Saved Through Water
by John Morris
"INTRODUCTION"
If someone were to ask you to explain
how Noah and his family were saved from
the flood's destruction, what would you
say? The answer may seem obvious, but
what would your answer be? The Bible's
answer is instructive. By inspiration of God
(2 Timothy 3:16), the apostle Peter wrote
that Noah and his family were actually
"saved through water" (1 Peter 3:20).
Now that's an interesting answer - "saved
through water." One might not think of
the flood waters saving people while at
the same time destroying people. But they
did. The same water that obliterated the
wicked world (Genesis 6:5) carried Noah
and his family far above the destruction,
and eventually brought them safely to
rest on the mountains of Ararat (Genesis
8:4), thereby gaining legitimate credit for
saving them. Granted, the water wasn't the
only thing at work in their salvation. God's
mercy and grace, the ark, and Noah's
obedience were all involved, as well. The
water didn't save alone - it was one of
several agents. And yet, undeniably, it was
involved in their salvation, for the Holy
Spirit indicated through Peter that eight
souls were "saved through water."
But now to the hard part. "Hard," I say,
because it contradicts popular opinion,
and that's often hard for us. Right after
revealing to us that eight souls were "saved
through water," Peter then writes, "There
is also an antitype which now saves us - baptism..." (1 Peter 3:21). After discussing
the means of Noah's physical salvation,
Peter affirms the means of our spiritual
salvation. And, contrary to popular belief,
he says baptism is involved.
BUT HE DOESN'T MEAN WATER BAPTISM DOES HE?
He must mean water baptism. Context
(along with other New Testament teaching)
demands it. Let's consider the passage in
greater detail.
WHAT IS AN "ANTITYPE"?
This question arises from Peter's use of
the term in 1 Peter 3:21 (NKJV). "Anti-
type" means "counterpart" or "a thing
resembling another." Peter is saying that
baptism resembles the flood, and is a New
Testament counterpart to that Old Testament event. How so? Well, it is sometimes
argued that an invisible baptism with the
Holy Spirit is what Peter is referring to,
but water baptism more naturally fits.
What biblical practice could resemble a
sinful world submerged in water (Genesis 7:19-20) more than a sinful person
submerged in water? ("baptism" from
the Greek word "baptisma" refers to "an
immersion, submersion.") What's more,
the New Testament teaches that water
baptism is the occasion during which sin
is removed (Acts 2:38; 22:16), and we are
regenerated (Titus 3:5). Could there be a
clearer counterpart to the flood, which also
removed wickedness and then regenerated
the world? (2 Peter 3:6-7)
NOT THE REMOVAL OF THE FILTH OF THE FLESH (1 PETER 3:21)
Peter's next affirmation about this baptism
further clarifies its identity. He writes that it
is "not the removal of the filth of the flesh."
In other words, this submersion is not to
be misconstrued as being just a bath, or
perhaps a ceremonial washing (something
with which Peter's Jewish readers would
have been well-acquainted). This point of
clarification is telling. Were the baptism
under question a purely spiritual event, such
explanation would hardly seem in order.
BAPTISM AND SALVATION
Though the above interpretation may
disagree with common belief among many,
it does harmonize with New Testament
teaching concerning salvation. Receiving
forgiveness of sins, receiving the Holy
Spirit, and entering into Christ are all
preceded by baptism (although not only by
baptism; just as the flood waters did not
work alone to save Noah and his family,
neither does the water of baptism work
alone. There must be genuine belief/faith
(Mark 16:16), true repentance (Luke 13:3;
Acts 2:38), and clear confession (Romans
10:9) - these, along with water baptism,
lead to full salvation).
Consider the following passages:
Receiving Forgiveness of Sins
- Acts 2:38- "Then Peter said to them,
'Repent, and let every one of you be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for
the remission of sins...."
- Acts 22:16- "And now why are you
waiting? Arise and be baptized, and
wash away your sins...."
Note: John the Baptist, the forerunner of
Jesus, preached a baptism with water for
the remission of sins (Mark 1:4-5). Should
it strike us as strange that the Savior would
instruct His apostles in a similar practice?
Receiving the Holy Spirit
- Matthew 3:16- "When He had been
baptized, Jesus came up immediately
from the water; and behold, the heav-
ens were opened to Him, and He saw
the Spirit of God descending like a
dove and alighting upon Him."
- Acts 2:38- "'...be baptized in the name
of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins;
and you shall receive the gift of the
Holy Spirit.'"
Entering Into Christ
- Romans 6:3- "Or do you not know that
as many of us as were baptized into
Christ Jesus...?"
- Galatians 3:27- "For as many of you as
were baptized into Christ have put on
Christ."
BUT ISN'T THIS TEACHING SALVATION BY WORKS?
Although this question is understandable,
let the above verses first be considered
in earnest. Clearly, baptism is connected
to forgiveness of sins, without which
there can be no relationship with God.
Peter plainly states that baptism precedes
reception of the Holy Spirit, just as it did
with Jesus (Matthew 3:16). And coming
into Christ is clearly dependent upon
being baptized (Romans 6:3; Galatians
3:27). Whatever questions we may have,
we must not pit them, or their supposed
implications, against understandable
Scripture. Questions should be asked in light
of Scripture, not in spite of it.
But to the question directly: No, this
understanding of Scripture does not
teach salvation by works. Such a doctrine
would, of course, be quite opposed to New
Testament teaching (Ephesians 2:8-9).
What this understanding does acknowledge
and affirm, however, is that God can and
does call us to act in order to receive - as
opposed to earn - His grace. And lest this
be misunderstood or dismissed off-hand,
let us consider the Lord's practice while He
walked the earth.
Jesus told the ten lepers, "'Go, show
yourselves to the priests.'" "And so it was,"
we read, "that as they went, they were
cleansed" (Luke 17:14). Did these men
receive cleansing by works? Certainly not!
Walking hardly cures leprosy. Was their
healing a gift from God? Certainly it was!
Yet, would they have received cleansing
had they not acted? Highly unlikely -
"But why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,'
and do not do the things which I say?'"
(Luke 6:46).
Jesus commanded the blind man, "'Go,
wash in the pool of Siloam.'" "And so," we
read, "he went and washed, and came
back seeing" (John 9:7). Did this man
receive his sight by works? Who would
dare affirm such a thing? Was his healing
a gift from God? There can be no doubt.
And, yet, the Lord put a condition on
His grace. The Lord wanted the man to
do something - a disturbing doctrine to
many religious people, but a common
doctrine in the Bible (e.g. Exodus 14:13-16;
2 Kings 5:10; Philippians 2:12-13). And
what this newly-seeing man told those who
questioned him could almost be the words
of a newly-baptized believer: "'...I went
and washed (compare Titus 3:5), and I
received...'" (John 9:11).
God offers the gift of salvation to humanity,
contingent only on submissive obedience
to His commands: to believe, repent,
confess, and be baptized. This does not
demean His grace, nor deny that salvation
is a gift - after all, since when does telling
a child to pick up and unwrap a gift
change the fact that it is a gift? By way of
another analogy: were a man to offer you
a briefcase containing one million dollars,
stating that the money would be yours
if you would but reach out and take the
briefcase, and you took him up on the
offer, who would afterward assert you had
tried to work for the money? No one. All
would understand your act of reaching
out and taking the briefcase as simple
compliance with a simple condition - and
a gracious one at that. So much for so little!
So it is with God's plan for salvation: "He
who believes and is baptized (so little) will
be saved (so much!)..." (Mark 16:16).
