ZWINGLI ON THE EUCHARIST

Bruce A Ware of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has a fairly good article on Zwingli and the Eucharist: "The Meaning of the Lord's supper in the Theology of Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) in Thomas R. Schreiner and Matthew R. Crawford (eds.), "The Lord's Supper: Remembering and Proclaiming Christ until He Comes" (Nashville: Academic, 2010), pp229-247.

He has a good balance between comment and analysis and direct citation from Zwingli himself.

However, ....... look at the 'howler" on page 247

"Fourth, Zwingli's support for the spiritual, even sacramental, presence of Christ in the Eucharist seems strained: Perhaps owing to his affinities with the young John Calvin and the Geneva School of Reformed teaching, Zwingli sought to uphold also the spiritual presence of Christ for those who partake of the elements in faith. And while he affirmed this clearly, as we have seen, he did not support his views biblically here to the extent that he did so strongly elsewhere."

When did Calvin come to a Reformed understanding? This is a matter of debate. Some have suggested the autumn of 1533 - well after Zwingli died on the battlefield at Kappel am Albis!

What a shame that Ware was not aware of the liturgy for the Eucharist that Zwingli wrote in 1525.

See: Jim West, "Huldrych Zwingli: The Implementation of the Lord’s Supp (Atlanta: Pitts Theological Library, 2016). This is a translation of Zwingli's "Aktion oder Brauch der Nachtmahls" (Z, IV, 13-24)

Zwingli is emphatic that it is not the Lord's Supper if Christ is not present - ie spiritually

ZWINGLI AND CHRIST AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD

This is how David Steinmetz explains how Zwingli understood the resurrected Christ to be at the right hand of the Father in heaven. David Steinmetz in his “Luther in Context” (2^nd ed.) pp78,79:

“If the humanity of Christ continues to be finite, even after the resurrection, then the “right hand of God” must be a place where this finite humanity can be found. One should quickly add that Zwingli has no idea where the “right hand of God” is located and does not speculate about it. It is sufficient for him that the finite humanity of Christ is not found in the space and time in which we inhabit. However, if the finite humanity of Christ is at the right hand of God, it cannot be in the eucharistic elements. Christ stands at the right hand of God to intercede for the Church. But if he is there, he cannot be here. It is not possible for a finite body to be in two places at the same time. Finitude implies and demands a single location.

Christ, however, promised his continual presence with the church (Matthew 28:20) and not merely his continual intercession on its behalf (Hebrews 7:25). In part, Zwingli explains this presence by an appeal to the Johannine promise of another comforter (John 14:16), the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of the Son as well as of the Father. In part, he explains this presence by an appeal to a doctrine which later Lutherans call derisively the extra-Calvinisticum. The extra-Calvinisticum rests on a sharp distinction between the two natures of Christ. While the human nature remains finite in the hypostatic union, the divine nature remains in that same union infinite and unbounded. Christ can be present with the Church in the power of his divine nature. Indeed, it is the presence of Christ by his Spirit and in the power of his divine nature which transforms a congregation of individuals believers into the Eucharistic body of Christ. The divine nature which is present is hypostatically united to a finite human nature which must be absent. Both the presence of the divine nature and the absence of the human nature are soteriologically essential to the being and well-being of the Church.

DID LUTHER REALLY CONSIDER THE EUCHARIST A TESTAMENT?

I am not convinced but this is what David Steinmetz wrote in his “Luther in Context” (2^nd ed.) p77:




“Luther is afraid that Zwingli’s rejection of manducatio infidelium has had the subtle effect of transforming faith into a work and has undermined the utterly gracious character of the gifts which God gives the Church through the sacraments. For Luther, the Lord’s Supper is a testament, a one-sided covenant in which God both sets the terms by which he will be gracious to the Church and fulfils those terms himself. The condition for putting the testament into effect is the death of the testator, not the faith of the beneficiary. A sacrament is constituted by God’s will, testament and promise. The promise creates faith because the death of the testator has rendered it effective. Faith grasps the effective promise; it does not make the promise effective. Christ gives himself to men and women in the eucharist whether they believe it or not. Otherwise faith would be a work, a sacrifice, something offered to God in order to induce him to be gracious. Unless one affirms that even unbelievers eat the body and blood of Christ, one will lapse into a new form of works-righteousness, all the more insidious because it marches under the banner of faith alone. “The cup of blessing which we bless” is “the blood of Christ.” It does not merely signify the blood of Christ, and it does not wait on the faith of the recipient to become what it is.”

Hooper to Bullinger

The following is an extract from John Hooper to Bullinger. Dated 27 January 1546 from Strasburg.

“The conference at Ratisbon as far as I understand by a letter from master Bucer, is suspended. I am more inclined to believe this, because Philip Melancthon is neither yet come to them, nor does he intend it. And Bucer, as far as I hear, is about to come to us sooner that I expected but as yet we have nothing certain; as soon as this shall be the case, I will inform your reverence forthwith, and you may expect a more copious letter whenever any new tidings shall require it. The count Palatinate has lately provided for the preaching of the gospel through his dominions: but as far as he relates to the eucharist he has descended, as the proverb has it, from the horse to the ass; for he has fallen from popery into the doctrine of Luther, who in that particular more erroneous than all the papists; and those who deny the substance of bread to remain in the sacrament, and substitute the body of Christ in its place, come more closely to the truth than those who affirm the natural body of Christ is with the bread, in the bread and under the form of bread, and yet occupies no place. God I hope will at length give him a better mind.”

What attracts our attention are Hooper's strong words about Luther’s understanding of the eucharist. Words that must have been written only just prior to Luther’s death.

Zwingli and Symbolism in the Eucharist

An earlier post has referred to the doctoral dissertation of Paul Sanders. Sanders is presently the chairman of the Accrediting Council of the European Evangelical Accrediting Association and is based in Paris. He kindly sent me a small section of this unpublished dissertation.

Sanders’ work cautions us against the caricature of viewing Zwingli’s view of the Eucharist as “symbolic” only. Here is part of the introduction of Sanders’ dissertation:

‘L'historiographie a souvent enfermé le zwinglianisme dans le carcan du "symbolisme" eucharistique. Cependant, des recherches récentes ont montré qu'il fallait nuancer les idées reçues sur les conceptions eucharistiques "sacramentaires" du zwinglianisme. Notre lecture de cette littérature nous a fait prendre conscience d'une contradiction apparente.

En effet, en 1549, Bullinger et Calvin conclurent un accord sur les sacrements, reflétant des prises de position sensiblement différentes de celles de Zwingli, du moins celles que l'historiographie lui reconnaît. Or, Bullinger, en tant que successeur de Zwingli, se devait de rester "fidèle" au legs théologique qu'il lui avait transmis.

Aussi avons-nous tenté de répondre à trois questions es¬sentielles :

a) Les historiens ont-ils raison de représenter la théologie eucharistique de Zwingli comme une doctrine "symbolique" ?

b) Comment Bullinger a-t-il géré l'héritage doctrinal reçu de Zwingli sur ce point (non seulement sur le plan des convictions, mais aussi sur le plan de la nécessité socio-historique) ?

c) Quel a été le rôle précis de Bullinger dans la mise en place, avec Calvin, d'une théologie "réformée" de la Cène ?’


Sanders also makes this observation about the conclusion of French scholar Emile G. Leonard :

‘Emile G. LEONARD reconnaît l'importance historique et théologique de Heinrich Bullinger, et voit notamment dans l'adoption de la Confession helvétique postérieure de Bullinger par Genève une victoire de la conception zwinglienne de la Cène - un "zwinglianisme revu et corrigé par Bullinger" - sur la position calvinienne.’

Bullinger and Zwingli on the Sacraments

Peter Stephens, formerly of Aberdeen and now writing from his base at Penzance, has written extensively in recent years on Bullinger. His writings on Zwingli have been highly acclaimed. He has done us a great service in a meticulous study comparing Bullinger and Zwingli on the sacraments in his article “The Sacraments in the Confessions of 1536, 1549, and 1566 – Bullinger’s Understanding in the Light of Zwingli’s” in Zwingliana vol XXXIII (2006), pp51-76.

The works of Bullinger that Stephens studies are: The First Helvetic Confession (1536), The Consensus Tigurinus ( which Stephens refers to as the Zurich Agreement – 1549) and The Second Helvetic Confession (1566). Interestingly, there appears to be no reference to the Decades.

We are truly in debt to Stephens for such a detailed study which should, once and for all, clear up misconceptions about Zwingli’s understanding of the sacraments. At the same time, Stephens gives us more more background to what was in Bullinger’s mind in his extensive correspondence with Calvin vis-à-vis the sacraments. The following is a summary of some salient points of this article.

The article begins with comments from Stephens which, to me at least, indicate that he has shifted somewhat in his understanding and appreciation of Bullinger. In Stephens’ earlier writings Bullinger is clearly Zwingli’s Nachfolger.

Stephens commences his article thus: “The names of Zwingli and Bullinger are joined in such a way that it is natural to think if Bullinger not only as the successor of Zwingli but also as a continuation of Zwingli. There is indeed continuity in their ministry and their theology, but Bullinger is also distinctive both as a reformer and as a theologian. This is true for his view of the sacraments. As we look at Bullinger’s understanding of the sacraments in the confessions of 1536, 1549, and 1566, it is instructive to see similarities and differences between him and Zwingli, as well as the developments in his thought.”

I would like to propose that from the very beginning, while Zwingli was alive and Bullinger still a very young man, that Bullinger had some differences vis-à-vis Zwingli re the sacraments but that, in order to foster a positive view of Zwingli’s contribution in the early years of Bullinger’s time as Antistes in Zurich, he patiently waited until an appropriate time to put in writng his distinctive views.

Stephens has written elsewhere about the development of Zwingli’s understanding of the sacraments and of the Lord’s Supper, in particular. This has been referred to in previous posts of this blog. This is alluded to in the following extract from the article:

“The writings of Zwingli most obviously comparable with these confessions are the Sixty-Seven Articles (1523) and the Marburg Articles (1529). However, these do not reflect Zwingli’s theology in his final years and it is this to which Bullinger naturally refers. Three of his works from 1530-31, to which Bullinger does refer, are: Account of the Faith presented to the Emperor at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, Letter to the Princes of Germany again for the Diet in August 1530, in reply to Eck’s attack on Account of the Faith, and Exposition of the Faith for the King of France in 1531, published by Bullinger in 1536.”

With respect to my comment above that Bullinger was keen to ‘defend’ and promote Zwingli to keep Zurich united and growing it is noted that Bullinger made a specific effort to publish Zwingli’s Exposition of the Faith.

Stephens’ summary of developments in Zwingli's thought is as follows:

“There were changes and developments as well as considerable continuity in Zwingli’s understanding of the sacraments. From the beginning his theology was compatible with a symbolic interpretation of the sacraments, whether or not he had a symbolic view then or moved to that view from the end of 1524. The subjective emphasis, which is a continuing element in his theology, is also evident in his preference for memorial to testament. (however the stress on faith in all his works is not simply subjective, as faith is the work of the Spirit.) Moreover, the emphasis on the community rather than just the individual is present from an early stage, as is the conviction that the sacraments are a public witness to a person’s membership of the church. At one point, he spoke of the sacraments as our pledge or covenant with us. Originally he had related sacrament (meaning and oath) to God’s instituting something as surely as with an oath, but at the end of 1524 to our uniting with each other in one body as with an oath. (Z II 120.23-30, III 348.17-22) Although Zwingli challenged the radicals on the sacraments, especially baptism, it is primarily in controversy with Lutheran and Roman views that he developed his sacramental theology. That is also the context for understanding his final works.”

In a footnote at this point Stephens points the reader to his The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (1986) and his “The Soteriological Motive in the Eucharistic Controversy” in Willem van’t Spijker (ed.), Erbe und Auftrag (Kampen, 1991), pp203-213.

These following comments of Stephens’ re Zwingli are worth noting:

“Thus the article on the sacraments in Account of the Faith begins, ‘I believe, indeed I know, that all the sacraments are so far from conferring grace that they do not even convey or dispense it.’”

“Zwingli insists on the sovereignty of the Spirit, who blows where he wills. This means that he cannot be bound to the sacraments. Rather people need the Spirit in order to receive the sacrament.”

“There is first the traditional definition of a sacrament as a sign of a sacred thing, but Zwingli refers to grace which has been given and not to grace which is being given.”

“His discussion of the eucharist begins positively with the affirmation that the true body of Christ is present by the contemplation of faith.”

“Zwingli insists on the presence of Christ in the supper, asserting that it is not the Lord’s Supper, if Christ is not present. This is confirmed by Christ’s word ‘Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them’, to which Zwingli adds, ‘How much more is he present where the whole church is gathered?’”

“The sacrament does not confer grace, but it is a sign of or testimony to grace already given.”

“The presence of Christ in the eucharist is affirmed,as is the presence of the true body and blood. However, Zwingli denies both bodily presence, as Chist’s body is heaven, and bodily eating, as the flesh is of no avail.”

On another occasion I hope, deo volente, to summarize what Stephens says about Bullinger on the sacraments vis-à-vis Zwingli.

Someone once commented of me with respect to this blog “Du wärst problemlos in der Lage, so etwas zu schreiben”. Actually, I have a busy pastoral ministry with several challenges to face together with my colleague and this blog helps to keep me balanced!

Richard Muller on Calvin’s Early Eucharistic Thought

Richard Muller has recently written an article on the early eucharistic thought in Calvin’s early period: “From Zurich or from Wittenberg? An Examination of Calvin’s Early Eucharistic Thought”, Calvin Theological Journal, vol. 45 (n0.2), 2010, pp243-255.

Muller specifically studied the first edition of Calvin’s Institutio (1536), the French and Latin catechism and confession of 1537-1538 and the early Confessio fidei de Eucharistia (1537). He pays attention to Calvin’s use of key terms such as substantia, exhibere, adesse, corpus.

Muller argues for the influence of Melanchthon on the early Calvin. The following is part of his conclusions:

“Four conclusions can be drawn from these usages. Arguably, first, Calvin evidences two connotations of substantia. One is a looser construction not drawing on the technical philosophical meaning associated with individual things, which is to say, not primary substance in the Aristolean sense, and the other is a strict use of the technical sense of the term. According to the looser usage, Christ’s body becomes one substance with believers in a spiritual sense – in the sense of the presence and influence of Christ that are held forth in sacramental signs. Indeed, there is a positive association between the use of exhibere and this understanding of substantia. Second, in his denial of the substantial presence of Christ’s body, Calvin appears to use the standard philosophical sense of substantia as the primary substance or individual. This reading is confirmed by his pairing of substantial with real, the realis having here, certainly, the technical connotation of ‘thingish’ or substantial implied by its etymological root, res. Here, moreover, Calvin explicitly distances the notion of Christ exhibited from the language of substance: that which is exhibited is not the corporeal presence of Christ. Third, if Calvin’s denial of a substantial presence in the strict sense can be identified as a Zwinglian accent, his use of exhibere indicates a distancing from Zwingli already in 1536. The Christological understanding of a presence is coupled with the use of exhibere and with Calvin’s language of true, effective presence (eg vere, efficaciter, praesens, adest) in a manner that resonates more with Melanchthon and points rather clearly to a Lutheran referent of Calvin’s argumentation. Fourth, Calvin’s recognition that Christ’s ascension undermined a local, corporeal presence, coupled with is insistence that the sesio Christi ad dexteram Patris, rendered Christ present in a powerful sense that could be understood eucharistically and points more probably toward concord with the Lutherans based on largely Melanchthonian language.”

Muller ends his article with the following conclusion:

“Some conclusions are in order,Calvin’s earliest thought ought not to be described either as ambiguous or as Zwinglian. Nor is it taken from Luther. Rather, it is distinctly Melanchthonian. Of great interest here is that the 1536 Institutio, despite its denial of a substantial presence of Christ’s natural body, does not develop anything like his later doctrine of Christ’s eucharistic presence as a sursum corda, namely as a work of the Holy Spirit raising the heart of the believer and joining together in heavenly places things otherwise disparate. Instead, Calvin argues, that, given Christ’s ascension to heaven, he cannot be corporeally present on earth; but, inasmuch as he now sits at the right hand of God, his kingdom and power extend everywhere, and he can hold forth his body and blood to believers. Calvin’s focus is on a presence understood christologically, not pneumatologically. Not only does Calvin’s use of exhibere, verum and adsum lean toward a Melanchthonian doctrine, so also does the way that he understands a local ascension to a non local divine right hand. Significantly also, Calvin’s denial of a real presence of the substance of Christ is not yet a denial of any Lutheran teaching. The Lutheran confessional documents to which he was party had not used the term, and the other language Calvin uses to explain Christ’s presence is not only Melanchthonian but evidences a close relationship to the apology of the Augsburg Confession and the Wittenberg Concord. The positive elements of this early teaching, moreover, carry over into the catechisms of 1537 and 1538 and, to a certain extent, the Confessio fidei de Eucharistia (1537) in which the denial of substantial presence has dropped out. Inasmuch, moreover, as Bucer and Capito had signed the Wittenberg Concord, Calvin’s Melanchthonian language also pointed him toward agreement with Strasbourg.”

