Eamon Younis: The Sufferings of Christ: Exemplary, Substitutionary, and Triumphant

By David J. MacLeod

Dave MacLeod is Dean for Biblical Studies at Emmaus Bible College and Associate Editor of The Emmaus Journal.

(1 Peter 3:18–22 and Possible Parallels: Ephesians 4:8–9 and 1 Peter 4:6)

The Christian church has just gone through the bloodiest century of its history. More people have been killed for their faith in Christ in the twentieth century than in the previous nineteen, according to statistician David Barrett. [1] The problem is not in finding examples of this terrible reality; the problem is in trying to pick just one or two stories out of so many to illustrate the point. [2] In North Korea Christians must meet secretly or else they are arrested and imprisoned. In northern Nigeria, believers are subjected to Islamic Shari‘ah law, which punishes Christian worshippers with amputation, floggings, and stoning. [3] With shocking regularity there are reports of the death of Christians at the hands of Muslim militants in northern Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East. Recently, gunmen from the “Army of Omar” opened fire on a Protestant congregation meeting at St. Dominic’s Catholic Church in Bahawalpur, killing sixteen. [4]

Several years ago, a different form of persecution was reported in Hartford, Connecticut. A young Jewish lawyer was converted to Christ in a Missionary Alliance Church. His parents did nothing. Later he married a Gentile girl who was an evangelical Christian. Still his parents did nothing. But then he was baptized by Christian baptism. Immediately his parents disowned their son and held a public funeral for him. [5]

These stories from the present time are just a few examples of the world’s continuing quarrel with Jesus Christ and his people. One could add the persecution faced by believers on the job, in school, or in their homes, because of their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The apostle Peter would not have been surprised by these accounts. He was writing (between A.D. 62-64) [6] to a group of Christians in Asia Minor who were facing severe persecution, so severe in fact that some had died as martyrs because of their faith (cf. 4:6). [7]

It is this thought of the suffering of Christians that was the occasion of the apostle’s remarks in 1 Peter 3:18–22. These sufferings, Peter suggested, were distinctly Christian (that is, they were not the routine adversities of life that are faced by humanity in general) in that they were being experienced on account of believers doing good and were therefore undeserved (cf. 2:19–20), and they were divinely ordained (the will of God, 3:17) for their good. [8]

In the passage Peter called attention to the fact that this same kind of suffering was exemplified in the life of our Lord. In his suffering he left an example of the behavior required of his people in such circumstances (2:21). Believers should expect, therefore, because they are his followers in an alien world, that suffering is the pattern of experience they are destined to share.

Peter’s purpose in drawing attention to the sufferings of Christ was not to cushion the shock so that Christians might bear their suffering stoically. Rather, his purpose was to inspire believers to hope in the midst of their afflictions with this thought: as the Old Testament prophets had foreseen (1:10–11), suffering was, for Christ, the predestined path to glory (cf. Heb. 2:6–10; Phil. 2:6–11; Romans 8:17). Peter wanted his readers to understand that the sufferings of Christ were abundantly worthwhile and issued in a monumental triumph. His readers should not therefore be surprised when their experience takes the same pattern.

In summary, then, the sufferings of Christians and the sufferings of Christ are similar. They are similar in principle; both are undeserved, and both are divinely ordained. And they are similar in result: both will ultimately issue in a blaze of glory.

While the sufferings of believers and Christ are similar, Peter also called attention to certain aspects of Christ’s sufferings that were unique in both character and consequence. First, while both were undeserved, his differed in that he bore the penalty due the sins of the unrighteous. And second, while both shall issue in triumph and glory, his achieved the believers’ reconciliation to God.

At this point it should be noted that a number of scholars believe that Peter used phrases from an early Christian hymn [9] or creed [10] as he wrote the paragraph. [11] There is wide disagreement, however, in the analyses of different writers. [12] One (Windisch [13]) includes the entire paragraph and says it is a baptismal hymn to Christ. Most others (for example, Bultmann, [14] Boismard [15]) would argue that Peter used fragments of material, especially in verses 18 and 22, that are taken from early hymns or catechisms. [16] In that the question is of little importance for the exegesis or exposition of the text, the writer will examine the text with the simple observation that in verses 18 and 22 there is traditional vocabulary and doctrine as well as a stylized rhythmic structure [17] that is easily memorized and which probably first appeared as part of a hymn or creed. [18]

Hymn Fragment # 1—The Character of the Sufferings of Christ, verse 18 [19]

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.

It was Unjust Suffering

In verse 18 Peter made a number of points about Christ’s suffering. [20] First, it was unjust suffering. Peter wrote, “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust.” The words “Christ also” (καὶ Χριστὸς, kai Christos) imply a parallel between Christ and his followers. [21] The fact that he suffered proves that sufferings are not evidence of the wickedness or badness of the sufferer. He, like Peter’s readers, suffered for doing good. Earlier in the epistle Jesus is an example of one who suffered with patient endurance (2:22–23). Later in this paragraph (vv. 19, 22) the emphasis changes to one who suffered victoriously. [22] In verse 18, however, he is specifically an example of one who suffered unjustly, i.e., for doing good.

It Was Vicarious Suffering

The very next words indicate that the analogy between Christ’s sufferings and that of Christians is not exact. He “died for sins once for all” (NASB, ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθεν, hapax peri hamartioµn epathen). [23] Christ died in a way that his people could never die. He died redemptively. [24] The phrase “for sins” is the one regularly used in the Septuagint (Lev. 5:7; 6:30) for the sin offering and conveys the idea of sacrifice and atonement. The word “once” (ἅπαξ, hapax) suggests that his death was definitive and conclusive. What he did needs never be repeated. [25] He died “the just for the unjust” (δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, dikaios hyper adikoµn). This contrasts the innocence and righteousness of Christ and the sinfulness of those for whom he suffered. [26] The readers of this epistle looked at their persecutors as unjust, i.e., as law breakers. The word “you” (NIV, ὑμᾶς, hymas) [27] in the clause, “that He might bring you to God,” reminded the readers that before they were Christians they too were “unjust,” i.e., ungodly and sinful, those who do evil. [28] The language here is of the substitutionary atonement, i.e., Christ died in the place of sinners. [29]

We cannot fully comprehend the cross. As Charles Wesley wrote, it is a mystery. [30]

Tis mystery all! The immortal dies!
Who can explore his strange design?
In vain the first-born seraph tries
To sound the depths of love divine! [31]

Christ’s death was substitutionary or vicarious. Christ, the blameless One, died for (ὑπὲρ, hyper, on behalf of, for the benefit of, in the place of, in exchange for) the blameworthy, and that, Peter intimated, includes all of us. [32] Furthermore, Christ’s death was penal. Because of our sins we deserve, according to the justice of God, a penalty. At the cross the penalty was diverted from us to Christ. [33]

We may not know, we cannot tell
What pains He had to bear;
But we believe it was for us
He hung and suffered there. [34]

The terribleness of this is seen in the words of Jesus as he hung upon the cross: “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Matt. 27:46). He suffered under the dreadful wrath of God against our sins.

One of the legendary teachers at New College, Edinburgh, was Old Testament professor, Dr. John Duncan (1796–1870), affectionately known to his students as “Rabbi” Duncan. In one of his classes he got right to the heart of the matter in one sentence. He asked, “D’ye know what Calvary was? What? What? What?” Then with tears on his face—“It was damnation; and He took it lovingly.” [35]

Oh dearly, dearly has He loved,
And we must love Him too;
And trust in His redeeming blood,
And [seek] His works to do.” [36]

It Was Purposeful Suffering

The object of Christ’s once-for-all death was “that He might bring you to God” (ἵνα ὑμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ, hina hymas prosagageµ toµ theoµ). [37] Peter was here speaking of the conversion experience (προσαγάγῃ, aorist subjunctive) of the believer. Jesus died in order that he might reach across the gulf between God and humanity and, taking our hand, lead us across the territory of the enemy back to God. [38] This is a beautiful picture. In 1 Peter 2:25 the Lord Jesus is described as “the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.” Christ leads his people home to God, as a Shepherd and Guardian should. Coming to God is a process, but Peter spoke of it (aorist) as a certainty because of what Christ has done. [39]

It Was Victorious Suffering

The death of Christ was not a defeat; it did not destroy him. Neither, Peter implied, will death destroy the Christian sufferer. [40] Christ was “put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit” (θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι, thanatoµtheis men sarki zoµopoieµtheis de pneumati). The verb translated here “put to death” (θανατόω) is used in the Gospels (Matt. 26:59; 27:1; Mark 14:55) of our Lord’s death and suggests, therefore, violent execution. It points to the reality of his physical suffering and death—his earthly life was abruptly terminated by penal execution. [41]

The other half of the couplet, “made alive in the spirit,” has been understood in a variety of ways. Some see here a reference to the Holy Spirit (NIV has “by the Spirit”). They argue that the apostle is here speaking of the resurrection and that Christ was raised by the Holy Spirit. [42] The grammar makes the translation “by the Spirit” very unlikely. [43]

Others agree that the apostle was speaking of the resurrection, but they translate it “in the spirit.” They argue that by “spirit” Peter means Christ’s risen state: he used to live in the earthly sphere (“flesh” referring to human nature in its weakness), but now, in his resurrected state, he lives in the spiritual realm, the realm of the Spirit’s existence. [44]

It is unlikely, however, that Peter was speaking here of the resurrection; nor did he mean spiritual sphere of existence [45] or spiritual mode of existence [46] when he said “in the spirit.” Rather, he was describing certain events in the life of Christ, and doing so in chronological order. [47] In verse 18 he described Christ’s death. He did not get to the resurrection until verses 21 and 22.

Furthermore, he was here speaking of two constituent parts of Christ’s human nature, viz., his body and his spirit or soul. [48] On the cross Jesus died in his manhood [49] —body, soul and spirit. [50] The Savior was objectively abandoned by God. [51] The Father withdrew his comfort and sustaining power from him and sent the torments of hell against him. He was separated from God in those awful hours of darkness. [52] As he expired on the cross, there was that separation of body and soul that the Bible calls death. [53] Christ commended his spirit to the Father: “Father, into Your hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23:46). At that moment Jesus came alive again in spirit [54] through renewed fellowship with the Father. [55] He immediately began to enjoy liberation; [56] the distress of his baptism by death was over (cf. Luke 12:50). By his physical death he became not a victim, but a victor. [57]

Two Apostolic Considerations—The Consequences of the Sufferings of Christ, verses 19–21

In which also 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, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Proclamation to the Spirits in Prison, verse 19 [58]

At verse 19 Peter inserted [59] into the hymn fragments two important considerations that answer an important question–namely, what was Christ doing during the three days of his physical death, the triduum mortis?–and which illustrate the work of salvation. His objectives here are twofold. First, he wanted to reassure his readers by sketching for them the triumphant activity of Christ in his death. Second, he wanted to impress upon his readers their participation in his victorious death and resurrection. [60]

This verse has been a notorious battleground because of the many interpretations that have been given to it. [61] The great reformer, Martin Luther (1483–1546), commented, “This is a strange text and certainly a more obscure passage than any other passage in the New Testament. I still do not know for sure what the apostle means.” [62] The other great reformer, John Calvin (1509–64), added that the text was obscure and intricate. [63] There are several questions the interpreter may ask that will help him interpret the text correctly: [64]

When Did Christ Go?

Peter wrote “in which also He went” (ἐν ᾧ [65] καὶ…πορευθεὶς, en hoµ kai poreutheis). The phrase “in which” refers back to the word “spirit” [66] in verse 18, that is, it refers to Christ’s revivified human spirit. [67] The most natural interpretation is that this refers to something our Lord did in spirit-form sometime between his death on the cross and his resurrection on Easter morning. [68]

Where Did Christ Go?

The verb “He went” clearly implies that he went somewhere. [69] Peter says that he went “to the spirits now [70] in prison” [71] (τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν, tois en phylakeµ pneumasin). Most students of Peter agree that the term “spirits” is a reference to the dead in Hades or to angels in the Abyss. The Bible portrays both of these places in subterranean terms (cf. Ps. 30:3; Isa. 14:15; Rev. 20:1–3, 7), i.e., he went down. [72] In the words of the Apostles’ Creed, “He descended into hell,” [73] that is, to the spirit world. [74]

To Whom Did Christ Go?

Peter says that he preached “to the spirits” (τοῖς πνεύμασιν, tois pneumasin). Every other place in the New Testament where the term “spirits” is used it absolutely refers to nonhuman, supernatural spiritual beings, that is, good or evil angelic spirits (e.g., Matt. 12:45; Mark 1:23, 26; 3:30; Luke 10:20; Acts 19:15–16; 16:16; 23:8–9; Eph. 2:2; Heb. 1:14; 12:9; Rev. 16:13, 14). The term only refers to human beings (for example, in Hebrews 12:23) when it is qualified (“spirits of righteous men made perfect”). [75] It is therefore likely that Peter here meant angelic beings when he spoke of “spirits.” [76] The fact that they are “in prison” indicates that they are evil angels [77] or demons. [78] Does the Bible speak of angels who were disobedient during the days of Noah (cf. v. 20)? [79] It does. [80] In 2 Peter 2:4–5 the apostle speaks of angels in Noah’s day who sinned and were cast into Tartarus, evidently a prison for evil angels. Likewise, Jude (verse 6) speaks of angels who, like the men of Sodom and Gomorrah, indulged in gross immorality. Both of these passages are allusions to Genesis 6:1–4, which speaks of the “sons of God” who, after indwelling sinful men, cohabited with human women, corrupted the human race, and brought on the judgment of the flood.

