In a recent discussion of baptism, one listmember quoted:
> "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot > enter into the Kingdom of God." (John 3:5)
Several listmembers replied, saying (in substance):
> I have always understood the water referred to to be the water > of the mother's womb, where physical life begins. The context > would seem to support this view as the next verse says, "For > that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is > born of the Spirit is spirit."
This is certainly a possible interpretation. However, let me mention some reasons why I am not completely satisfied with it.
Why not simply say, "Unless a man be born of the Spirit, he cannot..."? Why bother to mention ordinary birth, or list it as a requirement? Let us assume for the sake of argument that being born is actually a requirement for entering the Kingdom of God (in the sense that aborted and miscarried offspring have no chance). It still seems to me that it is not a requirement that it makes sense to list. If someone asks me, "What do I have to do to get into Princeton," I would not, except as a joke, begin, "Well, first you have to get born...." I would take it for granted that my questioner, and anyone he might pass the information on to, would have already fulfilled that requirement. Of course, if being born biologically is NOT a requirement for entering the Kingdom, then it is clear that Jesus would not have said that it is. Thus, taking the passage to mean: "There are two requirements for entering the Kingdom, of which the first is biological birth...." implies that Jesus either (1) said something pointless and irrelevant to Nicodemus' condition, or (2) said something false. I find neither conclusion acceptable.
If a parallel is intended with the next verse, why not make the parallel explicit by saying something like, "Except a man be born of flesh and of spirit, he cannot..."? When a writer says "born of water" the first time round and "born of the flesh" the second time, he invites the speculation that the difference is significant.
Suppose the intent is to say something like, "In order to enter the kingdom of God, it is not enough to be born biologically. One must also be born spiritually." Someone might argue that John 3:5 is a natural way of saying this. However, John's idiom for "not only A but also B" is not "A and B" but rather "not A but B" (John 1:13, and 1 John 3:18). Thus, if this were the meaning intended, the text would probably read, "Except a man be born, not of water but of the Spirit, he cannot...."
A reason for associating baptism with re-birth is the verse:
He saved us... by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit. (Titus 3:5)
("Washing" here translates "loutron," which means literally a laver or vessel for washing.)
It is possible to understand this as speaking of renewal in the Spirit, with no reference to the water of baptism, but I submit that it is more natural to apply both this verse and John 3:5 to the rite of Baptism and the renewing power of the Spirit, taken together.
Again, we read:
In Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. .... And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:26-29)
Here baptism is again associated with becoming sons of God (or sons of Abraham) and so with adoption, which is a kind of re-birth -- indeed, in many cultures, the standard adoption ceremony is a kind of pantomimed or simulated birth of the adoptee from the body of the adopter.
The Apostle Paul twice tells us (Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12) that in baptism we die to Christ, are buried with Him, and rise to new life in Him. I take it that where new life can be spoken of in terms of death and resurrection, it may also be spoken of in terms of rebirth.
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word.... (Ephesians 5:25-26)
This seems to say that baptism is a means by which Christ cleanses His Church.
(I had thought of including Hebrews 10:22, but decided otherwise, since perhaps the writer is simply continuing his previous metaphor of Temple ceremonial.)
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
We are considering the text:
> "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot > enter into the Kingdom of God." (John 3:5)
The question is whether this refers to spiritual re-birth and the water of baptism, or simply to natural birth and the water of the womb.
Anyone reading through the New Testament can hardly fail to be struck by the repeated and emphatic references to Baptism. After His resurrection, Christ sends His disciples forth to teach and to baptize (Matthew 28:18-20). Prospective converts are told to repent, believe, and be baptized. Accounts of conversions practically always include the statement that so-and-so was baptized. (Acts 2:38-41; 8:12-16,36-38; 9:18; 10:46-48; 16:14,15,33; 18:8; 19:4-5; 22:16) Peter says that "baptism saves us" (1 Peter 3:21), and Paul puts "One Baptism" right next to "One Lord" and "One Faith" (Ephesians 4:5).
In short, the New Testament writers speak of Repentance, Faith, Baptism, and New Life in Christ as scarcely separable concepts.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
If we want to know what Christ meant by His statement to Nicodemus, it might be at least a useful hint if we knew what John thought the statement meant. When John refers to water, what is he usually thinking about? What associations does water have for him? In an attempt to answer this question, let us look at the first ten chapters of the Gospel according to St. John. I have divided these chapters into sections, and given beneath a brief summary of each section.
The Eternal Word of God, the Logos, has become flesh and dwelt among us. John the Baptist points the way to Jesus. Some of John's disciples follow Jesus. Jesus turns water into wine at Cana. Jesus predicts His resurrection "in three days." Jesus says to Nicodemus, "Unless a man be born of water...." John the Baptist again calls himself the forerunner of Jesus. Jesus at the well speaks to the Samaritan woman of living water. Jesus heals the nobleman's son. Jesus heals a man at the medicinal pool of Bethesda. Jesus feeds the multitude. Jesus walks on water. Jesus says, "I am the Bread of Life." Jesus attends the Feast of Tabernacles (feast of water and light) and says, "I am the Living Water. I am the Light of the World." Jesus sends a man born blind to wash in the pool of Siloam, and the man is healed. Jesus returns to the place where John was accustomed to baptize (thus rounding off this section nicely by having it end on the note on which it began).
Now, class, a short quiz. In how many of the preceding sections does the theme of water appear? In how many of these sections does water appear to have a more than casual significance, appear to be used somehow as an instrument of God's grace? What are the chances, to a first approximation, that when John recorded the dialogue with Nicodemus, he had in mind something more than just the medical fact that the womb is an aquaeous environment?
Someone may object: "Do you think that John was writing fiction? Because if he was writing fact, then his personal attitudes toward water are irrelevant. He recorded the words of John 3:5, not because they fitted his personal stereotypes, but because Jesus spoke them."
I reply: I have no dispute with that. My first appearance on this list took the form of a lengthy (surprised?) defence of the historical accuracy of John's Gospel. But the fact remains that John did not simply record everything that Jesus said and did (John 21:25). He had to pick and choose. And he chose episodes and sayings that in his judgement would most effectively convey the Good News of Salvation in Christ Jesus (John 20:30-31). It is no disparagement to a historian's or biographer's accuracy to expect that his choice of material will display a pattern.
So that is why I believe that John 3:5 refers to baptism as the New Birth. I have no quarrel with those of my fellow Christians who take the passage in a different sense. But I think that the interpretation in terms of baptism is more likely.
Yours, James Kiefer </PRE>