Oscar Cullmann and Radical Discipleship
EARL ZIMMERMAN
The real issue is not whether Jesus can make sense in a world
far from Galilee, but whether-when he meets us in our world,
as he does in fact-we Want to follow him?
Building Interdisciplinary Bridges
One part of the genius of Yoder’s work is the Way he engaged in
interdisciplinary discussions, what he would later call an attempt
"to throw a cable across the chasm” that separated biblical studies from
theology and social ethics? Chapter 1 described Yoder’s approach to the
___________________
1. Parts of this chapter draw on my Work in Practicing the Politics, 114-30. Used by
permission of the publisher.
2. Yoder, “But We Do," Priestly, 62; Yoder, “But We Do," Pacifist, 39.
3. Yoder, Politics (1994), 2-3, quote 3. His interdisciplinary concerns extended
further, as reflected in his mention of “tactical allies” (see “But We Do" Priestly, 61;
“But We Do," Pacifist,, 38) and the disciplines of psychology, sociology, and history
(War of the Lamb, 125).
Page 145
PART TWO--SOURCES OF JOHN HOWARD YODER’S THEOLOGY
New Testament understanding of Jesus that resulted in the discipleship-
oriented Christology reflected in the epigraph of this chapter. One could
describe it as a cable or a bridge between theology and ethics. The focus
of the discussion to follow sketches the contribution of New Testament
scholars, primarily Oscar Cullmann, to Yoder’s development of the
discipleship-shaped Christology made visible in Preface to Theology, The
Politics of Jesus, and the essay “But We Do See Jesus."
Alongside his intent described in chapter 2 to develop a contempo-
rary Anabaptist theology, Yoder’s desire to bridge biblical studies, theol-
ogy, and ethics constitutes yet one more indicator that he was beginning
to chart a new theological direction. This desire was reflected already in
a letter he wrote while a doctoral student at the University of Basel to his
friend Paul Peachey:
It is my growing conviction that there exists a consistent bibli-cism of discipleship, parallel to Anabaptism not only in ecclesi-astical separateness from Calvinism, but in its entire rejection ofmedieval carryovers in doctrine as well as in life .... Since themore the Bible talks for itself without Anselm or Augustine inthe way, the more it talks [about] discipleship .... There is a wid-ening gulf between the exegetes (Cullmann) and the systematik-ers (Barth), for while the exegetes, digging deeper and deeperinto the text, are discovering discipleship, the systematikers,swinging back fad-wise to conservatism, have less and less to dowith man’s real need, and the professional ethikers who rejectdiscipleship (Niebuhr) have less and less vital Gospel.(4)
What immediately stands out in this letter is Yoder’s assessment
of what needs to be deconstructed. The first is orthodoxy as a religious
pillar of empire and the second is abstract Troeltschian or Niebuhrian
social ethics as a pillar of Western civilization or the secular nation-state.
Neither takes Jesus seriously. Conversely, Anabaptism and a consistent
biblicism could be used to construct a theology of radical discipleship-
of following the way of Jesus in the world. In light of such convictions,
it is to be expected that Yoder would focus his energy on developing a
biblically based, constructive theology as seen in The Politics of Jesus.
His theology of radical discipleship rooted in the gospel narratives and
the epistles of Paul serves as a bookend to his non-creedal Christology
seen in chapter 1 of this volume. The previous two chapters explored the
_____________________
4. Yoder, Letter to Paul Peachey, 15 June.
Page 146
ZIMMERMAN--Oscar Cullmann and Radical Discipleship
Anabaptist history and convictions that shaped Yoder’s theology. The
current chapter and the following one explore its biblical and theological
roots.
The European Postwar Context
In the aftermath of World War II, many European Christians had a perva-
sive sense that they had allowed themselves to be sucked into that violent
nationalistic conflagration in a way that had undercut their faith. They
were mortified that their churches had been so poorly prepared to resist
the two world wars that had enveloped their continent in the first half of
the twentieth century What had gone wrong? They were also alarmed
by the emerging Cold War conflict between the United States and the
Soviet Union, two nuclear armed adversaries, who had divided Europe
into competing economies and an armed standoff along the geographical
line of control. Karl Barth, John Howard Yoder’s theology professor at the
University of Basel, was on record that Christians should not be party to
this conflict.(5)
This situation drove the quest for a more robust and radical disciple-
ship-of following Jesus, the Jewish prophet from Galilee-in a world of
human suffering, competing ideologies, and a new global power struggle.
What did it mean to claim that the man Jesus was Messiah and Lord?
What would be the shape of faithful communities of disciples formed
on that premise and how would these communities prophetically engage
their postwar world? John Howard Yoder was actively involved in this
intense debate as a graduate student at the University of Basel and in
discussions with various European church leaders who had survived the
war.
Much of the debate involved questions about Christology, the his-
torical Jesus, and the relationship between church and state. An especial-
ly live topic was discerning what had gone wrong in classic Christology
that allowed most Christians to relegate the life and teaching of Jesus to
relative insignificance for contemporary discipleship and social ethics.(6)
________________
5. Barth, “Church between East and West," 127-31
6. Later, Yoder would say that the classic creeds can serve as fences for what we can
say about the human Jesus and his relationship to God but they can hardly nurture an
active faith. For the latter one has to turn to the gospel accounts of the life and teach-
ing of Jesus. Yoder, Preface (2002), 223. In his historical analysis, I. Alexander Sider
says that one searches “in vain” to find a “non-Constantinian refutation of pro-Nicene
Page 147
Yoder brought his pacifist, non-creedal Mennonite perspective(7) to the
European discussion of Christology but he was not alone in seeing the
problem and trying to find an adequate response. Thus his theology also
became deeply indebted to his European interlocutors. Among them are
two of his professors at the University of Basel: Oscar Cullmann in bibli-
cal studies, the primary focus of this chapter, and Karl Barth in theology
whom Yoder considered a problematic mentor and whose influence is
treated in the following chapter.
Others include lean Lasserre, Hendrik Berkhof and André Trocmé.
Lasserre was a former colleague of Dietrich Bonheoffer. Yoder had exten-
sive conversations with Lasserre concerning Oscar Cullmann’s concept of
the “reign of Christ.” From Berkhof Yoder learned to apply his ground-
breaking work on the biblical language of “principalities and powers” to
political structures of domination and their ideological justifications.
Yoder incorporated much of Berkhofs thought into the chapter “Christ
and Power” in The Politics of Jesus, and he also translated Berkhof’s book
Christ and the Powers into English.(8) French pastor Trocmé had led a non-
violent, congregationally-based resistance movement during the war and
helped to rescue many Iews from the Vichy government during the Nazi
occupation.(9) He and Yoder became good friends. As a capable biblical
scholar, Trocmé recognized that Jesus’ proclamation of the reign of God
was deeply immersed in the Jewish tradition of Jubilee and economic
___________________
theology” in Yoders writing. He does acknowledge, however; that Yoder did “decen-
ter Nicaea” in the “contemporary imagination,” although that decentering is strongly
influenced by theologians such as Barth and Berkhof “for whom the accommodation
of the Deutsche Christen to Nazism was a major issue.” See Sider, To See History Doxo-
logically, 106-22, quotes 107, 116, 114. The import of such observations by Sider ap-
pears to be to call into question Yoder’s relativizing of classic orthodoxy as depicted in
chapter 1, and is thus an implied defense of the classic creedal statements by separating
them further from the political intrigue of their time. Sider’s argument ignores the
extent to which Yoder not only contextualized the classic terminology but also opened
the door to Christology not beholden to it, as displayed in chapter 1.
7. Mennonite congregations such as the one that Yoder grew up in rarely if ever,
recite the historic creeds as part of their worship. Confessions of faith have been pro-
duced regularly as adapted responses to changing historical contexts. They serve not as
unchanging, dogmatic creedal statements but as teaching tools for catechism and for
discernment of what Mennonites can affirm in common at a given time.
8. Berkhof, Christ and the Powers. Extensive discussion of Yoder’s use of Berkhof
and the powers occurs in chapters 6 and 7 to follow.
9. For an account of Trocmé’s nonviolent resistance, see Hallie, Lest Innocent
Blood.
Page 148
ZIMMERMAN--Oscar Cullmann and Radical Discipleship
redistribution. Yoder incorporated this insight into his own constructive
theology and freely adapted parts of Trocmé’s work in the chapter “The
Implications of the Jubilee” in The Politics of Jesus.(10)
Oscar Cullmann and Biblical Studies(11)
Yoder was convinced that biblical research on the life of Jesus and the
early church was vital to recapturing the meaning of discipleship. The
biblical exegesis of people like Oscar Cullmann was opening up promis-
ing new possibilities. Such biblical scholars were studying the social and
political situation in first-century Palestine, and were asking how Jesus
and the early Christian communities related to their world. Yoder wanted
to put such biblical exegesis into conversation with contemporary theo-
logical ethics.
Yoder appropriated several significant things from Cullmann.
One was the work Cullmann did on the relationship of Jesus and the
early Christian communities to the Roman Empire. To do this, Cull-
mann examined the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels, the teaching of the
apostle Paul, and the perspective of the Johannine Apocalypse. There
was intense interest in this topic in the conversation between the historic
peace churches and the established European Protestant churches at the
Puidoux Theological Conference held in Switzerland in 195 5. The theme
of the conference was “The Lordship of Christ over Church and State.”(12)
One of Cullmann’s papers discussed at the conference was “The
Kingship of Christ in the Church in the New Testament.”‘3 It was an
exegetical study of the concept of the “reign of Christ” and the confession
among the early Christians that “Jesus Christ is Lord.” The other paper
was titled “The State in the New Testament.”“‘ It was an abbreviated
version of material later published in a book with the same name. The
time and energy the conference put into discussing Cullmanrfs biblical
____________________
10. Yoder, Politics (1994), 60-71. For a recent republication of his classic work, see
Trocmé, Jesus and the Nomviolent Revolution.
11. This section on Oscar Cullmann’s influence uses material from Zimmerman,
Practicing the Politics, 114-30. Other material in this chapter draws on material in
chapter 4 of Practicing the Politics.
12. MCC Peace Section-Conferences, MCC Peace Section.
13. Cullmann, “Kingship of Christ.” This paper was later published with the same
title as a chapter in Cullmann, Early Church.
14. Cullmann, “State in the NT.”
Page 149
PART TWO-SOURCES OF JOHN HOWARD YODER"S THEOLOGY
exegesis indicates how important they believed such research was for
the difficult task of rethinking the role of the church and the state in the
aftermath of the war.
Wrestling with Traditional Two-Kingdom Theologies
The European Protestants were especially interested in overcoming the
deficiencies of traditional two-kingdom theologies that made a clear dis-
tinction between the spiritual, eternal realm of the church and the tem-
poral, political realm of the state. According to this conceptualization,
the church served as the earthly custodian of the spiritual realm and the
state served as the earthly custodian of the temporal realm. It was built on
an ethical dualism in which the clergy and religious followed a counsel
of perfection involving a commitment to a life of poverty nonviolence,
and celibacy The laity or ordinary Christians, on the other hand, needed
to participate in mundane affairs and were not expected to follow such a
strict ethic.
