Kenneth W. Yates
Editor
I. INTRODUCTION
“I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit” (Mark 1:8).
In Mark 1, John the Baptist comes to the nation of Israel. His ministry is one of preparation. He paves the way for the coming Messiah. Part of that ministry involved baptizing the people in water. But he also informs the people that the ministry of the Messiah will be different. One difference will involve baptism. John declares to the people: “I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit” (v 8).
Clearly, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is greater than the baptism with water. The Messiah’s ministry will not only be different from John’s, it will also be greater. But to what does the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” refer? Who received this baptism? This article will attempt to address these issues.
II. THE MAJORITY VIEW
It is safe to say that in Acts 2, the majority of Evangelical scholars see in the birth of the Church the fulfillment of John’s statement concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In Acts 1:5, the Lord tells the disciples that they will be baptized in the Holy Spirit in a few days, and this occurs on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4). It appears as if this baptism initially was experienced by approximately 120 people (Acts 1:15).
Grassmick takes this view. He claims that this baptism of the Holy Spirit was predicted in the OT as an expected feature of the Messiah’s ministry (Isa 44:3; Ezek 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-29).1
Stein agrees and says that the baptism of the Spirit here in Mark 1:8 is associated with the Christian Church. The water baptism of John must be understood as Christian baptism. Both of these baptisms are to be taken together and are literal. The baptism of the Spirit begins in Acts 2 when the Spirit brings in the new age.2
In a similar fashion, France suggests that this baptism is also the fulfillment of Joel 2. It points not just to Acts 2, but to the “whole experience of the early Christian movement.”3 While this may be interpreted to mean he believes this was fulfilled in the first century, France later comments that the baptism of the Spirit is not what Pentecostals today maintain it means. Instead, it is associated with “authentic Christian experience.”4 This implies it refers to something all Christians today experience, probably when they are baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ when they believe (1 Cor 12:13).
The other Synoptic Gospels contain passages parallel to Mark 1:8. The majority view is often found in discussions of those passages as well.
A. Matthew 3:11
Matthew 3:11 contains the statement by John that Jesus will “baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” In the Majority Text the verse ends there. However, there is a textual problem. The Critical Text adds “and with fire.” Because both the Majority and Critical Texts contain “and with fire” in the Lucan parallel, the significance of the phrase becomes an issue and will need to be discussed since it contributes to a proper understanding of baptism with the Holy Spirit.
Walvoord holds that John’s baptism by water was strictly for the Jews and therefore is not to be equated with Christian baptism. It belonged to the old dispensation. However, the baptism of the Holy Spirit only applies to the Christian Church. It begins in Acts 2 and places the Christian into the Church, the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13). He says that the baptism of fire does not deal with the Church, but will occur at the Second Coming of Christ.5
Morris feels that the baptisms of the Holy Spirit and fire are connected and apply to the Christian. This is because only one preposition governs both.6 Fire is involved in the baptism of the Spirit on Pentecost with the tongues of fire (Acts 2:3). The reference to fire points to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian.7 He says that in the Lucan parallel it means the Christian is strengthened by the Holy Spirit.8
According to Keener, the baptism of the Spirit is experienced by Christians and the baptism of fire by non-believers. Joel 2:28-29 is the OT background for the Spirit baptism. It brings eternal salvation, but also prophetic empowerment. The baptism of fire refers to the eternal flames in the lake of fire.9 In the context, John also seems to speak of judgment (vv 10, 12). In v 10, John speaks of every tree that does not bear good fruit as being cast into the fire. In v 12 John says that the chaff will be burned with fire.
Carson does not see the fire mentioned in vv 10 and 12 as being connected with the baptism of fire. He agrees with Keener that Joel 2 predicts the coming baptism of the Spirit, but thinks that the baptism with fire is also for the Christian because the Spirit brings purification of sin.10 The fire of vv 10 and 12 refers to hell and the judgment on unbelievers.
B. Luke 3:16
Luke is the only Synoptic Gospel which unequivocally adds “and with fire” to the fact that Christ will baptize with the Holy Spirit. Bock discusses the difficulty in understanding the significance of the relationship between the two. In regards to how fire is associated with the Spirit, he gives four options.
