More on Stephens on Bullinger and the Interpretation of Scripture

An earlier post referred to Peter Stephens’ article in RRR on the interpretation of the Bible in Bullinger’s early works. The following is another excerpt from this helpful article :

‘Bullinger’s other writings in the years after On Scripture express and develop what he says about the relation of the Old and New Testament, in particular the understanding of the covenant, the interpretation of Scripture by Scripture, and the role of the Holy Spirit as author and interpreter. These issues are, of course, related to each other.

Like the other reformers, Bullinger emphasizes that the Spirit is the author and interpreter of Scripture. The inspiration of Scripture underlies what Bullinger says about the Spirit and the biblical writers as authors, but inspiration is affirmed rather than discussed. With the Holy Spirit as the author of Scripture, there is naturally consistency between one part of Scripture and another, so that, for example, the evangelists agree with Paul on the Eucharist. The consistency of Scripture is both expressed and implied in his Reply to Burchard. He maintains that there is no difference between the teaching of Christ, Paul, and the Apostles, and that listening to Christ is not different from listening to the Spirit or listening to the Apostles. He concludes that the Spirit is consistent and, therefore, that he did not later command what he had forbidden through the apostles.

The Holy Spirit, as the author of Scripture, does not, however, override the distinctiveness of the human authors. In his lectures on Romans, Bullinger can speak of Paul as writing inexactly. For Bullinger, the inspiration of Scripture also does not preclude differences in Scripture. Thus there are differences in words. These, however, are not necessarily a problem, as the sense is fundamental rather than the words.

Likewise, the authorship of the Holy Spirit does not preclude other differences between the biblical books. In his second lecture on Romans at Kappel, Bulligner gives a lyrical account of Paul’s virtues. He draws on the praises of Fathers, such as Chrysostom, Macrobius, and Gregory of Nazianzus, in describing Paul as more eloquent than others and his writings as higher than theirs. Paul’s pre-eminence, however, does not derive from his personal qualities, but from the Spirit. All are taught by the Spirit, but the Spirit’s gifts are varied and the grace of God is given more powerfully to one person than to another. In this context Bullinger speaks of Paul as presenting Christ ‘in a lively way in all his epistles’ but as doing it most richly in Romans ‘the chief work of the whole New Testament and the heart of divine Scripture.’ Similarly in Hebrews he refers to Genesis as ‘the finest book’ in the Bible.

Some differences are not explicitly related to the gifts of the Spirit, but have to do with circumstances. Luke and Paul are said to have written more clearly on the cup, but that is because they wrote after Matthew and Mark and were seeking to prevent misunderstanding of the wine as blood. Similarly, Paul is to be preferred to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, although he wrote the same as they did, because he wrote last and wrote against error. Likewise, John related ‘most clearly the stories, speeches, and power of Jesus because he wrote last and much error had arisen.’ Nevertheless, some differences between certain Pauline epistles by the fact that they were actually written by a secretary and not by Paul himself. Again, however, he insists that there is no difference in sense.’

This except clearly points out how Bullinger viewed the unity of the canon. The covenant was the theme that linked the Old and New Testaments. But since the Holy Spirit is the author of all of Scripture it means that Scripture must be interpreted in an wholistic manner before seeking to interpret its constituent parts.

Stephens on Bullinger and Interpreting Scripture

Peter Stephens (see earlier post) observes the following with respect to Bullinger and Scripture:

“Bullinger regards three things as essential in reading the Bible: knowledge of languages, the scope of Scripture, and certain methods of interpretation. First, he emphasizes the necessity and usefulness of languages, and what is lost in not having them. In his support, he appeals to theologians, such as Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and others, who recognized that fruitful theological work was not possible without the knowledge of languages. He even outlines in a practical way a course in Hebrew and Greek, having shown what is lost in not having the original biblical languages.

The second essential element concerns the scope (scopus) of Scripture, to which all the books of the Bible relate. Bullinger begins by referring to the Lutheran idea of law and gospel. He does not explicitly reject it, but simply says that he neither finds fault with it, nor wishes to praise it. For Bullinger, however, all the books of the Bible involve the eternal testament or covenant, which God has made with the human race (Genesis 17 and 22).

