The Armstrong Born Again Doctrine
Copyright © 2008 by Richard Hoot
All rights reserved
During His earthly ministry, Jesus used many different analogies to explain the gospel of the kingdom of God to His disciples. One of the most famous is a statement made by Jesus to Nicodemus, a Pharisee and ruler of the Jews, telling him that he must be born again.
Most people interpret the concept of being born again as a reference to Christian conversion, but during the nineteenth century, an alternative explanation appeared among the Adventist descendents of the Millerite movement. Some among the Seventh-day Adventists and the Church of God held that the new birth occurred in two parts (i.e., the first at conversion and second at the resurrection) while others maintained that conversion was merely a “begettal” (i.e., conception) and that the new birth actually occurred at the resurrection.[1]
In the early days of the Radio Church of God, Herbert W. Armstrong taught the traditional view, but around 1945, he began to teach that the Christian life is a gestation period and that Christians are finally born again at the resurrection.[2] The purpose of this paper is to review and evaluate Herbert Armstrong’s teaching about being born again.
Since this topic involves questions about semantics, a brief review of the terms and concepts related to the doctrine of salvation is in order. According to the Bible, all human beings since Adam (with the exception of Jesus Christ) have sinned and have incurred the death penalty (Rom 5:12). Since the time of Adam, human nature has been intrinsically corrupt and unable to obey God (Jer 17:9, Rom 8:7).
Salvation is much more than simply accepting Jesus; it is “the sum total of all God’s work for man in delivering him from his lost condition in sin and presenting him in glory.”[3] Salvation involves a total transformation of the mind, heart and body to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ. It is a process that includes election, vocation (calling), conversion, justification, regeneration, sanctification and glorification.
Election refers to the sovereign act of God whereby He chose for salvation all those whom He foreknew.[4] The doctrine of election is based on God’s omniscience; however, theologians differ over whether this should be understood as predestination and prescience. In Calvinist theology, God chooses (foreordains) who will believe and elects them to salvation; in Arminian theology, God foreknows who will choose to believe and elects them to salvation.
Vocation is the gracious act of God in which He invites humans to accept salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.[5] Because human nature is corrupt, God must call (draw) people to receive salvation (Rom 3:10-11, John 6:44). Theologians distinguish between the general calling of all people through the proclamation of the gospel and the effectual calling of God, which involves the application of the gospel to the elect through the work of the Holy Spirit. As with election, in Calvinist theology, God’s calling and grace are irresistible; those who are chosen by God are irresistibly drawn to Christ by the Holy Spirit and inevitably brought to salvation. This is the doctrine of Irresistible Grace. In Arminian theology, however, those who are called can resist the Holy Spirit and lose out on salvation.[6]
Conversion is the human response to the call of God that consists of repentance and faith. Repentance is a change of mind, heart and will in which a person acknowledges personal guilt, turns from sin and seeks forgiveness. Similarly, faith is the turning of the soul to God just as repentance is the turning of the soul from sin. It is more than just intellectual comprehension of the revelation of God for even the demons know the facts about God (James 2:19); faith includes the surrender of the heart to God and the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior.[7] In Calvinist theology, all those who are chosen by God and given faith by the Holy Spirit are eternally saved; they are kept from losing faith and falling away by the power God and thus persevere to the end. This is the doctrine of Perseverance. In Arminian theology, those who are truly saved can lose their faith and fall away from salvation.[8]
Conversion is followed by justification, which is a declarative act; God justifies sinners by declaring them to be righteous through faith in Jesus Christ. Justification does not make one upright or righteous; it is a declaration, announcement or verdict about the individual.[9]
Regeneration involves the transmission of divine life to the soul and the imparting of a new nature to the believer through the work of the Holy Spirit (Tit 3:5). This new spiritual life affects the believer’s mind, heart and will to such a degree that he is said to be a new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17, Eph 4:24). Humanity is morally depraved by nature and in need of more than just forgiveness for past sins; the Holy Spirit regenerates the heart and makes fellowship with God possible.[10] The Holy Spirit is also responsible for the regeneration of the body in the resurrection (Matt 19:28, Rom 8:11).
Sanctification is both an act and a process. Initial or positional sanctification occurs when one first believes in Christ and is wholly set apart or dedicated to God; it also includes the imputing of holiness to the believer through faith in Christ. As a process, it continues throughout this life as an ongoing separation from evil and the conforming of one’s life to the image of Christ. Complete and final sanctification (i.e., glorification) occurs at the return of Christ when the body of the believer will be glorified in sinless perfection and immortality.[11]
2.1 The Kingdom of God
Based on numerous prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Jews in the first century believed that a political messiah would appear who would deliver them from oppressive Roman rule and establish a righteous, eternal empire under Israelite control (Isa. 9:6ff, Dan. 7:21-22, 27). The apostles also eagerly anticipated the establishment of this earthly, messianic kingdom (Luke 19:11, Acts 1:6-7, Rev 5:9-10).
Over the centuries, theologians have divided into three different positions regarding the nature and timing of the kingdom of God. These three positions are called Premillennialism, Amillennialism, and Postmillennialism.
Premillennialism is the belief that Christ will return at the start of a 1000 year period of peace and righteousness and will reign as King on the earth. Premillennialism (also known as chiliasm or millenarianism) was the dominant view in the first three centuries of the Christian Church and was taught by early leaders such as Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and Tertullian. Many in the ante-Nicene period believed that they were living in the last days and that Christ would soon return; however, this view faded after the union of church and state under Constantine.[12]
Amillennialism is the belief that there will be no earthly, millennial kingdom before or after Christ's return and that the kingdom of God is present in the world through the church. The Alexandrian school of interpretation attacked the literal interpretation of Scripture on which Premillennialism was based. Origin used the allegorical method of interpretation to spiritualize the concept of the future kingdom into the present Church Age from Adam onward.[13] Amillennialism is widely followed in the modern period; notable proponents include Louis Berkhof, Abraham Kuyper, Anthony Hoekema and the Roman Catholic Church.
Postmillennialism is the belief that the world will be converted through the work of the church resulting in a long period of peace and prosperity commonly called the Millennium after which Christ will return. Postmillennialists believe that Christ is now reigning from His throne in heaven and that the kingdom is being established throughout the world through the missionary activity of the church. Joachim of Fiore (ca. 1135-1202) and Daniel Darby (1638-1726) were early proponents of the idea which was later adopted by theological liberals. More recent proponents include Charles Hodge, A. H. Strong and B. B. Warfield.
