The Politics of Jesus

• #11 in Best Politics Books

19 Reviews

Sort by: Most Helpful ▲ Date Rating

If I had only one work of twentieth-century theology to read, this would be it (with apologies to everyone from Barth to Brueggemann to Bonhoeffer). In the aftermath of September 11, pacifism has been reviled in the public secular discourse like never before. Most Christian leaders from across the theological spectrum have endorsed one form or another of the "Just War Theory" of Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin.

No one makes the case for the radical, total non-violence of the Christian message better than John Howard Yoder. Though he wrote many books after this one, this is by far the best place to start. Yoder's familiarity with Scripture is magisterial, and the gentle yet firm way he responds to his Catholic and Reformed critics is convincing and exciting. Most timely of all, he devotes an entire chapter to deconstructing traditional Christian interpretations of Romans 13:1-7, the passages most often cited by just war theorists to defend the use of violence by the state. Anyone who believes it is possible for a Christian to bear arms and follow Christ must respond to Yoder's analysis.

Though Yoder was a Mennonite (and though I am an Episcopalian by affiliation, I am an anabaptist in my heart), his work is catholic, orthodox, and accessible to all Christians. Yoder's death in 1997 marked the passing of the man whom I believe may well be regarded as the most important theologian of our time. As even good Christians "rally round the flag" and join in the cries for "just war" and "retributive justice", Yoder's work has never been more important as a vital theological corrective.

The late John Howard Yoder was one of the most influential Mennonite theologians of his time. This book argues the case that Jesus believed in a "Christian Pacifism." This is in contrast to the common view of many Protestants in "Christian Realism." In Yoder's view Jesus' opinions are not to be dismissed and downgraded under the general fact of his atonement for the world's sins. Nor are his views to be (tactfully) dismissed as representing a rustic world-view based on personal relationships which does not really grasp the complex world of institutions and power relationships. Jesus cannot simply be dismissed as someone who did not recognize the necessity of power, nor can his view be that of an apocalyptic enthusiast who believed that the world was fated to end. By examining the Gospel of Luke Yoder argues we can see allusions to the Jubilee and its demands for social justice for the poor. Yoder traces a pattern in the bible in which "God will Fight For Us" after the reign of King David, and he points out successful instances of non-violent resistance to the Romans in Jesus' time.

Such are Yoder's views. However sympathetic one may be to pacifism, Yoder's argument is clearly flawed. His work contains two flaws that are common to books of this type. First, his historical knowledge is limited. Second, he fails to fully appreciate opposing passages in the bibles.

Let's look at the historical problems. (1) Much of Yoder's discussion of Jesus is based on the idea that there was a revolutionary Zealot movement contemporary with him. Therefore, Jesus' view of power can be seen as a principled pacifist rejection of their violent tactics. Unfortunately for Yoder's argument it is clear that there was no such movement. One can see this clearly in volume three of John Meier's A Marginal Jew. The "Zealot" in Simon Zealot is an adjective, the faction per se did not arise for another three decades until the Great Jewish rebellion. (2) Yoder has to defend the "Haustafalen" passages where Saint Paul states "Wives, be subject to your husbands...Children, obey your parents, etc..." This passage has historically been viewed as an apology for misogyny and slavery. In defense Yoder argues that these passages were unprecedented in viewing slaves and women as moral agents, and in counselling husbands to love their wives. Yoder is wrong: slaves were commonly viewed as moral agents (i.e. Seneca) and stoics such as the first century Musonious Rufus supported mutual love between spouses.

Now on to the problem of tendentiousness. (1) Yoder's book concentrates on the Gospel of Luke. There is only cursory discussion of why he uses this Gospel, when it is generally believed that Mark is the earliest one. Yoder completely ignores the whole problem of Jesus scholarship, trying to find out what he said as opposed to what the gospel writers composed four to seven decades after his death. (2) Yoder discusses the Jubilee and power. But what about the demons Jesus cast out, or the miracles he performed? What about the statements in which Jesus said the Kingdom of God is now amongst us, and its final triumph within our lifetimes? (3) In the chapter "God will Fight for Us," Yoder argues for a tradition that after King David, God, not men will fight Israel's battles for her. But what about Jehu's coup against Jezebel, or the execution of Athaliah and Haman, or the struggles of the Maccabees? (4) Yoder consistently ignores or downplays the eschatological view of the early church. Consider his long discussion of Romans, chapter 13, which he argues is not a blank cheque for state power. But he ignores Romans 13:11-12: "...for now is our salvatio nearer than we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand..." How can one build a politics on the bedrock of people who believed the world was going to end? There may be a good case for pacifism and rejecting power. But Yoder does not provide it and it is not clear that it can be based on the New Testament.

