Print Page | Add To Favorites | Close Window | Send To A Friend | Save This Page
FAQ # 52
QUESTION 52 : Was the "water" in
John 3:5 speaking of the "water of salvation" or "Christ's
belly" or lastly, another metaphor for Spirit?
We already dealt
with what the water meant in the chapter "What is Regeneration?"
Which is unequivocally, water baptism in Jesus' name.
What is meant by
the “waters of salvation” is not clear, but the phraseology suggests something
that you get after salvation. This alone nullifies this notion because
the scripture clearly tells us that we have to be "born of the water"
to get salvation. Thus John 3:5 couldn't be speaking of some alleged "water
of salvation."
What is meant by "Christ belly" is also not
clear, but it could suggest an analogy that Christ is impregnated with
the forthcoming new convert. Thus a type of symbology to becoming born
again or metaphorical synonym. This is also unscriptural and non-sensical.
Because Christ already gave the analogy or symbology in John 3:3 of being
born again to which Nicodemus asked him to explain and then in John 3:5
he explained the analogy not give another analogy.
The same thing can be said for thinking water was metaphorically used
for spirit when Spirit was already mentioned. It would sound something
like this, "Unless a man be born of the Spirit and of the Spirit
he cannot enter the Kingdom of God!" Not only sounding bizarre but
unscriptural. This was probably linked because another scripture (John
7:38) use the metaphor of living water to signify the baptism of the Holy Ghost. You cannot cross reference analogies
or metaphors, you can only do that with the actual thing in its context.
Many other verses that allude to John 3:5 clearly showed that the two
composite that make up being born again is water baptism and spirit baptism
(Titus 3:5).
Therefore, both these three notions are incorrect. From Jesus' time to
at least A.D 1500, all "Christians", both Apostolics and Trinitarians
affirmed and knew that John 3:5 spoke of water baptism. This later erroneous
interpretation is a spin off of later falling away that begun with Trinitarianism
and will be realized with the anti-Christ.
Answer Notes: 1. Someone noted, "Its certainly difficult to suppose
that Nicodemus would have understood 'water' as referring to the not-yet-existent
ritual of Christian baptism" (Boyd, p. 138). This is erroneous because
Christian baptism was existent then, clearly said in this verse, "therefore
the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized
more disciples than John" (John 4:1). Nicodemus himself was a Pharisees/scribe,
and probably went to Jesus when he also heard this. Baptism had also been
existent under Jewry.
Go to top of Page | Get the Book | Buy it here or here or here or here | More FAQ's