How do you understand 1 Corinthians 12:13

Dunn devotes a similar amount of space in Baptism to the writings of Paul as to those of Luke. He discusses every passage in the Pauline corpus that, in his opinion, alludes to conversion-initiation.2 Again he believes he is on strong ground, asserting that for Pentecostal views of Spirit baptism, “Paul seems to be more of an embarrassment than an asset, so that time and again expositions of this doctrine conveniently ignore him.”3 

For Dunn, when Paul’s insights are duly noted, they “knock the Pentecostals’ case on the head” and cut “the ground away from under the feet of the Pentecostal.”4 

Perhaps the “killer blow” to Pentecostal doctrine, in his view, is Romans 8:9. As he has written recently, “the nearest Paul comes to defining the term ‘Christian’ is in terms of having, that is, of having received the Spirit: ‘if anyone does not have the Spirit, he is not Christ’s’ (Rom. 8:9).”5 

However, while I will refer to Romans 8:9 later in this chapter, I will actually take 1 Corinthians 12:13 as my test case, for the simple reason that it is this text alone among Paul’s writings that uses the phrase “baptized in [or ‘with’] one Holy Spirit,” and is therefore most likely to be understood by some Pentecostals as relating to “baptism in the Spirit.”6 Equally, however, it might be seen by other Pentecostals as, to quote Dunn, an embarrassment, or as a source of confusion or perplexity.

We will summarise Dunn’s reading of this important text, and will then present the arguments of two Pentecostals—Ervin and Petts—who disagree with his exegesis. First, however, I will set out the key parts of the verse, in Greek and in an over-literal translation (I am presenting the verse to highlight the poetic quality that the Greek has. Even those who cannot read Greek will be able to see the similarity in the final words of the two Greek lines):

• kai gar en heni pneumati hēmeis pantes eis hen sōma ebaptisthēmen …
• kai pantes hen pneuma epotisthēmen

(“For also in/with one Spirit we all into one body were baptized …

and all one Spirit given to drink.”)

Dunn’s Understanding of 1 Corinthians 12:13

In a lengthy section on this important text, Dunn describes and refutes Pentecostal interpretations that he has come across. Some take en (usually “in”) in verse 13a to mean “by,” so that this part of the verse is made to refer to conversion (a baptism performed by the Spirit), not baptism in the Spirit. 

This must probably be rejected, writes Dunn, for the use of en with baptizō (“baptize”) in the New Testament generally points to the element in which people were immersed or with which they were deluged. Other Pentecostals accept that baptism in the Spirit is referred to, but unwarrantably translate eis (usually “into”) in verse 13a as something other than “into,” thereby removing initiatory connotations. Still others—and here Dunn specifically cites Ervin’s 1968 

These Are Not Drunken, As Ye Suppose—simply accept that Paul is not describing Pentecostal baptism in the Spirit, but is referring to conversion. This is at least true to the text, states Dunn, but does no good for Pentecostalism, for in his view a distinction between Paul’s use of the phrase and Luke’s “undermines rather than supports that doctrine.”7 “

In short, once the initiatory and incorporative significance of the metaphor is grasped, the Pentecostal arguments fall to the ground.”8 Dunn continues by discussing Paul’s use of potizō (usually “give to drink”; “water”) in verse 13c. This stands in parallel to the first part of the verse, and so it also refers to the Corinthians’ experience of the Spirit in their conversion, which “was like the outpouring of a sudden flood or rainstorm on a parched ground.”9

Ervin’s Understanding of 1 Corinthians 12:13

This section refers partly to Ervin’s view as presented in his 1984 response to Dunn, but also partly to Ervin’s 1968 work. 

Ervin regards the “poetic” parallelism in 1 Corinthians 12:13 as “synthetic” rather than “synonymous” (drawing on terms from the study of Hebrew poetic parallelism). In other words, the two verbs “were baptised” and “were given to drink” are not different expressions for the same experience but rather refer to different experiences. 

This he expresses clearly in Not Drunken (1968) and repeats virtually unaltered (and with no reference to Dunn) in Spirit-Baptism (1987). 1 Corinthians 12:13 stresses two aspects of the Christian’s relationship to the Holy Spirit. 

