Truth Magazine

By Walton Weaver

Two times in the New Testament the Holy Spirit is connected with fire. The first time is Matthew 3:11 where John the Baptist tells the Jews,

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 (NKJV, emphasis added).

Then in Acts 2:2-4 we read that as the apostles were waiting in Jerusalem for the promise of the Father (Acts 1:4).

. . . suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one set upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance (NKJV, emphasis added).

Let’s take a closer look at these two cases.

What Is the “Fire” in Matthew 3:11?

The reference to baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire (Matt. 3:11) has been an often discussed subject, but much disagreement has developed over the meaning of and fire, and exactly to whom the promise applies. The statement has been explained in the following ways.

Some have seen here a direct reference to the “fire” mentioned in Acts 2:3. One writer, for example, says, “this was literally fulfilled on the day of Pentecost,” and another, in almost the same words, wrote, “this prophecy was literally fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples in tongues of fire, Acts 2:3.”

Others have said that “fire” in this passage is an image of the Spirit’s purifying work upon the individual; that this is a figurative description of the Spirit’s consuming a person’s faults. To state it in a positive way, the terms “in fire” describe “the kindling, sanctifying fire of the Holy Ghost.”

Another view is that the “fire” here is “an experience that accompanies the Holy Ghost when he comes into the life of a person”; or, it is “an experience that flashes through the human body and causes one to feel happy and full of joy,” the “feeling that accompanies the Holy Ghost as he quickens the body he enters.”

Finally, the most common view (and what seems to me to be the correct one), is that “fire” in Matthew 3:11 is the fire of the last judgment into which the wicked will be cast.

We will now make a few observations on these different views:

(I) Little needs to be said about the view that the promise of “baptism in fire” of Matthew 3:11 was literally fulfilled in the reference to “fire” in Acts 2:3. The careful reader must have observed that there is no reference to literal fire in Acts 2:3; so how could John the Baptist’s statement about fire have been literally. fulfilled on the day of Pentecost? The passage in Acts 2 says “cloven tongues like as fire” (KJV), or “divided tongues as fire” (NKJV).

McGarvey cites another reason why this interpretation is not possible. He says, “even if these tongues had been actual fire, their sitting on the heads of the apostles could not have been constituted a baptism of the apostles in fire.” It might also be remembered that Jesus did not add “with fire” to his promise of Holy Spirit baptism when he made it to his disciples (see Acts 1:4-5); nor do we have any mention of “tongues like fire” sitting on Cornelius and his household, yet Peter recognized this event as also being a fulfillment of Jesus’ promise (Acts 11:16).

(2) The second view makes the statement in Matthew 3:11 speak of only one baptism, a baptism in the Spirit. “In fire” is only added to give a description of the nature of the Spirit’s work. Those who hold this view see only one class of people receiving this promise — i.e., they say the “you” who were to be baptized in Spirit and fire identifies only one class and one destiny. The fallacy of this position is that “you” in v. 11 takes into account both believing and unbelieving Jews. A mixed audience was being addressed when the promise was made. So “baptism in the Spirit” could refer to one class, the believing Jews, and “in fire” could refer to another class, the unbelieving and impenitent Jews.

This approach takes into account the warning tone of the passage while the former view totally disregards it.

The context also favors the view that two classes are under consideration in v. 11. In v. 10 John has already divided the audience into two parties by his illustration of the fruitful and unfruitful trees. The one represents good men, the other evil men. In v. 12 the wheat and chaff are used for the same purpose. The pronoun “you” takes in both classes of men. John had already used the word “you” in an indefinite way when he said “I baptize you,” when in fact he had not baptized those in his audience.

Also the term “fire” is used in both vv. 10 and 12 to describe the fate of the wicked. In v. 12 it is called the “unquenchable fire.” We should not overlook the parallelism in the three sentences appearing in these three verses. “Fire” has the same meaning in verses 10, 11 and 12. For this reason, two baptisms are under consideration here, and two classes are to receive the baptisms. In other words, Spirit baptism and fire baptism are presented as opposites in this passage. They cannot be opposites and “fire” merely describe the manner of the Spirit’s work. “Fire” does not describe the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, but the condemnation of the wicked. As McGarvey says, “It is clearly the wicked who are to be baptized in fire, and the fulfillment of the prediction will be realized when they are cast in-to the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15).”

(3) This third view hardly needs refutation. How would one go about trying to establish from Scripture that “fire” in Matthew 3:11 is the kind of “experience” and “feeling” the author quoted claims for it? No such attempt is made by him. All we have is his word on the matter; such a conclusion cannot be established from the word of God. This writer is simply reading his own “experience” back into this passage and into Acts 2:3 (he takes “fire” in both passages to refer to this kind of experience and feeling).

