Generation in the Gospel of John

Terms referring to generation or procreative activity are relatively rare in the New Testament. Paul calls the believers in the congregations he has founded for his τέκνα, and twice he also applies the metaphor of genera- tion/birth to his mission.

Interesting as these Pauline passages are, they are not comparable to the far more pervasive generational language in the Gospel of John, where the terminology does not represent exceptional instances of metaphorical us­age but appears to be a feature profoundly embedded in the discourse it­self. In the New Testament, the Johannine writings have by far the highest score with a total of sixteen occurrences of γεννάω. Six instances are found in the gospel (accumulated in 1:13 and 3:3-8) and ten in the First Letter of John (2:29; 3:6; 4:7; 5:1, 4 and 8). The Johannine literature is al­so alone in using the simple form of the verb γεννάω with God implicitly or explicitly as the agent.

As already mentioned, Adele Reinhartz has interpreted the “father-son” language which is used to describe the relationship between what she calls “God and Jesus” in the Gospel of John, as being impregnated with the Ar­istotelian theory of epigenesis.^[320] She claims that traces of such elements also in Philo’s writings^[321] provide evidence that Hellenistic Jewish authors from approximately the same period as the Gospel of John applied the Ar- istotelean concepts and vocabulary to God as the creator of Wisdom, of Hebrews’ souls, of the virtues, and of happiness.

The first mentions of God as Father in the Gospel of John are found in the Prologue in editorial discourse - which is unusual. In 1:14 the glory (δόξα) of the incarnated λόγος is said to be “ώς μονογενούς παρα πατρος.” The use of the comparative term ώς has encouraged a meta­phorical reading,^[323] but ancient ideas of generation may provide a better ac­cess to understand how the connection between father and son as pos­sessing the same glory is conceived. In 1:18: “No one has ever seen God; μονογενής θεός (which is lectio difficilior), ό ων εις τον κόλπον του πατρος, has made him known.” The wording in this verse is unusual in that it combines God-language and Father-language.

Jesus’s divine origin, his being from above, or his being sent is ex­plained in terms of procreation and kinship. Jesus is the Son sent by the Father; he is the μονογενούς παρα πατρος (1:14), μονογενής θεός ό ων εις τον κόλπον του πατρος (1:18), or later in 3:16 and 18 μονογενής υίό$. The possible connotations of μονογενής are hardly ever subject to discussion beyond a choice between “only begotten”^[325] and the less graphic “unique, un-exampled,” which increasingly has become the preferred translation. Most commentators tend to skate around sexual or genetic associations - keeping God clean and as far as possible dissociated from sexual indications.^[326] They appeal instead to a socio-cultural frame­work: The father is the head of the family - the ancestor who gives life and bequeaths inheritance unto his heirs - or the son is an apprentice to his father.^[327]

In an essay some years ago I pursued the consequences of this monoge- netic portrayal for the role and significance of the mother of Jesus in the Gospel of John.^[328] Her name is never mentioned; she is recognized only by the (traditional) epithet the Mother of Jesus. Her two appearances in the narrative represent an inclusio of Jesus’s earthly ministry and the kinship that was by the flesh.

However, other passages where generational language is being used may indicate a framework within which also this scene gains further mean­ing. The term γεννάω occurs for the first time in the Prologue, in 1:13: o'i εξ αίματων ουδέ έκ θελήματος σαρκδ$ ουδέ έκ θελήματος ανδρο? έγεννηθησαν. The preceding verse 12, which states that he (the Logos or the True Light) gave the right τέκνα θεού γενεσθαι to those who believe in him, does not involve generational ideas apart from the term τέκνα. It stays within a discourse well known from the Pauline literature which, like, John 19:26-27, draws on models of adoption rather than on genera­tional physiology. However, in the following verse τέκνα θεού γενεσθαι is graphically explicated in physiological terms, and three elements neces­sary for the physiological process of human procreation are being listed: εξ αίματων, έκ θελήματος σαρκό$, and έκ θελήματος ανδρο$.

