Take the 2-minute tour ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In John 3:5, Jesus says that we must be "born of water and the Spirit".

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5 (NASB)

In English, it is ambiguous as to whether this refers to one birth (of water and Spirit), or two births (one of water, and the other of Spirit). What I would like to know is, in the original Greek, is it more clear whether Jesus is referring to separate births, or a single one?

I realize that this is a near duplicate of What does it mean to be “born of water”?, but I am specifically interested in the ambiguity of this phrase in the original Greek, and not the various interpretations of this passage.

I'm looking for an answer that analyses the Greek, and concludes whether this phrase is ambiguous in Greek also, or tends toward either a single or separate births.

share|improve this question
1  
Welcome to Biblical Hermeneutics—Stack Exchange! This is an excellent distinction and a good test of our tagging system. We can always use more thoughtful questions. –  Jon Ericson Mar 14 '12 at 16:51
    
Greek studies seldom do justice to the text since the original words of the Gospels were said in Aramaic and Hebrew. –  user498 Mar 28 '12 at 14:43

4 Answers 4

up vote 6 down vote accepted

ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος οὐ δύναται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ

It honestly requires some interpretation which means that, ultimately theology will come into play as one selects a translation.

It could be a hendiadys ("one through two") which expresses one concept through two terms, and many interpreters understand it as such.

There are some who perceive them as separate concepts, though.

Both nouns are anarthrous in the Greek, and are impersonal so GS (Granville-Sharpe's rule) does not apply.

share|improve this answer
2  
καὶ seems to mean a lot of different things in Greek. (Like Good morning!) I'm not enough of a Greek student to know what "GS" stands for. Can you enlighten me? –  Jon Ericson Mar 14 '12 at 16:58
2  
So sorry about that. My sloth is showing. "GS" is Granville-Sharpe's rule. καὶ takes on many meanings. My Greek professor has this saying, "καὶ means 'and', it can also mean 'also,' it can even mean 'even.'" The importance of καὶ is how it coordinates what it's surrounding - and there are many ways in which that can happen. –  swasheck Mar 14 '12 at 17:15

The Greek for the passage in question goes like so:

John 3:5
γεννηθη εξ υδατος και πνευματος
born of water and spirit

The grammatical construct used in 3:5 is fairly rare in Johannine literature. Below are probably the best parallels (but also see John 1:14 and 2 John 3):

John 4:23
προσκυνησουσιν τω πατρι εν πνευματι και αληθεια
worship the Father in spirit and truth

John 20:17
αναβαινω προς τον πατερα μου και πατερα υμων
ascending to my Father and your Father

1 John 5:6
ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος
come by water and blood

Each of these cases follows the pattern of verb-prep-noun-kai-noun. And in each instance we have here it seems best to understand a singular action described in two modes. Jesus isn't saying in 4:23 that worshipers must worship the Father in spirit and then come back later and worship him in truth. Likewise, Jesus isn't ascending in 20:17 to his own Father and then later ascending to Peter's father. And again, in 1 John 5:6, John, whatever he means, probably he does not mean that Jesus came once by water and then he came again by blood. Instead, there were two aspects of his one coming.

However, you can see from 20:17 that the Greek grammar allows for an ambiguity. We easily understand this to mean a single ascension because Jesus' Father and the disciples' Father are one and the same. But if they were two different fathers and they were not in the same place, the same grammar could be used to convey two different ascensions. The context controls our interpretation, as it should in John 3:5 as well.

share|improve this answer

This answer agrees with Soldarnal's, but I think this is an even stronger argument. The context of the whole discussion is that he is talking about regeneration; he is telling Nicodemus that even though he knows the Scriptures inside and out, he has to have a radical supernatural change before he will understand. Too often verses in this passage are interpreted in isolation (verse 16, for example, is talking about regeneration rather than justification). Born of water refers to the cleansing aspect of the rebirth (referencing the Jewish cleansing ceremonies); born of Spirit refers to the agent who brings about the rebirth. Thus, it is indeed a parallelism, and a hendiadys; the referent of "born" is the same in both cases, though their qualifiers add information.

share|improve this answer

Born of water- refers to greek word hoo-dore meaning literal water baptism according to acts 2 verse 38 repent and be baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. Example fulfilled by our Lord in Jordan river with John. Also Phillip baptizing the Ethopian eunuch on the way to Gaza Acts chapter 8. water baptism is obedience to the command of Jesus in Mark 16 verse 16. Born of the Spirit is being filled with the Holy Spirit as in Acts 2 verse 4. you have to have both water and Spirit, like the house of Cornelius in Acts 10 verses 44 to 48, they received the Holy Spirit ahead and follow water baptism in Jesus name.

share|improve this answer

We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.

1  
Welcome to Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange! Be sure to take our site tour to learn more about us. We're a little different from other sites. This doesn't show its work, which is a requirement on this site. Don't just tell us what you know, tell us how you know it. In this case that would involve citing a lexicon, explaining the Greek text further, etc. –  maj nem ɪz dæn 9 hours ago

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.