Was Spirit baptism a completed historical phenomenon at the time Paul wrote
1 Corinthians, or is it a event that takes place regularly throughout the
entire dispensation of grace?
1 Corinthians, or is it a event that takes place regularly throughout the
entire dispensation of grace?
Paul’s indication in his epistle to the
Ephesians that there was but “one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5) demonstrates that by
the time of the composition of that epistle, c. A. D. 57-62, Spirit baptism was
a completed historical phenomenon and only immersion in water remained for the
rest of the age of grace. The
cessation of Spirit baptism had already taken place when 1 Corinthians had been
written, c. A. D. 54, for following the events of Acts 19:1-7 (or, more
properly, after Acts 2 itself) Spirit baptism, having fulfilled its purpose,
ended.[i] The Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles
having received the Spirit (Acts 1:5, 8; 2; 8; 10; 19), the dispensational
transition connected to the baptism of the Holy Ghost was completed and all
believers subsequently received the Spirit immediately at the moment of
regeneration (Romans 8:9). Christ
baptizes no further groups or individuals with the Spirit. While Spirit baptism was a transitional
event, and nothing in Scripture states or hints that it would continue until
the end of the church age, the Lord Jesus specifically declared that water baptism
would continue to be practiced by His church until His return (Matthew
28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). For the
entirety of the dispensation of grace immersion in water is commanded, but no
such command is found for the transitional and passing event of Spirit
baptism. “Repent and be baptized”
in water (Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12, 36-39; 16:13-15, 32-33; 18:8; 22:16) is the
continuing, enduring order from heaven, and refusal to do so is to reject the
counsel of God (Luke 7:29-30). Thus,
when Ephesians 4:5 indicates that one baptism, not two,[ii]
was extant at the time of its composition, Spirit baptism must by that time
have passed away. Water baptism could not have ceased, since it is to continue
until the return of Christ and is mentioned in epistles composed after
Ephesians (cf. 1 Peter 3:21). Were
both water and Spirit baptism continuing events at the time the book of
Ephesians was written, Ephesians 4:5 would have read, “one Lord, one faith, two
baptisms.” Ephesians 4:5, therefore, demonstrates that Spirit baptism had
ceased. This cessation of Spirit
baptism also explains the entire absence of reference to it as an ongoing work
in the New Testament epistles—indeed, to an almost total absence of reference
to Spirit baptism in the epistles at all.[iii]
Ephesians that there was but “one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5) demonstrates that by
the time of the composition of that epistle, c. A. D. 57-62, Spirit baptism was
a completed historical phenomenon and only immersion in water remained for the
rest of the age of grace. The
cessation of Spirit baptism had already taken place when 1 Corinthians had been
written, c. A. D. 54, for following the events of Acts 19:1-7 (or, more
properly, after Acts 2 itself) Spirit baptism, having fulfilled its purpose,
ended.[i] The Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles
having received the Spirit (Acts 1:5, 8; 2; 8; 10; 19), the dispensational
transition connected to the baptism of the Holy Ghost was completed and all
believers subsequently received the Spirit immediately at the moment of
regeneration (Romans 8:9). Christ
baptizes no further groups or individuals with the Spirit. While Spirit baptism was a transitional
event, and nothing in Scripture states or hints that it would continue until
the end of the church age, the Lord Jesus specifically declared that water baptism
would continue to be practiced by His church until His return (Matthew
28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). For the
entirety of the dispensation of grace immersion in water is commanded, but no
such command is found for the transitional and passing event of Spirit
baptism. “Repent and be baptized”
in water (Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12, 36-39; 16:13-15, 32-33; 18:8; 22:16) is the
continuing, enduring order from heaven, and refusal to do so is to reject the
counsel of God (Luke 7:29-30). Thus,
when Ephesians 4:5 indicates that one baptism, not two,[ii]
was extant at the time of its composition, Spirit baptism must by that time
have passed away. Water baptism could not have ceased, since it is to continue
until the return of Christ and is mentioned in epistles composed after
Ephesians (cf. 1 Peter 3:21). Were
both water and Spirit baptism continuing events at the time the book of
Ephesians was written, Ephesians 4:5 would have read, “one Lord, one faith, two
baptisms.” Ephesians 4:5, therefore, demonstrates that Spirit baptism had
ceased. This cessation of Spirit
baptism also explains the entire absence of reference to it as an ongoing work
in the New Testament epistles—indeed, to an almost total absence of reference
to Spirit baptism in the epistles at all.[iii]
The UCD (universal church dispensational) view
that 1 Corinthians 12:13 refers to the Holy Spirit baptizing believers into the
universal church, the body of Christ, cannot be sustained. Scripture teaches that there is no universal
church for the Holy Spirit to baptize believers into. Christ, not the Holy Ghost, is the agent in Spirit
baptism. Spirit baptism had
already ceased at the time 1 Corinthians was written, never again to take place
during the church age, while water baptism was both ongoing in 1 Corinthians itself
(cf. 1:14ff.) and enduring until the return of Christ. The historic Baptist view of Spirit
baptism avoids the problems of the UCD view, for it is the position taught in
the Bible.
that 1 Corinthians 12:13 refers to the Holy Spirit baptizing believers into the
universal church, the body of Christ, cannot be sustained. Scripture teaches that there is no universal
church for the Holy Spirit to baptize believers into. Christ, not the Holy Ghost, is the agent in Spirit
baptism. Spirit baptism had
already ceased at the time 1 Corinthians was written, never again to take place
during the church age, while water baptism was both ongoing in 1 Corinthians itself
(cf. 1:14ff.) and enduring until the return of Christ. The historic Baptist view of Spirit
baptism avoids the problems of the UCD view, for it is the position taught in
the Bible.
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.
[i] 1 Corinthians
appears to have been written in the time period described in Acts 19:22-23,
when Paul “stayed in Asia for a season,” and thus after the final event of
Spirit baptism in Acts 19:1-7.
Perhaps Paul’s recognition of the conclusion of Spirit baptism explains
his employment of the middle voice pau/sontai for
the glossolalia, in contrast to the passive katarghqh/sontai for the revelatory gifts of prophecy and knowledge that ended (cf. “1
Corinthians 13:8-13 and the Cessation of Miraculous Gifts,” R. Bruce Compton, Detroit
Baptist Seminary Journal (2004) 97-144)
with the completion of the canon.
appears to have been written in the time period described in Acts 19:22-23,
when Paul “stayed in Asia for a season,” and thus after the final event of
Spirit baptism in Acts 19:1-7.
Perhaps Paul’s recognition of the conclusion of Spirit baptism explains
his employment of the middle voice pau/sontai for
the glossolalia, in contrast to the passive katarghqh/sontai for the revelatory gifts of prophecy and knowledge that ended (cf. “1
Corinthians 13:8-13 and the Cessation of Miraculous Gifts,” R. Bruce Compton, Detroit
Baptist Seminary Journal (2004) 97-144)
with the completion of the canon.
It would be invalid to argue for a continuing
action of Spirit baptism throughout the dispensation of grace based on the fact
that Christ is called in oJ
bapti÷zwn e˙n Pneu/mati ÔAgi÷wˆ John
1:33, employing a present participle.
The declaration is a statement of God the Father recorded within the
speech of John. The phrase, within
its context, is: kaÓgw» oujk hØ¡dein aujto/n: aÓll∆ oJ pe÷myaß me bapti÷zein e˙n
u¢dati, e˙kei√no/ß moi ei•pen, ∆Ef∆ o§n a·n i¶dhØß to Pneuvma katabai√non kai«
me÷non e˙p∆ aujto/n, ou∞to/ß e˙stin oJ bapti÷zwn e˙n Pneu/mati ÔAgi÷wˆ. One
could make a case for the participle fitting within the category of the
futuristic present (pgs. 535-537, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel Wallace). Alternatively, one could say that the present participle is
actually a simple gnomic present.
