"And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel"
Luke 1:80

This last verse of the New Testament’s longest chapter is strikingly similar to a verse about Jesus’ childhood: "And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him" (Luke 2:40). As is proper, more is said about Jesus than about John. The story of Jesus at the age of twelve, in the Temple, has no parallel with John.

But how did the child John grow, and how did he become strong in spirit, and who were his teachers, and what did he study all these years? He must have grown physically as a normal child would. The food in his home would likely be the best obtainable. Emil Schurer, in his great History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, II, 1, page 230, wrote—

"The emoluments which the priests received from the people for their subsistence were, down to the time of the exile, of a very modest and rather precarious kind. But subsequent to this latter period they were augmented almost beyond measure. This fact enables us to see, in a peculiarly striking manner, what a vast increase of power and influence the priesthood had acquired."

The child John became strong in spirit because he was continuously filled with the Holy Spirit. Moreover, his parents were both filled with the Spirit, and they poured their very best into their own child. And over this holy household the Heavenly Father was keeping watch, preparing John for his unique mission.

"The first education was necessarily the mother’s," wrote Alfred Edersheim in The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Volume 1, page 288ff. Thus the young child (Greek, brephous, baby) Timothy had "known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15). This "unfeigned faith," Paul told Timothy, "dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice" (2 Tim. 1:5).

"It was, indeed, no idle boast that the Jews ‘were from their swaddling-clothes . . . trained to recognize God as their Father, and as Maker of the world:’ that, having been taught the knowledge (of the laws) from earliest youth, they bore in their souls the image of the commandments," wrote Edersheim, quoting Philo and Josephus.

When John was able to speak, instruction in the Old Testament began, with memorizing of verses. His special "birthday text" would be one, according to Jewish custom at that time, which had at the beginning or ending the same letters as those in his name. The earliest hymns taught would be the Psalms. At the age of four, Zacharias would take the chief responsibility of teaching his son the Torah (Pentateuch). Formal schooling began at five or six, where the Bible only was taught until the age of ten. The first book taught at this time was Leviticus. Then at ten, the Mishna or traditional law was taught; at thirteen, the commandments; at fifteen, the Talmud with its theological discussions.

John’s home likely had the entire Old Testament of thirty-nine books, but numbered twenty-two in the Hebrew system due to certain combinations of books. These books were in scrolls, written with the square Hebrew characters, and without vowel pointings. Much emphasis was placed on memory training of the child, since he could not depend on quick access to a convenient small volume such as modern printing skills give us in the twentieth century.

Zacharias, almost certainly, devoted most of his time to his young son. He would major on the teaching of the Old Testament, especially those portions which dealt with the promised Messiah. For Zacharias would be sure to tell John all that Gabriel had revealed, that his chief work was to prepare people for the Lord. Much time would be spent in prayer, when the Holy Spirit would teach directly the precise meanings of the sacred Scriptures. Many preachers can testify that their best sermon material comes in times of concentrated prayer.

John’s aged parents knew they would not likely live to see their son begin his public ministry. This was their sorrow, if they had any; for parents love above all else to see their sons and daughters useful in good work. But since they would probably not live to see John at work, they naturally tried all the more to prepare him for his monumental task. We should like to know how old John was when his parents presumably were called to their heavenly home. If under fifteen, he would be quite sure to make his home with his relatives (Luke 1:58-61). If twenty or more, it may be assumed that he went to the "deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel" (Luke 1:80). Dr. G. Campbell Morgan, in his Gospel According to Luke (p. 33), wrote as follows:

"I think, without any question, John went to the deserts when he was twenty years old. I think that he then broke with the priesthood and the Temple, under Divine command, and went to the deserts."

Broadus (Matthew; 33) says that "John had probably lived in the southwestern part, towards Hebron." Leon Uris, in Exodus Revisited (p. 18) suggests Ein Karem, north of Hebron and just west of Jerusalem, as John’s birthplace. Deferring to Broadus, John would have had ample time to explore the desert areas immediately to the east in the priest-city in the south of Palestine (now Israel). He would know how to take care of himself, anywhere. His needs were few and simple: locusts, wild honey, and camel’s hair clothing.

A. T. Robertson (John the Loyal; p. 27) comments on this transitional period of John’s life. "John was now probably grown (twenty or twenty-one, not yet thirty, the Jewish legal manhood). Josephus was sixteen when he went to the desert to study three years under Banus, the famous Essene."

