Good Answer?

[visionary]

1 Peter 3:21
The like figure where unto 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:

Are we to read this as a linear thought process ...

first baptism, but don't stop there because there is more like putting away the filthiness of the flesh, and then you will have the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Yeshua.

Or are we to read this to say that ...

putting away of the filth of the flesh is not as important as having the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Yeshua?

 

[Yusuphhai]

I don't know clearly, only quote John Wesley's commentary.

1Pe 3:21 The antitype whereof - The thing typified by the ark, even baptism, now saveth us - That is, through the water of baptism we are saved from the sin which overwhelms the world as a flood: not, indeed, the bare outward sign, but the inward grace; a divine consciousness that both our persons and our actions are accepted through him who died and rose again for us.

 

[AbbaLove]

visionary said:

"Are we to read this as a linear thought process ..."
1st Interpretation ... "first baptism, but don't stop there because there is more like putting away the filthiness of the flesh, and then you will have the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Yeshua."

Or are we to read this to say that ...
​

2nd Interpretation ... "putting away of the filth of the flesh is not as important as having the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Yeshua?"
​

The Greek term that is translated “answer” in 1 Peter 3:21 is eperotema. It basically means a request, or an appeal.

The 1st Interpretation says that one will "then" have a good conscience (answer) towards God when putting away the filthiness of the flesh. The 2nd Interpretation (?contradiction?) comes across as a "lukewarm" seeker-sensitive hyper-grace interpretation. Is it even possible for a follower of Yeshua to have a good conscience (answer) toward God if they still practice an occasionally succumb to "filth of the flesh" temptations?

IMO, the 2nd Interpretation is not only an example of how today's "lukewarm" church interprets scripture, but indicative of the moral condition (deplorable) of America.

 

[visionary]

visionary said:

"Are we to read this as a linear thought process ..."
1st Interpretation ... "first baptism, but don't stop there because there is more like putting away the filthiness of the flesh, and then you will have the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Yeshua."

Or are we to read this to say that ...
​

2nd Interpretation ... "putting away of the filth of the flesh is not as important as having the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Yeshua?"​

The Greek term that is translated “answer” in 1 Peter 3:21 is eperotema. It basically means a request, or an appeal.

The 1st Interpretation says that one will "then" have a good conscience (answer) towards God when putting away the filthiness of the flesh. The 2nd Interpretation (?contradiction?) comes across as a "lukewarm" seeker-sensitive hyper-grace interpretation. Is it even possible for a follower of Yeshua to have a good conscience (answer) toward God if they still practice an occasionally succumb to "filth of the flesh" temptations?

IMO, the 2nd Interpretation is not only an example of how today's "lukewarm" church interprets scripture, but indicative of the moral condition (deplorable) of America.

You saw that... I was wondering if anyone saw the flaw in the 2nd interpretation. But does that make the 1st interpretation more valid or is there another way to understand this strange verse.

 

[AbbaLove]

But does that make the 1st interpretation more valid or is there another way to understand this strange verse.

This verse (3:21) isn't so strange when considering that Peter (an Apostle to the Jews) is saying that full water immersion (baptism) can save one's soul. Whereas full immersion (bathing) to remove fleshly filth can't save one's soul — even though cleanliness being next to Godliness was very Jewish (e.g. Mikveh). When Peter says, "doth also now save us" he is referring to Noah's family that were saved (3:20) by their faith in God. Only eight were saved, but since the resurrection of Yeshua God has made a way for Jew and Gentile to be saved who's trust/faith is in the resurrected Yeshua as LORD and Saviour. "Baptism doth also now save us" being a public profession of one's repentance and faith in the resurrection power of Yeshua HaMashiach as LORD and Saviour.

1 Peter 3:21 NASB
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,
1 Peter 3:21 ESV
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,
1 Peter 3:21 CJB
This also prefigures what delivers us now, the water of immersion, which is not the removal of dirt from the body, but one’s pledge to keep a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Yeshua the Messiah.