TrinJ INS (1980) 125-141

"BORN OF WATER AND SPIRIT:" JOHN 3:5

LINDA BELLEVILLE
TRINITY EVANGELICAL DIVINITY SCHOOL
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of
water and Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Jesus' seemingly simple statement in John 3:5 concerning birth of water and
Spirit has sparked the interest of exegetes and theologians down through the
centuries. A confusing array of interpretations has been the result. Moreover,
the history of interpretation of this verse has been complicated by the fact that
most interpretations have been arrived at either on the basis of presuppositions
that have predisposed the interpreter in favor of a particular view of the verse,!
or through contemporary literary parallels unsupported, on the whole, by con-
textual evidence.
2
What these interpretations have in common is a tendency to impose on the
text a "favored" idea regarding the meaning of 5 rather than allowing the
text itself to establish necessary parameters of meaning. As J. D. G. Dunn aptly
states regarding the identification of # ("water") with Christian baptism:
"It is a sad commentary on the poverty of our own immediate experience of
the Spirit... that we automatically refer it (the Spirit) to the sacrament and
can only give it meaning when we do."
3
It is the intent of this article to evaluate the major lines of interpretation on
the basis of contextual and theological considerations, and then to attempt to
arrive at a fresh understanding of yepirqufi %* ("born of
water and Spirit") that arises naturally and directly from the text itself.
/. MAJOR LINES OF INTERPRETATION
There is great diversity of opinion as to what "born of water and Spirit"
means. Interpretations may be grouped according to the following six
categories: ritualistic, symbolic, physiological, dualistic, cosmological and
figurative.
1. Ritualistic Views of *
Ritualistic views * fall into one of two categories of interpretation:
(a) those which assume a basic contrast between and , *6
lE.g., O. Cullman, Baptism in the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Theology, n. 1
(London: SCM Press, 1950). Those who see numerous sacramental allusions in the Gospel
as a whole are strongly inclined to see one in John 3:5.
^E.g., anti-Essene polemic, water understood as a symbol for the Torah, or "water and
Spirit" as figurative for spiritual semen.
3
James D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970)
225-26.
126
TRINITY JOURNAL
referring to some aspect of current Jewish ceremonial legalism and
referring to Christian baptism: and (b)%>cop and seen as a twofold
reference to Christian baptism.
a) Jewish ritualism ( = )
Anti-Essene polemic
This interpretation was popularized by L. Mowry shortly after the Qumran
finds.
4
The fourth Gospel is understood by Mowry to be an anti-Essene
polemical tract. The phrase yevvq&fj is seen as an
explanatory note of cultic character, introduced by John to teach the Essenes
that they must move beyond the legalism of their ceremonial washings
(= *) and enter the realm of new birth (= + ) through
Christian baptism
R. E. Brown correctly states, however, that although the importance of
purification at Qumran may be related to John's peculiar emphasis on water,
the internal evidence adduced for such anti-Essene polemic is far from con-
clusive.
6
Moreover, the clear statement that Nicodemus was a Pharisee would
be rather misleading if John's main purpose was to refute Essenism.
The Religion of the Jews
This interpretation, popularized by D. W. B. Robinson in 1966, is based on
a presupposed theological coherence of chaps. 1-4.
7
} e
according to Robinson represents the entire system of Jewish ceremonial
observance (of a piece with the words "to be born under the law" in Gal 4:2),
while represents the transforming work of God through the Spirit. By
means of a parable, Jesus is saying that Judaism is lifeless without a work of
the Spirit comparable to that pictured in Ezek 37:8-10.
Support for this interpretation is found in chap. 1 where John the Baptist,
as the last representative of the old religion with his "water" baptism, is set in
contrast with the coming work of the Spirit (1:26, 33); in chap. 2 where it is
claimed by Robinson that ifccop stands for the purificatory observances of the
Jews; in chap. 3 where born of ("flesh") is contrasted with born of
, and in chap. 4 where worship centered around the patriarchal well of
Jacob is contrasted with worship in and ("truth").
While this is an attractive solution to an enigmatic phrase, it is not probable
for the following reasons: (1) It breaks the parallelism of w 3, 5, 6b, and 7.
(2) The single preposition and the conjunction ("and") form a conceptual
unity, not two contrasting entities. (3) and are not contrasted, as
in 1:26, 33, but coordinated (). (4) It would be plausible only if Nicodemus
4L. Mowry, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Background for the Gospel of John," BA
17 (1954) 92.
5Ibid. 92: "The writer of the Fourth Gospel is virtually saying to the Essene Sect that
they are men who move on the material level of ordinances and commandments to achieve
piety. . . . (the) act of Christian baptism which involves the two elements of and
nveva makes it possible for the Christian initiate to become a new being and places him
in a new reality."
6R. E. Brown, "The Qumran Scrolls and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles," The
Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. . Stendahl (New York: Harper and Row, 1957)
232-33.
7"Does John 3:5 Refer to Baptism?" The Reformed Theological Review 25 (1966) 20.
BELLEVILLE: "BORN OF WATER AND SPIRIT"
127
had made some reference to Jewish ritualism in 4. (5) It harmonizes neither
with the concept yevi*i&fj of the ( 4) nor with ) of the .
(6) The point of contrast in chap. 4 is between two types of
("living water") physical and spiritual, not between and .
(7) &) = "to be born under the law" has no contemporary
literary parallels.
John's Baptism
8
Many maintain that "born of water and Spirit" refers unambiguously to the
rite of water baptism administered by John the Baptist. B. F. Westcott states:
"It can scarcely be questioned that as Nicodemus heard these words, Vater'
carried with it a reference to John's baptism which was a divinely appointed
rite (1:33) investing with a new importance all the lustral baptisms of the
Jews."*
It is argued by those who see in a reference to John's baptism that as
a Jew this would have been the only baptism with which Nicodemus would
have been familiar. 10 John's baptism would be relevant since as a Pharisee
Nicodemus would have rejected this rite.H His baptism was also producing at
that time such a sensation in Palestine that the mere mention of "water" would
certainly have immediately turned Nicodemus' thoughts to John's baptism.
