A hendiadys?
Now, Morris’s idea that “water and Spirit” means something like “spiritual seed” is more possible that it appears at first glance. He is arguing for a figure of speech known as a hendiadys — where two adjectives or nouns are joined with an “and” and the second adjective or noun modifies the first. The Wikipedia explains —
The typical result of a hendiadys is to transform a noun-plus-adjective into two nouns joined by a conjunction. For example, “sound and fury” (from act V, scene 5 of Macbeth) seems to offer a more striking image than “furious sound”. In this example, as typically, the subordinate idea originally present in the adjective is transformed into a noun in and of itself.
The structure is more common in Shakespearean English than contemporary English, but it goes all the way back to Biblical Greek. Thus, “water and Spirit” could mean “spiritual water” or even, as Morris suggests, “spiritual seed.”
And I think both interpretations have a lot going for them. You see, “spiritual water” would nicely anticipate “living water” in chapter 4, finally explained in chapter 7 as the Holy Spirit. It would fit quite nicely with the flow of John’s presentation in the Gospel. Of course, the Spirit is active in the new begetting, the re-fathering of the convert, and so “spiritual seed” works as well. But I think Nicodemus would have been more likely to have heard “spiritual water” than “spiritual seed.”
MacDonald’s book of Greek grammar, the Greek Enchiridion, explains,
10. Hendiadys …
Construction: article + noun + kai + noun = one unit
Both nouns must be of the same gender and number. No adjective can be added to either noun within this sequence and the hendiadys remain. …
And John 3:5 has this very structure: ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????????. And this is the conclusion reached by James D. G. Dunn among many other commentators.* Edgar Foster writes,
GRB Murray explains that to be begotten by water and spirit is the same as being “begotten from above.” He then cites GM Burge who writes that John 3:5 is indeed an example of hendiadys because “both nouns are anarthrous and are governed by a single preposition” (Murray, George. _Theology in the Fourth Gospel_. 64-66). Burge thus concludes that we have a “single concept” given in John 3:5.
See also this article at the Expository Times. And this article by D. E. Garland in the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. The interpretation has some serious scholarly support.
Let’s test it in context.
(John 3:3-4 ESV) 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is [begotten] again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be [begotten]?”
To be begotten a second time is truly a shocking thought. To a First Century Jew, it wouldn’t mean being re-formed by union of sperm and egg but the re-planting of the father’s seed in the mother’s womb. Nicodemus isn’t necessarily being dense or misunderstanding. He is likely just asking the question to push Jesus into further explanation — which is exactly how rabbis and their students engaged in scriptural discussions.
(John 3:5-6 ESV) 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is [begotten of spiritual water], he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is [begotten] of the flesh is flesh, and that which is [begotten] of the Spirit is spirit.”
Jesus explains that he is speaking of being begotten by the Spirit, not a second begetting of the flesh. It fits.
(John 3:7-8 ESV) 7 “Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be [begotten] again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is [begotten] of the Spirit.”
Jesus then discusses the Spirit further. He doesn’t shift to a discussion of baptism but to the work of the Spirit in the re-begotten citizen of the Kingdom.
Now, Nicodemus would certainly have understood the “kingdom” as being the restoration of Israel from exile with God’s Messiah on the throne. He’d have heard Jesus explain that the Kingdom is only for those re-created by the Spirit. He would have heard “water” used as a metaphor for the Spirit’s work, and likely would have thought of —
(Isa 44:3-4 ESV) 3 For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants. 4 They shall spring up among the grass like willows by flowing streams.
Isaiah speaks of the coming Kingdom in terms of the Spirit and of water in parallel. Indeed, God will “pour” out the Spirit. And the Spirit’s water will nourish the descendants of the Israelites.
And then there’s —
(Eze 36:25-27 ESV) 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
Nicodemus would have been familiar with this passage, which speaks of the coming Kingdom — which was indeed the subject of his conversation with Jesus. And just as in Isaiah, “water” and “Spirit” are used in parallel to refer to the outpouring of the Spirit that would cleanse God’s people and transform their hearts.
Therefore, a very natural understanding of “water and Spirit” is an allusion to Isaiah and Ezekiel and the coming of the Spirit as sign of the coming Kingdom. Jesus would mean by “water and Spirit” whatever Isaiah and Ezekiel mean by “water” and “Spirit.”
The traditional interpretation
Now, for the sake of comparison, let’s try the more traditional interpretation on for size —
(John 3:5 ESV) 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
To be “born” of God could also trace back to Deut 32:18, and to the idea of being born of God would make as much sense as being begotten of God, although it is a more obscure thought — as the Jews thought of God as Father, not Mother.
Nicodemus could have heard “born of John’s water baptism and the Spirit-baptism of the Messiah.” It would only require surmising that Nicodemus was familiar with John’s baptism. It’s not part of the Gospel’s narrative, but it could certainly have been true.
(John 3:6 ESV) 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Jesus now introduces a new set of parallels: flesh vs. Spirit. Thus, Jesus drops all discussion of water baptism and now focuses exclusively on Spirit baptism.
(John 3:7-8 ESV) 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Again, Jesus continues to speak of the Spirit and says nothing of water baptism.
(John 3:9-12 ESV) 9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?”
10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
In v. 12, Jesus explains that he is using earthly metaphors for heavenly things. Thus, “wind” and “water” and “begotten” or “born” are metaphors for heavenly things. Except, under the orthodox view, we’d have to take “water” as literal. The other nouns are earthly metaphors for heavenly things.
(John 3:16-18 ESV) 16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
Jesus (or John) now explains that eternal life (life in the next age, after the resurrection) and salvation comes to “whoever believes in him.” Now, if Jesus had just said baptism is essential to salvation, this would be a surprising statement. Why not say “whoever believes and is baptized”? But he doesn’t. On the other hand, if we take “water and Spirit” as a hendiadys, there is no mystery: it all makes sense. Indeed, we learn in this passage that the baptism of the Spirit is received by faith in Jesus, and this is consistent with —
(John 7:37-39 ESV) 37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'” 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
In John, the promise of the Spirit is for “whoever believes.”
Conclusion
So what does this mean? Well, I’m not sure. But it’s something like this —
1. The emphasis in John 3:3-8 is the work of the Spirit. We like to argue about the role of water and its necessity, but Jesus is making a point about the Spirit foremost. After all, it’s the Spirit that provides a second begetting. The Spirit thus takes on the role of God in Deut 32:18 and in Psa 2:7. It’s the Spirit that is Living Water. It’s the Spirit that is “a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (John 4:14 ESV).
2. It may be that baptism is part of the discussion. But I can’t assert that with the same confidence I’ve had in the past. And this is true even though the early church unanimously took Jesus to be speaking of Christian baptism. After all, there was no way Nicodemus could have gotten “Christian baptism” out of what Jesus said. At best, he could have heard “John’s baptism plus the Messiah’s baptism.” But the narrative doesn’t really point us in the direction that Nicodemus was asking about John or even knew about John. He was there because of Jesus and his miracles. And Jesus’ comments that follow are all about the Spirit, and Jesus says he is using earthly things to speak of heavenly things.
3. But, of course, there are echoes of baptism here, as in John 4. The early church heard “baptism” because they already knew about baptism and it fit very well with their understanding — which they got from other sources. I mean, if we didn’t have the epistles of Paul and Peter, we’d likely not see Christian baptism in this passage. That doesn’t mean it’s not there, only that Christian baptism isn’t the lesson being taught.
You see, the second begetting, in a lesson taught to a Pharisee, would be heard in terms of Deuteronomy 32:18 — you must become a child of God again. Or in terms of Psalm 2 — you must be anointed as king (and anointing is an image for the Spirit in 1 John!) Indeed, this is the same lesson John the Baptist taught —
(Mat 3:8-10 ESV) 8 Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. 10 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Merely being a Jew will no longer be good enough! And so, merely being begotten of God once, as was true of all Jews, would not be enough. Nicodemus would need a second begetting — by the power of the Spirit.
4. What would “water” have meant to Nicodemus? It might have meant John’s baptism. It might have meant God’s own seed. Or it might have been heard as a prophetic reference, such as the passages quoted earlier speaking of God being the source living water. In Jeremiah, to return to God — to repent — is to drink from God’s fountain of living water. It could have meant repentance.
But it would surely be an odd place to insert a requirement that you can’t be saved unless you experience Christian baptism — as Christian baptism would not be anywhere else in John. That’s not to deny the importance of baptism. As we’ll see, baptism is no trivial thing. But it’s just hard to imagine that this is the only place where Christian baptism is found in John. In fact, Christian baptism does not fit the flow of John’s thought at all.
In fact, it could even be argued that John has assembled his material to reject that notion that John’s baptism saves. Rather, it’s spiritual water or living water that’s saves, received by faith in Jesus. He certainly hasn’t adopted the necessity of Christian baptism as a theme for the Gospel.
In short, I’ve concluded that I should not be too dogmatic about this passage. Rather, I’ll seek God’s truth on the subject in other passages and see where they lead. This is not the passages to use to damn others over their imperfect baptisms.
________________
* Luke 3:16 and Matt 3:11 “baptize with Holy Spirit and fire” follows the same pattern. Both nouns are singular, dative, and preceded by a single preposition. But there is no definite article. And it’s hard to see what the hendiadys would be. “Firey Holy Spirit”? “Holy Spirit of fire”? The Spirit is not really spoken of as fire in the Old Testament. It’s impossible to completely reject the interpretation, but it’s hard to see how John listener’s could have heard him as using a hendiadys.
Jay, very, very good points. I commend your research.
Even in my early years when using this passage to argue baptism the nagging question kept poking me, "Why isn't Christian baptism mentioned elsewhere in John's Gospel?" But, I would ensure myself, "Water is water"; right?
As you mention, there are other passages to point out the beauty and importance of baptism; and in view of how John stands out as the SPIRITUAL GOSPEL, let's let "Water & Spirit" be just that.
"In short, I’ve concluded that I should not be too dogmatic about this passage."
Jay, that straw you are grasping, is beginning to get water soaked.
If, we recieved the same "holy ghost" that the apostles recieved from the breath of Jesus, or that Jesus received at baptism, from God.
Then surely we receive the same gifts.
Jhn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Jhn 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained.
(just to clarify)
NIV – Jhn 20:23 – If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
Jay, do you beleive you have the power to forgive the sins of others.
If not , why not?
I see "holy people " do it often, on my TV. These people believe they are indwelled by the same spirit you claim.
Laymond,
"If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" – Romans 8:9.
Do you have the Spirit of Christ? And please do not say this just means the attitude of Christ. The context of Romans 8 says otherwise.
Jerry
Jerry, I do have the spirit of Christ, because I received/accepted Christ as my savior at baptism. That is how we all receive the spirit today, as our savior. It only has one miraculous aspect to it, and that is the saving power of Christ. No indwelling involved here, just forgiveness and , acceptance/ adding.
Jay:
I'm not qualified to debate your research into this passage. Someone else can weigh it and see if your logic holds, and I'll enjoy reading the dialog. But here is where I get hung up:
I'm not a scholar and would not have possibly arrived upon these conclusions any time in my lifetime. In fact, your research here reminds me of Bruce's research into Asian witchcraft and a whole bunch of other stuff in his review of Ephesians 5:19. What the heck am I supposed to do with all of this?
Am I accountable to understanding hendiadys in order to understand baptism? As you know, this passage is a major lynch pin in the COC argument for baptism as the point of salvation. You make a good case that that may be incorrect (or, that this passage doesn't mean exactly what we've used it to mean). Bruce argues that Chinese guys use wicca, and thus, instrumental music is a sin (taking some liberty with Bruce's argument, as I've not read his book…no need to correct me, just making a point).
I can defeat neither argument.
Here is where the normal, average pew-filler (me) gets sick of religion: what am I supposed to do with this? Am I accountable to this knowledge? Or, more likely, should I trust someone like you or Bruce to get it right and accept your teaching because I trust you?
Obviously, at the end of the day my trust is in Jesus — but this sort of study leads me to think that in order to understand the application of these passages fully (and thus, be most pleasing to Jesus), I need to learn more about Hendiadys and Asian debachery.
Laymond,
1. There are promises given to the apostles that do not extend to all other Christians.
2. You wrote,
"If, we recieved the same "holy ghost" that the apostles recieved from the breath of Jesus, or that Jesus received at baptism, from God.
Then surely we receive the same gifts."
That is a non sequitur. I and the gifts I give are not the same thing. It's a mistake to conflate a person with the gifts given by that person.
The pre-Christian witness is sufficient to make the point. Not all prophets received the same gifts. Not all could do the miracles of an Elijah. John the Baptist did no miracles at all.
JMF and HistoryGuy,
As I said in the first post of this series,
"I'm just going to pick up baptism passages and try to figure out what they mean as we go. And then we wind up where we wind up, wherever that may be. (Therefore, don't get bent out of shape based on "where this might be heading." It's heading to the next verse.)"
I'm quite serious. I rarely write an entire series and then post it. As a rule, I write a post, post it, write the next post.
As tempting as it is to defend my othodoxy on baptism, if this is to be an exploration, it's got to be that — not an effort to defend pre-ordained conclusions.
There are a LOT of baptism verses, and John 3:5 isn't the only one. We need to consider more of them before reaching any conclusions at all. We just need to cautiously interpret the passages as we meet them.
We have a long history of building our theology and hermeneutics to win debates. And this leads to terrible theology and hermeneutics. Text first, conclusions second.
If we proceed that way, we have a far better chance of learning what is really being taught and correcting any misunderstandings we may have — be they major or minor.
At the least, maybe we'll go deeper than usual. You see, our history of exegesis tends to be very shallow because we only dig deeply enough to win the next debate. Therefore, I've resolved not to care (much) about the debate — just the text.
Now, I realize that this will seem like coyness and a dodge to get to some radical new doctrine. But it's not. It's an effort to read very challenging passages that many dispute in context without a ton of denominational baggage.
I'll draw conclusions in due course, as best I can — and I can hardly draw conclusions before we consider any of the Pauline passages.
Besides, how I can draw conclusions before hearing what the readers say as to the various passages?
JMF,
Challenging the conventional reading of John 3:5 only reaches a conclusion as to John 3:5. There are quite a few other passages.
Do you have to know what a hendiadys is to go to heaven? Of course, not. Do translators need to know it to do a good job? Absolutely.
Does suggesting that John 3:5 is a hendiadys make water baptism nothing? No. There are other passages, and I'm planning to keep on exegeting my way through them.
Very interesting points. I remember hearing from the pulpit that being born of water was physical birth and born of the spirit was birth into the kingdom. Our preacher felt the point of the verse was simply reiterating that we must be born "again." But now you've got me re-thinking this.
Jay:
Admittedly, when I first started studying your writings I thought you were "coy and dodging trying to get to some radical new doctrine." It didn't take me long to no longer think that to be the case.
I appreciate your taking difficult passages that we've already "settled" on and challenging the conventional wisdom. You are right, it is difficult to drop the centuries of denominational baggage.
I just get to a point to where I wonder why God didn't make some things less confusing.
But it seems we all (across denominational lines) agree that faith and faithfulness (penitence) are necessary for salvation. Some may add a few things to that list, but that seems to be the basis of the list. Does anyone argue with that?
Now, what that makes me wonder is: "If we all agree that faith and faithfulness are required for salvation — and we barely agree on anything else — could that be the Spirit working within all of us so that we KNOW without question what is important?"
Make sense? I've never heard a debate on whether it is important to have faith. I've never heard it debated whether we should submit to Jesus.
It just seems odd that nobody questions to validity of an exegesis that determines faith is important. I can think of nothing else to explain that other than that is the Spirit's work.
It is midnight, and this post will either be a moment of brilliance or sheer lunacy. We'll see whenever I re-read it in the morning. 🙂
Jay,
Wow, maybe I’m a depressed day and more sensitive than usual, but I felt like you got on to me a little bit by grouping me in a response to JMF (ha ha). I don’t have anything against JMF, but he/she seems to be challenging your conclusions [like a host of other here that you did not mention], when I have really tried to remain quiet and read your thoughts.
In regards to (Baptism, An Exploration: Nicodemus, Part 2 (The After Post, Part 3), I have not commented. In fact, I just read it. Were you just including me in a response to another post, or am I on your sub-conscience “he’s against me” list (ha ha ha) because of our disagreement over IM?
In regards to (Baptism, An Exploration: The Samaritan Woman at the Well (The After Post, Part 1) I posted a response to Adam & Randall about some questions regarding heaven/hell and baptism, but did so from a historical perspective, and tried to end my response by leaving you to answer questions about your thoughts. I was trying to show that though you arrive at your conclusion through a different method, your view on the relative necessity of baptism does have valid virtually unanimous historical support.
In regards to (Baptism, An Exploration: Nicodemus, Part 1 (The After Post, Part 2), I started by saying “I realize that you are not done…” and then asked if you were now doubting that water in Jn. 3:5 was a reference to baptism, and pointed toward a historical consensus to show why I was asking. But, my question was nothing more than a question until you could make your next post. Your next post on Nicodemus clarified your position at the time of writing.
In the response, which included me, you talked about exploration of the text, building theology to debate, defending a view, drawing conclusions preemptively, shallow exegesis, and … “don’t get bent out of shape; its heading to the next verse, etc…” You could have been being proactive, I understand that, but the way you wrote the response, it seems like you are accusing me of doing the things that you mention, when I have not. If anything, I have demonstrated that I do NOT hold to a “late 20th century COC view” about baptism. I have been truly silent [saying nothing for or against] the rest of the points. In my only 2 responses to this baptism series, I pointed out that I realize that you are not done with the series. I am not so much upset/mad, as I am confused. I just don’t understand why you would include me in such a response on this topic, when others have been more vocal and I have said little.
Jay,
I appreciate your honesty, doubts, and mentioning of church history. I fully agree that Jesus mentions water, but then focuses more upon the Spirit’s work. However, I disagree with you regarding the premises about Nicodemus’ understanding of baptism and your rejection of unanimous church history.
