New Testament Finality

Mennonites regard the entire Bible as God's holy Word, "inspired and profitable." But they hold that Jesus Christ and His redemption stand at the center of time. All of God's dealings with man before Christ were in preparation for His redemption. The Old Covenant stood until the death of the One who instituted the New Covenant, until "the death of the Testator" (Heb. 9:16). The Old Covenant was not perfect in the sense that its blessings were inferior to those of the New (Heb. 8:6ff). The Old Testament prophets looked forward to the glory of the New Covenant with its deeper blessings, the New Covenant being less nationalistic and external and more personal and spiritual in character (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:7-13). Jesus Christ established this predicted New Covenant (Heb. 8:6; 9:13-17). The Old Testament as a religious system is therefore done away. It is displaced by the New Covenant with its better promises (Heb. 8:6), this New Covenant being in force since the death of Jesus (Heb. 9:15, 16). The New Covenant brought with it complete forgiveness for sin forever, with no need of further sacrifices for sin (Heb. 10:14-18).

Jesus Christ who established the New Covenant during His earthly life served as God's Prophet making known the will of God for man. All that Christ taught was by command of the Father. Christ's words were therefore the Word of God (John 12 :49, 50). The four Gospels contain almost all that we know of the words of Jesus. In the fifth chapter of Matthew the Lord Jesus discussed His attitude toward the Old Testament, "the law and the prophets." He indicated first of all the durability and permanence of the Old Testament Scriptures; they will not fail (5:18). But they are fulfilled in Jesus and His teaching (5:17, 18). Then Jesus proceeded to give five illustrations of how He "fulfilled" the Old Testament. These relate to murder (5:21), adultery (5:27), divorce (5:31), oaths (5:33), and retaliation (5:38). In every case Jesus built upon the essential moral principles of the Old Testament and made those principles more penetrating and extensive than they had been in the Law. Not only is murder wrong, but he who hates is equally guilty of a lack of love (cf. I John 3:15). Not only is adultery wrong, but the lustful gaze indicates the same corrupt heart (cf. Mark 7 :21). Not only shall divorce [i.e., the Jews required a divorce break engagement-see Joseph and Mary example, Matt. 1:19, 20, LMH] be strictly legalized, it shall be restricted to but one ground, infidelity (cf. Matt. 19:9). Not only are all false oaths prohibited, but all oaths whatsoever are to be done away (cf. James 5 :12). Not only is illegal retaliation wrong, but all retaliation shall be desisted from (cf. Romans 12 :17-21). In every respect the disciple of the Lord shall take an attitude of perfect love toward his enemies and wrongdoers; he shall imitate the Father in heaven who is beneficent toward both the evil and the good, toward those who defy Him and those who obey Him. He shall be perfect in love, even as God is perfect (5:48).

With this general interpretation the leading reformers of the sixteenth century were in basic agreement. They too believed that there was a difference between the Old Covenant and the New; indeed John Calvin wrote an excellent discussion of the matter (INSTITUTES, II, 11). The reformers also believed that Jesus had established the New Covenant. They believed further that Jesus gave His disciples an authoritative interpretation of God's moral law. But at that point the agreement ceases. The reformers ultimately limited that which Christ displaced to the Mosaic tabernacle, sacrificial system, priesthood, holy days and festivals, and ceremonially unclean foods. They refused to concede that what was permitted in the Old Testament could now be forbidden. They were of course not totally consistent in this point of view; for example, it was only in an awkward situation that Luther joined in permitting Philip of Hesse to have two wives. But the reformers did not believe in granting religious liberty to the "heretical" Anabaptists-and in the Old Testament they found abundant authorization to suppress deviation from the faith of the covenant people. Furthermore, since wars and oaths were freely engaged in by Israel of old, even with divine sanction, the reformers refused to believe that Christ and His apostles meant in an absolute sense what they said about being nonresistant and not swearing at all. In addition to this the Anabaptist stress fell on the fulfillment of the Old Covenant by the New, while the reformers emphasized the essential unity of the two covenants. Consequently it was natural for the reformers to think in terms of a national church with all children of the citizen-members being baptized as infants quite as Israelitish children were circumcised from Abraham to Jesus.

