I would like to disccuss this Scripture and see what others think of it, specifically in what the Baptism of Fire really means?

Matt 3:11but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mat 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

I have heard that it could mean the following,

1. That it refers to the tongues of fire coming down on the disciples on the day of Pentecost.

2. That it refers to Hell and eternal damnation for those who don’t accept Christ.

3. That it refers to us as individual believers and that Jesus will burn up what is carnal in us to purify and make us whole, through the convicting work of the Holy Spirit.

Though I myself tend to go along with the later explanation, I am not 100% sure and am open to learning more about this scripture.

Perhaps it could mean something different than the 3 proposals I put forward, I am interested to hear what others think / believe these verses are saying?

craig

Re: Baptism of Fire

Hi Craig,

I cannot contribute a lot, but I was told it was #1 in your list, and I have not really thought much further on it.  Thanks for the push!

I have also heard the comment that it distinguishes John’s baptism [the prototype; repentance] from the baptism Jesus would institute in in the name of the Triune God [Matthew 28:18-20] - Acts 19 says that those baptized by John needed to be baptized again.

I look forward to other’s opinions and the discussion following,
Ian.

Hi Craig,

In another view the breath (ruah - Holy Spirit) and the fire should not be treated as two distinct entities, but rather two descriptions of the same thing - like a firey breath. Apparently the grammatical construction of the greek supports this idea (according to Blomberg) using one preposition to govern two nouns (I’m not in a position to critique that assertion!)

If we look back to Isaiah e.g

“The Lord will wash away the filth of the women of Zion; he will cleanse the bloodstains from Jerusalem by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire.” (4:4)

We find that fire is usually associated with the sweeping force of the Lord’s judgment.

In this understanding (Davies & Allison) John is proclaiming that, at the boundary of the new age, all would pass through the fiery breath of God, a stream which would purify the righteous and destroy the unrighteous. Congruent with this understanding is the following verse (12), in which the one act of harvesting,that is, the judgement, means the salvation of some (wheat) and the damnation of others (chaff).

Again supporting this understanding is the previous verse, which uses ‘fire’ in the sense of judgment:

3:10 “The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”

Further supporting this is that ‘fire’ in Matthew’s gospel always has an element of future judgment:

5:22c “But anyone who says, “You fool!” will be in danger of the fire of hell.”

7:19 “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

13:40-42 “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. Theywill throw them into the fiery furnace, where there willbe weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (explanation of the parable of the weeds)

13:49-50 “This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

18:8-9 “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.”

25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’”

According to Hagner “The majority of scholars accept that John (the Baptist) preached only a message of judgment and therefore (this) should be understood as a destroying wind that works together with the fire.”

So I think the combination of the fact that the surrounding verses both speak of judgment, and every instance of fire in Matthew’s gospel is an image of judgment, and the background in Isaiah of the Firey Spirit of God as a consuming force of judgment, drives us to this conclusion:

Jesus will baptize you with the consuming judgment of God, the firey breath of the Spirit. To be exposed to God in Jesus is to either be transformed or to perish in the way. So the ‘fire’ should be understood as the eschatological judgment, not so strictly as hell itself, but as the potency of God that either purifies or consumes those who encounter it.

Your brother because of Jesus

Matt

I tend to see an eschatological emphasis here.

First the reference is to one mightier which could be a reference to the Son of Man figure of Dan 7?

The use of Holy Spirit and fire I think are synonyms and provide emphasis, emphasisng the might of the mightier one.

The event is expressed as happening immenently (Matt 3:10).

Jeremiah 13:24 uses imagery of chaff as judgement against Israel. This judgement signifies a division - the wheat and the chaff will be separated (v. 12) may be playing on that theme found in Jeremiah. In no way do I intend to mean a replacement theology here, where church replaces Jews. This judgment may have a close connection with A.D. 70?

The sign of separation is the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Thus my belief all Christians are baptised regardless. Here I reject the Pentecostal teaching that tongues are the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. All believers share in this baptism.

The Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit signifies the last days are truly at hand. Judgement is already occurring. I guess there could be an already/not yet aspect to judgemnt here?

The issue connected with this, I think is the Parousia which the NT writers believed was immenent. Matthew 3:10-12 is in someways an expression of this belief.

OK, Thanks Ian, Matt & Joe for your feedback,

Ian, you said that “you have heard it said that it signifies the day of Pentecost, being my no. 1 proposal” yet you brought into the equation a 4th proposal being the difference between Johns and Jesus work of baptism.
Matt I’m not 100% sure I understand you, I think your comments join both my No. 2 & 3 proposal in that Fire and the Holy Spirit are not 2 seperate entities.

Drawing on your judgement issue.

Jesus will baptize you with the consuming judgment of God, the firey breath of the Spirit. To be exposed to God in Jesus is to either be transformed or to perish in the way

Could this also include the convicting work of the Spirit towards our sinfulness and our transformation towards perfection as a part of sanctification?

