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 and Scripture

It is well documented that Bullinger emphasized ad fontes and seeing Christ as the goal of Scripture. Bullinger further emphasized the unity of the Old and New Testament and that the Old is interpreted by the New.The following is an extract of an article by Peter Opitz, ‘Hebräische-biblische Züge in promissio-Verständnis Heinrich Bullingers’ in Sigrid Lehebusch and Hans-Georg Ulrichs (eds.), Historische Horizonte (Wuppertal 2002), pp105-117:

“In einem Brief an Rudolf Asper von 30. November 1523 (De scripturae negotio) schildert der damals 19jährigen Kappeler Lehrer seinem Erkenntnisweg als consequent verfolgen Weg hin “ad fontes sacrarum litterarum, denn es ist besser “aus den Quellen selbst zu trinken als aus den Bächen”. Theologisch getragen ist dieser Weg durch das “solus Christus audiendus,” das er dort ausführlich erläutert, wobei bereits diese Cyprian entlehnte Fassung des reformatorischen Fundamentalartikels andeutet, dass Christus hier nicht nur soteriologsich relevant ist, sondern auch als göttlich autorisierter “Lehrer” in seinem Selbszeugnis gehört zu werden beansprucht.

Wie aber is das Verhältnis von Schrift und Christus genauer zu verstehen? Bullinger macht nun auf seinem humanistischen Weg ”ad fontes” bei der Bibel selbst nicht halt. As Schriftprinzip fordert hermeneutisch, dass “Schrift mit Schrift” ausgelegt werden muss, wie schon Luther, aber keineswegs nur er betont hatte. Ist aber Christus nach Röm 10,4 – so versteht es Bullinger – das Ziel und der Ausleger (interpraes) der Schrift, dann bedeutet christologische Schriftaulegung darauf zu achten, wie Christus selber in Wort und Tat die Schrift auslegt, und wie die ihn bezeugenden neutestamentichen Schriftsteller mit der Schrift von Christus her und auf Christus hin umgehen. “Christus beweist alles aus den alten Schriften und will allein aus ihnen erkannt werden,” schreibt Bullinger 1523 und weist dazu auf Joh 5,39 hin: “Die Schrift ist es, die von mir zeugt!” “Schrift” kann hier nur heißen: die hebräische Bibel. Diese wiederum konstituiert sich durch einem Traditionszusammenhang, wie schon die immanenten vielfältigen Bezüge der Propheten und “Schriften” auf die Tora, aber auch die Tora selber als Geschichtsbuch deutlich machen. In diesen Traditionszusammenhang ordnen sich Christus und die neutestamentlichen Zeugen selbstverständlich ein,wie Bullinger erkennt. Christus bezieht ihn oft ausdrücklich auf sich, exemplarisch bei der Abendmahlseinsetzung, wo er explizit wie implizit an die Passatradition interpretierend anknüpft. Si ist es für Bullinger eine Konsequenz des reformatorischen und christologisch begründeten Schriftprinzips, wenn er sagt: das Neue Testament ist die Auslegung, der authentische “Kommentar” des Alten: “Novum testamentum aliud non esse quam veteris interpraetionem.” Was umgekehrt bedeutet: Das Alte Testament ist die notwendige Voraussetzung zum Verständnis der neutestamentichen Botschaft, und dies nicht in einem lediglich äußerlichen Sinn oder gar als Negativfolie, sondern in seinem positiven Gehalt: Die Kenntnis der altestamentichen Christusverheißungen ist zum Verständnis der neutestamentlichen Christusverkündigung so notwendig wie die Kenntnis Homers bei der Lektüre des Homerauslegers Eustathios.”

Opitz on Zwingli and the Lord’s Supper

Peter Opitz, who heads the Institute for Swiss Reformation History in Zurich, recently delivered at the Sixteenth Century Conference this past October in Montreal a paper on Zwingli and the Lord’s Supper.

The paper is entitled: “At the Table of the Lord: to Zwingli’s View on the Lord’s Supper.” It can be downloaded via Jim West’s blog: http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/peter-opitz-zwinglis-view-on-the-lords-supper/

In this paper, Opitz takes issue with the often assumed view of Zwingli: that Zwingli “spiritualized” the Lord’s Supper with a result that Christ was not “really” present and that, therefore, the elements of bread and wine are mere “empty signs”.

Opitz draws attention to the liturgy for the Lord’s Supper developed by Zwingli in 1525: Aktion und Brauch des Nachtmahls. In this context, I believe that 1525 to be a critical year as it was the year that Bullinger gave input to Zwingli re the Lord’s Supper and, thereby, re the covenant.

Opitz’ focus on Zwingli’s liturgy is important. For it is one thing to scour Zwingli’s works and then piece together Zwingli’s thoughts on the Lord’s Supper. I have pointed out in a previous post that many of Zwingli’s earlier writings were “negative” in that they were attacking the Roman view. It is another thing to consider Zwingli’s liturgy as this gives us a window as to how he actually regarded the Lord’s Supper in practice.

The 18th of his Sixty Seven Theses (developed for the First Zurich Disputation of 1523) declares:

“That Christ, having sacrificed himself once, is to eternity a certain and valid sacrifice for the sins of the faithful, wherefrom it follows that the mass is not a sacrifice, but is a remembrance of the sacrifice and assurance of the salvation which Christ has given us.”

It can be seen for this statement how many people rush to the conclusion that, for Zwingli, the Lord’s Supper was primarily a “remembrance”. However, Opitz explains that, for Zwingli, the Lord’s Supper is a celebration of remembrance. It is also a liturgical activity commanded by Christ.

Opitz explains this as follows: “Zwingli names what happens during the Lord’s Supper, a ‘realization’ or an ‘assurance’ of the reconciliation of the person with God. The Lord’s Supper is thus a celebration of an event that has occurred and is therefore essentially a thankful, joyful and confessional meal. Zwingli’s liturgical blueprint Aktion und Brauch des Nachtmals is an attempt to put this theological idea into a liturgical form…..According to Zwingli, Christ called his church to act in a certain manner after his death, namely to celebrate Communion continuously until the eschatological meal at the accomplishment of his kingdom (Luke 22:30)”.

Opitz also explains that, for Zwingli, the Lord’s Supper is celebrated in the “Gefletz” – ie on he very level at which the congregation is seated. Zwingli’s practical instructions involved a sermon, the reading of 1 Corinthians 11:20-29 and then the passing of the bread and wine around the church by the members themsleves. Thus, as the bread was passed around everyone could break off a piece ‘with his own hand.’ For Zwingli, the Lord’s Supper was truly a gathering at the table of Christ. Christ is the host. He makes the invitation: “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-burden, and I will give you rest.”

John 6:47-63 would have been read during the distribution of the elements. This was to underline the fact that “Christ describes Himself as the true spiritual ‘bread of life’, and in the ‘I’ form invited people to come to him. It is Christ’s intention to give peace to the ‘weary and heavy-lade’. Therefore, eating and drinking the elements occurs under the ‘promise of peace’ from the host – Christ. The church is invited to come to the table that Christ has prepared, just like beggars in the parable of the dinner (Luke 14:15-24)”.

Opitz also points out that, for Zwingli, “Therefore the Lord’s Supper does not only remind of Christ’s death, but rather the entire life of God’s Son among with people: A life of caring for the ‘tax collectors’ and ‘sinners’. Here, in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, Christ’s death for the sins of the world, Christ’s earthly deeds and his care for the poor, sick and lost, and the outlook at the kingdom of God are present”.

The emphasis on “table fellowship” also points to a growing and deepening relationship between the believer and God and between the believer and other believers. It is the church militant in fellowship with the church triumphant: “the Lord’s Supper becomes the place where Christ’s entire life and work is present as a scene: His earthly life, his suffering on the cross, his being at the right hand of the Father, promising to celebrate the meal again in the future kingdom”.

Thus, Opitz cites from the preface of Zwingli’s liturgy: “Necessary and helpful in no small way, for the spiritual memory of the death of Christ, to strengthen faith and brotherly loyalty, for improving life, and for protecting Christians from the vices of their own heart.”

In other words, the Lord’s Supper serves to aid the believer to keep on dealing with sin in his or her life God’s grace is offered but the believer is cautioned about misappropriating God’s grace. That is why Opitz points out: “It is no coincidence that in Zwingli’s liturgy, not only the famous words consecrating the Lord’s Supper are provided. The whole passage, where Paul outlines a “Christian Order for the Lord’s Supper’ in 1 Corinthians should be read”. That is, the warning passage was always read.

Finally, Opitz cites Zwingli against Eck where he appeals “to the Spirit of Christ and its (sic – he means 'his') multi dimensional effects in the sacraments”:

“Preach the salvation given by God and lead the human senses towards this salvation; at the same time; they spark faith, a faith which is also promised to your neighbor, and they lead to brotherly charitable love. And this is all effectuated, when it occurs, by the one and the same spirit”.

Opitz concludes his paper by declaring that Zwingli did not spiritualize the Lord’s Supper. Rather, “the table was the point where the vertical, spiritual dimension, and the horizontal, human dimension, could meet.”

To Professor Opitz we say: Vielen Dank für Ihre aufschlussreichen Gedanken!

Institut für Schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte

The website of the Institute is: http://www.irg.uzh.ch/index.html.

This website gives details of the various projects presently undertaken, such as the systematic publishing of Bullinger’s correspondence.

The Institute is situated at Kirchgasse 9 and is above the quadrangle adjacent to the Grossmunster. Many resources are available here as well as at the nearby Zentralbibliothek Zürich (at Zähringerplatz, adjacent to Predigerkirche) and also at the Staatsarchiv des Kantons Zürich which is adjacent to the Irchel campus of the University of Zurich.