The Synoptics and John
The Gospel of John is different. It is so different that it is often not considered along with the other three canonical Gospels. In scholarly circles, the term “Synoptic Gospels” excludes John, but not without good reasons. John is believed to be the last written Gospel account. Given the evidence of material dependence among the other Gospels, we may assume that John had access to the other Gospels. Yet, John did not produce a similar work as the authors of the other Gospels. Indeed, John did not seem to care as much about chronology as he did about theology. Hence, he would often move pieces of stories around as he saw fit for his purposes. For instance, whereas the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) focus on Jesus’ ministry near Galilee with one recorded trip to Jerusalem towards the end of his earthly ministry, John records Jesus’ multiple trips to Jerusalem. Indeed, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus clearing the Jerusalem temple towards the end of his ministry, while John brings the event forward in telling Jesus’ story. Besides, John omits many of the parables, instances of exorcism, and even the famous Sermon on the Mount while including unique materials like the resurrection of Lazarus in his account. So, if the authors of the Synoptics were interested in historical writings, John was interested in theological writing instead.
Unlike the Synoptics and very much like Paul’s letters to the Colossians and Ephesians, John begins his Gospel with a powerful statement on Jesus’ divinity. Alluding to the opening sentence of the Hebrew Bible, John introduces Jesus as the creator of the universe. The Jews already had a concept of God using an agent to create the universe, but John articulates a stronger claim than his fellow Jews did. Proverbs 8 talks about personified wisdom being the agent of creation, but that wisdom was itself created (Proverbs 8:22). John’s bold claim is that Jesus was always God (John 1:1). He took on a human body to tabernacle among humans (John 1:14), alluding to the way Yahweh “tabernacled” among the ancient Israelites in the wilderness. Indeed, as we shall soon see, the Pentateuch looms over the passage of interest.
The Problem
Our focus here is the famous encounter of Jesus with Nicodemus, a learned Jewish leader competent in the Jewish laws. John prefaces the story thus:
John 2:23-25 ESV
[23] Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. [24] But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people [25] and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.
John employs wordplay; “believed” and “entrust” derive from a singular Greek word. John further says Jesus knows “what was in man,” alerting readers that Jesus knows what is in Nicodemus. So, Nicodemus may come “by night,” but Jesus can see through him as the day. Below is a section of the Nicodemus story:
John 3:3-6; 10-11 ESV
[3] Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” [4] 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?” [5] Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. [6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. [10] Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? [11] Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony.
Christians have debated this passage for centuries. At the heart of the controversy is verse 5: what does it mean to be “born of water and the Spirit”? This verse must be understood in its context. Whatever we think it means must respect the integrity of John’s narrative. Indeed, we should take note of the following as we proceed:
- “Born of water and the Spirit” may refer to two, not one, events because of the parallelism in verse 6: That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. “Born of water” parallels “that which is born of the flesh,” while “born of the spirit” parallels “that which is born of the Spirit.”
- Jesus expects Nicodemus to know what “born of water and of the Spirit” means (3:10). This expectation is connected to Nicodemus being a leader of Israel, not merely an adult human. Nicodemus is a Pharisee, and we may expect him to be reasonably versed in the Old Testament and perhaps Second-Temple-era theological developments.
Nicodemus begins by acknowledging that God is with Jesus, given the evidence of the “signs” he had performed (John 3:2). However, at this point in John’s narrative, Jesus had only given one “sign” of turning water to wine (John 2:1 – 12). This suggests that John may be taking for granted his audience’s knowledge of the oral tradition concerning Jesus and the earlier written Synoptic Gospel accounts. It could also be that John counts Jesus’ Temple-cleansing act as a sign. Whatever the case, Jesus responds by telling Nicodemus that unless one undergoes a second birth and is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God (3:3). How is that response sensible? Given the preface in John 2:24-25 that Jesus knew every human and what is in man, it is reasonable to take Jesus’ words as responding to the real question, perhaps not explicitly voiced, on Nicodemus’ mind. Alternatively, maybe the question is voiced. Considering that the ancient land of Israel was occupied by a foreign power in Rome and the hope of the appearance of a Messiah was high (see John 1:19-21), Nicodemus’ reference to “signs” may be intended to invoke images of Israel’s prophet and messiah, Moses. Indeed, John 3:14 explicitly references Moses within the story of Nicodemus. The Torah promises another prophet and Messiah, like Moses.
Confused and incredulous, Nicodemus asks, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” (John 3:4 ESV). This allows Jesus to clarify his statement:
John 3:5-6 ESV
[5] Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. [6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
In his reformulation, Jesus appears to be referring to two events, as evidenced by the parallelism of verse 6. However, since the original statement about being born again envisages only one event, some commentators believe that even the reformulation must refer to a single event. Such exegetes also argue about the syntax of the Greek construction of 3:5, which only adds to the difficulty of understanding the verse.
Some Proposed Candidates
Several ideas have been proposed to explain John 3:5 in the history of interpretation. Here, we will only survey the best three candidates.
Baptism
Baptism is perhaps the most often cited candidate for understanding the “born of water” element of John 3:5. There are good reasons to do so. First, John already had the Baptizer explicitly connect water and the Spirit earlier (1:25, 33). Indeed, even our current chapter also expressly refers to John’s baptism after the Nicodemus pericope (John 3:23). Second, given the popularity of John’s baptism and the added fact that a party of the Jewish leaders – probably including the Pharisees of which Nicodemus was a member – already sent a delegation of “priests and Levites” (1:19) to go inquire of John why he was baptizing, it is plausible that Nicodemus would have thought about John’s baptism when Jesus says “born of water.” Third, the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible seem to have anticipated a ritual cleansing like the Baptizer’s. Scholars have pointed out a connection in Ezekiel:
Ezekiel 36:25-26 ESV
[25] 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. [26] 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.
Ezekiel anticipates a future ritual of restorative cleansing. He also explicitly connects washing with water and the Spirit of God. Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel and a Pharisee, would be familiar with this passage and see its connection to John the Baptizer’s ministry. Indeed, if this passage informed the leaders of the Jews who sent a delegate to John to ask why he baptized and whether he was the Messiah or “the prophet,” it would be because Ezekiel 36 is a passage concerning the end times when “the desolate land will become like the garden of Eden” (36:35). But, in Jewish expectations, the end would not come before the appearance of the Jewish Messiah.
The reasons above make baptism a good candidate for understanding John 3:5. However, the baptism interpretation is not without problems. Indeed, about 50 years ago, Linda Belleville spelled out some of the difficulties with that position. If Jesus meant “baptism” – and in this case, John the baptizer’s baptism – then “Nicodemus’ response is unintelligible” (127). As already demonstrated, there is much Hebrew Bible precedence for John the baptizer’s ministry. We cited a passage from Ezekiel 36 earlier, and readers should notice that John the baptizer cited Isaiah 40:3 in his defence of his ministry thereby further showing that even Isaiah anticipates his ministry. Besides, even lay Jewish people seemed to have understood the importance of John’s baptizing ministry as they went out to be baptized. Their leaders also understood the times as they sent investigators to check if the promised messianic era was dawning. Given all this, we should expect Nicodemus to have anticipated Jesus’ ask for baptism, a requirement that would have been consistent with Old Testament expectations and known to Nicodemus. But that’s not the picture John paints. Instead, as Belleville points out (127), “Nicodemus’ response is not one of refusal marking an attitude of disobedience but one of incredulousness (v 4), amazement (v 7), and disbelief (v 12).” So, the baptism interpretation requires us to believe that Nicodemus did not know what even untrained, ordinary Jews knew. Whatever Jesus meant by being “born again” astounded Nicodemus.
And there is more. The point of John the Apostle mentioning the baptizing ministry of the baptizer seems to be to highlight its insignificance compared to what is about to be revealed:
John 1:26-27 ESV
[26] John answered them, “I baptize with water, but among you stands one you do not know, [27] even he who comes after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.”
John 3:28-30 ESV
[28] You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.’ [29] The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete. [30] He must increase, but I must decrease.”
So, if by “born of water and the spirit” – his language choice of clarifying what it means to be “born again” – Jesus means John’s baptism is a means to a new birth, then this would be a reading foreign to the baptizer’s understanding of his own ministry. Moreover, since John’s baptism would soon be superseded by “Christian” baptism as Jesus’ disciples would soon begin to baptize people, it makes little sense that Jesus should refer Nicodemus to a rite that is expiring as the source of the new birth. Belleville correctly concludes that the baptism angle “makes mandatory a rite that was superseded by Christian baptism” (127).
For these reasons, I do not think John 3:5 refers to John’s baptism. Exegetes have endeavored to save the baptism proposal by suggesting that John 3:5 does not refer to John’s baptism but to Christian baptism. The fatal flaw of this move is that Jesus would be prescribing a rite that did not even exist yet to Nicodemus and then act surprised that Nicodemus did not understand what he was talking about (John 3:10)! Belleville writes: “It is little short of ridiculous to imagine Jesus reprimanding Nicodemus in v 10 for his failure to understand the necessity of a rite yet to be instituted” (129). Baptisms will not do.
Amniotic Fluid
So much for the baptism interpretation, then. Another commonly marshaled argument is more straightforward as it takes “born of water” to refer to the natural birth process. This view has the strength of also honoring John’s narrative as “enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born” (3:4), “born of the flesh” (3:6), and “born of water” (3:5) are parallel statements that would refer to physical birth. In particular, “born of water,” in this reading, refers to the rupturing of the amniotic fluid that precedes a natural birth. This interpretation would have Jesus say to Nicodemus that a requirement for the new birth is first to be physically born. Belleville puts it well by saying, “While it is not true to say that no one can enter the kingdom without baptism, it is true to say no one can enter without being born twice” (131).
An apparent weakness of this view is that it is redundant, to say the least, that Jesus had to say to a living person that he must first be born to qualify for spiritual regeneration since the first birth requirement is already fulfilled – not only by Nicodemus but also by everyone alive. Moreover, Apostle John would seem to directly contradict this reading as he soon writes that “the flesh is no help at all” (6:63) in the new reality Jesus calls his audience into. Also, “born of water” seems to be an inconsistent choice for the Johannine Jesus when describing physical birth. Contrasting a natural birth with the new birth in 1:13, John says the new children of God are born “not of blood.” That is, the preferred Johannine term for physical birth is not “born of water” but “born of blood.” Besides, this reading makes it difficult to understand Jesus’ response to Nicodemus in 3:10 when Jesus chastises him for not knowing “these things” as a “teacher of Israel.” Surely, Nicodemus knew how babies were made. Also, it seems inappropriate that Jesus qualifies Nicodemus’ ignorance with “teacher of Israel.” One does not need to be a teacher of Israel to know how humans are born. It is sufficient to be an adult.
The Red Sea of the Exodus
So, we have seen that the two commonest candidates for “born of water” fall short of accounting for relevant data. In 2017, Timothy Foster proposed another solution that made good sense of the passage. It is a view that claims “that throughout this discourse Jesus is making an ecclesiological statement that in the coming age those who will inherit the kingdom are not those who are Jews by birth but those who believe in him” (351). In Foster’s reading, “born of water” alludes to the ancient Israelites’ crossing of the Red Sea when God delivered them out of Egypt. The exodus was a defining moment for the Israelites and their descendants. By telling Nicodemus that he must be born of water and the Spirit, Jesus communicates that Nicodemus’ Jewishness is insufficient. That Nicodemus would assume that his Jewish ancestry was an automatic passport to the kingdom of God is to be expected, and we have addressed the centrality of the Jewish people to God’s plan here. We shall have more to say about this point shortly.
Are there textual supports for Foster’s reading in John? Yes, there are many. First, John 2:23 states, “Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing.” As mentioned earlier, this verse is part of John’s preface for the Nicodemus story. The verse explicitly sets the Nicodemus story “at the Passover.” The Passover (Pesach, in Hebrew) commemorates the liberation of the Israelites from Egypt and the “passing over” of the forces of destruction that spared Israelite firstborns during the final plague on the eve of the exodus.
