In Feburary, I found the following exposition of John 3:5. The person posting this exposition claimed that this is a method taught at The Master’s Seminary and that he wanted feedback on what people thought. I intend to use this as an exercise of the use of logic as a tool for understanding. Although the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God, I believe the sentiment expressed by Mr. Spock that logic is not the end of wisdom. More on that later.

John 3:5 “born of water”?

There are four common views:

VIEW 1. “Born of water” refers to water baptism.
Pro – (1) Verse 22 mentions baptism. (2) The testimony of ancient church fathers.
Con – (1) No baptism is mentioned anywhere in the context of Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus. (2) This view creates tension with a literal interpretation of vss. 14-18. (3) Does not harmonize with Ephesians 2:8-9. (4) No support elsewhere in the Bible that “born of water” = baptism. (5) In reply to Pro 2 above, some ancient church fathers were also branded heretics and the whole book of Jude warns about such false teachers in the first century. An ancient testimony, therefore, is not commended in and of itself.

VIEW 2. “Born of water” refers to physical birth shortly after the amniotic fluid is discharged from the mother.
Pro – (1) Verse 6 emphasizes physical birth.
Con – (1) John 1:13 refers to physical birth as “born of blood.” (2) “Born of water” as a reference to physical birth is a contemporary idea and not used in biblical customs. (3) Little exegetical support to commend this idea.

VIEW 3. “Born of water” refers to the word of God.
Pro – (1) Cross references in the Bible irrefutably refer to the word of God as “water.” John 15:3 lends support to this imagery as do Ephesians 5:26 and 1 Peter 1:23.
Con – (1) John 15:3 does not explicitly mention water or Spirit. It is not a strong parallel. (2) Ephesians 5:26 and 1 Peter 1:23 are vastly different contexts, different authors, and neither provide a good parallel by mentioning the Spirit. Though water may be used as metaphors for the word of God in these passages, it does not necessarily establish the same imagery in John 3:5. A “babe” in 1 Corinthians 3:1 refers to a Christian, but it does not refer to Christians in Hebrews 5:13. These cross references, therefore, are inconclusive.

VIEW 4. “Born of water” refers to the Holy Spirit.
Pro – (1) Cross references do support this metaphor of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Titus 3:5. (2) The figurative use of “water” is well-attested in John’s gospel (4:7-14; 7:37-39) and is explicitly identified as the Holy Spirit in 7:39. (3) The proximity of John 4:7-14 and 7:37-39 provide a closer context than passages that mention “water” being the “word of God” in Ephesians 5:26 and 1 Peter 1:23. (4) The imagery of water for the Spirit is well-attested in the Old Testament (Ezekiel 36:25-26) and would have been familiar to Nicodemus, a Pharisee who studied the Scriptures and Old Testament Law. (5) The conjunction “kai” can be used in an explanatory sense (translated “even”) as in Matthew 21:5. In this case, “Unless one is born of water, even the Spirit, he cannot enter….” (6) Verse 8 does not mention water, but the Spirit alone. Such is not out of line if “born of water” is synonymous with “born of Spirit,” for the two are one and the same.
Con – (1) There is the issue of redundancy this view creates.

CONCLUSION – View 1 has very little or no exegetical support to commend itself. The hermeneutical principle of “the analogy of faith” (Scripture interprets Scripture) places the final nail in the coffin and the force of its Con arguments far outweighs its Pro’s. View 2 has about as much support as View 1, but it too is nearly a conspicuous eisegesis. View 3 is attractive, but it lacks a good parallel close to the context of John 3:5. View 4 is clearly the superior view, especially because of John 7:39. It is commended by contextual, exegetical, grammatical, and historical support—none of which may be said for any single one of the first three views. In answer to Con 1 against view 4, redundancy is only discouraged in modern culture; biblical examples abound of cognates and hendiadys.

What are the first thing that you notice about this method of finding meaning in John 3:5? Obviously, it addresses four historical views of this passage with an eye to determine the meaning of the phrase “born of water”.