2 which had originally been proposed by R Eisler.

This explanation suggests that John’s original saying contained references to bothTtviî^ov and , but

that is to be understood as meaning ’wind’ 3

and not ’spirit’. This would tie in well with the allusion to wind in Mt.3:12 and Lk.3:17# C.K. Barrett, who argues for the same interpretation, says that both wind and fire are to be regarded as instruments of

judgment, and he offers an expanded version of John’s statement about the baptism of the Coming One : "... :

See Pi 27 above.

2_{R. Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the}

Baptist, pp. 275-2§5 as cited by" Best, ’Spirit-Baptism,’ p. 240. 3

’He will baptize (i.e. judge) you with wind and fire; the wind will sweep through the threshing floor to

carry away the chaff, which will then be burned. Barrett concludes his treatment of John’s saying by putting forward an explanation of how ’Holy Spirit’ got into the Gospel texts. He pays,

The forms in which the saying appeared in

Mk. (? and in the Q source) were due to the influ­ ence of the Christian experience; we cannot see here a prophecy of the gift of the Spirit to the Church. The contrast between the very rare use of

in the Gospels with its frequency in the rest of the NT is accentuated; for the present oc­ currence is due to a "reading back" from the later period.

At this point, a treatment of John the Baptist’s

saying by C.H. Kraeling serves to redirect our discussion. He insists that the Holy Spirit was mentioned in

the earliest form of the saying^ and then goes on to attempt to show how this can be reconciled with the ominous nature of John’s message. He does this

Barrett, The Holv Spirit and the Gospel Tradition. p. 126.

2_{Barrett, ibid.} 3

by asserting that the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit as a creative and redemptive agent has blinded us to another part of the Hebrew concept of the Spirit.^ This second part^ Kraeling says, is to be seen in

the Spirit’s acting against evil and wickedness. He continues, "This purgative and destructive aspect of the working of the Spirit...is as characteristic of the traditional Hebrew conception as the inspiring

2

and uplifting function.” He further says that this kind of activity on the part of the Spirit is obscured by English translations which usually take ruach in such passages to mean ’breath’. He also says that

ttv's^ oc in the NT can carry this destructive sense too

and cites 2 Thess.2:0 as an instance.^ Kraeling then applies these considerations to John’s statement

by saying,

Following this line of thought it is

possible to suggest that in the original saying of John which underlies the relevant New

kraeling, p. 61.

2_{Kraeling, ibid.}

Testament material there was an allusion to the

Spirit as a purgative and destructive force working through the Messiah.

In Kraeling’8 opinion, then, John’s original statement spoke of a Messiah who would baptise with the Spirit.

Kraeling suggests that "and fire” was added by Christians who were afraid that the punitive nature of John’s

prophecy would be lost because of the positive experiences with the Holy Spirit which the Early Church had had

on the Day of Pentecost and after.^

One suspects that the purgative, destructive part of the Hebrew conception of the Spirit’s activity is

3

not as strong as Kraeling implies. However, the suggestion is plausible: Job 4:9, Is.30:20, Is.4:4, and Is. 31:3 all present ruach involved in this sort of activity. Since it is certainly possible that John could have spoken of the Spirit in connection

kraeling, p. 62. '

2

Kraeling, p. 63.

^See ’ttvct^ o^ , B. Spirit in the

OT,’ Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Ed.

G. Friedrich, trans. Gr.w . Bromiley '{Grand Rapids:

with the Messiah,^ and since Kraeling’s suggestion

fits the contexts in Mt.3 and Lk.3 well, it would seem