EXCHANGE WITH MR. E. CALVIN BEISNER PART 2 MR. BEISNER'S MATERIAL JOHN 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. If "born of water" means water baptism, then this verse proves that it is necessary to be baptized in water to be saved. About that we can be sure. But I will give several reasons why "born of water" cannot mean "baptism in water." First, at the time that Christ said this, Christian baptism had not yet been instituted. There was no such thing at that time as baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." It therefore would have been impossible for Nicodemus to understand "born of water" as referring to water baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Also, this must be seen in the context of verse 6: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," and of verse 7: "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." This shows that being "born again" (see also verse 3) is being "born of the Spirit." Being "born again" cannot be being "born of the flesh" (verse 6), so it must be being "born of the Spirit." If this were the case, then verse 5 would contradict verse 6 if "born of water" meant water baptism, for verse 6 requires for salvation only being "born of the Spirit," while verse 5 would require being baptized in water and being born of the Spirit. But if being "born of water" does not mean water baptism, and instead means either the natural first birth, or is a figurative way of saying "born of the Spirit," then verse 5 does not contradict verse 6. Is there any reason to think that "born of water" might mean either the natural birth or be a figurative way of saying "born of the Spirit?" These two points will comprise our next two reasons for rejecting water baptism as the meaning of "born of water." There is good reason to believe that "born of water" could mean the natural birth. The context supports this interpretation. In verse 3, Jesus has told Nicodemus that he must be "born again." In verse 4, Nicodemus responds by speaking of the natural birth, and asks if there is the possibility of repeating it. It would be perfectly natural for Jesus to respond then by referring first to the natural birth, and then to the spiritual birth (the rebirth), in order to set Nicodemus' thinking straight. If this is the correct interpretation, the effect would be to make the discussion run something like this: Jesus says to Nicodemus, "You must be born again to enter the kingdom of God." Nicodemus responds, saying, "But Jesus, I don't understand. How can a man go through the natural birth a second time?" Jesus answers, "But you see, a man must not only be born naturally, but spiritually as well. That means that he must be born 'of water' (the natural birth) and 'of the Spirit' (the rebirth)." Then Jesus continues with his comparison of the natural and spiritual births by saying, "You see, whatever is born of flesh, whatever is born naturally, is natural; whatever is born spiritually, whatever is born of the Spirit, is spirit. Therefore in order to enter the kingdom, which is spiritual, you must be born again. The Spirit is spiritual, going where He will, and so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." This understanding makes the whole conversation fit together. Understanding "born of water" as water baptism, however, makes the conversation stilted and disjointed, for Jesus first speaks of being "born again," Nicodemus responds by asking if the natural birth can be repeated, Jesus tells him a man must be baptized in water and born of the Spirit, then identifies being born of the Spirit with being born again, and then repeats the reference to being born of the Spirit. In this understanding, baptism would be mentioned only once, and would not be connected with the new birth at all. It would be out of place. But the understanding which takes "born of water" to mean the natural birth makes the context smoother and more logical. Thus it is more probably correct to understand "born of water" as referring to the natural birth than as referring to baptism in water (especially remembering the first two points made above.) Also, "born of water" could be simply a figurative way of saying "born of the Spirit." The word "water" in connection with salvation, the covenant, regeneration, rebirth, is often used in Scripture as a symbol of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Himself used water this way when he said, "He that believeth on me as the Scriptures hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living waters. But this he spake of the Spirit" (John 7:37,38). With this in mind, the reader should note the following verses, and see if they make more sense understanding "water" in each case as a symbol of the Spirit, not as the physical element: Isaiah 55:1; 12:3; 35:6; 44:3 Ezekiel 36:25; Jeremiah 2:13; Zechariah 14:8, cf. Ezekiel 47:1-5; John 4:10; Revelation 21:6; 22:17. These make more sense if we see "water" in them as symbolic of the Holy Spirit. We therefore have good precedent for understanding "water" in connection with salvation as symbolic of the Holy Spirit, and this means that it would be reasonable to do so at John 3:5 as well. If this were the case, John 3:5 would be understood as follows: when Jesus said, "You must be born of water and of the Spirit," He used water as a figurative way of saying "born of the Spirit," and then made Himself perfectly clear by reiterating the thought in plain language. Such a form of speaking was common to the Jews and to Jesus' own teaching. It would readily be understood by Nicodemus, who as a Pharisee would be quite familiar with the Old Testament symbolic usage of "water." Water baptism, on the other hand, in the Christian formula, could not have been understood by Nicodemus, because it did not exist at the time. The context, then, seems to favor the understanding of "born of water" as meaning the natural birth. Other symbolic use of "water" favors the understanding of the phrase to mean "born of the Spirit" said figuratively. But neither the context nor other figurative uses of "water" favors the understanding that it refers to Christian baptism. (It might be objected that if "born of water" were figurative, the verse would have an unnecessary repetition. This objection is brought by Williams and Dykes in Ready Answers to Religious Errors, page 33, where they write that if "born of water" is understood as symbolic of "born of the Spirit," the verse would then read "...born of the spirit and of the Spirit," which is nonsense. But Williams and Dykes arrive at this by neglecting one of the meanings of the Greek word used there for "and" (kai). Kai not only may mean "and," but can be used as an explicative word to join something unclear to something clear. When it is used in this sense, it can be translated "namely," or "indeed." Thus the verse would read, "...born of water, namely, of the Spirit," or perhaps better yet, "born of water, that is, of the Spirit." That this usage is permissible, is seen in Joseph Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, under kai, sec. 1.3. It therefore would not be nonsense to see "born of water" as figurative for "born of the Spirit.") Finally, we are told in John 1:12 that being "born of God," as opposed to being born naturally, comes simply as the result of receiving Christ, that is, believing in His name (which must not be confused with mere intellectual assent; to "believe in His name" is to trust in Him as Savior and Lord, that is, to have faith in Him.) Thus to understand "born of water" as "baptized in water" in John 3:5 would be to make that verse contradict John 1:12-13. John 3:5 does not even refer to water baptism, or to any form of baptism. It therefore does not prove the necessity of water baptism for salvation. REPLY TO MR. BEISNER’S MATERIAL ON JOHN 3:5 As with Mk. 16:15-16, Mr. Beisner takes two different positions on this passage as well. He seems to be saying that he really does not know what the water is in John 3:1-8-even though it is essential to being in the kingdom-it might be the Spirit or it might be the fleshly birth but it surely cannot be water, even though that is the word used. I would like to know which position he believes to be the truth, and if he does not really know what the passage is saying, how he can charge those who believe it is teaching baptism with preaching another gospel. In the first place most denominational creed books admit that the water of John 3:1-8, refers to baptism. Among those books is The Methodist Discipline which lists John 3:1-8, under Section III, Paragraph 619, under the title "THE MINISTRATION OF BAPTISM TO SUCH AS ARE OF RIPER YEARS." The ancient fathers of his denominational background seemed to have no problem in understanding the "water" in Jesus's statement but Mr. Beisner does because he realizes that if "born of water and the Spirit" refers to baptism, then he has to surrender his position. If you followed Mr. Beisner's paraphrase of the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus, you probably realized that, when he finished, he had Jesus saying exactly the opposite of what he really said. Read the scripture for yourself-even from several translations-the conversation is not stilted and disjointed, as Mr. Beisner says. It follows a perfectly natural and logical course. Nicodemus came to Jesus and, because of the signs, admitted that he must be from God. Jesus replied, first of all, with that which is an indispensable necessity but did not say how it was done. He said, "...'Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."' Nicodemus responded with a question about the natural, physical birth and the implication of his question is that he did not believe that Jesus was commanding a physical rebirth so he wanted to know how this could be done. This is not unusual, for Jesus frequently taught truth in graduated steps, progressing from one step to the next as man was able to understand. Compare his conversation with the woman at the well in John 4:1-24. Jesus progressed to the next step by saying to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." This new birth consisted of two elements which were water and Spirit. Jesus was not commanding two births -- one of water and another of Spirit. He did not say, "...born of water and then born of the Spirit." It is one birth composed of two parts. He continued by explaining that he certainly was not talking about the natural birth and then contrasted that with the spiritual birth. It would be totally ridiculous to say to a man who had already been born naturally and who was standing before him, "You must be born of the flesh and then born of the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God." Mr. Beisner seeks to offset that dilemma by injecting the words "not only" into Jesus's statement. He has Jesus saying, "But you see, a man must not only be born naturally, but spiritually as well." However, "except" and "must" relate to that which is imperative and conditional. One cannot logically say to a man who has already been born, "You must be born physically," in order to receive something else. Furthermore, Mr. Beisner's explanation that we are born of water when we enter the world and born of spirit when we are saved makes the answer of Jesus wholly inapplicable to the question asked by Nicodemus. Nicodemus did not inquire how a child is born into the world but rather, "How can a man be born when he is old?" (Emph. mine, JRE). Compare 1 Pet. 1:23, for a commentary on how the Spirit operates in this new birth: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." The heart cannot be seen but the results are evident in the same way that the effects of a blowing wind are observed; hence, Jesus used the following illustration to close the conversation: "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." Mr. Beisner's argument that Nicodemus could not have associated the new birth with baptism is false for the following reasons. Though Jesus, himself, did not baptize, his disciples did and it was recognized as "Jesus' baptism." Both John and Jesus had a message for Jews and baptized Jews only. When John baptized, he baptized by the authority of heaven, (Mt. 21:23-27). Jesus also baptized by that same authority. What would Mr. Beisner call Jesus's baptism before the cross? The difference in his baptism before and after the cross was not in its authority but rather was in its scope (limited to Jews vs. unlimited and to all the world) and in the reality of forgiveness which was accomplished by the shedding of his blood (note Mk. 1:4; Lk. 3:21; Mt. 3:5-12; 10:1-15; and Jno. 3:22-23, 25). Hence, in the frame of reference of both John's baptism and Jesus's baptism, Nicodemus not only could understand, but he would understand the "water" being associated with baptism. It is from baptism that one is issued forth into a new life, (Rom. 6:3-4). What does "water" mean in this context? That is the question! It is not what "water" means in other contexts-rather, what did Jesus mean in this context. Mr. Beisner lists several places where "water" is used in a figurative way and says, "These make more sense if we see 'water' in them as symbolic of the Holy Spirit. We therefore have a good precedent for understanding 'water' in connection with salvation as symbolic of the Holy Spirit, and this means that it would be reasonable to do so at John 3:5 as well." His conclusion does not follow. One might just as well say that because "water" is used figuratively in some passages, then "water" in Acts 10:47, or 1 Pet. 3:20, means "Spirit." To which I think that Mr. Beisner would quickly object. Thus he must understand that a basic rule of interpreting language is that words are to be taken literally unless there is something in the context to demand otherwise. Was Jesus speaking metaphorically when he used the word "water"? To answer that question note that there are two classes of metaphors: (1) those whose meaning is clear such as when Jesus called Herod a "fox" (Lk. 13:31, 32), and; (2) those that require an added explanation. For instance, it is true that Jesus used "rivers of living water" in reference to the Holy Spirit in John 7:37, 38, but I know this because John explained it in the next verse of the context- "... but this spake he of the Spirit..." "Water" of John 3:5, belongs to neither category and there is no logical reason that "water" should not be taken as "water" in the context of John 3:1-8. The only water that relates to the new life is baptism because this is where forgiveness from God takes place and from which one is risen to walk in newness of life as a new born child of God-"born of water and the Spirit." [Previous Article] [Next Article] [Debate Outline]

	Created on 12-Aug-98	Page last updated