See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/26989896

History of the interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-22

Article  in  Acta Patristica et Byzantina · January 2008

DOI: 10.1080/10226486.2008.11745788 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

2 1,622

2 authors:

Douglas Neil Campbell Fika Janse van Rensburg

North-West University North-West University
3 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS    58 PUBLICATIONS   85 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The interpretation of 1 Peter View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fika Janse van Rensburg on 22 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION OF 1 PETER 3:18-22

D.N. Campbell & Fika J. van Rensburg

(North-West University)

Abstract
This article presents and briefly examines the various major interpretations
of 1 Peter 3:18-22 down through history. These interpretations focus on the
identity of ‘the spirits in prison’, the location of their imprisonment, and the
time and nature of Christ’s proclamation. It becomes clear that the
interpretations have often been influenced by external theological
considerations or by contemporary debates. It is concluded that the socio-
religious context of the audience of 1 Peter and the author’s purpose in
including this passage have been largely overlooked.

1. Introduction

Few passages in the New Testament have caused greater scholarly

deliberation and given rise to so many interpretations and counter-
arguments than 1 Peter 3:18-22.

This article provides an overview and analysis of the history of the

interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-22 outlining the major understandings.1
Nearly all the major points of contention concerning this passage are
caused by how one understands 1 Peter 3:19 -
. These difficulties can be summarised as
follows: Who are the spirits in prison? Where is the prison located? What
did Christ actually proclaim? And: When did this preaching take place?

There are three major lines of interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-22 (with

notable variations within each) and a fourth major line which in some ways
cuts across the other three. These four major lines are the following:

• Christ going to the Souls of Noah’s Contemporaries during the

Triduum Mortis
• The Preaching of the Pre-Existent Christ through Noah
• Christ’s Proclamation of Victory to Evil Supernatural Powers
• Interpretations Based on Textual Emendations

_____________________________________________________________
Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008 73
2. Christ going to the souls of Noah’s contemporaries during the
triduum mortis

One of the first interpretations of 1 Peter 3:18-22 to arise historically

understood Christ, in the period after his death and before his resurrection
(triduum mortis), as descending to the dwelling place of souls to proclaim a
message to the souls of Noah’s human contemporaries. However,
differences soon arose as to the nature of Christ’s proclamation to satisfy
theological positions.

2.1 Christ preaching for the conversion of Noah’s contemporaries

2.1.1 The origins and early development of the interpretation

The most strongly represented opinion among the Church Fathers from the
time of Clement of Alexandria to Augustine is the view that Christ
descended to the abode of souls in order to preach to Noah’s contem-
poraries and bring about their conversion. Before Clement of Alexandria,
1 Peter 3:18-22 is rarely commented upon and indeed Irenaeus (Adversus
Haereses), writing about Christ’s descent to Hades, never quotes or alludes
to this passage for support of this doctrine.2 It is likely that this silence is
evidence that the early church understood the text differently, or at least
that they had no confidence in this particular interpretation (Dalton 1989,
28).

Clement of Alexandria (Stromateis 6.6) clearly interpreted 1 Peter 3:18-22

as referring to Christ’s descent to preach the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles in
Hades who perished in the Flood. Underlying Clement’s interpretation was
his belief that the conversion of pre-Christian pagans could only be
achieved by the preaching of Christ and his Apostles in the world of the
dead. Clement, therefore, employed 1 Peter 3:18-22 to support his theory
that Christ descended to Hades to offer salvation to those sinners still
imprisoned.

Origen (De Principiis II.V.3), a contemporary of Clement, understood

1 Peter 3:18-22 in a similarly positive manner. For Origen there was still
hope for the people destroyed by God’s judgement in the Flood.3
Furthermore, Origen (Contra Celsum) seems to allude to 1 Peter 3:19 in
countering Celsus’ accusation that Christ’s descent and preaching was the
consequence of the failure of his earthly preaching ministry. Origen
emphasizes that this aspect to Christ’s ministry was intentional in order to
win converts from among the souls of the dead individuals.
_____________________________________________________________
74 Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008
Cyril of Alexandria (Commentaries on Luke and John) also understands
1 Peter 3:19 as referring to Christ, during the triduum mortis, preaching to
the spirits of the dead in order to bring about their salvation. This line of
interpretation also continues in the writings of other Greek Fathers. St. John
of Damascus (De Fide Orthodoxa 3.29) appears to allude to 1 Peter 3:19 in
his discussion of the descent of Christ.4 In his Christological discussions
with Epictetus, Athanasius (Letter to Epictetus) clearly accepts, without
argument, that in 1 Peter 3:19 the reference is to Christ’s body being in the
tomb while the Word went to preach to the spirits in prison.

The Greek Fathers seem to present a single understanding of 1 Peter 3:19,

whether they directly refer to the verse or apparently just allude to the
passage. They share a common belief that Christ, during the triduum
mortis, preached to the souls of the dead and brought about a release of at
least some of these souls from their prison. The mention of Christ
preaching to the souls of Noah’s contemporaries is generally broadened by
some of the Greek Fathers (e.g. Clement of Alexandria) to reveal a belief
that the apostles also preached to others who are in this prison for dead
souls.

The doctrine of the descent of Christ to the underworld to preach to the

souls of the dead was particularly popular in the early Syriac tradition.5 So
it is not surprising that these proponents adopted the Clementine
interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19.6 The early Syriac writings, following the
optimistic interpretations of the Greek Fathers, portray Christ preaching in
Hades to secure the liberation of all souls (both the just and the wicked)
from Sheol and Satan. This interpretation broadens the scope of 1 Peter
3:19 and understands the doctrine as having a wider universal aspect.

What can be concluded from these early historical interpretations of 1 Peter

3:19? Before Clement of Alexandria, discussions of the doctrine of the
descent of Christ never quoted 1 Peter 3:19 for support. Furthermore,
Clement seems to be the first to link 1 Peter 3:19 with the descent of Christ
and interpreted it in such a way as to see this preaching of Christ as
offering salvation to the souls of Noah’s unbelieving contemporaries. This
interpretation was often broadened by subsequent authors to see Christ
offering salvation to other souls in prison and not just Noah’s generation.

