This is similar to an argument used in John 6 when it is argued that Jesus’ word are Spirit, not His flesh…
Catholics understand this in a Sacramental sense.
“Have
you not read where the prophet says, ‘I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will
cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new
spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:25-26).
Now if the water of John 3:5 is merely symbolic, why does the prophet say that it is the water which is
making the individual clean from impurities and providing a new spirit to rest in him? One might protest
that this is merely in the Old Testament. But so were Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3. In fact, in John 3:10
Jesus says to Nicodemus, “You are Israel’s teacher and you do not understand these things? I tell you
the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen,” implying that Nicodemus
should have known these truths from the Old Testament. Just like the Sadducees, we have another case
of someone who, though very familiar with Scripture, missed its true interpretation.
Now am I saying that baptism was practiced in the Old Testament? No, but I am saying that
the Old Testament foreshadowed baptism and its spiritual effects — effects which apply to people both
in the Old and New Testament. Have you not read in 1 Corinthians 10:1-2: “…our forefathers were all
under the cloud and they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and
in the sea.” And have you not read in Acts 16:22 what Ananias says to Paul, “Get up and be baptized and
wash your sins away, calling on his name.” Now, why would Ananias say that Paul’s sins were washed
away precisely at water baptism if the water represented only the word of God or was merely symbolic?
Have you not read what Peter says in 1 Peter 3:20-21 in explaining the flood waters of Noah’s day, “and
this water is the antitype of baptism which now saves us.” Why would Peter say “baptism saves” if the
water was merely symbolic or represented only the word of God? Moreover, if one insists that the
water represents only the word of God, have you not read in John 1:31-34 and John 4:2 in which
baptism was administered with physical water? Is it not unreasonable to think that the water of John 3:5
so suddenly takes on a different meaning, especially since it is surrounded by a context that only refers
to literal water?9
“The above was taken from A robert Sungenis website. He made several good points so I copied and pasted.”
