Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Peter 3:21

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Peter 3:21” utilice nuestra app.

The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

21. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us ] The MSS. present two readings; one that of the Textus Receptus, answering to the English Version as giving the relative pronoun in the dative, the other, supported by the better MSS., giving the pronoun in the nominative, “which also” (sc. the element of water) “the antitype [of the deluge,] doth even now save us,” and then he adds, as explaining what was the antitype, the word “baptism” in apposition with the subject of the sentence. At first it seems hard to see the parallelism between the flood which destroyed and the baptism which saves, but reflection will shew that the Apostle may well have thought of the deluge as burying the old evils of the world and giving the human race, as it were, a fresh start, under new and better conditions, a world, in some sense, regenerated or brought into a new covenant with God, and therefore new relations to Him. Does not the teaching of the previous verse suggest the inference that he thought of the flood as having been even for those who perished in it, not merely an instrument of destruction, but as placing even the souls of the disobedient in a region in which they were not shut out from the pitying love of the Father who there also did not “will that any should perish”?

not the putting away of the filth of the flesh ] The Greek word for “putting away” may be noted as one of those common to the two Epistles (see note on 2Pe 1:14). The implied protest against the notion that this was all that was meant by Christian baptism, though it might be necessary both for Jewish and heathen converts, gains immensely in its significance if we think of the Epistle as addressed mainly to the former class. They were in danger of looking upon baptism, not as the sacrament of a new birth, but as standing on the same level as the “washing” or “baptism” (the same word is used) of the older ritual. So, even during the ministry of the Baptist, there was a dispute between some of his disciples and the Jews “about purification” (Joh 3:25), obviously rising out of that confusion of thought. So it formed part of the elementary instruction of Christian catechumens that they should learn the “doctrine of baptisms” (Heb 6:2), i.e. the distinction between the Jewish and the Christian rites that went almost or altogether [18] by the same name. St Peter warns men against the perilous thought that they washed away their sins by the mere outward act. So far as he may have contemplated heathen converts at all we may remember that they too thought of guilt as washed away by a purely ceremonial institution. So Ovid, Fast. ii. 45,

[18] The tendency to desynonymize led to the term baptisma in the neuter being used of the Christian rite, while the masculine baptismos was used in a more generic sense.

“Full easy souls who dream the crystal flood

Can wash away the deep-dyed stain of blood.”

[Ah, nimium faciles qui tristia crimina caedis

Fluminea tolli posse putetis aqua.]

Comp. also Juven. Sat. vi. 522, Persius, Sat. ii. 15, Horace, Sat. ii. 3.290. History records but too many instances of the revival of a like superstition. The tendency to postpone baptism in order to cancel the sins that were in the meantime accumulating, and avoid the danger of postbaptismal sin, of which we see conspicuous instances in the lives of Constantine and Augustine, the medival dogma still lingering in popular belief, that unbaptized infants are excluded from salvation; these are examples of ways of looking at baptism more or less analogous to that which St Peter condemns. With him the saving power of baptism varies with the activity and purity of the moral consciousness of the baptized.

but the answer of a good conscience toward God ] The words admit of very different interpretations. (1) The Greek word translated “answer” means primarily “ question, ” “enquiry.” If this sense be admitted here, there would then rise the question whether the words “of a good conscience” were in the genitive of the subject or the object. If the former, the condition on which St Peter lays stress would be equivalent to ( a) the enquiry of a good conscience, the seeking of the soul after God; if the latter, that condition would be ( b) the prayer addressed to God for a good conscience. Neither of these interpretations, however, is satisfactory. It is against ( a ) that it is the idea of baptism that men are no longer seeking God but have found Him. It is against ( b) that it is also the idea of baptism that it is more than the asking for a gift. A true solution is found partly in the forensic use of the Greek word for question, as including, like our word “examination,” both question and answer, and so applied to the whole process of a covenant, the conditions of which were determined by mutual interrogatories and affirmative or negative replies, and partly in the fact that at a date so early that it is reasonable to infer an Apostolic origin, the liturgical administration of baptism involved interrogatories and answers, in substance identical with those that have been in use in the Church at large and are in use still. “Dost thou renounce Satan?” “I do renounce him.” “Dost thou believe in Christ?” “I do believe in Him,” the second question sometimes taking the form “Dost thou take thy stand with Christ?” and the answer, “I do take my stand.” In this practice of interrogation then we find that which explains St Peter’s meaning. That which is of the essence of the saving power of baptism is the confession and the profession which precedes it. If that comes from a conscience (see notes on chaps. 1Pe 2:19, 1Pe 3:16) that really renounces sin and believes on Christ, then baptism, as the channel through which the grace of the new birth is conveyed and the convert admitted into the Church of Christ, “saves us,” but not otherwise. The practice of Infant Baptism, though the scales of argument both as regards Scripture and antiquity turn in its favour, presents, it must be admitted, an apparent inversion of the right order, though the idea is still retained in the questions put to the sponsors who answer in the infant’s name, as his representatives. If the question is asked, What then is the effect of Infant Baptism? the answer must be found, that it is, in the language of Scripture, as a new birth, the admission into new conditions of life, into, as it were, the citizenship of a new country. It gives the promise and potency of life, but its power to save the man that grows out of the infant varies with the fulfilment of the conditions when consciousness is developed. Now, as when St Peter wrote, it is not the “putting away the filth of the flesh” that saves, but “the answer of a good conscience towards God.”

by the resurrection of Jesus Christ ] So far the words have brought before us the human side of baptism. But the rite has also a divine side and this the last words of the verse bring before us. Baptism derives its power to save from the Resurrection of Christ. It brings us into union with the life of Him who “was dead and is alive for evermore” (Rev 1:18). We are buried with Him in baptism, planted together with Him in the likeness of His death, that we may be also in the likeness of His resurrection (Rom 6:4-5).

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us – There are some various readings here in the Greek text, but the sense is not essentially varied. Some have proposed to read ( ho) to which instead of ( ho) which, so as to make the sense the antitype to which baptism now also saves us. The antecedent to the relative, whichever word is used, is clearly not the ark, but water; and the idea is, that as Noah was saved by water, so there is a sense in which water is made instrumental in our salvation. The mention of water in the case of Noah, in connection with his being saved, by an obvious association suggested to the mind of the apostle the use of water in our salvation, and hence led him to make the remark about the connection of baptism with our salvation. The Greek word here rendered figure – antitupon – antitype means properly, resisting a blow or impression, (from anti and tupos;) that is, hard, solid. In the New Testament, however, it is used in a different sense; and ( anti) in composition, implies resemblance, correspondence and hence, the word means, formed after a type or model; like; corresponding; that which corresponds to a type – Robinson, Lexicon. The word occurs only in this place and Heb 9:24, rendered figures. The meaning here is, that baptism corresponded to, or had a resemblance to, the water by which Noah was saved; or that there was a use of water in the one case which corresponded in some respects to the water that was used in the other; to wit, in effecting salvation. The apostle does not say that it corresponded in all respects; in respect, e. g., to quantity, or to the manner of the application, or to the efficacy; but there is a sense in which water performs an important part in our salvation, as it did in his.

Baptism – Not the mere application of water, for that idea the apostle expressly disclaims, when he says that it involves not putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God. The sense is, that baptism, including all that is properly meant by baptism as a religious rite – that is, baptism administered in connection with true repentance, and true faith in the Lord Jesus, and when it is properly a symbol of the putting away of sin, and of the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit, and an act of unreserved dedication to God – now saves us. On the meaning of the word baptism, see the notes at Mat 3:6, Mat 3:16.

Doth also now save us – The water saved Noah and his family from perishing in the flood; to wit, by bearing up the ark. Baptism, in the proper sense of the term, as above explained, where the water used is a symbol, in like manner now saves us; that is, the water is an emblem of that purifying by which we are saved. It may be said to save us, not as the meritorious cause, but as the indispensable condition of salvation. No man can be saved without that regenerated and purified heart of which baptism is the appropriate symbol, and when it would be proper to administer that ordinance. The apostle cannot have meant that water saves us in the same way in which it saved Noah, because that cannot be true. It is neither the same in quantity, nor is it applied in the same way, nor is it efficacious in the same manner. It is indeed connected with our salvation in its own proper way, as an emblem of that purifying of the heart by which we are saved. Thus, it corresponds with the salvation of Noah by water, and is the ( antitupon) antitype of that. Nor does it mean that the salvation of Noah by water was designed to be a type of Christian baptism. There is not the least evidence of that; and it should not be affirmed without proof. The apostle saw a resemblance in some respects between the one and the other; such a resemblance that the one naturally suggested the other to his mind, and the resemblance was so important as to make it the proper ground of remark.

(But if Noahs preservation in the ark, be the type of that salvation of which baptism is the emblem, who shall say it was not so designed of God? Must we indeed regard the resemblance between Noahs deliverance and ours, as a happy coincidence merely? But the author is accustomed to deny typical design in very clear cases; and in avoiding one extreme seems to have gone into another. Some will have types everywhere; and, therefore, others will allow them nowhere. See the supplementary note at Heb 7:1; M. Knights Essay, viii. Sect. v., on the laws of typical interpretation, with his commentary in loco)

The points of resemblance in the two cases seem to have been these:

There was salvation in both; Noah was saved from death, and we are saved from hell.

(2)Water is employed in both cases – in the case of Noah to uphold the ark; in ours to be a symbol of our purification.

(3)The water in both cases is connected with salvation: in the case of Noah by sustaining the ark; in ours by being a symbol of salvation, of purity, of cleansing, of that by which we may be brought to God.

The meaning of this part of the verse, therefore, may be thus expressed: Noah and his family were saved by water, the antitype to which (to wit, that which in important respects corresponds to that) baptism (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, or the mere application of material water, but that purifying of the heart of which it is the appropriate emblem) now saves us.

Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh – Not a mere external washing, however solemnly done. No outward ablution or purifying saves us, but that which pertains to the conscience. This important clause is thrown in to guard the statement from the abuse to which it would otherwise be liable, the supposition that baptism has of itself a purifying and saving power. To guard against this, the apostle expressly declares that he means much more than a mere outward application of water.

But the answer of a good conscience toward God – The word here rendered answer ( eperotema) means properly a question, an inquiry. It is spoken of a question put to a convert at baptism, or rather of the whole process of question and answer; that is, by implication, examination, profession – Robinson, Lexicon. It is designed to mark the spiritual character of the baptismal rite in contrast with a mere external purification, and evidently refers to something that occurred at baptism; some question, inquiry, or examination, that took place then; and it would seem to imply:

(1)That when baptism was performed, there was some question or inquiry in regard to the belief of the candidate;

(2)That an answer was expected, implying that there was a good conscience; that is, that the candidate had an enlightened conscience, and was sincere in his profession; and,

(3)That the real efficacy of baptism, or its power in saving, was not in the mere external rite, but in the state of the heart, indicated by the question and answer, of which that was the emblem.

On the meaning of the phrase a good conscience, see the notes at 1Pe 3:16 of this chapter. Compare on this verse Neander, Geschich der Pfianz. u. Leit. der chr, Kirche, i. p. 203ff, in Bibl. Reposi. iv. 272ff. It is in the highest degree probable that questions would be proposed to candidates for baptism respecting their belief, an we have an instance of this fact undoubtedly in the case before us. How extensive such examinations would be, what points would be embraced, how much reference there was to personal experience, we have, of course, no certain means of ascertaining. We may suppose, however, that the examination pertained to what constituted the essential features of the Christian religion, as distinguished from other systems, and to the cordial belief of that system by the candidate.

By the resurrection of Jesus Christ – That is, we are saved in this manner through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The whole efficiency in the case is derived from that. If he had not been raised from the dead, baptism would have been vain, and there would have been no power to save us. See this illustrated at length in the notes at Rom 6:4-5. The points, therefore, which are established in regard to baptism by this important passage are these:

(1) That Christian baptism is not a mere external rite; a mere outward ablution; a mere application of water to the body. It is not contemplated that it shall be an empty form, and its essence does not consist in a mere putting away of the filth of the flesh. There is a work to be done in respect to the conscience which cannot be reached by the application of water.

(2) That there was an examination among the early Christians when a candidate was about to be baptized, and of course such an examination is proper now. Whatever was the ground of the examination, it related to that which existed before the baptism was administered. It was not expected that it should be accomplished by the baptism. There is, therefore, implied evidence here that there was no reliance placed on that ordinance to produce that which constituted the answer of a good conscience; in other words, that it was not supposed to have an efficacy to produce that of itself, and was not a converting or regenerating ordinance.

(3) The answer which was returned in the inquiry, was to be such as indicated a good conscience; that is, as Bloomfield expresses it, (New Testament in loc.,) that which enables us to return such an answer as springs from a good conscience toward God, which can be no other than the inward change and renovation wrought by the Spirit. It was supposed, therefore, that there would be an internal work of grace; that there would be much more than an outward rite in the whole transaction. The application of water is, in fact, but an emblem or symbol of that grace in the heart, and is to be administered as denoting that. It does not convey grace to the soul by any physical efficacy of the water. It is a symbol of the purifying influences of religion, and is made a means of grace in the same way as obedience to any other of the commands of God.

(4) There is no efficacy in the mere application of water in any form, or with any ceremonies of religion, to put away sin. It is the good conscience, the renovated heart, the purified soul, of which baptism is the emblem, that furnishes evidence of the divine acceptance and favor. Compare Heb 9:9-10. There must be a deep internal work on the soul of man, in order that he may be acceptable to God; and when that is missing, no external rite is of any avail.

(5) Yet, it does not follow from this that baptism is of no importance. The argument of the apostle here is, that it is of great importance. Noah was saved by water; and so baptism has an important connection with our salvation. As water bore up the ark, and was the means of saving Noah, so baptism by water is the emblem of our salvation; and when administered in connection with a good conscience, that is, with a renovated heart, it is as certainly connected with our salvation as the sustaining waters of the flood were with the salvation of Noah. No man can prove from the Bible that baptism has no important connection with salvation; and no man can prove that by neglecting it he will be as likely to obtain the divine favor as he would by observing it. It is a means of exhibiting great and important truths in an impressive manner to the soul; it is a means of leading the soul to an entire dedication to a God of purity; it is a means through which God manifests himself to the soul, and through which he imparts grace, as he does in all other acts of obedience to his commandments.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 21. The like figure whereunto, c.] Dr. Macknight has translated this verse so as to make the meaning more clear: By which (water) the antitype baptism (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God) now saveth us also, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

He remarks that the relative being in the neuter gender, its antecedent cannot be , the ark, which is feminine, but , water, which is neuter.

