I was asked by a co-worker what it meant to be “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5. I had always interpreted John 3:5, in light of verse 6, to mean that being born of water referred to physical birth and being born of the Spirit was spiritual birth. However, I was taught a Moody (in my first semester) that the “born of water” was a reference to cleansing, and that it came from Ezekiel 36. To me it seemed obvious that physical birth and spiritual birth were being contrasted, both in verse 6 and 5, and the other explanations seemed to be making something simple complicated. But, having been asked about it again, I said I would look at it and get back to him.
The passage reads, “Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit’” (John 3:5-6). I think you can see how I had come to my understanding.
I looked to D.A. Carson in his PNTC on John for help, and this is when I changed my mind. I had probably heard this more than once from professors, but it had not sunk in, or broke through into my understanding until this time. Carson gave three reasons for understanding “born of water and the Spirit” as the single event of the new birth. As Dr. Marty had explained in New Testament Survey back at Moody, the water pictured the spiritual cleansing part of the new birth.
The first reason, and the one for which the light bulb finally went on was the parallelism between verses 3 and 5. I had seen a parallel between verses 5 and 6, but had missed this one. And taken together along with reasons 2 and 3, I think Carson is right. Verse 3 reads, “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’” “Born again” can also be translated “born from above,” which Carson argues for, but either way the point of the parallelism is well made. There is one birth, the new birth, in view in verse 3, and so it is with verse 5.
The preposition “of” also supports this understanding that “born of water and the Spirit” refers to one birth. Just tonight I saw this as I turned to the verse in preparation. I was thinking through my old arguments, and when I turned to the verse I expected to read, “born of water and of the Spirit.” But that is not what I found. “Of” governs both water and Spirit. The one birth is the result “of the water and the Spirit.”
The third reason Carson gives is the Old Testament background to water and spirit. Jesus chastised Nicodemus for not understanding the new birth even though he was a teacher (v. 10). So we should expect this new birth to be taught in Nicodemus’ Scriptures. Several are given, but I think the one Dr. Marty appealed to is the best, Ezekiel 36:25-27, “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.” Ezekiel teaches about the new birth being a cleansing as with water and the receiving of a new spirit. Taken together, I am convinced, being “born of water and the Spirit” means to be born again, not physically born and spiritually born.
I had more to say but I forget what it was. If I remember I’ll add it later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
If I could be so bold to add a 3rd view:
Keeping in mind: (1) John the Baptist is still preaching the message of repentance and baptizing those who respond. (2) The flow of John's Gospel has been focused on the Baptist's ministry up to this point. (3) John’s baptism was specifically for the faithful remnant of Israel who had repented of their sins and was looking forward to the coming Messiah. (4) John’s baptism was not sufficient in and of itself, but it prepared the penitent sinner to receive the baptism of the Spirit that the Messiah would bring (thus the “of” governing both water and spirit). (5) Nicodemus is aware of John’s ministry, as he was a part of the Sanhedrin that sent the delegation to ask John about his ministry (Jn 1:19).
Also keeping in mind what Nicodemus was asking Jesus, "How can one enter into Messiah’s kingdom?”
Jesus’ answer: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5). In other words, “Show yourself to be a part of the believing remnant of Israel through John’s baptism (i.e. “born of water”) which will then prepare you to receive the baptism of the Spirit (i.e. “Spirit”) that the Messiah will bring” (For more on this view see, J. Dwight Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ, 122-25 and John Walvoord, “The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 2:281).
Jesus’ answer cuts right to the heart of the Pharisaic rejection of John’s ministry. (Similiar to Jesus targeting the rich ruler's love of wealth, Jesus targets Nicodemus' lack of humility). Luke 7:30 explains that the Pharisees refused to submit to John’s baptism because it would have acknowledged that their Jewish birth was insufficient for entering into the Messianic kingdom. This was to them a humiliation that they could not bear. But, at this point in time, John’s mission was one of marking out the believing remnant of Israel. And Nicodemus had to partake in John’s baptism in order for Him to be marked out as one who had repented of their sins and morally prepared for the kingdom of God. Nicodemus needed to be “born of water and the Spirit” (Jn 3:5).
Very good! This is the kind of discussion I was hoping to initiate with the blog. I appreciate the comment, and find that it reflects a good hermeneutic, but I find the arguments for the position I advocated above to be stronger.
A short coming I find in seeing water here as a reference to John’s baptism is that the phrase “of water and the Spirit” seems to limit its referent to one thing (along with the parallelism between vv. 3&5).
Carson raises other objections to this view. It seems unlikely “that a mere mention of water would conjure up pictures of his ministry.” And if water here refers to John’s baptism then Nicodemus’ reply makes little sense: “why should Nicodemus respond with such incredulity, ignorance and unbelief (3:4, 9-10, 12), rather than mere distaste or hardened arrogance?” Also, “If John’s baptism lies behind ‘water’ in 3:5, would not this suggest that Jesus was making the Baptist’s rite a requirement for entrance into the kingdom, even though that rite was shortly to be superseded by Christian baptism?” (193).
As to this last objection, I believe most would see the emphasis on the repentance and confession that the baptism symbolized, not the symbol itself (as Merrill Tenney, who holds to the Baptist’s view, does when he comments on the text). However, if this was the author’s intent I would expect it to be more clear. The way the text reads, if you take the interpretation that water refers to John’s baptism, seems to point in a direction well countered by Carson’s comment.
I think two good arguments have been presented here. We all now have to determine which we find more convincing. Which best seems to fit the text and which answers the most questions we have concerning the text. As of now, I am not ready to change my position.
Hey Randall,
I appreciate the post and the wrestling you do with the text.
A few comments in reponse.
(1) You said, "I find in seeing water here as a reference to John’s baptism is that the phrase 'of water and the Spirit' seems to limit its referent to one thing".
I say: I agree that they are very much connected. This is why John the Baptist comments to the religous leaders, "I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me . . . will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" (Mt 4:11; cf. Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16). In fact, this connection appears in John's Gospel as John says, "He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit" (Jn 1:33). All that to say, John sees the very close connection between His baptism (by only water) and teh coming baptism of the Holy Spirti that Messiah will bring.
Thus, the grammitical argument does support this view.
(2) You say, "It seems unlikely “that a mere mention of water would conjure up pictures of his ministry.”
I say: Jn 1:19, 24 shows that Nicodemus was aware of John's ministry and came to specifically ask about His "baptizing" in water (1:25-26). In fact, "water" is used 4x's by John referring to His baptism in Jn 1:24-34).
And do not forgot how offensive this baptism was fo the Jews, especially the religious leaders (it was a confession of sin!! I don't see the Pharisees ever doing that!).
(3) You say, "If John’s baptism lies behind ‘water’ in 3:5, would not this suggest that Jesus was making the Baptist’s rite a requirement for entrance into the kingdom, even though that rite was shortly to be superseded by Christian baptism?”.
I say: Two comments here. First, this was exactly what John was doing (as Jesus did when He asked for the rich ruler to sell all he had.) It is putting the finger on the heart issue of the people. In this case, would the people admit that their anscestry did not save them and would they admit their need for repentance.
A second comment: Christian baptism does not replace John's baptism. I can comment on this more, but will have to save that for when I have more time.
Thanks for the discussion Randall!!
I have been giving this some thought, and I think there are good arguments on both sides here. Your third option is certainly preferable to my first understanding, but I am not yet won over. The view presented in the post seems preferable. You have presented alternative understandings to two of my lines of reasoning, but what about the connection with Ezekiel? How does that square with your view?
You present me with a good challege. Thanks for taking the time.
Post a Comment