One is that it refers to the tongues of fire which appeared at the birth of the Church in Acts 2:3. The second option is that both the baptism of the Spirit and baptism of fire point to the judgment of God, which is a minor view. The third option is that Spirit baptism is for the believer and speaks of eternal salvation, and the baptism with fire is one of judgment. This judgment is not necessarily a picture of hell since fire is a familiar metaphor for other judgments in the OT (Ezek 38:22 and Mal 3:2).11 As in the case with Matthew, Luke also speaks of judgment in the immediate context; this judgment involves fire (vv 9, 17).
However, Bock says it is unlikely there are two separate baptisms since it does not say “or” fire. He takes the fourth option. The Spirit and fire refer to one baptism. The Spirit purges people by dividing everyone into two groups: believers and unbelievers. The baptism of the Spirit began at Pentecost (Acts 2), which Ezekiel and Joel predicted (Ezek 36:25-27; Joel 2:28-32). Eternal salvation is offered to all. The fire here represents the fires of hell and not the tongues of fire in Acts 2. Jesus’ message means people either receive salvation or eternal judgment. It is a message for all people today.12
Hughes agrees with Bock that there is only one baptism in view here, but does so based on the existence of only one preposition governing both “Holy Spirit” and “fire.” He disagrees with Bock, however, that the fire refers to hell. Instead, like Morris, he says that the Christian is the recipient of both actions. The Spirit carries on an ongoing work of cleansing and purification, just as fire purifies metal. Both refer to an inner baptism of the Spirit at the moment of faith and continue throughout the life of the believer.13
Recognizing the difficulty of the connection between the Spirit and fire, Marshall freely admits that we cannot know what the baptism of fire means. In the OT, fire is associated with various types of judgment (Isa 29:6; 31:9; Ezek 38:22; Amos 7:4; Zeph 1:18; 3:8; Mal 3:2; 4:1). The pouring out of the Holy Spirit can be understood from the OT as a picture of judgment as well. But it can also be a picture of salvation.14
Green thinks Acts 2 is clearly the ultimate fulfillment of the baptism of the Spirit. But the context (v 17) also speaks of judgment so the reference to fire can have this connotation. This judgment is eternal and will come to those who do not accept the message of John to repent.15
Among the scholars discussed above, there are obvious differences of opinion. While most see the baptism of the Spirit as something Christians today have experienced, there is disagreement on whether judgment is also a part of Jesus’ message in Mark 1:8. The contexts of the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke certainly include the idea of judgment. The concept of a baptism with fire does as well. As will be discussed, the context of Mark also implies judgment. This will play a role in determining what is meant by the baptism of the Spirit.
II. JUDGMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF MARK 1:8
Not only does Mark not mention a baptism of fire, but in the context of Mark 1 there is no mention of a burning fire as there is in Matthew and Luke (Matt 3:10, 12; Luke 3:9, 17). However, the idea of judgment is not absent in Mark 1.
John the Baptist comes to the nation in the wilderness and calls the people to come out to him (v 4). This strongly implies that this prophet of God is not pleased with what is going on in the nation, especially Jerusalem. John’s clothes (v 6) remind the nation of Elijah (2 Kings 1:8).16 John is identified as the messenger of Mal 3:1 (v 2), and Mal 4:5 identifies that messenger with Elijah. The Lord will later say that John came as Elijah (Mark 9:13).
Elijah looked for repentance from the Jewish nation of his day (1 Kings 18:37).17 He ministered at a time of apostasy. Elijah had to flee and live in the wilderness because of the rebellion of the Jews against God (1 Kings 19). John not only dressed like Elijah and lived in the wilderness like Elijah, he also preached repentance (v 4).