Little wonder then that the Anabaptists were regarded as heretics when they stated that the Old Testament was done away and when they demanded New Testament backing for every church ordinance and for the entire ethic of the Christian. Pilgram Marpeck compiled an entire volume consisting of contrasting citations from the two testaments on every conceivable point of doctrine. Dirck Philips wrote as follows on the unity in spirit of the two covenants:

So then the gospel and the law are divided so far as the figures, shadows and the letter of the law are concerned, which are all done away by the gospel. But it is essential that we take heed to the spirit of the law (for the law is spiritual, as Paul says. . .). We will then find that the signification, purport and real meaning of the law accords and agrees in every way with the gospel, yea, that it is one and the same truth. For as there is hut one God so there is hut one truth, for God Himself is the truth; hut the letter (in which the truth is hidden) comes to an end. Thus the literal command of the Lord regarding circumcision of the flesh has come to an end, but the command regarding the spiritual circumcision of the heart remains [Rom. 2:25-29; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11] Thus all symbols of the law (which are too numerous to speak of here) have come to an end so far as the letter is concerned, nevertheless the true and essential signification of these same figures remains and accords with the gospel . . . . Thus the apostles and even the Lord Jesus Christ Himself many times proved and confirmed the truth of the gospel with sayings and testimonies of the law and the prophets, thereby showing us that the truth of the gospel is embodied in the law and the prophets (ENCHIRIDION, 260, 261).

But in the preface to his book, Of Spiritual Restitution, Dirck stated that he had written

. . . to the end that simple minds may be thereby instructed and that they may not be deceived by the false prophets who embellish and disguise their deceptive doctrine with the old leaven of the letter as shadows and figures; for whatever of the New Testament they cannot defend they try to prove with the Old Testament and with the letter of the prophecies. From this fallacy many sects have come, many false forms of worship have been established . . . (ENCHIRIDION, 323).

Menno Simons made numerous remarks regarding the necessity of having New Testament support for one's ethic and practice. Here are a few of them:

Even though an Elias himself were to come, he dare not teach anything against the foundation and doctrine of Christ and the apostles, but he must, if he would preach aright, teach and preach conformably to the same, for by the spirit, word, actions and example of Christ all must be judged and receive the last sentence; otherwise the whole Scriptures are false (I, 97).

In the course of a discussion on baptism he wrote:

It is our determination in this matter as in all other matters of conscience . . . that we will not be influenced by lords and princes, nor by doctors and teachers of schools, nor by the influence of the fathers, and long established customs; for in this matter neither emperors nor kings nor doctors nor licentiates nor councils nor proscriptions against the Word of God will avail. We dare not be bound to any persort, power, wisdom or times, but we must be governed alone by the expressed and positive commands of Christ, and pure doctrines and practices of His holy apostles. . . (I, 31).

After condemning "infant baptism, masses, matins, vespers, caps (of cardinals, etc.) palms, crosses, chapels, altars, bells, etc.," Menno adds:

The true evangelical faith looks upon and has respect to the doctrine, ceremonies, commands, prohibitions and unblamable examples of Christ alone, and strives to conform thereto with all its powers. . . (I, 118).

We acknowledge the ever blessed Jesus alone for our Redeemer, Mediator, Intercessor, spiritual King, Example, Shepherd, infallible Teacher and Master; . . . we judge and prove all spirits, doctrines, councils, ordinances, statues and ceremonies as far as regards spirit and faith with the spirit, doctrine, ordinances, commands and ceremonies of Christ, and thus esteem the commands and ceremonies of men which are contrary to the commands and ceremonies of God not only as vain and useless but also as accursed and idolatrous according to the Scriptures. . . (I, 185).

The Anabaptists were above all else men of the Word, believers who insisted on striving to achieve absolute obedience to Christ and His New Testament.

The above is from Glimpses of Mennonite History and Doctrine by John C. Wenger (pp, 162-166), © copyright 1940 by Herald Press, Scottdale, Pennsylvania, USA. Revised 1947.
The above article is found at http://www.bibleviews.com/NTFinality.html .

You are welcome to make copies of the above article provided you show the copyright information and bibleviews.org source.

We welcome your comments and suggestions. Send then to the Webmaster.

This page is presented by:

Biblical Viewpoints Publications
63100 County Road 111
Goshen, IN 46526
Phone: 574-875-8007

Return to Home Page

May God's grace and peace be with you as you study His Word.

September 7, 2001