ARTICLE III.

EXPOSITION OF 1 PETER 3: 18-20.

By Rev. JOHN G. HALL, South Egremont, Mass.

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved."

Or the many disagreeing interpretations of this passage, it is our design to notice only two; two opposing interpretations; for the most part held by two differing classes of professing Christians; and which might be called, for convenience' sake, the extraordinary, and the common.

The common interpretation holds the passage in question, as meaning nothing more, than that Christ, by his Spirit, or by the Holy Spirit, in Noah, a preacher of righteousness before the flood, preached salvation ages ago to the disobedient; who, in consequence of their continued and perverse disobedience, are now confined in prison; by prison being meant the hell of the lost, where their worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched.

The antagonist, or extraordinary interpretation, supposes that Christ, after the crucifixion, while his body yet lay in the tomb, made his way in spirit to the regions of the departed, and preached the gospel to the imprisoned; since they had died without having heard it: the disobedient in the days of Noah being mentioned on account of the great multitude who shared in that sudden destruction.

To this main idea of the extraordinary theory, are attached many other points of importance; points of implication and consequence, which deserve, by virtue of their enormity, a special notice; and which may be occasionally glanced at in the various remarks which follow.

The strong points of the interpretation extraordinary, seem to be mainly three:

1. That there is strict antithesis in the 18th verse, between DavarwDeis pèv oaoxí, "being put to death as to his flesh," and ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ τῷ πνεύματι, (not " quickened by the Spirit,” but) "maintained alive as to his spirit;" in which, i. e. in which spiritual state of existence, he went and preached unto the spirits in prison.

2. That if Christ preached only through Noah, the words "he went" and preached, are redundant.

3. That this version is sanctioned by numerous passages in the Bible containing allusions to a time when the mediatorial kingdom shall be completed, and all things shall be made. new in restitution; and when things from all worlds, above and beneath, shall be subdued to righteousness, that God may be "all in all."

Concerning this last argument, and which is the main pillar indeed of the extraordinary theory, it is sufficient here to say, that it is built on much that is doubtful and beclouded, and even purely imaginative. Its foundations, to say the least, are uncertain. Its most prominent points, it plainly assumes. It assumes that the final restitution of all things, spoken of in the Scriptures, includes the restoration of all fallen and lcst men to the blessings and holiness of "sons of God;" and, of course, the restoration of the cast-out angels also. It assumes that God cannot close up the mediatorial reign, cannot subdue all things to himself, and be "all in all," without opening with the arm of sovereign mercy, and, with the sound of redemption, the gates of the eternal prison. No man may say that these are not points of unequivocal assumption. Have not the majority of the learned and pious world, of all known ages, been against them? Does not the same majority now, while it receives the scriptural intimations that the mediatorial reign is one day to close, at the same time reject the annexed condition of universal and indiscriminate ransom, as a point of mere conjecture or fancy; to say the least, a point of extreme uncertainty? If so, then this argument is of no positive

account at all in support of the alleged truth of the extraordinary exposition of this passage.

Upon the second argument, the alleged redundancy of the phrase, "he went" and preached, it may be simply remarked, that it rests as a mere matter of taste whether this be a redundancy or not. Perhaps as many readers would regard Peter as designing to convey nothing special by it, as the contrary. Or, it might have been a mere matter of taste with the writer. Another apostle might have left out the words "he went," and simply have said, "by which also he preached." And then again, a third might have written with Peter, "by which also he went and preached."

But if it be insisted on, that the words are expressive of motion, then it may be inquired how it was unnatural in Peter, when speaking of the Lord of glory, whose appropriate residence was in heaven, preaching unto the sons of men who had made themselves vile, and their earth vile, as going to preach unto them? How was it improper? It may also be said that such or similar phrases, with reference to the persons of the Godhead, are in common use in the Bible, and in common use among Christians of modern days. "The Lord came down," it is said in Genesis, " to see the city and tower which the children of men builded." "The Lord came down on Mount Sinai." "He bowed the heavens, and came down," etc. And we daily pray to that Spirit, who is every where present and never afar off, to come down, to descend, to draw near, and bless. And to the Ephesians, who had never seen Christ in the flesh, Paul says that he "came and preached peace" unto them, when they were afar off. It is no marvel, then, that Peter should say, concerning the Redeemer, even before his incarnation, that by his Spirit he went and preached unto the disobedient in the days of Noah.

