John 1:13-
Forum category
Thread to discuss this important text. John 1:12-13
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
12 οσοι δε ελαβον αυτον εδωκεν αυτοις εξουσιαν τεκνα θεου γενεσθαι τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονομα αυτου 13 οι ουκ εξ αιματων ουδε εκ θεληματος σαρκος ουδε εκ θεληματος ανδρος αλλ εκ θεου εγεννηθησανhttp://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Joh&chapter=1&verse=13] NET Bible
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=1&v=13&t=KJV#conc/13] Blue Letter Bible
Starting questions:
- What is meant by “who were born” (“born” - γεννάω - Aorist Passive Indicative)
- What is meant by “who were born, not of blood” (Note that “blood” - αἷμα - is genitive plural neuter)
- What is the significance, if any, of blood being in the plural?
- By: “nor of the will of the flesh” (“flesh” - σάρξ - genitive singular feminine)
- By: “nor of the will of man” (“man” - ἀνήρ - genitive singular masculine / note: not the generic word for “man” - ἄνθρωπος - as in John 1:9
- By: “but of God”
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
#1. Points to the “Elect”
#2. Makes clear that this is speaks to something more than the promises made to Abram. IE being WHO you are don’t matter.
#3. No idea unless it points to the blood of Jesus making all men clean.
#4 Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
#5 Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. `
#6 See above
#1. Points to the “Elect”
#2. Makes clear that this is speaks to something more than the promises made to Abram. IE being WHO you are don’t matter.
#3. No idea unless it points to the blood of Jesus making all men clean.
#4 Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
#5 Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. `
#6 See above
Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures. (James 1:18)Although not the same verb:
James: ἀποκυέω = to bring forth from the womb, to give birth / Aorist Active Indicative
[Jack Hampton] A sinner’s new birth is a result of believing the gospel, and believing is not a function of one’s will. In the natural sphere a man knows that five plus five equals ten. He cannot “will” himself to believe that five plus five equals nine or eleven or anything other than ten. A man cannot “will” himself to believe something that the evidence tells him is not true. It is impossible, and that is because a person’s beliefs are based on “evidence” and not based on his “will”What kind of “evidence” do you believe is required upon which to base one’s beliefs? Thomas was told by the other disciples that Christ has risen, but he was unwilling to believe until he had the evidence of being able to touch the wounds. In John 20:24 he said “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”
After Thomas touched the wounds, Jesus told him in John 20:29 “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
So it seems, first of all, that Thomas’ will was involved in his belief, and secondly, that we are blessed if we believe without evidence. (notice i said “it seems,” since I realize I could be missing something.)
1 Peter 1:3, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again 1 to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead”
1 Peter 1:23, “having been born again 2, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever”
Both verbs = ἀναγεννάω
1 Peter 1:23, “having been born again 2, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever”
Both verbs = ἀναγεννάω
- Aorist Active Participle
- Present Passive ParticipleComments:
- I briefly comment on 1 Peter 1:3, http://4bya.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/tested-by-fire/ here (see page 3 of notes)
- And on 1 Peter 1:23, http://4bya.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/love-one-another-fervently-with-a-… here (see page 8 of notes)
- I briefly comment on 1 Peter 1:3, http://4bya.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/tested-by-fire/ here (see page 3 of notes)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34.vii.ii.html
Who were born not of blood. Some think that an indirect reference is here made to the preposterous confidence of the Jews, and I willingly adopt that opinion. They had continually in their mouth the nobleness of their lineage, as if, because they were descended from a holy stock, they were naturally holy. And justly might they have gloried in their descent from Abraham, if they had been lawful sons, and not bastards; but the glowing of faith ascribes nothing whatever to carnal generation, but acknowledges its obligation to the grace of God alone for all that is good. John, therefore, says, that those among the formerly unclean Gentiles who believe in Christ are not born the sons of God from the womb, but are renewed by God, that they may begin to be his sons. The reason why he uses the word blood in the plural number appears to have been, that he might express more fully a long succession of lineage; for this was a part of the boasting among the Jews, that they could trace their descent, by an uninterrupted line, upwards to the patriarchs.
