You are on page 1of 15

The Meaning of in John 3:5

Trevor Peterson November 6, 1996

1 Introduction
Most Christians, as well as a number of non-Christians, are familiar with some aspect of the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus that is recorded in John 3. Equally familiar to many Americans is the phrase born again, which has been used by evangelists, politicians, and many others to indicate the condition of one who claims to have received Christ as his or her Savior. What may not be as recognizable to most is the troublesome phrase that follows it two verses later, rendered in most English translations as born of water and the Spirit (v. 5). This tiny grouping of five Greek words has proved over time to spark more controversy than its diminutive size might appear to deserve. There is little wonder that Wendt and others have felt compelled to remove the words water and from the text, thus eliminating the problem altogether, but aside from this approach, it remains for the reader to deal with them as they stand.1 No matter how convenient their absence may be, Jesus must have included them for a purpose, and therein lies the goal of this studyto discern what that purpose might have been and what their theological implications might be.

1.1 Interpretive significance of the phrase


What then is the function of this phrase, and what prompted its utterance? It would appear that Jesus was explaining His previous response about being born again in v. 3. This in itself could be somewhat ambiguous, since the word can carry the meaning of from above or again, anew.2 Nicodemus apparently understood it in the second sense and proceeded to
Eberhard Nestle et al., Novum Testamentum Graece (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993) 253. 2 BAGD, 77.
1

question Jesus with regard to the possibility of repeating physical birth. Jesus responded by giving birth of water and spirit as the necessary condition for entering the kingdom of God. At this point, some confusion arises, since Nicodemus really did not initiate the conversation with a clear statement regarding the kingdom. Since Jesus was introducing this concept, one might ask: Why did He bring up the issue of entrance into the kingdom? What did He see in Nicodemuss words that is not readily apparent to the modern reader? How does the phrase He used clarify ? How did Nicodemus understand His words? How should he have understood them? What contextual factors might impact (or be impacted by) this statement? The list could be endless, but these should suffice to show the importance of a fuller understanding of Jesuss meaning.

1.2 Theological significance of the phrase


Along with the exegetical importance of the phrase, it can have a number of theological implications as well. If it is taken as a reference to baptism, then the fact that it is a condition for entrance into the kingdom indicates that water baptism may be necessary for salvation. Even if this is not the correct interpretation, it could be indicating some other requirement for salvation which otherwise would be unrevealed in Scripture. Also, its close association with spiritual birth may yield information as to the nature of the Holy Spirits activity in regeneration. Whatever the interpretation, there are few approaches that would leave Christian theology untouched, and as much as this passage is considered a clear statement of the Gospel, it is crucial to understand what these implications might be.

2 Viewpoints
This is not the first study to consider the meaning of , and there will undoubtedly be more to follow. Although numerous proposals have come forth as possible interpretations, it seems best to categorize them under three types: those that see a reference to baptism, those that see water as a symbol, and those that see it as associated with the natural process of human reproduction.

