According to secular historians there was a general expectation on the part of the peoples of the nations of the East that there would appear a great Deliverer, who would bring about the emancipation of the nations. There can be little doubt that this general expectation was the result of the promise made concerning the world's Redeemer, as found in the Scriptures, but as learned from them by the nations and interpreted by the nations in their heathen darkness. We know that the early Babylonians and the Assyrians had versions of the account of the creation of the world, and of the Flood. When these are stripped of their extravagances, heathen ideas, and polytheism, we see that they contain substantially the accounts that are found in the records of the Holy Scriptures. The only logical conclusion to which one can come regarding these accounts is that the information concerning primeval and historical facts was derived originally by the peoples from the Scriptures, or from those who possessed them, and that they perverted the facts, adding much imaginative detail and legend to them. It was doubtless in a manner analogous to this that there was a general expectation throughout the East that the world's Redeemer would soon appear.

Those who knew the prophecies of the Old Testament, especially the prediction found in the ninth chapter of Daniel, were expecting the Messiah at that time. Thus this great expectation of Messiah's coming was at its height in the nation of Israel. From those circles in which the Messiah was expected, there grew up the apocalyptic literature--the writings of men whose imaginations ran riot, and who promulgated their speculative ideas by means of anonymous literature. When these writings are stripped of their gross, wild speculations, guessings, and extravagant fancies, they are seen to present the same sober facts as those which are found on the pages of the canonical writings of the Old Testament.

When John appeared in the wilderness of Judea, preaching that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, the people from all sections of the country, even from Syria, went to hear the new, eccentric preacher deliver his messages and hurl his philippics at the constituted authorities, because of their hypocrisy and corrupt lives and practices. Naturally, the authorities at the great center of the Jewish religion, Jerusalem, were moved with indignation, curiosity, and anxiety because of the preaching of John. They therefore sent a delegation to him, asking him if he were the Messiah. When he denied his being the Christ, they asked if he were Elijah, whose coming was foretold by Malachi. Likewise he denied this and confessed that he was not Elijah. They then asked if he were the prophet whose coming Moses had foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15ff. He stated that he was not. They then asked him, "Who art thou?" To this he replied: "...I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said Isaiah the prophet" (John 1:23; Isa. 40:3-6). He therefore claimed that he was simply the herald, announcing the soon-coming of the Messiah.

John then contrasted the work which he was doing, and which was only of a superficial and ceremonial nature, with that of the Messiah, whose work would be of a spiritual and permanent nature. To them he declared; "I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire: 17 whose fan is in his hand, thoroughly to cleanse his threshing-floor, and to gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire" (Luke 3:16,17).

John, who Introduced the ordinance of baptism, declared that what he did for them was only the outward expression of the inward repentance which he demanded of them. He therefore said that he was simply baptizing them in water. But to those who accepted his baptism, he declared that the Messiah would perform a spiritual work of grace upon them, which would prepare them for heaven and immortal glory-- "...he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit."

Today we hear much about baptism in the Holy Spirit, which some believe is to be received as a second blessing, or a special work of grace, and which, together with speaking in tongues, is considered as evidence of one's having been saved. Many very honest, conscientious, sincere people accept this interpretation of the biblical phraseology. But the scriptural words will not bear such an interpretation when they are understood in the light of their origin as indicated in Luke 3:15-17. John stated to the people that he was baptizing them in water, that is, he was baptizing them in the Jordan River, as Matthew says in 3:6 of his Gospel. John called the people's attention to the fact that what he was doing for them was simply assisting them in obedience to a ceremony which was symbolic, but that the Messiah, who would follow him, would baptize them in the Holy Spirit. This is a case of paronomasia, or a play on words. This figure of speech we use every day and have no difficulty in understanding it. For example, a child may be taking a serious matter very lightly. The parent, being displeased with the child's attitude and conduct, speaks with positiveness: "You had better quit that! Or you will be laughing on the other side of your face." The child understands thoroughly what its parent means. He is at the time laughing and taking a serious matter lightly. The parent speaks of what the child will do in terms of what he is doing at the present moment. It is laughing now; but she means that it will be crying because of the punishment which she intends to administer. But the parent speaks of what the child will be doing in terms of what it is doing, namely, laughing. John, therefore, in substance said: "I am baptizing you in water. I am simply administering this ceremony. That is all I am doing; but He, who is coming after me, will baptize you in the Holy Spirit--He will perform the real, inward spiritual act, of which my baptism is an emblem, a symbolic representation." John's baptism was simply the symbol, or emblem. But John declared that what Christ would do for them would be the reality--a spiritual, inward work of grace. In view of this play on words it becomes evident that John meant, by baptizing them in the Spirit, the great act of regeneration, which the Son of man performs upon those who really believe in Him. John baptized the people, pointing them to Him who would come after him, and who would perform this spiritual act of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. From many passages we see that what the Christ does for the one who comes to Him is to regenerate the soul and to impart new life, divine life, to the one who believes, and who accepts Him as Saviour and Redeemer. Thus the expression, to baptize in the Spirit, is just another way of speaking of the act of regeneration. Confirmation of this position is found in I Corinthians 12:13: "For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and were all made to drink of one Spirit." It is therefore in one Spirit, the Holy Spirit, that one is baptized into the one body, the body of Christ.

