John 3:5

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

To: Park4864@mailclerk.ecok.edu
From: wcopes@communique.net
Subject: John 3:5

 BP> John 3:5

 BP> Quest 1 or interpreptation 1.  Does the water  mean natural birth
 BP> (a woman breaks water during a birth or so my home ec. teacher
 BP> said) and the spirit mean salvation birth?

     Here is the explanation that Bro. David Bernard gives.

     This interpretation (natural birth) is extremely unlikely for
several reasons: (1) It would be a very strange way to describe the
natural birth, especially since this usage does not appear elsewhere
in Scripture or in ordinary speech; (2) Jesus specifically informed
Nicodemus that the new birth was a birth of water and Spirit, not a
natural birth. A comparison of verses 3 and 5 show that "born again"
is equivalent to "born of water and of the Spirit"; (3) If birth of
water means natural birth, then Jesus either told Nicodemus to do
something he had already done or to do a physical impossibility. If
this were the case, Nicodemus' questioning was valid, and Jesus would
not have rebuked him; (4) It seems unnecessary to say we must be born
into this world since everyone obviously has been; (5) If the birth of
water is actually the natural birth, why did Jesus indicated that the
new birth has two components? There may be a parallel between water in
natural birth and the new birth, but the context of John 3 establishes
that the birth of water itself is not the natural birth.

 BP> Quest 2 or interpreptation 2.  Does the water mean baptism and
 BP> the spirit mean holy ghost baptism?  (THis is mine).

     Same source as previous one <G>

     We believe...that the birth of water occurs when God remits sin
at water baptism. Many theologians throughout church history have
support this interpretation, particularly the early church fathers and
the early Lutherans. There are many good reasons why we accept this
view.

     (1) This results form a straightforward, literal reading of the
text. Baptism is the only significant use of water in the New Testa-
ment church, so if we interpret WATER literally it indicates water
baptism. The Early Church commonly used WATER to mean water baptism.
For example, Peter asked with respect to Cornelius and his household,
"can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized?" (Acts
10:47). John himself later used WATER in a literal way when he spoke
of Spirit, water, and blood agreeing in the one purpose of salvation
(I John 5:8); if the Spirit and blood are literal then water is liter-
al. THE PULPIT COMMENTARY agrees that 1 John 5:6-8 refers to water
baptism. Baptist theologian Beasley-Murray has remarked that John 3:5
refers to water baptism: "At a time when the employment of water for
cleansing in view of the last day had taken the specific form of
baptism, it is difficult to take seriously any other reference than
baptism."

     (2) The contest of John 3:5 strongly suggest water baptism. John
1:25-34 and 3:23 speak of John the Baptist's ministry of baptism. John
3:22 and John 4:1-2 describe baptism administered by Christ's disci-
ples on His authority. In this context, the most natural understanding
of WATER is water baptism. This view is supported by THE TYNDALE NEW
TESTAMENT COMMENTARIES: "in light of the reference to the practice by
Jesus of water baptism in verse 22, it is difficult to avoid constru-
ing the word OF WATER AND OF SPIRIT conjunctively, and regarding them
as a description of Christian baptism in which cleansing and endowment
are both essential elements.

     (3) This is the one meaning Nicodemus could have been expected to
understand. As a Jewish religious leader, Nicodemus was familiar with
the ceremonial cleansings of the Old Testament as well as Jewish
proselyte baptism. More importantly, he had the witness of John the
Baptist, for all the Jewish religious leaders of the day were well
acquainted with John's baptism (Luke 20:1-7). Both Jewish proselyte
baptism and John's baptism were part of conversion and repentance, so
Nicodemus should not have been puzzled when Jesus spoke of water as
part of making a new start for God. In fact, by this time Jesus may
have already authorized His disciples to baptize, as recorded only a
few verses later (John 3:22; 4:1-2).

     (4) The birth of the Spirit means Spirit baptism; so grammatical-
ly speaking the birth of water must mean water baptism.

     (5) There is only one baptism (Ephesians 4:5), yet the Bible
clearly teaches both water baptism and Spirit baptism. We can recon-
cile this apparent contradiction by recognizing that water baptism and
Spirit baptism are two parts of one whole, with one being incomplete
without the other. Doctrinally speaking, if one is part f the new
birth, the other must be also.

     (6) God remits sins at water baptism. Therefore, baptism must be
part of the new birth, for how could there be a new, spiritual life
until the old life of sin is erased? Until sin and its punishment are
wished away there can be no eternal life in God's kingdom.

     (7) Titus 3:5 is a companion verse to John 3:5, and it apparently
refers to water baptism. "Not by works of righteousness which we have
done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regen-
eration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Regeneration simply means
new birth, so here is a second passage linking water and Spirit with
the new birth. The wording of this verse points strongly to water
baptism rather than to the other alternatives. It describes a specific
act of washing, distinct from the work of the Spirit.

     Many translations emphasize the connotation of a specific act:
"the laver of regeneration" (Conybeare), "the bathing of the new
birth" (Rotherham), "the bath of regeneration" (Weymouth), and "the
water of rebirth" (NEW ENGLISH BIBLE). This act of washing is a
cleansing from sin, which brings to mind Ananias' instructions to
Paul: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the
name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). Paul recounted the story in Acts 22
and wrote the words in Titus 3, so presumably he was aware of the
parallel thought.

     The conclusion is inescapable: "the washing of regeneration,"
which means "the new birth of water," is the washing away of sins at
water baptism. Indeed, according to Bloesch, "Biblical scholars gener-
ally agree that the washing of regeneration refers to the rite of
baptism."

     (8) Many other passages link water and Spirit baptism together in
the salvation message and emphasize the important role baptism plays
in salvation.

     Opponents of this view usually protest that it makes salvation
dependent on water baptism, thereby negating salvation by grace and
faith alone, of course, without repentance from sin and faith in
Christ's sacrifice, water baptism is valueless. There is no saving
power in the water itself or in man's actions at water baptism. The
birth of water is not the human act but God's act in remitting sin.
Water baptism in and of itself is not a saving act, and the birth of
water is totally dependent upon God's grace. Titus 3:5 demonstrates
that one can give God all the credit for salvation and still emphasize
the role of water baptism in the new birth.

     Throughout salvation history God has always required obedience to
His Word as a part of faith, and this does not contradict His plan of
salvation by grace through faith. By identifying the birth of water as
God's work in water baptism, we do not detract from His grace or His
position as our only Savior.

     A second objection is that the Old Testament saints were not
baptized in water as we are today. However, neither did they receive
the Spirit as we do (John 7:38-39. The Old Testament saints were not
born again in the sense Jesus describe and established for the New
Testament church.

     The birth of the Spirit is the operation of the Holy Spirit in
man's salvation. This is the literal reading of John 3:5-8, and no one
seriously disputes this. While there is agreement that the birth of
the Spirit means receiving the Spirit of God to dwell in one's life,
there is some difference of opinion as to whether this is identical to
the baptism of the Spirit. Most Protestants equate receiving the Holy
Spirit with the baptism of the Holy Spirit, although they usually
reject the sign of speaking in tongues. Thus Bloesch stated, "We
insist that the baptism of the Spirit must not be distinguished from
the new birth." Likewise, Adam Clarke equated the birth of the Spirit
with the baptism of the Spirit. In the New Testament church, the birth
of the Spirit, the gift of the Spirit, receiving the Spirit, and the
baptism of the Spirit are all one and the same, as we explain below.

     (1) Jesus expected Nicodemus to understand what He meant about
birth of the Spirit, undoubtedly on the basis of Old Testament prophe-
cies concerning the Spirit's outpouring. In particular, Nicodemus
should have known about Joe's prophecy, which Peter applied to the
baptism of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:16-18).

     (2) John the Baptist explicitly promised the baptism of the
Spirit (Mark 1:8). No doubt Nicodemus was acquainted with John's
ministry6 and should have been expecting its fulfillment.

     (3) The Book of Acts teaches that we receive the Spirit when we
are baptized with the Spirit. Jesus told the disciples to wait or the
promise of the Father, which He described as being "baptized with the
Holy Ghost" (Acts 1:4-8). The disciples received this promise on the
Day of Pentecost when they were "filled with the HOly Ghost" (Acts
2:4). Peter promised this same experience, which he called "the gift
of the Holy Ghost," to repentant onlookers that day (Acts 38-39). When
Cornelius and his household received the very same experience, the
Bible describes it in several ways: "the Holy Ghost fell on all them,"
on them "as poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost," and they "received
the Holy Ghost" (Acts 10:44-48). Peter identified it as both the gift
and the baptism of the Holy Ghost (Acts 11:15-17). In short, Acts
equates all the descriptions of the Spirit's saving work with the
baptism of the Holy Ghost.

     (4) Some say the birth of the Spirit refers to the indwelling of
the Spirit without the Spirit baptism. However, it is a contradiction
in terms to say the Spirit dwells in someone even though he has not
received the Spirit. If the words mean anything, the indwelling of the
Spirit must begin with the receiving, being filled with, or being
baptized with the Spirit.

     (5) First Corinthians 12:13 demonstrates that the work of the
Spirit in salvation is the baptism of the Spirit: "For by one Spirit
are we all baptized into one body."=7F

     (6) Many other passages emphasize the need for the Spirit baptism
and link it with water baptism as part of the salvation message.

Walter Copes
The joy of the Lord is my strength
(wcopes@communique.net)
Walter L Copes=20