I agree with much if not all of what you say. My only quibble is that the Anabaptist hermeneutic wasn't "Christocentric". I don't think that's quite right. Perhaps it's not the Barthian "Jesus-centered" approach that leads in a more "liberal" direction but when I read essays, quoting early Anabaptists, it's seems clear to me that they both held a high view of scripture (higher than their Protestant neighbors) and also interpreted everything through the lens of the revealed and triumphant Word. “In the past, God spoke through the prophets … in these final days, though, [God] spoke to us through a Son. Jesus, is the light of God’s glory and the imprint of God’s being” (Hebrews 1:1-3 CEB). I would commend to you some essays on the Anabaptist Hermeneutic by Swartley, Roth and others...I know these folks are more liberal than most here but their efforts to understand how the Anabaptists understood the scriptures and then mut them into practice is commendable.
The Bible as Self-Interpreting:
Anabaptists were convinced that ordinary Christians could read and understand the Bible with
confidence because they understood that Scripture was self-interpreting. “The words of Christ
“For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. 3:11
are plainly expressed, distinctly and clearly,” wrote Clemens Adler in 1529. “They must be
permitted to stand on their worth and truth without any of our additions.” 2
Felix Mantz, the first Anabaptist martyr wrote, “I do, however, know for sure that if only the Word be allowed to
speak for itself freely and simply, no one will be able to withstand it.”3
In the record of Mantz’s
trial, he testifies to the key role the Bible plays in his thinking and in its clarity and dependability.
“Felix Mantz gives answer that the Scriptures and their bases are so firm that they cannot be set
aside or overcome ---- nothing has impelled him to deny infant baptism and to oppose it but the
clear and true Scripture.” 4
While on trial, Anabaptists continued to declare that their views were derived only from
Scripture and that Scripture was clear enough to support and justify their views. For example, in
1553, Joos Kindt complained to his inquisitor, “Don’t speak to me of Augustine, for I do not
know him; I hold no doctrine save that of the apostles and the prophets, and the words which
our Saviour brought from on high heaven, from the mouth of his heavenly Father, and sealed
with his precious blood; for this I go to the fire; but Augustine, Gregory, Ambrose, these I know
not.”5
Another inquisitor asked an Anabaptist woman, Claeskan, in 1559, “do you know better
than the holy fathers of fifteen hundred years ago? You should think that they are simple.” Her
reply is typical of Anabaptist’s confidence that scholarship and theological reputation were not
the keys to correct hermeneutics: “Though I am simple before men, I am not simple in the
knowledge of the Lord. Do you know that the Lord thanked his Father that he had hid these
things from the wise and the prudent, and he revealed them to the simple and unto babes?” 6
Among Anabaptists, a theological and intellectual approach to scripture was suspect. Using the
text from Matthew 11:25, many quoted Jesus’ prayer rejoicing that God had revealed truth to
“For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. 3:11
the simple and to children as the basis of their confidence in interpreting Scripture. Others
noted that many authors of the Bible were uneducated and ordinary men. Menno urged his
opponent Gellius Faber to be content with “the plain and simple testimony of Matthew the
publican, and of Peter and John, the fishermen, so that he might not deceive the unlearned by
such wise reasoning, and lead them from the way of truth.” 7
Even Balthasar Hubmaier, the most highly trained theologian among the Anabaptists, was
committed to the principle of simplicity on the bases that Jesus himself was a carpenter and not
a trained scholar. In a debate he argued, “I grant that you are all highly educated, and in fact
you are. But I have spoken in simplicity, and my speech can only be and will only be thus. For
the Son of the carpenter, who never went to university, has bidden me thus to speak, and in
order that I may write it, has himself fashioned my pen with his carpenter’s hatchet.” 8
Anabaptists recognized that Scripture contains obscure and difficult passages but they expected
to understand these by comparing Scripture with Scripture. In A Simple Instruction, Hubmaier
wrote, “Where certain sayings of Scripture are dark or presented in very short form, from which
disagreements may follow, one ought, in order to resolve any difficulty, to place other writings
that are clearer and plainer, but related to the same matter, beside the short, dark sayings, as
many candles lit together. Thus the bright, clear light of Scriptures will break forth.” 9
Anabaptists also taught the importance of allowing scripture to interpret itself by reading texts
in their context. Hubmaier wrote, “The Bible also interprets itself in that many passages must
be viewed in the context of what precedes and what follows. The crucial passage, if torn out of
context, will admit to all kinds of interpretations, but if placed in the light of the context will be
quite clear and plain.”10 Dirk Philips taught that not only individual verses must be understood
“For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. 3:11
in their context but that entire passages must be read in the context of Scripture as a whole. “It
is neither right nor permissible --- that many passages of scripture must make way for one single
passage and be broken, distorted and altered because of one passage, but one passage should
give way to many and be understood according to many proofs,”11
Christocentrism:
Christocentrism was widely accepted among Anabaptists as a significant hermeneutical key.
