Baptisms (Part 1)

Foundations of the Christian Faith — Steve Gregg

Next in this series

Baptisms (Part 2)

00:00

Baptisms (Part 1)

Foundations of the Christian FaithSteve Gregg

In this segment, Steve Gregg delves into the biblical concept of baptisms as discussed in Hebrews 6. He examines the use of the word "baptismos," suggesting that it refers to Jewish washing rituals rather than the traditional Christian baptism. Gregg stresses the importance of unity in Christianity and the shared experience of baptism, urging against division and personal claims to baptism. He also explores the idea of baptism by fire, connecting it to trials and tribulations in the Christian walk.

Transcript

Let's turn to Hebrews chapter 6, which is our basic passage for this entire series on Foundations. Hebrews chapter 6, verses 1 and 2 give us the list of subject matter that is guiding us in our choice of materials, in the direction of our search. We are desiring to obtain in our own lives such a foundation as was normative or regarded to be normative in the early church.

I mean, the book of Hebrews obviously is a first century Christian document. It is apostolic even if it was not written by an apostle. We don't know whether it was or not.

It nonetheless embodies the teachings of apostles. And if it were not written by an apostle himself, it was written by one who was closely guided by the thinking of the apostle Paul, it would appear. Therefore, when we read of what the writer of Hebrews considered to be normative Christian foundations, we are really reading that which agrees with the apostles on this matter, whether or not Hebrews was written by the apostle Paul or some other apostle.

Now, we come to a very interesting subject today. We've covered the first two items in the list, which are repentance from dead works and faith toward God. And we come now to the third, which is in verse two, of the doctrine of baptisms.

And as usual, I'd like to define our terms at the beginning, and this will not be quite as easy to do in the case of the doctrine of baptisms as it was with the previous two subjects, repentance and faith. Repentance and faith, there's no dispute as to the meaning of the Greek words and for the most part the way those words apply to actions or to principles in the life. Whereas in this case, we've got a bit of a translational problem.

And once we get past the translational problem, if we can solve that, then there are problems to discern and to decide in terms of practice. Once we decide whether even baptisms is a good translation here or not, we then have to ask what are the baptisms? Why is it plural? What is baptism? And then there's a host of questions that arise. Who should be baptized? Who should do the baptizing? In what name should one be baptized? What is the method of baptism? Is baptism necessary for salvation? And all these questions.

I raise these questions because there are groups of Christians who answer each of these questions in ways differently than I would. And of course, there are groups of Christians who would answer them the same way I do. In all likelihood, we'll have a high level of agreement as we discuss these questions and seek the answers.

But there's also a good possibility that some of you will have some areas where you'll learn something more about what the Bible has to say about this. Now, the translational problem I referred to is trying to understand whether or not the translation I'm using is correct in rendering this the doctrine of baptisms. And the problem does not arise from on the word doctrine.

The word doctrine simply means teaching. And so the writer considered that teaching about some subject here translated baptism is part of the foundation of the Christian life. Now, if you are using any one of the major modern translations or even the older King James or New King James, the likelihood is great that you have in your text the word baptisms here.

There are some translations that have preferred another rendering. The New American Standard, which is for the most part, a very good translation, in my opinion, I believe uses the word washings here. The teachings about washings.

I think the RSV, I haven't checked this recently, but I think the RSV uses the word ablutions, or at least some modern translations use the word ablutions here instead of baptisms, which raises questions as to what is the Greek word? What does it mean? What is the writer talking about here? Now, I'll give you, first of all, the reasons that there is a problem. The word that is found here is baptismos or baptismos, the emphasis on the last syllable, baptismos, or in the plural, moi, baptismoi. You'd spell that if you used English characters rather than Greek ones, B-A-P-T-I-S-M-O-S is the singular, and if it was in the plural, you'd change the S to an I, baptismoi.

This is the word that is used here. Now, obviously, if you look at that word, it looks very much like our English word, baptism. However, it is not the regular biblical word for baptism.

The biblical word for baptism in the Greek is very much like it, but instead of ending with the letters O-S, it would just end with the letter A, baptisma, or actually the emphasis in that case is on the first syllable, baptisma. That is the Greek word, baptisma. That is the ordinary word for baptism, the practice, the Christian practice of baptizing, okay? But that isn't, the normal word for baptism is not used here.

In fact, the word that is used here is used three other times in the New Testament, not with reference to baptism. If you would like to look at Mark chapter 7, we will find two of the three other uses of this Greek word, and you'll see that the word means something very different than baptism in this particular usage. In Mark chapter 7, verse 4, verses 3 and 4, actually, says, For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders.

When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received to hold, like the washing of cups, the pitchers of copper vessels and couches. Now, the words for washing here, or wash, in the Greek, is this word that we're talking about, baptismos.

Washings, actually, is referred to in verse 4, and it would seem that, since this is the same word, that washings is a better word than baptisms, because we're clearly not talking about Jews baptizing, we're talking about Jews washing cups and hands and bodies and things like that. Now, if you look at the other, the remaining occurrence of this word in the Greek New Testament, it is also found in Hebrew. The passage we're looking at is in Hebrews 6 too, but the word in the book of Hebrews uses this word again in a place which clearly does not refer to baptism.

Hebrews 9, 10, probably to pick the context, we should read the beginning of the sentence, which is at Hebrews 9, 9, and then include verse 10. Hebrews 9, 9 says, It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered, which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience, concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation. Now, the word washings in verse 10 is, again, this word, baptismoi, or baptismos in the plural.

The plural of baptismos is baptismoi. Now, it's very obvious that here the writer is referring to Jewish washings. Likewise, in Mark chapter 7, the word means Jewish washings, and these are the only other times in the New Testament that the word appears except in the passage in Hebrews 6 too, the doctrines of baptismoi, which, of course, seems to justify the use of the word washings by the New American Standard translators.

Not only does that translation agree with its meaning everywhere else in the New Testament, but particularly the fact that the writer of Hebrews uses the same word elsewhere, where it cannot be mistaken for baptism. It must mean washings of the Jewish order and so forth. Therefore, it would seem like those translators that translated washings seem to have the upper hand.

But that's not the whole of the consideration. The word baptismoi is used outside of the Bible by Josephus in one place, and it is the brief passage where Josephus, a Jewish writer, not a Christian, nonetheless recorded something about the ministry of John the Baptist. And in his Antiquities of the Jews, John the Baptist's baptism is described by Josephus by this Greek word, baptismoi.

It is the baptism of John. Now, Josephus, of course, was not acquainted with the New Testament writings, but he used the Greek language in the way it was commonly known. Therefore, even though this word appears only very few times in the New Testament vocabulary, only four, and in three of those four it clearly means Jewish washings, yet Josephus' writings bear witness that the word was in common usage also to refer to baptism.

It can be translated baptism, or it can be translated washings. It has both possibilities. The word actually means to give, and that's likewise the meaning of baptismoi, the more regular word for baptism in the Greek New Testament.

It means to dip. It is the word that was used not of just religious dippings and baptisms, but of dipping a bowl in water for cleansing it, or rinsing it. If a person wished to dye a garment, they would dip the garment into a pot of dye, and that was a baptism, that was a baptizing it, that was the regular Greek word.

Baptism was not a religious word in the Greek language, it was a common verb for dipping something in something else. That's what baptismo means, baptismos. Now, it raises questions as to what it means here in this passage in Hebrews 6 and verse 2. Obviously, it can mean washings of the sorts that the Jews conducted.

It can also mean baptism, at least in one case, in an extra-biblical reference, it refers to the baptism of John. The question then is, what does it mean in this case? The Greek word can mean either way, it can be baptism or washings. As I said, those who translated washings are in the minority, but they seem to have a good argument in that the writer of Hebrews uses the same word elsewhere in Hebrews 9 and 10, where it clearly means washings.

But that doesn't mean that the word will only have that meaning every place that it's used, even by the same writer. A word can have a variety of meanings, even though the same writer might use it in more than one of its regular meanings. One of the arguments against the translation baptisms here is that it's plural.

