The Politics of Jesus

John Howard Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus" is a classic of 20th century American theological thought. Within the text, Yoder seeks to demonstrate how the life of Jesus was one that was involved in the politics of the day. Moving step by step, Yoder systematically shows that the idea of an apolitical Jesus who was unconcerned with the institutions and situations of this present world is false and not found in the Biblical narrative. He begins his work by summarizing the basic position of many scholars that Jesus' ethic cannot be normative for Christians. While he points out six incorrect views of Jesus' ethic, the one that receives the most attention throughout the book is the view purported by Albert Schweitzer, that of an interim ethic that is not valid because Jesus thought that the world would end soon. Yoder then begins to demonstrate his claim of a political Jesus by moving into a survey of the Gospel of Luke. He highlights key points within the text that seek to show that Jesus was not only not an apolitical figure, but that his primary goal during his ministry, death, and resurrection was a reconstruction of the social order. A particular point of Yoder's is that Jesus was trying to reinstitute the year of Jubilee, the year in the Israelite nation where debts are remitted, slaves are set free, and the land is allowed to be fallow so that it can heal. Yoder then makes an excursus of sorts for two chapters, analyzing how God is the one who fights for Israel in the Old Testament and that there were instances of successful non-violent resistance in the 1st Century Mediterranean world among the Jews. This is done of course to show how neither the Old Testament nor the contemporary world of Jesus would contradict his teachings on pacifism. Yoder then moves to addressing key misunderstandings that Christians often have when looking at Jesus' life. He argues for a balance to be struck, saying that it is wrong for the social ethic to be ignored in favor of a personal morality. In chapter 7 Yoder moves away from the gospel narrative to the apostolic witness within the New Testament, showing how the apostles felt that the Christian life and ethic was best demonstrated in the life of Christ. The following chapter is how Christ dealt with the stoichea or powers in his death and resurrection, resulting in a view that is quite similar to Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor. He then makes the claim that the gospel message was one that promoted equality and frames the Haustafeln or "household precepts" around that. He then logically proceeds to Romans 13 and argues that the Christian should be subject to the state, but that does not mean the Christian must do everything the state requires. He then addresses justification by grace and argues that it was primarily the restoration or reconciliation of individuals. His final chapter addresses the eschaton and how Christians should be living in light of it. We should accept powerlessness as Christ accepted powerlessness, because He has already conquered and will return to finish what was started. It is quite evident that Yoder sits firmly in the Anabaptist tradition and is at home with Menno Simons as well as early church figures such as Tertullian and Origen. He stands in opposition to many of his earlier contemporaries from the 19th and 20th centuries. You do not find the postmillennial-type hope of Rauschenbusch or Abbott--the world is sinful according Yoder and this will not change until the Second Advent. There is also, however, a direct challenge to the thought of Reinhold Niebuhr, who claimed that precisely because the world is sinful the ethic of Jesus will never be realized. This too is false according to Yoder, as we are supposed to be faithful to our calling and identity. The logical progression of the text is to establish Christ and then establish how we should act. The majority of his scriptural references come from either the Gospel of Luke or the Epistolary literature. He does make reference briefly to both Romans 13 and parts of the Old Testament, but by and large he focuses primarily upon Jesus and the apostolic thought that deals with him. While the book as a whole is a success, there are some problems with the text. The biggest problem by and large is Yoder's methodology. He is inconsistent in his application of Biblical texts, primarily the Old Testament. He cannot argue for a discontinuity between the Old and the New Testament without hurting his case, primarily in the fact that God fights for believers. While Yoder is correct in the Old Testament passages that he addresses, he ignores the vast body of texts from the Old Testament that deal with the establishment of the social order and warfare in a positive light. While it is true that in the Old Testament narrative God was against the establishment of the human monarchy, He still allows it and provides orderly rules. Also, there are large-scale wars present in the Old Testament that are ordered and approved of by God. Why Yoder chose to not address this is not mentioned, but it does hurt his case for pacifism. He is also over-reliant on the Gospel of Luke to make his points. He does say in his first chapter that he could make the same points outside of that particular gospel, but one must wonder why there is no direct quotations from the other portraits of Jesus in the New Testament. While he is correct in his assessment of justification through grace in part, it cannot be argued that it is primarily one of reconciliation between individuals. It is rather as the Gospel of John puts it: reconciliation between God and the World. This does not deny the social dimension that Yoder argues for, but it also addresses the personal dimension which he seems to exclude to a degree and the cosmic implications of redemption. Another point of critique is Yoder's position chapter 8, "Christ and Power". He interprets the stoichea in the Pauline epistles to mean only the social institutions of the world. While this is a valid and acceptable interpretation, there are many scholars who would argue that Paul did have in mind not only the social institutions of the world but the quite real demonic forces behind them as well. Neither interpretation can be directly derived from the text, but rather deals with one's hermeneutic. His interpretation of Romans 13 is somewhat of a stretch as well. While there is much to agree with about his interpretation, his positing that the sword refers not to death but restraint is not a position that can be derived from the text without some form of exegetical acrobatics. He derives his position not from the text but rather from his presuppositions and sometimes is clearly in the wrong, such as his statement that the Romans only crucified their criminals (203). The sword, like the spear, was a weapon of warfare and was an Old Testament symbol of God's judgment upon various nations, especially the ones that were annihilated in the conquest tradition of Joshua and Judges. It is not accurate to the context of the society to say that warfare and death are not in mind at all in Paul's usage of the word. While there are some points in the book that are wrong or not as strong as the author would like, the book as a whole is a success and goes great lengths to show that the ethic of Jesus is the ethic that we should have today.

