googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: John 3:5 - What Does it Mean to be, “Born of Water”?

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

John 3:5 - What Does it Mean to be, “Born of Water”?

There are some Christian denominations that believe a person must be baptized in order to be saved (a doctrine called, baptismal regeneration). One text they often cite in support of their doctrine is John 3:5:

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The fundamental flaw in their argument is the unproven assumption that “born of water” means baptism. I don’t believe it does.

In all of Scripture, the term “born of water” occurs exactly once. Besides this verse, there is no other passage we can examine that might shed more light on the meaning of this term. Consequently, we only have the context of this verse to help us understand what Jesus meant by His statement to Nicodemus.

There are at least 4 possible meanings to the term, “born of water.”

First, is the possibility that it does mean water baptism. There are a few problems with this view. First, the words “baptize” or “baptism” occur approximately 85 times in Scripture. And even though this ritual is frequently mentioned, nowhere is it called, being “born of water.” If someone wants to associate this term with baptism, the burden should be upon them to do so because Scripture doesn’t make the connection.

Furthermore, to say, “one must be baptized and born of the Spirit” is antithetical to the rest of Scripture which says we are saved by grace through faith and not by any outward acts such as good deeds or circumcision (Ephesians 2:8, Romans 4:9-12)

Another possibility is that being “born of water” means being cleansed by the washing of the Word. There are a few passages that could support this idea such as Ephesians 5:26. Consider especially John 15:3 where Jesus said, “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.” This is reinforced in the scene where Jesus washes the feet of the disciples (John 13:9-10):

"Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all."

If a saved person is considered “washed”, “cleansed”, or “bathed” (or maybe “born of water”), then Jesus’ words to Peter are clear: we never have to be “bathed” again. If we sin – that is, “get our feet dirty” – we only need to be restored by the washing of our feet. We do no need to become saved again.

I think “born of water” fits quite nicely with the idea of being washed in the Word. But we cannot dogmatically insist that it is the same thing. There are still two other ways to interpret this passage that could be equally valid.

A third possible way to understand this passage is to look at the Greek conjunction kai, (Strong's Number 2532, καί). kai can be translated as “and” but it can also mean “even.” In this view, the passage could be translated to say, “you must be born of water, even the Spirit.” This would be similar to point two above where being “born of water” means to be cleansed by the word. Only in this case, Jesus is identifying the Agent of the cleansing as the Holy Spirit.

While these three may all be valid understandings, I believe the most likely meaning is that “born of water” is simply a reference to the physical birth. Even today, the amniotic fluid is referred to as “water” and when we’re born, we’re quite literally “born out of water.” Let’s examine the context of the passage again.

Jesus said to Nicodemus, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3). It seems obvious that the phrase, “born again” necessarily compares the second birth (the spiritual birth) with the first birth (the physical birth).

Nicodemus apparently made the connection but became confused, thinking Jesus was referring to a second physical birth. John 3:4, “Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?”

Now read the next to statements together (John 3:5-6):

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of 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.

I believe the passage is clear but let me paraphrase: “A person must be born physically AND spiritually. (because) That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

Now, skip forward a little further, Nicodemus is still struggling with understanding the spiritual rebirth. Jesus makes the following statement (John 3:12), “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?”

We see Jesus is again comparing spiritual truths to physical truths. Jesus often explained spiritual truths by comparing them to things we understand. Consider the number of times Jesus said, “The kingdom of heaven is like…” In this passage, Jesus is comparing the rebirth - the spiritual birth - to the physical birth.

“Born of water” referring to the physical birth also agrees nicely with 1 Peter 1:23, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” So we are first born of corruptible seed (the flesh) and then we are born again of incorruptible seed (the word of God via the Spirit).

I will let the reader decide for himself the meaning of the term. While it seems to me that “born of water” very clearly refers to the physical birth, I can also see that there are other possible ways to understand the term. Furthermore, I believe the “born of water means baptism” explanation is the least likely meaning.


20 comments:

Unknown said...

What about Romans 6:4 for your Option #1? It compares the baptism as a burial and walking in a new life as Christ resurrected from the death.

RKBentley said...

Josie,

Thank you for visiting and for your comments. Romans 6 is a wonderful passage dealing with baptism but I don't see how it equates being born again with baptism. Verse 5 clearly says we are baptized in the "likeness" of His death and resurrection. That is, it is a symbolic act - not a literal rebirth. Do you believe that Jesus, for example, was not already "born again" before His own death and resurrection?

