All Christian speech about God must begin and end with Christ, Barth insists. Not, it should be added, with us. Not with the human experience. Not with natural law. Not with universal reason.
The latter alternative options only lead to us making Jesus into a savior after our own image.
§1.15 also shows Barth arguing for the absolute necessity of the Son’s participation in our sinful humanity.
Jesus’ flesh was sarx, says Barth, participating in all the world in its sinful rebellion against God.
To confess as the creed does that Jesus was “very man” is to profess his participation in the world’s rebellion–even while we also confess that Jesus is “very God” which is but to profess that Christ is without sin.
Indeed many of the church fathers would continue by insisting that Christ was without the possibility of sin.
But I wonder.
If by ‘very God’ we mean that the Son is fully, completely, without deficit God, that everything God is so is Jesus, then should not ‘very Man’ imply that everything we are, fully and completely, Jesus is?
Can Jesus be said to be ‘very Man’ if what is an everyday, all the time experience for us, namely sin, is an impossibility for him?
Perhaps it’s because I’ve been reading Barth alongside the Gospel of Mark, a Gospel that almost willfully resists accommodation to our theological categories, but I wonder if the creedal notion of a sinless/unable-to-sin Jesus jumps the Gospel shark.
Mark consistently makes it clear that Jesus sins, at least how ‘sin’ was conceived in Jesus’ first century context. He violates the word of God by touching a leper. He violates the word by usurping Temple authority for himself. He uses words I wouldn’t let my boys use about the Syro-Phoenician woman.
As the eldest son of a widowed mother, Jesus breaks the ‘honor thy’ commandment by leaving home and trading his family for his ministry.
All of which leads me to go back for a second thought:
to what extent does Jesus need to be sinless/incapable of sin to be our savior?
It’s true that a ‘lamb without blemish’ is a necessary component for a particular interpretation of the atonement, but that’s only one interpretation of many and it’s an interpretation not without problems of its own.
What about rival atonement theories?
Is it possible, I wonder, that Jesus did sin in his life, was capable of sin, nevertheless his obedience unto the cross defeated the power of Sin and Death?
Is it possible that Jesus did sin in his life, was capable of sin, yet the sum total of his life unwound the story of Sin and recapitulated God’s new creation.
Is it possible that the virgin birth has less to do with the transmittal of original sin and more to do with Jesus being the start of a new creation?
Is it possible that, like a vaccine requires your body to take in germs for you to be immunized, the healing of our human nature required the incarnate one’s body to know sin as well as holiness?