What is water referring to?

[jbh28]

If you take John 3:5 as referring to water baptism, then you have to conclude that baptism is an essential element in the salvation process.

Right, which is why I call it false teaching because it is adding works to salvation.

I wouldn’t say those are logical fallacies, and popularity certainly isn’t an issue here. In fact, this is a very unpopular idea among most people I know. As for tradition, I believe scripture commends us to observe tradition. Moreover, it’s just good common sense. Although I’m in the seventh decade of my life, I still find it helpful to consult people who have been around longer than I have.

By logical fallacies, I was referring to those that only use those arguments. Of course looking at what others believe before us is very important. I hope that clears that up.

As for contextual support for baptism here, I would direct you to the very next thing after the Nicodemus discourse. In 3:22 it says: “After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing.” So immediately after the Nicodemus meeting, the next thing we see Jesus doing is baptizing.

AFTER is the key phrase there. We are not going to an entirely different setting...different context.

Although the Bible is silent on this, I have always thought this was the time when Jesus baptized His disciples.

Only problem is John 4:1-2 "Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples)" John says that Jesus didn't baptize anyone.

Moving on into John 4, Jesus offers the woman living water. I believe He was here referring to baptism as well. This is the problem you encounter with the exegesis of this verse when you say it doesn’t refer to baptism. You read it and say, “This can’t mean water baptism because that would mean we must be baptized to be saved. So what else could Jesus have meant here?”
Then you go searching for other possibilities. Indeed you must do so if you reject baptism as being an essential element of salvation. However, the plain and simple meaning of the verse is that being born of spirit involves being born of water (baptism). This is corroborated by passages such as Romans 6:4, which talks about newness of life following baptism.

If an interpretation contradicts Scripture, then we move on to other interpretations. Here you just used eisegesis and circular arguments. In trying to prove that "water" means baptism in John 3, you went to John 4. Then to prove that John 4's "living water" means water baptism, you referenced John 3. Do you see what happened here? There is nothing in the context of the Nicodemus passage that even hints at water baptism. Just because Jesus went and water baptized later in the chapter, means nothing to the context of the Nicodemus part. If Jesus went and drank water, nobody would then say one has to drink water to be saved. John 4 is very clear that Jesus is making a reference to non-physical water, but "living water."

"Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
(John 4:13-14)

Jesus is very clear he isn't talking about physical water here, but spiritual, non physical water.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Men write paragraphs of theology & draw from verses throughout Scripture without reading the very next verse which self-interprets the passage. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'" He is comparing the spiritual rebirth to the original physical birth. Instead of pulling other verses out of context from every "corner" of the Bible, read the whole passage & let Christ interpret it for you.

Water = Flesh
Spirit = Spirit

 

[kyredneck]

I have seen this in commentaries, usually to show that Jesus was not referring to child birth. However, to my knowledge this rendering of the original text has never showed up in any of the numerous translations that we have.

Do any of the translations (not counting Young's Literal) read 'born from above' in lieu of 'born again' or 'born anew'? If not, I wonder why not?

 

[Zenas]

Right, which is why I call it false teaching because it is adding works to salvation.

Baptism a work? You've got to be kidding. Seriously, I know where you're coming from (Ephesians 2:9) but I have read Ephesians, Romans and the other Pauline epistles many times. I am thoroughly convinced that when Paul referred to "works" he meant works of the Mosaic law.

AFTER is the key phrase there. We are not going to an entirely different setting...different context.

I think you meant to say we ARE going to a different setting and that is true. But it makes sense that John would usher in the baptismal scenes by telling his readers through the Nicodemus meeting that Jesus said baptism was necessary, that you must be born again and that means of water and the Spirit. For the first 1500 years of the church, no one thought it meant anything other than baptism. Why all of a sudden did it mean something else? Do you believe in continuing revelation? I don't.

Only problem is John 4:1-2 "Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples)" John says that Jesus didn't baptize anyone.

In John 3:22 it says Jesus was baptizing. Then in 4:2 it says Jesus didn't baptize but His disciples did. Wonder why John didn't clear that up in 3:22? I don't know but the logical progression would be that Jesus did baptize His disciples and then turned the baptismal duties over to them.

