Fall 2025 · Vol. 54 No. 2 · pp. 199–212
Evangelical Anabaptists on Economic Justice
Economic justice is a hot topic in contemporary evangelicalism. 1 In historical discussions of this topic, one group whose thought and praxis often go overlooked is the sixteenth-century evangelical Anabaptists. 2 By the qualifier evangelical, I denominate those Anabaptists who looked to the New Testament, especially Jesus’ life and gospel of peace, as normative for Christian faith and practice, in contrast to the Münsterites and other revolutionary Anabaptists of the sixteenth century. 3 p. 200 For the purposes of this article, I will restrict the discussion to those evangelical Anabaptists who are predecessors of Mennonite Brethren and other Mennonites and Brethren who today count themselves as both evangelical and Anabaptist. Since contemporary evangelicalism does not include Christian communism, I will exclude the Hutterites, for example, who practiced Christian communism based on their interpretation of Acts 2:44–45 and 4:32–35. Thus, evangelical Anabaptist will be employed to mean “noncommunist evangelical Anabaptist.” This article aims to remedy the oversight of evangelical Anabaptists by analyzing their contributions to economic ethics, particularly in terms of the individual Christian commitment to economic justice and the respective roles of church and state in fostering economic justice.
Evangelical Anabaptists delineate a provocative program for the alleviation of poverty driven by Christians and accomplished in both church and state. Christians must practice economic sharing with those in need, both inside and outside the community of faith, but without abolishing the concept of private property. The church must serve as a prophetic voice spurring the state to abolish all economic injustice that causes poverty.
Through an investigation of primary sources, I will argue that evangelical Anabaptists believed that the establishment of economic justice was the joint responsibility of church and state. By proclaiming the gospel in word and lifestyle, the church constituted the agent through which the Holy Spirit transformed individuals from self-centered and greedy people to other-centered and loving people yearning to share their possessions with anyone in need. Accordingly, God expected the church to be a community of economic justice, with poverty eradicated among its members and, to whatever degree possible, among outsiders. Although evangelical Anabaptists believed in private property, they proclaimed that church members who possessed excess property should voluntarily give that property to the needy among them. Doing so was a necessary fruit of true discipleship.
In a fallen world, evangelical Anabaptists claimed that among the reasons God instituted the state was to use law and order to implement economic justice for humankind in general. However, evangelical Anabaptists realized that the state, as a worldly institution itself, often failed to carry out its economic responsibilities. Thus, God also expected the church to serve as a prophetic voice to the state and continue where the Old Testament prophets left off in demanding that the state abolish all economic injustice causing poverty. To the extent that the state would allow Christians to take part in its affairs, Christians must assist the state in this endeavor.
The Church and Economic Justice
Owing to the self-giving love that epitomized regeneration, evangelical Anabaptists practiced mutual aid for one another based on the practice of the Jerusalem church and the instructions of Paul in 2 Corinthians 8:13-15: p. 201
Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little” [Exod 16:18]. (NIV)
Apart from communal groups, evangelical Anabaptists pointed out that the members of the Jerusalem church retained their own homes (Acts 2:46; 12:12) rather than living collectively and that the sale of excess land or homes was a voluntary act of love (Acts 5:4) rather than compulsory. In context, then, the economic phenomenon depicted in Acts 2:44–45 and 4:32–35 corresponds to the instructions of Paul. Thus the Augsburg Anabaptist reformer Pilgram Marpeck (1495–1556) gave the following interpretation of the phrase “common property”:
Among the believers, there is only a free giving of love, and no coercion. Each individual may give or retain . . . . But, even though they control their possessions, such true believers do not say in their hearts that these are theirs; rather, their possessions belong to God and the needy. For this reason, among true Christians who display the freedom of love, all things are communal and are as if they had been offered, since they have been offered from the heart. 4
Such freedom of love, whereby the deepest desire of the heart is living selflessly for others and one voluntarily acts on that desire, constituted the true liberty for which Christ set us free (Gal 5:1). As we shall now see, Marpeck’s understanding displays consistency with other evangelical Anabaptists.
Peter James Klassen has demonstrated that the founders of the Swiss Brethren (who began the Anabaptist movement in 1525)—Conrad Grebel (1498–1526), Felix Manz (1498–1527), and George Blaurock (1492–1529)—maintained from the outset that private property was not to be eradicated. However, they declared “that a Christian had no right to use his possessions without regard for the needs of others.” 5 Balthasar Hubmaier (1480–1528), the only Anabaptist to have earned a doctor theologiae, replied to his opponents in Zurich and defined “community of goods” as follows: “I am accused of wanting to have all things in common. This I have not done. I, rather, have designated it as ‘Christian community of goods’ when one person has and seeing his neighbor suffering need, that he shares alms with him so that the hungry, thirsty, naked, and imprisoned are p. 202 helped. The more a person practices such works of mercy, the nearer he is to being Christian.” 6 For Hubmaier, one’s conformity to the image of Christ is directly proportional to one’s degree of performing deeds of mercy. In his dialogue with Ulrich Zwingli’s book on infant baptism, Hubmaier grounded his economic views with an allusion to the parable of the sheep and the goats and a citation of the Sermon on the Mount:
I have ever and always spoken thus of the community of goods: that one person should always look out for the other, so that the hungry are fed, the thirsty given drink, the naked clothed, etc. For we are not lords of our goods, but stewards and distributors. There are certainly none who say that one should take what belongs to the other and make it in common. Rather, much more that one should give the coat besides the mantle, Matt. 5:40. 7
The voluntary nature of such sharing is evident in the fact that it forms no part of the Tauffglübde, or pre-baptismal vow, a person needed to take prior to being baptized into the Anabaptist fold. 8
Hans Hut (1490?–1527), the principal originator of Southern Bavarian and Austrian Anabaptism, argued “that the serious Christian should regard his property as subject to a higher law than his own personal interests. Surplus goods should be made available for relief of the needy. The basis for this sharing should not be any outward compulsion, but rather a sincere interest in and concern for the welfare of society.” 9 Noteworthy among these Anabaptist leaders within the first five years of the movement is their conviction that true Christians should share their possessions with anyone in need, whether Christian or non-Christian. Hence the “Christian community of goods,” in Hubmaier’s previously quoted words, did not limit its beneficiaries to other Christians. This is evident in such general expressions in the above quotations as “the other,” “his neighbor,” “the hungry, thirsty, naked, and imprisoned,” “the welfare of society,” and so forth. While recognizing that the parable of the sheep and the goats concerns aiding needy believers—“the least of these brothers and sisters of mine” (Matt 25:40 NIV)—these early Anabaptists apparently held that the book of Proverbs (14:21, 31; 19:17; 22:9) extended such assistance to all needy persons indiscriminately. However, the persecution of Anabaptists by Protestants and Catholics alike rendered widespread economic sharing outside the Anabaptist fold virtually impossible. 10
Accordingly, Menno Simons (1496–1561), the foremost evangelical Anabaptist theologian, developed a theology of economic sharing among fellow believers based on the Pauline doctrine of the believing community p. 203 constituting one body, the Johannine conception of agapē, and the Isaianic teaching on the type of fasting God desired. In 1552 Simons wrote,
We teach and maintain by the Word of the Lord that all truly believing Christians are members of one body and are baptized by one Spirit into one body (1 Cor 12:13) . . . . Beloved reader, it is not customary that an intelligent person clothes and cares for one part of his body and leaves the rest destitute and naked. Oh, no. The intelligent person is solicitous for all his members. Thus it should be with those who are the Lord’s church and body. All those who are born of God, who are gifted with the Spirit of the Lord, who are, according to the Scriptures, called into one body and love in Christ Jesus, are prepared by such love to serve their neighbors, not only with money and goods, but also after the example of their Lord and Head, Jesus Christ, in an evangelical manner, with life and blood. They show mercy and love, as much as they can. No one among them is allowed to beg. They take to heart the need of the saints. They entertain those in distress. They take the stranger into their houses. They comfort the afflicted; assist the needy; clothe the naked; feed the hungry; do not turn their face from the poor; do not despise their own flesh. Isa 58:7-8. Behold, such a community we teach. And not that any one should take and possess the land and property of the other, as many falsely charge. 11
Since the believing community was one body of mutual agapē, its members—to the extent that they were authentic members—must provide food, clothing, shelter, and indeed their very lives if necessary, for one another. That no member of the community was a beggar or lived in poverty amounted to a type of true fasting God had chosen. It is not surprising that Simons inextricably tied the practice of economic justice among the believing community with legitimately partaking of the Lord’s Supper. 12 His point is reinforced by the fact that the Pauline analogy of the body maintains that the body’s oneness is signified by the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 10:16-17).