This same writer goes on to tell us that this experience “might be compared with a current of electricity that flashes through the body when a person contacts a wire that is charged lightly.” “The person so effected,” he says, “feels a tingling sensation. At times the body is jerked about quickly but with no painful feeling. It is rather a pleasant feeling that makes one happy or full of joy. At times only one member of the body is moved or jerked. Sometimes the hand, sometimes the foot or both feet in the holy dance.” How about that! Look what we have been missing by not understanding that “fire” in these passages promises this kind of “experience” for all who will truly believe!

But if this were true, why does not the Bible speak of such “experience” when it describes what happened when certain people were baptized in the Holy Spirit (i.e., in Acts 2 and 10)? Not one word is said about such an experience for either the apostles in Acts 2 or Cornelius and his household in Acts 10. They were baptized in the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues, but absolutely nothing is said about a baptism in “fire” or of such effects coming from Holy Spirit baptism as are described by this writer. Besides, we have shown in the above section that the tone of Matthew 3:11, as well as the context, shows that baptism in “fire” is the opposite of baptism in Spirit, and that baptism in fire is an act of condemnation and not something “felt by every one” baptized in Spirit.

(4) From what has already been said in our discussion of the first three views, it should be clear that this fourth view is the correct understanding of the baptism of fire mentioned in Matthew 3:11. The “fire” in this passage is the fire of the last judgment into which the wicked will be cast.

What Is the “Fire” in Acts 2:3?

We have already found it necessary to set aside the view that the “fire” in this passage is the same as the “fire” of Matthew 3:11. In the latter passage a literal fire is obviously meant, but here the language will not allow a literal fire. Luke unequivocally says, “cloven tongues like as of fire” (KJV). The word translated “cloven tongues” means tongues “distributing themselves,” or “parting asunder” (ASV; i.e., among the apostles); not a tongue-like, forked appearance in each case, as the term “cloven tongues” would no doubt be understood. The change from the plural (tongues) to the singular (it sat) supports this conclusion. At first the fire-like appearance was “in a single body, and then suddenly parted in this direction and that; so that a portion of it rested on each of those present” (Hackett). McGarvey concludes that the change from the plural to the singular was used “to indicate that not all, but only one of the tongues sat upon each apostle, the term distributed having suggested the contemplation of them singly.”

One can easily see the symbolism involved in the fire-like tongue appearance over the heads of each of the apostles. They spoke in tongues, or languages (Act 2:8,11), they had never learned. The miraculous knowledge of the language each was speaking was being revealed to each of them by the Holy Spirit. The tongue shaped (though not “cloven”), fire-like flames symbolized the presence of the Spirit making known to them the language each was speaking. They were in fact immersed in the Spirit as Matthew 3:11 promised, and the “tongues like as of fire” that “sat upon each of them” was symbolical of what was happening to them as they were now speaking languages they had not before known. Nor could they have known them even now without this special revelation of the Spirit. or

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 7, p. 10-11
April 1, 1993

By Peggy Kreus

With his hand placed upon God’s Holy Word, the following words were uttered: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States, so help me God.”

Within 24 hours, our president placed his hands upon a paper, signing his name, giving his support to legislation that gives people the right to murder unborn babies. His next order of business was to try to remove all bans for homosexuals and lesbians to enter into the military.

The “gay” community is overflowing with happiness that Bill Clinton is now the president of the United States. He supports their lifestyle, has given 13 of them positions within his White House staff, and received 72 percent of their vote. They feel they can now “come out of the closet” and receive “their due respect.” Christian, it is time to stand up and take note!

On January 26, 1993, from 9-10 p.m. (primetime television), a program entitled “The Gay 90’s — Sex, Power and Influence” was aired on a local station. Interviews were conducted with several “gay” couples all expressing happiness with their “new found freedom” of not having to feel ashamed or secretive about their chosen lifestyle anymore. Our president was shown ex-pressing his thanks to this group of people for electing him, and he assured them he had a place for them within his administration.

For the first time, I fear the world in which my children will live. Satan has always had his hand in the affairs of men, but today sin has taken on a new dimension. No longer does Satan have to be sneaky and work covertly. Sin is blatant today, and completely out in the open, even within the highest ranks of our government . . . and worse yet, people are proud of it.

