Practical application of Pentecostal theology in politics, economy and social issues
1 Peter 3:20-21 [20]Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by wate
Related:
– The meaning of παρασκευή (‘day of preparation’)
– Re. The Passover: Why do Christians Assert the Calendar Day Began at Sunset?
– Re. The Crucifixion: Possible to Correlate Timekeeping and Calendar Days?
– Historical Evidence that the Sabbath Rest Began at Sunset – Prohibiting Work During the Preceding Night?
Why is ἐπιφώσκω, (Dawn) translated completely differently in Matthew and Luke?
NASB / Interlinear Matthew 28:1 – Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn, (ἐπιφωσκούσῃ) toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave.
NASB, Luke 23:54, Interlinear – It was the preparation day, and the Sabbath was about to begin, (dawn?, ἐπέφωσκεν).
In English, the Idiom Seems Counter-Intuitive:
English Analogy: The Dawn of Christmas Eve.
Guest;
Link Hudson I for one dont see it again. Maybe its just me, but I dont see why John David Barton cited this verse as it does NOT proof oneness in any way possible Terry Wiles Jerome Herrick Weymouth
Guest;
Re: IS 1 PETER 3:20-21 PROOF FOR ONENESS THEOLOGY?
No. 1 Peter 3:20-21 does not prove the Oneness Pentecostal teaching that baptism in water is an absolute prerequisite for salvation. This position is commonly called ” baptismal regeneration” because it holds that one is “regenerated” only when he or she is baptized. It is not unique to the Oneness movement. It is also taught by the Catholic Church.
1 Peter 3:20-21 New King James Version (NKJV)
20 who formerly were disobedient, [a]when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which ( the ark) a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
snip
Notes For Verse 20
a [wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water] Into which ark eight souls were saved by (Greek: dia (G1223), through) water, or saved from drowning in the flood by being in the ark (Gen. 6:9-10,18; 7:7; 8:18). The water did not save them, but the ark did.
b [saved by water] They were not saved in the sense of their souls being saved from sin, but saved from drowning in the flood.
Notes For Verse 21
a [like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us] The “like figure” of baptism in water also saves us. How does it save us? Is it the water that saves or the things that it is a figure of? It was not the water that saved the eight persons of 1Pet. 3:20. It was the ark that saved them from drowning in the flood. So baptism in water does not save the soul, but faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ–that which baptism is a figure of–does save the soul (Rom. 6:3-5 1Cor. 15:1-4 Eph. 1:14; Col. 1:20-22). A mere figure can have no power to save, but the reality of the figure can. Peter, lest some should trust in water baptism to save the soul, makes it very clear that baptism does not save one from the filth or moral depravity of the flesh. He shows it to be only the answer of a good conscience toward God, one that has been made clean by faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is clear here that at baptism the conscience is already supposed to be good and clean and baptism merely answers to it. As the waters of the flood could not have saved these eight persons had they not made use of the ark, so the water of baptism does not save the soul of anyone, but testifies figuratively to the salvation that comes by faith (Rom. 1:16; 3:24-25; 10:9-10). See note, Mt. 3:11 and Baptism Did Not Remit Paul’s Sin.
b [filth of the flesh] Greek: rhupos (G4509), the root word of rhuparia (G4507), rhuparos (G4508), and rhupoo (G4510), meaning moral filth and depravity (Jas. 1:21; 2:2; Rev. 22:11; note, Jas. 1:21). DAKE
Guest;
No. 1 Peter 3:20-21 does not prove the Oneness Pentecostal teaching – RIGHT ON
Guest;
First Peter proves that baptism is necessary. Or also backs up that Jesus did not abolish the Law.
Guest;
Leviticus 14:51-52
[51]And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times:
[52]And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet:
Guest;
naah John David Barton IF you looked at the Greek discussion I sent you you will read baptism is not needed
Guest;
Would God have accepted a sacrifice not washed in running water? Absolutely not!
Guest;
Are you saying that BAPTISMA is the subject of SWiZEI and ANTITUPON is a predicate of BAPTISMA?The referent of hO is not so interesting at the moment as its syntactic relationship to ANTITUPON and BAPTISMA. (It more likely refers to the whole event of the preceding verse or water, as KIBWTOS is feminine, but this is beside the question.
Guest;
The Greek discussion says that baptism is equivalent to entering the ark based on the Greek word antitupon. It plainly speaks of repentance not being the only work of faith. What do you say of Naman and Elisha?
Guest;
In all seriousness, I read a quote from a Greek scholar the other day. I cannot remember the one, but I do know who posted it. He said there were a number of grammatical errors in Peter’s Greek. “Almost as if an unlearned fisherman had wrote it.” I try to keep in mind the hebraic customs and idioms as well as the grammar. It is a never ending task as we are so far removed from their world. Repentance and Baptism: Do you see them as separate? http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/repentance-and-baptism-do-you-see-them-as-separate/