12
Contextual support is found in the conjunction of water and Spirit baptism
in 1:26,33, and in the references to John's baptism in 3:23.
On this reading, however, Nicodemus' response is unintelligible. If Jesus
were in fact focusing attention on the need for Nicodemus to submit to the
Messianic forerunner's baptism, would this not have been something
Nicodemus would have expected to hear? As a Pharisee he would have spurned
a call to repentance (Luke 7:29-30)a message common to all the OT
prophets, and surely the promise of the outpouring of the Spirit would not
only have been familiar but longed for. Yet Nicodemus' response is not one of
refusal marking an attitude of disobedience but one of incredulousness (v 4),
amazement (v 7) and disbelief (v 12).
What reason would Jesus have had for not using the familiar terminology of
"baptism with water" (1:26, 33) instead of the obscure & /cat
, if he were referring to John's baptism? It must also be observed
that although John's baptism is mentioned in chaps. 1 and 3, the purpose of its
inclusion is not to highlight its significance but rather to show its comparative
unimportance (1:23, 26: 3:30). Nor does baptism fit into the overall theme in
chap. 3 of spiritual birth, for it can hardly be classified as a spiritual source ()
that can effect a second birth (& &). This interpretation, as well,
makes mandatory a rite that was superseded by Christian baptism.
^Brooke F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, 2 vols. (London: John
Murray, 1908) 1. 108; Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Grand
Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors, n.d.) 300; F. L. Godet, Commentary on the
Gospel of John, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969) 1. 379.
9Westcott,/o/zw 108.
10
R. V. G. Tasker, St John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960) 70.
1 1
Westcott, John 108.
l
2
Godet,/o/w379.
128 TRINITY JOURNAL
b) Christian ritualism ( = )
Jesus'Baptisml
3
Some see in a reference to Jesus' baptism (as a precedent for Christian
baptism) based on the conjunction of "water" and "Spirit" at the descent of
the dove (1:32-34). While feasible, however, for the Synoptic Gospels which
record Jesus' baptism in full, this view remains untenable for the Gospel of
John which does not describe the event itself, but rather its theological signifi-
cance (1:29-34).
Christian Baptism
The predominant view among scholars seems to be that in John 3:5
cannot possibly mean anything else but the water of Christian baptism.1
4

0
quote C. H. Dodd:
The instructed Christian reader would immediately recognize a
reference to baptism as the sacrament through which the Spirit is
given to believers and by which they were initiated into that new
age of life described as the Kingdom of God, historically embodied
in the Church. I
5
Although many scholars agree that in there is a reference to Christian
baptism, there is great diversity of opinion regarding the relationship between
and as well as ffe cop's exact symbolic content. P. L. Hammer sees
Christian baptism as an inseparable joining of nature () and grace ()
in a manner corresponding to the incarnation. Baptism with "water" points to
the affirmation of creation and human life; baptism with "Spirit" to the power
of God that is at work in his creation to bring cleansing and new life.16 J. N.
Sanders and B. M. Mastin understand 5 to be John's own gloss on Jesus'
words, identifying baptism which John believed to convey the gift of the
Spirit, as the occasion of new birth.
17
H. A. W. Meyer sees as representa-
tive of the forgiveness of sins and as referring to the gift given to the
person baptized for his renewal and sanctification.
1
8
The issue is whether there is in & a reference
to the Christian sacraments either primarily or secondarily. Those who respond
affirmatively do so primarily on the basis of sacramental references made else-
where in the Gospel. It is claimed that the Evangelist has already had much to
say about John the Baptist, in particular that John was sent to baptize with
"water" (1:26, 33).19 In 1:33 the association of and is estab-
lished.
20
Jesus' own baptismal ministry is mentioned in 3:22 and 4: where it
13
Dunn, Baptism 191.
14
J. D. G. Dunn, G. R. Beasley-Murray, T. Zahn, W. Bauer, C. K. Barrett, J. H. Bernard,
Chrysostom, H. A. W. Meyer, P. L. Hammer, C. H. Dodd, E. K. Lee, R. V. G. Tasker, and
B. Lindars are proponents of this interpretation.
iSc. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (London: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1953) 309.
16
"Baptism with Water and the Spirit," Theology and Life 8 (1965) 3842.
Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John (New York: Harper and Row,
1968) 124.
^H. A. W. Meyer, The Gospel of John (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884) 23.
19
Dodd, Interpretation 316.
20
Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (London: Oliphants, 1972) 147.
BELLEVILLE: "BORN OF WATER AND SPIRIT
129
is said to have exceeded John's (3:26). It is also claimed that references to the
eucharist in John 6 support seeing the sacraments elsewhere in John's
Gospel.
21
It must be clearly seen, however, that those who opt for = Christian
baptism are viewing the text as a didactic creation on the part of the Evangelist
to communicate spiritual truth to the church at large about the value and
necessity of baptism. The teaching of Jesus becomes basically irrelevant to
Nicodemus and his contemporaries.
22
The identification of and baptism might well be classed as a common
exegetical faux pas, viz., to be so committed to a sacramental orientation
within Christian experience that the very mention of "water" evokes sac-
ramental associations arising neither from careful consideration of John's
thought nor from contextual considerations.
There is nothing in the immediate context to warrant such an interpretation
of : (1) It is little short of ridiculous to imagine Jesus reprimanding
Nicodemus in 10 for his failure to understand the necessity of a rite yet to be
instituted. (2) Reference to baptism as an essential condition for entering the
kingdom of God makes incomprehensible the dropping of ffccop on repetition
of his statement in 6. In fact, is neither mentioned nor expanded in the
verses that follow (but cf. ). (3) A reference to baptism would introduce
an incongruity into the flow of a text which is concerned not with submission
to an external rite but with the ontological realities of ^4, ,
and the nature of tfeotJ.
23
(4) It does not form a ready parallel
with *$ & ( 3) nor with yevisq&f ( 6). (5) One
also wonders what baptism and the analogy of "how the wind blows" (v 8)
have in common. R. Bultmann was so disturbed by how contextually incon-
gruous = baptism was that he postulated John 3:5 as the work of an
ecclesiastical redactor.
24
Further, if the Evangelist did mean to be an indirect reference to
Christian baptism, it is indeed astounding, as Z. Hodges comments, that he else-
where neglected the opportunity to say this directly.
25
Neither baptism nor
the eucharist is explicitly found in the fourth Gospel. Nor is mention of John's
baptism in chap. 1 and Jesus' baptismal activity in 3:22 supportive, for John
refuses to attach any importance to his own activity and Jesus' supposed bap-
tismal activity is negated in 4: 2.
2 6
As regards the conjunction of water and
Spirit in 1:26, 33, it should be noted that while they are contrasted in chap. 1,
2 1
C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (London: SPCK, 1960) 174.
22
R. H. Strachan (in The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment [London:
SCM, 1917] 134) states: "It is characteristic Johannine anachronism that Jesus should
refer to a rite practiced by his followers after his resurrection." However, while so called
"anachronisms" may be found in John's Gospel such references are made as editorial
comments (e.g., 7:39) and are not found on the lips of Jesus himself.
2
3Hugo Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel Interpreted in Its Relation to Contemporaneous
Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (Uppsala: 1929; reprint
ed., Chicago: Argonaut Press, 1968) 64-66.
2
^R. Bultman, The Gospel of John, translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1964) 138 n. 3.
25
"Water and Spirit-John 3:5," BSac 135 (1978) 209.
26
0deberg, The Fourth Gospel 66.
130
TRINITY JOURNAL
in John 3:5 they are coordinated ().
27
Additionally, if baptism and the gift of the Spirit are so essentially bound to
one another, as supporters of this position claim, it is indeed remarkable that
we find no mention of baptism in chaps. 14-16 nor in 20:22 where the Spirit is
given independently of water baptism.
28
Nor do the themes of repentance and
forgiveness, associated with water baptism in the synoptic Gospels, occur.
29
Given, also, John's strong emphasis on faith as the basis of salvation
(e.g., 20:30-31), it would be inexplicable why in John 3:5 he would suddenly
appear to confine salvation to an outward sign.30
As D. W. Robinson sums up:
The strength of this viewpoint does not lie in any certainty or un-
animity with which the Fourth Gospel is exegeted or interpreted
but rather in what is assumed to have been in the mind of the
Christian reader. A certain view as to the use and meaning of
Christian baptism, derived not from John's Gospel but from else-
where, is made the criterion for the meaning of John 3:5.31
2. Symbolic Usage of *
)
4|
= the Torah ^
Some scholars see in a symbol for the Torah. It is claimed that
is interpreted symbolically most often of the Torah in rabbinic literature. The
NT also speaks of "birth through the word" (Jas 1:18, 1 Pet 1:23-25) and
"washing through the word" (Eph 5:6).
It must be pointed out, however, that while is found in rabbinic
literature as a symbol for the Torah,
32
per se is not the symbol most
often used of the Torah. be*er ("well") and not may (= ) is the symbol
most often found of the Torah: " 'And Isaac's servants digged in the valley and
found there a well of springing water' refers to the third book of the Torah,
Leviticus, because this book of full of great halkt ("traditions")."
3
3 When
and the Torah are related, it is to compare the Torah with the life-
sustaining and purifying capabilities of : "Just as water is life to the world
so the words of the Torah are life to the worl d. . . . Just as water brings out the
unclean out of his impurity so the words of the Torah bring man from the evil
way to the good way "34
"Birth of water," however, is a concept that is foreign to rabbinic literature,
making improbable, therefore, the association in John 3:5 of and the
Torah. Given also that Jesus refers to the life-giving properties of
("his words") in 6:63, it would be inexplicable why and not
would find its way into the text of John 3:5.35
2 7
See the discussion under "Syntax," p. 134-35 of this article.
28
Dunn, Baptism 195.
29
Bultmann, John 135.
30John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries, 8 vols. (Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers
and Authors, n.d.), The Gospels 7. 635.
31 "Does John 3:5 Refer to Baptism," 14
3
2
See Gen.R. 64:7 which likens the halkot contained in Leviticus to living water.
33ibid. Cf. Tg. on Cant. 4:15, and Cant.R. 4:30.
WSifreParasha
c
Eqaeb 37 cd. Cf. also Yah 2:480 and b. Ta^an. 7a.
35zane C. Hodges, "Water and Spirit-John 3:5,"BSac 135 (1978) 214.
BELLEVILLE: "BORN OF WATER AND SPIRIT 131
b) * = Renunciation of the "old man "
&$ has been taken by some to symbolize a
two stage process of regeneration, standing for the renunciation of the
"old man" and for the "new Ufe."
This interpretation, however, presupposes in . a primary
reference to Christian baptism and early Christian symbolism that attended the
act of immersion. Though some have interpreted such Pauline passages as
Rom 6:1-7 in this sense, it is foreign to the imagery, text, and theology of the
fourth Gospel.
3
6
3. Physiological Views
a) Water Sac^
Those who interpret John 3:5 physiologically argue that "to enter into the
womb a second time" (v 3), ^^ ("born of water" 5), and
7ewn#7? in ("born of the* flesh" 6) are parallel statements. It is
claimed that & is an apt and proper description of physical
birth, since human birth is preceded by the rupturing of the bag of fluid
surrounding the baby in the womb. Hence every birth is a birth .
