This article is #2 in a series on how modern theologians have changed or added to the clear teachings of Scripture. For an introduction to the series, click here.

When you refer to a commentary or study Bible, do you expect the author to know more than you do? Do you expect to learn something? Of course! When reading the study notes, most people assume that the author has referenced early writings, historical records, and archaeology. Many people expect the author to have a special gifting or anointing on his life, and some equate his words (often unintentionally) with doctrinal truth.

Typically, none of these things are true. Most commentators never consult the writings of the people who lived 100 years after a passage was written to see how those believers understood it. Rather, most theologians and pastors teach what they were taught in seminary – and their seminary professors taught what they were taught, and their teachers taught what they were taught – and no one bothers to compare any of their conclusions with the historical evidence!

As a result, many Bible teachers today are not teaching the Bible – they are teaching their own interpretation of the Bible, the opinions of their teachers, and the speculations of their teachers’ teachers. What if one person in the line of succession came to a wrong conclusion? Evidently no one would ever know because no one bothers to check.

After last Sunday’s sermon, how many people in your congregation compared their pastor’s teaching with the plain words of Scripture and referenced the Ante-Nicene Fathers (either the 10-volume printed set, the online copy, or the searchable PDF) to see how the early Christians understood the passage?

One such verse that has puzzled modern commentators is John 3:5. Here is the entire passage for context, with verse 5 in bold:

• “Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, ‘Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.’ Jesus answered him, ‘Truly, truly, 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, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.’” – John 3:1-8

A person who has never read the passage before would probably conclude that he needs to be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God. Not surprisingly, this is exactly what the early Christians taught. However, modern commentators, basing their views on their own doctrines rather than on the plain words of Scripture, come to vastly different conclusions. As you read, notice that these conservative commentators (1) are typically quite certain what Jesus does NOT mean, (2) are unsure what He does mean, (3) state their views very dogmatically, and (4) provide no historical evidence to back up their claims.

ESV Study Bible (published by Crossway in 2008)

• “The phrase born of water and the Spirit in 3:5 refers to spiritual birth, which cleanses from sin and brings spiritual transformation and renewal. Water here does not refer to the water of physical birth, nor is it likely that it refers to baptism. The background is probably Ezek. 36:25-27, where God promises, ‘I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean. . . . And I will give you a new heart. . . . And I will put my Spirit within you.’”

Notice that the writers of these study notes are very sure that Jesus does NOT mean baptism or physical birth, but they think He is “probably” referring to Ezekiel.

“What Jesus Meant by ‘Water and the Spirit’” (article from Grace to You) by John MacArthur

• “Many Bible students who examine this passage are confused by it. Some have suggested that when Jesus spoke of ‘water,’ He was speaking of baptism – and some of them then interpret this to be a statement about the necessity of water baptism as a prerequisite for regeneration. But John’s baptism could not have been a means of regeneration, because it signified an already-repentant heart, which is a fruit of regeneration. Christian baptism (likewise a symbol, not a means, of regeneration) had not even been instituted yet. So the idea of baptism is utterly foreign to this passage. . . . With Ezekiel 36 as context, Jesus’ juxtaposition of water and Spirit makes perfect sense. He was intentionally pointing Nicodemus to the familiar truth of that key promise about the new covenant. . . . In all likelihood Nicodemus, thoroughly familiar with Ezekiel’s prophecy, now understood exactly what Jesus was telling him.”

Not surprisingly, MacArthur agrees with the ESV study notes. Notice that he bases his interpretation not on Jesus’ actual words but on his own doctrinal views. (Baptism is a “fruit of regeneration,” coming from an “already-repentant heart”; therefore, that can’t be what Jesus meant.)

John Chapters 1-10: Thru the Bible Commentary Series by J. Vernon McGee

• “Now what does it mean to be born of water and of the Spirit? There are those who think that to be born of water is a reference to water baptism. But this would be a strange expression if it did refer to that. . . . As we saw in chapter 2, water is symbolic of the Word of God. . . . We believe that ‘born of water and of the Spirit’ means that a person must be born again by the Holy Spirit using the Scripture. We believe, very definitely, that no one could be born again without the Word of God applied by the Spirit of God. . . . I am confident that our Lord, saying that one must be born of water and of the Spirit, referred to the Spirit of God using the Word of God. Without this, Nicodemus could not enter into the kingdom of God.”

A strange expression? Which is stranger – to use the phrase “born of water” to refer to water baptism, or to use the phrase “born of water” to refer to being “born again [with] the Word of God applied by the Spirit of God”? If Jesus had meant “born again [with] the Word of God applied by the Spirit of God,” couldn’t He have just said, “You must be born again with the Word of God applied by the Spirit of God”? A typical theologian, McGee references his own doctrinal views (“we believe”), his accuracy (“we believe, very definitely”), and his certainty (“I am confident”).

John 1-11: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary) by Gerald L. Borchert

• “Although both ‘water’ and ‘Spirit’ here are anarthrous (without the Greek definite article), they must not be treated as indefinite nor prefixed with an indefinite article ‘a.’ These two words also should not be bifurcated as in some inadequate folk interpretations of the text where water is equated with the water of natural birth. . . . Water appears with Spirit conjunctively in 3:5, and flesh is contrasted with Spirit disjunctively in 3:6. Accordingly, water and flesh should not be equated. . . . Baptism and salvation were clearly linked within the thinking of early Christians. . . . That the early Christian readers at least would have seen in the Nicodemus story a symbolic reference to the whole process of salvation is quite probable. . . . Authentic baptism is a combination of the work of the gracious acting God and the believing human. It is this combination that makes baptism a spiritual reality.”

Nicodemus “understood exactly what Jesus was telling him,” according to MacArthur – which is good because he definitely wouldn’t have understood Borchert. Evidently, this linguist has yet to realize that his church could excommunicate him for having read the early Christian writings.

Exploring the Gospel of John: An Expository Commentary by John Phillips

• “Water and the Spirit. The words take us back to the original creation (Genesis 1:2), to the original shaping of things, to the time when the eternal Spirit brooded over the darkness of primeval chaos. Water and the Spirit. Whatever else the words mean, they had a meaning that Nicodemus could appreciate, apprehend, and appropriate. The Lord was not trying to be mystical and obtuse. He was trying to lead Nicodemus into the experience of the new birth. The Lord was answering the question how. He was not concealing truth but revealing truth. . . . Obviously [Nicodemus] would not read Christian baptism into [these words] because the Lord had not yet instituted that ordinance nor would he do so for several years. . . . Nicodemus would think at once of John’s words, ‘I indeed baptize with water, but there comes one who will baptize you with the Spirit.’ That is the key to this otherwise cryptic statement. . . . In effect he was saying this to Nicodemus: Except you respond to what John’s baptism stood for – repentance; except you are, so to speak, ‘born of water’; except you come by way of repentance; except you respond to what I stand for, regeneration; except you are in fact ‘born of the Spirit,’ you cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

So the verse does not mean baptism, but the first thing Nicodemus would have thought of was baptism? If Jesus didn’t mean what He said in this “cryptic statement,” why didn’t He say it differently so that Nicodemus could understand it? (As a side note, is “primeval chaos” a Biblical term?)

“What Happens in the New Birth? Part 2” (sermon from Desiring God) by John Piper

• “Here are several reasons why I think the reference to water here is not a reference to Christian baptism. . . . (1) There is no mention of baptism in the rest of the chapter. . . . (2) Baptism does not fit with the analogy of the wind. . . . (3) Baptism does not fit with Jesus’s scolding of Nicodemus. . . . (4) Water and spirit are linked in New Covenant promises. . . . I think this is the passage [Ezek. 36:24-28] that gives rise to Jesus’ words, ‘Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ To whom does he say, ‘You shall be my people, and I will be your God’ (verse 28)? Verse 25: To the ones to whom he says, ‘I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses.’ And verse 26: To the ones to whom he says, ‘I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you.’ In other words, the ones who will enter the kingdom are those who have a newness that involves a cleansing of the old and a creation of the new. So I conclude that ‘water and Spirit’ refer to two aspects of our newness when we are born again.”

Evidently, Piper doesn’t believe in primeval chaos or cryptic statements. To him, Jesus’ words make perfect sense in the context of Ezekiel. Interestingly, Piper gives four reasons that the passage cannot refer to baptism, none of which are mentioned by any of the other commentators.

The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: New Testament by Warren Wiersbe

• “To be ‘born of water’ is to be born physically (‘enter a second time into his mother’s womb’) but to be born again means to be born of the Spirit. Just as there are two parents for physical birth, so there are two ‘parents’ for spiritual birth: the Spirit of God (John 3:5) and the Word of God (James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23-25). . . . Jesus was not teaching that the new birth comes through water baptism. In the New Testament, baptism is connected with death, not birth, and no amount of physical water can effect a spiritual change in a person. The emphasis in John 3:14-21 is on believing, because salvation comes through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). The evidence of salvation is the witness of the Spirit within (Rom. 8:9), and the Spirit enters your life when you believe (Acts 10:43-48; Eph. 1:13-14).”

Perhaps Wiersbe forgot to consult his own reference works, because the other commentators agreed that Jesus’ words had nothing to do with physical birth. Once again, he is adamant that the verse does not refer to baptism.

But what if it does?

The early Christians universally understood John 3:5 to mean exactly what it says – that a person must be “born of water,” or baptized in water:

• “‘Unless a man has been born again of water and Spirit, he will not enter into the kingdom of the heavens’ [John 3:5]. These words have tied faith to the necessity of baptism. Accordingly, all thereafter who became believers were baptized.” – Tertullian (c. 198)
• “Unless a man has been baptized and born again, he cannot attain unto the kingdom of God. In the Gospel according to John: ‘Unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5].” – Cyprian (c. 250)
• For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, just as the Lord has declared: ‘Unless a man is born again through water and the Spirit, he will not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].” – Irenaeus (c. 180)
• “[Those who are to be baptized] are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were regenerated ourselves. They there receive the washing with water in the name of God (the Father and Lord of the universe), of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]” – Justin Martyr (c. 160)
• “The old baptism should cease and a new one should begin. . . . According to John: ‘Unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5].” – Cyprian (c. 250)
• “He who out of contempt will not be baptized will be condemned as an unbeliever. He will be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says, ‘Unless a man is baptized of water and of the Spirit, he will by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. And again: ‘He who believes and is baptized will be saved. But he who does not believe will be condemned’ [Mark 16:16].” – Apostolic Constitutions (c. 390)

The early Christians understood “born of water” to refer to water baptism, and “born of the Spirit” to refer to receiving the Holy Spirit. After baptizing new believers, the leaders of the early church laid hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit:

• “Our bodies have received unity among themselves by means of that bath [i.e. water baptism] which leads to incorruption. However, our souls receive it by means of the Spirit. For that reason, both are necessary, since both contribute towards the life of God. Our Lord comforted that erring Samaritan woman . . . by pointing out and promising to her living water. . . . For she could have in herself water springing up to eternal life. The Lord received this as a gift from His Father, and He also confers it upon those who are partakers of Himself, sending the Holy Spirit upon all the earth.” – Irenaeus (c. 180)
• “That most Holy Spirit willingly descends from the Father over our cleansed and blessed bodies [after baptism]. . . . The dove of the Holy Spirit flies to earth, that is, to our flesh as it emerges from the font, . . . bringing us the peace of God, sent out from the heavens.” – Tertullian (c. 198)
• “‘He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire’ [Matt. 3:11]. ‘You will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now’ [Acts 1:5]. . . . So John made a distinction. For he said that he indeed baptized in water, but that one would come who would baptize in the Holy Spirit, by the grace and power of God. And they are so [baptized] by the Spirit’s bestowal and operation of hidden results. . . . The Lord said in the Gospel: ‘Unless a man is born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. From this, it is clear that the baptism that alone is profitable is that where the Holy Spirit can dwell.” – Treatise on Re-Baptism (c. 257)

Which is more compelling – the simple, unified teaching of those who grew up in churches planted by the apostles less than 200 years before, who understood Jesus’ words to mean exactly what they say – or the complicated interpretations of those who are nearly 2,000 years removed from the apostles, who teach that Jesus could NOT have meant what He said but have no clue what He actually did mean?

Cyprian, an early Christian writer from Carthage, North Africa, wrote: “When the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, came unto all, He gathered alike the learned and unlearned, and He proclaimed to [male and female] and [to] every age the precepts of salvation. He made a large summary of His teachings, that the memory of the scholars might not be burdened with celestial learning, but might quickly learn what was necessary to a simple faith.”