It is possible to draw a neat scheme from the Gospel narratives of the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus. John is the forerunner who intended only to herald the arrival of one greater than he. John expected to decrease so that another could increase. Then Jesus comes, is baptized by John and replaces John as the leading charismatic teacher of the day.

Luke draws a particularly interesting historical scheme. He sacrifices a normal chronological narrative for the sake of his scheme. He places the imprisonment of John by Herod even before noting the baptism of Jesus, although this event happened much later. This structure gives the effect of rounding off John as the end of an era, and making Jesus the beginning of another.

I do not argue with the scheme, but I think that the scheme has several cracks in it. In an ultimate sense, the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist is as harmonious as the famous painting that depict the two of them playing with each other on their mothers' knees while they are infant cousins. In the nitty-gritty reality of relating with each other in the real world, it was not so simple.

In Matt. 11:11, Jesus commends John when he says that "among all children born of women, a greater than John the Baptist has never been seen." And yet when Jesus goes on to says that "the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he is," the implication, again, is that John was the end of an era and is not included in the new era that Jesus himself has ushered in. The need for Jesus himself and the Gospel writers to emphasize this relationship at the expense of John so strongly suggests an uneasiness between the followers of these two, and probably between the two men themselves. It has never been easy for two charismatic teachers to share the same space temporally or geographically, let alone both. It is not necessary to attribute downright sinfulness on the part of either in order to suggest that they did not always know what to do with one another.

Only one face-to-face encounter between the two is recorded in the Gospels. That is the baptism of Jesus. One can assume that Jesus listened to John's preaching and pondered it deeply in terms of what his own preaching ministry would be. For reasons of his own that remain obscure to this day, Jesus asked to be baptized. The awkwardness of dealing with this event strongly suggests that it was not made up by any follower of Jesus. From the standpoint of a Christian, Jesus asks for and receives a ministry from a person who is inferior to him. Whether or not John knew, or even suspected, at that moment that he was meeting with the one whose sandal he was not worthy to untie, Matthew squirms with the embarrassment that John expresses over being asked to baptize his superior. The answer that Jesus gives in Matthew's account is of no help to anybody. It is hard to see how John could have felt that his question was answered. It is plausible that Jesus was wrestling with the mysterious awareness of a unique vocation on behalf of his heavenly father that had haunted him since childhood, if the story of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve is to be credited at all. Of course such a man would go and listen to the leading preacher of the day to see what he could learn from him. Since this preacher was giving a baptism of repentance as a sign of a new era coming round the corner, it makes sense that this listener would, like all the others, accept baptism. Everybody else was doing it. The cryptic answer that he must "fulfill all righteousness" could have meant, at the time anyway, only that receiving baptism was the righteous thing to do. The result of the baptism, however, was quite different than either John or Jesus planned. The image of the heavens opening is as good a way as any of stating what actually happened in that crucial moment. Quite clearly, Jesus received a much clearer awareness of his identity in relationship to the heavenly father than had been the case up to that time. It is interesting that Luke skips the entire angular dance between the two and only states the fact of the baptism and the opening of the heavens after saying that John was imprisoned by Herod.

The passage in Matthew 11 is, of course, of central importance for exploring what is discernable about the relationship between the two. John is in prison and he sends his disciples to ask Jesus whether or not he really was the one whose coming he had announced. The fact that he asks the question in this way suggests that, at the most, John only suspected the possibility that the young man he was baptizing on that fateful day in the Jordan was the coming one. He might have had no idea whatever of who the man was. In any case, if by any chance John had thought he was baptizing his successor at the time he did it, subsequent events have raised severe doubts. Otherwise, John's questioning of Jesus makes no sense.

There were reasons for John to think that perhaps Jesus had taken up his mantle after John's imprisonment. Although the Gospels record no sayings having to do with temple worship, John's preaching presents a piety that has nothing to do with temple worship and its sacrificial rites. Luke records modest ethical teachings along the lines of economic sharing and refraining from extortion. His practice of baptism in the River Jordan suggests a shift of religious practice from the temple to the wilderness where a new Israel is being raised "from the stones." Although Jesus is not yet attacking the sacrificial system as yet, the location of his own preaching in rural areas, on the fringes of society, as well as the content with its same ethical earnestness and economical sharing, suggest that Jesus had indeed taken up John's mantle.

There were, however, several counter indications. John's preaching was highly apocalyptic in the sense of prophesying the imminent violent activity of God to bring an end to the current social order. It was God who had the axe aimed at the tree ready to strike. Given this apocalyptic preaching, it seems likely that John expected that the one whom he heralded, who would be stronger than he, was the one who would wield the axe that cut down the trees planted by the "brood of vipers" who were fleeing from the wrath to come. Jesus, however, was doing nothing of the kind. The classic apocalyptic scenario is a violent one that entails dividing the world between the good guys and the bad guys. It is essential to this viewpoint that some people be condemned to a bad end as part of the process of ushering in a new golden age. Not only does one not even try to convert the good guys, one makes sure they remain afoul of God for all eternity. We don't really know what John knew about Jesus' life style but it is likely that he was reasonably well-informed by his followers. That is to say, John would likely have heard of Jesus' tendency to have table-fellowship with tax collectors and other sinful people. In short, Jesus was attempting to forge connections between people whom John thought should be divided by the axe that was laid to the tree.

According to the Synoptic Gospels, John was arrested for protesting Herod's marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip's wife. The only other historical source, Josephus, speaks in broader terms of Herod's political need to arrest a charismatic preacher who seemed to have to potential to cause a major uprising. In either case, John was a political prisoner. In dressing like the prophet Elijah and acting like him, he had squared off against royal authority and suffered for it. It is reasonable to believe that John hoped that Jesus would publically stick up for him. Perhaps Jesus could make a public protest against this unjust imprisonment, or he could take over the job of berating Herod for his unlawful marriage. Again, however, Jesus does nothing of the kind. Since Jesus referred to Herod as "that fox" once can assume that Jesus was hardly a fan of the king, but John could be forgiven for suspecting that Jesus did not care all that much about Herod's abuse of power. In comparing the actions of Jesus with those of John, it appears that Herod's violation of Jewish Law through this marriage is a much bigger issue for John than it is for Jesus. That is not to say that Jesus was all in favor of unlawful marriages. It is rather a case of priorities. Going after Herod for his irregular marriage was not at the top of Jesus' list, and it is likely that John felt that he had been left in the lurch by somebody he thought would continue to take up his cause.

Interestingly, although much has been known by historians about the grave economic oppression caused by Herod, none of the recorded criticisms of John the Baptist touch on that subject, in spite of the prophetic precedent for doing so. It is true that Jesus does not give sermons on economic oppression either, but his practice demonstrates a severe critique of the current economical structure. Jesus' feeding the multitudes in the wilderness was not just a pious gesture; it was a radical re-gathering of the people that entailed full economic sharing. Under the economic system of Herod, most people were left with their hunger unsatisfied, while Jesus satisfied the hunger of all.

When Jesus is questioned by John's disciples, he gives a reply that is calculated to stress, perhaps even caricature their differences rather than their similarities. By referring to Isaiah's prophecy of giving sight to the blind and making the lame walk and cleansing lepers, he is citing the very things that John did not do. John threatened his listeners with God's imminent wrath. Jesus is focused on a healing ministry. In one of his tapes on Luke, Gil Bailie presented the contrast between the two by imagining that they both witnessed a hit and run accident. John the Baptist would run after the driver and try and catch him while Jesus would run over to help the person who was run over. In the Gospel narratives, John is busy berating Herod and Jesus is busy healing people and proclaiming the Kingdom of God.

After John's disciples left, Jesus made some more comments on the Baptist. He speak of the kingdom being subject to violence up through the time of John the Baptist and that although nobody born of woman is greater than John, the least in the kingdom is greater than he. This statement suggests that Jesus sees himself as inaugurating a new era, and even John is on the other side of the divide. Another look at what John was doing when he was arrested as well as a look at what John's predecessor did will be instructive.

One of the major things that John the Baptist had in common with Elijah was that both engaged in violent altercations with royalty. Elijah was not just a member of a debating society. Neither was he a journalist content with publishing articles about what was wrong with Ahab and Jezebel. When one looks at Elijah standing alone for Yahweh when everybody else seemed to be against him and his God, the prophet looks pretty heroic, and he was. The story of Elijah praying on the mountain and hearing Yahweh in the "still small voice" is so edifying that the prophet remains a model for the contemplative to this day. However, it is not wise for the peaceful contemplative to pursue this model any further. After all, the "still small voice" says that Elijah will slay the bad guys who persecuted him and then Jehu will slay the rest. This voice may have spoken softly, but the speaker was handing out a pretty big stick. When this prophet returns from the mountain and this glorious theophany, he meets up with Jehu and triggers as violent a revolution as any prophet has touched off.

There are no indications that John the Baptist intended to stir up a violent political revolution although Jospehus states that Herod thought he did, or could. However, John was locked in precisely the same relationship with Herod and Herodias as Elijah was with Abab and Jezebel. In both cases, we have a prophet deadlocked with a royal couple in what can only be called a stalemate. That is to say, in each case, the prophet has become a mimetic double of his royal enemy. In such a situation, it does not matter who "wins" because as long as one is trying to "win," then God and God's people lose. One might be edified by Elijah's protest against the sacrificial cult of Baal which was taking the lives of countless children. However, Elijah's slaying all the prophets of Baal hardly changes things for the better. He has solved one problem of victimization by making victims of others. As long the prophets, for all their zeal and righteousness struggle with abusive authority in a mimetic way and create further victims, as did Elijah, then no fundamental change has taken place. God's kingdom is still subject to violence and, no matter who wins, a violent contestant in the winner. Elijah and John the Baptist may be among the greatest of human beings, but they still fall short of the kingdom envisioned by Jesus.

In his concluding words to John's disciples, Jesus said that whoever did not find him a stumbling block was blessed. The implication is that as long as John the Baptist and his followers think and act in terms of mimetic conflict, John and Herod will be stumbling blocks to each other. More serious, Jesus will appear to be a stumbling block to John the Baptist insofar as Jesus is seen to be a competitor with him. In an important respect, Jesus is a competitor of the Baptist. Jesus clearly has a different agenda than John. It is not possible for one to follow both men wholeheartedly. One has to choose. That is, one of the two men must decrease while the other increases. The challenge for John the Baptist is to give up his own apocalyptic stance and accept the kingdom Jesus is seeking to forge where competition will not be a factor. Only then will Jesus cease to be a stumbling block to his fellow charismatic preacher and social critic.