Spirit Baptism in the Gospels, part 2–Fire Baptism
While
one who believes that the baptism with fire of Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:16
refers to the damnation of the unconverted in hell—a position that should not
be easily dismissed from the connection of the word “fire” in Matthew 3:11 to
that in 3:12[1]—can still
agree with the conclusions made in other parts of this series concerning the connection between Spirit
baptism and the church, the position that baptism with fire is synonymous with
Spirit baptism deserves serious consideration and should be considered correct
for a number of reasons. First,
the reader of the gospels could very easily conclude that they were
synonymous. One who simply reads
“I indeed baptize you with water . . . but . . . he shall baptize you with the
Holy Ghost, and with fire” (Matthew
3:11; ego men baptidzo humas en hudati . . . de . . . autos humas baptisei en Pneumati Hagio kai puri; cf. Luke 3:16) could
very easily think that the same “you” receives both the Spirit and fire,
namely, the “you” that receives water baptism, and that baptism Pneumati
Hagio kai puri, as both “Spirit” and
“fire” follow a single en in connection
with the single verb “baptize,” refer to the same event.[2] Furthermore, the men/de clause confirms the association of the several instances
of “you” in the verse. Second,
Acts 1:5 refers back to Luke 3:16.
Why would not the entire action of the verse, the Spirit and fire
baptism, happen at the same time?
Third, in Acts 2:3-4, the baptism with the Spirit and the appearance of
“fire” on the heads of those Spirit-baptized happens at the same moment. Would
not Theophilus, reading Luke-Acts, recall Luke 3:16 and think that this was the
baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire?
Fourth, the gospel accounts in Mark 1:8 and John 1:33 both record only
baptism with the Spirit; fire is
not mentioned. This suggests that
there is one baptism with the Spirit and fire, since neither Mark nor John
believed the reader needed to hear about the other, as if simply mentioning
Spirit baptism covered both things.[3] Fifth, in Acts, only a record of Spirit
baptism as a fulfillment of John’s preaching is recalled from the gospels (Acts
1:5; Luke 3:16) and recorded (Acts 2), suggesting that baptism with the Spirit
and fire was a single event predicted by John. Sixth, the parallel between Spirit baptism’s validation of
the church and the coming of the shekinah
on the Old Testament tabernacle and temple[4]
supports the unity of the two baptisms.
Seventh, while one who believes baptism with fire is eternal torment
affirms that one either receives Spirit baptism or fire baptism, the disciples
in Acts never told anyone that, since they did not receive Spirit baptism, they
were going to get fire baptism.
Eighth, while Spirit baptism was a one time event, the lost who die are
cast into hell moment by moment, day by day, so the baptism with fire would
seem to not be a one time event, but something daily repeated, indeed,
something that is going on continually worldwide. The two would then not be very parallel. One who wished to extenuate this
difficulty might argue that the baptism with fire refers to the postmillennial
future after the Great White Throne judgment, when all the lost in Hades are
cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15). In that case, while all the lost, throughout the entire Old
Testament and into the Millennium, get cast into the lake of fire and thus
allegedly receive fire baptism, only the tiny fraction of church age saints
connected with the events in Acts receive Spirit baptism, thus making the two
baptisms most discontinuous. John
the Baptist also did not prophesy that all the lost would receive the baptism
of fire—at the very least, people in the Old Testament dispensation are not
referred to in his preaching. A
fulfillment of fire baptism in the eternal torment of all the lost of all ages
thus makes the alleged fulfillment strikingly different than the
prediction. Ninth, no passage
states that the eternal state of the lost is a fulfillment of the baptism of
fire—the conclusion is an implication drawn from what are not foolproof
premises. Last, maintaining that
fire baptism is synonymous with Spirit baptism, on the historic Baptist view
elucidated below, makes both Spirit and fire baptism, like literal immersion in
water, ecclesiological, not soteriological events. Christ gathered His church
from those who had received the baptism of John, and it is the church that
received the baptism with the Spirit in Acts 2. John made “ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Lu
1:17) by bringing them to salvation and then baptizing them, so they could be
part of the congregation Christ was gathering (John 3:29), which the Savior
later authenticated by baptizing His assembly with His Spirit. Affirming that fire baptism is
damnation in hell moves this latter baptism from the realm of ecclesiology to
that of soteriology and eschatology.
