did too; but does that mean that every other prophet knew without exception? I don’t think that anyone can tell with certainty.

His mortal name aside, is there any evidence from the standard works that all the Old Testament prophets knew about the incarnation and atonement.

When Jonah heard the voice of God telling him to preach repentance to his nation's enemies, and he turned his back and caught the first ship to Tarshish, is it possible he just didn't know that the God who spoke to him would come in the flesh to die for his sins?

When Solomon turned to idols after God appeared to him three times, is it possible he didn't know?

(And do the standard works say anything about whether Solomon is saved or lost?)

Solomon sinned, but it doesn’t say anything about him being saved or lost.

That's it.

And they are made known unto us in plain terms, that we may understand, that we cannot err; and this because of our being wanderers in a strange land; therefore, we are thus highly favored, for we have these glad tidings declared unto us in all parts of our vineyard. Alma 13:23.

Does it follow that the incarnation and atonement wasn't made plain to Solomon, Jonah, and other Old Testament Prophets?

Is it possible they may not have known about these doctrines?

It may do; or it may mean that their knowledge was not as extensive as it was among the Nephites.

Is there anything in the standards works, or the teachings of Joseph Smith that would require us to believe they did?

Again see my previous quotes. Many of them did; but no one can know for sure if all of them without exception did. I think you are splitting hairs here a little bit. The important thing is that many of the ancient prophets, like Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah etc. knew. But whether all of them did without exception; or any one particular prophet did; is not really all that significant.

[Freedom]

Again see my previous quotes. Many of them did; but no one can know for sure if all of them without exception did. I think you are splitting hairs here a little bit. The important thing is that many of the ancient prophets, like Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah etc. knew. But whether all of them did without exception; or any one particular prophet did; is not really all that significant.

As an example, we cannot prove that Moses ever washed his face because to my knowledge the record does not expressly state this, but it is most likely that he did. To debate the point is, well, pointless.

[Ron Beron]

zerinus writes,

We know that baptism was not unheard of among the Jews before Christ, because when John the Baptist came and started baptizing, the Jews did not question the practice, but many of them (including many Pharisees) accepted and submitted to it. But whether that means that all the earlier prophets knew of and received some kind of baptism in the name of Christ, is something that cannot be said with certainly.

In fact, baptism for the remission of sin was indeed unheard of in the OT. The tradition of Tvilah or immersion in a Mikvah for ritual cleansing or purification due to contact with some impurity such as a corpse of blood was part of the ritual. John the Baptist used baptism as a sacrament in his Messianic movement, but its antecedent was not really connected with his practice.

[zerinus]

zerinus writes, In fact, baptism for the remission of sin was indeed unheard of in the OT. The tradition of Tvilah or immersion in a Mikvah for ritual cleansing or purification due to contact with some impurity such as a corpse of blood was part of the ritual. John the Baptist used baptism as a sacrament in his Messianic movement, but its antecedent was not really connected with his practice.

What I was saying was that baptism of the kind that John performed (as opposed to ritual washing according to the Law of Moses) could not have been entirely unheard of among the Jews, otherwise the Jews (including the fastidious Pharisees) would not have readily accepted it. John's baptism had nothing to do with the ritual washing under the Law of Moses. The latter was not sacramental in nature, and you did not need a special authorization to perform it. John's baptism, on the other hand, according to the Lord's own declaration, was "of God" (Mark 11:30; Luke 7:29-30; 20:4). But if it was such an alien concept among the Jews, why would they, including Pharisees who were meticulous about the observance of the Law, recognize and accept it?

[Ron Beron]

What I was saying was that baptism of the kind that John performed (as opposed to ritual washing according to the Law of Moses) could not have been entirely unheard of among the Jews, otherwise the Jews (including the fastidious Pharisees) would not have readily accepted it. John's baptism had nothing to do with the ritual washing under the Law of Moses. The latter was not sacramental in nature, and you did not need a special authorization to perform it. John's baptism, on the other hand, according to the Lord's own declaration, was "of God" (Mark 11:30; Luke 7:29-30; 20:4). But if it was such an alien concept among the Jews, why would they, including Pharisees who were meticulous about the observance of the Law, recognize and accept it?

While John's use of the purification ceremony as a preamble to a messianic age is beyond doubt the ruling elite more than likely saw it as simply a ritual purification and were present not to give acquiescence but obtain evidence for his condemnation, hence John's report of calling them "vipers". Recent discoveries have ostensibly found John's cave near the Jordan River. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5724143/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/cave-linked-john-baptist/#.Tp2OhXLeuuI While not conclusive, it seems that John might have used this area as a staging ground for his baptisms. Within the cave is a ritual bath and not a baptism center. If anything, the baptism ceremony was a further extension of the Tvilah.

