For Christ died once for all time for sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. (1 Peter 3:18)
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:
(1Pe 3:18 KJV)
Was Jesus raised as a spirit or raised in his flesh by the spirit?
The Cambridge Bible Commentary states:
being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit] The change of the preposition and the mode of printing “Spirit” both shew that the translators took the second clause as referring to the Holy Spirit, as quickening the human body of Christ in His resurrection from the dead. The carefully balanced contrast between the two clauses shews, however, that this cannot be the meaning, and that we have here an antithesis, like that of Rom 1:3-4, between the “flesh” and the human “spirit” of the man Christ Jesus, like that between the “manifest in the flesh” and “justified in the spirit” of 1Ti 3:16. By the “flesh” He was subject to the law of death, but in the very act of dying, His “spirit” was quickened, even prior to the resurrection of His body, into a fresh energy and activity. What was the sphere and what the result of that activity, the next verse informs us. (The Cambridge Bible Commentary)
In light of these comments a question that naturally occurs is where was Christ for parts of three days? At the moment of his death did his spirit go off to preach to the spirits in prison as the next verse relates, leaving just his body in the tomb? (1 Peter 3:19; Luke 23:46) If so, that would mean that Jesus was conscious during that time.
Or did he fall asleep in death and was unconscious like other humans? (John 11:11; Acts 7:60; 13:36; 1 Cor. 7:39; 15:6,18,20,51)
Did his body die and his soul continue to live on? If so, does this not contradict other Bible statements that tell us the soul dies? (Eze. 18:4,20; Matt. 10:28) How does this harmonize with the statement that Jesus came to give his soul (psuche) as a ransom? (Matt. 20:28)
The NICNT comments:
Fourth, the death of Christ did not destroy him, just as death will not destroy the Christian sufferer: “He was put to death with respect to the flesh, but he was made alive with respect to the spirit.” The flesh spirit contrast is found in several NT passages (e.g., Mat 26:41; Joh 6:63; Gal 5:16-25; Rom 8:1-17), some of which are, like this one, credal (Rom 1:3-4; 1Ti 3:16). This contrast is matched with “put to death,” which obviously refers to the crucifixion of Christ, and “made alive,” which comparison with Joh 5:21; Rom 4:17; Rom 8:11; 1Co 15:22, 1Co 15:36, 1Co 15:45 (cf. 2Co 3:6; Gal 3:21) reveals to be a synonym for “raise from the dead,” used in this passage alone of Christ. Thus Peter contrasts the death of Christ with his resurrection, the one happening with respect to the natural fallen human condition, the flesh, and the other with respect to God and relationship to him, the spirit.[1] In other words, Peter is not contrasting two parts of the nature of Christ, body and soul, a Greek distinction that would be read into this passage in the Fathers (Origen, C. Cels. 2.43; Epiphanius, Haer. 69.52), [2]but rather two modes of existence, [3]as an examination of the passages cited would show. Christ died for sin; therefore he died with respect to flesh, which in the NT is the mode of existence of unregenerate humanity. [4]But he died as a whole person, not simply as a body (another meaning of “flesh”). Christ was made alive (and note the made alive, for here as usual the action of the Father in raising him from the dead is assumed) because of his relationship to God; therefore he was made alive with respect to the spirit, the mode of existence of the regenerate or those pleasing to God. [5]It is not that the spirit or soul of Christ was dead and that it alone was made alive, nor that Christ took leave of the flesh, but that in the resurrection life of his whole person, body as well as spirit, he took leave of further identification with sin and thus of the further need to die (he suffered once); he now lives as a resurrected person in the mode of existence in which Christians, even before resurrection, can participate, body and soul, although their complete participation awaits “the redemption of the body” (cf. Rom. 8 above). [6](The New International Commentary on the New Testament)
This commentary seems to argue simultaneously for 3 different positions:
- That Christ died as a fleshly person and was raised as a spiritual person.
- That Christ died for sinful humans and was raised because he was a spiritual person.
