The Incarnation of the Word: John 1:14

By David J. MacLeod

David J. MacLeod is Chairman of the Division of Biblical Studies, Emmaus Bible College, Dubuque, Iowa, and Associate Editor of The Emmaus Journal.

This is the fifth article in a six-part series, “The Living Word in John 1:1–18.”

In A.D. 107, some twenty or thirty years after the apostle John wrote his Gospel, persecution broke out in Antioch of Syria. Ignatius, the major leader in the church there, was arrested and sentenced to be brought to Rome, where he was to be thrown into the arena to be devoured by wild beasts.[1] As he traveled under guard through Asia Minor, local churches sent messengers to greet him on his way to death. Ignatius in turn sent letters back to them. In these letters he urged the Christians to hold fast to their faith, and he entreated them not to try to free him or to stop him from praising the crucified and risen Lord in the arena. In a letter to the church in Magnesia, he spoke of Christ as the Word. He wrote, “There is one God, who manifested himself through Jesus Christ his Son, who is his Word proceeding from silence.”[2]

This idea of God dwelling in silence is found in Judaism, being linked with Genesis 1:3. The rabbis asked, “What was there before God spoke?” Their answer was, “God’s silence.” And silence became a token of His inexpressible majesty.[3] The Christian message, however, is that God has spoken out of His silence, and He Himself has come with words of inexpressible grace (John 1:14). No wonder, then, that the early Christians, according to Pliny, sang a hymn each day “to Christ as to God.”[4]

John 1:14 is one of the most significant and memorable sentences ever penned.[5] It is the central New Testament text (locus classicus) on the doctrine of the Incarnation, the doctrine that the second person of the Trinity assumed human nature. The message of the text is that the the eternal Logos assumed human nature and lived a life of moral splendor on this earth. Because He has done so, He can meet the needs of His people and reveal God fully to humankind.

The Fact of the Incarnation: His Assumption of Human Nature[6]

The repetition of λόγος (“Word”) in verse 14 ties it to verse 1.[7] The divine Logos fully shares in the Father’s deity (v. 1), and He is fully human as well (v. 14). He “was God,” and He “became flesh.” “Eternity and time, the divine and the human, are reconciled in Him.”[8] As Morris writes, “In one short, shattering expression John unveils the great idea at the heart of Christianity—that the very Word of God took flesh for our salvation.”[9]

It is striking that John did not say that the Word became man (ἄνθρωπος)[10] or that the Word adopted a body (σῶμα). John wrote at a time when Docetism was widespread in the area where he lived and ministered.[11] The Docetists argued that Christ’s humanity was only apparent. He was a mere phantom without human flesh and blood. John taught that to deny the true humanity of Christ was destructive of the gospel. In 1 John 4:2 he wrote, “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” In 2 John 7 he flatly asserted that anyone who will not acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come “in the flesh” is “the deceiver and the antichrist.” A characteristic feature of John’s Gospel is his insistence on Jesus’ true humanity.[12] For example Jesus became tired and thirsty (4:6–7; 19:28); He showed His emotions in His voice (11:33); He wept (v. 35); His spirit was troubled as He anticipated His death (12:27; 13:21); He spoke of His “flesh” and “blood” (6:53); and He called Himself “man” (ἄνθρωπος, 8:40).

The words ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο (“the Word became flesh”) are “unambiguous, almost shocking.”[13] Σάρξ (“flesh”) can speak of the soft parts of the body (skin, muscle, fat) as opposed to blood and bones. From this strict sense a broader one is derived referring to the entire human being, including body, soul (12:27), and spirit (11:33). The term stresses the transitoriness and mortality of human life.[14]

To the Jews of Jesus’ day this was more than they could accept (1:11). The Messiah, the great Revealer of God, had appeared, but they considered Him only a man. They knew His mother and father (6:42; 7:27–28) and were offended at His claim to be the Revealer of God (10:33). They claimed to be waiting and longing for the Messiah, but they were sure He would be recognizable, appearing as a fascinating figure, a hero, or a divine man. But such notions are cut short by John’s statement that “the Word became flesh.”

“This is the paradox,” Bultmann wrote, “which runs through the whole gospel: the δόξα [glory] is not to be seen alongside the σάρξ [flesh], nor through the σάρξ, as through a window; it is to be seen in the σάρξ and nowhere else. If a man wishes to see the δόξα, then it is on the σάρξ that he must concentrate his attention, without allowing himself to fall a victim to appearances. The revelation is present in a peculiar hiddenness.”[15] The English word “incarnation” is based on the Latin Vulgate, “Et verbum caro factum est.” The noun caro is from the root carn- (“flesh”). The Incarnation means that the eternal Son of God became “flesh,” that is, He assumed an additional nature, namely, a human nature.