The first element to be negated is blood, in a peculiar plural form έξ αίματων, which may translate as “multiple blood.” As related earlier in this article, ancient physiology regarded the father’s and the mother’s blood, although differently, as being crucial to human generation. Genera­tion occurred when the active male semen, a form of transformed or con­cocted blood, made contact with and imparted form and function to the female raw material, the woman’s menstrual blood. This may explain the odd plural form, which as Raymond Brown points out, would indicate ra­ther bloodshed against a Hebrew background.^[331]

The second element, έκ θελήματος σαρκό$ probably represents a shift from a physiological discourse to a moral discourse. Normally it is taken to refer to sexual desire even if the term used is θέλημα and not έπιθυμία as might then have been expected. An element of human decision is involved, perhaps the mutual dependence between man and woman in conceiving a child. For human procreation both are necessary even if the contribution of each is significantly different and unequal.

The third element, έκ θελήματος άνδρό$, may seem to duplicate the second element or to represent only a minor variation, and it is omitted in the original version of Vaticanus. It represents, however, not a general statement about the preconditions of human procreation like the previous element but more specifically the will of the male or the husband in gener­ating offspring.

The known textual evidence to John 1:13 in Greek unanimously sup­ports a version with the verb and the relative pronoun at the beginning both in plural referring back to those mentioned in verse 12 who have been giv­en the right to become children of God. However, there is some evidence of a textual tradition that had the verb in verse 13 as singular, thus refer­ring back not to the grammatical object of verse 12 (children of God) but to the grammatical subject (Logos/Jesus). The singular version seems to be attested by some of the early fathers, most certainly in the West by Tertul- lian and Ireneaus. Tertullian uses it to refute as false the interpretations of the Valentinians who gladly assumed the plural form, and the role of 1:13 in such controversies has made it all the more difficult to discern which version may be primary.^[333]

Positively, the fathers take the singular to attest the virgin birth: Jesus was begotten without the involvement of a human father. However, in de­fence of an original singular, Michael Theobald has explained the intro­duction of the plural as being due to problems the singular might cause precisely in respect of the virgin birth. The procreative factors which are listed in John 1:13 as not being required in this particular divine process of generation, that is blood, will of the flesh, and will of man, exclude not just a human father but any human participation or contribution - since the plural έξ αιμάτων most likely includes also the blood of the mother. Fur­thermore, Theobald strongly suggests that the term μονογενής υίό$ may be taken to imply that the Son is not so much “only-begotten” as “begotten by one only.” The plural form was introduced fairly soon when the christo- logical reading became untenable as it was exposed to docetic views. It was also seen to be in conflict with the gospel narrative, which repeatedly assumes that Jesus had a well-known biological family.^[334]

Whichever version is original, it remains intriguing that a statement like the one in John 1:13 could be both christological and ecclesiological, map­ping the one on the other; what is true of Jesus is also true of the believers: they are born/begotten of God alone.^[335] He who himself was born/begotten, not of blood(s) or of the will of flesh or of the will of man, but of God, is the one who empowers those who believe in him to become children of God. How might this happen?

This question is addressed in Jesus’s exchange with Nicodemus in John 3. The conversation is initiated by Nicodemus who begins by a reference to the origin of Jesus: “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these things unless God is with him.” Jesus’s retort in 3:3, εάν μη τι$ γεννηθη άνωθεν ου δυνατοί ίδεϊν την βα­σιλείαν του θεού is rarely associated with the content of Nicodemus’s statement, but in fact it twists the understanding of origin implied in Nico­demus’s words.^[336] The evangelist has Nicodemus respond to Jesus by the

ridiculous proposition that a grown man cannot possibly return to his mother’s womb in order to be born again. Nicodemus has heard Jesus speak of rebirth, taking άνωθεν to mean “again” and γεννηθρ to refer to birth from the mother’s κοιλία. The impossibility of the proposition is al­ready clear from the fact that the Greek presupposes a negative answer.

In his second response to Nicodemus, Jesus advances his argumentation by a more lengthy and apparently explanatory statement in verses 5-8. The ambiguous term άνωθεν, ridiculed by Nicodemus, is clarified by the jux­taposition εξ υδατο$ καί πνεύματος. It is clear that Nicodemus’s pre­sumption that άνωθεν is temporal is corrected and the idea of a second birth or rebirth seems also to be rejected as part of Nicodemus’s misunder­standing. The language is reminiscent of 1:13 and refers to the same gen­eration that is from God, here expressed as “from above” - in keeping with how άνωθεν is used in John 3:31 and 19:11.

