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 (Mt. 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 (Lk. 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. Matthew focuses on Jesus’ role as priest (ox), one who keeps and fulfills Torah. Jesus’ oral instructions take prominence (e.g. Sermon on the Mount), as well as several allusions to him being a new Moses.[2] Mark focuses on kingship (lion), presenting Jesus as a new David. Exorcisms are the first miracles performed by both men after receiving the Spirit (Mark 1:25; 1 Samuel 16:23); they both wrestle wild beasts in preparation for battle (Mark 1:13; 1 Samuel 17:34-37).[3] Luke frequently references Roman rulers in his dating of events (Luke 2:1; 3:1). This connects his gospel to the Gentiles, which is the prophetic (eagle) office. John’s gospel focuses on the incarnation (man), showing that Jesus is YHWH, the priest-king-prophet par excellence (John 1:1ff).[4] If these designations are valid, then John the Baptist’s “fire” statements are placed in the priestly and prophetic gospels, Matthew and Luke. This is significant, as fire is especially important to priests and prophets. We will return to this in more detail.
Purpose and Meaning of Baptism by John
When the New Testament begins to speak of John the Baptist’s ministry, it does so without interpreting much of the data. We’re told that John is in the wilderness in the region of the Jordan River, but we aren’t told why. We’re told that people from all over the region are coming to him for baptism, but we aren’t told why. What’s significant about this location and why are people wanting to be baptized? What’s “baptism” all about, anyway? We’re introduced to this word without any apparent point of reference. Is this a new practice that developed during the intertestamental period? Too often we make assumptions without stopping to ask the questions. We take for granted how abruptly the gospels begin John’s narrative; it’s as if the authors expect us to know the answers already. Indeed, they do.
Remembering some important details of the Old Testament will greatly enhance our understanding of John’s ministry. The Jordan River is where the Israelites crossed over to enter the promised land of Canaan (Joshua 3:17). This was a miraculous event in which the Israelites crossed over “on dry ground” in the midst of the Jordan. The waters were parted just like the previous crossing of the Red Sea from Egypt into the wilderness (Exodus 14:21-22). Mark Horne articulates that these water crossings are a move “closer to where God is” and include a deliverance from “the old in order to attain the new.”[5] The Red Sea moved the Israelites from Egypt to the wilderness; the Jordan River moved Israel from the wilderness to the promised land. We may think of the flood as a precursor to this theme. Noah and his family pass through the flood waters on the ark (“dry ground”) and enter into a new world with a new beginning, new privileges, and new responsibilities (Genesis 9:1, 3, 5). So, too, the Israelites are given privileges and responsibilities when they enter into a new world. Passing through water brings greater access to God.
Remarkably, the flood and Red Sea crossing are described as baptisms in the New Testament. Peter recalls Noah’s family being saved through water and says, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you” (1 Peter 3:20-21). Paul, commenting on the exodus, says that “all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Corinthians 10:1). These passages inform us that baptism isn’t unique to the New Testament. It has its origin in the earliest books of the Bible[6] and was for the purpose of rescuing you from one situation and placing you in a better and more glorious one.[7] We may say that the crossing of the Jordan into the promised land was a baptism for this very reason. Even the ceremonial “washings” of the old covenant are baptismos in Hebrews 9:10. These rites were administered to individuals and most usually by sprinkling.[8] They moved you from death to life, from unclean to clean. It’s these baptisms specifically that give us the best idea of what John the Baptist was doing. When he comes on the scene, no Jew in the first century would have been ignorant of the purpose and meaning of baptism. John makes a powerful statement by going back to the wilderness to “pass through” the Jordan. He’s apparently saying that Israel has become unclean. The Jews may be in the promised land geographically, but covenantally they are back in Egypt.[9] If they want to escape the coming judgment, they must repent and re-enter the land through the Jordan. All those baptized by John wanted to be apart of the faithful remnant. NT Wright comments on the conquest nature of John’s baptism: “Over a thousand years before, the children of Israel had crossed the Jordan when they first entered and conquered the promised land. Now they had to go through the river again, as a sign that they were getting ready for a greater conquest, God’s defeat of all evil and the establishment of his kingdom on earth as in heaven.”[10]
Jesus’ Baptism by John; A Model for Christian Baptism?
The information above helps us better understand why Jesus was baptized by John. John says his baptism is a baptism “unto repentance” (Matthew 3:11). This has puzzled Christians for quite some time. Why does a sinless man – God in the flesh – need to be baptized? The apparent contradiction is reconciled when we see that personal repentance is not the only aspect of John’s baptism. It includes the separating of oneself from an unfaithful generation, of marking out those who seek and look forward to Israel’s purification. This is a corporate aspect of John’s baptism. It was about national sins just as much as personal sins. It is only fitting then, that the eventual leader of this new conquest – a new Joshua[11] – would himself undergo the ritual. He seeks Israel’s purification just as the others do. This is one way in which Jesus identifies with his people. At the same time, Jesus’ baptism by John has different qualities than the baptism received by everyone else. John is initially reluctant to baptize Jesus. He says, “I need to be baptized by you, and are you coming to me?”[12] Jesus responds, “It is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:14-15). Only after this statement does John agree to baptize Jesus. We aren’t told what Jesus meant by this saying or why it changed John’s mind. We do know that John is the fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3, the one going before and preparing the way of the Messiah. Matthew tells us this in 3:3. Perhaps Jesus’ statement communicated to John that Jesus was the Messiah and that baptism would be the means of revealing him:
‘When Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:16-17; cf. Luke 3:21-22; Mark 1:9-11).
The heavens did not open up for any other recipient. No one else had the Spirit descend upon them in the likeness of a dove. No one else had the Father speak to them from the sky. These details were unique to Jesus, for the purpose of revealing him as the Messiah.
Ralph Smith argues that Jesus’ baptism was more than just a revealing of himself as the Messiah, but his very ordination to the ministry.[13] Psalm 110 says of the Messiah, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” The author of Hebrews repeatedly states that Jesus is a Melchizedekian priest (Hebrews 5:5-10; 6:20; 7:11-17). Melchizedek makes his appearance in Genesis 14 as both the “king of Salem” and “priest of God most high.” He gives bread and wine to Abram and Abram tithes to him (vv. 18-20).[14] Not much else is known about Melchizedek. He’s a mysterious character who seemingly appears out of nowhere. We do know that he was a priest of YHWH predating the Mosaic covenant. Melchizedek predates the Abrahamic covenant as well: Abram’s name change and cutting of the flesh won’t occur for another three chapters. At this point in history, everyone is Noahic; there is no Hebrew/Gentile distinction. That Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek and not Aaron is significant. Jesus’ priesthood transcends the barrier between Jew and Gentile, and the very nature of his ministry will be to eradicate that barrier (Galatians 3:28).
There’s no other place in Scripture for Jesus to have received his Melchizedekian ordination than at his baptism. One strength of this position is that nearly all old covenant baptisms were self-administered: “Baptizing clothes, oneself, and household utensils did not require the ministry of a priest. It was done by the individual.”[15] Exceptions to this rule were the initiatory baptisms for priest and Levite ordinations (Leviticus 8:6; Numbers 8:6-7). These rites had to be administered by someone other than the recipient. John the Baptist’s rite, likewise, was not self-administered. Jesus did not baptize himself. Smith therefore sees Jesus’ baptism by John as an initiation into the Melchizedekian priesthood. Christians, too, are initiated into the same: “if Christians are priests ‘in Christ’ and his priesthood is of the order of Melchizedek, then theirs must be also, for the priesthood of the Christian cannot be independent of Christ himself.”[16] Christians are called a “royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5) and a “kingdom and priests” (Revelation 5:10). These descriptions fit the priest-king office of Melchizedek.
If Jesus’ baptism was his priestly ordination, how do we explain the descent of the Holy Spirit? The Bible provides a connection between priestly ordination and receiving the Spirit. Receiving the Spirit is often called a “baptism” or a “pouring,” but also an “anointing” (Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38). Throughout the Bible, oil is the primary element of anointing (1 Sam. 10:1; Js. 5:14). This creates a symbolic relation between Spirit and oil (1 Samuel 16:13; 2 Corinthians 1:21-22). The consecration of an Aaronic priest was not complete without the anointing of oil. They were first baptized with water, then anointed (Leviticus 8:5-12). This is an image of the Spirit equipping the recipient in his priestly office. Jesus, then, is baptized with water and immediately anointed. Oil isn’t present as far as we know, but a greater manifestation of the oil is. Jesus receives the “oil of gladness” – the person of the Holy Spirit – like no priest had before (Hebrews 1:9).
The ramification of Smith’s view is that Jesus’ baptism by John is a model of Christian baptism.[17] What happened to Jesus at his baptism applies to Christian baptism: The recipient is made a priest in the order of Melchizedek and receives the Holy Spirit. A baptism into Christ gives you what Christ has. Acts 2:38 appears to favor this position, implying that the Spirit is given “as a consequence of, if not through, water baptism.”[18] This is controversial among those who maintain that water baptism and Spirit baptism are separate events. We will discuss this later in this series, but first we must look at John’s use of the phrase “Spirit and fire.”
Adam McIntosh is a deacon and pastoral assistant at Cornerstone Reformed Church in Carbondale, Illinois.
[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.
[2] Leithart, The Four, 111
[3] Mark Horne, The Victory According to Mark (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2003), 36, 42
[4] Leithart, The Four, 111-112
[5] Horne, Victory, 25
[6] The earliest reference being Genesis 1:7. Waters are divided above and below the firmament, creating a water boundary between heaven and earth. Crossing the boundary joins you to the heavenly host.
[7] Note that these water crossings weren’t mere symbols of an already existent reality or an inward, spiritual condition. They were necessary for the transition from one world to the next. Noah had to pass through the flood to live; the Israelites had to pass through the Red Sea to escape the Egyptians.
[8] Ex. 29:20-21; Lev. 14:7; Num. 8:7; 19:13, 18-22; Ezk. 36:25
[9] Horne, Victory, 26
[10] NT Wright, Matthew for Everyone, Pt. 1 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2 ed., 2004), 18
[11] Not only is the Joshua-conquest motif typological of Jesus and his ministry, but both men share the same name. Jesus’ name in Hebrew is Yeshua, which is “Joshua” in English.
[12] John’s humility is evident, recognizing Jesus as superior. Is this because he knew all along that Jesus was the “mightier” one (Mt. 3:11)? If so, his desire to be baptized by Jesus would be a desire to have the Spirit and fire. It’s possible that John did not know Jesus was the Messiah, as John 1:33 might indicate. In which case John’s humility could be a recognition of Jesus’ faithfulness as a young man. Being relatives, surely John knew of Jesus’ teaching in the temple at age twelve and countless other mighty works (Lk. 1:36; 2:41-49).
[13] Ralph Allan Smith, The Baptism of Jesus the Christ (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 40
[14] Salem is traditionally understood to be an early name for Jerusalem. Melchizedek foreshadows a later king of Jerusalem who not only offers bread and wine, but is the bread and wine.
[15] Smith, Baptism, 31
[16] Ibid., 168
[17] Ibid., 1, 22-23
[18] Ibid., 176