The Ordo Salutis And Monergism: The Case For Faith Preceding Regeneration, Part 2

By R. Bruce Compton

[R. Bruce Compton is Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature and New Testament Chair at the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Allen Park, Michigan.

This is the second article in a three-part series offering exegetical support for a Calvinist soteriology that places faith logically before regeneration. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 67th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta, Georgia, November 17, 2015.]

Abstract

Theologians who argue that regeneration logically precedes faith in the ordo salutis frequently use John 1:12–13; 5:24–25, and 1 John 5:1a to support their position. However, careful exegesis of these verses suggests that such arguments fall short and that John in fact sees faith as preceding regeneration. The third and final article in this series will explore the writings of Paul, define illumination, and assess the place of faith preceding regeneration in a Calvinist soteriology.

* * *

The New Testament texts at the forefront in the debate over the ordo salutis are John 1:12–13; 5:24–25; Ephesians 2:5–8a; Colossians 2:11–13a; and 1 John 5:1a.[1] These verses link word groups involving regeneration with those involving repentance or faith, marking them as the key texts in the debate.

Other passages in the New Testament use words for regeneration but lack references to repentance or faith.[2] This article discusses the passages from John and the Johannine epistles that contribute to the debate over the ordo salutis. The third and final article in the series will address the relevant Pauline texts, define illumination to distinguish it from regeneration, and assess the viability of faith preceding regeneration in a Calvinist soteriology.

John 1:12–13

The first relevant passage from John is located in his prologue, where John identifies Jesus as the incarnate Son of God and introduces a number of key themes that resurface throughout his Gospel. John begins by describing Jesus in his relationship to the Father (1:1–2), then in his relationship to creation (v. 3) and to humanity (vv. 4–13), and finally in his relationship to Old Testament revelation (vv. 14–18).[3] The verses in question fall within John’s description of the relationship of Jesus to humanity. When God’s Son came into the world, a world he created, the world did not recognize him (v. 10). Even his own people, to whom he had been sent, did not receive him (v. 11). Nevertheless, John interjects, all who receive the Son of God by faith become children of God (v. 12), those born not by human will or effort but by God (v. 13).

Arguments For Regeneration Preceding Faith

At first glance, John’s statements in verses 12–13 appear to place faith before regeneration. Jesus gave some the right to become children of God (v. 12). Those given this right are those who receive him, that is, those who believe on his name. In other words, the qualification for becoming a child of God is faith in Jesus.[4] Furthermore John seems to equate becoming children of God with being born of God (v. 13). Thus, the sequence appears straightforward: on the basis of faith in Jesus, one is regenerated and becomes a child of God. Sensing the tension, those who champion regeneration preceding faith present three main arguments to counter this understanding.

The first argument is that the reference to becoming children of God in verse 12 describes not regeneration, but adoption, an event in the ordo salutis following repentance and faith.[5] This argument frequently rests on comparing and contrasting the words Paul used for regeneration and adoption with those that John used. Specifically, Paul generally used “sons of God” when describing adoption and “children of God” when describing regeneration. In contrast, John reserved the expression “Son of God” exclusively for Jesus’s unique relationship to the Father. Consequently, unlike Paul, John used “children of God” to refer to adoption, not regeneration. And, if that is the case, then verse 12 says that faith precedes adoption, not regeneration.[6]

The second argument involves the interpretation of verse 13. The contrast developed in verse 13, it is argued, does not simply pit human procreation against being born of God. Rather, the negative statements in verse 13 point to the fact that being born of God lies outside the ability of the human will. But if this birth lies outside the ability of human will, then it must precede faith rather than follow faith, since faith entails the exercise of the human will.[7]

A third argument by those who place regeneration before faith involves the relationship between verses 12 and 13. Specifically, they take the clause “who were born . . . of God” in verse 13 as modifying and clarifying the expression “those who believe in His name” at the end of verse 12. Verse 13 explains how those in verse 12 are able to believe. They believe because they have been “born of God” (v. 13). Thus, being born of God—regeneration—precedes and results in the exercise of saving faith.[8]