[zerinus]

While John's use of the purification ceremony as a preamble to a messianic age is beyond doubt the ruling elite more than likely saw it as simply a ritual purification and were present not to give acquiescence but obtain evidence for his condemnation, hence John's report of calling them "vipers".

I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. While it is true that most of the scribes and Pharisees did not in fact receive John't baptism (for which they were condemned by the Lord), there were a few who did, either out of genuine sincerity, or to hedge their bets and be on the safe side with God. Calling them "vipers" does not mean that they had come to find occasion against him. He was simply telling them that they were sinners and needed to repent.

Recent discoveries have ostensibly found John's cave near the Jordan River. See http://www.msnbc.msn...t/#.Tp2OhXLeuuI While not conclusive, it seems that John might have used this area as a staging ground for his baptisms. Within the cave is a ritual bath and not a baptism center. If anything, the baptism ceremony was a further extension of the Tvilah.

I am sceptical about this find as well. The NT tells us that he baptized in the wilderness, and in the river Jordan; not in a cave, or other confined space:

Mark 1:

4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

John 1:

28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 3:

23 And John also was baptizing in Ænon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

John 10:

40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.

After Jesus was baptized, the scripture tells us that "the heavens were opened," and the Holy Ghost descended on Him in the form of a dove (Luke 3:21-22). How could the "heavens" have been opened if they were sitting in a cave?

Edited October 18, 2011 by zerinus

[Ron Beron]

I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. While it is true that most of the scribes and Pharisees did not in fact receive John't baptism (for which they were condemned by the Lord), there were a few who did, either out of genuine sincerity, or to hedge their bets and be on the safe side with God. Calling them "vipers" does not mean that they had come to find occasion against him. He was simply telling them that they were sinners and needed to repent.

I am sceptical about this find as well. The NT tells us that he baptized in the wilderness, and in the river Jordan; not in a cave, or other confined space:

Mark 1:

4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

John 1:

28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 3:

23 And John also was baptizing in Ænon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

John 10:

40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.

After Jesus was baptized, the scripture tells us that "the heavens were opened," and the Holy Ghost descended on Him in the form of a dove (Luke 3:21-22). How could the "heavens" have been opened if they were sitting in a cave?

The cave is supposedly where he lived which is next to the river Jordan. Despite the probably baptism of Sadducees and Pharisees that still does not show baptism for the remission of sins existed in the OT. It simply shows that, as you say, "hedging their bets", but I doubt that John actually performed any baptism on those he considered vipers.

[jo1952]

The cave is supposedly where he lived which is next to the river Jordan. Despite the probably baptism of Sadducees and Pharisees that still does not show baptism for the remission of sins existed in the OT. It simply shows that, as you say, "hedging their bets", but I doubt that John actually performed any baptism on those he considered vipers.

It wouldn't make sense that John would decide NOT to baptize someone he considered a viper since later Jesus condemned those "vipers" for NOT being baptized. Why would Jesus condemn them for something John simply would not do?

Also, I would like to point out that Jesus Himself was baptized just like the others being baptized BEFORE His True identity was known. It was only afterward that the Heavens opened and Father told the people that THIS was His Son. Prior to that group revelation, Jesus was just another Jew who was following the practice of being baptized. Thus, it is only in retrospect that we are taught that even the Son of God followed this prescripton of baptism through His own personal example. This was not a "new" practice or idea. In fact, later in the NT we are informed that baptisms are being performed for the dead; it was not only a practice being done for the living. What is not clear, iirc, by reading the Bible, is how long this particular practice of performing baptisms for the dead, had been carried on.

Regards,

jo

[zerinus]

The cave is supposedly where he lived which is next to the river Jordan.

It says that John resided in the wilderness. If that cave existed in that vicinity, then it is not inconceivable that it would have been one of his haunts; but it is unlikely that he would have performed his baptisms there.

Despite the probably baptism of Sadducees and Pharisees that still does not show baptism for the remission of sins existed in the OT.

I don't know what kind of "baptism" existed in the OT. All I am saying is that some kind of baptism (as distinct to the ritual cleansing under the Law of Moses) must have existed, or the Jews must have been familiar with the concept, for them to readily accept it without questioning it. Nephi's vision in the Book of Mormon tells the same story. He talks about the baptism of Jesus (which he sees in vision) as though it were a common or familiar rite among the Jews, and therefore he does not attempt to explain it.

