John 3:6 argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cruxis117
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cruxis117

Guest
I was at a non-denom Bible study (a way to keep busy and to learn how to make a bible study/club for my next year at University), and the pastor there said that John 3:5 is referring to the whole “water is normal birth, spirit is the born from above/again” argument. He then supplemented it using John 3:6, which says this:
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
While I had other arguments to supplement the proper, biblical Catholic understanding, I decided to refrain that moment so that I didn’t get into a debate and ruin the meeting. However, I plan on responding to this person privately in order to continue the discussion.

When I responded to the above verse quote by saying that when John writes ‘flesh’, he often means ‘the carnal mind/the human mind’ and not ‘normal birth’, he said that those times that Jesus uses the word flesh are in different events that are separated by large periods of time, so he wouldn’t be contradicting himself by using a different meaning.

How would I respond to the use of the above verse, and the defence posted above that was used to defend that verse?
 
I was at a non-denom Bible study (a way to keep busy and to learn how to make a bible study/club for my next year at University), and the pastor there said that John 3:5 is referring to the whole “water is normal birth, spirit is the born from above/again” argument. He then supplemented it using John 3:6, which says this:
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
Correct. It’s a parallel construction. That’s what I always thought it meant. Now, is there some Church document that says we have to interpret this some other way? All the celebrants give homilies on the same passages. They don’t always take the same meaning. I once read a classic explanation of interpreting Scripture, it was by a Jewish scholar who talked about three levels of meaning: the literal, the symbolic, and the inspired. I think that was it.
 
the pastor there said that John 3:5 is referring to the whole "water is normal birth
Is he trying to advance the “amniotic fluid=water at birth” argument? What cause has he to assert that the reference to “water” means “normal birth”? I don’t see that in the text.

I see rebirth repeated again in Paul when he refers to dying and rising again with Christ in baptism (Rom. 6:4) And I could produce other verses referring to the waters of baptism. That fits with John 3:5 - with the water comes the spirit. We even saw this when Christ was baptized by John the Baptist. When Jesus was baptized, what happened? The Spirit came down (Matt. 3:16). Water. Spirit. Baptism.
 
It especially flies in the face of John’s words in 1 John 5:6-8:
[6] This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood.
[7] And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
[8] There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.
 
I was at a non-denom Bible study (a way to keep busy and to learn how to make a bible study/club for my next year at University), and the pastor there said that John 3:5 is referring to the whole “water is normal birth, spirit is the born from above/again” argument.
  • The term “born of water” has no Scriptural or contemporaneous secular reference to meaning “child birth”. His maintaining that it means “natural birth” is what is known as a form of anachronism: he has taken the modern, American concept of “water has broken” - which currently refers to an event during child birth - and has inserted that contemporaneous meaning into a Scriptural text from 2000 years ago. The fact of the matter is that “born of water” isn’t used anywhere in Scripture or elsewhere to mean what he claims it means at the time he claims it meant it.
  • From the NAB: “The Greek adverb “anothen” means both “from above” and “again”. Jesus means “from above” , but Nicodemus misunderstands it as “again”. This misunderstanding serves as a springboard for further instruction.” Jesus isn’t speaking of natural birth at all, ever. Nicodemus misunderstood which way Christ meant to use “anothen”. Christ’s comments deal with the supernatural events of being born “from above” and have nothing to do with the fleshly understanding of Nicodemus that one must be literally born “again” by reentering his mother’s womb.
  • Compare John 3:5 with Titus 3:5:
    “…he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit,…”.
    Code:
          "one must be born of water and Spirit to enter the Kingdom of God ."
Kind of looks familar, no? Notice first that both of these verses deal with salvation: being “saved” and to “enter the KOG” are the same thing, and they mention the exact same things as being instrumental in accomplishing this salvific act.
Next notice that both mention the “Spirit” as being instrumental in accomplishing this: “renewal by” and “born of” the Spirit are the same thing.
Now we’re ready to compare the remaining element that each speaks of in the salvific act:
the “bath of rebirth” and “born of water” are the same thing. Your pastor is attempting to peddle the idea that “born of water” equates to the natural birth, right? Is he prepared to admit that “bath of rebirth” therefore also refers to the natural birth"? Of course not - it’s ludicrous. “bath of rebirth” has nothing to do with the natural birth process. The problem for your pastor friend’s argument is that that language is the functional equivalent of “born of water” that Jesus used. If bath of rebirth doesn’t refer to the natural birth process, neither does born of water. It’s not that complicated.
  • Lastly, look at all that leads up to John 3:5:
    • John is baptizing in the Jordan with…water but promises that one is to come who will baptize with the holy Spirit. Jesus is baptized by John with water and the HS descends upon Jesus (Ch 1)
    • Jesus performs his first miracle (Cana) involving…water (Ch 2)
    • The Nicodemus discussion occurs (Ch 3)
    • Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where Jesus spent some time with them baptizing with…water.
    It all points in one direction: a miracle involving water. The arguments against the obvious? Predicated on preconceived theology the “born of water” comment is twisted violently in an attempt to avoid it’s obvious meaning and to replace it with an unprecedented one. In case it isn’t obvious, I already had this conversation with a pastor…

    Blessings!
 
  • The term “born of water” has no Scriptural or contemporaneous secular reference to meaning “child birth”. His maintaining that it means “natural birth” is what is known as a form of anachronism: he has taken the modern, American concept of “water has broken” - which currently refers to an event during child birth - and has inserted that contemporaneous meaning into a Scriptural text from 2000 years ago. The fact of the matter is that “born of water” isn’t used anywhere in Scripture or elsewhere to mean what he claims it means at the time he claims it meant it.
  • From the NAB: “The Greek adverb “anothen” means both “from above” and “again”. Jesus means “from above” , but Nicodemus misunderstands it as “again”. This misunderstanding serves as a springboard for further instruction.” Jesus isn’t speaking of natural birth at all, ever. Nicodemus misunderstood which way Christ meant to use “anothen”. Christ’s comments deal with the supernatural events of being born “from above” and have nothing to do with the fleshly understanding of Nicodemus that one must be literally born “again” by reentering his mother’s womb.
Useful info. :o
 
He uses verse 6, that “flesh gives birth to flesh, spirit gives birth to spirit” as justification for referencing water as being “natural birth”. How would you respond to the use of that verse? He said that using the word flesh in that context doesn’t contradict the word when being used to mean “the natural/carnal mind”, because Jesus used the word at different events, and could mean different things.
 
Sounds like your friend is using a very ethnocertric view of that passage.

Ask him what was required for a non Jew to become a Jew in that day. What was required of the proselyte?

A non Jew had certain things to do, to become a Jew, circumscision being one, but in that day, they would baptize and offer sacrifice.

You can point your friend to historical records that support this. Here is one 🙂

Google Jewish Proselyte baptism or Jewish baptism 🙂

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2456-baptism

Hope the article above helps

God Bless
 
He uses verse 6, that “flesh gives birth to flesh, spirit gives birth to spirit” as justification for referencing water as being “natural birth”. How would you respond to the use of that verse? He said that using the word flesh in that context doesn’t contradict the word when being used to mean “the natural/carnal mind”, because Jesus used the word at different events, and could mean different things.
Yes, I understand the argument. I think he is considering only one of the possible interpretations of that verse.

Here is another interpretation-

Man is composed of both body and spirit. Jesus said in the next verse “You must be born again”. He didn’t just say “your spirit must be born again.” From this, we understand that it is not just our human spirit that needs regeneration, but also our human body. Now, what is born of the Spirit is spirit. And what is born of the flesh is flesh. Our flesh also needs regeneration, so the Spirit has to use “flesh” to give birth to flesh. In this sense, the “flesh” does refer to “water”, but not the old natural birth, but the new birth of the flesh using water - baptism.

So water regenerates the flesh of man, whereas the Spirit regenerates the spirit of man, and thus man who is flesh and spirit is born anew.
“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God.” Why are both named, and why is not the Spirit alone accounted sufficient for the completion of Baptism? Man, as we know full well, is compound, not simple: and therefore the cognate and similar medicines are assigned for healing to him who is twofold and conglomerate:–for his visible body, water, the sensible element,–for his soul, which we cannot see, the Spirit invisible, invoked by faith, present unspeakably.
  • Gregory of Nyssa [325-386 AD]
    On the Baptism of Christ (Sermon for the Day of Lights)
 
Jewish baptisms during the time of Christ

From Jewish Encyclopedia dot com

A Gentile wishing to become a proselyte must also immerse his whole body. This ceremony is, no doubt, historically allied to Baptism, which is thought by modern authorities to have originated among the Essenes, who were very scrupulous respecting ablutions, and in the observance of the rules of purity (see Lustration; Sprinkling).

A religious ablution signifying purification or consecration. The natural method of cleansing the body by washing and bathing in water was always customary in Israel (see Ablution, Bathing).** The washing of their clothes was an important means of sanctification enjoined on the Israelites before the Revelation on Mt. Sinai (Ex. xix. 10). The Rabbis connect with this the duty of bathing by complete immersion** (“ṭebilah,” Yeb. 46b; Mek., Baḥodesh, iii.); and since **sprinkling with blood **was always accompanied by immersion, tradition connects with this immersion the blood lustration mentioned as having also taken place immediately before the Revelation (Ex. xxiv. 8), these three acts being the initiatory rites always performed upon proselytes, “to bring them under the wings of the Shekinah” (Yeb. l.c.).

