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

[Phil12123]

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.

**Interesting website, but I found it hard to follow, with all the objections and replies to objections…kind of like some of these threads. **

 

[Phil12123]

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.

Not sure I see the “overarching theme” as baptism, nor of John’s point “being encapsulated” in verse 5. Making the single word “water” equal to water baptism, does not flow in the conversation with Nicodemus from verses 3 to 4 to 5. It almost breaks up the entire thought of two births, nearly adding a third birth. Yet there are only two births, physical and spiritual. Unless the water, as water baptism, equals the “born of the Spirit,” you are adding a third “birth”— born of the flesh, born of the water, and born of the Spirit, which does not flow into verse 6 which only mentions the two, born of the flesh and born of the Spirit. Plus, coming after Nicodemus’ expressed misunderstanding in verse 4, verse 5 does not flow to correct it, but rather to confuse it, adding something that neither Nicodemus nor Christ made any mention of before that—baptism (?)—or after that. On the other hand, if the water is a reference to the physical birth, everything flows, one verse to the next.

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.

**Verse 5 contains the first mention of Spirit, as I supposed. Verses 1, 2, 3, and 4 make no mention of the Spirit. Moving from the physical to the Spirit and spiritual all occurs in verses 5 and 6. Without those verses, Nicodemus would still be in the dark, supposing he needed another physical birth.

Actually Jesus does not refer “specifically to baptism,” which He could have done if that is what He meant by “water.” Verse 8 confirms that the spiritual birth does not come with observation, as baptism does, but is as the wind—you don’t see it except by its effects. Verses like John 1:11-13 ("…born…of God") are a better commentary by John on being born again than any verses on baptism that are mentioned in the greater context (John 1:26,33; 3:22-23; 4:1-2), and of course John 1:11-13 makes no mention of 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.

Other than here, Mlchance may be correct. Nicodemus was a ruler of the Jews so it is not likely that “he spent any time with Jesus,” as you suppose. No, “water” is definitely not a “clear” reference to the physical portion of baptism, and if not a clear reference to the physical birth, it may refer to the emphasis of John the Baptist on repentance and cleansing from sin as the necessary background for, even the negative side of, the new birth. In any event, do you immediately conclude “baptism” whenever you see the word, “water,” in Scripture? Is that how you view Jesus’ reference to “water” in John 4?

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.

John 3:6 read in context is not at all confusing. It fits perfectly where we find it, in Jesus’ explanation to Nicodemus. And, again, other than that one word, “water,” Jesus does not say being born again “involves baptism,” as you suppose. Jesus does not specifically say "baptism."

 

[PaBa]

Hi Phil. In my opinion, I think water representing amniotic fluid and therefore physical birth is quite a bit of a stretch in John 3:5.

My understanding of it is:
From the NAB:

John 3:4 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?”

Nicodemus, unsure of what to make of Jesus’s saying asks him if he is talking of physical birth. Nicodemus here expresses doubt that that is what Jesus is talking about when he says: “Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?” Nicodemus is seemingly on to something here but he needs Jesus to expound further since for some reason he cannot fully grasp what is before him. I don’t think your translation picks up this nuance. Nicodemus is learned man, let’s give him some credit.

Jesus clarifies himself and asserts that one MUST indeed be born again:

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. 6. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. 7. Do not be amazed that I told you, 'You must be born from above.”

Jesus here explained how one is reborn again: thru water, which is baptism, and Spirit which is the grace of God conveyed through the water. In simple terms, you need water to get the Spirit.

In my opinion, Jesus did contrast between the flesh and the spirit, but just not in the way that you interpret it to be. You are contrasting water and spirit against each other. I believe it is better to take them together. In such a way, there is our first birth, through the flesh, and a second birth, our rebirth, thru water and Spirit. Jesus is teaching Nicodemus and taking him out of “the dark” as you put him to be concerning the spiritual.

Perhaps the reason why Jesus did not mention baptism specifically was that his work was not yet fulfilled. Remember it after his death that he was established as the Son of God:

Romans 1:3-4: the gospel about his Son, descended from David according to the flesh, 4. but established as Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness through resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

As such, people could not be baptised in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit yet. Nonetheless, this does not in any way prevent our Lord from revealing to Nicodemus the requirements for “the kingdom of God” (being of the Spirit) and how it is fullfilled (through water baptism).

But I wonder, is it because the word “baptism” isn’t written the reason why you doubt the possibility of this as a reference to baptism? I am NOT trying to insult your intelligence when I say this and I say this with all due respect, but perhaps a deeper look into the meaning of this verse is necessary. I am quite comfortable in doing this because I can always look to the teaching of the Church if my interpretations are right, wrong, or whatever. But when someone who’s ultimate authority to interpreting scripture is oneself, it can be quite frightening and hard, if not impossible to veer away from the strictly literal and miss out on an important message. This does not mean though that a literal interpretion of the verses mentioned do not pertain to water baptism. I believe they do.

Peace, bro.

 

[Phil12123]

Hi Phil. In my opinion, I think water representing amniotic fluid and therefore physical birth is quite a bit of a stretch in John 3:5.

Well, women have been giving birth, physical birth, to their children since Eve, and so it is safe to say that it has always been the case that when the woman’s “water” breaks, the baby must soon come forth (today within 24 hrs.) or the baby can suffer harm, maybe even suffocation. Women didn’t always know it as “amniotic fluid” but just water. So it really isn’t so much of a stretch to associate water with a physical birth. My point is (1) Jesus does not specify baptism, and (2) verse 5 flows nicely into verse 6 only if the water corresponds to “that which is born of the flesh is flesh” and the Spirit corresponds to "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. 6. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. 7. Do not be amazed that I told you, 'You must be born from above.”

Jesus here explained how one is reborn again: thru water, which is baptism, and Spirit which is the grace of God conveyed through the water. In simple terms, you need water to get the Spirit.

Just saying, “water, which is baptism,” doesn’t make it so. And you are mistaken when you say “you need water to get the Spirit.” The Spirit does not need water, nor is He controlled by man with his water, as if He waits for the water and then comes. Verse 8 confirms that. But even more importantly does the case of Cornelius confirm that:

Acts 10:
43. "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.’’
44. While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
45. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
46. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,
47. "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?’’
48. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

Water was not required before the Gentiles received the Spirit, it wasn’t required for the thief on the cross to enter paradise with Jesus, and it is not required today either, at least not to receive the Spirit. It is an act of obedience for new converts like Cornelius to identify with the other believers, just as circumcision identified Jewish males with other Jews.

Perhaps the reason why Jesus did not mention baptism specifically was that his work was not yet fulfilled.

Yes, but even before His resurrection, Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, though it was His disciples who did the baptizing (John 4:1-2). So surely, there is no reason why He couldn’t have specified “baptism” rather than just saying “water” if he really meant baptism.

But I wonder, is it because the word “baptism” isn’t written the reason why you doubt the possibility of this as a reference to baptism?

**Certainly the use of the word “water” raises the possibility that Jesus is referring to water baptism. I simply reject that because it does not fit well into the flow of the verses in context. I also see that if you make it water baptism, then no one can enter the kingdom of God without it, and we see that is not true, both from the thief on the cross and Cornelius and his group. In the thief’s case, you cannot make John 3:5 say one thing and then turn around and say the thief can still get into the kingdom because he desired something he didn’t have. Your interpretation of 3:5 does not allow that. Besides, there is no scriptural basis for such a thing. If you want to make 3:5 require water baptism, then everyone has to be water baptized or they don’t get in. Period.

Furthermore, if the “water” is water baptism and it is mandatory for anyone to get into the kingdom of God, don’t you find it a little odd that Paul would say, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect” (1 Cor. 1:17)?**

 

[jtown]

Just curious how you then will handle Acts 2:38-41:

38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Sounds like this is for the children…

For us this IS a “duh” thing. Jesus tells Nicodemus you must be born again. Nicodemus does not understand how to be born again. Jesus tells him water and spirit. From math class we know “and” equals plus…so water + spirit = born again… and we know the only thing that has water + spirit is baptism.

Anyways can John 1:32-34 help:

Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ 34I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God.”

So John Baptized with water Jesus baptized with holy spirit…(and water was still involved) so again water + spirit!.

I also wanted to point out a fallacy in what you are saying:
**
Nicodemus was a ruler of the Jews so it is not likely that “he spent any time with Jesus,” as you suppose.
**

John 3:1
Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

Why did he come at night? He also says “signs” note that is plural…he must have been watching Jesus for some time, and seen many things. So to say he has not spent any time with Jesus would be incorrect to say the least.

Now Nicodemus obviously wants to enter the Kingdom of God, and obviously wants to be saved. Otherwise he would NOT ask how to enter the kingdom of God.

Your interpretation is just very strange to say the least. Water=born of women.

Further your argument that if water equals baptism then Jesus should have just said it. The inverse is also true, if Jesus meant water equals born from a women then he could have just said that. I just am not sure how you break up the word “and” into two seperate things. To be born again means born of water AND spirit. And to answer your question on why not “just say baptism” (which sounds like you are undermining Christ’s wisdom)
John 3:10
“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things?

He wants him to THINK that is why “not just say baptism”

Further you do not understand Oregooner (hi Oregooner, we are debating Phil12123 in another post infant vs believer baptism) in taking this out of context. You are analyzing John 3:5 without the rest of the book. John 3:5 is part of a narration on Jesus’s life. Remember John 3:1 “Now there was a man” he is telling a story. After he talks to Nicodemus what does he do? John 3:22 “After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.”

Now you can understand that after the encounter they went on BAPTIZING…maybe…I have helped or not…it was a worth a try
Can you site theologians who side with your interpretation…perhaps from the year 1,000AD or earlier?

Peace
Jtown****