In the previous essay, we saw that fire is a work of the Holy Spirit. The two are related so closely that they cannot be separated. Now we turn our attention to the Spirit’s relationship to water. Many have understood Spirit baptism to be a dry baptism, one that is of a spiritual nature only. John the Baptist does set up a contrast between himself and Jesus: John baptizes with water but Jesus will baptize “with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16).
This is interpreted to mean that Jesus will baptize with the Spirit and fire and nothing else. James Dunn maintains that the Greek baptizo [to baptize] does not specify water as the element of baptism, and that its use in relation to Spirit baptism is “obviously a metaphor.” Spirit baptism does not refer to any performed ritual. Dunn goes so far as to say that baptizo isn’t an essential description of Spirit baptism and that “other metaphors might just as well have been used.”[1]
He continues: “He [John] certainly gives no indication that he thought the latter [Spirit and fire baptism] was a form of water baptism, or involved such. The assumption must be that he too took it merely as a metaphor. . . . Water is set over against Spirit as that which distinguishes John’s baptism from the future baptism. . . . Christ’s baptism will not be in water but in Spirit and fire.[2]
Dunn’s view is common among baptistic and charismatic Christians, whereas sacramental Christians see water baptism and Spirit baptism as two sides of the same coin. They are linked together so closely that it may be said, “Water baptism is Spirit baptism.” Scripturally, both positions have strengths and weaknesses. When mining the book of Acts, Dunn’s position appears to have the upper hand. The baptism of the Spirit sometimes occurs before water baptism or after an additional ritual, the laying on of hands. At the very least, one would not conclude that Spirit and water necessarily function together.
Sacramentalists, on the other hand, see Spirit and water spoken of together in numerous passages, including the Pauline epistles. The language of Jesus and the apostles repeatedly imply the indwelling of Spirit and water together. Can the data be reconciled?
John the Baptist announces that “one mightier” will baptize with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11; cf. Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33). Jesus comes to be baptized by John in water, but this baptism results in the receiving of the Spirit: “And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove” (Mark 1:10). Notice how close in proximity the ritual is to the receiving of the Spirit. The Spirit descends “immediately” as Jesus comes up from the water.
The image of the Spirit as a dove is relevant, as it follows a repeated theme in Scripture. The Spirit is first mentioned in Genesis 1:2 as “hovering” over the face of the waters. The Spirit is in flight. Later, Noah will send a dove from the ark to search for dry land (8:8-12). The world is back to its original watery state and a dove hovers over the waters. This is a picture of the Spirit beginning his work of re-creation; he hovers over the waters once again. The Spirit hovers over the waters of Jesus’ baptism “like a dove,” beginning the creation of a new Israel and a new cosmos. Furthermore, Isaiah 44:2-3 alludes to the Spirit as water for the thirsty, which is reinforced by Jesus and Paul:
If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive (John 7:37-39).
We were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13).
From the opening pages of Scripture up through the New Testament, the Spirit is not only associated with water but is described as water.
At Jesus’ baptism, the Spirit is clearly seen descending after water baptism – not sometime in the near or distant future but “immediately.” Jesus will go on to tell Nicodemus that one must be born of “water and the Spirit” to enter God’s kingdom (John 3:5). At Pentecost, Peter refers to the baptism of the Spirit as an “outpouring” (Acts 2:17-18, 33). This is another allusion to the Spirit as water.[3]
In 2:38 Peter says, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” These Scriptures point to the reception of the Spirit as something that follows water baptism, just as Jesus’ baptism. The sequence is water first, then Spirit. The Spirit does not come at an undetermined time in the future but “immediately.” While the Spirit’s actions are distinct, they are part of one cohesive event.
Ezekiel 36:25-27 foreshadows the same pattern: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.”
The pattern isn’t so simple after Pentecost. There are a few passages that appear to move away from the norm. One time we’re given descriptions of people receiving the Holy Spirit prior to baptism (Acts 10:44-48). Twice we see people receiving the Spirit not only after baptism, but after the addition of laying on of hands (8:14-17, 19:1-6). Five times we see baptism with no mention of the Holy Spirit whatsoever (2:41, 8:12, 16:11-15, 16:33, 18:8). It may be presumed that these five instances were followed by the receiving of the Spirit, though it is not recorded. But the other three do appear to drive a wedge between water and Spirit.[4] What’s going on here? Is the Spirit deviating away from what was previously established? We will discuss these passages below.
