b. Evidence from four other defining phrases
b. Evidence from four other defining phrases
The phrase ‘the spirits in prison’ does not stand by itself but is followed by four additional defining phrases:
who formerly did not obey
(better: ‘disobeyed’, see pp. 112f. and 167)
in the days of Noah
when God’s patience waited
during the building of the ark
These four phrases, upon examination, all indicate that the ‘spirits in prison’ must be understood to be human spirits, not angelic spirits. This can be seen by an investigation of the biblical and extra-biblical evidence pertaining to these phrases.
1. Evidence for angelic disobedience
a. The sons of God in Genesis 6:2, 4
Those who favour View 5 above (the spirits in prison as fallen angels) point to the many places in extra-biblical Jewish literature where the ‘sons of God’ who married ‘the daughters of men’ in Genesis 6:2, 4 and begot children by them, are understood to be sinful angels who married human women. This understanding of Genesis 6 is frequent in extra-biblical literature, being attested in at least the following nine texts: Josephus, Ant. 1:73; Philo, On the Giants 6; Q.Gen. 1.92; CD 2.18; 1 Enoch 6.2, 6; 106.13-14; Jubilees 5.1; 10.1–6; 2 Baruch 56.12–15.
However, it is often not appreciated that such an interpretation of Genesis 6 is far from uniform in Jewish tradition. The following list shows nine other texts where non-angelic interpretations are held:
While Philo himself calls these ‘sons of God’ angels in one place, he later calls them ‘good and excellent men’ (Q.Gen. 1–92). Moreover, the Targums and the Rabbinic literature are unanimous in viewing the ‘sons of God’ as human beings. Targum Onkelos on Genesis 6:2 and 4 reads ‘sons of princes’ (or great men, rbrby’), and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has the same. Targum Neofiti has ‘sons of the Judges’ (dyyny’) in both verses.
Tosefta, Sotah 3.9a interprets ‘sons of God’ as men of the generation of the flood. In the Midrash Rabbah, they are understood as ‘sons of judges’ (dyyn) and as ‘leaders’ (Gen.R. 26.5 on Gen. 6:2, quoting Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, c. AD 140), or as the generation of men at the time of the flood (Num.R. 9.24, on 5:27). The Babylonian Talmud at b.Sanh 108a understands them as men at the time of the flood. Symmachus translates Genesis 6:2 as ‘the sons of the rulers’ (tōn dynasteuontōn).
Although this material is admittedly somewhat later than 1 Enoch and Jubilees, which are both to be dated in the second century BC, the citations from Philo and the Targums are certainly not irrelevant for New Testament exegesis—indeed, the Rabbinic material generally represents a stream of Jewish tradition which is certainly relevant as a background for New Testament studies. And the citations in this second group are diverse and frequent enough to give strong indication of the existence of a ‘non-angelic’ view of the ‘sons of God’ in Judaism, especially more orthodox Judaism, before or during the time of the New Testament.
Our understanding of this point is not crucial, for one could be convinced that Peter’s readers all thought that Genesis 6:2, 4 referred to fallen angels who took human wives and still hold that 1 Peter 3:19–20 spoke of human beings who disobeyed during the building of the ark. (Peter does not, of course, say ‘he preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed by marrying human women’ but rather ‘spirits … who disobeyed when the ark was being built’.) But this evidence is none the less helpful in showing that one cannot simply assume that the readers of 1 Peter had an ‘angelic’ interpretation of Genesis 6:2, 4 in their minds. Indeed, Peter would not have assumed an ‘angelic’ interpretation in his readers’ minds either, for no uniform interpretation of this passage can be demonstrated for the first century AD.
b. Other references to angelic disobedience
Even if there is no uniform interpretation of Genesis 6:2, 4 as involving the sin of angels, is there none the less other evidence in Jewish literature showing a common tradition of interpretation in which angels are said to have sinned ‘in the days of Noah’ or ‘when God’s patience waited’ or ‘during the building of the ark’?
Something near to this idea is found in Jubilees 10:4–5, where Noah, speaking of evil spirits (who are called ‘Watchers’), says to God, ‘You know what your Watchers … did in my days, and also these spirits who are alive. Shut them up and take them to the place of judgment.’
Then with reference to the reason for the flood, the Testament of Naphtali says that ‘the Watchers departed from nature’s order; the Lord pronounced a curse on them at the flood. On their account he ordered that the earth be without dweller or produce’ (T.Naph. 3:5). Here the flood is specifically said to have been caused by the sin of angels. In addition, 1 Enoch 67:8–13 says that the waters of the flood will first become hot—to punish sinful angels—and then become cold—to punish sinful men.