If an interpretation contradicts Scripture, then we move on to other interpretations. Here you just used eisegesis and circular arguments. In trying to prove that "water" means baptism in John 3, you went to John 4. Then to prove that John 4's "living water" means water baptism, you referenced John 3. Do you see what happened here? There is nothing in the context of the Nicodemus passage that even hints at water baptism. Just because Jesus went and water baptized later in the chapter, means nothing to the context of the Nicodemus part. If Jesus went and drank water, nobody would then say one has to drink water to be saved. John 4 is very clear that Jesus is making a reference to non-physical water, but "living water."

"Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
(John 4:13-14)

Jesus is very clear he isn't talking about physical water here, but spiritual, non physical water.

My interpretation doesn't contradict scripture, it contradicts your idea of what scripture means. As for the living water thing, that is my idea and I believe it is sound, based on the preceding passages and on how John presents the gospel in a thematic approach. However, I will grant you that "living water" might not be referring to baptism. I can't agree that Jesus was very clear that he isn't talking about physical water here. If baptism is a sacrament that conveys graces, and I believe scripture teaches it does, then that is very well what He might have meant. Besides, if spiritual water, whatever that is, is an important theme, why do we never see it again in John or any or any of the other gospels?

 

[Zenas]

Do any of the translations (not counting Young's Literal) read 'born from above' in lieu of 'born again' or 'born anew'? If not, I wonder why not?

So far as I know, all the good ones (KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, etc.) say "born again" or "born anew". However, several of the so called paraphrases, including The Message, say "born from above." I don't know why the difference. Moreover, I'm not a Greek scholar so I can't venture a guess that is based on linguistics.

 

[jbh28]

Baptism a work? You've got to be kidding. Seriously, I know where you're coming from (Ephesians 2:9) but I have read Ephesians, Romans and the other Pauline epistles many times. I am thoroughly convinced that when Paul referred to "works" he meant works of the Mosaic law.

Paul contrasts "faith" and "works." He says that you are saved by grace through faith. There are many passages about how to be saved and baptism isn't one of them. Yes, baptism is something you do, it's a work. Just like if one said you had to get on your knees to get save, that would be a work.

I think you meant to say we ARE going to a different setting and that is true. But it makes sense that John would usher in the baptismal scenes by telling his readers through the Nicodemus meeting that Jesus said baptism was necessary, that you must be born again and that means of water and the Spirit. For the first 1500 years of the church, no one thought it meant anything other than baptism. Why all of a sudden did it mean something else? Do you believe in continuing revelation? I don't.

I don't believe in continuing revelation. I also don't use logical fallacies either(appeal to tradition). Are you catholic?


As far as the text goes, that are in(not going) to a different setting. Nicodemus isn't on the scene in verse 22. In verses 1 - 21 where Nicodemus is on the scene, baptism isn't mentioned. The phrase "born of water" is never in Scripture about baptism.

In John 3:22 it says Jesus was baptizing. Then in 4:2 it says Jesus didn't baptize but His disciples did. Wonder why John didn't clear that up in 3:22? I don't know but the logical progression would be that Jesus did baptize His disciples and then turned the baptismal duties over to them.

No, that's not the logical progression. It says that Jesus "himself did not baptise" right after the phrase "Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John." The apostles were the ones doing the baptism though Jesus was with them. The baptism that Jesus did was not water baptism(John 4:2) but spirit baptism(Luke 3:16).

"John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

My interpretation doesn't contradict scripture, it contradicts your idea of what scripture means.

Don't give me that. It contradicts Scripture. I can give you passage after passage about how to be saved and none of them say you have to be baptized. Jesus came to save, but never baptized. So if one has to be baptized, Jesus never saved anyone. Even in the very context of John 3 is verse 15 and 16 which says that you believe to be saved, not be baptized. Jesus never says that you have to be baptized in order to be saved. He says you have to be "born of water and of spirit." If you believe that in this isolated place that "born of water" means baptism, then it's up to you to show that from the context.

As for the living water thing, that is my idea and I believe it is sound, based on the preceding passages and on how John presents the gospel in a thematic approach. However, I will grant you that "living water" might not be referring to baptism. I can't agree that Jesus was very clear that he isn't talking about physical water here.

He makes a contrast. It's comparing and showing the difference. Let's look at the passage again.

The woman said to him, “Sir, you have nothing to draw water with, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.” Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
(John 4:11-14)

Jesus isn't saying that one will never become dehydrated. Christians have become physically dehydrated.

If baptism is a sacrament that conveys graces, and I believe scripture teaches it does, then that is very well what He might have meant. Besides, if spiritual water, whatever that is, is an important theme, why do we never see it again in John or any or any of the other gospels?

you don't see what again, water as spirit? Sure you do. "Washing of regeneration" Ezekiel speaks about water in a non physical way. But not sure what this has to do with anything. Spiritual water is a metaphor for spiritual baptism. The passage of John 3 is about believing, not baptism. Again, it's up to you to show me that "born of water" means baptism and why doesn't it get brought up the countless other times that salvation is mentioned.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Echo Dr Cassidy with "physical birth". Hebrew phrasing, poetic language and even much prose is built on parallelism. Read Proverbs and see 1000 examples.

Here Jesus, trying to help this Jewish learned man understand a simple truth, uses such parallelism.

v3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Nicodemus was immediately befuddled and thought, like most would, of the physical birth.

v4 Nicodemus asked Jesus, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"

So Jesus used parallelism to help Nicodemus through his confusion of physical and spiritual birth

v5-6 Jesus responded, "Of a truth, I say to you, unless one is
born of water
and
born of the Spirit,
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Because
that which is born of the flesh is flesh
and
that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin, the last six paragraphs of your blog article are excellent. However, they are a non sequitur to the first two paragraphs because they actually support baptismal regeneration.

Zenas,
If you think that, then either I have explained myself incredibly badly or you are reading me incredibly wrongly. :BangHead:

The Ezekiel 36 and Psalm 51 passages foreshadow, indeed demonstrate, the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit through the application of water.

If the Ezekiel passage is talking about literal water, then baptism by imersion is unscriptural! And Psalm 51 is speaking of washing in blood, the blood of the Saviour. But more important than that, outward washing cannot bring about inward cleansing. Read my post again.

This is a sacrament, Martin! It’s scriptural!

Well, if it's a sacrament, it isn't Scriptural. Where does 'sacrament' appear in the Bible?

The water doesn’t do the cleansing. The Holy Spirit acting through the application of water does the cleansing. Why does it work that way? We don’t know but the Bible says it does. Indeed that is what Paul was telling Titus in Titus 5:3. “The washing of regeneration” is water baptism, just like Ananias saying to Saul, “Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.”

If you read Acts 22:16 in the Greek, you will see that it is the calling on the Name of the Lord that washes away sin, not baptism. You are repeating the error of Nicodemus, who took the Lord too literally. The New Birth is a spiritual birth and the washing is the washing away of sins, not by water, which can do no such thing, but by the Holy Spirit.

Steve

 

[Zenas]

Paul contrasts "faith" and "works." He says that you are saved by grace through faith. There are many passages about how to be saved and baptism isn't one of them. Yes, baptism is something you do, it's a work. Just like if one said you had to get on your knees to get save, that would be a work.

Mark 16:16--He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Acts 2:38--Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

There are others. I’m sure you know them well.

I don't believe in continuing revelation. I also don't use logical fallacies either(appeal to tradition). Are you catholic?

No, I just read my Bible and pay attention to what it says, hopefully with an open mind to God's message.

As far as the text goes, that are in(not going) to a different setting. Nicodemus isn't on the scene in verse 22. In verses 1 - 21 where Nicodemus is on the scene, baptism isn't mentioned. The phrase "born of water" is never in Scripture about baptism.

You’re entitled to your opinion, although I believe it is misguided. So would the overwhelming majority of all people who have been called Christians.

No, that's not the logical progression. It says that Jesus "himself did not baptise" right after the phrase "Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John." The apostles were the ones doing the baptism though Jesus was with them. The baptism that Jesus did was not water baptism(John 4:2) but spirit baptism(Luke 3:16).

"John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

But you have failed to include John 3:22 in your explanation. I will repeat: In John 3:22 it says Jesus was baptizing. Then in 4:2 it says Jesus didn't baptize but His disciples did. It would appear that Jesus began His ministry by baptizing (probably the disciples). Then He stopped baptizing because He had disciples to do that. Despite your protests, this is a logical progression.

Don't give me that. It contradicts Scripture. I can give you passage after passage about how to be saved and none of them say you have to be baptized. Jesus came to save, but never baptized. So if one has to be baptized, Jesus never saved anyone. Even in the very context of John 3 is verse 15 and 16 which says that you believe to be saved, not be baptized. Jesus never says that you have to be baptized in order to be saved. He says you have to be "born of water and of spirit." If you believe that in this isolated place that "born of water" means baptism, then it's up to you to show that from the context.