Arguments For Faith Preceding Regeneration

Contrary to the first argument above, John’s reserving “Son of God” exclusively for Jesus’s relationship to the Father does not mean that John used “children of God” as a reference to adoption rather than regeneration. The lexical evidence for “children of God” within the Johannine corpus supports taking the expression as designating regeneration, not adoption.[9] In 1 John 3:9, John declares that those born of God—a reference to regeneration—do not practice sin. Those “born of God” in verse 9 are further defined in verse 10 as the “children of God” and are contrasted with the “children of the devil.” John states that the children of God can be distinguished from the children of the devil because the one who does not practice righteousness is not of God. The expression “not of God” at the end of verse 10 is elliptical. Based on the parallel expression in verse 9, it means “not born of God.” John’s point in verse 10 is that the children of the devil do not practice righteousness, because, unlike the children of God, they are not born of God.[10] Thus, by linking “children of God” with “born of God,” John explains that the “children of God” are those who have been “born of God,” that is, those who have been regenerated.

The second argument for regeneration preceding faith takes John 1:13 as ruling out the exercise of man’s will—including faith—as the basis for regeneration. This argument reads too much into the negative statements in verse 13. All three statements identify aspects of human procreation in contrast to being born of God. The first, “not of blood,” views human procreation as carrying on a particular blood line, ruling out physical or ethnic descent as the basis for this birth. The second, “nor of the will of the flesh,” excludes sexual impulses as the explanation for this birth. The third expression, “nor of the will of man,” denies the husband’s initiative in a sexual encounter as the basis for this birth.[11]

As can be seen, nothing inherent in the expressions themselves highlights the inability of the human will in regeneration. They are simply compounded to emphasize the contrast between human procreation and being born of God. Regeneration is a spiritual birth that God performs.[12]

But even assuming John’s point in verse 13 was that being born of God was outside the capacity of the human will, this in itself does not prove or even demand that regeneration precedes faith. It demands an antecedent work of God at salvation that enables individuals to respond in saving faith. But identifying that antecedent work is the point of the present debate. In addition, if it can be shown elsewhere that faith is a gift from God, then faith can precede regeneration, and regeneration can still be something that is not sourced in the human will but ultimately in the will and work of God.[13] Whether faith can be viewed as a gift from God will be taken up in the discussion of Ephesians 2:5–8.

The third argument for regeneration preceding faith takes “who were born . . . of God” in 1:13 as modifying and explaining the expression “those who believe” in verse 12, such that those who believe (v. 12) do so because they have been born of God (v. 13).14 While this understanding of the relationship between 1:12 and 1:13 is possible, a careful weighing of the evidence argues against it.

Two nouns or noun phrases in verse 12 agree in gender and number with the relative pronoun at the beginning of verse 13. The first is “children of God,” and the second is “those who believe.”15 As such, either can serve as the antecedent for the relative clause “who were born . . . of God” in verse 13.

Assuming for the moment that “who were born . . . of God” in verse 13 has as its antecedent the expression “those who believe” at the end of 1:12, this in itself does not support regeneration preceding faith, as some argue. John could be repeating in verses 12b‒13 in essence what he stated in verse 12a. Those who receive Jesus become children of God (v. 12a), and those who believe in him are born of God (vv. 12b‒13). In both statements, faith logically precedes and results in regeneration.[16]

In any case, linking the relative clause in verse 13 with “those who believe” at the end of verse 12 ignores the semantic link that joins “being born of God” in verse 13 with the expression “become children of God” in verse 12. The noun “children,” τέκνα, in verse 12 is part of a word group whose verbal cognates mean “give birth (to), bear (a child),” closely paralleling the idea of “born” in verse 13.[17] Thus, the expression “born of God” in verse 13 forms a natural corollary with the expression “become children of God” in verse 12, as even those who argue for regeneration preceding faith acknowledge.[18] Based on this correlation, it is best to see the expression “who were born of God” in 1:13 as modifying and clarifying the antecedent expression “become children of God” in 1:12.[19] In effect, John is saying that those who believe “become children of God” and they (those who believe) become children of God by their being “born of God.”[20]

Taking the above arguments together, the passage supports the logical order of faith (“those who receive/believe”) preceding regeneration (“become children of God/born of God”) rather than the reverse.

John 5:24–25

John recorded Jesus’s performing a miracle of healing at the pool of Bethesda (5:1–9). Because the miracle was performed on the Sabbath, a number of Jewish leaders were offended and accused Jesus of violating the Sabbath, a capital offense. Jesus answered by claiming, in effect, his equality with the Father, implying that he had authority over the Sabbath and its restrictions. Incensed at his response, these Jewish leaders became all the more determined to kill him, concluding that Jesus was now also guilty of blasphemy (5:10–18). What follows in the chapter is Jesus’s extended explanation and defense of his claim to be equal with the Father (5:19–47).

