What did Jesus mean?

[Aaron56]

I would call it a common interpretation. Whether it is an error or not is a matter of opinion.

The baptism of fire could be the judgment of fire mentioned in the same context. The context gives this great reason for such an interpretation.

Why insert trials here. There is less reason to apply trials of fire here than there is to think of the tongues of flame at pentecost.

The only reason I wonder whether it means fire as in spiritual power is because the tongues of flame and because the Greek says that the same person will be baptized in the Spirit and with Fire.

It does not say that he will baptize some with the Spirit and some with fire. That is an interpretation, howbeit a natural one based on context.

The Greek suggests that You will be baptized in both the Holy Spirit and Fire, which then makes your idea of trials at least a possible form of spiritual fire that the one baptized in the Holy Spirit would also experience, but I would think that the tongues of flame are more persuasive as to the actual fulfilment of this prophesy.

When did it occur that they were baptized in the Holy Spirit and Fire? On the day of Pentecost as witnessed by the tongues of flame. This will continue to be discussed by scholars but I find it easy to rule out trials, and purifying fire as it does not fit the context.

It is either judgment which I can see from the context (in which case he means some will be baptized in the Spirit and others will be baptized with fire in judgment but there is a problem with that if the Greek is taken literally since the Greek scholars say it means the same person will be baptized in both) or it means spiritual power for service type of fire. If one thinks he can spiritualize the fire to be trials because of other texts in the bible, then one can spiritualize the fire as the kind of fire seen over them on the day of Pentecost.

Now in real life scenarios I have seen many who have gone from a mediocre Christian to one of great soul winning zeal after receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues. This leads me to believe that the fire is a spiritual fire of power for service and witness. And that fire will see you through trials of fire as well. Since they were bold to preach the word even under persecution and trials of fire after the filling of the Holy Spirit and Fire.

A baptism of the fire of judgment is coming upon the world so that also is true even if that was not the meaning of that text. We know that the world will melt with fervent heat and the very elements will be dissolved.

Lots of fires in the bible. I want to be on fire for God.

It is how I showed you. And I laid out the context. The fire is for our refining connected to trials.

Also, your doctrine of judgement is not complete. Judgement is not punishment it is simply revealing what is true. If you see how the fire "tests" and "proves" and "tries" you will see the process of refinement not punishment. This is why careful encouragement was given by the writer of Hebrews, as I quoted. A loving Father baptizes all His children with fire: puts them through trials to refine them. The opposite is to assume trials are matters of circumstance or worse, sin. Judgement begins with the House of God. This is a process of testing and proving not the White Throne.

Peter wrote: "Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you; but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ’s sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy."

The trials reveal His glory. It is the way we are transformed.

"But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord."

The fiery trials reveal His nature in us likely by burning away our reliance on our souls so we submit to the Spirit.

 

[JohnDB]

I read that it was common to allow non clergy to read scripture in the synagogues.

That wasn't the Torah and it was still under a Rabbi or Levite supervision.

Only a Schmeekha rabbi could interpret the books of Moses. ("One Having authority" is mentioned in the New Testament concerning Jesus)

 

[Amanuensis]

It is how I showed you. And I laid out the context. The fire is for our refining connected to trials.

Also, your doctrine of judgement is not complete. Judgement is not punishment it is simply revealing what is true. If you see how the fire "tests" and "proves" and "tries" you will see the process of refinement not punishment. This is why careful encouragement was given by the writer of Hebrews, as I quoted. A loving Father baptizes all His children with fire: puts them through trials to refine them. The opposite is to assume trials are matters of circumstance or worse, sin. Judgement begins with the House of God. This is a process of testing and proving not the White Throne.

Peter wrote: "Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you; but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ’s sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy."

The trials reveal His glory. It is the way we are transformed.

"But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord."

The fiery trials reveal His nature in us likely by burning away our reliance on our souls so we submit to the Spirit.

I know that there are verses about trials of fire. However in hermeneutics you want to try and conclude what the writer, or the speaker intended by the most persuasive rules first. Context being the most persuasive in this instance would lead one to lean heavily on the fire of judgment mentioned in the immediate context such as the chaff and the bad trees being burned in unquenchable fire. That must be considered before trials of fire which are not mentioned in this context.

The jury is still out for me on whether the same person is intended when he says baptized in Holy Spirit and fire. If the Greek does allow for him to be intended two different groups then the fire in the immediate context is the best interpretation.

Only if the Greek syntax demands that it be understood that John was intending the same person be baptized with both can your theory of trials of fire be a possible consideration.

However you are still faced with the hurdle of no suggestion of trials of fire in the context of Johns speech. Applying verses from other authors from other contexts only works if this speaker had mentioned such a thing which he has not.

