1 Peter 3:21

“`html

body { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, Palatino, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 2em; max-width: 900px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; }
h1, h2, h3 { font-family: ‘Georgia’, serif; color: #333; }
h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #eee; padding-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 1.5em; }
h3 { color: #555; margin-top: 1.2em; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; }
blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 0; padding-left: 1em; color: #555; font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 2em; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }

An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Peter 3:21: The Syntactic Role of Βάπτισμα and the Meaning of Ἐπερώτημα

This exegetical study of 1 Pet. 3:21 syntax is based on a b-greek discussion from Mon Jul 17 03:06:43 EDT 2006. The initial query focused on discerning the precise syntactic relationship between the Greek terms ὁ, ἀντίτυπον, and βάπτισμα within 1 Peter 3:21, specifically in the clause: Ὁ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα, οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα.

The main exegetical issues central to this passage involve, first, the syntactical ambiguity surrounding the relative pronoun ὁ and its relationship to the noun βάπτισμα and the predicate nominative ἀντίτυπον. This ambiguity directly impacts the identification of the subject of the verb σῴζει and the overall comparison being made between Noah’s salvation and Christian baptism. Second, and perhaps more significantly, the passage presents a substantial lexical challenge in translating the hapax legomenon ἐπερώτημα, particularly in its phrase συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν. Diverse English translations reflect a wide range of interpretations for this key term, oscillating between “answer,” “pledge,” “appeal,” and “question,” each carrying distinct theological implications regarding the nature of baptism and conscience.

Greek text (Nestle 1904)

ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα, οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν, δι’ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• The text of 1 Peter 3:21 in Nestle 1904 is identical to the SBLGNT (2010). No textual variants are observed in the primary wording of this verse between these two editions.

Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)

Regarding textual criticism, the passage in 1 Peter 3:21 is remarkably stable across major critical editions. The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28), which is the standard critical text, presents the same reading as the Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT, indicating no significant textual variants for the crucial terms ὁ, ἀντίτυπον, βάπτισμα, or ἐπερώτημα that would alter the core meaning or syntax.

Lexically, the discussion centers on two key terms:

• ἀντίτυπον (antitupos): This term, meaning ‘antitype’ or ‘corresponding type,’ is crucial for understanding the typological connection between Noah’s salvation through water and Christian baptism. BDAG defines it in this context as “baptism correspondingly now saves you,” where the salvation of Noah and his family via the ark-supporting water is the τύπος (type) for the salvific function of baptismal water. KITTEL (TDNT VIII, pp. 257-261, s.v. τύπος and ἀντίτυπος) further elaborates on the concept of τύπος as a pattern or model, with ἀντίτυπος signifying the corresponding reality or fulfillment. In 1 Peter 3:21, the flood event serves as the prophetic pattern, and baptism is its fulfillment, marking a similar experience of salvation through divine intervention involving water.
• ἐπερώτημα (epērōtēma): This is the most contentious term. Liddell and Scott defines it primarily as “a question.” BDAG provides multiple senses: 1. ‘question, inquiry,’ 2. ‘request, appeal,’ and (rarely) 3. ‘answer, response.’ It acknowledges the common translational divergence in 1 Peter 3:21, noting “pledge” (NIV) or “appeal” (ESV), and the KJV’s “answer.” KITTEL (TDNT II, pp. 685-686, s.v. ἐπερωτάω) discusses the verb ἐπερωτάω, meaning ‘to ask, inquire, question.’ The noun ἐπερώτημα, derived from this verb, inherently means ‘a question asked.’ While it can imply ‘demand’ or ‘request’ in some contexts, KITTEL does not directly support ‘answer’ or ‘pledge’ as primary meanings for the noun, suggesting these are more often theological interpretations or secondary legal connotations rather than direct lexical equivalents. The prevailing scholarly view, particularly when considering the verb’s usage in the New Testament, points towards an active sense of ‘asking’ rather than a passive ‘answering’ or a binding ‘pledge’ for the noun.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The syntax of 1 Peter 3:21 presents a complex interrelationship between the relative pronoun ὁ, the noun βάπτισμα, and the adjective ἀντίτυπον. The pronoun ὁ, being neuter singular, refers back to a preceding concept, not directly to the feminine noun κιβωτοῦ (ark) in v. 20. It is best understood as referring to the *entire event* of salvation through water described in v. 20 (i.e., “that by which Noah and his family were saved through water”). βάπτισμα appears to be in apposition to ὁ, explaining what “that” refers to in the present context. Similarly, ἀντίτυπον functions as a predicate nominative describing the nature of βάπτισμα, hence “which also (as) an antitype, baptism, now saves you.” This makes ὁ the subject of σῴζει, with βάπτισμα in apposition and ἀντίτυπον in predicate relation, explaining the typology.

The grammatical analysis of συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν is more divisive. The genitive συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς (‘of a good conscience’) modifies ἐπερώτημα. This genitive could be interpreted in several ways:

• **Subjective Genitive:** “a good conscience’s question/appeal/answer,” implying that the conscience itself is the agent performing the action of asking, appealing, or answering.
• **Objective Genitive:** “a question/appeal/answer *concerning* a good conscience,” where the conscience is the object of the inquiry or subject of the appeal.
• **Genitive of Source/Content:** “a question/appeal/answer *that consists of* or *arises from* a good conscience.”

The rhetorical force of the phrase hinges on the meaning of ἐπερώτημα. Traditional translations like the KJV (“the answer of a good conscience toward God”) interpret it as an “answer” or “response,” potentially viewing it as a subjective genitive where the conscience offers an answer. The NIV’s “pledge” (“the pledge of a good conscience towards God”) aligns with a legalistic understanding where baptism is seen as a vow, possibly stemming from the Vulgate’s *interrogatio* which can imply a legal stipulation. However, these interpretations struggle with the primary lexical meaning of ἐπερώτημα as ‘question’ or ‘inquiry’ as found in Liddell & Scott and largely supported by KITTEL. The ESV’s “the appeal to God for a good conscience” resonates more closely with the ‘question’ or ‘request’ sense, understanding the genitive as objective, where the appeal is *for* a good conscience directed *to* God (εἰς θεόν).

A strong argument, particularly from discussions among Greek scholars, suggests interpreting ἐπερώτημα as ‘question’ or ‘point at issue.’ In this view, baptism is not merely a physical cleansing, but it addresses the fundamental “question” or “matter” of having a good conscience before God. The phrase συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα would then be a genitive of content or description: “the question/matter concerning a good conscience.” This aligns with the overall context of 1 Peter concerning righteous living and suffering, and the need for a clear conscience before God.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The syntactic ambiguity of the initial clause of 1 Peter 3:21 is best resolved by understanding ὁ as the subject referring to the saving event of Noah, with βάπτισμα and ἀντίτυπον in apposition, clarifying that baptism functions as the antitypical saving act for believers. The main challenge, however, remains with ἐπερώτημα.

Considering the strong lexical evidence for ἐπερώτημα meaning ‘question,’ ‘inquiry,’ or ‘appeal,’ and the grammatical possibilities for the genitive συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς, the traditional “answer” or “pledge” interpretations appear less lexically grounded than “appeal” or “question/matter.”

Here are three suggested translations, reflecting different nuanced interpretations:

1. Which also, as an antitype, baptism now saves you, not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but the appeal to God for a good conscience.

   This translation aligns with the ESV and emphasizes baptism as an earnest request or supplication from the believer, directed towards God, for a conscience cleansed and made right. It retains the primary lexical sense of ἐπερώτημα as an act of asking or seeking.

2. Which also, as an antitype, baptism now saves you, not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but the solemn pledge of a good conscience towards God.

   This translation reflects the NIV’s interpretation, seeing baptism as a formal commitment or vow made by a believer who possesses a good conscience. While lexically debated, it reflects a significant tradition in English translations, often connected to a perceived legal sense of the term.

3. Which also, as an antitype, baptism now saves you, not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but the matter of a good conscience before God.

   This translation captures the sense of ἐπερώτημα as a ‘question’ or ‘point at issue,’ suggesting that baptism fundamentally addresses the critical concern of how one attains and maintains a good conscience in God’s sight. This interpretation is strongly supported by the inherent meaning of the word’s root and avoids forcing a less common or derived meaning.

“`