“Nicodemus came to Jesus by night…”
by G. Eric and Edith Matson Photograph Collection,
Library of Congress
Jesus told Nicodemus, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit,” but what did Jesus mean by udatos kai pneumatos?1 This post helps answer that question by surveying bibliographic references that address the meaning of “water and spirit” in John 3:5. Zane stresses the importance of the issue by saying, “…any misunderstanding of the Lord’s words can lead to a misunderstanding of one of the most basic conceptions in Christianity– the doctrine of the new birth.”2
Organizing available references is difficult because most authors discuss a variety of alternative viewpoints and some simply do not come to any definite conclusions about the matter. This situation makes a conversational structure, as reflected in this post, most appropriate. The most basic question is whether “water” means “baptism.” If so, whose baptism and what is its nature? Is it figurative, mystical, physical, sentimental, or spiritual? Is this baptism ascensive, identical, complementary, superior, or subordinate to the “spirit”? Did the words udatos kai originate with Jesus or were they added at a later date? Should we interpret “water and spirit” based on the probable meaning to Nicodemus or on the probable meaning to the readers of John’s gospel?
Ancient and modern writers have long held a variety of opinions. On one hand, Origen viewed “water” as just another notion for spirit.3 Ferguson leaves open the question of whether the text ascribed to Origen is authentic, choosing instead to highlight the alleged ascription as a spiritualizing tendency in the post-apostolic age that extended way beyond Origen.4 Ferguson quotes Origen . . .
The Savior interprets the manner of “being begotten from above.” Since the subject is entering the kingdom of God, and it is impossible to attain this without being begotten of water and the Spirit, to be begotten from above accompanies being begotten of water and Spirit. The one doing thus is begotten of the Spirit and becomes holy and spiritual from the Spirit. Since the one entering the kingdom of God is begotten not only from the Spirit but also from the water, one must consequently seek something from the Scripture concerning the water. Observe that it has a difference from the Spirit in thought only but not of purpose . . . .[Quotes John 7:38-39] For if the Spirit is said to flow from the believer like rivers of living water, the water will differ from the Spirit in thought only. If then someone begotten from the Savior is wise from his wisdom, so also one begotten from the Spirit is holy and spiritual. And on purified by the water and irrigated for fruit bearing is begotten of water and the Spirit. Someone else will say the water here is spoken of the teaching that purifies the soul, which also accomplishes the being begotten from above . . . .
Since not only the soul is called to salvation but also the body itself, the instrument used for the soul’s activities, it is fitting that the body also be sanctified by what the divine teaching calls the “bath of regeneration” [Tit. 3:5], also called divine baptism, no longer mere water. For it is sanctified by a mystic invocation. Observe and understand its greatness and power in the mystagogy delivered by the Savior to his disciples . . . . [Quotes Matt. 28:19.] For if it is necessary first to be made a disciple by receiving the dogmas of truth and then to keep those things he commanded them concerning the ethical virtues, and so to be baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, how can the water that is received together with these words be still mere water, since it shares is some manner the power of the holy Trinity and is yoked together with ethical and intellectual virtue? Consider and understand the greatness of that for which it is received. For if this is on account of entering the kingdom of God, which surpasses in excellence, how great is the cause of entering it?
Similarly to Orgien, Calvin argued that “water” was “nothing more than the inward purification and invigoration which is produced by the Holy Spirit.”5 Odeburg saw “water and spirit” as a hendiadys conveying the idea of spiritual semen6 in parallel with 1 Peter 1:23 and John 1:13.
The majority of early writers, however, appear to have held a different opinion, choosing instead to view “water and spirit” as a reference to a mystical effect of Christian baptism that illuminates or regenerates the soul. Le Frois provides evidence from early writers to support the idea that “water and spirit” symbolize and effect a mystical birth from the virgin Mary.7 A multi-volume work by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson provides a convenient way to identify such views with its index of Biblical citations covering many ancient Christian authors.8 In the case of John 3:5, the index shows eleven documents by Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and others that address this passage. A similar work by W. A. Jurgens excerpts sections from ancient works and arranges them into theological groupings.9 The index provided by Jurgens reveals ten citations of John 3:5 in passages authored by The Shepherd of Hermas, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo, and Fulgence of Ruspe.
In later times, authors, such as Bultmann, reacted to the sometimes gross sacramentalism of ancient authors with the assertion that, although “water” in 3:5 refers to Christian baptism, the words themselves did not originate with Jesus. Instead, Bultmann asserted they are an “insertion of the ecclesiastical redaction” which “could only confuse the ideas in v. 6. and v. 8.”10 In a similar vein, others have regarded “water” as a “polemic against the disciples of John the Baptist and an insistence upon Christian baptism as the outward and visible sign of the gift of the Holy Spirit.”11 Conversely, Howard reaches an opposite conclusion that “water and spirit” show John’s baptism as the forerunner of the greater and future gift of the Spirit.12
Several modern writers view “water” as a reference to the physical water of birth. These include M. Pamment,13 D. Spriggs,14 and R. Fowler.15 In defending this position, Fowler says, “It is not true to say that no one can enter the Kingdom without [water] baptism (the Quakers and the Salvation Army give the lie to that) but no can enter without being twice born.”16
Barrett rejects any attempt to eliminate udatos kai on a textual basis by saying these words “are undoubtedly the work of the writer who published the gospel, and must therefore be interpreted as part of the text.”17 He also outlines and then rejects the argument for interpreting “water” as an allusion to physical birth. As an alternative, he suggests the gospel writer connected “water” with “spirit” to forestall a sacramentalism that would separate the outward act of Christian baptism from its inward reality.18
Cottrell describes the association of “water” with baptism as being “the predominant view throughout history.”19 He does not believe udatos literally points to a physical birth or figuratively points to the Holy Spirit. Instead, he offers five reasons to support baptism as the correct interpretation based on (1) the novel aspect of John’s baptism, (2) Jesus’ widely known baptism by John, (3) John’s clear distinction between his water baptism and the spirit baptism of the one who would come after him, (4) John’s connection of water baptism with the coming kingdom, and (5) the relationship of baptism, birth, and resurrection in Paul’s writings.20
R. E. Brown outlines three possible relationships between the “water” and “spirit” in John 3:5: (1) They may be the same; (2) one may be subordinate to the other; or (3) they may separate but coordinate.21 For example, if “water and spirit” equate to baptism and faith, they could be separate and coordinate with baptism being a particular expression of faith. If they equate to baptism and Spirit, the former could be subordinate to the latter with the Spirit most important. He also outlines the principle proponents and arguments for treating udatos kai as a later addition to the Johannine tradition.
Bengel, Robertson, and Osburn subordinate “water” to “spirit.” Although Bengel designates “water” as a reference to John’s baptism, he diminishes its significance by making baptism a consequence of the Holy Spirit’s regenerating influence.22 Robertson identifies baptism as the idea behind “water,” but discounts its importance by noting that Jesus does not mention “water” in John 3:3; 6-8.23 Osburn sees a clear link to baptism but believes the emphasis of verse 5 is on “spirit,” indicating Nicodemus’ need for a radically different worldview.24
Westcott describes “water” and “spirit” as “coordinate, correlative, complementary.”25 He goes on to say that “all interpretations which treat the term water here as simply figurative and descriptive of the cleansing power of the Spirit are essentially defective, as they are also opposed to all ancient tradition.”26 Schnackenburg, Beasley-Murray, and Cullmann also see a coordinate relationship between the birth from “water” and the birth from “spirit.” Schnackenburg bases his interpretation, not on the possible meaning of “water” to Nicodemus, but on the word’s meaning to the Christian reader’s of John’s gospel. He notes that every “Christian hearer or reader of the Gospel must have thought at once of baptism.”27 He goes on to argue that the gospel writer connects the birth of the Spirit in the physical act of baptism the same way he connects Jesus’ discourse on the bread of life with the concrete act of the Eucharist.28 Beasley-Murray conjoins “water” and “spirit” by observing that “he who is baptized in faith in the Son of Man…becomes a new creation by the Spirit….”29
Schneiders offers an insight with a feminist flavor. Schneiders views baptism as the referent of “water” and considers verse 5, with its imagery of being born out of water, as “one of the clearest New Testament images of the femininity of God.”30 She believes traditional translations of verse 5 are typical of the male religious establishment’s suppression of God’s female attributes.
