JOHN 3:5 DOES NOT

TEACH WATER BAPTISM

THE ULTIMATE PROOF TEXT ?

 

The Way International is a major Bible movement in the United States which teaches salvation by faith alone.  It teaches that Jesus Christ and the apostles never taught that water baptism forgives sin and unites you to God.  They say that Jesus did command water baptism but his death did away with it so that Christians don't need it now.  They think this doing away took place when the Holy Spirit came down at Pentecost on the apostles and the Church.  Then water baptism was superseded by the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.  They contend that what today's Christians need is the baptism of the Holy Spirit which is given directly by God when the person is ready and when the person accepts Jesus Christ and gets his sins forgiven.   

 

This contradicts the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that you need water baptism to be united to God and to form his Church.  As the human race is populated and created by birth, so the Church is created by baptising.  The whole edifice of Roman Catholicism is built on this assumption.  For example, if you are not baptised you are not a member of the Catholic Church, the one true Church, and you won't go to Heaven.  The true Church is supposed to be infallible.  If the Church is not properly baptised then it follows that the infallible decrees of bishops and popes are not infallible at all.  It follows that the Church could be wrong about everything including what books should be in the Bible.  It follows that we can laugh at Church teachings such as that contraception is always wrong and that Jesus is God and that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are his body and blood and so the whole thing collapses if it is wrong about baptism. 

 

John 3:5.  When having a chat with Nicodemus, Jesus claimed that only a person born of water and the Holy Spirit could go to Heaven, “Unless a man is born of water and [even] the Spirit, he cannot [ever] enter the Kingdom of God”. 

 

The Roman Catholic Church used its supposed infallibility to decree that the meaning of this verse was that water baptism is necessary for salvation and forgives sins and unites one to God and the Church.  This took place at the Council of Trent.  The verse is capable of many different interpretations.  The Church says that infallibility means that research has to be done to find the right one.  But to find the right one the Church would need a testimony from the gospel author that it was the right one.  This it has not got.  The Church just has to weakly argue that tradition always said the verse meant what the Church says it means.  But the gospel writer himself mentioned a false tradition that went out in the early Church and among the apostles so that gets us nowhere.

 

What we read in John 3:5 was said before Jesus died for our sins and rose again.  If it was the law then that disciples of Jesus had to be baptised then we can take Jesus' meaning to be what the Way International would say it could be.  One has to be born of water first to join Jesus' spiritual class ie baptised in water.  In that class you get the gospel in its fulness.  The gospels say that Jesus was keeping his most sacred teachings for closer disciples.  The gospels indicate that there were indeed such classes.  When you get the gospel and understand it, you can accept salvation and then be born of the Holy Spirit.  Thus you see that the water is not saving anybody or forgiving anybody.  It is what the baptised do afterwards that counts.  The Roman Church admits that sacramental baptism wasn't practiced then.  Jesus said he expected Nicodemus to understand.  How could he then?  The Catholic interpretation is the worst interpretation of them all.  The Mormon interpretation that the words refer to water baptism, born of water, and confirmation, born of the Spirit, is a better one!

 

Catholic priests have said, you must be baptised and confirmed to enter the kingdom of God.  This parallels Jesus's words.  They certainly did not mean to imply that confirmation is as necessary to salvation as baptism for they believe that baptism alone can be enough.

 

There are other understandings of the verse.

 

The water may be a symbol of washing from sin for the word Spirit may be really wind in the original Greek.  The “Spirit” translation is just a guess (page 135, All One Body – Why Don’t We Agree?  Or read the notes in the New American Bible for this passage.  In its dictionary – look up SPIRIT – it says that the word pneuma means spirit and several other things.)  Water and wind are emblems of the Holy Spirit so Jesus may be saying that we should be born of the Spirit and not of literal water plus the Spirit.

  

The water may be the water in the womb.  Jesus may be saying that unless we are born of this water and the Spirit we cannot enter into the kingdom of God.  He was being poetic.  He wanted to emphasise the importance of being begotten of the Spirit by saying it was as important as being born of a woman.  John 3 is very poetic and much symbolism is incorporated into it.

  

The Christian book, When Critics Ask (page 406), tells us that since Jesus when he said man must be born of water and the Spirit to be saved he was answering Nicodemus who asked if born again meant having to go back to your mother’s womb that Jesus by water was referring to the water of the womb.  This is the right explanation and understanding for the context determines the meaning.  So Jesus meant that unless you are born of the water inside your mother and then by the Holy Spirit you cannot be saved.  Some might say that is strange because you don’t tell people they have to exist to be saved.  You would if you wanted to poetically show that spiritual rebirth is as necessary for salvation as physical birth.  There is a lot of poetry in the passage.  Jesus would have said, “Unless you are born of baptism and the spirit,” if he had been thinking of baptism.