To be ‘baptized in the Spirit’ is to be placed in the sphere of the Holy Spirit, that is at conversion; while ‘being given to drink of the Spirit’ places the Spirit’s fullness within the believer.”10 

In responding to Dunn in Conversion-Initiation, Ervin accepts that verse 13a is correctly translated by Dunn and refers to conversion, although he wisely opposes Dunn concerning the relationship between Paul’s and Luke’s words: these two authors do not necessarily use the phrase to refer to the same experience.11

Ervin’s main criticism of Dunn concerns verse 13c, and its use of potizō (usually “give to drink”; “water”). Ervin demurs.

a. To take this as a synonymous parallel of verse 13a is to create a “curious mixed-metaphor … of drinking one’s way into the body.”12

b. Dunn is wrong to translate potizō as to “pour” rather than to “drink.” “If the meaning ‘to pour out’ is substituted for ‘to drink,’ the translation must then be, ‘we (not the Spirit) were poured out.’ Obviously this is not what the text is saying.”13

Both of Ervin’s criticisms are faulty. 

Concerning the first, the very nature of a metaphor is to juxtapose concepts that if taken “literally” would lead to absurdity. If drinking one’s way into a body is absurd, so is being immersed (or deluged) into a body. 

Therefore the metaphors create no difficulty for seeing a “synonymous parallelism” in the verse, with both parts of the verse referring to the same experience.14 Ervin’s second criticism misrepresents Dunn (and not for the first time—see chapter 2). Dunn is not suggesting that verse 13c means, “we were poured out.” 

Rather, Dunn is suggesting that it means “we had [the Spirit] poured out on us” or “we were watered [as in ‘irrigated’] with the Spirit.” 

Dunn regards this as a perfectly reasonable metaphor for people who were used to seeing rain refresh parched ground and bring new life, and who were familiar with the hopes expressed for instance in Isaiah 32:15.15

In conclusion, Ervin has not successfully undermined Dunn’s work. The two passive verbs in 1 Corinthians 12:13 stand in straightforward poetic parallel with one another, as is suggested by the Greek word forms, and very probably refer to the same experience. 

In conceding to Dunn that verse 13a refers to initial incorporation, Ervin cannot convincingly claim that verse 13c refers to a second work: a “Spirit baptism” as understood by Pentecostals.16

Petts’ Understanding of 1 Corinthians 12:13

Petts follows a somewhat different line of reasoning. He disagrees with Dunn concerning verse 13a, and the translation of en (usually “in”). Grammatically, the preposition might be either locative (expressing whereabouts: “in”) or instrumental (expressing means: “by”). The decision, Petts proposes, must be made on contextual grounds. The immediate context includes the instrumental use of en in 1 Corinthians 12:9 (“to another, faith [is given] by the same Spirit”). 

This contextual use supports an instrumental translation in verse 13a, “baptised by one Spirit,” in which case, Petts argues, baptism in the Spirit is not in view here: this must be the work of the Spirit that incorporated a convert into the church. 

Dunn’s appeal to the wider context of the New Testament is, writes Petts, a contradiction of the method Dunn has set out for biblical scholars, whereby each author should first be analysed individually. However, Petts admits that if the immediate context is ignored, then Dunn could be right to translate en as “in.” 

In that case the appeal to a wider context allows a retranslation of eis (normally “into”), for if en means “in” at Matthew 3:11, then eis there certainly does not mean “into”: John’s baptismal candidates had already repented, so their baptism would not take them “into” repentance.17

Petts’ arguments in this section are ill-founded. His claim that an instrumental use of en in 1 Corinthians 12:13a makes it “evident that it is the Spirit who is the baptizer, whereas in BHS [Baptism in the Holy Spirit] as understood by Pentecostals it is Jesus who is the baptizer”18 confuses the instrument of an action with its agent.19 

This confusion is understandable, for it is aided in the English language by our frequent use of “by” to denote both instrument and agent with the passive voice of a verb (e.g., compare “this book was written by me” with “this book was written by hand”: in the first, “me” is the agent—the person who performs the action; in the second, “hand” is the instrument—the means by which I perform the action). 

