In the book of John there is an interesting exchange between Jesus and one of the few “good” Pharisees, Nicodemus. After having a lengthy, but unprofitable, discussion on this matter I decided to try and expound upon the subject here. Let us look at part of the passage in question (from the third chapter of John):
1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4Nicodemus 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?
5Jesus 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.
6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
The matter of contention that I want to address is what Jesus meant by “born of water and of the Spirit”, and more specifically what He meant by “born of water”. My position is this – that being born of water is water baptism and born of the Spirit is the gift of the Holy Spirit. I realize that many believe that the “born of water” refers to our physical birth. That is really the big area in dispute – what Jesus meant by “born of water” (although some would erroneously state that “born of the Spirit” is the endowment of miraculous gifts – I don’t want to get into that here).
To begin, Jesus said that one MUST be born of water. If this refers to our physical birth it is absurd for Jesus to attach an imperative (must) to it. Why would Jesus tell Nicodemus that he had to be born? Clearly, that had already taken place. This is the big question that those who claim Jesus is referring to the physical birth when He says “born of water” must answer – why would Jesus command us to do something we have no control over? Do you have a choice in your physical birth? Jesus might as well have commanded us to breathe as to command us to be born. This is not rational logic.
In verse four Nicodemus shows that he is confusing the command to be “born again” with the physical birth. In verse five Jesus says that unless a man is born “of water and of the Spirit” he cannot see the kingdom of God. Jesus is saying that neither of these things has to do with the physical birth. In verse six He explains that what is born of flesh is of flesh – that is the physical birth. When we look at verse five we see that the birth of water and Spirit have nothing to do with flesh! Flesh equals flesh, water equals water and Spirit equals Spirit. All three of these are distinct.
In my discussion, the other person stated that verses six through twelve deals only with the Spirit and that no mention is made of water. Thus this person concludes that the water must be the physical birth. If you are to stop at verse twelve you might likely draw the same conclusion. However, I’m not going to stop at verse twelve. Look at verses 22 and 23 of the same chapter:
22After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
23And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.
What was Jesus doing in Judea? Baptizing people! I will note here that Jesus Himself immersed no one, but He commanded His disciples to do so. Please also note that these were water baptisms, not Holy Spirit baptisms. Verse twenty-three makes this clear. Now look at verses 25 and 26:
25Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying.
26And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.
Notice that there was a dispute over baptism. We can easily conclude that the Jews who rejected John were associating baptism with their rites of purification. This shows us that John’s baptism, and Jesus’ baptism were not connected to Jewish purification rites. While that may be where the idea of baptism originated, that is not what John was doing. Furthermore, note that these people knew that Jesus’ disciples were baptizing people and that many were coming to Him. We know from other passages that Jesus’ disciples baptized more than the great baptizer John!
What does all of this tell us? It tells us that water baptism was an integral part of Jesus’ earthly ministry. While the water is neither flesh nor Spirit, it is the act that culminates our Spiritual birth. With all of this in mind, compare Jesus’ command to be born “of water and of the Spirit” to what Peter preached in Acts 2:38:
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Peter’s statement is in perfect harmony with Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus. Our goal should always be to find the harmony in scripture. Seeking the harmony of the scriptures can often be the key to understanding something that seems mysterious and cryptic like the command to be born “of water and of the Spirit”.
17 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 26, 2008 at 6:18 pm
J. R. Miller
Hi, I am starting a new venture to explore the history of the Holy Spirit. If you want to be a part of the discussion regarding the Promise of The Father, please come on over.
June 27, 2008 at 5:24 pm
E.D. Jones
Hello Corey,
I really like this post. Prior to reading it, I too saw the “born of water” as our physical birth. But I now believe as you do. And in fact, after reading your post it seems so clear that Jesus was talking about water baptism; I feel kind of dense that I didn’t see this before. Oh well, I’m just grateful God has enlightened me as much as He has.
Thanks and take care,
E.D. Jones
June 27, 2008 at 5:33 pm
coreydavis
E.D.,
That gives me more joy than I can express! Thank you for telling me that. It gives me great encouragement.
