Steeped in idolatry, worshiping the creation instead of the Creator, the world in the first century CE was in darkness, the darkness of moral degradation and superstition. Having lived and labored in many of the major cities then existing, the Roman citizen Paul possessed firsthand knowledge about the greatness of that darkness and described humans who chose to suppress the voice of conscience. “They were filled with all [manner] of unrighteousness, depravity, covetousness, viciousness, envy, murder, discord, treachery, [being] ill-tempered, detractors, defamers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boasters, contrivers of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, faithless, devoid of natural affection, merciless.” (Romans 1:29-31)
Into this world of darkness, the “light,” in the person of God’s unique Son, was about to come, effecting liberation for all who chose to accept it. Among earth’s inhabitants, only the Jews and those who had come to believe the message contained in their sacred writings were acquainted with the true God. In keeping with the promises contained in those sacred writings, the Most High raised up a prophet to prepare his people for the arrival of the “light.” This prophet was John, the son of the priest Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth. John testified concerning the light, leading others to respond in faith. The “true light” would impart “light” to all men or people everywhere, providing enlightenment about his Father and how to enter into an abiding relationship with him as his approved children. (John 1:6-9)
In the person of God’s Son, the “light” was about to make an entrance into the world of mankind, the world to which he was not new. Through him, the human family had come into existence. Therefore, humans should have recognized him as one with whom they had a relationship, but they did not. He came to his own people, the only people who professed belief in his Father, but the majority did not accept him. In the case of those who did respond in faith, he made it possible for them to become God’s children. Their newness of life or new birth could not be attributed to “blood” (a particular line of descent), “flesh” (natural procreation), or the “will of man” (adoption). They were born “from God.” (John 1:9-13)
John, after having spent some time in the wilderness, began his public activity in the vicinity of the Jordan River. (Luke 1:80) At the end of the third decade of the first century CE, during the reign of Tiberius, he called upon his fellow Israelites to repent of their sins and, in expression of their repentance, to be baptized by him. (See the Notes section for the names of other ruling authorities at that time.) In keeping with the seriousness of his message, John lived an austere life in the wilderness. His diet consisted of wild honey and locusts (insects that were clean according to the terms of the Mosaic law and provided him with food high in protein). John’s garment probably consisted of camel hide still covered with the hair, and his belt likely was just a strip of leather. (Matthew 3:1-4; Mark 1:4, 6; Luke 3:1-4) Another possibility is that the garment was made from rough cloth woven from long camel’s hair.
John’s preparatory activity for the arrival of God’s Son fulfilled the words recorded in Malachi (3:1) and Isaiah (40:3-5): “Look! I am sending my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.” (Matthew 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27; see the Commentary section for Malachi 3:1.) “A voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.” (Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4) “Every ravine will be filled, and every mountain and hill leveled, and curves will be straightened and uneven places [made] into smooth ways. And all flesh will behold the salvation of God.” (Luke 3:5, 6)
As the foretold messenger, John cleared the way before God’s Son by preparing fellow Israelites to accept him. Initially, John appears to have proclaimed the message about “baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins” in settlements along the Jordan. (Luke 3:3) Emphasizing that the promised Messiah, the king in the royal line of David, was about to appear on the scene, John declared, “Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.” (Matthew 3:2) Then as news about his activity began to spread, people from Judea, the region along the Jordan, and the city of Jerusalem started coming to him in increasing numbers and were baptized after confessing their sins. (Matthew 3:5, 6; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:7) This suggests that John remained in a specific area for a time.
Among those who came were Pharisees and Sadducees to whom John directed strong denunciatory words, as they were not rightly motivated. “Offspring of vipers, who has shown you how to escape from the wrath to come? Then produce fruit befitting repentance. And do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham [as our] father.’ For I say to you, From these stones [the ones they could see and to which John may have pointed], God is able to raise up children for Abraham. Already the ax lies at the root of the trees [to cut them down]. Therefore, every tree not producing good fruit will be cut down and tossed into the fire.” (Matthew 3:7-10; Luke 3:7-9) While they imagined that the merits of Abraham guaranteed God’s favor, John made it clear that this was not the case. What counted was genuine repentance and not natural descent from the patriarch. The Most High did not depend on natural descent for there to be offspring for Abraham.
In response to John’s proclamation, people asked, “What should we do?” His replies indicated that fruit befitting repentance involved treating others in a compassionate and just manner. “Let the one who has two garments share with the one who has none, and the one with food let him do likewise.” To tax collectors, he said, “Do not ask for more than the required rate.” They were not to enrich themselves by dishonest means. He admonished soldiers serving in the Jewish force not to resort to extortion or to accuse others falsely, but to be satisfied with their provisions. They were not to use their position to exact payment under false pretenses and thus procure unjust gain for themselves. (Luke 3:10-14)
The people were in expectation of Messiah’s coming and wondered whether John might not possibly be the one. He made it clear to them that he was not the Messiah, identifying this coming one as being stronger than he was. John revealed that the coming one would possess such greatness that he would not consider himself deserving of rendering the menial task reserved for slaves — stooping down to loosen the strap of his sandal. While he baptized with water, the coming one would baptize with “holy spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:7, 8; Luke 3:15, 16)
Persons whom John baptized with water were immersed in that element, as were utensils for cleansing purposes. (Mark 7:4) Similarly, those whom the Messiah would baptize with holy spirit would experience the powerful working of God as persons immersed in the element of the spirit. They would be “clothed” with power from the Most High, being energized or motivated to conduct themselves in a divinely approved manner and to carry out God’s will. (Luke 24:49)
Baptism with “fire” appears to denote a fiery judgment to befall those who refused to repent, for John added, “The winnowing shovel [is] in his hand to clear his threshing floor and gather the wheat into his storehouse, but the chaff he will burn in unquenchable fire.” Also in other ways, John exhorted those who came to him as he proclaimed the glad tidings about the coming Messiah. (Luke 3:17, 18; Matthew 3:12)
Notes:
Mark’s account starts with John’s activity as a prophet, linking it to the beginning of the glad tidings about Jesus Christ, God’s Son. (Mark 1:1) This is appropriate, for it was then that the preparation for Messiah’s arrival began, and the opportunity opened up for repentant ones to share in the privileges and blessings that would follow.
Pilate, an appointee of Tiberius, governed Judea for ten years. Herod (Antipas) held the position of tetrarch of Galilee. His brother Philip (whom Josephus calls Herod; the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem) was tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitus. Both regions were located northeast of the Sea of Galilee. Lysanias the tetrarch ruled Abilene. An inscription found at Abila (anciently the principal city of Abilene) appears to mention this Lysanias and identifies him as a tetrarch. Abilene designated a territory to the northwest of Damascus. Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, held the actual office of high priest, which years earlier Annas had occupied and who as ex-high priest continued to wield great authority. (Luke 3:1, 2)
The extant text of Isaiah 40:3-5 in the Septuagint differs somewhat from the quotations in Matthew 3:3, Mark 1:3 and Luke 3:4-6. Where Matthew’s, Mark’s, and Luke’s quotations say “his paths,” the Septuagint reading is, “the paths of our God.” The Septuagint adds “all” before “the curves” (Luke 3:5) and then continues, “and the uneven places into level places [pedía, also meaning ‘plains’ or ‘fields’]. And the glory of the Lord will be seen, and all flesh will behold the salvation of God.”
The Isaiah passage appears in a setting of comfort for Jerusalem, with the way being prepared for the Most High to lead his people back from exile. As then, return to divine favor required that the Israelites repent. Accordingly, John’s proclamation in the wilderness of Judea proved to be the very message conveyed by the voice of one crying in the wilderness (mentioned in Isaiah’s prophecy). In connection with the return from Babylonian exile, no literal voice was heard in the wilderness. So, in a more complete sense, John fulfilled the role of the one crying out.
It may be noted that the Hebrew words for “stone” (’éven) and “son” or “child” (ben) suggest a play on words in John’s statement about raising up children for Abraham from stones. (Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8)
Jesus was now about thirty years of age. The people of Nazareth knew him as the carpenter and regarded him as the son of the carpenter Joseph. (Mark 6:3; Luke 3:23; 4:22) At the time, Joseph does not appear to have been alive, for he is never mentioned as being with Mary on any subsequent occasion. The other children, considering their later expressions of unbelief, may have known nothing about Jesus’ miraculous birth. (John 7:3-5) After their return to Nazareth, Joseph and Mary may wisely have chosen not to share this information with anyone. It would not have benefited their daughters and their sons James, Joses (Joseph), Judas, and Simon. The children would have been burdened with knowledge that could have given rise to serious problems and imposed upon them the obligation never to talk about this aspect of Jesus’ life. No outsider hearing about the miraculous birth would have believed it and, considering the then-existing political situation, any hint of Messianic claims posed a grave danger.
