A denominational preacher said to me, "Belief is necessary because Mark 16:16 says, 'He that believeth not shall be damned;' and repentance is necessary because Luke 13:3 says, 'Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish;' and confession is necessary because Matthew 10:33 says, 'whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven;' but nowhere is there a statement of that kind about baptism." I referred him to John 3:5: "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven."
I heard a radio preacher stress the necessity of the new birth. He preached that the word "except" in John 3:3 means "no other way." He said one of the most important questions in the Bible was in John 3:4, namely, "How can a man be born again?" So far so good, but in giving the answer to that question he skipped eleven verses and landed in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." He skipped eleven verses because he believed in salvation by faith only. He jumped none too soon. In the very next verse, John 3:5, Jesus answered Nicodemus saying, "Verily, Verily I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." If I believed what that radio preacher believed I would want to skip this verse also.
All who reject "baptism for the remission of sins" struggle with the meaning of "water" in John 3:5. A man once asked N. B. Hardeman what "water" meant in John 3:5 and Hardeman replied that it meant buttermilk! After the man expressed his surprise, Hardeman explained that if it did not mean "water" then it could just as easily mean "buttermilk" as anything else.
Some teach that "born of water" means the physical birth from the womb. Nicodemus had just referred to the physical birth himself saying, "Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" The physical birth theorist would have Jesus saying, "Except a man be born of the womb, or born of woman, he cannot enter the kingdom." Before the "faith only" crowd think they found their out they should ask themselves, why didn't Jesus just say that? Is it harder to say "born of the womb" or "born of woman" than it is to say "born of water?" It was easy enough for Jesus to say "born of the flesh" in verse six; why did he not say that in verse five? Why would Jesus employ strange ambiguous terminology for a common birth? If this is not baptism, there would be no reason to bring up "water" at all.
There is reason to believe Nicodemus understood the meaning of "born of water." All Jerusalem knew John the Baptist was baptizing with the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, and all had heard him preach that the kingdom of heaven was at hand (Matthew 3:1-6; Mark 1:2-5). In John 1:26 John said, "I baptize with water..." In John 1:31 he said, "I come baptizing with water..." In John 1:33 he said, "he that sent me to baptize with water..." John made it clear that he baptized in water to prepare a people for the coming kingdom. Nicodemus knew John's preaching and he knew John's baptism and he would not have stumbled over the words "born of water" to "enter the kingdom."
Alfred Edersheim, in his classic work The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, wrote an appendix on "The Baptism of Proselytes" (Appendix XII). Proselytes were Gentile converts to the Jewish faith. It became a practice of the Jews to baptize proselytes as an act of initiation into Jewry. In his appendix Edersheim gives evidence that Jewish Proselyte baptism had been practiced from the time of Hillel and Shammai, that is, from before the time of Christ. Ancient Jewish records document the traditions of the Jews, and Edersheim, familiar with these traditions, finds a description of proselyte baptism as follows, "As he stepped out of these waters he was considered as 'born anew'-in the language of the Rabbis, as if he were 'a little child just born,' ...as 'a child of one day.'" Baptism and the new birth would have new meaning in Christ, but there is evidence that the language Jesus used would not have been foreign to Nicodemus.
William Wall of the Church of England wrote a two volume History of Infant Baptism in the early eighteenth century. To honor Mr. Wall and his work the lower house of clergy assembled in convention and passed a vote, "that the thanks of this house be given to Mr. Wall for the learned and excellent book he hath lately written concerning infant baptism." In this book Mr. Wall said that John Calvin was the first to ever deny that "water" in John 3:5 did not mean baptism, and that John Calvin himself admitted that this was a "new interpretation." (History of Infant Baptism, Volume 1, Page 92-From Shepherd's Handbook on Baptism, Second Edition, Pages 336 & 507).
Henry Alford was part of the Revision Committee that produced the English Revised Version of 1881. He identified "born of water" as "the token or outward sign of baptism" and "born of the Spirit" as "inward grace" and then said, "All attempts to get rid of these two plain facts have sprung from doctrinal prejudices, by which the views of expositors have been warped." (Greek Testament, Note on John 3:5; Volume I, page 714, From Shepherd's Handbook on Baptism, Second Edition, Pages 321 & 464).
Quotations from scholars of this caliber can be multiplied, and the ancients, including Origen, Augustine, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Ambrose testify together that "born of water" means "baptism." But it is not necessary to spend long hours in old libraries of ancient documents to discern our Lord's meaning. The Bible is its own best interpreter, and numerous passages affirm the ancient doctrine that baptism in water, in accordance with the teachings of the Spirit, is essential to the new birth and subsequent citizenship in the kingdom of God. Part two of this article will be a look at parallel passages.-12900 Southridge Drive, Little Rock, AR 72223