“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.
[1] https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-word-became-flesh-why-john-114-does.html
or, audio
https://youtu.be/z4HepHkyujk
[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.”
Comments