However, Jewish tradition does not uniformly link the sin of angels with the flood. This sin is more frequently put in the days of Enoch and Methuselah, two and three generations before Noah (Jubilees 4:22, cf. 4:20, 20:8), or in the time of Jared, four generations before Noah (1 Enoch 6:6 [Greek text]; 106:13). While a difference of two to four generations may seem insignificant to the modern reader who may have only a vague idea of the genealogy leading to the birth of Noah, it would certainly matter to the authors or readers of these writings, for they go into great detail when narrating the events of the lives of people like Enoch, his son Methuselah, his grandson Lamech, and his great grandson Noah.
More significantly, even in these three texts which make a connection between angelic sin and the flood, there is no mention of two elements which Peter specifically mentions—God patiently waiting (for repentance), and the disobedience which occurred ‘during the building of the ark’.
One final strand of evidence for the idea of angelic sin as a background to 1 Peter 3:19 might be found within the New Testament itself: it might be argued that 2 Peter 2:4–5 (arid perhaps Jude 6) connects the sin of angels and consequent judgment with Noah and the flood, or perhaps with the sin concerning ‘the daughters of men’ in Gen. 6:2, 4.
However, this conclusion cannot be sustained after a closer look at 2 Peter 2:4–7, for there in the same sentence Peter mentions not only angelic sin and the flood, but also ‘the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah’ and the rescue of Lot (vv. 6–7). Yet Peter hardly thinks the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah happened at the same time as the flood! This means that, far from seeing events such as angelic sin and the flood as contemporaneous, he is simply picking out three separate examples of sin and judgment from the Old Testament to emphasize that judgment on sin will come and that God will save the righteous from it (vv. 9–10).
Jude 6 is even less persuasive. It mentions angelic sin and judgment on angels, but does not specify the sin except for a general statement that angels ‘did not keep their own position’ (a probable reference to rebellion against God’s authority). And there is no connection with the time of the flood but rather the following sequence:
v. 5 exodus from Egypt; judgment on unbelievers (Exod. 14; Num. 14)
v. 6 sin of angels; judgment
v. 7 Sodom and Gomorrah; judgment (Gen. 19).
No chronological connection is implied; Jude, like Peter, simply selects three noteworthy examples of judgment from the Old Testament. In neither text is there an implication of angelic sin at the time of the flood, or of angelic sin with human women.
Nevertheless, if there were no other references indicating a tradition of human disobedience just before the flood, these three pseudepigraphal texts which briefly mention angelic disobedience in a general way, though not precisely parallel to Peter’s statement about the spirits in prison, might still be thought to provide a helpful background against which Peter’s readers would have understood 1 Peter 3:18–20. However, before such a conclusion is drawn, it is necessary to examine the evidence for a tradition of human, not angelic, disobedience ‘during the building of the ark’.
2. Evidence for human disobedience
a. Who disobeyed ‘during the building of the ark’?
(i) Old Testament evidence
The Old Testament narrative indicates that there were human beings who disobeyed God ‘when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark’, but there is no indication of angelic disobedience during that time (cf. Gen. 6:5–7, 12–13).
Though there are different views on whether Genesis 6:1–4 refers to the sin of angels when it talks about the ‘sons of God’ (see above), there can be no dispute that the entire section immediately preceding the command to build the ark (Gen. 6:5–13) clearly emphasizes human sin, and human sin alone, as the reason God brings the flood upon the earth. God is not sorry that he has made angels, but that he made man (v. 6). He does not decide to blot out fallen angels, but man (vv. 6, 13); it is not the violence and corruption of angels which arouses his anger, but the violence and corruption of man (vv. 5, 11, 12, 13).
At this point it could be objected that human disobedience is sometimes seen as having been caused by prior angelic disobedience, and that therefore the two are closely connected. While this connection is made in some extra-biblical literature, it is certainly not a uniform interpretation, and it is clearly not a connection made in the biblical text itself. In addition, 1 Peter 3 speaks not of those who disobeyed long before the flood (as angels did), but of those who disobeyed precisely when the ark was being built.
(ii) New Testament evidence
In the New Testament, 2 Peter 2:5 mentions Noah as a ‘herald of righteousness’ in the midst of ‘the world of the ungodly’. Similarly, in Matthew 24:37–39 and Luke 17:26–27 Jesus clearly emphasizes human disregard of impending judgment in the days of Noah. Furthermore, he says that a similar situation will occur again: ‘As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man …’ (Matt. 24:37). In this context, the warning about the need for human watchfulness, and the parallels with activity in the days of Noah, mean that human disobedience in the days of Noah is clearly in view. Once again, angelic disobedience is never specifically connected with the judgment of the flood itself.