Simons regarded economic sharing as a necessary mark of the true church. He pointed out that, despite severe persecution, the evangelical Anabaptist community provided living necessities to all its members:
God be thanked forever that although our property has to a great extent been taken away from us and is still daily taken, and many a pious father and mother are put to the sword or fire, and although we are not allowed the free enjoyment of our homes as is manifest, p. 204 and besides the times are hard, yet none of those who have joined us nor any of their orphaned children have been forced to beg. If this is not Christian practice, then we may well abandon the whole Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, His holy sacraments, and the Christian name, and say that the precious, merciful life of all saints is fantasy and dream. 13
For Simons, the implementation of economic justice constituted an essential and inextricable part of the Christian gospel. If Christians truly could not attain economic justice among themselves, Simons felt that the gospel was meaningless and that the lifestyle advocated in the New Testament proved a figment of the imagination. Simons contrasted his community, in which there existed no beggars, with other Christian confessions that he regarded as inauthentic. He argued that their economic inequality between rich and poor members and their consequent failure to eradicate poverty among themselves undermined their professed biblicism, Christianity, and administration of the Lord’s Supper.
Is it not sad and intolerable hypocrisy that these poor people boast of having the Word of God, of being the true, Christian church, never remembering that they have entirely lost their sign of true Christianity? For although many of them have plenty of everything . . . yet they suffer many of their own poor, afflicted members . . . to ask alms; and poor, hungry, suffering, old, lame, blind, and sick people to beg their bread at their doors. O preachers, dear preachers, where is the power of the gospel you preach? Where is the thing signified in the Supper you administer? . . . Is it not all hypocrisy that you preach, maintain, and assert? Shame on you for the easygoing gospel and barren bread-breaking, you who have in so many years been unable to effect enough with your gospel and sacraments so as to remove your needy and distressed members from the streets, even though the Scripture plainly teaches and says, Whoso hath this world’s goods, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion for him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? [1 John 3:17] 14
Here Simons controversially identified the practice of economic justice with the power of the gospel and the reality symbolized in the Lord’s Supper. Consequently, any alleged Christian message or ordinance that did not result in the alleviation of economic inequality Simons judged impotent and false. Simons’s closing remark quotes 1 John 3:17 and alludes to James 2:14–17 to entail that any pastor or layperson failing to engage p. 205 in the practice of economic sharing lacked saving faith. Supporting this verdict is Simons’s maintenance that Deuteronomy 15:4–8 was normative for the Christian community: “Thus Moses says, If there be among you a poor man, of one of thy brethren, within any of thy gates, in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother . . . . Also Moses, There shall be no beggars among you.” 15 Drawing together the aforementioned threads, Walter Klaassen summarizes evangelical Anabaptist economic theology as follows: “The majority of Anabaptists believed that property could be held privately, but that it could never be absolutely private. Property was viewed as a trust from God. . . . [S]uch property should always be available to sisters and brothers in need.” 16
Klassen proceeds to paint a picture of how economic justice was practiced among the persecuted evangelical Anabaptists:
The practice of mutual aid was considered a necessary and natural concomitant of spiritual fellowship. At secret meetings in cellars, fields, gardens, or forests, the persecuted groups would gather money, food, and clothing for those in need. Members were encouraged to place their gifts in the boxes and sacks provided for that purpose. Ordinarily, the distribution of the aid was under the direction of the leading minister or a specially appointed “Seckelmeister” [Treasurer]. If the destitute were ill and unable to attend the meeting, their unfortunate circumstances were not forgotten. Willing friends would bring aid from the relief fund. When an Anabaptist carpenter was banished from Zorge and deprived of his possessions, money was collected for him, while a fellow-member of the group assumed the personally dangerous task of delivering the financial assistance. 17
