THOUGHTS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF 
I PETER 3:18ff.¹ 

Charles J. Butler, Ph. D.

...qanatwqei.j me.n sarki.( zwopoihqei.j de. tw/| pneu,mati( evn w-| kai. toi/j evn fulakh/| pneu,masi poreuqei.j evkh,ruxen... 

...while being put to death with regard to flesh, but made alive with regard to spirit; in which also He, having gone, preached to the spirits in prison .... 

This particular passage has been the source of many a long exegetical night with the exegete not infrequently greeting the morning still wrapped in darkness. Interpretations have been endless sources of doctrinal assertions out of line with the analogy of faith. Edward Gordon Selwyn, in his commentary on The First Epistle of Peter, has extended notes and an essay on the subject in which he summarizes the three general lines of interpretation of the passage that appear in the history of the exegesis and this summary may serve as an introduction here (those desiring to see the various views of the Fathers, and others, are referred to E. H. Plumptre's survey in The Spirits in Prison and Other Studies on the Life after Death with the note of caution that this writer argues for spiritual development and even salvation beyond the grave dedicating his work to the "loved and honoured memory of Frederick Denison Maurice", the notorious father of Christian Socialism, who was expelled from his professorship for affirming that all men must be ultimately saved). 

"(1) That the reference in 3:18 f. is to a preaching by Christ in the Spirit, or in a spiritual condition, by the lips of Noah and his predecessors, to the wicked generation of men who lived before the Flood. This is the view of Augustine (in one passage), Bede, Aquinas, John Lightfoot, Leighton, Bishop Pearson, and in more recent times, C. H. H. Wright and Salmond.... 

(2) That the reference in 3:18 ff is to a preaching by Christ in person to the fallen angels alluded to in Genesis 6, Enoch, Jubilees and other Jewish literature. This view has the support of Gunkel, Bousset, Loisy, but of few English commentators... [it is, however, the view of Selwyn]. 

(3) That the reference in 3:18ff., as in 4:6, is to the dead, the preaching to the impenitent of Noah's generation affording a particular example of a much larger truth. This is the view of the majority of English and English-speaking commentators, including Bishop Horsley, Alford, Plumptre, Chase, Blenkin, Bennett, J. H. Bernard, Charles. Bigg, Stevens, and Wand. It is supported by Beyschlag, Clemen, Dorner, Sporri, and Strack-Billerbeck, among modern German exegetes. Clement of Alexandria probably held this view; and so did Calvin and Bengel with differences of their own" (Selwyn, pp. 316-317). 

Another interpretation more in harmony with the analogy of Scripture shall be here presented, namely, that the reference is to the ascension triumph of Christ, a view which a footnote on page 76 of Schep's The Nature of the Resurrection Body tells me is Schep's view as well as Herman Bavinck's and S. Greydanus' whose Dutch works I have been unable to consult. 

The arguments against the view that Christ preached by Noah's lips are in essence the strange sequence of thought arising from this century's past event being injected after the order of Christ's death and resurrection which was producing a steady motion toward the ascension and from the plain statement that the preaching was to spirits in prison at the time of the proclamation. See Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, p. 411, and the other commentators listed above who argue for other views. 

We ought also to disengage our minds from the preoccupation with a view that Christ descended into Hell for some purpose. This preoccupation comes basically from a misunderstanding of the Apostles' Creed and of verses like the crux Ephesians 4:9-10 passage, as well as this one under consideration. The Westminster Larger Catechism gives the correct view of the Creed when it says (Q. 50) "Wherein consisted Christ's humiliation after his death? Answer: Christ's humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day; which hath been otherwise expressed in these words, He descended into hell." Shedd, in his Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, page 604, refers us to Pearson's work on the Creed which expresses the contention of Rufinus, the presbyter of Aquileia, that the Roman and Aquileian forms of the Creed were not at variance although one read "was crucified, dead, and buried," omitting the descent clause, and the other (the Aquileian) omitted that phrase and substituted the words "descendit in inferna.'' Rufinus contended that both statements meant the very same thing. The later forms of the Creed seem to have inserted both phrases leading many to conclude that something else was meant since such a short creed would hardly have two short phrases meaning exactly the same thing. 

Again, we ought to note that Ephesians 4:9-10 does not teach a descent to hell in the phrase, "Now that he ascended what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?..." Hodge points out that this is a reference to Psalm 68:18 where the ascent of God is not from Hell but rather from earth, namely, from “the Hill of God," "Sinai," and so forth. He also notes that the phrase 'the lower parts of the earth" only occurs elsewhere in Scripture in Isaiah 44:23 ("Sing, o ye heavens;...shout, ye lower parts of the earth'') where the lower parts are simply the earth in relation to heaven. The descent would then simply be the descent in the incarnation argued from the psalm (See Hodge's Commentary on Ephesians. ) 

With our minds undistracted with proving or understanding a descent into Hell, we may approach the text freely and consider the state of Christ in the 18th verse, the place to which He went, the recipients of the message, and the message proclaimed. 