According to this doctrine, God had charged the church with
preaching the gospel and the state with ensuring the political order. Such
traditional two-kingdom theologies have their roots in the Constantinian
era. Pope Gelasius I had formulated the thesis in 495. It is instructive to
follow this formulation of the relationship between distinctive spiritual
and temporal realms through subsequent church history. During the
medieval era, there was an assumption of the primacy of the spiritual
realm. This primacy provided the basis by which the church could in-
trude into the affairs of the temporal realm while resisting state intrusion
into church affairs.(15)
This way of conceptualizing the relationship between church and
state changed during the Protestant reformation. Luther rejected the dual
morality of the medieval two-kingdom theology but tragically introduced
another dualism by transferring it to the life of each individual. Accord-
ing to Luther, we all live with the tension between being a Christian and
a citizen of a given state. As a Christian one follows the example and
teaching of Christ, while as a citizen one follows the natural law which
God has implanted in our hearts.(16) It was such ethical dualisms that had
helped undermine Christian resistance to the secular totalitarian state
___________________________________
15. Sturzo, Church and State, 37-43.
16. Bainton, Christian Attitudes, 136-38.
Page 150
ZIMMERMAN--Oscar Cullmann and Radical Discipleship
in the modern world. That undermining had become painfully apparent
to European theologians and church leaders in the postwar era as they
reflected on German Christian responses to the Nazis.
It had become evident that such theological formulations, at their
worst, had divinized the state and left the church impotent in the face
of totalitarian schemes. As a result, the conversation at Puidoux in 1955
turned to the limits of Christian obedience to the state. Oscar Cullmann
recognized that the state, within its own sphere, sometimes ceases to be
founded on law and actually reverses any criterion of justice in the civil
order. He was very cautious, however, when it came to making judgments
about when a state had crossed this line and no longer remained within
God’s plan. He said that, from the perspective of the New Testament,
one clear criterion of such demonic folly was the imposition of emperor
worship.(17)
Jean Lasserre, a French Reformed pastor and scholar, was frustrated
by such caution. The issue that French Christians faced under the Vi-
chy government during the war was not overt emperor worship. Surely,
Lasserre argued, theologians and ethicists should be able to draw up
some criteria for determining when the state has exceeded its bounds.
He gave several examples of situations where the state obviously asked
people to do things that were unjust. Must a German woman obey the
Nazis who required her to divorce her non-Aryan husband? Must a po-
liceman obey when he is ordered to interrogate a woman by stripping
her and burning her breasts with cigarettes? Lasserre exclaimed, “So the
church of Jesus Christ has absolutely nothing to tell believers faced with
problems of conscience such as I have evoked, but leaves them entirely to
their own resources: this seems to be yet another sign of a church which
is no longer faithful and has given up the struggle."(18)
The Reign of Christ
While Cullmann was reluctant to challenge government authority, he
was a gifted biblical scholar. lt was here that he made his contribution
________________
17. Cullmann, State in the New Testament, 78.
18. Lasserre, War and the Gospel, 120-21. lean Lasserre was a friend of Dietrich
Bonhoeffer and a longtime French IFOR leader. See Durnbaugh, On Earth Peace, 22.
John Howard Yoder worked closely with Lasserre in the Puidoux conferences and
wrote the preface to the English translation of his book, War and the Gospel. Yoder
always demonstrated a deep respect for him and his work.
Page 151
PART TWO-SOURCES OF JOHN HOWARD YODER’S THEOLOGY
to the discussion. He claimed that the problem of church and state was
rooted in the very nature of Christianity from its beginning. The New
Testament referred to the reign of Christ, which Cullmann insisted was
distinct from the church or the future kingdom of God. He built his argu-
ment on the apostle Paul’s discussion of the reign of Christ (1 Cor 15:23
ff), which was the basis upon which the early Christians proclaimed that
Jesus Christ is Lord (Rom 10:9). Christ’s kingship extends to all creation
(Phil 2:10). Cullmann claimed:
It is, therefore not true that Christ now exercises his kingshiponly in heaven or the invisible world. Christ also rules on earthand over the state as well as the Church. Admittedly he doesnot rule over the states of this world directly, but only throughthe mediation of the “powers and authorities” which he hassubjected and which are provisionally attached to him. Theseinvisible powers are active on earth.(19)
The New Testament uses various terms for such invisible powers,
which were believed to be behind the state authorities who executed Je-
sus. Herod and Pilate were merely the human functionaries they used
for their purposes. If these powers had known God’s plan of salvation,
they would not have crucified Jesus because this led to their own defeat
(1 Cor 2:7-8). Though they have been conquered, their power still per-
sists through the terrible power of the sarx (body or unregenerate human
nature) and the lust enemy, which is death. Even though the divine Spirit
is already at work, it will only transform these enemies at the end (1 Cor
15:35ff). Even so, it is a mistake to think that these powers can escape
the rule of Christ. In other places, Paul uses the image of head to describe
Christ’s rule over the invisible and visible creation, including every ruler
and authority (Col 2:10).(20)
Accordingly Cullmann insisted that the reign of Christ must not be
identified with the church. Nevertheless, the New Testament concentra-
tion on the church as a definite point within creation signifies that it is the
heart and center of the reign of Christ. What happens in the church has
a decisive influence for all of creation. The church itself however, must
resist any theocratic aspirations, because such aspirations belong to the
future in heaven (Phil 3:20).(21)
