God’s Children
who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:13 ESV
Blood – Pretend you are a Jewish reader of John’s gospel living at the end of the first century. You would find striking parallels between John’s opening verses and the text of Genesis chapter 1. It would be obvious to you that John deliberately models his introduction on Genesis. As you read through those first 16 verses, other images from the Tanakh would come to light. “He tabernacled among us” is a clear reference to Exodus, for example. But some connections are not quite as obvious. In fact, in translation we wouldn’t see them at all. I believe this verse, verse 13, contains one of those hidden references. It’s not so hidden in the actual Greek text, but by the time English translators are finished, it completely disappears. You see, in Greek this verse doesn’t say “not of blood.” It says ouk ex haimaton, that is, “not out of bloods.” The word is plural. While there are a few textual fragments that contain the singular, the overwhelming number of early fragments record the plural. Therefore, if you were reading John’s gospel in its Greek form, you couldn’t miss that fact that this odd expression is used to describe what is not true of God’s children. It’s bloods, not blood.
What in the world can this mean? John ties this unusual expression to two other ideas: Not of bloods, not of the will of the flesh, not of the will of man. The second negative seems to refer to the sexual act of conception. It might be read, “not of the desire of the husband” since John focuses not on the woman’s role but on the man’s role. That’s why John’s record of the conversation with Nicodemus is about the male’s connection (“You must be conceived from above”) not about birth. God’s children are not the product of the sexual desire of the man. Fair enough, but then why repeat “nor the will of man”? Perhaps the answer to this question also helps us understand the odd expression “bloods.”
John clearly states the ordinary human actions do not produce children of the Most High. In particular, propagation does not make citizens of the heavenly Kingdom. This is true individually (the sexual desire of the husband) and corporately (the thelema – the purpose, resolve, wish or desire – of the people). Perhaps John adds the seemingly redundant “nor of the will of man” in order to include that idea that even at the tribal level, the ethnic level, human desire and resolve is incapable of producing children of God. Only God can conceive children after Himself. The action is entirely spiritual and miraculous.
But what about “bloods”? As soon as I read this plural expression, my mind skipped to the passage in Genesis where an odd plural use of “bloods” jumps off the page. “The voice of your brother’s bloods is crying to Me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10) where the Hebrew deme is plural in spite of the fact that the “voice” is singular (the verb is also plural). What cries from the ground is all the progeny of Abel who will not be born because of this murder. They cry with a single voice. They have all been robbed of life. Cain is responsible for mass murder, for genocide. An entire line has been extinguished.
If this is the allusion John has in mind, then he is telling his very savvy readers that God’s children are not produced by any human line either. I can’t claim citizenship in the Kingdom because of my parentage or heritage or ancestry. Not by ancestry, not by sexual procreation, not by ethnic affiliation. None of the usual ways a Jewish reader in the first century might consider. By miracle alone. By God’s own desire and no other.
Perhaps John read Romans 4 before he wrote John 1. Or maybe the two authors were just thinking along the same line. Is it your line of thought as well?
Topical Index: blood, John 1:13, Genesis 4:10, children of God
