Let me show you you verse.
Jesus is talking to Nicodemus... and Nico is confused... As Jesus told Him that He must be born
> again...
So, the natural mind, Nico's, thinks....>"how can i go back into my mother again, as im a full grown man".
Jesus clarifies.....that the earth birth, were the baby is in a bag of fluid that BREAKS and the baby comes out, is the first birth..
The Heavenly birth.......that is...>>"born ..... AGAIN".... see that? That is the 2nd Birthday, that a CHRISTians has..
"Jesus said... "you must be Born.......AGAIN"
Its that one
@atpollard
And here is the version that corrupted the understanding of John 3 and created billions of heretics and a large number of "water cult" denominations...
The Douay-Rheims..
The Catholic Version.
It says this......as i have quoted ...
"""""unless a man be born again of water'"""""
So, here is the update for you.... no one is BORN AGAIN of WATER....
You can only be BORN.....AGAIN....by the Holy Spirit of God.
3:5 "unless one is born of water and the Spirit" This is another THIRD CLASS CONDITIONAL SENTENCE. There may be a contrast (so typical of John's writings) between
the physical versus the spiritual (no ARTICLE with "spirit")
the earthly versus the heavenly
This contrast is implied in John 3:6.
The theories for the meaning of "water" are
the rabbis use it of male semen
the water of child birth
John's baptism symbolizing repentance (cf. John 1:26; 3:23)
the OT background meaning ceremonial sprinkling by the Spirit (cf. Ezek. 36:25-27)
Christian baptism (although Nicodemus could not have understood it that way, first mentioned by Justin and Irenaeus)
In context theory #3—
John's water baptism and John's statement about the Messiah's baptizing with the Holy Spirit—must be the most obvious meanings.
Birth, in this context, is metaphorical and we must not let Nicodemus' misunderstanding of the terms dominate the interpretation. Therefore, theory #1 is inappropriate.
Although Nicodemus would not have understood Jesus' words as referring to later Christian baptism, John the Apostle often interjects his theology into the historical words of Jesus (cf. John 3:14-21). Theory #2 would fit John's dualism of above and below, God's realm and the earthly realm. In defining these terms one must determine whether they are contrasting (#1 or #2) or complementary (#4).
D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, mentions another option: that both words refer to one birth, an eschatological birth following Ezek. 36:25-27, which describes the "new covenant" of Jer. 31:31-34 (p. 42).
F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions, also sees Ezekiel as the OT allusion behind Jesus' words. It may even have been a reference to proselyte baptism, which Nicodemus, a noted rabbinical teacher, must also do! (p. 67).
2) "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit," (ean me tis gennethe eks hudatos kai pneumatos) "Unless anyone is born of water and spirit;" This alludes to two births: First, there is the birth from the mother's womb, the natural birth, referred to in medical terms as, the “water birth," by which the natural man or the old man is born; Second, there is the birth, begettal, or quickening by the spirit, referred to as the "new birth," birth from above, when man's spirit is quickened by God's Spirit, by which one becomes a new creature in Christ Jesus and a child of God, fit to enter the kingdom of God, and then by baptism into the church, Joh_6:63; 1Jn_5:1; Gal_3:26-27.
A.T. Robertson
Of water and the Spirit (ex hudatos kai pneumatos). Nicodemus had failed utterly to grasp the idea of the spiritual birth as essential to entrance into the Kingdom of God. He knew only Jews as members of that kingdom, the political kingdom of Pharisaic hope which was to make all the world Jewish (Pharisaic) under the King Messiah.
Why does Jesus add ex hudatos here?
In Joh_3:3 we have “anōthen” (from above) which is repeated in Joh_3:7, while in Joh_3:8 we have only ek tou pneumatos (of the Spirit) in the best manuscripts.
Many theories exist.
One view makes baptism, referred to by ex hudatos (coming up out of water), essential to the birth of the Spirit, as the means of obtaining the new birth of the Spirit. If so, why is water mentioned only once in the three demands of Jesus (Joh_3:3, Joh_3:5, Joh_3:7)?
Calvin makes water and Spirit refer to the one act (the cleansing work of the Spirit). Some insist on the language in Joh_3:6 as meaning the birth of the flesh coming in a sac of water in contrast to the birth of the Spirit.
One wonders after all what was the precise purpose of Jesus with Nicodemus, the Pharisaic ceremonialist, who had failed to grasp the idea of spiritual birth which is a commonplace to us.
By using water (the symbol before the thing signified) first and adding Spirit, he may have hoped to turn the mind of Nicodemus away from mere physical birth and, by pointing to the baptism of John on confession of sin which the Pharisees had rejected, to turn his attention to the birth from above by the Spirit.
That is to say the mention of “water” here may have been for the purpose of helping Nicodemus without laying down a fundamental principle of salvation as being by means of baptism. Bernard holds that the words hudatos kai (water and) do not belong to the words of Jesus, but “are a gloss, added to bring the saying of Jesus into harmony with the belief and practice of a later generation.” Here Jesus uses eiselthein (enter) instead of idein (see) of Joh_3:3, but with the same essential idea (participation in the kingdom).
-
