Jesus’ Baptism: Its Historicity and Implications

Robert L. Webb
Tyndale Seminary

The historicity of Jesus’ baptism by John is virtually certain. The historicity of the theophany (the Spirit’s descent and divine voice) is probable, but its timing as contemporaneous with the baptism is open to question. As a prophetic call-vision, the theophany quite possibly happened at a later time. Based on an exploration of John’s baptism and ministry within the context of Second-Temple Judaism, the significance of Jesus’ baptism is explored: it is a significant turning point in Jesus’ life; Jesus is identifying with Israel’s need to repent, and he is in agreement with John’s vision for a reconstituted Israel; since Jesus is a disciple of John, the beginning of his ministry involves baptizing within John’s movement. It is also important to understand Jesus’ later ministry along a trajectory that begins with Jesus’ association with John. This later ministry shows both continuity with and development beyond Jesus’ early involvement with John.

Key Words: Jesus’ baptism, John the Baptist, theophany, Jesus and the spirit, Jesus as Son of God, Jesus as disciple of John, Jesus and Israel, Jesus and eschatology

1.Introduction

Many scholars have made the assertion that Jesus was baptized by John,¹ and indeed some have stated that it is one of the most sure facts we can know about Jesus. It is surprising, however, that few have fully set out and weighed the arguments surrounding the event.² The purpose of this essay is twofold: First I will set out the historical evidence that leads to a conclusion that Jesus’ baptism by John is historical. Second, I will explore the implications of this event for understanding the historical figure of Jesus.

2. The Historicity Of Jesus’ Baptism By John

Since the focus of this essay is the historicity of Jesus’ being baptized and its significance, we cannot simply make the assertion of historicity; we must weigh the historical evidence and render a historical judgment.

The issue before us is made somewhat more complicated by the fact that in the texts reporting the incident there are actually two events being narrated: the baptism of John by Jesus and the theophany of the Spirit’s descent and the heavenly voice. The two are usually linked in the narratives. For example, Mark 1:9 narrates Jesus’ baptism, and 1:10b–11 provides the theophany narrative. Mark 1:10a links these two as taking place one right after the other: “And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw… .” For the purposes of our discussion, I begin with an examination of the baptism itself and then turn later to an examination of the theophany, though at times, of course, the two must be addressed together.

2.1. An Examination of the Historicity of the Baptism

The evidence for Jesus’ baptism is found in a number of accounts, both canonical and extracanonical. The question immediately arises whether or not these sources are independent of each other, and thus whether the criterion of multiple attestation would apply to this event.³

The baptism of Jesus is recorded in all three Synoptic Gospels (Mark 1:9–11 = Matt 3:13–17 = Luke 3:21–22):

It is quite evident that Matthew and Luke have used Mark in constructing their accounts of Jesus’ baptism. This is particularly clear in the theophany portion of the text. The question arises, however, whether or not Q was also a source for Matthew and Luke. Several lines of evidence support a Q source for Jesus’ baptism. First of all, at a few points Matthew and Luke agree with each other’s texts against Mark. With respect to the baptism narrative, both Matthew and Luke make the following editorial changes to Mark’s text: (1) Both drop the reference to John and the Jordan (Matthew does use it earlier in 3:13). (2) Both after Mark’s aorist indicative use of the verb baptivzw to an aorist participial form (Matthew uses the nominative, while Luke uses the genitive). (3) Both include the name *Ihsou'" in the statement about Jesus’ being baptized, whereas Mark had the name earlier in v. 9. With respect to the theophany narrative, Matthew and Luke make several changes as well: (4) Both change Mark’s use of the verb skivzw (“to tear”) to the verb ajnoivgw (“to open”), but they use different forms of the verb: Matthew uses the aorist passive indicative form, while Luke uses the aorist passive infinitive. (5) Both change Mark’s prepositional phrase eij" aujtovn (“on him”) to ejp* aujtovn (“onto him”). (6) Both alter Mark’s word order toV pneu'ma wJ" peristeraVn katabai'non (“the Spirit like a dove descended”) by shifting the verb katabaivnw (“to descend”) to precede the phrase wJs(eiV) peristeravn (“like a dove”). So, the Matthew-Luke agreements against Mark include omission of the same words, addition of the same words, alteration of grammatical forms, and alteration of word order. We should note, however, that in three of the six agreements observed above (1, 2, and 4) Matthew and Luke alter Mark’s text at the same point, but how they alter the text is only similar, not identical. This renders the evidence not quite as compelling as it otherwise might have been.

A second line of evidence is the text of Q itself,⁴ which suggests that the presence of a baptism/theophany pericope is needed from a narrative perspective.⁵ The immediately prior pericopae in Q are John’s preaching of repentance (Q 3:7–9) and his announcement of a coming figure (Q 3:16–17). The immediately succeeding pericope is Jesus’ wilderness temptation (Q 4:1–13). In the temptation pericope, the devil twice inaugurates his temptation with the statement, “If you are the Son of God …” (Q 4:3, 9). Asking if Jesus was the “Son of God” appears somewhat incongruous unless it is a reference back to the voice in the theophany that stated, “You are my Son… .” So, from a narrative perspective, it makes better sense that the devil calls into question the theophanic declaration than that there is a repeated question without a reference. Another narrative piece of evidence is that, without the baptism of Jesus, the prior pericopae concerning John the Baptist lack a clear link to the ministry of Jesus. Why begin with John (Q 3:7–9; 3:16–17) if there is no link between John and Jesus at this point in the text?

The above evidence does not lead to certainty,⁶ but the weight of the evidence leads me to a conclusion of probability: the text of Q most likely contained an account of Jesus’ baptism and the theophany. While this conclusion allows one to claim that an account of the baptism of Jesus probably has at least two independent sources, the fragmentary nature of the evidence precludes a reconstruction of the Q text apart from perhaps a few phrases.

The Fourth Gospel does not provide an account of the event itself but it does acknowledge that Jesus’ baptism occurred by placing it on the lips of John the Baptist, who is a witness testifying to the event:

What may be observed in the Evangelist’s account is that the baptism is assumed to have occurred (v. 31), and John bears witness to the Spirit’s descending like a dove. Interestingly, John does not recount the theophanic voice but, rather, recounts his own divine revelation (v. 33). Instead of the divine voice, acknowledging Jesus as “my beloved Son,” it is John himself who bears “witness that this is the Son of God” (v. 34b).