That makes the "trial of fire" application one of doubtful intention. A hard sell. Highly questionable. I have heard it before, and I understand the reason from the verses you are pointing out but all you are doing by posting them is reminding us that the NT mentions trials of fire for Christians, This does not prove that is what John meant when he said this.

I am keeping an open mind. But you haven't made that clear connection to John's intent yet.

 

[Aaron56]

To me it’s obviously fiery trials. As I’ve explained and shown. It is consistent with scripture aIf we disagree on any part the Lord will show you.

Btw: from what verse did you get “on fire for God”? In full disclosure I’m discerning that you are critical of others who do not share your interpretations of scripture but are very lax when it comes to the formation of your own understandings.

 

[Amanuensis]

To me it’s obviously fiery trials. As I’ve explained and shown. It is consistent with scripture aIf we disagree on any part the Lord will show you.

Btw: from what verse did you get “on fire for God”? In full disclosure I’m discerning that you are critical of others who do not share your interpretations of scripture but are very lax when it comes to the formation of your own understandings.

I said my mind is open. I am not saying you are 100% wrong. Maybe your interpretation is the one John had in mind.

Smart minds have been discussing it for centuries. I would never be dogmatic that trial by fires cannot be a possible interpretation. I find it weaker of the three most common interpretations. I find it easier to rule out, but I am open to reasons why I shouldn't.

Such a discussion should be fun and the reason for the forum. Don't take it personally if I am challenging you to explain why you are so sure that trials by fire is the only possible interpretation and everyone who has ever written about it in commentaries in the past 400 years is in error if they don't agree with that one and only view. It is more likely that your view is the one that is an error, if we are going to resort to labeling which one is error.

As to the fire of zeal, I know it is weak also. I don't contend for it and will set it aside as probably not exactly what John had in mind. At least not in the emotional sense of zeal of enthusiasm which is usually what people think of when you say "on fire for God."

However, when one means "having supernatural Holy Spirit Power being poured out on them as being "on fire for God" then that could be argued for. But I am willing to abandon the idea of "on fire for God" altogether since it is a confusing statement.

But the tongues of flame can't be ignored. If they represent the power that is being given to them to be witnesses then I could see this as a baptism of fire that results in increased ministry works, Power in word and works. Not emotional power but dunamis power. Did John intend a fulfilment of prophecy of Baptism of Fire as a way to describe what would happen to them on Pentecost? Or did he mean they would be baptized in the fire of trials. Which sounds more logical to what John had in mind?

This is the kind of discussion that can yield new insights and ideas. I am not telling you that you are wrong. I am telling you that so far you have not made a connection that is as strong as the tongues of flame one, or the judgment one from the immediate context of what else John said when he was talking.

So we usually hear of these possible interpretations:
1) Judgment fire, like the context John is speaking about.
2) Spiritual fire, power to be witnesses, tongues of flame as a sign
3) Purifying fire, such as sanctification of the Holy Spirit
4) Trials of fire, or suffering, such as Jesus telling John and James they will be baptized with the baptism he is baptized with. (another discussion)

It would be helpful if you could present the reason why we should think that John had trials of fire in mind. If you can't present a reason why you think that, don't get upset with me. It just means you have more work to do to find the connection.

Presenting scriptures that talk about trials of fire does not make the connection. You need something that John said in the context but it's not there. He talks about the fire burning up the chaff and the bad trees. That is not trial by fire for the righteous saints is it?
That is not the chaff in our hearts that get burned up by trials of fire. Those are people who are damned to the Lake of Fire. The unquenchable fire.

Matthew 3
7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

11“I baptize you with b water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with c the Holy Spirit and fire. 12His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

Luke 3
15The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Messiah. 16John answered them all, “I baptize you with b water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with c the Holy Spirit and fire. 17His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

 

[HillyBilly]

What did Jesus mean when he told John this, "for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.?"

Matthew 3:14,15

14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

What did Jesus mean when he told John this, "for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.?"

Matthew 3:14,15

14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Precious friend, A Very Warm Welcome to Chat.

GRACE And Peace...

 

[Wansvic]

What did Jesus mean when he told John this, "for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.?"

Matthew 3:14,15

14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Jesus left an example for all to follow. Obedience to the God-given command to be water baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus was required of everyone as initially stated on the Day of Pentecost. (Acts 2:38-41)

 

[Amanuensis]

Precious friend, A Very Warm Welcome to Chat.

GRACE And Peace...

What did Jesus mean when he told John this, "for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.?"

Matthew 3:14,15

14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Good question. It deserves a new thread. I don't think many are seeing it here.