Chapter 9. The Meaning of “Became” in “The Word Became Flesh”

How do we understand John’s declaration that “the Word be­came flesh” (John 1:14a)? It is generally agreed that “flesh” refers to humanity, but what is the meaning of “became”? Trinita­rians say that the Word — which they take as the eternal second per­son of the Trinity — “became flesh” in the sense that God became a man by incarnat­ion, yet without ceasing to be God. [1] As a result, Jesus is the God-man who is fully God and fully man, forever.

In the last chapter, we saw that this incarnational view is under­mined by the fact that in the Greek text, “dwelt among us” is liter­ally “tented in us”. John is saying that the Word, who is God, “became flesh” in the sense of tenting “in us” — in God’s people, who are the temple of God, with Christ as the corner­stone.

Paul likewise does not support the trinitarian view that God be­came a God-man. To the contrary, Paul says that “all the fullness of the Deity lives in him in bodily form” (Col.2:9). Paul depicts God and Jesus as two distinct individuals (cf. 1Cor.11:3, “the head of Christ is God”). God lives “bodily” in Jesus who else­where is said to be the temple of God, reminding us of the words, “the glory of Yahweh filled the tabernacle” (Ex.40:34).

We too are the temple of God with Christ as the corner­stone. As a result, God’s entire fullness dwells not just in Christ but also in God’s people: “that you may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph.3:19).

Our main question is: What is the meaning of “became” in “the Word became flesh” (Jn.1:14)? In the Greek, “became” is egeneto, a gramma­tical form of the verb ginomai. BDAG gives ten definit­ions of ginomai, listed here with cita­tions omitted. I high­lighted definitions #5 and #6 because they are relevant for the various inter­pretations of John 1:14. If you wish to skip the details, just read definitions #5 and #6:

Since ginomai has so many nuanced definitions, John 1:14 is one of those verses in the Bible (in fact one of many such verses in the Bible) in which the dict­ionary meaning of a word (in this case, ginomai) does not gov­ern the meaning of the whole verse. It is rather the reverse: It is our under­stand­ing of the whole verse that governs the meaning of a specific word in the verse.

I drew your attention to definitions #5 and #6. Definition #5 (“to experience a change in nature”) aligns with the trinita­rian view that the second person of the Trinity changed in nature to became a God-man by incarna­tion. In fact definition #5a is the one that BDAG assigns to John 1:14. It is possible that BDAG may be presupposing the trinitar­ian view, but this is not stated explicitly. As a result, BDAG rightly refrains from entering into non-biblical theological territory.

It is crucial to note that almost none of BDAG’s bibli­cal citat­ions given in support of “change in nature” actually speaks of a change in nature as we might understand that phrase. Most of these citations speak rather of a change in one’s relation to an­other per­son (e.g., Herod and Pilate “became friends,” Lk.23:12, indicating a new status in their relat­ionship).

Definition #6 (“make a change of locat­ion in space”) is helpful for bringing out the biblical meaning of John 1:14 where God makes a change of location in the sense of taking up resi­dence in a tabernacle (“tented in us”). This meaning — “make a change of location” — is seen also in v.6 of John’s Prologue where ginomai carries this mean­ing for John the Baptist: “there came (ginomai) a man sent from God”.

Hence def­inition #5 (“a change in nature”) remains relevant for John 1:14 for expressing God’s new mode of existence in humanity (God now dwell­s “in us”).

But an examination of BDAG’s supporting citations for definition #5a outside the disputed John 1:14 shows that none car­ries any mean­ing that resembles trinita­rian incarnation.

Here are some examples: the disci­ples will “become fishers of men” (Mk.1:17); Judas “became a traitor” (Lk.6:16); Herod and Pilate “became friends” (Lk.23:12); Abraham will “be­come the father of many nations” (Rom.4:18); Christ “became a high priest” (Heb.5:5). Not even John 1:12 (“the right to become child­ren of God”) or Matthew 5:45 (“that you may become sons of your Father”) has any meaning that resem­bles trinit­a­rian incarnation.

In all these cases, people remain peo­ple. They are not trans­formed from man to God, or from God to man, or from God to God-man. There is, however, a new status in their relationship with their fellow men or with God.

Not even Matthew 4:3 (“command these stones to become bread”) can be used in support of the incarnational view of John 1:14, not only because Matthew 4:3 has to do with material things (bread and stones, whereas God is spirit) but also because it is the only biblical citat­ion for definition #5a in BDAG that carries even the slightest hint of material trans­form­ation. Mat­thew 4:3 therefore does not represent any common mean­ing of ginomai but only a rare and solitary mean­ing. So why assign to John 1:14 a rare and solitary mean­ing above the many other plausible meanings? One would do this only if one is already presupposing the trinitarian view of John 1:14. This kind of circu­lar reasoning is called “beg­ging the quest­ion” — the fallacy of presupposing the validity of a conclu­s­ion while building an argument for it. In any case, the trinita­rian view of John 1:14 is unten­able because this verse literally says that the Word tented “in us” — not “among us”.

In the end, the only biblical citation left standing in BDAG’s defin­ition #5a that may “support” the trinitarian view of John 1:14 is John 1:14 itself! So if anyone cites BDAG definit­ion #5a to prove the trinit­arian view of John 1:14 (which BDAG itself does not), it would be an exercise in circular reason­ing. It is immense­ly tautologous to say that the meaning of John 1:14 is determined by the meaning of John 1:14!

Ultimately the meaning of ginomai in John 1:14 is governed by the meaning of the whole verse. The declaration that “the Word became flesh” brings out a picture of God dwelling in flesh — in humanity — in one sense or another. God now lives and tents “in us” — in God’s peo­ple who make up the temple of God — such that we, and pre­eminently Jesus the Mess­iah, are “filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph.3:19).