INTRODUCTION
Anyone attempting to plumb the profundity of Paul’s arguments in his epistles to the Romans or Ephesians can certainly empathize with the subtlety of Peter’s sentiment that “there are some things in them that are hard to understand” (II Pet. 3:16b ESV). However, when one comes to certain passages in Peter’s own letters, more specifically that of I Pet. 3:18—22, the student is faced with what one scholar has called “a puzzling passage.”[1] In a more candid spirit others have called it, “notoriously obscure and difficult to interpret,”[2] containing some of the most difficult exegetical problems in the NT.[3] These difficulties have given rise to a long history of divergent interpretations.[4]
The two dominate views of the text
Once known as the “exegetical stepchild” of the canon,[5] I Peter has been, in the last century, the locus of many commentaries, monographs, and journal articles. This resurgence of interest in the Petrine epistles has helped to narrow the diverse interpretations of I Peter 3:18—22 down to two dominate views (among Evangelicals at least), each with their respective nuances and variations. In broad strokes, these divergent perspectives may be generalized as the Augustinian view and the Apostolic view. The former has enjoyed adherence from most exegetes and theologians for the bulk of Church history. For its namesake, the Augustinian view was first proposed, though not really defended, by St. Augustine (Epistolae, 164: c. A.D. 400). Succinctly stated, this view maintains that this “passage refers not to something Christ did between his death and resurrection (or after his resurrection), but to what he did ‘in the spiritual realm’ (or ‘through the Spirit’) at the time of Noah. When Noah was building the ark, Christ ‘in spirit’ was preaching through Noah to the hostile unbelievers around him.”[6]
The Apostolic view, called so because it was the view that was widely known and generally taken for granted in the apostolic age[7] (which is also seeing revival among today’s commentators) will be advocated in what follows. The Apostolic view understands this text to be referring to two contrasting activities of the incarnate Christ, before and after his resurrection (3:18). During his ascension, in his resurrected state, Christ made a proclamation of his victory to “the spirits in prison,” which refer to fallen angels or demons (v. 19), who are now in subjection to the exalted Lord Jesus (v. 22).
Purpose
The following attempt to demonstrate that the Apostolic view is the correct understanding of this difficult passage will be taken in three steps. First, some sense of the historical setting of the author and his audience is necessary to rightly understand the encouragement Peter is trying to communicate through this epistle generally and the passage under consideration specifically. Second, and equally crucial, is the literary context Peter could assume with his readers. Intertestamental and contemporaneous Jewish apocalyptic material help to serve, more or less, as an interpretive/conceptual grid through which Peter’s palpable ambiguity is made clear to the original (and today’s) audience. More importantly, though, is common themes shared in the Pauline letters and Peter’s correlation to Mark’s gospel. This, collectively with the historical setting and literary context, and, when relevant, the occasional rejoinder to the Augustinian view, may make the Apostolic view the most probable understanding of Peter’s original intent. Thus, it will likely be seen that, as Blum asserts, “If this view adopted, the exegesis makes good sense.”[8]
I. THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE EPISTLE
Suffering under Nero, a “fiery ordeal” (I Pet 4:12)
It has become commonplace, says Michaels, to define the life setting of I Peter as one of suffering or persecution.[9] Assuming Petrine authorship, the discernable suffering/persecution theme of I Peter has tended to place it in a time of known persecution in the Roman Empire, specifically under Nero (c. A.D. 64). In deference to Selwyn, Rogers pin points the burning of Rome (c. A.D. 63—64) as that which occasioned the letter.[10]
Strangely, the fire in Rome left the estates of Nero and his friend Tigellinus unscathed. This fact, coupled with Nero’s desire to realize an architecturally renovated Rome, soon made him a primary suspect, even among many of his own senators. “Like any good politician, Nero needed a scapegoat for his ills, and what appeared to be a new religion, understood as a fanatical form of Judaism begun by a crucified teacher three and a half decades before, filled the need perfectly.”[11] Variously attested tradition indicates that Peter died a martyr’s death in Rome during the persecution of Nero (A.D. 64—65).[12]
The nature of the suffering
It would be anachronistic, however, to read Nero’s infamously heinous crimes against Christians (which culminated in his using them as living torches; lighting his garden during parties, casting them to be torn apart by wild beast and gladiators in the games, etc) into the suffering which Peter has in mind in this letter. The persecution in view is the kind not carried out with fire or sword but with words—words of ridicule, slander and sometimes formal accusations of crimes against society (see I Pet 2:12; 3:13—17; 4:14—16).[13]