The Scriptural record does not reveal what John may have known about his relative Jesus or whether their paths crossed in earlier years. Zechariah and Elizabeth, as godly parents, are more likely to have waited on the Most High to reveal his purpose respecting their son and Jesus, not focusing their son’s attention on developments surrounding his birth and that of Mary’s son.
For Jesus, his life as a carpenter was about to end. Departing from Nazareth in Galilee, he headed for the location along the Jordan River where John was baptizing. Jesus had no sins to confess, but he identified himself with the sinful people who responded to John’s proclamation. The preserved record is silent about why John objected to baptizing Jesus, saying, “I need to have you baptize me, and you are coming to me?” Jesus indicated that it was proper for the baptism to take place, making it possible for both of them “to fulfill all righteousness.” John would have been acting in his divinely granted capacity as the one to prepare the way for the Messiah, and Jesus, in identifying himself with the sinful people, declared his acceptance of his Father’s will for him to die for sinners. (Hebrews 10:5-10) Jesus’ words persuaded John to consent, and he baptized him. (Matthew 3:13-15; Mark 1:9)
Upon being raised out of the water of the Jordan, Jesus prayed. He and John then saw the heavens, the sky, or the celestial dome part (as if ripped open) and God’s spirit made visible “in bodily form like a dove” descending upon him. From the opened sky above came God’s voice, acknowledging Jesus as his beloved Son with whom he was well pleased. (Matthew 3:16, 17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21, 22)
Earlier, God had revealed to John how he would be able to identify the coming one who would baptize with holy spirit. It would be one upon whom the spirit would descend and remain. Having witnessed this in the case of Jesus, John could testify concerning him, “This is the Son of God.” Not until he had this undeniable confirmation did John truly know who Jesus was. (John 1:32-34)
Notes:
Regarding the descent of the spirit, the accounts are slightly different (“descending like a dove [and] coming upon him” [Matthew 3:16 (a number of ancient manuscripts do not include “and”]; “descending like a dove into him” [Mark 1:10; numerous manuscripts read “upon him”]; “bodily shape like a dove upon him” [Luke 3:22]; “the spirit descending and remaining upon him” [John 1:33]). The manner of the descent in a form like a dove from the opened celestial vault proved that the spirit had come upon Jesus from his Father. For a time this “bodily form like a dove” remained on Jesus and then vanished, entering “into” him (according to the reading of fourth-century Codex Vaticanus and other ancient manuscripts of Mark’s account).
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are not identical in the way they word God’s expression about his Son. This is understandable, as the words were not originally spoken in Greek. It should be noted, however, that the same message is preserved in all three accounts.
Tempted by the Devil
Under the impelling power of God’s spirit, Jesus went into an isolated area in the wilderness of Judea, where wild animals made their home. (Mark 1:12, 13) Since Jesus was moved by the holy spirit to go and then stay in the wilderness, his being there was his Father’s will. Moreover, the harsh circumstances in an inhospitable environment provided the devil with an opportunity to tempt Jesus. (Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12, 13; Luke 4:1)
The preserved accounts do not reveal the manner in which the devil approached Jesus and how the scenes changed from the wilderness to other locations. A possible clue is the reference to the very high mountain from which the devil showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world. (Matthew 4:8) No mountain on earth could have provided a vantage point from which the splendor of all the then-existing kingdoms could be seen. This suggests that Jesus did not leave the wilderness but, by means of a vision, was transported to the top of a high mountain and earlier to the temple in Jerusalem.
After a period of 40 days without food, Jesus experienced intense hunger and must have felt very weak. At what would have been an extremely vulnerable point from a physical standpoint for him, the devil made his approach. “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” (Matthew 4:2, 3; Luke 4:2, 3, where the singular “this stone” appears)
Jesus knew that it was not his Father’s will to use miraculous powers to satisfy the cravings of his fleshly organism. The performance of a miracle was not an option open to other humans and so would have been a misuse of divinely granted power. It would have shown a lack of faith in his Father as the one who could provide for him and sustain him. His Father, by means of his spirit, had willed for him to be in the wilderness, and his Father would also indicate when it was time to leave. Obedience to his Father would require humble submission to his will regardless of how distressing the circumstances might be, trusting fully in his love and care.
