Adult Sunday School-Marriage And The Descent Of Christ

Christ’s Burial and the Church’s Response

You may be seated. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for this morning and this day of worship that you've given us. I pray that you would bless it, that you would bless all the children and everything we'll be learning today and that you would help us as we worship you in Jesus' name, amen.

All right, so we are continuing in our study of marriage and in particular, we've been serving Ephesians 5 and how it makes an organic connection between the human marriage and then the union between Christ and the church, that being not just an artificial or synthetic observation that Paul is making, but rather him declaring that there is a real connection between the two and if this is the case and we're supposed to know about marriage from observing salvation itself, we've been walking through the Historia Salutis, the history of salvation, to see all the details and make applications to marriage and we've made some interesting ones in preceding weeks, but today, we're going to look at the last bits of Christ's humiliation.

So his humiliation began in his being born and in a low condition and going all the way till death and so here we are looking at his burial, his burial and descent. Okay, so let's see if we can get a couple of readers.

One's going to be in Luke 23 and the other in John 19. Okay, all right, you take Luke 23 verses 47 through 56 and who's got John? Okay, Braden will do John 19, 38 to 42, okay. Is it 47? Yes.

Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God saying certainly this man was innocent and all the crowds that had assembled for the spectacle when they saw what had taken place returned home beating their breasts and all his acquaintances and the women who had followed him from Galilee stood at a distance watching these things.

Now there was a man named Joseph from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man who had not consented to their decision and action. He was looking for the kingdom of God.

The man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud and laid him in a tomb cut in stone where no one had ever yet been laid. It was the day of preparation and the Sabbath was beginning.

The women who had come with him from Galilee followed and saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and ointments. On the Sabbath, they rested according to the commandment.

All right, Braden next.

38, yeah, John 19, 38 to 42.

After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body.

Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about 75 pounds in weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices as is the burial custom of the Jews.

Now in the place where he was crucified, there was a garden and in the garden, a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. So because of the Jewish day of preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.

Okay, thank you.

All right, so this is the first time in Christ's passion where we see the response of the church. And so whereas previously we've been, last time most of the application was for husband, a lot of the application this time is going to be for wives as we see the church, the people of God responding.

Now, when I say passion, if you've ever wondered, who knows what that means? Why would we call it the passion of Christ? Okay, it has to do with his passive obedience. Okay, so passion is not like, yeah, I'm really, really into this.

I'm passionate about this. It's that he was passively obeying and that he was not resisting the Father's will. Okay, so his active obedience during his life is him following the law, obeying the law, but then his passive obedience, that special calling that God has for him to go to the cross that he is not resisting it.

That's why it's referred to as passion or his passive obedience. Welcome. Ephesians 5 .33, nevertheless, also individually, each one must love his own wife even as himself and let the wife see that she fear her husband or as it says in the ESV, respect her husband.

So how do we see respect happening in this circumstance? Okay, so the sacrifice of Christ is a matter of great difficulty since he's obeying even to the point of death. He does not have the ability to take care of his own body at this point and the disciples do take care of his body in preparing spices and ointments.

You see different descriptions here. You know, one of these mentioned the myrrh and aloes and other things, right? So all these different ways of taking care of him and this is a continuation of his service, or excuse me, of their service to him while he was living.

Luke 8, one through three. I'll go ahead and read that. And it came to pass to him afterwards that he went about through the cities and villages preaching and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God and with him the 12 and certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and illnesses, Mary that was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, Joanna, the wife of Jesus, Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others who ministered to them of their possessions.

So a lot of these women that are following Jesus are already ministering to Jesus and the disciples in this way. Okay, so husbands go through serious difficulties on behalf of their families. A lot of these are the routine difficulties just of daily labor.

Sometimes there can be more intense things. But yeah, a wife should care for her husband in those situations of difficulties, whether it be taking care of his food or clothing or dressing wounds if he's injured or caring for him when he's sick, those kinds of things.