There are many difficulties in this verse but the simple meaning of the place may be easily apprehended. Noah believed in God; walked uprightly before him, and found grace in his sight; he obeyed him in building the ark, and God made it the means of his salvation from the waters of the deluge. Baptism implies a consecration and dedication of the soul and body to God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He who is faithful to his baptismal covenant, taking God through Christ, by the eternal Spirit, for his portion, is saved here from his sins; and through the resurrection of Christ from the dead, has the well-grounded hope of eternal glory. This is all plain; but was it the deluge, itself, or the ark, or the being saved by that ark from the deluge, that was the antitype of which St. Peter speaks? Noah and his family were saved by water; i.e. it was the instrument of their being saved through the good providence of God. So the water of baptism, typifying the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit, is the means of salvation to all those who receive this Holy Spirit in its quickening, cleansing efficacy. Now as the waters of the flood could not have saved Noah and his family, had they not made use of the ark; so the water of baptism saves no man, but as it is the means of his getting his heart purified by the Holy Spirit, and typifying to him that purification. The ark was not immersed in the water; had it been so they must all have perished; but it was borne up on the water, and sprinkled with the rain that fell from heaven. This text, as far as I can see, says nothing in behalf of immersion in baptism; but is rather, from the circumstance mentioned above, in favour of sprinkling. In either case, it is not the sprinkling, washing, or cleansing the body, that can be of any avail to the salvation of the soul, but the answer of a good conscience towards God-the internal evidence and external proof that the soul is purified in the laver of regeneration, and the person enabled to walk in newness of life. We are therefore strongly cautioned here, not to rest in the letter, but to look for the substance.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The like figure; Greek, the antitype. Twice this word occurs in Scripture; once Heb 9:24, where it signifies simply a type, or exemplar, or representation; and here, where it implies either the likeness or correspondence of one type with another in signifying the same thing: so that here may be two types, the deliverance of Noah and his household in the flood, and baptism, whereof the former was a type of the latter, yet so as both represent the salvation of the church; in that as the waters of the flood lifting up the ark, and saving Noahs family shut up in it, signified the salvation of the church; so likewise baptism signifies the salvation of those that are in the church (as in an ark) from that common destruction which involves the rest of the world: or, it signifies the truth itself, as answering the type or figure; and thus the temporal salvation of Noah, &c. from the flood, in the ark, was the type, and the eternal salvation of believers by baptism is the antitype, or truth figured by it. Our translation seems to favour the former.

Whereunto; i.e. the saving eight persons by water; q.d. The salvation of believers now by baptism, answers to the deliverance of Noah then; and so this relative, whereunto, answers to the foregoing sentence, as its antecedent.

Even baptism doth also now save us; viz. with an eternal salvation, in answer to the temporal deliverance of Noah by water; and that not only as it is a sign, but a seal whereby the Spirit of God confirms in the hearts of believers the faith of their justification purchased by Christs death, and witnessed by his resurrection, Rom 4:25.

Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh; not merely the washing of the body with water, or the external part of baptism, which can of itself have no further effect than other bodily washings have, viz. to cleanse the flesh. And so he answers an objection which might be made: How baptism can be said to save us, when so many perish who are baptized, by declaring, as follows, what it is in baptism which is so effectual.

But the answer of a good conscience: the Greek word here used is several ways rendered, and so this place differently interpreted: the best translation seems to be, either:

1. The petition of a good conscience, and then it notes the effect of baptism, viz. that holy confidence and security wherewith a conscience, sprinkled with the blood of Christ, addresses itself to God in prayer, as a Father. Thus the word is taken, Mat 15:23; 16:2; Rom 10:20. Or rather:

2. The stipulation, which by a metonymy is taken for the answer, promise, or restipulation required; and this agrees with our translation.

In baptism there is a solemn covenant, or mutual agreement, between God and the party baptized, wherein God offers, applies, and seals his grace, stipulating or requiring the partys acceptance of that grace, and devoting himself to his service; and when he out of a good conscience doth engage and promise this, which is to come up to the terms of covenant, that may properly be called the answer of a good conscience. It seems to be an allusion to the manner of baptizing, where the minister asked the party to be baptized concerning his faith in Christ, and he accordingly answered him; Dost thou believe? I believe. Dost thou renounce the devil, &c.? I renounce. See Act 8:37.

A good conscience; a conscience purified by faith from internal and spiritual defilements, (in opposition to putting away the filth of the flesh), which only sincerely answers to what God requires in baptism.

Toward God; i.e. in the presence of God, with whom conscience hath to do in baptism, and who alone is the Judge of conscience, and knows whether it be good and sincere, or not: or, toward God, is to God; and then it relates to answer, and implies the answer or engagement of conscience to be made to God.

By the resurrection of Jesus Christ: either these words are to be joined to the verb save, and the rest of the verse to be read in a parenthesis, according to our translation; and then the sense is, that baptism saves us by the faith of Christs resurrection, or by virtue derived from Christs resurrection, under which is comprehended his death and sufferings: or they are to be joined to answer, supplying which is; and then, without a parenthesis, the text runs thus, the answer of a good conscience, which is by the resurrection of Christ; and the meaning is, that the answer of a good conscience toward God is by the resurrection of Christ, as the foundation of our believing the promise of forgiveness and free grace, inasmuch as it testifies God to be fully satisfied for sin, and Christ to have fully overcome sin, the devil, &c. For where this faith is not, there can be no good conscience, nor any sincere answering what God requires of us in baptism: if men do not believe the satisfaction of Divine justice by Christs death, which is evidenced by his resurrection, they will not close with the offers of his grace, nor engage themselves to be the Lords. See 1Pe 1:3; 1Co 15:17.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

21. whereuntoThe oldestmanuscripts read, “which”: literally, “which (namely,water, in general; being) the antitype (of the water of theflood) is now saving (the salvation being not yet fully realized byus, compare 1Co 10:1; 1Co 10:2;1Co 10:5; Jdg 1:5;puts into a state of salvation) us also (two oldestmanuscripts read ‘you‘ for ‘us’: You also, as well asNoah and his party), to wit, baptism.” Water saved Noah not ofitself, but by sustaining the ark built in faith, resting onGod’s word: it was to him the sign and mean of a kind ofregeneration, of the earth. The flood was for Noah a baptism,as the passage through the Red Sea was for the Israelites; by baptismin the flood he and his family were transferred from the old world tothe new: from immediate destruction to lengthened probation; from thecompanionship of the wicked to communion with God; from the severingof all bonds between the creature and the Creator to the privilegesof the covenant: so we by spiritual baptism. As there was a Ham whoforfeited the privileges of the covenant, so many now. Theantitypical water, namely, baptism, saves you also not of itself, northe mere material water, but the spiritual thing conjoined with it,repentance and faith, of which it is the sign and seal, as Peterproceeds to explain. Compare the union of the sign and thingsignified, Joh 3:5; Eph 5:26;Tit 3:5; Heb 10:22;compare 1Jo 5:6.

not the, c.”flesh”bears the emphasis. “Not the putting away of the filth of theflesh” (as is done by a mere water baptism, unaccompaniedwith the Spirit’s baptism, compare Eph2:11), but of the soul. It is the ark (Christ and HisSpirit-filled Church), not the water, which is the instrument ofsalvation: the water only flowed round the ark so not the mere waterbaptism, but the water when accompanied with the Spirit.

answerGreek,“interrogation”; referring to the questions asked ofcandidates for baptism; eliciting a confession of faith “towardGod” and a renunciation of Satan ([AUGUSTINE,The Creed, 4.1]; [CYPRIAN,Epistles, 7, To Rogatianus]), which, when flowing from”a good conscience,” assure one of being “saved.”Literally, “a good conscience’s interrogation (including thesatisfactory answer) toward God.” I prefer this to thetranslation of WAHL,ALFORD and others,”inquiry of a good conscience after God“: notone of the parallels alleged, not even 2Sa11:7, in the Septuagint, is strictly in point. RecentByzantine Greek idiom (whereby the term meant: (1) thequestion; (2) the stipulation; (3) the engagement), easily flowingfrom the usage of the word as Peter has it, confirms the formertranslation.

by the resurrection ofJesusjoined with “saves you”: In so far as baptismapplies to us the power of Christ’s resurrection. As Christ’s deathunto sin is the source of the believer’s death unto, and sodeliverance from, sin’s penalty and power; so His resurrection lifeis the source of the believer’s new spiritual life.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us,…. The ark, and deliverance by it, as it was a type of Christ, and salvation by him, so it was a figure of baptism, and baptism was the antitype of that; or there is something in these which correspond, and answer to, and bear a resemblance to each other: as the ark was God’s ordinance, and not man’s invention, so is baptism, it is of heaven, and not of men; and as the ark, while it was preparing, was the scorn and derision of men, so is this ordinance of the Gospel; it was rejected with disdain by the Scribes and Pharisees, as it still is by many; and as the ark, when Noah and his family were shut up in it by God, represented a burial, and they seemed, as it were, to be buried in it, it was a lively emblem of baptism, which is expressed by a burial, Ro 6:4 and as they in the ark had the great deep broke up under them, and the windows of heaven opened over them, pouring out waters upon them, they were, as it were, immersed in, and were covered with water, this fitly figured baptism by immersion; nor were there any but adult persons that entered into the ark, nor should any be baptized but believers; to which may be added, that as the one saved by water, so does the other; for it is water baptism which is here designed, which John practised, Christ gave a commission for, and his disciples administered: it saves not as a cause, for it has no causal influence on, nor is it essential to salvation. Christ only is the cause and author of eternal salvation; and as those only that were in the ark were saved by water, so those only that are in Christ, and that are baptized into Christ, and into his death, are saved by baptism; not everyone that is baptized, but he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved, Mr 16:16, for baptism

is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh; the design of it is not to take off the sordid flesh, as circumcision did; or in a ceremonious way, outwardly, to sanctify to the purifying of the flesh, as the Jewish baptisms did; see Heb 9:10, or to take away either original or actual sin; this only the blood of Christ can do; and it is not a mere external cleansing of the body:

but the answer of a good conscience towards God; the Vulgate Latin renders it, “the interrogation of a good conscience”; referring, it may be, to the interrogations that used to be put to those who desired baptism; as, dost thou renounce Satan? dost thou believe in Christ? see Ac 8:36, others render it, “the stipulation of a good conscience”; alluding also to the ancient custom of obliging those that were baptized to covenant and agree to live an holy life and conversation, to renounce the devil and all his works, and the pomps and vanities of this world; and baptism does certainly lay an obligation on men to walk in newness of life; see Ro 6:4, the Ethiopic version renders it, “confession of God”; and to this the Syriac version agrees, rendering it, “confessing God with a pure conscience”; for, to baptism, profession of faith in Christ, and of the doctrine of Christ in a pure conscience, is requisite; and in baptism persons make a public confession of God, and openly put on Christ before men: the sense seems plainly this; that then is baptism rightly performed, and its end answered, when a person, conscious to himself of its being an ordinance of Christ, and of his duty to submit to it, does do so upon profession of his faith in Christ, in obedience to his command, and “with” a view to his glory; in doing which he discharges a good conscience towards God: and being thus performed, it saves,

by the resurrection of Jesus Christ; being a means of leading the faith of the baptized person, as to the blood of Christ, for pardon and cleansing, so to the resurrection of Christ, to justification; see Ac 2:38, moreover, the sense of the passage may be this, that baptism is a like figure as the ark of Noah was; that as the entrance of Noah and his family into the ark was an emblem of a burial, so their coming out of it was a figure of the resurrection; and just such a figure is baptism, performed by immersion, both of the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and of the resurrection of saints to walk in newness of life. The Arabic version renders the whole verse thus; “of which thing baptism is now a type saving us, not by removing the filth of the flesh only, but by exhilarating a good conscience towards God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Christian Baptism.

A. D. 66.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Noah’s salvation in the ark upon the water prefigured the salvation of all good Christians in the church by baptism; that temporal salvation by the ark was a type, the antitype whereunto is the eternal salvation of believers by baptism, to prevent mistakes about which the apostle,

I. Declares what he means by saving baptism; not the outward ceremony of washing with water, which, in itself, does no more than put away the filth of the flesh, but it is that baptism wherein there is a faithful answer or restipulation of a resolved good conscience, engaging to believe in, and be entirely devoted to, God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, renouncing at the same time the flesh, the world, and the devil. The baptismal covenant, made and kept, will certainly save us. Washing is the visible sign; this is the thing signified.

II. The apostle shows that the efficacy of baptism to salvation depends not upon the work done, but upon the resurrection of Christ, which supposes his death, and is the foundation of our faith and hope, to which we are rendered conformable by dying to sin, and rising again to holiness and newness of life. Learn, 1. The sacrament of baptism, rightly received, is a means and a pledge of salvation. Baptism now saveth us. God is pleased to convey his blessings to us in and by his ordinances, Act 2:38; Act 22:16. 2. The external participation of baptism will save no man without an answerable good conscience and conversation. There must be the answer of a good conscience towards God.–Obj. Infants cannot make such an answer, and therefore ought not to be baptized.–Answer, the true circumcision was that of the heart and of the spirit (Rom. ii. 29), which children were no more capable of then than our infants are capable of making this answer now; yet they were allowed circumcision at eight days old. The infants of the Christian church therefore may be admitted to the ordinance with as much reason as the infants of the Jewish, unless they are barred from it by some express prohibition of Christ.

III. The apostle, having mentioned the death and resurrection of Christ, proceeds to speak of his ascension, and sitting at the right hand of the Father, as a subject fit to be considered by these believers for their comfort in their suffering condition, v. 22. If the advancement of Christ was so glorious after his deep humiliation, let not his followers despair, but expect that after these short distresses they shall be advanced to transcendent joy and glory. Learn, 1. Jesus Christ, after he had finished his labours and his sufferings upon earth, ascended triumphantly into heaven, of which see Act 1:9-11; Mar 16:19. He went to heaven to receive his own acquired crown and glory (John xvii. 5), to finish that part of his mediatorial work which could not be done on earth, and make intercession for his people, to demonstrate the fulness of his satisfaction, to take possession of heaven for his people, to prepare mansions for them, and to send down the Comforter, which was to be the first-fruits of his intercession, John xvi. 7. 2. Upon his ascension into heaven, Christ is enthroned at the right hand of the Father. His being said to sit there imports absolute rest and cessation from all further troubles and sufferings, and an advancement to the highest personal dignity and sovereign power. 3. Angels, authorities, and powers, are all made subject to Christ Jesus: all power in heaven and earth, to command, to give law, issue orders, and pronounce a final sentence, is committed to Jesus, God-man, which his enemies will find to their everlasting sorrow and confusion, but his servants to their eternal joy and satisfaction.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Which also ( ). Water just mentioned.

After a true likeness (). Water in baptism now as an anti-type of Noah’s deliverance by water. For see on Mt 3:7. For see on Heb 9:24 (only other N.T. example) where the word is used of the earthly tabernacle corresponding () to the heavenly, which is the pattern ( Heb 8:5) for the earthly. So here baptism is presented as corresponding to (prefigured by) the deliverance of Noah’s family by water. It is only a vague parallel, but not over-fanciful.

Doth now save you ( ). Simplex verb (, not the compound ). The saving by baptism which Peter here mentions is only symbolic (a metaphor or picture as in Ro 6:2-6), not actual as Peter hastens to explain.

Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh ( ). is old word from (2:1), in N.T. only here and 2Pe 1:14. (genitive of ) is old word (cf. , filthy, in Jas 2:2; Rev 22:11), here only in N.T. (cf. Isa 3:3; Isa 4:4). Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh either in a literal sense, as a bath for the body, or in a metaphorical sense of the filth of the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience (Heb 9:13f.). Peter here expressly denies baptismal remission of sin.

But the interrogation of a good conscience toward God ( ). Old word from (to question as in Mark 9:32; Matt 16:1), here only in N.T. In ancient Greek it never means answer, but only inquiry. The inscriptions of the age of the Antonines use it of the Senate’s approval after inquiry. That may be the sense here, that is, avowal of consecration to God after inquiry, having repented and turned to God and now making this public proclamation of that fact by means of baptism (the symbol of the previous inward change of heart). Thus taken, it matters little whether (toward God) be taken with or .

Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (‘ ). For baptism is a symbolic picture of the resurrection of Christ as well as of our own spiritual renewal (Ro 6:2-6). See 1:3 for regeneration made possible by the resurrection of Jesus.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

The like figure whereunto. Following a rejected reading, w, to which; so that the literal rendering would be the antitype to which. Read o ajntitupon, which, the antitype or as an antitype; i e., which water, being the antitype of that water of the flood, doth now save you, even baptism. Rev., which, after a true likeness doth now, etc. ‘Antitupon, figure, or antitype, is from ajnti, over against, and tupov, a blow. Hence, originally, repelling a blow : a blow against a blow; a counterblow. So of an echo or of the reflection of light; then a correspondence, as of a stamp to the die, as here. The word occurs only once elsewhere, Heb 9:24 : “the figures of the true.”

Putting away [] . Peculiar to Peter. Here and 2Pe 1:14. Filth [] . Only here in New Testament. In classical Greek signifying especially dry dirt, as on the person.

Answer [] . Only here in New Testament. In classical Greek the word means a question and nothing else. The meaning here is much disputed, and can hardly be settled satisfactorily. The rendering answer has no warrant. The meaning seems to be (as Alford), “the seeking after God of a good and pure conscience, which is the aim and end of the Christian baptismal life.” So Lange : “The thing asked may be conceived as follows : ‘How shall I rid myself of an evil conscience? Wilt thou, most holy God, again accept me, a sinner ? Wilt thou, Lord Jesus, grant me the communion of thy death and life ? Wilt thou, O Holy Spirit, assure me of grace and adoption, and dwell in my heart ?’ To these questions the triune Jehovah answers in baptism, ‘Yea!’ Now is laid the solid foundation for a good conscience. The conscience is not only purified from its guilt, but it receives new vital power by means of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” This is the sense of ejperwtan eijv, in the only place where it occurs in scripture, 2Sa 11:7 (Sept.) : “David asked of him how Joab did [ ] .” Lit., with reference to the peace of Joab. Rev. renders, the interrogation, and puts inquiry, appeal, in margin.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “The like figure whereunto even.” (ho) which (ark) (Gk. kai humas antitupon) even to us a figure or antitype is. The ark, place of safety, was Christ, not the water. True faith works by love to the saving of the life for God, Gal 5:6-7.

2) “Baptism cloth also now save us.” As the ark “identified” true believers, so baptism is designed to identify, be a monument to their profession it (nun sozei) now and hereafter saves, delivers from identity of our lives with the lost world. Baptism is a picture -a figure of the source of our salvation, Rom 1:16; 1Co 15:1-4; Gal 3:27.

3) “Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.” (Baptism (a picture) no more saves, puts away flesh or soul-sin (filth) than a mother’s picture gives physical life – see?

4) “But the answer of a good conscience toward God.” Noah and his family believed in God before they believed in the ark — after they trusted in Him, they obeyed out of love. Gal 5:6. Their building and entering the ark was in answer or response to a good conscience. So must ours be today. We follow Jesus in baptism. We do not find Him in baptism, Rom 6:4-5.

5) “By the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Baptism saves, (in a figure), by or through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism did not make Jesus the Son of God — it identified him as such. It does the same for us. Joh 1:31-33; Mar 8:34.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

21 The like figure whereunto I fully think that the relative ought to be read in the dative case, and that it has happened, through a mistake, that ὃ is put, and not ᾧ. The meaning, however, is not ambiguous, that Noah, saved by water, had a sort of baptism. And this the Apostle mentions, that the likeness between him and us might appear more evident. It has already been said that the design of this clause is to shew that we ought not to be led away by wicked examples from the fear of God, and the right way of salvation, and to mix with the world. This is made evident in baptism, in which we are buried together with Christ, so that, being dead to the world, and to the flesh, we may live to God. On this account, he says that our baptism is an antitype ( ἀντίτυπον) to the baptism of Noah, not that Noah’s baptism was the first pattern, and ours an inferior figure, as the word is taken in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the ceremonies of the law are said to be antitypes of heavenly things, (Heb 9:9.) Greek writers apply the same word to sacraments, so that, when they speak of the mystical bread of the holy Supper, they call it the antitype. But here there is no comparison made between the greater and the less; the Apostle only means that there is a likeness, and as they commonly say, a correspondence. Perhaps it might more properly be said to be correspondency, ( ἀντίστροφον,) as Aristotle makes Dialectics to be the antistrophè of Rhetoric. But we need not labor about words, when there is an agreement about the thing itself. As Noah, then, obtained life through death, when in the ark, he was enclosed not otherwise than as it were in the grave, and when the whole world perished, he was preserved together with his small family; so at this day, the death which is set forth in baptism, is to us an entrance into life, nor can salvation be hoped for, except we be separated from the world.

Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh This was added, because it might be that the greatest part of men would profess the name of Christ; and so it is with us, almost all are introduced into the church by baptism. Thus, what he had said before would not be appropriate, that few at this day are saved by baptism, as God saved only eight by the ark. This objection Peter anticipates, when he testifies that he speaks not of the naked sign, but that the effect must also be connected with it, as though he had said, that what happened in the age of Noah would always be the case, that mankind would rush on to their own destruction, but that the Lord would in a wonderful way deliver His very small flock.

We now see what this connection means; for some one might object and say, “Our baptism is widely different from that of Noah, for it happens that most are at this day baptized.” To this he replies, that the external symbol is not sufficient, except baptism be received really and effectually: and the reality of it will be found only in a few. It hence follows that we ought carefully to see how men commonly act when we rely on examples, and that we ought not to fear though we may be few in number.

But the fanatics, such as Schuencfeldius, absurdly pervert this testimony, while they seek to take away from sacraments all their power and effect. For Peter did not mean here to teach that Christ’s institution is vain and inefficacious, but only to exclude hypocrites from the hope of salvation, who, as far as they can, deprave and corrupt baptism. Moreover, when we speak of sacraments, two things are to be considered, the sign and the thing itself. In baptism the sign is water, but the thing is the washing of the soul by the blood of Christ and the mortifying of the flesh. The institution of Christ includes these two things. Now that the sign appears often inefficacious and fruitless, this happens through the abuse of men, which does not take away the nature of the sacrament. Let us then learn not to tear away the thing signified from the sign. We must at the same time beware of another evil, such as prevails among the Papists; for as they distinguish not as they ought between the thing and the sign, they stop at the outward element, and on that fix their hope of salvation. Therefore the sight of the water takes away their thoughts from the blood of Christ and the power of the Spirit. They do not regard Christ as the only author of all the blessings therein offered to us; they transfer the glory of his death to the water, they tie the secret power of the Spirit to the visible sign.

What then ought we to do? Not to separate what has been joined together by the Lord. We ought to acknowledge in baptism a spiritual washing, we ought to embrace therein the testimony of the remission of sin and the pledge of our renovation, and yet so as to leave to Christ his own honor, and also to the Holy Spirit; so that no part of our salvation should be transferred to the sign. Doubtless when Peter, having mentioned baptism, immediately made this exception, that it is not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, he sufficiently shewed that baptism to some is only the outward act, and that the outward sign of itself avails nothing.

But the answer of a good conscience The word question, or questioning, is to be taken here for “answer,” or testimony. Now Peter briefly defines the efficacy and use of baptism, when he calls attention to conscience, and expressly requires that confidence which can sustain the sight of God and can stand before his tribunal. For in these words he teaches us that baptism in its main part is spiritual, and then that it includes the remission of sins and renovation of the old man; for how can there be a good and pure conscience until our old man is reformed, and we be renewed in the righteousness of God? and how can we answer before God, unless we rely on and are sustained by a gratuitous pardon of our sins? In short, Peter intended to set forth the effect of baptism, that no one might glory in a naked and dead sign, as hypocrites are wont to do.

But we must notice what follows, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ By these words he teaches us that we are not to cleave to the element of water, and that what is thereby typified flows from Christ alone, and is to be sought from him. Moreover, by referring to the resurrection, he has regard to the doctrine which he had taught before, that Christ was vivified by the Spirit; for the resurrection was victory over death and the completion of our salvation. We hence learn that the death of Christ is not excluded, but is included in his resurrection. We then cannot otherwise derive benefit from baptism, than by having all our thoughts fixed on the death and the resurrection of Christ.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

1Pe. 3:21 which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;

Expanded Translation

Which (that is, water) also now saves you in the antitype-baptism, which does not have to do with the removal of dirt from the flesh (i.e., the body, the outside of one), but to provide ground or reason for having a good conscience toward God (which comes when one is right on the inside), All this is possible because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ;

_______________________

which also after a true likeness doth now save you

LIKENESSantitupos, meant first of all a thing formed after some pattern (Heb. 9:24), then a thing resembling another, its counterpart; hence, something in the Messianic times which answers to the type prefiguring it in the Old Testament. It is this very word from which we have the English word, antitype.

We understand that God was responsible for their salvation, and it was through His mercy and love that He provided a means whereby they could escape the doom of the world. But the means He chose was water. Had Noah refused to accept the means God had provided, we could only call him rebellious, and he would have been lost.

Today, God has also provided a means whereby we may avail ourselves of His salvation, and where we may meet the blood of Christ. He has provided it in His mercy, kindness and love, but we must accept what He has provided. The Holy Spirit says baptism doth now save you. God saves us through the blood of Christ, BUT THE MEANS HE HAS CHOSEN IS WATER!

not the putting away of the filth of the flesh

FILTHhrupos, filth, squalor, dirt. The purpose of baptism is not to obtain an outward cleansing. We can take care of that matter in the bathtub.

but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God

INTERROGATIONeperotema. W. E. Vine states that the word is not here to be rendered answer. It was used by the Greeks in a legal sense, as a demand or appeal. The word is often rendered seeking. The meaning is easily seen when this phrase is compared with the previous. The purpose of baptism is not to cleanse the outside. Rather, it is to gain a clean inside, that is, to gain or obtain a clear conscience toward God. Any true Christian can testify to the truthfulness of this verse in his own experience. When he met the blood of Christ in the baptismal waters by faith, and arose to walk in newness of life, his conscience no longer condemned him and the purpose for which he was immersedto meet the blood of Christwas fulfilled. He was seeking and he found! Blessed is the man whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered (Psa. 32:1). If you have not obtained a clear conscience in baptism, then it has not fulfilled its purpose in your life!

through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

That is, all this is possible through the resurrection of Christ. If He had not arisen, our baptism would have been in vain and Christ would have no power to save us. See 1Co. 15:12-14. His resurrection showed His power over death. For the exact relationship between His resurrection and our baptism, see Rom. 6:1-6.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(21) The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us.There are two undoubted false readings in this sentence which must be cleared away before we can consider the meaning. First, the word whereunto is a mistake for the more difficult which; and second, it should be you, not us. We may then translate, either, Which baptism also, in antitype, doth now save you, or else, Which (water) also, in antitype, now saveth youbaptism. The first is less likely, both from the order of the words in Greek, and also because of the difficulty of calling the Flood point-blank a baptism. According to the second translation, the water through which Noah was saved is said in the present day (now, as opposed to in the days of Noe) to save us (the you is emphatic). It does so, in the same sense as we might say, for instance, that the sprinkling of the paschal blood saves us: that is to say, it foreshadowed something which does as a fact save us. This St. Peter expresses by the adjective which may be rendered in antitype. The thing it represented is Christian baptism. Where, then, lies the likeness between the two? Not merely in the identity of the element water, which serves but to arrest the fancy, and make one think of the deeper resemblance. One obvious point is that the number of persons accepting the proffered salvation at the present crisis is, as in the days of Noe, very small compared with those who reject it. The main thought, however, is not of the Christians, as a body or family (like Noes), being saved while others are lost. For each individual by himself there is a meaning in his baptism which is prefigured by the Flood; and the explanation of baptism which follows, and the opening of the next chapter, show that the Apostle was thinking chiefly of this individual application. As the passage of Israel through the Red Sea is described as a baptism (1Co. 10:2) because it marked their transition from the state of bondage to a new national life, and left their enemies destroyed in the water, so Noes safe passage through the Flood is a type of baptism, because it was a regeneration of humanity, it was a destruction of the carnal, sensual element (Gen. 6:3. he also is flesh), it washed the human race from its pollutions, and man rose to a new and more spiritual existence for the time being, with the bow for a sign of a perpetual covenant made. So baptism is a destruction and death to the flesh, but a new life to the spirit. It must be observed how carefully St. Peter expresses the permanent effect of baptism by the present tense saveth: not saved you, nor hath saved you; it is a living and ever present fact, the everlasting benediction of His heavenly washing; it washes the neophyte not from past sins only, but from those which he afterwards commits, if only he still repents and believes.

Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.The Apostle is not cautioning his readers against the thought that baptism acted ex opere operato, as a charm, but he is telling them, on the contrary, that it is no external rite. He was writing to Jews, who were very familiar with ceremonial washings, or baptisings, which, though they symbolised a cleansing from sin, really effected nothing but to make the skin less dirty.

But the answer of a good conscience toward God.An expression which has caused almost as much difficulty as any in the New Testament. The difficulty lay especially in two points: first, that the context was so involved as to give little indication what to expect; secondly, that the Greek word (epertma) which is here rendered answer is so seldom found. and might easily take such various shades of meaning. (1) Touching the word itself, we may at once reject the translation answer, for it could only mean an answer in that sense in which question and answer are identical, both of them being the thing asked, the subject matter of both being the same; but so cumbersome a sense is not in keeping here. (2) Next we may consider the attractive theory that it means a contract. The form in which a contract was made was as follows: N says to M, Dost thou promise? and M answers, I promise. Now in Byzantine Law-Greek such a contract is known as an epertma, or questionment, from the question with which proceedings began. And, as a matter of fact, the baptismal covenant has undoubtedly been entered upon from the earliest times with just such questions and answers. Tertullian speaks of this (De Corona, chap. iii.) as an ancient custom in the end of the second century. There are, however, three serious objections: first, that the contract of a good conscience is a somewhat vague and imperfect phrase, and far more difficult in Greek than in English; secondly, that there is no trace of the legal term epertma until centuries after the date of St. Peter, or of Tertullian either; thirdly, that had epertma been a recognised term for a contract in St. Peters time, we should have been certain to find this explanation in some of the Greek Fathers. (3) The usual meaning of the verb would lead us towards a less unsatisfactory conclusion. Epertn is to put a question for further informations sake. And we may remark that the order of the Greek would strongly suggest that the words toward God should be attached (in spite of the analogy of Act. 24:16) not to good conscience, but to the word epertma. Now, there is a constant use of the verb epertn in the Old Testament in connection with the name of God. In Jos. 9:14, Jdg. 1:1; Jdg. 18:5, and many other places, it means to consult God, to inquire of the Lord, to seek to Him for direction. Or, with a slightly different turn, it is used, as in Isa. 19:3; Isa. 65:1, for to inquire after God, in which sense it finds its way into the New Testament in Rom. 10:20. Thus baptism would be said to be, not the fleshs putting away of dirt (for so it might be turned, though it is somewhat forced), but a good consciences inquiry at the hands of God, or a good consciences inquiry after God. Observe that if the good conscience is the agent in this transaction, as here expressed, St. Peter would recognise (as in Luk. 8:15) the mans happy state of soul before baptism, and baptism would be the mode of his further approach to God. That this is good doctrine cannot be denied. (4) There is, however, another version for which a still better case can be made out: viz., demand. It is true that the verb epertn more frequently means to ask a question than to ask a boon, expecting a verbal response rather than a practical one; but it is once used in the New Testament in the latter sense (Mat. 16:1), and in the Old Testament also (as Psa. 137:3). And the only other instance of the word epertma in inspired literature makes for this view. This occurs in Dan. 4:17, where the English has demand, and the Latin petitio. There is, indeed, almost as much difficulty in ascertaining the exact sense there as here; but, on the whole, it seems to mean the demand for Nebuchadnezzars degradation. This was evidently the meaning assigned to our present passage by the anonymous Father in the Catena, for, wrongly joining the words through the resurrection with epertma, he says: It teacheth also how we beseech of Him; and how? by confessing the resurrection of the Lord. Taking, then, the rendering demand, a further question arises: Does St. Peter mean that baptism is the demand (made by God or the Church upon the man) for a good conscience towards God? or the demand made by a good conscience upon God, without specifying the demand? or finally, the demand upon God (made by the man) for a good conscience? Of these the second seems the weakest, because it leaves the nature of the demand so open, and because the notion of a good conscience previous to baptism is less suited to the context. The first would indeed give a vigorous sense. St. Peter would then be saying, Have a good conscience (1Pe. 3:16), for, besides all else, it is your baptismal obligation, and in defiling conscience you forfeit your baptismal salvation; but it labours under the defect of connecting toward God with conscience instead of with demand, and it is imperfect, moreover, in not demanding a good conscience toward men as well as toward God. The last seems both the clearest in itself, the best antithesis to the balancing clause, and the most in keeping with the context. It will then be: Noahs flood, in antitype, to this day saves youthat is to say, baptism, which is no cleansing of the skin from dirt, but an application to God for a clear conscience. A good conscience, in this case, will not mean an honest frame of mind, but a consciousness of having nothing against you, such as would come to even the chief of sinners from the baptismal remission of sins. Conscience is used in this retrospective sense four times in Hebrews (Heb. 9:9; Heb. 9:14, and Heb. 10:2; Heb. 10:22); and, indeed, in 1Pe. 3:16 it meant having nothing on your mind because of the past, rather than being sure that you mean well. And how well this suits the context! The Apostle, from 1Pe. 3:13 to 1Pe. 4:6, is uttering the praises of a clear conscience, and warning from everything that could defile it. With this, he says, you cannot be harmed; with this, you will be always ready to defend the faith when called to account. It was because He had this that Christ was able to atone for you and bring you to God, and to conduct His mission to the dead, and to give by His resurrection an efficacy to your baptism; and that baptism itself only saves you by the fact that in it you ask and receive the cleansing of the conscience.

By the resurrection.Rightly joined in our version with doth save. Baptism derives all its sacramental efficacy from the fact that Christ has, by the Resurrection, introduced into the world a new kind of life, which in baptism is imparted to the believer. The doctrine here approaches still nearer to that of Romans 6 than to that of 1Pe. 1:3. In the first chapter, the Resurrection of Christ was said to be the means and the moment of our regeneration, but baptism (though of course implied) was not mentioned, nor the death to sin. But here, as in Romans, these two take a prominent place. As humanity died to the flesh in the bad Antediluvians, and rose again, washed clean, in Noe, so to the believer there was in baptism a death to the flesh, and he rose again, with a conscience washed clean through the union thereby effected with the crucified and risen Christ. Note, again, that when the Apostle speaks of glories he uses the name of Jesus: when of sufferings, it is the title of Christ.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

21. The like figure whereunto Better, Which, in its antitype. The water of the flood is the type, the thing prefiguring; the water which becomes baptism is the antitype, the thing prefigured. Noah, believing and obeying, (Heb 11:7,) was saved by the type; us, believing and obeying, baptism, the antitype, is now saving. But the apostle is careful to assure us that baptism saves, not by a mere external application of water in cleansing the body, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but symbolically, representing the cleansing of the soul. “Baptismal regeneration,” therefore, can be only a symbolical regeneration.

The answer The response of the soul consecrating itself to God, and earnestly seeking toward him for salvation. The word means both inquiry and answer, and is used for the examination of candidates for baptism. The following is a very early formula: “Dost thou separate thyself from Satan?” “I separate myself.” “Dost thou devote thyself to Christ?” “I devote myself.” The answer then would be (see Bloomfield) the promise to live righteously and holily, so as to have a conscience void of offence toward God. This is the literal “regeneration.”

By the resurrection The risen Christ, with the Holy Spirit, baptizes and saves spiritually and really, and gives efficiency to baptism with water to save symbolically.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Which water after a true likeness (or ‘echo’) also now saves you, (even baptism, which is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation (or ‘answer’ or ‘consultation’) of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,’

The thought of the ark brought safely ‘through water’ brings his mind to the way in which Christians are brought safely through to God ‘through the resurrection of Jesus Christ’. Just as the water lifted up the ark in which the elect were held safe, so does the resurrection of Jesus Christ lift up ‘in Christ’ (compare 1Pe 5:10; 1Pe 5:14) all who are His. The thought of water also links the idea with baptism, although only by way of a parenthesis. He sees in baptism, which he pictures as illustrating the resurrection, an ‘echo of’, or a ‘likeness to’, the water that bore up Noah and his companions. Through the response of their consciences illustrated in baptism (the baptism of repentance), His people unite with Christ in His resurrection. They experience renewal of life (Rom 6:4; Tit 3:5). They are as it were saved through water, just as Noah had been, not by it washing them or cleansing them, but by it lifting them up to God in the ark of the risen Jesus Christ so that the response of their consciences can be examined in order to ensure their genuineness (compare 1Pe 3:16-17 where it has in mind responsive obedience). And as a result they are saved through His resurrection power as they rise with Him and are seated with Him in heavenly places (Eph 1:19 to Eph 2:6).

In the interests of sound exegesis it must be stressed firstly that this is the first mention of baptism in the letter, which strongly counts against interpreting the whole letter in that light, (as is done by some interpreters), secondly that it is merely introduced as a parenthesis brought to Peter’s mind by the thought of water, which counts against it as having been already in his mind, and thirdly that it does away with the idea that baptism is a means of washing and cleansing from sin. Rather is it to be seen as a picture of being raised out of death into new life in Jesus Christ (Rom 6:3-4). For apart from the possible exception of Act 22:16 that is what baptism always signifies in the New Testament, ‘dying and rising with Christ’ or being ‘born from above’. It should also be noted in passing that as it is connected with the presentation of a good conscience towards God, baptism at an age of accountability is in mind.

‘Interrogation of a good conscience towards God.’ The word translated ‘interrogation’ can mean ‘response’ or ‘consultation’. Some have more tentatively argued for ‘pledge’. But, however we translate it, it clearly indicates a true response to God which passes examination (contrast- Joh 2:23-25). By being baptised we are pledged to God, and it indicates our response to Him in our consciences. But it is effective through the resurrection.

Brief Note on Act 22:16 .

Even Act 22:16 does not necessarily see baptism as directly washing away sin, for in the Greek the verse is clearly divided into two sections, firstly ‘having arisen be baptised’, and secondly, as a distinct activity, ‘and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord Jesus’. It will be noted that the first half refers to what you have done to you (be baptised), the second to what you must yourself do (wash away your sins). No man ever baptised himself.

But how do you wash away your own sins? (The word is apolouow, not louow. Thus it is not the ritual washing. In LXX it only occurs in Job 9:30). Ananias probably had Isa 1:15-18 in mind, where there is the same command to ‘wash yourselves’, accompanied by the confidence that response to that command (repentance) by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ would ‘wash’ their lives and make them new. Note how in Isaiah 1 the emphasis is away from ritual (which has been put firmly in its place) to positive action. It would have debased Isaiah for Ananias to have suggested that a ritual would accomplish what he is demanding. It required a changed life.

Besides Ananias would have been well aware as a Jew that the washing (louow) with water in the Old Testament never cleansed, it only prepared the way for men to wait on God in order to be cleansed. It was the waiting on God that cleansed (you shall not be clean until the evening). In Isaiah’s terminology how a man did wash himself was by a changed life in response to God’s call. Thus his point is that by being baptised Paul will be expressing his repentance and his determination to begin a new life, and is then to put it into practise by ‘washing himself’ in a positive way, in the way that Isaiah describes, by living a new life under the Lord. This will then result in his sins becoming white as snow (Isa 1:18). But the idea that it results from a ritual act of cleansing is contrary to Isaiah’s whole thought. This is emphasised further by the fact that washing is not a concept directly connected with baptism elsewhere in the New Testament. In the New Testament washing is with the renewing word (Eph 5:26; compare 1Pe 1:23), and results in the washing of regeneration (Tit 3:5) with the latter thought probably having spiritual rain in mind (Isa 32:15; Isa 44:1-5; Isa 55:10-13). That baptism symbolised the whole process of renewal by the Holy Spirit we do not doubt. That it represented washing and cleansing we doubt very much, however useful a picture it might make. It is not used in that way anywhere else in the New Testament.