It is significant that in the list of the theological terms which Bullinger gives at the end of the book (ie Studiorum ratio), the covenant comes first, before either God or Scripture. The covenant has two parts. First, God binds himself to us and shows and promises who and what kind of God he wishes to be to us. Second, we are to keep this covenant, serve God faithfully, cleave to him alone, and live in innocence and in accordance with his will. The Bullinger adds significantly something which is not in Genesis: that God punishes those who break the covenant. In effect he reads this back from the rest of the Bible, which shows God’s relation to unbelievers. The treatment is the same in both Old and New Testament.”

Stephens’ conclusion is consistent with Bullinger’s insistence on the unity of the canon. Since the Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture then “covenant” (berith) in the Old Testament can be legitimately understood (hence Stephens’ comment ‘he reads back from the rest of the Bible’) through the lens of the New Testament use of diatheke (both ‘covenant’ and ‘testament’).

Bullinger and the Interpretation of the Bible

The latest issue of Reformation and Renaissance Review has an article on Bullinger and the interpretation of the Bible by Peter Stephens. Stephens has been progressing writing articles on Bullinger.

The article is W. Peter Stephens “The Interpretation of the Bible in Bullinger’s Early Works” Reformation and Renaissance Review, vol 11 (no.3), 2009, pp311-333. The RRR website lists this as the latest edition of RRR but I don’t understand why the year is 2009.

Stephens is correct to point out that Bullinger emphasizes understanding the message of whole individual books of Scripture, the message of the canon as a whole and the message of the individual books in relation to the message of the Bible as a whole.

The following is the abstract of the article:

“This article notes Luther’s, Melanchthon’s, and Augustine’s influence, but also Bullinger’s independence in interpretation. It explores Bullinger’s rejection of the view that Scripture is obscure and needs the Fathers to interpret it. His underlying position is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Other principles include the comparison of passages of Scripture, interpreting a few texts by many, obscure texts by clear ones, the necessity for languages, the use of rhetoric, the covenant and the sum and scope of Scripture, an emphasis on the natural sense, and the contribution of secular disciplines. A concluding section considers briefly Bullinger’s later use of essentially five principles.”

Other subsequent posts will refer to sections of the paper.

Insights from Bullinger’s The Old Faith

Written in German to reach to a wider audience, Bullinger's The Old Faith (1537) is one of Bullinger’s most known works alongside his De Testamento (1534).

Two must read articles on this work of Bullinger are E.A Dowey, “The Old Faith: Comments on One of Heinrich Bullinger’s Most Distinctive Treatises” in William van’t Spijker (ed.) Calvin: Erbe und Auftrag: Festschrift für Wilhelm Neuser zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (Kampen – The Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1991), pp270-278 and W.P. Stephens, “Bullinger’s Defence of the Old Faith”, Reformation and Rennaissance Review, vol 6 (no.1), 2004, pp36-55. Stephens article looks at The Old Faith, The Decades and Ecclesias evangelicas.

One unmistakable theme of this work is the emphasis on the unity of the whole canon, the unity of the Old and New Testaments. It is not just a case of the Old Testament being read in a christocentric manner but the conviction that all of Scripture, from beginning (ie since the Fall) to the end is about God’s plan of salvation through Christ, the seed of the woman. It is well known that Bullinger was an histographer. This explains not only the way he wrote but also his attention to dates.

I believe Dowey wrote from his own a priori position as is evidenced by the following comments of his:

“For all the popular charm of The Old Faith and the basic simplicity of its thesis, it is often intricate in details and sometimes confusingly nuanced.”

“The gifted and diligent historian Bullinger used sequence and chronology to show that the Christian faith in substance is not subject to sequence and chronology. He appears to have used history to deny history in this case. This is not the last word to say about faith and history in Bullinger’s thought generally, but it appears to be the problem left with us from at least this one treatise.”