To repent means to turn from sin (Jonah 3:8-10; Matt 12:41). The Jews in Elijah’s day needed to repent, and so did the people in John’s day. He was calling them to confess their sins (v 5). Jesus was offering them the kingdom of God (v 15). Before the kingdom could come to the nation, they needed to repent. In Deuteronomy 28, God told the nation of Israel that He would bless them if they obeyed Him and curse/judge them if they disobeyed. This was a part of the Law of Moses, the Old Covenant. During Jesus’ ministry the Law of Moses was still in effect. To be blessed with the kingdom, they needed to obey the voice of John, the prophet of God. With the coming of Jesus, God was offering the Jewish nation the blessing of the kingdom. If the nation did not turn from its sins, instead of blessing it, God would judge the nation for its sins.18
The Gospel of Mark shows that the nation did not listen to the message of John or Jesus and did not repent of their sins. Most did not believe in Jesus as the Christ to receive eternal life, either. As a result, the nation would be judged. In the Olivet Discourse in Mark 13, Jesus speaks of this coming judgment. This judgment fell on the nation in AD 70 when the temple was destroyed and the nation was scattered among the Gentiles.
III. THE AUDIENCE OF JOHN’S MESSAGE
As mentioned above, Walvoord is correct when he says that John’s message of water baptism was directed towards the Jews. France, based upon Acts 19:3, also recognizes that John’s baptism must not be equated with Christian baptism.19 Simply put, John was preaching to the Jews, and his baptism was directed towards them.
This is also seen in the kind of baptism he performed, i.e., a baptism of repentance that would result in the forgiveness of sins. This is not the purpose of Christian baptism. A new believer is not baptized in order to be forgiven. He does not have to confess his sins or turn from his sins prior to being baptized.
This makes it clear that John the Baptist is not on this occasion telling people how to become believers, that is, how to receive eternal life. He did proclaim the promise of everlasting life to all who believe in Jesus on other occasions (cf. John 1:7-9; 3:36; Acts 19:4). But here he does not speak of believing in Jesus for everlasting life. He does not speak of the grace of God. It is a mistake to use John’s preaching as a model for reaching unbelievers today.
This is confirmed by the word “repentance,” which is rare in Mark. The noun only occurs here in 1:4 and in 2:17. The verb “to repent” only occurs in 1:15 and 6:12. In all of these cases, the message is directed towards the nation of Israel. John’s baptism was to prepare the Jewish people for faith in the Christ who was to come.20 When John began his ministry of water baptism, he did not know who the Christ was; therefore, the people being baptized were not called to believe in Him before they were baptized. Of course, Christian baptism is different in that it takes place after a person believes in Christ.
It also needs to be noted that in John’s mind, the same group that he baptized in water was the group that was to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. John says, “I indeed baptized you (humas) with water.” Then, speaking of the Christ, John says that, “He will baptize you (humas) with the Holy Spirit.” The same Greek word occurs in both instances.
At face value, this seems to suggest that the baptism of the Holy Spirit here is something that the nation of Israel will experience. They are the ones to whom John ministered. A problem with many interpretations of this verse is that the different baptisms are for the benefit of different groups. Walvoord’s view, for example, is that John’s baptism is for the Jewish nation of his day. But the Spirit baptism is for believers in the church age and is not for the nation of Israel. He then goes on to say that the baptism of fire refers to unbelievers, who are not part of the Church, at the end of the Tribulation.21 Bock disagrees about the baptism of fire, but agrees that John’s baptism and the baptism of the Spirit are directed towards different groups. John’s baptism was for the nation of Israel, and Christ’s baptism of the Spirit was for the Church.22 This certainly creates confusion, and one can be certain that John and the original hearers would not have understood such distinctions.
France takes a similar approach. In Mark 1:8, he rightly says that the recipients of John’s baptism were not a part of the Christian Church. However, the baptism of the Spirit is for Christians. Since he does not believe in a Tribulation immediately before the coming of Christ, he does not see a third baptism of fire for a third group. Instead, he discusses Joel 2:28-32 and its description of the Tribulation and concludes it also describes conditions relevant to the Church.23
Stein attempts to erase this confusion by saying that both baptisms are directed towards the same group in Mark 1:8. To do so, however, he maintains that John’s baptism with water must be the Christian rite, since he believes that the Spirit baptism is referring to Acts 2. Stein goes on to say that the readers of Mark’s Gospel would have understood John’s water baptism in a Christian context.24 Even if some readers would assume that, the bigger question is whether John and his audience would have seen his baptism in that way. The Church did not exist. Jesus was unknown to them. John did not even know who the Christ was at that time. How could this be a reference to Christian baptism?
