More than physical birth, however, the interest of Christian writers
focused on the spiritual birth brought about by baptism, a “washing of
regeneration [palingenesias] and
renewal [anakainōseōs],” as the
letter to Titus calls it (3:5). Neophytes are called “newborn infants,” artigennēta brephē (1Ptr 2:2). Baptism
can therefore be called and thought of as a “second birth” or a “spiritual
birth,” a “regeneration” (anagennēsis
or palingenesia: see Just., 1 Apol. 61,3; 66,1; Iren., Adv. haer. 1,21,1; Clem. Al., Ecl. 7; John Chrys., In Gal. 4,22; Orig., Com. Mt. XV, 23; Cyr. of Jer., Procat. 16; Eus., HE 10,4.34); among the Latins “second nativitas” (Tertull., Exhort.
cast. 1,4; De an. 41,4; Cypr., Ad Don. 4; Novat., Trin. XXIX, 169) or spiritalis
nativitas (Aug., Nupt. et conc.
II, 34,58).
Baptism or the baptismal water can be thought of as the maternal womb
which opens for the birth of God’s children (Clem. Al., Strom. IV, 160,2; Cyr. of Jer., Catech.
I, 2; XX, 4; Aug., Symb. 4,1). This
analogy was suggestive for removing the less pleasant aspects of childbirth
from the real to the symbolic level (Clem. Al., Paedag. I, cc. 34–52); in particular, the pains and anxiety of
physical birth were contrasted with the serenity and joy of birth as children
of God (Zeno of Ver., II, 30; John Chrys., Catech.
bapt. 4,1). In the context of the 2nd–3rd c. antidocetist debates, the real
birth of Jesus via the normal physical process was decisively affirmed, even
though he was virginally conceived (Ign., Trall.
9,1; Eph. 18,1; Just., Dial. 45,4; Orig., C. Cels. IV, 73; Philosophumena
VII, 31; Tertull., Adv. Marc. III,
9,2–3; De car. Chr. 1,2–3; 4,3–4;
Novat., Trin. X, 52–53). (Vincenzo
Loi and Biagio Amata, “Birth,” in Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity,
ed. Angelo Di Berardino and James Hoover, 3 vols. [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP
Academic; 2014], 1:359–360)
