New Thoughts: (01/20/14-03/19/14)
It is clear I’m going to be here awhile. This section is particularly cryptic, it seems to me. There are textual/syntactical points that must be assessed. There are also simply statements made that at first glance would seem to stand opposite the more general teaching of the Bible. That said, there are other points made which are abundantly clear, and these deserve a great deal of contemplation as well, both concerning Peter’s reason for making them and their implications for my own understanding of and relation to God.
I will start with something on the technical side which arises out of the very first clause in the passage. “For Christ also died for sins.” Here, the NET notes the great variety present in the manuscripts, focusing primarily on the question of whether he wrote epathen, or apethanen. The latter indicates dying, the former suffering. Their conclusion is that epathen holds a slight edge in terms of being the likely original word. Now, that would be fine, certainly. Yet, when I come to the Interlinear, no mark is made indicating a debated word. That tool provides for both the Nestle and Textus Receptus forms. It shows epathen, and only epathen. So, is this settled or not? And, if it is not, how is it that some translations (and those not so very old) opt for the alternate term? Even Wuest, who is generally a stickler for linguistic accuracy, runs with this term, as does the CJB, for what that may be worth. The great majority of non-paraphrastic translations, though, appear to stick with suffered.
For my own part, I can certainly see how it would appeal to sense to supply the word died, given the most immediate context of Christ’s atonement. His atonement was assuredly something beyond mere suffering. It was a real, and a particularly agonizing death. The move from this to the subject of baptism, with its well-established correlation to us being buried together with Christ, would also lend itself to seeing a reference to death in the first clause.
That said, we have that introductory, ‘For’, hoti, because. In other words, Peter is presenting the grounds for what he has already said. In other words, what follows comments on and gives foundation for what precedes. We must look backwards. What has preceded is not a discussion of death and martyrdom, but of suffering, of persecution and pressure, of dealing with injustice towards one’s person. With that as our setting, suffering – particularly unjust suffering – makes perfect sense here. and note the clause with which Peter amplifies his point. “Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the just for the unjust.” He suffered not because He had sinned, but because we had sinned. He suffered in spite of doing everything without exception perfectly right.
That concept also reflects back on what Peter has just finished saying. If God wills it that you are to suffer, better it be for doing right than for sinning (1Pe 3:17). Now, move directly into verse 18. After all, that’s exactly how Christ suffered. He Who was perfectly righteous suffered for sins – not His own, yours, and He did so (next clause) so that He might bring us to God. He looked beyond Himself to the purposes of the kingdom. Were Peter not about to wander off on another trail, we might expect to have him add, “Go thou and do likewise.” But, that would be too strong a point. The point is not to seek out occasions to suffer in furtherance of the kingdom, but to perceive suffering through a kingdom perspective. It is not to be carped at. It is to be observed for its purpose, endured for the King, in the hope that some few more of that ‘all’ might thus be brought to God.
I’m feeling better about this, even if it does set me at odds with my favorite translation. It’s not the first time I’ve found myself disagreeing with some particular choice made by the NASB. It is, however, yet another argument for consulting many translations. Moving away from the technical aspect of syntax, it demonstrates again the necessity of concern for context. Here, it is not merely the temporal/historical context, but that of the immediate text. If we assume that Peter is attempting to present a coherent and cohesive argument, then it simply makes more sense that his thoughts in this sentence connect with those preceding it. Perhaps this same perspective will be of assistance in figuring out what he’s getting at in some of the murkier stuff ahead!
However, before I enter the murk, there are some other matters to consider here in verse 18. Peter continues by pointing to the purpose of Christ’s suffering: To bring us to God. He then proceeds to speak of the death and resurrection of Christ. He notes that Jesus was put to death in the flesh. Let’s stop there for a moment, although Peter moves swiftly to His being alive in the spirit. There is that quite common juxtaposing of flesh and spirit in this passage. But before we get there, consider first the power of the fleshly clause. He was put to death in the flesh. In other words, His suffering was very much real. He is very much real. His death on the cross was a wholly real event.
We know those heresies that are coming down the pike. Whether the first hints of them were already showing up when Peter wrote, I don’t know with certainty, but it would not surprise me. It does not appear, from this letter, that questions as to the humanity of Jesus, or questions about Him maybe have been absent from the body in that moment of His death, were not presenting major issues for the churches of Asia Minor. If they were, I would expect this point to be far more in the foreground of Peter’s message. As it is, it is something of a grace note on melody line of suffering in God’s purpose.
Christ died for sins once for all, and it was a true, physical death which He felt in full. Be in no doubt about that. He died the death of a criminal though He was perfectly just before both God and man. Be in no doubt about that, either. Then, we can move to the greater Truth, the part of this upon which our hope is anchored. He is alive! He lives in the spirit, for God is Spirit. Remember that we are reading from the pen of one who saw that tomb in which He had been lain and in which He was no more. This is Peter! Peter, who probably felt as if he was dying himself as he saw Jesus there on the cross. Peter, who ran to see that empty grave. Peter, whose remorse was so deep that Jesus met him in private (being alive in the spirit), before He came to the eleven less Thomas. If anybody knew Jesus was good and truly alive, it was him! Paul may have had his heavenly raptures in receiving his doctrine from Christ, but Peter had been there through the whole thing. He had touched the risen Christ, broke bread with Him. Shoot, he had watched first-hand as Jesus was taken into heaven, the which he will refer to at chapter’s end.
