What Does it mean to be "Born of Water"?

[SkyRider]

https://www.thebereancall.org/content/what-does-it-mean-be-born-water

I was going to post this in the Roman Catholic postings, but found it very interesting and insightful to post it somewhere else where more could view it. This comes from the Berean Call website, which was founded and featured the late Dave Hunt. Dave was very brilliant and had a good deal of knowledge about the scriptures, which can be attested to by his comments in this small audio clip.

The topic of being Born of Water can be a difficult concept to grasp and being a former Roman Catholic, I used to agree with the baptism requirement to be saved. Dave's explanation makes a lot more sense.

 

[Hol]

Thanks for this! I'll log off & listen.

 

[Andy C]

I disagree with the author. I believe as Jack does that Jesus was clearly talking about 2 births, the first of which we all experience through our natural birth, the second only believers experience. The context of the entire verse was being born again.

What is the meaning of this verse in Jn 3:5, regarding Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus about” being born of water”? I’ve read many different interpretations and was just wondering what yours might be? Thanks, Aaron

A
Being born of water refers to our first birth, the physical one we all experience. We spend our gestation period in a sac of amniotic fluid whase composition is much like sea water. When it’s time for our birth this sac breaks, the water is expelled, and we are born.

Being born of the Spirit is our second birth, the spiritual one when we are born again. It takes place when we come to believe that Jesus died for our sins, and we ask Him to be our Savior. In John 1:12-13 this is called being born of God. It makes us one of His children.

Jesus said no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he or she is born again (John 3:3). He was referring to our second birth.

https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/water-and-the-spirit/

 

[Hol]

Oh my goodness that was a good brief audio from Dave Hunt, very powerful! Thank you again, I also learned more about the courageous Anabaptists!

Andy, thanks for sharing the 'birth water' view. I appreciate that view too - yet can only speak from my salvation experience: Christ's Word washes me, rebirthed me.

 

[pixelpusher]

Well I have to say that's the first time I didn't agree with Dave Hunt that I can recall. I can see his point.

But Nicodemus had just got done asking how a man could enter again into his mothers womb, when Jesus simply said you must be born again, and Jesus said no, you must be born of water and the Spirit (paraphrasing), then He points out that flesh is of flesh, and spirit of spirit.

So I think it certainly means natural birth through water, then spiritual rebirth via the Holy Spirit.

Eta: That said, water is certainly symbolic of the Word of God. But I think since Nico's mind was in the natural, that is where Jesus began to deal with him.

 

[Andy C]

Well I have to say that's the first time I didn't agree with Dave Hunt that I can recall. I can see his point.

But Nicodemus had just got done asking how a man could enter again into his mothers womb, when Jesus simply said you must be born again, and Jesus said no, you must be born of water and the Spirit (paraphrasing), then He points out that flesh is of flesh, and spirit of spirit.

So I think it certainly means natural birth through water, then spiritual rebirth via the Holy Spirit.

Well said, and I of course completely agree.

I also really like Dave Hunts teachings.

 

[pixelpusher]

Well said, and I of course completely agree.

I also really like Dave Hunts teachings.

Me too, reading Dave along with study helped me get out of the word faith charismania mindset. Look forward to meeting him soon!

 

[Hol]

Being born of the Spirit is our second birth, the spiritual one when we are born again. It takes place when we come to believe that Jesus died for our sins, and we ask Him to be our Savior. In John 1:12-13 this is called being born of God. It makes us one of His children.

There was a sermon I listened to that had an interesting perspective on this.

It surprised me, but after I thought about it, it helped me! It focused on Jesus scolding Nicodemus as a lead teacher of Israel, and His clear teaching in the Hebrew Bible that the Jews needed a new heart Deut. 30:6 and throughout the OT. Rather than relying on the vast libraries of the Mishnah, they should have known and taught Israel that her Messiah would bring this miracle of creating them new in getting born again. John the Baptist did recognize Jesus, and announced Him, John 1:29.

It was difficult for me to try and grasp all of that, and more difficult to try and think as Nicodemus may have struggled in rethinking where had he missed the Bible's plan for the children of Israel as he'd mistaught the leading theology of his day. He was shocked and asked should one become new through getting born again from his mother's womb? I think his question indicates how deeply confounded he was!

