"Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan"
Matthew 3:5

Individuals gravitate toward a crowd. Gravitation, apparently so simple, occupies twenty pages in the 1961 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, much of it in complex mathematical formulae. Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) wrote that any two bodies in the universe attract each other in proportion to the product of their masses and inversely as the square of their distance apart. All this is worked out with exceeding niceties by the world’s space-travel scientists, in order to keep astronauts in proper orbit. But John the Baptist exercised an extra-gravitational appeal; his Spirit-inspired messages drew many with a supernatural force. Many of his hearers then went into orbit around the Son of God, called the "Sun of righteousness" in Malachi 4:2, and thus they started on their way to heaven.

The jet engines of faith are still propelling repentant sinners away from the gravitational pull of this sinful world, and into "the heavenlies" with Christ Jesus (Eph. 1:13; 2:6, 13; 3:10). Conversely, the appeal of worldly popularity attracts those who love philosophy more than Biblical theology. This could explain the continuing hold of liberals who boast superior scholarship. Their boasting seems vain in the light of Biblical archaeology.

John’s public ministry began when "the word of God" came to him in the wilderness of Judea (Luke 3:2). He began baptizing near the mouth of the Jordan, not far north of the Dead Sea, and due east of Jerusalem about a day’s journey. How did he get his first crowds? F. B. Meyer wrote (47):

"It may have befallen thus. One day, as a caravan of pilgrims was slowly climbing the mountain gorges threaded by the road between Jerusalem and Jericho, or halted for a moment in the noontime heat, they were startled by the appearance of a gaunt and sinewy man, with flowing raven locks and a voice which must have been as sonorous and penetrating as a clarion, who cried, `Repent! the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!’ It was as though a spark had fallen on dry tinder. The tidings spread with wonderful rapidity in the wilderness of Judea . . . Instantly people began to flock to him from all sides."

Devout people had been looking for the kingdom of heaven for years (Luke 1:65, 66; 2:25, 36-38).

George W. Clark, in his Notes of Matthew (39), says that John began preaching in a Sabbatical year. During such a year of rest from ordinary labors the people would have more time to travel considerable distances to hear this new preacher.

Every person who heard this Elijah-like prophet would, on his return, tell his friends and neighbors. Many of them would hurry to see this phenomenal messenger prophesied by Malachi. For John was the first prophet to appear in over four hundred years.

The message of John the Baptist differed radically from that of contemporary religious leaders. The Pharisees were mainly concerned with their minute interpretations of the Old Testament laws. Their hypocritical lives and teachings were exposed mercilessly by our Lord Jesus in Matthew 23:13-29 and in Luke 11:42-44.

The Sadducees were not concerned about the minutiae of Pharisaical hair-splitting; they held mostly to the Pentateuch. They erred in denying the existence of angels, spirits and the resurrection. As ecclesiastical politicians they dominated the Sanhedrin. They cared little for Messianic hopes and objected to nationalistic passions and religious enthusiasm.

The Scribes were professional scholars, learned in the law, teaching its many requirements to the people and handing down legal decisions. They were outspoken opponents of the Hellenists and thereby gained much favor with chauvinistic Jews. Jesus exposed and rebuked their pride, insincerity and spiritual obstinacy in Matthew 23.

The lawyers were well versed in the laws of Moses and served as professional interpreters of them. Scribes and lawyers were the same people (Luke 11:44, 45). The lawyers and Pharisees rejected the baptism of John (Luke 7:30), as did the Scribes and Sadducees. The lawyers tried to defeat Christ in argument (Matthew 22:35; Luke 10:25) but were invariably defeated. Jesus rebuked them for burdening the people and for keeping from the people the key of knowledge (Luke 11:45-54).

The vast majority of Jewish people had no other teachers than these four classes of professional religionists. No wonder, then, that the Baptist gave them a pleasing contrast. His preaching was Scriptural, without the additions and accretions of human traditions which the Pharisees imposed upon the people, thereby "making the word of God of none effect" (Mark 7:13). John, Spirit-filled, spoke with the voice of divine authority, "and not as the scribes." The people, at least the majority of them, knew instinctively that here was a prophet and they flocked to hear him. They by-passed the haughty religious hierarchy for a humble preacher in the wilderness.

The Holy Spirit could take a rustic farm lad, Dwight Lyman Moody, and cause him to burst into flame for his wonderful Lord. Arid the world turned aside to see this "Bush Aglow," and to hear him, and many believed his message. They were gloriously saved—from sin, from empty formality, and from vain living. It was "Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord" (Zech. 4:6). This same Holy Spirit waits for believers now who will surrender all to God.

