3. Rabbi John, Messenger of God

The intimate association of purifying with baptizing in Jewish thought of second Temple days sheds light on R. John’s work. Indeed, the title “The Baptist” which the Jewish people (not Christians) gave him tells us he actively purified Jewish worshipers.

“Ho baptistees (the Baptist)...draws attention to the characteristic element in his ministry, namely the demand for repentance baptism, and still more to the novelty of administering baptism to others, instead of leaving them to baptize themselves, as happened with all OT ablutions and in Jewish proselyte baptism.”¹

At the same time his title ought not be interpreted as, “The Immerser.” Rather, defilement conscious Jews were calling him John The Purifier, corresponding well with “the Cohen who purifies” of Leviticus 14:11.²

וְהֶעֱמִיד הַכּהֵן הַמְטַהֵר, אֵת הָאִישׁ הַמִּטַּהֵר וְאתָם; לִפְנֵי יְהוָה, פֶּתַח אהֶל מוֹעֵד

John was a priest, a Cohen, and though his purification was far more comprehensive than the cleansing of lepers, he nevertheless actively performed the rite, similar to the Cohen who purifies.

Remember also in John 1:25 the Pharisees asked him why he was baptizing. Furthermore, in John 4:2 we read that Yeshua did not baptize but His disciples did, and Paul said he himself had baptized a few Corinthians. The point is that those who were baptizing actively performed the rite for those who were repenting and being baptized.

In contrast, in second temple days Jews who purified by immersion in the mikveh were not helped by someone else. No one actively pushed worshipers under water and pulled them up because this was something everyone would do by themselves. In light of this fact, today some think R. John was an “official witness” while the worshiper immersed himself.³ However this idea makes no sense when we remember John’s extreme reluctance with Yeshua.

“I have need to be baptized by You and are You coming to me?” Matthew 3:14.

ἐγὼ χρείαν ἔχω ὑπò σου̃ βαπτισθη̃ναι καὶ σὺ ἔρχη̨ πρός με

John knew he needed Messiah to baptize him with His Spirit, the reality of what he was symbolizing with water. This cannot mean he wanted the Lord to be an “official witness” while he stepped into a pool of the Spirit. There are no static pools of the Spirit. On Shavu’ot Messiah actively poured out the Spirit on the disciples. This leads us to the conclusion that neither R. John nor Messiah were passively witnessing immersions. Rather they both actively poured out or dashed the element, a perfectly legitimate practice in Jewish tradition.⁴

Aenon was one of the places where John baptized.⁵ This name, which comes through Greek from the Hebrew word enon,⁶ means springs. Another Greek term associated with John baptizing at Aenon is hudata polla, John 3:23, and is sometimes translated much water but literally translates as many waters, certainly suggestive of many springs.⁷ Jews considered springs a high grade of water for purification. In fact, John’s disciples and another Jew discussed purification at this location, Aenon, where all were baptized.

23 ἠ̃ν δὲ καὶ ὁ ’Ιωάννης βαπτίζων ἐν αἰνὼν ἐγγὺς του̃ Σαλείμ ὅτι ὕδατα πολλὰ ἠ̃ν ἐκει̃ καὶ παρεγίνοντο καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο

25 ἐγένετο οὐ̃ν ζήτησις ἐκ τω̃ν μαθητω̃ν ’Ιωάννου μετὰ ’Ιουδαίου περὶ καθαρισμου̃

We have little trouble seeing R. John purifying Israel with mai’im hai’im, living water from Aenon, springs, and as the Messenger of the Messianic Kingdom he purified with Ezekiel’s sprinkling. (For further information on R. John and the nature of his baptism, refer to “John’s Baptism, Immersion?” in chapter 12.)

Taken together, the unusual Greek title “Baptizer,” used solely for R. John in ancient literature, means the Jewish people were calling him John the Purifier, like “the Cohen who purifies” of Torah, but not the Immerser or the Witness.

