Several years ago John Piper preached a rather strange sermon at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It was entitled, “Why God Inspires Hard Texts.” The question he attempts to answer in that message is this: If God is the perfect communicator, and he is, why did he through the Spirit inspire the human authors of the Bible to write hard texts, difficult texts, texts that are complex and often confusing to us? We know that such texts exist, because the apostle Peter refers to the writings of the apostle Paul in this way in 2 Peter 3:15-16,

“And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”

Think about that for a moment. Here is the apostle Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declaring that the apostle Paul, also inspired by the Spirit, has written some things “that are hard to understand.” If you’ve read much of Paul’s letters you will undoubtedly agree with Peter. But if you’ve read much of Peter’s letters you will undoubtedly agree that he’s as guilty as Paul! I can almost hear Paul say when he read this text, “Peter, me! I write things that are hard to understand? Well, take a look in the mirror, my dear friend. You’ve written a few yourself!”

And he would be right. And nothing that Peter has written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is more difficult or complex than what we read here in 1 Peter 3:18-22. Martin Luther said this is a “wonderful text” but probably the most “obscure” in all the NT. In the final analysis, said Luther, “I do not know . . . what Peter means!”

But why? Why did God do this? How can it be helpful to you and me? In that sermon Piper preached he identifies several reasons, only three of which I want to briefly note.

First, difficult texts in Scripture create in us a sense of utter dependence on God’s enablement. When you come across passages such as the one we’re looking at today, you should feel desperation and absolute dependence on God’s help to understand it. This is good, because it magnifies God as the only one who can bring enlightenment and deepens our dependence on him. Creates humility in our hearts . . .

Second, these sorts of texts serve to deepen our prayer lives. “If you feel dependent on God to help you see the meaning of a text, then you will cry to him for help” (Piper). Consider Psalm 119:18, “Open my eyes, that I may behold wonderful things from Your law.” Seven times in Psalm 119 the psalmist prays, “Teach me your statutes” (119:12, 26, 64, 68,124, 135, 171). Or as Psalm 25:5 says, “Lead me in thy truth, and teach me.”

Third, hard texts forces us to think intently about their meaning. “You might say, ‘No, no, you are confused, Pastor John. You just said that God wants us to pray for his help in understanding, not to think our way through to a solution.’ But the answer to that concern is, No, praying and thinking are not alternatives. I learn this especially from 2 Timothy 2:7, where Paul says to Timothy, ‘Think over what I say, for the Lord will grant you understanding in everything.’ Yes, it is the Lord who gives understanding. But he does it through our God-given thinking and the efforts we make, with prayer, to think hard about what the Bible says.

That being said, I’m going to spare you most of the difficulties of this passage. The primary reason is that I simply don’t have time to explain all the competing interpretations of the text and the many reasons given for them as well as the counter arguments to each position. So I’m going to try to simplify this difficult text by merely explaining what I believe it means.

[By the way, I love doing this! Nothing gets my juices flowing quite like digging deeply into hard texts and seeing what jewels of spiritual truth and insight are uncovered.]

The best way is simply to take each phrase one at a time.

(1) According to v. 18b, Jesus was “put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.” The words “flesh” and “spirit” do not refer to the two natures of Christ, the human and the divine. In all likelihood, this is simply a reference to the death and resurrection of Christ: he was crucified and was raised. He died physically but was made alive by the work of the Holy Spirit. See 1 Timothy 3:16.

Some argue that the word “spirit” here is not so much a reference to the Holy Spirit as it is a reference to the supernatural, spiritual sphere of existence into which Jesus entered upon being raised from the dead. Thus, he died in the earthly, temporal realm, a realm characterized by flesh, and he was made alive or raised to the heavenly, eternal realm, a realm characterized by spirit. In either case, Peter has in view Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

(2) It was in that spiritual realm or by the power of the Holy Spirit that he went and proclaimed his victory over sin and death and darkness to the spirits in prison. This is an extremely difficult statement to understand.