* referring to the water sac can be closely linked to &
("born from above") in 3 and to Nicodemus' reference to the womb in 4. It
also expands the content of while at the same time clarifying
Nicodemus' question about a second birth, as no other interpretation of
can.38
It is also argued that = birth maintains the structural balance between
5 and 6, referring back to and to . It accounts,
as well, for the dropping of in w 6-15 if subsumed under &
. While it is not true to say that no one can enter the kingdom without
baptism, it is true to say that no one can enter without being born twice.39
Although this interpretation is gaining increasing support among modern
scholars, several obstacles remain. The major difficulty is that no parallels exist
in either ancient or contemporary writings to support the contention of
"water" birth with physical birth.
4
0 Also, if Jesus had wanted to express the
idea of physical birth, it is reasonable to assume that he would have used either
( 6) or & ("born of bloods"
1:13). This interpretation also contradicts the syntax of
as a conceptual unity and disrupts the parallelism of w 3,5,6b, and
36See the preceeding discussion and evaluation of Christian baptismal views of
earlier in this paper.
37R. Fowler, "Born of Water and Spirit (John 3:5)," ExpTim 82 (1970-71) 82; D. G.
Spriggs, "Meaning of 'Water' in John 3:5," ExpTim 85 (1973-74) 150.
38xhere is nothing in the context, states R. Fowler ("Born of Water and Spirit," 82),
to connect it with baptism but much to connect it with two births, a physical and a
spiritual birth.
39it is also claimed that if e = physical birth, 1 John 5:6-8 is also illumined.
40
Donald Guthrie and J. A. Motyer, ed., The New Bible Commentary: Revised
(Downers Grove, 111.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1973) 936.
132
TRINITY JOURNAL
7.41
The inclusion of physical birth as a condition for entrance into the kingdom
would appear to contradict other Johannine statements, notably 1:13 where
"to be a child of God" is not the result of any process comparable with that of
physical birth, and 6:63 where it is stated that the flesh profits nothing; only
the Spirit gives life.
b) Male semen**
1
This reading of is based on the rabbinic use of tipah
("drop") for the male semen: "Knowest whence those earnest? From a fetid
drop (tipah)" (Pirqe 'Abot 3:1). "What smell of a woman born is this and
what taste of a white drop (tiph) that ascends to the high heavens?" (3 Enoch
6:2)43
As D. G. Spriggs points out, however, an interpretation of in terms of
semen seems obscure and it may be questioned whether the readers of the
Gospel would have been aware of such rabbinic niceties.
44
4. Implied Dualism
It is asserted by some scholars that fundamental to iohannine thought it the
contrast between ("things above") or ("heavenly
things"), and ("things below") or ("earthly things"). Many
have understood & (= ) &) as
reflective of this spatial dualism. The following are representative:
a) Water and air (= )
'' and v^a are viewed by some as representative of pure and liquid
elements in contrast with the earthly and gross nature of man. John 3:5
teaches that one must lay aside the heavy and ponderous mass of flesh and
become like "water and air" so as to move upwards.
b) Hendiadys for spiritual seed*
5
According to H. Odeberg, is a hendiadys
for spiritual or celestial (in contrast with physical semen or ).
'' is that which in the spiritual process of "birth" corresponds to the
semen in the sarcical process.
Support is claimed from rabbinic and Jewish mystical literature where tipah
("drop") and may ("water," "rain," "dew") are used literally of the male
procreative ("seed")
46
and figuratively to denote the spiritual or
divine engendering efflux from the world ("above").
47
Contextually, 5
4 i
No r is 1 John 5:6 a supportive parallel. While the ascensive sense of is spelled out
in 1 John 5:7 there is no such clarification following John 3:5. Instead we find and
(3:6) to be antithetical rather than ascensive.
4 2
Se e Barrett, John 174-75; Fowler, "Born of Water and Spirit," 149-50, and Spriggs,
"Meaning of 'Water' in John 3:5," 159.
43
Barrett,/oAw 174-75.
44
"Meaning of 'Water' in John 3:5," 150.
4 5
H. Odeberg, L. Morris, R. Strachan, and E. Lee are proponents of this interpretation.
4 6
Se e Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel 50.
47
Ibid, for further examples.
BELLEVILLE: "BORN OF WATER AND SPIRIT
133
is viewed with a strong emphasis on the contrast between the two worlds of
and .*% On this reading $ (the
divine engendering efflux) is contrasted with Nicodemus' reference to the ter-
restial birth in 4 (i.e., the earthly or sarcical seed). That some such idea is in
the mind of the Evangelist is rendered probable, according to Odeberg by:
(1) the contrast throughout the dialogue, (2) the use made of
the idea of spiritual seed in 1 John 3:9 (cf. 1 Pet 1:23), and (3) the thought of
life-giving water in 4:10,14, and 7:38-39
4
^
Odeberg's citations of rabbinic and Jewish mystical sources, however, are
not convincing. None of the sources cited use \} in conjunction with the
concept of regeneration. Also, the connection drawn between and
appears stretched. Although the sources cited associate with the
generation of life, the further association that Odeberg draws between
and spiritual semen is his own and not that of his sources.
The contrast of , , , and with , ,
, and , respectively, is not textually or theologically
demonstrable. refers to the whole of the preceding verses and
includes, therefore, . and are not spatially
dualistic in the Gospel but rather qualitatively antithetical.
5
0 The contrast
between and is based on the view that & ( 3) means
"from above"; and this cannot be sustained given 4.51
This interpretation assumes far too much of the reader (as well as of
Nicodemus), viz., the association of with , an implied in
6, and a familiarity with obscure and often late literary parallels.
5. Cosmologica^
; 2
Another route, taken recently by Z. Hodges, is to understand and
in their natural senses of "water" and "wind" respectively,
5
3
a
double
metaphor alluding to and subsumed under the work of explicitly
mentioned in w 6 and 8. In effect, Jesus is said to be using and
to evoke OT imagery of the sort that ought to have been familiar to a teacher
of Israel (3:10).