It simply shows that, as you say, "hedging their bets", but I doubt that John actually performed any baptism on those he considered vipers.

I wouldn't say so. John couldn't very well refuse baptism to those who came to him to be baptized; but if they were sinners he counselled them to repent, because otherwise the baptism wouldn't do them any good. He told all of those who came to him to be baptized to repent:

Luke 3:

7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

10 And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?

11 He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.

12 Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?

13 And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.

14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

Matthew 3:

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

He baptized all who came to him, including publicans and sinners; but told them that they needed to repent for the baptism to do them any good.

[Ron Beron]

'zerinus' writes...

It says that John resided in the wilderness. If that cave existed in that vicinity, then it is not inconceivable that it would have been one of his haunts; but it is unlikely that he would have performed his baptisms there.

I am not going to die on this hill, but why not there? The evidence shows that people used it as a spot for a spiritual pilgrimage by those who continued to follow John way after his death. It is certainly wilderness so I repeat, why not?

I wouldn't say so. John couldn't very well refuse baptism to those who came to him to be baptized; but if they were sinners he counselled them to repent, because otherwise the baptism wouldn't do them any good. He told all of those who came to him to be baptized to repent:

Again, why not? Would cast pearls before swine? Besides, I think the evidence shows that they were there to observe and not to be baptized.

[Calm]

It wouldn't make sense that John would decide NOT to baptize someone he considered a viper since later Jesus condemned those "vipers" for NOT being baptized. Why would Jesus condemn them for something John simply would not do?

Because they weren't worthy of being baptized in the first place; Jesus made it clear how he felt about hypocrites, those who obeyed the form while ignoring the spirit. He did not condemn people because they weren't baptized because they hadn't had the opportunity, he taught them instead to prepare themselves to receive it. The Pharisees had the opportunity, they just weren't willing to take it with the conditions attached to it like many today. The problem with the 'vipers' was their refusal to prepare themselves, their refusal to see a need to be purified, their refusal to accept the instruction of God, not the absence of an ordinance in their life but the reason for its absence.

Edited October 19, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Again, why not? Would cast pearls before swine? Besides, I think the evidence shows that they were there to observe and not to be baptized.

They don't appear to think it necessary for their spiritual or ritual progression at least. At least as presented they seem to see themselves as 'right with God' through their observance of the Law. They come across to me as religious snobs out to be entertained by the antics of the uneducated and less 'pure' provincials and 'riff raff'.

[Calm]

I wouldn't say so. John couldn't very well refuse baptism to those who came to him to be baptized:

Why not? We do when appropriate.

[zerinus]

'zerinus' writes...

I am not going to die on this hill, but why not there? The evidence shows that people used it as a spot for a spiritual pilgrimage by those who continued to follow John way after his death. It is certainly wilderness so I repeat, why not?

Again, why not? Would cast pearls before swine? Besides, I think the evidence shows that they were there to observe and not to be baptized.

You have raised two points here: one regarding the place of the baptisms performed by John, the other regarding whether John baptized all those who came to him desiring to be baptized, including sinners like Pharisees, harlots, or publicans; or whether he refused baptism to the sinners, and only baptized the righteous. The answer to the first is a matter of probability; and the answer to the second is a matter of certainty as far as I am concerned. I don’t know if John baptized anybody in a cave or not. For all I know he may have done. But judging by the context of the New Testament, that seems to be the unlikely eventuality.

The answer to the second is a matter of doctrinal and theological certainty from my point of view. There is no question in my mind that John would have baptized all those who came to him requesting baptism, but counselled them to repent if he perceived that they had been sinners. Jesus testified that John baptized sinners who came to him to be baptized in good faith. Jesus bore witness to that in these words:

Matthew 21:

31 ... Jesus saith unto them [the Pharisees], Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

John baptized all those who came to him in good faith, seeking repentance and remission of sins. He wouldn’t have turned any of them away, including the scribes and Pharisees. That is a matter of certainty as far as I am concerned. As already observed, the majority of the scribes and Pharisees didn't go to him. But there were a few that did; and John would have baptized them like rest. He wouldn't have turned anyone away.

[zerinus]

They don't appear to think it necessary for their spiritual or ritual progression at least. At least as presented they seem to see themselves as 'right with God' through their observance of the Law. They come across to me as religious snobs out to be entertained by the antics of the uneducated and less 'pure' provincials and 'riff raff'.

Why not? We do when appropriate.

