Heinrich Bullinger on Prophecy and the Prophetic Office (1523-1538) 9783666550898, 9783525550892, 9783647550893

Citation preview

Reformed Historical Theology

Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis in co-operation with Emidio Campi, Irene Dingel, Elsie McKee, Richard Muller, Risto Saarinen, and Carl Trueman

Volume 33

DaniÚl Timmerman

Heinrich Bullinger on Prophecy and the Prophetic Office (1523 – 1538)

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

The Scripture quotations contained in this books are from The Holy Bible, New International VersionÒ NIVÒ Copyright Ó 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.Ï Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. And from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, Copyright Ó 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and are used by permission. All rights reserved. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-525-55089-2 ISBN 978-3-647-55089-3 (E-Book) Ó 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Printing and binding: CPI buchbuecher.de GmbH, Birkach Printed in Germany

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

11 11 17 17 20 23 24

2. Prophets and prophecy in the Christian tradition . . 2.1 New Testament prophecy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Prophets as heralds of eschatological change . . . 2.2.1 Montanus and the New Prophecy . . . . . . 2.2.2 Joachim and medieval monastic prophecy . 2.2.3 Luther and Müntzer : Prophets in dispute . . 2.3 Prophets as interpreters of Scripture . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Scripture and the cessation of prophecy . . . 2.3.2 Prophecy and the sensus spiritualis . . . . . 2.3.3 Prophets as exegetes in the sixteenth century 2.3.3.1 Erasmus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3.2 Luther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3.3 Bucer and the Strasburg milieu . . . 2.3.4 Prophecy and liturgical chant . . . . . . . . 2.4 Prophets as church officials . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 The prophet as bishop . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 The prophet as teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Prophethood of believers in general . . . . . . . . 2.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37 38 40 41 43 46 49 49 51 53 53 57 60 63 66 67 71 74 80

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Bullinger as church minister 1.2 Outline of this study . . . . 1.2.1 Object . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Method . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 Sources . . . . . . . . 1.3 Survey of research . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

6

Contents

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83 84 84 86 86 88 90 95 96 96 99 102 106 106 108 111 111 112 118 118 119 124 125

4. De propheta libri duo (1525) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 On De propheta libri duo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 Defining the prophet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Prophetic authority in dispute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 The “false prophets” of Catholicism . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 The “self-commissioned messengers” of Anabaptism 4.3 Prophets as exegetes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Prophecy and the sacred languages . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Prophecy and rhetorical training . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Prophets as bishops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 Scholar or preaching minister? . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 Consolation and admonition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Weighing the prophet’s words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 The rule of the Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

129 129 129 131 135 135 142 147 147 152 154 155 156 158 163 164 164

3. Prophets in the Zurich context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Prophecy in the early Zurich reformation . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Zwingli’s initial position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Radical applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2.1 The rise of Anabaptism . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2.2 Zwingli and Hubmaier on language study . 3.1.2.3 The Schleitheim articles (1527) . . . . . . 3.1.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Zwingli’s restatement of the prophetic office . . . . . . 3.2.1 Von dem Predigtamt (1525) . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 The prophet as guardian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 The prophet as interpreter of Scripture . . . . . . 3.2.4 Later developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4.1 Prophetic revelation and divine inspiration 3.2.4.2 Prophets and kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The Zurich “Prophezei” up to 1531 . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Historical development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Relation to Zwingli’s concept of prophecy . . . . 3.3.2.1 Terminological considerations . . . . . . . 3.3.2.2 Between education and liturgy . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

Contents

4.5.2 Published prophecies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

167 169 170

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

175 175 175 177 179 179 181 187 187 191 196 196 197 201 207 208 210 216 219 220

6. De episcoporum institutione et functione (1538) . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1 On De episcoporum institutione et functione . . . . . . 6.1.2 Defining the prophet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 From prophetic to ministerial authority . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Historical context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Developments in the 1530s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Central theme in 1538 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Prophets in biblical-historical perspective . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 Early works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 Dominant perspective in 1538 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Prophetic imagery and church office . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.1 Re-sacralization of the ministry? . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.2 Prophets in relation to other New Testament functions

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

223 223 223 224 227 227 230 235 239 240 241 247 252 253 254 257

5. De prophetae officio (1532) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 On De prophetae officio . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 Defining the prophet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Prophetic authority and confessional controversy 5.2.1 The rule of faith and love . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Between Zwingli and Luther . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Prophets as exegetes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Prophets and the covenant . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Love exceeds linguistic training . . . . . . . 5.3.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Prophets as bishops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Criticism and moderation . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Prophets and church discipline . . . . . . . 5.4.3 Prophets and the magistrate . . . . . . . . . 5.4.3.1 Earliest ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.3.2 Discussions 1531 – 1532 . . . . . . . . 5.4.3.3 Refined understanding . . . . . . . . 5.4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8

Contents

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

257 261 263 266 271 273

7. Bullinger and the “Prophezei” . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Personal involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Schools in historical perspective . . . . . . . 7.3 Prophecy in the liturgy of the Zurich church 7.4 Prophecy and the daily office . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

277 278 279 286 293 297

8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

301

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

309

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Works by Bullinger . . . . . . . Works co-authored by Bullinger Secondary literature . . . . . . . . .

311 311 311 314 315

6.4.2.1 Commentaries 1520s . 6.4.2.2 Commentaries 1530s . 6.4.2.3 Developments in 1538 6.4.3 Prophecy for the educated . . 6.4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

Preface

This book serves as a doctoral dissertation and marks the completion of my studies at the Apeldoorn University of Theology. At this point I wish to express my gratitude to all those who have helped and encouraged me in the preceding years of studying and writing. Some of them will be called by name, while others are silently included in my general words of thanks. All words of appreciation flow from my gratitude to God, without whose help I could not have completed this book and to whom I give all honor and praise. In the first place, I express my sincere gratitude to the supervisor of my dissertation, dr. Herman Selderhuis, for his friendly support and helpful advice throughout the years. His profound knowledge of the history of the church and great enthusiasm for Reformation research have greatly stimulated me to pursue my own studies in this field. Likewise, I am very much indebted to the learned and stimulating feedback of the co-supervisor of this thesis, dr. Andreas Mühling, especially on the relation between historical theology and general historiography. I also kindly thank the members of the reading committee, dr. Erik de Boer, dr. Jaap Dekker, and dr. Peter Opitz for their careful reading of the manuscript. In a similar vein I recall the stimulating discussions in the joint research group for Early Modern Reformed Theology of the Kampen and Apeldoorn theological faculties. A special word of thanks goes to dr. Jim West for his expert reading and correction of the text. Over the years, many have helped me in the process of retrieving the primary sources and secondary literature for this study. I gratefully acknowledge the friendly and helpful assistance of the staff of the Institut für Schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte in Zurich, of the Handschriftenabteilung of the Zentralbibliothek Zürich, and of the Kantonsbibliothek Vadiana in St. Gall. In a similar vein, I thank the staff of the Apeldoorn University of Theology, and especially of the library department for their support. Further, I commemorate the pleasant cooperation with the editors of the Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht publishing house in the process of preparing the manuscript for press.

10

Preface

The consistories of the Nederlands Gereformeerde kerken at Breukelen and Eindhoven, and the board of the Nederlands Gereformeerde Predikantenopleiding, have kindly facilitated me with several extended study leaves. I thank them not only for making available time and funds, but also for their recognition of the relevance of studying theology for the church today. My sincere thankfulness also goes out to all friends and colleagues who have helped and encouraged me on the long road of writing this book. Their friendship and support have been of inestimable value to me. I explicitly recall the names of Davy Hoolwerf, Arnold Huijgen, Ben van Veen, and Arie Versluis who, at different stages of my journey, have discussed or commented on parts of my research. More than words can express I am deeply grateful for the loving support and encouragement of my wife, Hanneke Timmerman-van Rhee. I also thank the Lord for the joy and strength he gives us through our children, Eline, Lourens, Marije, and Joanne. I dedicate this book to the memory of my mother, Roelfke Timmerman-Zondag, who wished me to join the “sons of the prophets,” and also to my father, Daan Timmerman, of whose witness to the completion of my studies I am deeply grateful. Finally, I conclude this Preface with the prayer that was used in the meetings of the Zurich “Prophezei,”1 and still expresses the proper framework for theological studies: May the almighty and merciful God, whose word is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our paths, open and illuminate our minds, that we may purely and piously understand his revelation and that, in accordance with our understanding, we may be transformed, so that we would not displease his majesty in any way, through Christ our Lord.

Eindhoven, December 2014

DaniÚl Timmerman

1 Latin original in Bullinger, Comm. 1 Cor. 14:26 – 29. In omnes epistolas (1537). HBW 3.6, 419. Cf. Opitz, “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Work,” 421.

1.

Introduction

1.1

Bullinger as church minister

The present study is devoted to Heinrich Bullinger (1504 – 1575) and his understanding of the preaching office in the church. This section presents a brief biographical introduction to Bullinger, focusing on his personal involvement in the ministry.1 From his earliest childhood, Heinrich2 Bullinger was familiar with the pastoral practices of the late medieval church. He grew up in Bremgarten, a small town in the Swiss countryside, as the son of the local priest, Heinrich Bullinger Sr. (1469 – 1533), and Anna Wiederkehr (–1541). Despite the promiscuous character of his parents’ relationship, the young Heinrich grew up as a member of a respected Bremgarten family with a central position in the city’s social and religious life. At the age of twelve, Bullinger was sent to the Latin school in Emmerich, which was renowned for its humanist education and rigid discipline in the spirit of the Dutch devotio moderna.3 His subsequent matriculation at the artes faculty of the University of Cologne in 1519 brought him into the vicinity of leading scholars in the tradition of scholastic philosophy and theology and at the same time opened doors to one of the main centers of German humanism. In this 1 The primary sources for a sketch of Bullinger’s life are his autobiographical notes, mainly in his Diarium (HBD; composed by Bullinger from 1541 onwards) and also in the Reformationsgeschichte (HBRG, completed 1567). The best introductions to Bullinger’s biography in German are the older works by Pestalozzi, Bullinger, and recently Büsser, Leben. For a concise introduction in English, see Petersen, “Bullinger.” For a congenial, but not entirely up-to-date full biography in English, see Ella, Shepherd. 2 Dutch library catalogues generally refer to “Johann Heinrich Bullinger.” This is peculiar since Bullinger himself exclusively used Heinrich as first name. E.g. in his Diarium he introduces himself with “ego Heinrychus,” in contrast to his brothers to whom he refers with their baptismal name Johann as well (HBD, 1). Moreover, Bullinger was matriculated in Cologne as “Henricus Poellinger de Breemgaerdt” (HBD, 4, n. 2; also 6, n. 1), whereas his older brother Johannes Reinhart was enrolled as “Iohannes Bremgart” (HBD, 3, n. 2; cf. HBW 2.1, 114). 3 Berg, “Devotio moderna”; Rüetschi, “Bullinger and the Schools,” 216 – 17.