54
Further support is found in 8 which plainly shows that can be
rendered as both "wind" and "spirit," in the frequent association of water and
wind as elements in the physical world,
55
and in the vital and vivifying use of
4
This contrast is comparable with / emyeia, / and /
.
WCf. Gen 1:2, Corpus Hermtica lilTiActs of Thomas 52. Cf. also Strachan, John 134.
$ in John represents, in contrast to ^, that which is transitory and without
permanent life-giving value (6:63). To judge ("according to the flesh,"
8:15) is to judge on the basis of "worldly" values (* o\/iv) rather than according to true
and abiding values (7:24 ).
5
l See the discussion of on p. 138 and n. 75.
5
2Hodges, "Water and Spirit-John 3:5," 206-20.
5
3lbid.
54
Ibid.
5 5
Cf. the promises of the future effusion of God's Spirit on the parched arid ground of
man's soul (Isa 44:3-5) and the breathing of God's Spirit on a dead heart (Ezek 37:9).
134
TRINITY JOURNAL
water and wind in the OT as divine figures and instruments.
56
The main difficulty with this interpretation is that to be consistent, Hodges
must translate the anarthrous in w 5 and 6 in like manner. If such is
done the result is contextual absurdity: "Truly I say to you, unless one is born
of water and wind he is not able to enter the kingdom of God. That which is
born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the wind (or Spirit?) is
wind" (??).
6. Figurative Usage
5
1
A major line of interpretation, which dates back as far as Origen, is to take
& as referring to the purifying work of God's
Spirit. Exegetically, is understood as either epexegetic ("water, namely the
Spirit") or coordinate ("water as the Spirit's instrument of purification and
renewal").
58
This position has much to commend it. The association of and
in the OT as symbols of cleansing and renewal is frequent.
59
There is also a
particular emphasis in Judaism on the Spirit and his eschatological function
regarding an inner change of heart.
60
Apocryphal and rabbinic writings show
that the ideas of purification and creation by God's Spirit were active in Jesus'
time.61 xhi
s
interpretation also explains the dropping of in w 6-15, and
allows for the flow of the text and argument. It is consistent with the internal
symbolism of the Gospel which uses as a picture of the operation of the
Spirit yet without any direct connection with literal baptism (e.g., and
are associated in 7:37-39).
62
Westcott, however, insists that in John's Gospel can only be coor-
dinating and not epexegetic, thereby ruling out any position that treats
as merely figurative and descriptive 3 Others validly object, on either reading
of KCLL, that interpreted as inanimate ("water") in contrast to an animate
("Spirit") violates the syntax of the passage.
//. A FRESHEXAMINATION OFJOHN3:5
1. Style and Syntax
In 5, cop and & are governed by a single preposition () and con-
joined by indicating that the phrase is to be viewed as a conceptual unity,
56
Hodges, "Water and Spirit-John 3:5," 217-18.
5 7
G. Ladd, J. Calvin, Origen, and R. Schnackenburg are proponents of this inter-
pretation.
5
8Origen suggests that differs from only in conception, not in substance.
See Robinson, "Does John 3:5 Refer to Baptism?" 19.
5 9
See G. E. Ladd, ,4 Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974)
284.
60Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, vol. 1, translated by
Kevin Smyth (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968) 370.
Sljob 1:16, 23; 5:12; Pss. Sol. 18:16, Enoch 92:3-4, 10:16; 1QS 3:21; 10:10-11,
m. Yoma 8:9;Exod.R. 15:76c.
62
The Spirit elsewhere is coupled with an inanimate element (e.g., Matt 3:11,
Luke 13:11).
Mjohn 108.
BELLEVILLE: "BORN OF WATER AND SPIRIT
135
viz., "water-spirit."
64
We are dealing, therefore, with a water-spirit source that
is the origin of man's second ( 3).
6 5
Both nouns, and , are anarthrous; they describe rather than
identify, thereby emphasizing the nature or quality of the second yeVeai.
66
Verses 3, 5, 6b, and 7 are parallel statementsa typically johannine feature.
67
The parallelism, in particular, of & ( 5) and
^ ( 6), indicates that conceptually and
are so closely interrelated that Jesus can subsume both under the
auspices of the singular in 6.
2. Background
)
It is as that Nicodemus is expected to know
Tama ("the things")
68
of which Jesus has been speaking, viz., a knowledge of
the OT is presumed for an understanding of this water-spirit ^ in 5. The
OT, therefore, can be regarded as the primary sphere of inquiry for seeking a
conceptual background for the phrase and
thereby elucidating the meaning of John 3:5.
b) &
An examination of the johannine passages that appear on the lips of
Jesus shows that all have in common a double link among 6, , and
64
Murray J. Harris, "Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament,"
NIDNTT3. 1178.
6 5
Ibid.
66
The focus would, therefore, not be on the person of the , but on his nature
and activity. Cf. 6:63 and 4:23-24. Nor does the article with in 3:6 warrant
explaining away the anarthrous - on the basis of johannine stylistic variation. As
Zerwick points out, the neuter ro of 3:6 is used of persons where the emphasis is on
quality of function. Further, the neuter gender lays down an absolute and universal prin-
ciple based on the distinct separateness of the natural and supernatural orders. See
Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek (Rome: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1963) 47.
6
1 John characteristically introduces slight variations when similar statements or
themes of spiritual import are repeated. See Leon Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969) 313, for discussion.
