The Greek word "loutron" appears twice in the NT.
"bathing, bath, that act of bathing" James Strong, The Exaustive Concordance of the Bible.
Eph 5:26 "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the laver of water by the word,"
Titus 3:5 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"
The above are two "born again" verses along with Jn 3:5, 1 Cor 12:13 etc.
Jn 3:5-------------Spirit++++++++++++++++water>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the kingdom
1Cor12:13-------Spirit++++++++++++++++baptized>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the body
Tts 3:5---------Holy Spirit++++++++++laver of regeneration>>>>>>>>saved
Eph5:26--------the word++++++++++++++laver of water>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cleasned
In both Eph 5:26 and Titus 3:5 Paul is saying God saves us in a bath, a laver of water where regeneration/new birth takes place.
Coffman Comemntary:
The use of the term laver is very fortunate, because the primary meaning of it, in context, is the baptistery, standing in a figure (metonymy) for baptism, for which alone a baptistery is used, and adequately translated as "washing." But please note the significance of this. It is a thundering, emphatic denial of the nonsense that "The washing referred to is wholly spiritual."[13] Is a baptistery needed for that?
But isn't baptism only a symbol? This has been shouted so loudly and so frequently and for so long that many believe it; but it is untrue. Lenski sets the matter straight. Commenting on the affirmation that "Man submits to baptism after the new birth to picture it forth to men," he has this:
[(16) RCH Lenski
From here on as time permits, I will be quoting from various commentaries (even from those that deny the bible's teachings on the necessity of water baptism) on what "laver of water" of Eph 5:26 and "laver of regeneration" of Titus 3:5 means.
A.T. Robertson:
loutron see note on Ephesians 5:26, here as there the laver or the bath. Probably in both cases there is a reference to baptism, but, as in Romans 6:3-6, the immersion is the picture or the symbol of the new birth, not the means of securing it.
Robertson admits both EPh 5:26 and Titus 3:5 references baptism, immersion. But to avoid the necessity of water baptism Robertson then alludes to Rom 6:3-6 claiming this passage shows baptism is a picture/symbol of the new birth not how the new birth is secured.
1) nowhere in Rom 6 does Paul say baptism is just a symbol of the new birth and nothing more.
2) In Tts 3:5 Paul says God "saved us". How? By water baptism (Robertson admits) and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Paul clearly points out the securing of salvation in the new birth (paliggenesia), in a laver of regeneration.
"bathing, bath, that act of bathing" James Strong, The Exaustive Concordance of the Bible.
Eph 5:26 "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the laver of water by the word,"
Titus 3:5 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"
The above are two "born again" verses along with Jn 3:5, 1 Cor 12:13 etc.
Jn 3:5-------------Spirit++++++++++++++++water>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the kingdom
1Cor12:13-------Spirit++++++++++++++++baptized>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the body
Tts 3:5---------Holy Spirit++++++++++laver of regeneration>>>>>>>>saved
Eph5:26--------the word++++++++++++++laver of water>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cleasned
In both Eph 5:26 and Titus 3:5 Paul is saying God saves us in a bath, a laver of water where regeneration/new birth takes place.
Coffman Comemntary:
The use of the term laver is very fortunate, because the primary meaning of it, in context, is the baptistery, standing in a figure (metonymy) for baptism, for which alone a baptistery is used, and adequately translated as "washing." But please note the significance of this. It is a thundering, emphatic denial of the nonsense that "The washing referred to is wholly spiritual."[13] Is a baptistery needed for that?
But isn't baptism only a symbol? This has been shouted so loudly and so frequently and for so long that many believe it; but it is untrue. Lenski sets the matter straight. Commenting on the affirmation that "Man submits to baptism after the new birth to picture it forth to men," he has this:
Paul excludes this idea in a double way. "God saves us by means of the bath, etc. - this is the bath of regeneration. How can anyone think Paul would say, "God saved us by means of a picture of regeneration? Compare Jesus' own words in John 3:5.[16]
[(13) William Hendrickson, NT Commentary, Titus.][(16) RCH Lenski
From here on as time permits, I will be quoting from various commentaries (even from those that deny the bible's teachings on the necessity of water baptism) on what "laver of water" of Eph 5:26 and "laver of regeneration" of Titus 3:5 means.
A.T. Robertson:
loutron see note on Ephesians 5:26, here as there the laver or the bath. Probably in both cases there is a reference to baptism, but, as in Romans 6:3-6, the immersion is the picture or the symbol of the new birth, not the means of securing it.
Robertson admits both EPh 5:26 and Titus 3:5 references baptism, immersion. But to avoid the necessity of water baptism Robertson then alludes to Rom 6:3-6 claiming this passage shows baptism is a picture/symbol of the new birth not how the new birth is secured.
1) nowhere in Rom 6 does Paul say baptism is just a symbol of the new birth and nothing more.
2) In Tts 3:5 Paul says God "saved us". How? By water baptism (Robertson admits) and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Paul clearly points out the securing of salvation in the new birth (paliggenesia), in a laver of regeneration.
- 1
- Show all