Acts 10:44-48. This is the one passage in the Bible that is explicitly clear that Spirit baptism preceded water baptism. It is also the only passage in which Gentiles are the primary receivers of the Spirit. This is a new situation, one we’ve yet to see. Peter is at the house of Cornelius, a Gentile (10:22, 24). Before Peter is even done preaching, the Holy Spirit falls upon the Gentiles and they begin speaking tongues (vv. 44, 46). This was to the astonishment of Peter and the other Jewish Christians (v. 45). Peter says, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (v. 47). Remember that God had previously shown Peter a vision in which he was instructed to “rise, kill, and eat” a menu of unclean animals (vv. 9-16). This was a hard word for Peter to accept, for he did not eat anything unclean (v. 14). Peter also views the Gentiles as unclean and avoids eating with them on one occasion (Galatians 2:11-14).
The scene in Cornelius’ house is therefore a lesson to Peter: If unclean animals are now clean, so are the Gentiles. This is the initiation of the Spirit into the Gentile world. It’s an exceptional situation that we do not see repeated. There’s no reason to view this passage as undoing the normative sequence of water and Spirit. As Peter himself notes, the Gentiles must be baptized once they receive the Spirit. Though the order is reversed in this instance, Spirit and water are still viewed together. There’s no waiting period before undergoing water baptism; neither is it concluded that water baptism is unnecessary or of little importance. Instead we see water baptism’s significance expanded: It’s not only an instrument of receiving the Spirit, but a confirmation of it as well.
Acts 8:14-17; 19:1-6. Water baptism comes first in both of these passages, which fits the established pattern. The difference is that the Spirit is not given until the laying on of hands. What is the laying on of hands and why is it necessary in these two instances? The Spirit is normally received with no mention of this additional ritual, and we do not see it described any place else. We do see the laying on of hands in what looks to be ordination to a specific office (6:6; 13:3; 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6).[5]
Perhaps the origin of this ritual may be found in the sacrificial system. The worshiper was to place his hand on the animal for it to become his representative (Leviticus 1:4). There is a transfer of identity, so to speak, with the laying on of hands. In the case of ordination, the clergy “transfer” their office to the one being ordained. We may see something similar in Acts 8 and 19. The apostles are “transferring” the Spirit to others. Why it’s included in these instances is not immediately clear. In Acts 8 the recipients are Samaritans, in Acts 19 they are Jews in Ephesus. In any case, these two examples do not need to be taken as an undoing of the established norm. The sequence begins in water and ends with the Spirit as in all other cases, 10:44-48 excepted.
One way of viewing these examples in Acts 8, 10, and 19 is to see them as additional Pentecosts throughout the region and finally to the world. In Acts 1:8, Jesus says that when the Holy Spirit comes upon the apostles they will be witnesses in “Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” The first Pentecost occurs in Jerusalem (2:4-5). Next we see Pentecosts throughout “all Judea and Samaria,” first in Samaria (8:14-17) and then further north in Caesarea (10:44-48).
Finally, a Pentecost occurs in Ephesus, a Roman province in Asia Minor (19:1-6). This shows a progression from Jerusalem to Ephesus. The apostles are moving from the land to the broader Roman Empire, just as Jesus foretold. Viewing these as a series of Pentecosts would certainly help explain their exceptional character. We might imagine that these Pentecosts occurred every time the Spirit fell upon a new geographical area, though the data is silent henceforth.
Beyond Acts, the Pauline epistles provide three passages that are especially relevant to our discussion: 1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 4:5, and Titus 3:5. In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul is addressing the abuse of spiritual gifts in the church. The Corinthians had many spiritual gifts, but they were letting them divide rather than edify. A chapter earlier Paul chides them for not eating the Lord’s Supper together as one body (11:17-22). He’s now explaining that having a spiritual gift does not make you superior to others. “There are many gifts,” Paul says, “but one Spirit” (12:4). All gifts are given by God as he wills, and not everyone will have the same gift.
He continues: “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many” (vv. 12-14).
“In one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (12:13). Here we see the union of water and Spirit most explicitly. Though diverse, the church is united by one Spirit, into one body. Elsewhere Paul teaches that Jesus and the Spirit cannot be separated (Romans 8:1ff). You cannot have Christ without the Spirit, and you cannot have the Spirit without Christ. In Paul’s mind, to be baptized into Christ’s body is to be baptized in the Spirit.
The argument that this baptism is metaphoric or waterless isn’t tenable considering Paul’s overall flow of thought. The other references to baptism in this epistle clearly denote the water ritual, even without saying so explicitly (1:13-16; 10:1-4; 15:29). For Paul to change his usage of baptism in 12:13 without clarification would be an equivocation. Furthermore, these references speak of baptism as a mark of the visible church, which is the context of 12:13. Chapter 10, verses 1-4 especially parallel 12:13 in its connection between water and Spirit.[6]
There are only a few examples where baptism appears to be metaphoric (Mark 10:38-39, Luke 12:50; Acts 1:5, 2:4). Even in these cases, we must remember that water was present and closely connected to the event (cf. Luke 22:44, John 19:34; Acts 2:17, 38).
In Ephesians 4, Paul is addressing unity among the Ephesians, much like he did in 1 Corinthians 12. Paul says, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (vv. 4-6).
