[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RE: EN + dative in Eph 5:18 revisited

Having found several shortcomings in my previous post on this subject I 
have decided to take a different approach. Let's compare Eph 5:18 with 
John the Baptist's prophecy about baptism in/with/by the Spirit  
(Matthew: 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, Acts 1:5, Acts 11:16). 
All these six references contain some form of:

              baptizw ---> en pneumati

In Eph 5:18 we have:

              plhrousthe ---> en pneumati

Now my argument is that in both examples we have a dominate semantic 
element which is the verb. What I am saying is, the verb dictates what 
the prepositional phrase can and does mean. 

Furthermore, both of these cases involve a comparison, a parallel 
comparison of the form: *this is like that*. In John the Baptist's 
prophecy, he compares his water baptism to Spirit baptism. 

So if we combine the dominant semantic element, the verb baptism with 
the: *this is like that* comparison we come up with a rather limited 
range of possible meanings for the phrase: en pneumati.

In Eph 5:18 we have a comparison between drinking two much wine and 
being Spirit filled. If we take the meaning of the semantically dominant 
verb plhrousthe and combine it with the comparison we will come up with 
a rather limited range of possible meanings for the phrase: en pneumati.

I would concluded from the above analysis that en pneumati when used 
with baptizw is going to have a meaning governed by the semantic value 
of baptizw in this context. 

In like manner I would conclude that hat en pneumati when used with 
plhrousthe is going to have a meaning governed by the semantic value of 
plhrousthe in this context. 

If this is all too hypothetical for some folks, let's be plain. Wine 
goes inside you and you become drunk. This is the first half of the 
comparison. Secondly, you should avoid being drunk but rather be filled 
(goes inside you, second half of comparison) with the Spirit.


The **main point** I am trying to make is that an argument using the 
pattern  *RE: EN + dative* to drive the exegesis of this passage is 
letting the tail wag the dog. The pattern *RE: EN + dative* is not the 
dominate semantic element and the above explanation is not syntactically 
or semantically impossible. 

I fear that I have muddled this issue a little more. 

Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point