Shincheonji would make the case that because John the Baptist went from boldly proclaiming to who Jesus is, and how he was unworthy to untie the sandals of Christ in John 1:29-33, to having to send his disciples to verify if Jesus is the Messiah, shows not only a decline in faith, but also an eventual betrayal.

The issue with this line of reasoning is that we can see plenty of God’s people doubting God, and yet they weren’t considered apostates. 

Shincheonji argues that John the Baptist’s question from prison — “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” (Matthew 11:3) — is proof that he began to betray Jesus. But this reasoning falls apart when we look at the rest of Scripture. Many of God’s faithful servants struggled with doubt in moments of weakness, yet they are celebrated as models of faith:

• Abraham doubted God’s promise of a son, even laughing at the idea (Genesis 17:17), yet he is remembered as the father of faith (Romans 4:20–22).
• Moses questioned whether God really chose him, saying, “What if they do not believe me?” (Exodus 4:1), but he became Israel’s great deliverer and prophet.
• Elijah, after his victory on Mount Carmel, fell into despair and prayed to die (1 Kings 19:4), yet he was taken up into heaven and honored at the Transfiguration.
• Thomas doubted the resurrection of Jesus, insisting he would not believe without seeing and touching (John 20:25), but when confronted with the risen Christ, he confessed one of the clearest declarations of faith: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).

John’s moment of doubt in prison fits within this same biblical pattern. Human weakness does not erase a life of faithful service. Jesus did not condemn John but instead reassured him with evidence of a fulfilled prophecy (Matthew 11:4–6) and declared him the greatest born of women (Matthew 11:11). If doubt equaled betrayal, then half of the heroes of faith would be guilty of apostasy.

A question to ponder – if John the Baptist was already in the state of apostasy, why would he then send his Disciples to Jesus if he no longer believed in Jesus being the Messiah? If anything, when he sent the disciples to Jesus, it shows that he still had faith in Christ, but instead this was a moment of human weakness.

Another thing to keep in mind is that John the Baptist already knew that he was going to die. His disciples were distraught, and John didn’t want to have his disciples lose faith. He wanted them to hear Jesus proclaim to be the Messiah straight from the horse’s mouth.

In order to answer this question, we need to look at the parallel story of the series of events in Luke 7 in order to gain more clarity.

Luke 7:29 says –

29 (All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that God’s way was right, because they had been baptized by John.

In this verse, we can see the following – that the baptisms of John the Baptist were still considered to be righteous in the eyes of God.

It wasn’t until after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ did we see that the disciples of John the Baptist needed to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and in order to receive the Holy Spirit.

Acts 19:1-5 –

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

This shows us two things – that during the ministry of Christ, and before the crucifixion, there was a transition period between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. During this transition period, John the Baptist and his calls for repentance were still considered to be righteous before the eyes of God.

Since he’s speaking to the disciples of John the Baptist, doesn’t this infer that John the Baptist is starting to slip away in his faith?

First, let’s read the context on what Jesus is doing. Before he makes that statement, he is re-assuring and explaining how He is the Messiah by confirming how he’s fulfilling the Messianic prophecies. 

The reason why Jesus has to do this is because the Jews of the first century were expecting a Messiah to help overthrow Rome, and help establish Israel and usher in world peace.

Instead, what Jesus did was focus on the Spiritual aspect of the Messianic role, which is why he was re-assuring John the Baptist of who He is according to scripture.

Then, after establishing how Jesus is fulfilling the Messianic role in verses 4 and 5, Jesus then ends the sentence with “Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”

The stumbling block here is the different expectations of the Messianic role. 

Isaiah 61:1 –

The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me,

because the Lord has anointed me

to proclaim good news to the poor.

He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,

to proclaim freedom for the captives

and release from darkness for the prisoners

One can infer that John the Baptist was hoping to be freed from prison and to see the physical overthrow of the Roman oppressors. 

Instead, Jesus was traveling around healing people and preaching, but He wasn’t raising an army, and He wasn’t opening John’s prison door. Being in John’s position in that moment, one could see why he had a moment of doubt.

When Jesus says, “Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me,” He is saying: “John, don’t let the fact that I am not acting the way you expected the Messiah to act cause you to lose heart.”

Throughout the New Testament, “stumbling” is consistently portrayed as a symptom of human frailty rather than a sign of a wicked heart. When Jesus warns in Matthew 26:31 that all the disciples will “fall away” (skandalizō), he is using the same root word often applied to John’s doubt.

If stumbling were synonymous with the permanent betrayal taught by Shincheonji, one would have to conclude that Peter, who denied Christ three times, and the disciples who fled the garden were all apostates beyond restoration. Instead, the biblical narrative shows these men being reaffirmed and restored. By placing John’s questions from prison in this same category of skandalizō, it becomes clear that his doubt was a moment of temporary human weakness, not a departure from his divine mission.

Jesus uses three rhetorical questions to prove that John’s core nature had not changed despite his current suffering.

For the first claim of Jesus not calling John the Baptist a reed, we can clearly see this with the following –

7 As John’s disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swayed by the wind? 8 If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings’ palaces. 9 Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.

