Here is the question I asked this week in Idaho Falls:
What did Jesus mean when he said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).
Here are forty answers from people who answered in response to my question on the meaning of the words in bold.
12 – “Be baptized in the Church”
1 – “Be baptized in water and the Holy Spirit”
1 – “Water baptism and Spirit communion”
1 – “Encased in a tomb of water and accepting the Holy Spirit”
1 – “The two words, water and Spirit, should be switched in their order because water means baptism”
1 – “John’s baptism”
1 – “Be pure and clean”
1 – “Have to have a soul”
1 – “Be washed in the blood”
3 – “Sins are washed away”
2 – “Experience the spiritual water of life”
1 – “Accepting His Word and the Holy Spirit”
2 – “Born physically from mother and then born spiritually by asking for forgiveness”
1 – “Born physically and then mentally giving your spirit over to God”
1 – “Amniotic fluid”
2 – “Water and Spirit speak of the creation of life”
8 – “I don’t know”
My response is for you to consider the foundational material in Ezekiel 36-37. The water speaks of the spiritual imagery of sprinkling for a complete cleansing (Ez. 36). And the Spirit is the only One that can bring new breath to the dry bones of your life (Ez. 37). But how will you embrace these Old Testament truths on being born again if you refuse to acknowledge your religious state presently as spiritually dead . . . . just a big pile of very dry, dry, dry bones. Do you think the Jews of Ezekiel’s day accepted the fact that God believed they had stony hearts that needed replaced with a brand new model?
Out of the limited number of LDS resources that I have consulted, one BYU professor does pick up on the theme of Ezekiel in John 3. It is Robert L. Millet. In past days, Sperry Symposium collected some articles for the book, The Testimony of John the Beloved (SLC: Deseret, 1998). Millet wrote an article, “The Ministry of the Holy Ghost.” His endnotes include an impressive list of evangelical sources: F.F. Bruce’s commentary on John, a book by Charles Stanley, The MacArthur Study Bible, Leon Morris’ commentary on John, and The New International Version Study Bible. I don’t know if this is how he would nuance his writings in 2007, but back then he wrote:
About the Trinity
The four Gospels are particularly straightforward in setting forth the true nature of God and the various labors of the members of the Godhead. Indeed, one has to become involved in a stretching series of doctrinal maneuvers to derive the concept of Trinity or of a triune God in the New Testament. The simplest reading of the text reveals the supremacy of God the Eternal Father, the divine Sonship of Jesus of Nazareth, and the mission of the Holy Ghost to make known the persons and will of the Father and the Son (emphasis mine, 168).
I wonder what is Millet’s interpretation of John 1:1, today, almost a decade later?
About the Light of Christ
Though there is but passing reference to the Light of Christ in the New Testament, the scriptures of the Restoration abound in detail, assisting us immeasurably to understand how and in what manner the Light of Christ lights every man and woman born into mortality. We come to know, first of all, that that light is a manifestation of the glory of God, a divine influence that fills the immensity of space, and the means whereby God, a corporeal being who can be in only one place at one time, is omnipresent. Elder Charles W. Penrose declared that “this spirit which pervades all things, which is the light and life of all things, by which our heavenly Father operates, by which He is omnipotent, never had a beginning and never will have an end. It is the light of truth; it is the spirit of intelligence” (emphasis mine, 169).
I knew we differed on the God described in John’s Gospel, but what about the new birth? How does this come about?
Millet writes (and he is the only LDS that I know who has picked up on these O.T. passages) in connection with John 3:5:
Jeremiah had spoken of a time when the Lord would again propose a covenant to his covenant people, when he would “put [his] law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts” (Jeremiah 31:31-34) and when Jehovah would truly be their God and Israel would be his people. Likewise, the Lord had spoken through Ezekiel: “Then will I 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 an heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:25-26).
These are tremendous words! But then two paragraphs later Millet teaches:
Jesus continued, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). The Christian world is largely divided over this matter of the new birth. A large segment of Christianity today believes that being born again consists of having a personal spiritual experience with Jesus. Another large segment of Christianity believes that being born again consists of receiving the sacraments (ordinances) of the church. And where are the Latter-day Saints? Where do we stand on this vital issue? Is it enough to receive the revelation that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ? Is it sufficient to receive the proper ordinances? The Prophet Joseph Smith stated simply but powerfully that “being born again, comes by the Spirit of God through ordinances.” Brother Joseph explained on another occasion that it is one thing to see the kingdom of God and another to enter into that kingdom. One must have “a change of heart” to see the kingdom; that is, he or she must be awakened spiritually to recognize that the fullness of salvation is to be had through acceptance of those principles and ordinances. Further, the Prophet taught, a person must “subscribe the articles of adoption”—the first principles and ordinances of the gospel—to enter into the kingdom. True conversion includes acting upon the revealed witness and submitting to those divine statues that make it possible for us to be born again and thereby adopted into the family of the Lord Jesus Christ (176).
So does the prophet Ezekiel in that particular chapter teach salvation is efficacious only as the Spirit works through external ordinances?
Here are five commentaries with interesting excerpts on John 3:5 that I recommend to you for your perusal:
- The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) by D.A. Carson
- The NIV Application Commentary on John (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000) by Gary M. Burge
- John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) by Colin G. Kruse
- The Gospel of John, Vol. 1 (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003) by Craig S. Keener
- John 1-11 (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2006) by John MacArthur
Keep studying the Word, friends.
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
The meaning of that scripture means to be baptized in water- to be immersed in the water and then to be baptized by the holy ghost- immersed in the holy ghost and then being able to speak with a new tongue.
I truly don’t understand why people get so philisophical about the subject, it is a pretty simple and plain teaching. In the Book of Mormon we read-
14 Now I say unto you that ye must repent, and be born again; for the Spirit saith if ye are not born again ye cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore come and be baptized unto repentance, that ye may be washed from your sins, that ye may have faith on the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, who is mighty to save and to cleanse from all unrighteousness.
(Book of Mormon | Alma 7:14)
Baptism is definatly what is spoken of in John 3:5. “Born” here means to put off the old and take on the new. When we are baptized we come up new out of the water- this resembles starting a new life in God.
Rob, I am just heading out the door to beautiful Swan Valley, but when you write, “The meaning of that scripture means to be baptized in water”, are you referring to Ezekiel 36 or John 3? And isn’t the imagery there sprinkling (KJV, Ezekiel 36) rather than immersion?
I am refering to John 3:5. The imagry from baptism in the New Testament is complete immersion.
So do Rob do you think that Jesus expected Nicodemus to understand the meaning of what He was saying in John 3:5 from the Old Testament?
Well, i do know that Jesus was referring to baptism by immersion. Before Christ’s ministry, baptism by immersion by proper authority was the norm.
Rob, you have brought into my discussion with you on your blog some verses (e.i. Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38) that the KJV translators themselves cross reference with John 3:5. I will try to explore these verses in further depth and post on this.
Concerning your last comment, I can see how your statement is established by LDS writings; but I can not see how the Old Testament establishes this. It was not baptism. Circumcision was the sign of a covenantal relationship. There is continuity but also discontinuity between the OT and NT.
Why then was John baptizing people in the river Jordan before Jesus came along teaching that doctrine? For that matter, why was Jesus baptized by immersion? I understand about circumcision, but Baptism was established in old testament times otherwise when John came along he would of started a completely new trend.
Rob, I don’t know what your view is of Elijah/Elias, I believe that John was the forerunner and messenger (Malachi 3:1) of a brand new era.