<\/p>
Nathan Kerr ( Christ, History, Apocalyptic <\/em> ) explains Yoder\u2019s notion of Jesus\u2019 \u201cindependence\u201d by saying that Jesus \u201clives, concretely and in history, a life-story that is entirely free from and irreducible to any pre-given \u2018historical\u2019 coordinates, any general or \u2018meta\u2019 principle that might serve to range the complexities and contingencies of history within any universalizable scope or logic.\u201d It also indicates how \u201chis apocalyptic historicity happens concomitantly as the intensification <\/em> and transformation <\/em> of the historically contingent as such.\u201d <\/p>\n Perhaps I\u2019ve missed Kerr\u2019s point, but I wonder: <\/p>\n Is Jesus so radically \u201cindependent\u201d as Yoder suggests? Isn\u2019t He come to fulfill the law and prophets? Doesn\u2019t He come \u201cunder\u201d the law? Granted that the incarnation is an \u201ceruptive\u201d new work of God with Israel, still isn\u2019t the ground for the eruption prepared beforehand? Doesn\u2019t that qualify Jesus\u2019 \u201cindependence\u201d? <\/p>\n A few pages later, Kerr discusses Jesus\u2019 independence in the course of summarizing Yoder\u2019s account of Jesus and the \u201cpowers,\u201d concluding that \u201cChrist challenges <\/em> the pretensions of the powers by living a life that is irreducible to the powers at both an operational and constitutive level.\u201d He is, in Yoder\u2019s words, a threat to the powers because \u201che existed in their midst so morally independent of their pretensions.\u201d <\/p>\n This clarifies to some degree, but still raises the same issues: Isn\u2019t Torah among the \u201cpowers,\u201d the \u201celementary principles\u201d that governed the world before Jesus? And doesn\u2019t Jesus come \u201cunder\u201d that power? Perhaps Yoder\u2019s point is that Jesus submits \u201cfreely\u201d to the powers, rather than being under them de jure, as it were. That is, His submission to the powers is a willing subordination rather than a necessity. <\/p>\n If the point is simply that Jesus\u2019 life is not \u201creducible\u201d to the powers, or to any prior historical causation, then I think Yoder is correct. He is also correct to say, on the other side, that Jesus\u2019 life is in \u201cexcess\u201d of the historical causes that preceded him. <\/p>\n This also raises some questions about Yoder\u2019s overall project: If history is as foundationally consistent as this, if Yoder really is as opposed to totalizing schemes of history as Kerr says, then doesn\u2019t that mean there are limits even to Yoder\u2019s \u201canti-Constantinianism\u201d? (Kerr is quite aware of this question.) <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Nathan Kerr ( Christ, History, Apocalyptic ) explains Yoder\u2019s notion of Jesus\u2019 \u201cindependence\u201d by saying that Jesus \u201clives, concretely and in history, a life-story that is entirely free from and irreducible to any pre-given \u2018historical\u2019 coordinates, any general or \u2018meta\u2019 principle that might serve to range the complexities and contingencies of history within any universalizable […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4730","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-theology-christology"],"yoast_head":"\n