ChristiansUnite Forums

John 3:3-7 – An Explanation

I seen a lot of confusion lately over the below text:

John 3:3  Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
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?
John 3:5  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.
John 3:6  That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 3:7  Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

I would like to, if I can, clear up some misunderstandings on this verse.  

There are two main doctrines that are here in this verse are as follows:
1. “Born again” vs. 3– linked to the popular phrase “born again”
2. “Water and of the Spirit” – most commonly linked to water baptism

I would like to tackle the second one first vs. 5 – water.  This is the easiest. Note the context of verse 5 refers back to vs. 4.  The Lord in verse 3 told Nicodemus that he had to be born again.  Immediately Nicodemus thought he had to come out of the mother’s womb again.  Jesus answers and two things take place:  “Except a man be born of water (physical birth for you are in a sack of water inside the womb) and the Spirit you cannot enter in.  Jesus said, “You must have a physical birth (womb of water) and a spiritual birth.  There is no mention of water baptism here.  The reference “of water” is associated with the physical birth that all men must have first.  Look at verse 6 where Jesus talks of a fleshly birth (from the womb).  There are two births being discussed: physical (“flesh is flesh”) and the spiritual birth.

The part regarding “born again” is a little tougher to follow.  I will tell you what I believe and you study it through and see if these things be so (Acts. 17:11).

Jesus was dealing with one of the leaders of Israel and not Jesus used the word “ye” must be born again in vs.7 referencing the Jewish nation as a whole for Nicodemus was representing the leadership of the Jews at that time.  Jesus didn’t say “you” must be born again but “ye” (plural).  Now, let me paraphrase and then I will move on.  “Marvel not…..unto thee (Nicodemus), Ye (Israel) must be born again.

Now lets look at this “born again”.  As we all know Israel blew it with God in the OT.  God now calls them “Loammi” for they are not God’s people.  Though Israel walked away from God we know that God will bring back his people.  God gave them the chance in the gospels and they killed Jesus.  Jesus on the cross asks the Father to forgive them (Israel) for they knew not what they did so the Father gives them another chance in the book of Acts.  As we know they stoned Stephen so…..Israel rejected God the Father in the OT., God the Son in the gospels and then, finally God the Holy Ghost in Acts.  Despite all that rejection God still made and covenant with Israel and will honor it and make unbelieving Israel believing Israel.  How and when will God do this?

First, how?  By doing a supernatural work in their hearts.  When? at the end of tribulation and right before they enter into the kingdom.  God will revive the valley of dry bones in Ezek. 37:4-14 by His Spirit.  Now compare this passage with Isa. 66:8 (note “born at once”) and Eze. 36:26,27.  Now go to Heb. 8:8 and you will get a complete picture.  Right before the 1,000 yr. Reign the Lord will raise up unbelieving Israel, put a new heart and Spirit in them and then take them into the land that was promised to them.  Then they will become the nation of priests on earth resenting God to the nations of the earth.
   
So, yes, Nicodemus, you have to born physically first and then “Ye” (Israel) will experience a spiritual birth.  Now, note, their being “born again” will be their same form of bodies just a rebuilding of a human body that will house God’s Spirit.  That is why the term “born again” fits this.   This operation of God will be just a new birth from their old bodies redone.
How does this relate to us for you hear the term “born again” all the time?   Now, let’s have some fun and get a blessing.  When God saved your sorry soul (mine too) He didn’t just take your old body and put a new Spirit in it.  It looks as though that is all He did but there is more.  We need to see ourselves as God truly sees us.  

What happened to you is that you were made a new “creature” – II Cor. 5:17.  Why did Paul use the term “new creature”?  Because when you were saved you were spiritually baptized into the body of Christ – this was a new operation not done before this age of grace.  You became bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh and raised you up and seated you in heavenly palaces at the right hand of God (Eph. 1,2).  Therefore you are a new “creature” in Christ and nobody before this age has this privilege.  Israel gets some land and you get to be a part of Christ’s body in the heavenly palaces for all eternity?  Yeeehaaaw – Gloreeeeee to God!

Can’t you see you are not just “born again” (sounds good and all and I don’t panic when people use it.)  You have been made a new creature in Christ Jesus.  Won’t you admit that somebody being literally put in the literal body of Christ is a “new creature.”  Yes, my dear saints, you have something better than just getting into the land.  You have Christ in you, the hope of glory.  You (the body of Christ) are part of a plan by God that was from “BEFORE” the foundation of the world.  In other words you were planned in eternity.  Israel and the Gentiles was just “from” the foundation of the world – Matt. 25:24.  Your standing in Christ was from “before” the foundation of the world.   The body of Christ is not limited to mansions - John 14 – our abode is above the third heavens in eternity with Christ (Eph. 2:4).  Look at you, it is Christ “in” you.  The disciples just had the Spirit dwelling amongst them (John 14:17 - Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.).