John the Baptist was no miracle worker (John 10:41). If two miracles are required to establish one as a saint, then John could not qualify. His power was not in works of wonder, but in his wonderful Lord. Alleged miracles at shrines will draw multitudes of superstitious people, even though their leaders deny the authenticity of the reports. John drew crowds without tricks. The fact that many believed on Christ through John’s evangelism is, according to A. M. Symington (The Life and Ministry of John the Baptist, p. 185) "better than all miracles."

John the Baptist had a substantial message. He announced the kingdom of heaven as at hand, and the long-prophesied King as soon to come. Most of the Jews apparently expected the King to exercise political, if not military, power. They were understandably anxious to be free from Roman domination, and their hopes colored their interpretation of prophecy. Is not that a common failing in every age?

When the record says that "all" the people of Judea and of the Jordan vicinity went to hear him, it means that people from all parts of those areas were John’s auditors. As with us, not every use of "all" is meant to be literal in the Bible (1 Cor. 13:7; Phil. 2:21; 4:13, 18; John 4:39; Col. 1:6). Even then, John assuredly had great congregations to hear him. Nahum Gale, in his The Prophet of the Highest, or, The Mission of John the Baptist (p. 68), wrote "The city of Jerusalem could not have had less than 200,000 inhabitants."

Mark (1:5) supports Matthew with the phrase, "all the land of Judea." Luke (3:7) refers to "the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him." Among specific groups, perhaps representatives of many other classes of people mentioned by Luke, are the publicans (3:12, 13), soldiers (3:14), and even Herod (3:19).

Jean Steinman, a French author (Saint John. the Baptist, translated from the French by Michael Boyes, 1958, used by permission of Harper and Brothers, New York), comments (p. 69) on John’s word to the publicans. "In the same way he does not order publicans to give up a means of livelihood which the Jews considered despicable. Even the Essenes considered the publicans as godless because of their contact with the Gentiles. John simply asks them to carry on their trade honestly and loyally. He does not condemn even their collaboration with the regime of the Roman occupation." (This supports our belief that Matthew, when Christ called him, was an honest tax collector.)

Likewise, John did not tell the soldiers to desert from the Roman army. He was apparently not a pacifist. After all, an army is only a big police force, and everyone seems to believe in the need for policemen. The danger is in men like Hitler, an international bandit, who must be put down by a huge army.

The Fourth Gospel records the visit of a committee of priests and Levites from Jerusalem, sent by the Pharisees, to interview the Baptist. This was in one sense quite an honor. The Pharisees were accustomed to having people come to them; here they must go out to a desert to inquire about an "upstart" preacher. Not many contemporary ministers have a comparable compliment paid to them. Jesus referred to this incident in John 5:33, and testified to John’s faithfulness.

Certain Pharisees and lawyers who heard John "rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him" (Luke 7:30). It is clear, then, that many of the "religious" people of that day rejected John the Baptist. Perhaps some twentieth century Christians need to re-examine their views on John.

Turning to the book of Acts, we find a very significant verse (1:22), "Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." This vital witness was to be a replacement for Judas, the one who had betrayed his Lord with a kiss and then he hanged himself. The new witness also had to be one who had been with the other disciples "all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us" (1:21). Then the twelve original disciples had been with Jesus all the time, beginning with the baptism of John. And since John 1:35-45 clearly states that some of the Twelve had first been disciples of John, and therefore were baptized by him, it is a safe inference that all the Twelve had been baptized by him. Then the Twelve had all heard John. This is important, for too many assume that Christ’s call to the Twelve was their first call; they forget that John came to prepare people for his Lord.

Those who say that the eleven disciples made a mistake here in Acts 1:21-26, in that they should have waited for Paul, are in error. For Paul, great as he was, was not a qualified witness to the work of the Lord Jesus "in the days of his flesh." He had not seen Christ at work; he had not heard Christ preach; he was not a baptized believer until much later (Acts 9:18). He was an apostle, but in a different sense from the original twelve. And as for Matthias not being mentioned again, the same is true with most of the others listed in Acts 1:13.

Who heard John the Baptist? Peter, in Acts 10:37, said the Word was preached, or published, "throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached." And Paul in Acts 13:24 said, "When John had first preached before his coming [Christ] the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel." Then all Israel was responsible for the message. Apollos (Acts 18:24-28) had apparently heard John and had received his baptism, but missed much of the subsequent instruction in the Gospel which Christ and later preachers had given. Perhaps Apollos had spent considerable time in a secluded place and was therefore out of touch with Gospel preaching. We know he traveled much; perhaps he had been far from Palestine.

Many Bible readers are unnecessarily confused by the story of the few men in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7) who said they had John’s baptism, but who had never heard of the Holy Spirit. But John did preach the Holy Spirit. And these men were hundreds of miles from Palestine. They likely had never heard John personally; they had only a garbled gospel, second or third hand. This incident shows how quickly the true Gospel can be perverted; how many cults arise; how divisions flourish; and how needful it is to read the Bible carefully.