I can’t find your blog in my past comments section anymore. Can you post a link to it? If you’ll go to:
*”My Account”
*”Edit Profile”
and enter your blog’s address in the “website” line people can just click on your name and it will take them to your blog when you post.
Take care,
Corey
June 27, 2008 at 7:31 pm
E.D. Jones
Thanks a lot Corey for your comments and technical advice. I’m still trying to learn all the ins-and-outs of this blogging gig. I’ll add my address to the profile. You can find me at histruthwillsetyoufree.wordpress.com
Take care,
E.D.
August 6, 2008 at 7:07 pm
churchesofChrist
I guess my only beef would be – how could the water here be the same baptism “for the remission of sins” that places one in Christ, seeing Jesus had not went to the cross yet? How could “born of water” be understood at “that time” as one being buried into Christ? I can see us viewing this passage and drawing this conclusion, but I can’t see how anyone THEN would have understood “born of water” as being planted in Christ. I am not saying I disagree entirely with what you are saying, but I am open to other interpretations too.
August 6, 2008 at 7:15 pm
coreydavis
Randy,
Then you must ask why Jesus had His disciples baptize before His death? What good did John’s baptism do if it wouldn’t count? The only reasonable explanation is that like John’s baptism, the baptism that the Lord’s disciples practiced was made good by the sacrifice of His life on the cross. Those baptisms, much like law-keeping by the Jews who died before Christ, were validated when He made the ultimate sacrifice.
To say that Jesus wouldn’t have insisted upon baptism BEFORE He died is in complete conflict with John 3:22 and other passages. Clearly His disciples were baptizing before Jesus’ death as we’re told that they baptized MORE than John!
We know that John’s baptism was not valid AFTER the death of Christ (Acts 19), but for those who were baptized under it BEFORE the death it was made good by that death.
August 7, 2008 at 10:54 am
churchesofChrist
I understand that Corey. My point was that it was no way they knew “born of water” to mean baptized into Christ. Sure they were baptizing under Johns baptism, but thats a far cry from understanding “born of water” to mean baptized into Christ. We look back at this verse and we understand it to mean much more than they even had in mind, seeing Christ hadnt not died yet. They didnt understand “born of water” to mean the same thing as most Church of Christ people do today – they couldnt have…
August 7, 2008 at 2:14 pm
churchesofChrist
In John 3:3, the term “born-again” literally means “to be born from above.” The context of Jn. 3:5 must be related to Jesus’ previous statement in Jn. 3:3 :“Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” There is only one new birth mentioned in this verse and it is from the Spirit as other Scriptures uphold. John 3:6-7: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. “Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.
Maybe within the context Nicodemus understood the subject was to be born from above ( which he seemed to be confused about ) and maybe he even connected water baptism with the statement “born of water”, but he didn’t understand baptism to be the place one contacts the blood of Christ – that is pretty much my point.
Was Johns baptism a “ born from above baptism” ? If not, how could Nicodemus understand water baptism as being born from above ?? Sure, he was familiar with Jewish baptisms, but he had no idea about water baptism being the place one contacts the blood of Christ – and is added to the church. We look at this verse and conclude born of water to mean “baptized into Christ” but put yourself in Nicodemus’s shoes….he had understanding of this at all….simply because Jesus hadn’t even went to the cross….did he even know at that point that Christ was the lamb of God who would pay the sin dept? Maybe “born of water” is the baptism we undergo today for the remission of sins…the place where we contact the blood…baptized into Christ…..but Nicodemus didn’t see “born of water” as we do today….
August 7, 2008 at 2:50 pm
coreydavis
Clearly this was confusing for Nicodemus. I think the language Jesus used would have confused anyone of His day. Look at how often His own disciples couldn’t understand what He meant. It is important to note that Nicodemus was a learned man, a leader of the Jews. I think Jesus was saying that a ruler of the Jews should have been able to grasp such concepts, even though few did – look at verse 10. So, did he understand that Jesus was to be the sacrificial lamb of God? Probably not, since those who walked daily with the Master didn’t really understand it.
