John 3:5 – ‘Born of water and spirit’
John 3:5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
1. Some think that the expression refers to water baptism and spiritual regeneration by the Spirit
Such interpreters might represent baptism (either John’s baptism or Christian baptism) as a means of regeneration, and the Spirit as the primary cause of regeneration. Note that John’s baptism with water and Jesus’ baptism with the Spirit are connected in Jn 1:33, and Christian baptism with water is connected with the reception of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38.
According to Ryle, the dominant view up until his own day was that the text reflects an inseparable connection between water baptism and the new birth. He himself regards this as ‘utterly unsatisfactory’.
Beasley-Murray cites Bengel: ‘Water denotes the baptism of John into (i.e., preparing for) Christ Jesus.’
According to Michaels (NICNT), this is the majority view, held by Westcott, Bernad, Hoskyns, Brown, Beasley-Murray, and Schnackenburg, among others.
This view is represented in the Orthodox Study Bible:
From the beginning, the Church has recognized the “water” to be the water of baptism, “the Spirit” to be the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the new birth consists of being joined to Christ in the water of baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit through anointing or “chrismation.”
Salvation, then, is more than forgiveness of sins, more than a mental acceptance of Christ and His teachings. For in salvation we are given union with God through Christ, a right and full relationship with the Holy Trinity, and the restoration of our full humanity. All these things are accomplished through the Incarnation, the union of God and man in the Person of Jesus Christ. Salvation, then, is founded on a substantial union of the believer with Christ in His full humanity, a flesh-to-flesh relationship. Paul likens it to the joining of husband and wife (Eph 5:23–32).
Throughout their epistles, the apostles remind us the new birth is necessary for salvation. We die to sin; then, buried with Christ and risen with Him, we are united to Christ and to His body, the Church. We are cleansed, justified, and sanctified—all in baptism, “the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Tts 3:5). Without our repentance and faith, however, immersion in water would be of no effect.
Some Christians bypass baptism and stress only faith. Why is the mystery of the water necessary? Because just as Christ actually died on a cross, was buried, and rose again—all through His faith and God’s grace—so we must actually be immersed in the sacramental waters of baptism, made effectual through our faith and God’s grace.
…In the new birth, a true mystery takes place. For in the sacrament of baptism, we die, going down into the water to be mystically united to Christ in His death, and we live again, rising up out of the water in His resurrected humanity. In short, we are born again.’
2. Others think that what is being referred to is natural begetting and spiritual begetting
Under this interpretation, ‘water’ refers either to semen or to amniotic fluid
This is the view of Morris and was the earlier view of Carson (but see below). Note, in support of this view, that Jn 3:6 contrasts being born of the flesh (physical birth) with being born of the Spirit (spiritual regeneration).
In the view of Michaels, however,
‘the difficulty…is that while “water” is a possible metaphor for physical birth, it is not an obvious one. The Gospel writer already used a number of expressions for physical birth and “born of water” was not among them (see 1:13). He did this, moreover, in order to draw the sharpest possible contrast between physical and spiritual birth (“not” of blood lines, etc., “but” of God) rather than to point out analogies between them.’
3. Others think that ‘water’ and ‘spirit’ refer to one birth
This is the view of Belleville, and has also been adopted by Carson. According to the latter scholar, this makes vv3,5,6b and 7 all parallel statements. Water is used in this Gospel as a metaphor for the Spirit in Jn 4:10, 13–15; 7:38. The idea would be akin to that of Eze 36:25-27, which refers to cleansing and spiritual renewal as dual aspects of the work of the Spirit.
Among the older writers, Ryle cites Calvin, Bullinger, Poole, Hutcheson, and a number of others as holding this view.
The contributor to the New Commentary on the Bible writes:
‘The “water” of this verse could refer to the OT symbol for inner spiritual cleansing, (Eze 36:25-27) or to Holy Scripture as “the water of the Word,” (Eph 5:25,26) or to John the Baptist’s water of repentance. (Mt 3:11,12; Mk 1:4,5; Acts 13:24; 19:1-5) Most early Christian expositors held this last interpretation. But, according to the Greek, the new birth is said to be “of water and Spirit” (one experience with two aspects, as is designated by one preposition governing two nouns). Therefore, the “water” could very well signify the cleansing and life-imparting action of the Spirit (cf. Jn 7:37-39). Thus, the Spirit brings about regeneration and inward cleansing simultaneously-the idea of a “washing of regeneration”.’ (Tit 3:5)
Kruse supports this view, suggesting that the expression ‘water and the spirit’ is a ‘hendiadys‘, in which two different words are used for the same thing. See the rather similar expression in Tit 3:5, which refers to ‘the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the Holy Spirit.’ See also Jn 7:37-39.
In the opinion of Kruse,
‘This view is preferable because it is also supported by the fact that in this passage Jesus uses a number of parallel expressions which are all related to seeing and entering the kingdom: 3:3: ‘born again/from above’; 3:5: ‘born of water and the Spirit’; 3:7: ‘born again/from above’; 3:8: ‘born of the Spirit’. If all these expressions are in fact parallel and synonymous, then to be ‘born again/from above’ and to be ‘born of water and the Spirit’ mean the same as to be ‘born of the Spirit’.’
Harris (Navigating Tough Texts) agrees, stating, linguistically, the two terms are bound closely together:
‘No contrast is intended between an external element of “water” and a separate inward renewal achieved by the Spirit. Also, the focus is on the personal Spirit, not the impersonal water, for only the Spirit is referred to in verses 6 and 8. The Spirit produces rebirth by means of “water.”’
Harris refers to Eze 36:25-27, where there is also a direct link between ‘water’ as the means of cleansing, and ‘spirit’ as the agent who creates a new responsive heart and a new spirit of obedience to the divine law. Indeed, ‘by water and the spirit’ would be an apt summary of these verses:
‘Eze 36:25 I will sprinkle you with pure water and you will be clean from all your impurities. I will purify you from all your idols. 36:26 I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh. 36:27 I will put my Spirit within you; I will take the initiative and you will obey my statutes and carefully observe my regulations.’
Harris concludes:
‘On this understanding, “by water and the Spirit” refers to the cleansing and renewing role of the Spirit in producing the rebirth that is a prerequisite for entrance into the kingdom of God. The phrase expounds “being born again/from above” in John 3:3, 7, and “being born by God’s work” in John 1:13.’
For Michaels, the image evoked by the ‘water’ metaphor is that of rain, which comes ‘from above’, just as the Spirit comes ‘from above’ (Jn 1:32f).
Citing Jn 7:38f in part support, Lincoln says that
‘the best explanation is that the two terms are functional equivalents, with water serving as a symbol of the Spirit.’
Nicodemus knew about John’s water baptism. The danger would be that he, as a ceremonialist, would place his trust in the outward symbol. But John himself had said, Mt 3:11. John had indicated the negative aspect, the putting away of the old, in his water baptism. With regard to the positive aspect, he could only point to him whose baptism would impart the gift of spiritual life and power.
This view is also advocated, in essence, by Klink.