I Peter 3:18b-20
Luther: “This is a strange text and certainly a more obscure passage than any other passage in the NT. I still do not know for sure what the apostle means.” Luther is not alone. Bauckham says, “One of the most puzzling passages in the letter is 3:19, and no agreement exists as to its precise meaning.” Polkinghorne states, “Doctrinally and linguistically, this is the most difficult and debated passage in the letter.” For this reason, I will not even attempt to be complete in my treatment of this subject. As Carson once wrote in an article on these verses, “This is not the place to undertake a detailed exegesis of this passage, as that would immediately double the length of the...essay...”
Elaborating further on this confusion, Boring explains: “The interpretation of this text involves making decisions on a number of overlapping and interlocking issues [some of which he proceeds to list]...The combinations of the variables listed above produce a large number of possible interpretations. Even to list them all, identified with their major components, is a labyrinthine project...”
I certainly won't attempt to deal with all of the possibilities, but below are some comments on a few of them.
View 1: Christ announced his victory to imprisoned evil spiritual beings (fallen angels) referred to in Genesis 6. Peter Davids ably defends this possibility with a number of persuasive arguments. Thus, “preach” can mean proclaim or even denounce, without an idea of possible repentance. Peter does not use the common Greek word from which we get “evangelism,” employed by him elsewhere four times. Also in favor of this view is that “spirit” never refers to a dead human being in the Bible without clearly identifying it as such. In the apocryphal writing I Enoch, the fallen angels are said to be in prison (see chapters 10-16; 21). This is not the same as Hell at all, but a special holding area. Thus, Jesus pronounces the final judgment on them.
Stibbs echoes David's contention regarding the meaning of “spirits” and notes as an example Hebrews 12:23 which discusses “the spirits of just men.” However, when “spirit “ appears by itself it refers to good or bad supernatural beings, as in Hebrews 1:14 and Luke 10:20.
Davids also points out, “While the New Testament does not speak anywhere of preaching the gospel to spirits, it does speak of the victory of Christ over the spiritual world (for example, 2 Cor 2:14; Eph 6:11-12; Col 2:15; Rev 12:7-11). Thus a reference in this passage to the proclamation of that victory fits right in with the tone of both the passage and the New Testament in general.”
Polkinghorne also takes this view and gives as additional reasons for this stance (1) the fact that 2 Peter 2:4-5 appears to identify these beings as angelic beings and (2) 1 Peter 3:22 states that the angels are subjected to Christ.
For a dissenting voice, Raymer says, “Though much commends this view as a possible interpretation, the context seems more likely to be referring to humans rather than angels.”
View 2: That last comment leads into views 2 and 3. The first is a slight variation on the above possibility. However, according to this view, the spirits are the Nephalim, offspring of the fallen angels of Genesis 6 and human women.
View 3: And to complete the possible variations on the “proclamation theme,” F.F. Bruce says, “To these spirits [of the flood generation] Christ is said to have made proclamation – proclamation, it may be inferred, of his triumph which finally sealed their doom.”
Reicke appears to subscribe to a combination of views 1-3 when he states: “This undoubtedly refers to the angels mentioned in Gen v. 1-4...Probably the people who perished in the flood are also numbered with these 'spirits.' They were the descendants of the fallen angels...” Note that without true biblical mandate he conflates the Nephalim and the people of the flood generation as if they were one and the same group.
View 4: It refers to the preincarnate Jesus preaching (in his spirit through Noah) to those who would later die in the flood. Prison = flesh.
This was the way Augustine understood this passage. Raymer criticizes it by saying, “This interpretation does not seem to fit the general theme of this section (I Peter 3:13-22).” In other words, it seems to have nothing to do with Christ's death and resurrection. Goppelt agrees with this criticism: “But this allegorization is contrary to the scope of the context...”
View 5: It refers to Christ after his death preaching to spirits of human beings who died in the flood (examples of a particularly evil generation) in order to give the m a possible chance of repentance. Working against this view, is the undoubted fact pointed out by Raymer and many others that such second chances are not mentioned anywhere else in Bible. And why only give this one group the chance of repentance after death and no one else?
Boring notes that this interpretation was adopted by Clement and Origen and was influential in affecting the wording of the Apostles' Creed. Some early theologians even took this thought one step further and taught a belief in universal salvation.
View 6: This is the same as the preceding possibility with, however, the preaching only being done to announce judgment on them. The question then arises as to why only this particular group of evildoers were chosen to get their eternal fate rubbed in their faces.