The remaining argument of the extraordinary theory, is based upon a proposed rendering of the phrase ξωοποιηθείς δὲ τῷ πνεύματι ; by which it would have these words carry the meaning of kept alive in spirit; or the like.

But where can any thing be found to countenance this?

Zoozoo is defined, in the lexicons, as meaning to give life, to reanimate, etc. In various tenses, it is used in the New Testament twelve times. Once it refers to God, as he who giveth life to all creatures; 1 Tim. 6: 13. Thrice it refers to the life-giving power, spiritually, of the Holy Ghost, or of the doctrines of the Gospel; John 6: 63. 2 Cor. 3: 6. Gal. 3:21. Seven times it is used with direct reference to the raising of the dead; John 5: 21. Rom. 4: 17. 8: 11. 1 Cor. 15: 22, 36, 45. The only remaining occurrence of the word, is in the passage before us; the meaning of which we have been in quest of, but which must now be regarded as decided, by the undivided testimony of the New Testament writers, to be giving life, physically or morally, and raising from the dead. To put upon it, as used in the text, a different meaning from this, raising from the dead, is a procedure of mere gratuity; it is pure conjecture; it is making the obvious sense bend to a pre-formed and a favorite theory. The translators were but using a definition which the New Testament penmen themselves had given them, when they wrote, "quickened by the Spirit."

Moreover, if Coonooɛis refers not to Christ's rising from the dead, then no mention of this event occurs at all in the passage; which would be so extraordinary, as of itself to refute the disputed supposition. The verses 19, 20, and 21, are without doubt parenthetical; so that the mention of the resurrection of Christ in verse 21, belongs within the parenthesis. Verses 18 and 22 belong consecutively together; and if so, where, on the conjecture above, is mention of Christ's rising from the dead? Peter carries Christ through his sufferings, and through death in the flesh, and then to the submundane prison, and then, whither? To heaven. No mention of his victory over death, his conquest over the grave; no mention of that which, if it be not true, "then your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins; then also they that have fallen asleep in Christ have perished." It is enough to ask, if this is the way in which apostles treated the great sealing fact of the gospel, Christ's death. Did Peter thus forget the resurrection?

Should it be inquired why the Spirit is mentioned, in connection with the resurrection of Him who said, "I lay down my life of myself, and I take it again ;" I answer, that it is the testimony of the Scriptures, that he was, at his resurrection, "quickened by the Spirit." Whether it were the eternal essence of his own divine nature, or the third in the Trinity, were there positively no means of determining, it could be of little importance for us to know. The things that are revealed belong unto us. It is said, in Heb. 9: 14, that he offered himself for us through the eternal Spirit. And in Romans 1: 4, it is said that he was "declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness. Parallel to these passages, is the expression of Peter, "quickened by the Spirit."

How Christ could have preached in the days of Noah, is plain, if the Holy Spirit be the spirit referred to. And not less plain, if his own spirit be the spirit. For it is enough that the Son of God was before Noah; and that the apostles so received him. He was the spiritual rock in the wilderness, from which the godly among the tribes drank. It was His Spirit, also, says Peter, 1: 10, which was in the prophets; the prophets of old; of whom Enoch certainly (before Noah, if not Noah himself) was one. So that it was but in keeping with the idea stated in the 10th verse of his first chapter, to mention, as he has done, in the 19th and 20th verses of his third chapter, that Christ, the very crucified and risen Christ, in the days of God's long-suffering with the antediluvians, preached the gospel of life to those self-same disobedient ones that are now bound fast in the fetters of an eternal prison.

What I have further to offer upon this passage, and upon the extraordinary interpretation of it, will be presented in promiscuous paragraphs.

1. It is admitted by all, that the disobedient antediluvians passed immediately from this life into a state of positive punishment. This would be evident even from the expression "in prison," used by the apostle.

2. How remarkable is it, that this alleged mission of