82.  Many have held that he derived his baptism from the method of admitting proselytes into the Jewish fellowship.  It is clear, at least, that the later ritual prescribed a ceremonial bath as well as circumcision and sacrifice for all who came into Judaism from the Gentiles, and it is difficult to conceive of a time when a ceremonial bath would not seem indispensable, since Jews regarded all Gentile life as defiling.  While such an origin for John’s baptism would give peculiar force to his rebuke of Jewish confidence in the merits of Abraham (Matt. iii. 9), it is more likely, as Keim has shown (JN.  II. 243 and note), that in this as in his other thought John learned of his predecessors rather than his contemporaries.  Before the giving of the older covenant from Sinai, it is said that Moses was required “to sanctify the people and bid them wash their garments” (Ex. xix. 10).  John was proclaiming the establishment of a new covenant, as the prophets had promised.  That the people should prepare for this by a similar bath of sanctification seems most natural.  John appeared with a revival of the older and simpler religious ideas of Israel’s past, deriving his rite as well as his thought from the springs of his people’s religious life.

83.  This revival of the prophetic past had nothing scholastic or antiquarian about it.  John was a disciple, not an imitator, of the great men of Israel; his message was not learned from Isaiah or any other, though he was educated by studying them.  What he declared, he declared as truth immediately seen by his own soul, the essence of his power being a revival, not in letter but in spirit, of the old, direct cry, “Thus saith the Lord.”  Inasmuch as John’s day was otherwise hopelessly in bondage to tradition and the study of the letter, by so much is his greatness enhanced in bringing again God’s direct message to the human conscience.  John’s greatness was that of a pioneer.  The Friend of publicans and sinners also spoke a simple speech to human hearts; he built on and advanced from the old prophets, but it was John who was appointed to prepare the people for the new life, “to make ready the way of the Lord” (Mark i. 3).  The clearness of his perception of truth is not the least of his claims to greatness.  His knowledge of the simplicity of God’s requirements in contrast with the hopeless maze of pharisaic traditions, and his insight into the characters with whom he had to deal, whether the sinless Jesus or the hypocritical Pharisees, show a man marvellously gifted by God who made good use of his gift.  This greatness appears in superlative degree in the self-effacement of him who possessed these powers.  Greatness always knows itself more or less fully.  It was not self-ignorance that led John to claim to be but a voice, nor was it mock humility.  The confession of his unworthiness in comparison with the mightier one who should follow is unmistakably sincere, as is the completed joy of this friend of the bridegroom rejoicing greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice, even when the bridegroom’s presence meant the recedence of the friend into ever deepening obscurity (John iii. 30).