History of the Exegesis of Jn 1:12–13
In the course of history, we see an explanation of these texts,
supposing the reading ‘ἐγεννήθησαν’
in the plural in v. 13, as it is the ‘textus receptus’ to the present day. We
give below a summary of the different explanations of the texts. We meet with
two main currents of explanation regarding them, which could be characterized
as ‘Dynamic’ and ‘Static’. This difference of explanation is based on the
relation between the “οἵ
ἐγεννήθησαν” ‘of v. 13
and the “ἔδωκεν … τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι” of v. 12.
A. Dynamic Sonship
Those who give a dynamic explanation dissociate the two phrases, and
see some kind of growth and development intervening between the ‘divine
begetting’ in v. 13 and the ‘becoming children of God’ in v. 12. They see in
the “ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν” the communication of the divine life
(germinal sonship), and in the “τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι” the progressive realization of this
germinal divine sonship with a dynamic co-operation from the part of man, which
comes to its culmination in the celestial condition of glory. Their maxim is
“Werde was du bist”. The defenders of this position are the following.
1. In the Patristic Period
The Greek Fathers such as Dydymus Alexandrinus, J. Chrysostom and
Cyril of Alexandria exphasize the fact that in Jn 1:12 it is said that ‘He gave
them power to become’ (ἔδωκεν ἀυτοῖς ἐξουσίαν … γενέσθαι) and not that ‘He made them’ (ἐποίησεν αὐτούς) sons of God,
which indicates a progressive evolution, throughout the whole terrestrial life,
of the gift of the initial and germinal divine sonship received through Faith
in Christ and Baptism. Didymus Alexandrinus, speaking of 1 Jn 3:1, refers to Jn
1:12 and says: “He who has only this power, is only virtually and not actually
son of God. When, however, he makes use of this power well, then he becomes son
also actually”. As a proof of this dynamic character, he points to the present
tense of “ποιῶν” in 1 Jn 2:29, and
in 1 Jn 3:2 he sees the fulness of this divine sonship which is to be revealed
in future. For Cyril of Alexandria, v. 12 points to a calling to the adoption
of sons (δὶα πίστεως … εἰς υἱοθεσίαν κεκλημένοι) and v. 13 expresses the gratuitous
nature of the gift of this sonship on the part of God.
2. In the Middle Ages
Greek Writers such as Theophylactus, Euthymius, and also a few Latin
Writers such as Bede the Venerable, B. Alcuinus, J. Scottus Erigena, Rupertus
Abbatus Tuitiensis, and Albert the Great.
Theophylactus and Euthymius speak in the same line as John Chrysostom,
insisting on the aspect of the power that is received to become children of
God, which is to be actualized later. For Euthymius it is one thing ‘to be
adopted by God in baptism’ (v. 13), and another thing ‘to become son of God
through the observance of the Evangelical precepts; the former is the beginning
(ἀρχή) the latter, the end
(τέλος)’. For Bede the
Venerable and B. Alcuinus, Jn 1:12 expresses the dynamism of the divine sonship
received in Baptism (Jn 3:5). They emphasize the necessity of a faith that
produces good works of charity and justice which vivifies the faith, referring
to James 2:17; Rom 1:17; Heb 2:4, which point to the dynamism implied in
becoming children of God. V. 13 shows only the supernatural order in which the
believers can become children of God.
J. Scotus Erigena distinguishes between v. 12a and v. 12c. In v. 12a
he sees the simple fact of having believed at a definite point of time. But in
v. 12c he sees a progressive knowledge of faith which ends in the life after
death. In v. 13 he sees a birth through Baptism, but a birth that is only a
beginning. Thus he sees in vv. 12–13 a dynamism in the faith and in the
‘becoming children of God’.
For Rupertus Abbatus Tuitiensis, ‘to believe’ is to ‘receive the seed
of God—the Word’, which remains in him, and by the power of which one is turned
into a child of God. V. 13 shows only the universality and individuality of
this divine sonship, namely, no human qualification plays a role in this birth
and sonship.
