If we were able to bring John the Baptizer into a court of law – I think we would find him to be a “credible enough” of a witness.
I have thought about this all week.
A subpoena could be used if necessary; it would compel the testimony of a witness (such as him) in a trial.
The subpoena would make it compulsory to comply, to take an oath, and to tell the truth under the penalty of perjury.
Hearsay (obviously) would not be admissible.
John certainly has the “reliability” necessary and the “reputation.” He could act as an “expert witness” or as “an expert eye witness.”
He would be deemed “competent” enough to stand trial despite his outward appearance. He would have to be cleaned up a bit before making his appearance in court before the judge.
I imagine he would do well under “direct examination,” as well as under “cross examination.” He could handle his own in a “redirect.”
We could count on his “reliability” the strength of his character.
“Eye witness testimony” is still generally presumed to be more reliable than “circumstantial evidence.”
I do realize and understand that there would be that whole thing about “eyewitness memory” and the lapse of time in between.
But then John’s “cognitive processes” could be determined to be fine, in spite of the lapse of time.
He could also serve as a “reputation witness.”
It probably needs to be stated upfront that we know of no earlier recorded conversation between Jesus and John the Baptizer, other than what we have in the gospel accounts.
What we have, is well, what we have.
All four gospels – bear witness to same event. The Baptism of Jesus.
We know that John is dis-similar, that he is unlike the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.
The gospel of John emphasizes that Jesus was the “Lamb of God” who takes away the sin of the world.
In John’s baptism – “the important truth” is that the “Spirit of the Living God” – came to rest and remains on Jesus in a “special way.”
In his baptism, Jesus was declared to be the Son of God, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
John would obviously testify to this.
The Gospel of John is clear: Jesus was baptized in order to be revealed as the “Son of God” to Israel.
And John the Baptizer “bore witness.” He was more than willing to “testify” to anyone who might listen.
“Bearing witness” means giving testimony or sharing evidence of what a person has seen first-hand.
John under oath, would say, “I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven.”
“I saw” … it was a personal seeing…an observation, as a firsthand witness, John personally saw the Spirit of the Living God descending on Jesus like a dove.
He was under oath.
He would not lie.
He would tell the truth of what he had “witnessed.”
The Gospel of John not only likes but uses the word “witness” often. 26 times to be exact. Witness seems to be a kind of “favorite word” of the author. It is seldom a word used by the synoptic gospels…and is pretty much unique to John.
To give you just a couple of examples…John 1.7 says, “He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him.
John 1.8 says, He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light.
John 1. 15, “John bore witness to him and cried, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.” And so on…23 more times…
John would swear under oath – that the Spirit of God descended upon Jesus and Jesus was declared to be the Son of God – by none other than God himself. Jesus was designated Son of God by God. There is “no wiggle room” there as to the true identity of Jesus.
The Baptizer did well. He was a good witness. His testimony was sure. His testimony would have swayed a jury of his peers.
But how does his testimony sit with you? Remember – he was an eye-witness to these events.
Now the job of witnessing belongs to us!