What did Jesus mean?

Charles:

I appreciate your attitude. We may disagree , but you'll not find me insisting on this subject that I must be right.

I suppose that one reason why some do not equate water with the Holy Spirit's work in baptismal faith in 3:5 is the fear that water baptism may be then seen as salvific. I think that unnecessarily limits the quality of our hermeneutic.

IMO while water baptism is not salvific what it implies is.

I think that in the NT, water baptism is a public expression of saving faith. .

eg, in Gal 3:26,27 (and yes I know Chafer etc say this is not WB, but I think it is) .

IMO in Gal 3, axiomatically :

sons of 3:26 = putting on Christ of 3:27


and faith of 3:26 = water baptism of 3:27


Again, in Acts 2:38 IMO baptism = the time of publicly expressing saving faith and that is why Peter need not specifically say, "you must believe." Baptism was the sign of that faith.

Rom 10:13 by many is thought to be a public confession of faith which occurs at the time of baptism.

Again "the washing of the word" by many is thought to be the word (rhema as I recall, not logos ) confession of the baptizand. In this view the truth (Jesus saves) that the one being baptized is confessing is what is salvific--not the water itself.

I somewhat agree with these notions, but I may be wrong. And OBVIOUSLY on some occasions the HS was received before baptism. God does not work within a box.

Yet I simply see no reason to avoid the importance of water baptism IF we think that it of itself is not salvific, but rather what it represents is.

And IMO, the Holy Spirit is as involved in water baptism as He is in all aspects of our Christian experience. It is the HS who inspires faith and who joins us to Christ's death ans res,. as is, IMO, analogized by water baptism (Rom 6:3,4...yes I know Chafer etc says this is not WB, but I think it is))


Bill

 

OK lets say Water means Baptism ?

Then we have another problem. Then you are saying we must be Baptized to be saved. I do not know too many Baptist who believe that and maybe I am starting another debate.

Like I said before Baptism isn't required to go to heaven or Jesus WOULDN'T have told the thief on the cross " Today you will be with me in Paradise " Paul himself didn't teach the importance of water Baptism. He said he wasn't sent to baptize people he was sent to preach repentance. READ 1 Cor. 1: 13-17

So what else could it mean but physical ?

 

Obviously, Jesus didn't even say that, so to ask what He meant, first you must include what He said.

I say this because the intent of the passage demands the use of "Spirit" and "water". To omit these words leaves the reader to assume exactly what Nicodemus erroneouslymade assumtpion: "How can I enet into my mother's womb a second time?"

It is theologiacally emphascized that the Spirit's inclusion coupled by the Word of God/ "water", is what Jesus meant and said.

The Word of God does it's "work" as the Spirit of God uses it, though one cannot diametrically oppose the two, one from the other, it is revelent that many have read the Word and the Spirit did not tell them anything that they have applied that Scripture to mean.

The danger of repeating a prayer to get saved comes to mind. One is simply not saved by formula, but through conviction for sin, (BY the Spirit of God), by what the Word says.

Nicodemus was very educated about the Scripture, he only lacked the Spirit, just like many today have a working knowledge of Scripture, but not having the Spirit. That is why Jesus said and meant one must be born again, by the water and the Spirit.

 

BTW, expressing disdain for "KJO" hinders the discussion.

 

===

sorry. We seem unable to communicate.

 

Well you have to admit you do talk funny

I'm having a hard time with your lingo.
Simple plain English would be just fine.

If Nicodemus asked " How can I be born of his mothers womb a second time " And Jesus didn't correct him about that. Then WATER has to mean PHYSICAL BIRTH.

Do you disagree or agree ? please just answer yes or no so I get ya.

 

Bill,

I agree. And I would not insist that baptism is in view here despite the mention of water.

 

"HAS TO" "HAS TO" "HAS TO" Sigh again.


RIGHT

Don't bother over me. I'm sure that there are lots of people here whose expression is not beyond your understanding and who will gladly prattle with you.

I taught learning disabled teenagers for 35 years. I could make myself understood to them.

But you're too much of a challenge for me.

I've already expressed my thoughts on this. If you decide those thoughts are of interest, then look at them again.

Bill

 

UZTHD wrote .....I taught learning disabled teenagers for 35 years.

OH now I understand

I don't need to look anything up on this subject I read what scripture had to say about it. Jesus said it plain and simple. thanks though, By the way name is RightFromWrong not RIGHT

[ August 28, 2005, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: RightFromWrong ]

 

PS UZTHD

Maybe now you can see why I am having such a hard time with you. You will not give me a simple YES or No to any of my questions.
Who's prattling me or you ?

 

Born again. The first birth is your physical birth (born of water). Being born again (a second time) is referring to... well the simplest way I can say it is being born into the family of God. It's a spiritual birth.

 

If RightFromWrong is right, why didn't Jesus just say, "You must be born from the flesh and from the Spirit..."? I think water and the Spirit appear to go together, and only one preposition was used when two could have been used to make the two more clearly dichotomous, if that was the intention. There is a dichotomy, but it is clearly between the flesh and the Spirit, not between water and the Spirit. Codex Sinaiticus also appears to view water and the Spirit as going together, having "water and Spirit" not only in v. 5, but also in v. 8 along with all the Old Latin and Old Syriac witnesses. That said, I don't think water here necessarily means baptism.

Cheers, Bluefalcon

 

I'm surprised no one has argued for a different or clearer translation of EX hUDATOS KAI PNEUMATOS in his argumentation, such as, e.g., "from the water of the Spirit" = "from spiritual water", an expression known in Greek as hendiadys.

Cheers, Bluefalcon

 

When all Christian commentators everywhere agree on one thing in the Bible, it's a pretty strong argument in favor of that interpretation.

There ain't no way I'm gonna read through the ante- and post-Nicene fathers to verify this, but I've been told that they uniformly interpret "born again" in Jn 3 to refer to baptism. With no exceptions.

Kinda makes me want to re-read Trail of Blood.

 

---

Blue Falcon

1) Neither do I think water in Jo 3:5 must =only water baptism. But I think it may refer to the reality WB signifies.

In Col 2:11,12 IMO in "en ho' the referent of the pronoun is WB and the effect has similar meaning to Rom below.

In Gal 3:26,27 IMO WB seems chiastic to faith.

In Rom 6:3,4 IMO WB seemingly identifies the baptizand w-His death and burial and resurrection.

2) water certainly in John is equated with the HS.(7:37-39). So possibly in 3:5 that is the meaning. That was Calvin's view.

3) in 3:5 only one preposition (ex) does modify water and Spirit. Does that necessarily mean that water = Spirit here? I don't see why.

a) Elsewhere a single ek functions for two ideas connected by kai, eg, : "ex oikou kai patrias David" (Lk 2:4) ; "ek pasa phules kai glosses." (Rev 5:9)

b) As you know, some very competent Baptist NT scholars entertain the idea that water here = WB, eg, Beasley-Murray, of Southern Bap Theo Sem ( Word Commentary,38:48) ; AT Robertson (Word Pics). If such Greek experts as these are not influenced by the single preposition, then perhaps, that grammaticism is not decisive.

Bill

 

You all answer me this ?

If Jesus didn't mean PHYSICAL BIRTH then why did Jesus answer Nicodemus according to his question. Jesus didn't correct Nicodemus about entering into his mothers womb again. He answered his question.

He EXPANDED on what Nicodemus said. By saying " you must be born of water PHYSICAL birth and of the spirit , that which is born of the FLESH is FLESH, that which is born of the SPIRIT is SPIRIT." Then he went on to explain
the differnce between the two, one which you could physical SEE ( physical ) and the other you could SEE the RESULTS ( Spirit )

If you take it to mean Baptism, then you would have to throw so many verses out of the Bible, and like I said before the Thief wasn't baptized. So Jesus would be liar.

Why would it mean Spirit ? Does anyone actually beleive that one on here ?

By the way I am not yelling when I use caps. Just trying to emphasize my point, thats all.

 

Why get hung up on water? Water is not the important thing, as most MSS in v. 8 signify. I'm just saying being born of water and Spirit is the antithesis of being born of flesh and blood. That's all.

Cheers, Bluefalcon

 

Of course Greek rarely says what the text must be, it only says what the text may be. And as you say, it is not decisive, but I have a hard time believing John tried to write something so confusing, and so our English translations should take out the confusion and make it more clear. As I am not a Greek expert, I can only surmise as to what a more clear translation would be.

Cheers, Bluefalcon

 

The NT Greek is ambiguous to distant-culture readers of it, but I still think that John had one meaning when he penned "born of water and spirit", and I'm not sure the English phrase used in every translation I've consulted is the best. In English, the use of "and" in the phrase has the nuance of meaning that "water" is not enough, and that one must also have "spirit", leading to the falacy that there must be a bifurcation between the two. But in this case the Greek does not necessarily have that meaning, and probably doesn't. I mentioned hendiasys as a possible explanation that would render the expression something like, "... born of the water of the Spirit ..." or "... born of spiritual water ...". I am not a Greek translation expert, and actually can translate Chinese better than Greek. That doesn't mean that there are not good Greek experts, possibly not even Christians (and I know this will bring me a lot of slack), who know ancient and Koine Greek well enough to make an honest translation of it into unambiguous English.

Cheers, Bluefalcon