Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
37
The
“Coming One”/”Stronger
One” and His
Baptism:
Matt
3:11-12,
Mark
1:8,
Luke 3:16-17
J. Daryl Charles*
Introduction
In terms of
significance,
the
figure
of John the
Baptist
is
unique
in the
scriptures. Only
John furnishes a proper
perspective
with which fully
to appreciate Jesus’ messianic
ministry.
One of his
prophetic pro- nouncements is the focus of the
present study:
the
prediction
of the “baptism”
which the
“Coming
One” would
bring.
The
saying
is repre- sented in the
Synoptic Gospels through
a Markan and a Matthean- Lukan tradition:
‘
‘
.
I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is stronger than I, whose sandals (Luke: thongs) I am not to (Luke: untie);
he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and worthy with fire. His carry winnowing
fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing-floor and gather
his (Luke: the) wheat into the (Luke: his) granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire. (Matt. 3:11-12; Luke 3:16-17)
” .
After me comes he who is stronger than I, the thong of whose sandals I
am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptized you with water, but
he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. (Mark 1:8)
Commentators in the twentieth
century
have
espoused essentially three main
interpretations
of this
Synoptic pronouncement
and cast John’s
prediction,
for the most
part,
as negative
action, i.e., judgment. This is due in part to a renewed interest
among
scholars earlier in this century
in
critically reassessing
the
Gospel
traditions.
Practically speaking,
John’s
baptism
and
pronouncement
were no
longer
to be interpreted solely
in
light
of Pentecost or Christian
baptism.
The present study
will benefit from a review of the
prevailing
views
among NT commentators of this
century.
1) One theory
for
interpreting
John’s
“Spirit-and-fire” logion
which has
enjoyed popularity
is that John was
referring
to two
separate
and distinct
baptisms:
one for the
repentant (in
the
Spirit)
and one for the unrepentant (in
the fire of
judgment).
This
represented
a reaction against
a
prevailing
tradition
historically
which
equated
the “fire” of John’s
preaching
with the
Holy Spirit
and
interpreted
the coming baptism
as a foremost
gracious
works
1 thereby
2)
A second view
prefers
“fire” alone
(in opposition
to
“Spirit”)
as the
accepted reading. Proponents
would contend that
“Holy Spirit
and
*J. Daryl Charles is a Ph.D. candidate at Westminster Seminary.
lTwentieth-century proponents of this view include W. Michaelis, E. W.
Lohmeyer,
H. Brownlee, F. J. Leenhardt and R. E. Brown.
1
38
fire” is not an authentic
reading,
rather a later editorial addition. This supposition
has been
by
no means a minority view2 and is
generally found
among
certain redaction critics,
who,
in the
process
of
seeking to
analyze
the author’s
underlying theological motive,
would hold “Spirit”
as
a “christianizing”
of the text
by
the later Christian commu- nity.
3) Yet another
view demands
scrutiny.
Some have
interpreted
John’s s prediction
of the Messiah’s work as
solely judgmental,
void of
any gracious
action whatsoever.
Support
for this
argument
is the
rendering of
rryEV/,,ca as not “spirit,”
but
rather, “wind,”
and hence, a strong wind of God which is sent to render
judgment, along
with fire which would finally destroy
what the wind had left. This
theory
rests
upon
the rela- tionship
between fire and wind as they appear together in the OT.3
John the
Baptist
in the
Synoptics
is a preacher of not
merely
fire and brimstone. Both Mark and Luke record that John’s rite was a baptism of
repentance
for the forgiveness of sins.4 Moreover, the Matthew- Luke account
speaks
of the
“Coming
One”
bringing
wheat into “his” bam.5
Repentance
would meet the condition for salvation and
partak- ing
of the
kingdom
of God. John’s
baptism
was not
perceived
as a way of
escape
from the
coming baptism;
rather those
baptized by
John
(“I baptize you …”)
must have seen
grace coming
to
them; hence,
a looking
forward to the
coming
Messiah.
John,
as did
Jesus, proclaimed 1 “the
kingdom
of heaven is at hand”
(Matt.
3:2
= 4:17).
