Wesley Corpus

“3. The former of these two is spoken of as that which renders the other so necessary. Because “that which is born of the flesh is flesh; therefore ‘we must be born of the Spirit: * Therefore this great change must be wrought in us, or we cannot ‘enter into the kingdom of God.” “4. If the latter of these is made necessary by the former, then to be ‘born flesh” is to be born corrupt and sinful. And, indeed, the word ‘flesh” is very frequently taken for the corrupt principle in man. It is always so taken when it stands opposed to ‘the Spirit, or to that inwrought principle of obedience, which itself also (taking the name of its Author) is sometimes termed ‘Spirit.” “Now, in the text, whatever or whoever is born of a man, since the fall, is denominated ‘flesh.’ And that “flesh” is here put, not for sinless frailty, but sinful corruption, we learn from its being opposed to the ‘Spirit.” Christ was born frail, as well as we, and in this sense was ‘flesh; yet, being without sin, he had no need to be ‘born of the Spirit.” This is not made necessary by any sinless infirmities, but by a sinful nature only. This alone is opposite to ‘the Spirit; thus, there fore, we must understand it here. “But Dr. Taylor says, “To be born of the flesh is only to be naturally born of a woman. I answer, Is not ‘flesh” op posed to ‘Spirit’ in this verse? Is it not the Spirit of God, which is spoken of in the latter clause, together with the principle of grace, which is in every regenerate person? And is anything beside sinful corruption opposite to the Spirit of God? No, certainly . But if so, and if wherever ‘flesh” is opposed to ‘the Spirit, it implies sinful corruption, then it is evident, to be ‘born of the flesh, is to be the sinful offspring of sinful parents, so as to have need of the renewing influ ences of the Holy Spirit, on that account, even from our birth.