Absolute standards of right and wrong will soon be a thing of the past in the minds of many. Situation ethics will be the norm, and Satan will be basking in his glory as he watches so many serving him and promoting his cause. More and more of our television programs will begin introducing this idea of “open sexuality,” whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. The press is already full of news regarding the growing sentiment of finally being able to “come out of the closet.” Christian, what will you do?

First we must be familiar with what God’s Word teaches on the subject of homosexuality (and all other forms of immoral behavior). 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is one of the clearest passages in the entire Bible: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous; nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” The next verse proves the condition was not inherited but chosen as Paul states, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” Men and women decide for themselves whether they will become homosexual; it is not an in-born trait beyond their ability to alter.

There are many ramifications to the philosophies of our present administration. As you study the book of Acts, it is soon obvious to the student that the church of Christ grew the most when it was undergoing persecution. Christians band together in spirit and dispersed, continuing to teach God’s truths. Christians grew in their faith, and the cause of Christ was stronger than ever before.

We are undergoing a moral persecution at this very time. Will our persecution have the same effect on us as it did the first century Christian? Or do we feel fatalistic in our view and feel like we really cannot make any difference? Have you written President Clinton ex-pressing your displeasure with his intended policies? Have you written your Congressman imploring him to vote against any such legislation? When, and if, these bills are someday passed, will you feel you have done everything you could to turn the tide back toward God?

We must pray for our new president and those in power today. And although Jesus used the term “go into your closet” and pray figuratively, let’s never sup-port, by our actions or inactions, those participating in this most sinful of practices using the term “coming out of their closet.” Christian, let’s get back into our closet and pray, pray, pray for the welfare of our country, our schools, our families, our children, and yes, even our very souls.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 7, p. 9
April 1, 1993

By Samuel Csonka

Down thru the ages, man has made mistake after mistake in anything he has ever tried to do. Thomas Edison tried hundreds of times before he finally got a light-bulb to stay lit. Wilbur and Orville Wright made numerous attempts at flight before they got a machine to stay up. And, how many of us have ever tried more than one time to accomplish a task?

God made man with intelligence, a conscience, and the ability to make choices. But, with the ability to make choices also came the ability to make mistakes and to sin. And ever since the beginning of time, mankind has been given one especially important choice to make: either to be children of God or children of Satan.

To be a child of God is to do as he wishes: to walk in obedience, to walk in faith, and to submit to his will. On the other hand, to be a child of Satan is to do our own will, to do as we please, and to disobey God.

When a person realizes that he has been living the way of the world and turns to follow the Savior, he puts away his former life and takes on a new one — he becomes a child of God (Rom. 6:1-13). With careful watching and proper nurturing, a young Christian can grow to be a strong soldier for Christ. Unfortunately, young Christians are weak and easily tempted back into the world (Matt. 13:18-23).

The majority of people in the world seem to be wicked. And, many of those that are religious are only hypocritical followers of Christ. So, young Christians must try hard, very hard, to overcome the temptations of the world. They need to be reminded that the temptations of the world are just temporal pleasures (lasting only for a short time) and certainly not worth losing their souls over (1 Jn. 2:15-17). Yet, some Christians lose their love for Christ and forget about their salvation from sin.

Sin is a gradual thing, and takes some time for Christians to get back into. Because it’s gradual, we have time to re-mind them of their eternal destiny, and can perhaps save them from going back forever (Jas. 5:19-20). When they do turn back to the world, they are forsaking God’s mercy, blessings, and salvation. How very unfortunate — some can never be brought back (Heb. 6:4-6). Hebrews 13:12-14 exhorts us to beware: “Take heed, brethren, lest in any one of you there be an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God.”

Why Do Christians Fall Away?

Worldly things are enticing. Because worldly things are enticing some Christians are lured back. If sin was not so enticing and physically pleasing, there wouldn’t be the tremendous problem that we have in trying to save sinners, not to mention fallen saints.

Laziness. Some Christians fall away because of laziness. Some people are so lazy it’s sickening. When it comes to work, or other physical exertion, it would be easier for a blind hog to find an acorn in a hail-storm than for them to get off their soft couches, leave the TV, and do some work for the Lord.

Peer or family pressure. Young babies in Christ are especially susceptible to peer pressure. Many people who have a tendency toward spirituality are kindly herded like cattle back to the paths of sin by their friends or famly. It’s too bad that these close ties to the world won’t keep them from Hell fire (Matt. 10:34-39).

False teaching. Sometimes we think that it is next to impossible for anyone we know to fall away due to false doctrine. Yet, this is still a cause for weak, unlearned babes falling away. And because it is not impossible, and because many babes are zealous and willing to be taught, they can be easily deluded by cultivators of false-teachings and led deeply into doctrinal quicksand. And the deeper they get in, the harder it is to get them out.

Pain, sickness and death. And then, there are those who because of no other scape-goat, leave the Lord as a result of their blaming him and not “sin” for the hurt and destruction in their lives. I guess they forget that we all have to pay the consequences for things we do. “If we kick a brick wall, naturally our foot will hurt. Likewise, if we are entangled in sinful things, we will most likely suffer physical as well as spiritual consequences (i.e., drunkenness: it can wreck your life physically and spiritually)”

Why Should They Return to God?

The answer is very simple. By not returning to God, the fallen Christian basically condemns himself. By turning his back on the Savior, he seals his fate and accepts the horrifying consequence of Hell-fire (Heb. 10:26-27). Unlike Lot’s sons-in-law who had utterly no concept of what would soon befall them, fallen Christians are not ignorant of their impelling doom — they chose to ignore the facts!

How Do Fallen Christians Return to God?

In Luke 15, the story of the “Prodigal Son” suggests that there is a simple progression of thought that fallen Christians must go through in order to turn their lives around. They must:

1. Come to their senses.

2. Realize their lost state.

3. Realize their sin.

4. Put away their sin (repent).

5. Turn back to God.

There are different ways by which we can repent of sin:

Privately — for sins of a private nature, between God and you (Lk. 18:10-14).

Publicly — which would apply in this case (Jas. 5:16),

Common sense says, “When the public has been subjected to your sin, you publicly make amends in an effort to buffer yourself and the church from the effects of your past sins. This can be a hard thing to do, but you were bold enough to get into the mess, and only you can get yourself out.”

Remember brethren, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive” (1 Jn. 1:9). And let us exhort one another to “cast off the works of darkness, put on the armor of light, and make not provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof” (Rom. 13:11-14). Young Christians, choosing to become a child of God was the most important decision you’ll ever make. Choosing to remain one is the second.

To God be the glory.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 7, p. 19-20
April 1, 1993

By Paul and Helen Williams

January 31, 1968. After being delayed for several days in Switzerland (when we enjoyed a great visit with the Jerry Earnharts) the seven Williamses — Paul (37), Helen (37), Kenneth (15), David (13), Mark (10), Timothy (8) and . Stephen (6) – arrived at Jan Smuts Airport, Johannesburg on a sunny, hot summer day. Because no one in South Africa knew exactly when we were to arrive I phoned the Topes and Votaws from the airport and we waited to be fetched. We had reached our new home:

Beginning in Johannesburg

We found the country to be a fascinating place. Although South African English has its differences from American English, and although Afrikaans is the first language of 60 percent of the 4 million whites, we had no zeal trouble communicating, Soon we had settled into a large, old house in Florida, a western suburb of Johannesburg, and our sons were wearing their new school uniforms as they set off to school. Old brother and sister John Sunn, baptized a few months Deviously as a result 6f the teaching of their daughter and son-in-law, Gloria and Basil Cass, and of the teaching of the Topes, began meeting with us each Sunday in the Johannesburg YMCA, thus beginning the church which now meets in Brixton, Johannesburg. Gene Tope introduced me to the three churches meeting in Soweto, the million-strong black township serving Johannesburg, and took me to Vendaland where about a dozen small churches were meeting in various villages. There was plenty of work to do, and we got stuck in.

A Fascinating Country

I say South Africa was fascinating. It was at least two different countries – not geographically, but socially. Apartheid (defined as “separate development”) separated the whites and the non-whites (Africans, Coloureds and Indians) and emphasized the separateness of the non-whites from each other (the thirteen-or-so African tribes, the Coloureds and the Indians). There were even separate schools? for English-speaking whites and for Afrikaans-speaking whites. The white population lived on a high standard of living, almost like Americans; the non-white population lived on a low standard. Living areas, schools, hospitals, transport, restrooms, even elevators, were separate and unequal Africans had to carry identity documents to show they had the right to live and work in the area where they were, and very often they could riot get official permission to live and work where they wanted to.

But part of the fascination of the country was, and the freedom of expression. The English language newspapers in particular were unmerciful in condemning the government for its apartheid policies. The white opposition party in Parliament was stridently proclaiming against the laws.” Ant? though non-white political parties were banned, there was plenty of organized and unorganized opposition among blacks, too.

And there was, and is, freedom of religion South Africa has an incredible mixture of religions, from the established western denominations to African ancestor worship and hybrids of the two, with the Hindu and Muslim religions strong among the Indians. Bible is taught (sort of) in the schools, and ministers of religion are treated with respect. We are as free to preach the gospel in South Africa as in the United States, and usually more welcome.