The verses relevant to the ordo salutis debate fall within Jesus’s explanation and defense (5:19–47). He begins his defense by asserting that his equality with the Father means he can do the same works the Father does. As the Father raises the dead and gives life, so Jesus gives life to whomever he wishes. Furthermore, the Father has given all judgment to the Son so that all will honor the Son as they honor the Father (5:19–23). Further clarifying his statements, Jesus declares that in the present age he gives eternal life to all who believe, and in the future he will raise the dead and judge both the good and the evil (5:24–30). Jesus concludes his defense by noting the witnesses to his claim of equality: John the Baptist, his own miracles, the testimony of the Father, and the Scriptures (5:31–47).[21]

Arguments For Regeneration Preceding Faith

Jesus’s promise of eternal life in 5:24–25 links belief in Jesus with receiving life, as do a number of passages in John’s Gospel (e.g., 3:15–16, 36; 6:40; 11:25; 20:31). Those holding to regeneration preceding faith face a challenge when interpreting these passages. They recognize that receiving life is a common definition for regeneration. Yet they are forced to distinguish regeneration from the life promised in these verses, because the life promised in these verses is predicated or conditioned on faith. These promises must refer to some subsequent gift of life. Depending on the context, those placing regeneration before faith generally define life in these passages as either abundant life presently enjoyed by believers, the fullness of life enjoyed by believers in the eschaton, or a combination of the two.[22]

Arguments For Faith Preceding Regeneration

Without question, there are verses in the New Testament that promise life to those who respond to the gospel in repentant faith. The issue is whether they refer to the inception of life, that is, to regeneration, or to some subsequent provision of life. The sequence in 5:24 appears straightforward. Jesus said that the one who hears his word and believes in the One who sent him has life. Accordingly, the reception of this life is conditioned on hearing Jesus and believing his message.[23] The predicate, “has life,” represents a gnomic present and indicates that the reception of this life takes place in the present rather than in the future.[24] In this passage, Jesus proclaims his equality with the Father and his ability to give life (5:19–23). Moreover, Jesus was responding to the Jewish leaders who accused him of blasphemy and were intent on killing him (5:18). Therefore, Jesus addressed unbelievers with his offer of life.

More to the point, Jesus affirmed at the end of 5:24 that the one who has this life has in fact passed out of death into life. It would be difficult to find a clearer reference to the inception of life. The verb μεταβέβηκεν is an intensive perfect. As such, the emphasis falls on the present state of life in contrast to a previous state of death, with the transition taking place in connection with the declaration “has life.”[25]

Jesus appears to confirm this interpretation in 5:25, when he states that the time has come when the dead will hear his voice, and those who hear will live. By saying that the time has come, Jesus locates this promise in the present.[26] The sequence again appears straightforward. Those who are dead hear his voice and those who hear are given life.[27] Thus, the promise of life in 5:25 is conditioned on hearing the voice of Jesus. From the preceding verse, “hearing” the voice of Jesus means to heed his voice, that is, to hear and believe.[28] Furthermore to say that the dead will live (5:25) is the same as to say that someone passes out of death into life (5:24). In addition, the declaration “will live” in 5:25 parallels the declaration “has life” in 5:24. Both expressions are variations of Jesus’s declaration in 5:21 that Jesus “makes alive” or “gives life” to whom he wishes.[29] All of this indicates that the promise of life in these verses refers to regeneration, as even a number of those who hold to regeneration preceding faith recognize.[30]

Since Jesus himself defines what he means when he addresses unbelievers and offers life to those who believe, this passage serves as the template for the interpretation of the other passages in John where a similar offer of life is made (e.g., John 3:15–16; 3:36; 6:40, 47; 20:31).[31] Taking these passages together, they speak with one voice in placing saving faith as conditioning and, therefore, as logically preceding regeneration.

1 John 5:1a

The body of John’s letter can be divided into three sections, with each section composed of ethical demands followed by doctrinal demands, 1:5–2:27; 2:28–4:6; 4:7–5:12. Using “the tests of eternal life” as the controlling theme, the relevant verse is found in the third section and, specifically, in the ethical portion of the third section, 4:7–5:4.[32]

John develops  the ethical portion of the third test in four paragraphs. He begins with an exhortation for his readers to love one another (4:7–10). He then repeats the exhortation, developing the relationship between the readers’ loving one another and the assurance of salvation (4:11–14). Next, John applies the ethical test to his readers, linking faith and love, and gives two illustrations to reinforce the importance of the test (4:15–21). Finally, John restates the connection between faith and love and once again applies the test to his readers, linking their love of God and of others with obeying God’s commands (5:1–4).

Arguments For Regeneration Preceding Faith

As John discusses and applies the test of love, he highlights the indivisible relationship between believing the gospel and loving God and other believers (5:1–4). Those who place regeneration before faith find perhaps their strongest support in the first part of 5:1. John declares, “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” Proponents point out that the participle in the expression “whoever believes” (πᾶς ὁ πιστεῦων) is present tense and argue that it refers to the initiation of saving faith. The verb “is born of God” is perfect tense (γεγέννηται) and refers to regeneration as having taken place in the past, with the results continuing into the present. That being the case, John placed regeneration “is born of God” (perfect tense) before the initiation of saving faith “whoever believes” (present tense).[33]

Arguments For Faith Preceding Regeneration

The problem with the above interpretation is that it fails to understand the force of the present tense in the context of John’s epistle. John identifies a number of characteristics of those who have been regenerated, or born of God: “Everyone . . . who practices righteousness is born of Him” (2:29); “No one who is born of God practices sin” (3:9); “Everyone who loves is born of God” (4:7); “No one who is born of God sins” (5:18). In all of these, the activity of the one born of God is in the present tense.

The verbal aspect of the present tense is imperfective; with fientive verbs, or verbs of action, the present tense depicts the verbal action as in progress. Furthermore imperfective aspect portraying action in progress is the default force of the present tense of fientive verbs, unless contextual factors point in a different direction. No such contextual factors are evident in these texts.[34]

At the same time, the contextual evidence in 1 John points to a more specific use of the present tense. In 3:9, John states that the one born of God does not “practice sin.” The verb ποιεῖ, “practice,” has within its semantic range the idea of committing or carrying out some activity, and, in the present tense, it can describe this activity as regularly occurring or as an ongoing state,[35] a point those who hold to regeneration preceding faith acknowledge.[36] As such, John is not describing the initial act of faith in 5:1 but the ongoing activity of faith. John is saying that the one who continues or perseveres in faith gives evidence of having been being born of God.

The force of the present tense as ongoing in John’s epistle is particularly clear in 5:18, where John declares that the one born of God does not sin. By this statement, John cannot be referring to the inception of sin, as if the one born of God never falls into sin or commits sin. Such an understanding of the verse contradicts what John says about himself and his readers in 1:10, “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and the truth is not in us.” Rather, John states in 5:18 that the one born of God does not continue in an unbroken habit or pattern of sin. In all of these passages, the activity John attributes to the one born of God is in the present tense. And in all of these passages the present tense portrays the action as ongoing, not as being initiated.[37]

In 5:1, John argues that perseverance in faith is the mark of the new birth. Furthermore, one should not read both the initiation of faith and perseverance in faith into John’s expression. To do that would be to deny that context limits the range of meanings words can have.[38] Furthermore, John intentionally contrasts those who persevere in faith in 5:1 with those who at one time made a profession of faith and who were numbered among the readers, but who have since departed (2:19). In effect, these departed from the readers because they had departed from the faith, i.e., they failed to persevere in believing the truth (2:20–23).[39]

John’s intent in 5:1 is not to link the initiation of faith with being born of God. Both the readers and, in a sense, those who departed had expressed initial faith. Rather, John intends to say that only those who persevere in faith show the evidence of the new birth. In fact, on the one occasion in his epistle where John specifically has in view the initiation of faith, John uses the perfect tense, not the present (4:16).[40] Thus, 1 John 5:1 says nothing about the initiation of faith, only about persevering in faith. And, if that is the case, then this verse says nothing about regeneration preceding the initiation of faith.

This survey argues that the Johannine texts addressing the ordo salutis consistently place faith logically prior to regeneration and not the reverse. The next and final article in this series will examine the Pauline evidence for the ordo salutis and propose that faith preceding regeneration can be valid in a Calvinist soteriology.

