John 3:5 defines the new birth as water baptism and Spirit baptism

John 3:5 (NKJV)
5*Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Jesus explained that the regenerational new-birth experience involved “water and … Spirit” (see Ezek. 36:25–27). The context supports the interpretation that water referred to literal water in baptism (John 1:26, 31, 33; 3:22–23) and Spirit to baptism in the Spirit (John 1:32–33; 3:8). (See also Acts 1:5; 2:38; 8:12–17; 10:44–48; 11:15–17; 19:2–6.)

Johnston, R., & Alexander, L. A. (Eds.). (2014). Apostolic Study Bible: King James Version: Notes (Standard Edition, p. 1655). Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press.

Jdorman said:

John 3:5 (NKJV)
5*Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Jesus explained that the regenerational new-birth experience involved “water and … Spirit” (see Ezek. 36:25–27). The context supports the interpretation that water referred to literal water in baptism (John 1:26, 31, 33; 3:22–23) and Spirit to baptism in the Spirit (John 1:32–33; 3:8). (See also Acts 1:5; 2:38; 8:12–17; 10:44–48; 11:15–17; 19:2–6.)

Johnston, R., & Alexander, L. A. (Eds.). (2014). Apostolic Study Bible: King James Version: Notes (Standard Edition, p. 1655). Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press.

Click to expand...

The Bible supports itself, and in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall every word be established.

Here are the instances and scriptures that support this interpretation.

1. Peter preached baptism in water and infilling of the Holy Ghost as the correct response to conviction of sin.

2. Peter preached the same message to the Gentiles.

3. Philip preached the same message to the Samaritans.

4. Paul preached baptism and infilling of the Holy Ghost wherever he went.

There is more than enough corroboration to say definitively that Jesus was referring to water baptism and being filled with the Holy Ghost.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

SimpleMan77 said:

The Bible supports itself, and in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall every word be established.

Here are the instances and scriptures that support this interpretation.

1. Peter preached baptism in water and infilling of the Holy Ghost as the correct response to conviction of sin.

2. Peter preached the same message to the Gentiles.

3. Philip preached the same message to the Samaritans.

4. Paul preached baptism and infilling of the Holy Ghost wherever he went.

There is more than enough corroboration to say definitively that Jesus was referring to water baptism and being filled with the Holy Ghost.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Click to expand...

Agreed!

My understanding is that Jesus explained what he meant by "born of water" in the follow verse where he said "that which is born of flesh is flesh" (John 3:6).

If "born of spirit" in John 3:5 is parallel to "born of the spirit is spirit" in John 3:6, then "born of water" and "born of flesh" are probably also parallel.

Rivers said:

My understanding is that Jesus explained what he meant by "born of water" in the follow verse where he said "that which is born of flesh is flesh" (John 3:6).

If "born of spirit" in John 3:5 is parallel to "born of the spirit is spirit" in John 3:6, then "born of water" and "born of flesh" are probably also parallel.

Click to expand...

"A comparison of verses 3 and 5 shows that "born again" is equivalent to "born of water and of the Spirit"; 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; It seems unnecessary to say we must be born into this world since everyone obviously has been; If the birth of water is actually the natural birth, why did Jesus indicate that the new birth has two components? There may be a parallel between water in the natural birth and the new birth, but the context of John 3 establishes that the birth of water itself is not the natural birth." (David k Bernard)

In other words, if born of water and spirit is the same as born again then by your understanding, Jesus was telling him to be physically born again. I think water baptism is a better understanding.

Jdorman said:

The context supports the interpretation that water referred to literal water in baptism (John 1:26, 31, 33; 3:22–23) and Spirit to baptism in the Spirit (John 1:32–33; 3:8). (See also Acts 1:5; 2:38; 8:12–17; 10:44–48; 11:15–17; 19:2–6.)

Click to expand...

Let us look at the Lord Jesus' words here:


Robert V. McCabe writes that "in v. 5 the preposition 'ek' governs two nouns, 'hydor' and 'pneuma,' that are coordinated by 'kai.' This indicates that Jesus regards 'hydor kai pneuma' as a conceptual unity. If 'hydor kai pneuma' is a conceptual unity, this phrase may be taken either as a 'water-spirit' source or a 'water-and-Spirit' source of birth. A good case can be presented for either view in the context of John 3:1–8. With either view, there is one birth that is characterized either as 'water-spirit,' or 'water-and-Spirit.' Neither of these understandings suggest that there are two births, physical and spiritual" [emphasis added] (McCabe, "The Meaning of 'Born of Water and the Spirit' in John 3:5," Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal [Fall 1999], p.85-107).

There is only one birth being spoken of here and in verse 3 the Lord Jesus refers to this birth as being "born again." And here Peter tells us exactly how a person is "born again":

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).

A person is born again by the gospel. So the word "water" in this verse is obviously used in a typological sense by the Lord Jesus:


It is clear that the word "water" is used in a typical sense where the "water" stans for the "word" and we read the following verse which proves this typological relationship:


The gospel comes in the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Thess.1:5) and it is that "word" which results in the birth of the Spirit. The Lord Jesus said:

Jerry Shugart said:

Let us look at the Lord Jesus' words here:

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit" (Jn.3:5-8).​

Robert V. McCabe writes that "in v. 5 the preposition 'ek' governs two nouns, 'hydor' and 'pneuma,' that are coordinated by 'kai.' This indicates that Jesus regards 'hydor kai pneuma' as a conceptual unity. If 'hydor kai pneuma' is a conceptual unity, this phrase may be taken either as a 'water-spirit' source or a 'water-and-Spirit' source of birth. A good case can be presented for either view in the context of John 3:1–8. With either view, there is one birth that is characterized either as 'water-spirit,' or 'water-and-Spirit.' Neither of these understandings suggest that there are two births, physical and spiritual" [emphasis added] (McCabe, "The Meaning of 'Born of Water and the Spirit' in John 3:5," Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal [Fall 1999], p.85-107).

There is only one birth being spoken of here and in verse 3 the Lord Jesus refers to this birth as being "born again." And here Peter tells us exactly how a person is "born again":

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).

A person is born again by the gospel. So the word "water" in this verse is obviously used in a typological sense by the Lord Jesus:

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit" (Jn.3:5-8).​

It is clear that the word "water" is used in a typical sense where the "water" stans for the "word" and we read the following verse which proves this typological relationship:

"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" (Eph.5:26).​

The gospel comes in the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Thess.1:5) and it is that "word" which results in the birth of the Spirit. The Lord Jesus said:

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (Jn.6:63).​

Click to expand...

" This view depends heavily upon Ephesians 5:26, which says the church is sanctified and cleansed "with the washing of water by the word." However, this verse can cut both ways. If John 3:5 refers to baptism, then Ephesians 5:26 could refer to water baptism administered in accordance with the Word of God. At any rate, there is no necessary connection between the two passages; one does not necessarily provide an interpretation for the other.

F. F. Bruce stated that the phrase from Ephesians 5:26 could be rendered "cleansing it by water and word" or, as he further amplified it, "cleansing her by the washing of water accompanied by the spoken word." [27] He continued: "[T]he accompanying 'word' (Gk. rhema) is probably not here Holy Scripture but the word of confession or invocation spoken by the convert, as in Ananias' words to Paul: 'Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name' (Acts 22:16)." [28]

There are several serious objections to the view that the water of John 3:5 is actually the Word. (1) It ignores the literal meaning of water and chooses a symbolic meaning with no support from the context. This in turn raises further issues. Why would Jesus choose such an obscure symbol when explaining such a vital subject? Why would He not explain this symbolism to Nicodemus upon further questioning? Why did He not symbolize the Spirit as well? Why would He describe one aspect of the new birth literally and another aspect symbolically?

(2) This symbolism occurs nowhere in the Old Testament or in the teachings of Jesus, so how could Jesus expect Nicodemus to understand it? Since the Word of God had never been symbolized by water in Nicodemus' day or before, why would Jesus reproach him for lack of understanding? As Dwight Pentecost observed, "To interpret water as only a symbol of the Word of God… would be to render our Lord's answer unintelligible to Nicodemus." [29]

(3) We should not resort to a symbolic interpretation when the context does not indicate one. This is especially true here, where context, grammar, and later usage all offer a good literal reading. (See next section.)

(4) Theologically speaking, it is more appropriate to describe the Word of God as the agent of conception rather than part of the new birth itself. "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever" (I Peter 1:23). "You have been regenerated - born again - not from a mortal origin (seed, sperm) but from one that is immortal by the ever living and lasting Word of God" (TAB). In one of Christ's parables, a farmer sowed seed on four types of ground, only one of which bore fruit (Luke 8:4-15). When Jesus interpreted the parable, He said, "The seed is the word of God" (Luke 8:11). The four types of ground represented four types of people. Although God tried to plant His Word in all four, only three had initial results and only one had lasting results. In short, the Word of God is the origin of salvation; it is the seed that will cause conception. However, the new birth itself consists of water and Spirit and occurs when we believe, obey, and apply the Word." (David K Bernard)

Jdorman said:

In other words, if born of water and spirit is the same as born again then by your understanding, Jesus was telling him to be physically born again. I think water baptism is a better understanding.

Click to expand...

Your interpretation doesn't seem to take into account the parallel in John 3:6. Thus, I think it's more likely that Jesus affirmed what Nicodemus understood about physical birth (John 3:4) and then reiterated that it was also necessary to be "born from above" (John 3:5) which meant "born of the spirit" (John 3:5-7).

It isn't necessary to take "water" in John 3:5 to mean "baptism." Being "born" is associated with "flesh" throughout apostolic writings (John John 1:13; John 3:6; Romans 1:3; Galatians 4:23, 29) and not water or baptism.

John 3:5 defines the new birth as water baptism and Spirit baptism

Click to expand...

No it doesn't.

beloved57 said:

No it doesn't.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Rivers said:

It isn't necessary to take "water" in John 3:5 to mean "baptism."

Click to expand...

Is it necessary to understand that Jesus was baptized in a literal river of water.

Jesus wasn't baptized by the washing of water by the word, Jesus is the Word and it's his demonstration of baptism that counts.

Jesus was baptized so that we may join with him in death, not a literal death but a spiritual death.

Paul explained, "Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Romans 6:4)

Paul further explained, "that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin." (Romans 6:6-7)

We are not crucified with him by being nailed to a wooden stake as he suffered for physical death, we are crucified with him spiritually by joining with him in spiritual death through water so that we can begin a new life with Christ as a child of the Most High.

"For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection..." (Romans 6:5)

We must spiritually die to be spiritually resurrected as he was in coming up out of the water.

Those who have died spiritually are no longer spiritually flesh, we have been born of water.

"And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin..." (Romans 8:10) The body died through baptism.

"but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." (Romans 8:10)

Jesus said, "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." (Matthew 3:15)

"When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water and behold, the heavens were opened to Him and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him." (Matthew 3:16)

The same thing happens to us when the Spirit of God descends on us like a spiritual dove representing peace.

Jdorman said:

There are several serious objections to the view that the water of John 3:5 is actually the Word. (1) It ignores the literal meaning of water and chooses a symbolic meaning with no support from the context.

Click to expand...

You overlook the fact that the context indicates that the words : born of water and of the Spirit" is exactly the same thing as being "born of the Spirit":


As I indicated earlier, this passage only speaks of one source of birth and not two. And the following words of the Lord Jesus shows us how one receives life when born again:


And this matches perfectly with what Peter says here about how a person is "born again":

"

"You have been regenerated - born again - not from a mortal origin (seed, sperm) but from one that is immortal by the ever living and lasting Word of God" (TAB).

Click to expand...

EXACTLY! There is only one thing which results in the new birth, and that is the gospel which comes in the power of the Holy Spirit. And the gospel brings salvation to all who believe it:


Simple as can be!

jamie said:

Jesus was baptized so that we may join with him in death, not a literal death but a spiritual death.

Click to expand...

Jesus himself was water baptized "to fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15) because it was necessary to receive justification from God (Luke 7:29-30).

Paul explained, "Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Romans 6:4)

jamie said:

Paul further explained, "that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin." (Romans 6:6-7)

We are not crucified with him by being nailed to a wooden stake as he suffered for physical death, we are crucified with him spiritually by joining with him in spiritual death through water so that we can begin a new life with Christ as a child of the Most High.

Click to expand...

Paul was speaking of "baptism" in an entirely different context in Romans. In order to understand what Jesus meant by "water" in John 3:3-6, we need to appeal to that particular context. Moreover, even if "baptized" in Romans 6 refers to water (which is unlikely), it is being associated with the death and resurrection of Jesus and not being "born" (as in John 3:5).

Jdorman said:

There are several serious objections to the view that the water of John 3:5 is actually the Word. (1) It ignores the literal meaning of water and chooses a symbolic meaning with no support from the context. This in turn raises further issues. Why would Jesus choose such an obscure symbol when explaining such a vital subject? Why would He not explain this symbolism to Nicodemus upon further questioning? Why did He not symbolize the Spirit as well? Why would He describe one aspect of the new birth literally and another aspect symbolically?

(2) This symbolism occurs nowhere in the Old Testament or in the teachings of Jesus, so how could Jesus expect Nicodemus to understand it? Since the Word of God had never been symbolized by water in Nicodemus' day or before, why would Jesus reproach him for lack of understanding? As Dwight Pentecost observed, "To interpret water as only a symbol of the Word of God… would be to render our Lord's answer unintelligible to Nicodemus." [29]

Click to expand...

In His sermon to Nicodemus the Lord Jesus spoke of regeneration in connection with the "individual" sinner as well as with the "nation" of Israel. He told Nicodemus:

To this Nicodemus asked how he could be born again when he is old, and the Lord Jesus said: "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit" (Jn.3:5-6; NIV).

Previously the Lord had been speaking of an individual's regeneration but He now begins to speak of the nation of Israel's regeneration. The Lord shifts from using the second person "singular" pronoun "you" to the second person "plural":

"You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again. The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit" (Jn.3:7-8; NIV).[ A footnote in the NIV at verse seven says, "The Greek is plural."]

Nicodemus still not understand so he asked, "How can these things be?"

By the Lord's reply we can understand that Nicodemus should have been aware of some truth in the OT Scriptures which spoke of a regeneration by the Spirit: "Art thou a teacher of Israel, and knoweth not these things?" (v.10).

Sir Robert Anderson writes that "the Lord's words to Nicodemus referred to some Old Testament Scripture with which he ought to have been familiar. Nor is there any doubt what that Scripture was, namely, Ezekiel xxxvi.- xxxvii., a prophecy that was greatly cherished by the Jew; and ignorance of it would have been as discreditable to a Rabbi as ignorance of the Nicodemus sermon would be to a Christian theologian. There we read, 'I will sprinkle clean water upon you. . . . And I will put My Spirit within you' (ch. xxxvi. 25—27). And in chapter xxxvii. we have the vision of the valley of dry bones, when the prophet is told to call upon the dry bones to 'hear the Word of the Lord'; and to prophesy to the Spirit to breathe upon them. The water of Ezekiel's prophecy was 'the water of purification' of Numbers xix. Water which had flowed over the ashes of the sin-offering had efficacy to cleanse the sinner. And the antitype of that water is the Word of God by which we are born again (1 Peter i. 23). When, therefore, the Lord went on to tell Nicodemus of eternal life through faith in Him as lifted up upon the cross (V. 14), He was unfolding the meaning of that Ezekiel prophecy, and of the type to which, as every Rabbi recognised, it so clearly referred" (Anderson, Misunderstood Texts of the New Testament [Kregel Publications, 1995], p.62-63).

Jdorman said:

John 3:5 (NKJV)
5*Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Jesus explained that the regenerational new-birth experience involved “water and … Spirit” (see Ezek. 36:25–27).

Click to expand...

Ezekiel 36 is about return from exile, not the New Covenant. SO this isn't related material.

The context supports the interpretation that water referred to literal water in baptism (John 1:26, 31, 33; 3:22–23) and Spirit to baptism in the Spirit (John 1:32–33; 3:8). (See also Acts 1:5; 2:38; 8:12–17; 10:44–48; 11:15–17; 19:2–6.)

Johnston, R., & Alexander, L. A. (Eds.). (2014). Apostolic Study Bible: King James Version: Notes (Standard Edition, p. 1655). Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the local context doesn't help you, as baptism isn't mentioned at all in this passage.

And when we consider that Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus, who believed his entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven was because he was born a Jew, the idea that "born of water" means a natural birth comes into play. Even today, women giving birth are concerned as to whether their "water has broken."

Further, we should let the text tell us what "born of the spirit" means. It would appear that "born" is a reference to election, as we know that election for the Old Covenant was by natural birth. Thus, we should keep an eye out for this new election, this new condition, for the New Covenant.

And that appears in verses 15-16, where "whoever believes" is the condition of receiving eternal life.


Further, "baptism in the Holy Spirit" appear to refer to three events. Acts 2 (obviously); Acts 8, where the Holy Spirit comes in power upon the Samaritans; and Acts 10, where Peter states that the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles, just as He did in Acts 2. This would fit with Jesus' command to the apostles: "Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”" The baptism of the Holy Spirit came in Judea (Acts 2), Samaria (Acts 8), and among the Gentiles (Acts 10.) That's really everything that is called "baptism in the Holy Spirit."

Jdorman said:

John 3:5 (NKJV)
5*Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Jesus explained that the regenerational new-birth experience involved “water and … Spirit” (see Ezek. 36:25–27). The context supports the interpretation that water referred to literal water in baptism (John 1:26, 31, 33; 3:22–23) and Spirit to baptism in the Spirit (John 1:32–33; 3:8). (See also Acts 1:5; 2:38; 8:12–17; 10:44–48; 11:15–17; 19:2–6.)

Johnston, R., & Alexander, L. A. (Eds.). (2014). Apostolic Study Bible: King James Version: Notes (Standard Edition, p. 1655). Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press.

Click to expand...

Amen I say, I SAY AMEN.!!! They have to obey Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

They have to, if not damnnation unto these Scribes and Pharisees. They are trying to use man wisdom. And it's so simple, the devil have these people mind and the bible say he do.

1 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

Hallelujah I thank God that it's not hid from you Jdorman, I thank God it's not hid from Squeaky, I thank God it's not hid to Trubosixx, I thank God it's not hid from Simpleman77, but it's hid from everybody that say you don't need the water baptism for salvation. That's a doctrine from the devil. And everybody that say you don't need it is a devil and you don't deserve God speed.

themuzicman said:

Ezekiel 36 is about return from exile, not the New Covenant. SO this isn't related material.

Click to expand...

I'm always surprised that Immersionists appeal to this text as a reference to "new covenant baptism" and then completely ignore that fact that is says "sprinkling" with water.

Rivers said:

I'm always surprised that Immersionists appeal to this text as a reference to "new covenant baptism" and then completely ignore that fact that is says "sprinkling" with water.

Click to expand...

Not only that, but the promises mentioned there are specifically Old Covenant.

COGTHW said:

but it's hid from everybody that say you don't need the water baptism for salvation.

Click to expand...

Salvation is by grace through faith, not by water.

jamie said:

Salvation is by grace through faith, not by water.

Click to expand...

Amen.