But the baptism "in fire" is something entirely different. It was a mixed audience to which John was speaking. Some of those present wanted truth; others did not. Those who desired truth, and who hungered after God, were the ones who would be baptized in the Spirit by the Christ when He would come, and when they would accept Him. The rest, who did not want truth, and who had no thirst for God, would reject the Messiah. They would therefore be lost and would be cast out into the outer darkness, where there is to be wailing, weeping, and gnashing of teeth.

This interpretation of the baptism in fire is confirmed by the rest of the sentence, appearing in Luke 3:17: "... whose fan is in the hand, thoroughly to cleanse his threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire." Obviously, John is illustrating the two baptisms--the one in the Holy Spirit, and the one in fire--by the separation of the wheat from the chaff, as it is in the threshing floor. The farmer gathers the wheat into his garner, but he burns up the chaff in fire. Since John used this illustration in connection with the baptism in the Spirit and in fire, it is overwhelmingly evident that to be baptized in the Spirit is to be saved for time and eternity, but to be baptized in fire is to be lost in eternal punishment. Only those who accept the Lord Jesus Christ and the salvation through His blood will be baptized in the Spirit. All others who reject Him, and who neglect to avail themselves of His salvation, will be baptized in the fire of eternal hell--all because they will not accept the truth and be saved. The entire responsibility is upon them.

In verse 18 we are told that, with many other exhortations, John proclaimed the good tidings of salvation to the people. While he presented the gospel of the grace of God to those who were hungering for the truth, he did not spare the wicked and unrighteous, even the king on the throne, as he denounced sin wherever he saw it. Herod the tetrarch had taken the wife of his brother to be his own wife. Thus he broke up a home and married his brother's wife. In doing this, he committed adultery. John would not compromise with sin. He was a fearless preacher of the truth. Hence, he denounced Herod sharply for this thing and for many other evil things of which he was guilty. Herod, smarting under the terrific indictment hurled at him by John, threw this grand man of God into prison, where he lingered for some time, the length of which no one is able to tell. On Herod's birthday Salome, the daughter of Herodias, danced at the banquet and pleased Herod greatly. Whereupon, in a half-drunken stupor, he tried to emulate the Persian king, Darius Hystaspes, by saying that she should ask whatsoever she wished, and that he would grant her request. Being put forward by her mother, who also was still smarting under the tongue-lashing that John had administered, Salome asked for the head of John the Baptist. Herod, though he hated to grant her petition, yet felt compelled to do so and ordered the execution of John. (See Luke 9:7-9; Matt. 14:1-12.) Thus passed from the stage of action one of the greatest noblemen of all the ages.

