No, Even If John Goes There, I am Not Going Into the Biology of Being Born Once in the Flesh and Born Again From God

John 1: 6-14                                                    January 29, 2021

⁶There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. ⁷He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. ⁸He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. ⁹The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. ¹⁰He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. ¹¹He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. ¹²But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, ¹³who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God. ¹⁴And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.

            There is this thing in English grammar called the dependent clause.  It depends on another for its meaning.  Verse 13 is all dependent on what comes at the end of verse 12.  To consider this meaningfully, we should be looking at “…he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.  If we take out the dependent clauses, the whole sentence rewrites to this: “Jesus gave power to those who received and believed in his name to become children of God, who were born…of God.”

            John’s point is what is NOT involved in this birth (or rebirth).  Three things it is not:

1.      Of blood

2.      Of the will of the flesh

3.      Of the will of man (humanity)

This language of the second birth is elsewhere in John.  When we get to chapter 3, Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus who goes rather nauseatingly literal about being born again.  Can he reenter his mother’s womb? 

            The first dependent clause, ‘of blood’, is the literal consideration of birth.  I suppose I should consider whether or not this is a ‘family blog post’ so if anyone reading this does not know to what I refer, go ask your parents. 

            The second dependent clause, ‘of the will of the flesh’ comes a little too close to ‘birds and bees’ type of discussions so I will not go into that except to say it is in regards to pregnancy.  Will of the flesh…close enough.

            The third dependent clause, ‘of the will of man’, I added humanity after.  The will of humanity, to me, implies the choice to become pregnant.  The will of the flesh is, biology.  This is a decision to get…biological… 

            I make a distinction between man and humanity in the light of the present day.  I was raised in an era where I could understand “man” to mean humanity.  But in light of the ongoing political battles over reproductive health, over the control of women’s bodies, over an unfortunately loud minority in the Christian church misinterpreting Scripture to claim male domination of the family and the culture, I feel I must make this distinction.

            What I read in this third dependent clause is a decision to have a child.  So to paraphrase this verse, “…children of God, who were born, not of the physical act of birth, not of the condition of pregnancy in humans, not in the decision of humans to have a child, but of God.”  Each dependent clause is a step wider in the process of having a child.

            There is to be found in the New Testament a division between flesh and spirit, designating things of the sinful world versus things of heaven.  We were born first physically, but in Jesus, we are born spiritually.  From this derives the expression ‘born again’, translated in the New Revised Standard Edition as ‘born from above’.  ‘From above’ indicates from heaven, from the spiritual opposed to ‘from below’, here on sinful earth.  However, I am jumping WAY ahead.  We shall consider that phrasing and its modern implications to conversion and the church when we get there.

            What John is saying here is that for those who receive Jesus and believe in him, Jesus grants the power to be born of God to become children of God.  The emphasis is on the distinction of this birth from that of the physical, human world.  It is more personal than language about being adopted into God’s family.

CHALLENGE MADE: I made the statement that it is a misinterpretation of Scripture to claim biblical warrant for male dominant behavior.  This defies a bunch of specifically referenced Pauline passages about husbands and wives, it defies the entire corpus of the Old Testament in terms of gender roles and authority, if defies almost two thousand years of general church acknowledgement.  That’s a lot of defiance.  This from a man who was raised in the quadrant of the church that bought into this old interpretive framework.

            I could write an extended autobiographical narrative to outline my interactions with spiritual sanctioned biblical interpretations supporting male domination theory.  That is WAY beyond the scope of this work.  It is one of my presuppositions that at creation, there was gender equality.  In the Fall, we were cursed with gender inequality.  On the path to salvation, as we come to Day of Jesus’ return, good Christians are working to undo that curse.