a. The meaning of ‘spirit’ ( pneuma )
a. The meaning of ‘spirit’ (pneuma)
1. General meaning: angels or human spirits?
If the phrase ‘the spirits in prison’ appeared in the text without any further specification, it could refer either to human or to angelic spirits, depending on the larger context. This is because the word spirits (pneumata, plural, or pneuma, singular) both in the Bible and in extra-biblical literature can be used to refer to human spirits or to angels (or demons).
Examples of the word used to refer to a human spirit are found, for example, in Ecclesiastes 12:7 (‘and the spirit returns to God who gave it’ is a description of death; the LXX has pneuma here); Matt. 27:50 (Jesus ‘yielded up his spirit’); Luke 23:46 (‘Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!’); John 19:30 (Jesus ‘bowed his head and gave up his spirit’); Acts 7:59 (as Stephen was dying he prayed, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit’); 1 Cor. 5:5; 7:34; 14:14; Heb. 12:23; Jas 2:26; cf. Num. 16:22; Josephus, War 7.185; etc.
Examples of the meaning ‘angel’ (or ‘evil angel, demon’) are found in Matthew 8:16 (‘he cast out the spirits with a word’); 10:1 (‘he gave them authority over unclean spirits’); 12:43, 45; Mark 1:23; Luke 10:20; Acts 23:8; etc.
2. Does pneuma, ‘spirit’, have a special meaning when used ‘absolutely’?
Those who understand the spirits in prison to be fallen angels (View 5 above) have claimed that the word ‘spirit’ is never used ‘absolutely’ (or without a ‘defining genitive phrase’) to refer to human spirits (the objection apparently originated with Selwyn, p. 199, and is repeated by Dalton, p. 147, and France, p. 269). Those who make this objection claim that pneuma is used ‘absolutely’ to refer to good or evil angelic spirits.
However, this is simply one example of an error in exegetical method which occurs frequently in Selwyn’s commentary—that of drawing conclusions about the meaning of words or phrases from insufficient data or from artificially created distinctions in style which really have no significant influence on the meanings of the words used. In this case, the objection is invalid for three reasons:
(a) Pneuma is used ‘without a defining genitive’ to refer to a ‘departed’ human spirit (the spirit which had left Abel after Cain killed him) in 1 Enoch 22:6 and again in 22:7; another example is found in 1 Enoch 20:6 (Gk. text). These examples are significant because Selwyn, Dalton, and France all emphasize 1 Enoch as the supposed background for this passage in 1 Peter. Other examples of pneuma used ‘absolutely’ of a human spirit are Ecclesiastes 12:7; Matthew 27:50 (Gk. text); John 19:30 (Gk. text).
(b) But the larger issue is not whether we can find examples of pneuma used without a ‘defining genitive’ (‘of men’, etc.) to refer to human spirits, for that is simply an artificial distinction. The real issue is whether the context specifies more clearly what type of spirit is meant. If by pneuma used ‘absolutely’ Selwyn and Dalton mean pneuma used with no further specification or definition from context, then it should be pointed out that no examples of pneuma meaning ‘angelic spirits’ have been found without further definition from context, either.
In fact, the three examples of an ‘absolute’ use cited by Dalton, p. 147—Matthew 8:16; 12:45; Luke 10:20—are all further defined by the immediate context: Matthew 8:16 mentions people who were ‘demon possessed’ in the previous phrase; Matthew 12:45 is in a paragraph where the subject had been defined as ‘an unclean spirit’ in verse 43; Luke 10:20 is in response to verse 17, ‘Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!’ These three are not instances showing that pneuma generally, without other indications from context, means ‘evil spirits’—for all these instances have prior contextual specification.
But this is simply because of an obvious linguistic fact: pneuma has a range of meanings, and can refer to human spirits, to angelic spirits, to God’s Holy Spirit, etc. Because of this, there will always be a further specification of the type of spirit intended in context if the author wishes to communicate to the reader the sense in which he is using the term.
(c) Thirdly, 1 Peter 3:19 is not itself an example of pneuma used without further definition from its context, for the sentence itself defines further the kind of ‘spirits’ intended. They are spirits ‘in prison’ who ‘disobeyed in the days of Noah’ and who did so ‘while the patience of God was waiting during the building of the ark’.
3. ‘Spirits’ in 1 Enoch
It has been argued that for Peter’s readers the phrase ‘spirits in prison’ would automatically call to mind the use of pneuma in 1 Enoch to refer to ‘angels who sinned and were consigned to a place of punishment awaiting final judgment’ (Dalton, pp. 166–168). But even if one grants for the sake of argument that all of Peter’s readers had just finished reading 1 Enoch the night before Peter’s letter arrived, it does not follow that ‘spirits in prison’ would mean ‘fallen angels’ to Peter or to his readers.
The extant Greek sections of 1 Enoch use pneuma thirty-seven times. Of these thirty-seven times, the word is used twenty times to refer to angelic or demonic spirits. But it is used seventeen times to refer to human spirits (1 Enoch 9:10; 20:3, 6 [twice]; 22:3, 6, 7, 9 [twice], 11 [twice], 12, 13 [twice]; 98:3, 10; 103:4). We are therefore not justified in drawing from this data any firm conclusion about what Peter’s readers would have thought the phrase ‘spirits in prison’ meant.
Moreover, in some instances the human spirits of those who have died are seen to be bound or confined in a place of waiting until they face the final judgment (1 Enoch 22:3–13, which uses pneuma ten times in this sense; cf. 98:3), and could readily be said to be ‘in prison’.
4. Are the spirits ‘in prison’ now, or when Christ preached to them?
Although it might appear on an initial reading that ‘spirits in prison’ must refer to those who were incarcerated at the time the preaching took place, this is not necessarily the case. Verse nineteen could equally well be understood to mean ‘he preached to the spirits who are now in prison’, i.e. those who are spirits in hell at the time Peter is writing but who were formerly human beings on earth at the time of the flood. (NASB translates, ‘He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark.’) It is quite natural to speak in terms of a person’s present status even when describing a past action which occurred when the person did not have that status. For example, it would be perfectly correct to say, ‘Queen Elizabeth was born in 1926,’ even though she did not become Queen until long after 1926.
In fact, the great majority of commentators, no matter what view they take of 3:19–20, interpret 4:6 in similar fashion, understanding it to mean that the gospel was preached to those who, at the time of writing, were now dead. It was declared to them in order that they might be saved from final judgment, even though they would not be spared dying. So ‘the gospel was preached to the dead’ in 4:6 means that the gospel was preached to ‘those who are now dead’ (at the time Peter is writing) even though they were alive on earth at the time the gospel was preached to them (see Commentary, pp. 178ff.). Therefore, in understanding 1 Peter 3:19–20, the possibility must be left open that ‘he preached to the spirits in prison’ means ‘he preached to those who are now spirits in hell but who at the time of the preaching were human beings living on the earth’.
5. Conclusion regarding the phrase ‘spirits in prison’
We must conclude that by itself the phrase ‘the spirits in prison’ could refer either to human or to angelic spirits, and the larger context must be decisive. The term ‘spirit’ is used frequently to refer both to human spirits and to angelic spirits. Since the evidence from 1 Enoch is ambiguous, no clear conclusion can be drawn from it. Furthermore, the brief phrase ‘spirits in prison’ could mean either ‘spirits who were in hell when Christ preached to them’ or ‘those who are now spirits in hell but who at the time of Christ’s preaching were people on earth’. Thus, the phrase itself is not clear apart from further definition by its larger context. It is to an examination of this context that we now turn.