Cotterell applies the new techniques of discourse analysis to verse 5 and concludes that Nicodemus would most certainly have understood “water” as an allusion to baptism.31
In all the interpretations reflected in this post, theological and philosophical presuppositions play a critical role. Various opinions on the nature of truth, knowledge, and spirituality have tremendous influence on how these authors “see the kingdom of God.” On one hand, “water and spirit” are used to justify sacramentalism. In so doing, the author mixes a mystical approach to spirituality with a particular emphasis on God’s kingdom as a concrete community. In contrast, those who are more individualistic see “water and spirit” as reflecting the need for some kind of personal illumination. Still others have a propositional perspective that takes a complementary view of “water and spirit.” They see the “spirit” signifying the source of God’s propositions and “water” signifying baptism as the source of man’s faithful response to those propositions. The point is that such presuppositions must always be considered. Otherwise, readers may find themselves in the awkward shoes of Nicodemus, responding to the truth with the question, “How can this be?”
In my opinion, the simplest and most likely explanation is the phrase “water and spirit” is simply a hendiadys where the second noun modifies the first to convey the idea of “spiritual water”– “spiritual water” in that the waters of baptism are waters upon which God has placed a special meaning. See “The Kai Connection” for more info on hendiadys.
–Bill Brewer
PS:
For other posts dealing with the use of “kai,” use the following link:
Search “kai”
For a word study of “kai,” see the following link:
Kai Word Study (1.5 MB)
For a sampling of references on the biblical use of hendiadys, see the following link:
A Sampling of References on Biblical Instances of Hendiadys
NOTES
1See Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1966), 144. citing I. de la Potterie, “Natre del l’eau et natre de l’esprit.” ScEc 14 (1962): 418-25.
2Zane C. Hodges, “Water and Spirit – John 3:5, Problem Passages in the Gospel of John, Pt 3,” Bibliotheca Sacra 135 (July-September 1978): 206.
3Origen on the Gospel of St. John, vol 2, A. E. Brooke, ed., (Cambridge: 1896), quoted in G. R. Beasley-Murray, “John 3:3,5: Baptism, Spirit, and the Kingdom,” Expository Times 97:6 (March 1986): 168.
4Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church (Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans, 2009), 435. ”
5John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 3 [includes the first chapters of John], trans. William Pringle, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: 1979), 111.
6Hugo Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (Uppsala Och Stockholm: Almqvist & Wksells Boktryckeri-A. B., 1929), 48-71, cited in R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, ed., R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971), 138.
7Bernard J. le Frois, “Spiritual Motherhood of Mary in John 3:3-5,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 14 (April 1952): 119-122.
8Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 8 vols., revised and arranged by A. Cleveland Coxe (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950-51), 1:183-8:290.
9W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 vols. (Collegeville, Mn.: The Liturgical Press, 1970-79), 1:36-3:297.
10R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray, ed., R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971), 138.
11W. F. Howard, “John,” vol. 8, The Interpreters’ Bible, eds., G. A. Buttrick, Walter Russell Bowie, John Knox, Paul, Scherer, Samuel Terrien, and Nolan B. Harmon (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1952), 505.
12Ibid.
13Margaret Pamment, “John 3:5: ‘Unless One is Born of Water and the Spirit, He Cannot Enter the Kingdom of God’,” Novum Testamentum 25 (1983), 190.
14D. Spriggs, “Meaning of ‘Water” in John 3:5.” Expository Times 85 (1974): 149-50.
15R. Fowler, “Born of Water and the Spirit (Jn 3:5),” Expository Times 82 (1971): 159.
16Ibid.
17Charles. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1978), 208.
18Ibid., 209.
19Jack Cottrell, Baptism: A Biblical Study (Joplin, Mo.: College Press Publishing Co., 1989), 33-34.
20Ibid., 34-36.
21Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1966), 144.
22John Albert Bengel, Bengel’s New Testament Commentary, vol. 1, Matthew – Acts, trans. Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1981), 571-572.
23Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 5, The Fourth Gospel, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1932), 45-46.
24Carroll D. Osburn, “Some Exegetical Observations on John 3:5-8,” Restoration Quarterly 31:3 (1989): 134-135.
