Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

“(Hom. x. [ix.] 3) The Evangelist makes this declaration, that being taught the vileness and inferiority of our former birth, which is through blood, and the will of the flesh, and understanding the loftiness and nobleness of the second, which is through grace, we might hence receive great knowledge, worthy of being bestowed by him who begat us, and after this shew forth much zeal.”

“(Tr. ii. 14) To be made then the sons of God, and brothers of Christ, they must of course be born; for if they are not born, how can they be sons? Now the sons of men are born of flesh and blood, and the will of man, and the embrace of wedlock; but how these are born, the next words declare: Not of bloods1; that is, the male’s and the female’s. Bloods is not correct Latin, but as it is plural in the Greek, the translator preferred to put it so, though it be not strictly grammatical, at the same time explaining the word in order not to offend the weakness of one’s hearers.”

“Having set forth the necessity of the incarnation of the Word, the Evangelist next makes clear the benefit obtained by men from the incarnation itself. And first he intimates the coming of the light, in "he came unto his own"; second, the meeting of men, at "and his own received him not"; third, the fruit brought about by the coming of the light, at "he gave them power to be made the sons of God." He shows, then, that the light which was present in the world and evident, that is, manifest through its effect, was nevertheless not known by the world. And therefore "he came unto his own," that he might be known. But lest, when he says "he came," you should understand a local motion in this way — namely, that he came as if ceasing to be where he was before and beginning anew to be where he was not before — the Evangelist says "unto his own"; that is, into those things that were his own, which he himself had made; and he came where he already was. Below, 16:28: "I came forth from the Father, and came into the world." "He came," I say, "unto his own," that is, into Judea, according to some, which indeed was his own in a special way; Psalm 75:2: "In Judea God is known"; Isaiah 5:7: "The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel." But it is better to say "his own," that is, into the world created by him; Psalm 23:1: "The earth is the Lord's." But if he was already in the world, how did he come into the world? I answer that to come into some place is said in two ways: namely, either that someone comes where he was in no way before, or that, where he was in some way before, he begins to be in a certain new way. Just as a king, who was previously in some city of his kingdom through his power, and afterward comes to it personally, is said to come where he already was: for he comes through his substance where before he was only through his power. So, then, the Son of God came into the world, and yet he was in the world. He was there indeed through essence, power, and presence, but he came through the assumption of flesh; he was invisible, he came that he might be visible. Then when he says "and his own received him not," there follows the meeting of men, who conducted themselves differently toward the one coming. For some received him, though not his own; whence it is said "and his own received him not." His own are men, because formed by him; Genesis 2:7: "God formed man"; Psalm 99:3: "Know that the Lord, he made us," because we were made to his image: Genesis 1:26: "Let us make man." But it is better to say "his own," that is, the Jews, "received him not," by believing through faith and honoring him; below, 5:43: "I came in the name of my Father, and you received me not"; and below, 8:49: "I honor my Father, and you have dishonored me." The Jews indeed are his own, because chosen by him as a peculiar people; Deuteronomy 26:18: "The Lord has chosen you to be his peculiar people." His own, joined to him according to the flesh; Romans 9:5: "of whom is Christ according to the flesh." Likewise his own, advanced by him with benefits; Isaiah 1:2: "I have brought up children, and exalted them." But although they were his own, the Jews received him not. Yet there were not lacking those who received him; whence he adds "but as many as received him." The Evangelist uses this manner of speaking, saying "as many as," to show that the fulfillment was made broader than the promise, which had been made only to his own, namely to the Jews; Isaiah 33:22: "The Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us." But the fulfillment was made not only to his own, but "as many as received him," that is, to all believing in him; Romans 15:8: "For I say that Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises of the fathers," that is, made to the fathers. But the Gentiles for mercy, because they were received mercifully. He says "as many as," to show that the grace of God is given indifferently to all who receive Christ; Acts 10:45: "Therefore upon the nations the grace of the Holy Spirit was poured out." And not only to free men, but also to slaves, not only to males, but also to females; Galatians 3:28: "In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, Gentile nor Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision," and so on. Then when he says "he gave them power to be made the sons of God," there follows the fruit of his coming. Where first he sets forth the magnificence of the fruit, in "he gave them power"; second, he shows to whom it is given, in "to those who believe"; third, he intimates the manner of giving, in "who not of bloods." The fruit, then, of the coming of the Son of God is great, because through it men are made sons of God; Galatians 4:4: "God sent his Son, made of a woman, that we might receive the adoption of sons." And this fittingly, so that we who are sons of God, through this that we are made like the Son, may be reformed through the Son. He says, therefore, "he gave them power to be made the sons of God." For the understanding of this, it must be known that men are made sons of God through assimilation to God; and therefore, according to a threefold assimilation of men to God, men are sons of God. For first, through the infusion of grace: whence whoever has sanctifying grace is made a son of God; Romans 8:15: "For you have not received the spirit of bondage," etc.; Galatians 4:6: "Because you are sons of God, God has sent the Spirit of his Son." Second, we are assimilated to God through the perfection of works, because he who does the works of justice is a son; Matthew 5:44: "Love your enemies." Third, we are assimilated to God through the attainment of glory, both as to the soul through the light of glory, 1 John 3:2: "When he shall appear, we shall be like to him," and as to the body, Philippians 3:21: "He will reform the body of our lowliness." Whence of these two it is said in Romans 8:23: "Awaiting the adoption of the sons of God." If, then, we take "power to be made sons of God" as to the perfection of works and the attainment of glory, the statement will have no difficulty, because when he says "he gave them power," it is understood of the power of grace, which being had, a man can do works of perfection and attain glory; for, as it is said in Romans 6:23, "the grace of God is life everlasting." And according to this manner it is said that "he gave to them" who received him "power," that is, the infusion of grace, "to be made the sons of God," by working well and acquiring glory. But if it is understood of the infusion of grace, then this that is said, "he gave them power," has a difficulty, because it is not in our power to be made sons of God, since it is not in our power to have grace. This, then, that he says, "he gave them power," is understood either of the power of nature — and this does not seem to be true, because the infusion of grace is above our nature; or it is understood of the power of grace — and then to have grace is the very same thing as to have the power to be made sons of God; and thus he did not give the power to be made sons of God, but to be sons of God. To this it must be said that in the giving of grace there is required, in an adult person, for his justification, a consent through a movement of free will: whence, because it is in a man's power to consent and not to consent, "he gave them power." And he gave this power of receiving grace in two ways: by preparing it, and by proposing it to men. For just as he who makes a book, and proposes it to a man to read, is said to give the power of reading, so Christ, through whom grace was made, as is said below, and who "wrought salvation in the midst of the earth," as is said in Psalm 73:12, gave us the power to be made sons of God through the reception of grace. Second, because this does not suffice, since free will also needs, in order that it be moved to the reception of grace, the help of divine grace — not indeed habitual, but moving grace — therefore he gives the power by moving the free will of man, that it may consent to the reception of grace, according to that of Lamentations, last chapter, verse 21: "Convert us, O Lord, to you," by moving our will to your love, "and we shall be converted." And in this way it is called an interior calling, of which it is said in Romans 8:30: "Whom he called," inwardly urging the will to consent to grace, "these he justified," by infusing grace. But because through this grace a man has this power of preserving himself in the divine sonship, it can also be said otherwise: "he gave to them," that is, to those receiving him, "power to be made sons of God," that is, grace, through which they are able to be preserved in the divine sonship; 1 John, last chapter, 18: "Everyone who is born of God sins not, but the grace of God," through which we are regenerated into sons of God, "preserves him." So, then, "he gave them power to be made sons of God," through sanctifying grace, through the perfection of works, through the attainment of glory, and this by preparing, moving, and preserving grace. Then when he says "to those who believe in his name," it is shown to whom the fruit of his coming is conferred. And this indeed can be taken in two ways: either as expository of what preceded, or as determinative. As expository, because the Evangelist had said "but as many as received him"; so that, to show what it is to receive him, as if by way of exposition, he consequently adds "to those who believe in his name"; as if to say: this is to receive him, to believe in him, because through faith Christ dwells in our hearts, according to that of Ephesians 3:17: "that Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts." Those, then, received him who believe in his name. But as determinative it is set down by Origen in the homily that begins "The spiritual voice." In this way many receive Christ, saying that they are Christians, who nevertheless do not become sons of God, because they do not truly believe in his name, suggesting false doctrines about Christ, namely by subtracting something from him either of his divinity or of his humanity, according to that of 1 John chapter 4:3: "Every spirit that dissolves Christ is not of God." And therefore the Evangelist, as if determining, says "he gave to them," namely to those receiving him through faith, "power to be made sons of God" — yet to those who "believe in his name," that is, who preserve the name of Christ whole, so that they diminish nothing of the divinity or humanity of Christ. This can also be referred to the formation of faith, so that it is said: to these, namely, he gave the power to be made sons of God, who "believe in his name," that is, who through faith formed by charity do the works of salvation. For those who have only unformed faith do not believe in his name, because they do not work toward salvation. But the first exposition, which is taken as expository of what precedes, is better. Then when he says "who not of bloods," etc., it is shown in what manner so magnificent a fruit is conferred on men. For because he had said that the fruit of the coming light is the power to be made sons of God given to men — and someone is called a son from the fact that he is born — lest you should suppose that they are born by a material generation, he says "not of bloods." And although this noun "blood" does not have a plural in Latin, yet because it has one in Greek, therefore the translator did not care to observe the rule of grammar, so that he might teach the truth perfectly. Whence he does not say "of blood," according to the Latins, but "of bloods"; by which is understood whatever is generated from blood, concurring as matter for carnal generation. Now the seed, according to the Philosopher, is the superfluity of the last blood-food. Whence whether the seed of the man or the menstruum of the woman, it is understood by "blood." But the moving cause to the carnal act is the will of those joining together, namely of male and female, because although the act of the generative power as such is not subject to the will, yet the preambles to it are subject to the will; and therefore he says "nor of the will of the flesh," for the person of the woman, "nor of the will of man," as of the efficient cause, "but they are born of God"; as if to say: they are made sons of God not carnally, but spiritually. Now here "flesh" is taken, according to Augustine, for the woman, because just as the flesh obeys the spirit, so the woman ought to obey the man; Genesis chapter 2:23, Adam said of the woman: "This now is bone of my bones." And it must be noted, according to Augustine, that just as the estate of a house in which the woman rules and the man is subject is squandered, so man is squandered when the flesh dominates the spirit; wherefore the Apostle says, Romans 8:12: "We are debtors, not to the flesh, that we should live according to the flesh." Now of the manner of this carnal generation it is said in Wisdom 7:1: "In the womb of my mother I was fashioned flesh." Or we can say that the motive to carnal generation is twofold: one, namely, on the part of the intellective appetite, which is the will; the other on the part of the sensitive, which is concupiscence. To designate, then, the material cause, he said "not of bloods"; but to designate the efficient cause as to concupiscence, he says "nor of the will of the flesh"; although it is improperly that concupiscence is called the will of the flesh, yet in the manner in which it is said in Galatians 5:17: "The flesh lusts against the spirit," and so on. But to designate the intellective appetite he says "not of the will of man." So, then, the generation of the sons of God is not carnal, but is spiritual, because "they are born of God." 1 John 5:4: "Everything that is born of God overcomes the world." Now note that this preposition "of" (de) always denotes a material cause, and an efficient one, and also a consubstantial one: for we say that a smith makes a knife "of" iron, and that a father begets his son "of" himself, because something of himself concurs in some way to the generation. But this preposition "from" (a) always denotes a moving cause. But this preposition "out of" (ex) is taken as common, because it implies a material and an efficient cause, yet not a consubstantial one. Whence, because only the Son of God, who is the Word, is "of" the substance of the Father — nay rather, is one substance with the Father — while the other saints, who are adoptive sons, are not "of" his substance; therefore the Evangelist uses this preposition "out of" (ex), saying of the others "they are born out of God" (ex Deo); but of the natural Son, that he is born "of the Father" (de patre). It must also be noted that, according to the last exposition of carnal generation, we can grasp the difference of carnal generation from spiritual. For because the former is "of bloods," therefore it is carnal; but the latter, because it is not "of bloods," therefore is spiritual; below, 3:6: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit." Likewise, because material generation is "of the will of the flesh," that is, of concupiscence, therefore it is unclean, and generates sinful sons; Ephesians 2:3: "We were by nature children of wrath." Likewise, because the former is "of the will of man," that is, of a human being, it makes sons of men; but the latter, because it is "of God," makes sons of God. But if this that he says, "he gave them power," he wished to refer to Baptism, through which we are regenerated into sons of God, we can see in this the order of Baptism: namely, that first faith is required, which occurs in catechumens, who must first be instructed concerning the faith, so that they may believe in his name, and then be regenerated through Baptism, not indeed "of bloods" carnally, but "of God" spiritually.”

“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 Psa 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.”

“Which were born, not of blood - Who were regenerated, ουκ εξ αἱματων, 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.”

“Which were born--a sonship therefore not of mere title and privilege, but of nature, the soul being made conscious of the vital capacities, perceptions, and emotions of a child of God, before unknown. not of blood, &c.--not of superior human descent, not of human generation at all, not of man in any manner of way. By this elaborate threefold denial of the human source of this sonship, immense force is given to what follows, but of God--Right royal gift, and He who confers must be absolutely divine. For who would not worship Him who can bring him into the family, and evoke within him the very life, of the sons of God?”