It is generally acknowledged that the Fourth Gospel is independent of the Synoptic Gospels.⁷ The account of John’s witnessing to Jesus based upon his baptism reveals little verbal agreement apart from the phrase toV pneu'ma katabai'non wJ" peristeraVn (“the Spirit descending like a dove,” v. 32). It would be difficult to narrate the event without such a stock phrase. Its use here suggests knowledge of the event rather than use of the Synoptic Gospels as a source. This reference to Jesus’ baptism in the Fourth Gospel is, therefore, an independent witness to the event.

There are also a few extracanonical references to Jesus’ baptism.⁸ The Gospel according to the Hebrews is quoted by Jerome in his commentary on Isaiah (on Isa 11:2, in Esaiam 11:1–3). The fragment containing the reference to Jesus’ baptism is cited as GHeb §2:⁹

GHeb §2 alludes to the event of Jesus’ baptism with a clause, but the emphasis is on the theophany. No mention is made of John the Baptist in the extant text. The theophany consists of the descent of the Spirit without mention of a dove. The voice that speaks in the theophany is the Spirit. There are a few phrases that are similar to the Synoptic accounts: (1) Factum est autem cum ascendisset Dominus de aqua (“when the Lord ascended from the water”); (2) descendit fons omnis Spiritus Sancti (“the whole fountain of the Holy Spirit descended”); (3) fili mi (“my son”). While these phrases are similar, they also manifest differences. The first identifies Jesus as “the Lord.” The second adds to the identification of the Spirit the descriptors “the whole fountain” and “Holy.” The third is simply a direct address rather than a statement of identity, as it is in the Synoptic Gospels. When GHeb §2 does make a statement of identity, it is considerably expanded beyond that contained in the Synoptic Gospels: Tu enim es requies mea, tu es filius meus primogenitus, qui regnas in sempiternum (“For you are my rest, you are my firstborn son, who shall reign in eternity”).

While there are similarities between this account in GHeb §2 and the canonical Gospels, they may be explained as stock phrases required to tell the same event. When this observation is combined with the considerable differences between GHeb §2 and the canonical Gospels, we may conclude that there does not appear to be direct dependence upon the canonical Gospels.¹⁰

Another extracanonical source for Jesus’ baptism is the Gospel according to the Ebionites, which is quoted by Epiphanius (Panarion 30.13.7–9). The section relevant to Jesus’ baptism is cited as GEbion §4:¹¹

The account of Jesus’ baptism in GEbion §4 is quite similar to the accounts in the Synoptic Gospels. Much of the wording is similar and appears to be dependent upon the Synoptic Gospels, particularly Matthew and Luke. For example, §4.1 appears quite similar to Luke 3:21, which describes the people being baptized, and then Jesus is baptized. Furthermore, §4.6 is quite similar to Matt 3:14–15 in recounting John’s asking to be baptized by Jesus, but his response is to deny the request with the explanation that it is a fulfillment. What is also of note in GEbion §4 is the repetition of the theophanic voice, once in the second person addressed to Jesus (§4.3) and the second time in the third person addressed to John (§4.5). This repetition appears to be a conflation of Luke’s second-person address by the theophanic voice (“You are … ,” 3:22) and Matthew’s third-person address (“This is … ,” 3:17).

These extensive similarities between GEbion §4 and the Synoptic Gospels, and distinctive elements in Matthew and Luke incorporated therein indicate that it is probably dependent upon at least these two Gospels. Therefore, the Gospel according to the Ebionites cannot be counted as an independent witness to Jesus’ baptism.¹²

A third extracanonical reference that is of interest is recorded in the Gospel according to the Nazareans.¹³ The relevant fragment is quoted by Jerome in Adversus Pelagianos 3.2. This section is cited as GNaz §2:

In GNaz §2 Jesus is invited by his mother and brother to join them in being baptized by John. But Jesus refuses because John’s baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, and Jesus claims to have committed no sin. A text that denies the event of Jesus’ baptism certainly cannot be used as a witness to the event. But it must be included here for two reasons: (1) it is an opposing witness, and (2) it is a valuable witness to the developing Christian response to Jesus’ baptism by John. We should also note that scholars differ over whether or not the Gospel according to the Nazareans is dependent upon Matthew’s Gospel or not.¹⁴

From the above examination of the early texts that refer to Jesus’ baptism, we may conclude that the criterion of multiple attestation supports the authenticity of this tradition. Three and probably four independent witnesses may be identified: Q 3:21–22 (probable); Mark 1:9–11; John 1:29–34; GHeb §2 (I will count this as four independent witnesses from this point on).¹⁵ A difficulty arises that we should note at this point. While we have several independent witnesses, not all of the witnesses give us an account of the event of Jesus’ baptism. While Q is probably an independent witness to the fact that Jesus was baptized, no account can be reconstructed. Similarly, the Johannine account does not describe the event itself but assumes it. The account in GHeb s2 alludes to the baptism but focuses on the theophany. Thus, while we have four independent witnesses to the fact of Jesus’ being baptized, we really have only one extant description of the event—namely, Mark 1:9–11.¹⁶

A second criterion that supports the authenticity of Jesus’ baptism by John is the criterion of embarrassment. This criterion holds that material that had the potential to embarrass or cause difficulty for the early church is probably authentic. This is based on the premise that it is unlikely that the early church would have created material that would be embarrassing to its claims concerning Jesus.¹⁷

Mark’s account states without equivocation that Jesus was baptized by John (1:9). Two problems are created by such an account: (1) Why does Jesus place himself in the subordinate position to John implied by submitting to his baptism? (2) Why does Jesus submit to a baptism that is “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4)? Mark’s balancing of the baptismal scene (1:9–10a) with the theophany (1:10b–11) is perhaps the only way in which he mitigates the impact of these two problems.

