John the Baptist

The historicity of John the Baptist is not questioned by scholars. His ministry and execution are validated by the Jewish (not Christian) historian of that time, Josephus Flavius. He is an important figure because he fulfilled the prophecy regarding the messenger of the Lord listed in Isaiah. He was called John the Baptist because baptism was the hallmark of his ministry, though he was not the first to baptize with water. Jewish rabbis had used baptism in addition to circumcision to convert Gentiles to Judaism after the exile in Babylon. A later sect of Jews, the Essenes (who inhabited the site at Qumran where the Dead Sea scrolls were found and with whom it is supposed that John may have resided since he is referred to as coming from the desert in Judea), practiced the rite as a frequent cleansing ritual. John refined his baptism as a one-time public sign of repentance but never preached that his baptism equated to salvation.

If his baptism was a public sign of repentance for sin, why then was Jesus baptized at all? Several reasons are suggested by commentators. First, His baptism was an example to unbelievers; a demonstration of what should be done in a public profession of faith. Second, it authenticated his ministry and validated John's. When the dove descended on Jesus accompanied by the affirming voice from heaven, his specific role was announced, albeit to the small crowd gathered there on the river bank. Third, His baptism identified him with mankind yet He was without any sin in need of forgiveness. Fourth, the ritual qualified Him for his role as high priest, since a cleansing with water and an anointing with oil (which he received later from the woman with the alabaster jar) were prerequisites for the position.

Tomorrow's reading:Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-15; John 1:19-2:12