25Brooke Foss Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes, vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), 108.
26Ibid.
27Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to John, vol. I (New York: Crossroad, 1982), 369.
28Ibid., 369.
29George R. Beasley-Murray, “The Nicodemus Discourse,” Word Biblical Commentary – John (Waco, Tex: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 49.
30Sandra M. Schneiders, “Born Anew,” Theology Today 44 (July 1987): 194.
31F. P. Cotterell, “The Nicodemus Conversation: A Fresh Appraisal,” Expository Times 96 (May 1985): 240-241.
WORKS CITED
Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978.
Beasley-Murray, G. R. “The Nicodemus Discourse.” Word Biblical Commentary – John. Waco, Tex.: Word, Inc., 1987.
Bengel, John Albert. Bengel’s New Testament Commentary. Vol. 1, Matthew – Acts. Translated by Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1981.
Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1966.
Bultmann, R. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray, ed., R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971.
Calvin, John. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Vol. 3 [includes the first chapters of John], Translated by William Pringle. Grand Rapids, Mich.: 1979.
Cotterell, F. P. “The Nicodemus Conversation: A Fresh Appraisal.” Expository Times 96 (May 1985): 237-42.
Cottrell, Jack. Baptism: A Biblical Study. Joplin, Mo.: College Press Publishing Co., 1989.
Cullmann, Oscar. Early Christian Worship. Translated by A. Stewart Todd and James B. Torrance. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1953.
Ferguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans, 2009.
Fowler, R. “Born of Water and the Spirit (Jn 3:5).” Expository Times 82 (1971): 159.
Hodges, Zane C. “Water and Spirit – John 3:5, Problem Passages in the Gospel of John, Pt 3.” Bibliotheca Sacra 135 (July-September 1978): 206-220.
Howard, W. F. “John.” in Vol. 8, The Interpreters’ Bible. eds. G. A. Buttrick, Walter Russell Bowie, John Knox, Paul, Scherer, Samuel Terrien, and Nolan B. Harmon, 437-811. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1952.
Jurgens, W. A. The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 Vols. Collegeville, Mn.: The Liturgical Press, 1970-79.
Le Frois, Bernard J. “Spiritual Motherhood of Mary in John 3:3-5.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 14 (April 1952): 116-123.
Odeberg, Hugo. The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World. Uppsala Och Stockholm: Almqvist & Wksells Boktryckeri-A. B., 1929.
Osburn, Carroll D. “Some Exegetical Observations on John 3:5-8.” Restoration Quarterly 31:3 (1989): 129-138.
Pamment, Margaret. “John 3:5: ‘Unless One is Born of Water and the Spirit, He Cannot Enter the Kingdom of God’.” Novum Testamentum 25 (1983): 189-90.
Potterie, I. de la. “Natre del l’eau et natre de l’esprit.” ScEc 14 (1962): 417-43.
Roberts, Alexander. and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 8 Vols. Revised and arranged by A. Cleveland Coxe. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950-51.
Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 5. The Fourth Gospel, The Epistle to the Hebrews. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1932.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel According to John. Vol. I. New York: Crossroad, 1982.
Schneiders, S. M. “Born Anew.” Theology Today 44 (July 1987): 189-96.
Spriggs, D. “Meaning of ‘Water” in John 3:5.” Expository Times 85 (1974): 149-50.
Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Gospel According to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Jimmy. “Jesus and Nicodemus (John 3:1-10).” Gospel Advocate 115 (Oct 4, 1973): 631.
Anderson, Lynn. “Born to Better Living (John 3:1-8).” Restoration Quarterly 31 (Jul 1, 1989): 165-169.
Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978.
Beasley-Murray, G. R. “John 3:3,5: Baptism, Spirit, and the Kingdom.” Expository Times 97:6 (March 1986): 167-70.
________, G. R. “The Nicodemus Discourse.” Word Biblical Commentary -John. Waco, Tex.: Word, Inc., 1987.
Belleville, Linda L. “‘Born of Water and Spirit’: John 3:5.” Trinity Journal 1 (Fall 1980): 125-41.
Bengel, John Albert. Bengel’s New Testament Commentary. Vol. 1, Matthew – Acts. Translated by by Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1981.
Bernard, J. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. 2 Vols. Edited by A. H. McNeile. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928.
Brooks, Oscar S. The Drama of Decision: Baptism in the New Testament. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. 1987.
Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1966.
Bultmann, R. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray, ed., R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971.
Calvin, John. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Vol. 3 [includes the first chapters of John], Translated by William Pringle. Grand Rapids, Mich.: 1979.
Cotterell, F. P. “The Nicodemus Conversation: A Fresh Appraisal.” Expository Times 96 (May 1985): 237-42.
Cottrell, Jack. Baptism: A Biblical Study. Joplin, Mo.: College Press Publishing Co., 1989.
Cullmann, Oscar. Early Christian Worship. Translated by A. Stewart Todd and James B. Torrance. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1953.
Dodd, C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.
Ferguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans, 2009.
Fowler, R. “Born of Water and the Spirit (Jn 3:5).” Expository Times 82 (1971): 159.
Goad, Steven Clark. “Jesus and a Clergyman (John 3:1-10).” Firm Foundation 99 (Sep 28, 1982): 612.
Hodges, Zane C. “Water and Spirit – John 3:5, Problem Passages in the Gospel of John, Pt 3.” Bibliotheca Sacra 135 (July-September 1978): 206-220.
Howard, W. F. “John.” In Vol. 8, The Interpreters’ Bible. eds. G. A. Buttrick, Walter Russell Bowie, John Knox, Paul, Scherer, Samuel Terrien, and Nolan B. Harmon, 437-811. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1952.
________, W. F. “Johannine Sayings of Jesus.” Expository Times 46 (1934-35): 486-491.
Jurgens, W. A. The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 Vols. Collegeville, Mn.: The Liturgical Press, 1970-79.
Le Frois, Bernard J. “Spiritual Motherhood of Mary in John 3:3-5.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 14 (April 1952): 116-123.
Metzger, Bruce M. Index to Periodical Literature on Christ and the Gospels. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.
Odeberg, Hugo. The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World. Uppsala Och Stockholm: Almqvist & Wksells Boktryckeri-A. B., 1929.
Osburn, Carroll D. “Some Exegetical Observations on John 3:5-8.” Restoration Quarterly 31:3 (1989): 129-138.
Pamment, Margaret. “John 3:5: ‘Unless One is Born of Water and the Spirit, He Cannot Enter the Kingdom of God’.” Novum Testamentum 25 (April 1983): 189-90.
Potterie, I. de la. “Natre del l’eau et natre de l’esprit.” ScEc 14 (1962): 417-43.
Roberts, Alexander. and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 8 Vols. Revised and arranged by A. Cleveland Coxe. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950-51.
Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 5. The Fourth Gospel, The Epistle to the Hebrews. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1932.
Robinson, Donald W. B. “Born of Water and Spirit: Does John 3:5 Refer to Baptism? Reformed Theological Review 25 (January-April 1986): 15-23.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel According to John. Vol. I. New York: Crossroad, 1982.
Schneiders, S. M. “Born Anew.” Theology Today 44 (July 1987): 189-96.
Snodgrass, Klyne R. “That Which is Born from Pneuma is Pneuma: Rebirth and Spirit in John 3:5-6.” Covenant Quarterly 49 (February 1991): 13-29.
Spriggs, D. “Meaning of ‘Water’ in John 3:5.” Expository Times 85 (1974): 149-150.
Sumerlin, Terry L. “John 3:5.” Preceptor 28 (Mar 1, 1979): 7.
Taylor, Robert R. Jr. “John 3:3-5 – the New Birth.” Spiritual Sword 10 (Jan 1, 1979) 6-7.
Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Gospel According to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954.
Witherington, Ben, III. “The Waters of Birth: John 3:5 and 1 John 5:6-8.” New Testament Studies 35:1 (1989): 155-60.
Hello,
I had put up a page that mentioned the use of water as a type of the Holy Spirit. Someone gave me the following quote from your site: Origen viewed “water” as just another notion for spirit. Found here: http://historeo.com/web/?p=792#3 I looked through the works of Origen and was unable to find the reference. Can you help?