Preaching In Johannesburg

In Johannesburg we tried many forms of evangelism. There was a weekly teaching ad until the paper banned us -because a Jew in their composing room objected to my article showing that the law of Moses was nailed to the cross.

We held neighborhood gospel meetings when we engaged hail for–Four or five nights, advertised the services by distributing 5,000 copies of three different adverts for three weeks before the meeting, and prayed for visitors to come. Enough came for us to get contacts for home Bible studies, and sonic were baptized. A few members from other places moved to Johannesburg and began meeting with us. The church grew until in 1973 we were able to buy a house in Brixton, tear out some walls and begin meeting there.

In Brixton we were able to hold gospel meetings and lectureships. The attendance of blacks at these services led to one informal objections from white neighbors but no official problems. (The law has always allowed blacks to attend churches in white areas.) Then two Coloured families ere converted and became the first non-white members of is congregation. (Today the Brixton church has an attendance of about 90 on Sunday mornings and its membership consists of whites (majority], Coloureds, Indians and blacks.)

It has been a joy to me that one of the early ones to be baptized, Hendrik Joubert, is now preaching the gospel. He and his wife, Suzette, are like our own children to Helen and me.

The Brixton church continued to grow. Several families Rhodesia placed membership. Most of them were untaught concerning institutionalism, so there had to be a lot teaching on that subject: On one of our lectureships I’ve three lectures on the problem. As we grew, we formed two other churches. The Coloured brethren decided to start meeting in Eldorado Park where they lived, and brethren Krugersdorp (15 miles west) started meeting there. (There had previously been a church In Krugersdorp, and people taught there at that time are still faithful Christians, but it had ceased meeting some years before.) Because one of the men in the Eldorado Park church became a hindrance to the cause, that church did not prosper and one of the original families is now worshipping with the Brixton church again. The Krugersdorp church has continued to grow and is a good congregation. Hendrik Joubert, David Beckley and John Schultz (who is now there) have worked with them.

In 1983 the Brixton church remodeled the house in which they were meeting and the result is an attractive little church building with an auditorium seating almost 100, a baptistry under the speakers platform, three classrooms and two .rooms. Later they put a rondavel (round room) behind the building for an extra classroom. Brother Leslie Maydell has been working with them since we left Johannesburg in 1984.

Soweto and Vendaland

With the Johannesburg church, I was also working with the Soweto churches and with Vendaland churches, There was a good bit of informal debate between black faithful brethren and black institutional brethren. Brother Tope and I did a lot of teaching on this subject. I had a debate with Seventh Day Adventists (which continued weekly for sometime) in Soweto and in Vendaland l had two debates with brother John Hardin on institutionalism. The three Soweto churches grew to be five.

Debates

On the subject of debates, I moderated for Ray Votaw in a one night debate with a Seventh Day Adventist and I had a one night debate with Mr. Ahmed Deedat, the head of a Muslim Propagation Society, which about 2,000 people attended in a sports stadium near my house. In that debate I affirmed that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead.

Political Change

Part of the fascination of South Africa is the profound political change which has and is occurring. The change between 1968 and 1993 is almost unbelievable. All apartheid laws are gone, schools and living areas are integrated, an interim government is just months away, a new constitution which will bring in a complete new political dispensation is probably a year away. The part of this change which none of us likes is the violence which is accompanying it, violence which is affecting the lives of Africans very much. Pray for our black brethren, please. The whites feel threatened, but have not had to endure much direct violence. Helen and I have been quite safe wherever we have gone.

Preaching to Zulus

As the years went by, we visited the United States each four years. In 1972 we stayed 11 months, since then each visit was for three months. And of course our children grew up. By 1984 they were all in the United States except David and his family (three sons), who were getting ready to return. Helen and I decided to move from Johannesburg to Zululand where the need to preach the gospel among the Zulus was very great. Since then we have been living in the small town of Eshowe where there now is a church of about 35 members with an attendance of 50-60 on Sunday morning and there are churches in six other places in Zululand where there were none. Brethren converted here are strengthening churches in other places, even as far away as 700 miles. The little church in Eshowe is fully supporting David Ngonyama who is preaching the gospel together with me and it is active in helping the poor of this congregation and elsewhere.

Throughout these 25 years, churches and individuals in America have faithfully supported us and our work. God has blessed us with good health and continuing opportunities. Helen and l are happy in this work (and would be sorry to have to return to the United States) and continue to thank God for his marvelous blessings.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 7, p. 6-7
April 1, 1993