A Baptism that Offended: John the Baptist and the Scandal of Repentance
As a church we recently began studying through the book of John, from the first sentence the reader is immediately confronted with the stark truth claims of sacred Scripture concerning the deity of Jesus Christ. However, as you move past the prologue, we are introduced to one of the most radical and jarring figures in redemptive history John the Baptist. Clothed in camel’s hair, eating wild honey and locusts, and crying out in the wilderness, he came not with the polish of Jerusalem’s religious elite, but with the fire of prophetic urgency. His message was simple yet confrontational: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” And his method? Baptism.
But this baptism was not what Israel expected. It was deeply offensive. And it’s crucial for us pastors, theologians, laypeople alike to understand why it was offensive. Because embedded in John’s baptism is a theological earthquake that shakes our pride, upends our assumptions about religion, and forces us to face the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Understanding John’s baptism is critical to prevent the error in believing that it is normative today for us to have and expect two baptisms. However, when one considers and understands the baptism of John it makes the book of Acts, and the baptism there become clear in what is taking place.
I. Ritual Washings vs. Repentant Baptism: A Clash of Categories
The Jews were no strangers to water rituals. Mosaic Law prescribed various ceremonial washings to cleanse from impurities contact with a corpse, bodily emissions, defilement through disease (Lev. 15; Num. 19). These rituals, however, were never about moral guilt or sin. They were about ritual status clean versus unclean not guilt versus forgiveness.
Even more importantly, these washings were self-administered and repeatable. They reinforced one’s identity within the covenant: “I am clean; I belong; the Gentiles do not.” In other words, they were boundary markers for Israel’s distinctiveness.
But John’s baptism was a different animal altogether.
It was:
A one-time act
Administered by another
Public
Tied directly to repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Luke 3:3)
John was saying: “You, Israelite, are not clean. You must repent. You must be cleansed like a Gentile convert. You are no better than the pagan outsider.” This was spiritual dynamite. And it exploded the categories of the religious establishment which is why we see the Pharisee’s sending individuals to interrogate John asking him, “who do you think you are?” So, let us unpack why the physical act of baptism, and what does it mean?
II. Proselyte Baptism: The Gentile Parallel
By the first century, Judaism had developed a formal process for Gentile conversion:
Circumcision (if male)
A sacrificial offering
Full immersion in water
This immersion baptism symbolized a total washing away of paganism and a new identity as part of the covenant people.
Now imagine the offense: John wasn’t just baptizing Gentiles. He was baptizing Jews. The message couldn’t be clearer: Ethnic descent from Abraham was not enough. Your pedigree, your circumcision, your covenantal heritage it counts for nothing apart from repentance. Many Jews believed because of their heritage that it was enough; however, John is declaring something radically different and drawing a theological line in the sand.
“Do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham” (Matt. 3:9, LSB).
This was not just controversial. It was scandalous. Because it struck at the very core of Jewish identity. The people who saw themselves as clean were being told they were spiritually unclean on the same footing as Gentiles and in need of the same kind of washing. The physical act of baptism was reserved only for the Pagans who were converting to Judaism, it was a way of stating that their former Pagan ways have been washed away with, they are now clean, they are now a Jew. However, in John baptizing Jews, this would have been shocking and quite offensive to the religious elite at that time.
III. A Threat to the Temple System
John’s baptism didn’t just scandalize identity it undermined an entire religious system.
The Temple in Jerusalem was the heart of Jewish worship. There, sacrifices were made, atonement was mediated, and priests officiated the rituals that maintained covenantal order. It was the God-ordained mechanism for dealing with sin.
Yet where was John? In the wilderness, far away from Jerusalem, and the temple.
There were no priests.
There were no sacrifices.
There was no altar.
There was only a man calling sinners to repentance and plunging them into the Jordan.
And what was his message?
“A baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3, LSB).
If forgiveness could be tied to a baptism in the desert, what need was there for the Temple? For Sadducees? For sacrificial offerings? Make no mistake: John’s baptism was a protest. A prophetic act. A declaration that a new order was coming one not mediated by bulls and goats, but by the blood of another Lamb. That’s why when he saw Jesus approaching, he didn’t say, “Behold the Rabbi.” He didn’t say, “Behold the Prophet.” He declared: “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29) That statement wasn’t merely poetic it was a priestly declaration and proclamation of good news. John pointed to Jesus as the true and final sacrifice, the fulfillment of every shadow cast by the altar in Jerusalem.
IV. The Baptism of Judgment
John’s baptism was also eschatological. It wasn’t just about past sins it pointed forward to an imminent divine reckoning.
This is clear from his use of Old Testament prophetic language:
Isaiah 40:3: “A voice is calling, ‘Clear the way for Yahweh in the wilderness.’”
Malachi 3:1–2: “The Lord...will suddenly come to His temple...But who can endure the day of His coming?”
Ezekiel 36:25–27: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean...I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you.”
John understood his role as the forerunner of Messiah not merely a moral reformer but a herald of judgment. His baptism was a call to flee the wrath to come (Matt. 3:7). And it carried the weight of eschatological urgency. In baptizing, John wasn’t performing a rite of personal renewal he was signaling the end of the age, and end of the old convenant. A new covenant was dawning. The axe was already laid at the root (Matt. 3:10). The winnowing fork was in the hand of the coming Christ (Matt. 3:12). Time was up, and it is now here.
So, why would a Jew have undergone John’s baptism? It was to acknowledge judgment not only personal guilt, but the failure of the religious system, the brokenness of Israel, and the need for a new and greater salvation and demonstrating that humility and repentance were essential for salvation.
V. Answering Common Objections and Misconceptions
1. “Wasn’t baptism already a normal Jewish practice?”
Yes and no.
Yes, in the sense that various ritual washings existed for purity. And yes, in that proselyte baptism was known.
But no, in the sense that no Jew baptized another Jew for repentance and certainly not outside the Temple system. What John did was without precedent: he baptized Jews as if they were outsiders. That’s what made it so offensive.
2. “Was John’s baptism Christian baptism?”
No but it pointed forward to it, it foreshadowed the one to come.
John’s baptism was preparatory. It was anticipatory. It wasn’t in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It was not post-resurrection. But it did set the stage. It taught the people to look for a deeper cleansing one Jesus would bring through his own death and resurrection.
Indeed, Jesus’ own baptism (Matt. 3:13–17) identifies him not as a sinner in need of repentance, but as the sin-bearer who fulfills all righteousness. And after his resurrection, the risen Christ institutes Christian baptism as the outward sign of union with him in death and new life (Matt. 28:19; Rom. 6:3–4).
3. “Couldn’t people just repent privately?”
That’s the million dollar question and the point of the public ministry of John. John’s baptism wasn’t private. It was public. It was humiliating. It required Jews to get in line with Gentiles, confess their sins aloud (Mark 1:5), and be baptized by a wilderness man in the desert. It was, in short, the death of pride, which is what all of us go through upon recognition of our own fallen state outside of Christ.
Conclusion: Come and Be Washed
John’s baptism was not just a quaint prelude to Jesus’ ministry it was a divine disruption to the expectations many had expected, albeit wrongly.
It shattered illusions of self-righteousness.
It tore down the pride of pedigree.
It bypassed the institutional powers.
And it announced a coming Lamb who would take away the sin of the world.
If you’re reading this and wondering what it means for you here it is:
You are not clean by nature.
You are not safe because of your heritage, your church attendance, or your moral record.
You must repent. You must be washed.
But praise be to God, there was a sacrifice that atoned for our sins, in the person and work of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. John’s baptism may have offended the proud. But for the humble, it opened the door to grace.