End of note.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

1Pe 3:21. The like figure whereunto, &c. And that which is the antetype, even baptism, doth also now save us (not the putting off the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience) to God, by, &c. Sir Norton Knatchbull would join the words , 1Pe 3:20 to the beginning of this verse, and would have us read thus: By water also, baptism, which is the antetype, doth also now save us. For this he alleges, that the preposition will then have its usual and proper signification: and as to the trajection of the words, he endeavours to confirm it by other like instances, both from the scriptures, and some the best Greek writers. The word , strictly speaking, signifies a type, or original model; and the word

‘, the copy which is made after that model; but here it seems to signify no more than some similitude or resemblance in the two things compared. It may be inquired, “What are the two things compared? and wherein does the resemblance lie? That is, Is the water of baptism compared to the waters of the flood? or baptism itself compared to Noah’s ark? or the being saved by baptism to the being saved in the ark?”The last appears tohave been St. Peter’s design; namely, that the salvation by the ark, in this particular, resembled our salvation by Christian baptism: for as those righteous persons, Noah and his family, were saved in the ark from perishing by the deluge; so Christian baptism, if followed by, or accompanied with, righteousness, or a good conscience, will be a means, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, of saving Christians from perishing with the wicked world.St. Peter had observed, 1Pe 3:18 that Jesus Christ being put to death in the flesh, was brought to life again by the Spirit; and he seems here to refer to what he had said there: and by speaking of the resurrectionand the glory of Christ, he means not only to represent him as the object of our confidence, but likewise to intimate, that if, through grace, we imitate him in his courageous fidelity, we may hope to partake with him in his

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

1Pe 3:21 . [ ] ] does not apply to the thought expressed in the previous verse, as Gerhard, who adopts the reading , explains: isti conservationi tanquam typo spiritualis conservationis baptismus velut respondet (in like manner Beza, Hornejus, Morus, Hottinger, Hensler, etc.), but it refers back to , and, withal, so that by it water generally is to be understood, and not that particular water through the medium of which the Noahites were saved; water saved them, and it is water by which you too are saved. The general term receives a more precise definition in the adjectival , by means of which the water which now saves is contrasted as antitype [219] with the water which saved Noah and those with him. What this antitypical water is, is stated by the subjoined , which as an apposition must be explained in the sense: “ as baptism ” (comp. Winer, p. 491 [E. T. 663]). Differently Hofmann; he would take the apposition in the sense of: “ a baptism namely ;” he says: “in the explanatory apposition the apostle substitutes the term ‘baptism’ for ‘water,’ without, by the anarthrous , directly indicating Christian baptism. What kind of baptism he means is stated by the apposition subjoined to .” On this it must be remarked that would certainly convey to the readers only the idea of a definite Christian baptism, and that the apposition following is not fitted to mark the term baptism, indefinite in itself, as the specifically Christian baptism, but only to point out in what way baptism possesses in itself the saving power attributed to it.

Without any cogent reason, Steiger interprets as equivalent to “ baptismal water .” The direct conjunction which takes place here ceases to occasion surprise, if it be considered that the typical character of the deluge, as regards baptism, consists not only in the sameness of the elements, but in the similarity of the relation of the water to those saved. If be rendered “through the water,” an incongruity will arise, disturbing to the parallelism, and which attempts have been made to overcome by supplying intermediate ideas. According to de Wette, the antitypical character of baptism consists in this: “that in it the flesh must perish and, as it were, be judged ; whilst, at the same time, through faith in the resurrection of Christ, pure spiritual life is attained, and the believer saved.” By these and such like supplements, which the apostle himself in no way suggests, elements are introduced foreign to his conception. [220]

The present is put here neither instead of the preterite nor the future; it denotes rather the effect which, from the moment of its accomplishment, baptism produces on the persons who submit to it. The latter resemble the Noahites whilst by means of water they were being preserved in the ark from destruction ( ).

The antithesis which exists between and the preceding , indicates that the proportion saved by baptism to the unbelieving is but small. has accordingly a typical significance. It is more doubtful whether the same is the case with the ark; Oecumenius already saw in it the church, whilst others regard it as a symbol of Jesus Christ. Thus Hemming: quemadmodum aqua per se non salvavit Noe, sed mediante area, ita aqua baptismi per se non salvat, sed mediante area, h. e. Christo Jesu.

, ] Apposition to , which, however, does not state the nature of baptism generally, but only in what sense it effects . This is stated first negatively, in order thereby to mark more distinctly the standpoint. Almost all commentators take as a genitive depending on , and preceding it only for the sake of emphasis. Bengel, on the other hand, joins it as genit. subj. directly with : “carni adscribitur depositio sordium; ideo non dicitur: depositio sordium carnis.” The sense would then be: baptism does not consist in this, “that the flesh lays aside its uncleanness .” This explanation, corresponding as it does to the position of the words, is well suited to the idea , which does not necessarily presuppose the activity of the subject, but can be used when the subject is, strictly speaking, passive; comp. 2Pe 1:14 , the only other passage in which the word occurs in the N. T. Hofmann is accordingly mistaken in asserting that “the laying aside of uncleanness cannot be regarded as an act of the flesh.”

An antithetical allusion to the Jewish washings can hardly be here assumed (cf. Justin M. dial. c. Tryph. p. 331: (the Jewish washing), ; ). [221]

] The positive, as contrasted with the negative character of baptism, can be either the subjective or the objective gen. [222] , a . . in the N. T. (in the O. T. only once, LXX. Dan 4:14 , as a translation of ), is used in classical Greek only in the sense of “ question .” Holding by this meaning, commentators have explained it as (1) the question concerning a good conscience addressed to God (thus Wiesinger, who, however, prefers the translation “ inquiry ” to “question”), or (2) “the question of a good conscience directed to God ” (Gerhard, Steiger, Besser). The first of these renderings is not in harmony with the nature of baptism, inasmuch as the person to be baptized already knows how the good conscience is to be obtained. From the second there results only an incomplete idea, necessitating arbitrary supplements. [223] Now, as , which doubtless means only “ to ask a question ,” is used also of such questions as would obtain something from the person asked (Mat 16:1 ; Psa 137:3 , LXX.), the meaning has been assigned to : “ the inquiring desire ,” “ the inquiring request .” Some commentators here take . . as a subj . gen., and interpret: “ the request of a good conscience addressed to God ” (thus Bengel, with whom Schmid, Bibl. Theol. des N.T . p. 199, agrees: salvat nos rogatio bonae conscientiae, i. e. rogatio, qua nos Deum compellamus cum bona conscientia, peccatis remissis et depositis [224] ); but this also gives rise to an incomplete idea, inasmuch as the contents of the request are not stated. On this rendering of it is better to regard the gen. as an object . gen., thus: “ the request addressed to God for a good conscience ; “Lutz, Lechler, Weiss, Weizscker (Reuter’s Repert . 1858, H. 3), Hofmann, Schott; Wiesinger, too, is inclined to agree. [225] But to this also objections which cannot be overlooked arise: (1) Although the reception of baptism be founded on the desire for a reconciled conscience, yet it does not follow that baptism itself can be described as the expression of this desire; (2) Taken thus, the proper meaning of is entirely lost sight of; the word is used in a sense in which it occurs nowhere else, a proceeding which is all the more open to question that the apostle had certainly other words at his command wherewith to give the idea of request; (3) The object which the recipient of baptism requests, namely, “the reconciled conscience,” is inadequately expressed by , for here no stress is laid on the essential element the forgiveness of sin; lastly, (4) In this interpretation is only of secondary importance, whilst the passages, chap. 1Pe 1:21 and 1Pe 3:18 , show that the chief emphasis lies on . [226]

Even from early times interpreters have attempted to explain in this passage, not according to common, but according to juristic usage, taking it as equal to , stipulatio mutua, contract (Luther: “covenant”), referring at the same time to the act of question and answer, which took place at baptism: ; ; abrenuntias? abrenuntio; credis? credo (Tertull. lib. de resurr. cam.: anima non lavatione, sed responsione sancitur). Aretius interprets: Deus in baptismo nobis promittit, quod velit nos filiorum loco habere propter Christum; contra nos promittimus, nos serio victuros pie; haec est mutua stipulatio; this interpretation, however, is erroneous, as even in legal phraseology does not mean a “ reciprocal ” contract. De Wette’s is likewise wrong: “by metonymy, because questions were addressed to the individual who took the vow, acquired the meaning promittere, spondere, and that of sponsio;” for is not derived from , but from , and therefore never had or could have had the signification: “ solemn pledge .” Further, it has been not unjustly remarked, in opposition to this view, according to which . . is considered as an object . gen, that it would have been better to have spoken of as that which has to be vowed. [227] Brckner has substantially corrected de Wette by pointing out that in the language of the Byzantine lawyers is used in the sense: “to conclude a treaty, a contract, stipulari,” taking . . as a subject , gen. But his exposition suffers from an uncertain wavering, for he too declares to be synonymous with “ treaty ,” indeed with “ vow ,” which is certainly not the case. The facts are these: a contract was concluded in the form of question and answer: spondesne? spondeo (comp. Puchta, Curs. der Instit. v. 3, p. 97); by the question, on the one side, the agreement was proposed; by the reply, on the other, it was concluded. is then this question by which the conclusion of a contract began, not then the contract itself, and still less the pledge which was taken rather by him who replied. The questioner bound himself by his question to accept that which he who gave the reply promised. If, then, the designation of baptism as . is to be explained from legal procedure, it can only be spoken of as such, inasmuch as the person baptized, by the reception of baptism, enters into a relation as it were of contract with God, in which he submits in faith to God’s promise of salvation. Nor can it be denied that this is really in harmony with the nature of baptism, more especially if it be considered that in the legal proceedings, connected with the conclusion of a contract, the respondent pronounced his spondeo in the expectation that the interrogator would fulfil the conditions previously stipulated, to which he had pledged himself. This explains the expression , which points to the circumstance that the recipient of baptism, in submitting to it, has the honest purpose faithfully to fulfil the conditions under which the divine assent is given. This interpretation is distinguished from those above mentioned by its concrete precision. No doubt in this juristic sense is to be found only in writings of a later date; but since this form of concluding a contract belonged to an earlier time, it may be assumed that the word had previously been in use thus in legal phraseology. [228] The adjunct: , by referring back to , brings the apostle again to his former train of thought. The words are not appended in a loose way to for the purpose of stating how this is effected, as Grotius, Pott, Hensler, Zezschwitz, Hofmann, Schott, and others assume; [229] they are rather conjoined with the verb of the clause , inasmuch as they state that through which the exercises its saving effect (de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss). The former construction is the less justifiable, that it is more natural to unite the concluding adjunct with the leading idea than with the secondary thought which specifies the nature of baptism. It is still less appropriate to connect the words directly with . (as against Fronmller).

[219] Raphelius: res aliud quid praefigurans, res ilia praefigurata. has another meaning in Heb 9:24 , where the is the .

[220] Schott, indeed, justly remarks “that the antitypical nature of baptism, and therefore the typical nature of that to which baptism corresponds as antitype, consists precisely in what is asserted of both, namely, in their saving power and effect.” He thinks, however, “that the antitypical nature of the water applies to what was essentially peculiar to the great flood.” What this is he explains by saying that “the flood was a judgment which destroyed mankind from the earth, so that from out of it only a small number, belonging to the church of believers, were saved;” that is, “it was a judgment of extirpation in such a way that it was the means of effecting a salvation.”

[221] Augustin’s opinion ( contr. Faust. c. 12 et 13), with which Beda and others agree, is quite inappropriate. It is, that the apostle here alludes to the baptism of the heretics. Calvin’s assertion, too, that this negative apposition emphasizes the fact that baptism, as an outward form, is of no use, introduces a foreign idea into the words of the apostle.

[222] This is denied, indeed, by several commentators, specially by Hofmann and Schott, because a good conscience does not precede, but is the fruit of baptism. But this assertion presupposes the identification of the good conscience with that conscience which by Christ is reconciled with God, and is released from the feeling of guilt. For this, however, the N. T. phraseology gives no warrant. According to it, rather means: “the consciousness of pure intentions,” or “the consciousness of sincerely willing that which is good”

[223] Gerhard: quomodo deus erga baptizatum affectus sit, etc.; Steiger: “for the salvation of which he who receives baptism would be assured;” Besser: Art thou not my father? am I not thy child? The interpretation given in the Erlanger Zeitschrift , 1856, p. 293 ff., is evidently altogether erroneous: “the proof of the good conscience attained in baptism is the ., i.e. the question: Am I not saved by my baptism from the judgment on an unbelieving world?” Apart from all else, the matter here treated of is not a question which is only put after baptism, since baptism itself is designated as the .

[224] To this interpretation of Bengel, Hofmann rightly objects: “that cannot well mean something which presupposes the reception of baptism;” but if the “peccatis remissis et depositis” be not looked upon as belonging to the idea of a good conscience, Hofmann’s objection loses its validity.

[225] The same view is to be found already in Seb. Schmidius, only that he regards . as meaning the petitio addressed to God by him who baptizes, and . . as the gift which he implores for the person baptized; evidently this is entirely arbitrary.

[226] Hofmann, in support of the interpretation here called in question, appeals to the circumstance, “that the petition for the cleansing of the conscience from past sins forms the only suitable antithesis to the putting away of filth contracted outwardly.” But it must be remarked in opposition, that however suitable this antithesis may appear in itself, it does not follow that the apostle had it in his mind in the way here stated. It is rather improbable that he had, since in this positive nearer definition of baptism its application to cleansing is in no way alluded to. The explanation given in Weissagung und Erfllung , II. p. 234: “the happiness of a good conscience asked of God,” he passes over in silence in his Schriftbeweis , II. 2. The interpretation given by Winer in the 5th ed. of his Gr. : “The inquiry of a good conscience after God, i.e. the turning to God, the seeking Him,” does not occur in the subsequent editions, nor is there any justification for it.

[227] Estius, Beza, Grotius, Semler, Pott, Hensler, etc., interpret similarly to de Wette,

[228] After the explanation here given, it is evidently incorrect when Hofmann says that “ could only be the question addressed by him who closes an agreement, to the person who is to consent to it.” The very opposite is the case. The question is not addressed from the former to the latter, but from the latter to the former; that is, then, not from God to the person baptized, but from the person baptized to God.

[229] 1Ki 22:7 : , has been appealed to in favour of this construction. Erroneously, since applies to a person. Between it, therefore, and no parallel can be drawn. According to Hofmann, states that which the person baptized appeals to in support of his desire for the remission of sin. The passages, however, which he quotes (1Co 1:10 and Rom 12:1 ) by no means prove that the prep. has this signification.

(Heb 13:18 : , ; cf. also 1Pe 3:16 ; Act 23:1 ; 1Ti 1:5 ; 1Ti 1:19 ; 1Ti 3:9 ). If baptism is really to bring a blessing to the person baptized, he must surely desire it with a good conscience.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

DISCOURSE: 2404
NOAHS ARK A TYPE OF CHRIST

1Pe 3:21. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us.

