John 3:5 - born of water does not mean baptism at all

  • Thread starter Thread starter JustinMartyr100
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JustinMartyr100

Guest
At least that is what this guy is arguing on his website:

godandscience.org/doctrine/baptism.html

It’s an interesting interpretation and I was wondering what peoples thoughts were, I’ll outline his argument:
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 said to Him, “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?” Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into 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 be amazed that I said to you, "You must be born again.’ (John 3:3-7)
Click to expand...
Here it goes:

Jesus says this: Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Then he clarifies by saying this: That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

In the first sentence, Jesus uses water before spirit, when he clarifies, he uses flesh before spirit. So, he is saying that being born of water is being born of the flesh with the water referring to amniotic fluid. Nothing to do with baptism. So Jesus referred to two births, physical, and then spiritual.

Now I am pasting: The Greek word used is “hudwr” (Strong’s number G5204). The Greek word for baptism is “baptisma” (Strong’s number G908). If Jesus had wanted to refer to baptism, He would have used this word. In fact, the word (or a variation of it) occurs 112 times in the New Testament.

I believe what the Church teachings, I just don’t know if there is an official interpretation for that verse, so that’s why I wanted to get everyone’s thoughts. Although, I have heard that verse used plenty of times to support baptism.

Thanks.
 
JustinMartyr100 said:
At least that is what this guy is arguing on his website:

godandscience.org/doctrine/baptism.html

It’s an interesting interpretation and I was wondering what peoples thoughts were, I’ll outline his argument:

Here it goes:

Jesus says this: Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Then he clarifies by saying this: That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

In the first sentence, Jesus uses water before spirit, when he clarifies, he uses flesh before spirit. So, he is saying that being born of water is being born of the flesh with the water referring to amniotic fluid. Nothing to do with baptism. So Jesus referred to two births, physical, and then spiritual.

Now I am pasting: The Greek word used is “hudwr” (Strong’s number G5204). The Greek word for baptism is “baptisma” (Strong’s number G908). If Jesus had wanted to refer to baptism, He would have used this word. In fact, the word (or a variation of it) occurs 112 times in the New Testament.

I believe what the Church teachings, I just don’t know if there is an official interpretation for that verse, so that’s why I wanted to get everyone’s thoughts. Although, I have heard that verse used plenty of times to support baptism.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Hi, first of all there is an “official interpretation” of that verse, the Council of Trent infallibly defined it as Baptism. And many Early Church Fathers did as well.

Anyway, it is amazing the things people come up with in “response” to this verse.

The idea that this is amniotic fluid is simply silly, it would be like Jesus saying “Unless a man is born of woman and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom”…DUH a man is born of woman, what next “Unless a man is born a human”? Further verse 7 makes it clear that verse 5 is talking about being “born again”.

Baptism makes perfect sense, especially considering all the times “water” and “Spirit” come together, eg Matt 3:16, Acts 2:38, Titus 3:5, etc

ALSO, the CONTEXT of Jn 3 is BAPTISM, notice that right after Jesus is done talking John goes into his own talk (eg “for God so loved the world”) but when he picks up again in v22 it says “after this”, in reference to Jesus’ talk with Nick, it says Jesus went with His Apostles to Baptize!

Really, this verse is rejected by Protestants simply because it doesnt go with Faith Alone theology.
 
JustinMartyr100 said:
In the first sentence, Jesus uses water before spirit, when he clarifies, he uses flesh before spirit. So, he is saying that being born of water is being born of the flesh with the water referring to amniotic fluid. Nothing to do with baptism. So Jesus referred to two births, physical, and then spiritual.
Click to expand...
This interpretation pops up now and then, and it always busts me up. Let’s boil it down

Man: Jesus, what must we do to be saved?

Jesus: Well first you have to exist, then you have to be born of the spirit.

Are there any more pointless words in all of history than to tell people (who without exception have been born) that they first must be born?

On a driver’s license application, does it ask if you’ve been born? On a mortgage application? On a marriage license? On a baptismal certificate? Where exactly does anybody, anywhere, list as a condition for any benefit that one must first be born? (let’s leave aside the legalities of the “person-ness” of an unborn child under the law, since that is clearly outside of the thrust of this discussion)

Oh, and I guess this interpretation prevents aborted and miscarried babies from being saved. A bit problematic, that.
 
Catholic_Dude said:
ALSO, the CONTEXT of Jn 3 is BAPTISM, notice that right after Jesus is done talking John goes into his own talk (eg “for God so loved the world”) but when he picks up again in v22 it says “after this”, in reference to Jesus’ talk with Nick, it says Jesus went with His Apostles to Baptize!
Click to expand...
Interesting that you mention this because in that article, the protestant says that baptism is not important, and Jesus never baptized anyone to our knowledge. In his defense, he used John 4:2 (although Jesus himself was not baptizing, just his disciples) to justify that position, but it’s still a week argument for him.