It is because He lives that we live in the certainty of our hope in Him. His death alone would have proved nothing, would have changed nothing. He would have been just one more man dying at Rome’s hands. He was unlikely the first to have been killed unjustly by their legal system. He certainly wouldn’t be the last. But, death in itself does not atonement make. It required God’s acceptance. That acceptance in turn required that the death be according to His direction and purpose. Not every lamb slaughtered was a sacrifice, let alone an acceptable sacrifice. Not every offering set upon the altars of the temple was acceptable. But the life and death of the Christ? Oh, yes. That was the acceptable sacrifice. That was the only sacrifice that could ever effect the salvation of man. And, how are we given to know that this sacrifice was acceptable? Because God Himself made Him alive in the spirit.
Now, we are accustomed to seeing certain significance to this contrasting use of flesh and spirit. In other instances, it may be presented as flesh and soul. Paul, particularly, is wont to use these terms as symbolizing first the sinful nature and second the sanctified life of the reborn. Some would push for a hard and fast distinction between spirit and soul, as well, accepting that the soul is immaterial, yet insisting it retain an earthier sense: Immaterial but still fallen. In this understanding, you will find those who are deeply concerned over soulish believers, as being still too caught up in the flesh to truly grasp the spiritual aspects of faith. They will want to break off soul-ties and the like, feeling that certain relationships ought not to have been allowed to grow so closely as they have, and that it will take a work of the Spirit to unbind the believer from this unequal yoking.
Can I say there is absolutely no truth to these things? No. There are places in which Scripture does indeed draw a distinction between spirit and soul. But, this idea of soulish believers unable to appreciate the finer distinctions of the Spirit sounds the language of Gnosticism, not of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. If God is no respecter of persons, and measures all men by the one scale of Righteousness, on what basis shall we subdivide His family into first, second and even third-class members? Oh! But, we want to! We want categories. We want ways to win at this competition. Our flesh (and not our soul) longs for anything by which it can feel better about itself. It is ever thus. It is on this basis that the Pharisees set out a different measure of piety than God’s standard. It is there in what Jesus notes about their prayers. “At least I am not like that man over there!” Oh, I have my little sins, but not like him. And, we will do the very same sort of comparison one with another the moment our guard is down.
Scripture does not permit of any sub-species of Christian. There is no foundation offered by which we might point to one group and call them born again believers, and point to this other group as not-born again believers. To be born again is to be a believer, and to be a believer is to be born again. Group A may put more significance on that aspect than Group B, may have a different understanding of what it means to be born again. But, no grounds are given for one group to count the other as somehow discount Christians. Spirit filled? Well yes. It may not look to you like this is the case. It may not have that wild freedom you associate with the concept. But, if they are indeed Christians, rest assured, they are Spirit filled. There can be no other way. When Paul wrote of us being temples of the Holy Spirit, he did not address the point to ‘some of you’. He did not qualify that as, those who are displaying these charismatic behaviors are temples, the rest of you not so much. No!
I’ve gone off track. The point we need to observe is this: We get into a mode of perceiving every mention of flesh as indicating evil, and every mention of spirit as good. We get this Manichean mindset about the matter. But, that clearly cannot apply here. We are not looking at physical or moral frailties in the person of Christ. It’s unthinkable! If it were a question of His body being evil, then His sacrifice was worthless and we are as condemned as ever. No. It is a much simpler distinction being made: Corporeal versus non-corporeal. It is a clear depiction of life persisting beyond this mortal frame. In that – in knowing Christ the first born from the dead, and by His rebirth giving rise to many more sons of the kingdom – we have hope. In that, we have strength to persevere.
In His being alive in the spirit we have the evidence of His innocence of any sin. His sacrifice, made in perfect accord with the Father’s will and purpose, has been accepted by God. Again, Peter will make it clear in closing out this particular thought, just how fully He has been accepted. But note once more the first clause. He died for sins once for all. His atonement was a one time thing. He needn’t offer Himself over and over again, as the Temple service had required its constant stream of sacrifices. Why? Because He died sinless. His death alone was so eternal in its nature and in its application as to eradicate an eternal punishment, the just recompense for our first sin, let alone the aggregate of our sins. His death, and only His death, suffices to sweep the record clean not just for one man, but for all those who God has determined in His wise counsel to save.
There is the clear corollary to this fact. If our life is secured in Christ on the eternal scale of the spirit, what matter the brief trials of this life, however arduous? Remember that we are dealing primarily with the matter of suffering, and more specifically, of unjust suffering. Yes, it’s going to happen. The world hates Him. It’s going to hate you who are His. Sin does not like being exposed as sin. Even we who are the redeemed do not care for it when our sins are exposed. It’s embarrassing at the very least. Worse still, it calls for change, and we’re not always that keen to change. But, change we must, and our sins must be made known, not least of all to ourselves. The heart is so deceptively wicked, and we will cheerfully convince ourselves that we’re doing just fine in the process of our sanctification until Christ, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, points out the thing that needs to go. And then, praise God, He works with us to be rid of it. He is removing the spots on our record. He is not merely ignoring them. He is cleaning them. He is ironing out every wrinkle. Unlike so much of what we see happening around us every day, He does not simply redefine terms so that wrinkle now means smooth. No. He continues to call good that which is good, and evil that which is evil.
OK. Let’s move on to verse 19, and get into the real murkiness. He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison. This, Peter says, He did, ‘in which’. In which, refers us back to the previous statement. But, this whole thing is so out of the ordinary that it must have us scratching our heads, and the further explanation given in verse 20 just makes it harder. In what which did He go? Is it the spirit? Ought we better to understand that as the Spirit? Are we to take it, in verse 18, that He was made alive in the Holy Spirit? What would that even mean? Was it in the Spirit or by the Spirit. Looking at the Interlinear, we don’t even have a word to translate as by or in. If I’m parsing this correctly, which is always a bit suspect, both the being put to death, and the being quickened are what may be called Adverbial Participles. They are background info about the primary action of the sentence, which is that He suffered. More curiously, seen from our own English syntax, there is just the participle and the subsequent Dative Noun.
Great. What’s a Dative Noun? In this case, it seems it indicates “the means by which the verb’s action takes place” according to Wheeler’s. It is this Dative aspect that provides us the ‘by’. So, perhaps the structure of the clause isn’t so odd as first appears. Thanatootheis men sarki zoooopoieetheis de pneumati. The men / di serves to set the contrast: This is true, but also that. Yes, it’s true He died. In the flesh. But! He was made alive in the spirit!
So, then, as we move to, ‘in which’, or ‘by which’, is it the spirit or the life? I suppose that if we took the referent as being life the statement becomes rather tautological, and the clause adds nothing of value. Of course, if He went at all, He went in life, right? It would be rather odd for a dead man to go about proclaiming, even if it is to spirits. And, if those other spirits were likewise dead, who would hear anyway? So, we can, I think, take the reference to be the spirit. Whether this should be the spirit as the eternal, incorporeal aspect of being, or as being specifically the Holy Spirit might be a bit harder to answer. By and large, where it is the Holy Spirit in view, I am told the text will generally include the definite article ho. It is the Spirit. We don’t have that here. Does that require us to take spirit in the lower case? I don’t know that it requires such, but it does seem to me that the lower case sense of spirit satisfies the context.
It is, I think, sufficient to say that He did not take His physical body off to the place where these spirits were imprisoned. He went in spirit, in incorporeal form to speak to those who were imprisoned in incorporeal form. It rather makes sense, I would think, inasmuch as one can make sense of this part at all. The CJB lends support to this understanding, translating the clause as, “and in this form he went.”
Now, this whole business raises all manner of theological difficulties. We could start by comparing and contrasting to that statement from Hebrews 9:27. It is appointed for men to die once, after which comes judgment. Well, then, what’s this? If He went to proclaim, presumably it was to the end of liberating them. Or, is that a wrong understanding? We might try viewing these spirits as those who, like Abraham, died in faith and have merely been awaiting this day of triumph over sin and death. But, does that not lead us to the concept of some Limbo, some place not heaven and yet not hell? Can we find grounds for such a belief in Scripture, or is that simply importing Greek thought into the brew?
Has Peter, as some have supposed, given us grounds here to pray for the dead? Is there hope for those who died unrepentant after all? But, that leads us into universalism, and that can’t be right. There’s far too much in Scripture that demands we understand that salvation is a matter for the remnant, not for the whole. Just as the covenants made with Israel applied to a remnant only, always a remnant preserved. Always justice served upon the many, but mercy upon the few; God remaining faithful to His covenant even as He is necessarily faithful to His own essential character. It is this perspective Paul gets at when He speaks of Christ being the means by which God could be both just and the justifier of those who have faith in Christ (Ro 3:26). To simply forgive one and all without discretion effectively eliminates any need for forgiveness at all. What’s the point? If you’re just going to forgive everybody, why stress them out over sin at all? No. God remains Just. He has mercy upon whom He chooses to have mercy. He demands justice from whom He chooses to demand justice.
So, then, who are we looking at? Peter specifies that they are spirits ‘who once were disobedient’. Well, that pretty much covers humanity, doesn’t it? At least if it’s taken at simple face value. We have all been disobedient, and more than once. That is what made Christ’s sacrifice necessary in the first place. There is none found righteous, no, not even one (Ro 3:10). Well, Peter continues to refine his point. It is those who were disobedient at a particular time, it would seem, that time when God was waiting for Noah to finish up his preparation of the ark. Does he then mean that it was specifically those who died in the Flood? Or, ought we measure God’s patience on a grander scale, stretching all the way back to Eden?
