Baptism of fire

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
B

Blackpowderduelist

Guest
exactly the tares aren’t the same as the chaff
Tares are thornbrushes that grow up in the crop. Those thorns we may also refer to them as none believers who maybe attend church but are generally a sources divisions.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
12,254
4,407
113
Maybe we dont burn because we have plenty of oil (holy spirit)

ok Im not an expert at cooking or anything but I do cook enough to know if you dont put oil in the pan things will get burnt when heated up...also you can put water and things will boil it will only burn if there is no water.
 
Mar 14, 2011
75,577
17,278
113
Maybe we dont burn because we have plenty of oil (holy spirit)

ok Im not an expert at cooking or anything but I do cook enough to know if you dont put oil in the pan things will get burnt when heated up...also you can put water and things will boil it will only burn if there is no water.
We are not baptized into fire as believers. Only unbelievers will be baptized into the fire that shall never be quenched (hellfire)
 
Mar 14, 2011
75,577
17,278
113
That is one interpretation.
Baptism means to be placed into or immersed into

fire is the baptising agent one is immersed into

the fire is said to be the fire that never shall be quenched, the only fire with ths description is the fires of hell

jesus is said to be the one baptizing or placing the person into that fire

the only fire scripture says Jesus will cast anyone into is hell

its the only possible interpretation, any other interpretation would be in error
 
S

Scribe

Guest
Baptism means to be placed into or immersed into

fire is the baptising agent one is immersed into

the fire is said to be the fire that never shall be quenched, the only fire with ths description is the fires of hell

jesus is said to be the one baptizing or placing the person into that fire

the only fire scripture says Jesus will cast anyone into is hell

its the only possible interpretation, any other interpretation would be in error
If it were that simple then why do so many scholars who believe the scriptures are inspired and have studied the original languages and manuscripts all their lives continue to offer two possible interpretations. There MUST be another POSSIBLE interpretation or they would not suggest one. The reason is that being true to their intellectual honesty concerning the structure of the Greek grammatical syntax of of verse 11 they can't deny that it refers to one baptism. That is not something they can lightly dismiss and replace with context alone as you want to do so. In this passage there is a strong desire among the scholarly to see both ideas being presented. A baptism of the Holy Spirit including Fire upon the one person and others being judged by unquenchable fire.

If baptism with the Holy Spirit refers to the conversion of believers, baptism with fire would naturally be associated with the fiery judgment of unbelievers described in vv. 10 and 12. Yet the actual grammatical construction in Greek suggests that v. 11 refers to only one baptism, that which combines the Holy Spirit and fire. 68 For believers this would most likely refer to the Holy Spirit's purifying and refining activity, but the same convicting power when spurned by unbelievers leads ultimately to judgment. 69 Verse 12 expands the judgment metaphor of v. 10. John uses the image of a farmer separating valuable wheat from worthless chaff by throwing the grain into the air and allowing the two constituent elements to separate in the wind. The wheat, like believers, is preserved and safe-guarded; the chaff, like unbelievers, is destroyed. There exists a certain tension between the imagery of fire and the other major biblical (and Matthean) image for eternal punishment, namely, outer darkness. Fire and total darkness cannot literally coexist. But even as metaphors, each graphically depicts the pain and separation from God that characterizes damnation. The adjective “unquenchable” (literally, fireproof [Greek asbestos]) implies that fuel will always remain to keep the fire burning and speaks against the doctrine of annihilationism (the idea that unbelievers simply cease conscious existence upon death). Matthew's main focus, however, remains not on the nature of hell but on the inevitable twofold division of all people based on their response to John's and Jesus' call to repentance (cf. 13:36-43).
Blomberg, Craig L.. Matthew (The New American Commentary) (p. 80)

68 The Greek employs one preposition to govern two nouns functioning as a compound object —with the Holy Spirit and fire (contra NIV's repetition of “with”)—most naturally suggesting one baptism with two aspects to it.

69 Cf. J. L. Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1989), 153:
“In both Spirit and fire [appear] the means of eschatological purgation experienced by the penitent as purification in the refiner's fire and by the godless as destruction by wind and fire.”



 

Jocund

Active member
Jan 14, 2021
422
131
43
Baptism means to be placed into or immersed into
...
its the only possible interpretation, any other interpretation would be in error
Baptism comes from "washing" with the context of spiritual purification or spiritual cleansing. It is not merely an act of immersion. "Baptism by fire" would be a peculiar way to speak of being burned in the Lake of Fire.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
Baptism comes from "washing" with the context of spiritual purification or spiritual cleansing. It is not merely an act of immersion. "Baptism by fire" would be a peculiar way to speak of being burned in the Lake of Fire.
I think it was a word literally created by the KJV scholars based on the Greek word which does mean immersion. They should have used the word immerse but at the time the Church of England used sprinkling and there was a huge division and religious war waging over the mode of baptism and they purposely used the word Baptism knowing very well that it did mean immerse but were able to skirt the issue by using the word.

Follow what I am saying. They did not change the meaning of the Greek word. They actually tried to retain the Greek word itself. This was their way of retaining the accuracy of the translation because baptizo means to sink, dip, and their anglicanized word Baptism means the same, but seriously they should have just said immerse.

It does not mean washing, for purification. None of the ceremonial washings were anything like baptism that John was doing and none of them were for the purpose of dedication and consecration of repentance. John's form of baptism and it's association with a call to repentance and a commitment to a new way of living was nothing like the ceremonial cleansings they had known.

The washing of hands, elbows and sometimes the head was not for the purpose of repentance or consecration and was not called baptism. Baptism does not mean washing it means, dipping, sinking, immersion.
 

Runningman

Well-known member
Mar 4, 2020
2,731
1,839
113
If it were that simple then why do so many scholars who believe the scriptures are inspired and have studied the original languages and manuscripts all their lives continue to offer two possible interpretations. There MUST be another POSSIBLE interpretation or they would not suggest one. The reason is that being true to their intellectual honesty concerning the structure of the Greek grammatical syntax of of verse 11 they can't deny that it refers to one baptism. That is not something they can lightly dismiss and replace with context alone as you want to do so. In this passage there is a strong desire among the scholarly to see both ideas being presented. A baptism of the Holy Spirit including Fire upon the one person and others being judged by unquenchable fire.

If baptism with the Holy Spirit refers to the conversion of believers, baptism with fire would naturally be associated with the fiery judgment of unbelievers described in vv. 10 and 12. Yet the actual grammatical construction in Greek suggests that v. 11 refers to only one baptism, that which combines the Holy Spirit and fire. 68 For believers this would most likely refer to the Holy Spirit's purifying and refining activity, but the same convicting power when spurned by unbelievers leads ultimately to judgment. 69 Verse 12 expands the judgment metaphor of v. 10. John uses the image of a farmer separating valuable wheat from worthless chaff by throwing the grain into the air and allowing the two constituent elements to separate in the wind. The wheat, like believers, is preserved and safe-guarded; the chaff, like unbelievers, is destroyed. There exists a certain tension between the imagery of fire and the other major biblical (and Matthean) image for eternal punishment, namely, outer darkness. Fire and total darkness cannot literally coexist. But even as metaphors, each graphically depicts the pain and separation from God that characterizes damnation. The adjective “unquenchable” (literally, fireproof [Greek asbestos]) implies that fuel will always remain to keep the fire burning and speaks against the doctrine of annihilationism (the idea that unbelievers simply cease conscious existence upon death). Matthew's main focus, however, remains not on the nature of hell but on the inevitable twofold division of all people based on their response to John's and Jesus' call to repentance (cf. 13:36-43).
Blomberg, Craig L.. Matthew (The New American Commentary) (p. 80)

68 The Greek employs one preposition to govern two nouns functioning as a compound object —with the Holy Spirit and fire (contra NIV's repetition of “with”)—most naturally suggesting one baptism with two aspects to it.

69 Cf. J. L. Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1989), 153:
“In both Spirit and fire [appear] the means of eschatological purgation experienced by the penitent as purification in the refiner's fire and by the godless as destruction by wind and fire.”
That would make sense if John the Baptist was speaking to a single person, but he's speaking to a group of Pharisees and Saducees. I am under the impression he's generalizing what Jesus will do depending on who the person is.

Jesus does not indiscriminately baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire, meaning that verse 11 doesn't apply to everyone.

Therefore the only logical explanation is that some people get a Holy Spirit baptism and others don't. Some people get a fire baptism and others don't.

Since John said it to those people, verse 11 must apply one way or another to them. So were all of those people saved? Of course not because John the Baptist cannot make that judgement call. The only remaining possibility is that some of them are not saved so they will go to hell.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
That would make sense if John the Baptist was speaking to a single person, but he's speaking to a group of Pharisees and Saducees. I am under the impression he's generalizing what Jesus will do depending on who the person is.

