Table of Contents

Table of Contents II

Search This Blog

Friday, September 11, 2026

No Inheritance--Part Two

This is a continuation of an article I started awhile back on Paul's statements that those practicing certain sins would not inherit the kingdom of God. As a text I used three passages as follows:

1 Cor. 6:9-10

Gal. 5:19-21

Eph. 5:5-7


“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1Cor.  6:9-10 NKJV)


“Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,

idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Gal. 5:19-21 NKJV)


“For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them.” (Eph. 5:5-7 NKJV)

As is evident I used the New King James Version of the Bible (underlining by me - DS). The first two sins mentioned by Paul in Galatians – adultery and fornication – were covered in my first article.

Some of the sins listed can be grouped together due to the features they share. Uncleanness, lewdness, homosexuals, and sodomites all relate to sexual sin in part or altogether. All involve sexual immorality. Why list them at all then since Paul has already given us the umbrella term "fornication" (translated "sexual immorality" in modern versions) under which term they could all be sheltered?

We can only speculate on that as we are not told. I think it likely that when we use terms that can be broadly interpreted there can be some danger that we will miss the mark in our understanding. For example, in my last article I talked about sexual immorality. There is a bit of a problem. Sexual immorality has to be defined. Where do you draw the line; what is sexually immoral and what is not? I thought about listing a large number of such sins, not just from my own thinking but from reading others (commentaries, etc.). I hesitated and did not do it. Why not?

Paul said in Ephesians 5:12, "It is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret." (NKJV) So, did I want to dare to be so specific and graphic in light of what Paul told the Ephesians? No, I felt it best to just be general and leave it at "sexual immorality." But, again, the danger is a person may not be aware of their specific sin when one is so general in such broad declarations. Things may be excluded that ought to be included.

My speculation, that is all it is, says that perhaps Paul did at times get specific in naming sins that could have been closeted under a more general term not wanting to take the chance that some sins would be overlooked if not explicitly mentioned. Sometimes we need to be told straight up that what we are engaged in is sin, no guessing or wondering about it.

I begin today's discussion with the sins of homosexuality and sodomy. Paul says neither homosexuals nor sodomites will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NKJV). Instead of using those two terms the Christian Standard Bible says, "males who have sex with males" and both the English Standard Bible and the New International Version have footnotes that are similar. The NIV footnote says, "The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts."

The Bible knows nothing about homosexual marriage which is solely an invention of sinful mankind and a very, very recent invention at that. Man cannot invent a right in order to circumvent God's condemnation and think that if God exists they will get by with it eternally. Kick sand in God's face and see what happens when his patience is exhausted and you face him in judgment. God never gave man the authority to overrule his decrees.

The next term is uncleanness. What is uncleanness? It is hard to find any commentator on this term who will actually define it with any specificity. It is another broad inclusive term. We can only do our best. We know uncleanness is a work of the flesh from our Galatian passage and that an unclean person has no inheritance in the kingdom of God from the Ephesian passage.

By comparing other Bible translations we learn that the Greek word behind the English word "unclean" can be translated as "impure." The Christian Standard Bible translates in Gal. 5:19 using the phrase "moral impurity" and in Eph. 5:5 with just the word "impure." The English Standard Bible in Eph. 5:5 uses the word "impure" and in Gal. 5:19 the word "impurity." The New International Version, the New American Standard Bible 2020, and the New Living Translation all do the same thing. So, the question arises as to what makes one impure (unclean).

If we were living under the Law of Moses (the Old Testament) it would be easy to name many things that made one unclean, things that separated from God until cleansing took place, but we now live under the new covenant sanctified by the blood of Christ. So how about for us living today?

We can get an idea from Ezra 9:11 where we read, "The land which you are entering to possess is an unclean land, with the uncleanness of the peoples of the lands, with their abominations which have filled it from one end to another with their impurity." (Ezra 9:11 NKJV) Ezra is going back in time here referencing the days long gone by when the children of Israel were told to enter the promised land and drive out the inhabitants (destroy them). What kind of uncleanness had those inhabitants practiced?

Idolatry was perhaps the most egregious sin but there was far more to their idolatry than just a spiritual devotion to an idol. It often involved what one commentary said was "little else than sexual orgies with a religious scenario," there were male and female temple prostitutes, and there was offering as burnt sacrifices their own sons and daughters. They were involved in witchcraft, soothsaying, interpreting omens, sorcery, mediums, etc. You can find a listing of these things in Deuteronomy 18:9-14 and another listing with regards to the general immorality as related to sexual sin in Leviticus 18. Leviticus 18:27 reads, "For all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled," thus unclean. (Lev. 18:27 NKJV) When one reads the word "defile" in his/her Bible we immediately understand we are talking about uncleanness.

One can conclude that anything related to idolatry would make one unclean in God's eyes, the only eyes that matter. Would the same apply to false worship or false doctrine? I am not the judge of where such things begin and end, where the exact line is to be drawn, but it seems the wise man or woman would want to stay as far away from any kind of false religion as possible including within Christendom when one finds it.

One can also say any kind of sexual immorality being practiced would make one unclean. In fact, uncleanness is such a general term that one could say almost any and every sin one would practice would make one impure or unclean. If not, why not?

Jesus said, "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man." (Matt. 15:18-20 NKJV)

This would seem to me to be a listing of things that would make one unclean or impure. If you are defiled you are unclean. Again, one is led to the conclusion that uncleanness is a broad all-encompassing term for any and all sin that is practiced.

I would suggest that a person find any listing of sins in his/her New Testament, go down the list, and ask themselves with each sin listed "if I did this thing would it keep me pure (clean) or would it make me impure and unclean?" That is probably as good a way as any of deciding what is clean versus what is not. Is the thing I am contemplating doing leading me to holiness?

I will close the comments on uncleanness with this from 2 Cor. 6:17 where Paul quotes from the Old Testament and applies it to the present. "Therefore 'come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.'" (2 Cor. 6:17 NKJV) God wants us to be holy and undefiled by the world, separate from the world, and certainly separate from idolatry in whatever form it might take. We need to live pure and holy lives.

The last sin to be dealt with in this essay is that of "lewdness." Lewdness is the word used in the New King James Version of the Bible from e-sword but I have an older version of the New King James Version New Testament that uses the word licentiousness. The original King James Version uses the word lasciviousness. Other modern-day versions translate using words like promiscuity (CSB), sensuality (ESV, NASB), indecent behavior (NAS20), depravity (NET), debauchery (NIV), and lustful pleasures (NLT). The online dictionary at dictionary.com says for lewdness, "indecency or obscenity; vulgar sexual character or behavior."

We generally think of lewdness as being sexual and obscene in a public way by one's behavior and/or dress or lack thereof. However, one can be lewd in non-sexual ways. You cannot use the public streets and walkways as your toilet, as is reported about some in San Francisco, without being lewd. You cannot be loud and vulgar in your speech and behavior in public. You cannot live without respect for others round about you in your conduct.

Jesus, in Mark 7:20-23, says lewdness defiles a man (V. 22 NKJV). Paul says we are to walk properly, not in lewdness and lust (Rom. 13:13). He says there were some in Corinth that had not repented of their lewdness (2 Cor. 12:21). In Ephesians speaking of the Gentiles he says they "have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." (Eph. 4:19 NKJV) Lewdness here is associated with uncleanness as it was with lust in the Roman passage. The point is that the scriptures clearly condemn such a way of life. There is no inheritance for those who fail to repent of this sin.

There is a word of caution here in defining lewdness. We get so used to things the way they are we become immune to them, take them for granted, and think no more about them. I have in mind the way so many young women especially, but sometimes older women as well, dress. Have you ever wondered about what God thinks about short shorts worn out in public? It may not be lewdness for us for we have become so used to such things but how does God see it? I wonder how such dress would have gone over among Christians living in the first century. I think I know. For that matter how would our great grandparents have felt about it? We must consider God in every aspect of our lives first and foremost. We cannot let modern-day life scar us over to the point we become like the world and think and behave as they do. We need to see things the way God does.

This brings this article to a close. When I started out on this project I had no idea it would take this much time, effort, and space but like the tortoise we will keep at it as long as we can and as long as the Lord wills and hopefully get it done. The goal is to define every term that Paul says will deny us an inheritance from the passages chosen.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]


No Inheritance--Part One

The apostle Paul when he was not writing to a specific individual in his epistles was writing to a church or a group of churches, Galatians for example. He was writing to Christians in all cases. In the course of his writing, he warns against a multitude of sins, sins of all kinds. One finds long listings in Rom. 1:28-32 and 2 Tim. 3:1-5.

While we know sin of any kind unrepented of can keep one out of heaven I have found it noteworthy that in three places Paul gives the reader specific warning that the sins he lists, if practiced, will keep one from inheriting the kingdom of God. Those passages are found in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, and Eph. 5:5-7. I quote them below using the New King James version. All underlining is mine.

        1 Cor. 6:9-10


“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1Co 6:9-10 NKJV)

              Gal. 5:19-21


“Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal 5:19-21 NKJV)

              Eph. 5:5-7


“For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them. (Eph 5:5-7 NKJV)


I thought it might be good to be sure we understand the nature of the sins that will keep us out of heaven if practiced.

Adultery is the first sin listed in Gal. 5. I suspect most people think they know what adultery is but Jesus gives one definition of it in Matt. 19:9, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (Matt. 19:9 NKJV) Of course, if the woman was to do this rather than the man the principle is the same.

There are people who claim that adultery is a one-time act. Not so! Col. 3:5-7 clearly teaches one can live in a sin. "Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication ('sexual immorality' in modern versions – DS), uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them." (Col. 3:5-7 NKJV) So, one can live in a sin or sins versus just a one-time act.

Besides that, it is said by those who know the Greek, that the word "committeth" as in committeth adultery in Matt. 19:9, in the King James version of the Bible, denotes linear or continuous action thus means it is ongoing, not a single act. I am not a Greek scholar but I don't think they are lying about it.

One must also remember why John the Baptist got in trouble with Herod. He was imprisoned because Herod did not like what he had to say, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." (Mark 6:18 NKJV) Herod had married her but John said she is "your brother's wife." Herod was living in adultery with Herodias.

Of course, all extra-marital affairs are adulterous. A fitting definition that more or less covers the whole ground of what adultery is would go something like this: voluntary sexual intercourse between two persons, one at least who is married to another (both might be). Yes, this is an act but when engaged in habitually is a manner of life, a way of life which one lives or practices.

Is this the only way to commit adultery? Good question. How about what Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky were involved in? What about those who are sexually intimate but have not yet gone all the way? God will judge whether or not it is adultery but it is certain such things are sexually immoral and will keep the unrepentant out of the kingdom of God no matter what descriptive name you would give to the specific sin. Those things would at the very least fall under the category of "fornication," our next topic. As a matter of fact, all adultery falls under the more inclusive classification of fornication (sexual immorality).

Before moving on to the topic of fornication one other comment ought to be added to this discussion. Jesus did say, "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt. 5:28 NKJV) "Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God." (Matt. 5:8 NKJV) Is this equivalent to the adultery spoken of in Paul's listings? It would be tough to take the position that one could face God on the Day of Judgment with an impure heart and have hope of heaven. I suppose technically, which is to say physically, it would not be adultery but it is definitely a soul destroyer. That is about all one can say about the matter.

The next sin Paul lists that, if committed habitually and unrepented of, will keep one out of heaven is fornication. When I was growing up in the mid-20th century when one used the word fornication we all thought we knew what was meant. It was a single person having sexual relations, sexual intercourse, outside of marriage. Such a person was a fornicator. That was the limit of the sin.

Nowadays one will not even find the word "fornication" or "fornicators" in the major modern-day translations. Those terms have been exchanged for a much broader, more inclusive term, "sexual immorality." This includes versions like the New American Standard 2020, the English Standard Version, the Christian Standard Version, and the New International Version. The New Living Translation uses the term "sexual sin" in 1 Cor. 6:9.

Think of the many Greek scholars who worked on these translations deciding how to most accurately translate the Greek into understandable English. Were all these scholars wrong in making the decision to change the wording from fornication to sexual immorality? Perhaps the very reason they did it was to clarify the meaning of the text to those of us who were likely to misunderstand the meaning of the word "fornication" in our modern-day society.

The Greek word behind the King James, the New King James, and the older New American Standard versions that was translated as "fornication" was the word "porneia" in its noun form with a slightly different spelling in its verb form. It was long thought among the average person, so to speak, that this word had the restricted meaning I have already spoken of, but modern scholarship has debunked that idea and thus changed the translation to "sexual immorality."

One can easily be misled by reading some of the older commentaries and word study books on the word fornication that seem to restrict the meaning to one specific act. Whether they actually did that or not is open to question. They may have meant more than we commonly give them credit for when they used phrases like "sexual intercourse" to explain it. We today have confined the word to one act. That does not mean they did or that they intended to.

Be that as it may, scholarship does advance with time in nearly every field of endeavor. Not every change in our bibles is the devil trying to destroy us as some King James-only advocates seem to imply. "Sexual immorality" is a much better way to translate the Greek word porneia to give the modern-day reader an accurate understanding of what the text is meant to convey.

So, what does this phrase mean, this thing, this sin that will keep one from inheriting the kingdom of God? Fornication (NKJV) or sexual immorality (modern versions) includes all sexual sin thus not just sexual intercourse outside marriage but nearly everything that you can imagine. Probably no one could list every specific sin under this general category of "sexual immorality." I think most people have an innate sense about them, if they have any Christian background or training at all, to know when an action has crossed the line into sexual immorality whether it is specifically stated as such in the text or not.

I know some object to "sexual immorality" as a translation of the Greek here. They think it is too broad a phrase, encompasses too much. Yet, they generally admit that the word "fornication," as most understand it, to not be inclusive enough of what the actual Greek word "porneia" means. So, they stand between a rock and a hard place. What word or phrase would they use? You get no answer. As I said before, "sexual immorality" is a better translation for our day and age. Trying to figure out every single sexual sin that this would include is not the job of the translator.

Certainly, this sin, sexual immorality in all its many varied aspects, is difficult for people living in bodies of flesh to conquer. I once heard many, many years ago a faithful man in the church, as far as I could tell, comment that everyone was likely guilty. I suspect he was correct if one was to talk of a one-time or an occasional occurrence over the course of a lifetime, especially in youth. However, Paul speaks of those "who practice such things" (Gal. 5:21), who make it a way of life, who are unrepentant.

It is no news to any of us that we sin. "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." (1 John 1:8-10 NKJV) The key is to not practice sin as a way of life and to be penitent, to repent when we do sin—that is, if one is a Christian. For those who are not, the key is to obey the gospel from the heart with all that involves (another lesson for another time).

I had hoped to go through this entire listing of sins from the passages chosen in one article. Obviously, that is not going to happen. I will, Lord willing, continue on in later articles. For now, I close by simply saying that the Holy Spirit says we cannot go to heaven practicing these two categories of sins.

"For out of the heart, proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man." (Jesus, Matt. 15:19-20 NKJV) [my underlining -- DS]

[To download this article or print it out click here.]


As Long As It Glorifies God

We read in Rom. 15:4, "For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." (NKJV) The NIV translates the first part of that verse as follows, "For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us."

Paul, the writer, had reference to the writings found in the Old Testament when he made that statement. As we read the Old Testament we need to be thinking what is in this passage or account that I am reading that is a lesson for me today? What is in it for my learning? We should never read the Old Testament just as history but rather as history that is meant to teach and leave lessons for those of us today.

Every Bible student who has been a student any length of time is aware of Samuel's encounter with King Saul as Saul returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites. Saul had been commanded by God, through Samuel, to go and put to death every living Amalekite and to destroy everything they had. (1 Sam. 15:3) He disobeyed sparing the life of King Agag, king of the Amalekites, and the best of the livestock bringing them back to Israel. (1 Sam. 15:9) Samuel in his meeting with Saul utters the famous statement I here quote:

"Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he also has rejected you from being king." (1 Sam. 15:22-23 NKJV)

The word "stubbornness" found in the NKJV here is interesting. In the ESV and NET translations the Hebrew word is translated as "presumption," as "insolence" in the LITV, "insubordination" in the NAS, and "arrogance" in the NIV. The meaning seems to be that Saul was determined to do his will rather than God's. Would he dare do it? He did but why? Surely he had some fear of God.