I am borrowing a term from my youth and the Viet Nam conflct when people were labeled Hawks or Doves by their reaction to war.

Yoder makes a case that Jesus was VERY political. He was not uninterested in world events around him. He was involved, but not in the way that much of the religious right is today. More likely, he made the footsteps that Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mother Theresa later walked in. This is a book on politics, power, and pacifism. At least that is the way that Yoder sees it.

Many Christians do not agree with Yoder, but he is not easily dismissed. This book is well written and each chapter of this revised edition contains an epilogue that helps to update it with new information since the days of the first edition.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but to those who muddle through various "Sgt. Christ" "warmaking Christ" and "capitalist Christ" paradigms, I'd argue that maybe your faith is wholly misplaced. THE POLITICS OF JESUS engages this directly.

I don't relate to Christ the way that most who claim to be Christian do, precisely because of the following, which I hold to ostensible Christians on their own terms of belief...

I argue this:

(1) That those who call themselves Christians today have as one of their central pillars of belief that Jesus Christ is God.

(2) That those who call themselves Christians today have the various translations of the Bible as their only source material quoting Christ (a state of matters - differing translations - that does not affect my argument much at all).

(3) That within that source Christ makes clear that Loving God, and loving your neighbor as yourself are the Two Greatest Commandments.

-----(3a) and that establishing "Greatest Commandments" by definition creates a hierarchy of importance and focus, as other Commands are, by definition, NOT as "Great."

(4) That Christ affirms that hierarchy by submitting "on these two Commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

-----(4a) That "the law" is consistently defined as Scripture, and that "the prophets" is consistently defined as the pronouncements of prophecy by various folks in the Bible. "...the prophets" is also sometimes defined as the persons designated prophets themselves throughout the Bible, but in either case Christ made ENGAGING other Scripture and notions of prophecy/any Prophets CONTINGENT upon FIRST executing the Commands to Love.

(5) That Christ leaves no loophole of exclusion from the Commands to love, and in fact makes getting eternal life contingent NOT ON SOME ABSTRACT LEVEL OF FAITH IN THE STORY SURROUNDING HIS EXISTANCE, BUT, RATHER, CONTINGENT UPON THE CONCRETE EXECUTION OF THE GREATEST COMMANDS. Christ also ties our actions, now wholly bound up in lovingkindess behavour, to nonviolent ways of being in the world.

-----(5a) In the discussion just preceding the parable of the Good Samaritan, Christ is asked by a lawyer - the ultimate "loophole finders," right? - this question: "How do I get eternal life?" Christ responds NOT with the Apostle's Creed, or John 3:16 (which we'll get to later), but with this: "What does it say in the law?" The lawyer submits "Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself." Christ says "DO THIS, and ye shall live," which right then and right there makes eternal life contingent upon executing the Greatest Commands, which, as I argue above, definitively SUBORDINATE all other Scripture and all other Prophetic notions (of Rapture, Revelation, Second Coming, etc) TO the execution of those Commands.

-----(5b) The lawyer, again "loophole searching," asks further, "Who is my neighbor?" IOW, what tools might I use to differentiate between those you want me to love as myself, and those I can hate and/or marginalise and/or kill? Christ responds with the parable of the Good Samaritan, at the end of which Christ asks the lawyher, "Who was neighbor to the man?" THe lawyer, understanding the parable, answers, "The one who showed mercy to him." CHrist responds, "Go and do likewise." SO now, we UNDERSTAND that "neighbor" is ANYONE for whom we can exhibit mercy. That's a heavy mandate, but is part and parcel of the Greatest Command from the man Christians call God, the execution of which Christ - God - ties directly to getting eternal life.

