Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
13. S. John denies thrice most emphatically that human generation has anything to do with Divine regeneration. Man cannot become a child of God in right of human parentage: descent from Abraham confers no such ‘power.’ A bitter word to Jewish exclusiveness.
were born ] Literally, were begotten. Comp. 1Jn 5:1 ; 1Jn 5:4; 1Jn 5:18.
not of blood ] The blood was regarded as the seat of physical life. Gen 9:4; Lev 17:11; Lev 17:14, &c.
nor of the will of the flesh ] Better, nor yet from will of flesh, i.e. from any fleshly impulse. A second denial of any physical process.
nor of the will of man ] Better, nor yet from will of man, i.e. from the volition of any earthly father: it is the Heavenly Father who wills it. A third denial of any physical process.
There is an interesting false reading here. Tertullian (c. a.d. 200) had ‘ was born’ for ‘ were born,’ making it refer to Christ; and he accused the Valentinians of corrupting the text in reading ‘ were born,’ which is undoubtedly right. This shews that as early as a.d. 200 there were corruptions in the text, the origin of which was already lost. Such things take some time to grow: by comparing them and tracing their roots and branches we arrive at a sure conclusion that this Gospel cannot have been written later than a.d. 85 100. See on Joh 1:18 and Joh 9:35.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Which were born – This doubtless refers to the new birth, or to the great change in the sinners mind called regeneration or conversion. It means that they did not become the children of God in virtue of their natural birth, or because they were the children of Jews, or because they were descended from pious parents. The term to be born is often used to denote this change. Compare Joh 3:3-8; 1Jo 2:29. It illustrates clearly and beautifully this great change. The natural birth introduces us to life. The new birth is the beginning of spiritual life. Before, the sinner is dead in sins Eph 2:1; now he begins truly to live. And as the natural birth is the beginning of life, so to be born of God is to be introduced to real life, to light, to happiness, and to the favor of God. The term expresses at once the greatness and the nature of the change.
Not of blood – The Greek word is plural; not of bloods – that is, not of man. Compare Mat 27:4. The Jews prided themselves on being the descendants of Abraham, Mat 3:9. They supposed that it was proof of the favor of God to be descended from such an illustrious ancestry. In this passage this notion is corrected. It is not because men are descended from an illustrious or pious parentage that they are entitled to the favor of God; or perhaps the meaning may be, not because there is a union of illustrious lines of ancestry or bloods in them. The law of Christs kingdom is different from what the Jews supposed. Compare 1Pe 1:23. It was necessary to be born of God by regeneration. Possibly, however, it may mean that they did not become children of God by the bloody rite of circumcision, as many of the Jews supposed they did. This is agreeable to the declaration of Paul in Rom 2:28-29.Nor of the will of the flesh – Not by natural generation.
Nor of the will of man – This may refer, perhaps, to the will of man in adopting a child, as the former phrases do to the natural birth; and the design of using these three phrases may have been to say that they became the children of God neither in virtue of their descent from illustrious parents like Abraham, nor by their natural birth, nor by being adopted by a pious man. None of the ways by which we become entitled to the privileges of children among people can give us a title to be called the sons of God. It is not by human power or agency that men become children of the Most High.
But of God – That is, God produces the change, and confers the privilege of being cawed his children. The heart is changed by his power. No unaided effort of man, no works of ours, can produce this change. At the same time, it is true that no man is renewed who does not himself desire and will to be a believer; for the effect of the change is on his will Psa 110:3, and no one is changed who does not strive to enter in at the strait gate, Phi 2:12. This important verse, therefore, teaches us:
1.That if men are saved they must be born again.
2.That their salvation is not the result of their birth, or of any honorable or pious parentage.
3.That the children of the rich and the noble, as well as of the poor, must be born of God if they will be saved.
4.That the children of pious parents must be born again; or they cannot be saved. None will go to heaven simply because their parents are Christians.
5.That this work is the work of God, and no man can do it for us.
6.That we should forsake all human dependence, east off all confidence in the flesh, and go at once to the throne of grace, and beseech of God to adopt us into his family and save our souls from death.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 13. Which were born, not of blood] Who were regenerated, , not of bloods-the union of father and mother, or of a distinguished or illustrious ancestry; for the Hebrew language makes use of the plural to point out the dignity or excellence of a thing: and probably by this the evangelist intended to show his countrymen, that having Abraham and Sarah for their parents would not entitle them to the blessings of the new covenant; as no man could lay claim to them, but in consequence of being born of God; therefore, neither the will of the flesh-any thing that the corrupt heart of man could purpose or determine in its own behalf; nor the will of man-any thing that another may be disposed to do in our behalf, can avail here; this new birth must come through the will of God-through; his own unlimited power and boundless mercy, prescribing salvation by Christ Jesus alone. It has been already observed that the Jews required circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice, in order to make a proselyte. They allow that the Israelites had in Egypt cast off circumcision, and were consequently out of the covenant; but at length they were circumcised, and they mingled the blood of circumcision with the blood of the paschal lamb, and from this union of bloods they were again made the children of God. See Lightfoot. This was the only way by which the Jews could be made the sons of God; but the evangelist shows them that, under the Gospel dispensation, no person could become a child of God, but by being spiritually regenerated.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Which were born, not of blood; not of the blood of men and women; or, not of the blood of Abraham (which was the boast of the Jews, We have Abraham to our Father).
Nor of the will of the flesh; nor from the lusts of the flesh.
Nor of the will of man; nor from a power in mans will, or mens free act in adopting other mens children. To be born, signifieth to receive our principle of life: those who are the children of God hard not the principle of their life, as they are such, from the motions of nature, nor from the will of men.
But of God: whatever be the sense of the former words, these words plainly affirm God to be the principal efficient, and procreant cause, of all those who are the sons of God; for faith, by which we are the children of God, Gal 3:26, is the work of God, Joh 6:29, his gift, Phi 1:29; and men are born again, not of corruptible seed, but of that which is incorruptible, 1Pe 1:23; they are sanctified and cleansed with the washing of water by the word, Eph 5:26; the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, Tit 3:5.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
13. Which were borna sonshiptherefore not of mere title and privilege, but of nature, thesoul being made conscious of the vital capacities, perceptions, andemotions of a child of God, before unknown.
not of blood, &c.notof superior human descent, not of human generation at all, not of manin any manner of way. By this elaborate threefold denial of the humansource of this sonship, immense force is given to what follows,
but of GodRight royalgift, and He who confers must be absolutely divine. For who would notworship Him who can bring him into the family, and evoke within himthe very life, of the sons of God?