The guilty sought John in the regions around the Jordan river. Tax-gatherers, despised Jewish agents of the alien Roman government, and who often were unscrupulous, came to confess and be baptized. Jews in military service also came, Luke 3:11-14, and harlots too were purified, Matthew 21:31-32. All in Israel who humbled themselves would see enormous significance in R. John’s message and ritual.

“John’s distinctiveness is clear. His baptism was directed towards the nation as a whole (contrast Qumran), administered once for all (contrast OT ablutions), and was for Jews only (contrast proselyte baptism). Most important of all, it was eschatological and probably sealed the repentant, marking them as those who would pass through the coming judgement to enter the messianic kingdom.”⁸

This repentance baptism was comparable with any previous commandment in the Torah and Prophets. The worst sinner could repent, be purified and restored.⁹ For Jews who believed John’s uncompromising message it would have been the pinnacle of God’s moral and ritual requirements prior to the arrival of Israel’s Kingdom.¹⁰

FULFILLMENT OF ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS

The greatness of R. John’s service to Israel is exactly why Messiah was baptized by him even though He had no sin from which to repent.

“Jesus did not ask, He commanded, ‘Let it be so - at once! The matter is of urgent importance!’...every strand of messianic teaching in the Old Testament depicts the Messiah inseparable from his people... The baptism of the Messiah is unto the carrying out of the whole purpose of God in judgment and redemption...”¹¹

John and Yeshua sought to fulfill all righteousness and the foundation of Jewish righteousness was the Torah and Prophets. No other comparable revelation of God’s demands existed in the world. Yeshua emphasized in His Sermon on the Mount that He, “did not come to annul the Torah or the Prophets but to fulfill them.” He added that, “unless your righteousness surpasses that of scribes and Pharisees you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” The Torah and the Prophets set God’s standard of righteousness. Thus when Messiah was baptized by R. John He fulfilled all the requirements, including the latest revelation by the greatest prophet, R. John.¹²

The Father in Heaven then had one blameless Man in the midst of creation who could represent Mankind to God, and conversely, who could represent God to Mankind.¹³

Yeshua was the representative Man from Israel, and Israel was the representative nation, the “firstborn” of all nations. This meant Yeshua now stood in place of all humanity before the Father. Yeshua’s fulfillment of the commandments to Israel meant He had met all the requirements for everyone from all nations. The Father then sent His Holy Spirit in the form of a dove to flow through His Son to Israel, and the world. The voice from Heaven confirmed this by saying,

“This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.”

The well-pleasing Son entered His Service as representative Man after being baptized with Israel’s end-time baptism, the apex of all righteous requirements of the Torah and Prophets. There was no greater moral-ritual commandment to be revealed, and no one but Yeshua could perfectly fulfill all the requirements. All humanity, including humble, observant Jews, needed the perfect salvation provided by faith in Yeshua the Messiah.

BORN OF WATER

After Yeshua was baptized, John’s baptism continued to be a vital part of His Messianic service. His word to Nicodemus in John 3:5, that one must be born of water and the Spirit to see the Kingdom, appears to speak directly of John’s baptism to Israel.

ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθη̨̃ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος οὐ δύναται εἰσελθει̃ν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν του̃ θεου̃

Invariably commentators note Ezekiel 36:25-27 on this verse because water and Spirit were the predicted elements to bring Israel into the Kingdom. This also agrees with R. John’s promise, “I baptize with water, the One coming after me will baptize with the Holy Spirit.” Yeshua, as a good teacher (the confession of Nicodemus) confirmed and illuminated Ezekiel’s and John’s promises in fresh terms of being born from above, equivalent to Ezekiel’s “new heart and new spirit” given by God’s Spirit.¹⁴

Just after the meeting with Nicodemus the Lord was with His disciples as they baptized and we know they were performing John’s baptism. How do we know? Because at this time we are explicitly told R. John was “not yet in prison,” - οὔπω γὰρ ἠ̃ν βεβλημένος εἰς τὴν φυλακὴν ὁ ’Ιωάννης, John 3:24, but later, after he had been arrested, everyone following the Lord Yeshua had been baptized with John’s baptism, not something else, Luke 7:29 (cf. Matthew 11:2-19).