Albert the Great too conceives of a dynamic and progressive attainment
of a perfect divine sonship by virtue of divine generation in vv. 12–13.
3. In the Reformation and Post-Reformation Period
J. Maldonatus really puts the question how those who are begotten by
God are not sons of God? He answers this question, understanding the power of
becoming children of God in v. 12 as the power of becoming heirs of God, and
coheirs of Christ, in the sense that Paul speaks of the divine sonship in Rom
8:15, 23. Thus he admits a dynamic and progressive becoming in the divine
sonship as conceived here.
The same outlook on dynamic sonship is held by Francis Ribera, A.
Calmet and A. Natalis. Toletus distinguishes two grades of sonship, namely,
sonship as such and the state of sonship, which supposes freedom of action.
This state of sonship which supposes freedom of action (as in those who are
‘sui juris’) is more perfect than the simple sonship (as in the children). He
then applies it to the history of salvation and sees in the Old Covenant the
simple divine sonship, and in the New, the state of the divine sonship,
implying freedom from the Law. Again this state of sonship is only actuated in
baptism giving freedom from sin, which comes to its perfection only at the
resurrection when one gets complete freedom from sin and corruption, which is
justly called by Paul in Rom 8 the ‘adoption of sons’. Thus the ‘fieri’ of Jn
1:12 according to him refers to the progress towards this perfect adoption of
sons. Cornelius a Lapide sees a dynamic sonship, without referring to the
celestial beatitude, actualized in our co-operation with the Grace of God.
(Matthew Vellanickal, The Divine Sonship of Christians in the Johannine
Writings [Analecta Biblica 72; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977], 105-8)
B. Static Sonship
Those who defend the static position do not dissociate the two phrases
οἵ … ἐγεννήθησαν (v. 13) and ἔδωκεν … τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι (v. 12) and meet the problem of combining
both: namely, how to become what they are already by birth? And they try to
solve this problem by seeing in v. 13 only an explanation of what is said in v.
12. Hence according to them, ‘the becoming children of God ‘projected in v. 12
is already realized in the fact of ‘being begotten by God’ in v. 13. The
believers’ life that progresses towards the celestial condition of sonship has
nothing to contribute to the making of the divine sonship itself. It is only a
manifestation or revelation of that sonship, which one actually and fully
possesses. Their maxim is: “sei und zejge was du geworden bist”. The defenders
of this position are the following.
1. In the Patristic Period
St. Augustine explains the divine sonship of Christians here comparing
it to the divine sonship of Christ. According to him the “τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι” of v. 12 expresses the temporal
condition of the divine sonship of the faithful, which they received in baptism
(v. 13), in contraposition to the eternal divine sonship of Christ. The
faithful had to ‘become’ the children of God (which took place already in
baptism) while Christ ‘was’ eternally Son of God. None of the Greek Fathers
holds this position of Static Sonship.
2. In the Middle Ages
The Latin Writers such as St. Bruno Astensis, St. Thomas and St.
Bonaventure speak in favour of static sonship identifying the ‘becoming
children of God’ of v. 12 with the ‘birth from God’ of v. 13. St. Thomas sees
in vv. 12–13 a procedure towards baptism. Thus the faith in v. 12 prepares one
to become a child of God, which actually takes place in the generation through
baptism as is described in v. 13.
3. In the Reformation and Post-Reformation Period
In this period the Protestant authors mostly stick to the static
character of the sonship denying to the faith in v. 12 any possibility of
dynamic and progressive relation to the sonship. Thus Luther and Philip
Melanchton explain vv. 12–13 without admitting any subjective dynamic role.
Calvin, in identifying the ‘becoming children of God’ and the ‘being begotten
by God’ in vv. 12–13 expresses clearly his intention of refuting Catholics who
see a dynamic element in the power of becoming children of God.
Apparently, as a reaction to the contemporary reformation movement,
all the Catholic authors of this period insist on the dynamic element of the
divine sonship as we saw above. (Matthew Vellanickal, The
Divine Sonship of Christians in the Johannine Writings [Analecta Biblica
72; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977], 110-11)