God bless!

RKBentley

Unknown said...

RKBentley,

Precisely the "likeness" of His death and RESURRECTION, is what I think can equate born again, as you don't literally die, but die spiritually to the old self.

Of course, Jesus was already "born again", however, why did he baptized on something that represented something that happened in his near future. More over, why did John was baptizing before knowing that the baptism represented the death and resurrection of Jesus?

God bless you too.

Josue (not Josie ;) )

Steve Finnell said...

BORN OF WATER JOHN 3:5

There are some who deny water baptism is essential to the forgiveness of sins, by debating the clear meaning of "born of water" found in John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


The primary debating point is that born of water refers to natural child birth. Was Jesus telling Nicodemus that one of requirements to enter the kingdom of God, was that he had to exist? That makes no sense. It is obvious if you were never born you could not enter the kingdom of God.


To suggest that "water" in (John 3:5) means embryonic fluid, is at best an unreasonable conclusion.


Jesus said you have to born again to enter the kingdom of God. Being born of flesh the first time is not being born again. Again never means the first time!


When the apostles were preaching the gospel, did they say, in order to enter the kingdom of God, you have to physically exist; that is, you must have been born of embryonic fluid (water)? No they did not.


Jesus said "unless one is born of water he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5) Jesus said "has been baptized shall be saved."(Mark 16:16)


THERE IS A WATER AND SPIRIT CONNECTION IN SALVATION.


Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,(The AND cannot be ignored)


WATER BAPTISM: washing of regeneration.
SPIRIT: renewing by the Holy Spirit.
NOTE: It is God our Savior that saves us.(Titus 3:4)


Acts 2:38 ....be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.


WATER BAPTISM: for forgiveness of sins.
SPIRIT: receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.


BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND SPIRIT!


The only way to not understand that Jesus meant water baptism in John 3:5, is by using extra-Biblical sources.


YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY BLOG. http//:steve-finnell.blogspot.com

RKBentley said...

Steve,

You said, “There are some who deny water baptism is essential to the forgiveness of sins, by debating the clear meaning of "born of water" found in John 3:5”

But the meaning isn't “clear.” Where in the Bible does it “clearly” saying “born of water” means “baptism”? Like I said in my post, this phrase is not define (or even used) anywhere else in Scripture so we must use the immediate context to determine its meaning. The word “baptism” doesn't appear anywhere in this passage. In the context what we do see is Jesus repeatedly comparing the Spiritual, second birth to the fleshly, first birth.

You said, “The primary debating point is that born of water refers to natural child birth. Was Jesus telling Nicodemus that one of requirements to enter the kingdom of God, was that he had to exist? That makes no sense. It is obvious if you were never born you could not enter the kingdom of God.”

Yes, obviously. But Jesus isn't making the first birth a prerequisite to salvation. The second birth is what is necessary. Jesus said, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh (1st birth). That which is born of the Spirit is spirit (2nd birth).” Not everyone born will enter into heaven – that is the flawed theological belief of universalism. Only the people born again will enter the Kingdom. So it's clear that you have to be born of the flesh AND the Spirit – in other words, “born of water and Spirit.”

You said, “The only way to not understand that Jesus meant water baptism in John 3:5, is by using extra-Biblical sources.”

I believe the context of this passage alone makes it clear that, over and over, Jesus compared the Spiritual birth to the physical birth so I do not need to resort to any extra-Biblical source to make that case. Neither have I cited any extra-Biblical sources in this post. However, it is not unreasonable to consider extra-Biblical sources if we wish to have a more clear picture of what Nicodemus would have understood by the phrase “born of water.” If we learned from several sources that it was a common euphemism for child birth, it would be unreasonable to not consider them.

By the way, I have been baptized so your points should be moot in my case. However, it has been my experience that people of your position still believe that I'm not saved even though I have accepted Jesus as my Savior and have been baptized. When I ask why, I usually hear a lot of analogies of getting baptized versus getting “dunked” but I seldom hear Scripture supporting that position. Maybe you could oblige: if I have sincerely accepted Jesus as my Savior and have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, where is there a Scripture that explains I may still not be saved?

Thanks for visiting and for your comments. God bless!!

RKBentley

saved by grace said...

I guess the thief on the cross wasn't saved either. (Clearly he went to heaven.) Baptism is a simple picture and act of obedience.

RKBentley said...

Saved by grace,

Thanks for visiting and for your comments.