The historical context in which the letter was written elucidates Peter’s concluding remarks in the passage on end time ethics and Christ-following-suffering in 4:7—19. The suffering of Peter’s audience, rather than surprising, was to be an expectation in light of their identification with the exemplar, the suffering Messiah, Jesus.[14] Although suffering is certainly central in the letter, it is, at climactic junctures, eclipsed by the theme of vindication and triumph, ultimately that of the suffering Messiah (the impetus of 3:18—22), and by virtue of their covenantal commitment (expressed by way of metonymy in 3:21: “Baptism...through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”) to the vindicated Lord, Christians too “share” not only “in the sufferings of the Messiah” (4:13), but also in his vindication and eschatological “glory,” both already (v. 14) and not yet (v.13).[15]
Peter’s interpretation of suffering as a Christian
The historical setting of the incipient movements in the Neroian persecution, the result of the fire in Rome, becomes the most likely backcloth for understanding Peter’s concept of Christian suffering in this letter. Although a general or circular letter, I Peter was “influenced more by the situation in Rome that by the current situation in Asia Minor.”[16] Rome being the hub of not only Asia Minor, but also the known world, Peter was able to project from the current circumstances being experienced there into the residencies of his pilgrim audience, whose growing experience of suffering and persecution, though largely verbal at this time, became evidence of the advent of the Messianic age-to-come, which was inaugurated in the Christ event. Due to their identification with and faithfulness to the Messiah, Christians are guaranteed participation in his suffering—in the “fleshly realm,” this present age (3:18c; 4:1a—2, 6a)—but are also promised to share in his glorious life of resurrection and vindication, both now and future.[17]
The historical setting, the suffering/vindication motif, and 3:18--22
The historical setting of the letter is significantly helpful in illuminating the suffering/vindication motif in I Peter. The historical setting makes the focus of I Pet 3:18—22, which is on Jesus’ vindication by God and his lordship over all, extremely relevant.[18] It likewise makes Peter’s reason for its inclusion relevant as well; for Peter’s apparent intent in vv. 19—22 is to answer the question: What did Jesus’ vindication by God entail, and what did it accomplish for believers in a historical context of suffering as a Christian?[19] Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation over all things is the Christian’s hope; their inheritance in that is what allows them to “take their stand” (5:12) in the face of the manifold expressions of socio-spiritual hostility. Since God has already given the same glory to Jesus that the Christians are waiting for in the end (I Pet 1:11; 4:13; 5:1, 4, 10), they can be confident, even in the midst of persecution for Christ’s name, that their hope is not misplaced.[20] For Christ’s own vindication is the ground for their hope that their full and final vindication is nothing less than reality, yet realized!
II. JEWISH LITERARY ASSUMPTIONS OF I PETER & THE PRIMATIVE CHURCH
Transparently, the issue that causes the greatest amount of disagreement among scholars is how we are to interpret I Pet 3:19, “in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison” (ESV). Despite the hermeneutical morass that has grown up around this clause, “Peter’s purpose clearly was to encourage his afflicted readers and obviously he expected his words to be understood.”[21] Consequently, the view which can most readily account for the identity and location of the “spirits” is probably correct; that is, the one that can offer an explanation to this clause most congruent with the religio-literary background and assumptions of Peter and the early church will appear to be the most persuasive.
Jewish apocrypha and apocalyptic literature
“There is agreement of virtually all sides that Jewish traditions about Enoch (occasioned by Gen 5:24), especially I Enoch, have influenced Peter’s thought (and possibly his language) at this point.”[22] W.J. Dalton and P.J. Achtemeier are pioneers in reflecting on the influence Jewish apocalypticism had on I Peter.[23] Dalton, in fact, is convinced that “This tradition of I Enoch is what we would expect from I Peter, dependant as it was on the primitive Jewish-Christian teaching of the Church at Jerusalem.”[24] L.J. Kreitzer also agrees that strong parallels and echoes of the highly developed angelology of the pseudopigraphal/apocalyptic writings are found throughout the NT—more particularly, the punishment of wicked angels (or “unclean spirits”) and I Pet 3:19.[25] Moreover, the forcefulness of the supposition that I Enoch was widely known in the early church is made stronger by the fact that it is cited explicitly, without preface or qualifications, in Jude 14—15 (and most likely alluded to in II Pet 2:4 and Jude 6). If these consensual conclusions are correct, then how do I Enoch and other writings influence our understanding of I Pet 3:19? In two ways: it informs (1) the spirits’ identity and (2) their location.
