John 3:5

When teaching hermeneutics, I use this verse as a great example of how to find meaning from the inside out (local context to the greater context) and also as an example of how an unclear verse has been used dogmatically to support a harmful teaching (sacramental infant baptism). Since the phrase "born of water" is not used elsewhere by Jesus, or indeed anywhere else in the Scripture, it is not clear as to its meaning and cannot be made clear for any dogmatic purpose, though each individual is free to come to a personal clarity on its meaning.

The hermeneutics of coming to personal clarity should include a progression from local context, to parallel passages by the same speaker (in this case Christ) to parallel passages by the same author (in this case John). Next, but with less certainty, parallel passages from the rest of the NT, then the OT, and finally from non-biblical contemporary texts that use similar words and phrases can be consulted. Biblical alternatives from clear passages are thus rated as to certainty for this unclear passage, but never should be used to state that the original passage "must" mean what is discovered in these other passages.

So in order of certainty - "born of water" may mean, based on the local context: physical birth or spiritual birth (water of womb or και means "even); based on the parallel speaker or author context: spiritual or physical birth (John 7:38-39, 1John 5:6); based on larger NT or OT context: spiritual birth, John's Baptism (water of the word, repentance, 1Peter 1:23, Eph 5:26, Matt 3:11, Ezek 36:25-27). But "born of water" cannot mean Christian baptism, since Christian water baptism had not be instituted until the Great Commission was given, after Christ's death and resurrection. Nor can it mean infant baptism, since the NT teaching on baptism is clear concerning it as a post faith commitment experience. Even John's baptism was not offered to children.