Jesus does not indiscriminately baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire, meaning that verse 11 doesn't apply to everyone.

Therefore the only logical explanation is that some people get a Holy Spirit baptism and others don't. Some people get a fire baptism and others don't.

Since John said it to those people, verse 11 must apply one way or another to them. So were all of those people saved? Of course not because John the Baptist cannot make that judgement call. The only remaining possibility is that some of them are not saved so they will go to hell.
I think you do have a good argument with the idea of addressing the group.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
Does anyone have a copy of "The Gospel of Matthew (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) by Richard T. France?
It is one of the newer commentaries by one of the best evangelical scholars on Matthew but it is a $50 commentary and I am waiting to pull the trigger until I have another class on the Gospels. I would like to know what he has written about it.

In support of the view proposed by @Runningman Mark does not mention the fruitless branches being burned or the chaff and the unquenchable fire and does not mention the baptism of fire.

Luke mentions the fruitless branches being burned and the chaff in unquenchable fire and he also mentions he baptism of fire. Which would be strong evidence that Mark does not mention baptism in fire because the chaff and the fruitless branches aren't mentioned and this would weigh in on the side of the baptism of fire being judgment and not sanctification or refiners fire.

Mark1
7And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. 8I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

Luke 3
15And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not; 16John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: 17Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.

Now my own opinion is that I have never been comfortable with the idea of baptism in fire referring to sanctification. The only thing I was hanging my hat on was the reference to the cloven tongues as of fire that sat upon each of them. If this was the sign that they were being baptized in the Holy Ghost and Fire then I interpreted it as a fire of Ministry Empowerment To be Witnesses. Not the holiness aspects of the fruit of the Spirit which are going to be produced as a result of the Holy Spirit in our lives but the Fire of the Supernatural. Prophesy, Tongues, Healing, Casting out Devils. Preaching in the Power of the Holy Ghost that causes conversions. All of these supernatural impartations from the Power from on High promised if they would wait for it. This is a fire of supernatural giftings for ministry not sanctification (not that sanctification is ever not part of the lives of a truly anointed minister) but I don't think that refining fire of sanctification is what is being emphasized on the day of Pentecost.

He said wait in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with Power from on High to be witnesses to me and then the power that they received turned them into bold tongue talking, prophesying witnesses. Before they have had time to show a track record of the refining fire process of sanctification through the things they go through. So for that reason if it is a spiritual fire I believe it is a supernatural gifting impartation fire.

That is not a denominational view, as I have heard the purification fire interpretation used by both the Assemblies of God and other Pentacostal denominations, but I don't think that is supported by the text. If anything the fire would be the impartation of the supernatural as seen with the cloven tongues as of fire and the manifestation of speaking in tongues. There is nothing here about their purity of life having gone through a refiners fire of choices and spiritual growth over time. So why apply it?

So in summary: I believe it either means fire of judgment or the empowerment of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit not 'refiners fire'
 

Jocund

Active member
Jan 14, 2021
422
131
43
That is not a denominational view, as I have heard the purification fire interpretation used by both the Assemblies of God and other Pentacostal denominations, but I don't think that is supported by the text. If anything the fire would be the impartation of the supernatural as seen with the cloven tongues as of fire and the manifestation of speaking in tongues. There is nothing here about their purity of life having gone through a refiners fire of choices and spiritual growth over time. So why apply it?

So in summary: I believe it either means fire of judgment or the empowerment of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit not 'refiners fire'
Supernatural gifts such as speaking in tongues is usually associated with the Holy Spirit: "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." - Acts 2:4.

Baptism by fire in terms of a "refiner's fire" could be seen as a reference to 1 Cor 3:13-15.

"Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is... If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." - 1 Cor 3:13-15

This passage is especially relevant to the parable of wheat because the analogy of wheat is in reference to fruits of faith, and the fruits of our faith are our works.

YHWH alludes to purification in Isaiah 1:25 "And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin" which follows with the concept of Mat 3:12's reference to using a winnowing fork (basically a "dehusker") to burn the chaff (the husk) of the wheat. All wheat has chaff. A winnowing fork is used to separate/purify wheat from its chaff.

"When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee." - Isaiah 43:2

In my opinion, there is a strong case for applying the refiner's fire interpretation to "baptism by fire".
 
