Jesus' movement separated from John the Baptist early on. John's followers to this day maintain that he was the true messiah. The Gospels try to correct this impression without making John an enemy of Christ. After all, John was one of those few people filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb.
Blessed John wasn't necessarily wrong, so there is no reason for Christ to condemn him. But, unlike Jesus, John preached angrily and violently. Jesus' message was fundamentally opposite of John's.
A warrior-king who would defeat Rome would not preach peace, loving your enemy, and forgiveness. That is how we perceive things to this day. That's how the Jews perceived thing then too.
Yet, when you think about it, it is the meek Jesus of Nazareth that did defeat Rome: not only did He defeat Rome, but He became the God of the Roman Empire and established His Church in Rome! It just didn't happen as the Jewish people wished it would, and it didn't happen when they wanted it to happen, but in due time, on God's time.
****It just didn’t happen as the Jewish people wished it would, and it didn’t happen when they wanted it to happen, but in due time, on God’s time.*****
You keep talking like that, and we’ll make a Calvinist out of you yet. :>)
John even said he was not fit to tie Jesus' sandals. I give him a pass. Maybe Paul was thinking of these followers when he didn't want to baptize people.
But, unlike Jesus, John preached angrily and violently. Jesus' message was fundamentally opposite of John's.
That just can't be right, or Jesus would not have said what He said about John. Yes, their styles were very different, but the message was essentially the same. If John's message was opposite to that of Jesus, then it could not "have fulfilled all righteousness" for John to baptize Him. Jesus calls him MORE than a prophet (Matt. 11:9).