Blog Archives
Preaching to the spirits in prison. An interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-20
Copyright by Bob Rogers, Th.D.
For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring you to God, after being put to death in the fleshly realm but made alive in the spiritual realm. In that state He also went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison who in the past were disobedient, when God patiently waited in the days of Noah while an ark was being prepared. – 1 Peter 3:18-20, HCSB
There are three facts about 1 Peter 3:18-20 which cannot be ignored:
- There was a story in a Jewish book called First Enoch about Enoch (Genesis 5:21-24) who made a journey to the supernatural beings who seduced human women (Genesis 6:1-4). This was at the time of Noah (Genesis 6:5-8). In First Enoch, Enoch is said to preach condemnation on these beings.
- First Enoch was well known in the first century, for Jude 9-10 and Jude 14 and 2 Peter 2:4-5 refer to stories which are in the older book of First Enoch, as does this passage.
- In Greek, verse 19 begins with three words which are transliterated in English letters: en o kai, which in Greek manuscripts would be run together: enokai. Compare that to the name Enoch.
What does all this mean? 1 Peter is well-known for clever arrangements of words. It seems that he is making a pun on the name Enoch in verse 19 because he is referring to a story about Enoch known to his readers.
First Peter 3:18 says that after Jesus died and was buried, he was “made alive in the spiritual realm.” Yet before His resurrection was physically displayed on Easter, He took care of some other-worldly business. He made a journey to the lower world of the dead (see Romans 10:7, Ephesians 4:9), where He “made a proclamation to the spirits in prison” (verse 19). The term “spirits” is never used to mean dead men, so it must refer to the fallen angels of Noah’s day, whom God had bound in prison (Jude 6, 1 Peter 2:4, Revelation 20:1-2, First Enoch 10).
Nowhere does Peter say that Jesus went to hell as punishment for our sins. The journey was to “Tartarus” (2 Peter 2:4, incorrectly translated “hell” in some translations). Tartarus was a Greek name for a place they believed all dead went, good and bad, like Hebrew word Sheol in the Old Testament. This journey was not forced upon Jesus; He went rather than suffer agony while in the grave.
Peter’s readers lived in a world where belief in evil spirits was universal. Some saw the Roman persecution coming, and they longed for protection from the evil spirits of the Romans which they feared might overcome the power of Christ. Peter comforted them with the news that Christ had defeated the most horrible of all spirits, the greatly feared fallen spirits of Noah’s day. In folklore, these spirits were considered to be the most wicked of all spirits.
First Peter 3:19 says Christ made proclamation to these spirits. This does not mean He was giving those who died before the time of His crucifixion a chance to believe the gospel, for he was speaking to spirits, not men. It does not even mean he was presenting the gospel to the spirits, for this Greek word can be used simply to “declare” or “proclaim” (the translation used in many versions, see also Revelation 5:2) with no implication of the gospel being presented. No, Jesus was announcing that He had defeated them! Thus, in verse 22, Peter says He ascended to heaven “with angels, authorities, and powers subject to Him.”
This proclamation of victory over the fallen angels was reassurance to Peter’s readers that they shouldn’t fear evil powers around them, for Christ is more powerful.
A second interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-20 is worth considering. This view says that Jesus did not descend at all, but that in the same spirit of Jesus which has always existed, He had preached to the evil men of Noah’s day and given them a chance to repent. This takes verse 19 to refer to “in the spiritual realm” in verse 18.
This view appears to answer some questions people have, because it claims that the people living before the time of Jesus’ crucifixion had the same opportunity to repent as we do, for the spirit of Christ has always been around to give them the message, whether it be seen in Noah or Moses or a prophet.
This view is correct in noting that verse 19 simply says, “He went,” not “He descended.” It is also less complicated than the other view.
However, this second explanation seems to take things out of order. In verse 18, Peter refers to the cross, and in verse 22, he refers to the ascension. Verses 19-20 should refer to something in between, not to Jesus’ spirit back in the days of Noah.
Whatever interpretation we+9 follow, we would do well to remember to present it in “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15).
Further reading: Ernest Best, 1 Peter in the New Century Bible Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971), 135-146.
E.G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1946), 197-202.
Ray Summers, “1 Peter” in volume 12 of The Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1972), 163-164.
How Mississippi Baptists came to oppose alcohol in the early 1800s
Copyright by Robert C. Rogers and the Mississippi Baptist Convention Board.
Baptists have not always been as adamantly opposed to alcohol as they are today; rather, their view developed over several decades in the early 1800s. This can be illustrated in the story of how Mississippi Baptists gradually took a stronger stand against liquor during the decades from the 1820s through the 1850s. In 1820, Providence Baptist Church in what is now Forrest County discussed the question, “Is it lawful, according to scripture, for a member of a church to retail spiritous liquors?” The church could not agree on a position in regard to the matter. This attitude would begin to change in the 1820s, however. In 1826, the influential Congregationalist pastor Lyman Beecher began a series of sermons against the dangers of drunkenness and urged the necessity of abstinence from the alcohol. He called on Christians to sign pledges to abstain from alcohol, igniting the temperance movement in America. The question came before the Mississippi Baptist Association in 1827, and it was stated that it “considers drunkenness one of the most injurious and worst vices in the community.” In 1830, the Pearl River Baptist Association admonished any churches hosting their meetings, “provide no ardent spirits for the association when she may hereafter meet, as we do not want it.” In 1831, Pearl River Association thanked the host church for obeying their request, and in 1832, the association humbly prayed “the public, that they will not come up to our Association with their beer, Cider, Cakes, and Mellons, as they greatly disturb the congregation.” Likewise in 1832, Mississippi Association resolved, “That this Association do discountenance all traffic in spirituous liquors, beer, cider, or bread, within such a distance of our meetings as in any wise disturb our peace and worship; and we do, therefore, earnestly request all persons to refrain from the same.”1
It had always been common for Baptists to discipline members for drunkenness, but as the temperance movement grew in America, Mississippi Baptists moved gradually from a policy of tolerating mild use of alcohol, toward a policy of complete abstinence from alcohol. A Committee on Temperance made an enthusiastic report in 1838 of “the steady progress of the Temperance Reformation in different parts of Mississippi and Louisiana; prejudices and opposition are fasting melting away.” In 1839, D. B. Crawford gave a report to the Mississippi Baptist Convention on temperance which stated, “That notwithstanding, a few years since, the greater portion of our beloved and fast growing state, was under the influence of the habitual use of that liquid fire, which in its nature is so well calculated to ruin the fortunes, the lives and the souls of men, and spread devastation and ruin over the whole of our land; yet we rejoice to learn, that the cause of temperance is steadily advancing in the different parts of our State… We do therefore most earnestly and affectionately recommend to the members of our churches… to carry on and advance the great cause of temperance: 1. By abstaining entirely from the habitual use of all intoxicating liquors. 2. By using all the influence they may have, to unite others in this good work of advancing the noble enterprise contemplated by the friends of temperance.” Local churches consistently disciplined members for drunkenness, but they were slower to oppose the sale or use of alcohol. For example, in May 1844, “a query was proposed” at Providence Baptist Church in Forrest County on the issue of distributing alcohol. After discussion, the church took a vote on its opposition to “members of this church retailing or trafficking in Spirituous Liquors.” It is significant that in the handwritten church minutes, the clerk wrote that the motion “unanimously carried in opposition,” but then crossed out the word “unanimously.” In January 1845, Providence Church voted that “the voice of the church be taken to reconsider” the matter of liquor. The motion passed, but then tabled the issue, and did not come back up. In March of that year, a member acknowledged his “excessive use of arden[t] spirits” and his acknowledgement was accepted, and he was “exonerated.”2
. In 1846, the Mississippi Baptist Association’s leadership was opposed to alcohol, but was still attempting to prohibit the use of alcohol at its own meetings. The Association passed a resolution saying, “We respectfully request the brethren and friends who may entertain this body at its future meetings, to refrain from presenting ardent spirits in their accommodations.” By the 1850s, the State Convention was calling not only for abstinence, but for legal action, as well. In 1853, the Convention adopted the report of the “Temperance” Committee that said, “The time has arrived when the only true policy for the advocates of Temperance to pursue, is… to secure the enactment by the Legislature of a law, utterly prohibiting the sale of ardent spirits in any quantities whatsoever.” They endorsed the enactment of the “The Maine Liquor Law” in Mississippi. Two years before, in 1851, Maine had become the first State to pass a prohibition of alcohol. Thus during the antebellum period Mississippi Baptists gradually came to favor abstinence and prohibition of alcohol.3
SOURCES:
1 Aaron Menikoff, Politics and Piety: Baptist Social Reform in America, 1770-1860 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), 162-163; T.C. Schilling, Abstract History of the Mississippi Baptist Association for One Hundred Years From its Preliminary Organization in 1806 to the Centennial Session in 1906 (New Orleans, 1908), 50; Minutes, Pearl River Baptist Association, 1830, 1831, 1832.
2 Minutes, Mississippi Baptist Convention, 1838, 1839; Minutes, Providence Baptist Church, Forrest County, Mississippi, May 11, 1844, January 11, 1845, March 8, 1845.
3 T. M. Bond, A Republication of the Minutes of the Mississippi Baptist Association (New Orleans: Hinton & Co., 1849), 250; Minutes, Mississippi Baptist Convention, 1853, 26; “The Unintended Consequences of Prohibition: Introduction,” Washington State University, accessed online 17 April 2022 at http://digitalexhibits.wsulibs.wsu.edu/exhibits/show/prohibition-in-the-u-s/introduction.
Book review: “A House Put in Order”
A House Put in Order, by J. Brian Broome, is an entertaining paranormal novel of a prison chaplain who must deal with the disaster in his prison just before Halloween, when a Wiccan inmate summons an evil spirit to get revenge on the deputy warden.
Although the book depicts a Christian chaplain responding to evil spirits, the book is not preachy. In fact, he is very respectful toward other religious faiths. That is not to say that he doesn’t include some enlightening insights, such as the comment in chapter 11, “When a man is beaten down by his pain, well, let’s just say pain doesn’t know religious affiliation.”
The author is a retired prison chaplain, and anybody who has spent time in the prison system will recognize how realistic his descriptions are. His characters are also realistic, and at times, humorous. (For example, in chapter 17, the chaplain reflects on an inmate who argued that since he was a new person in Christ, he should be set free from prison. The chaplain’s brilliant reply was to remind him that Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, and added, “Your soul may belong to God, but right now your body belongs to Caesar.”)
After setting up characters and building the plot early in the book, the plot picks up pace and rushes straight to a ending that will keep you reading. Some might say the plot is a bit predictable toward the end, or at least it goes the way the reader would hope, although not entirely; you will certainly want to keep reading to find out how it ends. This book would make a great summer read, and a fantastic read around Halloween.
Bob Rogers 