The British scholar J. D. G. Dunn6 is one of the few who has offered a
refreshing-and
much needed-alternative view to the aforemen- tioned traditional
arguments. Upholding
the
Baptist’s capacity
to prophesy
of the
Spirit
and
accurately pronounce
the nature of the messianic office
(i.e.,
to
impart
the
Spirit),
Dunn notes John’s
empha- sis on
repentance
and
forgiveness
as well as a balance of threat and promise,
curse and
blessing,
resident in his
preaching.7
Can John have previewed
the work of the
Spirit?
Fire
Symbolism
in the Old Testament
One is struck
by
the
frequency
of association between fire and
judg- ment in the OT. Reflective of the
prophetic past,
the
strongly urgent
2Among its adherents have been J. Wellhausen, C. A. Briggs, R. Bultmann, T. W. Manson, P. Vielhauer and E. Haenchen.
3To this camp belong A. B. Bruce, C. H. Kraeling, C. K. Barrett, W. Grundmann and W. Bieder
related OT
along with Best. It should be noted, however, that the vast majority of
scriptures either speak of “wind” in a scattering
sense or “fire” in a devouring
sense.
4Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3.
5″His” wheat in Matt. 3:12; “His” barn in Luke 3:17.
6J. D. G. Dunn, “Spirit-and-Fire Baptism,” Novum Testaml!1Ilum 14 (1972) 81-92, esp. pp.
85-91.
7Ibid., 86.
2
39
tone of the
Baptist’s preaching
was substantiated
by
the
impending judgment awaiting
an
unrepentant
Israel. Within the context of unbelieving Israel,
which had relied on its Abrahamic
ancestry
as opposed
to covenantal obedience to
Yahweh, John’s
impassioned preaching
of
fire, cleansing
and destruction to come is understandable. The link between fire and
judgment
is
certainly
not
unique
to John. Indeed OT
pictures
of
fire-judgment
are
many.8
In the
writings
of the prophets,
the use of fire is almost
solely judgmental,
due to the condi- tion of the
people
of Yahweh
being
addressed. From the time of Solomon until the exile, the state of the
people
was
generally
one of deterioration.
The OT witness to the
severity
of
judgment
not
withstanding,
the significance
of another
aspect
of fire,
however,
should not be lost
sight of: its
theophanic
use. The
presence
and
appearance
of Yahweh was, of all things, most akin to fire. Fire and
glory
become
virtually synony- mous. Note in
particular
Exodus
13:21; 19:18; 24:17;
Leviticus 9:23, 24; Deuteronomy 4:11, 12;
Psalms
50:2, 3;
Ezekiel
1:4, 13, 26-28; Daniel
7:9, 10.
Yahweh revealed Himself
initially
to Moses
through
the
burning bush
(Exod. 3).
It was
by
fire that Yahweh
engulfed
all of Mount Sinai after Moses commanded that the Israelites
prepare
themselves to meet the Lord
(Exod. 19),
the
sight
of which was as a devouring fire
(Exod. 24:17).
Ten times in the book of
Deuteronomy
the
expression
“And Yahweh
spoke
to
you
from the midst of the fire” occurs.9 A
compari- son of Leviticus 6:1-6 and 10:1-7
suggests
the
holy
nature of fire
upon the altar as well as the
consequences
for its
disregard
as
prescribed by Yahweh. In the
very theology
of the ark and the tabernacle is the holi- ness of Yahweh disclosed, for it was above the ark that He would appear (Lev.
16:2;
Num.
7:89;
Deut.
4:24). People
should not bear sight
of Him Who was called a consuming fire
(Deut. 4:24).
Among
the Hebrew
prophets
one finds no lack of
theophanic
fire- symbolism. Elijah
called down fire from heaven
(I Kgs. 18),
Daniel saw that “His throne was
fiery flames,
its wheels were
burning
fire” (7:9),
and Ezekiel’s vision of the
glory
of God contains no less than seven references to “fire” in the first
chapter; 10
and that the fire relates to the
glory
of God is made clear
by
1:26-28. Of the
Lord,
Isaiah declared,
“Whose fire is in
Zion,
and Whose furnace is in Jerusalem” (31:9).
In Isaiah’s
temple-vision,
smoke filled the habitation of God as the
angels
cried of His holiness
(6:4),
while coals of fire were
brought
8E.g., Gen. 19:24; Lev. 10:2; Num. 11:1; 16:35; n Kgs. 1:10; thirty-two times in Isa.; thirty-nine times in Jer, thirty-eight times, excluding ch. 1, in Ezek.; Hos. 8:14; Joel 2:3,5; Amos 1 :4, 7, 12, 14 ; 2 :2, 5 ; 5:6; 7:4; Mic. 1 :4, 5, 7 ; Nah. 1:6; 3:15; Zeph. 1:18; 3:8; Zech. 9:4; 11:1; Mal. 3:2, 3, 5.
94:12,15, 33, 36; 5:4, 22, 26 ; 9:10; 10:4.
101:4 (twice); 1:13 (three times); 1:27 (twice).
3
40
by
an
angel
from the
heavenly
altar to the
prophet, cleansing
him from impurity.
In Zechariah’s third
vision,
the Lord
promised
to be a wall of fire outside of Jerusalem as well as protection and
glory
within
(2:9). Throughout
the
history
of Israel’s
religion, fire-symbolism
is employed
and manifests both destructive and
theophanic
traits. 11 l Inseparable
from Yahweh’s holiness, fire can be readily understood as a symbol of His manifestation. Its
very
attributes admit of unapproach- ableness,
mystery, consumption, unpredictability, immutability
and purity.
It is the
theophanic aspect
of fire which must be incorporated as well into the
pronouncement
and
expectation
of John the
Baptist.
The elements of judgment and
theophany
need not cancel one another out. Indeed,
“the
glory
of the Lord” was to be
revealed,
and “all flesh” would see it together
(Isa. 40:5).
Capacity
to Utter
Prophecy
in Ternis of the
Spirit
If, according to the Matthew-Luke logion,
the
coming
Messiah’s baptism
was to consist of two
elements, namely
“fire” and
“Spirit,” was John the
Baptist capable
of
uttering prophecy
in terms of the Spirit,
if he in effect is the last in a line of Old Testament
prophetic heralds?
To
ignore
the
significance
of the
Spirit
in the OT is to
depart
radi- cally
from Jewish
thinking.
With
consistency,
the
Spirit
came on and possessed
the heroes of Israel. From creation to restoration, one
recog- nizes the
operation
of the
Spirit
of God. Manifestations
normally
asso- ciated with the
Spirit
were
power,
unusual
feats, wisdom, prophecy
and divine
inspiration. Essentially,
the
Spirit
could be
interpreted
in Israel as Yahweh’s self-revelation.12
It should in no
way
be
surprising
that the
Holy Spirit
is
closely linked to the New Covenant. Yahweh’s self-revelation to the new community
would entail
judgment
as well as
righteousness.
Jeremiah spoke
of a new covenant written on human hearts
(31:33).
Joel
proph- esied of a
thorough purging
and
repentance
in view of the
plagues which had beset Yahweh’s
people
and that the
Day
of the Lord was approaching
as a vast
fire,
while
gracious blessings
and the
Spirit
on the other hand would be
poured
out
(Joel 2).
As
depicted
in Isaiah 11 :1-5, Israel’s ideal ruler was to possess
the fullest endowment of the Spirit
of God. Isaiah 42 and 49 seem to unite the notions of
Spirit-pos- session and covenant
relationships
in the
person
of a redeemer-type. Two
prominent prophetic figures
of the
OT,
Moses and
Elijah,
illus- trate the
aspect
of personal impartation of the
Spirit:
Moses to the sev- enty
elders
(Num. 11),
and
Elijah
to Elisha
(II Kgs. 2).
It is feasible
1 ‘This forms the basis for J.C.H. Laughlin’s A Study of the Motif of Holy Fire in the Old Testament (Ann Arbor Xerox U. MicrofIlms, 1975).
l2So G. W. H.
Studies in the Lampe,
“The Holy Spirit in the Writings of St. Luke,” in D. E. Nineham, ed., Gospels (Oxford., Blackwell, 1957) 161.
_
.
4
41
that Luke.has II Kings 2:1-15 in mind as he writes of John the
Baptist going
before the Lord “in the
spirit
and
power
of
Elijah” (Luke 1 : 17). In this
light,
the
Spirit might
be seen as the
gift
of a person and would thus be continued
through
the Messiah of God.
The most
explicit
reference to a Spirit-possessed Messianic
type
is to be found in the
body
of extra-canonical Jewish literature of the in- tertestamental
period. Writings
of the
Qumran community,
with whom John more than
likely
had some
degree
of
contact, depicted
the
Spirit primarily
as a
purifying agent.13
The Covenantors also believed that prophecy
was made
possible by
the
Holy Spirit,
and
utilizing
Isaiah 61:1,
their visionaries claimed a prophetic
anointing Interestingly,
it is a custom found in
Qumran literature,
not
only
in the
NT,
to describe the
Spirit
in
“liquid”
or “fluid” terms.
OT
conceptualization
of the
Spirit
need not force the
interpretation of
vv,6iDpa (Heb.: ntl)
as “wind,” in place of “Spirit,” as has been the tendency
of modem commentators. G. R.
Beasley-Murrayl5 aptly notes the inclination
among
scholars of this
century
not to do full justice
to the
Synoptic
text, excluding
the idea of the
“Spirit”
for fear of
“Christianizing”
the
Baptist’s
statements. Yet there is no valid reason why
John should not have linked the
ministry
of the Messiah with that of the
gracious Spirit.
Characteristic of the view
holding dominance
among
modem
exegetes
is E.
Best;
16who
argues
that the Baptist’s
words are re-cast
by
the NT
Evangelists.
Best contends that in Acts
1:5,
Luke has
undergone
a change of
perspective,
since he is writing
after Pentecost
through
the
eyes
of the Christian
community.17 While John
pictured only eschatological judgment,
writes
Best,
the Christians
reinterpret
his words to mean
redemption. 18
Best even
goes as far as to
suggest
that Jesus Himself
may
have
possibly changed
the meaning
of since, as the
“suffering servant,”
He felt a need to “rectify”
the unmerciful
impression
left
by
John.19 In
responding
to Best’s
assumptions,
one must ask
exactly
who did
reinterpret m?fvua to mean “wind,” if John did not
originally speak
in these terms.
Or,
if Jesus’
ministry
involves
“rectifying”
the
impression
left
by John, why then do the
Gospel
writers miss the mark
by demonstrating
a continu- ity between
John and Jesus?
‘
13E.g., 1QS 3:7-9; 4:20; 1QH 16:12.
14See G. Johnston, “‘Spirit’ and ‘Holy Spirit’ in the Qumran Literature,” in H. E. McArthur, ed., New Testament Sidelights (Hartford: Hartford Sem. Found., 1960), esp.
35-37.
1 G. R. gp.
Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerd- mans, 1962) 33-37.
16E. Best, “Spirit-Baptism,” Novum Testamentum 4 (1960) 238-39.
l7Ibid
.
181bid., 240-42..
191bi?L, 242.
_
‘
5
42
Both notions of
fiery judgment
and an
out-pouring
of the
Spirit
find their roots in OT
prophecy.
It is
unnecessary
to
place
limits on the Baptist’s expectations.20
His
message
must be
interpreted
in
light
of his
supercession
of all the
prophets
and in terms of divine revelation and
proximity
to the new
age, regardless
of the
degree
to which he actually perceived
what he was
uttering.
One
might
ask whether the Baptist
could have
envisaged
the Joel
prophecy
as Peter did in Acts 2. In all its
implications,
the answer must
be,
“No.” In its
conceptualiza- tion,
it is “Yes.”
“Baptism”
in Terms of the
Spirit
The Term
f3aTTTl((JJ as Employed by John
From a survey of the NT one
might
not
expect
the
term f3aTTTl((JJ (“to baptize”)
to be difficult to
render, since, along
with its derivative forms,
it
appears
some 130 times.21 Nonetheless, a most
challenging task for the
Synoptic
reader is to disengage himself or herself from the Christian sacramental sense of the term which has become
deeply embedded in his or her
thinking.
