August 30, 2019
John 3:5, Part 2
READING TIME: 3-4 MINUTES
In an earlier post (on Aug 27, 2019), I explained one interpretation of the meaning of being born of the “water” in John 3:5. The meaning of this verse is debatable. In this post, I will mention other interpretations. Whatever Jesus meant by being “born of water,” based on John 3:10, it should have been familiar to Nicodemus who was a scholar of the Old Testament.
For years, I have gone back and forth between the viewpoint in my earlier post and the viewpoint in the next paragraph (I lean toward the former, though I would not be dogmatic). I think these two are the most likely interpretations of this difficult verse.
Some commentators (Pastor Warren Wiersbe and Robert Wilkin in the Grace NT Commentary) believe that “born of water” is a reference to our physical birth, specifically to the amniotic fluid in which a fetus develops in its mother’s womb. The advantage of this interpretation is it is a good parallel with “that which is born of the flesh” in John 3:6. In this verse, Jesus made it clear that entrance into the kingdom is a spiritual matter, not a matter of physical descent or merit, which many of the Jewish people mistakenly thought. Nicodemus was thinking about physical birth (verse 4). Also, verse 6 is parallel to verse 5 and serves to explain it and it refers to both physical and spiritual birth. Three disadvantages of this interpretation are, in this case, Jesus would be stating something very obvious, there are no ancient sources that picture natural birth as “from water,” and the Greek construction does not favor two births (for more information about this, see below).
Others (Arthur W. Pink, Harry Allan Ironside, and J. Vernon McGee) believe that “born of water” means to be born again by the Word of God (see Ephesians 5:26; 1 Peter 1:23). The disadvantage of this view is it is not likely that Nicodemus would have been made this connection (see John 3:10).
Others (Henry Alford, Marcus Dods, F. Godet, Merrill C. Tenney, Brooke Foss Westcott) suggest that the “water” is a reference to the repentance present in those who went through John’s water baptism. In this case, Jesus was saying that a change of mind/heart (the meaning of repentance) is a necessary prerequisite for salvation. One weakness of this view is it is not all that likely that Nicodemus would have automatically made the connection between “water” and “repentance.” I agree with Dr. Constable when he says that “repentance, however, in the sense of the fruit of a mental change, is not necessary as a conditional prerequisite for salvation, since by that definition repentance is a meritorious work.”
Others believe that “water” refers to baptism, but baptismal regeneration is not taught in the NT. A believer’s baptism is to be done as a public testimony of one’s faith and identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection as a result of being saved, not as a means to salvation (1 Corinthians 1:17; Acts 8:36-38, 18:8). Faith alone is the one condition of salvation.
In my previous post, I explained that a very possible interpretation is that both the water and the Spirit refer to the same new birth. Tom Constable explains, “the construction of the phrase in the Greek text indicates that the preposition ‘of’ governs both “water” and “Spirit.” This means that Jesus was clarifying regeneration by using two terms that both describe the new birth. He was not saying that two separate things have to be present for regeneration to happen. It has but one Source.” Quite often in the Old Testament, water is often used metaphorically as a symbol of spiritual cleansing and renewal (Num 19:17-19; Is 44:3-5; 55:1-3; also see Jer 2:13; 17:13; Zech 13:1; 14:8). The Lord promised that He would pour out His “Spirit” on people as water (Is 32:15-16; Joel 2:28-29). The result of that outpouring would be a new heart (Jer 31:31-34). In John 7:37-39, water is a symbol of the Holy Spirit. As explained above, Nicodemus who was a teacher of the Old Testament should have known about these OT references (John 3:10).
Sources Used
Blum, Edwin A. “John.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. Vol. 2. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985. 281.
Carson, D. A. The Gospel according to John. Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991. The Pillar New Testament Commentary.
Constable, Tom. Notes on the Gospel of John.
Guzik, David. Notes on the Gospel of John.
Wilkin, Robert N. “The Gospel according to John.” The Grace New Testament Commentary. Ed. Robert N. Wilkin. Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010. 374.