The View of the Message

GG Fall, 2014--#12 1 Peter 3:18-22 The View of the Message: This section is considered one of the most difficult, if not the most difficult passage to interpret in the entire NT. We are going to approach it in two separate ways. Whatever the details of the passage, it is quite certain that Peter meant for it to encourage and to exhort his listeners in their pursuit of following Jesus in the face of persecution. So, this front page is (as titled) the attempt to hear, through the details, the message Peter was trying to convey—we cant miss that. On the backside of the page are some of the views that have been proposed regarding all the details—those we can argue about. First off, the context of this passage does not waver from what goes before to what follows after. 2:17 is about suffering for doing God’s will and 4:1-2 is an exhortation (note the “therefore”) to follow Jesus’ example and resolve to suffer in the flesh to finish with sin and do God’s will. Our passage, then, provides the examples that Peter is going to draw off of to illustrate his point. In light of that, we can then note that this section provides examples of that pattern of suffering leading to God’s will. Christ’s suffering begins the passage, and his ascension to power ends it. In the middle, we find Jesus being put to death in the flesh (suffering), but made alive in the Spirit (encouraging). We see him going to proclaim to past, disobedient imprisoned spirits (bad) but their disobedience was while God was exercising his patience with their disobedience (encouraging). Then Peter uses typology to say that the water of the flood was both a judgment (bad) and a salvation (encouragement) and so it is today also. But, he quickly adds, the “through water” of v. 20 corresponds to the “through the resurrection” of v. 21. Getting wet doesn’t do the trick, it’s the identifying with the suffering of Christ’s judgment that allows us to experience his salvation. Both images are of life coming out of the water of death, and that for God’s people. The word “disobey” is significant in this section. Peter uses that word elsewhere in the book to discuss the people who are opposing his readers. He speaks in 2: 7-8 of those disobedient to the message and how they are destined for that. Peter speaks in 3:1 of husbands who disobey the Christian message and of those who disobey the gospel (4:17). The disobedient spirits of 3:19, then, whomever they may have been originally, appear to stand in for the disobedient ones to whom Peter’s readers are called to be subject to and yet proclaim the gospel to, all in the face of suffering of troublesome times (like Noah’s) while God still exercises patience. Likewise, there is some instruction to be taken from the final statement in this section, namely that all things are subject to Christ. The word “subject”, we noted before, plays a pivotal role in the letter so far. This is the word Peter uses to describe how his readers are to act in relation to those over them. So, in 2:13, they are to submit, or be subject, to the human authorities. In 2:18, slaves are called to submit to their masters and in 3:1, wives are to submit to their husbands. The outcome of all this, Peter says, will be that Christ will ascend over all and all will submit or be subject to him. The end game is that Christ is over all and the tables will be turned from how they appear now. The exhortation to be taken from this difficult passage flows right along with what Peter has been saying in his letter. Just as Christ’s message was proclaimed long ago to disobedient hearers who were destined for imprisonment, so that same message is proclaimed in Peter’s time to those destined for that same punishment. Just as the Spirit spoke through the prophets and through Christ at Noah’s time (whatever that means) so he speaks the same then and now (cf. 1:10-12). And just as God was patient with the disobedient while concurrently preparing the vehicle for both judgment and salvation, so is his patience, judgment, and salvation the same in Peter’s time and to ours. Therefore, suffering in the flesh in imitation of Christ will lead the same place it did with Christ—with Jesus over all, just as God wills it, and him bringing us to God (v.18). GG Fall, 2014--#12 1 Peter 3:18-22 The View of the Details: The exegetical questions in this section are manifold. The grammar is difficult, there are very difficult words to define and translate (such as “pledge” or “appeal” in v. 21), there are questions of antecedent (what is the “this” in v. 21’s “Baptism, which corresponds to this”) and there is the difficult parallel of “being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.” And there’s more. All that to say that the full unpacking of this passage isn’t going to happen on a single page. The main questions that have been addressed to the passage over the centuries are rather simple. They are: “Where did Christ go?” “When did he go there?” “To whom did he speak?” “What did he say to them?” Below are the three main answers given to those questions. 1) The “harrowing of hell” answer. This view came from the church fathers Clement and Origen and suggested that during the time between Jesus’ crucifixion and his resurrection he descended into hell and preached to those there who had died during the time of Noah. Their view did not come primarily from exegesis but rather from the theological questions of how OT saints could be redeemed as well as the question of where Jesus went when he died. Some following this interpretation felt that Jesus was preaching to the righteous dead (of the OT) and leading them out while others thought him to be pronouncing final doom to the wicked. Interestingly, our friends at Matthias Media, who have played such a role in CTR’s life, appear to take a variation of this view that has Christ proclaiming the “release and restoration promised by the prophets.” Importantly, however, some teachers early on (not Matthias Media folk) used this text to teach a “second- chance” doctrine of an offer of salvation to those who had died unrepentant. 2) Augustine was one who did not like the implications of a “second-chance” understanding of the passage and so he proposed a different interpretation. His was also not so much driven by his exegesis (although it was enough to stand the test of time!) but by the theological questions at hand. Augustine proposed that the Spirit of Christ was in Noah as he preached to the people of his time. In 2 Peter 2: 5, Peter says that Noah was a preacher of righteousness. The people of Noah’s time might be said to be bound or imprisoned in their sin at the time, or, it could be said that those people are now bound in prison. 3) The third view posits that Jesus went and preached to fallen angels who were imprisoned. This may have been before his resurrection or after, as he ascended which v. 22 discusses. These fallen angels are the ones from Noah’s time, no doubt those mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4. Jesus would have pronounced his victory and thus, their doom. Karen Jobes goes to great lengths to argue that Peter is referring to the Noah tradition out of the Jewish intertestamental book 1 Enoch. That book discusses “the Watchers” who were no doubt based on the strange beings of Genesis 6. Enoch definitely views them as fallen angels. Apparently, the Noah story and tradition built up around the story was very strong in the northern part of Asia Minor that Peter was writing to. There are even several instances where coins in the area were minted with images of Noah and his wife on them. Jobes surmises that Peter’s reflections would have resonated in some way with the people to whom Peter was writing. Each of these views obviously has something going for it and each has its detractions. Although it is fun to discuss, care should be taken not to become a champion for one view and assume an answer has been reached. This is especially so if the book of Enoch plays as significant a role as many modern commentators think. If it does, much of what Peter was alluding to must be unpacked by further historical study of the area and times. As far as exegesis, it appears the above three options describe the status quo regardless of which century’s interpretations one might investigate! GG Fall, 2014--#12 1 Peter 3:18-22 Investigate: 1. Compare 2:17 with 4:1-2. How does the topic of suffering because of God’s will help illuminate this difficult passage?