καὶ πα̃ς ὁ λαòς ἀκούσας καὶ οἱ τελω̃ναι ἐδικαίωσαν τòν θεόν βαπτισθέντες τò βάπτισμα ’Ιωάννου

With a straightforward reading of Scripture we see that, contrary to what many say,¹⁵ Yeshua and His disciples did not proclaim a new, supposedly “higher” water baptism. Instead they also performed the end-time ritual to Israel that had been initiated by R. John.

Furthermore, just after Nicodemus had been told he must be born of water, the following scene tells of many Jews receiving John’s baptism, both from John and his disciples and, as we just discovered, from the Lord and His disciples as well. It is most reasonable to believe the Lord had urged Nicodemus to repent and submit to John's baptism to be born of water, and then look forward to being born of the Spirit from Messiah.¹⁶

Also remember Nicodemus opened the conversation saying “we” know You are a teacher from God. In other words he secretly represented a number of Jewish leaders. Thus Messiah actually called the leadership of Israel, whom Nicodemus represented, to submit to God’s order, beginning with a step of repentance and submission to the end-time baptism.

It is evident in the Greek text that Yeshua reproved Israel’s leaders, not just Nicodemus in John 3:11-12. He said, “you (plural) do not receive our testimony.” “If you (plural) do not believe earthly things, how will you (plural) believe heavenly things?”

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι ὅτι ὃ οἴδαμεν λαλου̃μεν καὶ ὃ ἑωράκαμεν μαρτυρου̃μεν καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἡμω̃ν οὐ λαμβάνετε

εἰ τὰ ἐπίγεια εἰ̃πον ὑμι̃ν καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε πω̃ς ἐὰν εἴπω ὑμι̃ν τὰ ἐπουράνια πιστεύσετε

Yeshua chastised Israel’s leaders because they did not believe the burning testimony of either R. John, or Himself, about the nearness of Israel’s Kingdom. They were the two great voices warning the nation, and are featured in the first three chapters of John’s gospel.

The requirement of water and Spirit in John 3:5 concerns both John’s baptism and Messiah’s baptism with the Spirit. In John 3 Yeshua directed John’s baptism to the leadership of Israel, hence it would be a requirement for the entire nation of Israel. Contrary to what is often taught, this baptism was not directed to all other nations.¹⁷

This requirement for Israel was restated by Yeshua about three years later in the week before His crucifixion. Here He linked His authority as Israel’s Messiah with the authority of John’s baptism. Not with R. John, but with the baptism!

τò βάπτισμα τò ’Ιωάννου πόθεν ἠ̃ν ἐξ οὐρανου̃ ἢ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων

The Lord again declared to Israel’s leaders the initial requirement to enter the Kingdom, John’s baptism. It was not a pious innovation from men but a commandment from God Himself, cf. Matthew 21:23-32.

Yeshua and His Jewish disciples saw John’s end-time baptism as a vital commandment, attributing a level of importance to it which makes it natural to believe it was based on Scripture, in particular, Ezekiel’s sprinkling. John’s baptism was not dreamed up by “a reed swayed with the wind” and there is no hint of a different water baptism to replace it, even up to the week of Messiah’s death and resurrection. The overwhelming importance is reflected by the fact that of all the usages of five related Greek words, baptizo, baptisma, baptismos, baptistees, and bapto, in the variety of ways found in the New Covenant, 45 percent, almost half, explicitly speak of R. John and his baptism, while a number of remaining references imply a connection to him.