In
analyzing
this
saying
of John, defining f3aTTTl((JJ
is not
accomplished automatically.
The NT offers no explanation for
its
meaning;
the term is
merely
taken for
granted by the
Evangelists,
each of whom are
contemporary
with the
significant “pre-history”
of the term.
Jewish
usage
of particular terms or customs
may
have
changed
con- siderably
after the
Exile, complicating
the task of the NT student.
If, for
example,
rabbis indeed used the
washing
of water in Ezekiel 16 to interpret
the
significance
of
proselyte baptism,
then
Paul,
in
speaking to the
Ephesian
Christians of “washing of the water of the word”
(Eph. 5:26),
was most
likely alluding
to rabbinical
usage
of Ezekiel 16.22 Therefore,
the
Synoptic
reader must
necessarily
take into account not only
NT and OT references
(the
latter of which is
scant),
but also con- temporary
use and the
relationship
of the term to the whole of the writer’s work.23
Noting
that transliteration does not
necessarily
establish a word’s true
meaning,
the reader is met further
by both
literal and
metaphorical usage
of the
term,
both of which
appear side-by-side.
Two
examples
of the former are found in Mark 1:5 and
1:8a; Mark 1:8b and Luke 12:50
201lis
study, however, is not an attempt to dig into the psychology of John the Baptist. Rather,
it presumes an element of divine revelation inherent in John’s ministry.
21Wl F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, A Concordance to the Greek New Testament (rev.
H. K. Moulton, 5th ed.; Edinburgh: Clark, 1978) 215-16.
22Indeed, sitting
at the feet of Gamaliel, Paul would have been taught such a principle
as foundational.
23T. F. Torrance, in “The Origins of Baptism,” Scottish Journal
of Theology 5 (1958) 158-71, esp. pp. 158-60, is helpful here.
6
43
.
.
illustrate the latter. In that John’s “I
baptize you
… he will
baptize you
…”
pronouncement
contains both literal and
figurative allusion,
a
definition of
{3arr+(Cù
must be
sought
which satisfies both elements.
Two forms of the
Baptist’s saying appear
in the
Synoptic
narratives:
I have baptized you with water,
but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. (Mark 1:8)
I baptize you with water…,
but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
(Man. 3:11; Luke 3:16)
In the
broader, contemporary
use of the word as described
by
Jose-
phus
in Jewish War
IV,137,
Jerusalem was said to have been “over-
whelmed”
by
the
Romans,
while Plato
spoke
of
people “soaking”
or
“drowning”
themselves in wine.24
However,
since the
scope
of the
present study
remains within a narrower “Jewish”
context,
John the
Baptist’s
use of
8arr-rtCoi
should be viewed in
light
of its Jewish
antecedents.25
I. H. Marshall26 identifies two
pertinent
elements in properly under-
standing
John’s
concept
of
{3aTTT{(Cù. The first
involves a translation
which correlates the notion of
“drenching”
or
“drowning”
with both
“water” and
“Spirit.”
In this
manner,
a reexamination of the
phrase
“with the
Holy Spirit
and fire”
may proceed.
Representing
the
pinnacle
of the
prophets,
John was
unquestionably
familiar with
prophetic
allusion to fire and the
Spirit
in the Hebrew
scriptures.
Isaiah 34:9, Genesis 19:24 and Daniel 7: 10 refer to a river
or lake
consisting
of
fire,
as do several Jewish
apocalyptic
.sources: 4 Esdras 13:10,
Sybilline
Oracles 3:54, 84-86 and 2 Enoch 10:2.
Further,
the NT
Apocalypse speaks
of a “lake of fire”
(19:20; 20:10, 14;
and
21:8).
And
Qumran
literature contains one such allusion
(1QH 3:29).