As to whether or not Nicodemus would have understood that it was a “born from above baptism”, look at the first thing he said to Jesus in verse 2. He knew Jesus had come “from God”. Would he understand that the baptism was a command directly from God? I think he would since he knew that Jesus’ teachings were straight from the Father. This understanding would only come after he fully grasped what Jesus was teaching though.
Was John’s baptism a “born from above baptism”? Clearly John’s baptism was “from God”, so I would say yes. Like I said before, the baptisms performed by Jesus’ disciples before His death were probably just like John’s baptism – preparatory baptisms of repentance in anticipation of the sacrifice of the Christ. That said, Nicodemus wouldn’t have seen baptism exactly like we see it preached on Pentecost and for us today, but he still would have seen it as a command of God.
August 7, 2008 at 3:54 pm
churchesofChrist
“That said, Nicodemus wouldn’t have seen baptism exactly like we see it preached on Pentecost and for us today, but he still would have seen it as a command of God.”
- I agree partly, but I still am open to other views at this point. I do lean towards your view, but not totally.
August 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm
churchesofChrist
What did John mean by “This is He who CAME BY water and blood…” It seems to me John was addressing the Gnostics who made light of or even denied Jesus came in the flesh. If this verse means Jesus was born physically ( of water and blood ) this would lead me to believe that water refers to a physical birth. In verse 5, Jesus proceeds to say, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus, who was a Pharisee, believed like the other Jews that because he was born a Jew, he would automatically enter into the kingdom of God. However, Jesus explains that this is not enough. In verse 6, Jesus Himself interprets the water as flesh (a physical birth). “that which is flesh is flesh” Jesus says of being born of water is to be born of the flesh and then explains the difference to Nicodemus of already having a physical birth that comes first, and the need of a second birth ‘from the Spirit above ‘to enter the kingdom. He is contrasted the natural (flesh) to the spiritual. Anyways, I will drop this for now. Like I stated, I am not convinced yet which view I hold.
August 7, 2008 at 5:22 pm
coreydavis
What did John mean by “This is He who CAME BY water and blood…”
Can you tell me what verse you’re talking about?
In verse 6, Jesus Himself interprets the water as flesh (a physical birth)
No, you interpret water as flesh. Verse six says that flesh give birth to flesh. Not water gives birth to flesh. There are 3 things in view – water, Spirit and flesh. All 3 are distinct, and they are not to be substituted for one another.
The question I stated in the post is what you must answer – why would Jesus attach an imperative (must) to something over which Nicodemus had no control? Why would Jesus say that you MUST be born of your mother? Is that something you have control over? Jesus makes it clear that which is born of flesh is flesh. That is the physical birth and you will notice that Jesus attaches NO command to it. To do so is absurd as we have no part in our physical birth!
August 7, 2008 at 5:56 pm
coreydavis
I found the verse you were referring to in 1 John 5:6. Here is some reliable commentary on that verse:
from here:
http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=1jo&chapter=005
August 7, 2008 at 7:04 pm
churchesofChrist
‘The question I stated in the post is what you must answer – why would Jesus attach an imperative (must) to something over which Nicodemus had no control?”
- I think Jesus was contrasting the two. Anyways, I will keep looking at this. I have looked at A.T. Robertson’s and others take from a Greek POV and they also do not see this as an imperative statement.
September 16, 2008 at 3:02 pm
tosin1981
My view here is solidly the fact that being born of water is in reference to being born physically/being born of the flesh. Looking at Jesus’s statement in verse 3 of the passage in view and concluding that he was making a commandment that one must be born of water is very myopic and limited.
