The Word Made Flesh
Man is so constituted that he learns best by demonstration. Since God formed him thus it is but natural that he would accommodate his revelation to this trait. We should not be surprised that, in addition to what we may learn of God through creation and verbal revelation, we have His Son sent down to share our lot and allow us to experience a personal relationship with the Father. Jesus said, "And he who sees me sees him who sent me" (John 12:45). Again, he informed the disciples, "If you had known me, you would have known my Father also, henceforth you know him and have seen him" (John 14:7).
One of the most challenging statements ever written was penned by John in these words, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father" (1:14). "The Word became flesh." Who was that word? How did he become flesh? In what sense was he full of grace and truth? To answer these questions is to probe the very secret of eternal life. Let us look at the context of the statement.
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The translators have capitalized the term "Word" indicating that it should be considered as a proper noun. This is not the designation of a mere thing but the name of a personal being. John actually wrote in Greek and he uses the term "Logos." This has been translated by "Word" in our English vernacular. Who was the Logos? That he was with the Father from the beginning and that this extended beyond creation and preceded it is evident. "By him all things were made and without him was not anything made that was made." This certainly implies that the Logos was uncreated and was the agent of all creation.
Among the Greeks the word "logos" did double duty. It was the term for both "reason" and "word." There is a danger that we may, because of our modern connotation of the term, regard reason as a mere process by which we take cognizance of the world about us, and inductively or deductively reach certain conclusions by which we regulate our lives and conduct. There is nothing wrong about this, but it may betray us into placing limitations upon the term which are unjustifiable and which may operate in such fashion as to obscure a greater and more precious perspective. Reason can never be divorced from personality in a conscious being. If it be true that "as a man thinketh in his heart so is he," reason makes the person what he is. It is creative!
Thus, it is more nearly correct to say that reason is power rather than a process. The latter is simply a demonstration of that power in one aspect, the formulation of concepts from perception and observation. We must distinguish between power and its manifestation. Just as each man is what he is because of reason, so God is what He is because of the divine mind. Man is limited by time and space, but God is not. The attempt of modern science to conquer both is really an attempt to become like God. Although many researchists who seek to extend life and penetrate space, deny the existence of Deity, their very efforts are unrecognized attempts to attain the divine.
Those who are in the flesh and are by nature subject to spatial and temporal restraints hardly conceive of the manifestation of personality except by the presence of the body. But this may confuse the person and the form which is simply an adaptation given because of the environment in which the person dwells. And there is ever the tendency to think of God as a man and to restrict Godhood by the chains which bind manhood. Sober thought will convince us of the folly of such rationalization and will free us to recognize that the divine Reason (Logos) may be manifested in two persons, or expressed aspects of Godhood, at the same "time." Deity is not subject to the restraint of time.
It is impossible for man to express his ideas without words. It is even impossible to think without words. The term "embodied" is very appropriate since words are the bodies of which ideas are the soul or spirit. As the body without the spirit is dead so a word devoid of an idea is also dead and powerless. The expression of the divine mind must also be in the word--The Word. But the very being of God is invested in such expression and thus The Word is not merely a vehicle of divine thought but the personification of divine being. The Greek "Logos" is admirably qualified because of its historic and philosophic emphasis to express the message of the Spirit with reference to the Son of God. Time and space, the two forces against which we always struggle, will not permit us here to detail that emphasis. We must trust our readers to accept the wisdom of the spirit in this choice and proceed from there.
"In the beginning was the Word." John is not saying that the Word began with the beginning of the world. Instead he is affirming that when the world began the Word was already present. The Word preceded the creation, thus was uncreated or self-existent. The Word is not a consequence, but a Cause; not a result, but The Source; not a production, but The Author.
"And the Word was with God." This indicates association and intimacy. It reveals a relationship which portrays sharing elevated to its highest degree, sanctified by divine nature. So close was the relationship it was as if God communed with His own mind. Thus we gather that the Word was with God in purpose and intent, in plan and perfection of plan.
"And the Word was God." Students in depth have found this a perplexing statement and many have stumbled over it. Some cultists with special theological axes to grind have taken advantage of a peculiarity in the Greek to warp the passage so as to lend some credence to their own mistaken views. A part of the difficulty lies in the difference between the way Greeks used a noun in a sentence and in the way we use such a special form in modern English. Generally when a Greek employed a noun he preceded it with a definite article. We would expect to find ho theos used here, as theos was the word for God, and ho was the definite article.
But the article was not used in this case. When the article is not employed the noun becomes primarily descriptive. It is apparently the intent of the Spirit to convey the idea that the Word is not identical with God. There is a distinction as to person as shown by the clause immediately preceding, but the Word possesses the same nature, character or essence as God. Whatever was required to constitute Deity was to be found in the Word. The attributes of Godhood were attributable to the Word.
"All things were made by him." To this is added "And without him was nothing made that was made." The universe owes its existence to the Word. He is the divine creative power or energy personified. If it be true that all things, without exception, were brought into being by his agency, it is easily seen that his pre-existence must be admitted, and he is in the realm of the uncreated. This must be accepted by faith. "Through faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
"In him was life and the life was the light of men." The Logos was living. But there is more to it than that. Life is being but it is more than mere being. It is existence but it is more than mere existence. It is more than extension of existence or duration. Eternal life is the life of the Eternal One, and this life was in the logos and it was the light of men. It revealed that which previously was shrouded in mystery. The minds of men were thus free to penetrate the truth of ages because the true light, the real light, had come at last. And the darkness in the universe could not extinguish that light.
Now we come to verse 14. "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father." The Logos became flesh. The creative Word who brought all things into being as the very pronouncement of God, the controlling Reason who regulated the universe as the very Mind or Spirit of God, now breaks through the flesh curtain which had separated pure Spirit from the material and thrusts himself into the historic continuity of human existence. This was a concept undreamed of by all of the heathen poets and philosophers.
The word "flesh" cannot be explained away on some higher or more elevated plane than we usually think of it. It is a translation of sarx, the word for our human nature, frail, subject to temptation and desire, "He emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men" (Phil. 2:7, 8). This is almost too staggering for us to grasp or accept when we contemplate its full implication. God was unwilling to dwell aloof or in isolated splendor away from man. The Creator subjected himself to the state of the created. He involved himself directly in our predicament. God stooped down to minister and to save, and by this one act of intervention forever glorified such bending down for such a mission.
This is the basis of the Christian concept. It is not a philosophy, a ritual, a code of laws or a religion. It is a fact, a historical fact. Something happened toward which all of the past had pointed and toward which all of the present still points. The broken threads of human existence were gathered up in a moment, the hopes and ideals of the world were brought into focus. The problems of the ages were summed up and the total was found to be the correct answer.
The Word became flesh and the seed of the woman was born who was to tread upon the head of the serpent and deprive him of his power over those who were all of their lifetime subject to bondage through fear of death.
The seed of Abraham arrived through whom all the families of the earth would receive a blessing. "Now the promises were made to Abraham and his seed. It does not say, `And to seeds,' as if there were many, but rather `And to your seed,' which is Christ" (Galatians 3:16).
The Shiloh, the great Peacemaker, predicted by the aged Jacob as he prepared to die, entered the world and the gathering of the people unto him began as he had said.
The branch of Judah came forth as a root out of dry ground and the Lion of the tribe of Judah was introduced to the world.
Bethlehem of Ephratah, small and inconsequential, now became a place which the world would never forget.
The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, once an area viewed with contempt, now were made ready to see a great light where once the people dwelt in darkness (Isaiah 9:1, 2).
It was as if all the rivulets running down the side of the mountain of prophecy now converged into one, and became a mighty flowing tide carrying everything before it.
"The Word was made flesh . . . and we beheld his glory." This places the personal advent of the Word in the flesh where all historical events belong which are to be accepted as fact by succeeding generations, the realm of testimony. Testimony must be furnished by witnesses, and witnesses must present that of which they have direct knowledge through experience. Those of us who live now do not know that Jesus lived upon the earth, but we believe that he did. That belief is based upon testimony.
There are certain criteria which witnesses must meet, and certain rules for admissible evidence, and when the witnesses and the evidence fulfill these requirements, honest men must accept the testimony as factual. To do otherwise would be to reject the only basis upon which we can accept any event as having happened before our day.
We have the testimony of certain persons that Jesus lived on the earth and that he presented to them convincing proof that he was the Son of God. There are enough witnesses to establish the truth related to the fact, for "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." A fact is a fact whether there are witnesses or not, but belief in that fact requires witnesses. Though a plurality of witnesses is all that is sufficient to establish a case, the more witnesses there are the stronger the faith may become in the fact.
The witnesses for Christ were qualified for their special task. They were humble tradesmen or simple working men who had no theological philosophy to promote. They were singularly free from all preoccupation with ideas and systems which would require defence, and were capable of receiving the impress of facts. They were alert, observant and quick to respond. They did not speak the language of the schools but they could tell a plain tale of what they saw in language which was forceful by its very simplicity. They were willing to live in, and if necessary, to die for it as proof of that belief.
Moreover, they were trained as witnesses. They were chosen, called and qualified as witnesses. Their task was not to develop or define a systematic theology, but simply to tell of their relationship to a person, and they were constantly with him for well over three years. When one of their number defected and committed suicide they enunciated the qualifications for his successor in these words, "So one of the men who have companied with us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us--one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection" (Acts 1:21, 22).
In Luke 24:48 Jesus told them that they were witnesses of the things which had happened; in Acts 18 he declared, "You shall be my witnesses in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth." In Acts 2:32, they said, "This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses," and they repeated it in Acts 3:15. In Acts 10:40 one of them testified that God raised Jesus "on the third day and made him manifest, not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead."
When an event becomes a matter of testimony one who was not present cannot logically deny the event. In order to do that he would have had to be present and examine the alleged event at the time. After that his only recourse is to deny the testimony. But one cannot do this arbitrarily unless he admits to being deeply prejudiced and inconsistent. He must examine the testimony and reach an unbiased opinion or belief based upon it.
With reference to Jesus it is admitted that there are those who testified to having been with him both before and after his resurrection from the dead. There is a sufficient number of such witnesses to satisfy any impartial court of law. To deny the fact of Jesus one has only three alternatives, but none of these can eliminate an examination of the testimony. He may present proof to show that the character of the witnesses is such as to render their testimony worthless; or he may show that the witnesses were not sufficiently acquainted with the fact to which testimony is given; or he may show that the testimony of the witnesses is contradictory and thus self-invalidating.
1. The character of the witnesses. As stated before, the chosen witnesses were humble and rugged men. They were not taken from the extremely poor nor selected from the rabble. They were engaged in their several occupations and supporting themselves when they were called.
They were accustomed to observe the flow of events around them and were articulate enough to describe what they saw. They were not prejudiced in favor of the resurrection of Jesus but were hard to convince. When they were first apprised of the fact they did not believe it. When Jesus appeared among them "they were startled and frightened and supposed they saw a spirit" (Luke 24:36). It was necessary for him to talk with them and calm them with the words, "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Luke 24:39). In spite of this they still disbelieved and Jesus had to take food and eat it before them.
One of those who was not present at first would not accept the word of the others. He made a positive declaration that he would not accept the fact of the resurrection unless he had personal proof of it. This was no indication of doubting and he has often been maligned as "doubting Thomas." He simply demanded evidence and in such fashion as to remove all question. When confronted by Jesus and invited to thrust his finger into the nail prints in his hands, and his hand into the spear wound in his side he was convinced immediately of the identity of Jesus and of the fact of his resurrection.
Since the testimony of the witnesses is before us it is evident that it must be true or false. Either these things happened or they did not. If they did not happen it is quite obvious that those who said they did were either deceivers or deceived. It can be argued that they were not deceivers from the nature of the testimony.
The one thing a forger or deceiver dreads most is investigation and close scrutiny. For this reason he always writes in generalities and avoids minute details. The more he connects his account with particular persons and places, and with specific dates, times and events, the more liable is he to detection of the fraud which he seeks to perpetrate. This is especially true if his work is to be circulated during the lifetime of those mentioned and in the places to which he refers.
To be meticulous in such documentation would serve to provide the cross-examination with every conceivable advantage. If there were in existence those who opposed the purpose of the narrative all they would need to do to throw suspicion upon it would be to summon those to whom reference was made and prove by them that what was alleged did not transpire, or by showing grave discrepancy between the testimony and the facts of history and geography, to demonstrate that the witness was unfamiliar with time and place, and not to be trusted in other details.
So widely accepted is this that it is said, "Generality is the cloak of fiction." Accordingly, when a writer who purports to give a record of historical fact supplies many details related to time, place and person involved, it is an assumption that he is stating facts and has no fear of scrutiny or examination. This is especially true when it is known that the writing was in general circulation during the lifetime of those mentioned therein. Truth fears no investigation and can provide minute details without hesitancy.
This is the very method employed by the writers who have recorded the facts related to Jesus of Nazareth. Consider, for example, the scrupulous details provided with reference to the forerunner, John the Baptist. We are given the name of his father and mother, the priestly status and course of the former, his occupation at the time when he was given information about the forthcoming birth of his son, and even the spot where the messenger stood while giving the information.
Even more impressive is the documentation relative to the time when John gave his announcement. We are told that it was in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, and are supplied the names of the governor of Judea, the tetrarchs of Galilee, Itruraea, and Abilene. For good measure we are also provided with the names of Annas and Caiaphas, who were said to be high priests. This last is most interesting, because at that time, according to history, the Jews recognized Annas as high priest, while the Romans with their occupational forces had deposed him for obduracy, and dealt with his son-in-law, Joseph Caiaphas, in his stead.
As another case in point, consider the account of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Lazarus is identified by his relationship to two sisters, and one of these is further identified by a public act performed. The name of the village is given, its distance from Jerusalem, and also the name of one who volunteered to accompany Jesus on his mission. The time of death is given as is a description of the grave and the method of closing it. We are told that many Jews were present and told why they had come and what they said and did. In the actual coming forth of Lazarus his condition is described, and the need for those about to release him from his winding-sheet.
The narrative does not stop there. It continues by relating the effect upon the Jewish observers, some of whom believed while others hurried to report the happening to the Pharisees. We are even told that these summoned a meeting of the council, and one of the speakers is named and a record of what he said is preserved. The continuing interest of the Jews in Lazarus is mentioned and the fact that many came to Bethany out of curiosity to see Lazarus, so the chief priests plotted his death because "on account of him many of the Jews were going away believing on Jesus."
In view of the fact that this was written and circulated at the time when many of the people of Bethany, or their children, were still living, and many of the Jews survived, it is obvious that if there were any untruths the entire account would have been discounted and discredited long since. Apparently the writer was not in the least afraid of close study of what he wrote, even by the principals involved.
Another point worthy of consideration is the fact that the writers, even though aware that the nature of the material was startling and extraordinary, made no attempt to convince the readers of the truth of the statements. It is noticeable that when men anticipate doubt and questioning they seek to bolster their message with proof drawn from various sources. But those who wrote about Jesus did so on the basis that what they set down for perusal was generally known and their only purpose was to present a straightforward account so that the facts might be preserved.
Even in dealing with some of the greater miracles there is no effort to explain or account for what would seem inexplicable, no attempt to answer in advance the cavilling and ridicule of skeptics, or to anticipate objections. Indeed the apostolic testimony is as noteworthy for what it omits as for what it included and the restraining hand of the Spirit was as evident as the permissive power. We must not forget that "the fame of Jesus was spread abroad throughout all Syria. . . . And great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond Jordan" (Matthew 4:24, 25).
If the writers had been attempting a deception their approach would have been altogether different. They would have presented arguments calculated to reinforce and strengthen their narrative and to make the things they recorded appear plausible. The apostolic witnesses relate the most astounding events in matter-of-fact fashion, assuming they are already generally known and need only to be casually mentioned in order to be called to mind.
