I recently read an article on the Christian
Courier website titled, “What is the Baptism of Fire” by Wayne Jackson[1].
In the article Brother Jackson reasons that the separation of the Holy Ghost
and fire in Matt 3:11 alludes to both believers and nonbelievers: those who
believe in Christ are baptized with the Holy Ghost while those who do not
believe are baptized with fire (ie, “subject….to the terrible penalties of
hell”). In the article Brother Jackson poses the question: “Why should the
‘fire’ of verse eleven be viewed as something different from that referenced in
verses ten and twelve, without some sort of compelling justification?” Great
question! I intend to answer this question in my thoughts below. Specifically, my
position is that the use of the word “fire” in verse 11 is altogether different
from the use of the word “fire” in verses 10 and 12. This position is strengthened
by looking at specific components of these verses in context of other examples
throughout the Bible.
First, let’s look at the surrounding
verses and back-story to Matthew 3:11. In chapter three of Matthew, John the
Baptist is among his disciples, when a group of Pharisees and Sadducees enter
the scene. John discerns their impure motives and rebukes them. John states the
following:
Verse 10: “And now also the
axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not
forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.”
Verse 11: “I indeed baptize
you with water unto repentance: but 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:”
Verse 12: “Whose fan is in
his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the
garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
It seems evident by the
context of these verses that John is referring to the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Thus, based on the preceding and proceeding verses to verse 11, this point seems
to add credibility to what the Christian Courier suggests. However, we must
also look at this same story in the same context from the other three gospels. Mark
does not use the word “fire” in his text[2],
nor does he even quote Matthew 3:12; therefore, we cannot use this book, as it
does not contain the components of the story we wish to discuss. John does not
even share the same dialogue noted in much of Matthew 3[3];
therefore his book cannot be used either. If we look, though, in Luke chapter
three, specifically verses 9-16, we note there is much more to the story than
what is shared in Matthew. After John’s imagery of the trees being cast into
the fire for bearing bad fruit, we read about people—who are not Pharisees and
Sadducees—asking what they need to do to be baptized. Then in verses 15 and 16
we read the following:
Verse 15: “And as the people
were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not;”
(italics added)
Verse 16: “John answered,
saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I
cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize
you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:”
From this context, it appears
John’s statement in Matthew 3:11 is not related to the preceding verse, but
rather, it is a response to the people wondering if John were Christ or not. This
also separates verses 11 & 12 from verse 10 in Matthew 3, which makes Brother
Jackson’s case that verses 11 & 12 referring to the Sadducees and Pharisees
in context to verse 10 as irrelevant and incorrect. As such, Matthew 3:10
cannot be considered in this discussion.
Let us now look at the
relationship between verses 11 and 12. Luke also places these two verses
together, so we must assume that these verses go hand in hand. In fact, we note
by the colon at the end of verse 11 and the grammar at the beginning of verse
12 that the two verses are actually one long sentence:
“….he shall baptize you with
the Holy Ghost, and with fire: whose fan is in his hand….”
That being said, it is
possible that John could make a statement that reflects two different purposes of
fire. In fact, that seems to be what John is conveying: “Either you can be
purified by fire through baptism, or you can be destroyed by fire by not being
baptized.” This correlates well with both 1) Christ’s parable of the wheat and
tares found in Matthew 13:24-30, 38-43, where we learn that the good seed are
the “children of the kingdom”, and 2) Christ’s statement that “Except a man be
born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”[4].
In other words, if we are not baptized, we cannot be “children of the kingdom”
(for how can we be children of a kingdom we can’t even enter into?); therefore,
we must be “children of the wicked one” and “burned in the fire.” In this sense, how can a baptism of fire correlate with being “burned in the fire?”
My last point relates to the
simple use of the word baptize. In
the gospel of Jesus Christ this word is directly associated with the following
ideas:
·
Immersion
·
Ordinance
·
Cleansing
·
Repentance
·
Being made new
These concepts have
significant weight in the gospel. Baptism is an essential ordinance and
ceremony for salvation. It is necessary in the repentance process and not only signifies cleansing and being made new,
but is a vital step to a literal
spiritual cleansing and purification. Baptism is not forced upon anyone, but is
rather a voluntary deed made willingly by the person being baptized. Finally,
baptism is not a consequence or effect of an action or cause; it is the action
or cause.
When one looks at the use of
“fire” in these passages, one will note thus: Not one of these ideas of baptism
coincides anywhere with the meaning of “fire” associated in verse 12. In this
verse, rather, it is the ideas consume,
remove, and destory, that are relevant. The fire spoken of in verse 12 is a
consequence to the chaff not being wheat. In this example there is no
implication of repentance or cleansing, or even ordinances! The deed is done. Nothing is made new. The chaff is no more. Therefore, a baptism
with fire cannot be consistent with the fire mentioned in verse 12.
That being said, one quality
of fire that is consistent with the use of the word baptize that also has weight in the scriptures is that fire purifies. In Zechariah 13:9 we read:
“And I will bring the third part
through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them
as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say,
It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.”
In addition, Malachi 3:2-3
reads:
“But who may abide the day of
his coming? And who shall stand when he appeareth? For he is like a refiner’s
fire, and like fullers’ soap: And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of
silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver,
that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.”
These verses show that fire
is not used to consume or destroy as described in Matthew 3:12, but to purify
or cleanse God’s own people. The
refining process is to remove impurities or unwanted elements. This happens to
the believers, not the unbelievers. Thus, baptism by water may symbolize
cleansing, and baptism by fire (ie, the Holy Ghost) may symbolize refining or
purification.
Fire is also used in the scriptures
to signify light to the people. The exodus of the Israelites in the Old
Testament shows a very powerful symbolic reference to baptism with water and
fire. When Israel left Egypt and before they made it to the Red Sea, we learn the
following:
“And the LORD went before [the
Israelites] by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night
in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night: He took not
away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of the fire by night, from
before the people.”[5]
Clouds, as we know, are the
accumulation of water molecules. It is interesting to note that the Lord used
both water and fire to lead his people out of Egypt and bondage. In this
instance of the scriptures, fire was used in conjunction with water to guide
God’s people. This reference of fire in connection to baptism further emphasizes
John’s comments in Matthew 3:11 and strengthens the position that the word “fire”
used in verse 11 refers to the Holy Ghost and relates to “believers.”
In summary the following
points refute Brother Jackson’s position that the word “fire” as used in
Matthew 3:11 is synonymous to its use in verses 10 and 12 and refers to unbelievers
of Jesus Christ and his gospel being “subject….to the terrible penalties of
hell,” but rather strengthen the position that the use of the word “fire” in Matthew 3:11
is different than Brother Jackson’s explanation in his article:
1.
Luke 3 shows that there is more to the story in Matthew
3 and confirms that Matthew 3:10 is not relevant to John’s statement in verses
11 and 12.
2.
Christ’s explanation of the parable of the wheat and
tares, in connection with his statement on baptism, “Except a man be born of the water and
of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” validates that John’s statement
implies two meanings of the word fire.
3.
The use of the word baptize
in verse 11 has implications that are not consistent with the use of fire in verse 12.
4.
In connection to the word baptize in verse 11, the word fire
in verse 11 signifies refining, purification, and being a guiding light that
relates to believers, whereas the use of the word fire in verse 12 does not.
5.
Symbolism of fire in conjunction to water in the Old Testament
strengthens the case that baptism of fire in verse 11 refers to baptism with the
Holy Ghost and relates to believers.
In short, by looking at the
context of not only the surrounding verses, but of the scriptures as a whole,
we develop a clearer understanding of how things ought to read.
[1] https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/235-what-is-the-baptism-of-fire
[2] See
Mark 1:7
[3]
See John 1:15-28
[4]
See John 3:5
[5]
See Exodus 13:21-22
No comments:
Post a Comment