Over the weekend I had occasion to send a friend some pages from my Myth That is True first draft that pertained to a difficult passage, 1 Peter 3:14-22. I could hardly believe I had not posted on it before (searched for it and came up empty). So, I’ve decided to include it at some point in the podcast series on baptism. I’ve actually been present in a church where the pastor, working through 1 Peter, actually announced he was skipping the passage because it was too strange. True, it’s weird, but it’s actually quite comprehensible against the backdrop of what I call the divine council worldview. So, here it is.
14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; 16 yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil. 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 And now the antitype – that is, baptism – saves you, not be means of a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience on the basis of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
The overall theme of 1 Peter is that Christians must withstand persecution and persevere in their faith. That much is clear in this passage. But what’s with baptism, the ark, Noah, and spirits in prison? And does this text say that baptism saves us.
Typology as an Interpretive Key
To understand what’s going on in Peter’s head here we have to understand a concept that scholars have called “types” or “typology”. Typology is a kind of prophecy. We’re all familiar with predictive verbal prophecy – when a prophet announces that something is going to come to pass in the future. Sometimes that comes “out of the blue,” with God impressing thoughts on the prophet’s mind that he utters. On other occasions, a prophet might take an object or perform some act and tell people that the thing or action prefigures something that will happen. Ezekiel was notorious for this, like the time God told him to shave his head and beard, weigh it the balances, and then burn a third of it, beat a third of it with a sword, and scatter the last third to the wind to visually portray the future of the city of Jerusalem (Ezek. 5:1-12). But we only know what Ezekiel’s antics meant because they are spelled out in his prophecies. Ezekiel 5 tells us these are prophecies and what the fulfillment would be. Types work differently.
A type is basically an unspoken prophecy. It is an event, person, or institution that foreshadows something that will come, but which isn’t revealed until after the fact. For example, in Romans 5:14 Paul tells us that Adam was a tupos of Christ. This Greek word means “kind” or “mark” or “type” — it’s actually where “typology” comes from. Paul was saying that, in some way, Adam foreshadowed or echoed something about Jesus. In Adam’s case, that something was how his act (sin) had an effect on all humanity. Like Adam, Jesus did something that would have an impact on all humanity – his death and resurrection. Another example would be Passover, since it prefigured the crucifixion of Jesus, who was called “the lamb of God.” The point is that there was some analogous connection between the type (Adam) and its echo (Jesus), called the “anti-type” by scholars.
So how does this relate to our weird passage in 1 Peter? Peter uses typology in 1 Peter 3:14-22. Specifically, he assumes that the great flood in Genesis 6-8, especially the sons of God event in Genesis 6:1-4, typify or foreshadow the gospel and the resurrection. For Peter, these events were commemorated during baptism. That needs some unpacking.
Genesis 6 Backdrop
There are tight connections between Genesis 6:1-4 and the epistle of 2 Peter and Jude, whose content mirrors 2 Peter is many ways. Peter and Jude Peter were very familiar with Jewish tradition about Genesis 6 in books like 1 Enoch, and believed them. 1 Enoch 6-15 describes how the sons of God (also called “Watchers”) who committed the offense of Genesis 6:1-4 were imprisoned under the earth (the Underworld) for what they had done. The Watchers appealed their sentence and asked Enoch, the biblical prophet who never died (Gen 5:21-24), to intercede for them. 1 Enoch 13:4 puts it this way:
They [Watchers] asked that I write a memorandum of petition for them, that they might have forgiveness, and that I recite the memorandum of petition for them in the presence of the Lord of heaven.
God sent back his response by way of Enoch, who went to the imprisoned spirits and announced to them that their appeal had been denied (1 Enoch 13:1-3; 14:4-5):
1 And, Enoch, go and say to Asael, You will have no peace.
A great sentence has gone forth against you, to bind you.
2 You will have no relief or petition, because of the unrighteous deeds that you revealed, and because of all the godless deeds and the unrighteousness and the sin that you revealed to men.
3 Then I went and spoke to all of them together. And they were all afraid,
and trembling and fear seized them.