If we construe this as those who died in the Flood, it seems to me we have another problem. The Flood was judgment upon the irredeemably wicked. Why, then, would God the turn around and give them this lifeline? If sin is an eternal crime with an eternal penalty, what’s with this cutoff date? And, if they were redeemable, why were they not redeemed?
And then, if this is the only group to which Jesus went in this spirit state, how is this not favoritism? What of those whose sin and death came after the Flood? Why were they not given to hear this proclamation?
The big problem here is that, so far as I can tell, there is nothing else in Scripture to bounce verse 19-20 off of so as to get a better grip on the point. We can’t go look up the parallel verses to this passage, because there aren’t any given. We certainly can’t go ask Peter. I’m stuck. It seems the best I can do in this instance is to accept that Peter, being as he writes under the auspices and influence of the Holy Spirit, is not mistaken in what he writes. Jesus did go to preach to this group of spirits from some time either prior to or coincident with the Flood. Now, we are not told to what end He spoke. Was it for their redemption, or solely to proclaim His Lordship? You know, we do have that oft-repeated point that every knee will bow to Him, every tongue confess to the reality of His reigning authority. But, even this, one would think, is a matter for all who died apart from saving faith. Perhaps these guys were just getting the message a bit earlier than the rest? I simply don’t know. Maybe when I revisit this section with commentaries in hand I shall find further insight. For now, I shall have to leave the mystery with God.
Ah, but wait! There is at least some small parallel to the things Peter says here. It comes later in this very letter. “This is why the Gospel has been preached even to the dead, so that though they are judge in the flesh as men, yet they may live in the spirit according to God’s will” (1Pe 4:6). It’s not so very far ahead, and can be expected to continue the current context. I’m not sure how much it helps, really. It would seem to imply that some chance remains for those who have passed from this life. But, that is so at odds with anything I’ve seen in orthodox theology as to be nearly unthinkable. I am, I think, going to have to save resolution for some future date, and hope it comes.
One last item on the first half of verse 20, and this is more an issue of translation. I noticed that the Douay-Rheims takes the second clause as, “when they waited for the patience of God.” The majority of translations assign the act of waiting to God, not those who were disobedient. I should think that the fact that the verb is given in the Singular should make it sufficiently clear that the referent is not the multiple disobedient but the singular God. I’m not sure why the D-R would point it back to the disobedient, unless it’s just that they, too, were struggling to make sense of what Peter was saying here. If, in spite of their once having been disobedient, they really had repented and were waiting on God, we could understand why Jesus would be sent to preach to them and rescue them at the last. But, that leads me back to the question of why it is only this particular group.
Now, it could be that Peter does not intend us to suppose this is the only group to which Jesus spoke, but rather is working his scope around to focus on Noah because of the direction he is going with his message. That’s certainly possible, I suppose. But, by and large, it seems to me that the whole connective tissue between pointing us to powerful, salvific image of Christ dead and risen to the coming comparison between baptism and flood is just unnecessary obfuscation. But, that cannot be. My understanding is clearly deficient at this point, and I must await wiser words to guide me.
[01/22/14] I’m not sure I’d wish to push this next point very hard, but it intrigues me that both Zhodiates and Thayer bring out a particular aspect of patience which might not immediately spring to mind. We think ourselves patient when we are ready to depart and our spouse is not, and we don’t pace, don’t complain, don’t call on them to hurry up because we’re going to be late. We may think ourselves patient in taking the time to do a job right, to learn and practice the requisite skills. Maybe we think we’re patient in our study of Scripture or theology. Surely, many of the meetings we may have to sit through require patience!
But, look at this aspect of the patience issue: It describes somebody who refrains from exercising his rightful power to avenge. Or, as Thayer sets it before us, patience describes slowness in avenging wrongs. Is this a necessary aspect of patience, or one specialized application of patience? In the sense of possessing the rightful power to avenge, I think we get into the area of specialized application. But, in the more general sense of avenging wrongs, it would not be difficult to arrive at this as a necessary part of patience. After all, if there is nothing wrong about the situation, wherefore is there any call for patience?
Go back through those rather frivolous examples I threw out. You’re ready. Your spouse is not, and you sense that this is going to make you late, never mind us being late. You say it that way, and it is certainly true that you shall both necessarily be late if either is. But, the real problem leading to frustration is that this outside force is going to impact your reputation. You want nothing more than to go. Now. Ready or not. If they’re not ready, they should have started sooner. We can’t be there at 9 if we don’t leave here until 9! Patience, lad. Patience. Nor is it a one-way street. Comes the time to leave, it’s quite possible the reverse of the situation holds. She’s waiting to get home, and he’s busy having deep and meaningful discussions with his fellows, or maybe discussing football. One of the two. Anyway, it takes him forever to get to the door, and there she is, idling, trying hard to be patient.
The ‘patient’ one can always find something about the situation that has wronged them. Your primping made me late. Your chatting let my dinner burn. Your meeting means I’m going to have to work late to catch up with what I could have been doing during that time. There’s an injustice has been done to us! A less patient person would have simply demanded their right. Grab honey by the arm. We’re going now! Take your laptop to the meeting and summarily ignore what’s going on, so you can get some work done. Or, skip the meeting. Or, call yourself out early. Something, anything to get away.
