Commenting on 1 Peter 3:19 in light of scholars such as William Joseph
Dalton, Christ's Proclamation to the
Spirits: A Study of 1 Peter 3:18-4:6 (who denies that the texts are
presenting Jesus as preaching to the dead, but instead, proclaiming to the
condemned angels in the heavens post-resurrection), A.T. Hanson wrote the
following:
What is the meaning of εν ω in 3.19?
Scholars fall into two camps: one group holds
that εν ω refers to πνευμα and therefore means that it was
in the dimension or realm of spirit that Christ preached to the spirits in
prison . . . According to this interpretation the author is still maintaining
in verse 19 the σαρξ-πνευμα distinction which he makes in
verse 18, and is saying that Christ’s death deprived him of flesh, but that his
life continued in the Spirit in which he rose on the third day . . . The other
group of scholars holds that εν ω means something like ‘in these circumstances’ . . . [these
scholars argue] that Christ being εν πνευματι does not mean the same thing as πνευμασιν in verse 19; εν must
therefore be either a temporal or a causal conjunction. 1 Peter uses εν ω four times elsewhere as a
conjunction, so [Selwyn] concludes that we have here a temporal conjunction
indicating the period during which Christ preached to the spirits. Dalton,
though he takes εν ω as ‘in
which Spirit’, would make the phrase apply not to the descensus but to the resurrection of Christ (pp. 124ff; 138). He lays
much stress on ζωοποιηθεις,
claiming that this must refer to resurrection and not just to continued
existence in the world of the dead. Lundberg agrees that the word refers to the
resurrection, but merely concludes that it is mentioned out of order, since
there is certainly a reference to the descensus
here(pp. 106-7). Bieder (op. cit., p. 107), who denies that there is a
conscious reference to a descensus at
all in this passage, claims that, had the author meant to imply a descensus, he would have used katabas not poreutheis. But we may point out that in 3.21, where he certainly
means a going up, he uses poreutheis
not anabas, so no capital can be made
for Bieder’s view from the word-usage here. As for Lundberg’s argument, ζωοποιηθεις
πνευματι is a
strange way to describe the resurrection of Christ’s body. In fact our author
is probably rather embarrassed as to what language he is to use to describe the
mode of existence of Christ during the descensus.
The σαρξ-πνευμα
contrast was all he had; a Platonic σωμα-ψυχη contrast was quite alien to his
thought-world. I incline to think that εν ω probably should be taken as meaning ‘in which dimension of Spirit’,
despite Reicke’s well-marshalled arguments. The parallel with Romans 6.1-11 ,
and perhaps the Christian interpretation of Psalm 88.6 (87.5 LXX) εν νεκροις
ελευθερος, suggest
that our author thought of Christ as having died to the flesh (and thereby to
sin) but as continuing to live in the Spirit as he enters the abode of the
dead. We may note also that the author of the Hodayoth, when he echoes Psalm 88.6 in 1 QH viii.28-9, can say that
his spirit (rwḥy) is among the dead. (Anthony
Tyrrell Hanson, The New Testament
Interpretation of Scripture [London: SPCK, 1980], 128, 129)
Elsewhere,
addressing the question of “Where did the preaching take place?” Hanson wrote:
On this point Dalton finds himself in a
relatively small minority. But he does have the support of H. Schlier in Christus und die Kirche im Epheserbrief (Tūbingen
1930), p. 15. Most scholars conclude that this passage does intend to describe
a descensus ad inferos, and that
therefore the preaching must have taken place in the land of the dead, the
underworld. Dalton (p. 33) holds that ζωοποιηθεις πνευματι in 3.18 refers to Christ’s bodily
resurrection at the end of the triduum,
and hence that the preaching to the spirits took place after that, that is
during the forty days between the resurrection and the ascension (p. 186). This
preaching took place in the realm of the air, which, according to him, is where
the rebellious angels were confined (pp. 165f). We have already argued the
point about the meaning of ζωοποιηθεις πνευματι, but we might add here that Dalton’s view
seems to depend on the acceptance of the Lukan schema of a forty days’ interval
between resurrection and ascension, of which there is no sign in 1 Peter. Also,
Dalton is led to his argument to deny that the concept of the Church as the ark
of salvation is to be found in verses 20-21; this is because he wants to avoid
any suggestion of Christians dying with Christ in baptism, as that would point
too clearly towards a descensus
scheme here (p. 207). Moreover, he himself points out certain parallels between
this passage and Jonah 1.2; 3.4, where the words πορευθητι, κηρυξον, and εκηρυξε in the LXX seem to have an echo
in 1 Peter 3.19 (pp. 150-51). But if there is a link with the story of Jonah
this is a strong argument in favour of a descensus
being intended here . . . (Ibid., 130-31)
