In 1976, Jimmy Carter (1924-2024), running for president the first time, made news by describing himself as a “born-again Christian,” the first candidate in history to do so.[1] He brought that descriptor into public awareness.
Not long after, I discovered the writings of Otis Q. Sellers (1901-1992), an autodidact devoted to Bible study. I was surprised to learn that he rejected “born again” as a translation of γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν (gennēthē anōthen) in John 3:3, which the King Jimmy Version (and almost every other English translation) renders “You must be born again.”
Then briefly attracted to the sensationalist dispensationalism underlying
Hal Lindsey’s The Late, Great Planet Earth, I deem it a blessing that Sellers’s study of γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν redirected my studies.
Unfortunately, we’re culturally stuck with “born again” along with the theology that attaches to the Holy Spirit’s enlightening work the unbiblical notion of “baptismal regeneration.” The traditional (mis)translation directs attention, not to begetting, but to birthing.
In Scripture, many are called “sons of God,” but Jesus is the uniquely begotten (μονογενῆ, monogenē: John 3:16; Hebrews 11:17) Son of God. He is eternally, timelessly generated by the Father, but this does not refer to His being “born,” that is, His being brought forth into His created order (which indeed He was, at the appointed time, in Bethlehem).
Sellers only claimed to be a diligent student of the Bible’s original languages via reference works, not a biblical scholar. He freely acknowledged his dependence on the works of scholars.
But he showed that some of them bent their translations to their creeds to accommodate the church authorities on whose good side they wished to remain.
He was aware of his limitations, but he’d challenge anyone to point out “where I hit a ‘de-rail’ in my thinking,” if he did (as he’d say in his folksy way).
For example, in Biblical Predestination, Gordon H. Clark, a prolific Calvinist philosopher and theologian and master of Attic and Koine Greek[2], wrote: “No one is born again by an act of his own will. No one can possibly misunderstand the text. It says quite flatly that those who receive Christ were born, not by the will of a man, but by God.”
To become Christian, a person must be born again, born into God’s family. We all were “children of wrath, even as others” (Eph. 2:3), and we had to be reborn as children of God. Obviously, this is something a man cannot do. When one is “born of the Spirit” (John 3:6), it is the work of the Spirit. A baby cannot initiate its birth.[3]
Yes, except the main verb in John 3:6 is γεγεννημένον (gegennēmenon), whose root is γεννάω (gennaō), not τίκτω (tiktō, “to be born”).
Dr. Clark was right: a baby cannot initiate its birth, that is, it cannot under its power enter the extrauterine world.
There is, however, a more basic inability: the baby cannot initiate its conception, its generation, the inception of its existence within the womb of its mother, from whom it forever remains distinct. Before it exists, it cannot do anything—not even be brought into the world!
Clark mentions the “children of wrath” (τέκνα ὀργῆς, tekna orgēs) of Ephesians 2:3. They are to be contrasted with the children of God (τέκνα Θεοῦ, tekna Theou; Romans 8:16, 9:8; Philippians 2:15).
These companies refer, respectively, to the “dead in Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:22) and those “made alive in Christ” (Ephesians 2:5), the second Adam.
The plural noun τέκνα (singular: τέκνον, teknon) derives from the verb τίκτω: children are born when they’re brought forth into the world; their conception or generation occurs months (normally nine) before.
But “making alive” is not within the range of meaning of words having γεννάω (gennaō) as its root, at least not directly.
The “generation” it refers to is an insight, a mental event that happens, when it does, only by the agency of the Holy Spirit: “. . . the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God” 1 Corinthians 2:11.
These events are connected, of course: one cannot be made alive in Christ without also receiving insights into God’s revelation.
Peter, however, was a child (τέκνον, teknon) of God before he confessed to Jesus that He is the Christ, the Son of God (Matthew 16:16).
His confession was evidence that, as such a child, Jesus’ Father had enlightened Peter to grasp a truth he could not have arrived at any other way (Matthew 16:17).
Sellers’s study of γεννάω (gennaō) and cognate words discredits the popular dogma of “born again”: γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν has nothing to do with “baptismal regeneration.”[4]
. . . the words “born again” were forced into the King James Version . . . to lend support to a gross and profane misrepresentation of truth called “baptismal regeneration.” It was to Nicodemus, a Pharisee, one of the rulers of the Jews, that the Lord declared, according to the translators of the King James Version, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man be born again, he cannot see [ἰδεῖν, idein] the Kingdom of God” (John 3:3; my emphasis.—A.G.F.).
The key idea here is seeing with the mind’s eye.
The exact wording . . . for “born again” is gennēthē anōthen. Since President Carter reads his New Testament in the Greek, he should be able to see at once that this means “generated from above,” and not “born again.” The root word is gennaō, and it is not too far out of line to translate it by the word “born,” if it is understood that “born” is the past participle of “bear” and means “to produce.” However, gennaō means “to generate,” and in all honesty this is the way it should be translated. [Empasis added.—A.G.F.]
The word anōthen does not mean “again”. . . . It means “above,” and I doubt if this word would ever have been translated “again” in this verse if it had not been for the determination of some translator who wanted it to mean this. . . . This translator revealed that he knew the true and exact meaning when he rendered it “above” in the thirty-first verse of this same chapter.
Sellers notes that “these translators were all ministers in the Church of England and were completely subservient to that Church and the King who had appointed them.”
One of the most important doctrines and practices in that denomination was that of “baptismal regeneration.” This doctrine held that every child born by natural generation belonged to the fallen race that started with Adam and that Adam’s sin must banish it to the torments of hell, unless by regeneration it is brought within the family of God.
However, by the simple ritual of sprinkling a few drops of water upon the child’s head, he was relieved of his guilt and brought into the family of God, providing of course that this ritual was accompanied by the utterance of a few cabalistic words.
There is good reason to believe that these translators wanted to render this in some fashion so that the generating work spoken of here could be removed from the absolute divine realm and lowered to be something that one human being, properly accredited of course, could do for another. They wanted this work to be something that a clergyman could do for an infant, thus securing the child’s salvation if death should seize upon it.
The social control that this enables is incalculably great.
This self-assumed power [Sellers continued] gave the church and its clergy an unwarrantable hold upon the parents, especially upon the mother, to whose Biblical illiteracy was left the direction of religion in the family. Since there was very little Scripture that could be twisted into support for this idea, they laid hold of this portion because “born of water” could be made to mean the water ritual which they performed. But they could not do this if anōthen were translated “above,” so some other meaning must be given to it. . . . [Empasis added.—A.G.F.]
So, what’s the word for “again” if not anōthen? It’s πάλιν (palin).
This is found 142 times in the Greek New Testament, and it is translated consistently “again” in every occurrence. This is the word the Spirit of God would have led John to use if He had intended to set forth the idea of “again” or “a second time.”. . .
There are those who insist that anōthen is translated “again” in Galatians 4:9 where, they say, “again” is its evident meaning. But this is totally wrong. The word translated “again” in the Galatian passage is palin, and the word anōthen which follows it is left untranslated. . . .[5]
Recalling the early years of his ministry, Sellers rooted his progressive sanctification, a life-long “metamorphosis,” in his God-generated insights:
. . . [F]ifty-nine years ago [i.e., 1919] God moved in relationship to my life. I did not at that time understand what He was doing, and I do not fully comprehend it even now, but I do know that He moved in relationship to my life to make Himself a part of it. I was a sinner, and He was the Savior of sinners, and He was seeking sinners in order to become their Savior. He wanted me to be saved. As a result of His efforts, I became a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, starting out by believing the small amount of truth concerning Him that was available, but seeking every day to add to my faith.
I know that from the day I became identified with Him [i.e., “baptized”[6]], strange and miraculous changes began to take place in my life. My interests, my motives, my purposes, my desires, my likes and dislikes, my language and conversations—yes, almost everything that made up my life began to move in a strange new direction. All this was because I was living a new life in Christ Jesus and was living it as a confessed believer in Him. Therefore, I fully believe in the metamorphosis that takes place in one when he enters into relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. However, I do not believe that this should be called a “new birth” or that it is wise to refer to it as being “born again.”[7]
In the very next issue of Seed & Bread Sellers emphasized that the “idea of generating is a basic meaning that must always be retained when considering occurrences of gennaō” and its cognates.
He then explains John’s statement (puzzling to some) that “Whosoever is generated [γεγεννημένος, gegennēmenos] of God does not commit sin” and “we know that whosoever is generated of God sinneth not, for His seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin for he is generated [γεγέννηται, gegennētai] of God” (1 John 3:9).
John does not say that the children of God never transgress. Indeed, in an earlier passage he freely admits the possibility of sin in the believer’s life, telling him that if any man does sin, he has an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. It does not seem that God would have made such marvelous provision for His sinning children if it were impossible for them to sin.
What the Holy Spirit is telling us in 1 John 3:9 is that the generating work of God will never produce sin. Even when sin is committed by the Christian, it will never be the outcome of divine generation.[8]
It is germane to note the relationship of Jesus’ birth (τόκος, tokos) to his nine-month earlier conception or generation (γέννησις, gennēsis):
In Matthew 1:18 we read: “Now the birth (gennēsis) of Jesus Christ was after this manner.” The word gennēsis is a verbal noun derived from gennaō and should be translated “generating.” Joseph had no part in generating or producing Jesus the Christ. His incarnation was entirely a work of the Holy Spirit. Then in Matthew 1:20 we read that the angel of the Lord said to Joseph: “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived (gennaō) in her is of the Holy Spirit.” This shows that gennaō has more to do with all that took place in the womb of Mary in the nine months before birth rather than with the actual birth (coming forth) of the babe itself.