This interpretation of Genesis 6 was known to the Jews of the intertestamental period and is included in the Book of 1 Enoch. In that non-canonical work, the sins of these angels were punished by imprisonment. [81] The Lord Jesus, then, in a disembodied state, descended to the prison house of the fallen angels and preached to them. [82]

What Did Christ Say?

The KJV, RSV and NIV all say that our Lord “preached” (ἐκήρυξεν, ekeµryxen) to the spirits in prison. Other versions (e.g., NEB, NASB) say “made proclamation” to the spirits. Elsewhere in the New Testament the Greek verb (κηρύσσω, keµryssoµ) that is here translated “preached” or “made proclamation” normally refers to Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God (Matt. 11:1; Mark 1:38; 3:14) or his disciples’ proclamation of the good news about his death and resurrection (1 Cor. 1:21; 9:27). [83]

Some scholars adopt that interpretation here and say that Christ preached the gospel to the fallen angels, although the outcome of that preaching is not clear. [84] There are four problems with that view. First, κηρύσσω is not the word that Peter uses for the preaching of the gospel. Instead he uses εὐαγγελίζω (euangelizoµ), (1:12, 25; 4:6). Second, elsewhere in the New Testament it is asserted that Christ did not come to give redemptive help to angels (cf. Heb. 2:16). [85] Third, in verse 22 he mentions the subjection of the angels, [86] not their conversion. The subjection of the angels fits better with a proclamation of victory over the evil powers, not an offer of salvation to them. Fourth, in the immediate context Peter’s purpose is to boost the morale of persecuted believers. This would be better served by Christ’s announcing his triumph over the demonic host and not his offering pardon to them. [87]

Other commentators note that the basic meaning of the verb is simply “to proclaim” or “to announce.” [88] They point out that in a number of places in the New Testament it is used with this secular or non-religious meaning (e.g., Luke 12:3; Rom. 2:21; Rev. 5:2). They persuasively argue that the verb should here be given the neutral meaning “to make proclamation.” At the time of his death the Lord Jesus in spirit (i.e., disembodied form) [89] descended into Tartarus, the prison house of the rebellious angels of Noah’s day, and there announced to the demonic host his triumph over them90 and all evil through his death on the cross. [91] This subjection of the spirits indicated the liberation of men from their power. [92] The victorious Christ proclaimed, “I have beaten you! You are defeated!” [93]

In 1940 Gordon Rupp, later to become a professor at Cambridge University, shuddered to think that Hitler’s Nazi empire might last for centuries. Later, just a few weeks after the end of the war, in 1945, he walked in awe down the shattered ruins of the Wilhelmstrasse past the German war ministries riven into giant pieces. He came to the Cathedral of Berlin where the bombs had penetrated through the dome and down into the crypt where the Prussian kings who had laid the foundations of German militarism were entombed.

He walked on to Hitler’s Chancellery, where hardly one stone was left upon another, and noticed a mother sitting to rest after standing in line for potatoes. There, across the very doorstep of Hitler’s Chancellery lay her baby, sprawled out, kicking and laughing. He said he thought of another baby, Jesus Christ, born to a human mother, appearing so small and helpless, yet lying across human history as the empires rise and fall.

Just as those bombs crashed down to the tombs of the Prussian kings, so the Savior crashed into the prison house of the demonic rebels to tell them that their empire lay shattered and ruined. [94]

What is the point? One must remember that Peter is writing to a group of people who see evidence of the supernatural powers of evil in the persecution by their pagan persecutors. Such wicked persecution has been seen throughout the church’s history and in the twentieth century.

The apostle drew their attention to the days of Noah. One might ask, “Why?” Well, for one thing, Noah and his era occupy a prominent place in New Testament thinking (cf. Matt. 24:37–39; Luke 17:26, 27; Heb. 11:7; 2 Pet. 2:4, 5). [95] For another, the family of Noah paralleled believers in Peter’s day; that is, they were a persecuted, suffering minority in the midst of a perverse and dissolute generation. Furthermore, Noah’s deliverance through water is a picture of the believer’s deliverance through Christ. Finally, the wicked angels of Noah’s day—an especially perverse host—are representative of all the underworld powers of evil who continue to promote the proliferation of evil—evil that not only instigates persecution against the people of God but evil that led to judgment in Noah’s day and will lead to judgment in a future day as well.

Peter reminded his readers that Christ has triumphed over these satanic forces. They are already defeated and awaiting future punishment. Whatever the forces that face us as Christians today, they are not the equal of the Lord Jesus Christ. [96] In short, what was bad news for the evil angels was good news for Peter’s readers, and it should be good news to those today who live in a hostile world. [97]

Later in the epistle Peter would remind his readers that the devil, though defeated, is still dangerous. “Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Pet. 5:8). While on a trip to the zoo one day, a boy and his father saw a huge lion. The lion was prowling around his enclosure, and he suddenly let out a chilling roar. The little boy was very frightened and screamed in terror, but the father remained calm and unafraid. The boy saw only the lion; the father saw the cage enclosing the lion. Our enemy is real and dangerous, yet he is a caged beast. He is on a leash, and at the advent of the Savior his prowling days will end. [98]

An even better illustration would be that of a lion that has been given a fatal wound. For the short time before he expires he is very dangerous; nevertheless, the fatal blow has been inflicted.

The Deliverance of Noah as a Type of Salvation, verses 20–21

The Salvation of Noah’s Family, an Old Testament Type, verse 20

The second reason for Peter’s insertion of his own comments into the hymn was to impress upon his readers that they participate in the victory of Christ. Peter had heard the Lord Jesus use the era of Noah in his prophetic teaching about the end of the age (Matt. 24:37–39; Luke 17:26–27). The Noahic era was also a classic illustration in non-biblical Jewish literature of divine judgment upon the lost and the deliverance of the saved. [99]

Between the disobedience and perverse rebellion of the angels and the flood was a period of 120 years (Gen. 6:3). During that time Noah was preaching to his contemporaries about the righteousness of God and their need of repentance (cf. 2 Pet. 2:5). No doubt the men of Noah’s day ignored the warning because they felt that God was doing nothing to punish them. In fact, however, he was holding back his judgment, giving them time to repent (Rom. 2:4; Acts 17:30).

Only a few were saved, Noah, his three sons and their wives. They entered the ark, and it saved them. [100] The waters of judgment came and destroyed the human race, yet the ark carried Noah’s family through those same waters to safety. [101]

The Salvation of Christians, the New Testament Antitype, verse 21

The Old Testament story of the deliverance of Noah’s family, Peter explained in verse 21, is a type of the salvation of Christians today. [102] The NASB reads, “corresponding to that” (ὃ…ἀντίτυπον). The NIV has “symbolizes,” and the NEB has “prefigured.” Baptism is an antitype [103] of Noah’s experience of salvation through water. The events of verse 20 prefigure or typify the events in verse 21. [104] Noah and his family correspond to Christian believers today; the waters of the flood correspond to the waters of baptism; and the deliverance of Noah’s family from drowning corresponds to the spiritual salvation of believers.

Specifically he said, “baptism now saves you” (ὑμᾶς νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα, hymas nun soµzei baptisma). This raises a question, namely, “How does baptism save?” The clause sets off alarm bells in the minds of all those who believe in salvation apart from all religious works or rituals. [105] Peter made two points, one negative and one positive. Negatively, baptism does not save by “the removal of dirt from the flesh” (οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου, ou sarkos apothesis hrypou). Baptism is not to be understood in a magical sense as if the water has spiritual power. Water baptism does not bring about the inward moral cleansing that all people need. [106] Outward rituals do not save.

Even today there are people who think that outward religious acts—attending church services, receiving communion, being baptized—somehow make them acceptable to God, even if their hearts are evil. This is seen all the time when people who never attend the meetings of the church nevertheless want their infants baptized, desire to be married in a church, or request that they be given a Christian burial. [107]

Positively, Peter wrote, baptism saves in two ways. There is a human aspect or responsibility, and there is a divine aspect. Or, one might say, there is a subjective side to salvation and an objective side. First, there is the human or subjective side to baptism. This is brought out in the phrase “an appeal to God for a good conscience” (NASB, συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν, syneideµseoµs agatheµs eperoµteµma eis theon). In New Testament times, immersion in water took place when a person confessed Christ as his or her Savior. There was no delay between the act of faith and the ritual. Baptism was one’s public confession of Jesus Christ. [108] The expression “good conscience” here does not mean a psychological feeling of innocence. It has the sense of “pure heart.” [109] The word “appeal” (ἐπερώτημα, aperoµteµma) basically means “question.” [110] Here it has the idea of a request or appeal [111] to God for the forgiveness of sins. [112]

There is no particular efficacy in the water per se, Peter implied. What is efficacious is the sinner’s appeal to God. When baptized, a person would publicly confess Jesus Christ. He would call upon God for the forgivenss of sins. It is this appeal to God that is the crucial thing, not the water. When a person believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, he or she is baptized in water to symbolize this great transaction.

Second, the divine or objective side of our salvation is brought out by the phrase “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (δι ἀναστάσεως Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, di anastaseoµs Ieµsou Christou). The objective basis of forgiveness and cleansing is the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Using a kind of shorthand, Peter mentions only the resurrection. In the New Testament (cf. Rom. 6:4) immersion in water is a symbol of being spiritually united to Christ in his death and resurrection.

Immersion in water speaks of the death that befell Christ as he was judged for our sins. The water of baptism is like the water of judgment that believers deserved for their sins. Christ is the Christian’s ark, and in him the believer has passed through the waters of judgment safely. Then the believer comes up out of the water, symbolizing Christ’s resurrection from the dead. He emerges from the water to walk in newness of life. [113] When a person embraces Christ as Savior he is spiritually joined to him. Believers in Christ have died with him, and they have risen with him. Immersion in water is an outward witness and seal of this inward reality.

Baptism, someone has remarked, is something like a wedding ring. They both symbolize transactions. A wedding ring symbolizes marriage, just as baptism symbolizes salvation. Wearing a wedding ring does not make you married any more than baptism makes you genuinely saved. If you see a woman without a wedding ring you can almost assume that she isn’t married. So it was in New Testament times. If a person had not been baptized, you could almost assume that he wasn’t a believer.

Of this we can be sure: baptism is only a symbol of salvation, just as a wedding ring is only a symbol of marriage. If a married woman doesn’t wear her ring, however, we may assume that (barring an injury to her hand) she is unhappy in her marriage. So with a Christian who does not want to be baptized. [114]

Hymn Fragment # 2—The Culmination of the Sufferings of Christ, verse 22

Who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

He is Majestically Seated in the Place of Privilege and Power

With the mention of the resurrection of Christ at the end of verse 21, the creedal or hymnic passage resumes. [115] Peter has now returned to his theme of the triumph of Christ. He has followed the Lord from the cross to the Abyss, and now he has come to his resurrection and exaltation. He made three statements about Christ that are creedal or hymn-like. Two of them, in fact, are found in the Apostles’ Creed: “He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.” [116]

The first statement is that Jesus Christ is today at the right hand of God. Several places in the New Testament refer to Psalm 110:1 and Christ’s present position at God’s right hand (cf. Matt. 22:44; Acts 2:34; Heb. 1:13; 8:1; 10:11). He sits today in the place of honor and authority. Ultimately He—and not the forces of evil—is in charge.

He Has Triumphantly Ascended Through the Sphere of Angelic Influence

The second statement is that he has “gone into heaven” (πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανόν, poreutheis eis ouranon). The apostle focused on the ascension for two reasons: [117] First, he wanted to underscore for his readers the important truth that Christ has been raised from the dead as a man and in his glorified humanity has gone into the very presence of God. As “Rabbi” Duncan said, “The dust of earth is on the throne of the majesty on high.” The author of Hebrews (6:20) says that he is there as our “forerunner.” Because of this, says the Heidelberg Catechism, we have “a sure pledge that He, as our Head, will also take us, His members, up to Himself.” [118] With such a destiny, nothing on earth should make us afraid.