But these two questions are quite clearly issues in the early church, for the developing tradition concerning Jesus and John attempts to deal with the embarrassment caused by them. Luke’s account (3:21–22) downplays these two issues by narrating John’s arrest (3:19–20) prior to the account of Jesus’ baptism. Placing the events in this order has the effect of providing narrative distance between John and Jesus. Furthermore, Luke’s account refers to the baptism only in passing, using it to help set the scene for the theophany.¹⁸

Matthew addresses the problem in quite a different manner. His account adds a verbal exchange between John and Jesus. John evidently recognizes Jesus for who he is,¹⁹ and so he expresses his need to be baptized by Jesus. But Jesus declares that he must be baptized by John “to fulfill all righteousness.”²⁰ Thus Matthew both subordinates John to Jesus and at the same time removes the stigma of a baptism for forgiveness by having the act “fulfill all righteousness.”

The Fourth Gospel mitigates these issues in yet another way. It does not narrate the baptism at all. Rather, it only alludes to the baptism in the course of explaining that the purpose of John’s baptizing ministry was to identify the Son of God for John the Baptist, in order “that he might be revealed to Israel” (1:32). The basis for John’s witness to Jesus is the theophany (descent of the Spirit), and the content of John’s witness is what in other texts is the content of the theophanic voice: “I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I myself have seen and testified that this is the Son of God” (1:33–34).

In GHeb §2 the baptism is not explicitly stated but only implied: “It happened then when the Lord ascended from the water… .” We are not told why he was ascending from the water. The rest of the text expands the theophanic voice which not only emphasizes Jesus’ divine sonship but also states that he came in fulfillment of prophecy.

The text of GEbion §4 does state that “Jesus … came and was baptized by John” (§4.1). But the rest of the text (§4.2–6) expands upon the theophany by having the voice speak twice, the first time in the second person (following Mark and Luke) and the second in the third person (following Matthew). Based upon this twofold revelation, John seeks to be baptized by Jesus (also following Matthew). Subservience is emphasized by GEbion §4.6 with the descriptive addition not found in Matthew: “John fell down before him and said, ‘I implore you… .’”

Finally, GNaz §2 addresses the problems caused by the baptismal story in yet a different way. It explicitly denies that Jesus was baptized, because he had no need for the forgiveness of sins: “See, the mother of the Lord and his brothers said to him: ‘John the Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins, let us go to be baptized by him.’ He said to them, however: ‘What sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless perhaps something which I said in ignorance.’”

It is quite evident from Mark 1:9–11 through GNaz §2 that there is a developing trajectory in which the baptism by John is downplayed (and then ultimately denied), and the theophany is emphasized. This trajectory reveals the early church’s increasing discomfort with Jesus’ baptism by John. It is quite unlikely that Jesus’ baptism by John was a creation of the early church. Applying the criterion of embarrassment, therefore, Jesus’ baptism by John is historically probable.

The two criteria of multiple attestation and embarrassment support the conclusion with a high level of probability that Jesus was baptized by John. This conclusion is widely supported among scholarly circles.²¹ But a minority position has been expressed that, while John and Jesus both existed, their paths never crossed—a position most clearly argued by Morton Enslin.²² He argues that John never baptized Jesus and provides three reasons for this view: (1) The Gospel accounts increasingly reduce “John from an independent prophet … into a conscious forerunner of Jesus… .”²³ (2) Josephus’ description of John the Baptist is different from the Gospels in the reason provided for John’s execution, and it lacks any reference to John’s announcement of a coming figure (which is the emphasis in the Gospels).²⁴ (3) John’s disciples continued as a viable movement after John had supposedly dramatically identified Jesus as the coming figure.²⁵

These three reasons, however, are not adequate to support the claim that Enslin is making. With respect to his first reason, it is evident that the Gospels’ interpretation of John as Jesus’ forerunner is from a Christian perspective. But, as noted above, the Gospels’ presentation of Jesus’ baptism by John is also characterized by discomfort that it happened at all. In this instance then, the various Christian attempts to interpret John as Jesus’ forerunner is evidence of a historical relationship needing to be interpreted rather than evidence of a Christian creation. In this light, Enslin’s observation supports the historicity of the baptism rather than the reverse.

Enslin’s second reason (Josephus’ account) has two problems. It is true that Josephus’ reason for John’s execution by Herod Antipas is different from the Gospels, but his reason does not contradict the Gospels; rather, it complements them. The Gospels view John’s arrest and execution from a religious perspective, while Josephus’ explanation is sociopolitical. With the inextricable link in Second-Temple Judaism between the religious and the sociopolitical dimensions of life, the explanations by the Gospels and Josephus are but two sides of a coin.²⁶ The second problem with Enslin’s reason is an argument from Josephus’ silence about John’s proclamation of a coming figure. Not only is an argument from silence questionable, in this instance it fails to appreciate Josephus’ own editorial biases, particularly his anti-eschatological and anti-messianic orientation.²⁷ Since it serves Josephus’ purposes to portray John the Baptist positively, he can hardly attribute to John an orientation that he strenuously opposed.

Enslin’s third argument raises an interesting point but is only valid if its premise is true—that John dramatically identified Jesus as the coming figure. This premise is questionable, however, on at least two counts. John’s question from prison (Matt 11:2–6 = Luke 7:18–23), which probably has a historical core,²⁸ portrays John as a disillusioned skeptic, or at best, a hesitant inquirer—hardly one who dramatically announces Jesus’ true identity! Second, the identification of Jesus as John’s announced figure is more likely due to early Christian theological reflection (e.g., Matt 3:14–15; John 1:29–34).

Enslin’s reasons for arguing that John did not baptize Jesus do not hold up under critical reflection. The preliminary conclusion reached above must therefore stand. As a historical event, Jesus’ baptism by John is highly probable, to the point of being virtually certain.

We must turn now to the second of the two elements contained in these texts reporting Jesus’ baptism by John: namely, the theophany narrative.

2.2. An Examination of the Historicity of the Theophany

The theophany narrative has two components: the descent of the Spirit in the form of a dove and the voice from heaven announcing Jesus, “my Son, the Beloved.”

The discussion above concerning multiple attestation of the baptismal accounts would also apply to the theophany accounts. The existence of four independent witnesses would support the historicity of the theophany.²⁹

However, a number of problems arise concerning the historicity of the theophany. First, of all, to portray Jesus as endowed with the Spirit and identified as God’s Son fits very well with early Christian theological reflection concerning Jesus.³⁰ Applying the criterion of dissimilarity calls the historicity of the theophany into question.

Second, it also serves the early Christians well from an apologetic perspective to address the problems of Jesus’ baptism by John. We saw above that the developing tradition increasingly emphasized the theophany and downplayed the baptism. Even in Mark, where the two items are given more equal weight, the very presence of the theophany immediately succeeding the baptismal account helps to mitigate the difficulties with the baptism. Crossan calls this “theological damage control.”³¹

Third, the manner in which the theophany is narrated appears to be a midrash of a number of Hebrew Bible texts, gathered here to provide an initial interpretation of the person of Jesus. For example, the theophanic voice is a combination of Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1. These texts interpret Jesus as God’s son, who is the expected Davidic Messiah and the Spirit-anointed servant of Yahweh.³²

These three points show that the theophany is subject to weighty problems when examined from a historical perspective. However, other observations may be made that mitigate these problems somewhat. The first mitigating factor is that the two components of the theophany encapsulate two key elements of the historical Jesus tradition from later in his ministry. First, Jesus attributed his power in ministry to a special endowment of the Spirit, and the presence of the Spirit was evidence that the kingdom was present (e.g., Matt 12:27–28 = Luke 11:19–20; Matt 12:31–32 = Mark 3:28– 29 = Luke 12:10; cf. Luke 4:16–21). Second, Jesus speaks of a special relationship with God as his father (e.g., Matt 26:39 = Mark 14:36 = Luke 22:42; Matt 11:25–26 = Luke 10:21; cf. Matt 11:25–27 = Luke 10:21–22). These two components are central to the vocation Jesus articulates and lives,³³ and they can be placed within the thought world of first-century Judaism without a specifically Christian slant to them. Applying the criterion of coherence³⁴ to this matter suggests that the content of the theophany could derive from an experience that Jesus had.³⁵ The matter could be expressed more strongly: the presence of the Spirit and a filial relationship with God are experiential in nature rather than conceptual. If Jesus experienced them, then we may ask, “What inaugurated this experience?” A conceptual answer is inadequate; the question requires an experiential answer. In other words, at some point in his early ministry, Jesus had an inaugural experience that formed the basis for the vocation he subsequently articulated and lived.³⁶

Another mitigating perspective may be noted from the prophetic nature of Jesus’ ministry. If Jesus was perceived by himself and others as a prophet, then it is reasonable to assume that at some point he experienced a prophetic call-vision. If so, then this theophany could be understood to function as a prophetic call-vision for Jesus.³⁷

A third mitigating factor is the presence in the theophany narrative of the description “like a dove” (Matt 3:16 = Mark 1:10 = Luke 3:22; cf. John 1:32). Much ink has been spilled discussing the possible origins and significance of this imagery,³⁸ but none has been entirely satisfactory. This lack of a convincing or obvious background suggests its authenticity according to the criterion of dissimilarity.³⁹

One final point needs to be brought into the equation. The sources narrate the baptism and the theophany together, with the latter happening at the occasion of the former. The implication is that Jesus’ sense of call to his ministry begins with the theophany experienced at his baptism. The narrative sequence of the Synoptic Gospels would support such a development: Jesus is baptized, receives his prophetic call-vision, and then immediately launches into his public ministry. However, the evidence of the Fourth Gospel presents a different picture: after his baptism, Jesus is part of John’s movement and engages in a baptizing ministry in association with John and his ministry. By implication, at some later point in time Jesus does launch out and begin his public ministry as we know it. If so, it is quite possible that a prophetic call-vision may have led to this switch in the direction of his activities, but this would have taken place at some time subsequent to his baptism.⁴⁰ In other words, after his baptism, Jesus participates with John in his baptizing ministry, and then later, after a prophetic call-vision, Jesus launches out into his public ministry as narrated in the Synoptic Gospels. It is quite possible, then, that two temporally separate events were later linked together. This linking could have been done by Jesus in his narration of the events to his disciples (for Jesus’ telling them would be the only way they would find out about them), or it is the early Christian witness that has linked the theophany with the baptism, using the former to interpret the latter.

The weighing of this evidence is not easy. My own judgment is that it is probable that Jesus did at some time experience a prophetic call-vision, and it is somewhat probable that it incorporated the elements of divine sonship and spirit anointing. It is possible that such a call-vision may have taken place at Jesus’ baptism, but there are also problems with their association. It is equally possible that it occurred at some point in time subsequent to the baptism. The focus of this essay is on Jesus’ baptism by John and so, given the prominence of reinterpreting the theophany narrative with Christian theological and apologetic concerns, it is best methodologically to proceed first with examining the significance of Jesus’ baptism by John apart from the possible implications of the theophany. And this is how I will proceed below. However, I will conclude with a couple of observations concerning the implications of the theophany for understanding the baptism of Jesus.

2.3. Summary

This investigation of the historicity of the baptism narrative and the associated theophany narrative has led to the following conclusion. First of all, the baptism of Jesus by John is historically very probable or even virtually certain. This conclusion is in agreement with a number of scholars whose judgment is that this is one of the most certain things we can know about Jesus.

On the other hand, the theophany narrative is somewhat problematic. It is probable that Jesus experienced some type of prophetic call-vision early in his ministry. But there are difficulties with associating such an event with Jesus’ baptism, rendering such a link only a possibility. It is, therefore, methodologically preferable to focus our attention on the significance of Jesus’ baptism apart from the possible association with the prophetic call- vision of the theophany narrative. This possible link will be considered briefly later.

Having established the historical probability of Jesus’ baptism by John, we must now turn to an examination of the character of John’s baptism as well as other elements concerning John.