The short of it is that yes, there is something about patience that bespeaks a sense of injustice and a refraining from vengeance. Zhodiates likes to point out the distinction that in terms of our relationships with other people, it is patience to which we are called, but in matters of circumstance, it is endurance. We endure hardships. We are patient with one another. It’s not a good thing if we are enduring one another. That’s not brotherly love. That’s being resigned to what one must suffer, and we are not to suffer one another, but to love one another.
Well! Onward to the murkiest of the murk. Peter is clearly presenting us with some sort of correspondence between baptism and the Flood. What exactly is the correspondence Peter is drawing? What is the type/antitype relationship he is pointing out to us? He is clearly doing so; explicitly saying that baptism is the antitype. Would that he had been so explicit in declaring the type! “Corresponding to that”, where does ‘that’ intend to point us? The terms are Singular and Neuter. Going back through verse 20, the only Singular Neuter I come across is the water. The next Singular Neuter I see is the Spirit by which Christ was quickened, but that seems too far back for our purposes.
So, then, Peter declares a linkage between the waters of the Flood and baptism. Wuest suggests the same in his translation, when talking of how the waters of the Flood related to Noah and family, bring them safely through, ‘by means of the intermediate agency of water’. Whether or not the text of this letter supports adding that concept of intermediate agency, the accuracy of the point seems clear enough. The water, in and of itself, did not and could not save Noah and family. Apart from some further means, they would have simply drowned along with the rest. We could go a step further and note that a boat, in and of itself, did not and could not save Noah and family, either. Surely, somewhere within the world at that time, lived a man with a boat. Surely, as the waters rose, such a man would at least have the sense to take to his boat. Yet, this other man did not come through safely. Noah did.
Notice how Peter develops this point. In Noah’s day, eight people (out of all who lived in that day) were brought safely through the water. The water was a necessary ingredient. The ark, while not mentioned directly in connection with this safe passage, was a necessary ingredient. God’s warning and instruction were necessary ingredients. But even that, in and of itself brought no guarantee of safety. A warning can be ignored. It was, apparently, by all but those eight. Instructions may not be followed correctly. One could bungle the operation. No, even with all of this, something greater was necessary if safe passage was to be obtained. If we are familiar with the story, we find that One greater necessity closing the door of the ark at the outset of its voyage. God Himself must be in it, or all the works of man are futile.
Now, let us scope over to baptism. Baptism consists in water. All are agreed on that, whatever other points we may debate. Baptism symbolizes a dying and a rebirth. All are equally agreed on that point, and it may be that specific aspect of the matter that has Peter connecting this whole thing to his opening point about the unjust suffering of Christ the Just. He died. He lives. Baptism: We die. We live. The Flood: Earth died. Earth lives. OK. I think we establish a connective tissue through the paragraph. Death and life are intrinsically connected in these events. Yes, there is death, but it is death leading to life in each case!
But, Peter isn’t directly equating baptism to Christ is he? If not, it is likely because he sees no need to establish the point. Paul’s done a fine job with that already. But, even so, I think we find he is indeed noting the connection here, if obliquely. So, then: Baptism uses water, as God’s rescue of Noah’s family used water. That same water, we must note, condemned the vast majority. Do we dare attempt to import that aspect of the matter into baptism? Does baptism, by what it symbolizes, condemn those who remain unbaptized? That is a topic I may have to explore further, assuming I pursue the larger topic of baptism after I’m done with this passage.
But, where we see the Flood, we cannot help but see the ark which kept Noah and family safely atop the waters. This, too, ought find its counterpart in baptism. Given that the ark, as we have noted, is similarly insufficient to have affected salvation, we cannot find the antitype of the ark in Christ. No, but we can find it in the Church. Is the Church visible in Peter’s equation? Not directly, no. And here, we must recognize the Church not as indicative of some physical structure, nor even of any specific denomination – for such did not exist at the time. It is the Church in the sense of the fellowship of the saints in all times and places.
The Church, in this sense, is the vessel God appoints to have built. He has provided the specs, just as He gave Noah the details of exactly how the ark was to be constructed. He has determined who shall be part of the Church. God calls and elects, we do not stumble upon some innate desire in ourselves that has us off searching for Him. He calls each one that He would have aboard His Church, just as Noah selected, by God’s direction, which animals would board the ark.
But, the Church, like the ark, has no power in itself by which to save. What power the Church has is not from itself but from the God it serves. Consider that the ark, no matter how large its dimensions, no matter how deep its stores, would eventually fail to sustain life. The Flood waters could have persisted until all provisions were exhausted. The wood, even were it teak or something of that nature, would eventually rot. The water, given enough time, would triumph over the wood, and the ark would eventually fail.
So it goes with the Church. We see it often in microcosm. Any specific local congregation, however glorious it may be at its best, may yet wither and die. The flood waters of evil slowly erode the edifice, sap the strength. Eventually, if that congregation is running on nothing but its own power, it will cease to be. The Church in and of itself cannot save. It requires the Christ of the Church. We are told this by Solomon himself, the very one tasked with building the temple. “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it. Unless the Lord guards the city, the watchman keeps awake in vain” (Ps 127:1). But, we have this, which our Lord and King spoke to Peter himself. “Upon this rock I will build My church! And the gates of hell shall not overpower it” (Mt 16:18).