It is said by many that, since Paul said in Ephesians 4 that there is one baptism, that no author of the New Testament period would speak of baptisms plural. And this is one of the reasons for arguing that the word is better translated as washings. The Jews had a multitude of washings, they did it regularly, repeatedly, on a daily basis.

But baptism was administered one time and was not repeated. Therefore, to speak of baptisms plural, in the minds of some, would be inconceivable, and therefore they prefer washings here. But perhaps the more fundamental reason for preferring washings as the translator here is that those who hold to this translation believe that the foundations of which we're reading are the foundations of Judaism, or are related to Judaism.

This notion comes of the fact that the readers were Jewish Christians who, as one can deduce from reading the entire book of Hebrews, they were in danger of going back to Judaism, and that the author here is warning them not to do so, not to go back to Judaism, not to go back to those foundations of their earlier religious life of Judaism, but to go forward into Christianity and to embrace all of its mysteries and all of its ramifications, and that they should not continually or go back to lay again the foundation of Judaism, which was once part of their lives. Now, if that approach to this passage is true, then my whole presuppositions in this entire series are wrong, because I'm treating these things as the foundations of Christian life. Now, as you can see, it's not a simple matter to discern.

I will give you my reasons for saying that these are descriptions of Christian foundations, not Jewish foundations. The first is that in verse 1, the author says that he's talking about the elementary principles of Christ, not the elementary principles of Moses or of Judaism. He's talking about the elementary principles of Christ.

Presumably, that means the basic things that Jesus taught or practiced, or both. That would seem to tell in favor of identifying these practices as Christian, not Jewish practices. Secondly, if we allow for the sake of argument that the author is concerned to list Jewish practices and the foundations of Judaism, we certainly would wonder why this list was the list he chose, since certainly far more fundamental to Judaism would be such things as the offering of sacrifices, the keeping of Sabbaths and certain festival days, the abstaining from certain foods, circumcision.

These would be the things that would be considered more the foundations of Jewish practice, temple worship and so forth. But rather, he talks about such things as are, except for this one thing, if it's washings, are quite normal Christian doctrines. And if they are held in Judaism as well, they're somewhat more obscure in Judaism.

It's true that repentance and faith and laying on of hands and resurrection of the dead and judgment, all those things can be found in Jewish thought, but they could hardly be said to be the central issue of Jewish thought. Even washings themselves were not central to Jewish practice, at least not as God prescribed it. There was in the Old Testament a law, in fact repeated laws, that indicated that a person who was ceremonially unclean as a result of touching a dead body or coming in contact with a leper or having some kind of a fluid discharged from the body, whether seminal or blood, that would make a person temporarily unclean ritually.

And at the period of uncleanness, when it came to an end, part of the ritual of being re-entering into society after a period of ostracism was that they'd wash their clothes and they'd wash their body. So there was, in the Old Testament, commands concerning washing. There were also, of course, commands concerning the priests washing themselves in the tabernacle, washing themselves with the labor of cleansing.

And on the Day of Atonement, the priest washed himself many times. So there were washings in biblical Judaism. But as I said, I don't really think that anyone wishing to identify the essential points or the fundamental issues of Judaism would have selected this particular list, and certainly washings would apparently belong on the list.

Baptisms, however, would belong on a list of Christian fundamentals, and that consideration would seem to tell in favor of this being, again, a list of Christian practices, and that would prefer, obviously, baptisms over washings. Now, the question might be asked, if the author did, in fact, refer to Christian baptism, why did he not use the regular Greek word for that, baptisma? Or baptisma, why didn't he use, why did he use the more unusual word, baptisma, which could be confused? Which sometimes means baptism, sometimes refers to Jewish washing. Perhaps because when these Hebrew Christians were originally taught about baptism, they were taught about it in the context of its replacement of Jewish washing.

That it is a thought that is connected with the washings of the Jews. We can see this by going back to John chapter 3, where John the Baptist's disciples get into a discussion with certain Jews. It says in John 3, 25, then there arose a dispute between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purification.

Now, purification has to do with washings, has to do with the ceremonial washings of the Jews, to purify themselves from ceremonially being unclean. Why did this come up? We aren't told. But it was almost certainly because John's disciples were practicing baptism, a practice that the Jews perhaps were not involved in at that time, it's not known.

At a later date, in the second century, it is known that Jews practiced baptism of Gentile converts, or what were called Carthalites. If a Gentile wished to become a Jew, wished to have the status of a Jew, he must circumcise himself, and at a later date, at least in the second century, he would have to undergo water baptism. But the Jews administered that to the Gentiles.

Whether the Jews practiced it as early as John the Baptist's time, a century earlier than we have records for, we don't know. But if they did, it is no doubt the fact that the principal element of John's mystery was baptizing people, getting them wet, dipping them. And the saw in that, no doubt, some kind of parallel to their own practices of purification, of washing their bodies, and of washing things, washing their hands.

And therefore, it was no doubt this similarity that got the discussion going about what was John's doctrine of purification? What was this baptism all about? Was it comparable to the Jewish washing, or was it not? And as a result of this, apparently one of the Jews said to John's disciples, you know that guy that your master John baptized? That Jesus guy, he's baptizing more than your master John is now. This must have been mentioned in the form of a dig to try to make them feel like they're back in the wrong horse. And perhaps they did feel that way, because it says in verse 26, when they came to John and said to him, Rabbi, he who is with you beyond the Jordan to whom you have testified, behold, he's baptizing, and all are coming to him.

So Jesus was now baptizing, and that apparently had come up in the conversation between John's disciples and those who were talking about purification with him. There was some confusion in the Jewish mind, and very probably in the Christian mind early on, especially the Jewish Christian mind, as to what were the connections between the concept of the washings in the Old Testament and the practice of baptism in the New. And the Hebrew believers to whom the book of Hebrews was originally written, no doubt had been taught about baptism in the context of what they already knew about ceremonial washings.

And therefore, in talking about baptisms and listing it as one of the Christian doctrines, the word that could refer to washings or baptisms, and is used both ways in the Greek, is used here, because perhaps that was the word that the Jews used more frequently when they spoke of it, because in their mind it connected the washings to the concept of baptism. But the question is, of course, when he talks about doctrines of baptismoi, or baptismoi, getting the accent right is perhaps a challenging drink, but it's, you know, what were they talking about? Were they talking about these Jewish washings, or were they talking about Christian baptisms? In my opinion, and in the opinion, apparently, of most translators, because most translators use the word baptisms rather than washings here, apparently they were talking about baptism, the Christian practice, but using a word which, in the minds of the readers, connected it with the whole concept of washings in general, and purification in general. And no doubt baptism, in their mind, was connected in its thought to those washings.

But it is easy for me to see how this list of things fit nicely into Christian practice, and even are fundamental and foundational to Christian practice. It is not as easy to see how they would be fundamental to Jewish practice. You don't have any law in the Old Testament that says you must repent, or that you must believe.

Repentance and faith are not highlighted in the law. We can see faith in Abraham's life, and faith in David's life, and faith in all the great characters' lives, but we don't see the Old Testament drawing attention to it particularly as an issue. Same thing with repentance.

We see David repenting of his sin at Bathsheba, but we don't see anything in the law that commands repentance or suggests that there be any forgiveness on the basis of repentance. Forgiveness was to be had on the basis of offering sacrifices in the Old Testament. They're not even mentioned in this list.

Therefore, all things considered, and there are many things to consider, I favor the translation that is found in the version I'm using, and which is used in most versions, although I can appreciate the position of those who take the other position. The position that he's not here talking about baptism, but washings. Obviously, the Greek word can mean that.

The author used the same Greek word to mean that very thing elsewhere in his epistle, and of course, there is the argument to be made that he's talking about Jewish foundations, not Christian. Nonetheless, for the reasons that I gave you, I believe that Christian foundations are here. They are called the elementary principles of Christ, not of Moses, and the things mentioned are taught by Christ, not by Moses.

At least, most of them are. There's not any direct teaching by Jesus on the subject of the laying on of hands, but the concept behind it can be found in Christ's teaching as we shall see later when we cover that subject, which is next, that's the baptism. But we're going to move forward on the assumption that the writer is talking about baptisms, and that that is the best translation.