12

Introduction

period the young student not only became deeply ingrained in the methodology of biblical humanism,4 but also adopted a central christological motive in Erasmus’s theology as the motto for his own life and work: “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” (Matt. 17:5).5 While he left the university in 1522 as a magister artium, without having followed a formal course in theology, his period in Cologne intensified Bullinger’s interest in religion, both on a personal and an academic level. Luther’s proposals for a reformation of the church were an existential and intellectual appeal for him to search for religious truth. Although influenced by the writings of reformers like Luther and Melanchthon, he arrived at a reformative position through an intense and independent study of the sources of Christian thought – the church fathers and especially the Greek New Testament.6 Still in Cologne, Bullinger abandoned his intention to enter the Carthusian monastic order and developed a dislike for “papist doctrine.”7 He returned to his native Switzerland with the conviction that only Scripture is the source of true religion. An opportunity to intensify and disseminate his new theological convictions came in 1523 when Bullinger was offered a teaching position at the Cistercian monastery of Kappel am Albis. He accepted the call under the condition that he would not have to obey a monastic rule or participate in the religious life of the conventuals. The position of monastic teacher enabled him to deepen his knowledge of the New Testament and the church fathers, but also challenged him to convey his ideas in the vernacular. At the end of the same year, Bullinger met the Zurich reformer Huldrych Zwingli (1484 – 1531), marking the beginning of eight years of theological cooperation and personal friendship. During his years in Kappel, Bullinger became an independent proponent of the reformation of the Zurich church. In his first theological writings and through an ever-increasing network of correspondence, Bullinger defended Zwingli’s reformation against adherents of the Roman papacy and against the Anabaptists. Under the influence of Bullinger’s teaching, the monks of Kappel decided, in 1525, to abandon their monastic life and to place the monastery under the authority of the Zurich magistrate. The convent was

4 Büsser, Leben, vol. 1, 16: “Der Humanismus bildete […] ganz eindeutig einen integrierten und unverlierbaren Bestandteil von Bullingers Denken und Handeln überhaupt.” 5 For this motto, see Büsser, Leben, vol. 1, 19 – 20, and Staedtke, “Geschichte.” As a rule, citations from Scripture in the present study follow the NIV (2011). However, when a scriptural reference is part of a citation from Bullinger, the translation follows the reformer’s text rather than a modern English version. Diversions from this twofold principle are explicated in the text. 6 Staedtke, Theologie, 41: “Bullinger hat bei den Kirchenvätern Theologie studiert.” 7 HBD, 6.

Bullinger as church minister

13

subsequently reformed into an educational institute, which consolidated Bullinger’s position as teacher. In these years, Bullinger’s career became more and more entwined with the course of the Zurich reformation. Through his affiliation with Zwingli the Kappel schoolteacher was present at the official colloquies with the Anabaptists in 1525. In January 1528, he participated in the Zurich delegation to the Bern Disputation, where he met the leading theologians of the Upper German Reformation. Finally, in April 1528, Bullinger took the oath before the first ecclesiastical synod of the Zurich church, which marked his formal incorporation into the city’s clerical body. Although he was now an official minister of the church, he admits in his Diarium that he was reluctant to preach the Gospel. For him, the transition from being a teacher of Scripture in a monastic setting to preaching the Word in a public worship service was a considerable step. Still, Bullinger accepted a position as preacher in the nearby parish church of Hausen, where he preached his first sermon in June 1528.8 In the same period, Bullinger became acquainted with the former nun Anna Adlischwyler.9 They entered marriage in the summer of 1529 and seemed to have had a good marriage, which lasted for more than 35 years until Anna’s death during the 1564 plague. Eleven children were born from this marriage, eight of which reached the age of maturity. The family life of the Bullingers, with their central position in sixteenth-century urban social life, offers an early example of the typically Protestant Pfarrhaus culture.10 Also in 1529, Heinrich Bullinger became a pastor in his native town of Bremgarten, in succession to his father, who had to resign from office during the turmoil over the introduction of Gospel preaching. At Pentecost he “preached Christ to his fatherland for the first time.” His message immediately bore fruit, because already on the following day the altars and statues were removed from the churches.11 The vocation of Bullinger junior increased the pace of reform and brought some rest within the ranks of the Bremgarten population. Yet, dark clouds of war now loomed over the town. Being situated near the border with the Catholic territories, the religious tensions among the Confederates were palpable. When a military conflict broke out, the Zurich forces met an inglorious defeat at the battle of Kappel (October 1531). Many leading politicians and preachers, including Zwingli, lost their lives. As Bremgarten was now in the hands of the Catholic states, Bullinger was forced to retreat to Zurich. Arriving in Zurich in November 1531, Bullinger found the city in a state of 8 HBD, 12, 128. 9 On Anna Adlischwyler, see Giselbrecht, “Anna.” 10 Greiffenhagen, Pfarrhaus. On the family life of the Bullingers, see Büsser, Leben, vol. 1, 69 – 80. 11 HBD, 17.

14

Introduction

confusion and desolation. Many blamed the preachers, especially Zwingli and his right-hand man Leo Jud, for having inflamed the bellicose strategy of the city’s magistrate. Some voices even argued for a reversal of the religious reforms. In such a critical situation, the magistrate was in need of a capable and tactful leader of the church. The recently arrived refugee from Bremgarten, who was well-known for his peaceable position before the Second Kappel war, was immediately in view as a suitable candidate.12 Already on the third day after his arrival in Zurich, Bullinger preached his first sermon in the Großmünster, leaving his hearers with the impression that a new Zwingli had arisen.13 On December 9, the refugee was chosen by the canons of the Großmünster as a member of the chapter and subsequently appointed by the city councils as the new church minister in succession of Zwingli.14 There was no clearcut job description for the new antistes – as his position would later be called –, but the office included the position of senior preacher at the Großmünster and of executive chairman of the ecclesiastical synod. Before accepting his appointment as the successor of Zwingli, Bullinger had to consider the stipulations of the city council. In the eyes of many Zurich citizens, the preachers were the main agitators behind the internecine struggle between the Swiss confederates. Especially the rural population, which had to bear the larger part of the personal and material loss following the Zurich defeat, urged that the preachers should restrict themselves to proclaiming the word of God and ascertained the right of local communities to appoint and remove their pastor. Following the demands of the rural areas, as they were laid down in the so-called Meilen Articles, the city council ordered Bullinger and the other preachers of Zurich to refrain from interference in worldly matters and political affairs.15 In the meantime, Bullinger also received a call from Bern. The magistrates of this city tried to persuade their candidate by emphasizing that the conditions of the Zurich council were unacceptable for a “prophet.”16 Nevertheless, Bullinger accepted the call to Zurich. In his answer to the council he emphasized that he and his colleagues agreed to preach the gospel in a peaceful and modest way and would refrain from interference in political affairs. However, he also reminded the council of the fact that the Word of God is 12 Bullinger himself suggests a relation between his admonitions for a peaceful solution of the religious conflict and his appointment as Zwingli’s successor. See Reformationsgeschichte (1567). HBRG 3, 292. 13 See Pestallozi, Bullinger, 72, quoting a letter from Zwingli’s associate Oswald Myconius: “Doch am letzten Sonntage hat Bullinger eine solche Predigt herunter gedonnert, daß es Vielen vorkam, Zwingli sei nicht todt, sondern er sei gleich dem Phönix wieder erstanden.” 14 HBD, 21. 15 Reformationsgeschichte (1567). HBRG 3, 287. 16 HBW 2.1, 232 – 33. See also in the letter From Haller. HBW 2.1, 234.

Bullinger as church minister

15

ultimately about the struggle between good and evil, and that its message can be harsh and controversial. Therefore Bullinger claimed the freedom for the preachers to address sin and abuse and to confront the magistrates with the message of Scripture. Alluding to 2 Tim. 2:9, Bullinger replied, “the word of God does not want to be restrained, nor should it be.” After a lengthy discussion, the council accepted Bullinger’s proposal for the freedom of the preaching office, presuming that the preachers would exercise this right in a moderate way.17 This agreement revealed a mutual desire for stabilization of the precarious situation, but did not give a clear-cut picture of how magistrate and clergy were to cooperate in practice. As a further declaration of his intentions, Bullinger shortly afterwards delivered an address to his fellow preachers on the issue of the prophetic office. It was held on the occasion of the important civic feast of Charlemagne (January 28, 1532) and was published under the title De prophetae officio.18 During his many years in office as antistes, Bullinger’s primary concern was the pastoral care of the Zurich church. Traces of his pastoral activity are found in many entries in his Diarium and throughout his correspondence.19 Bullinger comforted believers who experienced illness, loss or persecution by pointing them to God’s providential care and their union with Christ in life and death. Many in Zurich and elsewhere sought his opinion in matters of faith and life, such as marriage and divorce. In addition to his work as a counselor, Bullinger showed a particular commitment to the poor and to the schools and their students. He was convinced that the church should be involved in poor relief and continuously reminded his colleagues and the magistrates of their responsibility concerning the needy. For Bullinger, his pastoral concern for the Zurich flock culminated in a lifelong commitment as the principle preacher of the city’s Großmünster. In his Diarium the reformer frequently begins his account of the events in a certain year with a statement of the progress of his series of sermons, indicating that he considered preaching the most important dimension of his work. Fritz Büsser has calculated that Bullinger delivered about 7000 to 7500 sermons during his years in Zurich. In his lectio continua treatment of Scripture, the reformer preached through most of the books of the Bible, and on many books even two or more times.20 17 Reformationsgeschichte (1567). HBRG 3, 293 – 96, esp. 295: “Dann Gotswort will und soll nitt e gebunden sin. Sunder waz man darinn findt es sye waz es welle, oder wen es ioch antraffe, soll o fry geredt wurden. (…) Dann daz wort gotts will ungebunden sin: und muß man Gott mee dann den menschen ghorsammen.” 18 For this work and its context, see further chapter 5. 19 Mühling, “Seelsorger”; Pestallozi, Bullinger, 348 – 52; Zsindely, “Seelsorger.” 20 Büsser, “Prediger”; Büsser, Leben, vol. 1, 166 – 68.

16

Introduction

In addition to his roles as counselor and preacher, Bullinger also was a competent and influential church leader. Within the Zurich church, he transformed the clerical synod into an instrument for disciplining the clergy, expanding the reform in the rural areas, and balancing church-state relations.21 Following the lines previously set out by Zwingli, Bullinger adhered to the principle of magisterial sovereignty over church and state within the Christian commonwealth.22 Therefore, he regarded highly the leading role of the Zurich magistrate in church affairs. At the same time, Bullinger played an active role in public debate.23 Moreover, due to a 1532 settlement between magistrate and clergy, the ministers obtained the right of interpellation before the Zurich council in order to voice objections against the city’s social and political course. In these so-called Fürträge the clergy appear as prophetic watchmen over the Zurich state.24 As the leader of an influential Protestant city-state, Bullinger also acted on the stage of European church politics. Many contemporaries recognized Zurich as a “city on a hill.” This was closely related to Bullinger’s personal authority and his active involvement in the theological and political debates of the century.25 Whereas the reformer’s weapons for exercising political influence in Zurich were persuasiveness and perseverance,26 on an international scale he used the pen and the printing press. Bullinger took up his quill to expand and maintain an enormous network of correspondants which enabled him to stay informed about affairs abroad and to exercise his influence all over Switzerland and Europe, and across the confessional borders of the era.27 In addition, Bullinger used the printing press as an instrument for church politics. The dedicatory epistles of many of his publications served to promote the cause of Protestantism before the European rulers of the era.28 The evening of Bullinger’s long and eventful life was characterized by sorrow and conflict. Nevertheless, he remained in his post as antistes of the Zurich church until his death in 1575. In his political testament, he assured the city’s magistrates that, during his 43 years as pastor and minister (pfarrer und diener) of the Großmünster, “I have served Christ first, and then you my lords and also 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Büsser, “Institutionen”; Gordon, Clerical Discipline. For Bullinger’s political thought, see Campi, “Rechts- und Staatsdenken.” Büsser, Leben, vol. 1, 110 – 26. Büsser, Leben, vol. 1, 187; Bächtold, Bullinger vor dem Rat, esp. 348 – 59, counts a total number of 133 Fürträge. Several of these have been edited in HBST. See Mühling, “Kirchenpolitiker”; Büsser, “Zürcher Reformation.” Bächtold, Bullinger vor dem Rat, 277. The sheer quantity of about 12.000 extant letters, of which 2.000 were written by Bullinger, gives his epistolography a special place in the sixteenth-century republica litteraria of Christian humanism. See Büsser, “Überlieferung.” Büsser, “Zürcher Reformation,” 178 – 81.

Outline of this study

17

the entire Christian congregation, with full loyalty, to the extent of the grace God has given me.”29

1.2

Outline of this study

1.2.1 Object As the title of the present study indicates, the point of departure for the present study is the prophetic office in the thought of Heinrich Bullinger. This thematic focus is prompted by four motives. First, the main reason is the prominent role of the concepts of prophets and prophecy in the works of Bullinger, especially in the first decades of his career. Many instances are found where the church minister is called a prophet, or scriptural interpretation is labeled a prophetic activity. In this regard, it is revealing that Bullinger’s 1525 work on the interpretation of Scripture was called De propheta libri duo, and that he published his first address to the Zurich clergy under the title De prophetae officio (1532). Therefore, a thematic concentration on the subject of prophets and prophecy is prompted by Bullinger’s own writings. Second, the focus on prophecy is enhanced by the results of research on the Swiss Reformation in general, and of Bullinger’s theology in particular. Many scholars have noted the prominent role of prophecy as scriptural interpretation in Zwingli’s thought. Moreover, the inauguration of the letzgen or the so-called “Prophezei” – an academic training centre for the study of the Old Testament – in 1525, is one of the best-known features of the Zurich Reformation. Research literature frequently refers to Zwingli’s theological motivation for this form of learned prophecy, rooting it in a particular understanding of New Testament prophetism.30 However, little attention has been paid to the thought of Zwingli’s contemporaries on the concept of prophecy, or to developments after his death in 1531. The present study therefore aims to highlight Bullinger’s understanding of the Zurich “Prophezei.” A third motive for investigating the prophetic office in Bullinger’s theology is that it provides a window for understanding the rise and decline of the phenomenon of prophetic interpretation of Scripture in other sixteenth-century contexts.31 Not only in Zurich, but also in Reformed congregations in France, 29 HBST, 361. See also HBS 6, 545. 30 Introductions to Zwingli and the office are found in Bauke, “Pfarramt”; Hauser, Prophet und Bischof; Scholl, “Pfarramt und Pfarrerbild.” See also chapter 3. 31 See the observation by Büsser, “Prophet,” 117: “Wenn das Phänomen leider auch in keiner Weise – weder historisch noch theologisch-systematisch – untersucht worden ist, fällt doch auf, daß Begriff und Wesen des Prophetischen gerade in den Sturm- und Drangjahren der

18

Introduction

England and Germany a form of congregational prophecy came into fashion. It was characterized by the participation of lay church members in meetings devoted to the joint interpretation of Scripture, often in a semi-liturgical setting and including a public discussion of the official preacher’s sermon. Yet, these prophetic meetings appeared to be a potential source of conflict between congregation and church leadership. Indeed, precisely because of the emergence of conflicts the phenomenon of congregational prophecy gradually disappeared.32 An in-depth investigation of Bullinger’s approach to prophecy hopes to advance research concerning this feature of early Reformed Protestantism. Fourth and finally, the present investigation is devoted to Bullinger’s concept of the prophetic office, that is, to a dimension of his theology of the ministry. A comprehensive treatment of the reformer’s understanding of the ecclesiastical office would require a broad overview of various aspects of his thought, including his position on Christology, Pneumatology, ecclesiology, preaching, the sacraments, church order etc. By contrast, the present study approaches Bullinger’s theology of ministry from a specific and limited viewpoint. In the course of studying the prophetic office, it also attempts to shed light on his teaching on the ecclesiastical office in general. Together, these four motives result in a number of questions that will guide the present investigation. The first question concerns the relation between prophethood and church office in Bullinger’s writings. Hence, several questions suggest themselves: How did the reformer describe the nature of prophecy in Israel and the New Testament? How did he characterize the officium prophetae in the church? Which similarities and differences did he see between the biblical prophethood and the contemporary preaching office? And did he acknowledge prophets in the church of his days? This leads, in the second place, to the question of chronological development, or contextual diversification in Bullinger’s use of prophetic imagery in relation to church ministry. How did he, in 1532, arrive at his understanding of the preaching ministry as a prophetic office? And did it develop in any way after the turbulence of the early 1530s? Likewise, it must be asked whether Bullinger developed his ideas of the prophetic office specifically for the Zurich context, or that he also applied and adopted them to the situation of churches elsewhere. In the third place, this study will address the issue of Bullinger’s motives. Was his assumption of a relation between prophets and preachers prompted by the

Reformation, in der Zeit des Anbruchs und ‘Wildwuchses’der Reformation eine außerordentlich große Rolle spielten.” 32 See Denis, “La Proph¦tie”; Lieburg, Reformatorische profetie; Kaufman, “Prophesying Again”; Becker, Gemeindeordnung, 92 – 98, 296 – 98; De Boer, Genevan School of the Prophets, esp. 20 – 33, 217 – 67.

Outline of this study

19

theological tradition, the current situation in the church, his own concept of theology, or a combination of these factors? With respect to this final cluster of questions, the relation between Bullinger and Zwingli deserves special attention. Not infrequently, research has simply subsumed the former’s statements on the prophetic office in a discussion of Zwingli’s concept of the ecclesiastical office.33 In contrast to this harmonizing picture of the relation between the two Zurich reformers, recent research tends to stress the individuality of Bullinger’s thought and his independent development before, during and after his partnership with Zwingli.34 Therefore, a comparative analysis of Bullinger’s earliest understanding of prophecy and the ideas of his predecessor is essential to grasp the nature of Bullinger’s “transformation” of his predecessor’s reformative work.35 In order to answer these questions the field of research must be delineated in more detail. Given the focus on the prophetic office, several aspects of Bullinger’s understanding of the broader field of biblical prophecy are left unexplored. As a rule, his treatment of the Old Testament prophecies of the coming Messiah is only included in the discussion when he explicitly connects it with the duty of contemporary preachers. Conversely, although the main focus of this enquiry is on the prophetic office, Bullinger’s treatment of other biblical functions and offices in the church also receives some attention. This will serve as a litmus test for assessing the relative importance of prophetic imagery in Bullinger’s thought. The title of this study also indicates a chronological delimitation to the period 1523 – 1538. The terminus post quem is marked out by the commencement of Bullinger’s work as schoolteacher in Kappel.36 In the subsequent fifteen years, he wrote his three main works on the preaching ministry. First, from the Kappel period there is a 1525 work entitled De propheta libri duo. Second, the most important source for the current investigation is presented by Bullinger’s 1532 public speech on the prophetic task, De prophetae officio. Finally, in 1538 the reformer published his most systematic discussion of the ecclesiastical office, his 1538 De episcoporum institutione et functione (book two of De scripturae sanctae authoritate). This final work also provides the terminus ad quem for the present investigation. After 1538, Bullinger did not devote a seperate treatise or book to either the preaching office in general, or to prophecy in particular. This chro33 E.g. recently by Bast, “Pastor as prophet,” 354, who maintained that Bullinger drew upon Zwingli’s “prophetic model” for his entire life. 34 See Büsser, “Bullinger-Forschung,” 168 – 69; Campi, “Theologe,” 425 – 26; Dowey, “Theologian,” 36 – 43; Strohm, “Der Epigone.” 35 On Bullinger’s transformation of the Zurich reformation, see Opitz, “Prophetie,” 512 – 13. 36 The fragmentary sources from before 1523 do not seem to be relevant for the present enquiry. See the list of titles in Staedtke, Theologie, 263 – 66.

20

Introduction

nological delimitation to the period 1523 – 1538 implies that a considerable number of Bullinger’s works are not incorporated in the present investigation.37 Therefore, additional research will be necessary to ascertain whether Bullinger’s understanding of prophecy and the prophetic office developed in any substantial way after 1538.38

1.2.2 Method It is the task of a historiographer to account for her or his treatment of the sources and their subsequent interpretation. Moreover, a church historian is challenged to reflect on the relation between historical research and the beliefs and outlooks that are essential to Christian theology. Therefore, this section aims to elucidate the basic methodological assumptions guiding the present investigation.39 For a start, the present study does not depart from a single, overarching concept of Reformation history. As Ulrich Muhlack has aptly formulated it in view of general historiography, it is impossible to develop such a concept apart from the actual process of researching the sources and writing the story of the past. This also applies to the field of church history. Although church historians work on the basis of certain theological beliefs and convictions concerning the object of their study, they should not start their investigation from an a priori understanding of the past, either confessional or historiographical. Of course, this does not mean that research in (church) history could or should take place in an intellectual void. On the contrary, following Muhlack, it is possible to identify various historiographical paradigms, each presenting a specific outlook on the way to approach and interpret the sources from the past.40 The present enquiry draws from a number of these paradigms in the field of church history and historical theology. The first paradigm is presented by the so-called early modern approach to the religious reforms of the sixteenth century. It acknowledges that these reforms cannot be studied in isolation from long-term developments in late medieval and 37 HBBibl lists more than seventy unique titles for the period 1539 – 1575, many of which contain voluminous works. These later works include the sermons on the Apocalypse and the Old Testament prophetic books (1557 – 1567), and also the major summary statements of his theology, such as the Decades sermonum quinque (1551) and the Confessio Helvetica Posterior (1566). 38 For preliminary studies of the later works, see Opitz, “Prophetie,” 508 – 10 (on the Decades sermonum quinque); Timmerman, “Church and eschatology,” 97 – 100 (on the sermons on the book of Daniel). 39 A general introduction is presented by Bradley and Muller, Church History, 1 – 32. 40 Muhlack, “Theorie,” 20 – 25.

Outline of this study

21

early modern religious, intellectual and socio-economic history.41 With respect to the preaching office, this approach has elucidated the role of the clergy – across the confessional borders – in re-shaping the religious and moral life in sixteenth-century Europe, by means of the words they preached and the lives they lived.42 It can be argued that Bullinger, as an influential pastor and church leader, actively contributed to the restatement of the role of the clergy in early modern society.43 The present study is more concerned with the concept of office than with the way the ministry actually functioned in society. Nevertheless, it does acknowledge the need for an integrated approach to the Reformation, with an awareness of elements of both continuity and change compared to the preceding period. In the second place, the present study assumes that the sixteenth-century Reformation was, among other factors, the result of certain theological ideas and convictions concerning God, mankind and the church.44 This does not suggest that this movement pivoted around a single new idea brought about by a great thinker (e. g. Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone). Yet, it does assume that the ideas of the theological spokesmen of the century, which were broadly disseminated through sermons, letters and the printing press, did in fact influence public opinion and church politics. The newness of their reformative message was not so much occasioned by the introduction of entirely new ideas and concepts, but rather by their innovative and transformative restatement of elements from the Christian tradition. In other words, the present study works under the paradigm of historical theology, which is a sub-specialty of the discipline of church history. Alister McGrath has defined historical theology as “the branch of theological inquiry which aims to explore the historical development of Christian doctrines, and identify the factors which were influential in their formulation and adaptation.”45 As a historical discipline it has many points of contact with the intellectual history approach in general historiography, and its more specialized 41 For an in-depth treatment of the discussion, see Hamm, Moeller, and Wendebourg, Reformationstheorien. 42 See e. g. Moeller, Pfarrer als Bürger ; Schorn-Schütte, “The new clergies”; Taylor, “Preachers and People.” 43 See esp. Gordon, “Reform of the clergy.” 44 See Hamm, “Einheit und Vielfalt.” The present study uses the traditional singular “Reformation” as a designation of the sixteenth-century religious reforms leading to the formation of Protestantism. Yet, it acknowledges that, in view of the great variety within the Protestant ranks and the parallel developments in Roman Catholicism, there is ample reason to identify various “reformations.” 45 McGrath, Historical Theology, 8. The field of historical theology is closely related to the “history of theology” (Theologiegeschichte), which is a sub-discipline of systematic theology, with the assignment to define and develop the object of theological studies. See Nüssel, “Theologiegeschichte,” 221.

