http://genevaredux.wordpress.

com/essays/hans-hut-on-justification/

Hans Hut on Justification

Dan Borvan

A Baptism of Suffering:
Hans Hut’s Doctrine of Justification

Introduction

Renewed interest in the Radical Reformation of the sixteenth century has led some historians to consider
the connection between the early Anabaptists and Baptists of today. Before labeling Anabaptists as the spiritual
fathers of modern Baptists, critical examination must be made of their theology, particularly their soteriology.
Regarding justification, were they Roman, Protestant, or something else?

One of the leading figures of this movement was a German bookseller, Hans Hut. Though his ministry
career lasted less than two years, Hut is viewed by some as the driving force behind the early Anabaptist
movement in South Germany. He is most well known for his radical eschatology, which has caused his views
on justification to be somewhat overlooked.

Hut’s doctrine of justification is not completely original, but it is critical to understanding the Anabaptist
movement of the 1520’s, particularly in South Germany. This doctrine is more central to his theology than even
his view of baptism. In fact, his position on baptism is derived from his doctrine of justification.

There is much concord amongst scholars as to the nature of Hut’s doctrine of justification. Scholars within
(Packull, Friedmann, Klaassen) and without (Williams, Ozment, and Baylor) the Mennonite tradition have
concluded that Hut, along with most Anabaptists, united justification and sanctification and therefore, could not
be considered Protestant. There is some disagreement, however, as to the origin of Hut’s position, as well as
the significance of this doctrine as it pertained to Hut’s overall theology.

The purpose of this essay is to examine Hut’s view of justification. This paper proves that Hut adopted the
common medieval practice of uniting justification and sanctification. His theology was closer to the medieval
church, particularly Thomas Aquinas, than it was to Martin Luther. Hut’s doctrine of justification played a
prominent role in his overall theology.

This essay is in three parts. In the first section, a brief biography of Hut sets him and his theology in
their time. The second section examines Hut’s doctrine of justification. The last section interacts with
secondary sources concerning the origin of Hut’s doctrine, as well as the implications of his position.

Biography

Hut was born near Haina in Franconia, sometime between 1485 and 1490. Little is known of his early
life, but as an adult he became a bookbinder and a book salesman. After settling in Bibra, he traveled
throughout the region, including Wittenberg and Nürnberg, buying and selling books, which brought him much
exposure to the theological controversies in Germany.

Germany in the 1520’s was a society in flux. The Lutheran doctrines were disseminating to the common
man and a climate of change was developing. The absolute authority of the church was being questioned and a
revolutionary spirit was in the air. Sometime in late 1523 or early 1524, Hut engaged in an argument that
caused him to reconsider his doctrine of infant baptism. He traveled to Wittenberg to gain understanding, but
was not satisfied with the evidence presented to him in support of paedobaptism. This lingering doubt, coupled
with exposure to a lack of morality in some Lutherans, led Hut to reject Luther’s theology and seek another
source for spiritual insight.

Hut returned to Bibra and refused to have his newborn baptized, claiming that infant baptism was
unnecessary according to the Bible. The civil authorities forced him to leave his home, so he made his way to
Nürnberg, where he was a guest in the home of Hans Denck. Denck was a learned theologian who had been
influenced by Johann Oecolampadius, but later turned to Anabaptist theology.

In August of 1524, after returning to Bibra, Hut welcomed into his home Thomas Müntzer, a former priest who
became a fiery Lutheran preacher and then transitioned into a radical insurrectionist. As a leader of the ill-fated
Peasants’ War of 1524-1525, Müntzer was beheaded in Mülhausen in May of 1525.

Hut was again driven from Bibra and continued to travel through the German territories selling his
books. He was not an active participant in the Peasants’ War of 1525, but was called upon to preach. His
sermons from that summer were strongly against the sacraments and images in churches.

Hut was baptized by Hans Denck in Augsburg in 1526, which marked the beginning of his prolific
baptizing ministry. He became an itinerant minister, preaching and baptizing throughout the region, and is
credited with rebaptizing over two hundred and fifty people. Having been influenced by Müntzer, his message
was eschatological. Unlike Müntzer, however, whose incitement to violence had failed, Hut adapted his
eschatology in an effort to avoid the same fate.

In August of 1527, in Augsburg, a large meeting was held with many of the most well known Anabaptist
leaders, with Hut being the dominant figure. This came to be known as the Martyr’s Synod because of the large
number of participants who were executed within a short time of the event. Shortly after the synod, Hut was
captured in Augsburg and prepared for trial.