A passage by Philo of Alexandria has been mentioned as a possible sounding board for this part of John 3.^[337] Philo answers the question as to why Moses was called above on the seventh day:

But the calling above of the prophet is a second birth (δεύτερα γενεσκ) better than the first. For the latter is mixed with a body and has corruptible parents, while the former is an unmixed and simple soul of the sovereign, being changed from a productive to an un­productive form, which has no mother but only a father, who is (the father) of all. Where­fore the calling above or, as we have said, the divine birth (γενεσκ) happened to come about for him in the ever-virginal nature of the hebdomad. For he is called on the seventh day, in this respect differing from the earth-born first moulded man, for the latter came into being from the earth and with body, while the former came from the ether and with­out a body. (QE 2.46).

Moses’s ascent on Sinai is here interpreted as a second γενεσι$ by the un­mixed and simple soul of the Sovereign, that which is by the father (of all) alone - and explicitly without a mother.

Whereas the άνωθεν in John 3:3 is explained or replaced by other terms in verse 5, γεννηθη is simply reiterated. Nicodemus seems to have taken it to refer to birth - a meaning retained by most modern translations and also most commentators. But is the meaning of γεννηθη unambiguous and not open to misunderstanding? Leander Keck insists that γεννηθη does not re­fer to the birthing process and should be translated by “begotten” because it refers to the procreative, engendering function of the father that repre­sents the origin of life.^[338] In common Greek usage, γεννάω in fact usually denotes the male role in procreation, but it may also apply to both parents or to the mother alone. Whenever it is used without the agent being men­tioned - which in the Gospel of John is most often the case - a decision with regard to its exact reference therefore will have to be made from con­text. Is it, however, at all possible to clarify its precise meaning in John 3 and other Johannine passages, where games are played with ambiguities and misunderstandings? Should it be left open so that the ambiguity may resonate?

Jesus’s second response further introduces a binary opposition between σαρξ and πνεύμα entailing that “what is born of flesh is flesh; what is born of spirit, is spirit” - apparently explaining γεννηθη άνωθεν simply as γεννηθη έκ του πνεύματος. This is repeated in the concluding statement in verse 8: “So is it with everyone who is born of the spirit.” Judith Lieu maintains that Johannine irony should not be seen as a form of dualism. Earthly experience is a sign that points to and enfleshes divine truth with­out encompassing it. In the case of John 3, this means that birth again/from above is not “alien to and contrasted to the mundane birth from a mother. On the contrary, the latter is a sign and carrier of the former.”^[339]

However, the contrast σαρξ versus πνεύμα does not correspond to the hendiadys εξ ύδατο$ και πνεύματος in 3:5, where the simple use of the preposition means that it governs both ύδωρ and πνεύμα, which do not constitute a contrast but rather a close-knit pair. Since ύδωρ is left out in Jesus’s further explications in John 3, the emphasis nevertheless seems to be on the spirit.

Some commentators have, however, noted occurrences where “water” is used of fluids involved in procreation and refers to sperm. Already in 1929 Hugo Odeberg drew attention to some Jewish texts where the Hebrew term HS’Q, which he took to mean “water,” was used about sperm (Nid. 16b; 'Abot 3.1). He therefore proposed that in John 3:5 ύδωρ might refer to male semen as a metonym for σαρξ in 3:6 and in opposition to πνεύμα both in 3:5 and 3:6.^[340] Scrutinizing the evidence further, Sjef van Tilborg found that HS’Q does not mean water but a drop of whatever fluid it may be, and also that the rabbis were well aware that semen was not water. However, “the combination ‘water and spirit’ appears in (classical) physi­ology precisely as indicating the male sperm.”^[341] This would imply that water in conjunction with spirit as in John 3:5 signifies male sperm. At the same time, πνεύμα in the Gospel of John is a divine principle which in John 6:63 is said to be the το ζωοποιούν. In the particular discourse of John 3, άνωθεν γεννηθή then would refer to origin from above, divine origin, and γεννηθή έξ ύδατο$ και πνεύματος should be taken to mean “begotten by the divine sperm.” This is in fact the very term used in 1 John 3:9. Πα^ ο γεγεννημενο$ έκ τού θεού αμαρτίαν ού ποιεϊ οτι σπέρμα αυτού έν αύτω μένει (“Those who have been begotten by God do not sin, because the sperm of God abides in them”).