As literal baptism is not a means of receiving salvation, no
metaphorical reference to baptism in the New Testament is ever clearly
soteriological. The cumulative
weight of the reasons above lead to the conclusion that, while the position
that the baptism with fire is the eternal damnation of the lost deserves
serious consideration, the position that the baptism with the Spirit and fire
is a single event should be preferred.
one who believes that the baptism with fire of Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:16
refers to the damnation of the unconverted in hell—a position that should not
be easily dismissed from the connection of the word “fire” in Matthew 3:11 to
that in 3:12[1]—can still
agree with the conclusions made in other parts of this series concerning the connection between Spirit
baptism and the church, the position that baptism with fire is synonymous with
Spirit baptism deserves serious consideration and should be considered correct
for a number of reasons. First,
the reader of the gospels could very easily conclude that they were
synonymous. One who simply reads
“I indeed baptize you with water . . . but . . . he shall baptize you with the
Holy Ghost, and with fire” (Matthew
3:11; ego men baptidzo humas en hudati . . . de . . . autos humas baptisei en Pneumati Hagio kai puri; cf. Luke 3:16) could
very easily think that the same “you” receives both the Spirit and fire,
namely, the “you” that receives water baptism, and that baptism Pneumati
Hagio kai puri, as both “Spirit” and
“fire” follow a single en in connection
with the single verb “baptize,” refer to the same event.[2] Furthermore, the men/de clause confirms the association of the several instances
of “you” in the verse. Second,
Acts 1:5 refers back to Luke 3:16.
Why would not the entire action of the verse, the Spirit and fire
baptism, happen at the same time?
Third, in Acts 2:3-4, the baptism with the Spirit and the appearance of
“fire” on the heads of those Spirit-baptized happens at the same moment. Would
not Theophilus, reading Luke-Acts, recall Luke 3:16 and think that this was the
baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire?
Fourth, the gospel accounts in Mark 1:8 and John 1:33 both record only
baptism with the Spirit; fire is
not mentioned. This suggests that
there is one baptism with the Spirit and fire, since neither Mark nor John
believed the reader needed to hear about the other, as if simply mentioning
Spirit baptism covered both things.[3] Fifth, in Acts, only a record of Spirit
baptism as a fulfillment of John’s preaching is recalled from the gospels (Acts
1:5; Luke 3:16) and recorded (Acts 2), suggesting that baptism with the Spirit
and fire was a single event predicted by John. Sixth, the parallel between Spirit baptism’s validation of
the church and the coming of the shekinah
on the Old Testament tabernacle and temple[4]
supports the unity of the two baptisms.
Seventh, while one who believes baptism with fire is eternal torment
affirms that one either receives Spirit baptism or fire baptism, the disciples
in Acts never told anyone that, since they did not receive Spirit baptism, they
were going to get fire baptism.