 

Let think more on this, “Unless a man is born of water and the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”  If the water was required it does not follow that the water gives the Holy Spirit.  We read in the Book of Acts that the early Church denied that baptism gave the Holy Spirit (Acts chapters 8 and 19).  The Holy Spirit was received subsequent to baptism by the imposition of hands.  The Roman Catholic doctrine that baptism gives the Holy Spirit and that one is reborn of the Spirit in baptism is totally unscriptural and also anti-scriptural.  Even if John 3 requires baptism for salvation it does not say that baptism forgives sin or that it gives the Holy Spirit.  The water might be like your ticket to receiving the Spirit.  The dishonesty of the Roman Catholic Church in quoting that verse to get people to believe in its doctrine is deplorable.  The Church gets away with it by making people so prejudiced that they imagine they see in verses what the Church wants them to see.  It is obvious that the birth from the spirit is more important than the birth from water.  Also, “Take John and get in the car and you will get to London,” does not necessarily mean that taking John is necessary.  You could get to London without him.  John then would correspond to the water in the verse while the car would correspond to the spirit.

 

Another excellent answer to the Catholic interpretation given in the same book takes note of the fact that Jesus was instructing a Jew who was probably intended to share the same instruction with other Jews.  The born of water could then refer to the baptism of John which was a baptism of repentance and not a sacrament and the born of the Spirit could mean the baptism of the Holy Spirit which had to be received by faith alone.  So Jesus was saying that unless you repent and accept God’s mercy by faith alone you will not be saved.  He was not saying everybody has to be born of water and have John’s baptism but just fitting the plan of salvation into a Jewish context.  In other words, he was asking that salvation by repentance and faith must be worked into Jewish tradition if people want to do it that way and the way to do the repentance is by being baptised in water in that case.  In any case, it is clear that Jesus envisaged not babies being baptised but adults.  If Jesus say recommended a prayer to say to get saved it would not matter if you changed that prayer or prayed by intention and not using words.  It is the same thing here, the method of salvation does not change but the way you can exercise the method or express it can and that is okay.   

 

Jehovah of the Watch-Tower tells us that Jesus was referring to a baptism of repentance when he said we have to be born of water and that we have to be born of the Spirit as well (page 151).  The book correctly observes that there is no other water baptism but the baptism of repentance in the Bible.  There is no baptism of regeneration.  It is entirely possible that Jesus went through a baptism in the Jordan not for his own sins but for ours so he fulfilled the requirement of baptism for repentance for us meaning all we have to do now is to accept the Holy Spirit for regeneration.  So when you receive the Holy Spirit you are vicariously born of water.  The vicarious baptism of Jesus makes you born of water.  You can be born of water without touching it just like Peter hints that Noah and co were born of the water of the flood when they were on the ark.  Jesus never said we actually have to be washed in water to be born of it and he would have been clear that we need to be if he thought we needed to be.  Catholics and Protestants hold that circumcision which was a religious initiation rite for the Jews did what baptism does now and yet Jesus told Nicodemus, a circumcised Jew, that he needs to be born again of water.  This indicates that Jesus did not want him to go through another rite to be born again but to accept the baptism of repentance that Jesus made for him as if it were his own which would involve repenting.  What he was saying was this, unless you are born again of repentance and the Holy Spirit you will not be saved.

 

So we have to be born of water and the spirit.  The water may be a symbol like the water mentioned in Isaiah 12:3; 55:1 and Jeremiah 2:13.  Jesus told Nicodemus that he should understand these things being a teacher of the Old Testament which makes it likely that he was annoyed at him for not understanding what the water symbol stood for.  This instruction is the key to understanding.  The Old Testament never mentions salvation by literal water but only by symbolic water.  It appears that had Jesus meant baptism, he would have said that a man is born again by baptism and the Holy Spirit for Nicodemus was a good Jewish scholar and Judaism did not practice baptism as an official cleansing of sin so Nicodemus had no reason to assume that water had to mean baptism and though Jesus took John’s baptism he never even baptised himself which he would have done had Nicodemus understood him to mean baptism.  The apostles performed baptism later so Nicodemus had no reason to think that Jesus meant baptism or was into water baptism.  And the gospel of John says that John said he only baptised Jesus as a sign that he was the one they were waiting for, the Lamb of God.  Jesus later said that he washed people with the word of God (John 15:3).

  

Paul wrote in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 12:13) that we all drank from the same Holy Spirit indicating that water was an emblem of the Holy Spirit and was not literal water.   The primitive Christians understood the Holy Spirit to be a cleanser from sin and predictably they took water as a symbol of the Spirit.  Jesus could have meant unless one is born of the cleansing and the Spirit, etc.   

  

Water represented some kind of mystical experience and not water in the writings of John according to his First Epistle.

 

Rome does not really believe her interpretation of John 3:5 for Rome says that the people can be saved without water baptism.  This salvation is done through the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood.  Yet it cannot give a New Testament verse that says that these work.  The places where salvation and forgiveness are spoken of as given without baptism do not relate to these other “baptisms”.

 

The fact that the Old Testament says people can be saved without baptism means nothing for things are different now that the saviour has come (Hebrews 9, 10).  Even if the verse did say that the birth of water was required for salvation it would not make it a sacrament or a magic rite.  God could make an ordinary rite necessary for salvation.

  

The Catholic dogma of baptism is based on this text for nothing else in the Bible can really justify it which makes it more certain that some understanding that is opposed to the Catholic one is correct.

  

The Catholic doctrine contradicts Jesus’ teaching that God is love for it claims that God holds babies and adults from him like filthy rags until the priest casts a spell on them with the rite.  A truly perfect God would not be able to endure the wait.  He would not put the needs of the spirit in the hands of a man.  He’s the one that condemns procrastination.

  

The Seventh-day Adventists say that we are born of the Spirit at conversion and born of water at baptism and deny that Jesus is saying that the birth in water is the same as birth of the Spirit.  Yes, there is no reason to assume the two are identical.  Jesus is promising that baptism will be administered to the person who is really converted and is a sign from him that the conversion is real.  Of course fakes can be baptised but the important thing is the assurance of the Holy Spirit that Jesus agrees with the water baptism being performed.  That makes the difference.  So even if you accept that the water is baptism you still are not obligated to follow the Catholic interpretation.  Jesus would have said, “Unless a man be born of water which is the same as being born of the spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God”, had he meant what Catholics hope he meant.  The fake Christian may go through the rite but he or she is not really born of water into the kingdom because he or she is a phoney.  Born of water means being born into the kingdom through water and you cannot enter the kingdom unless you are sincere and mean to do what God wants.  This implies you have to be baptised again if the first baptism was just a performance.

 

John 3:5.  Jesus said, “Unless a man is born of water and [even] the Spirit, he cannot [ever] enter the kingdom of God.”

  

There is no reason to translate Spirit here for the word in the original also means wind.  Water (Ezekiel 36:25-27) and wind are symbols for God's saving energy, the Holy Spirit, so Jesus may be asserting that we need to be saved by the Holy Spirit.  This verse is no foundation for the notion that without water baptism there is no salvation.  The Holy Spirit is said to be water you can drink in John 7:37-39 - a metaphor.   It appears also in John 4 when Jesus told the Samaritan woman at a well about the water he can give.  It shows that Jesus was using water to picture the Holy Spirit.  Jesus then was saying that a man needs to be born of water and wind to enter the kingdom of God meaning a man needs to be born of the Holy Spirit.  He talks later of one being born of the Spirit without mentioning the water.  Besides, it doesn't make a lot of sense to be saying that one is born of water and the Spirit even if one believes that one receives the Spirit at water baptism.  One is still born of the Spirit not water.  The Church teaches there is no power in the water at all.  Water pictures the saving action of the Holy Spirit but water does not save, the Spirit does.  One is then begotten of the Holy Spirit.

  

Water and wind.  Is this just an interpretation?  Even if it is, it still proves that the verse can’t definitely prove baptismal salvation.  But Jesus himself implied this interpretation.  First he told Nicodemus that rebirth was necessary for salvation.  Nick thought that he meant reincarnation so Jesus set him straight saying one needs to be born of water and the Spirit.  Jesus then told Nick that he should know that being a teacher of Israel and if he could not understand earthly things how could he understand heavenly.  Jesus therefore told him that the interpretation of the water and the wind/Spirit was in the Old Testament which never speaks of salvation by water baptism or such baptism thus it was symbolic.  Nick could not understand earthly symbolism and Jesus tells him that he will not understand his new heavenly doctrines.  Jesus went on to say that faith in Jesus saves and bestows everlasting life.  Nick would have understood that for he believed that trust in God and obedience were necessary for salvation as the Law said.  (Notice how this implies that faith alone without good works is what God requires for salvation.)  The chapter must never be understood as saying that Nick did not understand what the spirit does for all Jewish teachers knew that it gives life and pardon and help to serve God.

  

An important clue regarding what Jesus meant is to be found when Jesus told Nick that Nick should understand him for he was a teacher too.  Jesus said that he was telling him of earthly things and wondered how Nick could believe anything he would tell him of heavenly things when he could not believe his utterances about earthly things.  So Jesus was saying this being born of the Spirit was an earthly thing.  What Jesus meant was that Nick was unable to understand that the body is born of water and the mind is born of Spirit for flesh is born of flesh and spirit is born of spirit and that you need to be born again but by the power of God because the spirit and the flesh are in opposition for they are too different.  So Jesus said that when a man needs to be born of water and the spirit to enter the kingdom of God he was talking about us coming into existence and not about water baptism at all.  He does not say we need water to be born again which means to receive the power to become holy like God.

  

If we are born again of the Spirit when we are baptised then why did Jesus not say that we are born again of the Holy Spirit and of water and not water and the Holy Spirit?  The order is wrong suggesting that water is a symbol not real water.  Even if baptism in water could save you, it would be because of the Holy Spirit.  The order is a clear hint that the water is not real water and that Jesus is saying you have to be born of water and wind to be saved.

The doctrine of baptism being a sacrament cannot be traced in the Bible.  The Bible claims to be the only religious authority for Christians so it is unchristian to teach that it is a sacrament. The Catholic Church leadership is well educated and has no excuse for teaching the same old errors that it taught in the past. The errors are deliberate.

Top of the Document