A. T. Robertson wrote about Apollos (John the Loyal; p. 292ff). "The mention of John’s baptism was for the purpose of dating him, so to speak. He occupied the pre-Pentecost standpoint. There is no hint that Priscilla or Aquila taught Apollos the insufficiency of John’s baptism." And regarding Acts 19:1-7, "They betray a lamentable ignorance of important elements in the teaching of John, to such an extent that one hesitates to call them Christians at all . . . these ‘disciples’ may have been ignorant of John’s portrayal of the Messiah . . . Paul is, then, not discrediting John’s baptism, but interpreting the real significance of it . . . The rest of Paul’s explanation is in harmony with this idea . . . They are baptized afresh, not because they had only John’s baptism, but because they did not really have that . . . These men did not even have a real water baptism, let alone spirit baptism."

Because many writers fail to study this passage, Acts 19:1-7, with enough care, they make the serious mistake of saying that John’s baptism was not Christian baptism. The New Testament is thereby divided, or dissected, into fragments, and difficulties multiply accordingly. J. A. Broadus wrote with his usual wisdom on this important point (Matthew; p. 240).

"If John’s teaching and baptizing are to be set off as essentially different in kind from Christian teaching and Christian baptism, these beginning only on the day of Pentecost, then we have the strange contradiction that Christ Himself, as a teacher and baptizer (John 3:22; 4:1), did not belong to the Christian dispensation. Moreover, in Matthew 11:12 and also in Luke 16:16, our Lord speaks of the kingdom of heaven as already in actual existence, and counts John among the preachers of the kingdom of heaven, as distinct from those who merely predicted it . . . those persons (in Acts 19:5) were re-baptized because it was evident that when they previously received baptism (probably from some ignorant disciple of John), it had been without knowing what they were about, without understanding the fundamental truths of the Messianic reign, as announced by John himself. As this isolated case can be accounted for in this way, and indeed in various other ways, it is quite unwarrantable to make it the proof of a radical distinction between Christian baptism and the baptism administered by John and by Christ Himself."

All church members who have been wrongly baptized, or who were baptized before their conversion, should follow the example of these Ephesians. They should speak to a minister who understands New Testament baptism, and then obey their Lord in the way that will mean lasting satisfaction to them.

Now the record is fairly clear as to who heard John, and who did not hear him. More important, who will hear John’s message now? Some will reject him, and thus reject "the counsel of God"; others will believe him and thereby come closer to Christ.

John was seen as well as heard. His baptism was quite as spectacular as his spoken words. The majority of people apparently believed that the baptism of John came from heaven (Matthew 21:25, 26). And John gave as his reason for baptizing: that Christ "should be made manifest to Israel; therefore am I come baptizing with [in] water" (John 1:31). Since baptism pictures death, burial and resurrection (Luke 12:50; Rom. 6:3, 4; Col. 2:12; 1 Pet. 3:21), then baptism must be immersion and nothing else. No other "baptism" has any symbolic meaning.

Some expositors seek to point out a flaw, or shortcoming, in John’s preaching. They say he did not preach the resurrection of Christ. But every baptism he performed was a sermon on Christ’s resurrection! Each immersion of a believer made Christ "manifest" to every onlooker: the baptized person was converted to Christ; He was committed to Christ; he was "risen with Christ" (Col. 3:1); and in his baptism he testified to his belief in Christ’s resurrection.

If, as many Christians believe, Christ’s resurrection was the greatest event in the world, then baptism is the greatest symbol in the world. For baptism testifies to the greatest event; it testifies to the sinner’s conversion which is his greatest experience; and it testifies to Satan’s greatest defeat. For more on the importance of baptism, see the author’s Your Baptism Is Important.

Those who saw John’s baptisms witnessed a meaningful ordinance. James A. Stalker, not an immersionist, wrote about John’s baptism. "He embodied his teaching not only in words, but in an expressive symbol. And never was symbol more felicitously chosen; for baptism exactly expressed the main drift of his teaching" (The Two St. Johns of the New Testament, p. 211).

Immersion-baptism shows the believer’s own judgment on himself as -a sinner deserving death for his sins. His burial in water indicates his admission that he ought to die because he has sinned. Carl H. Kraeling, not an immersionist, came close to that great truth, in " . . . the assumption that in John’s baptism the individual pre-enacts his judgment. . . " (John the Baptist; p. 118). " . . . as an act of self-humiliation before God it [baptism] was a clear, voluntary expression of true repentance, and that repentance was commonly acknowledged to have divine forgiveness as its response. If John’s baptism, then, was an act of repentance it could

mediate forgiveness without conferring it" (121, in John the Baptist).

