Opinions: John3:5 "Water"

Hi AI.


I think it's number 3, imo.....

It's referring to the preaching of the Gospel.

I've never understood the reasoning of people who say it's about childbirth. That's a really common theory, but it just isn't true.

mlqurgw said:

Jesus answered, 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.
(Joh 3:5-6)
Verse 6 explains verse 5. I can never understand why people want to make something that is plain so complicated. Though the Scriptures are a spiritual book that must be interpreted spiritually, as opposed to spiritualized, they aren't complicated.

Click to expand...

I still don't get it....

I understand that one has to be born again, as in born of the Spirit to enter the Kingdom. So what is the water? Is that flesh?

AnneSally said:

I still don't get it....

I understand that one has to be born again, as in born of the Spirit to enter the Kingdom. So what is the water? Is that flesh?

Click to expand...

No, it refers to the preaching of the Gospel. Or, more precisely, to the regeneration that comes as a result of repentance and faith as a result of the preaching of the Gospel.

AnneSally said:

I still don't get it....

I understand that one has to be born again, as in born of the Spirit to enter the Kingdom. So what is the water? Is that flesh?

Click to expand...

Yes it is. The Lord Jesus plainly explains what He meant in verse 5. Think about it. What is the body made of? 90% water. You must be physically born and then spiritually born. To try and make the passage say anything else is to read into it what is not there. Though water does symbolize the preaching of the Word in some instances it doesn't always do so. Sometimes it simply means water. The word flesh sometimes symbolizes the sinful nature but other times it simply means the physical body. I have no problem with applying the preaching of the Word to the passage but I do with interpreting it as though that were what the Lord intends as though there is no other way to understand it. That is the difference between the passage having a spiritual meaning and spiritualizing it. To spiritualize is to make the word means something other than what it plainly means.

mlqurgw said:

Yes it is. The Lord Jesus plainly explains what He meant in verse 5. Think about it. What is the body made of? 90% water. You must be physically born and then spiritually born. To try and make the passage say anything else is to read into it what is not there. Though water does symbolize the preaching of the Word in some instances it doesn't always do so. Sometimes it simply means water. The word flesh sometimes symbolizes the sinful nature but other times it simply means the physical body. I have no problem with applying the preaching of the Word to the passage but I do with interpreting it as though that were what the Lord intends as though there is no other way to understand it. That is the difference between the passage having a spiritual meaning and spiritualizing it. To spiritualize is to make the word means something other than what it plainly means.

Click to expand...

So how can being born in the flesh make us born again when it is the flesh that gives us our sin nature in the first place? That makes no sense.

I normally agree with your posts, but you're way off on this one.

JohnDeereFan said:

So how can being born in the flesh make us born again when it is the flesh that gives us our sin nature in the first place? That makes no sense.

I normally agree with your posts, but you're way off on this one.

Click to expand...

Being born of the flesh doesn't make us born again. We must first be born physically coming from our mother's womb before we can be born again. Jesus was answering Nicodemus' question in verse 4. Context, context, context.

mlqurgw said:

Being born of the flesh doesn't make us born again. We must first be born physically coming from our mother's womb before we can be born again. Jesus was answering Nicodemus' question in verse 4. Context, context, context.

Click to expand...

That makes no sense, sense, sense. If it's our flesh that gives us our sin nature, then being born of the flesh cannot make us born again.

That why this passage has nothing to do with physical birth.

JohnDeereFan said:

That makes no sense, sense, sense. If it's our flesh that gives us our sin nature, then being born of the flesh cannot make us born again.

That why this passage has nothing to do with physical birth.

Click to expand...

It makes no sense because you are reading flesh as though it has to mean the sinful nature. It doesn't in this instance. It simply means the physical body. A man cannot be born again until he has been born the first time. The Lord Jesus is simply telling Nicodemus that there must be 2 births.

comments deleted

JohnDeereFan said:

"C'mon let's twist again...like we did last summer..."

Click to expand...

So the passage doesn't mean what it says it means something you want it to say. And I am the one twisting? This is obviously going nowhere so I am done.

mlqurgw said:

So the passage doesn't mean what it says it means something you want it to say. And I am the one twisting? This is obviously going nowhere so I am done.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry. That was really rude and I shouldn't have said it. I've read enough of your posts by now that I should have known that's not how you do things.

I still believe you're wrong, but I apologize for saying it so rudely.

I will try to be more respectful in the future and look forward to reading your posts, even the ones I disagree with.

JohnDeereFan said:

I'm sorry. That was really rude and I shouldn't have said it. I've read enough of your posts by now that I should have known that's not how you do things.

I still believe you're wrong, but I apologize for saying it so rudely.

I will try to be more respectful in the future and look forward to reading your posts, even the ones I disagree with.

Click to expand...

No Problem. I don't get offended I just don't argue. I have a thick skin because I am used to folks disagreeing with me.

Great question AI. There are several interpretations regarding how "water" is used in this verse. I don't hold to the interpretation that it implies baptism since Jesus is giving Nicodemus two things that must be present for a believer to attain the kingdom of God. Baptism, by itself, does not save. We know that one must have faith in Jesus Christ (John 3:15-16). Faith is the foremost requirement that John is conveying. We also know that without faith we can not be born of the Spirit.

The interpretation that water is the amniotic fluid doesn't seem to be the best interpretation for two reasons. Jesus is not comparing natural birth with spiritual birth. The verse reads as what is needed to enter the kingdom of God and we know that just being born does not and will not logically bring about the birth of the Spirit. The second reason is that Jesus attempts to clarify Nicodemus misunderstanding by further adding that one must be "born again". The Greek for "again" supports two definitions. The first is "again" but the second is "from above". Nicodemus got stuck in the "again" meaning (verse 4) when Jesus was using the "from above" meaning (verses 6-8). This is evidenced by Jesus questioning why Nicodemus, being a teacher, does not know this (verse 10).

John depicts what water means in the next chapter within the narrative of the woman in the well (John 4:1:26). Jesus tells the Samarian woman that only "living water" will quench her thirst. Notice verses 4:10-14:

10 Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
11 The woman said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water? 12 Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?”
13 Jesus answered and said to her, “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”(Highlight mine)

Click to expand...

Water is the living water which is the faith in Jesus Christ which brings about the promise of the rebirth by the Spirit. Without faith in Jesus Christ one can not receive the HS and therefore, one can not enter the kingdom of God.

mlqurgw said:

Yes it is. The Lord Jesus plainly explains what He meant in verse 5. Think about it. What is the body made of? 90% water. You must be physically born and then spiritually born. To try and make the passage say anything else is to read into it what is not there. Though water does symbolize the preaching of the Word in some instances it doesn't always do so. Sometimes it simply means water. The word flesh sometimes symbolizes the sinful nature but other times it simply means the physical body. I have no problem with applying the preaching of the Word to the passage but I do with interpreting it as though that were what the Lord intends as though there is no other way to understand it. That is the difference between the passage having a spiritual meaning and spiritualizing it. To spiritualize is to make the word means something other than what it plainly means.

Click to expand...

But to say that a man (already born of the flesh obviously) must be born of the flesh would be terribly redundant.

Artificial Intelligence said:

ugh, I'm lacking the Greek syntax for the Gospel of John. You referring to "and"? What does the morphology of and mean? Maybe it was a dissection of the two concepts, mentioning the first to distinguish it from the second...

Click to expand...

I honestly have to plead guilty to not understanding Greek syntax. It is entirely possible that this was a common use of Grammar. I really don't know. I think DeaconDean took Greek as well as a couple others maybe they would know?

I admit that it is a common fallacy of mine to think of Scripture as written in English.