d.)
The Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 12:13
The Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 12:13
1 Corinthians 12:13 reads, “For by one Spirit
are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”[i] The clauses of this passage will be
examined in order, and their significance evaluated.
are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”[i] The clauses of this passage will be
examined in order, and their significance evaluated.
The historic Baptist position affirms that this
clause refers to the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit, as do both the PCP and
UCD doctrine. This clause, on the
Biblical, historic Baptist view, refers to the Holy Spirit leading the members
of the church at Corinth to submit to water baptism. Although the members of the Corinthian assembly boasted
about the amazing spiritual gifts given them by the Spirit, and caused division
in the assembly on their account, the apostle Paul reminded the congregation
that the Holy Spirit had led the members of their church to submit to a common
immersion with the phrase “by one Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 12:13 affirms that the Holy Spirit is the
Producer of congregational unity around the ordinances of baptism and the
Lord’s Supper.
clause refers to the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit, as do both the PCP and
UCD doctrine. This clause, on the
Biblical, historic Baptist view, refers to the Holy Spirit leading the members
of the church at Corinth to submit to water baptism. Although the members of the Corinthian assembly boasted
about the amazing spiritual gifts given them by the Spirit, and caused division
in the assembly on their account, the apostle Paul reminded the congregation
that the Holy Spirit had led the members of their church to submit to a common
immersion with the phrase “by one Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 12:13 affirms that the Holy Spirit is the
Producer of congregational unity around the ordinances of baptism and the
Lord’s Supper.
Various commentators and writers have advanced
the idea that by in the verse should be
translated as in, and
consequently affirmed either that the correct translation is “in one Spirit” or
“in one spirit.” The question of a
reference to the Holy Spirit, or a “spirit,”[ii]
and of the rendition of en as by or in
will be addressed in order.
the idea that by in the verse should be
translated as in, and
consequently affirmed either that the correct translation is “in one Spirit” or
“in one spirit.” The question of a
reference to the Holy Spirit, or a “spirit,”[ii]
and of the rendition of en as by or in
will be addressed in order.
Thomas Strouse, Baptist seminary professor and advocate of Spirit baptism as
a completed historical event, commented concerning 1 Corinthians 12:13:
a completed historical event, commented concerning 1 Corinthians 12:13:
Paul
employed the expression “by one Spirit” (en heni pneumati) in Phil. 1:27 as “in one spirit,” referring to “the
spirit of unity.” Since pneumati is anarthrous in I Cor. 12:13, Paul differentiated pneumati (“spirit”) from the seven previous articular
references to “the Spirit” (to pneumati) as deity.[iii]
employed the expression “by one Spirit” (en heni pneumati) in Phil. 1:27 as “in one spirit,” referring to “the
spirit of unity.” Since pneumati is anarthrous in I Cor. 12:13, Paul differentiated pneumati (“spirit”) from the seven previous articular
references to “the Spirit” (to pneumati) as deity.[iii]
Strouse
affirms that 1 Corinthians 12:13 refers to a “spirit of unity” that the
assembly possessed when its members received water baptism, rather than to the
Holy Spirit leading the members of the assembly to receive immersion. However, the idea that 1 Corinthians
12:13 refers to “a spirit” of unity rather than the third Person in the Trinity
cannot be sustained exegetically.
affirms that 1 Corinthians 12:13 refers to a “spirit of unity” that the
assembly possessed when its members received water baptism, rather than to the
Holy Spirit leading the members of the assembly to receive immersion. However, the idea that 1 Corinthians
12:13 refers to “a spirit” of unity rather than the third Person in the Trinity
cannot be sustained exegetically.
First, the immediate context provides
overwhelming support for a reference to the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians
12:13. Consider 12:3-13:
overwhelming support for a reference to the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians
12:13. Consider 12:3-13:
Wherefore I give
you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God
calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the
Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Now there
are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are
differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of
operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the
manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one
is given by the Spirit the word
of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the
same Spirit; To another the working of
miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers
kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit,
dividing to every man severally as he will. For as the body is one, and hath
many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body:
so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be
Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or
free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.[iv]
you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God
calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the
Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Now there
are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are
differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of
operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the
manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one
is given by the Spirit the word
of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the
same Spirit; To another the working of
miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers
kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit,
dividing to every man severally as he will. For as the body is one, and hath
many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body:
so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be
Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or
free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.[iv]
The
eleven references to the word pneuma,
“Spirit/spirit,” in 1 Corinthians 12:3-13, uniformly refer to the Holy
Spirit. Changing “by one Spirit”
to “in one spirit of unity” in v. 13 is very contrary to the context. For that matter, the “one Spirit” of v.