With reference to Ezek. xxxvi. 25, “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean,” R. Akiba, in the second century, made the utterance: “Blessed art thou, O Israel! Before whom dost thou cleanse thyself? and who cleanses thee? Thy Father in heaven!” (Yoma viii. 9).** Accordingly, Baptism is not merely for the purpose of expiating a special transgression, as is the case chiefly in the violation of the so-called Levitical laws of purity; but it is to form a part of holy living and to prepare for the attainment of a closer communion with God. This thought is expressed in the well-known passage in Josephus in which he speaks of John the Baptist (“Ant.” xviii. 5, § 2): “The washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.” John symbolized the call to repentance by Baptism in the Jordan (Matt. iii. 6 and parallel passages); and the same measure for attaining to holiness was employed by the Essenes, whose ways of life John also observed in all other respects.**

**The only conception of Baptism at variance with Jewish ideas is displayed in the declaration of John, that the one who would come after him would not baptize with water, but with the Holy Ghost (Mark i. 8; John i. 27). Yet a faint resemblance to the notion is displayed in the belief expressed in the Talmud that the Holy Spirit could be drawn upon as water is drawn from a well (based upon Isa. xii. 3; Yer. Suk. v. 1, 55a of Joshua b. Levi). And there is a somewhat Jewish tinge even to the prophecy of the evangelists Matthew (iii. 11) and Luke (iii. 16), who declare that Jesus will baptize with fire as well as with the Holy Ghost; for, according to Abbahu, true Baptism is performed with fire (Sanh. 39a). Both the statement of Abbahu and of the Evangelists must of course be taken metaphorically. The expression that the person baptized is illuminated (φωτισθείς, Justin, “Apologiæ,” i. 65) has the same significance as is implied in telling a proselyte to Judaism, after his bath, that he now belongs to Israel, the people beloved of God (Yeb. 47a; Gerim i.).
**

**According to rabbinical teachings, which dominated even during the existence of the Temple (Pes. viii. 8), Baptism, next to circumcision and sacrifice, was an absolutely necessary condition to be fulfilled by a proselyte to Judaism ** But as circumcision was discarded by Christianity, and the sacrifices had ceased, Baptism remained the sole condition for initiation into religious life. The next ceremony, adopted shortly after the others, was the imposition of hands, which, it is known, was the usage of the Jews at the ordination of a rabbi. Anointing with oil, which at first also accompanied the act of Baptism,

Baptism was practised in ancient (Ḥasidic or Essene) Judaism, first as a means of penitence, as is learned from the story of Adam and Eve, who, in order to atone for their sin, stood up to the neck in the water, fasting and doing penance
—Adam in the Jordan for forty days, Eve in the Tigris for thirty-seven days (Vita Adæ et Evæ, i. 5-8). According to Pirḳe R. El. xx., Adam stood for forty-nine days up to his neck in the River Gihon. Likewise is the passage, “They drew water and poured it out before the Lord and fasted on that day, and said, ‘We have sinned against the Lord’” (I Sam. vii. 6), explained (see Targ. Yer. and Midrash Samuel, eodem; also Yer. Ta’anit ii. 7, 65d) as meaning that** Israel poured out their hearts in repentance; using the water as a symbol according to Lam. ii. 19, “Pour out thine heart like water before the Lord.” Of striking resemblance to the story in Matt. iii. 1-17 and in Luke iii. 3, 22, is the haggadic interpretation of Gen. i. 2 in Gen. R. ii. and Tan., Buber’s Introduction, p. 153: “The spirit of God (hovering like a bird with outstretched wings), manifested in the spirit of the Messiah, will come [or “the Holy One, blessed be He! will spread His wings and bestow His grace”] upon Israel,” owing to Israel’s repentance symbolized by the water in accordance with Lam. ii. 19.**
 
Cont…

To receive the spirit of God, or to be permitted to stand in the presence of God (His Shekinah), man must undergo Baptism (Tan., Meẓora’, 6, ed. Buber, p. 46), wherefore in the Messianic time God will Himself pour water of purification upon Israel in accordance with Ezek. xxxvi. 25 (Tan., Meẓora’, 9-17, 18, ed. Buber, pp. 43, 53). In order to pronounce the name of God in prayer in perfect purity,the Essenes () underwent Baptism every morning (Tosef., Yad. ii. 20; Simon of Sens to Yad. iv. 9; and Ber. 22a; compare with Ḳid. 70a, “The Name must be guarded with purity”). Philo frequently refers to these acts of purification in preparation for the holy mysteries to be received by the initiated (“De Somniis,” xiv.; “De Profugis,” vii.; “Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit?” xviii. xxiii.; “Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis,” ii.; “De Posteritate Caini,” xiv., xxviii.).

