Hey, I appreciate your patience, I have tried to give an answer relevant to your question. I believe these quotes are from the NAB, so they may not match your translation in the way the verses are divided up.
John 3:3-5: " Jesus answered and said to him ‘Amen, Amen, I say to you, no one can see the Kindom of God without being born from above.’ Nicodemus said to him, ‘How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?’ Jesus answered, 'Amen, Amen, I say to you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."
Protestants will often translate the above verse as “born again” instead of “from above.” They and we are not wrong, but our translation does less funkiness with the text. Allow me to explain. In Greek the word “
anothen” can mean either “from above” or “again.” Both translations are correct. I believe this is why Nicodemus was confused, because he thought Jesus said “born again” when Jesus meant “from above.” That is why Nicodemus asked how a man can be born again. When Jesus saw he was confused, he was more specific and said you must be born of water and the spirit in order to clarify things to Nicodemus.
To put this in context, in chapter 1 Jesus was baptized and the Holy Spirit came down as a dove (from above). So He was baptized with water and the Spirit. This makes sense of both of Jesus’ responses to Nicodemus. Then immediately *after *this conversation he goes out baptizing people with the disciples, so it would seem he means baptism for salvation, not simply mental assent.
In Mark 1:10, after Jesus walks up from the water, heaven opens up and the Spirit comes down upon Him. The word Mark uses for the heavens opening up is
schidzo, which is the same word used when the temple veil tore from top to bottom as he breathed His last on the cross in Mark 15:37-38. In fact, these are the only two places in the gospel of Mark this word is used. Mark would seem to be linking baptism directly with Christ’s death on the Cross, as Paul points out later in his letters. Baptism is us following his death by dying to sin with water, the symbol of death, that ironically becomes our symbol for life. The thing is, if baptism is linked directly with the cross which is our salvation, then that just makes its sacramental importance for salvation that much more serious. Because if the baptism is equated by Mark with the cross, then not to be baptized is not to be a part of the redemption.
Repeatedly in John 3 Jesus makes mention of believing in him, but his contrast of belief with *disobedience *in John 3:36, as well as in John 3:20 where in the same context he talks about works preventing one from the Light ( i.e; Jesus, since earlier in the gospel Jesus is referred to as the Light) strongly imply that what Jesus means by “belief” (and this is borne out by other Scriptures) is not merely mental assent, but
obedience. And what does obeying Jesus mean? Obviously, all the things mentioned in the verses following, but also to get baptized.
This whole gospel of John would demonstrate to the Catholic mind quite clearly how Jesus sets a precedent (His own baptism), preaches about it and then carries out the newly instrumented Sacrament.
I have tried to keep my post focused on just this chapter in John so the thread doesn’t go somewhere else, but honestly, if you go just based off this chapter, Protestants have a case. There are varying Protestant positions on water baptism based off of just this passage, and many make sense. The only way to know for sure based off of only this passage would be to go “John, what is the meaning of that passage in the gospel you wrote.” Obviously we can’t do that, but the thing is, John had friends, and his friends had friends. Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyon, etc. And we can read what these people wrote about what the early Church believed regarding baptism.That’s why it is most helpful to look at the anti-nicene fathersand other early Church writings such as the Didache (which some have even dated as early as AD 48) for some perspective on how the text was to be “interpreted.”
For an understanding about the Catholic belief about just this text however, divorced from other Scripture or early Christian Testament, (which I do not believe is how the Bible was meant to be read) this is the best I can do for now
God Bless you.
