What did Jesus say when she asked for this living water? He did not require her to be baptized. If to be “born of water” in John 3:5 means water baptism, Jesus broke His rule when He granted salvation to the Samaritan woman apart from being baptized. Was He inconsistent? No one believes that He was. The expression, born of water, then, cannot refer to water baptism.
I think it is correct to associate the symbol of water with the spirit, but I don’t see that it means that “spirit” can replace “water” across the board, or on the other hand that “water” should always imply baptism either. The view that baptism is apparently optional from the context of John 3 ignores the various places where it is just as apparent that the apostles were commanded to baptize everyone they could, and that they consistently did so as part of the conversion and new life of every disciple.
A particularly clear example is when Philip went on his mission to Samaria, and immediately began to baptize hundreds of people. But this was quite clearly not the same as being born of the spirit because it specifically states that they had not yet received the Holy Ghost.
Acts 8:12 - 17
12 But when they [the Samaritans] believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
…
14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
If we correlate this passage with John 3:4-5, we could just as well say that we see the fulfillment of the two parts Jesus spoke of, namely being born of water (water baptism) and spirit (receiving the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands).
I can imagine someone saying that the prayer of the apostles was ultimately what brought the spirit fully to the people and therefore the baptism was less important in the end. However, it is clear from the rest of the NT that the apostles did in fact regularly baptize all new converts.
On the other hand it should be admitted that the water itself is in a real sense impotent in and of itself. It is a symbol and baptism is in itself a symbolic act that makes reference to the atonement of Christ. But does that justify revoking the commandment to be baptized or that we should baptize converts? Just as circumcision or animal sacrifice were in their own right impotent acts or dead laws in themselves, it was obedience to the command that was counted as righteousness to Abraham.
James 2:20 - 23
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
So also we can recognize both the inherent deadness of baptism in its own right as a dowsing with water, while recognizing the potency of the command and thereby the power it invokes by compliance out of faith. I do not literally believe that my own baptism had any supernatural effect in its own right, but I do believe that by choosing to receive that ordinance (or sacrament), I was able both to enact and invoke symbolically the atonement of Christ for myself personally, and to show my faith and obedience by performing that rite out of recognition of God’s right and sovereignty to make such a command.
I can only speak for myself, but I feel drawn to follow the example of Christ himself and the actions of his apostles. Christ was baptized “to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15), and the apostles consistently baptized all they taught who believed. Why should I not do the same?
Christ himself also speaks of those who did or did not submit themselves to baptism by John the Baptist. The language of Luke 7:30 is sobering.
Luke 7:28 - 30
28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
30 But the Pharisees and lawyers **rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
**
I would not dare deny the importance or essential nature of baptism in light of such statements. By the same token, I would invite everyone who reads this to take the matter to God on their knees, meditating on these and other statements from the Bible. It is clear that we can argue about the grammar and the semantics of any statement, but at a certain point it must be God’s spirit that confirms to us his will, not the Greek language, not tradition, not any mortal.
I can, however, attest to the overwhelming outpouring of the spirit at the baptism of my two oldest children, when they were each 8 years old, and the sense of rightness and holiness I felt as I participated in baptizing them myself and in laying my hands on them to confer on them the gift and promise of the Holy Spirit as their guide throughout their lives if they are responsive to it. They know that was a sacred moment, and I am always grateful that I made the same choice when I was young. What greater witness can we have than the outpouring of the spirit such as these?
