ARBITRIOS MUNICIPALES.

While the Matthew 18 passage certainly served as the central text around which the discussion on the ban focused, it was Jesus’ Parable of the Wheat and Tares, from Matthew 13, which the preachers utilized as a key passage in support of their mixed church

ecclesiology. Commenting on Paul’s words regarding divorce, and giving specific attention to Jesus’ exhortative words from Matthew 19, the preachers continued their line of reasoning during the 1532 debate with the following declaration: ‘Thus reports Christ regarding the weeds that must not be pulled out without destruction. Yet, it is not his desire that it (the weeds) be permitted to grow. However, because pulling out (the weeds) is detrimental and corrupting to the good (wheat), he called for them to remain among one another until the day of the harvest; And thus, faith and love constitute the Rule of Christ.’84 Clearly this statement demonstrated that the preachers knew full well the extent of the danger that existed for the church which permitted ‘the chaff’ among its body; they were not altogether naive to such a potentially damaging relationship. Nevertheless, the mere possibility of winning a wayward Christian back to the fold meant that the toleration of certain sin was a concession whose potential reward was too great, thereby requiring such an admission be made.85 Granted, toleration was not the ideal, as seen by the parallel situation with divorce, but it was an

84 _{Also referiert sich ouch Christus uff das unkrut, das nit mag uβgejatten warden on verderbnuβ. Wil darumb} nit, das man es musse wachsen lassen. Aber diewil das uβrüten ouch dem guten nachteylig ware und

verderblich, heyβt er’s under einanndern lassen stan, biβ uff den tag der ernd; unnd das, sovil ouch glouben und liebe die regel Christi ertragen mag. Ibid., p. 128.

85

This concession was considered by the preachers at the 1538 session when they argued that the mixed body had to be maintained ‘until a better opportunity/occasion’ (biβ zu merer komlicheitt) arose in which the two entities might be separated. SeeQZ Bern,p. 454. The preachers at the 1532 session even went so far in their understanding of this concession that they, referencing Paul’s words to Timothy, used the phrase ‘tolerate evil’ (die bosen ulden) in their explanation of Matthew 13. It must also be noted that this idea had already been considered by Zwingli in his earlier dealings with the Anabaptists. There, referencing the wheat and tares passage and the parable of the unforgiving servant from Matthew 13 and 18, Zwingli contended that the Lord had clearly demonstrated that ‘there are some things at which fraternal love may wink.’ In determining precisely whether a sin warrants expulsion from the community or the aforementioned ‘wink,’ Zwingli urged ‘moderation…with the greatest diligence.’ Zwingli,ELENCHUS, p. 182.

allowance that had to be made in order to aid the wayward brother.86 Love for one another demanded as much. That was precisely the point of the faith and love principle and why the preachers relied so heavily upon this Matthew 13 passage as justification for their mixed church.87 With the eternal standing of so many individuals hanging in the balance the minds of the Bernese preachers were firmly convinced that the end truly did justify the means.

With the Anabaptists’ strong affirmation regarding separation during both Bernese disputations, it is not at all surprising to find that they did not agree with the preachers’ interpretation of the Matthew 13 passage. However, what is most striking in their rejection is the fact that they did little to offer an alternative interpretation of the passage when it was used in conjunction with the preachers’ contention for a mixed church.88 In the face of numerous references to and explanations of the wheat and tares passage by the preachers, the Anabaptists at both the 1532 and 1538 debates are found frequently retreating back into their own arguments for separation.89 The only semblance of an attempt by the Anabaptists to directly address the Matthew 13 text was brief and took place exclusively at the 1538 debate. There, in an attempt to rebut the preachers’ use of the text in tandem with the rule of faith and 86 _{It should be noted that while the preachers at Bern were resolved in affirming the church’s reluctance to}

divide the wheat from the chaff based on the Matthew 13 text, they did contend that this passage of Scripture did not speak to, nor was it binding upon the civil authorities, a group which they identified by the designation ‘worldly sword’ (wellttlichen schwertt). SeeQZ Bern, p. 453.

87 _{The preachers at the 1532 session made the direct connection between the application of the rule of faith and}

love with the wheat and tares passage from Matthew 13 as a part of their acceptance of a mixed church. See

QZ, p. 124. Wiser, at the 1538 session, used the same passage in view of Paul’s words from II Corinthians 10:8 and 13:10, as reason for the preachers’ reticence to affirm the radicals’ separatist ideology. SeeQZ, p. 454.