_____________________________________________________________
Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008 75
2.1.2 Subsequent history of this interpretation

With the emergence of Augustine’s highly influential interpretation of

1 Peter 3:19 and later strengthened by the coming of the Reformation,
scholars began to reject Clement’s interpretation and the expanded
optimistic interpretations which saw salvation being offered to all.
Protestant scholars in particular moved away from any idea which saw
1 Peter 3:19 as offering the possibility of salvation in the world to come. 7

Clement’s line of interpretation began to be promoted again among some

Protestant scholars from the middle of the 19th Century onwards (Dalton
1989, 33). These interpreters were less influenced than their predecessors
by dogmatic considerations, and thus they found in 1 Peter 3:19 (and 4:6)
an example of God’s incalculable mercy. The interpretation, though it
eventually fell out of favour with the majority of subsequent New
Testament scholars of a Protestant background, still continues to find some
support.8 These proponents generally view 3:19 and 4:6 as referring to the
same event.9 From this starting position they interpret 1 Peter 3:19 as
referring to Christ’s preaching of the gospel and offering salvation to the
disobedient contemporaries of Noah who subsequently were languishing as
spirits in prison.

However, the connection between 3:19 and 4:6 has not found universal
acceptance. Rather than seeing these references as being co-terminus, the
majority of scholars interpret the passages as referring to two different
events altogether.10 While 3:19 refers to ‘spirits’, the immediate context of
4.6 seems to refer to Christians who have died after their conversion to
Christianity, perhaps as a result of persecution. Furthermore, modern
advocates of the Clementine position face another problem in showing how
their interpretation fits in with the immediate and wider context of 1 Peter.
The immediate context makes a sharp division between believers and
unbelievers and the stress is not so much on the conversion of the wicked,
as on the survival of believers in an unbelieving world destined to final
judgement.

In summary, this line of interpretation which proposes that 1 Peter 3:18-22

refers to Christ preaching to the spirits of Noah’s unbelieving contem-
poraries during the Triduum Mortis in order to seek their salvation, has
largely fallen out of favour.

_____________________________________________________________
76 Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008
2.2 Christ’s preaching of release to the souls of the converted

From the very early days of the Church there existed a belief that Christ
during the Triduum Mortis descended to Hades in order to preach to the
souls of a specific category of Noah’s unbelieving contemporaries, viz
those who had been converted just before their death. While this theory is
less well attested in the early Church than the previous line of inter-
pretation, it seems to have numbered Irenaeus, Justin and Hippolytus, et al
among its supporters.11

This interpretation has been found to harbour less theological problems

than the understanding espoused by Clement, Origen et al, as it avoids
promoting the possibility of conversion after death. Furthermore, this
theory also attempted to relocate Christ’s pulpit from the realm of the dead
and the abode of sinners to the place of the righteous and just dead. For
some believers the very notion of Christ going to Gehenna (or: Hades) was
quite unthinkable.

Starting from the position that there is no opportunity for salvation after
death, and believing that Christ would naturally preach the good news of
salvation to these people, the proponents of this theory understandably
concluded that these sinful and unbelieving contemporaries of Noah must
therefore have been converted before their death in the flood. However,
despite the fact that there is no evidence in 1 Peter 3:19, or elsewhere in
Scripture, of such a last minute conversion of (some of) Noah’s
contemporaries, this theory has persisted from earliest times to the present
day.

Support for this interpretation is found in the so-called Jeremiah Logion

part of Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 72) where it is clearly
reported that Christ descended to preach salvation to his dead people of
Israel who were lying in their graves. Further support is claimed from the
docetic The Gospel of Peter (38-42) which is reminiscent of 1 Peter 3:18-
22. However, the evidence is not conclusive that The Gospel of Peter refers
to Christ’s descent and preaching to the spirits in prison. Furthermore,
Hippolytus (Easter Homily) may use 1 Peter 3:19 as a reference to Christ’s
descent and preaching to the souls of Noah’s contemporaries converted
before their death in the Flood or to the souls of unbelievers.12

Alongside Clement’s understanding of the possibility of salvation after

death evolved another interpretation. This interpretation was a little more
_____________________________________________________________
Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008 77
reticent concerning the nature and intent of Christ’s sermon and imagined a
different audience. This interpretation was less optimistic and saw Christ’s
preaching in hell, during the triduum mortis, as being directed solely
towards the righteous of the Old Testament. These righteous individuals
were identified initially as being the souls of Noah’s contemporaries who
repented just before their deaths. Over time, this interpretation widened the
audience to include the souls of all the Old Testament saints who had died
before the days of Jesus Christ.13

Later developments of the interpretation

Among one of the most prominent Reformers to support this line of

interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-22, albeit hesitantly, was John Calvin. It is
clear that Calvin was most concerned, however, to dismiss any notion that
understands 1 Peter 3:19 as a reference to a descent of Christ to hell.

Calvin (1963, 293), starting from a position that there is no possibility of

salvation after death, argued that the spirit of Christ,14 sometime after his
resurrection, went to preach to the spirits who are the souls of the faithful
of the Old Testament.15 To explain why such ‘godly spirits’ should find
themselves , Calvin has to downgrade the prison to the level of a
‘watch tower’ from which the godly spirits anxiously anticipated their
promised salvation. It is this very worry that transforms their watch tower
into a prison. However, Calvin’s interpretation necessitates that
(3:20) refer to some group other than those
(3:19). But what are these ‘godly spirits’ actually saved from?
Calvin’s (1963, 294) explanation was that the true servants of God were
delivered from the large group of unbelievers with whom they resided.16

In 1586, Bellarmine17 attempted to reconcile the problem of seeing 1 Peter

3:19 as referring to the Descent of Christ and also holding to the view that
post-death conversion is heretical.18 Bellarmine noted Augustine’s
reluctance to separate 1 Peter 3:19 from the doctrine of Christ’s descent
and the Patristic evidence of a belief in Christ’s descent to Hades. Assu-
ming that 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6 refer to the same event, Bellarmine argued
that 1 Peter 3:18-22 reports Christ’s going to the abode of the righteous
dead to proclaim the release of those souls of Noah’s contemporaries who
had repented before they had died in the Flood. These souls were thus
released from their prison (purgatory) and led into heaven.

Because the interpretation seemed to provide Scriptural proof concerning

_____________________________________________________________
78 Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008
the doctrine of purgatory as a place of imprisonment reserved for the
righteous, this hypothesis of Bellarmine soon found general favour within
the Roman Catholic Church (Dalton 1998, 40). This interpretation received
much support by generations of Roman Catholic scholars who found no
reason to deny, or call into question, either Bellarmine’s exegesis or the
Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of purgatory.19

2.3 Christ’s preaching of condemnation to Noah’s unbelieving con-

temporaries

Another variation of this interpretation proposes that Christ is preaching

condemnation to Noah’s unbelieving contemporaries in the abode of souls
during the triduum mortis. Christ’s mission was undertaken not to bring
good news or liberation to the ‘the spirits in prison’, but in order for Christ
to proclaim judgment and ultimate condemnation upon these unbelieving
contemporaries of Noah. This view came to be adopted by many Lutheran
scholars who rejected any idea of Christ preaching good news and offering
the possibility of salvation to the souls of those who had already died
(Reicke 1946, 44-45).20 The 17th century Lutheran interpreters were
confronted with two major interpretations of 1 Peter 3:19. The first adopted
an optimistic interpretation that saw the possibility of salvation after death,
while the second, the Augustinian approach, adopted a very spiritualised
reading of the text. Wishing to grapple with the reality of the descent of
Christ and his sermon, these Lutheran interpreters preferred to see the
proclamation of Christ as one whereby these unbelieving spirits were
confronted with their final condemnation.

Though this interpretation waned in the Lutheran Church with the rise in
the optimistic interpretations during the higher critical movements,21 the
view persists even to this day (Lenski 1966, 160-169).

3. The preaching of the pre-existent Christ through Noah

In 414 AD Bishop Evodius asked for Augustine’s thoughts regarding the

identity of the ‘spirits in prison’ in 1 Peter 3:19, and the nature and success,
or otherwise, of Christ’s sermon (Augustine 1994, 515).22 Evodius was
evidently wrestling with the problem of how to reconcile this preaching of
Christ in hell in a way that does not imply the possibility of salvation after
death. Augustine’s reply, however, was to mark a major change in the
interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-22.23 In short, Augustine came to the
interpretation that Christ, in his pre-existent nature, preached to the sinful
_____________________________________________________________
Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008 79
and unbelieving contemporaries of Noah during their own lifetime through
the person of Noah. These contemporaries of Noah are now ‘spirits in
prison’. Augustine’s hermeneutical methodology may be summarised as
follows. The principle that the eternal destiny of men must be decided in
their own natural lifetime is presupposed and is not up for debate. Starting
at this point Augustine proceeds to interpret 1 Peter 3:19 in a way that does
not lead him to reject or modify his starting presupposition (Dalton 1989,
43).

Augustine’s interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19 is not without biblical parallel.

The New Testament does seem to refer to Christ’s active involvement with
his people in the Old Testament (e.g. 1 Corinthians 10:4).24 Furthermore,
subsequent supporters of Augustine’s theory also point out that the
reference to the ‘Spirit of Christ’ ( )25 in 1 Peter 1:10-11
may also reveal a similar belief in the involvement of the pre-existent
Christ in the life of his people.26 Augustine’s theory is allegedly given
greater credence if 2 Peter is from the hand of the same author.27 In 2 Peter
2:5, Noah is described as a herald, or preacher, of righteousness (
). Did the pre-existent Christ preach through Noah the
‘Herald of Righteousness’ to the unbelieving contemporaries of the
Patriarch?

Subsequent Developments

Augustine’s hesitant interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19 proved very influential

with scholars for a considerable period of time and even influenced the
readings of the Vulgate manuscripts (Dalton 1989, 44).

At the time of the Reformation, those struggling to interpret 1 Peter 3:19

were confronted with major theological and dogmatological considerations.
One could either follow those like Bellarmine who interpreted the passage
against a framework which presupposed a belief in the recently proposed
Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory; or one could reaffirm the Augusti-
nian interpretation with its removal altogether of any mention of the
descent and the preaching of Christ to the spirits in hell. The position one
adopted in such turbulent times was more often than not based on
ecclesiastical orthodoxy rather than on the basis of exegesis. To make a
hermeneutical decision was to take sides. This may in part explain why
both interpretations remained dominant within each ecclesiastical tradition
for so long.

_____________________________________________________________
80 Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008
The Augustinian position, therefore, generally held sway among Protestant
scholars until the adoption of the optimistic Clementine position by late
17th Century scholars. From then on the Augustinian position fell out of
favour within Protestant scholarship.

A Small Revival of Interest

More recently, however, the Augustinian position has undergone a degree

of revival. Wohlenberg (1923, 106-115) suggested a modification of
Augustine’s interpretation. He sees 1 Peter 3:19 as referring to Christ
preaching to Noah’s contemporaries who are now, at the time of writing the
epistle, souls being punished in the abode of the dead. Wohlenberg’s
resuscitation of the Augustinian interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19 did not
immediately bring much response, let alone support.28

Although Wohlenberg’s work had little immediate impact, his subtle

reworking of the Augustinian interpretation was yet to prove influential
among some British and American evangelical scholars. Guthrie (1981),
attempting to compile a New Testament theology, was perhaps even more
influenced by Salmond’s (1897) work on the doctrine of immortality than
by Wohlenberg. In his section on the doctrine of the afterlife, Guthrie
(1981, 818-848) examined 1 Peter 3:18-22 in detail and adopted the
Augustinian approach as being the most reasonable. However, the nature
and the constraints of Guthrie’s volume were not conducive in persuading a
wider acceptance of the strengths of the Augustinian interpretation.

The Renaissance of the Augustinian Interpretation

It was with the works of Grudem (1986 and 198829), and in particular his
commentary which was directed at a pastor/student level, that the Augusti-
nian interpretation was brought back to the fore. Grudem’s commentary
includes a substantial appendix30 which, along with the exegesis of 1 Peter
3:18-22, makes up over 20% of his commentary.

At the outset Grudem (1989, 205) distances himself from what some critics
of Augustine believed was a weakness with the original argument, namely
his inference that the ‘prison’ ought to be interpreted ‘metaphorically’ as
referring to the ‘prison of ignorance’ of unbelievers. By disagreeing with
Augustine on this point and by adopting the subtle change as proposed by
Wohlenberg, Grudem believes that the overall position of this line of
interpretation remains worthy of consideration. Furthermore, Grudem
_____________________________________________________________
Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008 81
(1989, 239) attempts to refute the objection that the Augustinian
interpretation fails to satisfactorily connect with the overall context of
1 Peter and the purpose of the author.

What makes Grudem’s presentation so fresh is that by adopting the

Augustinian hypothesis after its years in relative academic obscurity, he
breaks from the prevailing consensus of modern scholars. Interacting with
the dominant interpretation of Selwyn and others, Grudem questions their
general assumption of accepting the Jewish Pseudepigraphical literature
with its expansion on the Angelic Fall of Genesis 6:1-4 as providing the
hermeneutical key for interpreting 1 Peter 3:18-22. He also demonstrates
that alternative interpretations of Genesis 6:2, 4 existed in extra-biblical
Jewish literature which believed not in angelic disobedience, but rather in
the disobedience of humans (Grudem 1989:206-209).

Meanwhile, Feinberg (1986), working independently of Grudem, came to

very similar conclusions concerning the exegesis and interpretation of
1 Peter 3:19. Although he openly admits the difficulty in finding one
interpretation whose probability far exceeds that of the others, Feinberg
comes to accept the Augustinian interpretation as being the ‘most probable’
(1986:306). The works of Grudem (1986 and 1988) and Feinberg (1986)
were closely followed by a popular level commentary on 1 Peter by
Clowney (1988). Although not discussing in as much detail all the pro-
blems of 1 Peter 3:18-22, it is clear that Clowney’s thinking on the issue
had been influenced by the works of both Grudem and Feinberg.31

This resurgence of the Augustinian interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-22 in the

late 20th Century, particularly among scholars of an evangelical persuasion,
has proved that the reports of its terminal demise were unfounded. With the
publication of the works of Feinberg and Grudem, the long dormant
Augustinian approach was given a fresh presentation and rejuvenation.32
Indeed the popular nature and ready availability of these works have
ensured a wide readership and more than likely a wide adoption of the
Augustinian interpretation.

4. Christ’s proclamation of victory to evil supernatural powers

4.1 Introduction

Perhaps the most popular line of interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19-22 today

understands Christ himself, as opposed to his Spirit, as proclaiming his
ultimate victory to evil spirits in prison sometime between his death and his
_____________________________________________________________
82 Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008
ascension.33 Proponents of this view generally identify these spirits as
being the hostile angelic and supernatural powers who were associated with
those called the Sons of God ( ) and/or their evil progeny the
Nephilim ( ) who appear during the time of great evil prior to the
Flood (Genesis 6-8). The precise location of the prison varies depending on
the particular interpreter, but it is usually regarded as a place of punishment
in the lower reaches of the underworld or in the lower heavens.

It is clear that the Intertestamental extra-biblical Jewish literature reveals

that the writers (and one supposes their audience) were very interested in
the Genesis Flood account and the salvation of Noah.34 There are several
recurring features in this amplified Jewish extra-biblical literature based on
Genesis 6-8 which are believed by some scholars to cast considerable
insight in the study and interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-22. These features
touch on matters of the identity of the spirits35, the defiance and sin of these
spirits,36 the punishment meted out upon them37, the location of their
punishment38 and the announcement of their condemnation.39

4.2 History and development of the interpretation

Inauspicious Origins

The interpretation which became known as ‘inauspicuous origins’ seems to

have first originated in the work of Spitta (1890). He noted the close
proximity of thought in 1 Peter 3:18-22 and in the early extra-biblical
Jewish traditions concerning the Flood narrative. Thus the
were identified by Spitta as those supernatural spirits whose dis-
obedience and sinfulness instigated the evil which led to the Flood. Spitta,
however, continued to follow the interpretation of Augustine in seeing
1 Peter 3:18-22 as referring to the pre-existent Christ preaching through
Noah.40 However, the work of Spitta was to prove very influential in the
formation of an altogether new interpretation. A number of scholars came
to agree with his emphasis on the importance of the Jewish traditional
material in identifying the ‘spirits’ as those supernatural angelic beings
whose disobedience was to prove the cause of God’s judgement in the
Flood. Where these scholars demurred with Spitta was in their
identification of Christ himself as the preacher and the time of the
preaching.

The Momentum Increases

The rise in popularity of this particular interpretation, to such an extent that

_____________________________________________________________
Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008 83
it is probably now the dominant explanation of the passage, has been
identified by some scholars (Grudem 1986, 5) as the result of the influence
of the works of Reicke (1946), Selwyn (1947)41 and Dalton (1989).42
Selwyn was among the first English-speaking interpreters to recognise the
value of studying 1 Peter 3:18-22 against the background of contemporary
extant Jewish thought and literature. This particular approach was
embraced in an attempt to find some way through the linguistic and
grammatical impasse and to see if fresh light and insight could be brought
to the text.

Taking into consideration the wider Jewish tradition, particularly from the
Book of Enoch and Jubilees, Selwyn (1947, 198-200, 314-362) understood
the ‘spirits’ ( ), to whom Christ made proclamation, as being the
wicked angels associated in this Jewish tradition with the flood and
presented as the real instigators of human sin. For Selwyn, the account in
1 and 2 Enoch of the travelling and subsequent proclamation of
condemnation by Enoch to the disobedient angels now in prison, is perhaps
the most influential hermeneutical key in helping to come to a proper
understanding of the phrase . Furthermore, for
Selwyn (1947, 319-322) the New Testament emphasis on the descent of
Christ and the importance of his victory over the evil spirits provides
further support in interpreting this passage in 1 Peter in such a way. Selwyn
is still confronted, however, with the perennial problem, namely, why did
this preaching take place. Avoiding the conclusion that the sermon was
preached in order to offer salvation to these inhabitants of prison, Selwyn
(1947, 200) sees this proclamation as being one of judgment on these fallen
angels.