R. John’s Messianic baptism was the pinnacle of Jewish baptismal observance and is still crucial for Israel. Nevertheless, after Messiah ascended He began to baptize in a way which far transcends any water baptism. We now proceed to the book of Acts where we find vivid descriptions of the experience of being baptized with the Spirit.

Chapter 3 Endnotes

¹Brown, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, pp 149-50. (From this statement it would appear Brown believes baptism speaks primarily of immersion); Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1, p 554, baptistees found only in New Testament writings and Josephus.

²Hakohen ham’taher, Leviticus 14:11.

³cf. William Sanford La Sor, ‘Discovering What Jewish Miqva’ot Can Tell Us About Christian Baptism,’ Biblical Archaeology Review, January/February 1987, p 58. Bivan and Blizzard in their Understanding the difficult words of Jesus, 1984, footnote p 136, say John exhorted the repentant to baptize themselves.

⁴Balz and Schneider, holding a typical view of baptism, nevertheless comment, “With this designation (the Baptist) the special activity of John is indicated; as the Baptist he is not merely a witness to baptism, who stands by and watches as others immerse themselves...” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1, Wm B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, English translation 1990, p 196. See also ‘John’s Baptism, Immersion?’ in the appendix.

⁵A widespread misconception that R. John’s activity was, primarily, immersing in the Jordan river is corrected in ‘John’s Baptism, Immersion?’ in the appendix.

⁶cf. Hazar-Enon, Numbers 34:9-10, Ezekiel 47:17; 48:1.

⁷cf. “And John was also baptizing in Aenon, near Salim, for many waters were there.” A Literal Translation of the Bible, by Jay P. Green, Sr., Hendrikson Publishers, Peabody, Mass, 1987. Jay Adams, The Meaning and Mode of Baptism, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1980, pp 11-15.

⁸D.C. Allison, W.D. Davies, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, The International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1988, vol. 1., p 299.

⁹Beasley-Murray, Baptism, pp 32-3, R. John’s demand “to the Jews not to appeal to Abraham (i.e. the promises made to him and merits attributed to him) on the ground that God can raise sons to Abraham from stones, has been interpreted as indicating a rejection of the Jew and advocacy of universalism on John’s part; and it has been denied that the Baptist can have heralded the coming of the Messianic Kingdom. But John’s protest was not directed against the belief that God would fulfill the promises made to the covenant people. He rejected the notion that the Jew had a right to the Kingdom, simply as a Jew; on the contrary, none but the repentant members of the covenant people would find acceptance with the Messiah. What John thought about the relation of the Gentiles to the Kingdom we have no means of knowing; he ministered solely to the Jews and gave no word about the fate of the Gentiles. Again, whatever form of words John employed, it is inharmonious with the literature of this period to postulate that he would have dissociated the judgment from the Kingdom, as though the issue of the messianic judgment could be in doubt. The Messiah is to use a winnowing fan, not however, with the chief intent of gathering chaff for burning, any more than the farmer with whom the comparison is made is primarily concerned with dust; winnowing is for grain and grain is for the barn. The Messiah comes to gather the People of God and establish the Kingdom of God, and neither John nor his hearers could have thought otherwise.”

¹⁰Flusser, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, pp 45-6, “Our sources concerning John the Baptist are the New Testament and the words of Josephus (Antiquities XVIII, 116-119). Josephus’ interpretation of the significance of John’s baptism is almost identical to the theology of the baptism in the Dead Sea Scrolls....Baptism - both for John the Baptist and for the Essenes - had the same significance as the Jewish ritual of immersion in a mikveh....repentance purified a man from sin, and water only purified the body.”; Beasley-Murray, Baptism, p 41, “Moreover there is no intimation that John interpreted his baptism in terms of death and resurrection; not a hint is given in his preaching that he ever heard of such a view of baptism.”

¹¹Beasley-Murray, Baptism, pp 57, 62, 63.

