1 Pedro 4:6

For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead. — This version is misleading, and seems indeed to be one of those rare cases where the original has been expanded by the translators for doctrinal ends. The Greek is simply, For for this end was the gospel preached to the dead also, or, still more literally, to dead men also. No one with an un-preoccupied mind could doubt, taking this clause by itself, that the persons to whom this preaching was made were dead at the time of being preached to. If this is the case, then, pretty obviously, St. Peter is carrying us back to his teaching of 1 Pedro 3:19, and is explaining further the purpose of Christ’s descent into hell.

That they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. — In order to obtain a clear notion of this hard saying, it will be necessary once more to survey the course of the whole passage. “It is better,” the Apostle said, “to suffer in well-doing than in evil-doing.” They must take their choice, that is, which kind of suffering they would have. It was not indeed certain that in case they chose to do well they would suffer for it; and if they did, there was the history of Christ to encourage them. But in case they chose to be evil-doers, it was certain that they would suffer. “And you had better,” he says, “suffer in well-doing than in evil-doing.” He then gives an instance of persons who suffered in evil-doing — the fleshly Antediluvians, whom God cut short in their crimes by the Flood, and to whom Christ went to preach in their prison-house. He then exhorts his readers — some of whom had, for one reason or another, been allowing themselves to fall into antinomian ways — not to live any longer to the flesh, not to make true the slanders of the heathen, who tried to make out that the Christians were as bad livers as themselves; for such evil-doers were doomed to speedy suffering; those heathens would soon be called to account by Him who was ready to judge quick and dead alike; “for,” he adds, “the object of that preaching to the dead also was that they may be judged according to men in flesh, but may live according to God in spirit.” (1) The first question is, What does the Apostle mean to substantiate by this last verse, “for for this cause?” Not the fact that Christ will judge the dead as well as the quick, for that would have no practical bearing upon the readers. Not the fact that Christ was now ready for judgment; for although He will certainly not come until the dead as well as the quick are in a position to be judged, yet we should then have expected something more like, “The reason why the dead were preached to was that the judgment might no longer be put off;” instead of which, the whole point, of the verse is the particular destiny in reserve for those dead, which destiny was the intention and result of Christ’s preaching the gospel to them. It must, therefore, be a further reason for warning the Christians not to live lives of evil-doing like the contemporaries of Noah or their own heathen contemporaries. If it be necessary to attach the word “for” to any particular words, we may perhaps attach it to the words “they shall give account;” and 1 Pedro 4:6 would hint at the kind of account they would have to give, as “giving account” implies the settlement which follows. (2) But if 1 Pedro 4:6 clenches the warning to the Christians not to become antinomian, then we must understand the destiny of these dead to whom Christ preached to be not the brightest, after all. This brings us to consider what is meant by their being “judged in flesh” (i.e., as in 1 Pedro 4:1, so far as flesh is concerned). In the previous verse, Christ is said to be quite ready to “judge” quick and dead. The context makes us feel that St. Peter is not picturing to himself that scene as one of calm forensic investigation, with “opened books” or the like. His idea of this judgment is rather of a “judgment” such as took place in the days of Noe, a great crisis (the Greek word for “judgment”) or world-wide catastrophe, which, of course, cannot harm the just, but only the unjust. He shows the same conception of the Judgment, and illustrates it by Noe’s Flood, in 2 Pedro 2:5; 2 Pedro 3:6. Now “judgment” is a neutral word, which, in Scripture, takes its colour from the surroundings, so that it sometimes is a thing to be longed for (e.g., Salmos 43:1; Salmos 72:2; Hebreus 10:30); at other times a thing to be dreaded, as here. Though we do not limit the “quick and dead” here to mean the wicked quick, and dead, yet they are evidently uppermost in St. Peter’s mind, so that there is scarcely any conscious change in the meaning of the word “judged” when we pass from 1 Pedro 4:5 to 1 Pedro 4:6. It there means certainly a judicial punishment, or even judicial destruction. While the word often denotes a condemnation (as in English we say “to sentence”) — for example, in João 16:1; 2 Tessalonicenses 2:12; Apocalipse 19:2 — it seems to have the further notion of a judicial death in 1 Coríntios 11:31 : “Had we been in the habit of discerning ourselves, we should not have been subject to these repeated judgments (weakness, sickness, death — 1 Coríntios 11:30); but now these judgments are a discipline from our Lord, to save us from being