The identity and location of “spirits” in I Enoch and other Jewish apocrypha
1. The spirits’ identity. I Enoch designates the “sons of God” of Gen 6:1—4 not as “spirits” but as either fallen “angels” (6:2; cf. II Pet 2:4; Jude 6) or equivocally as “watchers” (12:2, 4). According to Michaels the closest parallel to the “spirits” of I Pet 3:19 in I Enoch is 15:8—10, which reads:
“But now the giants who are born from (the union of) spirits and flesh shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, because their dwelling shall be upon the earth and inside the earth. Evil spirits have come out of their bodies...They will become evil upon the earth and shall be called evil spirits. The dwelling of the spiritual beings of heaven is heaven, but the dwelling of the spirits of the earth, which are born upon the earth, is in the earth.”[26]
Michaels, after admitting the ambiguity of the original text and meaning of this passage, is still confident in his conclusion that the apparent aim of the passage is to identify certain known demonic powers (or “unclean spirits”) as the indirect offspring of the ancient illicit union between originally holy and “spiritual” angels (cf. 15:4, 6, 7), and women of the generation before the flood. “That union” states Michaels, “produced ‘giants’ (cf. Gen 6:4 LXX), and from these giants came the ‘evil spirits’ or demons.”[27]
John Skilton’s lengthy reminder of Peter’s particular and unique position as a Holy Spirit inspired writer is well taken. Peter, as an apostle, commissioned by Christ and inspired by the Spirit, “is not likely to succumb to the fancies of uninspired men.” Nevertheless, Skilton adds that “this would not prevent his making some use of their writings when appropriate, but it would preclude his endorsing as true any erroneous elements that they contained.”[28] But because neither the identity nor the location of the spirits in Jewish apocalypses (see below) are directly contradicted by anything in the flood account of Gen 6[29] or the rest of Scripture, rather, the contrary, there is little reason to conclude these Enochian insights (in the general sense) are “erroneous” or to reject the strong evidence that I Peter and the early church assumed their influence in some measure.
Finally, when the author(s) of I Enoch use the plural, “spirits” (πνευμασιν) for the souls of deceased persons the term always either includes a qualifying genitive (e.g., 22:3, 9, 12—13; as does Scripture)[30] or is placed in close correspondence to phrases that so qualify them as humans (e.g., 22:6, 13).[31] In I Peter then, notice that he says “the spirits...who in the past were disobedient” rather than “the spirits of those who were in the past disobedient.” Moreover, Scripture nowhere states that the souls, not to mention the “spirits,” of dead men are kept in prison.[32] There is then no exegetical warrant for understanding the “spirits” to be the spirits of now deceased people (i.e., the Augustinian view) and conversely, there appears to be strong warrant for their being identified with supernatural beings, probably the “unclean spirits” described in the NT.
Therefore, Peter probably identified the designated “evil spirits” of I Enoch with the “unclean spirits” or demons of the Gospel traditions. For the terms “spirit” (πνευμα) and its plural form, “spirits” (πνευμασιν) find generous usage in the NT, whether absolute or qualified, especially in the gospels and Acts.[33] Thus, “If the authors of I Enoch saw the ‘evil spirits’ of their day as offspring of the angelic ‘watchers,’ there is no reason why Peter may not have viewed the ‘unclean spirits’ of his own Christian tradition in a similar light.”[34]
2. The location of the spirits. Regarding the location of these “spirits,” many Jewish sources located them in the second heaven, “thus on the way between earth and heaven where God dwells.”[35] Again the works of Dalton and Achtemeier are good recourse for support of this notion. Their case that Jesus’ “proclamation to the spirits in prison” occurred post-resurrection; during his accent to the Father and thus taking place in a spatial location between heaven and earth is supported by a battery of passages in Jewish apocrypha which place the fallen angels and/or spirits somewhere in the heavens. For instance, it is alleged that Enoch is taken “to the second heaven” where he sees “a darkness greater than earthly darkness” where there are “prisoners under guard” (2 Enoch 7:1—3, emphasis added. Also see e.g., I Enoch 12:4—6; 13:3; 14:3—6; 16:3; II Enoch 18:3—6; Testament of Levi 3:2).[36]
There was, therefore, the postulate within contemporary Jewish angelology that the “spirits” or demons, which resulted from illicit unions between the “sons of God” (i.e., fallen angels) and the “daughters of men,” prior to the flood, were located somewhere between the earth and the highest Heaven, God’s dwelling place. Some rabbis designated this “prison” more specifically in the “second heaven” (for the Jews calculated seven heavens).[37] In broad terms, these notions were, so to speak, the very ambience that Peter was writing from and into. This background is also testified to in the writings of Paul and Mark.