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Which were born not of blood,…. Or bloods, in the plural number. The birth, here spoken of, is regeneration, expressed by a being born again, or from above; by a being quickened by the Spirit and grace of God; by Christ being formed in men; and by a partaking of the divine nature; and by being made new creatures, as all that believe in the name of Christ are; and which is the evidence of their being the sons of God: and now this is owing not to blood, or bloods; not to the blood of circumcision; or of the passover, which the Jews had an high opinion of, and ascribe life and salvation to, and to which notion this may be opposed: so their commentators f on Eze 16:6 where the word “live” is twice used, observe on the first “live”, by the blood of the passover, on the second “live”, by the blood of circumcision; but, alas! these contribute nothing to the life of the new creature: nor is regeneration owing to the blood of ancestors, to natural descent, as from Abraham, which the Jews valued themselves upon; for sin, and not grace, is conveyed by natural generation: all men are of one blood, and that is tainted with sin, and therefore can never have any influence on regeneration; no blood is to be valued, or any one upon it, but the blood of Christ, which cleanses from all sin.
Nor of the will of the flesh; man’s free will, which is carnal and corrupt, is enmity to God, and impotent to every thing that is spiritually good: regeneration is ascribed to another will and power, even to the will and power of God, and denied of this:
nor of the will of man: of the best of men, as Abraham, David, and others; who, though ever so willing and desirous, that their children, relations, friends, and servants, should be born again, be partakers of the grace of God, and live in his sight, yet cannot effect any thing of this kind: all that they can do is to pray for them, give advice, and bring them under the means of grace; but all is ineffectual without a divine energy. So with the Jews, , “a man”, signifies a great man, in opposition to “Adam”, or “Enosh”, which signify a mean, weak, frail man; and our translators have observed this distinction, in Isa 2:9 and the mean man (Adam) boweth down, and the great man (Ish) “humbleth himself”: on which Jarchi has this note, “Adam boweth down”, i.e. little men; “and a man humbleth himself”, i.e. princes, and mighty men, men of power: and so Kimchi on Ps 4:2. “O ye sons of men”, observes, that the Psalmist calls them the sons of men, with respect to the great men of Israel; for there were with Absalom the sons of great men. Though sometimes the Jews say g, Adam is greater than any of the names of men, as Geber, Enosh, Ish. But now our evangelist observes, let a man be ever so great, or good, or eminent, for gifts and grace, he cannot communicate grace to another, or to whom he will; none are born again of any such will:
but of God; of God, the Father of Christ, who begets to a lively hope; and of the Son, who quickens whom he will; and of the grace of the Spirit, to whom regeneration is generally ascribed.
f Jarchi & Kimchi in loc. Shemot Rabba, sect. 19. fol. 103. 2. & 104. 4. & Mattanot Cehuna in Vajikra Rabba, sect. 23. fol. 164. 2. Zohar in Lev. fol. 39. 2. g Zohar in Lev. fol. 20. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Which were born ( ). First aorist passive indicative of , to beget, “who were begotten.” By spiritual generation (of God, ), not by physical ( , plural as common in classics and O.T., though why it is not clear unless blood of both father and mother; , from sexual desire; , from the will of the male). But b of the old Latin reads qui natus est and makes it refer to Christ and so expressly teach the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Likewise Irenaeus reads qui natus est as does Tertullian who argues that qui nati sunt ( ) is an invention of the Valentinian Gnostics. Blass (Philology of the Gospels, p. 234) opposes this reading, but all the old Greek uncials read and it must be accepted. The Virgin Birth is doubtless implied in verse 14, but it is not stated in verse 13.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “Which were born, not of blood,” (hoi ouk eks haimaton) “Who not of (out of bloods)” blood lines, of Jews or Gentiles, not of human family blood lines of earthly nobility. The power to become sons or children of God is not inherited by family lineage, as the Jews seemed to assume, when they declared “we be Abraham’s children,” or seed of Abraham, etc., Joh 8:33; Joh 8:39.
2) “Nor of the will of the flesh,” (oude ek thelematos sarkos) “Nor out of ((originating from the will of flesh)” What man is by natural birth, from the source of a fleshly, depraved will. What one is by natural birth, no matter how illustrious ones family pedigree, or who his fleshly ancestors were, does not add one whit to his becoming a child of God, Tit 3:5; Rom 14:11-12.
3) “Nor of the will of man,” (oude ouk thelematos andros) “Nor out of (originating from) the strong will of mature man,” a male person of responsible age. In the spiritual, as well as the natural birth, the origination of will is from without the one begotten. Nothing is spiritual into which the will of God does not first enter. God wills man’s salvation universally and personally and convicts man’s soul to a conscious guilt, and shame, and fear of sin and judgement and enables him to repent and believe on His Son Jesus Christ, Joh 7:17; Eph 2:8-9.
4) “But of God.” (all’ ek theou egennethesan) ”But (in contrast) out of or originating from God they were born,” from above, Joh 3:7; Born, quickened to spiritual life, or begotten of God, of a spiritual begetting, as of a Divine origin of begettal, 1Jn 5:1; Joh 6:63; 2Co 3:6.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(13) Which were born.The result of receiving Him remains to be explained. How could they become sons of God? The word which has been used (Joh. 1:12) excludes the idea of adoption, and asserts the natural relation of child to father. The nation claimed this through its descent from Abraham. But they are Abrahams children who are of Abrahams faith. There is a higher generation, which is spiritual, while they thought only of the lower, which is physical. The condition is the submissive receptivity of the human spirit. The origin of life is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
13. Which were born Though the term regeneration but seldom appears in Scripture, yet the terms which variously express it are abundant.
Not of blood As the blood of the parent flows into the veins of the offspring.
Nor of the will of the flesh Nor from the carnal impulse of sensual nature.
Nor of the will of man Though the will of man be a previous condition upon which God regenerates, the will of man does not regenerate either another man or himself. Self-regeneration is an impossibility in fact and an absurdity in thought. Man consents, and God regenerates. Man repents, and God forgives. Man turns, and God converts. Man believes, and God justifies. But antecedent to either or all of these operations the divine Logos ENLIGHTENS every man, (Joh 1:9,) both by his own truth and power and by his Holy Spirit sent into the heart.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Who were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.’