The factors leading to Hut’s death remain uncertain. The more probable report is that he attempted to escape by
starting a fire in his cell. When the jailer came to investigate, Hut planned to attack him and grab the keys. For
some reason, the jailer was late in arriving and Hut died from asphyxiation. Hut’s ten-year old son offered a
different account, claiming that the fire was an accident and that his father was so weary from the torture
inflicted upon him, he could not move or cry out for help.

There are two extant tracts written by Hut in 1527. The most well known is On the Mystery of Baptism
and the other work is A Christian Instruction on How Divine Scripture Should Be Compared and Judged. Hut’s
doctrine of justification as revealed in these two writings will be examined in the next section.

Examination

Hut outlined his concept of the justification of man in three parts based on the Great Commission. He
claimed, “First, Christ says, ‘Go into the whole world and preach the gospel of all creatures.’ Second, he says,
‘He who believes,’ and third, ‘and is baptized,’ will be saved (Mark 16[:15f.]).” According to Hut, if this order
is not kept, there is no Christian community.

The content of the preaching in the Great Commission is the “gospel of all creatures.” This is not a
command to preach to every living thing; rather, Hut claimed that the gospel is revealed in all creatures. This
concept was critical for Hut’s theology. The revelation of God’s plan of redemption is revealed in creation to
all men, both rich and poor, learned and unlearned.

The gospel of all creatures preaches the crucified Christ alone. Hut believed, however, that the whole Christ is
crucified, not just the head. The remainder of the body of Christ, which includes His followers, is also
crucified. Hut rightly understood this to be contrary to that which Luther taught. He claimed, “They [Luther
and his followers] preach that Christ as the head has borne and accomplished everything.”

To support his theory that believers in Christ must suffer like He did, Hut cited Colossians 1:24, where Paul
writes, “I rejoice in my suffering, for I repay with my body what is lacking in the suffering of Christ.” Hut
maintained that this process of suffering was visible to all men through common experiences. Jesus preached
this gospel and illustrated it through common work including farming (Matthew 13; Mark 4; Luke 8; John 12),
fishing (Matthew 4), the keeping of vineyards (Matthew 20; Luke 20; John 15), and other occupations.

These parables from creation reveal how the natural world suffers through the actions of mankind. Man
transforms creation in order to serve his purpose. In this process, creation suffers as it is changed for man’s
good pleasure. This is parallel to how man must suffer as he is changed by God. Hut explained, “One should
also note that no once can come to blessedness other than through the suffering and grief which God works in
Him…just as all of Scripture, and every creature also, show nothing but the suffering Christ in all his
members.”

Hut saw his gospel of all creatures in contrast to the gospel preached by the leading theologians of the day, both
Protestant and Catholic. He wrote, “For no one can learn the mystery of divine wisdom in the underworld
hangouts of every villainy, as is believed at Wittenberg or at Paris.” These scholars hindered the average person
from obtaining the truth of God by concealing it in their books, where only the wealthy and educated could find
it. God has instead chosen to reveal his truth to the common man through the natural world. Hut explained,
“So he never directed people to the chapters of a book, as our scribes do, for everything that can be shown
through creatures will prove everything in Scripture.”

The second stage in the justification process, as revealed in the Great Commission, was belief. This was a
crucial phase for Hut, because initial belief was not enough. This initial belief had to prove itself in the third
step, which was baptism. Hut claimed that the initial faith received from hearing the gospel was temporarily
imputed for righteousness. It was basically prevenient faith.

Hut compared this faith to silver that is still in the ore, full of dross and unproven. This silver must be tested
and separated from impurities before it can be true silver. This is why the apostles say, “We believe. Help our
unbelief.” Hut commented, “Oh, how well may our initial faith be compared to unbelief! – as a person then
discovers in the testing of justification, since too often he finds in himself neither faith nor trust (Romans 11).”
This testing phase may be described as the abyss of hell. Nothing can bring joy until the individual is purified
by God.

Only after the faith of a man has been tested is he truly justified. Hut saw this period of faith testing as contrary
to Luther’s doctrine of sola fide. As a medieval realist, he considered Luther’s doctrine mere words
representing a fictitious standing before God. Hut explained his position, “This justification is valid before
God, and it does not come from an untested faith. For an untested faith reaches only to where righteousness
begins, and there it must be prepared and justified.”

Baptism, the process of testing the initial faith, was the third stage of salvation for Hut. He was most certainly
an Anabaptist, but unlike some, he believed that physical baptism was not as important as what he called the
“real” baptism. After the first two steps of hearing the gospel of all creatures and experiencing initial faith, the
believer was physically baptized as a sign of the baptism that was to come, which was suffering.

This was the final and most important step in the process of salvation. It was the process by which sin was
purged from the individual. Hut explained, “That is, baptism is an obliteration of all the lusts and disobedience
which are in us and which incite us to oppose God.” This came about as the individual carried the cross of
Christ. It was through this process of suffering that one was justified. Hut made it clear, “For the suffering of
Christ must be fulfilled in each member until the suffering of Christ is compensated. For as Christ, the lamb, is
killed from the beginning of the world, so he will also be crucified to the end of the world.”

The sufferings of Christ must have been completed in the individual before justification could occur. For Hut,
these sufferings were not self-flagellation or the like, as was the practice of some medieval monastics, rather,
the sufferings that purified were those of everyday life for a German Anabaptist in the 1520’s. Nearly everyone
close to Hut was executed. As noted earlier, almost everyone present at the Martyr’s Synod in 1527 was put to
death within the year. Those Anabaptists to whom Hut was preaching did not have to seek out suffering.

This suffering was necessary because in order for God to declare someone righteous, that individual had
to be righteous. Justification for Hut was not a legal declaration; it was an elimination of sin. He wrote, “If
God wants to use or take pleasure in us, first we have to be justified by him and made clean, inside and out (2
Timothy 2). Inwardly, from desires and lusts, outwardly, from all unjust conduct and misuse of creatures.” So
justification came as a result of the process of sanctification, not the other way around.

Hut was not completely clear in his writing as to how long this baptism of suffering would last in a
person. At one point he declared, “Therefore baptism is a struggle to kill sin throughout one’s whole life.” This
sounds similar to the Protestant doctrine of sanctification. However, later in the same tract he wrote, “If lusts
are few, then one does not remain long in the water of grief.” This seems to be closer to the medieval doctrine
of penance, or even purgatory.

The end result of this baptism of suffering is complete union with God. Hut explained, “Then the person
becomes conformed to Christ, the crucified son [sic] of God – united with him who is totally and completely
locked in us in one body. Then the person lives no longer, but Christ.” This language is reminiscent of the
medieval doctrine of deification, whereby man is increasingly transformed by grace until he is able to
participate in divine being.

Hut’s doctrine of soteriology was similar to that of the medieval church as delineated by Thomas
Aquinas. Thomas also saw justification as a process that was the result of sanctification, but unlike Hut, it took
place in four stages rather than three. The stages were:

1. The infusion of grace;

2. The free-will’s movement towards God;

3. The free-will’s movement away from sin;

4. The remission of sin.

In Hut’s doctrine, the hearing of the gospel of all creatures was first. Second, came the initial belief. This was
basically where the infusion of grace occurred. Man was given temporary faith enabling him to believe. The
second and third stages of Thomas’ doctrine were combined in Hut’s final stage of baptism. The ultimate act of
remission of sin occurred at the end of that third stage. It is unknown as to how aware Hut was of Thomas’
theology, but their doctrines of justification are remarkably similar. Hut’s theology was far less sophisticated
than that of Thomas and if questioned, he probably would have repudiated Thomas and his theology, but the
influence of the medieval doctrine of justification on Hut, as evidenced in the similarities with the doctrine of
Thomas, is striking.

Martin Luther’s doctrine of justification starkly contrasted the views of Hut and Thomas. He did not see
justification as a process of purifying an individual in order to unite him to God’s being. Justification was
instead a legal declaration of righteous pronounced upon a man who is still a sinner. In his disputation
concerning justification he wrote, “23. For we perceive that a man who is justified is not yet a righteous man,
but is in the very movement or journey toward righteousness. 24. Therefore, whoever is justified is still a
sinner; and yet he is considered fully and perfectly righteous by God who pardons and is merciful.”

Hut considered Luther’s doctrine to be foolishness because the emphasis was on belief and not
obedience. He did not see sufficient moral improvement in some of Luther’s followers and concluded that
justification by faith alone did not bring about real transformation. Hut believed that his union of justification
with sanctification, in contrast to Luther’s doctrine, brought about genuine righteousness that was visible in
believers.

Defense

As noted earlier, there is much agreement amongst scholars that Hut did not articulate a distinction
between justification and sanctification. Herbert Klassen, describing Hut’s view of justification writes, “Hut
believed that when God declared a man righteous He also made him righteous.” Werner Packull, another
scholar in Hut’s theological tradition states, “Hut could understand justification only in terms of a iustitia
propria [as opposed to Luther’s iustitia aliena] and, therefore, for him Luther’s formula advocated a fictitious
righteousness.”

There is some disagreement, however, as to the origin of his doctrine, as well as the significance of this doctrine
as it pertained to Hut’s overall theology. One could question the connection between Hut’s doctrine of
justification and that of the medieval church, particularly Thomas Aquinas. Few scholars have emphasized the
parallels. There are certainly no explicit mentions of the medieval doctrine or of Thomas in Hut’s writing, and
there is not certainty as to how aware Hut was of these doctrines. It would not be unusual, though, for Hut to
adopt the prevailing doctrine of justification of his day. While he rejected much of the theology of the medieval
church in favor of Anabaptism, some remnants remained, particularly justification. It was modified to
accommodate his Anabaptism, but still contained the essence of the medieval doctrine.

James Edward McGoldrick has made the explicit connection between Anabaptist justification and that of
Thomas. When describing the view of Michael Sattler, a contemporary of Hut in South Germany, that
performance of works are necessary for salvation, McGoldrick writes, “This synergistic view was promoted as a
rebuttal to the Lutheran teaching of justification sola fide…and it resembles rather closely the scholastic
theology of medieval Catholicism, for which Thomas Aquinas was the leading spokesman.”

One reason to avoid the connection between Hut and Thomas is because it is somewhat overshadowed by the
clear line between Hut and medieval mysticism. This link is certainly evident in much of Hut’s theology and it
influences his doctrine of justification. This similarity to mysticism should not be viewed in contrast, however,
to the similarities with the medieval church. Hut was merely following in the footsteps of Bernard of Clairvaux,
Joachim of Fiore, and others as they combined the theology of the medieval church with mysticism.

The importance of the doctrine of justification in Hut’s theology is minimized by some. Of course, only two of
his writings are extant and his eschatology overshadows his soteriology, but still, his doctrine of justification is
key to understanding his theology. Robert Friedmann wrote, “In the light of the preceding discussion [the
Anabaptist’s high view of man after the Fall] it should not be surprising that ‘soteriology,’ traditionally the
nucleus of all theology, is not and cannot be a major theme in Anabaptist thought.” Friedmann believed that
this relegation is positive because the Anabaptists were more focused on imitating Christ than on a legal
declaration of righteousness.
What Friedmann, a twentieth-century Mennonite, did not understand was that, even if not presented as such,
soteriology was still the major theme in Anabaptist thought. It is true that they focused on imitating Christ and
discipleship, but for the Anabaptists in general and Hut in particular, imitating Christ was their soteriology.
This is what made them righteous before God. Their justification came as a result of their sanctification. This
is the centerpiece of all Anabaptist theology.

Conclusion

It is clear from Hut’s writings that he united the doctrines of justification and sanctification, with
justification occurring as a result of sanctification. This is revealed in his three-step process of justification that
includes the hearing of the gospel of all creatures, the stage of initial belief, and the baptism of suffering. It is
only as a result of this purifying process that man could be considered justified.

The similarities of Hut’s doctrine of justification to that of Thomas Aquinas reveal that Hut adopted the
mainstream doctrine of the medieval church. While he rebelled against Rome in much of his theology, he
adopted its soteriology, although he modified its structure and terminology to fit the Anabaptist style. His
writings also reveal that justification occupied a central place in his theology. The doctrines of baptism and
imitation of Christ developed as a result of his soteriology. Modern Mennonite scholars have not recognized
this because they have adopted the same doctrine of justification as Hut.

Hut’s awareness of his doctrine of justification cannot be determined. It is doubtful that he spent much
time in contemplation of his theology. He was not a scholar, but an activist. His theology was pragmatic; its
stated goal was improved moral behavior. He developed his theology in light of the world around him,
particularly its suffering. This suffering was what purged the believer of his sin, with the result that he was
justified before God.

XXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxXXXXXXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The increased attention is due in large part to recovery of original texts. See George Huntston Williams, The
Radical Reformation, 3rd Ed. (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publisher, Inc., 1992). He writes,
“There is no aspect of European sixteenth-century research that is so alive with newly discovered and edited
source materials and monographic revisions as the Radical Reformation” (xxi). For somewhat positive
connections between the Anabaptists and modern Baptists, see Tom Nettles, The Baptists: Key People
Involved in Forming a Baptist Identity, vol. 1 (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2005); Robert G.
Torbet, A History of the Anabaptists (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1950). For a more nuanced treatment
see James Edward McGoldrick, Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History (Lanham, MD:
The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1994).