Notes

1. John 5:24–25 is one of several passages in John’s Gospel (e.g., 3:15–16; 6:40; 11:25; 20:31) and elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., Acts 11:18; 1 Tim 1:16) that link faith with life. The John 5 passage is the key text in identifying the nature of this “life” and the relationship between faith and life; the other passages will be addressed as necessary.
2. Included here are passages that link regeneration with God’s Word, identifying God’s Word as the instrument the Spirit uses in effecting regeneration (e.g., Jas 1:18; 1 Pet 1:23). These do not say whether faith logically precedes or follows regeneration. They simply demonstrate that God’s Word is essential to regeneration.
3. See Homer A. Kent Jr., Light in the Darkness: Studies in the Gospel of John, New Testament Studies (Winona Lake, IN: BMH, 1974), 23–36.
4. See, for example, the discussion in Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John, 3 vols., Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1:459–60, 2:30. Some interpreters argue that there is no logical or causal relationship between receiving/believing in Jesus and being given the right to become God’s children. See, for example, Bruce A. Ware, “Divine Election to Salvation: Unconditional, Individual, and Infralapsarian,” in Perspectives on Election: Five Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville: B & H, 2006), 20–21; J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 69n41. Michaels argues, “The text does not say they were given authority to become God’s children because they received the Light or as a reward for doing so.” Yet Michaels himself notes the logical sequence, “The point of verse 12 is that to receive ‘him’ . . . is to receive ‘authority’ from him to become God’s children” (ibid.). Thus, according to Michaels’s own words, John describes a cause and effect relationship between receiving/believing in Jesus and receiving authority to become God’s children.
5. John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 81, 87, 132–34. Murray defines regeneration as the work of God’s Spirit renewing the heart of the individual in the image of God, thus imparting a new disposition. He defines adoption as a judicial act whereby the redeemed person is given all the rights and privileges as a member of God’s family. See also Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Nelson, 1998), 707–8, 759; Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 738; Matthew Barrett, Salvation by Grace: The Case for Effectual Calling and Regeneration (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2013), 164–65.
6. So, apparently, D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 125–26. See also Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John: A Theological Commentary, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 45–46.
7. D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension, New Foundations Theological Library (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981), 181–83. Carson states, “Even though the three negations of 1.13 appear to describe procreation in the categories of ancient times, they seem unnecessarily extravagant if their sole purpose is to contrast natural and spiritual birth without making some reference to human inability in spiritual birth” (182). See also C. Samuel Storms, Chosen for Life: A Case for Divine Election, rev. ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2007), 151–52; Barrett, Salvation by Grace, 166–67.
8. Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John, 46–47; Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 39; Ware, “Divine Election to Salvation,” 20–21.
9. Albrecht Oepke, “παῖς,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 5:653–54; G. Braumann, “τέκνον,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Regency, 1975), 1:286–87; C. Brown, “υἱός,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1:290; Moisés Silva, “τέκνον,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, 2nd ed., ed. Moisés Silva (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 4:467. In support of this meaning in John 1:12, see, for example, Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, rev. ed., New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 87.
10. Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word, 1984), 171–81; Donald W. Burdick, The Letters of John the Apostle: An In-Depth Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 244–54; D. Edmond Hiebert, The Epistles of John: An Expositional Commentary (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1991), 147–50; Judith M. Lieu, The Theology of the Johannine Epistles, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1991), 33–41; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Reginald and Ilse Fuller (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 162–64; Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 124; Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 147–51; Robert W. Yarbrough, 1–3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 194; von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John, 3:110–11, 115.
11. See, for example, William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John, 2 vols. in 1, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953), 82; F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 38–39; Morris, The Gospel according to John, 89–90; John F. McHugh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on John 1–4, International Critical Commentary (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 47.
12. Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John, 82; Bruce, The Gospel of John, 82–83; Michaels, The Gospel of John, 71–73. Interestingly, Carson comes to the same conclusion in his commentary, though elsewhere he argues that the negative expressions in 1:13 address the inability of the human will (see footnote 7 above). In his commentary he writes, “The series of negations makes the same general point as 3:6: ‘Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.’ Being born into the family of God is quite different from being born into a human family.” After interpreting the three negative statements as all referring to human procreation, he concludes, “New birth is, finally, nothing other than an act of God” (The Gospel according to John, 126). See also Murray J. Harris, John, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (Nashville: B & H, 2015), 32–33.
13. The prepositional phrase in the expression “born of God” (ἐκ θεοῦ) indicates that this birth has the activity of God as its source or origin. See Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 296.
14. See, for example, Ridderbos, The Gospel of John, 46–47.
15. The agreement in gender between “children” (τέκνα) in verse 12, a neuter noun, and the relative pronoun “those” (οἵ) in verse 13, a masculine pronoun, is called constructio ad sensum, or construction according to sense. While the grammatical gender of the noun “children” is neuter, its natural gender is masculine in that it refers to persons. Hence, a relative pronoun referring back to “children” would be masculine to agree with the sense of the natural gender of the noun. See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 337. There are actually two other possibilities in verse 12 for the antecedent, the quantitative relative pronoun “as many as” (ὅσοι) at the beginning of the verse and the personal pronoun “to them” (αὐτοῖς) in the middle. However, the quantitative pronoun “as many as,” the personal pronoun “to them,” and the phrase “to those who believe” all involve the same referent. Thus, to identify the one as the antecedent is, in effect, to identify the others as well. Since the phrase “to those who believe” is the closest antecedent of the three, it is listed above as one of the options.
16. The relative clause at the beginning of 1:12, “as many as received Him” (ὅσοιἔλαβον), and the substantival participle functioning as a relative clause at the end of 1:12, “those who believe” (τοῖς πιστεύουσιν), are virtually synonymous, both referring to exercising saving faith. See the discussion in Murray J. Harris, “λαμβάνω,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3:748–49; and Murray J. Harris, John, 31–32. See also Carson, The Gospel according to John, 125–26; Andreas A. Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: The Word, the Christ, the Son of God, Biblical Theology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 471–72; C. Marvin Pate, The Writings of John: A Survey of the Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 49. On the relationship between the activities in verse 12 and being “born of God” in verse 13, see C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introductory Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 164. Commenting on the verb in verse 13, “who were born,” Barrett states, “This birth is conditioned upon receiving Christ and believing on his name. The aorist [‘born’] is not pluperfect in sense” (ibid.).
17. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, 995, 1004.
18. Carson, a proponent of regeneration preceding faith, nevertheless comments on the relationship between verses 12 and 13, “Another way of describing those who receive the Word is suggested by the ‘children of God’ metaphor: they are children . . . born of God” (The Gospel according to John, 126).
19. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 38–39; J. Carl Laney, John, Moody Gospel Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 43; Morris, The Gospel of John, 89–90; Pate, The Writings of John, 50; Jo-Anna Bryant, John, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 33.
20. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich list the infinitive γενέσθαι in verse 12 under the heading “to experience a change in nature and so indicate entry into a new condition,” consistent with equating the infinitive clause “become children of God” in verse 12 with the relative clause “who were born of God” in verse 13 (A Greek-English Lexicon, 198).
21. Similarly Kent, Light in the Darkness, 85–97.
22. See, for example, Beasley-Murray, John, 13, 54, 76–77, 388; Mark A. Snoeberger, “The Logical Priority of Regeneration to Saving Faith in a Theological Ordo Salutis,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 7 (Fall 2002): 62–66; Köstenberger, John, 129–30, 188–89; Barrett, Salvation by Grace, 298–300. Beasley-Murray and Köstenberger identify the life that logically follows faith in terms of realized eschatology, where the promise of future resurrection and life is, in some way, presently experienced by believers. Snoeberger and Barrett identify the life that logically follows faith as “eternal life” and distinguish eternal life from regeneration. These and others who argue in this way fail to explain what distinguishes the life imparted logically prior to faith (regeneration) from the life imparted logically following faith (resurrection life or eternal life). Snoeberger, for example, says regeneration and eternal life are related but does not explain the nature of that relationship (“The Logical Priority of Regeneration to Saving Faith,” 64n60).
23. The expressions “hearing” and “believing” in 5:24 represent two present participles governed by a single article (ὁ . . . ἀκούων καὶ πιστεύων). The participles are substantival and describe the one to whom “life” is given. As Morris states, “The person who receives the blessing is the one who hears . . . and believes” (The Gospel according to John, 279).
24. The predicate, “has life” (ἔχει ζωήν), as a gnomic present identifies what happens as a universal truth or fact. See Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 523–25. As Morris notes, “Anyone who gives heed to the Son and the Father in this way ‘has’ eternal life. The life is that person’s present possession” (The Gospel according to John, 280).
25. The statement “has passed out of death into life” (μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν) is part of a compound clause that identifies certain consequences stemming from the declaration “has life.” On the use of the intensive perfect, see Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 574–76. Commenting on the one who has life, Morris states, “Their vindication is present in the here and now. They have already passed right out of the state of death, and have come into life.” The Gospel according to John, 280. See also Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to John, 3 vols., trans. Kevin Smyth, Cecily Hastings, Francis McDonagh, David Smith, Richard Foley, and G. A. Kon (New York: Crossroad, 1982), 2:109; Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, Sacra Pagina (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), 179.
26. Jesus’s statement in 5:25, “the hour is coming and now is,” contrasts with his statement in 5:28, “an hour is coming.” The former refers to the present, the latter to the future. Among others, see Kent, who states, “Although 5:25 is similar to 5:28, the inclusion of the phrase ‘and now is,’ along with the absence of the mention of graves, makes it clear that regeneration is in view in 5:25, rather than physical resurrection. At present Christ is calling men from spiritual death . . . into a condition of spiritual life . . . on the basis of trust in Christ’s work on their behalf” (Light in the Darkness, 93).
27. See, for example, von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John, 2:234. The future “will live” (ζήσουσιν) is predictive, contingent on hearing Jesus’s voice. On the predictive future, see Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 568.
28. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich list John 5:25b under the definition “to give careful attention to, to heed” (A Greek-English Lexicon, 38). See the discussion in Gerhard Kittel, “ἀκούω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1:219–20. Commenting on the sequence in this verse, Morris states, “Those who are spiritually dead hear His voice and those who have heard it live. ‘Hear,’ of course, means ‘hear with appreciation,’ ‘take heed’ ” (The Gospel according to John, 282).
29. The expression “gives life” (ζῳοποιεῖ) in 5:21 is used elsewhere in the New Testament as a metaphor either for resurrection or for regeneration. See the discussion in Rudolf Bultmann, “ζάω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2:874–75. Since Jesus is speaking in these verses of what he does in the present, the expression refers to regeneration. On the meaning of eternal life as a present possession given in response to faith, see Bultmann, “ζάω,” 2:863–72; H. G. Link, “ζωή,” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 2:480–83; R. J. Wallace, “Eternal,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed., ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979–95), 2:161–62; E. F. Harrison, “Life,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 3:131–34; J. F. Walvoord, “Eternal Life,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 3rd ed., ed. Daniel J. Treier and Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 394–95.
30. As Laney notes, “Most commentators interpret 5:25, which elaborates on the results of believing, as an extension of 5:24. The key phrase, ‘and has now come,’ suggests that Jesus refers here to spiritual regeneration rather than physical resurrection. The ‘dead’ are the spiritually dead who enter into spiritual life (‘will live’) by responding to the voice of God’s Son” (John, 113). See also Kent, Light in the Darkness, 93. Carson, although a proponent of regeneration preceding faith, nevertheless states concerning John 5:25, “Here . . . the coming hour already is: the resurrection life for the physically dead in the end time is already being manifest as life for the spiritually dead. It is the voice of the Son of God . . . that calls forth the dead, and those who hear (cf. notes on v. 24) will live” (The Gospel according to John, 256). In this quote, Carson refers to his comments on 5:24 to clarify the meaning of “those who hear.” In his note there he says, “Hearing in this context, as often elsewhere, includes belief and obedience” (ibid.). Thus, Carson’s sequence in 5:25 is: (1) the Son of God calls the spiritually dead; (2) individuals hear and believe; (3) those who hear and believe are given spiritual life. Similarly, Ridderbos, who argues elsewhere that regeneration precedes faith, notes concerning John 3:15–16, “the birth from above, however much it is a miracle of the Spirit, is not effected without the call to faith and the response of faith. . . . And in this connection faith is always the way in which and the means by which the new life comes into being” (The Gospel according to John, 140). See also Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John, 202; Harris, John, 114.
31. In Acts 11:18 Peter uses the phrase “repentance that leads to life” (τὴν μετάνοιαν εἰς ζωήν) to refer to the conversion of Cornelius and others. See F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 234.
32. Similarly, with some variation in verse divisions, Burdick, The Letters of John the Apostle, 85–92. For discussion on the various approaches to the structure of 1 John, see Georg Strecker, The Johannine Letters, trans. Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), xlii–xliv; Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters, 171–73. For recent surveys on the structure of 1 John, see Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 37–47; and L. Scott Kellum, “On the Semantic Structure of 1 John: A Modest Proposal,” Faith and Mission 23 (Fall 2005): 34–82.
33. See, among others, John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John, rev. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 175; Anthony A. Hoekema, Saved by Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 144; Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 708–9; Yarbrough, 1‒3 John, 269‒70; John Piper, Finally Alive: What Happens When We Are Born Again (Minneapolis: Desiring God, 2009), 118, 138‒39. Piper states, “This is the clearest text in the New Testament on the relationship between faith and the new birth” (118). Yarbrough argues, “The view . . . that the perfect suggests a past action with results that continue in the present . . . points to the Johannine conviction that the one who believes does so due to circumstances that are prior to the personal act of faith” (1–3 John, 270n4).
34. For discussion on the verbal aspect of the present tense, see Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 198–240; Constantine R. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 40, 63; Constantine R. Campbell, Advances in the Study of Greek: New Insights for Reading the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 106‒7; Stanley E. Porter, Jeffrey T. Reed, and Matthew Brook O’Donnell, Fundamentals of New Testament Greek (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 81. Porter and the others state that the present tense “conveys the imperfective aspect and often is used to depict action in progress” (ibid.).
35. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, 840.
36. Although arguing for regeneration preceding the inception or initiation of faith in 5:1, James R. White nevertheless observes, “Generally such a passage would be understood to present the following order of events: 1) Believe that Jesus is the Christ and 2) you are born of God. Yet, the original readers of this text would not jump to such a conclusion. In reality, the most literal rendering would be, ‘every one believing (present tense participle . . . emphasizing . . . the on-going action . . . of saving faith) that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God. . . .’ In John, ‘the one believing’ is very common, and it is no accident that the emphasis falls upon the on-going action of faith. . . . If a person is now believing that Jesus is the Christ in a true saving fashion, they are doing so because, as a completed action in the past, they were born again” (The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and the Rebuttal of Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free [Lincroft, NJ: Calvary Press, 2000], 287–88). His comments notwithstanding, White fails to see the implications of the present tense for his interpretation of the verse. Wallace defines the customary present as “either an action that regularly occurs or an ongoing state” (Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 521). He lists “whoever believes” (πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων) in John 3:16 as an example, an identical construction to the one used in 1 John 5:1 (ibid., 522, 621n22).
37. Burdick, The Letters of John the Apostle, 244–47; Hiebert, The Epistles of John, 148–49, 264; Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 142–44, 147–48, 211–12. Contra, among others, Moisés Silva, God, Language, and Scripture: Reading the Bible in Light of General Linguistics, Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 116–17; Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 524–25. Wallace takes the present tenses in 3:9 (and 3:6) as gnomic (stating a timeless fact) and as proleptic or eschatological (stating what will take place in the future when Christ returns). The proleptic interpretation strains the straightforward reading of the text. Wallace points to the preceding section (2:28–3:3) as establishing an eschatological context, but in that section John used expressions for the Lord’s return along with the future tense to signify activities in the eschaton. The same is not true of the paragraph (3:4‒10) in which 3:6 and 3:9 are found.
38. D. A. Carson uses the caption “unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field” and explains the fallacy as “the supposition that the meaning of a word in a specific context is much broader than the context itself allows and may bring with it the word’s entire semantic range. This . . . is sometimes called illegitimate totality transfer” (Exegetical Fallacies [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996], 60–61).
39. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 68–70; Burdick, The Letters of John the Apostle, 294–95.
40. Burdick, The Letters of John the Apostle, 330. A similar example, but in a negative statement, is found in 5:10, “he has not believed” (οὐ πεπίστευκεν). Since the perfect tense here is parallel with the preceding substantival participle in the present tense, “the one who does not believe” (ὁ μὴ πιστεύων), the perfect in this case is to be taken as intensive, emphasizing the results or present state produced by a past action (Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 574–76). The thought is that the one who continues not believing (present participle) does so because, at some point in the past, he has come to reject the gospel and, as a result, persists in a state of unbelief (perfect tense). So Burdick, The Letters of John the Apostle, 374–76. See also Hiebert, The Epistles of John, 244–45; Kruse, The Letters of John, 181–82.