Eighth, while Spirit baptism was a one time event, the lost who die are
cast into hell moment by moment, day by day, so the baptism with fire would
seem to not be a one time event, but something daily repeated, indeed,
something that is going on continually worldwide. The two would then not be very parallel. One who wished to extenuate this
difficulty might argue that the baptism with fire refers to the postmillennial
future after the Great White Throne judgment, when all the lost in Hades are
cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15). In that case, while all the lost, throughout the entire Old
Testament and into the Millennium, get cast into the lake of fire and thus
allegedly receive fire baptism, only the tiny fraction of church age saints
connected with the events in Acts receive Spirit baptism, thus making the two
baptisms most discontinuous. John
the Baptist also did not prophesy that all the lost would receive the baptism
of fire—at the very least, people in the Old Testament dispensation are not
referred to in his preaching. A
fulfillment of fire baptism in the eternal torment of all the lost of all ages
thus makes the alleged fulfillment strikingly different than the
prediction. Ninth, no passage
states that the eternal state of the lost is a fulfillment of the baptism of
fire—the conclusion is an implication drawn from what are not foolproof
premises. Last, maintaining that
fire baptism is synonymous with Spirit baptism, on the historic Baptist view
elucidated below, makes both Spirit and fire baptism, like literal immersion in
water, ecclesiological, not soteriological events. Christ gathered His church
from those who had received the baptism of John, and it is the church that
received the baptism with the Spirit in Acts 2. John made “ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Lu
1:17) by bringing them to salvation and then baptizing them, so they could be
part of the congregation Christ was gathering (John 3:29), which the Savior
later authenticated by baptizing His assembly with His Spirit. Affirming that fire baptism is
damnation in hell moves this latter baptism from the realm of ecclesiology to
that of soteriology and eschatology.
As literal baptism is not a means of receiving salvation, no
metaphorical reference to baptism in the New Testament is ever clearly
soteriological. The cumulative
weight of the reasons above lead to the conclusion that, while the position
that the baptism with fire is the eternal damnation of the lost deserves
serious consideration, the position that the baptism with the Spirit and fire
is a single event should be preferred.
part 4
Note that this complete study, with all it parts and with additional material not reproduced on this blog in this series, is available by clicking here.
[1]
It
should be noted in relation to this argument, the strongest one for connecting
fire baptism and eternal damnation, that the fact that the Lord Jesus will do
what is stated in v. 11, and will also do what is stated in v. 12, do not make
the two synonymous. Verse twelve
refers to the eschatological gathering of the saints to glory and the related damnation
of the lost. Spirit baptism does
not denote anything in v. 12. Nor
does fire baptism, on either on the synonymous or the eternal torment view,
have anything to do with the eschatological gathering of the saints as wheat
into the garner at harvest time.
Thus, an affirmation that the judgment of v. 12 defines fire baptism as
eschatological damnation must explain why the entry of believers into glory is
not Spirit baptism, and thus why v. 12 defines the fire baptism of v. 11 but
does not define the Spirit baptism of the same verse.
It
should be noted in relation to this argument, the strongest one for connecting
fire baptism and eternal damnation, that the fact that the Lord Jesus will do
what is stated in v. 11, and will also do what is stated in v. 12, do not make
the two synonymous. Verse twelve
refers to the eschatological gathering of the saints to glory and the related damnation
of the lost. Spirit baptism does
not denote anything in v. 12. Nor
does fire baptism, on either on the synonymous or the eternal torment view,
have anything to do with the eschatological gathering of the saints as wheat
into the garner at harvest time.
Thus, an affirmation that the judgment of v. 12 defines fire baptism as
eschatological damnation must explain why the entry of believers into glory is
not Spirit baptism, and thus why v. 12 defines the fire baptism of v. 11 but
does not define the Spirit baptism of the same verse.
See pg. 236, Christology of the Old Testament, E. W. Hengstenberg, trans.
James Martin, vol. 4, 2nd ed.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1858 (elec. acc. http://books.google.com),
for an argument in favor of fire baptism as hell based on the analogy of
Malachi 3:2.
James Martin, vol. 4, 2nd ed.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1858 (elec. acc. http://books.google.com),
for an argument in favor of fire baptism as hell based on the analogy of
Malachi 3:2.
[2]
In
the words of Henry Alford on Matthew 3:11, “To
separate off pneu/mati aJgi÷wˆ as
belonging to one set of persons, and puri÷ as belonging to another, when both are united by uJma◊ß, is in the last degree harsh, besides
introducing confusion into the whole.
The members of comparison in this verse are strictly parallel to one another:
the baptism by water . . . and the baptism by the Holy Ghost and fire” (Alford’s
Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Henry Alford, vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1980 (reprint of 1874
ed.). Similarly, the Expositor’s Bible Commentary (ed. Frank E. Gaebelien; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990)
notes on Matthew 3:11, “Many see this as a double baptism, one in the Holy
Spirit for the righteous and one in fire for the unrepentant (cf: the wheat and
chaff in v.12). Fire (Mal 4:1) destroys and consumes. There are good reasons,
however, for taking ‘fire’ as a purifying agent along with the Holy Spirit. The
people John is addressing are being baptized by him; presumably they have
repented. More important the preposition en (‘with’) is not repeated before fire: the one preposition
governs both ‘Holy Spirit’ and ‘fire,’ and this normally suggests a unified
concept, Spirit-fire or the like. . . . Fire often has a purifying, not
destructive, connotation in the OT (e.g., Isa 1:25; Zech 13:9; Mal 3:2-3).
John’s water baptism relates to repentance; but the one whose way he is preparing
will administer a Spirit-fire baptism that will purify and refine.” James D. G. Dunn writes, “There are not
two baptisms envisaged, one with Spirit and one with fire, only one baptism in
Spirit-and-fire. Second, the two
baptisms . . . are to be administered to the same people — uJma◊ß” (pg. 11, Baptism in the Holy Spirit).
In
the words of Henry Alford on Matthew 3:11, “To
separate off pneu/mati aJgi÷wˆ as
belonging to one set of persons, and puri÷ as belonging to another, when both are united by uJma◊ß, is in the last degree harsh, besides
introducing confusion into the whole.
The members of comparison in this verse are strictly parallel to one another:
the baptism by water . . . and the baptism by the Holy Ghost and fire” (Alford’s
Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Henry Alford, vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1980 (reprint of 1874
ed.). Similarly, the Expositor’s Bible Commentary (ed. Frank E. Gaebelien; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990)
notes on Matthew 3:11, “Many see this as a double baptism, one in the Holy
Spirit for the righteous and one in fire for the unrepentant (cf: the wheat and
chaff in v.12). Fire (Mal 4:1) destroys and consumes. There are good reasons,
however, for taking ‘fire’ as a purifying agent along with the Holy Spirit. The
people John is addressing are being baptized by him; presumably they have
repented. More important the preposition en (‘with’) is not repeated before fire: the one preposition
governs both ‘Holy Spirit’ and ‘fire,’ and this normally suggests a unified
concept, Spirit-fire or the like. . . . Fire often has a purifying, not
destructive, connotation in the OT (e.g., Isa 1:25; Zech 13:9; Mal 3:2-3).
John’s water baptism relates to repentance; but the one whose way he is preparing
will administer a Spirit-fire baptism that will purify and refine.” James D. G. Dunn writes, “There are not
two baptisms envisaged, one with Spirit and one with fire, only one baptism in
Spirit-and-fire. Second, the two
baptisms . . . are to be administered to the same people — uJma◊ß” (pg. 11, Baptism in the Holy Spirit).
One notes further that when a verb or verbal is
associated with e˙n followed by two
prepositional objects, as in the aujtoß uJma◊ß bapti÷sei e˙n Pneu/mati ÔAgi÷wˆ
kai« puri÷ of Matthew 3:11, the two
objects are in the NT either universally or close to universally temporally
simultaneous. For example, in John
4:24’s touß
proskunouvntaß aujto/n, e˙n pneu/mati kai« aÓlhqei÷aˆ dei√ proskunei√n, worship in both spirit and truth takes
place at the same time. In Matthew
4:16’s toi√ß
kaqhme÷noiß e˙n cw¿raˆ kai« skiaˆ◊ qana¿tou, the people sat in both the region and shadow of death at the
same time. In Luke 4:36, e˙n e˙xousi÷aˆ kai«
duna¿mei e˙pita¿ssei toi√ß aÓkaqa¿rtoiß pneu/masi, Christ commanded the unclean spirits with
both authority and power at the same moment. The syntax of Matthew 3:11 is thus in favor of the view that
the baptism of the Spirit and of fire takes place at the same time—the day of
Pentecost in Acts 2. To make the
baptism of the Spirit a Pentecostal phenomenon and the baptism of fire a much
later act of casting the lost into the lake of fire does not suit the syntax
nearly as well. There is no way
that one can make Christ’s baptism with the Spirit happen at the same time as
the judgment of the lost in hell.
