The who would be Christ in the Spirit, what, would be preached to the spirits, where, in prison, when, in the days of Noah but how do we determine what the prison is referring too? One version says: now in prison, (when Peter was writing this). What is your take?
Your best is what I am looking for.My take is going to begin by acknowledging that this is a kind of vague reference within these verses to begin with. It's not clear as to what Peter is talking about, and just as it turned out there wasn't really much we could learn about the nature of the 'Mark of Cain,' I think we'll only do just a little better with these verses. But, rather than assume that, I'll just proceed to apply some heremeneutical awareness and exegesis to this verse.
In handling this issue, what I'm going to do, as we did before with the previous topic, is to recognize that the verses 1 Peter 3:18-20 sit within concentric circles of larger, multiple contexts:
* Firstly, I know straight off that the New Testament wasn't written in English, so I'll probably need to look at the Greek text(s) as best I can and not just at English translations.
* Secondly, this comment about "Christ visiting the spirits in prison" is a digression from a larger primary statement that the author (Peter) is making in this passage, and as far as I can tell that passage begins at 1 Peter 3:6 and goes to 1 Peter 4:19. This larger statement also sits within the larger structure of the entire letter and seems to be an explication of the introductory points that Peter makes in his opening statements in 1 Peter chapter 1, with the digression made at 3:18-20 & then again at 4:6 offering additional comments in follow up to the theme he presents at 1:10-12.
* Thirdly, I am aware from various commentaries that there are roughly 3 different traditional interpretations of this passage, and my awareness of this indicates that this may truly be a vague enough passage that, like with the 'mark of Cain,' we're going to find there's just not enough information given for us to fully understand exactly what was being referenced by Peter. But we can try our best.
Are you with me on this approach so far? We're going to ask of the passage a little more beyond just "Who, what, when, why, where or how."
Your best is what I am looking for.
Great, I know of some of these commentators you have listed.Ok then, let's continue on with our hermeneutical and exegetical analysis...as best we can. Moving on from what I've already briefly noted above (in post #262), the next (4th) thing I'm going to do is bring in the Greek text and see what scholars can tell us about it. And at this stage, I prefer to move in small steps and not try to take in too much all at once, so I'm going to 'spell out' 1 Peter 3:19 specifically in Koine Greek and see what we can make of it all by itself through a word-study, and then later we can see how its overall meaning is contextualized by the rest of both the full letter of Peter and by other scholarly insights ...
[English-NASB] ... in which He also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison,
[Greek] ... ἐν ᾧ καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξεν,
[ultra - literal] ... in which also to the in prison spirits having gone he preached
So, in looking at this text, we have to consider what it is we think is being referred to by the terms and by the sentence structure, and this is a Lexical project, one in which I know I'll need some scholarly assistance in order to hopefully gain some solid clarfication (if that's even possible). In my attempt to interpret this clause, I'm going to hone in on two terms for the moment: (φυλακῇ / phulaké / prison) & (πνεύμασιν / pneumasin / spirits).
And I'm going to ask questions as to the usages and semantics of these terms: what do these terms typically refer to when used in either other books of the Bible or in other literature which was contemporary to the time in which 1 Peter was written? Why might the writer of 1 Peter have used these terms and not other terms that may offer some form of synonym?
As I just stated, since I'm by no means a lexical scholar of Koine Greek studies, nor a literary genius, it's at this point that I next move to looking at what is said about this verse or passage in various commentaries, and when I go to this fifth step, I'm specifically bringing in the following sources (although I fully realize other fellow Christians may wish to use different commentaries they have at their disposal). The only thing I'd advise here as a hermeneuticist is to be mindful that we have nearly 2,000 years worth of commentators who may have offered opinions and insights on this verse and we need to keep in mind that they won't necessarily agree with one another). But for the sake of hermeneutical transparency in this effort here, I'll list my sources out before moving on:
Encylopedia of Bible Difficulties (1982) - Gleason L. Archer
Hard Sayings of the Bible (1996) - Walter Kaiser Jr., Peter H. David, F.F. Bruce & Manfred T. Brauch
The IVP Bible Background Commentary - New Testament (1993) - Craig S. Keener
Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1996) - W.E Vine, Merril F. Unger & William White, Jr.
Reposting this previously posted this thread.
="Clare73, post: 76303434, member: 309690"]Please demonstrate your assertion.
What I am saying is what the NT clearly and unequivocally states... that God's favoring of Jacob and not favoring of Esau had nothing... absolutely nothing. . .to do with what they did in their lives.