The Israelites, upon leaving Egypt, failed in this respect, complaining that Moses and Aaron had brought them into the wilderness to die of starvation. (Exodus 16:3) They thus showed lack of faith in God’s ability to provide for them despite having seen his intervention in effecting their liberation from Egypt.
Jesus refused to entertain the devil’s proposal. In rejecting it, he quoted from the book of Deuteronomy (8:3), “Not from bread alone does man live, but upon every word coming from God’s mouth.” (Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4) Jesus chose trustingly to depend on his Father and to be sustained by whatever his Father’s expressed word would provide. In the case of the Israelites, manna was God’s provision, making it clear to them that man does not live on bread alone (or on the usual food that was then not available to them).
Jesus had expressed his total reliance on his Father, and the devil countered with the suggestion that Jesus demonstrate that unqualified trust. The devil brought him to the “holy city,” Jerusalem, positioning him on the summit of the temple, and then quoted Psalm 91:11, 12, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you, and upon [their] hands they will carry you, that you never should strike your foot against a stone.’” (Matthew 4:5, 6; Luke 4:9-11)
Had Jesus come floating down from the pinnacle of the temple, the multitude in the temple courts would have been amazed and would doubtless have accepted this spectacular sign as an indication of the arrival of their promised Messiah. This, however, was not God’s will. For Jesus to leap from the top of the temple would have been deliberately placing himself in a life-threatening situation and demanding that his Father come to the rescue to enable him to make a showy impression before onlookers. It would not have been an act of faith but a sinful testing of God.
Again, quoting from the book of Deuteronomy (6:16), Jesus replied, “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.” (Matthew 4:7; Luke 4:12) Unlike the Israelites who yielded to temptation and put God to the test in the wilderness, Jesus stood firm in his refusal to do so. In the case of the Israelites, they quarreled with Moses about the lack of water, complaining that they, along with their children and livestock, would die of thirst. They tested God when saying, “Is YHWH among us or not?” (Exodus 17:3-7) The question implied that the Most High should do something if he was really among them. In effect, they challenged God to act. Similarly, for Jesus to have cast himself from the summit of the temple would have constituted a faithless demand expressed in rash action, a demand that his Father reveal his presence by saving him from the danger he had deliberately created for himself.
Next, from atop a very high mountain, the devil, in an instant, showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. This glory or splendor could have included the impressive buildings and the luxurious surroundings of those exercising ruling authority. It would have been a display designed to captivate the faculty of sight, creating a desire for all that came to view. The devil expressed his willingness to give everything to Jesus for just one gesture. All that the devil asked of Jesus was that he prostrate himself before him, thereby acknowledging that the kingdoms of the world had been given to him and that he could give everything to anyone he wished. Instead of having to follow a path of humiliation and suffering, Jesus could have everything by engaging in just one simple act of prostration. In reality, though, the devil did not have legitimate claim to anything but exercised rebel authority. Jesus rejected the devil’s offer with the words from Deuteronomy (6:13), “The Lord your God you should worship [Or: To the Lord your God you shall prostrate yourself], and him alone you should serve.” God alone is the source of all rightful authority, and he alone is worthy of worship and service. Otherwise, no one has the right to ask for even one display of the kind of submission that would suggest being in possession of more than creature status. (Matthew 4:8-10; Luke 4:5-8)
The devil departed from Jesus, but this would not be the end of his future attacks. He would be watching for another time to assail God’s Son. (Luke 4:13)
After the devil left, angels came to minister to Jesus. Part of that ministering doubtless included providing food and water for him, enabling him to have the strength needed to make his way out of the wilderness. (Matthew 4:11; Mark 1:13; compare 1 Kings 19:5-8.) In view of the course on which Jesus was now about to embark among the Israelites and its eventual outcome in rejection and a shameful death, the angels may also have strengthened him with words of encouragement. (Compare Luke 22:43.)
Notes:
With reference to the strong impulse God’s spirit exerted on Jesus to prompt him to go into the wilderness of Judea, Mark used the Greek word ekbállo, which can have the sense of “drive out” or “force to leave.” In this case, the significance would be to “cause to go.”