Commenting on both views 5 and 6, Goppelt asks, “Can pneumata [spirits] have this meaning? The souls of the departed are, of course, usually called psyche in the NT. But I Peter, like Hebrews [12:23] and Luke [24:37,39], tries always to present biblical concepts in Greek terms, and pneuma is an ancient Greek synonym for psyche.”
View 7: From Calvin we get the rather strange interpretation which teaches that (1) 'the spirits in prison' actually refers to Jews who had looked for Christ's appearing, and (2) 'the prison' was the Old Testament law.
Polkinghorne points out one glaring contradiction in this interpretation, namely, that the Flood came before the law had even been given to the Israelites. I am not aware of any modern scholars ascribing to Calvin's view.
View 8
Goppelt says that “many representatives of the angelological interpretation of the passage assume that though Enoch preached judgment, Christ preached salvation. In the New Testament, however, it is never suggested that Christ redeemed fallen angels. Indeed, Heb. 2:16 comments expressly: 'Surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham.' He also points to the fact that the angels were disobedient long before the days of Noah.
View 8: Verse 19 does not belong in the original text.
Reicke explains this easy way out of the quandary: “Some scholars have found this verse so difficult to explain and so strange in the context that they regard it as an interpolation or a somewhat irrelevant digression.”
Conclusion
“Whether they [whoever 'they' are] heard a message of freedom or of eternal judgment at the occasion mentioned is not stated. In either case they learned the secret of Christ and his suffering which was to lead to his eternal exaltation.” (Reicke)
I am not sure if any definitive conclusion can be made out of the above array of opinions. However, to my own mind, Keener has made an important contribution to the discussion on this quite disputed subject by showing the literary arrangement of ideas presented in I Peter 3:16-4:5. His proposal is given in Figure 1 below:
Symmetrical Structure of I Peter 3:16-4:5
A. Your slanderers will be ashamed (3:16)
B. Suffer though innocent, in God's will (3:17)
C. Christ suffered for the unjust (3:18)
D. He triumphed over hostile spirits (3:19)
E. Noah was saved through water (3:20)
E'. You are saved through baptism (3:21)
D'. Christ triumphed over hostile spirits (3:22)
C'. Christ suffered (4:1a)
B'. Suffer in God's will (4:1b-2)
A'. Your slanderers will be ashamed (4:3-5)
I Peter 3:18b-20
Luther: “This is a strange text and certainly a more obscure passage than any other passage in the NT. I still do not know for sure what the apostle means.” Luther is not alone. Bauckham says, “One of the most puzzling passages in the letter is 3:19, and no agreement exists as to its precise meaning.” Polkinghorne states, “Doctrinally and linguistically, this is the most difficult and debated passage in the letter.” For this reason, I will not even attempt to be complete in my treatment of this subject. As Carson once wrote in an article on these verses, “This is not the place to undertake a detailed exegesis of this passage, as that would immediately double the length of the...essay...”
Elaborating further on this confusion, Boring explains: “The interpretation of this text involves making decisions on a number of overlapping and interlocking issues [some of which he proceeds to list]...The combinations of the variables listed above produce a large number of possible interpretations. Even to list them all, identified with their major components, is a labyrinthine project...”
I certainly won't attempt to deal with all of the possibilities, but below are some comments on a few of them.
View 1: Christ announced his victory to imprisoned evil spiritual beings (fallen angels) referred to in Genesis 6. Peter Davids ably defends this possibility with a number of persuasive arguments. Thus, “preach” can mean proclaim or even denounce, without an idea of possible repentance. Peter does not use the common Greek word from which we get “evangelism,” employed by him elsewhere four times. Also in favor of this view is that “spirit” never refers to a dead human being in the Bible without clearly identifying it as such. In the apocryphal writing I Enoch, the fallen angels are said to be in prison (see chapters 10-16; 21). This is not the same as Hell at all, but a special holding area. Thus, Jesus pronounces the final judgment on them.
Stibbs echoes David's contention regarding the meaning of “spirits” and notes as an example Hebrews 12:23 which discusses “the spirits of just men.” However, when “spirit “ appears by itself it refers to good or bad supernatural beings, as in Hebrews 1:14 and Luke 10:20.
Davids also points out, “While the New Testament does not speak anywhere of preaching the gospel to spirits, it does speak of the victory of Christ over the spiritual world (for example, 2 Cor 2:14; Eph 6:11-12; Col 2:15; Rev 12:7-11). Thus a reference in this passage to the proclamation of that victory fits right in with the tone of both the passage and the New Testament in general.”
Polkinghorne also takes this view and gives as additional reasons for this stance (1) the fact that 2 Peter 2:4-5 appears to identify these beings as angelic beings and (2) 1 Peter 3:22 states that the angels are subjected to Christ.