Not all will agree with us on that choice, and that's certainly their prerogative, but we have to make some kind of decision if we're going to talk about this subject, and I believe the evidence in general favors baptisms rather than washings here. That's my conclusion. Now, the question raised by those who hold the other view, and a very good one, is why plural? Why baptisms? Does not Paul say there's only one baptism? Why, then, would the writer speak of baptisms? Well, that's a very good question, and we might as well look to the passage in Ephesians, which is the source of the objection.

Ephesians chapter 4 and verse 5, Paul says there's one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Now, in order to understand what Paul is getting at, we need to take a bigger look at the picture, at that passage. We need to draw back a little bit and see the verses that are around in the context.

In fact, it's best, I suppose, if we start at the beginning of the chapter. Ephesians 4, 1, Paul says, I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness and long suffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 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.

Now, it's quite obvious from verse 3 on that Paul is making an appeal for unity among the Christians. And while he does not suggest that Christians see everything eye to eye, or that, you know, Christians are alike in every respect, he does list a number of things in which all Christians are alike. And these are the most important things.

These are the key issues. These are the basis for our unity. We do not find our unity in our opinion about end times prophecy, or our opinion about head coverings on women, or our opinion about, even our opinion about how the Trinity is to be explained.

Those are not the issues that all Christians agree on and which are the basis of the unity. But the issues that are shared by all true Christians are listed, some of them at least. There's one body.

If anybody's in a different body than the body of Christ, then they're not a Christian. There's one spirit. If anyone has a different spirit than the Holy Spirit, then they're not a Christian.

And he goes on, there's one hope, which would have to do with eschatology, had to do with the second coming of Christ. One Lord, obviously if you have a different Lord than Jesus, you're in a different religion. One faith, which probably refers to the faith, many times the expression the faith is an expression simply for Christianity itself.

When Paul says many will depart from the faith, and examine yourself and see if you are in the faith. And when Jesus himself said, when the Son of Man comes, will he find the faith on the earth? The faith is simply a reference to Christianity, which was no doubt embodied largely in what Jesus taught, being passed along to the disciples. They were in the faith as they were taught, and remained true to what Jesus said.

And we all Christians have the faith. And there's one baptism. Now what does he mean here? Obviously his purpose for mentioning one baptism is to make an appeal for unity, just like his reference to all these other things that we all share in common.

Now, there are two ways we could understand this. One would be to say there is only one experience that any Christian might have, which could be called in any sense a baptism. And in all likelihood, water baptism would be intended.

And if this is Paul's meaning, then once you've had water baptism, you've had all the baptisms there are, because there's only one baptism for you. There's nothing else in your life that could be called a baptism, only the time when you were water baptized, and that alone can be called a baptism. The word cannot apply to any other experiences in your Christian life, because there's only one thing in your life that you can call a baptism.

That's one way he could mean it, but it would hardly agree with the data of Scripture elsewhere, as we'll see in a moment. The other way it could mean is this, that when you were baptized, you were baptized into Jesus. And all Christians were baptized into Jesus when they were water baptized.

None of them were baptized into Paul, or into Apollos, or into Cephas, or into John Calvin, or into Jacobus Arminius, or into Kenneth Hagen, or into Chuck Smith, or into John Wimber, or into Paul Jungi Cho, or into Menno Simons, or into any other particular man. Although many Christians have followed the teachings of such people, all were baptized, not into those men, but into Christ. When Christians entered the church, they entered through Christ.

Now, the church they entered into in our time may be more fond of the teachings of this teacher, or that teacher, or another teacher, but still, whatever the differences in doctrine or preferences of belief that we share, we all have received the same baptism. Namely, when we were baptized in water, all were baptized into Christ. Now, is there any support for this second interpretation of what Paul is saying? If this second interpretation is really what he's saying, then he's not making a comment about whether there are other things besides water baptism that can be called baptism.

By saying there's one baptism, he's not denying that there might be some other things you could call baptism. He is saying, however, that all Christians share in common the fact that they were baptized, and when they were baptized, there weren't a variety of different kinds of baptisms, or different formulas, or different names that were used. All were baptized into Christ.

Look at Romans 6. Romans 6.3. We'll have occasion to look at this passage again to make another point later, but I just want to show you what Paul says here in the first part of the verse. Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Now, notice he describes the Christian experience. He suggests it's universal.

As many of us as were baptized into Christ, so-and-so, we were baptized into his death. That's what our baptism into Christ involved. But he assumes that all Christians have been baptized into Christ.

Look over at 1 Corinthians, however, in chapter 1. In 1 Corinthians chapter 1, Paul becomes concerned very early on about the disunity in the church of Corinth, and that also was his concern in Ephesians 4, where he talks about there being one baptism. He was concerned about unity. Here also, it's his big concern in 1 Corinthians 1, beginning at verse 10.

Paul says, Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, that there be no divisions among you, and that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been declared to me, concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you. Now, I say this, that each of you says, I'm of Paul, or I'm of Apollos, or I'm of Cephas, or I'm of Christ.

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Now, note at the end of verse 13. Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Christus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. You weren't baptized in the name of Paul.

He didn't baptize in his own name. He baptized in the name of Christ. You were baptized into Jesus, not into Paul or into Apollos or Cephas.

Now, notice verse 10 is very much like Ephesians 4, 3, where he says, Endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Same appeal in 1 Corinthians 1.10. Be unified. Let there be no division.

Speak the same thing. Be perfectly joined in the same mind and the same judgment. In both passages, unity is the concern.

And in both passages, baptism is mentioned. However, in 1 Corinthians, it makes it clear that his concern is that, don't you remember you were baptized? You were baptized into Christ, all of you. You weren't baptized into this guy or that guy or some other guy, which if you were, you might consider yourselves worthy of starting separate churches under those names.

Sadly, that's exactly what has happened. Although today, still no one is baptized into the Pope or baptized into Martin Luther or baptized into Menno Simons or into this or that leader. Still, at least, churches have gone so far as to, have not gone so far as to eliminate the fact that when they baptize, they baptize into Jesus Christ.

However, the spirit of it is sometimes such that they feel like the church that baptizes them owns them. And the teacher who most influences that denomination, in a sense, owns them. There are many who definitely have the same spirit Paul's complaining about.

I am of Luther. I am of Calvin. I am of whoever.

Arminius. And that is the spirit that Paul is complaining about. But in the context, he makes it clear that he was concerned that had he done things otherwise, people might say they were baptized into Paul.

They might claim that he baptized in his own name. Look over at 1 Corinthians 10. 1 Corinthians 10, Paul is basically calling to remembrance some of the experiences of the Jews in the wilderness under Moses and showing that there are similarities between them and us.

After he mentions some things, he says in verse 6, now these things became our examples to the extent that we should not lust after evil things as they did. So he's giving examples of the Jews in the wilderness to say this is an example for us not to follow or to follow. There are many comparisons that can be made between the Jews wandering in the wilderness and the Christian life.

In fact, I think we can show at a later time that this is an intentional type in the Bible. That what happened to the Jews in the wilderness is very much a type of the Christian life, which we'll talk about some other time. But look at the first two verses.

Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all of our fathers were under the cloud and all passed through the sea. All were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. All ate the same spiritual food, etc., etc., etc.

Why does he say they were baptized into Moses? Well, no doubt when he says in the cloud and in the sea, he in the sea refers to them passing through the water, just like when a person is baptized today. There's water involved, so they also pass through the Red Sea. Paul is figuratively referring to that as their initial baptism, the baptism of the Jewish race.

Well, when they were baptized, they weren't baptized into Christ. They were baptized into Moses, which means that they acknowledge Moses as their leader. Everyone who followed Moses through the sea or went through the sea under his instruction was identifying with Moses, saying, he is our leader now, no longer Pharaoh.

If they wanted to stay on the other side, they could go back and serve Pharaoh again. But their choice to pass through the sea was a declaration that they were with Moses in this deal and they were acknowledging his leadership. And they were baptized into Moses, figuratively speaking.