As discussed above, a common opinion among scholars as it relates to the recipients of the baptism in the Spirit concerns Joel 2:28-32. There is widespread belief that these verses predict this baptism.25 In a similar way, the promise of the New Covenant in Ezek 36:25-27 is often seen as predicting it as well. Those who take this view maintain that the baptism of the Spirit spoken of in Mark 1:8 is a description of the believer who receives the Holy Spirit at the moment of faith. This promise was fulfilled in Acts 2 at the birth of the Church. Peter quotes from Joel 2:28-32 during his sermon on that Pentecost (Acts 2:17-21). It is also held that this was not a promise just for the nation of Israel because the promise of the Spirit involves “all flesh” (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17). This would include Gentiles and is an allusion to the Church in the OT.
However, the passage in Joel 2 is a prophecy to the nation of Israel. The reference to “all flesh” refers to all kinds of Jews.26 Women, men, old, young, slaves, and free would receive the blessing of the Holy Spirit. Joel is describing the events immediately before the Second Coming of Christ. At that time, the nation of Israel will turn to the Lord in faith. The context (Joel 2:27) makes it clear that the Lord is addressing the nation of Israel with this promise. Barbieri correctly points out that while there was an outpouring of the Spirit in Acts, Joel 2:28-32 was not fulfilled. Israel did not enter into the benefits promised by Joel.27 It is clear that the descriptions of Acts 2:19-20 were not fulfilled and would not be until the whole nation of Israel repented. There was still a contingent aspect to Joel 2:28-32 being fulfilled.28
The same could be said about the New Covenant. This prophecy (Ezek 36:25-27 and Jer 31:31-34) is also a promise to the nation of Israel. Jeremiah 31:31 specifically mentions that the New Covenant is for Judah and Israel. It will be fulfilled at the Second Coming as well, when believing Israel enters into the kingdom.
Joel 2 does not say that the Jewish people will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. It says that God will pour out His Spirit upon His people, the Jews. The Church and Israel are not the same thing. Those who are part of the Church do indeed experience the baptism with the Holy Spirit when they believe (Acts 11:16; 1 Cor 12:13). But in Mark 1:8 when John preached in the wilderness, he had no concept of these things. He had something else in mind.
In light of Acts 11:16, it is best to see two different types of baptisms of the Spirit.29 There would be a baptism of the Spirit that members of the Church would receive. But this was not predicted in the OT. The Church was a mystery not revealed in the OT (Eph 3:3-6). The Church and this kind of baptism in the Holy Spirit would come after the nation of Israel rejected the offer of the kingdom by the Lord. What new believers experience with the baptism in the Spirit was a marvelous blessing that Mark 1:8 only foreshadows.
But John said that the same audience he preached to, the Jews, would also be baptized in the Holy Spirit by the Coming One. They were the ones who submitted to his water baptism. It was a large number of people (Mark 1:5). Most of those who were baptized by John did not believe in Christ. These unbelieving Jews will also be baptized by the Holy Spirit in some way.
IV. FIGURATIVE OR LITERAL?
When John says that Jesus will baptize his audience with the Holy Spirit, it is important to determine if this baptism is literal or figurative. The water baptism of John is clearly literal, and it is possible that the baptism administered by the Lord must be as well since John places them side by side in Mark 1:8. Stein takes it that way.30 This literal sense would indicate that the new believer in Christ experiences an immersion into the Body of Christ by the Spirit.
But it is certainly an option to see it as figurative. France points out that even if we take the position that the baptism with the Spirit describes the experience of the new Christian (1 Cor 12:13), there is no literal immersion or dipping into the Spirit.31 Morris agrees and concludes that since the other Synoptics link it with a baptism of fire, it must be figurative because we cannot imagine a literal fire baptism.32 Hughes claims that the baptism with the Spirit cannot be seen in the same way as John’s baptism because the work of the Spirit is an inner reality, while John’s water involved an external rite.33 In addition, there is plenty of evidence in the NT that the word “baptism” can be understood in a figurative way.