1 Enoch goes on to describe the prison term as until the end of days – language that refers to the end times.
2 Peter 2:4 (cp. Jude 6) makes specific reference to the episode of Genesis 6:1-4 and the imprisonment of fallen angels in the Underworld. The incident was also on Peter’s mind when he wrote his first epistle — and our strange passage. Peter saw a theological analogy between the events of Genesis 6 and their fallout with the gospel and the resurrection. In other words, he considered these events to be types or precursors to New Testament events and ideas.
Just as Jesus was the second Adam for Paul, Jesus is the second Enoch for Peter. Enoch descended to the imprisoned fallen angels to announce their doom. 1 Pet 3:14-22 has Jesus descending to these same “the spirits in prison,” the fallen angels, to tell them they were still defeated, despite his crucifixion. God’s plan of salvation and kingdom rule was still intact. In fact, it was right on schedule. The crucifixion actually meant victory over every demonic force opposed to God. This victory declaration is why 1 Pet 3:14-22 ends with Jesus risen from the dead and set at the right hand of God — above all angels, authorities and powers.
Choosing Sides
So how does this relate to baptism? It explains the logic of the passage. Here’s the relevant part once more:
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 And now the antitype – that is, baptism – saves you, not be means of a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience on the basis of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
The two underlined words in verse 21 need reconsideration in light of the divine council worldview. The word most often translated “appeal” (eperotema) in verse 21 is best understood as “pledge” here, a meaning that it has in other material.1 Likewise the word “conscience” (suneidesis) does not refer to the inner voice of right and wrong here as it does elsewhere. Rather, the word refers to “an attitude or decision that reflects one’s loyalty,” or “conscientiousness,” a usage that is also found in other contexts.2
Baptism is not what produces salvation. It “saves” us in that it first involves or reflects a heart decision: a pledge of loyalty to the risen Savior. In effect, baptism in New Testament theology is a loyalty oath, a public avowal of who is on the Lord’s side in the cosmic war between good and evil.3 But in addition to that, it is also a visceral reminder to the defeated fallen angels. Every baptism is a reiteration of their doom in the wake of the gospel and the kingdom of God. Early Christians understood the typology of this passage and its link back to the fallen angels of Genesis 6. Early baptismal formulas included a renunciation of Satan and his angels for this very reason.4 Baptism was — and still is — spiritual warfare.
- Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (“With a revised supplement, 1996; Rev. and augm. throughout; Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1996), 618. ↩
- William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature; 3rd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 968. ↩
- This naturally pertains to adult / believer’s baptism, or baptism that has a recipient in view who can make a faith decision. In the case of infant baptism (at least in terms of the biblically-coherent view I describe here for those who want to baptize infants, contra the way it gets “explained” in the reformed creeds, creating theological problems), the idea would be that the “loyalty statement” is made by the parents in their act of baptizing the infant, thus putting it into the community of faith that has the truth — the gospel — which truth must still be believed for salvation. ↩
- See here for example. ↩
Huh. Remind me never to “wimp out” on preaching through a passage of Scripture. I could see some sections being “boring” (some of the genealogies, and holiness codes come to mind), but not preaching something because it’s too “strange”? That’s when you preach through as much as you can, and reserve the rest for an evening Bible study or whatnot.
I look forward to commenting “intelligently” once I’ve read through it. 🙂
I could hardly believe it when he said it and just started in to chapter 4.
You explained this stuff on an episode of Future Quake. When you say, “Jesus was the second Adam for Paul” it reminds me of how Peter Enns talks about this issue in his latest book. Book review maybe?
That will come since I am reading Peter’s book now.
Hey Mike. I read your take on this in your latest Myth draft and was confirmed in some of the conclusions I had been thinking about this. I do have a question though. I’m wondering if you think this is quibbling over semantics or more important than that. Ramsey Michaels (WBC – 1 Peter) has an almost journal length study of this passage in his commentary. He argues that the “spirits” refer, not to fallen angels, but probably to demons. I’m not sure how familiar he is with the whole nephilim/sons of God stuff. At any rate, he uses Rev 18:2 which goes back to Isaiah 34:13-14 and 13:21-22 and the LXX’s strange references to centaurs, sirens, satyrs, etc (which I’m also not sure how much he knows about).