In the Old Testament, believers were identified by circumcision. It was a physical act that identified them with the OT system of sacrifices. Yet it was never the blood of bulls and goats that saved the OT saints; they were saved by their faith. The sacrifices made in the OT were only types and shadows of THE sacrifice that was to come. In Romans 4, Paul makes it clear that Abraham was justified by his faith BEFORE he was circumcised.

In the New Testament, we are also saved by faith. We no longer practice circumcision but baptism. Like the OT practice of circumcision, baptism is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Our baptism is an outward act that merely identifies us with the sacrifice made by Jesus. Like Abraham, we are justified by our faith BEFORE the act.

Technically, the thief on the cross died before the resurrection of Jesus so would have been saved in the same way as the OT saints. However, the OT saints were ultimately saved the same way the NT saints are saved – by faith in Jesus. Neither circumcision nor baptism are required.

Thanks again for your comments. God bless!!

RKBentley

Anonymous said...

It's your faith that saves you; not water baptism.

RKBentley said...

I agree. Thanks.

God bless!

RKBentley

Anonymous said...

Really? OT saints were saved by faith in Christ?
Not by faith in God Jehovah?
Not by the foreknowledge of God?
Please read John 1:10-11 in this consideration.

You cannot take the knowledge we have been given and transpose it to the time before Jesus' birth.

The New Testament and Gospels clearly state baptism as a requirement of the Christian life and Christ followers.
It is not negotiable.

Also, regarding physical birth, do you then mean that the +50 million children aborted in America (not to mention the rest of the world) are outside the kingdom?

RKBentley said...

Anonymous,

You said, “Really? OT saints were saved by faith in Christ?”

Yes. Really. Acts 4:10-12 says, “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

There is no salvation in any name but Christ's. His death covered the sins of all people – past, present, and future. Jesus Himself testified that Abraham, for example, knew Him (John 8:56).

I wrote more about this here: http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2009/03/are-jews-saved-by-circumcision.html

You Said, “Not by faith in God Jehovah?”

I believe Jesus is Jehovah. Do you not believe in the Trinity? See my post where I discussed this: http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2010/05/jesus-is-jehovah.html

You said, “Not by the foreknowledge of God? Please read John 1:10-11 in this consideration.”

I'm not sure how this relates to my post about baptism.

You said, “You cannot take the knowledge we have been given and transpose it to the time before Jesus' birth.”

Jesus existed before the creation of the world. Revelation 13:8 says that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. The promise of a Savior who would crush the head of the Serpent was given to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. The OT saints may not have known Jesus in the way that we know Jesus, but they were saved by faith the same way we are. Not by circumcision. Not by sacrifices. See Romans 4:9-13.

You said, “The New Testament and Gospels clearly state baptism as a requirement of the Christian life and Christ followers. It is not negotiable.”

I'm not denying that Christians should be baptized. I believe you and I disagree on what is accomplished by baptism. I believe the Bible is clear that baptism follows salvation. It's not a prerequisite to salvation. See Acts 10:44-48, where Peter preached to Gentiles. They received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues PRIOR to baptism.

You said, “Also, regarding physical birth, do you then mean that the +50 million children aborted in America (not to mention the rest of the world) are outside the kingdom?”

I'm not sure where you got that impression. The aborted children weren't baptized so how does that fit in your plan of baptism for salvation? In John 3, Jesus is comparing the spiritual birth to the physical birth. He is clear that the fleshly birth only produces flesh. It's the spiritual birth that gives eternal life.

I believe in an age of accountability. Babies and young children who die before they are able to understand the plan of salvation still receive God's grace. You can read more about that here: http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2010/10/are-babies-saved-scriptural-analysis-of.html

Thank you for your comments. Please keep visiting. God bless!!

RKBentley

Anonymous said...

Interesting. However it is also just as misguided to think that being "born again" has anything to do with conversion. In fact, this is NOT what the greek says. It says "born from above" (anothen).
Actually those using BORN AGAIN as a theological concept are making the same mistake that Nicodemus made in the words Jesus spoke to him.

Let us all have some humility here when we approach the Scriptures. We are not saved by the "correctness of OUR belief", so lets all calm down and stop trying to make the Scriptures fit "our" preferred interpretation.

RKBentley said...

Are you saying that Jesus is not talking about conversion or are you saying that Jesus isn't using the term “born again”?