Sometimes in English the confusion is mitigated by our use of other prepositions (so for example “this book was written with a laptop”), but in New Testament Greek there is rarely this uncertainty. With a passive verb, en plus the dative (or a prepositionless dative) in this context normally signifies an instrument;20 hupo (“by”) plus the genitive signifies an agent.21 

So in 1 Corinthians 12:13, where we have en, not hupo, the Spirit is unlikely to be the agent: the one who performs the action. The Spirit here is probably the instrument: the means by which the baptising was performed. 

To say that the Holy Spirit is the instrument leaves the action without a stated agent, without a baptizer. But this is not a difficulty, for in the Bible the “divine passive” is common. In other words, the baptizer is not mentioned but is understood to be God. 

The clause then indicates that “we all” in Corinth were baptised by God (the agent) with one Spirit (God’s chosen instrument) into one body. As a common meaning of baptizō (“baptise”) was “immerse,” then this clause might well indicate further that the way the agent (God) used the instrument (the Spirit) was as an immersing instrument: the Corinthians were immersed by God in one Spirit to bring them into one body.22

Petts’ suggestion that eis need not be translated “into,” based on a comparison with Matthew 3:11, is also weak. A more useful comparison than with Matthew would be Paul’s own other uses of baptizō eis (usually “baptise into”). 

For Paul, one might have been baptised “into” Christ (Rom 6:3a; Gal 3:27), Christ’s death (Rom 6:3b; cf. 6:4), Paul’s name (1 Cor 1:13, 15), Moses (1 Cor 10:2), or one body (1 Cor 12:13). While the connotations may differ from passage to passage, the idea seems to be that of entering into a new relationship with or conformity with. 

Thus to be baptised “into” Christ or Paul was to belong to Christ or Paul (Gal 3:27–29; 1 Cor 1:12); to be baptised “into” Christ’s death was to be conformed to that death (Rom 6:5); and, possibly, the Israelites’ baptism “into” Moses was their entry into a new relationship with him whereby he, instead of Pharaoh, was their king.23 

A similar connotation would plausibly fit the context of 1 Corinthians 12:13—the Corinthians’ being baptised (by God) in or with the Spirit had brought them into a new relationship with the one body. 

This coheres precisely with Paul’s evident interest in verses 12 and 14 (the many varied parts of the body belong to the one united body) and easily justifies the translation of eis as “into” in verse 13. In summary, Dunn’s understanding of this verse is more convincing than that of Petts. Paul referred to a baptism by God with or in the Spirit that effected a new relationship with and participation in the one body of Christ.

Summary

1 Corinthians 12:13 is a test case to see whether in this instance those Pentecostals who argue against Dunn’s exegesis are able to do so successfully. It is clear that in this case they cannot.

Although 1 Corinthians 12:13 refers specifically to incorporation into Christ’s body, the church, rather than into Christ, it supports Dunn’s thesis that for Paul, receiving the Spirit, which in this verse he called being given one Spirit to drink and being baptised with one Spirit, was so intimately tied up with coming to Christ and his church that it would be inconceivable for Paul that a Christian would not yet have received the Spirit. 

Paul’s pneumatology is indeed here “soteriological” and supports neither a later reception of the Spirit nor a complex of two receptions for different purposes. 

What has not yet been indicated is whether Paul perhaps wrote of two Spirit receptions elsewhere: an initial one that incorporated into Christ and his church, and a possibly later one that empowered. 

To answer this question would require a much fuller survey of Paul’s words, and it is not my intention to offer that in this book. Suffice it to say that Paul did not.24




2 While Dunn recognises scholarly doubts about the authorship of Ephesians (Dunn, Baptism, 158) and the Pastoral letters (ibid., 167), he uses evidence from those letters to contribute to his overall picture of Paul (ibid., 170).

3 Ibid., 103.

4 Ibid., 123, 135.

5 Dunn, “Baptism Again,” 36; cf. Dunn, Romans 1–8, 444.

6 As Dunn notes (Dunn, Baptism, 103).

7 Dunn, Baptism, 129. Whether Dunn is right to assert that seeing a distinction between Lukan and Pauline language undermines Pentecostalism is moot. We will return to this matter later in the chapter.

