A Note on 1 Peter 3:19,20

Sometimes one finds a really unusual translation of a verse. For example, there is James Moffatt's version of 1 Peter 3:19: "It was in the Spirit that Enoch also went and preached to the imprisoned spirits who had disobeyed at the time when God's patience held out during the construction of the ark... "

Peter had been speaking about Jesus, who 'died for sin once for all, a just man for unjust men, that he might bring us near to God: in the flesh he was put to death, but he came to life in the spirit.' Then Moffatt's version goes on, 'it was in the Spirit that Enoch'... Enoch, not 'he', meaning Jesus, as other versions have it. Why would Moffatt put this?

Some people find a problem in understanding that Jesus did this. When did He preach to the spirits in prison, and who were they? A common interpretation is that they were the fallen angels of Genesis 6:1-4 who had sexual relations with human beings and produced a race of giants. If it was to them that Jesus preached how did Peter know about it? When did it happen - before ever the Word came to dwell among men? or after Calvary? It does not seem to fit in with the straightforward account of Jesus Christ redeeming humankind.

There was, however, a story which Peter would have known, about someone who went and preached to the fallen angels. It is found in the Book of Enoch. This book is a work of pious fiction compiled by Jewish writers in the time before Christ. It is one of the pseudepigraphia, stories written in the names of historical characters but not necessarily true, which were read by religious people but were not accepted as God's truth in the canon of scripture, and did not even get into the Apocrypha. But Peter would have known the story. It gives an account in some detail of the sins of the angels and their names, how they were imprisoned and Enoch went to them.

Suppose that Peter in his letter was intending to say this about Enoch, then why did he say he (meaning Jesus)? Dr Moffatt follows the theory that Peter did put 'Enoch', but that a copyist left it out. This would imply that while: ...ENOKAITOISENTHULAKEPNEUMASI.… was the copy, it would have originally read ....ENOKAIENOXTOISENTHULAKEPNEUMASI.... It is easy when copying to miss out repeated letters. So, Enoch? or Jesus Christ?

This discussion raises the question of the inspiration of the text of scripture. Would God allow there to be mistakes? Scholars know of many little differences between the various old manuscripts in the original Greek which have been preserved, so mistakes must have happened. Do they matter? For those of us who humbly read and try to understand God's Word, probably not very much. Our calling is not to understand everything perfectly, only to be faithful to our Lord.