John 3 - Born of Water and Spirit

[Ferris Bueller]

Christians all are the widow of satan...

More accurately we are widows of the flesh, not satan. Because it is the flesh that has died in Romans 7:1-6, releasing us from the law that held us in marital bondage to husband 'flesh', enabling the flesh to legally rule over us and bear in us fruit for death. But, since he has died, through the cross, we are now free to marry new husband, 'Christ', and bear the fruit of that union, the fruit of righteousness.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Calvin definitely did not agree that "water" means H20.

CALVIN'S COMMENTARY ON JOHN 3:5:
WATER = SPIRITUAL CLEANSING
"...We must always keep in remembrance the design of Christ, which we have already explained; namely, that he intended to exhort Nicodemus to newness of life, because he was not capable of receiving the Gospel, until he began to be a new man. It is, therefore, a simple statement, that we must be born again, in order that we may be the children of God, and that the Holy Spirit is the Author of this second birth. For while Nicodemus was dreaming of the regeneration (palingenesia) or transmigration taught by Pythagoras, who imagined that souls, after the death of their bodies, passed into other bodies, [58] Christ, in order to cure him of this error, added, by way of explanation, that it is not in a natural way that men are born a second time, and that it is not necessary for them to be clothed with a new body, but that they are born when they are renewed in mind and heart by the grace of the Spirit.

Accordingly, he employed the words Spirit and water to mean the same thing, and this ought not to be regarded as a harsh or forced interpretation; for it is a frequent and common way of speaking in Scripture, when the Spirit is mentioned, to add the word Water or Fire, expressing his power. We sometimes meet with the statement, that it is Christ who baptizeth with the Holy Ghost and with fire, (Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16,) where fire means nothing different from the Spirit, but only shows what is his efficacy in us. As to the word water being placed first, it is of little consequence; or rather, this mode of speaking flows more naturally than the other, because the metaphor is followed by a plain and direct statement, as if Christ had said that no man is a son of God until he has been renewed by water, and that this water is the Spirit who cleanseth us anew and who, by spreading his energy over us, imparts to us the rigor of the heavenly life, though by nature we are utterly dry. And most properly does Christ, in order to reprove Nicodemus for his ignorance, employ a form of expression which is common in Scripture; for Nicodemus ought at length to have acknowledged, that what Christ had said was taken from the ordinary doctrine of the Prophets.

By water, therefore, is meant nothing more than the inward purification and invigoration which is produced by the Holy Spirit. Besides, it is not unusual to employ the word and instead of that is, when the latter clause is intended to explain the former. And the view which I have taken is supported by what follows; for when Christ immediately proceeds to assign the reason why we must be born again, without mentioning the water, he shows that the newness of life which he requires is produced by the Spirit alone; whence it follows, that water must not be separated from the Spirit..."

Calvin equated water with the Holy Spirit, but it is generally oil that is a metaphor for the Holy Spirit, and water is a metaphor for the Word of God. Regardless, he rejected the notion that the water of baptism is involved in spiritual cleaning. However Christian baptism is indeed a necessity after the New Birth.

And Calvin was wrong.

John's Gospel drive home the point that Water is an essential element in Baptism.
Let's take a quick look at the first 3 Chapters of John's Gospel.

- In the first Chapter, we see the Baptism of Jesus. What TWO elements are spoken of here?
WATER and the Holy Spirit (John 3:32-34).

- In Chapter 2, we see Jesus at the Wedding at Cana. AGAIN, we see the use of WATER which is transformed into wine

- In the third Chapter, Jesus answers Nicodemus's question about how to be born AGAIN. What does Jesus tell Him?
That we must be born again of WATER and the Spirit (John 3:5). Gee - that looks just like HIS Baptism.

- Finally - after Nicodemus leaves, WHERE does Jesus go? He goes with His Apostles to BAPTIZE people in the Judean countryside (John 3:22).
The first 3 chapters of John's Gospel are literally DRENCHED in the transforming waters of Baptism.

Peter also agrees about H2O as an essential element of Baptism in HIS first letter . . .

1 Pet. 3:18-22
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because[e] they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through WATER. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

i. Some have thought born of water means to be baptized. Water here may represent baptism, but there is no real Old Testament foundation for this.

I agree. The precedent for understanding 'water' comes from the time period itself. The gospels tell us John's baptism for repentance is what is being proclaimed during this time. Perhaps Nicodemus himself has already been baptized by John. Jesus is explaining to him that is not enough to see and enter into the kingdom of God. John and his message of repentance was only the precursor to Jesus and his message of faith and baptism in the Spirit.

And let it be clear that I do not think 'water' represents 'baptismal regeneration'. Water is simply a word that represents 'John's baptism for repentance'. Repentance in regard to the old covenant law, though required, is the futile effort of the flesh. It is fleshly effort giving birth to a fleshly man, not a spiritual man. Like Paul says in Galatians 4:30, that man, the man of fleshly, lawful effort has no share in the inheritance. Only the man who is also born of the Spirit does.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Kindly read my post again very carefully. I said that water is a metaphor for the Word of God in Scripture, and in this context it is the Gospel, as the quotation from 1 Peter clearly shows.

So the hearing of the Gospel generates saving faith (Rom 10:17) and those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ are regenerated (or born of the Spirit) supernaturally. That is the one New Birth which is essential to both enter and see the Kingdom of God (John 3:3-8; 1:12,13). Those who are born again are (1) born of the Spirit, (2) born from above, (3) born of God, and (4) regenerated. And saving faith is essential.

Also, I have give the Scripture passages which call the Word of God "water" metaphorically, since it is God who sprinkles this water on the soul of the sinner (and the saint). While the blood of Christ cleanses us from all our sins, the water of the Word convicts and convinces the unsaved (Hebrews 4:12,13), and also further sanctifies the saint:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. (Eph 5:25-27).

Yes water is a metaphor when it is used as a metaphor- Here it is not. Jesus clearly said 2 births were needed. Natural and spiritual.
He further defines it in the next verse as saying that which is born of the flesh (water) is flesh and that which is born of the spirit....

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You said "there were 6 ways a person could be born again".

That is correct. In Jewish culture of the day a person coulde be reborn 6 ways (born again)

Maybe you misspoke.

no

You should reference it in your reply.

Well if I can dig out my copy I will see if it is actually there. Otherwise I gave you several other references.

Where's the proof?

What does it mean to be born of water? | GotQuestions.org

http://www.tbaptist.com/clientimages/48350/challengerarticles/born of water.pdf

There are more, and simply look up an urban dictionary to trace theorigin of my water broke"

Provide the information, not a link.

The info is in th elink, if you wish not to click the link,m that is on you.

That would be a good point, but He wouldn't tell someone who is already naturally born they need to be born naturally (they're already born naturally)--also, under your own interpretation, wouldn't He also be doing the same thing (giving a command in both a literal and metaphorical way in one sentence)?

Wrong again! the point was that jesus was bringing into Jewish tho90ught a previosuly unknown concept- Spiritual birth. Remember up to this point the Spirit only ondwelled on people, never indwelt, Jesus now is saying that natural birth is not enough but a spiritual birth is required.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

When you claimed the Gentile converting to Judaism constituted a "born again" experience, I thought you meant "because he had to be baptized". If you didn't mean to say that I take it back.

That is your privilege. But in ancient Jewish teaching- a gentile who converted was considered born again. Not on the way we of the church age understand born again- butr born again nonetheless.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I think natural birth is a somewhat good explanation for the water (although, I'm skeptical that being born of water is or ever was a common idiom for natural childbirth. It's not a good one. It doesn't describe the experience well). Natural childbirth does explain the 'flesh gives birth to flesh' part. Especially in the context of the Jews who thought simply being born a Jew automatically put them into the kingdom of God, no matter what. And so Jesus is correcting them and explaining that they must also become spiritual Jews and be born of the Spirit, not just the flesh. Much like how Paul explained that circumcised Jews must also be spiritually circumcised.

Well then do some research and find out that whatever you think doesn't matter. It was an old idiom used to describe natural birth.

See Jesus said natural birth was not enough (born of water, born of flesh) He was doing all you said. Just without all the mystical metaphors well meaning but misinformed believers try to foist on Jesus simple words.

Paul talks about the son who is "born according to the flesh" (Galatians 4:29), and the son born "by the free woman through the promise" (Galatians 4:29) which we know to be talking about the spiritual birth. And so we have other Biblical information to help us understand fleshly birth vs. spiritual birth. Like Jesus, Paul also explains that those of the natural fleshly birth have no part of the inheritance, only those of the spiritual birth. The parallels between the two teachings are too hard to ignore. The task from here is to see how 'water' in Jesus' teaching relates to the 'old covenant' in Paul's teaching, because both birth flesh that won't inherit the kingdom. John's water baptism for repentance connects the two very well.

Except you are looking in all the wrong places. Jesus would not use a metaphorical and literal thing in one sentence to describe being saved. He is a much better grammatician than you give Him credit for. Also Nicodemus did not question what being born of water meant. He question being born again- He had already been born again the four of teh 6 ways He as a jew could be- so He naturally asked- must I go back into my mothers womb and start again? Jesus is introducing a whole new thought into jewish miond with being born again and saying natural birth is not enough.

From Pauls writings we know natural birth only births one to condemnation. spiritual birth is required.

If you are going to allegorize water here away from the culture- do you believe Jesus is talking abvout three births?

He says there is a flesh birth, water birthi and spirit birth. the natural normal way of looking at this inlight of a modicum of Jewish culture of the day is to realize Jesus gave a new definition to being born again. Water and flesh are natural birth, born again and born of spirit are the new birth! Simple as pie and we don't have to go all mystical with the Scriptures!

 

[Illuminator]

Calvin definitely did not agree that "water" means H20.

CALVIN'S COMMENTARY ON JOHN 3:5:
WATER = SPIRITUAL CLEANSING
"...We must always keep in remembrance the design of Christ, which we have already explained; namely, that he intended to exhort Nicodemus to newness of life, because he was not capable of receiving the Gospel, until he began to be a new man. It is, therefore, a simple statement, that we must be born again, in order that we may be the children of God, and that the Holy Spirit is the Author of this second birth. For while Nicodemus was dreaming of the regeneration (palingenesia) or transmigration taught by Pythagoras, who imagined that souls, after the death of their bodies, passed into other bodies, [58] Christ, in order to cure him of this error, added, by way of explanation, that it is not in a natural way that men are born a second time, and that it is not necessary for them to be clothed with a new body, but that they are born when they are renewed in mind and heart by the grace of the Spirit.

Accordingly, he employed the words Spirit and water to mean the same thing, and this ought not to be regarded as a harsh or forced interpretation; for it is a frequent and common way of speaking in Scripture, when the Spirit is mentioned, to add the word Water or Fire, expressing his power. We sometimes meet with the statement, that it is Christ who baptizeth with the Holy Ghost and with fire, (Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16,) where fire means nothing different from the Spirit, but only shows what is his efficacy in us. As to the word water being placed first, it is of little consequence; or rather, this mode of speaking flows more naturally than the other, because the metaphor is followed by a plain and direct statement, as if Christ had said that no man is a son of God until he has been renewed by water, and that this water is the Spirit who cleanseth us anew and who, by spreading his energy over us, imparts to us the rigor of the heavenly life, though by nature we are utterly dry. And most properly does Christ, in order to reprove Nicodemus for his ignorance, employ a form of expression which is common in Scripture; for Nicodemus ought at length to have acknowledged, that what Christ had said was taken from the ordinary doctrine of the Prophets.

By water, therefore, is meant nothing more than the inward purification and invigoration which is produced by the Holy Spirit. Besides, it is not unusual to employ the word and instead of that is, when the latter clause is intended to explain the former. And the view which I have taken is supported by what follows; for when Christ immediately proceeds to assign the reason why we must be born again, without mentioning the water, he shows that the newness of life which he requires is produced by the Spirit alone; whence it follows, that water must not be separated from the Spirit..."

Calvin equated water with the Holy Spirit, but it is generally oil that is a metaphor for the Holy Spirit, and water is a metaphor for the Word of God. Regardless, he rejected the notion that the water of baptism is involved in spiritual cleaning. However Christian baptism is indeed a necessity after the New Birth.

Calvin disagreed with Luther over baptismal regeneration, yet they both baptized infants. An example of reformist theological chaos.
Sacraments: Bible & Church Fathers (vs. Calvin #34) | Dave Armstrong (patheos.com)

 

[Illuminator]

55 Critiques of John Calvin: Introduction & Master List

 

[GracePeace]

Christians all are the widow of satan and just as all the widows were at that time incapable of meeting their needs themselves, we also are incapable of meeting our own spiritual needs.

The food is the good news but it's as the Holy Spirit that ministers to our needs, regardless of the background that we come from.

Jesus still stands as the overseer, the head of all who die to satan and fix our gaze on the heavenlies.


Why Christians are represented by the widows:

Romans 7:3 ...but if the husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man. (4) So then, my brothers and sisters, you also have been made dead to the law through the body of Christ so that you might be joined to another, to Him who has been raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit to God.​

...we, the believers, after being saved, have two statuses; the old and the new (we still possess the lessons learnt from both trees). As the old man we were the husband having satan as our helpmeet, now as the betrothed we are legally bound in submissive rule to Jesus.

Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man has been crucified with Him.​

No doubt, the you that have been made dead to the law through the body of Christ in Romans 7:4 is the old man who has been crucified with Him in 6:6.


Paul puts together a funeral and a wedding. On the one hand, we were buried; on the other hand, we were married.


We have been made dead that we might marry another. We were made dead according to our old status that we might marry another according to our new status.


According to our new status, we marry Him who has been raised from among the dead, that we might bear fruit to God. Brothers and sisters, we are the betrothed who is dead to the old marraige of satan's worldly self-rule.


Today we are being called on to build our future on the sure foundation of love, trust and belief in Him who is our 1st Love that begat the new creation, the new life of God, the blossomed fruit of our new status as belonging forever to the House of God.

Please go on and explain the relevance this has to the topic.

 

[GracePeace]

I think natural birth is a somewhat good explanation for the water (although, I'm skeptical that being born of water is or ever was a common idiom for natural childbirth. It's not a good one. It doesn't describe the experience well). Natural childbirth does explain the 'flesh gives birth to flesh' part. Especially in the context of the Jews who thought simply being born a Jew automatically put them into the kingdom of God, no matter what. And so Jesus is correcting them and explaining that they must also become spiritual Jews and be born of the Spirit, not just the flesh. Much like how Paul explained that circumcised Jews must also be spiritually circumcised.

BUT.......(and that's a big but)

Paul talks about the son who is "born according to the flesh" (Galatians 4:29), and the son born "by the free woman through the promise" (Galatians 4:29) which we know to be talking about the spiritual birth. And so we have other Biblical information to help us understand fleshly birth vs. spiritual birth. Like Jesus, Paul also explains that those of the natural fleshly birth have no part of the inheritance, only those of the spiritual birth. The parallels between the two teachings are too hard to ignore. The task from here is to see how 'water' in Jesus' teaching relates to the 'old covenant' in Paul's teaching, because both birth flesh that won't inherit the kingdom. John's water baptism for repentance connects the two very well.

The "parallel" we need to read is between John 3 and John 1 "but whoever did believe He gave the right to become children of God--not born of men nor will of flesh but of God".
This doesn't apply to Jews only but ALL who believe.
It's not about Jews.
There is no "parallel" to be found between this and Galatians 4.

 

[GracePeace]

Calvin disagreed with Luther over baptismal regeneration, yet they both baptized infants. An example of reformist theological chaos.
Sacraments: Bible & Church Fathers (vs. Calvin #34) | Dave Armstrong (patheos.com)

55 Critiques of John Calvin: Introduction & Master List

You are off-topic. You are not free to commandeer any and every thread to bring this same material.

 

[GracePeace]

That is your privilege. But in ancient Jewish teaching- a gentile who converted was considered born again. Not on the way we of the church age understand born again- butr born again nonetheless.

Like I said, you objected that you never said water baptism was born again and I misunderstood your claim as having meant that.

 

[GracePeace]

That is correct. In Jewish culture of the day a person coulde be reborn 6 ways (born again)

Provide proof.

Well if I can dig out my copy I will see if it is actually there. Otherwise I gave you several other references.

You're not free to make claims without providing substantiation or to then put others to work to prove your claims for you.

What does it mean to be born of water? | GotQuestions.org

http://www.tbaptist.com/clientimages/48350/challengerarticles/born of water.pdf

There are more, and simply look up an urban dictionary to trace theorigin of my water broke"

The info is in th elink, if you wish not to click the link,m that is on you.

You have to substantiate your claims. It's not my job to go fishing for your information. You have to present your substantiation for your claim here. I'm not doing your work.

Wrong again! the point was that jesus was bringing into Jewish tho90ught a previosuly unknown concept- Spiritual birth. Remember up to this point the Spirit only ondwelled on people, never indwelt, Jesus now is saying that natural birth is not enough but a spiritual birth is required.

1. Jesus was surprised he didn't know so it couldn't have been completely new.
2. Being "born of water" would have to be metaphorical (water isn't pregnant), so, yes, your reading would "suffer" from the same "deficiency".

 

[GracePeace]

More accurately we are widows of the flesh, not satan. Because it is the flesh that has died in Romans 7:1-6, releasing us from the law that held us in marital bondage to husband 'flesh', enabling the flesh to legally rule over us and bear in us fruit for death. But, since he has died, through the cross, we are now free to marry new husband, 'Christ', and bear the fruit of that union, the fruit of righteousness.

Actually she's not entirely wrong. I don't want to get into it though because she hasn't shown how it's on topic.

 

[GracePeace]

Accordingly, he employed the words Spirit and water to mean the same thing, and this ought not to be regarded as a harsh or forced interpretation; for it is a frequent and common way of speaking in Scripture, when the Spirit is mentioned, to add the word Water or Fire, expressing his power. We sometimes meet with the statement, that it is Christ who baptizeth with the Holy Ghost and with fire, (Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16,) where fire means nothing different from the Spirit, but only shows what is his efficacy in us.

This is such an excellent point--there is no difference between "Spirit" and "fire" in the phrase "Spirit and fire", and so the precedent is set for reading the same here (though I think the "water" refers to the Word which is tightly bound with the Spirit--"full of truth and grace").

 

[CadyandZoe]

John's baptism is not sufficient, though it was commanded.

Sufficiency is a dead end. That's why it's called grace.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I've explained it. "My Words are Spirit and life".

What does that mean? Sounds like "Christianese". It's one of those things that when we hear it, we believe we know what it means. But when we stop to think about, what does it actually mean? Really.

 

[Illuminator]

You are off-topic. You are not free to commandeer any and every thread to bring this same material.

I asked for a reformer that baptized with metaphorical water and Enoch111 replied with John Calvin. He baptized with real, wet physical water regardless of his denial of regeneration, so Enoch's reply is meaningless. I am still waiting for a name of a mainline Protestant denomination that teaches waterless baptism.

 

[GracePeace]

More accurately we are widows of the flesh, not satan. Because it is the flesh that has died in Romans 7:1-6, releasing us from the law that held us in marital bondage to husband 'flesh', enabling the flesh to legally rule over us and bear in us fruit for death. But, since he has died, through the cross, we are now free to marry new husband, 'Christ', and bear the fruit of that union, the fruit of righteousness.

This is actually seemingly related to the phrase "not in the flesh but in the spirit"--the flesh in which we were has died and we are now free to "marry" the spiritual body of Christ ("the last Adam became a life giving spirit" 1 Corinthians 15) in which there is not "the law of sin and death" but "the law of the Spirit of life" Romans 8:2. This corresponds to Egypt and Israel--the promised land is the place where life is ("and this life is in His Son" 1 John 5).

But again this is not the topic.