MISINTERPRETED TEXTS.

NO. III.*

BY THE LATE REV. JOHN WILLIAMS, FORMERLY OF NEWPORT, MON. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."-John iii. 5.

66

THE commonly-received interpretation of the expression, "born of water," is that which takes it to mean, "born of baptism," although all those who adopt it are not of one mind as to the connection that subsists between baptism and regeneration. Those who hold the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, contend that our Lord in the text taught Nicodemus that baptism was necessary as the means or instrument of effecting regeneration. Bloomfield (Greek text) says, "As the mere natural life depends upon flesh and blood, so does the spiritual life depend upon the baptism by water and by the Spirit." John Wesley speaks of baptism as the outward sign and means of regeneration.' According to the Westminster Confession of Faith, "the efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, nothwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time." Is this doctrine taught by Christ in our text? If reason were permitted to say a word in this matter, I am sure it would declare that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, as taught by the Churches of Rome and of England, or by the Westminster Assembly, is too absurd Can anything be more contrary to reason than to suppose that the application of water, little or much, to the body by priestly hands is fitted to produce an inward spiritual change? It is a marvellous thing, if baptism is possessed of the amazing power and is attended by the extraordinary effects that are ascribed to it, that the multitudes of the baptized should be such an ungodly race !

to be true.

"But to the law and the testimony.' (1) The New Testament teaches very distinctly that God's means for regenerating man are the truths of His own glorious gospel; that is, in the case of all those who

are

capable of, and have the opportunity for, understanding and receiving those truths. How He deals with infants in regard to the change that must pass upon them to fit them for the kingdom of heaven, we cannot tell. No doubt He deals with them in a way (mysterious to us) that is adapted to their nature and constitution; and as baptism is no better adapted to work a spiritual change in them than the truth itself, we may be sure that whatever such a change involves that is necessary to fit the infant for heaven, God will bring that about without the one or the other. But in the case of rational, accountable men, regeneration is effected by means of the truth alone (John viii. 32; Rom. i. 16;

* See The Church, October, 1870.

1 Thess. ii. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 13; Jas. i. 18; 1 Pet. i. 23). This is no arbitrary appointment of Heaven, that man is to be regenerated by the truth, as the doctrine of baptismal regeneration makes regeneration by baptism to be. If man is regenerated by baptism, it cannot be because there is some fitness or adaptation in baptism to bring about so important a change, for it is patent to every man's common sense that the external application of water has no fitness whatever to work a saving change in the human heart; so that if God has appointed baptism to be the means of regenerationthe reason and wisdom of which are altogether hid from our eyes -He has in this case done, what He never did before, nor has done since. We see how suited and necessary the gospel is to the regeneration of sinful man. The change desiderated is that of the moral disposition, the natural bias of man's heart, which is estranged from God, and toward that which is evil, so that he shall become the subject of a new and God-ward bias. By what means but the truths of the gospel can that be effected? Man's moral inclinations can be influenced only through his intellectual nature,-the right movement of the heart towards God can be effected only by an intelligent reception of God's revelation concerning Himself in Christ Jesus. The apostle's statement, 'We love Him because He first loved us,' suggests the true philosophy of spiritual regeneration." (2) Ac cording to the New Testament, regeneration should precede baptism. Christ appointed that none be baptized but those who first of all are His disciples (Matt. xxviii. 19); and the apostles never baptized any but such as had made a credible profession of Christian discipleship. (3) Then, we know that there were persons regenerated without being baptized. It is a rather remarkable fact that we have no record of the baptism of Christ's immediate disciples! Christ pronounced the woman who had been a sinner, forgiven; and declared that her faith had saved her, though, most evident it is, that at the time she was not baptized (Luke vii. 47-50). Was not "the dying thief" regene rated without baptism? It may be replied, "Yes; but he could not be baptized." Most true-and that proves that baptism has nothing essential to do with regeneration.* Of Cornelius and his family we are informed that the most abundant evidence of their regeneration was given before, and as a condition of, their baptism (Acts x. 44-48, and xi. 1-18). With these facts before us, can we suppose for a moment that Christ meant to teach Nicodemus that unless he were born of water-baptism he could not enter into the kingdom of heaven? (4)

* "During our Lord's public ministry no form of baptism whatever was invariably connected with discipleship. If baptism had been invariably connected with discipleship, some traces of so important a rule must, one would think, have been discoverable in the Gospels; but no such traces exist. When the apostles were sent to preach that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, special powers were given them, and minute regulations were laid down as to their duties, but nothing was said of baptism. The same observations apply to the mission of the seventy."-The Discipleship of our Lord during the Personal Ministry, p. 10. By WILLIAM LEE, D.D.