You may be down here in your old, tired, sinful flesh but the real you (saved and redeemed, glorified, etc.) is in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.  Your standing is this – Perfect in the Son seated at the right hand of God, perfect with Christ’s righteousness.  This is how God sees the real you.  Now your state down here may be in a mess but up there where the real you is it is perfect.  This is what God did to you through Christ at Calvary.

Now, what is your duty because of so great privileges?  Turn to Eph. 4:1. God just got finished telling you what great things He hath done for you in the first three chapters of Ephesus and in 4:1 He tells you what to do about it.  Paul says, “Eph 4:1  I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,”.  You are perfect in heaven blessed with all spiritual blessings then walk down here like you believe it.  In other words “walk, your position.”  In the following 3 chapters Paul tells you how you should act based upon your position in Christ.

So, I trust that someone will get a blessing.  This is not original thinking from me.  I learned this after being under the same preacher for over 20 years who seeks to know all he can about God, Christ and the Christian life.   If you do not agree with this then, that’s ok for this a forum.  

May God bless!  ;D

I don't think there is a separation of two births being discussed here and the teachings of the Apostles and disciples later in the New Testament seems to indicate that they did not understand it this way either.

Phillip certainly preached Baptism with water otherwise the eunuch would not have requested it.

Act 8:36  And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

Peter certainly preached Baptism with water and felt it important enough he would not allow it to be withheld.

Act 10:47  Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

If water Baptism is not important why would Peter bother with it on those who had already received the Holy Spirit?

The early Church didn’t understand it that way either.

Justin Martyr refers to the washing of baptism by water as a source for remission of sins.

"Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone."
Justin Martyr,First Apology,61(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:183
 
Irenaeus sees the washing and purifying of lepers in the Old Testament as a type of the water baptism and references the very verse we discuss to support it, thus plainly seeing the water as real water baptism not a reference to the physical birth.

" 'And dipped himself,' says [the Scripture], 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' "
Irenaeus,Fragment,34(A.D. 190),in ANF,I:574

Tertullian declares salvation is not attainable unless we are baptized and references the very verse we discuss to support it, thus plainly seeing the water as real water baptism not a reference to the physical birth.

" When, however, the prescript is laid down that 'without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, "Unless one be born of water, he hath not life' "
Tertullian,On Baptism,12:1(A.D. 203),in ANF,III:674-675

Cyprian also sees baptism as necessary even beyond laying on of hands and reception of the Holy Spirit and he also references the very verse we discuss to support it, thus plainly seeing the water as real water baptism not a reference to the physical birth.

"[W]hen they come to us and to the Church which is one, ought to be baptized, for the reason that it is a small matter to 'lay hands on them that they may receive the Holy Ghost,' unless they receive also the baptism of the Church. For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, 'Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'...

• nly baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, 'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' "

Cyprian,To Stephen,71:72(A.D. 253),in ANF,V:378,385
 
Finally the Council of Carthage declares that one cannot enter the kingdom of heaven without baptism and the baptism they refer to is a water baptism which is necessary for the spirit to operate.

"And in the Gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with His divine voice, saying, "Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."[8] This is the Spirit which from the beginning was borne over the waters; for neither can the Spirit operate without the water, nor the water without the Spirit...Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ."
Council of Carthage VII(A.D. 258),in ANF,V:566
 
Ambrose makes the following interesting arguments against your interpretation of the water representing the physical birth.

First he argues that Paul refers to the baptism by water as a burial with Christ, so Paul certainly understood baptism by water as something other than referring to the physical birth you apply it to.

"And that the writer was speaking of baptism is evident from the very words in which it is stated that it is impossible to renew unto repentance those who were fallen, inasmuch as we are renewed by means of the laver of baptism, whereby we are born again, as Paul says himself: 'For we are buried with Him through baptism into death, that, like as Christ rose from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we, too, should walk in newness of life.' "
Ambrose,Concerning Repentance,2:8(A.D. 390),in NPNF2,XI:346

In this second of the two arguments Ambrose identified the water of baptism with one of the witnesses.  The physical birth you try to associate it with is not a witness, so the two must be different and your interpretation must be wrong.

"Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: 'For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' "
Ambrose,On the Mysteries,4:20(A.D. 391),in NPNF2,XI:319

So we see the Phillip did not understand the water to represent the physical birth, Peter like wise did not, nor did Paul and neither did many in the early Church.  

Conversely it would be interesting to know the earliest reference to this interpretation.  I believe this interpretation is a modern invention of men, but I would like to know just who came up with it first if you have a verifiable reference.