Now, Paul says that all Christians have been baptized into Jesus. And he would be very concerned if he learned that someone was baptizing in the name of Apollos or of the name of Cephas or in the name of Paul. That would concern him, because that would not be the one Christian baptism that all Christians share.

We've all been baptized into Christ, and when Paul says in Ephesians 4, 5, there is one baptism, it's in the context of trying to say, this is what we all have in common. When we were baptized, we weren't baptized into Paul or Cephas or Paul, we were all baptized into Christ. We're all Christians.

We're not Paulites or Cephasites or Apollyonites, Apolloites or whatever, Apolites. We are Christians. And so when he says there's one baptism, what he is saying is that when Christians are baptized, they all share in the same experience, the same formula, the same identification with the same person, namely Christ, not a whole bunch of other lesser persons.

He is not, however, it is not in the range of his consideration to discuss whether there are other things besides water baptism that could justly be referred to as a baptism. If it could be discovered that there are other things in the Christian life that can be referred to as baptisms as well as water baptism, then we have no difficulty with the writer of Hebrews referring to the doctrines or teachings about baptisms. Now, of course, there are places in the New Testament that speak of other baptisms.

Let's look over at Matthew chapter 3. In Matthew chapter 3, we read of three distinct baptisms. Some would see two. I believe there are three, and we'll take a look at what it says here.

John the Baptist is the speaker of the verses that we're going to read. Matthew 3, verses 10 through 12, there are some things in these verses that I think have been widely misunderstood and some that have been really puzzled over. John the Baptist said, Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees.

Therefore, every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto 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. His winnowing fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly clean out his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn. But he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Now, the verse in the very middle of that passage, verse 11, refers to baptism, or we should say baptisms, plural. John says, I baptize with water. But he clearly refers to at least one other baptism.

He that comes after me will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Is that one or two different baptisms at the end there? Well, we'll talk about that. One thing I would like to point out, though, that we immediately see that there is more than one baptism.

No doubt, the early disciples of Jesus had been baptized by John initially in water. Later, they were possibly, we don't know, they might have been baptized by Jesus later, for all we know. It's not recorded whether they were.

And later still, baptized in the Holy Spirit. And then the question of baptism with fire needs to be discussed. Now, we can see there that the word baptism can be used in more than one kind of thing.

In addition to baptism or dipping in water, you can be dipped in the Holy Spirit or immersed in the Holy Spirit or in fire. And that too does not exhaust all the things in the Bible spoken of as baptisms. I should point out that when John baptized in water, that was not even the same baptism as when Jesus baptized in water, or at least when the apostles baptized in water after Pentecost.

And the reason I say that is that the apostle Paul encountered some men in Acts chapter 19, 12 men in Ephesus, who had been baptized with John's baptism, and that's all they knew. But Paul preached the gospel to them and baptized them all over again in the name of Jesus. And it's quite clear that Paul did not consider that their baptism and John's baptism was the same as normative Christian baptism, although both involved water.

So here we have a great complexity of thought associated with the word baptism in the Bible. There is water baptism, and even of that there's two. There's John's baptism, and then there's Christian baptism, which is not identified with John's.

John's baptism was no doubt symbolic of washing, probably symbolic of washing away sins, because it was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. It was simply a sign that was given that people had repented of their sins and wished to be cleansed, and so they underwent this ceremony of dipping in water in order to designate that fact. Jesus' baptism, however, carries much more significance, which we'll discuss later in this lecture or in the next.

The baptism of Jesus has far more depth and meaning to it, and signifies far more than just that a person has repented of sins and wants to be cleansed. We'll explore those meanings a bit later here. Now, what I'm saying is if you would search the Scriptures, you'll find that there are many more than one baptism.

There's John's water baptism. There's Christian water baptism. There's what John called the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus used the same term later on, as we'll see.

There's what John called baptism in fire, and there's another baptism, too, that Jesus speaks of very obscurely in Mark chapter 10. In Mark chapter 10, James and John came to Jesus requesting that they might sit at the right hand and the left hand of Jesus in his kingdom, a modest proposal. And in verse 38, Jesus said, you do not know what you're asking.

Are you able to drink the cup that I drink and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? Now, drinking the cup is not too hard to understand, because Jesus later prayed that the cup would be taken from him and he would not have to drink it. But when his sufferings came, he said, the cup that my father has given me, shall I not drink it? So we know that the cup he speaks of is suffering and death. No doubt, his baptism is the same, is a reference to the same, his suffering and his death.

He was to be immersed or dipped, overwhelmed, is another way to put it. Do you know the word overwhelmed means to have water cover you up? We don't use that term always that way when we're talking about overwhelmed, we use it figuratively now, overwhelmed by some circumstance. But actually the word overwhelmed means flooded over, to be immersed.

So baptism can mean overwhelmed or immersed or dipped. And he was to be overwhelmed with suffering, to be dipped or immersed in great suffering. And that is what he said they would have to be prepared to do also.

There's another very obscure statement where Jesus used the word baptism. Likewise, not referring to water baptism and probably not referring to baptism of the Holy Spirit either. In Luke chapter 12, in verse 50, Jesus made this obscure comment, very difficult to interpret.

Yeah, verses 49 and 50. He says, I came to send fire on the earth and how I wish it were already kindled, but I have a baptism to be baptized with and how distressed I am until it is accomplished. This statement about sending fire on the earth could mean any number of things and I've heard very many interpretations.

But when he says, I have a baptism to be baptized with, no doubt he has the same thing in mind that he said in Mark chapter 10, which we looked at a moment ago, verse 38, where he said to the disciples, are you able to be baptized with the baptism that I am to be baptized with? I have an immersion to be immersed in, namely my sufferings. So even though, of course, this is figurative, it is still a use of the word baptism. So certainly the word baptisms, plural, is not unjustified when we're talking about the use of that term in Christian experience.

Christians might be, in those days, might have been baptized by John. Later they might have experienced Christian baptism. Later still, the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Later still, they may have been baptized in sufferings. Now, of course, we have not discussed what is the baptism in fire. This, unfortunately, requires a little discussion because of so many different opinions that exist on it.

And once we know what it really means, we'll find that it was hardly worth all the time discussing it. It's one of those things that, a matter of probably lesser importance, has taken on a great weight in the minds of some people who have, in my understanding, mistaken what it's referring to. And then it takes all kinds of time to undo the mistake.

Once you've got it undone, you realize it was a mistake that made very little difference anyway. But because you commonly hear, especially in spirit-filled circles, reference to being baptized in fire and our need for a baptism in fire, it is good for us to take a look at what this is talking about. I say charismatic in Pentecostal circles because it is Charismatics and Pentecostals that emphasize the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

And John said that when Jesus comes, he will baptize in the Holy Spirit and with fire. Therefore, persons who are concerned and maybe even obsessed with the idea of baptism of the Holy Spirit, they also want to make sure they didn't just get the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but also the baptism in fire. Well, what is it? What is the baptism in fire? I've heard a variety of views.

One view is, and perhaps the one most common, is that fire is to be identified as zeal. That the person who is baptized in the Holy Spirit is also simultaneously baptized with a degree of zeal that was lacking before. The fire would fit well into our common metaphor.

It's talking about someone being an on-fire Christian or not being lukewarm. They're hot. They're not lukewarm.

They're a flame for God. And there is no doubt some evidence in the Bible that once a person is baptized in the Holy Spirit, there is an increase in this very quality of zeal and of being a flame for God. I can testify that, so in my own life, but it would appear to be so biblically as well.

Peter certainly had a change in that way after the day of Pentecost. His timidness, which was evident beforehand when he was accused of being one of Jesus' followers, and he denied it three times, was replaced with great boldness and great zeal on the day of Pentecost. After the Spirit had come upon him, he got up and looked his accusers in the face, the very ones that he was afraid of before, and he started blaming them and saying that they had crucified God's Son and so forth, saying things that were very inflammatory, but obviously not terrified by his accusers.

There is a new boldness, a new zeal, and it can be argued that this might have been the result of his having been filled with the Spirit that very day. And there are many Christian testimonies, I think, that can be brought forward to suggest that this is an effect of being baptized in the Spirit, that there is, in fact, a baptism in zeal, or one becomes more aflame for God, to use the metaphor. But the question is, is that what John is referring to when he talks about being baptized with fire? I think not, and the reason I think not is because of reasons I will give you in a moment.

I want to survey the views I don't agree with first, but I want to say that I don't oppose the idea that a person may be set aflame by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but I'm not sure that that's what's being referred to here. Some people think that it's referring to the flames of fire that appeared over the heads of the disciples in the upper room when the Holy Spirit came upon them. It says that there appeared over them, as it were, tongues of fire.

Now, that, of course, would be a very natural association with the two passages. He will baptize the Holy Spirit with fire, and then you turn to Acts chapter 2, and along with the baptism of the Holy Spirit came tongues of fire. The question is, is that likely to be what John is referring to? I think not, again.

One of the problems with it is that that was not a regular occurrence on all the occasions when people were baptized in the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Spirit was not regularly accompanied by this visible appearance of fire, even though you'll read five different cases in the book of Acts where people are baptized in the Spirit only once you read of these tongues of flame. And if we want to say, well, okay, but the day of Pentecost was the initial time, and Jesus did baptize them with the Holy Spirit and fire on that one occasion, not on later occasions.

Later, it was just the baptism of the Holy Spirit, not the fire. But then why would he mention the fire particularly? It's not at all clear why the fire even appeared or what its significance was, and it wasn't the only strange phenomenon that happened. There was also apparently the supernatural audible phenomenon of the sound of a mighty rushing wind.

Why doesn't John the Baptist mention that as well? Why should the flame stick out in his attention as significant? It is not impossible that he means this, but I don't think it fits the context, and I think there's a better answer to what he means when he says the baptism of fire, which we'll mention in a moment. A third view that is fairly common to hear is that baptism in fire refers to suffering or persecution. In favor of this, of course, is the fact that Jesus twice, as we noticed in Luke 12 50 and Mark 10 38, in both places, Jesus spoke of his own sufferings in this way, as a baptism.

He didn't say baptism in sufferings, and much less did he say baptism in fire, though he may have intended it. He certainly did speak of sufferings as a baptism that Christians must face, and some have felt that such sufferings can be expected on a grander scale after one has been baptized in the Holy Spirit. It is no doubt historically the case that Jesus was baptized in the Holy Spirit while he was in the River Jordan, and the Spirit came down upon him in the form of a dove.

The very next thing that happened was he was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil for forty days. A time of testing came, a time of deprivation and temptation, and so some would say, well, that's normative. When you get baptized in the Spirit, you can expect trials.

One Pentecostal preacher, fairly well known, I heard years ago, he was asked what is the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and since he was a Pentecostal person, he thought he would say tongues, but without batting an eye, he said trouble. The evidence of the baptism of the Spirit is trouble. Now, I don't know whether he interprets the baptism with fire as baptism in trouble or not, but the New Testament does use the metaphor of fire to refer to trials.

Peter says in 1 Peter 1, 7, that if need be, you are in manifold temptations, so that the trial of your faith being much more precious than of gold that is tested, though it be tried with fire, may be found unto honor and glory, and so forth, in the appearance of Jesus Christ. Now, he indicates that the trials that we go through are like fire trying gold, and so there is a biblical warrant to at least entertain the notion momentarily that the baptism of fire might be a reference to these trials, and there are some who have understood it so. I do not.

Over the years, I have entertained all these ideas. I've had many years to think about this, not as many as some of you have, but I have nonetheless thought about it for a great long time, the entire length of my teaching career, which is now 23 or 24 years, and even probably before that, the questions about this crossed my mind. What is the baptism in fire? I have at various times held to this view, then to that view, then to the other view, all the views I mentioned.

I even encountered a fourth view, which is fortunately, mercifully, not widely held. Some really esoteric, mystical sort of Pentecostal guy I knew said that we need a third work of grace. The first work of grace is justification, the second is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the third work of grace is a baptism in fire, which he identified as a wall of fire invisibly around us that defends us from all attacks of the enemy and makes us invulnerable and so forth.

Kind of a strange teaching. I never heard it anywhere else but from this one person, and I seriously doubt that it's widely held, but someone must hold it. He thought that it's almost like, I don't know if you remember the old commercial, some of you are too young and I haven't seen TV in recent years enough to know whether it's still on the air or anything like it, but there used to be a commercial about bad breath and the need for using, I don't know, clorets or something like that for your breath, and there's this picture of this person at a party and he's trying to talk to people, but then this big glass dome, like a big upside down beaker is over his head and he's confined in this beaker, and it's like his bad breath has put a wall between him and everyone around him.

This guy was explaining the baptism in fire in these terms. I couldn't help but think of that commercial, this big shield of fire around you that keeps you from your enemies and so forth, but I never for a moment swallowed that one. That has so little to commend it.

You heard that one too? Well, it must be out there. I heard it in California. You probably heard it in Oregon, right? So it's an interstate problem.

Anyway, that is a fourth view that I never have held and I don't think there's anything to commend it, but it is held by some, so I mention it. Now, there is a fifth view which, in my judgment, is the correct view. My judgment may be wrong, but I'll give you my reasons and you can make your own judgment about it.

One of the crazy things I do is use the context to help understand things. Some people never think to do that, but one thing of interest is that verse 10 and verse 11, which is the verse in question, and verse 12 all end with the same word. Ever notice that? That word is fire.

Verse 10 ends with the word fire and verse 12 ends with the word fire and so does verse 11. In verse 11 it is that he will baptize with fire. Now, it is not a foregone conclusion and it does not go without saying, but it is at least a very real possibility that fire in those three verses may mean the same thing each time.

There is no question but that it means the same thing in verse 10 as it means in verse 12. In both places a contrast is being drawn between the saved and the lost. In verse 10 he says, and even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees.

Therefore, every tree which does not bear fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Verse 12, his winnowing fan is in his hand, which simply is a reference to the tool that was used for separating wheat from chaff on the threshing floor. And he will thoroughly clean out his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Now, the fire in verse 10 is the fate of the trees that produce no fruit. The fire in verse 12 is the fate of the chaff. Fruitless trees and chaff have something in common.

They are inedible. They have no value. These are in contrast with trees that do have fruit and with wheat, both of which do have value and presumably are to be preserved.

The wheat is specifically said to be brought into the barn. There is nothing said about the trees that do produce fruit, but it is assumed that they will be retained since it is those without fruit that will be cut down. So, in both verses 10 and 12, John the Baptist is making a reference to two possible fates.

One fate is to be preserved alive because you are bearing fruit and useful and worth keeping around. The other is the fate of those who are worthless and fruitless, whom God has no reason to keep around. And that is the fate of fire.

Now, is it impossible to read verse 11, the verse that falls right between those two, with that same concept? Could there be a distinction being made? Jesus will come with a double baptism. Some will receive one. Some will receive the other.

Jesus will come baptizing virtually everybody of John's listeners. Some will receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Some will receive the baptism in fire, which is judgment.

Now, it will help a little bit if you have a little historical background on this, and we'll have more occasions to talk about this particular historical background as we come to other passages in the scripture, but we'll need some of it right now. Many Christians are not aware that one of the most important things that ever happened in redemptive history happened in 70 A.D. No doubt some of you have already caught wind of the fact, through grapevine from former students or whatever, that we have occasion to mention this date many times in this school. There are actually jokes made about it.

One of our graduating students two years ago said, when I leave this school, there are three dates I'll never forget, 70 A.D., and 70 A.D. Last year, one of our students, who I mercifully retained as a second year student, drew a picture of me standing at a podium with my Bible open and a few students in the class taking notes, and in my Bible all the margins said 70 A.D., 70 A.D., 70 A.D., pointing at every verse in the Bible. I let him stay on anyway. There have been jokes made about the high profile that this date receives in our teaching here, and the reason for it is, in my opinion, it deserves it.

