3:21
The typological thrust of the text is now specifically stated, expressed in the
NIV by the verb “symbolizes,” though in the Greek the word is a noun that could
be translated as “type” or “pattern” (antitypon;
cf. Heb 9:24). The water that deluged the world in Noah’s day and through which
Noah was saved functions as a model or pattern for Christian believers. But to
what is the water related in the new covenant? The answer is baptism. In fact,
we have the surprising statement that “baptism … now saves you.” Before
examining that statement, we must consider in what way the flood waters
prefigure or correspond to baptism. The waters of the flood deluged the ancient
world and were the agent of death. Similarly, baptism, which was by immersion
during the time of the New Testament, occurs when one is plunged under the
water. Anyone who is submerged under water dies. Submersion under the water
represents death, as Paul suggested in Rom 6:3–5. Jesus described his upcoming
death in terms of baptism (Mark 10:38–39; Luke 12:50), indicating that
submersion under the water aptly portrays death. Just as the chaotic waters of
the flood were the agent of destruction, so too the waters of baptism are
waters of destruction. In New Testament theology, however (cf. Matt 3:16; Mark
10:38–39; Rom 6:3–5), believers survive the death-dealing baptismal waters
because they are baptized with Christ. They are rescued from death through his
resurrection (Rom 6:3–5; Col 2:12). Hence, we are not surprised to read in this
verse that baptism saves “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The waters of
baptism, like the waters of the flood, demonstrate that destruction is at hand,
but believers are rescued from these waters in that they are baptized with
Christ, who has also emerged from the waters of death through his resurrection.
Just as Noah was delivered through the stormy waters of the flood, believers
have been saved through the stormy waters of baptism by virtue of Christ’s
triumph over death. The word “now” refers to the present eschatological age of
fulfillment. With the coming of Jesus Christ the age of salvation has arrived.
It is clear from what has already been said, therefore,
that Peter did not succumb to a mechanical view of baptism, as if the rite
itself contains an inherent saving power. Such a sacramental view was far from
his mind. The saving power of baptism is rooted in the resurrection of Jesus
Christ. Peter also added another comment, however, to ward off any
misunderstanding. He described what occurs in baptism. Baptism is not “the
removal of dirt from the body.” The NASB follows the Greek more closely here,
“not the removal of dirt from the flesh,” so that we see that the term actually
used is “flesh” (sarx) rather than
“body” (sōma). The distinction is
important, for some commentators conclude from the use of the word “flesh” that
Peter spoke in a moral rather than a physical sense. According to this view,
baptism does not involve the removal of moral filth or impurity (cf. Jas 1:21).
This interpretation should be rejected. Elsewhere baptism is connected with the
cleansing and removal of sin (cf. Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 2:38; Eph 5:26;
Titus 3:5). It would be strange indeed if baptism did not represent cleansing
from moral impurity. Others understand the verse even more symbolically,
thinking that the removal of the filth of the flesh refers to circumcision
since uncircumcision can signify uncleanness (cf. Lev 19:23; Jer 4:4; 1 Sam
17:26, 36; Jer 9:26). Baptism, on these terms, is not equivalent to physical
circumcision and should not be understood merely as a physical and external
act. This view at least has the merit of being a more sensible understanding of
Peter’s theology, for any sense that the physical act of baptism saves is removed.
But the attempt to connect the expression with circumcision should be assessed
as a failure. The language used is too remote to detect an allusion to
circumcision. It is difficult to believe that Gentiles in Asia Minor would have
seen any reference to circumcision, nor did Peter evince any interest elsewhere
in Jewish rituals. The simplest interpretation is to be preferred. Any notion
that baptism is inherently saving is ruled out, for the point is not that the
water itself magically cleanses. Water removes dirt from the skin, but baptism
does not save simply because someone has been submerged under the water. The
statement about the removal of dirt is made so that believers will not
understand baptism mechanically or superficially. They must attend to what is
really happening in baptism.
The meaning of baptism, then, is explained in the
contrasting clause. It is not removing dirt from the flesh but “the pledge of a
good conscience.” The NIV translation represents one interpretation of a very
contested phrase. The word translated “pledge” (eperōtēma) occurs only here in the New Testament and only once in
the Septuagint (Dan 4:17). In the latter case it means something like “decree,”
which does not make sense in our passage. The meaning of the noun, however, can
be derived from the verb (eperōtaō),
which often has the meaning of “ask” or “request” in the New Testament,
occurring fifty-six times in the New Testament (e.g., Matt 12:10; 16:1; 17:10;
22:23, 35, 41, 46; 27:11; Mark 7:5; 9:21; Luke 2:46; 3:10; John 18:7; 1 Cor
14:35). If the meaning is derived from the verb, the translation “ask,”
“request,” or “appeal” would fit. We see this interpretation in the NRSV, “an
appeal to God for a good conscience” (cf. also RSV). The interpretation
reflected in the NIV can be supported by the usage of the word in the papyri.
In these instances the term can be used of stipulations found in contracts. One
pledges or promises to abide by the terms of the contract and the stipulations
found therein. Similarly, one can understand the text to refer to the promise
or pledge made at baptism. If one adopts this view, the genitive word
“conscience” could be understood as subjective or objective. If subjective, the
phrase says that the promise or pledge to abide by baptismal vows flows from a
good conscience. Most scholars who adopt this view, however, understand the
word “conscience” to be an objective genitive. If this is the case, the person
being baptized promises to maintain a good conscience at baptism. The one
baptized pledges to live for the glory of God. This interpretation is certainly
possible and does not necessarily contradict Petrine theology. I think it is
more likely, however, that the meaning of the noun is derived from the verb. I
reach this decision on contextual grounds. In other words, both interpretations
of the word eperōtēma are possible
lexically. In context, however, it seems more likely that baptism is associated
with an appeal or request to God for a good conscience. Once again the word
“conscience” could be understood as a subjective genitive—an appeal to God
arising from a good conscience. We can rule out the subjective genitive
immediately, though, for then we cannot specify what the believer is praying
for since he already has a good conscience. But if the genitive is objective,
as I think it is, believers at baptism ask God—on the basis of the death and
resurrection of Christ—to cleanse their consciences and forgive their sins. The
idea, then, is quite similar to Heb 10:22, where believers can draw near to God
confidently because their “hearts” have been “sprinkled to cleanse us from a
guilty conscience” (cf. Heb 10:22). In Hebrews there is no doubt that a
cleansed conscience is due to the cross of Christ. The interpretation adopted
here fits with the context of 1 Pet 3:18–22, where Peter emphasized Christ’s
death as the means by which believers are brought into God’s presence. Christ
died for believers, the righteous for the unrighteous, and hence believers
enter into God’s presence on the basis of God’s grace alone. So too Peter did
not focus on promises believers make when baptized but the saving work of
Christ and his resurrection. Believers at baptism can be confident on the basis
of the work of the crucified and risen Lord that their appeal to have a good
conscience will be answered. (Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (The
New American Commentary 37; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003],
193-97)