Let’s return to the tête-à-tête between Jesus and Nicodemus. In John 3:2 (KJV), we have the latter’s testimony:
. . . Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Sellers highlighted “know”:
The word . . . is eidō [εἴδω, in the form οἴδαμεν, oidamen], a word that means “to get knowledge by means of any or all of the senses.” (Note this in Luke 5:24 [εἰδῆτε, eidēte].) His declaration brought forth from the Lord an answer that must be regarded both as a commendation and a warning to him and to all the rulers of the Jews.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, Verily, I say unto you, Except a man be generated from above he cannot see (eideō [actually, ὁράω, horaō, in the form ἰδεῖν, idein]) the Kingdom of God. John 3:3
What these rulers had perceived [Sellers continues] and [what] Nicodemus confessed that they knew and comprehended, was the outcome of divine generation.
Nicodemus had said: “We know” (ὁράω) and the Lord used his exact word in His reply, saying, “Except a man be generated from above he cannot see ([that is, know [ὁράω) the Kingdom of God.”
Thus, only one conclusion is possible. If Nicodemus spoke the truth, then these rulers had been generated of God, otherwise they would not have known the message of His miracles.
Our Lord declared that a divine work had been done in the lives of all of these, an enabling work that had made it possible for them to know and comprehend.
This had brought upon them a new responsibility and accountability to God, one that could not be ignored or treated lightly.
. . . From this we know that if they had heard His words and seen His works, and had lacked the ability to recognize and appreciate the truths that these words and works were declaring, then they would not have been condemned.
And since there was nothing in human ability that could bring an understanding of the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:11), they had to be given divine ability. This, the rulers had enjoyed, for God had performed in them a generating work that made this understanding possible. Thus their condemnation was just.
Here is the rhetorical import of Jesus’ counsel, which has nothing to do with being “born again”: Nicodemus was standing before Jesus as a man responsible for the knowledge that God had generated in him. “[A]s a delaying tactic, he asked a question. ‘How can a man be generated when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be generated?’ (John 3:4)” Nicodemus’ words imply that the only generating or conceiving he knew about was intrauterine:
. . . once this was complete, nothing could be added to it, neither could it be done the second time. He certainly knew . . . that one’s capabilities and possibilities are inborn, and . . . are fixed in us when we come forth. It is the genes of the father combined with the genes of the mother as developed over a nine-month period that makes us what we are.
If Nicodemus entertained the idea that the generation Jesus referred to was like an unborn child’s gestation, He set him straight:
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be generated of water (ἐξ ὕδατος, ex hudatos) and of the Spirit (καὶ πνεύματος), he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. John 3:5
Those eager to find scriptural warrant for church ceremonies (e.g., baptism) are drawn to this verse. After all, there’s a reference to water! But there is no warrant for capitalizing “spirit” or inserting the definite article before it. Sellers deftly exposes the eisegesis:
Two metaphors are used here. Something is called hudor . . . but actual water is not meant. Water never generated anyone, no matter how solemn the ceremony or what words were spoken when it was applied. Something else is called pneuma . . . but actual wind is not meant here.
In most versions, we get a translation of the first metaphor and an interpretation of the second. If we had a literal translation of both words it would read “Except a man be generated of water and of wind,” just as pneuma is literally translated “wind” in verse 8.
And if we had the interpretation of the figures in both places it would read: “Except a man be generated of the Word, even of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the knowledge of the Kingdom of God.”
Sellers cites Jesus’ later statement: “The words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit” (John 6:63).
I [Sellers] have translated kai as “even” to show that only one thing is meant.[9] The Lord combined these two under the word “Spirit” in verses 6 and 8. . . . All this fits in with the next statement of our Lord:
That which is generated of the flesh is flesh; and that which is generated of the Spirit is Spirit. Marvel not that I said unto you. You must be generated from above. John 3:6-7 [Emphasis added.—A.G.F.]
In these words, the Lord further clarifies the truth for Nicodemus. That which the flesh generates is always flesh, but it generates nothing that will make it possible for a man to know and comprehend God’s truth concerning the Kingdom of God.
If, Sellers argues, Nicodemus spoke truly when he said “we know,” then God must have generated that knowledge in him. What follows is: “Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required” (Luke 12:48).
