𝐌𝐚𝐭 𝟑:𝟏𝟏 - 𝐁𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐞 – 𝐈𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐥𝐲 𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐭? 𝐏𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧? 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭?

 

Mat 3:11  “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 

Matthew repeatedly reminds his readers that Jesus has come, “In order that it might be fulfilled,” but will that mean a blessing or curse for Israel? The hope of blessing (1:1) and the possibility of the curse (1:11) hinge upon how Israel will respond to Jesus. In ch. 2, Matthew sets up the expectation of a future crisis. Under the specter of death God once more calls his son out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matt 2:15). The subsequent slaughter of the innocents (2:16–18) and the quotation from Jeremiah preview the coming judgment upon Israel. And yet the dark foreboding is balanced by an implicit message of hope that runs through the events of ch. 2. As the true king of the Jews (2:2), Jesus has come to experience the exodus on behalf of his people. Chapter 2 also hints that Jesus will escape death and lead his people out of Israel.

Interpreters have sometimes thought John’s prophecy to be about two baptisms, largely because the baptism of the Holy Spirit would be understood positively, sometimes in terms of Pentecost or OT prophecy, and fire as the symbol of final judgment. Webb has argued that (ἐν) in is implied (ellipsis) in the second baptismal clause (πυρί) fire and that (ὑμᾶς) you indicate two groups of people and by implication two baptisms. It is a linguistic mistake to refer to John’s announcement as a future “baptism” (a singular event) rather than a future “baptizing.

Category #1: An Announcement of Purification

The purification interpretation appears to have its roots in the third century with Origen. In his comments concerning the future baptism by Jesus, Origen states, “For his baptism is not that of the body only; He fills the penitent with the Holy Ghost, and his diviner fire does away with everything material and consumes everything that is earthly, not only from him who admits it to his life, but even of him who hears of it from those who have it.”The fire which accompanies the Spirit refines and cleanses the individual, purging the person of impurities. Augustine, Theodore of Heraclea, and Chrysostom followed this interpretation as did Calvin.

Evaluation of this view:

It is true that this category provides an interpretation of the Holy Spirit and fire which has numerous parallel passages in the OT, NT, (Joel 2:28; Ezek 36:25–27; 39:29; Zech 13:9; Mal 3:2; Acts 1:8; 2:4; Rom 15:16; 1 Cor. 3:13; Titus 3:5;) Also attractive is the possibility of the fulfilment of John’s preaching at Pentecost (Acts 2). Furthermore, this pre-Pentecost announcement could offer useful corroborating information concerning the role of the Holy Spirit, particularly with respect to sanctification (Rom 15:16; Eph 1:13–14; Titus 3:5).

The greatest difficulty is the contextual indicators within the pericope. If we are to assume that purification is the intended meaning of the fire imagery in v.11, it would be strange that vv. 10 and 12 present the same image as destructive. It is not that the baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire merely refines and purifies the recipients, it destroys and consumes them.  Without exception, the meaning of (πυρί) fire is negative in Matthew’s Gospel.  If a purification interpretation is adopted, this would be the only place in Matthew’s Gospel where fire is not destructive, eschatologically, or otherwise.

Category #2:  as Judgment ( πνεύματι ἁγίῳ)  holy spirit

According to others, (πνεύματι ἁγίῳ) Holy Spirit is best understood as a gift for the righteous, while (πυρί) fire is a symbol of destruction. This is sometimes understood as one baptism, while others find two. Regardless of whether one holds to a single or double baptism, the end result is functionally the same: the benefit of the Spirit is given to the righteous and the fire is reserved for the wicked.

Evaluation of this view:

The second category fares somewhat better contextually, as it accounts for two categories of people (believing and unbelieving) listening to John. This interpretation rightly understands (πυρί) fire in light of its bracketing verses. Akin to the first interpretation and in agreement with other NT passages (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13; Acts 15:18; Rom 5:5; 8:2–27; 15:16; 2 Cor 13:14; Eph 1:13), this second category also understands the work of (πνεύματι ἁγίῳ) Holy Spirit to be generally positive. Notwithstanding these aspects, there are several difficulties which suggest a different meaning. First, the Matthean context does not suggest that John is addressing two different groups of people in v. 11. Those arguing for this category could view vv. 11–12 as an insertion of a separate discourse, or John may have “turned” from the religious leaders to the crowds in his address, but there are no textual indicators to suggest a shift in audience. The second difficulty is the distinction made between the baptism(s) in the Holy Spirit and Fire, as already indicated above. Matthew has combined the Holy Spirit and Fire and sees them as descriptive of a unified event.

Category #3: Both Positive and Negative within Each Term

The third interpretation mediates between grace and judgment. According to James D. G. Dunn: “What John held out before his hearers was a baptism which was neither solely destructive nor solely gracious, but which contained both elements in itself. Its effect would then presumably depend on the condition of its recipients: the repentant would experience a purgative, refining, but ultimately merciful judgment; the impenitent, the stiff-necked and hard of heart, would be broken and destroyed”. On this interpretation, there is no polarity between the Holy Spirit and fire. Both convey the dual ideas of judgment and purification (1 Cor 3:10–15; Isa 4:4; 44:3; Ezra 13.8–11).

