Comments on: 1 Peter 3:21 http://versebyversecommentary.com/1-peter/1-peter-321/ by Dr. Grant C. Richison Thu, 24 May 2012 18:49:14 +0000 hourly 1 By: Jasper http://versebyversecommentary.com/1-peter/1-peter-321/comment-page-1/#comment-54572 Jasper Thu, 17 Feb 2011 20:59:20 +0000 http://versebyversecommentary.com/1997/10/24/1-peter-321/#comment-54572 Very good point about the different kinds of Baptism. So many, I believe associate the word (baptism) automatically with water. You said: "We should never base core doctrine on difficult passages to interpret." This is an extremely sobering reminder - thank you. That's why i can not dogmatically believe the view that I presented to you - this passage has too many questions along with it to put such surety. I do think it is clear in this passage that "water" does not save. So many times I've been brought to this passage by those who put their initial regeneration on the "immersion" in water and it's sad see the neglect for the passage as a whole. Thank you again Dr. Grant for your insight - and for taking time to comment. God Bless Very good point about the different kinds of Baptism. So many, I believe associate the word (baptism) automatically with water.
You said: “We should never base core doctrine on difficult passages to interpret.” This is an extremely sobering reminder – thank you. That’s why i can not dogmatically believe the view that I presented to you – this passage has too many questions along with it to put such surety. I do think it is clear in this passage that “water” does not save. So many times I’ve been brought to this passage by those who put their initial regeneration on the “immersion” in water and it’s sad see the neglect for the passage as a whole. Thank you again Dr. Grant for your insight – and for taking time to comment. God Bless

]]> By: Grant http://versebyversecommentary.com/1-peter/1-peter-321/comment-page-1/#comment-54567 Grant Thu, 17 Feb 2011 20:44:27 +0000 http://versebyversecommentary.com/1997/10/24/1-peter-321/#comment-54567 Jasper, thanks again for your thoughtful exegesis. The word “corresponds to” or “figure” (antitype; the word “antitype” is a transliteration of the Greek word—literally, against the type) occurs in Hebrews 9:24 as well. Re Ro 6:3-14. Baptism in this case is the baptism of the Spirit, a symbol of Christ’s death and resurrection, as you say. It is important to note that the Greek word BAPTIZW (to baptize) and BAPTISMA (baptism) are transliterations as well, not translations. If we were to translate BAPTIZW, it would mean to identify with. The Greek language used this term this way from the classical Greek period. “Immersion” is a picture of identification. Immersion in water is picture of our salvation by identification with Christ’s salvific work and is a testimony to that fact. Therefore, baptism in Ro 6 is our eternal identification with Christ’s death for payment for our sin and the resurrection to conquer death (He killed death! :)). In this passage, it was the “ark” that saved the souls inside from the raging waters outside. The baptism of the flood answers to, corresponds to, is the antitype to Christ’s death for our sin. The baptism here is a baptism of judgment. Therefore, by our identification with the ark (antitype-Christ) we express our faith in the finished work of Christ as matter of “conscience” or “pledge” toward God. Thus, I do not believe water baptism is in this passage. Having said that, this is a difficult passage and any interpretation from any position is difficult. We should never base core doctrine on difficult passages to interpret. It is very important to distinguish between different kinds of baptism in the Bible. John’s baptism was a baptism that was to identify with the shortly coming Messiah. Jesus’s baptism had nothing to do with sin; it was a baptism into His right and office as Messiah and to establish His Messianic kingdom. There is a baptism of fire, which is a baptism of judgment. I believe there are 7 different kinds of baptism in the Bible, of which baptism by water is only one. Jasper, thanks again for your thoughtful exegesis.
The word “corresponds to” or “figure” (antitype; the word “antitype” is a transliteration of the Greek word—literally, against the type) occurs in Hebrews 9:24 as well.
Re Ro 6:3-14. Baptism in this case is the baptism of the Spirit, a symbol of Christ’s death and resurrection, as you say. It is important to note that the Greek word BAPTIZW (to baptize) and BAPTISMA (baptism) are transliterations as well, not translations. If we were to translate BAPTIZW, it would mean to identify with. The Greek language used this term this way from the classical Greek period. “Immersion” is a picture of identification. Immersion in water is picture of our salvation by identification with Christ’s salvific work and is a testimony to that fact. Therefore, baptism in Ro 6 is our eternal identification with Christ’s death for payment for our sin and the resurrection to conquer death (He killed death! :) ).
In this passage, it was the “ark” that saved the souls inside from the raging waters outside. The baptism of the flood answers to, corresponds to, is the antitype to Christ’s death for our sin. The baptism here is a baptism of judgment. Therefore, by our identification with the ark (antitype-Christ) we express our faith in the finished work of Christ as matter of “conscience” or “pledge” toward God. Thus, I do not believe water baptism is in this passage. Having said that, this is a difficult passage and any interpretation from any position is difficult. We should never base core doctrine on difficult passages to interpret.
It is very important to distinguish between different kinds of baptism in the Bible. John’s baptism was a baptism that was to identify with the shortly coming Messiah. Jesus’s baptism had nothing to do with sin; it was a baptism into His right and office as Messiah and to establish His Messianic kingdom. There is a baptism of fire, which is a baptism of judgment. I believe there are 7 different kinds of baptism in the Bible, of which baptism by water is only one.