V. EXAMPLES OF FIGURATIVE BAPTISMS
It is almost universally held that the baptism of fire in Matt 3:11 and Luke 3:16 is figurative. If it refers to the fires of hell, the destruction of the nation in AD 70, or to the purifying work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer, it clearly does not refer to a literal baptism. Even today, in the military we use this word in such a figurative way—when a military unit first goes into combat, it is said that it experienced its baptism in fire.
In 1 Cor 10:2, Paul says that the Jews of the Exodus generation were “all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” While they did pass through the Red Sea, they did so on dry ground and were certainly not immersed in it or even became wet. The cloud led them in the wilderness. This is another example of a figurative baptism. Garland says it simply means they were associated with Moses and were placed under his leadership. A religious connotation may be found in that the cloud represented the presence of God. Moses was God’s ordained leader.34 Thiselton takes a similar view. In his opinion, this baptism simply indicates that the Jews of that generation were baptized under the influence of Moses.35
Fee also says it is figurative but that being baptized into Moses means that He was their deliverer. At the Red Sea he saved them from the Egyptian army. With the guidance of God in the cloud, he safely passed them through the desert.36 In this sense, Moses was a savior for them.
In Mark 10:38-39, Jesus uses the word baptize in a figurative sense. It refers to His suffering and death on the cross. He would be overwhelmed with agony and pain and tells the disciples that they will have a similar experience. They will also experience suffering because of their association with Him
A leading Greek lexicon says that this figurative use of the word baptism was common in the first century. A person can be baptized, that is, overwhelmed, by various things such as grief, lust, or debt.37
A few relevant examples outside of the NT also show a figurative use of the word baptism.
A. Isaiah 21:4
In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT, Isa 21:4 contains the word “baptism.” However, because of its highly figurative use, the English reader would not know the word was even present in any English translation. No such translation would use the word since a literal meaning would make no sense.
There is disagreement about the background of this verse. Some believe it refers to the fall of Babylon in war, while others think Isaiah is seeing a threat to Israel by Assyria.38 Whatever the particular situation, the prophet Isaiah is terrified by the prospect of war and the destruction it will bring. Isaiah says that he was overwhelmed (baptized) by fear because of lawlessness. The NKJV gives it a completely figurative translation: “fearfulness frightened me.” The NET says the Hebrew means “shuddering terrifies me.” A literal translation of the Greek would be “lawlessness baptizes me.” While this is figurative language, the meaning is clear. Isaiah is overwhelmed by terror. He is “immersed” in fear because of what he sees.
B. Josephus
The historian Josephus, writing in the first century, also used the word in a highly figurative way. Before the Romans besieged Jerusalem, the city allowed people from the surrounding areas to come into it for protection. The inhabitants thought these new tenants would be of help. However, Josephus says that this course of action “baptized the city.” As in the case of Isa 21:4, English translations of Josephus do not use the word baptized.
It is not possible to understand this phrase apart from the context. One must continue reading. Josephus goes on to explain that these new dwellers in Jerusalem depleted the provisions the citizens had stored up to support the defenders. This resulted in famine and led to rebellion. Their actions brought destruction upon the city in a strong way.39 One author translates the word baptized with the paraphrase, “direct cause of (the city’s) destruction.”40 The city was baptized in chaos and destruction because of their decision to take in these people.
VI. “BAPTIZE” IN MARK 1:8
Knowing that the word baptize can be used in a figurative way allows the exegete to look at other possibilities for the use of the word in regard to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. A literal understanding of the phrase would perhaps lead one to adopt the majority view and equate it with what happens to a believer in Jesus Christ when the Spirit places him in the Body of Christ. Mark 1:8 would point to Acts 2 and the birth of the Church.
However, there are problems with this view. John is speaking to the Jewish people. Such a literal interpretation would conflate Israel with the Church. Is it possible that the Jewish nation John addressed was baptized by the Spirit by Christ in another way?