III. INFORMATIVE NEW TESTAMENT INFLUENCES
As mentioned in the introduction, II Pet 3:1—16 reveals that Peter was very well aware of and familiar with the letters of Paul. Commentators have, in fact, identified a number of parallels between the Pauline corpus and I Peter.[38] Therefore, it is worth looking to Paul’s work for similar strains of thought that could possibly corroborate with Jewish apocalyptic and the Apostolic view of I Pet 3:18—22. Similarly, Mark’s gospel, being the redaction of Peter’s preaching and tradition, may likewise bear witness to the Apostolic view of the Petrine passage.
Christ’s victory, the identity and location of the “spirits” in the Pauline letters
In the letter to the Ephesians, underlying the practical theology of Paul, there is a hugely important thematic center—Christus Victor. This theme is well summarized by Clinton Arnold. He states:
“Ephesians is often described as presenting a ‘cosmic Christology.’ This stems from Paul’s stress on the exaltation of Christ over all his enemies, especially the principalities and powers (1:22—23) and Christ’s role in bringing all of history to completion (1:10). Nevertheless, the letter speaks of the suffering of Christ; it was through his blood that redemption was secured (1:7) and by the cross that reconciliation was achieved.”[39]
According to Arnold, Ephesians is imbued with three emphases paralleled in I Peter 3: the Messiah’s 1) suffering/atoning death, 2) resurrection/exaltation, and 3) his triumph over “principalities and powers.” It should be added that, after his lengthy doxological introduction (Eph 1:3—14), Paul’s prayer for this church is that God would grant them to know and understand the “hope” of their calling (“hope,” ελπις; Eph 1:18. Also a central term in I Peter, cf. I Pet 1:3, 13, 21; 3:15).
This hope, says Paul, is founded upon nothing less than God’s own “power” (δυναμεως) and his “vast strength” (του κρατους της ισχυος).[40] Paul continues that God’s “power” was demonstrated through the Messiah’s resurrection and exaltation (Eph 1:20). These sequential events resulted in the subjection of “every ruler and authority, power and dominion, and every title given (not only in this age but also in the age to come)” to the Messiah (v. 21; cf. I Pet 3:22). Although the absolute “abolishment” of these spirits domain is still future (see also: I Cor 15:24c—25; cf. Heb 2:8—9), God has, nevertheless, “disarmed” and “triumphed over them” in Christ’s cross-work (Col 2:15).[41]
Paul’s citation of Ps 68:18 in Eph 4:8 (probably from the oral tradition reflected in the Targums),[42] while being a bit opaque, emphasizes that Christ’s victorious ascension, which involved taking “prisoners into captivity,” resulted in the requisite benefits (“gifts”) for his people.[43]
Paul concludes his exposition of the programmatic statement about God’s “power” and “vast strength” in 6:10—20. The “power” and “vast strength” of God, revealed in Christ’s victory, becomes the very resource for “strengthening” believers in their participation with Jesus and his triumph over the “spiritual forces of evil in the heavens” (6:12, emphasis added). Therefore, the two-age, inaugurated eschatology present here (“this age...the age to come” 1:21b), as in I Peter, means that Christ’s decisive victory over evil spiritual forces, which malign humanity, through his death, resurrection, ascension, and exaltation, has powerful implications for his people—that their own victory and vindication is also now accomplished, in principle.
So, while Paul’s vocabulary for demonic forces is more extensive and his argument for the believers’ benefits of Christ’s victory over them is more dynamic than Peter’s succinct formula in I Pet 3:18—22, the fundamental elements are nevertheless the same. Paul’s categories for the demonic forces (“rulers, authorities...etc.) are prima facie morally neutral, but “no doubt reflect various degrees of angels in the Jewish hierarchy,” thus assuming, in good measure, the Jewish angelology described above.[44] Furthermore, Paul also recognized the Jewish tradition, noted in the pseudopigraphal apocalypses, of a multipartite view of “the heavens” in saying that Christ’s ascension, which involved his dealing with angelic “prisoners” (Eph 4:8), took him finally “far above all the heavens” (v. 10, emphasis added). It is then somewhere “in the heavens” that these evil spiritual forces are located (3:10; 6:12; cf. 2:2).
Therefore, as with the literary assumptions that were available to Peter and his readers in the Jewish apocalypses, there were likewise, in the earlier (that is, earlier than I Peter) writings of Paul, thematic parallels which would provide congruency and corroboration with I Pet 3:18—22; the “spirits’” identity, location, and Christ’s victory over them. If, of course, the Apostolic view is the correct understanding of Peter.