We must remember that the enemies of Christ did not even attempt to impeach the character of the witnesses nor did they deny the facts to which they testified. It would seem incredible that twelve men would band together to perpetrate a hoax which would fool the most intelligent people of the earth for twenty long centuries, and yet never be discovered by those who lived at the same time as themselves. Even more astonishing is the fact that all of them were so convinced of the truthfulness of their message that they were willing to die rather than renounce it.
We are aware that such willingness does not establish the truth of a proposition but it does show that those who died for it believed it was true. If it is true that "seldom for a righteous man will one die," it is equally true that "seldom for a right principle will one die," and not at all for what he believes to be a palpable untruth. We do not believe that at this late date the character of the witnesses can be impugned and their testimony discredited upon the basis of their reputation.
2. Acquaintance with the facts. If it can be shown that even though the witnesses were men of veracity, they had no adequate knowledge of that to which they testified this will at least cast doubt upon the validity of that to which testimony is given. A witness must be qualified as well as honest, conversant with the facts as well as upright in demeanor. With reference to the resurrection which established the claims of Jesus to be the Son of God, we have the obligation to enquire if the witnesses had sufficient access to Jesus as to enable them to know without question that he arose from the sepulcher.
Let it be recalled that for one to be ordained as a witness of the resurrection he had to accompany the body of witnesses "all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from among us" (Acts 1:21, 22). Such a person would be so thoroughly acquainted with the person of Jesus that it would be highly unlikely that he would not recognize him, or that he would mistake another for him. He would be able, given proper exposure to his person, positively to identify him when he saw him. The point which immediately concerns us then is whether or not the witnesses were given ample opportunity to observe the one who claimed to have risen from the dead so as to make immediate identification possible.
This would involve the number of appearances before the witnesses, the time and nature of such appearances, and the opportunity provided for scrutiny and observation.
a. Jesus appeared to both men and women. If he had appeared only to the latter it would have been argued that they were emotionally upset by his death and victims of an overwrought imagination.
b. He appeared to individuals and to groups, the largest number being in excess of five hundred.
c. He appeared in a garden, in closed rooms, on the open road, at the seashore, and on a mountain.
d. He appeared at an early morning hour, during the day, as dusk was closing in, and at night.
e. He conversed directly with the witnesses and ate and drank with them.
f. He summoned them by name, identified himself and invited inspection.
g. He referred to his past associations and called attention to communications made prior to his death.
h. He ascended in their presence, and they were confronted by celestial beings who called him by name and predicted his return at a date yet future.
i. He later appeared to Saul of Tarsus who was so convinced of his presence that his entire life was transformed.
Some of these witnessed his death, observed his burial, inspected the tomb after his resurrection and provided a description of what happened in his various appearances. There is no logical way to account for their testimony except upon the basis of fact unless one can prove collusion and deliberate hoax. Such proof will need to be conclusive and must be documented in order to offset what appears to be a straightforward account.
3. The only other alternative is to show that the testimony is of such contradictory nature that the witnesses rebut each other and render what is said incredible. The written account of the witnesses has been available for nineteen centuries and has frequently been under intense attack, yet it has always survived. It must be remembered that, if a number of witnesses testify to a certain fact, the question to be ascertained by their testimony is whether or not they agree in establishing the truth of that fact. That they may arrive at their conclusion from different angles, or that one may add incidentals which another omits, or that the various points of proof do not appear in the same sequence or in chronological order is inconsequential in the final summarization and analysis.
I have examined the testimony of the witnesses and I find no discrepancy which invalidates the conclusion that Jesus is the Christ. All agree that he lived, that he was crucified and that he was raised from the dead. The various accounts of such matters as the inscription on the cross have no bearing upon the fact that one was nailed to that cross, and that he was identified as Jesus of Nazareth. I find no trouble in believing that "the Word was made flesh" or of placing my hope in him. I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. I believe that he is the Son of God.