John now stresses that men can only become genuinely ‘children of God’ in a spiritual sense when they have had a ‘new birth’. When they have received new life from God. So he is again stressing the distinction between the whole of humanity, who view themselves as children of God in a general sense (Act 17:28), and believers in Jesus who are children of God in a unique sense through being ‘born of the Spirit’ (Joh 3:6). This is revealed as the purpose for which the Word has come, to bring men to God and give them the life of the Spirit. ‘In Him was life, and the life was the light of men’ (Joh 1:4).
John is careful to make his meaning clear. ‘It is not of bloods’. This spiritual birth has no connection with natural birth. It does not refer to normal birth, when there is plenty of blood, taking the plural as intensive. Alternately this may be saying that being born a Jew, or a Roman, or a Greek (each considered themselves special) did not bring this privilege, for it was ‘not of bloods’, the plural here expressing the multiplicity of sources.
‘Nor of the will of the flesh.’ This could signify that it was not a birth that resulted from men exercising their will to follow God’s commandments (e.g. the Torah), or to become members of a special community (even the Christian community), for it was not of the will of the flesh. (We should note that in John ‘the flesh’ is not essentially speaking of what is weak or evil. It is rather speaking of humanness. ‘The Word was made flesh’). Alternatively it may have in mind the natural desires of the flesh which resulted in procreation, or the desire for an heir, something which was not to be seen as producing ‘children of God’ in any spiritual sense.
‘Nor of the will of man.’ This new birth was not something that could be bestowed by any man, whoever he was, whether John the Baptiser, or a priest, or the Pharisees, or any other. It was not ‘of the will of man’, or under the control of men. This may include the idea that it is not the result of the decision of a human father to have children, but the primary reference is to exclude all human activity. Thus it excludes anything that man does which can be thought of in terms of ‘birth’ in any way, whether religious or otherwise. It even excludes baptism carried out simply as a rite. The important lesson is that man has nothing to do with this birth whatsoever. It is something which is between God and the individual alone.
‘But of God.’ That is the essence of it. They are ‘born of God’. It is the result of a direct person-to-God relationship. And by it they leave ‘the world’ and become His, and become members of His own risen body. They become His chosen ones.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 1:13. Which were born, not of blood, They who thus believed on him, became possessed of this privilege; not in consequence of their being born of blood, or of their being descended from the loinsof the holy patriarchs, or sharing in circumcision and the blood of the sacrifices; nor could they ascribe it to the will of the flesh, or to their own superior wisdom and goodness; as if by the power of corrupted nature they had made themselves to differ; nor to the will of man, or to the wisest advice and most powerful exhortations which their fellow-creatures might address to them; but must humbly acknowledge that they were born of God; and indebted to the efficacious influences of his unmerited and regenerating grace for all their privileges, and for all their hopes. Compare Joh 3:1-8 and Tit 3:3-7. This is a very important and edifying sense of the present passage, which is very difficult, and has been variously translated and understood.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 1:13 . ] refers to (the masculine in the well-known constructio , 2Jn 1:1 , Phm 1:10 , Gal 4:19 ; comp. Eurip. Suppl . 12, Androm . 571), not to , because the latter, according to Joh 1:12 , are said to become God’s children, so that would not be appropriate. The conception “ children of God ” is more precisely defined as denoting those who came into existence not after the manner of natural human generation, but who were begotten of God. The negative statement exhibits them as those in whose coming into existence human generation (and consequently also Abrahamic descent) has no part whatever. This latter brings about no divine sonship, Joh 3:6 .
] not of blood , the blood being regarded as the seat and basis of the physical life (comp. on Act 15:20 ), which is transmitted by generation. [88] Comp. Act 17:26 ; Hom. Il . vi. 211, xx. 241; Soph. Aj . 1284, El . 1114; Plato, Soph . p. 268 D; Liv. 38, 28. Kypke and Loesner on the passage, Interpp. ad Virg. Aen . vi. 836; Horace, Od . ii. 20. 6; Tib. i. 6. 66. The plural is not to be explained of the commingling of the two sexes (“ex sanguinibus enim homines nascuntur maris et feminae,” Augustine; comp. Ewald), because what follows ( and the corresponding ) points simply to generation on the man’s side; nor even of the multiplicity of the children of God (B. Crusius), to which there is no reference in what follows; quite as little does it refer to the continuos propagationum ordines from Adam, and afterwards from Abraham downwards (Hoelemann, p. 70), which must necessarily have been more distinctly indicated. Rather is the plural used in a sense not really different from the singular, and founded only on this, that the material blood is represented as the sum-total of all its parts (Khner, II. p. 28). Comp. Eur. Ion . 705, ; Soph. Ant . 121, and many places in the Tragedians where is used in the sense of murder (Aesch. Eum . 163, 248; Eur. El . 137; Or . 1547, al .); Monk, ad Eur. Alc . 512; Blomf. Gloss. Choeph . 60. Comp. Sir 22:22 ; Sir 31:21 ; 2Ma 14:18 ; also Plato, Legg . x. p. 887 D, .
The negation of human origination is so important to John (comp. Joh 3:6 ), that he adds two further parallel definitions of it by
(which he arranges co-ordinately); nor even nor even , where designates the flesh as the substratum of the generative impulse , not “ the woman ” (Augustine, Theophylact, Rupertus, Zeger, Schott, Olshausen), an interpretation which is most inappropriately supported by a reference to Gen 2:22 , Eph 5:28-29 , Jud 1:7 , while it is excluded by the context ( , and indeed by what follows). The man’s generative will is meant, and this is more exactly, i.e . personally, defined by . , to which the contrasted etc is correlative; and hence must not be generalized and taken as equivalent to (Lcke), which never occurs even in the Homeric only apparently but here least of all, because the act of generation is the very thing spoken of. The following are merely arbitrary glosses upon the points which are here only rhetorically accumulated to produce an ever increasing distinctness of description; e.g . Baumgarten Crusius: “There is an advance here from the most sensual to the most noble” (nature, inclination, will in spite of the twice repeated !); Lange ( L. J . III. p. 558): “There is an onward progress from natural generation to that which is caused by the will, and then to that consummated in theocratic faith;” Hoelemann: “ , meant of both sexes, stands midway between the universalis humani generis propagatio ( ) and the proprius singularis propagationis auctor ( ).” Even Delitzsch refines upon the words, finding in . the unholy side of generation, though John has only in view the antithesis between the human and the divine viewed in and by themselves.