3. John And His Baptism In The Context
Of Second-Temple Judaism

Before considering the relationship between John and Jesus, we must consider briefly certain key elements that contribute to our understanding of John.⁴¹ These include John’s baptism, his prophetic proclamation, his prophetic role, and other features of his life and death. Since I have discussed elsewhere matters of authenticity and the historicity of many of the texts that concern John the Baptist, I will not repeat such discussion here but refer the reader to that earlier work.⁴²

3.1. John’s Baptism

To understand John, it is most helpful to begin with the event that is probably most distinctive about him—his baptism. The ritual use of water in ablutions is a widespread religious phenomenon, and it was certainly practiced within first-century Judaism and Christianity. That John performed a water rite identified as a “baptism” is one of the most sure pieces of historical information we possess concerning John.⁴³ Specific features of John’s baptism may be understood within the context of Second-Temple Judaism (this is elaborated below), and yet the form and functions of his baptism have features that were distinctive within his context. John was in continuity with his tradition and yet innovative at the same time. The fact that John was given the appellation or nickname “the baptizer” or “the Baptist”⁴⁴ suggests that those who give him this nickname recognized that baptism was important to John and that it was also distinctive. For this reason, it is interesting to observe that baptism was not simply something that John performed—it was also something that he preached.⁴⁵ He not only called people to repentance and baptism, he also had to explain the significance of his baptism.

Though other forms of ablution were practiced in Second-Temple Judaism (e.g., handwashing, footwashing, sprinkling), John’s baptism involved bathing, that is, an immersion.⁴⁶ This is not surprising, since bathing was a common form of Jewish ablution.⁴⁷ Most descriptions of John’s baptism associate it with the Jordan River (e.g., Mark 1:5, 9–10). The use of flowing water (or “living” water) was required in the Hebrew Bible for the most severe forms of uncleanness,⁴⁸ and in Second-Temple Judaism flowing water or rivers were associated with repentance and forgiveness.⁴⁹ In light of this context, John’s use of flowing water for his baptism is quite understandable. The particular river associated with John’s baptism is the Jordan River. While this may have no significance, it does place John in the wilderness context.⁵⁰ Both the wilderness and the Jordan River were important symbols of the Exodus and Conquest in the ideology of prophetic movements of the Second-Temple period.⁵¹ Since other features of John’s ministry show links with such ideology, John’s use of the Jordan River probably does have symbolic significance.⁵²

An interesting feature of the form of John’s baptism is that it is described as being performed “by John” (uJp* ajutou', Mark 1:5; cf. v. 9), and John himself states, “I baptize …” (Matt 3:11 = Luke 3:16; Mark 1:8). All evidence in Second-Temple Judaism points to Jewish ritual bathing practices’ being self-administered. John’s participation in the act of baptizing, therefore, is probably John’s innovation and may have contributed to his nickname, “the baptizer.”

How was John’s baptism understood to function? The evidence indicates that the answer to this question involves several interrelated functions. First, John’s baptism was an expression of conversionary repentance—a reorientation of one’s life in returning to a relationship with God.⁵³ This is borne out by the NT phrase bavptisma metanoiva" (“a baptism of repentance”) used to describe John’s baptism (Mark 1:4 = Luke 3:3), and the important role that repentance evidently had in his preaching (Matt 3:8 = Luke 3:8 Matt 3:2; cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.117).⁵⁴ John preached imminent judgment coming upon all and called people to repentance and baptism. Neither was optional—repentance and its expression in baptism went hand in hand. It was a “repentance- baptism.”⁵⁵ The practice of “confessing their sins” (Mark 1:5 = Matt 3:6) while being baptized is probably an expression of this close link between the baptism and repentance. The ethical content of John’s preaching contributes not only to the message of judgment (e.g., Matt 3:7–10 = Luke 3:7– 9) but also to the call to an ethically reoriented life following baptism. Josephus describes John as “one who exhorted the Jews to practice virtue and act with justice toward one another and with piety toward God, and so to gather together by baptism” (Josephus, Ant. 18.117; cf. Luke 3:10–14).

Second, for John and those being baptized, baptism was understood to mediate divine forgiveness.⁵⁶ In Mark 1:4 = Luke 3:3, John’s repentance- baptism is linked with “the forgiveness of sins.” In Jewish thought forgiveness of sins was usually associated with repentance (e.g., Isa 55:7) but not with an ablution. According to John, however, it was not just repentance that was required, for baptism and repentance were inextricably linked. It was repentance-baptism that was essential.⁵⁷ Therefore, the baptism did more than simply symbolize a forgiveness already received on the basis of the repentance alone. Since the baptism was neither optional nor secondary to the forgiveness of sins, the baptism should be understood to mediate the forgiveness in some way.⁵⁸

An interesting implication of this function of baptism is that, since people were baptized “by John” rather than performing it for themselves, John could be considered a mediator of the forgiveness.⁵⁹ The mediatorial role of “the baptizer” in performing baptism to mediate forgiveness is parallel to the mediatorial role of a priest in performing a sacrifice to mediate forgiveness in the sacrificial system (e.g., Lev 5:5–10). This parallel is striking in light of the NT tradition that John came from a rural priestly family (Luke 1:5, 23).⁶⁰

These first two functions are closely related: John’s baptism was an immersion performed by John through which a person expressed conversionary repentance and received divine forgiveness.

A third function of John’s baptism was that it purified from uncleanness. Josephus states that “baptism certainly would appear acceptable to him [i.e., God] if used … for purification of the body …” (Ant. 18.117). While elements of Josephus’ explanation of John’s baptism are historically problematic, especially the statement that distinguishes the body and the soul,⁶¹ nevertheless, it is quite probable that John’s baptism was understood to purify. In the Hebrew Bible and later Jewish thought, the use of immersions was predominantly concerned with cleansing from uncleanness,⁶² so that if John’s baptism had nothing to do with cleansing it would be quite unusual—and no evidence supports such a claim.⁶³ In the Hebrew Bible it would appear that actual immersions were only used when the contagion (i.e., that which caused the uncleanness) was something physical. But in the Second-Temple period, the use of immersions expanded to include cleansing from uncleanness caused by moral contagion as well. For example, Sib. Or. 4:165–67 contains an exhortation to “wash your whole bodies in perennial rivers. Stretch out your hands to heaven and ask forgiveness for your previous deeds… .”⁶⁴ John’s use of baptism to cleanse from moral contagion is consistent with this expanded use of immersions in the Second-Temple period. It also coheres with John’s concern with repentance and forgiveness in conjunction with his baptism.