-----(5c) To both completely close any loopholes of interpretation, AND to cement the total and complete refutation of the fundamentalist notion of "scriptural equivocation," the assertion that "every word in the Bible is as Commanding and instructive and has as much primacy as every other word (a notion refuted on its face by the very existence of "Greatest Commands," undoubtedly rebuked by HINGING all other law and prophecy UPON such Commands, and further refuted in the following example)," I offer Christ's word in the Sermon on the Mount: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you..." So now, the Greatest Commands are "Love God/Love anyone for whom you can exhibit mercy," and Christ also, in a Sermon where he DIRECTLY ADDRESSES our contrasting notions of "neighbor" and "enemy," demand that we love our enemies. There's noone left to NOT love.

----- (5d) For those looking for the "tough love" loophole out of SEEING "love" as nonviolent (allowing for perverse interpretations of Christ such as "WE show our love for some Iraqis by killing other Iraqis," or "Love sometimes means doing harm in order to do 'good'), I offer, again, Christ at the Sermon on the Mount: ""You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person [AGAIN, refutation of 'scriptural equivocation.' Just because you can find it somewhere else in the 'law,' Christ submits here, doesn't mean that it holds as much weight as what I'm telling you.']. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away." Nonviolence as the way of being in the world. So NOW we have Greatest Commands as "Love God/Love anyone for whom you can exhibit mercy," and Christ also, in a Sermon where he DIRECTLY ADDRESSES our contrasting notions of "neighbor" and "enemy," demanding that we love our enemies, and everyone lese, NONVIOLENTLY.

(6) Given all of the above, might John 3:16, might Christ's very life and death, be seen utterly differently? I think so.

-----(6a) If someone asks you if you believe in MLK, or your father, or me, you don't respond with considerations as to whether or not they have actually manifested as you understand them in the historical or current record or reality, respectively. You are far more likely to address such a question with either clarification or with something along the lines of "You mean, do I believe in what MLK stood for?" Apply this to a Christ who, in the book Christians claim is the Word of God, God himself, in the above conversation with the lawyer, submits that the way to eternal life is through the EXECUTION of the Commands to Love, the broad scope of which we've also established. KNOWING now that Christ is QUOTED as submitting that eternal life comes from "doing Love," - and "doing mercy," and "doing nonviolence" - how about this as a new (old?) take on John 3:16? The chapter and verse submits this: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Now that you KNOW, from the above, that eternal life is also tied to "doing Love," doesn't this verse suffer from a popular misinterpretation? Isn't "believeth in him" NOT "rest replete in some internal belief dialogue about the litany of "facts" surrounding the life and the death," but rather "believe in what he Commanded so completely that "doing Love," the thing that will get you eternal life, is so part and parcel of your existence as to be inseparable?" Believe in what he said, believe what he said to be true, not that he suffered under Pilate and was born of a Virgin? We'll get to the inescapable thinking that emerges even if you refute this and stand fast for the Creed-ist take, the story surrounding the birth and death, later, but I wanted to consider this as well.

-----(6b) if the above as I've asserted it is the case, maybe the Fundamental Tenets of what it means to be a "Christian" are totally misplaced. Maybe it's not about believing in any story about CHrist's life, but, CRUCIALLY, about believing in the Commands to Love the Numinous and love each other that is transformative and related to "eternal life." Maybe 2.1 billion CHristians willign to do what it takes to stand fast for everyone for whom they can exhibit mercy in the Lovign Mode they've been COmmanded to undertake produces a fundamentally different world than the one we have now, where Christ s used as a shield for, given the above, PATENTLY Anti-Christ practices, not dissimilar from "just war" doctrine.

Maybe bering a Christian has to do with being centered on Lovign Action, everyday, and nothing at all to do with a hideaway personal belief dialogue about whether, for examplke, Mary was a Virgin or not. Maybe being a Christian is about being out there, in the midst of unloving, unmerciful, violent acts around the world and saying that I've a DUTY to be here because I love ALL the parties in this conflict, and I stand fast in lvoe for everyone who is suffering, regardless of color, creed, or anything else. Maybe the Christian Peace Teams, the Iraqi Action Quakers, the nuns cutting through fences and laying body and blood on American missiles...maybe they've all got it right, and others claiming CHrist but NOT ACTING have got it totally, ETERNALLY wrong.

-----(6c) Looking now at a Christ who lived lovingly and mercifully and nonviolently toward everyone, taught love and mercy and nonviolence toward everyone, and who died calling for love and mercy, nonviolently, for everyone, might it be that Christ KNEW how HARD - it is far more courageous to stand in nonviolence and love in the midst of a violent hateful situation than it will EVER be to go in guns blazing, which itself takes a kind of courage that only pales in terms of the former - it woudl be to live this life, and set his life and death as example to follow? Might "the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world" do so not just through some symbolic transmutation that we cannot explain, but, rather, through the concrete establishment of a permanently loving, merciful and nonviolent way of being in the world?

(7) What does it mean that no Creed, and no Sermon, places the Greatest Commands to Love with Mercy and Nonviolence, on the pedastal upon which NOT ACTING BUT SIMPLY BELIVEING - and having everything else "interpreted" for you - rests? Who has the power in that scenario? Who is patently IGNORING the clear tie between "doing Love" and eternal life in such a scenario?

(8) What type of world ensues when 2.1 billion Christians feel it encumbent upon themselves to simply move through the world with loving acts, nonviolently, every single day? Why is what Christ gave primacy simply not affirmed as the central tenets from which all else MUST spring, as Christ made clear? Might it be that permanent conceptions of Love, Mercy and Nonviolence RUN COUNTER TO THE NEEDS AND DEMANDS OF THOSE IN POWER (be they the political class, "religious" class or a "nobility")? What HAPPENS when Love, mercy and nonviolence run rampant? How do wars get fought? How does injustice prevail? How can we "capitalise" in that environment? How is it that Christianity today is so perfectly tied to war, violence, and economic "isms" of any kind? Isn't that an additional indicator of its failure as currenty conceived, that we might be institutionally missing a piece of the puzzle? Might that piece be the biggest piece of all?

(9) If Christ is God, and God Commands you to Love, to exhibit Mercy for everyone you come across (does that mean "mentally come across" as well? Everyone about whom you are even AWARE?), to Love evne those you seeas your enemies, and to do all of that in nonviolence, AND if God says that "You can't even TALK about other Scripture or various Prophecies without getting this done; ALL other law and prophets HANG upon doing these Commands," AND ties DOING those Commands to ETERNAL LIFE, how is that NOT perfectly, unmissably central to every Christian faith?
----

I'd like any of the Fervent to wrestle with the above.

On your own terms, it seems to me, Christ is missing from your conception of Christ.

Were I to see Christ as emerging solely from the Bible as historical record - which I don't - the above would FORCE me to reconcieve of Christ outside the narrow frames offered. I'm interested in what, exactly, happens in your Christ-experience that allows you to make anything else central, and/or how the above is incorrect.

Yoder makes the difference for folks looking directly at the langauge and actions of Christ and cutting against the grain when it comes to grounding the Numinous in their lives...

In The Politics of Jesus, John H. Yoder argues that mainline ethicists have falsely assumed that the Jesus in the gospels fails to present us with a normative social ethic. In his careful study of the gospel of Luke and other scriptures; Yoder shows us that Jesus not only showed us a social ethic, but also that Jesus' ethic was accepted as normative by the early church. In this book, Yoder touches on topics such as peace and justice, Government authority, Paul and subordination, as well as Revelation and an Eschatological theology. Yoder convincingly argues that the Power of God is given as gift, through cross and resurrection, and that the 'handles of history' are not controlled in a cause and effect relationship as is often assumed by so-called 'realist' theologies.
Jesus, the slain Lamb, has conquered... him let us follow.
A truly magnificient account of faithful theology.

This book has shaped my personal theology like few others. It offers unique insights into the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a compelling critique to so many traditional streams of Christianity that consider the life of Jesus to have minimal relevance for our lives today.