Moreover, the book of Exodus is a major influence on how John structures his Gospel. Jacob Enz says an “extensive literary typology is to be noted in a comparison of the Gospel of John with the most crucial book of the Pentateuch for Israel’s history and theology – the Book of Exodus” (208). To cite two examples, both Exodus and John presents “unrecognized” deliverers (209). When Moses identified with the Hebrews and even killed an Egyptian in defence of a Hebrew, he was subsequently rejected with the words, “who made you a prince and a judge over us (Exodus 2:14). Similarly, John writes of Jesus: “He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him” (1:11). These parallel statements occur early in their respective books. Also, in the middle of the Nicodemus story, the Johannine Jesus says in John 3:14, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,” thereby explicitly revealing a comparison of two deliverers of Israel.
Furthermore, as pointed out earlier, John intimately connects “water” and “Spirit” in 1:31-33. This parallels with the Red Sea and the (Spirit of) Yahweh leading the Israelites out of Egypt. Interestingly, by relying on Isaiah 40:3 in John 1:23 as a choice text to explain his ministry, the baptizer communicates an understanding of a new, imminent exodus:
Isaiah 40:3 ESV
A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
The verse was for remnants of Israelites exiled to Babylon for their unfaithfulness to Yahweh. Barry et al. note: “God will lead the remnant through the wilderness from Babylon to Zion, just like the exodus from Egypt.” John the baptizer understood his ministry as clearing a path for God to lead out his people in another exodus.
Finally, the exodus explains even the “born” language of John 3. Exodus introduces the ancient Israelites as God’s “firstborn son” (Exodus 4:22) and “son” (Exodus 4:23) to the pharaoh thereby introducing the idea of some humans being “born of God” (John 1:13) and becoming “children of God” (John 1:12). Foster writes, “the language of birth is connected with the exodus by the proleptic designation of Israel as God’s firstborn” (355). The prophet Hosea reports God saying, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son” (Hosea 11:1 ESV). The exodus was a birthing moment of national Israel.
Foster’s Proposal’s Explanatory Power
The explanatory power of Foster’s proposal is immense. When Jesus says to Nicodemus that he must be “born again” to see God’s kingdom, Nicodemus can not believe his ears and gently pushes back by essentially claiming that he already was born – with the implication that he was born a Jew. Jesus then must clarify his point and say, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” In Foster’s reading, this clarification by Jesus accepts Nicodemus’ pushback that he was already born a Jew but goes on to tell him that his Jewish ancestry is not sufficient to enable him to enter the kingdom of God. “The locus of salvation has shifted from belonging to Israel to believing in Jesus” (Foster, 360).
Though we often carelessly use “born again” in our church services today for unbelievers, in its original usage, the term applies specifically to Jews who already believed in the God of Israel. This is the only time the term is used in the Gospels and directed to a Jew and Pharisee. At no point in Jesus’ interaction with non-Jews did he think to use the term. Also, notice that the “one” in “unless one is born of water and the Spirit” is a Jew in Foster’s reading. Only a Jew would qualify as being “born of water.” Jesus communicates here that genetics no longer has a privileged hold on theology. Jews and non-Jews alike must henceforth be “born of the Spirit.” Indeed, this point seems to be buttressed in an often overlooked portion of the Nicodemus story:
John 3:7-8 ESV
[7] Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ [8] 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.”
First, notice that the second “you” in verse 7 is plural. The message of the necessity of being born again is not for Nicodemus alone. By following his point here with the wind analogy involving the ignorance of “where it comes from or where it goes,” Jesus seems to be telling Nicodemus that some hitherto unexpected non-Jewish people groups will also become “born of the Spirit” – an idea many first-century Jews did not expect from a Jewish Messiah. Foster writes, “The metaphor anticipates the hitherto unrecognized places from which people will come to see the kingdom, while those who receive the Spirit will be sent to people whom Nicodemus considers to be beyond the scope of the kingdom” (359). John telegraphs these ideas earlier:
John 1:11-13 ESV
[11] He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. [12] But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, [13] who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
The “his own” who rejected him were the Jews who trusted in their being born of blood, the will of the flesh, and the will of man. They trusted in their physical birth as Jews and national Israel but spurned the opportunity to be born of God. John was emphatic about the need for the Jews to reassess their theology:
John 3:18 ESV
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
John 3:36 ESV
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
Furthermore, Nicodemus is not the only Jew who found himself affirming a theology of ancestral privilege. In a lengthy conversation with some Jews, including Pharisees (John 7 – 8, 8:13), John records the following:
John 8:31-33 ESV
[31] So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, [32] and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” [33] They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?”