________________
19. Cullmann, Early Church, 120.
20. Ibid., 122.
21. Ibid., 126-28.
Page 152
ZIMMERMAN-Oscar Cullmann and Radical Discipleship
On the other hand, Cullmann argued that the state does not have
any independent right of its own. Governments function as God’s ser-
vants within the reign of Christ (Rom 13:6). As such they are entitled to
our obedience and active support. But, when they become disengaged
from the reign of Christ, they are extremely questionable and become
demonic. In this sense, Cullmann claimed that the earthly state, though
not ultimate and divine in itself, is nevertheless a member of the reign of
Christ by the will of God. But there is a crucial difference between church
and state within the reign of Christ. Cullmann wrote,
The fact that the members of the church are conscious of all this,they know that Christ rules, and are therefore members of thekingdom of Christ consciously is what distinguishes them as aChurch from all the other members of the Regnum Christi [orreign of Christ] who may be its servants unconsciously.(22)
Even though Lasserre criticized Cullmann’s cautious reluctance
to say when the state had overstepped its limits, he accepted Cullman’s
premise that government ofhcials were God’s servants within the reign of
Christ. In his own presentation at the Puidoux Theological Conference,
he had this to say about the role of such people:
Their function, as God sees it, is in no way placed outside theRevelation as though they enjoyed some kind of autonomy thatthey had to themselves. Very much to the contrary, they carryout a ministry-extra~ecclesiastical, to be sure-which is inte-gral to the framework of Redemption. I think that the pictureof Cullmann, who speaks of two concentric circles representingthe Church and the Regnum Christi, is right. In the plan of God,the magistrates are placed, not in the circle of the Church, butin the larger circle of the “Reign of Christ.” But they are alwaysunder the control of Revelation.(23)
There was general agreement on this way of formulating the rela-
tionship between church and state among the theologians and church
leaders at Puidoux. On this basis they could argue that Christ was Lord
of both church and state while still maintaining a distinction between the
two. On this basis the church could witness to the state about the will of
God as understood in Christ. It enabled the church to maintain its own
freedom in relation to the state. They could insist on a certain primacy of
_________________
22. Ibid., 128.
23. Lasserre, “The ‘Good’ of Rom. 13:4," 133.
Page 153
PART TWO--SOURCES OF JOHN HOWARD YODER’S THEOLOGY
the church in God’s economy. Christian social and political ethics should
always begin from the premise of the reign of Christ.
John Howard Yoder on Biblical Studies and Social Policy
Church and State
Such a conceptualization of the relationship between the church, the
state, and the “powers” under the reign of Christ became central to the
way Yoder worked at social and political issues. We cannot understand
his theological ethics apart from this conceptualization.(24) It became the
basis on which he would prod Mennonites out of their separatism and
toward a more engaged witness to the larger society It was also the basis
on which to prod American Protestant proponents of “social responsibil-
ity” toward taking the church seriously in their ethics.
Like Lasserre, Yoder criticized Cullmann’s reluctance to define the
limits of the state’s authority short of emperor worship or self-deiiication.
He argued that it was more than the vagueness of the criterion that makes
it suspect. Most German Christians had not even seen such extreme self-
deification in Hitler. There is no evident reason why violating the first
commandment of the law should be understood as more grievous than
violating any of the other commandments. Idolatry need not become
cultic to make it rebellion against God. The problem with ma_king the
extreme case of self-deification the criterion for such rebellion is the
implication that there can be an exercise of violent domination that is
not intrinsically self-glorifying that there can be a nationalism that is
not prone to idolatry or a total war that is not indicative of the state’s
self-aggrandizement.(25)
An early contribution to the discussion was Yoder’s paper “The
Theological Basis of the Christian Witness to the Statef’ which he pre-
sented at the Puidoux Theological Conference. Here Yoder argued that
Christianization of the world is possible in the sense that there is a Chris-
tian influence on what happens in the world. The important question,
however, is how one exercises that influence. His paper makes various
references to the work of lean Lasserre, who presented an earlier paper at
___________________
24. For two examples of the way Yoder conceptualized the relationship between
the church, the state, and the “powers” see Yoder, Christian Witness (1964) and Yoder,
Politics (1994), 134-61.
25. Yoder, Christian Witness (1964), 37-38.
Page 154
ZIMMERMAN-QSCHT Cullmann and Radical Discipleshzp
the conference. It is also deeply indebted to Cullmann’s exegetical work
on the reign of Christ.(26)
Yoder addressed the relationship between church and state and the
problem of traditional two-kingdom theologies. He defined the differ-
ence between the church and the world on the basis of their respective
responses to the invitation of God in Jesus Christ. The church says yes
to God while the World says no. God respects the world’s freedom to say
no. Therefore, in the world, which includes the state, God’s requirements
are adapted to that no. Accordingly, all that can be counted on is a basic
ethical minimum that is valid despite humanity’s no. His paper was a
heuristic attempt to formulate and test the duality that results from hu-
manity’s no to God, while recognizing that there is ultimately only one
ethic established in the reign of Christ.(27) The church is where human-
ity’s no is overcome through God’s grace. Consequently, Yoder argues,
“In speaking of the Church, we must say that the meaning of history and
the significance of everything that happens in the world is not the fate of
Western culture, of civilization, of the human community of justice, or of
the world, but the formation and building of the body of Christ.”(28)
Such distinctions, grounded in his understanding of the reign of
Christ, became the basis of Yoder’s argument against an ethic of respon-
sibility rooted in the life of a given nation-state. It is not the nation but
the church that carries the meaning of history. That is why the Christian
must, at some point, make a break with human continuity rooted in fam-
ily, ethnic identity, social identity, and national identity to place her or his
faith in the church, which is the resurrection body of Christ.
