CHAPTER XIV

EXEGESIS IN PRACTICE:
TWO SAMPLES
R. T. France

This chapter is intended to bring the reader down to earth. Many

theoretical points have been made in the preceding pages, and many ideals
expressed, with carefully selected examples to illustrate the points at issue.
But in practice the exegete, be he professional or amateur, is seldom con-
cerned with carefully selected sample verses, but with the actual New Testa-
ment text in its entirety. He finds himself faced with the task of determining
the meaning not of the odd word or phrase here and there, but of a whole
connected passage, which may involve quite complex thought-patterns. He
soon finds himself forced, whether he likes it or not, to read the individual
words and phrases in their context.
This chapter will consist, then, not of lists of rules for correct exegesis, but
of an attempt to interpret two actual New Testament passages as a whole
(Matthew 8:5-13 and 1 Peter 3:18-22). The passages have been chosen to
represent two quite different literary genres, which between them raise many
of the problems of method which confront the exegete in practice. We shall
not stop to point out at every juncture precisely what methods are being
employed. It is for the reader to notice where and how the various techni-
ques of textual criticism, literary criticism, lexical study, study of religious or
literary background, etc. are brought into play. These various techniques
will not occur in any logical order, but as the passages themselves require
them. That is how exegesis must work in practice: it is the passage in front
of us that itself dictates the methods to be used.
Only a few preliminary points need to be made before we turn to the
selected passages:
(1) We are taking "exegesis" to mean the discovery of what the text
means in itself, i.e. the original intention of the writer, and the meaning the
passage would have held for the readers for whom it was first intended. This
is exegesis proper. The further step of application of this original meaning to
our own situation is strictly a separate discipline (see the chapter by J. E.
Goldingay). It is, of course, a necessary step if our study of the New Testa-
ment is to be any more than mere antiquarianism, and in practice the ex-
egete is likely to have the contemporary relevance of the text in mind from
the start. But the two stages must not be confused, and short cuts must be
avoided. Exegesis proper should be as far as possible an objective discipline,

252
 EXEGESIS IN PRACTICE: TWO SAMPLES

and it is the essential prerequisite for any more existential application of the
message of the New Testament. It is with exegesis, in this sense, that this
chapter is concerned.
(2) Exegesis is seldom a simple case of black and white, where all honest
scholars must inevitably reach the same conclusion. The exegesis offered in
this chapter is not presented as the last word on the passages concerned.
The reader will probably disagree at several points. But this is essentially an
essay in method. Where the reader disagrees with the proposed exegesis, he
should ask himself whether the author has adopted the wrong method to
· solve this particular problem, or whether he is using the right method, but
using it wrongly. Both are, of course, entirely possible!
(3) This chapter presents exegesis as essentially a "do-it-yourself" pur-
suit. The author believes that no serious exegete should be content merely to
follow where some revered commentary or version leads. He should satisfy
himself whether the job has been properly done. But this does not mean the
abolition of all commentaries, lexica, concordances and versions, leaving the
exegete closeted alone with his Greek text (or, ideally, with the original
manuscripts!). It will be very clear, particularly in the second passage below,
how much the author has in fact leaned on commentaries and works of
reference. The exegete needs information, and much of what he needs will
not be found in the pages of the New Testament itself. He needs guidance on
critical, lexical, textual and other principles. He needs to be aware of the
range of suggestions which have been offered on the point at issue. But, in
the last resort, the conclusion must be his own. He must weigh the evidence,
and decide between the options for himself. If he shirks this responsibility,
he is not an exegete.
Without more ado, then, we turn to the two selected passages, trusting
that the discussion will throw up most of the major principles and methods
which must govern the practice of exegesis. The reader should note how the
various methods of study mentioned in preceding chapters are worked out
in practice.

I. Matthew 8:5-13
This passage has been chosen as an example of a pericope in the Synoptic
Gospels where a comparison with the treatment of the same material by
another evangelist may help to throw light on the special concerns of the
writer, i.e. where exegesis is aided by critical, particularly redaction-critical,
considerations.
The incident of the healing of the centurion's servant is recorded only in
Matthew and Luke.' It may thus be loosely referred to as "Q material"; but
a few minutes with a synopsis will reveal that the relation between the two
accounts is anything but an exact equivalence. There is nearly verbal
equivalence in the dialogue in verses Sb-10 (Lk. 7:6b, 7b-9), but for the
rest, while the essential features of the story are the same, they are told in a
very different way. Matthew is short and to the point, but includes verses

253
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

11-12, a Q saying which Luke records in a quite different context

(13 :28-29), and which was therefore presumably preserved independently,
and inserted here by Matthew because he found it relevant in the context. 2
Luke, on the other hand, is more leisurely and colourful in his telling of the
story, including extra detail about the centurion's Jewish sympathies, and in
particular the account of his having approached Jesus through his friends,
rather than in person as in Matthew's version. Other differences in detail will
be mentioned in our discussion of the passage.
Convinced advocates of Q as a single document are therefore reduced to
believing that Q preserved the dialogue, with perhaps a brief indication of
the narrative setting, and the evangelists were left to supply the details from
oral tradition. Those who in any case find a unitary Q hard to swallow find
here further evidence for an oral tradition which preserved significant
sayings with great fidelity, perhaps jotting them down to aid memory, but
was less concerned with the verbatim form of the narrative.
At any rate, the significant point is that what mattered to the early
Christians in this incident was primarily the dialogue to which it led. Doc-
trinaire forlJl~critics will therefore label it a pronouncement-story or
apophthegm, rather than a miracle story; those less worried about exact
labelling may be inclined to ask why it should not be both! 3 But it is
certainly notjust a miracle story: attention is focused on the sayings about
authority and faith.
Apart from questions of exact wording and emphasis, the only significant
factual discrepancy between the two accounts is the question whether the
centurion approached Jesus through his Jewish friends (Luke) or in person
(Matthew). Which is the original version? Has Luke added the messengers
to emphasise the centurion's humility (see esp. Lk. 7 :7a), or has Matthew
abbreviated the story by omitting what he regarded as an inessential detail?
Here commentators differ, their conclusions depending often on their
presuppositions about the "laws of tradition", whether oral material tends to
lose inessential details in transmission, or to be elaborated in the interest of
story-telling. It must be remembered, however, that it is almost certainly not
a question of either evangelist sitting down with a written account of the
event in front of him and deliberately either abbreviating or expanding it. It
is a question of an orally preserved story which each tells in his own way, in-
cluding just so much detail as he feels is necessary to make his point.
Matthew, as we shall see, is concerned to emphasise the faith of the cen-
turion, and for this purpose the messengers are irrelevant. Luke, on the other
hand, also wishes to indicate his humility, and here the sending of the
messengers is significant. Thus to the question whether there actually were
any messengers or not, we should probably answer "yes", but we should be
missing the point if we therefore accuse Matthew of falsification. His
deliberate abbreviation is a valid literary device to throw the emphasis clear-
ly onto the central theme of the story, the centurion's faith. His omission
makes no significant difference either to the miracle, or to the crucial
dialogue. If anything, it high-lights the latter.

254
 EXEGESIS IN PRACTICE: TWO SAMPLES

What we have been sketching in this last paragraph is the contribution of

redaction-criticism to exegesis in this particular case. A comparison of the
handling of the story by the two evangelists has alerted us to Matthew's
primary intention in telling the story, to teach about faith. This insight is
clearly going to be important in our detailed exegesis.

VERSE 5
Capernaum needs little comment. A Bible dictionary will tell us that it
· was one of the leading towns of Galilee, a prosperous lake-side community,
which was Jesus' base for much of his Galilean ministry. This latter fact ac-
counts for the centurion's awareness of Jesus' healing power: it was, no
doubt, the talk of the town.
A Bible dictionary will also supply details about centurions. They were
the backbone of the Roman army, the N.C.O.s on whom discipline depend-
ed, responsible and respected officers. There were no Roman legions station-
ed in Palestine, but Herod Antipas had under his control a small force of
auxiliaries. These were all non-Jewish troops, drawn largely from the area of
Lebanon and Syria. The centurion was, therefore, certainly not a Jew,
though Luke makes much of his sympathy for the Jewish religion. It is as
the believing Gentile that he finds his significance in Matthew's account. (Is
this perhaps another reason for Matthew's omission of the Jewish friends, to
avoid blurring the sharp Jew/Gentile contrast which is a prominent feature
of his version of the story, coming into sharp focus in his addition of verses
11-12? Luke is concerned only with the man's character, Matthew also
with his nationality.)

VERSE 6
This verse raises two points of translation, both of some importance for
exegesis. The first is the centurion's address to Jesus, HV(!te (repeated in verse
8). Should this be translated "Lord", or, as in Moffatt, NEB, Jerusalem
Bible, "Sir"? In other words, is it just a polite form of address, or does it im-
ply more? AG tell us that Ht!ete is "a form of address to respected pers.
gener.". MM show that in secular Greek, apart from its use of a god, it cer-
tainly involves an acknowledgement of superiority, particularly in ad-
dressing a higher official. But, when used as a form of address to Jesus, the
precise connotation of such a flexible word obviously cannot be determined
by the dictionary, but by what the context tells us of the person's attitude to
Jesus. The centurion, as we shall see in verses 8-9, regards Jesus as a
superior authority, and a worker of miraculous healing, so "Sir" seems a bit
weak. On the other hand, there is no indication that he attributes to Jesus
any divine status, as "Lord" might well imply. However it be translated,
"vete should be regarded as acknowledging the superiority of Jesus, but can-
not be pressed into an indication of the centurion's christological under-
standing.

255
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

More important is the word nai~ which can mean either "child" or
"servant". Traditionally it has always been translated "servant", but this is
based on Luke, who has used the unambiguous term 8ovA.o~ (as well as nai~
in 7:7). But was this what Matthew meant? Bultmann 4 pronounces,
"Unquestionably nai~ in Matt. 8:6 is to be understood as child: 8ovA.o~ in Lk.
7:2 is an error in reproduction." Like many ofBultmann's "unquestionable"
pronouncements, this is not supported by any argument. The exegete should
be on his guard against unsupported dogmatic assertions, by however
august an authority! What is the evidence?
llai~ occurs 24 times in the New Testament (see concordance). In only
one of these does it mean "son" (J n. 4:5 1); in eight other cases it clearly
means "child", but without implying any relationship to the speaker or to a
character in the narrative. In four cases it refers to a "servant" of a man,
and in eight cases to a "servant" of God. 5 Thus if nai~ in Matthew 8:6, 8, 13
means the centurion's "son", it would be agreeing with the only use of the
word by John against all the other New Testament uses (which are in fact all
in Matthew and Luke-Acts). MM also show that both "child" and "servant"
were common meanings in secular Greek, but apparently not "son". In
Matthew, outside this passage, there are three uses in the sense of "child"
(not "son"), and two in the sense of "servant", one of which ( 14 :2) is closely
parall~l to the sort of "retainer" envisaged here. Thus there seems no reason
for driving a wedge between Matthew and Luke at this point, or for doub-
ting that Matthew is using nai~ in exactly the same sense that Luke does in
7:7, where it is parallel to 8ovA.o~ in 7:2. 6 Some commentators (e.g.
Lohmeyer, Schlatter) suggest that while 8ovA.o~ was the formal, official term
for a slave, nai~ was used for a slave who was held in personal friendship
(see Lk. 7:2, evr:1fto~). The use of "boy" for servants in colonial days may be
roughly parallel.
Matthew does not emphasise, as Luke does, the centurion's fondness
for his servant, which would be remarkable, but not unparalleled, in non-
Jewish circles. He is not so interested in the man's character as in his faith.
His kind-heartedness, as well as his friendly relations with the Jewish com-
munity, are irrelevant to this purpose, and only what is necessary to the
story is retained.
VERSE 7
This apparently straight-forward verse in fact poses a significant problem.
It all turns on the punctuation: are the words of Jesus a promise, or a
question? Greek manuscripts bore no punctuation marks, and such
questions frequently arise. Often they are of considerable exegetical impor-
tance. Sometimes linguistic considerations help to provide an answer. More
often we are entirely dependent on the context.
The one striking linguistic feature is the very prominent eyw. Greek does
not usually include personal pronouns in addition to the person indicated by
the verb-inflection unless there is need to emphasise the person. When the
pronoun comes first in the sentence, the emphasis is unmistakable. So if

256
 EXEGESIS IN PRACTICE: TWO SAMPLES

these words are treated as a statement, the eyw is a puzzle. It looks either
redundant, or uncharacteristically pompous - "I myself will come and heal
him." (One is reminded of Longfellow's "I myself, myself! behold me!")
But if this is a question, the emphatic eyw has a real function: "Shall I
come and heal him?" H.-J. Held 7 regards this as an "astonished or
indignant question". It is usually explained on the basis of the racial distinc-
tion. For a Jew to enter a Gentile's house was to contract defilement (see
Acts 10-11). In fact there is no record of Jesus ever entering a Gentile
house, or even touching a Gentile to heal him. His two healings of Gentiles
were done by a word, at a distance. Such an apparent reluctance, on racial
grounds, would be closely parallel to Jesus' harsh reply to the Syro-Phoeni-
cian woman (Mt. 15:24, 26), and the two stories are so closely parallel at
many points that this analogy supports an apparent reluctance on Jesus'
part in Matthew 8:7, rather than the ready response indicated by punc-
tuating as a statement.
Even if the racial overtone be doubted, an interrogative punctuation
makes the dialogue flow more smoothly. The centurion has not, in verse 6,
made any formal request, but simply presented the situation. Jesus' question
is then drawing out the logical implication: "So you want me to come and
heal him?" The centurion's deprecatory reply in verse 8 then follows
naturally.
If then we accept that verse 7 is a question, what is its implication? The
parallel with the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman is illuminating here.
Jesus is testing the faith of the supplicant by an apparent refusal (or at least
reluctance). In each case, faith triumphs over this obstacle, proving stronger
than the racial barrier, and in each case Jesus then effects the cure in explicit
response to this faith. Such a build-up to the story gives added point to
Jesus' amazement at the centurion's faith (verse 10), that it is able to see
beyond racial distinctions, and this leads on naturally to the universalistic
pronouncement of verses 11-12. Thus even this question of punctuation
proves to have implications for the meaning of the story: the recognition of
a question in these words of Jesus, and the implication of a testing of the
centurion's faith, introduces already that contrast between Jewish racialism
and the faith of the Gentile which is Matthew's concern here and at several
points in his gospel. Luke significantly does not record this question, with its
apparent reluctance, nor the parallel story of the Syro-Phoenician woman.

VERSE 8
Is the centurion's deferential reply (notice Kt!ete again) due to a con-
sciousness of racial distinction, and a respect for Jesus' scruples about enter-
ing a Gentile home (so many commentators), or is the thought more of his
personal unworthiness in contrast with the greatness of Jesus? The whole of
his reply in verses 8-9 says no word about race; apparently his faith is such
that the concept is irrelevant to him. His words are all concerned with the
supreme authority of Jesus, and his ability to heal. In the face of such
257
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

authority he both feels his personal unworthiness to receive Jesus, and

regards a personal visit as unnecessary, since a word will be enough. Thus
the context suggests that his feeling of unworthiness is personal, not racial.
This argument from context is reinforced by the Greek word used, i"av6~,
which means at root "sufficient", and thus suggests considerations of
character rather than status. A concordance will reveal similar uses, such as
Matthew 3:11; 1 Cor. 15:9; 2 Cor. 2:16, all of which are concerned with
personal worthiness or adequacy. Hence Rengstorf concludes, "It denotes
the impression made by the person of Jesus upon the Gentile centurion ...
He is not thinking of the ritual uncleanness which Jesus as a Jew would in-
cur by entering a non-Jewish house. What he has in view is the majesty and
authority of Jesus which lift him above everything human, especially in the
non-Jewish sphere ... On the lips of the centurion the ovx dp.l i"av6~ is thus
a confession of the Messiahship of Jesus." 8 The word "messiahship" seems
misconceived, but the exegesis of ixav6~ is both lexically and contextually
sound.
In the request for healing by a mere word, uttered at a distance, we are
shown the extent of the centurion's faith. 9 No such cures had yet been
performed, as far as our records go. The centurion had heard of Jesus' heal-
ing work, perhaps seen it, but his faith goes beyond the evidence of his
senses. The only other such healings recorded are that of the Syro-Phoeni-
cian woman's daughter, and of the nobleman's son in John 4. The word was
a normal part of the healing process, but it was usually uttered to the patient
in person. The next verse goes on to make explicit the unlimited power with
which the centurion credited Jesus.

VERSE 9
The centurion's confession of faith is one of the two key pronouncements
in the story. Its main drift is clear: he likens Jesus' authority to that of the
army officer, who need only speak the word to receive instant obedience. So
Jesus need only speak the word, and the healing will be accomplished. 10
There is, however, some dispute as to how exactly the comparison is
made. The text as usually printed gives the centurion two contrasting obser-
vations, (1) that he is under authority (and so must obey orders), and (2)
that he has soldiers under him, who must obey him. So he knows his place in
a chain of authoritative command. There is, however, evidence of a variant
reading, particularly in the old Syriac version (never an authority to be
treated lightly), which would substitute for v'Jlo e~ovalav something like ev
FJ=ovata or e~ovatav eywv, thus eliminating the idea of subordination, and
restricting the comparison entirely to the authority exercised by the cen-
turion himself. 11 There are, however, good reasons why the reading "under
authority" (which is undisputed in Luke) should have been altered to "in
authority": firstly, a tidy-minded scribe would be likely to take this simple
means of eliminating a contrasting element and reducing the whole verse to
a single point of comparison; secondly, the mention of the centurion's sub-

258
 EXEGESIS IN PRACTICE: TWO SAMPLES

ordination might cause embarrassment if it was felt that there must be exact
correspondence at every point - to whom was Jesus "under authority"?
If then we accept the reading "under authority", is not this last point a
problem, particularly in view of the phrase xal yae eyw ... ? Must this not
mean, "For I too (like you) am a man under authority ... ", and therefore
make Jesus a mere man, and a subordinate at that? However, an examina-
tion of the uses of xal yae listed in AG (under yae) shows many cases where
it means simply "for" or, better, "for indeed", and where there is no room
for the meaning "also". 12 So here the translation "For I indeed am a man
under authority ... " would be permissible, without drawing the direct com-
parison between the status of the centurion and that of Jesus. Moreover,
even if one were to insist on the meaning "For I too am ... ", which is
perhaps the more natural translation when eyw follows directly after xal yae,
it is not legitimate to restrict the point of comparison to the first clause only
("under authority"), when in fact it is the issuing, not the obeying, of orders
which is the main theme of the verse. The xal yae governs the whole
sentence, not just its first words. The point could be made by paraphrasing,
rather tendentiously, "For even I too, set as I am within a chain of authori-
ty, know what it is to give orders ... "
The minor points of text and translation covered in the last two
paragraphs are, of course, quite inessential for a basic exegesis of the
passage. The main point of the verse is beyond doubt, the assertion of Jesus'
absolute authority by analogy with that of a military commander. But the
exegete is not on this account entitled to ignore the incidental details, par-
ticularly where these have given rise, as in this case, to doctrinal embarrass-
ment.

VERSE 10
This is the second key pronouncement, the point to which the whole
narrative has been building up. The punch-line is introduced by the state-
ment that Jesus was "amazed" by what he heard. The concordance will
show that 8avp&Cw is a verb which is not used lightly. In particular, it is used
only twice of Jesus himself, here and at Mark 6:6. Here the object of his
amazement is faith, there it is unbelief. Good material for the preacher, this!
The saying is introduced by cip~v .Uyw vpiv, the mark of a so.Iemn,
emphatic pronouncement. It is often singled out as one of the characteristic
rhetorical devices of Jesus, as a teacher of unique authority, since no other
Jewish teacher of the time is known to have used the phrase. A statement
thus introduced is to be carefully noted.
The pronouncement is concerned withfaith. This, as we have seen, is the
focal point of the story for Matthew, and it is clinched in the peculiarly
Matthean "As you believed let it be done for you" of verse 13. Faith here is
a practical confidence in Jesus' power to heal, based on a conviction of his
supreme authority: so much we may infer from the centurion's saying in
verses 8-9 which gives rise to Jesus' commendation. It would be quite inap-

259
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

propriate to the narrative situation to ask whether this was saving, justifying
faith in the Pauline sense, or whether it involves a doctrinal acceptance of
the divinity of Jesus. These are questions derived from later theological
development in the New Testament which are certainly anachronistic when
applied to the period of Jesus' ministry. Whether they occurred to Matthew
in his telling of the story we must consider shortly. But for the original set-
ting of the story and of Jesus' pronouncement, "faith" must be interpreted in
terms of its context, as a practical trust based on a conviction of Jesus'
power to heal. It involves a recognition that Jesus has a unique authority,
and wields supernatural power. Beyond that the context forbids us to go.
It is this unreserved confidence and acceptance of Jesus' authority which
amazes him, and calls forth his commendation. Here is none of that suspi-
cion or reservation of judgment which he had met with among his own peo-
ple. Here is a man who has grasped more fully than any Jew what sort of
person Jesus is, and who is prepared to act decisively on that understanding.
And the man is a Gentile. Jesus' mission was first of all to Israel. He
deliberately restricted his activity during his lifetime to the chosen people,
and forbade his disciples for the time being to preach to Gentiles (Mt.
10:5-6; 15 :24 ). Yet here, spontaneously, there appears in a Gentile that
very response which his Jewish mission had failed to evoke. It ignores and
overrides racial barriers. The importance of this for Matthew we shall see
shortly, but for Jesus and his disciples it is of tremendous significance. A
whole new horizon has opened up. This incident is a preview of the great in-
sight which came later through another centurion's faith, "Then to the Gen-
tiles also God has granted repentance unto life" (Acts 11: 18). The barrier
between the chosen people and the rest of mankind is beginning to crumble.
The precise wording of Jesus' saying is slightly different in Matthew from
that in Luke. Luke has the familiar "Not even in Israel have I found such
faith", but the original Matthean form seems certainly to be, "With no-one
in Israel have I found such faith." 13 W. Grundmann calls this a
"radikalisierten Form" compared with the Lucan. 14 Instead of a general
comparison of the centurion with Israel as a whole, the Matthean form
states that not a single individual in Israel reaches his standard. It is thus a
more all-embracing condemnation of Israel's unbelief, and leads ap-
propriately to the devastating saying added by Matthew in verses 11-12.
The Lucan form could even be construed as a veiled compliment to Israel:
"Not even in Israel (where I would most expect it) have I found such faith."
But the Matthean form leaves no room for a compliment. His emphasis is,
as we shall see, single-mindedly on the rejection of Israel as the chosen race.