Should evangelical Christians who believe in the authoritative inspiration of scripture and in the gospel of spiritual rebirth to eternal life through the person of Jesus Christ look to this book for Biblical input regarding politics and social justice?1. Overall this book was thought-provoking and included many good insights into the meaning of many passages of scripture. It's difficult reading at times. Many of Yoder's conclusions seemed overstated and one-sided, which he justified at one point late in the book as an attempt to counter-balance the prevailing views on the subjects he addressed in this book.2. Yoder does take scripture seriously, and seems to accept it as conclusively authoritative, although he never clearly affirms a doctrine of the authority of scripture. I couldn't find a place where he dismissed any text as erroneous or inauthoritative.3. Yoder does accept the reality of a personal God who is ultimately sovereign over world events.4. His Christology is less clear, seeming to allow room for seeing Jesus as a human who was supernaturally ordained and empowered as Son of God but not as pre-existent eternal God who took on human form.5. He doesn't deny or affirm the miracles of Christ, even in his discussion of the miracle of the loaves and fishes.6. The doctrine of justification in Romans is read not as a matter of personal righteousness through the penal substitution of Christ, but as primarily a matter of reconciliation of diverse peoples within the church, especially between Jewish and Gentile Christians. He ends up taking a more embracing approach to the requirements of the Old Testament Law than I believe Paul did. The same conclusion is drawn from Ephesians, where the second half of chapter 2 colors his understanding of the entire book and the first half of chapter 2 is ignored.7. Yoder accuses most conservative evangelicals of being fixated on personal positional righteousness to the point of deemphasizing ethical righteousness in interpersonal relationships and in the wider society. He rightly maintains that inward faith-based righteousness leading to a neglect of behavioral change violates the claims of scripture (and he makes a convincing biblical case of this even without mentioning the book of James!). Most of the conservative evangelicals I know would actually agree with Yoder on that point, so I'm unclear about where he got his negative assessment of them.8. He cites much 20th century Biblical scholarship, mostly liberal scholarship. On the other hand, he questions the conclusions of much of that scholarship by comparison to scripture. His favorite scholars to quote are Markus Barth, S. G. F. Brandon, Martin Dibelius (mostly critically), Hendrikus Berkhof, Oscar Cullmann, the Niebuhrs, Eduard Schweizer, Krister Stendahl, and Andre Trocme. A major emphasis is sifting through the contributions of these and many other scholars on the subject of his thesis. If you get this book, BE SURE to get the 2nd edition (1994) as Yoder added an epilogue to each chapter that updates his thinking with reference to new scholarship in the intervening years (1972-1994, when a LOT was happening in New Testament studies). He also comments in some cases about the reactions of others to his original work.9. Yoder systematically refutes the popular notion that the various authors of the New Testament contradicted one another's teachings. On the contrary, their teachings were remarkably congruent in essence, although their emphases and their ways of expressing themselves differed. A superficial reading might miss these many congruences, but careful study makes them increasingly clear.10. Scripture cannot be expected to reliably match the fashionable political correctness of any time period, and Yoder doesn't hesitate to attempt faithfulness to scripture