88 _{Interestingly, as John H. Yoder has shown through his examination of the 1531 disputation with Hans}

Pfistermeyer, the Swiss preachers employed this same tact of refusing to provide an alternative exegesis for a passage of Scripture when confronted by a divergent understanding. Yoder,ABRS, pp. 179-180. The

prevalence of both sides in refusing to directly rebut contending interpretations of Scripture further supports the previously affirmed theory in Chapter One which emphasized that the Bernese disputations were not ‘dialogues’ in the true sense of the word. Rather they may best be understood as public platforms from which the two sides could better offer their opposing points of view before a larger late-Medieval audience. See Chapter One, pp. 49-50.

89 _{In most of these instances the radicals either simply verbalized their strong rejection of the preachers’}

exegesis of the Matthew 13 text or they merely reiterate previously affirmed arguments for the purity of the church and/or the need for what they deem to be the Bible’s call for separation. QZ Zofingen, pp. 122, 127-128, 135, and QZ Bern, pp. 454-455.

love to promote toleration, the Anabaptists alluded to Paul’s words from I Corinthians 5. Emphasis here was placed on Paul’s declaration that he cared little about those who were outside of the church body.90 Following this affirmation the Anabaptist, Mathiβ Wiser, then argued that it was precisely because of the introduction of the bad seed mentioned in

Matthew 13 that Jesus had instituted the ban later in Matthew 18. In essence then, the Anabaptists did not believe that the wheat and tares parable had any application within the context of the local church body.

Despite the preachers’ appeal to the rule of faith and love and their strong reliance on Matthew 13, the Anabaptists simply were not persuaded to embrace the preachers’ mixed church concept in view of other Scriptural passages that ostensibly called for a separation. The Anabaptists at the 1532 debate reasoned as follows:

It is written in II Thessalonians 3, you should withdraw from a brother who disobediently does not walk according to the Word of God. In this way it is

demonstrated because we shall withdraw from such a one, that such a person is not in the community of the brethren, as Christ also said: ‘Teach them to observe to hold all things which I have commanded you.’ According to Paul, they shall not be sullen of doing good works, Titus 3. Thus, anybody who is not obedient to the holy word of Christ, have nothing to do with them. Christ himself confessed in Matthew 13, that whoever does the will of His Father is His (Christ’s) brother and sister. Paul also says, yet, however, do not hold him as an enemy, but admonish him kindly as a brother.91

Here, rather than embracing a mixed body with restoration as the end goal, the Anabaptists at the 1532Gesprächwere content to strictly follow what they saw as the letter of both Paul and

90

Clearly the Anabaptists interpreted Paul here to mean that the church did not need to concern itself with those who were outside of its body, those deemed to ‘not walk according to the gospel of Christ (der nit nach dem evangelio Christi), for such individuals, in the radicals’ understanding, were not a part of the community of faith because of their previous expulsion. Later, Wiser contended that those who were outside the church body were now exclusively under the authority of ‘the civil authorities’ (die oberkheitt) when it came to discipline. See I Corinthians 5:11-12 andQZ Bern, p. 454.

91

Es stat geschriben 2. Thes. 3: Ir sond üch entzühen vonn eim yetlichen bruder, der unordenlich wandlet nit nach dem wort gottes. Daruβ wirt bewart, diewyl man sich solicher entziehen sol, das solliche nit synd in der gmeinschafft der bruderen,, wie ouch Christus spricht: Leerend sy halten alles, was ich üch bevolhen han. Item Paulus: Sy sollend nit verdrossen syn guts zu thun, Tit. Am 3. So aber yemand nit gehorsam ist nach dem heiligen wort Christi, mit dem habend nüt ze schaffen. Christus selbs hett bekendt Matth. 13: Die syne bruder und schwestern ze syn, die den willen syns vatters thund. Es sagt ouch Paulus: Doch aber so haltend in nit für ein fynd, sonnder vermanend in als ein bruder, früntlich. QZ Zofingen,pp. 128-129.

Jesus’ teachings regarding separation and the need for individuals to walk in accordance with their confession. The references to Matthew 28:20, Titus 3:8, and Matthew 12:50 were used by the Anabaptists to demonstrate the qualitative difference which they affirmed existed between those who obediently acted and lived according to the commands of Scripture and those who did not.92

In essence, the external action, or visible fruit of one’s faith, was understood by these radicals as the sole determinative factor in identifying those who truly belonged in the church community. The use of the II Thessalonians 3 text was then used to show how the church must withdraw from those ‘who walk disorderly (and) not according to the Word of God.93 The passages emphasizing the importance of one’s ‘walk’ and those prescribing separation from the sinner, therefore, became the textual lens through which Matthew 18 was viewed by the radicals in 1532. Interestingly, the act of casting out the unrepentant one was even

viewed as a merciful and kind act, which it was hoped would usher in a genuine shame over one’s sin and an eventual obedience to Christ.94 Again, the purity of the body was paramount and considered a fundamental ecclesiological tenet prescribed by the New Testament.