John 3:5

We cannot ignore other Scripture, but must compare Scripture with Scripture. There are two agents and only two agents by which a person is born again. The two mentioned are water and the Spirit. While we all agree the the Spirit is the Holy Spirit, we don't all agree what the water represents. It does represent something. That is, it does have a meaning. What is it.

I believe other Scripture makes it plain.
1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

It is impossible to be born again without the Word of God--without the gospel. The water refers to the Word of God, as plenty of other Scripture can verify. But this is one of the strongest verses that support this view. We are born again by the Word of God.
Without the Word of God one cannot be saved.
Without the Spirit of God one cannot be saved.
One must have both. It is impossible to be born again without the Word, and without the Holy Spirit.

Nicodemus certainly would have known such a common verse as:

Psalms 119:9 Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
--The Word is a cleansing agent. Water is a cleansing agent.
The Jews performed many ceremonial washings or cleansings.

It was Jesus who said:
John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

One needs the Word and the Spirit to be born of God.
There are two agents and only two agents by which a person is born again.

 

DHK, this is an interpretation that I'm willing to adopt, but I must ask, How did Nicodemus understand the concept of "water"? Did Jesus factor in the OT when he addressed the Jewish teacher?

 

The reference to water is the Word, as it is used in the OT.

 

WB, glad to be of some help. :thumbs:

 

Do you have any OT texts in mind?

 

If we understand the Greek NT as having no chapter breaks, then we look back just a few verses and get this context:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

Jesus was probably in Jerusalem, and no doubt near the Temple. As I mentioned, one thing that is very common, especially at the Temple, is ceremonial washings. All that either Jesus or Nicodemus had to do was look about them to see the "washing of water."

Apart from the OT texts mentioned by others in Isaiah and Ezekiel, I believe Psalms 119:9 could very well been on Nicodemus's mind. "How shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word."

That verse parallels what Jesus said in John 15:3.

 

Joh 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

De 32:2 My doctrine shall drop as the rain,

Joh 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst;

Nicodemus, being a "ruler" and "Priest" should have known from his study of the OT what the "Water" represented.

Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

 

Why must water mean anything other than the breaking of the membrane and the release of amniotic fluid that precedes all births? The context clearly allows this interpretation and “born again” obviously refers to a SECOND BIRTH. If Jesus is speaking of being “born again” (3:3,7) and explains this with a reference to water and spirit and then further clarifies by speaking of being born of the flesh and born of the Spirit it would seem that the most natural sense makes sense.

Don’t those of us who hold to a literal grammatical historical hermeneutic say something like: “If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense.”

There is NO question that most of what has been said in explanation is consistent with Scripture. I do not argue that point. The truth of the Scriptures that have been cited is unquestioned and I do not challenge those truths.

I only argue that IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SEEK A DEEPER EXPLANATION since the CONTEXT seems to clearly indicate a comparison and contrast between natural physical birth and supernatural spiritual birth.

Again, I have no argument with you here. I agree. I just do not agree that this is the most natural explanation of the passage in light of the immediate context.

RJP

 

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." All translations with which I am familiar use only one preposition here. The passage does not say “born of water and of the spirit,” which would give rise the the inference of two events. Rather, the syntax allows for only one event that is being described here. This would rule out the idea that Jesus is speaking of natural birth and spiritual birth.

I believe Jesus is speaking here of water baptism. First, we see immediately after the Nicodemus meeting the only references in the gospels to Jesus and/or His disciples baptizing. It is a natural sequel to Jesus telling Nicodemus, "You must be born again."

Second, until very recently this verse was universally understood to have reference to water baptism. The number of church fathers who believed John 3:5 referred to water baptism are legion. Rather than quote them all here, I will submit an excerpt from Justin Martyr’s First Apology written about 151 A.D.

I would agree that much of what the church fathers taught is wrong but in this instance it is simply a matter of “rightly dividing the word of truth.” John wrote this scripture more than 1,900 years ago and he wrote it in Greek. Not modern Greek but Koine Greek, which is used nowhere in the world today. There is no doubt in my mind that the church fathers, who used Koine Greek on a daily basis understood the nuances of the language far better than any of us.

Comparing their understanding with ours would be like comparing the ability of a learned man of the l5th Century with one of us if we were both given a copy of Beowulf or Canterbury Tales. The nuances of the language are obvious to those who lived and spoke it. Is there anyone here who thinks he understands Russian as well as an educated person who was born in Russia has lived there all his life? Suppose I wrote, “It’s raining cats and dogs outside.” Everyone would understand that it is really raining hard. But if someone picked up my writing 1,000 years from now they would think I was talking about animals falling from the sky (and probably think this was the work of a deranged person). The church fathers simply understood the language better than we do because they were closer to it, and they all agreed that John 3:5 refers to water baptism.

Third, “born of water and the spirit” reminds us of O.T. passages like Ezekiel 36:25 and 2 Kings 5. It also reminds us of the baptism of John. Certainly Nicodemus would have understood this concept—the washing of water.

And that is why I believe in baptismal regeneration. I know I will probably be the only person on this thread who takes this position but I have viewed it from every perspective possible, and without any presuppositions, and keep coming back to this one conclusion. I could explain away passages like Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16, but to explain away John 3:5 you must change the plain and intended meaning of the One who said it. Moreover, by accepting this meaning a lot of other difficult passages fall into place without straining at what they might mean.

 

I join with those who hold that the water is the word.

Since spiritual things are spiritually discerned, it is not surprising at all that Nicodemus didn't quickly understand what Jesus was telling him. But Jesus also reminded him that he was THE teacher of Israel, and that the Scriptures (Old Testament) spoke of these things.

Nicodemus, as the premier teacher of Israel, probably memorized the Pentateuch, and knew much scripture backwards and forward. That's why Jesus chided him a bit. Nicodemus was the greatest Bible scholar in all Israel, and just didn't get it.

Most of us would agree that Nicodemus was saved by the time of the crucifixion. Maybe it was the Holy Spirit applying those OT passages that brought Nicodemus spiritual understanding, then to faith in the Christ.

 

I was born of my mother and father. Does that construction mean that they are one person?

Church Fathers? Whatever they said must be examined in light of Scripture. Baptismal Regeneration, several difficult passages made easy?

Kinda makes the "faith alone" passages difficult then... (about 150 of them)

 

I'm not arguing one side or the other just yet, but am clarifying something you seems to be missing. What they are addressing isn't so much a 'natural birth' as they are addressing the Jews understanding of salvation (which they thought they were) which is "founded in" their very birth or natural decent from Abraham. They thought they were 'born' saved and were incorrect.

Paul speaks to this in Romans when he states what makes a natural born Jew a True Jew; one who is not only apart of God's elect nation but one who is also saved thus one who is born born physically and spiritually (water and spirit).

What these guys are trying to say is that Jesus is speaking not to a gentile about 'being saved' but to a Jew who's idea of salvation and being God's people had become distorted to the point that even their teachers could not see the truth in front of them. Thus Jesus was bringing his understanding back to conforming with truth. They were born a people of God (Israel) but that in no way made them true children of God (saved).

 

Rjprince said:

Although few here would agree with my ultimate conclusion, I'm in pretty good company on this point. Thomas Constable of Dallas Theological Seminary says:

"Water and the spirit" refer to one event.

But why would they all get it wrong? There wasn't even a single "voice crying in the wilderness" that John 3:5 means something other than water baptism.

That's odd. I'm only familiar with one passage that says "faith alone", James 2:24, and in context it says "not by faith alone."

 

I know Nicodemus did not ask, "How are we saved?" I was just using that question as an example to give a nonsensical answer, which is what some are claiming.

Is being "born of water" a normal way of talking about physical birth? I don't think it is.

 

I added the emphasis. A Baptist who believes in baptismal regeneration. Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

IMHO, the only nonsense was in Nicodemus’ questions:

The subject is Nicodemus’ confusion and his wanting to see the truth. Jesus tells him he must be born again to see these things. Nicodemus is like, “Say what!?!” His question on the subject goes on: “That be one heck of a trick; I don’t get it! I’m supposed to go back into my mother’s womb and be born again!?!” Jesus is like: “Really dude,… …. unless a man is born of the water AND the Spirit he cannot enter the KOG.” Ya see Nicodemus didn’t get that “born again” means “born from above” he was obviously thinking about only one kind of birth (flesh) and how on earth was that gonna ever happen again. But Jesus explains: “One plus one equals TWO BIRTHS…. SURPRISE! Let Me explain it to you son: There is a birth of flesh, AND a birth of the Spirit... 1+1=2. Stop freakin out that I told you that you must be born again!”

The explanation of mortality/immortality, corruptible/incorruptible, even different kinds of flesh, which explains being born from above is further revealed in 1Cor 15.

Personally, I think Jesus is also playing on a deeper meaning of the word “water” as He seems to do at times. Water meaning not only amniotic fluid/flesh but in the same sense as I could described best, in short: mortality/immortality not by water only, or in yet another sense when comparing of the water spilling from His side into the Earth while He hung on the cross, or by taking a look at these meanings 1Jn 5:4-6. Also similar to the comparison of Spirit and the air blowing where it will, or even Peter being referred to as “the rock” upon which He will build His church. Peter was a little rock, not “The” Rock…but that’s another subject for another time.

 

I ask again: Is the statement "being born of water" understood as a common, or even uncommon, expression of physical birth?

I don't think so. If not, it makes no sense to say this is what Jesus meant.

Is there anywhere else in the Bible where the expression, "born of water" means physical birth? I don't think so. When one is born, one is not born "of water" anyway. The water almost always breaks before birth. The baby is not born "of water." This just makes no sense to me as a way to describe physical birth.

However there are several passages, which have been posted, to show parallels with scripture about the Word or the Spirit being water or cleansing agents.

 

Adding on to Marci's question I was wondering if anyone can produce any citations that born of water clearly means physical birth from any writings of antiquity.

Thank you

Olivencia

 

I agree Marcia. The way I interpret it, we must be given life (born again) and we must be cleansed of sin (through the Spirit or the word) in order to enter the Kingdom of God.
I think both of these (spiritual birth and cleansing) are done by the Spirit of God.