The Markan factor
Peter’s benedictory greeting includes one last literary clue worthy of some investigation. In 5:13, Peter uses the phrase, “Mark, my son” (μαρκος ο υιος μου). Three observations may be made from this remark. First, Peter’s use of “son” (υιος) here should not be taken as a biological statement, but rather as a symbolic metaphor; for e.g., “son” in the faith, a spiritual child. This is most reasonable, for Paul uses “son” (τεκνον; lit. “child”) in regards to Timothy in precisely the same way (see: I Cor 4:17; I Tim 1:2; II Tim 1:2). Second, this is undoubtedly the same Mark mentioned elsewhere in the NT (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:37—39; Philem 24; Col 4:10; II Tim 4:11).[45] And finally, it is most likely that Mark’s gospel was written in Rome, slightly after Peter’s martyrdom; during the Neroian persecution,[46] thus bringing Peter and Mark together in Rome during the mid 60’s. This strong scriptural basis for connecting Peter with Mark, the author of the second gospel, is further supported by independent traditional material.
In the monumental work of Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, there are extant sections from Papias’ important five volume work Interpretation of the Lord’s Sayings (c. A.D. 120/30). Therein Papias, himself a disciple of the apostles, tells of what he heard from an earlier source that he referred to as the “the Elder” (perhaps Peter? I Pet 5:1 or John? II Jn 1; III Jn 1). Papias reports that Mark was a “follower” (ακολουθον) of Peter (Hist. Eccl. 2.15.1),[47] which comports with prior inferences from Scripture. Papias also adds: “And this is what the Elder said, ‘Mark, who became Peter’s interpreter, accurately wrote, though not in order, as many of the things said and done by the Lord as he had noted” (3.39.15). These remarks were later affirmed in the works of others, for e.g., Irenaeus of Lyons (c. A.D. 180; Haer. 3.1.1).[48] These evidences, from both Scripture and tradition, drawing an intimate connection between Peter and Mark, have lead many NT critics to the highly probable conclusion that Mark’s gospel is a redaction of the tradition he received as a disciple of Peter’s preaching and teaching.[49] If this conclusion is right, then Michaels is also correct to assert that we could “think of I Peter as a sort of companion piece to Mark.”[50] Which means Mark too could contain informative instances of parallel theme that would further illuminate a correct view of I Pet 3:18—22.
Mark’s emphases: discipleship and demons
Mark is more than a book about Jesus. It is also a book about being a disciple of Jesus. For Mark, discipleship was following Jesus in suffering and mission.[51] If the foregoing legitimately draws Mark and Peter together, not only geographically, temporally, and relationally, but more importantly here, literarily, it is not surprising that these comments about Mark’s gospel could be an equally accurate assessment of the theme of Peter’s first epistle. Michaels, in fact, notes that “Peter’s favorite metaphor for this process (i.e., discipleship) is that of a journey, or ‘following in Jesus’ footsteps’ (I Pet 2:21). This is the metaphor of the Gospel writers, above all Mark (see: Mk 1:16—20; 8:34), and presumably Jesus himself.”[52] For Peter, this is a practical description of the Christian’s calling (I Pet 2:21a), so also for Mark (Mk 2:14; 8:34; 10:21).
Not only is “following Jesus in suffering” an accurate description of discipleship in both writers, but also following Jesus “in mission.” For sake of argument, if the Apostolic view of I Pet 3:18—22 may be assumed, there is also a strong allusive connection between I Pet 3:18—22 and Mark’s account of the commissioning of the twelve (Mk 3:14—15; 6:12—13). Following Jesus in “mission” is explicitly characterized by “proclamation” (κηρυσσων, 3:14; 6:12, cf. I Pet 3:19) and victory over demons (Mk 3:15; 6:13, cf. I Pet 3:22).
In Mark, Jesus summarizes the purpose (i.e., “so that,” ινα) of his mission, that is his “coming forth” from God,[53] as being one characterized by “proclamation” (Mk 1:38). Epexegetically, in addition to “proclamation,” Mark includes “driving out demons” (v. 39). There is an evident parallel between Mark and Peter from this univocal concept of discipleship. Even more overt, however, is their shared vision of Jesus’ ministry being one decisively marked by his victory over evil spirits.
In his groundbreaking work, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark, Rikki Watts is sure to draw attention to “Mark’s constant and emphatic portrayal of Jesus as the one who has defeated the demonic (3:22—27; cf. 1:21—28; 5:1—20; 7:24—30; 9:14—29; also 3:15; 6:7—13; and 1:34, 39; 3:10f).”[54] Furthermore, Watts observes: “Jesus’ casting out of demons and unclean spirits is mentioned more than any other single type of miracle or healing in individual accounts...The commissioning of the twelve (3:15; 6:7—13) and the summary statements (1:34, 39; 3:10f) similarly reflect an emphasis on the exorcisms. This emphasis is even more significant when considering the concerns of the Markan prologue, one of the implications of which is the inauguration of eschatological conflict between Yahweh and Jacob-Israel’s oppressors.”[55]
For Mark and Peter, then, the disciple of Jesus is one who follows Jesus in the journey to heaven. Marked by the suffering and bloody “footsteps” of the One who went before them, this journey to heaven begins now—in this age—not at death. For both writers, there is also no room in discipleship for being so other-worldly that one forgets the mission to which he is also called. The mission of the disciple is the same as that of Christ, “a proclamation.” The content of this proclamation is the good news of the Messiah’s victory and Lordship over all, including the “spirits” back of much of the suffering and persecution Peter’s readers are experiencing.
Concluding summary of sections II & III and a quick rejoinder
Sections II and III began by recognizing that the dividing line regarding the meaning I Pet 3:18—22 is the question of how v. 19 should be interpreted; who are the spirits and what is their location. Following closely after this was Hiebert’s painfully simple observation that Peter “obviously...expected his words to be understood.”[56] This being the case, it is clear that the later readers of I Peter, subsequent to the original audience, have lacked certain ideological axioms for a lucid perception of the text. Therefore, a sort of inductive process to reconstruct the historio-literary assumptions that Peter could faithfully employ was proposed to be a possible solution.
The forgoing advancement of this process has presented a strong cumulative case for the Apostolic view. It has been seen that the early church was steeped in traditional Jewish angelology, particularly that represented by I Enoch. Arguably, the “spirits” of I Enoch were seen equivocally with the “unclean spirits/demons” of the NT.[57] Furthermore, many Jewish writings determine the location of the spirits as being in some quarter of the second heaven, between earth and God’s dwelling. None of the above observations conflict with neither the canonical writings nor Christian orthodoxy, and therefore may become an acceptable interpretive grid for I Pet 3:18—22.
Further inferences from Paul’s Christological/eschatological arguments in Ephesians and elsewhere seem to draw the relevant points of Jewish angelology from the sphere of being merely acceptable to that of being authoritative and binding. Noticeable in Paul’s letters is the more dynamically expressed, yet essentially identical, tripartite motif of the Messiah’s salvific work: 1) suffering/atoning death, 2) resurrection/exaltation, and 3) his triumph over evil forces. Hence, there is a connection, in the Pauline corpus, between the angelology necessary for the Apostolic view of Peter’s text and the traditional kerygmatic framework, which is explicit in both Paul and Peter.
Lastly, Mark, with his particular attachment to Peter and his tradition, provides further corroboration for the present thesis. It appears certain that Mark is the redaction of Peter’s preaching, and I Peter its counter piece—an account of the continuance of Jesus’ ministry represented in Mark, from the post-resurrection perspective. Peter and Mark also share a vision of Christian discipleship that is markedly one of following the suffering Messiah to heaven and ultimate vindication and victory. This elucidates Peter’s means of Jesus’ ministry, being characterized by his triumph over evil spirits, as the source of his readers encouragement in the face of their present suffering for “the name of Christ,” “as a Christian” (I Pet 4:14, 16) and sharing in Jesus’ mission of “proclamation.”
Therefore, for its namesake, given the multiply attested literary assumptions available to Peter and his audience, the Apostolic view of I Pet 3:18—22 has been demonstrated to be the most likely answer to the brevity and superficial ambiguity of the text. For if the spirits are demonic powers in the heavens, to which Christ made a proclamation of victory to during his ascension to the right hand of the Father, then the Augustinian view is incorrect.
Nevertheless, it is fair to hear some objections the Apostolic view from one of the Augustinian view’s top gunners, Wayne Grudem. Grudem charges that:
“Peter’s readers would have to go through an incredibly complicated reasoning process to draw this conclusion when Peter does not explicitly teach it. They would have to reason from (1) some demons who sinned long ago were condemned, to (2) other demons are now inciting your human persecutors, to (3) those demons will likewise be condemned someday, to (4) therefore your persecutors will finally be judged as well. Finally Peter’s readers would get to Peter’s point: (5) Therefore don’t fear your persecutors. Those who hold this ‘preaching to fallen angels’ view must assume that Peter’s readers would ‘read between the lines’ and conclude all this (points 2—5) from the simple statement that Christ ‘preached to the spirits in prison, who formally did not obey.’ But does it not seem to far fetched to say that Peter knew his readers would read all this into the text?”