In an age where the Western Christian church is stuggling for a relevant witness to our rapidly changing culture, John Howard Yoder makes a solid and challenging claim that Jesus is not only relevant, but normative for social Christian ethics. Yoder convincingly illustrates that Jesus was in fact confrontive socially and politically to the powers that be in that age. Throughout the text he demonstrates that the Gospel of Lukes bears witness not to just a divine Jesus, who redeemed humanity, but also a human Jesus who incarnated the nature of God through the way of the cross. By focusing his study on the cross of Christ, he develops a challenging ethic that examplifies the love of neighbor and witness that the faithful church and disciple is called to be. I recommend this text to anyone interested in a new, fresh and challenging look to the Jesus as known in 1st century Jewish culture. This book is a must read that should be on the shelf of anyone interested in honest, Christian scholarship.

Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus" is a terrible excuse for Chrsitian thought. The book, as it's title suggests, centers on the interrelation between Christian faith and political life. The author takes the position that Jesus is inherently political, because Jesus is human and politics is a facet of human existence that cannot be erased by any pose of neutrality.

This idea, praiseworthy in itself - how often do you see theologians working out the full implications of God's whole hearted embrace of human nature in the Incarnation? - is promptly abandoned for a selective reading of the New Testament designed to push Yoder's extreme-Left views on various social issues (war, capital punishment) down the reader's throat. The central thesis of the book is that the "Cross" - that is, the Christian way of life as exemplifies by Jesus - is incompatable with the "Crown" - that is, with the nature and necessities of worldly political power. So much, it seems, for embracing human nature in the Incarnation!! This is the book's great problem: Yoder wants to have it both ways. He wants a world-immersed, political Jesus, but he also wants an otherworldly Jesus, unsoiled by the realities of human political life that he, it seems, considers to be self-evidently evil. Of course, he can't logically have it that way, and better theologians have seen this very clearly. Aquinas, for example, has no hesitation in teaching that the State as such in a part of human nature, and that it's existence if therefore approved of by God and is good in His eyes, the implication being that the things that come along with the State, such as the rule of one over another, or the potential for warfare, are also at least theorhetically good, provided that they be in conformity with the divinely instituted purpose of the state.

Obvously, Yoder's counter-cultural commitments in the political arena demand that he resist such a realisitc and authentically world-affirming outlook. This is the explanation for his selective use of Scripture and Tradition. For example, he deals, not with the New Testament as a whole, or even all of the Gospels, but only with St. Luke. Such a method will obviously not give a complete theological view of the issues at hand, but it neatly serves Yoder's purposes, which is doubtless why he engages in it. Inconvenient passages in the New Testament, such as St. Paul's numerous comments in the Epistle to the Romans about the divine sanctioning of state power, are simply rendered non-existent. And, of course, the Old Testament is ignored completely, thus sparing Yoder the effort of explaining the *direct approval* YHWH gives for the military monarchs of ancient Israel, especially King David, "a man after God's own heart".

In short, this is not a good book, because it is not an honest book. It tells lies about the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the name of that Man and His teachings. I think that should be sufficent for anyone with sense and decency, whether they follow Jesus or not, to see it's true worthlessness.

Let's be frank. There is very little of modern theology that remains "relevant." Barth's "Church Dogmatics" fell stillborn from the press. Tillich seems embarrasingly "faddish." The "God is Dead" theology, itself defunct.

THE POLITICS OF JESUS, first written over a quarter century ago, retains it's freshness. A combination of very thorough new testament scholarship, historic anabaptist emphasis on "separation from the world," and contemporary (i.e. "post Vietnam") concerns, it provides a comprehenive, honest, and coherent biblical theology on the subject of peace.

No simplistic "theology of liberation" here. But a searching examination of biblical truth and an unsparing expose of modern illusions (left, right, and center). Love him or hate him, Yoder can not be ignored, nor can this book. The chapter on the "haustafeln" ("wives, obey your husbands...servants, obey your masters") is a quatum advance over Dibelius. And the chapter on Romans chapter 13 will likely overturn your every preconception.

Not a systematic theology, but one that will be talked about and referenced four centuries hence. (*If* we have that long.)

I wonder how many people who react to this book have even *read* the table of contents, much less the text? If they had they would know that Yoder, devotes a chapter to Romans 13 and another to the household codes (in 1 Peter as well as some of Paul's letters).