6% must refer to vv 2-12. B. Lindars (John 148) remarks that it is reasonable
to suppose that John presents what is basically Jewish and Christian teaching in words that
may be expected to be meaningful to a Gentile audience familiar with the idea of
Hellenistic religious aspirations. The terms and phraseology of these verses, however, are
typically Jewish. Nicodemus is described in terms that typify one who is a representative
of the official Judaism of Jesus' day (e.g., ["Pharisee"], *
["ruler of the Jews"]). He addresses Jesus as "Rabbi," which in the first century AD
became the exclusive term for an officially appointed teacher of the law. He approaches
Jesus on the basis of ("signs"), that which accredited the word of a prophet
according to OT law (e.g. Deut 18:18-22, Exod 4:1-10) and provided evidence of divine
assistance and mission. In addition, he addresses Jesus in terms that link him with the OT
prophets (& ["a teacher come from God"], yp
. .. %v ' ["For no one could perform
these miraculous signs . . . unless God were with him"], 2). Jesus' response focuses on
such matters as (that subject close to the heart of every Pharisee), ,
Moses lifting up the serpent, and an analogy in 8 that is drawn from OT teaching as
much as it is drawn from nature.
136
TRINITY JOURNAL
or . Unique to John 3:5 is the fact that >, and
are further Hnked with and qualify the expression TOO #ecC. The
concept of a "kingdom of God" was obviously known to Nicodemus. He does
not say to Jesus, "What do you mean by the kingdom of God?" His response
is, rather ; ( 9).
Two prevailing concepts of the kingdom were present in the Judaism of
Jesus' day: the present reign of God and the future eschatological kingdom of
God.
Interestingly enough, while the idea or concept of God's kingdom occurs in
the OT, the expression itself doe& not occur (though see Daniel 7). When a
"kingdom" is ascribed to Yahweh it is the abstract sense of reign or rule that is
the prevailing idea. Only derivatively does it carry the sense of the rule of God
over his people.
69
This rule, to the pious Jew, is especially realized in the law. To take up the
"yoke of the kingdom of heaven" means to vow obedience to the law.
In the prophets, there begins to emerge alongside the concept of a present
rule of God the concept of a kingdom that is "yet to come." The belief arises
that in the last days the Messiah will restore the splendor of the Davidic
kingdom and will subject to himself all nations. The expectation of the coming
"kingdom" of God becomes synonymous with Messianic nationalism.
7
^
The phrase ob &' &w, "see," 3) e*
& ("he cannot enter into the kingdom of God") of 5, fits neither of these
two prevailing concepts of the kingdom. This discrepancy hints at a redefining
by Jesus of fj & along qualitative Unes, which the foregoing
examination of the syntax and style has shown. This redefining involves three
essential realities that were discontinuous with the prevailing views of the
kingdom. First, the condition for participation in the kingdom requires a
second birth {^ &>& 3). Second, the nature of this kingdom is
spiritual versus physical (v 6). The of human existence is discontinuous
with and antithetical to participation.
7
! Third, the nature of God's kingdom is
not merely one of rule but one of sphere; "entrance" (&) is required
for participation.
This "kingdom" was one from which Nicodemus was at present excludeda
radical concept to one who as a Rabbi and a Pharisee and by virtue of his
obedience to the law would have considered himself already a part of God's
kingdom.
c)
Background
6 9
See John Bright, The Kingdom of God (Nashville: Abingdom, 1953) 18; H. Kuhn,
"" TDNT 1. 571; and G. E. Ladd, The Presence of the Future (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1974) 122-48. Tied up with the concept of a reign or rule of God over his
people is the belief in the vindication of that rule and people in glory at the end of history.
See Bright, Kingdom 18.
70
E.g., Mie 4:7-8, Pss 102:19; 144:11, 13. Cf. Wis 6:4; 10:10, Dan 3:54; 4:3. See
B. Klappert, "," NIDNTT 2. 377; Kuhn, "," 571; Str-B 4:968-69.
7 1
Similar to Paul's "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom" (1 Cor 15:50). It is
significant that elsewhere in John's Gospel when Jesus is approached on the basis of
"signs" comparable to John 2:23-3:2, these "signs" are linked with the kingdom of God
and prevailing popular beliefs regarding a Messianic kingship. Cf. John 6:14-15.
BELLEVILLE: "BORN OF WATER AND SPIRIT" 137
Background
The phrase \ is scripturally unprecedented.
Spiritual "birth" of the individual with God as "Father" is unique to the NT.
Neither nor & & is found in the OT.
Birth in the Ol*"is physical, national, or by election. While Israel is called God's
first born (Exod 4:22, Deut 32:6, Hos 11:1 ) it is a sonship based on covenant
choice, not due to divine procreation. God's begetting occurs only with regard
to Messianic expectation (e.g. Ps 2) but even this is on the basis of election.?2
Although the phrase & is not found in the OT, the
broader concept of , especially the infusion of spiritual life () is
basic to the prophetic promises and foundational to Jewish intertestamental
eschatological expectation.? 3
It may also well be that Jesus is, in part, drawing his usage from
the everyday experience of childbearing. This would be consistent with Jesus'
practice of using the everyday as a basis for his teaching elsewhere in the NT.
74
It would also be consistent with his use in 8 of an analogy drawn from nature
( itself (i.e., "the wind blows wherever it wills and you hear its sound but do not
know where it comes from and where it is going").
In this case ^} & ( 3) will refer to the necessity for man to
undergo a second birth that is spiritual versus material in origin, having
72see R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, 2 vols. (Garden City, New York:
Doubleday, 1966) 1:139. According to Ringwald ("," NIDNTT 1. 177), the
absence of this verb in contexts regarding the father-son relationship or with God as the
father of Israel, is indicative of the OT's attempt to disassociate itself from the procreation
myths of Israel's surrounding Canaanite culture.
7
3Although it is suggested by some that the background for is the
hellenistic mysteries, primarily on the basis of Tractate 13 of the Hermtica, the
association is improbable since ^& in Tractate 13 is theologically pantheistic
and John's theology of apayeveoK ("rebirth") is monotheistic. See E. K. Lee, The
Religious Thought of St. John (London: SPCK, 1950) 47; Dodd, Interpretation 303-4;
Barrett, John 172-73; and Sanders and Mastn, John 123, for discussion and proponents.