Sellers notes that Jesus “added an illustration applicable to all who have enjoyed the generating work of God . . :
The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it came from or where it is going. So is everyone that is generated [γεγεννημένος, gegennēmenos] by the Spirit. John 3:8
Not “born.” Sellers elaborates:
When men are generated by God’s Spirit, there is no way that we can know what caused this to be done, what the divine purpose is, or what the result will be. Generation only makes things possible for us. It does not make them positive. . . .
. . . Whenever and wherever Jesus Christ is faithfully presented, when the record God gave of His Son is declared, God will provide the ability for the hearer to comprehend and believe. If the herald does what he should do, God will do what He alone can do. But the hearer still has a part that he must also do. God does not do the believing for anyone.[10]
No, God does not “do the believing for anyone”: He eternally decrees to give belief or faith (πίστις, pistis) to some, but not all, created image-bearers.
With Sellers’s synergism (God and man cooperate in salvation) and provisionism (God “provides” the means for the individual to be saved, but the latter sovereignly determines whether he will avail himself of those means and be saved) I respectfully disagree, but cannot pursue that disagreement here.
Having expounded Sellers’s criticism of the “born again” sacred cow, I now invite readers who are sure I don’t know what I’m talking about to set me straight in the combox.
Notes
[1] Carter disclosed this in an interview, not for Christianity Today, but for Playboy Magazine. It was published in the November 1976 issue. Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, “Jimmy Carter, Interview with Playboy Magazine, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/347738
[2] See, for example, Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey: A History of Philosophy, Trinity Foundation, 2000 [1957, 1985]; The Johannine Logos: The Mind of Christ, Trinity Foundation, 1972; First John: A Commentary, Trinity Foundation, 1980; Selections from Hellenistic Philosophy, Irvington Publishers, 1975. See also the chapters on Aristotelianism and Augustinianism in A History of Philosophical Systems, ed. Vergilius Ferm, Philosophical Library, New York, 1950.
[3] Gordon H. Clark, Biblical Predestination, P&R Publishing Co., 1976, 95
[4] Sellers, an ordained Baptist minister for about a decade from the early 1920s to the early 1930s, came to understand that “baptize” does not translate but only transliterates the Greek βαπτίζω (baptizō). I documented this at length in a series entitled “Sellers’s Baptismology”: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7. He broke with the churches and their theology in 1934 to pursue his independent studies: Anthony Flood, “Spadework on Display: Sellers the Maverick Workman on the Soul—Part I,” December 14, 2021. I have a nearly 100K-word manuscript that’s in need of a publisher: Christian Individualism: The Maverick Biblical Workmanship of Otis Q. Sellers. It contains mature descendants of many posts that first appeared on this site. Search it for <Otis Q. Sellers> for samples.
[5] Otis Q. Sellers, “Concerning ‘Born Again,’” Seed & Bread, No. 93; n.d., but 1978, given his reference to “fifty-nine years ago.” Emphasis added—A.G.F. Download PDF. Sellers notes that
Compilers of lexicons have earnestly sought to find evidence that anōthen can mean “again” . . . but they have failed. [James Hope] Moulton and [George] Milligan cite certain examples from the papyrus of which they somewhat feebly say, “the meaning ‘again,’ ‘a second time’ seems best to suit the context.” However, a student with no axe to grind will see that the rendering “above all this” best suits the examples they have given.
Moulton and Milligan’s The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (1914–1929) collected and analyzed words used in the New Testament (NT), comparing them to those found in ancient papyri, inscriptions, and other non-literary sources. This demonstrated that NT Greek was not a “sacred” language but a form of the common (Koine) Greek spoken in the first-century Eastern Mediterranean.
[6] See note 4 above for links to posts that interpret βαπτίζω (baptizō) as “to identify to the point of merger.”
[7] Sellers, “Concerning ‘Born Again.’” Sellers rightly calls this a “metamorphosis”: Paul uses the verb μεταμορφόω (metamorphoō) to describe the spiritual transformation of believers (Romans 12:2, 2 Corinthians 3:18). I would not say that Jesus seeks sinners: the Father gave some of them to the Son before the foundation of the world; the Son will lose none of them (John 6:37-39). But that’s a post for another time.
[8] Otis Q. Sellers, “Generation from Above,” Seed & Bread, No. 94; n.d., but 1978. Download PDF.
[9] By identifying word and spirit, Sellers is following the Granville Sharp Rule: when καὶ joins two singular nouns of the same case, but only the first has the definite article, both refer to the same person or thing if the second is not proper and the context permits this interpretation. We can see in his treatment of John 3:5 that Sellers did not always call out the KJV translators when they violated this rule.
[10] Otis Q. Sellers, “Lesson from Nicodemus,” Seed & Bread no. 95; n.d., but 1978. Download PDF.