Religious folk always want to have Jesus on their side. By almost all religions, Jesus is recognized as being the Saviour, or if not that, at least a prophet of God (ie. Muslim). His teachings are acknowledged as being authoritative; His actions an example for us to follow. However, some in their zeal to secure the approval and honour of Jesus the Christ have gone to preposterous lengths. Rather than accept the religion which He preached, originated and authorizes, they seek to make Him fit the mold of their own faith.

One Baptist writer penned, "Jesus walked forty five miles to be baptized by a Baptist."(1) A Catechism for Children reads, "Was Jesus a Baptist? Yes, Jesus was a Baptist, for He was baptized by a Baptist (Matt 3:1-15). Mary and Peter and all the other disciples were Baptists also. For the same reason John was called the Baptist, Jesus and the apostles were also Baptists. Though the true worshippers of God have been called saints, Christians, and many other names by both friends and enemies, they were Baptists because they baptized the same way as John the Baptist. As he was a dipper, they were also dippers; for they rejected the manmade idea of sprinkling babies."(2) Again, another Baptist writer says, "By His baptism, Jesus identified Himself with the ministry of John the Baptist, He authenticated John's ministry, message and baptism. Not only was Jesus Christ, the Son of God baptized by John the Baptist but so were all the 12 apostles (Acts 1:21-22)."(3)

Was Jesus really a Baptist? If so, then the Bible writers do an awful job of revealing that to us. Not once do they say that He was. Did Jesus submitting to John's baptism make Him a disciple of John? Who is greater, the Saviour or the forerunner? In John 3:26-30, some of John's disciples came to him, concerned that Jesus and His disciples were baptizing, and drawing people to them. John was not concerned at all, but rather turned his disciples attention to Jesus. He declared to them, "I am not the Christ...I have been sent before Him." John was not the Bridegroom, but the friend of the Bridegroom. He was not the main attraction – Jesus was. Of Jesus, John proclaimed, "He must increase, but I must decrease." If John was a Baptist, and all those who were to be saved should also be Baptists, then why does he say that he must decrease? According to a careful reading of the Scriptures, John was the only "Baptist", and he said he must decrease. Conclusion, there should be no Baptists in the world today.

The Children's Catechism makes a valid point, that Jesus and His disciples immersed people, but never were they called Baptists. That is a convenient misstatement designed to manipulate young minds. The true worshippers of God, as stated, were called saints or Christians – but never Baptists. Again, the Children's Catechism tries to make a point about Jesus and His disciples rejecting the sprinkling of babies. Had infant baptism been an issue in their day, then they certainly would have, however, "...there is no reference to infant baptism until an obscure one by Ireneus about 185."(4) But even if it had been an issue, that wouldn't make Jesus' disciples "Baptists", it would make them faithful Christians.

The last quote listed above assumes that Jesus disciples were all baptized by John. Acts 1:21-22 makes no such assertion. In context, the phrase "...beginning from the baptism of John..." would refer to Jesus being baptized by John, not His disciples.

The premise behind all three quotes is that the baptism which Jesus and His disciples carried on was the same baptism that John instituted and performed. Notice, in Acts 18:24-19:5, Apollos came to Ephesus preaching. He only knew the baptism of John, and was therefore taken aside by Aquila and Priscilla. Later, when Paul came through the same region, he found disciples meeting together who had been baptized with John's baptism. Was John's baptism the right baptism? No, for Paul took these men and baptized them again, this time in the name of the Lord Jesus. John's baptism and the baptism commanded by Christ (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15-16) are not the same.

So, Jesus wasn't a Baptist. Well, how about a Muslim? Islamic activist and lawyer Azhar Usman states, along with the Muslim population of our world, "We maintain that Moses was a Muslim. Jesus was a Muslim, and those who followed him were Muslims."(5) How can such claims be made? It is explained, "The word ‘Islam' means submission and is related to the word Salam which means peace. Islam is the realization of peace through submission to the one God... A Muslim is one who submits to God."(6)

Did Jesus submit to God? Certainly. Jesus said of Himself, "I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." (John 6:38) Jesus was the perfect picture of submission to the will of God, as He "...humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross." (Philippians 2:8). If the words "Islam" and "Muslim" were simply Arabic words which meant "submission" and "one who submits", we would have no problem, but, these are words which are associated with a world religion which is contrary to Christianity.

