Many Christians believe that, between his crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus went to Hades (the place of the dead) and preached to the people who had died in the time of Noah. This is called the Harrowing of Hell. But did this really happen? A key verse on which this teaching is based is 1 Peter 3:19, which reads, “in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison”. The verse is considered to be one of the most difficult to understand in the New Testament. Commentators mention around 200 different interpretations.[1] Martin Luther wrote, “This is a strange text and certainly a more obscure passage than any other passage in the New Testament. I still do not know for sure what the apostle meant”.[2]

Although there are many challenges in interpreting this verse, Jobes helpfully notes that the basic exegetical questions are

1. Where did Christ go?
2. When did he go?
3. To whom did he speak?
4. What did he say?[3]

To answer these questions, we will consider how the verse fits into the wider narrative of Peter’s letter, and particularly how our interpretation is shaped by the more immediate context, viz. 1 Peter 3:18-22.  

The purpose of Peter’s first letter is to encourage believers who are being persecuted or are about to be. There are three sections in the letter dealing with different aspects of suffering.  The first, 1 Peter 2:19-25, emphasises Christ’s example in enduring unjust suffering; the second, 1 Peter 3:8-22, emphasizes the positive outcomes of Christ’s suffering – atonement (verse 18) and triumph over the powers behind their persecutions (verse 22); the third, 1 Peter 4:12-19, speaks of our identification with and our participation in the sufferings of Christ;

It is within the second suffering section that we find the reference to the “spirits in prison” and a test of any interpretation will be the encouragement it gives to persecuted believers reading the letter.

1 Peter 3:18-22 reads,

¹⁸ For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, ¹⁹ in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, ²⁰ because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. ²¹ Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ²² who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. (ESV).

Atonement and Christ’s Death and Resurrection

Verse 18 contains a clear description of the ‘substitutory atonement’ Christ accomplished for us on the cross. It bears a close relationship to 1 Peter 2:21-24 in the previous section on suffering. The language (“Christ died for sins”) is drawn from descriptions of the Old Testament sacrificial system.[4] The use of the Greek word hapax carries the thought that Christ’s death was a sufficient once-for-all sacrifice to atone for all our sins and bring us into a personal relationship with God. That the “righteous” Christ died for “unrighteous” people continues the sacrificial allusion by reminding us of the Old Testament substitutionary principle which required an unblemished animal to be sacrificed.

The second part of verse 18 contrasts Christ being “put to death in the body” and being “made alive in the Spirit”. In the context of atonement, this is a clear reference to Christ’s death and resurrection.[5] Atonement and resurrection are inextricably linked, as seen in several New Testament passages.[6] This is certainly in Peter’s mind (cf. 1 Peter 1:3; 3:21). One can hardly be born again or saved without atonement being in operation. Thus, in the present context, it would be strange if being “made alive by the Spirit” (1 Pet. 3:18) refers to anything but Christ’s resurrection. The distinction is between Christ’s earthly physical body and resurrected spiritual body (cf. Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 15). In the latter Christ was able to appear and disappear at will (Luke 24:36; John 20:19). He had a different sort of body entirely. Through his death and resurrection, Christ moved from one state of existence to another. 

It should be clear that being “made alive by the Spirit” is not about a disembodied state, some non-bodily ‘spiritual’ existence. The distinction in verse 18 is not between Christ’s body and soul[7], but between his two states of existence, i.e. his earthly human life before his death and his glorified state of existence after the resurrection. As Clowney says: “Peter is not saying that Christ’s body died but that his spirit continued to live. He is saying that Christ died as to the natural, physical sphere of existence, and that Christ was given life as to the spiritual sphere of existence. … Christ’s death was physical, but his resurrection was in the realm of the spiritual, that is by the power of the Holy Spirit.” [8]

This last point is important as it implies that it is in his new resurrected state of existence that Christ went and preached to the spirits in prison after his resurrection.

The spirits in prison

Interpretations as to the identity of the ‘spirits in prison’ fall into three broad categories, although within these there are many variations.[9]

View 1 – Between his death and resurrection, Christ preached to the dead in Hades

This is the oldest view. Most early church fathers, including Justin Martyr in the mid-second century, believed that, between his death and resurrection, Christ preached to the dead in Hades. It is on the basis of this interpretation that the phrase ‘he [i.e. Christ] descended into hell’ was added to the Apostle’s Creed, probably in the mid-third century[10]. Opinion is divided as to whether Christ specifically preached salvation to all the dead of Noah’s day, whether he preached only to the righteous or repentant people who died in the Flood, or whether he preached judgment.

