Jesus said, "There hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist."

Superlatives are common and most of them are difficult to support with proof. But the Lord Jesus spoke here as always with the voice of divine authority. We have, then, a surprisingly challenging statement about a great man, made by One infinitely greater. For Jesus spoke in Matthew 11:11 with emphasis:

"Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."

In seeking answers to certain live questions, the meaning of Christ’s lavish praise of John the Baptist may be discovered.

An angel of the Lord had announced to Zacharias, John’s aged father, that John was to be "great in the sight of the Lord" (Luke 1:15). Some men are great in their own eyes, some in the eyes of their contemporaries, but John was to be great in the sight of the Lord.

The Baptist was to be "filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb" (Luke 1:15). Of whom else, in all sacred or secular literature, is such a statement made? This natal endowment, retained through life, would enrich his words and works with divine authority.

John was destined to turn many of his countrymen to accept the Lord as their God; he was to be "an horn of salvation"; and he would "give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins" (Luke 1:16, 69, 77).

This first New Testament man of distinction (a teetotaler!) was to have "the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1:17), who was an Old Testament prophet of great renown. For John was "to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just" (Luke 1:17).

John the Baptist was "sent from God" (John 1:6) to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1:17). This was a big order indeed. Among the multitudes whom John prepared for the Lord were the twelve disciples (Acts 1:22) and at least some of the "five hundred brethren" who saw the resurrected Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 15:6). That the total number was immense is indicated by the vast crowds who came to him, believed his message about Christ, and then were baptized by him (Matthew 3:5, 6). If Christian workers now had the spirit and power of John the Baptist, and if they used his techniques, they could also prepare multitudes for the Lord.

Among the many services John rendered to his Lord were these: "to make his paths straight" and the "rough ways" smooth (Luke 3:4, 5). Here was a man who made real the proverb, "But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day" (Prov. 4:18). For all those who followed John sincerely were led straight to the Lord Jesus Christ. (Here is ample reason for a book on John: to lead people to Christ). The forerunner thrust aside the rough ways of the legalistic Pharisees with their onerous demands. And to humble souls he heralded the good news that their long-awaited Messiah was at hand, bringing with Him divine salvation.

John had the unique honor of being the first to point out Christ as the Lamb of God and the Son of God, clothed with full deity (John 1:29, 34). He described Christ in words inspired by the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:16, 17).

Lasting honor belongs to John for his exalted privilege of having baptized his Lord (Matthew 3:13-17). This distinction is the more deserved because John felt unworthy to officiate at this divine service where, for the first time in recorded history, the Triune God appeared at the same time and place.

The humility of John, despite his high honors, is repeatedly stated in beautiful language. He said of Christ, "whose shoes I am not worthy to bear" (Matthew 3:11); "there cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose" (Mark 1:7); "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:30).

John was not "a reed shaken with the wind" (Matthew 11:7f). He was more like a mighty oak. He was not "a man clothed in soft raiment"; instead, he wore camel’s hair clothing. Jesus said of him, "A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet."

The Baptist was faithful unto death. He could have been one of King Herod’s courtiers, "for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly" (Mark 6:20). But John chose righteousness rather than fame. And because he preached Christian ethics fearlessly, without compromise or hedging, he became the victim of wicked Herodias’ murderous hatred (Mark 6:24-28).

John the Baptist resembled Christ, apparently more than any other man in history. He was taken for Christ, and Christ was taken for John. When Christ became widely known, and after John’s death, Herod thought that Christ was John risen from the dead (Matthew 14:1, 2). Still later, some said that Christ was John the Baptist (Matthew 16:14). This was superlative praise of John: some who knew both John and Jesus mistook one for the other. And those who thought that John had risen from the dead (no one had, before) thereby indicated how great they thought he was. The moral grandeur of the Baptist stands out all the more when it is recalled that "John did no miracle" (John 10:41), and that Jesus did many astounding miracles; yet John was, in the minds of many, equal to Christ.

The total number of verses in the Bible concerning John exceeds the total number of verses in each of the thirty-three shorter books. While this is not a criterion by itself, it is an indication that the Spirit of inspiration honored John.

Emphasizing His words Jesus said, "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" (Matthew 11:11). This leads to an important question -

We can safely rule out three classes of people whom Jesus did NOT mean by the word "least."

The pathetic backsliders in various churches, though once regenerated, are assuredly not greater than John the Baptist! To say they are "positionally greater, not morally" (Scofield) is simply not true; instead, such a statement with its attempted explanation is distorted dispensationalism. (This is not rejecting the Bible’s dispensational divisions). The many verses cited above place John where Jesus placed him—greater positionally and morally than any of his predecessors.

This "least" person is not some future subject in the millennium about which we know very little. We do know more about the kingdom mentioned by Christ. John was IN it (Luke 16:16); he preached it and its King; his life and ministry overlapped the ministry of Christ; and he was always obedient to his King, hence he was a loyal subject of this kingdom. "Thy kingdom (Hebrew, malekuth) is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations" (Psalm 145:13). More is told about this kingdom in Psalms 45:6; 103:19; 145:11, 12.

Nor could this "least" person be one of John’s contemporaries. Christ gave no comparable eulogy to anyone else, not even to His own mother. Nor could the great apostle Peter, important as he was, compare with John. And unlike Paul, the Baptist never was a persecutor, or a blasphemer (1 Tim. 1:13), as Saul of Tarsus was before his glorious conversion. This is not to say that he was perfect or sinless always, for "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23).

Lest someone cite John 14:12, "greater works than these shall he do" or John 16:12, 13, "he will guide you into all truth" as indicating greater stature than John’s, a quick comparison of John with anyone else in Christian history must give him priority. This must be clear in the light of the Greek usage of "least."

"Least" (Greek, from mikros) can refer to time, or age, or date of appearance. Thus in Mark 15:40, "James the less" (mikrou) simply means James the younger. Sixteen times in the New Testament this word mikros and its cognate forms are used in reference to time. It is so used in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, in Genesis 25:23; Joshua 6:26 and Jeremiah 42:1. Then it could also well refer to Christ Himself in Matthew 11:11 and in Luke 7:28.

A similar apparent inconsistency is found in Luke 14:26, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father . . . he cannot be my disciple." Does Jesus expect us to hate our parents? Of course not; He simply meant that we should love Him more than our parents.

If we allow "least" to mean "later" in Matthew 11:11, everything fits beautifully. For Christ DID come on the scene later than John. He was born six months later than His forerunner (Luke 1:36). John referred to Christ as "he that cometh after me" (Matthew 3:11); "one mightier than I cometh" (Luke 3:16); "He that cometh after me" (John 1:15); "He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me" (John 1:27); "After me cometh a man which is preferred before me" (John 1:30).

All the facts fit nicely in Matthew 11:11 when we allow "least" to mean "later" and thus declare Christ only to be greater than John. Chrysostom (ca. 347-407), Christian orator, Scriptural exegete, patriarch of Constantinople and church father, one of the four great doctors of the East, interpreted Matthew 11:11 "as an assertion of the Lord’s own superiority to John: `I that am less in age and in the opinion of the people, am greater than he in the kingdom of heaven.’ Jerome (ca. 347-420) of the western church, says this was a common interpretation in his day. Erasmus (ca. 1466-1536) approved it."

A. T. Robertson, in his lifetime perhaps the world’s greatest New Testament Greek scholar, wrote, "It is a supreme position that John occupied. He stood next to the Son of God Himself. That was honor beyond that received by Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Socrates, Plato, Demosthenes, Alexander, Judas Maccabeus, Hillel or Shammai" (John the Loyal, p. 234). (In citing scholars on particular points, no one needs to assume that all other points are thereby endorsed in this book).

"The counsel of God," Christ said in Luke 7:29, 30, was equivalent to, or similar in divine authority to, the baptism of John. This elevates the message and baptism of John to a high position indeed. Christ made that assertion only because John was filled with, and obeyed, the Holy Spirit Who inspired his words and work.

Incidentally, Christ Himself defined the person who is really least in the kingdom. "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:19). John the Baptist is among the great. But what of those who deny his baptism, and teach men so?

After all is said about the greatness of John, the best of all is that he pointed men to the Lord Jesus Christ. He prepared people for the Lord (So may we! We can do many things John did). He won them to belief in Christ and then he helped them to clinch their faith by means of public baptism. This leads to another interesting and provocative question.

(Twentieth-century Baptists do not claim identity with John, as a rule. If they could, it would be a high honor indeed).

Jesus strongly implied that John was the first baptizer in Matthew 21:24-27; Mark 11:27-33 and Luke 20:1-8. "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?" If John had copied previous baptisms, as some scholars say he did, then the foes of Christ could easily have escaped their dilemma by saying, "of men." But "they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed." They all knew that John’s baptism was a new thing, never before seen. But if they admitted that it came from heaven, Christ would say, "Why then did ye not believe him?"

By implication, Jesus told those cavilers that His own authority was from the same source as John’s baptism—from heaven.

Therefore, John was the first baptizer; he was the first Baptist. (John 1:33, "He [God] that sent me to baptize.") Since John was the first baptizer, and since his name was "Baptist," he must have been the first Baptist.

