Rethinking Ho Logos Sarx Egeneto
Beyond Anthropomorphism
The Incarnation as Theocentric Revelation
The dominant paradigm in much of Christian theology has assumed an anthropomorphic directionality to the Incarnation: the Word descends, assumes a human nature extrinsic to His divine essence, and thus enters history. Yet, this approach risks imposing a dualistic framework that sees divinity and humanity as fundamentally separate, requiring external synthesis. But what if the Incarnation is better understood theocentrically—not as the addition of something foreign to God, but as the manifestation of a reality already present within the Logos?
John 1:14 (ho logos sarx egeneto—“the Word became flesh”) is often read as an act of assumption, a taking on of a nature previously absent from the divine reality. But such an interpretation limits the mystery of divine self-revelation. Instead, we must ask: Did the Logos become something He was not before, or did He make manifest in history a divine-human unity that was already eternally present within Himself?
This essay will explore a theocentric reframing of the Incarnation, drawing from biblical and patristic sources while engaging with the concept of Adam Kadmon—the primordial, archetypal humanity that exists within the divine reality not merely the solution to human sin but the revelation of what humanity was always meant to be. This implies that the Incarnation was not the assumption of something foreign to God but the unveiling of the eternal anthropos—the true human form, preexistent in the divine will and reality.
Adam Kadmon and the Archetypal Humanity in Christ
The Jewish mystical tradition speaks of Adam Kadmon—the primordial man, not as an individual but as a universal reality, the divine blueprint of humanity. This figure is often depicted as existing within God, rather than separate from Him. In some Lurianic formulations, Adam Kadmon is even seen as a metaphysical veil through which divine light refracts into creation.
This resonates with Christian theology when properly reoriented theocentrically. If Christ is the “firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15), then He is not merely the first creature but rather the principle through which all creation exists. As the divine anthropos, He does not “take on” flesh in a foreign sense but instead manifests the original, unfallen humanity that was always present in God.
This aligns with Gregory of Nyssa’s thought that Christ did not assume a postlapsarian nature in the Incarnation, but rather restored humanity to its original form (The Great Catechism, 16). In this light, the Incarnation is not a concession to fallen flesh but the revelation of a higher, divine humanity—one that was always present in the divine Logos but is only now made visible in time.
Cyril of Alexandria and the Single Theandric Nature
Cyril of Alexandria provides the best patristic framework for this view. His famous formula—mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkōmenē (“one nature of the Word of God incarnate”)—does not mean that Christ’s divinity absorbed His humanity but that the two were already a single, theandric reality.
This is where traditional Chalcedonian Christology, with its insistence on the union of two natures, struggles to maintain a fully theocentric vision. If Christ’s humanity is something added, then the Logos is seen as changing or adopting something outside Himself. But if we take Cyril’s formulation seriously, the sarx of Christ is already included in the divine life. The Incarnation, then, is simply the historical manifestationof a reality already eternally present.
This avoids the pitfalls of a Nestorianized Christology that treats Christ’s humanity as an attachment. Instead, it reorients the Incarnation from a historical necessity toward a metaphysical reality—the unfolding of what was eternally true in the divine Logos.
The Incarnation and the Unveiling of the Heavenly Body
Paul speaks of a sōma pneumatikon—a “spiritual body”—in 1 Corinthians 15:44-49, contrasting it with the earthly, psychikon body. The key claim here is that the spiritual body preexists the natural. This suggests that Christ did not assume mere postlapsarian human flesh but instead revealed the divine-human reality that always existed.
This aligns with Maximus the Confessor’s idea that Christ is not merely the center of human history but of cosmic reality itself. For Maximus, all things exist logoi—divine ideas within the Logos. Christ’s Incarnation, then, is the unveiling of the divine-human logos of creation itself. His sarx is not contingent on sin but the eternal reality of humanity made manifest in time.
Rethinking Ho Logos Sarx Egeneto: A Theocentric Translation
Given these insights, we might rethink how we interpret John 1:14: Instead of “the Word became flesh” in the sense of adopting an external nature, we might say:
“The Word manifested flesh”—the revelation of eternal, divine humanity.
“The Word unveiled flesh”—showing what was hidden in divine reality.
This approach avoids the pitfalls of an anthropomorphic Incarnation. The Logos does not “descend” in the sense of taking on something foreign. Instead, He reveals what was already eternally present.
The Incarnation as Theophany, Not Assumption
In this framework, the Incarnation is not an addition but a revelation—a theophany in which divine humanity is made visible. This avoids both Nestorian separation and Chalcedonian external synthesis, offering instead a more integrated, monophysite vision.
The Word becomes flesh not by changing, but by manifesting the eternal human reality within the divine life. Christ does not assume something alien to Himself but rather makes visible the primordial anthropos—the Adam Kadmon of divine reality.
In this way, the Incarnation is not merely an event in history but the unveiling of the divine-human mystery at the heart of all creation.
Sources
If we approach John 1:14 and the ho logos sarx egeneto question with patristic sources in mind, particularly from a monophysite or Alexandrian lens, Cyril of Alexandria is the most crucial thinker. His insistence on the mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkōmenē (“one nature of the Word of God incarnate”) provides a way to rethink sarx without falling into a purely anthropomorphic reading.
Cyril of Alexandria on the Logos-Sarx Union
Cyril rejected the idea that the Logos merely assumed a separate human nature alongside His divinity (as Nestorius proposed). Instead, he argued that the Word became flesh, meaning that divinity and humanity were united in one theandric reality:
“For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, nor that it was transformed into a whole man, consisting of soul and body; but rather we affirm that the Word, by having united to himself hypostatically flesh animated with a rational soul, in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner, became man.” (Third Letter to Nestorius)
Cyril does not say that the Logos took on a foreign humanity, but that his flesh was made manifest in history. If we link this to Adam Kadmon and preexistent humanity, it suggests that the Incarnation is not about God taking something external to Himself but about revealing what was already part of divine reality. This strengthens a monophysite reading: Christ does not “adopt” a second nature but rather manifests divine-human unity.
Origen and the Preexistence of Christ’s Humanity
Origen speculated that Christ’s human soul was preexistent and uniquely united with the Logos before time. While Origen’s concept of the preexistent souls is problematic in later orthodoxy, his insights can be reshaped within a monophysite framework:
“The soul of Christ, being preexistent and chosen above all others, was united to the Word in a way beyond human comprehension, thus making it the means of His embodiment.” (De Principiis, II.6.3)
While Origen speaks of a soul rather than a heavenly sarx, the implication remains that Christ’s humanity was not an afterthought of the Incarnation but an eternal reality in the Logos. If we link this to Adam Kadmon, it opens the question: Was Christ’s humanity always present in divine form before it was made visible in history? This would further align with monophysite thought.
Gregory of Nyssa and the Restoration of Adam
Gregory of Nyssa, though not explicitly monophysite, presents a key idea in The Great Catechism—that Christ came to restore humanity to its original divine state, not by taking on fallen flesh but by manifesting the true, unfallen humanity:
“That which was from the beginning was not a mere man, nor was He limited to a particular moment in time, but He is the restoration of man to his original form.” (The Great Catechism, 16)
This aligns well with the sōma pneumatikon of 1 Corinthians 15 and suggests that Christ’s humanity is not postlapsarian but the eternal blueprint of Adamic perfection. A monophysite reading here would say that the sarx of John 1:14 is not mere fallen human flesh but the revelation of the divine anthropos.
Maximus the Confessor and the Logos as Archetype
Maximus (while later seen as Chalcedonian) developed the idea that Christ is the Logos as archetype of all human existence. He speaks of the Logos as the true form of humanity (logoi), meaning that when Christ took on flesh, He was not assuming something foreign but rather manifesting the original human form:
“For the mystery of the incarnation of the Word contains in itself the whole meaning of the enigmas and figures in Scripture, and the purpose of visible and invisible creation.” (Ambigua, 7)
If we apply this to monophysite Christology, it means the flesh Christ took was not just any human nature but the true and primordial human nature—one that already existed in divine thought (or in the Adam Kadmon framework).