The verb ἐγένετο (“became”) here means “to assume,” that is, the Word assumed a human nature.[16] This does not mean that the Word ceased to be what He had been before,[17] though in English “became” can be used that way. One could say, “The oak tree became a staircase,” or “The boy became an adult.” In these examples the oak tree and the boy cease to be what they were. But the verb can be used in another way. When someone says, “John Smith became a physician,” he is not implying that John Smith thereby ceased to be John Smith.[18]

The meaning of the verb “became,” then, is that the Word, without ceasing to be, or being any less, the Word, became also “flesh.”[19] Yet there was a profound transformation in His manner of existence. He who eternally was God in time became the God-Man. He did not cease to be what He was before. He was and is God.[20] Yet He became what He was not before, namely, man. Orthodox Christians since the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 have believed that the following main truths must be held as expressed in the words “the Word became flesh.”[21]

The Lord’s humanity was complete, in contrast to Apollinarianism,[22] which taught that the divine Logos took the place of a human spirit in the man Jesus. The Lord Jesus was completely a man—body, soul, and spirit. Yes, Christ is God, but He is also man—He is both. His humanity was real and permanent, as against various forms of Docetism. The Lord’s divine and human natures remain unchanged and unmixed, each fulfilling its role according to its proper laws, in contrast to Eutychianism,[23] which taught that the Incarnation produced a third nature, a kind of deified humanity in which the properties of true human nature are lost. The Lord’s human and divine natures were united in one person, in contrast to Nestorianism,[24] which taught that Jesus had two personalities or was two persons.

The Result of the Incarnation: His Life among Human Beings

The result of the Incarnation is found in the words καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν (“and dwelt among us”). The verb ἐσκήνωσεν (“dwelt”) is associated with the noun σκηνή meaning “tent.” The phrase might be rendered, “He pitched His tent among us.” This does not imply a temporary visit, for it lasted His lifetime. In the first century the expression was used of settling down permanently in a place (in Rev. 12:12 it is used of those who dwell in heaven). The use of the term here is significant for two reasons. First, it may suggest that His earthly stay was an episode—albeit, one that lasted a lifetime—between His preexistence and His postexistence in glory.[25] Second, for Greek-speaking Jews this would be significant because σκηνή was the word used by the translators of the Septuagint for the Hebrew מִשְׁכָּן, “tabernacle” (Exod. 25:9). During Israel’s pilgrimage from Egypt to Canaan the tabernacle was the place of worship for the people. The tabernacle or tent in the wilderness was the “tent of Jehovah, Himself a pilgrim among His pilgrim people.”[26]

In sound and meaning σκηνόω recalls the Hebrew verb שָׁכּן, meaning “to dwell,” which is sometimes used of God’s dwelling with Israel (25:8; 29:46).[27] In postbiblical Hebrew the Jews used the term שְׁכִינָה (“Shekinah,” literally, “presence”) of the bright cloud of the presence of God that settled on the tabernacle. The Shekinah glory[28] was nothing less than the visible manifestation of God.

In the Targums, Aramaic paraphrases of Scripture that were read in the synagogues, the term “Shekinah” was used of the presence of the Lord among His people in the future kingdom. “For behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and gloom the kingdoms; but the Shekinah of the Lord shall dwell in thee.”[29] The place of His dwelling, John wrote, is the flesh of Jesus.30 God manifested Himself in the tabernacle, but the incarnate Word is the better Shekinah, the ultimate manifestation of God among human beings.[31]

The phrase ἐν ἡμῖν (“among us”) refers to humankind in general.[32] Some commentators disagree. Noting that the following phrase (“we beheld”) is confined to the disciples, they say that “among us” must also refer to only the disciples and other eyewitnesses.[33] Others point out that since the tabernacle was erected among Israelites and Christ went first to the Jews (John 1:11),[34] the “among us” refers to Israel. While there may be some merit to these observations, the main point of verse 14a is that Christ became man and dwelt among human beings in the world (cf. v. 10).

The Perception of the Incarnation: His Manifestation of Moral Splendor

The Witness of the Disciples

Having declared the fact of the Incarnation, John paused to remember the joy he and the other disciples felt in contemplating the glory manifested in Christ. The glory that shone in the tabernacle was but a foreglow of that wonderful glory that shone in the incarnate Word. “And we saw His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

The verb θεάομαι (“beheld”) is used everywhere in John’s Gospel of “seeing” with the eyes (1:32, 38; 4:35; 6:5). John was speaking of those who, like himself, were eyewitnesses of Christ in the historical sense.[35] The aorist tense of the verb focuses not on a single event (e.g., the Transfiguration) in the life of Christ, but on His entire ministry on earth.[36]

Not all, of course, who saw Christ with their eyes actually saw His glory. The “act of seeing is something much more than mere visual receptivity.”[37] All who encountered Christ saw Him on the physical level. Those with faith, however, saw Him on a different plane as well. They saw τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ (“His glory”).[38]

Δόξα (“glory”) is a key word in John’s Gospel,[39] and it is one of great interest. In classical Greek it was used with a variety of subjective connotations, chiefly “opinion,” “expectation,” and “conjecture.” It could also have the objective connotations of “reputation” or “renown.” In the Septuagint there was a significant change in the use of δόξα. The meaning of “opinion” is not found, and δόξα is most often used to translate כָּבוֹד, (literally, “weighty”).[40] One with כָּבוֹד could be “weighted” with riches (Gen. 13:2; 31:1), honor (Prov. 29:23), status (Gen. 45:13; Job 19:9), or reputation (Eccles. 10:1). The word stresses the impression this creates in others.

When used of God, δόξα does not mean God in His essential nature, but the luminous manifestation of His person, His glorious revelation of Himself.[41] The “glory” of God was characteristically linked with verbs of seeing (Exod. 16:7; 33:18; Isa. 40:5) and appearing (Exod. 16:10; Deut. 5:24; Isa. 60:1). The pillar of fire and the cloud that led the Israelites was identified with the glory of God (Exod. 14:24; 24:17). The glory was usually accompanied by meteorological phenomena such as thunder (Exod. 20:18; 1 Sam. 7:10; 12:17–18), lightning (2 Sam. 22:15; Ezek. 1:13–14), and clouds. It expressed itself in God’s great acts (Exod. 14:17–18; Ps. 96:3) and especially in God’s presence in the tabernacle (Exod. 40:34). The cherubim on the mercy seat are called “the cherubim of glory” (Heb. 9:5). Israel’s prophets said that in the last days there would be a full manifestation of the glory of the Lord that would be seen by all (Isa. 40:5; 60:1–3).

This meaning was carried over into the New Testament in some of the occurrences of δόξα.[42] When the angelic host appeared to the shepherds at the time of the birth of Jesus, there was an abnormally brilliant display of light—“the glory of the Lord shone around them” (Luke 2:9). On the Mount of Transfiguration Moses and Elijah appeared “in glory,” that is, in bright light (9:31). And in the New Jerusalem there will be no need for the sun or the moon, for the glory of God will illuminate it (Rev. 21:23).

The Mission of the Son

The “glory” is now explained with respect to the person of the Revealer.[43] The “glory” is that of the Son coming from (παρά)[44] the presence of the Father.[45] Coming from the Father and having been sent by Him (cf. 16:27),[46] Jesus was the Revealer. In fact His glory consists of revealing God the Father. To whom could one go for more intimate details about the Father than to His one and only well-beloved Son? This anticipates important themes in the Gospel of John. He is the only way to the Father (14:6), and whoever has seen Him has seen the Father (v. 9).[47]

Several versions (ASV, KJV, NASB, NKJV) translate μονογενής as “only begotten,” whereas other versions render it “the One and Only” or “unique” (NEB, NIV, RSV).[48] He is unique in His relation to the Father. Believers become “children of God,” it is true (v. 12), but they are children by regeneration. Jesus, however, is in His very nature the Son of God. And He is unique in His mission; He alone was sent by God to offer everlasting life (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9). Also He is unique in the revelation He gives. He alone in the entire universe can convey what God is like (John 1:18; 14:6, 9).

However, “only begotten”[49] is preferred because of the phrase παρὰ πατρός (“from the Father”).[50] The term “son” (υἱός) does not appear in the prologue of John. Yet a μονογενής relative to a father can hardly be anything other than an “only begotten son.”[51] This is the language of revelation. As the μονογενής Christ is the divine Son. He is “very God of very God.”[52] He has the same substance or essence as His Father and is equal to Him. Furthermore He is like Him, and when people saw Christ they learned what God is like.

God the Father is called “Father” in the absolute sense, the One “from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name” (Eph. 3:15). And Christ is the “only begotten” inasmuch as “He is the absolute model and prototype of every one who among the sons of men bears the name [of] son.”[53]

In 1:14 the terms “Father” and “only begotten” are relative terms, that is, they express the relations in which the persons of the Godhead stand to each other. “The First Person is called Father, not because of his relations to his creatures, but because of his relation to the Second Person. The Second Person is called Son, not because of any relation assumed in time, but because of his eternal relation to the First Person.”[54]

Although finite minds cannot comprehend it, the words suggest that Jesus is the eternal Son of the eternal Father. As Augustine said, “Show me and explain to me an eternal Father, and I will show to you and explain to you an eternal Son.”[55]

The Elements of the Son’s “Glory”

How should one think of this “glory” that was beheld by the disciples? Did Jesus walk about with a kind of luminescence that marked Him out as an out-of-the-ordinary mortal? Was His life more an epiphany than an incarnation? Is His human nature a costume designed for One who dwelt for a little while among people, only seeming to be one of them?[56]

Such thoughts misunderstand what John was saying. As John’s Gospel proceeds, it becomes clearer that Christ’s glory was not openly displayed; everyone did not perceive it.[57] Paradoxically His true glory was seen, not in outward splendor,[58] but in the lowliness with which He lived and suffered.[59] His “glory” was “a moral splendor—the glorious life of service lived by Christ and laid down for others in the crucifixion.”[60]

In 1:14 δόξα (“glory”) is modified by the phrase πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας (“full of grace and truth”).[61] “Grace and truth” manifested Christ’s “glory,” which was seen by the disciples in Jesus.62 When Moses said to the Lord, “Show me Your glory” (Exod. 33:18), the Lord answered, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you” (v. 19). This suggests that the Lord’s “glory” is supremely His “goodness.”63 As God passed by, He proclaimed that He is “compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth” (34:6).[64] Because of this experience of Moses, many believe that John had this Old Testament passage in mind.[65]

Χάρις (“grace”) is one of the great words of the New Testament. It basically means “that which delights or causes joy.” It is a “making glad with gifts.” It was used of goodwill and kindness, often with the notion that the favor was undeserved. The word comes to full flower in the Pauline Epistles. Paul used χάρις of God’s sending His Son to die on the cross (Gal. 2:21), of God’s showing free unmerited favor to lost sinners who deserve God’s anger.[66] What is striking is that John used it only four times, all of them in the prologue (John 1:14, 16–17). Later John used the word “love” (ἀγάπη) instead, but it is clear that “love” absorbs the ideas expressed by “grace.” The love of God is offered to people, not as a response to their love for Him, but as a free expression of His grace.[67]

Though the word “grace” does not appear in John’s Gospel after the prologue, it is implicitly present whenever he wrote of the free offer of eternal life through the Lord Jesus.[68] For example, when Jesus offered “the gift of God” to the adulterous Samaritan woman (4:10–14), John’s readers would immediately have perceived that he was giving an illustration of what it meant that Jesus was “full of grace.” Each believer is a recipient of grace, that is, his sins are forgiven, not on the basis of anything he has done but rather on the basis of God’s love and favor.

The second element of the glory of the incarnate Christ is ἀλήθεια (“truth”). Unlike χάρις, which occurs only four times in John, ἀλήθεια occurs twenty-five times and is one of John’s key words.[69] Sometimes truth in the Gospel of John refers to something that corresponds to fact, something that is genuine and not counterfeit (5:33; 8:40, 44–47; 16:7).[70]

Furthermore in John’s Gospel ἀλήθεια often means Christian revelation, the body of revealed doctrine that has been brought by Jesus (1:17; 8:32; 16:13; 17:17).[71] That is the thought in 1:14. The Holy Spirit enables people to comprehend the truth (16:13), and embracing and believing the truth saves them (8:32). And Christ Himself is the truth (14:6).

In 1:14 John used the word ἀλήθεια in the sense of reality. In Christ people can see God as He really is. “Truth. .. is God revealed. Through this attribute the incarnate Word also became anew what he originally was, the light of men (vv. 4–5).”[72]

Many today think that truth is relative.[73] They say, in essence, “Some things are true for you, but they may not be true for me. And the things that are true for me now may not be true for me tomorrow.”

Christ tells the truth about people, that their sin is manifested in unbelief, rebellion, and pride. The truth about the problem of humanity is that people themselves are the problem.[74] Also Christ the incarnate Word tells the truth about God. He is not arbitrary, unconcerned, and indulgent. He is holy and loving. And Christ tells the truth about the way to God. He is the way and there is no other (14:6). Those who believe in Him, the truth, will have everlasting life (3:16).

Conclusion

The Incarnation, the assumption of a human nature by the eternal Son of God, is perhaps the principal plank in the structure of John’s worldview. Meditating on this great event, Karl Barth, wrote, “Christmas can only be understood as a wonder.”[75] C. S. Lewis rightly referred to the incarnation of Christ as “the central miracle” or “the Grand Miracle.”[76]

The Incarnation gives answers to five great questions.[77] First, what is God really like? John answered, “The Word became flesh.” The Incarnation lifts the veil of people’s uncertainty about God. This is revelation at its clearest. Second, does God know and understand the human plight? John’s answer is that the Word “dwelt among us.” He identified with humanity, particularly in their weakness and suffering. No religion has the concept of God sharing humanity’s struggle with them. “He can exact nothing from man that He has not exacted from Himself. He has Himself gone through the whole of human experience, from the trivial irritations of family life and the cramping restrictions of hard work and lack of money to the worst horrors of pain and humiliation, defeat, despair, and death. When He was the man, He played the man.”[78]

Third, does God really care? The fact that He “became flesh” answers this question. Believers are reconciled through the incarnate One who was “full of grace and truth.”

Fourth, does life really matter? John answered, “And the Word became flesh.” The Incarnation is the supreme affirmation of human existence. “Our human life truly was the vehicle for God’s life, our flesh contained the Word, and our humanity was home for Him who is forever.”[79]

Fifth, what is life ultimately for? John answered, “And the Word became flesh. .. and we beheld His glory.” The greatness of this doctrine staggers the imagination; it ought to drive people to their knees in worship. “What is the chief and highest end of man,” asks the Westminster Larger Catechism. The answer: “Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy Him for ever.”[80]

