REGENERATION (παλιγγενεσία, G4098, rebirth, regeneration). The Biblical doctrine of the new birth, renewal, and the final restoration of all things.

1. The Biblical witness. Jesus’ nocturnal conversation with the pharisee Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin, is the most important scriptural witness to the doctrine of regeneration. Representing some faction of the important religious sect of which he was a member, Nicodemus came to Jesus to inquire about the kingdom of God. In addressing Jesus he recognizes Him as a teacher and acknowledges the divinity of His message. No one, he says, could have performed the miracles that Jesus did unless God were with him. Himself a teacher of the Jews, he comes to Jesus, whom he believes will be able to instruct him.

In making His reply Jesus does not deny the truth of what Nicodemus has said about Him. Nevertheless, He shows His dissatisfaction with the assumptions that prompted Nicodemus’ visit by abruptly changing the course of the discussion. Instead of simply giving Nicodemus information, Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). Surprised at this reply Nicodemus turns in his mind to what is familiar to him, namely, natural childbirth. “How can a man,” he asks, “be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” (John 3:4). In answering Jesus reinforces what He has previously said, “Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew’” (John 3:7).

Undoubtedly Jesus refers here to the necessity of a new birth. The very abruptness with which he breaks off the thread of the conversation shows that He wanted Nicodemus to realize that his query could not be answered properly by simply adding to his store of information or simply correcting him in one or another respect. It was not sufficient for him to carry on with the life that he already had; it was necessary for him to be born again.

That the newness of this birth is in mind here cannot be questioned; nevertheless, the Gr. word anōthen, which in the KJV rendering of this v. has been tr. “again,” should be tr. “from above.” This rendering is supported by the fact that Jesus proceeds immediately to contrast the natural birth and the new birth as to their origins. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). What is required for entering the kingdom of God is that one be born of water and of the Spirit (3:5). When he refers to regeneration, John always describes it as a birth from God (cf. 1:13). Thus what is in mind is not only the newness of the birth, but also its origin in the supernatural activity of the Spirit.

The source of the new birth, as Jesus’ reference to the inscrutable activity of the wind shows, lies beyond the range of our earthly experience (3:8). It is not enough, therefore, to call this a “new birth”; it is a birth “from above,” by the agency of the creative activity of the Spirit of God. The ideas of “newness,” “regeneration,” and a supernatural origin in the activity of the Spirit are all joined together in Titus 3:5. Here salvation is said to occur by means of “...the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit.”

In salvation, therefore, there is a washing and a renewing, a change in the innermost attitudes and inclinations of man’s heart of such a nature that it can be compared only with the generation and birth of life. Unlike natural birth, however, this birth does not have its origin in the will of man but in the sovereign power of God. It is a birth that is not of the flesh nor of blood but of the Spirit (John 1:13). The analogy of birth shows that regeneration is a radical change, which brings one from an earlier condition of pollution and death to a renewed state of holiness and life.

In the same vein the Bible speaks of one who has been regenerated as a “new creation” in Christ (2 Cor 5:17). According to Paul (Gal 6:15), what really matters is a new creation. Thus the Christian is exhorted to “put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph 4:24). So also the new birth is described as a being “brought forth” (James 1:18), a “quickening” (John 5:21: Eph 2:5 KJV). The believer is said to have been made alive from the dead (Rom 6:13). He is also called “his workmanship” (Eph 2:10).

Having been dead in trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1, 5), blind and unresponsive to the things that pertain to the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:14), unable to do any work that merits salvation (2 Tim 1:9; Titus 3:5), the person who has been corrupted in all of his powers is re-created in Christ Jesus. Even as a newborn child has himself had nothing to do with his conception and birth, the transformation of the new birth is one that cannot be accounted for by any powers resident within man himself but only by the power of the Spirit that is from above.

2. The Biblical theological perspective. The Gr. word for regeneration (παλιγγενεσία, G4098) is found only in Matthew 19:28 and Titus 3:5. In the first instance it refers to the restoration of the entire universe at the end time. Only in the latter case does it refer to the initiation of a new life in the believer. More commonly this new beginning is expressed by the Gr. verb γεννᾶν, or the compound verb ἀναγεννᾶν. These words mean “to beget,” “to beget again,” “to bear,” or “to give birth.” (Cf. John 1:13; 3:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; 1 Pet 1:23; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18.) In one passage the Gr. word ἀποκύειν is used, which means “to bear” or “to bring forth” (James 1:18). The idea of the production of a new life is also expressed by the word κτίζειν, “to create” (Eph 2:10). The resulting creation is called a καινὴ̀ κτήσις, a “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15), or a καινὸ̀ς ἄνθρωπος, a “new man” (Eph 4:24). In two places there is the word συζωοποιεῖν, “to make alive with” or “to quicken with” (Eph 2:5; Col 2:13).

The more specific doctrine of the new birth occurs, however, in the context of the broader Biblical teaching concerning renewal. The terms “renew” and “renewing” themselves do not appear often in the Scriptures. In the NT they do not appear at all in the gospels; they occur only in the epistles, where they stand for the Gr. word ἀνακαινοῦν and its cognate forms (Rom 12:2; 2 Cor 4:16; Eph 4:23; Col 3:10; Titus 3:5; Heb 6:6). That the words themselves do not often appear does not mean, however, that the doctrine is unimportant. The Biblical idea of renewal is taught at all stages of the revelation of God.

In the OT the ideas of cleansing and purification are very prominent. In a great number of cases this cleansing is ceremonial or ritual. That is to say, it is performed as part of a rite whose performance qualified one for something, e.g., for participation in a religious ceremony or for being publicly accepted in the tribe. Examples are the ceremonial purification of the high priest before his entering the holy place (Lev 16:1-4) and the ritual cleansing of a woman after childbirth (Lev 12). These ceremonial cleansings, although they were symbolic and did not necessarily correspond with an inward holiness on the part of the one who performed them, were not purely external and devoid of ethical significance, as liberal theology has claimed. They were symbolic of the righteousness and holiness of the heart which was demanded of the people of God. Thus the prophets denounced the people when these ceremonies became external and were no longer understood in their deeper significance. There was the prophecy of a new day in which the law of God would be inscribed on the heart, when there would be a people who were truly separated to God (Jer 31:33).

Although the element of renewal that is the new birth is not so clearly taught in the OT as it is in the NT, the OT idea of the relationship between God and man requires a perfect standard of righteousness and holiness and its promise of renewal is that of a renewal of the heart. The central meaning of God’s covenant with His people was that He would be a God to them and that they would be His people (Gen 17:1, 7, 8). This meant that they were separated to Him. It was symbolized in their being called out of the nations and their being circumcised. Circumcision signified the covenant with God in its deepest intent (17:10). It meant that they were set apart for Him and for the holiness which was fitting to this union with Him. Union with God was symbolized in terms of the marriage bond, and breaking His covenant was compared with whoredom (Jer 2:2; 3:1; Hosea 1:2, et passim).

It is to this inner relationship and to its realization that the OT symbolism refers. Indeed, this relationship had not yet been fully realized. God’s people were still under age. They had to be governed by a law that was greatly detailed and burdensome (Acts 15:10; Gal 3:19, 23-26; 4:1-7; 5:1), a law that often could be observed externally without any corresponding change of heart. Furthermore, access to God was through a human priesthood, and God’s word was received through a special group of men, the prophets. Nevertheless, the OT itself recognizes the temporary nature of these arrangements. It promises that a time will come when the Spirit will be poured out upon all flesh (Joel 2:28). It also recognizes the inner meaning of the law, using its provisions to refer to the deepest meaning of the covenant. “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart” (Deut 30:6). It also calls the people out of their indifference and rebellion to the true service of God. “I will...put a new spirit within them; I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh” (Ezek 11:19; cf. 36:26; 37:1-14; Jer 31:33). In response one finds the beautiful expressions of piety of the OT saints, “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow....Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me” (Ps 51:7, 10).

In a few passages, as we have observed, the NT speaks of renewal specifically in terms of a new birth by the power of the Holy Spirit. Even in the NT, however, the doctrine of the new birth occurs in the context of the more general teaching of renewal, which includes not only this birth itself but everything which flows out of it, namely the new life in Christ in its entirety. Regeneration in the narrow sense of the new birth may indeed be distinguished from this broader idea of renewal; but it should not be isolated from it.

3. Doctrinal development. Considering the fact that there is no elaborate body of teaching about the new birth in the Scriptures and that this teaching is set in the context of a broader teaching concerning renewal, it is not surprising that the term “regeneration” did not immediately have in the Church the more precise significance it later acquired in theology.

In the Early Church the term “regeneration” was used to denote a change intimately connected with the remission of sins. No clear distinction was made between regeneration, the act of God in which man is made holy, and justification, the act of God in which man is declared to be righteous. In his controversy with Pelagius, who taught that man’s will is free to choose the good, the church father Augustine maintained that regeneration is a work of God alone that changes the heart and that makes it possible for one to understand the Gospel and to be converted. There was, however, still no clear distinction made between regeneration and other doctrines pertaining to renewal.

The failure to distinguish between regeneration and justification had adverse effects in scholastic theology. Justification came to be regarded as the more inclusive notion; it was supposed to include regeneration and to be an act in which God and man cooperated. According to the dominant view, that of Thomas Aquinas, justification was first an infusion of grace, i.e., the birth of a new creation (regeneration) and, based upon it the forgiveness of sins and the removal of guilt. In the Roman Catholic Church there is still a certain confusion of regeneration and justification. The declarative nature of justification is lost to sight and justification is regarded to be an act or a process of renewal in which man’s subjective life is changed. Man is, in the opinion of the Roman church, not declared to be just but is made just.

Like the Church Fathers, the Reformers, including both Luther and Calvin, employed the term “regeneration” in a broad sense. Calvin used it to designate the entire process by which man is renewed, including not only the divine act by which the new life comes into being in the Christian, but also the conversion and sanctification which flow from it. This broad use of the word continued on even in the followers of the Reformers. It led, however, to confusion. Gradually, therefore, there arose a stricter use of the term “regeneration” and it came to be distinguished from conversion.

Turretin distinguished two types of conversion, namely, “habitual” or “passive” conversion, which is the production of a habit or disposition of the soul and “actual” or “active” conversion, in which this inner disposition comes to expression in repentance and faith. The first, he said, might more aptly be called “regeneration.” Thus the meaning of regeneration became restricted and was distinguished from the broader conception of renewal. The word “regeneration” is presently often used to denote only the implantation of a new life, apart from any manifestation of it.

In the theology which arose in the wake of the rationalism of the Enlightenment, there was a denial that regeneration was an act of God renewing the heart of man unto salvation. Rationalism, to be exact, secularized the Christian view of regeneration. That is to say, the idea that the Holy Spirit re-creates the innermost life of man was transformed into the notion that there is in every man an unspoiled creative source of reason. The need for an inner renewal of human life was eliminated. Man was supposed to have a pure spring of truth and goodness already within himself. It was only necessary to let this reason come to expression. Indeed, reason had to disentangle man from the web of irrational circumstances surrounding his life; but it itself, at the very heart of man’s personality, had no need of regeneration. Of itself, reason was supposed to be able to change man, to redirect his will and his emotions.

In reaction to the intellectualism of rationalism theological liberalism found a place again for the idea of regeneration. Friedrich Schleiermacher, who has been called the father of modern theology, is supposed to have reintroduced the idea of regeneration into theology. In Schleiermacher’s theology individual understanding is no longer at the center. What is now central is the divine life as it is manifested in Jesus Christ. Through man’s encounter with Christ, there is the birth within man of a new religious personality. His weak and suppressed God-consciousness is strengthened and made dominant, there is a break with his old situation, and there is the beginning of a new life of personal communion with God. Schleiermacher thought of regeneration as being this critical point, where the old life breaks off and a new life begins.

Although Schleiermacher broke with the rationalism and intellectualism of modernism regeneration is for him still nothing more than strengthening and making dominant something that is already present in man. The encounter with Jesus Christ simply awakens the slumbering consciousness of the divine.

The theology of neo-orthodoxy, which developed between the two world wars, protested that liberal theology had been man-centered and had allowed no real place for regeneration as truly a work of God. A point was sought from which regeneration could be viewed as a new creation, from a source which transcended anything in man. It had to be something more than a projection of man’s own possibilities.

Karl Barth’s theology of the word maintains that whenever the word of God is present, in distinction from the mere words of men, there is revelation and a radical change from death to life. Man is transformed by the word, which uses the words of men breaking in as grace onto the level of human life.

Barth believed that he had corrected the man-centeredness of liberal theology and had developed a position that allowed for the radical change from death to life of the new birth. The focus is supposed to have shifted from man and his possibilities to God’s electing love in Christ. God’s grace is triumphant, making all things new.

Barth, however, has always insisted that when the saving Word of God enters history it invades a realm that is foreign to it. It must transform the all too human words of men into the Word of God. As soon as it has entered history, it has already taken a form that is at man’s disposal. It is no longer the Word of God; it has become the words of men. God’s saving revelation can be only from moment to moment. Nothing can simply be said to be the Word of God; the Word of God must always become the Word of God.

Similarly the new birth is supposed to have a transcendent source. As soon, however, as it is thought to impart a new disposition or qualities that would serve to distinguish one individual or group from another, it has become self-sufficient, Barth thinks, and is in conflict with the living confrontation with God and His revelation. To think that regeneration effects such a change is to deny the freedom of God and His revelation and to place them at man’s disposal.

This view brings Barth into sharp opposition to the position of orthodoxy. The latter saw no difficulty in holding at one and the same time to the sovereignty of God in His revelation and to the idea that regeneration implants new dispositions, principles, tastes, etc., that underlie and determine the character of a man and all of his acts. To accept the traditional position means for Barth to have reverted to the notion that man can be something in and of himself, apart from His relationship to God and from his dependence upon Him. For Barth the traditional position involves a denial of the Biblical teaching of justification by faith. In so far as the believer is thought to live by virtue of something he possesses as a quality of his life, he lives by sight and no longer by grace through faith. There is an observable, describable principle within him that is supposed to result in a nearly mechanical fashion in his sanctification.

More recently Barth has emphasized the positive relation that pertains through grace between God and man. By the inner logic of his own position Barth has come to the view that all men are already elected in Christ. They are already in Christ; they must simply come to recognize that fact. As the more positive side of Barth’s theology has gotten the upper hand, as the theme of divine judgment has been consciously subordinated to the theme of the triumph of grace, the radical change from death to life of the new birth has become indistinct. It has faded into the difference between those who do and those who do not yet acknowledge the fact that they already have been elected in Christ.

Barth believes that he has truly interpreted the Scriptural teaching concerning the grace of God which is new every morning. However, this has been impossible for Barth because of his unwillingness to accept the true authority of Scripture. Instead, he has established a sanctuary for human autonomy, which can dictate how the saving revelation of God and the work of the Spirit are to appear in history.

In spite of Barth’s intentions he cannot obtain, therefore, a view of regeneration that has in affect the very heart of human existence. In his autonomous critical powers and in his historical cultural activity man is neutral. He has no need of regeneration. Indeed, here regeneration is not allowed to touch him. Human autonomy is allowed to establish a realm into which the saving revelation of God cannot penetrate directly.

In contrast, the Scriptural position is that man was created in the image of God and in his pristine goodness was given the task of subduing the world to the glory of God; that he sinned, becoming corrupted in all of his powers; and that he is in need of a regeneration that affects the very heart of his existence, a renewal that will re-establish him in the service of his creator with all of his heart, his soul, and his mind.

4. Doctrinal formulation. A survey of the idea of regeneration in the Scriptures shows that it is not sharply defined. It warrants, however, making a distinction between regeneration in the sense of the initial act by which God through the power of His Holy Spirit re-creates one into the new life in Christ and regeneration in a broader sense which includes conversion, sanctification, and the final restoration of all things. Regeneration in the narrower sense it has assumed in theology should not be considered in isolation from this broader context. It is indeed, first of all a new birth; but it also has to do with the entire process of renewal both in its personal and in its cosmic dimensions.

The reason for this double meaning is likely that regeneration in the narrow sense of the new birth is not simply an act which can be set off rigidly from other acts. Instead, it is a renewal at the very root of human existence whose significance must extend to everything that falls within the scope of divine salvation. This radical change, at the very heart of the creation, must manifest itself, therefore, throughout its entire extent. The purpose of God is the salvation of the entire man and with him the entire cosmos over which he was made the vicegerent.

This insight was grasped and elaborated clearly by the Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper. For him regeneration was more than one link among others in the chain of salvation. It became a universal theological principle of palingenesis (παλιγγενεσία, G4098). Kuyper grasped the radical nature of sin. He understood that it affected the cosmos at its root and that from this center corruption spread into all of its parts. Kuyper, therefore, was able to give an equally central and decisive place to the recreation of the cosmos in Christ Jesus. It became necessary for the Christian not only to be concerned with the question of personal holiness but also with the principles that should guide the regenerated mind in all of its activities, in society as well as in the Church.

When it is viewed in this fashion regeneration is not thought to add any new part to man. It does not endow him with any new function. Regeneration is a renewal of man in his heart, a renovation in the deepest center of his existence. As such it differs from justification. The latter is a judicial declaration that the sinner is righteous on the basis of the righteousness of Christ which has been imputed to him. One must, however, take into consideration not only the guilt, but also the pollution of sin. It is not only necessary for one to be declared righteous, but also to be made holy. This is effected by regeneration. A principle of holiness is injected into the center of one’s being. This holiness, to be sure, is not complete; nevertheless it introduces into one’s life the renewing power whose principle is nothing less than the perfect righteousness and holiness of God. The Apostle John can say of the one who has been regenerated, “No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God” (1 John 3:9).

Because regeneration affects the very heart of human existence, neither its place nor its effects can be localized. One cannot ask where it takes place, if one means one part of man in distinction from another. As the Scriptures teach, the work of the Spirit is inscrutable. It can be observed only in its effects. Jesus Himself taught this, employing the wind as an analogy. The wind blows where it will. One observes its effects; but he cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So, Jesus says, is everyone who is born of the Spirit (John 3:8). Likewise the scope of regeneration may not be limited. The entire man, in his intellectual, volitional, and emotive nature, has been corrupted by sin; therefore the entire man must be renewed according to the image of Christ.

If one understands the central meaning of regeneration, if he recognizes that it cannot be localized either as to its place or its effects, he will see that the difference between the regenerate and the unregenerate appears in an antithesis which runs through all of life. On the one hand, there will be a regenerated consciousness that seeks to subject everything to the Lordship of Christ; on the other hand, there will be a consciousness which, in the spirit of apostasy, will attempt to place man in his supposed independence from God at the center. One will then be obliged to bring this regenerated consciousness to bear upon all of life and its activities, not only on the study of the Bible and of theology but also on science, education, politics, etc.

This position, set forth by Abraham Kuyper and developed by others, provides a theological foundation for understanding the Biblical doctrine that the entire creation participates in redemption. The entire creation eagerly awaits the redemption of the sons of God (Rom 8:19-23). Both the human and the sub-human creation is to be renewed in a new heaven and a new earth. That does not mean that every individual will be saved; nor does it mean that the works of darkness will not be judged. Nevertheless, all things—that is, every aspect of the creation—will participate in salvation. All things will be renewed in the new heaven and the new earth.

Bibliography G. Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, 2nd ed. (1889); J. V. Bartlet, “Regeneration,” A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings (1902); B. B. Warfield, “On the Biblical Notion of ‘Renewal’,” Biblical Doctrines (1929), 439-463; A. Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit (1941), 293-332; L. Berkhof, “Regeneration and Effectual Calling,” Systematic Theology (1941), 465-479; J. Murray, “Regeneration,” Redemption: Accomplished and Applied (1955), 119-129; R. D. Knudsen, “The Nature of Regeneration,” Christian Faith and Modern Theology, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (1964), 307-321.