As observed in my previous post, it is true that the majority of the Pharisees did not believe John, and therefore were not baptized of him; but the context of the scriptures makes clear that there were some Pharisees that did; and the context also suggests that he treated them like the rest, and baptized them.

[Ron Beron]

They don't appear to think it necessary for their spiritual or ritual progression at least. At least as presented they seem to see themselves as 'right with God' through their observance of the Law. They come across to me as religious snobs out to be entertained by the antics of the uneducated and less 'pure' provincials and 'riff raff'.

Interesting take, but I also feel they felt threatened by his increasing charisma and following. Even after his and Jesus' death there were many who continued to follow him.

[Ron Beron]

John baptized all those who came to him in good faith, seeking repentance and remission of sins. He wouldn’t have turned any of them away, including the scribes and Pharisees. That is a matter of certainty as far as I am concerned. As already observed, the majority of the scribes and Pharisees didn't go to him. But there were a few that did; and John would have baptized them like rest. He wouldn't have turned anyone away.

What evidence can you show that he did just that? There isn't any real evidence to show that Pharisees or Sadducees accepted baptism by John. Like the cave it can racked up mere probability.

[Calm]

Interesting take, but I also feel they felt threatened by his increasing charisma and following. Even after his and Jesus' death there were many who continued to follow him.

I would definitely agree, I don't see them as mutually exclusive positions, but rather two positions that feed on each other...threatened by him they downplay or try to discount him as much as possibly because they are overly fond of their sense of superiority...however since my training is in clinical psychology, I may be reading too much into the text.

[Robert F. Smith]

Did they all know that Christ was coming in the flesh to redeem them from their sins?

The word "Gospel" means "good news," and most commentators would say that these New Testament passages allude to no more than a dimly perceived Old Testament hope.

Is there anything in latter day revelation that's a little clearer and more explicit?

Did Jonah and Solomon know that Jesus was gonna die for their sins, and were they baptized into His death (like the Nephites were)?

Questing Beast said:

It is more correct to say that the Messiah to come was known by the OT prophets, than to assert that any of them knew what his name would be. Only the Lehites in our pre-Christian scriptures knew his name before his birth. There is no evidence for OT prophets having prior knowledge of his mortal identity....

The OT is rife with references to Jesus by name, as the coming Savior, such references requiring a knowledge of Hebrew, since the KJV OT translators completely divorced themselves from NT style language or references.

For example, Gospel does indeed mean "good news," and, according to non-Mormon Robert Fisher, the “central core” of the message of Deutero-Isaiah “is the proclamation of the ultimate good news [Gospel] of exiled Israel’s imminent deliverance and the inauguration of the eschatological reign of God.” The herald of good tidings in Isaiah 40:9, for example (cf. 41:27, 52:7, Jer 23:5, 33:15), is called in Hebrew mebaśśer(et), which is the piel participle form of BŚR, the only form in which this root occurs in 2nd Isaiah. The Latin Vulgate and Jerome translated it into evangelizas, while the Targum for 40:9 has Aramaic (d)bsryn “good tidings, gospel.” The prophet Muhammad, in the Qur’an, refers to himself as a “bringer of good tidings” (Arabic baširun, mubašširun), which is identical to New Testament evangelist. The mebaśśer or herald receives his call in the Divine Council and is the means whereby YHWH delivers the good news and inaugurates the new age – the herald brings the good news of YHWH’s coming. He is both bearer of the message of salvation, and the bringer of salvation (cf. Romans 10:15, Acts 11:22, 13:32, II Samuel 4:4).

When Job declares that "I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth" (Job 19:25), one can imagine that he has something rather important in mind.

Just so, when Jesus is repeatedly named in Hebrew as "my Jesus; my Salvation" (Ps 38:22; cf. Isa 25:9, Ps 35:9), one ought to at least imagine what it must have been like in the 1st century A.D. to find someone having that name. Indeed, when Jesus' parents took baby Jesus into the temple for the Redemption of the Firstborn rite, Simeon the Priest took him in his arms and declared "mine eyes have seen thy Jesus/Salvation" (Luke 2:30), which is the very name given by an angel before he was born: "thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins" (Matt 1:21), which is the very meaning of the name.

Even the OT designation as "the Anointed-one" typically remains unconnected with "Christ," even though they are directly equivalent:

Psalm 2:2

The kings of the earth set themselves, ,

and the rulers take counsel together,

against the LORD,

and against

his anointed,

Acts 4:26

The kings of the earth stood up

and the rulers were gathered together

against the Lord,

and against

his Christ

.

Nuff said?

Edited October 20, 2011 by Robert F. Smith