From this line of reason, Grudem concludes then that the view of this thesis (in general terms) is not really persuasive.[58] But if the conclusions from sections II and III are correct, then Grudem’s objection is transparently a straw man argument. If the literary suppositions observed above can provide a coherent framework for the modern reader to interpret this text, then how much more appropriate for those situated in the historical context of that framework?
ENDNOTES
[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Intervarsity Press. 1994) 592.
[2] D. Edmond Hiebert, “The Suffering and Triumphant Christ: An Exposition of I Peter 3:18—22” in Bibliotheca Sacra 139 (1982), pp. 146—158. 146. Also, D.H. Johnson, “Flesh” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, Ralph P. Martin, Peter H. Davids, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. 1997). 376.
[3] Edwin A. Blum, “I Peter” in, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary—Abridged Edition: vol. II, New Testament, Kenneth L. Barker, John R. Kohlenberger III general editors, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co. 1994). 1053.
[4] For a brief survey of these see: Simon J. Kistemaker, Peter and Jude in the Baker New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book Publishers. 1987). For a more detailed analysis refer to W.J. Dalton’s “Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits in Prison: A Study of I Peter 3:18—4:6” in Analecta Biblica 23, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute (1965).
[5] Michaels, “I Peter” in, DLNTID. 922.
[6] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 591 (emphasis original). Wayne Grudem and John S. Feinberg are perhaps the most deft, modern proponents of the Augustinian view. Their primary works are listed respectively: The First Epistle of Peter in Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1988). Grudem devotes generous space to this passage in an appendix, see pp. 203—39, cf. 157—62. “I Peter 3:18—20, Ancient Mythology, and the Intermediate State” in The Westminster Theological Journal 48, (1986) 303—36.
[7] Hiebert, “The Suffering and Triumphant Christ,” op cit. 152.
[8] Blum, “I Peter” in EBC, 1054.
[9] Michaels, “I Peter” in, DLNTID. 918.
[10] Peter R. Rogers, “1 Peter, book of,” pp. 581—83 in The Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, Kevin Vanhoozer general editor, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academics. 2005). 581.
[11] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, (Downers Grove, Ill: Intervarsity Press. 1993). 706.
[12] James A.Brooks, “Mark,” vol. 23 in The New American Commentary, David S. Dockery general editor, (Nashville: Broadman Press. 1991). Op cit. 28.
[13] Michaels, “I Peter” in, DLNTID. Op cit. 919.
[14] Noteworthy at this point is that Peter set forth Christ’s example of suffering unjustly in exclusively verbal categories: “no deceit was found in His mouth...when reviled He did not revile in return...when suffering, He did not threaten” (I Pet 2:22—23a), which was probably indicative of much of the dispersed Christian’s own circumstances.
[15] For a careful analysis of Peter’s overall argument and message, including five central motifs from which he builds his argument see: James R. Slaughter’s “The Importance of Literary Argument for Understanding I Peter” in Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (January—March 1995), pp. 72—91.
[16] Keener, Background, 707.
[17] Note that in this same passage (4:12—19) Peter sees not only the vindication of Christians in terms of the already—not yet eschatological tension, but believers’ suffering as well. In vv. 17—18 Peter argues a fortiori: i.e., from the lesser (Christian suffering as a “judgment beginning with the household of God”), to the greater (final/eschatological judgment of unbelievers; “the ungodly and the sinner”).
[18] S.H. Travis, “Resurrection,” pp. 1015—20 in DLNTID, 1017.
[19] J. Ramsey Michaels, “I Peter,” vol. 49 in Word Biblical Commentary, David Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker general editors, (Waco, TX: Word Books. 1988). 200.
[20] W. J. Larkin Jr., “Ascension,” pp. 95—102 in DLNTID. Op cit. 100.
[21] Hiebert, “The Suffering and Triumphant Christ,” emphasis added. 150.
[22] Michaels, “I Peter,” WBC. 207.
[23] W. J. Larkin Jr., “Ascension,” pp. 95—102 in DLNTID. 100.
[24] W.J. Dalton, “Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits in Prison: A Study of I Peter 3:18—4:6” in Analecta Biblica 23, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute (1965). 176.
[25] L.J. Kreitzer, “Apocalyptic, Apocalypticism,” pp. 55—68 in DLNTID. 63.
[26] Michaels, “I Peter,” WBC. 207.
[27] Ibid. 207—08.
[28] John H. Skilton, “A Glance at Some Old Problems in First Peter” in Westminster Theological Journal 58 (1996), pp. 1—9. 7.
[29] “Nearly all ancient Jews read Gen 6:1—3 as a reference to the fall of angels in Noah’s day.” Keener, Background. 718.
[30] See for e.g., Heb 12:23 “...to the spirits (πνεύμασι) of righteous people made perfect”.
[31] Michaels, “I Peter,” in WBC. 207.
[32] Simon J. Kistemaker, Peter and Jude in the Baker New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book Publishers. 1987). 142.
[33] For the plural (absolute) see: Mt 8:16; Lk 10:20. For the plural (qualified by “unclean”) see: Mt 10:1; Mk 1:27; 3:11; 5:13; 6:7; Lk 4:36; 6:18; Acts 5:16; (or qualified by “evil”) see: Mt 12:45 // Lk 11:26; Lk 7:21; 8:2; Acts 19:12—13. For the singular see: Mt 12:43 // Lk 11:24; Mk 1:23, 26: 3:30; 5:2, 8; 7:25; 9:17, 20, 25; Lk 8:29; 9:39, 42; 13:11; Acts 16:16, 18; 19:15—16.
[34] Ibid. 208.
[35] Peter Davids, “I Peter,” pp. 707—22 in Hard Sayings of the Bible, Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, Manfred T. Bruce contributors (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. 1996). 715—16.
[36] W. J. Larkin Jr., “Ascension,” pp. 95—102 in DLNTID. 100. For Dalton’s lengthy argument for this see: Christ’s Proclamation, 177—84.
[37] Wood, “Ephesians,” pp. 748—86 in EBC. Op cit. 768.
[38] For a list of the prominent ones see: Kistemaker, “Peter and Jude” in BNTC. 10, n. 17.
[39] Clinton Arnold, “Ephesians, Letter to the,” pp. 238—49 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Hawthorn, Gerald F., Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid general editors, (Grand Rapids: Intervarsity Press. 1993. 246.
[40] Eph 1:16—19.
[41] It is noteworthy that the point of Col 2:11—15 and its conclusion in 3:1—4 appears to mirror Peter’s in I Pet 3:18—22: Baptism identifies believers with the once dead, now risen Lord; who triumphed over evil spirits, and assures their ultimate victory.
[42] Wood, “Ephesians,” pp. 748—86 in EBC. 768.
[43] For a careful analysis of Paul’s use of Ps 68 in this context and its continuity with the psalmist’s meaning see: Frank S. Thielman, “Ephesians,” pp. 813—33 in Commentary on the New Testaments Use of the Old Testaments, G.K. Beale, D.A. Carson editors (Grand Rapids: Barker Academic. 2007). 819—25.
[44] Wood, “Ephesians,” pp. 748—86 in EBC. 755.
[45] Michaels, “I Peter” in WBC, 312. Kistemaker, “Peter and Jude” in BNTC, 209.
[46] Brooks, “Mark” in NAC, 27—30. (Also compare Mk 15:21 with Rom 16:13).
[47] Michaels, “I Peter” in WBC, 312.
[48] R.A. Guelich, “Mark, Gospel of,” pp. 512—25 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall editors, (Grand Rapids: Intervarsity Press. 1992). 514.
[49] Wessel, “Mark,” pp. 136—205 in EBC, 137. For a fascinating discussion on the evangelistic purpose behind Mark’s “pericopae” redaction see: Michael Green’s Evangelism in the Early Church, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). 2003. 97f.
[50] Michaels, “I Peter” in DLNTID, 922.
[51] Brooks, “Mark” in NAC, 30. Op cit. (emphasis added).
[52] Michaels, “I Peter” in DLNTID, 921 (emphasis added).
[53] The phrase: lit. “for this [purpose] I have came out” could refer to (1) his leaving Capernaum, (2) going into all Galilee, or (3) having come from God. From the parallel in Lk 4:43 Brooks urges the third option; “from God.” The meaning also pertains to 1:24. Brooks, “Mark,” NAC, 54.
[54] Rikki E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. 1997). 308. (Also see: pp. 152—60, 163—64, 166—69).
[55] Ibid. 156.
[56] See n. 21.
[57] A careful reading of the argument hitherto will reveal that the distinction between the “sons of God” and the “Giants” or spirits/demons, which came from their union with mortal women could, if pressed, create problems for the soundness of the conclusions. The distinction is subtle, but I believe a reasonable one. For if the Apostolic view is found to be true it seems that Peter and Jude do make just such a distinction. J.R. Michaels’ “domestication” or “taming” theory of the “spirits in prison” is perhaps one highly plausible solution to this dilemma, but well beyond the scope of this paper. Therefore, an appendix to this point, including Michaels’ own argument for the theory, will be included. See Appendix I, p.
[58] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 590.
No comments:
Post a Comment