However, Armstrong believed that the kingdom of God was something quite different than either an earthly, messianic kingdom or the authority of Christ ruling the hearts of men, which is represented on earth by the church; in his mind, the kingdom was synonymous with and limited to a divine, polytheistic family.
As the ancient Kingdom of Israel was composed of the human FAMILY of the human man Israel, so the Kingdom of God will be composed of the divine family of the divine GOD!...
A KINGDOM is a nation composed of people, as well as the GOVERNMENT of that nation. The Kingdom of GOD is composed of the divine FAMILY of God. The One Being we habitually think of as GOD is the FATHER of that Family.
Christ is a Son of God -- a member of that divine FAMILY, even as we may be!! That divine FAMILY is the Kingdom of God.[14] [Emphasis his throughout]
This unique definition is dependent on Armstrong’s antitrinitarian teachings about the nature of God and his belief in human deification (i.e., apotheosis as opposed to the orthodox doctrine of glorification). It also reflected his belief that the church is not now part of the kingdom; at best, the church was only an embryonic form of the kingdom.
Because conception and birth are integral parts of this teaching, the meaning of the archaic term beget is also crucial. While frequently used in the King James Version, this term has disappeared from modern translations.
Although Armstrong consulted and cited several dictionaries on this topic, his explanation clearly illustrates his actual understanding of the term.
A fertilized ovum -- an embryo -- is NOT a born human person. Life from the father has been imparted to it -- he has begotten it -- but neither embryo nor fetus is YET a born person....
At the time when the father begets and the mother conceives -- of the union of sperm cell and ovum -- the fertilized ovum becomes an embryo. But it is not yet delivered from the womb -- not yet born!...
Beget refers to the father. And the father's action is to cause the start of the process toward birth.[15]
As these passages show, Armstrong used the term beget to refer specifically to fertilization. In his mind, the terms beget and birth referred to two separate and distinct events.
When Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again (John 3:3, 5), the Greek word that John used for the birth process was gennao. There is no way to know for sure which language was spoken in the original conversation; but Koine Greek was widely spoken at this time, and the apostles all used Koine Greek to write the New Testament.
Translating Koine Greek into English can be quite a challenge because the vocabulary and grammar evolved over time and then died out centuries ago. To make matters worse, New Testament authors varied in their ability to write in Greek since it was likely a second language for many of them; occasionally, one can still see the underlying cadence of Semitic expressions even in the English translation.
Scholars must study the context of every occurrence of a term like gennao to narrow the range of possible meanings and then select English terms that closely match the intended meaning. The amount of similarity between any two terms is called the semantic overlap, which is rarely a perfect match; therefore, every translation is only an approximation of the original.
Although Armstrong could not translate Koine Greek, he did consult several popular lexicons to gain an understanding of the term. He cited Thayer’s (obsolete by this time), Liddell and Scott (a classical Greek reference) and Strong’s (a terse and unreliable resource).
Based on his research, Armstrong concluded that gennao was a rather flexible term that could be translated as either beget or born depending on the context because it “included the whole process of birth even from conception.”[16]
Thus, the one Greek word, gennao, means PRODUCTION THROUGH A PROCESS that includes and is generated by the imparting of the fertilizing or lifegiving element by the father. There is a TIME when the culmination in BIRTH has not yet occurred.
In the Greek, gennao, the word is all-inclusive as a PRODUCTION PROCESS. But in English, the word birth is NOT all-inclusive, and refers only to the final stage of the process -- the time of parturition -- delivery of child from the womb….
And since the Greek gennao is an all-inclusive term -- referring to begetting by the father, but also, secondarily according to the lexicons, including the process culminating in birth, the translators had to decide which English term to use in each case.[17]
Although John introduces the concept of spiritual rebirth in the opening lines of his gospel (John 1:12-13), it does not take center stage until Jesus meets Nicodemus (John 3:1ff). At this point in the narrative, Jesus has driven the money changers from the temple precincts and placed Himself in direct opposition to the Jewish rulers. Judea was seething with resentment against Roman rule and eagerly expected a descendant of David to appear to liberate them; therefore, the Jewish religious leaders were wary of Jesus’ popularity among the people and alarmed by any mention of a kingdom.
During their discussion, Jesus gave Nicodemus several statements about the nature of the kingdom of God. Each statement provides interpretive clues about the gospel of the kingdom of God and the meaning of being born again. Jesus said:
· “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).[18]
· “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).
· “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6).
· “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8)
In John 3:3, the expression born again comes from the Greek terms gennao anothen, which can be translated as either “born again” (NKJV, NASB95, NIV, ESV, NCV) or “born from above” (NRSV, ISV, NET Bible). While other occurrences of anothen in John’s writings suggest the latter, Nicodemus clearly understood Jesus to mean a second birth (John 3:4); and while there is no way to be certain which language Jesus originally used, John apparently intended to convey a double entendre in this case (see Bauer on gennao).
Armstrong explained that in order to see the kingdom (John 3:3), one must be resurrected (i.e., born again) because the spirit realm is invisible to human eyes. In John 3:8, Jesus said that those who are born again are like the wind, which Armstrong believed was further evidence for this explanation. “You cannot see wind. Wind is compared to spirit. It is INVISIBLE. That's why mortal FLESH, as we now are, cannot SEE the Kingdom of God. Those who inherit it will be spirit -- normally invisible to eyes still human.”[19]
While this explanation appears to be consistent with several other passages dealing with the invisible nature of the spirit realm (e.g., Num 22:22-33, 2 Kings 6:8-17, 1 John 3:2), it does not prove that John 3:3 is speaking of the resurrection. Any possible explanation (e.g., conversion) would have to be consistent with the rest of Scripture because inconsistency is positive evidence of error. Since there are two possible explanations for this passage, consistency is necessary but not sufficient to prove that John 3:3 is a reference to the resurrection.
3.2 Born of the Spirit
Armstrong felt that John 3:6 was the key to understanding what Jesus meant about being born again. He saw a clear connection between being born of the Spirit and the resurrection.
Here is the crux point that explains it all: Jesus said:
“That which is born of the flesh IS flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit IS spirit.”
Man is now flesh -- human. He is MATERIAL SUBSTANCE. “Dust thou art,” said God to Adam, “and unto dust shalt thou return.” Again, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 3:19 and 2:7).
But, said Jesus plainly, when one is born of the Spirit HE WILL BE SPIRIT! Look at it! Read it in your own Bible.
The Kingdom of God will be composed of SPIRIT BEINGS -- not of humans![20]
Although most Christians interpret being born again as a reference to Christian conversion, Armstrong associated it with the transformation of the body from flesh and blood to spirit that occurs at the resurrection when Christ returns. This interpretation was foundational to all of Armstrong’s subsequent teaching on this subject.
Since Armstrong believed that being born of the Spirit was a reference to the resurrection, he also concluded that Christians could not enter the kingdom until the resurrection. The assumption here is that being born again and being born of the Spirit both refer to the same thing. Since the Holy Spirit is instrumental in both the conversion and the resurrection of a Christian, this must be a reference to the divine Spirit and not the human spirit.
As a result, Armstrong concluded that the church could not be part of the kingdom since physical Christians had not yet entered the kingdom. He reasoned that the kingdom would be composed solely of “spirit beings” and not mortal humans.
It had been the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that their church is the Kingdom of God. When one embraces the Catholic faith, he is regarded by Catholicism as having already entered into the Kingdom of God. Protestants have largely followed this assumption as applying to Protestantism, though some regard the Kingdom of God as some ethereal something “set up in men's hearts.” Many translators assumed this error.[21]
He explained that Christians now are only spiritually begotten (i.e., conceived) but not yet spiritually born. The church is only an embryonic form of the kingdom, and Christians are merely unborn children of God until the resurrection.
By combining this conclusion with his other teachings on the nature of God as a divine, polytheistic family and the doctrine of human deification, Armstrong concluded that entering the kingdom of God was equivalent to being born (again) into the family of God. Thus, the notion that the kingdom of God is the divine family of God (section 2.1) stems from a lengthy chain of inferences that begins with associating John 3:6 with the resurrection.
Paul taught that Christians cannot inherit the kingdom of God as flesh and blood (mortals) and that Christians will not be changed from mortal flesh to immortal spirit until the resurrection from the dead (1 Cor 15:22-23, 50-53). Therefore, Christians cannot inherit the kingdom of God until the resurrection.
Similarly, Armstrong claimed that being born again refers to a change from flesh to spirit (John 3:6) and that Christians will not be changed from flesh to spirit until the resurrection. Therefore, Christians cannot be born again until the resurrection
Armstrong’s original writings were significantly more convoluted than this and require careful study to untangle the two separate arguments. A review of the principles of deductive reasoning and symbolic logic are particularly useful in this case.
However, the important point to remember is that Armstrong’s interpretation of John 3:6 was assumed as a premise in reaching this conclusion. This is clearly seen in his second and third statements below when he substituted the phrase “born again” with the idea of being changed into spirit based on John 3:6-8.
Until born again, we cannot see the Kingdom of God -- (Jesus to Nicodemus, John 3:3).
Until born again, we cannot enter into the Kingdom of God -- (Jesus to Nicodemus, John 3:5).
Until no longer flesh, but changed into SPIRIT, we cannot enter into the Kingdom of God -- (Jesus to Nicodemus, John 3:6-8).
While still flesh and blood (as Nicodemus was and we are) we cannot inherit the Kingdom of God -- (Paul to the Corinthians, I Cor. 15:50).
Until the resurrection, at Christ's coming, we shall not be changed from corruptible flesh into incorruptible SPIRIT (Paul -- I Cor. 15:50-53 and verses 22-23).
Until the resurrection, therefore, we cannot see, enter into, or inherit the Kingdom of God. WE CANNOT BE BORN AGAIN UNTIL THE RESURRECTION![22]
While this argument is technically valid, the conclusion is only as true as the premises used to build it. Indeed, the fact that Christians are changed from flesh to spirit at the resurrection does not necessarily prove that John 3:6 is a reference to that event since 1 Corinthians 15 does not describe of the resurrection in terms of being born again or born of the Spirit.
Based on the conclusion that one is born again at the resurrection, Armstrong taught that conversion can be likened to conception and the Christian life to a gestation.
But now see how God's Spirit entering and dwelling in one compares to the physical sperm impregnating the ovum -- the imparting of eternal SPIRIT life, later to produce -- to bring forth -- a SPIRIT PERSON! A fertilized ovum -- an embryo -- is NOT a born human person. Life from the father has been imparted to it -- he has begotten it -- but neither embryo nor fetus is YET a born person. In the same manner the Spirit-begotten human is not, yet, a SPIRIT PERSON or BEING, as Jesus said he shall be when born again![23]
Thus, Armstrong taught that Christians today have not been born again. They need to grow spiritually within the womb of the church, “the mother of us all” (Gal 4:26, Heb 12:22-23), or risk the possibility of spiritual abortion. After the resurrection, Christians will have eternal life independent of God just as a born child is no longer dependent on his mother.[24]
He explained that biblical passages referring to Christians as already born again should be properly translated as being begotten.[25] In the King James Version, these passages appear in the writings of Peter (1 Pet. 1:3, 23) and John (John 1:13, 1 John 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 4, 18).
Based on his understanding of the terms beget and gennao, Armstrong insisted that the translators had chosen the wrong term because of a doctrinal presupposition (i.e., that the church is the kingdom of God). Indeed, Armstrong noted that newer translations, like the American Revised Version, used the term begotten rather than born in these passages.
5.0 Resurrection as a Birth
Armstrong cited several passages that appear to refer to the resurrection as a birth. Although they do not explicitly connect the metaphor of being born again or born of the Spirit with the resurrection, they were cited in overall support of Armstrong’s interpretation of John 3:6.
5.1 Christ Was Born Again
Since Jesus was the first to be resurrected to eternal life, Armstrong claimed that “Christ was born a SON of God by a resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:4).”[26] Although all humans may be born again by a resurrection, Armstrong explained that Jesus was uniquely the Son of God in both a physical and spiritual sense.
Jesus was, in the human flesh -- His first birth -- a descendant of David, and, by the resurrection from the dead -- (born AGAIN) -- the Son of God, now no longer human, but composed of SPIRIT -- a Spirit Being. He thus became the FIRST SO BORN of many brethren who shall be BORN AGAIN at the time of the resurrection of those who are Christ's.
Of course we understand, and so did Paul in writing the above, that Jesus was also the Son of God while in the human flesh. Though born of a human woman, He was sired by God. But this is comparing the two births -- the one from the human Mary, as descended from the human David -- the other, by His resurrection to glory, as Son of God by His resurrection, in the same manner we may be.[27]
Armstrong taught that Jesus is “the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom 8:29) because Christians will be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ through the glorification of the body in the resurrection (Phil 3:20-21) when they will be put on His same plane and also become God’s sons. According to Armstrong, God is going to have many sons, but so far, Jesus is the only human to be born of God though many have been begotten.[28]
In Colossians 1:15-18, Paul described Christ as “the firstborn over all creation... the firstborn from the dead.” The first reference emphasizes the lordship of Jesus Christ (a key theme of Colossians) while the second points to His priority in the resurrection, which is implicitly referred to as a birth.
In Revelation 1:5, John also referred to Jesus as the “firstborn from the dead.” The significance here is that two separate authors (Paul and John) both use the same expression. While the King James Version translated prototokos in Revelation 1:5 as “first begotten,” modern translations more properly render it as “firstborn.”
In Romans 8:19-22, Paul said that the creation was eagerly waiting for the revealing of the sons of God. Creation has been subjected to “futility” (undoubtedly referring to the time of Adam’s sin), but it will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God in the future. He said that “the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now” (Rom 8:22).
Armstrong claimed that this passage designated the resurrection into glory as a birth. He said that the creation will finally be delivered (a birth) from the bondage of corruption when Christ returns, the resurrection occurs, and the kingdom of God is established. “Although this is not referring directly to our being born again, it is a direct comparison to the BIRTH of a child being DELIVERED from its mother's womb.”[29]
6.0 Problem Passages
Armstrong’s rejection of the traditional understanding of being born again raised several questions. The concept of conversion as a rebirth did not develop in a vacuum, and several passages that correspond with that position will be addressed in addition to other passages that did not seem to fit the new interpretation.
In Mark 1:14-15, Jesus said that the time was fulfilled and that the kingdom of God was at hand. If the church is not connected with the kingdom in some way, then Jesus appears to be mistaken about its arrival. The disciples eagerly expected the kingdom to come soon, and Jesus had to address those expectations on a couple of occasions (Luke 19:11ff, Acts 1:6ff).
Armstrong explained that the good news of the kingdom of God could not be announced until a successor had qualified to replace Satan as earth’s ruler. Where Adam had failed, Jesus succeeded. After He overcame Satan’s temptations in the wilderness, the time had fully come to announce His coming kingdom. This was not possible until after His victory over Satan.[30]
Several passages (e.g., John 1:14, 3:16) refer to Jesus as the only begotten Son of God. If conversion is referred to as a spiritual conception in the New Testament, the implication is that none of the patriarchs and prophets in the Old Testament would have had the Holy Spirit, which goes against the biblical evidence.
Armstrong explained that passages like this are referring to Jesus’ human birth and are not part of the rebirth analogy. He said that before Jesus was conceived by Mary, He was not the Son of God; His human birth was His first birth.[31]
Indeed, Armstrong said that Jesus could not be called the firstborn if being born again refers to receiving the Holy Spirit. “This, again, PROVES that the conversion in this life -- receiving the Holy Spirit -- is only a begettal -- NOT a birth! For Old Testament fathers and prophets received God's Spirit -- but they were not “born again” because Jesus was the first so born!” [32]
In 1 Peter 2:1-2, Peter referred to Christians as newborn babes rather than unborn children. This passage, and many others like it in the New Testament, would be a natural extension of the conversion-rebirth analogy and evidence for the traditional interpretation.
Armstrong dismissed this passage by explaining that Peter was forced to use another analogy in this case. “He is comparing the Christian's spiritual ‘gestation’ period to the growth of a newborn human physical baby simply because it would be awkward indeed to compare it to a physical embryo or fetus. He is not saying we are already born babes in God's Kingdom -- but as -- or like newborn human babes.”[33]
The preceding summary represents the essence of Armstrong’s position that Christians are born again at the resurrection. While he used this teaching to illuminate many other doctrines, like the nature of God and the deification of humanity, most of that material did not necessarily depend on this interpretation as a prerequisite.
Although Armstrong’s position may appear plausible, there are many problems with it that have yet to be addressed. Much of Armstrong’s evidence was either incorrect or easily explained according to the traditional interpretation, and there is considerable evidence for the traditional explanation that Armstrong failed to discuss.
Indeed, questionable passages should be interpreted in the light of clear passages, and it is just as easy to interpret John 3:6 as a reference to conversion rather than resurrection. Since it can be interpreted both ways, it is not decisive, and further evidence must be sought.
But, getting at the truth requires more than just additional data; it requires an altogether different approach to the question. The basic problem here is the fallacy of either-or thinking; in order to eliminate the traditional interpretation, Armstrong was forced to ignore any contrary evidence or twist those passages out of context.
A careful analysis shows that there are several different birth-related analogies in the New Testament. To demonstrate this, the previous sections will now be reviewed and corrected.
The first task is to clarify the meaning of each of the key terms. The definition assigned to each was only partially correct, which led to misunderstanding and faulty conclusions. Each of these key terms will now be re-examined and clarified.
8.1 The Kingdom of God
The meaning of being born again is closely associated with the kingdom of God; therefore, a careful definition of that kingdom is also required. Jesus told Nicodemus that he could not see or enter the kingdom unless he was born again (John 3:3, 5); therefore, one must understand what the kingdom is in order to understand the metaphor of being born again.
In order to properly define the kingdom of God, it is necessary to consider all the different constituent parts of a kingdom. Ironically, Armstrong himself provided a better definition than the one given above. He wrote, “A government -- or kingdom -- is composed of four things: (a) a KING, ruling over (b) people, subjects or citizens within (c) a definite jurisdiction of territory, with (d) laws and an organized system of administering them.”[34]
For example, consider the Roman Empire, which administered Judea during the time of Jesus and Nicodemus. The emperor at that time was Tiberius Caesar who was reputed to be an able, if tactless, administrator.[35] His subjects included all Roman citizens (regardless of their location) as well as any conquered peoples or slaves within the various provinces and territories that constituted his realm. The imperial legal system, upon which Paul frequently relied for protection, was designed to maintain peace and order throughout the empire for the benefit of its citizens; Rome’s chief concern was to maintain the status quo and not to promote social justice or equality.[36] The kingdom of God, as described by Jesus and the apostles, stands in stark contrast with this example.
While the gospel of the kingdom of God was clearly the central message that Jesus preached (Mark 1:14-15), there is a certain tension within His teaching concerning this kingdom. Often, Jesus spoke of the kingdom as a present reality (Luke 17:20-21) while at other times it was clearly a future event (Matt 6:10).
Bock refers to this tension as the “already” and the “not yet” aspects of the kingdom. The future aspect relates to the Old Testament and the covenant promises to Israel while the present aspect is related to the church and the exercise of her mission through the power of the Holy Spirit.[37] Lowery explains that a “kingdom” normally denotes the idea of a realm (including land and people) ruled by a king; however, it can also refer to the exercise of rulership and authority, and it is not always clear if one aspect or the other or both are being referred to in a particular passage.[38]
Clearly, the kingdom of God is both a present reality and a future event. God’s authority extends over Christians who choose to embrace salvation now, but Christ will also forcibly establish His authority over all nations when He returns. At conversion, Christians become citizens of another government and part of the kingdom of God.
The term beget actually has a broad range of meanings although some are now obsolete. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines it this way:
1 obs: to acquire esp. by effort
2 a: to procreate as the father: SIRE…
b: to give birth to: BREED…
3 obs: to make (a woman) pregnant
4 to produce usu. as an effect or natural outgrowth
Ironically, the primary definition (to acquire) is not even related to reproduction, and the secondary meaning (to procreate, give birth) can be used of both parents showing that beget has a much broader meaning then just fertilization (cf. Zech 13:3 KJV). This is even clearer in The Oxford English Dictionary (with examples from the KJV period included).
1. trans. To get, to acquire (usually by
effort)…
1602 SHAKS. Ham. III. ii. 8 You must acquire and beget a
Temperance that may giue it Smoothnesse.
2. To procreate, to generate: usually said of the
father, but sometimes of both parents…
1611 BIBLE Prov. xvii.21 He that begetteth a foole, doth it to
his sorrow
b. Const. on, upon, or upon the body of
1509-10 Act I Hen. VIII. xix. Pream. The heires males whiche
he shulde begett on the body of the said Elizabeth. [sic]
c. = GET (with child). Obs.
1603 SHAKS. Meas for M. v. i. 517 There’s one Whom he begot with
childe
3. Theol. Applied to the relationship of the
Father to the Son in the Trinity; also to the spiritual relationship of God to
man in regeneration.
1549 Bk. Com. Pr. Athanas. Cr., The Son is of the Father alone:
not made, nor created, but begotten.
4. fig. and transf. To call into being,
give rise to; to produce, occasion.
1588 SHAKS. L.L.L. II. i. 69 His eye begets occasion for his wit.
Thus, the basic definition of beget is to acquire, to procreate or to produce (in a generic sense). While it is typically used of men fathering children, it also can be used of females giving birth, or trees producing fruit or even (in an abstract sense) of ideas producing actions.
The lexicons of Armstrong’s day used the term beget to define gennao, which lead to some confusion based on the artificially narrow definition that was applied; however, modern lexicons give a clearer picture of the meaning of this term. For example, Bauer defines gennao this way.
1. beget - a. lit. become the father of…
b. fig. of the [influence] exerted by one person on another… of a teacher on
pupils…
2. of women: bear…
3. fig. bring forth, produce, cause…
Swanson’s Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) gives an even better explanation.
1. LN 23.58 procreate, bring into being, become the father of (Mt 1:2);
2. LN 23.52 give birth (Lk 1:13);
3. LN 13.56 be born of, involving of a radical change in the whole person (Jn 3:5);
4. LN 13.129 cause to happen, produce, give rise to (2Ti 2:23);
5. LN 41.53 be born again or be born from above (Jn 3:3)
The references to the Louw-Nida (LN) lexicon are included below (without the Greek).
23.58 the male role in causing the conception and birth of a child—‘to be the father of, to procreate, to beget.’
23.52 to give birth to a child—‘to bear, to give birth.’
13.56 (a figurative extension of meaning of [gennao] ‘to give birth,’ 23.52) to cause to experience a radical change, with the implication of involvement of the total personality—‘to cause to be born, to be born of.’
13.129 to cause to happen, with the implication of the result of existing circumstances—‘to cause, to produce, to give rise to.’
41.53 (an idiom, literally ‘to be born again’); to experience a complete change in one’s way of life to what it should be, with the implication of return to a former state or relation—‘to be born again, to experience new birth, rebirth.’
Now that the term beget has been freed from the artificially narrow sense of fertilization by the father, there is clearly a greater degree of similarity with gennao. Both terms basically mean to procreate, to become the father of, to give birth or to produce.
While gennao (Strong’s 1080) can refer to the male role in generating children, it does not refer to conception; the Greek term for conception is sullambano (Strong’s 4815). When translating these terms into English, it is important to remember that while a father or a mother may beget a child, only a mother can conceive or give birth, and translators usually try to follow the context accordingly.
The following table illustrates the various active and passive uses of these verbs when discussing human reproduction.
Examples of Reproductive Terminology
|
Case |
Subject |
Verb |
Predicate |
Greek |
|
#1 |
A father |
begets |
a child |
gennao |
|
#2 |
A mother |
conceives |
a child |
sullambano |
|
#3 |
A mother |
gives birth to |
a child |
gennao |
|
#4 |
A child |
is begotten |
by his father |
gennao |
|
#5 |
A child |
is conceived |
by his mother |
sullambano |
|
#6 |
A child |
is born |
by his mother |
gennao |
Examples of each of these six cases are given below from the King James Version with the associated number from Strong’s lexicon to help identify each term:
Case #1: “Abraham begat [1080] Isaac; and Isaac begat [1080] Jacob; and Jacob begat [1080] Judas and his brethren” (Matt. 1:2)
Case #2: “And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived [4815], and hid herself five months, saying” (Luke 1:24)
Case #3: “A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered [1080] of the child…” (John 16:21)
Case #4: “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for {1} the Child who has been {2} conceived [1080] in her is of the Holy Spirit” {1) Lit that which 2) Lit begotten} (Matt 1:20)
Case #5: “And when eight days had passed, before His circumcision, His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived [4815] in the womb” (Luke 2:21)
Case #6: “…she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born [1080] into the world” (John 16:21b)
Matthew 1:20 is the only time that gennao is rendered as conceived, but the marginal notes in several translations make it clear that the Greek literally means begotten because the Holy Spirit produced the miracle of the Incarnation. As this example illustrates, the King James Version is not always consistent when rendering the Greek text into English.
While Matthew 1:20 is a clear example of using gennao to refer to a child that has been fathered but not yet born, this is usually not the case unless it is clearly indicated by the context. Indeed, since gestation is only a small fraction of an entire lifetime, a begotten child is usually also a born child unless the context clearly indicates otherwise (e.g., Matt 1:2 KJV above).
Another interesting example is 1 John 5:18, where gennao is rendered (inconsistently) as both begotten and born in the same passage. It should be clear by now that when translators later changed born to begotten in the American Standard Version, they were doing so to be consistent with the context of God as the Father and not to suggest that Christians are in some kind of gestation state.
While an unborn state cannot be absolutely precluded in passages like 1 John 5:8, it also cannot be demonstrated; therefore, much of the evidence for Armstrong’s interpretation of conversion as a conception is lost at the outset. On the other hand, there are enough passages that clearly refer to conversion as a rebirth to settle the matter.
When Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again, He was introducing the metaphor of conversion as a spiritual rebirth that is well documented in both Scripture and history. Paul described the Galatians as his own children and his efforts to convert them as his own personal labor pains (Gal 4:19). Indeed, Christians were also often referred to as babies or infants who needed milk (1 Cor 3:1-2, Heb 5:12, 1 Pet 2:2).
Hunsburger argues that being born again is known to refer to conversion because early Jewish rabbis spoke of proselytes as having been reborn.[39] Among the Jews of the Talmudic period (ca. A.D. 200-500), it was frequently said that “one who has become a proselyte is like a child newly born” (Yebamoth fol. 22a)[40]. Another passage says, “He who teaches the son of his neighbor the Torah, Scripture ascribes it to him as if he had begotten him” (Sanhedrin fol. 19b); Paul and John used this metaphor as well (1 Cor 4:15, Philm 10, 1 John 2:1).
While the Talmudic evidence is impressive, it does not prove that this metaphor already existed when Jesus met Nicodemus. Indeed, after a careful study of this subject, Mounce concluded that Judaism only provided the atmosphere and terminology for this metaphor and that Jesus is the actual originator.[41] If so, it could have easily passed from Jewish Christians to the rabbis during their interaction in the early first century.
When Jesus said that one must be born again to see the kingdom, He could be talking about understanding or experiencing the kingdom rather than literally seeing the invisible spirit realm. In John 3:2, Nicodemus said, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God.” Jesus replied, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see (Greek idein) the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). Idein is the second aorist active infinitive of horao (Strong’s 3708), which means to see, to understand or to experience an event or state.
Basically, Jesus could be telling Nicodemus that he really does not have eyes to see or ears to hear (Matt 13:15ff, Mark 8:18). The unconverted mind lacks spiritual perception (1 Cor. 2:6ff); in this case, Nicodemus failed to see (understand) that Jesus is the Messiah, the embodiment of the kingdom of God, and not just a teacher sent by God.
On the other hand, Jesus could also be saying that a person must be converted before they can experience the kingdom (either in this life or in the resurrection). This expression is used throughout the Bible; for example, those who keep Christ’s words will not “see death” (John 8:51) and Babylon boasted that she will never mourn or “see sorrow” (Rev 18:7). Similarly, Jesus said that some of His disciples would see (i.e., experience) the kingdom of God before they died, which was fulfilled during His transfiguration (Luke 9:27-36).
While Armstrong’s explanation cannot be entirely ruled out, it is only as likely as the traditional interpretation if not less so given the number of interpretive options. Since there are several plausible options, this passage cannot be used to prove his position.
9.2 Born of Water and Spirit
In John 3:5-8, Jesus made three important statements about being born again, which He described as being “born of the Spirit.” Although the terminology is slightly different, there is no indication of a break in the context and being born of the Spirit is just as essential to partaking of the kingdom of God as being born again; therefore, Jesus must be referring to the same birth analogy that He discussed in John 3:3-4.
In John 3:5, Jesus said that one must be born of water and Spirit to enter the kingdom of God, which clearly points to conversion since water plays no role in the resurrection of the saints. Early Christians, such as Ambrose, explained this passage as a reference to baptism and spiritual regeneration (On the Holy Spirit 3:10:64). Calvin and others associated it with the cleansing work of the Holy Spirit in sanctification and regeneration. Curiously, Armstrong never addressed this reference to water in his booklet on this subject.
Baptism was an integral part of the ministry of both Jesus and John the Baptist in the early chapters of John’s gospel (John 1:25-33, 3:22-26, 4:1-2); therefore, water would naturally be associated with baptism in this context. Baptism is a tangible affirmation of repentance and faith in the process of Christian conversion (Act 22:16), and immersion was a well-known and important part of Jewish ritual cleansing ceremonies.
Since water could also refer to the sanctifying and regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, Armstrong’s explanation is even less likely. Many commentators have suggested that Nicodemus would have readily associated water with the work of the Holy Spirit based on Ezekiel 36:25-27. Paul spoke of “the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Tit 3:5), which also suggests a connection with being born of water and Spirit. In fact, the reference to water could be a double entendre that includes baptism and the work of the Holy Spirit.
Some have suggested that being born of water is a reference to a physical birth (i.e., as either amniotic or seminal fluid), but this is very unlikely. In John 3:6, Jesus clearly referred to the first birth as being “born of the flesh” not born of water. If He had wanted to refer to a physical birth in John 3:5, He could have clearly and consistently said that one must be born of the flesh rather than using the more ambiguous and confusing reference to water. But, there is an even greater problem with this interpretation. Why would Jesus bother to say that one must be born of the flesh before he can enter into the kingdom? Did Nicodemus really need such a basic, self-evident statement from the Son of God?
Moreover, the grammar of John 3:5 indicates that both water and Spirit are connected with the second birth and not just Spirit alone. Carson observes that water and Spirit are both part of a genitive prepositional phase that describes the kind of birth that is required to enter the kingdom of God. Jesus was not referring to two births in this passage; John 3:3, 5, 6b and 7 are parallel statements about the significance of being born again.[42]
Armstrong’s interpretation cannot explain this reference to being born of water and Spirit, which undermines his entire teaching on this subject. While other statements in this passage could be referring to either conversion or resurrection, John 3:5 is uniquely consistent with the notion of conversion.
Armstrong relied heavily on John 3:6 to equate the resurrection with being born again, but this passage can also be interpreted as a reference to conversion. Armstrong clearly stated that this passage was central to his entire interpretation, yet he never bothered to explain why this could not also be a reference to conversion.
Indeed, numerous passages describe conversion as a new life or a new creation. For example, Paul said that Christians “are not in the flesh but in the Spirit” if the Holy Spirit dwells within them (Rom. 8:9). Similarly, Paul characterized the Corinthians as carnal (sarkikos, fleshly) rather than spiritual (pneumatikos) because of their poor behavior (1 Cor. 3:1ff). He told the Ephesians to lay aside the old man and put on the new man by being renewed in the spirit of the mind (Eph. 4:20-24, Rom 12:2); to renew (ananeoo) means “to cause something to become new and different, with the implication of becoming superior” (Louw-Nida 58.72). Paul also told the Colossians to put off the old man and put on the new (neos) who is renewed (anakainoo) in knowledge (Col 3:9-10, 2 Cor 4:16). Christians are “a new creation” (2 Cor 5:17).
Since John 3:6 can be interpreted in two different ways, additional evidence must be sought to determine what Jesus meant by being born again or born of the Spirit. One of the cardinal rules of interpreting Scripture is to use clear passages to illuminate ambiguous ones; since John 3:6 is a contested passage, it cannot be used as proof of Armstrong’s position.
In John 3:8, Jesus told Nicodemus, “The wind (pneuma) blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit (pneuma).” Ironically, the Greek term pneuma can refer to the wind or a spirit, and in this passage both meanings are used.
As with John 3:3, this metaphor is just another way of saying that Nicodemus lacked eyes to see and ears to hear because he was unconverted. Indeed, Jesus later lamented that Jerusalem would be destroyed because, like the inhabitants of Sodom, they did not recognize the time of their visitation and judgment (Luke 19:41-44); and He condemned the Pharisees and Sadducees because they could forecast the weather, but they could not recognize the signs of the times in which they lived (Matt 16:1-4).
Scripture supports the notion that Christians finally enter the kingdom at Christ’s return (Matt. 7:21ff, 25:21, 23, Acts 14:22); however, since conversion occurs before the return of Jesus Christ, there is no problem with associating conversion with being born again. When Christ returns and establishes His kingdom on the earth, He will judge and reward those who have been faithful with positions of authority within His kingdom; only then will the saints finally enter into the joy of their Lord.
In John 3:5, Jesus was essentially telling Nicodemus that he had to be converted before he could enter the kingdom of God. This is exactly what Jesus said about entering the kingdom in Matthew 18:3; when the disciples asked who would be the greatest in the kingdom, Jesus placed a child in their midst and told them that a converted, childlike attitude is a prerequisite to entering the kingdom.
Indeed, Jesus appears to be introducing Nicodemus to the rather new idea that Christian conversion is a necessary prerequisite to eternal life. As a Pharisee, Nicodemus was undoubtedly familiar with the resurrection of the dead (Dan. 12:1ff, Acts 23:8), but the outpouring of the Holy Spirit appears to be quite unexpected to a first century audience (Acts 19:1ff).
9.4 The Church and the Kingdom
This raises the question of whether or not the church is a part of the kingdom now. Because Armstrong equated John 3:6 with the resurrection, he argued that the church could not be part of the kingdom. This conclusion is no longer tenable.
While several passages indicate that Christians enter the kingdom at the resurrection, others show that Christians are a part of the kingdom now. Paul plainly said that God has “delivered us from the power of darkness, and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love” (Col 1:13). Other translations use “transferred” in place of “conveyed,” but the basic idea is that Christians have changed their status relative to these two kingdoms.
This apparent inconsistency is resolved by understanding the present and future aspects of the kingdom discussed earlier. Armstrong narrowly defined a kingdom as a single family, but Paul was clearly not an Italian even though he was a Roman citizen. In the same way, Paul said that gentile Christians “are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph 2:19). The Philippians enjoyed the privileges of Roman citizenship because their city was a Roman colony (Acts 16:12), but Paul explained that Christians possess an even greater citizenship in heaven as a present reality (Phil 3:20).
As with the Roman Empire, the kingdom of God currently has citizens and subjects in different locations. God currently rules over the angels in heaven and over humans on earth who have voluntarily submitted to His authority. When Christ returns, all humans will become subjects of His kingdom but not necessarily citizens.
A Roman soldier or ambassador might travel outside the territory of the Empire, but he was still a citizen and subject of that kingdom. If he happened to be the heir apparent, he would have to return home to inherit the kingdom when the Emperor died.
Similarly, Christians are like ambassadors stationed in an embassy far from home; they are presently subjects of the kingdom of God but not yet rulers or inheritors. The church is a colony of God’s kingdom on the earth; but this does not mean that the church is the kingdom since the church represents only a portion of God’s subjects and has no political sovereignty on the earth. Numerous Scriptures refer to Christians as “sojourners and pilgrims” in this world (1 Pet 2:11), dwelling like resident aliens until the kingdom comes (Heb 11:13).
9.5 Inheriting the Kingdom
Paul clearly taught that Christians must wait until the resurrection to inherit the kingdom. Until then, Christians are heirs of the kingdom (Dan 7:27, Jas 2:5). At Christ’s return, there will be a period of judgment and reward for God’s servants, which includes receiving a portion of the kingdom as an inheritance (Matt 25:34).
Armstrong claimed that Christians will not be born again until the resurrection based on his interpretation of John 3:6; however, since John 3:6 is a contested passage, this conclusion is no longer certain. Indeed, John 3:5 is more likely referring to conversion than resurrection and John 3:6 does not say that flesh will be changed to spirit.
In addition, there is nothing in 1 Corinthians 15 that explicitly connects the resurrection with the metaphor of being born again. While it is true that Christians will be changed from flesh and blood to spirit at that time, Paul does not refer to this event as a rebirth or describe it as being born of the Spirit.
10.0 Conception as a Misconception
Armstrong claimed that Christians are currently in a gestation state awaiting their final spiritual birth in the resurrection. Consequently, he insisted that gennao should be translated as begotten rather than born when referring to Christians.
However, there are numerous problems with this explanation. For example, there are no passages that portray Christians as unborn children, there are no passages that use the term sullambano (i.e., conception) as a metaphor for conversion, and there are no passages that refer to the church as “the mother of us all” as Armstrong claimed. Hebrews 12:22-23 also does not equate the church with the heavenly Jerusalem simply by mentioning them together in the same passage.[43] God and the angels are also mentioned in the same passage, but they certainly cannot be equated with the church. In Galatians 4:24-26, “Jerusalem above” clearly refers to the new covenant not to the church.
Armstrong’s assertion that Christians are now unborn children in God’s family but not yet actual children until born again at the resurrection is inherently inconsistent. In order to accommodate the passages that plainly declare that Christians are now children of God (Rom 8:14, 1 John 3:2), Armstrong explained that an unborn child is the offspring of its parents.[44] But, in order to maintain his artificially narrow definition of the kingdom as a spirit composed family, Armstrong also claimed that Christians do not become part of God’s family until the resurrection. This self-contradictory position highlights the basic flaw in Armstrong’s arbitrary definition of the kingdom.
On the other hand, there are numerous passages that picture conversion as a birth and Christians as born children. For example, three passages refer to converts as born children (1 Cor. 3:1-2, Heb. 5:11-14, 1 Pet. 2:2). In another passage, Paul speaks of being in labor pains in connection with his wayward converts because he has lost them to another gospel and must suffer birth pains again until they are restored to Christ (Gal. 4:19). Paul repeatedly speaks of his converts as his own children (1 Cor. 4:15, 1 Tim. 1:2, Philm. 10); individuals like Timothy and Onesimus were always referred to as adult sons and not unborn children. The same is also true in John’s epistles (1 John 2:1, 3:18).
James explained that lust gives birth (tikto) to sin and sin brings forth (apokueo) death, but God has “brought us forth (apokueo) by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures” (James 1:15, 18). The Greek verb apokueo means to give birth, to bring forth (Bauer) or to bring into being (Louw-Nida). Since God is the subject of the sentence in James 1:18, it is better to render apokueo as bringing forth rather than giving birth.
James used apokueo in these two parallel passages to create a stark contrast between the work of sin and the work of God in the life of the believer. In James 1:18, apokueo is in the aorist (past) tense and is modified by the phrase “by the word of truth” (i.e., the gospel) referring to conversion rather than resurrection (Rom 10:17). Therefore, it is not scriptural to say that Christians have not yet been brought forth into God’s family as Armstrong claimed [45]
Peter explained that God “has begotten us again (anagennao) to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet. 1:3). The Greek term anagennao means to beget again or to cause to be born again (Bauer) making it semantically equivalent to gennao anothen and the best possible evidence for interpreting John 3:3. In this passage, anagennao is a masculine nominative singular aorist active participle, which means that it is better translated as having been begotten again rather than born again; the aorist form of the participle proves that this is referring to conversion in the past and not resurrection in the future. Basically, Peter is saying that God has given us a new life in the authentic faith of the Christian gospel that was made possible by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Indeed, Christians have been born again (anagennao) through the living and enduring word of God (1 Pet 1:23). In this passage, anagennao is a masculine nominative plural perfect passive participle, which indicates an action completed in the past with continuing results; however, as Wallace explains, an intensive perfect emphasizes the result or present state produced by past action, which is often best translated using an English perfect tense.[46] This new life comes through faith in the word God, proving that this is discussing conversion not resurrection.
Because 1 Pet 1:23 refers to the incorruptible seed (spora) of God’s word, anagennao should technically be translated as “having been begotten again” (cf. 1 Pet 1:23 ASV), but this passage is clearly referring to born children for three important reasons. First, the surrounding material makes no reference to gestation (e.g., Matt 1:20, Rom 9:10-11), which is absolutely essential in this case since there are no other scriptural references to conversion as a conception that can be cited as a precedent, but there are numerous biblical references to conversion as a birth. Second, if Peter had wanted to suggest that Christians have not yet been born, he could have used the term sullambano (conception) instead. Third, Peter specifically refers to Christians as “newborn babes” (artigennetos) in close proximity to anagennao (1 Pet 2:2). The vocabulary of 1 Peter clearly shows that Christians have already been born again and that John 3 is discussing conversion rather than resurrection.
As with James 1:18, the inseminating agent is the Word of God and not the Holy Spirit. Hearing the Word of God produces saving faith in the mind of a Christian leading to baptism and regeneration (Rom. 10:17).
10.2 Born of God
John also described Christians as having been born of God (John 1:13, 1 John 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 4, 18). The term gennao in these passages occurs in either the aorist or perfect tense and can be translated as begotten because the context involves the Father as the active agent and Christians as the passive recipients of this new life; however, there is nothing about the context of these passages that would indicate that Christians are unborn children of God.
The grammar of these passages clearly indicates that the command to be born again is fulfilled through conversion. Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born (gennao) again (John 3:7). Those who believe in the name of Jesus have been begotten (gennao) of God (John 1:12-13). Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been begotten (gennao) of God (1 John 5:1).
If the apostles wanted to say that Christians are yet unborn, they could easily have done so, but they deliberately chose to use terms associated with birth instead. However, this does not mean that the resurrection is never spoken of as a birth.
11.0 Resurrection Passages
Contrary to Armstrong, Romans 1:4 does not say that “Christ was born a Son of God by a resurrection from the dead.”[47] Paul said that Jesus was declared (horizo) to be the Son of God by the resurrection. The Greek term horizo indicates that the resurrection confirmed that Jesus is the Son of God (Matt 12:40, Acts 17:31). He was identified or singled out by the resurrection.
In Romans 8:29, Paul wrote, “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.” Christians are conformed to the image of Christ first through sanctification in this life and then through glorification in the resurrection, and this passage is probably referring to both. Christians do inherit some divine attributes as a result of glorification (i.e., eternal life and a sinless nature), but they will never be placed on the same plane as God (Isa 43:10, 44:6). Christians become God’s children at conversion not in the resurrection (John 1:12-13).
In Colossians 1:15, Paul referred to Jesus as “the firstborn over all creation” to stress His pre-eminence in all things, but this passage does not explain how Jesus became the firstborn. It is of no value in interpreting John 3 since it does not connect the resurrection with the metaphor of being born again.
Both Paul and John referred to Jesus as “the firstborn from the dead” (Col 1:18, Rev 1:5); while these passages do implicitly refer to the resurrection as a birth, they do not explicitly connect the resurrection with the metaphor of being born again. Since there are different birth analogies in the Bible, one cannot simply assume that these verses are automatically connected to John 3 without a greater degree of similarity between them. Indeed, leaven can be a symbol of evil or the kingdom (Matt 13:33, 16:6).
Romans 8:19-23 does implicitly refer to the resurrection as a birth, but it is of no value in connecting the resurrection with John 3. Armstrong himself conceded that this passage is not referring directly to Christians being born again. In Romans 8:22-23, Christians are groaning in pain along with creation rather than being born; indeed, the terms resurrection and birth are not even used in this passage but rather adoption and redemption.