At this point the following question arises: what about lazy individuals who were able to work but refused to do so and attempted to take advantage of Anabaptist economic benefits? Here evangelical Anabaptists strictly subscribed to the Pauline maxim, “Anyone unwilling to work should not eat” (2 Thess 3:10 NRSV). As records of the heresy/treason trials of Anabaptists reveal, “those able but unwilling to work were excluded from the congregation.” 18 Via church discipline, such persons were barred from collecting from the relief fund. 19 They were careful to note, however, that Paul’s injunction did not exempt the church from sharing with those who were willing to work but unable to do so. 20 p. 206
The State and Economic Justice
We now turn to the role evangelical Anabaptists believed the state should play in creating economic justice. The best way to discover this role is to assess how Anabaptists addressed the state when it failed to create such justice and, in fact, perpetuated injustice. An excellent case study concerns the relationship between the German nobility and peasantry prior to the Peasants’ War. Because of the economic injustices committed by the (ostensibly) Christian German hereditary nobles and prince-bishops against the peasantry, the South German peasants compiled the Twelve Articles in 1525. These articles insisted that the nobility institute several economic reforms. While the peasants agreed that a “fair tithe of grain” should be given to support the pastor of the town (elected by the community rather than chosen by the nobles), they demanded that no further tithe be exacted by the nobles: “What remains over shall be given to the poor of the place, as the circumstances and the general opinion demand. Should anything further remain, let it be kept, lest anyone should have to leave the country from poverty.” 21
The peasants also demanded the abolition of serfdom: “It has been the custom hitherto for men to hold us as their own property, which is pitiable enough, considering that Christ has delivered and redeemed us all, without exception, by the shedding of his precious blood, the lowly as well as the great. Accordingly, it is consistent with Scripture that we should be free and should wish to be so.” 22 Arguing from the greater to the lesser, the peasants maintained that redemption from spiritual bondage warranted release from physical bondage. 23 The peasants claimed the rights to hunt and gather wood from the common forest and fish from the common streams, rights that the nobility reserved for itself. 24 The peasants mandated that the nobility not charge rents disproportionate to the value of their homes: “The peasants suffer loss in this way and are ruined; and we ask that the lords may appoint persons of honor to inspect these holdings, and fix a rent in accordance with justice, so that the peasant shall not work for nothing, since the laborer is worthy of his hire.” 25 Public meadows and fields that the nobility has seized for itself must be returned to common use. Finally, the nobility must not impose “the customary death toll, depriving widows and orphans of their livelihood.” 26
Immediately after their publication, the Twelve Articles received unflinching public support from Hubmaier. 27 Hubmaier labored as the reformer of Waldshut (1525) and Nikolsburg (1526–1527). Prior to his 1528 execution at the hands of the Austrian authorities, Hubmaier acknowledged to his Catholic debating opponent Johann Fabri “that he p. 207 expanded and exposited . . . the articles of the peasants . . . and convinced the same . . . to accept them as Christian and reasonable.” 28 During negotiations between the Swabian Union and the South German peasants, Hubmaier “helped those of Waldshut to deliberate and write letters to His Royal Highness (then his princely Majesty)” Ferdinand I in support of the peasants’ economic platform. 29 However, when the negotiations failed at the end of March 1525 and the peasants took up arms against the German nobility, Hubmaier disclaimed their action. 30 Upon moving to Nikolsburg in 1526, Hubmaier recalls his nonviolent stand against the German princes:
I have also never taught that it is proper for the government . . . to overload their poor people, more than is godly and just, with unprecedented unchristian impositions, and to tear them away by force from the Word of God. For God will not, as truly as he is God, leave this unavenged. Waldshut must bear me the same witness. 31
As Hubmaier biographer Torsten Bergsten observes, “The criticism which he unmistakably directed against the ruling classes during his Waldshut days was . . . the result of the way in which the South German nobles treated their subjects. His intention was simply to remind the . . . nobility of their responsibility toward their subordinates.” 32 Indeed, in 1527 Hubmaier emphasized that it is the responsibility of “the government” to “save widows, orphans, and other oppressed ones . . . . Consult the passages, O Christian reader, in Isaiah 1:17; Jeremiah 21:12; 22:3; Psalm 62:11; Micah 6:8; Nahum 3:1ff.; Zephaniah 3:1ff.; Zechariah 7:9ff.; and all of Habakkuk. This mandate obligates the government just as much today as fifteen hundred years ago.” 33 Evangelical Anabaptists held that such passages, originally laying out the economic duties of the governments of the northern and southern kingdoms, applied to all governments because of Israel’s exemplary role as “a light for the nations” (Isa 42:6; 49:6 NRSV). Hence it was a duty of any state to ensure economic justice. 34
As a result, evangelical Anabaptists condemned the worldly financial practices permitted by government laws. Marpeck denounced the predatory ways in which the merchants of his day impoverished individuals and entire peoples. Fascinating about this denunciation is Marpeck’s acknowledgment that the oppressed individuals and groups were “not good people” (i.e., not genuine Christians in his estimation) and yet were entitled to protection against unjust business practices. p. 208
Would to God, for their sake, that it were not true that today there are worse and even more evil merchants than the Jewish Pharisees, who bought the Lord from Judas because of envy and hate. [But, today], whole lands, armies, and peoples (many hundreds of thousands of people, even though they are not good people), are betrayed, sold, and bought by their loans, finance, and usury. It is done out of avarice, envy, and hate, an attempt to preserve their earthly pomp, pride, and vain honour . . . . I am concerned that, shortly, the words of James, “Howl and weep, you rich,” etc., will be fulfilled in them. 35
Not content to condemn merely usurious lending to the needy at great profit, Simons also castigated false advertising and other methods of misleading buyers:
The wicked merchants and retailers (I say the wicked, for I do not mean those who are righteous and pious), together with all those who are out to make money and to make their living that way, are so bent on accursed profit that they exclude God wholly from their hearts. They censure what they should properly praise, and praise what they should censure. They lie and swear; they use many vain words, falsify their wares to cheat the people, and strip them of possessions; they sell, lend, and secure the needy at large profit and usury, never seriously reflecting or taking to heart that is written, Let no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter. 1 Thess. 4:6. . . . This I write as a warning to the God-fearing merchants and retailers, lest they be like the ungodly, and be overcome by avarice. But may they be circumspect in dealing and on the alert against moral danger. 36
Simons’s remarks show that evangelical Anabaptists were not opposed to Christians seeking careers in business but insisted that businesspeople be diligent to avoid greed. Regardless of any outward religious profession, businesspeople who practiced greed amounted in Simons’s mind to idolaters in whose souls God had no place and to children of the devil. Such businesspeople and their deceptive practices were rampant in the sixteenth century. 37
Highly attuned to the systemic nature of economic injustice, Simons claimed that statewide change necessitated reform from the top down, when “lords and princes . . . ; judges, lawyers, and advocates in their courthouses and offices” discontinue “their violence and luxurious lives” and “their wicked service and bloody deeds.” 38 Neither Hubmaier, Marpeck, p. 209 nor Simons showed optimism that such change would be quickly forthcoming. Hence the responsibility fell upon Christians to prophetically spur government to such change and, to the extent that government allowed, to transform the system from the inside out. Simons took up the prophetic mantle in his 1539 “exhortation to the magistrates”: “Your task is to do justice between a man and his neighbor, to deliver the oppressed out of the hand of the oppressor . . . . O highly renowned, noble lords, believe Christ’s Word, fear God’s wrath, love righteousness, do justice to widows and orphans, judge rightly between a man and his neighbor, . . . hate all avarice.” 39
In view of virtually universal government persecution of Anabaptists in Europe, most evangelical Anabaptists could not countenance the possibility of a true Christian serving in government. 40 However, those few Anabaptists who maintained positive relations with local governments—such as Hubmaier did at Waldshut and Nikolsburg, and Marpeck did at Augsburg—were willing to explore this possibility. Hubmaier contended that genuine Christians serving in government would work for economic justice to a far greater degree than nominal Christians or professed non-Christians, who fail to take seriously Jesus’s teachings and care only to stay in power at whatever cost. 41 Regarding the possibility of Christians serving as judges, Hubmaier mused, “Should it ever happen among Christians, a Christian judge should be appointed immediately who will administer justice for residents and foreigners.” 42 Likewise, Marpeck implored, “I heartily wish and pray for . . . such persons who hold authority [to] become Christians.” 43
Concluding Reflections
Evangelical Anabaptists delineate a provocative program for the alleviation of poverty driven by Christians and accomplished in both church and state. The contours of this program may be summarized as follows. Christians must practice economic sharing with those in need, both inside and outside the community of faith, but without abolishing the concept of private property. The church must serve as a prophetic voice spurring the state to abolish all economic injustice that causes poverty. Christians must assist the state in this endeavor insofar as the state allows. In fact, without knowledge of the evangelical Anabaptist program, Craig Blomberg endorses its tenets on biblical grounds. Regarding the church’s responsibility to alleviate poverty through economic sharing, Blomberg writes, p. 210
Generous giving, especially to the materially neediest people of our world, proves so pervasive in Scripture, and is so often either commanded or commended, that it is hard to envision anyone seriously studying the Bible in detail and not concluding that stewardship must play a central role in any truly Christian lifestyle. Precisely because material possessions are a good part of God’s created order, he wants all people to have a reasonable chance to acquire at least a minimally decent amount of them. When people lack this access, especially through no fault of their own, it becomes incumbent on believers to share with them. 44
As to the role of government in general, rather than the Israelite government in particular, to bring about economic justice, Blomberg observes,
We have already referred to God’s blistering indictments of the wealthy within Israel that characterize the prophecy of Amos. What is important to add is that he begins by unleashing the same invective on the surrounding nations, also due in part to their economic sins (Amos 1:1–2:3), before shocking Judah and Israel with similar tirades of judgment. Again we see that God’s will for people to use possessions rightly remains transcultural and applies even to the enemies of God’s people . . . . [B]oth government and the business world bear certain responsibilities as stewards of God’s material possessions on loan to them. 45
He continues by emphasizing the role Christians must play if government and the business world are to succeed even partially in this endeavor: “Christians involved in either of these arenas should do whatever they can to influence fellow politicians or corporate stakeholders to pursue policies that are in line with biblical teaching.” 46 However, Blomberg makes this realistic assessment of the fallenness of government and the business world: “But we should never count on either government or business, or the political or economic processes that undergird them, to implement God’s will on earth, however much of a help they might be able to be in certain circumstances.” 47
Admittedly, the evangelical Anabaptist economic program challenges mainstream U.S. liberal and conservative politics alike. While obviously a generalization, it is largely true that liberal politics position economic justice as primarily the responsibility of the state, while conservative politics position economic justice as primarily the responsibility of the p. 211 church and individuals. For evangelical Anabaptists and Blomberg, this is simply a false dichotomy. And in my judgment, those who claim to be evangelicals and Anabaptists ought to recognize it as such while insisting on the necessity of Christians for holding government accountable to its obligations.