Jesus was recognized as the one who clarified what was obscure in Scripture. Hans Pfistermeyer
wrote, “What Christ has explained and helped us to understand, I will adhere to, since it is the
will of his heavenly Father. I accept the Old Testament wherever it points to Christ. However,
Christ came with a more exalted and perfect teaching.”12
The Reformers also insisted that Scripture’s primary sense was Christological. However, for
Luther and others, ‘Christological’ referred primarily to the redemptive work of Christ and the
principle of justification by faith. This was seen as Scripture’s primary meaning and became the
hermeneutical key to every Scripture passage. But the Reformers seemed to have struggled with
Jesus’ words and often used Old Testament references to explain their meaning, as in the
example of swearing oaths and justifying war.
Michael Sattler’s basic principle for interpreting Scripture was the “perfection of Christ” which
included both the words and the example of Christ. At his trial he responded, “I am not aware
that we have acted contrary to the Gospel and the Word of God; I appeal to the words of
Christ.”13 It was by those words that he wanted to be judged as to whether or not he was
“For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. 3:11
faithful to the whole of scripture. Menno Simons placed I Corinthians 3: 11, “For no other
foundation can be laid, than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” at the beginning of
everything he wrote. In 1539 he wrote the classic Anabaptist phrase, “No doctrine is profitable
or serviceable to our salvation but the doctrine of Christ Jesus and His holy apostles.”14 Dirk
Philips insisted that “the only touchstone and the only measuring rod is God’s word, and the
only foundation is Jesus Christ.” “Jesus with his doctrine, life and example is our Teacher,
Leader, and Guide, him we must hear and follow.”15 Note the special emphasis on Jesus’ life and
example and on hearing and following him.
The Christocentrism of Anabaptists meant that they did not read the Bible as a flat document.
Generally the New Testament was seen as authoritative over the Old Testament and the life and
teaching of Jesus, as presented in the Gospels, were of greatest significance. Again quoting Dirk
Philips, “Such and similar signs and figures of divine grace were, indeed, for the most part given
from God to the believers in the Old Testament. They all direct us primarily to Jesus Christ
through whom we receive grace from God.”16 As the Old Testament pointed forward to Christ,
so the New Testament directed all attention to him, the source of life and power, the example
to be followed and the founder and head of the church. Many Anabaptists even ranked the
Gospels above the rest of the New Testament because they, above all else, highlighted the
words and life of Jesus. For Anabaptists then the first step in hermeneutics was to ask how a
passage should be interpreted in light of Jesus life and teaching. He was honoured as the
supreme revealer; as the ultimate revelation of God.
Anabaptists acknowledged the Christ of the creeds but their Christocentrism focused less on the
creedal Christ than on the historical Jesus. While they agreed with the Reformers on the
importance of faith in the redeeming work of Christ, their Christocentric hermeneutic did not
“For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. 3:11
mean that all of scripture need be interpreted by the doctrine of justification by faith. Rather all
Scripture was to be understood through the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus. His
example, his lifestyle, his relationships and his intentions were essential as the basis for
interpreting Scripture. Using the Gospels as the primary cannon had significant implications for
Anabaptists. Unlike the Reformers doctrinal and propositional focus, which required little more
than intellectual discussion and mental assent, the Anabaptist hermeneutic encouraged an
encounter; a living relationship with the Lord of Scripture. The German expression “Nachfolge”
or following after was used to describe the discipleship which resulted from the emphasis this
hermeneutic.
The Reformers were suspicious that the Anabaptist emphasis on Jesus as example rather than
redeemer was leading them away from the principle of ‘saved by grace alone’ and reverting to
works-righteousness. However, Anabaptists argued that they were not reverting to worksrighteousness. They accused the Reformers of a “faith without works.” Dirk Philips stated that
while “some nevertheless say that we wish to earn our salvation through our good works, this is
as far from our faith as heaven is from earth. For we believe and confess that we are saved
through the grace of Christ and have forgiveness alone through his blood.”17
The Munster disaster was one of the few times that Christocentric hermeneutics was
abandoned by Anabaptists. The Munster leaders chose to focus almost exclusively on Old
Testament references to justify their apocalyptic vision. By-passing Jesus and his New Testament
teaching resulted in disastrous consequences for the Munsterites and resulted in a long standing
blight for Anabaptists.
The Anabaptist Christocentric hermeneutic was significant in the development belief and
practice in the Reformation. This radical call to a life of costly discipleship represented a middle
“For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. 3:11
ground between the Catholic emphasis on works and the Protestant emphasis on faith alone.
John Howard Yoder wrote of this development, “There being no essential structural connection
between Christ and ethics, except the negative one that we are saved by Christ instead of works,
Protestants have had to choose between a high Christology and a high ethic. The Anabaptist
claim that Christ is authoritative in ethics in the same way as for soteriology --- avoided such a
posing of alternatives, and perceived that a high ethic and a high Christology are possible only
together.” 18
