What did Jesus mean?

Another point is that Angels cannot be BORN AGAIN. they are a created SPIRIT. Therefore Jesus blood cannot save them since they are not born of the Water.

 

I don't understand your post on the previous page.

I will re-read it to see if I can understand it better.

Did you mean to sound as if you were saying no one is 'born=again' until the resurrection?

Bro. Dallas

 

Believe me, I am trying.

So far, so good

I can agree with that.

Again, I agree. However did we get so far?

Here is where we disagree. By taking this view point you seem to be confining John 3:5 to its historical context with Nicodemus only, thus not making it applicable to us today. The command of Jesus is a timeless command that applies to every individual and must be interpreted as such. It is not spoken of just in John 3:1-8, but in John 1:12,13, James 1:18; 1Pet.1:23; and many other Scriptures. You must be born again. This is a theme that runs through the New Testament. In this passage Jesus elaborates and tells us how. He says we must be born of water and of the Spirit. If you apply water as baptism, and put that into a historical context as applicable only to John then you have a narrowed interpretation of that verse which doesn't apply to the rest of the world. That is poor hermeneutics and akin to hyper-dispensationalism. It is the same reasoning that gives some the excuse for not following the Great Commission in Mat.28:19,20--It was only given to the disciples, and therefore not applicable to us today.
If water = baptism (even if it is just for Nicodemus), then the verse is moot in today's society. In the light of other Scripture, such as 1Pet.1:23, it becomes impossible for it to mean baptism. We are born again by the Word of God. Peter says that plainly. To insert baptism into John 3:5 means that every believer today is born again by baptism, and that is baptismal regeneration. The verse cannot be confined to Nicodemus alone.

We do take baptism very seriously; in the same way that you explained it--not as salvic, but as symbolic of the Holy Spirit's working in our lives.
DHK

 

DHK

Sorry my posting today is not in sync. I have just accepted a position with a seminary which interferes a bit with responding to you.

Let me say a few things about the meaning of eis in Mt 3:11 and in Acts 2:38:

1. Various translations

KJV unto.....for
RSV for......for
NEB for......for
NIV for......so that
Jer Bible for......for
TEV to show that......so that
Phillips as a sign of......so that

2. The Issue

Can eis be used with the accusative causally and so be translated "because" or must it be rendered "for the purpose of"

a) Dana and Mantey, yes(Grammar , 103)
b) Dan Wallace, no. ( Greek Gram Beyond the Basics,369,370)

IMO Wallace presents a convinving argument that Mantey is not correct. Were this view true, then eis in those texts cannot mean "because of" as "Get baptized BECAUSE you have repented " or "Get baptised BECAUSE your sins have been remitted."

3. A proposed solution

But I suggest there is a way to deal with the meaning of eis in these texts without either subscribing to an unlikely meaning of the preposition or converting to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

As you say context is important.Please look at the context of Mt 3:11. Observe that in v.6 the baptizands confessed their sin while being baptized. IMO that is the word, rhema, in Eph 5:26. But regardless, obviously repentance PRECEDED WB. So, we cannot say that WB causes repentance.

So, why confess during WB if it does not cause repentance? Because WB is done in connection with repentance , not , however, as the cause.

But can eis have a meaning as "in respect to" or "in connection with" ? It certainly can! See EG: Wallace, Grammar Beyond The Basics, Carson Matthew in EBC, and Hagner in John, Word Commentary.

Accordingly I would translate something like:

" I baptize you in water in connection with your repentance." (Mt 3:11)

"You repent and be baptized... in connection with the forgiveness of sins." (Acts 2:38)

 

Frogman who are talking too ?

 

Here is where we disagree. By taking this view point you seem to be confining John 3:5 to its historical context with Nicodemus only, thus not making it applicable to us today. The command of Jesus is a timeless command that applies to every individual and must be interpreted as such. It is not spoken of just in John 3:1-8, but in John 1:12,13, James 1:18; 1Pet.1:23; and many other Scriptures. You must be born again. This is a theme that runs through the New Testament. In this passage Jesus elaborates and tells us how. He says we must be born of water and of the Spirit. If you apply water as baptism, and put that into a historical context as applicable only to John then you have a narrowed interpretation of that verse which doesn't apply to the rest of the world. That is poor hermeneutics and akin to hyper-dispensationalism. It is the same reasoning that gives some the excuse for not following the Great Commission in Mat.28:19,20--It was only given to the disciples, and therefore not applicable to us today.
If water = baptism (even if it is just for Nicodemus), then the verse is moot in today's society. In the light of other Scripture, such as 1Pet.1:23, it becomes impossible for it to mean baptism. We are born again by the Word of God. Peter says that plainly. To insert baptism into John 3:5 means that every believer today is born again by baptism, and that is baptismal regeneration. The verse cannot be confined to Nicodemus alone.

===


I believe it was Blue Falcon who placed such a time limitation on that. I said nothing because, frankly, I was glad to have someone in part at least support my view.