(iii) Extra-biblical evidence
The Sibylline Oracles, 1.171–172, say that the people who heard Noah’s exhortations to repentance from their wicked life mocked him: ‘When they heard him they sneered at him, each one, calling him demented, a man gone mad’ (this mocking occurs in the middle of Noah’s sermon about their sins, after the ark has been built: note lines 190–191, 205). Similarly, the Babylonian Talmud at b.Sanh. 108b says that those watching Noah ‘derided him’, saying, ‘Old man, what is this ark for?’ Genesis Rabbah 30.7 (on 6:9) says that Noah was mocked by those who watched him build the ark. They despised him and called him ‘contemptible old man’. Moreover, when Noah cut down trees to build the ark and told them a flood was coming they responded, ‘It will come only on your father’s house.’ In Ecclesiastes Rabbah on 9:14 (sec. 1), when Noah warns the people, ‘Tomorrow a flood will come, so repent’, they refuse to listen and mock him, ‘If punishments begin they will begin with your house’. These specific citations quite clearly speak of human disobedience ‘while the ark was being built’, and should be seen in contrast to the total absence of references to angelic sin during the building of the ark.
Furthermore, Jewish literature frequently mentions human, not angelic sin, as the reason why God brought the flood on the earth. The texts are too numerous to cite here but it is sufficient to give the references: Targums Onkelos, Pseudo-Jonathan, Neofiti, and the Fragmentary Targum on Genesis 6:5 and 6:11–13; Gen.R. 26.5 (on 6:2); 26.7 (on 6:4); 28:8 (on 6:7); 31.1–5 (on 6:13); 31.6 (on 6:13); Eccl.R. on 2:23, sec.1; Num.R. 5.3 (on 4:18); 9.18 (on 5:21); 9.24 (on 5:27); b.R.H. 123; b.Sanh. 108a; Philo, Q.Gen. 1.99, 100; 2.13; Abr. 40–41; Josephus, Ant. 1.74–75, 98; CD 2.20–21; 1 Enoch 65.6, 10–11; 67.8–10; 2 Enoch 70.4–8; 3 Enoch 4.3; Jubliees 5.2–4, 7–9; Apocalypse of Adam 3.3; Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities, 3.2, 6; Sib. Or. 1.130–131, 150–179; 3 Maccabees 2:4. And the phrase ‘the generation of the flood’ is used frequently in Rabbinic writings as a paradigm of extreme human wickedness: Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10:3; Eccl.R. on 2:23, sec.1; SongR. on 1:4, sec.3; Num.R. 9.18 (on 5:21); 14.6 (on 7:54); 20.2 (on 22:2), etc.
All of these texts (forty-five listed here, from every strand of Jewish tradition) must be seen in contrast to the slight evidence of a tradition of angelic sin at this time: one text (Jubilee 10:4–5) which mentions angelic sin in Noah’s day and two (T.Naph. 3:5; 1 Enoch 67:8–13) which say angels were punished at the flood (one of which, T.Naph. 3:5, also says the earth was made ‘without dweller or produce’ because of angels’ sin). Not one text from any strand of Jewish tradition mentions angels disobeying ‘during the building of the ark’. The overwhelming weight of extra-biblical tradition—as well as the biblical evidence itself—emphasizes human sinners, not angels, as the most likely to be meant by Peter’s phrases, who formerly [disobeyed] … in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark.
b. For whom was the patience of God waiting?
That the ‘spirits in prison’ are further stated to be those who … [disobeyed] when God’s patience waited, strongly suggests that God was waiting for them to repent, otherwise there would be no point in Peter’s mentioning God’s patience. Furthermore, the word apekdechomai, ‘waiting’, has the nuance of hopeful or expectant waiting for something to happen.
The ‘angelic’ interpretation of this passage does not seem appropriate here, because neither the Old nor New Testaments teach that fallen angels ever have a chance to repent (cf. 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6). But if Peter is referring to human beings who disobeyed, the statement is entirely consistent with repeated instances, throughout the Bible, of God’s patient waiting for repentance before bringing judgment (Gen. 6:3; Ps. 103:7–12; 106:43–46; Hos. 11:8–9).