Although this view has an early history, it is not early enough to definitely preserve recollections of what Peter actually meant. Origen (185-253 AD) advocated that even the wicked dead receive another chance for salvation, going well beyond any original sense of 1 Peter 3:19 and the views of earlier Fathers. Reactions to Origen’s extreme position resulted in the decline of the view as a whole, until it received fresh popularity in more recent times. This view is probably the most popular Evangelical Christian understanding today.

View 2 – Christ preached by the Spirit through Noah to the people of his generation.

Augustine suggested that the pre-incarnate Christ, working through the Spirit, preached repentance through Noah to the people of his generation, who were about to be judged by the Flood. Augustine was concerned that view 1 implied that the people of Noah’s day were given the opportunity to repent and be forgiven after they had died. Although Augustine was not certain about his interpretation, most of the medieval Western church and most Reformers held this view.

Those holding this view find support in 1 Peter 1:10-12, which indicates that the Spirit of Christ (i.e. the Holy Spirit) spoke through the prophets of old, including Noah who Peter calls “a preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5). Additional support is found in 1 Peter 4:6 – “For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.” The phrase “now dead” is taken as a reference to the people of Noah’s day, rather than to early Christians who had since died.

Advocates of this view include Grudem and Clowney. The Spirit of Christ certainly preached through Noah. This is not the issue. The question is whether this is what the apostle meant in 1 Peter 3:19.

View 3 – Following his resurrection, the risen Christ proclaimed triumph over the fallen angels that sinned in Noah’s day.[11] 

A third view is that, following his resurrection, the risen Christ proclaimed triumph over the fallen angels that sinned in Noah’s day. This was bad news for the fallen angels as it signified their complete subjugation and certain judgment.  S. Motyer writes, “Jesus’ preaching to these spirits was not an offer of salvation but a proclamation of his victory – in fact, the announcement of the judgment hanging over them.”

Although this view is held by the majority of modern commentators,[12] it takes us beyond our understanding of the spiritual world and appears bizarre to the modern mind.

Determining which view is correct is not an easy task.[13] However, the discussion that follows will suggest that view 3 is probably the correct one and gives a consistent understanding of several bible texts including 1 Peter 3:18-22.  

Linguistic argument

The plural word “spirits” occurs 33 times in the New Testament. When used without qualification (i.e. on its own), the word always refers to evil spirits. Other times, the word can refer to evil spirits, the Holy Spirit, or human spirits,[14] but the context always makes it clear. As there is no indication that the “spirits” were human spirits, we may assume that verses 19-20 describe the risen Christ proclaiming his victory to the fallen angels that sinned in Noah’s day.[15]

Grudem, an advocate for view 2, seeks to refute this argument and maintains that the “spirits in prison” are human, but the examples he cites are all singular and the context makes the meaning clear.[16] As an illustration, we might think of English words that assume a different meaning in the plural, e.g. ‘air’, ‘blind’, ‘character’ etc.

Structural argument

That the “spirits in prison” are angelic beings is also strongly suggested by the chiasm[17] of 3:16-4:5.

A Your slanderers will be ashamed (3:16)

B Suffer though innocent, in God’s will (3:17)

C For Christ suffered for the unjust (3:18)

D He triumphed over hostile spirits (3:19)

E Noah was saved through water (3:20)

Eʹ You are saved through water (3:21)

Dʹ Christ triumphed over hostile spirits (3:22)

Cʹ For Christ suffered (4:1a)

Bʹ Suffer in God’s will (4:1b–2)

Aʹ Your slanderers will be ashamed (4:3–5)[18]

The ‘spirits’ of verse 19 are linked with the ‘angels, authorities and powers’ of verse 22. Although not something the modern reader would have picked up, Keener notes that such chiasm “could have been recognized and appreciated by the rhetorically astute in the first century.”[19] Further, “Chiasm aids memory, communicates rhetorical sophistication, and sometimes serves to highlight, link, or contrast points.”[20] It is commonly found in Scripture.[21]

Consistency with Peters second letter

That Peter believed that fallen angels were imprisoned and awaiting judgment is clear from his second letter (2 Peter 2:4-9).[22]

“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; … then the Lord know how to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.”

That fallen angels were imprisoned and awaiting judgment is also found in Jude 6-7. It would compromise biblical integrity to say Peter could not mean the “spirits in prison” were angels.

In all likelihood, Peter is referring to Genesis 6:1-8, to which we will turn shortly.