We can see that Jesus is setting up a dichtomy, clarifying that John the Baptist is not the reed in the wind, nor is he the one “wearing fine clothes” in order to satisfy Herod and those who are ruling.

Around 19–21 AD, Herod Antipas founded the city of Tiberias on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. To mark the occasion, he minted bronze coins. Because he had to be careful not to offend Jewish sensibilities regarding “graven images” (faces), he used local flora.

The coins feature a prominent upright reed (a cane plant common to the marshy shores of the Galilee) on the reverse side.

This was the local currency. When Jesus asked the crowd, “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed…?”, he was likely referencing the very image they saw every day on the coins in their hands.

When setting up the dichotomy between John the Baptist and a fake believer, Jesus was ultimately mocking Herod.

Why was John the Baptist imprisoned?

In the SCJ interpretation, they claim Jesus is calling John a “shaken reed” to describe his failing faith. However, the historical and literary context proves the exact opposite:

Jesus asks the question rhetorically to elicit a “No.” (“What did you go out to see? A reed? [No.]”). Jesus is explicitly telling the crowd that John is NOT like Herod. He is NOT a man who bends to the wind.

If John were “betraying” or “doubting” in a way that made him fickle, Jesus would actually be comparing him to Herod. By denying that John is a reed, Jesus is affirming that John’s core character is still made of iron, even while in chains.

A reed is shaken by the wind because it is hollow. Jesus is telling the crowd that despite John’s question from prison, there is nothing “hollow” about him.

Jesus concludes this specific discourse by grouping Himself and John together against the “this generation” (the religious critics).

18 “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard…’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”

It also would not make sense for Jesus to defend the actions of a “betrayer” –

If John had truly entered a state of “betrayal” or “apostasy,” Jesus would have no reason to defend John’s ascetic lifestyle. Instead, Jesus points out that the world hated John for his discipline and hated Jesus for His celebration. By saying “Wisdom is proved right by her deeds,” Jesus is giving a final verdict on John’s ministry:

The deeds in reference are John the Baptist’s life of repentance, his baptism of the multitudes, and his unwavering testimony against Herod.

These deeds “prove wisdom right.” Jesus is essentially saying, “Look at the fruit of John’s life; it is the work of Wisdom (God), not the work of a demon or a betrayer.”

Then when SCJ claims that John the Baptist is the reed, in verse 19, Jesus says John is “Wisdom proved right.” You cannot be a “betrayer” and “divine wisdom” at the same time.

If John was an apostate, his “deeds” would be the deeds of a betrayer. But Jesus says his deeds prove he was right.

No matter how hard Shincheonji tries to point to John the Baptist being a betrayer, they’re ultimately arguing against the very message that Jesus is proclaiming.

Jesus identifies John as the “greatest born of women” because of his unique position as the final and most important bridge between the Old and New Testaments. While previous prophets spoke of a distant Messiah, John was the only one chosen to physically prepare the way and directly identify Jesus as the Lamb of God. In the biblical era, the “herald” who announces the King holds the highest rank in the royal procession; therefore, because Jesus is the supreme King, the messenger assigned to announce His arrival is granted the supreme status among all who came before him.

Crucially, Jesus bestows this title upon John in Matthew 11:11 immediately after John’s disciples depart with his question of doubt. This timing serves as a divine “Shield of Honor,” proving that John’s internal character remained steadfast despite his external suffering in prison. If John had truly “betrayed” his mission or become an apostate as some suggest, it would be a total contradiction for Jesus to publicly declare an enemy of God as the greatest human to ever live. Instead, Jesus confirms that John successfully fulfilled his prophetic office, regardless of his human moment of weakness.

When Jesus makes this comparison, He is using a “Mountain Peak” analogy. John reached the highest point possible under the Old Covenant, but the New Covenant is a completely different mountain.

For the “Born of Women” Era: This represents the Old Covenant, where salvation was looked forward to in shadows and types. John is the “Greatest” here because he was the closest to the finish line. For The “Kingdom of Heaven” Era: This represents the New Covenant, established through the blood of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

The term “greater” in this context refers to a superior spiritual vantage point and positional privilege rather than a measure of personal merit or righteousness. While John the Baptist was the pinnacle of the Old Covenant era, he remained a “minor heir” who saw the promises of God from a distance.

 In contrast, even the least believer in the Kingdom today has a “feature film” view of salvation, clearly understanding the finished work of the Cross, the Resurrection, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This aligns with the theology in Galatians 4, where those “born of women” under the Law are contrasted with those born of the Spirit into the freedom of sonship; the transition is not one of betrayal, but of an heir finally coming into a full, mature inheritance.

This positional shift is further defined by the nature of the indwelling Spirit and the “new birth.” Under the Old Covenant, the Holy Spirit typically came upon individuals temporarily for specific tasks, but under the New Covenant, the Spirit dwells within every believer as a permanent seal. 

By distinguishing between those “born of women” (natural birth) and those “born of God” (spiritual birth), Jesus is highlighting that the New Covenant ushers in a fundamentally superior category of life. This does not exclude John from salvation; rather, it emphasizes that the “least” person standing on the side of the completed Gospel has access to a spiritual reality and intimacy with God that the greatest prophets of the previous era could only anticipate in shadows.

Paul’s argument in Galatians 4 mirrors the logic Jesus employs in Matthew 11 by shifting the focus from moral character to legal standing. He is not suggesting that those under the Old Covenant were “wicked” or “betrayers”—indeed, he includes Abraham as the very father of faith—but rather that they were like heirs who were still minors. Under the Old Era, which John the Baptist represented as the final and greatest figure, an heir is functionally no different from a servant in terms of authority, despite technically owning the entire estate. This period was one of preparation and “guardianship” rather than one of apostasy or spiritual failure.

With the arrival of the “set time” in the New Era, believers have received the full adoption as sons, moving from the status of a minor to that of a mature heir. Consequently, the “least” in the Kingdom is “greater” than John in the same way a twenty-one-year-old heir is “greater” in status and privilege than his five-year-old self. Just as the child is not an apostate for being young, John was not a betrayer for belonging to the preparatory stage of God’s plan. He was simply the pinnacle of an era that had not yet come into the full, realized inheritance of the Cross and the indwelling Spirit.

The Shincheonji (SCJ) interpretation of Matthew 11:12 relies on the idea that the “violence” mentioned represents a mechanical failure where the Pharisees successfully “raided” and destroyed John the Baptist’s ministry. However, when we look at the broader Gospel narrative, we see that the violence was not a sign of the Kingdom’s defeat, but of its explosive momentum.

The “forceful seekers” represent those who recognized the spiritual gold rush occurring at the arrival of the Kingdom. For centuries, the religious elite held the keys to the Law and decided who was considered worthy of God’s favor. When John the Baptist and Jesus began their ministries, the marginalized members of society – the tax collectors, the prostitutes, and the “sinners” – realized that the gates were finally standing open. They did not wait for an official invitation from the Temple or for the Pharisees to grant them permission. Instead, they seized the mercy of God with an urgency that appeared violent to the traditionalists. They were essentially breaking down the doors to get to the grace that was being announced.

This type of violence is actually a form of radical faith. These individuals were “raiding” the Kingdom by storming toward Jesus and pushing past the social taboos and religious gatekeeping of their day. We see this physical manifestation in Mark 3:9-10, where the crowds were so desperate to reach Jesus that they were literally “pushing forward” to touch Him, forcing Him to keep a boat ready to avoid being crushed. Their zeal was the evidence that the Kingdom was an irresistible force that prompted a forceful response from those desperate for life.

While the crowds were pressing in, the “violent people” among the religious establishment were reacting with a violence of resistance. Rather than “raiding” the Kingdom to occupy it, the Pharisees were attempting to halt its progress entirely. Jesus explicitly defines this behavior in Matthew 23:13, where He accuses them of “shutting the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces.” They were not entering themselves, and they were trying to stop those who were.

Then, we can also see how the Christians were already receiving persecution, and Jesus also warned about this as well where he didn’t come to bring peace to the world, but instead a sword and division.

While the seekers were pressing in with zeal, the arrival of the Kingdom also triggered a violent reaction from the world at large. Jesus made it clear that His mission would not lead to a peaceful, frictionless transition of power, but would instead cause deep societal and familial division.

In Matthew 10:34, Jesus stated, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” This “sword” represents the inevitable conflict that occurs when individuals choose the Kingdom over their previous allegiances. This division is a form of the “violence” the Kingdom suffers; it is the friction of the Truth cutting through the existing social order.

The “violent people” were not just spiritual metaphors; they were literal oppressors. From the imprisonment of John the Baptist by Herod to the eventual martyrdom of the Apostles, the Kingdom was “raided” by those who thought that by killing the messenger, they could kill the message.

Jesus warned His followers in John 15:20, “If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also.” This confirms that the violence mentioned in Matthew 11:12 was a sustained reality for the early Church. It was the expected “pushback” from a world system that was being disrupted by the Light.

Shincheonji may point to the times that the Disciples of John the Baptist were still practicing the Old Testament laws and traditions. 

We can see this with verses like Matthew 9:14 –

14 Then John’s disciples came and asked him, “How is it that we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?”

However, this argument does not work, because John’s disciples were practicing the piety John taught them while he was still the active “Bridge.” Jesus’ answer in the following verses doesn’t call them betrayers; He simply explains that the “Wedding” (His ministry) had started, making their mourning/fasting a matter of bad timing, not bad heart.

The Disciples of John were still under the Old Covenant, as we can see Jesus confirm this as he calls John the Baptist the “Greatest born among woman” and how John the Baptist is the runner up for the New Covenant.

Or in John 3:25–26, an SCJ member would point out how the Disciples of John were focusing on their own “market share” for their ministry instead of focusing on Jesus.

An argument developed between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing. 26 They came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—look, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him.”

However, this argument also doesn’t work, especially when you read the verses in context. John immediately corrects them in verse 30 (“He must become greater; I must become less”). This shows the leader (John) was perfectly aligned with God’s plan, even if his followers were still learning.