22

Introduction

offshoots in the history of ideas and Begriffsgeschichte.46 For the present study this implies a methodological focus on historical texts as the source of investigation. It aims at a close reading of these sources in view of the terms “prophets” and “prophecy” and other words from the same semantic field.47 Further, it seeks to interpret Bullinger’s use of these terms against the background of the preceding theological tradition, yet without attempting to affirm or negate his dependence on tradition in a historical-genetical sense. Finally, the present study investigates the reformer’s use of prophecy terminology within the context of his days and in the setting of sixteenth-century Protestant reflection on the ministry. Although historical research thrives on unbiased reconstruction of past events, it should not lock itself in a reconstruction of history. By contrast, it should rather contribute to present day existence by presenting a verifiable account of how and why things have become the way they are now.48 This applies especially to historical theology as a theological discipline. With McGrath it can be argued that it has both a pedagogic and a critical function within the theological faculty.49 Therefore, the present enquiry seeks to inform its readers about Bullinger’s application of the notion of prophecy, and to elucidate what motived him to do so in his own time and setting. At the same time, it intends to stimulate contemporary reflection on the prophetic charisma by providing insight in the various ways by which the Christian tradition has actualized and applied the concepts of prophets and prophecy. Finally, although the present study primarily aims at a historical-theological investigation of the notion of prophecy in Bullinger’s thought, it also relates to the paradigm of institutional church history, and specifically to the branch of the history of the Swiss Reformation. On the one hand, it is greatly indebted to the work previously done in this field, which provides the indispensible historical and theological context for the interpretation of Bullinger’s works. On the other hand, the present study also aims to contribute to the church historical debate. The investigation of Bullinger’s concept of the preaching office seeks to elucidate the interaction between the reformer’s theories and the church-political realities in Zurich and other European territories. More specifically, the investigation of Bullinger’s understanding of the “Prophezei” might clarify the nature of this characteristic institution of the sixteenth-century Zurich church.

46 Richter, “History of Ideas.” 47 In this respect, it builds on the study of Ysebaert, Amtsterminologie, with its lexicographical approach to the church office in early Christianity. 48 See Muhlack, “Theorie,” 28 – 29. 49 McGrath, Historical Theology, 11 – 14.

Outline of this study

23

1.2.3 Sources On the basis of these methodological considerations, and following the thematic and chronological delimitation set forth above, it is possible to define the source material for the present enquiry.50 Bullinger was a prolific writer, mastering a range of genres, varying from historiography to drama, from theology to letter writing. Due to the contingencies of history, but also much furthered by the efforts of the reformer and his reverent heirs to record and preserve his literary output, much of his work has been handed down to posterity. Despite the efforts of the scholars of the Zurich Institut für Schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte, the majority of Bullinger’s work is not accessible in a modern critical edition. This state of affairs challenges the present day researcher to mark out a reasoned selection of the Zurich reformer’s literary legacy. First, the present enquiry takes all of Bullinger’s printed works, either in sixteenth-century imprints or in modern editions, from the period 1523 – 1538 into consideration. Among these works two of the reformer’s main works on the ecclesiastical office are found: De prophetae officio (1532) and De episcoporum institutione et functione (1538). Another important source for the present investigation are the New Testament commentaries from 1532 – 1537. In addition, all other printed works from the selected period are reviewed. In the second place, with respect to the available manuscript material a selection is made. The quantity of available documents in the Zurich Zentralbibliothek precludes any full-scale investigation of all available handwritten works by Bullinger.51 For the present study, an in-depth analysis of Bullinger’s 1525 manuscript treatise De propheta libri duo is indispensable. Because of the paucity of printed material from the Kappel period, two additional handwritten texts from the early years are taken into consideration (sc. the 1525 – 1527 Kurtze usslegung of the Pauline epistles and the 1527 treatise Von warer und falscher leer). Third and finally, all entries of Bullinger’s extent correspondence over the years 1523 – 1538 are inspected. Many of the reformer’s letters were intended for a larger audience and present important aspects of the reformer’s theological and church-political concerns.52 Fortunately, the more than 1200 letters from this period have been edited as part of the Heinrich Bullinger Briefwechsel.53 50 References to Bullinger’s works are indicated in footnotes with the help of an abbreviated form of the title and (in brackets) the year of completion. The resulting short titles are spelled out in the list of sources in the Bibliograhpy. 51 See the entries in the relevant catalogues: Gagliardi and Forrer, Neuere Handschriften seit 1500; Scarpatetti, Gamper and Stähli, Die Handschriften der Bibliotheken St. GallenZürich. 52 Mühling, Kirchenpolitik.

24

1.3

Introduction

Survey of research

At a 2004 Bullinger conference, Emidio Campi stated that the doctrine of the pastoral office, as an integral part of Bullinger’s ecclesiology, has not yet been treated sufficiently.54 This observation is enhanced by an overview of scholarship on this subject. An important landmark for modern scholarship of Heinrich Bullinger is Joachim Staedtke’s seminal study on the theology of the young Bullinger (1962).55 This work is still highly relevant for its well-considered overview of the reformer’s earliest writings (up to 1528). The author surveyed all available source material from Bullinger’s Kappel years, of which the majority was (and still is) available in manuscript format only. Yet, Staedtke did not discuss the reformer’s earliest ideas on the prophetic office. In the aftermath of the 400th anniversary of Bullinger’s Confessio Helvetica Posterior (1966), several studies were devoted to the reformer’s mature position on the church and its ministry. Simon van der Linde (1966)56 and Ernst Koch (1968)57 presented insightful summaries of Bullinger’s teaching on the ecclesiastical office in article 18 of the confession. Both authors interpreted the reformer’s concept of ministry from the background of his ecclesiology, in which the catholicity and unity of the church are fundamental notions.58 Jean-Jacques von Allmen (1968) investigated the same subject in more detail, with special attention to the relation between Bullinger and other concepts of church ministry in the incipient Reformed tradition.59 From 1965 onwards, Bullinger research has been furthered in a substantial way by the achievements of the Institut für Schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte in Zurich. Its former director, Fritz Büsser, devoted two articles to Bullinger’s evaluation of prophecy (1970, 1972).60 The author was the first to 53 HBW 2.1 – 2.8. 54 Campi, “Bullinger Research,” 22: “The importance of the pastoral office and church order in Bullinger’s ecclesiology can hardly be exaggerated, yet there are no signs of major progress that will yield significant results on these matters. Well-directed preliminary studies in these areas in particular will be necessary and useful in order eventually to attempt newer syntheses on a more broad and thorough basis.” See also Büsser, “Bullinger-Forschung,” 168 – 69. 55 Staedtke, Theologie. This work was completed in 1955, but only published in 1962. 56 Van der Linde, “Die Lehre von der Kirche.” 57 Koch, Confessio Helvetica Posterior. 58 The main difference between these two contributions concerns the position of ecclesiology within the entirety of Bullinger’s thought. Is the church part of humanity’s response to God’s covenant (Koch), or could ecclesiology itself be the centre of Bullinger’s thought (Van der Linde)? 59 Von Allmen, Le saint ministÀre. See also Von Allmen, “Ministry.” 60 Büsser, “Gedenkrede”; Büsser, “Prophet.”

Survey of research

25

address the theme of the prophetic office in Bullinger’s thought. Moreover, he introduced a comparative approach to the discussion by investigating possible developments in the reformer’s treatment of the subject. Analyzing the 1532 address to the synod (De prophetae officio), Büsser concluded that Bullinger consciously accommodated himself to Zwingli’s notion of prophecy, balancing scriptural interpretation with prophetic criticism of socio-religious abuse. Büsser contrasted this position with the reformer’s earlier statements in the 1525 work De propheta libri duo, in which he only sees the element of prophecy as exegesis. Thus, compared to this preceding work, Bullinger’s 1532 publication on the prophetic office would mark his development from a humanist scholar to a reformer and church leader.61 A comparison of both documents is required to ascertain whether such a development did take place. In fact, Büsser elsewhere implicitly called his conclusion on Bullinger’s development into question. Discussing the 1525 or 1526 Anklage und Mahnrede, he revealed how Bullinger, already in the Kappel period, emulated Zwingli’s prophetic-eschatological criticism of social and religious abuse. This seems to imply that there was a rather large degree of continuity in Bullinger’s thought between 1525 and 1532.62 Therefore, although Büsser’s seminal work is still of great value, it did not resolve the question of developments in Bullinger’s understanding of prophecy. In the first half of the 1970s Susanna Hausammann highlighted the role of rhetoric in Bullinger’s thought (1970, 1974).63 Her research focused on the reformer’s 1525 exposition of Romans, but also elaborated his treatise De propheta libri duo that was written in the same year. The author concluded that Bullinger, following Melanchthon, positively applied the rhetorical method to the study of Scripture. Yet, as his definition of the New Testament “prophet” or exegete shows, the reformer permeated the rhetorical task with theological motives. In accordance with Paul, Bullinger defined the prophetic task with the three elements of teaching or edifying, exhorting and comforting (1 Cor. 14:3). On the one hand, this definition consciously related the prophetic task to the threefold obligation of the classical orator (docere, delectare, movere). Hausammann emphasized at the same time that Bullinger “baptized” classical rhetoric in service of the interpretation and proclamation of the Gospel. For the reformer the essential task of a prophet was not to please his hearers, but to lead them to Christ.64 Hausammann’s publications are especially important for the inter61 Büsser, “Gedenkrede, ” 66: “Während Bullinger 1532, wahrscheinlich im Blick auf die besondere Ausrichtung auf Zwingli, die kritische Funktion des Propheten als mindestens gleichgewichtig neben die Funktion des Auslegers stellt, hat er 1525 eigentlich nur von der richtigen Schriftauslegung und Verkündigung, von Exegese und Homiletik gehandelt.” 62 Büsser, “Prophet,” 116 – 17. 63 Hausammann, Römerbriefauslegung, esp. 161 – 73; Hausammann, “Rhetorik.” 64 Hausammann, “Rhetorik,” 312 – 13.

26

Introduction

pretation of the 1525 work De propheta libri duo, in which the exegetical and homiletical task of the prophet figures prominently. Yet, Hausammann’s research is limited to a small selection of works from Bullinger’s earliest period. Because of her focus on De propheta libri duo, full emphasis is placed on the exegetical aspect of prophecy, leaving out other possible aspects. In 1975 the 400th anniversary of Bullinger’s death was remembered by the Zurich church and in the international community of Reformation scholars. This commemoration entailed a renascence of research on the Zurich reformer, exemplified by the publication of two congress volumes (1975, 1977).65 In the subsequent decades several important monographs were published on the Zurich clergy, primarily highlighting its social position and its relation to the magistrate. In the first place, J. Wayne Baker (1980) elucidated how the close association of church and state in Bullinger’s thought rooted in his concept of covenantal theology.66 Both the magistrate and the ministry were instrumental for the observation of the conditions of the covenant community of Zurich, the former by enforcing laws regulating the pious life of its subjects, the latter by preaching the word of God. For Bullinger, the Old Testament supplied a model for positive critical cooperation of church and state, prophet and king, however, with a fundamental adherence to magisterial sovereignty. Thus Baker provided a valuable analysis of the position of the prophet and pastor in the reformer’s concept of a Christian society.67 In addition, he presented insightful discussions of a broad selection of Bullinger’s writings, including the 1532 De prophetae officio. In addition to Baker’s theological approach, two more historically oriented studies have substantiated the author’s thesis of a conceptual relation between magistrate, ministers and society in the reformer’s thought. First, Hans Ulrich Bächtold (1982) scrutinized Bullinger’s interpellations (Fürträge) before the city’s councils from 1531 to 1575.68 On the basis of extensive research of these manuscript sources, the author concluded that under Bullinger’s leadership the 65 Gäbler and Herkenrath, Heinrich Bullinger 1504 – 1575; Gäbler and Zsindely, Bul˝ kés, “Bullinger linger Tagung. Two contributions touch on Bullinger’s concept of office: To als praktischer Theologe”; Zsindely, “Seelsorger.” 66 Baker, Bullinger and the Covenant. The author has made an impressive but not uncontroversial attempt to localize the centre of Bullinger’s thought in the doctrine of the covenant. For critical discussions, see e. g. Van ’t Spijker, “Bundestheologe”; Opitz, Theologe, 347 – 52. 67 Kirby, “Bullinger’s prophetical office,” elucidates how Bullinger propagated a modified version of his concept of church-state-relations and the prophetic office for the English context. “Bullinger’s distinctive contribution to the English reformation is preeminently to be a prophet of the Royal Supremacy” (936). See also Kirby, Zurich Connection. 68 Bächtold, Bullinger vor dem Rat.

Survey of research

27

Zurich clergy actively promoted the concerns of the church. Although the primacy of the magistrate in ecclesiastical affairs was fundamentally accepted, the ministers successfully defended the independence of church institutions against political interventions. Bächtold also elucidated how, over the years, the reformer had to defend the independent position of the clergy, epitomized in the freedom of addressing socio-political issues from the pulpit. In support, Bullinger adduced the example of the Old Testament prophets. Although the reformer’s defense was not unsuccessful, Bächtold concluded that the freedom of preaching remained a relative freedom.69 In the second place, Bruce Gordon (1992) examined the records of the Zurich synod over the period 1532 – 1580.70 The author presented an in-depth analysis of the structure of the synod and of the disciplinary cases it had to deal with. One of the main purposes of this biannual assembly was the theological and moral supervision of the rural clergy. Gordon interpreted the synodal records as witnesses to the field of tension between ideal and reality, reformative tenets and parochial demands. On the one hand, they reflect a high ideal for the ministry, as agents of learning and models of moral conduct. On the other hand, the records attest to the wayward practice of clerical work in many early modern Zurich parishes. Although Gordon did not explicitly address the issue of Bullinger’s concept of office, he did interpret the position of the Zurich clergy in relation to Zwingli’s understanding of the prophet. Unlike the Old Testament prophets, the ministers were not seen as critical opposites to, but rather as mediators between the church and the local community. Further, Gordon argued that Bullinger, in contrast to Zwingli, accentuated the representative role of the clergy, who were delegates of God before the congregation (by preaching), and reversely of the congregation before God (in prayer).71 The studies of Baker, Bächtold and Gordon have provided scholarship with valuable background information for an investigation of Bullinger’s understanding of the position of the ministry in Christian society. Yet, they did not engage with the reformer’s doctrine of the ecclesiastical office in general, or to his understanding of prophecy in particular. By contrast, the study of Pamela Biel (1990) specifically zeroed in on the issue of Bullinger and the ministry of the church.72 Her research covered the period 1535 – 1575, focusing on the various roles of the ministers in Zurich, i. e. as participants in the synod, as preachers, liturgists, civil servants, and educators. 69 Bächtold, Bullinger vor dem Rat, 37 – 45. 70 Gordon, Clerical discipline. 71 Gordon, Clerical discipline, esp. 220 – 23. See also Gordon, “Reform of the clergy,” esp. 78 – 81, a follow-up article, highlighting similarities and differences between Zwingli’s and Bullinger’s understanding of the ministry and its role in society. 72 Biel, Doorkeepers.

28

Introduction

Like the studies of Baker and Gordon, the emphasis is on the function of the ministry within the context of Zurich, where the civil magistrate claimed and exercised sovereignty over both state and church. Biel concluded that Bullinger assigned to the clergy a unifying role within Christian society. The discussions in the 1530s resulted in an acceptable modus operandi, in which the homiletic and prophetic roles of the clergy were disconnected. In public the ministers were to limit themselves to explaining the word of God “for the general consumption,” whereas their prophetic criticism of public affairs had to be restricted to private conversations with members of the city’s councils.73 Thus the integration of the two spheres of church and state in sixteenth-century Zurich finds a precise correspondence in the combination of duties and responsibilities of the ecclesiastical office. Further, Biel argued that Bullinger “most usually used the term prophet (propheta)” in reference to the Zurich clergy. Although the reformer was well aware of the difference between Old Testament prophets and ministers of the church, the ancient seers were his chief models for the Zurich clergy’s advisory role in social and political affairs.74 At the same time, Biel noticed that Bullinger increasingly understood the ministry in terms of the Levitical priesthood. This leads her to conclude that a re-sacralization of the ministry took place during Bullinger’s days in office. The priest became the role model for the minister, with a focus on the duties of preaching the gospel and teaching society. The clerical synod, which required different moral and ethical standards for the ministers, would embody the renewed sacral status of the clergy.75 For her analysis Biel made ample use of both printed sources and archival materials. This qualifies her study as a valuable point of departure for further investigation of Bullinger’s theory of the ministry. Yet, her work also shows several flaws. First, Biel limited her research to the period 1535 – 1575. Although frequently referring to source material from before 1535, her focus was clearly on the way Bullinger’s concept of the ministry functioned in the actual situation of the Zurich church. With a few notable exceptions, the author did not discuss the development of Bullinger’s concept in the formative years before his arrival in Zurich. Further, although Biel presented a clear portrait of the various roles of the clergy, the different biblical and historical models employed by Bullinger (especially the prophet and the priest) are not investigated in a systematic way. Moreover, Biel’s thesis of a re-sacralization of the preaching office in the reformer’s thought is in need of further examination. If Bullinger increasingly used the model of the Levitical priesthood, did this imply a departure from his earlier 73 Biel, Doorkeepers, 98. 74 Biel, Doorkeepers, 28 – 41. 75 Biel, Doorkeepers, 42 – 43, 117 – 29.

Survey of research

29

emphasis on the preacher as a prophet? And in which contexts did he employ the imagery of the prophet or the priest in relation to the office? Moreover, did Bullinger really distinguish between the homiletic and prophetic role of the preachers? In summary, after 1975 four important monographs were published on the social position and the various roles of the Zurich clergy (sc. by Baker, Bächtold, Biel, Gordon). They provide us with many valuable insights, but do not present an answer to the question of the development and meaning of Bullinger’s use of the model of the prophet in relation to the ecclesiastical office. In particular, these studies do not give an unequivocal assessment of the importance of Old Testament role models (prophets, priests) for Bullinger’s concept of church ministry. Rodney L. Petersen (1991, 1993) made another, highly specialized contribution to the study of Bullinger’s notion of prophecy, elaborating the theme of the prophetic witnesses (as found in Rev. 11: 3 – 13) in the reformer’s eschatology.76 The author produced valuable insights into the historical and apocalyptic dimension of the reformer’s concept of prophecy. In the light of previous research (e. g. Biel) it is revealing that in Bullinger’s later works, notably his sermons on the Apocalypse (1557), the prophet still played an important role as a model for the Protestant ministry. Whereas the Old Testament prophets preached a message of conversion and restoration, prophetic preachers in the church “point the way toward reform, the renewal of the church, and reconstruction of Christendom.”77 Further, Olivier Millet (1998) presented an overview article on sixteenthcentury Protestant prophecy, with special attention to its exegetical and rhetorical dimensions.78 In general, this author argued that for the majority of reformers the biblical prophets were models of eloquence and rhetorical skill, who distinguished themselves by a pure understanding of the Word (i. e. the Mosaic Law), rather than by special prophetic insight. Drawing from Hausammann’s earlier publications, Millet also applied this to Bullinger’s understanding of prophecy, especially in De prophetae officio. In 2004, Bullinger’s 500th birthday was celebrated with an exhibition and several scholarly meetings in commemoration of the Zurich church leader and his influence on Switzerland and international Protestantism. The reformer’s quincentenary also resulted in an upsurge of publications on his life, work and influence.79 For instance, Andreas Mühling (2007) worked through the extant 76 77 78 79

Petersen, “Bullinger’s Prophets”; Petersen, Preaching. Petersen, “Bullinger’s Prophets,” 258. Millet, “Êloquence des prophÀtes”; see also Millet, “Rh¦torique” (2007). Biography : Büsser, Leben. Theology : Opitz, Theologe. Collected essays: Campi, Bullinger

30

Introduction

correspondence for a sketch of Bullinger’s pastoral practices and his underlying motives.80 Herman Selderhuis (2007) devoted a chapter to the reformer’s dynamic ecclesiology on the basis of the renowned sermons on the Apocalypse.81 The most important development since Bullinger’s quincentenary has been the acceleration of the edition of his works by the Institut für Schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte.82 Considerable progress has been made in the publication of the reformer’s correspondence and a milestone in the field of his theological works was reached with the first modern version of the Decades sermonum quinque in 2008.83 Of particular relevance for the present investigation has been Campi’s edition in 2009 of Bullinger’s main work on the ecclesiastical office: De episcoporum institutione et functione (1538).84 In the trail of Bullinger’s quincentenary two publications were devoted specifically to the reformer’s understanding of the prophetic office. These contributions are highly relevant for the present investigation and therefore deserve a detailed discussion. First, Daniel Bolliger (2004) investigated the transformation of the prophetic role in Bullinger’s concept of the ministry, with special attention to his authority as leader of the Zurich church.85 According to this author, Bullinger moved away from Zwingli’s prophetic model towards a more episcopal understanding of the ecclesiastical office. This transformation was prepared for by a development in Zwingli’s own thought. Whereas Bullinger’s predecessor first emphasized the exegetical and corporate nature of prophecy, later, under the pressure of his more radical opponents, he supplemented his concept of the prophet with a pastoral and authoritative aspect. The prophet is now both a teacher and an overseer (pastor and bishop) of the flock. According to Bolliger, a comparison of Bullinger’s early writings on the prophet (1525 and 1532) shows that the reformer clearly followed Zwingli in this direction. Yet, after 1532 Bullinger moved away from Zwingli’s prophetic model. His intense study of the New Testament during the 1530s would have made him aware of the limited biblical basis for his initial focus on the prophet as a model for the ministry. Bolliger further signaled that in the reformer’s later works, for instance in De scripturae sanctae authoritate (1538) and in the Decades sermonum quinque (1551), the notion of

80 81 82 83 84 85

und seine Zeit; Campi and Opitz, Life – Thought – Influence; Gordon and Campi, Architect of Reformation. Mühling, “Seelsorger.” Selderhuis, “Kirche am Kreuz.” In the period 2004 – 2013 fourteen volumes of the Heinrich Bullinger Werke were published, against thirteen volumes in the preceding three decades. Decades sermonum quinque (1552). HBW 3.3.1 – 2. I.e. the second book of De scripturae sanctae authoritate deque episcoporum institutione et functione (1538). HBW 3.4. Bolliger, “Transformation.”

Survey of research

31

prophecy even retreated into the background. Although the prophets remained in view as positive examples of excellent interpreters of Scripture, Bullinger’s emphasis shifted from the prophetic gifts of the individual ministers to the corporate nature of ministerial work. Bolliger interpreted this transformation of the prophetic model against the background of the early reformation in the Swiss and the Upper German cities. Initially, the power vacuum after the dissolution of episcopal authority was solved with an appeal to the individual prophetic authority of reformers like Zwingli and Oecolampadius. After the initial phase there was, in many places, the opposite “tendency towards episcopacy in the notion of prophesying.”86 According to Bolliger, this tendency was enhanced in Zurich by Bullinger’s emphasis on the anti-hierarchical and corporate nature of the ministry. Although the reformer sometimes referred to his senior position as praepositus, he normally called himself plainly a minister of the Zurich church.87 Paradoxically, he accepted his quasi-episcopal role to warrant the collegial authority of the ministerial body. Thus, in Bolliger’s words, the retreat of the prophetic model was “an extension of the process of de-sacralization and the removal of hierarchy” in Bullinger’s ecclesiology.88 For the present investigation, Bolliger’s contribution is a highly challenging point of departure. In a relatively short article, the author sketches how the notion of prophecy developed in Bullinger’s concept of office, and also gradually disappeared from it. This position calls for further assessment, on the basis of a broader selection of the reformer’s writings. In addition, Bolliger’s comparative approach, for which he employs the thesis of an “Upper Rhine school of biblical interpretation” (Bernard Roussel and Gerald Hobbs), is an incentive for the present study. Still, several questions can be posed in relation to aspects of Bolliger’s article. First, the suggestion that the reformer followed Zwingli’s developing understanding of prophecy towards a more episcopal interpretation is in need of further substantiation. It must be asked if this approach does justice to Bullinger’s individual development and to the intellectual two-way traffic between both men. Further, Bolliger’s emphasis on the discontinuity in the reformer’s understanding of prophecy results in a minimization of elements of continuity. For example, the author maintained that Bullinger in his printed homilies on the prophetic books of the Old Testament approached the prophets in their historical sense – as predictors of the future and examples of virtue. This overstates the case, because in his later sermons on the Apocalypse (1557) and on Daniel (1565) the reformer clearly also presented the prophet as a model for the 86 Bolliger, “Transformation,” 168. 87 Bolliger, “Transformation,” 160, 172. 88 Bolliger, “Transformation,” 176.

32

Introduction

contemporary student of Scripture.89 Therefore, more attention should be paid to elements of continuity in Bullinger’s thought. Finally, Bolliger’s thesis of an anti-hierarchical and de-sacralizing tendency in Bullinger’s concept of office discords with Biel’s suggestion of a re-sacralization of the ecclesiastical office. A reconsideration of the reformer’s use of the cultic priesthood as a model for the ministry, in relation to his use of prophetic imagery, is imperative. In addition, Peter Opitz recently made a major contribution to our understanding of Bullinger’s concept of the ministry. In his expert study on the theology of the Decades sermonum quinque (2004), the author identified the ministry of the church as the means by which humans are restored in communion with Christ and united with the body of the Church.90 Of even greater relevance for the present study is an article by the same author, devoted to the issue of continuity and change in Bullinger’s understanding of prophecy (2007).91 On the basis of a comparison of his 1532 treatise De prophetae officio and relevant passages in the Decades sermonum quinque, Opitz argued that Bullinger’s attempt to consolidate the heritage of Zwingli included a creative act of transformation of his predecessor’s understanding of the prophetic task. In his 1532 work Bullinger carefully consolidated the prophetic motif of Zwingli’s theology. He allowed some room for a moderate prophetic criticism of social or political affairs, but only within the confines of the biblical text and applied with moderation. Opitz observed how Bullinger, in marked contrast to Zwingli, highlighted the edificatory purpose of prophecy, as Paul stated it in 1 Cor. 14:3. This emphasis on the pastoral and pedagogical dimension of prophecy is a constant factor in the reformer’s thought, since it already figured prominently in the 1525 De propheta libri duo.92 Opitz demonstrated that this transformation of Zwingli’s concept appears more clearly in his Decades sermonum quinque, where the duties of the “prophet” are subsumed under those of the minister or bishop. Prophetical criticism of society is now embedded in political institutions. In the judgment of Opitz, it was Bullinger’s genius that, by transforming his predecessor’s concept of prophecy, he could in fact consolidate it. The individuality of his thought enabled him to unfold an acceptable alternative for the prophetic duty.93 89 Bolliger, “Transformation,” 172. Cf. Petersen, Preaching; Timmerman, “Church and eschatology,” 97 – 100. 90 Opitz, Theologe, 436 – 39. 91 Opitz, “Prophetie.” 92 Opitz, “Prophetie,” 501 – 6. 93 Opitz, “Prophetie,” 513: “Am munus propheticum lässt sich somit exemplarisch zeigen: Bullinger hat Zwinglis Erbe transformiert, und gerade so konsolidiert. Und er konnte dies deshalb tun, weil er das rechte Maß an Nähe und Eigenständigkeit gegenüber dem ersten Zürcher Reformator bei seinem Amtsantritt bereits mitbrachte, und dann auch beibehielt.”

Survey of research

33

Like the contribution of Bolliger, Opitz’s essay is highly relevant for the present investigation. It presents an in-depth analysis of the characteristic features of Bullinger’s understanding of prophecy. Yet, the limited scope of his investigation calls for a more extensive exploration of the sources. Compared to Bolliger’s position, Opitz placed more emphasis on elements of continuity in the reformer’s concept of office. The author’s observation that the new church leader in 1532 transformed Zwingli’s legacy evokes the question whether this was the result of a corresponding development in Bullinger’s own concept of prophecy, or rather an implementation of his earlier concept of the office. The question of development in Bullinger’s thought therefore still deserves further scrutiny. In 2008 Jon Wood submitted a PhD thesis on the subject of Bullinger’s Sermones synodales, a body of manuscript notes composed in preparation for the reformer’s addresses to the semi-annual meetings of the Zurich synod in the years 1535 – 1575.94 The author concluded that Bullinger’s attempts to reform Zurich society, beginning with the clergy, were fostered by a strong eschatological fervor. The reformer addressed the ministers as bishops (episcopi) over the church who were to exercise an office of mutual, vigilant oversight in the setting of the clerical synod. His frequent appeal to the parable of the faithful and wise servant in Matt. 24:45 – 51 attests to the fact that Bullinger considered such vigilance necessary in view of the imminent end of time.95 In addition, Wood’s study sides with Biel’s thesis of a re-sacralization of the ministry in Bullinger’s thought. Wood asserted that the reformer, already in the 1530s, employs the term “priest” in a positive way in relation to Protestant preachers. Further, the author concluded from his analysis of the Sermones synodales that from the 1560s onwards there appears a conceptual bridge between the prophet and the priest in Bullinger’s thought. “Having proceeded throughout his years of synodal leadership from the evangelical basis of prophet-vs.-priests to a cultivation of the Zurich ministry as prophet-and-priest, Bullinger seems to have ended with an emphasis upon priesthood with prophetic attributes.”96 The study of Wood clearly elucidates how Bullinger translated his eschatological outlook to the field of church reform and clerical discipline. However, more research is needed before Wood’s conclusion that the bishop-priest gradually became Bullinger’s central model for the ministry could be extrapolated to the reformer’s concept of office in general.97 94 95 96 97

Wood, Sermones Synodales. I thank the author for providing me with the text of his thesis. Wood, Sermones Synodales, 119 – 20. Wood, Sermones Synodales, 126 – 27. Bullinger’s remarkable references to the Zurich ministers as “sacerdotes” (Wood, “Sermones Synodales,” 69) do not necessarily imply a conscious re-sacralization, but could be an indication of the fact that the term “priest” was still a commonplace designation for the local pastor. Further, the author correctly highlights the central place of the bishop/guard in

34

Introduction

Finally, in 2012 Christian Moser published a profound investigation of Bullinger’s profile as historiographer, mainly on the basis of the reformer’s unpublished late work on the history of the Zurich reformation (the Reformationsgeschichte).98 Although this highly specialized study does not discuss Bullinger’s concept of office as such, for two reasons it is of importance for the present enquiry. First, Moser showed that Bullinger, on the one hand, knew and applied the medieval historiographical tradition with its interpretation of past and present on the basis of a biblical-prophetical scheme of successive periods in salvation history. Yet, on the other hand, in his account of the recent Zurich reformation, Bullinger did not employ this tradition, but rather strove for an objective account of the historical facts.99 Second, Moser presented a valuable analysis of the origins and motives behind the Reformationsgeschichte, which is an important source for our understanding of the so-called “Prophezei” – the daily seminary for Old Testament exegesis in Zurich.100 The previous survey of research enhances Campi’s observation that the doctrine of the pastoral office in Bullinger’s thought has not yet been treated sufficiently. There are three reasons to reopen the investigation of his understanding of prophets and the prophetic office in the period 1523 – 1538. First, the survey of research has elucidated that the notion of prophecy was indeed an important theme in Bullinger’s writings from these years. Yet, there is no scholarly consensus on its relative importance in comparison to other models for the ministry. Some have argued that the notion of prophecy retreated in the background because of a supposed re-sacralization (Biel) or an ongoing desacralization (Bolliger) of his concept of office. This calls for a careful examination of Bullinger’s statements on prophecy, in relation to his use of other models for the ministry (e. g. bishops and priests). Second, although scholarship has already explored a wealth of source material, no study has undertaken a comprehenseive investigation of Bullinger’s writings from the period 1523 – 1538. A full-scale enquiry of his works might prove helpful to answer the question of continuity and development in the reformer’s thought, and of its relation to Zwingli’s understanding of the prophetic office. Third, although several authors have pointed out the affinity of Bullinger with other theologians (notably Zwingli and Oecolampadius), the historical and theological context of his evaluation of prophecy has not been investigated in a systematic way.101 For

98 99 100 101

Bullinger’s concept of office, yet does not note that for the reformer the episcopate is closely related to the prophetic office (e. g. 15, n. 2, were the reformer applies the prophetic duty of Jer. 1:7 – 10 to the bishop). Moser, Dignität. Moser, Dignität, 296 – 301. Moser, Dignität, 237 – 70. The concepts of prophets and prophecy in the thought of other reformers have been studied by Kraus, “Charisma prophetikon,” Voß, Gedanke, De Greef, “Calvin on Prophecy,”

Survey of research

35

this reason, the present enquiry opens with a broad survey of prophets and prophesying in the Christian tradition up to Bullinger, and among his contemporaries.

Heimbucher, Prophetische Auslegung. Further, McKee, Elders, has illuminated the exegetical history of the New Testament passages on the gift of prophecy, including a discussion of Bullinger’s commentaries (esp. 72 – 74, 150). Hofheinz, “De munere prophetico,” included a concise discussion of Bullinger’s concept of the prophetic office, but depends on Opitz, “Prophetie” for its analysis. Most recently, Balserak, Calvin, issued a profound investigation of John Calvin’s views on prophecy, including his self-understanding as a prophet. (See also Balserak, “Vermigli’s Exposition of Prophecy”). The author also draws out the contours of the early modern “prophet-reformer,” with special attention to the contributions of Zwingli, Vermigli, and Musculus – theologians in the milieu of Bullinger. Balserak’s rendering of Bullinger’s position is not entirely accurate, since he refers to a “Commentary” by Bullinger on Jeremiah (he only published sermons on this book) and to his sermons on Revelation from “1537” (should be 1557), 62 – 63.

2.

Prophets and prophecy in the Christian tradition

One of the objectives of the present study is to investigate Bullinger’s position as part of the broader spectrum of interpretations of prophecy in the Christian tradition and among his sixteenth-century contemporaries (see section 1.2.1). It is not the purpose of this study to demonstrate the reformer’s originality from, or dependence on tradition in a historical-genetical sense. Nevertheless, an attempt is made to answer the question whether Bullinger elaborated elements from the tradition in his definition of the prophetic office, and, if so, in which way and to what extent. This also applies to the relation between Bullinger’s position on prophecy and that of his Protestant contemporaries. For this reason, the present chapter will present a tentative sketch of common models used in the tradition before Bullinger and by his contemporaries for interpreting and actualizing the donum prophetiae. Although research has investigated many aspects of prophetism in the Christian tradition, an overall synthesis has not been presented. The present sketch cannot in any way fill this scholarly lacuna. Rather, it attempts to draw the broad outlines of the prophetic phenomenon from New Testament times to the late medieval period, on the basis of a broad survey of secondary literature and illustrated with representative citations from patristic and medieval sources. For the sketch of the sixteenthcentury discussions on the gift of prophecy, a slightly different approach is followed. On the basis of a survey of research literature, the discussion zeroes in on the writings of three high-profile reformers in Bullinger’s intellectual milieu: Erasmus, Luther and Bucer.1 The discussion of Zwingli’s works is deferred to chapter 3.2

1 In connection with the discussion of Bucer’s works, some attention will be paid to John Calvin’s position. Yet, the present study refrains from a detailed discussion of the Genevan reformer’s opinion on prophets and prophecy. Although it cannot be excluded beforehand that Calvin in some way influenced Bullinger’s understanding of the prophetic office, it is also evident that the substance of the Zurich reformer’s position was settled by the early 1530s, even before the first edition of Calvin’s Institutio (1536). Introductions to Calvin’s under-

38

Prophets and prophecy in the Christian tradition

A first section presents a brief introduction to the prophetic phenomenon as such, and particularly to the definition of prophecy in the New Testament (2.1). This provides the basis for an introduction to four models of application of the biblical notion of prophecy in the history of the church: prophets as heralds of eschatological change (2.2), prophets as interpreters of Scripture (2.3), and prophets as church officials (2.4). The final section will discuss the idea of a shared prophethood of believers in the church (2.5). These four models by no means present a comprehensive discussion of the history of prophetism.3 Rather, they provide the present enquiry with representative examples of prophets and prophecy before and alongside Bullinger’s writings on the subject. Moreover, these models are complementary in the sense that many ideas on and expressions of prophecy could be classified under more than one model.

2.1

New Testament prophecy

Prophetic figures appeared in many cultures in the ancient world, and could perform a wide range of different roles and functions. Yet, they had in common that they were in some way acknowledged as spokespersons for a deity. The word prophet originates in the Greek word pqov^tgr, but gained prominence through its appearance in the Septuagint where it was used mainly in translation of the Hebrew word 4=5D. Although prophets were known outside Israel, in the history of religions the profile of the prophet has been shaped decisively by the prominent role of prophets in ancient Israel.4 Against this background, scholarship has intensely debated the roots of New Testament prophecy in the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism and contemporary Hellenism.5 Nevertheless, in spite of these efforts, research currently rather tries to understand early Christian prophetism on the basis of the evidence within the New

2 3

4 5

standing of prophecy are found in Kraus, “Charisma prophetikon,” 249 – 57; De Greef, “Calvin on Prophecy,” De Boer, Genevan School of the Prophets, 25 – 33; Balserak, Calvin. References to patristic and medieval writings are kept as brief as possible. If accessible in a standard critical edition, no additional bibliographical information is supplied. This rule also applies to sixteenth-century writings other than those by Bullinger. Cf. the models presented by Balserak, Calvin, 17 – 32, who distinguishes between two traditions in the medieval discussion on prophecy. The first is focused on the Old Testament prophet and shows “a profound interest in knowledge, specifically knowledge of a supernatural character” (18). The other primarily relates to the New Testament and conceives the prophet “as one who interprets the Scripture” (25 – 26). Huffmon, “Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy”; Klein, “Propheten/Prophetie I. Religionsgeschichtlich”; Stolz, “Prophet, Prophecy 1. Religions.” General introductions to New Testament prophetism are found in Cousland, “Prophets and Prophecy”; Hahn and Klein, Die frühchristliche Prophetie; Schnider, “Pqovgte¼y, pqovgte¸a.” For a pervasive discussion of scholarship see Thiselton, Corinthians, 956 – 65, 1087 – 94; and also Gillespie, First Theologians, 1 – 32.

New Testament prophecy

39

Testament.6 Following this approach, prophecy can be defined as pastoral or kerygmatic preaching, primarily for the “strengthening, encouraging and comfort” of believers (see 1 Cor. 14:3). This raises the question of the distinguishing characteristics of prophetic preaching in relation to other early Christian modes of teaching. According to some authors, a characteristic feature of New Testament prophesying was its spontaneous occurrence, without preceding study or preparation.7 The emphasis on the unreflected and spontaneous nature of New Testament prophecy is suggested, among other things, by the coordination of prophecy and spontaneous expressions of the Spirit as in Acts 19:6. Critics of this approach argue that Paul in 1 Cor. 14 clearly distinguishes between ecstatic “speaking in tongues” and intelligible prophetic speech. Therefore, others have arrived at the rather opposite conclusion that prophets were in fact expositors of Scripture, whose task was to give an inspired exposition of the Christian Old Testament in the light of the kerygma of Jesus Christ. Hence, the prophetic duty would have coincided with that of the early Christian teachers.8 Nevertheless, a distinctive feature of prophecy seemed to have been its concern with actual issues in the church. The message of the prophets contained elements of judgment and grace, reproof and encouragement.9 Although it was not primarily concerned with the future, it could also contain predictive elements.10 Also, the prophets could issue new or re-actualized authoritative words of the exalted Lord or the Spirit.11 For the purpose of the present investigation, it is sufficient to conclude that New Testament prophecy was a form of speech that took place primarily in the setting of the Christian congregation. Following Thiselton’s balanced definition, it was “for edification and encouragement and does not necessarily exclude teaching and doctrine.” It combined “pastoral insight into the needs of persons, communities and situations with the ability to address these with a God-given utterance or longer discourse (whether unprompted or prepared with judgment, decision, and rational reflection) leading to challenge or comfort, judgment, or consolation, but ultimately building up the addressees.”12

6 Gillespie, First Theologians, 140 – 50; Thiselton, Corinthians, 960. 7 This is the position of e. g. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 227 – 33, esp. 228 – 29. 8 As it is suggested by Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic, 140 – 41. Cf. Thiselton, Corinthians, 1090 – 91. 9 Hahn and Klein, Die frühchristliche Prophetie, 99; Thiselton, Corinthians, 961. 10 Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech, 222 – 25. 11 E.g. 1 Thess. 4:15 – 17; Rom. 11:25 – 26; 1 Cor. 15:51 – 52. See Boring, “Early Christian Prophecy,” 498; Hahn and Klein, Die frühchristliche Prophetie, 69 – 86. 12 Thiselton, Corinthians, 963 – 64.

40

2.2

Prophets and prophecy in the Christian tradition

Prophets as heralds of eschatological change

One of the prevailing connotations of the word prophet is that of a critic of the current political, social, moral, and political state of affairs. The prophets of ancient Israel have shaped this cultural perception of the imagery of the prophet. In the preexilic period several prophets were closely connected with the royal court, or with the Jerusalem temple and priesthood. Still, in general the early Israelite prophets took a critical stance towards political and religious leadership. They rebuked contemporary religious practices and censured the established cultic prophethood as “false prophets.” The pivotal point of the Old Testament prophets’ message was the imminence of divine judgment over sin and the possibility, if any, of the aversion of destruction through repentance. Positively they pleaded with the people for a return to God’s covenant and the Mosaic Law. When disaster came and Israel finally lost its political independence, the tone of prophecy altered from admonition and threat to consolation and hope. After the return from exile, prophets like Haggai and Zechariah strove for a cultic and moral renewal of the people.13 At the same time, the message of the postexilic prophets increasingly concentrated on the final Day of the Lord and the eschatological restoration of Israel, often clothed in apocalyptic language and imagery. In the later part of the Old Testament, the prophecies of Daniel provide an early example of the genre of apocalyptic prophecy, combining elements of Israel’s wisdom tradition with symbolic language, visionary revelation through an angelic mediator, and an elaborate view of history, including a highly negative evaluation of the present, and a detailed description of the events leading up to the conclusion of the present age. Apocalyptic eschatology was fully developed in Second Temple Judaism and was in many ways a preparation for the proclamation of the New Testament. The book of Revelation stands out as the early Christian counterpart of the apocalyptic literature of the later parts of the Old Testament and of Second Temple Judaism. His book is not only called an “apocalypse” of Jesus Christ (1:1), but also a book of “prophecy” (22:18).14 It is generally assumed that the tradition of eschatological and apocalyptic prophecy did not end with the completion of the Christian canon. Church history reveals many examples of prophetic criticism of the existing social and ecclesiastical situation, and proclamation of the imminent end of times.15 Yet, there is no scholarly consensus on the apocalyptic nature of these various ex13 See Barton, “Postexilic Hebrew Prophecy.” 14 For Revelation as specimen of early Christian prophecy, see e. g. Hahn and Klein, Die frühchristliche Prophetie, 108 – 14. 15 See Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 1 – 30 for a well-informed introduction to apocalyptic prophecy in the Christian tradition up to the Reformation.

Prophets as heralds of eschatological change

41

pressions of Christian prophecy.16 For the present purpose, it may suffice to employ the definition presented by the influential scholar of medieval apocalypticism Bernard McGinn, who argues that the apocalyptic mindset is characterized by “first, a sense of the unity and structure of history conceived as a divinely predetermined totality ; second, pessimism about the present and conviction of its imminent crisis; and third, belief in the proximate judgment of evil and triumph of the good, the element of vindication.”17 The present section presents a tentative exploration of the vast terrain of eschatological and apocalyptic prophecy in church history. It presents three examples of prophets and prophetic movements that were deeply convinced of God’s judgment over their own times and of the nearness of a definitive divine intervention.

2.2.1 Montanus and the New Prophecy From about 170 onwards, early Christianity was confronted with one of its greatest challenges. It was not posed by a peripheral heterodox group, but by the prominent inner-ecclesial reform movement of the New Prophecy.18 This movement, which is commonly designated as “Montanism,” characterized itself by a double emphasis. In the first place, drawing from the widespread expectation of the imminence of the end of times, it presented highly detailed predictions of the descent of the Heavenly Jerusalem and urged ethical rigorism. Second, in marked contrast to the focus on institutional continuity and episcopal leadership of incipient Catholicism, the New Prophecy accentuated the charismatic nature of the church. For the movement the work of the Spirit was not exclusively tied to the institute. Neither were the charismata the prerogative of male bishops. On the contrary, in its earliest phase the movement was characterized by widespread and ecstatic prophecy, by men and women alike. Next to the founder Montanus, the two prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla led the New Prophecy. They considered themselves to be the heralds of the era of the Spirit, whose message surpassed that of the Old and New Testaments. Moreover, Montanus was convinced that he was the instrument of the Paraclete promised by Jesus (cf. John 14:16 – 18). In its second stage of development, the New Prophecy found a prominent adherent in Tertullian, the prominent Latin theologian and apologist. In the writings from his Montanist period, the Carthaginian writer also adheres to the Montanist interpretation of prophecy, including 16 See Rowland, “Apocalyptic.” 17 McGinn, Visions of the End, 10. Quoted by Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 17. 18 See Hahn and Klein, Die frühchristliche Prophetie, 181 – 98; Frend, “Montanismus”; Markschies, “Montanismus”; Schlosser, Lucerna, 130 – 36.

42

Prophets and prophecy in the Christian tradition

the emphasis on its ecstatic nature.19 In his De anima, he reports his conversations with a sister in the church who received prophetic insights and visions.20 In the same North-African context, the Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis exemplifies that martyrdom was associated with prophesying.21 The leadership of the mainstream church considered the message and the successes of Montanism as a serious threat. The movement was soon condemned by episcopal synods as the Phrygian or Cataphrygian heresy. One of the problems related to the New Prophecy was its claim of prophetic authority. Its opponents dismissed this claim with the argument that the predictions of the Montanists were not inspired by the Spirit, but rather the product of demonic possession. Yet, in face of the vivid prophetic tradition within second-century Christianity, this objection was problematic. Spokesmen of the church therefore distinguished between prophecy as such, which was accepted,22 and the contents of the Montanist doctrine, which was rejected as a digression from the doctrines and discipline of the Spirit-led church.23 Objections were also raised against the ecstatic nature of Montanist prophecy. According to Montanus and his followers, the self-consciousness of a prophet is temporarily ruled out in the act of prophesying and the human messenger identifies himself with Christ or the Holy Spirit. In reply to this very high view of the gift of prophecy, early-Catholic theologians came to emphasize that a true prophet is always capable of discerning and understanding the message he conveys.24 Likewise, the church father Jerome would later reject the Montanist prophets because they did not know what they were saying and contrasted them to the biblical sages and prophets, who were fully aware of the meaning of their message.25 As a result of the debates over the New Prophecy, the mainstream of the Christian tradition developed a critical stance toward ecstatic expressions of the gift of prophecy. Vaticinations were now measured by the standard of church doctrine. In the tradition of Augustine, a more timeless eschatological outlook replaced the apocalyptic dimension of prophecy. For the mainstream of church and theology the biblical prophecies were considered as having been fulfilled in

19 From 207 onwards Tertullian inclined towards a Montanist position. For his treatment of prophecy, see Frend, “Montanismus,” 276; Schlosser, Lucerna, 132. 20 Tertullianus, De anima 9,3 – 4. SVigChr 100, 11. 21 E.g. Passio sanctarum Perpetuae et Felicitatis 1,4 – 6. SC 417, 100 – 4. 22 See Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 5,17,1 – 5. SC 41, 53 – 54. The Church History reveals the opinion of Miltiades, who argued that a prophet is not to speak in ecstasy. At the same time, he was convinced that the prophetic charisma would necessarily be present in the church until the parousia. 23 See Jerome, Epistula 41. CSEL 54, 311 – 14. 24 Dautzenberg, “Propheten/Prophetie IV,” 510. 25 Jerome, prologue to Comm. Isa. CChr.SL 73, 2.

Prophets as heralds of eschatological change

43

Christ and in the church. Still, elements of the tradition of apocalyptic prophecy remained present as an undercurrent in the Christian tradition.26

2.2.2 Joachim and medieval monastic prophecy In the Old Testament, prophecy was not only a verbal category – the formulation of articulate messages –, but also took the shape of dramatic signs and miracles. The example of prophets like Hosea and Ezekiel shows that the prophetic lifestyle as such could become an existential and highly critical message. In the Christian tradition this aspect of prophecy has been translated to the exemplary lifestyle of ascetics and monks. The first monks understood their lifestyle in terms of a vita angelica. This angel-like life primarily came to expression in celibacy (cf. Matt. 22:30), but was also associated with the role of the prophet, because an angelus is a messenger in the literal sense of the word (Vulg. Mal. 3:1; Matt. 11:10). Likewise, the communal life of the Old Testament “sons of the prophets” in the Old Testament (e. g. 1 Kings 20:35 KJV) was seen as the prototype of the monastic communities. According to Jerome the prophets were the monks of the Old Testament and, conversely, the monks are the prophets of the New and a living appeal to repentance.27 In a similar vein, in the definition by Cassiodorus, among the prophets are also included those who, without proclaiming a message, are by their lifestyle a typos of the future.28 And for Gregory the Great the non-priestly prophet Elijah provides a model for monastic life.29 Thus, by its message and discipline the monkhood could be seen as an alternative to the priesthood. Moreover, an element of prophecy was also recognized in the contemplative life of certain monastic traditions. Bernard of Clairvaux for whom prophecy was also the “contemplation of things that are not seen” exemplified such mystical prophecy.30 From the twelfth century onwards the tradition of mystical-contemplative prophecy was filled with an apocalyptical dimension.31 Throughout the medieval period, especially in Eastern Christianity, forms of predictive prophecy concerning the course of history and the imminent end of times incidentally had 26 27 28 29 30

Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 19 – 21. Jerome, Epistula 125, 7.3. CSEL 56.1, 125. See Schlosser, Lucerna, 230. Schlosser, Lucerna, 227. Schlosser, Lucerna, 227 – 35. Bernardus, Sermones 2, 225 – 26: “Nempe, iuxta Apostolum, non considerare, quae videntur, sed quae non videntur, sine dubio prophetare est.” See Schlosser, Lucerna, 234. 31 For the development of apocalyptic thought in the Middle Ages, see McGinn, “Apocalypticism.” For the relation with prophetism, see Potestà, Hödl, and Laarmann, “Propheten, Prophetie,” 253 – 54; Beaune, “Prophecy,” 1190 – 91.

44

Prophets and prophecy in the Christian tradition

occurred, carried by both prophetic individuals and written vaticinations.32 Building on this tradition in the later Middle Ages this form of prophecy was intensified and given a distinctly apocalyptic coloring. The bitter conflicts in the church of the West between worldly rulers and the papacy were interpreted in terms of the biblical predictions concerning the end of times, including the appearance of apocalyptic signs and the revelation of the antichrist. Thus, the Augustinian separation of prophecy and actual history was perforated. Instead, prophecies and prophetic texts became a medium for polemics (by associating opponents with the advent of the antichrist) and church reform. An early example of this development is presented by the prophetic visions of the Benedictine abbess Hildegard von Bingen (1098 – 1179), who voiced the expectation of the imminent dissolution of contemporary church and society, and of a future restoration. In the utterances of Hildegard, the “German prophetess,” the visionary element prevailed. By contrast, for Joachim of Fiore (ca. 1135 – 1202) and his many followers, prophetic insight was primarily the result of biblical interpretation. In this tradition, prophecy was understood as the ability to expound the arcane parts of Scripture, and especially the book of Revelation, with an eye on the actual situation and the eschatological d¦nouement of church and society.33 “Increasingly, the Bible was viewed as a special prophetic tool, a key to understanding the divine blueprint for universal history.”34 Although his followers attributed to him the gift of foretelling the future, Joachim refused the prophetic title for himself.35 He was convinced that prophecy had ceased after the apostolic era, and rather saw himself as an exegete. Yet, he did acknowledge that the interpreters of Scripture are the heirs of the biblical prophets. Moreover, in agreement with the common understanding of prophecy as biblical interpretation the Calabrian abbot asserted that the Spirit that once had illuminated the prophets also inspired his own explanation of Scripture.36 What made his exegetical approach new and sensational was his claim that he could forecast the course of salvation history on the basis of his spiritual exegesis of the Old and New Testament. In Joachim’s progressive view of history the final era of the Spirit would be the era of the exegetes. In the period of the Spirit, which already had begun with the prophet Elisha and the monk Benedict of Nursia, a fuller understanding of Scripture would be gained. Inex32 McGinn, “Apocalypticism,” 262 – 66. 33 The standard work on Joachim and Joachite prophecy is Reeves, Influence. The present discussion relies mainly on the well-informed treatment by Lerner, “Joachim von Fiore.” 34 Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 21 – 23. Also Honée, “Profeten en profetische literatuur” for the distinction between visionary and more Scripture-oriented forms of medieval prophecy. 35 Reeves, Influence, 71 – 75; Schlosser, Lucerna, 242. 36 Reeves, Influence, 13.

Prophets as heralds of eschatological change

45

tricably tied to this periodization of history was a strong polemical sentiment against the clerical church of his days. Also, he did not hesitate to give prophetic criticism of kings and rulers of his day. Thus, Joachim gave the notion of prophecy a highly actual and explosive application in the ecclesiastical and political debates of his day. Joachim’s prophetic view on history was readily received in contemporary debates. It was carried on in a wealth of pseudo-Joachite prophetic literature. His prediction of a spiritual age in which the hierarchical clerical church would be transformed into a contemplative monastic church became highly influential. From the thirteenth century onwards, the newly founded orders of the Dominicans and Franciscans combined the contemplative tradition of monasticism with an active role in preaching and teaching. Their active interpretation of the prophetic role of monkhood met with criticism from the side of the regular parish priesthood.37 In support, the mendicant orders turned to Joachim’s prophetic authority. According to this twelfth-century visionary in the era of the Spirit the coming ordo contemplantium would replace the authority of the clergy. The mendicant orders understood themselves as the fulfillment of this Joachite prophecy.38 In the polemics on monastic teaching and preaching, the mendicants were regularly reproached as “false prophets.” Therefore, medieval theologians turned their attention to the criteria for distinguishing between true and false prophets. Three aspects attracted most attention: the official status of the mendicants (auctoritas), their teaching (doctrina) and demeanor (sanctitas). Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican, defended their teaching and preaching activity with an appeal to the objective standards of their papal mission and the orthodoxy of their doctrine. More precisely, he related the preaching activity of the mendicants with the work of the ancient prophets, while their poverty and itinerancy resembled elements of the vita apostolica. The Franciscan theologian Bonaventura rather emphasized the evangelical lifestyle of the preaching friars, including their mendicancy, which was especially vulnerable to the reproach of “pseudo-prophecy.”39

37 Schlosser, Lucerna, 237 – 41. See esp. 237 for the position of opponents of the mendicants (articulated by the Dominican theologian Hugo of St. Cher): “Vade, dicunt ipsi (saeculares parochi), et praedica in claustro tuo, et in Bethel, id est in parochia mea non adicies ultra ut prophetes, id est: ut praedices.” 38 McGinn, “Apocalypticism,” 90. 39 Schlosser, Lucerna, 289 – 310.

46

Prophets and prophecy in the Christian tradition

2.2.3 Luther and Müntzer: Prophets in dispute According to Robin Bruce Barnes, the sixteenth-century Reformation “was not merely a revival of the Word, but a climactic revival clearly predicted in the Word itself, in Scripture.”40 This is an apt description of the sense of eschatological expectation that characterized early Protestantism, at least in its Lutheran branch. Many understood the religious upheaval that was taking place as a forebode of the end of times. The susceptibility for this interpretation of events was clearly shaped by the late medieval swell of apocalypticism. As Barnes argues, the apocalyptic mindset of many late medieval Europeans was not merely a strategy for coping with extreme crises, like the plague, but rather “a normal pre-modern way of making sense of present conditions.”41 It contained an anxious expectation of imminent judgment and catastrophe, but also the hope of a near reformation of present conditions and the dawn of a new golden age. People looked for the revelation of the eschatological antichrist in the degenerated papacy or the advance of the Ottoman Empire. Likewise, late medieval Europeans expected the coming of the two prophetic witnesses from Rev. 11:3 – 13 – a new Enoch and Elijah –, who would herald in the eschatological restoration of all things.42 It is more than likely that this “highly charged prophetic atmosphere contributed to a mounting readiness for social and religious change, a prophetic undertow that helped to bring on the Reformation.”43 Against the background of the late medieval eschatological mindset, it is understandable that many contemporaries considered Luther as a prophet of the end of times, or as the angel of Rev. 14:6, who “had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth.”44 Even more popular was the identification of Luther as the second Elijah – an opinion that was held e. g. by Zwingli in 1520.45 As a prophet, Luther unmasked the fallacies of the papacy and recovered the pure message of the Gospel. Initially, this representation of the Wittenberg reformer was intensified by humanist speculations concerning the dawn of a golden age of learning. Although Luther tried to curb the hagiographic tendencies around his person, not without an ironical undertone he called himself “the German prophet,” with the vocation to teach the nation and warn the people of the wrath

40 Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 13 – 59, quotation from 54. For the influence of Joachim, see Heffner, “Medieval prophecy in Reformation polemic.” 41 Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 18. 42 On the theme of the two witnesses, see Petersen, Preaching. 43 Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 30. 44 See Kolb, Luther as Prophet, esp. 17 – 37. Also Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 47, 54; Von Loewenich, Martin Luther, 369 – 70; De Reuver, “Profetenmantel,”112 – 14. 45 Zwingli, To Myconius. Z 7, 250. See Kolb, Luther as Prophet, 28.

Prophets as heralds of eschatological change

47

of the Lord.46 Yet, Luther himself clearly distinguished between the work of the biblical prophets and his own preaching. He restricted his identification with Elijah to their shared proclamation of the Word of God. Hence, Luther understood his prophethood in terms of his vocation as a doctor of theology to faithful and sound preaching and teaching of Holy Scripture.47 However, in the circles of more radical reformers the concept of prophetic authority and apocalyptic criticism was soon employed also against the mainstream of the magisterial reformation. This section presents the most famous example of what Luther called such “heavenly prophets”: the priest and theologian Thomas Müntzer (