Joe I think you are agreeing to the no1 proposal in that it signifies the day of Pentecost. I have to say I agree with you in that tongues is not the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and would not sign that statement of belief when I studied at a Pentecostal College, though I did have to state why I believed that. Having said that I believe that all of the gifts including tongues are still for today.

Do you think that John is drawing on Scriptures when he said this, is he being prophetic as in foretelling the future or is he preaching from what the prophets had already said, which come in line with Joes mention of Daniel.

craig

Hi Craig,

Matt I’m not 100% sure I understand you, I think your comments join both my No. 2 & 3 proposal in that Fire and the Holy Spirit are not 2 seperate entities.

My understanding has aspects of your number 2 & 3 proposals but is not completely adopting either.

To be baptised by the firey breath or Spirit of God is to be exposed to God in a way that was not possible under the old covenant. To be exposed to God is to be transformed to reflect his holiness or to die.

I think what John is saying, is that the one coming (Jesus) will expose you to God in an unprecedented way, with an eye as Joe says to the eschatological division of judgment.

Craig wrote:

Could this also include the convicting work of the Spirit towards our sinfulness and our transformation towards perfection as a part of sanctification?

In terms of systematic theology, I suppose I would join this idea to the above. But in terms of Matthew’s gospel, I think John the Baptist’s preaching doesn’t have an eye to the process of transformation - it is more a binary preaching of judgment - you’re consumed or you’re transformed - thinking in absolute states rather than processes.

Your brother because of Jesus

Matt

Thanks Matt, I understand that and agree with you, how do you see this in light with the work of the Holy Spirit as being recorded by John,

Joh 16:6 Because I have said these things, you are filled with grief.
Joh 16:7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
Joh 16:8 When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt[1] in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment:
Joh 16:9 in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me;
Joh 16:10 in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer;
Joh 16:11 and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

craig

[quote author="Craig Bennett"]Ian, you said that “you have heard it said that it signifies the day of Pentecost, being my no. 1 proposal” yet you brought into the equation a 4th proposal being the difference between Johns and Jesus work of baptism.

I think I went a bit off the topic with John’s VS Jesus’ baptism...I was distinguishing between baptism with water and fire.

Thanks to all for increasing my knowledge.
Ian.

G’day Ian I think you were right to bring into the equation the difference of baptism between John and Jesus.

On another note, I heard it said today that the fire refers to Christian persecution, That as christians we should expect to be persecuted as in trials of fires refining us. I’m not sure I would agree with this - though open to it.

craig

Do you think that John is drawing on Scriptures when he said this, is he being prophetic as in foretelling the future or is he preaching from what the prophets had already said, which come in line with Joes mention of Daniel.

Craig, I think there is a fair bit of prophetic scripture at work in John’s announcement. For an example other than Daniel, Isaiah 40:10 says, “See, the Lord God comes with might” (cf Matt 3:11). There is a lot of Isaiah 40ff. at play in the gospels. Ezekiel 36:27 also talks of how God wil put his spirit “within you” and all this is closely tied to the New Covenant that was promised (Jer 31:31-34). So what John expected was nothing else than what pious Jews would have expected. The prophecy I guess was that all the promises would come to fruition through the person Jesus. But everything else is strongly influenced from prophetic literature.

Though my proposal does fit best with the no.1 proposal you gave (the day of Pentecost), I don’t think I would like to leave it on that day alone. Elements of proposal 2 and 3 are there I think, but at the moment I think the emphasis falls on the day of Pentecost and throughout the last days until the final judgment.

Just looking at proposal 3 again, I probably wouldn’t say that it refers to individual believers, rather the baptism of the Holy Spirit falls on the church corporately. Therefore, the person receives this Baptism in context of a wider community rather than individually. So its no so much that a person receives this Baptism as an individual, a person can only receive it as part of a greater whole. This in itself could therefore be a different proposal to the other 3 that you gave.

My reference to the Pentecostals was due to my association with them. I was a Pentecostal for several years and the church that I did go to did teach that tongues are the initial evidence. That is the genereal line of the AOG church (the church I belonged to), though I know there are a few within that church that are thinking otherwise and no longer see it as the initial evidence. I personally have no problem if people do believe that speaking in tongues is still possible today, though I have personally changed my view on that. My problem, while within the Pentecostals, was the belief that not all Christians were baptised with the Holy Spirit only those that spoke in tongues. For me baptism of the Holy Spirit is associated with salvation. Matthew 3 I believe suggests that as seen by John linking the baptism of fire with judgment and also by the fact that I favour a more of an eschatological outlook in regards to that text. Therefore for me, to say that not all Christians are baptised in the Holy Spirit, is much the same as saying a person is not saved. Though I know that is not what Pentecostals intend to mean in their understanding of that doctrine.

Good thinking Joe, a 5th proposal of that it is meaning a Christian Community baptism, and perhaps this lines up more with the wheat and the tares scenerio.

Going on the other tangent of Pentecostal thought, Paul says go on being filled with the Holy Spirit in Ephesians. Do you think it is possible that some are filled more than others with the Spirit of God?

actually I think I will take this tangent off to another topic.

craig