Several passages on how to be saved speak of baptism. Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16, both quoted above, by way of example. You seem to have decided which salvation passages you are going to pay attention to and choose to ignore the others. There are about a dozen of these in all, and they are all slightly different. Some include baptism, some don’t. Most include belief, but some don’t. We have to pay heed to all of them.

As for context, I have demonstrated the contextual setting quite adequately. Just because you disagree with my conclusions is no reason to say I haven’t linked up baptism with the context of John 3. Nevertheless, I will submit this extra-scriptural context of the Jewish culture to show that the phrase “born of water” would immediately tell a devout Jew like Nicodemus that Jesus was speaking of baptism.

The water of immersion (mikvah) in Rabbinic literature was referred to as the womb of the world, and as a convert came out of the water it was considered a new birth separating him from the pagan world. His status was changed and he was referred to as "a little child just born" or "a child of one day". We see the New Testament using similar Jewish terms as "born anew," "new creation," and "born from above."

Marji Hughes, “The Jewish Background of Christian Baptism.” Published on the website of Foundation Ministries. http://www.foundationsmin.org/index.htm

This is why everyone in the early church knew that being born of water was a reference to baptism. There was never any debate about it because it was always understood.

 

[jbh28]

I only am responding to the part about this passage.

As for context, I have demonstrated the contextual setting quite adequately. Just because you disagree with my conclusions is no reason to say I haven’t linked up baptism with the context of John 3.

No you haven't. Not once have you shown in the context of the Nicodemus passage that there is baptism. You go to an entirely different setting and bring that back in. In face I showed you your circular argument, which you just ignored.

You’re entitled to your opinion, although I believe it is misguided. So would the overwhelming majority of all people who have been called Christians.

That's the best you can do? If I'm wrong, why don't you demonstrate how I'm wrong.

Nevertheless, I will submit this extra-scriptural context of the Jewish culture to show that the phrase “born of water” would immediately tell a devout Jew like Nicodemus that Jesus was speaking of baptism. Marji Hughes, “The Jewish Background of Christian Baptism.” Published on the website of Foundation Ministries. http://www.foundationsmin.org/index.htm

This is why everyone in the early church knew that being born of water was a reference to baptism. There was never any debate about it because it was always understood.

I'm interested in the Bible. Please stick with that. I'll ask for the final time. Where in the Nicodemus passage is baptism mentioned? No eisegesis allowed btw. And eisegesis would be you assuming that "water" means baptism. and please respond to my arguments, you haven't yet. All you say is you disagree but no substance.

 

[zrs6v4]

I think this is a tricky passage, although baptismal regeneration can be eliminated quite simply. What has come to make most sense to me as I see the context is that Jesus likely drew from the prophets with the concept of New Covenant renewal by water and the Spirit. One is made new by the cleansing of sin (water), changed heart, and indwelling of the Spirit. I wrote a paper on this last year and went into a lot more detail, but I do not think Jesus is speaking of regeneration as a separate and solo act of God in salvation (One of the few areas I differ from Calvinist's on).

 

[Robert Snow]

Mark 16:16--He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Acts 2:38--Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

If this interpretation is correct, Paul really missed the mark when it comes to evangelizing the lost.

1Cor 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

 

[Zenas]

I'm interested in the Bible. Please stick with that. I'll ask for the final time. Where in the Nicodemus passage is baptism mentioned? No eisegesis allowed btw. And eisegesis would be you assuming that "water" means baptism. and please respond to my arguments, you haven't yet. All you say is you disagree but no substance.

You want me to say that the Nicodemus passage doesn’t contain the word “baptism”? No problem. Of course it doesn’t. John 3:16 doesn’t contain the word “Heaven” either, but we understand that everlasting life is a euphemism for Heaven. If John 3:5 actually said “baptism” we wouldn’t be having this debate.

I have contextualized the passage to show it is referring to baptism, even though you seem to think I haven’t.

I have showed you that it was unanimously understood to be referring to baptism for the first 1500 years of the church. Your response: “I don’t care.”

I have showed you how the Jewish culture and customs of the time would have made this passage perfectly clear in the mind of Nicodemus that Jesus was speaking of baptism. I can’t force you to examine these facts but they have been laid out for you quite well.

