This interpretation
is probably the most common among contemporary exegetes and interpreters, but
it suffers from a number of substantial deficiencies. First, while the word for
“spirits” is commonly used of angelic beings, it is not always so used. Hebrews
12:23 uses the term to refer to humans and Grudem identifies ten other similar
usages (Grudem, “Christ Preaching Through Noah,” 6). Moreover, since the beings
referred to in Hades are, in fact, dead, it makes sense that Peter would speak
of them as spirits. Second, this view forces an awkward interpretation of the
word for “preached” (Greek: εκηρυξεν, from the verb κηρυσσω). Schreiner argues
that this fact is “the greatest difficulty” for those who claim Christ preached
only to angelic beings (Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 189). In the New
Testament and Septuagint this word is consistently used to refer to
evangelistic preaching (Grudem, “Christ Preaching Through Noah,” 18. These
considerations suggest that “on the whole it seems more satisfactory to take κηρυσσω in its
Normal New Testament sense” (C. E. B. Cranfield, The First Epistle of Peter [London:
SCM, 1950], 85), namely as a preaching of the good news of salvation, not as a
message of condemnation. Third, it is odd that the proclamation is made only to
some of the angels, especially since their sin is long part and they have
already received judgment and been imprisoned (Feinberg asks, “What would be
the point of announcing such a condemnation? Would they not already know that?”
[“1 Peter 3:18-20, Ancient Mythology,” 327). Instead of announcing the condemnation
of angels already imprisoned, it would seem far more relevant to make a proclamation
to Satan, who was not imprisoned and about whom Peter admonishes his readers,
just two chapters later, to “Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil
prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (1 Pet 5:8) (In
response to the question, “Why only proclaim to some of the angels?, Schreiner
says, “This question is an excellent one” and [very fairly] admits that “we
cannot answer every question raised in difficult texts” [1, 2 Peter, Jude,
189=-90). The fourth objection to the preaching being given to sinful angels is
this understanding assumes without reason that the preaching took place after
Christ’ ascension. It is difficult to see the “went” in 1 Peter 3:19 as the same
as the “has gone” in 1 Peter 3:22. Finally, such an understanding ignores the
fairly clear presence of the christological formula of crucifixion, death,
descent, resurrection, and ascension present in 1 Peter 3:18-22. (James Beilby, Postmortem
Opportunity: A Biblical and Theological Assessment of Salvation After Death [Downers
Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2021], 147-48)