My understanding is this: Jesus used that statement to let Nicodemus understand that his being physically born was necessary for him to be spiritually born(born of the Spirit).His being physically born was an incomplete state and required a second birth, that is; to be born of the Spirit.Verse 6 further elaborates that the two births in view were the physical and Spiritual.Therefore the conclusion is that the spiritual birth was needed to be in a complete state for salvation.Being born of the Spirit is the birth that had emphasis in the statements; not being born of water.This much can be gathered if one reads the passage in the context of Jesus’s statement that one must be born again/born from above.The birth from the Spirit is the birth that is being emphasized that we need;thus,we already have the birth from water;physical birth.
I just have to say that our views are different but continuous study of the word would definitely help us to arrive at the proper conclusions.
September 16, 2008 at 3:46 pm
coreydavis
tosin,
Thank you for stopping by and participating in this discussion. You said:
Jesus used that statement to let Nicodemus understand that his being physically born was necessary for him to be spiritually born(born of the Spirit)
This is one of the points I was trying to make – your assertion makes little sense. Jesus might as well have said “you must breathe to live”. Obviously the concept of being “born again” was confusing to Nicodemus. For Jesus to tell him that he “must” be born of his mother is redundant and unnecessary. Of course we must be physically born to one day be spiritually re-born. There is no need for Jesus to tell Nicodemus, or us, to be physically born. We have no say in the matter. Note that Jesus addressed the physical birth when he said flesh gives birth to flesh. By saying that Jesus showed that the birth of flesh has nothing to do with the birth of water and the Spirit.
Since this appears confusing to many today, as well as the original audience, we must look to the whole of scripture to see how this passage relates with the rest. If the birth of water is the waters of baptism it fits perfectly with Peter’s commandment in Acts 2:38. The only other conclusion is nonsensical – that Jesus commanded something over which we have no control. To not try and balance this passage with others is a poor method of Bible study and will limit our ability to understand difficult passages.
September 20, 2008 at 10:32 pm
tosin1981
Something you should check:
When Jesus was saying one must be born of water and the Spirit, the correct way of interpreting this statement is:-
The first birth has to be supplemented with the second birth(birth from the Spirit).The second birth is that which is being emphasized by the statement.
Looking through the Bible, one will notice that it is the birth through the Holy Spirit that is mentioned as being the means of our salvation.Water baptism is an act that takes place after our salvation.
Another thing we know is that faith/belief in Jesus Christ is what enables our birth through the Holy Spirit and is the only thing necessary for our salvation.
Interpreting being born of water to mean water baptism would then mean that faith in Jesus Christ isn’t the only thing necessary for our birth through the Spirit(but we know that it is only faith in Christ that saves us).
Jesus said we must be born again.Another interpretation is born from above.Another is born of the Spirit.Looking at John 3:5-6, you’ll notice that the two births mentioned were of water and Spirit, and also flesh and Spirit(vrs 6). Why was the explanation in verse 6 only about the birth in the Spirit as against the birth in the flesh? Why wasn’t the birth of water explained as the others were? Or are we to conclude that the birth in the Spirit includes the water birth? Of course not!!! The birth in the Spirit requires only faith in Jesus Christ. This just goes to say that the birth of water stands for the birth of flesh.Another way of putting the statement Jesus made in verse 5 is this- “Truly,truly I tell you,unless a person is born of water and from above(because being born of the Spirit is the same as being born from above) he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” It is just another way of saying unless a person has the first birth together/combined with the second birth in question……
Remember,the passage in question was talking about the requirements to be saved.We should know these points based on studying the bible:-
-being born again is the same thing as being born of the Spirit
-to be born again/born of the Spirit, all that is required is faith in Jesus Christ(John 1:12, John 3:16-18, Romans 10:9-13, etc).
These points should be borne in mind when reading and interpreting the passage in question.It is against the backdrop of these verses or should I say-it is the understanding from this verses that should help in interpreting the passage in question.
Water baptism represents the saving/cleansing work of Jesus in us.It does just that;represents!! Water baptism is not a requirement to be saved/justified.
It is a commandment to us to carry out after we have been saved.
Jesus did not command that we must be born physically/of water;the right interpretation is- he pointed out a state of being that needed another birth; and that is the birth of the Spirit.The water baptism is a commandment that takes place after a person has been saved;not before.