1 Peter 3:20

An Exegetical Analysis of ἀπειθήσασιν in 1 Peter 3:20

This exegetical study of ‘1 Peter 3:20: ἀπειθήσασιν‘ is based on a b-greek discussion from Monday, May 1, 2000. The initial inquiry focused on the challenging passage of 1 Peter 3:18ff, specifically drawing attention to the participle ἀπειθήσασιν in verse 20. The common interpretation in translations and commentaries renders this participle adjectivally, modifying “the spirits in prison” as “who were disobedient.” However, the anarthrous nature of ἀπειθήσασιν with an arthrous antecedent raises grammatical questions.

The primary exegetical issue revolves around the precise grammatical function of the anarthrous participle ἀπειθήσασιν. While many commentators understand it attributively (adjectivally) in apposition to its antecedent, “spirits,” others argue for an adverbial or circumstantial force, often rendering it temporally. This distinction carries significant implications for understanding the identity of the “spirits in prison” and the nature of Christ’s preaching event described in the preceding verses, particularly whether it refers to a specific group or a temporal condition of their disobedience.

ἐν ᾧ καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξεν, ἀπειθήσασιν ποτε ὅτε ἀπεξεδέχετο ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ μακροθυμία ἐν ἡμέραις Νῶε κατασκευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ…

(Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• No significant textual variants affecting the interpretation of ἀπειθήσασιν are present between Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010 for this verse. The Greek text of 1 Peter 3:20 concerning this participle is consistently attested.

Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)

In terms of textual criticism, the reading ἀπειθήσασιν is uniformly attested across major manuscripts and critical editions, including NA28. There are no significant variants that would alter its form or presence in 1 Peter 3:20, confirming its authenticity within the passage.

Lexically, the term ἀπειθέω (from which ἀπειθήσασιν derives) signifies ‘to disobey, be disobedient, refuse to believe, be unpersuadable’. BDAG (4th ed.) defines it primarily as to refuse to obey, be disobedient, and secondarily as to refuse to believe, be unbelieving. This semantic range is crucial, as the nature of the “disobedience” or “unbelief” in the context of 1 Peter 3:20 could refer to moral transgression or rejection of divine proclamation. The aorist participle ἀπειθήσασιν (dative plural, masculine) denotes an action completed prior to or coincident with the main verb, making ‘having disobeyed’ or ‘when they disobeyed’ appropriate temporal considerations. KITTEL’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) further elaborates on ἀπειθέω, highlighting its association with a willful rejection of authority or truth, often carrying connotations of stubborn resistance to God’s will or message, which fits the narrative of the Flood era.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The grammatical function of ἀπειθήσασιν is the focal point of scholarly debate for this passage. Most translations and commentaries render it as an attributive (adjectival) participle, modifying the preceding “spirits in prison” (τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν), despite the absence of a definite article. This results in interpretations such as “to the spirits in prison, who were disobedient.” However, the lack of an article with an adjectival participle modifying an arthrous (i.e., having an article) substantive in postposition has been noted as grammatically unusual by scholars like C.F.D. Moule and Nigel Turner, with Turner even labeling it “unclassical” or “not good Greek” (Turner 3:153; 4:129).

A significant alternative interpretation, championed by scholars like Wayne Grudem, argues that ἀπειθήσασιν functions adverbially or circumstantially, specifically with a temporal force. Grudem posits that the basic rule (BDF 270) dictates an attributive adjective with an arthrous substantive in postposition must have its own article, unless specific exceptions apply (e.g., a series of adjectives, BDF 269; or a supplementary participle following a verb of perception, BDF 416). Since these exceptions are not met here, and given the separation of the participle from its antecedent by the verb ἐκήρυξεν (“he preached”), Grudem concludes that ἀπειθήσασιν should be understood adverbially, yielding a translation such as “preached to the spirits in prison when they formerly disobeyed.” This interpretation aligns the disobedience directly with the time of Noah and the ark’s construction.

However, proponents of the adjectival reading offer several counter-arguments. Firstly, it is acknowledged that participles functioning attributively do not always require an article, especially when indicating a relation already known or when the idea is to be made prominent (Winer, *A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament*, 134-35). Winer further notes that the decision to use or omit the article can sometimes depend on the subjective view of the writer. In such cases, the anarthrous participle provides secondary, circumstantial information about the noun it modifies, which can still be attributive. Numerous instances of articular nouns modified by subsequent anarthrous participles occur in the New Testament, suggesting that Greek readers could discern the function from context. The consistent rendering by ancient and modern translations (e.g., Vulgate, Peshitta, KJV, NIV, NASB) as an attributive clause (“who were disobedient”) further supports its viability.

Rhetorically, the placement of πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξεν (“having gone he preached”) between “spirits in prison” and ἀπειθήσασιν might be a deliberate authorial choice by Peter to prioritize the central action of Christ’s preaching before elaborating on the condition of the spirits. If ἀπειθήσασιν had immediately followed “spirits,” it would have brought the entire temporal clause of 3:20 with it, potentially creating a cumbersome sentence structure. This separation allows ἀπειθήσασιν to carry a stronger substantive force, perhaps best rendered as “to the disobedient ones” (Dana and Mantey, *A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament*, sec. 197). This could indicate a subset of “spirits in prison,” referring specifically to those from the Flood generation. Therefore, while grammatically challenging, the adjectival interpretation is not without robust defense, often relying on contextual flow and authorial intent to override strict grammatical ‘rules’ where exceptions are demonstrably plausible in Koine Greek.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The grammatical debate surrounding ἀπειθήσασιν highlights a complex intersection of Greek syntax, authorial intent, and theological implications. While strict grammatical rules might favor an adverbial reading due to the anarthrous nature of the participle with an arthrous antecedent, the weight of translational tradition and plausible rhetorical considerations often leans toward an adjectival understanding. Peter’s potential for flexible syntax and the contextual emphasis on the specific period of disobedience during Noah’s time offer compelling reasons to consider both interpretations. The passage remains a locus of scholarly discussion, yet the semantic core of “disobedience” associated with the spirits is undeniable.

Based on the preceding analysis, the following translation suggestions capture the nuances of the grammatical and rhetorical possibilities:

1. “in which also he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, who formerly disobeyed when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.”
   This translation maintains the traditional adjectival understanding, emphasizing the characteristic state of the spirits as disobedient at a specific past time.
2. “in which also he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison when they formerly disobeyed, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.”
   This rendering adopts the adverbial/circumstantial interpretation, highlighting the temporal condition of their disobedience contemporaneous with Christ’s proclamation.
3. “in which also he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, even to the disobedient ones formerly when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.”
   This option leans into the substantive force of the anarthrous participle, perhaps indicating a specific subset of the spirits in prison, or specifying ‘the disobedient ones’ as those during Noah’s time, thus making a connection to the specific historical event.