For connects the verse with the preceding thought and gives a reason why it is better to suffer for doing good. There may be some difficulties, however, in translating For, especially in languages in which the causal connection would be with the immediately preceding clause. Obviously one does not wish to connect the first clause of verse 18 with the expression than for doing evil, nor would it be appropriate to connect the first clause of verse 18 with a final conditional clause introduced by “if.” It may therefore be necessary to repeat part of verse 17 at the beginning of verse 18, for example, “it is better to suffer for doing what is good since Christ died for sins….”
There are some textual problems in the statement Christ died for sins once and for all. First of all, many manuscripts have “suffered” instead of died, and this is preferred in some translations (for example, Phillips). This has the merit of connecting this verse more closely with the preceding verse. However, the word “died” must be preferred for two reasons. (1) The textual evidence favors it. (2) “Died” is actually the harder text, and the change from “died” to “suffered” may be explained as influenced by the preceding verse, or to remove the difficulty created by “also” (see Revised Standard Version “Christ also died…”). To say that Christ “also” died is to imply that Christians should also die, an idea which is not emphasized in the letter; moreover, the idea of the Christian “dying for sin” would be quite unacceptable.
Secondly, after for sins once and for all, some manuscripts add “for you” or “for us.” And finally, for sins, some manuscripts have “our sins” (New English Bible), while others have “your sins.” These variants are rejected by most translations, perhaps on the ground that they can be taken as natural expansions originating from copyists, and also because of the fact that as a general rule, the shorter text is usually preferred to the longer one.
For sins (literally “concerning sin” or “on behalf of sin”) is a common phrase used for the sin-offering in the Old Testament (Lev 5.7; 6.30; Ezek 43.21; compare Psa 39.8). But whereas the sin-offering has to be offered repeatedly, Christ’s death is once and for all. The phrase is also used in other parts of the New Testament (for example, Rom 6.10; Heb 7.27; 9.12, 26, 28; 10.10), and accents two closely related ideas, that Christ died only once (that is, death has no longer any power over him), and that his death is effective for all time (that is, it is no longer necessary to offer any sacrifices for sins; compare Knox). Both of these are combined in the Good News Translation (compare Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “once—and that is valid for all times”).
A strictly literal translation of Christ died for sins can lead to an entirely wrong understanding, for it might mean “Christ died because of his own sins” or “Christ died because he had sinned.” Therefore, it may be necessary in a number of languages to translate “Christ died because of the sins of others” or “… for the sake of the sins of others.”
In a number of languages a clear distinction is made between a term for sins which indicates the act of sinning in contrast with a term for sins which refers to the resulting guilt. In this type of context, it is of course Christ’s death on behalf of the guilt which people bore, for that is what is removed by Christ’s atoning death.
It may be necessary to expand somewhat the phrase once and for all, for example, “one time and it is not necessary for him to die again” or “just once and that was all that is necessary” or “one time and nothing more is required.”
A good man on behalf of sinners (literally “the just for the unjust”) is a reminder to Christians that they, too, should suffer for the sake of sinners (that is, the heathen around them; compare 2.12). The phrase a good man accents Christ’s sinlessness (compare 2.22-23) and his innocence of the charges brought against him which led to his death, a fact which the Gospel writers emphasize (compare Luke 23.14, 15, 47); this latter aspect is taken to be the primary meaning in some translations (for example, Knox, Jerusalem Bible, “innocent”).
A good man on behalf of sinners is an expression which has a great deal of implicit information, and it may be necessary to fill out the omitted elements, for example, “a good man died on behalf of sinners” or “Christ, who was good, died for the sake of those who are bad.”
If “unjust” is understood primarily as emphasizing Jesus’ sinlessness, then “unjust” would refer to sinners, or “bad people” (compare Barclay). If, however, “just” is taken to mean “innocent,” then “unjust” would mean “guilty” (Knox, Jerusalem Bible). In order to clearly indicate the significant contrasts in good man and sinners or “just” and “unjust,” one may translate either “a man who is good died on behalf of those who are bad” or “a man who has done good died on behalf of those who have done evil” or, following the other interpretation, “a man who has no guilt died on behalf of those who are guilty.”
The purpose of Christ’s death is in order to lead you to God. There is another textual problem here, in that some manuscripts have “us” instead of “you,” and others simply omit the pronoun altogether. The manuscript evidence is strong for both “you” and “us,” and translations are somewhat divided in their preference (for “us,” Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Phillips, Barclay, Moffatt, Knox; for “you,” Good News Translation, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Those who favor “us” claim that it fits liturgical use better; while those favoring “you” contend that it is easier and more natural for scribes to change “you” to “us” in order to make the impact of the statement more inclusive.
Because of the complications involved in filling out the elliptical expression a good man on behalf of sinners, it may be important to introduce the first part of verse 18 just before the purpose clause, for example, “Christ died in order to lead you to God” or “… to bring you to God” or “… to cause you to come to God.”
Lead is used only here in the whole New Testament. In classical Greek, it is used of people who are being brought before a tribunal or a royal court; and in the Old Testament, it is used to describe the act of offering sacrifices to God (for example, Exo 29.10; Lev 1.2) or of consecrating people to God’s service (for example, Exo 29.4, 8; 40.12; Lev 8.24; Num 8.9, 10). In the light of this usage, to lead you to God may mean making it possible for someone to have access to God (for example, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “to open up the way to God”), or more specifically, to effect (or restore) a right relationship with God.
Two sets of antitheses appear at the end of this verse: put to death – made alive; physically – spiritually (literally “in the flesh – in the spirit”).
Put to death refers to Christ’s death on the cross, with people as the implicit actors, and made alive refers to his resurrection, with God as the implicit actor (that is, God raised him from the dead; compare John 5.21; 6.63; Rom 4.17; 8.11). In a number of languages it may be advantageous to change the passive expressions was put to death and made alive to active, for example, “people put Christ to death” and “God made Christ alive” or “God caused him to live.”
A harder thing to resolve is the meaning of the antithesis “in the flesh – in the spirit.” Several interpretations are possible. (1) The dative here may be taken as a dative of instrument, and “spirit” is then taken to refer to the Holy Spirit (compare Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). The difficulty of this interpretation is that while it fits the second part of the antithesis, it does not fit the first part, for one cannot say “Christ was put to death by the flesh.” (2) Flesh and spirit may be taken as two parts of the person of Christ, the former referring to his body, and the latter to his spirit or soul, or even more pointedly, the former referring to his human nature, and the latter to his divine nature. This interpretation, aside from the fact that it introduces something which is quite foreign to the New Testament (that is, nowhere in the New Testament is it asserted that a person has an immortal soul), creates many translational problems, for while one can say that Christ’s human nature was put to death, one cannot go on and say that his divine nature was made alive. (3) A third interpretation is possible, which is taking the datives here as datives of reference, denoting spheres of existence. This would mean that while Christ was put to death in the sphere of the physical, he was made alive in the sphere of the spiritual. To put it another way, after his resurrection, Jesus Christ is no longer physical, and what he is, is defined by the term “spiritual.”
If one does not preserve the parallelism in the two related expressions put to death physically and made alive spiritually, then it is of course possible to render the last part of verse 18 as “people put to death Christ’s body, but the Spirit of God made him live again.” If, however, one wishes to preserve the parallelism, and this certainly seems to be an important element in the context, then the translation of physically and spiritually provides certain serious complications, for a number of languages have no such abstract expressions as “physically” and “spiritually.” Sometimes physically may be expressed as “in terms of having a physical body” or “as far as possessing a physical body is concerned.” Spiritually may then be translated as “as far as being a spirit is concerned” or “in terms of being a spirit.” It is, of course, essential in translating spiritually to avoid any term for “spirit” which would suggest a demon or some mischievous sprite.
If one adopts the third type of interpretation, namely, when Christ was put to death he was a physical being, but after he was raised from the dead, he became a spiritual being, one may translate “when people caused Christ to die, he was a human being; but now that God has caused him to live again, he is a spirit.”
Verses 19-22 are very difficult to interpret, so much so that many interpreters take these verses as intrusions into the thought of the passage. Some others argue that these verses are taken from the book of Enoch, and that “Enoch” was inadvertently omitted in the text, with the result that “Christ” was written in as the subject instead. Accordingly, some translations have restored Enoch as the subject (for example, Moffatt “It was in the Spirit that Enoch also went and preached to the imprisoned spirits…”). There is, however, no manuscript evidence for such a textual change, and therefore it is quite dangerous to accept it. Even if it can be proved on literary grounds that these verses are an intrusion (or perhaps a later addition) to the passage in question, that would not excuse the translator from taking seriously the whole passage as it now stands. A more difficult approach, yet the only legitimate one for the translator, is to try to discover the meaning of these verses in the light of the letter as a whole, and particularly in the light of its immediate context, and to deal with translational problems accordingly. It is with this in mind that the comments below are made.
Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The First Letter from Peter. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .