Earlier this month, I published a post entitled, "A Prophet like unto Moses." An issue I did not cover there may lead some to believe that I have not provided a sufficiently adequate coverage of the topic. So, here I will attempt to fill that gap.
Regarding the questions raised by some priests and levites as to who John the Baptist was, it is believed by some that when they asked if he was "the prophet", that it was a reference to the prophecy of the coming of a prophet like unto Moses that would be raised up from amongst them.
Joh 1:21 YLT And they questioned him, `What then? Elijah art thou?' and he saith, `I am not.' --`The prophet art thou?' and he answered, `No.
In an earlier post, entitled, "Invalidity of All Current Two Witnesses" (posted in March of this year), I made comments to the effect that the second question, "The prophet art thou?", was a reiteration of the first question, "Elijah art thou?", but viewed from the spiritual perspective, meaning that they were asking John if he was the manifestation of the spirit of Elijah, to which he answered in the negative. It is possible, however, that the second question was with regards to the subject matter of this post, asking if he was the prophet like Moses that was prophesied to come. However, I do not believe that to be the case, though I have no strong evidence to support my view. The reason is because, despite a lack of strong evidence for my own view, there is even less to suggest that the question posed was asking John whether he was the prophet like unto Moses.
First of all, it has been a long standing tradition amongst Jews to set a place at the table for Elijah in case he happens to turn up. No such tradition exists, that I am aware of, in expectation of a prophet like Moses. Perhaps Elijah was perceived by some as being the prophet like Moses, though I do not think it is a good fit. They were quite different. One was a leader, the other a loner. One was from amongst the people he was sent to deliver, the other was sent to warn and turn people away from idolatry. The picture of Moses much better fits Christ Yeshua's ministry, a leader who came to save the lost amongst his own people. Of course, Christ will also save the lost amongst all people, the lost who are drawn by God, but the essence of the ministry is the same. Moses was a messenger for the deliverer, Christ is the deliverer.
In the questions posed to John by the priests and levites, there is nothing at all to suggest that the reference to "the prophet" is to anything other than a reference to Elijah, the prophet they had only just been speaking of, making Elijah the immediate subject matter and any reference to Moses in that scripture far too vague for us to really believe. However, if one takes the view that it was a reference to the prophet like unto Moses, then John's answer, "No", is still valid, for he would have known that it was a reference to the coming saviour and not to himself.
Addendum (2017-07-21):
It could well be argued that what was meant by, "the Prophet", in the inquiry to John the Baptist when asked who he was, was not a reference to the belief in the coming of one in the spirit of Elijah but was, in fact, a reference to the prophet "like unto Moses" who was seen by some as merely a prophet and not the long awaited Messiah. This is a reasonable understanding of what was meant by the priests and Levites whose messengers were sent to inquire of John the Baptist as to who he was. It is a reasonable view since we know that, although they knew the scriptures in detail, most of them failed to actually understand the prophetic scriptures correctly, for they were caught up in the letter of the law and not the spirit of it, the Spirit of Truth. If this were not so then they would have recognised the time of their visitation by the Lord. No, indeed they did not. They were more concerned with hand washing than with heart washing, more adroit at accusing others of perceived specks in their eyes than recognising the enormous tree in their own. They truly could not see the forest for the tree! Blind and deaf in spirit, dull of heart, they fussed over times and dates, rules and rituals, and went out of their way to make showy appearances in the public square, in expensive, long, flowing robes, making loud public prayers and speeches, indirectly boasting of their "wisdom and righteousness", and lording it over others to make all the "little people" feel even smaller. They were of the "academia" of the day.
Do we see the same thing today? My, how things never really change! The (pseudo) "scientific" class are the new high priests. They come out in public view to tell us all what we should think and believe and what we should not think and believe. It was through such as them that the great delusion came for it could only come via the most pride-filled, self-deceived hearts. Of course, there are those among them who are truthful and seek only to understand what is true, but the sciences of academia can never come to an understanding of the truth for truth has not its origin in nature but, rather, nature has its origin in Truth. Nature is evidence, not origins.
_____________________
Addendum (2017-07-21):
It could well be argued that what was meant by, "the Prophet", in the inquiry to John the Baptist when asked who he was, was not a reference to the belief in the coming of one in the spirit of Elijah but was, in fact, a reference to the prophet "like unto Moses" who was seen by some as merely a prophet and not the long awaited Messiah. This is a reasonable understanding of what was meant by the priests and Levites whose messengers were sent to inquire of John the Baptist as to who he was. It is a reasonable view since we know that, although they knew the scriptures in detail, most of them failed to actually understand the prophetic scriptures correctly, for they were caught up in the letter of the law and not the spirit of it, the Spirit of Truth. If this were not so then they would have recognised the time of their visitation by the Lord. No, indeed they did not. They were more concerned with hand washing than with heart washing, more adroit at accusing others of perceived specks in their eyes than recognising the enormous tree in their own. They truly could not see the forest for the tree! Blind and deaf in spirit, dull of heart, they fussed over times and dates, rules and rituals, and went out of their way to make showy appearances in the public square, in expensive, long, flowing robes, making loud public prayers and speeches, indirectly boasting of their "wisdom and righteousness", and lording it over others to make all the "little people" feel even smaller. They were of the "academia" of the day.
Do we see the same thing today? My, how things never really change! The (pseudo) "scientific" class are the new high priests. They come out in public view to tell us all what we should think and believe and what we should not think and believe. It was through such as them that the great delusion came for it could only come via the most pride-filled, self-deceived hearts. Of course, there are those among them who are truthful and seek only to understand what is true, but the sciences of academia can never come to an understanding of the truth for truth has not its origin in nature but, rather, nature has its origin in Truth. Nature is evidence, not origins.