The Bible calls the followers of Jesus "Christians" (Acts 11:26; 1 Peter 4:14-16). The Qur'an, the holy book of Islam instructs the Muslim, "Fight those who do not believe in Allah..." (Surah 9:29, 30) Who are these unbelievers? They are identified as the "people of the Book". In the following verse, we read, "...the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the sayings of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Yes, Jesus submitted to God, but certainly, He was not part of the religion which today calls itself "Islam", and stands in opposition against Christians, the very people who follow Jesus. Sorry, Jesus was not a Muslim.

So, if He wasn't a Baptist, and He wasn't a Muslim, was He perhaps a Jehovah's Witness? In a recent e-mail conversation, I was told, "Jesus Christ was a Jehovah's Witness, believe it or not." Hmmm, I'll choose the "not". But that is exactly what the Watchtower Bible And Tract Society teach. In Reasoning from the Scriptures, under the heading "How old is the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses?", we read, "According to the Bible, the line of witnesses of Jehovah reaches back to faithful Abel... With reference to Jesus Christ, the Bible states: ‘These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.' Of whom was he a witness? He himself said that he made his Father's name manifest. He was the foremost witness of Jehovah – Rev. 3:14; John 17:6."(7)

Did Jesus witness for Jehovah? Yes, no doubt about that. Does that make Jesus a Jehovah's Witness? Certainly not. The Witnesses use this phrase in a sectarian sense, not merely as a description of one who believes in God and proclaims His will. In the context of the quote above, they proceed to say, "...in 1931 they adopted the Scriptural name Jehovah's Witnesses. (Isa. 43:10-12)" I have searched through 6 Bible translations (including the NWT, printed by the Watchtower Bible And Tract Society), and have not found this "Scriptural name Jehovah's Witnesses". It's simply not there.

Are God's people called to "witness" for the Lord? Certainly. We are called to reveal Him and His will. We are to imitate the "Come and see" of Philip (John 1:46). We are to preach God's word to every creature (Mark 16:15). But to conclude then that Jesus and those who follow Him are Jehovah's Witnesses is to declare what the Bible does not.

So, who was this Jesus of Nazareth? Not a Baptist, not a Muslim, not a Jehovah's Witness. We could put together an endless list of things He was not. What was He? The Son of God (Mark 1:1). The Messiah (John 4:25-26). The Saviour of the world (John 1:29). Though He was not a Christian (He was a Jew), He brought the New Covenant of God (Hebrews 8:1-13), wherein both Jew and Gentile would be gathered together into one body, the church (Ephesians 1:22-23; 2:14-16). The Baptist church? No. The Jehovah's Witness church? No. The church that belongs to, and is named after the Lord Himself. The church of God (1 Corinthians 1:2). The church of Christ (Romans 16:16). The one church which He promised to build (Matthew 16:18) and died to purchase (Acts 20:28).

Endnotes:
(1) http://www.johnnythebaptist.org/SermonOutlines/Some Things Nobody Used To Be.htm
(2) http://www.letgodbetrue.com/BibleTopics/Baptism/Catechism.htm
(3) http://www.mnvbc.org/articles/what_makes_church.htm
(4) http://www.bible.ca/history/eubanks/history-eubanks-11.htm
(5) http://www.chron.org/tools/viewart.php?artid=583
(6) http://www3.sympatico.ca/shabir.ally/new_page_4.htm
(7) Reasoning from the Scriptures, (Watch Tower Bible And Tracy Society: Brooklyn, New York, 1985), pg. 202-203.

Click here for this week's Answering The Atheist
Matthew 2:23 reads, "...that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.'" There is no mention by the Old Testament prophets that this Jesus fellow would be called a Nazarene. Is there a contradiction?