2.1 Sacramental interpretations


In considering sacramental interpretations, it is important to distinguish between those who see reference to the baptism of John, those who find a basis in the rituals of the Jewish sects, and those who relate the phrase to Christian baptism in the early church. The baptism of John. The first view tends to begin with Nicodemuss familiarity with the current ministry of John the Baptist.3 Attempts are sometimes made to involve him in the party that came to John in chap. 1, inquiring as to his ministry. At that time, John accentuated the difference between his own ministry and that of Christ, who would baptize internally with the Holy Spirit, thus setting the stage for the dual reference in John 3.4 Those who hold this view also seek to tie the encounter with Nicodemus to the latter portion of chap. 3, where John the Baptist explains his own ministry in light of the coming of Christ, who must naturally take precedence. In this they see a now and not yet motif, where Johns ministry of baptism by water is complemented by Christs ministry of baptism by the Spirit, but where the two would later be joined into one act within the church.5 Osburn summarizes, As would have been understood by Nicodemus, then, verse 5 clarified the born again of verse 3 by stipulating that requisites for entering the kingdom of God are baptism and a concomitant inward renewal. The Jews had rejected this stipulation and forfeited the grace attached to it. The inseparability of baptism and spiritual rebirth in the early church is clear.6 The rituals of the Jewish sects. Often the argument of Johns baptism is combined with that of proselyte baptism. Both, proponents state, would have been familiar territory to Nicodemus. In this light, F. P. Cotterell suggests that proselyte baptism not only originated in the first century but would have been commonly known as one of three requirements for the convert to Judaism to fulfill.7 The implication is that the reference to birth
C. D. Osburn, Some Exegetical Observations on John 3:58, ResQ 31 (1989) 134. Ibid. 5 G. R. Beasley-Murray and K. Beckenham, John 3:3,5: Baptism, Spirit and the Kingdom, ExpTim 97 (1986) 169. 6 Osburn, John 3:58, 134. 7 F. P. Cotterell, The Nicodemus Conversation: A Fresh Appraisal, ExpTim 96 (1985) 24041.
4 3

from water would have brought this practice to Nicodemuss mind. Christian baptism. One way or another, most scholars who take the sacramental approach see present in Johns account a reference to Christian baptism. Regarding this view, Summers states, If matters of interpretation could be determined by counting the commentaries this theory would have a clear edge over all the others.8 Much is made in this view of the image that baptism presents of rebirth. Its claim is based in church tradition and a freedom to accept that John does in fact deal with the sacraments in his writings.9 The view is also seen as consistent with NT doctrine, which according to C. K. Barrett tends to show that baptism is the means by which the Spirit is conferred. Barrett goes on to indicate that the addition of the Spirit in John 3:5 shows a transition from Johns baptism to that of the church.10 J. S. King suggests that John is writing to the insider the early church believer who can see his full meaning, which Nicodemus misses.11 In fairness, it should be noted that this view does not necessarily coincide with an acceptance of baptismal regeneration. Typical of many of its proponents is a flat denial of such a notion. They assert rather that the emphasis is on the work of the Spirit, which is not subject to any liturgical or other device.12

2.2 Symbolic interpretations


While some make a technical distinction between symbolic and figurative views, it seems best simply to consider in one category those scholars who have attempted to find an alternative to baptism by taking water as representative in some way of the ministry of the Spirit. Strong appeal is made to the imagery used by Jesus in explaining the kingdom to Nicodemus, who as the teacher of Israel would have understood the OT. Zane Hodges has proposed an understanding of water and wind, rather than water and spirit, which is in fact a valid rendering of the words themselves.13 He
R. Summers, Born of Water and Spirit, The Teachers Yoke: Studies in Memory of Henry Trantham (ed. E. J. Vardaman and J. L. Garrett; Waco: Baylor University Press, 1964) 121. 9 Osburn, John 3:58, 134. 10 C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (London: S.P.C.K., 1962) 174. 11 J. S. King, Nicodemus and the Pharisees, ExpTim 98 (1986) 45. 12 C. K. Barrett, Essays on John (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1982) 95. 13 Z. C. Hodges, Water and SpiritJohn 3:5, BibSac 135 (1978) 216.
8

suggests that Jesuss implicit meaning in was from above, and that the natural association would have been with wind and rain, both of which originate in the heavens, and both of which give life.14 Despite her rejection of this particular rendering, Belleville also appeals to the anarthrous nature of and to OT imagery to suggest that Jesus was conveying the two-fold New Covenant ministry of the Holy Spiritwater as cleansing and spirit as regeneration. As such, these two elements are taken to be descriptive, not identifying. As Jesus progresses through His explanation, both are absorbed into , the originator of the total work.15 Yet another symbolic approach is to view the two elements as synonymous. While Bultmann usually represents the extreme of this in his removal of the reference to water, others have suggested that be taken as epexegetical, thus making the two equivalent.16 Summers points out the parallel in Titus 3:5 that seems to give some credence to this view.17 Finally, a case could be built for using Eph 5:26 as a parallel passage, to make water represent the word.

2.3 Physiological interpretations


Of those who take the approach that refers to the physical reproductive process, three categories can be established. The first contains those who suggest a reference to literal semen, while the second makes the reference figurative as spiritual seed. Leon Morris appeals to Rabbinical, Mandaean, and Hermetic literature which seems to connect water with the reproductive process.18 His spiritual seed argument diverges, however, from the more literal renderings, in that he proceeds to absorb the significance of into the concept of spiritual birth.19 By way of contrast, the third group, which connects Jesuss words with the breaking of the water sac in birth, seeks to maintain the parallel which follows in v. 6birth of the flesh being birth of water, and birth of the spirit being birth of spirit.20 The primary strength of this view, as well as of the literal semen view, is that it maintains the logical flow of the context. Pamment, however, sees
Ibid., 217. L. Belleville, Born of Water and Spirit: John 3:5, Trinity Journal 1 (1980) 140. 16 R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971) 138. 17 Summers, Water and Spirit, 125 18 L. Morris, The Gospel According to John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1971) 216. 19 Ibid., 217. 20 S. M. Schneiders, Born Anew, TToday 44 (1987) 192.
15 14

it as superior, suggesting that the semen view fails to truly connect the parallel with the physical birth process, being too far removed.21 The greatest weakness is that it finds little precedent either in Scripture or in other writings. Witherington draws upon some Old Babylonian documents, as well as QL, to find some potential references to the amniotic fluid, but many seem content to ignore the lack of lexical support in favor of contextual arguments.22

3 Historical and Cultural Background


The solution, as with any exegetical difficulty in the Bible, must come from a consideration of the plain sense of the statement within its setting and context. It is necessary, therefore, to evaluate the role played by Nicodemus in this encounter, as well as the background that both he and Jesus would have drawn from in their understanding of the statements made.

3.1 Nicodemus
If there has developed a multitude of theories as to what Jesus meant by His words, it is dwarfed only by the vast body of attempts at identifying Nicodemuss role and understanding within the passage. Particularly, as modern criticism tends to evaluate the encounter more in light of Johns intended meaning than with regard to Jesuss conversation, Nicodemus has been analyzed, categorized, and symbolized more than he probably deserves.23 M.
21 22

M. Pamment, Short Note: John 3:5, NovT 25 (1983) 190. B. Witherington, The Waters of Birth: John 3:5 and 1 John 5:6-8, NTS 35 (1989) 158. 23 Schneiders states in Born Anew: Like Nicodemus, we tend to be enslaved by the theological assumptions of the religious establishment Christians have, for centuries, read this passage without realizing that the Fourth Evangelist here supplies us, through the voice of Jesus, with one of the clearest New Testament images of the femininity of God. The Spirit is the one of whom we are born spiritually in the waters of baptism Jesus was not speaking here of being engendered by God, as of a male principle, but of being born of God, as from a female principle. This is not a case of some kind of divine biologism suggesting an intra-trinitarian marriage, but a way of introducing us into the deep mystery of our spiritual origin in God The biblical presentation of God as feminine has been virtually suppressed by the male religious establishment And it may be that accepting this revelation will revolutionize our God-experience . (194)