Yoder does concentrate on Luke's gospel, but to bring in the other gospels would only strengthen his case. (The sermon on the mount is in Matthew's gospel, after all.) To bring in the O.T. is to criticize Yoder for not writing a different book, he was writing the POLITICS OF JESUS, not THE POLITICS OF THE BIBLE. But, in any case, all such objects are dealt with in Millard Lind's book YAHWEH IS A WARRIOR. But such simple-minded anabaptist biblicism is probably more than certain high church prigs can bear.

I had this book on my shelf for a long time before picking it up to read. After a few false starts (I think the first chapter might be a bit dull), I gave it a second try and I'm glad a did. Along with several other reviews I can say that this was one of those paradigm changing books that deserves to be referenced time and time again. One of a few 'must reads' for every Christian, certainly for pastors, the Politics of Jesus is about the radicalness of following Christ, and the concrete steps that must be taken in order to be faithful to him. Yoder writes from an Anabaptist perspective, and as North American Christianity comes perilously close to re-embracing a Constantinian view of the Church, Yoder's work (along with his disciple Stanley Hauwerwas) gives us an alternate vision of what the body of Christ should be like.

Even though this theological gem came out in 1994, the Q of WWJD in the political arena remains a must read as we approach the 2006 midterm elections. What role, if any, should one's faith play in the political arena. Yoder provides considerable food for thought as he explores this sticky scenario.

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 rather than 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.
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.

The Politics of Jesus is John Howard Yoder's treatise on Jesus' political inclinations, based on and in response to twentieth century biblical scholarship. Yoder was a Mennonite biblical scholar, theologian, and professor of theology. The 1994 version of this book is a revision and expansion of his original version, published in 1972.

Yoder points out early that this book is an ethical methodology, not an exegesis. Indeed, he spends the majority of the work building on and responding to the thought of innumerable other twentieth century scholars. His primary target is twentieth century Christian systematic theology that argues for various reasons that Jesus is not a valid source of personal ethics. Yoder does a thorough job of demonstrating that Jesus was indeed politically-minded, and one of the consequences of this is the discovery that Jesus has intended us to follow his pacifist lifestyle.

Contrary to what at least one reviewer has complained, Yoder does address the Old Testament as it relates to a modern Christian pacifism, albeit briefly. Yoder's treatment of Romans 13, however, is thorough.

Most of the criticism of this book seems to be from people who are inherently opposed to Christian pacifism as many arguments are from that ground rather than on anything Yoder has done incorrectly. That is, people tend to reject his arguments based on their personal beliefs and traditions. Many arguments say "Yoder didn't address such and such"; but a book can only be so long.

The book does contain a lot of the vocabulary and jargon of Christian scholarship, and people unfamiliar with such may have a little trouble with it.

The Politics of Jesus is the finest book on Christianity I have read in a long time. Yoder does an excellent job highlighting parallels and themes running through Jesus' life, and of making the case for Christian pacifism. I recommend this book to everyone.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

I read this last year, eschewing many newer political life of Jesus books as I prefer being taught by a "Christian" scholar who believes what Jesus said. I found new and potent ways of looking at Jesus' actions and gleaning more from His examples. I have just finished Obery Hendricks' book of the same title which was well worth reading and fits well with Yoder's but suffers, I think, from over simplification in order to appeal to what is being called the "emerging" Christian paradigm. I do not find that in Yoders work and I think it will maintain its place of importance as a resource.

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.

Truly excellent and biblically sound exposition on the ethical standards a Christian is genuinely called to strive for.

Always skeptical of any Christian book addressing politics, I found this book absolutely amazing. In it, Professor Yoder first presents the Kingdom that Christ established and the rules by which its citizens would adhere. All that proceeds from this idea, our role in this current earthly kingdom, our ethics, our duties, naturally follow from the fact that Christians have one Lord and Master and there can be no shared allegiance.

If you are looking for the single best argument for why Christians must be nonviolent, this is it. If you are a just-warrior or a Christian realist then it is your faithful duty to contend with this work. The first chapter covers the variety of ways we make everything but Jesus the norm for living and there is a brilliant chapter on Romans 13 that merits a very careful reading. Enjoy!