ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι Agent, Instrument, Sphere? I Corinthians 12:13

[davidmccollough]

In 1 Corinthians 12:13 there is the question of whether ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι should be rendered ‘by’ or ‘with’ or ‘in’.

Yet, in Matthew’s account of John baptising, we read

Ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν,...

αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί·

It seems to me like an open and shut case: ἐν collocates with βαπτίζω with a locative or instrumental meaning, ‘in/with water’ ‘in with fire’. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 12:13 is not expressing agency, but instrumentality or sphere.
καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν

It’s seems to be a straightforward matter of collocation.
But, there is much scholarly debate.
Am I missing something? Would a linguistic approach help?
Any advice would be appreciated!

[davidmccollough]

I also note that in Matthew, baptismal agency is expressed by ὑπὸ - ἐγὼ χρείαν ἔχω ὑπὸ σοῦ βαπτισθῆναι,
(Matthew 3:14)

[Stirling Bartholomew]

Matt. 3:16 βαπτισθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εὐθὺς ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος ...

Mark 1:10 καὶ εὐθὺς ἀναβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος ...

Acts 8:39 ὅτε δὲ ἀνέβησαν ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος ...

This clarifies what happened.

Postscript:

This was provided by Accord. 9.6 running on MacOS Mojave 10.14.6 Build 18G5033, MBP 13 early 2015 SSD APFS Vol.

[davidmccollough]

Matt. 3:16 βαπτισθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εὐθὺς ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος ...

Mark 1:10 καὶ εὐθὺς ἀναβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος ...

Acts 8:39 ὅτε δὲ ἀνέβησαν ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος ...

This clarifies what happened.

Thank you. I recognise the language of going down into the water and coming up from the water.

However, my question regards 1 Corinthians 12:13 and the preposition ἐν. Does the collocation of ἐν with βαπτίζω in the Gospels (Matthew 3:11 Ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν, compare Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16) with it’s clear sense, which you demonstrated, of sphere, apply to 1 Corinthians 12:13? That is, does collocation analysis require a translation of ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν as ‘in/with one Spirit we all were baptised into one body’?

Another way to put it is, if a Greek speaker wanted to talk about someone immersing something in a liquid, would the natural way of doing that be ‘someone immerses something ἐν a liquid’. Conversely, would the natural way of speaking have been, ‘something was immersed ὑπὸ someone’?

Thank you!

[Barry Hofstetter]

Thank you. I recognise the language of going down into the water and coming up from the water.

However, my question regards 1 Corinthians 12:13 and the preposition ἐν. Does the collocation of ἐν with βαπτίζω in the Gospels (Matthew 3:11 Ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν, compare Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16) with it’s clear sense, which you demonstrated, of sphere, apply to 1 Corinthians 12:13? That is, does collocation analysis require a translation of ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν as ‘in/with one Spirit we all were baptised into one body’?

Another way to put it is, if a Greek speaker wanted to talk about someone immersing something in a liquid, would the natural way of doing that be ‘someone immerses something ἐν a liquid’. Conversely, would the natural way of speaking have been, ‘something was immersed ὑπὸ someone’?

Thank you!

In general, words which imply motion take a preposition which takes the accusative, and with βάπτω, which clearly means "immerse" the usual preposition is εἰς. In 1st Cor 12:13:

καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν... ἐν I think is of instrument, and εἰς of the actual object complement.

[davidmccollough]

Thank you. I recognise the language of going down into the water and coming up from the water.

However, my question regards 1 Corinthians 12:13 and the preposition ἐν. Does the collocation of ἐν with βαπτίζω in the Gospels (Matthew 3:11 Ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν, compare Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16) with it’s clear sense, which you demonstrated, of sphere, apply to 1 Corinthians 12:13? That is, does collocation analysis require a translation of ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν as ‘in/with one Spirit we all were baptised into one body’?

Another way to put it is, if a Greek speaker wanted to talk about someone immersing something in a liquid, would the natural way of doing that be ‘someone immerses something ἐν a liquid’. Conversely, would the natural way of speaking have been, ‘something was immersed ὑπὸ someone’?

Thank you!

In general, words which imply motion take a preposition which takes the accusative, and with βάπτω, which clearly means "immerse" the usual preposition is εἰς. In 1st Cor 12:13:

καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν... ἐν I think is of instrument, and εἰς of the actual object complement.

Thank you. I agree that 1 Cor 12:13 is either instrumental or locative. But I'm not sure which. I just did a quick TLG lemma search of βαπτίζω plus ἐν and there are very many results. Below I've listed just two. But is context the only way to discriminate between locative and instrumental?

Josephus BJ 1.435
πέμπεται μὲν οὖν ὁ παῖς διὰ νυκτὸς εἰς Ἱεριχοῦντα, ἐκεῖ δὲ κατ’ ἐντολὴν ὑπὸ τῶν Γαλατῶν βαπτιζόμενος ἐν κολυμβήθρᾳ τελευτᾷ.
‘he sent then the child through the night to Jericho, and there, according to [Herod’s] command, he was immersed in a pool by the Galatians and died

SEPTUAGINTA Relig. Regnorum iv (Regum ii in textu Masoretico) {0527.014} Chapter 5 section 13 line 3
καὶ κατέβη Ναιμαν καὶ ἐβαπτίσατο ἐν τῷ Ιορδάνῃ
‘and Naaman went down and immersed himself in the Jordan’

[wcombs]

Dan Wallace has a discussion of this in his grammar:


B. Significant Passages Involving Ἐν

As varied as the uses of ἐν are, sometimes it is considered even more elastic than it really is. The following discussion focuses on a few passages in which the preposition has been viewed as expressing agency or content.

1. Ἐν (En) + Dative for Personal Agency?

Some have suggested that either the naked dative or ἐν + the dative can express personal agency in the NT.46 However, once a clear definition is given for personal agency, this will be seen to be a rare or nonexistent category. Williams defines the dative of agency as denoting “the agent (personal) by whom something is done. The only difference between means and agency is that means is impersonal, agency is personal.”47

This definition is a little too general. It would be better to say that when ἐν + the dative expresses the idea of means (a different category), the instrument is used by an agent. When agency is indicated, the agent so named is not used by another, but is the one who uses an instrument. (It may be noted here that an intermediate agent, usually expressed by διά + the genitive, is an agent who acts on behalf of another or in the place of another. This agent is not, strictly speaking, used by another as an instrument would be.) Thus, ἐν + dative to express means can be (and often is) used of persons, though they are conceived of as impersonal (i.e, used as an instrument by someone else). For example, in the sentence “God disciplined me by means of my parents,” “God” is the agent who used the “parents” as the means by which he accomplished something. The parents are, of course, persons. But they are conceived of as impersonal in that they are the instruments used by another.

According to our definition, if ἐν + dative is used to express agency, the noun in the dative must not only be personal, but must also be the agent who performs the action.48 BDF accurately assess the NT situation of the naked dative used for personal agency: “Dative of agency is perhaps represented by only one genuine example in the NT and this with the perfect: Luke 23:15.”49 In summary, we can say that there are very few clear examples of the dative of agency in the NT, and all of them involve a perfect passive verb.

[p. 374]
The slightly different phenomenon of ἐν + the dative is also considered by many to express agency on a rare occasion. Yet no unambiguous examples are forthcoming. Thus what can be said about the dative of agency can also be said of ἐν + the dative to express agent: it is rare, at best.50

Mark 1:8 αὐτὸς δὲ βαπτίσει ὑμᾶς ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ51

but he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit

Here it is obvious that Christ is the agent (since αὐτός is the subject), and the Holy Spirit is the means (and perhaps sphere) that the Lord uses to baptize.

1 Cor 12:13 γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν

for by one Spirit we all were baptized into one body

Our contention is that this is an illustration of ἐν used for means. By calling “Spirit” means here does not deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.52 Rather, the Holy Spirit is the instrument that Christ uses to baptize, even though he is a person. Since πνεύματι ἁγίῳ clearly indicated means in Mark 1:8 (as in several other passages dealing with Spirit-baptism), it is surely not unreasonable to see “Spirit” as the means here.

Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit is the agent in this text, there is a theological problem: When is the prophecy of Mark 1:8 fulfilled? When would Christ baptize with the Holy Spirit? Because of the grammatical improbability of πνεύματι expressing agent in 1 Cor 12:13, it is better to see it as means and as the fulfillment of Mark 1:8. Thus, Christ is the unnamed agent. This also renders highly improbable one popular interpretation, viz., that there are two Spirit baptisms in the NT, one at salvation and one later.53

[davidmccollough]

Dan Wallace has a discussion of this in his grammar:


B. Significant Passages Involving Ἐν

As varied as the uses of ἐν are, sometimes it is considered even more elastic than it really is. The following discussion focuses on a few passages in which the preposition has been viewed as expressing agency or content.

1. Ἐν (En) + Dative for Personal Agency?

Some have suggested that either the naked dative or ἐν + the dative can express personal agency in the NT.46 However, once a clear definition is given for personal agency, this will be seen to be a rare or nonexistent category. Williams defines the dative of agency as denoting “the agent (personal) by whom something is done. The only difference between means and agency is that means is impersonal, agency is personal.”47

This definition is a little too general. It would be better to say that when ἐν + the dative expresses the idea of means (a different category), the instrument is used by an agent. When agency is indicated, the agent so named is not used by another, but is the one who uses an instrument. (It may be noted here that an intermediate agent, usually expressed by διά + the genitive, is an agent who acts on behalf of another or in the place of another. This agent is not, strictly speaking, used by another as an instrument would be.) Thus, ἐν + dative to express means can be (and often is) used of persons, though they are conceived of as impersonal (i.e, used as an instrument by someone else). For example, in the sentence “God disciplined me by means of my parents,” “God” is the agent who used the “parents” as the means by which he accomplished something. The parents are, of course, persons. But they are conceived of as impersonal in that they are the instruments used by another.

According to our definition, if ἐν + dative is used to express agency, the noun in the dative must not only be personal, but must also be the agent who performs the action.48 BDF accurately assess the NT situation of the naked dative used for personal agency: “Dative of agency is perhaps represented by only one genuine example in the NT and this with the perfect: Luke 23:15.”49 In summary, we can say that there are very few clear examples of the dative of agency in the NT, and all of them involve a perfect passive verb.

[p. 374]
The slightly different phenomenon of ἐν + the dative is also considered by many to express agency on a rare occasion. Yet no unambiguous examples are forthcoming. Thus what can be said about the dative of agency can also be said of ἐν + the dative to express agent: it is rare, at best.50

Mark 1:8 αὐτὸς δὲ βαπτίσει ὑμᾶς ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ51

but he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit

Here it is obvious that Christ is the agent (since αὐτός is the subject), and the Holy Spirit is the means (and perhaps sphere) that the Lord uses to baptize.

1 Cor 12:13 γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν

for by one Spirit we all were baptized into one body

Our contention is that this is an illustration of ἐν used for means. By calling “Spirit” means here does not deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.52 Rather, the Holy Spirit is the instrument that Christ uses to baptize, even though he is a person. Since πνεύματι ἁγίῳ clearly indicated means in Mark 1:8 (as in several other passages dealing with Spirit-baptism), it is surely not unreasonable to see “Spirit” as the means here.

Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit is the agent in this text, there is a theological problem: When is the prophecy of Mark 1:8 fulfilled? When would Christ baptize with the Holy Spirit? Because of the grammatical improbability of πνεύματι expressing agent in 1 Cor 12:13, it is better to see it as means and as the fulfillment of Mark 1:8. Thus, Christ is the unnamed agent. This also renders highly improbable one popular interpretation, viz., that there are two Spirit baptisms in the NT, one at salvation and one later.53

Thank you. Wallace uses the term ‘means’. It seems to be basically the same idea as ‘instrument’. But, in English we would not say, ‘I baptise you by water’. We would say, ‘I baptise you with water’. So, I question whether ‘by one Spirit’ is a helpful translation of 1 Corinthians 12:13.

Yet, Wallace does not appeal to the phenomenon of collocation to make his case. I think a linguistic argument would make Wallace’s case for ‘means’ stronger.

[MAubrey]

ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι is both the location and the instrument, which is the natural default for verbs of washing: "in" and "with" are blended together into a single frame. Treating πνεύματι as an agent here is incorrect...and that's true generally for ἐν πνεύματι, there's inevitably some other things going on that motivates the use of ἐν.

εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν is a secondary predication, indicating the trajectory (and thus purpose) of the washing.

[davidmccollough]

ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι is both the location and the instrument, which is the natural default for verbs of washing: "in" and "with" are blended together into a single frame. Treating πνεύματι as an agent here is incorrect...and that's true generally for ἐν πνεύματι, there's inevitably some other things going on that motivates the use of ἐν.

εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν is a secondary predication, indicating the trajectory (and thus purpose) of the washing.

Thank you! I knew it couldn’t be an agent, but that explains it. ἐν with a verb of washing will invariably be the location/instrument in/by which the washing is done.