Working independently of Selwyn, Reicke (1946) came to a similar set of

conclusions especially in seeing the importance of Jewish extra-biblical
literature in the interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-22. Reicke (1946, 52-59), by
adopting an interpretation proposed by Windisch (1930, 52-59), saw the
phrase as referring to both the fallen angels and
also the human souls of the wicked men of Noah’s day. Reicke’s theory
was influenced, in no considerable part, by his assumption that 1 Peter 3:19
and 4:6 refer to one and the same event. If the Gospel was preached to the
souls of the dead (4:6) then these souls must be included in the preaching in
1 Peter 3:19. Despite the associated theological problems, other scholars
have accepted Reicke’s analysis that these passages relate to the same
event. 43 Christ preached to the same audience in order to bring about, not
judgment, but to offer the possibility of salvation.
_____________________________________________________________
84 Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008
The Interpretation’s General Acceptance

Dalton (1989, 19), although influenced by the approach of Selwyn,44

believed that a fundamental problem remained. Struggling with the belief
that sees 1 Peter 3:19 as being the activity of Christ’s soul, Dalton (1989,
135-142) understands (3:18) as a clear reference
to Christ’s resurrection. Beginning at this point, the subsequent ‘going’
(3:19 ) and ‘preaching’ (3:19 ) must, for Dalton (1989,
19), refer to a time after his resurrection. Dalton concludes, therefore, that
the easiest explanation is that this must refer to Christ’s only other known
significant ‘going’, his ascension to heaven to sit at the right hand of God
the Father. For Dalton, therefore, this preaching of Christ occurred during
his ascension through the lower heavens on his return to the Father when he
arrived at the abode of the hostile spirit powers which is located in the
lower heavens.45

Dalton (1989, 159-161) is thoroughly convinced that the ancient

cosmology as found in extra-biblical Jewish thought (2 Enoch) provides an
important key to understanding 1 Peter 3:18-22. In 2 Enoch these wicked
spirits are said to be located in the second and fifth heavens and are
expressly said to be ‘bound’ (see 2 Enoch 7:1,3 and Testament of Levi 3:2).
Christ therefore preaches to these evil supernatural spirits in their abode
situated in the lower heavens sometime during his ascension.

Dalton is left with the question of the purpose of Christ’s preaching. In his
earlier work, Dalton (1965) believed that Christ, like Enoch, proclaimed the
condemnation of the fallen angels. However, in his second edition, Dalton
(1989) understands the preaching as the announcement of the victory of
Christ and the subjugation of the spirits as part of the story of the salvation
of human beings.

Though Dalton’s time of Christ’s preaching and the location of the

differs from that of both Selwyn and Reicke, his
interpretation still shows some considerable similarities with these earlier
works. Dalton stands within the tradition first promulgated by Selwyn and
Reicke: he sees Christ as addressing a supernatural angelic audience.

4.3 Summary

While this interpretation which saw the main hermeneutical key in

understanding 1 Peter 3:18-22, as coming from Jewish extra-biblical
_____________________________________________________________
Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008 85
thought and thus referring to disobedient supernatural spirits was not
entirely new, the works of Selwyn (1947), Reicke (1946) and Dalton
(1989) probably proved to be the definitive turning-point, especially among
English speaking New Testament scholars.46 Indeed France (1977, 265)
goes as far as to comment, “To try to understand 1 Peter 3:19-20 without a
copy of the Book of Enoch at your elbow is to condemn yourself to
failure.”

5. Interpretations based on textual emendations

The interpretations based on textual emendations, though more recog-

nizably different, need not be examined in too much depth as they have
never been highly regarded by scholars. The common denominator in these
interpretations is a general dissatisfaction with the actual Greek text under-
lying 1 Peter 3:18-22. This starting presupposition has led to two main
hypotheses.

5.1 Interpolation

In his study Reicke (1946, 49-50) lists those scholars who believe that the
passage in 1 Peter 3:18-22 is in fact an interpolation and who proceed to
present what they believe to be the original Greek text. These attempts to
explain at least the origin of 1 Peter 3:18-22 sadly find no support from the
passage itself or even from textual criticism. Moreover, these proposals do
not help in understanding the passage itself and explaining what the
interpolators’ purpose was in appending these words to the people in the
congregations of Asia Minor.

5.2 Enoch went and Preached

In 1763, long before the Book of Enoch was discovered,47 Bowyer

published a Greek New Testament in which he conjectured that the phrase
originally read (‘Enoch also’). If this reading were to
be adopted it would make Enoch the one proclaiming to the spirits in
prison. This would naturally be in accordance with the Jewish
Pseudepigraphical literature.48

Harris (1901 and 1902) refined this conjecture by hypothesizing that due to
haplography on the part of later scribes 1 Peter 3:19 originally read
(‘in which also Enoch’). This proposal also saw the
preacher to the spirits in prison to be none other than Enoch himself.
_____________________________________________________________
86 Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008
Harris’ hypothesis was adopted in the translations of the New Testament by
Goodspeed (1923) and Moffatt (1928). Later in defence of this conjecture,
Goodspeed (1954) appealed to the similarity of 1 Peter 3:19 to the Enoch
legend as found in 1 Enoch 12-16.

This line of interpreting 1 Peter 3:19 has generally found little favour for
several reasons. First, the proposal has no support from the extant Greek
manuscripts of 1 Peter. Second, the sudden transference of attention to
Enoch does not suit the stream of thought of 1 Peter (Metzger 1975, 693).
Finally, while admitting that the proposed alteration is attractive
palaeographically, Metzger (1992, 185) concludes that “an emendation that
introduces fresh difficulties stands self-condemned”.

6. Conclusion

In this article the major lines of interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-22 have been
noted. These differing interpretations arose over the problems in
identifying the spirits in prison, the actual time of Christ’s preaching to
these spirits, the location of the prison and the nature and purpose of the
Christ’s proclamation. History reveals that very often many of these
interpretations were influenced or eschewed because of contemporaneous
ecclesiastical or theological questions. The text of 1 Peter 3:18-22 was thus
interpreted through external hermeneutical grids whose presuppositions led
the interpreters down their chosen paths to their expected destinations.
Moreover, often the text was plucked from its context to act as a proof text
in order to score theological points.

The overview made it clear that there is something missing. Many, if not
all, of these lines of interpretation have generally ignored the religious
spiritual context of Peter’s audience or have, at best, only briefly
acknowledged its existence. None of the commentaries and scholarly
articles studied have utilised the socio-historic approach in studying this
problematic passage. France (1977, 276), who perhaps influences Marshall
(1991, 117-119), refers briefly to the socio-religious context of 1 Peter
when he notes the similarity between Peter’s original readers and present
day African society concerning a belief and fear of evil spirits.49

As has been observed, the over-riding concern in the past 50 years in New
Testament scholarship has focused on whether the author of 1 Peter had
been influenced by the Jewish Pseudepigraphical writings and the Enochic
tradition. This question, though pertinent, is ultimately not the most
_____________________________________________________________
Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008 87
important. Instead of simply examining the possible origins of 1 Peter 3:18-
22, the important issue to be grappled with is Peter’s purpose in using this
material. Any grammatical-historical exegesis of the passage of 1 Peter
3:18-22 must take seriously the socio-religious context of first century Asia
Minor. Perhaps instead of just asking ‘who are these spirits in prison?’ we
need to also ask, ‘how did Peter’s audience understand terms like spirits,
demons and angels?’ How does this pericope bring solace to the suffering
exiles of Asia Minor? It is imperative that future studies of 1 Peter 3:18-22
take into consideration both the immediate textual context, the overall
purpose of 1 Peter, and the wider socio-historic contexts. The intention is to
do this in subsequent articles.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Athanasius. 1991
Letter to Epictetus, in Schaff, P. & Wace, H., eds. Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church Vol 4. Edinburgh: T & T
Clark).
Augustine. 1994
Letter to Evodius (In Schaff, P., ed. Nicene and Post-Nicene Father of
the Christian Church Vol 1. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. p515-521).
Bauckham, R.J. 1983
Jude, 2 Peter. Waco: Word.
Beare, F.W. 1970
The First Epistle of Peter. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bellarminus, R. 1856-62
Disputationes Roberti Bellarmini de controversies christianae fidei,
adversus huius temporis haereticos. Naples.
Best, E. 1971
1 Peter. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott.
Bigg, C. 1901
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and
St. Jude. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Blum, E.A. 1981
1 Peter (In Gaebelin, F.E., gen ed. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary
Vol 12, Grand Rapids: Zondervan. p241-243).
Bruce, F.F. 1971
1 and 2 Corinthians. London: Oliphants.
Bultmann, R. 1947
Bekenntnis- und Liedfragmente im ersten Petrusbrief. (In Coniectanea
Neotestamentica in Honorem Antonii Fridrichsen. ConNT 11. Lund: C
_____________________________________________________________
88 Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008
 W K Gleerup. p1-14).
Calvin, J. 1963
The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and The First and
Second Epistles of St. Peter. Translated by W.B. Johnston. Torrance,
D.W. & Torrance, T.F. eds. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Carson, D A., Moo, D J. & Morris, L. 1992
An Introduction to the New Testament. Leicester: IVP.
Clement of Alexandria. 1994
Stromateis (In Roberts, A. & Donaldson, J., eds. Ante Nicene Fathers:
Translations of the Writings of the Fathers to 325AD Vol 2, Edin-
burgh: T & T Clark. p490-493).
Clowney, E.P. 1988
The Message of 1 Peter. Leicester: IVP.
Cranfield, C.E.B. 1960
I & II Peter and Jude. London: SCM.
Cyril of Alexandria. 1864
Commentary on St John (In Migne, J-P., ed. Patrologia Graeca Vol
LXXII, Paris. p537d).
Cyril of Alexandria. 1864
Commentary on St Luke (In Migne, J-P., ed. Patrologia Graeca Vol
LXXIV, Paris. p456a).
Dalton, W.J. 1989
Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, A Study of 1 Peter 3:18-4:6. 2nd
ed. Rome: Editrice Ponteficio Institutio Biblico.
Davids, P.H. 1990
The First Epistle of Peter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Elliott, J.H. 2000
1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New
York: Doubleday.
Feinberg, J.S. 1986
1 Peter 3:18-20, Ancient Mythology, and the Intermediate State.
Westminster Theological Journal 48:303-36.
France, R.T. 1977
Exegesis in Practice: Two Examples. (In Marshall, I.H., ed. New
Testament Interpretation. Carlisle: Paternoster Press. p252-281).
Goodspeed, E.J. 1954
Enoch in 1 Peter 3,19. Journal of Biblical Literature 73:91-92.
Goppelt, L. 1978
Der Erste Petrusbrief. 8th ed. Hahn, F., ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.

_____________________________________________________________
Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008 89
Gospel of Peter. 1990
(In Menzies, A., ed. Ante Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings
of the Fathers to 325AD Vol 1,. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. p218).
Grudem, W. 1986
Christ Preaching Through Noah: 1 Peter 3:19-20 in the Light of
Dominant Themes in Jewish Literature. Trinity Journal 7:3-31.
Grudem, W.A. 1988
1 Peter. Leicester: IVP.
Gschwind, K.
Die Niederfahrt Christi in die Unterwelt. Münster: Aschendorff.
Guthrie, D. 1981
New Testament Theology. Leicester: IVP.
Hanson, A. 1982
Salvation Proclaimed, I: 1 Peter 3:18-22. Expository Times 93:100-
115.
Harris, J.R. 1901
A Further Note on the Use of Enoch in 1 Peter. Expository Times
6:346-49.
Harris, J.R. 1902
On a Recent Emendation of the Text of St. Peter. Expository Times
6:317-20.
Harris, J.R. 1902b
The History of a Conjectural Emendation. Expository Times 6:378-90.
Hart, J.H.A. 1903
The First Epistle General of Peter. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Hippolytus. 1990
Treatise on Christ and Antichrist (Translation found in Roberts, A. &
Donaldson J., eds. Ante Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings
of the Fathers to 325AD Vol 5. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. p.209).
Hippolytus. 1990
Easter Homily (Translation found in Roberts, A. & Donaldson J., eds.
Ante Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers to
325AD Vol 5. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. p. 218).
Irenaeus
Adversus Haereses http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.
html.
Irenaeus
Epid http://www.ccel.org/i/irenaeus/preaching/htm/TOC/htm
John of Damascus.
De Fide Orthodoxa. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-09/Npnf2-
09-30.htm#TopOfPage.
_____________________________________________________________
90 Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008
Justin. 1994
Dialogue with Trypho. (In Roberts, A. & Donaldson J., eds. Ante
Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers to 325AD
Vol 1. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. pp194-270).
Kelly, J.N.D. 1950
Early Christian Creeds. London: Longmans, Green and Co.
Kelly, J.N.D. 1969
The Epistles of Peter and of Jude. Peabody: Hendrickson.
Lenski, R.C.H. 1966
The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude.
Minneapolis: Ausburg.
Luther, M. 1967
Luther’s Works Vol 30, The Catholic Epistles. Translated by M.H.
Bertram. Pelikan, J. ed. St Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
Marshall, I.H. ed. 1977
New Testament Interpretation. Carlisle: Paternoster Press.
Marshall, I.H. 1991
1 Peter. Leicester: IVP.
Metzger, B.M. 1975
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United
Bible Societies.
Metzger, B.M. 1992
The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and
Restoration. 3rd enlarged ed, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Michaels, J.R. 1988
1 Peter. Waco: Word.
Origen. 1994a
De Principiis In Roberts A. & Donaldson J., eds. Ante Nicene Fathers:
Translations of the Writings of the Fathers to 325AD Vol 1.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark. pp 278-281).
Origen. 1994b
Contra Celsum (In Roberts A. & Donaldson J., eds. Ante Nicene
Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers to 325AD Vol 1.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark. p. 448).
Reicke, B. 1946
The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism: A Study of 1 Pet. III
19 and its Context. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Salmond, S.D.F. 1984
The Biblical Doctrine of Immortality. Minneapolis: Klock & Klock.
Schlier, H. 1962
Der Briefe an die Epheser: Ein Kommentar. 2nd ed. Düsseldorf:
_____________________________________________________________
Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008 91
 Patmos.
Schweizer, E. 1949
Der erste Petrusbrief. Zurich: Zwingli.
Selwyn, E.G. 1947
The First Epistle of St. Peter. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.
Skilton, J.H. 1996
A Glance at Some Old Problems in First Peter. Westminster Theo-
logical Journal 58:1-9.
Sparks, H.F.D. 1992
The Apocryphal Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Spitta, F. 1890
Christi Predigt an die Geister (1 Petr. 3,19ff): Ein Beitrag zur neutes-
tamentlichen Theologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Stibbs, A.M. 1959
The First Epistle General Peter. London: The Tyndale Press.
Synge, F.C. 1971
1 Peter 3:18-21. Expository Times 82:311.
Van Wyk, G.J. & Van Rensburg, Fika J. 1997
Oiketai (huisbediendes) in die eerste-eeuse Grieks-Romeinse same-
lewing. ’n Sosio-historiese konstruksie vir die interpretasie van 1
Petrus 2:18. In die Skriflig 31(3):229-249.
Vogels, H-J. 1976
Christi Absteig ins Totenreich und das Läuterungsgericht an den
Toten. Freiburg: Herder.
Willmering, H. 1953
A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. Ed Orchard B. London:
Nelson.
Windisch, H. 1930
Die Katholischen Briefe. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr.
Witherington III, B. 1995
Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary
on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Wohlenberg, D.G. 1923
Der erste und zweite Petrusbriefe und das Judasbrief.

NOTES
1
On the history of the interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-22 and 1 Peter 4:6,
Reicke (1946) and Dalton (1989) are very helpful.
2
What makes this even more remarkable is the fact that Irenaeus certainly
knew 1 Peter, as three quotes from the Epistle show. To add to this: there

_____________________________________________________________
92 Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008
 may be as many as ten other allusions to 1 Peter in Irenaeus (see Dalton
1989, 28).
3
Origen’s optimistic attitude towards the sinners of the Flood and Sodom and
Gomorrah is an aspect of his theology of according to
which all divine punishment is therapeutic and temporary.
4
For a fuller discussion see Reicke (1946, 33) and Dalton (1989, 31).
5
For a discussion on the popularity of the Descent of Christ in Syriac-
speaking regions, see Kelly (1950, 380).
6
See Dalton (1989, 31) and Kelly (1950, 380) for the Syriac Peshitta version
of 3:19.
7
See Dalton (1989, 32) for an analysis of the historical factors concerning the
movement away from the interpretation of Clement.
8
For those adopting Clement’s understanding of the passage see Bigg (1901),
Hart (1903), Cranfield (1960), Beare (1970), Synge (1971) and Hanson
(1982). For a fuller list see Reicke (1946, 47-49) and Grudem (1986, 4).
9
Cranfield (1960) hesitantly adopts this interpretation. See also Beare (1970,
147), Synge (1971) and Bigg (1901, 162). Those who advocate the Augusti-
nian position also interpret 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6 as referring to one and the
same event (Clowney 1988, 163).
10
For those who see 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6 as referring to two different events
see Kelly (1969, 173), Best (1971, 144-5), Marshall (1991, 136-139),
Michaels (1988, 237), France (1977, 269), Davids (1990, 153-155), Elliott
(2000, 731), Dalton (1989, 57-60, 149-150, 225-226), et al.
11
See Reicke (1946, 19-27), Dalton (1989, 34-37) and Elliott (2000, 649). See
Irenaeus Haereses 3.204; 4.22.1; 4.33.1; 4.33.12; 5.31.1; Epid 78; and
Hippolytus’ Easter Homily.
12
For a fuller debate on Hippolytus’ Easter Homily where Christ is said to
enter hell to preach to the spirits as a ‘soul among souls’, see Dalton (1989,
36-37) and Reicke (1946, 23-27).
13
See the Gospel of Peter 10.41-44; a fragment of the Apocryphon of Ps-
Jeremiah cited by Justin (Dialogue 72.4) and Irenaeus (Haereses 4.22.1).
14
Calvin (1963, 292) argued that it was the Spirit of Christ that descended and
preached, and not his soul.
15
For Calvin (1963, 293) the interpretation that saw Christ as preaching to the
souls of Noah’s human contemporaries who had been converted just before
their death is too ‘shaky’ and ‘inconsistent with the context of the passage’.
16
For a critical analysis of Calvin’s interpretation at this point, see Davids
(1990, 138).
17
Bellarmine is being discussed here as he appears to form part of this
tradition from Justin (contra Grudem (1989, 204) and Elliott (2000, 649)).
18
The full title of Robert Bellarmine’s work is, Disputationes Robertii
Bellarmini de contriversiis christianae fidei, adversus huius temporis

