Menno Simons Analysis

While many of the five reformers in this work held unorthodox views, Menno Simons is described by George in the book as “the “odd fellow out” among these five” men chronicled (18). Simons held to a “celestial flesh” Christology that greatly differed from his contemporaries. He believed Jesus “received nothing of his human nature from the Virgin Mary: He was born out of not from Mary” (396). To be fair, Simons is not historically unique in this viewpoint, as Caspar Schwenckfeld, a well-known Spiritualist of the time, claimed to introduce this topic (294). Many followers of Simons, contemporary and present, rejected “celestial flesh” Christology for a variety of reasons. For example, “the Swiss Brethren and Hutterites did not follow the Dutch Anabaptists in adopting Menno’s distinctive doctrine of the incarnation, and later Mennonites have
Even though Simons and Calvin never met in person, the animosity that Calvin showed his contemporary for his errant Christology is clear. Calvin “said of the Dutch Anabaptist that he could imagine nothing ‘prouder than this ass or more impudent than this dog’” (298). Calvin believed that the Christology taught by Simons centered on Docetism, a view that emphasizes Jesus’ divinity while outright rejecting the humanity of Christ. Calvin centers his argument again Simons through the lens of the incarnation, saying, “in order to disguise their error—to prove that Christ took his body out of nothing—the new Marcionites too haughtily content that women are ‘without seed’” (298). The author and the reviewer of this book both agree that Mary played a part the female part in creation of the Jesus child, as there is no need to make this distinction in the birth of Christ. However, a few caveats must be made to fairly represent Simons, as many of his erroneous views overshadow his productive and Christ-centered