The second reason for mentioning the ascension has to do with the immediate context. The evil angels of Noah’s day are now in prison. However, the evil angels that are presently instigating persecution of the readers are not in the Abyss. They are free and roaming about in the world. Elsewhere Satan is called “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4) and “the prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2). Commenting on Paul’s phrase “the prince of the power of the air,” “Rabbi” Duncan said, “I think the air is figurative; we talk of breathing a bad moral atmosphere, and I think there is a very bad air just now.” [119]

He Has Decisively Dethroned All the Sources of Spiritual Opposition

Peter concluded with a third statement. He asserted that Christ ascended “after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him” (ὑποταγέντων αὐτῷ ἀγγέλων καὶ ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων, hypotagentoµn autoµ angeloµn kai exousioµn kai dynameoµn). Peter here asserted Christ’s sovereignty over all spiritual forces in the universe. In the midst of persecution Christians are not to conclude that the angelic powers are beyond Christ’s control. There is, of course, in the New Testament, a tension between statements which suggest Christ’s victory is already accomplished and those that suggest the victory is not yet completed. [120] In Hebrews 10:13, for example, Christ waits for the day when all his enemies will be defeated; in 1 Peter 3:22 their subjection has already taken place. In 2 Timothy 1:10 the power of death has been abolished; in 1 Corinthians 15:26 death will be destroyed only at the return of Christ at the end.

There was a great victory at the cross and resurrection. There will be a final victory at Christ’s return. Between these victories, Satan and his host are on a leash. It is sometimes shortened, sometimes lengthened. They may even think they can free themselves. It is an illusion, however, for they are already conquered. Christ is already ascended to the place of honor.

Conclusion

Peter wrote, “For Christ also died for sins once for all.” Paul personalized it: “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3). This great truth is at the heart of the Christian faith. Charles Spurgeon (1834–92), the great English preacher, took ill at the age of 58. He was taken to Mentone, a city on the French Riviera, in hope that the warm weather would bring about a recovery. Instead he grew worse. As he lay dying he was speaking with Robert Taylor, a fellow minister and friend. Mr. Taylor asked him to put in a few word the kernel of his Christian faith. “It is all in four words,” Spurgeon answered, “Jesus died for me.” [121]

Christ’s sufferings, Peter assured his readers, tell us that suffering is part of the pathway to heaven. His death was the way of victory. We should not be afraid of those who can only kill the body (cf. Matt. 10:28). In October, 1931, widower Jack Vinson, a beloved Southern Presbyterian missionary, was captured by bandits while visiting rural churches in Kiangsu Province in China. A government force pursued the kidnappers and surrounded them in a small town. The bandits offered the missionary freedom if he would persuade the government troops to withdraw. Vinson agreed only if they would release the other captives. The bandits refused and tried to shoot their way out. In the melee, many bandits were killed, and the survivors fled with Vinson. However, the missionary could not run because of recent surgery. One bandit shot him; then another ran up and cut off his head.

The daughter of a Chinese pastor was among those rescued by government troops. She told of watching and listening as a bandit said to the missionary, “I am going to kill you. Aren’t you afraid?” She said Vinson had simply replied, “Kill me, if you wish. I will go straight to God.” A colleague, E. H. Hamilton, was inspired by Mr. Vinson’s courage and wrote a poem that was widely printed and became an encouragement to other Chinese believers living in constant danger.

Afraid? Of What?
To feel the spirit’s glad release?
To pass from pain to perfect peace,
The strife and strain of life to cease?
Afraid—of that?

Afraid? Of What?
Afraid to see the Savior’s face
To hear His welcome, and to trace
The glory gleam from wounds of grace?
Afraid—of that?

Afraid? Of What?
A flash, a crash, a pierced heart;
Darkness, light, O Heaven’s art!
A wound of His a counterpart!
Afraid—of that?

Afraid? Of What?
To do by death what life could not—
Baptize with blood a stony plot,
Till souls shall blossom from the spot?
Afraid—of that? [122]

Jesus Christ is the great hero (Christus Victor) of the history of salvation. He came into this world “to preach the gospel…[and] to proclaim release to the captives” (Luke 4:18). He came “to taste death for everyone…[and] that He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14). At the time of his death he announced to the forces of evil that the decisive victory against the devil had been won (cf. Col. 2:15; 1 John 3:8;).

As believers, Peter suggested to his beleaguered readers that we are on the winning side. Our baptism reminds us that we have been delivered from judgment, and Christ’s resurrection reminds us that all our enemies are ultimately under his control. [123]

And though this world, with devils filled,
Should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed
His truth to triumph through us;
The Prince of Darkness grim—
we tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure,
For, lo, his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him. [124]

Addenda

Addendum # 1: Is Ephesians 4:8–10 a Parallel Passage to 1 Peter 3:19? [125]

Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high, he led captive a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” (Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.)

In Ephesians 4:9 it says of our Lord that he “descended into the lower parts of the earth” (κατέβη εἰς τὰ κατώτερα [μέρηb τῆς γῆς, katebeµ eis ta katoµtera mereµ teµs geµs). This has been traditionally understood to mean that when Christ died he descended to Hades, the abode of the dead. [126] If this understanding is correct, Ephesians 4:9 is something of a parallel passage to 1 Peter 3:18–19. The present writer sets forth this possible interpretation tentatively and with great caution, for able teachers in the church have disagreed over the question. [127]

Until the cross, Hades was apparently divided into two territories, the place of the lost and Paradise, the place of the believing dead (cf. Luke 16:19–31). When the Lord Jesus died [128] he “descended into the lower parts of the earth,” that is, to Hades. [129] He went there, but he was not left there for, as Peter said on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:27, quoting Psalm 16:10), “You will not abandon My soul to Hades to undergo decay.”

While in Hades (“Paradise,” cf. Luke 23:43) Christ heralded victory and deliverance to the Old Testament saints who waited there. He proclaimed to them the New Testament message of a now-completed redemption. Apparently he also visited the Abyss and proclaimed victory over the angelic host imprisoned there. [130] Thus after he had subjected to himself the spirits who rule in the kingdom of death and darkness, he led the people in Hades who were believers to heaven. [131] From that moment on, those who die in Christ are “absent from the body” and “at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). Since the time of the cross, Paradise is above the earth in heaven (2 Cor. 12:1–4). [132]

These events have traditionally been called “the harrowing (i.e., ravishing, despoiling) of hell.” [133] They were of great interest to many in the ancient church. Very little is explained in the New Testament, [134] so Christian writers and teachers sought to expand upon, embellish, and dramatize the events. Allusions to a descent of Christ into the underworld are found in Ignatius (c. AD 35–107), [135] Polycarp (c. AD 69–155), [136] and Tertullian (c. AD 160–225), [137] and they find creedal formulation in the “Fourth Formula of Sirmium” in AD 359. [138]

Addendum # 2: Is 1 Peter 4:6 a Parallel Passage to 1 Peter 3:19?

Another “notoriously difficult” [139] text—and one that always comes into play in discussions of Christ’s descent into Hades—is 1 Peter 4:6:

For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God.

View # 1:1 Peter 4:6 Speaks of a Post-Mortem Offer of Salvation

There have been at least four interpretations of this text. [140] The first view is that 4:6 should be linked to 3:19 in that it refers to Christ’s preaching of salvation during the three days of his physical death (triduum mortis). The link between 4:5 and 6 is the thought: “How can God judge those who have never heard the gospel?” [141] The reply is, “God can judge all, both the living and the dead, because the dead also have heard the gospel during Christ’s descent into Hades. During this time salvation was offered to those to those who had died in pre-Christian times without hearing of the promise of Christ. [142]

In favor of this view is that the word “dead” in verse 6 (νεκροῖς) is the same word used in verse 5. This implies, say proponents, that the people in question were already dead when they heard the proclamation. Furthermore, in both 4:6 and 3:19 there is preaching to those in the spirit world. Finally, there is in 4:6 the repetition of the flesh/spirit antithesis from 3:18.

The following objections have been raised against the view: (1) Two thousand years have passed since the ascension of Christ, and the dead since that time have not had the gospel preached to them. This seems unfair to the dead in the church age. To the objection that this preaching leaves out the dead who have died since Christ’s descent, a number of modern proponents expand the preaching to include all those who die without hearing the gospel, including those who have lived in the era between Christ’s resurrection and his second coming. In short, for the dead there was at Jesus’ descent and will be until his return a period of probation in Hades for those who have never heard the gospel. During this period there will be a post-mortem offer of salvation to these dead people. [143] (2) The verbs κηρύσσω [3:19] and εὐαγγελίζω [4:6] are not intrinsically synonymous meaning respectively “to announce” and “to preach the good news.” [144] (3) The indirect objects of the verbs (“spirits” and “dead”) are not the same entities. The “spirits” of 3:19 are fallen angels, and the “dead” of 4:6 are deceased humans. [145] (4) In 4:6 there is not a hint of any limitation to the time of Noah as there is in 3:19. [146] (5) Elsewhere in 1 Peter death seems to settle the final destiny of people [1:3–4; 4:5, 18]. [147] (6) Any “second chance” for the salvation of humans after death seems contrary to Scripture [Luke 16:26; Heb. 9:27] and would “hardly encourage those who are being persecuted to resist unto death.” [148]

View # 2: The Dead in 4:6 are the “Spiritually Dead”

The second view, advanced by Clement of Alexandria (ad 150–215), is that Peter speaks in 4:6 of those who are spiritually dead. Certainly the word “dead” can be used this way (cf. Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13). According to proponents, Peter’s argument is that God’s judgment will extend to all and rightly so; for even the spiritually dead (“the unbelieving wicked”) [149] have the gospel preached to them and have the opportunity of making the right decision. [150] Even though the spiritually dead who received the gospel were mistreated by their persecutors (“judged in the flesh as men”) they could nevertheless live a life empowered by God’s Spirit. [151] The fatal flaw in this view is the word “dead” in verse 5 means “physically dead.” The identical word in verse 6 most probably has the same meaning.

View # 3: The Dead in 4:6 are the Christian Dead Who During Their Lifetime Had Heard and Accepted the Gospel

A view first proposed by John Albert Bengel (1687–1752) [152] has in recent years become the consensus opinion of many commentators. [153] It is reflected in the translation of the NIV, “For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead….” [154] Proponents of this view understand the “dead” of verse 6 to be “a portion of those now deceased, namely the deceased among the letter’s addressees.” [155] The apostle’s purpose is to encourage his embattled readers and assure them that their faith has not been in vain, in spite of their rejection by unbelievers and the death that has overtaken some of their fellow Christians. [156] According to proponents, the argument of verses 5 and 6 appears to be this: The pagan world that rejects Christ and maligns Christians for living a Christian life will have to answer to God at the last judgment. Because there is a judgment coming the gospel was preached to and embraced by some who are now dead.

In back of Peter’s argument are the scoffing questions of the readers’ pagan neighbors. They may have said, “You Christians speak of the return of Christ and possessing eternal life now, yet you die just like the rest of us—you suffer the same judgment that we do.” [157] Peter’s response is, “No, Although in the eyes of hostile outsiders they appeared to be condemned as mortal beings by death, because they received the gospel of Christ that had been preached to them prior to their death, they enjoy vindication and life from God. [158] By human estimates they may seem to be condemned, but they in fact enjoy eternal life.

This view is not without its weaknesses. First, Peter’s choice of the word dead in verse 6 seems strange if view # 3 is correct. Why did he not use the expression “the dead in Christ” (οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ hoi nekroi en Christoµ) or “those who have fallen asleep? (οἱ κοιμώμενοι [hoi koimoµmenoi] or οἱ κοιμηθέντες [hoi koimeµthentes])” Peter most likely means the same thing by his use of the word dead in verses 5 and 6, viz., those who are already dead. [159] Second, This view requires that the subject of “the gospel has been preached” be Christian missionaries and not Christ. [160] The subject of the verb is more likely Christ himself, as in 1 Peter 3:19: “the gospel has been preached [by Christ].” [161]

View # 4:1 Peter 4:6 Speaks of Christ’s Proclamation of the New Testament Gospel to the Dead Saints of Old Testament Times

While verse 6 is for modern interpreters a crux interpretum, it was for Peter a mere footnote to verse 5. [162] The whole argument of 3:19 to 4:5 “is much the same whether verse 6 is added or not: God will vindicate those who suffer and hold their oppressors accountable at the day of judgment.” [163] In verse 6 Peter paused to reflect on the stereotyped expression, “the living and the dead,” which he used in verse 5. He picked up on the word “dead” to observe that the crisis faced by his readers had “significant antecedents” in Old Testament times. Believers then faced “the same pattern of suffering and vindication” as do believers today. The conflict his readers faced was “no new conflict, but a very ancient one indeed.” [164] And just as those who respond to the gospel today are saved by Christ, so also were those who responded in Old Testament times.

Like view # 1 this view interprets the text as a reference to Jesus’ descent into Hades during the triduum mortis. Unlike the first view, however, it rejects the notion of conversion in the next life, and distinguishes the “dead” of 4:6 (people) from the “spirits” of 3:19 (fallen angels). [165] In favor of this view are the following arguments: (1) It gives to νεκροῖς the same meaning in verse 6 that it has in verse 5. [166] (2) It describes an event already mentioned in the letter [3:19–20]. [167] (3) It requires taking Christ as the agent of “preached.” [168]

At the time of his descent into Hades the Lord Jesus preached the good news to believers to Old Testament times. [169] As believers today face a hostile world, so the believers of Old Testament times faced hostility as well. [170] And just as those who believe today are given the hope of the new life of the resurrection, so Old Testament believers have that hope as well. [171] The time of the descent did not, of course, mark the moment of their conversion to God. That had taken place when they believed while alive on earth. The descent was, however, the first time they heard of a completed redemption and had the assurance from the Savior himself that while they were reviled on earth they would enjoy eternal life “according to the will of God.”