Compare the syntax of Matthew 3:11 to Matthew 4:16; Luke 4:36; 7:25; John 4:24; Acts 2:46; Ephesians 1:8;
4:24; 6:4, 18; Colossians 1:9; 2:18, 23; 1 Thessalonians 4:4; 2 Thessalonians
2:13, 17; 3:8; 1 Timothy 2:2, 7; 2 Timothy 1:13; 4:2; 2 Peter 3:11; Revelation
18:16.
associated with e˙n followed by two
prepositional objects, as in the aujtoß uJma◊ß bapti÷sei e˙n Pneu/mati ÔAgi÷wˆ
kai« puri÷ of Matthew 3:11, the two
objects are in the NT either universally or close to universally temporally
simultaneous. For example, in John
4:24’s touß
proskunouvntaß aujto/n, e˙n pneu/mati kai« aÓlhqei÷aˆ dei√ proskunei√n, worship in both spirit and truth takes
place at the same time. In Matthew
4:16’s toi√ß
kaqhme÷noiß e˙n cw¿raˆ kai« skiaˆ◊ qana¿tou, the people sat in both the region and shadow of death at the
same time. In Luke 4:36, e˙n e˙xousi÷aˆ kai«
duna¿mei e˙pita¿ssei toi√ß aÓkaqa¿rtoiß pneu/masi, Christ commanded the unclean spirits with
both authority and power at the same moment. The syntax of Matthew 3:11 is thus in favor of the view that
the baptism of the Spirit and of fire takes place at the same time—the day of
Pentecost in Acts 2. To make the
baptism of the Spirit a Pentecostal phenomenon and the baptism of fire a much
later act of casting the lost into the lake of fire does not suit the syntax
nearly as well. There is no way
that one can make Christ’s baptism with the Spirit happen at the same time as
the judgment of the lost in hell.
Compare the syntax of Matthew 3:11 to Matthew 4:16; Luke 4:36; 7:25; John 4:24; Acts 2:46; Ephesians 1:8;
4:24; 6:4, 18; Colossians 1:9; 2:18, 23; 1 Thessalonians 4:4; 2 Thessalonians
2:13, 17; 3:8; 1 Timothy 2:2, 7; 2 Timothy 1:13; 4:2; 2 Peter 3:11; Revelation
18:16.
The natural association in Matthew 3:11 explains the
presence of the view that the baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire refers to
the single event of Pentecost in the patristic period. “Moreover, Christ is said to baptize with
fire: because in the form of flaming tongues He poured forth on His holy
disciples the grace of the Spirit: as the Lord Himself says, John truly
baptized with water: but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit and with
fire, not many days hence” (John of
Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, IV:9).
Lampe mentions texts where Origin, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus
Confessor, and Didymus of Alexandria interpret as identical the baptism of the
Spirit and fire (ba¿ptisma, IX, Patristic
Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W.
Lampe). Of course, this is not the only view found in the
significant doctrinal and practical diversity of extant patristic writers. Basil, On the Spirit, 15:36, refers the baptism of fire to the
eschatological judgment of believers, alluding to 1 Corinthians 3:13, a view
also expressed as a possibility by John of Damascus following the quotation
from IV:9 of An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith above.
Unfortunately, this patristic view of fire baptism as eschatological
instead of Pentecostal may be a reference to the developing doctrine of
purgatory; compare Gregory Nazianzen, Orations 39:19.
Taking a different view, Eusebius, following Origen, refers to martyrdom
as baptism by fire (Church History,
6:4:3; cf. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), Volume
2, Ante-Nicene Christianity,
2:27). While a comprehensive
analysis of all extant patristic literature was not undertaken, neither the
works represented in the Church Fathers: Translations of The Writings of the
Fathers Down to A.D. 325, ed.
Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson, nor in A Select Library of the
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff, series I & II, (elec. acc. Accordance
Bible Software; orig. elec. text in
the Christian Classics Ethereal Library) give any evidence for the view that fire baptism was reserved for
those who did not receive Spirit baptism, and thus that the baptism of fire was
specifically the damnation of the lost, nor does Lampe indicate the existence
of such a view in the patristic period (cf. ba¿ptisma, IX, Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. Lampe).
presence of the view that the baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire refers to
the single event of Pentecost in the patristic period. “Moreover, Christ is said to baptize with
fire: because in the form of flaming tongues He poured forth on His holy
disciples the grace of the Spirit: as the Lord Himself says, John truly
baptized with water: but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit and with
fire, not many days hence” (John of
Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, IV:9).
Lampe mentions texts where Origin, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus
Confessor, and Didymus of Alexandria interpret as identical the baptism of the
Spirit and fire (ba¿ptisma, IX, Patristic
Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W.
Lampe). Of course, this is not the only view found in the
significant doctrinal and practical diversity of extant patristic writers. Basil, On the Spirit, 15:36, refers the baptism of fire to the
eschatological judgment of believers, alluding to 1 Corinthians 3:13, a view
also expressed as a possibility by John of Damascus following the quotation
from IV:9 of An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith above.
Unfortunately, this patristic view of fire baptism as eschatological
instead of Pentecostal may be a reference to the developing doctrine of
purgatory; compare Gregory Nazianzen, Orations 39:19.
Taking a different view, Eusebius, following Origen, refers to martyrdom
as baptism by fire (Church History,
6:4:3; cf. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), Volume
2, Ante-Nicene Christianity,
2:27). While a comprehensive
analysis of all extant patristic literature was not undertaken, neither the
works represented in the Church Fathers: Translations of The Writings of the
Fathers Down to A.D. 325, ed.
Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson, nor in A Select Library of the
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff, series I & II, (elec. acc. Accordance
Bible Software; orig. elec. text in
the Christian Classics Ethereal Library) give any evidence for the view that fire baptism was reserved for
those who did not receive Spirit baptism, and thus that the baptism of fire was
specifically the damnation of the lost, nor does Lampe indicate the existence
of such a view in the patristic period (cf. ba¿ptisma, IX, Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. Lampe).
As the view that the baptism of fire and of the Holy
Ghost took place at Pentecost is extant in the patristic period, so in the
medieval period Anabaptists affirmed that just as water baptism “can pertain to
none but the intelligent and believing,” so “the baptism of fire and the Holy
Ghost . . . was administered to the apostles by God Himself from heaven, [and]
this did not at all relate to infants, seeing that all who were thus baptized,
spake with tongues and magnified God. Acts 2:3, 4” (pg. 234, The Martyr’s
Mirror, Thieleman J. Van Braght. 2nd
Eng. ed. Scottdale, PA: Herald
Press, 1999).
Ghost took place at Pentecost is extant in the patristic period, so in the
medieval period Anabaptists affirmed that just as water baptism “can pertain to
none but the intelligent and believing,” so “the baptism of fire and the Holy
Ghost . . . was administered to the apostles by God Himself from heaven, [and]
this did not at all relate to infants, seeing that all who were thus baptized,
spake with tongues and magnified God. Acts 2:3, 4” (pg. 234, The Martyr’s
Mirror, Thieleman J. Van Braght. 2nd
Eng. ed. Scottdale, PA: Herald
Press, 1999).
[3]
Of
course, this must not be taken to imply that John the Baptist did not truly say
the actual words in the different gospels, but rather that the NT writers,
under inspiration, did not record the “and fire” phrase.
Of
course, this must not be taken to imply that John the Baptist did not truly say
the actual words in the different gospels, but rather that the NT writers,
under inspiration, did not record the “and fire” phrase.