The will of the flesh and the will of man appear to me to mean the same thing; for I see no reason why flesh should be supposed to signify woman, as Augustine and many others explain it. On the contrary, the Evangelist repeats the same thing in a variety of words, in order to explain it more fully, and impress it more deeply on the minds of men. Though he refers directly to the Jews, who gloried in the flesh, yet from this passage a general doctrine may be obtained: that our being reckoned the sons of God does not belong to our nature, and does not proceed from us, but because God begat us willingly, (James 1:18,) that is, from undeserved love. Hence it follows, first, that faith does not proceed from ourselves, but is the fruit of spiritual regeneration; for the Evangelist affirms that no man can believe, unless he be begotten of God; and therefore faith is a heavenly gift. It follows, secondly, that faith is not bare or cold knowledge, since no man can believe who has not been renewed by the Spirit of God.
It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later. I reply, that both statements perfectly agree; because by faith we receive the incorruptible seed, (1 Peter 1:23,) by which we are born again to a new and divine life. And yet faith itself is a work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in none but the children of God. So then, in various respects, faith is a part of our regeneration, and an entrance into the kingdom of God, that he may reckon us among his children. The illumination of our minds by the Holy Spirit belongs to our renewal, and thus faith flows from regeneration as from its source; but since it is by the same faith that we receive Christ, who sanctifies us by his Spirit, on that account it is said to be the beginning of our adoption.
Another solution, still more plain and easy, may be offered; for when the Lord breathes faith into us, he regenerates us by some method that is hidden and unknown to us; but after we have received faith, we perceive, by a lively feeling of conscience, not only the grace of adoption, but also newness of life and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit. For since faith, as we have said, receives Christ, it puts us in possession, so to speak, of all his blessings. Thus so far as respects our sense, it is only after having believed — that we begin to be the sons of God. But if the inheritance of eternal life is the fruit of adoption, we see how the Evangelist ascribes the whole of our salvation to the grace of Christ alone; and, indeed, how closely soever men examine themselves, they will find nothing that is worthy of the children of God, except what Christ has bestowed on them.
Jim, thanks for your Calvin quote. I think it sheds light on a misunderstood controversy. People are using different definitions of regeneration, or referring to different aspects of our renewal by the word “regeneration,” so that Calvin can say that the whole regeneration is in a sense partly cause and partly effect of faith.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Jack, you really need to understand how Calvin comes about on different teachings, especially if you start comparing his commentaries to the Institutes. The are quite a few legitimate reasons there are discrepancies, and the first is the most obvious, he was human and capable of error.
Also, there were fairly large time gaps between his books. Institutes was published in Latin in 1536 while his commentary set started in 1540-1557+. So, allow the man to change his positions a little bit within 21+ years.
As well, his commentary set and Institutes are written different. The former is much more a Biblical Theology while the latter is more systematic. Naturally, this would make Institutes more cohesive when compared to itself as opposed to his commentary set which would be less. However, I don’t think this makes his commentaries any less accurate, and actually, it might make them more accurate because instead of attempting to systematize all passages with all passages, he is attempting to interpret primarily within a passage’s actual context.
I say all that to say 1) he may be wrong in one of the places 2) you may be seeing a change in position or 3) you are probably seeing a result of Biblical Theology rather than Systematic. If #3 is the case, then perhaps instead of pitting the two against each other, it might be wise to come to the same conclusion as he did.
To Jim’s questions, I think Calvin said it quite well. I would ask, though, could bloods be referring to sacrifices?
Also, there were fairly large time gaps between his books. Institutes was published in Latin in 1536 while his commentary set started in 1540-1557+. So, allow the man to change his positions a little bit within 21+ years.
As well, his commentary set and Institutes are written different. The former is much more a Biblical Theology while the latter is more systematic. Naturally, this would make Institutes more cohesive when compared to itself as opposed to his commentary set which would be less. However, I don’t think this makes his commentaries any less accurate, and actually, it might make them more accurate because instead of attempting to systematize all passages with all passages, he is attempting to interpret primarily within a passage’s actual context.
I say all that to say 1) he may be wrong in one of the places 2) you may be seeing a change in position or 3) you are probably seeing a result of Biblical Theology rather than Systematic. If #3 is the case, then perhaps instead of pitting the two against each other, it might be wise to come to the same conclusion as he did.
To Jim’s questions, I think Calvin said it quite well. I would ask, though, could bloods be referring to sacrifices?
Discussion