Nor is proselyte baptism a likely background, since in proselyte baptism there is no
idea of supernatural birth but only of a new judicial state. Likewise, rabbinic Judaism
seems to have had no real doctrine of regeneration. See Lee, The Religious Thought 47;
Dodd, Interpretation 303-4; Str-B 7:420-23; and Edersheim, Life and Times 298-99.
Although in Philo the metaphor of divine begetting is frequent, he limits the metaphor
to God's creative activity (see Lee, The Religious Thought 47 for references and dis-
cussion). The concept of rebirth is not found either in the Qumran Scrolls or in the
Damascus Document. Only in the post-exilic period do we find pious individuals desig-
nated as "sons of God"^(e.g.,JVis 5:5, PssSol 17:30, Sir 4:10; 23:1,4; Wis 2:13,16,18).
The term in &, however, is not found. See Brown, John 139.
Some hold to a primitive Gospel tradition as the primary source for the expression.
The synoptic passages, however, that refer to "becoming as a child" only draw a com-
parison () rather than stating a fact (e.g., Matt 18:3, Mark 10:15, Luke 18:15), viz.,
"you must become a child."
74
E.g., Matthew 13, Luke 18.
138 TRINITY JOURNAL
the sense of "again" or "anew."
75
Johannine Usage
Although the concept of divine begetting is rare in the OT, it is frequent in
the Johannine corpus. John's familiar expression regarding the believer's
relationship to God is that he & ("is born of God," John
1:13). To be 'born of God' is in John 1:13 antithetical to being born of the
. It means receiving the very nature of God, for being born of God results
in the doing of righteousness (1 John 2:29), in not sinning (1 John 3:7-10), in
love (1 John 4:7), and in overcoming the world (1 John 5:4).
if equal to
involves trie impartation of God's nature and a work of regeneration in man.
This would a priori rule out any ritualistic understanding of 5 (e.g., baptism)
as well as any physiological interpretation of . Neither can effect spiritual
birth or regeneration.
d)
Verses 3-12 have a pneumatological focus. The term is repeated
5 times. What was there in the OT and Judaistic expectation regarding /
that might have prepared Nicodemus for Jesus' pneumatological
statements?
OT Background
throughout the OT is the principle of life. As God gave physical life
to man, when he breathed into him the of life (Gen 2:7; 6:3, Job
34:14), so also, according to Ezek 37:14, God will at some future point
breathe spiritual Ufe into his people and put his within them "that they might
live." The association of "birth" and "life" with , therefore, is concep-
tually familiar to the OT.
76
The OT also looks forward to a new dispensation of the marked by:
(1) an outpouring of the Spirit on all mankind (Joel 2:28) resulting in divine
blessing, peace, and righteousness (Ezek 39:29, Isa 32:15-20; 44:3), and (2) an
indwelling of the Spirit which insures cleansing from idolatry, obedience to
God's commandments, and participation in the "people of God" (Ezek
36:26-27; 11:19-20).
This outpouring of God's Spirit was central to Jewish eschatological hope
7 5
"Again" or "anew" as opposed to "from above" is to be preferred for the following
reasons: (1) Nicodemus took the term to mean such (i.e., he speaks of entering the womb
a second time in 4). (2) John's device of misunderstanding (where in conversation Jesus'
interlocutor misunderstands something Jesus says) does not depend on verbal ambiguity
(e.g., 2:20). (3) Nicodemus' failure to understand Jesus in 3:4 is more easily explained.
(4) Since "from above" denotes the sphere or source of birth, Nicodemus would have had
to deliberately choose to misunderstand to mean "from below" (i.e., an earthly
sense). (5) We know of no Hebrew or Aramaic word that carries both spatial and temporal
meanings if Jesus did not speak in Greek. (6) Nicodemus by his response in 4 does not
fail to understand the necessary fact of a second birth but rather the appropriate sphere
which Jesus in w 5-12 proceeds to define. Godet, Bultmann, Ladd, Westcott, Ringwald,
Calvin, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexander, Tertullian, Augustine, and Jerome all opt for
"born again." Cf. Coptic and Syriac versions.
7
6see Brown, John 140, and E. Kamiah, "," NIDNTT 3. 692.
BELLEVILLE: "BORN OF WATER AND SPIRIT
139
and signalled the arrival of Messianic times. Any mention of the Spirit by Jesus
would have hinted at the arrival of this Messianic age.
Rabbinic Background
In rabbinic literature there is a link between the Spirit and a life which is
obedient to God: "He who undertakes a command in faith is worthy that the
Holy Spirit rest on him.''
7
7 "He who studies with the intention of doing ^t
deserves the gift of the Holy Spirit."
78
The order here is significant. The Spirit
is viewed as the proper reward for a righteous life.79
In John 3:5, however, one finds just the reverse. The is not a reward
but a necessary condition for participation in God's kingdom. Nor is the work
of the Spirit a mere matter of cleansing from sin and idolatry or the indwelling
of the to bring about renewal and obedience. The work of the &
in man demands nothing less than a second ' that is in
nature.
One of the reasons for a nature, as McCool points out, is that the
basis of worship under the new covenant is and & (4:23), in cor-
respondence with the nature of God as &) (4:24). The believer shares
God's nature because he is born of the Spirit (3:36).
80
e) ' j
Two prominent themes are associated with the concept of in the OT:
the theme of renewal and the theme of cleansing.
Renewal
Due to the preciousness of water in the Near East, and its role as a vital
necessity of life, it is not surprising that is used in the OT as a symbol of
God's activity in quickening men to life.
81
It is frequently linked in Jewish
eschatological thought with the as an agent of renewal and blessing. In
Joel 2:28-29, we have the promise that in the latter days God will "pour out"
his Spirit on all flesh. In Isa 32:15, there will come a time when the Spirit is
"poured" on us from on high (cf. Isa 44:3-5).