VERSES 11-12
This is Matthew's own addition to the story of some words of Jesus
almost certainly uttered in a different context, and preserved elsewhere by
Luke (13:28-29). The addition by Matthew shows clearly what was for him
the main point of the story. It is two-fold: (1) the centurion, by his faith,

260
 EXEGESIS IN PRACTICE: TWO SAMPLES

gives evidence that Gentiles are to find a place in the kingdom of God, and
(2) by the same token the Jews who do not have this faith are to be rejected
from that kingdom. Thus Matthew sees faith as the means of entry to the
kingdom, and race as irrelevant. The days of a chosen race are finished.
God's people are now all those who believe, of whatever race.
It may be objected that Matthew is pressing the story too far. There is no
mention in the story of saving faith, or of entering the kingdom of God. The
centurion's faith is simply a practical confidence in Jesus' healing power.
Certainly, Matthew is developing the theme beyond the actual narrative
context, but is the development illegitimate? Is not the man who recognises
in Jesus a uniquely authoritative figure, and whose faith is praised above
that of any Jew, rightly taken as a symbol of the coming Gentile church?
Matthew is not misunderstanding and allegorizing a simple story; he is
drawing the logical conclusion from the key pronouncement which is the
focus of that storv.

VERSE 11
This verse envisages the Gentiles entering the kingdom. IloV.ot does not
explicitly mean Gentiles, of course, but in parallelism with the "sons of the
kingdom" (verse 12), who are clearly Jews (see below), it could have no
other meaning, and the context of Jesus' pronouncement about the cen-
turion's faith in contrast with Israel confirms this.
The words "will come from east and west" echo a recurring Old Testa-
ment formula, seen for instance in Psalm 107:3; Isaiah 43:5-6; 49:12. But
the significant point is that these are predictions (or retrospective accounts)
of God's regathering of dispersed Jews. There are similar passages which
speak of Gentiles (probably, though the reference could again be to the dis-
persed Jews) acknowledging and worshipping God in all parts of the earth,
but not coming (e.g. Isaiah 45 :6; 59: 19; Mal. 1: 11). There are also passages
which predict the coming of Gentiles to Jerusalem (e.g. Is. 2:2-3; 60:3-4),
but not in the terms used here by Jesus. So it seems that Jesus, in predicting
the coming of the Gentiles (itself an Old Testament idea), deliberately does
so in words recalling Old Testament hopes of the regathering of Israel. Here
we see already the idea of the supplanting of the chosen race by others
which becomes more explicit as we go on.
The Gentiles are envisaged as gathering for a banquet, dvmeA.dhfaovrat,
literally "recline", is correctly translated "sit at table" by RSV, since it was a
common practice in the ancient world to recline on couches by the table
rather than to sit on chairs (cf. the disciple dvmee/.pevoc; ev rq) KOA3tqi1"0V '1rJUOV
at the Last Supper, Jn. 13:23). 15 This is no ordinary meal, however, but one
shared with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus is
here taking up a common Jewish eschatological idea, where the joys of the
Messianic age are pictured as a banquet. Derived from such Old Testament
passages as Isaiah 25:6; 65:13f, this theme was richly embroidered by later
Jewish writers, both in the apocalyptic and the rabbinic traditions. 16 It

261
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

would be tedious to give all the details here, but it is worth mentioning that
the presence of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob at the banquet (together with
other great Old Testament figures) is specifically mentioned in two rabbinic
passages (Pes. 119b; Ex.R. 25 :8): there will be a very polite debate about
which of them shall "say grace", and in the end the honour will go to David!
But the important point is that in these and most of the other relevant
passages the banquet is regarded as being for the Jews only: it is "for the
children of Isaac on the day when he (God) will receive them into his
favour" (Pes. 119b). Sometimes the banqueters are referred to as "the
pious", but it is, often explicitly, the pious within Israel who are in mind.
Jesus is, then, deliberately predicting that the eschatological banquet with
the patriarchs to which the Jews looked forward as a national right will in
fact include Gentiles as well. For a Jew to sit at table with Gentiles meant
ritual defilement, and such an idea in the eschatological banquet would be
unthinkable. But Jesus is rejecting all racial barriers. Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob, the very founders of the Jewish race, will, it is assumed, be happy to
sit with Gentiles, with no thought of defilement. Jesus is not predicting the
conversion of Gentiles to Judaism -that would have been a very acceptable
idea to many in his day. He is envisaging their inclusion in the joys of the
kingdom as Gentiles, apparently on equal terms with the patriarchs. This is
revolutionary stum And there is worse to come in verse 12.

VERSE 12
The phrase "sons of the kingdom" would have been readily understood
by Jews -to mean themselves! "Sons of ..." is often used in the sense of
"belonging to ...", "destined for ...", etc. See e.g. "sons of the
bridechamber" (Mt. 9:15); "son of hell" (Mt. 23:15). The Talmud frequently
uses the phrase "a son of the age to come" (cf. Lk. 16:8; 20:34-35). So the
"sons of the kingdom" are those to whom the kingdom belongs by right.
And such was the Jewish estimate of themselves: as children of Abraham, it
was their birthright. "According to the popular view in the time of Jesus,
Israel's superiority over the Gentiles consisted in the fact that Israel, by vir-
tue of its lineal descent from Abraham, enjoyed the benefits of the vicarious
merits of the patriarchs, and the consequent assurance of final salvation. It
was the current belief that no descendant of Abraham could be lost." 17
Yet Jesus not only says that they must share the kingdom with the Gen-
tiles, but that they, the rightful heirs, will themselves be excluded. Literally,
his words should mean that all Jews are excluded, but Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob are clearly not rejected. The point is that racial descent will be irrele-
vant. To claim to be a son of Abraham will be worthless. John the Baptist
had said as much (Mt. 3:9), but no other Jew dared to suggest such a thing.
By calling them "sons of the kingdom" Jesus emphasises the paradoxical
reversal of roles which will take place when believing Gentiles receive what
the Jews regarded as their inalienable right.
This theme of the imminent rejection of Israel as a nation from its status

262
 EXEGESIS IN PRACTICE: TWO SAMPLES

as God's chosen people is a common one in Jesus' teaching, often seen by

implication in the way he applies Old Testament passages about Israel to his
own disciples, 18 but sometimes quite explicit, as in the parable of the tenants
(Mk. 12:1-9), or in Jesus' laments over Jerusalem (Lk. 13:34-35;
23 :28-31). 19
The imagery of "outer darkness", weeping, and gnashing of teeth is all
found in Jewish apocalyptic or midrashic sources. 20 The difference here is
that it is the "sons of the kingdom" themselves who will be the sufferers,
whereas in Jewish apocalyptic it is "the sinners", "the ungodly", and cer-
tainly not the Jews. Some commentators suggest that the darkness is
specifically mentioned in contrast with the bright lights of the banqueting
hall, since it is a common apocalyptic theme that the sufferings of the lost
will be increased by their being able to see the blessed in Paradise. 21
Verses 11-12 are designed, then, to express in (for the Jew) the most
shocking manner possible the change which is now imminent in the
economy of God, when the chosen race will no longer have a special
privilege, but the kingdom of God will be for all who believe, from whatever
race, while those who do not believe, even though they may be sons of
Abraham, will not be able to join their father at the banquet; when "the last
shall be first, and the first last."

VERSE 13
Matthew now returns to the narrative, and concludes it with a minimum
of words. Yet even in this brief conclusion a comparison with the Lucan ver-
sion reveals again Matthew's overriding concern - faith. Matthew alone in-
serts the healing word of Jesus for which the centurion had asked; taking up
the theme of verse 10, it focuses on his remarkable faith: "As you have
believed let it be done for you." In the Synoptic accounts healing frequently
depends on faith; how much more healing at a distance, paralleled only in
Matthew 15:21-28 and John 4:46-54. The parallel with Matthew 15:27 is
here very close, just as the themes of the two stories have run parallel
throughout, both concerned with Jesus' encounter with a Gentile supplicant,
both focusing on the trial and the triumph of faith despite the racial barrier,
both culminating in healing at a distance. John 4:48, 50 also points out the
faith of the father.

CONCLUSION

So a request for healing from a Gentile centurion, which gave rise to a

significant dialogue with Jesus about authority and faith, has been taken
further by Matthew, both in the details of his telling of the story and par-
ticularly by the insertion of an independent saying of Jesus about
membership in the kingdom, to provide a more comprehensive piece of
teaching on the central importance of faith not only for healing but for
salvation, for inclusion in the true people of God for whom his es-

263
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

chatological blessings are reserved. Matthew, the evangelist to the Jews, has
a great deal to say on this theme. The healing of the Gentile's servant
provides him with an excellent paradigm of the universal application of the
work of Jesus, and he makes sure by his telling of the story and in particular
by his insertion of Jesus' devastating saying that the message is not missed.
This understanding is the result of a "redaction-critical" exegesis of the
pericope in comparison with the Lucan parallel. 22 To ignore, or to try to
remove, the differences in treatment would have been to lose a vital part of
what Matthew wants to emphasise. As a miracle story alone the pericope is
of great value, but Matthew is concerned to teach more than the miraculous
power of Jesus, and the modern reader, no less than those for whom
Matthew originally wrote, stands to gain much from a recognition of his
special emphasis.

11. 1 Peter 3:18-22

In contrast to Matthew 8:5-13, which was a relatively straightforward
narrative-cum-sayings Gospel pericope, we turn now to a concentrated
piece of doctrinal-cum-hortatory teaching in a letter. We have deliberately
chosen a notoriously obscure passage, so as to see the importance of proper
exegetical methods in the clearest possible light. As so often in the New
Testament letters, the thought is highly concentrated, and not at all easy to
follow in a logical sequence. One thought leads to another, apparently un-
related to the main theme, in a way which leaves the tidy-minded Western
reader bewildered. The passage contains one notorious centre of contro-
versy, which involves serious doctrinal implications (the "preaching to
spirits" in verse 19), and a fairly obscure piece of typology (the Flood as a
type of Christian baptism, verses 20-21). The whole passage has given rise
to more monographs, additional notes, and excursuses than almost any
other. Yet there is probably no more agreement about its exegesis now than
there ever has been.
For such a passage, the generous use of commentaries is obligatory. Only
so can the new-comer hope to grasp what are the issues involved, and what
the nature of the evidence which has led to such controversy. One commen-
tary is not enough, for few commentators (including, no doubt, the present
writer) can resist the temptation to make all the evidence point towards their
chosen solution, and to play down or even ignore the less convenient facts.
By using several reputable commentaries, the reader will not find an agreed
answer, but he will be in a fair position to work towards his own exegesis on
the basis of a cautious awareness of the issues, not of blissful ignorance. The
availability of several such commentaries is assumed in what follows, and
the source of basic information is therefore not usually stated. 23
It will soon be discovered that "the difficulty of the text lies not in the
thought of the author, which is neither odd nor fantastic, but in our
ignorance of his background and field of reference." 24 The author of those
words continues, "More recent studies in later Jewish apocryphal writings

264
 EXEGESIS IN PRACTICE: TWO SAMPLES

and in early Jewish-Christian literature reveal a whole world of ideas which

was powerfully at work, all the more so because simply taken for granted, in
the writers of the New Testament. The exegete ... must try to immerse
himself as deeply as possible in the mental atmosphere of the biblical writer,
his pre-suppositions, his categories of thought, his literary conventions." 25
In fact, if you are not prepared to dirty your hands in the muddy waters of
apocalyptic and rabbinic speculations, much of the New Testament must
necessarily remain obscure. To try to understand 1 Peter 3:19-20 without a
copy of the Book of Enoch at your elbow is to condemn yourself to failure.
Space does not allow a discussion of the standard questions of literary
criticism. We shall assume that the letter was written in the second half of
the first century (and probably in the earlier part of it) by Peter or someone
closely associated with him (Silvanus, writing on Peter's behalf?) to the
churches of the northern part of Asia Minor, whose membership was large-
ly, but not exclusively, Gentile. Its occasion was an outbreak of persecution
against the Christians of that area, which, if the letter may be taken as a
unity, had already begun, and was causing serious distress. A particular
connection of the letter with baptism seems probable, but the precise form of
that connection is not clear. Earlier views that it was simply a baptismal
liturgy or sermon are now generally discounted, and it is accepted as a
genuine letter (or "epistle" in the technical sense).
Thus the overall context of our passage is an encouragement to
Christians under persecution. How serious that persecution was is disputed.
Many commentators write it off as petty local discrimination against con-
verts to Christianity, stopping far short of martyrdom. Some of the language
is very strong for such a situation, particularly when it is recognized that
naaxw was often used for dying in persecution (cf. its use for Christ's death
in 2:21). The parallel with Christ's "suffering" in 3:17-18 and 4:1 suggests
martyrdom, as does the entrusting of their souls to God by those who
"suffer" in 4:19. And would the "suffering" of a murderer be less than death
(4:15)? Moreover, if we are right in interpreting 4:6 to refer to those who
have died since hearing the gospel, a martyrdom context fits the verse best,
with its contrast between being ''judged in the flesh" and "living in the
spirit"; the verse reads most naturally as an assurance on the ultimate fate
of those already martyred. We shall, therefore, assume a context of persecu-
tion in which martyrdom was a real possibility. This, as we shall see, in-
creases the relevance of 3:18 and the sequel.
The immediate context of our passage is concerned with this same theme,
giving directions for the Christian's deportment under persecution. In
3: 13-17 the Christian is envisaged vis-a-vis his persecutors. He may not
compromise his loyalty to Christ, but neither must he give them proper
cause to punish him: if he must suffer, let it be for his good deeds, not for
bad. The same theme of uncompromising loyalty to Christ despite the suf-
fering this may bring is taken up again after our passage, in 4:1-6.
Our exegesis must then be consistent with this context. Verses 18-22
must have something relevant to say to those facing fierce hostility in the

265
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

name of Christ. It is the fault of many interpretations of the passage that

they ignore this requirement, and so accuse the author of inserting an irrele-
vant doctrinal digression in the middle of his exhortation. The context is not
to be thus flouted if the passage will yield relevant sense. The importance of
this discussion of the context for our exegesis will soon become apparent.
We should notice at this point that many scholars have found in various
parts of 1 Peter traces of early Christian hymns or credal formulae, marked
by a stylized, rhythmic structure for easy memorization. One such "hymn"
is often seen in verses 18 and 22; but the intervening verses are, in com-
parison, tortuous and prosaic, so that it is not possible to take the whole
passage as a hymn. This hymnic or credal origin for verses 18 and 22 is not
unlikely, and has a limited importance for exegesis. 26

VERSE 18 27
The main drift of this verse, at least up to the penultimate clause, is clear.
It is one of the most direct statements in the New Testament of the vicarious
significance of the death of Christ. But what is the relevance of such a state-
ment in this context? The obvious answer, given in most commentaries, is
that Jesus' death is given as an example of innocent suffering. The
persecuted Christians of Asia Minor must be prepared to accept undeserved
suffering as their Master did. 28 That such an application is intended cannot
be doubted, and the mention that Jesus in his suffering was righteous seems
designed to reinforce the lesson. But why then all the emphasis in this verse
on the redeeming character of Jesus' death? Are his followers called to die
for men's sins to bring them to God? Presumably not, unless Peter is here
stepping right out of line with the rest of New Testament teaching. Hence
the conclusion is generally drawn that Peter, having once mentioned the
death of Jesus, is drawn by the attraction of the subject to explore the mean-
ing of that death and its sequel, and forgets the exemplary purpose for which
he introduced it. 29 Some would suggest that his use of a set credal formula
or hymn leads him to include details from that formula which are irrelevant
to his purpose in the context. Then, having indulged his doctrinal interests in
a wide-ranging digression, he returns to his theme in chapter 4.
We hope to show more fully as we go on that an exegesis which thus dis-
regards the context is quite inadequate. The emphasis in these verses is on
the triumph of Jesus over all opposing powers. This triumph began in his
redeeming death, was established through his resurrection, and is now effec-
tive through his ascension and sitting at God's right hand. Verse 18 is the
beginning of this recital, and its relevance to the context is that the
persecuted Christian, facing the powers of evil, may know that these powers
are already defeated, that he shares in the triumph of his Master, to whom
all powers are subject. The apparent defeat of death was for Jesus the begin-
ning of victory. So it is for the Christian martyr: death leads to resurrection
and triumph, because Jesus through his redeeming death has once for all
conquered sin and all the powers of evil. This is no digression, but the very

266
 EXEGESIS IN PRACTICE: TWO SAMPLES

foundation of the Christian hope in which the martyr may die. The justifica-
tion for this overall exegesis will emerge as we go on.
There are several details in the wording of verse 18 which deserve fuller
investigation than space permits us here. It is steeped in Old Testament
sacrificial ideas. ana~ introduces the thought of the decisive, once-for-all
nature of Jesus' atonement, stressed so much in Hebrews. 30 1l€(!t ap.a(!TtWV
recalls the technical term for the Old Testament sin-offering as rendered in
the LXX.31 lll"atO~ t'mee cilll"wv continues the sacrificial allusion by
reminding of the substitutionary principle, which required an unblemished
animal, and also very likely alludes to Is. 53:11, "By his knowledge shall the
righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous."
neoaayayy introduces the reconciliation aspect of the atonement, reminding
us of the neoaaywy~ mentioned by Paul in Romans 5:2; Ephesians 2:18. The
Old Testament background to this term is exegetically very suggestive, es-
pecially in a context of sacrificial language, but we cannot explore it here. 32
So verse 18, up to the penultimate clause, concentrates on the death of
Jesus, viewed as a decisive, sacrificial, atoning, reconciling act. It is the doc-
trine of the atonement in a nutshell.
The last clause of verse 18 begins the transition of thought from the death
of Jesus to the triumph which followed. The rhythmically balanced phrases,
focusing on the two essential events of Easter, seem clearly to come from a
traditional formula, and the close formal parallel of 1 Timothy 3:16 (cf. also
Rom. 1:3-4) supports this.
The terms "flesh" and "spirit" need careful handling. In the world of
Greek philosophy they would mean the material and immaterial "parts" of a
man, of which the former dies but the latter survives. Many have
automatically read this clause in such terms, without reflecting that such a
distinction is foreign to Jewish thought, and that it is in the world of the Old
Testament and later Jewish literature that our author moves. Nor is there
any reference here to the divine and human natures of Christ: this is the
New Testament, not a fifth-century doctrinal work, and the New Testament
never speaks of two natures in Christ, let alone using aae~ and wevp.a to
describe them. aae~ in the New Testament denotes the natural human sphere
of existence, and wevp.a in contrast with it denotes the supernatural
sphere. 33 The closest parallel to the present use is Paul's careful distinction
between two modes of existence, V'vxuco~ and wevp.an"o~, in 1 Corinthians
15 :42fT. His distinction there is not between "body" and "soul", but between
two types of body, adapted to two different modes of existence. So here the
contrast is between Christ's death in the natural sphere, and his risen life in
the eternal, spiritual sphere. His earthly life ended, but that was succeeded
by his heavenly life. Thus the second phrase does not refer to Christ disem-
bodied, but to Christ risen to life on a new plane.
The reason for insisting on this is that some commentators have inter-
preted l;q~onot1)8e't~ nvevp.att of something less than, and prior to, the resurrec-
tion of Christ, of an intermediate disembodied state. This is to make the
clause fit in with an interpretation of verse 19 in terms of a descent of Christ

267
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

to Hades between his death and resurrection. We shall come to the exegesis
of verse 19 shortly, but we must be clear before we do so that the reference
of Ccponot7J8e'u; nvevp.an is to the resurrection of Christ and nothing less,
however inconvenient this may prove. An early Christian, reading this for-
mal contrast between Jesus' death and his being "made alive" could not be
expected to think of anything other than the resurrection, 34 least of all of so
foreign an idea as a disembodied state. Whatever verse 19 may refer to, the
last clause of verse 18 refers to the death and resurrection of Jesus. 35
This last clause has a clear relevance to a persecuted church. Jesus was
"done to death" (8ava-rw8ek is a strong word, with special reference to
judicial killing), but this was not the end. It terminated his earthly life (aae~).
but issued in a new risen life "in spirit". So the Christian facing martyrdom
(8ava-row would be very appropriate) may be sure that death is only "in the
flesh"; it will be followed by a new risen life. Verses 19 and 22 will go on to
show that for Jesus death was the way to triumph, a triumph which his
follower can share.

VERSE 19
Here, in these nine words, all the controversy centres. Is this a precursor
of the medieval doctrine of the "harrowing of hell"? 36 If not, what is it
talking about? Why is it so obscurely worded?
Before we go into detail, it would be as well to observe that Peter
presumably wrote to be understood by his readers. What is obscure to us
can hardly have been so obscure to them. The problem lies in our not know-
ing what were the common ideas, the common background of thought,
which Peter shared with his readers, and to which therefore he can allude
without needing to explain his reference. It is this background of thought
which we must try to discover, rather than insist that the verse must or can-
not refer to the harrowing of hell, purgatory, a second chance for the dead,
etc. Our own doctrinal predilections are irrelevant: we want to find out what
Peter meant, from the meagre words he has provided for us.
Most of the relevant issues will be raised by taking the words of the verse
in order, and letting them pose the questions.
(1) 'Ev cP· In what? Most recent versions and commentators say "In the
spirit", taking nvwp.an, the immediately preceding noun, as the
antecedent. 37 It is doubtful whether anyone would have disputed this render-
ing, if it did not lead in a direction incompatible with their chosen exegesis.
For nvevp.a-rt in verse 18 refers, as we have seen, to Christ's risen state. To
take ev l(J as "in the spirit" must therefore mean that verse 19 is talking
about an activity of Christ after his resurrection. If you are committed to
referring it to the period between his death and resurrection, such an inter-
pretation must be avoided. Accordingly some commentators take ev as a er
conjunction without specific grammatical antecedent, meaning "when", i.e.
in the course of the events mentioned in the preceding clause, viz. the
death-resurrection sequence. In support of this interpretation they note that

268
 EXEGESIS IN PRACTICE: TWO SAMPLES

ev cJ occurs in this sort of sense elsewhere in 1 Peter (1:6; 2:12; 3:16; 4:4). It
is to be noted, however, that in none of these cases is there any masculine or
neuter noun in the preceding clause which could be taken as the antecedent.
Here the presence of an eligible antecedent immediately before ev r(J places a
strong presumption in favour of its translation as a straightforward relative.
Dogmatic considerations apart, it would seem that ev r(J must mean "in the
spirit" in the sense of that word in verse 18, i.e. verse 19 must refer to an ace
tivity of the risen Christ.
(2) Toi~ ev q;vJ.a"fi 'JrVevp,aatv. This is the crucial phrase. Who are they?
There are two suggested interpretations of '!rVevp,a here, either as men who
have died, or as supernatural powers. '!rVevp,a in the former sense occurs
clearly in the New Testament only in Hebrews 12:23; 38 there is another
clear use in the Song of the Three Holy Children 64, and 1 Enoch 22:3-13
has many references to "the spirits of the dead", etc. But in none of these
cases is nvevp,a used absolutely: it is always qualified by "of the dead", "of
the righteous", etc. If T<x nvevp,m:a here meant "men who have died", it
would be a unique absolute use in this sense. This does not exclude the
possibility entirely, but it casts strong doubt on it. Moreover, dnedJr}aaatv in
verse 20 would go strangely with this sense: one would expect "spirits of
those who disobeyed" rather than "spirits who disobeyed", since on this in-
terpretation they were living men, not spirits, at the time of disobedience.
llvevp,a in the sense of a supernatural being, usually evil, is common in the
New Testament and contemporary literature. 39 Note particularly the title of
God in 1 Enoch as "the Lord of Spirits". Used absolutely, 1rVeVp,ara would
unquestionably be understood in this sense by a contemporary reader, es-
pecially one at all familiar with Jewish apocalyptic and other inter-testamen-
talliterature. Again, the only obstacle to accepting this meaning of the word
is a preconception that verse 19 is about Christ preaching to the dead in
Hades. 4:6 is often used to buttress this interpretation, but it should be noted
that the word nvevp,a is not used there, and that there is no reason to sup-
pose that the two verses refer to the same event. 40
The interpretation of 'lrVeVf.laatv on lexical grounds as referring to super-
natural beings is confirmed by the sequel. They are those "who were once
disobedient in the days ofNoah". Here we step into a.whole world of Jewish
mythology which is foreign to most modern readers. Jewish apocalyptic and
other writings make frequent reference to the passage in Genesis 6:1--4
about the sin of the "sons of God". These are regarded as angelic beings
(often called "Watchers"), who, because of this sin, were cast out of heaven
and imprisoned, awaiting their punishment at the final judgment.
Meanwhile, either in person or through their offspring, they are the source of
evil on earth. 41 These fallen angels and their punishment are referred to
elsewhere in the New Testament in Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4. In the latter
passage they are associated with Noah and the Flood, and this connection
was commonly made, since the two events are related together in chapter 6
of Genesis. Testament of Naphtali 3:5 specifically states that they were
cursed by God "at the Flood", and that the Flood came on their account,

269
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

and Jubilees 10:5 regards their sin as taking place in Noah's day.
But it is the Book of Enoch which gives the most detailed account of the
sin and punishment of the angels, to which it returns again and again. The
story is told in great detail in 1 Enoch 6-16, and the prison where the angels
are bound is described in 18:12-19:2; 21:1-10. There are further references
in 54:3-6, and throughout chapters 64-69. The story is told again in sym-
bolic form in chapters 86-88, and a further reference occurs in 106: 13-17.
A bare listing of these references is not enough to indicate the extent of the
hold which this mythology had on the minds of the authors of the Enochic
literature: the exegete who wants to get inside the skin of the writer and
original readers of 1 Peter (and of 2 Peter and Jude at least) should read the
relevant parts of 1 Enoch in full. As he does so he will discover numerous
points of contact with 1 Peter 3:19-20. He will find the fallen angels referred
to as nvev;~.a1:a (15 :4, 6, 8), he will find many references to their
imprisonment, 42 and he will find their disobedience (21 :6 etc.) connected
with Noah and the Flood. 43 But most striking of all is the fact that in
chapter 12 Enoch is given a commission to go to these fallen angels and
proclaim to them their punishment; this mission is the subject of chapters
12-16. Here is a remarkable parallel to Christ's mission in 1 Peter 3:19
(compare noeevOel~ ber/ev~ev with Enoch's commission in 12:4, noeevov "al
lme . .. ).44
The evidence is more than sufficient to indicate that nl ev fPVAa"fi JrVev}lam
must be the fallen angels who, according to apocalyptic tradition, sinned at
the time of Noah, and are in custody awaiting their final punishment. To us
the reference is obscure; to a church which knew and prized the Book of
Enoch (as the author of Jude so evidently did too) it would need no explana-
tion.
(3) IloeevOelq. Where did he go to, and when? Advocates of a reference
here to Christ's going down to Hades between his death and resurrection
naturally assume that noeevOek indicates "descended". But it does not say
so. Indeed, in verse 22 the very same participle is used of his going into
heaven. In itself it is neutral. Clearly he went to wherever the spirits were in
their prison. And on this point Jewish tradition is divided. A prison under
the earth is indicated in Jubilees 5:6, 10 ("depths of the earth"), and this
tradition is apparently followed in Revelation 20, where the fPVA~rJ of verse
7 is presumably the aPvaao~ of verses 1 and 3. 45 In 1 Enoch 17-18, however,
the place is reached by a journey to the furthest west, where heaven and
earth join, and there, beyond a chasm, he finds the prison in "a place which
had no firmament of the heaven above, and no firmly founded earth beneath
it", which is described as "the end of heaven and earth" (18:12, 14). 46 The
prison of the angels is elevated still further by the rather later 2 Enoch,
which locates it in the second of seven heavens (2 Enoch 7:1-3; 18:3-6; cf.
also Test. Levi 3:2), using a new cosmology developed in Hellenistic circles,
and much valued in late Jewish and early Christian works (see e.g. 2 Cor.
12:2). It has therefore been suggested that 1 Peter 3:19 had this view in
mind, and regards Christ as visiting the fallen angels in the course of his

270
 EXEGESIS IN PRACTICE: TWO SAMPLES

ascension (thus taking noeev8el.~; in the same sense as in verse 22), as he

passed through the lower heavens tow,ards the seventh. This is attractive,
but the text lacks any suggestion of acquaintance with the seven-heavens
cosmology, so we may most prudently record a non liquet on the precise
location of the prison. The main point to be established is that there is no
mention of going down, or of Sheol or Hades (which is never called rpv2a"~
in biblical literature). 47 Christ went to the prison of the fallen angels, not to
the abode of the dead, and the two are never equated.
The question of when Jesus made this journey has already been raised
with reference to the phrase ev cP• which we argued must refer to his risen
state. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, this journey must therefore be
dated at some time after the resurrection. It is tempting to connect it with
the use of noeevOe!t; in verse 22 for the ascension, but noeevopat is a very
general and common verb of "going", and its repetition here need not be
significant. The precise time, like the precise location, may be left undecided.
But what does seem clear is that it was not, as some commentators have
suggested, between his death and resurrection. 48 This conflicts with the
natural meaning of ev cP and also interrupts the sequence of thought which
has already reached the resurrection at the end of verse 18, returns to it at
the end of verse 21, and proceeds to the ascension in verse 22. This se-
quence confirms that verse 19 should be read as a sequel to, not a precursor
of, the resurrection.
(4)'E~ev~ev. What did Jesus preach (or, more literally, "proclaim") to the
spirits in prison? The verb means "to act as herald", and so is essentially
neutral as to the content of the message. This neutral use is found in Revela-
tion 5 :2. 49 But in the vast majority of New Testament uses it refers to
preaching the gospel. Here, where it is used absolutely, it would therefore
need strong arguments to disprove that it carries its usual New Testament
meaning of preaching the gospel of repentance and forgiveness. That is how
the majority of commentators take it.
There are, however, strong arguments against this interpretation in this
particular case. (a) In the LXX, whose language is clearly familiar to our
author, "TJevaaw is used as often of bringing bad news as of good: see e.g.
Jonah 1:2; 3:2, 4. (b) Enoch's mission to the fallen angels, which was cer-
tainly in the author's mind, as we have seen, was to proclaim judgment;
when they plead for mercy he has to refuse it (1 Enoch 13-15, esp. 14:4-5).
(c) The statement in verse 22 that all spiritual powers are subject to Christ
would cohere better with a proclamation of his victory than with an offer of
salvation. (d) The purpose of the letter, to boost the morale of persecuted
Christians, would be better served by a mention of Christ's triumphing over
evil powers than of an offer of salvation to them. This last point we shall
develop further shortly. Meanwhile, these arguments seem to the present
writer sufficient to demand here the original neutral meaning of "TJevaaw, "to
make proclamation"; the reference would then be to an announ9ement to
the fallen angels of his triumph ove: them and all evil through his death and
resurrection, which have placed all spiritual powers under his control (v.22).

271
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

We conclude then that 1 Peter 3:19 has nothing to do with a descent of

Christ to Hades, or a second chance for the dead, but refers to a tradition
not mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament that after his resurrection
Christ proclaimed his victory to the fallen angels in the "prison" where they
were awaiting their final punishment. Whether the other New Testament
writers did not know this tradition, or knew it but had no occasion to men-
tion it in the writings preserved, it was clearly well-known to Peter's readers.
It is closely related to the common New Testament theme of Christ's
triumph through the cross over Satan, death, and all powers of evil. 50 It
shows the all-embracing sovereignty and control of the risen Christ.
And this was a theme of real practical importance to Peter's readers.
They might be called to endure the worst that anti-Christian prejudice could
inflict. But even then they could be assured that their pagan opponents, and,
more important, the spiritual powers of evil that stood behind them and
directed them, were not outside Christ's control: they were already defeated,
awaiting final punishment. Christ had openly triumphed over them. Here is
real comfort and strength for a persecuted church which took very seriously
the reality and power of spiritual forces. These brief allusive words of Peter
convey the same message of encouragement as Paul's great "more than con-
querors" passage in Romans 8:31-39.
It is the greatest strength of the exegesis here proposed that it yields a
sense so pastorally relevant to the context of a persecuted church. 51

VERSE 20
We have already dealt with the disobedience of the spirits in the days of
Noah. The mention of God's patience may reflect a current interpretation of
Genesis 6:3, that the 120 years referred not to man's life-span, but to the
period of grace granted before the punishment should come. 52 The dating of
the angels' sin within this period is in agreement with Jewish tradition, as we
have already seen.
The mention of the flood now leads to a change of scene; the fallen angels
are left behind, and the Flood, once mentioned, becomes the basis for more
teaching relevant to the encouragement of persecuted Christians. Two facts
are isolated from the story: (I) that few were saved; (2) that they were saved
"through water".
That few were saved was of obvious pastoral application. The persecuted
Christians must have been painfully conscious of their small numbers and
relative feebleness compared to the pagan majority among whom they lived.
But Noah and his crew were an even smaller minority: only eight out of the
whole wicked population of the world. Yet they were saved, and the world
destroyed. If Peter had known the cliche, he might have added, "One with
God is a majority"! 53
That they were saved through water is the means of transition to the next
theme, baptism, of which this water is regarded as a type; verse 21 expounds
this typology and its significance for the readers. The precise meaning of

272
 EXEGESIS IN PRACTICE: TWO SAMPLES

"through" is debated: is it local (they passed through the water to safety) or

instrumental (by means of the water)? Both could be true of Noah, though
the former is much more obvious: the idea of the water which destroyed the
rest of mankind and from which Noah escaped being nonetheless the means
of his salvation (by carrying the ark) is a little whimsical, though certainly
not beyond the imagination of a keen typologist. On the other hand, the in-
strumental sense is much easier when one considers the typological
application: the Christian is more easily viewed as saved "by means of" the
water of baptism than by passing through it, though the latter is also possi-
ble. Probably Peter is deliberately exploiting the ambiguity of the word hui
to assist his passage from the Old Testament story to its typological
application. 54

VERSE 21
The first seven words, in which the typological relation is succinctly ex-
pressed, are almost impossibly difficult to construe from the grammatical
point of view. 55 The main questions are: (1) What is the antecedent of o? (2)
Does anhwrov refer to vp,ar; or to {Jwmap,a? (3) Assuming that ois the sub-
ject, what is the syntactical function of {Ja:n:uap,a (or, if {Jamtap,a is the sub-
ject, where does ofit in!)? Space forbids a discussion of these questions. We
shall assume that the antecedent of ois the immediately preceding vha-ror;,
that av-rlwnov refers to vp,ar; and that {Jcimwp,a is an explanatory addition, in
apposition to o (viz., water); this gives the translation, "which (water) now
also saves you, the antitype (of Noah and his crew) - that is, baptism."
However, a little juggling with the different grammatical possibilities will
soon show that the various permutations all yield essentially the same sense,
that as Noah and his family were saved through water, so Christians are
saved through the water of baptism, the relationship of the latter to the
former being described as anl-rvnov. Exegetically anlwnov is the key.
The only other New Testament use of avTtTvnor; is Hebrews 9:24, where it
refers to an earthly sanctuary as a "copy" of the true sanctuary of heaven.
But within the same word group we also find ronor; used for the "model" or
"pattern" from which such a copy is made (Ac. 7:44; Heb. 8:5 quoting
LXX Ex. 25 :40), for a moral "example" to be copied ( 1 Pet. 5:3 and several
other uses), and, most significantly for our purpose, for Old Testament
figures as "types", prefigurations, of New Testament persons (Rom. 5: 14; 1
Cor. 10:6, cf. wm:~twr; in 10:11, though in 1 Cor. 10 the sense of"example"
is probably adequate in context). Here we have all the materials for, and
probably the actual beginning of, the technical use of ronor; as a
hermeneutical term which quickly developed in the Christian church. That
typology, by whatever name or none, was widely practised by Christians
right from the time of Jesus himself cannot be doubted. 56 Here we have the
beginning of its technical terminology.
The essential principle of New Testament typology is that God works ac-
cording to a regular pattern, so that what he has done in the past, as record-

273
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

ed in the Old Testament, can be expected to find its counterpart in his work
in the decisive period of the New Testament. Thus persons, events and in-
stitutions of the Old Testament, which in themselves need have no forward
reference, are cited as "types", models of corresponding persons, events and
institutions in the life of Christ and the Christian church. 57 On this principle,
then, as avrtt:V:TlOV warns us, Peter takes the salvation of Noah in the Flood
as a model of the Christian's salvation through baptism. He has thus ac-
complished another change of scene, from the story of the Flood to Chris-
tian baptism, which is startlingly abrupt to the modern reader, but which
would seem quite natural to a reader accustomed to typological application
of Old Testament narratives. A grasp of the typological principle will go a
long way towards dispelling the exegetical obscurity of some parts of the
New Testament.
Peter's confident pronouncement that the water of baptism "saves you" is
sure to sound an alarm bell in a faithful Protestant mind. Is this a doctrine of
baptismal regeneration, an ex opere operato view of the sacrament? Two
points may be made in this connection. Firstly, such "realist" language con-
cerning the effect of baptism is by no means unparalleled in the New
Testament; 58 any view of baptism which finds it a rather embarrassing
ceremonial extra, irrelevant to Christian salvation, is not doing justice to
New Testament teaching. But, secondly, Peter is very careful to qualify his
statement immediately by pointing out the true nature of baptism, involving
two aspects, one negative and one positive, which between them effectively
allay fears of a "magical" view of the sacrament.
The negative aspect is given in the strange words, "not a removal of dirt
from the body". This is certainly not a straightforward way of saying "not
the outward act of washing", but that is the meaning assumed by almost all
commentators: 59 Peter is defending the true nature of baptism by asserting
that the outward act does not bring salvation in itself, but only as it
represents a right inward attitude. The words are unusual, but they are cer-
tainly not inappropriate to convey the sense of an outward, physical
washing, perhaps with reference to the Jewish ritual washing before meals:
baptism is not a matter of washing away ritual uncleanness, but a transac-
tion with God in the sphere of avvellnwu;.
This brings us to the second, positive, aspect of baptism, and to another
very obscure phrase: avvet{;ljaewc; aya£Jijc; bteewt:r;pa eic; 8e6v. The two key
words are clearly avvel{;r;atc; and breewt:r;pa. Etymologically, eneewt:r;pa
(which occurs only here in the New Testament) ought to mean "enquiry",
"asking a question". That is the almost invariable meaning of the common
verb, eneewniw. In Matthew 16:1 the verb carries the very unusual meaning
"request",60 and on this basis some have translated breewt:r;pa here as "a re-
quest (appeal) to God for a good conscience". If the more obvious meaning
"enquiry" made any sense here, there would be no need to suggest this
translation, which would be unique in the whole of Greek literature, but it is
not easy to see how baptism could be viewed as an "enquiry" to God, nor
how avvet{;ljaewc; aya£Jijc; would fit in with this meaning. We are, then, ap-

274
 EXEGESIS IN PRACTICE: TWO SAMPLES

parently faced with a choice between the regular meaning "enquiry", which
makes no sense in the context, and an otherwise unknown meaning, "re-
quest", which is at least intelligible, but which introduces a view of baptism,
as an act of supplication, for which there is no parallel in the New Testa-
ment or the early church.
The solution to this dilemma is found in the papyri, where bu:ewr7JJLa
appears as a technical term in legal contracts, signifying the formal question·
addressed by one party to the other and the response, a formal undertaking
or pledge. Etymologically, breewTTJJla would be expected to denote only the
first of these, but in fact it is used for the total transaction, and so carries the
meaning "pledge", "undertaking", "contract". 61 Here we have a meaning
clearly relevant to baptism, where the baptizer puts formal questions to the
candidate concerning his beliefs and his moral commitment, and the can-
didate responds with a "pledge". Such a form of baptism is attested very
early in the Christian church, and may well be referred to in the New
Testament. 62 Most recent commentators accordingly accept the meaning
"pledge".
The genitive preceding bu:ewTTJJla could be related to it either as subjec-
tive ("pledge proceeding from a good conscience") or objective ("pledge to
maintain a good conscience"). The latter seems more consistent with the
New Testament view of baptism as a transition from the old life to the new:
it looks forward to a life of obedience, rather than being based on an already
good conscience.
The precise meaning of avvetbT)atc; is never easy to define. It is certainly
much wider than "conscience", as even its other uses in this letter (2: 19;
3:16) will show. A long discussion in TDNT 63 concludes that in the
"Post-Pauline Writings" avvetbT)atc; dyafh} is "a formula for the Christian life"
in all its aspects. Commentators suggest "disposition" or "attitude" as
translations for avvetbT)atc; here, with sometimes an element of "loyalty" or
"sense of duty". 64 Thus the total meaning of the phrase before us will be a
pledge to God of a life loyally devoted to his service. The contrast with the
preceding negative clause is thus very strong: the saving significance of bap-
tism does not lie in the external, physical act of washing, but in the moral
and spiritual commitment to God which it symbolizes.
The verse concludes with an unexpected addition, "through the resurrec-
tion of Jesus Christ". The connection of baptism with the resurrection of
Christ is expounded by Paul in Romans 6:1-11. It is a uniting with Christ in
his death and resurrection, leading to a sharing of his risen life. Some such
idea is probably the connection of thought leading Peter to reintroduce the
resurrection in his argument here. It erodes still further any mechanical idea
of the efficacy of baptism, by adding another aspect of its spiritual
significance. Not only is baptism an act of commitment by the candidate: it
is also a uniting with the risen Christ giving him the power to live up to his
commitment.
We have now examined verse 21 in detail to see just what Peter is saying
about the nature of baptism, and why he regards it as the antitype of the