With the first interpretation, category 3 affirms the role of the Spirit with regard to purification. Yet it is correct to see more in John’s preaching than a promise for the repentant. It is here that category 3 is similar to category 2, but instead of two groups (repentant and unrepentant) as the recipients of two different symbols, this third interpretation combines the symbols and applies them to both. The result is still largely the same, the repentant will be purified and the wicked will be consumed in fire. All pass through the same judgment, but the results will vary depending upon the status of the individual (i.e., the righteous or the wicked).

Evaluation of this view:

The benefit of category 3 is that it avoids the separation of Holy Spirit and Fire while retaining the dual outcomes of the baptism. The difficulty is the Matthean context. Specifically, to whom is John speaking? Is it to a mixed group of people (such as in Luke 3:7)? To the religious leaders (Matt 3:7)? A combination of the two? This question directly affects whether or not something positive, negative, or a combination of the two is in view.

Matthew’s shaping of the text has not deterred scholars from looking for an original (i.e., unmodified) address delivered to a mixed crowd. This concern is understandably influenced by the comparison with Luke and the parallelism, especially of the pronoun YOU (ὑμᾶς).  Because YOU is thought to be representative of the repentant and unrepentant, commentators have sought to find something positive in 3:11. 16 One solution has been to understand the combination of Spirit and fire as constituting a form of purification. Christopher F. Evans admits that an attempt to anchor fire to OT purification only yields a couple of results. Second Temple literature could also support an explanation of the Holy Spirit and fire as refinement/ purification. As advantageous as these backgrounds are, it is difficult to see how an announcement of purification fits within the context. Outside of v. 11, there is nothing in the immediate context that suggests refinement or purification. Removal of the fruitless trees and chaff is different from than refinement of the fruit-bearing trees and wheat. What is the nature of the refinement? With few exceptions, this question is usually not addressed.

The true meaning of the verse

The content of John’s preaching contains standard imagery drawn from the OT. Metaphorical language, such as eschatological judgment by fire, is also found in the Second Temple literature of the first century BCE and CE (AD). The wrathful day of the Lord and an unidentified figure who would come to judge Israel and rule over the world were also common motifs. Matthew’s presentation of John’s eschatological warning fits in such apocalyptic and eschatological thought of the first century CE (AD). The ethical exhortation is the necessary application of the eschatological message, but it plays a minor role in the account i.e., “fruits of repentance” and is not defined by John. John’s emphasis was on the approaching kingdom of heaven and the need to repent before “that day” arrived and the Coming One was revealed. The eschatological scenario to which the baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire pointed was the day of wrath against national Israel.

As a prophet (Matt 11:9–13), John’s fierce words and his sign act (i.e., baptism) provide a uniform declaration of divine intent. Israel must repent because the judgment in the Spirit’s fire would be like the waters that submerged those baptized. Regardless of whether or not one was baptized by John, the sign of the coming Spirit and fire deluge was for the nation as a whole. Those specifically singled out for the future eschatological baptism are, not surprisingly, the religious leaders (Pharisees and Sadducees). This Matthean context supports the interpretation of the logion offered in the present work. Were it something positive, we would not expect that these groups of leaders would be the benefactors, as Matthew’s description of them is negative in outlook throughout. And as Matthew discloses, the crowds will side with their spiritual leaders against Jesus. In Matthew, they are described as religious leaders (τοῦ λαοῦ) of the people (Matt 2:4; 21:23; 26:3; 26:47; 27:1).

The reason for the eschatological baptism in the Spirit’s fire ultimately resides in national Israel’s unwillingness to believe that Jesus is the Christ. John spoke of one who would come. Like the Son of Man traditions, this “Coming One” would slay his enemies and consign them to eternal fire, while also gathering up his people for a place in a different sequence than that conceived by John. For Matthew, Jesus would come, and he would undergo the realities of John’s sign-act on behalf of his people. The cross is the eschatological event (Matt 27:45–53) that made it possible to escape the eschatological event of the end of the age. In Matthew’s schema, the interim period is for the work of making disciples (Matt 28:19). The judgments Jesus spoke of would occur in the time of “this generation” (23:36) and in finality at the end of the age (12:41). The judgment upon national Israel also served as a warning to all who refuse to submit to Jesus’s Davidic authority as king and saviour.

Following Jesus was the only way of escaping the Holy Spirit and fire. Matthew’s placement of the logion in the narrative, combined with the future teachings of Jesus concerning the day of the Lord/day of judgment, indicates that the unquenchable fire was neither gracious nor refining. It was not a messianic outpouring of the Spirit that purified the righteous, nor was it a fiery stream through which all must pass. It was a judgment to be escaped or experienced, and for Matthew, the determining factor is one’s relationship to Jesus.