Who is the Believer in John 3:16

Sometimes things that are the most obvious are also the easiest to overlook. No passage in the Bible is better known nor been memorized more than Jesus' statement in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life." (NKJV) This was part of a conversation Jesus was having with a man named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews who came to Jesus by night confessing that Jesus had to be a teacher from God because of the miracles he had been doing. "No one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him." (John 3:2 NKJV) The reader would do well to open his Bible to John 3 and if you have a red-letter edition all the better. You can readily see this conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus runs from John 3:1-21.

John 3:16 has given comfort to many, self included, as it should. It clearly teaches, for it clearly states, that the believer in Jesus will have eternal life. But, unfortunately, this is a verse that has been isolated not only from the rest of the teaching of the New Testament but even ripped from its immediate context and thus made to mean what men desire it to mean versus what it teaches when taken in context.

Who is this person who will have everlasting life? Who is this believer? Is it not the same person who will see the kingdom of heaven if he is "born again" in verse 3 and who will enter the kingdom of God if he is "born of water and the Spirit" in verse 5? Most certainly! It is all the same conversation directed at the same man, the man Nicodemus.

The believer of John 3:16 is the man who is born again (verse 3), the man who is born of water and the Spirit (verse 5). If this is not the same man, the man of John 3:16 and the man of John 3:3,5, then we have Jesus contradicting himself and teaching one is going to be saved one way in the earlier verses and another way in the later verse, all in the same conversation with the same man. Surely, all can see Jesus is talking about the same individual.

This makes the believer of John 3:16, who will be saved, a baptized person. The person who is born again, born of water and the Spirit, is the person who led by the Spirit came to a belief so strong as to lead him to be baptized (which is the water of John 3:5). As Jesus taught elsewhere, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16 NKJV)

Who is the person who does not believe? It is the person who will not be baptized. He is the person who does not believe Jesus when he said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." He is the person who does not believe one must be born again of water and the Spirit. Of the Spirit, yes, he believes that, but does not believe water is necessary.

One cannot be a believer in Jesus while not believing Jesus. You do not believe Jesus if part of his word is no good to you and you reject it. The believer in Jesus is the man who takes Jesus at his word--yes, all his word. In this very same chapter there is another verse confirming this very thing. Note John 3:36, "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." (NKJV) The phrase "does not believe the Son" means just that-- does not believe what Jesus says. That man shall not be saved. That man does not believe in Jesus even though he may proclaim his faith day and night.

The phrase "does not believe the Son" is in some translations translated differently, by the words "does not obey the Son" (NAS, ESV). Why? The Greek behind both translations is the word "apeitheo." Thayer, famous for his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, says this word means "to not allow one's self to be persuaded." Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says it means, "to refuse to be persuaded, to refuse belief, to be disobedient." (page 311) Adam Clarke, the well-known Bible commentator, says the person being spoken of in this verse is "The person who will not be persuaded, in consequence, does not believe; and, not having believed, he cannot obey." This seems to be the consensus meaning of the Greek. It is a person who does not believe and thus cannot obey because of his unbelief. One can see then how either translation would be acceptable, "does not believe" as in the NKJV or "does not obey" as in the NAS and ESV. The NAS reference edition admits as much for in its side margin notes it has "Or, believe" even though it translates in the text itself "does not obey."

So, what do we learn from John 3:36? Simple! To believe in the Son for salvation (as per John 3:16) means one believes the Son enough to be persuaded by him to obey what he says. So we see again, looking at it from the perspective of another verse in the same chapter, that it is he who is "born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5 NKJV) who will "enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5 NKJV) for that is the man who is persuaded enough by the words of Jesus to obey him because he believes him. This is the man who believes in Him so that he should not perish but have everlasting life.

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

 

The Grace of God in Baptism (Titus 3:4-7)

Most Americans of a Christian persuasion believe that baptism has little to nothing to do with the grace of God. One wonders have they never read Titus 3:4-7? The truth about God’s grace and its relationship with baptism is clearly set forth in Paul’s passage to Titus which reads as follows:

"But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by his grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:4-7 NKJV)

I encourage the reader to compare this passage, as rendered in the New King James Version just quoted, with its rendering in other reliable translations such as the English Standard Version and the New American Standard Version. It would also be good to read it from the New International Version. It is always good to read a passage from more than one translation to make sure you understand what is being said.

What does the passage teach? It teaches what it says. We are saved by God’s mercy, and we are justified by his grace. To be saved is to be justified. If you are not justified, you are not saved. But is that all the passage says and teaches? No!

It teaches when God saves us by his mercy or grace, whichever term you wish to use, he uses means to do so. What means? Well, what does the text say? It says, "Through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." (NKJV) The washing of regeneration is baptism.

The word "regenerate" is defined, according to my little paperback Merriam Webster Dictionary, 1994, "1: formed or created again 2: spiritually reborn or converted." Since that is its meaning the New International Version phrases it, "the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit."

One who knows the scriptures immediately calls to mind the words of Jesus in John 3. Jesus says, "Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3 NKJV) He says, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5 NKJV) What Paul taught in Titus 3:4-7 Jesus had already taught in John 3:3-5.

The word washed or washing is a reference to baptism. Paul says to the Corinthians, after listing a group of sins that people get caught up in, "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God." (1 Cor. 6:11 NKJV) How were they justified? Read Titus 3:4-7 again and you will be told.

How did Jesus cleanse the church at Ephesus? "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." (Eph. 5:26 NKJV) The washing is done with water. It is baptism. Ananias told Saul, soon to be Paul, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16 NKJV) The washing was done in baptism.

The writer of the book of Hebrews encourages Christians in saying, "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb. 10:22 NKJV) The washing is with water; the washing is baptism.

Now back to our original text in Titus-- Titus 3:4-7. Certainly, Paul teaches we are saved by God’s mercy, by his grace, for he very clearly states that, but if we will be honest, he just as clearly states that he saves by grace using means, and that means is "the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." The English Standard Version and the New American Standard Version both say, “by the washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5 ESV) rather than “through” which the NKJV uses. It is all one and the same.

When does God’s grace save? How does it save? Paul tells us in Titus but people would rather rely on their traditional interpretations than on plain statements of scripture and as long as that is the case little can be done. Part of the problem is when people think of grace they too often have in their mind one thought only--that salvation is all God’s doing and absolutely none of our doing. It is basically unconditional on man’s part. My mind cannot read the Bible and conjure up any such line of reasoning. Noah is a case in point.

Noah found grace in God’s eyes (Gen. 6:8) and was saved from drowning in the flood, but Noah had something to do on his part to be saved. There was an ark to be built. Was Noah saved by works? Just because God gives man something to do in order to be saved does not mean the thing required of him is a work that merits or earns salvation.

Noah had to build an ark to be saved because God required it, but it was not wood and pitch in the form of a ship and hard work that saved him. Surely, we can see that. It was the grace of God that built the ark, then floated it, kept it from sinking, and then finally brought it safely to rest. It was God’s grace that told Noah beforehand what was coming, the flood, and how to save himself. God’s grace saved Noah, but not without effort on Noah’s part. That effort consisted of believing and obeying. It is the same for you and me today.

If you can ever find a passage in the Bible, Old Testament or New Testament, which teaches or shows that any man was ever saved or could be saved by works apart from God’s grace please forward the passage to me. The fact that God gives you something to do to be saved does not mean that by complying with that act you no longer need God for you have worked (earned) your way to heaven.

Paul says in Titus that we are saved "not by works of righteousness which we have done" (Titus 3:5 NKJV) and yet in the very same verse we read it is "by the washing of regeneration …" (Titus 3:5 ESV). Anyone who can add two plus two and come up with four can clearly see then that in God’s eyes baptism is not a work of righteousness which we have done that merits salvation by works, and yet that is one of the arguments men make time and time again against baptism. They say baptism is salvation by works and they thus contradict Paul in Titus.

Baptism is as much a part of God’s grace for us today as was Noah’s ark building. "By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith." (Heb. 11:7 ESV) Noah had found grace in God’s eyes. (Gen. 6:8)

Now, let us say I want to become "an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith" just like Noah. Do you suppose there is anything for me to do? How about the washing of regeneration? Just as God’s grace led Noah to build an ark because of God’s word, God’s grace should lead us to be baptized because of God’s word. In fact, the word of God is referred to twice in the New Testament as "the word of his grace." (Acts 14:3 and Acts 20:32) There is a reason for calling his word that. Grace is found in God’s words of instruction for man. God was under no obligation to save Noah or to save you or me. He was under no obligation to tell Noah what he needed to do to be saved and he was under no obligation to you and me to tell us the way of salvation.

I hope you did take special note in your reading of the Titus 3:5 passage that Paul says "he saved us." When we submit to baptism it is not us saving ourselves by our own power or by our own works. Without God baptism means nothing. Noah built the ark, but he most certainly did not save himself apart from God. God could have sunk the ark at any point in time even after it floated. You and I are baptized, but that does not mean we saved ourselves. It would take a fool to believe that.