.] were begotten of God , containing the real relation of sonship to God, and thus explaining the former , in so far as these were begotten by no human being, but by God, who through the Holy Spirit has restored their moral being and life, Joh 3:5 . Hence . is not tautological. indicates the issuing forth from God as cause, where the relation of immediateness (in the first and last points) and of mediateness (in the second and third) lies in the very thing , and is self-evident without being distinctively indicated in the simple representation of John.
[88] , Eustath. ad Hom. Il vi. 211. Comp. Delitzsoh, Psychol . p. 246 [E. T. p. 290, and note].
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
DISCOURSE: 1597
CHRISTIANS BORN OF GOD
Joh 1:13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
IT is obvious, that there is at this day, even as there was in the days of Christ himself, a most essential difference between persons enjoying the same privileges and making the same professions. All the Jews professed themselves to be the people of the Lord; and Christ came to them, as bearing that relation to him. But they did not all receive him. The great majority of the Jewish nation rejected him: as it is said, He came unto his own, and his own received him not: but to as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believed on his name. Now, whence arose the difference between those widely-different persons? or from whence arises a similar difference amongst ourselves? The answer is given us in the words of my text: from whence I shall take occasion to shew,
I.
To whom Believers are indebted for all that they possess
This is marked with very peculiar precision:
It is not from any creature whatever that they receive one spiritual blessing
[It is not from blood, or from natural descent, that they obtain any thing. Ishmael was as much the child of Abraham as Isaac was; and Esau was the son of Isaac as much as Jacob: but their descent from holy parents was of no avail to transmit to them the grace of God. So, in after-ages, we are told, that all were not Israel who were of Israel; neither because all were the seed of Abraham were they all children; that is, they who were the children of the flesh were not therefore the children of God; the children of promise alone being counted for the seed [Note: Rom 9:7-8.]. So neither at this day does holiness flow in the blood of any person; nor can we become the Lords people by virtue of our descent from the holiest of men.
Nor is it of the will of the flesh, or by virtue of any power inherent in us, that we are made the Lords people. All are equally dead in trespasses and sins; nor can any man quicken his own soul.
Nor is it of the will of man, or by any efforts of our friends, that we are made holy. We may adopt any person, whom we will, into our own family; but we cannot bring him into the family of God. Samuel, David, Hezekiah, would never have left their own children to perish, if they could, by any efforts of their own, have saved them: nor would Paul, who had continual heaviness and sorrow in his heart for his brethrens sake, have failed to communicate to them effectual aid, if he had had it at his own disposal.]
It is of God alone that any true Believer is born
[From God alone comes every good and perfect gift [Note: Jam 1:17.]. If saving grace be imparted to any of us, it is owing to the exercise of his sovereign will, and the operation of his effectual grace. To this the whole Scriptures bear witness. Of his own will begets he us with the word of truth [Note: Jam 1:18.]. From all eternity did he select the objects of his choice, predestinating them to the adoption of children; that to all eternity they may be to the praise of the glory of his grace [Note: Eph 1:4-6.]. All this is altogether irrespective of any works of theirs, past, present, or future [Note: 2Ti 1:9. Tit 3:3-6.]. In a word, that is true which the Apostle so strongly states in the Epistle to the Romans, and in such perfect conformity with the words of my text: God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and hath compassion on whom he will have compassion. So, then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy [Note: Rom 9:15-16.].]
This being, for the most part, an unpalatable truth, I will not leave it till I have established it beyond the possibility of doubt
[Behold the persecuting Saul; and trace, in all its steps, the conversion of his soul. Read the account of it in the ninth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the Disciples of the Lord, went unto the high-priest, and desired of him (he was altogether a volunteer in this matter) letters to Damascus (a foreign country, not under the government of Judah), to the synagogues; that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, (such was his humanity!) he might bring them bound to Jerusalem [Note: Act 9:1-2.]. I ask, Could any one of his party be further off from conversion than he? But, as he journeyed, he came near to Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven. And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he, trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man [Note: Act 9:3-7.]. To him a man named Ananias was then sent by God himself, in these memorable words: Go thy way to him; for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel [Note: Act 9:8-15.]. Thus was he converted; the only one of all the party, as far as we know;he, the most embittered of them all, the ringleader of them all, the most unlikely of all. What a comment was this on the words of my text! and what an example of the truth contained in them! The Apostle, speaking of it to the Galatians, puts this very construction upon it all: It pleased God, who separated me from my mothers womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen [Note: Gal 1:15-16.]. Now precisely thus it is with every one that is brought to the faith of Christ: he is born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Nor is there one upon the face of the whole earth who must not say, By the grace of God I am what I am [Note: 1Co 15:10.].]
Trusting that the point we have been endeavouring to establish is fully conceded to us, we will proceed to shew,
II.
What encouragement we derive from that all-important consideration
Unspeakably encouraging are these two thoughts connected with it:
1.
All Believers have the same God to go unto for all that they can stand in need of
[Had their divine life originated from man, either from themselves or others, they must have looked to man to carry it forward. But who that knows the weakness and mutability of man must not have trembled for them? The friend, by whose kind attentions they had been converted, is absent on a journey, or is dead, and his help can no more be obtained. Or the good dispositions which they themselves put forth, and by virtue of which they were brought to God, have been over-powered by temptation, and are no longer at their command. They feel a hardness of heart which they cannot remove, and a distraction of mind which they cannot fix. What then is to be done? The water has failed them, not in the channel merely, but at the fountain-head. But let them reflect on God as the alone source of all that they have possessed, and then they will have this rich consolation in the midst of all their trouble and perplexity: Who is it that has brought me hitherto? and what did He find in me as an inducement to him to magnify his grace in me? He saw nothing in me but sin: he loved me only because he would love me: he consulted nothing but his own sovereign will: he chose me, and not I him: and apprehended me, before he was apprehended by me. Then to him will I look: in him will I hope: to him will I apply. If he was found of me when I sought him not, and made known to me when I inquired not after him, I may hope he will not turn his back upon me when I seek him; nor turn a deaf ear to me when I call upon him. My only ground of fear is, either that he is not able, or that he is not willing, to afford me the succour which I stand in need of. But of his ability how can I doubt, when I reflect on what he has already done for me, in quickening me when dead, and bringing me thus far on my journey heaven-ward? Nor can I doubt of his willingness to help me, since the very first motions of my heart towards him were the gift of his sovereign grace, who gave me both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Surely these thoughts must afford unspeakable encouragement to the believer, under all the trials to which he can ever be exposed; whilst, on the contrary, if he had only a created power whereon to rely, he must on many occasions sink into utter despondency.]
