John the Baptist says, “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me . . . will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matthew 3:11). Much debate surrounds the nature of this statement and what exactly it prophesies. Sacramental, baptistic, and charismatic Christians have differing interpretations when it comes to baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit.
The objective of this series of essays is to investigate the relationship between water, Spirit, and fire baptism(s). To do so we will explore the following questions: What is the purpose and meaning of baptism by John? What is the purpose of Jesus undergoing baptism by John, and does it relate to Christian baptism in any way? Does the phrase “Spirit and fire” denote one baptism, or does it speak of two? Is Spirit and fire baptism waterless, or is water a necessary element? For our introduction we will begin by reviewing preliminary data from the gospel accounts.
In Matthew 3, we’re introduced to John the Baptist for the first time. John is preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and people from “Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan” are baptized by him in the river Jordan (vv. 1, 5-6). John says, “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” (v. 11). The remaining gospels echo the same, though “fire” is absent in Mark and John. They report that this future baptism will be “with the Holy Spirit,” but no mention of fire (Mark 1:8; John 1:33). Luke is the only one besides Matthew to include fire in his description (Luke 3:16).
Matthew and Luke are also the only ones to include a prophecy of “fire” judgment before and after the announcement of this “Spirit and fire” baptism. Before: “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Matthew 3:10; cf. Luke 3:9). After: “he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:12; cf. Luke 3:17). Each coupling is essentially identical and forms a parallel structure between the four books:
A. Matthew 3: Thrown into fire; Holy Spirit and fire; unquenchable fire
B. Mark 1: Holy Spirit baptism
A’. Luke 3: Thrown into fire; Holy Spirit and fire; unquenchable fire
B’. John 1: Holy Spirit baptism
Why do the gospels follow this pattern? Why is the presence and three-fold repetition of fire only mentioned in Matthew and Luke? The faces of the cherubim in Ezekiel 1:10 may give us a clue. Ezekiel describes the cherubim as having four faces: that of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle. Revelation 4:7 lists the same though in a different order (lion, ox, man, eagle). From at least the second century forward, the church fathers were fascinated with assigning the four faces to a particular gospel. Several combinations have been suggested between Irenaeus, Augustine, Jerome, Athanasius, and others.
A contemporary suggestion sees the three animal faces as representing the offices of priest, king, and prophet. The ox is priestly, being the primary animal for priests’ sacrifices (Leviticus 4:3; 16:6). The lion is kingly, associated with the tribe of Judah (Revelation 5:5). The eagle is prophetic, associated with Gentile invaders (Lamentations 4:19); it’s during the exilic period that Israel enters into a more prophetic stage.[1]
These three offices provide a paradigm for covenantal history: Adam was created as priest, tending to the garden-sanctuary (Genesis 2:15-17); Noah is like a king, given authority to execute murderers (Genesis 9:6); Abraham is a prophet, becoming a member of the divine council (Genesis 18:17-33). This sequence repeats with the Mosaic (priestly), Davidic (kingly), and restoration (prophetic) covenants. The cherubic man face represents the perfect embodiment of all three offices, which finds fulfillment in Jesus in the new covenant.
How does this theory link to the “fire” of Matthew and Luke? A compelling case can be made that each gospel emphasizes a particular office.
Continue reading at Theopolis Institute
[1] Peter J. Leithart, The Four: A Survey of the Gospels (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2010), 113. Also see James B. Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Powder Springs. GA: American Vision, 2007), 259-260.
