The First Sunday in Lent is February 18, 2024.

Readings for Year B can be found here. Note that the first reading from Genesis 9 is God’s covenant with Noah and his descendants regarding the rainbow, the sign that God would never again destroy the entire earth with a flood. Noah and his family’s escape appear in today’s Epistle.

The exegesis for the Gospel, Mark 1:9-15, can be found here.

The Epistle is as follows (emphases mine):

1 Peter 3:18-22

3:18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit,

3:19 in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison

3:20 who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.

3:21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you–not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

3:22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him.

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur (as specified below).

St Peter’s two letters discuss the persecution that the Christian converts under his care were suffering. He says that Christ also suffered, therefore, it can be expected that they should, too. That said, as painful emotionally or financially as their sufferings were, those new Christians would be rewarded with glory one day.

John MacArthur pulls random verses to illustrate the Apostle’s point:

We have often stated in our ongoing study of this wonderful epistle that Peter’s recurring theme is simply living in the midst of suffering, living in the midst of suffering.  And all the way through the epistle, his great example is Christ.  If you want to know how to view suffering, then look at Jesus Christ.  In chapter 2 you will remember in verses 20 and 21 where he talks about the fact that when you suffer, you must endure it with patience for this finds favor with God.  And then he says, “For you’ve been called for this purpose since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps.”  When you and I suffer, when any believer suffers for doing what is right, if we want to get a perspective on that we look at Christ, who is the model of suffering for righteousness sake.

In chapter 4 please notice verse 1. Peter comes back to the same theme, “Therefore since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm your selves also with the same purpose because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin.”  Again, we will suffer in the flesh, Christ is our model, and we are to have the mind of Christ.

In that same chapter would you notice verses 12 and 13?  Peter writes, “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you which comes upon you for your testing as though some strange thing were happening to you, but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exaltation.  If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed.”

Then again in chapter 5 verse 1, “Therefore I exhort the elders among you as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed.”

So, on a number of occasions in this epistle, Peter’s theme of suffering turns to Christ.  And Christ becomes the model or the pattern for how the believer endures suffering for righteousness’ sake.  Now obviously as Peter was penning this epistle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he was writing to believers who were in dire difficulty. They were enduring some very hostile persecution.  In fact, back in chapter 1 and verse 6 he says, “You have been distressed by various trials.”  In verse 7 he says, “You are being tested by fire.”  In chapter 2 and verse 12, he says, “You are being slandered by the evil doers in the society in which you live.”  In verse 18 he says, “Obviously some of you will be treated in an unreasonable way by those who are over you.  You will suffer unjustly,” says verse 19.  And, of course, they already were experiencing that.

In chapter 3 and verse 9, he assumes that they will receive evil, they will receive insults.  But they are not to return evil for evil nor are they to return insult for insult.  In verse 13 he says, “And who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good?”  Again, implying that there were people just waiting to do harm to these believers.  In chapter 4 verse 14, as I just read, he says, “If you are reviled or spoken against for the name of Christ you are blessed.”  In verse 16 he says, “If anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed.”  In verse 19 he says, “Let those who suffer according to the will of God entrust their souls to a faithful creator.”

So, again and again and again he remarks about their suffering.  In verse 10 of chapter 5 he says, “After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace who called you to His eternal glory in Christ will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.”  The theme then is one of suffering.

Peter has a lot of content in these five verses. John MacArthur preached four sermons on them.

He says:

To understand the immense richness of this section, we have to spend some time on it.  And frankly, Peter will plunge us, I believe, more deeply into the cross work of Jesus Christ than we are ever plunged anywhere else.  This will be the deepest dive you will take mentally and spiritually into what is going on at the death of Christ.  The richness here, frankly, is matched only by the difficulty of this text. And we could understand that it would be difficult because it plunges us into such deep and mysterious things.  But by the time we have come back up, I believe we will be gloriously encouraged and enriched.  This passage, frankly, demands the best from the interpreter, it demands the best from the preacher, it demands the best from the people, if we are to grasp the triumph of Christ’s sufferings, not only for their sake, that is the sake that we might know those great triumphant realities, but for our sake that we also may understand our triumph in Him.