8 Ibid., 129.

9 Ibid., 131.

10 Ervin, These Are Not Drunken, 46; Ervin, Spirit-Baptism, 32–33; similarly, Hunter, Spirit Baptism, 41–42 (59–60 in 2009 edn).

11 Ervin, Conversion-Initiation, 99, 101–2.

12 Ibid., 100; cf. Ervin, Spirit-Baptism, 32.

13 Ibid., 100.

14 So Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 604–5; similarly Barrett, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 289. Fee notes that Ervin’s view dates back at least to 1949 and the writing of Ralph Riggs (604 n. 26).

15 Dunn, Baptism, 131. Dunn’s suggested translation here may be somewhat faulty, but not for the reasons Ervin offers. If the meaning was “we were all watered/irrigated with one Spirit,” Paul would probably have written (en) heni pneumati epotisthēmen, which would have offered an even closer verbal parallel to verse 13a. Cf. Isa 29:10 LXX.

16 Admittedly, 1 Cor 12:13c could have no initiatory connotation at all but refer to repeated later Corinthian experiences of the Spirit. While the implication of the metaphor might support this interpretation—land needs to be continually watered, as do animals—the aorist tense, mirroring ebaptithēmen, and the overall poetic symmetry of the phrases argue against this.

17 NIV and NRSV both have “for” in Matt 3:11a. Actually, Dunn had already met this argument: New Testament baptism was “the Rubicon step of commitment without which faith and repentance were dead” (Dunn, Baptism, 128 n. 40). In other words, John’s baptism was into repentance in the sense that until his listeners were baptized their repentance remained only embryonic.

18 Petts, “Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” 80.

19 This is a common misunderstanding among Pentecostals. See Ervin, Conversion-Initiation, 99; Hunter, Spirit Baptism, 40; Holdcroft, Holy Spirit, 131; Horton, What the Bible Says, 214.

20 There are New Testament exceptions (e.g., Matt 23:5). However, in Paul’s nearby use of baptizō … en … eis (1 Cor 10:2; “baptize in/by/with … into”), en (x2) clearly does not introduce the agents. It may be instrumental or locative, but as two other locative prepositions have been used of the cloud and the sea in the previous verse, en may well be instrumental in verse 2.

21 Wenham, Elements of New Testament Greek, 69–70, 245; Moule, Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 44, 77. Thus, with reference to Petts’ example taken from the context, 1 Cor 12:9 means in effect, “to another, faith [is given by God (agent)] by means of [instrument] the same Spirit.”

22 However, it must be admitted that the picture is rather complicated. Many New Testament verbs used in the context of Spirit reception (e.g., “pour out,” “fall upon,” “come upon,” “descend upon”) suggest that this may have been viewed primarily as an effusion from above rather than (or as well as?) an immersion. If this is the case, then baptizō en pneumati should probably be translated “baptize with the Spirit” rather than “baptize in the Spirit.” On the other hand, the common phrase “filled with the Spirit” coheres well with the idea of immersion, and in the close context of 1 Cor 12:13, 1 Cor 10:2 states that “all into Moses were baptized in the cloud and in the sea.” The Israelites, with walls of water on either side of them, passed through the sea in a metaphorical immersion (cf. 1 Cor 10:1). So too their experience of the cloud was of immersion more than effusion (cf. Ps 105:39). It is thus not easy to be certain whether to translate en in 1 Cor 12:13a as “in” or “with.”

23 So, tentatively, Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 360 n. 42. Dunn (Baptism, 126) and Fee (First Epistle to the Corinthians, 445) disagree with this, Dunn commenting that such a new relationship and loyalty would be depicted by baptisma eis to onoma tou Mōuseōs (“baptism into the name of Moses”; Dunn, Baptism, 126 n. 31). However, they offer no alternative.

24 For further discussion of Pentecostal arguments against Dunn regarding Paul’s letters, see my “Pentecostal Responses: Pauline Literature.”

Atkinson, W. P. (2011). Baptism in the Spirit: Luke-Acts and the Dunn Debate (pp. 93–100). Pickwick Publications.