The phrase ou∞to/ß e˙stin oJ bapti÷zwn e˙n Pneu/mati ÔAgi÷wˆ fits all the distinguishing marks of the gnomic
category, which makes “a statement of a general, timeless fact. . . . in . . .
general maxims about what occurs at all times. . . . [It] is generally atemporal” (pg. 523, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel Wallace). However, it appears most likely that the present participle
is employed as a vivid description of the future action of the Messiah. Note that God had said, ∆Ef∆ o§n a·n i¶dhØß to
Pneuvma katabai√non, employing an aorist
for the action of John seeing the Spirit descend, although at the time God
spoke to John the action of the Spirit’s descent on Christ was yet future. In any case, no temporal idea of Christ
repeatedly or once-for-all baptizing is the force of the text. Rather, the articular present
participle simply indicates that the Messiah, rather than someone else, is the
One who is to perform Spirit baptism.
The use is similar to the only other instance of oJ bapti÷zwn in Scripture, where the phrase describes John as “the
Baptist,” ∆Iwa¿nnhß oJ
bapti÷zwn. John’s disciples did not baptize—John alone had authority
from heaven (Matthew 21:25) to do so, and he was consequently the unique one
who performed his baptism. Similarly,
the Lord Jesus is the only One who has the power to perform Spirit
baptism.
action of Spirit baptism throughout the dispensation of grace based on the fact
that Christ is called in oJ
bapti÷zwn e˙n Pneu/mati ÔAgi÷wˆ John
1:33, employing a present participle.
The declaration is a statement of God the Father recorded within the
speech of John. The phrase, within
its context, is: kaÓgw» oujk hØ¡dein aujto/n: aÓll∆ oJ pe÷myaß me bapti÷zein e˙n
u¢dati, e˙kei√no/ß moi ei•pen, ∆Ef∆ o§n a·n i¶dhØß to Pneuvma katabai√non kai«
me÷non e˙p∆ aujto/n, ou∞to/ß e˙stin oJ bapti÷zwn e˙n Pneu/mati ÔAgi÷wˆ. One
could make a case for the participle fitting within the category of the
futuristic present (pgs. 535-537, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel Wallace). Alternatively, one could say that the present participle is
actually a simple gnomic present.
The phrase ou∞to/ß e˙stin oJ bapti÷zwn e˙n Pneu/mati ÔAgi÷wˆ fits all the distinguishing marks of the gnomic
category, which makes “a statement of a general, timeless fact. . . . in . . .
general maxims about what occurs at all times. . . . [It] is generally atemporal” (pg. 523, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel Wallace). However, it appears most likely that the present participle
is employed as a vivid description of the future action of the Messiah. Note that God had said, ∆Ef∆ o§n a·n i¶dhØß to
Pneuvma katabai√non, employing an aorist
for the action of John seeing the Spirit descend, although at the time God
spoke to John the action of the Spirit’s descent on Christ was yet future. In any case, no temporal idea of Christ
repeatedly or once-for-all baptizing is the force of the text. Rather, the articular present
participle simply indicates that the Messiah, rather than someone else, is the
One who is to perform Spirit baptism.
The use is similar to the only other instance of oJ bapti÷zwn in Scripture, where the phrase describes John as “the
Baptist,” ∆Iwa¿nnhß oJ
bapti÷zwn. John’s disciples did not baptize—John alone had authority
from heaven (Matthew 21:25) to do so, and he was consequently the unique one
who performed his baptism. Similarly,
the Lord Jesus is the only One who has the power to perform Spirit
baptism.
Note that the only reference to oJ bapti÷zwn in the apostolic patristic writings is impossible to
interpret as a repeated or continuing action—the articular participle refers to
an individual who is going to baptize one other person. (Didache 7:4: “And
before the baptism, let the one baptizing [oJ bapti÷zwn, present
participle] and the one who is to be baptized [oJ baptizo/menoß, present participle] fast, as well as any others who
are able. Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized [ton baptizo/menon, present participle] to fast for one or two days
beforehand.” Both the one
baptizing and the one being baptized only act one time, not repeatedly. Compare the present infinitive to bapti÷zesqai in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypo 46 for the single act of ritual bathing after ritual
defilement.
interpret as a repeated or continuing action—the articular participle refers to
an individual who is going to baptize one other person. (Didache 7:4: “And
before the baptism, let the one baptizing [oJ bapti÷zwn, present
participle] and the one who is to be baptized [oJ baptizo/menoß, present participle] fast, as well as any others who
are able. Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized [ton baptizo/menon, present participle] to fast for one or two days
beforehand.” Both the one
baptizing and the one being baptized only act one time, not repeatedly. Compare the present infinitive to bapti÷zesqai in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypo 46 for the single act of ritual bathing after ritual
defilement.
