1 Peter 4:5,6

Brother Garrett criticized my view of 1 Peter 4:6 as an "obvious falsehood"; so obvious that he also claims it further demonstrates my irrational commitment to "Hardshellism" as well as my general ignorance.

Pretty strong words. Surely Brother Garrett, to make such a bold and weighty claim, can clearly and incontrovertibly demonstrate the obviousness of my failure of biblical exegesis of 1 Peter 4:6.

This is another clear example of Brother Garrett extending himself and making claims far beyond what he can possibly or actually demonstrate. This characteristic is fundamental to his attacks on Primitive Baptists, and suggests that his views are not nearly as compelling as he thinks they are.

I will deal with the main thrust of his post in a later entry; in this post I want to exegete 1 Peter 4:6.

Does Brother Garrett agree with John Gill's exegesis on every passage of the Bible? Surely I differ with him here, but I certainly do not differ with him unsupported by other commentaries. Philip Doddridge, Daniel Whitby, and Adam Clarke supported viewing the 'dead' of 1 Peter 4:5,6 as referring to the spiritual Gentiles of verses 3 and 4 who think it strange that Christians, the quickened, run not to their same excess of riot.

The judgment of verse 5 is expressly the judgment of God that will require -ἀποδώσουσιν, which is future indicative - an 'account' of the same spiritual Gentiles' riotous living. The contextual flow from verse 4 to 5 is unmistakable, and denies that Peter would exclude the spiritually dead Gentiles from his reference to the dead that will be judged, so how can Gill be right that the dead of verse 6 are only the physically dead Christians when the dead of verse 5 must at least include the spiritually dead Gentiles? And if the dead of verse 6 refers to all the dead, both elect and not elect, and refers to when the gospel was preached while they were living, this interpretation would be of the same effect in terms of using this text as I have applied it.

1 Peter 4:1, as Gill supposes, refers to the natural death of Christians by 'he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin'. Why, then, does Peter state in the next verse, 'that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh'? This is a horse that will not run. It is plain that Peter is exhorting Christians that 'to suffer in the flesh', as Christ suffered, is the natural consequence - arm yourselves likewise - of being made conformable to Christ's death. Christ's death, and the elect's spiritual death with him, was a death to sin, that it should no longer be the governing principle in the lives of the quickened. This is made plain by Peter in the continuing context of verse 3.

On top of this, 'but live according to God in the spirit' of 4:6 is translated from ζῶσι, which is in the present subjunctive, showing contingency. The life is presently contingent in Peter's usage, which makes no sense to refer to those already naturally dead in that manner. Peter is saying that the gospel is preached to the spiritually dead so that they might live according to God in the spirit.

Peter did not know the actual spiritual state of individuals as Christ did. Certainly, the end of preaching the gospel is to persuade men of the salvation it reveals and of the terror of the Lord (2 Cor. 5:11) in regard to man's standing before God without Christ. This is consistent with this text, but it is significant that Peter places the purpose of the gospel as judgment in terms of it's polemical effect, signifying that he was reflecting on those that rejected the gospel, as εὐηγγελίσθη - gospel preaching - is in the aorist (past tense). The judgment of verse 6 seems to be man's judgment or Peter's judgment because it is a contingent (subjunctive mood) and past judgment, which indicates that Peter believed that his past preaching showed the spiritually quickened and the spiritually dead.

This is quite consistent with the context as well, as Peter is contrasting the spiritual Gentile and the Christian, and ends his discussion on the contrast of them in verses 3-5 by saying that the gospel is an instrument of judgment to discern the quick and the dead just as God himself will so judge and discern them at the final judgment. Verse 6 is seen as an earthly reflection of the heavenly judgment of God in verse 5, and it is verse 5's judgment that is echoed and extended by Peter. It was for the purpose of discernment that Peter preached the gospel to all men, even those that seemed to be dead in riotous living so that they might be judged in regard to whether they were of God or not. This is devastating to Garrett's view of soteriology because it presumes that the gospel is an instrument of revelation rather than an instrument of salvation proper; it presumes the gospel allows one to judge 'whether there is any life abiding in them' or the standing of an individual as the quick or the dead, not simply effect life.

A careful examination of the Greek verbs in verse 6 proves that Gill's view cannot be correct, and the view I have given illustrates in the precise manner how that the heavenly judgment that will be, as in verse 5, is the same purpose for the gospel here in time - to discern the sheep from the goats. What a beautiful couple of texts!