So if God created Eve to be a helper for Adam, pre-fall, like even before there's real difficulties, how much more is that true when there are difficulties in a post-fall world? So there are several ways that this can be, several attitudes of women that run contrary to this.

The first is a well-intentioned foolishness, right? So if a wife should care both wisely and sincerely for her husband's needs, she could have a well-intentioned foolishness where she's not caring for him well just because she's ignorant.

So there's a lot of women who get really into, you know, old wives' tales about medical things and they end up essentially neglecting their husband or the way that they care for their husband is, I'm trying to think of some things my mom did.

I remember she used to be into these brushes that were made with like a special pig's hair that you would like brush your skin with and it was supposed to get rid of the toxins or whatever. You know, there's just all kinds of, you know, well-intentioned foolishness that's not actually caring.

And then secondly, there's a culpable ignorance, right? If wives don't consider it their duty to care for their husband in this way, right? As you see the church ministering to Christ in this fashion if they don't consider it their duty they're not going to invest in it.

You know, there's a lot of women who don't spend any time learning domestic things, right? Like how to cook, things like that. Basic skills around maybe first date or something could be useful. So there's a lot of, it's very possible to have a culpable ignorance in the task because many wives don't consider this part of their job.

You know, their job is basically just to enjoy the benefits of, you know, having company or something, right? If that's how you see marriage, you're not going to, you're not going to invest in learning how to care for your husband.

And then the last way that you could work against this is doing, going about those duties but without a sincere concern for the husband's wellbeing. And that's not the fear or respect that Paul talks about in Ephesians five.

Job's wife is a good example probably of resisting all of this, right? Job 2 .9, then his wife said to him, do you hold fast to your integrity? Renounce God and die. Okay, so maybe that's well-intentioned foolishness.

Maybe that's just not, no real concern for her husband or yeah, maybe it's culpable ignorance that she does not care to know the will of God. Could be, could be really any of those. But rather a wife should care, care for her husband in his time of difficulty.

Feel free to stop and ask questions at any point. All right, now the second one is not just caring and difficulty but honor and shame. So Christ's suffering on the cross is something that's especially shameful.

We talked about that last week about how he despised the shame, right? And was willing to endure it for the joy set before him. And the disciples respond in gratitude by honoring him. We should respond in gratitude by honoring those who serve us by bearing shame for us, right?

Namely Christ and then in the case of a marriage, a woman for her husband. So you have even in this example of Christ, the hewn stone, right? This is something nicer than a common grave that's being given to Jesus.

He's being honored in his death. Isaiah 53, nine says, and they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence nor was any deceit in his mouth. So even though his death was shameful, his burial is one of honor that the disciples are giving to him.

Namely Joseph of Arimathea. Okay, so a wife should respond to her husband's shame when he bears shame on her behalf with a special honor. Now last time we talked about what that shame could look like, right?

And I pointed out that you look through all of Paul's lists of persecutions that he endured and all the shame that he had to bear for the name of Christ and he always listed working with his hands as one of those things, right?

So even just working and then forgoing the fruit of your labor, right? If a husband is providing for his wife, he is reducing his wealth for the good of his family, right? He's reducing majesty being another word to describe wealth, right, for the sake of the family.

And so that is in a sense bearing shame or not pursuing greater honors that you could for the sake of your family. You know, many men end up having to do that, right? Not seeking promotions or whatever because of their family in order to make sure that he has enough time for them.

Yes, right. I don't either. I go back and forth, yeah.

Right, yeah, she was not speaking to him respectfully, fearfully and that's reflected in the way scripture assesses that. Right, so he's, yeah, he is. So you're pointing out the shame, right? So yeah, he is acting kind of, you know, in a way that people might feel shameful but he's doing it for the way scripture frames it, it's for the right reasons, right?

And so rather than being happy with him in that shame, she is rather not honoring him in that shame but rather, yeah, opposing him in that and being embarrassed by him, right? Right, and so, yeah, it is wrong for women to be embarrassed by their husbands in those cases where the shame is on behalf of the family especially.