The Baptism of the proselyte has for its purpose his cleansing from the impurity of idolatry, and the restoration to the purity of a new-born man. This may be learned from the Talmud (Soṭah 12b) in regard to Pharaoh’s daughter, whose bathing in the Nile is explained by Simon b. Yoḥai to have been for that purpose. The bathing in the water is to constitute a rebirth, wherefore “the ger is like a child just born” (Yeb. 48b); and he must bathe “in the name of God”—“leshem shamayim”—that is, assume the yoke of Gcd’s kingdom imposed upon him by the one who leads him to Baptism (“maṭbil”), or else he is not admitted into Judaism (Gerim. vii. 8). For this very reason the Israelites before the acceptance of the Law had, according to Philo on the Decalogue (“De Decalogo,” ii., xi.), as well as according to rabbinical tradition, to undergo the rite of baptismal purification (compare I Cor. x. 2, “They were baptized unto Moses [the Law] in the clouds and in the sea”).

The powers ascribed to the waters of the Jordan are expressly stated to be that they restore the unclean man to the original state of a new-born “little child.” This idea underlies the prophetic hope of the fountain of purity, which is to cleanse Israel from the spirit of impurity (Zech. xiii. 1; Ezek. xxxvi. 25; compare Isa. iv. 4).
Thus it is expressed in unmistakable terms in the Mandean writings and teachings (Brandt, “Mandäische Religion,” pp. 99 et seq., 204 et seq.) that** the living water in which man bathes is to cause his regeneration. For this reason does the writer of the fourth of the Sibylline Oracles, lines 160-166, appeal to the heathen world, saying, “Ye miserable mortals, repent; wash in living streams your entire frame with its burden of sin; lift to heaven your hands in prayer for forgiveness and cure yourselves of impiety by fear of God!” This is what John the Baptist preached to the sinners that gathered around him on the Jordan; and herein lies the significance of the bath of every proselyte. He was to be made “a new creature” (Gen. R. xxxix). For the term φωτιςθεῖς (illuminated), compare Philo on Repentance (“De Pœnitentia,” i.), “The proselyte comes from darkness to light.” It is quite possible that, like the initiates in the Orphic mysteries, the proselytes were, by way of symbolism, suddenly brought from darkness into light. For the rites of immersion, anointing, and the like, which the proselyte has or had to undergo, see Proselyte, Ablution, and Anointing.**
 
  • The term “born of water” has no Scriptural or contemporaneous secular reference to meaning “child birth”. His maintaining that it means “natural birth” is what is known as a form of anachronism: he has taken the modern, American concept of “water has broken” - which currently refers to an event during child birth - and has inserted that contemporaneous meaning into a Scriptural text from 2000 years ago. The fact of the matter is that “born of water” isn’t used anywhere in Scripture or elsewhere to mean what he claims it means at the time he claims it meant it.
  • From the NAB: “The Greek adverb “anothen” means both “from above” and “again”. Jesus means “from above” , but Nicodemus misunderstands it as “again”. This misunderstanding serves as a springboard for further instruction.” Jesus isn’t speaking of natural birth at all, ever. Nicodemus misunderstood which way Christ meant to use “anothen”. Christ’s comments deal with the supernatural events of being born “from above” and have nothing to do with the fleshly understanding of Nicodemus that one must be literally born “again” by reentering his mother’s womb.
  • Compare John 3:5 with Titus 3:5:
    “…he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit,…”.
    Code:
          "one must be born of water and Spirit to enter the Kingdom of God ."
Kind of looks familar, no? Notice first that both of these verses deal with salvation: being “saved” and to “enter the KOG” are the same thing, and they mention the exact same things as being instrumental in accomplishing this salvific act.
Next notice that both mention the “Spirit” as being instrumental in accomplishing this: “renewal by” and “born of” the Spirit are the same thing.
Now we’re ready to compare the remaining element that each speaks of in the salvific act:
the “bath of rebirth” and “born of water” are the same thing. Your pastor is attempting to peddle the idea that “born of water” equates to the natural birth, right? Is he prepared to admit that “bath of rebirth” therefore also refers to the natural birth"? Of course not - it’s ludicrous. “bath of rebirth” has nothing to do with the natural birth process. The problem for your pastor friend’s argument is that that language is the functional equivalent of “born of water” that Jesus used. If bath of rebirth doesn’t refer to the natural birth process, neither does born of water. It’s not that complicated.
  • Lastly, look at all that leads up to John 3:5:
    • John is baptizing in the Jordan with…water but promises that one is to come who will baptize with the holy Spirit. Jesus is baptized by John with water and the HS descends upon Jesus (Ch 1)
    • Jesus performs his first miracle (Cana) involving…water (Ch 2)
    • The Nicodemus discussion occurs (Ch 3)
    • Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where Jesus spent some time with them baptizing with…water.
    It all points in one direction: a miracle involving water. The arguments against the obvious? Predicated on preconceived theology the “born of water” comment is twisted violently in an attempt to avoid it’s obvious meaning and to replace it with an unprecedented one. In case it isn’t obvious, I already had this conversation with a pastor…

    Blessings!

  1. Excellent!!
 
He uses verse 6, that “flesh gives birth to flesh, spirit gives birth to spirit” as justification for referencing water as being “natural birth”. How would you respond to the use of that verse? He said that using the word flesh in that context doesn’t contradict the word when being used to mean “the natural/carnal mind”, because Jesus used the word at different events, and could mean different things.
Baptism has always been associated with water, whereas childbirth in Jewish usage was more likely associated with blood. A biblical foundation for this latter point is found in John 1:12-13 where we read,
“But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God: who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
Notice in that verse that it says “by the will of the flesh.” That pretty much separates the original natural birth from any connection to “water and spirit.” Moreover, the amniotic fluid theory creates problems with grammar and syntax. In the passage there is a linkage using one preposition to govern two coordinated nouns. That fact affirms that one birth associated with “water” and “Spirit” is in intended. This syntactical linkage precludes the notion of two births,i.e. natural and spiritual. Advocates of the amniotic fluid thesis attempt to get around this syntactical pointing to verse 6 for support. Verse 6 says:
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
The problem with this is that there is a conjunctive relationship between “water” and “Spirit” in verse 5, and one of contrast between “flesh” and “Spirit” in verse 6. Consequently, “water” in verse 5 cannot be equated with “flesh” in verse 6.

I hope this helps.
 
In terms of the non-denominational pastor’s interpretation of John 3:6 mentioned in the OP, I’ve heard this from others, and it seems to me to be a way of trying to downplay the importance of the sacrament of baptism in an attempt to support belief in the conveyance of sanctifying grace through a “born again” experience. I’m curious to know if any Christian prior to the Protestant Reformation interpreted John 3:6 in a manner exclusive of baptism. If no one did then that indicates that the non-denominational pastor’s interpretation of John 3:6 is not apostolic in origin.
 
In terms of the non-denominational pastor’s interpretation of John 3:6 mentioned in the OP, I’ve heard this from others, and it seems to me to be a way of trying to downplay the importance of the sacrament of baptism in an attempt to support belief in the conveyance of sanctifying grace through a “born again” experience. I’m curious to know if any Christian prior to the Protestant Reformation interpreted John 3:6 in a manner exclusive of baptism. If no one did then that indicates that the non-denominational pastor’s interpretation of John 3:6 is not apostolic in origin.
Yep and try to get a Non-Denominational pastor or laity to read anything outside the bible, like the views of the ECF’s

The will cry the BIBLE ONLY, then go onto blue letter bible dot com and read commentaries:shrug: Or the pilgrims progress, or Calvin Institutes…etc

I was trying to point this out to a friend who would flat out reject reading Ignatius of Antioch on the Eucharist, after I explained that Ignatius was a disciple of St. John the Apostle …interupted by “the bible says were all saints by the way”… So, I said if Ignatius of Antioch discipled under the Apostle John who wrote John 6, wouldn’t you think reading him might be helpful into understanding properly what St. John was saying, so there would be no confusion on this, but unity? …Reply “Why should I read Ignatius when I can read John who wrote that Jesus also said, The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. 🤷 I only need the bible” 🤷 “It says, The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing right there in the text, Jesus own words, if you would swallow your pride and get out of the way of the Holy Spirit’s unction, you would be able to see this”

I then get told of how great a Preacher his Pastor is, and how he was reading some of Calvin’s commentaries online and was so impressed by his ability to bring the truth of scripture to light 🤷

It’s like talking to a wall sometimes! :banghead:
 
Trust me, everyone, all of your posts help. Especially yours, Pax. That particularly answered what I was asking. Thank you everyone for your contributions, they are really good and I hope to learn from them and use them in further discussions on the sacrament of Baptism. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top