John is noted for baptizing those who came in repentance for their waywardness from God. Luke gives us an insight to those coming to John to express their regret. Like Jesus, John accepted everyone who came. We would expect religious Jews, but tax-collectors and Roman soldiers were acceptable upon repentance as well.

We naturally equate John’s baptism to that church ordinance of today, which it wasn’t. In the Jewish practice of John’s day, many mikvehs—cleansings—such as those John performed, existed for many purposes. By his day, the Levitical mandate for cleansing from being unclean had been expanded and formalized, focusing on the act rather than the repentance or gratitude it was to express.

For that matter, the whole purpose of the various cleansings when one was unclean is generally missed by non-Jews. Basically, it ends a time of quarantine for someone who might transmit some infection, small or great. When healed, a mikveh expressed gratitude for the healing. The most common mikveh was the monthly cleansing following a woman’s period. Rather than her uncleanness having been a quarantine to protect the community, she was quarantined to protect her. Bleeding tissue, even more so following childbirth, was a great health risk for the woman.

Mikvehs still vary from ceremonial hand-washing, such as at the start of Passover, to full-immersion for non-Jews who wish to convert to Judaism. They, being gentile, were seen as the most unclean, and thus, needed total immersion. The Greek word we translate baptize is baptizo, meaning full immersion. Thus, those allowing John to baptize them, were expressing their deep regret for their past disregard of Yahweh, by a mikvah as if a gentile.

Luke gives us a definite time for the beginning of the ministry of John. He tells us it was in the fifteenth year of Tiberius—that is, sometime between August 20, 28 A.D. and August 19, 29 A.D. It would have also been in Pilate's third year as procurator of Judea.

Can we narrow this dating any? Does it confirm or contradict our assumption that John was born in late February or early March of 2 B.C.? Again, we are forced to depend on some assumptions. For example, if John were born early in the spring of 2 B.C., he would have become thirty just before Passover, 29 A.D., in the middle of Tiberius’s fifteenth year. Due to the customs of that day, it was highly probable that he began his prophetic ministry after his thirtieth birthday. There is no reason he would have waited an extended time beyond it.

Moreover, John’s message, “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand,” matches the Week of Unleavened Bread’s call to commitment. In 29 A.D., the new moon following the Vernal Equinox, began on April 2 at 5:00 p.m. The Jewish month of Nisan began that evening. Passover would have begun on the evening of April 15, approximately a month after John’s thirtieth birthday.

Thus, we find this prophet appearing at the Jordan River, seemingly out of nowhere, calling the nation to repentance. His message called for a personal application of the teaching demonstrated in the removal of leaven from Jewish life for Passover. He called for the removal of sin from one’s life. The first prophet to appear in some four centuries, he came exercising a role that the religious authorities had assumed was a thing of the past.

As John’s preaching continued and increasingly proclaimed the coming of the Messiah, the religious powers took notice. Most likely because John wouldn’t respond to their summons, they sent a delegation to Bethany on the Jordan to question him on this hot August day. Forced to identify his role, John denies that he is the reincarnated Elijah, though he exercises Elijah’s role. Apparently, this delegation came to John the Baptist just after Jesus returned from the wilderness, for John the Apostle tells us that Jesus is again seen the day after the questions.

From John’s initial call for repentance until he was imprisoned, his message never changed. It was the proclamation that the Kingdom of God was at hand and that the people should repent from their waywardness. Looking at the cultural conflicts of his day, the most likely waywardness was a turning to self, away from God.

The problem was the same for the Sadducees and the Pharisees, though they expressed it in different ways. The Sadducees had abandoned God’s ways for Greek paganism—either openly or in passive acceptance. They claimed to be righteous because of their aristocratic birth. The Pharisees claimed moral superiority because they felt they were adequately moral in their actions. Few of either group would have ever considered praying the Publican’s prayer for mercy. Both groups held the common people in contempt, viewing them as inferior and immoral because they were not of their group.