If John was not the first Baptist, who was?

The Old Testament is silent about "proselyte baptism"; so also are the Apocrypha, Philo and Josephus. The Essenes’ dippings had no relation to John’s baptism. Albert Schweitzer wrote that no lustrations of comparative religion can explain the baptism of John (The Mysticism of Paul, p. 232). Rudolph Bultman: "No certain testimony to the practice of proselyte baptism is found before the end of the first century" (Theology of the New Testament, 40). A. H. Strong: "John’s baptism was essentially Christian baptism, although the full significance of it was not understood until after Jesus’ death and resurrection" (Systematic Theology, p. 932). Among other scholars who say John’s baptism was new and unique are C. A. Bernandi in Johannes der Taufer and die Urgemende; Markus Barth in Die Taufe—ein Sakrament?; Edward Irving in Works, II, p. 40; and pedobaptist scholars such as Whitby, Lightfoot, Scott, Henry, Adam, Clark, Wesley and Bloomfield.

No one was called "Baptist" before John, the son of Zacharias. The name "Baptist" is found fifteen times in the New Testament, not at all in the Old. First, it is in Matthew 3:1 where the Holy Spirit used it in speaking through Matthew. Then Christ used the name "Baptist" five times: Matthew 11:11, 12; 17:13; Luke 7:28, 33. Friends of the Baptist used it four times: Matthew 16:14; Mark 8:28; Luke 7:20; 9:19. Foes used the name five times: Matthew 14:2, 8; Mark 6:14, 24, 25. The American Standard Version uses "John the Baptizer" in Mark 6:14, 24. The meaning is the same.

"What was the origin of John’s baptism?" asks A. T. Robertson in John the Loyal (p. 79). "The very title `The Baptist’ argues the originality of John’s baptism in some sense." Regarding the question asked of the Baptist in John 1:25, "Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ . . . ?" Robertson comments, "The point of the question is that the Messiah would cause no astonishment if he were to introduce a new rite like this. But if John is nobody in particular, why had he done it? The question argues the novelty of John’s baptism . . . Jesus clearly implies that John’s baptism had more than a mere human origin . . . It was, indeed, a new ordinance, equivalent to a vow, and especially different from the ceremonial washings with which the Jews were familiar."

The Essenes, as is well known, had immersions of a sort. The Jews and others had also practiced ceremonial ablutions, bathings, washings and dippings in their religious rites. But these differed radically from the baptism of John. They did not point to Christ; they were not symbolic of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection as is clearly seen in Luke 12:50; Romans 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21; they did not signify the recipient’s death to the world of sin and new life in Christ (Rom. 6:6-13); they did not signify conversion, and they were not once-for-all vows of loyalty to Christ Who was to baptize His followers in the Holy Spirit.

Admittedly, John’s baptism may not have conveyed as much meaning to his converts as later New Testament baptisms did, when the work of Christ was better known and explained. Similarly, a convert at twelve years of age will probably understand less of baptism than a convert of twenty or thirty years of age. Yet the one baptism is as valid as the other. In each case the convert needs to continue learning more of the Gospel all his life.

That John the Baptist was the first Christian preacher is seen in that: he prepared the way for Christ; he made straight His paths; he pointed to Christ; he baptized Christ; he continued to magnify Christ; he used the same text as Christ and other New Testament preachers did; he taught and baptized the first Christians, and his ministry overlapped that of Christ. If John was not in the New Testament dispensation, as some say, then how could Christ have been in it "in the days of His flesh?"

The name "John" was divinely given before the birth of the Baptist (Luke 1:13, 60-66). The name "Baptist" was apparently given as well by divine direction. Since "all Scripture is inspired of God" (2 Tim. 3:16), we must accept Matthew 3:1 as also inspired. Then the name "Baptist" is a name of more than human origin.

Parenthetically, it is necessary here to state that no boast is made for a historical connection, or unbroken line of succession, between the first Baptist and those of the twentieth century. It seems needless to make any claim to apostolic succession in this regard, although some do so sincerely. More to be desired is a doctrinal, or spiritual, or logical, succession with this forerunner whom Christ endorsed. It is hoped that this study will be helpful in establishing spiritual kinship with the first preacher in the Christian era. No one should boast of his denominational name, except as that name may point to Christ in a significant way. "Our main cause for rejoicing is not so much in our name as it is in that we are following the example of such a great person" (W. E. Powell). And those who unite with Christ in commending John the Baptist should do so with His motive in mind: to commend and magnify the Gospel he preached so effectively. No one can share God’s glory; "my glory will I not give to another" (Isa. 42:8; 48:11). In this study of John it is hoped to add to the Lord’s glory by showing how faithful he was to the Gospel.