For a dissenting voice, Raymer says, “Though much commends this view as a possible interpretation, the context seems more likely to be referring to humans rather than angels.”
View 2: That last comment leads into views 2 and 3. The first is a slight variation on the above possibility. However, according to this view, the spirits are the Nephalim, offspring of the fallen angels of Genesis 6 and human women.
View 3: And to complete the possible variations on the “proclamation theme,” F.F. Bruce says, “To these spirits [of the flood generation] Christ is said to have made proclamation – proclamation, it may be inferred, of his triumph which finally sealed their doom.”
Reicke appears to subscribe to a combination of views 1-3 when he states: “This undoubtedly refers to the angels mentioned in Gen v. 1-4...Probably the people who perished in the flood are also numbered with these 'spirits.' They were the descendents of the fallen angels...” Note that without true biblical mandate he conflates the Nephalim and the people of the flood generation as if they were one and the same group.
View 4: It refers to the preincarnate Jesus preaching (in his spirit through Noah) to those who would later die in the flood. Prison = flesh.
This was the way Augustine understood this passage. Raymer citciticizes it by saying, “This interpretation does not seem to fit the general theme of this section (I Peter 3:13-22).” In other words, it seems to have nothing to do with Christ's death and resurrection. Goppelt agrees with this criticism: “But this allegorization is contrary to the scope of the context...”
View 5: It refers to Christ after his death preaching to spirits of human beings who died in the flood (examples of a particularly evil generation) in order to give tham a possible chance of repentance. Working against this view, is the undoubted fact pointed out by Raymer and many others that such second chances are not mentioned anywhere else in Bible. And why only give this one group the chance of repentance after death and no one else?
Boring notes that this interpretation was adopted by Clement and Origen and was influential in affecting the wording of the Apostles' Creed. Some early theologians even took this thought one step further and taught a belief in universal salvation.
View 6: This is the same as the preceding possibility with, however, the preaching only being done to announce judgment on them. The question then arises as to why only this particular group of evildoers were chosen to get their eternal fate rubbed in their faces.
Commenting on both views 5 and 6, Goppelt asks, “Can pneumata [spirits] have this meaning? The souls of the departed are, of course, usually called psyche in the NT. But I Peter, like Hebrews [12:23] and Luke [24:37,39], tries always to present biblical concepts in Greek terms, and pneuma is an ancient Greek synonym for psyche.”
View 7: From Calvin we get the rather strange interpretation which teaches that (1) 'the spirits in prison' actually refers to Jews who had looked for Christ's appearing, and (2) 'the prison' was the Old Testament law.
Polkinghorne points out one glaring contradiction in this interpretation, namely, that the Flood came before the law had even been given to the Israelites. I am not aware of any modern scholars ascribing to Calvin's view.
View 8
Goppelt says that “many representatives of the angelological interpretation of the passage assume that though Enoch preached judgment, Christ preached salvation. In the New Testament, however, it is never suggested that Christ redeemed fallen angels. Indeed, Heb. 2:16 comments expressly: 'Surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham.' He also points to the fact that the angels were disobedient long before the days of Noah.
View 8: Verse 19 does not belong in the original text.
Reicke explains this easy way out of the quandary: “Some scholars have found this verse so difficult to explain and so strange in the context that they regard it as an interpolation or a somewhat irrelevant digression.”
Conclusion
“Whether they [whoever 'they' are] heard a message of freedom or of eternal judgment at the occasion mentioned is not stated. In either case they learned the secret of Christ and his suffering which was to lead to his eternal exaltation.” (Reicke)
I am not sure if any definitive conclusion can be made out of the above array of opinions. However, to my own mind, Keener has made an important contribution to the discussion on this quite disputed subject by showing the literary arrangement of ideas presented in I Peter 3:16-4:5. His proposal is given in Figure 1 below:
Symmetrical Structure of I Peter 3:16-4:5
A. Your slanderers will be ashamed (3:16)
B. Suffer though innocent, in God's will (3:17)
C. Christ suffered for the unjust (3:18)
D. He triumphed over hostile spirits (3:19)
E. Noah was saved through water (3:20)
E'. You are saved through baptism (3:21)
D'. Christ triumphed over hostile spirits (3:22)
C'. Christ suffered (4:1a)
B'. Suffer in God's will (4:1b-2)
A'. Your slanderers will be ashamed (4:3-5)
The parallel between verses 19 and 22 demonstrated above would seem to point to View 1 as the intended interpretation for I Peter 3:19.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments