New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology

Even before TDNT had been completed, some scholars were critical of its excessive length, age and some lexical errors. In 1967-71, a new three-volume set was published: Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament, edited by Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther and Hans Bietenhard. This work was translated, edited and revised by Colin Brown as New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, published by Zondervan in 1975-78, 1986.

NIDNTT transliterates Greek and Hebrew. I have deleted cross-references to other articles in this set. Here's the entry on gennaō, by Karl Heinrich Ringwald, which begins by discussing several words of related meaning:

"These words all have to do with birth, both literally and metaphorically. tiktō means to bring forth or bear. The more frequently used gennaō means both to bear and to beget. It is used of the birth of Jesus and, with the prefix ana- in John, of the renewal of man in rebirth by the Holy Spirit. palingenesia means regeneration both of an individual and of the world order. ginomai originally meant to be born, but in the New Testament this meaning has faded and the verb is used with the general meaning of become, take place, be. The nouns genea (race, generation) and genesis (birth, origin, genealogy) are derived from it. ektrōma means miscarriage." Then the article discusses gennaō:

"gennaō, beget, become the father of, bear; anagennaō, cause to be born again, bear again.

"gennaō is a causal form of ginomai (Liddell-Scott, [page] 344). Cf. the back-formation genna, origin, race, birth. It belongs to the same root gen- which appears in various Latin words like genus (race), Old High German Kind (child) and various derivatives via Lat. such as pregnant, malignant (cf. Lat. (g)nascor, to be born; natus, born, birth; natura, birth, nature; naevus, birth mark, mole).

"Like tiktō and teknoō, gennaō is used of begetting by the father and bearing by the mother as in the Hebrew equivalents, the LXX and the NT. This is certainly the case in later Greek literature (Apollodorus, Lucian, Plutarch). In the secular world of NT times gennaō has the meaning of come into being as well as produce in a metaphorical or vague general sense (cf. 2 Tim. 2:23 of quarrels, Gal. 4:24 of the covenants).

"The compound anagennaō has the meaning of cause to be born again. The frequently assumed derivation of the expression from the mystery religions is improbable, for the verb has so far only been traced to a single late passage in which Sallustius (4th cent. a.d.) speaks of initiates as hōsper anagennōmenōn (as born again, Concerning the Gods and the Universe, 4; cf. G. Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries, 1967, 235). In the Hellenistic period the idea of the renatus (Lat. one born again) occurs in the cults of Mithras and Isis (cf. F. Büchsel, TDNT I 673, cf. Apuleius, Metamorphoses, II, 21). G. Wagner observes: `The assertion that Paul is dependent on the mystery religions because he shares the idea of rebirth with them is misleading, not only because this idea is not at all frequent in the mystery religions and never occurs in the first century a.d., but also because Paul never uses the term' (op. cit., 270).

¹ As far as I can tell, gennaō is used only once in the LXX to translate hârâh, which means conceive, become pregnant (1 Chronicles 4:17). So NIDNTT seems in error when it says "occasionally." Also, Job 38:28 does not use gennaō, but tetokōs. These two sentences might belong in the section about tiktō, but not here.

"In the LXX OT gennaō is used chiefly for Heb. yalad (bear, bring forth mostly in hiphil). Occasionally it translates harâh (conceive, become pregnant). In addition to the literal usages, there is the figurative in Job 38:28: `Has the rain a father, or who has begotten (Heb. hôlîd; Gk. ho tetokōs) the drops of dew?'¹

"1. The words father and son are sometimes used in an address as a sign of trust or affection (1 Sam. 3:16; 24:12; 2 Ki. 2:12). Unlike the NT (see below, NT, 2), gennaō is never used in such contexts. Neither is it used in those passages which speak of Israel as God's firstborn (Exod. 4:22, 23:4), or God as the father and the Israelites as his sons. The absence of this verb in this connection indicates a marked contrast between Israel and the surrounding culture. The OT sharply dissociates itself from the procreation myths. Israel is Yahweh's people not by natural procreation but by election.

"2. Two passages in the Psalms speak of the begetting of the king-messiah by God (Heb. yalad, Gk. gennaō). `I will tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to me, "You are my son, today I have begotten you" ' (Ps. 2:7). `Before [the creation of] the morning star I begat thee' (Ps. 110:3 LXX; but cf. the Heb. MT `From the womb of the dawn the dew of thy youth comes to thee').

"The idea that the king as the earthly representative of the deity was the `son of God' was current in the ancient East. Scholars have seen remarkable parallels in Egypt and Mesopotamia which lead them to think that Israel has clearly drawn on them. G. von Rad sees the rite in 2 Sam. 7 and the Psalms as almost copies of the rites of the Egyptian court which had long been conventionalized (Old Testament Theology, [volume] I, 1962, [page] 40). But Israel had refashioned the idea in the light of its belief in Yahweh. The Egyptians had the mythological idea that Pharaoh was the physical son of the God Amun. The OT idea comes nearer to the Mesopotamian ritual in which the king who has been installed by the gods is a chosen servant (op. cit., 320). But the sonship of the Israelite king rests neither upon physical begetting nor upon the thought that through the act of enthronement the king somehow physically entered the sphere of the divine. M. Noth comments: `Possibly as a deliberate reaction to this ancient oriental conception, the formula of adoption is used to describe the relationship; the God-King relationship has no foundation in Being and the King is not divine, but he is declared to be a son when he ascends the throne — by a manifestation of the divine will. Probably when the heirs of David acceded to power the formula of adoption was solemnly pronounced (Ps. ii, 7, and perhaps also Ps. cx, 3). This means that the relationship was confirmed, on a historical basis, at each new accession' (The History of Israel, 1958, 223). The word `today' (Ps. 2:7) also points to sonship by adoption. (See further A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, I, 1972, 67 ff.; K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament, 1966, 106-11; G. von Rad `The Royal Ritual in Judah' in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, 1966, 225 ff.) The connection of the Psalm passages with the prophecy of Nathan (2 Sam. 7) is extensive. They have their basis in the declaration `which the prophet Nathan made to David and his dynasty for all time' (H.-J. Kraus, Die Psalmen, 1960, I, 20 f.).

"The line of christological interpretation in the NT starts here (cf. Matt. 22:43 f.; Mk. 12:36 f.; Lk. 20:42 f.; Acts 4:25; 13:33; 1 Cor. 15:25; Heb. 1:5, 13; Rev. 2:27). The absence of physical procreation is shown by the reference to the `seed of David' (Heb. zera`) which is used in the singular collectively of David's posterity. The tension between human parentage and the role of God which appears in accounts of Jesus' birth and descent (Matt. 1:16; cf. vv. 1, 6, 20; Lk. 1:33b, 35b; cf. 3:23-38) is already present in the OT view of kingship. The son-passages of Isa. 7 and 9 do not use gennaō. Apart from an apocryphal passage (Sirach prologue 28 variant reading), anagennaō does not occur in the LXX.

"3. In Palestinian Judaism the thought of God begetting occurs only in connection with messianic expectation. It is remarkable that in all the voluminous rabbinic literature there is only one reference which applies Ps. 2:7 to the Messiah (Sukkah 52a). This silence is apparently due to the rabbis' opposition to the Christian church which had applied Ps. 2 to Jesus' sonship. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls relate Nathan's prophecy (especially 2 Sam. 7:14a) to the `seed of David' (4Qflor. [=4Q174, Florilegium, A Midrash on the Last Days] 1:10ff. and perhaps 1QSa. [The Messianic Rule] 2:11). But there is no thought of the Messiah as God's son in a physical sense in the ancient synagogue, nor is there of pre-existence (SB [Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, by H.L. Strack and P. Billerbeck] IV, 1 452-65). The thought of Ps. 2:7 is taken up in Psalms of Solomon 17:23. But significantly the begetting of the Messiah is not.

"4. In Hellenistic Judaism Philo used gennaō of God in describing his work as creator (Allegories of the Law 3, 219). The logos, animals and plants are begotten by God (On the Confusion of the Languages 63; On the Change of Names 63; cf. On the Migration of Abraham 35). But Philo did not apply the idea to the relation of God to the devout. Philo's use of the word contrasts with the Nicene Creed in the 4th century which used gennaō of the Father's begetting the Son but ktizō (create) of the world.

" `In the Mysteries ideas and processes from sex life play an important part.... On the other hand, there seems to be no reference to the birth of an initiate through a goddess or to his begetting by a god. In pre-Christian times, at least, the real thought is that of adoption' (F. Büchsel, TDNT I 669).

² I could not imagine how fruit could be born again, so I looked up anagennaō in Rengstorf's concordance to Josephus. He uses the word only once — Josephus, discussing the region of Sodom and the Dead Sea, says that ashes are reproduced [anagennaō] in fruits that look edible but disintegrate when touched (Wars 4, 484). So this NIDNTT article, at least in English translation, is wrong both in the frequency of anagennaō in Josephus and in implying that the fruits were reproduced.