The state of uncleanness from which John’s baptism cleansed would have been considered serious because it was concerned with moral contagion. This may explain why John’s baptismal ministry is associated with the Jordan River, for, as we observed above, flowing or “living” water was required for cleansing the most serious cases of uncleanness in the Hebrew Bible.⁶⁵

Fourth, John’s baptism foreshadowed the ministry of the expected figure that John announced. Matt 3:11 = Luke 3:16 contain John’s saying: “I baptize you with water … he will baptize you with holy spirit and fire” (cf. Mark 1:8; cf. John 1:26–27). The imagery of “holy spirit” and “fire” removes the activities of the expected figure from the realm of a literal water rite, and yet the verb “baptize” is used to characterize his activities. Just as the term “baptize” is used to refer to John’s physical activity of baptizing, so it is also used metaphorically to refer to the expected figure’s activity. This invites a comparison between the functions of their two baptisms. For example, they both cleanse. John’s baptism is used to express conversionary repentance and the expected figure’s baptism with holy spirit might be understood to complete the conversion. It also allows for the contrast between the two, with the expected figure being mightier and having a greater baptism.⁶⁶

This function of John’s baptism colors it with an eschatological fervor that coheres closely with John’s announcement of imminent judgment and restoration. John’s baptism is the final opportunity to prepare for the eschatological judgment and restoration to be brought by the expected figure.⁶⁷

Fifth, Johns baptism functioned as an initiatory rite into the “true Israel.” John announced to everyone the necessity of his repentance-baptism to be prepared for the imminent, eschatological judgment and restoration to be carried out by the expected figure. John’s baptizing ministry, therefore, created a fundamental distinction between the repentant and the unrepentant, the prepared and the unprepared, those who would receive the expected figure’s restoration and those who would be judged. While John called upon individuals to respond, within the context of Second-Temple Jewish thought, the effect should be viewed corporately. It was all Israel (i.e., ethnic Israel) that was viewed as facing imminent judgment, and it was only the prepared who would experience the fulfillment of the ancient hopes and promises for restoration (i.e., a remnant, or true Israel). Since repentance-baptism was the necessary rite for preparation and the ones prepared were the group who would be restored, John’s baptism was the rite that changed the status of a person from nonmember to member.⁶⁸

The initiatory function of John’s baptism has been rejected by some scholars.⁶⁹ But two observations may alleviate their objections. First of all, an initiatory rite does not necessarily need to initiate some-one into a closed community, such as the Qumran community, for example. An examination of the sectarian groups in Second-Temple Judaism reveals a wide variety of group structures. Many of these groups maintained a sectarian identity and yet remained integrated into Jewish life (e.g., the Pharisees or the early Christian movement).⁷⁰ Second, such a view generally focuses on John as only preaching judgment.⁷¹ While this certainly is an emphasis in John’s preaching, the evidence indicates that John also announced imminent restoration (e.g., the promise of a holy spirit and the imagery of gathering grain into the granary). In light of Jewish self-understanding as the elect, covenant people of God and a hope for national restoration, John’s announcement of restoration as well as judgment would have been understood corporately.

That John’s baptism functioned as an initiatory rite is also suggested by Josephus’ statement in Ant. 18.117: John “exhorted the Jews to practice virtue and act with justice toward one another and with piety toward God, and so to gather together by baptism [baptismw/' sunievnai].” The verb suvneimi means “to come together” or “to gather together,” with the implication of a common purpose, and the gathering together accomplishes this purpose.⁷² Elsewhere, Josephus uses this same verb to describe Jews joining a group or party or the meeting together of such a group. For example, shortly after describing John the Baptist, Josephus uses the same verb in Ant. 18.315 to describe two brothers, Asinaeus and Anilaeus, who became armed bandits: “young men of the poorest class gathered together [sunh>/esan] around them” to form a peasant army.⁷³ In this statement by Josephus concerning John’s preaching, the dative baptismw/' is usually translated “in baptism,” “for baptism,” or “to baptism,” but these expressions do not adequately express the sense of the term in the unusual expression baptismw/' sunievnai. In light of Josephus’ use of this verb, the dative should probably be understood as an instrumental of means: “by means of baptism.” John was calling his audience to gather together into some form of group, and baptism was the means by which the group was gathered. From an individual’s point of view, baptism was the means by which he/she was “gathered into” or joined the group.⁷⁴

The initiatory function of John’s baptism is also implied by John’s call to conversionary repentance. In the saying in Matt 3:9 = Luke 3:8, John affirms the covenant promises (“God is able … to raise up children to Abraham”), but he denies that simply being a member of ethnic Israel is sufficient (“do not presume to say to yourself, ‘We have Abraham as our father’”). For John, then, it is only those who have undergone repentance-baptism who have become the true “children of Abraham.”⁷⁵

Sixth, it is also possible that John’s baptism functioned, at least implicitly, as a protest against the Temple establishment. It was concluded above that John’s baptism mediated divine forgiveness and John, as “baptizer,” was the mediator of that forgiveness. We also observed that this had significant parallels to atoning sacrifices of the Temple cult, and thus John’s baptism functioned as an alternative to those sacrifices. In Second-Temple Judaism, if the Temple was criticized, it was usually the priestly aristocracy’s wealth and corruption that was the focus of the criticism.⁷⁶ The saying of John in Matt 3:7–10 = Luke 3:7–9 is virtually identical in both Gospels, but the audiences are quite different. Matthew has “Pharisees and Sadducees,” while Luke has “crowds.” If the Matthean text is a more accurate identification of the original audience for the saying,⁷⁷ then the pointed rebuke in this text could imply that John was critical of the Temple establishment, especially in light of the close connection between the Sadducees and the Temple.⁷⁸

3.2. John’s Prophetic Proclamation

Not only was John perceived to be a “baptizer,” he was also understood by many people to be a prophet.⁷⁹ In a manner reminiscent of prophets in the Hebrew Bible, John announced imminent judgment, called the people to repentance-baptism, and proclaimed the imminent coming of a figure who would bring judgment and restoration.⁸⁰ In the subsequent discussion, we examine John as prophet from two perspectives: the content of his prophetic announcements and the public role of prophet itself.

The most distinctive element of John’s prophetic proclamation was his announcement of an expected figure. The NT interprets this figure to be messianic (Luke 3:15) and to have been fulfilled in Jesus. But it is reasonable to ask how John’s description might have been understood in light of contemporary Jewish expectation. The texts that describe John’s expected figure (Mark 1:7–8; Matt 3:11–12 = Luke 3:16–17) include the following elements in the description: (1) his activities include judgment and restoration; (2) he is coming; (3) he is mighty (i.e., mightier than John); (4) he will baptize with holy spirit⁸¹ and fire, and (5) his judgment and restoration are portrayed using imagery of the threshing floor.