Consider
also the related comments of John Owen, commenting on the descent of the Spirit
on Christ in the form of a dove, and on His coming upon the church at
Pentecost:
also the related comments of John Owen, commenting on the descent of the Spirit
on Christ in the form of a dove, and on His coming upon the church at
Pentecost:
The shape [of the Spirit] that appeared was that of a
dove, but the substance itself, I judge, was of a fiery nature, an ethereal
substance, shaped into the form or resemblance of a dove. It had the shape of a
dove, but not the appearance of feathers, colors, or the like. This also
rendered the appearance the more visible, conspicuous, heavenly, and glorious.
And the Holy Ghost is often compared to fire, because he was of old typified or
represented thereby; for on the first solemn offering of sacrifices there came
fire from the Lord for the kindling of them. Hence Theodotion of old rendered hOÎwh◊y, Genesis 4:4, “The LORD had respect unto Abel, and to
his offering,” by ‘Enepu/risen
oJ qeo/ß, “God fired the offering of
Abel;” sent down fire that kindled his sacrifice as a token of his acceptance.
dove, but the substance itself, I judge, was of a fiery nature, an ethereal
substance, shaped into the form or resemblance of a dove. It had the shape of a
dove, but not the appearance of feathers, colors, or the like. This also
rendered the appearance the more visible, conspicuous, heavenly, and glorious.
And the Holy Ghost is often compared to fire, because he was of old typified or
represented thereby; for on the first solemn offering of sacrifices there came
fire from the Lord for the kindling of them. Hence Theodotion of old rendered hOÎwh◊y, Genesis 4:4, “The LORD had respect unto Abel, and to
his offering,” by ‘Enepu/risen
oJ qeo/ß, “God fired the offering of
Abel;” sent down fire that kindled his sacrifice as a token of his acceptance.
However, it is certain that at the first erection of
the altar in the wilderness, upon the first sacrifices, “fire came out from
before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt-offering and the fat;
which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces,”
Leviticus 9:24. And the fire kindled hereby was to be perpetuated on the altar,
so that none was ever to be used in sacrifice but what was traduced from it.
For a neglect of this intimation of the mind of God were Nadab and Abihu
consumed, Leviticus 10:1, 2. So was it also upon the dedication of the altar in
the temple of Solomon: “Fire came down from heaven and consumed the
burnt-offering and the sacrifices,” 2 Chronicles 7:1; and a fire thence kindled
was always kept burning on the altar. And in like manner God bare testimony to the
ministry of Elijah, 1 Kings 18:38, 39. God by all these signified that no
sacrifices were accepted with him where faith was not kindled in the heart of
the offerer by the Holy Ghost, represented by the fire that kindled the
sacrifices on the altar. And in answer hereunto is our Lord Jesus Christ said
to offer himself “through the eternal Spirit,” Hebrews 9:14. It was,
therefore, most probably a fiery appearance [of the dove] that was made. And in
the next bodily shape which he assumed it is expressly said that it was fiery:
Acts 2:3, “There appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire;” which was
the visible token of the coming of the Holy Ghost upon them. And he chose,
then, that figure of tongues to denote the assistance which, by the miraculous
gift of speaking with divers tongues, together with wisdom and utterance, he
furnished them withal for the publication of the gospel. And thus, also, the
Lord Christ is said to “baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” Matthew
3:11. Not two things are intended, but the latter words, “and with fire,” are
added e˙xhghtikwvß, and the expression is e˚n dia duoivn,
— with the Holy Ghost, who is a spiritual, divine, eternal fire. So God
absolutely is said to be a “consuming fire,” Hebrews 12:29, Deuteronomy 4:24.
And as in these words, “He shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire,”
there is a prospect unto what came to pass afterward, when the apostles
received the Holy Ghost with a visible pledge of fiery tongues, so there seems
to be a retrospect, by way of allusion unto what is recorded, Isaiah 6:6, 7; for
a living or “fiery coal from the altar,” where the fire represented the Holy
Ghost, or his work and grace, having touched the lips of his prophet, his sin
was taken away, both as to the guilt and filth of it. And this is the work of
the Holy Ghost, who not only sanctifieth us, but, by ingenerating faith in us,
and the application of the promise unto us, is the cause and means of our
justification also, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:4-7, whereby our sins on both
accounts are taken away. So also his efficacy in other places is compared unto
fire and burning: Isaiah 4:4, 5, “When the Lord shall have washed away the
filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem
from the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.”
