From the same study about the views on 1 Peter.
Six Major Views on 1 Peter 3:18-20
Taking into account all possible combinations of the above answers would theoretically allow for 180 different theories. Since, however, the position taken on one of these questions in many cases severely limits the available options, the actual number is considerably less. The number tends to reduce to the following six interpretations.
1. Christ “in spirit” preached through Noah when Noah was building the ark. This was a message of repentance and righteousness, given to unbelieving persons who were then on earth but are now “spirits in prison” (i.e., persons in hell).
2. Between His death and resurrection Christ preached to humans in Hades, giving them a message of repentance and righteousness, thus giving them opportunity to believe and be saved, though they had not availed themselves of such an offer during their time on earth.
3. Between His death and resurrection Christ went to people in Hades and announced that He had triumphed over them and that their condemnation was final.
4. Between His death and resurrection Christ proclaimed release to people who had repented just before the Flood. He led them from imprisonment in purgatory to heaven.
5. Between His death and resurrection or between His resurrection and ascension, Christ descended into Hades and proclaimed His triumph over the fallen angels who had sinned by mating with women before the Flood.
6. The reference to Jesus’ preaching is not to be taken literally. It is symbolic, conveying in this graphic form the idea that redemption is universal in its extent or influence.
Examination of the passage requires much more attention than can be given in the space of this article. Several issues need to be addressed, however, which should narrow considerably the number of viable options.
A basic question pertains to what was preached, and that centers on the meaning of the word κηρύσσω in 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6 .
According to views three and five above, this means preaching either judgment or a triumph over the hearers. In views one and two the preaching was the proclamation of the need to repent and the possibility of forgiveness. In view four it means a declaration of forgiveness and liberation. Thus in views one, two, and four the preaching was “good news,” while in views three and five it was “bad news.” Which meaning is to be understood here?
The word used here is simply the broad word for proclamation. It is not necessarily restricted to evangelization or declaration of good news, or the message of salvation. The idea of bad news here, however, seems to be problematic on one or two grounds. For one thing, it is not consistent with the rest of Jesus’ preaching. While He certainly spoke words of harsh criticism and even condemnation of the Pharisees, it is difficult to find parallels to Jesus “lording it over” persons who were already in prison and incapable of harming or misleading others. Further, the context does not seem to fit this interpretation well. The argument of 1 Peter 3 seems to be concerned with the matter of bearing witness, or giving an account of one’s faith. In fact verse 15 speaks of believers doing this witnessing “with gentleness and respect.” This hardly seems consonant with a declaration of condemnation or victory by Christ. This, then, seems to favor interpretations one or two.
Who were the recipients of the message? Were they humans or angels? Much has been made of the idea of a parallel with the Book of Enoch, in which Enoch preached to the angels who were disobedient in the time of Noah. The claim is then made that this tradition would have been familiar to Peter’s readers and that he merely modeled his argument along that line. Further, there is the claim that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were angels. Genesis 6 is then linked with 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. Then 1 Peter 3:19 is associated with these several verses and with the idea of preaching to fallen angels.
There is much to commend this view, since there was considerable interest in angels at that time. Yet there are problems with it. For one thing, there is no assurance that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 refers to angels. This is a highly disputed passage. Further, the idea of angels mating with humans to produce offspring seems to contradict Jesus’ statement in Matthew 22:30. (Some say Matthew 22:30 indicates that though they do not marry, they do mate. That seems to be a remote interpretation, however.)
What of the view that this was a declaration of deliverance to those who repented in the time of the Flood, but who did so too late to avoid perishing? This view faces several difficulties as well. For one thing, there is no reference to such repentance in the account of the Flood. For another, this creates a special class for these persons, as compared with the rest of those who lived and died in Old Testament times. Why should this be? Presumably, if others in the Old Testament who repented were spared spiritually, these would be spared also, though they perished physically in the Flood. Why should this preaching then focus on them?
Pannenberg holds a rather different view, namely, that this passage is to be understood symbolically. In an exposition of the Apostles’ Creed he discusses the tradition in the early church of Christ’s preaching in Hades and notes that this tradition is found in the New Testament only in 1 Peter 3:18–20 and 4:6 . That Pannenberg does not take this descent and preaching literally is indicated by his comment that the controversy between Lutheran and Reformed theologians over whether it was the crucified or the risen Lord who descended into hell could come only to the kind of mind that confuses the image with the thing itself.
28 This is made clearer still in his book,
Jesus: God and Man, in which he speaks of the “increasingly mythological conception of Jesus’ preaching in the realm of the dead or in hell” which attached itself to the statements in 1 Peter. He says 1 Peter 3:18–20 and 4:6 should be thought of as referring to “the universal significance of Jesus’ vicarious death under the curse.”
29
The proclamation of the missionary message of primitive Christianity by Jesus himself in the realm of the dead is not, like the crucifixion, a historical event. The pictorial character of this concept is not simply a part of the mode of expression, as is the case with the resurrection which still is a specific, historically definable event. The symbolic language about Jesus’ descent into hell and his proclamation in the realm of the dead is just what has been falsely asserted about Jesus’ resurrection, namely, a statement about the real significance of another event, his death.
30
It is difficult to ascertain the basis of Pannenberg’s position. In his view neither biblical nor ecclesiastical tradition per se carries authority. Thus it is somewhat puzzling to know why he considers this a viable view. He seems to say that this idea in the Scriptures is acceptable only because of extrabiblical writings.