Rev 18:2 uses the same word as 1 Peter for the “prison,” which is not hades or tartarus or gehenna, but phulake. Michael’s suggests that Jesus went and preached to the spirit/demons “where ever they are.” What I’m certainly not disagreeing with you about is how the 1 Peter 3 passage relates back in some way to the events of the flood. What I am wondering is if you would see any distinction between the spirit/demons and the sons of God? My understanding, at least of the early church and much of the inter-testamental stuff is that they believed the spirits or demons were the disembodied souls of the nephilim giants. In other words, they are not elohim (aside from the Deut 32:17 verse), but demi-elohim. While I am certain that 2 Peter 2 has in mind the binding in mind in 1 Enoch, I’m not sure its the same in 1 Peter 3? So, I’m asking an expert. 🙂
Thanks,
Doug
yeah, I think this is largely semantics (in this instance, but see my comments). All the Jewish traditions (along with the similar Greek story of the Titans) have the “offending divinities” in an Abyss or Hades or Tartarus, chained until the end of days. In the Bible, the sons of God are never called demons, nor are fallen angels called demons. The Bible offers no explanation for the origin of demons. Jewish literature (like Enoch) say that demons are the spirits of dead nephilim. When a nephilim was killed in 1 Enoch the “inner spirit” of the nephilim that survived is called a demon. These spirits are also called Watchers a couple of times, like their fathers (the biblical sons of God). That may be where the mistaken connection is made (I say mistaken because the original offending sons of God are not called demons). These lines get blurred in translation (Aramaic vs. Greek) since some translators took no care to maintain distinctions.
oh the headaches you must get Dr. Heiser lol
blessings!
You: “Baptism is not what produces salvation. It saves us in that it first involves or reflects a heart decision: a pledge of loyalty to the risen Savior. In effect, baptism in New Testament theology is a loyalty oath, a public avowal of who is on the Lords side in the cosmic war between good and evil.”
Baptism in this passage does seem to be closely linked to salvation though. The passage states that baptism saves us. Regardless of the idea that this involves a pledge it seems to be tightly interwoven with salvation, more so than the modern church would want to admit I think. The more I read the NT the more I see how important baptism was to the early church.
.
choosing to follow Christ (pledge) is naturally closely related to salvation(!)
My own view on baptism is the traditional sacramental view of baptismal regeneration (so you know where I’m coming from).
The idea of baptism as an oath of loyalty fits very well with this view. In fact the word sacrament originally came from the Latin Sacramentum which was the oath that soldiers took that inducted them into the military.
I come from a background in which baptism was viewed as an ordinance that we were required to do because it was commanded, but which had no real spiritual effect. As a result I tend to react against any hint of that idea.
I agree with your analysis regarding the relationship of Peter’s epistle to Genesis 6 and Enoch. However, there are a couple of things that I wanted to suggest as well specifically regarding the idea that “baptism saves us”. First is that baptism is actually prefigured, or typed, in other places in scripture as well. The most obvious being in the parting of the Red Sea during the exodus. There again you have God’s people being saved from their enemies and the enemies being destroyed by water. You also have God’s people leaving behind an old corrupt world (symbolized by Egypt) and entering into a new one. That idea is also present in the flood of course as well. I would suggest that baptism is also typed by the waters of the creation story in Genesis as well. Particularly the Spirit of God hovering over there face of the deep, I would argue, is a type of the Spirit descending like a dove at Jesus’ baptism, and the ongoing connection between the Spirit and the waters of Baptism (John 3 and Titus 3:5).
All of those things add meaning to what baptism is, what God accomplishes in baptism etc.
The second thing I would offer for consideration is just the nature of typology as prophecy. We have a tendency to look at typology from a natural perspective, i think, and see it merely as using prior events as analogies to explain meaning in present things. There is a tendency I think to place the emphasis on the ‘original’ prior event as the real thing and the current ‘anti-type’ as merely a symbol which resembles the original, real, thing.
I would suggest that this is turned around from the way it should be seen. So for example, baptism does not resemble Genesis 6 and the flood. Genesis 6 and the flood fore told baptism. Likewise baptism doesn’t symbolically resemble the parting of the red sea… the parting of the red sea was a symbolic fore telling of baptism. I think there is a tendency to place the emphasis on the type, when its really the anti-type that is the point. The Anti-type was intended all along, and the types were put in place to point to the anti-type.
I like to think of it as the anti-type being an event which echos backward in time, and the types are the echos of the anti-type.
Hope that made sense
I don’t think baptismal regeneration (however defined) makes any sense, especially since baptism is linked to circumcision in some way (Col 2:11-12). Circumcision had no regenerative power. Baptismal regeneration also fails to explain why many who are baptized reject the faith later. Frankly, I don’t see it working on any level.
Baptism is linked to circumcision as you point out. This link is demonstrated by Paul to show that baptism is the sacrament of initiation into the New Covenant, just as circumcision was the sacrament of initiation into the Old Covenant.
From Abraham onward, circumcision was required to make someone part of God’s covenant, and part of the covenant nation. If a person was not circumcised according to God, they had broken the covenant and were cut off from their people. So, while this does not clearly state that there is an interior change or a spiritual regeneration, it does clearly state that the person’s standing with God is fundamentally changed by circumcision.
Going on further from that, it is of course possible and indeed happened many times, that a person who was made part of the covenant by circumcision later broke the covenant in some other way by rejecting God and his law.
So, just based on the comparison to circumcision it would suggest that baptism does effect a real change in our standing with God and that there should be no surprise when a person later “falls away” or rejects the covenant.
If baptism is the initiation into the new covenant as circumcision was to the old, then it would also be logical that the differences between the new and old covenant would be applied to baptism. For example, the argument could be made that the New Covenant is a covenant of spiritual regeneration while the old was not.
At the heart of this is what exactly a person is being inducted into, or joined into when they are made part of the covenant. In the Old Covenant a person was inducted into a family, a nation, that was set apart to God. In the New Covenant we are joined to Jesus Christ himself. We are inducted into a family via adoption, but the way in which this is accomplished is that we are joined to Christ to share in both his death and his life.
I think you will find in the New Testament that the first means by which we are joined to Christ, to share in his death and his life, is baptism.
In fact, in the very verses you referenced linking circumcision to baptism we have the following text
“having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses”
This idea is also clearly stated in Romans chapter 6. If we are joined to Christ’s death and resurrection in baptism, how can it not be regenerative? Based on this idea I would argue that even if you only see baptism as a rite of initiation, it still would have to be seen as regenerative because being initiated into Christ is regenerative.
To address your second objection, that many who are baptized later reject the faith. Let me begin by posing a question of sorts. I’m assuming that you believe there is a moment of regeneration at some point, and I’m also assuming that you probably would place it at some point when a person makes a decision for Christ, or has a heart conversion experience.
The question is, do any of these people ever reject the faith after having had this experience?
I don’t know what your answer would be. I don’t know if you hold to once saved always saved, or to perseverance of the saints, but having seen some of your views on free will and predestination I would guess that you don’t. I was raised with a doctrinal view that regeneration occurred when a person had a heart conversion and made a decision to follow Jesus Christ. We also did not believe in once saved always saved, or perseverance of the saints. In my experience I saw a number of people who became Christians and according to our doctrinal view were regenerated that later rejected the faith.
My point being, no matter when you place regeneration, be it at baptism or at decision, or some moment of heart conversion, there are always going to be people who reject the faith after that point. The only way around this would be essentially to say that they were never regenerated even though they outwardly appeared to be. This might be easier to do if you make regeneration something that no one can be sure of (ie it is only internal and no one truly knows for certain that it has happened to them) but its not impossible to do with baptism either since even in the sacramental understanding baptism is not a magic ritual. It still requires faith and right intent.
In my belief, the reason that people fall away after having received spiritual regeneration is that there is still a need for renewing of the mind and the will. When a person is regenerated, they have access to the life of God within them but this is no guarantee that they will allow that divine life to transform their heart and their mind.
Once a person has been regenerated, they still need to be transformed into the likeness of Christ and in my view that is an ongoing process which we can participate in, or we can ultimately resist and reject.
I hope that this doesn’t come across as argumentative but rather just friendly conversation.
circumcision was not a sacrament; it did not confer grace (but it did do something very important). Therefore baptism is not a conduit of grace, either (but its importance parallels that of circumcision). I think the next episode of the podcast will help (it will be uploaded this weekend). The point of an analogy is not to include differences; it is to strike points of analogy (sameness). What you are describing is a contrast, not an analogy.
Perhaps I’m not following… it seems to me that you are saying that because baptism is compared analogously to circumcision there can be no difference between the two?
Am I misunderstanding?
What I am attempting to say is that there are some significant ways in which baptism is like circumcision, and infact I believe circumcision was a type of baptism. However, I also believe the crossing of the red sea was a type of baptism and that the flood was a type of baptism, etc.
As a result I think that there are ways in which circumcision and baptism are also different. For example, to my knowledge there is no concept that circumcision was symbolic of death and rebirth (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) but baptism clearly is symbolic of death and rebirth.
In connection, it doesn’t seem logical to me that a type would be exactly the same as the thing which is typed (the anti-type). Especially in biblical typology, I just don’t see that. What I see is that the anti-type is always more and greater and deeper than the type.
Yes, you are misunderstanding, but I could be clearer! There will be differences, but in Paul’s case he tells you when the differences matter. That is, he gives the strategy behind the analogy. Typically, an analogy is about comparing sameness (otherwise, where’s the analogy?). But two things can be compared to illustrate difference. In the 1 Peter passage, the writer doesn’t tell us he’s focusing on the difference. The descent (of Enoch) was well known from 2nd temple Jewish literature, and Peter puts Christ in that place, since he is the one who went to Sheol/Hades. There is no indication (unlike Romans 5) that he wants to focus on difference rather than sameness. Since the text doesn’t direct me to do that, I’m not doing it. I’m sticking to the sameness elements.
So much of the Divine Council background confirms experience: certainly I and many others I know have found life post-baptism to be both more blessed and more spiritually attacked than before.
I can identify with both (blessing and cursing); trust me.
MHS,
I somewhat stunned to see so many who think the ceremony of a water baptism is what is referred to in this context. Yes, Peter mentions it (almost offhandedly and kinda snarkily; was ritual baptism EVER thought by anyone to remove dirt not), but hes not, IMHO, thinking about water here. Water never cleansed inside or out, but was a testimony of ones conscience?
I think there are many places in the Christian Scriptures where one can show the progressive revelation regarding Baptism (from the ritual of baptism in water practiced by Judaism and early (IMHO, uninformed Christianity) to the baptism in/of/by the Spirit (as a normative occurrence of BEING a Christian)). Actually it is water that is the type of the spirit of God foreshadowing the baptism prophesied by John as coming (Mt. 3:11) and as brought back to mind by Jesus to the disciples as soon-to-be-here in Acts 1:5.
Youve got some special pleading goin on as regards your translations of eperotema (pledge) and suneidesis (attitude/ decision reflecting loyalty) in this context to get to your hermeneutic. Im thinking like a couple of those above that baptism (indeed the baptism of/by/with the spirit not water any more) DOES save us. This speaks well to Pauls usage of one baptism not two that is with purpose in our lives as believers.
All the other Divine Council stuff is, of course, fabulous!
RE
I’ll stand with the position – it is essentially that of NT (and rabbinical) scholar, Bo Reicke (The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism: A Study of 1 Peter 3:19 and Its Context).
There’s no special pleading. The reference looks BACK at Noah and the flood, not the book of Acts.
The reference is obviously back to Noah, but that doesnt help answer the saved question. Any comments on the water/ spirit conundrum? Have you written on water versus spirit baptism anywhere?
Further, you are probably aware of the issue of verse 19 (en hoi kai) and translators attempts to stick Enoch in there. Personally I have no problem with the vehicle being pneumatic, but it seems others do. May we know how youd handle that presently?
I wanted to ask you, BTW, why you say Enoch didnt die? Paul (or whomever youd prefer as author) pretty much seals the deal in Hebrews 11 Id say. Enoch was taken up and didnt see death (not our modern usage of see death, BTW), but verse 11 these all died has to be inclusive. To me its like Elijahs popping back on the radar in Chronicles (in a later record chronologically) after he also went up in the tempest/ chariot incident. Everyone except for the One dies. Resurrection cures that.
I haven’t written anything on the blog about Spirit baptism.
The en hw kai would have to be (h)enwch kai to be Enoch (a chi / k discrepancy). One would therefore have to assume either a play on words, or a scribal error in aural transmission at some point. I think the former is possible; I don’t think there’s much evidence for aural copying, so I think the latter is dubious.
I don’t think verse 11 in Hebrews 11 must include Enoch. It’s perfectly understandable for a reader to know the writer is exempting one person if indeed the “taken up” is not death. I actually don’t think it matters (and can’t say I care, either). In either case, Enoch’s terrestrial existence was over, so how that is parsed is incidental. Same for Elijah. I don’t think it’s definite that they died or they didn’t. But they didn’t see death in any normal way.
For me the issue in the passage seems to rally around the statement “having a good conscience”… and the wider passage being “suffering in the flesh”…which it starts with and seems to come back to… so the question for me is how does the types show this…
I see the two ‘types’ of Baptism expressed (Flood and Red Sea)… both of these ‘types’ wiped out the enemy ‘type’ (Flood: Nephelim, Red Sea: Egypt)… which seems to indicate a putting off of the enemies of a before life (the flesh in Peter’s mind), going into something new… Col 2:11-12 for circumcision… “putting off the body of the flesh”… seems to be indicated… and baptism included in this… so both Baptism and Circumcision put off something and leave something behind… both to obtain a good conscience… both are talking about the fleshly nature… and related to Jesus “being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit”…. Paul’s command “walk by the spirit and not by the flesh”.. seems right in line with this… this to me is the suffering in the flesh… putting off the flesh nature, considering it dead, as Romans says… and walking by the spirit
so, how do demons effect people… through their fleshly nature… 2 Cor. 10:5 indicates that it is through thoughts that we wage our war… having a clean conscience…. the “saves you” I think is too emphasized here… sozo means a lot of things (healing, preserving etc)… and also “salvation” in the Christian orthodox sense…
but we would not go back and argue from the previous verse that Noah was “saved” in the same traditional way with the ark…
The “putting off” and “putting on” motif you hit on here fits well with the “loyalty oath” idea. Basically, “conscience” cannot mean “ability to choose right or wrong” here since all people can do that who have the required intelligence, not only believers. Paul makes that point in Romans 1-3, that even the unsaved have no excuse. The word here refers to a shift or choice to follow Christ / God, and thus a victory over evil.
I would also be interested in your comments on
“being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit”
do you think it has anything to do with I Tim 3:16
“revealed in the flesh, made righteous in the spirit”?
I think it is related. Most commentators presume that the 1 Tim 3 passage includes early creedal ideas, but it’s problematic since it isn’t strictly chronological with respect to the broader Jesus story. Still, I think they are related.
Hi.
Heard about Jim Brown – grace and truth ministries?
It appears he only believe in blood baptism.(Eph 4: “One” baptism) Anyway the point is when he got to this passages in 1Peter 3 he start showing that “kaphar” and “kopher” is used in Genesis to pitch the ark(Gen 6:14). So if “kaphar” is atonement, then the ark is the thing that saves us, not the water(or water baptism). He say “baptizo” is to cover and “bapto” is to stain with a dye and both these more or less equal “kaphar” and “kopher”.
Any thoughts on this with your hebrew skills?:)
it’s nonsense (and just what is “blood baptism” anyway? it’s not a biblical phrase). The short version is that kipper (the Hebrew term is not kaphar — I presume he is talking about some “root”) does not mean “cover”. My guess is this fellow needs to move beyond Strong’s numbers. Second, the act of dyeing isn’t “covering”. So since these meanings and their correlation are without substance, that pretty much torpedoes the notion.