John 3:5 and determinng what is 'water'?

[Romans922]

John 3:5 says, "Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

What does water refer to?

Historically speaking, I think people have taken one of four different views:

(1) Amniotic fluid/physical birth
(2) John’s Baptism
(3) Christian Baptism
(4) The cleansing work of the Holy Spirit (i.e. regeneration)
​

Are there any major theologians who take the first view? If so, who?

So two main questions:

1. What does 'water' refer to?
2. Are there any major theologians who take the first view (amniotic fluid)? If so, who?

​

 

[AThornquist]

I think it refers to Ezekiel 36:25-27:

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

 

[Andres]

I think it refers to Ezekiel 36:25-27:

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

From J.I. Packer's Concise Theology p. 157:

Regeneration is a New Testament concept that grew, it seems, out of a parabolic-picture phrase that Jesus used to show Nicodemus the inwardness and depth of the change that even religious Jews must undergo if they were ever to see and enter the Kingdom of God and so have eternal life (John 3:3-15). Jesus pictured the change as being "born again".
The concept is God renovating the heart, the core of a person's being, by implanting a new principle of desire, purpose, and action, a dispositional dynamic that finds expression in positive response to the gospel and its Christ. Jesus phrase, "born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5) harks back to Ezekiel 36:25-27, where God is pictured as symbolically cleansing persons from sin's pollution (by water) and bestowing a "new heart" by putting His Spirit within them.

 

[Romans922]

Andrew and Andrew, as another Andrew, I concur with both of you that the fourth option is correct. It is the view of Calvin, Henry, John Gill.

But I had a former member attending another Church who was at a Bible study and he emailed me and told me someone was putting forth the first view. The man defending himself said he had written a paper on it in seminary. So I am wondering what theologians hold to the view that the water is the amniotic fluid?

It doesn't seem like any good theologian could actually conclude that except that we live in the age that the PhD has to conclude something new...horrible for theology. So does anyone hold to view #1 and any theologian hold to it that you know of?

 

[au5t1n]

Jesus uses the word "water" because baptism is a symbol of regeneration. I believe he is alluding to what water baptism depicts, through the symbolism of washing in water.

 

[Marrow Man]

I agree with the Andrews. Jesus is referring to regeneration in Ezekiel 36. This is one of the reasons He chastises Nicodemus, who, being a teacher of Israel, should have known what God spoke through His prophet about the nature of the new birth.

 

[Jack K]

Ditto. It's the cleansing work of the Spirit. Based both on Ezekiel and on the immediate context in John 3. The main point Jesus is making has to do with the work of the Spirit. So unless we can clearly show he's going off track to make some other point, that interpretation is the best way to take it.

 

[Kevin]

Andrew and Andrew, as another Andrew, I concur with both of you that the fourth option is correct. It is the view of Calvin, Henry, John Gill.

But I had a former member attending another Church who was at a Bible study and he emailed me and told me someone was putting forth the first view. The man defending himself said he had written a paper on it in seminary. So I am wondering what theologians hold to the view that the water is the amniotic fluid?

It doesn't seem like any good theologian could actually conclude that except that we live in the age that the PhD has to conclude something new...horrible for theology. So does anyone hold to view #1 and any theologian hold to it that you know of?

Andrew, I have heard that view dozens of times in indy-fundy churches growing up. Those that were teaching it were anti-calvinist, dispensational and baptistic. This may or may not be related but they also held to a very strange view of the atonement that had the physical blood of Christ collected at the cross & taken to heaven. I mention that because i have been surprised how often that heresy has led them to other strange interpretations of scriptures that refer to birth.

 

[Marrow Man]

That may be the most bizarre thing I've ever heard.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I grew up being taught the first view.

 

[Ivan]

Andrew and Andrew, as another Andrew, I concur with both of you that the fourth option is correct. It is the view of Calvin, Henry, John Gill.

But I had a former member attending another Church who was at a Bible study and he emailed me and told me someone was putting forth the first view. The man defending himself said he had written a paper on it in seminary. So I am wondering what theologians hold to the view that the water is the amniotic fluid?

It doesn't seem like any good theologian could actually conclude that except that we live in the age that the PhD has to conclude something new...horrible for theology. So does anyone hold to view #1 and any theologian hold to it that you know of?

Andrew, I have heard that view dozens of times in indy-fundy churches growing up. Those that were teaching it were anti-calvinist, dispensational and baptistic. This may or may not be related but they also held to a very strange view of the atonement that had the physical blood of Christ collected at the cross & taken to heaven. I mention that because i have been surprised how often that heresy has led them to other strange interpretations of scriptures that refer to birth.

That may be the most bizarre thing I've ever heard.

Sure is. I've been around quite a few fundies and I've never heard that. Maybe I wasn't paying attention.

 

[Kevin]

Ivan, the "bucket of blood" theory was taught by Bob Jones Jr, M.R. DeHann, and promoted in the Sword of the Lord paper.

 

[Iconoclast]

The water should be viewed first from the water of seperation in Numbers 19.....then to Ezk 36
[QUOTE 9And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin. ][/QUOTE]

 

[Herald]

Hey, Anthony. Haven't seen much of you lately.

 

[Grillsy]

If you're a Campbellite this passage refers to baptismal regeneration. Just saying. I had to hear countless sermons on this during my undergrad work.