Two births

I might more aptly have titled this “Two Generations,” but I didn’t want to imply I was talking about parents/children or genealogy, as such.

It isn’t my intent here to toe any party line (or even to rebel against one) around concepts like regeneration or being “born again” or baptism.  My interest in those things is strong (see footnote 1 for links to prior essays, if interested), and some of that may well be predicted here, but . . . this is intended simply to exegete a short John text within the complete document. 

I find that John 1:13 contrasts two senses of being generated or born.  This text appears (although it might not have been originally scripted  in this sequence) pre-Nicodemus, and long before any 16th- or 19th- or 20th/21st-century concepts, e.g., of being “born again.”

Here is the NASB95 rendering of verses 12-13 together:

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

And here is my attempt at a word-for-word, interlinear Greek-English rendering of the last part of the same verse:

who   not   out of     bloods
οἳ     οὐκ     ἐξ          αἱμάτων | haimaton — pl., think hematology, the study of blood

not    out of    will              of flesh
οὐδὲ   ἐκ         θελήματος   σαρκὸς | sarkoscf. sarcoma, a flesh-eating tumor

not    out of     will               of man
οὐδὲ   ἐκ        θελήματος     ἀνδρὸς | andros — think androgen, a male sex hormone

but    out of   God’s    generating
ἀλλ᾿   ἐκ        θεοῦ    ἐγεννήθησαν | egennethesan — see below

Although most English translations don’t render these thoughts in a way that shows the parallelism, the connections are there.  The word choices and syntax in this remarkable text are . . . well, remarkable.  So I am remarking!  🙂

The only bona fide verb in 1:13 is the final word.  It comes from γεννάω | gennaoto become the father of, to produce  (BAG Lexicon 1957).  Taking this range of meanings perhaps a step further in English, we might add to generate.  The aorist tense of this verb is not particularly significant; it indicates, relatively simply, that something was done in the past.  The “mood” of the verb is passive, and that aspect seems more significant here:  God is the active agent, and the human is simply the passive  recipient of God’s productive/fatherly action.

The NASB, the NIV, the ESV, and other English translations I glanced at have all opted to insert the idea of being born/birthed at the beginning of this verse.  This word-order inversion isn’t necessarily a bad idea if one is interested in the general import.  It does, however, obscure some of the specific beauty of this text, which contrasts two births/”begettings” and delays mention — with strong effect — of the supernatural one:

  1. the one that arises out of blood, out of flesh, and out of the sexual desire or will² of a male
  2. the one that arises out of God (the last four words in the original)

It appears to me that the idea of being begotten/produced is significant — both in the literary micro-context and in the book-level context of John.  A similar word (see footnote below) is used six times prior to v13.  Furthermore, these notions of being begotten/produced/birthed/generated appear first in v12, with a somewhat related idea in v13, followed by a repetition of the v12 idea in v14:

12 to them He gave the right to become ____,

13 those who have been begotten  by God

14 the word became  flesh

In the above verses, the words for “become” and “begotten” are not the same.  Please see footnote 3 below if interested in more detail here.  At the least, the verbs in vv 12 and 14 are the same, and they flank the important notion of being fathered/begotten by God.  This insight into generative origin may be just as theologically significant as the more-often-quoted, poeticized v14 in its entirety.

Via e-mail, Dr. Paul Pollard has made this observation about the micro-context of v12:  “. . . that for those who have received him (12a), and continue to believe in him (12c), they are entitled to become God’s children (12b).  Verse 13a then shows that becoming the children of God is not by appeal to family connections, or genealogy. . . .”  Exegetically derived points such as this are always, always helpful in our efforts to read the text — and to hear God — more thoroughly.

The word ἀλλ’ | all’  (the antecedent of “but” at the beginning of the last phrase in v13) is considered to set up a strong contrast with what has gone before.  There is another word that could have been used here, if the contrast weren’t so clear-cut, so emphatic.  What the text of John has is something like this (ignore the redundant English, if you please):  ” . . . but instead were begotten by God.”

The two kinds of begettings/births are distinct.  It is my hope that this little insight about God’s action in spiritual birth has brought someone closer to this great Father.  It has done that for me when I needed it today — to the point that I regret that I now need to do some work that I get paid to do.

