The Incarnation - what did Menno Simons teach?

[Bootstrap]

Before you go and brand Menno Simons as heretic why don’t you go read what he actually said?
www.MennoSimons.net/ft122-trueconfession.html

What did Menno Simons actually teach about the incarnation? If any of this is heretical, what part? Did Menno Simons ever use the phrase "celestial flesh"? If so, where?

[Bootstrap]

I'm going to provide a "simpler English" version of the link Soloist provided, created using an LLM. Please let me know if any of this is wrong, LLMs are not perfect.

A SINCERE DECLARATION

AND BIBLICAL EXPOSITION OF THE MOST HOLY INCARNATION OF OUR BELOVED LORD JESUS CHRIST. WRITTEN TO JOHN A'LASCO AND HIS COMPANION WORKERS IN EMDEN.

BELOVED LORDS, friends, and brethren, when the topic of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ's incarnation was initially brought up by the brethren, I felt a deep sense of fear within me. I worried that I might misinterpret this matter and end up in harmful disbelief before God. The subject troubled my heart greatly, even after I had been baptized. For many days, I refrained from eating and drinking due to the overwhelming anxiety in my soul. In my desperate need, I beseeched God in prayer, asking that in His mercy and grace, He would reveal to me, a poor sinner, the mystery of His blessed Son's incarnation. Despite my own weakness, my sincere desire was to align with His will and bring solace to my troubled conscience.

I spent days, weeks, and months wandering about, seeking opinions and beliefs from some of you regarding this matter that weighed heavily on my heart. However, none could provide me with sufficient guidance to ease my conscience. Their interpretation of certain Scriptures, which they cited as proof for their assertion, aligned not only with my opinion but also with the Scriptures' intended meaning. After much fasting, weeping, praying, tribulation, and distress, I was eventually, by God's grace, comforted and reassured in my heart. Through unwavering belief, supported by the unerring testimony of the Scriptures as understood in the Spirit, I firmly came to acknowledge that Christ Jesus, eternally blessed, is the Lord from heaven (1 Corinthians 15:47). He is the promised spiritual seed of the new and spiritual Eve (Genesis 3:15), the eternal Truth (John 14:16), the victorious Conqueror over the serpent and his seed (Genesis 3:15; Luke 11:21; John 16:33; Hebrews 2:14). This promised seed is the eternal Truth and Word of God, sent forth by the Almighty and merciful Father (Galatians 4:4), conceived in the pure virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit's power (Isaiah 7:14).

Mary believed the heavenly message and the Father's will, conveyed to her by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:28). This eternal Word of God became flesh; it existed with God in the beginning and was God (John 1:2). Conceived and born of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18), Christ was nurtured in Mary as any natural child would be by its mother. He is a true Son of God and a genuine son of man, born of her as real flesh and blood. He suffered, hungered, thirsted, and experienced mortality according to the flesh, yet was immortal according to the Spirit. He was like us in all respects but without sin (Hebrews 2:9; 4:15). Truly God and man, inseparable and whole. Not a divided being, part heavenly and part earthly, or half human and half divine, as some suggest. Instead, an indivisible, complete Christ—spirit, soul, and body. As Paul states, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself" (Philippians 2:6-8). He, who was above the angels, lowered himself even below them. He subjected himself to death, becoming flesh and blood (Hebrews 2:9).

[Bootstrap]

I believe and confess, without doubt, that He was conceived and born of the Holy Spirit, coming from the lineage of David and Abraham, made of a woman under the law (Galatians 4:4), circumcised on the eighth day, obedient to His parents, growing in Spirit and wisdom, favored by God's grace (Luke 2:40).

This same Christ Jesus preached, was crucified, died, was buried, rose, ascended to heaven, and is seated at His Almighty Father's right hand, as all Scriptures testify. He will return to judge both the righteous and the unrighteous (2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Timothy 4:1).

I believe and confess that the pure Word of God, Christ Jesus, who created, commanded, and accused Adam, took Adam's place in His wrath, death, and curse. Out of compassion, love, and mercy, He assumed the accursed burden of His erring creatures. He became like Adam in the flesh, giving life through His death. He fulfilled God's eternal righteousness through His humility, righteousness, and obedience. He reunited and fulfilled God's eternal righteousness, as David proclaimed, "I restored that which I took not away" (Psalm 69:4).

