Why I don't celebrate Hallowe'en or Reformation Day

Christians are funny people. Yesterday was Hallowe’en. Some, whether because it is truly important to them, because they want to show off their knowledge or because they can find an opportunity to share Christian doctrine, wished everyone yesterday, not “Happy Halloween,” but “Happy Reformation Day” in honor of the 493^rd anniversary of Martin Luther posting the 95 theses on the Castle Church door in Wittenberg.

I’m not so easily pleased. Remember, I’m the guy who, when everyone started emphasizing the “Christ” in “Christmas” made sure that I pronounced it with the long |i| sound. Then the next year, to be more clear, called it “Jesus-mas” (or “Isa-mas” and “Yeshua-mas” in order to include our Muslim and Jewish friends, respectively). Then the next year I wanted to make sure that there was no question about for whom we celebrated the holiday. I began to wish everyone a “Merry Jesus-Christ-who-alone-can-save-mankind-from-its-sin-by-His-blood-mas.”

So, it’s no surprise that I wasn’t happy with merely saying “Happy Reformation day.” Yesterday, I wished everyone a “Happy 2/3 Reformation Day. We’ll be celebrating the completion of it on January 21.” Martin Luther, in my opinion, did not finish the Reformation, although he did begin it formally (and as one recent speaker said, God used a Lutheran to start the Reformation because if He had used a Baptist, the Baptists would always be pointing it out). Here’s why I say, “2/3 Reformation,” rather than, “Beginning of the...,” or “1/2.”

Both Balthasar Hübmaier and Menno Simons had made the same complaint. Hübmaier said this:

“...people had learned no more than two points, without any amelioration of life. The one point, that they could say: ‘We believe. Faith saves us.’ Second: 'We can do nothing good of ourselves.’ Now both of these are true. But under the mantle of these half truths all kinds of iniquity, unfaithfulness, and injustice have completely taken over and fraternal love has become colder among many.”1

Menno Simons said this:

“God be praised, we caught on that all our works avail nothing, but that the blood and death of Christ alone must cancel and pay for our sins. They strike up a song, [Snapped is the cord, now we are free, praise the Lord] while beer and wine verily run from their drunken mouths and noses. Anyone who can but recite this on his thumb, no matter how carnally he lives, is a good evangelical man and a precious brother.”2

Both Hübmaier and Simons pointed out the reforms of Luther, Zwingli and the other magisterial reformers excelled on two doctrinal points. One is what we would today call “total depravity.” The other was the atoning work of Christ as Simons remarked and the sola fide that Hübmaier noted, keeping in mind that the atonement was the object of such faith. Both, however, noted that these doctrines did not result in the actualization of the new life to which Christ had called those who would follow Him. Both Hübmaier and Simons showed that Luther’s reforms only brought two significant points of reform to the people but not the third. It would be the Anabaptists who would greatly emphasize the necessity of regeneration and the disposition of the new life to follow Christ (nachfolge christi).

The Reformation that Luther began that day, October 31, 1517 only got things started. There are those of us who look toward the Anabaptists as having fully brought the Reformation to that toward which it was headed look to January 21, 1525, when the first baptisms to come out of the Reformation took place in Zürich. We will be celebrating Radical Reformation Day.

So, this is why I say, “Happy 2/3 Reformation Day.” It’s great if you know that you cannot save yourself because of your depravity. It’s great if you know that it is Christ who saves. Great though that knowledge may be, it is of no value to your soul if you do not follow Christ in the new life to which he has called you–a new life made possible because of the Cross. You may know Christian doctrine. You may even believe it to be true, but mere intellectual assent will avail you nothing except that you consider your old life as dead and take up the life of allowing Christ to work Himself in you.

1Balthasar Hübmaier, On Fraternal Admonition, in Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, H. Wayne Pipkin and John Howard Yoder eds., Classics of the Radical Reformation, no. 5 (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1989), 375.

2Menno Simons, True Christian Faith, in The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, Leonard C. Verduin transl. and John Christian Wenger ed. (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1956), 334.

On Hübmaier's Use of Scripture

            In Henry Clay Vedder’s 1905 biography of Balthasar Hübmaier, he gave his own translation of Hübmaier’s On Heretics and Those Who Burn Them.1 In that translation, Vedder pointed out what he saw to be two textual issues. Though he conceded that Hübmaier’s use of Scripture was generally fairly accurate, these two citations seemed to have been problematic.2

            The second issue Vedder saw is in article 34, where Hübmaier quoted Job 6:16 as referring to “those who fear the frost”, whereas most English translations translate the phrase as referring the blackness because of the ice.3 Hübmaier’s translation is an alternative interpretation that, though a viable translation, is a minority translation.4 The reason Vedder counted this quotation as problematic seems to be that he did not recognize the alternative translation that Hübmaier followed.

             The first problematic quotation that Vedder pointed out is a little more insightful into Hübmaier’s usage of Scripture. In article 12, Hübmaier wrote, “Blessed is the man who is a watcher at the door of the bridegroom’s chamber.”5 Hübmaier did not cite beyond the chapter in this instance, being Proverbs 8, as was customary for the time.6 Vedder’s complaint was that there was nothing in the chapter that “in the least corresponds” to what Hübmaier had written.7 Despite Vedder’s claim, verse 34 of the chapter has a close, though not perfect, correspondence to Hübmaier’s quotation; stating, “Blessed is the man that heareth me, Watching daily at my gates, Waiting at the posts of my doors.”8 Pipkin and Yoder apparently felt certain enough about this that they added the verse number to the in-text citation.9 Though there are similarities between Hübmaier’s quotation and the content of the quoted verse, they are different.

             The essential difference between Hübmaier’s quotation and Proverbs 8 is the mention of the bridegroom’s chamber, which is not in the original Scripture. Vedder suggested that Hübmaier may have been including ideas from Matthew 9:15 and John 3:29.10 Those two passages include a bridegroom’s chambers but there is no mention of the idea of watchfulness. I propose that Hübmaier may have been conflating Proverbs 8:34 with Matthew 25, particularly verses 6 and 13.

             In that parable, there is at least one person who had kept watch at the bridegroom’s chambers and announced the arrival of the bridegroom. It was to that announcement that the virgins had responded. The wise virgins then went into the wedding banquet and Jesus gave the warning to his listeners to stay alert. This parable has a bridegroom context and more importantly it has an exhortation to watchfulness, which is the subject of the Proverbs 8 beatitude. It would seem that Hübmaier conflated these two passages without citing the parable from Matthew 25.

            There is a central difficulty with this proposition, though. Hübmaier is using the quotation in reference to vigilance against false doctrine. Verse 13 of the parable makes clear that the vigilance of the parable is toward the second coming. The parable is decidedly eschatological in scope.

            Hübmaier himself in later writings had used the parable in its eschatological sense. It is included in A Form of Christ’s Supper and the Apologia.11 There, Hübmaier related the parable with Matthew 24:42 and Mark 13:32, which both state the ignorance of all regarding the coming of the Lord. So, Hübmaier, at least at the time of those writings, understood the parable in its eschatological sense and it might seem odd that he would use the Scripture in another way earlier in On Heretics.

            Even earlier, however, Hübmaier had used the parable in relation to vigilance against false doctrine. In his statements at the second Zürich disputation, Hübmaier is recorded as having said:

“For holy Scripture alone is the true light and lantern through which all human argument, darkness, and objections can be recognized. This the prophet David knew perfectly well as he said to God, ‘Thy Word is a lamp to my feet” [Ps. 119:105]. Christ also himself taught us the same thing: that we should take the lantern of his salutary Word in our hand, so that when the bridegroom comes we can enter into the marriage feast with him [Matt. 25:1-13].”12

            Here, Hübmaier set the lantern of the parable as Scripture, which he had interpreted as that by which all false teachings are discerned. Further he understands such vigilance within its eschatological context so that, being free of false doctrine on account of such vigilance, believers would be able to unite with Christ in the last days. So, it would be that if Hübmaier felt comfortable using the parable in that instance to comment on vigilance against false doctrine, then it is reasonable that he would have done the same in the twelfth article of On Heretics.

            The significance of this is not merely to answer a question raised in a footnote in a century-old biography. The importance of identifying what Hübmaier had in mind in this reference is that we can gain insight into Hübmaier’s use of Scripture. Though the parable’s warning was specifically eschatological, Hübmaier seems to have extended it meaning as a warning against false doctrine. Hübmaier’s usage seems to be a bit more than typological in this case, for to do so would be to use the language of the parable to make another sort of warning.

            To reinterpret the parable, however, would be to go against the Anabaptists’ general use of the Bible. On the parable of the wheat and the tares, the Anabaptist criticized the reinterpretation that made the field the church rather than the world, as Christ Himself had interpreted the parable. Hübmaier move in his interpretation of this parable is more justifiable. Guardedness against false doctrine might be part of what is meant by keeping watch for the Lord’s return, especially consider Paul’s prophecy in 2 Timothy 4:3, that there will be in that time an acceptance of false teachers.

            So, Hübmaier’s use of Scripture, as illustrated at this point, has a certain complexity about it–a complexity that apparently threw Vedder of the scent. Hübmaier felt free to extend the meaning of a parable to speak more explicitly about something that might fall under the purview of that parable’s meaning. The biblicism of at least this Anabaptist was not mere literal proof-texting but has a dynamic character, demonstrating a sophistication usually not attributed to Anabaptist hermeneutics.

