From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Tue Jan 13 1998 - 14:23:17 EST
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 08:53:52 -0600 (CST) Carl William Conrad
<cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> writes:
<snip>
>What's on my mind right now, however, is one of your last comments in
>your last note to me on this, when I had referred to the Apostle's Creed
>and the clause, "he descended into Hell." You note that it's also in the
>Apostle's Creed but that it's becoming unfashionable (or something
>like that). I will confess that I myself have preferred to understand
the
>phrase as meaning that Jesus died an authentic human death rather than
>that in the interval between Good Friday and Easter morning he was in
>the underworld preaching to the dead--and yet that appears to be what 1
>Peter is saying, depending, of course, on whether we are understanding
the
>Greek correctly, which must remain a good question: it's not really bad
>Greek, but it nevertheless is somewhat obscure in its subject matter.
>
>My question is (1) How do you understand that clause in the credal
>statements (or do you not particularly value those creeds? They are
>the first two in the Book of Confessions which we Presbyterians view as
>the first of nine historical creeds of the traditional church as
>expressions of a "Reformed" understanding of the Bible. Although I'm a
>theological liberal myself and by no means an Inerrantist or a Verbal
>Inspirationist, I've never had any problem with those creeds. So my
first >question is: how do you understand that phrase in the Aposttles'
and Nicene >creed (if you value those creeds to begin with) and why do
you object to
>understanding it in terms of a risen Christ preaching to the
dead--particularly if
>that MAY be what the text of 1 Peter is saying.
Carl:
Thanks for your gracious inquiry. I have always had the highest regard
for the historical creeds of the traditional church, and am especially
appreciative of the reformed heritage. Though I consider myself reformed
in doctrine and at one time seriously considered entering a Presbyterian
ministry, I do not feel locked in or bound by the creeds. Of course, I
was raised in a non-creedal church (Grace Brethren) and pastor a Bible
church where the creeds, though read and/or recited from time to time,
are not regarded as binding or authoritative documents, as are the
scriptures. My view of written authority pertains to scripture and to
scripture alone.
Having said all that, until fairly recently I always took the position of
the creeds in this matter.
>
>(2) The other question is closely related: why do you feel it important
>that this text in 1 Peter be understood of a point in time representing
>Christ's pre-existence--or is there a theological reason for wanting
>to refer the event spoken of in this passage in 1 Peter to that primeval
>past, the pre-Noachite era? Ultimately what I want to understand is
>what the Greek text itself may legitimately mean, but I'm also curious
why
>you lean toward this way of looking at the passage. Does the phrasing of
>the Greek, the word order, etc., really point in that direction from the
>outset in your mind, or is there a theological reason for wanting the
>text to be understood in that way? I'm really just mostly curious about
>this.
I certainly am not closed here, and appreciate the opportunity to think
through the passage again, especially with one so adept with the Greek.
What first got my attention? Probably some of the commentaries like
those by Grudem (Tyndale) and Gordon Clark. If one were to simply read
the Greek text without any preconceptions, where would he most likely
end? Hard to say. But, that is neither here nor there. What really
matters is what the Greek allows and what it favors.
The temporal indicator hOTE may be determinative. I wondered how it was
used elsewhere in scripture, particularly with regard to whether its
antecedent was normally a main verb (like EKRUXEN) or if it was ever a
modifying participle (like APEIQHSASIN). hOTE occurs 103 times in the
NT. I randomly selected 25 or so. In every case hOTE was related to a
main verb. This certainly favors relating hOTE in 3:20 back to EKRUXEN.
Plus, it does seem TOIS EN FULAKQHi PNUEMASIN POREUQEIS EKRUXEN
APEIQHSASIN POTE has to be taken as a unit, since TOIS, PNEUMASIN, and
APEIQHSASIN are all related. The separation of APEIQHSASIN from
PNEUMASIN could then be simply for emphasis on the former.
If so, then it could intelligly be rendered, "in which also to the in
prisoned spirits who formerly disobeyed he went and preached when the
patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah."
Sincerely,
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:53 EDT