Born again

===Interpretations===
The traditional Jewish understanding of the promise of salvation is interpreted as being rooted in "the seed of Abraham"; that is, physical lineage from Abraham. Jesus explained to Nicodemus that this doctrine was in error{{snd}}that every person must have two births{{snd}}natural birth of the physical body and another of the water and the spirit.<ref>Emmons, Samuel B. ''A Bible Dictionary.'' BiblioLife, 2008. {{ISBN|978-0-554-89108-8}}.</ref> This discourse with Nicodemus established the Christian belief that all human beings{{snd}}whether Jew or Gentile{{snd}}must be "born again" of the spiritual seed of Christ. This understanding is further reinforced in 1 Peter 1:23.<ref>{{Bibleverse|1Peter|1:23}}</ref><ref name="SJF" /> The ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' states that "[a] controversy existed in the primitive church over the interpretation of the expression ''the [[seed of Abraham]]''. It is [the First Epistle of Peter's] teaching in one instance that all who are Christ's by faith are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise. He is concerned, however, with the fact that the promise is not being fulfilled to the seed of Abraham (referring to the Jews)."<ref>Driscoll, James F. "Divine Promise (in Scripture)". The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 15 November 2009.[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12453a.htm]</ref>

[[Charles Hodge]] writes that "The subjective change wrought in the soul by the grace of God, is variously designated in Scripture" with terms such as ''new birth'', ''resurrection'', ''new life'', ''new creation'', ''renewing of the mind'', ''dying to sin and living to righteousness'', and ''translation from darkness to light''.<ref name="Hodge1">{{Cite web |title=Systematic Theology – Volume III – Christian Classics Ethereal Library |url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology3.iii.i.i.html |access-date=11 September 2019 |website=www.ccel.org}}</ref>

Jesus used the "birth" analogy in tracing spiritual newness of life to a divine beginning. Contemporary Christian theologians have provided explanations for "born from above" being a more accurate translation of the original Greek word transliterated {{transliteration|grc|ánōtʰen}}.<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/anothen.html ''The New Testament Greek Lexicon.''] 30 July 2009.</ref> [[Frank Stagg (theologian)|Theologian Frank Stagg]] cites two reasons why the newer translation is significant:

# The emphasis "from {{em|above}}" (implying "from {{em|Heaven}}") calls attention to the source of the "newness of life". Stagg writes that the word 'again' does not include the {{em|source}} of the new kind of beginning;
# More than personal improvement is needed; "a new destiny requires a new origin, and the new origin must be from God."<ref>Stagg, Evelyn and Frank. ''Woman in the World of Jesus.'' Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978. {{ISBN|0-664-24195-6}}</ref>

An early example of the term in its more modern use appears in the sermons of [[John Wesley]]. In the sermon entitled ''A New Birth'' he writes, "none can be holy unless he be born again", and "except he be born again, none can be happy even in this world. For{{nbsp}}[...] a man should not be happy who is not holy." Also, "I say, [a man] may be born again and so become an heir of salvation." Wesley also states infants who are baptized are born again, but for adults it is different:

{{blockquote|our church supposes, that all who are baptized in their infancy, are at the same time born again.{{nbsp}}[...] But{{nbsp}}[...] it is sure all of riper years, who are baptized, are not at the same time born again.<ref>Wesley, J., ''The works of  the Reverend John Wesley'', Methodist Episcopal Church, 1831, pp. 405–406.</ref>}}

A [[Unitarianism|Unitarian]] work called ''The Gospel Anchor'' noted in the 1830s that the phrase was not mentioned in any of the Gospels,{{efn|Though the canonical gospels are traditionally attributed to the [[Four Evangelists]], modern scholarship views all four as anonymously written, and later attributed to the Evangelists.}} nor by any Epistles except in that of 1 Peter. "It was not regarded by any of the Evangelists but John of sufficient importance to record." It adds that without John, "we should hardly have known that it was necessary for one to be born again." This suggests that "the text and context was meant to apply to Nicodemus particularly, and not to the world."<ref>LeFevre, CF. and Williamson, ID., ''The Gospel anchor''. Troy, NY, 1831–32, p. 66. [https://books.google.com/books?id=3T4rAAAAYAAJ]</ref>