- That he died as a whole person, flesh, spirit and soul and was resurrected as such.
However, if what is meant by flesh is that which is opposed to the spirit, how is it possible for Jesus to be put to death in the flesh if he had not sinned and had never lived in opposition to the spirit? (John 8:46; Heb. 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22)
Is it because he took our sins upon himself?
The one who did not know sin, he made to be sin for us, so that by means of him we might become God’s righteousness. (2 Corinthians 5:21)
Christ purchased us, releasing us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: “Accursed is every man hung upon a stake.” (Galatians 3:13)
Although this could supply the answer to how he without committing sin could have been put to death as a fleshly person it still leaves unanswered the question in what form was he resurrected, human or spirit?
. . .So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)
The IVP New Testament Commentary states:
The Death and Resurrection of Jesus (1Pe 3:18)
The sentence in verse 18 continues without a break in the Greek, and Peter adds a pair of deliberately contrasting phrases. They tell us that Christ was put to death and brought to life. Taking the verbs without considering the qualifying phrases in the body and by the Spirit, we cannot avoid the conclusion that they refer to the death of Jesus and to his resurrection respectively. The first verb refers not to dying naturally but to being put to death. It is used in Mar 14:55 of the crucifixion of Jesus.
The second verb similarly cannot refer to somebody reviving or coming to life again through their own power but is passive and refers to being brought back to life by an outside agency. This can only designate God’s bringing of Jesus back to life. This fits with the witness of the New Testament: no writer ever says that Jesus raised himself from the dead but that God raised him. (When Joh 10:18 attributes to Jesus the authority to take up his life again, this is only because he has been commanded to do so by God. The point is that the ultimate authority over the death and life of Jesus does not lie with men.)
By adding these two verbs in verse 18 Peter emphasizes that the saving action of Christ, through which he brings people to God, lies not only in his death but also in his resurrection (compare 1Pe 1:3; 1Pe 3:22). These two historical acts belong together as parts of one single saving action.
What are we to make of the two qualifying phrases, literally “in/by flesh” and “in/by spirit”? The NIV correctly reflects the fact that a literal rendering of these into English would be meaningless to a modern reader. The translators considered what Peter intended to convey in the two phrases and decided that Christ was put to death in the body and made alive by the Spirit. Other interpretations are possible (see the alternative translations in the spirit in the NIV margin and the note below).
The first phrase means in any case that Jesus died a physical death. “Flesh” can stand for our physical nature generally (compare 1Pe 2:11). The phrase indicates as plainly as could be that Jesus was a real, physical human being and that he died the same kind of death that we all have to die.
The second phrase, as interpreted by the NIV, states that he was brought to life by the activity of the Spirit of God, whose function in bringing resurrection life to mortal bodies is attested elsewhere in the New Testament (Rom 1:4; Rom 8:11; the first reference associates the Spirit with the appointment of Jesus as Son of God with power at his resurrection). From what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 we know that he believed that the physical body of Jesus was transformed into a spiritual body. We do not know whether Peter shared this belief, but what he teaches here is at least in harmony with it. Although Peter does not explicitly say so, he may well be implying that when Christ “brings” Christians “to God,” they are resurrected in the same way as he was.
…The interpretation of “flesh” and “spirit” in the NIV text is not the most usual or the most likely one. The form of the Greek sentence strongly suggests that both phrases should be construed in the same syntactical manner (“in flesh in spirit”) instead of in different ways (“in the body by the Spirit”).
There are basically two other possibilities:
1. The parallel phrasing has often been thought to denote the two constituents of the being of Jesus, either his body and his soul, or his human nature and his divine nature. Both ideas should be rejected.
The former would suggest that only the body of Jesus died and only his soul was brought to life, which is contrary to the New Testament belief in the resurrection of the body. This view would be tenable only if the phrases referred not to the resurrection of Jesus but to the quickening of his would to visit the underworld before his resurrection on the third day. But this is not very probable, because either we must regard the soul of Jesus as immortal (in which case no “making alive” was necessary) or as being mortal and brought to life (in which case it was treated like the soul of any other human being and it is difficult to see why the point should have been mentioned at all). The latter interpretation is also faulty because it suggests that only the body of Jesus was human and only his spirit was divine, which is contrary to orthodox understanding of Jesus as being one person.
2. More commonly “flesh” and “spirit” are thought of as representing two spheres of being or manners of existence. Christ died in that he belonged to the sphere of physical life, but he was raised to life in that he belonged to (or entered) the sphere of spiritual life. This is the way in which NIV takes the same phrase ten verses later (1Pe 4:6; compare Rom 1:3; 1Ti 3:16). (The IVP New Testament Commentary)
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.
(1Pe 4:6 NIV)
Albert Barnes comments:
1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins – Compare the notes at 1Pe 2:21. The design of the apostle in the reference to the sufferings of Christ, is evidently to remind them that he suffered as an innocent being, and not for any wrong-doing, and to encourage and comfort them in their sufferings by his example. The reference to his sufferings leads him 1Pe 3:18-22 into a statement of the various ways in which Christ suffered, and of his ultimate triumph. By his example in his sufferings, and by his final triumph, the apostle would encourage those whom he addressed to bear with patience the sorrows to which their religion exposed them. He assumes that all suffering for adhering to the gospel is the result of well-doing; and for an encouragement in their trials, he refers them to the example of Christ, the highest instance that ever was, or ever will be, both of well-doing, and of suffering on account of it. The expression, “hath once suffered,” in the New Testament, means once for all; once, in the sense that it is not to occur again. Compare Heb_7:27. The particular point here, however, is not that he once suffered; it is that he had in fact suffered, and that in doing it he had left an example for them to follow.
The just for the unjust – The one who was just, (δίκαιος dikaios,) on account of, or in the place of, those who were unjust, (ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων huper adikōn;) or one who was righteous, on account of those who were wicked. Compare the Rom 5:6 note; 2Co 5:21 note; Heb 9:28 note. The idea on which the apostle would particularly fix their attention was, that he was just or innocent. Thus, he was an example to those who suffered for well-doing.
That he might bring us to God – That his death might be the means of reconciling sinners to God. Compare the notes at Joh 3:14; Joh 12:32. It is through that death that mercy is proclaimed to the guilty; it is by that alone that God can be reconciled to people; and the fact that the Son of God loved people, and gave himself a sacrifice for them, enduring such bitter sorrows, is the most powerful appeal which can be made to mankind to induce them to return to God. There is no appeal which can be made to us more powerful than one drawn from the fact that another suffers on our account. We could resist the argument which a father, a mother, or a sister would use to reclaim us from a course of sin; but if we perceive that our conduct involves them in suffering, that fact has a power over us which no mere argument could have.
Being put to death in the flesh – As a man; in his human nature. Compare the notes at Rom 1:3-4. There is evidently a contrast here between “the flesh” in which it is said he was “put to death,” and “the Spirit” by which it is said he was “quickened.” The words “in the flesh” are clearly designed to denote something that was unique in his death; for it is a departure from the usual method of speaking of death. How singular would it be to say of Isaiah, Paul, or Peter, that they were put to death in the flesh! How obvious would it be to ask, In what other way are people usually put to death? What was there special in their case, which would distinguish their death from the death of others? The use of this phrase would suggest the thought at once, that though, in regard to that which was properly expressed by the phrase, “the flesh,” they died, yet that there was something else in respect to which they did not die. Thus, if it were said of a man that he was deprived of his rights as a father, it would be implied that in, other respects he was not deprived of his rights; and this would be especially true if it were added that he continued to enjoy his rights as a neighbor, or as holding an office under the government. The only proper inquiry, then, in this place is, What is fairly implied in the phrase, the flesh? Does it mean simply his body, as distinguished from his human soul? or does it refer to him as a man, as distinguished from some higher nature, over which death had no power Now, that the latter is the meaning seems to me to be apparent, for these reasons:
(1) It is the usual way of denoting the human nature of the Lord Jesus, or of saying that he became in carnate, or was a man, to speak of his being in the flesh. See Rom 1:2; “Made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” Joh 1:14; “and the Word was made flesh.” 1Ti 3:16; “God was manifest in the flesh.” 1Jn 4:2; “every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God.” 2Jn 1:7; “who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.”