I believe I showed you how being born again resembles the language of Romans 6:4, walking in newness of life. If I didn’t show you that, I have now.

You, on the other hand choose to rule it out because allowing it would alter your theology. You aren’t completely sure what it means—you used to think it meant natural childbirth, then you decided it means something you call living water, but you aren’t so sure of it that you will throw the childbirth proponents under the bus. This is the problem you run into when you try to give a passage an interpretation other than the obvious.

Now jbh28, you may have the last word because I will not respond to any more of your posts on this thread. As is the case with too many debates on this board, they descend into a pattern that means no more than the parties saying back and forth, “Yes it is.” “No it isn’t.” It’s a waste of time and it makes for rather dull reading for anyone who is following along.

 

[HankD]

Although this passage (born of water and the Spirit) does not fulfill all the characteristics of the Granville-Sharp rule, it is IMO a variation of the GS rule. There are no definite artilcles with either word but hudor and pnuema are conjoined with a kai.

Therefore, IMO "water" is pointing to the Spirit, water being a qualifier of Spirit and "water" in this passage may very well be a metaphor for the inspired word of God.

Especially considering the scriptural metaphors for the Spirit (wind, water, fire).

Presumably "water" describing the cleansing agency of the new birth and sustainer of life and is related to the "water" of John 4:14.

John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.​

Similarly in Matthew 3:11

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

"Fire" (Grk. pur) being the purification aspect of the "Holy Ghost" baptism of Matthew 3:11.​

Just my opinion of course.​

HankD​

 

[Amy.G]

Being born again is 100% spiritual. It requires nothing earthly or physical. It is all of God through His Spirit.

Water is used throughout the Bible as a symbol for purity or purification, being washed clean. But physical water is not pure. It contains all kinds of micro organisms, some very bad and can never actually purify anything, much less the spirit of man.


We cannot be born again by physical water or physical birth. We are born of the Spirit of God only. That is what Nic did not understand.

 

[Iconoclast]

Numbers 19 (King James Version)

Numbers 19
1And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,

2This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke:

3And ye shall give her unto Eleazar the priest, that he may bring her forth without the camp, and one shall slay her before his face:

4And Eleazar the priest shall take of her blood with his finger, and sprinkle of her blood directly before the tabernacle of the congregation seven times:

5And one shall burn the heifer in his sight; her skin, and her flesh, and her blood, with her dung, shall he burn:

6And the priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and scarlet, and cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer.

7Then the priest shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp, and the priest shall be unclean until the even.

8And he that burneth her shall wash his clothes in water, and bathe his flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the even.

9And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin. 10And he that gathereth the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: and it shall be unto the children of Israel, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among them, for a statute for ever.

11He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.

12He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.

13Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him. 14This is the law, when a man dieth in a tent: all that come into the tent, and all that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.

15And every open vessel, which hath no covering bound upon it, is unclean.

16And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the open fields, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.

17And for an unclean person they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel:

18And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave:

19And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even.

20But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the LORD: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he is unclean. 21And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them, that he that sprinkleth the water of separation shall wash his clothes; and he that toucheth the water of separation shall be unclean until even.

22And whatsoever the unclean person toucheth shall be unclean; and the soul that toucheth it shall be unclean until even.

 

[BobinKy]

I wish all threads were like this one.

...Bob

 

[jbh28]

You want me to say that the Nicodemus passage doesn’t contain the word “baptism”? No problem. Of course it doesn’t. John 3:16 doesn’t contain the word “Heaven” either, but we understand that everlasting life is a euphemism for Heaven. If John 3:5 actually said “baptism” we wouldn’t be having this debate.

No, obviously it doesn't have the word "baptism." I wasn't asking for that.

I have contextualized the passage to show it is referring to baptism, even though you seem to think I haven’t.

No you haven't. all you did is jumped to the next scene and because the Jesus and the deciples were baptizing, you believe that the word "water" in the previous context means baptism. Eisegesis isn't "contextualizing."

I have showed you that it was unanimously understood to be referring to baptism for the first 1500 years of the church. Your response: “I don’t care.”

Exactly, I want Bible. My authority lies in the Bible, not people before me.

I have showed you how the Jewish culture and customs of the time would have made this passage perfectly clear in the mind of Nicodemus that Jesus was speaking of baptism. I can’t force you to examine these facts but they have been laid out for you quite well.