Notes
- A shorter version of this piece, titled “Evangelical Anabaptism on Wealth and Poverty,” was presented at the 2021 Evangelical Theological Society Annual Meeting, Ft. Worth, Texas.
- George Huntston Williams, The Radical Reformation, 3d ed. (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2000), 1297.
- William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism, 3d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,1996), 3–4, 22, seems to understand the qualifier evangelical in the same fashion.
- Pilgram Marpeck, The Writings of Pilgram Marpeck, trans. and ed. William Klassen and Walter Klaassen (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1978), 279; emph. orig.
- Peter James Klassen, “Mutual Aid Among the Anabaptists: Doctrine and Practice,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 37, no. 2 (1963): 78.
- Balthasar Hubmaier, Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism [hereafter BH], trans. and ed. H. Wayne Pipkin and John H. Yoder (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1989), 152.
- BH, 183; cited in Walter Klaassen, ed., Anabaptism in Outline: Selected Primary Sources (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1981), 233.
- BH, 388–89.
- P. J. Klassen, 79.
- P. J. Klassen, 93. Here Klassen points out that evangelical Anabaptists “persistently declared that the Biblical injunction to love one’s enemies bound them to help their persecutors when possible. Neighbors or enemies should be given assistance if occasion arose.”
- Menno Simons, The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, trans. Leonard Verduin and ed. J. C. Wenger (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1956), 558.
- Simons, 559; quoted in Klaassen, 241.
- Simons, 558–59.
- Simons, 559; quoted in Klaassen, 241.
- Simons, 558–59. p. 212
- Klaassen, 232.
- P. J. Klassen, 90–91.
- P. J. Klassen, 84.
- P. J. Klassen, 92.
- This is implied by P. J. Klassen, 90.
- James Harvey Robinson, Readings in European History (Boston: Ginn and Company, 1904-1906), 2:95–96.
- Robinson, 2:96.
- Williams, 153.
- Robinson, 2:97.
- Robinson, 2:98.
- Williams, 153.
- Torsten Bergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier: Anabaptist Theologian and Martyr, ed. W. R. Estep, Jr. (Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 1978), 214.
- BH, 564.
- BH, 564. I have corrected the translators’ spelling Waltzhut to Waldshut.
- BH, 520–21.
- BH, 304. I have again standardized Waldshůt to Waldshut.
- Bergsten, 218.
- BH, 521–22. I have corrected the translators’ spelling Psalms to Psalm and Zepheniah to Zephaniah.
- On this score, Hubmaier wrote, “Therefore the government is obliged to shield and to free all oppressed and subjugated people, widows, orphans, friends, and strangers without regard to persons according to the will and earnest command of God” (BH, 499).
- Marpeck, 449–50; quoted in Klaassen, 240.
- Simons, 368–69; quoted in Klaassen, 242.
- Simons, 368–69; quoted in Klaassen, 242.
- Simons, 369.
- Simons, 190–93 (quotation 193).
- Robert Kreider, “The Anabaptists and the State,” in The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision, ed. Guy F. Hershberger (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1957), 190.
- BH, 498–99, 510.
- BH, 503.
- Marpeck, 150.
- Craig L. Blomberg, Christians in an Age of Wealth: A Biblical Theology of Stewardship (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 119.
- Blomberg, 153, 196.
- Blomberg, 196.
- Blomberg, 217.
