Bello Sinless Flesh

A Critique of Karl Barth's Fallen Christ
1. Auflage 2020
ISBN: 978-1-68359-406-2
Verlag: Lexham Press
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 152 Seiten

Reihe: Studies in Historical and Systematic Theology

Did Christ assume a fallen human nature? 'What is not assumed is not healed.' So goes the Chalcedonian maxim articulated by Gregory of Nazianzus regarding the nature and extent of Christ's work in assuming a human nature. But what is the nature of that assumption? If Christ is to stand in solidarity with us, must he have assumed not merely a human nature, but specifically a fallen human nature? In Sinless Flesh: A Critique of Karl Barth's Fallen Christ, Rafael Bello argues against the assertion made by Karl Barth, T. F. Torrance, and those who follow them that Christ assumed a fallen nature. Through retrieval of patristic, medieval, and Reformed orthodox theologians, Bello argues that a proper understanding of human nature, trinitarian inseparable operations, and the habitual grace-grace of uniondistinction leads to the conclusion that the assertion that Christ assumed a fallen human nature is at odds with faithful theological and historical understandings of the incarnation. Readers interested in theological retrieval for issues in contemporary theology will find a faithful model and way forward for a thorny issue in modern dogmatics.

Rafael Bello (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is Academic Editor at Editora Fiel (Brazil) and Professor of Theology at Martin Bucer Seminary.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Bello, Rafeal