How is that not Biblical?
Yes, we are taught by the Holy Spirit. But what we are taught is the same truth, yet most often those claiming to be "taught by the Holy Spirit" are using the claim as an excuse for a divergent teaching that they alone can fathom. If the Holy Spirit is truly teaching someone something, it will be recoverable by the community so that we may be taught together. Hermeneutics and Biblical interpretation are not a denial of the teaching of the Holy Spirit, they are how we confirm the spirit by which we are being taught comes from God. Hermeneutics also gives us ground for engaging with alternative interpretations and careful application and understanding of the hermeneutic we are engaged in prevents us from simply standing on our own opinion instead providing support that what we understand the Bible to mean is reasonably accurate.
What you are saying is not biblical!
And you know the NT teaches that none of the above have anything to do with God's sovereign choice of Jacob.
Don't rationalize the text because it offends you.
It's better to leave it unexplained in your own mind than to alter Scripture to make it suitable to you.
I think you are too intelligent to be warping Paul's meaning in Romans 9:10-12 to mean God's choice was based on somethong other than his sovereign choice alone.
And I suggest "love" should be understood more as "favoring," and "hate" understood more as "not favoring."
Just a suggestion, with no basis other than my suggestion.
You are not understanding, so I will leave it alone!
Isa 42:7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.Obviously definitions of words are important. But for this passage (spirits in prison) the commentaries I looked at were more about usage by this author and contemporaries. Both felt that "spirits" is wording not typically used of dead people. Also the author showed signs of being influenced by the Enoch literature. The word "preached" could be used of denunciation as well as trying to save someone. The conclusion was that the spirits were most likely evil supernatural entities involved before Noah (the specific identity differed), and the "preaching" was demonstrating Christ's condemnation of and mastery over them.
Great, I know of some of these commentators you have listed.
My mistake. . .My response was not to you, but to fervent. This is the post I was responding to.
My response to you is in another post below where I said you were not understanding so I would leave the issue alone:
And that is in express contradiction of Romans 9:11-12:"What I mean about you not understanding is, although God’s sovereign choice was to choose Jacob and not Esau while they were children and neither had done anything wrong, He chose Jacob base on His foreknowledge of which child would carry forth the blessings of Abraham.
Isaiah 46:10 - Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:These scriptures (following) relate to God’s foreknowledge:
Why is that when the text expressly states exactly the opposite.You must consider the type of people both brothers were. Based on God’s foreknowledge, even before the children were born, God chose the one that would walk humbly before Him,
Based on God’s foreknowledge, even before the children were born, God chose the one that would walk humbly before Him, the one He wanted to continue the blessings of Abraham, through Isaac, Jacob, continuing through King David, and finally Jesus. Jesus Had to be born from the tribe of Israel, be given the throne of David, and be the blessed seed (not seeds) of Abraham. Galatians 3:16-29, “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”
So, one of the children born to Isaac, Esau or Jacob had to have the same Spirit as Abraham and as Jesus. Esau did not and God knew this before Esau was born.
Or did Jesus come through the one he had chosen from before the foundations of the world?So, yes, based on God’s foreknowledge, and sovereign choice before the children had done any wrong, He chose the one that Jesus would come through.
Based on Esau’s ways, that God did not approve of, the blessing of Abraham could not have gone through him. That’s why God change the order of things with their mother, to give the younger child the blessing instead of the older child.
I say. . .first of all it takes believing what the Scripture plainly states in order to understand it correctly.It takes more than just one scripture to understand what’s going on.
Biblical foreknowledge is not about God looking down the corridors of time and seeing in advance what men are going to do.
Biblical foreknowledge is about God knowing in advance what he is going to do, because he has decreed that he shall do it.
Isa 42:7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
John Gill Isa. 42 7. To open the blind eyes, &c.] Of the idolatrous Gentiles, who were spiritually blind, and knew not the wretchedness of their case; the exceeding sinfulness of sin; their need of a Saviour, and who he was; as they did, when their eyes were opened by means of the Gospel sent among them, through the energy of the divine Spirit; for this is a work of almighty power and efficacious grace:
to bring out the prisoners from the prison; who were concluded in sin, shut up in unbelief, and under the law, the captives of Satan, and held fast prisoners by him and their own lusts, under the dominion of which they were:
and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house: of sin, Satan, and the law; being under which, they were in a state of darkness and ignorance as to things divine and spiritual. The allusion is to prisons, which are commonly dark places. Vitringa, by the "prisoners," understands the Jews shut up under the law; and by those in "darkness" the Gentiles, destitute of all divine knowledge.