(2) So far as appears, the effect of death on the human soul of the Redeemer was the same as in the case of the soul of any other person; in other words, the effect of death in his case was not confined to the mere body or the flesh. Death, with him, was what death is in any other case – the separation of the soul and body, with all the attendant pain of such dissolution. It is not true that his “flesh,” as such, died without the ordinary accompaniments of death on the soul, so that it could be said that the one died, and the other was kept alive. The purposes of the atonement required that he should meet death in the usual form; that the great laws which operate everywhere else in regard to dissolution, should exist in his case; nor is there in the Scriptures any intimation that there was, in this respect, anything special in his case. If his soul had been exempt from whatever there is involved in death in relation to the spirit, it is unaccountable that there is no hint on this point in the sacred narrative. But if this be so, then the expression “in the flesh” refers to him as a man, and means, that so far as his human nature was concerned, he died. In another important respect, he did not die. On the meaning of the word “flesh” in the New Testament, see the notes at Rom 1:3.
But quickened – Made alive – ζοωποιηθεὶς zoōpoiētheis. This does not mean “kept alive,” but “made alive; recalled to life; reanimated.” The word is never used in the sense of maintained alive, or preserved alive. Compare the following places, which are the only ones in which it occurs in the New Testament: Joh 5:21 (twice); Joh 6:63; Rom 4:17; Rom 8:11; 1Co 15:36, 1Co 15:45; 1Ti 6:13; 1Pe 3:18; in all which it is rendered “quickened, quicken, quickeneth;” 1Co 15:22, “be made alive;” 2Co 3:6, “giveth life;” and Gal 3:21, “have given life.” “Once the word refers to God, as he who giveth life to all creatures, 1Ti 6:13; three times it refers to the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit, or of the doctrines of the gospel, Joh 6:63; 2Co 3:6; Gal 3:21; seven times it is used with direct reference to the raising of the dead, Joh 5:21; Rom 4:17; Rom 8:11; 1Co 15:22, 1Co 15:36, 1Co 15:45; 1Pe 3:18.” See Biblical Repos., April, 1845, p. 269. See also Passow, and Robinson, Lexicon. The sense, then, cannot be that, in reference to his soul or spirit, he was preserved alive when his body died, but that there was some agency or power restoring him to life, or reanimating him after he was dead.
By the Spirit – According to the common reading in the Greek, this is τῷ Πνεύματι tō Pneumati – with the article the – “the Spirit.” Hahn, Tittman, and Griesbach omit the article, and then the reading is, “quickened in spirit;” and thus the reading corresponds with the former expression, “in flesh” (σαρκὶ sarki,) where the article also is lacking. The word “spirit,” so far as the mere use of the word is concerned, might refer to his own soul, to his divine nature, or to the Holy Spirit. It is evident:
(1) That it does not refer to his own soul, for:
(a) As we have seen, the reference in the former clause is to his human nature, including all that pertained to him as a man, body and soul;
(b) There was no power in his own spirit, regarded as that pertaining to his human nature, to raise him up from the dead, any more than there is such a power in any other human soul. That power does not belong to a human soul in any of its relations or conditions.
(2) It seems equally clear that this does not refer to the Holy Spirit, or the Third Person of the Trinity, for it may be doubted whether the work of raising the dead is anywhere ascribed to that Spirit. His special province is to enlighten, awaken, convict, convert, and sanctify the soul; to apply the work of redemption to the hearts of people, and to lead them to God. This influence is moral, not physical; an influence accompanying the truth, not the exertion of mere physical power.
