Is God Flesh? A Better Way to Understand John 1:14
To hear this podcast audio teaching part 1, click here. For part 2, click here.
For deity of Christ believers, “the Word became flesh” is the most
concise statement in all of the Bible that “God took on flesh”. To deity of
Christ believers, John 1:1 combined with John 1:14 is the #1 evidence that “God
became man”.
We need to ask deity of Christ believers who appeal to John 1:1 and
John 1:14, “So you believe that God became flesh?” Do you think
that “God is flesh?” Ask yourself if this statement really sounds
biblical and if you really believe it: “My god is flesh”. Go ahead, say it
yourself and ask yourself if you really believe “my God is flesh”
The Bible says that the “the blood is the life” of flesh
(Deut. 12:23, Lev. 17:11). So if blood is the life of flesh, is the life of God
in his blood?
I think the question “Is God flesh?” may help deity of Christ
believers begin to see that John 1:14 doesn’t mean what they think it means. Let’s
not deflect, avoid the word flesh and talk instead in the abstract about how “God
became man, God took on a human nature”. John 1:14 says “the Word became flesh”.
Is God flesh?
In podcast #39 I presented about 10 reasons why the phrase in John
1:14 “the word became flesh” does NOT mean that “God became
man”. In this current podcast I will seek to show even more conclusively that when
John wrote “the Word became flesh”, he actually eliminated
any possibility that the Word was a divine being. I don’t have a big problem
with the translation “became flesh”, as I’ll explain later. But I suggest that a
better way to understand John 1:14 is that “the Logos, the Word was
flesh”. In other words, the Logos, the Word - God’s communication to us - was
the human being, the man Christ Jesus from Nazareth.
John 1:14: So the Word was flesh and lived among us. We saw his glory – the glory as of a unique son
from a father, full of grace and truth.
I understand the prologue of the Gospel of John to be an introduction
and summary of the ministry of the human person, Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah.
The human person Jesus uniquely revealed God. Or, perhaps a more accurately:
God uniquely made himself known through the human person Jesus of Nazareth. God
spoke to us in and through this human person, Jesus. That is why Jesus
is called the Word.
The Gospel of John, including the first 18 verses, is not
introducing a second god figure, a pre-existent being who was involved in the
Genesis creation and then became flesh.
Nor is the Gospel of John introducing an abstract plan or purpose
of God that was involved in the Genesis creation and then became flesh.
Rather, “the beginning” of John 1:1 and other verses in the Prologue of John are parallels to the Genesis creation, but do not describe the Genesis creation directly. John’s beginning is the new beginning that God has initiated through the man Jesus, the Messiah. It is the man Jesus from Nazareth, flesh, commissioned, authorized and empowered by God, raised from the dead and exalted by God, who has revealed God and is the beginning of the resurrection age to come.
The Christology, or “who Jesus is” in the Gospel of John, is not
“incarnation”, that “God became man”. Rather, the Christology in the Gospel of
John is that Jesus is flesh, the human Messiah, the sent agent of God who makes
God known (John 1:18, 3:16, 6:29, 17:3, etc.) and sets into motion the new
beginning for mankind, resurrection life.
In John’s Gospel we learn that this uniquely chosen, empowered and
sent man, the Messiah, was put to death, but then was raised from the dead, then
lived among his disciples again before he “disappeared” entirely.
This is an amazing claim. The Messiah put to death, but then raised
from the dead and present for short times with his followers again
before he ultimately ascended to his Father, to his God (20:17, 1:18). We must
not forget that John wrote his Gospel with the knowledge that Jesus had ministered
in Israel, had been put to death, had been raised from the dead, and had been
with his followers again after his resurrection from the dead; however,
at the time that John wrote his Gospel, Jesus was no longer physically with
them. In a certain sense, Jesus was “gone”.
So who, or what, was this person Jesus who taught like no other
man, performed amazing miraculous signs, claimed to be the Messiah, was put to
death, but was then raised from the dead, and appeared again as a body of
flesh that could be touched - but then disappeared and was no longer
around?
