BULLINGER'S UNDERSTANDING OF COVENANT AND TESTAMENT

It has been a real joy to read through again (but this time in greater depth) Aurelio Garcia's "The Theology of History and Apologetic Historiography in Heinrich Bullinger: Truth in History." Having met him at a recent conference in Zurich adds to the joy of rereading through this seminal work.

I was struck by footnote 40 on pages 50,51.

"There is yet another crucial point lacking in Wayne Baker's discussion of the covenant. any notion that the human partner in the covenant stands on an equal footing to give a quid pro quo obedience to God in exchange for salvation, misses this cardinal point. God's offering of the covenant is already a might act of grace, for he has the right as creator to demand all obedience, yet he condescends to pact with us, accepting our obedience - which is Christ's obedience in us, through the Holy Spirit - in exchange for his love for us. We do not stand in equal footing with God; rather God adapts himself to us in the form of covenant, graciously making up for our creatureliness and our sinfulness. We could even describe this adaptation as as sort of make-belief by God, except, and this is the beauty of it all, that the ultimate accommodation of God to us is his incarnation in Jesus Christ. And again we are back to Christ as the testament. Remember too that Christ is both in a sense the divine and the human partner. Thus Bullinger's constant stress on the two natures of the Lord. Therefore once more the equivalency between testament and covenant shows up. Christ is God's promise to us, he is the fulfillment of that promise. Christ is also God offering the covenant, he is too humanity fulfilling the covenant."

Bullinger and The Old Faith (1537)

This work consists of eleven sections which collectively affirm the fulfillment of God’s promises in Christ. It is particularly in Section 4 that Bullinger directly refers to the covenant as can be seen from the following quote:

“For Noe was of our faith, even of the seed of God, and put his trust in in the blessed Seed, our Lord Jesus. Yea, the ark or ship of Noe was a figure of Christ, as we may easily understand by the words of St Peter. Seeing then that Noe was preserved through the ark, it followeth that he was saved by Jesus Christ: therefore is it manifest, that he first believed in Christ. Noe also was he, with whom God first renewed the covenant made with Adam. For it is but one covenant only, even the foresaid promise and end, made by God unbto Adam. Howebiet, the same covenant was afterward at certain times renewed by reason of certain occasions. Here might Noe have thought that all the world and all men should utterly have been undone; forasmuch as the Lord said, ‘I am determined to destroy all flesh.’ Therefore immediately he addeth moreover, and saith: ‘But with thee will I set up my covenant,’ that is to say: ‘whatsoever pertaineth to my covenant, and what I have promised Adam already, the same will I surely and constantly make good; and though I now destroy the world, yet will I perform my truth through thee. For I will preserve thee alive, that the blessed Seed promised afore may hereafter be born of thee in his generation.’”

It is to be noted that pundt was used exclusively by Bullinger for “covenant” in this particular quote. The Old Faith clearly emphasizes the unity of the covenant and that men and women of both Old and New Testaments have the same faith, viz faith in Christ. Thus Section 3 covers “Of the first faithful Christian, Adam and Eve.” In the quote above Bullinger states that “Noe was of our faith, even of the seed of God, put his trust in in the blessed Seed, our Lord Jesus.” Furthermore “it followeth that he was saved by Jesus Christ; therefore is it manifest, that he first believed in Christ.” These statements are all rooted in Bullinger’s understanding of the covenant.

More on Calvin and Genesis 17

Paul R. Williamson in his “Abraham, Israel and the Nations: The Patriarchal promise and its covenantal Development in Genesis” argues that Calvin viewed Genesis 15 and Genesis 17 as two stages in the same divine-human covenant. That is his understanding of what Calvin wrote in his commentary on Genesis:

“The first was a declaration of gratuitous love; to which was annexed the promise of a happy life. But the other was an exhortation to the sincere endeavor to cultivate uprightness …He (God) does not… speak of this (covenant) as a new thing: but he recalls the memory of the covenant which he had before made, and now fully confirms and established its certainty… Therefore, by these words, he intends nothing else than that the covenant, of which Abram had heard before, should be established and ratified: but he expressly introduces the principal point, concerning the multiplication of seed, which he afterwards frequently repeats.”

Bullinger and the Covenant in his De prophetae officio

Bullinger writes the following in his work on the role of prophets:

“For testament, which also is the title for all of Scripture, surely stands for the content of all of Scripture. Neither is this to be wondered at as something recent or devoid of meaning. For by the word testament we understand the covenant and agreement by which God agreed with the entire human race, to be himself our God, our sufficiency, source of good and horn of plenty. And this he would abundantly prove by the gift of the fertile earth and the incarnation of his son. Man, however, ought to pursue integrity, that he may stand before this God with a perfect and upright mind, that he may walk in his ways and commit himself totally to him, as to the highest and most loving Father.”

De prophetae officio sig. Aivv-Avr

Moots on Bullinger and Calvin and the Covenant

The following is a another extract from Moots' book:

“Unlike Calvin, who rooted covenants of salvation in the unknowable will of God, Bullinger made those covenants more accessible by putting them in the context of human covenants and agreements. Bullinger casts the biblical covenants as something which God condescended to make with persons, mimicking the covenants persons already made with one another (III. Vi, 169). In writing of the Lord’s Supper and the binding of persons to God and to one another, for example, Bullinger compared the sacraments to human confederacies (V. vi, 238-239). The point here was not to argue that Bullinger thought covenants were an agreement between equals or to make the biblical covenants akin to human covenants, but rather to stress the accommodation of God. The unknowable mystery in Calvin is why God chose to save one person rather than another; the unknowable mystery in Bullinger is the role of God’s will in predestination (IV. Iv, 185-188).”

Bullinger and Calvin and the Covenant

Here is an interesting extract from the recent book by Glenn A. Moots, Politics Reformed: The Anglo-American Legacy of Covenant Theology (2011):

“The most common and most substantial error among those who study the Reformation is to ignore or minimize Bullinger and to focus on Calvin instead. Not only did Bullinger gain a position of influence much sooner than Calvin, but his influence was arguably as extensive as Calvin’s, if not more so. Archives of known correspondence have three times as many surviving letters from Bullinger as from Calvin, and there are potentially thousands more; his influence penetrated every corner of Europe and Britain. By 1528, when Calvin was still relatively unknown, Bullinger had composed scores of theological works and was an internationally recognized authority. His influence far surpassed Zwingli’s. He also outlived Calvin by twelve years, furthering his influence. Bullinger’s works circulated widely in Englad approximately thirty years before Calvin’s works. His influence even in France (acknowledged by Franz Hotman in a letter of 1572) can be attributed in part to his early converting influence on Theodore Beza in 1535. During the sixteenth century, there were well over fifty European printers producing hundreds of editions of Bullinger’s works in at least five languages. Even Geneva may may have been more taken with Bullinger than Calvin, as Genevan printers worked hard to promote French editions of Bullinger’s work. Even the Genevan authorities recognized the importance of Bullinger’s scope, depth, and tone and required that Bulligner’s doctrinal works be published alongside Calvin’s Institutes. Within one hundred years, 400 editions of Bullinger’s works had been printed in Switzerland and 230 editions in other countries. Bullinger’s shadow was least as long as Calvin’s for the next two generations.

Bullinger was the first to appropriate the Abrahamic covenant. In 1523, at the age of nineteen, he was already beginning to employ the traditional testamentum (covenant) in writing. In 1526 he asserted that the New Testament was the fulfillment of the covenant with Israel. By 1534, Bullinger had published his first substantial seminal treatise on biblical covenants, De testamento seu foedere dei unico & aeterno. De testamento was the first great contribution of the Reformation’s ‘Hebraic Christianity’ and the first great work of covenant or federal theology. Peter Lillback considers this study ‘of strategic importance’ and ‘the first study of the covenant produced in the history of the church’. Most important for Reformation political theology, the work provided a seminal definition and defense of civil government just as the greatest progress of the Reformation was about to be made. Together with his Decades, which also addressed covenant continuity, De testamento cemented Bullinger’s reputation as a political theologian. Calvin’s first edition of his Christianae religionis institutio, published two years later, did not contain any detailed discussion of the covenants.”