Even if one wished to dispute the classification of oJ bapti÷zwn in John 1:33 as employed for vividness, and likewise
rejected a classification of the present as gnomic, since it is obvious on the
historic Baptist, UCD, and PCP positions that Spirit baptism did not take place
before Pentecost, an argument built upon the present tense in John 1:33 would
prove too much—it would lead to the conclusion that Christ, before Pentecost,
was already baptizing with the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the fact that Christ will baptize believing
Israel with the Holy Ghost in the Tribulation period, as recorded in Joel
2:28-32, could have been excluded from the verse had an aorist been employed,
not to mention the several records of the Spirit’s coming in Acts 2, 8, 10, and
19. Certainly no ground against
the historic Baptist view, or in favor of either the UCD or PCP position, is
gained by the oJ
bapti÷zwn of John 1:33.
rejected a classification of the present as gnomic, since it is obvious on the
historic Baptist, UCD, and PCP positions that Spirit baptism did not take place
before Pentecost, an argument built upon the present tense in John 1:33 would
prove too much—it would lead to the conclusion that Christ, before Pentecost,
was already baptizing with the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the fact that Christ will baptize believing
Israel with the Holy Ghost in the Tribulation period, as recorded in Joel
2:28-32, could have been excluded from the verse had an aorist been employed,
not to mention the several records of the Spirit’s coming in Acts 2, 8, 10, and
19. Certainly no ground against
the historic Baptist view, or in favor of either the UCD or PCP position, is
gained by the oJ
bapti÷zwn of John 1:33.
[ii] Indeed, that
there was but one baptism would also suggest that fire baptism was not going on
at the time the book of Ephesians was written, supporting the view that the
baptism of fire is synonymous with the historically completed act of Spirit
baptism. If the baptism of fire
took place daily as men were cast into hell, then it would certainly appear
that there was more than one baptism at the time the book of Ephesians was
written. While it is true that an
advocate of equating fire baptism with eternal damnation could argue that the baptism
of fire did not pertain to the church at Ephesus, as it was composed of
regenerated individuals, the fact that there were false professors in the
membership of the Ephesian church (cf. Acts 20:29-31) who would, if fire
baptism is hell fire, certainly experience it, demonstrates (as do other
considerations) that Ephesians 4:5 provides at least some additional support
for equating Spirit and fire baptism and viewing them both as a completed event
fulfilled in Acts 2.
there was but one baptism would also suggest that fire baptism was not going on
at the time the book of Ephesians was written, supporting the view that the
baptism of fire is synonymous with the historically completed act of Spirit
baptism. If the baptism of fire
took place daily as men were cast into hell, then it would certainly appear
that there was more than one baptism at the time the book of Ephesians was
written. While it is true that an
advocate of equating fire baptism with eternal damnation could argue that the baptism
of fire did not pertain to the church at Ephesus, as it was composed of
regenerated individuals, the fact that there were false professors in the
membership of the Ephesian church (cf. Acts 20:29-31) who would, if fire
baptism is hell fire, certainly experience it, demonstrates (as do other
considerations) that Ephesians 4:5 provides at least some additional support
for equating Spirit and fire baptism and viewing them both as a completed event
fulfilled in Acts 2.
[iii] Titus 3:6,
alluding to the outpouring on Pentecost, is the solitary reference of any kind
whatever to Spirit baptism in the epistles. All other alleged references (as demonstrated below) refer
to immersion in water.
alluding to the outpouring on Pentecost, is the solitary reference of any kind
whatever to Spirit baptism in the epistles. All other alleged references (as demonstrated below) refer
to immersion in water.
Recent Comments