By Angus Harley

Here we get into very murky headwaters of Bonhoeffer’s Christological form of dialectical reasoning. Once more, we are ‘indebted’ to his theological prowess in his classic Christ the Center.

Sinner Son

“In what way is this special mode of existence of the humiliation expressed? In the fact that Christ takes sinful flesh. The humiliation is made necessary by the world under the curse. The incarnation is relative to the first creation, the humiliation to fallen creation. In the humiliation, Christ enters the world of sin and death of his own free will. He enters it in such a way as to hide in it in weakness and not to be known as God-man. He does not enter in the royal clothes of a ‘Form of God’. The claim which he raises as God-man in this form must provoke antagonism and hostility. He goes incognito as a beggar among beggars, as an outcast among the outcast, despairing among the despairing, dying among the dying. He also goes as sinner among the sinners, yet in that he is peccator pessimus (Luther), as sinless among the sinners. And here the central problem of christology lies.” [p.111; bold text is mine]

In Bonhoeffer’s system, the virgin birth was not real, for it required that Jesus was preserved from sin. In the above quote, Bonhoeffer unfolds this position specifically as it applies to Jesus’ flesh. In the incarnation Jesus took upon himself sinful flesh and was a sinner. Yet, in contrast to this, he was also sinless. This is, as he says, “the central problem of Christology”. Bonhoeffer is so consumed by his own ‘dialectic’ that he actually thinks that his heretical view of Christ is the central problem of Christology!

Diabolical dialectic

Let’s revisit his dialectical methodology, this time in his Christology.

Thesis: human flesh is fallen and frail; Jesus took on himself fallen and frail flesh. Jesus in the flesh was therefore a sinner.

Antithesis: The Son of God as God is sinless, even though he is incarnate.

Solution: The Son of God in his flesh is a sinner; as God in the flesh, he is sinless. A paradox, a contradiction- a ‘mystery’ apprehended by faith!

Nuanced nonsense

In the following quote, Bonhoeffer repeats the same model but gets more technical and switches up his phrasing:

“There can be no balancing of the two expressions ‘sinner’ and ‘sinless’, as though one could still separate the Humiliated One from the likeness of flesh. He is fully man; he gives the law its due and is judged, and robs sin of its force. He is completely in the likeness of flesh and under condemnation as we are, and yet he is without sin. The likeness of flesh with its realm of sin is related to him, but it is related to him, who is yet without sin. Without reaching an equilibrium we must say : He, not the likeness of flesh, is without sin; but he does not will to be distinguished from this likeness of flesh. Christology cannot get round this paradox.”[p.113; bold text is mine]

In this case, Bonhoeffer refers to the “likeness of flesh”. Evangelicals have understood Bonhoeffer, by his use of this phrase, to mean that Jesus took on himself merely flesh, but not sinful flesh. However, Bonhoeffer is making the opposite point by “likeness of flesh”, for the flesh and its “likeness” is one of sin. Before the Fall, the flesh was frail, the default nature of man. After the Fall, the flesh is now sinful. To break the flesh, Jesus had to become it in its full scope of frailty and sin!

That being said, Bonhoeffer’s dialectic kicks in once more. For the Son, the Word, as God, is sinless. “He” is sinless. The person. Yet, the flesh he takes on is not. The flesh is not “He” for the flesh is not person but human nature; and human nature as fallen and sinful is not the sinless God. (If your head is spinning, it’s normal. It will disappear!)

Fleshly faux pas

The above distinction between “He” (=sinless person; God) and “sinful flesh” of the incarnation is crucial, for it is behind Bonhoeffer’s explanation of Jesus’ deeds as a man (flesh) as not being sinless:

The assertion of the sinlessness of Jesus fails if it has in mind observable acts of Jesus. His deeds are done in the likeness of flesh. They are not sinless, but ambiguous. One can and should see good and bad in them. If a man wishes to be incognito, one insults him if one says to him : I have both seen you and seen through you (Kierkegaard). So we should not justify Jesus’ sinlessness by his actions. The assertion of the sinlessness of Jesus in his actions is no demonstrable moral judgment but a statement of belief that it is he who does these ambiguous actions, he who is eternally without sin. Faith acknowledges that the One who is tempted, is the victor, the One who struggles is the Perfect One, the Unrighteous One is the Righteous One, the Rejected, the Holy One. Even the sinlessness of Jesus is incognito, ‘Blessed is he who is not offended in me (Matt. 1 1.6). 116 [bold text is mine]

The reader by this time can probably spit out Bonhoeffer’s dialectical method.

Thesis: Jesus as a man has taken on sinful flesh and commits actions that are not sinless, and are ambiguous by dint of being derived from the sinful flesh.

Antithesis: Jesus is God, who is sinless. The Perfect One is sinless, even in the flesh.

Solution: The Perfect One who is sinless came in sinful flesh, and was a sinner. He was ‘hidden’ to mankind in this dual state or paradox/contradiction, but faith comes to apprehend this glorious ‘mystery’ as the way to fellowshipping with God.

Bad boy!

And for those of you bad boys who still are not willing to accept that “likeness of flesh” means sinful flesh, and that Jesus was not a bad boy, Bonhoeffer himself has anticipated your lack of faith in his system:

“It is vital here to understand what the ‘likeness of flesh’ can mean. It means the real image of human flesh. His flesh is our flesh. Liability to sin and self-will are an essential part of our flesh. Christ became involved in the predicament of the whole flesh. But to what extent does he differ from us? In the first place, not at all. He is man as we are, he is tempted on all sides as we are, indeed far more dangerously than we are. In his flesh, too, was the law that is contrary to God’s will. He was not the perfectly good man. He was continually engaged in struggle. He did things which outwardly sometimes looked like sin. He was angry, he was harsh to his mother, he evaded his enemies, he broke the law of his people, he stirred up revolt against the rulers and the religious men of his country. He entered man’s sinful existence past recognition.” [p.112; bold text is mine]

Just bear in mind, reader, that it is not Angus Harley who said the above is “vital” but Bonhoeffer himself. So, if you continue to claim that he is upholding orthodoxy, biblical Christianity, then you are supporting a man who teaches that Jesus was a sinner, and that this is, was, and forever will be, a “vital” doctrine!