# 1 Peter 3:18-22; Baptism now saves you (an appeal to God for a good conscience)



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 23, 2005)

Looking for anyone and everyone's insight on this passage!

*18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,

20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you -- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience -- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

1 Peter 3:18-22 (NASB)*


I have been thinking about this passage a lot lately, and would like to discuss it with you guys and see what we can come up with.

Of key importance and interest to me, I'm wondering about verse 21. From a simple reading, taking other things into consideration, it seems to me that through the application of baptism, we are making an appeal to God *for* a good conscience, which comes (the good conscience) through the resurrection of Christ. In other words, I am reading this as saying that baptism is an external sign and appeal to God for justification - asking God to save us, give us repentance and faith in Christ, so that we can share in His resurrection and the benefits of salvation and forgiveness of sins.

Thoughts? 

[Edited on 23-1-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Peter (Jan 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Of key importance and interest to me, I'm wondering about verse 21. From a simple reading, taking other things into consideration, it seems to me that through the application of baptism, we are making an appeal to God *for* a good conscience, which comes (the good conscience) through the resurrection of Christ. In other words, I am reading this as saying that baptism is an external sign and appeal to God for justification - asking God to save us, give us repentance and faith in Christ, so that we can share in His resurrection and the benefits of salvation and forgiveness of sins.



That sounds like a pretty good description of what theologians call the "seal" of salvation.


----------



## satz (Jan 23, 2005)

Hmm..i am sorry if this post is off topic but just a bit of info;

The King James actually translates verse 21 like this:

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:

Now it seems to me that the two versions are saying completely different things! The NASB says baptism is an appeal to God FOR a good conscience, but the KJV says it is the answer OF a conscience already good? 

I don't have time to check now, but if i am not wrong the majority of versions would follow the NASB's rendering.

Has this issue been dealt with and settled before? Any thoughts?


oh..this really is a serious question...i ain't trying to start any KJV-only fights here!

[Edited on 23-1-2005 by satz]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 23, 2005)

The NASB is the correct translation. I don't want to get into the whole "why the KJV uses less-accurate manuscripts" conversation.

The RSV, ESV, NRSV, and NASB all render it "for".


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> The NASB is the correct translation. I don't want to get into the whole "why the KJV uses less-accurate manuscripts" conversation.
> 
> The RSV, ESV, NRSV, and NASB all render it "for".



I'm glad you don't want to get into a manuscript conversation, because you'd be wrong, especially from the flippancy and errors in previous posts you have on the subject.

For example, this has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with manuscripts. All manuscripts are identical on this point:

uneidh,sewj avgaqh/j evperw,thma eivj qeo,n

Further, the NIV - which is a notorious critical text translation (remember all those "oldest and best manuscript" lies, I mean footnotes) has _"the pledge of a good conscience toward God"_. So by the way does the ASV and Young's Literal.

The issue is how to translate the genitive case. Both Michaels (Word commentary), McKnight (NIV Application) and Kistemaker translate it "of" (namely, a subjective genitive), as does Calvin:



> 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.



Now that is not to say that a case cannot be made for "for," but to do so on the basis of manuscripts or problems with the KJV is laughable.


----------



## satz (Jan 23, 2005)

Fred, are you saying that in this case the KJ's rendering is more accurate?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> Fred, are you saying that in this case the KJ's rendering is more accurate?



Yes. It is also the rendering of many other translations, including the NIV.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 23, 2005)

Since the issue is over what the verse means, let's talk about that instead of KJV vs. other translations....


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Since the issue is over what the verse means, let's talk about that instead of KJV vs. other translations....



Absolutely. I apologize. My comments were about your statement regarding manuscripts were unwarranted.

Please forgive me.

It would be good to talk about the verse.


----------



## doulosChristou (Jan 24, 2005)

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1030


----------



## LaMontre (Jan 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> Hmm..i am sorry if this post is off topic but just a bit of info;
> 
> The King James actually translates verse 21 like this:
> ...



This is correct. The NASB (apparently) brings an interpretation with it which is religious and leads to an incorrect conclusion about baptism. (as the openning post proves)


----------