Now, every time we talk about this, you will have occasion to compare what I have to say about 70 A.D. with whatever other opinion you have heard on the same passages. I do not insist that people agree with me, but I would like Christians to become aware of something that most Christians are not very much aware of, and that is that in the year 70 A.D., the permanent end of the Old Covenant was declared by an act of God to have come. The end of the Old Covenant was sealed with the destruction of the temple, the end of the priesthood, the end of the sacrificial system, which had been instituted over 1,400 years earlier, almost 1,500 years earlier.

God had established that system as the means by which men would approach God. The only means that God had ever ordained for men to approach God, and for over a millennium and a half, 1,500 years almost, I should say, this is the means, the God-ordained means that men would use to approach God. It came to a final end in 70 A.D. Now, that is not a matter of small significance.

Obviously, the validity of the sacrificial system ended before that. When Jesus died on the cross in 30 A.D., 40 years earlier, he brought the real end of the temple system. It was never necessary after 30 A.D. when the veil of the temple was rent and Jesus died on the cross and he instituted the New Covenant, it was never necessary for anyone to visit the temple again.

But that was not altogether clear to the Christians initially. The Jewish Christians throughout the Book of Acts continued to worship at the temple. Why? They had an identity crisis.

Were they Jews? They had been before. Were they just now Jews who had the Messiah? Or were they something else? Were Christians something other than Jews? The answer to this never became clear to anybody except Paul and a few others prior to 70 A.D. It was in 70 A.D. that the Romans themselves discovered that Christians were more tenacious than Judaism because the Romans destroyed the temple and destroyed the capital of Judaism in Jerusalem, and Judaism as it was described in the Bible came to an end. Sure, there have always been Jews since then who called themselves Jews, but they don't practice Judaism.

They practice what they call Judaism, but it's not biblical. Biblical Judaism is centered around bringing animal sacrifices to a temple in Jerusalem. It's the only Judaism God ever ordained, and everything that has replaced it since 70 A.D. is man-made religion and unacceptable to God.

Of course, you might say, well, why would God put an end to that? Obviously, because he'd given something better in Jesus. It was no longer necessary for people to do that. But one question that comes to our mind is, why would there be a 40-year gap there from the time that Jesus canceled the validity of the thing and the time it actually collapsed? I cannot answer that with certainty.

It was definitely a transitional generation, a transitional period. But I can say with certainty that there are many places in the New Testament that speak of this holocaust that occurred where Josephus says nearly a million Jews were slaughtered by the Romans and the rest of them were carried into captivity, and where they have remained until this day for the most part. That Josephus speaks of this holocaust in great detail in his book, The War of the Jews, very gruesome.

But it is, I think, an act of providence that God has preserved for us, this work of Josephus, since so few works from that period have survived, because the Bible closes before that date. The book of Acts closes somewhere around the year 62 or 64 AD at the latest. Therefore, the events of 70 AD are nowhere described in the Bible.

And for that reason, most Christians are not even aware that anything significant happened then. But the prophets of the Old Testament and many of the prophets of the Jesus, John the Baptist, and even Paul and others, and even the writer of Hebrews, made frequent references to what was about to come on that generation. The expression, this generation, is found in the teaching of Jesus and also in John the Baptist frequently.

And in every case, the suggestion is that that generation was facing a terrible holocaust if they did not turn to Christ. They had it in 70 AD. The city was burned down.

Josephus says that thousands of Jews ran into the temple when the Romans broke through the walls. They stopped refuge in the temple, and the temple was burned down on top of them, and they all died in there. And many other horrendous stories are told, of which we'll have occasion to look at as we see the prophecies of the Bible that predict it.

And we'll talk about the actual fulfillment and read the historical account of it from time to time. But the thing is, this was just not another war. This was not just another horrible human rights violation and disaster that we could add to the millions of such in history.

This was a turning point in God's whole economy. It was his public declaration that Judaism was over and that all that was left was Christianity. It's an interesting thing, you know, when God instituted the old covenant at Mount Sinai, it was 40 years before the Jews actually entered the promised land and took possession of what was guaranteed to them there at Mount Sinai.

For some reason, there was a transitional generation. I don't know why. I mean, I know the historical events, because the Jews didn't believe and wouldn't go in the land, so God punished them by going 40 years.

Why there was a similar 40-year period after God instituted the new covenant of the cross, before Judaism came to its complete end and Christianity came into its own identity without the trappings of Jewish rituals and so forth, I don't know. But it's an interesting phenomenon that both covenants had a 40-year period of transition following their institution. I don't want to make more of that than I can because I don't really know what that significance is, but it's an interesting correlation in history.

Now, it is my understanding that when Jesus said all these judgments are going to come on this generation, speaking of his own, he was saying basically within 40 years, this is all going to come down on your heads, and it did. And it's an interesting thing how much of the prophecies were fulfilled at that time. Jesus indicated that when Jerusalem would fall to the Romans, this would be the fulfillment of all things that were written.

He said that in Luke 21. We don't want to take too much time on this, but I just want you to see that this was not a matter of little significance. It was a matter of great significance in God's dealings with the Jewish race and with humanity in general, canceling the old covenant permanently and replacing it with a new one.

In Luke 21, verse 20, Jesus told his disciples, and according to Mark's parallel in Mark 13, this discourse was spoken to four particular disciples who came to him privately, Simon, Peter, his brother Andrew, and James and John. These four men came privately to Jesus and asked him certain things about the destruction of the temple. Jesus predicted it in verses 5 and 6 of Luke 21.

Then as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations, he said, these things which you see, the days will come in which not one stone should be left upon another that shall not be thrown down. Obviously referring to the destruction of the temple, which was accomplished by the Romans in 70 AD. So they asked him, Mark 13 tells us the names of the four men who asked him privately, teacher, when will these things be? What? The destruction of the temple Jesus just spoke of.

And what sign will there be when these things, the same things, are about to take place? That's all they asked him about is the destruction of the temple. He made reference to it. He said, when is that going to be? How will we know it's about to happen? And then he gives many signs and in verse 20 he says, but when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.

The fulfillment of his threat about the destruction of the temple would be near when the Roman armies come around. And by the way, the early church recognized this and when the Roman armies came, they fled. According to Eusebius, the earliest church historian other than Luke, writing about the year 300, the church in Jerusalem fled from Jerusalem when they saw the Roman armies approaching.

And so they took Jesus' warning seriously. When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Let those who are in the midst of her depart and let not those who are in the country enter her. Now, verse 22, for these are the days of vengeance that all things which are written may be fulfilled. He's talking about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

That's what he prophesied. That's what they asked him about. He said, well, you're going to see Jerusalem surrounded by armies.

They did. He said, then its desolation is near. It was.

He says, those are the days of vengeance. For what? That was the city that killed the prophets and those who were sent on her. Jesus said over in Matthew 23, 23, not verse 23, but in chapter 23, he did say these words to Jerusalem.

Matthew 23, verse 29 says, Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous and say, if we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Therefore, you are the witnesses against yourselves that you are the sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up then the measure of your father's guilt.

Serpents, brood, vipers, how can you escape the condemnation of Gehenna? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets and wise men and scribes. Some of them you will kill and crucify. And some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Barakai, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

I surely, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. Then verse 37, Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

See, your house is left to you desolate. The temple is left desolate for, I say to you, you will not see me anymore. So you say, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord and then follows Matthew 24, which of course is the parallel of what we're reading in Luke.

But notice he says, the temple is going to be desolate because you killed the prophets. Now Luke 21, we were reading. It says, these are the days of vengeance.

It's desolation is near when the Roman army has come. These are the days of vengeance that all things that are written may be fulfilled. Interesting.

All things may be a hyperbole. It may not be literally every prophecy is fulfilled at that time, but it certainly suggests that a great number of prophetic utterances focus on that particular event. And that is the case.

When we study through the books of the prophets, we'll have occasion to see how many times the New Testament writers quote them with reference to this very thing. Look at Hebrews chapter eight, just for a moment here. Hebrews is a book that talks a great deal about, or alludes very much about the end of the Jewish system coming as an incentive for the Jewish Christians not to go back to Judaism.

In Hebrews chapter eight and verse, well, verses nine through 12, we won't read them. That's a long quote from Jeremiah 31, where Jeremiah predicts a new covenant coming. We have the author's remarks in verse 13, in that he says that as Jeremiah says a new covenant, he has made the first one obsolete.

Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. This was written shortly before 70 AD. And he said the old covenant is now obsolete.

And what God has made obsolete is about ready to disappear altogether. There are many allusions like this to the impending doom of the temple found in the New Testament. We simply have looked at a few of them, but I want you to know this is more significant than many people understand.

When John the Baptist was sent and Jesus to the Jews of that generation, this was their final warning. This was their warning that all the prophets had written about God's vengeance for the blood of the martyrs and the prophets that Jerusalem had slain over the centuries, that it was going to come on a particular generation. The message of John the Baptist and Jesus was this is that generation.

But just before God sends judgment, he sends mercy. He sends an option, a way of escape. And John the Baptist message is this.

The ax is already laid to the root of the trees. The fan of the winnower is already in his hands to cleanse his threshing floor. And this is the deciding of your fate.

Will you be gathered into the barn of the messianic kingdom or will you be cast in the fire of the judgment that's coming on this generation in 70 A.D.? That's what I understand him to be saying. Now, one does not have to follow me in this, especially since you haven't had a chance to think about this more than probably just today. And I've had longer time to think about it.

That doesn't make me right, but it makes it easier for me to accept what I'm saying if it's not as new to me. But the point I'm making is this. John was not talking vaguely about hell and heaven.

The grains to be gathered in the barn, the chaff that he burned with unquenchable fire. It may sound like it's not about hell, but he's talking about something imminent. Or else, why would he say the ax is already laid to the root of the tree? It's already starting to happen.

It's already on the threshold of happening. His fan is already in his hand. He's not talking about something in the distance like the second Christ.

He's talking about something that was coming soon. His message was an urgent message. When the Pharisees came to him, he said, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? God's wrath, God's vengeance on Jerusalem for the blood of all the martyrs that she slew, including Jesus, was coming soon.

And that was a very key part of John the Baptist message to his generation. Now, when he said the one who's coming after you will baptize in the Holy Spirit and with fire, I believe he's saying essentially the same thing he said in the previous and the following verse. That God is at this very, in that very generation, making a distinction between those who are his and those who are not his.

Those who are fruitful trees, those who are fruitless trees. Those who are wheat, those who are chaff. Those who will receive what God has for them in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and those who will not receive it and will have to be subjected to only what is left, the baptism in fire, and be immersed in the fiery judgment.

That is, in my opinion, fitting the context, fitting the historical context as well as the scriptural context, and it also fits the only other verse in the Bible that's a cross-reference to it, and that's in Acts 1, in Acts chapter 1. Now, as you're turning there, I want to make something clear. If John the Baptist made only two options, baptism in the Holy Spirit or judgment, you might say, well then, are people who haven't received the baptism of the Holy Spirit not saved? That is probably not part of John's thinking. The idea that there'd be Christians who had not received the baptism of the Holy Spirit was probably not even in his purview.

In all likelihood, he was just concerned with the fact that all the Christians of that generation who got saved did get baptized in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. They were in the upper room when it happened. Those who were outside of that, or did not soon come into it afterwards, were there when the Romans came and got baptized in fire instead.

Those who were baptized in the Spirit fled from Jerusalem in time and were not present when Jerusalem fell to the Romans, according to the historians. Now, in Acts chapter 1, there's an interesting thing. Jesus says, in verse 5, he's talking to his disciples just before his ascension from the Mount of Olives.

He says, "...for truly John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." There's a clear allusion here to John's own words. John said, I baptize in water, but he that comes after me will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and with fire. Jesus is strongly alluding to that promise that John has made.

He's practically quoting John on the matter. But the interesting thing is, he doesn't mention the fire here. He doesn't say, John baptized with water, and then go on to say, as we might expect, you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

He simply says, you'll be baptized with the Holy Spirit. And he doesn't quote John any further than that. He doesn't mention the fire.

Why? Because he was talking to his disciples. Those who would receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit would not also receive the baptism in fire. That was the other option.

The ones to whom he was speaking were not in danger of being baptized with that fire and being overwhelmed with that judgment. And so Jesus, in making strong allusion to what John said, falls short of quoting John exactly. He leaves out the fire part.

Why? Because he's got a different audience. John was speaking to a general audience of Jews, and some of you are going to get the Holy Spirit, because you're going to follow Christ. Others of you are going to reject Christ, and you're going to get baptized with fire instead.

Some of you are fruitful trees, some of you are fruitless trees. Some of you are wheat, some of you are chaff. But Jesus was talking to people who were all wheat.

They were all fruitful. They were all those who had received him, had received him, and were soon to receive, he said, not many days hence, the baptism in the Spirit, but not the baptism in the fire, for all we know. He didn't mention it anyway.

Therefore, while one may reach another conclusion about this, these are the reasons that I have felt the context, the historical context, the textual context, and the citation of it by Jesus, all of these things, in my opinion, lean the way that I've just suggested, that the baptism of fire is not something for Christians. It was the alternative for those of John's generation who heard him speak. If they would reject Christ, they could look forward only to judgment instead.

And the word fire is at the end of each of those three verses. I would say, all things considered, it means the same thing in all three cases. Some manuscripts omit the word fire.

I'm not sure why that is, but I will say this. The similar statement, I think, is found in Luke, in the parallel, in Luke chapter 3. Let me see. We've got the statement about the axe and the trees in Luke 3, 9. Later on, in verse 16, I baptize you with water.

The one mightier than I is coming, he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Now, in that place it's present, is it not? See, that's what happens a number of times. One gospel account will be fuller than another.

And in some cases, in order to fill out the less full manuscript, some copyist has brought in something from, or it appears that this is the case. Luke's gospel doesn't, there's no question about the reference to fire there. In Matthew's gospel, some manuscripts have fire and some don't.

Very possibly, Matthew left that out and someone trying to bring it into harmony with Luke stuck in the word and fire there, and some manuscripts have it and some don't. But the point is, the question of its authenticity as a statement of John the Baptist is not in question, since we have the indisputed reference to it in Luke. And no doubt, you know, it could be authentic in Matthew as well, depending on which manuscript is closer to the original.

But, as I said before, we went into the subject of baptism of fire, the importance of it is far less than the time spent clarifying it would suggest. I mean, once we get down to this, if I'm not incorrect in my assessment of the passage, the baptism of fire is nothing we have to be concerned about. It's not for us, it doesn't refer to our generation, and it's not for Christians in any case.

It's the option, the other alternative. So, one might say, what a shame we took so long discussing it, but that's just the thing. Certain issues of little importance or lesser importance and certainly very little practical value sometimes command a great deal of time in discussing simply because wrong opinions about them or seemingly wrong applications of them have caught on so widely in the church, have received such wide currency, that it just takes a long time to try to debunk them or to try to refuse them.

Now, I don't have any strong emotional attachment to my view on this. Some of you may have a stronger emotional attachment to another view on it. But, if we're going to talk about the doctrine of baptism, unfortunately we need to at least deal with this question of what is the baptism of fire.

And, if my theory, if my understanding of this is correct, then it is, of course, not anything for us to be concerned with now. Now, this discussion of baptism is going to go on to a second session, in which we'll discuss many relevant questions. But, there is one other point I'd like to make in this session, before we take our break, and then we will come back to such questions as, what is the correct method? What is the correct formula to use when baptizing? Should infants be baptized or only believers? Who should do the baptizing? Those kinds of questions.

Is it necessary for salvation? These are important biblical questions on the subject of baptism, and they will be in our next foundation session, which is tomorrow at this time. But, I would like to cover one other point relevant to baptisms, which is found in 1 Corinthians 15, another obscure reference. And, I bring it up because I'm asked so frequently about it.

I figure that everybody wonders. I, myself, must say I wonder about it, too. In 1 Corinthians 15, in verse 29, Paul says, Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead do not rise at all, why then are they baptized for the dead? Now, what is baptism for the dead? Obviously, there's some, if we're going to talk about baptisms and what the Bible has to say about it, and since there is a mention here of baptism for the dead, it's one of those issues that we cannot omit without losing something in terms of comprehensiveness.

What is it that he's talking about here? Well, one commentator has said that over 40 different interpretations have been given to this one verse. Various commentators over the last 40 years have given 40 different suggestions, over 40 different ones. And, if so many different opinions are held by so many learned men, I think we might adopt an attitude of humility in terms of whatever conclusions we reach because we might just be another wrong view.

There's obviously at least 39 wrong views. There might be 40 wrong views for all we know. And, our views might turn out to be wrong, too.

But, let me just say this. There are two basic approaches to this. The one is that the suggestion that Paul is talking about a practice known to him by which a person, a living person, would be baptized as it were by proxy for somebody who was no longer alive, somebody who had neglected to be baptized while they were alive.

And, because the urgency and importance of baptism was considered to be so great, the person could not be saved without being baptized. Therefore, some living friend or relative would stand in as the vicarious substitute for the dead person and be baptized in their place. And, the suggestion is that this is what was meant by baptism for the dead.

This is certainly the way the Mormons have understood it. And, I don't know. They're probably the only major cult today that practices baptism for the dead.

And, by that they mean this very thing. This is why the Mormons are so big on genealogies. If you want to find out your family tree, there's no one better to hire than a Mormon to figure it out.

In Utah, they have mastered the art of endless genealogies, the very thing Paul said not to be concerned about. But, they are masters of endless genealogies. And, the reason this is a concern to them is because they want to find out how many relatives and ancestors they have who died without receiving Mormon baptism, so that they can be baptized for these people and, therefore, assure the salvation of these people in their ancestry, their family members.

And so, there is a strong incentive, because they believe in baptism for the dead and the necessity of baptism for salvation, to find out how many ancestors they had who may have neglected to be baptized and to name them and be baptized on their behalf. This is perhaps commendable, but I think misled. Like so many things that Mormons believe, I believe they are misled in their understanding of Scripture.

Nonetheless, even non-Mormons, many Christians, believe that Paul is referring to a practice of baptism by proxy. Such as one as Walter Martin, in his lifetime, believed this. He did not believe in the practice, but he believed that Paul knew of such a practice.

Paul did not necessarily approve of it, but alluded to it for the sake of an illustration. Now, 1 Corinthians 15 is the chapter where Paul is defending the doctrine of the Resurrection. And, it was the view of Walter Martin and many others who agree with him, and many of them have gotten it from him.

He was the founder of the Christian Research Institute, fairly an expert on cults, perhaps in his own day, the greatest leading expert, the leading expert on the subject of cults, and a great refuter of cults. His book, The Kingdom of the Cults, is one of the classics in Christian literature on refuting cults. His own ancestor included some Mormons.

He was a great, great grandson of Brigham Young, or something like that. True, one of Brigham Young's 40 wives, or however many he had. But, anyway, Walter Martin was a great cult debunker, and of course, when he talked about Mormons, one of the things he talked about was their practice of baptizing for the dead.

And, he said, well, they use this verse, and the mistake they make is they think that Paul approved of it. The argument goes like this. There were certain mystery cults on the fringes of Christianity, maybe not even related to Christianity, but the Corinthians, you know, there were a lot of mystery religions in Greece and so forth, and some of them practiced baptism by proxy for dead people.

And, Paul knew about this, and so did his readers. Paul didn't approve of it. He didn't say it was a valid practice.

But, he realized that the only reason anyone would ever do this is because of an instinctive feeling they would have that there is a life after this, that there must be a resurrection, or else why would they bother to baptize for the dead? And so, Paul simply employs this known but not approved practice as part of his argument for belief in the resurrection from the dead. Now, I see this verse very differently than that. I could be wrong.

Walter Martin could be wrong. We could all be wrong. But, it seems to me that even if Paul knew of such cultic practices, he would not use them as illustrations to prove some basic Christian doctrine, like the resurrection.

What good would it do to make reference to some practice that I don't think is a valid practice in order to illustrate the legitimacy of something that I do consider to be valid, namely the resurrection? For example, if I wanted to teach that were saved by faith, it would do very little good for me to talk about how much faith the Hindus have, or how the expression of faith occurs in Buddhism, or whatever. I mean, it would not be strong to my point, because everyone knows I don't approve of Hinduism or Buddhism, and that I don't think that their belief systems are correct. So, why should I refer to anything they do as validating what I'm trying to prove? I think another interpretation that makes sense, it may not be the correct one, but the one I have felt that is correct, and there are some commentators who hold it as well, is that Paul is spinning off from an earlier statement he made in the chapter.

He said in verse 12, Now, if Christ is preached that he is risen from the dead, how does some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty, and your faith is also empty. Yes, we're found to be false witnesses of God, because we've testified of God that he raised up Christ, whom he did not raise up, if in fact the dead do not rise.

Now, notice this if. If the dead do not rise, what? Christ isn't raised, is his point. If the dead do not rise, Christ is still dead.

We find the same expression in verse 28, if the dead don't rise, if there's no resurrection. Not verse 28, excuse me, verse 26, which verse is it? The one I'm thinking of is the one we're working on, verse 29. Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Now, that expression, if the dead do not rise at all, is very much like the statement of verse 15.

Christ is not raised, if in fact the dead do not rise. He's already established the point that if the dead don't rise, then Jesus didn't rise. If the dead don't rise, Jesus is dead.

Why would Christians be baptized into Jesus, who is in fact dead, if in fact the dead don't rise? Why would we be baptized into a dead man? Why would we be baptized with reference to a man who is dead, namely Christ? If this be the case, if this be the correct interpretation, then Paul is affirming the fact that Christians do experience baptism into Christ. But he's saying that if there's no resurrection, then there was no resurrection of Christ. Therefore, we've all been baptized unto the dead.

Now, the word for, baptized for the dead, is a word in the Greek that can mean with reference to, with reference to the dead. I've read that it's a very weak preposition in the Greek that can mean a variety, it has various shades of meaning, and it can simply mean with reference to. So, the question would be, why are Christians in fact baptized with reference to a man who is dead? Jesus.

If the dead don't rise, that is the case. He's already established that point. Why would we be baptized into Christ if there's no resurrection, is what he's saying.

He said earlier, in a verse we looked at earlier, Romans 6, all of you who were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death. But he goes on in verse 4 of Romans 6 to say, but we were buried with him in baptism and raised with him also. Our baptism is a testimony to the death and resurrection of Christ.

And why would we be baptized simply into one who died, but didn't rise again? If there's no resurrection, Christ is dead, why would we be baptized with reference to the dead, namely Christ? Who, if the dead don't rise, is dead, which he's established earlier. That's another way of looking at it, in which case he's not referring to any cultic practices. He's not referring to being baptized, living people being baptized for dead people by proxy.

He's simply making reference to the known Christian practice, that Christians are baptized with reference to Christ. And to the logical point he made earlier, if the dead don't rise, Christ himself has not risen, he's dead. Why would we be baptized into him then, as we are, if we did not assume the validity of the doctrine of the resurrection? In other words, he's saying that the valid Christian practice of baptism is itself another testimony to the fact of the resurrection.

And it seems to me that Paul would more likely use a valid Christian practice than a cultic practice to illustrate and establish the validity of a valid doctrine like the resurrection. So these are two of the possible interpretations. I don't even know what all the other 38 possible interpretations are, but I will say the interpretation I just gave of the verse, to my mind, is satisfactory and fits the context well and doesn't leave us with any serious problems, as near as I can tell.

So that's what I think he meant by baptism for the dead. He wasn't talking about living people being baptized for dead people. Rather, Christians being baptized into Christ, which is, of course, a normative Christian practice.

Now, the question of what method, whether it's sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, what name? Is it in the name of Jesus only, or is it in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit? The question of is it infants or believers who should be baptized? And especially the question of is it necessary for salvation? These are issues about baptism we will raise and seek to answer biblically in our next session on the subject. So we'll take our break here and go into baptism again next time.