Notes

1. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. Frank L. Cross, 2d ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974), 688–89.
2. Ignatius, To the Magnesians 8.2, in The Apostolic Fathers, trans. Kirsopp Lake, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1912), 1:204–5. In his letter To the Ephesians (19.1) Ignatius wrote, “This divine economy was hidden from the prince of this world. The virginity of Mary, her child-bearing, the death of the Lord—these three mysteries, though destined to be proclaimed aloud, were wrought in the silence of God” (J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers [London: Macmillan, 1889–1890], 4:76).
3. Wisdom of Solomon 18:14–15.
4. Pliny, Letters 10.96, in The Letters of Pliny, trans. W. Melmoth, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1915), 2:403–5.
5. Bruce Milne, The Message of John, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 46.
6. Scholars are divided on the hymnic structure of the closing verses of John’s prologue. For example Bernard includes all of verse 14, omits verses 15 and 16, and includes verse 18. Brown includes all of verse 14, omits verse 15, includes verse 16, and omits verses 17 and 18. Haenchen makes verses 14, 16, and 17 part of the hymn. Schnackenburg includes part of verse 14 (omitting the lines, “and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father”), and deletes verses 15, 17, and 18, and includes verse 16 (J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, International Critical Commentary [Edinburgh: Clark, 1928], 1:cxliv; Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, Chs. 1–12, Anchor Bible [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966], 3–4, 13; Ernst Haenchen, John 1, Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984], 122–23; and Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John, trans. Kevin Smyth [New York: Crossroad, 1987], 1:226).
7. The καί in verse 14 is merely copulative (Brooke Foss Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes [London: John Murray, 1908], 1:19). Commentators are divided over how verse 14 is related to the preceding context. Frederick Louis Godet, for example, connects verse 14 directly to verses 12–13. The flow of thought, he believes, is as follows: “If faith can make of a man born of the flesh a child of God, it is because it has for its object the Word made flesh” (Commentary on the Gospel of John, trans. Timothy Dwight, 3d ed. [New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1893], 1:267–68). Edwyn Clement Hoskyns also believed verse 14 is connected with verse 13. He cited Tertullian’s comment on John 3:6 (“That which is born of the Spirit is spirit”): “Now this description is even more applicable to Him [Jesus] than it is to those who believe in Him” (Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, ed. Francis Noel Davey [London: Faber and Faber, 1947], 164; Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 18, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, ed. A. Roberts and James Donaldson [reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 537). C. K. Barrett said verse 14 is connected to verse 11 (The Gospel according to St. John, 2d ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978], 164).
8. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:19.
9. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, New International Commentary on the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 91.
10. Oscar Cullmann believes that John usedσάρξ instead of ἄνθρωπος because the Logos was already the heavenly Man before His advent, according to the pre-Christian Gnostic hymn that was John’s source (The Christology of the New Testament, trans. Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963], 187). But this is without any support. Cf. E. Schweizer, “σάρξ,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 7 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971], 139 n. 304).
11. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, 1:19–20; see also William Kelly, An Exposition of the Gospel of John (1898; reprint, Denver: Wilson Foundation, 1966), 20–21; and F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 40–41.
12. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, 1:20.
13. D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 126.
14. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:21; cf. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John, trans. and ed. George R. Beasley-Murray (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 62.
15. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 63 (italics his).
16. Barrett says that ἐγένετο “cannot mean ‘became,’ since the Word continues to be the subject of further statements” (The Gospel according to St. John, 165). However, while “became” can denote the subject’s ceasing to be itself, it can also denote a becoming in which the subject remains itself. See C. E. B. Cranfield, “John 114: ‘became,’ ” Expository Times 93 (1982): 215.
17. Cf. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:19.
18. Cranfield, “John 114: ‘became,’ ” 215.
19. Ibid.
20. Godet’s otherwise fine discussion is marred by his acceptance of the older kenotic theology. The Incarnation, he wrongly asserted, involved “the complete surrender of all the divine attributes” (Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:270).
21. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:20. “The essence of the biblical doctrine of Christ, or what theologians call ‘orthodox Christology,’ is that the Word of God became flesh, and that we human beings beheld his glory in that flesh—not underneath it, or in spite of it, but in it. We saw God at work, not with but as a human being” (Gerald Bray, “Why the Jesus We Want May Not Be the Jesus We Need,” Modern Reformation, May, 2001, 21 [italics his]). The text of the Chalcedonian Confession is included in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper, 1877), 2:62–63.
22. After Apollinarius (A.D. 310-90), bishop of Laodicea.
23. After Eutyches (A.D. 378-454), abbot in Constantinople.
24. After Nestorius (d. ca. A.D. 451), monk at Antioch, and for a time the bishop of Constantinople.
25. W. Michaelis, “σκηνόω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 7 (1971), 386. This should not be taken, however, to imply that His was a limited incarnation of any sort. He still bears in heaven the human nature He assumed (Col. 2:9). Cf. Morris, The Gospel according to John, 91.
26. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:270.
27. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 127–28; cf. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 165. The consonants of the verb “to dwell” are σ, κ, and ν, and these bear a strong resemblance in sound to the Hebrew radicals שׁ, כ, and ן.
28. That John was alluding to the tabernacle in the wilderness is further implied by his use of “glory” (δόξα) in the next clause.
29. The Targum of Isaiah, 60.2, trans. J. F. Stenning (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), 200–201.
30. Arthur Michael Ramsey, The Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ (London: Longmans, Green, 1949), 60.
31. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 41; and Carson, The Gospel according to John, 128.
32. Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1:13.
33. Cf. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:271; and Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:22.
34. For example Everett F. Harrison, “A Study of John 1:14, ” in Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology, ed. Robert A. Guelich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 27.
35. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, 1:21. Barrett, however, says that it refers to the apostolic church (The Gospel according to St. John, 166), and Bultmann says that it refers to believers of all ages (The Gospel of John, 69).
36. The aorist is constative, that is, it gives a summary and is comprehensive (Harrison, “A Study of John 1:14, ” 30).
37. G. L. Phillips, “Faith and Vision in the Fourth Gospel,” in Studies in the Fourth Gospel, ed. F. L. Cross (London: Mowbray, 1957), 84.
38. Bultmann applies the verb “beheld” to a purely spiritual perception. “The specifically Johannine ‘seeing’ is not concerned with eye witnessing in the historical or legal sense.. .. This ‘seeing’ is neither sensory nor spiritual, but it is the sight of faith” (The Gospel of John, 69–70 [italics his]). This ignores the usage of θεάομαι and sets aside the eyewitness testimony, which is historical. True, the beholding was an internal perception, but the eyewitness “seeing” was the means to the spiritual perception (Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:271).
39. On “glory” in Scripture see Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953), 458–59; G. Kittel and G. von Rad, “δόξα,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2 (1964), 232–53; and S. Aalen, “Glory,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 2:44–48. On “glory” in John’s Gospel see R. H. Strachan, The Fourth Gospel, 3d ed. (London: SCM, 1941), 103–6.
40. The word δόξα is used 280 times in the canonical books of the Septuagint. On 180 occasions the Hebrew word it translates is כָּבוֹד, and the other uses translate some twenty-five different Hebrew words, the others having the same, or much the same, meaning as כָּבוֹד (Kittel, “δόξα,” 2:242).
41. Cf. Aalen, “Glory,” 2:45. Kittel, on the other hand, asserts that δόξα is a term for the “divine nature or essence either in its invisible or its perceptible form” (“δόξα,” 2:244).
42. Cf. Harrison, “A Study of John 1:14, ” 28–29.
43. The first δόξαν in verse 14 is followed by a twofold apposition, the first introduced by ὡς and the second by πλήρης. The first appositional clause explains δόξα with respect to the person of the Revealer, and the second explains δόξα with respect to the content of revelation (G. Delling, “πλήρης,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 6 [1968], 285).
44. Commentators are divided over which word is modifying παρὰ πατρός. Some say it modifies δόξαν, that is, the glory of the Son was bestowed on Him by the Father (Bernard, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:23; and Bruce, The Gospel of John, 41). Others say the phrase modifies μονογενοῦς, that is, the Son came from the Father (Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 71; Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 166; Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1:14; and E. H. Riesenfeld, “παρά,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 5 [1967], 730]). In favor of the second view are parallels that speak of Jesus coming παρὰ θεοῦ (6:46; 7:29; 16:27; 17:8).
45. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:272. The ὡς (“glory as of the only begotten from the Father”) does not express a comparison but means “in accordance with the fact that” (Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 71 n. 1).
46. Riesenfeld, “παρά,” 5:730.
47. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 71–72.
48. Most modern-day scholars agree that μονογενής means “only,” “one of a kind,” or “unique.” These include Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:23; idem, The Epistles of St. John, 3d ed. (1892; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 169–72; Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to John, 1:23; Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1:13–14; Morris, The Gospel according to John, 93; Carson, The Gospel according to John, 128; Paul Winter, “ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗΣ ΠΑΡΑ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ,” Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 5 (1953): 335-65; F. M. Warden, “God’s Only Son,” Review and Expositor 50 (1953): 216-23; Dale Moody, “God’s Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version,” Journal of Biblical Literature 72 (1953): 213-19; K.-H. Bartels, “One,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 2 (1976), 723–25; R. N. Longenecker, “Only Begotten,” in Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 4:538–39; C. B. Hoch Jr., “Only Begotten,” in International Standard Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 606; J. A. Fitzmyer, “μονογενής,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 439–40; and Gerard Pendrick, “ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗΣ,” New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 587-600. Etymologically μονογενής is from μόνος (“only,” “single”) plus γένος (“kind”), according to most modern scholars. The noun γένος is derived from γίνομαι, of which the early classical form is γίγνομαι (Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. Henry Stuart Jones [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940], 349). But in New Testament times this had lost the early sense of the root γεν- (“to beget”). Similar adjectives illustrate the sense of “kind,” for example, θηλυγενής (“of female sex”), ὁμογενής (“of the same kind”), and ἑτερογενής (“of a different kind”).
49. A number of scholars still defend the translation “only begotten.” See Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 166; Bruce, The Gospel of John, 41; Lindars, The Gospel of John, 96; F. Büchsel, “μονογενής,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 4 (1967), 737–41; James M. Bulman, “The Only Begotten Son,” Calvin Theological Journal 16 (1981): 56-79; and John V. Dahms, “The Johannine Use of Monogenēs Reconsidered,” New Testament Studies 29 (1983): 222-32. Dahms and Bulman, for example, argue that etymologically the root γεν- is closely related to γενν-, the root of γεννάω (“to bring forth by birth”). The verb γίγνομαι (laterγίνομαι) is related to the notion of birth (Rom. 1:3; Gal. 4:4). The idea of begetting or derivation would seem to be in the foreground when γένος is understood as “offspring” (Acts 18:24; Rev. 22:16). Adjectives similar to μονογενής illustrate the sense of “born” (αἰθρηγενής, “born in the air;” διογενής, “sprung from Zeus”; παλαιγενής, “born long ago”; εὐγενής, “well born”). “Born” or “begotten” carry the same idea.
50. Although the article is not used, πατρός refers to the Father in the absolute sense. The article is omitted because of its assimilation to the anarthrous μονογενοῦς (Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:273; and F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. Robert W. Funk [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961], 134). Bruce, however, translates the phrase, “glory such as an only-begotten son receives from a father” (The Gospel of John, 39).
51. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 166; cf. C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 305 n. 1.
52. Some of the Nicene Fathers understood the phrase “very God of very God” (θεόν ἀληθινόν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ) to mean that the Son derived His deity from the Father and that the Son was not therefore αὐτόθεος (“of Himself God”). John Calvin strongly rejected the notion of derived deity and argued that the Son is self-existent (Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960], 1.13.25). In a letter to Simon Grynee in May, 1537, Calvin argued that if Christ is Yahweh, and if the name Yahweh implies self-existence, then Christ is self-existent (Letters, Part 1, vol. 4 of Selected Works of John Calvin, ed. Jules Bonnet, trans. David Constable [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1858; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983], 55–56). See also Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (New York: Scribner, 1872; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 1:467; and John Murray, “Systematic Theology,” in Studies in Theology, vol. 4 of Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982), 8.
53. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:273.
54. Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:471–72.
55. Augustine, quoted in H. R. Reynolds and T. Croskery, The Gospel of John, vol. 17 of The Pulpit Commentary, ed. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell (reprint, Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1950), 48. Cf. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (Edinburgh: Clark, 1889), 1:313.
56. Ernst Käsemann argues that John held to a “naîve docetism” (The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17, trans. Gerhard Krodel [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966], 4–26; and idem, “The Structure and Purpose of the Prologue to John’s Gospel,” in New Testament Questions of Today, trans. W. J. Montague [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969], 138–67). He asserts that attempts to find a Christology of humiliation and a realistic Incarnation in John’s Gospel are unfounded. He said John’s Jesus was a mystagogue and miracle worker—God going about on the earth (ibid., 8–9)—a disguised divine being who “passes through death without turmoil and with jubilation” (ibid., 20). For helpful critiques of Käsemann see Günther Bornkamm, “Towards the Interpretation of John’s Gospel: A Discussion of The Testament of Jesus, by Ernst Käsemann,” in The Interpretation of John, ed. and trans. John Ashton (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 79–98; Stephen S. Smalley, “The Testament of Jesus: Another Look,” Studia Evangelica 6 (1973): 495-501; and Marianne Meye Thompson, The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 1–11, 33–52.
57. “He did not walk through the land as either the Divine Son from the bosom of the Father, or as the authoritative Son of David” (J. G. Bellett, A Short Meditation on the Moral Glory of the Lord Jesus Christ [reprint, Denver: Wilson Foundation, n.d.], 5). “It was a contemplation of His glory vouchsafed to His witnesses, not of an earthly conqueror, nor Messianic even.. .. No sword girds His thigh, no riding to victory, nor terrible things in righteousness: the incarnate Word dwelt among us” (Kelly, An Exposition of the Gospel of John, 19).
58. Christ’s first miracle “manifested His glory” (John 2:11), and other signs revealed God’s glory (11:4, 40). This corresponds with the prologue’s statement that the glory beheld is the “glory as of the only begotten from the Father.” “Glory” in 2:11 refers to the Father’s glory, not the Son’s glory (5:41; 7:18; 8:50). See Thompson, The Humanity of Jesus, 82.
59. Morris, The Gospel according to John, 93.
60. C. F. D. Moule, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 84 (italics his); cf. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:272. The “ glory” of Jesus has several nuances in the Gospels: (1) His preincarnate glory, that is, His pretemporal existence in the divine splendor of heaven (John 17:5; cf. 1 Cor. 2:8). (2) His moral glory, that is, a Christological-soteriological glory during His earthly life when He manifested His close connection to and dependence on the Father (John 1:14; 2:11). (3) His messianic glory, that is, the radiant transformation of His person at the Transfiguration, which anticipated His future messianic kingdom (Luke 9:29–31; 2 Pet. 1:16–18). (4) His acquired glory, that is, the glory bestowed on Christ at His death-resurrection-exaltation (John 12:23–24; 13:31; Phil. 3:21; 1 Tim. 3:16). (5) His triumphal glory, that is, His splendor at the Second Coming (Matt. 16:27; 24:30; 25:31). (6) His millennial glory, that is, the splendor—anticipated at His Transfiguration—which will characterize His earthly kingdom (Matt. 19:28; 25:31). (7) His eternal glory, that is, the glory to which He was restored after His earthly ministry (John 17:1), and which He will manifest in the eternal state. This glory is associated with and parallel to the glory of the Father (Rev. 1:5–6; 21:23). In His present state His glorified human nature is united to His divine nature (Bernard Ramm, Them He Glorified [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963], 29–54).
61. The connection between πλήρης and the rest of the verse is debated. One view is that πλήρης agrees with λόγος. The adjective πλήρης is nominative and should therefore go with a nominative, in this case λόγος (Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:273; Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:24; Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, 1:24; Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 73 n. 2; and Morris, The Gospel according to John, 94). A second view is that πλήρης modifies the genitive μονογενοῦς. In Hellenistic Greek πλήρης could be indeclinable and could therefore go with a case other than the nominative (Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 166). A third view is that πλήρης modifies the accusative δόξαν. This view seems best, especially if John was alluding to Exodus 33–34. This view is held by many Greek fathers and Bruce, The Gospel of John, 41; Carson, The Gospel according to John, 129; James Hope Moulton, Prolegomena, vol. 1 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1908), 50; Nigel Turner, Syntax, vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 315 (where Turner says that it is indeclinable only when followed by the genitive); and Delling, “πλήρης,” 285.
62. Delling, “πλήρης,” 285.
63. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 41–42; and Carson, The Gospel according to John, 129.
64. The Hebrew word חֶסֶד speaks of Yahweh’s kindness to His covenant people Israel (Exod. 34:6; Num. 14:18; Pss. 86:15; 103:8). See H.-J. Zobel, “חֶסֶד,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, trans. David E. Green, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 44–64, esp. 62–64; and Francis I. Andersen, “Yahweh, the Kind and Sensitive God,” in God Who Is Rich in Mercy, ed. Peter T. O’Brien and David G. Peterson (Homebush West, Australia: Lancer, 1986), 41–88.
65. The theory that behind John 1:14–18 lies the theophany narrative in Exodus 33–34 has divided scholars into four groups. First, some see an allusion to Exodus 33–34 in John 1. They say that חֶסֶד וֶאַמֶת (“lovingkindness and truth”) in Exodus 34:6 is behind John’s phrase πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας (“grace and truth”) (Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:24; Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 150; Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 167; Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1:14; Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:272; Sanders, The Gospel according to St. John, 82; Bruce, The Gospel of John, 41–42; Carson, The Gospel according to John, 129; Lester J. Kuyper, “Grace and Truth: An Old Testament Description of God, and Its Use in the Johannine Gospel,” Interpretation 18 [1964]: 3-19; and Anthony Hanson, “John 1:14–18 and Exodus 34, ” New Testament Studies 23 [1976]: 90-101). Second, others have doubts about a reference to Exodus 33–34, but they say that χάρις καὶ ἀλήθεια does reproduce the phrase חֶסֶד וֶאַמֶת (Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary onthe Gospel according to St. John, 1:24–25; Strachan, The Fourth Gospel, 141; and Morris, The Gospel according to John, 95 n. 104). Third, some deny any connection (Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 74 n. 2; idem, “ἀλήθεια,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1 (1964), 246 n. 37; and Ignace de la Potterie, “Χάρις paulinienne et Χάρις johannique,” in Jesus und Paulus, ed. E. Earle Ellis and E. Grässer [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975], 256–82). Fourth, others say Exodus 33–34 is the backdrop to John 1, but they deny that “grace and truth” translates חֶסֶד וֶאַמֶת (Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 82, 175–76; and Zane C. Hodges, “Grace after Grace—John 1:16, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 135 [January-March, 1978]: 34-45). Proponents of a connection point out that other Greek writings have translated חֶסֶד with χάρις and that χάρις in the New Testament is regularly translated by חסדא in Syriac. This is certainly the case in John 1:14. Significantly חֶסֶד is the rendering of χάρις in John 1:14, 17 in the Hebrew version of the New Testament translated by Franz Delitzsch (James A. Montgomery, “Hebrew Hesed and Greek Charis,” Harvard Theological Review 32 [1939]: 97-102, esp. 100 n. 8 for the Delitzsch citation). Those who deny the connection between the two phrases point out that the Septuagint translators rendered רַב־חֶסֶד וֶאַמֶת with πολυέλεος καὶ ἀλήθινος. They also note that only once does the Septuagint translate חֶסֶד with χάρις (Esth. 2:9), and that χάρις καὶ ἀλήθεια are never found as a translation of חֶסֶד וֶאַמֶת. The word normally used to translate חֶסֶד is ἔλεος (“mercy”), and the word χάρις is generally used to translate ן. Also in view of the Johannine use of the word “truth,” it is not possible to take this word in John 1:14 in the sense of “faithfulness,” which is the meaning of אַמֶת. The most that can be said is that חֶסֶד וֶאַמֶת may have provided a model for the expression “grace and truth” in John but that the meaning of the Johannine expression is not the same (Hodges, “Grace after Grace—John 1:16, ” 38–39). As Dodd concluded, “While the mould of the expression is determined by [the Old Testament context], the actual sense of the words must be determined by [the New Testament context]” (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 176).
66. H. Conzelmann and W. Zimmerli, “χάρις,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 9 (1974), 372–415; and Nigel Turner, Christian Words (Nashville: Nelson, 1981), 191–95.
67. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary onthe Gospel according to St. John, 1:26; cf. Harrison, “A Study of John 1:14, ” 33. Kuyper is unconvincing when he argues that John used “truth” in his Gospel to embrace both ideas of “grace and truth” (“Grace and Truth,” 14).
68. Hodges, “Grace after Grace—John 1:16, ” 39.
69. On “truth” in John see Strachan, The Fourth Gospel, 141–43; Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John, 2:225–37; Morris, The Gospel according to John, 259–62; S. Aalen, “Truth, a Key Word in St. John’s Gospel,” Studie Evangelica 2 (1964): 3-24; A. C. Thiselton, “Truth,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3 (1978): 889-90. Various views are given on whether “truth” in the Gospel of John conveys a Greek view of truth or a Hebrew view. (1) Some say John’s thought is governed by the Hebrew אַמֶת, so that his concept of truth is that of God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises (Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1:14; and Kuyper, “Grace and Truth,” 3–19). (2) John had a Hellenistic view of truth, that is, he presented truth primarily as reality in contrast to falsehood or appearance (Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 74 n. 2; and Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 170–78). (3) John combined the Hebrew and Greek concepts (Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 167; and Beasley-Murray, John, 14–15). (4) John used ἀλήθεια in the sense of reality in contrast to falsehood or mere appearance, but this does not suggest an affinity for Greek ideas nor does it indicate disregard for Old Testament tradition (Thistleton, “Truth,” 3:889).
70. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 167.
71. Sanders, The Gospel according to St. John, 83. In the background is the Hebrew idea of truth as God’s faithfulness and reliability in fulfilling His promises in sending Christ (Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 167).
72. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:274 (italics his).
73. Cf. Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1968), 20–29; and idem, Escape from Reason (Chicago: InterVarsity, 1968), 30–57.
74. Boice, The Gospel of John, 1:114–15.
75. Karl Barth, Christmas (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1959), 18, quoted in Milne, The Message of John, 48.
76. C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: Macmillan, 1947), 131–58.
77. Cf. Milne, The Message of John, 47.
78. Dorothy L. Sayers, Creed or Chaos? (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1949), 4.
79. Milne, The Message of John, 47.
80. The Larger Catechism, Question 1, in The School of Faith, ed. Thomas F. Torrance (London: James Clarke, 1959), 185.