It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of baptismal regeneration with Paul's teaching regarding his peculiar work as a preacher of the gospel (1 Cor. i. 14-17). How could Paul make such a statement as this, if men were to be regenerated by means of baptism? Mark you, he says that he had not baptized more than two or three of these Corinthians; yet in chapter xv. 1-4, he reminds them that the gospel, as preached by him, had been the means of their salvation; and in chapter iv. 15, he says, "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." Could language more clearly teach that these Christians at Corinth had not been regenerated by baptism? Then again Paul tells the Corinthians that Christ had sent him, not to baptize but to preach the gospel. That is to say, preaching the gospel was his peculiar work. Baptizing was a department of Christian labour to which others were to attend. Well, Paul's mission contemplated the regeneration of men? Most assuredly it did. Then baptism had nothing to do with regeneration, for Paul says he was sent not to baptize but to preach, etc. If it be true that regeneration is to take place by baptism, Paul must have been sent to baptize as well as preach the gospel. If he could convert sinners by the gospel without baptism, then our Lord did not teach Nicodemus that except he were regenerated by baptism he could not enter into the kingdom of God. (5) It did not consist with our Saviour's design to speak to Nicodemus of the necessity of water-baptism. He was insisting upon the necessity of a spiritual, not of a fleshly or physical change. But, if while setting forth the necessity of that inward change, which is never wrought but by the Holy Spirit, He had introduced the subject of water-baptism, and taught that there is no salvation without it, would not that have tended to foster in Nicodemus the impression, already too fondly cherished in his Jewish mind, that immense value is to be attached to outward ceremonial observances, and thereby, partially at least, defeat His own noble purpose?

Though Protestants generally repudiate the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, yet they hold that Christ in the text insists upon the necessity of baptism as a sign, symbol, or profession of regeneration by the Holy Spirit (see Alford and Barnes in loco). We have no doubt

as to the duty of all believers to be baptized. They who love Christ must keep His commandments. Any person who wilfully neglects any of Christ's commands through fear or shame, or love of ease or dread of self-denial, cannot be a Christian. That is the doctrine of God's word. But is that the doctrine of the text? We think not. (1) If by "water" Christ means baptism, He most decidedly teaches the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. He does not say, "Except a man be baptized, openly confess Me before men, he cannot enter in ;"—but except a man be born. OF WATER," etc. The new birth is to take place by means of water and the Spirit. By no fair exegesis can Christ be made to teach any other doctrine than that of baptismal regeneration-a doctrine we have already proved to be unscriptural-if by He means water-baptism. (2) To interpret the "water"

66

water ""

Ꮓ

to mean baptism, is to give to the rite a priority and importance which is nowhere else given it in the New Testament. It is monstrous to suppose that our Lord meant to teach Nicodemus that the sign was to take precedence of the thing signified-that confession by baptism was to go before the new birth by the Holy Spirit. (3) Christ makes no further mention of "water" in this conversation with Nicodemus, though twice He refers to the new birth as of the Spirit (vers. 6-8). Why omit all further reference to "water," if He meant to teach Nicodemus that he must be baptized in water as well as be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, if he would enter the kingdom? (4) It is a thought worthy of notice that Christ on no other occasion makes a similar use of baptism. He again and again preached the necessity of repentance-faith -holiness; but He neither baptized Himself, nor taught men that except they were baptized they could not be saved. If any one is disposed to remind us of Mark xvi. 16, we beg to inform him that by Eusebius and Jerome (the former of whom died in the year 340), it is stated expressly that in nearly all the trustworthy copies of their time the Gospel ended with the eighth verse. The paragraph (Mark xvi. 9-20) is not found in the Sinaitic or the Vatican MS., and Alford thinks the internal evidence very weighty against St. Mark's being the author of it. The words in ver. 16, consequently afford too precarious a basis on which to build an argument in support of the Popish or Campbellite dogma of salvation by baptism.