Stephens has a helpful summary of The Old Faith and writes:

“In the final chapter Bullinger says that after the apostles there came false customs, dangerous sects, and persecutions. This leads him to renew his discussion of the city of God and the city of the devil. He has already drawn on Augustine’s view of the two cities, pointing out that there are two kinds of people – one like Abel cleaving to Christ and the other like Cain cleaving to the devil. These two represent true and false believers. Abel reflects the one, becoming the first martyr in the church. Cain reflects the other, boasting about God but no offering him the right service. Can and his descendants are those who murder – which is what the Roman church does. Moreover, the Bible shows that before and after Christ, the faithful face suffering and persecution.

In the final chapter Bullinger gives a brief account of what has gone wrong with the church. He describes how ministers in the past were more concerned with money than with the exercise of their ministry and the good of the church, so they accepted superstition rather than true religion. As a result the church in Bullinger’s day has the abomination of papal power, indulgences, prayers for the living and the dead,merit, the intercession of the saints, the veneration of their bones, idols, ornaments, pomp, paid singing and prayer, and hosts of idle monks. These are not ancient and orthodox. They are novelties and perversions. They have no basis in God’s word, though some try to claim that they are the old faith.”

The following excerpt from Chapter X illustrates how Bullinger emphasized the unity of the Old and New Testaments:

“And though my purpose be now finished, even declared out of the scripture, that the christian faith hath endured since the beginning of the world, yet I will add a short instruction concerning the time of grace and performing of all promises; and I will declare, that God now also through the appearing of his Son would bring into the world and set forth none other religion, none other faith, neither any other salvation, than even the same which was shewed to the old fathers: saving that all things are more evident, more clearly practiced, accomplished , fulfilled, and performed; for the which cause also all figures, sacrifices, and ceremonies do cease: For in Christ is all perfection. Yet shall we not not therefore cast away the Old Testament, as some ignorant, unlearned, and foolish people do, but have it in greater reputation; forasmuch as we know now through Christ, what every thing signifieth, and wherefore every thing was thus and thus ordained, used, and spoken.Now shall every man first have a courage to read the law and the prophets, when he seeth whereupon every thing goeth. And thus at the beginning did the holy apostles preach Christ unto the Jews out of the law and the prophets, as it is oftimes mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. And our Lord himself, when he went with the two disciples towards Emaus, and preached so unto them, that their hearts burnt within them, he began at Moses and went through all the prophets, and opened unto them the old scriptures, and shewed them that so it behoved Christ to suffer, and to enter into his glory. This is the cause also that the scriptures of the New Testament hang all together and refer themselves to the scriptures of the Old Testament; so that these cannot be right understood without the other, no more than the gloss without the text. The text is the law and the prophets, the exposition are the evangelists and apostles.”

“Obwohl nun mein Vorhaben ausgeführt ist, d.h. aus der Schrift aufgezeigt worden ist, dass der christliche Glaube von Anfang der Welt an gewährt hat, möchte ich nun noch eine kurze Unterweisung über di Gnadenzeit und die Erfüllung aller Verheißungen anfügen und zeigen, dass Gott auch mit der Fleischwerdung seines Sohnes keine andere Gottesverehrung, keinen anderen Glauben und keine andere Rettungs in die Welt setzen oder verkünden lassen wollte, sodnern allein das, was auch schon den Alten verkündet worden ist. Daher und sämtliche Sinnbilder, Opfer und die Zeremonien nich mehr wicksam, denn in Christus ist alle Vollkommenheit. Deswegen soll man jedoch das Alte Testament nich wegwerfen, wie es manche unwissende und ungelahrte Narren tun, sondern in umso höheren Ehren halten, weil mir nun durch Christus erfahren haben, was dies alles bedeutet und warum es so und so eingerichtet, ausgeführt und gesprochen worden ist. Jetzt erst wird jeder Lust bekommen, das Gesetz und die Propheten zu lessen, wenn er sieht, worauf sich alles beziehlt. Daher haben auch die heiligen Apostel den Juden Christus anfangs uas dem Gesetz und die Propheten gepredigt, wie in der Apostelgeschichte oftmals berichtet wird. Und als under Herr mit den beiden Jüngen nach Emmaus ging und ihnen so predigte, dass ihnen die Herzen entbrannten, began et selbst bei Mose, durchlief alle Propheten, erklärte ihnen die alten Schiften und zeigte ihnen, dass Christus leaiden und in seine Herrlichkeit eingehen müsse. Daher verweisen und beziehen sich die Schriften des Neuen Testaments ganz auf die Schriften des Alten Testaments, so dass jene ohne diese nicht richtig verstanden werden können, so wie umgekehrt auch die Auslegung ohne den zugrunde liegenden Text nicht verstanden werden kann. Den Text bilden das Gesetz und die Schriften der Propheten, die Auslegung die Schriften der Evangelisten und Apostel.” (Schriften I, pp243,244)