With regard to Christ's state, we should note immediately that the word zw|opoie,o never means "to continue in a living state," but rather refers to the making of one to be alive (as Romans 4:17, 8:11, etc.) and therefore must refer to Christ's resurrection, not to any continued living of His spirit after the crucifixion and before the resurrection (though I wish to note here that Christ's spirit did continue to exist being committed to the hands of His Father, not Hell—the point is simply that the passage under consideration does not refer to that truth.). It is for this reason that Lenski tries to fit in a descent before the resurrection by making a distinction between vivificatio and resurrectio. Vivification is merely the resuscitation of Christ's body while resurrection is vivification plus the appearances to witnesses. To Lenski, then. Christ was vivified and went to Hell in His resurrected body before the stone was rolled from the tomb and He was manifested to the disciples (Interpretation of First Peter, p. 161). This is surrounded by the Lutheran notions of timeless descent, and so forth. This is an overrefinement for doctrinal purposes and does not arise from the meaning of resurrection in the Scripture. It really falls with the establishment of a better understanding of Christ's going. 

It is also necessary to reject at the outset any interpretation that fails to take notice and due regard to the fact that sarki. and pneu,mati are parallel contrasting expressions since they are both in the dative without an article or preposition to distinguish them. The King James' "in the flesh" and "by the Spirit" must be rejected although Gordon Clark, in his Peter Speaks Today (p. 125), argues for it saying that only a poor Greek student could misinterpret it and that "if either in or by is used both times, one of the contrasting phrases loses sense"—a good point against Lenski who uses "by" in both cases, but not against an interpretation that uses neither "in" (with the sense of body dying and spirit quickening) nor "by." 

The datives must be seen as either datives of sphere or reference. This does not mean that A. M. Hunter's view in the Interpreter's Bible which presents a resurrection that is purely spiritual without the body can be tolerated. The analogy of the Scripture is opposed to such a view. Instead, the key to the understanding here is to be found in the anarthrous state of the datives which emphasize quality, the fact that the body of Christ rose as well as the spirit, and in the usage of "spiritual" in connection with the risen Christ in I Corinthians 15:45‑46. "Spiritual" as a description of "the last Adam," "the Lord from heaven," presents Christ as being full of the Holy Spirit's power, life and glory, being fully possessed of the working of the Spirit with a "spiritual body" (one endued by the Holy Spirit from corruption, etc.). In I Peter 3 then, Christ was put to death `with regard to flesh," that is in humiliation, the state of His humiliation. "with all the emphasis on his being subject to the weaknesses and divine punishments appropriate to our fallen state" (Schep, op. cit., p. 77). He was quickened "with regard to spirit." that is, with the Holy Spirit's endowments. He is so much so that He is, Himself, a "quickening (life‑giving) spirit" (I Cor. 15:45). 

Christ's state then in view here is one of glory and exaltation. 

The phrase "by which” (evn w-|)  may be seen then as a reference to pneu,mati, Christ's state of spiritual endowment in body and spirit by the Holy Spirit at the exaltation of the resurrection or it may refer to the whole process of the former clause (the death and resurrection) as Selwyn argues since he claims that there cannot be a reference to an adverbial dative since this form never occurs in the New Testament. I have no quarrel with Selwyn's view, for, after establishing the interpretation given below, a parallel passage will be cited in Colossians 2:15 where a similar dispute of the reference of auvtw/ occurs. In the one case if the reference is to pneu,mati, Christ's spiritual state is the means of the proclamation; if the reference is to the whole clause, both the death and the resurrected state is the means of proclamation. 

The remaining points really tie one into the other for any interpretation. I shall therefore establish the identity of the "spirits in prison," then the place to which Christ went, then the message to the spirits—all of which shall finally be verified by the context of the passage and the analogy of Scripture to assure us of the interpretation. 

The imprisoned spirits should be identified with fallen angels now bound. The word "spirits" when used absolutely, Selwyn tells us, is used either of men living on the earth or of supernatural beings (p. 199). In Luke 10:20, "the spirits" connote demons. II Peter 2:4 and Jude 6‑7 speak of the angels "delivered into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment" and "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." I should think this a reference to the angels that sinned in Noah's day as recorded in Genesis 6 (see on this disputed passage. Richard Wolff's masterful gathering of the evidence from exegesis, Jewish apocrypha, and patristic sources in his A Commentary on the Epistle of Jude). Such an interpretation would fit the reference here to Noah's time and explain the idea of spirits in prison. We might at this point note the reference to angels as subject to Christ in verse 22, "angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him," which I intend to show as a parallel to this verse. 