The next compelling question is—

The shortest Gospel, and some say the first one, begins with this meaningful statement, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1). Then the next ten verses tell of the ministry of John the Baptist, including his baptism of the Lord Jesus. This seems to place John at the very beginning, and inside, the New Testament era.

But some will object. The beginning, they say, could not have been until Christ’s death on the cross, or His resurrection, or His ascension, or Pentecost.

When did the independence of the United States begin? Was it at the Boston Tea Party, December 16, 1773? or at the Battle of Lexington, April 19, 1775? or at the signing of the Declaration, July 4, 1776? or at the surrender of Cornwallis, October 19, 1781? or at the signing of the peace treaty, September 3, 1783? or when the last British regulars left America, November 25, 1783?

But, does it matter when the New Testament era begins? some will ask. It does. All Christians have a right to all of the four Gospels; they are all Christian from the beginning. A well known minister gave a series of "expository messages" on Matthew and said frequently, "Now this is not for you; it is for the Jews." He suffered, and caused his hearers to suffer, from faulty dispensationalism. He relegated John the Baptist to the Jews, and deprived his great audiences of much of the Gospel. (When I asked him if he was not preaching "Bullingerism," he denied it but he also ceased his former emphasis.) It is time that John is restored to his proper place as the first New Testament preacher.

"Once for all let us discard that theory which has contributed in so many ways to a misunderstanding of the origin of Christianity, namely, that John belonged to the old dispensation rather than the new" (Wm. Arnold Stevens, Addresses on the Gospel of St. John, p. 30). "If any one affirms that the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ, let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Ibid., p. 38). This latter dictum of Rome is typical!

John the Baptist takes an early place in Matthew, right after the story of Christ’s nativity. After Luke’s brief prologue of four verses, the story of John begins. And the fourth Gospel introduces the Baptist in its sixth verse. This prominence and primacy is not accidental.

The Baptist preached the same good gospel as did later New Testament preachers. His converts were as surely saved as later believers. (Those few in Acts 19:1-7 were NOT John’s "converts".) A careful reading of Luke 1:16, 17, 69, 77; Acts 10:37; 13:24 will indicate the genuineness of John’s gospel. The word for "preached" in Luke 3:18, used of John, in the Greek is euangelizeto, meaning evangelized, the word used ten times for preaching the gospel in Acts and eleven times in the Epistles.

When Peter first preached to the Gentiles, he indicated that the gospel began "after (Gk., meta, usually "with") the baptism which John preached" (Acts 10:37). The word "after" here refers not to time, but to manner or content. Robertson: "The baptism of John is given as the terminus a quo."

Paul’s first recorded sermon included a mention of the Baptist. "When John had first preached before his (Christ’s) coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel" (Acts 13:24). In fact, the last mention of Paul in Acts (28:31) is remarkably similar to the preaching of John the Baptist. No Old Testament prophet can thus compare with the Baptist, certain critics notwithstanding.

A pivotal passage is Luke 16:16, "The law and the prophets were until (mechri) John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached (euangelizetai) and every man presseth into it." John did NOT preach the Old Testament law and its ordinances. He DID preach the kingdom of God and Christ its King. Therefore, the new dispensation had to begin with the preaching of John, the first New Testament preacher of the gospel of Christ. This is important; it clarifies John’s position and Christ’s endorsement of him. It prevents the confusion of placing much of the New Testament back into the Old Testament.

A. T. Robertson: "Mark is justified by the word of Jesus (Matthew 11:12f; Luke 16:16) in making John the beginning of the New Dispensation. The actual outward beginning was when John lifted up his voice in the wilderness. ‘Until John,’ Jesus said . . . Luke is fully conscious that the new era opens with John" (John the Loyal), 36). "The Christian movement began with John" (Ibid., p. 52). "John’s (ministry) was first and introduced a new age . . . It was not from the close of John’s ministry that Peter dates the new dispensation, but the beginning . . . It is a great thing to mark a new time. That John did" (Ibid., p. 286). "But with Paul, as with Peter, John is the man who introduced the new age. He first preached the baptism of repentance and it was just before the coming of Jesus" (Ibid., p. 288).

Dr. W. A. Criswell, long pastor of the great First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas, wrote in his Ph.D. thesis, "John the Baptist Movement in Its Relation to the Christian Movement" (Southern Baptist Seminary, Louisville, Ky., 1937), "The Christian movement began with John" (p. 24). "The Gospel of Jesus Christ began with the ministry of the Baptist" (p. 25, from Bruce, Expositor’s Greek Testament Vol. I, p. 341).