But Jesus reminded him of the first miracle of life. In Genesis 1:1-2 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

The sermon I heard suggested that the 'something out of nothing' miracle of the Holy Spirit would result in the new miracle of all who believe to receive power to become the sons of God in John 1:12. That would have made Nicodemus understand that while what Jesus explained was the basis for salvation was impossible for man, so was man's creation in the first place. From there I think Nicodemus believed and found Israel's Savior, Jesus Messiah.

I hope I didn't confuse things.

 

[Andy C]

There was a sermon I listened to that had an interesting perspective on this.

It surprised me, but after I thought about it, it helped me! It focused on Jesus scolding Nicodemus as a lead teacher of Israel, and His clear teaching in the Hebrew Bible that the Jews needed a new heart Deut. 30:6 and throughout the OT. Rather than relying on the vast libraries of the Mishnah, they should have known and taught Israel that her Messiah would bring this miracle of creating them new in getting born again. John the Baptist did recognize Jesus, and announced Him, John 1:29.

It was difficult for me to try and grasp all of that, and more difficult to try and think as Nicodemus may have struggled in rethinking where had he missed the Bible's plan for the children of Israel as he'd mistaught the leading theology of his day. He was shocked and asked should one become new through getting born again from his mother's womb? I think his question indicates how deeply confounded he was!

But Jesus reminded him of the first miracle of life. In Genesis 1:1-2 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

The sermon I heard suggested that the 'something out of nothing' miracle of the Holy Spirit would result in the new miracle of all who believe to receive power to become the sons of God in John 1:12. That would have made Nicodemus understand that while what Jesus explained was the basis for salvation was impossible for man, so was man's creation in the first place. From there I think Nicodemus believed and found Israel's Savior, Jesus Messiah.

I hope I didn't confuse things.

Confused, who me....

 

[clouds]

God is the source of all life. Water, breath (spirit), and blood can be said to be necessary for a human's physical life on this earth. No man can remain alive physically without any one of these requirements of life being present. Those three requirements are sometimes used symbolically when describing something spiritual in the Bible.
It could be that "water" is being used by Jesus to describe God the Father's primary role in salvation. The living water coming from the Word of God is the Father's gift to the world, which shows God's infinite love for mankind.
The symbolic use of "Spirit" refers to God the Holy Spirit's role of leading sinners to the eternal life of receiving (believing in/on) Jesus as their Savior, which means they are then "born again" of God. (John 1:13)
Jesus' primary role was to sacrificially die (shed His Blood) in our deserved place, so "blood" could be symbolically used for Him.
Jesus spoke in the plural as He said, "....We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness." in (John 3:11) This verse reminds me of what is written in (1 John 5:8) "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The previous verse (1 John 5:7) is not accepted as being in the "better" manuscripts, but it is possible that the Holy Spirit allowed a later scribe to add that verse, since it describes the one Godhead as a Trinity of three Persons . This seems to imply that the Spirit, and water, and blood are also speaking of three Persons in a symbolic manner in the next verse.

 

[mattfivefour]

Interesting, but I think that trying that much insertion of potential symbolic meanings into a basically simple text in a straightforward account strikes me as highly problematic. It does not fit with sound hermeneutics. Remember the golden rule of Biblical exegesis as given by Dr. D.A. Waite, one of the world's leading experts in this area: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studies in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise. God in revealing His Word neither intends nor permits the reader to be confused. He wants His children to understand." Therefore, I must stick with what I have held to for years regarding the statement made by Jesus regarding water and Spirit in John 3. Pixelpusher said it perfectly in his post up-thread:

Nicodemus had just got done asking how a man could enter again into his mothers womb, when Jesus simply said you must be born again, and Jesus said no, you must be born of water and the Spirit (paraphrasing), then He points out that flesh is of flesh, and spirit of spirit.

So I think it certainly means natural birth through water, then spiritual rebirth via the Holy Spirit.

Respectfully I would also suggest that, using the golden rule of hermeneutics, the "spirit," "water," and "blood" of 1 John 5:8 refer to the Holy Spirit, baptism and the sacrifice of Christ. Two verses earlier, however, it would appear that the "water" and the "blood" there, in John's speaking of Christ's first coming, most likely refer to the water and the blood that issued from Christ when He was "pierced for our transgressions" as Isaiah 53:5 prophetically stated. This is likely the best view when you eliminate all of the others due to their inherent flaws and/or contradictions to the rest of Scripture. Remember that this same apostle John, when he wrote his gospel earlier, went to great lengths to carefully point out that "blood and water" in fact issued from the spear wound in the Savior's side (John 19:34). There is an excellent study of this entire issue, by Dr. Albert Barnes (1798-1870) in his notes on 1 John 5, which are available online at http://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/1_john/5.htm, among other places.

