Understanding God-Man: Why the Term Isn’t Blasphemous
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
John 1:14 (ESV)
Introduction: A Term That Sounded Wrong
When I first encountered orthodox Christians referring to Jesus as the “God-man,” it sounded deeply offensive. After 50 years as a Christadelphian, the term felt like blasphemy – as if they were turning Jesus into some kind of mythological creature or comic book superhero.
The reaction was visceral. It seemed to reduce the dignity of both God and humanity by creating some kind of hybrid being that was neither fully divine nor properly human. Everything in my theological background told me this was wrong.
But as I’ve worked through orthodox Christology during my theological transition, I’ve discovered that “God-man” isn’t irreverent slang or pagan mythology. It’s actually precise theological language that captures something Scripture teaches but human language struggles to express.
Here’s why the term isn’t blasphemous – and why I’ve come to see it as helpful rather than offensive.
Why It Sounded Wrong to Me
The term “God-man” triggered several deep concerns from my Christadelphian background:
It seemed to compromise God’s nature. If God is infinite, eternal, and unchanging, how can he become part human? Doesn’t that diminish his divinity?
It seemed to compromise human nature. If Jesus is part God, is he really human like us? Can he truly understand our struggles and represent us properly?
It sounded like pagan mythology. Ancient cultures had stories of gods mating with humans to produce demigod offspring. The term “God-man” sounded uncomfortably similar to those tales.
It appeared to create a third category. Instead of the clear distinction between Creator and creation that Scripture maintains, “God-man” seemed to blur the lines dangerously.
These weren’t unreasonable concerns from my theological perspective. The term genuinely sounded strange and problematic, and I needed to understand why orthodox Christians used language that seemed so jarring.
What I Discovered Orthodox Christians Actually Mean
When orthodox theology speaks of Jesus as the “God-man,” it’s not describing a hybrid creature or mythological being. The term is shorthand for what theologians call the “hypostatic union” – the doctrine that Jesus Christ is one person with two complete natures: fully divine and fully human.
Two complete natures, not a mixture. Jesus isn’t 50% God and 50% human, like some kind of spiritual cocktail. he possesses 100% of divine nature and 100% of human nature simultaneously in one person.
The divine nature didn’t change. When the Word became flesh (John 1:14), the divine nature remained fully divine. The incarnation involved God assuming human nature, not God changing into something less than God.
The human nature is complete. Jesus isn’t a human body with a divine mind, or a divine spirit wearing human flesh. he has a complete human nature – body, soul, mind, will, emotions – everything that makes someone genuinely human.
One person, not two. This isn’t multiple personality disorder or some kind of spiritual possession. Jesus is one person who possesses both natures simultaneously.
Why Precise Language Matters
I learned that the term “God-man” exists because human language struggles with the incarnation. Every alternative I could think of created problems:
Calling Jesus “God” alone could suggest he’s not really human, which would deny his ability to represent us and understand our experience.
Calling Jesus “man” alone could suggest he’s not really divine, which would undermine his ability to provide infinite atonement for sin.
Calling Jesus “God and man” could suggest two separate persons rather than one person with two natures.
“God-man” captures the unity of person while acknowledging the duality of natures. It’s not perfect language – no human words can fully capture the mystery of the incarnation – but it’s precise theological terminology developed over centuries of careful biblical reflection.
Biblical Foundation for What I Was Learning
The term “God-man” may not appear in Scripture, but the concept does. As I studied these passages, the terminology began making sense:
John 1:1, 14 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (ESV). The one who is God becomes flesh while remaining the Word who is God.
Romans 9:5 – speaking of Christ “who is God over all, blessed forever” (ESV). Paul identifies Jesus as God while speaking of his human ancestry.
1 Timothy 2:5 – “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (ESV). Jesus is identified as both God (implied in context) and man in his mediatorial role.
Philippians 2:6-7 – though he was “in the form of God,” he took “the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men” (ESV). Divine form and human form in one person.
Colossians 2:9 – “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (ESV). Complete deity dwelling in complete humanity.
These passages don’t use the term “God-man,” but they describe exactly what the term expresses: one person who is fully God and fully human.