I found this by searching the word prison and going to John Gill commentary for an explanation.
The latter is what I was explaining in my post, which is what you stated, "Biblical foreknowledge is about God knowing in advance what he is going to do, because he has decreed that he shall do it." All of the foreknowing of God is based on His Sovereign purpose, and of course not man's.
Base on God's foreknowledge pertaining to salvation, certain events had to take place which involved specific people whom God chose "that election would stand." Meaning the promise to Abraham which cannot be disannuled, which therefore "stand" based on the events that took place to assure that the promise could not be disannuled.
Meaning, to assure the election stand, that is the promise made to Abraham, which cannot disannul, Galatians 3:17,
Actually, Paul is not teaching in Galatians 4:24-26 that Isaac and Ishmael actually represent the two covenants, such as the sacrifices actually represented Jesus' sacrifice, he is simply using the events to illustate a theological truth.the electing of Issac and not Ishmael represents the two covenants, where Issac pertains to the covenant we are under now in Christ, and Ishmael represents the law.
Actually, Paul states what the election of Jacob was, and it was not to represent the ineffectiveness of works, good or bad, to righteousness. It was so that God's purpose would stand in election (of Mary?).And, the electing of Jacob and Esau represents the promise to Abraham being of faith, and not of works, that is being neither good nor bad,
which under the new covenant, our salvation is based on God's grace and not our efforts of good or bad. The promise was made to Abraham and his seed, therefore, in keeping with the promise God made to Abraham, certain events which represent that promise, which "stands" and cannot be disannuled, took place through Abraham's son Issac and grandson Jacob.
That is not the promise made to Abraham.It is important to know that because the promise made to Abraham is salvation based on faith, and not work of the law,
Isaac and Jacob did not point to Christ anymore than Abraham did.Therefore, so that the "election stand" (Belief according to Abraham's faith, and not of works of the law), Abraham's son Isaac and grandson Jacob pointed to Christ.
This is a very contorted illogical rationale having nothing to do with the NT teaching of Romans 9:10-13, and in total disagreement with it.So, for example with Jacob and Esau, God knew which child He would reject and which child He would accept before they were born, all based on His foreknowledge of their behaviors, however, to make His elections stand (the promise He made with Abraham and His offering salvation as a free gift in Christ), He made his choice about the children while they were still in the womb, while still having done anything wrong.
The law was given about 650 years after God's promise (Genesis 12:3) to Abraham.This is also why the promise was made to Abraham before the law came into affect 400 years later,
The promise to be their God (Genesis 17:7) was forever annulled (disannuled = not annulled = in force) when they murdered (Acts 7:52) God's one and only Son.that the promise could not be disannuled when Christ came.
However, none of this is either Biblical or ratonal.Because where there is no law, sin cannot be inputed. So the promise was made before the law came into affect, and the children were chosen before they could do any wrong, all for the purpose of assuring that the "election stand."
Great, I know of some of these commentators you have listed.
It has been my ongoing experience over the years to observe that most people, Christian or otherwise, have felt a sense of chagrin about the topic of Hermeneutics and Exegesis, especially where the Bible is concerned.
This got me thinking today, and I thought to myself, "Self!" ...and you know you can never be too serious when talking to yourself, and I said further to myself, "...maybe all of this Hermeneutics and Exegesis stuff you've attempted to engage and to learn about these past few decades is all hocus-pocus and amounts to nothing more than sophistry with semantics and frail human words. Why believe any of this? Maybe it's all additive, or worse yet, incorrect, unneeded and otherwise superfluous to the Christian Life on the whole. I mean, you have the Holy Spirit just like all of these other fine people do who identify as Christians. Who needs anything more?"
And so, without further ado, I leave this thread as a space for all other Christians to tell me why I don't need Hermeneutics (or lessons in Exegesis), such as that which is all to briefly described but respresented by Jens Zimmeran in the video below, when engaging the (our) Christian Faith ...
Don't be shy! Go ahead! Rip Jens Zimmerman up one side and down the other ...
You are past my understanding, you got it from here : )Keeping the previous points in mind, the next thing we likely need to do is consider the first few "layers" of literary contexts in which 1 Peter 3:19 is situated.
Since we know that 1 Peter 3:19 is just a phrase and is a part of a larger flow of thought being expressed by the writer, we'll need to see how 3:19 connects with the rest of the passage conceptually, and then we'll need to do your best to observe how this passage is used in the structure of the overall letter.