A second clue is to address the
question
of whether the
Spirit
can be regarded
as “liquid,” for
scholarship
has tended to equate “Spirit” with
“wind” due to the various
meanings
ascribed to the Hebrew V17
(“spirit,” “wind,” “breath”).27
Crucial for our
understanding
is whether “wind” or “Spirit” fits the
Baptist’s pronouncement,
and whether allu-
sions to the
Spirit
with a “liquid” aspect indeed exist in the OT. The following
would seem to validate such a notion:
… till the Spirit is poured upon us from on high and the desert becomes
a fertile field … (Isa. 32:15)
For I will pour out water on the thirsty land and streams on the
I will
dry
ground; pour out my Spirit on your offspring… (Isa. 44:3)
‘
24Synpofiwn 176,6.
25Le., OT metaphorical allusion, Levitical washings, proselyte baptism and Qumran
lustrations.
261. H. Marshall, “The Meaning of the Verb .`to Baptize,'” Evangelical Quarterly 45 (1973) 130-40.
27J. Bauer, Bibeltheologisches Wdrterbuch – I (Graz: Styria,1959) 422-35.
7
44
I will no longer hide my face from them, for I will pour out my Spirit on the house of Israel, declares the Sovereign Lord. (Ezek. 39:29)
I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you will be
clean; I will
cleanse you … I will …
put a new Spirit in you …
And I will
in
put my
Spirit you … (Ezek. 36:25-27)
And afterward I will pour out my Spirit on all people … (Joel 2:28)
And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of
Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. (Zech. 12: 10)
That these uses of
Spirit-metaphor
were understood and current in John the
Baptist’s day
is evidenced
by
the
Qumran community’s Manual
of Discipline,
in which we find
written,
“He will cause the Spirit
of Truth to
gush
forth
upon
him like lustral water. ‘>28 The pseudepigraphic
Testaments
of
the Twelve Patriarchs,
reflecting
a measure of Christian
influence,
describe the heavens
being “opened unto him to
pour
out the
Spirit,
even the
blessing
of the
Holy Father.”29 John
7:37-39,
Acts 2:33 and Acts 10:45 also refer to the Spirit
in a “liquid” sense. And
Paul,
in I Corinthians
12:13, speaks
of being “baptized
into one
body” by
one
Spirit
and
being
“made to drink of one
Spirit.”
Could the
Baptist
have
envisaged
the
giving
of the Spirit
in such terms? Indeed. For
upon hearing
the words of Jesus regarding
the streams of
living
water
(John 3:37-39),
some in the crowd were
correlating
the
giving
of the
Spirit
with the
Prophet
and the Christ
(7:40,41). Something
current in Jewish
eschatological thinking
must have induced an association between the two.
While it is conceded that both “fire” and
“Spirit”
can be conceived of in “fluid” or “liquid”
terms, and therefore,
are able to stand in relation- ship to. f3aTríl(l1J,
one cannot be
“baptized”
with “wind.” The reader is left to
conclude,
after a survey of
evidence,
that a reading of
“Spirit” for
rpediia
is to be
preferred. Though contrary
to not a few NT com- mentators, the
“liquid”
sense of the Matthean-Lukan version of
“Holy Spirit
and fire” fits the
Baptist’s saying.
John
may
well have
envisaged a descent or
“pouring
out” of the
Spirit
from above as a stream of water would
pour upon
a person:
I have drenched you with water,
but he will drench you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
.
‘
The
Washing Metaphor
in Prophetic Literature
The
prophetic symbolism
in John’s
ministry
was not drawn from
any existing rite,
rather it stems from OT events and
prophecy.
As Samuel assembled all of Israel at
Mizpah, they
drew water and
poured
it out before the
Lord,
combined with
fasting
and confession of sin
(I
Sam. 7:6). David,
in Psalm
51, equates washing
with
purging
and
cleansing
28 1QS 4:20. 29T. Jud. 24:2.
‘
8
45
from sin.
Through
the
prophet Isaiah,
Israel is commanded to wash and be cleansed from sin which had become red as crimson and which, if
not dealt with, would result in
perishing by
the sword
(1 :16-20). Jeremiah also commanded Israel to be cleansed,
using
the
washing metaphor (4:14).
Ezekiel
prophesied
of the
Sovereign
Lord’s intent to cleanse the house of Israel
by sprinkling
with water
(36:24-28). Speak- ing
of the future
day
of Yahweh’s
visitation, Zechariah
declared a fountain would be
opened
to the house of David and Jerusalem to cleanse them from sin and
impurity ( 13:1 ).