A survey of the Hebrew Bible and Second-Temple Jewish literature reveals a wide variety of expected figures who could be characterized as bringing judgment and restoration (thus satisfying the first element of John’s expected figure). These include human agents such as the Davidic or Aaronic Messiah, the eschatological prophet or Elijah-redivivus, supernatural figures such as the archangel Michael, Melchizedek, or the Son of Man,⁸² and even God himself. Furthermore, the second and third elements describing John’s expected figure (coming and mighty) are also used in Second-Temple literature to describe each of these expected figures (with the exception of Elijah-redivivus, for whom no description as mighty is extant).⁸³

With respect to the fourth and fifth elements of John’s description of the expected figure, the evidence is not as balanced between the different figures. While, for example, the Davidic Messiah and the Son of Man are each portrayed as receiving a spirit,⁸⁴ the only figure who is described as bestowing a spirit upon others is God. In some texts this spirit is described as “holy,” and water/ablution imagery (i.e., similar to “baptize” imagery) is used to describe this bestowal.⁸⁵ The use of fire imagery is associated with the judgment brought by Michael/Melchizedek, Elijah-redivivus, and possibly the Son of Man,⁸⁶ but fire is also used to describe God’s judgment, and some of these descriptions also use language associated with water (e.g., “river of fire”).⁸⁷ Threshing-floor imagery, including winnowing, burning chaff, and gathering wheat, is only used to portray God’s judgment and restoration⁸⁸ and never to portray the activities of other expected figures.

Since the characteristics and imagery used in John’s depiction of his expected figure were drawn from the Jewish Scriptures and were “in the air” in Jewish expectation of John’s day, it is reasonable to conclude that the elements of John’s depiction are consistent with his Scriptures and his cultural milieu. The most specific characteristics and imagery in the preceding analysis (ablution language to describe bestowing a holy spirit and a farmer working at a threshing floor) lead us to conclude that John’s expected figure was most likely understood to be God himself.⁸⁹ However, at least three points cause us to question this initial conclusion. First, John compares this expected figure to himself (“he who is mightier than I,” Mark 1:7; Matt 3:11 = Luke 3:16), which would have been considered quite arrogant if the figure was God.⁹⁰ Second, John states that this figure wears sandals that John is unworthy to untie (Mark 1:7; Matt 3:11 = Luke 3:16). While one may speak anthropomorphically of God wearing sandals (cf. Pss 60:8; 108:9), John’s statement loses some of its import if in fact John cannot untie the sandals in the first place. Third, John’s query from prison concerning Jesus’ identity (“Are you the one who is coming [oJ ejrcovmeno"]?”) alludes to John’s earlier proclamation concerning the mightier one “who is coming after me” (oJ ojpivsw mou ejrcovmeno"). By considering the possibility that a human (i.e., Jesus) was his expected figure, John indicated that his expected figure was other than God.

The tension between key features that point to John’s expected figure as being God himself and other pieces of evidence that point to a human figure may be partially resolved by observing the relationship between God and other expected figures in Jewish expectation. Each of the other expected figures was understood to bring judgment and restoration as God’s agent—it was God’s judgment and restoration being carried out by the expected figure. In fact, in some cases the text blends God as the bringer of judgment and restoration with another expected figure who does it as God’s agent. For example, in Pss. Sol. 17:1–3 God is the king and savior who will judge and restore his people, and yet in vv. 21–46 God raises up a Davidic Messiah to accomplish the task.⁹¹ In the same way, the Hebrew Bible describes God as saving Israel from Egypt and equally of Moses as saving them from Egypt. In such contexts a reference to God identifies a belief in a divine/heavenly prime cause for the judgment or restoration, but a reference to a past human figure or an expected figure identifies a historical/earthly outworking of the same judgment or restoration. Thus, John’s expected figure primarily manifests the characteristics of God himself because this was evidently his focus—that is, a focus on what God was going to do, rather than who was going to accomplish it or how it would happen in historical/earthly terms. Yet, the other features that point to a figure other than God indicate that John expected God to work through an agent.⁹²

John clearly expected judgment (Matt 3:7–10 = Luke 3:7–9),⁹³ but he did not announce judgment only. The reference to baptizing “with holy spirit and fire” (Matt 3:11 = Luke 3:16; cf. Mark 1:8) might refer to a single activity,⁹⁴ but it is better understood to refer to the expected figure bestowing a “holy spirit” as a restorative action on the repentant and the “fire” as an act of judgment on the unrepentant.⁹⁵ The two actions are linked, however, for it is one “baptism,” which is an act of purging, that accomplishes both judgment and restoration. We should note that the expected figure’s baptism is not producing these two groups (i.e., the repentant and the unrepentant); it is people’s response to John’s preaching and baptism that does this. The expected figure’s action was to complete the process, bringing each group to their appropriate end—either restoration or judgment.

While the imagery of the farmer at the threshing floor is different from the imagery used in the expected figure’s activity of baptism, the sense is similar (Matt 3:12 = Luke 3:17). The burning of chaff in unquenchable fire is a referent to the judgment of the unrepentant, while the statement “he will gather his wheat into the granary” alludes to restoration. This much is quite evident. However, what is frequently misunderstood is the precise activity of the farmer on the threshing floor. Usually, this metaphor is understood to be a farmer winnowing the wheat from the chaff. However, the verb diakaqaivrw does not signify “to winnow” but “to cleanse, clean thoroughly,”⁹⁶ and the object of the verb is not grain but the threshing floor. Furthermore, the instrument in the farmer’s hand, a winnowing shovel (ptuvon), is actually used for piling the wheat and chaff and removing them from the winnowing floor, not for the winnowing itself. The instrument for the act of winnowing itself is a winnowing fork (qri'nax).⁹⁷ Thus, the activity of John’s expected figure being portrayed metaphorically here is not the separation of the repentant from the unrepentant (i.e., the wheat from the chaff) but, rather, taking each group to its appropriate end, whether blessing or judgment. As in the preceding discussion concerning the parallels between John’s baptism and the expected figure’s baptism, so it is implied in this metaphor also: it is the response to John’s preaching and baptism that separates the repentant from the unrepentant (i.e., the wheat from the chaff), while the expected figure brings about the final judgment and restoration for these respective groups.