That said, every post in this thread has made for interesting reading.

 

[Hol]

Respectfully I would also suggest that, using the golden rule of hermeneutics, the "spirit," "water," and "blood" of 1 John 5:8 refer to the Holy Spirit, baptism and the sacrifice of Christ. Two verses earlier, however, it would appear that the "water" and the "blood" there, in John's speaking of Christ's first coming, most likely refer to the water and the blood that issued from Christ when He was "pierced for our transgressions" as Isaiah 53:5 prophetically stated. This is likely the best view when you eliminate all of the others due to their inherent flaws and/or contradictions to the rest of Scripture. Remember that this same apostle John, when he wrote his gospel earlier, went to great lengths to carefully point out that "blood and water" in fact issued from the spear wound in the Savior's side (John 19:34). There is an excellent study of this entire issue, by Dr. Albert Barnes (1798-1870) in his notes on 1 John 5, which are available online at http://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/1_john/5.htm, among other places.

Very simply stated so I can better understand; yet simply profound

 

[clouds]

Both (John 3:3) and (John 3:5) are saying the same thing about salvation. The only real difference between the two verses is that Jesus substituted the term "born again" for the more specific term "born of water and of the Spirit".
If "born of water" means natural physical childbirth, then (John 1:13) does not make sense to me, since "the will of the flesh" would be involved and this verse says it is not involved with the new spiritual birth of being born of God.
I can point to Jesus using the term "water" as a requirement for salvation in (John 4:14). This must be the same water that Jesus used in the verse of (John 3:5) and it certainly has nothing to do with physical birth. The woman of Samaria believed on Jesus as Savior and she then led other Samaritans to drink of the same living water which Jesus gave her. "And many more believed because of His (Jesus') own word." (John 4:41)

Other Bible verses referring to the "living water". :
(Jeremiah 2:13) "For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me (the LORD) the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water."
(Jeremiah 17:13) "O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth (not in heaven), because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters."

(Psalm 36:9) "For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light"

(Ephesians 5:25,26) "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,..."

 

[mattfivefour]

An interesting view. And one I have carefully considered. However, after contemplation, I must reject it as unlikely because your argument hinges on a seeming conflict between John 3:5 which says man must be "born of water and of the Spirit" and John 1:13 which says that those who are born again "were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Yet I suggest upon careful study no such conflict exists. Yes, "born of water," if referring to physical birth, does indeed involve some degree of human will. And "the will of the flesh" indeed has absolutely NOTHING to do with spiritual birth. But Christ did not conflate "born of water" and "born of the Spirit" as though the two were both somehow involved in spiritual birth. John 3:5 is simply Jesus saying to Nicodemus that it's not enough to be born physically (water), you must also be born spiritually (of the Spirit). Remember that Jesus was speaking to a Pharisee who believed that by his physical birth as a Jew and by his pedigree and efforts he was acceptable to God. Jesus was in effect saying, "Your birth as a Jew is not enough, my friend. You must be born spiritually in addition to physically. Thus John 1:13 is not contradicted in any way.

That said, I do like your bringing the Jeremiah, Psalms and Ephesians verses into the discussion. There is some very interesting study there; however, not specifically relevant to the debate contained in this thread.

 

[clouds]

We all agree that becoming born again involves the work of the Holy Spirit.
The meaning of "born of water" in (John 3:5) is what many have a problem agreeing with, and the position of most on this forum seems to be that it represents the physical birth water symbolizing natural birth. I understand the reasoning why natural birth makes sense as a possible meaning for "born of water". I still find it difficult to accept for the following reasons:

1. Why does Jesus offer "water springing up into everlasting life" to the Samaritan woman at the well in (John 4:14)? This water is obviously necessary for salvation or Jesus would not have later rejoiced at the Samaritans coming as "fruit unto life eternal" in (John 4:36). I believe that Jesus used the word "water" to represent the preaching of the life-giving word of God which the Holy Spirit then makes real and productive to "as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name." (John 1:12)

2. I have been unable to find any verse in the Bible that would confirm that "water" could possibly signify natural physical birth, which is why I believe the verses from Jeremiah, Psalm 36:9, and Ephesians 5:25,26 are relevant as an explanation of the meaning of "born of water" in verse (John 3:5).

3. All men have no choice in being physically born. Why would an obvious given (being already physically born) be called a requirement for Nicodemus to enter the kingdom of God?

 

[mattfivefour]

Hi, clouds! I do not think Jesus was stating being physically born was a requirement for Nicodemus to enter the Kingdom of God (although clearly if you are not born, you cannot enter it. ) He was simply telling Nicodemus, as I said earlier, that he should not consider being physically born as a Jew and a Pharisee as an entrance into Heaven. You see, the Pharisees thought that by their birth and their practices they were guaranteed Heaven. Jesus was saying, "No. You must also be born of the Spirit."

 

[clouds]

Nicodemus misunderstood "born again" to be a second physical birth. Jesus then explained that "...Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
If the singular biblical term "born of water" really is speaking about the physical birth of a person, then Jesus would have been encouraging Nicodemus' mistaken physical notions about what Jesus meant by a man becoming "born again". The "Except" in both verses makes what Jesus said to be an absolute requirement for salvation, and we all know that there is nothing physical in the process of being born of God through the Holy Spirit.
If "born of water" is speaking of a person's original birth, then one might ask, "How can the physically unborn infants, who die or are murdered before an actual physical birth, be able to then enter the kingdom of God?". They would not have met the supposed "requirement" of first being physically born.
Jesus did not accommodate the Jews who also misunderstood Jesus' statement requiring that they eat His flesh and drink His blood. (John 6:52-58) I find it unreasonable to say that Jesus would have differently accommodated Nicodemus' mistaken notions about physical birth either.
Jesus later rebuked Nicodemus for not understanding that "water" could be a symbol of the "words of eternal life", which Peter was given to know by the Spirit in (John 6:68).
See also (1 Peter 1:23) "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the WORD of GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever!"
Salvation: (Titus 3:5)

Some Old Testament verses using a symbolic washing of water for salvation, which a teacher such as Nicodemus should have remembered as Jesus spoke using the word "water" :
(Jeremiah 4:14) "Wash your heart from evil, O Jerusalem, That you might be saved..."
(Ezekiel 36:25)
(Psalm 51:7-10)
(Isaiah 44:3)

 

[mattfivefour]

Sorry, clouds, I am confused. Are you saying—which seems to follow from your argument—that salvation is the result of baptism as well as Christ's blood shed on the Cross?

 

[clouds]

Sorry, clouds, I am confused. Are you saying—which seems to follow from your argument—that salvation is the result of baptism as well as Christ's blood shed on the Cross?

The verses from the Old Testament are using washing of water in a symbolic (spiritual) manner. They are not speaking in a physical sense as some sort of actual physical baptism.
To define "born of water" as physical baptism is the heresy of faith plus works, which Roman Catholics and even some Protestants do.
The New Testament verses are my examples what the term "born of water" is spiritually speaking about. "Born of water" is the same as being "born by the word of God" when the Holy Spirit makes the truth of the Gospel real to a non-believer, which then results in the required saving faith and regeneration (the new second birth) by the Holy Spirit.

 

[mattfivefour]

Thanks for clarifying. I agree with you as to its OT meaning. And I also agree that the washing of water refers to God's Word, as it plainly states in Ephesians 5:26. But I do not agree that what Jesus was saying in his instruction to Nicodemus that a man must be born of the Word and the Spirit means He was saying that the Word and the Spirit together are the second birth... although there is indeed truth in what you believe since the Spirit acts upon the Word, bringing it to life (2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 4:12). I believe that Jesus was saying, "Nicodemus, your physical birth into your position of religious leadership is not sufficient. You must receive a second, a spiritual birth, which comes not by natural means but by the Spirit of God." This is based on Scripture. You believe that Jesus was saying, "Nicodemus, you must receive a second birth. And this one is by the Word of God and the Spirit of God." This also is based on Scripture. And for that very reason—that what we each believe also has its basis in Scripture accurately read—we can on this point disagree while still being in fellowship in the faith.