In extra-biblical Jewish literature also, God’s patience is specifically connected with the years leading up to the flood. Targum Neofiti on Genesis 6:3 reports God saying to Noah, ‘Behold I have given you 120 years, hoping that they might do repentance.’ The same idea is repeated in Targum Onkelos, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and the Fragmentary Targum on Genesis 6:3. Mekilta, Shirata 5:38–39 (on Exod. 15:5–6) says that God gave an extension of time ‘to the generation of the flood that they might repent’. The Mishnah (Aboth 5.2) says that all the generations from Adam to Noah continued to provoke God, thus making known how ‘long-suffering’ God is, until he finally brought upon them the water of the flood. Similar statements about God’s waiting for men to repent are found in Gen.R. 32.7 (on 7:10); Num.R. 14.6 (on 7:54). And Philo (Q.Gen. 2.13 on Gen. 7:4, 10), in discussing the delay of the flood, says that God ‘grants repentance of sins … in order that when they see the ark … they may believe the announcing (to kērygmati) of the flood … and that they may turn back from impiety’.
Thus, with respect to the background for Peter’s phrase when God’s patience waited, the extra-biblical literature gives frequent and diverse witness to God’s waiting for human repentance, but it is entirely silent regarding any waiting for angelic repentance—something the New Testament even seems to deny as a possibility (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6).
c. Noah as a preacher to his generation
There remains one further strand of extra-biblical Jewish tradition relevant to the background of biblical interpretation against which Peter was writing his letter. This concerns a widespread testimony to Noah’s efforts as a ‘preacher of righteousness’. Of course, this evidence is of primary value merely to confirm the conclusions of the two previous sections that (a) it was humans who were thought to be sinning at that time, for they are the ones Noah tells to repent, and that (b) God’s patience is waiting for the repentance of the human beings to whom Noah preaches. But the fact that Noah is frequently said to be a ‘preacher’ of repentance and righteousness to those around him during the building of the ark should at least prompt us to consider the possibility that when Peter speaks of preaching ‘to the spirits in prison, who formerly disobeyed … during the building of the ark’, he is in some way alluding to the preaching activity of Noah, familiar to his readers from Jewish tradition.
What is interesting is the frequency with which Noah is called a ‘preacher’ or ‘herald’ using the word kēryx and related words, all of which are cognate to kēryssō in 1 Peter 3:19 (Christ ‘preached’ to the spirits in prison). For example, in the early material from the Sibylline Oracles, Book 1, we find that lines 150–198 contain two long speeches by Noah calling for repentance from those around him and warning that the flood was coming. In fact, Sib. Or. 1.128–129 records God as commanding Noah, ‘Proclaim repentance to all the peoples … so that all might be saved.’ The verb for ‘proclaim’ is kēryssō, the same verb used in 1 Peter 3:19.
Philo’s use of the cognate noun kērygma to refer to warnings about the flood has just been cited (see above). Josephus does not use this term of Noah, but he says that Noah ‘urged them to come to a better frame of mind and amend their ways’ (Ant. 1.74, referring to human sinners).
In connection with Noah’s preaching, Gen.R. 30.7 (on 6:9) quotes Rabbi Abba (3rd century AD?) as saying, ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “One herald arose for me in the generation of the flood, and this was Noah.” ’ (The word for ‘herald’ used here is kārôz, an Aramaic loanword from Gk. kēryx, cognate to kēryssō in 1 Pet. 3:19; cf. BDB, p. 1097.) Other examples of Noah’s preaching are found in Eccl.R. on 9:14, sec. 1; b.Sanh. 108a, 108b.
Moreover, in early Christian literature we read, ‘Noah preached repentance and those who obeyed were saved’ (1 Clement 7.6), and that Noah proclaimed a ‘new beginning to the world’ (1 Clement 9.4). In both cases Clement (writing in AD 95) uses kēryssō to speak of Noah’s preaching activity.
It is also relevant here to notice that Noah is called a preacher, ‘herald [or, kēryx] of righteousness’ in 2 Peter 2:5.
Thus, there is a widespread Jewish and early Christian tradition about Noah’s activity as a preacher to those around him before the flood. And Peter’s verb kēryssō and its cognates are used with surprising frequency in these traditions, even once by Peter himself.
3. Conclusion from a survey of background material
When Peter defined the ‘spirits in prison’ as those ‘who disobeyed in the days of Noah when God’s patience waited during the building of the ark’, it is very unlikely that he would have expected his readers to identify them as disobedient angels. There is no evidence in biblical or extra-biblical literature which suggests that disobedient angels fit these characteristics.
Our conclusion is that the ‘spirits in prison’ are the human beings who disobeyed at the time Noah was building the ark and who were destroyed in the flood. This conclusion can be avoided only by disregarding the crucial defining phrases in 1 Peter 3:20.