Yet even in the dreadful
day
of the covenant
messenger’s purging, Israel would not be
annihilated, (Mal. 3:1-6).
Jerusalem would be washed and cleansed
by
a
spirit
of
judgment
and
burning, yet
she would be covered with God’s
glory
as a canopy and would shine with the
beauty
of holiness
(Isa. 4:2-6).
More
emphatically,
Yahweh declared that He would
pour
water
upon
a thirsty land and streams on the
dry ground (Isa. 44:3). Through
the
prophet
Joel it was
published:
And afterward I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and
will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams,
men will
daughters your young
see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will
pour
out my Spirit in those days. (Joel 2:28-29)
John’s
baptism possessed
a
religious significance.
An act which contains a “sacramental” element assumes:
(1)
the word of the Lord is-or has
been—-spoken,
and
(2)
the word of the Lord can be done or acted out.3? R. Schiixz defines “sacrament” as “the
present experience of future
anticipation.”31
Seen as
such,
the sacramental act relates then to the
“mystery”
of God’s
purposes. Originally,
the Latin sacramennun designated
“oath” or
“pledge.”32 Thus,
the dual
implications
of pledge or promise and
mystery
are
expressed through
the
prophetic
act. J. W. Bowker33 defines
prophetic
action as the “realistic release of the
energy
of
God,”
the “irreversible
setting
in motion of His
activity.” The
prophetic
act is hence not
merely
a prediction, but a “release of inevitable circumstances which
nothing
can avert.”34 Bowker notes that the sacrament has as its fundamental motive the
original prophetic act.35 It is not coincidental that John is one of the few biblical charac- ters whose name is associated with a title.
The OT
prophets frequently conveyed
truth
dramatically
for the sake of remembrance via the
prophetic
or symbolic act.
Thereby
future con-
30So Beasley-Murray, p. 43.
31R. Schiitz, Johannes der Täufer (Zihich: Zwingli, 1967) 46.
32Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language
(New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1959) 2054.
33J, W. Bowker, “Prophetic Action and Sacramental Form,” Studia Evangelica 3 (1964) 130. _
34Ibid.
– _
35Ibid., 129-32.
9
46
sequences
were
pressed
home to the audience in a vivid fashion. This
may
be seen in the
rending
of
garments (I Kgs. 2:29),
the
breaking
of an earthen flask
(Jer. 19), marriage
to a harlot
(Hosea)
or lying on both left and
right
sides
upon
the earth
(Ezek. 4).
The
very
same is demon- strated in Acts 21:10-11
by
the
prophet Agabus
who
depicts
Paul’s sure fate. In effect, the
prophetic
act set in motion the will of God.
In his book
By
Oath
Consigned,
M. G. Kline36 considers what he holds to be the
neglected meaning
within the sacrament of Christian baptism, noting
that
baptism
and
circumcision,
both of which related to covenant
ratification,
are a reminder of judgment in the
purposes
of God and covenantal
blessings.
At a
point
in Israel’s
history
when covenant-graciousness
was assumed and
judgment
was
standing
at the door, Jesus offered
a parable of a vineyard-owner who had
gone
into a far
country (Matt.
21:33-46
= Mark
12:1-12
= Luke
20:9-18).
Benefits of the
covenant,
of which John had served an
ultimatum,
were as follows: Yahweh
planted
the
vineyard;
Yahweh
hedged
it
about; Yahweh
dug
the
winepress;
and Yahweh built the tower. Jesus’ audi- ence is reminded of the covenant benefits while
being
issued the threat of
judgment.
In the same
way,
John’s
baptism prepared
Israel
by meeting
the divine condition of repentance, then
previewing
the char- acteristic
work
of the
“Coming
One”:
impartation
of the
Spirit.
One
particular
factor common to all of the
alleged
antecedents to John’s
baptism-Levitical washings, proselyte baptism, Qumran lustrations and
metaphorical
allusions
by
OT
prophets-is
the cleans- ing property
of water. John’s rite
qualifies
for what could be called an “impending water
ordeal.”37
Examples
from the ancient world serve to illustrate. The flood as described in Genesis 6-8 was a divine verdict upon people.
