‍ 

Dialogue on John 3:5:

“Water” Means “Water”

 

A discussion of the meaning of the word 

“water” in John 3:5

 

Gary Hoge

 

I thought for a little while [the word “water” in John 3:5] was likely referring to amniotic fluid, but looking into it I found that there is really no support for that belief, in the Scriptures and even in the historical use of language of that day. Read my Scripture references below and I’ll bet you can guess what I believe it is referring to now!

 

Apparently, anything but water. It’s as if you’re saying, “It says ‘water,’ but it just can’t be water. I wonder what else it could be? I know! I’ll get out my concordance and look up ‘water,’ and ‘drinking’ and see what I can come up with.”

 

Jer. 17:13 “O LORD, the hope of Israel, all who forsake you will be put to shame. Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust because they have forsaken the LORD, the spring of living water.”

 

I see. So the “water” is a reference to “God.” Therefore, Jesus is saying, “You must be born of God and the Holy Spirit.” This verse, then, is a disproof of the Trinitarian notion that the Holy Spirit is God?

 

John 7:38 “Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.”

 

Just out of curiosity, to what “Scripture” is Jesus referring here?

 

1 Cor. 12:13 “. . . and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.”

 

I see. So now you’re saying that “water” is a metaphor for “Holy Spirit.” Therefore, Jesus is saying, “You must be born of the Spirit and the Spirit.” No wonder Nicodemus was confused!

 

It seems to me that a better approach [to determining what “water” means in this verse] might be to consult the writings of those who lived in close proximity to the apostles themselves, who spoke their language, and who were familiar with the thought-forms and cultural and theological presuppositions of apostolic Christianity. If you do that, you’ll find that they were unanimous in their understanding that “water” here refers to, amazingly, . . . water.

 

No, I’m simply searching the Scriptures. God forbid that! What else does Jesus say about water, and I wonder what light it can shed on this obscurely worded passage?

 

Surely you can see that assembling random Scripture passages that happen to have a word in common, and then assuming that there must be some uniform symbolic meaning to that word, isn’t a particularly sound method of exegesis (especially with a word as common as “water”).

 

And let’s face it, “born of water” doesn’t imply “baptized” any quicker then it does “born of the living water of God” to the “un-exegized” eye.

 

Perhaps not to a Baptist, but it did to every Christian who put pen to parchment before the sixteenth century. Remember that Scripture says, “Be baptized and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16), “Repent and be baptized . . . for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38), “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16), “baptism . . . now saves you also” (1 Pet. 3:21). You have to work pretty hard not to see the connection between baptism and spiritual cleansing.

 

I think the better approach is to consult all sources that can bring light to the passage and choose the source that doesn’t contradict the Scripture.

 

Apparently you mean “the source that doesn’t contradict the Baptist interpretation of Scripture,” because before the sixteenth century, you can’t find a single Christian source that supports the Baptist interpretation. For example, Justin Martyr, writing in the year 151, within living memory of the Apostles, writes,

 

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, [and] we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father … and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” [John 3:5]. (Justin Martyr, First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

 

An even earlier Christian writing, the Letter of Barnabas, says,

 

Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead. … Here He is saying that after we have stepped down into the water burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it in full fruitage, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls. (Letter of Barnabas 11:1 [A.D. 74]).

 

If the Apostles taught your doctrine of baptism, then we are faced with the amazing fact that all of the ancient Christians perverted that doctrine, and perverted it in exactly the same way everywhere throughout the Roman empire, and without so much as a whimper of protest from anyone. I find that hard to believe.

 

I also think it is good to not place traditions other than those recorded in Scripture on too high a pedestal, as the Jews did in Christ’s day.

 

That goes for Baptist traditions, too. If you want to know how best to interpret the Apostles’ writings, ask the people who learned the faith at their feet. And ask those who were taught by those people, and see what all of the ancient churches were taught to believe. In those instances (and this is one) where you find a unanimous belief, throughout all the known world, you can be sure that this is what the Apostles taught.

 

I personally believe God isn’t the author of confusion.

 

Which is a fact that helped convince me that he was not the author of Protestantism.

 

This Scripture would make more sense with the others (which say God is the spring) if it is saying we are given the Spirit to be indwelled by it and the living water that flows from it. We must be born of God and of the living water (saving graces) that comes with Christ and the Holy Spirit.

 

Out of curiosity, do you know of anyone else who interprets “water” in John 3:5 as a reference to God’s “saving graces,” or did you come up with that on your own?

 

“Saving graces” is simply my way of explaining how many theologians exegete this verse. Many believe that “born of water” is much the same as “born of the Spirit” [For some reason in 3:8 Jesus doesn’t say, “So it is with everyone born of the Spirit and of water.” It is almost as if he is assuming those born of the Spirit are also born of water].

 

Yes, there is an extremely close relationship between the water of baptism and the regenerative action of the Spirit. It’s almost as if they’re linked in some way.

 

In John 4:14 Jesus says of whoever drinks the water he gives, “the water will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life”. Because what brings us to eternal life is God’s grace, yes, many theologians see this passage in the same way I do (though they may not have exactly the same wording as I... some call it God’s “purification”, or his “washing of rebirth”, or his “renewing”). See Titus 3:5-7. “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.”

 

Yes, notice again the close association between “washing” and “rebirth.” Later, Paul says that Christ cleanses His Church by the “washing with water through the word” (Eph. 5:26). I guess it’s easy to see how the early Christians might have mistaken the phrase “washing with water” to be a reference to washing with water.

 

The fact that Jesus (whose words we are discussing) himself never ever uses the word “water” to refer to baptism, but six times in the gospels uses the word “water” to refer to living water is not the only support I have given (and you have ignored).

 

Now you’re assuming what you’re trying to prove. I say that in John 3:5 Jesus uses the word “water” to refer to baptism. Because John’s Gospel is generally arranged thematically, it is not a coincidence that this discussion with Nicodemus is framed in a baptismal context. Immediately after the discussion ends, the next verse says, “After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.” (John 3:22).

 

I have also shown that in John 3:8 Jesus shows himself to be in agreement with me by assuming one who is born of the Spirit is automatically “born of water”. I have shown that in 1 Cor. 12:13 and Tit. 3:5 the Spirit is seen as something with allows us to “drink”, which washes us in “rebirth” and renews us, bringing us to eternal life. That last line goes along quite well with Christ’s words, “born of water” referring to the living water of the Holy Spirit.

 

Actually, you haven’t shown anything. You’ve assumed that all of these references to “water” should be interpreted symbolically, and then you have proceeded to so interpret. That is not proof. Indeed, if a mere reading of these verses is sufficient to establish your position, one wonders why the best minds and the sharpest Scripture scholars of Christian antiquity all interpreted it incorrectly.

 

Seeing how Christ himself said, “that everyone who believes in [me] may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”, you have some even more rigorous work to do.

 

Why? Why is water baptism somehow incompatible with belief? Jesus himself expressly linked the two: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). What a bizarre thing for him to say. I certainly can’t imagine a modern Baptist saying such a thing when asked, “What must I do to be saved?”

 

The very real possibility remains that you are misinterpreting the symbols, writings, and intent Christian authors you have cited above.

 

It’s possible. But it’s also possible that you have misinterpreted. So let’s get specific: When Justin Martyr wrote, “Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father … and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water,” what do you think he meant? And when the Letter of Barnabas says, “Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead,” what do you think it means? And when it says, “Here He is saying that after we have stepped down into the water burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it in full fruitage, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls,” what do you think it means?

 

It is a great idea to study what early Christians believed. It is a terrible idea to place ideas of teachers above the Scriptures.

 

We’re talking about interpretation of Scripture, not denial of Scripture. It is reasonable to believe that the Apostles taught their followers the proper interpretation of Scripture. Therefore, when all of those followers, scattered throughout the length and breadth of the Roman Empire say, “This is what we were taught,” it’s reasonable to assume that this is in fact what they were taught. The counter assumption, that they were all mistaken, and the true doctrine was only “discovered” centuries later (though it turns out it was right there in the Bible the whole time), is improbable to the point of absurdity, it seems to me.