While the church has an immediate relationship to God through
Christ, the world, including the state, has a mediate relationship through
the “powers” (exousiai). These “powers,” though originally part of God’s
good creation, are fallen in the sense that they resist God. In this sense,
pragmatically speaking, the state is also fallen because it is always less
than submissive to God. Since it is never as submissive as it could be, it
is with reference to relative degrees of submission that we can say that a
given state is Christianized. Hence, we could say that a relatively demo-
cratic and nonviolent state is more Christian than a brutal totalitarian
_________________
26. Yoder, “Theological Basis."
27. Ibid., 136-39.
28. Ibid., 140.
Page 155
PART TWO--SOURCES OF JOHN HOWARD YODER’S THEOLOGY
state. But, a state is never so submitted to God’s rule that we can do any-
thing but make such relative comparisons.(29)
Finally, according to Yoder, the reign of Christ over the “powers”
and over the states is conservative rather than redemptive. The purpose is
not to bring in the kingdom of God but to keep things from falling apart
so that the church can do its redemptive kingdom work. For that reason,
Yoder said, “There is always this distinction between these two areas, or
orders, and the duality is defined in that one is redemptive and the other
conservative."(30)
Having laid this theological groundwork, Yoder tackled the ques-
tion of the church’s Witness to the state. It is not true that Christians who
follow Christ’s way of self-giving and nonviolent love have nothing to say
to the state. If they recognize that the state is not an abstraction but vari-
ous people doing different tasks, they will address them as individuals.
The first message to these people is an invitation to become Christian,
which means being a disciple who follows Christ’s way of nonviolent
love. Government officials who are Christians should be reminded that it
is not a government office but being a disciple of Jesus that defines their
actions.(31)
Even if the statesperson does not accept the challenge to become a
Christian, Yoder insisted, it does not free the officeholder from respon-
sibility before God. If these persons choose to say no to this invitation of
God, they are still under the yes of God that reaches out to them. They
are still under the reign of Christ, and God still has claims upon them.
For those who say yes to God in Christ, the demand is to bear the cross,
and those who say no to this invitation are still called to do justice. Cor-
respondingly, the concept of a just war has some value in defining the
demands of justice for such people, even though it becomes less and less
useful as governments keep building more and more sophisticated weap-
ons of mass destruction.(32)
Yoder insisted that the state is not autonomous nor an authority to
itself But even if it functions as an autonomous authority, we can always
challenge it to make a particular choice with reference to justice. Because
of its frame of reference, we cannot ask the state to be perfectly just, but
_________________
29. Ibid., 141.
30. lbid.
31. Ibid., 142.
32. Ibid., 142-43.
Page 156
ZIMMERMAN-Oscar Cullmann and Radical Discipleship
we can ask it to be more just. We can ask the state to live up to its own
concept of justice. For example, we can ask France to take seriously its
commitment to liberty equality and fraternity. Because each state is
already committed to some understanding of order, Yoder said, we can
appeal to it to live up to its own principles.(33)
Jesus and the Jewish Religious Parties
John Howard Yoder’s theology also owes a debt to Cullmann’s insights
from biblical research on the relationship between Jesus and the various
Jewish religious parties in first-century Palestine. Biblical scholars during
that time were researching the relationship between Jesus and the Zeal-
ots.(34) The Zealots were a loosely defined group of Jewish revolutionaries
committed to the violent overthrow of the Roman occupation of Pales-
tine. Cullmann identified at least half of Jesus’ disciples as Zealots and
said that Jesus had to continually come to terms with the Zealot question
throughout his ministry.” Yoder was less interested in the immediate
question of Jesus’ relationship to the Zealots than he was in the broader
question of Jesus’ political stance in relation to the various options avail-
able to him in first-century Palestine.
Cullmann was clearly Yoder’s mentor in such research, even though
Yoder pursued the question farther than Cullmann had. Cullmann set
the question of Jesus’ relationship to the state in the context of the Jewish
theocratic ideal as espoused by the Maccabees. Such theocratic aspira-
tions were a significant source of political unrest in Palestine under the
imperial occupation of the Romans. The Zealots, a potent revolutionary
force, espoused such a theocratic ideal. Cullmann, however, argued that
__________________
33. Ibid., 143.
34. Scholars were already working on the subject in the 19505 and various books
appeared in the 19605. Cullmann included a brief chapter on the Zealots in Cullmann,
State in the New Testament. He later wrote Jesus and the Revolutionaries. Other scholars
working on this were Hengel, Die Zealoten, and Brandon, Jesus and Zealots.
35. Cullmann, State in the New Testament, 17. Some more recent scholars, includ-
ing Raymond Brown, Richard Horsley, and John P Meier, have questioned the belief
that there was a smoldering Zealot insurgency during Jesus’ lifetime. See Brown, Death
of the Messiah, 679; Horsley “Death of Jesus”; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:1040. Others,
including N. T. Wright and Ben F. Meyer, depict a more turbulent social situation dur-
ing Jesus’ lifetime, creating periodic surges in the number of poor people, emigrants,
revolutionaries, bandits, and beggars. See Wright, Jesus and the Victory, 150-51. See
also Meyer, “Jesus Christ," 777.
Page 157
PART TWO--SOURCES OF JOHN HOWARD YODER’S THEOLOGY
Jesus and the early Christians rejected theocratic aspirations as demonic.
He tied the struggle to Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness, where he re-
jected Satan’s offer of world domination (Luke 4: 5-8). In doing so, Jesus
rejected the state in any sense as a final or divine institution. Cullmann
thought the temptation account demonstrates that Jesus accepted the
state and rejected any revolutionary attempt to overthrow it.(36) According
to Cullmann, the Romans had not understood Jesus when they crucified
him as a revolutionary However, Cullmann did not consider that Jesus
might nevertheless have posed a real threat to the established social order
in Palestine, even though he rejected violent revolution.(37)
The Original Revolution
In his own interpretation of Jesus’ political involvements in first-century
Palestine, Yoder followed the general outline of Cullmann’s work. Like
Cullmann, Yoder made the temptation story central to the interpreta-
tion of Jesus’ political stance. Like Cullmann, Yoder focused on Jesus’
relationship with the Zealots, but he also went beyond Cullmann to look
at the other political options available to Jesus. Like Cullmann, Yoder
understood Jesus’ execution by the Romans as definitive for our under-
standing of who Jesus was. But, unlike Cullmann, Yoder did not think
the crucifixion involved a misunderstanding of Jesus by the Romans. He
saw Jesus as a real threat to the political powers in first-century Palestine.
