www.WGSministries.

org – PO Box 90047 – San Antonio, TX 78209 – USA

info@WGSministries.org – 210.717.6617

Kinship and John 1:12-13

Around and around it goes, and if it will ever end no one knows. I am referring to the

never-ending debate between Calvinists and Arminians. One point in the debate is this: does

regeneration precede faith (Calvinism) or faith precede regeneration (Arminianism). While I do

not associate fully with Arminianism, I have argued for the latter position being the biblically

tenable position. John 1:12 seems clear. To those who receive him, to them he gives the right to

become children of God. The “becoming children” follows the receiving/believing. At least on

this point, the debate is over.

“Not so fast,” the Calvinists reply, “Look at verse 13! Your ‘becoming’ is all from God.

You are not born again by the will of man (your faith), you are born again by God. Your will has

nothing to do with it.” Is this an exegetically sound reply? I think not. Understanding kinship in

antiquity opens a new world of understanding on this verse.

DeSilva says family relations and the bonds of kin were “powerful and pervasive.”1 The

family was the primary source for one’s identity. “People were not free-floating individuals out

in the world but are located within the larger constellations of ‘family’ in a very broad sense (like

clan).”2 Malina and Rohrbaugh advance our understanding of the crucial nature of kinship in

antiquity.

At each stage of life, from birth to death, these norms determine the roles we play
and the ways we interact with each other. Moreover, what it meant to be a father,
mother, husband, wife, sister, or brother was vastly different in ancient agrarian
societies than what we know in the modern industrial world.3

1
De Silva, David A., Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture, Downers
Grove, IL, IVP Academic, 2000, 195.

2
Ibid, 158.

3
Malina, Bruce J. and Rohrbaugh, Richard L., Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, Fortress
Press, Minneapolis, MN, 2003, 377.

© 2018 Jonathan Williams – WGS Ministries 1

 www.WGSministries.org – PO Box 90047 – San Antonio, TX 78209 – USA
info@WGSministries.org – 210.717.6617

Behavior, in addition to roles in life, was largely shaped by one’s family identity.

Cooperation, not competition (in a world of competing honor), was expected for family

members. Sibling rivalry was shunned in favor of harmony and sharing ideals and possessions.

The father set the pace for this mindset. He had the moral responsibility to lead his wife,

children, and any slaves in proper behavior although “right behavior” would differ according to

role. For example, the public was the sphere for the father. The home was the proper sphere for

the wife/mother and she was called to live with modesty, chastity, submission, and silence. She

should also share her husband’s religion. Because households were producing units (as opposed

to our modern consuming unit as production normally takes place outside the home), it was

important for the father to see to the education of his children so that they could become

productive members of their family.

But this family ideal went beyond individual household units. The ideal was appropriated

by Roman imperial ideology, “according to which the whole empire was a household with the

emperor as the pater patriae, ‘the father of the country,’ the head of a vastly extended family.”4

The Greek philosophers got into the act, of course, with their platitudes that “the fatherhood of

God transcends limitations of ethnic and tribal kinship, binding all people together into a

common humanity.”5

This spiritualizing of the family unit, prevalent also in Israel,6 led to fictive kinships, new

“family units” which were formed by people changing religions. This was primarily seen in

4
De Silva, 195.

5
Ibid., 206.

6
See Exodus 4:22, for example, “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Israel is my son, my
firstborn.”’”

© 2018 Jonathan Williams – WGS Ministries 2

 www.WGSministries.org – PO Box 90047 – San Antonio, TX 78209 – USA
info@WGSministries.org – 210.717.6617

Gentiles converting to Judaism and Gentiles and Jews converting to Christianity. The new group

into which one was “born” was his new family.

When a Gentile converted to Judaism he was circumcised, baptized, and offered a

sacrifice. But what is interesting about this conversion is that it emphasized a change of status.

De Ridder states, “The proselyte was baptized ‘in the name of God’ and accepted ‘the yoke of

the law,’. . . . When he emerged, he was regarded as bearing the yoke of the Law. He had now

come ‘under the wings of the Shekinah’ and was fully initiated into the faith,”7 and “entrance

into the commonwealth of Israel was more than naturalization. It was essentially admission to

full covenant status.”8

This is the world of conversion. This is the world of entering a fictive kinship. One

entered a new family and was given a new status. This was the meaning of “rebirth.”9 It was a

change of status from one family to another family, from being a non-member to a member and

it was a decision that was made by the person prior to his “being reborn.” The rebirth was not so

much an internal experience as it was a relocating of one’s family ties.

This is the world of John 1:11-13. Jesus came to his people. They were his natural

children because of the covenant made with Abraham. But they rejected him and lost their

covenant status. But not everyone rejected him. Some received him. Some believed in his name

7
De Ridder, Richard R., Discipling the Nations, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI 1979, 107.

8
Ibid, 204.

9
Keener, Craig, NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2016, footnote on
John 3:3-5, 1810-1811. Keener notes that “some Jewish teachers allowed that Gentiles could be ‘reborn’ into
Judaism through conversion, which included immersion in water. Some understand the Greek construction here as
a hendiadys, which is a two-idea expression designed to more thoroughly describe one idea, hence “born of water,
i.e., the Spirit” (cf. 7;39). In the time of restoration, God would use water to purify his people from the impurity of
idolatry (Eze 36:25), give them a new spirit (Eze 36:26) and put his Spirit in them (Eze 36:27).”

© 2018 Jonathan Williams – WGS Ministries 3

 www.WGSministries.org – PO Box 90047 – San Antonio, TX 78209 – USA
info@WGSministries.org – 210.717.6617

and those who believed entered a new fictive kinship and received a new status. They were now

full-fledged members of the family of God.

In 1:13, John summarizes how this new status did not and did come about. The new

status was not a result of blood, the will of the flesh, or the will of man. Malina and Rohrbaugh

elaborate on the meaning of these terms.

Here in the opening poem John lets us know what will be explained and
emphasized throughout the Gospel: this new fictive kin status of believers will not
be the result of birth (blood) or flesh (like begets like) or human choice (a man
seeking an heir). In Israel’s traditional Middle Eastern biology, blood is the seat
of life, transmitted through procreation; the will of the flesh (the sexual drive) is
in the fat (and kidneys); and the will of man, human choice, is in the heart. These
human dimensions surrounding the birth of offspring are not what characterize
those who are interpersonally related to Jesus. Rather, believers will be born “of
God” and designated “children of God,” thus acquiring a new mode of existence
along with lofty honor status of their own.10

John is speaking in his world where family relationships were powerful, pervasive, and

the source for one’s identity. He is not attempting to describe an ontological experience or giving

commentary on predestination vs. free will. He is describing how one gains the status of

becoming God’s child. It is not through the normal means of birth (not of blood), by sexual

intercourse (nor of the will of the flesh), or by a father seeking an heir (nor of the will of a

man),11 the status is given freely to those who receive Jesus and believe in his name. They

become the children of God.

I would be naïve to suppose this would end the Calvinist/Arminian debate. It is only one

point among many. But one can wish that certain arguments would be laid to rest. They can be

10
Malina, Bruce J. and Rohrbaugh, Richard L., Social Science Commentary on The Gospel of John, Fortress
Press, Minneapolis, MN, 1998, 32-33.

11
Arndt, William F. and Gingrich, F. Wilbur, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, “ἀνδρὸς,”
Zondervan, 1957, 65-66. The Greek for “man” in 1:13 is ἀνδρὸς which is a man in contrast to a woman or a boy.

© 2018 Jonathan Williams – WGS Ministries 4

 www.WGSministries.org – PO Box 90047 – San Antonio, TX 78209 – USA
info@WGSministries.org – 210.717.6617

laid to rest by understanding the world of antiquity and letting it inform our interpretation rather

than imposing our modern conceptions upon the text.

Bibliography

Arndt, William F. & Gingrich, F. Wilbur, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, “οὖν”,
Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1957.

De Silva, David A., Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture,
Downers Grove, IL, IVP Academic, 2000.

De Ridder, Richard R., Discipling the Nations, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI 1979.

Keener, Craig S. and Walton, John, eds., NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, Zondervan,
Grand Rapids, MI, 2016.

Malina, Bruce J. and Rohrbaugh, Richard L., Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John,
Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN, 1998.

Malina, Bruce J. and Rohrbaugh, Richard L., Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic
Gospels, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN, 2003.

© 2018 Jonathan Williams – WGS Ministries 5