Was he a spirit or an angel, or like later Gentile Christian
philosophers suggested was some kind of god that infused himself into a human
body? The Gospel of John answers “no” to
all these suggestions. The Gospel of John says Jesus was “flesh”, which means
that Jesus was a human being.
The Greek word egeneto: So
the Word was flesh and lived among us
As discussed in earlier podcasts on John 1:3, John 1:10 and John
1:14, it is essential that we think about the Greek verb that is translated into
many English versions as “became” in John 1:14, “the word became
flesh”. The word in Greek is ἐγένετο, γίνομαι (egeneto,
from ginomai). The word has a wide range of meanings: “to become, to be,
to exist, to happen, to come on the scene” and is translated some five
different ways in John chapter 1.
In John 1:3 and 1:10 most English translations translate egeneto
as “was made” or “came to be”.
“all was made or all came
to be egeneto
through him” 1:3
“the kosmos came to be egeneto through him” 1:10
But the exact same word is translated simply as “was” in John 1:6,
“there was egeneto a man sent
from God whose name was John”
In John 1:17 egeneto is translated “came”: “For the law was
given through Moses; grace and truth came egeneto
through Jesus Christ.”
In John 1:28 egeneto is translated as “happened”: “These
things happened egeneto in
Bethany across the Jordan where John was baptizing.”
So, “was made, was created, came to be, was, came, happened” - we
are wise to keep in mind the wide range of possible meanings for this word egeneto.
The word is also translated in even more different ways in the Bible. The
English word that a translator chooses depends a lot upon theological presuppositions. Is John 1:14 really telling us that a
pre-existent 2nd god-person called the Logos became or
transformed into flesh? To a Greek thinker, maybe. But as we will
discuss later, to a Hebraic thinker, “flesh” eliminates any possibility that
the Word was a divine figure.
The current majority Biblical Unitarian view of vs. 14 also
postulates some kind of a transformation or change, even an “incarnation”, not
from a god-person into flesh, but rather from an abstract plan or purpose of
God into a human being. The presumption is that the Logos of John 1:1 was only
the plan or purpose of God, but then transformed into, or became a
person in 1:14. According to this view the Logos was the abstract
plan, but then became a human being. However, of
the over 1000 times that the word logos occurs in the Bible, this would
be the only time it means an unspoken plan or purpose.
This “plan or purpose” Biblical Unitarian view, as with the deity
of Christ view, associates “the logos became flesh” to the conception or
birth of Jesus. But it is very, very unlikely that John 1:14 is about the conception
or birth of Jesus. Among other reasons, if conception or birth is what the
author intended in John 1:14, we should wonder why the Gospel of John never
describes such a significant, indeed, essential event. John gives not one word
about the circumstances of conception or birth of the Messiah. The incarnation
of a either a pre-existent god or an abstract plan into a human embryo is the
greatest story never told, at least not in the Bible. Again, see podcast #39.
Birth and being born is mentioned some 17 times in the Gospel of
John. But being born is never described using our word egeneto.
There is a different word in Greek which means “to be born” (gennao, γεννάω), and the
Gospel of John uses it in all of those other cases, but not here in 1:14. Jesus,
when he spoke of his own birth in John 18:47, used the normal word for birth, not
the word egeneto which is here in John 1:14.
While I don’t have a big problem with translating egeneto as
“became” in John 1:14, I think it needs to be understood correctly. As we
continue in this podcast, I will give reasons why it is better to understand egeneto in John 1:14 simply as “was”, similarly
to the way the word is translated in John 1:6.
John 1:6, “there was a man sent from God whose name
was John”
John 1:14 “So the Word was flesh and lived among us…”
John 1:14 is telling us that this person Jesus of Nazareth, son of
Joseph (John 1:45), metaphorically called the Word, Life and Light, who lived
among the people of Israel both before and after his death, was
flesh, that is, a human being. Through and in the human person Jesus Christ,
God spoke to his people. This is why Jesus is called the Word in John
1:1 and 1:14, and in the Book of Revelation 19:13, “the name by which he was
called is the Word of God.” In these latter days the God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob has spoken through a son, the Messiah, the man Jesus.