2.
The mercies they have received are to them a pledge of future blessings
[This necessarily arises from the thought of Gods electing love. For, why did he ever choose us? Was it to abandon us again? Why did he ever quicken us? Was it to give us over to death again? Why did he ever translate us from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of his dear Son? Was it that we might ultimately perish with an accumulated weight of condemnation? He has told us, that the gift of his Holy Spirit is an earnest of our heavenly inheritance. Now, an earnest is a part of a payment, and a pledge that the remainder shall in due time be paid: and, consequently, the work of grace already wrought in the hearts of his people is a pledge that he will carry on and perfect it within them. For he is a God that changeth not; and therefore we neither are, nor shall be, consumed. His gifts and calling are without repentance or change of mind, on his part. Whom he loveth, he loveth to the end. And the consideration of this is a rich consolation to his believing people; as he has said: God, willing more abundantly to shew unto his people the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it with an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge, to lay hold on the hope set before us. Hence the believer may be confident that God will not cast him off; but that, whatever he may have to contend with, nothing shall ever be permitted to separate him from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.]
But that this subject may not be made an occasion of any undue confidence,
1.
Let us inquire whether we have ever experienced this great change
[It is evident there is a change to be experienced, which no created power can effect. Now then, I ask, Has any such change taken place in you? Think again: It is a change that depends not on your descent from Christian parents; a change which no endeavours of friends can ever accomplish, and which no efforts of your own can ever merit or effect: it is a new creation; and a work of God alone, as much as the creation of the universe itself. Perhaps you will say, Tell me more distinctly wherein this change consists. I will do so. It is a receiving of the Lord Jesus Christ as the gift of God to your souls; and a believing in him as your all in all. To these is the privilege of becoming the sons of God assigned; and to these alone. If, then, you are born of God, these marks must, of necessity, be found in you. You have felt your need of a Saviour; you have cried to God for mercy with your whole hearts: and you have embraced the Lord Jesus Christ as all your salvation and all your desire. Examine into this matter, my beloved brethren. Here is the precise point of difference between the children of God and the children of the wicked one. Those who are born of the flesh only, may be moral and externally religious: but the child of God lives altogether by faith on the Son of God, receiving all blessings out of his fulness, and improving them all for his glory. This is a new birth: and were you as moral as Nicodemus himself, you must experience it, at the peril of your souls; and, except ye be thus born from above, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of God. I pray you, brethren, settle this well in your minds: for to those only who stand in this relation to their God is there any inheritance among the saints in light.]
2.
Let us endeavour to manifest it, by a suitable life and conversation
[God had one only dear Son, whom he sent down from heaven to sojourn upon earth. And the Scripture fully informs us what dispositions he exercised, and what conduct he pursued. And every one who is born of God will follow his steps, and walk as he walked. He will no longer walk according to the course of this world, according to the Prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience. He will be no longer of the world, any more than Jesus Christ was of the world. He will rise above it. He will be crucified unto it; and regard it as a crucified object, that has no longer any charms for him, or any power over him. His tempers, too, will be mortified and subdued. He will have the meekness and gentleness of Christ in his whole deportment: and, if he be not able perfectly to attain the measure that was in Christ Jesus, he will aspire after it, and be satisfied with nothing less. In a word, he will not live unto himself, but unto God, making it his meat and his drink to do the will of his Saviour and Redeemer. Now, then, brethren, this is the way in which you will live, if you are sons of God. You will shine as lights in a dark world; and your light will shine brighter and brighter to the perfect day. Once attain this conformity to your Saviours image, and you will need no one to tell you whence it came, or by whose power it has been wrought. You will readily give all the glory to your God; and ascribe on earth, as you will to all eternity ascribe in heaven, salvation to Him who sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Ver. 13. But of God ] Whose sons therefore they are, and so “higher than the kings of the earth,” Psa 89:27 , as those that prolong the days of Christ upon earth, being begotten by the travail of his soul, Isa 53:10-11 . Hence faith is said to adopt us,Joh 1:12Joh 1:12 , in like sort as it justifies us, viz. by virtue of its object, Christ. a Hence, Psa 72:17 , there is said to be a succession of Christ’s name; it is begotten, as one generation is begotten of another. This is true nobility, where God is the top of the kin, religion the root. Beatus Ludovicus would be called Ludovicus de Pissiaco, rather than take greater titles, because there he became a Christian. He thought no birth equal to a new birth in Christ, no parentage to that of God to his Father.
a . Homer. Filiabitur nomine eius. Trem.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
13. ] The Jews grounded their claim to be children of God on their descent from Abraham. John here negatives any such claim, and asserts the exclusive divine birth of all who become children of God by faith. It is to be noticed that the conjunctions here are not the merely disjunctive ones , which would necessitate the ranging the clauses as co-ordinate and parallel, but , which rise in climax from one clause to another, ‘ not , nor yet . . nor yet . ., but ’ (see examples of , Mat 12:32 ; of , Mat 6:26 ). Many interpreters have seen in the male, and in the female side of human concupiscence (so Augustine, Theophylact, &c.); or in the former the higher and more conscious, in the latter the lower and animal side (Bleek, Luthardt). Besides the above, other objections lie against both these interpretations, (1) that is never so used ( Eph 5:29 is no instance in point); (2) that is ascribed to both . Euthymius seems to give the right interpretation: , , , , : in loc. ii. 421. Or perhaps this may be earned somewhat further, and we may better satisfy the climax by regarding the as indicating the mere phenomena of physical generation wherever found: then rising to , the instigation of that capacity by sexual desire: then rising still higher to the most exalted instance of that desire, .
The plural usage of is only found in one other place in this signification, Eurip. Ion 693 Dind., 705 Herm., | . The other usage of the plural, for murder , is frequent in the LXX and the classics.
, in the sense of man generally, is not uncommon; we have in plur. , in Hom. passim; and in sing. Il. . 321; . 432, 433.