If the reference were to be taken as referring to "fallen men" in prison in the intermediate state, there would be the problem of a lack of scriptural parallel to the "in prison spirits" phrase as well as all the questions Maurice and others press into the text about a second chance with the preaching of the gospel to the unregenerate or the rigorous problems of paradise being by hell, the Old Testament saints only being halfsaved when they expected full salvation in God's presence on death, and Christ's committing His spirit to His Father's hands in going down to hell rather than up to heaven. The Dispensationalist's division of the Church into Old Testament Israelites and New Testament Churchmen, and so forth, should find no comfort in Scripture. Who can believe that saints in paradise are "spirits in prison"? 

The place to which Christ goes is really not stated in words in this verse. The phrase toi/j evn fulakh/| pneu,masin "to the imprisoned spirits" should be connected with the verb and the participle left free to be identified by the context. It will be noted that we have the very same participle poreuqei.j in verse 22 where the thought is again picked up. There we are clearly told where Christ Went—eivj ouranovvvvvn, “into heaven." These two should be seen as parallel so that the order of the passage is first. Christ's death (v. 18), Christ's resurrection (v. 18), Christ's ascension (v. 19), and Christ's session (v. 22. with the reference to the ascension being repeated for reemphasis after the intervening thoughts and possibly for clarification). The use of poreu,omai in the classic ascension passage (Acts 1:10-11, `while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up ...this same Jesus ...shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.) should point out its meaning here. As well, the later writings of John reveal Christ's regular use of the phrase "go unto My Father" (John 14:2, 3, 12, 28; 16:7. 28) and in that connection a frequent use of the simple "I go" to refer to the ascension (John 14:2, 3; 16:7). This interpretation will in a moment be reinforced by the analogy of Scripture. Here then the idea is that in or by His exalted state (or death and exalted state) Christ made a proclamation to the imprisoned spirits when He ascended in glory. 

This leaves only the question of what did Christ proclaim. It should be noted that Christ's “preaching" is not said to be "evangelizing," but rather "proclaiming", evkh,ruxen. While the commonest use in the New Testament is of the preaching of the gospel, it is also used of a neutral proclamation, that is, a proclamation that is not the gospel (as Rev. 5:2). By observing here the parallel with verse 22, it can be seen that Peter has in mind a proclamation of Christ's triumphal victory and the subjugation forever of the angels and principalities and powers. This then is the proclamation which the resurrection and ascension of Christ in themselves proclaimed to the powers of darkness: their complete defeat and subjugation. 

Now it must be shown that this thought of Christ's resurrection being the proclamation of the utter defeat and subjugation of the powers of darkness has its parallels in the analogy of Scripture. 

The root sources of the New Testament doctrine are to be found in Old Testament passages concerning Christ's resurrection. Isaiah 53:12 speaks of Christ's exaltation after His substitutionary death and records, "Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death ...and will make intercession for the transgressors (the session of Christ)." 

Paul refers to Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8-10, where associated with the ascension is the leading of "captivity captive"—this is a reference to the defeat of Satan and his forces captured and defeated in the glory of the ascension. In Ephesians 1:20-21, the evil angels must be seen as subjected to Christ in God's exaltation of His Son: 

"According to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: ...." 

Colossians 2:15, "And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it" (Christ Himself, or the cross). 

Bishop Nicholson's comments on the Colossians 2:15 passage are precisely the thoughts our exegesis of I Peter 3:18-19 would convey. I therefore give them in full: 

"(3) He stripped off and away from Himself the principalities and powers, by which is meant the evil principalities and powers. See Ephesians ii. 12. They seized on His human nature, which though without sin. had infirmities, as we see illustrated in the temptation in the wilderness, and the agony of Gethsemane as well as that of Calvary. But His victory was complete, for the powers of evil which had clung to His humanity were turned off and cast aside forever. Now that victory is the victory of the believing soul, and we become circumcised in the putting off of the body of the flesh, even as He stripped off from Himself these principalities and powers. He rose from the dead in a humanity free from all infirmity, and which these powers can never touch again. And so have we risen in and with Him in the life eternal."

"(4) Moreover, He made a show of these powers boldly, openly, confidently, exhibiting them to the whole universe.

"(5) Finally, He led them in triumph in the cross, triumphing in their helplessness, the cross itself being the sphere of the triumph. Thus we have the paradox of the crucifixion, and the cross becomes the victor's triumphant chariot before the eyes of the universe" (Oneness with Christ: Popular Studies in Colossians, p. 200).

The thought again could be seen in Hebrews 2;14, "through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil ...he is able to succour ...."

Peter's idea then is to comfort the distressed and persecuted Christians and to exhort them to perseverance on the basis of Christ's full victory and sovereign control.

It only remains to be said that I Peter 4:6 is not a parallel to I Peter 3:18 ff. That passage deals with the clear preaching of the gospel to the saints now dead and waiting in hope for the resurrection. 

1. Presented at the suggestion of the Foundation's Founder.