Anabaptists and the Authority of Scripture

[joshuabgood]

Also, superseding the law of Moses and having the law of Christ written on our hearts is one thing. Making OT depictions of God (e.g. wrath against his enemies, or his commands for Israel to wage war on the Canaanites) into something that was misunderstood or not true, and has to be reinterpreted because of the Sermon on the Mount, is definitely another thing. That would be where sitting in judgment on the OT comes in. The progress of revelation from the OT to the NT - and all through Scripture, in the progress of the OT itself, is from less to greater revelation, not to correction of past revelation. The God depicted in the OT is the same as the God depicted in the NT, not least because the NT also shows the wrath and judgment of God - and of Christ Himself, and the OT also shows the great compassion and patience of God. The nonresistance/nonviolence and sacrificial love of Christ show his love for his enemies. But that's not the sum total of what Scripture has to say about sin and rejection of Christ. Ultimately, if people continue to reject Christ, there is not nonresistance and nonviolence for them to look forward to, "but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire about to consume the adversaries." (Heb. 10:27).

I hear what you are saying, and yet, Jesus explicitly said, "It has been said but I say..." For me the obvious interpretation is that Jesus is correcting/changing/rewriting what was said. I think there is ample evidence that his hearers certainly experienced it that way. (And this wasn't a one off motif but an ongoing pattern of teaching by Jesus, the perfect revelation of God.)

As for who God is, we needn't wonder or speculate regarding how a text depicts him or how we should interpret said text. He came in the flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory. He was revealed to us, literally, Emmanuel, God with us. If we saw him we saw the Father. Jesus came to reveal to us who God was/is. He is the fulness of God, the perfect revelation, the complete picture, the image of, God. God is Love. The way of the cross, the path of suffering love, is the way of the Father. Any seeming contradiction, misunderstanding, etc etc - are resolved in the person of Jesus Christ, God with us.

As far as the eschatological question/s, perhaps that is fodder for another conversation.

[MattY]

A question for those who don't see much Christocentrism in early Anabaptism, how do you account for the rejection of the church state, war, swearing oaths ECT..

Differences in views of the relationship between the Old and New Testament - i.e. rejection of a flat Bible. If that's defined as Christocentric, then they were Christocentric. That's not the same as a flat New Testament though. I don't think insisting on a literal interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount's teachings on war, swearing oaths, etc., is elevating Christ's teachings in Matthew's writings over Christ's teachings in Paul's writings, but rightly interpreting the New Testament as a whole.

Christ is absolutely central to our faith, and we learn from his life, example, and teachings.
The life and example of Christ: Found in the Gospels.
The teachings of Christ: Found in the entire New Testament. There were no red letters in the original writings, and the Gospel writers sometimes adjust their presentation of His words and actions (in how they describe it, the order they put them in, etc.) to make whatever point they're trying to get across in that particular passage. We also don't literally have the actual words He said in Aramaic, but a translation of His words, to Greek. So I think it's incorrect to give the "red words" a higher level of inspiration than the rest of the New Testament. It's all the teachings of Christ AND the teachings of the apostles. If we're not following the teachings found in the Gospels well enough, OR the teachings found in the epistles, well, “these things ought you to have done, and not to have left the other undone.”

[MattY]

Thanks for this thoughtful comment Matt...

I appreciate the interaction here and in the rest of the thread.

I'm not in favor of a "flat Bible" approach, but more of a flat New Testament approach I guess, because I think that's what the NT teaches. Christ is the center of our faith, absolutely. The New Testament has priority for the Christian in matters of faith and practice.

If I say a passage should be interpreted literally (such as the Sermon on the Mount), am I elevating that passage above the rest of Scripture? Or just disagreeing on its interpretation? Answers in Genesis puts a lot of emphasis on Gen. 1-6 as a foundation for the rest of Scripture, but does that mean they see it differently than the rest of Scripture? I think they would say they interpret it the same way as other historical narratives of Scripture (i.e. literally), rather than seeing it elevated. I would say that people who grossly misunderstand or willfully ignore the Sermon on the Mount are elevating the OT or maybe Romans 13 above it, not interpreting them in tandem as they should be.

I understand what you're saying and agree about what the neo-Anabaptists, Bender, etc., were trying to do. I don't think it worked. I mean, I am not an ultra or intermediate-conservative Mennonite, to be clear; I don't think the adoption of lots of standards of practice "worked" either, except to alienate and confuse those who were not in favor of the strict standards, and ultimately the latter won, resulting in the breakoff of conservatives in last century's splits. But my understanding is the ones who have tended to stay the most conservative since then (EPMC, Pilgrim, Hope, and other ultras and intermediates) don't look to Bender but to the Garden City Confession as their heritage. For those blaming the current state of liberal Mennonites on the ideas represented by the Garden City Confession, why shouldn't Bender and his generation take the blame, seeing as his students (like John Howard Yoder) were influential during the liberal shift in the late 1900s?

This is an extreme analogy, but archaeologists find evidence of idol worship all over ancient Israel between the conquest and the captivity. Some unbelievers have used it as evidence that the Bible is wrong - the Israelites didn't worship God, they worshipped idols. But in fact, that's what the Bible actually says! Idol worship continued pretty much throughout, even though the law of God strictly forbade it. Although it was occasionally repressed or repented of, it was never totally gone and eventually the idol worshippers took over under the monarchies. 

I'm not equating these Mennonites to idol worshippers, it's an extreme analogy. But from what I've read and heard, throughout the first half of the 1900s, a lot of people quietly didn't follow the strict standards set by the Mennonite Church, and eventually they were able to start changing things, which led to the conservatives breaking away. Shifting toward the Christocentric ideas of the Anabaptist Vision didn't stop the split or the liberalization.

Personally, I wouldn't blame theology - not the theology of Garden City Confession or the theology of, say, Daniel Kauffman, nor that of Harold Bender and the NeoAnabaptists, but the practice of the Mennonite Church at the time. I think the addition of extrabiblical standards undermines God's law written on our hearts, and comes from too low an opinion of God's law - not too high a view of it. We don't protect the law of God by adding a fence around it to make it feel more manageable or more outwardly impressive or visible. The best way to promote the law of God (by which I mean New Testament teaching, not Moses' law) is to preach it, proclaim it, and obey it. (hat tip to Gavin Ortlund for how well he states this).

[Nomad]

Also, superseding the law of Moses and having the law of Christ written on our hearts is one thing. Making OT depictions of God (e.g. wrath against his enemies, or his commands for Israel to wage war on the Canaanites) into something that was misunderstood or not true, and has to be reinterpreted because of the Sermon on the Mount, is definitely another thing. That would be where sitting in judgment on the OT comes in. The progress of revelation from the OT to the NT - and all through Scripture, in the progress of the OT itself, is from less to greater revelation, not to correction of past revelation. The God depicted in the OT is the same as the God depicted in the NT, not least because the NT also shows the wrath and judgment of God - and of Christ Himself, and the OT also shows the great compassion and patience of God. The nonresistance/nonviolence and sacrificial love of Christ show his love for his enemies. But that's not the sum total of what Scripture has to say about sin and rejection of Christ. Ultimately, if people continue to reject Christ, there is not nonresistance and nonviolence for them to look forward to, "but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire about to consume the adversaries." (Heb. 10:27).

I hear what you are saying, and yet, Jesus explicitly said, "It has been said but I say..." For me the obvious interpretation is that Jesus is correcting/changing/rewriting what was said. I think there is ample evidence that his hearers certainly experienced it that way. (And this wasn't a one off motif but an ongoing pattern of teaching by Jesus, the perfect revelation of God.)

As for who God is, we needn't wonder or speculate regarding how a text depicts him or how we should interpret said text. He came in the flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory. He was revealed to us, literally, Emmanuel, God with us. If we saw him we saw the Father. Jesus came to reveal to us who God was/is. He is the fulness of God, the perfect revelation, the complete picture, the image of, God. God is Love. The way of the cross, the path of suffering love, is the way of the Father. Any seeming contradiction, misunderstanding, etc etc - are resolved in the person of Jesus Christ, God with us.

As far as the eschatological question/s, perhaps that is fodder for another conversation.

Even if one would come to the conclusion that Jesus was reinterpreting, rewording, or rewriting previous scripture in those quotes you point out from the sermon on the Mount. It seems like a rather massive assumption to think that He is reinterpreting the Old Testament in its entirety with those quotes. I could perhaps see how someone could come to the conclusion He is redefining the Law...but the Law does not equate to the entire Old Testament.

[joshuabgood]

You are making a larger point than i am, Nomad. I am not saying his teachings nullify the whole of the OT. I am merely pointing out that he is Lord of the scriptures and not subservient to them. And that at least portions of the OT were rewritten and overruled by Jesus.

I would further suppose that any conflicts with the life and witness of Jesus be harmonized with him rather than the other way around.

I think the OT has a lot of value for us. The Psalms, Isaiah, etc etc are inspirational and have much value. However, they don't override the teachings and life of Jesus in my view. For instance dashing the heads of the little ones on the rocks is not coherent with the life and witness of Jesus.

[Bootstrap]

Also, superseding the law of Moses and having the law of Christ written on our hearts is one thing. Making OT depictions of God (e.g. wrath against his enemies, or his commands for Israel to wage war on the Canaanites) into something that was misunderstood or not true, and has to be reinterpreted because of the Sermon on the Mount, is definitely another thing. That would be where sitting in judgment on the OT comes in. The progress of revelation from the OT to the NT - and all through Scripture, in the progress of the OT itself, is from less to greater revelation, not to correction of past revelation. The God depicted in the OT is the same as the God depicted in the NT, not least because the NT also shows the wrath and judgment of God - and of Christ Himself, and the OT also shows the great compassion and patience of God. The nonresistance/nonviolence and sacrificial love of Christ show his love for his enemies. But that's not the sum total of what Scripture has to say about sin and rejection of Christ. Ultimately, if people continue to reject Christ, there is not nonresistance and nonviolence for them to look forward to, "but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire about to consume the adversaries." (Heb. 10:27).

Galatians 3 tells us plainly that parts of the Old Testament were given for the time before Jesus, and are no longer binding for New Testament Christians. This is one way that Jesus fulfilled the law:

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptised into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

I agree with those who say the Sermon on the Mount tells us how Jesus fulfilled the law.

I hear what you are saying, and yet, Jesus explicitly said, "It has been said but I say..." For me the obvious interpretation is that Jesus is correcting/changing/rewriting what was said. I think there is ample evidence that his hearers certainly experienced it that way. (And this wasn't a one off motif but an ongoing pattern of teaching by Jesus, the perfect revelation of God.)

In those statements, he doesn't say "go ahead and commit adultery", he says "don't even set your heart on a woman". And he does the same with the other Old Testament commands that he mentions here. Not actually committing adultery does not fulfill the law.

[Nomad]

You are making a larger point than i am, Nomad. I am not saying his teachings nullify the whole of the OT. I am merely pointing out that he is Lord of the scriptures and not subservient to them. And that at least portions of the OT were rewritten and overruled by Jesus.

I would further suppose that any conflicts with the life and witness of Jesus be harmonized with him rather than the other way around.

I think the OT has a lot of value for us. The Psalms, Isaiah, etc etc are inspirational and have much value. However, they don't override the teachings and life of Jesus in my view. For instance dashing the heads of the little ones on the rocks is not coherent with the life and witness of Jesus.

Ok, perhaps this is just semantics on my part then. If so I apologize.

I'm not saying that I'm putting the Bible before Jesus or vice versa. The issue for me is when the Bible begins to appear malleable and is left up to an individual with a strong philosophical bent to decide the interpretation for the masses. When people say there are portions of scripture less inspired or we can take Jesus words over Paul's, then it makes the Bible message blurry and usually what happens is Christians begin to turn to a man's interpretation for guidance. I have a bit of an issue with that. I'll confess that I may get overly critical of some within the Christocentric camp, possibly due to my history with it...so if I've come across as arrogant then I hope you can forgive me.

[barnhart]

I suspect MattY and I would have astounding amount of agreement on the meaning of the NT but I am not willing to call that interpretation a "flat NT". It seems likely to me the interpretation I think is Christocentric (assumes Jesus is the meaning of all Scripture) is what MattY thinks of a "proper interpretation".

[Neto]

For the most part (perhaps always, but I'm not going to make that claim w/o carefully verifying it first) when Jesus refers to the OT, whether the Law or the Prophets, he says "It is written". Written, not "said". I think that if you find all of the places where he says "It is said", and then try to identify an OT Scripture being "quoted", you will come up lacking. I'll say it again - He was (for the most part, at least) using that wording to refer to something that the Pharisees and/or the teachers of the Law were SAYING (not reading). He wasn't "correcting the Law", he was correcting the false concepts of the Law.

Re: the "red letters":
I only translated one of the Gospels (Luke), but what I found is that it is considered very easy to determine when a "direct quote" (understanding that it is a translated quote, as remembered by the hearers) begins, but it is often impossible to determine where it ends. If "Jesus' words" are more important than the teaching he delivered to the disciples, then reported by them, often in their own words, or, for that matter, revelations of truth he gave through the apostles and Paul as well, then we do not have a proper understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit, and the resulting revelation of God in the Scriptures.

This has been said here before as well, but perhaps it bears repeating: Jesus gave his summary of the OT in what people call "the Golden Rule", and he 'endorsed' what a teacher of the Law said along the same lines, as "summing up all of the Law and Prophets". "You are not far from the Kingdom of God," he told him. What did that man lack, to be IN the Kingdom? Recognition of the KING, and obedience rendered to him.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I understand what you're saying and agree about what the neo-Anabaptists, Bender, etc., were trying to do. I don't think it worked. I mean, I am not an ultra or intermediate-conservative Mennonite, to be clear; I don't think the adoption of lots of standards of practice "worked" either, except to alienate and confuse those who were not in favor of the strict standards, and ultimately the latter won, resulting in the breakoff of conservatives in last century's splits. But my understanding is the ones who have tended to stay the most conservative since then (EPMC, Pilgrim, Hope, and other ultras and intermediates) don't look to Bender but to the Garden City Confession as their heritage. For those blaming the current state of liberal Mennonites on the ideas represented by the Garden City Confession, why shouldn't Bender and his generation take the blame, seeing as his students (like John Howard Yoder) were influential during the liberal shift in the late 1900s?

I looked it up, and yes, Yoder did do his undergrad under Bender. But most of the work that comes from Yoder, and his generation, has it source in Europe, not at Goshen. For Bender, yes, he did do his Ph.D in Europe, but I see his work as more historical than theological. However, all these people were immersed in the Neo-Orthodoxy, as best, or the liberalism at worse of midcentury Europe. As the Christian church in Europe was destroyed by liberalism, in all its forms, so it much of MCUSA.

I suspect, for the conservatives of the period, they are not looking back at Garden City as their heritage, as much as they would see Garden City preserving and stating what they had long believed, before late 19th century and early 20th century liberalism challenged it.