, remarks De Wette, denotes, the first time, the material the second and third time, the mediate cause, the fourth time, the immediate cause, of the generation.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 1:13 . . This first mention of suggests the need of further defining how these children of God are produced. The denotes the source of the relationship. First he negatives certain ordinary causes of birth, not so much because they could be supposed in connection with children of God (although thoughts of hereditary rights might arise in Jewish minds) as for the sake of emphasising by contrast the true source. ; that is, not by ordinary physical generation. was commonly used to denote descent; Act 17:26 , Odys. iv. 611, . This is rather a Greek than a Hebrew expression. The plural has given rise to many conjectural explanations; and the idea currently received is that it suggests the constituent parts of which the blood is composed (Godet, Meyer). Westcott says: “The use of the plural appears to emphasise the idea of the element out of which in various measures the body is formed”. Both explanations are doubtful. The plural is used very commonly in the Sept [27] , 2Sa 16:8 , ; Psa 25:9 , ; 2Ch 24:25 , etc.; and especially where much slaughter or grievous murder is spoken of. Cf. Eurip., Iph. in Taur. , 73. It occurs in connection with descent in Eurip., Ion. , 693, (Lcke). The reason of John’s preference for the plural in this place is not obvious; he may perhaps have wished to indicate that all family histories and pedigrees were here of no account, no matter how many illustrious ancestors a man could reckon, no matter what bloods united to produce him. . The combination of these clauses by and not by excludes all interpretations which understand these two clauses as subdivisions of the foregoing. adds negation to negation: divides a single negation into parts (see Winer, p. 612). “Nor of the will of the flesh,” i.e. , not as the result of sexual instinct; “nor of the will of a man.” i.e. , not the product of human purpose (“Fortschritt von Stoff zum Naturtrieb und zum persnlichen Thun,” Holtzmann). Cf. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. , p. 290, note E. Tr. . The source of regeneration positively stated. Human will is repudiated as the source of the new birth, but as in physical birth the life of the child is at once manifested, so in spiritual birth the human will first manifests regeneration. In spiritual as in physical birth the origination is from without, not from ourselves; but just because our spiritual birth is spiritual the will must take its part in it. Nothing is spiritual into which the will does not enter.
[27] Septuagint.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Which = Who: i.e. those who believe on His name. But antecedent to any ancient MSS., Irenaeus (A.D. 178), Tertullian (A. n. 208), Augustine (A.D. 395), and other Fathers, read “Who was begotten” (Singular, not Plural) The “hos” (= Who) agreeing with “autou” (His name. Greek. onoma autou, name of Him). Joh 1:14 goes on to speak of the incarnation of Him Who was not begotten by human generation. The Latin Codex Veronensis (before Jerome’s Vulgate) reads, “Qui . . . natus est”. Tertullian (De carne Christi, c. 19) says that “believers” could not be intended in this verse, “since all who believe are born of blood”, &c. He ascribes the reading of the Received text to the artifice of the Valentinian Gnostics of the second and third cents.) See Encyl. Brit., eleventh (Camb.) edn., vol. 27, pp. 852-7.
born = begotten. See note on Mat 1:2, and App-179.
of = out of, or from. Greek ek. App-104. Not the same word as in verses: Joh 7:8, Joh 7:14, Joh 7:15, Joh 7:22, Joh 7:44, Joh 7:47.
blood. It is plural (bloods) for emphasis, ace. to Hebrew idiom, as in 2Sa 16:7, 2Sa 16:8. Psa 26:9.
nor = nor yet. Greek. oude.
will. Greek. thelema. App-102.
flesh. A characteristic word of this Gospel. See p. 1511.
man. Greek. aner. App-123.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
13.] The Jews grounded their claim to be children of God on their descent from Abraham. John here negatives any such claim, and asserts the exclusive divine birth of all who become children of God by faith. It is to be noticed that the conjunctions here are not the merely disjunctive ones , which would necessitate the ranging the clauses as co-ordinate and parallel, but , which rise in climax from one clause to another,-not , nor yet . . nor yet . ., but (see examples of , Mat 12:32; of , Mat 6:26). Many interpreters have seen in the male, and in the female side of human concupiscence (so Augustine, Theophylact, &c.); or in the former the higher and more conscious, in the latter the lower and animal side (Bleek, Luthardt). Besides the above, other objections lie against both these interpretations,-(1) that is never so used (Eph 5:29 is no instance in point); (2) that is ascribed to both. Euthymius seems to give the right interpretation: , , , , : in loc. ii. 421. Or perhaps this may be earned somewhat further, and we may better satisfy the climax by regarding the as indicating the mere phenomena of physical generation wherever found: then rising to , the instigation of that capacity by sexual desire: then rising still higher to the most exalted instance of that desire, .
The plural usage of is only found in one other place in this signification,-Eurip. Ion 693 Dind., 705 Herm., | . The other usage of the plural, for murder, is frequent in the LXX and the classics.
, in the sense of man generally, is not uncommon; we have in plur. , in Hom. passim; and in sing. Il. . 321; . 432, 433.
, remarks De Wette, denotes, the first time, the material-the second and third time, the mediate cause,-the fourth time, the immediate cause, of the generation.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 1:13. , who) This is to be referred to , children. For as the words [] received and to them that believe [ ] correspond to one another, and denote the cause: so the effect is denoted in that expression to become children, and it is further explained in this verse.- , not of bloods) , the Hebrew idiom often has bloods in the Plural number, even when only one man is spoken of: but when the subject treated of is generation, it does not call it the blood or bloods of the parents. But for the commendation of a noble lineage, the term blood is frequent among the ancient writers, as it is in the usage of the present day: and thence it is that bloods denote variety of origins, in consequence of which various prerogatives [privileges] are either sought after, or even enjoyed, in the world.- , nor of the will of the flesh) Husband and wife are Flesh, and that one flesh: and the will of the wedded pair, , gives birth to the children, who being born of the flesh are flesh, and sons of the flesh. Joh 3:6, That which is born of the flesh is flesh; Rom 9:8, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God. With propriety the term, the will, is used as moving midway between holy [pure] love, and grovelling lust, . Nor does John use the softer word, of which the flesh considered in itself is unworthy: nor the harsher, lest those born of holy [pure] parents should except themselves [i.e. Had John said, The children of God were born not of lust, then those men who are born of a pure marriage union might think themselves excepted from the children of the flesh].- , nor of the will of man) The will of man is contained in the will of the flesh: and yet it is mentioned separately, as if it were the greater, and in some measure, the more guilty part of it. For Christ had a mother, but one who knew not man. Luk 1:34, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man. [Mary to the angel].