From this discussion we may now glean clues to what John perceived about the judgment and restoration. First, the judgment and restoration are imminent. The mightier one “is coming” (Matt 3:11 = Mark 1:7 = Luke 3:16), and “the axe is already (h[dh) laid at the root of the trees” (Matt 3:10 = Luke 3:9). Second, the judgment involves the removal of the unrepentant. It is not clear whom John perceived the unrepentant to be. With his baptism functioning as an alternative to the Temple sacrifices, one sector of Jewish society that fits this category for John was probably the Temple aristocracy. John’s ethical and purity concerns, his expectation of restoration, and his criticism of Antipas’s second marriage suggest that another possible sector was the Roman imperialist powers and the people who supported them. Third, while it is difficult to be more precise about John’s perception of the judgment and restoration,⁹⁸ we can observe that John is not expecting the “end of the world” or the “destruction of the universe.” John does expect a radical shift in the sociopolitical and religious life of Israel and the world, but it takes place within the continuity of the space-time universe. We should note that the fire in John’s pictures only consumes the unfruitful trees (Matt 3:10 = Luke 3:9) and the chaff (Matt 3:12 = Luke 3:17); the orchard, the wheat, and the threshing floor all remain afterward.⁹⁹ The implication is that the unrighteous are removed and the righteous are blessed with a new situation, but one that is in continuity with their present, human existence.

3.3. John’s Prophetic Role

Having examined the content of John’s prophetic proclamation, we may now turn to the public role of prophet itself.¹⁰⁰ It is sometimes thought that the last prophet was Malachi. His book is where the prophetic portion of the Hebrew Bible’s canon ended, and some later texts support such a view.¹⁰¹ Yet numerous figures did in fact arise during the Second-Temple period who were believed by their followers to be prophets. Analysis of the social roles of these prophets reveals three different types of prophets: those whose prophetic role also involved being priests, those whose prophetic role also involved functioning as wise persons, and those whose prophetic role involved relating to the common people.¹⁰² These may be identified respectively by the descriptive names clerical prophet,¹⁰³ sapiential prophet,¹⁰⁴ and popular prophet (the term popular is being used in the sense of that which relates to the populace or common people; one might consider using the term populist instead).¹⁰⁵

While John may have come from a priestly family, he was not a priest while engaged in his prophetic ministry; thus he was not a clerical prophet. Instead, John was a popular prophet. His audience and following appear to have been drawn primarily from the common people—the Judean rural peasantry and the urban poor from Jerusalem.¹⁰⁶

Examination of other popular prophets during the Second-Temple period reveals two subtypes, depending upon whether in their prophetic role they functioned as leaders of prophetic movements or whether they remained lone individuals. I use the nomenclature leadership popular prophets and solitary popular prophets¹⁰⁷ to distinguish between these subtypes.¹⁰⁸ Richard A. Horsley and John S. Hanson concluded that John the Baptist was a solitary popular prophet (though they use the nomenclature oracular prophet).¹⁰⁹ However, several streams of evidence point to the alternate conclusion, that John was a leadership popular prophet—that is, in his prophetic role, John was the leader of a movement. First of all, as we concluded above, John’s baptism functioned as an initiatory rite into the true, remnant Israel.¹¹⁰ Second, Josephus’ description of the crowd that was excited by John’s teaching and that led Antipas to fear an outbreak of strife (Ant. 18.118) implies a certain amount of group formation. Third, John’s perception of imminent judgment and restoration discussed above also implies the formation of a distinctive identity held by those who had been baptized by John. The cumulative effect of this evidence points to the formation of a group. Group formation only implies a distinctive identity by a group of people, manifesting an insider/ outsider or “us and them” perspective. This does not necessarily mean that they were organized or maintained a separatist communal lifestyle, as did the Qumran community. As the prophet whose proclamation and activities brought about the formation of this group and provided its distinctive self- perception, John constituted the group’s leader and is thus best understood to be a leadership popular prophet.¹¹¹

3.4. John’s Life and Death

Having examined his public roles, we conclude this survey of John the Baptist by briefly considering a few other facets of what may be known about him.

In his infancy narrative, Luke recounts the events surrounding the expectation and birth of John into a priestly family in rural Judea (Luke 1:5– 25, 39–45, 57–79). Some scholars have proposed that behind Luke 1 stands a source derived from followers of the Baptist, a source that was subsequently Christianized, but others have disputed this claim.¹¹² Whatever the case, it is widely recognized that using this account for historical purposes is problematic. Nevertheless, John’s rural priestly heritage is widely accepted.¹¹³

Subsequent to the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, speculation raged over whether or not John was himself a member of the Qumran community because of some similarities between their belief system and John’s.¹¹⁴ This speculation was fueled by the intriguing reference concerning John’s upbringing in Luke 1:80, that “he was in the wilderness until the day he publicly appeared to Israel.” In light of Josephus’ description of celibate Essenes who adopted and raised children (J.W. 2.120), Luke’s statement was interpreted to mean that John was raised in the Qumran community. However, concrete evidence of John’s membership in the Qumran community is lacking. And even if John had been a member at one time, aspects of his teaching are sufficiently different from the teaching found in the Qumran scrolls that one would be forced to conclude that John had broken away from them. Thus, while it is an intriguing hypothesis, is remains speculation.¹¹⁵

The NT identifies the locale of John’s activities as the wilderness (Matt 3:1 = Mark 1:4 = Luke 3:2; Luke 1:80) and the region around the Jordan River (Matt 3:5–6 = Mark 1:5; Luke 3:3), including the east bank of the Jordan (John 1:23; 3:26; 10:40).¹¹⁶ This location was consistent with John’s emphasis on imminent judgment and restoration because it puts him and his audience in touch with important symbols from their past history. The wilderness and the Jordan River were symbols associated with the Exodus and Conquest. It is interesting to observe the parallel between John and other leadership popular prophets on this point. For them, and probably for John also, the Jordan River and the wilderness functioned as reminders of God’s redemptive actions taken on their behalf in the past and as symbols of hope in a si