Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Peter 3:21 - 3:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Pe_3:21. ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς [ ἡμᾶς ] ἀντίτυπον νῦν σώζει βάπτισμα ] ὅ does not apply to the thought expressed in the previous verse, as Gerhard, who adopts the reading ᾧ , explains: isti conservationi tanquam typo spiritualis conservationis baptismus velut ἀντίτυπον respondet (in like manner Beza, Hornejus, Morus, Hottinger, Hensler, etc.), but it refers back to ὕδατος , 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 ἀντίτυπον , 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 βάπτισμα , 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 βάπτισμα , directly indicating Christian baptism. What kind of baptism he means is stated by the apposition subjoined to βάπτισμα .” On this it must be remarked that βάπτισμα 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 βάπτισμα 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 διʼ ὕδατος 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 σώζει 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 ( ἀπώλεια ).
The antithesis which exists between ὑμᾶς and the preceding ὀλίγοι , indicates that the proportion saved by baptism to the unbelieving is but small. ὀλίγοι 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.
οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου , ἀλλά ] Apposition to βάπτισμα , which, however, does not state the nature of baptism generally, but only in what sense it effects σώζειν . This is stated first negatively, in order thereby to mark more distinctly the standpoint. Almost all commentators take σαρκός as a genitive depending on ῥύπου , and preceding it only for the sake of emphasis. Bengel, on the other hand, joins it—as genit. subj.—directly with ἀπόθεσις : “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 ἀπόθεσις , 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: τί γὰρ ὄφελος ἐκείνου τοῦ βαπτίσματος (the Jewish washing), ὃ τὴν σάρκα καὶ μόνον τὸ σῶμα φαιδρύνει ; βαπτίσθητε τὴν ψυχήν ).[221]
ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς Θεόν ] The positive, as contrasted with the negative character of baptism, συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς can be either the subjective or the objective gen.[222] ἐπερώτημα , a ἅπ . λεγ . in the N. T. (in the O. T. only once, LXX. Dan_4:14, as a translation of ùÑÀàÅìÀúÌÈà ), 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 ἐπερωτᾷν , 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 ἐπερώτημα : “the inquiring desire,” “the inquiring request.” Some commentators here take συν . ἀγ . 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 ἘΠΕΡΏΤΗΜΑ it is better to regard the gen. as an object. gen., thus: “the request addressed to God for a good conscience; “Lutz, Lechler, Weiss, Weizsäcker (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 ἘΠΕΡΏΤΗΜΑ 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 ΣΥΝΕΊΔΗΣΙς ἈΓΑΘΉ , for here no stress is laid on the essential element—the forgiveness of sin; lastly, (4) In this interpretation ΕἸς ΘΕΌΝ is only of secondary importance, whilst the passages, chap. 1Pe_1:21 and 1Pe_3:18, show that the chief emphasis lies on ΕἸς ΘΕΌΝ .[226]
Even from early times interpreters have attempted to explain ἐπερώτημα in this passage, not according to common, but according to juristic usage, taking it as equal to ΣΎΜΦΩΝΟΝ , stipulatio mutua, contract (Luther: “covenant”), referring at the same time to the act of question and answer, which took place at baptism: ἈΠΟΤΆΣΣῌ Τῷ ΣΑΤΑΝᾶ ; ἈΠΟΤΆΣΣΟΜΑΙ · ΣΥΝΤΆΣΣῌ Τῷ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ ; ΣΥΝΤΆΣΣΟΜΑΙ · 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 ἘΠΕΡΏΤΗΜΑ 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, ἐπερωτᾶσθαι acquired the meaning promittere, spondere, and ἘΠΕΡΏΤΗΜΑ that of sponsio;” for ἘΠΕΡΏΤΗΜΑ is not derived from ἘΠΕΡΩΤᾶΣΘΑΙ , but from ἘΠΕΡΩΤᾷΝ , 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 συν . ἀγ . is considered as an object. gen, that it would have been better to have spoken of ἀναστροφὴ ἀγαθή as that which has to be vowed.[227] Brückner has substantially corrected de Wette by pointing out that in the language of the Byzantine lawyers ἘΠΕΡΩΤᾷΝ is used in the sense: “to conclude a treaty, a contract, stipulari,” taking ΣΥΝ . ἈΓ . as a subject, gen. But his exposition suffers from an uncertain wavering, for he too declares ἐπερώτημα 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. ἐπερώτημα 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 ΣΥΝΕΙΔΉΣΕΩς ἈΓ . ἘΠΕΡΏΤΗΜΑ ΕἸς ΘΕΌΝ 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 ΣΥΝΕΙΔΉΣΕΩς ἈΓΑΘῆς , 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 ἘΠΕΡΏΤΗΜΑ 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: διʼ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ , by referring back to ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι , brings the apostle again to his former train of thought. The words are not appended in a loose way to ἐπερώτημα 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 ΣΏΖΕΙ , inasmuch as they state that through which the ΒΆΠΤΙΣΜΑ 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 ΣΥΝΕΙΔΉΣΕΩς ἈΓ . (as against Fronmüller).
[219] Raphelius: τύπος res aliud quid praefigurans, ἀντίτυπος res ilia praefigurata. ἀντίτυπος has another meaning in Heb_9:24, where the τύπος is the ἀληθινόν .
[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, συνείδησις ἀγαθή 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 ἐπερώτημα εἰς Θ ., 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 ἐπερώτημα .
[224] To this interpretation of Bengel, Hofmann rightly objects: “that ἐπερώτημα 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 ἐπερ . as meaning the petitio addressed to God by him who baptizes, and συν . ἀγ . 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 Erfüllung, 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 “ ἐπερώτημα 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 : ἔτι εἷς ἔστιν ἀνὴρ εἰς τὸ ἐπερωτῆσαι διʼ αὐτοῦ τὸν κύριον , has been appealed to in favour of this construction. Erroneously, since διʼ αὐτοῦ applies to a person. Between it, therefore, and διʼ ἀναστάσεως no parallel can be drawn.—According to Hofmann, διά 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. διά has this signification.
(Heb_13:18 : καλὴν συνείδησιν ἔχομεν , ἐν πᾶσι καλῶς θέλοντες ἀναστρέφεθαι ; 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.