[Bootstrap]

God reconciled the world to Himself not through Adam's flesh, for it was subject to wrath and curse due to its righteousness. Reconciliation by wrath and curse is impossible. Instead, God reconciled through Himself, through His eternal Word—His blessed Son. This Son, unlike the first Adam, was free from unrighteousness, disobedience, and sin. He humbled Himself, becoming a servant and being made in human likeness, fulfilling God's righteousness and removing the curse. Thus, Christ Jesus, through His death, became our only offering and sacrifice, fulfilling and satisfying God's righteousness, removing the curse, conquering the devil, sin, and eternal death, and restoring eternal life, grace, favor, mercy, peace. Paul declares, "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" (Romans 8:32).

I believe and confess that "God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16), "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19). He blotted out our sins and ascended to the Majesty on high, where angels worship Him (Hebrews 1:6). This doctrine aligns with all scriptural truth.

[Bootstrap]

Isaiah speaks of Christ descending and ascending, Paul speaks of Christ's ascension, and Christ Himself speaks of His heavenly origin and return. Through various Scriptures, including those from Isaiah, Matthew, Luke, and John, it is evident that Christ's incarnation is brought about by faith in Mary and the Holy Spirit's power.

Let us not detract from God's mercy or diminish His glory. May we avoid misunderstanding the Scriptures. Isaiah prophesied a virgin conceiving, the angel told Joseph the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and the angel informed Mary that the Holy Spirit's power would cause her conception.

We must not forget Isaiah's words: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son." The angel told Joseph that the conception was by the Holy Spirit. When Mary inquired about the process, the angel explained that the Holy Spirit would bring about the conception. John's testimony, "The Word was made flesh," confirms this.

Those who grasp and confess this truth recognize the profound love, mercy, and grace that God the Father displayed through Christ

[Bootstrap]

I repeat, this is my confession to those who desired to hear my belief and feeling in regard to this article. Yet, I never teach it so profoundly in my common admonitions to the brethren and friends; nor have I, heretofore, ever taught it thus profoundly, as I have told you verbally. But I simply teach that the blessed Christ Jesus is truly God and man, a Son of God, and a son of man, conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, a poor, despised man, like unto us in all things, except sin; that it is he who was promised in the law by the prophets, and is our true Messiah, Christ, King, David, Prophet, Bishop and Priest, the Deliverer, Savior, Sacrifice, Reconciliation, Fulfiller, Shepherd, Teacher, Example, Mediator, Advocate, Ruler, Commander, Bridegroom, Light of the world, the true Door to the fold, the eternal Wisdom, the image of God, the Father's Word, the right Way, Truth and Life, &c. For I know full well that there are few who can understand this particular matter, even after it is explained to them. Therefore, I say, I deem it unnecessary for me and for all teachers to teach this matter of the incarnation of Christ further than, simply, to the teaching of the regeneration of the church, to love, to consolation, to the sanctification and to live and act according to his holy doctrine and life. Would to God that we were all of such a mind. But in case one wants to search further and inquire into this matter, if meet to know and his understanding reaches far enough, it will not be hidden from him; if not it will be said unto him, A litora te ne quaefieris, Eccl. 3:21.

Well, as this is our doctrine and understanding, not otherwise than according to the testimony of the Scripture, as we can by the grace of God, best understand and comprehend it, we yet fear that our explanation from the word of God will not satisfy and convince you to unite with us in this matter, but that you will persevere in your adopted reasonings and arguments and try to explain it literally, naturally and humanlike; not observing that Isaiah, Matthew, Luke and John clearly testify that it was brought about by faith in Mary, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as was said above.

O, let us not humble the Almighty Father in his mercy! Let us not rob the blessed Son of God of his glory. Beloved brethren the Scripture remains eternal and unbroken. Take heed, lest you err. Thus speaks Isaiah, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son," Isa. 7:14. Again, the angel of the Lord said unto Joseph, "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost," Matt. 1:20. Again, when Mary asked the angel the manner of the conception, how it shall be, he answered: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee," Luke 1:35. Again, this is the sure testimony of John the servant of God and of Christ, concerning the incarnation of Jesus Christ. "The word was made flesh," Jn. 1:14. He does not say, The word took unto itself flesh.

[Bootstrap]

Feel free to quote from the original or from my simplified text. English, German, and Dutch are all allowed.

Did Menno Simons teach something heretical in this essay? If so, what? Did Menno Simons use the phrase "celestial flesh"? If so, where? Are there other places where Menno Simons taught heresy about the incarnation? If so, please point to the complete essay and provide the quote.

[Neto]

For the sake of background for this booklet by Menno, here is John C. Wenger's introduction (the editor of the Dutch to English translation by Leonard Verduin). I think this might be helpful in understanding the circumstances which prompted Menno to write on this topic, although unwillingly.
In order to more fully understand this piece, I have searched for an English version of a Lasco's booklet against Menno, but have only succeeded in securing a scan of an old Latin printing (and that only after getting assistance from a former professor at the Bible college where I attended). As I've mentioned before, I attempted to transliterate the old Latin script into a format on which I could then use an on-line translator to get it into Portuguese, but the Latin abbreviations throughout the work require someone who knows Latin, of which I know nothing other than what I can guess based on my (still somewhat limited) knowledge of Portuguese.

Jan Laski or John a Lasco (1499-1560) was a Polish-born reformer who became an ardent Zwinglian and Calvinist. About 1543 Countess Anna of East Friesland invited a Lasco to become superintendent of the proposed state church of her land. A Lasco consented to accept this post. Encounter·· ing a number of Anabaptists in Emden, the capital, a Lasco summoned Menno to an interview which was held January 28-31, 1544 (the date 1543 in the Opera is apparently due to Menno's thinking of the new year as beginning with l\1arch rather than January. This was common in various lands in the sixteenth century and later). The two men held their disputation in the chapel of the former Franciscan monastery in Emden. They discussed five topics: the incarnation of Christ, baptism, original sin, sanctification, and the calling of ministers. On two subjects they agreed: original sin and sanctification. On the incarnation they disagreed, as well as on baptism and the calling of ministers. Menno was of course a stout contender for believer's baptism, and for an unsalaried ministry by holy men of God who preached out of love and the call of the Spirit. A Lasco was a Pedobaptist, and his ministers were salaried-and fell below the standards of spirituality and holiness demanded by Menno. Part II of Menno's Brief and Clear Confession is devoted to the calling of ministers.
The most difficult point to explain, let alone defend, is Menno's view of the incarnation. And yet Menno's view, though not accepted by the Swiss Brethren ever, and though soon discarded by the Dutch Mennonites themselves, is not ridiculous. It was also held by Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563), the Reformed theologian, and Professor of Theology in Bern after 1549. In brief Menno's view was an attempt to exalt the truth of Christ's having been conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, and of His having been sinless.
Menno rejected any tendency to divide Christ into two parts: a heavenly and divine Being who came down to earth, and a natural man begotten of a human mother. Menno therefore insisted that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, not begotten of Mary (Menno thought that women produced no seed), and that He became a human being in Mary (but not of Mary).
In spite of his announced intention to accept simply what the Bible teaches, and to avoid all philosophical speculations on the subject, Menno did allow himself to become more deeply involved in this theory than was profitable.
It also furnished an excellent point on which his theological opponents could harass him-and which they did not fail to seize. Nevertheless Menno states in his Brief and Clear Confession that he passed through a period of severe struggle before he accepted this view, that he entered into the discussion of it with a Lasco against his will, that he did not teach it in the church life of his brotherhood, and that there were (Mennonite) Brethren who had never heard of the theory. It is therefore unfortunate that Menno did not stay by his original intention of avoiding speculation on the exact process of the incarnation, for his views proved to be a point of weakness and served to divert attention away from more important points on which Menno was sound as Gibraltar.
The Brief and Clear Confession was written in the year 1544, undoubtedly in the spring, for Menno promised a Lasco that he would furnish such a statement within three months of the interview of late January, 1544. A Lasco then published the treatise without Menno's knowledge or consent.
The title in full reads as follows: A Brief and Clear Confession and Scriptural Demonstration Concerning the Incarnation of Our Beloved Lord Jesus Christ; and Secondly How According to the Scriptures the Ministers and the Church of Christ Should be Minded. Written to the Noble and Learned Gentleman John a Lasco and His Assistants at Emden. A.D. 1544. In the Opera Omnia Theologica of 1681 this work is found, fol. 517-42, and in the Complete Works of 1871, II, 325-50.
J. C. W.

