Karl Barth famously argued that Jesus has always possessed a human nature from the beginning of creation, therefore a so-called preexistent Word of God (i.e. Logos) without human nature never existed. Karl Barth affirmed the Virgin Birth, but this does not mean that the second person (or mode-of-being as Barth preferred) of the Trinity was without human form before the incarnation. I know it is a bit hard to visualize Jesus having a human nature before his birth, but Barth insisted that this was in fact what the scriptures witnessed.

In Bruce McCormack's newest book, The Humility of the Eternal God, he delivers an accessible defense of Barth's interpretation of John 1 in response to Richard Bauckham's criticisms of Barth. 

"He was in the beginning with God." (John 1:2) But, who was he? Jesus of Nazareth!

One of the key biblical passages that Barth used to prove that Jesus has always possessed a human nature is the prologue to the fourth gospel. In Chapter 6 (c.f. "II Jesus in John's Gospel"), McCormack explains that Barth's argument against a preexistent Word of God hinges upon rightly identifying who was "he" who is mentioned in John 1:2 ("He was in the beginning with God."). Barth (according to McCormack) rightly argued that this "he" did not refer to the "Word of God" mentioned in the previous verse (John 1:1), but instead it points ahead to Jesus of Nazareth mentioned later in John 1:15 and John 1:30. Ergo, the "he" that "was in the beginning with God" was the incarnate Jesus of Nazareth and this included his human nature. Also, the "Word of God" mentioned in John 1:1 refers to Jesus of Nazareth as well and not to a mythical preexistent Word of God without a human nature.  

For reference, here are the four verses I previously referenced:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1 NRSV

"He was in the beginning with God." John 1:2 NRSV

"(John testified to him and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.’”)" John 1:15 NRSV

"This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me.’" John 1:30 NRSV

Here's a quotation of McCormack's summary from "II Jesus in John's Gospel" that epitomizes the argument: 

Most exegetes take v.2 as a recapitulation of the first two clauses of v.1; a pointing backwards, then. Verse I: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Verse 2: "This one [houtos] was in the beginning with God." Barth, however, followed Adolf Schlatter in understanding it to point forward to vv.15 and 30. In both cases, it is John the Baptist who is speaking demonstratively of Jesus of Nazareth. Verse 15, "This was he [houtos] of whom I said." And v.30: "This is he [houtos] of whom I said." [2]

Bruce McCormack's response to Richard Bauckham

As I mentioned earlier, Richard Bauckham understood Barth's argument and still rejected it. The first time I heard Bauckham's criticisms of it was during his lecture at the 2015 Karl Barth Conference (a.k.a. "barth camp") titled "Karl Barth’s Interpretation of the Prologue to John’s Gospel". Sadly the lecture's video is no longer available at the Center for Barth Studies, however, a published version of it is included in Reading the Gospels with Karl Barth in chapter 2 "Revelatory Word or Beloved Son? Barth on the Johannine Prologue".

McCormack argues that Bauckham's criticisms are incorrect because they are based on linguistic arguments pulled from later writings in the fourth gospel. Since the prologue is a separate literary unit from the rest of the fourth gospel, McCormack responds that Bauckham's linguistic evidence pulled from later in the fourth gospel is invalid, and therefore Bauckham's criticisms of Barth should be dismissed.

For example, McCormack writes:

Barth's case for reading the houtos of v.2 forward as a reference to Jesus, thus tying the identity of the Word in v.I to Jesus, does not rest on a linguistic study of how houtos is used elsewhere in John's writings so much as it does on a careful reading of the theology of Prologue (and of the Gospel more generally). [3]

A few Latin terms to consider

I intentionally left out several Latin terms that are relevant to this discussion because Latin jargon is difficult to understand, and they are not explicitly mentioned in the section "II. Jesus in John's Gospel". However, these terms are used elsewhere in McCormack's book, so they are worth summarizing.

The first term is logos ensarkos which literally means the word of god with human flesh (or human nature). For instance, John 1:14 says that the "Word became flesh" ("ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο" John 1:14, NA28) and the logos ensarkos is the Latin equivalent. Another related term is the logos incarnantus which literally means the Word of God incarnate, and the primary difference is emphasizing "incarnation", where logos ensarkos emphasized "human flesh". 

The most important and famous Latin term is logos asarkos, which refers to an independent Word of God that existed without human flesh before the Virgin Birth. The preexistent Word of God (that I discussed previously) is this so-called logos asarkos. There was a specific time and place when the incarnation of Jesus occured in his conception within the womb of the Virgin Mary (logos incarnantus/logos ensarkos), but before this moment, the Word of God was Jesus of Nazareth who would become incarnate (logos incarnandus) and was not the Word of God without flesh (logos asarkos). I admit that this is difficult to visualize, but according to Barth's correct exegesis, this is precisely what is taught in the prologue to the fourth gospel and elsewhere throughout the scriptures. 

"the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" ~ Revelation 13:8 KJV

Table of Latin Terms

Sources:

1. Header image includes: The "Heavenly Trinity" joined to the "Earthly Trinity" through the incarnation of the Son - The Heavenly and Earthly Trinities, by Murillo, c. 1677

2. McCormack, Bruce L. The Humility of the Eternal Son: "Reformed" Kenoticism and the Repair of Chalcedon, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2021, pp. 239–240.