One of the things I do is a little substitute teaching in a high school of about 1100 students. Sometime back, I was subbing in a World History class and was thumbing through the textbook while the kids were otherwise occupied. I was a social studies major in college and enjoy history. Quite by chance, one of the pages that opened up had a few paragraphs dealing with Christianity. I was amazed to find the following statement that I am going to quote here: "Christians believed that through the rite of baptism their sins were forgiven by the grace of God." This had reference to the early years of Christianity.

The quote was taken from the textbook World History by Prentice Hall, written by Elisabeth Gaynor Ellis and Anthony Esler, page 170, for high school classes. The year the book was put out was 2010. The reference was to the time of the establishment of the church in the first century. That is all I have taught in this article and that is what Paul taught in Titus to all who will open their eyes just a little bit.

With that, I am going to bring this article to a close. I have taught the truth for I only told you what Paul said in Titus. He said it; I repeated it.

(If the reader should wonder why I did not discuss the latter half of the passage in Titus relating to the "renewing by the Holy Spirit" the answer is because men do not dispute that part of the passage. That is not where the battle rages. We all agree the renewing of the Holy Spirit is essential. I also add that this article was written originally years ago even though I am just now posting it. It was revised but very little.) 

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

The Kingdom of God and the New Birth

Why write an article on the topic of the kingdom of God and the new birth? Because Jesus tied them together in talking to Nicodemus in John 3:3, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (NKJV) Unfortunately, many misunderstand the kingdom of God spoken of in the passage and, as a result, come to erroneous suppositions, suppositions that lead astray. Perhaps the prominent of these is the idea that one can be saved like the thief on the cross. This is a topic that needs to be discussed.

Chronology is essential to a proper understanding of what Jesus is teaching. Jesus is king over his kingdom, but when did Jesus become a king with a kingdom over which to rule? When Jesus was talking to Nicodemus in John 3, was he speaking of what already existed, speaking in the present tense, or was he speaking prophetically?

He was speaking prophetically. Much of the teaching Jesus did while on earth related to the coming kingdom over which he would be king. It was yet in the future, but it had been prophesied from days of old. Daniel spoke of it when he said, in interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's dream, "the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed … and it shall stand forever." (Dan 2:44)

Israel and Judah of the Old Testament were ruled by kings, but both nations ended up in captivity, and the kingdoms were destroyed. The Jewish nation into which Jesus was born, into which he came, had no king. They were ruled by the Romans.

We need to trace the history of the kingdom that was established by Jesus. When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to announce the events about to overtake her here is what he said, "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end." (Luke 1:31-33 NKJV)

When John the Baptist comes on the scene and begins his ministry, his message is that "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 3:2 NKJV) It was at hand, meaning not here yet but getting close. This was the kingdom of God that both Daniel and the angel Gabriel said was to stand forever.

One chapter later, we see Jesus preaching the exact same message, "From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'" (Matt. 4:17 NKJV)

How close was that kingdom? Jesus said in his preaching to an audience in Mark 9:1, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power." (NAS)

Two points need to be emphasized here regarding this passage. (1) The kingdom still had not yet arrived, but it would be doing so within the lifetime of some of those standing there. (2) When it came, it would arrive "with power." Put another way, you would know it when it happened for there would be power with its coming.

When Jesus spoke those words recorded in Mark 9:1 the kingdom did not yet exist, and if Jesus is to be the king of it, he does not yet have a kingdom. But, one might object, the New Testament speaks of Jesus as being a king before this kingdom of which you speak has arrived. True. But can a person be a king before he sits on the throne and begins to rule? We would, I think, all agree that he could. If it is certain he is to be king, we can call him king, but we do that in anticipation of what we know is coming.

What do we know up to this point in time that can help us determine when the kingdom is to arrive? We know it is a matter of just a very few years and we know that when it comes there is power that will come with it, making it recognizable as having arrived.

The New Testament gives us all the information we need to determine the exact day the kingdom of God became a reality among men. Since it came with power, if we know when the power came, we know when the kingdom arrived. Can we know? Yes.

In Luke 24:49, Jesus told the apostles, "Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high." (NKJV) This was just before his ascension back to heaven.

Luke explains this a little more when he says, "He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, 'which,' He said, 'you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" (Acts 1:4-5 NKJV)

Now look the two passages over carefully and compare them. The promise of the Father was the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5), but Luke (Luke 24:49) says the promise is with power. The power comes with the arrival of the Holy Spirit. Remember what Jesus said in Mark 9:1? The kingdom of God was to come with power. When the Holy Spirit fell on the apostles in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost, the kingdom of God arrived with power.

Let us take a look at what happened at that time. "When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts 2:1-4 NKJV)

Note the reaction of the crowd that had gathered. "Then they were all amazed and marveled." (Acts 2:7 NKJV) Now let us go back to Luke's quotation of Jesus in Acts 1:8. Speaking to the apostles, Jesus had said, "You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you." (NKJV) The kingdom had arrived with power. All recognized power had come down from heaven, from God himself.

What had they seen and heard that day? They had heard the sound that came from heaven "as of a rushing mighty wind" (Acts 2:2 NKJV), which is why they had come to gather together. Whether they had seen the "tongues, as of fire" (Acts 2:3 NKJV) that sat upon the apostles, one cannot say with certainty, but they most assuredly had heard the sound and then witnessed and heard the apostles speaking in tongues that they (the apostles) had never learned. There was little doubt in their mind that a higher power than that which was merely human had arrived.

Was Jesus now on his throne? Did he now have a kingdom over which to rule? He did if the kingdom had arrived with power, which it had. Hear Peter in his sermon that day. He says David knew that God "would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne." (Acts 2:30 NKJV) Remember also the words of the angel Gabriel to Mary when he said of Jesus, "The Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David." (Luke 1:32 NKJV)

Peter then says Jesus has been exalted to the right hand of God, "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear." (Acts 2:33 NKJV) The reader is reminded of passages just studied here. The kingdom would come with power (Mark 9:1), the promise was of power from on high (Luke 24:49), but that power promised was the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). The kingdom came with the baptism of the apostles with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

But let us look closer at Peter's statement about Jesus sitting on David's throne. Acts 2:29-31 (read paying special attention), "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption." (Act 2:29-31 NKJV) The point one needs to get out of this is that for Christ to sit on the throne and thus be king over this kingdom, he first had to be resurrected.

The kingdom over which Jesus now reigns and rules did not exist while Jesus lived on earth. Daniel had a vision of Jesus being crowned as a sitting, ruling king. "I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed." (Dan 7:13-14 NKJV) Jesus received the kingdom upon his arrival in heaven for that is what the text says--"then to Him was given … a kingdom."

The kingdom over which he now rules is "not of this world" (John 18:36 NKJV) but rather a spiritual kingdom which will never be destroyed. Yes, Jesus is now king in his kingdom. Every Christian is a subject of the king of kings--Jesus, the Lord and Savior.

Why has all of this been important beyond just being a history lesson? Why bother writing this? What does this business about the kingdom have to do with salvation and the new birth?

Here is the application. When Jesus spoke with Nicodemus in John 3:3-5, he spoke of a kingdom that was yet to come. Hear the things he said in that passage. "Jesus answered and said to him, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.' 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 born?' Jesus answered, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.'" (NKJV) Could Nicodemus become a citizen that day (actually that night) of a kingdom that did not yet exist? Jesus spoke to Nicodemus of that which was yet to come.

What does it mean then to be born of water and the Spirit, which Jesus says is essential to entering the kingdom of God (meaning you cannot be saved without it)? There is no problem in coming to an accurate understanding. Jesus said to Peter in Matt. 16:19, "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matt. 16:19 NKJV)

The kingdom began on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 with Peter preaching. Did he use the keys of the kingdom that day to open the door to the kingdom of God to mankind? Did anyone that day learn how to enter the kingdom? Was anyone that day born of water and the Spirit? Were any saved that day?

What did men do that day when they became convinced Peter had preached the truth (thus faith was developed within them)? What did he, the man with the keys, tell them to do? Did he not say to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins?" (Acts 2:38 NKJV) The Bible says, "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them." (Acts 2:41 NKJV) They were thus born of water and the Spirit of John 3:5.

It is thus not too hard to learn what a man must do to be born again--listen to the man with the keys—listen to Peter. One is born of the Spirit when the Spirit working through the tool he uses (the word of God--"the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" Eph. 6:17 - NKJV) leads a man to faith and repentance, and then born of water when he is baptized for the remission of sins. It is but one birth, but has two aspects to it; either part without the other results in an aborted birth.

The man with the keys of the kingdom is belittled by most who call themselves Christians. Ask most denominational preachers to get into the pulpit this coming Sunday and preach just what Peter preached on the day of Pentecost with no additions and no subtractions and you could not get them to do it. They do not preach it because they do not believe there is a single ounce of water in a man's salvation, despite John 3:5, the very words of Jesus. This means they cannot preach what Peter did or what Jesus taught Nicodemus.

We ought to go with the man with the keys rather than with those who wish they had the keys. Yes, Jesus could have saved us without any water in the means to do so, but he chose not to. Have you ever thought that baptism might well be a test of your faith? What are you going to do if you are going to be saved by faith but fail the test, fail to believe?

Water does not save a man, but obeying Jesus does. Naaman, the leper (2 Kings 5), was not cleansed by the water of the Jordan River from his leprosy, but until he had faith enough to go do as he was directed and dip seven times he was not cleansed and never would have been. Could God have cleansed him from the leprosy some other way? Sure, had he chosen to do so. The power was not inherent in the water but in believing God enough to do what God said to do. And just so it is with baptism today. When God said to do it, that leaves one who wants to be saved without a choice.

Certainly, there were people saved who had their sins remitted, without baptism, while Jesus personally walked the earth, but that was also before the kingdom of God was established. Remember mentioning the importance of chronology? And, yes, God can save a person anyway he desires—he is God. However, he has told us in John 3 how we are saved in the age in which we live. Do we believe him? Are we going to teach others living today that water doesn’t matter despite what Jesus taught us in John 3:3-5? Not me. Faith means believing what Jesus taught.

One final comment. Jesus was really the one who did the preaching on the day of Pentecost. Hear Jesus speaking in John 16:13-14, "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you." (John 16:13-14 NKJV) The Spirit did not speak on his own authority on the Day of Pentecost, speaking through Peter, but took what was Jesus' and declared it to them. One cannot reject Peter's sermon that day without rejecting Jesus. 

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

Is Water Baptism in John 3:5

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 on 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 (1600’s) 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 Phillip 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 whence 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 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.]

Born Again At The Point Of Faith? - John 1:12-13

Many believe and many teach and preach that a person is born again (becomes a Christian) at the moment they come to believe in Jesus as the Savior.  This is a common misconception.  At first glance, without some thought, John 1:12-13 seems to support that idea.  The reality is that it does not.  But, let us read the passage. 

John 1:12-13, from the New American Standard Bible New Testament Reference Edition Version 1963, reads as follows:  "(12) But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in his name:  (13) who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will on man, but of God." 

You can immediately see (if you are a careful student) that as written verse 12 is in conflict with verse 13.  Verse 12 says that those who believe have the right to become God's children, meaning they are not yet--not at the point of belief.  Yet, verse 13 says they were born of God. 

How does one deal with this apparent contradiction?  If you have a New American Standard Reference Edition Bible from 1995, or for that matter the New Testament reference edition I quoted from above, you will find in the reference notes on verse 13 that the word "born" could have been "begotten," it was a translator’s choice.  In fact, the Analytical-Literal Translation uses the word "begotten" as does the Literal Standard Version and Young’s Literal Translation.    Use the word "begotten" and the conflict between verses 12 and 13 disappears. 

How do we know the word "begotten" is the correct word to use here when either "begotten" or "born" can be used with justification as a translation of the Greek?  There are three reasons.  (1) The Bible cannot contradict itself and be true.  Use the word "born" here and you have a contradiction between the two verses.  (2) There is always a begetting before a birth.  (3) By Paul's conversion experience. 

Paul (known as Saul at that time) most certainly believed when confronted by Jesus himself on the road to Damascus (Acts 22) but when Ananias came to him 3 days later he told Paul to "'Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'" (Acts 22:16 NAS)  Do you not find it strikingly strange that a man who believes with his whole heart still has sins 3 days later?  It shouldn't because Paul was begotten three days earlier, not yet born again. 

Jesus says water is a part of the new birth (John 3:1-7, see verse 5).  When we understand what is involved in the new birth, thus understanding how one becomes a Christian, we will know when to use the word "begotten" versus "born."  Remember as a correct translation of the Greek either word is correct but there are times when the context demands one or the other.  In John 1:13 there is really no choice unless you desire a Bible contradiction in which case the Bible cannot be true. 

When you understand John 1:12-13 you will understand that faith alone is not enough to make you a child of God no matter what anyone tells you.  If you are saved by faith alone Ananias lied to Paul in Acts 22 for Paul, being a strong believer in Christ, had no sins to be washed away. 

The believing world may hate it but baptism is a part of what makes one a Christian, born again.  Jesus says so in John 3:5 for being in the kingdom of God is equivalent to being a Christian.  If you disagree you are disagreeing with Jesus, not with me.

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