Smoodock's Blog

If the Word is God (John 1:1), then John 1:14 declares that God became man. Could this possibly be true? Could John, a Jew, be telling us that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob actually became a man and lived for awhile with us? This is where some part company with traditional Christianity. People have told me on the discussion boards that we get this from paganism. The pagans speak of god-men, heroes who are the offspring of a desirable woman and the lust of one of the gods. That is myth! The real God does not become human!

Well, this is the argument, but what is the truth? What does the Scripture actually say?

John 1:14a KJV  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…

There isn’t even a hint of sexuality here. What about the birth accounts? Matthew claims that Mary, a virgin, before she had sexual relations, was found with child by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18). Not only so, but the Scripture says that what was conceived within her was the result of prophecy (Isaiah 7:14; cp. Matthew 1:23), which claimed that not only would a virgin conceive, but a virgin would deliver a child, and this by the power of God. In other words, no sexual act was ever connected with the birth. Mary was a virgin before conceiving, after conceiving and even when Jesus was born, Mary was still a virgin. Because of what was told him, Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary, until after Jesus’ birth (Matthew 1:24-25).

What about Luke’s account? If one would read his record of Jesus’ birth, one would find nothing to suggest the consummation of a sexual act between God and a woman. When the angel came to Mary and told her she would bear a child, Mary was perplexed and asked how could this happen, if she wasn’t married (Luke 1:34)? The angel told her it would be accomplished by the power of God (Luke 1:35), ending with “Nothing is impossible with God!” (Luke 1:37). If Luke had reference to a sexual act, why would he refer to the “impossible”? What isn’t possible for man, the angel says is possible for God. Since man is a sexual being, this implies no sexual act was in view for the birth of Jesus, according to Luke.

If Jesus was conceived by, borne by, and give birth by a virgin, where is the parallel in paganism? There is absolutely nothing among the myths that would suggest the writers of the New Testament borrowed from them. So, this argument is moot. John 1:14a has absolutely no similarity with paganism.

What, then does the New Testament teach occurred concerning Jesus’ birth? Paul gives us the answer in Philippians chapter 2. Notice what he claims:

Philippians 2:6-7 KJV  Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:  (7)  But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Remember, in John 1:14 we are speaking about the Word which John 1:1 says existed before the beginning of creation. This Word, according to Paul was in the form of God—that is to say, what God was, so was the Word, just as John says in the final clause of John 1:1. The Father and the Word were equal, according to Paul in Philippians 2:6. Nevertheless, he didn’t clutch this equality to himself, which would have been to his own advantage, according to the contextual implications of Philippians 2:1-5, but he set aside this equality with the Father, and took to himself the form of a servant. That is, he became flesh—a human being.

In all actuality God is not a sexual Being. It was the Father’s will for Jesus to become human, and Jesus acted upon himself in the process of the Virgin Birth in order to become man.[1] He had been in the form of God, sharing equal divinity with the Father, but he set all of this aside in order to become human and dwell with us, in order that he might become our Savior. Where is the parallel for this in paganism? Where? Show me!