Peter says that Christ also suffered for sins ‘once for all’, the righteous (Himself) for the unrighteous (us), in order to bring us to God; He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit (verse 18).

The verse has two separate thoughts, the second fitting in with verse 19.

Addressing Christ’s all-sufficient sacrifice on the Cross which enabled mankind to approach God directly, Matthew Henry says:

5. The blessed end or design of our Lord’s sufferings was to bring us to God, to reconcile us to God, to give us access to the Father, to render us and our services acceptable, and to bring us to eternal glory, Eph 2 13, 18; 3 12; Heb 10 21, 22. 6. The issue and event of Christ’s suffering, as to himself, were these, he was put to death in his human nature, but he was quickened and raised again by the Spirit. Now, if Christ was not exempted from sufferings, why should Christians expect it? If he suffered, to expiate sins, why should not we be content when our sufferings are only for trial and correction, but not for expiation? If he, though perfectly just, why should not we, who are all criminals? If he once suffered, and then entered into glory, shall not we be patient under trouble, since it will be but a little time and we shall follow him to glory? If he suffered, to bring us to God, shall not we submit to difficulties, since they are of so much use to quicken us in our return to God, and in the performance of our duty to him?

Some translations replace ‘suffered’ with ‘died’. MacArthur says that the meaning holds true either way:

Now, as we look at this great statement, I want just to separate out several features of the sin bearing of Christ.  All right?  Number one, it was ultimate. It was ultimate.  The suffering of Christ was ultimate.  It says this, “For Christ also died.”  May I please note that word “also.”  What is its implication?  Its implication is this, the “also” means in addition to somebody else.  Who else is he talking about?  He’s talking about believers.  He’s been talking about the fact that you will suffer for doing what is right, but keep this in mind, Christ also suffered.  You shouldn’t be surprised then if you suffer.  In other words, our Lord in asking you to be willing to suffer for righteousness sake is only asking you to do what He also was willing to do, right?  He was the just when He suffered.  he suffered unjustly.  And His suffering, first of all, was ultimate.  What do you mean by that?  Simply this, for Christ also, what’s the next word? Died, that’s what I would call ultimate suffering, wouldn’t you?  You can’t suffer any more than that.  In fact, the writer of Hebrews reminds the people to whom he writes in chapter 12 that they haven’t suffered yet unto blood, chapter 12, verse 4.  They hadn’t suffered yet unto blood.

In other words, you have suffered but not ultimately.  You haven’t had to give your life.  Christ also died.  Many of the manuscripts, ancient manuscripts of this particular portion of Scripture use the word “suffered.”  In fact, when those people who operate in what is called lower criticism, that’s simply a title for people who deal with manuscripts, when they compare the manuscripts that say Christ died with the manuscripts that say Christ suffered, they really cannot make a choice as to which is best so some of your Bibles probably say “Christ died,” and some of them probably say, “Christ suffered.”  And that’s fine because the words would be interchangeable in terms of meaning anyway.  The implication here is that Christ suffered to the point that He died.  He suffered ultimately.  The ultimate suffering is to be murdered for righteousness sake.  He’s not asking anyone in this life in the church of which He is the head to do anything that He Himself has not done, in terms of suffering, because the most that any martyr could ever do would be to die.  Christ has done that.  His suffering was ultimate.

Secondly, and we start to build on that, His suffering was related to sins, to sins, not His own.  His suffering was related to sins not His own.  You say, “Why are you saying that?”  That’s what it says.  Christ also died for sins.  When a believer is unjustly treated, when you and I suffer criticism, abuse, hostility, persecution, or when some Christians in some parts of the world even suffer death, it is related to sins, not their own. There’s a sense in which they are suffering because of the sins of other people, right?  The sin of hatred, the sin of animosity, the sin of hostility, the sin of anger, the sin of jealousy, the sin of envy, the sin of murder or whatever.  So there’s a sense in which even when the believer suffers for righteousness sake, we are suffering because of other’s sins against us.  So it is in the case of Christ.  He suffered for sins, only in a very different way.  They weren’t His sins, they were the sins of others.

He suffered as an offering for sin.  The Bible says the wages of sin is what? Death. The Old Testament laid it out, God said because of your sins you must make an offering.  And God required the death of an animal as a symbol of the need for someone to die to cover sins. And so, Jesus Christ in His death died for sins. 