Why did John go to the deserts? Robertson said (29), "It has, indeed, been urged that John went into the desert, like Josephus, to study the doctrine of the Essenes and that he became one. But there is no foundation for this idea." It seems that the more is learned about the Essenes, the less John seems to be dependent upon them. While it is true that they quoted Isaiah 40:3-5 as their mandate, they failed in living up to it. From what is now known of the Qumran Scrolls, found in 1947 near the Dead Sea, it is likely that the Essenes were earnest students of the Old Testament. Who knows? perhaps John the Baptist had read and/or copied those same sacred scrolls. Perhaps John’s interest in them led the Essenes to place them in protective covering and into the jars where they were kept intact for about two thousand years. Admittedly, this is speculation.

However many years John had to himself in the desert, it is certain that he used them well. He had much to do in order to prepare himself for introducing his Lord to the world, and to present his Lord with prepared converts. He could not follow any pattern known at that time; he had to pioneer. The Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots and Essenes were little help, if any. He needed something new, something dramatic, something symbolic of the new dispensation. In his persevering study, the Holy Spirit would lead him.

Of course he knew about the Jewish ceremonial washings and dippings. He would know about the Essene immersions in running water. But all these had no content, no meaning, no significance for the coming Messiah and His saving message. John had to go much deeper for a symbol, or sign. Nothing superficial would do. No second-hand or made-over ceremony would be worthy of the Son of God. And the Messiah would not depend on a colony of ascetics for any vital part of His message. Robertson (John the Loyal; p. 46) reminds us that the "Essenes were never mentioned in the New Testament, nor in the Talmud, being known to us only through the writings of Philo, Josephus and Pliny. All attempts to show that some ideas or practices were derived from them by John the Baptist or by Jesus, have proved a failure." No mention is made of "proselyte baptism" in the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, Philo, Josephus, the ancient Targums, the Mishna, the New Testament or in ancient Christian writers.

"The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?" Jesus asked His critics (Matthew 21:25). Did it come full-blown, in toto, by direct revelation from God? Perhaps it did, but not likely. God has His economy whereby He expects man to do what is possible for him to do; He will do the impossible. Only Jesus could raise Lazarus from the dead; the bystanders could roll away the stone. The five unsaved brothers of Dives had "Moses and the prophets;" they did not need one risen from the dead, in addition, to tell them how to live and die (Luke 16:28-31).

How did John think of immersion as the symbol of the Christian Gospel? That it IS such a symbol is indicated by the fact that the word "baptized" and "baptizeth" (John 3:22, 26; 4:1, 2) represent the entire ministry of Christ in certain places. Likewise, those same words represent the entire work of John the Baptist in other places (John 1:28, 31, 33; 3:23; 10:40). This is not to say that baptism procures salvation, but it does picture or portray salvation. It represents the death, burial and resurrection of Christ which does secure salvation for all repentant sinners (Luke 12:50, Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; 1 Pet. 3:21).

We can imagine what John did and how he reasoned. How accurate is our reconstruction of John’s thinking may be estimated partly by what he actually said and did later, but part of our speculation must await fuller revelation. Perhaps in heaven John will let us know more about his studies. He may have reasoned as follows.

John would likely read Genesis, chapters one to three. God told Adam and Eve what to do and what not to do. They disobeyed; they sinned; they rebelled against God. The age-old divine law says, "The soul that sinneth; it shall die" (Gen. 2:17; Ezek. 18:4). But God loved man. Instead of punishing our first parents with immediate execution of their deserved penalty, God in His infinite mercy allowed them to offer a substitute life as atonement for their sin. This offering must mean that the sinner would identify himself with the sacrificed life. When it was offered upon the altar he would say, "Here is a living creature. It does not deserve to die. It has not rebelled against its Creator. But I have; I have sinned; I deserve to die for my sin. But I trust that God will accept this substitute life in my place. It was once my property; I now sacrifice it to God; it will teach me the deadly nature of sin, so that I will hate sin and love righteousness. This offering is a symbol of my repentance. I am sorry for my sin, and intend not to sin any more."

Then John the Baptist would assuredly read Genesis four. Cain "brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." Abel "brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect (Gen. 4:3-5; Heb. 11:4). Why the difference between the two offerings? Cain refused to recognize the deadly and evil nature of his sin, so he refused to bring a life as sacrifice. He doubted God’s revelation and instead he believed Satan’s lie, "Ye shall not surely die" (Gen. 3:4). Actually, Cain did what so many have done since: he made light of sin. This we know because he killed his brother and then said, "Am I my brother’s keeper?" (Gen. 4:8, 9). "Fools make a mock at sin; but among the righteous there is favour" (Prov. 14:9).

When a person makes light of sin, the next downward step is to make light of salvation and of the Saviour Himself.

Abel, on the other hand, was a righteous person (Heb. 11:4). He knew sin to be deadly, hence he brought one of his flock as a sacrifice. His was an offering where blood was shed, and blood means life (Lev. 17:11). "And without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22). The Bible makes a great doctrine of the blood, and with good reason. The whole plan of redemption is reasonable, once the love of God is accepted.

John the Baptist now had a good start in New Testament theology. He would ask certain questions, and the answers must add up reasonably. He needed a symbol that would convey several truths—vital, eternal, fundamental, elementary, redemptive, practical, instructional, Christological truths.

What will signify death to sin, without harm to repentant sinners?

What will show God’s necessary and inevitable judgment on sin?

What will symbolize rejection of sin, worldliness and Satan?

What will show the start of a new life of righteousness?

What will indicate inward cleansing and a love of holiness?

What will dramatize a public declaration of loyalty to the Messiah-Christ?

What will illustrate a change from an old life to a new one?

Far more importantly, baptism symbolizes Christ’s greatest work on earth—His death, burial and resurrection on behalf of all sinners.

Parenthetically, sprinkling and pouring would signify none of this rich Gospel teaching. In fact, anything but immersion baptism would be misleading; it would obscure the Gospel instead of revealing it. Only immersion can do what a genuine Christian symbol should do. For more data on baptism, the reader is referred to the author’s Your Baptism is Important. (Published by The Bogard Press, Texarkana, Ark.—Texas, 1972).

If John felt that in baptism he had a theory, or a tentative solution to his problem of finding a Gospel symbol, one that would indicate all the meanings listed above, the next thing would be to test it. The scientific method—not a recent invention, by the way—would be to examine it in the light of all the Scriptures he had, the Old Testament.

Did John the Baptist see anything like baptism in Noah’s Flood? Peter did! First Peter 3:21, without the parenthetical portion, compares Noah’s ark (which saved Noah’s family) to baptism. "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Christ’s resurrection DOES save us (1 Pet. 1:3), not baptism. Baptism never saved anyone and it never will. It is essential to obedience but not to salvation; that is, it must come after conversion, not before (Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:41; 18:8).

In Noah’s time, the whole earth deserved to die (except eight). The whole earth was immersed, and then resurrected (Ps. 104:6-9; 2 Pet. 3:5, 6, 13). What a big object lesson that should be for all later generations! And baptism is still an ideal object lesson, a superb "visual aid," for all who see it now. It declares that all sinners deserve death, but that Christ died and rose again for all, and therefore all repentant sinners may have eternal life.

Did John the Baptist see a baptism of any kind in Israel’s crossing the Red Sea? Paul did, in First Corinthians 10:1, 2, "all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." This was not a real baptism; it was figurative in several ways. It marked the end of Egyptian bondage, even as Christian baptism marks the end of bondage to sin. It marked the beginning of Israel’s pilgrimage to the Promised Land, even as real baptism marks the beginning of the Christians’ earthly pilgrimage to heaven. It marked a new start, a new life, for Israel; even so, baptism is the outward sign of a new inner life. God’s mighty power was effectively displayed in dividing the waters of the sea to allow Israel to walk over dry shod. Baptism glorifies the mighty power of God in that it is a symbol of Christ’s resurrection. Romans 6:4 declares "that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

In the Red Sea crossing the people were said to have been "baptized unto Moses." This meant that they now recognized him as their leader, and their former subservience to Egypt’s pharaohs was ended. So in Christian baptism, believers are baptized unto Christ and former sinful associations are broken. Israel, after the Red Sea, had new loyalties, new privileges, new food, new work, and a new outlook on life. The Christian, whose baptism should follow as soon after his conversion as possible, signifies in his baptism that he now has new loyalties, new privileges, new food for his heart and soul, new work to do, and a wholesome outlook on life.

