Peter now moves from the past to the present—from the events which occurred during the days of Noah to their meaning and relevance to the present situation of the recipients of the letter. Accordingly, he takes a portion of the past events which he has just mentioned and interprets it as a symbol pointing to (literally “antitype”) a part of the Christian experience. In doing this, he is simply following a practice prevalent among New Testament writers (and other biblical interpreters of that time) of taking things, events, and people in the Old Testament and interpreting them as types or symbols corresponding to things, events, and people in the present. The “type” foreshadows the “antitype,” that is, it is an imperfect symbol of a reality which is now revealed fully in the Christian faith. Examples of the application of this exegetical practice abound in the New Testament, for example, Adam – Christ (Rom 5.12 and following), Elijah – John the Baptist (Matt 11.14; 17.12), Jonah – Christ (Luke 11.29-32), Israel in the Wilderness – Christian sacraments (1 Cor 10.1-11).

Here the question that needs to be asked is what is the “type” and what is the “antitype”? In other words, what does which in the Good News Translation refer to? There are at least three possibilities.

1. The “type” is the water of the flood, and the “antitype” the water of baptism. Thus in the same way that Noah and his family were saved by means of the waters of the flood, so also the Christian is saved by the water of baptism (Jerusalem Bible, Barclay “That water was the symbol to which the water of baptism … corresponds”). The Good News Translation seems to have this meaning as primary, since the antecedent of which is water in the end of verse 20.

2. The “type” is the whole series of events mentioned in verse 20, that is, the building of the ark, their entry into the ark, and their being saved. In this case, the antitype is not water alone, but the whole process of baptism (compare Phillips “And I cannot help pointing out what a perfect illustration this is of the way you have been admitted to the safety of the Christian ‘ark’ by baptism”).

3. Some interpreters take Noah and his family as the “type” and Christians as the “antitype.” The sense of the verse then would be that since Noah and his family were saved by means of water, so the Christians, as the antitypes of Noah and his family, are also saved by means of the water of baptism. This interpretation is made possible by understanding “which” to be in apposition to “you” rather than to baptism. The Greek grammatical construction allows for this way of interpreting the verse; however, no translation (as far as we know) has opted for it.

It probably needs to be stressed that it is very necessary for adjustments to be made in the translation, in order to make clear what Peter is referring to. As it is, many translations are ambiguous and unclear at this point (for example, Revised Standard Version “Baptism which corresponds to this…”; Moffatt “Baptism the counterpart of that” [boldface supplied]). As is so frequently the case when one translates from one type of language to another, it is almost impossible to preserve ambiguity. Therefore, the reference of which must be made relatively clear, for example, “the water refers to baptism” or “what happened to Noah and his family refers to baptism.”

Was a symbol pointing to may, as already suggested, be rendered in some languages merely as “refers to,” but in some instances a somewhat more figurative expression may be appropriate, for example, “is a kind of picture of” or “reminds one of” or “is in many ways similar to” or “may be thought of as like.”

In place of a noun such as baptism many languages require a verbal expression, for example, “… is like being baptized.”

In choosing a word for baptism it is important to select an expression which will not be controversial, in the sense that it specifically excludes particular forms of baptism employed by different church traditions. In general, the tendency has been to borrow some form of the word baptism either from English or some other modern language or from Greek itself. In this way a more or less neutral term may be employed which diverse church traditions may interpret in various ways, depending primarily upon the particular mode of baptism which may be practiced. Of course, there are situations in which an indigenous term is widely used by people of different traditions and which might potentially be misleading, but which in reality provides no problems of usage. For example, in one of the areas of Latin America an Indian language uses an expression which means literally “to enter the water.” One would assume that this would be an essentially immersionist term, but in reality it was first used by Roman Catholics, later by Presbyterians, and is now generally employed by all Christian groups in the area. In other words, the term has lost its particular literal significance and has simply become a generalized expression for the rite of baptism, irrespective of the particular forms involved. When an indigenous expression is to be employed for rendering baptism, it is usually relevant to emphasize two important factors: (1) the matter of a ritual and (2) the use of water (without specifying how much or under what circumstances and by what means). For example, in a number of languages baptism is translated by an expression which means essentially “water ritual” or “a rite by means of water.”

At any rate, it is this “antitype,” whatever it is, which now saves them. Now may refer to the new dispensation as contrasted with the old, that is, the era of Christ and his church as contrasted to the time before Christ or more specifically, to a definite time, that is, the time of the administering of the rite of baptism.

For saves, see 1.5 and 1.9. Here it may refer either to being rescued from the power of sin and being brought into a proper relationship with God, or to the final salvation mentioned in 1.5. The tense of the verb (present) favors the former of these two alternatives.

The text as it stands makes baptism (or the water of baptism) as the agent who saves. A careful reading of the whole verse, however, indicates that which now saves you should perhaps go with through the resurrection of Jesus Christ at the end of the verse (compare 1.3), and the Good News Translation has made this clear (compare Barclay “It is the resurrection of Jesus Christ that makes this saving process possible”; New English Bible “It [baptism] brings salvation through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”). Understood in this manner, baptism is clearly not the agent but the instrument of salvation (for example, New English Bible “water of baptism through which you are now brought to safety”), and the implicit agent of salvation is God (compare 1.3-5). To express it in another way, it is because Christ is risen from the dead that baptism becomes an instrument through which God can make known his saving activity. If Christ were not raised, then baptism remains only a symbol not of life but of death. But since Christ is indeed raised from death, then the Christian is also enabled to rise from the water of baptism into a new life (compare Rom 6.1-11).

In order to avoid translating the clause which now saves you in such a way as to make baptism itself the agent of salvation, it may be important to indicate that baptism is a means rather than a direct agent, for example, “it is by means of being baptized that God now saves you.” In some instances it may be better to combine the last clause of verse 21 with the expression which now saves you, for example, “by means of being baptized, God now saves you through Jesus Christ’s being raised from the dead” or “… saves you in view of the fact that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead.” One may then introduce a description of what baptism involves.

The meaning of baptism is now explained, first negatively and then positively. Negatively, it is not the washing off of bodily dirt, which literally is “not as a removal of dirt from the flesh.” “Flesh” has many meanings in the New Testament (compare 1.24 and 3.18). Here it is used in the sense of physical or human body. The whole expression simply signifies making the body clean in a physical sense (New English Bible “washing away bodily pollution”; Phillips “mere washing of a dirty body”; Biblia Dios Habla Hoy “cleaning the body”).

The negative description of baptism may be rendered as “baptism does not mean washing off dirt that clings to the body” or “in speaking about being baptized, we are not talking about washing dirt from the body.”

Some scholars see a contrast here between Christian baptism on the one hand and the Jewish practice of circumcision and the rites of mystery religions on the other, which put emphasis on outward ritual cleansing. It is against this outward emphasis, sometimes with utter disregard for the inner significance of baptism, including its ethical implication, that Peter is protesting against. Accordingly, he goes ahead and mentions a positive aspect of baptism, namely, the promise made to God from a good conscience. For conscience, see verse 16. The word for promise is eperōtēma, which has the normal meaning of “question,” and this is the basis of the Revised Version “interrogation of a good conscience.” Taken this way, the clause may refer to questions addressed to the person being baptized, together with his answers (compare King James Version “the answer of a good conscience towards God”).

However, it is not at all clear that this is what is meant here. Accordingly, two other possibilities of translating eperōtēma need to be explored. The first is taking it with the meaning of “making a request for” (compare Matt 16.1; Psa 136.3), and this is the basis for the Revised Standard Version “an appeal to God for a clear conscience” (compare Moffatt “the prayer for a clear conscience before God”).

The second is taking eperōtēma as a contractual term, describing the act of the person being baptized as he pledges his loyalty to God and promises to obey him. Most modern commentators and many translations take this last meaning as primary.

There is, however, no agreement whether the genitive construction should be taken as subjective or objective. If the former, then the meaning would be “a pledge to God from a good conscience” (Good News Translation, Barclay, Jerusalem Bible); if the latter, then the meaning would be “a pledge made to God to maintain a good conscience.” It must be noted that many translations which take eperōtēma with the meaning of “appeal” interpret the objective genitive here (for example, Moffatt “the prayer for a clear conscience”; Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “we ask God for a good conscience”; Biblia Dios Habla Hoy “asking God for a clear conscience”; but compare New English Bible “the appeal to God by a good conscience”).

In view of the grammatical and lexical ambiguities in the phrase the promise made to God from a good conscience, there are a variety of ways in which this expression may be rendered, for example, “but baptism means that we make a promise to God from a good conscience” or “… that our good conscience may promise God” or “… promise loyalty to God.” In this context a good conscience may be rendered as “our knowing that we do not have guilt.”

If, of course, a good conscience is the goal of the believer’s appeal to God, then one may translate “baptism means appealing to God in order that we may have a good conscience” or “… that we may know that we do not have guilt.”

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The First Letter from Peter. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .