The water in John 3:5

the term ‘water’ in John 3:5, this article examines the structure of John 3:3, 5–7. This brings the article to the conclusion that the water in John 3:5 could be a reference to the amniotic fluid that surrounds the baby in the womb and is present at birth. In the light of this, two conditions are put forward in order to see and enter the kingdom of God: one must first be born of the flesh, whereupon one must also be born of the Spirit. Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: John 3:5 refers to water. Most scholars, with reference to the Church Fathers, have the conviction that it refers to baptism. According to the structure of John 3:3, 5–7, this article argues that the water refers to the amniotic fluid present at a natural birth.


Introduction
The Gospel of John -the gospel without parables -uses the term 'water' (ὕδωρ) quite extensivelyas much as the three synoptics together. The first four chapters of the gospel contain the most mentions of the term, comprising more than half of the occurrences in the gospel. In John 1, the term 'water' is connected to baptism (Jn 1:26, 31, 33), while John 2 narrates the story about the wedding in Cana, where the water used for ceremonial washing is miraculously turned into the purest, 'best' wine. In John 3:5, the author also uses the term 'water', 1 and in John 3:23, it is once more used in connection with baptism. John 4 depicts the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, where Jesus contrasts the water of Jacob's well to his 'living water'. John 4:46 is again a reference to Cana, where Jesus turned the water into wine.
As all these references to water are quite clear and used in contexts that 'make sense' to the reader, John 3:5 is still a bone of contention for some scholars, because the gospel does not clearly indicate as to what exactly Jesus was referring to here. This most probably was the reason for Reid (1904:313) to state that the term 'water' makes John 3:5 a 'dark saying'. Fowler and Strickland (1974:104) refer to it as ' [o]ne of the best known problems in the Gospel of John'. This could be the reason why there are not many scholars currently writing articles or books about this theme. This article is an attempt to bring more clarity to this subject. However, obviously the last word has not yet been spoken.
of God (cf. Biblestudytools n.d.; Knowing Jesus n.d.). Regeneration is only possible by the grace of God, giving his people a lively hope and making them new creatures. Regeneration can be ascribed to the Father (1 Pt 1:3; Ja 1:18), the Son (1 Jn 2:29) and the Holy Spirit (Tt 3:5).
In light of John 4:10 and 7:38-39, John 3:5 should therefore refer to the process of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, with reference to the use of 'living water', as the 'water' in John 3:5 could be a reference to that living water. Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, chapter 61, with the heading 'Christian baptism', refers to the water as follows: 'Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated' (ed. Schaff 1885a:489); he also links it to Isaiah 1:16-20. This point of view -that the water is referred to in a symbolic sense -is theologically sound, especially when linked to John 4 and 7. However, was it Jesus' intension to use 'water' in a symbolic sense here?

'The water refers to being born again (by the word of God)'
This point of view takes Ephesians 5:25-26 as a basis: 'Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by washing with the water through the word'. Carson (2019) referred to the parallel structure of John 3:3 and 3:5 (Table 1).
In this context, 'born again' is expanded to 'born of water and Spirit', and therefore, according to Carson (2019), the latter does not refer to two separate births, but to one (Carson 2019). Fowler and Strickland (1974) agreed and based their argument on a 'grammatical consideration', pointing out that the two nouns -'water' and 'Spirit': [A]re linked by a conjunction and preceded by a single preposition, ἐκ. This would tend to suggest a single birth with two aspects (or a blend of two ideas) rather than two separate births. 2 (p. 105) According to Carson (2019), this indicated a new beginning for the new converts. Carson also refers to Ezekiel 36:25-27, insisting that this was a prophecy 'six centuries before Jesus brought [about] a transformative new beginning, characterised by spectacular cleansing symbolised by water that washes away all impurities' (Carson 2019;cf. Michaels 2010:n.p.). The Holy Spirit is the gift of God who transforms 2. Calvin (1949), in his Commentary on the Gospel according to John,vol. 1 (p. 111) concurred with this as he claims that the two terms 'water' and 'Spirit' refer to the same thing, just as 'Spirit and fire' refer to the same thing in the preaching of John the Baptist (cf. Mt 3:11). However, Witherington (1989:159) argued that there is 'a similar construction in 1 John 5:6 where … the reference is to two distinct things'. It is definitely true that this passage is about being born again, but the fact that there is, according to Carson, only one birth under discussion, does not accord with the structure of this passage, as will be indicated in the next section.

'The water refers to being born of the Spirit'
Closely related to the previous section, McCabe (1999:94-96) basically refers to the same pattern as Carson (2019). He indicates that the Gospel of John has the tendency for parallel expressions that include minor variations (McCabe 1999:94). McCabe cites Snodgrass (1991:16-17), who avers that 'variation of expression is not intended to convey different ideas, but is typical of the style of the Fourth Gospel'. In this passage, Jesus refers to the new birth five times, each time with a variation (i.e. 'born from above', 'born of water and Spirit', 'that which is born of the Spirit is spirit', 'be born from above' and 'born of the Spirit', each time referring to only one event: 'A birth produced by the Spirit' (McCabe 1999:94), that is, a 'heavenly birth' (McCabe 1999:95). Michaels (2010:n.p.) claims that 'born of water and Spirit' could refer to two actions, namely water baptism and baptism in the Spirit (viewed together or separately). McCabe (1999:95) indicates that ἄνωθεν can be translated with both 'from above' and 'again', making it possible that the term is used here as a 'double entendre', 3 like the term κατέλαβεν in John 1:5 that can be translated with both 'overcome' and 'understand'. Interestingly, in his Homily 10 on  Hodges 1978:213;McCabe 1999:96). Michaels (2010:n.p.) indicated that 'born from above' shows that the 'children' are not born of bloodlines or the desire of man but born of God (Jn 1:13)a divine birth or reformation. He adds that, in John 1:32-33, the author indicated that the Spirit came down from above, whilst it is also obvious that water comes from above, like rain. Michaels (2010:n.p.) also understands John 4:11 as that Jesus 'meant' ('unstated') that his 'living water' comes 'from above' (Jn 4:11). This also correlates with the quote of Cyril of Jerusalem given under the previous section.
For Michaels (2010:n.p.), both 'water' and 'Spirit' mean 'life' in John's gospel, indicating the commencing of a new life 'from above', that is the eternal life. Being born of water and Spirit, therefore, is just the author's way of referring to the kingdom of God -that is, to eternal life. In line with Kim (who will be discussed later), Michaels (2010:n.p.) suggested that water could also refer here to baptism, but then the reader must 'think more broadly about "water and Spirit" than simply the act of water baptism'.
'The water refers to the act of cleansing' Guzik (2018) postulated that, in line with the prophecy in Ezekiel 36:25-28, the term 'water' in John 3:5 refers to the act of washing and cleansing, becoming part of the New Covenant. Foster (2017:353) adds that this cleansing is not of bodily dirt but of impurity, in combination with the Spirit that transforms the heart. 5 The phrase γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος ('born of water and [the] Spirit') therefore depicts a single action that can be translated as 'being born of God' (cf. Jn 1:13). In imitation of Belleville (1980:138), Foster (2017:353) argued that this therefore does 'not refer to a ritualistic understanding or a physiological interpretation', but to a 3.This refers to a phrase or even a word that can be interpreted in two equal ways.
4.This was done within the context of baptism ('rose again with the old man buried'), with reference to Rm 9:9 (God's promise to Sarah that she would have a son). As it was God's 'promise that begat the son [all of us are] gendered by the words of God' (Schaff 1885k:826), which are also 'not of nature, but of the promise of God', quoting (unrightfully?) John 3:3 (also Eph 5:26, Ja 1:18, and 1 Pt 3:21).
5.The act of cleansing is further discussed under the next section.
single action. Here the implication is that ἄνωθεν should be translated with 'from above' (cf. also Hodges 1978:217;McCabe 1999:88). On the point of a 'single action', Foster is very close to Carson (mentioned here), which implies that he is then also being criticised by this article in light of the structure of the passage.

'The water refers to baptism'
This is a ritualistic view of John 3:5, describing the baptism by John the Baptist (Jn 1:26, 33; and 3:23) and the baptism of proselytes and followers of God (Beasley-Murray 2002:36;Dodd 1953:309) as alluding to Ezekiel 36:25-27, which also depicts, according to some scholars, a ritualistic cleansing (cf. Brown 1966:141). Schweizer (1970:177) argued that this passage exhibits the tradition of the Jews to baptise people, as the phrase 'to be born again' in John 3:3 was connected to the rite of baptism (Groenewald 2006:196). In the light of Mark 10:15, this is a childlike acceptance of God's kingdom, which can be interpreted with reference to the early church's understanding of the baptism as being 'born from water and Spirit'.
According to Schweizer (1970:177), in 'the pre-Johannine church, baptism (understood as a rebirth by water and Spirit) guaranteed entry into the coming kingdom of God'. However, John reinterprets it, not working with a 'coming kingdom' anymore, but with a 'present reality', and applying it to the baptism as an ecclesiastical rite. By receiving the baptism, the receiver is 'transported into the coming kingdom' (Groenewald 2006:201). However, according to Guzik (2018), 'there is no real Old Testament (OT) foundation' for baptism in this passage. Furthermore, should this verse refer to baptism, it means that baptism becomes a condition for entering God's kingdom, which is seemingly annihilated by John 3:15-16.
However, this is the direction in which most of the Church Fathers thought. This thought pattern is still found inter alia in the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) of today: 'Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. According to these arguments, baptism is a condition for salvation because it frees one from sins and causes one to become a reborn child of God. In this context, baptism equals a conversion. These arguments are connected to John 3:3-6 http://www.ve.org.za Open Access and are based on numerous citations from the Church Fathers. A few selected arguments of anti-Nicene, Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers will be discussed here -all of them, in their own way, utilising John 3:5 within the context of baptism.
According to some Church Fathers, baptism 'pleases' God.
The Pseudo-Clementine Literature 6.9 ('Use of Baptism') discusses the contribution of the baptism of water to the worship of God. After stating that baptism pleases God, it argues, with reference to John 3:5, that being: [R]egenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so at length you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. (ed. Schaff 1885d:434) This is a direct indication that baptism was regarded as a condition to enter the kingdom of God. In The Clementine Homilies 11.26 about baptism, the question is asked if baptism with water will contribute to piety. After repeating the first reason (that it pleases God), the second reason given here is that it changes one from their 'first generation' (lust) in order to obtain salvation (ed. Schaff 1885d:1018). The author then interprets John 3:5 as follows: 'Verily I say to you, unless ye be regenerated by living water into the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven' (ed. Schaff 1885d:1018). One should therefore 'flee to the water' because only the water (baptism) will 'quench the violence of fires' (referring here to the spirit of strife) (ed. In baptism, the will of the baptised is very important. In his Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Homily 3.1 on 1 John 2:18-27 (ed. Schaff 1885i:814), Augustine urges his 'children [to] make haste to grow, because "it is the last hour"'. As this is dependent on the will of a person, Augustine (ed. Schaff 1885i:) links his argument to John 3:5, stating: [W]here the being born rests with the will, the growth also rests with the will. No man is "born of water and the Spirit", except he be willing, (that is to) go onward by proficiency. (p. 814) It means that this person, being an infant in faith, will cling to their mother, who is the church, while her breasts are the OT and NT. No direct mention is made here of baptism, although it is implicit in the text. 'The water refers to "more than baptism"' As has been indicated, the Greek adverb ἄνωθεν in John 3:3 has at least two possible translations -'again', which is the 6.Augustine (Schaff 1885h:952) here refers to what Victor argued about the words of Jesus to the man who died with him on the cross: 'Just as in the case of the thief on the cross, who confessed but was not baptised, the Lord did not give him the kingdom of heaven, but paradise'. Augustine comments on it: '…the words remaining accordingly in full force, "Except a man be born again of water and of the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven"'. most common translation for John 3:5, and 'from above'. Louw and Nida (1988:510) referred to the phrase γεννάω ἄνωθεν as an idiom that can be translated with 'to be born again'. Louw and Nida (1988:510) admitted that ἄνωθεν can also be translated with 'from above' or 'from God' (cf. Jn 3:31; 19:11), although Nicodemus understood it as meaning 'again', being part of a 'physical birth' (Louw & Nida 1988:510-511). Kim (2021) suggested that ἄνωθεν should be translated with 'from above'. As this pericope refers to the kingdom of God, 7 Kim applies it to the here and now, based on the present verb form δύναται ('be able to') in both John 3:3 and 3:5. Therefore, ' [i]f one is born from above and born through water and Spirit, one can see/ enter the kingdom of God now' (Kim 2021:22). Based on the view of Culpepper (1998:42-61), it was important for the Johannine community, who were expelled from the Jewish synagogues, to be assured of their fixed place as children of God. They had to take ownership of the fact that they were 'born from above, born of water and Spirit' (Kim 2021:22). Kim (2021:22) suggested that Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus by thinking about a physical instead of a spiritual birth. Over against the meaning of 'born again' (the temporal sense of a physical birth), Jesus did not have the 'when' of the birth in mind but the 'how' -it comes from God or from above, with God himself (his Spirit) as the source. Here, Kim refers to John 3:31: 'The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all'. Kim (2021:22) applied it to ἄνωθεν in John 3:3: '"To be born from above" means that one is born from God, which means to live according to God'. This 'evokes the image of water baptism', which connects with John 3:22, where it is stated that Jesus baptised people (cf. also Moody Smith 1999:95). Kim (2021:23) regarded it as natural that Jesus had the conversion of people in mind, where they surrender themselves to God and start to live a new life with a new determination. He therefore takes the 'born of water' one step further by raising it above the water baptism. His reason is that water baptism occurs once, while this 'born of water' refers to a continuous yielding to God (Kim 2021:23). Once again, this can indeed be deduced from the passage, but the question remains whether it is really what the passage wants to state per se?

The water refers to a physical birth
Over and against the suggestions being made here, I want to look at what the structure of John 3:3 and 5-7 shows us and then cursorily link it to the setting of the Nicodemus discourse. 8 John's gospel (like many other parts of the Bible) loves to make use of structures, as well as references to the 7.The phrase 'kingdom of God' is in fact foreign to the Gospel of John (cf. Groenewald 2006:196), only used in John 3 (twice) and 18 (thrice). According to Groenewald (2006:196), Jesus quoted a traditional phrase here, which is also found in Mark 10:15. In this pericope, only the structure of John 3:3 and 3:5-7 will be given as it has application on the following discussion (both Figures 1 and 2 are from my personal archives).
Γεννάω (pass. 'be born') is the main verb in this part of the pericope, being used five times -referring to both a physical and a 'spiritual birth produced by God' (McCabe 1999:88). 9 In line with the structure, ἄνωθεν should then be translated as 'again' because it refers to a 'second birth' -first of water 10 and then of the Spirit. 11 In his Diatessaron 32, Tatian (ed. Schaff 1885d:189) also translates ἄνωθεν with 'a second time'. 'Born again' is extended to 'born of water' and 'born of Spirit'. 'Born of water' is explained by 'flesh gives birth to flesh', whereas 'born of Spirit' is explained by 'Spirit gives birth to spirit'. 12 These theses are encircled by '[it is necessary to be] born again', indicating that this is the content of the action of rebirth, being the condition to see and enter the kingdom of God. It is important to indicate here that 'you 9.Many scholars argue that the passive of the term γεννάω being used here, refers to the fact that the person is absolutely passive in the whole process, as the act is orchestrated by God (e.g. Hoekema 1989:97;McCabe 1999:88). However, this is not true, as this verb can only be translated with 'to be born' when it is used in the passive voice (cf. Newman 1983:36).
10. Michaels (2010:n.p.) averred that 'water' could act here as a 'euphemism for the male sperm', in the light of 1 John 3:9, where the term σπέρμα is used.
11. However, it will not change much of the meaning of the passage if one translates ἄνωθεν with 'from above'.
12. Michaels (2010:n.p.), however, stated that the gospel does not draw analogies between 'water' and 'Spirit', but rather indicates a contrast between a spiritual and a physical birth, like in John 1:13. He reasons that the gospel does not use 'born of water' as reference to a physical birth in any other passage. In this passage 'water' is without any significance if not completed or complemented by 'Spirit'. must be born again' need not be interpreted as an imperative (cf. Michaels 2010:n.p.), but, in fact, a necessity, which could be better translated with 'it is necessary to be born again'. Augustine (ed. Schaff 1885h), in his Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 2.43, concurs with this, although he puts John 3:5 in the context of baptism: [W]herefore, as the man who has never lived cannot die, and he who has never died cannot rise again, so he who has never been born cannot be born again. From which the conclusion arises, that no one who has not been born could possibly have been born again in his father. Born again, however, a man must be, after he has been born; because 'Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God Nicodemus, and for that matter, all the Jews thought that being born a Jew -a descendent of Abraham -was assurance or insurance enough for them to enter God's kingdom (cf. Guzik 2018). In this passage, the phrase γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος ('born of water') is 'synonymous with being [born] an Israelite' (Foster 2017:355). 'Born of water' refers to a physical birth, specifically being born a Jew. In John 3:5, this phrase is therefore used by Jesus to refer to the natural birth process, with 'water' referring to the amniotic fluid that surrounds the baby in the womb and is present during the birth process (cf. also Spriggs 1974:150). Strachan (1920:94) referred to 2 Esdras 8:8 where the term 'water' (combined with fire) is also a reference to the 'water in the womb'.

If not
If not flesh (the first birth), it is impossible to be born of the Spirit -the former is a precondition for the latter, while the latter is a precondition for becoming part of the kingdom of God. John 3 thus has in mind 'a shift in the locus of salvation from Israel to the Messiah in the coming age' (Foster 2017:351;original emphasis;cf. also Spriggs 1974:150), the crossing (which is imminent here) from the Jewish way of thinking ('born a Jew' equals 'becoming part of the kingdom of God') to the new way that Jesus as Messiah was about to teach his people -to be born of the Spirit in order to become part of the kingdom of God.
Whereas the phrase γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος alludes to being physically born a Jew (Foster 2017:351), Jesus clearly states that this is not enough to become part of God's (new) kingdom. Those, then, who are born of Israel need to also be born again of the Holy Spirit. This points to the regeneration caused by the Holy Spirit, having the salvation of God's people in mind (Foster 2017:355). It therefore indicates here that, in future, the true Israelites (people of God) will not only be the Jews, but 'everybody' who believes in Jesus -those who are born of the Spirit (born again; cf. Jn 3:15). Whereas the Jews have thought that being born a Jew was good enough for them to enter the kingdom of God, Jesus adds that 'born of the Spirit' or being 'born again' was required in the 'new dispensation' to become part of God's people.
The exodus event could well serve as background for the Nicodemus discourse (cf. Sahlin 1950 Keener 1993:266). The parallel between the narrative in John 3 and the exodus narrative is further extended by some key terms being used in John 3 that can be found in the exodus narrative. First, we read that Nicodemus talked to Jesus about 'signs' in John 3:2 -here the author links the conversation to the exodus narrative, which was filled with signs. In John 3:14, the wilderness experience is explicitly mentioned, referring to Moses and the snake (Nm 21:8-9). During the exodus, the snake was lifted on a pole so that everyone who looked at it would live. Jesus foretold here that he would also be lifted up, but those who will look at him, that is follow him, will receive more than life -they will receive eternal life (Jn 3:15). Furthermore, the snake was only meant for the Jews who were in the wilderness, whereas Jesus had πᾶς (cf. Jn 3:15) in mind, that is 'everybody' who believes, who would not only be Jews. Second, John 3:2 states that Nicodemus visited Jesus during the night, which could be an allusion to Exodus 11:4, where Moses foretold that the firstborns of the Egyptians would die during the night (also Ex 12:12). Lastly, the birth language in John could refer back to Israel as God's 'firstborn son' in Exodus 4:22-23 -which has already been alluded to (cf. McCabe 1999:87).
God's children are therefore being born of the Spirit. In short, this refers to a Spirit-filled and Spirit-led life. As God is Spirit, his followers must worship him in Spirit and truth (cf. Jn 4:24). This life is a participation in Jesus' life (cf. Jn 6:53-58).

Conclusion
This article was not written to choose sides for or against any of the arguments provided but to give the most prevailing views on the occurrence of 'water' in John 3:1-7 -sometimes with a critical note to it. It also served to indicate how most of the Church Fathers sided with 'water' in John 3:5 as being a reference to baptism and then to supply the reader with a personal (subjective) view of the usage of 'water' in this passage. Having looked at the structure of this sub-pericope, as well as a schematical presentation thereof, the article reached the conclusion that 'water' could refer to the amniotic fluid, which is present during the birth process. This conclusion is reached as Jesus indicated that two events are necessary for seeing/entering the kingdom of God, that is to be born of both water and the Spirit. As this explanation needed more clarification, Jesus elaborated on it by explaining 'water' with 'flesh gives birth to flesh', and Spirit by 'Spirit gives birth to spirit'. 'Water' is, therefore, directly connected with the birth process, while Spirit is directly connected to being born again of the Holy Spirit.
Being born a Jew, according to Jesus, was not (anymore?) sufficient to see or enter the kingdom of God, but it was to be succeeded by a second birth, that of the Holy Spirit. Nicodemus, being a Pharisee (Jn 3:1), was familiar with the OT scrolls in the Temple, and he would most probably have picked up the connection that Jesus brought about between the OT and their discourse. We do not read his response here, but we do read about him in John 19:39, where he and Joseph of Arimathea buried the body of Jesus after Jesus' death on the cross. From this we deduce that he most probably understood Jesus' words in the Nicodemus discourse.
Looking back at all the viewpoints in this article, it is obvious that all of them form part of this passage in one way or another. This passage is full of God's grace; it definitely refers to being born again or born of the Spirit; it refers to being cleansed before God; it points forward to the baptism of the convert and even to more than baptism. The point in this article is that it is 'not the water' in this passage that refers to all these wonderful things but the entire pericope itself.