“The Word became flesh (Sustenance)” - A Metaphorical Interpretation of “flesh” in John 1:14

The short statement in John 1:14 that “the Word became flesh” is understood by mainstream Christianity to be a declaration that the difference, the gulf  between who God is and who man is was breached, that God became man. Anyone interested in considering the many and various problems with the “G/god became man” interpretations of this verse can see the article/podcast #39 “The Word became Flesh? Why John 1:14 does NOT say that God became man”.[1]


This present article presents my developing understanding about what “the Word became flesh” does mean. Let me first state that when I say that “became flesh” in John 1:14 most likely should be interpreted metaphorically, I don’t mean that Jesus was not a real flesh and blood human being. The New Testament presents Jesus as a real human being of flesh, blood and bone, a man who told the truth that he heard from God (John 8:40).

 

But my view of what “became flesh” means has changed some. My previous thoughts focused on the ambiguity of the Greek word egeneto/ginomai which is most often translated in John 1:14 as “became”[2]. I formerly took it as a statement that in the AD 1st century the human person Jesus of Nazareth, as the ultimate revelation of God and display of God’s power, came on the scene as the Word (that is, the ultimate revelation of God, and the power of God).

 

But with further reflection, I am coming to the understanding that “the Word became flesh” is an Israelite-history based metaphor meaning the Word (the human person Jesus of Nazareth) “became God’s provision for life”.  Another word could be “sustenance”. The Word, the human person Jesus became God’s sustenance for life. It may help others to understand how I am arriving at this conclusion by tracking some of the steps I’ve followed to get here.

 

1.  First, it has become ever clearer that essential truths introduced in the Prologue of John’s Gospel are reiterated and expanded upon later in the body of the Gospel.[3]  It has intrigued me that the author used the word “flesh” in John 1:14 and didn’t just say “the Word became human” or “the Word became man”. I got to thinking: like other truths the author introduced in the Prologue, does he describe Jesus’ “flesh” again later in the Gospel, and if so, what is the significance of Jesus’ flesh there? As we will see, John 6:51-58 is the counterpart to John 1:14, where Jesus himself metaphorically describes his flesh as God’s sustenance or provision for eternal life given for others.

 

Again, John 1:14 does not say “God became human”, or even “the Word became human”. John 1:14 states that the “Word became flesh.” And then in John 6 flesh becomes the focus of this Gospel again when Jesus declares that like the manna-bread that came down from heaven to sustain life for the Israelites, Jesus’ flesh came is bread that came down from heaven as God’s provision for eternal life. By eating Jesus’ flesh another person can receive eternal life (6:51). 

 

The metaphorical meaning of Jesus’ “flesh” as “God’s provision for eternal life” in John 6 is good reason why “flesh” in John 1:14 should be understood metaphorically.

2.  Another reality that led me consider that to “become flesh” should be understood metaphorically as “to become God’s provision” is the fact that the Gospel of John uses many metaphors (or, figures of speech) to illustrate truths about Jesus.  It would be fitting in John’s Gospel for a statement like “became flesh” to be a metaphor which describes a spiritual truth. Jesus himself said, “I have told you these things in figures of speech” or “in metaphorical language” (παροιμία, John 16:25).  In this Gospel Jesus is metaphorically described as the word, the true light, the lamb, the temple, the bridegroom, the true bread, the true vine, the way, the truth, the life, and the door. Jesus is not literally these things. He is not literally a lamb or bread to be eaten, but the metaphor illustrates a real spiritual truth.

If the Gospel of John declared “Jesus became bread” I think most western readers would understand the statement to be a metaphor that illustrates a spiritual truth, that Jesus became sustenance for others. I suggest that likewise the statement “the Word became flesh” is a metaphorical description illustrating a truthful reality about the human Jesus, and is not a literal statement about a metaphysical transformation of a pre-incarnate divine being into human nature, nor about an abstract plan or wisdom of God becoming embodied in Jesus.