Some hold that Christ in our text insists upon the necessity of jus tification and regeneration. Dr. Guthrie understands Christ to say, Except you are washed in my blood, as well as renewed by my Spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" (see also Dr. Beith in Christ our Life). Wholesome words these! But is this meaning to be got out of Christ's saying to Nicodemus? The interpretation strikes us as very unnatural-not at all likely to suggest itself to one's mind. It is the necessity of regeneration alone that Christ is speaking about. A new but connected subject is introduced in ver. 14.

A third interpretation-and the one we adopt is, that which understands the text to allude to the one subject of regeneration by the Holy Spirit. It is not to two distinct agencies, but to one only, that reference is made in the term, "born of water and the Spirit." Water as a cleansing or purifying element is frequently used as an emblem of the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit (Ezek. xxxvi. 25; Eph. v. 26; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Tit. iii. 5). To be born of water is to be born of the Spirit, whose cleansing or renewing operation washing by water symbolizes. May not the phrase, "born of water and the Spirit," be taken to mean "born of Spiritual water"? Just as in 1 Thess. ii. 12, "kingdom and glory" seem to mean glorious kingdom; "and oxen and garlands," garlanded oxen? Remembering what John the Baptist said, "I indeed baptize with water," etc. (Matt. iii. 11), we see a peculiar force in Christ's words when thus rendered, "Except a man be born of spiritual water he cannot enter into the kingdom.' The literal water in which John baptized could effect no spiritual change in man's nature. It is

only by Spiritual water-or Spiritual influences, of which the literal water is a symbol-that man can be spiritually changed. But not to insist upon this interpretation, the phrase, born of water and the Spirit," may be rendered, "born of water, even of the Spirit." If Christ had used the figurative expression alone, "Except a man be born of water," etc., Nicodemus might have supposed that He referred to some outward ceremonial purification. To prevent such a mistake, Christ adds, "EVEN OF the Spirit," etc. He uses the figure, "born of water," doubtless to show that the Spirit, in operating upon men's souls, purifies and cleanses them from sin; but to guard against the supposition that He meant to teach that it was to be the result of some bodily or external Ritualistic operation, He adds, "Except a man be born of water, EVEN of the Spirit, he cannot enter," etc. That the conjunction here used (kal) will admit of this rendering will appear from a reference or two. Matt. xxi. 5: "Sitting upon an ass and a colt the foal of an ass,' does not mean that Jesus was sitting upon two beasts at the same time; but that He was sitting upon an ass, even, or that is, the colt, the foal of an ass. In 1 Cor. xv. 24, we read, "Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even" (κaì) “the Father," etc. And in Jas. i. 27, and iii. 9, we have the same term used in the sense of even. Our text therefore may be very properly read, "Except a man be born of water, even," or "that is, of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." This makes the passage clear and intelligible; and in perfect keeping with other Scriptures which refer to the agency by which the regeneration of the sinner is effected.

In conclusion, let us remark (1) How radical is the depravity of man's heart, when nothing but Divine power can thoroughly eradicate it! If sin were a mere outward or ceremonial defilement, baptism might remove it. But the disease is too deeply rooted to be washed away by any other bath or laver than that of the renewing of the Holy Spirit (Tit. iii. 5, 6*). (2) Nothing but a true spiritual change will admit us into the kingdom of God. (3) One thing is essential to that spiritual change-faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (John i. 12, 1 Thess. ii. 13).

Dunedin Otago, New Zealand.

13;

*It is probable that in the phrase, "washing" of regeneration, there is allusion to the bath or laver of cleansing which stood at the door of the tabernacle, wherein the priest had to wash before entering the holy place. The apostle's design is to teach that it is by a spiritual cleansing (symbolised by the priest's washing in the laver at the door of the tabernacle) that believers enter into the true tabernacle, or temple, of God. We read the passage thus, "By the washing of regeneration, even the renewing of the Holy Ghost."