Muller has provided us with a stimulating study of the early Calvin vis-à-vis his understanding of the Eucharist. However, it is appropriate to ask a few questions.

1. Although at this early stage Calvin had not yet moved to Strasbourg he had, nonetheless, presumably, read some of Bucer’s works as so we might ask – to what extent was Calvin’s thought influenced by that of Bucer?

2. Since the use of Latin terms in this period of the 16th century would have been somewhat fluid – what lexicological studies have been done that might throw some light on the debate?

3. To what extent was Calvin writing in reaction to the Roman understanding of the Mass rather than on an a priori basis explaining the sacraments from Scripture?

4. Muller may have done a study on Calvin’s early understanding of the Eucharist but the bottom line is – what light does this shed on what Scripture teaches? Ie how faithful is Calvin to Scripture?

Zwingli and the Eucharist Further Observations

An earlier post has considered Zwingli and the eucharist. Carrie Euler in her meticulously researched book Couriers of the Gospel: England and Zurich, 1531-1558 (TVZ 2006) makes the following observations about Zwingli and the eucharist. As in our earlier post there is a timely reminder to consider the later writings of Zwingli when considering his understanding of the eucharist.

“Zwingli has gone down in history as a ‘memorialist’ and ‘rationalist’, one who maintained the bread and the wine were ‘empty signs’. These charges greatly oversimplify Zwingli’s position and his influence on the development of Reformed Eucharistic theology.

Zwingli’s writings between 1524 and 1529 do vigorously confute any real presence of Christ, corporeal or spiritual, in the supper, but it is misleading to say that the Zurich reformer relegated the bread and wine to the status of empty memorials. In addition to there being a physical similarity between the sign and the thing signified (wine looks like blood), there was, for Zwingli, an emotional and spiritual connection. For the Jews, the Passover lamb did not merely represent the feast of Passover, but liberation from bondage, the actual passing over of the first-born in Egypt the night before the Exodus. Similarly, the supper of the Lord brings to Christians’ minds their salvation through Christ (Zwingli, On the Lord’s Supper, pp225-227).

Zwingli’s later writings provide even more connection between the sign and the thing signified, for in the last years of his life he inclined towards accepting Christ’s spiritual presence in the bread and wine (Gäbler, Ulrich Zwingli, p137). In A Brief Exposition of the Faith (1531), he compared the sacramental signs to a betrothal ring. When a wife beholds the ring on her finger, she does not value it only for its gold substance, but her heart is warmed by the thought of her husband and her bond to him, of which the ring is a symbol (Zwingli, A Brief Exposition of the Faith, pp262-263). In this treatise, Zwingli introduced the phrase ‘sacramental eating’. ‘Spiritual eating’ was ‘trusting with heart and soul upon the mercy and goodness of God through Christ.’ We can do this at any time. But eating Christ sacramentally, Zwingli wrote was spiritual eating in conjunction with the communal celebration of the sacrament. At this time, ‘You do inwardly what you represent outwardly, your soul being strengthened by the faith which you attest in the tokens.’ Here and in his Account of Faith (1530), Zwingli allowed that the sacrament can ‘strengthen’ or ‘augment’ faith, but he was adamant that it could not convey faith. Those who partake of the sacrament without faith do not eat spiritually or sacramentally (A Brief Exposition of the Faith, pp260-261). A spiritual presence for the faithful was far from a bodily presence for all, however. In these later writings, he continued to defy Luther by asserting the spiritual/material divide and rejecting the ubiquity of Christ’s body (A Brief Exposition of the Faith, pp254-258)”.
(Couriers of the Gospel, pp22,23)

Zwingli and Bullinger vis-à-vis the Eucharist

In an earlier post (Zwingli and the Eucharist) I flagged that I would post concerning my conclusion that Bullinger had a significant influence on Zwingli which resulted in Zwingli’s linking the Eucharist with the covenant commencing in 1525.

Bullinger first met Zwingli and Jud in 1523. This is recorded in his Diarium:

“Hoc eodem anno primo vidi d. Huld. Zuinglium et Leonem Iudae, et primum eorum usus sum familiaritate. Placebant eorum libri et conciones hoc impensius, quo ardentior iam in 4. anno dogmatis eram sectator” (Diarium, p8).

Bullinger’s input to Zwingli concerning the Eucharist was made on 12 September 1523:

“12. Septembris primo aperuit mihi mentem suam Zuinglius, quid sentiret de sacramento corporis et sanguinis Domini. Nam bona fide illi exponebam sententiam meam, quam hauseram ex scripto quodam fratrum Vualdens. | et Augustinus libris. Interim prohibebat, ne cui id mysterii explicarem; nondum enim satis tempestivum esse, ut proferatur; velle se iusto tempore proferre” (Diarium, p9).

Zwingli and the Eucharist

Zwingli’s stress on the sovereignty of God underlies his understanding of word and sacrament. Thus he rejected any notion that the sacraments could be effective in or of themselves. For that would be to deny the sovereignty of God.

In his correspondence with Luther, Zwingli focused on Johannine texts such as John 6:44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him”, John 6:45 “And they shall all be taught of God” and John 3:8 “The Spirit blows where he wills”. He was particularly fond of quoting John 6:63 to Luther – “It is the Spirit who gives live, the flesh is of no avail”.

Despite what is commonly believed, Zwingli did believe in the presence of Christ during the Eucharist. The commonly held view is that Zwingli denied the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as if others believed in the real presence and Zwingli in the real absence! In point of fact, Zwingli did believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist – but not his bodily presence, nor his presence in his human nature. Christ is present through the Spirit.

Zwingli’s position was developed in The Canon of the Mass in which he defended the use of the term “Eucharist”. Although this term was not used by Christ or the apostles, it makes clear that the sacrament is a gift from God. On the other hand, the term “mass” indicates that it is something that men and women offer to God.

There were several influences on Zwingli’s understanding of the Eucharist. These include Erasmus, Augustine and Hoen. The young Bullinger also had a significant influence on Zwingli’s thought concerning the Eucharist and this will be the subject of a subsequent post. Indeed, most scholars assume that Bullinger, as Zwingli’s Nachfolger, followed and developed Zwingli’s ideas. Stephens, for example, states that, “As Zwingli’s successor in Zurich, Bullinger consciously maintained Zwingli’s teaching and practice.”

On 15 June 1523 Zwingli wrote to his former teacher, Thomas Wyttenbach, concerning the Eucharist. The main concern raised was the presence of Christ. Zwingli wrote:

Eucharistiam illic edi puto, ubi fides est; in eum enim usum data est, ut mortis domini fructum, gratiam et donum cantemus, usque dum dominus veniat.

(see the post on Jim West’s blog: http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/zwingli-to-wyttenbach-on-the-eucharist/)

In 1524 Zwingli read a letter by Cornelius Hoen. This letter argued for interpreting the word “is” as “signifies” in “this is my body”. In 1525 Zwingli was influenced by Bullinger though this is not widely known.

Gillies concluded that Zwingli made “the covenantal discovery” in the summer of 1525. 1525 was, indeed, a productive year for Zwingli. In June the Prophezei was commenced with studies on Genesis. These were subsequently published in March 1527 as the Genesis Commentary. In August of the same year Zwingli produced his Subsidiary Essay on the Eucharist of which Gillies noted, “attests to the existence of a developed covenantal theme during this period.” 1525 was also the year that Bullinger was in Zurich! He was invited by the Zürich council to attend the first disputation with the Anabaptists in Zürich on 16 January. Bullinger subsequently acted as clerk at the second (17 March) and third disputations (6-8 November). 1525 was also the year that reforms took a firm hold in Zürich.

Stephens has documented how Zwingli had different emphases on the Eucharist at different phases of his ministry. His earlier writings sought to counteract transubstantiation and Luther’s understanding of the presence of Christ. Thus he emphasized the symbolic nature of the Eucharist. For him, the focus was on remembering the death of Christ and not on the eating of the body. From 1525 onwards Zwingli referred more and more to the covenant in connection with the Eucharist. Stephens observed that in his later writings “the Eucharist is a thanksgiving for Christ’s death for us, a confession of our faith, and a commitment to love them as Christ loved us.”

(This post is based on W.P. Stephens, “Zwingli: An Introduction to his Thought”. The quotations are from: W. Peter Stephens, “Bullinger and the Anabaptists with Reference to His Von dem universchämten Frevel (1531) and to Zwingli’s Writings on the Anabaptists”, Reformation and Renaissance Review, vol. 3 (2001), p96 and Scott A. Gillies, “Zwingli and the Origin of the Reformed Covenant 1524-7”, Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 54 (2001), p21-50)