Nicodemus:
John’s gospel uses baptize more than any other gospel, but in reference to John’s Baptism. Some see a symbolic reference to water baptism with the use of the pools, living water, washing the feet, and water & blood. Others see water as a symbol of the Spirit (i.e. living water). However, if Nicodemus did not understand water to refer Christian baptism that does not mean water did not refer to baptism.
(1) Whether water referenced baptism to come or Ez 36/Is 44 parallel, Nicodemus didn’t understand (2) it is plausible that Jesus prophetically meant Christian baptism, but left water alone knowing that it would be explained by Peter on Pentecost (3) perhaps Jesus stopped talking about water to talk about the Spirit, who was a prophetic issue amid fulfillment, and something Nicodemus could more easily associate with the messiah/kingdom (3) At times, Jesus spoke in the present tense of events that would happen in the future (4) There is more evidence concluding that Nicodemus knew much about John’s baptism, literal water, and the Spirit than to conclude that he did not (5) We cannot discount the fact that this is a summary of the conversation, which john wrote after the majority of all other inspired letters, and during a period when [a few] apostles and many prophets taught (7) the grammatical construction is so tight, it lacks room for symbolic maneuvering like Is. 44:3-4/Ez 36:25-27; In Is 44/Ez 36 water is poetically synonymous for Spirit, but in Jn. 3:5 water and the Spirit are two distinct objects governed by a single preposition (8) v5 & v23 are the same “kind” of water, different than “living water.”
History:
I commend your study. I believe that you lean more upon modern scholars as the stronger possibility that water is not Christian baptism, while I lean more upon ancient scholars for the stronger possibility that water does refer to Christian baptism. I am not saying that modern equates to less reliable.
Rather, I am saying that in this study of John 3:5 ancient scholars have the following advantages: (1) Unanimous historical attestation (2) Scriptural plausibility (3) Scriptural consistency (4) A high view of baptism coupled with a virtually unanimous need for ECFs to make exceptions for believers who die before baptism (5) Direct personal apostolic teaching to the next generation (6) Personal testimony, such as the apostle John taught Polycarp, and Polycarp taught Irenaeus, and Irenaeus taught that water refers to baptism in John 3:5, though salvation is by faith in Christ and only supportive of baptism.
Here we have a Christian brother with a direct human lineage to John, unanimously supported by his contemporaries, who basically says, “John taught that water in John 3:5 refers to Christian baptism.” There are some issues Irenaeus stands alone and gives his opinion, to such I disagree with him at times. However, there is no evidence to call the ancients into question on Jn. 3:5. To question it is to question the entire 2nd century church without cause. I believe it is fair to ask, “What evidence has caused you to doubt the entire 2nd century church?”
Whether I am talking to a Christian or non-Christian, it is not enough for one to give a different possibility to make something false; one must show (1) why the accepted understanding is not true and/or corrupted (2) why the accepted understanding was incorrectly believed by those closest to the teacher (3) supply a more plausible truth in light of #1, #2.
Finally, I truly hope you don’t use any baptism passage to damn others over their imperfect baptisms. We should teach and encourage others “more adequately” (Acts 18:26).
Jay, that is what I said (in my own way) we do not receive the spirit the same as Jesus, and the apostles did.
Jay, what I am saying, (and have all along) and I think maybe, you are saying is, "The Gift of the Holy Ghost, is not the Holy Ghost"
Jay, I believe we may be getting slightly off track here by going back and forth and forget just what started this conversation.
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
I have no problem saying we recieve a gift from God at baptism, I do have a problem with that gift being an indwelling God. as you yourself have said
" I and the gifts I give are not the same thing. It's a mistake to conflate a person with the gifts given by that person"
Jay,
Clearly you are familiar with parallelism as we see it in the OT. Couldn't Jesus have been using the phrase born of water and Spirit parallel with being born of flesh and Spirit?
Also, might John 3 allude back to John 1:12-13?
"12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."
Hesed,
Randall
HistoryGuy:
I'm sorry it is such a shame to you to be lumped in with me! 🙂 Just kidding, brother. I understood what you were saying.
I'm not, however, challenging Jay's conclusions. I am challenging how in the world a normal person is supposed to come to this conclusion. And since I'd suggest it is impossible to come to this conclusion (I might even dare say Jay would not have come to this conclusion without the use and searchability of the internet) by using this method (understanding a hendriyasis), what do we take from that?
If it is this difficult for brilliant men to determine whether baptism is the point of salvation, what do we take from that?
And if we have been wrong in the past (COC denom) to demand baptism as a necessity for fellowship — and that isn't scriptural — we have another Galatian Heresy.
(**I fear this will lead some to think I'm trying to figure out a legalistic solution to this material. Not the case. I'm wanting input on how God would/could hold us accountable to something so obviously confusing. Yet…there is no confusion over faith and faithfulness. What do we take from that?)
Jay,
This is much more consistent with my experiences with the Spirit and non C of C Christians (as I've noted before) and makes so much sense. I like how you take off our traditional view of baptism lenses and put on lenses that are free from reading everything with a traditional view point that we don't even realize we are using to see with sometimes. Thanks again for sharing these kind of insights that I know you've prayfully come about with us.
Adam
HistoryGuy,
I have no idea why I included you in the salutation. I was running on fumes after a long day at work. It certainly had nothing to do with IM and all that. My apologies.
HistoryGuy,
My responses parallel the numbering in your comment (http://disq.us/wazyu)
1. Nicodemus is introduced as a Pharisee, a ruler, and "a teacher of Israel" (according to Jesus). He would have caught the Ez 36/Is 44 parallels. He may well have had both books memorized. The references are obscure to us, because we don't spend nearly the time in the Prophets that a First Century Pharisee and teacher of the law would have.
2. Might Jesus have been speaking prophetically? Absolutely. Might he have intended his words to become clear only after Pentecost? Well, he certainly meant for them to become clearer then. After all, his resurrection was a surprise even to his apostles.
But Jesus said,
(Joh 3:1 ESV) 10 Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?"
Either Jesus was pulling his leg (knowing he didn't mean for Nicodemus to understand) or else he figured a teacher of the law should understand. And a teacher of the law would have known the prophets, especially the many prophecies of the coming Spirit that would mark the new covenant and the Kingdom.
Nicodemus would also have recognized the concept of being re-begotten from Ps 2 and, more especially, Deu 32:18. A teacher of the law would know Deuteronomy by heart!
Therefore, Jesus' jibe makes sense: "How could you teach Torah and not know about being begotten as God's children and so entering God's kingdom? Isn't that what happened in the Exodus? Were the Israelites reborn in their mother's womb? I'm using the same image as Moses, and you of all people should recognize it!"
3. Not (to me) persuasive that Jesus would transition from "you go to hell if you're not baptized in water" to "the Spirit's work is subtle" to "all with faith are saved and those without faith are lost."
4. There is no evidence at all that Nicodemus knew about John the Baptist. The text says,
(Joh 3:1 ESV) Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him."
All we know about Nicodemus is he recognized the miracles as showing God's approval on Jesus. Jesus was in Jerusalem at the time (2:23), and John the Baptist was ministering at the Jordan River.
Might Nicodemus have known about John's ministry? Certainly. Does John the apostle intend us to connect Nicodemus' question to Nicodemus' prior knowledge of John's baptism? Well, it would have been awfully easy to note Nicodemus' knowledge of John, and he doesn't. He gives us the background he thinks we need to have to understand the passage.
Therefore, I'm not willing to assume that Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus anticipating that Nicodemus knew about John's baptism. It is, however, a close call. (I find more certainty in John 3:16-18, which has to fit the context.)
5. Yes, the conversation is abbreviated, but John the apostle intended to give us enough to understand it. Countless NT passages are written with the assumption that the readers have read their Old Testaments.
I'm never comfortable with the assumption that we are supposed to read Paul or Peter or Matthew to understand John — even though John may have been written later than all three. The fact is that the earlier books would not have been available to all of John's early readers.
I think John was written as a self-contained document. Of course, it wasn't written to cover every single Christian doctrine. There are countless doctrines found in other books of the NT not covered in John. But it wasn't written to be a part of a puzzle that had to be assembled for John itself to be understood.
It would be safer to assume that John, written to a more mature church than some other books, would assume an elemental understanding of Christianity among his readers. His failure to cover Christian baptism (if true) would be just as understandable as his failure to cover the Lord's Supper for that reason.
7. (Where is 6?) See the main post re hendiadys. That's a figure of speech quite unfamiliar to 21st Century English speakers but fairly common in First Century Greek.
I recognize the significance of the ECFs, but neither Irenaeus nor Tertullian credit John with teaching them the meaning of John 3:5.
Irenaeus is quoted by another author as saying that "water" in 3:5 is baptism.
Tertullian argues in On Baptism chapter XII that salvation cannot be had without baptism "chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water, he hath not life”"
But in the same document, Tertullian argues,
"We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former,) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, "I have to be baptized with a baptism," when He had been baptized already. For He had come "by means of water and blood," 1 John 5:6 just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost."
This baptism of blood is, as I understand it, martyrdom. Tertullian thus carves out an exception from water baptism for blood baptism — a believer martyred before he can receive water baptism. But his exegesis is more than a little suspect. (But he is, of course, right to recognize that God would not deny salvation to someone prevented from baptism by death!)
Polycarp was a disciple of John, and Irenaeus (130 – 200) met Polycarp as a child. Tertullian (150-212) was a disciple of Irenaeus. I can't find evidence that Irenaeus studied under Polycarp.
At best, Tertullian was four generations removed from John (John: Polycarp: Irenaeus: Tertullian). He was as close to John as I am to my great-grandfather (and I have no idea what he thought of John 3:5). And that assumes Irenaeus was Polycarp's disciple, which I can find no evidence of.
Irenaeus has a better pedigree (by one generation) but can't be directly tied to an apostle. Nor can it be shown that his interpretation of 3:5 comes from an apostle. And what we know of his views on 3:5 is via another author.
Neither comes anywhere close to having apostolic authority. Both argue solely from the scriptures you and I have and evidence no additional sources or knowledge.
Therefore, I'm just not persuaded that I should give his interpretation of the scripture more weight than, say, Calvin or Campbell or Augustine. Brilliant, learned, and worthy of study. But the weight of his argument is measured by his argument, not his pedigree.
PS — Having great fun trading thoughts with you. Learning a lot.
JMF,
You seem to have taken it lightly, but I am very sorry about the way I phrased my wording. I should not have included your name, and only asked why I was part of the post. I have no problem with your thoughts or questions, or you. I mainly wanted to emphasize that I had remained relatively quiet. Jay has already cleared it up for me.
Jay,
I am honored that I am on your mind (ha ha ha). No worries! Thank you for the clarification. Also, thank you for the response to my bullets. I will not drag this out given the amount of info, but allow me a short response to each point, staying with YOUR numerical order. (1) Your reply is plausible, but I wanted to emphasize that whatever it meant, Nicodemus did not understand. (2) We seem to agree on the topic of re-begotten and that Jesus is referring to a future event. I thing we disagree in the following area- you seem to find it more plausible that water=spirit [figure of speech hendiadys] or water&Spirit are “1 aspect of 1 one Spirit baptism” to come in the future, where as I see Jesus speaking of “2 aspects of one re-begotten”, where water+spirit is a normative reception of the 1 Spirit baptism to come in the future.
(3) My point was to emphasize that Jesus is talking to Nicodemus about a future event. Even if water is not baptism, Nicodemus could not receive the Spirit until Pentecost (Acts 2). I find it interesting that both Christian baptism and the reception of the Spirit arrive on the say day/sermon. I think the jump to heaven & hell is unnecessary. I see no problem, and hope that I am consistent in saying, Jn. 3:5 & Acts 2:38, Ti 3:5 are normative, but not absolute, given the other Scriptures on the chronology of water and Spirit, and God’s unfailing practice of never making the physical equivalent with metaphysical. The occasion of the new birth can change (water, hands, direct), but the creator of the new birth (the Spirit) is absolutely mandatory and constant. Many scholars admit this, but knowing you have GR Beasley-Murray, see [pg. 231-232].
(4) I have to disagree. Nicodemus was very familiar with water, purification, and John the Baptist. John’s gospel reveals turmoil between John the Baptist and Pharisees of whom Nicodemus was very prominent and informed. To conserve space, please review [Jack Cottrell, Baptism: A biblical study, pg.31-40]; [Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the early church, pg. 84-96, 142-145]; or [GR Beasley-Murray, Baptism, pg. 226-232]. You seem like a man who likes sources, if I have insulted you with them, I am sorry. Let me know and I will summarize. I have copies, but some of the pages are at books.google.com
(5) I agree the letter is self-contained, and we should not make it a habit of reading other books into each other. I agree with you for the most part. I think you picked up on my intention for noting the date. My point was to stress that John was writing to both a persecuting world and a persecuted church, with full knowledge of what other NT docs were circulating. While not every church had copies, the oral tradition community – a historical reality – spread information accurately. Also, John writes of eschatological prophecy to come, knowing such had been fulfilled and explained. Therefore, he knows his readers would understand abbreviations and references like Jn. 3:5/baptism/Spirit & Jn. 6:56/Lords Supper, which could be why he does not mention several doctrines, as you noted as possible. We know that Nicodemus did not understand in his day, but John’s readers [80s-90s] had to understand or John was wasting his time writing. Again, I share your concern for reading NT docs into one another. I think John can stand alone, but it must not be disconnected from the historical reality. I will continue to investigate the life and knowledge of the ancient church.
(7) We agree that no ECF has apostolic authority and they made exceptions for believers who desired, but died before baptism. They pulled from several verses, but since we agree I’ll leave that alone. I try to bring the ECF up when there is a virtually unanimous understanding, stemming from apostolic times, and Scriptural possibility. Overall, the church was faithful for a while and carried on what they learned from the apostles. I think that we agree the 2nd century church believed Jn. 3:5 referred to baptism, so I ask you to review the 3 points I previously listed as needed, if one wants to change the long standing interpretation – consider it as you study privately.
I focused on Irenaeus, so allow me to clarify some points about him. Though he is normally writing “truth” as an apologist, his comments on Jn. 3:5 are recorded in fragment 34 – http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.viii.xxx… . In other places, Irenaeus list faithful teachers and believes that he has received the teaching of what had been preserved from the apostles (III), then talks about Polycarp who he had seen and heard teach (IV) – http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.ht… . Irenaeus is an example of first hand personal testimony. What he writes is what he believes has been handed down from the apostles. While we enter the realm of a 2nd hand account with Eusebius, he is writing as a church historian. Eusebius claims to have letters written by Irenaeus, telling about wonderful memories of learning from Polycarp who had been taught by John. There is no reason to doubt this as true, given the corroboration with Irenaeus – http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xxi…
I tried to keep it under 900 words. I am enjoying and learning from the conversation as well. Thank you and Happy New Year.
Laymond,
Peter preaches from Joel the prophecy of the outpouring of the Spirit — when sons and daughters will prophesy — and promises the same Spirit to his listeners if they'd only repent and be baptized. And yet there's no record of those baptized speaking in tongues or doing miracles. In fact, the text says,
This clearly implies that the miracles were being done by the apostles only, even though the new converts had been promised the same Spirit received by the apostles and promised by Joel.
How could they have understood the "gift of Holy Spirit" as anything other than the "promise of the Holy Spirit" (parallel genitives), with "poured out" being a plain allusion to Joel?
The Spirit is the Spirit, and he gives gifts as he pleases. Sometimes the Spirit has a flair for the dramatic. Sometimes for the subtle. He's like the wind — very hard to predict and not easily tied down by rules and categorizations.
Randall,
There are many commentators who'd agree with you. A few weeks ago, I would have disagreed, because there was no way to tie "water" to physical birth in First Century language. But having discovered that the verse actually speaks of being "begotten of water and Spirit" it becomes a very real possibility. The ancients often compared the male element of conception to water.
(Joh 1:12-13 ESV) 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Again, "born" interprets a word meaning most literally and most commonly "begotten." And as God is usually spoken of as male, "begotten" is not only the most natural translation, it fits the idiom better, too.
In fact, the very next verse is —
(Joh 1:14 KJV) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
— which speaks in terms of "Father," "Son," and "begotten."
So, yes, "water" may well parallel "flesh" as a reference to physical begetting.
So, "water" in 3:5 could be a hendiadys with Spirit, could be a parallel to "flesh," and of course, could be a reference to baptism.
It's hard to deny the connection of 1:12-13 with 3:5, as both speak of being begotten (born) a second time.
Jay:
You say that up until recently you wouldn't have made this connection with water and birth… have others made that connection?
As in, do those that recognize this passage to not be referencing baptism do so for this reason (hendrydias), or has the Baptist' reason for not accepting "born of water" to mean baptism been something entirely different?
JMF,
I wouldn't associate "water" with birth but with conception (begetting).
Countless people have argued that "water" refers to human birth. It's a very common position among the commentaries. Leon Morris makes this very argument in the New International Commentary series — one of the most respected commentaries on John.
D. A. Carson, even though a Calvinist, rejects the argument because there is no ancient association of "water" with birth.
The Baptist argument traces back to Calvin and is common to most Calvinist/Reformed commentators. Going back to Zwingli, baptism was seen as a mere ordinance, with faith being the moment of salvation, receipt of the Spirit, etc.
Thus, Calvinism demands an explanation of 3:5 other than water baptism, and several theories have been offered, with "water" meaning physical birth the most common I've run across.
I am not a Calvinist or Baptist and I have no need to force one interpretation 3:5 or another. My teaching won't greatly change either way. There are, after all, other verses and other considerations.
I greatly distrust any interpretation that flows: (1) Calvinism is true; therefore (2) 3:5 doesn't refer to baptism.
But I also distrust the argument: (1) Baptism is essential; therefore (2) 3:5 refers to baptism.
Both arguments "beg the question," that is, assume to be true that which is to be shown as true. They are circular.
I just want to figure what the verse means.
Very interesting. When Gentile proselytes were fully accepted into Judiasm they were baptized in addition to circumcision and offering sacrifice. How do you think they understood this baptism? “Begotten” a Jew? Apparently they were supposedly no longer considered a Gentile. Was it merely a ceremonial cleansing?