The Gospel of Mark provides the answer to that question. In the immediate context, in fact in the very next verses, Jesus is anointed with the Holy Spirit (vv 9-10). The Holy Spirit descends upon Him in the form of a dove. This is the key to understanding what it means that Jesus will baptize the Jews with the Spirit. He is coming to them in the power of the Spirit. He is calling the people to Himself. The Spirit of God rests on Him. In light of the opposition from the religious leaders against Christ in the Book of Mark, we could add that the power of the Spirit does not reside in the temple in Jerusalem nor official religious Judaism.41
In the Book of Mark, Jesus will give overwhelming evidence of that power. It will be obvious and will occur right before the eyes of the people. It will be clear that the presence of God is in the Person of Christ. When Mark quotes from Isa 40:3 in v 3, the reader is reminded that the Messiah would come with the power of the Spirit (Isa 61:1).
This power and presence bring with them the possibility of judgment. The nation is called to repent of and confess its sins. If they do not, this judgment will come. In v 2, Mark had quoted from Mal 3:1, which speaks of judgment as well. The Messiah will come and purify the nation, and nobody can stand before Him (Mal 3:2-3). In the Malachi passage there is a reference to the righteousness of God, and in Jesus the nation would see that as well.
John calls Jesus the One who is “stronger” than he is (v 7). This strength comes, in part, from the power of the Spirit. This power is immediately put to the test when Jesus is impelled by the Spirit to go into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan (vv 12-13).
Jesus, then, begins His ministry with the anointing and power of the Spirit. This power is evident in casting out demons (1:25-26). He is also able to heal a variety of illnesses (1:29-34). A leper is healed simply by His word (1:41-42). A lame man is made whole, and Jesus shows that He is even able to forgive sins (2:1-12). He also claims to have power over the Sabbath (2:28). He continues to cast out demons and heal the sick as His ministry continues among the Jews (3:1-11).
Perhaps we could add that the power of the Spirit is also seen in His teaching. He teaches with authority and the people are amazed by the things He says (1:27).
Because of His Person, as well as the power of the Spirit, He is stronger than John and, as He shows, stronger than Satan when He casts out demons. He shows the nation this power over and over again. He has overwhelmed them with this power. How will they respond?
In answering this question, Mark makes a connection between the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and the rejection of the Lord and His ministry by the religious leaders in Mark 3:22-30. They proclaim that the display of Christ’s power was not in the power of the Spirit, but in the power of Satan. The only two times Mark uses the word “strong” are in 1:7 (“stronger”) and 3:27. He is “stronger” than John (1:7) and “stronger” than Satan (3:27).
As He begins His ministry being tempted by Satan (1:13), the next time Satan is mentioned is in 3:23. After John says He will baptize with the Holy Spirit (1:8), the next time the Holy Spirit is mentioned is 3:29. When Jesus begins His ministry, He offers the nation the kingdom of God (1:15). The next time the word kingdom is mentioned is 3:24. After His rejection by the religious leaders, Jesus gives a series of parables about the kingdom of God (4:11).
The connection between the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in Mark 1 and His rejection by the leaders in Mark 3 suggests a figurative sense of the baptism of the Spirit He brings to the nation of Israel. His miraculous works show that He is stronger than Satan and is able to bring the kingdom of God to the nation. His power is obviously through the power of the Spirit. In the Person of Christ, the nation has been “baptized” in that power. It was right before their eyes. Jesus tells the leaders that He has gone into the house of Satan (Israel) to set people free from disease and demon possession (3:27). After seeing the miracles the Lord performed, when they claimed that He was empowered by Satan, they were actually blaspheming the Holy Spirit since Jesus had gone out and done what He did through the Spirit (3:29).
This understanding of the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Mark 1:8 compares favorably with other figurative uses of the word. The baptism into Moses in 1 Cor 10:2 refers to being under the influence of Moses. In Jesus’ ministry, the nation would be under the influence of the Lord who came in the power of the Spirit. As Jesus would be overwhelmed by suffering with His baptism on the cross (Mark 10:38-39), so the nation of Israel would be overwhelmed by the dazzling display of the power of the Spirit in the ministry of Christ. This also is similar to the use of the word in the Greek translation of Isa 21:4.
We could also compare the reference in Josephus mentioned above. The actions of the people “baptized” the city of Jerusalem in a negative sense, as it was a baptism of destruction. The actions of the Lord baptized the nation in a positive sense, as He released people from what sin and Satan had brought to the nation of Israel in particular.
VII. CONCLUSION
John the Baptist was sent and ministered to the nation of Israel. He had no concept of the Church or Christian baptism. He paved the way for the Messiah and the coming of the kingdom of God for the Jewish people.
What did he mean, then, when he said that the Christ would baptize the people with the Holy Spirit? While it is possible that he was speaking prophetically, without knowing it, about the coming church age and Acts 2, the connection with Mark 3 suggests a better alternative.
John knew that the Messiah would come in the power of the Spirit (Isa 61:1; John 1:33). The figurative use of the word baptism is well attested both in the NT and other contemporary writings. John was saying that the Christ would baptize the nation with the Spirit in the sense that He would do works among them that would overwhelmingly prove that He came in the power of the Spirit of God. Just as the presence of God was at hand when the Jews were baptized into Moses, the presence of God through the Spirit would be abundantly evident in His ministry. The Spirit would be operating in their very midst.
The rejection of the Lord by the leaders in Mark 3 indicates that this work of the Spirit was also rejected. The nation would not turn from their sins in anticipation of believing in the Christ (Mark 1:4). The nation did not heed John’s call to repent. As a result, another figurative type of baptism awaited them. It would be a baptism of fire and judgment. Jesus predicted this judgment in Mark 13:2. It came to them in AD 70.
____________________
1 John D. Grassmick, “Mark,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983), 104.
2 Robert H. Stein, Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008), 50-51. See also, Barry K. Mershon, Jr., “Mark,” in The Grace New Testament Commentary, rev. ed., ed. by Robert N. Wilkin (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2019), 77.
3 Richard T. France, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 72.
4 Ibid., 73.
5 John F. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1974), 31-32.
6 The preposition en occurs before the words “Holy Spirit” but not before the word “fire.”
7 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 62.
8 Leon Morris, Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 107.
9 Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 127-28.
10 D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 104-105.
11 Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 1:1–9:51 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994), 322.
12 Ibid., 324.
13 R. Kent Hughes. Luke: That You May Know the Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1998), 117-19.
14 I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 146-48.
15 Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 181-82.
16 France, Mark, 69.
17 James A. Brooks, Mark (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1991), 40.
18 Joseph Dillow, Final Destiny (Monument, CO: Paniym Group, 2012), 870.
19 France, Mark, 71.
20 Zane C. Hodges, “Harmony with God: Part 3 of 3,” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 9 (2003): 25.
21 Walvoord, Thy Kingdom, 32.
22 Bock, Luke, 320-22.
23 France, Mark, 71-73.
24 Stein, Mark, 50-51.
25 Morris, Matthew, 61; Keener, Matthew, 128; Carson, “Matthew,” 105; France, Mark, 72; Bock, Luke, 322; Marshall, Luke, 146.
26 Robert B. Chisholm, Interpreting the Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990), 63.
27 Louis A. Barbieri, “Matthew,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983), 25.
28 Stanley D. Toussaint, “Acts,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983), 358.
29 A similar thing occurs with the promise of the New Covenant. In the NT, there are two New Covenants. Israel will enter the New Covenant promised by the Lord to them in Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 31 when the Lord returns. But the Lord also entered into a New Covenant with the Church (1 Cor 11:25). These two New Covenants are not the same and are not made with the same group of people.
30 Stein, Mark, 50.
31 France, Mark, 72.
32 Morris, Luke, 107.
33 Hughes, The Truth, 117.
34 David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003), 450-52.
35 Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 724.
36 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014), 492.
37 BDAG, 165-66.
38 John A. Martin, “Isaiah,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1067-68
39 Josephus, B.J., 4.137.
40 Flavius Josephus, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, trans. by William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1980), 670.
41 Allan Chapple, “Jesus’ Intervention in the Temple: Once or Twice?,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 58/3 (September 2015): 564.