Notice the repetition of oneness in the passage: one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father. This is a trinitarian passage, with Spirit, Son (Lord), and Father included in the formula. The oneness of the Godhead is linked with the oneness of body, hope, faith, and baptism. In Paul’s theology, none of these can exist without the other. To be in the one Christ is to have the one Spirit.
Furthermore, if indeed there is a distinction between water baptism and Spirit baptism, why does Paul insist on one baptism, not two? Jesus and his disciples baptized with water (John 4:1-2), and virtually everyone agrees that Matthew 28:19 refers to water. Water baptism is commanded by Jesus and the apostles. If Paul had wished to separate water and Spirit, he could not have accurately spoken of one baptism. Rather, the one baptism is the baptism of the Spirit in water.
Titus 3 gives us another picture of water and Spirit together: “When the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (vv. 4-7).
This “regeneration and renewal” is a specific work of the Holy Spirit described as a “washing,” or a baptism. As with other passages we’ve explored, “washing” and “Spirit” are used in the normative sequence. Whatever we might say about the exceptions in Acts, the scriptural data overwhelming shows that water and Spirit are inseparably linked. The normative sequence is present in all normative situations.
Conclusion
Certainly, there are more questions to consider. If the Bible presents baptism as an instrument of receiving the Spirit, what do we say of the Christian convert who isn’t baptized for several weeks or months? What about the child who grows up believing the gospel but isn’t baptized until their teenage years? It would be difficult to say that these persons did not yet have the Spirit, for it’s only by the Spirit that one confesses Jesus as Lord (1 Corinthians 12:3). Is the model of Acts 10:44-48 analogous in these cases, or is there a formal and informal aspect to receiving the Spirit? Does the Spirit indwell a person to one degree upon conversion, but to a greater degree upon being baptized? It appears that the apostles received the Spirit in stages, after all (John 20:22; Acts 2:4).
Perhaps it’s a matter of subjectivity and objectivity? The convert receives the Spirit in a personal and subjective fashion upon belief, but in a corporate and objective fashion upon baptism. This theory is attractive since baptism is a visible act that unites you to a visible community. Additionally, baptism gives you benefits that you did not have before (e.g. church membership, the eucharist). This may be compared to young lovers before marriage. The man and woman love one another deeply and truly, but their union isn’t complete until the wedding ceremony. Only then will the full benefits of their love be experienced. In the case of baptism, the Bible shows us that these benefits ought not be delayed.
The Spirit is like the wind, blowing where he wishes (John 3:8). May we never be guilty of limiting his work to a certain time or place. Yet also, may we never be guilty of denying his work where the Scriptures have clearly located him. We know where the Spirit is – in the waters of baptism, in our hearts – but we do not know where he isn’t. The Spirit who is a fire is a stream of living water. His ministry is one of cleansing and refining.
“Everything that can stand the fire, you shall pass through the fire, and it shall be clean. Nevertheless, it shall also be purified with the water for impurity” (Numbers 31:23).
Adam McIntosh is pastor of Saint David’s Church in Tomball, TX.
[1] James G.D. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), 18
[2] Ibid., 19
[3] This lines up with the language of Acts 11:15 where Peter says the Holy Spirit “fell upon” Cornelius and his family. Hebrews 9:10 also speaks of old covenant washings as “baptisms,” and most of those were by sprinkling. Pouring and sprinkling are therefore proper definitions and modes of baptism. Peter speaks of the Spirit as someone who falls on us from above, not someone we fall into below. Pouring or sprinkling best represents that reality.
[4] Two other passages are relevant here but too ambiguous to be included. Acts 9:17-18 records the conversion and baptism of Saul. Ananias lays hands on Saul and says, “The Lord Jesus…has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Scales immediately fell from Saul’s eyes and he “arose and was baptized.” The filling of the Spirit is mentioned here but we’re never told exactly when that filling takes place. The laying on of hands may be significant, as it is a means of receiving the Spirit elsewhere (8:14-17; 19:1-6). Further, if receiving sight is the effect of being filled with the Spirit, then perhaps Saul receives the Spirit at the moment he loses his scales (v. 18). Nevertheless, it is too ambiguous to say whether Saul receives the Spirit before or after baptism.
In Acts 18:24-25, we read about a Jew named Apollos. He is said to have been “fervent in spirit,” speaking and teaching accurately, though he only knew the baptism of John. The word for “spirit” is pneuma, which is the same word used for the Holy Spirit. Is “fervent in spirit” a reference to the Spirit? If so, Apollos may have received the Spirit prior to Christian baptism. In any case, it is too ambiguous to know for certain.
[5] The anointing of the sick in James 5:14 might include the laying on of hands, though it is not specifically mentioned.
[6] Peter J. Leithart, The Baptized Body (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2007), 38-41