"anagennaō does not occur in Philo. But in Josephus it is quite common and is, e.g., applied to fruit.² The noun anagennēsis (new birth) is used by Philo to express the Stoic doctrine of world renewal after the universal conflagration (ekpyrōsis, cf. On the Eternity of the World 8). He usually calls this palingenesia (rebirth, regeneration cf. On the Eternity of the World 9). anagennēsis was not necessarily a Stoic term (F. Büchsel TDNT I 673). anagennaō was a quite common verb in NT times and was not confined to the mystery cults.

"gennaō occurs 97 times in the NT, including 45 times in Matt. and 28 times in the Johannine literature. However, there is no particular emphasis in its use in the NT. Other terms that are used are tiktō (bring forth, bear), apokyeō (give birth, bear, in the NT [used] only figuratively, Jas. 1:15, 18), ōdinō (suffer birth pangs, Gal. 4:19; Rev. 12:2), cf. also palingenesia, regeneration; anakainōsis, renewal. The actual meaning of gennaō must be determined by the context in both its active and passive forms, as it is used both of the father and the mother as in classical Greek (cf. Matt. 1:3, 5 f.; 2:1, 4; 19:12, Lk. 1:13; Jn. 9:34; 16:21, Gal. 4:23). It is, however, used in a figurative or extended sense as follows:

"1. Various passages apply the term to God himself who is said to have begotten someone.

"(a) Ps. 2:7 is quoted by Acts 13:33 and Heb. 1:5; 5:5. Significantly the passages in Heb. relate it to Ps. 110 and 2 Sam. 7:14. Jesus Christ is seen as the true Son and God's King. He has fulfilled what the Israelite kings left unfulfilled. For as the crucified and risen One, he has assumed the office of the Lord's anointed as the truly anointed One. Strikingly, the NT does not apply Ps. 2:7 to the birth narratives of Jesus. Wherever Ps. 2 is quoted in the NT, a physical, sexual begetting is utterly precluded. Acts 13:33 applies the words `this day have I begotten thee' to the resurrection of Jesus. On the other hand, the variant reading in the Western Text of Lk. 3:22 (Codex Bezae, the Old Latin versions, Justin and Origen) quotes the words of Ps. 2:7 and applies them to Jesus at his baptism. It is not easy to determine the precise significance of `today' in Heb. 1:5 and 5:5. H. Strathmann thinks that it refers to the baptism of Jesus and that the second half of Ps. 2:7 was quoted in Heb. simply because it formed part of the text (J. Jeremias and H. Strathmann, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus; Der Brief an die Hebräer, Das Neue Testament Deutsch 9, 1963, 78 f.). E. Käsemann identifies it with the confirmation of sonship through a heavenly proclamation after the exaltation (Das Wandernde Gottesvolk, 58 ff.). However the word `today' may be understood, it is clear that the begetting by God goes beyond the OT understanding of adoption. The passages are concerned with the declaration and proclamation of what the Son already is. Jesus' sonship denotes the mystery of the incarnation of God. Jesus is the last Adam (ho eschatos Adam, 1 Cor. 15:45). `The idea that this generation must be thought of either in the sense of adoption or in that of the Virgin Birth rests on a misconception of the early Christian belief in Christ and understanding of Scripture, and especially of the basic significance of the resurrection of Jesus and the resultant beginning of the new aiōn, in short of the eschatological impulse in early Christian thinking' (F. Büchsel, TDNT I 670).

"(b) The Johannine writings use the expression gennēthēnai ek (to be begotten of) to describe the origin of the believer. The phrase may be compared with (ex)erchesthai ek (come [forth] from, cf. Jn. 8:42 where Jesus is speaking of himself) and einai ek (be from, cf. Acts 5:39 of events, and 1 Jn. 3:10 of men). The believer knows that his true existence does not belong to this world; his beginning and end are in God through Jesus Christ. In the dialogue with Nicodemus the references to being born (gennēthēnai) mean that man must receive a new origin. He must exchange his old nature for a new and be born again (Jn. 3:3, 5, 6, 7, 8; cf. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971, ad loc.). The idea of being `born again' expresses the same essential idea as being born `of God' (ek tou theou, 1 Jn. 3:9; cf. 2:29; 4:7) and being born `from above' (anōthen, Jn. 3:7; cf. 8:23). John describes this as an act of God: `But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God' (Jn. 1:12 f.). To the human mind such rebirth is necessarily absurd (Jn. 3:4), for it is beyond man's capacity. But John attributes this to the work of the Spirit (3:5-8). Only the believer who has been born of the Spirit comprehends his origin and is thus able to see the Kingdom of God (3:5; cf. Matt. 19:28).

"A number of scholars are of the opinion that the expression anōthen gennēthēnai (to be born from above) is derived from gnosticism. anōthen (from above) is not only applied to rebirth (Jn. 3:3, 7) but to the power given to Pilate from above (Jn. 19:11). Jesus compared himself who is from above (anō) with his adversaries who are from below (katō) (Jn. 8:23). But anōthen can also mean `again.' This birth is also described as being of water (ex hydatos) and the Spirit (Jn. 3:5). But in Jn. 1 and 1 Jn. there is no reference to water or baptism. Both Jn. and Paul appear to regard baptism as something secondary and less important (Jn. 4:2; 1 Cor. 1:14-17). The questions have not received sufficient attention whether water in Jn. 3:5 does not refer to creation (Gen. 1:2), and whether washing does not follow birth (as in human birth). It is only with Justin and Irenaeus in the 2nd century that rebirth became a synonym for baptism. ([Ed.] On the question of the possibility of a gnostic background to the NT see E. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, 1973.)

"2. Paul uses gennaō in 1 Cor. 4:15 and Phlm. 10 of his relationship with his converts. He could even speak of being in labour (ōdinō) or suffering birth pangs until Christ is formed in them (Gal. 4:19). The same thoughts lie behind those passages which speak of his `son' in the faith (1 Cor. 4:17; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 2:1; cf. 1 Pet. 5:13).

"Rabbinic Judaism spoke in a similar way of winning proselytes. The command to be fruitful (Gen. 1:28; 9:7) was sometimes taken to mean that the Israelite had to win others to his faith. The idea of new birth through conversion to Judaism was common among the rabbis (SB III 339 f. on 1 Cor. 4:14 f.). `When a man teaches the son of another the Torah, the Scriptures treat him as if he had begotten him' (Sanhedrin 19b, cf. 99b). `A proselyte who has been converted is like a child who has just been born' (Yebamoth 22a). K. H. Rengstorf sees in he rabbinic attitude a sense of standing beside God as a creator ex nihilo (TDNT I 666). Paul's language in the passages discussed seems to have taken over and adopted Jewish ideas.

"3. The verb anagennaō occurs only in 1 Pet. 1:3 and 23 in the form of a participle where it means `born anew.' Its meaning is similar to gennēthēnai in Jn. 3:3 f. (see above). `The NT did not "take over" the concepts of rebirth and begetting from the mystery religions, as the old history of religions school assumed; it developed it out of its own fundamental concerns and under the stimulus of the hellenistic and Jewish world around it. The oldest NT passage (1 Pet. 1:3, 23) stands in close connection with the tradition of the OT and Judaism which saw the holy people of God as strangers (1 Pet. 1:1-2:10)' (L. Goppelt, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart VI 1697). Through the gospel that has been preached, the word of the living God (1:23), believers have been born anew, i.e. they have been called by God into new life. This new life is summed up as elpis zōsa (living hope, 1:3) and agapē (love, 1:22). New birth is not in the NT something that a man can take up and dispose of as he pleases. It is only possible by God's `great mercy' (1:5) and power (1:5). `In the resurrection of Jesus God has had mercy on us in an omnipotent, regal and free way, so that he removed once and for all in Jesus Christ the whole reality of death. He has crossed out and overthrown our claim that our life is real life. He has brought another new, abiding and unspotted life so near to our life that we can grasp the new and let go of the old' (H.-J. Iwand, Predigt-Meditationen, 344). The believer possesses his life in hope. On the one hand, his existence stands under the indicative: `we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead' (1:3). On the other hand, he stands under the imperative: `set your hope fully upon the grace that is coming to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ' (1:13). He does this as one born anew realizing moment by moment the separation from the old aeon that has been overcome. The decisive factor which makes rebirth possible is God's act in the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

In LXX, it is used to translate harâh, which means conceive or become pregnant.

Psalm 2:7, since it was used for Israelite kings upon their coronation, is a figurative use. The kings were adopted sons of God, not literally begotten by him. When Psalm 2:7 is applied to Jesus, but not in the pregnancy/birth narratives, where it might have had a literal meaning. Instead, it is used only figuratively, declaring what Jesus already was.

Another figurative use is in Philo: Animals and plants are begotten by God. Paul used gennaō figuratively of his converts. Jews would have been familiar with a figurative use, and it is not difficult to see how similar meanings may be used in John 3.

John 3:3, we are told, means that "man must receive a new origin." We are reminded of the context of John 1:12, which says that believers "were born...of God. " Anagennaō means "born anew" — a phrase that, to my ears, stresses the new start better than "born again" does.