There is the Antitype! Water did not save Noah. An ark did not save Noah. God saved Noah through these intermediate means. Baptism does not save you. The church does not save you. Jesus Christ, who is with God and is God saves you and chooses to use these intermediate means. I might even accept going so far as to note that His hand closes the door of the Church even as God’s hand sealed up the ark. The number of the elect is His alone to determine.
Returning to Peter’s description of this, he points out directly that it is not the act of baptism. Yeah, that’s great. You’ve washed the dirt off. So what? That body’s going to be put back in the dirt eventually anyway. It’s not outward cleanliness that is in view. It’s the conscience, the life of the spirit, which is critical.
So, Peter turns our thoughts to looking in the correct direction. It’s an ‘appeal to God for a good conscience’. And now, we have another challenge. What’s he talking about here? Are we making request for a good conscience, begging God to make us feel better about ourselves? I thought baptism was the seal set upon an act already accomplished!
The challenge of this thought is evident in the variety of translations offered. The CJB gives us, “one’s pledge to keep a good conscience toward God.” The ASV has, “the interrogation of a good conscience toward God.” The YLT tries, “the question of a good conscience in regard to God.” And, Darby gives us, “the demand as before God of a good conscience.” These seem to be very different ideas. The term itself can take on a range of meaning sufficient to arrive at any of these interpretations. It can be a request, or an inquiry. It could be a demand. It might be more to do with earnestly seeking something, or desiring it, or simply asking about it. But, which concept fits the occasion?
Thinking about that this morning, I find myself wondering if this isn’t pointing us back towards the legal concept from Roman law of making an appeal to Caesar. What was the reason for this? One has been brought before the local court and, for one reason or other, one feels he will not have a fair trial before that court. To appeal to Caesar, then, was what we might consider the final appeal, in some ways equivalent to asking the Supreme Court to hear our case and render judgment. It would seem not unfitting to apply something like this to coming before God in regard to our conscience. Given the subject matter of unjust suffering, it fits even better. Our neighbors accuse us of evil, consider our faith in Christ to be a crime against society. Depending on the timeframe in which this letter was written, there may have been very real danger of being dragged before the civil authorities for the crime of being a Christian. But, you see, there is a higher court. There is a higher authority, and against His judgment there can be no appeal. He alone is able to overrule the charges upheld by these lower, civil courts. Is this what Peter is thinking about?
To suppose baptism a demand on God for a good conscience would certainly seem to step over the line. Far be it from me to demand anything of God! As a request for clean conscience, would seem to leave baptism a matter of repentance alone. But, of the type is the ark and the Flood, then would it not be the case that repentance has been settled beforehand, and righteousness already determined? That situation would also fit better with our general understanding of baptism as an outward seal on an inward work already accomplished. If baptism is, in some form, an act reflecting David’s prayer, “see if there be any wicked way in me,” then it would seem to be an act that should be done daily! An earnest desire for a clean conscience? Same story. In another sense, our desire for a clean conscience should already be settled ground. Christ saves! Who shall condemn? If it is part of the ongoing work of sanctification, then we are back at the need for repeated application. But, then Peter is he who heard Jesus tell him, “You’ve been washed already. You’re clean. There’s just the rinsing of the feet that needs regular attention.”
But, the type: Noah did not need repeatedly to take to the ark to be saved. It was a once-for-all thing. Baptism is universally perceived as a once-for-all act. And, in spite of the clause here where Peter says, “baptism now saves you,” we do not, at least outside the Catholic church, suppose baptism to be salvific in itself, any more than the ark was salvific in itself. It is, by some measures, the door of the ark, the door of the church. It is the seal upon a work already accomplished. Notice Peter’s point. Baptism does not wash away the dirt. Yes, he specifies ‘from the flesh’, but it would seem we could take the point further, that baptism does not cleanse the soul, either. Rather, it proclaims the work that was already accomplished, as the last clause of the verse says, “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” It sets forth evidence already accepted and acknowledged by the highest court of Creation, and, I think it reasonable to say, calls upon God Himself as witness to His own decision.
There is your appeal. God, I know beyond doubt that You have already declared me righteous, innocent before the court. In Christ Jesus, died and buried, resurrected and reigning, You have proclaimed it is so, and I in turn proclaim what You have proclaimed. My debt has been paid, and there can be no further charge brought against me. You have ruled. Let these who would seek to accuse me once more of evil see this fact and repent.
This sense of the matter might even help us to understand what Peter was talking about with the proclamation Jesus made to the dead. The price has been paid. The penalty due the court has been remitted to the court in full. There can be no further charge brought against these whom God has saved. It may, then, not have been to redeem those who died unrepentant, but rather to stop their mouths in their continued accusations against the elect. The author of Hebrews turns to the subject of Noah and notes that in taking to the ark, he condemned the world (Heb 11:7). One can easily imagine that those who were thus condemned did not go quietly. How they must have howled at the audacity of this so-called righteous man. You call this just? I was a good man, doing no harm, just going about my life, and wham! Here comes the Flood. What did I do to deserve this? Well, the risen Christ has come and answered that question in painful detail. Case closed.