It's very ironic to treat it that way. Yeah, and a lot of the way that that honor can happen in the home is just in very basic things, you know. There's all kinds of small ways that a husband is treated, the way he's spoken to, the way he's spoken of to the children, the place that he sits, the meals that are chosen.

There's all kinds of things and it's kind of hard to just go through like a list of you need to do this, this, this but you can tell in a home when a husband is being honored and when he's not honored, there's a lot of situations where the wife, the mother elevates the children to the highest honor in the home and so all the schedule revolves around them and I'm not saying that the schedule wouldn't primarily take into account the children but there's a way in which the husband is kind of shoved out to the side because, you know, the children are the most important thing and he is neglected by the wife.

This is a very common thing that happens and he'll often let her know but then she'll just say, you know, the kids are more important, you know, they're my responsibility, et cetera and then she ends up effectively not honoring him, making sure he feels disrespected and dishonored.

This is not, yeah, this is not good, right?

And part of that, there's a reason for that it's good is that that is, you know, if you're trying to make a comedic situation, it is funny that the one who is supposed to be, right? There's an irony in the one who is supposed to be wise being foolish but yeah, it's kind of normalized at this point where this is, it's not just a joke, right?

And it's, and think about if you, if you depicted the wife that way, right? If the wife were, you know, like the bumbling idiot or whatever, like people wouldn't find that funny because it's dishonoring to women and, you know, guys can take a joke.

So there's like, there's some goodness to it but once you normalize that as though that really is the reality and not just a, not a topsy-turvy, you know, comedic thing, then it's, yeah, that's wrong.

Okay, yeah, and then otherwise we'll end up honoring themselves instead of their husbands. So most of the time I find that it's children, right? The wives will honor the children over the husband but then sometimes they'll honor themselves over the husband by, you know, bending everything on themselves, pampering themselves, not caring about the husband.

Yeah, and so some other things, while there's room to discuss finances critically even, wives shouldn't complain to their husbands about financial situations. A lot of times, like I said, he is foregoing greater wealth on behalf of the family and so, yeah, that's ironically sinful to complain like that.

You know, there's room for critical discussion, like I said, but go ahead, yeah. Yeah, I mean, if he's being a lazy, right, if he's being a lazy bum or something, yeah, sure, she should, you know, call this to attention.

I'm not saying she shouldn't hold him accountable. We need to have a real discussion about the practical realities in front of us. Sure, sure, but there are ways of doing that that acknowledge his position, a way of doing that that don't, right, that say, you're not doing a good enough job.

I need to take the wheel here for a second, you know, and there's ways to speak that are more honoring than other ways, right, right, yeah. Yeah, and that is the great temptation and danger, right? Your desire will be rule over him.

He'll rule over you. Yeah, so that's why wives frequently end up, you know, either speaking that way or acting that way is because they feel like their husband, they don't trust their husband to deal with it and there is a trust that is owed even if he is not doing a good job, right?

There's a respect and a fear that's described in scripture that's owed even when he is not doing it well, right? It's not that, oh, he's the head of the family when he's doing a good job and then not the head of the family when he's not doing a good job, right?

He's always the head of the family and so that needs to be kept in mind even when he's being neglectful of the duty and the way that matters approach, right? So we've discussed before, like when we're going through the Historia Salutis and applying it to marriage, what are the rules of interpretation here?

And yeah, with Christ in the church, you have something where you've got really polar opposites, right? The church is like weak and worthless and Christ is all powerful and never messes up anything, right, and so if you don't take into account that marriage is happening somewhere else on the spectrum, right, or like in a narrower path of the spectrum, you will end up making wrong applications where you can never question him for anything, right?

Because we would never question Christ, right? But then if you recognize, okay, well, it's analogous, it's not the same and it's happening elsewhere. That gives room for maintaining that respect while at the same time being able to question and interact critically, yeah.

Okay, yeah, like I said, there are other kinds of shame a husband could endure. You know, imagine a situation where a husband like stepped out in front of a moving car to protect his kids or his wife and then he ended up crippled and then the wife was just embarrassed by the fact that he was in a wheelchair.

