An interpretation of Matthew 3:11

Matthew 3:11    "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

What does “baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire” means? The common explanation is that it was fulfilled on the Pentecost when  the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples looking like “tongues as of fire.” This interpretation has its merit because Jesus promised that they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit before His ascension to heaven (Acts 1:5).

To get a fuller interpretation, let’s look at the context of this verse (which should always be done in biblical interpretation). The entire episode started from verse 5 through verse 12 of chapter 3.

Matthew 3:5-6   5 Then Jerusalem (a)was going out to him, and all Judea and all (b)the district around the Jordan;  6 and they were being (a)baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins.

Verses 5 – 6 mentioned that people from Jerusalem coming out to the Jordan river to be baptized by John the Baptist and the condition for John’s baptism was their repentance, or as the NASB translation put it, “they were being baptized by him [John the Baptist] in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins.”

This is the reason why I think the following is a better interpretation because John the Baptist was making the remark to the people of Jerusalem who came out to the Jordan river to repent of their sins and be baptized by John the Baptist. On the other hand, the episode in Acts chapter 2 happened to Jesus’ disciples, who arrived later together with their master, Jesus in verse 13.

Matthew 3:7-10   7 ¶ But when he saw many of the (a)Pharisees and b)Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You (c)brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from (d)the wrath to come?  8 "(a)Therefore bear fruit (b)in keeping with repentance;  9 and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, '(a)We have Abraham for our father'; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.  10 "The (a)axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore (b)every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Together with the people of Jerusalem came the Pharisees and Sadducees to be baptized. John, with divine wisdom saw through them. They probably was treating John’s baptism as another outer “badge of honor” to be added to their “righteousness.” John called as he saw them, “brood of vipers.” They came for the baptism without real repentance from the inside out.

They put their trust in being the descendants of Abraham and to that they are going to add yet another external sign, John’s baptism. They did not have repentance in their hearts and as a result their actions, speech, and thought reflected their rotten hearts inside. They were identified as trees that did not bear good fruit and God’s judgment, the axe, is coming to cut them down and be thrown into the fire. “Thrown into fire” is another common expression used to describe the eternal punishment to those who were found not belonging to God or saved.

John the Baptist then pointed to the savior, one who would come after John, who is mightier and has more authority than he is. This Savior was revealed in verse 13 as “then Jesus arrived …” Jesus was, is, and will always be able to provide what the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the people of Jerusalem lacked.

John was a Jew and his understanding of the “Holy Spirit and fire” from the entire Old and New Testament is:

• The Holy Spirit: providing power, righteousness, and repentance.
• fire: illumination, warmth, purification, the physical appearance of the tongues of fire in Acts, and final judgment (verse 12)

Matthew 3:12   12 "His (a)winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will (b)gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the (c)chaff with d)unquenchable fire."

John was basically telling everybody who was there that they should “go” to Jesus to seek true repentance, power and righteousness through the Holy Spirit; purification and freedom from the final judgment through Him.

For those who did not do so, eternal punishment awaits them. They are the “chaff to be burned with unquenchable fire.”

~oOo~

Can Science Ever Prove or Disprove God?

In my previous post I laid out the case against a particular scientific approach to the question of the origin of life and/or species that is usually identified as naturalism. The proponent of the that approach quickly embraced Darwinian evolution of random and undirected mutation and natural selection because it provided an opening to reject supernatural cause. As more and more evidences are discovered, the case for that approach is getting weaker. Still, the proponent of naturalism continue to hold on to that view to the point of, dare I say it?, faith.

Scientific knowledge is a shifting body of knowledge. What is so special about the naturalism approach that makes it immune to being abandoned, revised, or replaced? Is it because, as Philip E. Johnson suspected, that it is a religious view?

I had a challenge from a reader to my post mentioned above, the person seemed to put a great deal of faith on science. I am paraphrasing what he said, "Just wait, science will eventually find the answer to all the question about the origin of life!" That same person also challenged me to prove God using science.

How should I respond? Here are three points that I heard from a Christian chemist recently:

1. I can not say that it is impossible for science to be able to disprove or prove God's existence because I do not, and will never, have exhaustive knowledge of science. Neither can anyone, for that matter. An infinitesimally small possibility is still a possibility.

2. Has it been demonstrated that science can prove or disprove God's existence and His activities? So far, neither has been demonstrated. According to the majority of scientist today, the universe has a beginning, specifically a beginning that had the shape of a ball no bigger than a baseball. This ball contains the mass of the entire universe, I know it is mind boggling. Way back then, something, or someone, caused it to explode with such a force about 13 billion years ago. That power was so great that the universe is still expanding today. This thing is the singularity. Beyond that, all law of physics breaks down. None of us are there when it happened and I doubt it can ever be recreated. The world largest particle collider at the time this is written, is located in Europe and called Large Hadron Collider (LHC). (See my posting about it here).

Nevertheless, I think that the quest for discovery is one of the highest calling and pleasure for the human kind granted by the Creator.

See, like those who already accepted the view that the universe only have natural causes, I accepted the view that all these were created by and omnipotent, omniscient and loving God. This takes us to the third point ...

3. What is the probability that science can disprove or prove God? What is the probability that the universe came into being because of chance and natural causes only? What is the probability that the universe was created by God? I reject the notion that the decision to embrace the view that God created the whole universe and all its inhabitants is, somehow, not a scientific one. The probability of the universe coming into existence solely by natural and undirected random processes is much smaller compared to the probability that an omnipotent, omniscient, and loving God created everything.

Is science the only kind of knowledge?

The answer is no, see here for an article listing other kinds of knowledge know to human: historical knowledge, philosophical knowledge, moral knowledge, and personal knowledge. Not all of them are repeatable, for example: Can you prove that King Henry VIII existed? Using non-scientific methods, it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that he existed.

~o0o~

Update 2009-Dec-13: Today, I was introduced to another kind of knowledge, "tacit knowledge" of Michael Polanyi.