2. The central truth of the passage is v. 18. What did Jesus achieve through his sufferings?

Ponder: 1. Compare the following references in 1 Peter for disobedient people: 2: 7-8; 3:1; 3:20; 4:17. How might these disobedient spirits in 3:20 relate to these others disobedient people?

2. Peter is using the flood’s waters as a type of Christian baptism. How would this image provide encouragement to his readers? How might it provide encouragement to us?

Apply: 1. What are some situations in modern Spokane life where doing good might lead to suffering? Are you experiencing any?

2. If not, how can these verses still be of service to help strengthen your Christian walk? Note on “pledge, appeal” in 3: 21: The word only appears here in the NT, which is why there are discussions in nailing down its meaning. However, there are several occurrences in other Greek papyri that help define the meaning. If one does not consult the papyri meanings, then the meaning would probably lean towards “appeal” because the word in v. 21 is a cognate with another word with the meaning of “ask, request.” The intent of v. 21 would then sound something like baptism being the event where the Christian asks God for a good conscience and cleansing from sin. If one does consult the papyri, the meaning would probably lean toward the “pledge” translation where the Christian is pledging to live with a good conscience (through resurrection power). This seems to fit the context of maintaining during suffering as well as the larger context of the letter where Peter discusses a “living hope” due to the resurrection (1:3) or our faith and hope being due to the resurrection (1:21). Plus, I think one should go with an established use of a word in the absence of NT evidence. Clowney adds a third option: the Christian makes an appeal out of a good conscience.

“Conscience” in Greek has a broader range of meaning than for English speakers. For us, the word can be summed up as “Jimminy Cricket.” In Greek, however, it also has connotations of an extended awareness of how things should be (in terms still of right and wrong). Thus, we would interpret the word introspectively to mean we are appealing or pledging about our inner guilty feelings whereas Peter seems to be communicating that what is occurring is the appeal/pledge of how we ought to live, and pledge to live, in the light of Christ’s resurrection.

Tim Chester’s quote explaining this passage is most helpful: “When Noah was alive, God the Son, through his Spirit, preached to the people alive then through Noah. But the people disobeyed by rejecting Noah and his message—and as a result, their spirits are now imprisoned. In Noah’s day, not many were save (v. 20); those that were, were “saved through water”. Peter says that his readers’ experience is similar to those eight people in Noah’s time (Genesis 7:11-23). The Spirit, who raised Jesus from the dead, has preached about his death to people. Many have rejected Jesus and are persecuting his followers; but these early Christians have listened and been “saved through water”: the water of their baptism (v. 21).”