1 Peter

SCROLL TO BOTTOM FOR CONTENT THREADS.

Prior Book \| Prior Chapter \| Prior Verse \| Next Verse \| Next Chapter \| Next Book \| Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015
NASB	1 Peter 3:21 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,
AMPLIFIED 2015	1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that [rescue through the flood], baptism [which is an expression of a believer's new life in Christ] now saves you, not by removing dirt from the body, but by an appeal to God for a good (clear) conscience, [demonstrating what you believe to be yours] through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

SCROLL TO BOTTOM FOR CONTENT THREADS.

Subject: in Prisons

Bible Note: Hi again.

When approaching a disputed passage the first important thing is to examine the Greek text carefully (a little unfair I know if you do not know Greek). And when I do so I discover the following:

1). The ‘in which’ in verse 19 is a construction that nowhere else in the New Testament refers to a preceding adverbial dative. If this principle is followed ‘in which’ cannot refer directly to ‘in the spirit.’ It probably therefore means 'in the course of which'.

2). ‘He went’ in verse 19 is the same verb as in verse 22. All other things being equal this would suggest that the two must be interpreted in the same way as a literal journey of Christ (as verse 22 clearly is) occurring around the same time, e.g. ‘He went to the spirits in prison’ and ‘He went into Heaven’.

3). The ‘through water’ in verse 20 finds its best parallel in ‘through the resurrection of Jesus Christ’ in verse 22.

4). The verb ekeruxen can mean either ‘preached’ or ‘made proclamation’. Both usages are found both in the New Testament and elsewhere. Had Peter wanted to say 'preached the Gospel' he had a verb ready to hand which he uses in 4.6, which would have left no doubt.

In fact the idea of triumphant proclamation to the fallen angels of His victory ties in with all heavenly beings being subjected to Him in verse 22. (It is not a question of the Gospel being preached to them. kerusso is neutral. See e.g. Mark 1.45.)

5). The term ‘spirits’, when used on its own without qualification, always elsewhere refers to ‘spiritual beings’ (e.g. Hebrews 1.7, 14; 1 Kings 22.21-23; Job 4.15; Isaiah 31.3 with 2 Kings 6.17; Ezekiel 1.12, 20, 21; 10.17; Zechariah 13.2 where a false spirit of prophesy is in mind). We may add to this the fact that the idea of spiritual beings in prison or the equivalent is found in Isaiah 24.21-22; 2 Peter 2.4; Jude 1.6; Revelation 9.1-11, as well as in external Jewish literature.

I am sorry but I do not agree that the context rules out angels. Peter has very much in mind that his hearers are being persecuted by people who believe in other heavenly beings, and wants to assure Christians that any such are already defeated foes. Furthermore heavenly beings are spoken of in context in verse 22. They will be further dealt with in 2 Peter 2. Compare also 1 Peter 5.8. To open and close the argument about what follows His resurrection ('made alive in the spirit') with a reference to the defeat of such heavenly beings seems to me very suitable.

I would also point out that Peter does again refer to these heavenly beings who are in prison and that is in 2 Peter 2.4. Prisons very often were pits. Please can you tell me anywhere in Scripture where men are spoken of as 'spirits in prison'?

Fallen angels will not be saved. Neither will fallen men once they have died. The men in Noah's day had the privilege of hearing 'the Preacher of Righteousness' (2 Peter 2.5). Why should they alone get a second chance when we are told that they were evil above all men and had opted to liaise with the Devil?

The proclamation was rather of His triumphant resurrection, and of God's victory over all the powers of evil. (Who knows what hopes those evil angels had?).

I see no reference to the generality of mankind in verse 20. It is simply your presupposition. He is not talking about mankind, but about Noah.

So if I have read you right your position is contrary to the tenor of the whole of Scripture, is not based on sound exegesis, and is ignoring the literal meaning of the language. Sorry, but you did ask :-)))

Each one who reads our postings must decide for themselves what they believe that Peter teaches. I do not on my part intend to enter into controversy about it.

God bless you too.

Rabban.