Just for the Unjust

1 Peter 3:18-22

Part nine in an expositional series on 1 Peter. Click HERE to read the previous article. 

In all honesty, this is one of two passages that gave me pause in considering a thought-by-thought exposition of Peter’s epistle (the other, 4:6, is coming next month), but we have to recognize that every book of the Bible has some thorny passages. When we approach those, we should take the same humble approach as when we exposit the plainer texts—let the text speak, let the Scripture interpret itself, and do not attempt to authoritatively explain things for which God does not offer a clear-cut humanly comprehensible explanation. It is with that in mind that I come to this installment of our series.

Throughout the book, Peter has been urging his readers to live out the righteousness of God no matter what came their way. In 3:13-17, he reminds them of the Lord’s protection for those who strive after Him, encouraging them to speak up when asked about their hope, and declaring that suffering for righteousness sake is a blessing.

Christ Died Once for All
This passage, particularly verse 18, is a bookend to that theme. “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.” Peter gives the ultimate example of the blessedness of suffering unjustly—Christ, God incarnate, died for our sins. Ultimate justice was sacrificed once for all injustice so that we who rebelled against God could be brought to Him.

Moreover, Christ was put to death in His body, but made alive in spirit. The Greek words behind “flesh” and “spirit” here lack definite articles, so this is probably not talking about the Holy Spirit, but Christ’s resurrected person. This is another reminder from Peter to his readers that their present suffering did not compare to the glory awaiting them at the resurrection—ultimate reality is spiritual, not physical in nature—that just as Christ suffered wrongly and was glorified, so believers who endure have a firm hope of eternity (c.f. Rom. 8:16-18).

The Lord gave Peter a profound understanding of the work of salvation, and he repeatedly demonstrated a gift for describing these truths in ways that brings them into the palm of one’s hand without diminishing in any way their beauty, mystery, and power (notably in 1:3-12 and 2:4-10). His description of Christ’s sacrifice here fits into that category. What an encouragement to his original readers (who were suffering cruel persecution) this picture of the nature of Christ’s own suffering and its centrality to God’s plan this must have been!

Christ Made Proclamation
When wading into the most difficult part of the passage, we need to bear in mind the context we’ve just discussed. In order to rightly interpret verses 19-20, we have to assume that their message follows from what Peter has been saying throughout the book, particularly in chapter 3. If we fail to do that, there is no limit to the unsound directions we could go from these puzzling words.

After his statement of Christ’s work and His being “made alive in the spirit,” Peter writes, “in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water” (3:19-20). At first blush, this raises several questions. Who are the spirits in prison? Where did Christ go to make proclamation to them? What did He proclaim? How do Noah and his time fit into the equation?

While I’ve endeavored to keep this series on a simple, practical level of exposition, this text is one that does not lend itself to easy understanding through a plain reading. As such, I’m going to break with the style and relate the interpretations of verse 19 from several commentators.

Richard C.H. Lenski (1864-1936, a German-born pastor and theologian with a Lutheran background) saw this passage as referring to a definite act of Jesus in the definite time period between His death and resurrection. He writes that the descent of Christ into hell (c.f., Eph. 4:8-9) was not the final moment of Christ’s suffering and humiliation before His resurrection but rather the first act of His triumph over death, when He proclaimed His victory over sin and death to the demons and disobedient men and women of centuries past. In Lenski’s view, this ties in with Peter’s theme that it is blessed to suffer for righteousness because Christ who suffered unjustly now condemns those who punished Him and reigns over them.

Martin Luther took a very humble approach to these verses, writing that this is “a more obscure passage than perhaps any other in the New Testament, so that I do not know for a certainty just what Peter means.” He takes a plain reading approach, but acknowledges that it is not logically satisfying and professes to hold it very loosely. He posits that Christ preached “in spirit”, not necessarily tying this to the time between His death and resurrection. He also proposes that those “who once were disobedient” is a synecdoche, representing all unbelieving men throughout history.

John Phillips (a British-born pastor and theologian who worked extensively with Moody Bible Institute) also acknowledges the difficulty and controversiality of this passage. He tends to take the same approach as Lenski on the grounds that ékēruxen (the Greek verb translated “made proclamation”) is not necessarily evangelistic in nature—i.e., Jesus did not proclaim the Gospel to the spirits, but their final condemnation.

Wayne Grudem (a well-known contemporary Reformed evangelical theologian) takes the view (c.f., 2 Pet. 2:5, “but [God] preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness….” The Greek translated “preacher” is kēruka, “herald”, which is closely related to the verb in verse 19) that the Spirit of Christ through the person of Noah made the proclamation to those who were disobedient (humans) in Noah’s day but were in Peter’s day “spirits now in prison.” He bases this argument on 1) Peter’s previous statement about the work of “the Spirit of Christ” in the prophets of old (1:11; related to 2 Pet. 1:21), and 2) the fact that the context explains why Peter would reference Noah—he stood up for righteousness when the whole world was against him, and he and his family were saved because they trusted in the Lord and did what He asked, a perfect type of the situation and responsibilities of Peter’s readers.

None of the major commentators I read propose that this verse implies a “second chance” for the lost to believe the Gospel after death, though many outside of traditional orthodoxy (notably Mormons) have used this passage to argue just that. To take that view, however, one must ignore the scriptures that clearly present the view that we are held accountable for our deeds and choices in the body (Heb. 9:27, 2 Cor. 5:10, etc.).

After reading these and other theologians on this passage, I tend to find Grudem’s view more logically satisfying than the others. I prefer this interpretation because none of the others seem to keep their extrapolation grounded in the text at hand and in Peter’s overall message. This passage is a textbook case of the danger associated with interpreting seemingly odd passages isolated from their larger context, and I think we learn two things from this discussion.

First, the “difficult passages” are often revealed to be more straightforward than we think once we have dug deeper into them and endeavored to keep them in context. We have to remember that every word of Scripture is where it is for a reason, and that none should be overlooked just because we don’t understand it at first. Second, we tend to make more of such passages than the Spirit and the human writer intended. We have to apply Occam’s Razor (the principle that the simplest solution to a problem is usually the correct one) in reading these verses—is it more likely that Peter is writing about Noah and those who disobeyed in his day to bolster the point he is presently making or that he references these things to make a statement about the fate of men after death (which is not part of his present discussion at all)? If we want to strive for the most reasonable, biblically grounded interpretation, we do well to leave behind any intellectual “flights of fancy” to which difficult texts tempt us.

The Sign of Baptism
Verses 21-22, while not nearly as frustrating as the previous two verses, nevertheless are also often interpreted beyond their contextual meaning. “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.”

Peter, having brought up the example of Noah, continues with the analogy, comparing Noah’s physical salvation “through the water” on the ark to the spiritual salvation represented by the waters of baptism. Just as Noah’s faith (his “appeal to God”) led him to obey God and trust in His plan to save him in spite of the derision of others, so our faith in Christ’s resurrection for our salvation leads us to follow God’s path even in the face of persecution.

Many through the years have used verse 21 to build a case for the necessity of baptism for salvation, but this is to commit the same error with the text as we have just discussed, giving import to Peter’s statement that does not follow from its context. The Greek phrase kai ēmas ántitupon (translated here as “corresponding to that”) is literally something like “also [for] us like unto,” giving a sense that the ark, just as baptism, is a symbol or type of our salvation. He continues, stating that it is not the physical act (“not the removal of dirt from the flesh”), but the spiritual attitude (“but an appeal to God for a good conscience”) that is of consequence in this. Peter’s point seems to be to show that by faith, those (from the example of Noah, the few) who trust God through the work of Christ will be saved—neither the context nor the grammar suggest that he is making a statement about the role of baptism in our salvation.

Additionally, we have to consider other passages that indicate that baptism is separate from (nevertheless closely tied to) salvation. Ephesians 2:8-9 makes it clear that it is God’s grace, through faith, that saves us, not any physical act. Jesus’ commission recorded in Matthew 28:19 puts making disciples before baptizing, and the parallel passage in Mark 16:15-16 indicates that belief precedes baptism. Acts 10:47-48 and 22:16 also reflect that baptism follows belief. From each of these passages, it is equally clear that Scripture does not know the concept of a believer who refuses baptism—the act of baptism does not itself save, but it is given as a sign of our salvation to symbolize the completed work of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection as an outward manifestation of the inward change.

Conclusion
Taken as a whole, this passage is not something to fret over but is rather a cause for rejoicing. Because Christ, the just, died for the sins of the unjust, we can be reconciled to God. Through His Spirit across the ages, Christ has proclaimed His victory over sin and death and made a way for salvation through faith in Him. Just as He worked in the days of Noah, He works today to bring us to salvation. Because He was raised and sits enthroned with everything under His feet, He has authority to save us and preserve us against all persecution and through all suffering.

When we encounter such passages, we cannot but marvel at the power and mystery of our Savior and His Word. They were not inspired and included in the Scriptures to confound and divide us, but to remind us what a matchless God we serve.

Justin Lonas is the editor of Disciple Magazine for AMG International.

Click HERE to read the next article in the series.