Some believe that Peter is saying that the pre-incarnate Christ, that is to say, the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity before he became human flesh in the person of Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, preached to the disobedient people living in the days of Noah, just before the flood. Christ wasn’t personally present at that time but by means of the Spirit spoke through Noah.

Others argue that it was during the three days between his death and his resurrection that Christ descended into hell and preached to those who were disobedient during the days preceding the flood of Noah. From this some have concluded that he was giving them a second chance to be saved after their deaths.

But I am persuaded that what Peter is talking about is something that happened after Christ’s resurrection from the dead. He’s not talking about what the pre-incarnate Christ did during the time of Noah nor what Christ supposedly did during the interval between his death and resurrection.

Being “made alive in the spirit” or “by the Spirit” in v. 18b is clearly a reference to his bodily resurrection. It was “in” or “by means of” that Spirit, after his resurrection, that he preached to the spirits in prison.

Look at v. 22. Clearly this is describing what we call the “ascension” of Jesus Christ, i.e., following his resurrection he was exalted by God the Father and went into heaven where he sat down at the right hand of God. The word used to describe this ascension of Christ, translated “gone” in v. 22, is the same word used here in v. 19 to describe Christ going to preach to the spirits in prison. There’s nothing in this word that would lead us to think it means to “descend.” It simply means to “go”.

One of the primary reasons I’m convinced of this view is because of the word “spirits” (v. 19). Almost without exception in the NT, the word “spirit” in the plural refers to angels, not human beings. The only exception is Hebrews 12:23 where we read about “the spirits of the righteous made perfect.” The addition of the word “righteous” clearly indicates that humans are in view. Nowhere in the Bible are humans ever referred to as “spirits” without some qualifying word or phrase. But every time it is used without a qualifying word or phrase it clearly refers to angels or demons.

Furthermore, the word “prison” is nowhere used in the Bible to refer to the place of punishment for human beings after death. It is used, however, in Revelation 20:7 to refer to the place where Satan is “imprisoned” for 1,000 years.

Therefore, I think Peter is describing an event after the resurrection of Christ from the dead, probably simultaneous with his ascension into heaven, in which he proclaimed his victory over the fallen angels, i.e., the demons who were imprisoned by God because of their sin. He announced to them their judgment and doom.

But we still have to figure out when and in what way these “spirits” or “demons” disobeyed and why it was important that Jesus proclaimed his victory over them.

Let’s take the first part of that question. When did these “spirits” disobey God and what did they do? The good news is that we have two other passages in the NT that also refer to this event. See 2 Peter 2:4-5 and Jude 6-7. What in the world do these three texts have in mind?

Genesis 6:1-5

“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the LORD said, ‘My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.’ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown” (6:1-5).

This was the "sin" of those demons referred to in 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, for which they are now confined in hell. This "sin" was not their original rebellion, for why, then, would only some be confined and not all? It can't be that only the more wicked were permanently confined, for Satan, the most wicked of all, is still free. The context in 1 Peter 3, 2 Peter 4, and Jude 6 links this "sin" with the flood of Noah. Most believe they are referring to this event in Genesis 6. Possible interpretations:

(1) The "sons of God" were humans, the godly male descendants of Seth, whereas the "daughters of men" were ungodly female descendants of Cain. There are several reasons why this view is unlikely. First, the phrase is "daughters of men" not "daughters of Cain," which on the surface seems more likely to describe daughters of men in general. Second, surely not all the daughters (female descendants) of Cain are to be thought of as significantly more evil than other females in the earth. Third, whereas the phrase "sons of God" is used to describe the nation as a whole, it is never used in the OT to refer to a particular group within humanity noted for their piety. Fourth, on the other hand, it is used specifically of celestial beings.

(2) The "sons of God" were men of nobility (kings, rulers, princes) who because of lust married outside and well below their rank and status (their sin was polygamy). But as Oropeza observes, “it is not clear . . . why God would abhor polygamy enough to destroy the entire earth by the flood. Long after the flood, the Israelites engaged in polygamy without incurring God’s displeasure” (61).

(3) This text describes a massive intrusion of the demonic into the domain of humanity. This was the interpretation dominant in the patristic period until Augustine (354-430) argued for View 1 above. Arguments in support of this interpretation: First, the phrase "sons of God" is used in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Pss. 29:1; 89:6; and probably Deut. 32:8 to refer to angelic beings. [Although we should not give it too much weight, it is worth noting that the phrase "sons of God" was understood to refer to angels in the earliest known exposition of Gen. 6, that is, in 1 Enoch 6-11.] Second, the contrast between "sons of God" and "daughters of men" suggests that the former are to be distinguished from human beings. The contrast is most naturally taken to be between beings who are not human and beings who are. Third, Jude 6-7 implies that the sin of these angels was sexual in nature.

The most frequently cited objection to this view is that angels/demons do not marry or procreate (Mt. 22:30), thus it is inconceivable that demons could engage humans in any kind of sexual relationship. But in Mt. 22 Jesus is describing the heavenly behavior of holy angels, not the earthly misbehavior of evil angels. Also, the point of Mt. 22 is that angels do not intermarry with each other, i.e., they are not a race that propagates itself. But they still might seek sort of sexual interaction with humans. We should also remember that in Gen. 18-19 angels appeared in human form, ate solid food, and were pursued by the homosexual community of S & G. Clearly, "an angel's involvement in sexual activity was not foreign to the Pentateuch's world of thought" (Page, 49). When we add to this that the NT portrays demons as longing to inhabit human bodies, it suggests that Gen. 6 is describing not so much demons per se but demonized humans, i.e., humans in whom demons are dwelling. Page summarizes as follows:

"The sin had a sexual nature, yet it was not simply a sexual sin. More fundamentally, it was a sin of rejecting the order created by God and violating distinctions he had instituted between the various kinds of creatures he had made. Not content to live within the parameters established by Yahweh, the angels formed unnatural unions with human women. The ancient Israelites may well have preserved this story because they saw in it a warning to shun the fertility religions with their sacred marriages between gods and humans" (emphasis mine; 53).

(4) Oropeza suggests that these were not in fact demonized humans but “incarnated demons” (for lack of a better term). He then asks the question: “If angels really did manifest themselves in human form, how is it that they were able to duplicate the human DNA structure necessary to produce offspring (if indeed our current understandings of human structuring are correct)? Even if angels are supernatural and were intelligent enough to do so, creating human life seems to be a work that is reserved only for God” (64). He goes on to suggest that perhaps “the sons of God saw the wickedness of humans and asked God to clothe them with bodies so that they could come to earth to teach men laws and morals. . . . It was at this time that angels descended from heaven to earth. After they were clothed with human flesh, however, they fell to the same passions as do all humans, and so they gave themselves over to the lusts of the flesh, desiring earthly women” (65).

In summary, I believe that Gen. 6 describes the "sin" mentioned in 1 Peter 3, 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 6. Subsequent to their fall from heaven, and as an expression of their moral depravity, an unspecified number of those demons either inhabited (took up residence in) human bodies and contracted marriage relationships with the "daughters of men” or in some way assumed unto themselves genuine human physical bodies. Thus we are reading either about a case of demonized men entering into marriage with women and contributing greatly to the increase of depravity and corruption in the earth (Gen. 6:5-7), or the same action taken by demons who somehow were granted human bodies to fulfill their lustful desires. These demons were, at some later time, consigned to permanent imprisonment until the day of final judgment.

The point of our passage in 1 Peter, therefore, is that after his resurrection and through the power of the Spirit Jesus went to the prison where these “spirits” or demons are being held and he proclaimed to them the victory he had achieved through his death on the cross and his being raised from the dead.

Look again at the close of v. 21 and all of v. 22. Here Peter says that the risen Christ has gone into heaven, having subjected to himself all angels, authorities, and powers. These terms are typically used in the NT for the fallen angels or demons. Therefore, the “spirits” in v. 19 who disobeyed during the time of Noah and were cast into prison are the same “angels, authorities, and powers” in v. 22 who have been put in subjection to the Lordship of Christ.