See http://bibleplaces.com/judeanwilderness.htm for pictures of and comments about the Wilderness of Judea.
The extant Septuagint text of Deuteronomy 8:3 (regarding not living on bread alone) and the quotation in Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4 are identical.
Recognizing that man does not live on bread alone means acknowledging one’s complete dependence on God and trusting him fully, refusing to satisfy the desires of the flesh or the physical organism by any means that would call into question his ability to provide for, sustain, and strengthen his servants.
Luke did not record the temptation of Jesus in chronological sequence, as did Matthew. The arrangement Luke chose seemingly would have been of greater significance to non-Jewish readers, with the temptation involving the temple in Jerusalem being mentioned last.
The quotation from Psalm 91:11, 12 (90:11, 12, LXX) in Luke’s account is more complete than in Matthew’s account. For the basic portion that is quoted, both Matthew and Luke match the wording of the Septuagint.
The extant Septuagint text of Deuteronomy 6:16 (about not testing God) is the same as the quotation in Matthew 4:7 and Luke 4:12.
It should be noted that, in a sacred location, the devil misused the Scriptures. Awareness of this can serve as a powerful warning. Just because a certain activity may, within a particular “church” or movement, be considered sacred or viewed as an expression of faith, does not make it such. Whenever a certain service places individuals in circumstances that make it extremely difficult, if not nearly impossible, to care for their basic needs without receiving repeated help from others, their choosing such service is much like casting themselves from the summit of the temple and believing that God is obligated to come to their aid. On the other hand, a particular activity may amount to little more than an outward display of godliness and trust in God. Engaging in the activity may do little more than provide participants (and the movement itself) with the means for boasting or promoting themselves.
Not infrequently men wielding authority in religious movements misapply the Scriptures and succeed in persuading others to undertake unwise activity with the objective of furthering the causes of their respective movements, or to risk their freedom, security, or even their lives. Tragically, among those who are convinced to believe that they are serving God by following the directives of a leadership claiming to have divine backing will be persons who end up experiencing needless hardships and suffering. Whenever individuals consider themselves or their particular movements as heaven’s favorites, grave danger exists. Especially when movements are portrayed as the exclusive possessors of “the truth,” darkness may be represented as light, error as truth, and unreality as reality. Spiritual discernment is needed to differentiate between genuine faith and what really amounts to an improper testing of God.
The extant Septuagint text of Deuteronomy 6:13 differs from the quotation in Matthew 4:10 and Luke 4:8. Both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint (with the exception of Codex Alexandrinus) use “fear” instead of a term denoting an act of prostration or worship. “YHWH your God you shall fear, and him you shall serve.” (Masoretic Text) “The Lord your God you shall fear, and him you shall serve.” (LXX) “The Lord your God you shall worship, and him alone you shall serve.” (Codex Alexandrinus)
There are persons who seize or accept authority and want others to acknowledge them in ways that far exceed the kind of recognition to which they may be entitled. Whereas Jesus refused to accept the offer for position and power on the devil’s terms, many, throughout the centuries, have yielded to this type of offer. To assure the continuance of their own position or comparative well-being and not to jeopardize receiving future benefits, they have complied with requests or demands they knew to be wrong or have in other dishonorable ways sought to curry favor. In effect, they have prostrated themselves before mere creatures.
When prominent individuals in religious movements represent themselves as God’s appointees or allow others to make such claims, they pose a serious threat to the spiritual well-being of those who are induced to believe that whatever policies or teachings they promulgate should be regarded as coming from God. A careful review of the official publications of movements that claim to be “the truth” will often reveal a less than honest admission of past errors. Highly questionable aspects in their history are greatly minimized, and prominent ones who conducted themselves in an abusive and morally corrupt manner continue to be portrayed as God’s chosen instruments. Accepting the claim that the leadership serves by God’s appointment, the majority of the members are willing to grant to humans the kind of submission that is not divinely authorized and, unwittingly, make themselves idolaters. Part of the gain for such idolatry is maintaining a good standing within the movement, a social framework for sharing in various activities, and the potential for being given positions or special assignments only open to those considered to be exemplary members.