The same sort of ideas were found in contemporary Jewish writings, particularly the Book of Enoch. In it, Enoch encountering the ‘Watchers’, who are fallen angels, the “sons of God” of Genesis 6:2. Jude was certainly familiar with the Book of Enoch (Jude 14) and it is likely that Peter was as well. Peter was writing about something his letter’s first readers would have been familiar with.

Peter is referring to ideas which are alien to our way of thinking. Van Gemeren has noted an Evangelical tendency to demythologize certain passages of Scripture that do not fit our understanding. This is certainly an example of this. The episode of demons entering the swine in Mark 5:1-20 is another.[23]

Chronological movement

The progression “Christ was put to death” (crucifixion), “was made alive by the Spirit” (resurrection), “went and preached”, “has gone into heaven”, is significant. The “in which” at the start of verse 19 refers to the resurrected body of Christ of the preceding verse. In this new state of existence, Christ “went and preached” and “has gone into heaven”, activities which followed his resurrection. This means that views 1 and 2 are untenable as they refer to Christ’s activity before the resurrection.

The verb used in verse 19 is ‘going’ not ‘descending’. It is further used in verse 22 of Christ “who has gone into heaven”. Jesus went to wherever the spirits were in prison following his resurrection, but as France writes, “Christ went to the prison of the fallen angels, not the abode of the dead, and the two are never equated.” [24]

In preaching to fallen angels, Christ was declaring his victory over the powers of darkness as part of his exaltation. This ties in with verse 22 which speaks of Christ “at God’s right hand – with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him”.

The days of Noah

The spirits in prison “disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah” (verse 20). The act(s) of disobedience for which the spirits were imprisoned occurred “in the days of Noah”. The relevant background is found in Genesis 6:1-8, particularly verses 1-2, where we are introduced to the enigmatic “sons of God”.

 “When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.”

Our interpretation of this passage has a direct bearing on our understanding of the “spirits in prison”.

There are three major interpretations.

1. The oldest-known interpretation holds that the sons of God are angels, and cites Job 1:6; 2:1 where this phrase is used to describe members of God’s heavenly court. It is a view found in the LXX and ancient Jewish writings (1 Enoch and the Book of Jubilees), as well as in a number of the early church fathers. It is also widely held among modern scholars. This interpretation has been objected to on a number of grounds.
   1. It introduces angels into the Genesis account rather abruptly.
   1. Jesus teaches that angels do not marry (Matt. 22:29–30; Mark 12:24–25; Luke 20:34–36).
   1. Nowhere do the Scriptures depict angels as being sexual beings and whether they can produce offspring is debated.
   1. The intermarriage of Genesis 6:1-2 contributes to God’s judgment on humanity. If these marriages were initiated by angels, it seems unfair that God would judge humankind on such a basis.
2. Another interpretation is that the ‘sons of God’ refers to the line of faithful worshippers of God (running through Enoch to Noah), who were descendents of Seth among whom were those who “call[ed] on the name of the Lord” (Gen. 4:26). The daughters of men, then, would have been the rest of humankind who were not faithful, as exemplified by the line of Cain. In this context, the intermarriage of the two lines represented an unacceptable crossing of boundaries. This position, was held by some church fathers, such as Augustine. A major problems with this view is that there is no prohibition of such marriages found in the early chapters of Genesis.
3. Another opinion, popular among ancient Jewish sages and advocated by some contemporary scholars, proposes that the sons of God refers to human judges or rulers.[25] The marriage of the sons of God to the daughters of mankind is, then, a reference to aristocrats intermarrying with commoners. This interpretation primarily relies on Psalm 82:1, 6–7 where judges are called ‘gods’ and later ‘sons of the Most High’. It is, however, difficult to understand why marriages that crossed societal boundaries were examples of human depravity (Gen. 6:3), or why this would have made God regret creating humankind (Gen 6:6). This view is held by Walton.

In comparing the first two views, Kidner notes that the normal meaning of the term ‘sons of God’ is ‘angels’. There is no hint that it refers to Cainites. He further writes, “The view of angels defies the normalities of experience; the second defies those of language.” [26]

The objections to the angel theory can be addressed fairly easily. That the bible introduces a topic abruptly is not an argument against it. In any case, we have already been introduced to cherubim in Genesis 3:24. Jesus was talking about angels in heaven not having sexual relationships. This does not mean they were sexless, just as resurrected humans presumably are not sexless, even though they do not marry. In any case, Jesus is speaking about obedient, not fallen angels. The fallen angels broke God-ordained boundaries, but this does not mean humans were blameless. They may have willingly colluded with angelic beings, possibly allured by the possibility of ‘super-kids’.