Peter Stephens on Bullinger and the Sacraments

In Peter Stephens’ article on Zwingli and Bullinger on the sacraments (see previous post) I am pleased to note that Stephens has acknowledged the independence of Bullinger’s thought vis-à-vis that of Zwingli. He writes:

“Although Bullinger’s theology was similar to Zwingli’s, he became a reformer independently of Zwingli. (Indeed the influences on him included the works of Luther and Melanchthon.) He also came to his understanding of the sacraments independently of Zwingli. Even though he and Zwingli had a broadly symbolic view of the sacraments, their thinking on them was shaped in part by different people and different texts.”

Stephens points out that in the period of the First Helvetic Confession:

“Often in the 1530’s Bullinger states that he has difficulty with words such as instrument and exhibit. To him the word instrument seems to make the sacraments effective regardless of the faith of the recipient and the word exhibit seems to ascribe power to the minister or the sacrament rather than to God. It is significant that in the First Helvetic Confession it is not the sacraments which exhibit but God, while the word instrument is not used.”

With respect to the First Helvetic Confession Stephens points out that three of the twenty seven articles explicitly refer to the sacraments and concludes:

“What is most striking about them is their essentially positive language about the sacraments and their affirmation of what God does in them. God is the subject of the sacraments. They are signs of divine grace. The articles speak differently from Zwingli of what the Lord does in the sacraments. Thus In the Lord’s Supper These article are in keeping with the article on Ministers. It states that ministers are co-workers through whom But it adds, and this is later applied to the sacraments, and not to something created; and he ”

Stephens goes on to point out: “It is important to note that the confession speaks about what God does and not what the sacraments do.”

Stephens’ conclusion concerning the First Helvetic Confession is: “The Confession, however, unlike much in Zwingli is an affirmation of what the sacraments are rather than a repudiation of what they are not, and it states in various ways what God offers and imparts in them. Luther’s positive, though critical, response to the Latin text is, therefore, not surprising.”

Stephens makes the following analysis of the response of Bullinger and the Zurich ministers to Luther’s Brief Confession:

“It has a Zwinglian character with the centrality of remembrance and a strong emphasis on faith. Yet there are divergences from Zwingli. Thus, although remembering appears to be our remembering, yet the summary states that the church of the Lord holds his suffering and our redemption in fresh remembrance. Again, although it is their faith in Christ which feeds believers and makes them participants in God’s grace and forgiveness and communion with Christ, yet in communion an unbeliever may become a believer and then share in Christ.”

With respect to the events leading up to the Consensus Tigurinus Stephens notes:

“The central issues can be focused in the use of certain words: exhibit, instrument, through, and at the same time. Bullinger disputed the statement that Calvin did not bind grace to the sacraments by reference to Calvin’s assertions that what is figured in the sacraments is exhibited to the elect and that those receiving baptism at the same time receive forgiveness of sins. To Bullinger Calvin does not differ from the papists who teach that the sacraments confer grace on all those who receive them. Bullinger objected to the use of through as seeming to attribute something to inanimate signs and proposed 'God acts and works in the hearts of the faithful while (dum) the sacraments are received> instead of Bullinger also challenged Calvin’s statement that 'the sacraments are instruments of the grace of God.' It seemed to attribute something to the sacraments, unless instrument means sign. It is God who confers grace and the gift of salvation. It is he who exhibits these things (not, as Calvin says, the sacraments), and he does so through the Holy Spirit and faith, faith being the gift of God through which we receive his gifts. Bulligner can accept Calvin’s statement that the sign is not empty, it that means not useless, but not if it means that the sign contains what it represents.”

Stephens further noted that Calvin replied as follows:

“Calvin drew on the New Testament in rejecting the opposition in Bullinger between God and the role of instruments, and also Bullinger’s apparent view that if God as then instruments cease. The Holy Spirit uses the sacrament as an instrument, but is the author of what is given. The effectiveness of the sacraments is related to God’s truthfulness, for God would appear to deceive in his promises, if believers did not receive what is offered in the sacraments. Calvin explained that simul was used in the sense of similiter (similalrly). He distinguished his position from that of the papists, as unlike them he held that not all but only the elect receive what the sacraments offer. The whole effect depends on election and the sign is useless unless God works in us through the Spirit. Calvin does not regard the sacraments as containing what they figure literally, but in the sense that the Lord performs inwardly by the power of his Spirit what is testified by the outward sign. Calvin notes Bullinger’s reference to the Eucharistic signs as commemorating the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ for us, but also his neglect of the daily offering of Christ for us, that we may be one with him. The body sacrificed for us is daily food for us. There is a repeated stress on communion with Christ.”

Stephens notes that article 12 of Consensus Tigurinus “speaks of the sacraments as instruments which God uses and by which he acts efficaciously. (The word is organum not, as in the Bern articles, instrumentum.) But lest this be misunderstood, the article at once states that the sacraments, like ministers, are nothing unless God makes them effective. God acts efficaciously through them, but certain qualifications are made about the sacraments, the minister, and the recipient.”

He further states that “The Zurich Agreement is neither Bullingerian nor Calvinian. Both would have expressed their views differently, but both could affirm what it affirmed, even if offering their own interpretations. It could be described as a Calvinian view expressed within the constraints imposed by Bullinger’s theology or Bullinger’s view stretched to embrace Calvin’s.”

Stephens continues to make the following perceptive observation:

“One may question whether Zwingli taught as Calvin taught, but it is still possible to argue that Zwingli could have signed the Zurich Agreement. At first sight this may cause surprise, as some positive affirmations about the sacraments go beyond what Zwingli wrote. However, key elements of his theology are present and the qualifications added to non-Zwinglian statements could well have satisfied him as they did Bullinger. Most importantly the Agreement denied that the sacraments confer grace, rejected the bodily presence and the bodily eating of Christ, and opposed trust in created things. It affirmed the centrality and necessity of faith, the sovereignty of the Spirit, the distinction between the sign and what it signifies, the eucharist as a testimony and a memorial, the presence of Christ’s body in heaven, the figurative interpretation of the words of institution, and the relevance of John 6:63.”

Stephens has a detailed comparison between The Second Helvetic Confession and Zwingli. The reader is encourage to read the article for himself/herself. The point that Stephens makes is that that is much in common between Zwingli and Bullinger though the nuanced differences in Bullinger are evident in The Second Helvetic Confession. Thus, Stephens concludes: The various differences between the Confession and Zwingli’s presentation of the sacraments are clear evidence that the Confession is not Zwinglian. It is, however, possible that Zwingli could have affirmed it, as it safeguarded the major concerns which he expressed. Despite their differences, Zwingli’s later works and the Confession have a family likeness.”

In his conclusion, Stephens writes:

“One of the clearest differences in sacramental theology between Zwingli and Bullinger is that in Bullinger it is God who is the subject of the sacraments.”

“There are other differences, most notable the role of election and that of the Holy Spirit. Election is used by Zwingli in defence of infant baptism, but not in his exposition of the sacraments nor in particular of their effectiveness. It is however, used in all these confessions.”

One of the most surprising differences between Bullinger and Zwingli is in the use of the word instrument (instrumentum). Bullinger criticizes the use of the word and avoids it, even in the Zurich Agreement, where he accepts the word organum. For him the word instrument implies that the sacraments have something of their own, apart from God. Zwingli, however, has no difficulty with the word instrument because of his insistence that God is the cause of all things.”

Stephens finally points out that Bullinger had a more positive view than Zwingli of the positive relation of the outward and inward in the sacraments: “his positive presentation of what the sacraments are and of what “God does in them, and the need, both theological and political, to seek unity with the other Swiss churches as well as with Luther.”

Stephens article is a mine of information and reflection. He is to be applauded for such an important contribution to an understanding of Swiss theology.