Became flesh?

[thinkandmull]

The interpretation of Scripture can be very tedious at times because of the multitude of interpretations. One of the Church Fathers (I think Augustine) warned of the slyness of heretics in turning Bible verses against the Catholic position. One verse that seems easy to twist however is “and the Word BECAME flesh and dwelt among us”. The Catholic position is that the Second Person ASSUMED flesh. The way the verse is translated however seems to say that Jesus is like Light surrounding God (in the Eastern sense); that is, when you see Jesus “humanity” you actually see God, because there is no actual humanity. What conclusions can we draw from this confusion?

 

[CB_Catholic]

The interpretation of Scripture can be very tedious at times because of the multitude of interpretations. One of the Church Fathers (I think Augustine) warned of the slyness of heretics in turning Bible verses against the Catholic position. One verse that seems easy to twist however is “and the Word BECAME flesh and dwelt among us”. The Catholic position is that the Second Person ASSUMED flesh. The way the verse is translated however seems to say that Jesus is like Light surrounding God (in the Eastern sense); that is, when you see Jesus “humanity” you actually see God, because there is no actual humanity. What conclusions can we draw from this confusion?

I don’t understand. Both the NAB and the RSV-CE translate John 1: 14 as “the Word became flesh”. The DR says “the Word was made flesh.” I have never read that Jesus “assumed” flesh. What translation did this come from? To me, what you are posting is confusing, not the verses from Scripture.

 

[jcrichton]

The interpretation of Scripture can be very tedious at times because of the multitude of interpretations. One of the Church Fathers (I think Augustine) warned of the slyness of heretics in turning Bible verses against the Catholic position. One verse that seems easy to twist however is “and the Word BECAME flesh and dwelt among us”. The Catholic position is that the Second Person ASSUMED flesh. The way the verse is translated however seems to say that Jesus is like Light surrounding God (in the Eastern sense); that is, when you see Jesus “humanity” you actually see God, because there is no actual humanity. What conclusions can we draw from this confusion?

Hi!

…the conclusion that it is a flawed exegesis since it ignores other Revelations…

…the same Light comes to the world and is both rejected and the Life of the world… the Word, which is the True Light, which gives Life to the world, also Created everything that there is… and it is Belief in the Word, which is the Light–Belief in the Name of the Light-- that makes it possible for man to become a child of God…

I hope you are able to follow…

Maran atha!

Angel

PS: …just for pure argument, if Jesus is “like” the Light, why is John adamant about making it clear that the Light is not John the Baptist but the he (the Baptist) is a mere witness of He Who is the Light?

 

[thinkandmull]

I don’t understand. Both the NAB and the RSV-CE translate John 1: 14 as “the Word became flesh”. The DR says “the Word was made flesh.” I have never read that Jesus “assumed” flesh. What translation did this come from? To me, what you are posting is confusing, not the verses from Scripture.

Jesus wasn’t made flesh. He assumed flesh

 

[Wesrock]

We should avoid an in depth word study of “became” and “assumed” at this time, and just examine the doctrine that particular word choices were trying to emphasize.

The flesh of Jesus was not molded out of the divine substance, and it was not spontaneously generated. Neither was it merely an illusion of flesh or a costume. The flesh of Jesus was directly taken from Mary’s own. It was her egg, formed from her own cells, in her womb, nourished by her body, that became the flesh of Jesus Christ, and from the moment of conception, that flesh was in hypostatic union with the Word. Jesus Christ was a living, breathing, walking, talking human in every way that one can be human.

thinkandmull, could you please clarify what you mean by “Eastern sense”? I’m getting the impression you mean the essence and energies distinction, but that doesn’t really seem to fit. The particular example of the sun and its rays also sounds like an Arian description of the relationship between the Father and the Son. But my estimation of what you mean may be way off . . .

 

[Gorgias]

The interpretation of Scripture can be very tedious at times because of the multitude of interpretations.

It can also be tedious when one attempts eisegesis…

One verse that seems easy to twist however is “and the Word BECAME flesh and dwelt among us”. The Catholic position is that the Second Person ASSUMED flesh.

I would assume that the Catholic position is the Scriptural position. The text reads:

ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
(“the word became flesh”)

The way the verse is translated however seems to say that Jesus is like Light surrounding God (in the Eastern sense)

The way the verse is translated is verbatim.

seems to say that Jesus is like Light surrounding God (in the Eastern sense); that is, when you see Jesus “humanity” you actually see God, because there is no actual humanity. What conclusions can we draw from this confusion?

The conclusion I draw is that someone is reading into the verse something that’s not there.

 

[Wesrock]

The Catechism uses both the words “became” and “assumed” in this context.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm

Specifically, it seems to pretty consistently use “became” with “became man/flesh/incarnate.”

Likewise, it uses assumed when referring to assuming human nature or assuming the human rational soul.

 

[thinkandmull]

Well there is a difficulty here if it literally says “became flesh”. This would contradict Mark’s Gospel: But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

 

[thinkandmull]

We should avoid an in depth word study of “became” and “assumed” at this time, and just examine the doctrine that particular word choices were trying to emphasize.

The flesh of Jesus was not molded out of the divine substance, and it was not spontaneously generated. Neither was it merely an illusion of flesh or a costume. The flesh of Jesus was directly taken from Mary’s own. It was her egg, formed from her own cells, in her womb, nourished by her body, that became the flesh of Jesus Christ, and from the moment of conception, that flesh was in hypostatic union with the Word. Jesus Christ was a living, breathing, walking, talking human in every way that one can be human.

thinkandmull, could you please clarify what you mean by “Eastern sense”? I’m getting the impression you mean the essence and energies distinction, but that doesn’t really seem to fit. The particular example of the sun and its rays also sounds like an Arian description of the relationship between the Father and the Son. But my estimation of what you mean may be way off . . .

The energies is what I was referring too. To become flesh would mean, it would certainly seem, a sort of pantheistic activity

 

[Wesrock]

Well there is a difficulty here if it literally says “became flesh”. This would contradict Mark’s Gospel: But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

We need only look at the commentary of the Church Fathers and the Church to better understand Mark 13:32.

Certainly there is much more that can be said, but here’s a link to Saint Thomas Aquinas’ compilation of commentary from the Church Fathers. (He has pulled quotes from others; not his own commentary)

dhspriory.org/thomas/CAMark.htm#13

 

[Wesrock]

The energies is what I was referring too. To become flesh would mean, it would certainly seem, a sort of pantheistic activity

I would need to see some Eastern writings on the Incarnation, then, probably post-Palamas. Western theology certainly doesn’t interpret “became” as implying the flesh was molded from divine material, and it’s been consistent teaching from Paul through all the Church Fathers that Jesus took his flesh from Mary. This was heavily stressed by ancient theologians, because the common thought back in that day was that a child took flesh only from the father’s seed; the woman was seen to only contribute a place for the seed to grow and be nourished. Hence the Church put particular emphasis underlining that Jesus’ flesh was taken from Mary’s flesh. They looked at Paul’s word choice in Christ being born from (and not just through) a woman, the genealogies, and more to hammer that point home.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t understand. Both the NAB and the RSV-CE translate John 1: 14 as “the Word became flesh”. The DR says “the Word was made flesh.” I have never read that Jesus “assumed” flesh. What translation did this come from? To me, what you are posting is confusing, not the verses from Scripture.

Assumed human nature is the explanation of the Incarnation. “Assumed” goes back to Genesis 3:11 and related verses in the first three sacred chapters of Genesis.

 

[Gorgias]

Well there is a difficulty here if it literally says “became flesh”. This would contradict Mark’s Gospel: But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Sorry; not following you. How does the text of John 1:14 ‘contradict’ the text of Mark 13:32?

I’m just not seeing the ‘contradiction’ you’re claiming.

 

[Gorgias]

The energies is what I was referring too. To become flesh would mean, it would certainly seem, a sort of pantheistic activity

‘Pantheistic’ implies that all things are God. That’s not what’s in play here.

However, how would you reason from “the Word became flesh” to “pantheistic activity”? That doesn’t make sense…

 

[jcrichton]

Well there is a difficulty here if it literally says “became flesh”. This would contradict Mark’s Gospel: But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Hi!

…I don’t follow, could you expand on your answer, how does it contradict Mark’s Gospel?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

The energies is what I was referring too. To become flesh would mean, it would certainly seem, a sort of pantheistic activity

Hi!

…sorry, again (I am quite pedestrian, you know) I don’t get your explanation… how does pantheism relates?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Wesrock]

I think he’s referring to the idea of a creature (the human flesh of Christ) being made of the same “stuff” of the God-substance. The idea that God’s substance is what the creature is molded and made out of. Of course, it would just be one, limited example, and not all creatures.

Christ was fully divine, too, the divine nature uncreated, but his human nature, soul and flesh, was a creation.

 

[jcrichton]

I think he’s referring to the idea of a creature (the human flesh of Christ) being made of the same “stuff” of the God-substance. The idea that God’s substance is what the creature is molded and made out of. Of course, it would just be one, limited example, and not all creatures.

Christ was fully divine, too, the divine nature uncreated, but his human nature, soul and flesh, was a creation.

Hi!

…yet, in Scriptures, there’s only one example where a Creature is made of the “stuff” of another:

21 So Yahweh God made the man fall into a deep sleep. And while he slept, he took one of his ribs and enclosed it in flesh. 22 Yahweh God built the rib he had taken from the man into a woman, and brought her to the man. 23 The man exclaimed: ‘This at last is bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh! This is to be called woman, for this was taken from man.’

(Genesis 2:21-23)

…outside of this passage, only Greek gods are said to lay with humans to procure children… “mixed stuff.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Wesrock]

I never said that’s what happened. I was just explaining what angle (I think) he was going for, I think from over analyzing the statement that God became flesh, as if His own substance was transformed. Again, that’s definitely not the teaching of the Church, I’m well aware.

 

[jcrichton]

I never said that’s what happened. I was just explaining what angle (I think) he was going for, I think from over analyzing the statement that God became flesh, as if His own substance was transformed. Again, that’s definitely not the teaching of the Church, I’m well aware.

Hi!

Yes, I understood that–I simply meant to convey that it would be an erroneous conclusion from what has been Revealed.

Maran atha!

Angel