Calvin and Bullinger on the Covenant

I have just come across a helpful article by Peter Optiz on Calvin and Scripture and cite a section of it here. Opitz’ article is to be found in Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), The Calvin Handbook (Eerdmans, 2009), pp235-244. The original article is in German and has been ably translated into English by Rebecca A. Giselbrecht who is on the staff of the Institute for Swiss Reformation History in Zurich.

“Calvin’s understanding of the ‘covenant’ is essential to his doctrine of Scripture. Especially during his Strasbourg period, Calvin appears to have grappled intensely with the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. A fruit of this study is found in a comprehensive chapter of the Institutes of 1539, in which he explains the close connection of both Testaments as a dynamic unity with internal differences (CO 1, 225-244). Martin Bucer surely had direct influence on this, and with him the entire circle of the upper-German reformers with their humanistic backgrounds, who in turn had been influences by Zwingli and Bullinger – a fact less heeded by researchers. Bucer, who had already defended the unity of the two Testaments in his commentary on the gospel, enjoyed lively exchanges not only with his colleagues the Hebraists Capito and Hedio from Strasbourg, but also with Heinrich Bullinger. With the encouragement of Zwingli, Bullinger had already argued the one covenant as the scopus of Scripture and received Bucer’s total approval for his defense of it in his De Testamento from 1534. Ever since the 1539 version of the Institutes, Calvin widely expounded Bullinger’s argument for the doctrine of one covenant – not, however, without setting an independent accent that seems to demonstrate the lasting influence of Melanchthon, especially his Loci from 1535. In the Institutes of 1559, the doctrine of one covenant is finally completely integrated into his soteriology; and at the same time, this interpretation of the covenant became the connecting link in Calvin’s theology; particularly between his Christology and his exegesis. Institutes II was thus entitled ‘The Knowledge of God the Redeemer in Christ, First Disclosed to the Fathers under the Law, and Then to Us in the Gospel.’ In Calvin’s first Institutes from 1536 the placement of this doctrine of the law was similar to its placement in Luther’s Small Catechism. From 1539 on, there is a remarkable change. The title of Institutes II.7 reads: ‘The Law Was Given, Not to Restrain the Folk of the Old Covenant Under Itself, But to Foster Hope of Salvation in Christ Until His Coming.’ Thereby the law is expressly defined in alignment with an Old Testament Torah understanding: ‘I understand by the word ‘law’ not only the Ten Commandments, which set forth a godly and righteous rule of living, but the form of religion (formam religionis) handed down by God through Moses’ (Inst. II.7.1). However, because this law depends on God’s electing grace, Christ is already present, even though in Moses’ writing this was ‘not yet expressed in clear words.’ Accordingly, ‘apart from the mediator, God never showed favor toward the ancient people, nor ever gave hope of grace to them.’ For ‘the blessed and happy state of the church always had its foundation in the person of Christ’ (Inst. II.6.2). Therefore the relationship between the Old and New Testaments means: ‘The covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually the one and the same. Yet they differ in the mode of dispensation’ (Inst. II.10.2).”

Bullinger, Usury and the Covenant

Baker has written on his understanding of Bullinger on usury and its connection with the covenant. Bullinger wrote on usury because it was an issue raised by the Anabaptists. The following is an extract from Baker’s book:

“Bullinger’s teaching on usury was fully consistent with his covenant idea. Indeed the covenant condition of piety or love for the neighbor was the basis for his entire social ethic including the realm of economics. In De testamento he listed the loan and other economic matters among the items that were included under ‘that part of the covenant that prescribes integrity and commands that we walk in the presence of God.’ To Bullinger, the second degree of the law was the equivalent of the Love Commandment, and it explained hos sinful man could keep the conditions of the covenant. So when Bullinger referred to the Love Commandment, he meant more than Calvin’s general appeal to Christian love and equity, although that was certainly involved. For Bullinger, the Love Commandment was the summary of the conditions of the covenant, God’s eternal will for His people.

The importance of the covenant is quite evident in Bullinger’s interpretation of the Deuteronomy text (ie Deuteronomy 23:19-20). Since God’s law did not change, Bullinger could not simply apply the prohibition to those historical circumstances as Calvin did. Bullinger agreed with Calvin that the permission of usurious interest was nothing but a temporary privilege. Unlike Calvin, however, he thought that the prohibition among brothers applied only to the dishonorable Wucher, which violated the covenant conditions of love. If Calvin appealed to a brotherhood where interest was authorized, which was quite different from a brotherhood where it was abominated, Bullinger simply suggested that the medieval concept of brotherhood was false. Honorable usury had never been prohibited among brothers – Jews of Christians. This standard had not been altered for Christians but was simply restated in the Love Commandment.

Thus, when Bullinger was confronted with the radicals’ strict and logical application of the communitarian ethic to the contemporary situation, he did not simply equivocate or revise the medieval theory as did Luther and Zwingli. Like Calvin later, he abandoned the ole theory and formulated a new economic ethic that corresponded more closely to the actual economic conditions of his day. Yet, in forming his new economic ethic, Bullinger drew from the record of the covenant. The guide for daily economic activity in Christian society was the Love Commandment, the conditions of the eternal covenant of God.”

The Central Role of the Covenant in the Role of the Prophet

Baker rightly points out the centrality of the covenant in Bullinger’s understanding of the prophetic role of the minister when expounding Scripture to the congregation. This may be illustrated from the following quote from Bullinger’s De prophetae officio (1532) in Baker’s translation:

“Thus I admonish you, oh prophet of God, that more frequently, when you are about to expound the Scripture, you should reflect on what the essential point of the holy Scripture is and to which matter all things return. May (Baker rightly assumes here that Bullinger is referring to the Lutherans) say it is the law and the gospel – but incorrectly. For the testament, which is the title of the whole Scripture, is also the essential point of the entire Scripture.”

“So rate ich dir, Prophet Gottes, wenn du daran gehst, die Schrift auszulegen, oft bei dir selbst zu bedenken, welches die Grundlage der Schrift ist und worauf sich alles bezieht. Die mesiten behaupten ja, sie liege in die Unterscheidung von Gesetz und Evangelium, doch das ist kaum zutreffend. Denn das Testament, das der ganzen Schrift den Namen gibt, ist auch die Grundfrage der ganzen Schrift” (Heinrich Bullinger Schriften I, p14).

Bullinger continues at this juncture with:

“Das soll niemandem als neuartig oder gekünstelt erscheinen. Unter dem Begriff Testament verstehen wir nämlich einem Pakt, einen Bund oder eine Vereinbarung” – This ought nobody consider to appear to be something new or something artificial. With the concept of the Testament we understand, namely, a pact, a covenant or an agreement.

Baker on Bullinger and the Covenant

No serious study of Bullinger and the covenant can be made without seriously considering the work of J. Wayne Baker. His major work is Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant : The Other Reformed Tradition. After criticism by Dowey, Muller, Archilla and others of his major thesis that the covenant is the central underlying theme of Bullinger’s writings Baker followed up with “Heinrich Bullinger, the Covenant, and the Reformed Tradition in Retrospect”, Sixteenth Century Journal, vol 29 (no2, 1998), pp359-376. There is no doubt that Baker is one of few scholars that have read and studied a wide breadth of Bullinger’s works. This is clearly evident form the extensive footnotes in the Sixteenth Century Journal article.

To my knowledge, no one has yet done a detailed analysis of Baker’s work bearing in mind the extensive number of Bullinger’s works he cites. Baker is often cited in the literature but there is rarely an examination of Bullinger’as actual works to evaluate if Baker’s conclusions are accurate or not.

There is no doubt that Baker’s works are stimulating reading. Here is a quote concerning Bullinger and the Anabaptists from Baker’s book published in 1980:

“This, the preservation of the unity of the covenant, was exactly Bullinger’s point when he defended the authority of the Old Testament against the Anabaptists. Christ has not abolished the moral law but only the ceremonies, which He had fulfilled. Although he had thus freed from the Christian from the condemnation of the law, the moral law remained as the holy and correct guide for living and civil society. The Old Testament still had great authority in the church because New Testament Christians were one with the old people of God. ‘These are truly one people of God, in one church and communion, in one covenant or testament; and they have one and the same redemption and salvation, one and the same teaching, one faith, one spirit, one hope, one inheritance, one calling and equivalent sacraments.’ The Anabaptists, however, rejected that whole concept of covenant unity, arguing that Christ made a new covenant of faith. Their rejection of infant baptism rested on their insistence of this new covenant and thus stemmed from their rejection of the Old Testament.

When Bullinger treated infant baptism he again dealt with the covenant. Baptism was a sign of the people of God, a covenant sign equivalent to the circumcision of the Old Testament. The covenant made with Abraham was an eternal covenant, and the Anabaptist contention that Christ had established a new covenant, abolishing the old was erroneous. God’s promise that he would be the God of Abraham and his children remained firm after Christ. Since children had been included in the sign of the covenant in the Old Testament, they also were included in baptism, for God would not be less merciful in the New Testament period than He had been in the Old. The covenant was sometimes called ‘new’ because it had been renewed and confirmed by Christ and because the heathen were now included. Bullinger made several arguments from the New Testament to demonstrate that children were still included in the covenant. Christ said that little children were in the kingdom of God (Mark 10:14), and He referred to children having faith (Matthew 18:6). With regard to the latter, Bullinger explained that the Scripture spoke of faith and the faithful in two ways. First, there were those who heard the word of God and believed; this did not refer to children. But the Scripture also referred to the faithful, which did include children, because ‘they are counted and reckoned among the faithful out of the free grace of God, who has included the children in the covenant.’ Therefore, Christ could not have excluded children from the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). Furthermore, Paul clearly taught that baptism was the new sacrament of the covenant, replacing circumcision (Colossians 2:11-2), and he himself baptized entire households (1 Corinthians 1:16; Acts 16:33), which must have included children. Baptism was thus ‘a sign of the people of God and the seal of the covenant.’’

This is a helpful summary by Baker of Bullinger’s thoughts. But I believe Baker errs when he argues that Bulligner developed his understanding of the covenant partly to counteract the Anabaptists. Bullinger was first and foremost a biblical theologian and the covenant is an integral underlying theme of the canon.

Bullinger and God’s Accommodation in the Covenant

In De Testamento Bullinger emphasizes that God accommodates Himself to mankind in the covenant. This is evident from this following quote from De Testamento :

‘ The following words of Moses, which are set forth in this passage from Genesis 17 :1-14, testify to the fact that God entered into a covenant with us according to human custom : ‘Now when Abraham was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said to him : ‘I am the almighty, all-sufficient God. Walk before me and be upright. And I will make my covenant between me and you and between your seed after you in your generations an everlasting covenant, that I may be your God and the God of your seed after you. And I will give to you and to your seed after you all the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession, and I will be their God. And you on your part will keep my covenant, you and your seed in their generations. This is my covenant between me and you and your seed after you. Every male from among you will be circumcised. The male, however,whose flesh shall not have been circumcised on the foreskin, his soul will be blotted from his people, because he has made my pact void.’ These are the words of my covenant, not written down verbatim but brought together and united in a summary. If you examine these words carefully, you will see that God has acted according to human custom at every point.’

Quod autem Deus hominum more foedus nobiscum pepigerit testabuntur sequentia Moses uerba, quae XVII. Gen Cap. In hanc leguntur sententiam, Postquam uero nonaginta & nouem annorum esse coeperat Abram, apparuit ei dominus, dixitque ad eum : Ego Deus omnipotens siue omnisufficienta. Ambula coram me & esto integer. Ponamque foedus meum inter me & te & inter semen tuum post te in generationibus suis foedere sempiterno, ut sim Deus tuus & seminis tui post te. Daboque tibi & semini to post te omnem terram Chanaan in possessionem aeternam, eroque Deus eorum. Et tu quidem pactum meum custodies, tu & semen tuum in generationibus suis. Hoc est pactum meum inter me & semen tuum post te. Circumcidetur ex uobis omne masculinum. Masculus autem cuius caro praeputη circumcisa non fuerit delebitur anima illa de populo suo : quia pactum meum irritum fecit. Haec sunt uerba foederis, non uerbotim appensa sed summatim collecta coprehensaque : quae si perpendas uidebis Deum omni modo morem retulisse humanum.
(De Testamento p5a)

Das aber Gott den Bund mit uns nach menschlicher Gewohnheit eingegangan ist, bezeugen di folgenden Worte des Mose in Genesis, Kapitel 17 : «Als Abraham 99 Jahre alt war, erschien ihm der Herr und sprach zu ihm : Ich bin der Allmächtige und die Allgenugsamkeit. Wandle vor mir, und sei untadelig. Und ich richte meinen Bund auf zwischen mir und dir und deinem Nachkommen von Geschlecht zu Geschlecht als einem ewigen Bund, dass ich dein und deiner Nachkommen Gott sei. Und ich gebe dir und deinem Nachkommen das ganze Land Kanaan zu ewigem Besitz, und ich will ich ihnen Gott sein. Du aber halte meinem Bund, du und deine Nachkommen von Geschlecht zu Geschlecht. Das is mein Bund zwischen mir und euch und deinem Nachkommen : Alles, was männlich ist, das soll beschitten werden. Ein Mann aber, dessen Vorhaut nicht beschnitten worden ist, dessen Seele soll aus seinem Volk ausgerottet werden : meinen Bund hat er gebrochen.« Das sind die Worte Bundes, nich wörtlich wiedergegeben, sondern gesammelt und zusammengefasst. Wenn du diese Worte sorgfältig erwägst, wirst du erkennen, dass Gott ganz der menschlichen Gewohnheit gemäß gehandelt hat.

Olevianus vis-à-vis Bullinger re United with Christ

A careful comparison between Olevianus and Bullinger with respect to the covenant would be a good exercise to do – especially their use and understanding of the terms, foedus, testamentum and pactum. Time permitting, I would like to have a go at doing this.

Bullinger often refers to union with Christ. This for him is the context of a restored relationship with God. The message of the covenant is God “pouring Himself” into a covenant relationship with the elect. Thus Bullinger emphaizes the two natures in Christ as “in Christ” we are joined in union with God. Bullinger also points out the role of the Holy Spirit in all this.

The following is quoted from Lyle D. Bierma’s book The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus. These quotations illustrate the importance of union with Christ for Olevianus.

“But the mystical union plays a far more significant role when Olevianus speaks of covenant in the broader sense, ie, as actual reconciliation between God and believers. Here union with Christ is the vital link in the covenant between out faith, on the one hand, and God’s promises, on the other. Only through faith are we incorporated into Christ and only through that incorporation are we accepted as chidlren of God and coheirs with Christ. Furthermore, it is only as we are truly engrafted into Christ through faith that we experience the forgiveness of sins and the restoration of the imago dei (true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness) within us. As Mediator of the reconciliation or covenant between God and us, then, Christ is the channel through which god’s favor flows, and we possess that favor only insofar as we possess Christ Himself. It is in union with Him that the terms of the covenant set down in the Creed are put into effect.”

“Christ is the link between the Father and us, and the Holy Spirit is the link between us and Christ. Or as Olevianus himself puts it, ‘God unites Himself to us with an indissoluble bond in Christ our Head through the fetter of the Holy Spirit.’ What we really have in this covenant is communion with the entire Trinity.”

“The very possibility of the work of Christ, however, rested on an even deeper foundation, the person of Christ. Time and again Olevianus stresses that the fundament und grundt of the priesthood of Christ – and thus of the eternal covenant between God and us – is comprehended in the person of Christ, more particularly in the union of natures in that person. The covenant of grace or union between God and us is grounded first and foremost in Immanuel, the highest expression of the divine and human in union. Without this union there is no true Christ, and without this Christ there is no true covenant or reconciliation with God. This hypostatic union, moreover, must be preserved into all eternity if our covenant of reconciliation with God is to remain intact.”

Some brief comments about these quotations from Bierma:

1. Bierma cites from Vester Grundt – “Quotquot enim vere Christo per fidem sumus insiti, praeter illud beneficium remissionis…”

2. It is interesting that Bierma has identified Olevinus’ use of “incorporation into Christ.” I hope to search the writings of Bulligner to see if Bullinger might have also referred to “incorporation into Christ.” Bullinger certainly emphasized the imputation of Christ’s alien righteousness. But if Bierma has correctly understood Olevianus then we might see here something similar to the view of Michael Bird re “incorporated righteousness” that he expounds in his The Saving Righteousness of God.

3. Olevianus emphasizes Christ’s role of Mediator of the covenant.

4. Olevianus’ views on the two natures of Christ appear to be very similar to what Bullinger expounded in De testamento.

Bierma on Bullinger and the Covenant

Lyle D. Bierma has published quite prolifically. His critique of Baker’s view can be found in his “Federal Theology in the Sixteenth Century: Two Traditions?” Westminster Theological Journal, vol. 45, 1983, pp228-250. He has also written The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2005).

The following is one of his footnotes:

“It is puzzling why Baker especially sees a fundamental difference between Bullinger’s and Calvin’s doctrine of covenant. Baker is correct in pointing to a tension in Bullinger’s theology between salvation sola gratia and a conditional covenant that takes human responsibility for faith and piety very seriously. But precisely the same tension is present in Calvin and in all of early Reformed theology for that matter. To suggest, as Baker does, that Calvin resolves this tension by making faith a gift rather than a condition does justice neither to Calvin’s many references to the conditional nature of the covenant nor to Bullinger’s own insistence that faith is a gift of God bestowed on those whom He has elected from eternity.

It is also curious that Baker ascribes the differences in Calvin’s and Bullinger’s views of the covenant to their doctrines of double and single predestination, respectively. Faith as a condition of the covenant of grace is only apparent in Calvin, he argues, because for Calvin this condition is always fulfilled for the elect, and the reprobate, by God’s will, can never fulfill it. Baker implies that Bullinger’s single predestination, on the other hand, helps to preserve the conditional nature of the covenant because the reprobate, not God, bear final responsibility for their rejection. It is difficult to see, however, how these two views of reprobation affect the conditionality of the covenant. By locating the ultimate cause of reprobation in human unbelief Bullinger does not mean to suggest the possibility that nonelect persons after the fall are capable of fulfilling the condition of belief. The unregenerate continue to sin willingly, without coercion from the outside, but their wills are not free to the extent that they are able to love God or do any good (Second Helvetic Confession, IV.2, 3; VIII.2). That ability is a gift reserved for the elect, and the ultimate cause of one’s election is found, of course, solely in God (ibid. XVI.2). The possibility of fulfilling the condition of the covenant, therefore, is really no greater in Bullinger’s view of predestination than in Calvin’s.”

Weir on Bullinger and the Covenant

Though it is some years since it appeared David A. Weir’s The Origins of The Federal Theology in Sixteenth Century Reformation Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) is still a must read in order to grasp the development of understanding the covenant in the 16th century.

This is what Weir writes in his Introduction about Bullinger:

“Heinrich Bullinger also gave the idea of the covenant a central position in theology. He took Zwingli’s use of the covenant to defend in fact baptism and expanded it into a much broader concept. He sued it for a unified vision of history: history, for Bullinger, is not marked by radical discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments, but by unity and discontinuity. The crucial starting point for Bullinger is the covenant with Abraham. Bullinger points out interesting parallels between the old and New Testaments:

1. God concludes the covenant with Abraham appearing as El Shaddai, God Almighty; when Jesus Christ is incarnated he appears as God Almighty.
2. The covenant with Abraham is directed toward all nations, not just the Jews. When Christ comes, he comes to offer the gospel to all nations, not just to the Jews.
3. A condition is laid upon Abraham: ‘Walk before me and be blameless.’ Jesus Christ fulfils that condition.
4. Circumcision is made the sacrament of the Old Testament, which has its parallel with baptism in the New Testament.

If Abraham and Christ are the two basic loci of history for Bullinger, why was the law given to Moses? Bullinger takes the Mosaic law as a concession to human weakness. The children of Israel had been led astray by the sinfulness of Egypt, and so the Abrahamic covenant to be strengthened with the guide-lines of conduct.

Bullinger makes no reference to a prelapsarian covenant with Adam. Mark Walter Karlberg, in his recent dissertation, tries to show that Bullinger made some sorft of reference to a prelapsarian covenant with Adam in his treatise De testamento Dei unico et aeterno (1534):

‘As far as we can discover, there is only one instance in which he alludes to the covenant prior to the fall, the ‘most ancient of all covenants with Adam,’ which covenant was reestablished by the finger of God upon tables of stone. The context of this reference emphasizes the temporal, pedagogical function of the Mosaic law specifically in regard to the ceremonial law.’

Karlberg is to the following passage in Bullinger’s De testamento:

Primum ergo ipsa prisci foederis capita restituit, sed copiosius exposuit, inque tabulos lapideas proprio digita inscripsit. In his autem nulla adhuc ceremoniarum mentio. Sat enim praescriptum erat fidelibus. Verum dum isti infidels et perfidi esse pergerent, iniectum est humeris miserorum onus ceremoniarum, quo caruere prisci. Atqui in hunc finem atque hoc consilio iniectum ex caussa impellente constat, ne alienis deis instituerent sacra: propria erga instituit, eaque sibi ad tempus correctionis placere pronunciavit quae sine verospiritu et sine vera fide perfecta adeoque sine Christo negligebat, ut vel ista ratione testamentum confirmaret, praetera et Christi mysterium hisce velut typis inuolueret, essentique sacramenta et verba quaedam visibilia.

However, we fail to see the validity of this assertion. There is no mention in the text of the most ancient of all covenants ‘with Adam’, but simple of the most ancient covenant, which would refer to the covenant of grace. If we read this carefully we see that Bullinger is speaking of the ignorance of the Israelites in Egypt, and how God had to teach them anew of the covenant with Abraham. Lillback translates the passage in this manner:

First, therefore, He re-established the very heads of the ancient covenant, but He explained it more fully, and He wrote in tables of stone with His own finger. Moreover, in these things there is no mention thus far of ceremonies. Indeed, it is enough that the written rule was for the faithful. Truly, while they continued to be unbelieiving and unfaithful, the burden of the ceremonies was imposed by the arms of pity, which the ancients never had. Both to this end and by this counsel, He established the imposition out of an urgent cause, that they not institute the worship of a foreign god. Therefore, He established a special thing, and by this he declared Himself to be pleased for the time of correction, which he was passing over without the true Spirit and without the true completed faith and thus without Christ, so that He might establish the testament with that plan (Ps. 98:8-11). Further, by this He might cover the mystery of Christ even as by figures, and there might be certain sacraments and visible words.

J.Wayne Baker, in his extensive study of Bullinger’s doctrine of the covenant, has not found any reference to a prelapsarian covenant.”

A few comments are in order:

1. Weir is merely following Cottrell, baker and others who argue that Bullinger took over where Zwingli left off writing on the covenant. I am of the opinion that it was Bullinger influenced Zwingli on the covenant rather than vice versa.

2. Weir refers to “The crucial starting-point for Bullinger is the covenant with Abraham”. It is true that De Testamento focuses on Genesis 17 but from The Old Faith and The Decades it is clear that the covenant was first made with Adam. Karlberg is seeking to come to terms iwht this but wrongly refers to such a covenant with Adam as a prelapsarian covenant.

3. Weir fails to see a reference to a covenant with Adam in De Testamento. He has gone to the effort of citing the Latin text and Lillback’s translation which is appended to his dissertation. The endnote in Weir refers to Page 515 of Lillback’s dissertation. But had Weir checked page 514 carefully he would have read at the bottom of that page: “Indeed, this which he made with Abraham is not the first of all covenants. Rather, the first is what he made with Adam…..”

I have identified the text that Lillback used for his translation of De Testamento and there is the insertion of several sentences at this point to the text that is used by Baker. I am still hoping to get this published. So far no manuscript has been accepted for publication. De Testamento (in its expanded form) does clearly refer to a covenant with Adam but it was a postlapsarian covenant.

If readers can access Baker’s translation of De Testamento they will find it clearer, I believe, than Lillback’s. The section that Weir cites is where Bullinger explains why the ceremonies were added – ie because of the idolatry in Egypt. So that worship of God by the Israelites in OT times according to the ceremonies was ‘pleasing to God’ though, in reality, God desired to go back to the future. Ie back to the time of the patriarchs (pre the ceremonies) when God’s word was written by the finger of God on the tablets of their hearts. With the coming of Christ this becomes not only a reality but is at a higher level – hence Christ declares “God is spirit, and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

Strehle on Bullinger and the Covenant

Bullinger has been misunderstood with respect to his understanding of the covenant. One reason for this is an inadequate grasp of his use of the terms foedus, testamentum and pactum. Another reason is the tendency to read into Bullinger’s works the concepts of federal theology which developed in the 17th century. Another reason is giving insufficient attention to reading Bullinger in context and looking at his works over the three major phases of his writings/ministry: phase 1 – the early 1520’s; phase 2 – the mid-1520’s to the mid-1530’s; phase 3 – 1539 onwards (see Peter Opitz in his “Bullinger’s Decades: Instructions in Faith and Conduct” in Architect of Reformation, pp102, 103.

Clearly, Bullinger was misunderstood at the Synod of Dort and his writings were quoted out of context. No less than an able scholar in Stephen Strehle has, in my opinion, misunderstood Bullinger. This can be illustrated from his article “Fides aut Foedus: Wittenberg and Zurich in conflict over the Gospel”, Sixteenth Century Journal, vol. XXIII (no.1), 1992, pp 3-20.

In this article Strehle writes: “and yet, this solus Christus has another dimension in Bullinger, which will become so unlike the Reformers. In the hands of Bullinger Christ will become more the lawgiver, teacher, and example of the humanists than the redeemer of the Reformers. One need only glance at a bibliography of his works to observe this, his leitmotif. There the intransient, moralistic subtitle of his works can bee seen over and over: ‘Dad is min gliebter son, in dem ich versoenet bin. Disem sind gehorsam!’ (Matt. 17:5). And so solus Christus audiens becomes quite naturally the dominant theme of his theology. And it is this moralistic and humanistic Christ that will end up undermining, as it does so often throughout church history, his primary role as redeemer and the priority of the Gospel to the law.”

However, bearing in mind that many of the works of Bullinger were primarily pastorally focused, it is clear that, like the other reformers, Bullinger emphasized justification by faith alone in tandem with the imputation of Christ’s alien righteousness. What Bullinger did emphasize was that this was the teaching of the Church Fathers who were faithful to Scripture as opposed to the teaching of the Medieval Church which had corrupted biblical truth. Bullinger sought to respond to the Medieval Church by often using the terms they were familiar with or terms they preferred. This was clearly so during the period of the Council of Trent. Bullinger did emphasize the right response of mankind to God’s gracious provision in Christ (the promised Messiah and seed of Adam and Eve) in terms of “right living” (integer) which paralleled the Old Testament emphasis on love and obedience. In is in this context that his reference to Matthew 17:5 is made. Space precludes pointing out that, for Bullinger, Matthew 17:5 refers to the new Torah that Christ taught (indeed embodied in Himself) to replace the Torah of the Old Testament (not the Torah of the time of Moses but that already written on the hearts of the fathers before Sinai and the need to respond to the idolatry in Egypt). For Bullinger, both the Torah of the Old Testament and the new Torah of Christ are written on the hearts of the elect.

Strehle makes observations and comments about Bullinger’s understanding of grace, free will, predestination, reprobation and election (which will not be summarized here). Earlier posts in the blog on the work of Cornelis Venema deal adequately with Strehle’s misunderstanding of Bullinger.

The following lengthy extract is representative of how Strehle views Bullinger:

“This synergism comes to a most definite expression in his doctrine of a bilateral covenant between God and man. Zwingli had previously set forth a doctrine of covenant, in order to unify the promises and precepts of God to man, but he never spoke as if this was a bilateral or contingent compact. It is Bullinger who decides to recast the doctrine in this way through his synergistic tendencies and thus coordinate which is promised by God and exacted of man. God and man are now to be understood as confederated into a relationship of mutual responsibility, contingent not only upon the faithfulness of God but also upon that of man. While God might have initiated the relationship, man has his conditiones to fulfill, in order to receive the blessings offered. These conditiones are revealed throughout scripture, including most notably Abraham’s “Walk before me and be whole,’ as well as Moses’ ten commandments. According to Bullinger, upon fulfilling these conditiones, we are now in a position to expect God to fulfill his part, and thus receive his blessings. If we spurn them, we become disinherited.

This doctrine of covenant, we cannot say, is central to the overall theology of Bullinger, but we can say that through his De Testamento sev Foedere Dei unico et æterno of 1534 this concept of covenant did become an important and permanent fixture of Reformed theology. Classical Reformed orthodoxy continued to speak of the covenant as a bilateral arrangement, employing terms such as dipleuron, confoederatio, mutua pactio, mutua obligatio, and conditio. Man was said to make God a debtor to himself through certain federal conditions and thus was able to exact of God his reward.”

Several comments need to be made here:

1. Strehle has given insufficient weighting to God’s accommodation in relating to mankind via the covenant. Archilla’s work emphasizes God’s accommodation.

2. Strehle is following Baker in arguing that Bullinger viewed God’s covenant with man as bilateral. This view is not accurate once a word study is done on Bullinger’s use of the terms foedus, testamentum and pactum. See earlier posts in this blog. For Bullinger the covenant had both duopleuric and monopleuric aspects.

3. Strehle has misunderstood Bullinger’s use of conditiones as well as Bullinger’s understanding of ‘law’ for the elect in the new covenant (in a footnote to this article Strehle asks: ‘However, we in turn must ask why then would Bullinger speak of the law as a conditio for receiving divine blessing?’). I hope to write on conditiones in Bullinger on another occasion. But the extract from Strehle above is clear that one context of the conditiones is the blessings of the covenant – not the actual covenant relationship itself which is clearly all of grace.

Strehle’s writings, in general, are very helpful and insightful. But, I believe, he has badly misunderstood Bullinger on the covenant. If such an able scholar misunderstands Bullinger it is not surprising that many others misunderstand Bullinger. Hence one of the reasons this blog was set up was to put Bullinger’s work up for review and reflection by all readers.

Gulley on Bullinger on the Covenant

Those interested in the influence of Bullinger and Zwingli on the English Church are aware of the work of Frank Gulley Jnr. Gulley’s Vanderbilt dissertation of 1961 is entitled “The Influence of Heinrich Bullinger and the Tigurine Tradition upon the English Church in the sixteenth Century.” What is less well known are the helpful insights that Gulley makes about understanding Bullinger’s thought.

Since Gulley’s work may be not so easily accessible I will append some of his comments about Bullinger and the covenant:

“Emanujel Graf von Korff, some fifty years ago, expressed the judgment that Heinrich Bullinger was the first covenant theologian. He recognized that the theme of the covenantal relationship between God and man was to be found in Zwingli’s writings, but correctly concluded that at no time was it the fundamental doctrine (Ausgangspunkt) of his theology. With Bullinger however, he saw this concept as the controlling principle of his theology, and for this reason, he concluded that Bullinger could legitimately be called a covenant theologian. In more recent years, Peter Walser has taken issue with this thesis. He maintains that, since Bulinger was a biblical theologian, his theology naturally reflects the non-systematic character of the Bible itself. This does not deny the importance of the covenant in his theology, however. He admits that the concept of the covenant is the means (Sammelpunkt) by which Bullinger displays his theology.

Therefore there is great question whether the term covenant theologian can appropriately be applied to Bullinger. Certainly it must be admitted that Bullinger was not a covenant theologian in the same sense that the term is customarily applied to men in the Puritan tradition of the seventeenth century covenant theologians did. In this sense we must agree that Bullinger was not a covenant theologian. On the other hand it must be affirmed that the Covenantal relationship figured prominently in Bullinger’s thinking. For our purposes it shall be sufficient to discuss Bullinger’s theology in terms of the Covenantal relationship. Insofar as it is possible to determine any fundamental structure to Hooper’s theology, it is that of the covenantal relationship between God and man……

In the beginning God created man in a state of righteousness. That is Adam was created ‘good, most pure, most holy, most just, and immortal, and adorned … with every excellent gift and faculty, so that there was nothing wanting to him in God, which was available to perfect felicity.’ Thus Adam was created with a free will, which enable him to choose between good and evil. In order that he might exercise his freedom intelligently God him a law commanding him not to eat of the tree of knowledge. Stated in the affirmative, the law required obedience and faith in God. Adam, through his free will, chose to eat of the fruit thus refusing obedience to God and showing lack of faith. Thus he incurred the just damnation of God. At this point Bullinger insisted that we must understand that Adam’s fall was the result of his own free will and not the working out of an eternal decree. He did not wish to give occasion for the charge that God is the author of sin and evil.

God, however, was not willing that Adam should remain in disfavor, and so he devised the means by which the broken relationship could be mended and Adam could be brought once again into divine favor. God’s answer was the covenant. Bullinger chose this medium because it was a procedure already familiar to man. Men, as individuals and as nations, in order to lvie safely and in peace with one another, bind themselves together in pacts, treaties, and covenants. By this procedure all parties concerned are able to know ‘what they be that make the confederacy, upon what conditions, and how far the covenant shall extend. Because of the precise character of this arrangement, God chose it as the means by which he would heal the breech.

Since God was the party wronged, it was he who offered the covenant and fixed the conditions. God, on his behalf, offered to bestow his grace and favor upon man through the gift of his only son, Jesus Christ. It was ‘the living, eternal, and omnipotent God, … the chief maker, preserver, and the god of all things’ who condescended to man, pledging,’I will be thy God, they fullness and sufficiency.’ Bullinger is quick to point out that God’s condescension to man does not indicate any lack or need on God’s part. On the contrary, God is ‘very fullness and sufficiency itself.’ The nature of God’s promise is the gift of his Son as satisfaction for the sin of man and as guarantor of God’s grace and favor. Though Christ’s coming was to be many centuries in the future, his coming at whatever time stands as valid guarantee of God’s favor beginning with the fall and lasting forever. Thus the terms of the covenant are valid eternally.

The other participant in the covenant was Adam – father of the human race through whose seed all men are infected with sin and by whose command to the covenant we are made heirs of the covenantal promises.Man’s responsibility is to ‘walk before God and be upright.’ In more precise terms, man must practice ‘faith and due obedience’ unto God. In later times God found it necessary to renew the covenant with Noah, Abraham, and Moses. With the latter the terms of the covenant were spelled out in greater detail. ‘The conditions of the league (covenant) were at large written in the two tables (the tables of Moses) and many ceremonies added thereunto.’ Thus we see an embellishment of the original requirements laid upon Adam. However, Bullinger insists that ‘in the substantial and chiefest points, ye find nothing altered or changed’ from the original covenant. Thus from the time of Moses onward, it was obedience to God’s will as found in the law which is specifically the commitment of man in the covenantal relationship. But the terms of the covenant are binding from the Fall to the present, obligating all generations in the past, present, and future. Thus there is only one covenant binding men of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The terms and obligations for both are identical…..

Since obedience to the law is obligatory for Jew and Christian, Bullinger wrote exclusively of its proper interpretation. In the first place, he insists that the faithful, from Adam until the time of Christ, knew that the observance of the bare letter of the law was impossible, indeed it was designed to drive man to despair. But this was and is not its sole purpose. It was also an instrument of revelation. Finding ourselves unable to fulfill the will of God through our own strength, the law ‘leads us directly by faith to Christ.’ This it does by preaching ‘the true doctrine of justification, teaching plainly that we are justified by faith in Christ, and not by the merits of our own works.’ All of this, Bullinger insists, the faithful people of the Old Testament understood, and therefore they ‘did not seek for righteousness and salvation in the works of the law, but in him which is the perfectness and end of the law, even Christ Jesus.’

In a similar way the ‘ancient saints,’ that is, the faithful, the elect of God (not all men) were able to discern through the eyes of faith the ‘prefigurement’ of Christ in the law and in all the ceremonies. They understood, for example, that the numerous ceremonies, which expressed Jewish worship, were not to be understood literally and that the ceremonies in and of themselves were not pleasing to God. Instead, these ceremonies had the function of directing the minds and faith of God’s people ‘upon the Messiah to come who was prefigured in all the ceremonies and ordinances of the law.’ It must be admitted that there were many who failed to understand the ‘true’ meaning of the law and the ceremonies. Certainly there were those who ‘did abuse the law, who thought that they were acceptable to God, and that they served him as they should because they were busy in those ceremonial works.’ Thus these men lived under external shadows and outward figures.

The two most important of the ceremonies instituted by God were circumcision and the feast of the Passover. Bullinger describes these as ‘signs and seals’ designed to confirm the covenant between God and man. Circumcision had the added importance of being ‘a testimony and a seal of free justification in Christ, who cicumciseth us spiritually without hands by the working of the Holy Ghost.’ It is most important to notice that in Abraham’s case, and therefore for all mankind, the outward act of circumcision was a sign that God had justified man through grace ‘before his circumcision.’ Thus the act itself was an outward confirmation of God’s inner activity; man’s justification is not thereby ultimately dependent upon the act itself.

Bullinger understood Passover to be the second sign or seal which God selected for confirming the covenant between God and man. To the faithful participant in the ceremony, it had a past dimension: ‘to keep in memory the benefit which God did for them in the lad of Egypt.’ In this sense the observance of the Passover ‘did, after a sort, make a sermon to their eyes and other senses.’ To that same participant there was a present dimension: A testimony of God’s good will toward all that remained faithful and a means whereby the faithful are gathered together into the fellowship of one body and are reminded to be thankful and righteous. And finally there was a future dimension to the Passover: A witness to ‘what Christ should be, what he should do for the world, by what means the faithful should be partakers with him, and how … (the faithful) should behave before him.’

In the fullness of time the Son of God became incarnate as God’s chosen means of securing the promise to Adam in the covenant and of rendering satisfaction to his offended justice. The validity of the covenant depended upon one with sufficient power and authority to guarantee it. Natural man could not do this. Hence and incarnation was necessary. Christ stands as the promised Messiah and guarantor of the covenant. He has the legitimate claim to these titles because he was able to appease the offended justice of God through his sacrificial death upon a cross. Thereby God’s promise of communion and fellowship with those who believe was made possible. It was then incumbent upon man to accept this fellowship through repentance and faith.

The community of the faithful, since the death of Christ, is known by the term ‘Church.’ But the Church is in no way different from the community before the incarnation. Both terms are designations of the same community. The community of God’s faithful exists from the beginning until the end of the world. Like the synagogue, the Church militant, ie the Church as an institution in society, is composed of those who are truly faithful to Christ – ‘lively members, knit unto Christ, not with bands and other outward marks and signs, but in spirit and faith’ – and those who ‘believe not truly or unfeignedly.’ But it is only those who are truly faithful that are the elect of Christ and thus are justified. While the exact constituency of this group is known to God alone, any man can know that he is a member of it, if he has faith. By faith, which is trust in God’s promises, man receives the imputation of Christ’s righteousness unto him and thus becomes a Son of God. Man receives faith not because of any effort on his own but through the unmerited action of the Holy Spirit. Thus man is no longer bound to obey the law in its absolute demands, but to have have faith in Christ who is the fulfillment of the law.

Following the atonement, the Church was given two new signs or seals of God’s promise fulfilled in the Covenant: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. These symbols function for the post-resurrection Church just as circumcision and the feast of the Passover did for the Church before Christ: to recall to man’s mind God’s gracious act toward him in Christ and to admonish him of his duty of faith and obedience. Thus the goals of the sacraments is that of a witness, a testimonial, sign and seal. Man’s ultimate salvation, is not bound up in them. However, the Christian man will make use of them because they have been commanded by Christ. Apart from these ceremonial activities, the Christian Church is freed from the ceremonial obligations of the Jews.”

This is quite a helpful and accurate analysis of Bullinger on the covenant, though it is based entirely on The Decades. Allow me to make the following observations/comments:

1. Gulley is on the money when he states that Bullinger is, first and foremost, a biblical theologian – ie he is concerned for the means of the canon as a whole. The theme of the covenant is Sammelpunkt. The reference to Walser is: Peter Walser, Die Prädestination bei Heinrich Bullinger (Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1957), pp244.

2. The covenant was the means by which the broken relationship between God and man could be restored. God condescended to use “a procedure already familiar to man’. At this point, with Archilla, we would emphasize God’s accommodation in initiating the covenant.

3. “The terms of the covenant are valid eternally.” However, Gulley does not enlarge on this. Though he does refer to the fact that man’s responsibility is to “walk before God and be upright” and this means to practice “faith and obedience” to God.

4. Although he does not underline it, Gulley clearly sees the covenant as being initiated with Adam and then renewed with Noah, Abraham and Moses. It is one covenant “in the substantial and chiefest points, ye find nothing altered or changed.”

5. Gulley rightly concluded that, for Bullinger, the law was not the means of salvation In Old Testament times. It was desinged to point out man’s inability, it was an instrument of revelation and “leads us directly by faith to Christ.” Not Gulley’s observation that “the faithful people of the Old Testament understood, and therefore they ‘did not seek for righteousness and salvation in the works of the law, but in him which is the perfectness and end of the law, even Christ Jesus.’”

6. With respect to circumcision as sign or seal of the covenant, Gulley point out that Christ ‘circumciseth us spiritually without hands by the working of the Holy Spirit.’ Indeed, with respect to the circumcision of Abraham, it was an ‘outward confirmation of God’s inner activity; man’s justification is not thereby ultimately dependent upon the act itself.’

7. Gulley concludes: “Adam’s fall was the result of his own free will and not the working out of an eternal decree. He did not wish to give occasion for the charge that God is the author of sin and evil”. See the earlier posts on this blog on Venema on Bullinger and predestination.

Bolliger on Bullinger and the Role of the Prophet in the Church

Daniel Bolliger has a very perceptive article “Bullinger on Church Authority: The Transformation of the Prophetic Role in Christian Ministry” (Architect of Reformation pp159-177). Not only does he give a detailed account of Bullinger’s Karlstag sermon delivered on 28 January 1532 but he also compares this with his analysis of Bullinger’s De prophetae officio (30 June 1525).

Bolliger points out the covenant context to Bullinger’s view of the prophet in the church:

“This dialectic of teaching and defending did not necessarily draw out the more attractive aspects of this new pastoral side to the prophetic office. Bullinger, therefore, connected the pastoral and teaching aspects through another essential development indicated in De prophetae officio: covenant theology. Bullinger clearly applied covenant theology bot in his teaching on scriptural interpretation and in his treatment of the pastoral office of the prophet.

Already in 1523, referring to Romans 10:4, Bullinger cautiously employed the traditional term testamentum (covenant), in his writing. At the beginning of his interpretation of the letter to the Hebrews in 1526 he openly declared that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the covenant with Israel. He then proceeded further in this direction by responding to a question which, although only implicitly posed in the 1532 oration, was present in all the new disciples of the humanist philosophia christiana of the 1520’s: if the New Testament is the important part of the Bible, what is the purpose of the rest of scripture? Bullinger’s answer lay in the covenant of God and humanity, culminating in God’s testament in Christ, which is the overall status of scripture as a whole. Therefore, and correspondingly, the status of every precept, story, periscope or letter, in short, of every passage of the Bible refers, if adequately interpreted, to this great basic status (the covenant). The prophet is responsible for linking the traditional medieval understanding of the divine covenant or testament with the new principle of scriptural sufficiency. This unity, according to Bullinger, is only possible through the adoption of a new methodological approach, which is the true task of the prophet.”

Lillback on De Testamento

Peter Lillback’s The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Baker: Grand Rapids, 2001) has an extended section of Bullinger’s De Testamento which was Bullinger’s work on the covenant (1534). Lillback’s book represents a careful study of the primary sources. The book is based on his doctoral dissertation of the same title which has attached his translation of De Testamento. In The Binding of God LIllback makes several helpful observations and his book is helpful mine of information. However, I would humbly disagree with some of his conclusions.

The following extract (p113) is the concluding summary of Lillback’s assessment of De Testamento:

“Bullinger does not discuss the pre-fall relationship of God and Adam. There is no word of a covenant of creation or a covenant of works. Or does Bullinger consider the issue of covenant and election as Zwingli had done in his final work against the Anabaptists. There is no idea of a pre-temporal covenant of redemption. There is however, a full consideration of the one covenant of grace throughout the successive ages of redemptive history. Bullinger’s indebtedness to Zwingli can be seen by comparing Zwingli’s chart of Genesis 17 with Bullinger’s outline of his discussion of the covenant.

Zwingli’s Chart

1. God all-sufficient is our God.
2. We should walk uprightly before Him.
3. He is also the God of our see.
4. God has sent the Savior to us.
5. Covenant signs: baptism of young children and adults.
6. We teach the children when they are old enough.

Bullinger’s Outline

1. The Parties of the covenant.
2. The conditions of the covenant for God and Man.
3. Who are the seed of Abraham?
4. Unity and centrality of the covenant.
5. Circumcision, sacrament of the covenant.
6. The written documents of the covenant.

Bullinger’s exposition of the covenant is an amplification of the outline of Genesis 17 Zwingli presented in his reply to Hubmaier’s Book on Baptism.”

A few comments are in order here. Firstly, like many other scholars Lillback is in danger of reading into Bullinger the terminology and categories of later covenant theology rather than seeking to understand Bullinger on his own terms in his particular historical context. Closer comparison with The Old Faith (1537) and Bullinger’s extended references to the covenant in sermons 3.vi and 3.viii of The Decades will indicate that Bullinger’s focus on the covenant is on the postlapsarian heilsgeschichtlich plan of salvation which climax is the coming of the promised Messiah or promised seed of Adam and Eve resulting in justification by faith as an expression of God’s grace. Secondly, the comparison between “Zwingli’s Chart” and “Bullinger’s Outline” vis-à-vis Genesis 17 is somewhat contrived and is used by Lillback to reinforce the incorrect conclusion (in my view) that Bullinger followed Zwingli’s lead on the covenant and subsequently developed what Zwingli had already expounded.

These comments notwithstanding the following extract from The Binding of God (p112) is a summary that is spot on in providing a succinct and accurate understanding of De Testamento:

“Genesis 17 is an eternal covenant that is always the same in substance. The New Testament teaches that there is only one people of God made up by those of Old and New Testament who were in His church. The differences between the Old and new Testaments are explained by the ways God dealt with His people under different circumstances. The Old is ‘old’ because it was the preparation for Christ’s coming, and the New Testament in ‘new’ because Christ has now come. Yet the unity throughout the Testaments is unmistakeable in God’s provision and requirement of man’s faith and love. Even in the Old Testament there was the spiritual Israel and the Israel of the flesh, even as now there is a true Israel and a false Israel of the flesh. This distinction does not refer to the Old and New Covenants as though the Old is only the covenant of the flesh, and the New is the only covenant of the Spirit. Since the New Testament has come there are many things in which the Christians are more excellently blessed by God. These include the absence of all of the ceremonies, the full truth instead of shadows, the full blessing of the Holy Spirit, and the universal gospel witness. Matthew 5 is in no way contrary to the continuity of the covenant. Christ does not attack Moses, but the errors of the common people. Similarly, Paul in 2 Corinthians 3 is dealing with the false prophets’ views of Scripture. The contrast of letter and Spirit is not to be referred to the whole law, but only to those things which have been done away with by Christ. Nor is this the Ebionite error, since this view does no insist on carnal ceremonies with faith in Christ for salvation. The Deuteronomy 5 passage that states that this covenant was not made by God ‘with our fathers’ is to be explained as Augustine does. It is a synecdoche in which the fathers refers only to those who perished in the wilderness. In summation, John Oecolampadius’ phrase says it best. ‘That eternal covenant is one with God, which He arranges differently in various times.’ Finally,, to those who see the Old Testament Jews’ triumphs and victories in war as incongruent with the sufferings of the Christan, several things can be said. First, the Old Testament is filled with hardship, as is seen in Abraham himself who never received the promised land. If one thinks of the lives of Jacob, Moses, and David, he will see that they suffered greatly. The old time had its tyrants such as the Pharoahs, Ahab and Joaz, even as the early church had to face the Roman persecutions. Further, many Christians have lived obediently to the Lord throughout their lives and did not ever suffer persecution. Suffering is more than physical persecution.”

Oecolampadius and the Covenant

In his influential article of sixty years ago, Trinterud concluded the following about Oecolampadius:

“….. As early as 1525 the Basel reformer Oecolampadius, in a commentary on Isaiah, had put forth the view that the eternal covenant of God with man was the law of love. This law was written on man’s heart at creation, and was only expounded by the written law of the Bible. To be blessed of God man must keep this covenant by obeying this law. Here the entire law-contract structure is seen. The relationship between the ruler and the subject is contractual, based primarily upon a natural law which, in turn, is applied by positive law which declares its meaning in specific instances” – Leonard J. Trinterud, “The Origins of Puritanism”, Church History, vol. XX (1951), p41.

Trinterud clearly sees Oecolampadius as viewing the covenant in terms of a bilateral pact or contract. The same view was espoused by Kenneth Hagan in “From Testament to Covenant in the Early sixteenth Century”, The Sixteenth Century Journal vol 3 (no 1), 1972, p23. Baker, however, argues that Oecolampadius views the covenant as a unilateral testament of grace while Bullinger has a contractual understanding of covenant. Be that as it may, I would argue that Bullinger did not view the covenant as a bilateral pact or contract.

It is worth noting, however, that Oecolampadius was the only reformer cited by name by Bullinger in his De testamento. Bullinger cites a section from Oecolampdius’s commentary on Jeremiah: “Before God, that eternal covenant which is arranged differently according to the diversity of the times is one. And also in relation to the inner realities, it always has been one and will remain one, not only as it is in eternal predestination… Notice, however, the great diversity of the covenants. The Lord made a pact with Abraham with words and demanded nothing except obedience from him. But under Moses many strange and dreadful things were added, things known not only to the one leader but things evident to all the people. Then it was fortified with so many circumstantial legalities, all of which return to those ten words of the tablet of the covenant.”

In a footnote, Baker indicates that Bullinger selectively cited this work of Oecolampadius to suit his own purposes: “As indicated in the text, Bullinger deleted several lines from Oecolampadius. Oecolampadius was not as supportive as Bullinger would have the reader believe. Although the passage quoted by Bullinger seems to support his view of only one covenant, the material proceeding and following, as well as the portion deleted, supports a two covenant scheme, old and new, carnal and spiritual, corresponding with law and gospel” (Fountainhead of Federalism, p 128, n23).

Despite the fact that Oecolampadius and Zwingli were very close it does not appear that Zwingli’s understanding was due to influence from Oecolampadius. There appear to be some similarities between Oecolampadius and Bullinger vis-à-vis the covenant but clearly there were differences.

For a careful study of Oecolampadius see the dissertation of Diane Marie Poythress “Johannes Oecolamadius’ Exposition of Isaiah Chapters 36-37” (dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary 1992).

Was the Covenant Central in Bullinger’s Writings?

This is an area that I am reading up on and would appreciate any input, thoughts or suggestions.

The key works in English to read on this are:

J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1980)

Baker, J. Wayne, “Heinrich Bullinger, the Covenant, and the Reformed Tradition in Retrospect”, Sixteenth Century Journal, vol 29 (no2, 1998), pp359-376

Dowey, Edward A., “Heinrich Bullinger as Theologian: Thematic, Comprehensive, and Schematic” in Bruce Gordon and Emidio Campi (eds.), Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger 1504-1575 (Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought), (Baker, 2004), pp35-65

Baker’s position is that Bullinger’s (ie that of Zurich) was the original Reformed understanding of the covenant (bilateral) vis-à-vis single predestination while Calvin’s (ie that of Geneva) understanding of the covenant (unilateral testament) vis-à-vis double predestination was a later, alternative reformed position.

In some earlier posts some comments and critique has been given of Baker’s position. In particular, mention was made of the work of Cornelis P. Venema author of Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of the ‘Other Reformed Tradition’?

Doweys’ full and comprehensive article on the works of Bullinger seriously questions the centrality of the theme of the covenant in Bullinger. Baker responded to Dowey (and others) with his article of 1998 in Sixteenth Century Journal. Peter Opitz’s Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe: eine Studie zu den also critically evaluates Baker’s postion.

Papers presented at the Bullinger conference held in Zurich in August 2004 were published in two volumes: Campi, Emidio and Opitz, Peter (eds), Heinrich Bullinger: Life, Thought, Influence, (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2007). Of the fifty articles in these two volumes three of them are concerned with the covenant. That in itself is some sort of indication of the importance of the covenant in Bullinger’s works:

Willem van ‘t Spijker “Bullinger als Bundestheologe” pp573-593

Aurelio A. Garcia “Bullinger’s De Testamento: The Amply Biblical Basis of Reformed Origian” pp 671-692

Lukas Vischer “…. Einem Bund mit euch und allen lebenden Wesen” pp961-976

This post will seek to summarize the main points of Vischer’s article.

Vischer has a section on Bullinger’s use of the terms testamentum and foedus. This is an area which needs to be further explored. He also correctly pointed out that Bullinger emphasized: 1 the unity of the Old Testament and the New Testament; 2. promise and fulfillment between the two Testaments; 3. the continuity between the people God of the Old Testament with the people of God of the New Testament or the church of the Old Testament with the church of the New Testament; 4. Understanding the nature of God’s covenant with mankind is the first step in understanding how mankind should live together. Vischer also points out that the covenant was with ‘every living creature’ or with the whole creation This means that the theme of creation-redemption was pivotal in the thought of Bullinger.