That would be, once again, that would, man, if he did that for his wife, that would not be honoring to her as was owed. Yeah, anyway, so yeah, a wife should speak well about her husband to her children and to others, not complain to friends or family.

Talked in the past about how it's common for women to call up mom and complain when she's not happy. That's not leaving father and mother, which the wife is also called to, not just the husband. Okay, and it's worth considering also that Jesus' disciples even spoke well of him even when they didn't understand and they thought his death was permanent.

Does someone wanna read Luke 24, 15 through 20? Luke 24, 15 through 20.

While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. And he said to them, what is this conversation that you're holding with each other as you walk?

And they stood still, looking sad. Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him. Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days? And he said to them, what things?

And they said to him, concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet, mighty in deed and word before God and all the people. And how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death and crucified him.

Keep going.

Thanks. Okay, so yeah, here you have the disciples speaking well of him. He was a great prophet, et cetera. Okay, any questions about anything related to Christ's death before we move on? Or sorry, his burial before we move on here?

Christ’s Descent and Victory Over the Powers of Darkness

Okay, so the next thing we're gonna be talking about is what scripture says about his descent. This is something that's not widely agreed on or even widely studied. I did, a couple of months ago, have you read this?

Crux Mores and Fernie? Okay, what, you have it, you said? Yeah, yeah. So I've, man, he does a good job. So this is addressing what scripture says about the descent of Christ. It's Crux Mores and Fernie by Sam Rinehan.

The question is, when it talks about Christ's descent, is it talking about his suffering on the cross? Is it talking about him going into the grave? Or is it talking about something more, him descending actually into hell?

And this argues that it is talking about him descending into hell. There's not every part of this book am I sold on, but a lot of it I am, and particularly that in 1 Peter, where it talks about him making proclamation, that it is talking about him declaring victory to evil angelic beings, demons, in hell.

And we're gonna walk through this, and not nearly as completely as would be needed, I'm sure, to fully sell this. But let's just start walking through it. Okay, Ephesians 4, seven through 10. Ephesians 4, seven through 10, if someone wants to read that one.

But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore, it says, when he ascended on high, he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men. In saying he ascended, what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions of the earth?

He who descended is the one who also ascended, far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.

All right, so the Apostles' Creed also talks about Christ descending into hell. And there's a lot of debate about what the Creed intends, what Ephesians 4 intends, and what actually took place during the three days where Christ was in the grave.

So the main difficulty here is Ephesians 4, 10, where it says that, excuse me, where it says, sorry, no, it's not 4, 10, is it? 4, 9, the lower parts of the earth, where it talks about the lower parts of the earth.

What are the lower parts of the earth? And the ESV, it interprets that as a genitive of apposition. So genitive is like where something has an of in it. So a genitive of apposition would be, apposition was where you put things next to each other.

So you say, you know, the president, Joe Biden, or whatever, because those things came next to each other, the president is Joe Biden, right? So a genitive of apposition would be something like the state of California, right?

So when I say state of California, the state is California, like those are not, it's not that California possesses a state or something, right, so that's a genitive of apposition. The ESV goes ahead and interprets this, right?

What did it say? It said, into the lower regions, comma, the earth, right, didn't it? It's literally saying the lower regions of the earth. So if you say the lower regions of the earth, that's interpreting it as he just descended into the earth, he just went into the grave, right?

But it doesn't literally say that, it says the lower regions of the earth. And so that suggests that it's talking about even deeper within the earth, not just the earth in general. Okay, so what is it talking about?

So yeah, there's several passages in scripture that talk about the lower parts of the earth. The Psalms talk about the lower parts of the earth associating with Sheol. And then, especially in Ezekiel, you have, he doesn't talk about the lower parts of the earth but he talks about the depths of the earth.

And I'm not sure how it's rendered in the ESV but as far as what it is in the Septuagint, sorry, man, I feel like I'm going through a lot of things that need definition. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

The reason why I would be looking at that and not at the Hebrew Old Testament is because if I'm asking what does Ephesians 4 mean, Paul is, if he is going to be alluding to things, he's going to be alluding to the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

He's not going to be alluding to the Hebrew typically. So that's why when I'm going and I'm looking at these verses I'm looking at them in Greek and not in Hebrew like the Old Testament was originally written.

