Christian Forums and Message Board

John 3:

” 3. Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

And again

5. Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Jesus said it twice to Nicodemus.....

Seems pretty straight forward doesn't it... or does it.

Question.....  From 'my' 21centurty common logic ...if Jesus had meant Nicodemus to be immersed in his own baptism

would he not have said ?

 “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born in water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

So what does BORN OF really mean?

The bible is conspiculously absent of explanation of these 2 simple words... but there is a fair amount of info from all walks of assorted faiths, explaining the myriad of ideas.

Among those are this explanation , and all of you who are super interpreters of ancient languages can pick the first part of this apart and tell us why it is wrong...

https://www.gracegospelpress.org/bible-questions-answered-what-does-born-of-water-and-the-spirit-mean-in-john-35/

“Born Again of Water”?

Before examining the context, the first step in correctly interpreting this passage is to observe the actual words of the text.
Notice that the Lord does not say to Nicodemus, “Unless one is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Early in church history when the Greek New Testament was being translated into Latin, the Latin word renatus (“born again”) was incorrectly used to translate the Greek word gennēthē (“born”) in John 3:5, rather than the correct Latin word natus (“born”).  ( from the interlinear gennēthē)
                                                                                               γεννηθῇ
                                                                                                be born

The incorrect reading of renatus soon prevailed among the majority of Latin manuscripts, so that it became the standard reading of the Latin Vulgate. A textual basis for the doctrine of baptismal regeneration quickly became ensconced in western Christendom. To this day, even many Protestants are adversely affected by the ancient Latin textual error, often wrongly assuming that Jesus in verse 5 speaks of two requirements for being “born again” (water + Spirit), rather than two ways of simply being “born” (physical + spiritual).

(side note:... My English/Greek interlinear bible translates the Greek to English as

John 3:3 Answered Jesus and said to him Truly truly I say to you if not anyone be born from above not he is able to see the kingdom - of God

John 3:5 Answered - Jesus Truly truly I say to you if not anyone be born of water and of [the]Spirit not he is able to enter into the kingdom - of  God

Then it continues with... to me...  the most explanatory statement from the Greeks

John 3:6  That having been born of the flesh flesh is and that having been born of the Spirit spirit is

MY COMMENT : BORN OF THE FLESH IS BORN OF WATER... IMMERSION IS NOT BORN OF THE FLESH

John 3:7 Not do wonder that I said to you It is necessary that you[all] to be born from above

John 3:8 The wind where it wishes blows and the sound of it You hear but not you know from where it comes and where it goes thus is everyone - having been born of the Spirit

John 3:14 and as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness thus to be lifted up it behooves the Son - of Man

John 3:15 so that everyone - believing in Him may have life eternal

What did Jesus mean in John 3:5 when He said to Nicodemus, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God”? The meaning of the phrase “born of water and the Spirit” has been debated throughout church history, resulting in four main interpretations. The first of these views is doctrinally false and contradicts the rest of Scripture. The other three views are all doctrinally acceptable, but the last view best explains the exegetical evidence.

View #1: The Roman Catholic and majority interpretation within Christendom contradicts biblical teaching on salvation by grace apart from works. It concludes that “born of water and the Spirit” refers to the rite or sacrament of water baptism which supposedly bestows regeneration.

View #2: The majority view among Protestant Reformed Christians interprets “water” as a figure of speech for the Holy Spirit, with Jesus saying essentially, “born of water, even the Spirit.”

View #3: A minority view among Protestants also interprets “water” figuratively, not as a reference to the Holy Spirit, but to the Word of God and its cleansing effect, similar to Ephesians 5:26, “the washing of water by the Word.”

View #4: A prominent view among evangelicals is that “water” refers to literal water—the amniotic fluid of a mother’s womb that breaks in childbirth, so that “water” refers to a physical, womb birth, while “Spirit” refers to one’s rebirth or regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Thus, “born of water and Spirit” refers to two kinds of birth (a womb birth + a Holy Spirit birth) rather than two means to be born again (such as water baptism + the Holy Spirit). In John 3:5, Jesus not only answers Nicodemus’s question and misunderstanding from verse 4 about reentering his mother’s womb and being born physically a second time, but He clarifies for Nicodemus that physical birth alone is not enough to qualify a person for entrance into God’s kingdom—a person must also receive a second birth to be spiritually reborn from above. This interpretation is faithful to the details of the inspired text of John 3 and harmonizes with the truth found elsewhere in Scripture that salvation is solely God’s work for man, received by His grace alone, apart from human merit, on the condition of faith alone in Jesus Christ.

Last: from https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/41480/why-is-it-that-in-john-33-the-esv-translates-be-born-from-above-to-is-born-a

I was told that ESV uses the oldest Greek manuscripts to translate the scripture literally from Greek into English.

So why is it that in John 3:3 the ESV translates "be born from above" to "is born again" in John 3:3?

Is it "born again" in the oldest manuscripts?

If we check the interlinear bible { John 3:3 interlinear } and the Greek we never find Jesus using the words "born again".

John 3:3 interlinear

John 3:5 isn't about Christian baptism. I lean towards view #2

We are already born of flesh. Flesh is flesh and Spirit is Spirit. No need to re-enter the womb as Nick suggested. Born of water is not used anywhere else in the bible to refer to the birth process. And Jesus would not have indicated that being physically born was a pre-requisite. No need for such an obvious redundancy. Besides, what later involves water and spirit, and  becoming a new creature concerning the kingdom and salvation? Hmmmm, could it be? Surely not the B-word. 

"Again" may not be a very good word-for-word translation of the Greek word used there (ἄνωθεν), but look at the context:

John 3:4   Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Nicodemus certainly understood that he was talking about a second birth.  So that seems like a reasonable translation to me.

TC, I of course agree with your statement about the woman at the well. Jesus’s statement to Nick was to me referring to something that would soon be involving water and spirit as to the Kingdom of God. John’s baptism existed then sans the Spirit. Why would it be unusual to refer to a baptism INVOLVING the Spirit and becoming a new creature. I’m sure Jesus knew Nick wasn’t ready to actually do what Jesus cryptically referred to.

Absolutely, baptism involves a new birth. That is the link it seems to me in John 3. Jesus would not logically make being born naturally a pre-requisite for entering the Kingdom along with being born of the Spirit.

Would the indwelling gift of the Spirit given at baptism in Christ’s name where one becomes a new creature not qualify as being born of water and Spirit as it relates to the Kingdom?

I don’t see baptism in every symbolic reference in the Bible, but here in John 3 it fits way too well to be ignored in my opinion.

That is why JESUS said flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit. It’s a big stretch in my mind to then make the leap that water refers to fleshly birth. Not to mention it would be pretty redundant to use a second reference to fleshly birth that has never been used before in scripture.

Sigh... My reply disappeared again.

John 3: 5 and 6 tie the mention of Jesus saying OF Water to the physical birth of flesh together.

John 3:5 Answered - Jesus Truly truly I say to you if not anyone be born of water and of [the]Spirit not he is able to enter into the kingdom - of  God

John 3:6  That having been born of the flesh flesh is and that having been born of the Spirit spirit is

He goes on to indicate he is talking about the Holy Spirit in

John 3:7 Not do wonder that I said to you It is necessary that you[all] to be born from above

John 3:8 The wind where it wishes blows and the sound of it You hear but not you know from where it comes and where it goes thus is everyone - having been born of the Spirit

However.... Let's assume you are right and He is talking about being born again of water.... (or by water)...

You have opened the door to sprinkling because none of you here would say that you had been born again of water... you would say you were born again in water... be it a baptimal pool or a river... or a swimming pool.

So if Jesus was telling Nick he needed to be born again of water...  that sure says a sprinkling would do.

Sigh... My reply disappeared again.

John 3: 5 and 6 tie the mention of Jesus saying OF Water to the physical birth of flesh together.

John 3:5 Answered - Jesus Truly truly I say to you if not anyone be born of water and of [the]Spirit not he is able to enter into the kingdom - of  God

John 3:6  That having been born of the flesh flesh is and that having been born of the Spirit spirit is

He goes on to indicate he is talking about the Holy Spirit in

John 3:7 Not do wonder that I said to you It is necessary that you[all] to be born from above

John 3:8 The wind where it wishes blows and the sound of it You hear but not you know from where it comes and where it goes thus is everyone - having been born of the Spirit

However.... Let's assume you are right and He is talking about being born again of water.... (or by water)...

You have opened the door to sprinkling because none of you here would say that you had been born again of water... you would say you were born again in water... be it a baptimal pool or a river... or a swimming pool.

So if Jesus was telling Nick he needed to be born again of water...  that sure says a sprinkling would do.

I don't believe John 3:5 is mentioning physical birth or water baptism.  So the sprinkling thing is not applicable.

Why should have Nicodemus understood a future baptism is what was mentioned in John 3:5?

Nicodemus would certainly have been aware, if not keenly aware, of the work of John the Baptist, and the work of Jesus' and his disciples in baptizing. All Israel knew that John baptized in water (see John 1:26-31). Nicodemus could not have helped but connect Jesus’ words with John’s work.

Jesus’ own baptism by John, which must have been widely reported in that day and which is recorded for our reading, involved a conjunction of water baptism and the descent of the Spirit. See Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-33. Thus a reference to “water and Spirit” would not unnaturally cause us to think of baptism.

John the Baptist’s teaching contained a strong emphasis on the distinction between water baptism and Spirit baptism. See Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16; John 1:33. This is capsulized in Mark 1:8, “I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” Thus again, when “water and Spirit” are mentioned together in John 3:5, we would quite naturally think of baptism. Another aspect of John’s teaching was the relation between his water baptism and the coming kingdom (Matt. 3:2). Thus in John 3:5, when Jesus relates water and the kingdom, it again brings baptism to mind.

To the OP:

The original conversation was not in either Latin or Greek.  It was in Hebrew/Aramaic.

From the George Lamsa translation of the earliest Aramaic texts:

3.5 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly truly I say to you, If a man is not born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.  6  What is born of flesh is flesh, and what is born of Spirit is spirit.

It really doesn't matter if the original conversation was in Hebrew/Aramaic; it matters only what language the gospel of John was originally written in.  Are you suggesting that John was not originally written in Greek?

I think there is a good possibility that it was originally in Aramaic.   

Born OF and not IN? ... A translation error or was the original Greek corrected?

No translation error and I really do not know what the original said and it does not really matter~I trust in God preserving His word for us and have 100% confidence He did. Psalms 12.

So what does BORN OF really mean?

Let us see from the scriptures.

John 3:4,5~"Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 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."

It should be very simple to follow this discourse between our Lord and Nicodemus, yet false gospel and those who peddle such have made it almost impossible to follow this very brief discourse.

"Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born"~Nicodemus asked a seemly ridiculous question for such a man of this standing in Israel, almost a childish question that we would expect from children.

Based on his question, Jesus said the following: "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water"~Nicodemus in his ignorance of the biblical teaching of being born of the Spirit, which he should have known, for Paul knew proven by Galatians 4~please read:

Galatians 4:22-31~"For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."

Niodemus should have known of the truth behind Isaac's birth, which Christ upbraided him for NOT KNOWING being in the place of being a teacher in Israel!

I just got a call and must come back later to finish. But, here's a start to consider.

Niodemus should have known of the truth behind Isaac's birth, which Christ asked upbraided him for NOT KNOWING being in the place of being a teacher in Israel!

And you should have known that the phrase "that was born" in Galatians 4:29 is in italics and was inserted into the text by the translators of the KHV.  There, as in other translations, it is not a reference to being born again as John 3; rather, it is a reference the "children of promise" in verse 28. 

(ASV)  But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now.

(ESV)  But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.

(NASB)  But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.

It is a statement of the physical birth of Isaac whose physical conception and birth was according to the direct action of the Holy Spirit upon the fertility of his parents, Abraham and Sarah; not so the birth of Ishmael who was born of Abraham and Hagar.

We as Christians, children of faith, are also the receivers of many promises that simply are not available to non-believers. The promises were to Isaac; no such promises were to Ishmael.

View #4: A prominent view among evangelicals is that “water” refers to literal water—the amniotic fluid of a mother’s womb that breaks in childbirth, so that “water” refers to a physical, womb birth, while “Spirit” refers to one’s rebirth or regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Thus, “born of water and Spirit” refers to two kinds of birth (a womb birth + a Holy Spirit birth) rather than two means to be born again (such as water baptism + the Holy Spirit). In John 3:5, Jesus not only answers Nicodemus’s question and misunderstanding from verse 4 about reentering his mother’s womb and being born physically a second time, but He clarifies for Nicodemus that physical birth alone is not enough to qualify a person for entrance into God’s kingdom—a person must also receive a second birth to be spiritually reborn from above. This interpretation is faithful to the details of the inspired text of John 3 and harmonizes with the truth found elsewhere in Scripture that salvation is solely God’s work for man,................................

This is the correct view overall consider, a few minor points of disagreement. ~I'll come back in the morning, the Lord willing, and consider this point.

Rella 'flesh" is a spiritual term describing depraved humanity (Genesis 5:3; Job 14:14; Psalms 51:5; 58:3; John 1:13; Romans 8:7; Ist Peter 3:21; 2nd Corinthians 7:1)~which according to the word of God is sinful, at enmity against God! Romans 8

I'll answer your question since others did not.

I got some catching up to do. I'll post more as I can.

You are making my point.

Jesus said... and you can do the Greek or Aramaic... IDC... though I have the Greek on my laptop.

John 3:5 Answered - Jesus Truly truly I say to you if not anyone be born of water and of [the]Spirit not he is able to enter into
the kingdom of God

And then He went immediately to

John 3:6  That having been born of the flesh flesh is and that having been born of the Spirit spirit is

and the continuation certainly says that your rotten flesh ( though it is not stated as such) cannot inherit the kingdom of God... unless the one with the rotten flesh has been born of the spirit.

Exactly! Isaac's birth was a PERFECT allegory of how every child of promise is born AGAIN. It is by the Spirit of God, according to God's promises of his oath and grace to the seed of Jesus Christ. Nicodemus should have known this being in the position of teaching Israel.

You have got to be kidding.  That was not Isaac being born again.  That was Isaac being born the first time -- PHYSICALLY.

I seriously doubt that you were conceived in a woman by a man, both beyond their years of fertility through the direct intercession of God.

It does not matter. They support the same thing. And that before the translators got their hands on things.

They support what same thing, Rella?

It really doesn't matter if the original conversation was in Hebrew/Aramaic; it matters only what language the gospel of John was originally written in.  Are you suggesting that John was not originally written in Greek?

It very much matters that the original conversation was in Aramaic.  That's where the original meaning and intent exist.

The gospel of John may have been written first in Greek, but to get to the correct meaning, it is necessary to extrapolate what was actually said, which was not in Greek.