Summary

It is the thesis of this article that the Apostle Peter, in 1 Peter 3:18–19, describes an event subsequent to the death of Christ during which the Lord descended to the abyss and proclaimed his victory over the fallen angels there. In a more cautious vein, it has also been suggested that two notoriously difficult New Testament texts may provide further information about Christ’s descent. Following the comments of the great nineteenth century Old Testament scholar, Franz Delitzsch, the following scenario is suggested. [172]

“In the spirit” (ἐν πνεύματι) the Lord appeared bodilessly in the world of spirits.” [173] While there he “made proclamation” (εκήρυξεν), i.e., he declared his victory over “the spirits now in prison,” i.e., in the abyss. During the same descent, he appeared in Hades where he preached to the Old Testament dead the New Testament gospel (νεκροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη, 1 Peter 4:6). The chronology of these events is mysteriously vague, but the following events evidently took place. “The fallen angelic powers beheld Him as conqueror, and the Old Testament saints as the Redeemer.” [174] That unbelievers in Hades heard him as well is possible. Delitzsch wrote, “Those who had died in the attitude of hardening themselves [heard Him] as judge.” [175]

The descent of Christ into the spirit world is the dividing line and “turning point” of two states of Christ, viz., humiliation and exaltation. [176] “Then ascending out of Hades, arising out of the grave, and rising towards heaven, the Lord led captivity captive…. The gifts which the Exalated One sends down are the fruit of His victory.… (Eph. 4:8). For He has triumphed over the angelic powers (Col. 2:15); and when He had subjected to Himself the spirits that rule in the kingdom of death and of darkness, He led the men who in Hades honored Him as a Redeemer with Himself toward heaven, for the Paradise is from that time forth above the earth (2 Cor. 12:1–4).” [177]

Notes

1 Cited by Timothy K. Jones, “CT Institute: Freedoms Under Fire,” Christianity Today (July 20, 1992): 29.

2 Regular updates are provided by the monthly periodical, The Voice of the Martyrs.

3 “Breaking Chains: A CT Debate,” Christianity Today (March, 2003): 46.

4 Kate O’Beirne, “Martyred,” National Review (Dec. 3, 2001): 38.

5 As told by William J. McRae, Believer’s Baptism (Dallas: Believers Chapel, 1973): 11.

6 On the authorship and date of 1 Peter, see Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 21–37.

7 R. T. France, “Exegesis in Practice: Two Examples,” in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, ed. I. Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 265. The text (4:6) reads most naturally as an assurance of the ultimate fate of those who have been martyred. France points to two other factors which suggest that the persecution of the readers was severe: (1) The use of πάσχω [2:19, 20; 3:14, 17; 4:1, 15, 19; 5:10], a verb used for Christ’s death in 2:21, 23. (2) The parallel with Christ’s suffering in 3:17–18 and 4:1.

8 The writer is here following the helpful discussion in Alan M. Stibbs, The First Epistle General of Peter, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 138–39.

9 Jack T. Sanders, The New Testament Christological Hymns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 17–18, 95–96.

10 Ernest Best observed, concerning the scholarly search for liturgical elements, it is often difficult to distinguish between creedal or hymnic elements (1 Peter, NCB [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971], 136).

11 Oscar Cullmann suggested that, because of the reference to baptism in v. 21, the passage was probably used as a baptismal confession (The Earliest Christian Confessions, trans. J. K. S. Reid [London: Lutterworth, 1949], 20).

12 For summaries of the views of Windisch, Bultmann, Boismard and others, see W. J. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965), 92–96 and Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter, ed. Ferdinand Hahn, trans. John E. Alsup (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 247–49.

13 H. Windisch, Die Katholische Briefe, rev. H. Preisker (3rd. ed., Tu/bingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1951), 70. He does not indicate how the hymn is to be divided. Cf. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, 92.

14 R. Bultmann, “Bekenntnis- und Liedfragmente im ersten Petrusbrief,” Coniectanea Neotestamentica 11 (Lund, 1947), 1–14 (reprinted in Exegetica, ed. Erich Dinkler [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1967], 285–97]. Bultmann said the section should probably be called creedal and not hymnic. He included vv. 18 (without “the just for the unjust”), 19 and 22. In v. 18 he chose “suffer” instead of “die,” and he preferred the reading “us” to “you.” He thought it should be enlarged at its beginning by adding 1:20 and a confession such as: “I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ who…” Thus,

(πιστεύω εἰς τὸν κύριον᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν)
τὸν προεγνωσμένον μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου,
φανερωθέντα δὲ ἐπ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων.
ὅς ἔπαθεν ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν,
ἵνα ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ,
θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκί,
ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι,
ἐν ᾧ καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν ἐκήρυξε,
πορευθεὶς (δὲ) εἰς οὐρανὸν ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ θεοῦ,
ὑποταγέντων αὐτῷ ἀγγέλων καὶ ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων.

15 M.-E. Boismard, Quatre hymnes baptismales dans la premie;re e;pi[tre de Pierre (Paris: Cerf, 1961), 57–109.

16 Achtemeier conveniently yet cautiously lists the linguistic features that are regularly taken to indicate the presence of earlier traditional [i.e., hymnic] materials: (1) The presence at the beginning of v. 18 of a recitative ὅτι used to introduce a tradition [cf. 1 Cor. 11:23b; 15:3]; (2) the presence [v. 18b] of parallel phrases beginning with a participle and concluding with a noun in the dative case [θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι; cf. 1 Tim. 3:16]; (3) the presence of the ἵνα phrase [v. 18], often found in traditional formulations [cf. Phil. 2:10; Titus 2:14]; (4) the presence of the relative pronoun ὅς [v. 22], referring to Jesus [cf. Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:15, 18b]; (5) the reference to the exaltation of Christ to God’s right hand, based on Ps. 110:1 [cf. Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Heb. 1:3; Mark 16:19]; (6) the threefold point that Christ died, was made alive, and ascended into heaven, the content of early Christological confessions; (7) the threefold use of καί [vv. 18, 19, 21], which suggests a combination of traditions; (8) inclusion of material [vv. 19–21] that goes beyond the needs of the immediate context; (9) inclusion of linguistic hapax legomena in 1 Peter [e.g., the words ἅπαξ, μακροθυμία, the phrase περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν. For an evaluation of each of these arguments, see Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 241–43. See also: John H. Elliott, 1 Peter, AncB (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 694–97.

17 France, “Exegesis in Practice,” 266; J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, WBC (Waco: Word, 1988), 197. Michaels is much more cautious than a radical scholar like Bultmann. He does see a symmetrical contrast in v. 18:

θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ
ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι

He also points out that the three rhyming participles together form a plausible series summarizing Christ’s redemptive work:

θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ
ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι
πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανόν

18 Some scholars have detected a chiastic structure in the passage. See E. W. Bullinger, “The Spirits in Prison,” in Selected Writings (London: Lamp Press, 1960), 153–54, and Sherman E. Johnson, “The Preaching to the Dead,” JBL 79 (1960), 50–51. Johnson uses the following diagram to demonstrate that 4:5–6 are “organically connected with what goes before, and particularly with 3:18–22”:

A. (1) Christ died for sins to bring you to God;

(2) He was put to death in the flesh but brought to life in the Spirit (3:18)

B. when he went (πορευθείς) and preached to the spirits in prison (3:19)

C. who once had been disobedient when God was patient

D. in the days of Noah during the building of that ark in which a few souls were saved through water (3:20).

D'. The antitype of this is Baptism, which now saves you

C'. (and this is not just removal of filth from the flesh but allegiance to God from a good conscience, i.e., obedience)

B'. through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (3:21), who is at God’s right hand, having gone (πορευθείς) into heaven where all spirits are subject to him (3:22)

A'. (1) Christ, then, having suffered in the flesh, arm yourself with the same mind. You have, indeed, died to sin and are free from it (4:1f). Your neighbors wish to have you return to your old life of wickedness (4:3–4) but they will have to render account to the judge (4:5).

(2) All this explains why proclamation had to be made to the dead. Like all other men, they too had to be judged in the flesh but like God (or, in accordance with God’s will) they live in the Spirit (4:6). Through the death of Christ, in other words, they like you have been brought to God.

Elliott noted, “There is not structural correspondence between 3:19 and 4:6. In actuality, 3:19 and 4:6 belong to different and independently circumscribed units of thought” (1 Peter, 731). Karen H. Jobes concurred, arguing that Johnson’s chiasm was “artificially constructed” and overlooked the fact that “the two verses do not occur within the same discourse unit” (1 Peter, BECNT [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005], 271). Michaels, however, argued, “The whole argument extending from 3:13 to 4:5 is much the same, whether v. 6 is added or not” (1 Peter, 235).

19 The main headings of the outline of this article are adapted from W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Apostle Peter: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), 210–17.

20 Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 134

21 Cf. D. Edmond Hiebert, 1 Peter, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 235.

22 Edward Gordon Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 2d ed. (London: Macmillan, 1947), 195.

23 The Greek New Testament, 4th ed., eds. Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1993), 793, reads ἔπαθεν and gives it a “B” rating. This reading is supported by B, K and P and most later minuscules. Other important mss. (e.g., 72, א, A) substitute “died” (ἀπέθανεν) and add to the phrase “for sins” either “for us” (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν) or “for you” (ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν). In favor of the UBS reading are three considerations: (1) The verb πάσχω is a favorite of Peter, while ἀποθνῄσκω occurs nowhere else. (2) In view of the expression περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν scribes would be more likely to substitute ἀπέθανεν for ἔπαθεν than vice versa. (3) The readings with ὑμῶν or ἡμῶν are natural scribal conflations. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), 692–93. Nevertheless, the reading ἀπέθανεν may be the original reading for two reasons: (1) In light of Peter’s predilection for “suffer,” ἀπέθανεν is the more difficult reading. (2) Peter may have written ἀπέθανεν because it stood in the liturgical texts he was citing (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3; Gal. 1:4; Heb. 10:12). See J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, HNTC (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), 148.

24 Michaels, 1 Peter, 201.

25 Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 195.

26 Peter is influenced here, no doubt, by Isaiah 53:11 where the Servant of the Lord is spoken of as righteous. Cf. Davids, Peter, 135; Michaels, 1 Peter, 202.

27 NASB has “us” (ἡμᾶς) following א2, A, C, K, etc. The United Bible Societies’ editors give ὑμᾶς(“you”) a “C” rating. See The Greek New Testament, 793.

28 Michaels, 1 Peter, 202.

29 Cf. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, 135.

30 As J. I. Packer notes, Wesley was not using “mystery” in the sense of the open secret of God’s saving purpose, but rather in the sense of his prayer in Ephesians 3:19 in which he speaks of “the love of Christ which passes knowledge” (What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution [Madison: Theological Students Fellowship, 1975], 6–7).

31 Charles Wesley, “Amazing Love,” in Hymns of Truth and Praise (Fort Dodge: Gospel Perpetuating Publishers, 1971), 37.

32 Packer, What Did the Cross Achieve? 17.

33 Packer, What Did the Cross Achieve? 25.

34 Cecil F. Alexander, “There Is a Green Hill Far Away,” in The Methodist Hymnal (Nashville: The Methodist Publishing House, 1932), 135.

35 As told by Packer, What Did the Cross Achieve? 41.

36 Alexander, “There Is a Green Hill Far Away.”

37 As a number of the commentators (Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 196; Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, 149; Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter, 252; Michaels, 1 Peter, 203; Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, 136; against K. L. Schmidt, “προσάγω,” TDNT, 1:131–34) point out, προσάγω is not using the term in a technical sense, i.e., as consecration of priests, leading of animals to sacrifice, as access in worship, as presenting a person in court, etc. Selwyn writes, “As so often, the simplest interpretation is the most profound: Christ’s atoning sacrifice brings us to God.”

38 Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, 136. Davids says that no other NT writer has this active picture of Jesus leading the Christian to God.

39 Cf. Michaels, 1 Peter, 203.

40 Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, 136.

41 Stibbs, The First Epistle General of Peter, 141.

42 In the NT the resurrection is generally attributed to the Father (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15, 26; 4:10; 5:30; 26:8; 1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14).

43 The datives are datives of respect. Because of the parallel structure it is likely that both datives are of the same kind. They cannot be instrumental datives because the instrumental idea does not fit σαρκί. See F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 105–6, § 197.

44 E. Schweizer, “πνεῦμα,” TDNT, 6:428–30, 438–42; cf. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, 124–34; Michaels, 1 Peter, 204; Grudem, The First Epistle of Peter, 156; I. Howard Marshall, 1 Peter, IVPNTCS (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1991), 120–22. For the sake of parallelism Grudem and Michaels favor “spirit” in the lower case. Yet they hasten to point out that the spiritual sphere is the sphere of the Spirit. As Michaels correctly notes, this view is the consensus view today.

45 Cf. Francis Wright Beare, The First Epistle of Peter (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1947),143.

46 Cf. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, 137.

47 Grudem (The First Epistle of Peter, 237–38) denies this and points out that the events in v. 22 (exaltation, ascension, subjection of powers) are not arranged in chronological order. Surely, however, this is pedantic quibbling. The thrust of v. 22 is the ultimate exaltation of Christ, the two other events being implied in his enthronement in heaven. Peter nevertheless spells out the two other events to emphasize the glory of his exaltation.

48 Origen, Against Celsus 2.43, in ANF, 4:448; John Albert Bengel, New Testament Word Studies, trans. C. T. Lewis and M. R. Vincent (Philadelphia: Perkinpine & Higgins, 1864; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971), 2:746; J. W. C. Wand, The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, WC (London: Methuen, 1934), 100; Bo Reicke, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism: A Study of 1 Peter 3:19 and Its Context (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1946), 105–7; Stibbs, The First Epistle General of Peter, 141–42. This view is rejected by most scholars today for two reasons: (1) The verb ζῳοποιέω regularly refers to the resurrection in the NT [John 5:21; Rom. 4:17; 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:22, 36, 45]. (2) The current [i.e., post-Bultmannian] conventional wisdom is that the dualistic distinction between body and soul is a Platonic distinction read into the Bible by the Fathers [cf. Kelly, Peter and Jude, 153; Davids, Peter, 137]. In response the writer would point out: (1) The verb ζῳοποιέω has a spiritual sense in John 6:63; 2 Cor. 3:6; Gal. 3:21; Col. 2:13 [συζωοποιέω]. In Ephesians 2:5 συζωοποιέω indicates a vivification distinct from and prior to resurrection. (2) Numerous statements in the NT indicate that the conventional wisdom is wrong and that there is an anthropological dualism in the Bible (e.g., Matt. 16:25–26; 2 Cor. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:23; Heb. 10:39; James 1:21; 1 Pet. 1:9). The ψυχή of man is an entity and refers to the incorporeal part of man which animates the body and thereby constitutes the inner man. See Robert H. Gundry, Soµma in Biblical Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 116; idem., “The Form, Meaning and Background of the Hymn in 1 Timothy 3:16, ” in Apostolic History and the Gospel, eds. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 213–14; John W. Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 1–6 and passim.

49 G. C. Berkouwer wisely comments, “We shall never be able to fathom the state of Christ’s death since it is part of the mystery of His person—vere Deus, vere homo—and Scripture certainly nowhere gives us an analysis by which we can synthesize clearly “paradise” and the state of death (cf. Luke 23:43).” He adds, “We may not indulge in all kinds of prying questions, as has so often been done, which evidence more interest in the anthropology than in the soteriology in this humiliation” (The Work of Christ, trans. C. Lambregtse [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965], 171, 173).

50 By “spirit” here the writer is speaking of one of the constituent parts of Jesus’ human nature. I am not referring to his Spirit, i.e., his divine nature or to the Holy Spirit.

51 “It is, of course, theologically important to maintain the paradox that, while this God-forsakenness was utterly real, the unity of the Blessed Trinity was even then unbroken” (C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966], 459).

52 Cf. K. Schilder, Christ Crucified, trans. Henry Zylstra (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 400–405.

53 Commenting on the Apostles’ Creed (“He descended into Hell”) Brooke Foss Westcott wrote, “As it stands it completes our conception of the Lord’s death. To our minds death is the separation of body and soul. According to this conception Christ in dying shared to the full our lot. His body was laid in the tomb. His soul passed into that state on which we conceive that our souls shall enter” (The Historic Faith: Short Lectures on The Apostles’ Creed, 2d ed. [London: Macmillan, 1883], 76–77).

54 When one speaks of the spiritual death of Christ we must remember that we do not mean that his human spirit ceased to exist or lost consciousness. We mean, rather, that as a man on the cross, our Lord experienced the God-forsakenness that is the lot of sinners. As their substitute he died their death (Leon Morris, The Cross in the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965], 49). Calvin wrote, “If Christ had died only a bodily death, it would have been ineffectual. No—it was expedient at the same time for him to undergo the severity of God’s vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgment. For this reason, he must also grapple hand to hand with the armies of hell and the dread of everlasting death.” While in the sight of man he suffered in his body, in the sight of God “he paid a greater and more excellent price in suffering in his soul the terrible torments of a condemned and forsaken man” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.16.10, trans. Ford Lewis Battles [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960], 1:515–16).

55 Gundry, “The Form, Meaning and Background of the Hymn in 1 Timothy 3:16,” 213.

56 “As soon as he had been released by death from His fleshly weakness, immediately…the energy of His imperishable life [John 1:4; 5:26; 14:6] began to exert itself in new and unembarrassed ways” (Bengel, New Testament Word Studies, 2:746).

57 Stibbs, The First Epistle General of Peter, 142.

58 For the history of the interpretation of this passage, cf. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 314–62; Wand, The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, 105–12; Reicke, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism, 7–51; Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, 15–41; Grudem, The First Epistle of Peter, 203–39.

59 Kelly (The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, 152) calls vv. 19–21 an interpolation, yet an interpolation that coheres with the apostle’s objectives.

60 Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, 151, 157.

61 There are at least nine interpretations of the passage that have been suggested [see Grudem, The First Epistle of Peter, 204]: If one took into account all possible combinations of questions and answers that have been raised about the text, there could theoretically be as many as 180 different theories [Millard J. Erickson, “Is There Opportunity for Salvation After Death?” Bib Sac 152 (April, 1995): 137]. (1) A view held by some of the fathers says that after he died Christ descended to Hades and preached the gospel to Noah’s sinful contemporaries and to Jews and Greeks who lived before the incarnation and died in unbelief. The view has been popular with more liberal Protestant writers—as well as some recent evangelical authors—who argue that those who have never heard the gospel explicitly will yet have opportunity to hear and believe in the future. In addition to 1 Peter 3:19, proponents point to 4:6 [“For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead”] and suggest that the dead are given opportunity to respond to Christ. See Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata 6.6, in ANF, 2:490–92; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.22.1 and 4.27.2, in ANF, 1:494, 499; A. M. Hunter, “The First Epistle of Peter: Introduction and Exegesis,” in IntB, 12:132–33; J. Howard B. Masterman, The First Epistle of St. Peter (London: Macmillan, 1900), 132–33; Charles Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, ICC [New York: Scribner’s, 1901], 162–63; Thomas Hywel Hughes, The Atonement: Modern Theories of the Doctrine (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1949), xxi–xxii; Beare, The First Epistle of Peter, 170–73; William Barclay, The Letters of James and Peter [rev. ed., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], 242; Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter, 259; C. E. B. Cranfield, “The Interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6, ” ET 69 [1958], 369–72; Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, trans. L. L. Wilkins and D. A. Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 272; idem., The Apostles’ Creed In the Light of Today’s Questions, trans. Margaret Kohl (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 94–95; Anthony Hanson, “Salvation Proclaimed, 1 Peter 3:18–22, ” ET 93 [1982], 100–5; D. G. Bloesch, “Descent into Hell (Hades),” in EvDictTheol, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 313–14; Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 169. As expounded by Bloesch and Pinnock, this view is not to be confounded with the doctrine of a second chance. Rather it affirms the universality of a first chance. (2) Fearful of the possibility of a second chance doctrine (as found, for example, in Clement’s Stromata), Augustine developed a stricter doctrine. He taught that when Noah was building the ark, the preincarnate Christ “in spirit” was in Noah preaching to unbelievers who are now in Hades. Cf. Augustine, Letter 164, in NPNF, 1:515–21; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 3.52.2.3 [New York Benziger, n.d.], 2303–4; Robert Leighton, A Practical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Peter [London: Henry G. Bohn, 1853; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1972], 354–66; William Kelly, The Preaching to the Spirits in Prison [London: Morrish, 1872], 1–140; Grudem, 1 Peter, 157–62; John S. Feinberg, “1 Peter 3:18–20, Ancient Mythology, and the Intermediate State,” WThJ 48 [1986], 303–36; Erickson, “Is There Opportunity for Salvation after Death?” 139–40. (3) After his resurrection Christ preached through his apostles to those who were in the prison house of sin. The difference between Noah’s minimal success and the apostles’ great success is that they preached in the power of the Spirit. See W. H. G. Thomas, The Apostle Peter: A Devotional Commentary, 214. (4) After his death, Christ went to Hades and proclaimed triumph and final condemnation upon the rebellious pagans of Noah’s day. See R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966], 160–69. (5) At the time of his death Christ descended to Hades to proclaim release to the Old Testament saints. He then led them to heaven. See Franz Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, trans. R. E. Wallis [Edinburgh: Clark, 1899], 482–84. (6) A Roman Catholic variation on view # 4 is that the pagans of Noah’s day who repented as the deluge came—as well as the later patriarchs—were kept in Limbo until the cross. See Ronald Knox, The Creed in Slow Motion [New York: Sheed and Ward, 1949], 109–13; H. Willmering, “The First Epistle of St. Peter,” in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Dom Bernard Orchard [New York: Nelson, 1953], 1179; (7) After Christ’s resurrection he ascended to the prison of the fallen angels and proclaimed victory over them [cf. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, 177–88; Elliott, 1 Peter, 658–59, 700–701; Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, NAC (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2003), 188–89; Jobes, 1 Peter, 142–45; Andrew J. Bandstra, “’Making Proclamation to the Spirits in Prison’: Another Look at 1 Peter 3:19, ” CTJ 38 (2003): 120–24] or their demonic offspring [cf. Michaels, 1 Peter, 208–9]. (8) After Christ died he descended to the prison of the fallen angels of Genesis 6 [and possibly their descendents, cf. Bo Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, AncB (Garden City: Doubleday, 1964), 109] and preached salvation to them. 1 Peter 3:22 suggests they rejected the proffered salvation, but 2 Enoch 18 [cf. R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and the Pseudipigrapha of the Old Testament, 2 vols., vol. 2: Pseudipigrapha (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1913), 439–40] implies the possibility of angelic conversion. Cf. Best, 1 Peter, 144; Reicke, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism, 122–25. (9) After Christ died he descended to the prison of the fallen angels of Genesis 6 and proclaimed victory over them. See Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 197–203; 314–62; Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude, 156; Stibbs, The First Epistle General of Peter, 142–43; Hiebert, 1 Peter, 240–44; Michaels, 1 Peter, 205–11; Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, 138–41; Marshall, 1 Peter, 122–29; Edwin A. Blum, “1 Peter,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols., ed., Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 12:241; Stewart Custer, “Living for Christ (1 Peter 3:8–22),” BVp 35 (April, 2001), 45; Gerhard Friedrich, “κηρύσσω,” TDNT, 3:707–8.

62 Martin Luther, Sermons on the First Epistle of St. Peter, trans. M. H. Bertram, in Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, vol. 30: The Catholic Epistles (St. Louis: Concordia, 1967), 113.

63 John Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St. Peter, trans. William B. Johnston (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 292, 294.

64 Marshall, 1 Peter, 122–29. Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, I and II Peter and Jude (London: SCM, 1960), 102–4.

65 James Moffatt (The New Testament: A New Translation [rev. ed., London: Hodder and Stoughton, n.d.], 354) translates, “It was in the Spirit that Enoch also went and preached to the imprisoned spirits.” In this he follows the suggestion of J. Rendel Harris, “A Further Note on the Use of Enoch in 1 Peter,” The Expositor, 6th Series 4 (1901), 346–49; idem., “The History of a Conjectural Emendation,” The Expositor, 6th Series 6 (1902), 378–90. Harris argued that 1 Peter 3:19–20 was influenced by 1 Enoch 10:4–5, 12–13 and that the text should be emended to have Enoch do the preaching to the spirits. The uncial reading ENWKAITOICENFULAKH he emended to read ENW [ENWC] KAITOISENFULAKH. Due to a scribal blunder the repeated letters had been dropped. In spite of Moffatt’s adoption of the reading, there is no textual support for it.

66 Selwyn (The First Epistle of St. Peter, 197, 315) argued that the antecedent of ἐν ᾧ could not be πνεύματι because there is no example in the NT of an adverbial dative serving as an antecedent to a relative pronoun. Two objections have been raised against Selwyn’s oft-quoted dictum: (1) The ancient fathers to whom Greek was a native language took πνεύματι to be the antecedent of ἐν ᾧ (cf. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude, 152). (2) Selwyn is factually in error in that there are at least five examples in the NT of adverbial datives that serve as antecedents to relative pronouns [Acts 2:8; Eph. 2:2, 3; 2 Pet. 1:4; 3:1]. Cf. Grudem, The First Epistle of Peter, 227–28.