The strong persuasive power of a temptation primarily lies in its opening up a seemingly easier and speedier way to make gain or to attain a desirable end than the existing circumstances would legitimately allow. Everything the devil proposed to Jesus either suggested a way to satisfy a pressing physical need or a means for gaining recognition and position without undertaking a course of self-denial, hardship, and suffering. Moreover, the suggested objectives could be attained immediately, without having to wait patiently under unfavorable circumstances.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not provide the source of their information about the devil’s efforts to tempt Jesus. A likely possibility is that Jesus himself told some, if not all, of the apostles about his experience in the wilderness, admonishing them to resist the devil.
In Jerusalem, John’s preaching raised concerns among the Pharisees. Probably because John was the son of a priest and therefore himself a priest in the Aaronic line of the tribe of Levi, the Pharisees sent a delegation of priests and Levites to question him. Arriving at Bethany on the east side of the Jordan, where John was then baptizing, they asked him, “Who are you?” This question implied that they wanted to know on whose authority he was acting and what basis he had for his activity. In response, John told them he was not the Christ. Answering their other questions, he said that he was neither Elijah nor “the prophet.” (John 1:19-21, 24, 28)
Although John did the work of the foretold Elijah, he was not the Elijah who had lived centuries earlier and whom the questioners expected to return literally. Seemingly, they also believed that “the prophet” greater than Moses would appear before the coming of the Messiah. (Deuteronomy 18:18, 19) That “prophet,” however, proved to be the one for whom John was preparing the way.
Wanting a specific answer from John, an answer they could relate to those who had sent them, they again raised the question, “Who are you?” Referring to the words of Isaiah (40:6), John identified himself, “I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare the way of the Lord.” The delegation then asked why he was baptizing if he was not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet. John’s reply focused on the greatness of the one to come and before whom he was preparing the way, “I baptize in water. In your midst, one is standing whom you do not know. [As for] the one coming after me, I am not worthy to loose the strap of his sandal.” (John 1:21-27)
The next day, after the interchange with the questioners from Jerusalem, John saw Jesus (after his return from the wilderness) approaching and then said to those within hearing distance, “See, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29) This identification suggested that Jesus, like the lambs offered daily at the temple, would die sacrificially for the sins of mankind.
Stressing the greatness of Jesus, John called attention to what he had said earlier. “This is the one about whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who comes to be ahead of me, because he was before me.’” John thus revealed that Jesus would surpass him and, in relation to time, had priority. He already “was” before John’s birth. (John 1:30)
John acknowledged that he did not know Jesus in the manner that he then could identify him but did baptizing so that he would be revealed to Israel. Before John started his activity of calling the people to repentance and baptizing, God had revealed to him that the one upon whom he would see the spirit descending and remaining would be the one who would baptize with holy spirit. As he did see the spirit coming down like a dove from heaven and remaining on Jesus, John testified, “This is the Son of God.” (John 1:31-34)
The next day Jesus again went to the area where John was baptizing. At the time, John was standing with two of his disciples. Seeing Jesus walking, he said to them, “See, the Lamb of God!” This prompted the two disciples to leave and head toward Jesus. (John 1:35-37)
Notes:
The location of Bethany on the east side of the Jordan, where John did baptizing, is unknown.
After the laws respecting becoming a Jewish proselyte were codified, a man had to submit to circumcision and, after the wound healed, to immerse himself in water in the presence of witnesses. The immersion served as a cleansing ceremony. Whether the practice existed when John the Baptist began his activity cannot be established with certainty. At any rate, John’s baptism for repentant Israelites was different. He did the baptizing, and it was not an arrangement for non-Jews.
The prophecy of Ezekiel indicated that God would cleanse the Israelites by sprinkling clean water upon them and then would put his spirit upon them. (Ezekiel 36:25-27) Zechariah’s prophecy (13:1) pointed to the time when God would open a fountain to purify from sin and uncleanness. Such prophecies may well have given rise to the expectation of the coming of one who would act as the agent to carry out God’s work of cleansing by means of water, and the Jews would understandably have concluded that this one would be an extraordinary personage—the Messiah, Elijah, or the prophet like Moses.
The example of John the Baptist as a true prophet, in focusing on Jesus Christ (and not himself), contrasts sharply with the kind of self-promotion often carried on in denominational and nondenominational churches or various movements professing to be Christian. Such self-promotion and the kind of claims made respecting the importance of the church or the movement not infrequently are more prominent features than is emphasis on Christ’s important role as the only one through whom a relationship with the Father is possible.