The gospel was preached to those who are dead

I Peter 3:19 to 4:6 has several hard sentences. The first is I Peter 3:19 which speaks of Jesus preaching to the spirits in prison. Then is the image of baptism in I Peter 3:20-22. And finally is I Peter 4:6 which says that "the gospel was preached even to those who are dead".

I Peter 4:6 is usually interpreted as preaching to those who are "spiritually dead", but this interpretation has the problem that it does not explain the use of the word 'even' in the sentence. Since the gospel is essentially preached to the "spiritually dead" the use of also (KJV) or even (modern versions) does not make sense.

Some take this passage as preaching to those who died before the coming of Jesus, so that they could also hear the gospel and believe. The problem with this interpretation are several, the main being that the passage implies that the gospel was preached by the church and not by Christ. So those who see this as the Old Testament dead see I Peter 4:6 as looking back to I Peter 3:19. But I Peter 3:19 and 20 seems to restrict that event to the time of Noah - compare II Peter 2:4 and Jude 6.

There is one other interpretation which to me makes more sense.

Peter is writing his epistle in the context of the suffering coming on the church due to persecution. One of the expectation of the early church was the immediate return of Jesus to receive those who believe into glory. This expectation is seen in the nbext verse I Peter 4:7 which reads as, "But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer."

They were then disturbed by the fact that some believers had died before the return of Christ and was concerned as to what would happen to them. Paul addresses this issue in I Corinthians 15. I feel that Peter is also addressing the same issue here and 'the dead' here refers to those who heard the gospel but died either naturally or due to persecution. Peter is saying that these have not believed in vain as their spirits would live.

This interpretation takes into the consideration the issues of the time much better than the other two interpretations.

What do you think of this?

Should women desert abusive husbands?

I Peter 3:1-6 reads as follows:-

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.  Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;  But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.  For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:  Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Verse 1 says that even if the husband does not obey the word, the women must be submissive so that he may be converted. This has led many churches to have no answer to the woman undergoing physical, psychological or emotional abuse from her husband. The only consolation they can give is what Peter writes – follow the example of Jesus in taking unjust suffering and look for the hope of a future reward I Peter 4:12-16.

In the context of the time when Peter wrote his epistle, there was little choice for the women as they had no standing in law or society and so quiet endurance and the hope of the future was their only consolation. But in today’s society where the women is emancipated and has options available to her, would Peter have written differently?

There were many possible interpretations expressed, all of them tenable.

1. The teaching is absolute and the women have no option but to remain with the husband unless he voluntarily leaves. I am very uncomfortable with this interpretation and have seen the havoc this has played in many lives. Women have been forced back to their abusive husbands, and seeing no solution to their problem they commit suicide, or just fade away, having lost all hope.

2. Peter would have written differently. The women have every right to escape unjust persecution from the husband and leave him, though she may not remarry. This view has the problem that the teaching of the Bible is not seen as absolute but written for a particular context. The principles are absolute, but not the details. While I am comfortable with this, many are not.

3. This is written in the context where the man is not breaking any law but is not a believer. But if the man is breaking the Law of God and of the land by inflicting physical, mental or emotional abuse then the woman has the right to break free. So the phrase “obey not the word” in verse 1 means an unbeliever and not a person who abuses the wife.

4. Peter had no intentions of replacing the Old Testament Law by a New Testament Law!! We are no longer under the Law, but are led by the Spirit (Rom 8:14). The Law is a guide but the Spirit will tell us what to do in every situation. In some case women will be asked by the Spirit to remain submissive and see the great deliverance of God. In other cases the Spirit would tell the women to leave the husband till he learns his lesson and returns or marries someone else so that she is free.  We need to be sensitive to what the guidance of the Spirit in these situations where it is not clear what we are meant to do.

Many are horrified at the fourth option. However the Bible states very clearly that we are to obey the authorities and be submissive to them. Yet the Spirit of God guided Martin Luther to disobey and rebel. So this is a possibility which cannot be rejected offhand.

While no one advocates ignoring the Law and choosing what to do by ones spiritual instinct, we do recognise that occasionally the Spirit does tell us to do something that appears contrary to the Law. This is especially true when the teaching is not 100% clear.

Since this is the exception, and not a rule, we need to be very careful when we feel that the Spirit is leading us in a direction that is not the norm. We need to discuss with elders in the church and make sure that we are not misleading ourself.

Joint heirs of the grace of life

This week’s discussion in the Letters of Peter class created a lot of debate over the interpretation of a passage and the solution the Bible offers to women in bad marriages. In this blog I am looking at the discussion on the interpretation of I Peter 3:7 and in the next post I will look at I Peter 3:1-6.

In I Peter 3:7 Peter uses the phrase “joint heirs together of the grace of life”. This phrase means that the husband and wife are together the “joint heirs of the grace of life”. What does the phrase “grace of life” mean in this context?

 

In I Peter 3:1 it speaks of women being submissive to their husbands “even if they do not obey the word”. So does “not obeying the word” mean that they do not believe and do not have salvation or does it mean that they have salvation but are wrong in their behaviour on some issues?

Most take I Peter 3:1 as referring to non-believing husbands. This creates a difficulty as if I Peter 3:7 is linked with I Peter 3:1 then even the non-believing husband is becoming a “joint heir of the grace of life” and we need to interpret the phrase “grace of life” accordingly.

The various interpretations given at the discussion were as follows:-

1. Linking I Peter 3:1 with I Peter 3:7 the “grace of life” is seen as the grace of childbirth or parenthood. Even the non-believing husband partakes in this. (This is the line taken by the TAFTEE course.)

2. Linking I Peter 3:1 and I Cor 7:14 with I Peter 3:7 “the grace of life” is seen as God’s presence in the present life in a way that is less than salvation. In other words, God is present in the family even though the father is not a believer, because of the sanctification the believing wife brings. (This was my suggestion and I think no one agreed with this J.)

3. Separating I Peter 3:1 from I Peter 3:7 since I Peter 3:1-6 speaks of women’s behaviour with respect to the husband and I Peter 3:7 speaks of the husbands behaviour with respect to the woman.  So I Peter 3:7 began a new thought.

Since in the context of the time, most women would adopt the faith of the husband, when speaking to believing husbands, Peter assumes that the wife also believes. (This may not be true today). So “the grace of life” is eternal life which the couple share as joint heirs. (This is from one of the study Bibles a student had.)

 

These were the three possible interpretations the group came up with. Any further ideas or suggestions?