At this point it may be particularly important to render the Word as constituting a title, for example, “He who was called the Word became a human being” or “… a person,” or “… came to be really a person.”

Most translators render the Word became a human being “the Word became flesh.” Phillips, however, is close to Good News Translation (“so the Word of God became a human being”), and commentators generally realize that the meaning of “flesh” in this context is “a human being.” Goodspeed tries to capture this meaning by translating “so the Word became flesh and blood,” and Jerusalem Bible indicates it by a note, “the” flesh “is man considered as a frail and mortal being.” It is better to bring out the meaning in the text of a translation than to relegate it to a footnote, because in many languages “flesh” is understood merely as “meat,” like that sold in the marketplace.

For a discussion of the phrase grace and truth, see Appendix II, “Translating ‘In Spirit and Truth’ and ‘the Spirit of Truth’ in the Gospel of John,” section III.

The rendering of grace and truth is made even more difficult by the fact that these words are referred to as qualities of which the Word is full. In many languages it is simply impossible to speak of a person being “full of grace and truth.” Under such circumstances, the meaning of grace must be expressed in terms of the abundance of this feature of personality. For this particular context, the term grace is probably best understood as reflecting two important features of meaning: “love” and “kindness.” In face, a very useful equivalent in some languages is “kind love” or “love which is kind.” The use of such a term as “kind” helps to suggest love which actively seeks to help the object of love, and emphasizes the fact that this kind of love depends upon the personality of the individual who loves, rather than upon any merit in the object of his love.

If one translates truth in the manner in which some persons have traditionally understood this passage, it would be possible to say “one who very much reveals the truth,” but this rendering does not do justice to the real meaning of truth and does not seem to fit satisfactorily the context in combination with grace. It is also possible to understand “truth” in the sense of “faithfulness.” Therefore, the Word may be described as “one who showed his kind love abundantly and who could be completely trusted.” This last expression is one of the most common ways in which “faithfulness” can be satisfactorily rendered.

In rendering the expression full of grace and truth, there is, as noted, a problem involved in the phrase full of. In most languages one simply cannot be full of such qualities as “grace and truth.” Furthermore, if grace is rendered as “steadfast love” or “kind love” (in order to emphasize something of the undeserved character of such love), it is impossible to speak about a person being “full of this.” However, one can indicate the abundance of such love by saying “he showed kind love abundantly” or “he very much loved us,” or “he showed us his goodness.”

In rendering the meaning of full of … truth, one can say in some languages “he showed us the complete truth about God” or “he caused us to know completely the truth about God.” However, abundance may also be expressed in such a phrase as “he very much showed us the truth about God.” On the other hand, rather than translating full of … truth as being merely something which Jesus revealed about God, it seems preferable to indicate that Jesus himself was this true revelation of God. Therefore, one may translate “he himself was the true (or complete) revelation of God” or “what he was shows completely what God is.” This interpretation seems to be closer to the meaning and to the way in which truth is employed generally in the Gospel of John.

The word translated lived is literally “to live in a tent,” and it is taken by many to indicate temporary living (Goodspeed “lived for a while”; Moffatt “tarried”). Elsewhere this verb is used only in Revelation 7.15; 12.12; 13.6; and 21.3, and it is difficult to see in any of these passages the idea of “to live temporarily.” In light of the Old Testament usage of this word and of its usage in Revelation, the idea of “living temporarily” does not seem to be in focus. In Exodus 25.8-9 the people of Israel are commanded to make a tent, so that God can live among them. Thus “a tent” was looked upon as the dwelling place of God among men, and God’s presence could be spoken of as “setting up its tent.” If, in the present passage, John says that the Word “set up his tent” among men, then the meaning is that in the Word God has come to dwell among men. It is likewise the focus of the verb as used in Revelation 7.15 and 21.3: in the eternal Word, who became a human being, God came to dwell among men. Verse 14 is the very heart of John’s Gospel; everything else that John says must be understood in light of this verse.

The focus of “lived” is not upon “being alive” but upon “dwelling.” Lived among us is rendered in some languages as “he dwelt with us” or “he lived where we lived.” In some other languages it is literally “he had his house where we were” or even “his house was in our village.”

Though the pronoun us in the first sentence of verse 14 refers essentially to mankind in general, it is also a specific historical reference to the incarnation and the fact that Jesus lived on earth at a particular time. Even though us is, in a sense, a reference to mankind in general, in this particular context the pronoun must be in the exclusive first person plural in languages which make a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person plural forms. This usage makes the pronominal reference agree with the following use of we, which must apply to those who actually saw the glory of the Father’s only Son.

Perhaps it should be pointed out that even though Good News Translation begins a new sentence with We saw his glory, in Greek all of verse 14 is one sentence. Not only does Good News Translation make two sentences of what is a single sentence in Greek, but it reorders some of the elements in the last part, in order to make the concepts fit more naturally into English discourse structure.

Throughout his Gospel, John uses five different words meaning “to see.” Some commentators attempt to see in these words a varying scale of meaning, proceeding from mere physical sight to deep spiritual insight. However, the supposed differences in meaning are not maintained consistently. It is best to decide on the meaning of each verb in its particular context, rather than to insist that each verb has a fixed meaning, regardless of the context in which it appears. This means that the verb translated saw in this passage (Greek theaomai) does not necessarily have the meaning of “to look on with contemplation,” a meaning it clearly has in some other contexts. In fact, in the present context the meaning seems to be simply “to see,” in the widest sense of the word.

The concept of glory is likewise difficult. In the Old Testament the word glory is often used concerning the visible manifestation of the invisible God, especially as he made himself known through the mighty things that he did for his people. This Old Testament usage seems to be the clue for understanding John’s use of the term in his Gospel. For John, Jesus bears the glory of God, because he has the very nature of God and performs the works of God. From this basic use of the word other meanings are derived. These meanings will be discussed as they appear in their respective contexts.

In many languages it is extremely difficult to find a satisfactory work for glory, especially in a context like the present one, which has no specific reference to a “shining” or an “appearance.” A literal translation of “brightness” or “shining” (translations which have been recommended and used in some languages) gives rise to a notion of a halo or aura of light surrounding Jesus. This meaning is obviously not what is intended by the author. A more satisfactory rendering in some languages is “we saw how wonderful he is.” In other instances glory combines the components of prestige and importance, almost equivalent to “we saw how great he is.”

It may be difficult to translate in some languages the glory which he received, since this quality of “being wonderful” is not something which one can “receive” as one receives some particular object. However, it may be possible to speak of “causing a person to be wonderful,” and in some languages the second part of verse 14 must be translated precisely in this manner, for example, “this is how the Father caused him to be wonderful” or “… him who was his only Son to be so wonderful.” It is possible to see in the last phrase, as the Father’s only Son, a causal relation. Therefore, on may render the final part of verse 14 “The Father caused him to be so wonderful because he was his only Son.”

Only Son is the rendering of all modern translations. There is no doubt regarding the meaning of the Greek word used here (monogenēs); it means “only” and not “only begotten.” The meaning “only begotten,” which appears in the Vulgate, has influenced King James Version and many other early translations. This same Greek word is used elsewhere in the New Testament in Luke 7.12; 8.42; 9.38; and Hebrews 11.17.

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .