Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 9
When the speaker “plays the role of a typical Anabaptist,” repeatedly saying, “We know Paul/Peter isn’t saying that,” and frames the early Christians as basically “ignorant” for reading baptism passages literally, what does that reveal about chronological snobbery in biblical interpretation, and how would you respond if a second-century Christian said modern evangelical readings are the “ignorant” ones?
Another way to ask: What does it show when we assume early Christians were “ignorant” for taking baptism passages literally? How would you respond if a second-century Christian said modern evangelical readings are the “ignorant” ones?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The speaker’s role-play exposes how chronological snobbery can appear as interpretive confidence: we assume we “know better” than those closest to the apostles and explain away straightforward readings as childish or uneducated. His broader teaching suggests we should respond to that kind of reversal (being called “ignorant”) with humility, charity, and a willingness to re-check whether we, not they, might be mistaken.
- In the role-play, he repeatedly asserts: “We know” these verses don’t mean what they say, while portraying early Christians as lacking “the education we do” and “all the books that we have.”
- He frames their literal reading as a “mistake” but asks for generosity: “Can we be charitable… that… they might read that into it?”
- He earlier calls the “later understands better” posture “insanity” and “snobbery,” especially when judging those “right after the apostles.”
- He challenges the modern assumption directly: “Is it just possible… that we… could be wrong?”
- He ties interpretive harshness to Matthew 7: the way we judge others becomes the measure used on us.