275
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

Flood. But why did he mention baptism at all? Was he simply carried away
by the fascination of typology, so that, having mentioned the Flood, he
could not resist pointing out its typical significance? And then, realizing that
he might have laid himself open to misunderstanding, did he feel obliged to
qualify his statement that baptism "saves" before he could return to his
theme? Or is this perhaps a deliberate turn in the argument, introduced
because it was relevant to his readers' situation, and not just an academic
digression? We have so far eschewed the suggestion of irrelevant academic
theorising; must we admit it here?
If, as many scholars believe, the whole letter is closely connected with
baptism, either as incorporating parts of a baptismal liturgy or sermon, or as
written for the occasion when baptism was to be administered, here is an ob-
vious explanation for the "digression" of verse 21. But has it no relevance to
the overall theme of the Christian under persecution? These were men
whose faith was costly, and who were in dire need of assurance that the
salvation for which they faced persecution was a reality. Just as Luther was
to return in times of doubt and despair to the assurance "baptizatus sum",
so Peter reminds his readers of what their baptism means. It marks them out
as God's chosen few who, like Noah, will be saved though all around mock
them and perish. Their baptismal pledge commits them to unswerving loyal-
ty to God whatever the consequences. And their baptism is a symbol of
their being united with the risen Christ, who in his resurrection has triumph-
ed over all the powers of evil. It is a reminder, in fact, of all that they stand
for, and of the strength in which they stand, the victory of the risen Christ. It
is, properly understood, a real assurance of salvation, and as such is intense-
ly relevant to a persecuted minority. This is no academic digression.

VERSE 22
The last phrase of verse 21 has brought Peter back to the theme of the
end of verse 18 and of verse 19, the triumph of the risen Christ. This theme
he now concludes with an exultant description of Christ's ascension and sit-
ting at God's right hand with all powers subject to him. The language used is
based on Psalm 110:1, and has many parallels in the New Testament. It
poses no serious exegetical problems. Verse 19 has shown the victory of
Christ over the fallen angels; verse 22 rounds out the picture to include the
whole range of spiritual powers. 65 To the modern Western reader this may
appear no more than a picturesque way of expressing the universality of the
dominion of Christ "at the right hand of God". But experience in African
society shows that to a community in which evil spirits are a part of every-
day concern, and in which securing protection against the powers of evil
ranks very high among life's priorities, such a bold assurance is breath-
taking. We may be sure that Peter's readers, who were facing the very real
onslaught of evil powers through their persecutors, could find real courage
from these words.

276
 EXEGESIS IN PRACTICE: TWO SAMPLES

CONCLUSION

We insisted at the outset that the key to the exegesis of such a passage is
its context. The verses both preceding and following our passage are con-
cerned with the Christian's attitude under persecution. It is the exegete's
duty to discover why, in this context, Peter feels it right to delve into the
rather obscure and complicated doctrinal matters dealt with in verses
18-22. It is not good enough to accuse him of exercising his private
theological hobby-horses in an irrelevant academic digression set in the mid-
dle of a serious piece of pastoral exhortation.
It has been our aim in the detailed exegesis above to keep this context
always in mind, and to show how each point introduced is relevant to the
readers' situation. We cannot pretend that the passage is plain sailing. The
author does have a tendency to jump from thought to thought extremely
rapidly, sometimes with little more obvious logical connection than in a
game of word-chains. But he does not lose sight of his readers, and each
point, however obscurely connected with what precedes, has a practical
bearing on the situation of a persecuted church.
We shall attempt to make this clear by concluding with a paraphrase of 1
Peter 3:18-22, along the lines of the exegesis outlined above, adding in
brackets the relevance of the various points to the situation of the original
readers.
" ... 17. It is better to suffer, if suffer you must, for good deeds than for
bad. 18. Because Christ also suffered for no fault of his own when he, the
just one, died on behalf of the unjust. (So do not complain if your suffering
too is undeserved.) His death was an effective, once-for-all sacrifice to make
atonement for (your?) sins, so that you might be restored to fellowship with
God. (It is for this faith that you are called to suffer; it is no optional extra,
but the only way of salvation; it is worth the cost.) He was put to death (as
you may well be), but that was only in the earthly sphere: he has been raised
to new spiritual life (as you will be too, if you die for him). (So death was, for
Jesus, the way of achievement and victory; do not fear those who can only
kill the body.) 19. In the triumph of his resurrection he went to the fallen
angels awaiting judgment in their place of confinement, and proclaimed to
them the victory won by his redeeming death. (Even the most wicked of
spiritual powers have had to recognize the authority of the risen Jesus;
whatever the forces against you, they are not his equal.) 20. These were
those spirits who rebelled against God in the days ofNoah, while God in his
mercy was still withholding the punishment of the Flood (as he is now delay-
ing judgment on your persecutors), and the ark was being built, but, when
the Flood came, there were few, only eight, who were saved in the ark. (It is
nothing new to be a minority standing for God. Noah and his family must
have been very conscious of the weight of opposition, but in the end they
were saved, and the rest drowned. "Fear not, little flock.") It was through
water that Noah and his family were saved, 21. and similarly the water of
baptism now saves you, since Noah's experience was a prefiguration of

277
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

Christian experience. (So let your baptism be an assurance to you of your

ultimate salvation.) Of course, it is not the mere outward washing of the
body which is the essence of baptism, but the candidate's commitment to a
life of loyal service to God. (Do not forget your pledge. You are committed,
and can not go back, however strong the pressure. The ceremony without
the commitment is not true baptism, and gives no ground for assurance.)
Baptism involves your union with the risen Christ (and hence gives you the
power to remain faithful), 22. who has now gone into heaven, where he sits
at God's right hand, and all angels and spiritual powers are under his con-
trol. (So whom have you to fear? You are on the winning side. Your
persecutors, and the spiritual forces which drive them on, can have no ul-
timate victory. Your Lord reigns!)"

NOTES

I. The vexed question of the relationship of Jn. 4:46-54 to this Synoptic pericope is beyond
our scope here. Whether or not the Johannine account refers to the same incident (and this is
at least doubtful), it is clearly not derived from the same strand of tradition. See further C. H.
Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge 1963), pp. 188-!95.
2. In such cases it is, of course, always arguable that Jesus made the same point in similar
words on two different occasions. There is no inherent improbability in this suggestion, and
many of the parallel traditions in the Gospels may most probably be accounted for in this
way. In this particular case, however, the force of the saying is so clearly in line with the
emphasis M&tthew is concerned to bring out by his handling of the rest of the narrative (as
the discussion below hopes to show) that it seems more probable that he was responsible for
its insertion at this point.
3. See S. Travis above, pp. 157-159.
4. The History of the Synoptic Tradition (E.T. Oxford 1963), p. 38, n. 4.
5. Five of these refer to Jesus, and derive from 'ebed in Is. 42fT: one (Mt. 12: 18) is an actual
quotation of Is. 42:1. So here the meaning "servant" is certain. The others are in Luke and
Acts referring to David and to Israel as God's xait;.
6. T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London 1949), p. 64 argues that the original
meaning was "son", on the assumption that Jn. 4:46-54 refers to the same incident. This in-
volves the improbable supposition that the .SoiiAot; of Lk. 7:8 is a different person from the xait;
of 7:7 (and, presumably, the .SoiiAot; of 7:2!).
7. G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, and H.-J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew
(E.T. London 1963), p. 194.
8. TDNT 3, p. 294, s.v. lxavot;. This article is a good illustration of the direct exegetical
usefulness of TDNT at many points.
9. Note Matthew's addition of p/rvov, emphasising the miraculous element in the cure re-
quested.
10. Many commentators press the analogy further: the commander represents Jesus; whom
then do the soldiers represent? To whom is Jesus envisaged as issuing commands? To this
question there can be only one answer -the powers of illness, the demons or spirits to whom
the servant's paralysis is supposed to have been attributed. But was this a right question to
ask? Must we expect point-for-point correspondence? The point of the analogy lies in the
authority which achieves its end by a mere word of command. There is no mention of spirits
or demons in this story, or indeed in any story of the healing of paralysis. (Acts 8:7
deliberately distinguishes between exorcism of spirits and healing of paralysis.) Good exegesis
does not require pressing every comparison or parable to the point of full allegorical cor-
respondence.
11. G. Zuntz argued strongly for this reading in JTS 46 (1945), pp. 183fT; cf. J. Jeremias,