Cleansing
Central to OT theology is the concept of purification by water. The
prophetic hope included an eschatological sprinkling with "clean water" that
would cleanse both land and people of an idolatrous spirit. The figurative
expression "to sprinkle with clean water" is taken from and sums up levitical
purification rites.
82
77
Rabbi Acha, Lev.R 35:7. See Sjoberg, "," TDNTS. 383.
78
Ibid.
7
^Both blessing and moral renewal through God's Spirit was widely conceived of as
impossible in this age and expressly reserved for the world to come.
80
Francis J. McCool, "Living Water in John," in The Bible in Current Catholic
Thought, ed. John L. McKenzie (New York: Herder and Herder, 1962) 230-31.
81
E.g., Isa 55:1-3, Jer 2:13; 17:13, Zech 14:8, Ezek 47:9, Isa 32:15-17; 44:3-5, Joel
2:28, Job 1:33; cf. also T.Jud. 24:3. See also Ezek 39:29.
82
Cleansing from defilement involved sprinkling with water prepared with the ashes of
a red heifer. See Num 19:17-19. Cf. Ps 51:9. See O. Bocher, "' ," NIDNTT 3. 989.
140 TRINITY JOURNAL
The prophetic spiritualization of OT legal lustrations is reflected in the
Judaism of the intertestamental period, as well: "I will create in them a holy
spirit and I will cleanse them . . . I will be their father and they shall be my
children" (Jub. 1:23-25). In Philo and Josephus, purification with water
became a symbol for the purification of soul and conscience.
83
The Pharisees,
in particular, built up the OT prescriptions of Lev 11-15 into a complicated
system of ritual purification.
84
The Covenanters, as well, looked forward to the day when God would
"purify in His truth all the works of man, rooting our iniquity and purifying
man's flesh of all impurity by a holy spirit."
85
The use of 8 in John 3:5 most probably recalls God's redemptive
activities of cleansing and renewalan eschatological theme prominent both in
the OT and the literary milieu of Jesus' day.
3. Summary
John 3:5 both sums up and goes beyond OT concepts of , *,
, and . Whereas the OT speaks of cleansing and renewal through
the outpouring and indwelling of God's Spirit, Jesus speaks of an entirely new
beginning (v 3 &), a second birth whose nature is
as opposed to (w 5-6).
It is reasonable to assume that in we have a reference to the prophetic
eschatological cleansing (Ezek 36:26-27) accomplished through God's Spirit
(John 3:6)the spiritual counterpart to the Levitical rites of purification. In
we do not have a reference to the Holy Spirit, as such, but a reference
to the impartation of God's nature as (John 4:24). It is the dual work
of the Spirit (v 6) to purify and impart this nature to man. Only 6
^^ ) as ( 6) can "see" and "enter" the
kingdom of God (John 3:5,6), for the kingdom of God is spirit in nature just
as God himself is (4:23-24).
This implies for Nicodemus a radical reworking of Jewish kingdom con-
cepts, for the "kingdom" of John 3:3-5 implies not only reign but also spiritual
realm. The basis for these changes is given in w 12-21, in response to
Nicodemus' <3 & ("how are these things possible"),
viz., the saving work of Christ, God's Son.
///. CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the preceding examination, the following can be concluded:
(1) and constitute a two-fold source which defines the nature of
birth, rather than identifying a personal agent ( ) for this birth.
Divine, personal agency is not given until 6. (2) * and are
"water" and "spirit" respectively, not "water" and "wind" (Hodges), "water
of the Spirit" (Ladd), or "water viz., the Spirit" (Calvin, Morris).
8
6 (3)
83
ibid.
8 4
See Str-B 1.695-702 for discussion and references. Cf. b. Ber. 15a, and b. Ber. 22a.
See also Oepke, "," TDNT 4.301, and H. Hauck, "," TDNT 4.418-20.
8
5lQS 4:21-24. Cf. 1QS 3:6-8; 11:10-14; 7:6; 9:32; 12:12; 16:12; 17:20 regarding
Qumran purification rites which were an outward sign of inward cleansing and renewal.
86
Morris, John 218; Calvin, Gospels 635-36.
BELLEVILLE: "BORN OF WATER AND SPIRIT"
141
*6 refers to that which purifies and renews (i.e., to the promised eschato-
logical cleansing and renewal of the OT prophets). (4) Verse 5 is seen as a
response to and apt contrast with v. 4. (5) /c is under-
stood to be in contrast to ( 6); referring to all that belongs to
God and the heavenly or spiritual world in contrast with all that is earthly and
human (), viz., the transient and mortal.
87
This sense of is demanded by 6: ^^
. They belong to the world of , the category of spiritual
things, and are of a nature and mode of operation analogous to that of
&} 3 ( 8), but whose reality is beyond question (
) even if its essential nature is not discernible to the human eye
(v 8). They belong, as well, to the world of o & who is & (4:24).
The reading "water and spirit" has syntactical parallels in John 4:23: ol
rp and
in John 6:63 where the words which Jesus speaks .
Nicodemus approaches Jesus as one whose miracles attest him as a divinely
appointed teacher of God (v 2). Jesus lays before Nicodemus the necessity of a
second birth (v 3), the nature of that birth (it is spiritual, 5, as, opposed to
physical, 4), the reason for the second birth (v 6), assurance regarding the
reality of a spirit-birth (first by concrete illustration, 8; second by personal
testimony, w 11-12), and lastly, the basis of that birth, viz., the death of the
Son of God (w 13-21).
On this reading of the text, is that which inwardly purifies and
cleanses (cf. levitical water ritualism) and that which partakes of the
essential nature of God himself (i.e., that which is born of the Spirit is spirit).
This interpretation accords best with the issues, context, theology, and back-
ground discussed above.
87
Schnackenburg,/o/w 1. 439.
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.