Hut predicted that the world would end in 1528. His eschatology was extreme even for Anabaptists. At the
Martyr’s Synod in 1527, he was censured from promoting his views. For Anabaptist eschatology see Walter
Klaasen, Living at the End of the Ages: Apocalyptic Expectation in the Radical Reformation (Lanham, MD:
University Press of America, Inc., 1992).

It must be pointed out that Hut would not have distinguished between the doctrines that come under the
heading of soteriology. For him, a person was either righteous or not. He was not concerned with articulating
the distinctions between regeneration, justification, union with Christ, etc. In this paper when referring to Hut’s
concept of justification, it is that which makes a person righteous.

William Milton Stoesz, “At the Foundations of Anabaptism: A Study of Thomas Müntzer, Hans Denck, and
Han Hut” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 1964), 240.
 A humorous incident occurred in May of 1525, when Hut traveled from Wittenberg to Frankenhausen, hoping
to sell books. In Frankenhausen, he encountered a group of peasants preparing for battle. They were greatly
displeased to find Hut trying peddle books of Martin Luther, one of their stated enemies. He was captured but
later released due to Müntzer’s influence. See Stoesz, “Foundations,” 244.

Stoesz, “Foundations,” 277.

Hut believed that Christians were not to bring about the end of the world with the sword, but were to wait for
the return of Christ and then pick up the sword.

Herbert Cornelius Klassen, “Some Aspects of the Teachings of Hans Hut (c. 1490-1527)” (master’s thesis,
University of British Columbia, 1958), 43. Hut was more popular than even Balthasar Hübmaier. He claimed
in his confession before he died that Hübmaier was envious of his larger crowds and retaliated by writing a
series of fifty-two articles distorting Hut’s views.

Hans Hut, “On the Mystery of Baptism” The Radical Reformation, ed. Michael G. Baylor (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1991), 156.

Hut purposefully read a dative for a genitive. Steven E. Ozment points out that grammatically the Latin
“evangelion aller creatur” could be read either way in Mysticism and Dissent: Religious Ideology and Social
Protest in the Sixteenth Century (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973), 105n. Of course, few if any
other interpreters of the passage have agreed with Hut.

Baylor, Radical Reformation, 156.

Baylor, Radical Reformation, 158.

Baylor, Radical Reformation, 154. These two cities were the seats of learning for the respective religions.

Baylor, Radical Reformation, 161.

Baylor, Radical Reformation, 164.

Baylor, Radical Reformation, 165-66.

Baylor, Radical Reformation, 166.

Baylor, Radical Reformation, 164-65.

Baylor, Radical Reformation, 159.

Baylor, Radical Reformation, 168.

Baylor, Radical Reformation, 170.

Baylor, Radical Reformation, 169.

This medieval doctrine is perhaps best articulated by Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, ed. Thomas Gilby,
61 vols. (London and New York: Blackfriars and McGraw-Hill, 1964-1980), 1a2ae 112.1

Thomas, Summa Theologiae, 1a2ae 113.8.

 Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, American Edition, 55 vols., ed. Lewis W. Spitz, Helmut T. Lehmann
(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 34:152-53.

Herbert Klassen, “The Life and Teachings of Hans Hut: Part II” Mennonite Quarterly Review, XXXIII (1959),
292.

Werner O. Packull, “Gottfried Seebass on Hans Hut: A Discussion” Mennonite Quarterly Review, XXXIX
(1965), 62.

McGoldrick, Baptist Successionism, 110.

For the connection of Hut and other Anabaptists to medieval mysticism, see Ozment, Mysticism and Dissent,
and Werner O. Packull, Mysticism and the Early South German – Austrian Anabaptist Movement: 1525-1531
(Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1977).

Robert Friedmann, The Theology of Anabaptism (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1973), 78.

This same doctrine of justification is present in modern Anabaptist groups. Friedmann tells the story of his
trip to a Hutterite colony in South Dakota where someone asked the Hutterites, “What do you people teaching
regarding salvation?” The response was, “If we live in obedience to God’s commandments, we are certain of
being in God’s gracious hands; we do not worry further about our salvation” (78-9). Hut would have heartily
agreed.

No Comments
0 responses so far ↓

There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment
Click here to cancel reply.

Name

Mail

Website

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

http://genevaredux.wordpress.com/essays/hans-hut-on-justification/