How This Differs from Pagan Mythology
The incarnation is nothing like the pagan stories that initially came to mind:
No sexual generation. The incarnation doesn’t involve God mating with humans. It’s the divine Word assuming human nature through virgin birth – a creative miracle, not biological reproduction.
No degradation of divinity. Pagan demigods are typically less than their divine parents. Jesus retains complete divine nature while assuming complete human nature.
No temporary disguise. Pagan gods sometimes took human form temporarily as a disguise. The incarnation is permanent – Jesus remains the God-man forever.
No competition between natures. Pagan half-gods often struggle with conflicting divine and human impulses. Jesus’ two natures work in perfect harmony because they’re united in one person.
Historical reality, not mythology. The incarnation happened in space-time history, attested by eyewitnesses, not in mythological time.
Why This Matters Practically
Understanding Jesus as the God-man isn’t just theological technicality – it’s transformed how I relate to him:
In prayer, I approach someone who fully understands human experience (because he’s fully human) while possessing divine authority and infinite worth (because he’s fully God).
In suffering, I find comfort knowing that God himself entered human pain while retaining divine power to help me.
In salvation, I rely on someone who can represent humanity before God (through his human nature) while providing infinite satisfaction for sin (through his divine nature).
In assurance, I trust in the finished work of someone whose human obedience has infinite value because of his divine person.
This connects to my understanding of how prayer changes when you recognise Jesus as God incarnate rather than perfect human mediator.
How I Moved Past the Language Barrier
I understand why “God-man” sounds wrong initially – it certainly did to me. But I’ve learned to distinguish between the shock of unfamiliar terminology and the substance of what’s being expressed.
The term grew on me as I realised it was trying to express something Scripture clearly teaches but that defies easy description. The incarnation is inherently mysterious – God becoming human while remaining God challenges our categories and pushes language to its limits.
Rather than being offended by the term, I’ve come to appreciate its precision. It acknowledges the mystery while maintaining both truths Scripture requires: Jesus is fully God and fully human simultaneously.
For Others Wrestling with This Language
If you’re coming from similar background and find this term difficult, I understand the reaction completely. The language genuinely sounds jarring when you first encounter it.
But I’d encourage you to look past the terminology to the substance. Orthodox Christianity isn’t trying to be offensive or create mythological beings. The term “God-man” represents centuries of careful biblical reflection by people who took Scripture seriously and wanted to honour both Jesus’ divinity and humanity.
The incarnation is probably the most difficult doctrine in Christian theology to express in human language. “God-man” may not be perfect terminology, but it’s an honest attempt to capture what Scripture reveals about who Jesus actually is.
As I continue working through my theological transition, I keep discovering that orthodox language often sounds strange initially but proves to be more biblically grounded than I first realised.
The Wonder of It All
Perhaps the term “God-man” should sound shocking. The incarnation itself is shocking – the infinite God taking on finite human nature, the Creator becoming creature while remaining Creator, the eternal entering time while remaining eternal.
If our language about the incarnation doesn’t stretch our minds and challenge our categories, we’re probably not grasping the magnitude of what God accomplished in Christ.
John 1:14 remains one of the most staggering statements in human history: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (ESV). The Word who was God became human. Not ceased to be God, not pretended to be human, but genuinely became human while remaining fully divine.
That’s worth precise language, even if it sounds startling at first. The God-man isn’t blasphemous terminology – it’s an attempt to honour the incredible reality of who Jesus Christ actually is.
Conclusion: Learning to Appreciate Precision
The term “God-man” may never sound completely comfortable to those of us who spent decades in different theological frameworks. But comfort isn’t the goal – precision is.
We need language that honours what Scripture reveals about Jesus Christ: that he is fully God and fully human in one person. “God-man” does exactly that, however jarring it might sound initially.
As I’ve learned to appreciate orthodox terminology for the incarnation, I’ve discovered that precise theological language often serves truth better than comfortable familiar phrases. The incarnation deserves language that captures its wonder, even if that language challenges our preconceptions.
The Word became flesh. God became human while remaining God. The infinite entered the finite while remaining infinite. Whatever we call this mystery, it remains the most glorious truth in the universe – and the foundation of our salvation.
Writer’s Note: This article is part of my Trinity series documenting my transition from Christadelphian to orthodox Christian theology. For more on the incarnation specifically, see my article on God manifestation vs. incarnation.