John 3 and Election

As for John 3:5 referring to physical birth.

"Unless a man be begotten of water..."

I am no physician, so I would ask someone more knowledgeable. Is H2O (water) the source of physical birth? The Greek construction is such that "water" here is the source of whatever "begotten" refers to. It says ek hydatos. Ek is the preposition translated by the little word "of" here. Ek denotes source - out of, from, from within. I believe in some NT instances it may also denote ultimate ground or basis of a thing, the platform or footing from which some action or thing takes off. Thus it may literally translate as "out of water (as source)". Then foolish Harald asks: Is a human being "begotten" (passive in the Greek, meaning the object is not active, but passive) into this world out of H2O as a source? Not to my knowledge, but I may be wrong, not being knowledgeable in the biology of birth of man. John 1:13 says "out of bloods", same preposition here, haimatôn is a plural noun - "bloods", not "blood" as most versions render. And "bloods" was not the source of the new birth, according to John 1:13, but normal physical birth I think could well be said to be of bloods, meaning the genetic make-up of one's physical parents (mom & dad). And what little I know tells me that the sperm of a human father is the source of someone's physical "begotten". Sperm is to my knowledge not "water" but mainly proteins, which is made up of amino acids, which constitute DNA, unless I be mistaken. Not to forget the egg of a mother which then is impregnated by the male sperm. Neither of these two things is pure H2O. This taken together speaks to me that "water" is not the source of "begotten". Technically speaking a father is one who "begets". As the Scripture says "Abraham begat Isaac" etc. Isaac's mother did not "beget" Isaac, but she brought him forth, gave birth to him.

I am not convinced "out of water" in John 3:5 refers to physical birthing. Whatever this "water" is it must be something very vital to the spiritual birth in question because it is placed before the third person of the divine Trinity as to word order. If "begotten" here refers to "begotten from above" (Joh. 3:3) then "water" is its source and wellspring. If so it cannot be H2O, nor can it be the written or preached Gospel, which I argued against formerly. It must be something purely spiritual, because what it produces is said to be "spirit". Like begets like, each after its own kind. My take is that "water" here is either the very person of Christ Jesus the Incarnate God or the aspect of regeneration which is referred to as a washing or cleansing. And if it be that washing I know it is executed on the footing of Christ's shed blood in and by His Holy Spirit. Such an interpretation I think is in harmony with other passages touching upon the doctrine of regeneration.

Harald

 

Hi everyone;
Being born of water is how we are all born. This is the physical birth. We are in a sack of water inside our mothers and we are born out of it. Notice that it says born of water and born of spirit two different things. two different births
Romanbear

 

I am not sure that "two different births" can be substantiated. Whatever this was is something that Nicodemus should have known as a OT teacher. Thus, it draws from the OT. To say it is physical birth is would have been for Christ to state the obvious. I don't think that was a problem in Nicodemus' thinking.

Here is a good article that will give good insight: The Meaning of "Born of Water and the Spirit" in John 3:5

 

romanbear. What you said makes some sense, but not when it comes to "begetting". It may be, I cannot tell, there is much water in a mother's womb, and out of that one is "born" (brought forth, delivered), but one is not "begotten" but by a father, of the seed of a human father (as touching physical birth). If the inspiring Spirit in John 3:5 had willed to refer to physical bringing forth from the womb why did He not use the proper verb (tiktô) for that thing? Now he used ginomai, which is used of the same Spirit when referring to Abraham "begetting" (not "bringing forth") Isaac, and on and on the genealogy of Jesus Christ goes. This I think is a legitimate question to ask.

It seems to me Nicodemos may have misunderstood Christ. I believe Christ referred to "begetting" from above (anôthen) by using the verb ginomai in John 3:3, and Nicodemos thought He referred to a second physical delivery from the mother's womb. Christ corrected him by a second time repeating the words "begotten from above" (v. 7), here also ginomai, not tiktô. When the inspiring Spirit willed to refer to delivery from the womb He moved an author to use tiktô, cp. Matt. 1:21 - "she shall bring forth Son..."

As some say, "things that are different are not the same". It is sometimes important to be familiar with the vocabulary of the Holy Spirit of inspiration, to know why He sometimes used this word and not another, and vice versa.


Harald

 

Do you agree that Baptism has no bearing on the new birth? So being born of water cannot in any way shape or form equate to salvation. So what other form of birth relates to water? Natural childbirth. Nicodemus knew this, but he did not know of Spiritual rebirth!

 

Yelsew. As a professed Baptist that Larry is you should know that he does not believe water baptism is necessary in order to the new birth. If a person claims to be a Baptist but thinks water baptism is necessary for the new birth to come to pass he is really no Baptist, but something else.

"Being born of water" can equate to salvation in the sense of regeneration into spiritual life if it refers to Christ Jesus or to some aspect of the regenerating work of the Spirit of God, such as His washing/cleansing operation on the innards of a chosen and redeemed sinner.

Harald

 

Of course.

Does not follow. It is a non sequitur.

But Christ was talking about something Nicodemus did not know. That is why physical birth is an unlikely reference. The OT references to the washing and the Spirit are ample evidence to see being born of water and the Spirit a reference to regeneration. The article I referenced will help you understand where this position is coming from exegetically.

 

The washing of regeneration is the same birth as spiritual rebirth. Regeneration is "generation again", or rebirth. Man can only be reborn (washed in regeneration) one time. So if man must be born of water, and of spirit, that is two births, one physical and one spiritual.

 

Did you read the article yet??????? It doesn't sound like it. Read the article and it will explain in detail why the position you are taking is not a valid position. Here are a few points:

1. Both water and Spirit are governed by one preposition, indicating that John viewed them as a conceptual unity, not as separate.

2. Additionally, water and Spirit in v. 5 are conjunctive while flesh and Spirit in v. 6 are contrastive. There is a different relationship between the two. Therefore, it is very unlikely if not exegetically impossible for "water" to be the same as "flesh."

3. In the OT, water and Spirit are used in parallel, thus denoting a close connection between the two (cf. Ezek 35:26-27). The most sense is that "water and Spirit" refer to the life giving activity of the Spirit.

"Born of water and of the Spirit" is not referring to two differents births. The grammar is against it and the argument of hte passage is against it. Why would Christ say that a man had to be physically born to be saved? Nicodemus would have been saying the Aramaic equivalent of "Duh." That doesn't even make sense. Yet remember that Christ was talking about something that Nicodemus should have known, but didn't. I don't think Nicodemus didn't konw about the necessity of physical birth. It just doesn't make much sense when the passage is examined, particularly in light of what Nicodemus should have known from the OT.

 

Sorry, but your author is out to lunch.

I already do not agree with it so why should I waste my time?

Those are the words of Jesus, a quote, and not of John. The author of the article is wrong!

Once again the author of the Article is wrong. Jesus equates spirit to wind (conjunctive), and not spirit to water. Scripture also says the flesh is useless, it is the spirit that matters. We all know that spirit is impervious to mass, there is no mass that can impede spirit.

The flesh is 96% water, and the flesh is where the spirit resides. It is truly amazing that your author does not know that Exekiel 35 contains only 15 verses.

Do not overlook Jesus words:
[John 3:4-6. Nicodemus said, "How can anyone who is already old be born? Is it possible to go back into the womb again and be born?" Jesus replied: In all truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit; what is born of human nature is human; what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Water = human birth. Spirit = the human spirit rebirth.

[ March 30, 2003, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: Yelsew ]

 

Seems to be your response even to scripture.

Bro.Dallas

 

Seems to be your response even to scripture.

Bro.Dallas </font>[/QUOTE]You're entitled to your opinion! But that is not how I meant it. there had already been some discussion on the article that convinced me that I need not waste my time.

 

I like the article. I still have to wonder why Jesus would use both a metaphor for the Spirit and a direct reference to the Spirit coupled that way. I would guess that the reason for doing so would be to emphasize two aspects of rebirth by the Spirit: cleansing and indwelling (quickening).

 

npetreley, I think your understanding is correct and to the spot. It is scripturally logical and harmonizes with other passages as well. The word of God is a constant source of amazing truths.

Harald

 

What do you do with Jesus words "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."? Why would Jesus even mention "born of the flesh" if he was not deliberately attempting to teach Nicodemus about being born of the spirit?

Nicodemus knew of being born of the flesh because he new where babies come from and what happens when the baby is ready to come out of the womb...the placentia breaks and water issues forth followed by the infant.

But Nicodemus did not know of being born of the spirit which Jesus equated with the wind. The spirit goes hither and thither and no one knows from whence it cometh or whither it goeth. That is like the wind which we cannot see, cannot know from whence it came nor where it goes.

No man knows the spirit of another man!

 

1) Because it would tell you the obstacles you must overcome to continue to hold your position; 2) Because it would show you why we believe what we believe; 3) Because there might be a chance that you would recognize the holes in your position and at least be strengthened by being forced to answer the objections.

What this appears like is the old saying "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." That is disappointing.

How do you know? You didn't read the article. These are the words of Jesus and he used one preposition to govern the two words. That is a simple fact. That means what it does.

What does this mean? This has nothing to do with teh discussion here and what I said. The OT equates the working fo the Spirit to water. Christ himself said that the Spirit would be a fountain of living water. So you are wrong. Scripture clearly shows you to be wrong.

So??? I am pretty sure JEsus wasn't making a scientific point here.

That was my typo. It is Ezek 36:25-27. Had you read the article you would know that. Most of your comments here are things that are clearly answered by the article and by those who know what they are talking about it.

I didn't. The author of this article didn't. Your deficient understanding has led you to this position. You should enlarge your understanding. Are you scared of the truth? Are you scared that you have bought an interpretation that has nothing to do with what Jesus was saying? YOu should be. I am all the time and so I read and study all viewpoints to see what is right and what is wrong. I used to hold your position. I even used to preach it. But having studied it, I realized I was wrong and that what I was saying was not what Jesus was saying. So I changed what I was saying because I wanted to be fiathful to the text.

 

Well, I downloaded all 23 pages of the article, and read it. It is not convincing! here's why:

 

How can you miss the meaning, the flesh is a direct reference to the will of man. Remember Abraham and Hagar? Remember the child was rejected?

Bro. dallas

 

I do not see a connection between this and what Jesus is teaching Nicodemus. The opening of the conversation goes like this:

Jesus would have made specific reference to Abraham (He knows Abraham) and Hagar if that is how he wanted Nicodemus to view being born again. But Abraham is not what Jesus was teaching. Salvation is what Jesus is teaching. Salvation is the result of being born again!

 

Yelsew,

You didn't even address anything of substance in the article. Why? You didn't answer even one of his proofs, based on what you have given here. do you have some notes elsewhere where you did? The comments you have listed here appear to have nothing to do with the argument.