Mar 14, 2011
75,577
17,278
113
If it were that simple then why do so many scholars who believe the scriptures are inspired and have studied the original languages and manuscripts all their lives continue to offer two possible interpretations. There MUST be another POSSIBLE interpretation or they would not suggest one. The reason is that being true to their intellectual honesty concerning the structure of the Greek grammatical syntax of of verse 11 they can't deny that it refers to one baptism. That is not something they can lightly dismiss and replace with context alone as you want to do so. In this passage there is a strong desire among the scholarly to see both ideas being presented. A baptism of the Holy Spirit including Fire upon the one person and others being judged by unquenchable fire.

If baptism with the Holy Spirit refers to the conversion of believers, baptism with fire would naturally be associated with the fiery judgment of unbelievers described in vv. 10 and 12. Yet the actual grammatical construction in Greek suggests that v. 11 refers to only one baptism, that which combines the Holy Spirit and fire. 68 For believers this would most likely refer to the Holy Spirit's purifying and refining activity, but the same convicting power when spurned by unbelievers leads ultimately to judgment. 69 Verse 12 expands the judgment metaphor of v. 10. John uses the image of a farmer separating valuable wheat from worthless chaff by throwing the grain into the air and allowing the two constituent elements to separate in the wind. The wheat, like believers, is preserved and safe-guarded; the chaff, like unbelievers, is destroyed. There exists a certain tension between the imagery of fire and the other major biblical (and Matthean) image for eternal punishment, namely, outer darkness. Fire and total darkness cannot literally coexist. But even as metaphors, each graphically depicts the pain and separation from God that characterizes damnation. The adjective “unquenchable” (literally, fireproof [Greek asbestos]) implies that fuel will always remain to keep the fire burning and speaks against the doctrine of annihilationism (the idea that unbelievers simply cease conscious existence upon death). Matthew's main focus, however, remains not on the nature of hell but on the inevitable twofold division of all people based on their response to John's and Jesus' call to repentance (cf. 13:36-43).
Blomberg, Craig L.. Matthew (The New American Commentary) (p. 80)

68 The Greek employs one preposition to govern two nouns functioning as a compound object —with the Holy Spirit and fire (contra NIV's repetition of “with”)—most naturally suggesting one baptism with two aspects to it.

69 Cf. J. L. Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1989), 153:
“In both Spirit and fire [appear] the means of eschatological purgation experienced by the penitent as purification in the refiner's fire and by the godless as destruction by wind and fire.”
Even in your own example. You show Hellfire as the eternal life mentioned. While I agree. There is only one word baptize, I do not agree it HAS to be one baptism per person (ie, He will baptize each person with the HS and Fire) as is proposed by many, For the following reasons.

1. The wheat and Chaff mentioned are not one item. But are a mix of items which are collected when harvesting. (IE, He is not burning the chaff off the wheat, But the chap which was separated from the wheat, ie, unbeliever from the believer)
2. Just because one baptism is used. We can use the previous form of the word baptize to get context. John baptised with water. water was the means of his baptism. Where-as is Jesus concerned. His mode of baptism consists of two things, The HS and Fire. Nothing suggests it has to be both items for each individual Jesus baptized.
3. Who was John talking to? I had to look this up. But john said, HE will baptize YOU (Hymas). He spoke to everyone there. Including the pharisees, Many of whom would never be baptized with the HS because they would reject Jesus. IE. Jesus will baptize EVERYONE.
4. Again we come to verse 12, where we see this fire and of what type. It is the asbesto fire, Asbesto by defenition means unquenchable, Inextinguishable (it can not be put out) ceaseless eternal. Which again. Can only in biblical context, refer to hell (the people who John spoke to wer well versed in scripture they would have seen this immediately.

As for greek scholars. One thing I have learned in my many years of study and in speaking with people with years of greek study, Is even with all those degrees, They still interpret to fit their own belief system. I remember many years ago having a study to help a freind who was in a cult with one of his leaders. I used things I had learned from a dallas theological seminary pastor teacher as my argument, This man asked me if I knew greek. I said I had never studied it, He told me he had 4 years. and who was I to tell him what a word meant? I told him the man I studied had 7 of greek and 5 of hebrew. So who should I listen too. I learned then and there. A college degree does not take away from the human element, If you want to see something, you will see it whether it is there or not.

I also learned, I do not just listen to what Men say, I study myself, Also knowing that I may be wrong. But if I am going to be judged for being wrong. at least I can blame myself. not be wrong because I listened t someone else and did not study myself to test what that person said. I do this even in my own church.
2.
 
Mar 14, 2011
75,577
17,278
113
Baptism comes from "washing" with the context of spiritual purification or spiritual cleansing. It is not merely an act of immersion. "Baptism by fire" would be a peculiar way to speak of being burned in the Lake of Fire.
This is not rue in the greek language or culture. For some reason the church over the years has made it into this religious ceremony rite that always includes the waters of purification.

Baptism by defenition means to be immersed. The english translators did not translate the word. The took the greek word Baptizo, Transliterated it into an english word Baptize by removing the o and replacing it with an e. And made up a new english word.

The problem with this is we have also given it a new defenition, Instead of defining the word in its original meaning and language. Thats why we have so many problems with the word today. If they would have translated it instead of making a new english word. We would not have these issues, in my view
 
Mar 14, 2011
75,577
17,278
113
I think it was a word literally created by the KJV scholars based on the Greek word which does mean immersion. They should have used the word immerse but at the time the Church of England used sprinkling and there was a huge division and religious war waging over the mode of baptism and they purposely used the word Baptism knowing very well that it did mean immerse but were able to skirt the issue by using the word.

Follow what I am saying. They did not change the meaning of the Greek word. They actually tried to retain the Greek word itself. This was their way of retaining the accuracy of the translation because baptizo means to sink, dip, and their anglicanized word Baptism means the same, but seriously they should have just said immerse.

It does not mean washing, for purification. None of the ceremonial washings were anything like baptism that John was doing and none of them were for the purpose of dedication and consecration of repentance. John's form of baptism and it's association with a call to repentance and a commitment to a new way of living was nothing like the ceremonial cleansings they had known.

The washing of hands, elbows and sometimes the head was not for the purpose of repentance or consecration and was not called baptism. Baptism does not mean washing it means, dipping, sinking, immersion.
I can see this,

Sprinkle is a totally different greek word (I believe it is rantizo? of the top of my head) and just dipping has a different form/ Bapto means to dip. To baptize means to fully immerse or plunge/sink

We are told in Rev, Jesus will come with his robes dipped (bapto) in blood.

If they translated it immerse. they would have cause a great stir. and only God knows what would have happened. I never thought if this, Thank you
 
Mar 14, 2011
75,577
17,278
113
Does anyone have a copy of "The Gospel of Matthew (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) by Richard T. France?
It is one of the newer commentaries by one of the best evangelical scholars on Matthew but it is a $50 commentary and I am waiting to pull the trigger until I have another class on the Gospels. I would like to know what he has written about it.

In support of the view proposed by @Runningman Mark does not mention the fruitless branches being burned or the chaff and the unquenchable fire and does not mention the baptism of fire.

Luke mentions the fruitless branches being burned and the chaff in unquenchable fire and he also mentions he baptism of fire. Which would be strong evidence that Mark does not mention baptism in fire because the chaff and the fruitless branches aren't mentioned and this would weigh in on the side of the baptism of fire being judgment and not sanctification or refiners fire.

Mark1
7And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. 8I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

Luke 3
15And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not; 16John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: 17Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.

Now my own opinion is that I have never been comfortable with the idea of baptism in fire referring to sanctification. The only thing I was hanging my hat on was the reference to the cloven tongues as of fire that sat upon each of them. If this was the sign that they were being baptized in the Holy Ghost and Fire then I interpreted it as a fire of Ministry Empowerment To be Witnesses. Not the holiness aspects of the fruit of the Spirit which are going to be produced as a result of the Holy Spirit in our lives but the Fire of the Supernatural. Prophesy, Tongues, Healing, Casting out Devils. Preaching in the Power of the Holy Ghost that causes conversions. All of these supernatural impartations from the Power from on High promised if they would wait for it. This is a fire of supernatural giftings for ministry not sanctification (not that sanctification is ever not part of the lives of a truly anointed minister) but I don't think that refining fire of sanctification is what is being emphasized on the day of Pentecost.

He said wait in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with Power from on High to be witnesses to me and then the power that they received turned them into bold tongue talking, prophesying witnesses. Before they have had time to show a track record of the refining fire process of sanctification through the things they go through. So for that reason if it is a spiritual fire I believe it is a supernatural gifting impartation fire.

That is not a denominational view, as I have heard the purification fire interpretation used by both the Assemblies of God and other Pentacostal denominations, but I don't think that is supported by the text. If anything the fire would be the impartation of the supernatural as seen with the cloven tongues as of fire and the manifestation of speaking in tongues. There is nothing here about their purity of life having gone through a refiners fire of choices and spiritual growth over time. So why apply it?

So in summary: I believe it either means fire of judgment or the empowerment of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit not 'refiners fire'
I do not have this commentary. But am curious. As for cloven tongues of fire. That fire was temporary, it was not unquenchiable. And it did not burn the chaff. So I reject this interpretaion held by many for this reason. It does not fit the context.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
Even in your own example. You show Hellfire as the eternal life mentioned. While I agree. There is only one word baptize, I do not agree it HAS to be one baptism per person (ie, He will baptize each person with the HS and Fire) as is proposed by many, For the following reasons.

1. The wheat and Chaff mentioned are not one item. But are a mix of items which are collected when harvesting. (IE, He is not burning the chaff off the wheat, But the chap which was separated from the wheat, ie, unbeliever from the believer)
2. Just because one baptism is used. We can use the previous form of the word baptize to get context. John baptised with water. water was the means of his baptism. Where-as is Jesus concerned. His mode of baptism consists of two things, The HS and Fire. Nothing suggests it has to be both items for each individual Jesus baptized.
3. Who was John talking to? I had to look this up. But john said, HE will baptize YOU (Hymas). He spoke to everyone there. Including the pharisees, Many of whom would never be baptized with the HS because they would reject Jesus. IE. Jesus will baptize EVERYONE.
4. Again we come to verse 12, where we see this fire and of what type. It is the asbesto fire, Asbesto by defenition means unquenchable, Inextinguishable (it can not be put out) ceaseless eternal. Which again. Can only in biblical context, refer to hell (the people who John spoke to wer well versed in scripture they would have seen this immediately.

As for greek scholars. One thing I have learned in my many years of study and in speaking with people with years of greek study, Is even with all those degrees, They still interpret to fit their own belief system. I remember many years ago having a study to help a freind who was in a cult with one of his leaders. I used things I had learned from a dallas theological seminary pastor teacher as my argument, This man asked me if I knew greek. I said I had never studied it, He told me he had 4 years. and who was I to tell him what a word meant? I told him the man I studied had 7 of greek and 5 of hebrew. So who should I listen too. I learned then and there. A college degree does not take away from the human element, If you want to see something, you will see it whether it is there or not.

I also learned, I do not just listen to what Men say, I study myself, Also knowing that I may be wrong. But if I am going to be judged for being wrong. at least I can blame myself. not be wrong because I listened t someone else and did not study myself to test what that person said. I do this even in my own church.
2.
Yes, and at some point we make a decision as to who is doing the best job of discovering authorial intent even if it requires one to change a previously held position. Sometimes the best we can do is make a choice and stay open.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
Here are a few more contributions to the discussion:


The superiority of the “stronger one” is explained in terms of two baptisms (clearly marked as a contrast by a classical men/de construction): John’s water-baptism is a preliminary ritual “with a view to repentance,” clearing the way for the real thing, the “stronger one’s” baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire. 65 Water is an outward sign, but the work of the Holy Spirit will be inward. Since fire occurs in both v. 10 and v. 12 (and probably also by implication in v. 7 in the imagery of the snakes escaping the fire) as a metaphor for God’s judgment, it should probably be taken in the same sense here. The coming of the Holy Spirit will burn away what is bad and so purify the repentant people of God. 66 For a similar metaphor in the OT see Isa 4:4; Zech 13:9; Mal 3:2–4.

Foot Notes on verse 11

65. R. L. Webb, John 272–275, argues convincingly for this combination of Holy Spirit and fire being the original version of John’s message, despite Mark’s omission of πυρί and against the suggestion of some that orignially only fire was mentioned, the Holy Spirit being a Christianizing of John’s message of judgment. Note the use of the imagery of fire in connection with the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:3).

66. Albright & Mann, 26–27, argue on the basis of Qumran evidence that πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πύρι is a hendiadys, and translate “with the fire of the Holy Spirit;” the Greek wording, which combines the two nouns under the single preposition hen, suggests the same. The case is more fully argued by Davies & Allison, 1.317. Matthew’s wording does not support the assumption of some commentators that the Holy Spirit and fire denote the contrasting fates of different groups of people (“Those producing good fruit will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Those producing bad fruit will suffer unending punishment.” Gundry, 49). B. Charette, Recompense 122, n. 4, supports Gundry’s view on the grounds that John is still addressing the Pharisees and Sadducees, but the “you” of this verse denotes those baptized by John, not the critical bystanders.


France, R. T.. The Gospel of Matthew (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) (p. 113). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.