Gemeren comes out strongly in favour of the angel theory[27], as does Umberto Cassuto.[28] Storms writes, “The most likely view is that this text descries a massive intrusion into the domain of humanity.”[29]

Atkinson suggests the issue is a crossing of forbidden boundaries in God’s created order which results in the ‘demonization of the world’.[30] Demonic craving for embodiment to fulfil their lusts is seen in the case of the Gadarene swine. Genesis 6:2 may refer to demon possession which manifested itself in sexual activity. Prior to the Flood, in their desire for power, human beings may have opened themselves up to the demonic. The fallen angels who were involved angered the Almighty who put them into “gloomy dungeons” (2 Peter 2:4) awaiting final judgment. It would have been to these fallen angels that Christ proclaimed his victory following his resurrection. Judgment fell on humankind, at least in part, because of their openness to demonic control.

Despite objections, view does give reasons why some angels incurred God’s wrath and ended up as “spirits in prison”. It certainly seems to be Peter’s understanding.

The Nephilim or ‘men of renown’ (Genesis 6:4) were a group of warriors known for their courage and large size. They were icons of violence. The name continued after the Flood (Numbers 13:33) indicating that it had become a figure of speech for a class of violent warriors. The original Nephilim may have been the offspring of demon-possessed people. However, the text does not actually say they were the result of angelic-human intercourse and caution needs to be exercised in going beyond what the text actually says..

The role of baptism

For Peter, mention of the Flood is used to introduce escape from judgment. It becomes the springboard for Peter to teach that (i) only a few are saved, and (ii) salvation is through ‘water’, leading to a consideration of baptism.

That few were saved would have encouraged persecuted Christians who were painfully conscious of their small numbers and relative feebleness compared to the pagan majority among whom they lived.

A ‘good conscience’ is a formula for the Christian life, “a pledge to God of a life loyally devoted to his service”.[31] “The saving significance of baptism does not lie in the external, physical act of washing, but in the moral and spiritual commitment to God which it symbolises.”[32]

Baptism symbolises our deliverance, which is through the resurrection of Jesus. Our baptism is a post-resurrection proclamation to the powers that they no longer have a hold on us – Christ has triumphed and the fallen angels face judgment.

The triumph of Christ

Verse 22 brings us full circle from verse 19, back to the complete triumph of the risen Christ over the fallen angels. Peter’s readers can take comfort in the fact that “nothing that can come against them is beyond the control of the living and risen Christ”.[33] This is true even of the demonic powers behind their persecutions.

For those of us living two millennia after Peter wrote his letter, it is worth remembering that “the counterparts of the angels, authorities, and powers are still active today.” [34] But we can rest assured that Christ has triumphed and is Lord over every power and circumstance we might find ourselves in.

Summary and Conclusion

The aim of this paper is to understand what Peter meant by the “spirits in prison” in 1 Peter 3:19. Various interpretations have been presented and it is argued that the most credible view is that they are imprisoned angels to whom Christ proclaimed his victory following his resurrection. This interpretation has been justified in a number of ways.

1. It fits the purpose of 1 Peter (to encourage persecuted believers) and with the immediate context of the passage. The spiritual forces that are behind the persecution of believers have been defeated by the risen Lord and their judgment is certain – certainly an encouragement to persecuted believers.
2. Linguistically, it is the stronger argument
3. It connects Christ’s death and resurrection with the meaning of baptism.
4. It provides the most natural understanding of the “spirits in prison”.
5. It corresponds with what Peter says elsewhere about fallen angels (2 Peter 2:4), and with statements in Jude 6-7.
6. This view would be understandable to the first readers of the letter, who would have been familiar with it from contemporary Jewish writings (notably 1 Enoch and The Book of Jubilees).
7. It finds support in the Old Testament section on Noah and the Flood (Genesis 6:1-8), if the “sons of God” are fallen angels, which most Old Testament commentators affirm.

If these arguments are correct, then 1 Peter 3:19 is not speaking about Christ going to Hades and preaching to people who had perished in the time of Noah. There are other verses of Scripture which might lend support to the Harrowing of Hell. Matt. 12:40; Acts 2:31, 24; Eph. 4:9; Col. 1:18; 1 Pet. 4:6 have all been cited. The doctrine, if it is true, must be justified through these passages. Further, Christ certainly preached through Noah by the empowering of the Spirit to the people of his day. However, this is not what 1 Peter 3:19is about.

It is important to remember that Peter is not answering the question of what happened to Christ between his death and resurrection or fitting in with our theological positions. Any argument for the traditional view of  “the Harrowing of Hell” cannot marshal 1 Peter 3:18-22 in its defence.

To return to the question Jobes asked, we now have the following answers:

1. Where did Christ go? To wherever the fallen angels are imprisoned. Peter calls this Tartarus (hell) in 2 Peter 2:4.
2. When did he go? After his resurrection.
3. To whom did he speak? Fallen angels.
4. What did he say? “Christ has risen. He has triumphed. Judgment is assured.”

References

Atkinson, David, BST Message of Genesis 1-11, Inter-Varsity Press (Leicester, 1990).

Clowney, Edmund P., BST Message of 1 Peter, Inter-Varsity Press (Leicester, 1988).

Dalton, W.J., Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of 1 Peter 3:18-4:6, Analecta Biblica (Rome:Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965)

France, R.T., Exegesis in Practice: Two Examples, in Marshall, I.Howard (ed.), New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, Paternoster Press (Carlisle, 1977), pages 252-281.

Grudem, Wayne, TNTC Commentary on 1 Peter, Inter-Varsity Press (Leicester, 1988).

Jobes, Karen H.. 1 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), Baker Publishing Group (Grand Rapids, 2005).

Keener, Craig S., 1 Peter, Baker Publishing Group, (Grand Rapids, 2021).

Motyer, Stephen, and Davids, Peter H., Commentary on 1-2 Peter and Jude, Baker Publishing Group, (Grand Rapids, 2012).

van Gemeren, W.A., The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 : An Example of Evangelical Demythologization?, Westminster Theological Journal, 43.2 (Spring 1981), pages 320-348.

---

[1] David Pawson (Unlocking the Bible, Collins, London:2007) cites 214!.

[2] Quoted in Jobes, Karen H., 1 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) (p. 313). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[3] Jobes, Karen H.. 1 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) (p. 314). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition

[4] Leviticus 5:6-7, LXX.

[5] Keener affirms that the phrase “alive in Spirit” refers to Christ’s resurrection.

[6] See also Romans 4:25; 5:10; 8:32-34; 1 Cor. 15:4; Heb. 9:12;10:12 (resurrection implied).

[7] If this were the case, the Greek words soma (body) and psyche (soul) would have been used, not sarx (flesh) and pneuma (spirit). Sarx refers to the human sphere of existence, while pneuma refers to the supernatural sphere, Cf. 1 Cor. 15:42ff.

[8] Clowney, page 158-9..

[9] Grudem lists five categories.

[10] Despite its name, this early creed did not originate with the apostles.

[11] This view was suggested by Spitta and ably defended by Dalton.

[12] This view supported by Keener, S. Motyer, Jobes.

[13] Jobes highlights several problems involved in the interpretation of the passage that obscure its interpretation: text critical problems, grammatical ambiguity, lexical uncertainties, theological issues, and the literary and theological background. In addition, as Jobes notes, “the passage assumes a familiarity with images and traditions alien to modern culture”. (Jobes, Karen H.. 1 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) (p. 314). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.)

[14] In Hebrews 12, “the spirits of righteous men made perfect” uses the word to refer to humans who have died, but the qualification makes this clear.

[15] An idea suggested by Spitta (1890) and defended by Dalton (1965).

[16] Grudem, pages 206-8. The texts he cites are Ecclesiastes 12:7; Matthew 27:50; John 19:30.

[17]  This refers to a sequence of elements of a sentence or verse, paragraph, chapter or even book which are then repeated and developed – but in reverse order.

[18] Keener, Craig S., 1 Peter (p. 267), Baker Publishing Group, Kindle Edition.

[19] ibid.

[20] ibid.

[21] For an introduction to chiasm, see, Nigel Beynon and Andrew Sach, Dig Deeper, (IVP, Nottingham), 2005, pages 53-55.

[22] I have written elsewhere defending Petrine authorship of 2 Peter.

[23] See Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus, Orbis Books, 2008.

[24] France, page 271.

[25] See, for example, John Walton’s Commentary on Genesis.

[26] Kidner, page 84.

[27] WA van Gemeren, The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4.

[28] On a popular level, the view is held by John MacArthur, who says ‘sons of God’ are “direct creations of God.”

[29] Storms, Spiritual Warfare, page 50 of 357 (kindle edition).

[30] Atkinson, page 131.

[31] France.

[32] Ibid.

[33] So Jobe.

[34] S. Motyer.