There’s a third thing about His triumphant sin bearing, not only did He die, not only did He die for sins, it was, thirdly, He died in a unique way. What do I mean by unique?  Once.  Something that is unique is set apart, there’s nothing else like it.  And the death of Jesus Christ was not only ultimate suffering, it was not only related to sin as He died for sins as the sacrifice to atone for sins, but, thirdly, His death was unique.  How so?  “For Christ also died for sins (What’s the next word?) once,” that is utterly unique, hapax in the Greek, once …

This seems to be the fourth point:

The suffering of Christ was ultimate.  The suffering of Christ was for sins. The suffering of Christ was unique, never to be repeated.  The suffering of Christ was comprehensive, it covered the ground completely …

Fifthly, this is a marvelous reminder, the death of Jesus Christ was not only ultimate, not only in behalf of sins, not only unique, not only comprehensive, but, fifth, it was vicarious, it was vicarious.  This wonderful phrase, “the just for the unjust,” really sums it up. The righteous for the unrighteous, the sinless for the sinful, that’s what he’s saying.  Jesus Christ, without sin, took the place of sinners …

That brings me to the sixth and the capstone point, the suffering of Christ was purposeful. It was purposeful.  Not only ultimate, not only related to sin, not only unique, not only comprehensive and vicarious, it was purposeful, it was triumphant.  In what sense?  In this sense: “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust in order that He might bring us to God.”  Great statement.  Jesus Christ gathered up on the cross that day all our sins, He endured the God-forsaken darkness of death for us, and He opened the way to God.  Symbolically, God demonstrated that when He rent the veil in the temple from top to bottom and threw open the Holy of Holies for immediate access to everyone.  No more separation, no more priesthood, we’re all priests of God, we all have immediate access. He brought us to God.  He satisfied God’s just penalty for sin, required by the law and opened the way to God.

He is our pioneer. He is the one who blazes the trail to God.  This was the purpose, the triumph purpose of His death toward us, reconciliation to God.

Please notice the word “us,” that He might bring us to God, the elect.  That He might bring the chosen, the elect, into union and communion with God.  The verb there, do you notice that verb?  It says, “In order that He might bring us to God.”  It’s a purpose clause and the verb “to bring us” is a technical word often used to denote introducing someone, or providing access for someone, or bringing someone into a relationship.  That’s what the word indicates.  It’s a marvelous word, prosagngus, funny word, but that’s the word.  If used in the substantive form or the noun form it means an introducer, or a giver of access, someone who brings you into the presence of someone else.  And in a king’s court, there would be a prosagngus. That person would be the one who was approached if you wanted to see the king, and if you convinced him you had just cause, he would introduce you to the king.  Jesus is the official introducer. He’s the official giver of access.  In fact, He said, “No man comes to the Father (what?) but by Me,” John 14.  He said, “I am the way.”  It was Jesus Christ who came, He said, to show us the Father, to lead us to the presence of God.  He’s the only way.  He’s the only source of introduction.

Ultimately, this is Peter’s message on Christ’s suffering and ours:

He took the judgment that belonged to us. He was the perfect full final sacrifice for sins.  And what do we learn from Him?  That unjust suffering at its most extreme point can be triumphant.  Even though an ultimately worthy one was dying for unworthy sinners, even though He didn’t deserve to die, and we did, He triumphed through it all.

Which brings us to the second half of the verse, which says that although Christ physically died, His spirit remained alive.

Both of our commentators say that Christ descended to preach a sermon.

However, it is their interpretation that differs.

Henry says that Christ went to preach to the millions of lost souls in the flood of Noah’s day:

II. The apostle passes from the example of Christ to that of the old world, and sets before the Jews, to whom he wrote, the different event of those who believed and obeyed Christ preaching by Noah, from those that continued disobedient and unbelieving, intimating to the Jews that they were under a like sentence. God would not wait much longer upon them. They had now an offer of mercy; those that accepted of it should be saved, but those who rejected Christ and the gospel should be as certainly destroyed as ever the disobedient in the times of Noah were.