So you have in Ezekiel frequently, not the phrase the lower regions of the earth but rather the depths of the earth. And it speaks about this frequently, especially in the context of the King of Tyre and of Pharaoh being lowered into the depths of the earth.

And these are both very manifestly typological statements about Satan being destroyed just like you have in Isaiah 15 about the King of Assyria where it calls him Lucifer and talks about him descending into Sheol, right?

If you're not familiar with that, the passage that in the King James version says Lucifer is Isaiah 14 and it's talking about the King of Assyria. Excuse me, or was that Babylon? I'm blanking now. Do you know?

Yes, it's Babylon. Yeah, sorry, it was Babylon, right. Yes, that's why most translations now just say you're the morning star. But my point is that people have recognized for a long time that this is talking about Satan, right?

And so even the name that people used to use there, Lucifer, we understand that even now to be referring to Satan. And so the passage is very clear. It's talking about the King of Babylon. But as you look at this description, you realize this is talking about something more than the King of Babylon.

This is talking about Satan himself. The same thing happens in Ezekiel when he talks about the King of Tyre descending into hell. And he talks about Pharaoh descending into hell. In both of those, he talks about him going into the depths of the earth.

And I wanted to read one of these. One of these uses that phrase frequently in Ezekiel 31, 14 through 18. Yeah, and I know we're going through a lot of stuff, all kind of haphazard here. If anybody has questions, please raise your hand.

But if you'd like to read Ezekiel 31, let me know. Okay, Ezekiel 31, 14 through 18. Okay, all right, thanks. Ezekiel. 31, 14 through 18.

Verse 14. All this is in order that no trees by the waters may grow to towering height or set their tops among the clouds. And that no tree that drink water may reach up to them in height. For they are all given over to death to the world below among the children of man with those who go down to the pit.

Thus says the Lord God, on the day the cedar went down to Sheol, I caused mourning. I closed the deep over it and restrained its rivers and many waters were stopped. I clothed Lebanon in gloom for it and all the trees of the field fated because of it.

I made the nation's quake at the sound of its fall when I cast it down to Sheol with those who go down to the pit and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon. All that drink water were comforted in the world below.

They also went down to Sheol with it to those who were slain by the sword. Yes, those who were in, those who were its arm, who lived under its shadow among the nations. Whom are you thus like in glory and in greatness among the trees of Eden.

You shall be brought down with the trees of Eden to the world below. You shall lie among the uncircumcised with those who are slain by the sword. This is Pharaoh and all his multitude declares the Lord God.

Okay, thank you. So the phrase that the ESV was using there was the world below, right? But here you have that, like I said in Greek, it is the depths of the earth that it's talking about and it's describing, yeah, it's describing Pharaoh descending into Sheol, descending into the pit, right, descending into a watery grave, the depths of the sea, all those things.

Okay. So also you have the Psalm that is being cited there in Ephesians four where it talks about him ascending and descending or it talks about him ascending. That Psalm that it's referring to is also talking about bringing people up from the depths.

And so that is, yeah, that's a relevant passage too. Let's look at Psalm 68, 18 through 23.

You have it? No? Go ahead and turn there, Psalm 68. Okay. Okay, can Chris read? Miguel, thanks. Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast left captivity captive, thou hast received gifts for men, yea, for the rebellious also that the Lord God might dwell among them.

Blessed be the Lord who daily loatheth us with benefits, even the God of our salvation, Selah. He that is our God is the God of salvation and unto God the Lord belong the issues from death. But God shall wound the head of his enemies and the hairy scalp of such a one as goeth on still in his trespasses.

The Lord said, I will bring again from Bashan, I will bring my people again from the depths of the sea that thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies and the tongue of thy dogs in the same.

Okay, thank you. All right, so that was Psalm 68. So there in verse 22 where it says, I will bring them back from Bashan, I will bring them back from the depths of the sea that you might strike your feet in their blood, et cetera.

What does that sound like in ESV? It sounds like, okay, I'm going to bring, I'm gonna bring enemies up from the dead so that you can, I don't know, destroy them a second time or something like that. There's no, first of all, there's no object in these sentences.

It says, basically, I will bring back from Bashan if I can, sorry, if I can look at the translation I have here. Lord says, I will bring again from Bashan, I will bring again from the depths of the sea that you may crush your foot in blood that the tongue of dogs may have its portion from enemies.

Okay, like a lot of the words that are being supplied in the translation are not there in the original text, a lot of them. And so there's a couple of other options that are not the enemies being brought up to be crushed again a second time.

Rather, it could be talking about the people of God. So one interpretation is that, okay, back in the Old Testament, everyone went to Sheol and then Christ is bringing them up and then he will crush his enemies.

Or it could just be talking about him directly. So there are some translations that say you rather than them. I will bring you up. And so this is talking about Christ, or the father bringing up the son from the pit in order that he can crush his enemies.

And that makes a lot more sense on several accounts that it would be talking about the father bringing up the son so that he can crush his enemies. And indeed he did rise from the dead at least. But if this is talking about him having descended even further into the pit, into Sheol, then yeah, things fit a lot more neatly if that's what is being said.

All right, yes. Yes, I think that's a possible yes. That is how some translations translate this. I will bring you back again. But God will smite his enemies. Right, but then the question is how will he smite his enemies?

Is he gonna smite them by bringing them up out of hell to smite them again? Or is he gonna smite them by bringing the king up from that in death and burial went down and being not abandoned to Hades, brought up.

And so that's the other thing. As in Acts 2, you have Peter's statement that Psalm 16 applies to Christ. It says, because you will not leave my soul to Hades, nor will you give your Holy One to see corruption.

The suggestion here being that, well, not that he avoided it altogether, but rather the Father did not leave him in Hades, but allowed him to send to bring him up from Hades. And then the one text that is probably the most important one that needs to be answered is 1 Peter 3 .18.

And honestly, a lot of these interpretations are motivated by needing an answer to 1 Peter 3 .18 and onward. So let's go ahead. Yeah, start with 3 .18 and go to 20. Do you have the microphone still?

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is eight persons, were brought safely through water.

Okay, all right, thanks. All right, so yeah, there's been a lot of, I wrestled with this for a long time. I guess I still don't fully understand every aspect of this, but this is something that's perplexed many Christians, is what is it talking about?

A couple of data points here for you. The Bible never talks about humans as spirits. It'll talk about humans having spirits, but when it talks about humans, it'll say souls instead. You know, there are this many souls or something.

It usually talks about angels as spirits, not, there's not, if this is talking about humans, this is the only instance where the Bible talks about humans as spirits. And it talks about spirits in prison.

Now, a lot of people assume, especially because some translations talk about preaching. They think, okay, this is preaching the gospel. So this has to be those who are being saved because you preach the gospel to those whom you are saving.

That doesn't have to be the message that is being given. It doesn't have to be a message of salvation to the one who is hearing this. Instead, this is talking about those who disobeyed in the times of Noah, those who fell, and these are spirits.

It's talking about the imprisonment of angelic beings. And we have a couple of passages that talk about angelic beings being in prison. Second Peter 2 .4, for if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them down into hell and committed them to pits of darkness to be reserved to judgment, et cetera.

Jude 1 .6, and angels who did not keep their own dominion but left their proper habitation, he has kept an everlasting prison under darkness to the judgment of that great day. The idea being that in these lowest regions of Sheol are the spirits who are being imprisoned.

And when First Peter says that Jesus went and spoke to the spirits in prison, the Bible already tells us about spirits in prison. The Bible already tells us in Jude and Second Peter that there are spirits in prison.

And so when Jesus, when First Peter talks about spirits in prison, is there not a lot of reason to think he's talking about the same spirits in prison that he talks about in Second Peter, which are very clearly demonic beings, not people?