Leseproben

2 KARL BARTH’S THEOLOGY OF THE INCARNATION AND CHRIST’S FLESH The number of resources dealing with Karl Barth’s (1886–1968) doctrine of the incarnation in recent years has grown exponentially.1 Though the Swiss theologian is often quoted as one of the proponents of the doctrine of the non-assumptus, no monograph has been produced dedicated exclusively to Barth’s reception and/or formulation of this doctrine. Although the fallen human nature of Christ plays a central role for T. F. Torrance’s doctrines of the incarnation and atonement,2 Barth’s treatment of this doctrine has been marginalized. Barth discusses the Son’s assumption of a fallen state in Church Dogmatics IV/1, under §59, “The Obedience of the Son of God.” In this section, Barth is at pains to show that the Son is pro nobis. Embedded into the pro nobis character of the atonement for sins is the person of Jesus Christ. Christ is in solidarity with humankind. Such solidarity is not merely external or forensic in character but is who the Son of God is in the far country. Solidarity is Christ’s identification with humankind in his humility and in humanity’s exaltation. I intend to look into two sections of CD IV/1 and another from CD IV/2 where Barth affirms the non-assumptus. I will also exegete another commonly appealed section from CD I/2 (under §15—Barth’s early construction of the doctrine). I will argue that despite Barth’s pastoral and ethical concerns for the affirmation of the non-assumptus,3 there are some problems that the doctrine of the fallen human flesh and the sinlessness of Christ pose for the hypostatic union.4 These problems are further articulated in his doctrine of the communicatio gratiarum in which the communication of graces to the human nature as discussed by Barth, may divide the natures and thereby suggest an implicit Nestorianism. I am not arguing that Karl Barth was Nestorian, but that maybe his doctrine of the communicatio gratiarum, used to protect the Son from sin, may have unintentionally separated the natures in a Nestorian direction. This study will progress in six steps. First, I will set Barth’s discussion in what he sees are the historical and theological backgrounds of his “re-discovery” of the non-assumptus. Second, I will explain Barth’s understanding of the self-humiliation of the Son in light of the event of Jesus Christ’s solidarity with us. Third, I will discuss the issue of sinlessness and the antecedent life of the Son as it relates to the fallen state of Christ and the grace of God in the incarnation. Fourth, I will evaluate those proposals in light of Karl Barth’s doctrine of the communicatio gratiarum. Fifth, I will identify some recent contributions that try to retrieve Barth’s formulation in order to argue for the fallen flesh of Christ. Finally, with the aid of Thomas Aquinas’s categories of grace of union and habitual grace, I will propose a mild and brief evaluative-corrective to Barth’s doctrine of the non-assumptus and impeccability based on a few perceived missteps in Barth’s formulation. EARLY STAGES OF ARGUMENTATION: FLESH AND IDENTITY In §15, Barth discusses the “Mystery of Revelation.” Under this rubric, he talks about the assumption, sanctification, and existence of the Word with us and Godself. He sets the stage by asserting that “very God and very man” are unnegotiable aspects to true christological speech. Nonetheless, there is a proper order that needs to be maintained: since he never ceases to be very God when assuming human nature, we have to start by protecting the divine aspect of our christological discourses.5 Once Barth has protected the divine person, he then discusses what does it mean for the Word to become flesh. The unity of flesh in the person of the Son should prompt us to have no reservation in ascribing to the humanity of Christ the revelation of “God Himself in person.”6 For Barth, the humanity of Christ is the revelation of the eternal Word in such a way that even the name Logos is merely seen as a placeholder for Jesus Christ.7 Flesh, however, does not mean a mere human being. Flesh for Barth implies an “essence and existence” which makes a human a human as opposed to God, angel, or animal.8 The primary meaning then for “The Word became flesh” is that the Word became participant in human essence and existence. Nonetheless, this can only be real in the concrete life of the person Jesus Christ. Barth’s movement here avoids at once adoptionists tendencies by maintaining in check the an-en-hypostatic theology (he appeals to Wollebius, “Christus non hominem, sed humanitatem, non personam sed naturam assumit”9). The essence and existence of this person was never a reality of itself, but according to Barth because the Son became this person the possibility of that human nature came into being in him. Moreover, Barth asserts that in this assumption the Word and human were not really side by side (therefore formally rejecting Nestorianism). This human exists because “the Son of God appropriated and actualized His special possibility as a Man.… this is the sole ground of existence, of this Man, and therefore of Christ’s flesh.”10 The strong unity that Barth references here is explained in terms of identifying the reality of Jesus Christ “as God Himself in person actively present in the flesh.”11 Hence, the human Jesus Christ is Himself God in the flesh—not a demigod, nor an ideal human, but God’s Word in person who represents us to God and God to us.12 Next, Barth is concerned to debunk any view in which sarx describes a neutral human nature. Since sarx, in the New Testament, concerns not only humankind in general but the situation in which humankind is liable to judgement and verdict of God—under His wrath. Sarx is the “concrete form of human nature marked by Adam’s fall.”13 Hence, the identity of the Son of Man is bound up with a post-lapsarian human nature. Since Barth has already established that this unity is not fictitious but real—for the humanity of Christ is the revelation of Godself—it would be natural to identify this move with sin in the divine life. I should note however, Barth’s careful initial move in this section when he asserts that “very God and very man” have a proper order. We hold to the unity of the person, but we protect the divinity of the Godhead. Once divinity is protected and identity with the post fall is asserted, Barth continues discussing that the identity of the Word with post-fall flesh is not only external, but like ours even in our opposition to him.14 This movement is the greatest inconceivable but true revelatory one—that He is God’s revelation to us; he would not be revelation if he was not a human being, and he would not be a human being if he was not sarx in this definite sense. Becoming sarx in this definite sense, however, does not mean that he was a sinful man.15 He entered into solidarity (according to Barth, internally and externally—whatever it means) with us. Only by bearing innocently what Adam and we are guilty of doing can he reveal God to us. Barth takes his cues from Hebrews 2:18; 4:15; and 5:2. These classic texts are commonly associated with the compassion of the Son for our humanity. Nonetheless, Barth seems to take it a step further. If to say that to become flesh is simply to become human or even a hero, we descend to the level of other religions. Christ’s compassion extends to the fact that he “became sin.” No other religion affirms such a thing. The early moves from CD I/2 regarding the non-assumptus are still situated in Barth’s theology of identification, but with a lower actualistic force. Following Bruce McCormack’s interpretation, it is possible to locate a heightened mode of speech regarding the identity of the Son in the Godhead as the man Jesus after CD I/2. As I will show, even though the actualism plays its part in Barth’s construal, it is not determinative to attribute fallenness in the Godhead. Paul Dafydd Jones has located a second actualistic move that makes sense of the incarnation via the pairing of the en-an-hypostasia and the communicatio naturarum. Jones states, McCormack’s interpretation can be intensified and tightened up somewhat. The key point is this: Barth’s actualism encompasses not only Christ’s human relation to the Father but also the relation of the assumed human to the divine Son. Although the man Jesus lacks his own hypostasis (a non-essential property of human being), he does not lack agential power (an essential property of human being), and he exerts this power in a way that contributes to, and in fact assists in the establishment and preservation of, the personal simplicity definitive of his divine-human person. Specifically, the word...