1. For the explication of this we may notice, (1.) The preacher—Christ Jesus, who has interested himself in the affairs of the church and of the world ever since he was first promised to Adam, Gen 3 15. He went, not by a local motion, but by special operation, as God is frequently said to move, Gen 11 5; Hos 5 15; Mic 1 3. He went and preached, by his Spirit striving with them, and inspiring and enabling Enoch and Noah to plead with them, and preach righteousness to them, as 2 Pet 2 5. (2.) The hearers. Because they were dead and disembodied when the apostle speaks of them, therefore he properly calls them spirits now in prison; not that they were in prison when Christ preached to them, as the vulgar Latin translation and the popish expositors pretend. (3.) The sin of these people: They were disobedient, that is, rebellious, unpersuadable, and unbelieving, as the word signifies; this their sin is aggravated from the patience and long-suffering of God (which once waited upon them for 120 years together), while Noah was preparing the ark, and by that, as well as by his preaching, giving them fair warning of what was coming upon them. (4.) The event of all: Their bodies were drowned, and their spirits cast into hell, which is called a prison (Matt 5 25; 2 Pet 2 4, 5); but Noah and his family, who believed and were obedient, were saved in the ark.

MacArthur gives us a longer, complex explanation, saying that Christ went to preach to the bound demons in the pit to tell them that He had triumphed over death and would triumph over them, too:

It would have been enough if He had just triumphed over sin.  But He also triumphed over spirits in a most incredible way.  You see, you have to understand this, that the death of Jesus Christ involved the full force of the demons of hell and Satan himself.  They were trying to snuff out and crush His life to such a degree that it would forever eliminate Him.  And in the very midst of His dying, though He was put to death in the flesh, His living Spirit went to those spirits and preached a triumphant sermon to them.  It’s one of the most, if not the most, dramatic scene behind the scenes of the death of Jesus Christ.  One of the most frightening, shocking, troubling scenarios imaginable lays behind this whole thing as described in verse 20 as occurring in the days of Noah.

MacArthur continues:

Now, as these verses unfold, Peter shows us four areas in which Christ triumphed in His death.  First, it was a triumphant sin-bearing.  Secondly, there was a triumphant sermon.  Thirdly, He accomplished a triumphant salvation.  And fourthly, a triumphant supremacy became His.

Now last week we looked at point number one, that in the death of Jesus Christ, as unjust as it was, as ignominious, as horrible, as tragic from a human viewpoint as it was, as painful, as much suffering as was involved, He still triumphed in the area of bearing sin …

Being alive in the spirit, He also went to make a proclamation to the spirits in prison (verse 19).

MacArthur explains what His physical death and living spirit mean:

Now let me unfold it to you. Follow closely, verse 18.  It says that He was having been put to death in the flesh.  What does that mean?  That simply means He died.  He actually died.  The flesh simply means His physical life ceased.  He actually died.  Here, by the way, is one verse among many that give us evidence that Jesus actually died on the cross.  Some, in wanting to explain the resurrection and wanting to deny at the same time that it was miraculous, have offered the possibility that Jesus never really died on the cross, He just went into some kind of a semi-coma and in the coolness of the tomb was revived and got up and walked out.  The text is very clear here, however, as it is in a number of places that He was dead.  He was the victim of a judicial murder if also a…an illegal murder, nonetheless it went through some kind of due process.  He died.  And so this statement refers to His physical death.

The term that is used, thanatothas, is the term that basically means to die.  Those of you who have been in English literature will remember the poem, “Thanatopsis,” which is a study of death.  But the term also implies a strong kind of violent implication into the dying.  It emphasizes not only then His death but the suffering that was associated with His dying.  It points to the painful end of His earthly life.  We know He died because when the soldiers came by, if He had not been dead what would they have done to Him?  They would have broken His legs in order to speed the death because death occurred when the body slumped, hanging from the nails.  And as long the feet could provide some kind of elevation, it could postpone the death.  And if many hours had gone by and the victim was not yet dead, they just crushed the femurs and then the body could not support itself and death came rather rapidly.  But by the time they came to Christ, the Bible says they did not break His legs because He was already dead.  They pierced His side and it was proven as blood and water poured out.

Would you also notice verse 18 further says, that having been put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.  There are numerous possible interpretations of the passage that I’m going to teach you tonight and I decided a couple of weeks ago that I’m not going to drag you through a myriad of options.  I’m going to simply tell you what I believe is the best option.  You have to understand that there are many, many scholars who struggle with this particular portion and there are a number of different viewpoints.  It is very hard to land on one and be too dogmatic, but I’m not going to drag you through an endless process simply to express to you what I feel is the best understanding of the passage, and I think you’ll see how it hangs together.

Physically He was dead, but in spirit He was what? Alive.  That’s what it is saying.  Most likely then when it says He was made alive in the spirit, it’s a small “s”.  There are no capitals in the Greek so we have to assume those and sometimes in some translations you might see a large “S” having a reference to the Holy Spirit, there’s no way to know that here.  In fact, if you look at flesh and spirit, together it would seem that he’s contrasting just that, flesh and spirit.  The human flesh, that is the physical body, with the human spirit, that is the spirit of a man.  There is no definite article here identifying “the Holy Spirit,” so it could really say and should say He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in spirit.  His spirit was made alive.

Now some see this as a reference to the resurrection, and that is a possibility.  But frankly, if it was a reference to His resurrection, it probably should say He was put to death in the flesh but He was raised again in the flesh, right?  Because the resurrection was not just the resurrection of His spirit, was it?  It was the resurrection of His body.  It was a literal, physical, bodily resurrection.  So it seems to me that the point here is not that He was resurrected, but that though dead in the flesh He was living in the spirit, and that makes sense to me.  You could kill His body but you cannot kill the eternal Christ.  So while His body was in the grave, His spirit was alive.

Now this is a mystery to understand but perhaps Peter has given it to us as simply as possible.  How then are we to understand this?  Well, notice that phrase says in verse 18, “made alive in spirit.”  Does it assume that He had been dead in spirit?  Does it assume that at some point in the death on the cross He had died spiritually?  Well, it could.  And if He was made alive in the spirit, then at some point in some way He must have died in spirit. In other words, experiencing some kind of spiritual death and spiritual death is defined as separation from…from God.  Was it not true on the cross that He said, “My God, My God, why have You (what?) forsaken Me?”  I believe that there was a separation from God, not a cessation of existence.  He didn’t cease to exist because He was eternal.  By the way, even when human beings die they don’t cease to exist.  They may experience spiritual death, they do in this life. They may experience eternal death, they will in the next life if they die without Christ, but they don’t cease to exist.  So Christ went through some kind of separation from God, not a cessation of His existence any more than men spiritually dead cease to exist.  We don’t know the mystery of that but somehow He was in a moment of time as all sin was poured out on Him and God had to turn His back forsaken by God.  He did not cease to exist but there was a kind of spiritual death, separation from God, at the point in which He was made sin.  But it’s very clear that whatever spiritual separation He experienced at that moment was quickly gone because it wasn’t long after that that He said these final words, “Father,” and that’s something important, isn’t it?  Because just a little before that He hadn’t called Him Father, what had He called Him?  “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”  And now He says, “Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit.”  So whatever experience of spiritual separation He had was only for a moment, when He was made sin. And then again His spirit was made alive and He committed it to God.

Now the point that Peter wants you to understand is this, that when Jesus was crucified on the cross His body died and His body went where?  To the tomb.  But when His body was dead, His spirit was what?  Alive. 

Now we get into where He went and what He preached and to whom He preached — the bound demons:

It says, “In which” that is in His spirit also “He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison.”  “In which also” means in that living spirit, apart from His body, which lay in the tomb, the living, eternal Christ went someplace.  The verb here refers to a personal going.  It’s also used down in verse 22. It’s translated “having gone.”  It’s the same verb.  It means literally to go somewhere else.  So He went somewhere else … 

He gave a sermon.  He went somewhere to preach.  He went and gave a triumphant sermon.  So even before His resurrection now, even before His resurrection on Sunday morning, He was moving freely in the spiritual realm, okay?  And He went to…to preach.  Now the verb here “to preach,” or to make a proclamation, is not euaggeliz, to preach the gospel.  He didn’t go somewhere to preach salvation.  It is the verb kruss, which means to make a proclamation or to announce a triumph.  It is the word “to herald.”  And military generals and kings would have a herald announce their victories.  He went somewhere to announce His victory.  No, He was not preaching the gospel to some people in the spiritual world, or some beings in the spiritual world.  He was announcing, proclaiming, heralding a triumph.  About what?  It must be pretty obvious, about His triumph over sin, about His triumph over death, about His triumph over hell, about His triumph over demons, about His triumph over Satan.  He went to proclaim His triumph. That’s the implication of the verb here, to proclaim victory. That’s what the passage is all about.  That’s what the context is all about.  It’s all about triumphing in the midst of unjust suffering.

Now to whom did He make this announcement?  Verse 19 says, “He made it to the spirits.”  Spirits?  Who are the spirits?  Well, think it through.  In verse 20 Peter uses the word “persons” or “souls.” You see it there in verse 20?  Eight persons, it’s actually the words souls, probably some of your Bibles say that.  Peter calls people souls.  It seems to me then that spirits must be different than people in this context.  By the way, the New Testament always uses the term spirits to refer to, take a guess, angels, never to men without a qualifying genitive.  Hebrews 12 says, “the spirits of just men made perfect.”  Whenever it is qualified with a genitival phrase like that, the qualifying phrase will tell you to whom it refers.  But every other use of spirits in the New Testament refers to angels.

Furthermore, we know that angels are in view here down in verse 22 because it says that He went into heaven after the angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.  So at some point in this passage Peter wants us to understand that He had subjected the angels and the authorities and the powers, which are just different names for angels, to Himself.

I believe He went to declare His victory over demons and that the spirits refer to demons.  You say, “Why do you…why do you say demons?”  Because these spirits were in what?  Prison.  They were in prison.  Now this could not be a message of salvation to demons. Why?  Because demons can’t be saved.  The demons that fell are forever damned, forever, as it were, locked into their destiny.  In Hebrews 2:16 it says, “He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.”  He doesn’t redeem spirits, He redeems people.  So whatever He said to these demons was not a message of salvation, it was a kruss, it was a heralding of triumph.

You say, “Well why would He go and herald a triumph to a bunch of demons?”  I’ll tell you why; because since the beginning when Satan fell he has been at war with the purposes of God.  There is cosmic conflict in this universe between God and Satan, witness Job chapter 1.  There is conflict between the holy angels and the fallen angels, witness Daniel.  And the tremendous conflict between the great, mighty angel of God and the prince of Tyre, a demon. There has always been spiritual warfare on that supernatural level and Satan and the demons have done everything they possibly could to destroy the purposes of God in Christ.  Is that not so?  From the very beginning when Satan knew that his head would be bruised and that he would be ultimately defeated, he has fought the purposes of God and fought against Christ every way possible.  Throughout the Old Testament he tries to destroy the Messianic line.  He tries to destroy the people of God.  In the New Testament He tries to get Christ in a temptation to capitulate to himself and thus thwart the purpose of God.  He tries to destroy Him, to violate the plan of God by having the mobs kill Him.  He tries when He’s dead to keep Him in the tomb so He can’t come forth.  You see, the demons of hell and Satan himself have always sought to destroy the work of Christ.  And now as He’s on the cross and He is bearing all sin and His life is crushed out of Him, and He is physically dead, it would seem that the demons have won, right?  And some writer said years ago that hell was in the midst of its carnival when He arrived.  They were probably celebrating this great defeat.

And where was this?  It says in prison.  Where is this place that He went?  By the way, nowhere in Scripture are the souls of men ever said to be imprisoned.  But these spirits are imprisoned. Phulak is the term and it is not, now listen carefully, it is not a condition, it is a location.  It refers to an actual location, not some condition of being imprisoned in sin.  It is a place.

MacArthur explains the groupings of angels:

Not all demons are in the prison.  Can I give you a little diagram, a little angelology, short course? … The front…the first line angels, okay?  Splits into two kind; holy, elect angels, fallen angels.  Of the fallen angels there are two kinds, loose and bound.  Of the bound there are two kinds, permanently bound, temporarily bound.  What we’re talking about here then are the angels fallen bound permanently.  Got it?  That’s your course in angelology.

The loose ones, by the way, and there are a lot of them running around loose, we know that, we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against what? Demons.  The lot of them running around loose. An