1 Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He says that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not the part which saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism). We could paraphrase Peter's statement by saying, "Baptism now saves you--not the outward physical ceremony of baptism but the inward spiritual reality which baptism represents." By saying, "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Peter guards against saving power to the physical ceremony itself. So in 1 Peter 3:21; it's not the water itself that saves us, but the "appeal to God for good conscience". Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ark for the SAVING of his household). NOTE: The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.
In Acts 2:38 Peter said to be baptized for remission of sins (salvation). In 1 Pet 3:21 Peter said baptism saves, so both verses speak of the one baptism of Eph 4:5 that saves, and they are both the human administered water baptism of the great commission.
OT type: saved by water
NT antitype: saved by water
Peter said 8 souls saved by/through
water. Peter did
NOT say 8 souls saved in an ark, as many change verse 20 to say.
The NT antitype (antitupos) is a mirror reflection of the OT type: they were saved by water > we are saved by water. So it cannot some "spirit baptism" under consideration for the world was not flooded by spirit, but by literal water. Again, the NT antitype:
water is a mirror reflection of the OT type;
water. No spirit here. No ark here.
After Peter says baptism saves he say what baptism is NOT for, it is "
not the putting away of the filth of the flesh". Obviously Peter is talking about water baptism, water being used to clean the filth of the flesh.
Peter then says baptism is "
the answer of a good conscience toward God". In water baptism, sins are remitted where one can have a good conscience toward God. In Acts 2, Peter convicted his Jewish listeners of the sin of curcifying the Christ. Their guilty conscience lead them to ask Peter what shall they do. The "answer" Peter gave them for their guilty conscience of sin was to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.....answer > be baptized., their appeal to God for a good conscience would come through water baptism.
Coffman Commentary points out:
It was the water of the flood that separated Noah from the disobedient generation that perished; and it is the water of Christian baptism that separates between the saved of today and the disobedient who perish.
Further reading on 1 Pet 3:21 for those interested:
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/263-please-explain-1-peter-3-21
From above link:
The Greek term that is translated “answer” in 1 Peter 3:21 is eperotema. It basically means a request, or an appeal (see ASV footnote). It is found only in this passage in the New Testament, but it is employed in other sources in Greek literature.
J. H. Thayer gives the term this sense: “which (baptism) now saves us [you] not because in receiving it we [ye] have put away the filth of the flesh, but because we [ye] have earnestly sought a conscience reconciled to God” (1958, 230).
Or note the preferred rendition of Arndt and Gingrich: baptism is “an appeal to God for a clear conscience” (1967, 285).
In Kittel’s Theological Dictionary, the rendition is this: “Baptism does not confer physical cleansing but saves as a request for forgiveness” (1972, 262).
Even Charles B. Williams, a respected Baptist scholar, in his translation of the New Testament, yielded this phrase in this fashion: baptism is “the craving for a clear conscience toward God” (1966, 520).
These renditions indicate, of course, that the good conscience follows the immersion.
1