condemned with the world.” And that judicial destruction to the flesh is what St. Peter means. he proves by contrasting “but may live in spirit” rather than “be saved” or “justified.” (3) It is next to be considered what date we are to fix for this judgment of the flesh. Was it previous to Christ’s preaching the gospel to them in hell, or was it to be subsequent? Taking the former line, we should be able to paraphrase, “His object was, that though in flesh they had been judged, having been judicially destroyed by the Flood, they yet might live hereafter in spirit.” But, besides other difficulties, it is far more than doubtful whether it is Greek to infuse a past sense into the subjunctive mood here used: i.e., to render this, “it was preached in order that they might have been judged.” Had we the words by themselves, and no preconceived theology to hinder us, we should undoubtedly translate, “To this end was the gospel preached to dead men too: viz., in order that they may be judged indeed according to men so far as they are flesh, but may live according to God so far as they are spirit.” The judgment spoken of would not be their death beneath the waves of Noe, but something still future; and this view would be confirmed by reading what St. Peter says of them, and of the angels who (in all probability) sinned with them, in the passages of the Second Epistle above referred to. How, then, will they be hereafter condemned to a judicial destruction of the flesh, but a merciful preservation of the spirit? The answer, though it seems inevitable to the present writer, must be given with trembling, and in deference to the judgment of the Church, the collective Christian consciousness, whenever that shall be expressed upon the point. A close parallel may be found in 1 Coríntios 5:5. There St. Paul judges to deliver to Satan (is he the warder of the “prison” where such spirits are confined?) a person who has foully sinned in the flesh, “for annihilation of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” That in that place it does not mean a temporal judgment upon the bodily life (such as was passed upon the Antediluvians or the profaners of the Eucharist at Corinth) is clear, from the fact that excommunication was not attended with temporal death. That it does not mean voluntary self-mortification of the flesh in this world seems clear (among other considerations) by comparison of our present passage, for the opportunity for self-mortification in the flesh was long past for the spirits to whom Christ preached. Now why, in these two cases, do the writers take pains to point the antithesis between “flesh” and “spirit,” if, after all, the flesh is to share the mercy shown to the spirit? The antithesis becomes a false one. Why did not St. Paul say, “To deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that he may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus?” and St. Peter, “For this cause was the gospel preached to the dead also, that though judged indeed in flesh, they might, after all, live according to God?” And what is the point of this dread warning, if in the end these Antediluvians attain to the same bliss, “both in body and soul,” as other men? There is a whole set of passages which seems to teach that resurrection — i.e., the permanent restitution of life to the body — is a gift which does not belong to all. To those who eat Christ’s flesh. He promises, “I will raise him up at the last day” (João 6:54). St. Paul suffers the loss of all things, “if by any means he may attain to the resurrection of the dead” (Filipenses 3:11; comp. 2 Coríntios 5:3). Our Lord bids the Apostles “fear Him [it is doubtful whether he means God, or Satan, who acts by God’s permission] who is able to destroy both soul [He does not say ‘spirit’] and body in hell.” So it would be the simplest explanation of our present text if we might believe that these Antediluvians were to be deprived of resurrection of the flesh which they had so foully corrupted, but in God’s mercy, through accepting the gospel preached to them by Christ after their death, were to be allowed a purely spiritual existence. They would thus be sentenced “according to men,” i.e., from a human point of view: they would be unable to take their place again among the glorified human species in a human life; but still they would be alive “according to God,” from God’s point of view — a divine life, but “in the spirit” only. It was a gospel that Christ preached to them, for without it they would not have come to “live according to God” at all. Yet, on the other hand, it was a warning to the Christians. When it says “the gospel was preached to the dead also,” it implies a similar preaching to others, viz., to the heathen who were to “give account,” and that the result of the preaching would be the same. Those heathen who through ignorance lived corrupt lives all around, might possibly, in the intermediate state, hope to receive a gospel which would enable a bare half of their humanity to live according to God hereafter. It could not avert the destruction of their flesh. What, then, could be the hope of a Christian, one who had heard and embraced the gospel in this life, and had then surrendered himself to the same corruptions as the Gentiles?