I did argue that what John wrote in 3:5 should be as meaningful to the first century church as it is to us. I also suggested that our reaction to the doc of Bap regeneration may influence our interpretation of 3:5.

IMO in 3:5 Christ is defining the birth from above. We know that the HS, not water, is the Agent of that new birth because that is qualified in v. 8.

So, why does Jesus mention water at all? IMO it may be because of those in the Jordan confessing their sins. IMO they confessed because the HS opened their hearts. The HS, therefore, and God's Word through John are both connected in that event to WB.

I do not think that water in 3:5 exactly equals either the Word or the HS. Jesus can be plainer than that. When, eg, Jesus spoke of water in chap 7 , John sees the need to clarify that by saying Jesus meant the HS. We need to remember that first century Christians did not have our complete canon. They could not do all the cross referencing we do.

But if I think that water in 3:5 means water baptism, does that mean that I think WB causes the new birth? Of course not, because Jesus says the HS causes the new birth.

IMO " you must be born of water and the Spirit" means something like "you must be born of the Spirit and witness to that by WB."

 

FROGMAN....Quote from commentary...Most professing Christians think they were "born again" when they "accepted Christ" and were "baptized." From that time, supposedly, they received the Holy Spirit and have been living a new life in Christ. True, a real Christian has received the Spirit of God, and is indeed living a new life in Christ ( Ephesians 4:22-24 ). But is this what it means to be "born again"? The new birth described in the Bible is far more than most professing Christians have assumed. When Jesus spoke of being "born again," He did not mean what most people think.

I think what the author is saying is, that yes we receive Gods spirit when we get saved but we have yet to receive our spiritual bodies and minds till we go to heaven

I understand it to mean we are three part beings. BODY ~ SOUL ~ SPIRIT.

When we get saved we have been spiritually made ALIVE we now have a relationship with God through a new spirit, we are no longer dead ( seperated )
But that will be more completed when we get to heaven

Our bodies and flesh haven't been redeemed till we get to heaven we still struggle with that

Our Soul our emotions , mind and will. Is another thing we still struggle with till we get to heaven.

It will all be completed spiritually when we get to heaven. BODY ~ SOUL ~ SPIRIT.
AMEN !

 

I've notice NNE is able to find FLAW with the answer BORN OF WATER meaning PHYSICAL BIRTH.

But you can find many FLAWS with it meaning Water Baptism or whatever they are saying ?

And FLAWS with it meaning, Washing of the Word.

The verse before Jesus said what he said you must be born of water and of the spirit.
Deals with the physical and the verse after deals with the physical. So obviously the verse in the MIDDLE deals with the physical. I rest my case

Unless someone is able to find fault with my interpitation. You all are wasting your time. I must be RIGHT

 

As to your point re the thief: many who believe in baptismal regeneration say that he was under the old covenant because Jesus had not died yet, so he did not need baptism. (I am not endorsing this view, just showing that the thief argument does not always work with baptismal regeneration supporters).

As to being born of water referring to the water sack: there is no way I think Nicodemus would have been thinking of this. It does not seem Jewish men would refer to or discuss this because a woman who has given birth was unclean for 7 days after the birth of a male, and unclean for 2 weeks after birth of a female (see Lev. 12). Therefore, being born of water referring to this seems like it would have been a distasteful or taboo topic to learned Jewish men like Nicodemus who observed the law.

Also, I think that "water and spirit" is a hendiadys, using two words to refer to the same thing.

 

Dear RightFromWrong,
I am sorry, I was leaving for class in LRock when I wrote that and I didn't make it clear as to who I was speaking to. But I see you figured it out .

Sorry.

Dear Sister Marcia,
Your post is the exact argument of many among SGLMB's who are dividing two Covenants as the CofC does, the Old Covenant, Christ dies, resurrects, and ascends, the New Covenant, what is under the Old is not Under the New;

I am Glad God Said HIS Covenant of GRACE was and is an ETERNAL COVENANT and that means it is ONE; even as Christ and HIS FATHER ARE ONE; and they are THREE WHO AGREE IN ONE; such that GOD saw there was NO MAN, THEN COVENANTED WITH THE SON TO BRING SALVATION TO HIMSELF WITH HIS OWN ARM; AND THE HOLY SPIRIT AGREED TPERATE UPON THOSE CHOSEN IN THE SON FROM ETERNITY TO ETERNITY TO CONFORM THEM TO THE IMAGE OF THE SON.

(Not shouting, just loud )

Really, just using capitals, not loud words.

Bro. Dallas

 

Frogman, in re to your post to me: Please note that I do NOT hold his view (my capital is shouting)as my post clearly stated. Your post to me makes it sound like you think I support that view. Please read everything I wrote before saying something that infers I support something I in no way support. I was doing it to show Rightfromwrong that there are people who have arguments for what she says, whether they are good ones or not.