In Luke 3:21,22 we have a brief statement concerning the baptism of Jesus. Luke is very vivid in this short account. He tells us that "...it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that, Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened." We ought to understand that, on this occasion, Jesus stood back and let all the people go to John, make their wants known, and submit to baptism. We have every reason to believe that the crowd had cleared away when Jesus came forward to be baptized. Probably the reason for His waiting was that He did not want to create a scene in the presence of the multitude, for He knew what John's reaction to His request to be baptized would be. When Jesus advanced toward John and requested to be baptized, He did not make any confession of sin, as all the others had done. The reason He could not make any confession of sin was that He had none to confess. Had the multitudes been present, and had they seen Jesus come to John and be baptized without making any confession of sins, they would have been amazed, and great excitement would have been stirred up. When Jesus asked to be baptized, probably John, not knowing Jesus--even though He was akin to him--would expect Him to make some statement concerning His life and conduct. Such an expectation would be natural. In all probability, Jesus made a statement regarding the matter of sin. If He did, it could be only that He was the One who had come to deal with the sin question and not to confess any sins of His own.

Though John did not know Jesus, as he states in John 1:31-34, he realized his own sinfulness in the presence of the Master. He therefore would have hindered Jesus by saying that he himself needed to be baptized by the latter, instead of his baptizing Jesus (Matt 3:13-17). The Lord Jesus explained to John that it was proper and right that He, though He was the pure, immaculate Son of God, should submit to every ordinance of the Lord. This explanation satisfied John who then baptized Jesus.

Why did the Lord Jesus submit to such an ordinance, since He was free from sin, and since the baptism of John was especially the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins? The answer probably lies in this fact: That He was wishing to identify Himself with this "back-to-God movement" that John had inaugurated by his preaching the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins. He had identified Himself with the fallen, human race by the incarnation--entering the world by miraculous conception and virgin birth. He had identified Himself with the Jewish race in that He was born of a Jewish maiden, the Virgin Mary. It was therefore highly important that He identify Himself with this back-to-God movement that was inaugurated by John.

We are told that, when Jesus was baptized, He was praying. Our Lord engaged much in prayer. Frequently He arose before day, went to a solitary place, and prayed. Sometimes He spent the entire night in communion and fellowship with God by means of prayer. His taking this step of identifying Himself with this back-to-God movement was indeed an epoch in His earthly career. Therefore, realizing the importance of the movement and how much depended upon it, He naturally would be praying. If our Lord would thus take the matter of baptism so very seriously, as evidently He did, it behooves us to look upon that ordinance with all seriousness and sobriety.

As He was coming up out of the water (Mark 1:10), the heavens were opened unto Him, and He saw the Spirit of God "as a dove descending upon him." Though He had been begotten by the Holy Spirit and had been indwelt and strengthened by the Spirit from birth onward, yet at His baptism the Holy Spirit came in this form. Doubtless there was a new influx of power into the very soul and being of the Son of God on this occasion, which empowered Him for the work that was before Him.

There came a voice out of heaven from God the Father to Him saying, "Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased" (Luke 3:22). This language was spoken directly to Jesus. It proved to be confirmation to Him concerning the unique relationship which He sustained to the Father. Let it be remembered that Jesus had completely limited Himself by the incarnation, by taking upon Himself the form of man (Phil 2:5-11). Having done so, He had to live by faith, the same as any other man. He was the Author and Perfecter (Finisher) of faith, a life of faith. Hence, this voice which came to Him was a confirmation and a clarification, doubtless, of the unique relationship which He sustained to God. To John the voice said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matt. 3:17). This testimony was for John's benefit in order that he might identify Christ as the promised Messiah, of whom the prophet had foretold (Isa. 42:1-4).

In Luke 3:23-38 we have the genealogy of Jesus. A careful examination of this list impresses one with the profound conviction that this is the genealogy of Mary, which is the real genealogy of Jesus. In Matthew 1:1-17 we have the royal genealogy of Joseph, to whom Mary was espoused. The one given by Matthew could not be the real genealogy of Jesus, because, by a prophecy of Jeremiah, it was foretold that the Messiah would not come through the house of Jehoiakin, who is called, in Jeremiah 22:24-30 Coniah. But Jesus, belonging to the royal house of David, and Joseph being in that line and the foster-father of Jesus, naturally Matthew gave the royal genealogy, showing Christ's title to the throne of David. But Luke gives Christ's genealogy back to Adam, "... the son of God" (3:38).