GOD has marked the necessity of holiness no Jess by the dispensations of his providence than by the declarations of his grace. His destroying of the whole world for their iniquity, evinced as strongly as any thing could, that sin should never go unpunished, and that the righteous only should be saved. In this view St. Peter introduces the mention of that well-attested fact, and declares, that the salvation experienced by Noah in the ark, was typical of that which we experience by Christ, and into which we are brought by our baptism. The text is by no means free from difficulties: to render it as intelligible as we can, we shall consider,

The typical salvation here referred to

God had determined to overwhelm the world with a deluge
[Though there had been so few generations upon earth, that Noahs own father (Lamech) had been contemporary with Adam for sixty years, and lived till within five years of the flood, so that Noah, and the people of that generation, had, for no less than six hundred years together, received instruction only at second hand from Adam himself, yet had all flesh corrupted their way, insomuch that God repented that he had made man, and resolved to destroy him from off the face of the earth.]
But for the preservation of the righteous he instructed Noah to make an ark
[This vessel was not constructed according to mans device, but by the special direction of God himself. To the eyes of man it doubtless seemed an absurd attempt: but the foolishness of God is wiser than man; and the event justified the hopes and expectations of Noah.]
In the mean time he called the people to repentance by the ministry of Noah
[God exercised forbearance towards them one hundred and twenty years. But they received his grace in vain. And the means used for their salvation only ripened them for destruction.]
When the appointed time was come, he ordered Noah and his family to go into the ark
[The symptoms of the flood did not yet appear; but these favourites of heaven were to condemn the world, not in word only, but in deed. By manifesting their faith, their fear, and their obedience, they were practically to condemn the worlds unbelief, security, and disobedience [Note: Heb 11:7.]. And, upon their entrance into the ark, God shut them in with his own hand, that the door might be secure against the violence of the wind and waves.]

Then the waters, that destroyed all the world besides, bore up them in perfect safety
[Every other refuge now proved vain. The unbelievers found to their cost the truth of Gods threatenings. Their numbers did not screen them from his judgments. Nor was the fewness of the elect any bar to their acceptance and salvation. They rose, while others sank in the mighty waters. Nor, if any cleaved to the ark, did that avail them. The very builders of the ark perished. They, and they only, who were in the ark, were made the monuments of saving mercy.]
This history being altogether typical, we shall consider,

II.

The correspondent salvation which we enjoy

Baptism is spoken of in the text as the antitype [Note: .], of which Noahs flood was the type. But we apprehend the Apostles meaning to be, that Noahs salvation in the ark was typical of our salvation under the Christian dispensation [Note: The relative cannot agree with , which is feminine, but must agree with , or rather perhaps with the whole sentence; this last construction renders the sense of the passage incomparably more clear; on which account it is here preferred.]. This subject will be best understood, not by drawing the parallel between the flood and baptism, or between the ark and Christ, but by exhibiting the fact of our salvation as corresponding with that of Noah.

God has determined to punish the world with an everlasting destruction
[His word bears frequent and most undeniable testimony to this solemn truth [Note: Mat 24:37-39. 2Pe 2:5; 2Pe 2:9. Psa 11:6; Psa 9:17.] ]

But he has prepared a Saviour for those who repent and turn unto him
[Human sagacity never could have devised a way of saving sinners consistently with the honour of Gods perfections. But God has sent and qualified his only-begotten Son, that, through him, all who believe might be justified from all things. And though salvation through the death of Christ be to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness, yet to them that are called to partake of it, it has invariably proved the power of God and the wisdom of God [Note: 1Co 1:23-24.].]

Ever since the method of salvation has been announced to the world, God has been inviting sinners to embrace it
[The first plank of this ark was laid, if we may so speak, when God promised to Adam a Seed, who should bruise the serpents head. From that day, it has been erecting visibly in the world, in order that, while men were warned of their danger, they might see their remedy: and now, for nearly six thousand years, has God exercised forbearance towards an impenitent and unbelieving world.]
By baptism we embark, as it were, on board this divinely-constructed vessel
[When we are baptized into the faith of Christ, we profess our persuasion that there is salvation in no other, and our desire to be found in him, not having our own righteousness, but that which is of God by faith in him [Note: Act 4:12. Php 3:9.]. Thus we come to be in him, as a branch in the vine, as a man-slayer in a city of refuge, as Noah in the ark. Not that this benefit is annexed to the mere outward form of baptism, but to that baptism which is accompanied with the answer of a good conscience towards God [Note: See the words following the text.].]

Being then in Christ, we are saved by his resurrection [Note: ver. 21.]

[It should seem, that Noahs enclosure in the ark for so long a period was a kind of sepulture; and his elevation on the waters, till he afterwards came forth from the ark, was a kind of resurrection, when he took possession of a new world. Thus, according to St. Paul, we are buried with Christ by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life: for if we have been planted in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection [Note: Rom 6:4-5.]. This appears to be intended by St. Peter in the text, and to be, on the whole, the most natural, as well as most beautiful, construction of it: as Noah entered into the ark, and was saved by its elevation above the water-floods, so we, by baptism, enter into Christ, and are, by his resurrection, saved from sin and Satan, death and hell; yea, like Noah too, we are brought safely to the possession of a new and heavenly world [Note: If the opposition between and be marked, the sense of this difficult passage will be more apparent.].]

Infer
1.

How deeply should we reverence the ordinances of God!

[What is said of baptism is true, in a measure, of every other ordinance: yet how shamefully is both that, and every other ordinance, profaned amongst us! Let us remember, that all the institutions of God are intended to help forward our salvation: but, if trifled with, they will fearfully aggravate our condemnation.]

How careful should we be to obtain the answer of a good conscience!

[In the Apostles days, as well as in ours, they, who applied for baptism, were interrogated with respect to their faith and practice; nor could the mere ablution of the body profit them, if they had not a correspondent purity of soul. Thus it is with us: we shall in vain receive the rite of baptism, or partake of the Lords supper, if we cannot declare, as in the presence of God, that it is our desire and endeavour to be holy as God is holy. Let us then not lay an undue stress upon outward observances of any kind; but rather seek a conformity to the Divine image; for it will surely be found true at the last, that the pure in heart shall see God, but that without holiness no man shall see the Lord.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

Ver. 21. Baptism doth also now save ] It is of permanent use, and effectual to seal up salvation whensoever a man believes and repents. Hence we are once baptized for all. See Eph 5:26 ; Tit 3:5 . The pope’s decree says, that confirmation is of more value than baptism, and gives the Holy Ghost more plentifully and effectually. How fitly might the gloss have set upon this decree Palea, or Hoc non credo, as they use to do, when anything in the decrees pleaseth them not!

Not the putting away ] That none bear himself bold upon his Christendom. Unregenerate Israel is to God as Ethiopia, Amo 9:7 . A man may go to hell with baptismal water on his face.

But the answer ] , the stipulation, or confident interrogation, such as is that of the apostle, Rom 8:33-35 , and of Jeremiah pleading with God, Jer 12:1 , and reasoning the case with him. David from his circumcision promised himself victory over that uncircumcised Philistine; so may we from our baptism, against all spiritual wickednesses; bring but this confident answer of a good conscience, and the devil will never be able to abide by it. Luther maketh mention of a certain holy virgin, who usually quenched the devil’s fiery darts with the water of baptism. For whensoever he tempted her to evil, she confidently answered Christiana sum, I am a Christian, I have been baptized, and therein promised to renounce the devil and all his works. a For to that custom of asking the party to be baptized, and taking his answer ( Credis? credo; abrenuncias? abrenuncio ), the apostle seemeth here to allude; or, as others are of the opinion, to the manner of John’s baptism, wherein people confessed (renounced) their sins, and asked him what they should do, Luk 3:10 .

a Intellexit hostis statim virtutem baptismi, &c., et fugit ab ea. Luther.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

21, 22 .] The persons and the things compared must be carefully borne in mind. The in Noah’s day were saved by water; we also are saved by water. The to that water on which the ark floated, saving its inmates, is the water of baptism; but as ours is a spiritual, not a material rescue, so the is not the washing of our flesh by that water, the form in which it is applied to us, as the bearing up their ark was the form in which their water was applied to them, but a far nobler thing, the clearness and purity of our inner consciousness towards God: and this saving power of the water of baptism in our case is by virtue of the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, into whose death and resurrection we are baptized. Thus by our very profession we are united to Him in sufferings as in glory. He through His innocent sufferings has glorified suffering and death, even in death working mercy, and now exalted as our Head above all principality and power. The course of thought is unusual, is startling, is mysterious; but it is not unaccountable, it is not arbitrary. From the mention of the spiritual nature of our Lord’s resurrection life, arises the mention of His blessed employ even in that state of the pure spirit to which His sufferings brought Him: from that mention comes the connexion of a great type of that day of Noah with our share, by baptismal union with Christ, in His salvation and triumphs; by which thoughts the final point is reached, His utmost exaltation through suffering, our union with and following of Him. Having said thus much on the whole connexion, we can now go into the details.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

21 .] Which (viz. : not , which does not come in till the end of the clause: nor, the whole fact announced in 1Pe 3:20 . The construction is somewhat involved by the close connexion of the thing signifying and the thing signified. The to which refers is not, as Huther, al., the water of Noah’s flood, but water, generally, the common term between the type and antitype) the antitype ( of that ) ( , adj. antitypal: the corresponding particular in both cases: the word does not contain in itself any solution of the question which of the two, the or that which is to it, is the original: in ref., from the context, the is the primitive, the the representative: here, from the context, it is vice versa: this need not however be expressed, but left to be understood) is now saving (pres., the rescue not being as yet fully accomplished. We are as yet ) you also (as well as them. Then this assertion having been made, follows the parenthetical explanation, that the method of saving in the is not material, as in the type), even baptism (not, the water of baptism: the parenthesis following is a kind of protest against such a rendering: but, water, in the form of baptism, become to us baptism. Water is the common term: water saves in both cases. It saved them, becoming to them a means of floating their ark and bearing them harmless: it saves us, becoming to us baptism: and that baptism not material, but spiritual); not putting away of the filth of the flesh ( , placed first for emphasis, see Winer, 30. 3, Remark 4. b; removing the baptism spoken of altogether out of the realm of carnal washings: q. d. “not fleshly putting away of filth.” cannot be the gen. subj. as Bengel, ‘carni adscribitur depositio sordium:” it is the gen. possessive governed by . It is possible that the Apostle may have special reference to the unavailing nature of the Jewish washings, as Justin Martyr, Tryph. 14, p. 114, ; ), but enquiry of a good conscience after God (i. e. the seeking after God in a good and pure conscience, which is the aim and end of the Christian baptismal life. This is the sense of , in the only place where it occurs in Scripture, viz. 2Ki 11:7 LXX, , , . On this view, . . is gen. subj., the enquiry which a good conscience makes. Very various have been the interpretations. c. goes wrong, in saying , : for must by the requirement of the sentence be joined to . His explanation of is , , . This is taking the juristic sense of , which prevailed in Byzantine Greek, of a stipulation or contract . And so in the main, Aretius, al., and recently De Wette and Huther understand the word of the questions asked in baptism , ; ; : and make . . a gen. object., pledge of a good conscience , i. e. to maintain a good conscience. But there does not appear to be any justification in Scripture, or in the usage of the time, of this sense of the word : and would hardly occur in this sense: we have in the similar case of , oftenest a dative following ( 2Ki 5:3 ), then ( 2Ki 3:13 ), ( 2Ki 3:12 ), (3 Kings 1Pe 5:12 ); but never . Again, many understand, the request of a good conscience: so Bengel. “Salvat ergo nos rogatio bon conscienti, i. e. rogatio qua nos Deum compellamus cum bona conscientia, peccatis remissis et depositis, cf. 1Pe 3:16 , et Heb 10:22 . Hc rogatio in baptismo datur et in omnibus fidei, precum, vitque christian actibus exercetur.” This same meaning of is taken in the main by Wiesinger, making however . a gen. object., “ prayer (or, desire) to God for a good conscience :” so also Seb. Schmidt, Hofmann, Weiss. The objection to all these is, that they do not justify the expression as applied to the saving force of baptism: as indeed neither entirely does the meaning which I have given above: but where all explanations were unsatisfactory, I thought it best to adopt one which strictly keeps to the Scripture usage of the words, being at the same time full as good as any of the others in its contextual application), by means of the resurrection of Jesus Christ (with what are these words to be joined? Grot., with others, connects them with the immediately preceding: “hc bon conscienti sponsio venit ex fide de resurrectione Christi.” So also Hofmann, Schriftb. ii. 2, p. 167, saying, “By means of the resurrection of Christ, as the removal of sin once for all for all mankind, it is, that in baptism the prayer for a good conscience is directed to God.” But as Wies. objects, it is surely allotting too insignificant a part to these words, to make them merely assign the method in which the prayer is heard. Most Commentators have joined them with , regarding the intervening sentence as parenthetical. Thus taken, the words refer back to in 1Pe 3:18 , conducting on the course of thought with regard to Christ and to ourselves: His resurrection, and entrance into His kingdom, giving us, by Him, a living part in Him, and entrance also into His kingdom by means of His appointed sacrament of Holy Baptism, spiritually received. Steiger endeavours to combine both connexions, but this evidently cannot be):

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1Pe 3:21 . Baptism is generally the antitype of the deliverance of Noah. Christians pass through water (in both senses) to salvation; in each microcosm are the sins which must be washed away and the remnant which is to be saved. Therefore the antitypical water saves us ( = > ) being , . . .; cf. Tit 3:5 . if not an interpolation explains . which corresponding to the (pre-existent) type ( cf. Heb 9:24 the earthly temple is ). The following definition by exclusion contrasts Christian baptism with Jewish and pagan lustrations and also with the Deluge which was a removal of sin-fouled flesh from the sinners of old (1Pe 4:6 ); the former affected the flesh and not the conscience (Heb 9:13 f.), the latter removed the flesh but not the spiritual defilement proceeding from past sin. and stand before their belongings for emphasis and not merely in accordance with prevalent custom. For compare Isa 4:4 (sequel of the description of the daughters of Zion which is used above 1Pe 3:3 ), Jehovah shall wash away their filth ( : LXX chivalrously prefixes of the sons and ). is explained by Oecumenius as meaning earnest, pledge as in Byzantine Greek law. Its use for the questions put to the candidate in the baptismal service (dost thou renou nee.?) is probably due to St. Peter here. In ordinary Greek (Herodotus and Thucydides) it = question . having no force, as if implying a second additional question arising out of the first). Here the noun corresponds to the verb as used in Isa 65:1 , quoted by St. Paul in Rom 10:20 , = (1) a seeking, quest after God or (2) request addressed to God (supported by cf. the formula , a petition addressed to the king’s majesty). In the latter case Peter will still be thinking as above and below of the disobedient spirits who presented a petition ( ) to God inspired by an evil conscience (see Enoch summarised above). At any rate . is probably subjective or possessive rather than objective genitive. The believer who comes to baptism has believed in Christ and repented of his past sins, renounces them and the spirits which prompted them and appeals to God for strength to carry out this renunciation in his daily life. . with ; compare 1Co 15:13-17 .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

The like figure, &c. Literally Which (i.e. water; the relative, being neuter, can only refer to the word “water”) being antitypical (Greek. antitupos, here and Heb 9:24).

baptism. App-115.

also, &c. = now save you (all the texts read “you”) also.

putting away. Greek. apothesis. Only here and 2Pe 1:14.

filth. Greek. rupos. Only here. Compare J as. 1Pe 1:21.

answer = inquiry, or seeking. Greek. eperotema. Only here. The verb erotao (App-134.) and eperotao (Act 1:6) always mean “to ask”.

conscience. See Act 23:1.

toward. App-104.

resurrection. App-178.