(3) It remains, then, that the reference is to his own divine nature – a nature by which he was restored to life after he was crucified; to the Son of God, regarded as the Second Person of the Trinity. This appears, not only from the facts above stated, but also:
(a) from the connection, It is stated that it was in or by this spirit that he went and preached in the days of Noah. But it was not his spirit as a man that did this, for his human soul had then no existence. Yet it seems that he did this personally or directly, and not by the influences of the Holy Spirit, for it is said that “he went and preached.” The reference, therefore, cannot be to the Holy Spirit, and the fair conclusion is that it refers to his divine nature.
(b) This accords with what the apostle Paul says Rom 1:3-4, “which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,” that is, in respect to his human nature, “and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness,” that is, in respect to his divine nature, “by the resurrection from the dead.” See the notes at that passage.
(c) It accords with what the Saviour himself says, Joh 10:17-18; “I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” This must refer to his divine nature, for it is impossible to conceive that a human soul should have the power of restoring its former tenement, the body, to life. See the notes at the passage. The conclusion, then, to which we have come is, that the passage means, that as a man, a human being, he was put to death; in respect to a higher nature, or by a higher nature, here denominated Spirit (Πνεῦμα Pneuma,) he was restored to life. As a man, he died; as the incarnate Son of God the Messiah, he was made alive again by the power of his own Divine Spirit, and exalted to heaven. Compare Robinson’s Lexicon on the word Πνεῦμα Pneuma, C. (Albert Barnes Notes on the New Testament)
From this it would appear that the conclusion Albert Barnes reaches is that, in accord with the incarnation doctrine, while on earth, Jesus was composed of two natures, human and divine. At death it was his human nature that died while his divine nature did not die. This divine nature then restored to life his human nature. This would then mean that, as before, Jesus is once again composed of two natures.
This is difficult to harmonize with other statements in the Bible, namely Jesus prayer in John chapter 17:
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
(Joh 17:5 NIV)
Clearly, the glory Jesus had in his pre-human existence did not involve two natures.
In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety.
(Heb 5:7 NASB)
Would not the statement “in the days of his flesh” indicate that Christ no longer has a fleshly body?
Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.
(2Co 5:16 NASB)
It has been noted that the Bible says God raised Christ from the dead. However, because Jesus said at John 2:19 that he would raise his body in three days, this proves that Jesus is God. Did Jesus raise himself from the dead?
[1] [As subsequent discussion will make clear, there have been several differing interpretations of this phrase: (1) he died physically, but continued living as a spirit, (2) he died in a physical body but lived in a spiritual body (cf. 1 Cor. 15), and (3) he died with respect to the natural human existence but was resurrected with respect to the glorified human existence. Both (1) and (2) have the options of seeing the spiritual existence as referring either to an intermediate state before the resurrection or to the post-Easter state of Christ.]
[2] [Apparently C. Spicq, Les Épîtres de Saint Pierre (Paris, 1966), pp. 135-36, follows this interpretation, “Freed from the sarx which is weak, the new Adam is a ‘life-giving spirit.’ ” Cf. also to a degree A. M. Stibbs, The First Epistle General of Peter (Grand Rapids, 1959), pp. 141-42.]
[3] [Which is better than F. W. Beare’s “spheres of existence” (The First Epistle of Peter, p. 169). Cf. J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter (Waco, TX, 1988), p. 204, who enunciates the modern consensus well.]
[4] [E. Schweizer and R. Meyer, “σάρξ,” TDNT, VII, 98-151, especially 131-34; G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, pp. 469-75.]
[5] [E. Schweizer, “πνεῦμα,” TDNT, VI, 332-455, especially 428-30, 438-42; J. D. G. Dunn, “Spirit,” DNTT, III, 701-702, 705.]
[6] [This interpretation, of course, rejects the idea that “in the spirit” refers to an intermediate existence of Christ between death and resurrection and thus also rejects the idea that the preaching of the following verses is something that he did before his resurrection, the older concept of the “harrowing of hell.”]