Thank you
Hi Bob,
Since several people have asked similar questions, I am replacing my original response of November 2011 as follows:
The relevant passage from Origen is not in the main manuscripts attributed to Origen. It comes from Fragment 36 on page 249-250 of Volume 2 of A.E. Brooke’s Greek text.
You can download both volumes at the following links:
Vol 1
Vol 2
Since most people don’t read Greek, I’ve revised the main body of my post to include Everett Ferguson’s translation of relevant paragraphs.
You can find Ferguson’s quote at Google Books at Baptism in the Early Church.
I’m also including Beasley-Murray’s thoughts as in my original response below:
Hope this helps!
Best regards,
Bill Brewer
—————————————
In the face of the incredulous expostulation of Nicodemus in v 4 the expression “to be begotten from above” is expounded as being begotten of water and Spirit. What is the relation of “water” and “Spirit”? Origen suggested that here “water” differs from “Spirit” only in ἐπίνοια, i.e., in “notion,” not in ὑπόστασις, “substance” (Commentary, 2:249 f., ff. in A. E. Brooke’s edition). Calvin in like fashion interpreted water and Spirit as meaning the same thing, comparable to “Spirit and fire” in the preaching of John the Baptist (John, 1:64–65).
Beasley-Murray, G. R. (2002). Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary : John. Word Biblical Commentary (48). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
Why not use the Bible for the study of what this means?
Jesus said we must be baptized in water, and in his name. He said by repenting and obeying the baptism we’d receive the Holy Ghost..Acts 2:38. Jn.3:3-5 means what Acts is showing us…they all obeyed the commandment. Why do people try to get away from the Acts salvation plan. Matt.16 tells us “Whoever believes AND is baptized” shall be saved..shall meaning he will give them the Spirit birth. John the baptist had a mission prior and during Christs reign here, it was souliy for that purpose.
We have to obey Acts to be saved..it is simple. All that were with Jesus went to the upper room, all that seen and heard their experience asked what they also could do to be saved Acts 2:37. Acts 4 at the end of the chapter tells us God added to the church daily as many as should be saved…meaning they weren’ saved yet, and Acts 2 is the 1st church and what they did. Roman’s on=all the churches after Acts were started with people from Acts–saved, water and spirit birth people.
Jesus said we couldn’t see not understand the things of God without this rebirth. His plan from the beginning was to bring righteousness and his kingdom to us. He desires a willing people that will obey, he will not force us.
His kingdom is the rebirth as well as the Spirit.
Hi Angie,
Thanks for the comments.
I think you’re flattening a lot of texts though with semantic manipulations that are dismissive of legitimate questions arising out of serious bible study.
For example, one of the passages “Mt 16 (sic)” (actually Mk 16:16), “believes AND is baptized”) so many people interpret with certainty as a coordinate phrase involving two things, “belief” and “baptism,” is more likely an epexegetic (self interpreting) construction in which “baptism” EXPLAINS the nature of the “belief” in view. In other words, Mark (again, not Matthew) is answering in advance the question that would naturally arise from the necessity of belief. That is, “what do you mean by ‘believe’?” Mark responds with “believes EVEN is baptized.”
The same type of understanding should be applied to Acts 2:38 where Peter says, “Repent AND be baptized.” Here again, we don’t have two things in view as a surface-level bible study would likely conclude. Rather, we probably have Peter explaining what he means by “repent” by saying, “repent EVEN be baptized.”
All of this is based on the complicated ways in which Greeks used the word “kai.” (See “Kai Connection” at http://historeo.com/web/?p=791)
Many people not knowing these kinds of things seize upon quick answers, become comfortable with that level of knowing, and then become dismissive and even disdainful of other people’s attempts to better understand what the biblical writers were actually intending.
To futher illustrate, consider how the diversity of the gospels can be missed by focusing on the Lukan Pentecost without considering the existence, absence, or alternative events in the other gospels. To wit, the Matthean alternative to “Pentecost,” if there be one, is Mt 28:16ff. The Johanine alternative is John 20:19ff.
Each of the gospels has its own theological nuances. So also with the NT vs. the OT. It is a mistake (or at least a huge, questionable presumption) to ignore these nuances and jump directly to a systematic NT (or even biblical) theology that attractively ties everything together but runs roughshod over important differences among the biblical authors.
Peace,
billb