That New Testament baptism (Greek, baptizo) is immersion is clearly seen in that Christ, "when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water" (Matthew 3:16); the Ethiopian "went down" and came "up out of the water" (Acts 8:38, 39); believers "are buried with him by baptism" (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12), and we are also risen with him to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4).

"The people who speak Greek at the present day wholly reject and ridicule the idea of using this Greek word (baptizo) in any other than its own definite and well-known sense; and the Greek church still holds nothing to be baptism but immersion" (Broadus, Matthew; p. 39).

Immersion-baptism is declarative in that it tells the world of a repentant sinner who is openly being counted on Christ’s side; it is commemorative in that it recalls to every beholder the death, burial and resurrection of Christ on behalf of all sinners; and it is protective in that it should keep out of each "local" church those half-hearted, indecisive, vacillating people who are unwilling to confess Christ in real baptism. This is the Baptist viewpoint; everyone concedes that Pedobaptist churches have many sincere and genuine Christians in their memberships. More and more of these latter are coming to see the mode and meanings of baptism in their New Testaments.

The Bible teaches that baptism is only for genuine converts, and that it should always come after one has been regenerated. This would result in "a regenerate church membership," a gathered company of redeemed persons only. Wherever both salvation and baptism are mentioned in the New Testament, they are always in that order. In John 4:1, for example, we read that Jesus and His disciples "made and baptized . . . disciples." A. W. Pink (Exposition of the Gospel of St. John; p. 157) wrote, "It is one of many passages in the New Testament which, uniformly, teaches that only one who is already a believer in Christ is qualified for baptism." In perfect agreement with the above is the Great Commission where only those who are made disciples are to be baptized, and in Corinth where "many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized" (Acts 18:8).

John’s greatest moment was seen when he baptized his Lord. Humbly he tried to tell how unworthy he was for that unique honor (Matthew 3:13-17). Apparently John was not himself baptized; he had a direct commission from God to perform that important rite (John 1:33). At Jesus’ patient urging, John baptized Him in the Jordan River (Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:20, 21). How immersion could be described more definitely and unequivocally it is hard to imagine. Jesus was baptized in order to show to all people, for all time, how baptism should be done. He told John, "thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15). Then when He gave His last orders to His followers in Matthew 28:18-20, everyone would know without question exactly what He meant by baptizing converts.

Why was Jesus baptized? Among other reasons, A. T. Robertson (John the Loyal; p. 121ff) offered the following. "If Jesus did not submit to John’s baptism, he at once placed himself in the attitude of the Pharisees and scribes who rejected the baptism of John, Luke 7:29 . . . If Jesus had not Himself submitted to baptism, a powerful argument against baptism by the disciples of Jesus would have existed. The later command of Jesus to baptize would have lacked the force of the Master’s own example . . . The baptism did not consecrate Jesus as a priest. He was not a priest in the ceremonial sense at all. He was not connected with the priestly line and He was a priest after the order of Melchisedec. It was not a vicarious purification as the representative of a guilty people. It was not the Messianic consecration. The descent of the Holy Spirit was that.

"In a fuller sense it is true that the baptism prefigured Christ’s own death and resurrection as afterward explained by Paul (Rom. 6:2-6). In a sense, also, Jesus put Himself on a par with other men. The solidarity of the race was illustrated by this act of Christ."

Jesus said of His baptism, "thus it becometh us." F. B. Meyer (John the Baptist; p. 74): "I like that word, becometh. If the divine Lord thought so much about what was becoming, surely we may." On the Emmaus road Christ said to certain disciples, "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory" (Luke 24:26)? And in Hebrews 2:10, "For it became him, for whom are all things . . . to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings."

Jesus also said, "thus it becometh us." He may have included John in that great word; yet, since John was not himself baptized He more likely meant all His obedient followers who submit to baptism. This word then teaches the Unity of Christ with All Believers. Blessed unity, blessed bond, blessed symbol, blessed act of obedience which every convert to Christ may observe in exactly the way his Master observed it.

Jesus was baptized in order "to fulfill all righteousness." This He did actually on the cross when He took our unrighteousness upon Himself, and then gave us His righteousness. He did it symbolically in His baptism which promised, prophesied and pictured His real death, burial and resurrection.

On what date was Jesus baptized? It may not matter; yet the day of His crucifixion coincided with the Old Testament Day of Atonement. Perhaps the date of Abraham’s offering Isaac is the same; if so, it would be fitting. Isaac asked his father, "Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" This question had no real answer for about two thousand years. The real answer, after many substitutes, came with John the Baptist as he pointed to Christ: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).

The baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ! What a sight!

"Jesus saith . . . because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" (John 20:29).

Lord, I believe!