Jesus Christ. App-98.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

21, 22.] The persons and the things compared must be carefully borne in mind. The in Noahs day were saved by water; we also are saved by water. The to that water on which the ark floated, saving its inmates, is the water of baptism; but as ours is a spiritual, not a material rescue, so the is not the washing of our flesh by that water,-the form in which it is applied to us, as the bearing up their ark was the form in which their water was applied to them,-but a far nobler thing, the clearness and purity of our inner consciousness towards God: and this saving power of the water of baptism in our case is by virtue of the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, into whose death and resurrection we are baptized. Thus by our very profession we are united to Him in sufferings as in glory. He through His innocent sufferings has glorified suffering and death, even in death working mercy, and now exalted as our Head above all principality and power. The course of thought is unusual, is startling, is mysterious; but it is not unaccountable, it is not arbitrary. From the mention of the spiritual nature of our Lords resurrection life, arises the mention of His blessed employ even in that state of the pure spirit to which His sufferings brought Him: from that mention comes the connexion of a great type of that day of Noah with our share, by baptismal union with Christ, in His salvation and triumphs; by which thoughts the final point is reached, His utmost exaltation through suffering, our union with and following of Him. Having said thus much on the whole connexion, we can now go into the details.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

1Pe 3:21. ) The relative , which, stands in the place of , water; and has added to it as an epithet; but the substantives, baptism and asking [answer], are put in apposition to it.-, now) at this time, which is in other respects an evil time.-, saves) brings us forth from the destruction of the whole world, and of the Jewish people. There is a reference to were saved, 1Pe 3:20. Peter shows that, as in former times there were some who perished through unbelief, and others who were saved through faith, so altogether in the New Testament there are some who are saved (as in this passage), others, on the contrary, who perish: ch. 1Pe 4:4-6 : that they both experience, although in different ways, the efficacy (power) of Christ: which very thing has special force to bring forth the godly from the wicked, and to confirm them in patience.-, not of the flesh) He declares why and how far baptism has so salutary an effect. There were baptisms also among the Jews; but they were such only as purified the flesh, and to this their efficacy was limited: even now the flesh is washed in baptism, but the washing of the flesh is not that in which baptism really consists, nor does it (baptism) save, so far as it is [i.e. in respect of its being] done by the hand: comp. Eph 2:11 : but so far as it is the asking [answer] of a good conscience. The word , of the flesh, is emphatically put first, and the putting away of impurity is ascribed to the flesh [i.e. the fleshs putting away of impurity] (accordingly it is not said, the putting away of the filth of the flesh [as Engl. Vers.]); and the conscience is opposed to the flesh.- ,[33] the asking of a good conscience) Dan 4:14, (parallel to which is , a judicial decree, Heb. ), in the Septuagint, , in this one passage. But and are oftened rendered by the same by the word . The Greek Scholia have this: , , , , , an earnest, a pledge, a proof. There is no doubt but that the apostle had reference to the Hebrew . It is the part of the godly to ask, to consult, to address God with confidence; but it is the part of the ungodly not to ask Him, or to ask idols: Jdg 20:18; Jdg 20:23; Jdg 20:27; 1Sa 10:22; 1Sa 23:2; 1Sa 23:4; Isa 30:2; Hos 4:12; in all which places the Septuagint has . Therefore it is the asking of a good conscience which saves us; that is, the asking, in which we address God with a good conscience, our sins being forgiven and laid aside. Comp. 1Pe 3:16; Heb 10:22. This asking is given in baptism; and it is exercised in all acts of faith, of prayers, and of Christian life; and God always regards it as worthy of an answer. Comp. Deu 26:17-18, , , thou hast chosen God: , , and the Lord hath chosen thee: Isa 19:21.- , by the resurrection) Constructed with saves. Comp. ch. 1Pe 1:3; 1Pe 1:21.

[33] . The word seems to denote the promises made in baptism. St Luk 2:46, uses the word for questioning, where he speaks of the child Jesus as being found in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions. The word appears to comprehend, as referred to baptism, the mutual questions and answers which make up the process of teaching on one side, and the stipulation on the other.-T. See Quarterly Review, vol. 71, p. 332.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

like: Rom 5:14, 1Co 4:6, Heb 9:24,*Gr: Heb 11:19

baptism: Mat 28:19, Mar 16:16, Act 2:38, Act 22:16, Rom 6:3-6, 1Co 12:13, Gal 3:27, Eph 5:26, Col 2:12, Tit 3:5-7

the putting: Eze 36:25, Eze 36:26, Zec 13:1, 2Co 7:1

the answer: Act 8:37, Rom 10:9, Rom 10:10, 2Co 1:12, 1Ti 6:12

by: 1Pe 1:3

Reciprocal: Exo 29:4 – wash them Lev 11:25 – and be unclean Lev 14:8 – wash himself Num 8:7 – wash their Num 31:23 – ye shall make Deu 23:11 – wash himself 1Sa 4:3 – it may save 2Ki 5:13 – Wash Psa 113:7 – out of Mat 3:6 – were Mat 7:14 – and few Mat 24:37 – General Joh 3:5 – born Joh 3:25 – about Joh 6:63 – the flesh Joh 13:9 – not Joh 19:34 – came Act 8:12 – they believed Act 24:16 – General Rom 2:28 – neither Rom 6:4 – we are 1Co 6:11 – but ye are washed 1Co 10:6 – examples Eph 4:5 – one baptism 1Ti 1:5 – a good Heb 6:2 – the doctrine Heb 9:9 – a figure Heb 10:22 – our bodies Heb 13:18 – we have Jam 4:8 – Cleanse 1Pe 3:16 – a good 2Pe 1:9 – that he 1Jo 5:6 – by water and 1Jo 5:8 – the blood

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Like figure. The only comparison the apostle makes is between the water of the flood and that of baptism. No writer in the New Testament ever refers to the ark as a type of the church. The fact that Peter does specify the one item and call it a figure, but makes no mention of any other comparison shows it was not because he was so far away from the subject. There are too many items that are against the theory. The people are said to have been saved by water, yet that element came after the people entered the ark, while baptism is necessary before people can enter the church. Again, there were unclean beasts taken into the ark, while only those who are saved or clean are added to the church (Acts 2:47). Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh. This statement indicates that baptism is a washing of the whole body. No one would have formed the erroneous idea that baptism was intended as a cleaning bath for the body had the rite been performed by sprinkling, for all would know that such an act would not cleanse anything. The explanation is suggested by the practice in Old Testament times of washing the bodies of animal sacrifices in water. Answer is from EPEROTEMA and Thayer defines it at this place as folio s: “A demand; earnest seeking, i.e. a craving, an intense desire, to long for something.” That which is desired is a good conscience toward God. When a sinner is taught that he must be baptized for the remission of sin, and he has the desire to do right, he will not have a good conscience until he obeys this command. The above explanation is inserted to avoid an erroneous idea about baptism, after which the writer resumes the subject of salvation by baptism. The information is added that the salvation is accomplished by the resurrestion of Jesus Christ. Had He not come from the dead it would not have availed anything for a man to be baptized.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

1Pe 3:21. which also in the antitype now saves you, namely baptism. The rendering of the A. V., the like figure whereunto, follows a reading which is now given up. The best authorities also substitute you for us. Some interpreters regard both the Ark and the few as having a typical force here. Consequently they seek for an antitype to the Ark in the Christ into whose name we are baptized, and without whom baptism can as little save us as the water of the Flood could save without the Ark. They also find an antitype for the few in the you, as if the idea were that the proportion of those saved by baptism to the unbelieving is but small (so even Huther). But the only things which Peter sets distinctly in the relation of type and antitype are water as preserving life in Noahs generation, and water as saving souls in Peters own generation. The comparison, therefore, is not between the Flood and Baptism, but simply between water in one service and water in another. What antitypical water is intended, is at once made clear by the appended definition, baptism. Thus, as further explained, the comparison comes to be not between the saving efficacy of the water in which the Ark floated and the saving efficacy of Baptismal water in the Church of Christ, but between the saving efficacy of water in the former instance and the saving efficacy of Baptism itself now. The latter, like the former, has in a certain sense an instrumental relation to a saved state.

not the putting away of the filth of the flesh. This is thrown in to guard against any mistake which the comparison might provoke as to the kind of relation intended. The saving efficacy is not of a material kind like that exerted by water in the case of the Ark and its eight. For the baptism meant is something different from any merely physical cleansing, or any of those ceremonial washings with which both Jew and Gentile were sufficiently familiar. These two terms putting off and filth are peculiar to Peter. The former occurs again in 2Pe 1:14. What is meant is generally understood to be the putting off of the filth which belongs to the flesh. The peculiar order of the words in the original, however, gives not a little plausibility to another rendering which is adopted by Bengel, Huther, etc.,the fleshs putting off of uncleanness, i.e the laying aside of its own uncleanness by the flesh itself.

but the inquiry of a good conscience toward God. This sentence has greatly perplexed the commentators. The difficulty lies mainly in the use of the word rendered answer by the Ai V. This term occurs nowhere else in the N. T. The A. V. stands alone among the old English Versions in translating it answer. Wycliffe gives the asking of a good conscience in God; Tyndale and Cranmer have in that a good conscience consenteth to God; the Genevan has in that a good conscience maketh request to God; the Rhemish renders it the examination of a good conscience toward God. The only meanings of the word which can be verified are these two, viz. (1) an interrogation or question, which is the classical sense (e.g. Herod. vi. 67; Thucyd. iii. 53, 68), and (2) a petition, demand, or the thing asked by petition, in which sense it occurs once in one of the old Greek Versions of Daniel (1Pe 4:14, i.e 1Pe 4:17 of the English Bible). The question, therefore, isWhat results from this for the sentence as a whole? Among other renderings which have been proposed are these: (l) the request (i.e for salvation or grace) addressed to God by a good conscience; (2) the questioning, or examination, to which a good conscience is subjected before God; (3) the request made to God for a good con-science; (4) the inquiry made by a good conscience after God, or, the act of a good conscience in seeking after God; (5) the promise, or pledge, to keep a rood conscience toward God; (6) the contract, or relation, entered into with God by a good conscience. The last two interpretations find favour with many of the best exegetes (Grotius, de Wette, Huther, Plumptre, etc.), and are supported more or less by some of the old versions. The Syriac, e.g., takes the sense to be = when ye confess God with a pure conscience. The form mentioned last of all has the undoubted advantage of giving a clear and pertinent idea, viz., that the person baptized, by the reception of baptism, enters into a relationas it were of contractwith God, in which he submits in faith to Gods promise of salvation (so Huther, who now prefers this view). It does not make the phrase a good conscience a synonym here for a reconciled conscience, but retains for it the simpler sense which is more in harmony with similar expressions in Heb 13:18; Act 23:1; 1Ti 1:5; 1Ti 1:19; 1Ti 3:9; 1Pe 3:16, viz., that this is done with a pure intention. It also founds upon the primitive practice of addressing certain questions to the applicant for baptism and obtaining certain replies from him, such, e.g., as these: Dost thou renounce Satan?I do renounce him. Dost thou believe in Christ?I do believe in Him. So Neander (Ch. Hist., vol. i. pp. 424, 427, Bohn) regards this as the clearest trace within the New Testament itself of a confession of faith which had to be made from the first at baptism, and thinks that the passage according to the most natural interpretation refers to the question proposed at baptism, the word question being used here by metonymy for the pledge or answer to the question. This interpretation, however, is open to an objection that is almost fatal, namely, that the use of the word which is rendered answer in our A.V. in this sense of stipulation, contract, or covenant, is entirely foreign to the Bible, and indeed to early Ecclesiastical Greek, and belongs to the juristic terminology of a later period. More or less difficulty attaches to the other views. Thus (4), which is adopted by Alford, etc., and (3), which is preferred by Weiss, Hofmann, etc., are both sustained by the analogous use of the cognate verb in 2Ki 11:7, where it is said that David inquired after the peace of Joab. They also yield good meanings. But they both do so at the cost of departing somewhat from the known sense of the noun, while the former further identifies the phrase good conscience with the more definite, theological idea of a reconciled conscience. Perhaps the meaning is simply this: the interrogation which is addressed to God by a good conscience. This resembles the interpretation numbered (1), which is that of Bengel, Steiger, etc. It adheres, however, to the strict sense of the noun, where that is modified by Bengel. It also gives effect to the peculiar order of the original, instituting a comparison between the flesh with the putting off of uncleanness which is ascribed to it, and the conscience with the interrogation which it is said to direct to God. Further, it retains for the phrase good conscience here the general sense which it has in the 16th verse of the same chapter. Hence what Peter intends seems to be to explain that, when he speaks of baptism as having a saving efficacy, he does not mean a mere ceremonial washing, but one which carries a moral value with it, a baptism which means that in all pureness of conscience and sincerity of desire the souls interrogation about salvation itself is submitted to God, and Gods response closed with.

through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is connected by some (Fronmller, etc.) with the good conscience, as if the resurrection of Christ were the basis of the good conscience. By others it is attached to the question, or to its clause as a whole, as if it were only on the ground of the resurrection of Christ that the souls question can be addressed to God. Most, however, unite it with the doth now save you, regarding all that comes between as a parenthesis. In this case the sentence conveys an explanation of the saving efficacy which is ascribed to baptism, as the parenthesis gave an explanation of what the baptism itself was which Peter had in view. The relation in which baptism stands to salvation is, therefore, a relation which it has only in virtue of, or on the ground of (cf. by the mercies of God in Rom 12:1), the resurrection of Jesus Christ. What has already been described as the ground or means of our regeneration (chap. 1Pe 1:3), is now re-introduced as the ground of the spiritual value which belongs to the rite which is a sign and seal of that regeneration. Peter speaks of baptism here, only with more qualification in his terms, much in the same way as Paul does when he terms it the washing (or, laver) of regeneration (Tit 3:5), or when he describes those who have been baptized into Christ as having actually put on Christ (Gal 3:27). As Paul, in speaking of the Church, presupposes that the outward Church is the visible community of the redeemed; so he speaks of baptism on the supposition that it corresponded to its idea, that all that was inward, whatever belonged to the holy rite and its complete observance, accompanied the outward; hence he could assert of outward baptism whatever was involved in a believing appropriation of the Divine facts which it symbolized; whatever was realized when baptism corresponded to its original design (Neander,. Planting of Christianity, vol i. pp. 495, 496, Bohn).

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Observe here, 1. The type and the anti-type, the ark and baptism; their salvation from the deluge, by the ark, prefigureth our salvation from God’s wrath by baptism. As all that were without the ark perished, and all within the ark were saved; so all that are ingrafted into Christ by faith, whereof baptism is a seal, are saved, whilst the unbelieving and unbaptized part of the world perish. Baptism is such a mean of spiritual salvation now, as the ark was of Noah’s and his family’s temporal salvation then: the like figure whereunto, baptism now saveth us.

Observe, 2. How our apostle expresses himself, and plainly declares what he means by that baptism which is saving; negatively, it is not the outward ceremony of sprinkling the face, or washing the body with water, that is saving, or any ways pleasing unto God, save only as it is an act and exercise of our obedience to his command and will; but positively, it is the answer of a good conscience towards God, that is, the faithful answer of a resolved soul in the covenant of baptism, who gives up himself to the obedience of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and renounces the world, the flesh, and the devil; this covenanting is the condition of salvation, and baptism but the sign.

Learn hence, The outward baptism alone saves none, but the inward only; and the sign and singular effect of inward baptism, is the answer of a good conscience towards God, Yet we must not conclude, with the Anabaptists, from this text that baptism can be of no saving advantage to infants, because, they cannot at present make this answer of a good conscience: for in the same manner speaks St. Paul of circumcision, that the true circumcision before God is the inward circumcision of the heart and spirit, and not the outward circumcision of the flesh.

But who dare argue from thence, that the Jewiah infants, for want of the inward circumcision, must not be admitted to the outward?

The argument is the very same: will you say that the answer of a good conscience is absolutely necessary, and expressly required, that baptism may be beneficial; therefore they only are to be baptized that can make this answer? The same may we say, that the inward circumcision of the heart was required as the only acceptable circumcision in the sight of God: therefore they only are to be circumcised, who have this inward circumcision of the heart. But as the one was the will of God, so is the other.

True indeed, The Jews did not admit proselytes to circumcision then, no more will we admit adult persons to baptism now, without the answer of a good conscience, or a solemn stipulation to be the Lord’s for ever: but they admitted infants to circumcision without it; in like manner, the Christian church now admits the children of Christian parents to baptism, without any such answer made by them, but for them only.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Baptism, the Antitype

Through the water, Noah and his family were taken from a world full of wickedness to a newly cleansed world. They were saved from the destruction brought on by man’s sin. They were separated from wicked men. Baptism in water is a figure, or “antitype,” of that. Thayer says of the word translated “antitype”, “a thing resembling another, its counterpart; something in the Messianic times which answers to the type…prefiguring it in the Old Testament.”

How appropriate then that baptism should take one from his own sinful state to a new life ( 1Pe 3:21 ; Rom 6:3-4 ; Act 22:16 ). He is thus saved from the destruction his own sin has earned ( Rom 6:23 ; Act 2:38 ). He is also separated for God’s service in that watery surrender to God’s will ( Rom 6:16-18 ).

Since Noah and his family were saved through water, with it being the instrument of God’s saving power, it is important to recognize that the water of baptism is the instrument of God’s saving power in the Christian age, too. Baptism is not a bath to take away filth from the body.

Having given the definitions of “an inquiry” and “a demand” for the word “answer”, Thayer says, “As the terms of inquiry and demand often include the idea of desire, the word thus gets the signification of earnest seeking, i.e. a craving, an intense desire.” Thus baptism is our calling out to God with an intense desire for a good conscience. This is accomplished “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” which would stand for all involved in his sacrificial death, burial and resurrection. In baptism, man dies to sin, is buried and raised to walk in a new life ( Col 2:12 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

1Pe 3:21-22. The like figure whereunto , the antitype whereof, that is, the thing which corresponds, not with the water, but with the ark; even baptism doth now save us Or is the instrument of our safety and preservation, from the guilt, power, and consequences of sin, which overwhelms the world as a flood. Not the putting away the filth of the flesh As if he had said, By baptism I do not mean merely or chiefly the sprinkling or washing the body with water from its filthiness, which is only the outward or visible sign of baptism, but the inward renewing grace of God, producing the answer of a good conscience, or a divine consciousness that both our persons and our actions are accepted; by the resurrection of Christ That is, the baptism which consists in the answer of a good conscience toward God, and which is the antitype or thing which was signified by Noahs preservation in the ark, now saves us as effectually as the ark preserved Noah from destruction by the flood. It is well known the Jews laid a great stress upon their lustrations or washings. The apostle, therefore, very properly cautions his readers against such foolish dependancies. A readiness to perform their whole duty, and even to suffer persecution for the sake of truth, was absolutely necessary in the first Christians, in order to their maintaining that good conscience, to which, in their baptism, they professed a great regard, and to the exercise of which they solemnly engaged themselves. The word , here rendered answer, signifies rather interrogation, and is said by Archbishop Leighton to be a judicial word, and to signify interrogations used in the law for a trial, or executing a process, and has been thought by some commentators to refer to certain interrogations, said by Cyprian and other ancient writers to be put to persons who offered themselves to baptism, concerning their faith in Christ, and their renunciation of Satan with all his works, and the vanities of the world. But it does not appear, Macknight thinks, that these questions and answers were used in the apostles days; and if they were not, the apostle could not refer to them. Allowing, however, he says, that the word question is here put for the word answer, this answer of a good conscience, being made to God, is an inward answer, and means the baptized persons sincere persuasion of the things which, by submitting to baptism, he professed to believe; namely, that Jesus, in whose name baptism is administered, arose from the dead, and that at the last day he will raise all from the dead to eternal life, who sincerely obey him. This signification of baptism the Apostle Paul hath taught, Rom 6:4-5; and therefore he calls it, our begun confidence, Heb 3:14; and exhorts the Hebrews to hold it steadfast to the end. Who is gone into heaven As our forerunner; and is on the right hand of God Having all power in heaven and on earth; angels, authorities, and powers That is, all orders, both of angels and men; being made subject to him Insubserviency of his great design, of saving all his true followers. The apostle, in speaking here of the resurrection and glory of Christ, means not only to represent him as the object of our confidence, but to intimate, that if we imitate him in his courageous fidelity, we may hope to partake with him in his glory.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

ARGUMENT 17

THE ANTITYPE BAPTISM SAVES

21. Which antitype baptism even now saves us, not putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This passage has suffered terribly in the hands of Satans preachers, Papistical and Protestant, who have done their utmost to drag it into conservatism to the soul-destroying heresy of baptismal regeneration, whereas it positively certifies the very opposite. Throughout the Bible water symbolizes the Holy Ghost, while the water of the deluge destroyed the wicked antediluvians, it carried up the ark from the doom of the dying world, thus saving Noah and his family. The Greek erroneously translated like figure, is antitype, and should be transferred as in the Revised Version. As water is a type of the Holy Spirit, it follows as an irresistible sequence that the Spirit Himself is the Antitype. Hence the plain teaching of this passage is that the baptism of the Holy Ghost under the Gospel dispensation saves us. Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, i.e., not water baptism, as it is a plain allusion to the removal of ceremonial defilement under the Levitical law, by sprinkling the water of purification (Heb 9:10), which was water baptism. But the answer of a good. conscience. While Peter certifies that this antitype baptism is not water baptism, he simultaneously tells us it is the answer of a good conscience, i.e., when God baptizes us with the Holy Ghost, He thereby gives His answer to our conscience, assuring us that it is good.

22. Christ having perfected the plan of salvation, ascending up to heaven, is lovingly received by the Father and crowned Mediatorial King, amid the ovations of the celestial universe.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 21

The like figure whereunto; that is, the antitype whereunto. The meaning is, that believers are now saved through baptism, in a manner somewhat analogous to that in which Noah and his family were saved in the ark. Of course, baptism is, in this case, regarded as the indication and pledge of the inward spiritual change, in which alone all its meaning and efficacy consists.–Filth of the flesh; uncleanness of the flesh; that is, ceremonial uncleanness, like that provided against in the Mosaic law. The meaning is, that baptism has no ceremonial efficacy. Its power and value depend upon there being a good conscience toward God within, corresponding to the outward symbol.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

3:21 {23} The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward {p} God,) {24} by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

(23) A proportional applying of the former example to the time which followed the coming of Christ: for the preservation of Noah in the waters, was a figure of our baptism, not as though the material water of baptism shows us, as those waters which bare up the ark saved Noah, but because Christ with his inward virtue, which the outward baptism shadows, preserves us being washed, so that we may call upon God with a good conscience.

(p) The conscience being sanctified, may freely call upon God.

(24) That same virtue, by which Christ rose again, and now being carried up into heaven has received all power, does at this day defend and preserve us.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Salvation comes, not by baptism, but by faith in Jesus Christ whose resurrection and ascension testify to God’s acceptance of and satisfaction with His sacrifice (1Jn 2:2). 1Co 1:17 clarifies that baptism is not required for justification, and Act 10:47 shows that baptism is a step of obedience for Christians. God has subjected all things, even the powers behind our persecutors, to Jesus Christ because of His death and resurrection (cf. 1Pe 3:18). The fact that Jesus Christ now rules over the church does not mean that He is ruling on the throne of David over the kingdom of David. [Note: See Cleon L. Rogers Jr., "The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation," Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):81-82.] "Through the resurrection" continues the thought that Peter began in 1Pe 3:18 from which he digressed in 1Pe 3:19-21 b.

Jesus Christ’s ultimate victory in spite of temporary persecution should be an encouragement to any suffering disciple of the Savior. 1Pe 3:18 describes the saving work of Jesus Christ. 1Pe 3:19-20 refer to His ministry of proclaiming good news to those destined for judgment, which ministry we in our day must continue faithfully, as Noah did in his. 1Pe 3:21 stresses the importance of confessing Christ publicly in baptism by reminding us of what baptism does and what it does not do. 1Pe 3:22 reminds us of our ultimate vindication and destiny.

There is a difference between this reference to Jesus’ sufferings and the one in 1Pe 2:21-24. In the former case Peter used Jesus as an example of how to respond to suffering. In this case he showed that as a result of Jesus’ sufferings we can be sure of ultimate triumph, and this gives us confidence as we suffer.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The antecedent of "that" seems to be "water" (1Pe 3:20). Baptism saves Christians now as the water that floated Noah’s ark saved him and drowned his unbelieving antagonists. It does not save us by cleansing us from defilement, either physically or spiritually, but by announcing publicly that the person baptized has placed his or her faith in Jesus Christ. Baptism now delivers (saves) us from the consequences of siding with the world (cf. Jas 1:21; Jas 2:24; 2Co 6:17-18; Col 3:8-9; Heb 10:22). Baptism is the evidence that a person has made a break with his or her past life and is taking a stand with the Savior. It is a pledge (translated "appeal" in the NASB) springing from a good conscience (i.e., a conscience that is now right with God; cf. 1Pe 3:16). [Note: Hiebert, "The Suffering . . .," pp. 154-56.]

". . . they have already experienced salvation in the same way Noah did, namely by passing through water to safety, the water of baptism (cf. the similar analogy in 1Co 10:1-2)." [Note: Davids, p. 143.]

"Corresponding to" (1Pe 3:21) is a translation of the Greek word antitypon ("antitype"). This is one of the places in the New Testament where the writer identified something as a type (cf. also Rom 5:14; 1Co 10:6; 1Co 10:11; Heb 9:24). The flood in Noah’s day is a type (i.e., a divinely intended foreshadowing) of baptism.

Peter’s point in his comments about baptism was this. In water baptism his readers had made a public profession of faith in Christ in their community. This had led to persecution. However by that act of baptism they had also testified to their ultimate victory over their persecutors. Because they had taken a stand for Jesus Christ they could be sure that He would stand with them (cf. 2Ti 2:12).

Many people who hold to infant baptism appeal to this verse in support of their belief. Most Lutherans, for example, believe that infant baptism guarantees the salvation of the child until he or she becomes old enough to make the faith of his parents, expressed in having their baby baptized, his own (cf. Mat 28:19; Mar 16:16). In infant baptism the Lord bestows on the child "a good conscience toward God," which is the evidence of salvation. [Note: See Lenski, pp. 172-73.] At about 12 years of age, Lutheran children go through instruction to "confirm" them in the faith. Lutherans believe that infant baptism guarantees the salvation of children if they die before making their parents’ faith their own. They see a parallel with circumcision in the Old Testament. Roman Catholics and many Presbyterians also baptize infants for the same purpose.

The problem with this interpretation, from my viewpoint, is that Scripture nowhere else makes baptism a condition for salvation. In fact, it consistently warns against adding anything to faith for salvation. Circumcision did not save children under the Old Covenant any more than baptism does under the New Covenant. Circumcision expressed the faith of the parents. Abraham received the sign of circumcision to demonstrate his faith on the male members of his household (Genesis 17).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles