Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Peter 3:19 - 3:19
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Pe_3:19. With this verse a new paragraph—extending to 1Pe_3:22 inclusive—begins, closely connected by ἐν ᾧ (i.e. πνεύματι ) with what precedes, and in which reference is made to the glory of Him who was quickened according to the Spirit. It may appear singular that in this passage Peter should make mention of those who were unbelieving in the days of Noah, and of baptism as the antitype of the water of the deluge; but this may be explained from the circumstance that he looks on the deluge as a type of the approaching judgment. It must be observed that it is not so much the condemnation of the unbelieving, as the salvation of believers that the apostle has here in his mind.
ἐν ᾧ καὶ κ . τ . λ .] “in which (spirit) He also went and preached unto the spirits in prison (to them), which sometime were unbelieving when,” etc. The close connection of these words with what immediately precedes—by ἐν ᾧ , sc. πνεύματι ,—favours the view that ἐκήρυξε refers to an act of Christ which, as the ζωοποιηθεὶς πνεύματι , He performed after His death, and that with reference to the spirits ἐν φυλακῇ of the unbelievers who had perished in the deluge. This is the view of the oldest Fathers of the Greek and Latin Church; as also of the greater number of later and modern theologians. Augustin, however, opposed it, and considered ἐκήρυξεν as referring to a preaching by Christ ἐν πνεύματι , long before His incarnation, in the days of Noah, to the people of that generation, upon whom the judgment of the deluge came because of their unbelief.[205] This view, after being adopted by several theologians of the Middle Ages, became prevalent in the Reformed Church. In recent times, it has been defended more especially by Schweizer, Wichelhaus, Besser, and Hofmann. The chief arguments which those who maintain it advance in opposition to that first mentioned, are the following:—(1) The idea that Christ preached to the spirits ἐν φυλακῇ would be an isolated one occurring nowhere else in Scripture; and, further, preaching such as this, if conceived as judicial, would have been entirely useless, whilst, looked on as a proclamation of salvation, it would stand in contradiction to the uniform teaching of Scripture regarding the state of man after death. To this, however, it must be replied, that isolated ideas are to be found expressed here and there in Scripture, and that the reconciliation of the idea of a salvation offered to the spirits ἐν φυλακῇ with the other doctrines of Scripture, can at most be termed a problem difficult of solution; nor must it be forgotten that the eschatological doctrines comprehend within them very many problems. (2) This view does not correspond with the tendency of the entire passage from 1Pe_3:17 to 1Pe_3:22, and therefore does not fit into the train of thought. But this assertion is to the point only if those who make it have themselves correctly understood the tendency of the passage, which in this instance they have not done. (3) It cannot be understood how Peter comes so suddenly to speak of the spirits in prison. But, in reply, it may be urged, with at least equal justification, that it is not easy to understand how Peter comes so suddenly to speak of an act of Christ before His incarnation. (4) The want of the article before ἀπειθήσασι compels us to translate this participle not: “which sometime were unbelieving,” but: “when they sometime were unbelieving.” This, however, is not the case, since the participle, added with adjectival force to a substantive, is often enough joined to the latter without an article. If Peter had put the words πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξε , before τοῖς … πνεύμασι , no difficulty would have presented itself in the translation under dispute (“the sometime unbelieving spirits in prison”). The translation to which preference is given is grammatically untenable.[206]
Finally, appeal has been made to the fact that καί is placed after ἐν ᾧ , indeed even to ἐν ᾧ itself; but a correct explanation offers no justification for so doing. Besides the close connection of the relative clause with that immediately preceding, the following points favour the interpretation attacked:—(1) The correspondence of the πνεύματι to be supplied to ἐν ᾧ with the subsequent πνεύμασιν ; (2) πορευθείς , which must be taken in the same sense as the πορευθείς in 1Pe_3:22; (3) The fact that ποτέ does not stand with ἐκήρυξε , but in 1Pe_3:20 with ἀπειθήσασιν , which shows that the ἀπειθεῖν took place previous to the κηρύσσειν ; and, lastly, (4) The circumstance that had Peter closed his sentence with ἐκήρυξεν , it could have occurred to no one that Peter was here speaking of a preaching of Christ which took place in a time long gone by.
ἐν ᾧ ] is not equivalent to διό ( αἰτιολογικῶς with reference to ἔπαθε , Theophylact); but whilst ᾧ refers back to πνεύματι , ἐν ᾧ states in what condition Christ accomplished that which is mentioned in what follows,
He accomplished it not ἐν σαρκί (for after the σάρξ He was put to death), but ἐν πνεύματι (for after the πνεῦμα He was made alive). ἐν stands here in a position similar to that which it holds in Rom_8:8, where, however, σάρξ and πνεῦμα form an ethical antithesis, which here is not the case. Hofmann wrongly attributes to ἐν here an “instrumental force” equivalent to “by means of;” he is induced to do solely by his explanation of the πνεύματι to be supplied. Although it is evident that πνεύματι here must be taken in no sense different from that of the foregoing πνεύματι , Hofmann nevertheless holds it to be identical with the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ mentioned in chap. 1Pe_1:11, while he himself says that the πνεύματι subjoined to ζωοποιηθείς cannot be understood of the Holy Ghost.[207]
Peter says, then, that Christ, in the Spirit according to which He was made alive, preached to the spirits ἘΝ ΦΥΛΑΚῇ , which cannot be understood to mean anything else than that He did it as a ΠΝΕῦΜΑ (in His pneumatical condition). Fronmüller erroneously interprets: “in the existence-form of a spirit separated from the body;” for the quickened Christ lives not as a simple spirit, but is in possession of a glorified spiritual body.
ΚΑῚ ΤΟῖς ἘΝ ΦΥΛΑΚῇ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΣΙ ΠΟΡΕΥΘΕῚς ἘΚΉΡΥΞΕΝ ] By ΤᾺ … ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΑ are to be understood, neither angels (Heb_1:14[208]) nor “men living upon the earth” (as Wichelhaus explains), but the souls of men already dead, as in Heb_12:23, which in Rev_6:9; Rev_20:4, Wis_3:1, are called ψυχαί . ἐν φυλακῇ designates not only the place, but denotes also the condition in which the πνεύματα are. Hofmann wrongly—because in opposition to the uniform usage in the N. T.—denies all local reference to the expression, and would therefore translate ἐν φυλακῇ by “in durance.” The meaning is, that the πνεύματα were in prison as prisoners.[209] The expression occurs in the N. T. with the article and without it, and its more precise force here is clear from the passages: Rev_20:7; 2Pe_2:4; Jud_1:6. It does not denote generally the kingdom of the dead (Lactant. Inst. I. 7, c. 21: omnes [animae] in una communique custodia detinentur), but that part of it, which serves as abode for the souls of the ungodly until the day of judgment.[210] The dative depends, indeed, on ἘΚΉΡΥΞΕΝ , not on ΠΟΡΕΥΘΕΊς ; but the addition of the latter word gives prominence to the fact that Christ went to those spirits, and preached to them in that place where they were. Hofmann is not altogether wrong when, in support of his own view of the passage, he says: “the operation of the spirit of Christ, by which Noah was made the organ of His proclamation, might be termed a ‘going and preaching’ on the part of Christ” (comp. especially the passage, Eph_2:17 : ἘΛΘῺΝ ΕὐΗΓΓΕΛΊΣΑΤΟ ; see Meyer in loc., to which Hofmann might have appealed). But that πορευθείς cannot be so taken here is shown by the ΠΟΡΕΥΘΕΊς in 1Pe_3:22, with which it must be identical in sense.[211] ἐκήρυξε is the same verb as that so often used in the N. T. of the preaching (not the teaching) of Christ and His apostles. Usually it is accompanied by an object ( τὸ εὐαγγέλιον , τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ , Χριστόν , or the like); but it is frequently, as here, used absolutely, cf. Mat_11:1; Mar_1:38, etc.
It cannot be concluded, with Zezschwitz, from the connection of this relative clause with ζωοποιηθεὶς πνεύματι , that ζωοποίησιν illam spiritualem quasi fundamentum fuisse concionis idemque argumentum; nor does the word itself disclose either the contents or the purpose of that preaching; but since Christ is called the κήρυξας without the addition of any more precise qualification, it must be concluded that the contents and design of this κήρυγμα are in harmony with the κήρυγμα of Christ elsewhere. It is accordingly arbitrary, and in contradiction to Christ’s significance for the work of redemption, to assume that this preaching consisted in the proclamation of the coming judgment (Flacius, Calov., Buddeus, Hollaz, Wolf, Aretius, Zezschwitz, Schott, etc.), and was a praedicatio damnatoria.[212] Wiesinger justly asks: “This concio damnatoria—what does it mean in general, what here especially?”
It is unjustifiable to deny, with some commentators, that the apostle regarded this πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξε as an actual reality.[213]
καί , following ἐν ᾧ , must not be explained, as Schweizer does, in this way, that Peter, wishing to hold up Christ to his readers as a pattern of how they should conduct themselves under suffering, adduces two examples, 1Pe_3:19 ff., His death on the cross, and His preaching; the whole structure of the clauses, as well as their contents, contradicts this. Nor can it be explained, as Hofmann assumes, “from the antithesis between us whom Christ wished to bring to God, and those who as spirits are in durance.” This would hold good only if, in 1Pe_3:18, it were affirmed that Christ did the same to us as to those spirits, that is, preached to us. It is likewise incorrect to take καί as equivalent to “even” (Wiesinger, Fronmüller); for a distinction between these spirits and others is nowhere hinted at. καί is put rather in order to show prominently that what is said in this verse coincides with the ζωοποιηθεὶς πνεύματι of 1Pe_3:18. Zezschwitz: ut notio, quae in enunciatione ἐν ᾧ latet ( ζωοπ . πνεύματι ) urgeatur.
[205] It must be observed, that whilst Hofmann considers the preaching of Christ as having taken place through Noah, Schweizer most decidedly disputes this, and is of the opinion that it was addressed to Noah himself as well as to his contemporaries. In support of this, he very rightly appeals to the fact that Noah is not here—as 2Pe_2:5—termed a κῆρυξ . But he does not say by whom this preaching must be considered to have taken place.
[206] Hofmann, indeed, says that since the expression is not τοῖς ἀπειθήσασι , the translation should not be “those spirits in durance, which sometime were disobedient;” but he grants that, from a grammatical point of view, it remains doubtful “whether ποτέ signifies the past as related to the time of Christ’s preaching, or the past as regards the present of the writer.”
[207] Hofmann says that the accusation made against him, that he effaces the distinction between πνεῦμα as a term used to designate the precise nature of Christ, and πνεῦμα as the third Person in the Trinity, is the result of that confusion of ideas by which “in the Spirit” and “as a Spirit” are understood to mean the same thing. But it must be replied that rather is the identification of two different ideas, contained in his interpretation, the result of the confusion of ideas, leading him as it does to hide the difference by defining πνεῦμα as “the Spirit of Christ’s life.”
[208] Baur (Tüb. theol. Jahrb. 1856, H. 2, p. 215) understands it to mean the ἄγγελοι ἁμαρτήσαντες , 2Pe_2:4, who, according to Gen_6:1 ff., had fallen previous to the deluge. This interpretation is sufficiently contradicted by ver. 20.
[209] The interpretation of Wichelhaus—who by circumlocution explains τὰ ἐν φυλ . πνεύματα as equal to οἱ ἀπειθοῦντες τηρούμενοι , φρουρουμένοι εἰς ἡμέραν τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ —is altogether erroneous.
[210] Justin (Dial. c. Tryph. c. 5): τὰς μὲν τῶν εὐσεβῶν ( ψυχὰς ) ἐν κρείττονί που χώρῳ μένειν , τὰς δʼ ἀδίκους καὶ πονηροὺς ἐν χείρονι τὸν τῆς κρίσεως ἐνδεχομένας χρόνον .
[211] Luthardt so thoroughly recognises the vis of this πορευθείς , that he says he should interpret the passage as Hofmann does, if the πορευθείς did not prevent him from doing so.—Besides, it is certain that the coming of the Holy Spirit is at the same time a coming of Christ; but it must not be overlooked that in the N. T. it is nowhere indicated as being a coming of Christ ἐν πνεύματι .
[212] Hollaz: Fuit praedicatio Christi in inferno non evangelica, quae hominibus tantum in regno gratiae annunciatur, sed legalis elenchthica, terribilis eaque tum verbalis, qua ipsos aeterna supplicia promeritos esse convincit, tum realis, qua immanem terrorem iis incussit. This interpretation, which, has its origin in dogmatic views, Zezschwitz seeks to found on exegesis by characterizing the idea of judgment as the leading conception of the whole passage, to which, however, the context gives no warrant, and also by maintaining that otherwise Peter would have used the word εὐαγγελίζειν , or a compound of ἀγγέλλειν . It is certainly correct when Schott and Köhler say that κηρύσσειν is not in itself equal to εὐαγγελίζειν ; but it does not follow that it may not be applied to a message of salvation. It must be remembered that Christ’s aim, even as a preacher of judgment, ever was the accomplishment of salvation, as he declared Luk_19:10; Joh_12:47.
[213] Thus Picus Mirandola says: Christus non veraciter et quantum ad realem praesentiam descendit ad inferos, sed solum quoad effectum. Cf., too, J. R. Lavater, de descensu Christi ad inf. lib. I. c. 9.—Many interpreters unwarrautably weaken at least ἐκήρυξε , in so far as to make it synonymous with “showed Himself,” or, at any rate, they say that the preaching of Christ was potius realiter, quam verbaliter. This the author of the article, “Die Höllenfahrt Christi,” in the Erlanger Zeitschrift für Protest. 1856, should not have sanctioned. Schott is not free from this arbitrary method of interpretation, in that he characterizes κηρύσσειν “as a bearing witness to oneself, not only in word, but also in deed,” and calls “this bearing witness to and showing forth of Himself by Christ in the glory of His mediatorial person,” a concio damnatoria.