But we still have two questions to answer. First, what is all this talk in vv. 20-21 about Noah and the flood and Christian baptism? More specifically, what does Peter mean in v. 21 when he says that “baptism . . . now saves you”? Second, what is the point of the whole passage? Why did the Spirit inspire Peter to write it? How was this supposed to help the people of the first century and how is it supposed to help us today?

First, Peter’s reference to the “spirits” or demons who disobeyed just before the great flood, as described in Genesis 6, provided the link to his mentioning of Noah and the building of the ark. Peter sees in Noah’s experience and that of the other seven people with him a pattern or type or prefiguring or foreshadowing of the experience of Christians in his day (and today as well):

• The fewness of the people (8) / the minority to whom Peter was writing
• Noah and his family persecuted and slandered / Peter’s audience persecuted and slandered
• God set apart Noah and his family in the ark / God set apart the Christians of the first century and today through baptism.

So what does Peter mean when he says that “baptism” saves us? Note clearly what he does not mean. The physical action of baptism in which water removes or cleanses dirt from the body has no saving power. There is no intrinsic saving power in water baptism. There is no mechanical relationship between being immersed in the water and having your sins forgiven. The physical dimension of baptism is good for washing your body but not your soul! Neither the water nor the ritual itself has a magical quality. I don’t know how Peter could have been any clearer: Baptism as an outward physical ritual of itself accomplishes nothing with respect to eternal life.

The only sense in which baptism saves, says Peter, is insofar as it provides the occasion for “an appeal to God for a good conscience.” In other words, when you get baptized you appeal to God or you ask God, on the basis of the death and resurrection of Christ, to cleanse your conscience and forgive your sins. Baptism is the occasion on which the believer calls out to God for spiritual purification. It is the call of faith, not the water, that results in salvation.

Some prefer the translation, “a pledge to God from a good conscience.” In this case, it is in baptism that the believer responds to the question: “Do you trust Christ for salvation and pledge yourself to follow him and submit to his Lordship?” The response, “Yes,” is the “pledge” or promise of the believer, in response to which God saves.

Therefore, baptism saves, says Peter, only in the sense that it is the outward expression of the inward commitment to God; it is the external expression of an internal repentance; it is the physical symbol of a spiritual reality.

It is not the water itself or its cleansing effect on the body that saves. Peter is unmistakably clear about that. Baptism saves only insofar as it is the public expression of commitment and repentance on the part of the believing soul. Baptism is the vehicle or the instrument of your appeal to God, or of your pledge to God.

Second, what is the point of the whole paragraph? Peter’s audience was suffering greatly at the hands of their enemies. This entire letter is a call for them to persevere, an encouragement to them not to quit or abandon their faith. Peter’s point here is two-fold:

(1) He wants to reassure them that their unbelieving enemies and especially the spiritual powers of evil that stood behind those enemies cannot win! They cannot prevail! They are not outside of Christ’s sovereign power or control. In fact, they were thoroughly defeated at the cross and resurrection of Christ.

Read Col. 2:14-15. Christ has triumphed over them. In fact, he has even gone to the place of their imprisonment and added an exclamation point, as it were, to their defeat, proclaiming to them that He is Lord.

(2) He also encourages them to persevere by reminding them of what their baptism means. By being baptized they are marked out as God’s chosen few who, like Noah and his family, will be saved even when all around them mock them and slander them. Their baptism commits them to unswerving loyalty to God no matter the consequences. Baptism is the symbol of their being united with Christ in his resurrection, as well as his defeat of the demonic hosts. Your baptism is the reminder of the victory in which you stand, the victory that Christ achieved by his death and resurrection and exaltation above all principalities and powers.

Yes, this is a very difficult, a very hard text of Scripture. But it is a glorious one as well. And careful study of it and prayer over it will pay rich dividends for us as we face the hostility of Satan’s hosts. They are defeated. We win! And we win because Christ won. And that marvelous victory is beautifully expressed in the waters of baptism where we repent of the old life and commit ourselves by his grace to the new life.