One more thing here, before I start the process of correcting scan errors in the text - Here is the Preface to this booklet. Please note the spirit in which Menno replies to a Lasco, who had already broken the promise he had made to Menno, not to publish anything of their previous dialogue on this subject.

Menno Simons wishes the noble and learned John a Lasco and his assistants and all the people of East Friesland, of whatever class or condition in life they may be, genuine faith, clear insight, true knowledge of the Holy Spirit, the lovely fear and pure love of the Lord, an unblamable life and the eternal life of God our heavenly Father, through Jesus Christ, His beloved Son, our Lord, who has loved us and washed us in His blood. To Him be the glory, honor, praise, kingdom, power, and majesty for ever and ever. Amen.

EDIT: Sorry - I think I am looking at a different booklet than what Boot has posted here. This one was originally published in 1544.

EDIT 02: I see that I was still looking at the preface, or greeting section of the same work.

[Neto]

I have read through the sections you quoted, using your 'version'. As far as I can see, there is nothing in these sections that anyone in any Mennonite group, whether today or in the past, would object to. The parts to which some object are not included in these quotations.

I DO defend Menno against the common misrepresentation implied by the term "Celestial Flesh", because by it people are saying that Menno believed and taught that Jesus' physical body descended from heaven. Jesus descended from heaven, but he 'became flesh' in Mary's womb. (Not 'took on flesh', as Calvin said, as though he "possessed' the body of an already existing unborn infant. That is heresy.) But Menno made the mistake of using a false scientific understanding of the process of conception which maintained that the woman contributed nothing to the embryo - the growing child, other than the completely essential environment in which all children develop.

The 'problem' he was dealing with was How could Jesus be born without sin? The Catholics had "solved" this problem by saying that Mary was herself sinless. (But what of her parents? Where do you stop?) I personally wonder if the other Dutch 'anabaptist' preacher with whom he differed (I forget his name at the moment) may have been correct. THAT question is concerning whether Jesus possessed a 'sin nature', as we all do. Menno said no, so he "had to" figure out how Jesus could have been born of Mary and still be w/o this sin nature. Please allow me to be clear - I am NOT suggesting that Jesus had any sin in Himself. I tend to think (and yes, this is going beyond Scripture, so it is not doctrine, neither mine, nor should it be anyone else's) that Jesus DID have a sin nature, but He did what we find completely impossible - He NEVER gave in to it. So thus He remained without sin. (This is a logical understanding to me because it does not create any conflict with the Scripture which states that "He was tried in every way in which we are, yet remained w/o sin." How can He understand what we go through if He never needed to resist the temptation that arises from our own 'flesh', or humanity?)

So while I think that Menno's inner conflict was likely born of a false assumption - that Jesus had no "sin nature", I find nothing objectionable about his insistence that The Word descended from heaven, and became a 'man child' in Mary's womb. I'll go farther, and say that it is at the core of the question of the divinity of Jesus. Several heresies are built upon the assumption that a male human being at some point 'became' Deity, God Almighty. Some say in the womb, others say at his baptism, or possibly even at the transfiguration. Then they also say that since "God cannot die" the Divine left Him at the cross, just prior to when Jesus cried out, "Father, why have you forsaken me?" But John clearly tells us that The Word was God; The Word became flesh. And it is also clear from the context that this 'WORD' is Jesus.

[Josh]

Much of Catholic christology is based around trying to resolve the dilemma of original sin somehow not affecting Jesus himself.

A much easier path is to stop making Augustine's doctrines of original sin (and just war, whilst we're at it) central, and simply stick with the simple meaning of the scriptural text. Then it is no problem at all for Jesus to be born of Mary.

It must need be obvious with our modern understanding of biology that Jesus' flesh was not entirely like (for example) John the Baptist's, as he, quite obviously, did not have any flesh from an earthly father - and could not have gotten a Y chromosome from anyone, seeing as Mary only had X chromosomes. I am content to leave this much of a mystery but I also find that I embrace what Menno Simons had to say on the topic, and indeed appreciate the GPT summaries of Menno Simons' writings, which seem to me to be a fair encapsulation of what he wrote.