 

We must recognize the metaphors in John’s Gospel. If we don’t recognize the metaphors in the Gospel of John and instead interpret them literally, we will come to silly conclusions – e.g., to have everlasting kingdom life, humans must enter their mother’s womb again, or literally eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood. If we don’t recognize the metaphors in the Gospel of John, we will end up being like the opponents of Jesus who did not understand Jesus’ teaching. John 10:6: “This figure of speech (metaphor, figurative language, παροιμία) Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them” (cf. 16:25).

 

3.  Thirdly, on my way to understanding that “became flesh” means “became sustenance for eternal life”, I recognized that the Gospel of John presents the life of the human person Jesus of Nazareth in multiple ways as an anti-type to events and people in Israel’s national history.[4] Jesus and his life especially parallel and are foreshadowed by the life of Moses and events of the Exodus. Moses is mentioned 14 times in John’s Gospel (1:17, 45, 3:14, 5:45-47, 6:32, 7:19, 22-23, 8:5, 9:28-29. Cf also “the prophet” Deut. 18:15-18, John 1:21, 25, 6:14, 7:40). In connection to the word “flesh” we are to recognize Jesus’ being the Divine provision for Israel’s eternal life just as bread and flesh were provided by God for Israel’s sustenance in the wilderness (Exo. 16, Num. 11).

The Word Became Flesh: A Metaphorical Declaration not a Metaphysical Transformation

 

In John 1:14, the statement “the Word became flesh” is a type/anti-type metaphorical declaration that the man Christ Jesus, the Word, became God’s provision for humans[5] for eternal life. Far from a literal assertion of a transformation of God into man, John’s “became flesh” parallels God’s provision of manna and flesh (quail) for Israel in the wilderness (Exo. 16, Num. 11). Like the life-sustaining bread and flesh sent by God in the wilderness, the Gospel of John presents the human person Jesus as becoming God’s ultimate bread and flesh provision for eternal life.

 

Christian Commentators have recognized a Connection between John 1:14 and 6:51-58

 

Recognizing the connection between John 1:14 and 6:51-58 is not new. In fact, Christian commentators both ancient and recent have seen a connection. The difference being that these commentators have incorrectly read John 1:14 as an incarnation of God to flesh, and have often tied the flesh that the God took on to the so-called Christian “Eucharist”. Christians have disagreed if the flesh of Jesus to be eaten as described in John 6 should be taken literally or figuratively.

 

As an example of Christian interpretation, Raymond Brown (1928–1998, influential Catholic scholar in John I–XII, Anchor Bible 29, p. 283): “The same flesh that the Word assumed (1:14) is now the flesh that he gives for the life of the world. The incarnation already contained the germ of the Eucharistic and redemptive gift.”[6]

 

I obviously disagree with Brown’s contention that “becoming flesh” in John 1:14 means “assuming flesh”, as, in addition to other reasons, there is nothing in the either the Greek word egeneto or in the typical English translation "became" that means “assume” (meaning “took on, added”). Neither do I believe that it is necessary for Christians to literally eat, in a so-called Eucharist, the non-human-person-flesh that the divine figure assumed. But the point is, many Christian commentators have seen a direct connection to the Word “becoming flesh” of John 1:14 and Jesus’ flesh being the life-giving provision of God in John 6.

 

If we are to understand Jesus’ statement about eating his flesh as a metaphor illustrating a spiritual truth – as Protestants do - then we have good reason to understand flesh in John 1:14 as a metaphor introducing that same reality. To “become flesh” would mean something like “to become God’s provision”. The “flesh as God’s provision” metaphor, based on Israel’s historical experience (Exo. 16, Num. 11), introduced in John 1:14 is then reiterated and developed in John 6, where Jesus describes himself as the “bread of life” and the “living bread” whose flesh and blood provide everlasting life. The human person Jesus, also metaphorically called the Word, became the divine provision for Israel’s eternal life.[7]

 

Grammar of “the Word became Flesh”

 

John’s statement “the Word became flesh” is grammatically a predicate nominative: a noun or pronoun that follows a linking verb and renames, identifies, or explains the subject of the sentence. Many predicate nominatives use forms of be: am/are/is/was/were, but also a verb like “became”.

 

With a form of be: “John is a teacher”

With became: “John became a teacher”

When John became a teacher, he did not undergo a metaphysical transformation. The statement conveys a change of situation or status, a new situation in time.

The Greek verb ἐγένετο/γίνομαι (egeneto/ginomai, “became” or “came to be”) appears thousands of time in the Bible (LXX and NT), but we would be hard pressed to find a usage to describe a change from one ontological nature to another. It generally marks the beginning of a new situation, state or condition, but does not imply an ontological transformation of one substance turning into another.

Another predicate nominative statement in the New Testament that may help illustrate becoming as not involving a metaphysical transformation is Luke 11:30.


John 1:14

ἐγένετο

ὁ λόγος

σάρξ

The Word became flesh

 

Luke 11:30

ἐγένετο

Ἰωνᾶς

σημεῖον

For as Jonah became a sign to the men of Nineveh, so will the Son of man be to this generation.

 

Both John 1:14 and Luke 11:30 present a transformation, but not a transformation of nature or essence. When Jonah became a sign he did not cease being Jonah and transform into a different metaphysical nature. Likewise, when the Word, the human Jesus became flesh – as the author of the Gospel of John later explains in Chapter 6 – Jesus, who still remained Jesus, became God’s sustenance for others to eternal life.

 

In both cases, the becoming was into something that others were to see, interpret and understand.

In both cases, ἐγένετο “became” conveys a transition, but the transition is not metaphysical

 

The Word Became Flesh: A Metaphorical Declaration

 

Think about the possibility that the statement in John 1:14 that “the Word became flesh” in light of the authors subsequent statements in John 6, should be interpreted metaphorically. The human person Jesus was called “the Word” because he was the supreme revelation of God’s will and power. To say that the Word “became flesh” is not to declare a literal metaphysical transformation from some other essence into flesh, but to proclaim that the human person Jesus, became God’s provision for eternal life.

 

This metaphor draws directly from the Old Testament, where God provided manna and flesh to sustain Israel in the wilderness (Exo. 16, Num. 11). Just as God sent bread from heaven to meet Israel’s physical needs, Jesus (the Word) became the “living bread” sent from heaven to meet Israel’s need for eternal life.



[2] A notable exception is the KJV “was made flesh”.

[3] For example, John’s Prologue in 1:7-9 introduces someone who is metaphorically called the “True Light” and then later in the body of the Gospel Jesus is described as the Light of the World (e.g. 8:12, 12:46). For more examples of the Prologue reiterated in the body of the Gospel of John, see here: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2025/09/the-prologue-of-john-in-body-of-gospel.html

[4] Type and anti-type language is somewhat confusing to western readers since westerners mainly think of a “type” as a “kind”, as in a “type/kind of food”. This is not what “type” means in biblical theology. In biblical theology, a type and anti-type refer to a relationship between two events, persons or things in Scripture—where the first (the type) foreshadows or prefigures the second (the anti-type). The anti-type fulfills or corresponds to the type in a fuller or higher way. The Greek word (τύπος – tupos) connotes a “pattern”, “example”, “impression” or “model” (Rom. 5:14, 1 Cor. 10:6, Heb. 8:5).

[5] Specifically, for Israel.

[6] Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Book 5): connects the Word’s incarnation with the Eucharist — the same flesh that the Logos took is the flesh believers receive.

Augustine, Tractate on John 26.13: “The Word became flesh that he might give us his flesh to eat for our salvation.”

Rudolf Schnackenburg (1914-2002, Catholic Priest). The Gospel according to St. John, vol. 2, p. 51):“The ‘becoming flesh’ of the Logos is the necessary presupposition of the salvific self-giving in the Eucharist. The flesh assumed in the incarnation becomes life-giving flesh.”

 [7] By implication the everlasting life invitation extends to humanity at large, although that is not found in John’s Gospel. Other New Testament literature presents that declaration.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Aameyn Bill !

Popular posts from this blog

My Lord, and my God: Trinitarians get it wrong

The Word Became Flesh? Why John 1:14 Does NOT Say that God Became Man

In the Gospel of John, the “Jews” are “Judeans”, Not all “Jews”