"was made flesh" vs. "became flesh"

[hamburglar]

I noticed that in the first chapter of the Gospel of John, when the Incarnation is mentioned, some Bibles, such as the King James Version, say that the “Word was made flesh” and others, such as the New American Bible, say that the “Word became flesh.”

I was wondering if this is theologically significant, in regards to how the Trinity has always existed, exists, and always will exist in the future.

“Was made flesh” seems to imply that the human nature of Jesus did not exist before the Incarnation and God formed Himself into the Son, whereas “became flesh” seems to imply that the Son was always there, just now becoming revealed.

 

[Yerusalyim]

I don’t think there is significant differences. Jesus’ human nature did not exist before the incarnation, and the Son was always there.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Hamburglar,

We should be careful about terminology like “formed himself” etc.

The teaching of the Church is that the Word “assumed” our humanity.From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

****461 ****Taking up St. John’s expression, “The Word became flesh”,the Church calls “Incarnation” the fact that the Son of God assumed a human nature in order to accomplish our salvation in it. In a hymn cited by St. Paul, the Church sings the mystery of the Incarnation:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

I don’t think we should see any difference in the two expressions. The original Greek *egeneto *translates as “became”. There is no Latin word for “become” in Latin. The language uses the forms of “to be made” *(factum est). *The first translations into English were from the Latin. Hence “was made”, with which we are familiar and which may sound “better” to some of us.

Verbum

 

[nablaise]

I think this is a good example of why we need to check how the Magisterium undestands Scripture.

Alain

 

[hamburglar]

Hi Hamburglar,

We should be careful about terminology like “formed himself” etc.

Yes, I know. That’s why I thought “was made” was confusing to me.

I know that the Son assumed human nature. “Was made” could be interpreted as “was formed into”.

I think this is a good example of why we need to check how the Magisterium undestands Scripture.

I agree. As I stated above, I can see people misunderstanding the Incarnation and the beauty of the Most Holy Trinity.

 

[MH84]

I noticed that in the first chapter of the Gospel of John, when the Incarnation is mentioned, some Bibles, such as the King James Version, say that the “Word was made flesh” and others, such as the New American Bible, say that the “Word became flesh.”

I was wondering if this is theologically significant, in regards to how the Trinity has always existed, exists, and always will exist in the future.

“Was made flesh” seems to imply that the human nature of Jesus did not exist before the Incarnation and God formed Himself into the Son, whereas “became flesh” seems to imply that the Son was always there, just now becoming revealed.

I actually think that there could be a difference. Because one could argue that the interpretation is that God (the Father) made his plan (the Word) into Jesus Christ.

Now if the translation is “the Word became flesh”, that could be some more proof that the Son (the Word) Himself took on a human nature.

The differences are subtle, but there could be differences in meaning between the different translations. I wonder what the NWT uses?

I was hoping someone in this thread or my thread here could provide some objective evidence of the translation.

Finally though, perhaps both (Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian) arguments can be argued from both translations.

A person for example could say that God’s plan (the Word)became flesh for example. Or in support of the Trinitarian doctrine, one could say that God the Father “prepared” a body for His eternal Son. As it says in Hebrews:

10:5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;

Or even that God the Son Himself prepared a body for Himself. Or even the Blessed Trinity working together formed the body of Jesus, through the Blessed Virgin Mary of course.

This is my opinion anyway.