Similar to the Red Sea crossing was the passage through Jordan, related in the third chapter of the book of Joshua. Since the Jordan River flows into the Dead Sea, and stops there—for the Dead Sea has no outlet—the Jordan has been considered a type of death. An old song expresses this thought. "On Jordan’s stormy banks I stand and cast a wishful eye, to Canaan’s fair and happy land where my possessions lie." The Jordan was the last barrier for Israel on their journey to Canaan. It was the boundary between the wilderness and Egypt on the one side, and the Promised land on the other. Could that have been the reason that John chose this river to begin his baptizing? Did John preach about Israel fleeing Egypt and crossing Jordan as a type of repentent sinners fleeing "the wrath to come" (Matthew 3:7)? A. W. Pink (Exposition of the Gospel of John; p. 59) indicated his belief that such was the case . . . being baptized in Jordan, they acknowledged that death was their due." (Italics his)

It is possible that John, in his frequent reading of the Old Testament, paused at the story of Naaman and his immersions in the Jordan. The Septuagint, Greek translation of the Old Testament, uses the word "baptize" to describe his dippings. The name Jordan means "descender," and Naaman had to go down in humility for his cure. He preferred his native Abana and Pharpar (2 Kings 5:12) as "better than all the waters of Israel." But at the insistent urging of his servants he humbled himself; he did as Elisha the prophet directed, "and he was clean" from his leprosy. He reacted manfully. With all his company he returned to Elisha and said, "Behold, now I know there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel" (v. 15). Likewise, baptism declares that there is no God but Jehovah who can raise the dead.

When John the Baptist read as far as Isaiah fifty-three, he must have found there—as many preachers have—a rich store house of sermon material. In this remarkable passage the Suffering Servant of Jehovah is described. He is compared to a sacrificial lamb (Greek, amnos), the word John used of Jesus in John 1:29. Here was (is) food for thought. Could it mean a resurrection, such as was indicated in Psalm 16:10? Peter quoted this prophecy at Pentecost in reference to Christ’s resurrection (Acts 2:25-31).

From our present vantage point in history, some of these interpretations seem quite obvious. But John, as the first New Testament preacher, had only the Old Testament as his authority. How far the Holy Spirit led him in formulating his preaching messages and his baptism we do not know. God could speak as directly to John as he did to Moses. We do know what he did in his public ministry, as recorded in the four Gospels. Before discussing his actual work, one more question arises.

How did John know when to begin his preaching and baptizing? Luke is meticulous in recording the exact date (Luke 3:1,2); he documents the time by naming seven of the Roman and Jewish great men then in office. John did not begin then because of these men; they are listed only to show when John did begin his work. The time must have been important, else why is it stated so carefully?

"Traceable perhaps to the pages of the prophet Daniel, which fixed the time by certain measurements and which by means of Alexandrian culture had become known to the reading world, there had spread the expectation not merely of a coming Prince but that he was nearly due" (Elder Cumming—John the Baptist, Forerunner and Martyr, p. 11).

If John were to enter into the Levitical priesthood, according to Numbers 4:3, 23, he should start at the age of thirty. It is almost certain that he was thirty years of age when "the word of God came" to him in the wilderness (Luke 3:2). We know that Jesus was "about thirty years of age" (Luke 3:23) when He was baptized; that John was about six months older than Jesus, and that John was preaching and baptizing some time before the Lord Jesus came to him. We. also know that John did not enter the priesthood; in fact, he sternly rebuked the priestly hierarchy (Matthew 3:7-10). "He had broken with the old order; he had forsaken Temple and Synagogue, and assailed the rulers with fierce denunciation" (David Smith, The Days of His Flesh, p. 227). John introduced a new era with his baptism. "John never referred to the law of Moses, nor to sacrifices, nor to the Day of Atonement. John taught the Trinity" (Elder Cumming—John the Baptist, Forerunner and Martyr; p. 59).

John read Daniel and recognized it as pregnant with Messianic prophecies. Here was a possible time schedule, if only one could read it correctly. We now know that Christ regarded Daniel as a prophet, foretelling the future (Matthew 24:15); surely John the Baptist had an equally high opinion of him. But what did Daniel mean by the seventy weeks (heptads), or sevens of years? And when did the seventy sevens of years begin?

The commandment to restore Jerusalem (Dan. 9:25) probably referred to that in Nehemiah 2:1-8, when King Artaxerxes Longimanus of Persia gave to his cupbearer Nehemiah the royal orders to rebuild the city walls. "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself" (Dan. 9:26). What may appear as simple arithmetic is still a problem to Biblical scholars. Daniel’s cryptic dates must wait for future solution.

A greater concern is: What did John the Baptist do? And what did he say? How widely was he heard and seen?