This is what I said to Rightfromwrong:

Please note the words in parentheses. In the future, I guess bolding is in order.

 

There is none. "Born of water" referrs to the amniotic fluid (water) that accompanies the birth of a baby. In fact, when the amniotic sac ruptures prior to birth, we still refer to is as "water breaking", a carryover from ancient days.

In fact, Jesus first says "born of water and the spirit", and then recaps by saying "flesh gives birth to flesh, spirit gives birth to spirit".

 

There are flaws with it. Would a 1st century Jewish man immediately think of the water sac when Lev. 12 makes a woman unclean after childbirth? I don't think so. See my post on p. 9.

Anyway, having a water sac burst at birth does not mean one is being born of water. One is being born from the womb. There is no description of birth in the Bible that refers to water that I know of.

And sometimes the sac does not break. Sometimes (or usually) it breaks hours before birth, so the baby is hardly "born of water."

Also, why would Jesus say we have to be born physically? That's sort of obvious, isn't it?

 

Dear Marcia,
I did not think you held this view, because your post references the CofC teaching or of most who hold to baptismal regeneration.

Now, calm down, go back and read my post...esp. the part that I was not shouting...just typing loud.

I just want to get it out there that the Campbellite is coming back among the Baptist...therefore, in the words of Paul, having done all you can do to stand, stand

Ga 5:1 (KJV) Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Eph 6:11 (KJV) Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

Eph 6:13 (KJV) Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Eph 6:14 (KJV) Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

Forgive me for leaving the impression I thought you believed such a heretical heresy.

Bro. Dallas

 

What does this mean?

Joh 19:34 (KJV) But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

Bro. Dallas

 

Frogman, thanks for the explanation and clarification. It did sound to me like you were lecturing me.

Sorry if I overreacted but I wasn't sure about it. So I appreciate your post.

Thanks again!

 

I've notice NNE is able to find FLAW with the answer BORN OF WATER meaning PHYSICAL BIRTH.

Well...

I DON'T think that's the proper interpretation - but admittedly it is open for debate.

Clearly Jesus is speaking about a new type of birth. He uses the flesh/spirit analogy to contrast physical birth and spiritual birth.

The question regards the WATER.

My reasons for not seeing water as physical birth stem from the fact that it seems to violate context. Why would Jesus say that one must be born of water if he meant physical birth? Of course we are all born ex utero - that seems redundant to me.

In Jn 3:5 Jesus says, "... except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

If WATER is physical birth then why is Jesus saying that except a man be physically born...he cannot enter into heaven? That just seems odd.

Again - I understand the flesh/spirit contrast - but I think water and spirit both refer to the "spirit" and not water to flesh as spirit to spirit.

I should also mention that I do not equate water here with baptism. While that symbolism is obviously possible given JBap's ministry I do not see it as necessarily being implied here.

 

Marcia wrote......As to being born of water referring to the water sack: there is no way I think Nicodemus would have been thinking of this. It does not seem Jewish men would refer to or discuss this because a woman who has given birth was unclean for 7 days after the birth of a male, and unclean for 2 weeks after birth of a female (see Lev. 12). Therefore, being born of water referring to this seems like it would have been a distasteful or taboo topic to learned Jewish men like Nicodemus who observed the law.


If Nicodemus wasn't think this why did he ask Jesus. HOW CAN A MAN ENTER HIS MOTHERS WOMB A SECOND TIME ? of course he was thinking this. He just said he was. And Jesus didn't correct his question, Jesus ANSWERED back (unlike some on here ) a reply to his actual question. and went further to say that which is FLESH is FLESH. So staying within the context of scripture there is no other answer !

You said the water sack could break hours before the baby came out. So what ? the water sack still had to break before the baby could be born. How long it took for the baby was born has nothing to do with anything

 

Ok Marcia I can see where the Church of Christ can twist what Jesus said to the thief on the cross. I do not agree with their explaination. but I'm not sure how to refute it, even though it is wrong.

MANY were being Baptized before he died on the cross. If it didn't matter for salvation before he died then it doesn't matter after

 

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," said Jesus ( John 3:3 ).

Nicodemus was totally perplexed. He asked Jesus: "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (Verse 4.)

Jesus told him: "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (verse 7). But Nicodemus simply did not comprehend what Jesus was talking about (verses 9-12). How like so many people today! They, too, are baffled by these simple words of Christ.


Nicodemus was familiar only with the process of physical birth. Therefore he understood when Jesus said to him, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." But then Jesus explained we must be born again—not again of the flesh—not again entering our mother's womb, as Nicodemus thought He meant. He explained that we must be born of the spirit—born of God! God must be our Father this time! As we were born of the flesh through fleshly human parents, even so we must be born of the Spirit of our spiritual heavenly Father.

Here are two different kinds of birth—one physical, the other spiritual. When you were born of your fleshly parents, you were composed of flesh, but "that which is born of the spirit is spirit" ( John 3:6 ) no longer composed of flesh but spirit!