From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Sun Jan 11 1998 - 21:00:04 EST
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 13:54:00 -0600 "Carl W. Conrad"
<cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> writes:
>At 11:35 AM -0600 1/11/98, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>>I am reminded of our recent discussion in Mt 28:19 where a strong
>>argument (at least, I thought so; and, so apparently most of the
translations)
>>was made for taking the aorist participle as an attendant circumstance.
>>I find the parallel between the two passages striking: POREUQENTES OUN
>>MAQHTEUSATE (Mt 28:19) with POREUQEIS EKHRUXEN (1 Pet 3:19).
>>Remember, according to Wallace, there are five structural clues for the
>>attendant circumstance:
>>tense of participle is aorist, tense of main verb is aorist, mood of
main
>>verb is imperative or indicative, participle precedes the main verb,
>>frequent in narrative (p 759).
>>
>>Hence, the aorist participle should be taken coordinately with the main
>>verb. The antecedent action, then, is not because of the aorist tense
of
>>the participle, but because of the logic of the action itself. He had
to
>>go before he preached.
>>
>>The thesis, however, that the going and preaching of v. 19 followed the
>>resurrection of Christ is suspect. There is no necessary temporal
>>progression from v. 18 to v. 19. The connection may simply be given by
>>EN hWi which relates back to the immediately preceding PNEUMATI.
>>Christ went and preached to the spirits who had disobeyed and who are
now >>in prison. But, when did Christ do that?
>>
>>This is answered by the following verse which should be taken
>>epexegetically, hOTE APEXEDECETO hH TOU QEOU MAKROQUMIA >>...KIBWTOU,
"when the patience of
>>God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the
>>ark." That is, Christ in the Spirit preached to the men (who are now
>>spirits confined to prison) in the days of Noah. He did it in and
>>through Noah's proclamation.
>>
>>This interpretation suggests, of course, that the uninspired
punctuation
>>of both the UBS and Nestle's text be changed so the comma be not after
>>EKHRUXEN, but after POTE. The hOTE clause, then, explains and gives
>>the timing of the preceding POREUQEIS EKHRUXEN.
>>
>>Another benefit to this interpretation is it removes the rather bizarre
>>view seeing Christ descending into this prison after His death and
>>resurrection to preach to these disobedient souls. One can certainly
see
>>why and how the "second chance" teaching surfaced. Furthermore, it
does
>>not contribute to the possible erroneous view in Eph 4 which sees
Christ
>>descending into Hell.
>>
>>To sum up: Christ, in the Spirit, went and preached to the spirits now
>>in prison who had formerly disobeyed. He did so when God's patience
kept
>>waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark.
>>
>>Hey, this is a fascinating passage.
>
>It (or rather I should say our interpretations of it) may get even more
>fascinating yet, perhaps even bizarre, before we're through with it. I
will
>only say that putting a comma between POTE and the hOTE clause and
>understanding the hOTI clause as referring back to the preceding
POREUQEIS
>EKHRUXEN strikes me as destroying the single clearest temporal link in
>the entire passage and creating a strange linkage to a supposed
>proclamation by Jesus in a pre-existent state to the dead. Perhaps I'm
>misunderstanding what Paul means here.
Shortly after sending my last message the inappropriateness, even
absurdity, of inserting a comma between POTE and hOTE struck me. It is
always comforting to know that a fellow B-Greeker, like Carl, is likely
to pick up on it. You are right, of course. Let me retract that part,
but retain my deletion of the comma after EKHRUXEN. It does seem to me
if APEIQHSASIN modifies PNEUMASIN, as you say, then no comma is called
for before APEIQHSASIN. Inserting it, I believe, only tends to lead to
your interpretation of the passage. That may, however, be the very
reason the editors insert the comma there.
This destroys the temporal link only if one retains your interpretation
of verses 19-20. Let's say we remove the comma. The temporal link
(hOTE) then would explain when everything from PNEUMASIN to POTE takes
place, rather than just the immediately preceding APEIQHSASIN.
Please forgive me for not clarifying my interpretation. Perhaps this is
new to some. Let me assure you it is not original with me. First, try
envisioning no chronological progression between verses 18 and 19. The
connection is merely EN hWi, referring back to PNEUMATI, by which we are
to see that in the days of Noah Jesus in the Spirit (undoubtedly through
the preaching of Noah) went and preached to disobedient men who are now
spirits in prison. Of course, when He preached to them, they were not
spirits in prison, but they are now, so writes Peter.
>Is it somewhat akin to the faith of
>Abraham in Romans 4 that is placed in a God who creates out of nothing
and >raises the dead--where the apostle seems to be saying that Abraham's
faith >was an anticipation of faith-righteousness actually held later by
those who
>have responded to the gospel of Christ's death and resurrection. But
this
>is different: it involves a preaching of the gospel to those sinners of
>the time while the ark was being built and God was patiently waiting for
>them to be redeemed.
>But I think rather the linkage of the "going and preaching to the dead"
to
>the death and resurrection of Christ in the second half of 3:18 is
>intentional. It is referred to again in 1 Peter 4:5-6: judgment is to be
>passed upon the living and the dead, says 4:5, and 4:6 says that this is
>why the gospel was preached TO THE DEAD, so that they might have the
>opportunity for repentance: hINA KRIQWSI MEN KATA ANQRWPOUS SARKI >ZWSI
DE KATA QEON PNEUMATI--they are to be condemned for their lives in >the
past KATA ANQRWPOUS but because they have heard and responded to >the
gospel IN THE SPIRIT, they are to LIVE hereafter KATA QEON.
If you assume the dead in 4:5-6 received the preaching when they were
physically dead, then I can see your point. But, can this be
demonstrated?
Could not Peter simply be saying that the gospel was preached to those
who are now dead, but that the preaching took place while they were
alive?
>Isn't this precisely the passage in 1 Peter that is referred to in the
>clause in Apostle's Creed, "he descended into Hell"? I think the sense
of
>3:18-20 is that Christ was raised in the spirit and in the spirit went
>and preached to the dead, even to the dead of the period before the
great
>flood, and this in the interval between Good Friday and the appearances
of
>Easter morning. At least, that seems to me a more plausible
understanding
>of the sequence in 3:18-20, the Greek of which doesn't really seem to me
to
>be all that mangled.
Yes, the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds do say this. But, many are
seriously challenging this, as you know.
Paul Dixon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:55 EDT