However, another trail may be followed leading in the direction of wa­ter signifying the amniotic fluid on which the child flows out of the moth­er’s womb. In another nebulous passage, John 7:37-39, water and spirit are again brought together in an alleged scriptural reference which says that “out of his κοιλία rivers of living water shall flow forth.” Depending on the punctuation, the person of whose κοιλία rivers will flow may be Jesus himself or the believer - if not ambiguously both of them, as in an original textual rendering without punctuation. The term κοιλία is in the context of 7:37-39 strange and suggestive.^[342] One is reminded of Nicodemus’s naive misunderstanding in 3:4 when he states the impossible scenario for an old (hu)man to return to his mother’s κοιλία for a second birth. Although κοιλία is not a common word for womb in classical Greek, it is used in this sense in the LXX (Gen 25:24; Deut 28:4; 11:1; Ruth 1:11) and else­where in the New Testament (Matt 19:12; Luke 11:27; Gal 1:15). Most frequent, as also in John 3:4, is the fuller expression “the mother’s womb.” The choice of words in 7:37-39 might thus be a spill over from 3:4, as well as preparing for or even predicting the water and blood coming forth from Jesus’s dead body through his pierced πλευρά in 19:34. The lack of verbal correlation between 7:38 and 19:34 represents a difficulty but may depend on a different set of scriptural associations.^[343] Thus a middle ground might be that the term “water” is semantically fluid and open. By not being spe­cific in either direction, there is an interweaving of male and female pro­creative allusions and a significant lack of precision in the terminological usage. The same applies also to the ambiguity of the verb γεννηθή in John 3:3, 5-8. This is not necessarily a matter of gender balance, but rather of a divine Father subsuming in himself every procreative element and replac­ing a generation έξ αίματων ουδέ εκ θελήματος σαρκο$ ουδέ εκ θελήματος άνδρό$ with one that is of spirit (and water).

Throughout the first phase of Jesus dialogue with Nicodemus in John 3, the language stays generic or neutral, and hence endlessly applicable by the use of third person singular τι$ until it is applied in verse 7c, to “you,” not in singular but in plural. Neither does Jesus address Nicodemus direct­ly in the second person, nor does Nicodemus specifically apply it to him­self. The statements become general, and from verse 12 Jesus enters into a monologue speaking of himself. Thus Jesus’s initial statement could equal­ly well refer to himself as the one who has been άνωθεν γεννηθή. Indeed, Jesus himself is the only one we know of at this stage in the gospel narra­tive who is άνωθεν γεννηθη.^[344]

John Ashton maintains that verses 31-36 represents the final addition in the composition of John 3. ^[345] It is made to connect with the previous part(s) as the phrase ο άνωθεν ερχόμενος, which in verse 31 is a christological designation, is made to interpret the earlier saying in 3:3 εάν μη τι$ γεννηθη άνωθεν. From this, Ashton draws the conclusion that two themes, which in the previous tradition were originally distinct, namely new birth and the heavenly man, have been welded together. Thereby Je­sus’s dialogue with Nicodemus became primarily concerned with Jesus’s own heavenly origin. Jesus responds by referring to his descending and ascending: He is himself γεννηθη άνωθεν as well as the agent by whom it may apply to others.

In Jesus’s conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4, he points to himself as the source of the living water (4:10) and adds that in those who drink of this water, it will become a spring gushing up to eternal life (4:14). Thus in his uniqueness Jesus imparts something they would other­wise not be able to find and which transforms them in his image. Further­more, in 7:39 it is made explicit that the living water refers to the spirit, which the believers are yet to receive. This happens in John 20:22 when the glorified Jesus breathes on the disciples so they may receive the spirit and become τέκνα του θεού,^[346] having been given the power to name God their Father. Sharing in the Father’s life-giving capacity, the Son, sent by the Father, fulfils his mission by generating and empowering further chil­dren of God through the spirit-sperm which shapes and forms them.

The possibility that this was reenacted among the Johannine Christians through a (water) rite whereby the divine spirit-sperm was regarded as be­ing impregnated/inseminated in the believers should not be dismissed.

D.