These three things, bloods, the will of the flesh, the will of man, bring to the sons of men , power and rank, which are noble, but natural and human. For, indeed, it was on these three the Jews used to lean, being wont to boast either of their ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, Juda, Benjamin, Levi, Aaron, David, etc., or of both parents, but more especially of their fathers, and fancied that owing to these they could not but be pleasing to God; but John declares that these very things have no weight [with Him].- , but of God) To the natural generation of men is opposed generation of God. And although the former, as the latter, is in reality single, yet the former being expressed in a threefold manner [infert, causes] carries with it a threefold mode of viewing the latter. We are therefore taught, that they become Sons of God, who are born, not as the sons of men, such as themselves also were by original descent, after the manner of men, but of God: that is, 1) not of bloods, but of the heavenly and supreme Father, from whom the whole of the blessed and holy family is named: 2) not of the will of the flesh, but of that love, of which the Son is Himself the first-begotten of every creature; Col 1:13; Col 1:15, His dear Son, Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature: and of that will which hath begotten us as a [a kind of] first fruits of His creatures; Jam 1:18, father, and he willed, he loved, are kindred words. 3) Not of the will of man, but of the Holy Spirit. A similar antithesis occurs, Luk 1:34-35, Mary, I know not a man. The angel, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, etc., therefore that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. These indeed are the sons of God, and of such sons Adam was a type, since he was begotten not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, and in consequence he stood in a peculiar relation to God; Luk 3:38, Adam, which was the son of God; and Isaac, Gal 4:23; Gal 4:29, He who was of the bond-woman was born after the flesh, but He of the free-woman was by promise;-He, that was born after the flesh, persecuted Him that was born after the Spirit: but John uses this phraseology, of the sons of God, in a higher sense.-, were born) This as to regeneration is not merely a mode of speaking peculiar to this evangelist; but a doctrine frequently and emphatically dwelt upon in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles. Believers are sons of God by a generation peculiarly so called, deriving their life from Himself, reproducing [referentes, exhibiting in themselves traits of] His character, shining in His image: how much more so the Only-begotten One, ? They are sons through Him by adoption. In all ways God claims as to Himself.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 1:13
Joh 1:13
who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.-This relation of sons of God was not attained through the fleshly descent from Abraham or of any fleshly birth, but he is begotten of God. (Joh 3:5). All fleshly births are through the will of the flesh. This henceforth would not make a man a child of God. [Being a Jew did not involve the new birth or begetting. He must be born again even as others. Fleshly generation had nothing to do with it. Nor was it in any sense human in its origin. No human enactments, no human purpose, could bring it about. It was from above. (Joh 3:3). The begetting is purely of God with the Holy Spirit as the agent (Joh 3:8) and the word of God as the Spirits instrumentality (1Pe 1:23) and the birth or transfer to new relationship of the whole man becomes complete in baptism (Joh 3:5).]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
were: Joh 3:3, Joh 3:5, Jam 1:18, 1Pe 1:3, 1Pe 1:23, 1Pe 2:2, 1Jo 3:9, 1Jo 4:7, 1Jo 5:1, 1Jo 5:4, 1Jo 5:18
not: Joh 8:33-41, Mat 3:9, Rom 9:7-9
nor of the will of the: Gen 25:22, Gen 25:28, Gen 27:4, Gen 27:33, Rom 9:10-16
nor of the will of man: Psa 110:3, Rom 9:1-5, Rom 10:1-3, 1Co 3:6, Phi 2:13, Jam 1:18
of God: Joh 3:6-8, Tit 3:5, 1Jo 2:28, 1Jo 2:29
Reciprocal: Isa 40:13 – hath directed Dan 2:34 – was cut Mat 13:38 – the good Mar 4:8 – fell Mar 6:48 – he saw Mar 16:16 – that believeth and Luk 1:17 – before Luk 8:8 – other Joh 3:8 – so Joh 8:47 – General Joh 20:17 – your Father Act 18:27 – believed Rom 9:8 – are counted Rom 9:16 – General Rom 10:10 – For with Gal 3:26 – General Gal 4:31 – we Eph 2:3 – desires Eph 2:8 – that Phi 1:29 – not Col 2:6 – received Col 2:12 – the faith 1Pe 4:2 – the will 2Pe 1:4 – ye might
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
3
People became members of the Mosaic system by fleshly conception and birth. Being born into the spiritual family of God is accomplished according to His will, that was made known through the Gospel of Christ. However, the persons specifically referred to at first in the present passage, were those who had been baptized by John. The principles involved in their birth, though, were the same as pertain to all others who afterward were to become members of the divine family. John’s disciples were baptized upon their repentance, after having believed on Him (which should come after him, Act 19:4), while all others were to be baptized upon believing on Him who has come.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
[Which were born, not of blood.] It may be a question here, whether the evangelist in this place opposeth regeneration to natural generation, or only to those ways by which the Jews fancied men were made the sons of God. Expositors treat largely of the former: let us a little consider the latter.
I. Not of bloods. Observe the plural number: “Our Rabbins say, That all Israel had thrown off circumcision in Egypt — but at length they were circumcised, and the blood of the passover was mingled with the blood of the circumcised; and God accepted every one of them and kissed them.” “I said, while thou wert in thy bloods, Live; i.e. in the twofold blood, that of the passover, and that of the circumcision.” The Israelites were brought into covenant by three things; by circumcision, by washing, and by offering of sacrifices. In the same manner, a heathen, if he would be admitted into covenant, he must of necessity be circumcised, baptized, and offer sacrifice. We see how of bloods of the passover and circumcision, they say the Israelites were recovered from the degeneracy: and how of the bloods of circumcision and sacrifices (with the addition only of washing), they supposed the Gentiles might become the sons of God, being by their proselytism made Israelites, and the children of the covenant: for they knew of no other adoption or sonship.
II. Of the will of the flesh. In the same sense wherein the patriarchs and other Jews were ambitious by many wives to multiply children of themselves, as being of the seed of Israel and children of the covenant.
III. Of the will of man; in that sense wherein they coveted so many proselytes, to admit them into the religion of the Jews, and so into covenant and sonship with God.
These were the ways by which the Jews thought any became the sons of God, that is, by being made Israelites. But it is far otherwise in the adoption and sonship that accrues to us by the gospel.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Joh 1:13. Which were begotten, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. The spiritual history of those who are spoken of in Joh 1:12 is here continued, and the nature of their sonship more fully defined. It is easy to see that in the three clauses there is a distinct progress of thought, the second (containing the thought of will) being more definite than the first, the third (in which man is substituted for flesh,a person for human nature in general) being again more definite than the second. The three clauses, however, really express but one main idea; what that is must be learnt from the contrast in the closing words,but (they were begotten) of God. These believers have received the right to become children of God by virtue of a true spiritual filiation, being begotten of God. The contrast to such a sonship is the very claim which is so strongly made by the Jews in chap. 8, and the validity of which our Lord altogether denies. The recollection of that chapter, which only brings into bold relief the habitual assumption of the Judaism of that day, will be sufficient to explain the remarkable emphasis of this verse, the threefold denial that men become children of God by virtue of any natural hereditary descent.Although it is the claim of the Jews that is here in the writers thought, yet, as often elsewhere, the Jews are the type of the world at large; by others besides Jews like presumptuous claims have been made, others have rested in the divinity of their race. It is very possible that the peculiarity of the first clause (literally not of bloods) may be thus explained.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Because the bragging Jews did much boast of their natural birth and descent from Abraham, as being his blood and offspring, therefore it is here asserted, that men become not the children of God by natural propagation, but by spiritual regeneration: They are not born of blood. Grace runs not in the blood, piety is not hereditary. Religious parents propagate corruption, not regeneration. Were the conveyances of grace natural, good parents would not be so ill-suited with children as sometimes they are. No person then whatsoever has the gracious privilege of adoption by the first birth. They are not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man; that is, no man by the utmost improvement of nature can raise himself up to this privilege of adoption, and be the author and efficient cause of his own regeneration.
Learn hence, That man in all his capacities is too weak to produce the work of regeneration in himself. They, says Dr. Hammond, who by the influence of the highest rational principles, live most exactly according to the rule of rational nature, that is, of unregenerated morality, are the persons here described.
Learn, 2. That God alone is the prime efficient Cause of regeneration. He works upon the understanding by illumination, and upon the will by sanctification; Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
[See also the “General Considerations on the Prologue” in the comments of Joh 1:18.]
Ver. 13. Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
It seems, at the first glancebecause of the past verb: who were born that the apostle places regeneration before faith, which is, of course, impossible. But, as Meyer rightly observes, the relative (who), does not refer to the words (those who believe), but, by a constructio ad sensum, to the neuter substantive (children of God). Joh 1:13 unfolds this term: children of God, first in a negative relation, by means of three cumulative phrases which have a somewhat disdainful and even contemptuous character. Does John mean thereby to stigmatize the false confidence of the Jews in their character as children of Abraham? This does not seem to me probable. Three expressions to set forth the idea of the theocratic birth would be useless. Besides, the Prologue has too lofty a flight, too universal a bearing, to admit of so paltry a polemic. John means rather to set forth with emphasis the superiority of the second creation which the Logos comes to accomplish on the foundation of the first. There are two humanities, one which propagates itself in the way of natural filiation; the other, in which the higher life is communicated immediately by God Himself to every believer. It is, therefore, ordinary birth, as the basis of natural humanity, which John characterizes in the first three expressions. The first phrase: not of blood, denotes procreation from the purely physical point of view; the blood is mentioned as the seat of natural life (Lev 17:1).
The plural has been applied either to the duality of the sexes, or to the series of human generations. It should rather be interpreted as the plural , in the words of Plato (Legg. x., p. 887, D): the plural suggesting the multiplicity of the elements which form the blood (see Meyer). The two following phrases are not subordinate to the first, as St. Augustine thought, who, after having referred the latter to the two sexes, referred the two others, the one to the woman and the other to the man. The disjunctive negative, neither…nor (…), would be necessary in that case. The last two expressions designate, like the first, the natural birth; but this, while introducing, in the one phrase, the factor of the will governed by the sensual imagination (the will of the flesh), in the other, that of a will more independent of nature, more personal and more manlike, the will of man. There is a gradation in dignity from one of these terms to the other. But, to whatever height the transmission of natural life may rise, this communication of life- power cannot pass beyond the circle traced out at the first creationthat of the physico-psychical life. That which is born of the flesh, even in the best conditions, is, and remains flesh.The higher, spiritual, eternal life is the immediate gift of God. To obtain it, that divine begetting is needed by which God communicates His own nature. The limiting phrase, (of God), contains, in itself alone, the antithesis to the three preceding phrases. By its very conciseness it expresses the beauty of that spiritual birth which is altogether free from material elements, from natural attraction, from human will, and in which the only cooperating forces are God acting through His Spirit on the one side, and man’s faith on the other.
But how are we to explain the virtue of this faith which fits the man to be begotten of God? Does it have in itself, in its own nature, the secret of its power? No, for it is only a simple receptivity, a , receive: its virtue comes from its object. The apostle had already intimated this by the words: who believe on His name; and he now expressly declares it:
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Verse 13
Which were born; that is, as sons of God.–Not of blood, &c.; that is, not by nature, but by the grace of God.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the {t} will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
(t) Of that shameful and corrupt nature of man, which is throughout the scriptures described as an enemy of the spirit.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The antecedent of "who" is those who believe in Jesus’ name (Joh 1:12). Their new life as children of God comes from God. It does not come because of their blood, namely, their physical ancestors. Many of the Jews believed that because they were Abraham’s descendants they were the spiritual children of God (cf. ch. 8; Romans 4; Galatians 3). Even today some people think that the faith or works of their ancestors somehow guarantees their salvation. However, God has no grandchildren. People become the children of God by personally trusting in Christ.
New life does not come because of physical desire either. No amount of wanting it and striving for it will bring it. The only thing that will is belief in Jesus.
"The term ’flesh’ (sarx) is not used by John to convey the idea of sinfulness, as it often does in Paul’s writings. . . . Rather, it is indicative of weakness and humiliation as seen in Joh 1:14. It simply affirms that in the Incarnation Jesus became fully human." [Note: Harris, p. 206. See also Morris, p. 89.]
Third, new spiritual life does not come because of a human decision either, specifically, the choice of a husband to produce a child. It comes as the result of a spiritual decision to trust in Jesus Christ. The Greek word for "man" here is andros meaning "male." The NIV interpreted it properly as "husband" here.
New spiritual life does not come from any of these sources but from God Himself. Ultimately it is the result of God’s choice, not man’s (cf. Eph 1:4). Therefore the object of our faith must be God rather than our heritage or race, our works, or our own initiative.
This section of the prologue summarizes the theological issue involved in the Incarnation. It is in a sense a miniature of the whole Gospel.