No, all you did is give a link. I'm only going to read stuff that you write here, not lazy links that you give.

I believe I showed you how being born again resembles the language of Romans 6:4, walking in newness of life. If I didn’t show you that, I have now.

I'm not denying water baptism. I'm denying water baptism as a means for salvation. Water baptism symbols the spirit baptism. That's exactly what romans 6:4 is speaking about. Remember, John baptized with water, and Jesus baptized with spirit. (John 3:15-16)

You, on the other hand choose to rule it out because allowing it would alter your theology. You aren’t completely sure what it means—you used to think it meant natural childbirth, then you decided it means something you call living water, but you aren’t so sure of it that you will throw the childbirth proponents under the bus. This is the problem you run into when you try to give a passage an interpretation other than the obvious.

No, i rule it out because it doesn't teach that at all. I am 100% sure it doesn't mean water baptism as it has no mention of baptism in the context of Nicodemus.

Here's a few more points that show that water baptism cannot be what Jesus is talking about.

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
(John 3:5-8)​

One thing to notice is that Jesus doesn't mention "water" until after Nicodemus says something about physical birth. If water baptism is required, it seems Jesus would have initially mentioned it. Also, Jesus only says it ones, but repeats the "born of Spirit" again. "So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." Nothing is said of "born of water here"

Actually, the obvious one is the natural childbirth interpretation. However, either way(child birth or living water) yields the same conclusion.

Now jbh28, you may have the last word because I will not respond to any more of your posts on this thread. As is the case with too many debates on this board, they descend into a pattern that means no more than the parties saying back and forth, “Yes it is.” “No it isn’t.” It’s a waste of time and it makes for rather dull reading for anyone who is following along.

Because you have nothing. I have given reason FROM SCRIPTURE AND THE CONTEXT, you have not. You are the one that just says, "no it isn't" and then looks at what somebody else believed. You are the typical catholic that puts their final authority in men and not the Bible. You have not shown that the context of Nicodemus is speaking about baptism. All you did is read the word baptism in the next context and read it back into the Nicodemus passage. That's called eisegesis.

And I'm glad you are not going to respond. I came here to talk to baptists, not catholics.

 

[kyredneck]

Although this passage (born of water and the Spirit) does not fulfill all the characteristics of the Granville-Sharp rule, it is IMO a variation of the GS rule. There are no definite artilcles with either word but hudor and pnuema are conjoined with a kai.

Therefore, IMO "water" is pointing to the Spirit, water being a qualifier of Spirit and "water" in this passage may very well be a metaphor for the inspired word of God.

Hello Hank. I'm no 'Greek guy', don't know about Granville-Sharp, but I agreed with this in post #14. I believe it could read 'Except one be born of water even the Spirit'.

Especially considering the scriptural metaphors for the Spirit (wind, water, fire).

Wind, water, I agree are indeed common metaphors or symbols for the Spirit. Fire, on the other hand, is by far and away primarily the metaphor/symbol most commonly used for the wrath of God.

Similarly in Matthew 3:11

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

"Fire" (Grk. pur) being the purification aspect of the "Holy Ghost" baptism of Matthew 3:11.​

Just my opinion of course.​

HankD​

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance:
9 and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
10 And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:
12 whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing-floor; and he will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire. Mt 3

A closer scrutiny of the context of Mt 3 should show that fire is NOT being used as a metaphor/symbol for the Spirit, but is in reference to WRATH. This is the prophet John the Baptist speaking to his fellow countrymen, to who he was sent.

Speaking to the Pharisees and Sadducees, “Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” John was referring to that wrath that was to come upon 'that generation' of Jews (“even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees” and, “the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire”).

“ ..he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire...”. And that's exactly what Christ did to that generation of Jews that He walked among and preached to. To those that received Him, He gave the Spirit. Those that rejected Him had only that certain expectation of wrath to come.

Behold then the goodness and severity of God.....Ro 11:22

 

[jbh28]

Being born again is 100% spiritual. It requires nothing earthly or physical. It is all of God through His Spirit.

Water is used throughout the Bible as a symbol for purity or purification, being washed clean. But physical water is not pure. It contains all kinds of micro organisms, some very bad and can never actually purify anything, much less the spirit of man.


We cannot be born again by physical water or physical birth. We are born of the Spirit of God only. That is what Nic did not understand.

precisely. Well said Amy!