Brian (1/9/15)

¹ Here are three links that refer to, and/or attempt to explicate, portions of the interaction between Jesus and Nicodemus:

That Christianese wasn’t original with John

Rebirth, as Jesus taught it

The misread part of John 3

² Here, some might choose the word “lust” for “will” or “desire” — but presumably not in a negative sense.  Immediately prior, “flesh” appears to be used without the later, negative Docetist or Pauline connotation — e.g., in Romans 7 and 8, where it is contrasted with the πνεῦμα | pneuma (spirit) nature.  It is significant that, in the next verse, Jesus is said to have become (ἐγένετο | egeneto)  flesh.  Neither flesh nor a man’s will appears to be cast negatively here.

³ The ice is getting thin, and my ear for similar sounds and potential Greek etymological connections has gotten me in trouble before, but the ideas of the ginomai and gennao word families seem related.  In other words, to become (a being verb) seems possibly connected to the original begetting, which endowed them with the right to become/be in the first place.  I am becoming damp here and may soon be “all wet” — and not just for mixing English ice/water metaphors.  🙂  The abridged Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the NT gives this gloss for ginomai (vv 12 and 14):  “to be born” (adding very little other than the mention of John 8:58 — ” . . . before Abraham was born, I am“), where both the contrast and connection again appear).  Kittel’s gloss for gennao (v13) is “to bear, beget.”  Moreover, in Warren Trenchard’s Complete Vocabulary Guide to the Greek New Testament, these two words are shown in the same “cognate word group.”  Essentially, I would suggest that, though the two verbs may be as distinct as the two births I’m attempting to delineate, the verb-concepts are at least syntactically related in John.


6 thoughts on “Two births

  1. John Eoff 01/22/2015 / 6:54 am

    Brian, I’m personally glad that you chose to be remarking. Excellent thoughts. These ideas are certainly compatible with Jesus’ words to Nicodemus that things born of flesh (animals) are themselves flesh, while things born of spirit are spirit (God’s substance). Neither one is also the other. Their substance is difference.


    • Brian Casey 01/22/2015 / 6:58 am

      Thanks, John. I too had a strong suspicion that John 3 birth from above is related, to some degree, to the birth of John 1:12-13. But, as you say, neither one is the other, exactly!


  2. Paul Pollard 01/22/2015 / 8:15 pm

    Hi Brian, Thanks for your good work displayed again in your blog. Sorry I have not gotten back sooner or responded more in depth. I am in the last stages of finishing my commentary on Romans and have been working day and night to meet some deadlines. Also, I am trying to juggle that with getting some lectures ready to present in Melbourne, Aus early in March. I appreciate your work and hopefully I can be more engaged in the near future. In the meantime, all the best. Paul

    On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:01 AM, NT Christianity wrote:

    > Brian Casey posted: “I might more aptly have titled this “Two > Generations,” but I didn’t want to imply I was talking about > parents/children or genealogy, as such. It isn’t my intent here to tow any > party line (or even to rebel against one) around concepts like > regeneration”


    • Brian Casey 01/23/2015 / 8:31 am

      Paul, your input here was and is much appreciated. I’ll work on my one verse at a time, and you work on the whole Romans. The balance of work seems about right, given our respective abilities — maybe I won’t mess up too much with bite-sized texts. 🙂 I have fixed typos/mistakes and have clarified a sentence or two since you saw this; the only substantive addition is my footnote mention of Trenchard’s Complete Vocabulary Guide about γίνομαι and γεννάω — he shows the two, among about 30 others, in a cognate word group. If you ever want to say anything about the validity or invalidity of similarities of such “word groups,” I’m all ears, but in the meantime, may God give you words and wisdom and time and energy as you work on your projects.


  3. John Eoff 01/25/2015 / 9:37 am

    Bryan, I did not receive any reference to a reply to my reply of 1/22/15, but searching your blog I did find that you had made a reply. As I understand you perceive of a difference between the two births of John 1and John 3. Are you saying those passages are not referring to the same thing or only that being born of flesh is not the same as being born of Spirit? (perhaps I checked the wrong square in requesting notice of new comments via email).


    • Brian Casey 01/25/2015 / 2:42 pm

      Hey, John. I see that I misread your first reply — sorry about that. I do suspect that the birth and “generating” of John 1 predict the “born (again) from above” of John 3, but I was basically trying to be careful by not saying too much. I’m not sure we could say with certainty that there is a one-to-one correspondence between 1:12-13 and 3:3-5, but the text as a whole suggests to me that the same basic “birth” is being discussed. My main point in the original blog was that, in John 1:12ff, 1) birth by the will and physicality of man are being strongly contrasted with 2) birth and begetting of God. But the second of those (and, again by contrast, the first, too!) does seem pretty likely and clearly related to the birth discussed in John 3.


Please share your thoughts. I read every comment.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s