The first thing we notice when looking at is 3:19 that (and for those who know English Grammar better than I do, correct me) we find a prepositional phrase introducing a relative clause in the middle of a large compound sentence, and it amplifies what was said just previous to it (in this case, verse 3:18).
So as a point of discussion, how do you think we should read 3:18 and 3:19: to indicate what?
Then we'll need to finish out the immediate thought and see how 3:19 flows into 3:20 since it's all one combined thought. And when moving to verse 3:20 we find another phrase which is used to explicate the object of 3:19 (i.e. the spirits in prison). What do we notice in this structure? Is it a parallelism, or is it merely an addendum to clarify? (That's a discussion question...)
This is my take so far, Peter is saying Christ in the spirit preached through Noah to those unbelievers in Noah's day which now (in Peter's day) are spirits in prison. Unbelievers, whether in the flesh and spirit (alive) or in the spirit only (dead) are in a prison of sin.Keeping the previous points in mind, the next thing we likely need to do is consider the first few "layers" of literary contexts in which 1 Peter 3:19 is situated.
Since we know that 1 Peter 3:19 is just a phrase and is a part of a larger flow of thought being expressed by the writer, we'll need to see how 3:19 connects with the rest of the passage conceptually, and then we'll need to do your best to observe how this passage is used in the structure of the overall letter.
The first thing we notice when looking at is 3:19 that (and for those who know English Grammar better than I do, correct me) we find a prepositional phrase introducing a relative clause in the middle of a large compound sentence, and it amplifies what was said just previous to it (in this case, verse 3:18).
So as a point of discussion, how do you think we should read 3:18 and 3:19: to indicate what?
It's about belief vs unbelief like most of scripture. The disobedient ones are the ones in prison.Then we'll need to finish out the immediate thought and see how 3:19 flows into 3:20 since it's all one combined thought. And when moving to verse 3:20 we find another phrase which is used to explicate the object of 3:19 (i.e. the spirits in prison). What do we notice in this structure? Is it a parallelism, or is it merely an addendum to clarify? (That's a discussion question...)
This is my take so far, Peter is saying Christ in the spirit preached through Noah to those unbelievers in Noah's day which now (in Peter's day) are spirits in prison. Unbelievers, whether in the flesh and spirit (alive) or in the spirit only (dead) are in a prison of sin.
It's about belief vs unbelief like most of scripture. The disobedient ones are the ones in prison.
Very good!Yeah, I tend to lean in the same direction as you to some degree when taking the full passage from 3:8 to 4:19 into consideration and seeing that 4:6 seems to possibly mirror back some of this as Peter writes. At 4:6, we see Peter saying:
For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the Spirit.The problem here in associating all of the possible referents of meaning in 4:6 with 3:18-20 is that it's not clear that "the dead" is being specifyied as an exact parallel to the "spirits in prison." It may be these phrases are synonymous, but they also might not be; and the "spirits in prison" may instead be referring to some kind of fallen angels rather than to disobedient people who disobeyed in the time leading up to the Flood account.
So, we more or less have three [maybe four] interpretations to mull over, none of which seem to be given comprehensive treatment by what we find in Peter's first letter:
1) The one that you and I lean toward, i.e. Christ in the spirit preached through Noah to those unbelievers in Noah's day which now (in Peter's day) are spirits in prison.
Very Good!
or2) Christ, upon His death on the Cross and in the interim time until His Resurrection, went and proclaimed victory over fallen, non-human spirits who have been incarcerated in Hades since the time of Noah.
or3) Christ, upon His death on the Cross and in the interim time until His Resurrection, went and proclaimed salvation to all the dead in Sheol/Hades who had died up until that point (and perhaps giving Universalists a nod toward the idea that there are second chances even after the death of our mortal bodies).
At this point, Hermeneuticists might analyze the Greek language in these verses more, and some may suggest that this passage is given by Peter in connection with similar allusions to what we find about 'spirits' made in Jude and 2 Peter, reflecting some stories we find in 1 Enoch.
With all of these things to consider, I think the final interpetation for 1 Peter 3:18-20 fairs only a little better than our attempts did for figuring out a possible meaning for the 'Mark of Cain.' But that's how these things go ...
What we DO KNOW is that Peter thought this little side note about Jesus 'preaching' to spirits in prison was useful to accentuate the main message of this passage about how Christians need to brace themselves in Christ and be prepared for possible suffering in His Name, with patience and virtue.