Dr. R. C. H. Lenski, a Lutheran: "John was in the kingdom, for faith admitted him to it as it did all other believers. The supposition that John belonged to the old covenant is contradicted by Jesus Himself Who described him as an object of Old Testament prophecy which ended with Malachi; Jesus thus combines John with Himself as opening the promised new covenant" (p. 414, The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel. Used by permission of Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, Minnesota, copyright owners by assignment from the Wartburg Press.)

George E. Hicks: "The text, John 1:29, alone transforms John from the last of the prophets into the first and premier evangelist of Christendom" (John the Baptist, The Neglected Prophet, p. 56).

Since John is in the New Testament, then all of us who believe in Christ since John’s time may claim for ourselves the Gospel truths he proclaimed so well. And since John’s ministry overlapped that of Christ and His apostles, then we can be very sure they were similar. But if John is forced back into the older dispensation, or to the so-called "bridge period," then the door is open to all sorts of speculatings and compartmentalizing by ingenious dispensationalists. When Jesus equated the baptism of John with the "counsel of God" (Luke 7:30), He endorsed both for the entire New Testament dispensation. (Our chapter six has more on John’s New Testament gospel.)

John’s message, however, was not final or complete. This important fact must not be forgotten, lest the more complete message of Christ be slighted even a little. Strange as it may seem, there is even now in Bagdad a congregation of people who hold fierce loyalty to John the Baptist. In this connection, the earnest student may wish to study deeper into "The Baptist Movement" by investigating the Mandaeans, Clementina, Hemero-Baptists, Sabeans, Nazareans, Ginza and Disotheus.

The dozen or so disciples in Acts 19:1-7 who thought they had John’s baptism were far removed from John himself who DID preach the Holy Spirit, so they could not have heard John personally. They were hundreds of miles and about 25 years from the place and time of John’s preaching. All they had was a garbled gospel from some incompetent and ignorant follower of John. (Since many stumble on this passage, it must be treated again.)

Apollos was "mighty in the Scriptures" but it seemed that he knew "only the baptism of John" (Acts 18:25ff). Aquila and Priscilla "expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly." They likely filled him in as to the later teachings of Christ, His resurrection and ascension, and other historical facts which had not then apparently traveled as far as to Alexandria. The case of Apollos shows the importance of an over-all view of the Bible, lest ignorance of one important doctrine should distort one’s theology. It is therefore important for Christians to know what the Bible says about John the Baptist. It is also important not to over-emphasize him. Let no one rob Christ of His primacy and glory. With this caution in mind, another big question challenges our thinking.

Since John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit, his teaching must have been divinely authorized and inspired. This is substantiated by Christ Who validated John’s ministry. The same Holy Spirit Who filled Christ "without measure" also filled John. And because John was the first New Testament preacher, he should therefore be given some credit as the one who initiated many New Testament items of doctrine. These will be noted in detail later, in chapter six. The eighteen teachings first given by John may not be all he gave; many are unrecorded. "And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people" (Luke 3:18).

The texts used by John (Matthew 3:2) and Christ (Matthew 4:17) are identical in the Greek. And the kingdom John preached was the same as that declared by Paul to the end of his ministry (Acts 28:31). Of course Paul preached more than John did, according to the records, but he did not change any of John’s teachings. And John gave them first.

Among the values in studying John afresh is to catch his beautiful humility. He always magnified Christ, never himself. If all believers now would witness for Christ, point people to Christ, deny themselves in behalf of Christ, and stand boldly with Christ as John did, then more people would be added to the churches daily. May John the Baptist stimulate, encourage, incite and goad us on to effective witnessing for the Lord Jesus!

Dr. G. Campbell Morgan: "Nineteen centuries have gone since this rugged prophet (John the Baptist) heralded the coming of the King. The work of Jesus has proceeded in human history for nineteen centuries on exactly the lines he laid down" (The Gospel of Matthew, p. 24).

Dr. Carl H. Kraeling: "It should be evident from what we have seen of his life and preaching that John was not in any sense an imitator. Rather he was a spontaneous, forceful, original personality." (John the Baptist, p. 109, Charles Scribner’s Sons, publishers.)

Yet John has been ignored and thereby downgraded by many theologians. Some would even deny that he was a Christian! Most of them say he was not a real part of the New Testament stream of Christian thought. Is this bias due to European prejudices against the Anabaptists of Reformation days? We shall explore that possibility.

In the meantime, what does the Bible say about John! The Old Testament prophecies about him may yield divine blue prints of the Baptist’s character and mission. And those prophetic outlines may serve to check the accuracy of the various interpretations of John’s life in the New Testament.