Christian Forums

"Now saves you" -

"Now" is either a contrast between the time of Noah, and the present day, or it is a reference to the present day, and the present circumstances, particularly, the suffering that these believers are currently experiencing (see 3:13-18, cf. list of references in my earlier post on "suffering" and the context of 1st Peter).

"Saves" is written in the present tense, and refers to being rescued in, from, and through their suffering, through the hope of a glorified body that cannot be destroyed. As you know, the word "sozo", and its variations are not always used specifically for salvation from sin in the initial sense, but can also refer to, and mean "rescue", "preservation", etc.

"You" refers to Peter's audience, who are experiencing suffering, and will experience it (again, see aforementioned list of verses on suffering).

As far as the paranthetical clause is concerned, Peter is clarifying what he means by the word "baptism". Here are a few questions for you to consider, if he is talking about water baptism, why write "not the washing away of the filth of the flesh"? And what, if any, implications does that paranthetical phrase leave us with?

James,
I still don't get the attempted connection between 'baptism' and 'suffering,' mainly because I see no need for water to be involved at all and thus no reason for 'not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.' That statement requires water in my estimation, as it really has nothing to do with suffering as far as I can tell.

The reason Peter said that phrase was to resolidify the truth that there is no magic water, there is merely water commanded by God but made effective spiritually by His power and the resurrection.

Suffering really doesn't explain very well why that phrase exists, or the explanation of the saving power in verse 22. In fact, to me, verse 22 and that previous phrase almost become very strange indeed, if suffering were the topic under discusion as 'now saves you.' Not to mention what that does to the 'antitype/type'.

For the persecuted believer, suffering for the sake of Christ unto death, it would make a lot of sense.

James,
Paul said all who live godly in Christ will suffer persecution. And really, given the use of the water of the flood, the appositive following 'now saves you' and verse 22 it makes no sense to me.

Actually, Paul said that. Regardless, the reality of suffering does not exclude the giving of encouragement, and of hope via the resurrection, through suffering.

James,
Paul was correct, thanks. I agree with your post, but it still doesn't explain to me why if that is under consideration in 1 Peter 3 why the water of the flood, and the phrase, 'filth...' and the explanation of 'now saves you' by God's power is included.

By no stretch does suffering save. One who suffers will be saved (Rev. 2:10), but suffering does not save, and has nothing to do with 'filth of the flesh' or the 'water' of the flood, or the power of God through the resurrection of Christ.

James,

I'm back from a week of travelling.  I think I'll respond with a post addressing the main issue, then perhaps other posts in response will follow, time permitting.  I want to focus on the agreement of the relative pronoun with "water" because you denied that they agree in the face of grammatical authorities, including Boyer, the one you cited:

Normally, gender and number agree with the antecedent, but the case of the relative is determined by its grammatical function in its own clause.

By your own analysis, water agrees in gender and number.  By the very authority you cite, the case is determined by function.  The case of the relative pronoun and its antecedent do not have to agree.

I confirmed your source by pulling out one of my reference grammars, A.T. Robertson's.  He wrote: "The obvious way is for the case of the relative to be due to the construction in which it is used or to follow the same law as other nouns and pronouns (so with prepositions).  That is to say, assimilation of case is not a necessity."

So, James, do you continue to maintain that "water" cannot be the antecedent because it doesn't agree with the relative pronoun in case?

Blessings,

Bob

James is fasting from water right now, but I am not.  I will continue to address his last post.

Quote from: James Rondon on Thu Feb 01, 2007 - 21:59:35
Hello again, Bob. As I have mentioned, circumstances have kept me from responding to you for several days. Even so, I would like to address your post in response to my lengthy post on the antecedent of the relative pronoun "hos" of 1st Peter 3:21. I will address your points in reverse, if that is alright.

You stated: Consider the NIV translation.  They clearly connect the water through which Noah was saved with the antitype that saves now, baptism.   "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also."  If water could not be the antecedent, grammatically, then the NIV translators would have to have made a sophomoric blunder of epic proportions.  Not likely.

My response: The NIV inserts the word "water" into verse 21, when it does not appear there, in the Greek. Considering that, and also considering that the KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, HCSB, and YLT follow the Greek by not adding the word water there, I would agree that it's addition by the NIV translators is at least "sophomoric", when it comes to translating this passage.

First, there are no verse divisions in the original text.  There is water in the passage.  Second, my argument was that the NIV translators clearly believed "water" to be the antecedent in order for them to have translated the verse in that fashion.   That much is obvious.  If the form of "water" did not agree grammatically, then they made a very obvious and basic mistake to think was even an option.

The statement of James that "water" could not be the antecedent because it does not agree grammatically with the relative pronoun is so clearly wrong that it is dissappointing that he has not seen fit to retract it upon being corrected.