How did Zwingli and Luther see Communion - differently?
 |
| Coloured woodcut of the Marburg Colloquy, anonymous, 1557 (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Zwingli developed a different notion of the Lord’s Supper. Like his contemporary Luther, he dissented from the Roman Catholic idea of transubstantiation, offering several arguments against it.105 First, relying on Augustine, Zwingli noted that Christ’s body is located at the right hand of God the Father: “The body of Christ has to be in some particular place in heaven by reason of its character as a true body.
And again: Seeing that the body of Christ rose from the dead, it is necessarily in one place. The body of Christ is not in several places at one and the same time any more than our bodies are.”106 In particular, “According to its proper essence, the body of Christ is truly and naturally seated at the right hand of the Father. It cannot therefore be present in this way in the Supper.” From this line of reasoning, Zwingli concluded that the eucharistic elements cannot be transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ.
For his second point against transubstantiation, Zwingli defined a sacrament as “the sign of a holy thing.… Now the sign and the thing signified cannot be one and the same. Therefore the sacrament of the body of Christ cannot be the body itself.”
For his second point against transubstantiation, Zwingli defined a sacrament as “the sign of a holy thing.… Now the sign and the thing signified cannot be one and the same. Therefore the sacrament of the body of Christ cannot be the body itself.”
Thus, there is no one-to-one correspondence between the eucharistic elements and the body and blood of Christ. Third, Zwingli underscored the proper way to interpret the words of institution. They should not be taken literally, but figuratively, as proved by Christ’s own words in John 6:63: “The flesh profits nothing.” In the Lord’s Supper, therefore, “the words of Christ cannot refer to physical flesh and blood.”
Zwingli also voiced opposition to Luther’s view of the Lord’s Supper, which he considered to be based on a (mistaken) literal interpretation of Matthew 26:26. Zwingli insisted that a literal interpretation would mean that transubstantiation is the correct view, a point he had already proved wrong.
In formulating his own view over against transubstantiation and consubstantiation, Zwingli was influenced by Cornelius Hoen, who argued that a better rendering of “This is my body” would be “This signifies my body.” Additionally, Zwingli noted, “For immediately afterwards [after saying ‘This is my body’] in Luke 22[:19] Christ adds: ‘This do in remembrance of me,’ from which it follows that the bread is only a figure of his body to remind us in the Supper that the body was crucified for us.” Thus, Zwingli emphasized the Lord’s Supper as a memorial.
Huldrych Zwingli on Christ’s Words, “This Is My Body”
It has already become clear enough that in this context the word “is” cannot be taken literally. Hence it follows that it must be taken metaphorically or figuratively.
Zwingli also voiced opposition to Luther’s view of the Lord’s Supper, which he considered to be based on a (mistaken) literal interpretation of Matthew 26:26. Zwingli insisted that a literal interpretation would mean that transubstantiation is the correct view, a point he had already proved wrong.
In formulating his own view over against transubstantiation and consubstantiation, Zwingli was influenced by Cornelius Hoen, who argued that a better rendering of “This is my body” would be “This signifies my body.” Additionally, Zwingli noted, “For immediately afterwards [after saying ‘This is my body’] in Luke 22[:19] Christ adds: ‘This do in remembrance of me,’ from which it follows that the bread is only a figure of his body to remind us in the Supper that the body was crucified for us.” Thus, Zwingli emphasized the Lord’s Supper as a memorial.
Huldrych Zwingli on Christ’s Words, “This Is My Body”
It has already become clear enough that in this context the word “is” cannot be taken literally. Hence it follows that it must be taken metaphorically or figuratively.
In the words: “This is my body,” the word “this” means the bread, and the word “body” means the body that is put to death for us. Therefore, the word “is” cannot be taken literally, for the bread is not the body and cannot be.… Necessarily, then, it must be taken figuratively or metaphorically; “This is my body,” means, “The bread signifies my body,” or “is a figure of my body.”*
Because the Supper is a memorial, the key to its observance is remembering what Christ had accomplished on the cross, and this require faith. Returning to John 6, Zwingli noted (v. 47) “that by eating his flesh and blood Christ simply means believing in the one who gave his flesh and blood that we might live. It is not eating or seeing or perceiving him which saves, but believing on him.”
Because the Supper is a memorial, the key to its observance is remembering what Christ had accomplished on the cross, and this require faith. Returning to John 6, Zwingli noted (v. 47) “that by eating his flesh and blood Christ simply means believing in the one who gave his flesh and blood that we might live. It is not eating or seeing or perceiving him which saves, but believing on him.”
Still, the sacrament is necessary because, as an oath, it was God’s pledge of his faithfulness to keep his promise of forgiveness for his people.
As his position developed, Zwingli switched from viewing the Lord’s Supper as a pledge of a divine oath to viewing it as a pledge of believers to Christ and his church, a pledge “by which someone proves to the church that he either intends to be, or already is, a soldier of Christ, and which informs the whole church, rather than himself, of his faith.”
As his position developed, Zwingli switched from viewing the Lord’s Supper as a pledge of a divine oath to viewing it as a pledge of believers to Christ and his church, a pledge “by which someone proves to the church that he either intends to be, or already is, a soldier of Christ, and which informs the whole church, rather than himself, of his faith.”
Thus, the Lord’s Supper as a sacrament is “a demonstration of allegiance” by a believer to the church, by which he swore obedience to it. And it is a memorial of the death of Christ, the event that gave birth to the church. By it, the Christian calls to mind what Christ did, as though Christ said:
“I entrust to you a symbol of this my surrender and testament, to awaken in you the remembrance of me and of my goodness to you, so that when you see this bread and this cup, held forth in this memorial supper, you may remember me as delivered up for you, just as if you saw me before you as you see me now, eating with you.”
Luther and Zwingli faced off against each other at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529. At issue were fifteen points of disagreement between Luther and his sympathizers (chief among whom was Philipp Melanchthon) and Zwingli and his followers (including Oecolampadius and to some extent Martin Bucer).
Luther and Zwingli faced off against each other at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529. At issue were fifteen points of disagreement between Luther and his sympathizers (chief among whom was Philipp Melanchthon) and Zwingli and his followers (including Oecolampadius and to some extent Martin Bucer).
On fourteen of the points, these theologians of the Reformation arrived at agreement. On the fifteenth point, however, the colloquy only served to widen the chasm. There would be no consensus on the Lord’s Supper: “We have not agreed at this moment whether the true body and blood of Christ be corporeally present in the bread and wine.” The memorial view became Zwingli’s contribution to the controversies regarding the Lord’s Supper at the time of the Reformation.
Allison, G. R. (2011). Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (pp. 650–652). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Allison, G. R. (2011). Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (pp. 650–652). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