Without going into the subject of baptism in detail (which I think shall be a sidebar topic following this study), it is worthwhile to survey what various articles have had to say about baptism as it bears on this passage. The ISBE, in considering the scope of the Flood, supposes it unlikely that it truly covered the entirety of the globe. Instead, they posit that the Flood was the capstone on the process, seeing the preceding glacial spread as the beginning of God’s cleansing work. Thus, the range of mankind had already been seriously reduced, perhaps to only this region in western Asia, and the Flood represents but the final destruction, the culmination or closing act.
This does not speak directly to Peter’s statement, it is true. But, if we are to see baptism as the antitype, ought we in some wise to see it as the culminating, closing act of His judgment in Christ? Jesus did make that statement, “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved” (Mk 16:16). The one gets you on the ark, and the other closes the door? Perhaps.
McClintock & Strong speak more directly to the text. Their sense of it is that, as the waters of the flood destroyed the many but bore the ark to safety for the few, so baptism lifts the Church, and preserves the elect (the few) from the judgment upon the world at large (the many). Perhaps. It is true, certainly, that Peter makes particular note that only eight persons were saved by the ark. But, the overall flow of his thinking in this letter does not seem to be upon the remnant of the redeemed in contrast to the masses of the reprobate. The clear theme is unjust suffering and encouragement to stand strong and constant in spite of it. Were the churches of Asia Minor troubled by the fact that they remained so small a minority in society? No doubt. It remains that way with us today. But, I don’t really see that Peter is addressing this point. Neither, do I see him as discussing the Church per se. It’s more the matter of eternal state versus temporal troubles.
Some other comments regarding the nature of baptism might be worth some attention. Fausset offers that baptism is ‘the seal of gospel doctrine and spiritual renewal’. We are to see in this image that Christ is the ark, and the church saves ‘by living union with Him’. Unless the Lord builds the house… It is a means of moving from legal condemnation to sonship to God, but only where symbol and reality are aligned. The ISBE, presenting from a Baptist perspective, notes baptism as the symbol of that which has already transpired, being not a means of salvation, but a declaration of salvation already obtained. From a non-Baptist perspective, we are shown baptism as the door by which one enters the Christian community. I.e. it becomes a requirement for membership, as well as being a seal confirming receipt of the spiritual benefit of salvation. The Lutheran perspective points to baptism not only as a symbol of regeneration accomplished but also as a pledge to be regenerate going forward. They would set forth baptism as more than symbol, though, declaring it that which effects regeneration and produces the change. From this Lutheran perspective, the imagery presented by Peter focuses on the ‘saving power of water common to both’ the Flood and baptism. Again, we have baptism lifting ‘the ark of the Church’ and thereby saving its members.
Now, we may still have some issues with Peter claiming that baptism saves. The Lutheran view, presented above, would seem to hold that this is meant rather literally. It has real power, this sacrament. But, I think this is something of a minority view amongst Protestants. Yet, there it is. “Baptism now saves you.” In what way, Peter? In the same way as the ark, I think. It is a means, but it remains God who through the ark saved Noah. It remains God who through baptism saves His elect. And even that feels like overstatement to me, although it is certainly clear that apart from God, the act of baptism does no more than the act of taking a shower. Apart from God, the ark is just a boat.
Let me just present what the Amplified Bible lays out for this verse. “And baptism, which is a figure [of their deliverance], does now also save you [from inward questionings and fears], not by the removing of outward body filth [bathing], but by [providing you with] the answer of a good and clear conscience (inward cleanness and peace) before God [because you are demonstrating what you believe to be yours] through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” I’ll say this, it presents a coherent statement! It saves you from questions, by providing answers. And that, it can be seen, ties back to this whole question of suffering, and the doubts to which it gives rise.
We suffer, and we are inclined to question. What am I doing wrong, God; that you send this my way? Job wondered. Even more, his friends wondered what he had done wrong. The disciples saw the man born blind and wondered what his sin must be, or maybe the sin of his parents, that he suffered so. Look: It’s a good thing to do a bit of self-assessment every now and again. It’s possible, to be sure, that suffering comes as discipline for sins. Show me, O Lord, if there be any wicked way in me. But, don’t assume it must be because of some wickedness you’re holding onto. It may just be the response of a wicked world to your upright example. Look back to your baptism. Why? Because you know why you were baptized. You know the very real salvation of your soul which has been effected in Christ Jesus. Your conscience raises questions? Christ has given answer! It’s right there in the symbol of baptism. “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean” (Jn 13:10). It is finished! It is a finished work. Yes, the sanctification process goes on, but it’s the feet. You are clean. The court has ruled, and none – not even you – can make further appeal against its ruling.