Well I am happy that this verse is “official”, it’s one of my main arguments!
 
Jesus shouldn’t have been baptizing anyone, so as to prevent confusion. Look at it this way.

Jesus tells us in John that He must die so that the Holy Spirit can come.
Baptism bestows the Holy Spirit on us.
Jesus’ Baptisms during His Lifetime would NOT have bestowed the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit couldn’t come until after His death.

Hence, someone who was baptized BY Jesus wouldn’t have it take, whereas someone who was baptized IN THE NAME OF Jesus Christ would.
 
NotWorthy said:
Jesus shouldn’t have been baptizing anyone, so as to prevent confusion. Look at it this way.

Jesus tells us in John that He must die so that the Holy Spirit can come.
Baptism bestows the Holy Spirit on us.
Jesus’ Baptisms during His Lifetime would NOT have bestowed the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit couldn’t come until after His death.

Hence, someone who was baptized BY Jesus wouldn’t have it take, whereas someone who was baptized IN THE NAME OF Jesus Christ would.
Click to expand...
I thought I heard Tim Staples on Catholic Answers say one time that Jesus baptized only the Apostles and the Apostles Baptized everyone from there to signify and solidify the fact Jesus was putting them in charge.
 
Catholic_Dude said:
I thought I heard Tim Staples on Catholic Answers say one time that Jesus baptized only the Apostles and the Apostles Baptized everyone from there to signify and solidify the fact Jesus was putting them in charge.
Click to expand...
I’ve never read where Jesus baptized the Apostles only.
 
Catholic_Dude said:
I thought I heard Tim Staples on Catholic Answers say one time that Jesus baptized only the Apostles and the Apostles Baptized everyone from there to signify and solidify the fact Jesus was putting them in charge.
Click to expand...
But who baptized Mary??? I am sure that He must have baptized His own beloved mother!
I am sure I have read that, someplace…
 
Zooey said:
But who baptized Mary??? I am sure that He must have baptized His own beloved mother!
I am sure I have read that, someplace…
Click to expand...
Why? Baptism would have been redundant for her since she was conceived without sin.

Maybe, like Jesus, she could have been baptized “to fulfill all righteousness”. But again, it seems it would have imposed confusing questions. Like, “If Baptism cleanses our sins, and Mary is without sin, then why WAS she baptized?”
 
He is right born of water in context means born of flesh.

You simply need to expound on “born of spirit”

1 Corinthians 12:13 (New International Version)

For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
 
When it gets to the point that Satan is getting people who call themselves christian to think that Baptism is not needed and commanded by Jesus–how much further does one have to go down that road before anything that Jesus says doesn’t really mean anything?

I don’t believe that people really do believe such a lie.

I do believe that Satan loves to get people to repeat such a lie!
 
NotWorthy said:
Why? Baptism would have been redundant for her since she was conceived without sin.

Maybe, like Jesus, she could have been baptized “to fulfill all righteousness”. But again, it seems it would have imposed confusing questions. Like, “If Baptism cleanses our sins, and Mary is without sin, then why WAS she baptized?”
Click to expand...
FYI, Jesus was baptised with John’s “Baptism of repentance”, to identify himself with Sinners, (from what I understand), not the Triune Formula “Baptism for the remission of sins”. People that were baptised by John were re-baptised “In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”
 
jrsmith said:
FYI, Jesus was baptised with John’s “Baptism of repentance”, to identify himself with Sinners, (from what I understand), not the Triune Formula “Baptism for the remission of sins”. People that were baptised by John were re-baptised “In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”
Click to expand...
That is so very correct.

But that doesn’t fully explain why Jesus didn’t baptize. I think He didn’t baptize in order to prevent confusion among His New Church.
 
In the argument saying that:“Being born of water is referring to being born physically (the water referring to the amniotic fluid that breaks as one is born).”
That is a common Protestant teaching, but it is incorrect. Of course the person is going to be physically born. Is Jesus saying that a cloned person, or a person from a cesarean section can’t be baptized because they were not born of water in the first place?

You have to take all of the first 4 chapters of John in context, and the context is that there is baptism, with water and spirit, and being born of God.
I would recommend listening to the first few minutes of the ‘Gospels 2’ program of Scott Hahn’s “Our Fathers Plan”.
He explains about this refering to baptism.
 
Daniel_Marsh said:
He is right born of water in context means born of flesh.
Click to expand...
No, he isn’t right. That interpretation doesn’t make sense in context. Jesus is saying someone has to be alive in order to be baptized? Duh. What’s more, there is absolutely zero contextual evidence to support the flawed idea that by “born of water” Jesus was referring to amniotic fluid. The comparion has no parallel at all in idiomatic usage in Jesus’ time. No one in the ancient world ever referred to amniotic fluid being released at birth as being “born of water.”

– Mark L. Chance.
 
**Let’s look at the immediate context:
**
**John 3
  1. There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
  2. This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.’’
  3. Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’’
  4. Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?’’
  5. Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
  6. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
  7. "Do not marvel that I said to you, `You must be born again.’ **
**Jesus’ first statement, in verse 3, states the general truth that unless a person is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Notice how Nicodemus responds, thinking only in physical terms: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

Jesus then explains what He meant in verse 3, in response to Nicodemus’ question in verse 4, by saying in verse 5, “unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” This is the first mention of the Spirit. His futher words in verse 6 completes His explanation, making it clear that there are two births, physical and spiritual. The mention of “water” could just as easily be linked to the physical birth as “the Spirit” is linked to the spiritual birth, both being mentioned in verse 5 and verse 6.

When you say “water” cannot be referring to the physical birth because, duh, everyone is born, you are missing the point. He is showing Nicodemus that, just as he’s thinking of the physical birth (“water”), there is also another one required, namely, of the Spirit. So if you look at the progression of His teaching here, from the original statement and then explanation, which is then further expanded upon, there is no need to read baptism into it. All He is saying is, for men to get into the kingdom of God, two births are required, not just one. The physical, which is all Nicodemus was thinking about, is not enough.

Certainly, Jesus’ statement that “that which is born of the flesh is flesh” is not a “duh” and unnecessary statement or He would not have made it. He is showing both births and what happens when they each occur. The physical birth gives birth to a physical body and the birth of the Spirit gives birth to a spirit. So a person then has a body, soul, and spirit. Before being born again, the person had a body and a soul, but either no spirit or a dead spirit. When the Spirit birthes the spirit, the person is then spiritually alive, for the first time. Remember Jesus’ statement, “Let the dead bury their dead”? That would be, let the spiritually dead bury their physically dead. When a person is born again, he is no longer spiritually dead.

Peace**
 
In case this helps at all, Saint Thomas said something about baptism in Christ’s day, which influenced my own thinking about this. Saint Thomas maintained that the sacrament of baptism was instituted when Christ was baptized. However, even then it had its effectivenss from his passion for it prefigured the passion. However, Christ, he says too, did not make baptism obligatory before his passion. To read this go to Question 66, article 2 of his Summa, which can be read at:

newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm
I don't know if his view on this should be considered as Catholic dogma. Still, he raises interesting possibilities when it comes to explaining the Gospels in this regards.
 
Phil12123

Your analysis of John 3 has some problems in that it fails to grasp the context of the entire passage covering chapter 3 and some of chapter 4. The overarching theme of this section of John is baptism. John presents the introduction and main point of the section through Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus and proceeds to discuss belief and baptism in a manner that shows that they are intimately linked. John moves between dealing with baptism and belief seamlessly with the point of this exercise being encapsulated for us in John 3:5.

When Jesus restates his position in verse 5, he isn’t adding “spirit” to the mix and drawing a distinction between water and spirit as you suppose. He is clarifying how one is “born again”. Nicodemus is asking how it (being born again) is done and Jesus answers him by referring specifically to baptism.

Mlchance was right that “water” is not used to refer to physical birth in the Bible. Nicodemus, if he spent any time with Jesus, would have known how the Apostles and John used water in their ministries (as did the readers of John’s gospel). “Water”, therefore, can be nothing else than a clear reference to the physical portion of baptism.

John 3:6 is potentially confusing and I can see why you might think it supports your argument, but Jesus is simply drawing a distinction between being born and being “born again”, which involves baptism.
 
Oregooner said:
Phil12123

John 3:6 is potentially confusing and I can see why you might think it supports your argument, but Jesus is simply drawing a distinction between being born and being “born again”, which involves baptism.
Click to expand...
👍

There is no Scriptural precedent for the expression “born of water” meaning physical birth (an RSV word search shows this is the only time it occurs in Scripture). I’m not aware of the expression being used anywhere at any time as a sort of euphemism for being born as a physical human being. If Jesus meant our physical birth, He would have used the clear phrase He uses for it in verse 6 - “of the flesh”.
In other words (pun intended:) ), in verse 5, He would have said, “…unless one is born of the flesh and the Spirit…” (or “born of woman” which is a Scriptural expression)
and
in verse 6, He would have said, "That which is born of water is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Nita
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top