even when it runs counter to today's conventional wisdom. For example, his treatment of willing subordination to societal structures in the cases of slavery and unjust governments focuses on the model of Christ's non-resistance to his suffering. Yoder admits that he took a lot of heat about those conclusions from folks who mostly favored his other conclusions.11. Some of the imperatives of social ethics that Yoder does find in scripture are ideas that aren't as clear to most readers who accept the authority of scripture and the reality of supernatural events. For example...a. The utopian example of the rightly-functioning church is God's primary strategy for spreading social utopia throughout secular society, as well as attracting new disciples.b. Jesus was declaring a Year of Jubilee in Israel during his preaching ministry, advocating the Fallow Year in agriculture, remission of debts, liberation of slaves, and redistributing capital.c. The "powers" of Paul's writings are predominantly social structures like governments, not supernatural entities except as a figure of speech.d. Pacifism is one of the central doctrines of the New Testament, demonstrated not just through teachings but in the refusal of Jesus to violently defend himself (in His passion) or act selfishly (in His temptation) through supernatural or natural means, and in the endurance of the saints in the Book of Revelation. There is, therefore, no valid participation for Christians in coercive functions of government: the armed forces and law enforcement. I have to question whether Yoder was a Pacifist prior to his serious study of scripture who then allowed his preconceptions to color his conclusions. Or, (and this I doubt) was he previously a militarist whose views were corrected by the Word of Truth?In conclusion, I find that most of the conclusions of this book would be hard to sell to a congregation of sincere-hearted saints who DO have a strong social ethic of living with integrity alongside of their vital personal relationship with the living God (loving God the 1st commandment, and loving people the 2nd but absolutely NOT to be ignored). I imagined myself preaching Yoder's conclusions and backing them up with my own explanations of Yoder's reasoning. The imaginary result is looks of disbelief, people thinking, Ken, I want to believe what you preach, but I don't understand at all how you got that conclusion out of this biblical text, out of this New Testament. And for the most part, I had to agree, not with Yoder, but with the saints.

Take your time and read it slowly. Packed full of interesting ideas. The passages describing what Christian suffering really is, and what the cross means, are especially good.

although there are some aspects which indicate a prejudged agenda in general this book is well thought through and full of a radical call to follow Jesus. Excellent read.

In this fine work, Yoder reviews and exposes the problems with modern assumptions of what Jesus was really like. Was he apolitical? Does he have little practical import for our modern lives? Did Paul have to bolster his ethic by borrowing from Greek philosophy? Yoder goes through the gospel of Luke and looks at various assumptions and compares them with scholarship. Although this book was originally written in the 70s, I think the conclusions hold up pretty well. Yoder definitely holds to Anabaptist views, which means that he finds Jesus to be pacifist and focused on achieving his aims without using the standard levels of secular power. Yoder defends his positions quite well, which explains why this book continues to be worthwhile reading for a wide range of people, most of which will disagree with his conclusions.

A very scholarly book, not easy to read/wade through, most of the pages were taken up with footnotes.