Yoder wrote:
Both Jewish and Roman authorities were defending themselvesagainst a real threat, that the threat was not one of armed, vio-lent revolt, and that it nonetheless bothered them to the pointof their resorting to illegal procedures to counter it, is a proof ofthe political relevance of nonviolent tactics, not a proof that Pi-late and Caiaphas were exceptionally dull or dishonorable men.(38)
_____________________
36. Cullmann, State in the New Testament, 8-23.
37. ibid., 41fF.
38. Yoder, Politics (1994), 49. Italics Yoder’s. N. T. Wright agrees with Yoder’s un-
derstanding of the politics of Jesus in first-century Palestine. Wright argues, "Anyone
announcing the kingdom of YHWH was engaged in serious political action. Anyone
announcing the kingdom but explicitly opposing armed resistance was engaged in
doubly serious political action: not only the occupying forces, but all those who gave
allegiance to the resistance movement would be enraged” (Jesus and the Victory, 296).
Italics Wright’s.
Page 158
ZIMMERMAN-Oscar Cullmann and Radical Discipleship
Yoder’s portrait of the historical Jesus was more socially and po-
litically involved and considerably more radical than that of Cullmann.
Yoder’s more popular book on Jesus and the early church that preceded
The Politics of Jesus was titled The Original Revolution. Here he wrote, “lf
we are ever to rescue God’s good news from all the justifiable but second-
ary meanings it has taken on, perhaps the best way to do it is to say that
the root meaning of the term eaangelion would today best be translated
‘revolution.'"(39) He insisted that Jesus’ message involves real social and po-
litical choices that are revolutionary in nature if we take them seriously.
He was convinced that Jesus is “the bearer of a new possibility of human,
social, and therefore political relationships."(40) It is this political Jesus,
found in the gospel narratives by biblical exegetes, whom Yoder placed
in conversation with contemporary theology and theological ethics. And
again one sees the focus on Jesus as the root of theology and ethics that
earns for Yoder the title of “radical theologian.”
The Politics of Paul and the Early Church
Additionally, one needs to ask how the revolutionary nature of Jesus’ life
and message formed the life of the early churches. It can be argued that
there is a radical break between Jesus’ proclamation of the reign of God
and the worship of the heavenly Christ in the Gentile churches during
the following decades. To counter such an interpretation, Yoder drew on
the themes of discipleship and imitation found in the epistles. Through
a careful study of these themes, he was able to argue that the way of the
cross should not be understood as literally following Jesus’ lifestyle or an
existential identification with suffering in itself Instead, the cross points
to the concrete social meaning of Jesus’ political stance in relation to
dominant structures of power in our world.(41)
The big question for this argument was whether the apostle Paul’s
stance toward the Roman Empire differed significantly from that of Je-
sus. Cullmann worked on this question as it related to Paul’s counsel to
Christians to submit to the governing authorities because they have been
ordained by God (Rom 13:1-7). Various two-kingdom paradigms have
_________________
39. Yoder, Original Revolution, 15.
40. Yoder, Politics (1994), 52.
41. Ibid.,129-31.
Page 159
PART TWO--SOURCES OF JOHN HOWARD YODER’S THEOLOGY
claimed this passage as the central basis for the argument that God has
ordained government to function as a distinct authority rooted in natu-
ral law rather than in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Christians should obey
governing authorities in matters pertaining to national citizenship such
as waging war.(42)
Cullmann insisted that such interpretations misunderstand this
Scripture passage and Paul’s stance toward the Roman Empire. The only
way Romans 13:1-7 could be interpreted as unequivocal support for the
state is by taking it out of context. Both in chapter 12 and in the rest of
chapter 13, Paul is speaking directly to Christians about their responsibil-
ity to act out of love, not to resist evil with evil but to do good to one’s
enemies. The Roman state, as Paul knew it, often did the exact opposite.
Nevertheless, Christians are to accept the state as an institution despite
that reality. But Paul is not suggesting, Cullmann argued, that Christians
should participate in the retributive aspects of state vengeance against
evildoers. Instead, he calls for a positive expression of the Christian love
ethic in relation to the state. While he does not explicitly explain how that
is possible, Paul argues that the state is also a servant of God as long as it
does not exceed its bounds.(43)
According to Cullmann, one needs to recognize that Paul is talking
about Nerds regime. Christians had reason to feel animosity toward this
tyrannical government. Paul is encouraging them not to reject the valid-
ity of the state as a matter of principle. Paul needs to be explicit about
that point because the retributive nature of the state makes it less than
self-evident. Nevertheless, they are to subordinate themselves to the state
as long as it functions within its proper sphere and does not demand
that which belongs God. Even when it demands more than it rightfully
should, the Christian response should still be guided by the love ethic. It
is the same stance toward the state that Jesus had.(44)
This stance becomes even more evident when we examine other
passages where Paul addresses Christian relationships to the state. He
chastises the Christians in Corinth for filing lawsuits against each other
in Roman courts of law (1 Cor 6:1ff). They should settle their quarrels
within a congregational discernment process, rather than relying on
__________________
42. This way of stating the problem especially reflects traditional Lutheran theol-
ogy. Roman Catholic and Reformed theologies have their own variations of this two-
kingdom theological formulation.
