John 3:5 Unless one is born of water and Spirit they cannot enter God's Kingdom.
This is often misunderstood as referring to human birth. The reason for this misunderstand is two fold, well three maybe.
What is the passage in question?
Jesus tells Nicodemus as recorded by John. Unless one is born again, they cannot enter God's Kingdom (John 3:3)
This confuses Nicodemus and he retorts, "How can a man be born when old, does he reenter his mother's womb?"
Jesus then proceeds to correct his misunderstanding, "Unless one is born of water AND Spirit, they cannot enter God's Kingdom. What is born of flesh of flesh is flesh, that which born of Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I'm telling you you must be born again."
That middle sentence, born of flesh, people equate to being born of water. This is incorrect.
First, (tied to point 3), the ancient world did not refer to actual human birth as being "of water". In fact, in scripture, water is almost exclusively used (in a spiritual context) as referring to cleansing of some sort. The Great Flood cleansed the Earth of unrighteousness. The Red Sea separated the Israelites from their taskmasters. Namaan dipped in the Jordan and was cleansed of leprosy. Etc.
"Noting that v. 6 describes two births, one from flesh to flesh and the other from Spirit to Spirit, some interpreters propose that ‘born of water and the Spirit’ similarly refers to two births, one natural and the other supernatural. Natural procreation is not enough; there must be a second birth, a second begetting, this one of the Spirit. To support this view, ‘water’ has been understood to refer to the amniotic fluid that breaks from the womb shortly before childbirth, or to stand metaphorically for sperm. But there are no ancient sources that picture natural birth as ‘from water’, and the few that use ‘drops’ to stand for sperm are rare and late. It is true that in sources relevant to the Fourth Gospel water can be associated with fecundity and procreation in a general way (e.g. Song 4:12-13; Pr. 5:15-18),[1] but none is tied quite so clearly to sperm or to amniotic fluid as to make the connection here an obvious one. The Greek construction does not favour two births here. Moreover the entire expression ‘of water and the Spirit’ cries out to be read as the equivalent of anōthen, ‘from above’, if there is genuine parallelism between v. 3 and v. 5, and this too argues that the expression should be taken as a reference to but one birth, not two." (D.A. Carson on the meaning of “born of water and of Spirit”, DA Carson, The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary, pp. 191-196.)
Those who know what Bible Study should look like, should know that when we start throwing modern language into the text, we can seriously misunderstand and misrepresent what is being said. We have to understand the text from the viewpoint and culture of when it was written and of whom it was written, then we can bridge that to apply to our modern times.
Also (IN CONTEXT) of John 3, Jesus is making water in reference to being born from above (born again). No way is being born of physical, human birth as born from above.
Lastly, from scripture as promised.
Even within John's own gospel he states exactly what the ancient world referred to as human birth (twice actually, once in the passage we are looking at)
John 1:13, "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."
No where in that verse is water mentioned. Blood is. Flesh... flesh is (coming back to this), will of man is.
Now before I proceed, I have to hammer this point home. What is the immediate statement John makes prior to John 1:13?
John 1:12, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,"
John is explaining the process here of being born again, in very simple terms here. Those who believe are born of God and become God's children. This is leading up to Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus in a couple of chapters.
Those who believe are children of God, not those who are born of flesh.
John 3:6. That which is born of flesh is flesh...
Again another scriptural reference to what the Jews (the ones who wrote the scriptures, and the Holy Spirit who inspired them) referred to as physical human birth.
BORN OF FLESH
One more for you.
Galatians 4:23, "But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh"
Born of the flesh.
Born of the flesh is how the Jews referred to the physical act of birth, of humans. No spiritual connotations at all. So when Jesus said "Unless one is born of water and spirit he cannot enter God's Kingdom." He is not referring to being born of the flesh, but rather a new birth from above.
This is often misunderstood as referring to human birth. The reason for this misunderstand is two fold, well three maybe.
- The modern church does not believe in baptismal regeneration
- The next sentence from Jesus (get to this in a second)
- Modern language loosely refers to birth as "of water" (more on this as well)
What is the passage in question?
Jesus tells Nicodemus as recorded by John. Unless one is born again, they cannot enter God's Kingdom (John 3:3)
This confuses Nicodemus and he retorts, "How can a man be born when old, does he reenter his mother's womb?"
Jesus then proceeds to correct his misunderstanding, "Unless one is born of water AND Spirit, they cannot enter God's Kingdom. What is born of flesh of flesh is flesh, that which born of Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I'm telling you you must be born again."
That middle sentence, born of flesh, people equate to being born of water. This is incorrect.
First, (tied to point 3), the ancient world did not refer to actual human birth as being "of water". In fact, in scripture, water is almost exclusively used (in a spiritual context) as referring to cleansing of some sort. The Great Flood cleansed the Earth of unrighteousness. The Red Sea separated the Israelites from their taskmasters. Namaan dipped in the Jordan and was cleansed of leprosy. Etc.
"Noting that v. 6 describes two births, one from flesh to flesh and the other from Spirit to Spirit, some interpreters propose that ‘born of water and the Spirit’ similarly refers to two births, one natural and the other supernatural. Natural procreation is not enough; there must be a second birth, a second begetting, this one of the Spirit. To support this view, ‘water’ has been understood to refer to the amniotic fluid that breaks from the womb shortly before childbirth, or to stand metaphorically for sperm. But there are no ancient sources that picture natural birth as ‘from water’, and the few that use ‘drops’ to stand for sperm are rare and late. It is true that in sources relevant to the Fourth Gospel water can be associated with fecundity and procreation in a general way (e.g. Song 4:12-13; Pr. 5:15-18),[1] but none is tied quite so clearly to sperm or to amniotic fluid as to make the connection here an obvious one. The Greek construction does not favour two births here. Moreover the entire expression ‘of water and the Spirit’ cries out to be read as the equivalent of anōthen, ‘from above’, if there is genuine parallelism between v. 3 and v. 5, and this too argues that the expression should be taken as a reference to but one birth, not two." (D.A. Carson on the meaning of “born of water and of Spirit”, DA Carson, The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary, pp. 191-196.)
Those who know what Bible Study should look like, should know that when we start throwing modern language into the text, we can seriously misunderstand and misrepresent what is being said. We have to understand the text from the viewpoint and culture of when it was written and of whom it was written, then we can bridge that to apply to our modern times.
Also (IN CONTEXT) of John 3, Jesus is making water in reference to being born from above (born again). No way is being born of physical, human birth as born from above.
Lastly, from scripture as promised.
Even within John's own gospel he states exactly what the ancient world referred to as human birth (twice actually, once in the passage we are looking at)
John 1:13, "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."
No where in that verse is water mentioned. Blood is. Flesh... flesh is (coming back to this), will of man is.
Now before I proceed, I have to hammer this point home. What is the immediate statement John makes prior to John 1:13?
John 1:12, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,"
John is explaining the process here of being born again, in very simple terms here. Those who believe are born of God and become God's children. This is leading up to Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus in a couple of chapters.
Those who believe are children of God, not those who are born of flesh.
John 3:6. That which is born of flesh is flesh...
Again another scriptural reference to what the Jews (the ones who wrote the scriptures, and the Holy Spirit who inspired them) referred to as physical human birth.
BORN OF FLESH
One more for you.
Galatians 4:23, "But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh"
Born of the flesh.
Born of the flesh is how the Jews referred to the physical act of birth, of humans. No spiritual connotations at all. So when Jesus said "Unless one is born of water and spirit he cannot enter God's Kingdom." He is not referring to being born of the flesh, but rather a new birth from above.
