1 Peter 3:21 – “Appeal,” “Response,” or “Pledge”
There are a wide variety of translations for 1 Peter 3:21, the differences of which truly change the meaning of the text. Notice the following differences:
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience,through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (ESV)
And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you–not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (NRSV)
Baptism, which is like that water, now saves you. Baptism doesn’t save by removing dirt from the body. Rather, baptism is a request to God for a clear conscience. It saves you through Jesus Christ, who came back from death to life. (God’s Word)
Notice that the previous three translations picture baptism as asking God for a good, clear, or pure conscience. An appeal pictures a legal procedure, formally asking (or appealing) to the judge. Therefore, baptism saves because we are appealing to God to cleanse our conscience based upon the resurrection of Christ. Now consider some other translations.
There is also an antitype which now saves us–baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (NKJV)
And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (NLT)
The above two translations picture baptism as a response or answer to God from an already cleansed conscience. Consider the final two translations.
And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also–not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (TNIV)
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (HCSB)
The HCSB and TNIV (also NIV) depict baptism as a statement or a commitment to God from an already cleansed conscience.
So which of these is correct? In my opinion, these three concepts are entirely different. The first group of translations shows baptism as asking God for a clean conscience. The second group pictures baptism as a response of an already cleansed conscience. The third group of translations show baptism as a statement to God from an already cleansed conscience. Or put another way: Does baptism ask God for a clean conscience? Is baptism an act responding from a cleansed conscience? Or does baptism declare to God and others that we have a cleansed conscience?
The Greek word that is translated “appeal” by the ESV, “response” by the NLT, and “pledge” by the TNIV is eperotema. Below is what the scholars say:
NAS Greek: an inquiry, a demand:
Thayer: “1. an inquiry, a question. 2. a demand.”
Mounce: “an interrogation, question; in NT profession, pledge.”Â
Vine: “eperotema, 1 Pet. 3:21, is not, as in the KJV, an “answer.” It was used by the Greeks in a legal sense, as a “demand or appeal.” Baptism is therefore the ground of an “appeal” by a good conscience against wrong doing.”
In looking closely at the text, doesn’t the first group of translations make more sense? Baptism saves you, not by washing the body, but by appealing to God (asking God) for a clean conscience. How could Peter say essentially “baptism saves you because it is a response of an already clean conscience?” Or how could Peter say essentially “baptism saves you because it is a statement or pledge to God/others from a clean conscience?” The sentence does not work from a logical standpoint the way the NKJV, NLT, TNIV, and HCSB read. Baptism saves because baptism is your already clean conscience responding to God??? This does not make sense. Then baptism actually does not save because the conscience is already clean. Therefore, Peter was wrong to say that baptism saves and was being nonsensical.
I know that this may fly in the face of some belief patterns and what not, but I think we have to take this text in the way that makes the most sense. The scholars argue that eperotema means “an inquiry, an interrogation, and an appeal.” Therefore, the most logical reading is that baptism is asking God for a clean conscience, as the ESV, NRSV, and NASB translate.
Don't forget to browse Biblical Studies or The Bible or Translations.
Your Thoughts
7 Comments so far7 Responses to “1 Peter 3:21 – “Appeal,” “Response,” or “Pledge””
By submitting a comment here you grant Christian Monthly Standard a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate comments will be removed at our discretion.
Joe
September 26, 2008 at 9:42 am
Brent, thanks for tackling these difficult verses and sharing your thoughts.This is probably one of those bigger variation verses we find amongst translations if not mistaken and shows the importance of not relying on just one translation but to use several and not be afraid to jump into some basic Greek once in a while :-)
Joe
September 26, 2008 at 9:47 am
I’d also really like to see if we can get the ESVSB notes for this passage and compare them to the NLTSB and see if any light is shed on why they chose those particular words.
Jim Swindle
September 29, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Thanks for pointing out the differences of the theology of the translation of this passage. I hadn’t noticed that before.
I’ve been in churches that took very different stands from each other concerning the meaning of baptism. I’ve come to an in-between position. My own understanding is that there are at least three Biblical ways of answering the question, “Who or what saves us?”
1. Jesus saves us.
2. Faith saves us…yet not the faith itself, but the fact that faith is how we connect to Jesus who saves us.
3. Baptism saves us…yet not the baptism itself, but the fact that baptism expresses our faith in Jesus who saves us.
Can people be saved without Jesus? No.
Can people be saved without faith? No.
Can people be saved without water baptism? I’d point to the thief on the cross and say yes. However, we should not minimize water baptism. It is a divinely-given means of expressing faith in Jesus who saves. Is water baptism even more than that? I don’t know, but I’m confident that it’s not less.
John
December 27, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Offering no offense, but, I believe your consideration here is more than a little simplistic; hardly considerate of the original.
Basically you’re confining the meaning to possible categories based on English, when the original may have several aspects, applications, significances, etc.: especially this passage of Scripture which has such specialized legalese (antitype, baptism (itself is not a simple term as people usually think), and this term you’re trying to translate one of three ways–it’s touch); the context is also very difficult, and it is “high context”; one cannot try to decide issues like this with a little Greek, a lexicon, or a mere reading of some convenient word studies that themselves oversimplify, but needs be studious in understanding the original usage, etc. of these terms: thus you might cite Vine’s, and I could cite Robertson’s Word Pictures (an actual contextual and grammatical, not popular, consideration) yet either is still just a starting point, not the end of truly grasping the text.
Take, even just “baptism”, for instance. In scripture it is used not just of the act, but of the state a believer is found in, depending on context: and may signify either; in what sense is this word here used? Is it in both? Does it have a primary shade of meaning and invokes the other in the background of the mind by its context? Is it just either? The mentioning of the “baptisms” of old and calling the Christian on an “antitype” of this greatly complicates the matter, and requires thorough knowledge and careful consideration of the previous ones and their nature (a high context demand), without disregarding what is being said here by overriding it with suppositions about those previous ones.
Furthermore don’t suppose that knowing this is an ‘inquiry’/'interrogation’/'appeal’ is so simplistic as you characterize it; the word could be used in the sense that The inquiring God would upon searching us (in court) find us guilty; but here’s the tricky part about this passage: it’s the baptism, not our act, that is the appeal (how the passage here uses the term and language) because it identifies us with Christ (…”through Christ”…); this leaves us, in effect, inactive, and this is what lends to interpreting the word “baptism” in context here as being assigned to a component of meaning regarding the state in which is a Christian (found “baptized” into Christ’s death, and alive with Christ)…and even that, I believe, is simplistic. It is mistaken, however, to here think it is portraying the believer as him or herself actively making the appeal, but rather the baptism is the appeal.
As for you separating the categories as distinct, that may/not be correct to do, but though we might think of some categories as separate, that may not be the case of the Greek (if those are even the correct categories in the Greek to use); this word, for instance, is used both for an “interrogation/inquiry” AND “response/pledge”…so the distinction, if even present, is very fine. It may/not be a good passage to demonstrate the non-correspondence of languages; but mentioning this is a digression from the previously said.
As for Vine’s: it can be useful, sometimes…but Vine’s was not a careful elucidator or words, or considerate of their uses; I find he’s quick to assign words to meanings that are absent their use in Greek, so beware EVER relying on that guy for any substantial support without much vetting first; he would read his suppositions about theology and doctrine into his definitions (hence “‘expository” dictionary”), which are areas that from his person and background are not considered his strongpoints, despite being a prolific writer and reader…that doesn’t mean he was a careful student.
John
December 27, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Where it says “it’s touch” it should be “it’s tough”.
Richard Vandagriff
December 30, 2008 at 10:52 am
This response and particularly the third paragraph is literally a wordy defense of vapors. Where and when is baptism, “In scripture…” “…baptism… [is] used not just of the act, but of the state a believer is found in, depending on context: and may signify either…” Where is this animal?
There is no such thing in or out of the scriptures as a state a believer is found in thereby noting or noted by baptism. This is an argument that disposes of plain meaning. A person heads onto the path of becoming Christian by hearing and acting in faith, by confessing and repenting; and he is baptized as a token of the new covenant because he or she is commanded to be obedient in both action and word. And if he is not so found, missing this part or that, then the unfortunate conclusion is that he or she is not actually a believer at all, but is found yet to be something else and still on the outside, not a Christian and then certainly not a believer. You can climb up to a roof with a ladder but you will not get there by leaping over the rungs. The words for “faithful” or “believer” in any language leads to the inescapable conclusion that one has gone through the actions of being known and identified as such; and being immersed is an indispensible and intregal part of being classified thereby, and therefore incorporates that the person has in fact been baptized: immersed in water. There is no broader meaning of the word beyond that, and there is no place that can be appealed to in the scriptures that shows otherwise, whether noting nuances of language either ancient or modern, or from the reading of tea leaves.
There are no “several applications.” We through our endless studies and machinations make hard what is simple. Jesus said “Be baptized or be damned,” and yet we cannot fathom it. Such a pity. So, those who so hang and spin shall in fact be found unbelieving and will then (unfortunately) be damned. What I think or divine is irrelevant; what I am told to do and then set about to do is all that matters.
In all this it is yet nice to know that, “The common people heard him gladly.” The dummies got it; but we strain and choke on a knat and open wide to swallow a camel.
Regards,
Richard
December 31, 2008 at 9:41 am
The thief on the cross died prior to the institution of the new covenant, therefore baptism then carried no meaning or value to him. The testament is meaningless without the death of the testator. John’s baptism was directed to the Jews leading them to the Kingdom and was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, yet the adherents were only Jews. There is no indication that the thief was or was not a Jew, and speculation as to whether he had been immersed by John is pointless.
The text only offers this: The Son of God told the man that “This day you shall be with me in paradise.” That settles things as to his final state – he was saved, not by baptism for there was no force to it; and not by adherence to the requirements of the new covenant. But he was saved by the direct word of God and the direct intervention of the Son of God toward one person based upon his faith and his response that day. Again, God has made plain: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” It seems the thief knew more about Jesus than some of us stating “Have mercy upon me Lord when you come into your Kingdom.” He was saved both outside the Law and aside from the coming new covenant. It had nothing to do with baptism and baptism didn’t matter at that time (not to him). It would not be prudent on our parts to think that we ought to fall into this very small category of one.