13 is the “one and the selfsame Spirit” who “worketh . . . as he will” in v.
11. The explanatory words
“for” in v. 12, 13 connect the reference to the “one Spirit” (hen
Pneuma) of v. 13 immediately back to the
“one . . . Spirit” (hen . . . Pneuma) of v. 11. Since v. 11
refers to the Holy Spirit, v. 13 refers to the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, that the second half of 1
Corinthians 12:13 refers to “drink[ing] into one Spirit,” the Holy Spirit, not
a “spirit of unity,” confirms the reference to the Holy Spirit in the first
half.[v] The overwhelming evidence of eleven
references to the Holy Spirit in the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 12:13,
the fact that v. 13 explains and develops the reference to the Holy Spirit in
v. 11, and the evidence of the second half of v. 13, prove that 1 Corinthians
12:13a refers to the Holy Spirit, not to a “spirit of unity.”
eleven references to the word pneuma,
“Spirit/spirit,” in 1 Corinthians 12:3-13, uniformly refer to the Holy
Spirit. Changing “by one Spirit”
to “in one spirit of unity” in v. 13 is very contrary to the context. For that matter, the “one Spirit” of v.
13 is the “one and the selfsame Spirit” who “worketh . . . as he will” in v.
11. The explanatory words
“for” in v. 12, 13 connect the reference to the “one Spirit” (hen
Pneuma) of v. 13 immediately back to the
“one . . . Spirit” (hen . . . Pneuma) of v. 11. Since v. 11
refers to the Holy Spirit, v. 13 refers to the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, that the second half of 1
Corinthians 12:13 refers to “drink[ing] into one Spirit,” the Holy Spirit, not
a “spirit of unity,” confirms the reference to the Holy Spirit in the first
half.[v] The overwhelming evidence of eleven
references to the Holy Spirit in the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 12:13,
the fact that v. 13 explains and develops the reference to the Holy Spirit in
v. 11, and the evidence of the second half of v. 13, prove that 1 Corinthians
12:13a refers to the Holy Spirit, not to a “spirit of unity.”
Furthermore, the word “spirit” is not employed
anywhere in Scripture as a reference to a “spirit of unity.” If 1 Corinthians 12:13 referred to such
a thing, it would be absolutely unique in Scripture in doing so. An alleged parallel to Philippians 1:27
fails because the latter passage refers to the human spirit, as is made obvious
by the immediately following reference to another portion of the human person,
the mind or soul: “I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit
[en heni pneumati], with one mind [mia
pseuche] striving together for the faith of
the gospel.”[vi] Philippians 1:27, along with the
similar reference in Acts 4:32 to “the multitude of them that believed [being]
of one heart and of one soul,”[vii]
do indeed emphasize unity in the assembly, as in both verses the inner beings,
the minds, souls, hearts, and spirits, of the members of the church were to be
in agreement as they strove together to serve the Lord. Nonetheless, Philippians 1:27 and Acts
4:32 do not refer to a “spirit of unity” anymore than they do to a “soul of
unity” or a “heart of unity.”
Thus, unless one wishes to make 1 Corinthians 12:13 into a reference to being
baptized and drinking into the human soul and spirit—which would require a
definite mental stretch to produce any reasonable signification—there is no
parallel whatever between 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Philippians 1:27 in the use
of the word pneuma, “Spirit/spirit,”
as a reference to a “spirit of unity.”
None of the 385 references to the word pneuma in the New Testament refer to a “spirit of
unity.” A very large number of the
references to pneuma—including
ten instances other than 1 Corinthians 12:13a in 12:3-13—refer to God the Holy
Spirit.
anywhere in Scripture as a reference to a “spirit of unity.” If 1 Corinthians 12:13 referred to such
a thing, it would be absolutely unique in Scripture in doing so. An alleged parallel to Philippians 1:27
fails because the latter passage refers to the human spirit, as is made obvious
by the immediately following reference to another portion of the human person,
the mind or soul: “I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit
[en heni pneumati], with one mind [mia
pseuche] striving together for the faith of
the gospel.”[vi] Philippians 1:27, along with the
similar reference in Acts 4:32 to “the multitude of them that believed [being]
of one heart and of one soul,”[vii]
do indeed emphasize unity in the assembly, as in both verses the inner beings,
the minds, souls, hearts, and spirits, of the members of the church were to be
in agreement as they strove together to serve the Lord. Nonetheless, Philippians 1:27 and Acts
4:32 do not refer to a “spirit of unity” anymore than they do to a “soul of
unity” or a “heart of unity.”
Thus, unless one wishes to make 1 Corinthians 12:13 into a reference to being
baptized and drinking into the human soul and spirit—which would require a
definite mental stretch to produce any reasonable signification—there is no
parallel whatever between 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Philippians 1:27 in the use
of the word pneuma, “Spirit/spirit,”
as a reference to a “spirit of unity.”
None of the 385 references to the word pneuma in the New Testament refer to a “spirit of
unity.” A very large number of the
references to pneuma—including
ten instances other than 1 Corinthians 12:13a in 12:3-13—refer to God the Holy
Spirit.
Strouse’s statement, “Since pneumati is anarthrous in I Cor. 12:13, Paul differentiated pneumati (“spirit”) from the seven[viii]
previous articular references to ‘the Spirit’ (to pneumati) as deity” cannot be sustained. Several rules of
Greek grammar demonstrate that there is no reason to require an article to make
“by one Spirit” have a definite signification. Daniel Wallace, in his Greek Grammar Beyond the
Basics,[ix]
writes:
previous articular references to ‘the Spirit’ (to pneumati) as deity” cannot be sustained. Several rules of
Greek grammar demonstrate that there is no reason to require an article to make
“by one Spirit” have a definite signification. Daniel Wallace, in his Greek Grammar Beyond the
Basics,[ix]
writes:
The
function of the article is not primarily
to make something definite that would otherwise be indefinite. . . . It is not
necessary for a noun to have the article in order for it to be definite. . .
there are at least ten constructions in which a noun may be definite though
anarthrous. . . . [A] proper name is definite without the article. . . . There
is no need for the article to be used to make the object of a preposition
definite. . . . [they are only] occasionally indefinite . . . Thus, when a noun
is the object of a preposition, it does not require the article to be definite:
if it has the article, it must be definite; if it lacks the article, it may be
definite. The reason for the article, then, is usually for other purposes (such
as anaphora or as a function marker). . . . [Furthermore,] [a] one-of-a-kind
noun does not, of course, require the article to be definite (e.g., “sun,”
“earth,” “devil,” etc.). One might consider pneuvma as monadic when it is modified by the adjective a‚gion. If so, then the expression pneuvma a‚gion is monadic and refers
only to the Holy Spirit.
function of the article is not primarily
to make something definite that would otherwise be indefinite. . . . It is not
necessary for a noun to have the article in order for it to be definite. . .
there are at least ten constructions in which a noun may be definite though
anarthrous. . . . [A] proper name is definite without the article. . . . There
is no need for the article to be used to make the object of a preposition
definite. . . . [they are only] occasionally indefinite . . . Thus, when a noun
is the object of a preposition, it does not require the article to be definite:
if it has the article, it must be definite; if it lacks the article, it may be
definite. The reason for the article, then, is usually for other purposes (such
as anaphora or as a function marker). . . . [Furthermore,] [a] one-of-a-kind
noun does not, of course, require the article to be definite (e.g., “sun,”
“earth,” “devil,” etc.). One might consider pneuvma as monadic when it is modified by the adjective a‚gion. If so, then the expression pneuvma a‚gion is monadic and refers
only to the Holy Spirit.
A
reference to the name of the monadic Spirit of God,[x]
with Spirit as the object of the preposition “by,” has no need of the Greek
article to express definiteness.
To argue otherwise neglects important characteristics of Greek syntax.
reference to the name of the monadic Spirit of God,[x]
with Spirit as the object of the preposition “by,” has no need of the Greek
article to express definiteness.
To argue otherwise neglects important characteristics of Greek syntax.
Furthermore, not all of the references to the
Spirit of God in 1 Corinthians 12:3-13 contain the Greek article. In 12:3, the Holy Spirit is twice
mentioned without an article, both instances following the same preposition (en) employed in 12:13.[xi] Furthermore, the Spirit of God is
referred to without the Greek article following en (and in a variety of other constructions, naturally,
7:40, etc.) elsewhere in 1 Corinthians (2:4, 13; 6:19). In fact, the construction en
heis, “in/by one,” never is followed by the
Greek article in the epistles of Paul or, for that matter, in any of the New
Testament outside of Luke’s gospel[xii]—but
one could not properly supply the English indefinite article after any of the
Greek nonarticular en heis
constructions.
Spirit of God in 1 Corinthians 12:3-13 contain the Greek article. In 12:3, the Holy Spirit is twice
mentioned without an article, both instances following the same preposition (en) employed in 12:13.[xi] Furthermore, the Spirit of God is
referred to without the Greek article following en (and in a variety of other constructions, naturally,
7:40, etc.) elsewhere in 1 Corinthians (2:4, 13; 6:19). In fact, the construction en
heis, “in/by one,” never is followed by the
Greek article in the epistles of Paul or, for that matter, in any of the New
Testament outside of Luke’s gospel[xii]—but
one could not properly supply the English indefinite article after any of the
Greek nonarticular en heis
constructions.
1 Corinthians 12:13a of necessity refers to the
Holy Spirit. The connection of v.
13 to v. 11 and the eleven uses of pneuma
for the Holy Spirit in the immediate context compel this conclusion. Arguments in favor of an alternative
reading of the text as a reference to a “spirit of unity” fall far short of
dismantling the contextual evidence for a designation of the Holy Spirit. Scripture does not refer to a “spirit
of unity” with the word pneuma
anywhere in the Bible. Syntactical
asseverations against a reference to the Spirit of God in 1 Corinthians 12:13a
entirely fail to establish their conclusions. Reference to the great God, the Holy Spirit, must not be
removed from 1 Corinthians 12:13a.
Holy Spirit. The connection of v.
13 to v. 11 and the eleven uses of pneuma
for the Holy Spirit in the immediate context compel this conclusion. Arguments in favor of an alternative
reading of the text as a reference to a “spirit of unity” fall far short of
dismantling the contextual evidence for a designation of the Holy Spirit. Scripture does not refer to a “spirit
of unity” with the word pneuma
anywhere in the Bible. Syntactical
asseverations against a reference to the Spirit of God in 1 Corinthians 12:13a
entirely fail to establish their conclusions. Reference to the great God, the Holy Spirit, must not be
removed from 1 Corinthians 12:13a.
Note that this complete study, with all it parts and with additional material not reproduced on this blog in this series, is available by clicking here.
[i]
kai« ga»r e˙n e˚ni« Pneu/mati hJmei√ß pa¿nteß ei˙ß e≠n sw◊ma
e˙bapti÷sqhmen, ei¶te ∆Ioudai√oi ei¶te ›Ellhneß, ei¶te douvloi ei¶te
e˙leu/qeroi: kai« pa¿nteß ei˙ß e≠n Pneuvma e˙poti÷sqhmen.
kai« ga»r e˙n e˚ni« Pneu/mati hJmei√ß pa¿nteß ei˙ß e≠n sw◊ma
e˙bapti÷sqhmen, ei¶te ∆Ioudai√oi ei¶te ›Ellhneß, ei¶te douvloi ei¶te
e˙leu/qeroi: kai« pa¿nteß ei˙ß e≠n Pneuvma e˙poti÷sqhmen.
[ii]
Believers
with a strong view of God’s providential working in the translation of the King
James Bible often also consider that the use of a capital “S” in the King James
Bibles that they read and study from should be considered hermeneutically. While this providential argument should
not be ignored or belittled, because as modern capitalization practices became
standardized an upper-case “S” in 1 Corinthians 12:13 indeed became the
capitalization practice found in the Authorized Version, in the original 1611
KJV the “s” was lower case in 1 Corinthians 12:13, as it was in a great number
of other verses referring to the Holy Spirit (such as 1 Corinthians 12:3,
“spirit of God,” v. 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, “spirit,” 2 Corinthians 3:3, “spirit of the
living God,” 3:18, “spirit of the Lord,” etc. This is not to say that the Holy Spirit universally lacks
capitalization in the 1611, e. g., 1 Corinthians 2:14; 7:40, “Spirit of
God.”). See The Holy Bible:
1611 edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson 2003 (reprint
ed).
Believers
with a strong view of God’s providential working in the translation of the King
James Bible often also consider that the use of a capital “S” in the King James
Bibles that they read and study from should be considered hermeneutically. While this providential argument should
not be ignored or belittled, because as modern capitalization practices became
standardized an upper-case “S” in 1 Corinthians 12:13 indeed became the
capitalization practice found in the Authorized Version, in the original 1611
KJV the “s” was lower case in 1 Corinthians 12:13, as it was in a great number
of other verses referring to the Holy Spirit (such as 1 Corinthians 12:3,
“spirit of God,” v. 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, “spirit,” 2 Corinthians 3:3, “spirit of the
living God,” 3:18, “spirit of the Lord,” etc. This is not to say that the Holy Spirit universally lacks
capitalization in the 1611, e. g., 1 Corinthians 2:14; 7:40, “Spirit of
God.”). See The Holy Bible:
1611 edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson 2003 (reprint
ed).
[iii]
“Ye Are
The Body of Christ,” Dr. Thomas M. Strouse. Emmanuel Baptist Theological
Seminary, Newington, CT. elec. acc.
http://www.faithonfire.org/articles/body_of_christ.html.
“Ye Are
The Body of Christ,” Dr. Thomas M. Strouse. Emmanuel Baptist Theological
Seminary, Newington, CT. elec. acc.
http://www.faithonfire.org/articles/body_of_christ.html.
[iv]
12:3
dio gnwri÷zw uJmi√n, o¢ti
oujdei«ß e˙n Pneu/mati Qeouv lalw◊n le÷gei aÓna¿qema ∆Ihsouvn: kai« oujdei«ß
du/natai ei˙pei√n Ku/rion ∆Ihsouvn, ei˙ mh e˙n Pneu/mati ÔAgi÷wˆ. 4 Diaire÷seiß de« carisma¿twn ei˙si÷, to de« aujto Pneuvma. 5 kai« diaire÷seiß diakoniw◊n ei˙si÷, kai« oJ aujtoß Ku/rioß. 6 kai« diaire÷seiß e˙nerghma¿twn ei˙si÷n, oJ de« aujto/ß e˙sti Qeo/ß, oJ
e˙nergw◊n ta» pa¿nta e˙n pa◊sin. 7 e˚ka¿stwˆ de« di÷dotai hJ
fane÷rwsiß touv Pneu/matoß proß to sumfe÷ron. 8 wˆ— me«n
ga»r dia» touv Pneu/matoß di÷dotai lo/goß sofi÷aß, a‡llwˆ de« lo/goß gnw¿sewß,
kata» to aujto Pneuvma: 9 e˚te÷rwˆ de« pi÷stiß, e˙n twˆ◊
aujtwˆ◊ Pneu/mati: a‡llwˆ de« cari÷smata i˙ama¿twn, e˙n twˆ◊ aujtwˆ◊ Pneu/mati:
10 a‡llwˆ de« e˙nergh/mata duna¿mewn, a‡llwˆ de« profhtei÷a,
a‡llwˆ de« diakri÷seiß pneuma¿twn, e˚te÷rwˆ de« ge÷nh glwssw◊n, a‡llwˆ de«
e˚rmhnei÷a glwssw◊n: 11 pa¿nta de« tauvta e˙nergei√ to
e≠n kai« to aujto Pneuvma, diairouvn i˙di÷aˆ e˚ka¿stwˆ kaqw»ß bou/letai. 12 Kaqa¿per ga»r to sw◊ma e≠n e˙sti, kai« me÷lh e¶cei polla¿, pa¿nta de«
ta» me÷lh touv sw¿matoß touv e˚no/ß, polla» o¡nta, e≠n e˙sti sw◊ma: ou¢tw kai«
oJ Cristo/ß. 13 kai« ga»r e˙n e˚ni« Pneu/mati
hJmei√ß pa¿nteß ei˙ß e≠n sw◊ma e˙bapti÷sqhmen, ei¶te ∆Ioudai√oi ei¶te ›Ellhneß,
ei¶te douvloi ei¶te e˙leu/qeroi: kai« pa¿nteß ei˙ß e≠n Pneuvma e˙poti÷sqhmen.
12:3
dio gnwri÷zw uJmi√n, o¢ti
oujdei«ß e˙n Pneu/mati Qeouv lalw◊n le÷gei aÓna¿qema ∆Ihsouvn: kai« oujdei«ß
du/natai ei˙pei√n Ku/rion ∆Ihsouvn, ei˙ mh e˙n Pneu/mati ÔAgi÷wˆ. 4 Diaire÷seiß de« carisma¿twn ei˙si÷, to de« aujto Pneuvma. 5 kai« diaire÷seiß diakoniw◊n ei˙si÷, kai« oJ aujtoß Ku/rioß. 6 kai« diaire÷seiß e˙nerghma¿twn ei˙si÷n, oJ de« aujto/ß e˙sti Qeo/ß, oJ
e˙nergw◊n ta» pa¿nta e˙n pa◊sin. 7 e˚ka¿stwˆ de« di÷dotai hJ
fane÷rwsiß touv Pneu/matoß proß to sumfe÷ron. 8 wˆ— me«n
ga»r dia» touv Pneu/matoß di÷dotai lo/goß sofi÷aß, a‡llwˆ de« lo/goß gnw¿sewß,
kata» to aujto Pneuvma: 9 e˚te÷rwˆ de« pi÷stiß, e˙n twˆ◊
aujtwˆ◊ Pneu/mati: a‡llwˆ de« cari÷smata i˙ama¿twn, e˙n twˆ◊ aujtwˆ◊ Pneu/mati:
10 a‡llwˆ de« e˙nergh/mata duna¿mewn, a‡llwˆ de« profhtei÷a,
a‡llwˆ de« diakri÷seiß pneuma¿twn, e˚te÷rwˆ de« ge÷nh glwssw◊n, a‡llwˆ de«
e˚rmhnei÷a glwssw◊n: 11 pa¿nta de« tauvta e˙nergei√ to
e≠n kai« to aujto Pneuvma, diairouvn i˙di÷aˆ e˚ka¿stwˆ kaqw»ß bou/letai. 12 Kaqa¿per ga»r to sw◊ma e≠n e˙sti, kai« me÷lh e¶cei polla¿, pa¿nta de«
ta» me÷lh touv sw¿matoß touv e˚no/ß, polla» o¡nta, e≠n e˙sti sw◊ma: ou¢tw kai«
oJ Cristo/ß. 13 kai« ga»r e˙n e˚ni« Pneu/mati
hJmei√ß pa¿nteß ei˙ß e≠n sw◊ma e˙bapti÷sqhmen, ei¶te ∆Ioudai√oi ei¶te ›Ellhneß,
ei¶te douvloi ei¶te e˙leu/qeroi: kai« pa¿nteß ei˙ß e≠n Pneuvma e˙poti÷sqhmen.
[v]
However,
an advocate of the “spirit of unity” position would likely also wish to deny
that the second half of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is a reference to the Holy
Ghost. Note the further comments
below on the “drink into one Spirit” clause.
However,
an advocate of the “spirit of unity” position would likely also wish to deny
that the second half of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is a reference to the Holy
Ghost. Note the further comments
below on the “drink into one Spirit” clause.
[vi]
aÓkou/sw ta» peri«
uJmw◊n, o¢ti sth/kete e˙n e˚ni« pneu/mati, miaˆ◊ yuchØv sunaqlouvnteß thØv
pi÷stei touv eujaggeli÷ou.
aÓkou/sw ta» peri«
uJmw◊n, o¢ti sth/kete e˙n e˚ni« pneu/mati, miaˆ◊ yuchØv sunaqlouvnteß thØv
pi÷stei touv eujaggeli÷ou.
[vii]
Touv de« plh/qouß tw◊n
pisteusa¿ntwn h™n hJ kardi÷a kai« hJ yuch mi÷a: kai« oujd∆ ei–ß ti tw◊n
uJparco/ntwn aujtwˆ◊ e¶legen i¶dion ei•nai, aÓll∆ h™n aujtoi√ß a‚panta koina¿.
Touv de« plh/qouß tw◊n
pisteusa¿ntwn h™n hJ kardi÷a kai« hJ yuch mi÷a: kai« oujd∆ ei–ß ti tw◊n
uJparco/ntwn aujtwˆ◊ e¶legen i¶dion ei•nai, aÓll∆ h™n aujtoi√ß a‚panta koina¿.
[viii]
While
Strouse appears to have stopped counting at an earlier point, probably verse
four, there are nine, not seven, references to the Holy Spirit from
12:3-12:12. There are indeed seven
in 12:4-12. It is not clear why
one would stop references to pneuma
at v. 4 when two additional references to the word occur in v. 3.
While
Strouse appears to have stopped counting at an earlier point, probably verse
four, there are nine, not seven, references to the Holy Spirit from
12:3-12:12. There are indeed seven
in 12:4-12. It is not clear why
one would stop references to pneuma
at v. 4 when two additional references to the word occur in v. 3.
[ix]
Pgs. 210,
243, 245, 248, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the
New Testament, Daniel B.
Wallace. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1996.
Pgs. 210,
243, 245, 248, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the
New Testament, Daniel B.
Wallace. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1996.
[x]
It is true
that the phrase pneuvma
a‚gion is not found in the instances
where pneuvma is found 1 Corinthians 12:4-13, but the references in
v. 4-13 are controlled by v. 3, where the Spirit is specifically designated
with His monadic title of pneuvma a‚gion, as well as His
unique status as pneuvma Qeouv.
It is true
that the phrase pneuvma
a‚gion is not found in the instances
where pneuvma is found 1 Corinthians 12:4-13, but the references in
v. 4-13 are controlled by v. 3, where the Spirit is specifically designated
with His monadic title of pneuvma a‚gion, as well as His
unique status as pneuvma Qeouv.
[xi]
oujdei«ß e˙n Pneu/mati
Qeouv lalw◊n le÷gei aÓna¿qema ∆Ihsouvn: kai« oujdei«ß du/natai ei˙pei√n Ku/rion
∆Ihsouvn, ei˙ mh e˙n Pneu/mati ÔAgi÷wˆ.
oujdei«ß e˙n Pneu/mati
Qeouv lalw◊n le÷gei aÓna¿qema ∆Ihsouvn: kai« oujdei«ß du/natai ei˙pei√n Ku/rion
∆Ihsouvn, ei˙ mh e˙n Pneu/mati ÔAgi÷wˆ.
[xii]
The
complete list of e˙n
ei–ß references in the NT is Luke 5:12,
17; 8:22; 13:10; 20:1; Romans 12:4; 15:6; 1 Corinthians 10:8; 12:13; Galatians
5:14; Ephesians 2:16, 18; 4:4; Philippians 1:27; Colossians 3:15; James 2:10;
Revelation 18:8, 10. Note that all
13 of the references outside of Luke are not followed by the article, while
Luke uniformly employs one.
The
complete list of e˙n
ei–ß references in the NT is Luke 5:12,
17; 8:22; 13:10; 20:1; Romans 12:4; 15:6; 1 Corinthians 10:8; 12:13; Galatians
5:14; Ephesians 2:16, 18; 4:4; Philippians 1:27; Colossians 3:15; James 2:10;
Revelation 18:8, 10. Note that all
13 of the references outside of Luke are not followed by the article, while
Luke uniformly employs one.
Most of this particular post contradicts that for which I've argued on the blog. I don't think I should put a lot of time in it, but someone may think that the position I take has been now devastated by Thomas here, leaving only scorched earth all around. I'm open to change in that position, but I'm still not persuaded by what Thomas writes here. His attempts at debunking that position make it worse for me, because I'm reminded of the Shakespearean, "that who doth protest too much." Why spend so much time smacking down "in one spirit?" It doesn't change the interpretation. It's easy for me to think—well, it's the position that Pastor Brandenburg takes, so I'm going to need to spend lots and lots of effort here. I can appreciate that. I don't spend, I don't believe, the same amount of time, attempting to overturn a capital "S," Holy Spirit position. Either way, you can have the same position. However, you are more likely to be left with Spirit baptism in this chapter with the position that Thomas is defending, at least in this post. You won't with my position.
I'll say this one thing that makes what Thomas writes here very curious. He says that "spirit of unity" is not found here or anywhere in the Bible. Wow. I just wag my head on that one. He says that "spirit of unity" is not found in Philippians 1:27, the parallel passage here. Of course, he doesn't say what it actually means either, that is, if it is not "spirit of unity" in Philippians 1:27, then what's it talking about? That would have been nice to know. Does "in one spirit" actually mean that all the people in Corinth combined has one human spirit? I don't know. He doesn't say.
It really is obvious that Philippians 1:27 is talking about a "spirit of unity." "In one spirit," just like "one mind" and "one mouth" elsewhere, talks about a "spirit of unity." That's the exact message of those verses at the end of Philippians 1. Paul wants the saints of the church at Philippi to stand together, to stand firm in unity. He wants them united in spirit, moving the same direction, not in strife, but in togetherness.
But Thomas says "no." Not about a "spirit of unity." Not going to say what it is, but it's not that. This kind of exegesis can hurt one's credibility. I don't want his to be hurt, because we take the same position on 1 Corinthians 12:13. Maybe 1 Corinthians 12:13 is talking about capital "S," "Holy Spirit." Maybe so. I'm not persuaded, but this kind of dealing doesn't help make the point.
Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
When I posted it, I was not at all thinking that you took that position. I was only thinking that Dr. Strouse took it. I am glad that it comes out to the same position in the end. It is your blog, and if I had been thinking that it was your position, I wouldn't have posted it at all. Since it is your blog, I don't feel inclined to defend something other than your position, although if you would like me to say more on Philippians 1:27, I'd be happy to, but I have no desire to post something on your blog that is different from your position.
Thomas,
I could have deleted the post. We've argued it in public before: http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2007/10/proof-text-perversions-1-corinthians_19.html .
And I know we've spent some time on it in private. It's one of the three or four disagreements we've had in Bible interpretation or application, to the point where some readers probably think we should separate, since I don't take the essential-non-essential doctrine position.
I wasn't wanting to fully rehash the whole thing, since we've gone through it once, but I don't remember your saying that "in one spirit" doesn't teach a "spirit of unity" in Philippians 1:27. That seems like a bit of overkill that is unbelievable.
I would go further in saying that the absence of or the presence of an article before pneuma doesn't mean nothing. I'm sure Strouse knows that one doesn't need an article there for Spirit to be definite or the Holy Spirit and that wasn't his point.
In my opinion, your arguments do better when you keep them to the ones that might work. Ones that don't work at all make it seem like you have more at stake in it than just getting it right.
I've considered removing the post and all the comments, but I haven't. Why? Some of the readers might think that something's wrong between Thomas and me. Have you noticed that Thomas is the only other person who is writing on this blog? That indicates our relationship. Talking strongly doesn't mean you don't have a good relationship. Thomas sometimes fails, but he tries to be very respectful to me as his former pastor and elder. Anyone can see that. I respect Thomas as much as anyone I know. I think we should still have conversations like this, even in public.
Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
It is interesting that we had discussed this question in that previous post. I actually didn't remember that we did that. (Hopefully my exegesis is superior to my memory.) In Philippians 1:27, en heni pneumati, mia psueche (KJV, in one spirit, with one mind) looks to me like it is talking about their human spirits and human souls/minds being unified. It seems difficult to me to affirm that 1 Cor 12:13 is talking about the human spirit. If in Phil 1:27 "spirit of unity" means human spirits being unified, then I agree that they had such a spirit of unity. I had the idea that "spirit of unity' has a sense similar to what someone does who gives a talk to a responsive audience and says "there is a good spirit here," where "spirit" means attitude rather than a constituent portion of the human being. If in Phil 1:27 you mean that their human spirits were unified, I agree that that is what the verse is about; their human spirits and souls were unified. I would then agree that Phil 1:27 is about a spirit of unity. I would still have difficulty seeing how 1 Cor 12:13 could be about the human spirit, though.
I'm probably not going to say more on this–feel free to have the last word, if you wish to do so.
Thank you for your kind words; I respect you very greatly also.