_____________________________________________________________
Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008 93
 haereticos. The relevant section on 1 Peter 3:19 is found in Tom I, Cont 2,
Lib 4, ch. 13. For details see Reicke (1946, 42-44), Dalton (1989, 39-40)
and Elliott (2000, 649).
19
See Reicke (1946, 42-44) and Dalton (1989, 32-34, 39-41) for a brief
excursus through the Roman Catholic scholars who have adopted the inter-
pretation of Bellarmine and those who have been more circumspect. For a
more recent Roman Catholic scholar’s presentation in support of Bellar-
mine’s interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19, see Willmering (1953, 1179).
20
Luther (1967, 113-114) was quite hesitant when it came to adopting a defi-
nitive interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19. He adopted a more spiritualised inter-
pretation by understanding Christ’s ‘going’ and ‘preaching’ in a spiritual
sense.
21
For a historical analysis on the rise of the optimistic interpretation among
18th Century Lutheran exegetes, see Reicke (1946, 44-46) and Dalton (1989,
41).
22
See Letter CLXIII in Augustine (1994, 515) for an English translation of
Evodius’ missive to Augustine.
23
See Letter CLXIV (Augustine 1994, 515-521) for Augustine’s reply to
Evodius.
24
Some recent commentators have interpreted 1 Corinthians 10:4 in such a
way as to infer the presence of the pre-existent Christ with his people Israel
in the Old Testament. See e.g. Bruce (1971, 91) and Witherington III (1995,
218).
25
‘Spirit’ is capitalised in the following English translations of 1 Peter 1:10-
11 – AV, RSV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, ESV, et al. Kelly (1969, 60-61)
sees Peter adopting ‘a Spirit-Christology’. Others believe Peter is equating
the Holy Spirit with the Spirit of Christ (Michaels 1988, 43-44), et al).
26
Augustine (1994, 515-521) himself did not refer to 1 Peter 1:10-11 to
support his theory.
27
For a brief survey concerning the authorship of 2 Peter and its relationship
with 1 Peter, see Carson et al (1992, 433-437) (contra Bauckham (1983,
158-162)).
28
Reicke (1946, 40-41) mentions the theory, but Selwyn (1947) does not even
mention the work of Wohlenberg.
29
Grudem’s commentary on 1 Peter was originally published in 1988. The
second printing by IVP in the United Kingdom was published in May 1989.
30
The appendix (Grudem 1988, 203-239) is essentially the republication of an
earlier article (1986, 3-31).
31
Clowney (1988, 157,159,162-163) quotes the works of Feinberg (1986) and
Grudem (1988).
32
Skilton (1996) is another evangelical scholar who adopts the Augustinian
interpretation.

_____________________________________________________________
94 Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008
33
Some (Reicke (1946), Selwyn (1947), Best (1971), et al) advocate a
position that sees Christ, between his death and resurrection, preaching after
a descent to the underworld, whereas others (Dalton (1989, Kelly (1969),
Michaels (1988), Elliott (2000), et al) hold that Christ, sometime during his
ascension, proclaimed to the spirits imprisoned in the lower heavens.
34
See 1 and 2 Enoch, Jubilees, Apocalypse of Baruch, Testament of Naphtali,
and the Testament of Reuben.
35
The ‘Sons of God’ of Genesis 6:1-4 are described in the Pseudepigraphical
Jewish literature as being - ‘evil angels’, ‘demons’ (Jubilees 10:2),
‘Watchers’ (1 Enoch 10-16; Jubilees 7:21; 10:5; and Testament of Naphtali
3:5), ‘stars’, ‘spirits’ ( , see 1 Enoch 15:4-10, 16:1 and Jubilees
10:3, 7) and ‘spirits of the angels’ (1 Enoch 19:1). Their illegitimate off-
spring, the Nephilim, are also described as ‘(evil) spirits’ (1 Enoch 15:8-12;
16:1 and Jubilees 10:3-5) or ‘demons’ (Jubilees 7:22; 10:1f).
36
The sin of these ‘sons of God’ seems to have entailed the violation of God’s
commands through their abandonment of heaven and their subsequent
violation of the daughters of men in illegitimate sexual intercourse (1 Enoch
6:3; 21:4).
37
These sinful spiritual beings were punished for their rebellion by being
bound and put in chains (1 Enoch 69:28 and 2 Baruch 56:13) or put in pri-
son forever (1 Enoch 10:4-14; 14:5; 18:13-16; 21:1-10; 54:4-6; 67:4; 88:1-3
and 90:23-24. See also 2 Enoch 7:1-3; 18:3; Jubilees 5:6-11 and 10:4-11).
38
The location of the prison of the angels/spirits and the demonic offspring, is
variously described in the tradition (1 Enoch 18:14-16; 2 Enoch 7:1-3; Tes-
tament of Levi 3:3).
39
To these imprisoned ‘angelic spirits’ or ‘Watchers’, Enoch announces the
condemnation and judgment of God (1 Enoch 12:4-6; 13:10; 14:1-7 and
15:1-16:3).
40
See Elliott’s analysis of Spitta (2000, 649-70).
41
This article interacts with the 1947 reprint of Selwyn’s commentary on 1
Peter. The first printing was published in 1946, the same year as Reicke’s
contribution.
42
Dalton’s first edition, which was published in 1965, proved to be an
influential work on 1 Peter 3:18-22. This article interacts mainly with
Dalton’s second edition.
43
Beare (1970, 146-147) is one who follows Reicke. Compare also Vogels
(1976, 148-152) and Goppelt (1978, 276).
44
Dalton (1989, 20) notes that his original research had been greatly in-
fluenced by the much neglected work of Gschwind (1911).
45
Dalton (1989, 47-48) acknowledges that his thinking on this point has been
influenced to some degree the works of Bultmann (1947), Schweizer (1949)
and Schlier (1962).

_____________________________________________________________
Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008 95
 46
Stibbs (1959) and Best (1971) follow Selwyn (1947) and understand 3:19 as
referring to Christ’s descent to Hades during the period between his death
and his resurrection, in order to preach to the disobedient supernatural
powers. Other modern scholars follow Dalton and see Christ’s preaching as
having taken place during his ascent to heaven (see Kelly (1969), France
(1977), Blum (1981), Davids (1990), Marshall (1991) and Elliott (2000)).
Michaels (1988, 207-208), who similarly accepts the ascension hypothesis,
identifies the ‘sprits’ of 1 Peter 3:19 with the demonic progeny of the angels
of Genesis 6:4.
47
For a brief history of the discovery and publishing of the Enoch literature,
see Sparks (1984, 169-179).
48
See Dalton (1989, 49-50) and Metzger (1975, 693 and 1992, 185) for the
details of Bowyer’s Greek emendation.
49
At the time of writing, France was lecturing in Nigeria (Marshall 1977, 6).

_____________________________________________________________
96 Acta Patristica et Byzantina (19) 2008

View publication stats