]]> By: Jasper http://versebyversecommentary.com/1-peter/1-peter-321/comment-page-1/#comment-54543 Jasper Thu, 17 Feb 2011 19:26:15 +0000 http://versebyversecommentary.com/1997/10/24/1-peter-321/#comment-54543 Dr. Grant I would like your thoughts on this addition to your exegesis of this passage: It is obvious this passage is not referring to baptism of the "Spirit" (salvation) It's interesting that those who use this passage as a support for baptismal regeneration ignore the very next phrase "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh". I think the KJV interpretation of 3:20 has caused some confusion as well. It says that these souls were "saved BY water" which creates problems. The correct interpretation is "THROUGH the water". (I have not read your commentary on 3:20 it's very possible you pointed this out.) The word anti-type gives us a look at what this "baptism" is pointing back to (Noah's ark) or "corresponding to". Dr. Grant this view I am about to present, I do not hold to 100% but I do believe it is one to consider when talking about water baptism: * We get our "symbol" or "anti-type" for water baptism from Romans 6 - (died with Christ, buried with Christ, rose with Christ) This is understandable and it definitely makes sense. My recent conflict with this is the fact that Romans 6 is not referring to water baptism (as the word baptism has nothing to do with water) since baptizo means "immersion" or the active and passive form (to dip or be dipped) Romans 6 is referring to our actual "immersion" into Christ through the Spirit. My point is this: Romans 6 never mentions that water baptism is symbolic or an anti-type of this (dying, being buried and rising). The only place that I can find that tells us this symbolism is here: 1 peter 3:20 And when you look at John the Baptist' message it was - "Repent for the Kingdom is at hand" Jesus was baptized and immediately went on with the same message. The people who were baptized by John the baptist would not have understood - dying with Christ, being buried with Christ and rising with Christ. "But they would have understood repenting for the kingdom is at hand" just like the people of Noah's day had 120 years to repent before the judgment came. Noah was preaching essentially the same message. Either way you look at it water baptism is symbolizing Christ saving us but as far as the exact "type" water baptism is pointing to, could it be this. Also, what better way to symbolize "water" than with "water" the Romans 6 view is using "water" to symbolize "blood". Overall, what I'm saying is this: Is it possible that when we are saved and follow in believers baptism we are saying this: (just like Noah did and the people of John the Baptist day did - so do I) "I am identifying with Christ as my savior from the coming judgment just like the ark was the salvation of eight souls in God's last judgment of the earth. Those under the water perished but we were brought safely "through" the water on top by the ark - the picture of water baptism???? I would love to hear your thoughts. Thank you for all you do. Dr. Grant I would like your thoughts on this addition to your exegesis of this passage:

It is obvious this passage is not referring to baptism of the “Spirit” (salvation) It’s interesting that those who use this passage as a support for baptismal regeneration ignore the very next phrase “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh”. I think the KJV interpretation of 3:20 has caused some confusion as well. It says that these souls were “saved BY water” which creates problems. The correct interpretation is “THROUGH the water”. (I have not read your commentary on 3:20 it’s very possible you pointed this out.)

The word anti-type gives us a look at what this “baptism” is pointing back to (Noah’s ark) or “corresponding to”.

Dr. Grant this view I am about to present, I do not hold to 100% but I do believe it is one to consider when talking about water baptism:

* We get our “symbol” or “anti-type” for water baptism from Romans 6 – (died with Christ, buried with Christ, rose with Christ) This is understandable and it definitely makes sense. My recent conflict with this is the fact that Romans 6 is not referring to water baptism (as the word baptism has nothing to do with water) since baptizo means “immersion” or the active and passive form (to dip or be dipped) Romans 6 is referring to our actual “immersion” into Christ through the Spirit.

My point is this: Romans 6 never mentions that water baptism is symbolic or an anti-type of this (dying, being buried and rising). The only place that I can find that tells us this symbolism is here: 1 peter 3:20

And when you look at John the Baptist’ message it was – “Repent for the Kingdom is at hand” Jesus was baptized and immediately went on with the same message. The people who were baptized by John the baptist would not have understood – dying with Christ, being buried with Christ and rising with Christ. “But they would have understood repenting for the kingdom is at hand” just like the people of Noah’s day had 120 years to repent before the judgment came. Noah was preaching essentially the same message. Either way you look at it water baptism is symbolizing Christ saving us but as far as the exact “type” water baptism is pointing to, could it be this. Also, what better way to symbolize “water” than with “water” the Romans 6 view is using “water” to symbolize “blood”.

Overall, what I’m saying is this: Is it possible that when we are saved and follow in believers baptism we are saying this: (just like Noah did and the people of John the Baptist day did – so do I) “I am identifying with Christ as my savior from the coming judgment just like the ark was the salvation of eight souls in God’s last judgment of the earth. Those under the water perished but we were brought safely “through” the water on top by the ark – the picture of water baptism????

I would love to hear your thoughts. Thank you for all you do.

]]> By: Grant http://versebyversecommentary.com/1-peter/1-peter-321/comment-page-1/#comment-52831 Grant Sat, 12 Feb 2011 00:09:10 +0000 http://versebyversecommentary.com/1997/10/24/1-peter-321/#comment-52831 Thank you Lionel, that is exactly what I try to do. Thank you Lionel, that is exactly what I try to do.

]]> By: Lionel E. Waters http://versebyversecommentary.com/1-peter/1-peter-321/comment-page-1/#comment-52723 Lionel E. Waters Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:51:50 +0000 http://versebyversecommentary.com/1997/10/24/1-peter-321/#comment-52723 I appreciate your contextual sensativity and scriptually sound approach to the text. We know that one of the first principles of sound biblical hermaneutics is that scripture is it's own interpreter. You've allowed scripture to interpret scripture, for that alone you are well appreciated. I appreciate your contextual sensativity and scriptually sound approach to the text. We know that one of the first principles of sound biblical hermaneutics is that scripture is it’s own interpreter. You’ve allowed scripture to interpret scripture, for that alone you are well appreciated.

]]> By: Craig Harbin http://versebyversecommentary.com/1-peter/1-peter-321/comment-page-1/#comment-18197 Craig Harbin Sat, 11 Sep 2010 19:23:51 +0000 http://versebyversecommentary.com/1997/10/24/1-peter-321/#comment-18197 Your anti-baptism bias is REALLY showing in the way you commented on this verse. This verse is SO plain that only a misapplied understanding of grace or the obedience of faith would cause you to answer as you did. Water baptism IS the subject of this verse as is plain from the comparison to the ark being saved on water. After all, there is only one normative baptism for all Christians (Ephesians 4:5). Christian baptism is that absolutely necessary act which SAVES(not because of water "regeneration") but because it is the point at which God forgives the sins of a penitent person and gives them the indwelling of His Holy Spirit(Acts 2:38). Sins ARE "washed away" (Acts 22:16) because God has determined for baptism to be the point at which grace is applied for salvation (naturally this must be preceeded by faith, repentance and confession). Please do not warp God's precious word nor His marvelous gift of salvation by interjecting your unbalanced theology. Your anti-baptism bias is REALLY showing in the way you commented on this verse. This verse is SO plain that only a misapplied understanding of grace or the obedience of faith would cause you to answer as you did. Water baptism IS the subject of this verse as is plain from the comparison to the ark being saved on water. After all, there is only one normative baptism for all Christians (Ephesians 4:5). Christian baptism is that absolutely necessary act which SAVES(not because of water “regeneration”) but because it is the point at which God forgives the sins of a penitent person and gives them the indwelling of His Holy Spirit(Acts 2:38). Sins ARE “washed away” (Acts 22:16) because God has determined for baptism to be the point at which grace is applied for salvation (naturally this must be preceeded by faith, repentance and confession). Please do not warp God’s precious word nor His marvelous gift of salvation by interjecting your unbalanced theology.

]]> By: Grant http://versebyversecommentary.com/1-peter/1-peter-321/comment-page-1/#comment-8202 Grant Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:49:46 +0000 http://versebyversecommentary.com/1997/10/24/1-peter-321/#comment-8202 Thank you Herbert. Thank you Herbert.

]]> By: herbert nembhard http://versebyversecommentary.com/1-peter/1-peter-321/comment-page-1/#comment-8201 herbert nembhard Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:36:29 +0000 http://versebyversecommentary.com/1997/10/24/1-peter-321/#comment-8201 This commentary on the subject of "DOES BAPTISM SAVES YOU? is one of the best. Thank you. This commentary on the subject of “DOES BAPTISM SAVES YOU? is one of the best. Thank you.

]]>