The water being a representation of the physical birth is a different take on this verse. I wonder if it is not a private thought on it by the preacher of twenty years mentioned in the initial post? Taken seperate and out of context with other verses it can seem logical to someone not rightly dividing the word.

When taken in context and rightly dividing with all the other verses on water and baptism it becomes illogical and apparent as a false teaching.  


Ollie

1. I think the physical birth is clear when you look at:
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?

What else could he be talking about but the physical birth?

2. I did not get this from the preacher mentioned in the initial post.

Are you saying the view presented is false -then if Jesus is referencing water baptism then water baptism is how we are born saved.  But I think I showed you the doctrinal view of "born again tying into Israel's being born again in a day at the second advent before they go into the physical land - Ezek. 37.

I'm easy to do business with - show me your thinking.  

I don't think there is a separation of two births being discussed here and the teachings of the Apostles and disciples later in the New Testament seems to indicate that they did not understand it this way either.

Phillip certainly preached Baptism with water otherwise the eunuch would not have requested it.

Peter certainly preached Baptism with water and felt it important enough he would not allow it to be withheld.

Michael - I can only respond to a couple of things right now due to time and a brace on my hand.  I never said baptism wasn't important for during the Gospels baptism was essential in the sense of it being explained by John in John 1:31.  I believe this verse tells us the purpose for baptism in the gospels.

John 1:31  And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

The message for the Jews in the Gospels was, "If you believe that Jesus is the Messiah then get baptized to prove you believe the message."  That same message carried over to the Acts period and you are right Phillip preached baptism aslo but look at the message - he had to believe who Jesus was also:

Acts 8:37  And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Once he said he believed who Christ was he got baptized according to John's message of John 1:31.  Look at Acts 19 -
Acts 19:3  And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
They were still under John's baptism.  

So, baptism was important to the Jews and Gentiles in Acts but went away once God with dealing with the kingdom agae doctrine.  I do not believe that water and baptism is connected to the physical birth as it was in John 3.  There I truly believe the water is connected to the physical birth.  Jesus was showing two simple truths: 1. You have to be born phsycially (which all knew) but...2. Ye (Israel) must be born spiritually before you will be able to enter into the kingdom.

Our message of salvation is not to believe that Christ is the Messiah or that He is the Son of God(though we should believe this after we are saved) - our message is:

1 Cor 15:3  For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1 Cor 15:4  And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Gotta go - will try to comment more later.  May God richly bless you all  :)

Water Baptism Hmm...some people are afraid to get their feet wet. Or should i say willing to fulfill all righteousness. :)

God Bless

I understand I will wait for the rest of the response when you havbe time to produce it.


This refers to the Baptism of John the Baptist.  That is not the Baptism that Jesus is referring to in John 3:4 they are two different Baptisms.


Baptism is more than just an outward sign otherwise it would not have been such a big deal to Peter to make sure it was not withheld from those who had already received the Holy Spirit.


Of course no one is saying that believing is not important, but that is not the issue.  The issue is whether Baptism by water is referring in John 3:4 is referring to our original physical birth.

The thesis makes no sense because why bother to point out something that everyone goes through.  It is like saying in order to walk first you have to breath then put one foot in front of the other and lean just right and etc.  No one would start out by mentioning breathing as everyone does it.


Yes but the individuals he was talking to had not been baptized by the spirit and the water yet.  we know this because they had not even heard of the Holy Spirit yet.  So they still had to be baptized by the Holy Spirit and the water of the new Baptism Jesus spoke of and you think is referring to our physical birth.  No this doesn't support your position at all, this verse just goes to show that the two Baptisms were different and that your trying to extend the meaning of John's Baptism to be in force throughout acts is flawed.


It is meaningless to think that someone can die for our sins and bring us to salvation if He is not the Messiah, or the Son of God.  You really want me to accept that someone can be saved by believing that some generic someone (they don't know anything about) died for their sins?  No, the only thing that makes the sacrifice meaningful is that He was God.  No one else would have fit the bill.  We have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God before we are saved not after.

"1. I think the physical birth is clear when you look at:
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?

What else could he be talking about but the physical birth?"


Christ answers the question in verse 6.

 John 3:6.  That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

It is not a physical birth, but spiritual. Christ is in so many words telling Nicodemus that is how it is possinle. Not the entering in the physical womb again and being born physically again. But immersed into Christ and raised a new creature.

It is not two births, it is simply one birth.  And it is a Spiritual birth.




Petro

Yes I agree, my point was that I did not agree with AVBunyan's approach at separate it into two births, one a physical through the water of the womb and the other a spiritual rebirth of faith.  I may not have been precise enough in my rebuttal.  It is one rebirth, a spiritual one requiring both water baptism and a decision of faith.