Or, another way to understand John 1:14 is “the Word came on the
scene a human being.”
This is exactly the point of Hebrews 1:1-2: “In many and various
ways God spoke in past times to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last
days he has spoken to us by a son…”
The words egeneto and logos in other places in the
Bible
There are many places in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of
the Old Testament, where the word egeneto is
best understood and translated simply as “was” (Gen 1:3, 5, 8, etc.). Perhaps
most significant for this discussion are the occurrences in the Greek Old
Testament of the word logos together with egeneto in the often-occurring phrase: "and
egeneto the logos of YHVH", “and the word of Yahweh came”.
Here egeneto is understood simply as “came” or "was", as in "The
word of YHVH came to the prophet Isaiah" (38:4), or “the
word of Yahweh was to Jeremiah (1:4)”. These phrases with egeneto
and logos occur over 100 times in the Old Testament, and it makes sense
that a reader familiar with the Old Testament in Greek would immediately
associate the words egeneto and logos of John 1:14 with the
coming of the word of God to God’s people in past times through God’s prophets.
But now, John 1:14 tells us, God’s Word has come to us in flesh, in
a man, Jesus of Nazareth.
Let’s look at three other places in the New Testament where the
words logos and egeneto occur together. In each of these cases egeneto
is best translated as “came” or “was”.
2 Corinthians 1:18 But as God is true, our word (logos) toward
you was egeneto not yes and no.
Hebrews 2:2 For if the word (logos) declared by angels was
egeneto valid
and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution…” (all the
more so we need to pay attention to the word which was first declared by
Jesus).
John 10:35 If He called them gods to whom the word (logos) of
God came egeneto…
In these passages the word logos of God or of angels was,
or came. The logos didn't "become" in the sense
of a metaphysical transformation, or a change from one form to another. John
10:35 is particularly interesting since here in John’s Gospel, Jesus could be
saying that as the word of God came to the people of Israel in
the past, Jesus himself was the Word of God that came to the
people of Israel in the 1st century.
To summarize so far, the wide semantic range of the word egeneto
and the occurrences of egeneto with logos in other places in the Septuagint
and in the New Testament justify understanding that John 1:14 is a declaration
that the Logos of God was flesh, came as a
human being. In Israel’s past the word of Yahweh came in visions, dreams and
voices. But visions, dreams and voices are not flesh. This time, in these latter
times, God has spoken to us by flesh, a human being.
(take a break)
Flesh
John had his reasons for specifically using the word “flesh”. Deity
of Christ followers interpret “the Word became flesh” to mean that the 2nd
person of the godhead took on a human body, or took on abstract “human nature”.
Note the subtle change of language. Deity of Christ proponents don’t like
saying that God was flesh.
By definition then, the deity of Christ interpretation eliminates
the possibility that Jesus was a human person. For them, the person
animating the body of flesh was a pre-incarnate god who “put on flesh”, not the
human person Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The deity of Christ interpretation ends
up claiming that Jesus of Nazareth was not a human person, but was a divine
person walking around in a human body.
Deity of Christ believer – do you really think that God became flesh?
Is God still flesh? If so, why has the trinitarian description of God for
hundreds of years been that God is three persons in one essence? Is the
one essence of God flesh?
Enter the Greek Philosopher Plato
The deity of Christ view, that a god took on a human body, is based
on the Greek philosophical view that a person is separate and
distinct from his body of flesh. To the Greek, the real person, the
person’s soul, or his self, is separate from the
body of flesh. The body of flesh is a kind of shell that the real person, the
soul, inhabits for a while.
Since the soul, the person, can be separated from the body, death,
to the Greek philosopher, is only a separation of the soul from the body.
Listen to what Plato says about the separation of the soul from the
body at death:
“… death is the
separation of the soul from the body, and…the state of being dead is the state
in which the body is separated from the soul and exists alone by itself, and
the soul is separated from the body and exists alone by itself” Phaedo 64c
For most traditional Christians - Catholic, Protestant or Greek
Orthodox, this quote from Plato is basically Bible. I’ve been told by conservative
Christians of every stripe, from persons in the pew, to pastors and seminary
professors who hold PhDs in theology, that death is the separation of the soul
from the body. At death, the soul, the person, separates from the body, but still
lives. The idea of a disembodied soul “going to heaven”, or for
that matter, “going to hell” stems from this philosophy of death popularized by
Plato.
And this Greek idea of a soul being alive apart from the body is
why a deity of Christ believer interpreters John 1:14 the way he does. Influenced
by Platonic Greek philosophy, the Christian believes that a person, in this
case one of a tri-person god, could “put on” impersonal human flesh. And then the
death of that god-person was only the separation of the soul from the body of
flesh.
But this is not the biblical way to understand who man is, and what
death is. In the Bible, yes, man is somewhat of a composite, but he is not alive
separate from a body of flesh. Genesis 2:7 describes how God formed man from
the ground, and then man became alive, a living person, a living soul,
a nephesh hyah (נֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּֽה) when God breathed life
into him. There is no human person living without a body of
flesh. If the body of flesh is dead, the human person is dead. When I die, I
die, not just my body.
In the Bible, to be dead means to be dead, that is, to not be alive.
God wasn’t kidding when he said, “You will certainly die”. God did not
say “Your soul will separate from your flesh. Your flesh will die but you
will keep living”. No. “You will certainly die.” In the Bible, it was the
liar who said, “You will certainly not die” (Gen. 3:4). Unlike in Greek
philosophy, in the Bible to die means that the person, not just the body, is
dead.
In the Bible also birds and animals are flesh and living souls (nephesh
hyah, נֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּֽה
Gen 1:20, 21, 24, 30; 7:21, etc.). To a Hebraic thinker who knows
his Bible and whose thinking is uncluttered with Greek philosophical
presuppositions, a being who “became flesh” was a bird, an animal, another
creature that walked on the ground, or a human (Gen 6:17-20, 7:21). We can
understand in context that John 1:14 “flesh” is not talking about other birds
or animals but is describing a human being.
So even though a human may be made up of other elements like bone, blood
and God’s life-giving spirit - a human person, all of that human
person is said to be flesh. If you are flesh, you are
a human person. In describing that the Word/Logos was or became flesh, John is
using a figure of speech known as synecdoche, where a part (in this case flesh)
represents the whole (a human being). Again: The part, “flesh”,
represents the whole, “human”.
When a ship’s captains says, “all hands on deck!”, the word “hands”
represents whole people, the sailors, not just their hands. The captain of the
ship is not calling for hands to be severed and tossed on the deck. The captain
is using a figure of speech where hands represent whole people.
If my friend pulls up in a brand-new car and I say “Wow George, nice
wheels!”, I don’t mean that his Goodyear tires are really nice. The word
“wheels” is a figure of speech that stands for or represents the whole car.
When the author of the Gospel of John says the Word became or was flesh,
he means that the Word was a human person. Not just part of a human person, not
just abstract “human nature” or just a physical human body with no human
person. No, John means the Word was a whole, entire human person. The word
“flesh” represents the whole human person.
The “deity of Christ” interpretation
of John 1:14 fails to understand that “flesh” represents
a whole human person.
In good Greek philosophical fashion, the deity of Christ believer
separates the flesh from the whole person. He separates the body or “flesh”
from the soul.
But the author of the Gospel of John was a Jew, and he had the
biblical view, not a Greek philosophical view of who and what a human is. The
Greek and Christian philosophers may believe that the soul or person is
something alive separate from flesh, and that a divine person could “take on
human flesh”. But the Bible, including the author of the Gospel of John uses “flesh”
in a very different way than a Greek thinker. John uses flesh as a way to mean
“a human person”. The Word of God was a human being, a real human
person, flesh. Neither God (John 4:24), nor angels have flesh. Neither God, nor
angels are flesh. Human beings are flesh.
From a Hebraic, biblical perspective, “the Word became flesh”
eliminates the possibility that the Word was a divine person.
More Reasons Why John used the word “flesh”:
Because Adam was flesh
“the Word was flesh” is the Gospel of John’s way of saying what the
apostle Paul said when he called Jesus the second Adam (Rom. 5:14-15, 1 Cor.
15:22, 45). Adam was flesh. So was Jesus. To state that the Word was flesh is
to state that the Word was a human person like the first man Adam.
Genesis 2:7 then Yahweh God formed the man of dust from the ground
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living
creature.
Genesis 2:23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my
bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken
out of man.
Genesis 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in
man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years."
Psalm 78:39 He remembered that they were flesh, a wind that
passes and does not return.
So one reason why John said the Word was flesh was to emphasize
that like Adam and Eve, the Word was a human being, a whole, entire human
being, a nephesh hyah of flesh.
Why John used the word “flesh”: Reason #2, the Resurrection of
flesh
The Gospel of John is a Jewish record of how God sent the promised
Messiah, the human being, Jesus of Nazareth. After describing the uniquely
empowered-by-God ministry of this man Jesus in the land of Israel, the author
relates that Jesus the Messiah was put to death. But then Jesus, as flesh, was
raised from the dead by God. And then Jesus appeared to his followers a number
of times as flesh resurrected before ascending, as flesh, to God.
All of this happened to Jesus as flesh, and as flesh, the whole
life Jesus speaks to us. God spoke to us through this man of flesh.
We can’t forget. After Jesus was raised from the dead he was flesh that Mary
Magdalene could hold on to (John 20:17). After Jesus was raised from the dead,
he was a scarred body of flesh that Thomas could see, touch and feel (20:27).
When Jesus stood among his followers after being resurrected, from
the dead, as flesh, his followers thought Jesus was a spirit. But Jesus said to
them: “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me,
and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I
have” (Luke 24:39). Then Jesus ate a piece of fish in their presence as proof
that he was real flesh and bone.
And why were Jesus’ followers so enamored with joy after being with
him as resurrected flesh? Because they realized that God himself had once again
put on flesh? Ah, no. What a perverted, Greek-influenced interpretation of the
Gospel record.
To the contrary, the apostles were beside themselves with joy
because they were witnesses that God had raised the man Jesus of Nazareth, a flesh
and bone person, from the dead. And the man Jesus was evidence of what God had
in store for other humans of flesh.
In this way, John 1:14 can be said to be a resurrection text,
because flesh was resurrected from the dead. But John 1:14 is not only a
resurrection text because in saying that the Word was flesh John is insisting
that this person Jesus, both during his life on this earth and after his
resurrection to glory, was flesh, a human person.
It is a human being, flesh, in the bosom of the Father who has made
the Father known (John 1:18).
Sure, Jesus “became” flesh
I’m not really arguing for a change in translation of John 1:14,
just the right understanding. As mentioned, both in this podcast and in podcast
#39, there are huge problems and contradictions for the deity of Christ
understanding that the Word became flesh. But for a one God
believer, there is no real problem with the translation “became.”
Sure, Jesus "became" flesh because he was conceived, born,
lived, was empowered by God’s spirit, spoke God’s words, performed miracles, was
put death, was raised from the dead, and exalted to God's right hand. The whole
life of the man of flesh Jesus is a declaration of God. The life of Jesus happened.
Jesus the Messiah came on the scene in the 1st century
or our era. The man Jesus who became, who came on the scene,
was the Word of God.
The declaration that "the Word was flesh" does not lose
the sense of "becoming" or “coming into existence”. The Word of God "became" because he
showed up on the scene as a human being, Jesus, flesh. But there was no
transformation from some pre-human person into flesh.
Knowing that the word became, or existed as, or was flesh also
helps us understand that when the Gospel writer introduced the Word in John
1:1, he was not introducing a pre-flesh being. The same Logos in John
1:1, was flesh, the human being who we learn in John 1:17 and 1:45 is Jesus of
Nazareth the Messiah.
Becoming flesh at the baptism?
A one God believer whom I highly respect suggests that the phrase “the
word became flesh” relates to the baptism of Jesus and empowerment by the
spirit of God. This suggestion has some merit because John the Baptizer does
play a significant role in identifying the Messiah Jesus, even in the next
verse (1:15). And, in the Scripture the word of God is associated with spirit (Job
26:4, Prov. 1:23, 2 Sam. 23:2, Deut. 8:3, Acts 4:31, Eph. 6:17, 2 Pet. 1:21).
For the Hebrew thinker, spirit (ruach, רוח)
means wind or breath. Words are spirit, or wind. Words are formed
by wind, breath coming out from the mouth. In the same way, figuratively, God’s
word is breath that comes from his mouth (Deut. 8:3).
However, I believe it is best to understand that the whole life of
Jesus, his entire life of flesh, is what John intends when he says the “Word
became flesh”. The coming of the spirit upon Jesus is certainly an important
part of the Word being flesh, but not exclusively so. The baptism of Jesus is
not really described in John’s Gospel. The coming of the spirit upon Jesus is
described in only four verses when the Baptizer recalled the event in his
testimony (John 1:31-34). It is better
to understand the “Word became flesh” as a reference to the entire ministry of
Jesus: his equipping by God’s spirit, his teaching, the miracles he performed,
his death, his resurrection and exaltation as flesh are all reasons to declare
that the Word became flesh. God spoke through the entire flesh life of Jesus.
Context: the three paragraphs of John’s Prologue
Many commentators recognize that the Prologue of John’s Gospel
breaks down into three sections. Although there may be some discussion about
where the transition between the sections occurs, verses 1-5 make up the first section,
verses 6-13 the second section, and verses 14-18 the third section.
Another question that affects interpretation of John 1:14 is if the
verses and sections of the Prologue are strictly chronological. I believe it
can be seen that the verses are not presenting a strictly historical
chronological sequence. For instance, already in verse 5 which closes the first
section, the statement that “the light shines in the darkness and the darkness
did not overcome it” is most likely a reference to the resurrection of Jesus;
whereas, in the verses following, verses 6-8, we learn of the testimony of John
the Baptizer about the Jesus the Light early in Jesus ministry.
So, the verses, and the three main paragraph sections in John
1:1-18 are not strictly chronological. Rather, they repeat and expand on each
other. In addition to being a way to emphasize, the repetition and expansion in
the prologue is the literary equivalent to a song in three-part harmony. In a
song the three parts are all sung simultaneously, but in literature the parts
are written out one after the other.
Or, as the author Peter Gentry describes in the book Kingdom
through Covenant, repetition and expansion is the literary equivalent of a
Dolby surround sound system:
“[A]ncient Hebrew literature takes up a topic and develops it from
a particular perspective and then stops and takes up the same theme again
from another point of view. This pattern produces 3-D ideas and is pursued recursively
at both the macro- and microlevels. One begins a conversation on a topic and
then closes that conversation down and begins another. Taken together, both
conversations are like the left and right speakers of a stereo sound system:
each differs slightly, and together they produce 3-D Dolby surround sound"
(Peter Gentry, Kingdom through Covenant, p.
354).
All incarnation theories ignore this
repetition, review and expansion aspect of John’s Prologue. All incarnation theories interpret John 1:14 as describing the conception of Jesus, ignoring
that the Jesus, as an adult human being and his ministry are already presented
in verses 1-13.
The Prologue
states that this one, the Word, was with God. In him was life, and the life was
the light of men. The light still shines and darkness did not overcome it. The
prophet John was sent to testify about the light that was in the world. The
prophet John was not the light, but he testified to the light, the man Jesus,
who was in the kosmos (world), that is, among the Jewish people. He was
among his own people, but his own people did not receive him. Well, some did
receive him. And those who believe in his name received the authority to become
children of God.
All of this is
stated before the Word became flesh. Verses 1-13 are a summary of the adult ministry
of the man Jesus. The adult ministry of Jesus is described as well in verses
15-18. In fact, the next verse, John 1:15 returns to the testimony of John the
Baptizer. It makes no sense that the author, in the midst of his description of
the adult ministries of the Baptizer and Jesus, suddenly interrupted with five short
words to describe the metaphysical transformation of a god into a human embryo.
John 6, my flesh and my blood
The other main place in the Gospel of John where the word flesh is
used is in a cluster of verses in John 6:50-56 where Jesus, in comparison to
the manna that came from heaven as provision for Israel, describes himself as
the living bread that came down from heaven. Jesus said, “the bread that I will
give for the life of the world is my flesh (6:51).”
The living bread which came down from heaven was Jesus’s flesh.
What did he mean? Obviously, he didn’t mean that his flesh literally descended
from the starry heavens. No, by his “flesh” he meant his life. His “flesh”
represents his whole life. The life of Jesus was the provision of God, the
bread from heaven.
Jesus’s listeners didn’t understand so Jesus took his description a
step further: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son
of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (6:53).
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hang on a second there. Israel was never to eat
flesh with blood, let alone drink blood, so what is going on here? It is
obvious that Jesus was speaking metaphorically (cf. John 10:6). Jesus meant
that he gives his very life, his blood and flesh, for the life of the world
(cf. 1 Pet. 1:19-19, Rev. 5:9). Unless one “eats his flesh and drinks his
blood”, that is, unless one appropriates the life and death of the human Jesus,
he will not have life in the age to come.
Look back to the Torah of Moses. To the biblically minded Jew, the
soul, the life, the nephesh, is the blood. Jesus uses “my flesh”
and “my blood” to mean his human life, which is the only life he has.
Leviticus 17:11: For the life (nephesh, soul!) of the flesh
is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for
your lives (nepheshot),
Deuteronomy 12:23: “for the blood is the life (nephesh, soul!)”.
Let us stress again that it is the life and death of the human
Jesus, of the man Jesus from Nazareth, that ransoms men for God. And there is
no other Jesus. God does not have flesh and God does not have blood, nor does
God die. God’s life, God’s soul, is not in blood.
Deity of Christ belief in the end denies the life of the real
person, the human Jesus, who gave his life to ransom men for God. Without the
human Jesus, there is no mediator between God and humanity (1 Tim. 2:4-5).
To say that Jesus is God is tantamount to saying that God’s life is
in his blood.
1 John 4:2
1 John 4:2 “By this you know the spirit of God: every spirit that
confesses that Jesus Christ has come in flesh is from God.”
This verse does not say that every spirit that confesses that God
took on flesh, or that God came as flesh, is from God. That would be a
spirit that is not from God.
Jesus is the name of the human person. Christ is the title of the
human person. To “come” means to show up on the scene at a particular time in
history. It doesn’t mean to literally come from a heavenly location, as a Greek
thinker might believe. Jews expected the prophet like Moses to come (John 6:14).
Jews expected the Messiah to come (John 11:27). Jesus the Messiah came in
flesh. He was a human person.
That human person Jesus the Messiah who lived, was put to death,
raised from the dead, exalted to heaven - he is flesh.
Review:
When John wrote “the Word became
flesh”, or the “Word was flesh”, he eliminated any possibility
that the Word was a divine being. To a person
steeped in biblical, Hebraic thought, “flesh” as a living being nephesh hyah
could only be a bird, and animal, or a human being.
To the Hebraic mind, a divine being is not even on the list of
possibilities of becoming flesh.
It is a great tragic irony that through foreign philosophical
speculation the five words from John 1:14 have come to mean the very opposite
of what John intended. “Flesh” has been turned into a soul-less, person-less
body that a divine being could put on.
Let us ask this question: “Is God flesh?” Deity of Christ believer, Trinitarian, do you
believe that God is flesh? You keep insisting that John 1:1 and 1:14 are proof
that God became human. But don’t dodge the word “flesh”. John 1:14 says that
the Word became flesh. And if God became flesh, does not the Trinity have two
natures?
Is your God flesh? Think biblically - Is the life of your God in
his blood?
John 1:14 is not saying that a pre-incarnate Logos or Word became
the human being Jesus by infusing his spirit into a human embryo. Such thinking
is only Greek philosophical speculation that says exactly the opposite of what
John intended.
Rather, John 1:14 is saying that the Word was flesh,
the human being, Jesus. This uniquely equipped human being lived some 33 years
before he was put to death, but then was raised from the dead by God, and for a
short while lived with the disciples as resurrected from the dead “flesh” (Luke
24:39), before he was taken to his God as flesh. God has spoken to us through that
human being. The Word of God to mankind was that person of flesh.
The authors of the New Testament books of Hebrews and Revelation
agree:
Hebrews 1:1-2: “In various ways God spoke to our fathers by the
prophets, but in these last days God has spoken to us by a son.”
Revelation 19:13: “This is the name by which he was called: the
Word of God”
Comments
So if we say "Jesus became flesh" it strongly suggests Jesus existed before but wasn't flesh, i.e., had pre-existence (as a soul, angel, logos being, God, or pre-existence notionally as a plan, say).
The closest parallel to this would be, indeed, conception of a human, where we might say "You became a baby in mommy's tummy" or something, where we might mean you didn't exist before but came into being.
The alternative is to say the narrator is shifting the meaning of logos at 1:14, and instead it means "God's word *in general* became *in this instance* flesh." But then we're using logos in a different sense from a name for Jesus.
So although I think saying "Jesus was flesh" or even "Jesus came in the flesh" (as it is in Weymouth's) in the loose sense of 'came' as 'being sent from God', as John the Baptists was 'sent' by God (1:6), makes sense, using 'became' if Jesus' pre-existence isn't meant here sounds funny to my ear.
Two aspects to "became flesh".
1. I understand "became, happened, came on the scene, was" here in the sense that every human being "becomes flesh". It doesn't mean we literally pre-existed. But you and I "became flesh".
2. I don't believe John is describing an ontological transformation. There is a sense of "difference" or perhaps, "change". But the change is not ontological, but methodolgical. In past times the word of God came in various and sundry ways, dreams, visions, etc. (Heb. 1:1-2). In these latter days, God has spoken not in those ways, but by and in the man Jesus of Nazareth, flesh, a human being. This is why "the name he was called is the Word of God" (Rev. 19:13).
I discovered your blog because I was dissatisfied with the common Biblical Unitarian treatments of John 1's prologue (either pre-existence of the logos as a plan, or personification of the logos). They just seemed stretched, not necessarily for 1:1 or 1:14, but for what is in between - it just didn't add up. But, the standard Trinitarian understanding also seemed 'strange' to me (and this also applied to the standard Unitarian interpretations). Why is John going on about Genesis here - what does that have to do with the rest of his Gospel? Why does John the Baptist suddenly appear at 1:6? That's weird - and if something seems weird, that suggests the interpretation isn't right, because John was very carefully putting together his Gospel. Why all this vague talk of the activity of the Word in the distant past?
But with the new beginning interpretation everything starts to sing and harmonize with the rest of the Gospel, once we peel back centuries of interpretation on 1:3, 1:10, and 1:14 in particular. "Oh! This is what John was saying! Now it makes sense" was my thought. I would currently rank this interpretation above not just the other common Unitarian approaches, but the standard Trinitarian one as well. John's prologue is no longer a 'problem' for Biblical Unitarians to 'deal' with, but harmonizes and fits much better with the Unitarian view than the Trinitarian one! (again, once we peel back the ingrained interpretations of key passages)
It works better internally, works much better with John as a whole, works better with 1 John, works better with Paul's letters, works better with Revelation (19:13), and works better with the rest of the NT. Anyway, thank you for your work on this - it has been instrumental on this topic for me.
Now you're preaching to the choir :). Yes, I think once a person starts to look closer at John's Prologue, more and more evidence emerges that the Prologue is not a direct commentary on the Genesis creation. The parallels are there, and that was seems to throw people off.
Most of the blogposts are texts from the One God Report podcast. However, there are some podcasts that don't have written texts, like the three podcasts (#66, 67, 68) with Dr. Anthony Perry on John's Prologue.
If you haven't heard those, you probably would be interested. Blessings in Messiah Jesus...
https://anchor.fm/onegodreport-podcast