278
 EXEGESIS IN PRACTICE: TWO SAMPLES

Jesus' Promise to the Nations (E.T. London 1958), p. 30 n.4, arguing that vno e~ovatav is a
mistranslation of the original Aramaic phrase "i~ authority"; also M. Black, An Aramaic Ap-
proach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford 1967 ), p. 159, supporting the same reading on
grounds of parallelism.
12. E.g. Lk. 1:66; 22:37; Jn. 4:23; I Cor. 5:7; 11:9; 12:13, Heb. 5:12; 12:29.
13. Many MSS have substituted the Lucan wording, as frequently happens in Synoptic
passages, but a large number of the most reliable 2~arly MSS and versions preserve this text.
14. Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (Berlin 1971 ), p. 252.
15. Some commentators (e.g. Lohmeyer, Schlatter) suggest that the reclining in itself in-
dicates a banquet in contrast to an ordinary meal (where one would sit). But dvwcAtvoJlat and
xarwc).ivoJlat seem to be more widely used in the New Testament, including the very informal
meal of the five thousand (Mk. 6:39), and the meal at the house of Simon the Pharisee whose
lack of due ceremony Jesus particularly noted (Lk. 7 :36ft).
16. Details of these expectations may be found by consulting SB (under Mt. 8:11, where one
is referred to a long excursus in Vol. IV/2 on Jewish ideas of heaven and hell), or, more
briefly, by looking up 8eimoov in TDNT. McNeile's commentary refers one to a useful treat-
ment in G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus (E.T. Edinburgh 1902), pp. 110-113.
17. J. Jeremias, Jesus' Promise to the Nations (E.T. London 1958), p. 48.
18. For details seeR. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament (London 1971), pp. 60-67.
19. Cf. ibid., pp. 67-74. See further Tyn.B 26 (1975), pp. 53-78.
20. See examples quoted by W. C. Alien, The Gospel according to S. Matthew (Edinburgh
1907), p. 78. SB give further examples: see under Mt. 8:12 for references to relevant sections
of the Excursus in Vol. IV/2.
2 I. The Lucan parallel ( 13 :28-29) brings this aspect out more clearly with its use of o'PwOe.
22. The discussion of the pericope by H.-J. Held, op. cit., pp. 193-197, provides a valuable
example of the redaction-critical approach and its positive contribution to exegesis.
23. The following provide a representative cross-section of goo~ recent commentaries in
English: E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter (London 1947 ); F. W. Beare, The First
3
Epistle of Peter (Oxford 1970 ); B. Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude (New
York 1964); J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and of Jude (London 1969); E. Best, 1
Peter (London 1971).
24. W. J. Dalton, Christ's Proclamation to the Spirits: a study of 1 Peter 3:18-4:6 (Rome
1965), p. 7. This detailed study by a Jesuit scholar is a fine example of painstaking, responsi-
ble and independent exegesis. A few hours with this book would richly repay the serious stu-
dent, not only as a contribution to his understanding o£ this text, but as an example of how
the job should be done.
25. Ibid., p. 9.
26. See above, pp. 235-241 on such hymns in the N.T.
27. There are several uncertainties about the text of this verse, but none of them affects the
exegesis significantly. Whether or not vnee vw.iiv, vnee ~wiiv, or just ~JlWV is added after neel
a!laeruov matters little: the thought is of Christ dying for sins, without restriction to any one
group. Similarly, whether VJla' or ~!la' is read, it is Christians in general who are clearly
thought of as being brought to God. The variants enaOev/dniOavev might seem more signifi-
cant, but in fact it is not doubted that if enaOev is read it must refer in this context to the death
of Christ, as in 2 :21, so the reference is the same whichever verb is read.
28. Compare the similar sequence of thought in 2:18-21a, leading to 2:21b--25.
29. Cf. Mk. 10:45, where Jesus' death, introduced as an example of selfless "service", is then
described in terms of its redemptive purpose, which presumably the disciples are not called to
imitate.
30. Heb. 9:25-28; cf. 7:27; 9:12; 10:10.
31. See e.g. Lev. 5:6-7; Ezk. 43:21; Ps. 39:7 (Heb. 40:7; EVV 40:6). The LXX form is
singular, neel &,laeria, but the plural is used in this technical sense in Heb. 5 :3; 10:26 (cf. 1
Jn. 2:2; 4:10), and would be so understood by a reader familiar with the LXX.
32. See TDNT I, pp. 131-134.
33. Among many discussions of these and related terms, see the relevant articles in TDNT
and W. J. Dalton, op. cit., pp. 124-134.

279
 NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

34. l;rponoteiv is not in fact used elsewhere of Christ's resurrection; but it is used frequently of
believers being raised to eternal life, in Rom. 8: II in explicit parallel with the resurrection of
Jesus.
35. The datives aagHi and nvevJlar< are usually, and rightly, taken as "datives of reference",
meaning "as to the flesh", "as to the spirit". flvet!JlaTt alone could be taken as instrumental,
"made alive by the spirit", but it would make little sense to speak of Jesus being "put to death
by the flesh", and the two balancing phrases may be assumed to have the same grammatical
structure.
36. The doctrine is already well developed in the Odes of Solomon 42, probably written in
the second century, so it is not a priori impossible that it appears in the New Testament.
37. Selwyn argued against this on the ground that nowhere else in the New Testament does a
relative depend on a dative of reference. Kelly replies with reason that the ancient commen-
tators took it that way, and Greek was their native language!
38. In Lk. 24:37, 39 it means a "ghost", probably regarded as man's angelic counterpart or
"double"; cf. Acts I2:I5. In Lk. 23:46 (cf. Acts 7:59) it is in a quotation from Ps. 31:5,
where "my spirit" probably means simply "myself'.
39. For some New Testament examples of the absolute use see Mt. 8:I6; I2:45; Lk: 10:20;
Ac. 23:8-9.
40. Note also that the verb in 4:6 is evayyeJ.il;oJlat, not, as here, H7J(!Vaaw, which we shall argue
has a quite different meaning in this context. 4:6 is probably to be interpreted with reference
to Christians who have died: "This is why the gospel was preached to those (who are now)
dead ... "
41. See e.g. Jubilees 5:1-I1; 10:1-I3; 2 Baruch 56:10--I3. For further references see W. J.
Dalton, op. cit., pp. 169-I70.
42. See esp. 8eaJlwT1ewv in 18:I4; 21:IO, and the whole idea of bonds in chapter 10.
43. See the sequence from chapter 6 to chapter IO, and within chapters 65-67; and esp.
106:13-17.
44. So remarkable is the parallel that some have proposed an emendation of I Peter 3:19 to
read iv 'P Hal 'Evwx Toi<; . •. , the name of Enoch having been lost from the text because of its
similarity in sound to iv ,; Hai. This emendation has even found its way into the translations
of Moffatt and Goodspeed. It finds little support today, simply because a narration of
Enoch's mission intrudes without justification into the context here, where Christ is the sub-
ject both of verse 18 and of verse 22. But the suggestion is evidence of how irresistibly this
verse recalls the Enoch literature to those who are acquainted with it.
45. Cf. also 2 Pet. 2:4, m(!Tagwaa<;, though it is questionable whether the word need still con-
vey the classical Greek view of Tartarus as a subterranean dungeon.
46. There is also a mention of the fallen angels being on earth, in the Lebanon region: 13:9.
47. See W. J. Dalton, op. cit., pp. 157-I59.
48. Other New Testament evidence for such a journey is very precarious, the only likely
references being Ac. 2:27, 3I (where Jesus' being in Hades simply means being dead- cf. Mt.
12:40), and Eph. 4:9, which can also be interpreted of the "descent to earth" of the incarna-
tion. Rom. I0:7 is a hypothetical suggestion which is mentioned only to be rejected.
49. Cf. Lk. 12:3; Ac. 15:21; Rom. 2:21; Gal. 5:II.
50. E.g. Lk. 10:17-18; Jn. 12:31; 1 Cor. 15:24-28; Eph. I:20--22; Col. 2:I5.
51. B. Reicke, p. 111, takes the application further, and suggests that Christ is still being
presented here as an example: as he preached even to the very powers of evil, so they should
be prepared to preach to their persecutors. This application would depend on taking "7JI!vaaw
in the sense of "preach the gospel".
52. So Targum Onkelos ad /oc. Note that I Enoch 9:11 also refers to God's patience before
the Flood, with reference to the sin of the angels.
53. For attempts to find symbolic meaning in the number eight (which interestingly is men-
tioned also in 2 Pet. 2:5 in the same connection) see the commentaries of Reicke and Kelly.
Reicke takes it of the totality of the church, Kelly of the eighth day, the day of resurrection
and of baptism. Such numerical symbolism seems to be largely a matter of taste! In context
the more obvious significance is to stress how few they were.
54. So e.g. Beare and Kelly.

280
 EXEGESIS IN PRACTICE: TWO SAMPLES

55. So difficult that even the cautious Hort proposed to emend a text which is very firmly
supported in the MSS by accepting Erasmus' conjecture of c(! for o(for which there is no early
MS support), thus contravening all the accepted canons of textual criticism!
56. For typology in the teaching of Jesus, see R. T. France, op. cit., pp. 43-80; for Paul see
E. E. Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh 1957), pp. 126-135.
57. The subject is well treated by G. W. H. Lampe and K. J. Woollcombe, Essays on
Typology (London 1957), pp. 9-38; more briefly, R. T. France, op. cit., pp. 38-43.
58. See e.g. Jn. 3:5; Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12; Titus 3:5.
59. The oddity of the language used has caused W. J. Dalton, op. cit., pp. 215-224, to
suggest that the phrase refers not to an act of washing but to the Jewish rite of circumcision,
commonly regarded as the removal of uncleanness. His case is well argued, but there remains
the difficulty of explaining why it would be relevant to mention circumcision at this point to a
largely Gentile readership, and the question whether such readers could be expected to
recognize such a cryptic way of referring to circumcision.
60. The simple verb tewTaw often carries this meaning, but the only other use of the com-
pound breewTaw in this sense seems to be LXX Ps. 136:3.
61. See MM s.v.; cf. G. C. Richards, JTS 32 (1931), p. 77.
62. Rom. 10:9; I Tim. 6:12. Ac. 8:37, which clearly illustrates the point, is not the original
reading, but is a Western gloss already known by Irenaeus towards the end of the second
century.
63. TDNT 7, pp. 898-919.
64. See esp. 2:19 for this last element.
65. For lists of spiritual beings comparable to the three-fold list here cf. Rom. 8:38; I Cor.
15:24; Eph. 1:21; Col. 1:16. Such lists are found also in Jewish writings: see SB on Eph.
I :21.

281
 CHAPTER XIV

EXEGESIS IN PRACTICE: TWO EXAMPLES

For essential principles and methods:
0. KAISER and W. G. KtJMMEL, Exegetical Method: a Student's Handbook
(New York: Seabury 1967), pp. 35-48.
For the "tools" required for NT exegesis:
F. W. DANKER, Multi-purpose Tools for Bible Study (St Louis: Concordia
197<f ). Includes essays on how to use the major tools of biblical exegesis.
R. T. FRANCE (ed.), A Bibliographical Guide to New Testament Research
(Cam bridge: Tyndale Fellowship, 19 74 2 ).
W. G. KuMMEL, Introduction to the New Testament (London: SCM Press
2
1975 ), pp. 23-28: "The Most Important Tools for the Study of the New
Testament".
D. M. ScHOLER, A Basic Bibliographical Guide for New Testament
Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1973 2 ).

CHAPTER XV

DEMYTHOLOGIZING - THE PROBLEM OF MYTH

IN THE NT

I. G. HARBOUR, Myths, Models and Paradigms (London: SCM Press 1974).

On the diverse functions of language.
H.-W. BARTSCH (ed.), Kerygma and Myth (translated and edited by R. H.
Fuller; Vol. I, London: SPCK 1953; Vol. II, 1962; both volumes com-
bined, 1972). Contains Bultmann's famous essay "The New Testament
and Mythology" together with other contributions to the debate it spark-
ed off.
C. E. BRAATEN and R. A. HARRISVILLE (eds), Kerygma and History
(Nashville: Abingdon 1962). Includes several essays on myth in the NT.
R. BuLTMANN, Jesus Christ and Mythology (London: SCM Press 1960).
Popular lectures delivered in English in USA.
A. CuNNINGHAM (ed.), The Theory of Myth: Six Studies (London 1973).
University of Lancaster Colloquium - includes papers on Eliade,
Levi-Strauss and Mary Douglas.
I. HENDERSON, Myth in the New Testament (London: SCM Press 1952). A
still useful critique of Bultmann.
R. W. HEPBURN, "Demythologizing and the Problem of Validity", in New

382