67 The prepositional phrase ἐν ᾧ has been variously understood. Among the many suggestions, the following might be mentioned: (1) “in which process,” i.e., the process of Christ’s dying and rising [Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 197]. (2) “in which time” or “on which occasion,” that is, the death of Christ, since “having been put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit” is to be taken as a parenthesis. This view takes ἐν ᾧ as a temporal conjunction [Reicke, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism, 103–15]. (3) “in which,” that is, in which [spiritual] realm” [Grudem, The First Epistle of Peter, 227; Blum, “1 Peter,” 242; cf. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, 140]. (4) “through whom,” i.e., Christ went by means of the Holy Spirit [so: NIV]. (5) “in which,” in his spirit or immaterial nature, i.e., he went “as” a spirit [Gundry, “The Form, Meaning and Background of the Hymn in 1 Timothy 3:16, ” 213; cf. Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, 482–83, n. 2; Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude, 152; Beare, The First Epistle of Peter, 144–45]. As is clear above, the writer take the last view. Commenting on the extensive debate over the subject, Michaels (1 Peter, 205) writes, “The question is less important than the volume of discussion suggests.”

68 Gundry, “The Form, Meaning and Background of the Hymn in 1 Timothy 3:16, ” 213. Other commentators argue that the reference is to his ascension after his resurrection, when he preached to angels in a prison in the lower heavens. Gundry offers the following arguments in favor of the view presented above: (1) the subterranean implication of ταρτρώσας in the parallel 2 Peter 2:4. (2) the apparent distinction between vivification and resurrection with placement between the two of the proclamation to the spirits. (3) the repetition of πορευθεὶς so that “having gone into heaven [at God’s right hand]” stands in sharp contrast to “having gone and preached…in prison.” (4) the consistency with which the prison of the fallen Watchers in 1 Enoch appears to be a bottomless Abyss in the west of the earth. Hans Urs von Balthasar argued that the view that Peter is not speaking of a descent but of an ascent, “a process within the movement of the Ascension…seems to me highly improbable” (Mysterium Paschale: The Mystery of Easter, trans. Aidan Nichols [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990; reprint ed., San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005], 158).

69 Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 200; Hiebert, 1 Peter, 243. The same participle (πορευθεὶς) is used in v. 22 and speaks of Jesus going to heaven.

70 The attributive position of the prepositional phrase (ἐν φυλακῇ) most naturally implies that it was as imprisoned spirits that Christ preached to them. Cf. Hiebert, 1 Peter, 242. Against Grudem, The First Epistle of Peter, 209.

71 Calvin (The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St. Peter, 293–94) understood the φυλακή to be a watchtower in which the souls of Old Testament saints waited and watched in hope of the salvation that was promised them. As Cranfield noted, however, Calvin’s view breaks down on v. 20 where he attempts to avoid taking ἀπειθήσασιν (“who were disobedient”) to refer to the spirits of v. 19. Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, “1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6,” 369–70.

72 Some scholars (for example, Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude, 155–56; Blum, “1 Peter,” 241–42; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 260–61; Elliott, 1 Peter, 658–59; Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, 177–84) argue that Christ’s preaching was not under the earth but somewhere in the second heaven above the earth [cf. 2 Enoch 7:1–3]. This view is rejected here for three reasons: (1) It places the preaching at the time of the ascension, while the chronology of the passage clearly puts the preaching before the resurrection. (2) The implication of 2 Peter 2:4 is that the prison is subterranean. (3) If Peter is indebted to any non-canonical work, it is 1 Enoch, and that work places the prison in a bottomless Abyss [1 Enoch 18:12–14; 22:1–3; 67:4; cf. Jubilees 5:6, 10]. Cf. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, 140, n. 37; Gundry, “The Form, Meaning and Background of the Hymn in 1 Timothy 3:16, ” 213.

73 The Latin text reads: descendit ad inferna. See Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper, 1877), 2:45; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (2d ed., London: Longmans, 1960), 378–83. Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion 2.16.8–12 [1:512–20]) rejected the notion of an actual local descent. Instead he interpreted the creedal descent into hell as a symbolic expression of the spiritual torments of the cross.

74 As understood by the present writer, the Apostles’ Creed should have read, “He descended into Hades/the Abyss.” A brief definition of terms applying to the unseen world is in order. The Hebrew term Sheol (שְׁאוֹל) and the Greek word Hades (ᾅδης) both refer to the place where the soul or spirit of man goes at death. It is the “realm of the dead,” i.e., the conscious state of existence before the resurrection and judgment (cf. Luke 16:19–31). For the unsaved it was a place of torment, but for the saved it was a place of bliss, i.e., paradise (cf. Luke 23:43).

As we shall note later in this article, many commentators believe that before the resurrection of Christ there were two compartments in Sheol or Hades, one compartment for the lost and one for the saved, and that at his resurrection Jesus emptied the one compartment of all believers (cf. Eph. 4:8–9). It is certainly the teaching of the apostle that all believers who die today go directly to heaven to be with the Lord (cf. 2 Cor. 5:6–8). Today Hades is the place where departed souls go who are not saved.

The second place of which the Bible speaks is hell or “the lake of fire” (Rev. 19:20). This is the place of final torment after the last judgment. In the Old Testament it was called “Topheth” (תֹּפֶת lit. “place of burning,” cf. Isa. 30:33; Jer. 7:31–32). Jesus called it “Gehenna” (γέεννα, cf. Mark 9:43). Gehenna was a wadi or valley (Valley of Hinnom) in South Jerusalem that acquired a bad reputation because child sacrifices to Moloch were offered in it in the days of Ahaz and Manasseh (2 Kings 16:3; 21:6). Because of the threats of judgment by the prophets against this sinister place (Jer. 7:32; 19:6) it came to be equated with the hell or lake of fire of the last judgment.

Hell and Hades are not the same place in Biblical thinking. Hades receives the unsaved for the intervening period between death and the resurrection; Hell or Gehenna is the place of punishment after the judgment of the nations (Matt. 25:31–41) and the last judgment (Rev. 20:11–15). Just before the millennium the Beast and his followers and the false prophet (but not the devil) are cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 19:20).

The third place of which Scripture speaks is “the abyss” (ἡ ἄβυσσος). It was originally an adjective that meant “bottomless” or “unfathomably deep.” This is the place of imprisonment for disobedient angels or demons (Luke 8:31). The biblical picture is of a vast subterranean cavern where the fallen angels await the day of judgment. The Abyss is not hell or the lake of fire.

75 Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 199; Stibbs, The First Epistle General of Peter, 143; Hiebert, 1 Peter, 243; Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, 147; France, “Exegesis in Practice,” 269. Grudem (The First Epistle of Peter, 207–8) argues that such absolute uses of “spirits” for human beings exist, and he then proceeds to cite examples from 1 Enoch, examples that are irrelevant when talking about NT usage. He then cites examples from the NT where the word “spirits” is further defined when referring to demons, yet none of his examples parallels Hebrews 12:23, that is, none of them have “spirits with a qualifying genitive. He does these things while accusing his opponents of error in exegetical method.

76 Elliott, 1 Peter, 655–56.

77 Cf. Reicke, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism, 52–92; Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, 143–50.

78 Michaels (1 Peter, 208–9), with some hesitation, suggests that the “spirits are the offspring (demons) of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1–4. He further suggests that φυλακή refers not to a prison but to a haven or refuge for demons to which Christ went during his journey to heaven. For evidence favoring the identification of demons as evil angels (similar relationship to Satan, similar essence of being, similar activities) and not as their offspring, see C. Fred Dickason, Angels Elect and Evil, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 167–72.

79 The particle “once” (ποτε) refers to a time of the distant past—in this case the Noahic Flood” (Elliott, 1 Peter, 655, 658).

80 Neither Feinberg nor Grudem gives any ground in opposing the interpretation presented here. They reject the angel interpretation of Genesis 6 and deny that 2 Peter and Jude have any bearing on the question (Grudem, The First Epistle of Peter, 211–15; Feinberg, “1 Peter 3:18–20, ” 322–25. Neither writer offers a satisfactory explanation of the text. As outstanding as most of their work is, in this discussion both seem intractable. They have made up their minds, and nothing will change them. On Genesis 6, see Derek Kidner, Genesis, TOTC (Downers Grove: IVP, 1967), 83–85; Gerhard von Rad, Genesis, Old Testament Library, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 113–16; Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, WBC (Waco: Word, 1987), 135–47; Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 181–82; Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 117.

81 1 Enoch 6; 10:11–12; 12–16; 18:13–16. 1 Enoch was written in the 1st and 2nd centuries B.C. (cf. Charles, Pseudipigrapha, 163–281).

82 Feinberg [“1 Peter 3:18–20, ” 303–36] and Grudem [The First Epistle of Peter, 203–39] are the most recent defenders of the Augustinian view that Peter here describes the proclamation of the preexistent Christ through Noah to the people of his day. This view breaks down for the following reasons: (1) Verses 18–20 seem to give an almost creedal recitation of the events of Christ’s ministry: death, revivification, descent, proclamation, resurrection, exaltation. (2) The text gives no sign of any backward shift in time in the phrases “put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.” Peter does give such a sign in 1:11 [“the Spirit of Christ within them”]. (3) The Feinberg-Grudem view requires that from Peter’s perspective the spirits are now in prison, though they were not in that state when Christ in Noah preached to them [Feinberg, 330; Grudem, 209]. Three observations are in order. First, one needs to supply the word “now” in v. 19. Second, the attributive position of the prepositional phrase [ἐν φυλακῇ, v. 19] most naturally implies that it was as imprisoned spirits that Christ preached to them. Third, Peter’s careful distinction between “once” and “now” in vv. 20–21 makes it very unlikely that he would leave an even more significant “then/now” distinction in v. 19 to the reader’s ingenuity. (4) Peter says that Christ, not Noah, preached to the spirits in prison. During the antediluvian era Noah did preach “in the flesh” not “in spirit.” Cf. Michaels, 1 Peter, 210–11; Hiebert, 1 Peter, 242; Davids, The First Epistle in Peter, 140–41, n. 38.

83 “The commonest reference is to the Gospel and its offer of salvation, to which the appropriate response is repentance” (Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 200).

84 Best, 1 Peter, 144; Reicke, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism, 118–25; G. Friedrich, “κηρύσσω,” in TDNT, 3:707–8.

85 Best (1 Peter, 144) argues that this is the dogmatic argument of a systematic theologian. One could argue in response that it is the argument of an exegete who believes in the unity of Scripture.

86 Goppelt (1 Peter, 258) argues that it is unlikely that a paragraph closing (v. 22) with the confession of the subjection of the angels would make a statement about “a similar event” in v. 19. If Goppelt had said “the same event” he might have had a point. Significantly, in the chiastic diagrams of both Bullinger (“The Spirits in Prison,” 154) and Johnson (“The Preaching to the Dead,” 50) the line describing the preaching to the spirits in v. 19 corresponds to the line describing the subjection of the angels in v. 22.

87 Kelly, Peter and Jude, 156; France, “Exegesis in Practice,” 271.

88 Cf. Friedrich, “κηρύσσω,” 697.

89 “The Lord went bodilessly into Hades, according to His spiritual nature” (Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, 482–83, n. 2).

90 Significantly, in 1 Enoch 16:3 there is a proclamation of judgment to the spirits in prison.

91 Cf. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 200; Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude, 156; Hiebert, 1 Peter, 244; Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, 141; France, “Exegesis in Practice,” 271. Michaels (1 Peter, 210) argues for a proclamation of “domestication” or “taming.”

92 Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, 150–57. Dalton later changed his mind and concluded that Christ preached the gospel after all. See William J. Dalton, “1 Peter 3:19 Reconsidered,” in The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke, 2 vols. (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1984), 1:99.

93 There is an interesting parallel to this in the pseudipigraphal Book of Enoch (chs. 12–16). Enoch was commissioned to go to the fallen angels and tell them, “Ye shall have no peace nor forgiveness of sin.” The fallen angels were seized with fear and trembling and asked Enoch to compose a petition to the Lord of heaven asking for forgiveness. Enoch receives the decision of heaven and brings it to the evil ones. It ends with the shocking words, “You have no peace.” Cf. R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 2: Pseudepigrapha (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 195–99.

94 Ernest Gordon Rupp, Principalities and Powers: Studies in the Christian Conflict in History (New York; Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1952), 49, quoted by Michael Green, I Believe in Satan’s Downfall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 215.

95 Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 328–33. As Selwyn notes, Noah was also prominent in non-canonical intertestamental literature, especially the Book of 1 Enoch and the Book of Jubilees.

96 France, “Exegesis in Practice,” 272, 277. Reicke (The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism, 111; cf. also Grudem, The First Epistle of Peter, 161) takes the application further. He suggests that, just as Christ preached to the powers of evil, so they should be prepared to preach to their persecutors. As France notes (280, n. 51) this application depends on taking κηρύσσω in the sense of “preach the gospel.”

97 Hiebert, 1 Peter, 230.

98 Michael P. Green, ed., Illustrations for Biblical Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 105.

99 For example, 1 Enoch 10:2; 54:7–10; 65:1–67:13; 89:1–9; 106:13–18; 2 Enoch 34:3; Book of Jubilees 5:11. See Michaels (1 Peter, 211) for a fuller listing of examples.