43. Cullmann, State in the New Testament, 57.
44. Ibid., 58-59.
Page 160
ZIMMERMAN-Oscar Cullmann and Radical Discipleship
punitive government institutions. W'hen Paul tells the Corinthians that
they will someday judge the world, it is clear that he understands the state
to be a temporary institution whose scope is limited.(45)
Finally, Cullmann emphasizes Paul’s recognition of a demonic ele-
ment in the state. Paul tells the Corinthians, “None of the rulers of this
world understood the wisdom of God; for if they had understood it they
would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8). The phrase “rul-
ers of this world,” like the expression “authorities” or “powers” (exousiai)
in Romans 13:1, refers not only to political figures but also to invisible
spiritual powers that stood behind them-a common understanding of
power within the first-century Jewish worldview References to authori-
ties and powers have a double meaning, referring to both the state and
such invisible spiritual powers. Jesus conquered these powers through his
death and resurrection (Col 2:15). Cullmann wrote,
Against the background of this belief in the vanquished powersat work behind earthly happenings it becomes especially clearthat the State is now a temporary institution not of divine naturebut nevertheless willed by God; that we must remain critical to-ward every State; that we must nonetheless obey the State as faras it remains within its bounds.(46)
Accordingly, Cullmann sought to make a distinction between a state
that lived within the bounds of Romans 13 and a state that moved outside
these bounds (the demonic state of Rev 13). Christians had an obliga-
tion to obey the state that stayed within its bounds, but not the state that
moves outside these bounds by becoming totalitarian and self-deifying.(47)
Yoder followed the general argument of Cullmann’s exegetical work.
Cullmann sought to harmonize a vast and disparate body of New Testa-
ment material dealing with the question of church and state. This mate-
rial ranges from the Gospels, though the Pauline Epistles, to the book
of Revelation. Yoder began by recognizing that the New Testament con-
tains different strands of thought concerning the state, but then followed
Cullmann in the effort to demonstrate that Paul’s argument in Romans
13:1-7 is consistent with these other materials.
Cullmann and Yoder try to harmonize too much difference. Other
biblical scholars have even suggested that Romans 13:1-7 may be a later
___________________
45. Ibid., 60-62.
46. Ibid.,69-70.
47. Ibid., 73ff
Page 161
PART TWO-SOURCES or IOHN HOWARD YODER’S THEOLOGY
interpolation because it demonstrates a much more positive assessment
of government than the rest of the New Testament and even the rest of
the Pauline material (e.g., 1 Cor 2:6-8). The New Testament did not have
a univocal understanding of how Christians should relate to the state.
Even Paul apparently was not completely consistent in his attitudes to-
ward imperial Roman government.(48)
There is a crucial difference between Cullmann’s and Yoder’s un-
derstanding ofthe threat that Jesus’ ministry and community organizing
posed to Roman rule. As seen earlier, Cullmann begins with the belief
that Jesus had not posed a threat to the Roman Empire. He writes, “Jesus
was in no sense an enemy of the State on principle, but rather a loyal citi-
zen who offered no threat to the State’s existence.”(49) Yoder had a consider-
ably more radical and revolutionary Jesus. Jesus’ nonviolent community
organizing in Palestine did pose a real threat to the ruling authorities. In
its own way it was an even greater threat than violent insurrection.(50)
The most important common agenda of Cullmann and Yoder is
that both sought to discredit the two-kingdom theologies that had been
prevalent until the postwar era, Yoder said that the basic premises of such
theologies (built on Rom 13:1-7) had not been questioned until the crisis
of Nazism made it necessary to re-examine them. Before this crisis, these
verses had served as a sort of capsule, guiding the Christian statesperson
(punishing evil and rewarding good) and the Christian citizen (obeying
state authorities). Within such a theological construct, the government
that wields the sword by divine decree was exempted from the general
prohibition against killing. All that remained were some borderline ques-
tions concerning things such as determining what constituted a just War.(51)
Yoder made it clear that he was challenging the tradition of two-kingdom
theology at its very core:
Let me then put most precisely the challengeable claim of thetradition we intend to challenge; it is that by virtue of the divineinstitution of government as a part of God’s good creation, itsmandate to wield the sword and the Christian’s duty to obey thestate combine to place upon the Christian a moral obligation to
__________________
48. A recent study that fits the general interpretation of Cullmann and Yoder but is
more mindful of the tension between this passage and other New Testament materials
is Elliott, “Romans 13 in the Context of Imperial Propaganda.”
49. Cullmann, State in the New Testament, 54.
50. Yoder, Politics (1994), 49.
51. Ibid., 193-94.
Page 162
ZIMMERMAN-Oscar Cullmann and Radical Discipleship
support and participate in the state’s legal killing (death penaltywar), despite contrary duties which otherwise would seem tofollow from Jesus’ teaching or example.(52)
The first part of Yoder’s argument was that Romans 13:1-7 is not the
center of New Testament teaching about the state. The New Testament
speaks in many ways about the problem of the state. A strong strand of
teaching in the Gospels even sees the state as demonic. Following Cull-
mann, Yoder argued that Romans 12 and 13 constitute a complete liter-
ary unit. Therefore Romans 13:1-7 should not be understood by itself It
becomes a static or conservative underpinning of the present social order
only by refusing to take its larger literary context seriously.(53)
Revolutionary Subordination
Next, Yoder tackled the question of Christian submission or subordina-
tion to the state. Such subordination, he said, merely recognizes whatever
power exists or whatever structure of sovereignty happens to prevail. This
subordination does not imply recognition of a particular government as
divinely instituted. Yoder rejected Cullmann’s argument that govern-
ments living within the bounds of Romans 13:1-7 are instituted of God
in a way that other governments are not.” This point is significant for
understanding Yoder’s basic stance toward government authority With
reference to Romans 13:1-7, he wrote,
God is not said to create or institute or ordain the powers that be,but only to order them, to put them in order, sovereignly to tellthem where they belong, what is their place. It is not as if therewas a time when there was no government and then God madegovernment through a new creative intervention; there has beenhierarchy and authority and power since human society existed.Its exercise has involved domination, disrespect for human dig-nity and real or potential violence ever since sin has existed. Noris it that in his ordering of it he specifically, morally approves ofwhat government does .... God does not take responsibility forthe existence of the rebellious “powers that be” or for their shapeor identity; they already are. What the text says is that he orders
__________________
52. Ibid., 194.
53. Ibid., 194-98.
54. Ibid., 201 n. 11. Yoder is also arguing against Karl Barth, who takes a position
similar to that of Cullmann.