He is compared both to fire and water, with respect unto the same cleansing
virtue in both. So also Malachi 3:2. Hence, as this is expressed by “the Holy
Ghost and fire” in two evangelists, Matthew 3:11, Luke 3:16; so in the other
two there is mention only of the “Holy Ghost,” Mark 1:8, John 1:33, the same
thing being intended (pgs. 98-100,
Pneumatologia: A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit, elec. acc. Christian Library Series vol. 9, John Owen
Collection. Rio, WI: AGES Digital
Software, 2005).
the altar in the wilderness, upon the first sacrifices, “fire came out from
before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt-offering and the fat;
which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces,”
Leviticus 9:24. And the fire kindled hereby was to be perpetuated on the altar,
so that none was ever to be used in sacrifice but what was traduced from it.
For a neglect of this intimation of the mind of God were Nadab and Abihu
consumed, Leviticus 10:1, 2. So was it also upon the dedication of the altar in
the temple of Solomon: “Fire came down from heaven and consumed the
burnt-offering and the sacrifices,” 2 Chronicles 7:1; and a fire thence kindled
was always kept burning on the altar. And in like manner God bare testimony to the
ministry of Elijah, 1 Kings 18:38, 39. God by all these signified that no
sacrifices were accepted with him where faith was not kindled in the heart of
the offerer by the Holy Ghost, represented by the fire that kindled the
sacrifices on the altar. And in answer hereunto is our Lord Jesus Christ said
to offer himself “through the eternal Spirit,” Hebrews 9:14. It was,
therefore, most probably a fiery appearance [of the dove] that was made. And in
the next bodily shape which he assumed it is expressly said that it was fiery:
Acts 2:3, “There appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire;” which was
the visible token of the coming of the Holy Ghost upon them. And he chose,
then, that figure of tongues to denote the assistance which, by the miraculous
gift of speaking with divers tongues, together with wisdom and utterance, he
furnished them withal for the publication of the gospel. And thus, also, the
Lord Christ is said to “baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” Matthew
3:11. Not two things are intended, but the latter words, “and with fire,” are
added e˙xhghtikwvß, and the expression is e˚n dia duoivn,
— with the Holy Ghost, who is a spiritual, divine, eternal fire. So God
absolutely is said to be a “consuming fire,” Hebrews 12:29, Deuteronomy 4:24.
And as in these words, “He shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire,”
there is a prospect unto what came to pass afterward, when the apostles
received the Holy Ghost with a visible pledge of fiery tongues, so there seems
to be a retrospect, by way of allusion unto what is recorded, Isaiah 6:6, 7; for
a living or “fiery coal from the altar,” where the fire represented the Holy
Ghost, or his work and grace, having touched the lips of his prophet, his sin
was taken away, both as to the guilt and filth of it. And this is the work of
the Holy Ghost, who not only sanctifieth us, but, by ingenerating faith in us,
and the application of the promise unto us, is the cause and means of our
justification also, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:4-7, whereby our sins on both
accounts are taken away. So also his efficacy in other places is compared unto
fire and burning: Isaiah 4:4, 5, “When the Lord shall have washed away the
filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem
from the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.”
He is compared both to fire and water, with respect unto the same cleansing
virtue in both. So also Malachi 3:2. Hence, as this is expressed by “the Holy
Ghost and fire” in two evangelists, Matthew 3:11, Luke 3:16; so in the other
two there is mention only of the “Holy Ghost,” Mark 1:8, John 1:33, the same
thing being intended (pgs. 98-100,
Pneumatologia: A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit, elec. acc. Christian Library Series vol. 9, John Owen
Collection. Rio, WI: AGES Digital
Software, 2005).
Recent Comments