100 Peter is interested in the “wood” of the flood story as well as the “water.” Cf. Michaels, 1 Peter, 213, for a different perspective.

101 Commentators differ on their interpretation of the preposition διά (in the phrase δι ὕδατος, v. 20). There are three views: (1) The διά is instrumental, i.e., “by means of the water.” The typical allusion to baptism [v. 21] in which water is the instrument of salvation favors this view [cf. Alford, The Greek Testament, 4:365; Best, 1 Peter, 147; Hiebert, 1 Peter, 246; Michaels, 1 Peter, 213; Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, 210]. (2) The διά is local, i.e., “through the water” [Bengel, New Testament Word Studies, 2:749; Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, 164; Grudem, The First Epistle of Peter, 161; Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, 142, n. 44; Reicke, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism, 141–42; David Cook, “1 Peter 3:20: An Unnecessary Problem,” JTS 31 (1980), 72–78]. (3) The διά is used in both senses at once [Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 202; Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude, 159; Stibbs, The First Epistle General of Peter, 143; France, “Exegesis in Practice,” 273]. The second view is to be preferred for these reasons: First, the prepositional phrase εἰς ἣν is best translated “into which” rather than “in which.” It was going into the ark that enabled Noah’s family to pass to safety. Second, this view gives διά the same meaning that it has in the compound verb διεσώθησαν [“were brought safely through”]. Third, the antecedent of ὅ at the beginning of v. 21 is not ὕδατος but the whole idea of the preceding clause, i.e., the safe passage through the water. Fourth, the actual parallel to δι ὕδατος in v. 20 is δι ἀναστάσεως Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ [“through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”] in v. 21. Fifth, the OT context [Gen. 7:6–7] stresses that it was the ark that saved them and that the waters were destructive.

102 By common confession the first seven words of v. 21 are “impossibly difficult” (France, “Exegesis in Practice,” 273; cf. Michaels, 1 Peter, 213). The first difficulty is determining the antecedent of the nominative neuter relative pronoun ὃ. It cannot refer to κιβωτός (“ark”), for that word is feminine. Some say that it is ὕδατος at the end of v. 20 (cf. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude, 160; Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, 143, n. 45; Michaels, 1 Peter, 213). Others (Best, 1 Peter,147; Hiebert, First Peter, 233; Cook, “An Unnecessary Problem,” 77) say that antecedent of the relative pronoun is the whole idea of the preceding clause, i.e., the deliverance through the flood waters. In 1 Peter there are examples of the relative referring to the preceding event as a whole (cf. 1:6; 2:8; 3:4; 4:4). The latter view seems more simple and precise.

103 Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, 143. Selwyn (The First Epistle of St. Peter, 203) refers ἀντίτυπον to ὑμᾶς, i.e., to the people: “And water now saves you too, who are the antitype of Noah and his company, namely the water of baptism.”

104 Cf. Marshall, 1 Peter, 130.

105 Summarizing the Roman Catholic teaching on baptism, for example, Ludwig Ott asserts that baptism, provided faith and sorrow for sin are present, eradicates sins both original and, in the case of adults, personal; it infuses sanctifying grace and it remits the punishment of sins (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, trans. P. Lynch [Cork: Mercier Press, 1955; reprint ed., Rockford: Tan, 1960], 354–56).

106 Michaels, 1 Peter, 216. France (“Exegesis in Practice,” 274) suggests that Peter’s point is that water baptism is not a matter of washing away ritual uncleanness. Dalton (Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, 215–24) argued that “the removal of dirt from the flesh” refers to circumcision. Writing to a predominantly Gentile audience, however, Peter shows almost no interest in the laws and customs of Judaism (Michaels, 1 Peter, 215).

107 Marshall, 1 Peter, 131.

108 Timothy George wrote, “Baptism is our profession of faith” (“Faith-Based Bathing,” Christianity Today [July, 2003], 62).

109 Michaels, 1 Peter, 216.

110 Some have seen in the word an allusion to the questions and answers that take place when a person is baptized (Stibbs, The First Epistle General of Peter, 144).

111 It must be conceded that ἐπερώτημα has nowhere else been found with the meaning of “appeal.” The NIV has “the pledge of a good conscience toward God.” Cf. also Selwyn (The First Epistle of St. Peter, 205–6), who notes that sacramentum was used of a soldier’s oath of loyalty. As Grudem (The First Epistle of Peter, 164) astutely points out, however, this introduces a theological problem. To demand of a Christian at the very beginning of his or her Christian life a pledge to God to live an obedient life undermines the New Testament’s teaching on salvation by faith alone. Grudem also notes that the meaning “pledge” cannot be attested any earlier than the second century AD. Although no examples of the noun ἐπερώτημα meaning “appeal” have been found, the related verb ἐπερωτάω is used with the sense “make a request, ask for something” in Matthew 16:1. See BDAG, s.v. “ἐπερωτάω,” 362.

112 Cf. H. Greeven, “ἐπερώτημα,” in TDNT, 2:688–89.

113 Cf. Grudem, The First Epistle of Peter, 162–63.

114 Cf. Michael P. Green, Illustrations for Biblical Preaching, 27.

115 Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude, 163.

116 Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, 146.

117 Cf. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, 146.

118 Quoted by Alexander Ross, “The Ascension,” in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, ed. Everett F. Harrison (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960), 67.

119 David Brown, The Life of Rabbi Duncan (1872; reprint ed., Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1986), 498.

120 Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, trans. S. C. Guthrie and C. A. M. Hall (rev. ed., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 225.

121 W. Y. Fullerton, C. H. Spurgeon: A Biography (London: Williams and Norgate, 1929), 265.

122 As told by James and Marti Hefley, By Their Blood: Christian Martyrs of the 20th Century (Milford, Michigan: Mott Media, 1979), 55–56.

123 Cf. France, “Exegesis in Practice,” 277–78.

124 Martin Luther, “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God,” in Hymns of Truth and Praise (Ft. Dodge: Gospel Perpetuating Publishers, 1971), 588.

125 Bengel (New Testament Word Studies, 2:747) wrote, “For they…have most nobly believed God’s Word [who have done so] without parallel passages.”

126 In defense of the view expounded here, cf. Bengel, New Testament Word Studies, 2:403–4; Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, 184; H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Ephesians, trans. M. J. Evans (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), 450; Brooke Foss Westcott, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (London: Macmillan, 1906), 61; J. Armitage Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 2d ed. (London: James Clarke, 1907), 96, 180; Francis W. Beare, “The Epistle to the Ephesians: Introduction and Exegesis,” in IntB, 10:689; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Ephesians (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1961), 83; Cranfield, “Interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19, ” 372; F. Büchsel, “κατώτερος,” in TDNT 3:641–42; J. Schneider, “μέρος,” in TDNT, 4:597–98; Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 4: Ecclesiology – Eschatology (Dallas; Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 413–14; G. H. Lang, The Parabolic Teaching of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 263, 267. Robinson wrote, “The descent was below the earth, as the ascent is above the heavens (96).… The descent is to the lowest, as the ascent is to the highest, that nothing may remain unvisited” (180).

127 There are three alternate interpretations to the one presented in this essay: (1) For a defense of the idea that Ephesians 4:9 describes our Lord’s descent from heaven to earth and not a descent from the earth to Hades, see F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 343–44 [Bruce changed his interpretation in the interval between his first (1961) and second (1984) commentaries on the epistle]; Markus Barth, Ephesians 4–6, AncB (Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 433–34, 472–77. This interpretation takes τῆς γῆς as a genitive of apposition. “He descended into the lower parts of the universe, i.e., the earth” [cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 99]. (2) Others have concluded that the descent introduced in vv. 9–10 was actually subsequent to Jesus’ ascension and represents the return to earth of the ascended, exalted Christ as the Spirit at Pentecost. See T. K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, ICC (New York: Scribners, 1903), 115–16; G. B. Caird, “The Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4:7–11, ” Studia Evangelica 2 (1964), 535–45; Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1990), 242–48; W. Hall Harris III, “The Ascent and Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4:9–10, ” BibSac 151 (April, 1994), 198–214. Here again τῆς γῆς is taken as a genitive of apposition [Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 100, n. 72]. (3) Another group of commentators take τῆς γῆς as a partitive genitive indicating that Christ descended to the earth’s lowest part, that is, the grave. See Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians 11, in NPNF, 1st Series, 13:104; Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 533–36. The judicious discussion of Hoehner demonstrates that the arguments for and against the various interpretations of the passages are not absolutely conclusive. As Wallace notes (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 100), “Grammar certainly will not solve this problem.”

128 Those who follow this interpretation would argue that Christ’s spirit did not immediately go to heaven. Nevertheless, the Son commended it to his Father’s care (cf. Luke 23:46).

129 In this interpretation τῆς γῆς is taken as a partitive genitive (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 99–100). Cf. J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 1:308–9.

130 “There the fallen angelic powers beheld Him as the conqueror; the Old Testament saints, as the Redeemer” (Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, 483.).

131 Thomas Aquinas says that Christ descended to the souls of the Old Testament saints who had died under the covenants of promise and law and “by the power of His passion” He announced an accomplished redemption and “he brought them far from this kingdom of darkness into heaven” (Summa Theologica 3.52.5 [New York: Benzinger, 1947], 2:2306).

132 Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, 482–84; cf. Rene; Pache, The Future Life, trans. H. I. Needham (Chicago: Moody, 1962), 63–64; Robert A. Morey, Death and the Afterlife (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1984), 84–87.

133 Cf. J. A. MacCulloch’s book-length study, The Harrowing of Hell (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930), 28–44 and passim.

134 Commentators have long debated the relevance of 1 Peter 4:6 to 1 Peter 3:19 and the doctrine of Christ’s descent to Hades. Peter wrote, “For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men

135 Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 9, in ANF, 1:62, n. 16. Ignatius wrote, “And therefore He whom they (the prophets) rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead.” As the editors suggest in a footnote, however, this may only be an allusion to Matthew 27:52.

136 The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians 1, in ANF, 1:33, n. 5. Polycarp writes of “Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death, but whom God raised from the dead, having loosed the pains of Hades.”

137 Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul 55, in ANF, 3:231. He wrote, “By ourselves the lower regions (of Hades) are not supposed to be a bare cavity, nor some subterranean sewer of the world, but a vast deep space in the interior of the earth, and a concealed recess in its very bowels; inasmuch as we read that Christ in His death spent three days in the heart of the earth, that is, in the secret inner recess which is hidden in the earth, and enclosed by the earth, and superimposed on the abysmal depths which lie still lower down…Christ…died…[and] was buried…[and remained] in Hades in the form and condition of a dead man; nor did He ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts of the earth, that He might there make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself.”

138 This creed affirms that the Lord had “died, and descended to the underworld (εἰς τὰ καταχθόνια κατελθόντα), and regulated things there, Whom the gatekeepers of hell saw and shuddered.” J. N. D. Kelly, The Early Christian Creeds, 3d ed. (London: Longman, 1972), 378. An apocryphal gospel, entitled The Gospel of Nicodemus, describes Christ’s descent into the underworld at length (The Gospel of Nicodemus 2.1–13, in ANF, 8:448–58. Cf. the sermon, “Spirits in Prison,” by James S. Stewart in The Strong Name [Edinburgh: Clark, n.d.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972], 24–34. The Gospel of Nicodemus, including both The Acts of Pilate and Christ’s Descent Into Hell, goes back to the 5th–6th century. J. K. Elliott, ed., The Apocryphal New Testament, rev. ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999], 164–65.). After Jesus died on Calvary, according to this ancient work, the underworld was diffused with the warmth of the sun and a royal purple light. John the Baptist then appeared to the Old Testament saints and announced that Jesus was on his way. Satan and Hades and the king of the dead held a hurried, fearful conference, and suddenly there was a loud thunderous voice, “Lift up your gates, O rulers; and be lifted up, O everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in (cf. Ps. 24:7–10).” Hades demanded that Satan go out and fight against the King of Glory, and he gave orders to shut the cruel gates of brass and put up the bars of iron, and he ordered his officers to resist bravely. David announced that Christ had shattered the brazen gates and burst the iron bars. The heavenly warrior majestically came in, trampled the king of death, and handed Satan over to Hades. Christ then took Adam by the hand and led all of the saints up from the powers below. Of course, The Gospel of Nicodemus is pious fiction. Yet it dramatized a great truth, namely, that Christ has conquered Satan and delivered his people from death. (Christ’s Descent Into Hell 17.1–27–1, in Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 185–90).

139 Elliott, 1 Peter, 730. Norman Hillyer writes, “It must be said straight away that no fully satisfactory explanation of this verse has ever been given” (1 and 2 Peter, Jude, NIBC [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992], 122). Thomas Taylor, Professor Emeritus at Biblical Theological Seminary, confided to the present writer that 1 Peter 4:6 is, in his opinion, one of the two most difficult texts in the New Testament, the other being 1 Peter 3:19. He also confided that none of the interpretations that have been proposed have persuaded him—including the one offered in this article!

140 Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, 42–57; cf. David G. Horrell, “Who are ‘The Dead’ and When was the Gospel Preached to Them?: The Interpretation of 1 Peter 4:6, ” NTS 48 (2003): 70–89 (esp. 70–74). Arichea and Nida mention six different interpretations of the text (A Translator’s Handbook on the First Letter From Peter, 134–35).

141 Proponents of this view differ on the phrase “judged in the flesh.” Some argue that Peter speaks of death, as a form of judgment: others think that the phrase refers to the last judgment (cf. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, 44).

142 Ignatius, To the Magnesians 9.3, in ANF, 1:62; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.22.1–2; 4.27.2, in ANF, 1:494, 499; G. F. C. Fronmüller, “The Epistles General of Peter,” in CHS (L), 12:74; Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (London: Rivingtons and G. Bell, 1856–61; rev. ed. [Everett F. Harrison], Chicago: Moody, 1958), 4:374–75; E. H. Plumptre, The General Epistles of St Peter and St Jude, CBSC (Cambridge: University Press, 1889), 142; Bigg, The Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, 172; J. H. A. Hart, “The First Epistle General of Peter,” in EGT, 5:72; J. W. C. Wand, The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, WC (London: Methuen, 1934), 105; Francis Wright Beare, The First Epistle of Peter (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1947), 156; C. E. B. Cranfield, The First Epistle of Peter (London: SCM, 1950), 91; Ernest Best, 1 Peter, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 155–56; Reicke, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism, 208; Daniel C. Arichea and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the First Letter from Peter (New York: United Bible Societies, 1980), 135–36; Balthasar, Mysterium Paschale, 178, 180; Horrell, “Who are ‘The Dead’ and When was the Gospel Preached to Them?: The Interpretation of 1 Peter 4:6, ” 88–89; Donald G. Bloesch, The Last Things (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 2004), 134–35), 40, 42, 66, 134–35, 168. Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria all seemed to believe, apparently on the basis of Matthew 27:52, that the gospel preaching in Hades was directed only to those Jews and Gentiles who had lived righteous lives. One well-known commentator calls 1 Peter 4:6, “one of the most wonderful verses in the Bible [because] it gives a breath-taking glimpse of a gospel of a second chance” (William Barclay, The Letters of James and Peter, rev. ed., DSB [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], 249).

143 Gabriel Fackre, “Divine Perseverance,” in What About Those Who Have Never Heard?, ed. John Sanders (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 1995), 84–85; Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 169. Dalton (Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, 46) rightly concludes, “It seems quite obvious that once this text is understood of the Descensus, the natural meaning seems to involve the possibility of conversion in the world of the dead.” Dalton rejects the view that the verse speaks of Jesus’ descent into Hades.

144 The arguments cited here are those of Elliott, 1 Peter, 730–31.

145 Arichea and Nida argue, “The dead heard the Gospel when it was preached to the spirits” (A Translator’s Handbook on the First Letter from Peter, 135). Cf. Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, 482–84.

146 Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 290–91.

147 Best responds that these texts suggest the finality of death only for those who have already heard the gospel (1 Peter, 156).

148 Best, 1 Peter, 156. Achtemeier (1 Peter, 289) argues that the NT contains no notion of disembodied souls in Hades. If he means that there is no NT text describing souls in Hades he is correct. However, if he means that the NT does not speak of disembodied souls in the afterlife he is incorrect (Rev. 6:9; 20:4).

149 Augustine, Letters 164.7.21–22, in NPNF, 1st Series, 1:521.

150 Clement of Alexandria, Fragments 1.1, in ANF, 2:572; Augustine, Letters 164.7.21–22; Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, vol. 30: The Catholic Epistles, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia, 1967), 121.

151 Cf. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 289.

152 Bengel, New Testament Word Studies, 2:751–52. Bengel’s translators, Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent, rejected Bengel’s interpretation and opted for the view that the verse paralleled 3:19 and that Christ had in fact descended to Hades and preached the gospel to the dead.

153 Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 214, 354; William Kelly, The Epistles of Peter (London: Hammond, 1923), 219; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 186; J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, 174–75; Grudem, The First Epistle of Peter, 170–71; Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, 153; Marshall, 1 Peter, 136–38; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 290–91; Elliott, 1 Peter, 734; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 208–209; Jobes, 1 Peter, 272; Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, 50–51 and passim.

154 “If καὶ νεκροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη may mean, “the Gospel was preached to some during their lifetime, who are now dead,” exegesis has no longer any fixed rule” (Alford, The Greek Testament, 4:374).

155 Elliott, 1 Peter, 733–34.

156 Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 291.

157 David H. Wheaton, “1 Peter,” in The New Bible Commentary: Revised, eds. D. Guthrie, J. A. Motyer, A. M. Stibbs, and D. J. Wiseman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 1245.

158 Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, 50; Jobes, 1 Peter, 272–73.

159 Best, 1 Peter, 156.

160 J. N. D. Kelly argues against the view that the verse speaks of “the gospel being preached by Christ” for these reasons: (1) Verse 5 speaks of Christ judging (κρῖναι, aorist active infinitive), and the change to the passive is strange if Peter intended to say that Jesus did the preaching. (2) The impersonal use of the passive verb is very rare in the NT, the only possible parallel being Romans 10:10. The passive verb must be understood as personal, i.e., “He [Christ] was preached.” (3) Christ is very rarely the subject of the verb “preach the gospel” [Luke 4:18, 43; 8:1; 20:1 in the gospels], and then only when he is alive on earth. (4) The verb often has Christ, or some equivalent term, as the object of the preaching [Acts 5:42; 8:35; 11:20; 17:18; Gal. 1:16]. (5) Almost always in the NT “preaching the gospel” is “an activity carried out by Christian evangelists, always in this world.” In short, “He was preached” is the “most natural translation” (A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude, HNTC [New York: Harper & Row, 1969], 173–74; cf. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, 267–69). These arguments, persuasive as they may seem to be, are not conclusive. In favor of Christ as the agent who does the preaching are the following arguments: (1) The use of the aorist tense (εὐηγγελίσθη) suggests that the preaching took place at “a particular time and place in the past; if Christian preachers were meant, it would have been more natural to expect the present tense, that is, ‘is preached’ or ‘is being preached.” (2) The view that Christ did the preaching is more natural, especially if one connects this verse with 3:19, 20. (3) If one understands Christ to be the judge in verse 5, then it is most likely that he is the preacher in verse 6. (4) Although the impersonal passive is rare, it is not without parallel [Rom. 10:10]. Cf. Arichea and Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the First Letter from Peter, 134.

161 Gerhard Friedrich, “εὐαγγελίζομαι,” TDNT, 2:719. “If Christ can announce his own victory to the imprisoned spirits in 3:18–19, then the idea of Christ announcing the good news about himself to the human dead is not less plausible” (Horrell, “Who are ‘The Dead’ and When was the Gospel Preached to Them?: The Interpretation of 1 Pet. 4:6,” 81).

162 Michaels, 1 Peter, 235.

163 Michaels, 1 Peter, 235.

164 Michaels, 1 Peter, 236.

165 Arichea and Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the First Letter from Peter, 135; Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, 482–84. Dalton (Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, 44–45) attributes this view to Oecumenius, a sixth century writer. He adds that Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621), a noted Roman Catholic scholar, understood the proclamation to be to those converted in Noah’s time.

166 The γάρ before καὶ νεκροῖς “binds vv. 5 and 6 logically together,” and καὶ νεκροῖς distinctly takes up the νεκρούς…in this logical connection. All interpretations must be false which do not give νεκροῖς in verse 6 the same meaning as νεκρούς in verse 5, i.e., that of dead men, literally and simply so called: men who have died and are in their graves.” (Alford, The Greek Testament, 4:373).

167 “[1 Peter 4:6] cannot be separated from [1 Peter 3:19]” (Eduard Schweizer, “πνεῦμα,” TDNT, 6:447).

168 Arichea and Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the First Letter from Peter, 135.

169 Some have objected to any view which restricts Peter’s reference to “the dead” to the believing dead (e.g., Alford, The Greek Testament, 4:373). However, as Schreiner notes, “such a limitation is derived from the context since Peter only spoke of those who live according to God by means of the Spirit. The limitation of the dead to believers, then, is not an arbitrary imposition on the text but is demanded by the verse itself (1, 2 Peter, Jude, 209).

170 One of the most serious objections to view # 4 has been raised by Dalton (Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, 275–77). He asserts, “the grammar of the passage requires that the action of the verbs in both the μέν and the δέ clauses should follow that of the main verb.” Eduard Schweizer admitted that this was the real crux for those who hold the interpretation that sees the gospel as proclaimed to those who had already died—yet he nevertheless defended the “already dead” view (“1. Petrus 4, 6, ” TZ 8 [1952]: 152–54 [esp. 153]). In short, the problem is this: The main verb is εὐηγγελίσθη (“the gospel has been preached”), and the two subjunctive verbs in the μέν and δέ clauses are κριθῶσι [“though they are judged”] and ζῶσι [“they may live”] respectively. According to Dalton, the grammar requires that the negative judgment of the readers’ human contemporaries (κατὰ ἀνθρώπους) must have followed their evangelization, while those who hold view # 4 assert that the negative judgment preceded their death and their hearing the good news in Hades. Horrell (“Who are ‘The Dead’ and When was the Gospel Preached to Them?” 82–83) offers the following arguments in response to Dalton: (1) There is widespread agreement that the μέν…δε construction “indicates that the first half (μέν) is to be understood as subordinate to the second half (δέ) and hence carries a concessive force” [Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 287; Michaels, 1 Peter, 238]. (2) Selwyn [The First Epistle of St. Peter, 215] adds that the μέν clause is parenthetic, the δέ clause providing the true purpose clause to εἰς τοῦτο [“for this purpose”], which points forward to the ἵνα clause. This view of the relation of the two parts of the phrase is also indicated by the choice of tenses, κριθῶσι (aorist) and ζῶσι (present). According to Stanley Porter, the aorist is the “background” tense, generally used of actions regarded as complete, while the present is the “foreground” tense, generally used of actions regarded as ongoing [Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 23, 29, 35]. Horrell writes, “Regarding the ‘judgment’ phrase as parenthetical also avoids the strange notion that the gospel was proclaimed to the dead ‘in order that they might be judged’” (82). He concludes, “Since the ‘judgment’ part of the phrase seems so clearly to be parenthetical, the judgment being a matter of human perspective, and since the real weight of the purpose clause falls entirely on the second part of the phrase, ‘so that they might live,’” it seems plausible that the concessive, parenthetical half of the phrase (“though they are judged in the flesh”) can be legitimately understood as having occurred prior to the preaching of the good news (82–83). The NRSV seems to follow this line of reasoning and renders κριθῶσι as a pluperfect, “though they had been judged in the flesh…, they might live.”

171 Unlike Matthew 27:52–53, which speaks of some Old Testament saints being raised after Christ’s resurrection; and unlike Ephesians 4:8, which speaks of Old Testament saints being led from Hades to heaven at his ascension, 1 Peter 4:6 speaks only of Christ’s victorious proclamation of a completed salvation to his people in Hades.

172 Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, 482–84.

173 “Christ dealt with the living, in the flesh; with spirits, in spirit” (Bengel, New Testament Word Studies, 2:746). Delitzsch notes that “the Lord went bodilessly into Hades.” He adds, however, “He appeared none the less in the undissolved unity of His divine-human person as the Prince of Life breaking through the bands of Hades and the grave” (A System of Biblical Psychology, 482, n. 2; 483).

174 Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, 483.

175 “This preaching was a prelude to the [final] judgment.” To believers it was “a preaching of the Gospel…to their consolation; to [unbelievers] a publishing of the law, for their terror” (Bengel, New Testament Word Studies, 2:747). John Calvin wrote that Christ shone upon the patriarchs “with the power of His Spirit, enabling them to realize that the grace which they had only tasted in hope was then manifested to the world.” He added, “While godly souls enjoyed the present sight of that visitation which they had anxiously awaited,…the wicked realized more clearly that they were excluded from all salvation” (Institutes of the Christian Religion 2.16.9, trans. Ford Lewis Battles [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960], 1:514, 515). While Calvin saw a positive side to the statement of the creed, “He descended into hell,” he found in it a primary reference to Christ’s paying the full price of our redemption on the cross (Institutes 2.16.10 [1:515–16]).

176 Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, 483 (482, n. 2). There are questions about the timing of the ascension of Christ, which are beyond the scope of this article. For example, were there two ascensions, one on Easter Day and one forty days later? Or, again, if there was only one ascension, did it take place on the day of Christ’s resurrection or forty days later (cf. Acts 1:3, 9–11)? The writer hopes to address these questions in a later article in The Emmaus Journal, entitled, “The Ascension of Christ.”

177 Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, 484.

Eamon Younis

Saturday 27 April 2019

The Sufferings of Christ: Exemplary, Substitutionary, and Triumphant

No comments:

Post a Comment