M. Pazdan suggests that Nicodemus represents a group who does not accept Jesus.24 M. Pamment prefers to see him as the only individual character who fails to make a decision, remaining the good but uncommitted observer who tries to prevent injustice.25 W. A. Meeks compares him to the blind man healed by Jesus in chap. 9, who on the same grounds, viz., Jesus signs (especially, of course, the one performed to his own benefit; but also in general, , 9:16), declares that Jesus is a prophet, not a sinner, but from God (9:16-17, 30-33). He goes on to conclude that like that man, Nicodemus confesses a faith in Jesus which, if imperfect, at least corresponds to an acceptable first stage of faith as viewed by the Johannine community.26 J. M. Bassler places him in or near the ranks of the disciples, who have been described in chap. 1 as coming to Jesus (1:39, 47), yet he later allows that Jesus response to Nicodemus seems to indicate that on another level inaccessible to the reader [Nicodemuss profession of faith] is not acceptable.27 What can be agreed upon is that Nicodemus was a Pharisee, as stated in v. 1. Although some have tried to associate him with the party that visited John the Baptist in chap. 1, the biblical record is silent on this matter. It should be safe to assume, however, that he was aware of their visit and what came of it, which becomes important in considering Jesuss first statement. His reference to seeing the kingdom of God seems inappropriate unless Nicodemuss assertion was a guarded attempt at introducing the subject. Looking back on the responses of John the Baptist in chap. 1, he would likely have been more cautious than this first group of Pharisees in his questioning. Where they had asked John specifically, Who are you? Are you Elijah? Are you the prophet? (vv. 19,21) Nicodemus instead asserted that Jesus was a teacher come from God (3:2). This earlier group had been very pointed in relating their guesses to the coming kingdom foretold in the OT. Johns first answer indicates that they thought he might be the Christ (1:20), and upon his denial they tried other associated persons. With John still ministering in the wilderness and now Jesus performing miracles in Jerusalem, Nicodemus would naturally have been curious as to whether these might not be events building up to the fulfillment of prophecy. His caution tends to hide this idea, but Jesus saw the implied meaning. In re24 M. M. Pazdan, Nicodemus and the Samaritan Woman: Contrasting Models of Discipleship, BTB 17 (1987) 146. 25 M. Pamment, Focus in the Fourth Gospel, ExpTim 97 (1986) 73. 26 W. A. Meeks, Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism, JBL 91 (1972) 54. 27 J. M. Bassler, Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel, JBL 108 (1989) 637, emphasis his.

sponse to Nicodemuss we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one could do these signs unless God were with him, Jesus asserted that being born again (or from above) is necessary to see the kingdom of God. The implication is that Nicodemus professed to perceive something special about Jesus because of His visible signs, yet he was really powerless to understand what was happening without being born again. Where Nicodemus thought he could see the coming of the kingdom of God, he was actually in danger of missing it altogether. Cotterell has suggested that Nicodemus was accompanied by a group of disciples, as was Jesus, at the time of the discussion.28 He sees in the conversation a reversal of roles, as Nicodemus comes asserting his own line of discussion, inviting Jesus to respond accordingly, which He does not do. Instead, Jesus introduces a new set of issues, none of which match Nicodemuss initial set, thus forcing him to either submit to this new flow of thought or reject the discussion altogether. Cotterell concludes that Nicodemus submits, although reluctantly, and in humiliation and stubborn refusal, contributes less and less to the conversation.29 While this theory is possible, it is not necessary to assume that Jesus totally ignored what Nicodemus began by saying. Such an approach would tend to reduce the entire meaning to a lesson on humility. Rather, Jesus did not have need for someone to bear witness concerning man, for he himself knew what was in man (John 2:25). He knew what Nicodemuss guarded words were really trying to say, and He answered this underlying meaning directly. Throughout the rest of the discussion, Nicodemus would struggle to keep up with Jesuss words.