The Jews’ response is strange because the Romans practically enslaved them at the time they uttered those words. Their ancestors were also enslaved in Egypt 400 years after the time of Abraham. So, the response that they were never enslaved is not accurate. Instead, it seems like the sort of thing unyielding patriots would say. However, notice that their appeal specifically to Abraham instead of more proximal ancestors like Judah or Jacob alludes to their election. They have taken God’s sovereign calling of their race, beginning with Abraham, as a guarantee of eternal life, much like Nicodemus believed. They did not think they needed saving because God already saved them. Jesus, knowing better, pressed harder to the heart of the issue:
John 8:34, 36 ESV
[34] Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin.
[36] So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
Hence, a Jewish ancestry is no automatic ticket into God’s kingdom. In fact, in a seemingly theology-inverting way, John says, “the wrath of God remains on the unbelieving Jews (John 3:36).
In Matthew’s rendition of the Gospel, Jesus explicitly says he was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24). As argued elsewhere, Jesus had to be a Jewish Messiah to be a Messiah of the world. In John, Jesus says, “Salvation is from the Jews” (4:22). John’s next major story after Nicodemus’ is the story of the Samaritan woman by the well. Samaria was the capital of Israel, the northern kingdom. In an ancient divide-and-conquer military strategy in 722 BC, the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel and deported many citizens while relocating foreigners to the land (2 Kings 17:24 – 41). The result was intermarriage, resulting in the “corruption” of Israelite genes. This becomes a basis for the Jews’ hostility towards the Samaritans in later years. Indeed, in a parenthetical comment, John reminds the readers, “Jews have no dealings with Samaritans” (4:9). Yet, Jesus goes out of his way to search out the Samaritan woman and reveals himself to her as the anticipated Israelite – that is, Jewish and Samaritan – Messiah (4:25, 26). Jesus intentionally gathers the lost sheep of the whole house of Israel in John’s telling of the gospel because salvation must begin from “Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8) – in that order.
Foster’s Proposal Explains Much
Notice the following specific ways that Foster’s hypothesis makes sense of the Nicodemus story:
- It treats “born of water and the Spirit” as two separate events. To be “born again” is not an exact synonym for “born of water and the Spirit” but is equivalent to only the second conjunct. “Born of water” is Jesus’ way of rephrasing Nicodemus’ pushback that he was already born a Jew.
- The two-event approach makes sense of verse 6’s parallelism: “born of water” (v 5) parallels “that which is born of the flesh is flesh,” and “born of the Spirit” parallels “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” John would later say the flesh counts for nothing concerning salvation. That is, Jewish ancestry is no ground for special considerations in soteriology.
- Foster’s proposal explains why Nicodemus, as a teacher of Israel, ought to have known that not only do the Jews have to be born again but that God also always intended to save the world through the election of Israel. As Paul would powerfully argue in his writings, especially in Romans and Galatians, God always planned to rescue the world when he called Abraham. As a fellow Pharisee, Nicodemus ought to have seen the teachings of the Hebrew Bible for what they are. Jesus could not be more explicit:
John 3:16-17 ESV
[16] “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Though Jesus was “born under the law” (Galatians 4:4), his mission was nothing short of the redemption of the whole cosmos—Jews, Gentiles, the planet, and the rest of the created order. We must all be born from above, but only some are born of water.
Works Cited
Barry, John D., Douglas Mangum, Derek R. Brown, Michael S. Heiser, Miles Custis, Elliot Ritzema, Matthew M. Whitehead, Michael R. Grigoni, and David Bomar. 2012, 2016. Faithlife Study Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
Belleville, Linda L. “Born of Water and Spirit: John 3:5.” Trinity Journal, vol. 1, no. 2, Fall 1980, pp. 125-140.
Enz, Jacob J. “The Book of Exodus as a Literary Type for the Gospel of John.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 76, no. 3, 1957, pp. 208–15. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3261570. Accessed 27 Dec. 2024.
Foster, Timothy D. “John 3:5: Redefining the People of God.” Bulletin for Biblical Research, vol. 27, no. 3, 2017, pp. 351 – 360.