¹²Allison, Davies, Matthew, The International Critical Commentary, p 325, “fulfill all righteousness,” lists seven possible meanings, (1) “According to Jewish expectations,” but then questions this because they do not see how Jewish expectation relates to the specific act of baptism. It is surprising they do not see it in an eschatological setting! In the seventh possibility advanced by Meier, Law, pp 76-80, they take this term as “fulfilling prophecy” citing Ps 2.7 and Isa. 42.1 which is quoted during the episode. “The baptism of Jesus brings to realization Scriptural hopes. So when Jesus fulfills all righteousness he is fulfilling Scriptures.” (This would include Israel’s end-time baptism.); H.B. Green, The Gospel According to Matthew, Oxford University Press, 1975, p 65, Fulfills all righteousness - “Jesus fulfills the prophecies of the OT.”

¹³Beasley-Murray, Baptism, p 58, Jesus represents God to the people and the people to God.

¹⁴ Leon Morris' first of three possibilities for the water of John 3:5: "(i) "water" stands for purification (cf. 2:6). If this is the correct explanation there is probably a backward look at the baptism of John. This was a "baptism of repentance" (Mark 1:4). It was concerned the purifying (v.25), and it could be explicitly contrasted with the baptism of the Spirit (1:33). The meaning then will be that Nicodemus should enter into all that "water" symbolizes, namely repentance and the like, and that he should also enter into the experience which is summed up as "born of...the Spirit", namely the totally new diving life that Jesus would impart..." [footnote 27] "...Except you are born of all that water baptism signified, repentance; and that which the Spirit accomplishes, regeneration, you cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." ... Ezek. 36:25f combines the ideas of water purification and the giving of "a new spirit"..." Morris takes the second possibility he lists as more like, to him, that the water of John 3:5 relates to male sperm, called "water" in other ancient literature. He rejects the third possibility, i.e. Christian water baptism. The New International Commentary on the New Testament, The Gospel According to John, by Leon Morris. The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1971, Revised 1995. p 191. Beasley-Murray writes "If the text is to be read as it stands, there is much to be said for the interpretation enunciated by Bengel, and characteristic of British exposition: "Water denotes the baptism of John into (i.e. preparing for) Christ Jesus" (Gnomon 2:275). Such a view assumes that entry into the kingdom of God requires baptism of water and of the Spirit. The conjunction of water and Spirit in eschatological hope is deeply rooted in the Jewish consciousness, as is attested by Ezek. 36:25-27 and various apocalyptic writings...(He goes on to say that he thinks the Qumran texts and practices were the most influential). Word Bible Commentary, Volume 36, John. By George R. Beasley-Murray. Word Books, Publishers. Dallas, Texas. 1999. p 49. Some believe Yeshua’s phrase “born of water” is linked to Jewish proselyte baptism and the Rabbinical saying, “One who has become a proselyte is like a child newly born,” Yeb. 22a. Beasley-Murray however says the Rabbinical “new birth” is not a result of baptism but circumcision; “The newly circumcised has come from the grave and must endure the customary seven days period of uncleanness and then bathe himself: the decisive turn from ‘death’ was therefore the circumcision already undergone, not the bath taken seven days later. The proselyte’s bath enabled the freshly made Jew to enter upon his privileges of worship; it did not make the heathen a Jew.” Baptism, pp 18-31. Yeshua’s concept of being “born of water” should not be traced to Rabbinical ideas therefore, but perhaps the reverse.

¹⁵As does Beasley-Murray Baptism, p 72.

¹⁶Beasley-Murray, op. cit., pp 228-9, The “water” required for Nicodemus in John 3:5 is referenced with Ezekiel 36:25, with baptism, and specifically with R. John’s baptism.

¹⁷The traditional Christian world has taken John 3:5 far out of context and, combined with a misinterpretation of Matthew 28:19, has mistakenly applied it to all people. John 3:5 is also assumed by sacramentalists to teach that the Holy Spirit is “in the water” of Christian baptism.