1Balthasar Hubmaier: Leader of the Anabaptists (New York: Knickerbocker, 1905), 84-88.

2Ibid., 85n.

3Ibid., 88. cf. H. Wayne Pipkin and John Howard Yoder eds., Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, Classics of the Radical Reformation, no. 5 (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1989), 65.

4It is not certain whether Hübmaier was translating from the Hebrew or the Vulgate ate this point or even if he was using another German translation. Regardless, both the Hebrew and the Vulgate word can carry both the connotations of darkness and fear.

5Vedder, Hubmaier: Leader, 85. cf. Pipkin and Yoder, Hubmaier: Theologian, 61.

6Urs B. Leu, Die Froschauer-Bibeln und die Täufer: Die Geschichte einer Jahrhunderte Alten Freundschaft = The Froschauer Bibles and the Anabaptists: The History of an Old Friendship (Herborn, Germany: Sepher, 2005), 41. Leu states that verse numbers were first added in a 1548 French edition of the Vulgate.

7Vedder, Hubmaier: Leader, 85n.

8ASV, which has been chosen here because it would have been available to Vedder along with the KJV, which differs from the ASV of this verse only in capitalization.

9Pipkin and Yoder, Hubmaier: Theologian, 61. In the preface to the work, the editors promised to include verse numbers whenever they could identify them (20).

10Vedder, Hubmaier: Leader, 85n.

11Pipkin and Yoder, Hubmaier: Theologian, 406, 543.

12Ibid., 23-24.

Balthasar Hubmaier: Hermeneutical Prophet?

              Key to the debate between Zwingli and Hubmaier on the question of infant baptism was hermeneutical method. Zwingli, following the normative principle, defended infant baptism on account that it had not been prohibited in Scripture. Hubmaier, following the regulative principle, rejected it because there was no Scriptural precedent for the practice.

               Hubmaier evidently felt the reformed argument was lacking in Scriptural foundation. Hubmaier wrote, "We have a clear word for baptizing believers and you have none for baptizing your children, except that you groundlessly drag in several shadows from the Old Testament."1 Hubmaier had also challenged Zwingli to defend his position with "bright, clear, and simple writing... without any additions."2 This Hubmaier requested after saying that he "would report on and testify to [his] reasons in the divine Scriptures that infant baptism is a work without any basis."3 Hubmaier's view was that those within the magisterial reformation that held over the practice of infant baptism were weak in their use of Scripture, adding to the Word in order to justify their position.
              Hubmaier had pointed words directed toward the magisterial reformers use of Scripture that allowed them to hold to infant baptism. This abuse of the Scripture was against the sola scriptura ideal that had in large part sparked that reformation and Hubmaier recognized that the magisterial reformers were ignoring the Scriptures that had given them their starting point in the doctrine of justification by faith. He wrote:

            "You twist yourself, you bend back and forth, but no clear Scripture will come forth. Remember what you said against Faber and published in the Article 15,4 that all truth stands clear in the Word of God. If now infant baptism is truth, then point it out in the clear Word of God. Show it to us for God's sake. Do it; do not forget. Or the vicar will complain that you have used a sword against him that you now unbelt and that you cannot suffer to be stabbed with."

            The force of Hubmaier's rebuke here is clear. As strong as Hubmaier's words may have been, they are quite chilling when compared to these lines from John Eck, former mentor of Hubmaier and constant antagonist to Luther:

            "Even though, in the preceding and following articles, the new Christians [reformers] set up the principle that they would accept nothing that could not be defended with clear biblical references; after the Anabaptists had arisen they could not defeat them and were forced to give up their principle (foundation) and concede that many things had to be believed and practiced that were not written (contained) [in Scripture], as Zwingli asserted with respect to the baptism of Mary and also the baptism of children.”5

            Just as Hubmaier had claimed, it did not go unnoticed among the Catholics that the magisterial reformers had turned against what they had once held up as their guide for truth, Scripture. Eck admitted that in terms of biblicism it was the Anabaptists who had the stronger argument. The Catholics indeed observed the magisterial reformers place back in its sheath the sword of Scripture that they had formerly wielded against their Catholic opponents. Hubmaier died before Eck wrote these words in 1530 but his rebuke foresaw what would become the rebuke of the Catholics against the same group.

1Balthasar Hubmaier, "Dialogue with Zwingli's Baptism Book," in H. Wayne Pipkin and John Howard Yoder eds. Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, Classics of the Radical Reformation, no. 5 (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1989), 182.

2Ibid., 172.

3Ibid.

4This was an article in Zwingli's sixty-seven theses compiled for the first Zurich disputation, which set the pace for the growing reformation movement in that city.

5John Eck, Enchiridion, quoted in Abraham Friesen, In Defense of Freedom: Russian Mennonites and the State Before and During World War I (Winnipeg, Manitoba: Kindred, 2006), 348-349.