The Greek word, anothen, has a semantic range that could mean “from above” or “again.” BTW, “born” is not included in the meaning of the word, anothen.

In this passage, Jesus repeatedly compares the spiritual birth to the physical birth. If you want to bicker about if He is saying “born again” or “born from above,” then have at it. In either case, we're talking about a 2nd birth, being born of the Spirit.

The point of my post, though, was the term, “born of water.” I'm saying that it likely does not mean “baptized.” Do you have any comments about that? I would love to hear them.

Thanks for your comment. Please visit again.

God bless!!

RKBentley

Anonymous said...

Nice analysis of the parallelism in Jesus' discourse with Nicodemus!

Have you considered Isaiah 48:1, and the thought of Jesus bringing out the idea that it was not sufficient for Nicodemus to be of the progeny of Abraham, "ye must be born again". Thus, the first birth isn't just a qualification, but rather a disqualification regarding birth of a certain progeny.

Anyway, enjoyed the post.

RKBentley said...

Thanks for visiting. Actually, I had not thought of it that way. That's very interesting. It's like John the Baptist warned - it's not enough to say, "Abraham is our father"; You must be born of the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom.

Thanks for a great point. Please keep visiting and commenting. God bless!!

RKBentley

Paul said...

Hi Mr. Bentley,

Someone likened studying the Bible to flying a plane, which involves picking your destination and then spending the rest of flight correcting your course on the way there.

I'm an A/G minister revisiting baptism. I share your conclusion about being born of water (though it raises the question of what happens to unborn babies - a whole other subject).

What strikes me is that in Acts the church baptized people immediately. Why?

A/G doesn't believe in sacraments. We refer to water baptism and communion as ordinances.

But why did they always baptize immediately?

Catholics believe water baptism takes care of original sin. Penance and purgatory are in place to take care of the sins committed following this

My Presbyterian friends see baptism as equivelant to OT circumcision - that it brings you into the covenant people. It doesn't equate personal salvation, but that you are under the blessing of the people of God.

I have concluded from all sources that it was an initiation rite into the church. I especially see this from the end of Acts 10, and them finally allowing uncircumcised Gentiles into the covenant people - the Church.

I am schedule to baptize several children between 7-12 years old. I've told them it is like a wedding ceremony to Jesus. We are publically giving witness to our private decision - that we plan to follow Him for the rest of our lives (I balk at the thought of baptizing anyone who can't say that).

Could it be that there is a grace associated with baptism, but it is associated with the obedience of it (Jesus did it to fulfill all righteousnes). This comes as a result of baptism, a blessing enabling them to follow Jesus? Do you see any Biblical warrant for that?

[Now, I guess you'd expect me to be, but I'm not actually talking about the A/G doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. That truly comes after (Acts 10 is an exception because they would have never baptized Gentiles without having seen the witness of their having received the baptism in the Holy Spirit). Somewhere John says that God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him. Jesus was so anointed with the Holy Spirit after baptism (Acts 10:38).]

Another reason I am moved to ask this question is that while I am a proponent of the Believer's Baptism, 3x in Acts, whole families got baptized - Cornelius', Lydia's and the Philippian Jailer's. Again, is there a grace that comes after obedience to baptism that enables the baptized believer more than the unbaptized?

Just trying to correct my course on the plane to the truth.

Les Potter said...

One thing that affects the dynamic of the passage is the presumption that the kingdom of God is salvation. Obviously, the KOG includes salvation. But if you consider it throughout Scripture, it cannot be synonymous with salvation itself. Consider JN 3:3 for example. If the KOG is salvation and if “born again” is salvation (which it is) then it is saying you must be saved to see salvation. Another thing to consider is how that “born” means “brought forth”. In other words, born = fruit. A child is not made alive at birth. But when it is brought forth the evidence of that life is there. Is this not what John was saying in MT 3:8? The fruits they were to bring forth are “born” of a regenerate soul. They are the substance and evidence of Biblical faith (Heb 11:1).

RKBentley said...

Paul and Les Potter,

I wrote a reply to your comments and published them on my new blog. I know it's a year or two late but, if you should ever check back, you can read my reply here:

https://2peter119.blogspot.com/2022/02/some-more-thoughts-on-john-35-being.html

Thanks!! God bless!

RKBentley

Ryan said...

I'm going to have look more into this. never thought of it this way. I'm.giung to search the scriptures..

Ryan said...

great questions.. now I get to go search the scriptures and be challenged more. I love being challenged.