Page 163
PART TWO--SOURCES OF JOHN HOWARD YODER’S THEOLOGY
them, brings them into line, that by his permissive governmenthe lines them up with his purpose.(55)
Another central aspect of Yoder’s position involves his understand-
ing of what it means for Christians to be subordinate to government
authorities. Paul was calling the early Christians away from any notion
of violent revolution or insubordination. Instead, he was asking them to
take a position of nonresistant love toward tyrannical Roman rule. Yoder
explained that subordination does not mean compliance or acquiescence
in evil, but rather the suffering renunciation of retaliation in kind. It does
not rule out other kinds of resistance to evil.(56) In this sense, Christians
should be subordinate to but also rebel against all forms of government.
Yoder argued that such subordination is actually a Christian form of re-
bellion because, in doing so, we share God’s patience with a system we
have basically rejected.(57)
Yoder shared Cullmann’s understanding of the limited scope of ap-
propriate government authority. Accordingly Yoder said that the appro-
priate government functions, to which Paul calls Christians to be subject,
are the juridical and police functions of the state. These functions can-
not include such things as the death penalty or war. It certainly cannot
mean that Christians need to participate in the military or even in police
service.
Accordingly, Yoder argued that Paul does not believe governments
are self-justifying or that whatever they ask of their citizens is automati-
cally good. Paul is not asking citizens to mindlessly obey government
authorities but to be subject to them. Christians who accept their subor-
dination to government nevertheless retain their moral independence.
Yoder followed Cullmann in seeing an allusion to the words of Jesus
(Matt 22:21) in Romans 13:7 where Paul instructs the Roman Christians
to “pay to all what is due them," This change means giving to Caesar what
__________________
55. Ibid., 201-2. Italics Yoder’s. Yoder does not refer to the opinion of any other
biblical scholar to help substantiate his interpretation of God “ordering” the powers.
Neither does he examine the possible range of meanings of the Greek word tasso,
which he translates as “order” instead of “ordain.” Instead, Yoder makes a logical his-
torical argument about the formation of governments. He also makes the argument
from the Old Testament that God did not approve morally of the brutality with which
Assyria chastised Israel (202). He apparently assumes that these arguments in them-
selves substantiate his interpretation.
56. Ibid., 202 n. 14.
57. Ibid., zoo n. 10.
Page 164
ZIMMERMAN--Oscar Cullmann and Radical Discipleship
is his (taxes and a certain amount of respect and honor), but giving their
primary allegiance to God. This stance follows the example of Jesus, who
accepted subordination and humiliation from the hands of government
authorities.(58)
Subordination is one of the most misunderstood parts of Yoder’s
theology.(59) He claimed that subordination was not simply a calculated
recognition of the strength of the powers that are operative in our world.
It is not a passive acceptance of one’s lot nor is it a willingness to suffer
passively It is actually a strategy of engagement and resistance. He wrote:
The willingness to suffer is then not merely a test of our patienceor a dead space of waiting; it is itself a participation in the char-acter of God’s victorious patience with the rebellious powers ofcreation. We subject ourselves to government because it was inso doing that Jesus revealed and achieved God’s victory.(60)
That is, acknowledging the authority of the government-being
subject to it-while living in the reality of the reign of God can be an
active protest. Biblical examples that Yoder later used for such resistant
subordination are the stories of Joseph, Esther, and the Hebrew captives
reported in Daniel.(61)
Conclusion
As seen in this chapter, John Howard Yoder’s constructive biblical the-
ology, which he called the “politics of Jesus” responds to the agonizing
questions about why Christian efforts failed to resist the violent national-
ist conflagration that led to World War II. His European mentors and col-
leagues, who contributed much to his thought, were equally concerned
that Christians would not now be similarly drawn into the superpower
rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. Cullmann es-
pecially contributed to Yoder’s political understanding of Jesus. Barth
provided the theological tools that Yoder used to such great effect. The
_________________
58. Ibid., 205-9.
59. Complete agreement is lacking on what Yoder intended with “revolutionary
subordination.’ Additional discussion of nuances and applications of Yoder’s view of
subordination occurs in chapters 6 and 8 to follow. Chapter 13 includes a suggestion
for using less easily misunderstood terms for reciprocity and power sharing.
60. Yoder, Politics (1994), 209.
61. See Yoder, For the Nations, 57; Yoder, Iewish-Christian Schism, 71, 86, 244.
Page 165
PART TWO--SOURCES OF JOHN HOWARD YODER'S THEOLOGY
next chapter assesses Barth’s influence. Lasserre was his colleague in the
struggle against two-kingdom theologies. Trocmé gave Yoder insights
into the function of the jubilee year in Jesus’ social agenda. Berkhof gave
him the language of “powers” in reference to social structures. These
pieces become the building blocks in Yoder’s articulation of what radi-
cal discipleship looks like-discipleship Whose reference point is the root
of Christian faith and practice, namely the story of Jesus. As a “radical
theologian’ Yoder is inviting us to follow Jesus when we meet him in our
world, the Jesus of the Christology made visible in chapter 1.
Page 166