It seems Saul had the same idea many men have today who believe they are pleasing God while being disobedient to his word. They consider themselves godly men and would defend themselves as Saul did before Samuel; at least he did as long as he could. (1 Sam. 15:20-21) The idea is prevalent today that we can do whatever we want to in our Christian work and worship just so we give glory to God, or as some might say as long as God receives the glory.

That was exactly the case with King Saul. God said to destroy all the animals, but Saul's thinking is we will take the best back and sacrifice them to God in Israel. He will receive glory in our doing so; he will be pleased. There is arrogance, presumption, insolence, call it what you will, in that kind of thinking. We will disobey God to please him. Sounds ridiculous does it not, but that is the way much of Christendom thinks today, just like King Saul.

The Bible could not be any clearer than it is on the subject of homosexuality as all Bible readers know, but we presume to know more than God about it and think he will be pleased when we condone it and receive into fellowship the unrepentant individual practicing it as long as we say "he is in a committed relationship." We see ourselves as showing love and thus God must surely be pleased with our actions. Since our motivation is good, as was Saul's, we can disobey God and he will be pleased.

Paul's teaching on women preachers and leaders of the church again is as clear as can be. Read 1 Cor. 14:34-37. Paul closes that section by saying, "If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord." (1 Cor. 14:37 NKJV) Read also 1 Tim. 2:12-13. But we are like Saul. We will do our own thing and presume a little, be a little arrogant, be a little insolent. We will give God glory in the way we see fit—through women preaching and being church leaders.

I never have figured out how a woman is going to be an elder, a bishop, a pastor, in view of the fact that the qualification for such is that the individual must be "the husband of one wife." (1 Tim. 3:2 NKJV) But when we are like Saul and make our own rules anything goes and anything does go today in the religious world, even among those mankind calls Christians whether they be that or not. I suppose when you live in a society where many claim they cannot tell a biological man from a woman nothing should surprise us.

Whatever we want to do we can justify ourselves as King Saul justified himself before Samuel. We can justify ourselves and get by with it today for we have no living prophets around, no apostles, no inspired men to rebuke us. However, we will get by for only so long for "all things are naked and open to the eyes of him to whom we must give account." (Heb. 4:13 NKJV)

Samuel said this stubbornness, arrogance, presumption (depending on your translation) was as iniquity and idolatry. Why would he say that? The Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament in dealing with this verse makes an excellent point. I quote, "All conscious disobedience is actually idolatry, because it makes self-will, the human I, into a god. So that all manifest opposition to the word and commandment of God is, like idolatry, a rejection of the true God." I see no way around that conclusion.

Saul's sin was in actuality rebellion against God. There was a new god in Israel—King Saul. That was his sin and it is our sin when we decide that for all practical purposes we are going to make the Bible mean what we want it to mean despite what it says. We will explain all of those old troublesome passages away to fit modern-day culture, our woke society. We will make the Bible into a living document (a document that grows and changes as suits us to go along with the changing culture). Why? Because we are not satisfied with it the way it is and because we can do it, at least for now.

God today speaks to us through his inspired word. When we take it and play around with it foot loose and fancy free we do not honor him. One cannot honor God nor give him glory by doing the opposite of what he has said to do. Have we learned the lesson we should have learned from King Saul's experience? I fear we have not.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]


Thursday, September 10, 2026

Is Water In John 3:5 Baptism

From time to time, one is surprised by the ideas that people come up with. One idea that was presented to me and surprised me was the thought that the water mentioned in John 3:5, where Jesus says, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (NKJV), had reference not to baptism but to the water of childbirth. I was aware that others explain the water away in other ways as not being baptism, but this childbirth explanation was a new one to me.

In any case, I thought it good to write yet another article on the subject, dealing this time not so much with biblical arguments, for that I have already done in other articles, but upon the historical record to show that today’s interpretations of water in John 3:5 as being something other than baptism are modern-day explanations. While it may seem that many support those views today, it was not that way in the past; in fact, just the opposite.

In the book entitled, The Gospel Plan of Salvation, first published in 1874, by T. W. Brents, I quote as follows: “The religious world, with one voice, from the days of Christ until quite recently, has ascribed this language to water baptism.” (Page 490) He goes on to quote a Dr. Wall as follows: “There is not any one Christian writer of any antiquity in any language, but what understands it of baptism.” (Page 490, a quote from Wall’s History of Infant Baptism, Vol. 1, page 147.)

Burton Coffman, in his Commentary on John, page 81, says, “It is only quite recently in Christian times that interpretations of this verse have been devised to exclude its obvious reference to Christian baptism.” He goes on to quote John Boys, the Dean of Canterbury, a famous preacher and scholar of the Church of England in the seventeenth century, who said of his time (1600s) that some few (he says “few”—not “many”) were saying that the water of the passage we are speaking of, John 3:5, “are not to be construed of external baptism.”

Boys is further quoted as saying, “Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Beda, Theophylact, Euthymius, in the commentaries on this place (3:5), along with Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Ambrose, Hierome, Basil, Gregory, Nyssen, and many more, yea most of the Fathers—Hooker, a man of incomparable reading, openeth his mouth wider, avowing peremptorily that all the ancients … have construed this text, as our church doth, of outward baptism.” (As quoted in Burton Coffman, Commentary on John, page 81.)

One last quote from Coffman’s commentary is from the famous church historian Philip Schaff, of the nineteenth century, Professor of Church History, Union Theological Seminary, who said, “It seems impossible to disconnect water in John 3:5 from baptism. Calvin’s interpretation arose from doctrinal opposition to the R. Catholic over-valuation of the sacrament, which must be guarded against in another way.” (Quoted in Burton Coffman, Commentary on John, page 82.)

Online there is an article entitled, “Born Again: Baptism in the Early Fathers,” from which I quote this: “Every Christian, all the Church Fathers, bishops, and saints who lived after the apostles (and some while the apostles were still alive) interpreted our Lord's words in John chapter 3 that to be ‘born again’ and ‘born of water and the Spirit’ refers to the Sacrament of Baptism. There are no exceptions. And Protestant scholars frankly admit this fact (note the relevant sections on Baptism in Reformed/Presbyterian scholar Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, and Lutheran scholar Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition).”

No author is listed for this article, but the home page suggests it is by Phil Porvaznik. In any case, there are extensive quotations from what the author says are all the church fathers through the fifth century to back up his statement of what the thinking was in the early years of the church. As I prepare to post this, the article is still online at:

https://www.evangelizationstation.com/oldsite/htm_html/Sacraments/Baptism/born_again.htm

Hopefully, it will remain online for some time to come, but there are no guarantees of that.

Because an interpretation is old does not make it right, but conversely, because an interpretation is new does not make it right either. Christianity is now about 2,000 years old. For about 1500 years of that, most who considered themselves Christians understood the passage in John 3:5, pertaining to being born of water, as a clear reference to baptism. Modern-day interpretations that differ from that should not be considered infallible simply because they are modern. Not everything new is better than the old. “Thus says the LORD: ‘Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls.’ But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’” (Jer. 6:16 NKJV)

Here is a good way to read John 3:5 when people want to give a new interpretation to the water of the passage. Read it, transposing the meaning they propose into the passage, and see if it makes sense. For example, the passage reads, “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Now transpose the meaning given by my antagonist: “unless one is born of the water of childbirth and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” That is like saying, unless one is born a human being, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. As the kids today would say, “Well, duh.”

There is no warrant for understanding the water of John 3:5 as being anything other than baptism. We see multitudes of people being baptized in water in the book of Acts. That practice, plus many other passages emphasizing the need for water baptism in the Scriptures, ought to settle any questions about the matter.

I understand I have not discussed John 3:5 with regard to making scriptural arguments. I said in the beginning that the purpose of this article was to throw some light on the historical record and not do what I have already done before in several different articles where I have discussed the passage in depth from a scriptural perspective.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]