The Red Sea
(Exod. 13:17-15:21)
and the Jordan River (Josh.
3 and
4)
were instruments of both
judgment
and salvation. The same dualism is found in Isaiah 43:1-3:
‘
When you pass. through the waters,
I will be with
‘
And when
you;
you pass through the rivers, will not
‘ They sweep over When
you.
you walk through the fire, You will
not be burned;
The flames will not set you ablaze …
Both Paul and Peter remind their audiences that OT “water ordeals” (1
Cor. 10:2 and 1 Pet.
3:21)
serve as
ongoing examples.
One could even
argue
that Jesus Himself submitted to a “water ordeal” in the sense of His
baptism, identifying
with the divine verdict of judgment about to beset Him as well as the final New Covenant ratification. His
36K G. Kline, By Oath Consigned (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968) 62.
3?This is a description used by Kline in “Oath and Ordeal Signs,” Westminster Journal of Theology 27 127-30.
10
47
own
understanding
of
“baptism” might
be
interpreted through
His remark “I have a
baptism
with which to be
baptized” (Mark
10:38
= Luke
12:50).
G.
Delling38
has maintained that Jesus’ use of {3drm.uj1.a and (3aTTTLufJijvaL,
follows John’s line of
thinking.
Jesus’
saying concerning
Himself
implies
a “death
by drowning.”39
John’s Language
Of the three
Synoptic narratives,
it is Matthew and Luke who
portray the context of John’s
preaching
most
vividly. Although
Matthew’s emphasis
is the Pharisees and Sadducees while that of Luke is the crowds, 4?
both record John’s
metaphorical scourging
drawn from desert life
(“You
brood of
vipers,
who warned
you
to flee from the coming wrath?”).
In maintaining that God was able to raise
up
children from the stones
(Matt.
3:9
=
Luke
3:8),
John
may
have been
alluding to the
stones upon
which the clusters of vipers would bask.
D. S. Wallace-Hadri1141 has
suggested
an
exegesis
of TiKVa
Tti ‘A(3paáj1. (“children
of Abraham”) and
77jv ‘pl(av
7cZv 8iv8pwv
(“the root of the
trees”)
found in Matthew 3:9-10 and Luke 3:8-9
which, though
not
conventionally held,
nonetheless draws a closer relation- ship
between the two
phrases.
as’its Hebrew
equivalent
can bear a metaphorical as well as literal
meaning (an example being
found in Isa.
11:1,
where the
predicted
ideal ruler of Israel is said to
grow forth out of the
AIC77g of Jesse).
If this
interpretation
is justified, then John the
Baptist
could well have been
saying
that the
genealogical
tree upon
which the Jews had been
leaning
was about to be axed. Wallace- Hadrill
poses
the
fascinating question
as to whether the
Baptist may have been
predicting
a new
genealogical
tree-a new messianic race.42 Indeed national boundaries were
being lifted;
the New was
being
inau- gurated.
‘
After
recording
John’s
prediction
of the
“Coming
One” who would baptize
“with
holy spirit
and
fire,”
the Matthean text
(3:11) qualifies this
person:
“… whose fan is in his hand, and he will
thoroughly cleanse his
threshing-floor
and
gather
his wheat into the barn
(Luke: “his”
barn),
but the chaff he will burn
up
with
unquenchable
fire” (3:12).
The
language employed
is loaded with
metaphors
for
judg- ment :
*&axafJapl(w. “thoroughly (&& through) catherize,” “bum” or “cleanse”
(KaOapl(ltJ )43
38G. Delling, “f3drmUJ.La f3armufJfjIlO.L,” Novum Testamentum 2 (1958) 94.
39So Delling, p. 98.
40Cf. Man. 3:7 and Luke 3:7, 10.
41D. S. Wallace-Hadrill, “A Suggested Exegesis of Mt. 3:9, 10. (= Lk. 3: 8, 9),” Expository
Times 62 (1950/51) 349.
42Ibid. ..
43W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
11
48
*