3.2 OT Relevance
Nicodemuss status as a Pharisee, particularly in light of v. 10, where Jesus designates him as a teacher of Israel, finds its significance in relation to the nature of Jesuss explanation. Jesus was a master of speaking to the individual at hand. As near as chap. 4, His skill is manifested through His piercing discussion with the Samaritan woman. Just as He sees her particular life setting and the personal needs that require His attention, here in chap. 3 He is able to choose His statements such that Nicodemus, being who he is, can (or should) understand. Jesuss words in v. 10, therefore, give insight into the source from which He has drawn His explanation.
F. P. Cotterell, The Nicodemus Conversation: A Fresh Appraisal, ExpTim 96 (1985) 238. 29 Ibid., 240.
28

Nicodemus is a teacher of the OT, and it is the OT that will provide Jesus with the imagery necessary to convey what He means by . This is in keeping with His standard practice when dealing with the religious leaders and teachers of Israel. In almost every confrontation where miracles did not play an illustrative role, His responses found their basis in the OT, whether directly or by allusion.30 Indeed, Jesuss whole ministry was based on the OT and looked particularly to the ratification of the New Covenant. Although regeneration is a concept not widely developed in the OT, there does seem to be an indication in the New Covenant promises. In Ezek 36:26, God promises to give Israel a new heart. There is, however, no comparable phrase to or to any of its conceptual parts. Even so, the OT imagery of water and spirit does bear some significance, as the next section will show.

4 Exegetical Analysis
Having seen that Jesuss first response and last remark to Nicodemus at least hint at the OT concept of the New Covenant and the coming kingdom, it finally falls to an analysis of the words, grammar, and context to determine the meaning of the phrase in question.

4.1 Lexical considerations


The key words under consideration are and . . The meaning of the Greek word can be summed up in one English word: water. Classical usage included water of rivers, water as a location, water for drinking, water for washing the hands, rain, time (with reference to the water clock), liquid, and part of the constellation Aquarius.31 The LXX translators used it in an almost one-to-one relationship with ,as drinking water, sea water, water of a river, water for washing, water from a well or spring, flood waters, a place name, liquid, rain water, water for cooking, and dew. Its only real figurative usage was in particular, clear figures of speech, usually metaphors and similes, which involved a direct comparison. Secular usage contemporary to the NT was also quite basic, as
See Matt 5:21; 12:37, 3942; 15:4,79; 16:4; 19:48; 21:16; 22:32, 3739,4345; Mark 2:25, 26; 7:610; 10:39; 12:26, 2931; Luke 6:3, 4, 9; 7:27; 10:27; 14:3; 16:1618; 20:37, 4144; John 5:39, 4547; 8:7, 5658; 10:34, 35. 31 LSJ, 184546.
30

water.32 Most often in the NT itself, the word referred to drinking water, then waters of baptism. It also indicated sea water, flood waters, waters of a river, or the sound of waters. On a few occasions it was used as imagery for people, but the very explanation of these instances argues against its having been a universal symbol. While a study of the meaning of the word yields little help, it is important to note the strong tie it bears to the OT equivalent. In fact, it seems quite likely that, with the same range of meaning and LXX usage, would have evoked the same imagery as in the mind of an OT-literate Jew, such as Nicodemus. Likewise, the word would have drawn to mind the OT concept of , with its possible meanings of wind, breath or spirit.33 . Classical usage of includes to produce, grow, create, give birth.34 In the LXX it most often means to father another, although context will dictate when it is seen instead as the mother giving birth. Sometimes, it is more neutral, as when a person is born, without reference to the procreator. The word was also confused at times with forms of and thus took on the meaning of to be or become.35 On at least a few occasions, it referred specifically to God as the One generating and to the children of Israel or to the Messiah as the offspring. Wisdom is likewise described in Prov 8:25 as having been born of God. In the NT, fathering was still a common use, particularly in the Gospel genealogies (Matthew 1), along with giving birth as a mother (Matt 19:12; Luke 1:13, 57) and general references to physical birth (Matt 26:24; Mark 14:21; John 9). Figurative usage and usage where God is seen as the progenitor seem to have increased in the NT, but much of this either is in Johns writing or comes from repeated OT citations.36 Again, there is little here to clarify the issue at hand. The study does provide, however, a range of meaning which would accommodate literal or figurative birth.
MM, 648. BAGD, 67478; BDB, 92426. 34 LSJ, 344. 35 MM, 124. 36 See John 1:13; Acts 13:33; 1 Cor 4:15; Gal 4:24; 2 Tim 2:23; Phlm 10; Heb 1:5; 5:5; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18
33 32

10

4.2 Syntactical considerations


While the grammar of the passage is basically quite simple, there is at least one area which should be addressed. L. Belleville alludes to a difficulty in the physiological view based on the construction of as a preposition followed by two anarthrous nouns, linked by the conjunction .37 Summers suggests Titus 3:5 as a parallel construction, where the preposition is and the washing and renewing ministries of the Spirit are tied together in the one act which produces salvation.38 Robertson sees some flexibility in the Koine, yet he seems to affirm that the preposition would generally be repeated if the two nouns could not be categorized together.39

4.3 Contextual considerations


Ultimately, context must be the final guide in exegeting the phrase. As has already been noted, Nicodemus came with a cautious inquiry as to the possibility that Jesus might somehow be associated with the coming of the kingdomthe New Covenant promises of the OT. He based his assertions on signs, however, and Jesus explained that he would need to be born again (from above) to truly understand. Nicodemus was confused about this concept of rebirth and asked another hesitant question, suggesting the possibility of physical rebirth. Jesus repeated His previous assertion, this time expanding it becoming and becoming . In both exchanges, the concept expressed was broadened. If the phrase in question is taken as a unit, there is a definite parallel. If it is seen as a contrast (as in the physiological view), becomes the fuller idea of , while is replaced with a treatment of Nicodemuss mistaken notion. In this case, the parallel itself could work counteractively to the intended message. If Jesuss restatement had been an attempt to respond directly to Nicodemuss question, then there would have been no need to change the wording of ; the focus should have remained primarily on the protasis. He could also have used a temporal connective to show that spiritual birth follows physical, rather than the less communicative . Another obstacle to taking it as a reference to physical birth is that Jesus used such an unclear phrase to communicate His
Belleville, Water and Spirit, 131. Summers, Water and Spirit, 12526. 39 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934) 566.
38 37

11

idea. The more familiar born of flesh, found in v. 6, would have built an effective parallel. Here, the lack of lexical support for physical birth usage becomes a major difficulty. As Jesus continued His explanation, He contrasted physical birth with spiritual birth, showing that His earlier reference to being born again was not what Nicodemus suggested. He then used in the sense of wind, which is perceived in part but not really understood by the senses, to illustrate birth of the Spirit. Nicodemus was quite confused by this point, as to how these things could happen. Jesus then challenged him, pointing out that he, as the teacher of Israel, should have known what was being said. He attributed Nicodemuss lack of understanding to disbelief and explained the preceding discourse as speaking of earthly things. In this is quite possibly a reference to the earthly imagery and the earthly restoration which was to come upon Israel. The immediate context seems to argue against the baptismal views, since Jesus makes no specific mention of baptism and seems to absorb born of water into the work of the Spirit throughout the rest of the discussion. If in fact Jesus was teaching that baptism is necessary to enter the kingdom of God, it would not make sense for Him to drop it out of His explanation so quickly (vv. 68), particularly since there seems to be little else in Scripture to support it. Also, the arguments are weak that suggest Nicodemus would have thought of baptism upon hearing the phrase, since it is nowhere else described in this terminology. Finally, the topic at hand is not baptism in the Spirit but birth of the Spiritthe ministry of regeneration. This leaves two major possibilities: either indicates a close association or it shows contrast. Because there seems to be little more than a grammatical trend to assert that the construction indicates a connection, the decision must fall to a consideration of the other factors. If Jesuss words are taken to respond to Nicodemuss suggestion of literal, physical birth by assuming that everyone will be born of water (physical) and asserting that those who would enter the kingdom must be born spiritually, then there appears a parallel between v. 5a and v. 6. If they are taken as an expansion of v. 3, then the parallelism shifts to vv. 3, 5, 6b and 7. If the physical view is right, was readily understood as physical birth; if the symbolic, and should have led Nicodemus to look to OT imagery. Witherington attempts to build a case for the lexical basis of the physical birth view, but he gathers little more than vague allusions from the OT and obscurely related passages from

12

extra-biblical literature.40 By contrast, the OT basis of the cleansing view is quite clear. In the New Covenant promises of Ezek 36:2526, the common imagery of water for cleansing and the natural connection of spirit with breath or life are brought together: And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. (asv)

5 Conclusion
The meaning of , then, seems to be taken in conjunction with as the two-fold New Covenant ministry of the Holy Spirit. As God had promised, He would cleanse His people with water and breathe life-giving wind into them (cf. Ezek 37:911), through the Spirit which He would place within them. Jesus used this imagery that should have been familiar to Nicodemus as the teacher of Israel, to explain what He meant by born again. It was not a physical birth but a birth from above: the cleansing and life-giving ministry of the Holy Spirit, without which no one can enter or even see the kingdom of God.

References
[1] Barrett, C. K. Essays on John. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982. [2] Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. London: S.P.C.K., 1962. [3] Bassler, J. M. Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel. JBL 108 (1989) 63546. [4] Bauer, W.; Arndt, W. F.; Gingrich, F. W.; Danker, F. W. A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. [5] Beasley-Murray, G. R., and K. Beckenham. John 3:3, 5: Baptism, Spirit and the Kingdom. ExpTim 97 (1986) 16770.
40

Witherington, Waters of Birth, 15657.

13

[6] Belleville, L. Born of Water and Spirit: John 3:5. Trinity Journal 1 (1980) 12541. [7] Brown, F.; Driver, S. R.; Briggs, C. A. The New BrownDriverBriggs Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1979. [8] Bultmann, R. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971. [9] Cotterell, F. P. The Nicodemus Conversation: A Fresh Appraisal. ExpTim 96 (1985) 23742. [10] Hatch, E., and Redpath, H. A. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books). 2 vols. Graz-Austria: Akademische Druck - U. Verlangsanstalt, 1954. [11] Hodges, Z. C. Water and SpiritJohn 3:5. BSac 135 (1978) 20620. [12] King, J. S. Nicodemus and the Pharisees. ExpTim 98 (1986) 45. [13] Liddell, H. G.; Scott, R.; Jones, H. S.; McKenzie, R. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1940. [14] Meeks, W. A. Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism. JBL 91 (1972) 4472. [15] Morris, L. The Gospel According to John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971. [16] Moulton, J. H., and Milligan, G. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930. [17] Moulton, W. F., and Geden, A. S. A Concordance to the Greek Testament According to the Texts of Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf and the English Revisers. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963. [18] Nestle, Eberhard, Erwin Nestle, B. Aland, K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini, and B. M. Metzger. Novum Testamentum Graece. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. [19] Osburn, C. D. Some Exegetical Observations on John 3:58. ResQ 31 (1989) 12938. 14

[20] Pamment, M. Focus in the Forth Gospel. ExpTim 97 (1986) 7175. [21] Pamment, M. Short Note: John 3:5. NovT 25 (1983) 18990. [22] Pazdan, M. M. Nicodemus and the Samaritan Woman: Contrasting Models of Discipleship. BTB 17 (1987) 14548. [23] Schneiders, S. M. Born Anew. TToday 44 (1987) 18996. [24] Summers, R. Born of Water and Spirit. The Teachers Yoke: Studies in Memory of Henry Trantham. Ed. E. J. Vardaman and J. L. Garrett. Waco: Baylor University Press, 1964. [25] Witherington, B. The Waters of Birth: John 3:5 and 1 John 5:68. NTS 35 (1989) 15560.

15

You might also like