We are arrived at the last verse of chapter 3. Peter is emphasizing the nature of this Jesus Christ who suffered and died, and who rose again. Notice how the beginning and the ending of this passage encapsulate the focus of Christian confession. If we look at the Apostles’ Creed, this whole passage is to be found. “I believe in […] Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: Who was […] crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell: The third day he rose again from the dead: He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.” Behold! The Second Person of the Trinity!
This setting on the right hand is of great significance. If God, the First Person of the Trinity, is the Almighty ruler of heaven and earth, for Him to have set Jesus at His right hand is to have declared Jesus His equal. He is first equal in dignity. But, that dignity: In what does it consist? In that we are looking into the very throne room of heaven, it consists in authority. In a word, as God reigns, Jesus reigns with Him. He is a full and equal partner in God’s government, entirely equal to God in authority. He is equal in power. We see this in that matter of all the powers of heaven having been subjected to Him. Here, the focus is not on the fact of their subjection. It is on the power of the subjecting force. The full power of the Godhead has been brought to bear, and every authority, every power, every angel has been left no choice but to be subjected. To Whom? To Him! To this very Christ Who died for the unjust in order to bring us to God alive.
As He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, so we are put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. He has done for us as was done for and in Him. By rights, then, we are likewise subjected to Him. We might say it is doubly right. As co-ruler over all creation, it is already fitting. As the one who made us alive, truly alive, it is not only fitting, but the very mark of gratitude. Let me add a third rightness. He paid high price indeed for us. He paid for us. He bought us, and we are by every legal right His property. So, then, by dint of power, by full force of the law, and by the natural response of the grateful, we are subjected to Him. We are subjected, though, not merely by the power of Him Who subjects, but by willing choice.
The most fundamental point of verse 22 is that Christ Jesus reigns. He is on the throne, and never shall He be deposed. That which was promised to David long centuries past has been fulfilled. He reigns. Peter spoke of this in that very first sermon preached to Jerusalem at Pentecost. “Having been exalted to God’s right hand, and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, He has poured out what you are witnessing. It wasn’t David who went into heaven. No! He himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand”’” (Ac 2:33-34). Something greater than David is here!
Now, here is a most amazing thing. Jesus has ascended to the throne, taken His rightful place. But, He could just as easily have taken His throne with us yet His enemies. Nothing in the nature of Justice required Him to come and suffer unjustly. He had done no wrong, nor has He ever. But, He did. In the joint council of the Trinity it had been determined. Mankind was a total loss. The rescue of Noah and his family may have improved the situation, but it hadn’t resolved it. The Mosaic covenant did not leave man any nearer to righteousness in the end. The reign of David had not ushered in a nation perfected. Man, left to his own devices, was incapable of righteousness. Sin persisted, and man was particularly prone to its wiles. It needed something more than mortal flesh to establish the kingdom of God on earth, to reinstate the order established in creation and tossed away by our first forebears.
The only possible reason we might point to as binding God to finding some resolution that redeemed a portion of mankind is His own word. He swore by Himself, upon Himself, that it would be so. Therefore, and only therefore, it would be so. And yet, it would be so in such fashion as did no injury to Justice. He became at once Just and the Justifier. Sin was not overlooked, winked at. The crimes against heaven were not winked at, and everybody handed a get out of jail free card. No. The full weight of the Law fell upon Him, crushed Him, took His life in payment for our crimes.
And more amazing yet? Paul was practically driven to his knees by the power of this! “If while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” While yet his enemies! Even the angels are stunned by His magnanimity. He did what? For whom? Amazing! They could not even begin to deserve such mercy, but God has poured it out in endless flow! The author of Hebrews looks at this and writes, “When He brings back the First-born into the world, He says, ‘And let all the angels of God worship Him’” (Heb 1:6). But, I tell you there was no great need for any such command. They were already in awe, already marveling at Him Who sits on the throne. Is it any wonder that the twenty four elders fall down on their knees before Him and worship Him (Rev 4:10)? Hear again their song. “Worthy art Thou to take the book, and break its seals; for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Rev 5:9). Can you hear the wonder in their words? God! What You have done! Worthy art Thou! Worthy art Thou forever and ever!
Carry those images of heaven’s courts back into Peter’s message. You are in consternation over the trials you face? You wonder if this suffering maybe indicates you have taken the wrong path, angered the gods? Look at Him! He was slain, and yet He lives! Not only does He live, He reigns! He alone is worthy. He alone has the words of Life, and He has spoken those words to you! To Whom else would you go?
Oh! Child of God! He has died for you, that you may live. Wherefore have you cause to complain? Who is there that you need fear? What is this flesh, after all, in light of eternity? Only fix your sites on heaven, for heaven is your home. Whatever the political winds that blow across the land, you remain citizens of heaven. Whatever trials may come, the Holy Trinity sits as final judge. Justice shall be served, and you shall be vindicated. You have been bought at so great a price, and do you suppose that having paid that price, He will see His purchase come to naught? By no means!
He reigns, and He Who reigns has called you His own. Rejoice, then, knowing your hope is certain even in the midst of fiery trial. He reigns, and you are His, and nothing, no power in all of creation, not even yourself, can take you from His hands.
