The Reformation of Prophecy: Early Modern Interpretations of the Prophet & Old Testament Prophecy (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology) [1 ed.] 9780190866921, 0190866926

Citation preview

The Reformation of Prophecy

OXFORD STUDIES IN HISTORICAL THEOLOGY Series Editor Richard A. Muller, Calvin Theological Seminary Editorial Board Irena Backus, Université de Genève Robert C. Gregg, Stanford University George M. Marsden, University of Notre Dame Wayne A. Meeks, Yale University Gerhard Sauter, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn Susan E. Schreiner, University of Chicago John Van Engen, University of Notre Dame Geoffrey Wainwright, Duke University Robert L. Wilken, University of Virginia CHRISTIAN GRACE AND PAGAN VIRTUE The Theological Foundation of Ambrose’s Ethics J. Warren Smith

THE SOTERIOLOGY OF JAMES USSHER The Act and Object of Saving Faith Richard Snoddy

KARLSTADT AND THE ORIGINS OF THE EUCHARISTIC CONTROVERSY A Study in the Circulation of Ideas Amy Nelson Burnett

HARTFORD PURITANISM Thomas Hooker, Samuel Stone, and Their Terrifying God Baird Tipson

READING AUGUSTINE IN THE REFORMATION The Flexibility of Intellectual Authority in Europe, 1500–1620 Arnoud S. Q. Visser

AUGUSTINE, THE TRINITY, AND THE CHURCH A Reading of the Anti-Donatist Sermons Adam Ployd

SHAPERS OF ENGLISH CALVINISM, 1660–1714 Variety, Persistence, and Transformation Dewey D. Wallace Jr. THE BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION OF WILLIAM OF ALTON Timothy Bellamah, OP MIRACLES AND THE PROTESTANT IMAGINATION The Evangelical Wonder Book in Reformation Germany Philip M. Soergel THE REFORMATION OF SUFFERING Pastoral Theology and Lay Piety in Late Medieval and Early Modern Germany Ronald K. Rittgers CHRIST MEETS ME EVERYWHERE Augustine’s Early Figurative Exegesis Michael Cameron MYSTERY UNVEILED The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England Paul C. H. Lim GOING DUTCH IN THE MODERN AGE Abraham Kuyper’s Struggle for a Free Church in the Netherlands John Halsey Wood Jr. CALVIN’S COMPANY OF PASTORS Pastoral Care and the Emerging Reformed Church, 1536–1609 Scott M. Manetsch

AUGUSTINE’S EARLY THEOLOGY OF IMAGE A Study in the Development of Pro-Nicene Theology Gerald Boersma PATRON SAINT AND PROPHET Jan Hus in the Bohemian and German Reformations Phillip N. Haberkern JOHN OWEN AND ENGLISH PURITANISM Experiences of Defeat Crawford Gribben MORALITY AFTER CALVIN Theodore Beza’s Christian Censor and Reformed Ethics Kirk M. Summers THE PAPACY AND THE ORTHODOX Sources and History of a Debate Edward Siecienski RICHARD BAXTER AND THE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHERS David S. Sytsma DEBATING PERSEVERANCE The Augustinian Heritage in Post-Reformation England Jay T. Collier ANTOINE de CHANDIEU (1534–1591) The Silver Horn of Geneva’s Reformed Triumvirate Theodore Van Raalte THE REFORMATION OF PROPHECY Early Modern Interpretations of the Prophet and Old Testament Prophecy G. Sujin Pak

The Reformation of Prophecy Early Modern Interpretations of the Prophet and Old Testament Prophecy

zz G. SUJIN PAK

1

1 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2018 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. CIP data is on file at the Library of Congress ISBN 978–0–19–086692–1 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America

For my parents, David and Sue Pak and to the memory of David C. Steinmetz

Contents

Acknowledgments 

ix

Abbreviations 

xi

Introduction  1. Prophecy and the Priesthood of All Believers 

1 35

2. Prophecy and the Radicals: Rethinking Prophecy and the Prophet Contra the Radicals  3. Prophecy and the Pastoral Office: Luther and Zwingli  4. Prophecy and the Teaching Office: Bullinger and Calvin 

64 103 131

5. The Prophet, Prophecy, and the Pastoral Office in the Next Generation 

178

6. Old Testament Prophecy and Protestant Conceptions of Sacred History 

214

7. Later Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Readings of Sacred History in the Old Testament Prophets 

255

8. Christological Exegesis and the Interpretation of Metaphors in Old Testament Prophecy 

283

Conclusion 

329

Select Bibliography 

337

Index 

365

Acknowledgments

This book was much longer in the making than I had foreseen, but perhaps anything worth undertaking turns out that way. Its progress was interrupted by my decision to serve a three-​year term as academic dean at the Divinity School of Duke University, which entailed not only giving up an honorable external grant but also deferring a long-​overdue sabbatical. I am deeply grateful to the administrative leadership at the Divinity School at that time, particularly Richard Hays and Laceye Warner, for entrusting me with this leadership opportunity and for providing the support for a full-​year sabbatical in lieu of my original external grant. As crazy as the decision to serve in administration may sound to some, I have not regretted it. I am very aware that the opportunity for administrative leadership enabled me to deepen and broaden my thinking and imagination along lines of processes, structures, and strategies that translated in surprising and delightful ways to my teaching, research, and writing (even though during those years my time for research and writing were greatly limited). This is all to say that the book would have looked very different if I had finished it two or three years ago rather than now. During those years I benefited from a number of conversations with colleagues, particularly at conferences where I presented initial versions of the book’s chapters. I offer my heartfelt thanks to John L. Thompson, Barbara Pitkin, Ron Rittgers, Amy Nelson Burnett, Ward Holder, Bruce Gordon, Esther Chung-​Kim, Jon Balserak, and Rebecca Giselbrecht for talking through some early ideas and for your collegial support and encouragement. The support of various student research assistants through the years is inestimable. I am immensely grateful to my current doctoral student, Katie Benjamin, who worked many hours checking several footnotes and finalizing the bibliographies. I am also thankful for the work of Christina Ananias for her bibliographic work and Christine Bockmann for her time-​saving work in providing quick translations of brief German sources pertaining to the biographies of some of the figures covered in this book. Above all, the assistance

x

Acknowledgments

of the Divinity School’s brilliant editor, Judith Heyhoe, has strengthened the writing and prose of this book beyond measure. I am indebted to her for the many hours she spent with the text to help diminish unnecessary repetition and tighten the argument. If such nuisances still appear in the manuscript, I take full responsibility. I cannot count the number of times during the writing of this book that I  have reached for the phone (whether literally or figuratively) to call David Steinmetz to chat over some idea or simply pick his magnificent brain to jar loose other possibilities around a potential line of thought. The fact of the matter is that I did not do this enough when I had the chance, and I miss him profoundly as a mentor and friend. His passing in November 2015 continues to be an immense loss to so many of us. I offer this book as a small token of honor in his memory. I am grateful for the continued friendship and conversations with Virginia Steinmetz and for the legacy her and David’s support has provided for so many of his former students—​a legacy she continues to carry forward. Between three years as academic dean and the writing of this book, I am sure my husband experienced too many moments of feeling like a single parent—​ whether due to late days at the office or the after-​effects of a preoccupied mind. He never uttered a word of complaint, as he expressed in his very being and abiding presence his unreserved love, support, and profound affirmation of my vocation as a scholar, teacher, and administrator, alongside that of wife and parent. I could not ask for a truer companion in this beautiful journey called life. I  am ever so grateful, as well, to my best friend Ashley for her eternal support and to my sister, Minna Pak, for her friendship and for loving my daughters as her own. Most of all, I would not be the person I am today if not for the love, care, discipline, nurture, and guidance of my parents, David and Sue Pak. They fostered in me a deep love of learning, the freedom of an inquiring mind, the adventure of exploring new lands (literally and figuratively), the joy of discovery, and the confidence of expression. Dad and Mom, please accept this book as an expression of my wholehearted love and gratitude.

Abbreviations

ANF

The Ante-​Nicene Fathers, 10 vols., edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1885–​96). BDS Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften, edited by Robert Stupperich et al. (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 1960–​). CO John Calvin, Ioannis Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, 59 vols., Corpus Reformatorum, vols. 29–​88, edited by G. Baum, E. Cunitz, and E. Reuss (Brunsvigae: C.A. Schwetschke, 1863–​1900). CR Philip Melanchthon, Philippi Melanthonis opera quae supersunt omnia: Corpus Reformatorum, edited by Karl Bretschneider and Heinrich Bindseil, 28 vols. (Halle: A. Schwetschke & Sons, 1834–​60). CR Huldrych Zwingli, Huldreich Zwinglis Sämtliche Werke, 14 vols., Corpus Reformatorum, vols. 88–​101, edited by Emil Egli et al. (Berlin: Verlag von M. Heinsius Nachfolger, 1905–​). CSEL Ambrosiaster. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 81, no. 2 (Verlag: hpt Erscheinungsjahr, 1968). CV Matthew Zell, Christeliche Verantwortung (Strasbourg, 1523). KSZ I Elsie McKee, Katharina Schütz Zell, vol. I, The Life and Thought of a Sixteenth-​Century Reformer (Leiden: Brill, 1999). KSZ II Elsie McKee, Katharina Schütz Zell, vol. II, The Writings: A Critical Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1999). LW Martin Luther, Luther’s Works [= “American Edition”], 55 vols., edited by Jaroslav Pellikan and Hulmut T. Lehmann (St. Louis, MO: Fortress, 1955–​86). NRSV New Revised Standard Version. PL Patrologia Latina, 221 vols., edited by J.-​P. Migne (Paris: Excudebat Migne, 1844–​55).

xii

WA WABr WADB

Abbreviations

Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kristische Gesamtausgabe, 72 vols. (Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1883–​2007). D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Breifwechsel, 18 vols. (Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1930–​85). D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kristische Gesamtausgabe: Deutsche Bibel, 12 vols. (Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1906–​61).

Introduction

Whispers of prophets and prophecy were already in the air in the early years of the Protestant reformations, particularly around the reforming work of Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli. Zwingli himself referred to Luther as a contemporary Elijah in a January 1520 letter to Oswald Myconius.1 As Robert Kolb points out, medieval teachings on prophecy prepared fertile soil for early Protestant reforming work, for medieval thinkers such as Joachim of Fiore propounded an expectation of the leading work of prophets to usher in a “new world order under God’s rule.”2 Many viewed Luther, Zwingli, and others after them as such prophets. This introduction provides a survey of several of the key views of the prophet and prophecy prior to the Protestant reformations. I demonstrate that in certain ways the Protestant reformers advocated a return to earlier understandings of the prophet and prophecy in contrast to the uses of prophecy evident on the eve of the Protestant reformations. On the other hand, aspects of the late medieval views and uses of prophecy not only prepared the soil for Luther’s and Zwingli’s reforming activities; they were incorporated into the Protestant reformers’ emphases upon the authority of Scripture and uses of Scripture—​particularly prophetic Scriptures—​to read contemporary historical events. A  distinctive element of Protestant conceptions and uses of prophecy was their profound focus on Scripture and its authority, for they insisted that the proclamation of God’s Word was the crucial, if not sole, occupation of the true prophet.3 Prophets and prophecy were tied inextricably to 1. Zwingli, Corpus Reformatorum, 94:250; hereafter cited as CR. 2. Kolb, Martin Luther as Prophet, 28. For more on medieval views of prophecy, see Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy and The Prophetic Sense of History. For concise summaries of significant medieval Christian views of prophecy, see Balserak, John Calvin, 17–​32; Timmerman, Heinrich Bullinger on Prophecy, 40–​45. 3. Kolb argues this for Luther (Martin Luther as Prophet, 31–​32).

2 Introduction

the preaching of God’s Word and thereby to the interpretation of Scripture in the teachings of the early Protestant reformers. Such a focal point was the constant, shared factor in the magisterial reformers’ understandings of prophecy and the office of the prophet. This introduction begins with an account of the patristic and early medieval views of prophets and prophecy, moves to an exploration of medieval and late medieval accounts of prophecy, and then turns to important shifts in employing prophecy—​particularly prophetic scriptures—​as a tool to read human history. I  argue for a consistent affirmation of two general ongoing functions or kinds of prophecy: prophecy as foretelling and prophecy as interpretation of Scripture. In doing so I demonstrate that these two traditions typically came from the same pen, thereby offering a significant corrective to Jon Balserak’s account in his recent book on Calvin as prophet that tends to separate these so-​called traditions too starkly.4 Furthermore I point to shifting emphases within these simultaneous affirmations of prophecy as foretelling and as interpretation of Scripture. For example, Augustine’s cautions against aligning Scripture too precisely to predictions of contemporary historical events tended to downplay the foretelling function of prophecy in favor of its function as interpretation of Scripture in the medieval era. On the other hand, starting at least with Gregory the Great in the latter half of the sixth century and evident in the early twelfth-​century accounts of Herveus of Bourg-​ Dieu and Peter Lombard, several exegetes merged the views of prophecy as foretelling and prophecy as interpretation of Scripture to propound a definition of prophecy as “the explanation of Scripture that concerns future things.”5 The potential emphases set forth in such a definition come to one of their fullest expressions in the writings of Joachim of Fiore, who strongly affirmed the deep tie of prophecy to contemporary history. Consequently Joachim argued that one could read prophetic scriptures to understand and even predict historical patterns in a coming age. After exploring some early sixteenth-​ century Catholic views and practices of prophecy from the writings of Erasmus to those of Cajetan, as well as the significant role of prophecy in attempts to revive Catholic conciliarism in the early sixteenth century, I outline the scope, method, and thesis of this book. A central aim of this book is to illustrate the ways the Protestant reformers used the prophet and biblical prophecy to promote distinctly Protestant goals.

4. Balserak, John Calvin, 18–​27. 5. Quoted from Peter Lombard in J. Migne, Patrologia latina, 191:1665c; hereafter cited as PL.

Introduction

3

Views of the Prophet and Prophecy Prior to the Protestant Reformations Patristic and Early Medieval Views of the Prophet and Prophecy The New Testament consistently refers to “the prophets” as those who foretold the coming of the Messiah now fulfilled in the incarnation, work, passion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As Matthew 26:56 states, “But all this has taken place so that the scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled.” Likewise the Apostle Peter’s sermon in Acts 3:17–​26 emphasizes the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies in the life and work of Jesus Christ. Yet a text such as Matthew 11:13 (“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John came”) raised the question among early Christian communities as to whether prophecy now ceased with the advent of Christ. As James Ash demonstrates, patristic use of “the Prophets” (with the definite article) consistently referred to “the completed number of canonical authors.”6 That is, as Hans von Campenhausen states, the phrase “the Prophets and the Apostles” referred simply to the Old and New Testaments.7 In this way early patristic authors generally affirmed a certain closure to prophecy as it pertained to canonical status, but not necessarily a closure to all functions of prophecy in the early church. On the one hand, some asserted that prophecy had ceased after Christ, as possibly indicated by a statement preserved in the Muratorian fragment pointing to the “prophets, whose number is complete.”8 Origen was among the few who clearly insisted that prophets and prophecy were a thing of the past, contending that the loss of prophecy among the Jews was one of the consequences of their rejection of Christ. Hence, in Against Celsus, he declared that “since the coming of Christ, no prophets have arisen among the Jews.”9 Justin Martyr made similar assertions, except he added that the charism of prophecy was now transferred to Christians. As Ash points out, Origen, however, distinctly did not point to such a transfer; instead he argued that Celsus’s

6. Ash, “The Decline of Ecstatic Prophecy,” 244–​45. 7. Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible, 257. 8. “The Muratorian Fragment,” in Second Century Christianity, edited by Robert M. Grant (London: SPCK, 1946), 120. James Ash, however, argues that “the prophets” in this fragment refers to the canonical prophets and not to the charism of prophecy more broadly (244–​45). 9. Origen, Against Celsus 7, 8, and Ante-​Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 4:614, hereafter cited as ANF.

4 Introduction

appeal to current prophecies could not be valid since prophecy had ceased.10 Consequently Origen also employed these points to reject the practices of the Montanists and present them as false prophets.11 Early Christian sources indicate that in many ways Origen’s insistence that prophets and prophecy had ceased with the advent of Christ was an outlier. New Testament texts themselves support an ongoing function of prophecy, from the daughters of Philip and the prophet Aegabus in Acts 21:9–​10 to the command not to despise the words of prophets (I Thess 5:20) and Paul’s instructions concerning the proper practices of prophesying in I Corinthians 14. Other than Origen most early church fathers affirmed certain ongoing functions of prophecy, particularly prophecy as a “charism” or “gift” rather than an office per se. For example, writings such as the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas point to the presence and practices of prophets in early Christian churches.12 There is some indication that in the early church this charism of prophecy was particularly appropriated by the office of the bishop, as seen in prophetic descriptions given to early Christian bishops such as Polycarp, Melito of Sardis, and Ignatius.13 Both Justin Martyr (100–​ 165) and later Eusebius (~263–​339) affirmed that “the prophetic gifts remain” until the present time, the latter insisting that they must remain until the final coming of Christ.14 Likewise Irenaeus refuted as heretical Marcion’s rejection of the ongoing functions of prophecy, thereby strongly asserting the

10. Ash, 247. See Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 82; Origen, Against Celsus, 7, 11; ANF 1:240, 4:615. For more studies of Origen on prophecy, see Hauck, The More Divine Proof; Hällström, Charismatic Succession. 11. Ash, 247–​48. See Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 28, cited in Pierre de Labriolle, ed., Les sources de l’histoire due montanisme: Textes grecs, latins, syriaques, pub. Avec une introduction critique, une traduction française, des notes et des “indices” (Fribourg: Librairie de l’Université, 1913), 54. 12. Didache 11, 7–​8 and 13, 1–​7; K. Lake, The Apostolic Fathers 1 (London: W. Heinemann, 1912), 327, 329; Shepherd of Hermas 2, 11; ANF 2:27. For a more thorough account, see Ash, 232–​34. 13.  Martyrdom of Polycarp 16, 2; ANF 1:42; Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 5, 24; G. A. Williamson, trans., The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine (London: Penguin, 1989), 231; Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians 7, 1ff.; Lake, The Apostolic Fathers 1:244–​47. Ash argues that the office of bishop appropriated the charism of prophecy, pointing to the ongoing functions of prophetic gifts while the office of prophet per se had ceased (234–​36). Timmerman builds upon this theme of the prophet as bishop (66–​71). It is not clear to me, however, that this tradition of the bishop as prophet extends very clearly beyond the first centuries of the church. Neither Timmerman nor others provide sufficient evidence for this. 14. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 82; ANF 1:240; Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 5.17; Williamson, 222.

Introduction

5

continuing function of prophecy in the Christian church.15 Even in the face of the threat of the Montanists, who exhibited extreme practices of prophetic ecstasy, Eusebius continued to affirm the necessity of the right practices of prophecy in the church.16 Hence the medieval church affirmed certain ongoing functions of prophecy. For example, as Bernard McGinn points out, Augustine advocated an understanding of prophets as visionaries and as those who announce God’s word to the people.17 Augustine defined prophets in his Questiones in Heptateuchum as “nothing other than one who announces God’s words to humans who are neither able nor worthy to hear Him.”18 He furthermore asserted that prophets were also visionaries who received a spiritual sight of future events.19 In Book 12 of De Genesi ad litteram, he set forth three possible kinds of vision—​corporeal, spiritual (or imaginative), and intellectual—​and argued that “prophetic vision is more correctly ascribed to the spirit than to the body.”20 McGinn consequently points to Augustine’s expansion of the understanding of the prophet “to include all who truly see God and help others to believe in Him.”21 Such emphases upon visions and/​or spiritual sight of future matters point to the significant role of divine revelation in the function of prophecy. On the other hand, a contemporary of Augustine, Ambrosiaster, identified the ongoing function of the prophet with interpretation of Scripture. Elsie McKee points out that, though Ambrosiaster affirmed the New Testament

15. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3, 11, 9; ANF 1:429; Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, translated by Joseph P. Smith (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1952), 108. 16. Laura Salah Nasrallah provides a fascinating study of the important functions of prophecy in early Christianity concerning authority, identity, epistemology, and understandings of history. Rather than seeing a clear history of the decline of prophecy in early Christianity, she argues, “at first glance, these texts may seem to provide information about an ‘orthodox’ rejection of ecstasy or prophecy, or snippets of data about Montanists. On closer investigation, however, they expose a completely structured, rhetorically sophisticated debate over claims to certain kinds of knowledge. The stakes are high: the question of who has true, real (divine) knowledge is linked to issues of authority and identity in communities” (An Ecstasy of Folly, 201). In a similar fashion, this book aims to demonstrate the uses of prophecy in the early modern era around the issues of authority and identity. 17. See McGinn, “Prophetic Power,” 252–​53. 18.  Augustine, Questiones in Heptateuchum, 2.17 (PL 34:601), as translated by McGinn, “Prophetic Power,” 252. 19. Augustine, Epistola 147; PL 34:620. 20. McGinn, “Prophetic Power,” 253. 21. McGinn, “Prophetic Power,” 253.

6 Introduction

prophets as primarily foretellers or predictors of future events, he asserted the ongoing, contemporary function of the prophet as an interpreter of Scripture in his comments on Ephesians 4:11:  “Prophets, however, are those who explain the scriptures. In the beginning there were, though, prophets such as Agabus and the four virgins who prophesied, as is found in the Acts of the Apostles [21:9]. This was for the purpose of commending the beginnings of the faith [Acts 7:2ff.]. Now, however, those who interpret scripture are called ‘prophets.’ ”22 Notably his comments on I Corinthians 14:3 likened the interpretation of Scripture to the divine insight necessary for foretelling future events.23 His comments on I Corinthians 12:28 brought these two understandings together; here Ambrosiaster stated that there are two kinds of prophets: those proclaiming future things and those revealing Scripture.24 Nonetheless, building upon these two distinctions, in his recent book Jon Balserak argues for two traditions of prophecy in the medieval church: Tradition 1, in which divine revelation plays a significant role—​identifying prophecy as supernatural knowledge—​and Tradition 2, in which the prophet is the interpreter of Scripture.25 Though Balserak admits that these two traditions are not mutually exclusive,26 he takes these distinctions too far and imposes a distinction—​even a separation—​that I am not convinced exists. The evidence of medieval church writings more accurately indicates that medieval writers more often than not simultaneously asserted these two kinds of prophecy: the prophet as foreteller and the prophet as interpreter of Scripture. These two understandings existed side by side, usually from the same pen. They were already evident in the descriptions of Ambrosiaster and continued to be set forth in the descriptions of prophecy in the next centuries up to and included in the Protestant writings of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.27 22. Translation of Ambrosiaster’s comments on Eph. 4:11 provided by McKee, Elders and the Plural Ministry, 139. See her wider discussion on 138–​39. 23. Ambrosiaster, Comm. 1 Cor 14:3, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 81.2, 150; hereafter cited as CSEL. 24. Ambrosiaster, Comm. 1 Cor 12:28, CSEL 81.2, 141. 25. Balserak, John Calvin, 18–​27. 26. Balserak, John Calvin, 24. 27. Chapters 3 through 5 demonstrate this point in the Protestant writings of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Bernard McGinn argues for three kinds of prophecy in medieval Christianity: “prophecy as apologetic argument; prophecy as interpretive insight; and prophecy as predicting the future” (“Prophetic Power,” 254). This depiction of the kinds of prophecy in medieval times seems more defensible than the two-​tradition theory of Balserak. McGinn is clear, however, that prophecy as apologetic argument was operative in Eastern Christianity and “did not extend to the West” (256). My account focuses on the

Introduction

7

For example, in the preface to his commentary on Psalms, Cassiodorus (485–​585) expounded a definition of prophecy that included both of these foretelling and interpretive capacities. He began with the predictive gifts of the prophet: “Prophecy is the divine breath which proclaims with unshakeable truth the outcome of events through the deeds or words of certain persons.”28 He then applied this definition to the Psalms: David “was filled with heavenly inspiration.” Thus, he concluded, “by these words we realize that the psalms were clearly expressions of prophecy through the Holy Spirit. We must indeed grasp that every prophecy says or performs something concerning past, present, or future time.”29 Cassiodorus next connected this understanding of prophecy to the teachings of Peter and Paul. Invoking Peter’s proclamation in 2 Peter 1:21 (“because no prophecy ever came by human will but humans moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God,”), he affirmed the divine origins of prophecy. He then turned to the teachings of Paul in I  Corinthians 14:3 (“those who prophesy speak to other people for their edification, exhortation and consolation”) to expand the edifying fruits of prophecy to both foretelling and the interpretation of Scripture. Cassiodorus thus confirmed, “Clearly the prophet builds up the church when through the function of his foretelling he makes wholly clear matters exceedingly vital which were unknown. Those who have been granted the ability to understand well and to interpret the divine Scriptures are obviously not excluded from the gift of prophecy.”30 Cassiodorus held together prophecy as foretelling and prophecy as interpretation of Scripture (side by side) and affirmed the work of the Holy Spirit in both—​that is, the divine origins and edifying purposes of both. Gregory the Great (540–​604) echoed both aspects of prophecy in his comments on the prophets who greet King Saul in I Kings 10:5: Who are these prophets except the great preachers of the Holy Church? The ministry of a prophet is to reveal things hidden and to predict things to come. The doctors of Holy Church, when they draw the hidden meanings of the scriptures to common knowledge, open up unknown secrets, and when they preach eternal joys, they reveal the

two Western kinds of prophecy, since these were received and repeated in the works of the Protestant reformers. 28.  Cassiodorus:  Explanation of the Psalms, trans. and annotated by P. G. Wasch (New York: Paulist, 1990), 1:27. 29. Cassiodorus, Explanation of the Psalms, 1:27. 30. Cassiodorus, Explanation of the Psalms, 1:28.

8 Introduction

future. Therefore, prophets come to meet us, because the doctors of Holy Church show us the truth of Holy Scripture.31 Notable in this description is his merging of the predictive and interpretive functions of prophecy, with a greater emphasis on the ongoing, interpretive function. Yet Gregory the Great did not discard the predictive element but asserted it directly alongside this interpretive function. Precisely through the work of drawing out the hidden meaning of Scripture and the preaching of eternal joys, prophets “reveal the future.” Ambrosiaster, Cassiodorus, and Gregory the Great each also viewed supernatural knowledge as operative in both the work of foretelling and the work of interpreting Scripture; both involve a form of divine, revelatory insight. Consequently the stark distinctions Balserak imposes for a separate two-​tradition theory are unsustainable, and the identification of only Tradition 1 with supernatural knowl­ edge does not hold, since such supernatural knowledge was also at play in the views of prophecy as interpretation of Scripture (the so-​called Tradition 2). Finally, in his sermons on Ezekiel, Gregory reiterated the prior affirmation of Cassiodorus when he proclaimed, “Prophecy has three tenses: the past, of course, the present and the future.”32 Gregory in this way merged the aspects of prophecy that entail foretelling (future) with the aspects of prophecy that entail revealing the hidden meanings of Scripture for the past, present, and future church.33

Medieval and Late Medieval Views of the Prophet and Prophecy In the early ninth century both Rabanus Maurus (780–​856) and Haymo of Halberstadt (778–​853) advanced the dual conception of the prophet as foreteller and interpreter of Scripture. Rabanus, a Benedictine monk and archbishop of Mainz, wrote a commentary on I Corinthians in which he asserted (echoing Ambrosiaster) that there are two kinds of prophets: those who speak

31. Gregory I, In Librum I Regum 4.173, Corpus Christianorum 144:387–​88, as translated by McGinn, “Prophetic Power,” 253. 32.  Gregory I, Homélies sur Ézéchiel, edited by Charles Morel (Paris:  Éditions du Cerf, 1986), 56. 33. Timmerman points out that Gregory’s description of prophecy in his sermons on Ezekiel viewed the prophet as watchman, in which the prophet watches “over doctrine and morals through preaching and admonition” (69–​70).

Introduction

9

of future things and those who reveal Scripture.34 Similar to Ambrosiaster and Gregory the Great, Rabanus placed greater weight upon the interpretative function of prophecy as particularly important for the ongoing work of bishops and doctors of the church.35 Haymo of Halberstadt was a German Benedictine monk and bishop who also described the prophet as both one who foretells the future (as seen in the example of Agabus) and one who proclaims Scripture. He commented on Ephesians 4:11, “There were in the beginning of the faith ‘evangelists, prophets, and also pastors and doctors.’ And there are these in the church now also. Whoever announces the good news is an evangelist, whoever tells his hearers about the joys of the elect and the punishment of the reprobate is a prophet.”36 McKee points to the clear tradition that Haymo and Rabanus inherited from the teachings of Ambrosiaster of setting forth a “one-​ to-​one correspondence between the New Testament offices” and those of their present-​day churches, where the apostle was now the bishop and the prophet was “now the interpreter of Scripture.”37 Thus as medieval understandings of the prophet progressed, the dual description of the prophet as foreteller and interpreter of Scripture remained; yet there was a discernible increasing emphasis in medieval times on the conception of the prophet as an interpreter of Scripture. The French Benedictine monk Herveus of Bourg-​ Dieu (1080–​ 1150) sustained these affirmations of the ongoing functions of prophecy as foretelling and interpretation of Scripture. Commenting on Ephesians 4:11, Herveus wrote, “ ‘Prophets’ also in the New Testament were those who predicted future events—​prophets like Agabus and others similar to him (Acts 11 [sic]). Their place now is held by those who, by interpreting Scripture, announce to the rest the future joys of the just and punishment of the wicked.”38 We see here a convergence of the functions of the prophet as foreteller and as interpreter of Scripture and Haymo’s prior assertion that the prophet proclaims the joys of the elect and the punishment of the reprobate during a time in Christian history when discussions

34.  Rabanus Maurus, Ennarationum in Epistolas Beati Pauli:  Liber Nonus. Expositio in Epistolam ad Corinthios Primam, in PL 112:116a. 35. Timmerman seems to imply this (72). 36.  Haymo of Halberstadt in PL 117:720, as translated by McKee, Elders and the Plural Ministries, 142–​43. 37. McKee, Elders and the Plural Ministries, 143. 38.  Herveus of Bourg-​Dieu, in PL 181:1246, as translated by McKee, Elders and the Plural Ministries, 143. The proper reference to Agabus is Acts 21:10.

10 Introduction

of foreknowledge, providence, and predestination were increasingly at the forefront of scholastic debates. A contemporary of Herveus of Bourg-​Dieu and a crucial figure of Christian medieval scholasticism was Peter Lombard (1096–​ 1160), who discussed prophets and prophecy in his comments on I Corinthians. Commenting on 12:28 (“God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets”), Lombard reiterated and confirmed two kinds of prophets: “those who reveal the mysteries of Scripture or reveal future events.”39 In his later comments on 14:3 (“those who prophesy speak to others for their edification, exhortation, and consolation”), Lombard sustained the contrast in the biblical text between the gifts of tongues and prophecy to emphasize prophecy’s greater fruits for edification. Yet he also employed this text to promote a view of prophecy as an illumination of the mind. Lombard contrasted the vision of Pharaoh and Joseph’s ability to read the vision with Daniel’s fuller prophetic capacity. Pharaoh, Lombard argued, was not a prophet for he did not understand what was signified in his dream. Joseph was more so a prophet because his “mind was illuminated and he understood the truth,” yet he himself did not receive the vision. Daniel therefore was the greater prophet because he received the vision, proclaimed the vision, and demonstrated full spiritual insight and mental understanding of the vision.40 All of this, in effect, served to affirm the work of the prophet in both foretelling and explaining a predictive vision. Thus in his comments on 14:6 (“how will I benefit you unless I speak to you in some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?”), Lombard defined prophecy as “the explanation of Scripture which concerns future things.” He continued, “Prophecy is as with Isaiah and others when the Holy Spirit reveals without human activity.”41 Yet his comments came full circle back to prophecy’s important task of edification in his exposition of 14:23–​33. He underscored this text’s teaching that the goal of prophecy is the illumination, learning, and edification of the church. The explanation of prophecy (and tongues) is therefore always necessary. Furthermore, since “the spirit of prophets [is] subject to prophets” (I Cor 14:32), then all prophecy and prophets are subject to the Holy Spirit, who is one—​who will not say contradictory things.42 A couple of key points are notable: first, Lombard continued

39.  Peter Lombard, Petri Lombardi Magistri Sententiarum Pariesiensis Quondam Episcopi Collectanea in Omnes D. Pauli Apostoli Epistolas, in PL 191:1657c. 40. Lombard, PL 191:1664b–​c. 41. Lombard, PL 191:1665c, 1665d. 42. Lombard, PL 191:1671a, 1671b, 1671c.

Introduction

11

to assert the dual understanding of prophecy as foretelling and as revealing the mysteries of Scripture. Second, he combined these tasks in his understanding of the prophet’s work in interpreting Scripture: the prophet specifically provided “the explanation of Scripture which concerns future things.” In other words, both conceptions of the prophet as foreteller and as interpreter of Scripture existed side by side, expressed from a single pen, in which divine revelation and supernatural knowledge played a role in both aspects. Yet within the larger history some emphasized interpretation of Scripture as the ongoing function (expressed more in distinction from foretelling), while others combined the predictive and interpretive functions, as seen in the case of Lombard.43 Thomas Aquinas (1225–​ 1274) wrote at length concerning prophecy in part 2 of book 2 of his Summa Theologiae, questions 171 to 178, as well as question 12 in his De Veritate.44 This analysis focuses on the specific matters of prophecy as foretelling, prophecy as interpretation of Scripture, and the role of divine insight, revelation, and/​or supernatural knowledge, though Aquinas addressed a much broader array of questions concerning prophecy. In the Summa Theologiae he offered a very expansive definition of prophecy: All the gifts relating to knowledge can be listed under the heading of prophecy. Prophetic revelation not only ranges out to future happenings among men, but also to divine realities, both with respect to what is proposed for the belief of all, which constitutes faith; and also with respect to higher mysteries, an appanage of the perfect, and constituting wisdom. Prophetical revelation also deals with spiritual substances as inclining us to good or evil, and this constitutes discernment of spirits. Finally, prophetic revelation extends to the direction of human acts: here we have the gift of knowledge, as we shall see later.45

43. The distinction here is that Balserak makes it sound like there are two separate traditions rather than the fact that the same author expresses these “two traditions” simultaneously. Within these simultaneous expressions, some favor the prophet as interpreter of Scripture more strongly as the ongoing function of prophecy, whereas others favor an emphasis on the predictive element. 44. De Veritate reiterates many of the points expressed in his Summa Theologiae; hence I do not treat this text in my analysis. 45.  Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 2a2ae preface. The English translation is from Roland Potter, St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae, vol. 45, Prophecy and Other Charisms (2ae2ae.171–​78) (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 3.

12 Introduction

Notable in this definition, Aquinas affirmed in the first place prophecy as the knowledge of future events, yet he also insisted that it pertains “not only” to knowledge of future happenings but also to knowledge of “divine realities” that constitute both faith and wisdom. Prophetical revelation serves in the discernment between good and evil spirits. And when he asserted the role of prophetic revelation in the gift of knowledge, he pointed to prophecy’s relation to the charism of speech. Aquinas therefore argued that prophecy is “firstly and principally a knowl­ edge; prophets in fact know realities which are remote from the knowledge of men.”46 Citing I  Corinthians 12:7, he then added, “Prophecy secondarily consists of utterance or speech, in so far as the prophets know what they have been divinely taught, and they proclaim this knowledge for the edification of others.”47 In arguing this Aquinas appealed to the prior teaching of Isidore of Seville, who described prophets as “fore-​speakers” who “proclaim what is remote and speak truly of what is future.”48 Beyond simply the prophet’s capacity for foretelling, Aquinas emphasized this “remoteness”—​ namely, that the Holy Spirit reveals divine truths that otherwise would “surpass all human knowledge.” Such requires the Spirit to raise the human mind’s capacity to perceive divine truths, in which such revelation “brings about the removal of the veils of ignorance and obscurity.”49 In other words, Aquinas profoundly emphasized the role of divine revelation through the working of the Holy Spirit and an understanding of prophecy as supernatural knowledge. He viewed such supernatural knowledge or prophetic revelation as occurring in four ways: “by an infusion of intellectual light, by an infusion of intellectual species, by an impression or arrangement of forms in the imagination, by an outward expression of sense-​perceptible images.”50 Regardless of which of the four manners in which prophetical revelation occurs, for Aquinas the prime content and/​or task of prophecy is supernatural knowledge conveyed to people for their edification.51 He also affirmed the predictive, foretelling capacities of prophecy.

46. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 2a2ae, q171 a1. 47. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 2a2ae, q171 a1. 48. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 2a2ae, q171 a1. 49. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 2a2ae, q171 a1. 50. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 2a2ae, q173 a3. 51. Aquinas writes in question 174, article 2, “The excellence of means is principally assessed from the end. Now the end of prophecy is the manifestation of some truth which surpasses the faculty of man. The more this manifestation is effective, the greater is the prophecy to be

Introduction

13

Yet, as indicated in his initial definition of prophecy, Aquinas did not limit prophecy to its predictive form. He specifically insisted that prophecy points “not only” to future happenings but also more broadly to “divine realities” that constitute both faith and wisdom. In article 6 of question 174 he asserted that “prophecy is ordered to the knowledge of divine truth.” Consequently, “by contemplation of this truth, we are not only instructed in faith but also governed in our works.”52 As such, Aquinas explained that prophecy occurred prior to the law, under the law, and now under grace, where the “mystery of the Trinity was revealed by the Son of God himself.”53 Such assertions entail a supernatural knowledge far beyond foretelling; they point to an understanding of prophecy as the revelation given in Scripture. Thus Aquinas carefully clarified the distinction between prophets up until the time of Christ (who were canonical) and prophecy as it exists after the advent of Christ. Concerning the latter, he explained, “At each period there were always some who had the spirit of prophecy, not for the purpose of setting out a new doctrine to be believed, but for the governance of human activities.”54 Aquinas asserted an understanding of prophecy that was not only foretelling but also as a form of divine knowledge in accordance with Scripture (i.e., not new revelation) that aided in the governance of human works and actions. It was here that he connected prophecy to the charism of speech. First, he took up the biblical affirmation that prophecy is greater than tongues because prophecy edifies and enlightens the mind. Prophecy is greater not only because of its greater effects of edification and enlightenment but because the prophet is “ordered according to the Spirit” to “expound whatever is obscure in speeches.” Hence, Aquinas concluded, “the interpretation of speeches can be reduced to the gift of prophecy—​in so far as the mind is enlightened to understand and expound whatever is obscure in speeches.”55 Diane Watt sees in Aquinas’s statements a view of the prophet as “a teacher and preacher” and as “one called by God to speak [God’s] Word to the people.” In setting forth a teaching in accordance with Scripture to govern human activities, Watt affirms the view of the prophet as an interpreter of Scripture, as

esteemed.” In other words, a prophecy is measured by the degree to which it meets the goal of edification (where edification is not merely encouragement but also correction). 52. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 2a2ae, q174 a6. 53. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 2a2ae, q174 a6. 54. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 2a2ae, q174 a6. 55. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 2a2ae, q176 a2.

14 Introduction

operative here in Aquinas.56 In his treatment of the relation of prophecy to the charism of speech, Aquinas was concerned with the preaching, teaching, and interpretation of Scripture.57 Though he was less explicit about tying prophecy to interpretation of Scripture per se, he certainly viewed prophecy as beyond merely foretelling, affirmed prophecy as supernatural knowledge of divine realities, and pointed to the connection of prophecy with the charism of speech in the work of teaching and preaching for the edification and governance of the church.58

Lefèvre and Erasmus: Two Catholic Views of Prophecy on the Eve of the Protestant Reformations In keeping with a focus on definitions of prophecy as shaped by biblical exegesis and biblical portrayals of the prophet, the teachings of the leading Catholic theologians Jacques Lefèvre D’Étaples (1455–​1536) and Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466–​1536) are instructive. Commenting on the gifts listed in Romans 12:6–​ 8, Lefèvre wrote, “And these are the gifts and duties of God; Paul lists seven here. First, the gift of prophecy, from which they are called ‘prophets.’ Second, the gift of ministry from which they are called ‘ministers.’  .  .  .  In the first rank [prophets] are those who have been given understanding by God for the future direction of the church.”59 Such indicates Lefèvre’s affirmation of the ongoing functions of prophecy in the church and points to his emphasis on

56. Watt, “Medieval Millenarianism,” 90. 57. Aquinas wrote, “Charisms are given for the profit of others, as said above. But the knowl­ edge which a man receives from God could not be turned to the profit of others except through the medium of speech. . . . This happens in three ways. First, to instruct the intellect, as happens when one so speaks as to teach. Secondly, to move the affection, so that a person willingly hears the Word of God. This happens when a person so speaks as to delight his audience. No one should seek this for his own personal favor, but rather that men should be drawn to hearing the Word of God. Thirdly, so that men may love what is signified by the words, and want to fulfill what is urged. This happens when a man so speaks as to move his hearers. To bring this about the Holy Spirit uses the tongue of a man as a sort of instrument; and it is the same spirit which completes the work inwardly” (Summa Theologiae, 2a2ae, q177 a1). 58.  For other helpful studies on views of prophecy in the medieval scholastic era, see Schlosser, Lucerna in caliginoso loco and the critical edition of works of Hugh of St. Cher concerning prophecy, with an introduction and commentary by Jean-​Pierre Torrell, entitled Théorie de la Prophétie et Philosophie de la Connaissance aux Environs de 1230: La Contribution d’Hughes de Saint-​Cher (Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 1977). 59.  Jacques Lefèvre D’Etaples, Faber Stapulensis S.  Pauli Epistolae XIV ex Vulgata adjecta intelligentia ex graeco, cum commentariis (Paris, 1512), 97r, slightly modified from the translation by McKee, Elders and the Plural Ministries, 173.

Introduction

15

its foretelling capacity—​though a predictive function specifically oriented to the church’s edification. Not as clearly indicated here was the tie of prophecy to biblical interpretation, but Erasmus of Rotterdam soundly took up this emphasis. In both his paraphrases and his annotations on I Corinthians, Erasmus underscored a definition of prophecy as interpretation of Scripture. For example, in the introduction to the argument of I Corinthians in his Paraphrases, he defined prophecy as the “exposition of the mysteries of Scripture.”60 Likewise in his Annotations on I Corinthians 14:1, he contended that “in this passage Paul calls prophecy not the prediction of future things but the interpretation of the divine scriptures.”61 Even as Erasmus specifically emphasized a definition of prophecy as interpretation of Scripture—​ particularly as represented in I Corinthians 12 and 14—​he also affirmed the traditional definition of prophecy as foretelling. He echoed the teaching of Ambrosiaster when he wrote in his paraphrase of I Corinthians 12:28 that prophets either “disclose what is still to come” or “explain what is hidden.”62 Throughout his paraphrases and annotations to ­chapters 13 and 14, Erasmus nonetheless emphasized a definition of prophecy as interpretation of Scripture.63 He specifically defined prophecy as explaining the mystical sense of Scripture for the edification of the church.64 He paraphrased the text of 1 Thessalonians 5:20 (“do not despise the words of prophets”) as an exhortation to believers to listen to those who have “received the gift of prophecy so as to explain the mystical sense of Scripture.”65 Similarly he pointed to the prophets’ work to

60.  Erasmus, Paraphrases on the Epistles to the Corinthians:  The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians, Collected Works of Erasmus 43, edited by Robert D. Sider, translated by Mechtilde O’Mara and Edward A. Phillips (Toronto:  University of Toronto Press, 2009), 25. 61. Erasmus, Annotations on 1 Cor 14:1 in Opera Omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, edited by J. H. Waszink et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1969–​), 6.8, 266. 62.  Erasmus, Paraphrases, 156. Similarly Erasmus earlier described the use of the gift of prophecy to explain “things that are either still to come or in some other way difficult to understand” (Paraphrases, 151–​52). 63. In his opening paraphrases of I Corinthians 13, Erasmus appealed to the gift of prophecy, “through which to grasp all the hidden meanings of divine Scripture” (Paraphrases, 158). 64. For example, in his opening paraphrases of I Corinthians 14, Erasmus wrote, “You should exert more effort for that which is more useful, namely, to prophesy, explaining the mystical sense for the well-​being of your hearers” (Paraphrases, 162), and “one who explains the mysteries of Scripture through the gift of prophecy benefits the whole congregation” (163). 65. Erasmus, Paraphrases, 457.

16 Introduction

“unfold the wrappings of Mosaic law.”66 Thus when Paul specifically invokes an allegory in Galatians 4:24, Erasmus noted the substantial effort necessary to seeking the deeper, hidden meaning of the Law of Moses.67 Commenting on 2 Peter 1:19–​20, he stated, “The prophetic part of Scripture is obscure because of its cloak of figurative speech and cannot be understood without interpretation.”68 Notable in all of these paraphrases was Erasmus’s significant emphasis on the work of the prophet to unveil the deeper, hidden, mystical meaning of Scripture. Traditionally in the history of biblical interpretation up to and in the time of Erasmus, such a “mystical” or “spiritual” sense of Scripture was first and foremost its Christological sense.69 This serves as a significant contrast to many of the Protestant reformers’ understandings and uses of prophecy, for they emphasized prophecy as interpretation of Scripture, but with a focus on providing the plain or “literal” sense of Scripture. Indeed, as the last chapter of this book explores, debates over Christological readings of Old Testament prophecy became a prime site of inter-​Protestant confessional polemic. In his account of Erasmus’s understanding of prophecy, Daniël Timmerman rightly points to the significance of his wider humanist context. Erasmus aligned the emphasis upon the interpretation of tongues in I Corinthians 14 with the need to study and translate the classical biblical languages.70 Patristic exegetes tended to equate the interpretation of tongues with the interpretation of various foreign languages that were spoken at Pentecost. In contrast, Erasmus applied the text to buttress his humanistic “plea for a revitalization of the study of the three sacred languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.”71 As later chapters in this book demonstrate, several Protestant

66. Erasmus, Paraphrases, 331. 67. Erasmus, Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 42, New Testament Scholarship: Paraphrases on Romans and Galatians, edited by Robert D. Sider, translated by John B. Payne, Albert Rabil Jr., and Warren S. Smith Jr. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984), 119. 68. Erasmus, Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 44, New Testament Scholarship: Paraphrases on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, the Epistles of Peter and Jude, the Epistle of James, the Epistles of John, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, edited by Robert D. Sider, translated by John J. Bateman (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993), 115. 69. The editors of Erasmus’s Paraphrases argue this. See Paraphrases, 162n1 and 129–​30n7. Timmerman affirms this when he writes, “For Erasmus, the sensus spiritualis or mysticus of Scripture is primarily related to the christological message of the Old Testament” (55). Timmerman provides a very helpful account of Erasmus on prophecy (53–​57). 70. See Timmerman, 54; Erasmus, Paraphrases, 151–​52. 71. Timmerman, 54.

Introduction

17

reformers (e.g., Zwingli) echoed this connection of the gift of tongues to a definition of prophecy as interpretation of Scripture to promote the study of the biblical languages. This brief survey of definitions of the prophet and prophecy offered by key early, medieval, and late medieval Christian exegetes and theologians—​ as well as Catholics on the eve of the Protestant reformations—​demonstrates several shared tenets, while pointing to nuances and shifting emphases. On the whole, the Christian church affirmed the ongoing function of prophecy; several writers maintained the necessity of prophecy until the second coming of Christ. They generally affirmed two kinds of prophecy:  prophecy as foretelling and prophecy as divine insight into or interpretation of Scripture. In advancing these two forms of prophecy, some merged these two concepts, others emphasized the predictive element over the interpretive, and still others emphasized the prophet as the interpreter of Scripture as the primary ongoing, contemporary practice of prophecy in the church. Regardless, they accentuated the necessity of divine revelation. Supernatural knowledge was operative in both the knowledge required for foretelling future events and the knowledge required for divine insight into the hidden mysteries of Scripture. To be true prophecy, both required the work of the Holy Spirit to reveal knowl­ edge remote from the natural capacities of the human for the edification of the listeners.

Late Medieval Apocalyptic, Prophecy, and History on the Eve of the Protestant Reformations The Christian church thus affirmed the ongoing functions of prophecy as foretelling and interpretation of Scripture. Yet scholars point to the ways Augustine’s teachings served to hold in check the predictive possibilities of prophecy.72 The significant issue of the relationship between prophecy and early and medieval Christian conceptions of history came to particular prominence and a shift in application with the twelfth-​century teachings of Joachim of Fiore (1135–​1202). Prior to Joachim, Augustine’s understanding of history prevailed for several centuries. In City of God, Augustine rejected any endeavor to draw direct parallels between current historical events and biblical

72.  Augustine, City of God, 18.52–​54. McGinn and Reeves make this point. See McGinn, “Apocalypticism and Church Reform,” 2:75; Reeves, “The Development of Apocalyptic Thought,” 41.

18 Introduction

prophecies, particularly biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days.73 He instead insisted that the Incarnation—​Christ’s first advent—​was the apex of history to which all revelation pointed, negating the need for any further new revelation. Augustine consequently depicted the church after the first advent as a pilgrim journeying through the earthly city on its way to the heavenly city, which was an eschatological reality not to be obtained on this earth or in this life. As Peter Brown eloquently explains, in this view of history there are “no verbs of historical movement in the City of God, no sense of progress to aims that may be achieved in history.”74 Augustine delayed any sense of fulfillment in human history itself; fulfillment came outside of human history, in the second coming of Christ that ushered in a new age. Augustine therefore propounded a pessimistic view of history, in which the church was “God’s instrument of salvation, but it would remain an imperfect mixture of good and evil down to judgment day.”75 McGinn demonstrates that Augustine’s teachings often served to restrain apocalyptic expectation, though they did not suppress it altogether. McGinn identifies a mixture of pessimistic and optimistic views of history common in medieval times, whereby the “pessimistic pole centered on the coming persecution of the Antichrist and fear of the last judgment” and the optimistic pole centered on the “hope for an earthly thousand-​year reign of Christ and the saints.”76 He points to the Eastern Christian apocalyptic traditions’ influence on the West, particularly Eastern legends of a last Roman emperor. Eastern Christian extracanonical prophetic traditions—​often attributed to the Sybils or written under the pseudonyms of church fathers—​arose in the seventh century in response to the notable advances of Islam.77 These Eastern apocalyptic prophecies promoted the view of the Roman Empire as the force for good that would restrain the Antichrist in the Last Days. Frequently included in these prophecies was the expectation of a “Last World Emperor,” who would defeat the Antichrist and usher in a reign of peace and abundance.78 McGinn concludes, “This legend, as well as a widespread expectation

73.  Augustine, City of God, 18.52–​54; McGinn, “Apocalypticism and Church Reform,” 75; Reeves, “The Development of Apocalyptic Thought,” 41. 74. Brown, “Saint Augustine,” 11. 75. McGinn, “Apocalypticism and Church Reform,” 75. 76. McGinn, “Apocalypticism and Church Reform,” 75. 77. The Sybils were female seers in antiquity whom several church fathers affirmed as true prophetesses. See McGinn, “Prophetic Power,” 263. 78. See McGinn, “Prophetic Power,” 263–​64 and “Apocalypticism and Church Reform,” 75.

Introduction

19

that there would be a brief period allowed for repentance between the destruction of the Antichrist and judgment day, showed that not all views of the end time were pessimistic in the early medieval era.”79 Nevertheless such views existed beside strong warnings that anyone prone to giving specific predictions of the end times (especially predictions that name a specific date) should be suspected of being a false prophet. Cautions against drawing exact parallels between biblical prophecy and contemporary historical events continued to exert a restraining force.80

Joachim of Fiore (1135–​1202) and His Followers A radical shift in the possibilities of connecting biblical prophecy to human history appeared with the teachings of Joachim of Fiore in the twelfth century. Marjorie Reeves, in her groundbreaking studies on this figure, argues that in Joachim one sees the development of the “interpretation of history itself as prophecy.”81 Joachim asserted a threefold pattern in history modeled on the three Persons of the Trinity. The first stage, represented by God the Father, began with Adam and ended with the Incarnation. The second stage—​the age of God the Son—​began with the Incarnation and continued to Joachim’s own time. Joachim therefore anticipated the advent of the third stage, the age of the Holy Spirit. Such assertions produced a forward-​looking, optimistic view of history. They introduced the expectation of progress in history. Moreover, as Reeves highlights, Joachim departed “decisively from the Augustinian tradition by placing the Sabbath Age of the World and the opening of the Seventh Seal of the Church clearly within history and identifying them with his third status.”82 Notably this view of history as future-​oriented and progressive with the expectation of the next stage—​the stage of the Spirit—​occurring within human history entailed significant implications for the uses of biblical prophetic texts in reading and understanding contemporary, historical events. Joachim argued that the Old Testament scriptures provided types and figures for the New Testament. This exegetical principle translated into the enumeration of stages of history:  just as there are biblical parallels between Old Testament history (the age of God the Father) and New Testament history (the age of God the Son), so also might one employ these biblical, 79. McGinn, “Apocalypticism and Church Reform,” 75–​76. 80. McGinn, “Prophetic Power,” 262–​63. 81. Reeves, “History and Prophecy,” 53, 59. See also Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy. 82. Reeves, “The Development of Apocalyptic Thought,” 50, emphasis added.

20 Introduction

historical patterns and parallels to predict the historical patterns of the next age, of the Spirit. Joachim employed New Testament biblical prophecy (such as prophecies in the Book of Revelation) to predict historical patterns in the coming age of the Spirit.83 Consequently biblical prophetic texts served as central sources for extrapolating biblical patterns for discerning future events and stages of human history. Reeves demonstrates the alignment of Joachim’s sense of history with his multiple senses of Scripture.84 For Joachim, unveiling the hidden spiritual senses of Scripture had particularly historical implications. Directly contrary to Augustine’s rejection of aligning biblical prophetic history with contemporary events, Joachim “interpreted Scripture, and the Book of Revelation in particular, as a history of the world.”85 Joachim’s future-​oriented, optimistic vision of history—​a history whose events could be anticipated by faithful study of Christian Scripture, particularly the prophetic scriptures—​strongly shaped contemporary and subsequent understandings and practices of church reform. The typical program of church reform prior to Joachim asserted the model of the Apostolic Church as the chief guide for the reform of the church in preparation for the Last Days. For example, the Gregorian model looked primarily to the past, even as it prepared for the future.86 McGinn maintains that, in contrast, Joachim’s “imminent, perfect earthly church placed the magnet of reform in the future and not in a return to the idealized past of the apostolic age.”87 Gerald Strauss points out that Joachim’s teachings raised expectations of reform to a “higher pitch”; rather than “renovation,” his views affirmed the move of history “toward a higher state”—​an innovatio.88 Joachim further predicted the advent of a holy pope who would usher in the third age and defeat the Antichrist.89 Such

83. Reeves, “The Development of Apocalyptic Thought,” 51. McGinn writes, “Joachim was convinced that the ‘spiritual understanding’ (intellectus spiritualis) of the Bible allowed the inspired exegete to discern the parallel patterns of events, or ‘concords’ as he called them, between the Old Testament, the status or era of the Father, and the unfolding of the history of the church in the New Testament era, the time of the Son. Thus, real predictions about imminent events could be made . . . so the abbot announced an imminent third status of the Holy Spirit, an era that would fulfill the predictions of Revelation 20 about the millennium” (“Apocalypticism and Church Reform,” 79). 84. Reeves, “The Abbot Joachim’s Sense of History.” 85. Watt, “Medieval Millenarianism,” 92. 86. McGinn, “Apocalypticism and Church Reform,” 78. 87. McGinn, “Apocalypticism and Church Reform,” 79. 88. Strauss, “Ideas of Reformatio and Renovatio,” 9. 89. McGinn, “Apocalypticism and Church Reform,” 80.

Introduction

21

predictions led to expectations of an “angelic pope” and propagated multiple “pope prophecies” in its wake.90 As Strauss rightly points out, the vagueness and flexibility of Joachim’s prophecies led to a “proliferation of claimants to the role of the inaugurator of a new age.”91 Among the first of these were the Spiritual Franciscans, who viewed themselves as the “spiritual men” of the third status and thus the prophets of the third age of the Spirit.92 Joachim indeed had prophesied that two groups of “spiritual men” would arise to combat the Antichrist with prayer and preaching, which a later pseudo-​Joachite text from the 1240s, Commentary on Jeremiah, identified with the recent formation of the new Franciscan and Dominican orders. The Spiritual Franciscans further viewed St. Francis as fulfilling the role of the angel of the sixth seal in the Book of Revelation.93 They also believed that Joachim had predicted the rise of an evil emperor, whom they identified with Emperor Frederick II, who ruled from 1227 to 1250. Frederick was in an intense, public struggle with Pope Gregory IX and his successor, Pope Innocent IV. The followers of Innocent declared Frederick to be the Antichrist, and the followers of Frederick responded in kind, declaring Pope Innocent to be the Antichrist and hailing Frederick as a messianic figure. Many of the Spiritual Franciscans viewed Frederick as the Antichrist and believed he signaled the dawn of the third age, the age of the Spirit; they even named the year 1260 as the start of the third status. But Frederick died in 1250. Attempting to salvage their prophecies, they began to circulate the belief that a “Third Frederick” would arise to continue the work of the Antichrist.94 Strangely, legends concerning Frederick reemerged in Germany in the fourteenth century, except that they melded with the Eastern legends of a good “Last Emperor.”95 Rather than expecting an emperor Frederick who would finish the work of the Antichrist, Germany looked to a Frederick who would restore and renew the church. Strauss and McGinn argue that the visions 90. See Reeves, “The Development of Apocalyptic Thought,” 57–​58; Reeves, “Some Popular Prophecies.” Reeves points to Andreas Osiander’s polemical use of these prophecies against the Roman papacy in the sixteenth century, as well as his applications of the prophecies of an “angelic pope” to Martin Luther (Influence of Prophecy, 453–​54, 487 and “Some Popular Prophecies,” 122). 91. Strauss, “Ideas of Reformatio and Renovatio,” 9. 92. Strauss, “Ideas of Reformatio and Renovatio,” 9; McGinn, “Apocalypticism and Church Reform,” 89. 93. McGinn, “Apocalypticism and Church Reform,” 89–​90. 94. McGinn, “Apocalypticism and Church Reform,” 89–​91. 95. McGinn, “Apocalypticism and Church Reform,” 92.

22 Introduction

and proclamations of women prophets, such as Hildegard of Bingen (1098–​ 1179) and St. Bridget of Sweden (1303–​1373), strengthened the expectation in Germany particularly and the Christian West more broadly of a significant political or religious leader who would usher in the desired reform of the church in the Last Days.96 Such expectations and prophecies of a good, third Frederick gave rise to a number of treatises on the eve of the Protestant reformations that hailed a return to the “right order of things in the past.”97 Even Martin Luther wondered if Frederick the Wise was the fulfilment of these prophecies of a Third Frederick. For example, in the conclusion of his 1521 The Misuse of the Mass, Luther applied the prophecy of the liberation of the Holy Sepulcher by Emperor Frederick to Duke Frederick of Saxony: As a child I  often heard in the provinces a prophecy to the effect that Emperor Frederick would deliver the Holy Sepulcher. And as it is in the nature of prophecies that they are fulfilled before they are understood, so they always point to some place other than what the words themselves might indicate before the world. Hence it also seems to me that this prophecy is fulfilled in our prince, Duke Frederick of Saxony. For what other Holy Sepulcher can we understand than the Holy Scriptures, in which the truth of Christ, put to death by the papists, has lain buried.98 Even as Luther hinted at a metaphorical fulfillment of these prophecies in the figure of Frederick the Wise, still others hailed Emperor Charles V as fulfilling the prophecies of the Last Emperor.99 All of these factors—​the anticipation of an angelic pope or a last emperor and the use of the prophetic scriptures to read, even predict contemporary events—​led to a profound atmosphere of intense expectation and urgency concerning the rise of a figure who would usher in a new age of reform of the church and/​or lead the church through an impending crisis involving “a great transformation preceded by a comprehensive

96. Strauss, “Ideas of Reformatio and Renovatio,” 14; McGinn, “Apocalypticism and Church Reform,” 83–​84. McGinn also notes the role of Mechthild of Magdeburg (1208–​1282) (87). 97. Strauss discusses the 1439 Reformation of the Emperor Sigismund and the 1500 Das Buch der Hundert Kapitel und der Vierzig Statuten des sogenanten Oberrheinischen Revolutionärs (“Ideas of Reformatio and Renovatio,” 15–​16). 98.  Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke:  Kristische Gesamtausgabe, 8:561–​62, hereafter cited as WA; Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, 36:228, hereafter cited as LW. 99. Strauss, “Ideas of Reformatio and Renovatio,” 16; Reeves, “Pattern and Purpose,” 105.

Introduction

23

purification.”100 Of particular importance was the affirmation of applying prophetic biblical texts to read, understand, and even anticipate contemporary and future events. One could regard Joachim’s applications of scriptural exegesis as a merger of the views of prophecy as foretelling and prophecy as interpretation of Scripture, for he joined these two aspects to employ Scripture to illuminate future historical events in human history of the age of the Spirit. He advocated aligning Scripture’s teachings and historical patterns with contemporary historical events. We will see in ­chapters 6 and 7 that the Protestant reformers took up both of these emphases with some important nuances.101

Prophecy and Councils on the Eve of the Protestant Reformations In addition to the teachings of Lefèvre and Erasmus that clearly demonstrated ongoing Catholic affirmations of prophecy as foretelling and as interpretation of Scripture on the eve of the Protestant reformations, certain attempts to return to Catholic conciliarism in the early sixteenth century provided further insight into early-​modern Catholic views of and responses to prophecy. The schismatic Conciliabilum of Pisa (1511–​1513) and the official Fifth Lateran Council (1512–​1517) were particularly pertinent. The schismatic council of Pisa pointed to a larger atmosphere of apocalyptic expectation, as well as intense critique of the Roman papacy, especially of Pope Julius II, who was pope from 1503 to 1513. Sometimes known as “the Warrior Pope,” Julius was a soldier who aimed to unite the papal states of the Italian peninsula, particularly against King Louis XII of France’s demand for Florence and Pisa to declare their loyalty to him. Louis encouraged the convening of a schismatic council in 1511 at Pisa in opposition to Julius at precisely a location the pope could not attend.102

100. Strauss, “Ideas of Reformatio and Renovatio,” 18. Robert Lerner also points to the ripe atmosphere in Germany on the eve of the Protestant reformations when he writes, “German receptivity for sweeping religious change may have been heightened by the circulation of numerous texts that expressed dissatisfaction with the government of the Church and certainty of imminent ecclesiastical renovation” (“Medieval Prophecy and Religious Dissent,” 24). For helpful essays concerning reform and renewal on the eve of the Protestant reformations, see Izbicki and Bellitto, Reform and Renewal. 101. For example, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Bullinger applied biblical prophetic history to read contemporary events, though, as c­ hapter 6 demonstrates, they interpreted the precise content of sacred history differently. While Luther and Bullinger retained some apocalyptic possibilities, Calvin rejected these quite profoundly. 102. Landi, “Prophecy at the Time of the Council of Pisa,” 54.

24 Introduction

Julius issued a papal bull in response that deposed the schismatic council in Pisa and called for the convening of a true council of the pope—​the Fifth Lateran Council—​in April 1512. Due to France’s 1512 victory over the Papal States in the Battle of Ravenna, the Fifth Lateran Council actually convened in May 1512. Upon Julius’s death, the newly elected pope, Leo X, resumed the proceedings of the council, which concluded in March 1517. Nelson Minnich demonstrates that even as the members of the Fifth Lateran Council issued decrees that censored practices of divination and prohibited public preaching that made precise predictions of future events, they continued to affirm the possibilities of legitimate, ongoing forms and functions of prophecy.103 He argues that the council “allowed for the possibility of a true revelation from God and set up procedures for testing it before it was announced to the people.”104 He illuminates the convening of the Fifth Lateran Council against the backdrop of a significant number of prophetic preachers, most notably the prophecies of Joachim of Fiore, Amadeus of Portugal (1420–​1482), and Girolamo Savonarola (1452–​1498), as well as Egidio Antonini of Viterbo (1469–​1532), whom the next section discusses in more detail.105 Several of the bishops and cardinals attending the Fifth Lateran Council had direct ties to prophecy. For example, Bishop Giorgio Benigno Salviati affirmed the ongoing functions of prophecy and at one point defended both the prophecies of Savonarola and Amadeus.106 Another attendee at the council was Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola, who was also a public advocate of Savonarola’s teachings.107 Given the strong support for practices of prophecy evident among the members of the Fifth Lateran Council, Minnich 103. Minnich, “Prophecy and the Fifth Lateran Council,” 63, 84. 104.  Minnich, “Prophecy and the Fifth Lateran Council,” 63. Minnich cites Concilium Lateranense V generale novissimum sub Julio II et Leone X celebratum, edited by A. del Monte (Rome, 1521), 884DE, 945E, 946C–​947B. 105. Minnich, “Prophecy and the Fifth Lateran Council,” 66–​67. For more information on Amadeus of Portugal, see Morisi-​Guerra, “The Apocalypsis Nova”; A. Dominiques de Sousa Costa, “Studio critic e documenti inediti sulla vita del beato Amadeo da Silva nel quinto centenario della morte,” in Noscere sancta miscellanea in memoria di Agnostino Amore, OFM, edited by I. Vasquez Janeiro (Rome: Pontificium Athenaeum Antonianum, 1985), 101–​360. For studies of Girolamo Savonarola, see Donald Weinstein, Savonarola:  The Rise and Fall of a Renaissance Prophet (New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press, 2011); Paul Strathem, Death in Florence: The Medici, Savonarola, and the Battle for the Soul of the Renaissance City (London: Jonathan Cape, 2011); Lauro Martines, Fire in the City: Savonarola and the Struggle for Renaissance Florence (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006; Amos Edelheit, Ficino, Pico and Savonarola: The Evolution of Humanist Theology, 1461/​2–​1498 (Leiden: Brill, 2008). 106. Minnich, “Prophecy and the Fifth Lateran Council,” 70. 107. See Schmitt, “Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola.”

Introduction

25

raises the question as to why the council issued decrees concerning prophecy at all and answers it by pointing to Pope Leo X’s desire to censor the teachings of Savonarola.108 Ultimately, when Leo was unable to obtain a clear condemnation of Savonarola, he settled for the council’s more general prohibitions against certain forms of prophesying. Such decrees censored the specific prediction of future events, although the council appended statements affirming and clarifying the legitimate practices of prophecy. It specifically affirmed that a true revelation from God of future events is possible, but that the Holy See must examine such revelations before they could be publicly communicated.109 Minnich concludes, “Far from inhibiting all prophecy, the decree openly acknowledged its legitimacy and utility, citing in its support scriptural texts that seem to echo Cajetan’s commentary on Aquinas.”110 Cajetan serves as another important resource for Catholic views of prophets and prophecy on the eve of the Protestant reformations. Cajetan was a leading sixteenth-​century Catholic thinker, a cardinal and a member of the Fifth Lateran Council. Furthermore, though he was not a public supporter of Savonarola, he did not publicly condemn him but instead worked to lessen divisions surrounding Savonarola’s case. Cajetan opened the second session of the Fifth Lateran Council with a sermon that touched upon the topic of prophecy, clearly affirming the legitimate function of prophecies, visions, and revelations in the church, as well as the ongoing role of the prophet.111 He also analyzed the subject of prophets and prophecy in his commentary on Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae, affirming Aquinas’s definition of prophecy as supernatural knowledge revealed by God to the human intellect and asserting that prophecy continues to be a legitimate mode in which God chooses to reveal God’s will.112 Cajetan offered three criteria for discerning true prophecy from false. First, no true prophecy adds to the truth already revealed in Scripture; it rather reiterates, clarifies, and/​or affirms truths already revealed in Scripture. Second, no true prophecy can lead to sinful actions or beliefs or promote evil

108.  Minnich, “Prophecy and the Fifth Lateran Council,” 75. Minnich discusses Gasparo Contarini and Luca Bettini as additional defenders of Savonarola’s teachings in the midst of Pope Leo X’s unsuccessful attempts to condemn Savonarola’s teachings (“Prophecy and the Fifth Lateran Council,” 79–​80). 109.  Concilium Lateranense V, 947A–​C. See Minnich, “Prophecy and the Fifth Lateran Council,” 86. 110. Minnich, “Prophecy and the Fifth Lateran Council,” 87. 111. Concilium Lateranense V, 720E–​721A. 112. Cajetan, Summa Theologicae D. Thomae Aquinatis: sex copiossimi indices, quibus universa eius doctrina multipliciter ad certa capita revocatur . . . (Lugduni, 1581), x.366–​67, 374, 379, 383.

26 Introduction

in any way. Third, true prophecy requires confirmation by a miracle or “special testimony of Scripture” before it can be publicly proclaimed.113 In affirming these criteria Cajetan denounced several practices of prophecy current in his day, such as the claims of Amadeus of Portugal and the proclamations of Teodoro di Giovanni da Scutari of Florence.114 In sum, the pope’s attempts to pressure the Fifth Lateran Council to issue more definitive prohibitions against prophecy failed in many respects, revealing among Catholicism’s elite leadership and the laity more broadly widespread and significant affirmations of the ongoing functions of prophecy for the contemporary church. Cardinal Cajetan, a key leader of Catholic reform and opponent of Protestant reforming efforts, was prominent among those offering a robust defense of prophecy within certain proper limits.

Cardinal Egidio of Viterbo (1469–​1532) Cardinal Egidio of Viterbo offers another profound example of a Catholic leader’s use of Scripture to read contemporary historical events. According to Reeves, in the thought of Egidio one finds a fusion of the linear and cyclical views of history and the “juxtaposition of a pessimistic and an optimistic expectation.”115 The distinctive element Egidio added, argues Reeves, was his emphasis on the study of Scripture to illuminate God’s providential purposes in human history. Reeves maintains that Egidio’s theology of history “stimulated a search for divine ‘signs’ ” to “supply clues” for the interpretation of history.116 Seeking such a providential pattern for the illumination of contemporary events guided his aims in reading Scripture. Affirming the Renaissance tools of his day, he advocated the study of Hebrew and the reading of Old Testament prophecy in the original Hebrew in order to unveil the “inner meaning” of the scriptural text.117 He viewed the Hebrew Kabbalah as a significant key to the

113.  Cajetan, Summa Theologicae, x.400–​401. See also Minnich, “Prophecy and the Fifth Lateran Council,” 74. 114. Cajetan, Summa Theologicae, x.400–​401. Minnich presents the case of Teodoro in more detail (“Prophecy and the Fifth Lateran Council,” 77–​78). See also Adriano Properi, Il monaco Teodoro: note su un processo fiorentino del 1515 (D’Anna, 1975). 115. Reeves, “Cardinal Egidio of Viterbo,” 92. 116. Reeves, “Cardinal Egidio of Viterbo,” 95. 117. Reeves, “Cardinal Egidio of Viterbo,” 96–​97. For more information, see also O’Malley, Giles of Viterbo and Rome in the Renaissance. See also Reeves, “Prophecy and History: Egidio of Viterbo’s Historia Viginti Saeculorum,” in her Prophetic Sense of History, 1–​10.

Introduction

27

meaning of Scripture.118 Through his employment of Psalms 1–​20 to illuminate God’s progressive providential activities as it plays out in the history of the Roman Church, Reeves demonstrates Egidio’s belief that he was living in the time of the tenth age, when God’s revelation would be revealed most fully. He expected the unveiling of “the fullest understanding of the Scriptures” as a key sign of the Tenth Age. He also expected the fulfillment of the prophecy of John 14:26, when God sends the Holy Spirit “who will teach you everything.”119 Egidio of Viterbo therefore joined prophecy to a vision of how divine providence as revealed in Scripture becomes a key to reading contemporary historical events. He anticipated an age characterized by an “amazing opening of the Scriptures,” in which a fuller understanding of Scripture became accessible through the direct teaching of the Holy Spirit.120 This survey of views and uses of the prophet and prophecy prior to the work of the early Protestant reformers highlights several key points. First, with the caveats that there is no new prophecy beyond the revelation of Scripture and that the canon of Christian Scripture is closed, the Christian church consistently and strongly affirmed certain ongoing forms of prophecy. The church specifically affirmed prophecy as foretelling and prophecy as interpretation of Scripture. Within this dual affirmation (which usually came from the same pen), a few emphasized the predictive element (e.g., early church fathers and Lefèvre), others asserted the interpretive function as the proper ongoing practice of prophecy (e.g., Ambrosiaster, Rabanus Maurus, and Erasmus), and still others merged the two functions together in some manner (e.g., Cassiodorus, Gregory the Great, Herveus of Bourg-​Dieu, and Peter Lombard). Figures such as Augustine, Aquinas, and Cajetan tended to emphasize prophecy as supernatural knowledge given to the intellect by God—​a supernatural knowledge that could apply to either the knowledge needed for foretelling or the knowledge needed for the understanding of “divine realities,” including the interpretation of Scripture. Regardless of these nuances, prophecy as both foretelling and interpretation of Scripture was alive and well on the eve of the Protestant reformations. A second key point pertains to the relationship of prophecy—​and prophetic scriptures in particular—​to history. This survey demonstrates a significant shift from Augustine’s profound cautions against applying Scripture for direct predictions of contemporary or future historical events to increasing

118. Reeves, “Cardinal Egidio of Viterbo,” 96–​99. 119. Reeves, “Cardinal Egidio of Viterbo,” 100–​101, 101. 120. See Reeves, “Cardinal Egidio of Viterbo,” 101–​2.

28 Introduction

possibilities of employing the historical patterns in Scripture to anticipate the historical patterns of an age to come. Parallel to this was a shift from a more pessimistic view of human history to increasing expectations of a golden age toward which the Christian church progresses and concerning which the church had obligations to prepare the way through activities of reform and/​ or renewal. Prophecy occupied a significant space in articulating these expectations; biblical prophecy, even more specifically, played a crucial role in providing the content of these expectations. There were multiple forms of an expectation of a figure who would inaugurate a “new age,” including expectations of the rise of “spiritual men,” an “angelic pope,” or a “Last Emperor.” Joachim of Fiore and Egidio of Viterbo similarly promoted practices of reading scriptural prophetic texts precisely to anticipate and identify this dawn of the third status of the Spirit. Notable here was the anticipation of the opening of the Scriptures in the age of the Spirit, where the Holy Spirit made available a fuller understanding of Scripture. Also notable was the specific tool of divine providence in Scripture as the key to applying Scripture’s capacity to read and interpret contemporary historical events. As the subsequent chapters explore, the Protestant reformers adopted several of these elements and reshaped them to serve distinctly Protestant goals.

Scope, Outline, Method, and Key Arguments of This Book One can imagine the ways in which the anticipation of a figure who would inaugurate an age of reform and the expectation of an age of the Spirit in which a fuller understanding of Scripture would be made accessible to all prepared ground for many of the emphases of the Protestant reformers. Yet to date there has not been a study that provides a chronological and developmental analysis of the significance of the prophet and biblical prophecy across the work of leading Protestant reformers. There are several studies on understandings of prophecy in the work of a single figure, such as the recent book by Timmerman on Heinrich Bullinger and books by Balserak on John Calvin. These studies, among others, also tend to focus on the figure’s “prophetic self-​awareness” or the prophetic attributions given to a single figure.121 There are some significant studies concerning the broader role of apocalyptic prophecy in the Protestant reformations, particularly in the German Reformation, most notably Robin

121. For examples, see Kolb, Martin Luther as Prophet; Opitz, Ulrich Zwingli; Balserak, John Calvin and Establishing the Remnant Church; Timmerman, Heinrich Bullinger on Prophecy.

Introduction

29

Bruce Barnes’s Prophecy and Gnosis.122 I present in The Reformation of Prophecy the compelling case for viewing the prophet and biblical prophecy as lenses that illuminate many aspects of the reforming work of the Protestant reformers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Touching briefly upon apocalyptic aspects of prophecy at certain points, I focus primarily upon the Protestant reformers’ uses of nonapocalyptic biblical prophecy and understandings of the prophet. I precisely provide just such a chronological and developmental analysis of the uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy across the work of Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, Oecolampadius, Calvin, Farel, Bucer, Zell, and Melanchthon, as well as figures of the next generation, such as Selnecker, Hunnius, Osiander, Gwalther, Grynaeus, Beza, Pareus, and Daneau. Through a focus on the Protestant reformers’ uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy (rather than prophetic self-​awareness or prophetic attributions), a rich variety of uses emerges directly shaped by the particular questions and pressures of the various contexts to which each Protestant reformer responded. Many of these uses crossed confessional lines, but as the second half of the book highlights, views and uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy increasingly became a site of interconfessional polemic and thus a site of confessional distinction and identity formation. By “uses” I have in mind the Protestant reformers’ uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy to promote a theology of the priesthood of all believers, a biblical vision of the reform of worship, a biblical model of the pastoral office, and biblical processes for discerning right interpretation of Scripture. Perhaps most significant, the Protestant reformers employed the prophet and biblical prophecy to frame their reforming work under, within, and in support of the authority of Scripture—​for the true prophet speaks the Word of God alone and calls the people, their worship, and their beliefs and practices back to the Word of God.

Outline of Chapters Chapter 1 begins with the early shared use of the prophet and biblical prophecy among leading Protestant reformers to articulate a theology of the priesthood of all believers. It traces the uses of prophecy by Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, Martin Bucer, and Matthew Zell to buttress their work, in which they especially employed applications of I  Corinthians 14 to argue that all Christians are called to proclaim God’s Word, interpret Scripture, and discern right teaching. The Protestant reformers employed prophetic texts in

122. See also Irena Backus’s Reformation Readings of the Apocalypse.

30 Introduction

this context in response to particular Roman Catholic pressures. For example, they applied prophetic texts to refute Roman Catholic distinctions between the spiritual and temporal estates and reject the Roman Catholic tendency to locate the task of biblical interpretation primarily (if not solely) within the ordained priesthood. By defining a true prophet as one who proclaims and interprets the Word of God alone, the prophet and prophecy served as tools in the Protestant reformers’ hands simultaneously to reject Roman Catholic authority and assert the prime authority of Scripture. Protestant reformers deployed prophecy to spurn Roman Catholic conceptions of the priesthood and identify Roman Catholic leaders as false prophets. They further asserted that since all Christians have access to the Holy Spirit, all Christians have what is necessary to interpret Scripture and discern its right interpretation. Most notable was Luther’s and Zwingli’s use of a text on prophecy (I Corinthians 14) to assert these profound affirmations of the priesthood of all believers. The remainder of the chapter therefore explores the ways that lay pamphleteers, particularly several female pamphleteers (Argula von Grumbach, Ursula Weyda, and Katharina Schütz Zell), took up these uses of the prophet and prophecy to defend their call to proclaim God’s Word, interpret Scripture, and rebuke wrong teaching precisely on prophetic grounds. Chapter  2 demonstrates a significant reshaping of understandings and uses of prophecy by the leading Protestant reformers in response to a different set of contextual pressures proffered by radical and specifically Anabaptist and Spiritualist conceptions and uses of prophecy. It begins with an account of the radicals’ embrace of a prophetic conception of the priesthood of all believers in the cities of Wittenberg, Zurich, and Strasbourg. Several of these radical groups delineated different performances of prophecy that emphasized its visionary, ecstatic forms and even affirmed the possibility of new revelation above and beyond Scripture. The chapter explores several of these differing views and uses of prophecy, such as those espoused by Andreas Karlstadt, Gabriel Zwilling, the Zwickau Prophets, Thomas Müntzer, Swiss Anabaptists, Melchior Hoffman, Balthasar Hubmaier, Hans Denck, Caspar Schwenckfeld, and Pilgram Marpeck. It then demonstrates how Luther, Zwingli, and Bucer (in Wittenberg, Zurich, and Strasbourg, respectively) sought to cast these characters as “false prophets.” In direct response to these radical threats, Luther and Zwingli reframed their views of the prophet and prophecy in a number of crucial ways: they tightened the parameters of lay participation in the interpretation of Scripture, they defined true prophecy by its strict adherence to Scripture and its authority (thereby denying any possibility of “new revelation”), and they increasingly identified the “prophet” more closely with the Protestant pastoral office.

Introduction

31

Chapters  3, 4, and 5 trace the shifting uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy as they relate to the goal of strengthening Protestant clerical identity and authority. Chapter 3 describes how Luther and Zwingli identified the prophet and the prophetic office with the pastoral-​preaching office in order to strengthen and establish Protestant clerical authority, advance the prime authority of Scripture, and promote a biblical vision of worship reform. Chapter 4 argues that the work of Bullinger in particular but also that of Calvin signaled a significant shift away from a focus on the office of the prophet to a focus on prophetic duties. Both Bullinger and Calvin identified these prophetic duties more closely with the teaching office and the work of the biblical interpreter rather than the pastoral office per se. They not only subsumed prophetic duties within the teaching office; they also more clearly affirmed that prophecy itself (as an office) had ceased. Their accounts consequently exhibit an increasing eclipse of explicit prophetic terminology, even as they continued robustly to employ prophetic texts to promote a biblical vision of worship and to illuminate the key tasks of ministers. Chapter 5 traces these developments into the next generation of Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Reformed leaders. Lutheran and Reformed leaders alike increasingly identified prophetic functions (rather than the office) within the ordinary teaching office. They exhibited a number of significant confessional crossovers, such as their shared definitions of the prophet as interpreter of Scripture, their shared definitions of true worship as that which adheres to the Word of God, and their shared uses of the prophet and prophetic texts to strengthen and ground Protestant clerical authority firmly within the authority of Scripture and to illuminate the key tasks of the Protestant pastor. The chapter concludes by pointing to the increasing polemical uses of the exegesis of biblical prophecy. The final chapters focus more specifically on the ways in which exegesis of biblical prophecy increasingly became a site of confessional distinction, polemics, and identity formation around matters of both theological content and exegetical methods. Confessional polemics flared up over identifications of the proper content of sacred history, practices of Christological exegesis of Old Testament prophecy, and the functions of Old Testament metaphors. Chapter 6 explores Luther, the Swiss Reformed (i.e., Oecolampadius, Zwingli, and Bullinger), and Calvin’s differing definitions of the sacred history revealed in the books of the Old Testament prophets. Chapter  7 traces these confessional distinctions in the next generation of exegetes. Luther viewed these books as exhibiting two discrete histories: the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah and historical prophecies of Christ and Christ’s kingdom. Luther insisted that the reader must methodologically distinguish between these two histories, giving priority to the Christological history and reading.

32 Introduction

Reformed exegetes, on the other hand, located a single, unified history in the Old Testament prophets, in which the history of the prophet’s own time serves as a mirror of God’s covenantal (Bullinger) and/​or providential (Calvin) activity with the church across the ages. Methodologically, Reformed exegetes prioritized the original history of the prophetic author to illuminate the possible analogies for the church in any age. Chapter  8 focuses on the significant differences between Lutheran and Calvinist methods of Christological exegesis of Old Testament prophecy, in which understandings of the function of metaphor in Old Testament prophecy emerged as an important point of confessional difference. In the end, variances between Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Reformed theologians concerning definitions of sacred history, practices of Christological exegesis, and functions of metaphor in interpretations of Old Testament prophecy demonstrate the ways in which exegetical matters significantly contributed to the formation and consolidation of distinctive confessional identities.

Method and Central Arguments The Reformation of Prophecy employs a methodology focused on the uses of a biblical concept—​the prophet—​and of a certain set of biblical texts on prophecy, particularly in the Old Testament. The arc of the book’s analysis ultimately points to the uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy to strengthen and clarify confessional identities. Within that overarching objective there were other significant, multiple uses. Such an attention to the uses of the biblical concept of the prophet and the texts of biblical prophecy involves excavating the linguistic and social contexts these uses inhabit. That is, it recognizes that any given concept, term, or text inhabits a particular linguistic and social context at any given point, time, and place. Hence, as Quentin Skinner argues, “There can be no histories of concepts as such; there can only be histories of their uses in argument.”123 By exploring the linguistic and social contexts of the uses of prophet and prophecy and biblical prophetic texts in the sixteenth

123. Quentin Skinner, “A Reply to My Critics,” in Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics, edited by James Tully (Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 1988), 283. For key texts that have informed my method, see Quentin Skinner, Visions of Politics, vol. 1, Regarding Method (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002) and other chapters in Meaning and Context. Helpful critiques of Skinner’s method beyond those offered in Meaning and Context include Roland Barthes, Image/​Music/​Text, translated by Stephen Heath (New York: Hill & Wang, 1977), 146–​48; Michel Foucault, “What Is an Author?” Screen 20 (1979), 13–​33; Elizabeth Clark, History, Theory Text:  Historians and the Linguistic Turn (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004).

Introduction

33

and early seventeenth centuries, The Reformation of Prophecy focuses particularly upon the ideological uses of these concepts and texts to promote particular aims—​to articulate and promote the priesthood of all believers, a concept of biblical authority, a particular vision of proper worship, a particular confessional identity, or certain understandings of clerical identity and authority. Therefore the book is centered on what the Protestant reformers were doing with the prophet, prophecy, and biblical prophetic texts, especially attending to their particular vocabularies and uses in response to particular contexts, such as contexts of iconoclasm and concern for worship, responses to the radicals and/​or laity, promotion of biblical authority, polemics with Catholics and Anabaptists, and pressures of demarcating distinctive confessional identities. The book also aims to press this Skinnerian methodology further in ways that are complementary, not contrary, to it. Namely, while excavating what an author aimed to do in writing a text in a given time and place, The Reformation of Prophecy also attends to readers in a certain time and place and particular moments of reception history, such as the reception of the Protestant reformers’ teachings by certain laypersons, women, and radicals in a given moment of the sixteenth century, as well as the reception of the Protestant reformers’ teachings by the next generation of Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Reformed theologians. Beyond providing a thick description of the Protestant reformers’ uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy as shaped by various contexts, this book makes several key arguments. First, some scholars note the central importance of the Old Testament prophets and their writings for certain Protestant reformers’ self-​understandings, but many have not attended fully enough to the Protestant reformers’ uses of these to depict themselves as speaking the Word of God alone and not their own word; locate themselves within a biblical tradition of exhortation, rebuke, edification, and consolation; distinguish between true and false prophets; and read contemporary events through the lens of Old Testament prophecy. Such studies also often have not attended to the ways in which specifically the prophet and biblical prophecy served as a powerful tool in the hands of the Protestant reformers to articulate a theology of the priesthood of all believers, promote a biblical vision of Protestant worship, strengthen Protestant clerical identity and authority, and provide biblical models for practices of discerning right interpretation of Scripture. I argue that the Protestant reformers’ employment of the prophet and biblical prophecy enabled them to articulate their reformational teachings within the crucial framework of Scripture’s prime authority. By defining the prophet precisely as one who speaks the Word of God and not his or her own word, the Protestant reformers could encourage laypersons to proclaim and interpret

34 Introduction

Scripture (so long as it was God’s Word and not their own), promote worship that adhered to God’s Word alone, ground and discipline clerical authority by its accordance with Scripture, and provide a framework for discerning right biblical interpretation by its adherence to the clear teachings of Scripture. Finally, this book demonstrates the ways exegesis of biblical prophecy informed and shaped Protestant conceptions and applications of sacred history and methods of biblical interpretation, particularly Christological exegesis and the interpretation of Old Testament metaphors. Since early Protestants found the prophetic books of the Bible especially rich in reading their own historical contexts, these books were particularly crucial to shaping Protestant conceptions of history. And significant differences emerged concerning understandings of history and methods of biblical interpretation among the Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Reformed interpreters that played an important role in the formation of distinct confessional identities. In sum, the book illuminates the significant shifts in the history of Protestant reformers’ engagement with the prophet and biblical prophecy—​from serving as a tool to advance the priesthood of all believers to a tool to clarify and buttress clerical identity and authority to a site of polemical-​confessional exchange concerning right interpretations of Scripture.

1

Prophecy and the Priesthood of All Believers

Martin Luther has long been recognized for his groundbreaking teachings on the priesthood of all believers. Scholars often credit him for transforming the understanding of vocation in the sixteenth century, for up until his time a religious vocation was considered exclusive to those who officially joined a religious order.1 Luther argued that every Christian has a calling, and every Christian is part of the universal priesthood by virtue of his or her baptism. Many studies focus on I Peter 2:9 (“you are a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you”) as a foundational text for Luther’s theology of the priesthood of all believers.2 Some of Luther’s earliest pronouncements of the priesthood of all believers, however, circled just as much, if not more, around a different biblical text:  Paul’s teachings concerning the gift and practice of prophecy in I  Corinthians 14. This may at first appear surprising, unusual, or even implausible, which may be a factor

Portions of this chapter have been reworked and expanded from the following published articles: “Scripture, the Priesthood of All Believers, and Applications of I Corinthians 14,” in The People’s Book: The Reformation and the Bible, edited by Jennifer Powell McNutt and David Lauber (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), 33–​51 and “Three Early Female Protestant Reformers’ Appropriation of Prophecy as Interpretation of Scripture,” Church History 84, no. 1 (2015): 90–​123. 1. For studies on Luther’s concept of vocation and the priesthood of all believers, see Preus, “Luther on the Universal Priesthood”; Klug, “Luther on the Ministry”; Nagel, “Luther and the Priesthood of All Believers”; Bernhard, “The Priesthood of All Believers”; Wriedt, “Luther on Call and Ordination”; Kolb, “Called to Milk Cows.” 2.  Preus, “Luther on the Universal Priesthood,” 56–​57; Nagel, 282–​85, 287, 289, 291–​93; Kolb, “Called to Milk Cows,” 138.

36

The Reformation of Prophecy

in why so many studies of Luther’s teachings on Christian vocation and the priesthood of all believers have overlooked the prominence of this text in his early accounts.3 This chapter demonstrates the manifold ways that the figure of the prophet and a certain conception of prophecy served as a vibrant tool in the hands of the Protestant reformers, starting with a profound advocacy of the priesthood of all believers precisely in prophetic terms. Thus I offer two correctives to most of the existing literature: first, I maintain that one must attend to the prophetic contours of the early Protestant reformers’ conceptions of the priesthood of all believers; second, too much of the literature has focused on Luther’s teachings of the priesthood of all believers without enough attention to the parallel work of Huldrych Zwingli, Martin Bucer, and Matthew Zell. I Corinthians 14 specifically, and conceptions of prophecy more generally, featured prominently in not just Luther’s teachings on the priesthood of all believers but also in those of Zwingli, Bucer, and Zell. A new application of prophecy was afoot, and it began with empowering the laity actively to engage Scripture—​to preach God’s Word, interpret Scripture, and judge the validity of another’s teachings by their adherence to Scripture. As this chapter demonstrates, early Protestant reformers defined prophecy as the gift of interpreting Scripture, as the act of interpreting the Word of God—​an act they insisted was open to and incumbent upon all Christians. Beyond these early applications of I  Corinthians 14, Protestant reformers turned to the concept of prophecy more broadly to empower the laity, center lay engagement on Scripture, and locate authority in Scripture alone. If up to now scholars have missed the prominence of the prophet and the particular Protestant applications of prophecy at work in the early advocacy for the priesthood of all believers by Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, and Zell, the laypersons who heard their calls did not. The second half of this chapter therefore gives an account of the reception of the teachings of Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, and Zell, with particular attention to the prophetic elements at play in the surge of lay pamphlets that appeared in southwest Germany from 1520 to 1525.

3. Preus, Nagel, and Kolb do not mention the role of I Corinthians 14 in Luther’s arguments at all. Wriedt refers to I Corinthians 14 only in Luther’s later calls for the necessity of public order in ministry (“Luther on Call and Ordination,” 262). Klug points to Luther’s teaching in his later lectures on Genesis that “the name ‘prophet’ belongs equally to all Christians” (LW 3:364; WA 43:136), but he says nothing about the significance of I  Corinthians 14 (and the prophet and prophecy) in Luther’s earlier 1520s teachings on the priesthood of all believers (296).



Prophecy and the Priesthood of All Believers

37

Prophecy and Calls for the Priesthood of All Believers In the opening of his 1520 appeal to the German nobility Luther proclaimed, “The time for silence is past, and the time to speak has come. . . . I am carrying out our intention to put together a few points on the matter of the reform of the Christian estate, to be laid before the Christian nobility of the German nation, in the hope that God may help his church through the laity, since the clergy, to whom this task more properly belongs, have grown quite indifferent.”4 From the outset Luther emphasized the participation of laypersons. The problem, he asserted, is that the Roman Catholics have disempowered the laity with their teachings of separate spiritual and temporal estates and their claims that only the pope can interpret Scripture for the church and only the pope can call a church council. On the contrary, all Christians have priestly functions through baptism, the first and foremost of which is the interpretation of Scripture—​a point he supported with a text pertaining to prophecy, I Corinthians 14:5 St. Paul says in I  Corinthians 14, “If something better is revealed to anyone, though he is already sitting and listening to another in God’s Word, then the one who is speaking shall hold his peace and give place.” What would be the point of this commandment if we were compelled to believe only the man who does the talking or the man who is at the top? Even Christ said in John 6 that all Christians shall be taught by God. If it were to happen that the pope and his cohorts were wicked and not true Christians, were not taught by God and were without understanding, and at the same time some obscure person had a right understanding, why should the people not follow the obscure person?  .  .  .  Therefore, their claim that only the pope may interpret Scripture is an outrageous fancied fable.6 Similarly in On the Misuse of the Mass (1521), Luther again turned to this Pauline text to argue for the calling of all Christians to preach and interpret God’s Word.7 Turning upside down the use of the claim that “all things should

4. LW 44:123; WA 6:404. 5. WA 6:406–​7; LW 44:126–​27. 6. LW 44:134; WA 6:411. 7. WA 8:491–​92; LW 36:145.

38

The Reformation of Prophecy

be done decently and in order” (I Corinthians 14:40) to dismiss lay preaching for its disorderliness, Luther pointed out that such calls for order are needed only because lay preaching is commanded. The text therefore gives “to everyone the right and power to weigh and decide” about proper preaching and interpretation of Scripture.8 In Concerning the Ministry (1523) he similarly appeals to I Corinthians 14 (“you can all prophesy one by one” [v. 31]) to emphasize the interpretation of Scripture and rebuke wrong teaching as part of the priesthood of all Christians.9 Luther interpreted the statement “If a revelation is made to someone else sitting nearby, let the first person be silent” (14:30) directly against Rome, writing, “[Is] the Church of Rome a mistress of the churches and the articles of faith? All right, let her sit and teach and be a mistress; yet here she is commanded to be silent if a revelation is made to one sitting by. Not only she, but each of us, one by one may prophesy, says Paul, a master and corrector even of Peter when he acted insincerely.”10 In this fashion Luther made a double attack against Rome: first through his deployment of I  Corinthians 14 to identify Rome as the one who should be silent and, second, through the example of Paul’s rebuke of Peter—​the very symbol of papal power. Luther therefore linked his early teachings concerning the priesthood of all believers with Paul’s teachings concerning prophesying. He explicitly included laypersons in the prophesying activities of the church—​activities centered upon interpretation of Scripture rather than an understanding of prophecy as visionary, ecstatic, or foretelling. Such convictions reinforced his insistence that the church is defined by its proper relationship to God’s Word. In The Misuse of the Mass, Luther maintained, “It is not God’s Word just because the church speaks it; rather, the church comes into being because God’s Word is spoken. The church does not constitute the Word, but is constituted by the Word.”11 Immediately thereafter he pointed to the necessity of prophesying in the church—​a prophesying open to all and not just ordained clergy.12 God’s Word must be proclaimed and heard, and the whole

8. WA 8:495–​96; LW 36:149–​50. 9. WA 12:181; LW 40:22–​23. See also WA 12:188, 190, 191; LW 40:32–​33, 36. 10. LW 40:37–​38; WA 12:192. 11. LW 36:144–​45; WA 8:491–​92. 12. Luther wrote, “How can we ourselves know where the church is, if we do not hear her prophesying and the witness of the Spirit? It is certain that the church and those in whom God truly dwells do prophesy; but it is uncertain where the church is that is capable of prophesying unless it does actually prophesy” (LW 36:145; WA 8:492).



Prophecy and the Priesthood of All Believers

39

community must participate in this proclamation and hearing for there to be a true church. Luther’s early 1520s treatises consequently set forth a vision of prophecy focused on the proclamation and interpretation of Scripture that steadfastly argued for the role of laypersons, a role that he distinctly cast in not only priestly but also prophetic attire. Zwingli asserted the inseparable tie between the priesthood of all believers and active engagement with God’s Word in a similar manner, defining the church by its right relationship with the Word of God. In “Reply to Emser” (1524), he maintained that the true sheep know the voice of the Shepherd, concluding, “Therefore, those who hear are God’s sheep, are the church of God, and cannot err; for they follow the Word only of God, which can in no wise deceive.”13 In other words, the church is constituted by God’s Word. He also drew upon the concept of prophecy and I  Corinthians 14 in particular to expound teachings concerning the priesthood of all believers and the call for all to interpret Scripture and discern right teachings. For example, in his 1522 reply to the Bishop of Constance, Zwingli rejected the claim that only the priest may interpret Scripture authoritatively, for Paul counseled that any may prophesy in order “that all may learn the truth of the Scriptures.”14 He asserted that the more unskilled the person, the clearer it is that the Holy Spirit is at work.15 Appealing again to I Corinthians 14, he declared in his 1522 sermon on the clarity and certainty of God’s Word that the apostle Paul “admits that even the lowliest can speak on Scripture when the leading prophets—​that is, teachers—​have missed the truth, so long as he is inspired by God.”16 In these ways Zwingli accentuated the role of the Holy Spirit both to enable anyone to interpret Scripture and also to discern right teaching from wrong. He also emphasized the principle in John 6:45 (“they shall all be taught by God”) that all Christians are taught directly by God through the mediation of the Holy Spirit.17 Zwingli reasserted both the emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit and the rejection of the Roman Catholic claim that only ordained priests can interpret Scripture for the church in his “Reply to Emser.” He turned again to

13. CR 90:259; “Reply to Emser,” in Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 373. 14. CR 88:321; Zwingli, “Archeteles,” in Ulrich Zwingli, 283–​84. 15. CR 88:321–​22; Zwingli, “Archeteles,” 284. 16.  CR 88:382; “Of the Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God” in Zwingli and Bullinger:  Selected Translations, Library of Christian Classics, vol. 24, translated by G. W. Bromiley (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), 93. 17. CR 88:366; “Of the Clarity and Certainty,” 79.

40

The Reformation of Prophecy

I  Corinthians 14:29–​32 to argue that it belongs to all, including the laity, to interpret Scripture and discern right doctrine: Here we see clearly that the Word of God was once treated in a manner far different from that of today. For not only those who belonged to the order of prophets, but also the people generally, those sitting on the benches, were permitted to speak in the church concerning the Word that the Spirit had revealed. If this custom had never died out, so many errors would never have been introduced into the church of Christ, for there are always persons who through the Heavenly Spirit detect deceitful pretense on the part of one who is teaching, and when this has been exposed the Word is freed from violent distortion.18 Zwingli thereby contended that the Roman Catholic Church had allowed error to enter through its insistence that only ordained priests as the “order of prophets” could proclaim the Word of God. A  further problem was that such prophets refused to heed these other persons who are led by the Holy Spirit—​a refusal inconsistent with the practice of true prophecy, for “the spirit of prophets are subject to prophets” (I Corinthians 14:32). Zwingli thus employed Paul’s instructions concerning prophecy to bolster his teachings of the priesthood of all believers, consequently casting—​much like Luther—​the layperson’s participation in prophetic terms. He accentuated much more explicitly and frequently than Luther, however, that such interpretation of Scripture and discernment are not the work of human skill but solely the work of the Spirit, for he insisted, “The faithful judges not by his own judgment, but by that of the Divine Spirit.”19 In 1523 Martin Bucer and Matthew Zell espoused teachings similar to those of Luther and Zwingli. Bucer echoed Luther in his 1523 Das Ym Selbs in his rejection of the distinction between the spiritual and temporal estates of persons and added an emphasis on the important duty of Christian love: “No distinction is valid, that one person should be called spiritual and another secular among believers. . . . All Christians are one and neither birth nor individual characteristics nor even distinction between sexes matters. . . . Whoever has a strong faith that is active in love is the spiritual person.”20 Bucer tied the theme of love of neighbor to the duties of laypersons to speak the truth and

18. CR 90:262; “Reply to Emser,” 375. 19. CR 90:263; “Reply to Emser,” 376–​77. 20. Martin Bucer, Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften, 1:321, henceforth cited as BDS.



Prophecy and the Priesthood of All Believers

41

rebuke falsehood as part of their practice of the priesthood of all believers. In Summary seiner Predig (1523), he also affirmed that all believers have access to the Holy Spirit through whom they are called to test all teachings, writing, “Do not let yourselves be turned aside, as if you were not permitted to have the Holy Spirit and thus could not read anything in the Holy Gospels and other divine writings, nor test and judge the preaching and teaching carried out for you. . . . If you believe in Christ, you are his, you have his Spirit, you are spiritual, you have all things to judge and test.”21 Bucer set forth a process for lay participation in the priesthood of all believers and congregational life directly modeled upon I Corinthians 14:29–​32, in which every Christian is called to test the teaching they hear through the process of two or three believers standing up to interpret Scripture and discern right teaching.22 Bucer thereby also based the connections between empowering laypersons to interpret Scripture and rebuke wrong doctrine with I Corinthians 14’s model of congregational prophesying. The popular Strasbourg preacher Matthew Zell proclaimed similar viewpoints in his 1523 writings, also casting these duties in prophetic terms and maintaining that God often employed laypersons to rebuke corrupt leaders and preach the Word correctly. In Christeliche Verantwortung (1523), he states, “What is a right and true calling but that the Spirit of God—​that is, a just zeal concerning the dishonor of God and the leading astray of his people—​ drives one so that he takes God’s Word in his mouth and to God’s honor fights against his enemies? . . . It could be understood from this that everyone should be allowed to preach . . . although strangely, we do not like it when a layperson arises to preach, which is never prohibited, much rather permitted.”23 Very likely with the text of I Corinthians 14 in mind, Zell identified those who interpret and proclaim God’s Word as prophets and applied the identification of “prophet” to the layperson who refuses to remain silent in the face of wrong teaching.24 Accordingly, in their articulations of a theology of the priesthood of all believers, Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, and Zell cast the priestly duties of all Christians to interpret and proclaim Scripture, discern true doctrine, and rebuke wrongdoing in a notably prophetic light, with a strong emphasis on the guidance and work of the Holy Spirit.

21. BDS 1:82, 83. 22. BDS 5:27, 1:130, 2:127–​28, 447, 451; 3:109; 4:272. 23.  Zell, Christeliche Verantwortung, y3r–​v, e1r–​v, henceforth cited as CV. This translation comes from Stafford, Domesticating the Clergy, 251–​52n85. 24. CV, y2v, a2v, y3r–​v, e1r–​v, a3r–​v.

42

The Reformation of Prophecy

Prophecy’s Definition and Significance: Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, and Zell Prophecy, then, was central to Luther’s, Zwingli’s, Bucer’s, and Zell’s conceptions of the priesthood of all believers in their early 1520s vernacular treatises. They defined prophecy as interpretation and proclamation of Scripture—​a definition that particularly served their purpose of condemning what they viewed as papal tyranny over biblical interpretation. The significance of prophecy for these leading male reformers took additional forms. For one, they read contemporary events through the lens of biblical prophecy, particularly the Old Testament prophets. They often distinguished between true and false prophets by defining a true prophet as one who faithfully proclaims God’s Word. They thereby simultaneously denounced their opponents and asserted the primacy of Scripture. While reading contemporary events through the lens of Old Testament prophecy and distinguishing between true and false prophets were activities these reformers performed across their lifetimes, they were strikingly evident in their early 1520s vernacular treatises. Luther and Zell in particular employed the prophets to interpret the events of their time. For example, in his 1520 appeal to the German nobility, Luther likened the peril of the youth of his day to that described in Jeremiah 2:11–​12.25 In The Misuse of the Mass, he compared the idolatry of Jeremiah’s time with the rampant idolatry under the rule of the pope and paralleled the ungodly priesthoods of Baal and Molech with the mendicants and the universities, respectively.26 Toward the conclusion of this treatise, Luther paralleled the work of the Wittenberg reformers to Hezekiah’s and Isaiah’s aims to restore true worship.27 He also aligned the Roman leadership of his day with the sins of unfaithful Israel.28 Zell similarly evoked the example of Elijah to defend the authority of lay prophets. Just as Elijah needed no authorization from King Ahab, lay prophets do not require endorsement from any church hierarchy to perform their ministries.29 Zell also pointed to the way God called the Old Testament prophets to argue that God has always called prophets from among

25. WA 6:461; LW 44:206. 26. WA 8:539, 555–​59; LW 36:200, 220–​25. 27. WA 8:561; LW 36:227. 28.  WA 6:405–​6, 8:494; LW 44:125, 36:147. Luther exclaimed, “This is the madness of the people of Israel, against which all the prophets cry out with one accord, that they have worshiped God according to their own pleasure” (LW 36:147). 29. CV, y3r–​v.



Prophecy and the Priesthood of All Believers

43

the laity when the traditional structures and institutions for proclaiming and maintaining God’s Word fall short.30 Distinguishing between true and false prophets served a significant function for each of these leading male reformers, enabling them to promote Scripture as the prime authority and standard by which to gauge faithful teaching. For example, in Christeliche Verantwortung (1523), Zell argued that just as one determines a true prophet by the closeness of his message to the words of Scripture, so also one measures a true minister by his correct adherence to God’s Word.31 Bucer likewise insisted that one differentiates between true and false prophets by testing their accordance with Scripture.32 Zwingli identified false prophets as those who uphold human teaching rather than the Word of God.33 These early Protestant reformers simultaneously reasserted the authority of Scripture and challenged Roman Catholic leadership, for they identified Roman Catholic leaders as departing from the Word of God and holding to too many human innovations. Luther therefore sharply classified Roman Catholic leaders as false teachers and prophets who lead the people away from Scripture, of whom Scripture itself warned.34 He proclaimed in The Misuse of the Mass that his grievance with Roman Catholic leaders was not their immorality (though they are guilty of this) but because they have endangered people’s salvation through their false teachings. “They are ravenous wolves,” Luther wrote, “instead of shepherds.”35 In summary, the prophet and prophecy were significant tools of the early Protestant reformers for issuing the call of the priesthood of all believers, rejecting Roman Catholic conceptions of the priesthood, and asserting the primacy of Scripture. They found that I Corinthians 14 provided both a biblical mandate and a model of lay participation in the priestly duties of interpretation of Scripture and the discernment of faithful teaching. Old Testament prophetic texts also served as a mirror in which to read their times and denounce Roman Catholic leaders and their teachings.

30. Stafford, 35–​37. 31. CV, e2v–​e3r. 32. BDS 2:127–​28. 33. CR 88:384; “Of the Clarity and Certainty,” 94. 34. WA 6:409, 414; 8:502, 547, 552; LW 44:131, 138; 36:158, 210, 216. 35.  WA 8:546, 547; LW 36:209, 210. Luther followed this by identifying Roman Catholic leadership as not just false teachers and false prophets but as in line with the priests of Baal and Molech.

44

The Reformation of Prophecy

Lay Embrace of the Priesthood of All Believers and Prophecy The call for the priesthood of all believers by Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, and Zell did not go unheeded. The striking surge of lay pamphleteers from 1521 to 1525 indicates the intense response to such exhortations—​a response Bernd Moeller traces to the German towns and territories that were most directly influenced by Luther and Zwingli, particularly the cities of Wittenberg, Nuremberg, and Strasbourg.36 Given the parallel teachings of Bucer and Zell in Strasbourg, one should also point to their impact.37 Paul Russell and Miriam Chrisman analyze this outpouring of lay pamphlets, especially in the region of southwest Germany, underscoring these lay authors’ appeals to their call to read Scripture and to correct false teachings.38 Laypersons thus directly answered the exhortations of Luther and Zwingli—​and Bucer and Zell—​in a strong affirmative. Chrisman in particular points to the lay concern for right teaching and the laity’s newly discovered sense of duty to correct false teachings. She argues that there was a notable shift in the content of lay-​authored pamphlets at this time, from a focus on the clergy’s immorality to a focus on matters of doctrine, in which the lay authors accused the Roman Catholic clergy of misleading the people with false teachings.39 Laymen such as Clement Ziegler, Eckhard zum Treubel, Sebastian Lotzer, Hans Greiffenberger, Haug Marschalk, and Utz Rychsner published pamphlets that emphasized their right to the public proclamation of God’s Word.40 Lotzer (seemingly echoing Luther and Zell) contended in a 1524 pamphlet that laypersons must preach because of the failure of the clergy to do so.41 Zwingli’s emphasis on the access all Christians have to the Holy Spirit did not go unnoticed, particularly by the writers Greiffenberger and Marschalk.42 36. Moeller, “What Was Preached,” 41–​42. 37.  Miriam Chrisman attends briefly to the influence of the Strasbourg reformers on lay pamphleteers from 1521 to 1525. See “Lay Response,” 38–​39, 49. 38.  Russell, “ ‘Your Sons and Daughters,’ ” 128–​ 29 and Lay Theology. Chrisman, “Lay Response,” 36 and Conflicting Visions of Reform, 159–​78. 39. Chrisman, “Lay Response,” 36–​37. 40. Chrisman, “Lay Response,” 45, 50–​51; Russell, Lay Theology, 91, 143. See, for examples, Treubel, Ein Vetterliche, Diiia–​b; Lotzer, Ayn außlegung, Aiia; Greiffenberger, Ein trostliche Ermanung, Avb–​Avia; Rychsner, Ain Gesprechbüchlin, Civa. 41. See Russell, Lay Theology, 96. 42. Greiffenberger Die Weltt sagt, aiii; Haug Marschalk, Ein Spiegel der blinden, Aiib; Russell, Lay Theology, 133, 164–​65; Chrisman, “Lay Response,” 44–​45.



Prophecy and the Priesthood of All Believers

45

These lay pamphleteers equally embraced their call to interpret Scripture and rebuke the wrong doctrines and practices of their day. Lay writers such as Ziegler, Lotzer, Marshalk, Hans Sachs, Hans Staygmayer, and Greiffenberger authored pamphlets that not only staunchly defended the right of laypersons to interpret Scripture but also modeled such interpretation for their readers.43 Sachs even claimed that the laity often interpret and apply Scripture better than ordained priests.44 Ziegler insisted that the errors of the Roman priests compelled him to write.45 Treubel, Lotzer, and Marschalk also seemingly repeated Bucer’s and Zell’s emphases that one must speak out against wrong teaching as an act of love of neighbor.46 Lay authors such as Treubel, Lotzer, and Rychsner rebuked Catholic practices of auricular confession, indulgences, and prayers for the dead.47 Lotzer and Rychsner presented arguments against papal authority, while Sachs attacked the monastic orders.48 Several authors also criticized the Roman Catholic Mass and Eucharistic theology, often advocating a more symbolic, spiritualist view.49 Most admonished Roman Catholic leadership for trampling the Gospel, abandoning the Word of God, and teaching doctrines not supported by Scripture. Such criticisms appeared especially in the pamphlets of Marschalk, Sachs, and Bastian Goltschmit.50 These laymen not only critiqued Roman Catholic teaching; some—​such as 43. See, for examples, Lotzer, Ain christlicher sendbrief, Aivb–​Bib; Marschalk, Von dem weyt erschollen Namen Luther, aii; A. Keller and E. Goetze, eds., Hans Sachsens Werke (Tübingen, 1870–​1902), 22:10–​11; Staygmayer, Ain Schoner Dialogus, Biii; Greiffenberger, Die Weltt sagt, Aiv; Chrisman, “Lay Response,” 46–​47 and Conflicting Visions, 159–​62; Russell, Lay Theology, 176–​77. 44. Sachs, Disputacion, aiia–​b; Chrisman, Conflicting Visions, 161. 45. Ziegler, Von der waren nyessung, Aiii; Chrisman, “Lay Response,” 46. 46.  Chrisman, “Lay Response,” 48; Russell, Lay Theology, 101, 135–​36. See Treubel, Ein Vetterliche, Aii; Marschalk, Ein Spiegel der blinden, Biva. 47.  Chrisman, “Lay Response,” 47 and Conflicting Visions, 168; Russell, Lay Theology, 99–​ 100. See Treubel, Ein dermütige ermanung; Lotzer, Ain vast haylssam, 68; Rychsner, Ain Gesprechbüchlin, Aiib. 48. Russell, Lay Theology, 98, 121–​22, 173. See Lotzer, Ain vast haylssam trostlich, 67; Rychsner, Ayn Ausszug; Keller and Goetze, Hans Sachsens Werke 22:36–​37. 49.  See, for examples, Greffenberger, Ein trostliche Ermanung and Ziegler, Von der waren nyessung, Aiii, Aiiii, B–​Bii, Biii, Ci. See also the discussion of Chrisman in “Lay Response,” 44–​48. Chrisman points also to Eckhard von Treubel’s spiritualist view of the Eucharist (48). Chrisman and Russell indicate multiple influences on the lay pamphleteers’ theologies beyond that of Luther and Zwingli, including Spiritualist influences, particularly that of Hans Denck. See Russell, Lay Theology, 158–​59; Chrisman, “Lay Response,” 43. 50. Russell, Lay Theology, 137, 172–​73; Chrisman, “Lay Response,” 37 and Conflicting Visions, 160. See Marschalk, Ein Spiegel der blinden, Bib and Von dem weyt erschollen Namen Luther,

46

The Reformation of Prophecy

Sachs and Greiffenberger—​extended their criticisms to Luther’s teachings of faith alone, which they viewed as fostering forms of moral laxity.51 Laymen not only took up the pen; they took direct action—​indicating that they heard loud and clear that Luther’s and Zwingli’s exhortations extended beyond lay access to Scripture to the call to action. Such activities included disruptions of the celebration of the Mass, sermon interruptions, lay iconoclasm, and the formation of lay Bible studies. In Wittenberg on December 3, 1521, laymen stormed the parish church and disrupted the celebration of the Mass.52 Bruce Gordon notes that acts of iconoclasm in the surrounding territories of Zurich were often led by laypersons, and they climaxed in 1523, including the destruction of religious images at the church of St. Peter’s and the removal of a crucifix in Stadelhofen.53 Lee Wandel portrays the spread of lay iconoclasm to rural Swiss parishes especially in 1523–​24.54 In Zurich laypersons were also at the forefront of uprisings demanding the cessation of the payment of the tithe.55 In Augsburg in July 1523 a baker interrupted the sermon of a Dominican friar demanding that the friar prove how his teaching accorded with Scripture.56 Such sermon interruptions by laypersons occurred regularly during the early years of the Swiss Reformation.57 Similarly a group of lay artisans, including a painter and two weavers, disrupted a baptismal service on May 8, 1524, in Augsburg.58 Lay Bible studies developed in Zurich and surrounding cities, such as one in the Zurich home of Andreas Castelberger in 1523 and the spreading movement of lay Bible studies in the

Aii; Keller and Goetze, Hans Sachsens Werke 6:372–​73; Goltschmit, Ein underweisung etzlicher artickel, Aib–​Aiiia. 51. See Kiwiet, “The Life of Hans Denck,” 237. Kiwiet depicts Sachs and Greiffenberger as lay humanists who in certain ways paved the way for Denck’s spiritualist teachings. See Sachs, Die Wittenbergisch Nachtigall, Ain Gesprech, and Ain Dialogus und Argument. See also Greiffenberger, Die Wellt sagt, Aiiib. 52. See Edwards, Luther and the False Brethren, 8; Müller, Die Wittenberger Bewegung, nos. 32, 36, 38. 53. Gordon, The Swiss Reformation, 63. 54. Wandel, Voracious Idols, 53–​101. 55. Gordon, The Swiss Reformation, 65–​66. 56. Russell, Lay Theology, 119–​20, 143. 57.  See Heinhold Fast, “Reformation durch Provokation:  Predigstörungen in den ersten Jahren der Reformation in der Schweiz,” in Umstrittenes Täufertum 1525–​ 1975:  Neue Forschungen, edited by Hans Jürgen Goertz (Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 79–​110. 58. Russell, Lay Theology, 120, 143.



Prophecy and the Priesthood of All Believers

47

region of St. Gallen in 1523–​24.59 Laymen took concrete action in Strasbourg as well. Chrisman accentuates the role of the burghers especially in 1524–​25 in leading the path of reform in Strasbourg.60 Lay iconoclasm took hold in parishes around Strasbourg in 1524; a band of gardeners led a protest in front of the most prominent convents in that city in March 1525; and burghers led the petition for the abolition of the Mass in Strasbourg.61 Laypersons were answering the call of the priesthood of all believers in the concrete activities of publishing treatises that interpret Scripture and rebuke wrong teaching, forming lay Bible studies, and disrupting Catholic services, sermons, and use of images. In their studies of the lay pamphleteers from 1520 to 1525, Russell and Chrisman highlight the recurring theme of the duties of the priesthood of all believers to preach, interpret Scripture, and rebuke wrong teaching. They fail, however, to recognize fully the ways in which Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, and Zell cast their calls for the priesthood of all believers in prophetic terms and the implications this had for lay responses and actions—​both in word and deed. Though Russell attends to some of the prophetic qualities of these lay pamphlets, his operative definition of prophecy focuses solely on its ecstatic, visionary, or apocalyptic content and neglects the identification of prophecy as interpretation of Scripture evident in Luther’s, Zwingli’s, Bucer’s, and Zell’s accounts. On the one hand, Russell notes that many of the lay pamphleteers believed “they were called to prophesy like Old Testament prophets to warn their fellow common people.”62 On the other hand, though he dedicates ­chapter 1 to the “call to prophesy” in his book Lay Theology in the Reformation, this chapter deals very little with the topic of prophets, except to point briefly to some “wandering prophets” with apocalyptic messages.63 It becomes clear, then, that Russell’s working definition of prophet applies to those who preached messages of keen apocalyptic content.64 He fails to connect Luther’s,

59. Gordon, The Swiss Reformation, 192; Harder, Sources of Swiss Anabaptism, 203; Snyder, “The Birth and Evolution of Swiss Anabaptism (1520–​1530),” 505, 517–​20. 60. Chrisman, Strasbourg and the Reform, 138, 140. 61. Chrisman, Strasbourg and the Reform, 144, 141–​42, 163–​68, 176. Chrisman discusses many other lay-​led events, such as a revolt of gardeners (145–​47). William Stafford affirms this evaluation when he writes, “The irresistible acceleration of change which invaded Strasbourg between 1522 and 1525 was the work of the whole lay population’s energy” (189). 62. Russell, “Your Sons and Daughters,” 129. 63. Russell, Lay Theology, 48, 51–​52. 64. Russell, Lay Theology, 54.

48

The Reformation of Prophecy

Zwingli’s, Bucer’s, and Zell’s definition of prophecy as interpretation of Scripture with the lay embrace and implementation of this very definition in their 1520–​25 pamphlets. Russell also fails to identify the prophetic aspects of these reformers’ vision of the priesthood of all believers and link these to the significant prophetic content in many of the lay pamphlets of 1520–​25, including the frequent use of prophetic scriptures in their writings. Lay writers appealed to Old Testament prophecy to interpret their times much like Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, and Zell did. One must admit, however, that several of the lay pamphleteers espoused strong apocalyptic expectations, so that Russell is correct to point to this definition of prophecy among them. Greiffenberger, Marschalk, Lotzer, Rychsner, and Sachs believed they lived in the Last Days, the time of the Antichrist (whom several identified with the pope), and that they were called to help prepare for the second coming of Christ.65 Marschalk connected Luther to popular medieval prophecies about Emperor Frederick III and presented Luther as the embodiment of the prophets Enoch and Elijah—​precisely the prophets who would return in the End Times to reveal the true identity of the Antichrist.66 Similarly, as Robert Kolb rightly describes, Sachs “looked to Luther as the Wittenberg Nightingale whose song had awakened Christendom to the threat from the wolf, the papacy, and had called sinners to repentance and the comfort of the gospel.”67 In viewing themselves as living in the Last Days, Lotzer and Marschalk appealed to texts such as Matthew 10 and 24, which pointed to the signs of the end.68 They also called their fellow laymen to prepare for the coming of Christ by doing works of mercy.69 Certainly one should not ignore the strong apocalyptic tenor of many of these lay pamphlets. An apocalyptic conception of prophecy, however, is not adequate to account for all the prophetic aspects of their texts, though this facet was certainly at play on several levels. Many of these lay pamphleteers employed the distinction

65. Greiffenberger, Diss biechlin sagt, Ciia–​b, Cva and Diß biechlin zaigt, Aiia–​Aiva, Bib, Biib, Biiia, Biva–​b, Cia–​Ciia, Civa; Rychsner, Ain hüpsch Gesprech biechlin. 66. Marschalk, Von dem weyt erschollen Namen Luther, aii–​aiva. See R. W. Scribner’s discussion of this treatise in For the Sake of the Simple Folk, 20–​21. 67. Kolb, Martin Luther as Prophet, 26. See Sachs, Die Wittembergisch Nachtigall. 68.  Lotzer, Ain hailsame Ermanunge, Aiib, Aivb, Biiia and Ain christlicher sendbrief, Aiia, Biivb; Marschalk, Durch betrachtung, Bivb, Cib, Civa; Marschalk, Das hailig ewig, Aiiia, Bib; Marschalk, In rechter grüntlicher Brüderlicher, Biiib; Marschalk, Ein Spiegel der blinden, Cia, Ciia, Ciib; Marschalk, Die scharpff Metz, Bib. 69.  Russell, Lay Theology, 92, 94, 132. See, for example, Sachs, Ein Dialogus, Aiia, Bia–​b, Biia–​b, Biiia.



Prophecy and the Priesthood of All Believers

49

between true and false prophets in order to denounce Roman Catholic authority and teachings.70 Lotzer strongly cautioned his audience not to listen to these false prophets for they do not preach God’s Word.71 Sachs pointed to the words of Peter—​“No prophecy ever came by human will, but humans moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (II Peter 1:21)—​after which Peter staunchly rebuked false prophets.72 In other words, denouncing false prophets was not simply an apocalyptic enterprise; it also served to situate these men as rightly proclaiming the Word of God and promoting Scripture and the Holy Spirit’s primacy. Their pamphlets were saturated with biblical quotations, citations, and paraphrases so that they were literally speaking the Word of God set forth in Scripture, thereby simultaneously fostering the prime authority of Scripture and the rejection of all teachings not in accordance with it. These lay writers embodied the form of prophecy as interpretation of Scripture.73 The specific text of I Corinthians 14, however, did not figure prominently in their pamphlets. Of the thirty-​two lay pamphlets studied here, there is only one reference to I  Corinthians 14. In 1523 Lotzer quoted I  Corinthians 14:29–​31 on the proper manner of prophesying in the church and immediately commented, “Therefore, beloved brothers, give these cheerfully in the Holy Spirit and do not listen to false prophets.” Immediately afterward he pointed to Christ’s warnings that such false prophets would come, as seen in the proclamations of Jeremiah 9, 23, and 27 and Ezekiel 33 and 34.74 Not only did most of the lay pamphleteers not point to the text of I Corinthians 14 to elucidate the priesthood of all believers, but in the one case where a layman evoked the text, the goal was just as much to warn against false prophets as to advocate lay prophesying or interpretation of Scripture. This did not mean, though, that laymen did not connect prophecy to the priesthood of all believers and, specifically, to the call to interpret Scripture, for they did. They did so through appeals to other prophetic texts. For example, Lotzer, Sachs, and Ziegler each appealed to Joel 2:28 to validate the

70. Greiffenberger, Diß biechlin zaigt, Aiia, Aiib, Biiib–​Biva; Marschalk, Durch betrachtung, Bivb; Rychsner, Ain hüpsch Gesprech biechlin, Biib and Ain schöne underweysung, Aivb; Ziegler, Ein fast schon büchlin, Bia. 71. Lotzer, Ain christlicher sendbrief, Bib. 72. Sachs, Disputacion, Ciiia–​b. 73. Russell points to the lay authors’ emphasis on their call to interpret Scripture, but he does not connect this with the definition of prophecy as interpretation of Scripture (Lay Theology, 53–​55, 91, 94, 111, 130, 161, 169–​72, 190, 211, 215–​17). 74. Lotzer, Ain christlicher sendbrief, Bib.

50

The Reformation of Prophecy

call for laypersons to preach and expound God’s Word.75 Lotzer explicitly pointed to the expansion of this call to women, as modeled in Argula von Grumbach, when he wrote, “Not only you and people like you have begun so boldly and fearlessly to preach, but even women begin to practice the Word of God honestly and in a Christian manner. . . . Notice how the noble and well-​ born woman Argula von Stauffen proves this as she writes to the university scholars.”76 Another popular prophetic text to which they appealed was Isaiah 54:13, “All your children shall be taught by the Lord,” a text cited in John 6:45 (“they shall all be taught by God”) and employed to argue that all Christians have direct access to God; thus any Christian has access to the knowledge necessary to preach God’s Word and correct false teachings.77 Sachs and Greiffenberger also appealed to God’s promise in Jeremiah 31:33–​34 that the new covenant is written on the hearts of believers and that God’s law is placed within them, quoting, “No longer shall they teach one another or say to each other, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know [the Lord] from the least of them to the greatest.”78 Marschalk pointed as well to Jeremiah 29:13 (“When you seek me, you will find me if you seek me with all your heart”) and Micah 4:4–​5 (“they shall all sit under their own vines . . . and no one shall make them afraid”) to affirm the believer’s direct access to God and the comfort and empowerment this brings.79 Prophetic texts served other significant purposes in the writings of these laymen beyond affirming their spiritual credentials to proclaim God’s Word and interpret Scripture. They used these texts to rebuke what they viewed as false Roman Catholic worship practices. Frequently speaking just like an Old Testament prophet, they employed the prophet’s words verbatim to denounce the idolatry and false sacrifices of Roman Catholicism. Hosea 6:6 (“For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice”) was a favorite text used to condemn the Roman Catholic Mass, as well as other rites.80 Marschalk deployed Jeremiah

75. Lotzer, Ayn außlegung, Aiia–​b; Sachs, Disputacion, Aivb; Ziegler, Ein fast schon büchlin, Aiib–​Aiiia. 76. Lotzer, Ayn außlegung, Aiia–​b, as translated by Russell, Lay Theology, 91. 77. Sachs, Underweysung der ungeschickten, Ciiib; Greiffenberger, Ein christenliche Antwordt denen, Aiiib. 78. Sachs, Underweysung der ungeschickten, Ciiia; Greiffenberger, Ein christenliche Antwordt denen, Aiiia. 79. Marschalk, Die scharpff Metz, Aiv, Bia–​b. 80. Marschalk, Durch betrachtung, Ciiia–​b, Diia and Ein Spiegel der blinden, Diiia; Staygmayer, Ain schooner Dialogus, Biia.



Prophecy and the Priesthood of All Believers

51

7:11, Isaiah 1:11, and Amos 5:21 to expose the sacrifices of Roman Catholics as false, and Staygmayer and Ziegler used Isaiah 66:1 (“Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me?”) to argue that the true temple of God is not made by human hands, in which they had a specific eye toward Catholic beliefs and practices as idolatrous.81 Not surprisingly they deemed other Roman Catholic practices idolatrous, particularly the use of images.82 Isaiah 43:25 (“I, I am he who blots out your transgressions”) was particularly favored for indicting Roman Catholic practices of auricular confession as unbiblical. Lotzer, Marschalk, Rychsner, and Staygmayer each repeatedly appealed to this verse to insist that God alone has the power to forgive sins; any counterclaim is false and deceives the conscience of the people.83 The lay pamphleteers perhaps inhabited the persona of the Old Testament prophet most when they proclaimed woes upon and warnings to the Roman Catholic priests, bishops, prelates, and monks. Lotzer invoked texts from Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and Amos to warn the Roman Catholic clergy of the impending judgment upon them.84 Marschalk called upon Jeremiah and Isaiah to pronounce curses upon those whose hearts are far away from God, and, citing Malachi 2, he asserted that the blind Catholic priests fail to give glory to Christ’s name.85 Lotzer and Rychsner appealed to Jeremiah 17:5 to pronounce curses upon those who trust in mere mortals and turn their hearts away from God.86 Rychsner deployed Jeremiah 23:1 and Ezekiel 34:8 to identify Roman Catholic clergy as false shepherds who have failed to protect and provide for their sheep. “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” he proclaimed through the words

81. Marschalk, Durch betrachtung, Ciiia–​b and Diia and Das hailig ewig, Bia–​b; Staygmayer, Ain schooner Dialogus, Biib; Ziegler, Von der waren nyessung, Aiiib, Dib. 82. Staygmayer appealed, as well, to Hosea 8:4 and Isaiah 2:20 (Ain schooner Dialogus, Biib). Ziegler appealed to texts such as Isaiah 10, 19, 46:6, 59, 65, as well as Jeremiah 2, Haggai 1, Habakkuk 2, Micah 3, and Malachi 3 and 4. (Ein kurtz Register, Aia, Aib, Aiia, Aiiia). 83.  Lotzer, Ain hailsame Ermanunge, Aiiia and Ain christlicher sendbrief, Aiib; Marschalk, Durch betrachtung, Ciia; Marschalk, Das hailig ewig, Biia, Cib, Ciia; Marschalk, In rechter grüntlicher Brüderlicher, Aiia; Marschalk, Ein Spiegel der blinden, Ciiib; Rychsner, Ain Gesprechbüchlin, Cia and Ain hüpsch Gesprech biechlin, Biia, Civa, Diia–​b; Staygmayer, Ain kurtze vnderrichtung, Aiiia. 84. Lotzer, Ain christlicher sendbrief, Biia–​b and Ayn außlegung, Bia–​b. 85. Marschalk appealed to Jeremiah 17:5, Isaiah 29 and Malachi 2:1. See Marschalk, Das hailig ewig, Ciiib; Marschalk, In rechter grüntlicher Brüderlicher, Bia, Biva; Marschalk, Durch betrachtung, Cia. 86. Lotzer, Ain hailsame Ermanunge, Aivb; Rychsner, Ain Gesprechbüchlin, Ciia.

52

The Reformation of Prophecy

of Jeremiah.87 Laymen such as Sachs also summoned the Old Testament prophets as exemplars and the very validation for the call—​indeed the duty—​ of Christians to warn the wicked.88 Staygmayer, as a final example, deployed the example of Hananiah as a false prophet in Jeremiah 28:15 against the pope, asserting, “The Lord has not sent you, and you made this people trust in a lie.”89 In addition to employing the proclamations of the Old Testament prophets against Roman Catholic authority, teachings, and practices, these laymen also found the writings of the Old Testament prophets immensely helpful in reorienting their fellow Christians toward the true path of righteousness. Greiffenberger emphasized that the prophets teach one to trust in God alone, for no one knows any true blessing apart from God.90 Ziegler, appealing to Amos 8, urged his fellow Christians to walk in the way of the Lord.91 Sachs employed multiple citations from the Old Testament prophets to denounce the social evils of his day, writing, “Hear this, you that trample on the needy and bring to ruin the poor of the land” (Amos 8:4). He used Amos 4:1 and 5:11 and Micah 2:2–​3 to speak against those guilty of the social injustices, such as usury and taking interest for dishonest gain (Ezekiel 22:12) and feeding on the exploitation of the poor (Jeremiah 5:26–​29).92 The blood of the poor should be upon the ones who exploit and oppress them, like the guilty who were punished in Ezekiel 18:12–​13.93 Invoking Isaiah 58:6, Sachs asserted that the true fast God seeks is “to loose the bonds of injustice” and “to let the oppressed go free.” The new law is “love, love, love.”94 In these ways lay pamphleteers employed Old Testament prophecy to interpret their contemporary circumstances on several levels: to authorize their call to proclaim God’s Word, interpret Scripture, and rebuke wrong teachings; to condemn Catholic worship practices; and to warn of impending judgment. They distinguished between true and false prophets in order to present Roman Catholic leadership

87. Rychsner, Ain hüpsch Gesprech biechlin, Biib and Ain schöne underweysung, Aivb, Diia. 88. Sachs, Disputacion, Aiia, Aiib. 89. Staygmayer, Ain kurtze vnderrichtung, Aiiia–​b. 90. He appealed to the texts of Hosea 13:4, Isaiah 25:4, and Jeremiah 5:3; Greiffenberger, Ein trostliche Ermanung, Avb–​Avia. 91. Ziegler, Von der waren nyessung, Ciiib. 92. Sachs, Ein Dialogus, Aiia, Bib, Biia, Biiia. 93. Sachs, Ein Dialogus, Bia. 94. Sachs, Ein Dialogus, Biib.



Prophecy and the Priesthood of All Believers

53

as false. They deployed the sermons of the prophets to denounce social evils and call their fellow Christians back to the true righteousness taught in God’s Word. In all these ways they read their own times in the light of biblical apocalyptic texts, but equally in the light of Old Testament prophecy.95

Female Pamphleteers’ Embrace of the Priesthood of All Believers and Prophecy The majority of lay pamphleteers taking up their pens in active embodiment of the priesthood of all believers were men. Yet scholars note that the years 1523 to 1524 demonstrate a remarkable outpouring of treatises written by women.96 In fact in The Misuse of the Mass, Luther clearly included women in his explication of the royal priesthood in I Peter 2:9: “Because the words of Peter are written to all Christians, if he wishes the anointed and tonsured priesthood to be comprehended therein, it follows that the holy, pious women and children are also tonsured and anointed priests. For Peter’s words apply to all Christians of whichever priesthood; they make the priesthood common to all Christians.”97 A year earlier in A Sermon on the New Testament, that is on the Holy Mass, Luther explicitly applied I Peter 2:9 to women when he wrote, “Thus, all Christians are priests, all women are priests, be they young or old, lords or servants, married or single, learned or lay.”98 Argula von Grumbach in Bavaria, Ursula Weyda in Eisenberg, and Katharina Schütz Zell in Strasbourg published in response several pamphlets in 1523–​24.99 Supported 95. It is also true that they read their contemporary circumstances in the light of biblical apocalyptic texts such as John’s Apocalypse, Matthew 10 and 24, and II Thessalonians 2. See, for examples, Greiffenberger, Diß biechlin zaigt, Aiia, Aiiia; Greiffenberger, Ein kurtzer begrif, Aiiib; Greiffenberger, Ein trostliche ermanund, Aivb, Bivb; Marschalk, Durch betrachtung, Cib, Civa; Marschalk, Das hailig ewig, Bib; Marschalk, In rechter grüntlicher Brüderlicher, Aiiib, Biiib; Marschalk, Ein Spiegel der blinden, Cia, Ciia, Ciib; Marschalk, Die scharpff Metz, Cia; Rychsner, Ain hüpsch Gesprech biechlin, Aib, Eia; Rychsner, Ain schöne underweysung, Biva; Sachs, Ain Gesprech aines Evangelischen Christen, Aiib, Aivb and Underweysung der ungeschickten, aiiib, Bia–​b. My main point here, however, is their equally significant use of Old Testament prophetic texts to read their times. 96.  Stupperich, “Die Frau in der Publizistik der Reformation”; Matheson, “Breaking the Silence”; Russell, Lay Theology, 190. 97. LW 36:141; WA 8:489. Luther, however, made clear that a public role for women is possible only in the absence of men’s leadership: “Therefore, order, discipline, and respect demand that women keep silent when men speak; but if no man were to preach, then it would be necessary for women to preach” (LW 36:152; WA 8:498). 98. WA 6:370. 99. Unlike the other two, Katharina Schütz Zell continued to publish across her lifetime.

54

The Reformation of Prophecy

by contemporary male reformers’ theology of the priesthood of all believers and the exhortation that no Christian should remain silent in the face of wrongdoing, each of these women took up her pen to rebuke a particular situation in her context. Argula launched her literary career with a September 1523 letter to the University of Ingolstadt in fervent protest of the arrest of one of their students, Arsacius Seehofer, for espousing Lutheran ideas.100 She insisted that since no man had come forward to protest, it was her Christian duty to speak out against this injustice.101 Ursula similarly opposed the ideas championed by Simon Plick, the abbot of Pegau—​a Benedictine monastery near Leipzig—​who wrote a scathing pamphlet in 1524 against Luther and his followers, accusing them of breaking the unity of the church and endangering the professions of the artisans with their rejection of Catholic worship forms.102 A few months later Ursula responded with Against the Unchristian, Slanderous Work of the Abbot of Pegau that mocked the abbot for his lack of scriptural knowledge and defended Luther with a strong appeal to the centrality of the Word of God and the authority of Scripture.103 Ursula steadfastly attacked monastic vows, issuing appeals such as the following: “Leave the old church and return to your baptismal vows, for in baptism we all vow to believe [God’s] Word and follow it. . . . Break the bond of your monastic tonsure and take off your habits with free and certain conscience, even if you have taken a thousand oaths.”104 Just as Argula and Ursula were compelled to protest certain events and ideas of their time, Katharina’s 1524 writings addressed two specific occasions. Her first publication was a letter to the women of Kentzingen in rebuke of the Roman Catholic persecution of them and their husbands, for their husbands had accompanied their pastor in exile for espousing Protestant beliefs. She encouraged the women to remain steadfast in their faith as they

100. For a more thorough account of Argula von Grumbach’s background, see the works of Peter Matheson: Argula von Grumbach, 4–​26; “A Reformation for Women?”; “Martin Luther and Argula von Grumbach.” See also Halbach, Argula von Grumbach. 101.  Peter Matheson, ed., Argula von Grumbach Schriften (Heidelberg:  Gutersloher Verlagshaus, 2010), 67; English translation in Matheson, Argula von Grumbach, 79. Here Argula very likely had in mind Luther’s admonition that women would have to preach if men failed to do so. See WA 8:498; LW 36:152. 102. Plick, Verderbe und schade der Lande. For more information about Ursula Weyda, see Clemen, “Die Schösserin von Eisenberg”; Russell, Lay Theology, 201–​4. 103. Weyda, Wyder das unchristliche schreyben. 104. Ursula Weyda as cited and translated by Russell, Lay Theology, 203.



Prophecy and the Priesthood of All Believers

55

awaited the reward for their suffering.105 In her second publication, just a few months later, Katharina reproved the Catholic bishop William von Honstein’s excommunication of her husband, Matthew Zell, upon his marriage to her, as well as the excommunication of five other priests who had chosen to marry. She wrote a letter to the bishop with a stalwart biblical defense of clerical marriage, as well as a defense of her husband’s character, which she published in September 1524. While criticizing the actions of the bishop, the letter also rebuked the teachings of a Roman Catholic theologian, Conrad Treger, who had recently published theses against Protestant theology.106 Like Argula and Ursula, Katharina maintained that she could not remain silent in the face of such wrong teaching and unjust actions, but that her Christian duty obliged her to write publicly.107 In coming forward to address what they viewed as wrongful teachings and actions, Argula, Ursula, and Katharina clearly understood their public protest as aligned with and supported by the teachings of Luther and Zwingli, as well as (particularly for Katharina) those of Bucer and Zell—​especially the assertions of the Christian duty to speak out against falsehood.108 They defended their duty to speak publicly through careful emulation of many of these male reformers’ teachings concerning the priesthood of all believers. For example, Argula, Ursula, and Katharina each appealed to Christian baptism as the underpinning of their own call to their priestly duties of rebuking wrong teaching, proclaiming God’s Word, and applying Scripture.109 Katharina in particular framed the obligation to rebuke false doctrine as a matter of the love of neighbor, thereby echoing the prior teachings of Bucer and her husband.110 Equally these female writers insisted that every Christian has the Holy Spirit, 105. For a critical edition, see McKee, Katharina Schütz Zell, vol. II, The Writings, 4–​13, hereafter cited as KSZ II; English translation in McKee, Church Mother, 47–​56. For more background information, also see McKee, Katharina Schütz Zell, vol. I, The Life and Thought of a Sixteenth-​Century Reformer, 27–​82, esp. 51, 59–​60, hereafter cited as KSZ I. 106. KSZ II, 21–​47; McKee, Church Mother, 62–​82. 107. KSZ II, 22–​24; McKee, Church Mother, 63–​64. 108. Matheson, Argula von Grumbach Schriften, 64, 67, 87–​88, 92, 98, 128–​29; Matheson, Argula von Grumbach, 75, 79, 103, 110, 117, 155–​56; Weyda, Wyder das unchristliche schreyben, Ai/​v, Aii/​v–​Aiii/​r; KSZ II, 7, 22, 24, 25–​26, 28, 33, 44, 45–​46; McKee, Church Mother, 52, 63, 64, 66, 68, 72, 80, 81–​82. 109.  Matheson, Argula von Grumbach Schriften, 98, 119–​ 20, 121; Matheson, Argula von Grumbach, 118, 142, 145; Weyda, Wyder das unchristliche schreyben, Ci/​r–​v; Russell, Lay Theology, 202–​3; KSZ II, 33; McKee, Church Mother, 72. For Luther’s appeal to Christian baptism, see WA 6:407, 408; LW 44:127, 129. 110. KSZ II, 7, 22, 24, 311; McKee, Church Mother, 52, 63, 64, 132.

56

The Reformation of Prophecy

who enables all to judge what is right and wrong in matters of faith.111 The three women cited many of the same scriptural passages employed by male reformers to defend the priesthood of all believers, such as Joel 2:28, John 6:45, and the contrast between the wisdom of the world and God’s wisdom (I Corinthians 1:18–​25).112 Argula and Katharina applied the story of Balaam’s donkey to argue that if God chose to speak through a donkey, surely God can choose to speak through any righteous person regardless of gender.113 In doing so they directly echoed Luther’s reference to Balaam’s donkey in his 1520 appeal to the German nobility.114 These female pamphleteers further exercised their right to read Scripture by appealing to Scriptures beyond those used by the leading male reformers. All three quoted the words of Jesus in the Gospel, “Whoever confesses me before another I  too will confess before my heavenly Father” (Matthew 10:32), underscoring that the “whoever” pertains to women just as much as men.115 Argula and Katharina cited the parable of the talents, insisting that it would be unfaithful for them to bury their own talent—​a talent they specifically identified with the interpretation and application of Scripture.116 Their pamphlets were so saturated with biblical citations that the female author quite literally proclaimed the Word of God. Such a method followed the earlier admonitions of Luther and Zwingli, such as when Luther wrote in The Misuse of the Mass that no one should ever add or subtract from the Word of God, but “if anybody speaks, let him speak as though it were the Word of God.”117

111. Matheson, Argula von Grumbach Schriften, 67–​68, 72, 75, 87, 98–​99, 122, 137–​38, 146; Matheson, Argula von Grumbach, 80, 86–​87, 90, 102, 118–​19, 145, 175–​76, 177, 178, 189; Weyda, Wyder das unchristliche schreyben, Aiii/​v; KSZ II, 12–​13, 46–​47; McKee, Church Mother, 56, 82. 112.  Matheson, Argula von Grumbach Schriften, 67–​68, 68, 73, 99, 106, 129, 136, 137–​38; Matheson, Argula von Grumbach, 80, 87, 90, 119, 126, 156, 142, 176, 177; Weyda, Wyder das unchristliche schreyben, Ai/​r, Aiii/​v, Bii/​r, Cii/​v; KSZ II, 21, 33, 46–​47; McKee, Church Mother, 62, 72, 82. 113. Matheson, Argula von Grumbach Schriften, 141, 150; Matheson, Argula von Grumbach, 182, 195; KSZ II, 45, 47; McKee, Church Mother, 81, 82. 114. WA 6:412, 460; LW 44:136, 205. 115. Matheson, Argula von Grumbach Schriften, 64, 87–​88, 98, 107, 120, 121–​22, 128–​29, 148; Matheson, Argula von Grumbach, 75, 103, 118, 127, 143, 145, 155–​56, 192; Weyda, Wyder das unchristliche schreyben, Ciii/​v; KSZ II, 7; McKee, Church Mother, 52. 116. Matheson, Argula von Grumbach Schriften, 72, 129, 147; Matheson, Argula von Grumbach, 87, 156, 190. Katharina makes this appeal in her later writings (KSZ II, 81–​83, 123; McKee, Church Mother, 113–​14, 187). 117. WA 8:489; LW 36:142. Luther was quoting I Peter 4:11. CR 90:259, 88:358–​81; Zwingli, “Reply to Emser,” 373 and “Of the Clarity and Certainty,” 72–​92.



Prophecy and the Priesthood of All Believers

57

Marinating their messages thoroughly in Scripture served to authorize the messages and defend their public ministry.118 It positioned them squarely in the prophetic activity outlined in the 1520s vernacular writings of Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, and Zell that defined the prophet as one who interprets God’s Word rather than a definition of prophecy as ecstatic, visionary, or foretelling. While these laywomen embraced a concept of prophecy focused on the proclamation of God’s Word and the interpretation of Scripture, such a definition did not necessarily exclude apocalyptic themes in their writings. The assumed association of apocalyptic content with only the ecstatic, visionary, or predictive forms of prophecy is a false assumption. Though there are examples of such in these women’s writings, it is not a necessary association. Several laymen also espoused strong apocalyptic content, but most did so not through appeals to ecstatic visions but through their engagement with Scripture. Some women expressed similar apocalyptic expectations, but not necessarily through visionary prophecy but through prophecy as defined as the interpretation and application of Scripture. Just as with the male pamphleteers, most scholarly studies of Argula, Ursula, and Katharina fail to see the connections between the expressions of contemporary male teachings that tie the priesthood of all believers to prophecy with the ways these women embraced similar definitions of prophecy. These studies overlook the male reformers’ definition of prophecy as interpretation of Scripture, and consequently they neglect the women’s appropriations of this definition. Instead scholars such as Paul Russell, Peter Matheson, Silke Halbach, Miriam Chrisman, and Kirsi Stjerna define prophecy primarily as visionary, ecstatic, and apocalyptic and identify only the apocalyptic content of the pamphlets as prophetic, completely overlooking the definition of prophecy as interpretation of Scripture.119 118. Matheson, Argula von Grumbach Schriften, 68, 73, 75, 92, 139–​40; Matheson, Argula von Grumbach, 81, 87, 90, 110, 180; Weyda, Wyder das unchristliche schreyben, Aii/​v–​Aiii/​r, Bii/​r; KSZ II, 10, 44, 71–​72, 133–​34, 145; McKee, Church Mother, 53, 80, 104, 196, 207. 119. Russell, Lay Theology, 70–​72, 185–​211; “ ‘Your Sons and Daughters,’ ” 122–​40. Matheson, “Breaking the Silence,” 102; Matheson, “A Reformation for Women?,” 51; Halbach, Argula von Grumbach, 216–​18; Chrisman, “Women and the Reformation,” 160; Stjerna, Women and the Reformation, 11–​22. Matheson, Halbach, Russell, and Stjerna all agree that Luther’s concept of the priesthood of all believers was deeply influential for Argula von Grumbach. However, they do not connect her work to his concept of prophecy as interpretation of Scripture, but tend only to identify the “apocalyptic” tone of her work as “prophetic.” Russell states, “Convictions that the word was nearing its end are implicit in women’s calling to speak out, to teach, preach and prophesy” (Lay Theology, 211). In many ways Ursula’s pamphlet is the most apocalyptic among these women, yet in Russell’s discussion of her work, he neither addresses the apocalyptic content nor notes the relevance of a definition of prophecy as interpretation of Scripture for her work (201–​4). Chrisman focuses on the response of Anabaptist women in Strasbourg (rather than Katharina Schütz Zell), many of whom claimed forms of

58

The Reformation of Prophecy

What makes an idea apocalyptic? Scholars have sometimes confused the strongly prophetic tone of these writings with apocalyptic expectation or with ecstatic forms of prophecy. Though apocalyptic expectation may be at play in some of these pamphlets, apocalyptic is most clearly identifiable in statements concerning the End Times or Last Days or the employment of recognizably apocalyptic biblical texts (e.g., the Book of Revelation, Matthew 10 and 24, and II Thessalonians 2). Under these terms Argula expressed some apocalyptic expectation in her invocation of the passages of Matthew 24 and 25 that present Jesus’s teachings concerning the Last Days. This apocalyptic tone, however, appeared primarily in the last of her writings, perhaps as she herself received harsh criticism and faced a very precarious future.120 Also under these terms Ursula emerges as the most apocalyptic in tone and Katharina the least. Ursula opened her pamphlet with a quotation from II Timothy 3:1, “You must understand this, that in the Last Days distressing times will come,” thereby framing her pamphlet within this apocalyptic warning.121 She returned to this theme at key points through citations of Jeremiah 5 and 23 and I Timothy 4:1 that warn about the Last Days.122 The writings of Katharina, on the other hand, lack apocalyptic fervor altogether. She was keenly focused on a prophetic ministry of the proclamation of the Word of God, the interpretation of Scripture, and the rebuke of wrong teachings. Yet, whether or not apocalyptic in tone, these women (like most of the male pamphleteers) were not claiming visions or an ecstatic form of prophecy. They embraced prophecy as interpretation of Scripture, in which the interpretation and application of apocalyptic biblical texts played a lesser role, if any at all. Just as the male pamphleteers understood their activity in prophetic terms and espoused the clear tie between the priesthood of all believers and prophecy, the female pamphleteers equally embraced their vocation as a

visionary prophecy. Elsie McKee’s biography of Katharina Schütz Zell insists that prophecy is not significant for her (KSZ I, 474n138), but she seems to dismiss prophecy as a viable category because of its apocalyptic, visionary, and predictive character. I agree such a definition does not accurately describe Katharina, but prophecy as interpretation of Scripture does. 120. The male author who introduced Argula’s first letter against the University of Ingolstadt certainly prefaced the letter with a strong apocalyptic tone, but this was not written by Argula. See Matheson, Argula von Grumbach Schriften, 63–​64; Matheson, Argula von Grumbach, 72–​ 75. The most explicitly apocalyptic language appeared in Argula’s last letter—​her letter to the people of Regensberg—​where she referred to Matthew 24 and wrote “The time has truly come” concerning the coming of the Lord. See Matheson, Argula von Grumbach Schriften, 128; Matheson, Argula von Grumbach, 154–​55. 121. Weyda, Wyder das unchristliche schreyben, Ai/​v–​Aii/​r. 122. Weyda, Wyder das unchristliche schreyben, Aiv/​r, Bi/​v, Biv/​v.



Prophecy and the Priesthood of All Believers

59

prophetic one.123 Prophecy already had provided a wide avenue for women’s public voices in the late medieval period, though primarily in its visionary and ecstatic forms.124 With the Protestant reformers’ emphasis on prophecy as the proclamation and interpretation of God’s Word, early-​modern women continued to find in prophecy a way to authorize and empower their own ministries. These women proclaimed God’s Word through their numerous biblical quotations, and they spoke just like an Old Testament prophet and employed Old Testament prophecy to interpret their own contexts. For example, Argula sealed her caution that no one should add anything to the Word of God with Isaiah’s and Jeremiah’s calls to prophesy: “The word which I say to you, proclaim to them from my mouth.”125 She also invoked passages from Isaiah and Jeremiah to warn the Council of Ingolstadt that they should heed the Word of God and summoned the witness of the Old Testament prophets to remind Duke Wilhelm that those who abide by God’s Word prosper, but those who scorn God’s Word will perish.126 Ursula similarly employed several passages from the Old Testament prophets (Isaiah and Jeremiah in particular, but also Amos and Ezekiel) to reprove the Roman Catholics for abandoning God’s Word in favor of human traditions.127 Both of these women employed the Old Testament prophets to pronounce woes upon those whom they were rebuking for wrongdoing.128 Katharina mounted her defense of her husband and their marriage with prophetic woes and warnings against false teachers, exhorting the faithful to stand fast in the face of injustice:

123. See Pak, “Three Early Female Protestant Reformers’ Appropriation of Prophecy.” 124. See Kienzle and Walker, Women Preachers and Prophets; Watt, Secretaries of God; Vauchez, “Female Prophets”; Voaden, God’s Words, Women’s Voices; Minnis and Voaden, Medieval Holy Women. Even as medieval practices of prophecy were primarily visionary and ecstatic, many medieval women’s visions also focused on interpretation of Scripture. Hildegard of Bingen’s visions provide an excellent example. 125.  Matheson, Argula von Grumbach Schriften, 68; Matheson, Argula von Grumbach, 81. Argula cited Isaiah 59:21 and Jeremiah 1:9. 126.  Matheson, Argula von Grumbach Schriften, 100, 88–​ 89; Matheson, Argula von Grumbach, 121, 104–​105. She cited texts such as Isaiah 30 and 34, Ezekiel 5 and 7, Hosea 14, and Jeremiah 22:29. 127. Weyda, Wyder das unchristliche schreyben, Aii/​v, Aiv/​r, Bi/​r, Cii/​v, Ciii/​r–​v. Ursula cited texts concerning false prophets and shepherds, such as Jeremiah 23, Jeremiah 5:31, and Ezekiel 13, and also texts of woes and judgment such as Micah 3, Isaiah 5, and Amos 8. 128. Matheson, Argula von Grumbach Schriften, 66; Matheson, Argula von Grumbach, 77–​78; Weyda, Wyder das unchristliche schreyben, Aii/​v. For example, Argula quoted Jeremiah 1:11, 13 and Hosea 13:8 and 6:5.

60

The Reformation of Prophecy What have the prophets said? Read David, the great prophet in the psalm he says, “The heathen[s]‌have gnashed their teeth, and the people have contemplated worthless things. The kings of the earth stood with each other and the princes gathered together against their God and his Anointed.” Have our enemies not gathered together against God and his Word now? That Word in which Christ is proclaimed. Isaiah says the same thing in c­ hapter  57:  “How the righteous is here destroyed and no one remembers him! But peace will come to him.” And all the prophets tell how the righteous will be destroyed and the godless will have the upper hand until the judgment of God is held.129

Having aligned herself so powerfully with these prophetic words, Katharina softened her claim by stating, “I do not seek to be heard as if I were Elizabeth or John the Baptist or Nathan the prophet who pointed out David’s sin or as any of the prophets, but only as the donkey whom the false prophet heard.”130 In all of these examples Argula, Ursula, and Katharina spoke like Old Testament prophets in order to proclaim God’s Word. They employed the words of the Old Testament prophets to promote the Protestant message of the authority, sufficiency, and centrality of Scripture. Furthermore these women interpreted the events of their own time through the lens of Old Testament prophecy. Argula linked the events of Arsacius Seehofer’s arrest with Jeremiah’s visions of the rod and the boiling pot to indicate God’s vigilance to see justice done and God’s impending judgment upon the university.131 She understood her circumstances as a fulfillment of Isaiah 3:12–​13, “My people, children are their oppressors, and women shall rule over them. O my people, your leaders mislead you and confuse the course of your paths. The Lord rises up to argue his case; he stands to judge the peoples.” She thereby simultaneously rebuked the current corrupt male leadership and sanctioned her own authority. Ursula applied several texts from the Old Testament to interpret her time as a time of corrupt leadership (Jeremiah 23:9ff.) and a thorough refusal to hear the Word of God (Isaiah 6:9–​ 10, Jeremiah 6:10), as well as a time in which the Word of God had become an

129. KSZ II, 43–​44; McKee, Church Mother, 79–​80. In addition Katharina framed her letter of rebuke against Ludwig Rabus with a quotation from Isaiah 38:  “Oh how happily will I speak, because God has and does rebuke; therefore, I will be thankful all my life long for my afflictions” (KSZ II, 168; McKee, Church Mother, 223). 130. KSZ II, 46; McKee, Church Mother, 82. 131. Matheson, Argula von Grumbach Schriften, 65–​66; Matheson, Argula von Grumbach, 77. Here she quoted Jeremiah 1:11, 13.



Prophecy and the Priesthood of All Believers

61

object of scorn (Jeremiah 6:10) and abandoned in favor of human traditions (Jeremiah 2:13).132 Katharina made similar parallels, offering the promises of Isaiah 54 to the women of Kentzingen, arguing that this text fit their situation perfectly.133 In rebuking false teaching, these women identified false leaders precisely as false prophets. Argula applied Jeremiah 1, Isaiah 3, and Ezekiel 33 against those whom she viewed as false teachers, echoing these biblical warnings against false prophets in her correspondence with Duke Wilhelm and Adam von Thering,134 and she cited Jeremiah against the Council of Ingolstadt.135 Ursula evoked the condemnation of false prophets in Ezekiel 13 and Jeremiah 23 and Jeremiah’s warning, “The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule as the prophets direct; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?” (5:31).136 In her defense of clerical marriage, Katharina expounded upon the distinctions between true and false messengers, specifically addressing contemporary figures whom she viewed as false teachers, such as Conrad Treger, Thomas Murner, and Johannes Cochlaeus. She aimed Christ’s warning in Matthew 7:15 directly at them:  “Protect yourself from false prophets who enter here in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are rapacious wolves.”137 All of these factors culminated in these women presenting themselves as true prophets who rightly proclaim the Word of God.

Synopsis and Significance These powerful lay responses stand as testimony to the profound possibilities the Protestant reformers’ early promotion of the priesthood of all believers 132. Weyda, Wyder das unchristliche schreyben, Bi/​v–​r, Aii/​v, Bi/​r. 133. KSZ II, 10–​11; Matheson, Argula von Grumbach, 54. Katharina also viewed her husband’s ministry in Strasbourg as a fulfillment of several Old Testament prophecies. See KSZ II, 76, 77, 80, 87, 88, 90; McKee, Church Mother, 108, 109, 112, 118, 120. 134. Matheson, Argula von Grumbach Schriften, 65–​66, 66, 67, 89, 120–​21; Matheson, Argula von Grumbach, 77, 78, 79, 106, 144. Argula cited Hosea 13:8 and 6:5, Isaiah 3:12 and 29:24, Ezekiel 20:23, and Jeremiah 6:10, 10:21, 23:36, 29:24, and 48:27. 135.  She wrote, “Do not listen to the words of the preachers or the prophets who deceive you and tell you fantasies which spring from your own hearts, not from the mouth of God” (Matheson, Argula von Grumbach Schriften, 100; Matheson, Argula von Grumbach, 122). She quoted Jeremiah 23:16 and 50:6. 136.  Weyda, Wyder das unchristliche schreyben, Aii/​v, Aiv/​r, Bi/​r–​v. Ursula also appealed to New Testament warnings against false apostles and teachers, such as II Corinthians 11:4 and 13–​15, Colossians 2:20–​23, Acts 20:30, and I Timothy 4:1. See Aiii/​r, Aiv/​r, Bi/​v. 137. KSZ II, 26–​27, 31–​37; McKee, Church Mother, 66–​67, 70–​75.

62

The Reformation of Prophecy

held for reconceptions of the priesthood and the engagement of both lay men and women with Scripture, as well as their prospects for ministry. The prophet and prophecy served a number of significant goals in the reformers’ early endorsements of the priesthood of all believers. In the first place, the figure of the prophet was particularly fruitful because of the view of the prophet as one who is instructed directly by God, has direct access to the Holy Spirit, and proclaims the Word of God alone. These were precisely the points Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, and Zell sought to promote among the laity. Luther therefore appealed to Isaiah 54:13 (“your children will be taught by God”) and Jeremiah 31:34 (“No longer shall they teach one other, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me”) to insist that every baptized Christian has access to the Holy Spirit and any baptized Christian may be taught directly by God and/​or the Holy Spirit—​both of which provide the believer with all that he or she needs to interpret and apply God’s Word correctly.138 In 1522 Zwingli appealed to the example of Cornelius and his household, to whom the Holy Spirit was given despite their being Gentiles and untaught, to argue that the Holy Spirit still acts in this way: “And the same sort of thing certain persons are doing today. As soon as some pious and learned man has set forth something from Scripture rather more simply and clearly than usual, they break out with, ‘Who gave you the authority to teach thus? It belongs to the fathers only.’ ” Zwingli concluded that such wrong reactions stem from the inability to concede the truth that all laity have “a full share in the Spirit” and not just the tonsured and ordained.139 The use of the prophet to assert that all Christians already have available to them the resources necessary to read, interpret, and apply Scripture correctly set the stage for Luther’s and Zwingli’s insistence on the clarity of Scripture. Alongside Luther’s and Zwingli’s uses of the prophet to promote the priesthood of all believers, they frequently asserted the perspicuity of Scripture. Right around the time that Luther deployed I  Corinthians 14, Isaiah 53:14, and Jeremiah 31:34 to argue that all believers have the resources necessary to read Scripture, he also made his earliest pronouncements concerning Scripture’s clarity. In his 1520 response to Pope Leo X’s papal bull that censored his writings, Luther stoutly asserted that Scripture is “in and of itself the most certain, the most accessible, the most clear thing of all, interpreting itself, approving, judging and illuminating all things.”140 Just after Zwingli 138. WA 8:486–​87; LW 36:139. He also quoted John 6:45, “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ ” 139. CR 88:322; Zwingli, “Archeteles,” 285. Zwingli also appealed to John 6:45, as well, in “Reply to Emser,” 327; CR 90:259. 140. WA 7:97 as translated by Mark D. Thompson, “Biblical Interpretation,” 303.



Prophecy and the Priesthood of All Believers

63

advocated for the priesthood of all believers—​and specifically the access all Christians have to the Holy Spirit who is the true interpreter of Scripture—​ in “Archeteles” (1522), he preached his famous sermon “Of the Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God,” which precisely founded this certainty and clarity upon the work of the Holy Spirit.141 The prophet served as an eminently useful model for the early aims of Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, and Zell because of the biblical prophet’s work in the rebuke of wrong teachings and practices—​a rebuke precisely aimed at bringing Christian teachings and practices back in alignment with God’s Word. These men encouraged the laity boldly to apply their readings to correct any false teachings or practices they encountered in order to bring them back into right accordance with God’s Word. The figure of the prophet thereby served simultaneously to empower the priesthood of all believers and to locate all authority ultimately in God’s sufficient revelation in Scripture. The insistence that a true prophet speaks the Word of God alone and not his or her own word or a human word contributed directly to the Protestant reformers’ aims to assert the authority of Scripture above and beyond the authority of the church, just as asserting that any Christian may interpret the Word of God and rebuke wrong teaching attacked traditional concepts of church authority from the other direction. The figure of the prophet precisely furthered this two-​prong attack. Indeed Luther asserted the authority of Scripture to its furthest point, arguing that not only does a true prophet speak only the Word of God (and not his own word), but ultimately it is the Word who is the active agent in any true reform. Luther declared in his second 1522 Invocavit sermon, “Therefore we should give free course to the Word and not add our works to it. We have the right to speak but not the power to accomplish. We should preach the Word, but the results must be left solely to God’s good pleasure.”142 Such an assertion foreshadowed what was to come—​namely, not only the potential of the figure of the prophet and prophecy to empower one to speak but also to curtail such speaking if it is not done in accordance with God’s Word and if it does not render entire authority to Scripture as God’s source for all true knowledge and practice. As we will see in the next chapter, the challenges of Anabaptist, Spiritualist, and other radical conceptions and performances of prophecy forced Luther and Zwingli to rethink their applications of the prophet and prophecy and discover other fruits they might bear.

141. CR 88:342–​84; “Of the Clarity and Certainty,” 59–​94. 142. WA 10/​3: 15; LW 51:76.

2

Prophecy and the Radicals Rethinking Prophecy and the Prophet contra the Radicals

Lay men and women strongly embraced a prophetic understanding of the priesthood of all believers. They inhabited an understanding of the prophet as one who proclaims the Word of God and interprets and applies Scripture for the edification of their readers. They read their current contexts through the lens of biblical prophecy. They distinguished between true and false prophets. They employed prophecy first and foremost to call the people back to the pure Word of God. They did this through the publication of pamphlets, the formation of lay Bible studies, rejection of images in worship, and active disruption of sermons and worship services. Leading reformers such as Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, and Zell paved the way for such emphases, particularly in their early 1520s vernacular writings. Laypersons heard not only the call to lay access and interpretation of Scripture but also the call to take concrete action to bring Christian practices and worship into closer conformity with the teachings of Scripture. Among those who upheld this prophetic conception of the priesthood of all believers, however, were key proponents and leaders of emerging radical reform movements—​Spiritualist and Anabaptist groups—​that were developing and consolidating in the 1520s. In the 1520s it was very difficult precisely to identify who was a Lutheran, a Zwinglian, a Spiritualist, or an Anabaptist, as these groups had not yet fully clarified into separate, consolidated confessions. While many of these groups often initially invoked Luther’s and Zwingli’s teachings concerning the priesthood of all believers, Luther and Zwingli themselves increasingly viewed them as going beyond their visions and processes for reform, especially when these “radicals” sought faster and more extensive changes in worship, Eucharist,



Prophecy and the Radicals

65

and baptism and when they appealed to the Holy Spirit above and beyond Scripture. This chapter gives an account of the growing radical, Spiritualist, and Anabaptist factions in Wittenberg, Zurich, and Strasbourg that centers upon the important role prophecy and conceptions of the prophet played in their alternative visions of reform and disagreements with the leading reformers (i.e., Luther, Zwingli, and Bucer, respectively) in their cities. Several of these radical proponents embodied performances of prophecy that emphasized its more ecstatic, visionary forms and foretelling capacities and affirmed the possibilities of new revelation apart from and beyond Scripture. Differing understandings of prophecy and the prophet divided the so-​called magisterial reformers from these radical elements and were a source of division within the radical factions themselves, as several early Anabaptist leaders struggled to demarcate themselves and their followers into a more biblicist framework, though magisterial reformers often failed to recognize these distinctions in their response to the radical elements in their cities. In some cases certain radical figures claimed an explicit prophetic identity; in others, this was less clear. Nonetheless Luther and Zwingli and, initially, Bucer continued to find prophecy and the prophet immensely useful precisely to denounce these figures as false prophets. In response to the radical, Spiritualist, and Anabaptist alternative conceptions and performances of prophecy, Luther and Zwingli reframed their understandings and applications of the prophet and prophecy—​shifting away from an application to the priesthood of all believers to an application toward strengthening the Protestant pastoral office and its authority.

Wittenberg and the Radicals The idea of prophecy and the prophet proved to be a very useful way for leaders of alternative reform movements to locate themselves (at least initially) within Luther’s and Zwingli’s existing reform programs. Alternative reform movements adopted the prophetic framework Luther and Zwingli gave to the priesthood of all believers as an effective means to authorize their own programs of reform. Yet several of the alternative reform movements retained elements emphasized in earlier medieval conceptions of prophecy, allowing a greater role for visionary and ecstatic forms. Proponents of faster and more extensive reform in Wittenberg often characterized their vocations in prophetic terms and/​or were viewed by others as prophets. For example, while Luther was in the Wartburg, Gabriel Zwilling and Andreas Karlstadt arose as key leaders of Wittenberg’s reform of worship. Both men were hailed as prophets;

66

The Reformation of Prophecy

some even named Zwilling a second Martin Luther.1 In late December 1521 and on into January 1522, Karlstadt and Zwilling implemented communion in two kinds and promoted the removal of images from worship spaces.2 Also in late December 1521 a group of three men known as the Zwickau Prophets appeared in Wittenberg claiming direct revelation from the Holy Spirit outside of Scripture and preaching apocalyptic messages.3 Luther initially tacitly approved Karlstadt’s and Zwilling’s reforming work—​ a sentiment he expressed to Spalatin during a secret visit he made to Wittenberg in December 1521.4 But in January 1522, after the visit of the Zwickau Prophets, Luther wrote a letter to Philip Melanchthon counseling him to handle such events with a sharp distinction between true and false prophets.5 Luther would soon use this contrast to repudiate the teachings of Karlstadt. Luther returned to Wittenberg in March 1522 and preached the Invocavit sermons in response to the series of disturbances. In these sermons he insisted that the Word of God alone and not human works is the agent of any true reform. One should never coerce or rush reform, he proclaimed, but leave the results entirely to the activity of God’s Word.6 During this period of the 1520s two men in the vicinity of Wittenberg—​ Karlstadt and Thomas Müntzer—​ began very publicly teaching messages different from Luther’s. Karlstadt was a professor of theology at the University of Wittenberg and had at first partnered with Luther in the early years of Wittenberg’s reform movement. When reform efforts took on what he viewed as a coercive and riotous tenor while he was away at the Wartburg, Luther blamed Karlstadt for the disorder and endorsed a slower pace of reform. Preaching the Invocavit sermons upon his return in March 1522, Luther reestablished his authority and overturned many of Karlstadt’s prior endeavors. Having thus been discredited, Karlstadt left Wittenberg in 1523 and became the pastor of a church at Orlamünde, where he continued his more aggressive reform program, and in 1524 he began promoting his spiritualist view of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper and publicly refuting the doctrine of real, bodily presence. Seeking to silence Karlstadt, the University of 1. Edwards, Luther and the False Brethren, 7. 2. Edwards, 7–​10; Brecht, Martin Luther, 25–​31. 3. Bender, “The Zwickau Prophets,” 7; Kuhr, “The Zwickau Prophets,” 205; Edwards, 9. 4. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Breifwechsel, 2:409–​10, hereafter cited as WABr; LW 48:351. 5. WABr 2:424–​25; LW 48:365–​67. 6. WA 10/​3:15–​20; LW 51:76–​78.



Prophecy and the Radicals

67

Wittenberg recalled him in mid-​1524, since technically he was still a faculty member. Luther insisted that Karlstadt, as a faculty member, should submit his work to the censor of the university before publishing any of it. Karlstadt acquiesced to the summons and returned to Wittenberg, whereupon he agreed to relinquish his post at Orlamünde. But upon returning to Orlamünde, he recanted his agreement and resigned the Wittenberg faculty post and stayed on at Orlamünde.7 Although Karlstadt’s reform program differed from Luther’s in significant ways—​such as the rate of reform and the content of their Eucharistic theologies—​ he shared with Luther some important emphases. For one, Karlstadt understood himself as upholding the authority and primacy of Scripture. He precisely based his arguments for the speedy removal of images upon Scripture’s clear commands to abolish images and idolatry, as well as the commands of Christian love that would not permit one to tarry in allowing a fellow Christian to remain surrounded by such stumbling blocks.8 Similar to Luther’s teachings on the priesthood of all believers, Karlstadt also emphasized the calling of the whole congregation to live their Christian lives actively in obedience to God and strongly identified himself with the common layperson.9 Just as in 1520, when Luther called the aristocracy and laity to action, Karlstadt also demanded (perhaps even more so) concrete actions as the proper and necessary fruit of each Christian layperson’s faithful response to God’s Word and commands.10 This accent on faithful action buttressed his profound emphasis upon the prompt obedience that any truly regenerate life should exemplify.11 Karlstadt, however, stressed the necessary work and inner witness of the Holy Spirit as the driving force of Christian regeneration over and against the role of material elements, such as the sacraments or even the “letter” of

7. For more information on the events and interactions between Karlstadt and Luther, see Sider, Karlstadt’s Battle with Luther; Edwards, 7–​59. 8.  Sider, “Whether One Should Proceed Slowly” (1524), in Karlstadt’s Battle with Luther, 53–​54; Karlstadt, Karlstadts Schriften, 1:77–​78. 9.  Sider, “Whether One Should Proceed Slowly,” 59–​60; Karlstadt, Karlstadts Schriften, 1:82–​83. See also Sider, Karlstadt’s Battle with Luther, 126. 10.  Sider, “Whether One Should Proceed Slowly,” 60; Karlstadt, Karlstadts Schriften, 1:84. Karlstadt asserted, “He who remembers divine teaching properly and well cannot stand still or be idle or peevish when God’s sayings obligate and impel him to action. If he holds still in a situation where he can and should work, that is a certain sign that he has forgotten or does not have the kind of remembrance that he should have—​that is, from his whole heart (Deuteronomy 29)” (60). 11. Sider, “Whether One Should Proceed Slowly,” 73.

68

The Reformation of Prophecy

Scripture.12 He further distanced himself from Luther in his understanding of the role of revelation, particularly concerning the way sin is revealed. Karlstadt distinguished between an internal and an external revelation, arguing that the law provides an external revelation of sin that ultimately serves only to strengthen the desire to sin, whereas the Spirit alone provides the transformative revelation that conquers this wrong desire.13 Karlstadt’s attention to the priesthood of all believers, the laity’s faith in action, and the inner work and revelation of the Holy Spirit suggests prophetic concerns. Karlstadt specifically likened himself to the prophetic figure of John the Baptist when he wrote, “For I always lead them from myself to God’s genuine view, as John did who said: He is the one; I am not. He stands in your midst, but you do not recognize him [John 1:20, 26].”14 More than Karlstadt’s claiming a prophetic identity for himself, it was Luther who attacked him in prophetic terms, assailing him as a false prophet. Luther strategically viewed Karlstadt as the associate of the Zwickau Prophets and Thomas Müntzer, thus making him complicit (whether fairly or not) in their teachings. Prophecy therefore figured prominently in Luther’s harshly negative appraisal of Karlstadt in 1524–​25. Luther made a combined attack against Karlstadt, Müntzer, and the Zwickau Prophets in his July 1524 “Letter to the Princes of Saxony concerning the Rebellious Spirit,” which was aimed primarily at Müntzer.15 Later, in December 1524, he would target Karlstadt as he responded to the appeals of some Strasbourg leaders for advice about how to deal with Karlstadt’s recent arrival in their city. Luther reminded the Strasbourg Christians in a 12. Sider, “Whether One Should Proceed Slowly,” 74, 90; H. Barge and E. Freys, “Verzeichnis der gedruckten Schriften des Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 21 (1904): 309–​10; “Review of Some Chief Articles of Christian Doctrine” (1525) in Sider, Karlstadt’s Battle with Luther, 130; Karlstadt, Karlstadts Schriften, 2:77. 13. Karlstadt wrote, “The genuine revelation of sin is of the Spirit. . . . For he who understands the letter of the law without the revelation of the Spirit does not become hateful toward and an enemy of evil. Rather he increases in evil through the law. . . . For when it is understood by one’s own reason God’s law reveals sin in such a way that the knower becomes much worse than he was before; desire becomes sin for the first time and becomes anger against God’s righteousness and makes sin a thousand times more serious. Therefore there is a distinction between the revelation of evil which the Spirit of Christ bestows and the revelation of sin which the flesh acquires by its own powers. The external revelation of sin through the law fires the sinner with desire and anger and strengthens sin. The inner revelation through the grace of Christ breaks desire, quenches anger, and destroys sin” (“Review of Some Chief Articles of Christian Doctrine” [1525], in Sider, Karlstadt’s Battle with Luther, 127–​28; Karlstadt, Karlstadts Schriften, 2:63). 14. “Concerning the Anti-​Christian Misuse of the Lord’s Bread and Cup” in Sider, Karlstadt’s Battle with Luther, 74, 75; Barge and Freys, 309–​10. 15. A discussion of this treatise follows in the treatment of Müntzer below.



Prophecy and the Radicals

69

brief letter that whenever the true Gospel is preached, false apostles and false prophets always arise; Karlstadt was such a false prophet, teaching ideas contrary to the Gospel, particularly the false reliance upon works.16 Arguing that Karlstadt clung too hard to external matters by insisting that Christians must reject images and attack the sacraments in order to be truly Christian, Luther exclaimed, “Nor can we tolerate anyone imprisoning Christian freedom by laws and laying a snare for consciences. For we know that no work can make a Christian, and that such external matters as the use of images and the keeping of the Sabbath are, in the New Testament, as optional as all the other ceremonies enjoined by the Law.” “Beware of the false prophet!” Luther concluded.17 He promised to follow up with a fuller treatment of the matter, which he provided in two parts (one later in December 1524 and the other in January 1525) in Against the Heavenly Prophets. In this treatise Luther even more fully employed the language of false prophets and “false spirits,” sarcastically mocking what he viewed as their incorrect appeals to the Holy Spirit. He refuted Karlstadt’s understanding of the relationship between revelation, law, and sin and concluded that Karlstadt misinterpreted the relationship of Law and Gospel.18 He repeated the accusation that Karlstadt promoted a form of works righteousness and thereby endangered Christian consciences, adding charges of pride, disorder, sedition, and rebellion.19 The charge of disorder figured centrally in his rebuke, for Luther contended that Karlstadt promoted not only civil disorder in the coercive removal of images but also theological disorder in his wrong understandings of Law and Gospel and of faith and works, as well as his wrong readings of Scripture. Luther declared, “Therefore one can believe no one who relies on his own spirit and inner feelings for authority and who outwardly storms against God’s accustomed order, unless he performs miraculous signs, as Moses indicates in Deuteronomy 18.”20 He attacked Karlstadt as a seditious spirit contrary to God’s divine order in both civil and theological matters, and he attacked Karlstadt’s claims to direct access to God through a reliance on the Spirit apart from God’s Word.21 As with all

16. WA 15:392–​93; LW 40:66. 17. WA 15:393–​95, there 395; LW 40:67–​69, there 69. 18. WA 18:65–​66; LW 40:82–​83. 19. WA 18:67, 68, 71–​74, 85, 86, 87–​88, 102–​4, 111–​12, 116, 120, 122–​23; LW 40:85, 88, 89, 90–​91, 101, 104–​5, 119, 120, 128–​29, 134, 137, 140–​41. 20. WA 18:97; LW 40:113. 21. WA 18:115–​16; LW 40: 133, 134, there 134.

70

The Reformation of Prophecy

false prophets, Luther concluded, Karlstadt preached without a rightful call and refused instruction from others.22 The other key figure in Luther’s circle during the 1520s who expressed a significantly different program of reform was Thomas Müntzer. Müntzer was in the region of Wittenberg from 1517 to 1519 and attended the Leipzig Debate in 1519. Luther had even recommended him for an interim pastoral post in Zwickau, where he served as Johann Egranus’s temporary replacement at St. Mary’s Church in early 1520. Upon Egranus’s return in October 1520, Müntzer was appointed to a post at St. Katherine’s Church, where he met Nikolaus Storch, one of the Zwickau Prophets. Müntzer had already begun espousing direct revelation from the Holy Spirit and the possibility of new revelation—​ ideas that placed him more and more in conflict with Egranus, who followed the lead of Wittenberg. By 1521 Müntzer was discharged from his post and driven out of Zwickau. In 1523 he gained a post in Allstedt. By 1525 he was active in the Peasants’ Revolt and was executed as a rebel. Luther’s quarrel with Müntzer orbited in significant ways around issues pertaining to the definition and function of prophecy. Müntzer viewed himself as a prophet, and he affirmed the important role of visions in prophecy as a practice supported by Scripture.23 He promoted the possibility of ongoing new revelation from the Holy Spirit and prioritized the work of the Spirit as necessary to making God’s Word “new” and providing a “living” application of Scripture.24 One of his key disagreements with Egranus concerned the proper function of the Holy Spirit. Egranus maintained that certain outward manifestations of the Holy Spirit had ceased after the time of the apostles, but Müntzer insisted that the Holy Spirit is available to every Christian in external manifestations.25 His writings in 1523–​24 demonstrate a very different understanding of the relationship of the Holy Spirit to Scripture than that of Luther. As one scholar aptly states, Müntzer “insisted that the Bible, although the Word of God, was a Word of the past that needed actualization through a new Word of the Spirit.”26 Notably he often appealed to the text of I Corinthians 22. WA 18:94, 102, 89–​90; LW 40:111, 119, 107. 23.  Günther Franz, ed., Thomas Müntzer:  Schriften und Briefe, Kritisch Gesamtausgabe (Gütersloh, Switzerland, 1968), 390–​91. See also Stayer, “Three Phases of ‘Christianization,’ ” 112; Bailey, “The Sixteenth Century’s Apocalyptic Heritage”; Honée, “The Radical German Reformer Thomas Müntzer.” 24.  Franz, 220, 380–​82, 390–​91. Peter Matheson, ed. and trans., The Collected Works of Thomas Müntzer (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 44, 46. 25. Stayer, 112. 26. Kane, “The Exercise of Prophecy,” 30.



Prophecy and the Radicals

71

14 (especially verses 6 and 26) concerning prophecy to make his arguments for the ongoing role of revelation in the Christian life.27 He insisted that one needed new, ongoing revelation from the Holy Spirit in order to perform the prophetic functions of preaching the Word of God, interpreting Scripture rightly, and discerning right teaching. In a March 1522 letter to Melanchthon, Müntzer argued that the Word of God “proceeds from the mouth of God, not from books,” and he scolded the Wittenberg reformers for holding to the “dead letter” of Scripture—​a view that ultimately limits God’s voice.28 In a July 1523 letter to Luther, he defended his emphasis on dreams and visions as congruent with Scripture, and he reasserted his arguments for the necessity of ongoing revelation given through the immediacy of the Holy Spirit.29 In Concerning the Invented Faith, Müntzer again contrasted the “dead word” of the biblical text with the “living Word of God.”30 He not only espoused an ecstatic, visionary form of prophecy; he interpreted biblical prophecy with a profoundly apocalyptic emphasis with potentially disastrous consequences, as his interpretation of the Book of Daniel illustrates. On the one hand, similar to Luther, Müntzer likened events of his day to the circumstances of Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel.31 He spoke just like an Old Testament prophet, pronouncing woes in the voice of Isaiah and warning his listeners not to despise prophecy.32 He also argued that they were living in the time of Daniel’s fifth empire—​the time of the Antichrist.33 Müntzer believed in a literal application of Old Testament teachings that specifically included the use of the sword to “sweep aside those evil men who obstruct the gospel.” These apocalyptic times, he contended, warranted the work of the righteous in separating the tares from the wheat—​a separation that required and authorized the use of the sword.34 Luther recognized immediately the prophetic dimensions of Müntzer’s teachings and claims. In his “Letter to the Princes of Saxony concerning 27. Matheson, Collected Works of Thomas Müntzer, 347, 359, 360, 365, 378. 28. Franz, 380–​82; Matheson, Collected Works of Thomas Müntzer, 44, 46. 29. Franz, 390–​91. 30.  Franz, 220. For a very helpful study of the relationship and correspondence between Luther and Müntzer, see Gritsch, “Thomas Müntzer and Luther.” 31. Franz, 242; Matheson, Collected Works of Thomas Müntzer, 230. 32. Franz, 249; Matheson, Collected Works of Thomas Müntzer, 238. 33. Franz, 255, 261; Matheson, Collected Works of Thomas Müntzer, 244, 250. Luther agreed that they lived in the time of the fifth empire, but disagreed concerning the use of the sword. 34.  Franz, 257, 259, 262–​63; Matheson, Collected Works of Thomas Müntzer, 246, 248, 250–​51, there 246.

72

The Reformation of Prophecy

the Rebellious Spirit,” he therefore methodically painted Müntzer as a false prophet. Müntzer’s claims of direct revelation and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, argued Luther, are really the work of the devil. Christians should therefore carefully test such spirits to discern their true source.35 Luther specified several marks of false prophets to identify Müntzer as an “erring spirit,” seen in his reliance on the Spirit apart from Scripture, his arrogance, his unwillingness to be corrected, and his promotion of the sword and rebellion.36 The fruits Müntzer bears indicate his true status, for he generates the fruits of violence and destruction.37 A true prophet, on the other hand, relies solely upon the Word of God as the proper active agent of reform, rather than going beyond the Word through the use of human violence, as well as appeals to the Spirit apart from the Word.38 In his July 1524 lectures on the Book of Joel, Luther clearly had Müntzer and Karlstadt in mind when he insisted that nothing of Joel 2:28 supports their claims of having the Holy Spirit: To such we must respond in this way:  “It is not enough to have the Spirit poured in. Indeed, this benefits you alone. But you must show and openly give evidence of that manifestation and outpouring of the Spirit in order that all flesh may see it.” Because you cannot do this, just as our prophets never can, let them with us remain students of Holy Scripture. They must not establish some new kind of doctrine that they pretend to establish by the authority of the Holy Spirit.39 One should not trust any claiming to be prophets with new revelation unless they present real signs and wonders, which Luther implied was no longer possible any­way. Rather, true prophets must adhere to Scripture and its teachings, and any, therefore, who teach a “new word” or claim “new revelation” are by definition false. Whether or not Karlstadt and Müntzer claimed prophetic status—​which seems true of the latter and questionable of the former—​Luther cast his sharp criticisms of these men in distinctly prophetic terms. Such a response indicates prophecy as a key element at issue in the contentions between these men, at least from Luther’s point of view. On the one hand, it may simply be due to the fact that charging them as false prophets was an immensely useful 35. WA 15:210–​13; LW 40:49–​52. 36. WA 15:211–​12, 212, 213, 215, 216; LW 40:50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55. 37. WA 15:217; LW 40:56. 38. WA 15:221, see also 211, 216; LW 40:59, see also 50, 55. 39. LW 18:108; WA 13:110.



Prophecy and the Radicals

73

tool that had strong biblical grounding. Given the prophetic terms in which Luther taught his theology of the priesthood of all believers, though, it seems clear something even more was at play. Luther increasingly realized the threat of disparate conceptions and enactments of prophecy. Rather than the solid anchoring in Scripture that Luther’s understanding of prophecy fostered, others promoted a visionary, ecstatic form that threatened the primacy of Scripture with their emphases on the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit and possibilities of new revelation. Müntzer, the Zwickau Prophets, and later Spiritualists such as Hans Denck and Caspar Schwenckfeld sanctioned their prophetic messages by appeal to the immediacy of the Holy Spirit and Scriptures that teach that all can be directly taught by God (John 6:45 and Isaiah 54:13)—​texts that Luther and Zwingli had both invoked concerning the accessibility of the Holy Spirit to all Christians. Such radical reformers affirmed the possibility of new revelation beyond and outside of Scripture and therefore advocated a fundamentally different understanding of the relationship of Word and Spirit than that propounded by Luther and Zwingli.

Zurich and the Rise of Anabaptist and Radical Groups In Zurich and its surrounding territories, among those who adopted Zwingli’s call to the priesthood of all believers and translated it into activities such as lay Bible studies, iconoclasm, and the interruption of sermons and services, there were men who increasingly desired more extensive reform and/​or a different model of reform than that set forth by Zwingli. For many of these who would become leaders of alternative reform movements, it was precisely Zwingli’s teachings on the priesthood of all believers, congregational practices of prophesying, and the accessibility of the Holy Spirit to all Christians that inspired their vision of a transformed ecclesial body and empowered them to take concrete action. As is well known, a circle of Zwingli’s followers—​Conrad Grebel, Felix Mantz, and Simon Stumpf—​eventually broke away from him to form the first Swiss Anabaptists. Arnold Snyder argues that Grebel, Mantz, and Stumpf accentuated the call and ability of laypersons to interpret Scripture, regardless of educational level—​something Zwingli himself stressed in his early 1522–​23 writings. Furthermore Snyder maintains that lay Bible studies in Zurich played a crucial role in the birth of Swiss Anabaptism.40 Gordon 40. Snyder, “The Birth and Evolution of Swiss Anabaptism,” 504, 505. Much of this summary of key events giving rise to the Anabaptist movement in Zurich is indebted to Snyder’s article and Bruce Gordon’s Swiss Reformation.

74

The Reformation of Prophecy

also points to the intersections of Castelberger’s lay Bible study and Stumpf, Mantz, and Wilhelm Reublin, so that by December 1523 this Bible study came under the leadership of Grebel and began to question Zwingli’s authority.41 Members of the Castelberger Bible study were also prominent among the dozen people who partook of a couple of sausages in an earlier March 1522 Lenten protest. Furthermore in 1522 Stumpf was a leading advocate for the abolishment of the tithe. Reublin also was among the leadership who rejected the tithe in the region of Witikon, and in 1523 he led some of the first acts of Swiss iconoclasm, compelling the Zurich Council to call a disputation concerning images in October 1523.42 The leadership in Zurich, however, handled such matters as the debate over the tithe and iconoclasm by referring them to the Zurich City Council for review and decision. On June 22, 1523, the council decreed that tithes should continue to be paid.43 Two days after the council’s decision, Zwingli published his “Sermon on Divine and Human Justice,” in which he distinguished between human and divine matters and located the issue of the tithe as a human affair that fell under the jurisdiction of the state, which, as outlined in Romans 13, God had appointed to oversee such matters and maintain civil order. Zwingli consequently relegated many social and economic concerns to the authority of the state since he did not view them as clerical matters.44 Just as with the issue of the tithe, the Zurich City Council decreed concerning images that while they affirmed that such images were not in accordance with Scripture, they ruled that for now images should neither be added nor destroyed, thereby maintaining the status quo.45 During the Second Disputation over images, Grebel appealed for the abolition of the Mass, to which Zwingli replied that the council would decide concerning the proper observation of the Mass. Stumpf immediately objected to the placing of such a matter in the hands of the magistrates, when it should be “the Spirit of God [who] decides.” Zwingli responded by clarifying that of course the City Council should not decide about God’s Word, but it has the authority to determine the best process going forward so as to maintain civil order.46

41. Gordon, Swiss Reformation, 192–​93. 42. Snyder, 509–​10, 512. 43. See Egli, Aktensammlung, no. 368; Harder, The Sources of Swiss Anabaptism, 208–​10. 44. Zwingli, Von göttlicher und menschlicher; Harder, 213–​19. 45. CR 89:671–​803; Harder, 234–​50. 46. CR 89:784; Harder, 242.



Prophecy and the Radicals

75

Two things are especially noteworthy here. First, some of the most outspoken proponents of active change were Grebel, Stumpf, Mantz, and Reublin—​all men who would later break from Zwingli and become the first Swiss Anabaptists. Second, they disagreed profoundly with Zwingli over the rate, extent, and process of reform, particularly the role of the state and magistrates in Zurich’s reforming program—​issues that had been brewing over a period of years. Grebel, Mantz, Stumpf, and Reublin strongly advocated for much more extensive reform at a much faster pace. They believed Scripture called for the immediate abolition of the tithe and of the Mass. Even more, they fiercely rejected the view that the state had the authority to set the program or pace of reform, arguing that God’s Word and God’s Spirit are the sole authorities for guiding the needed changes. By the end of 1523 they were thoroughly disillusioned with Zwingli and his largely state-​ led reforming program. Grebel and Stumpf approached Zwingli and Leo Jud in late 1523 with a request to separate themselves, invoking the example of the believers in the book of Acts, so that they may more fully follow the righteousness of Christ. Zwingli and Jud staunchly denied their request, seeing it as a poor reading of Acts and appealing to the parable of the wheat and tares as a more correct understanding of the church on earth.47 By the summer of 1524 and again in the fall of 1524, the City Council became increasingly aware of families failing to bring their children for baptism. In the regions of Witikon and Zollikon, they identified Reublin as the ringleader and arrested him. Infant baptism became a sharp issue in Zurich itself in fall 1524. Grebel wrote a letter rejecting infant baptism in September 1524.48 Mantz publicly requested that Zwingli compose a written defense of infant baptism on biblical grounds, to which Zwingli responded with the December 1524 “Those Who Give Cause for Uproar,” in which he paralleled infant baptism to circumcision in the Old Testament.49 In addition to the issues of the rate and extent of reform and the role of the magistrates, views concerning infant baptism and the composition of the true church therefore became crucially divisive issues. The baptismal

47. CR 108:32–​36; Harder, 278–​79. 48. “Konrad Grebel und Genossen an Thomas Murner,” September 5, 1525, in Leonhard von Muralt and Walter Schmid, Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz, vol. 1 (Zürich: S. Hirzel Verlag, 1952), no. 14, pp. 13–​21; Harder, “Grebel to Müntzer,” in Sources of Swiss Anabaptism, no. 63, 284–​92, esp. 291. 49. “[Felix Manz], Protestation und Schutzschrift [an den Rat von Zürich],” mid-​October–​ mid-​December 1525–​17 January 1525, in Muralt and Schmid, Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz, vol. 1, no. 16, pp. 23–​28; Harder, “The Mantz Petition of Defense,” in Sources of Swiss Anabaptism, no. 67B, 311–​15, and “Zwingli’s Treatise on Rebels and Rebellion,” no. 67C, 315–​21, and Zwingli, “Wer Ursache gebe zu Aufruhr usw.”; CR 109:409–​12.

76

The Reformation of Prophecy

debate also uncovered contesting views of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. Many of the emerging Swiss Anabaptists held to a priority of the commands of the New Testament as formative for the church, seeing Old Testament commands as superseded by the New. Zwingli’s Old Testament support of baptism and the role of magistrates did little to convince them.50 Moreover, in the context of the Peasants’ War that was gaining momentum north of Zurich, the Zurich City Council believed it was necessary to distance the city from any hint of support of rebellion. The council therefore issued two directives to contain the growing alternative reform efforts. First, on January 18, 1525, they ordered all children to be baptized immediately after birth, and children who had not yet been baptized should be baptized within eight days of the decree.51 Second, on January 21, they commanded the closure of the “besondern schulen” (“special schools”), ordered the silence of Grebel and Mantz, and banished Reublin, Hans Brötli, Ludwig Hätzer, and Andreas Castelberger.52 The verdict to close the special schools indicates the crucial role lay Bible studies played in the emergence of Swiss Anabaptism—​not just Castelberger’s but also lay Bible studies in the surrounding territories, such as those in Zollikon and St. Gallen. Lay Bible study gatherings were where laity discussed Scripture and, in doing so, came to embrace a different path of reform that they viewed as more in line with Scripture’s teachings.53 Taking up Zwingli’s calls for the priesthood of all believers and the prophetic duties of interpreting

50.  See Gordon, Swiss Reformation, 208. Gordon also points to the influence of Caspar Schwenckfeld, who placed these views in writing earlier and more clearly and whose works had entered Swiss lands. 51. “Mandat des Rates,” January 18, 1525, in Muralt and Schmid, Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz, vol. 1, no. 25, p. 35; Harder, “Council Mandate for Infant Baptism,” in Sources of Swiss Anabaptism, no. 68C, 336. 52. “Beschluß des Rates,” January 21, 1525, in Muralt and Schmid, Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz, vol. 1, no. 26, pp. 35–​36; Harder, “Council Decree against Anabaptists,” in Sources of Swiss Anabaptism, no. 68E, pp. 337–​38. Harold Bender argues that the “special schools” refer to the lay Bible studies, such as the one that had been meeting in the home of Andreas Castelberger (Conrad Grebel, 136). Hans Hillerbrand contends that this phrase refers to the Tuesday Disputations (The Reformation, 230). Given the contexts and the subsequent banishing and silencing, the lay Bible studies were more likely the target of this decree. Hans Brötli was significant to the birth of the Anabaptist movement in Zollikon, having performed an adult baptism there. Ludwig Hätzer moved to Zurich sometime in 1523 and wrote a treatise outlining the biblical evidence against images in worship. He was the first among the Zurich radicals to publish arguments against infant baptism. For further biographical information, see Harder, Sources of Swiss Anabaptism, 532, 543–​44. 53. Snyder, 548, 564–​65.



Prophecy and the Radicals

77

Scripture and rebuking wrong teaching and practices, men such as Grebel, Mantz, and Reublin translated these invitations into their resistance to the tithe, Catholic Mass, and infant baptism. In their vision of a truer, purer church with an even more profound emphasis on lay participation, texts such as I Corinthians 14’s teachings on prophesying played an indispensable role in their vision of a biblical church polity.54 Following the January 1525 edicts, Anabaptists fled Zurich to towns in the surrounding countryside where Anabaptism had already taken root, such as Zollikon, St. Gallen, Waldshut, Schaffhausen, Hallau, and Klettgau. The key leader of reform in Waldshut was Balthasar Hubmaier, who was baptized as an adult in 1525 and in that same year wrote publicly against infant baptism.55 In these towns, as in Zurich, some of the leading instigators for more radical reform were Anabaptists (or future Anabaptists), such as the brothers Claus and Jacob Hottinger, the latter of whom became the leader of the Anabaptists in Zollikon.56 Two particular occurrences in 1525 and 1526 illuminate the alternative possibilities of prophecy in Anabaptism. First, in 1525 a group of Zollikon Anabaptists processed through Zurich proclaiming woes upon the city in the manner of the Old Testament prophets.57 Second, a group of Anabaptists in St. Gallen in 1526 claimed direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, preached publicly, and performed external manifestations of the

54.  See Hubmaier, “Axiomata,” 3:88, 90; Peachey and Peachey, “Answer of Some Who Are Called Anabaptists,” 10–​14; Stadler, “Vom lebendigen wort und geschribnen,” 1:212–​ 15; Robert Stupperich, Die Schriften Bernhard Rothmanns (Westfalen:  Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1970), 221–​22; Klaassen, Anabaptism in Outline, 126–​27, 146, 149–​50; “Hans Umlauft an Stephan (Rauchenecker?),” October–​November 1539, in Karl Schornbaum, ed., Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer (Bayern, II. Abteilung) (Gütersloh, Switzerland, 1951), vol. 5, no. 49, p. 66; Snyder, Sources of South German/​Austrian Anabaptism, 281; Yoder, The Legacy of Michael Sattler, 36–​43, 44–​45. 55. Snyder, 550, 558. For a more thorough account of Hubmaier, see Snyder, 555–​64. Snyder argues that Hubmaier maintained close connections to the Zurich Anabaptists. He credits the difference on the issue of the use of the sword to the influence of Felix Mantz rather than Grebel, as in principle the Zurich Anabaptists maintained a position of pacifism, while Hubmaier and other rural Anabaptist communities were open to the possible use of the sword. See Snyder, 557–​58. 56.  Snyder, 540–​ 41. In 1523 Jacob Hottinger interrupted several sermons, and Claus Hottinger, a member of the Castelberger Bible study, was one of the men who removed the crucifix at Stadelhofen. 57. Blanke, Brüder in Christo, 68–​75; Timmerman, Heinrich Bullinger on Prophecy, 91. They also identified Zwingli as the red dragon in Revelation 12:3. Timmerman provides an excellent succinct summary of the role of prophets in early Zurich and Zwingli’s conception of the prophetic office (83–​111).

78

The Reformation of Prophecy

Holy Spirit, such as glossolalia. The prominent leaders of this group were the Anabaptist women Margaret Hottinger (who had traveled from Zollikon to St. Gallen) and Magdalena Müller, Barbara Mürglen, Frena Buman, and Wibrat Fanwiler (who were residents of St. Gallen). Johannes Kessler served as the public reporter for these events by providing a clearly hostile account.58 The Anabaptist leader Michael Sattler’s later repudiation of these incidents provides confirmation that some form of ecstatic prophesying, along with the report of dissolute behavior, occurred—​the latter of which the city records of St. Gallen also confirm.59 Daniël Timmerman argues that such episodes “reveal that early Swiss Anabaptists shared a degree of eschatological expectation and prophetic self-​understanding.”60 Snyder argues, and Timmerman agrees, that Sattler’s 1527 Schleitheim Confession specifically aimed, among other things, to direct Swiss Anabaptism away from a spiritualist, ecstatic course to a path anchored in the authority of Scripture.61 Such is evident from the ways in which Sattler established each article of the confession upon the commands of Scripture, particularly the commands of Christ in the New Testament.62 Sattler also sought to remind his community that the true guidance of the Holy Spirit should always lead to greater righteousness rather than the “license of the flesh,” pointing to the call to separate themselves in holiness as another prominent theme of the Schleitheim Confession. He condemned the view that the freedom of the Holy Spirit sanctioned any activity simply because a believer performs it and exhorted his readers to guard against these false brothers and sisters, “for they do not serve our Father, but their father, the devil. But for you it is not so; for they who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh and all its lusts and desires.”63 Sattler frequently appealed to the power and guidance of the Spirit, seeking not so much to restrict the role of the Holy Spirit as to put it back in its right

58. Snyder, 591–​94; Timmerman, 91–​92. See Kessler, “Sabbata,” 2:618, and a translation in Harder, Sources of Swiss Anabaptism, 548. 59. Muralt and Schmid, Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz, 2:28; Yoder, 35–​36. 60. Timmerman, 91–​92. 61. Snyder, 594–​95; Timmerman, 92. 62. Sattler appealed to Matthew 18 and other teachings of Christ in support of the practice of the ban (Yoder, 37, 39–​40). He appealed to Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians 10 concerning the right practice of the Lord’s Supper (Yoder, 37), Christ’s commands of separation (Yoder, 38), Paul’s teachings concerning pastors (Yoder, 39), Christ’s teaching concerning oaths (Yoder, 41–​42), and the example of Christ concerning the use of the sword (Yoder, 40). 63. Muralt and Schmid, Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz, 2:28; Yoder, 36.



Prophecy and the Radicals

79

place, as that which enables believers to live holy lives separate from the wickedness of the world, the state, the oath, and the sword.64 Sattler’s emphasis on the crucial role of the Holy Spirit in forming the people in holiness coupled with a strong affirmation of the authority of Scripture parallels Grebel’s earlier teachings. As Gordon states, for Grebel the true Christian was “utterly changed by the inner working of the Word, a perceptible process in which the believer was led by the [S]‌pirit into a life of moral purity in accordance with the teaching of Scripture. . . . For Grebel . . . there was an absolute correlation between the power of the [S]pirit and external conduct.”65 Affirming the vital centrality of the Spirit, Grebel squarely endorsed the prime, if not sole, authority of Scripture for the Christian life. Grebel therefore wrote a letter to Müntzer in September 1524 admonishing him “to esteem as good and right only what can be found in definite clear Scripture,”66 for Müntzer taught that Scripture was a dead letter without the Spirit, thereby elevating the Spirit as the more necessary, authoritative factor. The events of the Zollikon prophets and the prophetesses at St. Gallen nonetheless demonstrate that prophecy took on forms in some Anabaptist communities that retained a visionary, ecstatic definition of prophecy that sharply departed from Zwingli’s and Luther’s emphases on prophecy as interpretation of Scripture. Even more problematic to Zwingli and Luther were the claims of new revelation. In their responses to these radical and Anabaptist developments, however, they tended not to distinguish between the varieties of Spiritualists and Anabaptists, but often lumped them together under their most extreme expressions. Disparate conceptions of prophecy shaped the emergence of Anabaptism in Zurich in many ways. Men initially within Zwingli’s circle embraced the prophetic call to interpret Scripture and apply it to rebuke wrong teaching and became increasingly convinced that this demanded faster and more extensive reform. They took Zwingli’s assertions of the transformative power of the Word and Spirit to argue for the call and ability of every Christian to be

64. Sattler consistently included explicit references to the Spirit: “gifts of the Spirit” (Yoder, 34), unity in the Spirit (Yoder, 35), “freedom of the Spirit and of Christ” (Yoder, 35), the ban practiced according to the “ordering of the Spirit” (Yoder, 37), the breaking of bread in the Lord’s Supper so that all may be “one spirit” (Yoder, 37), and they are fit for “service of God and the Spirit” (Yoder, 38). 65. Gordon, Swiss Reformation, 193. See also Tanneberger, Die Vorstellung, 32–​76. 66. “Konrad Grebel und Genossen an Thomas Müntzer,” September 5, 1524, in Muralt and Schmid, Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz, vol. 1, no. 14, p. 14; Harder, Sources of Swiss Anabaptism, 286.

80

The Reformation of Prophecy

zealous in righteousness and for the establishment of a pure, holy church. They increasingly believed that such prophetic duties also called for social and economic reform (e.g., the abolishment of the tithe) and total separation from the world, which set them directly at odds with Zurich’s state-​led reforming program. Texts like I Corinthians 14 played a significantly substantial role in Anabaptist visions of church polity, for they asserted a polity that even more literally embodied the practices outlined in I Corinthians 14 and Matthew 18.67 The lay Bible studies that fertilized the soil for the cultivation of Anabaptism mirrored the lay practices of prophesying in I Corinthians 14. This biblical text also figured prominently in Hubmaier’s 1524 countertheses against Johannes Eck, in which he painted a robust picture of the communal practices of biblical interpretation and reproof of wrong teachings.68 Sattler’s 1527 instructions for congregational order directly echoed the instructions for prophesying in I  Corinthians 14:  “When the brothers and sisters are together, they shall take up something to read together. The one whom God has given the best understanding shall explain it; the others should be still and listen.”69 Later documents confirm the continued importance of this Pauline text as a model for congregational proceedings, such as a 1530 Swiss Brethren tract that criticized the practice of having only one preacher, encouraging instead congregational participation as outlined in I Corinthians 14’s steps for prophesying, in which anyone with an edifying message may speak one by one, but should proceed in an orderly manner with openness to correction.70 That a crucial text for Anabaptist congregational proceedings is a text concerning prophecy is a point that needs much more recognition for the ways in which prophecy as congregational reading and interpretation of Scripture shaped Anabaptists’ conceptions of the church and the role of the laity.71

67.  See Hubmaier, “Axiomata,” 3:88, 90; Peachey and Peachey, 10–​14; Stadler, 1:212–​15; Stupperich, Die Schriften Bernhard Rothmanns, 221–​22; Klaassen, Anabaptism in Outline, 126–​27, 146, 149–​50; Schornbaum, Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer 5:66; Snyder, Sources of South German/​Austrian Anabaptism, 281; Muralt and Schmid, Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz, 2: 141–​65; Yoder, 36–​43, 44–​45. 68. Hubmaier, “Axiomata,” 3:87–​90; Hubmaier, “Theses against Eck.” Many of these theses consist simply of a direct quotation of a verse in I Corinthians 14. 69. Rudolf Wolkan and Kaspar Braitmichel, Geschicht-​Buch der hutterischen Brüder (Macleod, Alta: Standoff-​Colony, 1923), 60–​61; Yoder, 44. 70.  Peachey and Peachey, 10–​ 14; Klaassen, Anabaptism in Outline, 126–​ 27. See also Schornbaum, Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer 5:66; Snyder, Sources of South German/​ Austrian Anabaptism, 281. 71. This is true, even as Sattler’s emphasis in the 1527 Schleitheim Confession on the importance of a pastor or shepherd of the church to provide guidance indicates that Anabaptist



Prophecy and the Radicals

81

Furthermore debates within Swiss Anabaptism concerning the proper role of the Holy Spirit had a lot to do with differing conceptions of prophecy. Gordon argues that differing views of prophecy were in many ways at the heart of the conflict between Zwingli and the emerging Swiss Anabaptists. Very early on Zwingli viewed the work of the prophet as indispensably partnered with the work of kings and magistrates, stating, “In short, in the church of Christ the office of the magistrate is as necessary as that of the prophet, though the latter has precedence. For just as a man must consist of both soul and body . . . so the church cannot exist without the magistracy, even though it should take care to only dispose of the more worldly matters which have less to do with the spirit.”72 This sharp contrast between soul and body, Gordon maintains, shaped Zwingli’s understanding of institutions, including the church. He finds in Zwingli’s theology an “unresolved tension between spiritual purity and institutional articulation,” which was “crucial to the development of what might be called religious radicalism in the Swiss Confederation.”73 On the one hand, Gordon contends that Zwingli and the circle of men who broke off from him agreed on this dichotomy of the flesh and spirit. They shared the conviction of the power of the Holy Spirit to transform the believer toward holiness and spiritual regeneration. On the other hand, they stalwartly disagreed on the role of the flesh. For the radicals and Anabaptists, there must be total separation from all things of the flesh and of the world, which first and foremost included separation from politics, political power, and the activities of the state. While Zwingli certainly affirmed separation from things of the flesh, for him the state did not fall within the parameters of the flesh, for he viewed the state as an order created and established by God.74 In disagreeing about the role of magistrates in the work of reform, they ultimately espoused differing conceptions of the prophet and the contours of prophetic reform. For the radicals and Swiss Anabaptists, the prophet requires only the Word of God guided by the Spirit as the active agent of reform. For the radicals and Swiss Anabaptists, prophets were potentially every lay Christian who is regenerated by the Spirit and thereby empowered

leaders also recognized the need of some control over lay expressions, particularly in the wake of the 1526 events in St. Gallen. See Muralt and Schmid, Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz, 2:30–​31; Yoder, 38–​39. 72.  W. Köhler et  al., eds., Huldreich Zwinglis Werke (Leipzig, 1905–​), 4:60, as cited and translated by Gordon, Swiss Reformation, 78. 73. Gordon, Swiss Reformation, 191, see also 80–​81. 74. Gordon, Swiss Reformation, 191–​92.

82

The Reformation of Prophecy

to interpret and apply Scripture to enact the concrete reforms demanded in Scripture. Making the prophet subject to the authority of the magistrate to set the pace and process of reform was both inconceivable and unbiblical to the radicals and Swiss Anabaptists. A prophetic understanding of the priesthood of all believers shaped Swiss Anabaptists’ emphasis on lay participation in the interpretation of Scripture and lay Bible studies; active protests against the tithe, Mass, and infant baptism; visions of the work of the Spirit to form the church as a regenerate community; and their congregational proceedings. Last, discrepancies existed among the radicals and Anabaptists precisely concerning prophecy. Some radicals and Anabaptists in the surrounding territories of Zurich embraced ecstatic and visionary forms of prophecy, asserting the primacy of the Spirit and the possibility of new revelation, while others affirmed the sufficiency of Scripture.

Strasbourg and Radical, Spiritualist, and Anabaptist Groups Several of the issues the leading Strasbourg reformers faced with the growing radical communities in their midst also touched upon disagreements concerning the definition and function of prophecy. A number of scholars point to Strasbourg’s attraction among proponents of alternative visions of reform, so that the city saw many radicals and Anabaptists arriving at its gates as they fled persecution from surrounding territories. Miriam Chrisman indicates a number of reasons for the allure of Strasbourg among these groups. First, in the 1520s Strasbourg did not yet have a clear allegiance to either Luther’s or Zwingli’s vision for reform. Consequently the city allowed an ongoing flexibility on matters such as liturgy and worship forms. The key reforming leaders of Strasbourg—​Bucer, Zell, and Wolfgang Capito—​had also not yet made any definitive statements concerning infant baptism. Strasbourg had a reputation for temperance, restraint, and even tolerance.75 The city was strong economically, since it was a significant crossroad for local trade and surrounded by some of the most fertile farming lands. It was proud of its policy of “freedom of access,” which welcomed any refugee without question. Due to Strasbourg’s economic and social stability, the poor received steady support. All these factors resulted in a large refugee population. As Klaus

75. Chrisman, Strasbourg and the Reform, 179–​80. Klaus Depperman affirms this image of Strasbourg (Melchior Hoffman, 165–​74).



Prophecy and the Radicals

83

Depperman comments, “The refugees brought their radical ideas along with them. With the exception of Clement Ziegler, all the nonconformist leaders in Strasbourg came to the city as refugees (Karlstadt, Hätzer, Denck, Cellarius, Sattler, Kautz, Reublin, Marpeck, Schwenckfeld, Franck, Bünderlin, Servetus, and Hoffman).”76 Many of the radical figures arrived having publicly espoused radical teachings elsewhere and were ready to put their ideas immediately into action. The height of the radical presence in Strasbourg was from 1528 to 1534—​ several years after things reached a climax in Wittenberg and Zurich around 1525. Many were even warmly welcomed to Strasbourg; Chrisman notes that the leaders in Strasbourg greeted the first entering Anabaptists as partners in ministry, and Depperman comments that when Melchior Hoffman first arrived in 1529, Bucer received him amiably.77 As ­chapter  1 indicated, several laymen in Strasbourg, particularly the burghers and artisans, actively took up the prophetic elements of the call to the priesthood of all believers in concrete reforming activities such as the publication of pamphlets, interpretation of Scripture, and rejection of the Catholic practices and teachings concerning images and the Mass. The significant radical and Anabaptist refugee presence in the city only added to the proliferation of these competing visions of reform. Hubmaier arrived in 1525 and organized a congregation of Anabaptists in Strasbourg. As the number of anti-​Anabaptist policies increased in southern Germany, a large influx of radicals and Anabaptists entered the city in 1526, including the key figures of Hans Wolff, Reublin, Sattler, and Denck.78 Wolff claimed direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit and criticized the Strasbourg reformers for not going far enough toward an understanding of full Christian regeneration. He even disrupted one of Matthew Zell’s sermons and tried to remove him from the pulpit.79 Also in 1526 Bucer and Zell reported to Strasbourg’s governing city council (the Rat) that parents were not bringing their children for baptism. In early July of that same year Bucer wrote a letter to Zwingli complaining that the Anabaptists publicly argued with Strasbourg’s religious leaders over matters of biblical interpretation and the doctrine of

76.  Depperman, 164–​65, there 165. For a helpful overview of radicals and Anabaptists in Strasbourg, see Müsing, “The Anabaptist Movement in Strasbourg.” 77. Chrisman, Strasbourg and the Reform, 180; Depperman, 160. 78. Chrisman, Strasbourg and the Reform, 183–​84. Depperman, 179. 79. Depperman, 179.

84

The Reformation of Prophecy

justification.80 Later in December, Bucer held a disputation with Denck, since Bucer believed that one of the best ways to refute incorrect ideas was through public debate.81 He aimed to refute Denck’s teachings concerning justification and the relationship of Word and Spirit, in particular, as he objected to Denck’s prioritization of the Spirit above Scripture, where he exalted the invisible, inner Word of God revealed by the Spirit above the letter of Scripture.82 Bucer rebuked Denck’s criticisms of Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone as undermining the importance of the full spiritual regeneration required of every Christian.83 The disputation’s outcome was Denck’s expulsion from Strasbourg three days later, on December 25, 1526. By July 1527 the Rat issued an edict banishing the Anabaptists from the city, but the decree appeared ineffective, as in 1528–​29 there was an influx of Anabaptists from Augsburg and another substantial group of radical refugees that included Caspar Schwenckfeld, Melchior Hoffman, and Pilgram Marpeck.84 Denck and the later arrival of Schwenckfeld furthered growing Spiritualist views in Strasbourg. Though Denck had been banished from the city at the end of 1526, Depperman reports that he had gained a large number of followers who remained active into the 1530s.85 Schwenckfeld, similar to Denck, also emphasized spiritual regeneration and the primacy of the Spirit over the letter of Scripture.86 Prior to his arrival in Strasbourg, Schwenckfeld had publicly rejected Luther’s teachings of Christ’s real, bodily presence in the Lord’s Supper, a rejection with which many of the leading Strasbourg

80.  Manfred Krebs and Hans George Rott, Elsass I, Stadt Strassburg 1522–​1532, in Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer, 7 (Gütersloh:  Verlaghaus Gerd Mohn, 1959), no. 88; Chrisman, Strasbourg and the Reform, 186. 81. See Oyer, “Bucer Opposes the Anabaptists.” Oyer argues that Bucer employed a three-​ pronged approach to oppose the Anabaptists that included his confidence in the important strategy of public disputation. See particularly pp.  34–​35, 37–​40. See also Krahn, “Martin Bucer’s Strategy.” 82. See, for examples, Denck, Confession for the Council of Nuremberg, 58, 59 and Denck, “He Who Truly Loves the Truth”, 164, 165. For the latter, Bauman provides both a critical edition of the original texts and their English translations. 83. Depperman, 184–​86. 84. Chrisman, Strasbourg and the Reform, 187, 189. 85. Depperman, 184–​85. 86.  See Schwenckfeld’s 1529  “Von graden der widergeburt” (The Steps of Regeneration), his 1538  “Von der Widergeburt und herkummen eines Christen Menschens” (Of the Regeneration and Origin of a Christian), and his 1546 “Vom waren und falschen geistlichen Stande” (On Spiritual Order: A Letter to the Most Noble Prince and Lord, Wolfgang Abbot of Kempten).



Prophecy and the Radicals

85

reformers sympathized. Capito welcomed Schwenckfeld into his home, and Schwenckfeld also became close friends with Matthew and Katharina Zell. Yet, aiming to consolidate reform in Strasbourg, Bucer promoted views and practices for a more structured church that directly conflicted with Schwenckfeld’s Spiritualist vision. Furthermore, leading up to October 1529, Bucer was among those seeking a theological settlement concerning the Lord’s Supper, particularly between Luther and Zwingli, in the Colloquy of Marburg. Bucer therefore increasingly viewed Schwenckfeld as a threat to the Strasbourg church and to its efforts of unity with Luther and Zwingli. Capito and the Zells, however, defended Schwenckfeld during his first years in Strasbourg.87 Nonetheless by 1534 Schwenckfeld was among those asked to leave the city because of his opposition to Bucer’s XVI Articles of faith, which, among other things, set forth Strasbourg’s position on the sacraments and church order.88 Schwenckfeld, Denck, Jakob Krautz (a disciple of Denck), and Wolff espoused strong Spiritualist teachings, in contrast to the more biblicist teachings of Bucer and Zell. The fact that Capito for a time expressed Spiritualist leanings, as seen in his reading of Hosea, attests to the attraction (and threat) of the Spiritualists in Strasbourg.89 Depperman ascertains two differing Anabaptist communities in the city: a Spiritualist Anabaptist community led by Denck and Krautz and a biblicist one led by Reublin and Sattler.90 An element central to the differences between these Anabaptist factions was their conceptions of prophecy. The question of whether new revelation beyond Scripture was possible or whether Scripture is the final, sufficient revelation was particularly seminal, for views concerning revelation determined the manner in which prophecy could function. If new revelation is still possible, then prophecy could be visionary and ecstatic and even have the power to foretell events. But if Scripture is the final and sufficient revelation, then prophecy is primarily—​if not solely—​the interpretation and proclamation of Scripture. Such disagreements played a crucial role especially in Strasbourg, for the city already had a group claiming to be prophets, and prominent among them were several women. The married couple Lienhard and Ursula Jost claimed to 87. See McKee, KSZ I, 92–​93; Chrisman, Strasbourg and the Reform, 189. For more details on Bucer’s strong opposition to Schwenckfeld, see McLaughlin, “The Politics of Dissent”; Derksen, “The Schwenckfeldians.” 88. Chrisman, Strasbourg and the Reform, 209–​22. 89. Capito, In Hoseam. See also Depperman, 192–​97. Depperman specifically points to the influence on Capito of Martin Cellarius (who had lived in Capito’s home for several months). 90. Depperman, 189–​90.

86

The Reformation of Prophecy

receive visions, from which they prophesied concerning the Last Days. Upon Ursula’s death, a woman named Barbara Rebstock replaced her as the leading prophetess. This group of Strasbourg Prophets was already active when Melchior Hoffman arrived in 1529.91 Hoffman also declared direct access to new revelation and joined the circle of visionary prophets, soon viewing himself as an Elijah called by God to lead and prepare the church in the End Times. He supported Ursula’s (and later Barbara’s) visions as equally authoritative with Scripture, and he taught that God gives the Spirit especially to the uneducated so that any born of God possesses and understands the Spirit.92 After traveling and establishing communities that followed his teachings, Hoffman returned to Strasbourg in 1533 hailing it as the New Jerusalem and prophesying the imminent return of Christ. In light of this and his rejection of Bucer’s XVI Articles, the Strasbourg Council sentenced Hoffman to life in prison, where he remained until his death in 1543. His eschatological teachings had further ramifications when, after his prophesied time of the coming of Christ to Strasbourg had come and gone without incident, two of his followers—​Jan van Matthys and Jan van Leiden—​claimed that they had the true disclosure of the time of Christ’s coming, as well as the correct location: the city of Münster.93 Strasbourg therefore housed a wide spectrum of views and practices pertaining to prophecy, from prophecy as interpretation of Scripture that retained the primacy of Scripture to a more visionary form of prophecy and the possibilities of new revelation given through the Spirit. In a world in which Anabaptists and Spiritualists were not clearly demarcated by their opponents or even yet by their adherents, certain Anabaptists sought to anchor Anabaptism more clearly in a biblicist framework. Among them was Pilgram Marpeck (in addition to Sattler and Reublin), who arrived in Strasbourg in 1528 and stayed until early 1532. Though there is much to 91.  For a much fuller account of the life and teachings of Hoffman, see Depperman’s Melchior Hoffman. 92. See Walter Klaassen’s article “Eschatological Themes in Early Dutch Anabaptism,” in The Dutch Dissenters: A Critical Companion to Their History and Ideas, edited by Irvin B. Horst (Leiden:  E. J.  Brill, 1986), 18–​24; Depperman, 161.Yet Depperman argues that Hoffman operated with a hierarchical structure despite the emphasis on charismatic gifts by dividing the church into four groups: apostles, prophets, pastors, and simple congregational members (264–​67). 93. A group of Anabaptists took control of the city of Münster in 1534, and soon thereafter Jan van Matthys declared Münster the New Jerusalem. A Catholic army laid siege to the city, and Matthys led an assault on the siege and died. Jan van Leiden then took leadership until the fall of the city to the Catholics in June 1535. For more see Midelfort, “Madness and the Millennium”; Bernet, “The Concept of the New Jerusalem.”



Prophecy and the Radicals

87

explore in Marpeck’s theology, as with many of the men covered briefly in this chapter, there are several aspects in his teachings that indicate the important function of prophecy for his theology and his debates with both the Spiritualists and the main leaders of Strasbourg (Bucer in particular). First, Marpeck contended that the sole appeal to the Holy Spirit outside of Scripture is indefensible and unbiblical. He wrote in “A Clear and Useful Instruction” (1531), “Therefore, whoever presumes to discover the secrets of God, or presumed to be taught by God, without the outward, that is, the exterior and visible, casts away, as did the Jews, the very means by which he could be taught, could learn, or discover the divine secrets.”94 Marpeck specifically insisted that the necessary outward forms are Christ’s humanity (Incarnation) and Scripture.95 Contrary to those who appealed to the example of Cornelius—​that his prayer was heard even though he was without faith and the Holy Spirit—​Marpeck asserted that Cornelius could have received faith and the Spirit only through the outward preaching of God’s Word and not apart from it.96 Second, throughout “A Clear and Useful Instruction,” Marpeck framed his whole critique of the Spiritualists in prophetic terms, constantly referring to them as “false prophets.” He opened the treatise stating, “I am prompted to write this epistle to you because of the strange teaching of many false prophets who . . . have gone out from us, but they were not of us.”97 Such an explicit prophetic framework indicates that Marpeck understood that differing conceptions of prophecy were at work and at stake; it also indicates that accusations of false prophets were a tool employed by all sides and not just the magisterial reformers. However, Marpeck rejected the significant role Bucer gave to the state in religious reform, as well as the parallel Bucer drew between infant baptism and circumcision. Given the Old Testament’s prominent place in buttressing these two teachings, these disputes entailed a disagreement over the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. Marpeck upheld a greater disjunction between the testaments and viewed the New Testament as the prime, if not sole, authority for the Christian life.98 On account of Marpeck’s public teachings against infant baptism, the Strasbourg City Council imprisoned him in 94. Marpeck, “A Clear and Useful Instruction,” 82. 95. Marpeck, “A Clear and Useful Instruction,” 82, 87–​88. 96. Marpeck, “A Clear and Useful Instruction,” 87–​88. 97. Marpeck, “A Clear and Useful Instruction,” 71. 98.  See Dipple, “Pilgram Marpeck,” 224; William Klaassen, “The Limits of Political Authority,”

88

The Reformation of Prophecy

October 1531. Though he was temporarily released due to Capito’s intercession, on December 9, 1531, he engaged in a private debate with Bucer before the Strasbourg Council over the relationship of the Old and New Testaments and the role of the magistrates in reform. On December 18 the Strasbourg Council decreed his banishment, granting him about a month to settle his business in the city; he left in mid-​January 1532.99 In one way or another many of the radicals’ key claims in Strasbourg, Zurich, and Wittenberg touched upon aspects of prophecy and offered different performances of prophecy. Many laypersons and emergent leaders of alternative reform movements actualized Luther’s, Zwingli’s, Bucer’s, and Zell’s calls to the priesthood of all believers in specifically prophetic terms. They sought to interpret Scripture and rebuke wrong teachings, sometimes even the teachings of the cities’ main leaders. Building upon their interpretations of Scripture and a prophetic framework, emergent Spiritualist and Anabaptist groups sought faster and more extensive reforms through such concrete actions as resisting the tithe, the Catholic Mass, infant baptism, and the taking of oaths. When their resistance met negative reprisals from the state, coupled with affirmation by the leading magisterial reformers of the state’s role in setting the programs for reform, it became increasingly clear that their visions and programs for reform were incompatible with those of the leading magisterial reformers. Debates over these matters entailed debates over how to interpret Scripture, as well as the unity or disjunction of the Old and New Testaments. Proponents from all sides applied instructions concerning prophesying (I Corinthians 14)  as a crucial model for congregational proceedings to empower laypersons with a much more active role. They each attacked their opponents in the prophetic terminology of true versus false prophets. Debates over prophecy also entailed disputes over the possible performances of prophecy, in which some understood prophecy as interpretation of Scripture and upheld the primacy of Scripture, while others affirmed visionary, ecstatic performances of prophecy. The latter claimed the authority of the Holy Spirit above and beyond Scripture, supporting the affirmation of new revelation, which was a far cry from Luther’s, Zwingli’s, Bucer’s, and Zell’s firm anchoring of prophecy to Scripture as a sufficient and final revelation. Such debates were not simply between the magisterial reformers and the radicals but among the radicals themselves, as a more biblicist Anabaptism struggled to emerge and consolidate.

99.  For a more detailed study of the life and writings of Pilgram Marpeck, see Klaassen, Covenant and Community, esp. 25–​32.



Prophecy and the Radicals

89

Rethinking Prophecy and the Prophet: Contra the Radicals Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, and Zell employed I Corinthians 14 as one of the crucial texts (alongside, of course, I  Peter 2)  to argue for the priesthood of all believers. They found I  Corinthians 14 particularly useful in mapping out a biblical mandate and process for lay participation in the priestly duties of interpreting Scripture and rebuking wrong teaching, especially as seen in the Roman Catholic Church’s definitions of priesthood, separation of spiritual and temporal estates, and, ultimately, their restrictions of lay access to Scripture through their “tyranny” over Scripture.100 By 1524–​25, however, Luther and Zwingli had unmistakably reframed their arguments to address the rising threat of radical—​particularly Spiritualist and Anabaptist—​groups.101 They increasingly tightened the parameters of lay participation and reasserted the necessity of a trained, educated, and ordained clergy. Luther gave a significantly modified reading of I  Corinthians 14 in his 1524–​25 treatises, consequently amending his applications of prophecy. He interpreted this text with new inflections, emphasizing the verses pertaining to the maintenance of order and connecting the discussion of tongues to the necessity of the knowledge of biblical languages for sound scriptural interpretation. In his 1524 address to the German councilmen concerning the need for schools, for the first time Luther asserted the necessary study of biblical languages because they preserve the gospel and guard against heresy. God, argued Luther, gave tongues to the apostles so that they might spread the Gospel throughout the world, and the apostles specifically preserved the New Testament in the biblical language of Greek to protect against innumerable versions of it.102 With the Spiritualists in mind, Luther insisted that though the Gospel came and still comes through the Holy Spirit, it is equally true that it was mediated through languages, and that any good interpreter of Scripture

100. Scholars debate the accuracy of the portrayal that the Roman Catholic Church kept the Scriptures out of the hands of the laity. Andrew Gow and Sabrina Corbellini convincingly argue that the late medieval laity had significant access to Scripture, and they cite multiple other studies that demonstrate the same. See Gow, “Challenging the Protestant Paradigm” and “The Contested History of a Book”; Corbellini, “Instructing the Soul.” 101. D. Jonathan Grieser provides a helpful account of the ways in which Anabaptist views concerning the roles of the clergy and laity shaped magisterial Protestant reformers’ views of the offices of ministry. See “Anabaptism, Anticlericalism, and the Creation of a Protestant Clergy.” The article notes the significant role of I Corinthians 14 in these developments but does not adequately highlight prophecy as a central matter. 102. WA 15:36–​38; LW 45:358–​60.

90

The Reformation of Prophecy

must have knowledge of the biblical languages in order to give a sound and defensible reading. He used I Corinthians 14 to draw a strong distinction between the “simple preacher” and the “prophet” who exposits Scripture: There is a vast difference therefore between a simple preacher of the faith and a person who expounds Scripture, or, as St. Paul puts it, a prophet. A simple preacher has so many clear passages and texts available through translations that he can know and teach Christ, lead a holy life, and preach to others. But when it comes to interpreting Scripture and working with it on your own and disputing with those who cite it incorrectly, he is unequal to the task; that cannot be done without languages. Now there must always be such prophets in the Christian church who can dig into Scripture, expound it, and carry on disputations.103 Such biblical language skills necessitated advanced training and, thereby, circumvented those who claimed possession of the Holy Spirit as sufficient authorization for expounding Scripture and discerning proper doctrine. The church, then, must have such scholars who know the biblical languages to provide a sure reading of Scripture that can defend Christian faith from error. Such readings belong properly in the hands of trained scholars, while the “simple preacher” may preach concerning the perspicuous, central teachings of Scripture.104 Consequently the “prophet” is no longer a layperson but a specialized and authoritative scholar. In 1524 Luther inserted an emphasis on the knowledge of biblical languages and reinterpreted prophet to refer to trained biblical scholars; he also underscored the verses in I Corinthians 14 concerned with the maintenance of proper order and decorum. Invoking 14:32–​33 (“The spirits of prophets are subject to prophets, for God is a God not of disorder but of peace”), he argued that a central mark of a true prophet is the willingness to be instructed and submit to a better interpretation. Attacking Karlstadt and Müntzer in 1524, Luther presented them as false prophets because they refused correction.105 Far from maintaining order, Karlstadt and Müntzer incited various forms of disorder, such as rioting, sedition, and rebellion, thereby failing to exhibit the practices of true prophets who follow God’s command that “all things should

103. LW 45:363; WA 14:40. 104. WA 15:41–​42; LW 45:364–​65. 105. WA 15:213, 215; WA 18:71, 89–​90, 92, 94; LW 40:52, 54, 88, 107, 109, 111.



Prophecy and the Radicals

91

be done decently and in order” (I Corinthians 14:40).106 They instead disturbed Christian consciences with false teachings concerning the necessity of works and incited people to rebellious acts.107 Luther also attacked their skill as interpreters of Scripture: “These factious spirits understand nothing in the Scriptures, neither Moses nor Christ, and neither seek nor find anything therein by their own dreams.”108 With his admonition that prophets must have knowledge of biblical languages, Luther chided Karlstadt for rendering nonsensical readings due to his poor Greek and Hebrew skills.109 He thereby unambiguously presented Karlstadt and Müntzer as carrying all of the marks of false prophets:  they refused correction, they incited disorder, they lacked knowledge of biblical languages, they were poor readers of Scripture, and they did not have a true commission or call.110 If this was not proof enough, their wicked fruits of disturbed Christian consciences, false doctrines, insurrection, and rebellion sealed their identities as false prophets.111 Luther reread I  Corinthians 14 to identify the prophet with authorized, trained ministers (rather than laypersons), accentuate the maintenance of order, and distinguish between true and false leaders (prophets). These themes gained even more traction in his 1532 treatise Infiltrating and Clandestine Preachers, which he wrote specifically against the growing presence of Anabaptists in northern Germany. Luther repeated the charges of rebellion, insurrection, and the lack of a true commission or call.112 More noteworthy were his even more pronounced restrictions on lay participation,

106. WA 15:212, 215, 219; WA 18: 68, 71–​72, 84, 86–​87, 88; LW 40:51, 54, 57, 85, 88–​89, 101, 104, 105. 107. WA 18: 63–​68, 73, 102–​3, 111, 119, 122–​23, 123; LW 40:81–​85, 90, 119, 128, 137, 140–​41, 141. 108. LW 40:92; WA 18:76. See also WA 18:84, 88; LW 40:101, 106. 109. Luther wrote in his letter warning the Strasbourgers concerning Karlstadt, “It is hard for me to believe that he can be serious. . . . For if he were in earnest, he would not have thrown in so many ridiculous passages by willfully manipulating the Greek and Hebrew languages” (LW 40:68; WA 15:394–​95). He sarcastically wrote in Against the Heavenly Prophets, “I have never known, also do not know now, that mass means sacrifice. Dr. Karlstadt must excuse me. Although I do not know much Hebrew, yet I am more competent to speak and to judge than he. I have now also almost translated the whole Bible into German, and I have not yet found that mass means a sacrifice. I think he must have found it written in the vent of a chimney, or recently invented his own Hebrew language, as he can invent sins and laws and a bad conscience” (LW 40:120; WA 18:103–​4). 110. Concerning the lack of a true call, see WA 18:71, 94, 102; LW 40: 88, 111, 119. 111. WA 15:212–​13, 217, 393, 395, 396; WA 18:63–​68, 71–​75. LW 40:51–​52, 55–​56, 67, 69, 70, 81–​85, 88–​92. 112. WA 30/​3: 518–​19, 520, 520–​21, 521; LW 40:384, 385, 386, 387.

92

The Reformation of Prophecy

again through a revised reading of I Corinthians 14. Building upon his earlier 1524–​25 writings against Karlstadt and Müntzer, he made three new moves. First, he added the explicit terminology of “office” to reinforce his arguments. A call and commission from a community is necessary because the office of ministry is involved and at stake. In order to hold such a public office of ministry legitimately, one must be properly called and commissioned.113 Luther distinguished the public office, in which one is authorized to teach and preach publicly, from privatized, individual spiritual practices.114 He reinterpreted I  Corinthians 14 to support public offices of ministry and actually argued against those who claimed that Paul’s teachings allow any in the congregation to preach: Undoubtedly some maintain that in I Corinthians 14, St. Paul gave anyone liberty to preach in the congregation, even to bark against the established preacher. For he says, “If a revelation is made to one sitting by, let the first be silent” [I Corinthians 14:30]. The interlopers take this to mean that to whatever church they come they have the right and power to judge the preacher and to proclaim otherwise. But this is far wide of the mark. The interlopers do not rightly regard the text, but read out of it—​rather, smuggle into it—​what they wish. In this passage Paul is speaking of the prophets, who are to teach, not of the people who are to listen. For prophets are teachers who have the office of preaching in the churches.115 Ignoring the fact that he himself had read the text in this way in his 1520–​ 21 writings, Luther asserted a sharp distinction between the authorized preacher who holds the public ministerial office and laypersons who should listen. Second, besides asserting that the prophet is the established minister who holds an office (and not the layperson), Luther also argued for the passive act of listening as the proper role of the layperson in the church congregation. He thereby stripped the layperson of the active duties to interpret Scripture and

113. WA 30/​3: 520–​21; LW 40:386. 114.  Luther wrote, “In sum, St. Paul would not tolerate the wickedness and arrogance of someone interfering with the office of another. Each one should pay attention to his own commission and call, allowing another to discharge his office unmolested and in peace. As for the rest, he may be wise, teach, sing, read, interpret to his heart’s content in matters of his own concern” (LW 40:391; WA 30/​3:524–​25). 115. LW 40:388; WA 30/​3:522.



Prophecy and the Radicals

93

rebuke wrong teaching that were so prominent in his 1520 and 1521 writings, reinterpreting I Corinthians 14 in the following manner: In this chapter, St. Paul thus often refers to the “congregation,” clearly distinguishing between prophets and people. The prophets speak, the congregation listens. For he says, “He who prophesies builds up the church.” . . . Who then are those who are to build up the church? Is it not the prophets and those speaking with tongues, that is, those who read or sing the lesson, to whom the congregation listens, and the prophets whose duty it is to interpret the lesson for the building up of the congregation? It should be clear that he is commanding the congregation to listen and build itself up and is not commissioning it to teach or preach.116 Third, Luther charged the prophets—​that is, those who hold an established church office—​with the task of maintaining order, writing, “Still less should one tolerate in a spiritual council, that is, in a council of preachers or prophets, a stranger intruding himself or an unauthorized layman presuming to preach in his parish church. It is and remains the duty of the prophets to care for the teaching in proper succession, faithfully helping each other, so that everything is done decently and in order as St. Paul commands [I Corinthians 14:40].”117 The established ministers as prophets were commissioned with the duties of preaching, teaching, and maintaining church order. Luther now interpreted the “others” in I Corinthians 14:29 (“Let two or three prophets speak and let the others weight what is said”) as other established ministers, overturning once again his earlier application of this word to potentially any layperson in the congregation.118 Newly present in this 1532 treatise against Anabaptism, Luther emphasized the necessity of authorized offices, instructed the laity in a proper passive response, and assigned the tasks of preaching, teaching, and church discipline to those holding a public office of ministry. These changes enacted a profound shift toward strengthening Protestant clerical authority, even at the cost of his earlier vision of the priesthood of all believers. In Zurich, Zwingli asserted the authority of the state to oversee the implementation of reforms at the pace they deemed necessary to maintain civil order and affirmed the Zurich City Council’s decrees against radicals and

116. LW 40:391; WA 30:3:525. 117. LW 40:390; WA 30/​3:524. 118. WA 30/​3:525; LW 40:392.

94

The Reformation of Prophecy

Anabaptists; he also reinterpreted I Corinthians 14 in a manner very similar to Luther. In “On the Preaching Office” (1525), he argued for the necessity of a call and commission to preach, an authorized office of ministry, the maintenance of order, and knowledge of biblical languages, thereby curtailing his earlier emphasis on the laity’s active participation in reading Scripture and discerning right teaching. Zwingli wrote pointedly against the rising radical and Anabaptist factions in Zurich, explicitly referring to “those people who, without any permission whatever from the congregation to which they have come, begin to preach and rebaptize of their own initiative.”119 Not just anyone could teach; one must be authorized and commissioned by a congregation, for Christ himself assigned certain offices in the church for its edification, instruction, and proper order.120 Zwingli then proceeded to outline the offices of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and bishops, placing particular emphasis on that of the prophet—​at times seemingly subsuming the other offices into it.121 For example, when Zwingli described the duties of evangelists and bishops, he equated them with the tasks of the prophet:  “This office of evangelist is none other than the prophetic office, as long as ‘prophet’ is understood to be one who plucks up and plants. He really is none other than a bishop or pastor.  .  .  . One may also see from Paul’s word  .  .  .  that he considers evangelist and bishop to be one and the same when he says in 2 Timothy 4:2, ‘preach the word, persevere, be mild, be severe, rebuke, exhort, comfort with all patience, and teach.” “What is this,” asked Zwingli, “other than the office of a bishop, prophet, or pastor?”122 Zwingli significantly dedicated the most space and detail to describing the prophetic office. He noted that the Greek term for prophet emphasizes the task of foretelling or prediction but then quickly pointed to the Old Testament conception of prophecy modeled after Jeremiah 1:9: to “pluck up, tear down and destroy whatever is set up against God and, on the other hand, to build and plant what God desires.”123 He immediately drew a direct parallel between the tasks of Old Testament prophets and present-​day ministers, asserting, “Now in the Old Testament this was the task of prophets; with us it has come to be the task of evangelists, bishops,

119. CR 91:383; Zwingli, “The Preaching Office,” 150. 120. CR 91:384, 390; Zwingli, “Preaching Office,” 151, 155. On the necessity of a call, see CR 91:389, 423, 425–​26, 427, 429, 431; Zwingli, “Preaching Office,” 155, 177, 178, 179, 181, 182. 121. CR 91:391–​400; Zwingli, “Preaching Office,” 155–​61. 122. CR 91:398; Zwingli, “Preaching Office,” 161. 123. CR 91:393–​94, there 394; Zwingli, “Preaching Office,” 158.



Prophecy and the Radicals

95

or ministers.”124 He also clarified that the New Testament conception of the prophet was not simply one of foretelling: “Further at the time of the apostles those also were called prophets who made known the meaning of Scripture to the entire church.”125 Zwingli accordingly asserted two main ongoing, contemporary functions of the prophetic office: one that roots out evil and plants the good, and one that interprets Scripture for the church. The former, explained Zwingli, aligns with the present-​day episcopal or pastoral office (bishops and pastors). The latter requires knowledge of the biblical languages in order to interpret Scripture authoritatively for the church.126 Zwingli also reread I Corinthians 14 in “The Preaching Office” to emphasize knowledge of biblical languages and the maintenance of order—​directly confronting challenges from radical and Anabaptist groups in Zurich and applying the connection of tongues and prophecy to the connection between the knowledge of biblical languages and authoritative interpretation of Scripture. Only those who know Hebrew should “speak or read in an orderly fashion, one after the other,” and another should translate into the common language.127 Zwingli stipulated that others should speak only after the prophets have spoken, thereby overturning his 1522 emphasis on lay participation. Indeed only if the prophets have “failed to understand or explain the meaning” of Scripture is there a role for lay participation.128 Having outlined these instructions, Zwingli argued that Anabaptists do not follow the proper order commanded by I Corinthians 14, for they itinerate from congregation to congregation, speak before the true prophets have spoken, refuse to allow others to speak, promote disorder, and refuse to be taught. They fail to model the instruction that “spirits of prophets are subject to prophets,” since they

124. CR 91:394; Zwingli, “Preaching Office,” 158. 125. CR 91:394; Zwingli, “Preaching Office,” 158. Likewise he wrote, “From this we learn that those, too, were called prophets at the time of the apostles who expounded the writings of the Old Testament for the entire congregation. I Corinthians 14:26–​33 notes this well” (CR 91:394; “Preaching Office,” 158). 126. CR 91:397–​98. On the second function, Zwingli wrote, “The second office of prophet in the large churches is to interpret the meaning of Scripture, foremost the Old Testament, whenever people gather to study Scripture. . . . Thus, to speak precisely, one cannot be a prophet in this second sense of office, unless he is able to interpret the languages” (CR 91:398; “Preaching Office,” 161). Zwingli commented on I  Corinthians 14 sometime after 1526; the commentary repeats much of what he taught in On the Preaching Office. See Zwingli, In Priorem ad Corinthios Annotationes, 177–​81. 127. CR 91:395, 416–​17; Zwingli, “Preaching Office,” 158–​59, 172–​73. 128. CR 91:396; Zwingli, “Preaching Office,” 159.

96

The Reformation of Prophecy

are unwilling to be taught and corrected.129 Zwingli therefore concluded that the fruits of disorder and confusion demonstrate the falsity of radical and Anabaptist claims.130 As Strübind and Timmerman demonstrate, the assertion that one must be trained in the biblical languages for authoritative interpretation of Scripture became an important matter of contention between Zwingli and the radicals.131 For example, Hubmaier strongly disagreed with Zwingli’s emphasis in “On the Preaching Office” on the necessity of the knowledge of biblical languages. In “On the Christian Baptism of Believers” (1525), published just a month after Zwingli’s account of the preaching office, Hubmaier maintained that such an emphasis obscured Scripture, undermined the priesthood of all believers, and required all to wait upon language specialists—​thereby setting up just another form of tyranny over Scripture not unlike that of the papacy.132 Zwingli responded in his “Antwort über Balthasar Hubmaiers Taufbüchlein” by drawing a contrast between the basic reading of Scripture for laypersons and the interpretation of Scripture in matters pertaining to doctrinal disputes over more obscure passages of Scripture. It is in the latter, insisted Zwingli, that expertise in biblical languages is necessary. Similar to Luther’s distinction between the “simple preacher” who preaches upon the perspicuous teachings of Scripture and the prophet trained in the biblical languages who provides a defensible reading of obscure passages, Zwingli asserted that knowledge of the biblical languages is essential to the maintenance of true teaching and defense against heresy.133 Thus in 1524–​25 both Luther and Zwingli delimited the public exercise of the priesthood of all believers by insisting upon a proper commission, asserting the necessary knowledge of biblical languages for authoritative interpretation of Scripture (especially on disputed doctrinal matters), and identifying prophets as those holding an established office of ministry. Luther and Zwingli no longer applied the “all” in “you can all prophesy” (I Corinthians 14:31) to laypersons; they restricted it to other prophets, that

129. CR 91:396–​97; Zwingli, “Preaching Office,” 159–​60. 130. CR 91:397; Zwingli, “Preaching Office,” 160. Zwingli wrote, “It is evident that they do not have the God of peace, but instead have the God of disorder and discord.” 131. See Strübind, Eifriger als Zwingli, 131–​39; Timmerman, 88. 132. Hubmaier, “On the Christian Baptism of Believers,” 142–​43 and “Von der christlichen Taufe der Gläubigen,” 156–​57. 133. Zwingli, “Antwort über Balthasar Hubmaiers Taufbüchlein” in CR 91:601–​2, 627. See also Timmerman, 90; Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, 278–​79.



Prophecy and the Radicals

97

is, to others holding an established office of ministry.134 In 1520–​23 the prophet served to buttress their teaching of the priesthood of all believers and reject Roman Catholic definitions of priesthood, separation of spiritual and temporal estates, and restrictions on the laity in interpreting Scripture. Various threats from Spiritualists and Anabaptists reached a tipping point in 1524–​25 so that Luther and Zwingli reframed their teachings concerning prophecy to support Protestant clerical authority, as well as the authority of Scripture, in the face of conceptions of visionary, ecstatic performances of prophecy and appeals to the authority of the Spirit apart from Scripture. Luther and Zwingli specifically countered radical women’s public performances of prophecy from 1525 forward by placing clearer parameters on the ways women could properly practice the priesthood of all believers. In fact earlier in 1521 Luther rejected the Roman Catholic appeal to I Corinthians 14:34–​35 as an injunction for women’s silence, arguing instead that women could speak publicly when men failed to do so.135 Eleven years later, however, he returned to this text to assert the necessity of an established, authorized office of ministry with a stronger injunction on women’s silence and viewed women’s priesthood in a clearly privatized manner; women’s preaching and reading of God’s Word should occur only in the privacy of their homes under the instruction of their husbands.136 Zwingli directly addressed the question of women’s participation in prophecy in 1525 in “On the Preaching Office” when he clarified that the term to prophesy can sometimes mean actively “to interpret” Scripture and other times mean “to hear” the explanation of Scripture. For women, only the latter rightly applies, since Scripture forbids women from speaking publicly in church.137 Strikingly, in his 1532 treatise Luther applied this passive definition of to prophesy as “to hear” not only to women but to all laypersons: “In this chapter [I Corinthians 14] St. Paul often refers to the congregation, clearly distinguishing between prophets and people. The prophets speak, the congregation listens. . . . It should be clear that he is commanding the congregation to listen and build itself up and is not commissioning it to teach or to preach.”138 In the face of radical, Spiritualist, and Anabaptist 134. WA 30/​3: 522, 524, 525; LW 40:388, 390, 391–​92. CR 91:394–​96; Zwingli, “Preaching Office,” 158–​60. 135. WA 8:497–​98; LW 36:151–​52. 136. WA 30/​3:524; LW 40:391. 137. CR 91:414; Zwingli, “Preaching Office,” 171. 138. WA 30/​3:525; LW 40:391. See also WA 30/​3:522, 523; LW 40:388, 389.

98

The Reformation of Prophecy

performances of prophecy, appeals to the Holy Spirit, and applications of I Corinthians 14 to their congregational proceedings, Luther and Zwingli then sought to delimit the role of the laity, as well as the role of women specifically, and turned their focus on strengthening Protestant clerical identity and authority.

Synopsis and Significance The year 1525 was definitely a turning point, for after this date the flood of lay publications abruptly ended. This was due most prominently of course to the brutal suppression of the German peasants’ uprising in 1525.139 Yet the new delimitations on lay participation evident in Luther’s and Zwingli’s rereadings of prophecy and revised applications of I  Corinthians 14 certainly undercut and scaled back the possibilities present in their prior affirmations of the priesthood of all believers. After 1524–​25 Luther and Zwingli sought to carve out a position between the opposing pressures from Roman Catholicism and the radicals. Rather than completely abandoning their emphasis on the important possibilities of prophecy for Protestant reforming efforts, they maintained their applications of prophecy by attacking their opponents as “false prophets,” but also reframed them by shifting the focus of prophetic capacities from the laity to the clergy and established offices of ministry. Perhaps most prominent, Zwingli maintained and reframed the significance of prophecy and the prophet in the establishment of the Prophezei in Zurich in June 1525, precisely timed with the publication of his “On the Preaching Office.” Zwingli envisioned the Prophezei quite literally as a “school of prophets” modeled after I Corinthians 14 who gathered to interpret the Old Testament through the collaborative work of those trained in the biblical languages.140 Even as Zwingli reframed his application of prophecy to buttress clerical authority and identity, he continued to maintain support for lay participation, albeit within tighter parameters than those expressed in his earlier writings. For example, Zurich’s Prophezei meetings were open to lay attendance, where records indicate lay participants spoke and asked questions and trained clergy prominently directed and led

139.  Chrisman, “Lay Response,” 51; Russell, “ ‘Your Sons and Daughters,’ ” 139 and Lay Theology, 21, 56. 140. Stephens describes the procedures of the Prophezei: they opened with prayer, read the Old Testament text in Latin, then read it in Hebrew and exposited it in Latin, then read it in Greek followed by a Latin exposition, and then a summary of the key meanings provided in German (The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, 40). See Gäbler, Huldrych Zwingli, 100–​101.



Prophecy and the Radicals

99

the meetings.141 The Prophezei embodied Zwingli’s newly modified implementation of prophecy by placing those holding a ministerial office front and center in the work of interpreting Scripture and by allowing lay attendance for learning and edification. Luther also shifted his focus on prophecy and the office of the prophet to the clergy rather than the laity as the priesthood of all believers. He applied an emphasis upon the knowledge of biblical language to the curriculum of Wittenberg University and their practices of exegesis by strategically inviting biblical linguists to the university faculty, hiring Philip Melanchthon as a professor of Greek in 1518, Matthaeus Goldhahn as a professor of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew in 1519, and Johannes Boeschenstein as professor of Hebrew in 1520. The later employment of Caspar Cruciger as a professor of theology (with Hebrew-​language skills) and Johannes Forster as a professor of Hebrew occurred, respectively, in 1528 and 1530 to buttress the study of the biblical languages and to aid in the work of exegesis and translation of the Bible.142 These biblical language specialists were crucial to Wittenberg’s exegetical activity and Luther’s goal to provide a German translation of the whole Bible. Johannes Mathesius, who served as one of the primary compilers of Luther’s Table Talks, described in 1540 the gathering of this translation committee in the following way: “Dr. Martin Luther came . . . with the Old Latin and new German Bible in addition to the Hebrew text. Herr Philip brought the Greek text, and Dr. Cruciger both the Hebrew Bible and the Targum.”143 Luther referred to this group of Hebrew scholars as a “sanhedrin of the best people possible.”144 Bucer and Capito instituted an organized study of Scripture in the form of Bible lectures in Strasbourg in 1526. Bucer covered the New Testament, beginning with the Gospels; Capito lectured on the Old Testament, beginning with the prophets Habakkuk, Malachi, and Hosea.145 Capito’s lectures on the prophets, however, triggered a sharp exegetical dispute between him

141. Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, 40; Opitz, “The Exegetical and Hermeneutical Work,” 420–​21. 142.  Stephen Burnett provides a list of professors of Hebrew in German and Louvain universities prior to 1535, as well as wider context of Hebraism, in his article “Reassessing the ‘Basel-​Wittenberg Conflict,’ ” 183. 143. See D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kristische Gesamtausgabe: Deutsche Bibel, 12 vols. (Weimar, 1906–​61), 3:15–​16, hereafter cited as WADB. Translation from Burnett, 194. 144. Friedman, The Most Ancient Testimony, 174; Burnett, 194. See also Raeder, Das Hebräische bei Luther. 145. See Hobbs, “Pluriformity,” 456; De Boer, The Genevan School, 24–​25.

100

The Reformation of Prophecy

and Bucer about how to read the Old Testament prophets, particularly Hosea. Capito’s reading of Hosea demonstrated Spiritualist overtones likely shaped by his conversations with his house guest Martin Cellarius (Borrhaus), known for his Spiritualist views.146 Capito specifically echoed Cellarius’s teaching that a physical restoration of the Jews to their homeland in Palestine must precede the final, spiritual coming of God’s kingdom. Capito also made extensive use of Jewish exegesis in support of this reading. In contrast, Bucer insisted that the proper use of Jewish exegesis should consistently demonstrate that “all things pointed to Christ and his spiritual kingdom, without any notion of a Jewish restoration.”147 Bucer published his commentary on Zephaniah in 1528 in order to model a proper use of Jewish exegesis that supported the Christological reading of Old Testament prophecy.148 Complicating matters further was the presence of François Lambert in Strasbourg in 1524–​26. Lambert published a commentary on the Minor Prophets, as well as a 1526 tract titled On Prophecy, Learning and Languages, and on the Letter and the Spirit, and staunchly argued for the primacy and direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit over and against any emphasis on human learning, particularly against an insistence on the importance of knowledge of the biblical languages. Bucer refuted such teachings by reasserting the gift of tongues in Acts 2 as knowl­ edge of the biblical languages and by likening the events of Acts 2 to the contemporary revival of Hebraism in Strasbourg.149 Given the disagreements between the leading reformers of Strasbourg (Bucer and Capito) over how to interpret Old Testament prophecy and the numerous disparate performances of prophecy in Strasbourg (Hoffman, Jost, Rebstock, Schwenckfeld, Denck, and Marpeck, to name a few), the mechanisms of prophecy and prophets proved to be more problematic than helpful. Starting around 1527 Bucer therefore increasingly dissociated his teachings from any emphasis on prophecy or conception of an ongoing function of prophecy. In his commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, he sharply distinguished between prophets and teachers and rejected the identification of prophecy with the preaching office.150 Bucer therefore did not follow Zwingli’s and Luther’s lead in reframing prophecy to buttress Protestant clerical authority and identity. He 146. Depperman, 192–​93, 196. 147.  See, for examples, Capito, In Hoseam, 54v, 57v, 58v, 65v–​66r, 70r, 71r, 72v. Hobbs, 474–​75, 477, there 477. See also Williams, “Martin Cellarius.” 148. Bucer, Tzephaniah quem Sophoniam. 149. Hobbs, 463–​64. See Lambert, In Primum Duodecim Prophetarum. 150. Timmerman, 60–​61; Bucer, Enarrationum, 109a.



Prophecy and the Radicals

101

established his contrarian position most clearly in his comments on Romans 12:6 by arguing that prophecy is the gift of foretelling (rather than the gift of interpretation of Scripture) and asserting that it has ceased since the time of the apostles.151 By maintaining the cessation of prophecy for his times, Bucer likely sought to undercut the various performances of prophecy running rampant in his city. Strasbourg leaders also placed the exegesis of the Old Testament prophets on the back burner after 1528. Bucer did, however, retain an emphasis on the importance of the knowledge of biblical languages for exegesis and translation. He did so, however, without associating it with prophecy in the ways Zwingli and Luther had done in their readings of prophecy and tongues in I Corinthians 14.152 Given this eclipse of prophecy in the teachings and writings of the Strasbourg reformers after 1528, Strasbourg’s leaders do not figure prominently in the remainder of this book. John Calvin and his reform program in Geneva emerge instead as an additional important stage of the function of prophecy and prophets in the sixteenth century. Similar to Zurich’s Prophezei and Strasbourg’s Bible lectures, Calvin implemented the practice of the congrégations, which were Bible studies open to the public in which the Company of Pastors gathered to exegete a text. These meetings took place every Friday, during which the ministers in Geneva and the surrounding villages gathered to interpret a biblical passage that they would preach the following week. In his extensive study of the congrégations, Erik de Boer points to the prominence of Calvin’s leadership in moderating these meetings and the significant evidence of lay attendance, though there is little indication that laypersons did anything more than listen and ask clarifying questions.153 Calvin mostly clearly described the proceedings of these meetings in a letter to the Council of Bern, in which each minister took a turn in expositing the text, during which he received feedback and any needed correction from the

151.  Bucer, Metaphrases et Ennarrationes, 462–​64. See also McKee’s translation of Bucer’s comments on Romans 12:6 in Elders and the Plural Ministries, 182. Timmerman argues that Bucer rejected the identification of prophecy with the preaching office, noting his teachings in 1526 and 1527 on the matter (60–​61, 63)  and his 1536 commentary on Romans (63). Neither McKee nor Timmerman considers Bucer’s earlier 1523 teachings, where he affirmed prophecy as a contemporary practice of interpreting Scripture. It appears that by 1527 Bucer had changed his views concerning prophecy most likely in direct response to the radicals’ teachings and performances of prophecy in Strasbourg. 152. Hobbs, 485–​86. 153.  De Boer, The Genevan School, 36–​37, 93–​112 and “The Presence and Participation of Laypeople in the Congrégations of the Company of Pastors in Geneva,” Sixteenth Century Journal 35 (2004): 651–​70, esp. 652, 657–​58, 669–​70.

102

The Reformation of Prophecy

rest of the ministers.154 Calvin also instituted a model for biblical exegesis patterned after I Corinthians 14 and similar to that in Zurich; the interpretation of the Old Testament prophets proved significant to his program of reform in Geneva and missionary efforts in France.155 Some scholars have even argued that Calvin held a strong prophetic self-​awareness, specifically understanding himself as a prophet who exposited Scripture to apply it to contemporary situations and for the edification of the church.156 These systems for communal interpretation of Scripture created in 1525 and later in Zurich, Wittenberg, and Geneva offered alternatives to radical and specifically Anabaptist applications of the prophetic proceedings described in I Corinthians 14. In their revised applications of this framework, Luther, Zwingli, and, later, Calvin underscored the authoritative leadership of the clergy in the process of interpreting Scripture and the duty of the laity to listen for their edification. They redeployed I  Corinthians 14 less for the empowerment of the laity and more for the buttressing of Protestant clerical authority and identity, since they viewed the radical threat as first and foremost a threat against the establishment, maintenance, and empowerment of Protestant clergy and the Protestant clerical office itself. Anticlericalism had, in fact, reached beyond simply Catholic priests as its target to threaten Protestant clergy and the importance of a separate clerical office altogether. The next chapters take up more fully the ways in which Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin interpreted and applied the figure of the prophet and biblical prophecy to buttress Protestant clerical authority and identity.

154.  See de Boer, The Genevan School, 43. De Boer provides an English translation of the document (42–​44). 155. De Boer argues that the congrégations were modeled after I Corinthians 14 (The Genevan School, 22–​30). Balserak argues for the significance of the Minor Prophets for Calvin’s reform in Establishing the Remnant Church, as does Harms in In God’s Custody. 156. See Balserak’s John Calvin and more subdued affirmations of this by Gordon, Calvin, 276–​303, esp. 277, 292, 293, 294; Engammare, “Calvin”; Millet, “Calvin’s Self-​Awareness as Author”; Pak, “Luther and Calvin,” 30–​32.

3

Prophecy and the Pastoral Office Luther and Zwingli

Studies of martin luther and huldrych zwingli that address the topic of prophecy have tended to emphasize either their prophetic self-​awareness or, at least, the fact that many of their contemporaries, as well as the generations after them, have viewed these men as prophets.1 From Hans Preus’s early depiction of Luther as a prophet and Heiko Oberman’s insistence that the title of prophet describes Luther far better than reformer to Robert Kolb’s study of the images of Luther, the prophet has been an important figure through which to understand Luther’s life and work.2 Leaders in his own time—​ including Zwingli—​viewed Luther as a contemporary Elijah.3 Kolb illustrates that just after Luther’s death, a number of his colleagues—​Justas Jonas, Michael Coelius, and Johannes Bugenhagen, in particular—​hailed him as a prophet following in the footsteps of the Old Testament prophets and John the Baptist.4 After Zwingli’s death, Heinrich Bullinger’s 1532 De Prophetae Officio

1. Concerning Luther as prophet, see Preus, Martin Luther; Oberman, “Martin Luther”; Kolb, Martin Luther as Prophet. Ron Rittgers in “The Word-​Prophet Martin Luther” recently argues that the title of prophet best captures Luther’s life and work. Concerning Zwingli as prophet, see especially Büsser, Huldrych Zwingli and “Der Prophet” and, more recently, Opitz, Ulrich Zwingli. 2. The prophet is one of the primary lenses Robert Kolb employs in exploring the images of Luther from 1520 to 1620 (Martin Luther as Prophet, 17–​120). 3. Kolb, Martin Luther as Prophet, 17. See Zwingli’s letter to Oswald Myconius dated January 4, 1520, in Huldreich Zwinglis Sämtliche Werke 7:250. See also Körsgen-​Wiedeburg, “Das Bild Martin Luthers.” In their comments on Malachi 4, Lucas Osiander and Aegidius Hunnius identified Luther as the third Elijah (Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 944; Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 551). 4. Kolb, Martin Luther as Prophet, 34–​35.

104

The Reformation of Prophecy

presented Zwingli as the supreme exemplar of the faithful performance of the prophetic office.5 These fine studies contribute usefully to debates about Luther’s and Zwingli’s prophetic self-​awareness and provide rich documentation of later attributions of them as prophetic figures, yet most do not excavate Luther’s and Zwingli’s actual uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy.6 Far more was at stake in their engagement with prophecy than simply their self-​ awareness or others’ conceptions of them as prophetic figures. The defense of the priesthood of all believers was at stake. Maintaining the primacy and authority of Scripture was at stake. Dismantling Roman Catholic authority was at stake. While this chapter touches upon some of the implications of Luther’s and Zwingli’s self-​awareness, I focus on their uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy, specifically the manifold ways the prophet and biblical prophecy deeply informed their understandings of the pastoral office. As ­chapter 1 demonstrated, prior to 1524 Luther and Zwingli employed the concepts of the prophet and prophecy to advocate for the priesthood of all believers, especially applying I Corinthians 14:31—​“you can all prophesy”—​to the call of all Christians to preach, read, and interpret Scripture and to judge what they hear by its accordance with Scripture. In response to radical, particularly Anabaptist and Spiritualist uses of the prophet and prophecy to buttress their alternative conceptions of church order and defend their practices of sermon interruptions and itinerant preaching, Luther and Zwingli significantly shifted their use of the prophet to strengthen clerical authority and establish the necessity of ministerial offices filled by persons properly called, commissioned, and trained to hold a public church office. They identified the prophet with the authorized, trained minister and increasingly tightened the possibilities of lay participation in public ministry. In doing so both chose to retain prophecy and the prophet as important and useful to their understandings of the proper forms and offices of public church ministry rather than abandon them altogether. The deeper they dug into the possibilities of employing the 5. Bullinger, De Prophetae Officio, 3r–​v, 14r–​22r, 32r–​37r. 6. There are, of course, some studies that attend to Zwingli’s and Luther’s uses of prophecy at some level. For example, Mark Edwards highlights the ways in which Luther employed the contrast between true and false prophets to denounce his opponents, particularly Karlstadt, Zwilling, and Müntzer (Luther and the False Brethren, 22–​26, 38–​40, 61, 64, 201). Closest to the arguments of this chapter is the study by Bast, “Constructing Protestant Identity.” Bast argues that Zwingli employed the Old Testament prophets to “provide shape and substance to the contours of the pastoral office” (351). He writes that “Bullinger drew upon the prophetic model for the rest of his life” (354), and he connects Zwingli’s and Bullinger’s use of the prophetic model to establish the authority of the pastor (356). Bast, however, does not consult Zwingli’s and Bullinger’s exegeses of biblical prophecy to make his case; he bases his analysis almost solely upon Zwingli’s May 1524 sermon “Der Hirt.”



Prophecy and the Pastoral Office

105

figure of the prophet to illuminate the identity and key duties of the Protestant pastor, the more constructive potential they found. They not only appraised the prophetic office as useful in strengthening Protestant clerical identity and authority, but perhaps even more, they discovered the richness of the writings of the Old Testament prophets to identify the faithful Protestant pastor as one who proclaims the Word of God alone, points to Christ and the true nature of faith, urges the people toward godly piety, rebukes wrong worship, and establishes the true worship of God.

Luther: The Prophet as Preacher of Christ and the Gospel In response to the radicals and Anabaptists in particular, Luther shifted the conversation to one about offices, particularly the necessary requirements for holding a public office of ministry—​a move that enabled him to reject Roman Catholic conceptions of the priest’s indelible character and assert the necessity of a proper call over and against the Anabaptists and other radicals. Luther first employed the language of offices in his 1523 Concerning the Ministry to argue against Roman Catholic teachings on the perpetuity of the priestly estate and the priest’s indelible character.7 He contended that I Corinthians 4 teaches “that it is not the estate or order or any authority or dignity that [Paul] wants to uphold, but only the office and the function.”8 The true purpose of the office is the right ministering of God’s Word. Ordination, he pointed out, “was first instituted on the authority of Scripture . . . in order to provide the people with ministers of the Word.”9 Insofar as a minister does not maintain the central focus upon God’s Word and central tasks of preaching the Word of God and ministering according to the Word, averred Luther, such a minister may—​ even must—​be deposed.10 Luther consequently deployed an understanding of office over and against a Roman Catholic conception of the perpetual priestly estate. A  person holding an office has valid authority only insofar as that person fulfills the functions for which he has been commissioned. If such is not the case, then that person fails to uphold the purposes for which Scripture instituted ordination in the first place. Appeals to the perpetual estate of the 7. WA 12:172, 173, 190–​91; LW 40:10, 12, 35–​36. 8. LW 40:35; WA 12:190. 9. LW 40:11; WA 12:173. 10. WA 12:190; LW 40:35. Luther even added that a “spiritual minister is more readily removable than any civil administrator” (LW 40:35).

106

The Reformation of Prophecy

priest or the priest’s indelible character crumble in the face of a failure to perform the purposes for which an office was divinely instituted—​namely, preaching and ministering the Word of God. Luther turned to a discussion of offices with new emphases in his 1532 Infiltrating and Clandestine Preachers. Here he had his eye toward the expanding Anabaptist elements in the vicinity of Eisenach and other northern German cities. Against such radical, itinerate preachers in the area, he declared, “So we say either demand proof of a call and commission to preach or immediately enjoin silence and forbid to preach, for an office is involved—​the office of ministry. One cannot hold an office without a commission or a call.”11 Earlier in 1523, Luther employed a rather loose and expansive concept of offices by connecting the priesthood of all believers with the claim that the office of the ministry of the Word is common to all Christians.12 In 1532 he directly identified those inhabiting the office of the prophet as those commissioned and authorized to preach by a recognizable church body.13 He thereby distinguished the public office of ministry (to which one must be properly commissioned) from private, lay spiritual practices of the priesthood of all believers. He charged those called to such public ministerial offices with the task of maintaining proper order that “all things may be done decently and in order” (I Corinthians 14:40).14 By shifting the conversation to a discussion of offices, Luther in effect retained the conversation around views of the prophetic office, in which he drew parallels between the office of the prophet and the office of the Protestant pastor.15 In his 1524 address to the German councilmen concerning the need for schools, Luther emphasized the necessary training and specialized skills required of those holding the prophetic office. He defined the prophet as the scholar trained in the biblical languages who is specially equipped to expound Scripture in the context of disputations, defend Christian teaching from heresy, and judge the interpretations of others. He distinguished the prophet from the “simple preacher” or “simple reader of Scripture” and set forth the prophet as a kind of “super-​exegete” with the requisite training in biblical languages—​attributes that set apart an established minister from the average 11. LW 40:386; WA 30/​3:521. 12. WA 12:180; LW 40:21. 13. WA 30/​3:522: LW 40:388. 14. WA 30/​3:522, 524–​25; LW 40:388, 390–​92. 15. Luther at times also emphasized the proper functions of the office, perhaps foreshadowing Bullinger’s and Calvin’s later emphasis on functions (rather than office per se).



Prophecy and the Pastoral Office

107

layperson.16 About a month after his address to the German councilmen, Luther lectured on the Minor Prophets. He began with Hosea in March 1524, covering all twelve prophets and concluding with the book of Malachi sometime around March 1526, before turning to the exegesis of Isaiah in 1527–​ 28. He expressed the importance of the Old Testament prophets in his 1527 comments on I Timothy 1:18, pointing out the need for Timothy to be trained in the books of the prophets and concluding, “Indeed, it is a good idea that the one who cares for souls ought to pay attention not only to reading the prophets but also to giving the prophets to the crowd and to the people of God.”17 Luther followed his own advice by turning his attention to the exegesis of Old Testament prophecy precisely to illuminate the authority and tasks of the public office of ministry. In his lectures on the Old Testament prophets, Luther presented the prophet as the herald of God’s Word and the preacher of Christ and the Gospel. The prophet is one rightly called and gifted by God to proclaim only the Word of God and not his own word or a human word. Luther thereby maintained both the necessity of a call (contra the radicals) and the necessity of a focus upon the Word of God (contra the Roman Catholics). He affirmed the prophet first and foremost as a preacher of Christ and the Gospel, for the prophet prepares the people for the coming of Christ and his kingdom. Introducing the text of Joel, he wrote, “All the prophets have one and the same message, for this is their one aim: they are looking toward the coming of Christ or to the coming kingdom of Christ. All their prophecies look to this, and we must relate them to nothing else. Although they may mix in various accounts of things present or things to come, yet all things pertain to this point, that they are declaring the coming kingdom of Christ.”18 He

16.  WA 14:40, 42; LW 45:363, 365. Luther wrote, “There is a vast difference therefore between a simple preacher of the faith and a person who expounds Scripture, or, as St. Paul puts it, a prophet. A simple preacher has so many clear passages and texts available through translations that he can know and teach Christ, lead a holy life, and preach to others. But when it comes to interpreting Scripture and working with it on your own and disputing with those who cite it incorrectly, he is unequal to the task; that cannot be done without languages. Now there must always be such prophets in the Christian church who can dig into Scripture, expound it, and carry on disputations” (LW 45:363). 17. LW 28:250; WA 26:28. 18.  WA 13:88; LW 18:79. In his preface to Hosea, Luther asserted, “All the prophets look forward to the kingdom of Christ with wonderfully sweet words” (WA 13:5; LW 18:5). In his preface to Habakkuk, he wrote, “It is certain, first of all, that all the prophets direct their prophecies primarily toward Christ” (WA 19:351; LW 19:152). He commented on Zephaniah, “Among the minor prophets, he makes the clearest prophecies about the kingdom of Christ” (WA 13:480; LW 18:319).

108

The Reformation of Prophecy

wrote similarly on Isaiah, “The chief and leading theme of all the prophets is their aim to keep the people in eager anticipation of the coming Christ.”19 Luther thus repeatedly viewed the Old Testament prophets as heralds of the Gospel. For example, he equated the “pure speech” in Zephaniah 3:9 (“I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech”) with the pure speech of the Gospel.20 He interpreted the morning showers in Hosea 6:3, the roaring lion in Hosea 11:10, and the fountain in Joel 3:18 as the preaching of the Gospel.21 He maintained that as heralds of Christ and the Gospel, the Old Testament prophets served as superlative models for the office and duties of Protestant preachers in his day, both in their work of foretelling Christ and the Gospel and in their work as instruments of God’s Word. Just as the Old Testament prophets’ task was to “keep the people in eager anticipation of the coming of Christ,” so also the work of Protestant preachers should be performed “with a view of getting the people to await the coming of the Savior.”22 As heralds of Christ and the Gospel, the Old Testament prophets beheld future and hidden events through divine revelation and the power of the Holy Spirit.23 Luther emphasized the role of revelation in the prophetic act precisely in his view that the primary work of the Old Testament prophets was foretelling Christ and the Gospel. Such a work of revelation centered, for Luther, on the Word of God as the actual agent of any true and godly reform.24 Ronald Rittgers points in a recent article to Luther’s claim that Christ’s word was in his mouth, that “his mouth was Christ’s mouth.”25 Rittgers argues that the concept of the “Word-​prophet” best illuminates Luther’s prophetic self-​ understanding, in which he (much like an Old

19. WA 31/​2:1; LW 16:3. 20.  WA 13:504; LW 18:356. Luther wrote on Hosea 2:16, “He is speaking about the New Testament and the preaching of the Gospel” (WA 13:10; LW 18:11). See also WA 13:15, 65, 113–​ 19, 186, 221–​23, 312–​13, 318–​19, 323, 575, 604, 628–​35, 639–​43. LW 18:18, 74, 76, 111–​19, 166, 201–​3, 228, 238–​39, 245–​46; 20:32–​33, 63, 97–​104, 109–​15. 21. WA 13:28, 54–​55, 122, 381. LW 18:32, 61, 122, 295. 22. WA 31/​2:1; LW 16:3. 23. WA 13:315, 555, 615–​16; 19:245, 349, 355. LW 18:232; 20:12, 13, 80; 19:97, 151, 157. 24. WA 31/​2:22, 38, 65, 271, 365–​66, 367–​68, 418, 460, 576; 13:160, 301, 315, 686, 242, 253–​ 54, 546–​47. LW 16:31–​32, 54, 93; 17:15, 133–​34, 136, 202–​3, 258, 405; 18:129, 210, 232, 401; 19:4, 24; 20:3–​5. 25. Rittgers, 385. See Luther, A True Admonition to All Christians (Eine treue Vermahnung zu allen Christen) in WA 8:683.



Prophecy and the Pastoral Office

109

Testament prophet) received divine revelation by means of God’s Word and no other means.26 For Luther, any true claim to revelation by definition must be inextricably attached to the Word of God revealed in Scripture; there is no “new” revelation, only the revelation of God’s Word in Scripture. True prophets speak only the Word of God, which Luther argued is the true active agent in any reform.27 Luther combined the view of the prophet as super-​exegete and defender of Christian doctrine expressed in his 1524 address to the German councilmen with the emphasis on the prophet as preacher of God’s Word alone evident in his lectures on the Old Testament prophets. In rightly proclaiming the Word of God alone, the prophet was also specially equipped to expound Scripture in the context of disputations and defend Christian teaching from heresy. In his lectures on the Old Testament prophets, Luther thereby emphasized the duties of rooting out wrong teachings and practices through a profound engagement with Scripture. He specifically viewed the Old Testament prophets as providing profound correction to current Roman teachings concerning faith, works, and justification. The prophets richly instructed the church in the true nature of faith, justification by faith alone, and the proper distinctions between Law and Gospel. Jonah, for example, expertly teaches justification by faith alone and the proper role of works and the necessity of faith,28 just as Nahum and Habakkuk proffer profound descriptions of the nature of true faith.29 Luther likewise argued that Hosea, Joel, and Zechariah are saturated with clear expressions of justification by faith alone, Law and Gospel, and the right relation of faith and works,30 and Amos, Obadiah, and Micah

26. Rittgers writes, “Luther believed he was a Word-​prophet, that is, he thought he had been called, prepared, and indwelt by the Word to be an instrument of the Word for the preaching of the Word. Luther thought he was Word-​possessed; he thought the Word was the agent of his words and actions” (386). 27. Luther clarified the sole agency of the Word of God in his 1522 Invocavit sermons. See WA 10/​3:15–​20; LW 51:76–​78. John Headley rightly points out in his book Luther’s View of Church History that Luther’s perception of church history centered upon “the movement of the Word in history” (240). 28. WA 13:243, 244, 246, 246–​47, 251, 253, 254; 19:193–​94, 199–​200. LW 19:5–​6, 8, 11, 12–​13, 16–​17, 20, 23, 24, 25, 40–​41, 46–​48, 68, 80, 88–​90. 29.  WA 13:372, 373, 431, 434; 19:364, 393, 394. LW 18:282, 284; LW 19:119, 123–​24, 166, 196, 197. 30. WA 13:4, 6, 10, 11, 15, 27, 100, 113, 114, 122, 551, 643; WA 23:485, 487, 507, 508, 569, 591–​93, 608–​609, 613, 628, 632. LW 18:4, 8, 11, 12–​13, 19, 31, 96, 111, 112, 123; LW 20:9, 115, 156, 157, 164, 165–​66, 236, 261–​64, 282, 287, 304, 309, 310.

110

The Reformation of Prophecy

constantly warn the people that works play no role in justification.31 Just as the Old Testament prophets lived in a time when the Gospel and right understanding of faith and works had been buried and hidden, so the sixteenth-​ century Protestant reformers lived in a similar time. Just as the Old Testament prophets restored the Gospel, justification by faith alone, and a right understanding of works, the Protestant reformers were part of a new in-​breaking of the Gospel that might portend the Last Days.32 Just as the Old Testament prophets prepared the people for the first coming of Christ by correcting false beliefs and practices, so also Protestant pastors in Luther’s day had to prepare the people for the second coming of Christ by doing the same. Just as the Old Testament prophets served as the mouthpieces of God to reveal the true content of God’s Word, so also sixteenth-​century Protestant pastors were to be mouthpieces of God’s Word alone. Luther therefore strengthened Protestant clerical authority and identity by likening them to the Old Testament prophets who had been rightly called by God to proclaim Christ and the Gospel and serve as instruments of God’s Word alone. Luther also drew broad historical parallels between the office and duties of the Old Testament prophets and those of sixteenth-​century Protestant pastors. He likened Amaziah’s scorn for Amos and attempts to set the king against him to the enemies of the Gospel in his own day.33 He presented Micah’s warnings to the Jews not to despise God’s Word as a warning necessary for his own time.34 Just as in Haggai it seemed impossible to the exiles that God’s Temple could be restored, Luther wrote that the Protestants experienced the same feeling when they first started preaching the Gospel.35 He emphasized the doctrinal connections of the Old Testament prophets’ messages with those he deemed necessary to sixteenth-​century Protestant sermons (i.e., justification by faith alone and distinctions of Law and Gospel). He also likened the Old Testament prophets’ tasks to prepare the people for Christ, preach Christ and the Gospel, and protect people’s faith to the key tasks of the Protestant pastor. Luther maintained in his comments on Habakkuk 2:5, “It is the purpose of Habakkuk and of all the other prophets to comfort the people and to

31. WA 13:171, 180–​81, 181, 183, 185, 186, 217, 303, 331–​32, 333–​34, 342–​43. LW 18:144, 158, 159, 161, 165, 166, 196, 213, 259, 261–​63, 276–​77. 32. Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, esp. 60–​99; Headley, Luther’s View of Church History, 228, 123–​24, 154, 222, 246. 33. WA 13:195; LW 18:176. 34. WA 13:300; LW 18:208–​9. 35. WA 13:539–​40; LW 18:380.



Prophecy and the Pastoral Office

111

preserve them in faith and in hope for the advent of the Christ.”36 This was also the prime purpose of Zechariah.37 Prophets preserve faith through the tasks of rebuke and comfort, threat and consolation. They thereby set forth Law and Gospel.38 The prophets preach Law “so that the people might thirst for the promises afterward”—​that they might thirst for the Gospel.39 In the work of preserving faith, prophets set forth Law ultimately to reveal the necessity of the Gospel. This means they mixed threats with consolation. They condemned wrong doctrines and practices and called the people to repentance.40 Prophets both terrified and comforted:  “They terrify those who have a stiff neck and persevere obstinately in their own righteousness. They comfort the humble and afflicted who recognize their sin.”41 In all of these tasks of rebuking wrong doctrines and practices, calling to repentance, strengthening faith, clarifying the right understanding of faith and works, setting forth the correct doctrine of justification by faith alone, and preaching Christ and the Gospel in preparation for Christ’s coming, as well as ultimately being a mouthpiece of God’s Word, one perceives Luther’s understanding of his own vocation and duties, as well as the calling and tasks of the Protestant pastor.42 Luther employed the Old Testament prophets as exemplars of the duties of Protestant pastors to defend the faith over and against the heresy of works righteousness rampant in their day.43 The view of the prophet as the 36. WA 19:396–​97; LW 19:199. See also WA 13:431; WA 19:393. LW 19:119, 196. 37. WA 23:485, 487; LW 20:155–​56, 157. 38. In his lectures on Isaiah, Luther wrote, “This is the prophet’s office: to preach the righteousness of God and meanwhile nevertheless to hold the people in check by means of the righteousness of the Law, so that the people may learn to fear and to trust” (WA 31/​2:462; LW 17:261). 39. WA 31/​2:462; LW 17:260. 40. WA 13:99, 100–​102, 158, 172, 192, 299, 339–​40, 371, 372, 375–​76, 534; WA 13:241, 424–​25; WA 23:505; LW 18: 95, 97, 98–​99, 127, 146, 173, 207, 272, 281, 282, 288, 371; LW 19:3, 108; LW 20:162. 41. LW 18:154; WA 13:178. 42. Rittgers argues that Luther’s theological anthropology and his prophetic consciousness were deeply related. Luther’s theological anthropology emphasized the annihilation of the old Adam in order that Christ may live and become active in the human (388). “This anthropology compelled him to see himself as one who had been called, prepared, and indwelt by the Word to be an instrument of the Word for the preaching of the Word. Luther believed that Christ, the Word, was the subject and agent of his own Christ-​self, thus enabling him to become Christ’s instrument”—​that is, the Word-​prophet (393). 43. Luther described prophecy in his preface to the Book of Revelation as the following: “There are many different kinds of prophecy in Christendom. One is prophecy that interprets the writings of the prophets. Paul speaks of this in I Corinthians 12 and 14, and in other places

112

The Reformation of Prophecy

defender of the Christian faith against heresy through deep study (as well as translation) of Scripture in the original languages matches Luther’s own understandings of his central ministerial tasks and the work he encouraged in other Protestant leaders and pastors.44 He also employed his readings of the Old Testament prophets to challenge Anabaptist claims to prophecy. He emphasized the proper calling and commission of the Old Testament prophet in contrast to the Anabaptists’ lack of a true commission.45 In his lectures on the prophetic books of the Old Testament from 1524 to 1528, he deployed the Old Testament prophets as models of those properly called and commissioned to the office of preaching God’s Word alone and defending true Christian doctrine. His significant turn to the task of interpreting biblical prophetic texts signaled a focus on the exegesis of Old Testament prophecy itself and its vital usefulness for Protestant reforming efforts.

Zwingli: The Prophet as Watchman of Christian Society and Gifted Exegete Like Luther, by 1525 Zwingli had shifted the applications of prophets and prophecy from the priesthood of all believers to an emphasis on strengthening Protestant clerical identity and authority, so that he identified those holding an established office of ministry as prophets. Zwingli drew even more explicit connections between the office of the prophet and the pastoral or preaching office because of his desire to distinguish between types of church offices—​ something that was not a strong concern for Luther. On the one hand, Luther highlighted the need for an established ministerial office and proper call in his 1523 treatise on ministry and his 1532 rebuke of Anabaptist preachers. In doing so, however, he often preferred to talk primarily about the office of the ministry of the Word, under which both preaching and teaching resided, rather than the prophetic office per se. Luther thus wrote in Concerning the Ministry, “Inasmuch as the office of preaching the Gospel is the greatest of all as well. This is the most necessary kind, and we must have it every day because it teaches the Word of God, lays the foundation of Christendom, and defends the faith. In a word, it rules, preserves, establishes, and performs the preaching ministry” (LW 35:399–​400; WADB 7:407). 44. Several scholars point to Luther’s own prophetic self-​consciousness and/​or the ways in which his contemporaries and later followers viewed him as a prophet. See Preus, Martin Luther; Junhans, Der junge Luther, 304–​13; Holl, “Martin Luther on Luther”; Kolb, Martin Luther as Prophet, 17–​120. Others have argued for an apostolic awareness in Luther. See Wengert, “Martin Luther’s Movement.” See also Edwards, 112–​26. 45. WA 30/​3:520–​21, 522; LW 40:386, 388.



Prophecy and the Pastoral Office

113

and certainly is apostolic, it becomes the foundation for all other functions, which are built upon it, such as the offices of teachers, prophets, administration, speaking in tongues, the gifts of healing and helping, as Paul directs in I Corinthians 12.”46 The prophet was an important tool for Luther, but a tool primarily in service to the one main office of the Word. Zwingli, on the other hand, much more explicitly identified the preaching or pastoral office specifically with the office of the prophet.47 The office of the prophet operated in many ways as the central, defining office for Zwingli. In “Von den Predigtamt,” Zwingli first turned to the text of Ephesians 4:11–​14, which names the offices of apostle, prophet, evangelist, shepherd, and teacher. Beginning with the office of the apostle, Zwingli identified its prime function as preaching. What made the apostles distinctive, he argued, was that they were the first to preach the Gospel to “an alien, unbelieving world.”48 On the one hand, Zwingli seemingly equated all of the offices and treated them more as functions, such as when he wrote concerning the apostles, “In other words, among servants of the Word there is no distinction between apostles and others, except that the apostles were bid to go into the world without preparation or provisions for the road.”49 On the other hand, he examined the distinctions of each office.50 He notably dedicated the most space and attention in “Von den Predigtamt” to the offices of prophet and bishop. He argued that the primary duties of the prophet are to “pluck up, tear down and destroy whatever is set up against God” and then to “build and plant . . . what God desires,” and he asserted that these primary duties had “come to be the tasks of evangelists, bishops, or ministers of religion.”51 Zwingli thereby downplayed the predictive aspect of prophecy, emphasizing the duties of tearing down and building up (based on Jeremiah 1:9–​10), and equated the work of prophets with that of present-​day evangelists, bishops, and ministers. He subsequently identified the New Testament definition of the prophet as 46. WA 12:191; LW 40:36. 47. See Hauser, Prophet und Bischof, 63–​64, 208; Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, 36, 278–​81, 284, 305–​7, 309. Bast argues that Zwingli employed the Old Testament prophets to “provide shape and substance to the contours of the pastoral office” (353). 48. CR 91:390–​92; “Preaching Office,” 155–​57. 49. “Preaching Office,” 157; CR 91:393. 50. Zwingli distinguished apostles as those who “spread God’s Word” into the whole world “through far-​ranging dangerous journeys” (“Preaching Office,” 157; CR 91: 392, 393). Notably he viewed the office of apostle as a valid, ongoing church office rather than one that ceased after the apostolic era. 51. “Preaching Office,” 158; CR 91: 393–​94.

114

The Reformation of Prophecy

one who expounded the Scriptures, as outlined by Paul in I Corinthians 14.52 After carefully explaining the proper procedure for this exposition of Scripture for the edification of all and after distinguishing between true prophets who maintain order and edify and false prophets who bring confusion, Zwingli ultimately combined the Old and New Testament aspects of prophecy into a unified office with two functions: Thus we have two distinct functions of the prophetic office: the one is like that of the prophets of the Old Testament who fended off evil and implanted the good. In like manner, the guardians or pastors in the New Testament ought to act. Here the prophetic, episcopal or pastoral office and the office of the evangelist are one and the same. The second office of prophet in the large churches is to interpret the meaning of Scripture, foremost the Old Testament, whenever people gather to study Scripture. This calling it not too common as yet, but should, God willing, begin with us here in Zurich in the not too distant future. The execution of that task has already begun, as it was promised at one time when the reorganization of the Great Minister was announced. Thus, to speak precisely, one cannot be a prophet in this second sense of office unless he is able to interpret the languages.53 Though he distinguished between the content of the Old and New Testament’s prophetic tasks, he ultimately proffered a single ongoing prophetic office that he likened to the contemporary work of the Protestant pastor. He further located the current function of prophecy as interpretation of Scripture, which required training in the biblical languages, precisely in the practices of a group of scholars in Zurich who would come to be known as the Prophezei, a group of skilled biblical linguists who took up the interpretation of the prophetic books of the Old Testament for the edification of the church. Zwingli’s treatment in “Von den Predigtamt” concerning the offices of evangelist, bishop, and teacher consistently cast them as equivalent to the office of prophet. He wrote, “This office of evangelist is none other than the prophetic office, as long as ‘prophet’ is understood to be one who plucks up and plants.”54 52. “Preaching Office,” 158; CR 91:394. 53. “Preaching Office,” 160–​61; CR 9:397–​98. 54. “Preaching Office,” 161; CR 91:398–​99. He next equated the offices of evangelist, bishop, pastor, apostle, and prophet—​only differentiating the apostle from the others simply on the matter of his lack of a permanent residence and possessions (CR 91:399; “Preaching Office,” 161).



Prophecy and the Pastoral Office

115

Zwingli likewise connected the duties of the bishop to the prophetic duties of tearing down and building up, citing a verse from Titus: “that he may be able to comfort and admonish in sound, wholesome doctrine and refute and punish those who disagree.”55 He accentuated the bishops’ tasks as guardians and overseers who fed the people and enforced church discipline—​tasks that echoed the prophetic tasks of Jeremiah 1:9–​10.56 He also clearly identified the teaching office with the prophetic function of interpreting Scripture through the use of biblical languages, writing, “By doctors or teachers . . . one should either think of those who teach and who, in the other sense of that word, are prophets . . . who teach everyone and of those who are being prepared to teach others in the languages.”57 Citing I  Corinthians 14:5 he added, “Paul shows how useful a thing it is for Christians to know the languages in which God’s Word is written, when he desires such knowledge for everyone. He desires this for the purpose of turning it to the aid of prophesying, that is, the exposition of Scripture or preaching.”58 Zwingli therefore effectively employed the office of prophet as the overarching, definitive office for his vision of the Protestant minister. Zwingli left a rather confusing account concerning church offices, however, for he vacillated between distinguishing the various offices and asserting that they were all one and the same. One might question whether he was really talking about offices per se or more about assorted functions of the ministerial office. We will see in the next chapter that Zwingli’s successor Heinrich Bullinger increasingly moved in the direction of functions rather than offices, particularly in his treatment of prophecy. Bullinger reinterpreted Zwingli’s account in a manner still consistent with the spirit, but not necessarily the letter, of Zwingli’s position. Nonetheless the office of prophet was central to Zwingli in 1525; it often served as the overarching, defining church office. From 1525 until his death in 1531, Zwingli employed the office of prophet to define the key duties of the Protestant pastor and to strengthen clerical authority. Zwingli wrote annotations around 1526 on certain books of the New Testament that touched upon texts pertaining to prophecy, such as I Corinthians 14, Romans 12:6, and I Thessalonians 5:20. He also prefaced the publication of Zurich’s translation of the Old Testament prophets in 1529 and translated and annotated Isaiah and Jeremiah in 1529 and 1531, respectively. 55. “Preaching Office,” 161; CR 91:400. See also Titus 1:9. 56. CR 91:408–​409, 430; “Preaching Office,” 167, 181. 57. “Preaching Office,” 172; CR 91:416. 58. “Preaching Office,” 173; CR 91:417.

116

The Reformation of Prophecy

These works signify the continuing importance prophets and prophecy played in Zwingli’s thought all the way up until his unexpected death in 1531. They also trace some important developments in his conception of prophets and prophecy. Zwingli’s 1526 annotations on I Corinthians 14, Romans 12:6, and I Thessalonians 5:20 defined the prophet as an interpreter of Scripture. Commenting on I  Corinthians 14, Zwingli identified prophets as “those who are most skilled in the languages” and who “open up the sense of the Scriptures before the church.”59 Further in his exposition of the same text he expanded this definition in ways that echoed the two main functions set forth in “Von den Predigtamt”: The name “prophet” is variously taken in Scripture, as I have said elsewhere. Among the Jews, the prophets are those who are the most knowledgeable about divine oracles and the divine will by divine inspiration. Their office was to draw the people to the meaning of the sacred letters, which they learned from God Himself. Thus, they tear down and root out whatever was erected against God and plant and build whatever pleases God. They guard the people of God not to rush into things that are harmful. This is the same duty as that of the bishops, pastors, and evangelists of Christ’s church. . . . Among the apostles, prophets are different, for the apostles were first sent only to unbelievers; the same is not true of prophets, for prophets are for believers. The name of prophet belongs also to them who eagerly listen to the Word of God and are diligently employed in the law of God.60 Zwingli thereby identified I Corinthians 14’s account of prophecy with the prophetic tasks set forth in Jeremiah 1:9–​10 of rooting out evil and building up good, while also connecting this to the task of interpreting Scripture. He thus concluded, “To prophesy is to teach, to admonish, to console, to convict, and to rebuke.”61

59. Zwingli, In Priorem ad Corinthios Annotationes, 177. Zwingli wrote on Romans 12:6, “He calls prophecy the interpretation or exposition of the sense of Scripture. See I Tim 4. Those who have the gift of prophecy, should not abuse it, but exercise it according to the proportion of faith” (In Epistolam ad Romanos Annotationes in Huldrici Zuinglii Opera Vol. 6.1 [Turici Ex Officina Schulthessiana, 1836], 121). Zwingli connected I Thessalonians 5:20 to I Corinthians 14 and commented, “Tenaciously hold to prophecy, that is, the interpretation of Scripture” (In I. Epistolam ad Thessalonicenses Annotationes [1526], 238). 60. Zwingli, In Priorem ad Corinthios Annotationes, 178. 61. Zwingli, In Priorem ad Corinthios Annotationes, 180.



Prophecy and the Pastoral Office

117

Zwingli’s commentaries echoed the dual office of the prophet described in “Von den Predigtamt,” but a few important new emphases appeared in his preface to the Zurich translation of the books of the Old Testament prophets, the Alle Propheten or Prophetenbibel of 1529. First, he much more clearly emphasized the role of divine revelation in prophecy by asserting that prophecy is always tied to revelation in some way. Earlier in his treatise on the preaching office and commentary on I Corinthians 14, Zwingli had affirmed the role of a special revelation from God as one of the paths for right interpretation of Scripture.62 By stressing that all are taught directly by God, he promoted the important work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers for Scripture’s right interpretation—​a work that certainly hinted of revelation, yet revelation directly anchored in Scripture.63 Here in the preface to the Prophetenbibel, Zwingli discussed the various forms of prophecy, noting the role of revelation in each—​whether as a vision, foretelling, interpretation of Scripture, or the work of the watchman.64 Second, a particular contribution of the Prophetenbibel preface, as Timmerman points out, was Zwingli’s extension of prophecy not only to the task of interpreting Scripture but also to the task of translating Scripture.65 These two points concerning the role of divine revelation and the tie of prophecy to translation go hand in hand, for Zwingli’s primary aim was to set forth Zurich’s translation of the Old Testament prophetic books as guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore authoritative. Just as the Holy Spirit guided the Old Testament prophets, so the Spirit guided the translation work of Zurich’s biblical scholars.66 Likewise, just as faithful prophets yield to other prophets, so also any good translator follows this prophetic 62. This emphasis was particularly based on I Corinthians 14:6, where he connected revelation with prophecy and knowledge with teaching. See CR 91:395; “Preaching Office,” 158; and Zwingli, In Priorem ad Corinthios Annotationes, 179. 63. See CR 88:366–​70, 377, 381; 90:260, 263; Zwingli, In Priorem ad Corinthios Annotationes, 180, 181; Zwingli, “Clarity and Certainty,” 79–​82, 89, 92; Zwingli, “Reply to Emser,” 373, 376. Scholars note the contrast Zwingli drew between reason and revelation and his emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in right interpretation. See Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, 129–​38; Opitz, “The Authority of Scripture,” 296–​309; Locher, Zwingli’s Thought, 179–​82; Sargent, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” 327–​28. 64.  See Zwingli, Alle Propheten aufz Ebraischer, Aiiiib, Avia, Avib. Zwingli began with an account of the “hazon” of the Old Testament seer, which was “a clear illumination of the mind and clear revelation from God” (Avia). He then enumerated prophecy as interpretation of Scripture as described in I Corinthians 14, prophecy as foretelling future things, and the prophet as the watchman who “warns and reports in order to bring [the people] back to true faith” (Avib). 65. Timmerman, Heinrich Bullinger, 106. 66. Zwingli, Alle Propheten, Aiiib, Aiiiib.

118

The Reformation of Prophecy

pattern by yielding to a better translation.67 Here Zwingli particularly had in mind the need for the prior translation of the Old Testament prophets by the Anabaptists Ludwig Hätzer and Hans Denck to yield to Zurich’s superior translation.68 This preface to the Alle Propheten also significantly signaled the manner in which Zwingli read Old Testament prophecy itself. Zwingli’s writings up to this point mostly described the prophetic office and its duties and not necessarily the interpretation of the prophetic books themselves. Though this was a translation of the prophets and not a commentary, Zwingli briefly discussed what he viewed as the key teachings of the Old Testament prophets. Having just completed his translation and annotations on Isaiah that same year, he turned to this book first.69 He noted that the writings of the Old Testament prophets are full of allegories and argued that ultimately such allegories point to Christ and the church.70 References to Judah and Israel thus point to the fact that Christ was born of Judah; the faithful in the house of Judah and Israel prefigure the Apostles and others, and Jerusalem and Zion signify the church.71 Zwingli highlighted texts such as Isaiah 7:14 (“a young woman shall conceive and bear a son”) and Hosea 11:1 (“out of Egypt I called my son”) to demonstrate that Christ ultimately fulfilled all that was said through the prophets.72 Zwingli’s focus on the prophet in the last years of his life involved the exegesis of Old Testament prophecy—​specifically Isaiah and Jeremiah—​as a significant way to strengthen biblical understandings of the pastoral office and its faithful duties. His 1529 and 1531 translations and annotations of Isaiah and Jeremiah demonstrate at least three further developments in his uses of prophecy. First, the function of rooting out evil and building up good figured more prominently in his expositions of Isaiah and Jeremiah than the view of the prophet as interpreter of Scripture. This is perhaps not surprising, for Zwingli

67. Zwingli, Alle Propheten, Aiiiia. 68. See Denck and Hätzer, Alle Propheten nach Hebraischer Sprach verteutscht. For more information about this Anabaptist translation of the Old Testament prophets, see Beck, “The Anabaptists and the Jews”; Baring, “Die ‘Wormser Propheten.’ ” 69. Zwingli, Alle Propheten, Biiib–​Bva. 70. Zwingli, Alle Propheten, Bva–​b, Bvib, Bviia, Bviiia. Peter Opitz provides a helpful account of Zwingli’s method for dealing with Scripture’s figurative language (“The Exegetical and Hermeneutical Work,” 424–​28). 71. Zwingli, Alle Propheten, Bvib–​Bviia. 72. Zwingli, Alle Propheten, Bixb, Bxa. Timmerman notes, “Prophecy was often considered as the ability to uncover the Christological meaning of the Old Testament to the church” (126).



Prophecy and the Pastoral Office

119

had already identified these particular tasks in “Von den Predigtamt” primarily with Old Testament prophets and Jeremiah in particular.73 Nonetheless there was an intensification of emphasis here, so that Zwingli’s exegesis of the prophetic books of the Old Testament provide a deeper description of the duties of the prophet as a guardian and watchman—​duties such as rebuking the neglect of religion, reproving the neglect of justice, and issuing threats to move people to repentance, as well as providing consolation and wise teaching.74 Perhaps most significant, Zwingli accentuated the complementary work of prophets and kings—​a focus that expanded the image of the prophet as watchman.75 He discerned a biblical pattern in which ideally prophets and kings acted as partners in the aim to bring society into greater conformity with godliness. Prophets teach heavenly wisdom, while magistrates correct crimes, for “it is not enough to teach what is right and good unless the magistrate corrects them to follow what is just and good.”76 Zwingli similarly wrote in his 1531 preface to Jeremiah, “The prophet teaches, consoles, and threatens, while the magistrate promotes good, responds to evil and punishes contempt. What then? Is it not clear that just as there is a spirit and a body and just as man is flesh and spirit, there is the church and the state. For the human body has many parts connected to one spirit and so also the church has many servants.”77 Zwingli viewed the work and assistance of the godly magistrate as essential to the work of the church and the prophet (i.e., the pastor). He drew a parallel between the spirit and the body, whereby the prophet attended to spiritual matters and the magistrate attended to bodily matters. A year earlier he had outlined the important partnership of magistrates and prophets in Fidei Ratio.78 He repeated this outline even more clearly in his 1531 Exposition of the Christian Faith, concluding, “In short, in the church of Christ the office of the magistrate is as necessary as that of the prophet, though the latter has precedence. For just as a man must consist of both soul and body, though the body is the humbler and lesser part, so the church cannot exist without the

73. Of course the tasks themselves are a citation of Jeremiah 1:9–​10. 74.  Zwingli, Complationis Isaiae Prophetae, via and Complationis Ieremiae Prophetae, aiib, aiiia, aiiib. Timmerman notes this emphasis on the prophet as watchman but does not set it within its larger context as a natural outworking (106). 75. Timmerman also makes this point (106, 108–​11). 76. Zwingli, Complationis Ieremiae, aiib. 77. Zwingli, Complationis Ieremiae, aiiia. 78. Zwingli, Ad Carolum Rom. Imperatorem, 17v.

120

The Reformation of Prophecy

magistracy, though it should take care only to dispose of the more worldly matters that have less to do with the spirit.”79 This articulation of the prophet’s duties as watchman in cooperation with the magistrate in order to foster Christian piety and an ethical society directly reinforced the processes of reform in Zurich, where magistrates in the Zurich Council often dealt with contentious issues of process and implementation of reforms, while the pastors had jurisdiction over spiritual content.80 It also reinforced Zwingli’s vision of a religious unity of the Swiss confederate states, for the Christian Civic Union between Zurich, Bern, and St. Gall had already formed in 1528 and expanded to include several other cities in 1529.81 Zwingli actually dedicated his annotations on Isaiah to the Christian Civic Union in an opening letter, in which he wrote, “If we want to preserve the freedom we have inherited from our forefathers, let us appeal to religion and equity for good counsel and help.  .  .  . Let us, first of all, care for religion and equity  .  .  .  for without them no civil community may be durable, much less a Christian community.”82 Zwingli also dedicated his 1531 annotations on Jeremiah to the city of Strasbourg, which was the most recent city to join the Christian Civic Union at that time.83 He sought to ground these alliances on their common commitments as Christians rather than their shared interests in commerce and/​or defense.84 He believed such a vision of a cooperative relationship between pastors and magistrates greatly strengthened the potential success of such alliances. Zwingli’s appeal on September 15, 1530, to the cities of Strasbourg, Zurich, Bern, and Basel further argued that God’s will could be known only through God’s Word and that the disputes between these cities would dissipate with the free preaching and acceptance of God’s Word and consequent amendment of their lives. In this work, Zwingli insisted, the magistrates must listen to their prophets.85 He therefore employed the figure

79.  Zwingli, Christianae fidei exposition, Z.  6.5, 115, as translated in Gordon, The Swiss Reformation, 78. 80. For more details, see Gordon, The Swiss Reformation, 61–​71; Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, 282–​310. 81.  See Gordon, The Swiss Reformation, 114. Basel, Strasbourg, Biel, Schaffhausen, and Mülhausen joined in 1529. 82. Zwingli, Complanationis Isaiae Prophetae, va, vb, translation from Locher, 270. 83. Zwingli, Complationis Ieremiae, aiia; Locher, 270. 84. Gordon makes this point (The Swiss Reformation, 114, 122). 85. Zwingli, Zwingli im Nahmen der Prädikanten, 78–​80. See Locher’s discussion of several of these texts and Zwingli’s political theology more broadly (267–​76, esp. 271–​72).



Prophecy and the Pastoral Office

121

of the prophet to frame the key work of Swiss Protestant pastors to proclaim the will of God in accordance with Scripture, a proclamation that partnered with the work of magistrates and that focused on the rooting out of evil and the building up of good toward the establishment of a more godly society. Palpable, as well, in these writings was Zwingli’s self-​identification with the prophet as the prime persona that best represented his conceptions of his own ministry. This more pronounced role of the prophet as watchman and the new emphasis on the complementary work of the prophet and magistrate advanced Zwingli’s overriding concern for the transformation of society toward greater godliness. He insisted that such transformation must first and foremost begin with proper faith. This manifested in a third development in his conception of the prophet’s duties, in which the prophet served as an exemplar of faith—​a development particularly prominent in his preface to Isaiah. Unlike Luther, however, Zwingli did not define this faith as a right understanding of works, justification by faith alone, and the proper distinctions of Law and Gospel; he instead emphasized the faith—​the absolute certainty—​ the prophet has in the Word of God. Building upon the image of Ezekiel 3:3, where the prophet eats the scroll of God’s Word, Zwingli argued that prophets demonstrate the most profound faith and certainty in God’s Word, for they know they have been given the very words of God in their mouths and are persuaded that they serve as messengers of God’s Word.86 Guided by the Holy Spirit and the very words of God, true prophets proclaim the will of God. Echoing Romans 12:3 and 6 (“according to the measure of faith” and “prophecy in proportion to faith”), Zwingli viewed prophets as possessing a measure of faith that equipped them for the hard tasks that demand certainty in God’s Word, such as Abraham’s obedient response to the command to sacrifice Isaac, Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s risky abolishment of the Law, and John the Baptist’s reproof of King Herod’s incest.87 Zwingli concluded that one sees in the prophet the preeminent example of faith and certainty in God’s Word—​an example that went a long way in calling the Protestant pastor to the right duties of preaching and interpreting Scripture and serving as the watchman of church and society that are anchored in the unswerving faith and certainty of God’s Word.88

86. Zwingli, Complanationis Isaiae, Aib. In many ways, then, the prophet served as the very embodiment of Zwingli’s 1522 sermon on the clarity and certainty of God’s Word. 87. Zwingli, Complanationis Isaiae, Aib. 88. Zwingli, Complanationis Isaiae, Aiia.

122

The Reformation of Prophecy

Shared Uses of the Prophet: Clerical and Scriptural Authority and the Reform of Worship The biblical prophet served as a powerful tool in the hands of Luther and Zwingli. Both employed the prophet and prophecy to strengthen and clarify pastoral identity and authority, identifying two main functions of prophets: the interpretation of Scripture through the knowledge of the biblical languages and the exhortation to repentance and true faith. They also viewed the biblical prophet as gifted with foresight to predict future events, but emphasized the definition of the prophet as a skilled interpreter of Scripture and as a watchman or overseer of Christian faith and piety. Luther and Zwingli therefore presented the prophet as a vivid model of the key duties of the Protestant pastor. They sought to affirm proper forms of ongoing revelation centered upon and bounded by Scripture and reject any possibility of new revelation against certain Anabaptist or other radical teachings. In doing so they simultaneously established the authority of Scripture and the authority of Protestant pastors who had been properly called and ordained. By affirming the divine insight given to rightly called pastors, they ultimately elevated Protestant pastors over and against itinerant Anabaptist and radical preachers. Defining the true prophet as one who proclaims the Word of God alone and also as a gifted exegete, they employed the figure of the prophet to (a) help establish Scriptural authority as the prime authority; (b) present Protestant reform as based not on human ideas, words, or actions but on the Word of God alone; and (c) set forth Protestant pastors—​rather than the pope or Catholic Church, on the one hand, or just any layperson, on the other hand—​as the one authorized to lead the reforming work of the church and, particularly, the exposition of Scripture and the defense and promotion of Christian faith and piety. The figure of the prophet and teachings of Old Testament prophecy also served another crucial function for early Protestant movements in Germany and Switzerland. Luther and Zwingli employed prophecy and the prophet to support and implement their visions of the reform of worship especially over and against Roman Catholic worship practices. Many fine works have already demonstrated these early reformers’ concerns with true worship and rejection of what they viewed as Roman Catholic idolatry.89 It suffices here briefly to demonstrate the important role the Old Testament prophets played in their pronouncements against false worship and restoration of true worship.

89. See Eire, War against the Idols; Wandel, Voracious Idols and “Envisioning God”; Karant-​ Nunn, The Reformation of Ritual; Maxfield, “Martin Luther and Idolatry”; Aston, “Bullinger and Iconoclasm”; Diethelm, “Bullinger and Worship.”



Prophecy and the Pastoral Office

123

Indeed, given the content of Old Testament prophecy, of which an enormous proportion concerns the prophets’ sermons against idolatry and false worship, it is not at all surprising that the early reformers found numerous applications of Old Testament prophecy in their “war against the idols.” Though Luther and Zwingli first used the concept of the prophet to buttress their teachings concerning the priesthood of all believers, in redirecting their use of the prophet to support Protestant clerical identity and authority they found abundant applications to set forth the pastor’s further duties of promoting the true worship of God and dismantling the false worship that they believed plagued their day. Consistent across Luther’s and Zwingli’s uses of Old Testament prophecy here were their rejection of idolatry and rebuke of wrong reliance on human traditions and works, as well as their widespread anti-​Catholic rhetoric. They operated, however, with slightly different definitions of idolatry and false worship. Scott Hendrix and John Maxfield rightly argue that Luther was just as much concerned with idolatry as leaders of the Reformed tradition, such as Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin.90 Though it is certainly true that Luther maintained a different stance toward images than these Reformed theologians, he still believed most images ultimately had no true place in Christian worship. He advocated their gradual removal but argued that the elimination of external images did not attain the full remedy needed:  one must be rid of the idolatry in one’s heart.91 Nonetheless, as Hendrix and Maxfield have helpfully demonstrated, just because Luther held a different position on images does not mean idolatry was any less serious a matter for him. For example, in his 1524–​28 lectures on the Minor Prophets and Isaiah, Luther frequently railed against idolatry and used Old Testament prophecy to draw a contrast between true and false worship that had clear applications to the church in his day. False worship, he argued, is contrary to God’s Word. It seeks to worship God apart from God’s Word and apart from faith.92 It wrongly relies upon human efforts, works, and the law. Luther consequently viewed idolatry as rooted in 90. Hendrix, Recultivating the Vineyard, 4–​52, 77; Maxfield, 142–​45, 166–​68. 91.  Luther most fully stated these points in his writings against Andreas von Karlstadt. He wrote in Against the Heavenly Prophets, “I approached the task of destroying images by first tearing them out of the heart through God’s Word and making them worthless and destroyed. . . . But Dr. Karlstadt, who pays no attention to matters of the heart, has reversed the order by removing them from sight and leaving them in the heart” (LW 40:84; WA 18: 67). See the whole passage on images: WA 18:67–​101 and LW 40:84–​117. A quick resource is Sider, Karlstadt’s Battle with Luther. 92. WA 31/​2:112–​13, 291, 344, 351; WA 13:169–​70, 176, 201, 303. LW 16: 160; 17:39, 105, 114; 18:142, 151–​52, 184, 212–​13.

124

The Reformation of Prophecy

a departure from God’s Word; he argued that at its core it is a form of works righteousness.93 True worship, on the other hand, teaches faith; it teaches that justification is by faith alone and not by human efforts, works, or the law.94 Luther therefore defined idolatry as faith in something other than God for one’s salvation. By trusting in something other than God, one rejects God’s Word that teaches that justification is by faith alone.95 Those who trust in something other than God invent their own form of worship.96 Luther’s concern for the idolatry in one’s heart, rather than the many external forms it might take, shaped his definition of idolatry, and it shaped his definition of images.97 He wrote in his comments on Isaiah 42:8, “Thus when [the prophet] speaks of graven images, we must apply this to the images of ungodliness and abomination in our own time. The Augustinians and Franciscans have their own images in their claim, ‘if I observe this rule, I shall be saved.’ . . . Pretense and ungodliness are the same as a graven image and their own opinion because in each case people confuse God with their own opinion and idolatry, although they differ in substance.”98 Luther relativized the exact outward form of the image itself and aimed directly for the heart of the problem: trust in oneself, one’s own opinion, and/​or something other than God. He responded by repeatedly highlighting teachings from the Old Testament prophets concerning faith only in God, justification by faith alone as the true worship of God, and the sin of works righteousness. Luther thereby continuously deployed the condemnations of the Old Testament prophets against the Roman Catholic pope, priests, and leaders whom he viewed as refusing to hear God’s Word, promoting works righteousness, and depending on the law rather than faith.99 93. WA 31/​2:153–​54, 162, 163, 164, 178, 242, 290, 291, 322, 345–​46, 384, 470; WA 13:7–​8, 35, 302–​303, 246, 247, 251; WA 19:207, 230–​31, 238–​39; WA 13:429; WA 23:593. LW 16: 216–​17, 227, 228, 229, 246, 327; 17:  38, 39, 78, 107–​108, 158, 271; 18:9–​10, 39, 211–​13; 19:11, 13, 20, 55–​56, 115; 20:263–​65. 94. WA 13:4, 6, 62, 100, 180, 181, 183, 186, 217, 543, 243, 244, 246–​47, 251; WA 19:193–​94, 199, 200; WA 23:508, 591–​93, 613. LW 18:4, 8, 70, 96, 158, 159, 161, 166, 196, 385; 19:5–​6, 8, 11–​13, 20, 40–​41, 46, 48, 80, 88–​90, 119, 123–​24, 166; 20:165–​66, 261–​64, 287. 95. Oswald Bayer argues that Luther’s definition of idolatry is ultimately when one turns away from God and turns in on oneself (Martin Luther’s Theology, 110, 136). 96. WA 31/​2:112–​13, 273. LW 16:160; 17:17; 18:184. 97. Hendrix, Recultivating the Vineyard, 77; Maxfield, 145–​46, 150, 168. See also WA 23:568; LW 20:234–​35. 98. WA 31/​2:315; LW 17:70. 99. WA 31/​2:153–​54, 163, 164, 177, 178, 242, 273, 290; WA 13:7–​8, 17–​18, 184, 185, 201, 314, 246; WA 19:194, 207, 414; WA 13:597–​99, 602, 611, 612; WA 23:597. LW 16:216–​17, 227–​28, 229, 245, 246, 327; 17:17, 38–​39; 18:9–​10, 21, 163, 165, 184, 231; 19:11, 41, 55–​56, 217; 20:54–​58,



Prophecy and the Pastoral Office

125

Zwingli shared several elements with Luther’s definitions of idolatry. He also defined idolatry as trust in something other than God and departure from God’s Word. True worship entailed despairing of self, seeking God alone, and believing in and cleaving only to God’s Word.100 Zwingli and Luther both articulated a strong contrast between Creator and creature, particularly identifying true worship as that which rightly gives all the praise and credit due to God and fully recognizes that all created things and creatures are incapable of contributing to their own salvation.101 One could argue that a right understanding of justification is central to how they both differentiated between true and false worship. For Zwingli, however, the contrast between Creator and creature entailed a strong dichotomy between spirit and flesh, between spiritual and material things.102 Zwingli’s attack on idolatry therefore aimed more heavily at its material forms, such as images. He adamantly asserted that Scripture clearly forbids any use of images and that images have no legitimate place in worship and are in no way beneficial.103 His definition of false worship more acutely focused upon the wrongful reliance on material elements, such as human traditions, human ceremonies, human innovations, and accretions.104 In a certain way, then, Zwingli’s attack focused on idolatry in terms of false material worship forms, whereas Luther’s attack focused on the works righteousness he saw at the heart of idolatry. Or, as Gottfried Locher aptly states, “For Luther the alternative to faith is works. . . . For [Zwingli], the alternative to faith is every kind of idolatry, ceremony, or traditio humana.”105

60, 74–​75, 76, 268. Luther also often explicitly likened the behavior of the Roman Catholic leaders to Jewish disobedience and criticized them for neglecting God’s Word and trusting earthly things and works righteousness. See WA 31/​2:154, 163, 164, 178, 222; WA 13:47, 184–​ 85, 303, 543, 246; WA 19:409; WA 13:597–​99, 602; WA 23:636. LW 16:217, 228, 229, 246, 300; 18:53, 163–​65, 165, 212–​13, 386; 19:11, 211–​12, 214; 20:55–​58, 60, 13, 314 100. CR 90:669, 670–​72, 723. Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 92, 94–​95, 156; CR 90: 270–​71, 277–​78; Zwingli, “Reply to Emser,” 383–​84, 389. See also his Exposition of the Faith, 45–​47. 101. Eire, 84. 102. CR 90:659–​60, 672–​73, 713–​14, 774–​82, 785–​87, 818–​19, 908–​11. Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 81–​82, 95–​96, 144–​46, 198–​208, 212–​14, 251, 339–​42. 103. CR 90:900–​901, 902–​3. Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 331, 332, 334. 104. CR 90:671–​72, 850; Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 94–​95, 278. CR 90: 269–​71, 276; Zwingli, “Reply to Emser,” 383–​84, 388. 105. Locher, 14. Stephens (The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, 178–​79) and Hendrix (Recultivating the Vineyard, 95–​96) also eloquently draw a number of contrasts between Luther and Zwingli (or between Lutherans and Reformed) on their views of true and false worship and idolatry.

126

The Reformation of Prophecy

Zwingli equally found the teachings and examples of the Old Testament prophets helpful in his contrast between true and false worship.106 In “Reply to Emser” (1524), he evoked texts from Jeremiah (2:13 and 17:5) to reject the false worship that trusts in human inventions rather than God, as seen particularly in the Roman Catholic practice of the intercession of saints.107 In Commentary on True and False Religion (1525), Zwingli wrote that true religion requires that “wretched man despairs of himself and rests his thought and confidence on God,” whereas false religion places its hope elsewhere, leading to the multiplication of idols as expressed by Jeremiah (2:28), “According to the number of your cities are your gods, O Judah.”108 He similarly evoked Christ’s use of Isaiah 29:13 to condemn worship that “proceeds from human invention”; instead true worship is “guided by the Word of God alone and looks to and hears this only.”109 Zwingli also employed the Old Testament prophets to illuminate his own times. He deployed Amos’s words against the greed and financial exploitation of the people by the monasteries in his own day.110 He depicted the Old Testament prophets as exemplifying true faith in God’s Word, demonstrating that God’s Word always accomplishes what it sets forth to do (Isaiah 55:11), and profoundly teaching God’s providence and eternal covenant.111 Zwingli invoked the courage of prophets in rebuking princes and magistrates when they strayed from God’s Word to urge Protestant preachers of his own time to help magistrates recognize and refuse Roman Catholic abuses.112 In Commentary on True and False Religion, he argued that both the New and the Old Testaments (particularly the Pentateuch and the Old Testament prophets) strongly condemned any use of images and did not support in any way distinctions that allowed certain uses of images under particular conditions. Zwingli thereby rejected the distinction some drew between idols (worship of false gods) and images of Christ (worship of the true God). He likewise rejected the argument for the allowance of

106. New Testament texts, however, bore the largest weight of his arguments. 107. CR 90:270, see 269–​71; Zwingli, “Reply to Emser,” 383, see 382–​84. 108. CR 90:723; Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 156. 109.  CR 90:672 and also 850; Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 95 and also 278. 110. CR 90:632–​33; Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 48–​50. 111. CR 90:636, 651–​52, 804; Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 53, 71–​72, 234. 112. CR 90:887; Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 316–​17.



Prophecy and the Pastoral Office

127

images as long as they are not worshipped. Rather, argued Zwingli, the Bible clearly forbids strange gods, idols, and any kind of image, whether of the true God or not. Images thus cannot be retained for teaching purposes either, as they are clearly forbidden.113 In addition to his deployment of the Old Testament prophets in his Commentary on True and False Religion, Zwingli clearly believed that the reading and exposition of the Old Testament prophets was crucial to the learning and edification of the Zurich church and its ministers, as seen in the fact that the Old Testament prophetic books were the focus of the Prophezei meetings.114 His own exegetical work on Isaiah (1529) and Jeremiah (1531), however, primarily aimed to provide a purer translation of these books so that his annotations focused mostly upon variants in the original languages and the reasons for the particular translation he preferred.115 Indications of what a dedicated commentary on these books might have contained are sometimes visible in these annotations. Some of his annotations turned to present-​day negative examples of Roman Catholic worship that deserved condemnation to illustrate the text. For example, Zwingli used Jeremiah 5:31 to evoke the current “fiction of indulgences” as an example of the ways in which priests have consented to wickedness and fraud.116 He also likened the robbery described in Isaiah 61:8 to the “robbery by the Roman Pontiff,” and he applied the Lord’s command in Jeremiah 15:1 to “send them out of my sight” to Roman Catholic leaders and their errors.117 In sum, the proclamations and sermons of the Old Testament prophets proved immensely useful to Luther’s and Zwingli’s programs of worship reform. They shared a definition of true worship as adhering to the Word of God alone, while false worship lacked or departed from God’s Word. Even as they differed in their approaches to images, the proclamations of the Old Testament prophets were useful in promoting true and rebuking false worship, particularly against Roman Catholicism. By deploying the sermons of the Old Testament prophets, Luther and Zwingli equipped Protestant pastors with the very words of Scripture to guide and implement worship reform. Such deployment simultaneously served to strengthen the authority of Scripture and the 113. CR 90:900–​906; Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 330–​37. 114. Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, 40; Gäbler, Huldrych Zwingli, 100–​101. 115. Zwingli, Complationis Isaiae Prophetae and Annotationes et Satisfactiones. 116. Zwingli, Annotationes et Satisfactiones in Huldrici Zuinglii Opera 6:94–​95. 117.  Zwingli, Apologia Complanationis Isaiae per Huldricum Zuinglium in Huldrici Zuinglii Opera 5:776 and Annotationes et Satisfactiones in Huldrici Zuinglii Opera 6:115.

128

The Reformation of Prophecy

authority of the pastor to better ensure the successful implementation of these worship reforms.

Synopsis and Significance These first three chapters have traced the significant shifts in Luther’s and Zwingli’s assorted uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy as they responded to particular contexts, pressures, and goals. Shared across these diverse uses was their firm conviction that the prophet and biblical prophecy proved powerfully effective for their larger purposes. They served to promote the priesthood of all believers, while simultaneously attacking Roman Catholicism’s conceptions of the priesthood and its so-​called tyranny over biblical interpretation. The prophet and biblical prophecy proved equally constructive in establishing Protestant clerical identity and authority solely upon the Word of God, in contrast to a Roman Catholic conception of the priest’s perpetual estate and indelible character, as well as in contrast to certain radicals’ appeals to the authority of the Holy Spirit apart from Scripture. The prophet and biblical prophecy ultimately advanced Luther’s and Zwingli’s insistence upon the prime authority of Scripture. It enabled them to empower both the laity and the clergy soundly within and under the authority of Scripture, as well as demarcate the proper limits of authority: only insofar as a minister (or layperson) rightly proclaims the Word of God does the message carry authority, for all authority belongs to God and God’s Word. Luther and Zwingli returned to prophetic texts to assert the necessity of a proper call to public offices of ministry. Zwingli especially employed the office of the prophet to illuminate the other biblical offices in the church. They both precisely highlighted a discussion of offices to respond to radical threats and perceived forms of anticlericalism now aimed against the Protestant pastorate. They further seized upon the examples of the Old Testament prophets to exemplify the key duties of the Protestant minister—​duties of preaching God’s Word, interpreting Scripture, defending Christian doctrine, and serving as a watchman for the cultivation of true Christian piety. Not to be forgotten are the profound uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy for a biblical vision of worship reform. Just as the biblical prophets rebuked the idolatrous, false worship of their times, so Protestant pastors stand in their footsteps in combating the idolatrous, false worship that the Protestant reformers viewed as rampant in the sixteenth century. Luther and Zwingli paralleled the experiences and tasks of sixteenth-​century pastors in these ways with those of the Old Testament prophets.



Prophecy and the Pastoral Office

129

A number of significant nuances—​even differences—​also emerge. Zwingli emphasized the role of the prophet as watchman who primarily rebuked and exhorted the people to ethical living, while Luther stressed the role of the prophet as guardian of right doctrine who defended the Christian faith against heresy, especially wrong teachings concerning faith, works, justification, and Law and Gospel. This is not to say that Zwingli did not care about doctrine or that Luther did not care about ethics. It simply points to a difference in emphasis or priority. Furthermore, though both Luther and Zwingli employed the prophet as a supreme exemplar of faith, they operated with different definitions of faith: for Luther, faith meant correct doctrinal beliefs, particularly a right doctrine of justification by faith alone—​a view that furthered his idea of the prophet as the defender of God’s Word and true Christian doctrine; for Zwingli, faith meant certainty in God’s Word, in which the prophet exemplified the certainty that God’s Word is divine and divinely given to reveal God’s will, thus affirming the right to call the people to ethical living. Such a definition of faith buttressed Zwingli’s depiction of the prophet as watchman for the advancement of a godly society, in which prophets and magistrates worked together for the formation of a Christian society. Even as Luther and Zwingli shared the use of the prophet to strengthen the identity and authority of the Protestant pastor, they did so in ways that mapped onto their own particular prophetic self-​awareness and understandings of the central tasks of the Protestant pastor. Luther exactly viewed himself as a defender of the Christian faith, which entailed first and foremost the defense of right teachings of faith, works, justification by faith alone, and Law and Gospel. Zwingli viewed himself as the watchman who worked toward the advancement of a Christian society through the unhindered preaching of God’s Word in partnership with the magistrates’ work to maintain order in external matters. These differing emphases formed their conceptions of the key duties of the Protestant pastor and also informed their uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy to promote a program for worship reform. Luther read Old Testament prophecy as sermons preaching right understandings of justification, faith, works, Law and Gospel. His program for the reform of worship therefore defined idolatry primarily as works righteousness and promoted a worship focused on God’s Word in order to foster the truths of justification by faith alone. Zwingli, on the other hand, emphasized the prophetic tasks of “rooting out evil” and “building the good” to promote the removal of all idolatry, images, and human innovations and inventions from sixteenth-​ century worship practices in order to plant and cultivate the godly worship centered upon God’s Word alone. While Luther employed the prophet and biblical prophecy to root out the works righteousness resident in every sinful

130

The Reformation of Prophecy

heart, Zwingli employed them to purify Protestant churches of all images and every kind of human innovation. Chapters 5 through 8 build upon these emerging confessional differences foreshadowed here in Luther and Zwingli to make the case that interpretations and uses of biblical prophecy became a prime site of confessional differentiation—​and thus confessional formation and consolidation—​in the next generations of Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist leadership. We turn next, however, to the significant contributions and shifts Bullinger and Calvin brought to Protestant conceptions and uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy.

4

Prophecy and the Teaching Office Bullinger and Calvin

In the face of the growing threat of the radicals’ alternative performances of prophecy, Luther and Zwingli shifted their uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy from issuing a call to the priesthood of all believers to strengthening Protestant clerical identity and authority. Opposing the radicals, they emphasized the necessity of a true calling and closely tied the work of the Protestant pastor to the proclamation of God’s Word alone, in which the Holy Spirit never speaks apart from God’s Word and there is no possibility of new revelation. Luther and Zwingli therefore accentuated the maintenance of godly order and affirmed the necessity of established public ministerial offices filled by persons with a true call and commission. Rather than abandoning the figure or office of the prophet, however, they continued to assert its usefulness by aligning the true Protestant pastor with the prophet who proclaims the Word of God alone and not his own word or a human word (or a new word)—​thereby affirming the prophetic office as an ongoing office of the church. Not evident in the work of Luther and Zwingli are any distinctions between temporary and permanent church offices. It was Heinrich Bullinger and John Calvin who proved pivotal in altering the conversation concerning the prophet and biblical prophecy. They turned the conversation away from a focus on the office of the prophet per se to a focus on prophetic functions. They also both emphasized, in one way or another, the functional parallels between the prophet and the teaching office. Calvin formalized a shift to prophetic functions by clearly stating that the office of the prophet had ceased. Yet, as this chapter demonstrates, this did not mean the prophet and biblical prophecy appeared any less useful to Bullinger’s and Calvin’s larger concerns and purposes. On the contrary, they expanded and deepened the applications

132

The Reformation of Prophecy

of prophetic duties and biblical prophecy for the edification of Protestant churches and the Protestant minister in particular.

Bullinger: Shift from Prophet to Prophetic Duties In order to get a full picture of the use of the prophet and prophecy in Reformation Zurich, one must turn to the significant contributions of Bullinger, who was appointed by the Zurich Council as Zwingli’s successor on December 9, 1531. Timmerman has written an excellent book analyzing Bullinger’s early views on prophecy and the prophet (1523–​38).1 My own study of the primary texts concurs with several of Timmerman’s conclusions. I will therefore provide my own analysis, making note of Timmerman’s significant contributions and pointing to areas where my views differ. Also distinct from Timmerman, I will examine key texts pertaining to prophecy and prophets beyond the year 1538, most notably Bullinger’s sermons on Jeremiah and Isaiah from the late 1550s into the last decade of his life, as well as his 1560 treatise against the Anabaptists in which he provided an extensive treatment of I Corinthians 14. Bullinger is pivotal in the history of Protestant views of the prophet and prophecy, for he signaled a significant shift away from a focus on the office of the prophet to a focus on prophetic duties. Such a shift ultimately led to an eclipse of explicit prophetic terminology to define and strengthen the pastoral office in favor of other terms, such as bishop and teacher.2 Bullinger’s contributions are notable as well for the ways they shaped the thinking of his contemporaries and the next generation of Reformed leadership. Unlike Zwingli, he underscored I  Corinthians 14:3 (“those who prophesy speak to people for their edification, encouragement, and consolation”) as a crucial defining text for the prime duties of the prophet—​a point he argued in De propheta Heilrijchi Bullingeri libri duo (1525) and sustained in De Prophetae 1.  Timmerman, Heinrich Bullinger. I  highly recommend this fine book. My account here focuses more on developments in Bullinger’s thought over time and the ways his views contributed to the strengthening of clerical identity and authority, as well as how his emphases were pivotal in later Protestant applications of the prophet and prophecy to the pastoral office. 2.  Both Timmerman and Daniel Bolliger argue for this eclipse of prophetic terminology in Bullinger’s later works. Timmerman points to this as early as his 1538 De episcoporum (227–​40). Bolliger does a better job of accounting for this eclipse in De episcoporum due to Bullinger’s English audience and sees a more definitive eclipse in Bullinger’s 1552 Decades (“Bullinger on Church Authority,” 170–​74). Notably missing in Bolliger’s and Timmerman’s accounts are Bullinger’s lectures on Isaiah and Jeremiah starting in 1557, where I will argue that the figure of the prophet continued to hold great significance.



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

133

Officio (1532), his I Corinthians commentary (1534), and later writings. He employed this biblical text to shift the focus to the prophet’s tasks of teaching and edifying.3 As the next chapter illustrates, this use of I  Corinthians 14:3 became a commonplace in subsequent descriptions of the central duties of the prophet, as seen in the work of his contemporaries John Calvin and Philip Melanchthon—​who wrote commentaries on I  Corinthians in 1546 and 1551, respectively—​and the subsequent writings of Rudolph Gwalther, John Jacob Grynaeus, David Pareus, and others.

Similarities and Differences in Bullinger’s and Zwingli’s Views of the Prophet Bullinger’s early depictions of the prophet and prophecy echo many of Zwingli’s key points. Just as Zwingli aligned the duty of the prophet as watchman with the Old Testament prophet and the task of interpretation of Scripture with the New Testament prophet, Bullinger echoed a similar position in his 1525 De propheta Heilrijchi Bullingeri libri duo:  “Among the Hebrews, those were called ‘seers’ whom we would call ‘prophets.’ However, they were charged with the office that is now imposed on our bishops. In fact, just like the former are watchmen, the latter are called seers by virtue of their office, because they rebuked the offenses of the people and comforted them after they had returned to the Lord.”4 He then turned to the description of prophecy in the New Testament: “But in the New Testament those were called prophets who uncovered the meaning of Scripture to the people and, moreover, who taught, who exhorted, and who comforted. Therefore, the prophets of both testaments are united with regard to their duties, although they are slightly different with respect to the character and method of teaching.”5 By joining these depictions of the Old and New Testament manifestations of prophecy into the one office, Bullinger thereby repeated Zwingli’s depiction of the prophet as having the two key functions of being a watchman and an interpreter of Scripture. He also advanced in his early accounts the use of the prophet to strengthen clerical identity and authority, likening the prophets to present-​day bishops. Bullinger made a notable addition, however, by describing prophets as those 3. Peter Opitz points to this distinctive contribution of Bullinger and its basis in I Corinthians 14:3 in his article “Von prophetischer Existenz zur Prophetie als Pädagogik: Zu Bullingers Lehre von munus propheticum,” 2: 502–​3. Timmerman highlights Bullinger’s emphasis on teaching (152–​54, 264–​68). 4. Bullinger, De propheta Heilrijchi Bullingeri libri duo, 7r, as translated by Timmerman, 134. 5. Bullinger, De propheta Heilrijchi Bullingeri libri duo, 7r, as translated by Timmerman, 133.

134

The Reformation of Prophecy

who “taught, exhorted and comforted,” clearly invoking I Corinthians 14:3 as a definitive text for delineating the prophet’s central duties. He repeated these same points in his 1532 De Prophetae Officio, noting the different Greek and Hebrew terms for the prophet in order to point to the two key functions of prophecy previously set forth by Zwingli:  the functions of interpretation of Scripture and watchman. Acknowledging that the Greek term for prophecy technically indicates someone who foretells the future, Bullinger emphasized a second application of the term: “It signifies one who expounds sacred things and who unveils, condemns, and prosecutes crimes, repels error and iniquity, but teaches, advises and defends piety and justice.”6 He enumerated similar duties when explaining the tasks of the Old Testament seers, who were called “watchmen” because they were “like guards [who] . . . take care of the Lord’s flock.”7 Bullinger linked these points into a fuller definition of the prophet: From these things it is certainly clear that the office of a true prophet is nothing else than to interpret the sacred Scriptures, to prevent error and wickedness, to defend piety and truth, and, finally, not only to instill but to study and labor to inculcate justice, faith, and mutual love in the minds of all people. Likewise, its function is to strengthen the faltering and to rouse and exhort those slowly lingering in walking in the way of the Lord.8 Thus, in these early writings, Bullinger powerfully upheld Zwingli’s dual conception of the prophet as watchman and interpreter of Scripture and fostered the application of the prophet to strengthen Protestant clerical identity and authority. He deepened the understanding of the prophet’s tasks by adding a focus on the duties of edifying, exhorting, and consoling set forth in I  Corinthians 14:3, and his use of this text was likely a key factor in his early tendency, as Timmerman points out, to emphasize the positive duties of the prophet (i.e., building up) more than the negative ones of rebuking and tearing down.9 Given his larger purpose of defending Zwingli’s legacy and presenting Zwingli as a supreme exemplar of the faithful performance of the

6. Bullinger, De Prophetae Officio, 2v. 7. Bullinger, De Prophetae Officio, 2v. 8. Bullinger, De Prophetae Officio, 3r. 9.  Timmerman, 164. Timmerman also sees a vacillation between Bullinger’s use of the prophet to strengthen the pastoral office and views of the prophet as a “private man of learning” (164).



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

135

prophetic office in his 1532 De Prophetae Officio, we see Bullinger increasingly incorporating Zwingli’s focus on Jeremiah 1:9–​10 to enumerate the key tasks of the Zurich clergy to root out the wickedness and error in their midst, particularly concerning the errors of the Anabaptists, misuse of wealth, neglect of domestic duties, and avarice.10 Timmerman rightly identifies several important developments in Bullinger’s conception of the prophetic office in this 1532 treatise that indicate his movement beyond Zwingli’s teachings on prophecy. First, in conjunction with his emphasis on the prophet’s central task of edification, he added the necessary measures of faith and love in order for prophets to judge true exegesis and preaching, for “exegesis is sound if it neither contradicts faith nor violates love.”11 His appeal to the rules of faith and love also underscored the prophet’s proper demeanor of humility and goal of edification, which he buttressed by invoking Romans 12:3, and I  Corinthians 8:1–​3 and 13:1–​2. Bullinger employed Romans 12:3 to warn prophets and pastors more generally “not to think of themselves more highly than they ought” but to consider themselves “with sober judgment, according to the measure of faith God has given” to them.12 I Corinthians 8:1–​3 similarly taught that “knowledge puffs up, while love edifies,” and 13:1–​2 warned that the gift of prophecy amounted to nothing without love. Thereby, as Timmerman fittingly argues, Bullinger strongly advised prophets and pastors to refrain from boasting of their own knowledge, “but rather apply themselves to the edification of the church.”13 Timmerman also points out that this emphasis on faith and love led Bullinger to expound upon the virtues of simplicity and perspicuity in faithful prophetic speech.14 His 1533 comments on Romans 12:3 and 6 nicely depict his larger concern for the virtues of humility, sincerity, and simplicity in the application of the rule of faith, rather than a focus on the doctrinal content of the regula fidei as the chief heads of doctrine expressed in the Apostle’s Creed.15

10. Bullinger, De Prophetae Officio, 3r–​v, 14r–​22r, 32r–​37r (esp. 32r, 32v, 33r, 35r, 36v). 11. Bullinger, De Prophetae Officio, 3r, 3v, there 9v. See Timmerman, 179–​80, 196. 12. Bullinger, De Prophetae Officio, 9r–​v. 13. Timmerman, 180. See Bullinger, De Prophetae Officio, 9v. 14. Timmerman, 181; Bullinger, De Prophetae Officio, 29v–​30r. 15. Bullinger, In Sanctissimam Pauli ad Romanos Epistolam, 147r–​v. Romans 12:3 reads, “For by the grace of God given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of yourself more highly than you ought to think, but to think with sober judgement, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned” (NRSV). Romans 12:6 reads, “We have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us: prophecy in proportion to faith” (NRSV).

136

The Reformation of Prophecy

Bullinger’s appeals to the rules of love and faith thus expressed his profound concern for ethics—​both the pastor as ethical exemplar and the duties of the pastor to exhort and edify the people on ethical behavior. His emphasis on the rules of faith and love ultimately served as a guide to the prophet as interpreter of Scripture, as well as a guide to discern true prophets from false.16 A second key development in Bullinger’s conception of the prophet and prophecy evident in his 1532 De Prophetae Officio was the connection he drew between prophets and God’s eternal covenant.17 Echoing a point he had made earlier in his 1527–​28 Studiorum Ratio, he argued that the covenant of God is the central teaching of Scripture and the key to its perspicuity so that all exposition of Scripture should be oriented toward it.18 He explained in De Prophetae Officio that “God agreed with all humankind to be our God, sufficient in everything and abundant in goodness.”19 The covenant requires men and women in response to “walk in [God’s] ways and commit themselves entirely to God, who is the highest and most loving Father.”20 The covenant, argued Bullinger, ultimately points to Jesus Christ, “for God’s goodness, justice, and majesty are finally so graphically painted in Christ,” in whom all the key points of the covenant meet.21 “Jesus Christ [therefore] is nothing other than the eternal guarantor of God’s eternal covenant and witness to the mercy and truth of God.”22 He pointed even more explicitly in De testamento (1534) to the connection between the prophets and God’s eternal covenant, stating, “The prophetic histories are like living paradigms of this covenant.”23

16.  This is perhaps most evident in Bullinger’s comments on I  Thessalonians 5:20–​22, in which he explained the command to “test everything” as testing a teaching by its accordance with Scripture and its compatibility with faith and love (In D.  Apostoli Pauli ad Thessalonicenses, 43v–​44r). 17. Several scholars note the significance of the covenant for Bullinger’s theology. See, especially, Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant. Timmerman (187–​91) and Bolliger (165–​67) both point to the way Bullinger connects the prophets to the eternal covenant of God. 18.  Bullinger, Studiorum Ratio (1527–​ 28), in Heinrich Bullinger Studiorum Ratio—​ Studienanleitung, ed. Peter Stotz. I. Teilband: Text und Übersetzung (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987), 74–​77. See Timmerman, 187. See Stephens’s account of the covenant as the “sum and scope of Scripture” (“The Interpretation of the Bible,” 311). 19. Bullinger, De Prophetae Officio, 5r. 20. Bullinger, De Prophetae Officio, 3v–​5r, there 5r. 21. Bullinger, De Prophetae Officio, 6r–​v. 22. Bullinger, De Prophetae Officio, 6v. 23. Bullinger, De testamento seu foedere Dei unico et aeterno, 20r–​21r, translation from McCoy and Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism, 114, 115, there 115.



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

137

In response to this important connection between the covenant and prophets, Timmerman argues that Bullinger “does not explicitly identify church ministers as prophets” but rather “focuses on the prophets as harbingers of the coming Messiah . . . [and] does not apply their title to Christian ministers.”24 This seems too stringent a reading of Bullinger’s purposes in De Prophetae Officio. This connection between the prophets and the covenant appeared in the larger context of the prophet’s task of interpreting the Scriptures for edification, exhortation, and consolation and the context of Zwingli as the supreme embodiment of these tasks of the faithful prophet; it therefore seems very possible—​even likely—​that Bullinger intended to provide the ministers in Zurich a clear description of good interpretation of Scripture, as well as to highlight the qualities of a true prophet in order to illuminate the key duties of the pastor. The Old Testament prophets exactly modeled the right reading of Scripture that attends to its perspicuous content of the covenant of God to which all Scripture points. Zwingli as a “living example of the just administration of the prophet” therefore served as no empty example; Bullinger intended it for the formation of current and future ministers. Also distinctive from Zwingli, Bullinger exhibited a more pronounced depiction of the prophets as interpreters of Moses or the Law.25 He described them as such as early as his 1525 De propheta Heilrijchi Bullingeri libri duo and repeated this in his 1525 De institutione eucharitiae, his 1526 response to Dr.  Johannes Buchard, and his 1527–​28 Studiorum ratio.26 In his answer to Buchard and his 1537 Der alt gloub, Bullinger presented the Old Testament prophets as both interpreters of the Mosaic Law and heralds of Christ and the Gospel, thus pointing to their exegetical and foretelling capacities.27 As Timmerman points out but does not adequately emphasize, Bullinger thus connected the function of the prophet as an interpreter of Scripture not only with the New Testament definition of prophet; he also strongly identified the work of the Old Testament prophets with the task of biblical interpretation. 24. Timmerman, 188, 190; see also 190–​91. 25.  Zwingli briefly mentioned this in his comments on I  Corinthians 14:  “The name of prophet belongs also to them who eagerly listen to the Word of God and are diligently employed in the law of God” (In Priorem ad Corinthios Annotationes, 178). 26.  See Bullinger, De propheta Heilrijchi Bullingeri libri duo, 13r; Bullinger, De institutione eucharistiae (December 10, 1525) and Antwort an Burchard (Winter 1526), vol. 2 of Heinrich Bullinger Theologische Schriften, Unveröffentlichte Werke der Kappeler Zeit Theologica, edited by Hans-​Georg vom Berg, Bernhard Schneider, and Endre Zsindely (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1991), 89, 154. See also Bullinger, Studiorum Ratio, 96. Timmerman discusses these (133). 27. Bullinger, Antwort an Burchard, 150–​51; Der alt gloub, e2v, f5r, g5r.

138

The Reformation of Prophecy

The books of the prophets served as exegetical commentaries on the Law, for the Law was the whole of Scripture at the time of the Old Testament prophets.28 Unlike Zwingli, Bullinger did not identify the work of biblical interpretation with just the New Testament understanding of the prophetic office. The Old Testament prophets were not simply watchmen; they were also model interpreters of Scripture.29

Developments in Bullinger’s Views of the Prophet and Prophecy from 1533 to 1538 Bullinger’s exegetical work between 1533 and 1536 repeated several of these descriptions, as well as indicated further shifts.30 First, he continued to describe the prophet as having the dual—​but united—​roles of an interpreter of Scripture and a watchman for the Christian church and society. In his comments on I Corinthians 14:1, he first defined the prophet as an interpreter of Scripture, and then connected this to verse 3 (“those who prophesy speak to other people for their edification, encouragement, and consolation”), in which he emphasized the duties of the watchman:  “Briefly, the prophet in the church is that shepherd of the sheep, the watcher of the city, and the physician of the body . . . so that you hear here that prophecy is nothing other than the expounding of the sacred letter, teaching, exhorting, and consoling the church. . . . For the [prophet] corrects errors, teaches righteousness, and persuades toward piety and holy living.”31 Bullinger brought together this dual-​function description of prophecy later in the commentary, explaining

28. Timmerman, 133. Bullinger argued that the writings of the evangelists and apostles were commentaries on the Law and the Prophets (Der alt gloub, f5v, f8v, g5r). Calvin also made this point (Institutes 4.8.6, 9). 29. This is an important backdrop to Calvin’s views of the Old Testament prophets, as he also viewed them as interpreters of the Law and exemplars of applying Scripture to contemporary circumstances. Bullinger developed this point in his commentaries on Isaiah and Jeremiah that were written in the last decades of his life. 30. Relevant texts touching upon prophets include Acts 13:1, I Corinthians 14, Ephesians 4:11, I Thessalonians 5:20–​22, and Romans 12:6. Acts 13:1 reads, “Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers” (NRSV). I Corinthians 14 discusses the gifts of tongues and prophecy. Ephesians 4:11–​12 reads, “The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ” (NRSV). I Thessalonians 5:20–​22 reads, “Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; abstain from every form of evil” (NRSV). Romans 12:6 was already discussed in relation to Bullinger’s emphasis on the law of faith and the law of love. 31. Bullinger, In Priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios, 170v, 172v, 172v–​173r.



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

139

that to prophesy is “to teach, to console, to exhort, to accuse, and to correct the most corrupt behavior of humans by the sacred letter.”32 He therefore united the prophet’s work as an interpreter of Scripture with the functions of the watchman. Second, Bullinger accentuated the goal of edification, tying it to the rule of faith and rule of love.33 He echoed Zwingli’s confusing distinction between the offices, also concluding that ultimately they are all one and the same: Evangelists are said to be those who educate the people and simply announce the Gospel. Pastors are properly overseers and bishops who remove the wolves from the fold and who also accuse wickedness such that, in a word, they display what a prophet of the Lord would display. Doctors are teachers of the catechism, briefly, either privately or publicly taking charge of the building up of the people. . . . But one who sees these names knows that one is used for the other, for an apostle is also a prophet, doctor, evangelist, presbyter, and bishop. And the bishop is an evangelist and prophet. The prophet is a teacher, presbyter, and evangelist. Thus the Apostle Paul signified with these various terms the various gifts that the Lord gave to his church for its salvation.34 Unlike Zwingli, however, Bullinger preferred to address these as functions rather than offices, and he did not present the prophetic office as the constitutive office. The most significant developments in Bullinger’s view of the prophet and prophecy in these exegetical works were the more specific depiction of the prophet as an interpreter of the “mysteries” of Scripture and as a specialized teacher. These first appeared in his 1533 comments on Acts 13:1, his 1534 exposition of I  Corinthians 14, and his 1535 comments on Ephesians 4:11.35 On Acts 13:1, concerning the prophets and teachers in the church of Antioch, Bullinger distinguished between prophets and teachers according to their audience and setting: “Prophets differ from teachers in this passage in that 32. Bullinger, In Priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios, 179r. See also his comments on Acts 13:1 and I Thessalonians 5:20–​22, where he also pointed to this dual description of the prophet (In Acta Apostolorum, 148v–​149r and In D. Apostoli Pauli ad Thessalonicenses, 42v). 33. Bullinger, In D. Apostoli Pauli ad Thessalonicenses, 43v–​44r. For his emphasis on edification, see also Bullinger, In Acta Apostolorum, 149r; In Priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios, 172r–​v, 180r, 180v; and In D. Apostoli Paul ad Galatas, 159r. 34. Bullinger, In D. Apostoli Paul ad Galatas, 157v–​158r. 35. See Timmerman’s discussion of these texts (266–​71).

140

The Reformation of Prophecy

teachers are pastors, evangelists, and bishops who in public meetings instruct the common people. But prophets investigate the hidden things of Scripture [arcana scripturae], and they give lectures to the learned in the absence of public institutions and then carefully explain to the people for their benefit.”36 The distinction thus drawn was not so much a contrast between prophets and teachers; Bullinger instead continued to accentuate the teaching functions of the prophet, but he defined the prophet as a specialized teacher who taught an educated audience privately.37 Likewise, on Ephesians 4:11, Bullinger wrote, “Those particularly are called prophets who oversee the explanation and uncovering of mysteries in the sacred writings, not so much for uneducated, common people [as] for the educated.”38 His treatment in I Corinthians supplemented this depiction with a reference to the prophet’s skill in the biblical languages: “Although the prophet especially is said to interpret the sacred Scriptures, he is the one who brings forth the hidden things of the Scriptures [arcana scripturae] from the comparison of the languages.”39 In essence, what emerged was the depiction of the prophet as a teacher of the educated and as one particularly gifted in unearthing the hidden parts of Scripture. Luther and Zwingli expressed similar views of the prophet as a specialized exegete, but Bullinger accented the teaching role of the prophet much more profoundly. His emphasis on the prophet’s ability to unearth the hidden parts of Scripture also points to a significant ongoing role of revelation, which he intimately connected to prophecy: “For revelation is the same as prophecy, namely the uncovering and exposition of hidden things.”40 It follows that the prophet is a specialized teacher, gifted in the biblical languages, who has divine insight into the exposition of Scripture, particularly its obscure and hidden parts. Bullinger demonstrated, however, one of the most significant shifts in his account of the prophetic office in the 1538 treatise De episcoporum institutione et functione. He began with a depiction of prophets and priests as leaders

36. Bullinger, In Acta Apostolorum, 149b. 37.  Opitz (“Von prophetischer Existenz,” 502–​ 3) and Timmerman (153, 154)  point to Bullinger’s emphasis on the teaching functions of the prophet. Timmerman notes that in his account of I Corinthians 14:3, Bullinger inserted “teaching” into the verse. See Bullinger, In Priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios, 172v, 179r. 38. Bullinger, In D. Apostoli Paul ad Galatas, 157v. 39. Bullinger, In Priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios, 172r. Bullinger earlier described the prophet as revealing the meaning of the Scriptures, “which are hidden and many” (170v). 40. Bullinger, In Priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios, 174r. Timmerman points to Erasmus’s influence concerning the prominent role revelation played in Bullinger’s view of prophecy (268–​70).



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

141

ordained by God with exceptional knowledge, experience, and teaching abilities.41 He focused on the antiquity of prophets and priests, accentuating the Levitical priesthood, upon whose foundation evangelical doctors of his own day functioned. He turned next to the office of bishop, which comprises the “doctors and ministers of the Gospel.”42 Assigning prophetic and priestly duties to the office of bishop, Bullinger subsumed the office of the prophet and priest into the office of bishop so that after an initial reference to prophets in ­chapter 1 of De episcoporum institutione et functione, prophecy and prophets no longer figured prominently in the work, but turned instead to a focus on the Old Testament priesthood. Timmerman consequently argues that this treatise signaled a substantial shift away from prophetic terminology in favor of the terminology bishop in Bullinger’s thought.43 This is true; however, more attention should be paid to the occasion for this treatise before making too broad a judgment concerning the consequences for the role of the prophet in Bullinger’s thought. Timmerman rightly argues that in publishing De episcoporum institutione et functione, Bullinger “unambiguously declared that under no condition Protestants should participate in such a council [summoned by the Roman papacy], or reconsider the authority of the Roman bishop over their churches.” Timmerman continues, “It can be argued that the Zurich church leader especially wanted to explicate this message to the king and the bishops of England.”44 This treatise was therefore primarily about defending the authority of the episcopal office. One must ask, then, given this primary aim, was this eclipse of prophecy due to a radical shift in Bullinger’s thinking concerning prophecy or was it due to the specific occasion of this particular work? Making prophets and prophecy central to this 1538 treatise would not accomplish Bullinger’s central purpose; in fact it could have undermined it. Instead Bullinger chose to speak in a terminology King Henry VIII and the English Church could understand: the terminology of bishop specifically and ministers more generally.45 Does the eclipse of prophetic terminology in this one treatise signal a total shift from “prophetic authority” to “ministerial authority,” from prophet to bishop?

41. Bullinger, De episcoporum, 106. 42. Bullinger, De episcoporum, 109–​25, there 125. 43. Timmerman, 225, 227, 235, 240. 44. Timmerman, 240; see also 224, 227–​30, 235–​40. 45. W. J. Torrance Kirby and Diarmaid MacCulloch note the important ties between England and Zurich and the significant role of Bullinger in Kirby, The Zurich Connection and MacCulloch, “Heinrich Bullinger and the English-​Speaking World.”

142

The Reformation of Prophecy

The answer is yes and no. This is in fact the problem with ending an analysis of Bullinger’s conception of prophecy and the prophetic office with the year 1538 and, in effect, leaving out some crucial primary material, namely his sermons and lectures on the Old Testament prophets from the late 1550s into the last decade of his life. I agree with Timmerman that Bullinger had already increasingly begun to view the prophet more as a specialized teacher and interpreter in his 1530s exegetical treatments of prophecy (notably his New Testament exegetical treatments).46 The prophet therefore appeared less as a general model for the pastor and more as a specialized model for a specialized version of the teacher and/​or pastor. Timmerman connects this image of the prophet to Bullinger’s work with the Prophezei (again primarily based upon his 1530s exegesis of New Testament texts on prophecy) and points to a specific situation to which this emphasis on the educative duties responded—​namely, the controversy in Basel starting around 1535 over the proper relationship between the academy and the church and whether it was fitting for pastors to seek honorary, academic titles.47 Yet, contrary to Timmerman’s assertion that for Bullinger the content of Old Testament prophecy is fixed in the past, in which these prophets served primarily as heralds of Christ so that the prophetic title had little ongoing applicability to current ministers, Bullinger’s later sermons on Isaiah and Jeremiah soundly establish the continuing importance of prophets and prophecy for strengthening pastoral identity and authority, clarifying pastoral duties, and edifying the congregation.48

Bullinger on the Prophet and Prophecy after 1538 The vital importance of the prophet did not end for Bullinger in 1538. His sermons and exegesis of Jeremiah and Isaiah speak profoundly to his continuing conviction concerning the importance of these texts for the sixteenth-​ century church in Zurich and their rich applications for Protestant pastors. His prefaces to Jeremiah and Isaiah demonstrate the ways in which the Old Testament prophets served as supreme models of the pastor as both watchman and interpreter of Scripture. Just as Luther and Zwingli turned to the exegesis 46. Timmerman, 263–​71. 47. Timmerman, 277–​99, 268. See also Timmerman’s description of the gradual eclipse of prophetic terminology in Zurich’s liturgy (286–​93, esp. 292–​93). 48.  See Timmerman, 189–​90, where he argues that since the Old Testament prophets prophesied only about past events now fulfilled in Christ, Bullinger did “not apply their title to Christian ministers” (190).



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

143

of Old Testament prophecy as a natural next step in their use of the prophet, so also Bullinger made this same turn to focus on the exposition of the prophetic books in his later years. In the opening paragraph of his 1557 preface to Jeremiah, Bullinger boldly declared the vital importance of examining the books of the Old Testament prophets: Those who think that there are no other books to be expounded in the sacred gathering than the New Testament are totally wrong. We recognize that they too should be expounded. Yet in the meantime we ought to strive for the exposition of the books of the prophets. For our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the first outstanding doctor of the Christian church, himself received, opened, and read verbatim the passage from ­chapter 61 in the book of Isaiah the prophet and thus began his preaching in the synagogue in Nazareth. The same he expounded in the church and from the same he announced the Gospel, which is the scope and single end of the Christian religion.49 Next Bullinger pointed to Jesus’s sermon on the road to Emmaus and Paul’s statement in Acts 26:22 to argue that Jesus and Paul said nothing not already written in the Law of Moses and the prophets, which ultimately point to Christ.50 Paul and Jesus Christ himself not only exemplified and testified to the fact of the vital importance of the writings of the Old Testament prophets; these writings also “explained, clarified, and strengthened the teachings of the Apostles,” adding that the “church has been happiest when it has heard and rejoiced over hearing the sermons of the prophets.”51 Acknowledging that the sermons and language of the Old Testament prophets are often obscure and difficult to understand, Bullinger likened this to the difficulty of learning any

49. Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, aa2r. 50. Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, aa2r–​v. Bullinger quoted Luke 24:27, Luke 24:44–​47, and Acts 26:22–​23 in the opening paragraph of his preface. Luke 24:27 (NRSV) reads, “Then beginning with Moses and the prophets, he [Jesus] interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.” Luke 24:44 (NRSV) reads, “Then he said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—​that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.” Acts 26:22–​23 (NRSV) reads, “To this day I have had help from God, and so I stand here, testifying to both small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would take place: that the Messiah must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.” 51. Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, aa2r–​aa3r, aa3r–​v.

144

The Reformation of Prophecy

new language or art and pointed out that with practice they become clearer.52 He ultimately aimed to convince his audience of the ongoing usefulness of the sermons of the Old Testament prophets through an appeal to the Apostle Paul’s words in Romans 15:4:  “Whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”53 Bullinger thus argued that the Old Testament prophets’ sermons pertain just as much to the instruction of the church in the sixteenth century, for they preach about penitence, obedience, saving faith, truth, piety, and God’s righteousness, as well as warn against the sins of perfidy, rebellion, disobedience, idolatry, and impiety. He further argued that the sermons of all the prophets are “not only useful to pastors and our churches of this age, they are also necessary,” for when pastors use the very words of Scripture, people may be more quickly and deeply stirred and cannot dismiss such warnings as mere human utterances.54 Bullinger accordingly employed the words of the Old Testament prophets not only to illuminate the key tasks of the Protestant pastor but also to buttress the pastor’s authority as soundly based on and guided by Scripture. The preface to Isaiah contained similar arguments. Bullinger began preaching on Isaiah in January 1562 and continued for the next four years, noting that the Gospel writers and Apostles cited Isaiah more frequently than any other prophet, Jesus preached his first sermon on a text from Isaiah (Lk 4:17), and the Ethiopian eunuch was reading Isaiah when he became converted to the Christian faith (Act 8:28).55 Isaiah not only clearly proclaimed Christ; he also taught penance, rebuked sin and ingratitude, warned the people against the neglect of God and true religion, and preached God’s grace and beneficence.56 Invoking Romans 15:4, Bullinger insisted, “Therefore I  know that everything written in Isaiah also pertains to us so that exposition leads to application.”57 Furthermore, in enumerating the duties of the Old Testament prophet (preaching penance, faith, truth, righteousness, and piety

52. Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, aa3v. He also pointed his readers to the exemplary skill and eloquence of the prophets’ prayers. 53.  Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, aa4r. Bullinger also quoted I  Corinthians 10:11: “These things happened to them to serve as an example, and they were written down to instruct us, on whom the ends of the ages have come.” 54. Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, aa4r–​v, there aa4v; aa4v–​aa5r. See also aa6r. 55. Bullinger, Isaias Excellentissimus Dei Propheta, 1r. 56. Bullinger, Isaias Excellentissimus Dei Propheta, 2r, 3r, 3v. 57. Bullinger, Isaias Excellentissimus Dei Propheta, 2r.



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

145

and rebuking sin, ingratitude, disobedience, and impiety), he pointed to the relevant content of Old Testament prophecy for his own day and to the proper duties of current Christian pastors. Bullinger preached on Jeremiah from the mid-​to late 1550s to the early 1560s. His first three sermons covered Jeremiah 1:1–​12 and provide an excellent window into his view of the prophet and prophecy in his later life, as well as some of the applications of Jeremiah for his own day. First, with the threat of the Anabaptists still very much on his mind, Bullinger highlighted Jeremiah’s calling, emphasizing that there is no longer any new revelation but that the words of the prophets—​the words of Scripture—​are sufficient, and that Jeremiah had a legitimate call from God.58 A few years earlier Bullinger had directly countered the Anabaptists on the issue of prophets and prophecy in ­chapter  9 of book 3 of his 1560 Adversus Anabaptistas. Here he specifically argued that I  Corinthians 14 did not support the views and practices of the Anabaptists and that, concerning revelation, the Anabaptists invented their own revelations, which ultimately led to waste, doubt, and confusion and counter to the godly order and edification Paul counseled.59 He further insisted that the Anabaptist leaders do not possess a proper call or the skills necessary to practice prophecy correctly, as described in I Corinthians 14, for only those whom others have confirmed as having the gift of prophecy should speak or teach. Paul clearly connected prophecy to the gift of interpreting the languages, yet the Anabaptists had very few gifted in the biblical languages.60 Bullinger affirmed the Zurich church as far more faithful to the order handed down by Paul, for they rightly preached God’s Word, maintained godly order, and provided interpretation through the work of experts in the foreign languages for the edification of the people.61 In addition to rejecting the possibility of new revelation beyond Scripture and asserting the necessity of a legitimate call, Bullinger emphasized the importance of Jeremiah’s sermon for his own time.62 He also paralleled the

58. Bullinger, Ieremias Fidelissimus, 1r, 2r, 5r, 5v, 6v. 59. Bullinger, H. Bullingeri Adversus Anabaptistas, 108r–​113v. esp. 109r–​v, 111v, 112r. 60. Bullinger, H. Bullingeri Adversus Anabaptistas, 110r–​v, 111r. 61. Bullinger, H. Bullingeri Adversus Anabaptistas, 113v. 62. Bullinger wrote, “The books of the prophets and the apostles are themselves the Word of God. Therefore, they are for the establishment, edification, protection, and governance of the church of God. . . . For every single book is suitable and useful in such a way that the places, persons, and times that we study are congruent with us and to us is committed their explanation and application to the church. The prophecies of Jeremiah belong in a wonderful manner to the people of our own day” (Ieremias Fidelissimus, 1r).

146

The Reformation of Prophecy

prophet’s history with his own contemporary circumstances, thereby drawing an analogy between Josiah’s reforming work and that of the Zurich reformers. For if Jeremiah witnessed hypocrisy, idolatry, and corrupt ecclesial and state leaders, did not the Protestant Reformers also see the same from the papacy?63 Bullinger also affirmed that the whole theology of Jeremiah taught the providence of God that can be discerned through historical events. The calling of Jeremiah models the providential care of God, for one of the primary signs of God’s providence is God’s provision of faithful, true, and legitimately called ministers, as well as faithful and wise political governors.64 Sermon 3 particularly focused on God’s providential care of the minister, for God provides symbols and figures of God’s calling to assure the minister of God’s aid and the legitimacy of his calling. Bullinger pointed to the burning coal in the call of Isaiah, the appearance of fire to Ezekiel, and the touching of Jeremiah’s mouth. Such things signify what is “extended generally to all faithful ministers,” “for God wants to work his salvation to the faithful through such ministers.”65 Bullinger affirmed in effect that God had placed God’s words into the mouths of Protestant ministers just as God had done with the Old Testament prophets. Last, Bullinger employed this sermon on Jeremiah’s call from God not only to demonstrate God’s providential care of the church and confirm the legitimate calling of God’s ministers, but also to enumerate the key duties of the prophet—​that is, the key duties of God’s ministers. The prophet “teaches, exhorts, threatens, promises, and consoles”; he “accommodates everything for the usefulness of his time” and “declares what is the will of God”; he “accuses and rebukes wickedness, exhorts to repentance, and announces the righteousness of God.”66 Commenting on Jeremiah 1:9–​10, Bullinger offered this paraphrase of Jeremiah’s vocation: “For today I have set you to supervise, inspect, and oversee the people. Therefore Jeremiah is a bishop, a watchman, a pastor, a supervisor, a superintendent, and an inspector of the church. So the Apostle said [I Corinthians 4:1], ‘This is how one should regard us, as ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.’ Surely prophets and apostles are nothing other than bishops, curators, pastors, and preachers to the people

63. Bullinger, Ieremias Fidelissimus, 1r–​v. 64. Bullinger, Ieremias Fidelissimus, 2v, 3r–​v, 3v–​4r. Bullinger listed Paul and John the Baptist as examples of God’s providential provision. 65. Bullinger, Ieremias Fidelissimus, 5v. 66. Bullinger, Ieremias Fidelissimus, 2r.



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

147

of God.”67 Here Bullinger indicated a clear preference for the title of bishop. The absence of the role of the interpreter of Scripture in this list also seems significant. However, this absence could be explained in two ways. First, Zwingli’s and Bullinger’s application of Jeremiah 1:9–​10 always emphasized the watchman tasks rather than the exegetical tasks. Second, in the prefaces Bullinger already pointed to the importance of the prophets as models for how to interpret and preach God’s Word, and, arguably, his commentaries on Jeremiah and Isaiah illustrate the view of the Old Testament prophet as the embodiment of the unified tasks of the watchman and interpreter. A last important point is the manner in which he specifically applied the duties to “pluck up and pull down” and to “build and to plant” to the destruction of idolatry and false worship and the restoration of the true worship of God. Bullinger related Jeremiah 1:9–​10 to the tasks of planting faith, righteousness, and justice, all of which he immediately applied to the work of Protestant pastors under the papacy.68 His concluding exhortation equally pertained to contemporary Protestant pastors and to Jeremiah: “The prophet is truly confirmed in his office, for God promises that it has been ratified in the name of God or from the mouth of God in both good and bad times. Moreover, [God] defends the prophet from all imminent dangers.”69 Through the examples of Jeremiah and Isaiah, Bullinger sought to fortify the authority of Protestant pastors, exhort them faithfully to administer their duties, and model the ways in which both the history and the theological teachings of the prophets apply to the church in the sixteenth century.

Bullinger’s Significant Contributions to Views of the Prophet and Biblical Prophecy Bullinger introduced several crucial turning points in Protestant views and uses of the prophet and prophecy. First, he brought I Corinthians 14:3 to the forefront as vital for understanding edification, exhortation, and consolation as the three key functions of the prophet and prophecy. This text signaled his shift to prophetic duties, particularly the educative duties of the prophet. If Luther understood the prophet primarily as preacher and Zwingli emphasized the dual functions of the watchman and biblical interpreter, Bullinger ultimately combined Zwingli’s dual functions into a depiction of the prophet as

67. Bullinger, Ieremias Fidelissimus, 6r. 68. Bullinger, Ieremias Fidelissimus, 6r. 69. Bullinger, Ieremias Fidelissimus, 6v.

148

The Reformation of Prophecy

first and foremost a teacher. The prophet increasingly became the specialized teacher who taught the more educated in the church and who often had expertise in the biblical languages. Bullinger consistently insisted alongside this that the goal of all prophecy must be the edification of the church, and he emphasized the rules of faith and love as central guides to the prophet’s interpretive and edificatory tasks. These rules served as a measure by which to gauge faithful interpretation of Scripture, and they guided pastors to a right and ethical understanding of their call and office, for Bullinger urged pastors toward the faithful disposition of humility so that everything they did would be for the building up of others and not their own power and interests. He also increasingly collapsed the distinction between the prophetic offices of the New (i.e., interpreter) and Old (i.e., watchman) Testaments evident in the thought of Zwingli. For Bullinger the Old Testament prophets as interpreters of the Law were therefore equally interpreters of Scripture, and he also underscored the corrective duties of the watchman in his reading of New Testament accounts of prophecy.70 Bullinger’s employment of Isaiah and Jeremiah similarly highlighted the duties of both the watchman and the interpreter of Scripture.71 Indeed the Old Testament prophet particularly embodied the unity of these tasks.72 But perhaps one of Bullinger’s most significant contributions was the connection he drew between prophets and God’s covenant—​a connection that specifically accentuated the histories recounted by the Old Testament prophets.73 By attending to the applicability of the histories of the Old Testament prophets for the church of his own time, Bullinger argued that one could see a depiction of the eternal covenant of God still at work.

70. See Bullinger, In Priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios, 172v, 172v–​173r, 179r–​v. This view of the prophet as an interpreter of the Law was mostly absent in Luther’s accounts and only briefly noted by Zwingli. 71. I therefore disagree with Timmerman’s conclusion that around 1538 the exegetical task of the prophet gets eclipsed for Bullinger. See Timmerman, 225. As a consequence, the exegetical task no longer figures prominently in Timmerman’s analysis for the remainder of the book. Bullinger’s later sermons on the Old Testament prophets, however, clearly demonstrate the ongoing significance of the exegetical task. 72. This is a part of Bullinger’s assertion of the unity of the Old and New Testaments. In his preface to Isaiah, Bullinger wrote, “It is pleasant and useful to compare and interchange these books of the New and Old Testaments. Our souls are certainly strengthened when the consensus in the doctrine of Christ is discerned by so many great men. . . . If [ancient prophecy] is joined with the teachings from the New Testament, our Lord Christ will appear brighter than the sun to us” (Isaias Excellentissimus Dei Propheta, 1r). 73. Hans Ulrich Bächtold accounts for how Bullinger likened the histories of biblical Israel to the experiences of the Swiss churches. See “History, Ideology and Propaganda,” esp. 49–​51.



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

149

Finally, Bullinger signaled a significant eclipse of prophetic terminology when describing the pastoral office. One should take care, however, not to overstate this. On the one hand, prophets and prophecy remained important resources for Bullinger’s conception of the pastoral office and its duties throughout his life, as seen in his sermons on Isaiah and Jeremiah in his last decades. On the other hand, Bullinger increasingly employed the prophet to describe prophetic duties rather than a prophetic office per se and increasingly favored the terminology of bishop and minister.74 In struggling against radical and Anabaptist elements in Zurich and in keeping an eye on England, Bullinger turned to the language of bishop and minister as more understandable and persuasive, but also less risky.75 He increasingly emphasized the duties of edification and teaching in his descriptions of the prophet, and he increasingly subsumed prophetic duties within the ministerial office rather than promoting an office of the prophet per se.

Calvin: Prophet Subsumed into the Ordinary Office of Teacher Balserak’s John Calvin as Sixteenth-​Century Prophet builds upon the work of prior scholars who have argued for a prophetic consciousness in Calvin, but boldly goes beyond these studies to claim Calvin’s unequivocal prophetic self-​identity.76 My analysis of Calvin’s conception of the prophet and uses of the prophet and Old Testament prophecy, however, departs from Balserak’s reading on several important matters. First of all, Calvin’s views of the prophet and prophecy must be understood in the context of Bullinger’s earlier accounts.77 Calvin espoused a unified understanding of the prophetic 74.  Such a preference is visible in Bullinger’s 1552 Decades. See the argument for this in Bolliger, 172–​77. Opitz nevertheless persuasively argues that Bullinger’s Decades taught the threefold purpose of the sermon that matches the three tasks of the prophet described in I Corinthians 14:3: to teach, admonish, and console (“Bullinger’s Decades,” 109–​10). 75. Bolliger, 170. 76. For studies on a prophetic consciousness in Calvin, see Ganoczy, Le Jeune Calvine, 336–​ 68 and “Calvin avait-​il conscience de reformer d’Église?” 172–​77; Stauffer, “Les Discours,” 185–​93; Millet, Calvin et la dynamique, 268–​79 and 324–​29; Engammare, “Calvin”; Balserak, Establishing the Remnant Church, esp.  65–​ 94, 106–​ 9 and, more recently, John Calvin, esp. 66–​101. 77. This applies mostly to Bullinger’s accounts of prophecy in New Testament texts. By the time of Bullinger’s first work on Jeremiah (1557), Calvin had already written his commentary on Isaiah (1550); soon afterward he wrote commentaries on the Minor Prophets (starting these lectures in 1555 and published in 1557 and 1559), Daniel (1561), Jeremiah (1563), and Ezekiel (1565). Thus in the commentaries on the Old Testament prophets influence could

150

The Reformation of Prophecy

office in which, contrary to Balserak’s assertions, he did not starkly distinguish between the prophetic offices of the New and Old Testaments; he instead echoed Bullinger’s unified view of Old and New Testament prophetic offices.78 Balserak maintains that Calvin held an “ambiguous” view of the New Testament office because of the New Testament texts’ emphasis on the role of revelation in prophecy—​an emphasis he views as contrary to Calvin’s own views of revelation and absent in Calvin’s accounts of Old Testament prophecy. Given this and the fruitful content of reform of worship in Old Testament prophecy, Balserak asserts that Calvin identified exclusively with Old Testament prophets and not New.79 However, I will demonstrate that revelation played a central role in Calvin’s understanding of both New and Old Testament prophecy, as it did for Bullinger. Calvin also echoed Bullinger in his emphasis on the prophet’s duties of edification, exhortation, and consolation; identification of the prophet with the office of teacher; portrayal of the Old Testament prophets as interpreters of the Law of Moses and as exemplary biblical exegetes; and focus on the histories of the Old Testament prophets as providing vivid pictures of God’s providence and analogies of how God interacts with God’s people across all ages. Balserak’s claim concerning Calvin’s clear prophetic self-​identity therefore requires significant nuancing. Though Calvin may very well have employed the Old Testament prophets as a meaningful model for his own ministry and self-​conception, like Bullinger he displayed a reticence concerning explicit prophetic terminology. Such reticence should not be disregarded. Both Bullinger’s and Calvin’s writings evidence the eclipse of explicitly applying prophetic terminology to the pastoral office generally and their own ministries specifically. One should more carefully distinguish between the profound applications Calvin found in the Old Testament prophetic books and how explicitly Calvin identified himself as a prophet. Calvin ultimately viewed himself as a teacher with prophetic functions. go in both directions. Nonetheless, as was Calvin’s usual genius, he took existing teachings (such as those of Bullinger) and built on them to create something slightly new. 78.  More studies, such as the ones offered by Baker and Garcia, need to explore the interconnections between Calvin and Bullinger. See Baker, “Christian Discipline”; Garcia, “Bullinger’s Friendship with Calvin.” A helpful source for knowledge of Calvin’s connection to the Swiss Reformation more generally is Opitz, Calvin im Kontext. 79. Balserak, John Calvin, 66–​73. Wulfert de Greef writes a helpful account of Calvin’s view of prophecy, except that it is based solely upon his New Testament exegesis and does not attend to Calvin’s treatment of Old Testament prophecy. The choice to focus on the New Testament office seems a serious miscalculation, as the significance of Old Testament prophecy for Calvin seems indisputable. De Greef nonetheless astutely points to the connection Calvin draws between teaching and prophecy in his New Testament exegesis (“Calvin on Prophecy,” 123–​24).



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

151

Calvin on the Prophet and Prophecy in His New Testament Exegesis Many of Calvin’s New Testament commentaries, like Bullinger’s, preceded his Old Testament commentaries, which means that New Testament texts shaped his first descriptions of the prophet and the prophetic office. Calvin’s earliest sustained treatment of prophecy appeared in his 1539 comments on Romans 12:6 (“prophecy according to the analogy of faith”), followed by his exposition of I Corinthians 12 and 14 in 1546 and Ephesians 4:11 in 1548. It was not until the last decades of his life (1550s to early 1560s) that Calvin (again like Bullinger) shifted his focus to the exegesis of Old Testament prophecy, publishing commentaries on Isaiah in 1550, the Minor Prophets in the years between 1555 and 1559, Daniel in 1561, and Jeremiah in 1563. In the last year of his life he gave lectures on Ezekiel, which Theodore Beza published posthumously in 1565. In these last decades Calvin also returned to other notable New Testament texts pertaining to prophecy, such as I Thessalonians 5:20–​ 22 (1550), Acts 11:27 and 13:1 (1560), and a series of sermons on Ephesians (1562). He addressed the office of the prophet in several places in his Institutes, as well, publishing the definitive edition in 1559.80 A  chronological study of Calvin’s views of prophecy reveals that in his earlier writings he appeared to affirm the office of prophecy defined as interpretation of Scripture as in some way an ongoing office. Through the years, however, he increasingly identified the prophetic office with the teaching office, and by 1548 he shifted decisively to the view of the prophetic office as a temporary office. We start, then, with his earliest comments on the prophetic office and trace his thought to this significant turning point. In his 1539 exposition of Romans 12:6, Calvin’s earliest account of the prophet and prophecy defined the prophet as an interpreter of Scripture and affirmed the ongoing practice of prophecy as such. Here he emphasized the role of revelation in prophecy, while making clear such revelation cannot be new: “[Prophecy means] the peculiar gift of revelation by which a person performs the office of interpreter with skill and dexterity in expounding the will of God. In the Christian church, therefore, prophecy at the present day is simply the right understanding of Scripture and the particular gift of expounding it, since all the ancient prophecies and all the oracles of God

80. Another important text for Calvin on prophecy is Deuteronomy 18:15–​21, which Balserak analyzes in his article “ ‘There Will Always Be Prophets.’ Balserak again argues for a sharp distinction between Calvin’s conceptions of the Old and New Testament prophetic offices (88–​91, 109–​10).

152

The Reformation of Prophecy

have been concluded in Christ and his Gospel.”81 The prophet has a gift of revelation, argued Calvin, but such revelation did not constitute a new word from God; rather it is a gift of revelation for knowing God’s will and applying Scripture in ways consistent with the closed canon of Scripture. He immediately connected Romans 12:6 to I Corinthians 14 in order to argue that Paul spoke of the “ordinary gifts that remain perpetually in the church” and to demonstrate the congruence between I Corinthians 14:32 (“the spirit of prophets are subject to prophets”) and the analogy of faith in Romans 12:6, for both command that those who prophesy should “conform their prophecies to the rule of faith,” which Calvin defined as “the first principles of religion.”82 At this point in 1539 Calvin simply noted the close connections between the offices of prophet, teacher, and minister, while also affirming their distinctiveness.83 In his 1546 commentary on I Corinthians, Calvin repeated definitions of prophecy as interpretation of Scripture and as the “unique and outstanding gift of revealing what is the secret will of God.”84 Similar to Bullinger’s mid-​ 1530s portrayals of prophecy, he began these 1539 and 1546 descriptions with a conception of the prophet as a specialized exegete uniquely gifted with access to divine revelation to understand the mysteries of Scripture and God’s will on behalf of the church. Different from Bullinger, Calvin clearly distinguished between ordinary (permanent) offices in the church and temporary offices, arguing that temporary offices were those necessary for the founding of the church but ceased to exist after the church was established. He maintained that the office of apostle was a temporary office that ceased to exist after the founding of the church, while the office of teacher was ongoing and necessary for the governance of the church.85 He viewed the office of prophet in the I Corinthians commentary also as an ongoing, permanent church office, for he differentiated it from the gift of foretelling and defined prophets as “those who were blessed with the unique gift of dealing with Scripture, not only by interpreting it, but also by the wisdom they showed in making it meet

81. Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 269; Calvin, Ioannis Calvini Opera, 49:239, hereafter cited as CO. 82. CO 49:239; Calvin, Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 269. Calvin did not take this in the direction of the rules of love and faith, which was how Bullinger defined “analogy of faith” in his interpretation of Romans 12:6. 83. CO 49:239. 84. CO 49:500, 506; Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 263, 271. On I Corinthians 11:4, Calvin defined prophecy as “explaining the mysteries of God for the enlightenment of those who hear” (First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 230). 85. CO 49:506; Calvin, First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 270.



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

153

the needs of the hour.”86 Calvin pointed to Paul’s elevation of prophecy above the other gifts and offices because of the greater edification it provided to the church; consequently Paul could not have had in mind a definition of prophecy as foretelling, but instead (echoing I Corinthians 14:3) a view of the prophet as one who “devotes himself to consolation, encouragement, and teaching.”87 These New Testament texts thus defined prophets as those who are “outstanding interpreters of Scripture and men endowed with extraordinary wisdom and aptitude for grasping what the immediate need of the church is and speaking the right word to meet it.” “That is why,” Calvin continued, “they are, so to speak, messengers who bring news of what God wants.”88 Just as Bullinger in his 1533 comments on Acts 13:1 distinguished between prophets and teachers, Calvin read I Corinthians 12:28 alongside Acts 13:1 to distinguish between prophets and teachers. Rather than Bullinger’s distinction between a general audience (teacher) and an educated audience (prophet), however, Calvin argued that teachers protect and disseminate sound doctrines to preserve Christian orthodoxy, while prophets perform the very specific task for the church of “making known the will of God by applying prophecies, threats, promises, and all the teaching of Scripture to the current needs of the church.”89 Thus he maintained his unwillingness to identify the prophet’s task as simply that of a general interpreter, instead insisting upon the prophet’s unique tasks of proclaiming God’s will and applying Scripture to current needs. In fact Calvin’s emphasis on Scripture’s application to contemporary circumstances was a significant contribution that distinguished his view of prophecy from the prior definitions of Luther, Zwingli, and Bullinger. Bullinger certainly affirmed the contemporary relevance of Old Testament prophecy, but Calvin saw the application of God’s Word to the circumstances of his day as a definitive duty of the prophetic office. The prophet for Calvin was more than a specialized exegete; prophets had a divine gift that enabled them to discern God’s will and not just interpret God’s Word but more specifically to apply God’s Word for the present-​day church.90 Like Zwingli and Bullinger before him, Calvin connected revelation to prophecy and knowledge to teaching, but he defined the special revelation of the prophet as precisely a unique, divinely

86. CO 49:506; Calvin, First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 271. 87. CO 49:506; Calvin, First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 271. 88. CO 49:506; Calvin, First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 271. 89. CO 49:507; Calvin, First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 271. 90. CO 49:506; Calvin, First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 271.

154

The Reformation of Prophecy

revealed knowledge and insight into how to apply Scripture to contemporary situations: I bracket revelation and prophecy together, and I think that prophesying is the servant of revelation. I take the same view about knowledge and teaching. Therefore whatever anyone has obtained by revelation he gives out in prophesying. Teaching is the way to pass on knowledge. So a prophet will be the interpreter and minister of revelation. This supports, rather than conflicts with, the definition of prophecy that I gave earlier. For I said that prophesying does not consist in the simple or bare interpretation of Scripture, but also includes the knowledge for making it apply to the needs of the hour, and that can only be obtained by revelation and the special influence of God.91 Revelation as divine insight into the existing content of Scripture (not new content) was indispensable to Calvin’s understanding of prophecy. Yet Balserak argues that the emphasis on revelation in these New Testament texts “puts a degree of distance” between Calvin and the texts. 92 On the contrary, the connection of revelation to the work of the prophet as one who applies Scripture to contemporary circumstances seems exactly critical to the definition of prophecy he sought to promote! Even as Calvin expressed certain distinctions between prophets and teachers, he increasingly emphasized teaching as a crucial function of the prophet—​something his exposition of I Corinthians 14:3 exemplifies clearly. The main duty of the prophet, he wrote, was “to speak for edification”—​ “teaching that trains us . . . in faith, in the worship and fear of God, and in the responsibilities of holiness and righteousness.”93 His insertion of the term teaching into the text of I Corinthians 14:3 is particularly significant—​an insertion we saw Bullinger make earlier in his 1534 commentary on I Corinthians.94 Calvin in fact continued to depict the work of the prophet through the terminology of teaching throughout the rest of his comments on I Corinthians 91. Calvin, First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 288; CO 49:519. 92.  Balserak, John Calvin, 72–​73. Rather than being contrary to Calvin’s purposes, such an emphasis on revelation actually furthered his own self-​understanding as one uniquely gifted to apply Scripture to contemporary circumstances. In his biography of Calvin, Gordon points to Calvin’s sense of a unique call from God (Calvin, 2–​3, 91–​92, 94–​96). 93. CO 49:517; Calvin, First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 286. 94. Bullinger, In Priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios, 172v, 179r. The text names edification, encouragement, and consolation; it does not actually name teaching.



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

155

14.95 The “all” in I Corinthians 14:31 (“for you can all prophesy one by one”), according to Calvin, refers only to those with the gift of prophecy, whom he portrayed in terms of teaching: “All should, therefore, carry out their duties as teachers in such a way as not to decline to take their turns as learners.”96 Two years later, in his 1548 commentary on Ephesians, Calvin repeated many of these same views of the prophet and prophecy, but with one crucial change.97 He newly asserted that only the offices of pastor and teacher were ongoing and perpetual. In contrast to his comments on I Corinthians, he now viewed the prophetic office as a temporary office, along with apostles and evangelists.98 From here on out, the prophetic office per se had ceased for Calvin. This does not mean that the important prophetic task of interpreting Scripture for contemporary circumstances had ceased. On the contrary, this task remained crucial, necessary, and ongoing, but as we will see, it was a task Calvin increasingly subsumed under the teaching office. This development can be traced most clearly in his Old Testament exegesis, to which we now turn.

The Prophet and Prophecy in Calvin’s Old Testament Exegesis: A Unified Office of Prophet Calvin began to lecture on Isaiah sometime in the year 1546 or 1547, continuing until 1549, and published his Isaiah commentary in 1550. After concluding the lectures on Isaiah, he turned to Genesis and the Psalms, but around 1555 he 95. See CO 49:529–​32; Calvin, First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 302–​5. 96. CO 49:530; Calvin, First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 303. Calvin wrote, “Sic ergo docendi munus obeant omnes, ne detrectent aut moleste ferant esse discipuli vicissim, quoties aliis datum fuerit unde ecclesia aedificetur” (CO 49:530). Likewise, just before Calvin used “doctor” to explicate this text concerning the prophet: “Nemo enim unquam bonus erit doctor, qui non se docilem exhibeat sitque semper ad discendum paratus” (CO 49:530). 97.  In his commentary on Ephesians, Calvin repeated the definition of prophets as interpreters of Scripture, emphasized the role of revelation in their unique task of applying Scripture to contemporary circumstances, linked prophecy to teaching, and distinguished between pastors and teachers (CO 51:197–​98; Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, 179). 98. CO 51:197–​98; Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, 179–​80. Elsie McKee indicates that Bucer articulated a view of temporary and permanent offices, in which the office of prophet was temporary, prior to Calvin; she admits, however, that Bucer’s “exegesis was rather difficult to apply to a concrete church order”—​a problem to which she sees Calvin making direct response in his clearer descriptions of the temporary and permanent offices (Elders and the Plural Ministries, 154). McKee also pinpoints Calvin’s distinctions of temporary and permanent offices earlier, in 1543 (133–​36).

156

The Reformation of Prophecy

commenced his lectures on Hosea and then the other eleven Minor Prophets, publishing the Hosea commentary in 1557 and the commentary on the rest of the Minor Prophets in 1559.99 In these commentaries Calvin presented the prophets as interpreters of the Law. He had already elucidated the prophets’ attachment to the Law in 1546, writing, “For the prophets did not have a ministry that was unconnected with the Law, but were in fact interpreters of the Law, and all their teaching is something like a supplement to it.”100 He similarly began his 1550 preface to Isaiah by tracing “the prophets to the Law, from which they derived their doctrine like streams from a fountain; for they placed it before them as a rule so that they may be justly held and declared to be its interpreters, who utter nothing but what is connected to the Law.”101 He specifically emphasized the prophets’ work of applying the Law to contemporary circumstances, asserting in the Isaiah preface that prophets “conveyed the doctrine of the Law in such a manner as to draw from it advice, reproofs, threats and consolations, which they applied to the present condition of the people.”102 He distinguished prophets from Moses only in that they “apply his general truth to their own time.”103 All this points to Calvin’s unified conception of the prophet across both his New Testament and Old Testament exegeses as one who applies Scripture to the present-​day church. The preface to Isaiah and his commentaries on Old Testament prophecy similarly emphasized the duty of the prophet to make known the will of God—​an emphasis echoed in his New Testament accounts as well.104 Calvin repeatedly elevated the Old Testament prophets as supreme exemplars who showed how to apply Scripture to the present and how to discern the will of God. In reading Old Testament prophecy, Calvin employed

99. Parker, Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries, 23–​29. 100. CO 49:525; Calvin, First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 296. 101. Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, xxvi; CO 36:19. One wonders if Calvin had Bullinger’s 1532 De Prophetae Officio in mind in this opening statement. 102. CO 36:22; Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 1:xxx. Prior to this, Calvin wrote, “For what Moses had stated in general terms they minutely describe. They have likewise visions that peculiarly belong to them, by which the Lord revealed future events in order to apply the promises and threats to the use of the people” (CO 36:21; Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 1:xxix). 103.  CO 44:23; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 4:219. See also Calvin, Institutes 1.6.2, 4.1.5, 4.8.6. 104.  CO 36:20, 21; 42:202–​ 3, 517–​ 18; 43:1, 247, 265–​ 66, 435; 44:188, 228–​ 29; Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 1:xxvii, xxix; Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:42, 2:18–​19, 148; 3:92, 122–​23, 417; 5:116, 183.



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

157

a three-​step technique: first, he attended to the prophet’s intention; second, he discerned the ways in which the biblical prophet applied the Law to his own circumstances; and third, he drew analogies between the prophet’s events and teachings in order to apply them to the sixteenth-​century church.105 Explaining Haggai 1:2–​4, he insisted, “We now see that the prophet not only spoke to [people] of his age, but was also destined through God’s wonderful purpose to be a preacher to us so that his teaching sounds at this day in our ears and reproves our torpor and ungrateful indifference.”106 He saw recurring applications in Zechariah’s teachings: “We now then see that this prophecy was not only useful in the age of Zechariah, but that it has been so in all ages, and that it ought not to be confined to the ancient people, but extended to the whole body of the church.”107 He often referred to Old Testament prophecies as a “mirror” for the church across the ages.108 Similar to Bullinger, he emphasized the one covenant of God, in which God acts faithfully and consistently.109 Calvin pointed to the prophets’ vivid representations and teachings of God’s providential care of the church across time.110 He therefore frequently 105. See Pak, “Calvin on the ‘Shared Design’ ” for a fuller argument concerning Calvin’s emphasis on the Old Testament author’s intention. See also Balserak’s attention to this important element of Calvin’s exegesis in Establishing the Remnant Church, 111–​28. 106. CO 44:86; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 4:326. 107.  CO 44:151; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:56. Calvin made numerous statements like this. For example, on Micah 1:1 he wrote, “For when we understand that Micah condemned this or that vice, as we may also learn from the other prophets and from sacred history, we are able to apply more easily to ourselves what he said, inasmuch as we can view our own life as it were in a mirror” (CO 43:281; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:151). And on Micah 5:5, “It must at the same time be observed that this prophecy is not to be confined to that short time, for the prophet speaks generally of the preservation of the church before as well as after the coming of Christ” (CO 43:373; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:308). And Zechariah 14:21, “Whenever then the prophets speak of perfection under the reign of Christ, we ought not to confine what they say to one day or to a short time, but we ought to include the whole time from the beginning to the end” (CO 44:390; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:454–​55). 108. CO 43:216, 281, 471; 44:150, 355; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:41, 151, 475; 5:54, 397. 109. CO 42:251, 553; 43:169, 261, 309, 425, 500, 544, 581, 582; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:115, 198, 394; 4:26, 99, 150, 162, 164. See also Balserak’s discussion of the centrality of the covenant for Calvin’s reading of the Minor Prophets in Establishing the Remnant Church, 164–​68. 110. For examples, see CO 42:218, 255, 352, 475, 504–​5; 43:275, 344–​45, 368–​69, 415, 435–​36, 445, 455–​56, 491–​92, 536, 577–​79; 44:42, 92–​93, 120–​22, 144, 203, 208–​9, 233, 260, 268, 302, 307, 355–​56; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:66, 121–​22, 264, 450, 494–​95; 3:137, 260, 300–​301, 378, 394–​95, 413–​14, 432, 448, 506–​7; 4:85, 156–​59, 254, 338–​ 39, 358, 384, 385, 386; 5:44, 141–​42, 150, 190, 234, 248, 308, 315–​16, 397–​98.

158

The Reformation of Prophecy

employed the exhortations of the Old Testament prophets to call the Christians in Geneva to have faith and take comfort in the historical-​biblical evidence of God’s providential care and ultimate deliverance of the church, for the prophets provide “perpetual testimonies” of God’s covenantal faithfulness and mercy.111 The prophets teach the church across all time about the necessity of rightly receiving God’s discipline, the nature of true repentance, the need for critical self-​examination and patience in adversity, and the responsibility to guard and maintain purity of worship.112 In presenting the Old Testament prophets as exemplars of how to apply Scripture to contemporary circumstances and their teachings as relevant to the church in every age, Calvin ultimately identified the work of the prophet with the office of teaching. He repeatedly introduced the call of the Old Testament prophet as a call to the office of teacher and consistently presented every single Old Testament prophet as a teacher of God’s Word.113 Thus Calvin depicted Hosea as “a teacher in the kingdom of Israel,” who “discharged his office of teaching” and “performed his duties as a teacher” during the reign of Uzziah, and he introduced Joel, Amos, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai,

111. For examples, see CO 43:455, 44:155–​56, 169, 187, 190, 326; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:432; 5:62–​63, 84, 114, 119, 347–​48. Noting the parallels Calvin saw between the Old Testament prophets’ time and his own, Balserak emphasizes the negative parallels between the Israelites’ idolatry and the Roman papacy (Establishing the Remnant Church, 168–​78). Equally important are the positive parallels of God’s providential care of the Israelites as evidence of God’s perpetual care of the church. 112.  On receiving discipline, see CO 42:246–​47, 257–​58, 315; 44:28–​29, 33, 145; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:108, 124–​25, 209; 4:228–​29, 235–​36; 5:46. On true repentance, see CO 42:233, 396–​97, 410; 43:67, 235–​36, 413–​14; 44:88–​89; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:89, 331–​32, 352; 2:244–​45; 3:74–​75, 375–​77; 4:331. On necessity of self-​examination, see CO 42:381, 465; 44:466–​67, 478; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:308–​9, 436; 5:578, 597. On patience in adversity, see CO 43:439, 491–​92, 587–​88; 44:358, 483–​85; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:421, 506–​7, 4:174–​75, 5:400–​401, 606–​9. For a few examples on guarding and maintaining purity of worship, see CO 43:100, 564; 44:9–​10; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:298, 4:133, 196. 113. CO 36:38; 37:471, 474, 476, 478, 484; 40:21, 25, 27, 530–​31; 42:197, 199, 200, 203, 268, 393, 466, 510, 515, 576; 43:1, 4, 22, 33, 33–​34, 40, 137, 178–​79, 201, 202, 284, 318–​19, 328, 329, 343, 404–​5, 435, 436, 493, 494, 522–​23, 562; 44:1, 31, 79, 94, 118, 126, 127, 375, 493–​94; Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 4:55; Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, 30, 34, 38, 41, 50; Commentaries on the First Twenty Chapters of the Prophet Ezekiel, 51, 57, 59; Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, 1:79; Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:35, 37, 38, 42, 140, 325, 326, 328–​29, 437, 503–​4; 2:xv, 107, 147, 151, 179, 194, 195, 205, 354, 422; 3:xvii, xviii, 19–​20, 155, 215, 232, 233, 257–​58, 361, 413, 414; 4:xiii, 16, 63, 130, 181, 234, 315, 340–​41, 381; 5:16, 17, 430, 624–​25. For an earlier argument of Calvin’s view of the prophet as teacher, see Pak, “Luther and Calvin.”



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

159

Zechariah, and Ezekiel as discharging their offices as teachers.114 Calvin also identified the Old Testament prophets’ work with the duties of edification, exhortation, and consolation (I Corinthians 14:3). In his preface to Isaiah, he explained that as interpreters of the Law, the prophets exhort the people to ethical conduct, deliver threats and promises, and console the people by reminding them of God’s faithfulness to God’s covenant.115 In his 1563 sermon on Deuteronomy 18:21–​22, he stated, “The office of prophet was . . . to give people good instruction, to exhort them to amend their lives, and to edify them in the faith,” as well as to comfort “the sorrowful by preaching the promises of God’s favor to them.”116 Such duties of teaching doctrine, exhorting to godly living, and providing consolation exactly echoed Calvin’s depictions of the prophetic office based on New Testament texts, particularly I Corinthians 14:3.117 Balserak is therefore mistaken in his argument that Calvin held an ambiguous view of the New Testament prophet, just as he is mistaken in viewing Calvin’s New and Old Testament conceptions of the prophetic office as separate and distinct.118 On the contrary, Calvin presented a unified conception, in which both the New and Old Testaments depict the prophet as an interpreter who

114.  CO 42:197, 199; 40:21, 25, 27; 42:515; 43:1, 201, 202, 435, 436, 493; 44:1, 79, 126, 127; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:35, 37; 2:  xv, 147; 3:xvii–​xviii, 19–​20, 413–​14; 4:xiii, 181, 315; 5:16, 17; Commentaries on the First Twenty Chapters of the Prophet Ezekiel, 1:51, 57, 59. 115.  CO 36:20–​22; Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 1:xxvii–​xxix. Such duties also parallel Bullinger’s depiction of the prophet as a watchman. Calvin also at times depicted the prophet as a watchman. See Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 2:97–​ 98; 4:100–​101, 188–​89, 326–​28; Commentary on the Minor Prophets, 4:55–​63; Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, 1:355; 5:215. Yet Calvin often subsumed this duty under the depiction of the prophet as teacher. 116. CO 27:529–​30. The translation comes from Balserak, Establishing the Remnant Church, 74. In her study on Calvin’s commentary on Daniel, Barbara Pitkin notes Calvin’s attention to consolation (“Prophecy and History,” 337, 343). One should note that Calvin viewed consolation as a central prophetic task. 117. Calvin stated this most succinctly in his comments on I Thessalonians 5:20: “Paul ascribes to prophets teaching for edification, encouragement, and comfort” (CO 52:176; Calvin, Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 376). Calvin emphasized the duties of the prophets to exhort the people to ethical conduct and the true worship of God, as well as the task of providing comfort and consolation, throughout his commentaries on the Old Testament prophets. For examples, see CO 36:229, 232; 42:242, 491, 492; 43:344–​43, 356, 358, 359, 364–​65, 439, 522–​23, 573, 574, 575; 44:147, 149, 155–​56, 169, 326; Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 1:364, 369; Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:101, 476, 477; 3:260, 279, 282, 283–​84, 292–​94, 421; 4:63, 148, 150, 153; 5:48, 53, 62–​63, 84, 347–​48. 118. Balserak, John Calvin, 67, 68–​73, 80–​81.

160

The Reformation of Prophecy

discerns God’s will and applies Scripture to contemporary circumstances, and as a teacher with the chief duties of edification, exhortation, and consolation. Calvin’s unified portrait of the prophet equally includes a shared emphasis on the role of divine revelation in both the New Testament and Old Testament depictions of prophecy. Contrary to Balserak’s conclusion that in Calvin’s view divine revelation is not relevant to the Old Testament office of the prophet, Calvin repeatedly emphasized that the Old Testament prophets do not speak their own word, but speak only the Word of God directly revealed to them.119 Describing Isaiah’s call, he wrote, “The prophets did not speak of their own accord, or draw from their own imaginations, but they were enlightened by God, who opened their eyes to perceive those things that otherwise they would not of themselves have been able to comprehend.”120 He added more explicitly, “Thus the inscription of Isaiah recommends to us the doctrine of this book as containing no human reasonings, but the oracles of God, in order to convince us that it contains nothing but what was revealed by the Spirit of God.”121 This is a point he repeatedly emphasized in his lectures on the prophets, equally affirming that the Old Testament prophets possessed the gift of divine foresight, through which they foretold certain future events—​both for their own time and the coming kingdom of Christ.122 The issue for Calvin is not whether revelation is central to prophecy—​ all true prophecy entails some form of revelation. Neither is it an issue of a distinction between the offices of the Old Testament prophet and the New

119. See, for examples, CO 42:203, 395, 517; 43:1, 36, 178–​79, 282, 307, 466, 467; 44:2, 94, 202–​3, 228–​29, 497; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:42–​43, 329; 2:18, 148, 200, 421–​22; 3:152, 197, 467, 468; 4:184, 341; 5:141, 183, 630; Balserak, John Calvin, 73–​74. 120. CO 36:27, see also 38; Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 1:36; see also 1:54–​55. 121. CO 36:27; Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 1:36. 122. There are far too many references regarding the prophets speaking only the Word revealed to them to cite in full. See, for examples, CO 42:197, 201, 203, 393, 395, 517–​18; 43:1, 3, 30–​31, 36, 39, 40, 117, 177, 247, 282, 307, 329, 331, 435, 437, 466, 467, 499; 44:2, 94, 111, 188, 202–​3, 228–​29, 230, 497; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:35, 40, 42–​43, 325–​26, 328–​29; 2:18, 19, 148, 150, 191, 200, 203, 205–​6, 323, 421–​22; 3:92, 152, 197, 233, 236, 417, 418, 467, 468; 4:23, 184, 340–​41, 368; 5:116, 141, 183, 185, 630. See also CO 37:473, 479, 480–​81, 484; 40:29, 530–​31; Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, 1:34, 42, 43, 44, 50; Commentaries on the First Twenty Chapters of the Prophet Ezekiel, 1:61–​62; and Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, 1:79. See also Calvin, Institutes 4.8.3. For examples of his affirmation of the prophet’s divine foresight, see CO 43:169–​74, 200, 339–​40, 347–​48, 349, 350, 550, 581; 44:79, 120–​24, 125, 158–​60, 161, 176, 178, 178–​79, 212–​13, 333, 371, 393–​94, 418, 461–​62; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:403–​12, 455; 3:250–​51, 265, 267, 269; 4:109, 163, 315–​16, 384–​88; 5:xiii, 68–​69, 72, 96, 99, 100–​101, 157, 359, 423, 459–​60, 498, 567–​72.



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

161

Testament prophet. The distinction is one between revelation already revealed in and consistent with Scripture and new revelation (beyond Scripture). In his 1539 comments on Romans 12:6, Calvin carefully set the parameters of prophecy after the Incarnation: “In the Christian church, therefore, prophecy at the present day is simply the right understanding of Scripture and the particular gift of expounding it, since all the ancient prophecies and all the oracles of God have been concluded in Christ and his Gospel.”123 Any emphasis on “revelation” cannot refer to new revelation, since all the “oracles of God” have been “concluded in Christ,” and there is no longer any possibility of new revelation.124 In the 1559 Institutes, Calvin pointed to the fact that the proclamations of the Old Testament prophets possessed the status of being Scripture itself. The teachings of the Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles became part of the very record of Scripture, even as they themselves were expounding on the Scripture they had in hand. That is, for the prophets, Scripture entailed the Law; for the apostles, Scripture comprised the Law and the Prophets. Calvin wrote: But where it pleased God to raise up a more visible form of the church, he willed to have his Word set down and sealed in writing, that his priests might seek from it what to teach the people and that every doctrine to be taught should conform to that rule.  .  .  . This means that they should teach nothing strange or foreign to the doctrine that God included in the Law.  .  .  . There then followed the prophets, through whom God published new oracles that were added to the Law, but not so new that they did not flow from the Law and harken back to it. As for doctrine, they were only interpreters of the Law and added nothing to it except predictions of things to come.  .  .  . But because the Lord was pleased to reveal a clearer and fuller doctrine in order better to satisfy weak consciences, he commanded that the prophecies also be committed to writing and be accounted part of his Word.125 A few sections later Calvin included the apostles’ writings in the record of Scripture when he wrote, “Yet this, as I have said, is the difference between the 123. CO 49:239; Calvin, Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 269. 124. He similarly maintained in his 1563 comments on Deuteronomy 18:15–​18 that prophecy was made complete with the appearance of the Gospel, for the revelation of Christ fully exhibited the goal and content of biblical prophecy. See CO 24:272, 271; Calvin, Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses, 435, 434. 125. Calvin, Institutes 4.8.6.

162

The Reformation of Prophecy

apostles and their successors: the former were sure and genuine scribes of the Holy Spirit and their writings are therefore considered oracles of God; but the sole office of others is to teach what is provided and sealed in the Holy Scriptures.”126 He thereby distinguished the prophets’ and apostles’ interpretations of Scripture from all subsequent acts of interpretation in the church due to the fact that the interpretations of the biblical prophets and apostles had the exceptional revelatory status of being made part of the very record of Scripture. Calvin immediately added that with the advent of Christ all such new “oracles of God” have ended: But when the Wisdom of God was at length revealed in the flesh, that Wisdom heartily declared to us all that can be comprehended and ought to be pondered concerning the Heavenly Father by the human mind.  .  .  . For truly the apostle meant to proclaim no common thing when he wrote, “In many and various ways God spoke of old to the fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has begun to speak to us through his beloved Son” [Hebrews 1:1–​2]. For Paul means—​in fact, openly declares—​that God will not speak hereafter as [God] did before, intermittently through some and through others; nor will [God] add prophecies to prophecies or revelations to revelations. Rather, [God] has so fulfilled all functions of teaching in [God’s] Son that we must regard this as the final and eternal testimony.127 The fullness of God’s revelation, wisdom, and teaching is now made available directly through Jesus Christ, who is the fulfillment of all prophecy. Christ is that revelation, that wisdom, that divine insight who is all sufficient for the tasks of interpretation, application to contemporary circumstances, and discernment of God’s will. In his description of Christ’s prophetic office, Calvin clearly asserted that Christ’s perfect teaching made “an end to all prophecies,”

126. Calvin, Institutes 4.8.9. 127.  Calvin, Institutes 4.8.7. Commenting on Deuteronomy 18:15–​18 in 1563, Calvin quoted Hebrews 1:1–​2 and added, “By the appearing of the doctrine of the Gospel, the course of the prophetic doctrine was completed because it fully exhibited [in Christ] what was promised by the latter [Old Testament prophecy]” (CO 24:272; Calvin, Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses, 435). Calvin repeatedly identified the office of the prophet with the office of teacher (see CO 24:271, 272, 273, 274; Calvin, Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses, 434, 434–​35, 436, 437, 438).



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

163

for Christ was “given to us as our wisdom” (I Corinthians 1:30).128 The ongoing function of prophecy in the church therefore cannot entail any additions to Scripture. Instead “the sole office of others [subsequent to the apostles] is to teach what is provided and sealed in the Holy Scriptures.”129

Calvin on Ordinary and Exceptional Offices and the Ongoing Functions of Prophecy In 1548 Calvin asserted that the office of prophet served as one of the temporary offices in preparation for Christ and had now ceased to exist. His teachings in the Institutes furthered this view, with its profound emphasis on the sufficiency of Scripture, in which Christ’s teaching made an end to all prophecies. The assertions that the office of the prophet and new prophecy had ceased to exist do not necessarily mean, however, that he believed there were no ongoing functions of prophecy. The tie Calvin consistently drew between prophecy and teaching in both his New Testament and Old Testament exegeses heralds the possible ongoing function of prophecy, which is further signaled by his distinction between “ordinary” and “exceptional” offices made earlier in his comments on Ephesians 4:11. In his exegesis of Old Testament prophecy, in fact, Calvin frequently distinguished between the Old Testament prophet’s “ordinary” office as a teacher and his exceptional office as a prophet, such as when he introduced the call of Amos in this manner:  “He shows himself the time when he began to discharge his office of a teacher; but it does not appear how long he prophesied. . . . He continued his office, as they write, under four kings. But he mentions here only the reigns of Uzziah and Jereboam. His purpose was to mark the time when he began to execute his office of a prophet.”130 Calvin likewise described the calling of Jonah: At that time Jonah discharged the office of a teacher. . . . And it was certain that he was not only sent to the Ninevites, but that he also was counted a teacher among the people of Israel. . . . Jonah intimates that he was recalled from the discharge of his ordinary office and had a new charge committed to him—​to denounce, as we shall see, on the

128. Calvin, Institutes 2.15.2. See Institutes 2.15.1–​2 and 4.1.5. Calvin wrote, “The purpose of this prophetical dignity in Christ is to teach us that all parts of perfect wisdom are contained in the doctrine that Christ has given to us.” 129. Calvin, Institutes 4.8.9. 130. CO 43:1; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:147.

164

The Reformation of Prophecy

Ninevites a near destruction. We must then understand that Jonah taught among the people of Israel, but that he received a command to go to the Ninevites. . . . We should know that he was not then only made a prophet when he was given as a teacher to the Ninevites, but that he was sent to the Ninevites after having for some time employed his labors for God and his church.131 Here he seemed to distinguish between Jonah’s office as a teacher to Israel and his office as a prophet (and teacher) to the Ninevites and named this difference as one between Jonah’s ordinary office and the new charge given to him. A few pages later Calvin wrote that Jonah “had been previously called to the office of a teacher; for it is the same as though he had said that he framed this history as a part of his ordinary function. The word of God then was not for the first time communicated to Jonah when he was sent to Nineveh; but it pleased God, when he was already a prophet, to employ him among other nations.”132 These texts suggest the possibility that Calvin differentiated between the prophet’s ordinary office of teaching and the exceptional function of foretelling the destruction of Nineveh. His description of the offices of Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and Daniel expressed this possibility even more explicitly: After the return of the people, they were favored, we know, especially with three prophets who roused their fainting hearts and finished all predictions until at length the Redeemer came in his appointed time. During the time of the Babylonian exile, the office of teaching was discharged among the captives of Ezekiel and also by Daniel . . . but these two—​Ezekiel and Daniel—​were above all others eminent. Then Ezra and Nehemiah followed them . . . but we do not read that they were endued with the prophetic gift. It then appears that three only were divinely inspired to proclaim the future condition of the people. . . . The Lord raised up three witnesses—​Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.133 Again Calvin distinguished the ordinary office of teaching from the prophet’s office of foretelling.134 In effect, though Calvin clearly contended that prophecy

131. CO 43:201; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:xvii–​xviii, emphasis added. 132. CO 43:202; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:19–​20. 133. CO 44:79; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 4:315–​16, emphasis added. 134. Given the significant role of foretelling in Calvin’s descriptions of the office of the Old Testament prophets, it is strange that Balserak almost completely ignores the predictive



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

165

had ceased and the office of prophet was temporary, the possibility for an ongoing function of prophecy specifically as teaching already appeared in his writings on the Old Testament prophets. The 1559 Institutes sheds further light on Calvin’s distinction between the ordinary and exceptional functions of prophecy, as well as the possibilities of some form of an ongoing function of prophecy within the teaching office. In book 4 of the Institutes, Calvin turned immediately to the necessity of ministers by employing Ephesians 4:10–​13 to accentuate God’s educative purposes in providing human ministers to the church. Invoking Deuteronomy 18:15’s promise that God would “never leave them without prophets,” Calvin appealed to God’s chosen plan to instruct the church specifically through the “ministry of men.”135 He notably named this ministry first and foremost in terms of teaching, for directly after his appeal to prophets in Deuteronomy, Calvin wrote, “For as [God] did not commit his ancient people to angels, but raised up teachers on the earth to perform a truly angelical office, so [God] is pleased to instruct us in the present day by human means.”136 He turned again to Ephesians 4:11 to identify apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers as the proper biblical offices of the church, clarifying that only the last two—​ pastors and teachers—​were perpetual “ordinary” offices. God established the other three temporarily in biblical and apostolic times to lay the foundations of the church, though they may occasionally be revived “as the need of the times demand.”137 He specifically defined prophets as “those who excelled in a particular revelation,” adding, “This class either does not exist today or is less commonly seen.”138 He also clarified that “prophets” here does not refer to “all interpreters of the divine will.”139 This echoed the distinctions he made in his

element in Calvin’s conception of the Old Testament prophetic office. Though he briefly acknowledges the predictive element in both the New and Old Testament prophetic offices (John Calvin, 68), Balserak views Calvin assigning this task more to the New Testament prophet (71) and repeatedly emphasizes that Calvin viewed the Old Testament prophets simply as interpreters of the Law and not as recipients of supernatural knowledge (73–​74, 79–​80). 135. Calvin, Institutes 4.1.5; see also 4.3.1. 136. Calvin, Institutes 4.1.5. 137. Calvin, Institutes 4.3.4. Ganoczy argues that Calvin allowed for an ongoing function of prophecy; however, he specifies that it is only for exceptional times (Le Jeune Calvine, 300). De Greef makes a similar point, applying it to the Protestant movement for reform as an exceptional time (“Calvin on Prophecy,” 121–​22). 138. Calvin, Institutes 4.3.4. 139. Calvin, Institutes 4.3.4.

166

The Reformation of Prophecy

accounts of the calling of the Old Testament prophets, where on the one hand they had an ordinary calling to the teaching office and then an extraordinary calling to a prophetic office, in which Calvin specifically understood prophecy as foretelling or as the exceptional, divine revelation in which proclamation achieved the status of Scripture—​both functions of which he viewed as now ceased. In his discussion of the temporary and permanent offices in the very next section of the Institutes, Calvin again specified the office of prophet as ended while allowing for ongoing prophetic functions. He affirmed pastors and teachers as the permanent, enduring offices, and he incorporated prophecy—​ or at least prophetic functions—​within the office of teaching: We have now in mind which ministries in the government of the church were temporary and which ones were so instituted as to endure permanently. But if we group evangelists and apostles together, we shall then have two pairs that somehow correspond with each other. For as our teachers correspond to the ancient prophets, so do our pastors to the apostles. The prophetic office was more eminent on account of the singular gift of revelation in which they excelled, but the office of teachers is very similar in character and has exactly the same purpose.140 In this way Calvin subsumed the office of prophet—​or prophetic duties—​ under the enduring office of the teacher. Just prior to this he identified the task of teaching with interpretation of Scripture—​an identification that maps directly onto his many descriptions of prophecy as the work of the interpretation and application of Scripture.141 Consequently, when he viewed the Old Testament prophets as outstanding models for the church today, he pointed to ongoing functions of prophecy for imitation in the present-​day church, but functions he ultimately placed within the permanent, ordinary teaching office. The office of prophet per se had ceased, but prophetic functions became crucial to Calvin’s understanding of teaching, as seen in his preface to Isaiah:

140. Calvin, Institutes 4.3.5. 141. Calvin distinguished the work of teachers from the work of pastors by writing, “Next come pastors and teachers with whom the church can never dispense and between whom, I think, there is this difference—​that teachers preside not over discipline or the administration of the sacraments . . . but the interpretation of Scripture only in order that pure and sound doctrine may be maintained among believers” (Institutes 4.3.4).



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

167

Hence we may learn in what manner the doctrine of the Word should be handled and that we ought to imitate the prophets who conveyed the doctrine of the Law in such a manner as to draw from it advice, reproofs, threats, and consolations, which they applied to the present condition of the people. For although we do not daily receive a revelation of what we are to utter as a prediction, yet it is a high importance to us to compare the behavior of the men of our own age with the behav­ ior of that ancient people; and from their histories and examples, we ought to make known the judgments of God. . . . Such wisdom let godly teachers acquire, if they wish to handle the doctrine of the Prophets with any good result.142 For Calvin, the Old Testament prophets modeled how to apply God’s Word to edify, exhort, and console the church in response to contemporary circumstances. He believed that careful attention to the prophets’ histories enabled the present-​day church to better perceive God’s will and gain the godly wisdom of teachers. Though he clearly asserted that the office of the prophet had ceased, he continued to encourage the ongoing practice of prophetic functions—​tasks of applying Scripture to contemporary circumstances; duties of edification, exhortation, and consolation; and the work of discerning God’s will through the gift of wisdom. All of these duties figured prominently in Calvin’s conception of the central tasks of his own ministry and office, particularly in the last decade and a half of his life, when he was lecturing on the Old Testament prophets with an eye to buttressing reform in France.143 He asserted more explicitly than Bullinger that the office of prophet had ceased; yet similar to Bullinger, he ultimately sought to subsume many of the functions of prophecy under the enduring teaching office. Calvin may well have had some kind of prophetic self-​awareness, but it was more precisely an identification of himself as a teacher with prophetic functions. His particular contributions to early Protestant conceptions of prophecy were his emphases on the prophet as a teacher who specifically provides application to contemporary circumstances and on the distinction between temporary and permanent (ordinary) church offices. Delineating the proper, biblical church offices was

142. CO 36:22; Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 1:xxx. 143. Jon Balserak and Frederik Harms emphasize the significant role Calvin’s lectures on the Minor Prophets played in his reform programs for Geneva and France. See ­chapter 2 of Balserak’s Establishing the Remnant Church and John Calvin, 127–​78; Harms, In God’s Custody, 19–​44. See also Wilcox, “Calvin as Commentator on the Prophets” and “The Progress of the Kingdom of Christ.”

168

The Reformation of Prophecy

particularly important to him, in which he stated firmly that the prophetic office had ceased and subsumed prophetic functions under the enduring teaching office—​the latter of which one can see foreshadowed in the writings of Bullinger.

Prophecy and Clerical and Scriptural Authority Similar to Luther and Zwingli, Bullinger and Calvin employed the prophet and prophecy to strengthen and clarify clerical identity and authority. They shifted the use of the prophet, however, from identifying the pastor or teacher directly with the office of prophet per se to subsuming key prophetic tasks under an ordinary, permanent ministerial office, particularly the office of teacher. Bullinger signaled this shift to prophetic duties rather than office, and Calvin consolidated this view with his clear distinctions between temporary and permanent offices and his clear assertion that the office of prophecy had ceased to exist. This shift to prophetic duties did not make the prophet and biblical prophecy any less useful to their larger concerns and purposes. On the contrary, it seemed to open up more uses. They applied prophetic tasks precisely to avoid the error of severing the Holy Spirit from the Word (radicals) and the error of asserting a clerical office that seemingly had unquestioned authority (Roman Catholics). They tackled both of these potential errors by emphasizing the necessary and crucial prophetic tasks of edification, exhortation, and consolation (based upon I Corinthians 14:3). Foremost among these was the goal of edification—​an emphasis Bullinger deepened through his appeals to the rules of love and faith to illuminate both the prophetic duties of the minister and his proper demeanor: a faithful pastor is humble, does not boast of knowl­ edge, speaks clearly that all might be edified, and is willing to be corrected by others.144 Bullinger and Calvin both affirmed a form of divine exegetical insight (even revelation) in the prophetic task of biblical interpretation, but they resolutely rejected any possibility of new revelation and asserted Scripture as God’s sufficient and final revelation. They sought in this way to counter the radicals’ appeals to the Holy Spirit (apart from Scripture) and claims of new revelation. Against Roman Catholic abuses, on the other hand, Calvin and Bullinger soundly located proper clerical authority under the ultimate authority of Scripture. Only insofar as a teacher or pastor speaks the Word of God alone and not his own word or a human word should that word carry any authority. Calvin consequently asserted that the sole duty of ministers after the 144.  Bullinger, De Prophetae Officio, 9v, 28v–​ 29r; Bullinger, In Sanctissimam Pauli ad Romanos, 147r–​v; Bullinger, In D. Apostoli Pauli ad Thessalonicenses, 43v–​44r.



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

169

Incarnation is to “teach what is provided and sealed in the Holy Scriptures.”145 Bullinger instructed ministers to invoke the very words of the prophets—​the words of Scripture—​to stir their people to godly piety, thereby demonstrating that godly pastoral authority is rooted in Scripture and adheres to Scripture; indeed this adherence to Scripture is precisely the source of true authority.146 Bullinger and Calvin broadened the use of the prophet and biblical prophecy to strengthen Protestant offices of ministry through a focus on prophetic tasks in at least two other ways. First, they identified the prophet as one gifted in interpreting Scripture, and they robustly employed the Old Testament prophets as supreme models of exegesis. They moved beyond Luther’s and Zwingli’s mere identification of prophecy with interpretation of Scripture to concrete applications of this claim. Bullinger and Calvin saw in the sermons of the Old Testament prophets manifold applications for the sixteenth-​ century church through their teachings concerning penitence, obedience, piety, and righteousness and their warnings against sin, idolatry, impiety, and disobedience.147 Bullinger also noted the ways in which the Old Testament prophet “accommodates everything for the usefulness of his time.”148 Calvin accentuated this point even more profoundly, viewing the prophets precisely as models of how to apply Scripture to edify, exhort, and console the church in response to contemporary circumstances.149 Second, such a focus on the biblical prophet’s ability to apply God’s Word to various contexts entailed for both Bullinger and Calvin a focus on the Old Testament prophets’ own circumstances and histories. The Old Testament prophets’ histories consequently became a prime site of meaning to illuminate God’s providential activities with the church across time; they depicted God’s covenantal care of the church. Such vivid portrayals of God’s covenant and providence, argued Calvin and Bullinger, served the prophetic tasks of edifying, exhorting, and consoling the church—​precisely the central tasks of sixteenth-​century Protestant pastors and teachers.150

145. Calvin, Institutes 4.8.9. 146. Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, aa4v–​aa5r. 147. Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, aa4r–​v, aa6r. For Calvin, see the references in footnote 112. 148. Bullinger, Ieremias Fidelissimus, 2r. 149. See, for example, CO 36:22; Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 1:xxx. 150.  Bullinger, De testamento seu foedere Dei unico et aeterno, 20r–​21r; McCoy and Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism, 114–​15. For Calvin, see footnotes 115 to 117.

170

The Reformation of Prophecy

Prophecy and the Reform of Worship The prophet and biblical prophecy continued to be a powerful tool in the hands of Protestant reformers to clarify the identity and key functions of the Protestant pastor and/​or teacher. It was even more powerful because of its natural resonances with a biblical vision for the reform of worship. The sermons of most of the Old Testament prophets centered upon rebuking wrong worship practices and calling the people back to the true worship of God. Such themes did not go unnoticed by the Protestant reformers, and certainly not by Bullinger and Calvin. Evident in On the Origin of Errors, which he wrote in 1528 and expanded in 1539, Bullinger demonstrated an even more explicit and substantial use of Old Testament prophecy than Zwingli in his attack on idolatry and false worship, which his homilies on the biblical prophets echoed.151 His sermons on Jeremiah (~1556–​61) and Isaiah (~1562–​67) repeatedly employed these prophets to draw a contrast between true and false worship and denounce idolatry, particularly Roman Catholic idolatry and superstitions. True worship, argued Bullinger, is centered on God’s Word; it does only what God commands in God’s Word. False worship, on the other hand, rebels against God’s Word and departs from it.152 Isaiah and Jeremiah censured human superstitions, inventions, traditions, and the human production of idols, as well as any trust for salvation placed in anything other than God, and showed that true worship inculcates faith and promotes righteousness, godly living, and justice with mercy.153 Like Zwingli, Bullinger defined idolatry not simply as the worship of false gods, idols and images; he also likened human rites and ceremonies to idols, pointing particularly to Roman Catholic Masses, vows, veneration of saints and relics, indulgences, and images.154 Bullinger argued in his comments on Jeremiah 10:5 that Christian images are no different from 151. See, Eire, War against the Idols, 86–​88 and the studies by Margaret Aston and Roland Diethelm. Eire (86–​87) and Aston (“Bullinger and Iconoclasm,” 627, 629)  emphasize Bullinger’s distinctive historical analysis of the origins of idolatry. 152. Bullinger, Ieremias Fidelissimus, 6r; In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, 17v, 23r; Sermones Ieremiae prophetae quatuor, 19v, 20r, 29r; In sermones et historicas expositiones Ieremiae Prophetae, 160r; Isaias Excellentissimus Dei Propheta, 4r, 40v, 58r. 153. Bullinger, Ieremias Fidelissimus, 6r; In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, 17v, 23r; Sermones Ieremiae prophetae quatuor, 29r, 84r; In sermones et historicas expositiones Ieremiae Prophetae, 160r, 168v, 222v; Isaias Excellentissimus Dei Propheta, 136r, 16v. 154.  Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, 16v, 23r, 33v, 37r, 55r, 66v–​r, 138r, 141r; Sermones Ieremiae prophetae quatuor, 3v, 9v, 18v–​19r, 19r, 29v, 30r, 88r, 90r, 139v; In sermones et historicas expositiones Ieremiae Prophetae, 92r, 169r, 174v, 175v, 176r, 198v, 199v, 200v, 234r, 248v–​249r; Isaias Excellentissimus Dei Propheta, 14v, 15r, 16r, 32r, 37v, 58r, 75v, 85r, 93v, 145v, 193v, 194r, 201r–​v.



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

171

pagan idols, for “both are the same, for the material and form are the same; they are made from wood, gold and other materials and from artifice. That which Jeremiah and Isaiah said of the idols of the nations, can be said of us.”155 In effect Bullinger identified the heart of idolatry in humans’ urge to invent, innovate, and add their own forms and practices—​leading to a focus on human corruption of worship through external forms. By claiming that the circumstances of the Old Testament prophets paralleled those of his own day, Bullinger naturally drew analogies between the false worship of the past and the present, especially pointing to Roman Catholic corruptions. Jeremiah 2:22–​28 therefore described the plight of Christians under papal rule, and monks in the sixteenth century wrongly proclaimed “Peace, peace” (Jeremiah 6:14), preaching false peace in sacrifices, indulgences, and satisfactions.156 The impiety rampant in the days of Jeremiah and Isaiah reverberated in the sixteenth century.157 The actions of the kings and rulers in the days of the prophets were much like contemporary magistrates.158 Bullinger also gleaned positive examples, particularly concerning penitence and providence: the prophets demonstrate that there is no real reform unless it is reform of the heart that requires true repentance, and they illuminate the unfailing providence of God to save despite any circumstance.159 Calvin made many of the same points in his applications of Isaiah (~1546–​ 49) and the Minor Prophets (1555–​59), which predated Bullinger’s sermons, as well as in his later lectures on Jeremiah, published in 1563. Echoing the views of Luther, Zwingli, and Bullinger that true worship is founded upon God’s Word whereas false worship departs from it,160 Calvin highlighted the elements of

155. Bullinger, Sermones Ieremiae prophetae quatuor, 86r–​v. 156.  Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, 56r and 2r; 138r. Bullinger paralleled the Jews’ sacrifices to idols and foreign gods to the Roman Catholics who erected idols and altars in Christ’s churches (Sermones Ieremiae prophetae quatuor, 30r). 157. Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, 55r, 66v–​r; In sermones et historicas expositiones Ieremiae Prophetae, 173v, 198v. 158.  Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, 138r; Sermones Ieremiae prophetae quatuor, 117v; In sermones et historicas expositiones Ieremiae Prophetae, 112v. 159.  Concerning penitence, see Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, 70v; Sermones Ieremiae prophetae quatuor, 147v–​149r; Isaias Excellentissimus Dei Propheta, 81v, 151r–​ v. Bullinger demonstrated a concern for the heart perhaps more explicitly than Zwingli. Concerning providence, see Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, 6v; In sermones et historicas expositiones Ieremiae Prophetae, 109v, 246v, 256r; Isaias Excellentissimus Dei Propheta, 38r, 69r, 71v, 189r, 202r–​v, 207v. 160. CO 36:39; 37:223; 42:298; 43:95–​96, 222, 342–​44; 44:276. Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 1:57, 4:61, 460; Commentary on the Minor Prophets, 1:185; 2:290–​91;

172

The Reformation of Prophecy

human invention, innovation, and idolatrous practices as the key characteristics of false worship.161 He especially attacked superstition, frequently and vehemently stating his conviction that humans not only wrongly innovate and invent worship, but they specifically mix profane with sacred things.162 Like so many of his peers, Calvin paralleled biblical denunciations of false worship with the present,163 and his lectures on the Old Testament prophets were persistently punctuated by anti-​Catholic rhetoric. For example, he argued that the crucial problem of Roman Catholic worship was a famine of God’s Word,164 3:51–​52, 257–​60; 5:262. On false worship, see CO 37:692–​93, 704; 38:151, 152, 441–​42; 39:33; 42:278, 283–​84, 332, 351, 469, 477, 478; 43:20, 21–​22, 57, 97–​98, 151–​52, 243–​44; 44:385, 386–​87. Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah 1:395–​96, 414; 2:156, 158; 3:193–​94; 4:201; Commentary on the Minor Prophets, 1:155, 164, 234, 263, 441, 452, 454; 2:176, 177–​78, 230, 293–​94, 375–​74; 3:87; 5:446, 448. 161.  CO 36:56, 69, 309, 310, 456–​57; 37:414; 42:282, 367–​70, 375, 385, 470, 476, 503–​4, 691–​93, 694, 704–​5; 38:112–​13, 151, 259, 307, 441–​42; 39:33–​34, 250, 43:4–​5, 20, 34, 57–​58, 73, 77, 94–​95, 222, 243–​45, 291–​92, 382–​83, 556–​58, 558–​61; 44:3–​4, 7, 10, 13–​14, 48, 94, 223, 427; Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 1:85, 107, 494, 495; 2:261; 4:372; Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, 1:82–​83, 394–​96, 398–​99, 415; 2:94, 156, 336, 412; 3:194; 4:201–​3, 524; Commentary on the Minor Prophets, 1:162, 287–​91, 299, 313–​14, 442, 451–​52; 2:152, 176, 196–​97, 231, 254, 260, 289; 3:51, 87–​90, 167–​69, 323–​25; 4:121–​23, 124–​28, 185–​86, 192, 196–​97, 201–​2, 264, 341; 5:173, 512. 162. CO 36:75, 174–​75, 493; 37:440, 501, 523, 551–​52, 570–​71, 672, 680, 687, 690, 691–​92, 694, 704–​5; 38:69, 106, 111, 112–​13, 151, 152, 154–​55, 189, 249, 259, 260, 307, 327, 414, 550; 39:25, 33–​34, 247–​48, 250, 254, 255, 262, 272; 42:229, 230, 239, 245, 283, 288–​90, 329–​31, 369–​70, 379, 476, 477–​78, 503; 43:4–​5, 20, 23, 27–​28, 49, 57–​58, 73, 73, 74, 97–​98, 126, 150, 222, 230–​31, 244, 290–​91, 392, 402, 559, 560, 562–​63; 44:3–​4, 7, 8–​9, 9–​10, 11, 13–​14, 94, 110–​11, 343–​44, 345, 349, 374–​75, 386–​87; Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 1:117, 276; 2:323; 4:416; Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, 1:78, 116, 163–​ 64, 194, 363, 375, 387, 392, 394–​95, 398–​99, 415; 2:24, 92, 93–​94, 156, 158, 162, 220, 319, 336, 338, 412, 443; 3:148, 365; 4:189, 201–​202, 521, 524, 531, 532, 543, 557; Commentary on the Minor Prophets, 1:83, 84, 97, 106–​7, 163, 170–​73, 230–​33, 290–​91, 305, 451–​52, 453–​54, 492; 2:152, 176, 180–​81, 186–​87, 219, 231, 254, 255, 256, 293–​94, 336–​37, 373–​74, 377; 3:51, 65–​66, 88–​89, 166–​67, 339, 357; 4:125, 127, 130–​31, 185–​86, 192, 194, 195–​96, 198, 201–​202, 341, 368; 5:378, 381, 386–​87, 428–​29, 448. Eire points to Calvin’s emphasis on the human “propensity toward superstition” (217). 163. For examples, see CO 36:55, 57, 69–​70, 309–​10, 351–​52, 466, 498, 605–​6; 37:115, 184–​85, 239, 439–​40, 505, 522–​24, 529–​31, 552, 662; 38:68–​69, 86, 112–​13, 308–​11, 424–​26, 426–​27, 441–​42, 548–​49, 558; 39:261–​63, 270; 42:235, 282, 283–​85, 369–​70, 375, 379, 385, 404–​5, 410, 418, 434–​35, 477–​78; 43:73, 230, 324–​25, 325–​26, 387–​88; 44:8, 10, 49, 50–​52, 174–​75, 317–​18; Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 1:82–​83, 86, 108, 494–​95; 2:86–​ 87, 276–​77, 331–​32; 3:86–​87, 373–​74, 485–​86; 4:87, 415–​16; Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, 1:84–​85, 115–​17, 127–​29, 164, 346–​47; 2:22–​24, 51, 94, 415–​18; 3:166–​68, 169–​71, 194, 363, 376; 4:542–​44, 555; Commentary on the Minor Prophets, 1:91–​92, 161–​62, 164–​65, 290–​91, 299, 305, 313–​14, 344, 353, 365, 389–​90, 453–​54; 2:255; 3:65, 225–​26, 227–​ 28, 332–​33; 4:193, 196, 264–​65, 267–​70; 5:92–​94, 333–​35. 164. CO 42:283–​85, 297, 477–​78; 43:152; Calvin, Commentary on the Minor Prophets, 1:164–​65, 183, 453–​54; 2:378.



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

173

which entailed Catholics’ idolatrous emphasis on works and outward titles, carnal security, and external signs, splendor, and pomp.165 Roman Catholic worship thereby became the epitome of superstitious, false worship warped by human invention or the blending of sacred things with profane.166 Calvin found Old Testament prophecy immensely generative in arming pastors of Geneva with the very Word of God to promote the cultivation of true piety and pure worship. Calvin also insisted that true worship must be spiritual and grounded in the right knowledge of God.167 While he echoed Zwingli’s assertion that true worship is spiritual, since God is Spirit and thus external forms have no right place in the worship of God,168 he combined this insistence with the recognition that the real problem is the deceptions of the human heart, which was Luther’s prime concern.169 He states in his comments on Zephaniah 1:6:

165. CO 42:183–​84, 217, 273, 283–​85, 304–​5, 377–​78, 458; 43:116–​17, 143, 255, 257, 263, 287, 334, 392, 393, 531–​32, 532–​33, 534–​35, 44:11–​12, 49–​50, 112–​13, 129–​30, 223, 277–​78, 403, 421, 469–​70; Calvin, Commentary on the Minor Prophets, 1:23, 65, 148, 164–​65, 193–​94, 302–​4, 425; 2:323, 362; 3:106, 109–​10, 119, 160–​61, 242–​43, 339, 341; 4:78–​79, 80, 83, 198–​99, 265, 370–​71; 5:21, 173, 265, 474, 502, 583. 166. CO 42:287–​90, 369–​70, 379, 477–​78, 480, 503; 43:289–​90; 44:10, 94, 348–​49; Calvin, Commentary on the Minor Prophets, 1:170–​73, 290–​91, 305, 453–​54, 457–​58, 492; 3:164–​65; 4:196–​97, 341; 5:386–​87. 167.  CO 36:40; 37:436–​37; 43:393–​94; 44:13–​14, 109, 420–​21; Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 1:59, 4:410; Commentary on the Minor Prophets, 3:342–​43, 4:202, 366; 5:501–​2. Eire points to spiritual worship and right knowledge of God as key elements of Calvin’s vision of true worship (197, 200, 215). In his commentary on Jeremiah, Calvin emphasized less “spiritual worship” per se than the necessity to worship God with one’s whole heart and avoid dissimulation (where he likely had France in mind). CO 37:691, 692; 38:305, 465, 476–​77, 537; Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, 1:394, 395; 2:410; 3:232, 250, 346. Calvin also insisted that right worship is grounded in the knowledge of God as the good, beneficent God, who according to divine providence perpetually promises to provide and be propitious to the church. He explained Micah 7:18 in this manner: “The fear of God and the true worship of God depend on a perception of God’s goodness and favor; for we cannot worship God from the heart and there will be no genuine religion in us, except that this persuasion is really and deeply seated in our hearts—​that God is ever ready to forgive” (CO 43:429; Calvin, Commentary on the Minor Prophets, 3:401). See also CO 38:463–​64, 43:229–​30, 428–​29, 432; 44:256–​57; Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, 3:229–​30; Commentary on the Minor Prophets, 3:64, 400–​401, 405, 5:229–​30. 168. CO 90:852–​53; Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 280–​81. 169.  Scott Hendrix argues for this kind of joining of the so-​called external and internal elements in Calvin’s approach to worship, writing, “[Calvin] not only wanted to abolish idolatry and superstition in public worship and piety; he also wanted to convert people’s hearts and lives to a higher level of confidence and integrity” (Recultivating the Vineyard, 95).

174

The Reformation of Prophecy

We shall find that the fountain of all false worship is this: that humans are unwilling truly and from the heart to serve God; and, at the same time, they wish to retain some appearance of religion. For there is nothing omitted in the law that is needful for perfect worship of God; but as God requires in the law a spiritual worship, hence it is that humans seek hiding places and devise for themselves many ceremonies that they may turn back from God and yet pretend that they come to God.170 Failure to worship God from the heart makes impossible the spiritual worship God demands and so leads to the use of external forms to disguise this failure. Calvin noted, however, that in the Old Testament God commanded certain external forms, such as sacrifices, but not because those practices in and of themselves were good or necessary but because God intended them as exercises that lead to the repentance and faith that constitute true worship. It followed that even in the midst of a command for sacrifices, the law ultimately commanded spiritual worship.171 While in Old Testament times external rites aided the real, true spiritual worship required, with the revelation of the Gospel, such external rites become unnecessary; indeed they become stumbling blocks.172 Though Calvin (like Zwingli) strongly rejected all ceremonies and external forms, he emphasized (like Luther) that the real problem of idolatry is a problem of the heart. Calvin, however, deployed this emphasis on the internal motives of the heart to argue even more strongly against any allowances of images. Because fallen humanity is prone to idolatry and thus cannot worship God purely from the heart, any use of images intensifies this sinful inclination and fosters idolatry.173 Perceived within the larger context of Bullinger’s and Calvin’s use of the Old Testament prophets to illuminate the godly functions of the Protestant pastor and teacher, the reform of worship emerges as a crucial prophetic task of the sixteenth-​century Protestant ministerial offices. Just as the Old Testament prophets served as models of how to apply Scripture to contemporary 170. CO 44:13; Calvin, Commentary on the Minor Prophets, 4:202. 171. CO 43:393–​94; Calvin, Commentary on the Minor Prophets, 3:342–​43. The problem, Calvin asserted, was that the “Jews brought sacrifices only and had no respect for the end in view and did not exercise themselves in repentance and faith” (CO 43:394; Calvin, Commentary on the Minor Prophets, 3:342). See also Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, 1:127, 201, 204, 206, 368, 392, 394–​95. 172. CO 44:421; Calvin, Commentary on the Minor Prophets, 5:502. 173. Calvin, Institutes 1.11.1–​4, 9.



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

175

circumstances for the edification, exhortation, and consolation of the church, so also they served as supreme models of establishing the true worship of God that is founded upon and upholds God’s Word. Bullinger and Calvin equipped Protestant pastors with the very words of Scripture to guide and implement worship reform. This employment of Old Testament prophetic scripture simultaneously served to strengthen the authority of Scripture and the authority of the pastor to implement these worship reforms. In his preface to Jeremiah, Bullinger explicitly pointed to the authority pastors can garner from the Old Testament prophets: Hence, these sermons of Jeremiah and the other sermons of all the prophets are not only useful to pastors and our churches of this age, but also necessary.  .  .  . You will find those who say, “I do not reject God; I do not neglect the Word of God, but rather the words the minister declares to me.” But now when the minister recites the words of the prophets of God, and applies and affirms them to the hearers and the hearer understands the comparison, then it happens that they denounce themselves and are more quickly and seriously roused.174 By declaring the very words of Scripture—​specifically the very words of the Old Testament prophets—​pastors may rely upon the authority of God in God’s Word to urge the people to uphold the true worship of God. The goals of promoting the authority of Scripture, strengthening Protestant clerical authority, and fostering right practices of worship all powerfully coalesced in these uses of Old Testament prophecy and particularly in incorporating prophetic functions into the clerical office.

Synopsis and Significance Bullinger and Calvin consolidated the shift to the use of the prophet and biblical prophecy to illuminate, clarify, and strengthen Protestant clerical authority. Almost entirely absent in their readings of biblical prophetic texts were Luther’s and Zwingli’s earlier uses to issue a call to the priesthood of all believers. Bullinger and Calvin further shifted the conversation away from associating the prophetic office per se with the pastoral office. Instead they powerfully incorporated prophetic functions into the teaching office in particular, but also more broadly into the general office of minister. Calvin especially

174. Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, aa4v–​aa5r.

176

The Reformation of Prophecy

expressed the clear conviction that the office of prophecy had ceased. Such a clarification, combined with a focus on prophetic functions subsumed under a permanent, proper, biblical church office, enabled Bullinger and Calvin even more effectively to steer clear of what they viewed as the mistakes of the radicals, particularly the Anabaptists. By asserting the cessation of the prophetic office, they exposed as false any radicals claiming to be prophets. Yet by incorporating prophetic functions into the permanent offices of the church, Bullinger and Calvin could continue to emphasize the rich teachings and applications of biblical prophecy and the compelling models of the Old Testament prophets to illuminate, strengthen, and authorize the Protestant clergy’s key tasks of reforming worship, applying Scripture, and calling their people to piety and the true worship of God. The prophet and biblical prophecy also served the important purposes of grounding and delimiting clerical authority by its adherence to the Word of God, for the true prophet speaks the Word of God alone. Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin shared many uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy, from strengthening pastoral identity and authority to illuminating the task of interpreting Scripture and providing a biblical vision for the reform of worship. We might also note the seeds of growing confessional distinctions. For example, Luther viewed the prophet first and foremost as a preacher of Christ and the Gospel, whereas Bullinger and Calvin defined the prophet as a teacher and interpreter of the Law. Such a difference points to disparate conceptions of both the key content of prophecy (Gospel versus Law) and the key function of prophecy (preaching versus teaching).175 Another significant confessional distinction that emerges from this analysis concerns the role and definition of sacred history as expressed in biblical prophetic books. As ­chapter  6 explores more fully, Luther identified this sacred history with prophecies of the coming of Christ and the Gospel; for Bullinger, the key history was the history of God’s eternal covenant fulfilled in Christ; for Calvin, the histories of the prophets served as analogies for God’s providential care of the church across time. We will see these differences get translated into the next generation in polemical, confessional disputes over the right way to read Old Testament prophecy.176 Nevertheless a natural outcome of Luther’s, Zwingli’s, Bullinger’s, and Calvin’s focus on the figure of the prophet and the prophetic office was that

175. See Pak, “Luther and Calvin,” 21–​25. 176. A case in point is the dispute between the Lutheran Aegidius Hunnius and the Reformed theologian David Pareus over Calvin’s exegesis of the Old Testament.



Prophecy and the Teaching Office

177

each eventually turned to the exegesis of Old Testament prophecy. After his early 1520s use of the figure of the prophet to call for the priesthood of all believers, Luther lectured on the Minor Prophets and Isaiah from 1524 to 1528. After his early 1520s use of the prophet to support the priesthood of all believers, Zwingli established the Prophezei in 1525—​a group of talented exegetes who interpreted the Old Testament prophetic books. Bullinger’s earlier engagement with the prophet and prophecy at first focused on their implications for biblical offices; after shifting to a focus on prophetic functions, Bullinger also turned precisely to the exegesis of Old Testament prophets (Jeremiah and Isaiah). Calvin likewise initially affirmed a vague sense of an office of prophet focused on the prophet as the interpreter of Scripture gifted in applying Scripture to contemporary circumstances. By 1548, however, he concluded that the office of prophet had ceased and subsumed key prophetic functions under the teaching office. This shift for Calvin also involved a profound turn to the exegesis of Old Testament prophecy seen in his lectures on Isaiah (1547–​49), Psalms (1552–​55), and the Minor Prophets (1555–​59). The next generations of Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Reformed leaders mirrored this same turn to the exegesis of Old Testament prophecy, just as they expanded, nuanced, and refined their predecessors’ uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy to inform clerical identity and authority.

5

The Prophet, Prophecy, and the Pastoral Office in the Next Generation

How did the next generation of Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist leaders receive and adapt their predecessors’ uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy to buttress calls for the priesthood of all believers, strengthen clerical identity and authority, and advance Protestant visions of true worship? Already noted are the growing distinctions in conceptions of the prophetic office and its functions: Luther depicted the prophet as a preacher of Christ and the Gospel and accentuated the prophet’s role as a defender of the faith and guardian of right doctrine who maintains the proper distinctions between faith and works and Law and Gospel. Zwingli identified a dual office of the prophet as watchman and gifted interpreter of Scripture, with the key task to foster a godly, Christian society. Bullinger turned to the functions of prophecy rather than the prophetic office per se, by employing I Corinthians 14:3 to demarcate the key prophetic functions of edification, exhortation, and consolation with a focus on the prophet as teacher. Calvin expanded Bullinger’s emphasis and added a distinction between “ordinary” and “extraordinary” functions and between “perpetual” and “temporary” offices, arguing that the office of the prophet was temporary and had ceased; he ultimately subsumed the functions of prophecy under the perpetual office of the teacher. Uniquely emphasizing the special function of the prophet to apply Scripture to contemporary circumstances, Calvin underscored this gift for contemporary application as crucial to the work of the teacher, central to his own ministry, and necessary in the training of teachers and pastors in Geneva.



The Prophet, Prophecy, and the Pastoral Office

179

How were these emphases and uses of the figure of the prophet and biblical prophecy received by the next generation? Did the reception fall cleanly along confessional lines? Did the prophet and biblical prophecy continue to be useful tools in strengthening clerical identity and authority? Did the next generation develop other ways to apply the prophet and biblical prophecy to meet the specific challenges of their contexts? The next generation did indeed continue robust engagement with the figure of the prophet and biblical prophetic texts. On the matter of defining the prophet and key prophetic functions, however, confessional lines blurred more often than they hardened. The next generation also continued to find prophetic texts useful in promoting a Protestant vision of worship. An analysis of the history of interpretation of I Corinthians 14 provides a clear example of the blurring of confessional lines, as well as new developments. For example, the next generation even more clearly articulated the use of this text to set forth a biblical process for the discernment of right interpretation of Scripture, which they placed squarely in the hands of established, rightly called ministers. They continued to employ the prophet and prophetic texts to strengthen clerical identity, yet they also sought to preserve a clear role for lay engagement with Scripture. Bullinger, Melanchthon, and Calvin particularly demonstrated notable shared theological content and purposes. Political circumstances, however, increasingly moved events toward greater confessional conflict and differentiation. This chapter explores the work of Philip Melanchthon, Nikolaus Selnecker, Lucas Osiander, and Aegidius Hunnius as representatives of the next generation of Lutheran views and uses of prophecy. Heinrich Bullinger and Rudolf Gwalther, as well as John Jacob Grynaeus, provide a depiction of Swiss Reformed thought on prophecy in the next generation. The works of Theodore Beza, David Pareus, and Lambert Daneau denote developments along the Calvinist line. While this chapter explores matters shared across confessional lines and emerging confessional distinctions, the remaining chapters of this book demonstrate that the method and content of the exegesis of biblical prophecy increasingly proceeded along polemically charged confessional lines.

The Definition and Function of Prophecy along Confessional Lines Sustained Lutheran Confessional Themes Among the next generation of Lutheran scholars, there was a notably strong emphasis on the duty to preserve right doctrine. In his comments on Romans 12:6, Philip Melanchthon (1497–​1560) emphasized the task of the prophet to

180

The Reformation of Prophecy

protect and promote the key articles of the Christian faith in keeping with the analogia fidei—​to establish faith, fight heresy, and instill right doctrine, particularly the doctrine of justification by faith alone—​and he similarly stressed the tasks of dispensing and preserving right doctrine in his 1553 comments on Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.1 In his 1551 comments on I Corinthians 14, Melanchthon prioritized the prophet’s duty to “deliver the doctrines concerning the articles of faith and concerning the distinction between Law and Gospel and other chief parts of doctrine.”2 The flipside of that responsibility was the prophet’s duty to refute heresy.3 Echoing Luther’s emphasis on the prophet’s role of finding right distinctions between faith and works and Law and Gospel, as well as the doctrine of justification by faith alone, Melanchthon accentuated the ways in which Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi preached the Gospel, strengthened faith, taught justification by faith alone, and distinguished the right understanding of faith and works.4 Lucas Osiander (1534–​ 1604) was a Lutheran leader in Tübingen and Stuttgart. He studied in Tübingen and was the brother-​ in-​ law of Jacob Andreae, a prominent Lutheran leader and professor at the university there.5 Osiander exemplified the continued Lutheran interest in biblical prophecy, for he wrote commentaries on Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Lamentations in 1578 and a year later composed a massive commentary on the rest of the Old Testament prophets (the Minor Prophets, Ezekiel, and Daniel) that appeared first in Latin and later in German.6 Like Luther and Melanchthon, Osiander engaged the Old Testament prophets to teach key points of doctrine concerning justification by faith alone, right understanding of faith works, and correct distinctions between Law and Gospel.7 In his comments on I Corinthians 14, he presented the prophet as one particularly gifted in interpreting obscure passages of Scripture that are in keeping with the principal heads of Christian doctrine, particularly the doctrine of justification by faith alone.8 1. Melanchthon, Commentarii in Epistolam Pauli, 288–​89; CR 13:982, 996, 1000–​1001, 1013. 2. CR 15:1158, see also 1159. 3. CR 15:1175–​76. 4. CR 13:1000, 1002, 1110, 1015–​16. 5. For more background on Lucas Osiander, see Angel, The Confessional Homiletics. 6. Osiander, Isaias, Ieremias, et Threni Ieremiae. A year later, he wrote Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee. The German translation is Die Propheten mit der Außlegung. 7. For examples, see Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 515–​16, 721, 722, 723, 736, 757, 757–​58, 769, 778, 844, 845, 877, 890, 892–​93, 921, 923, 942–​43. 8. Osiander, Epistolae S. Pauli Apostoli Omnes, 322–​23.



The Prophet, Prophecy, and the Pastoral Office

181

Nikolaus Selnecker (1530–​1592) was a student of Melanchthon and one of the authors of the 1577 Formula of Concord. During his studies at Wittenberg University (1550–​54), he lived in Melanchthon’s household and became one of his favorite pupils. He was assigned the post of Dresden’s second court preacher in 1557. He accepted a position as professor of theology at the University of Jena in 1565, although he was forced to leave when the Gnesio-​Lutherans gained control in 1567. With the support of the Elector August, Selnecker became a professor in Leipzig in 1568, and two years later he was granted a leave of absence to serve as general superintendent and court chaplain at Wolfenbüttel. He returned to the professorship in Leipzig in 1573 and remained there until his death.9 Selnecker defended the harmony of Luther’s and Melanchthon’s teachings and worked toward Lutheran consensus—​an effort best seen in his contributions to the 1577 Formula of Concord. He wrote a number of works on the Old Testament prophets through the years, including a 1566 commentary on Jeremiah and Zephaniah, a 1567 commentary on Amos and Obadiah, and a 1579 commentary on Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. He also commented on Hosea, Joel, and Micah in a 1578 work entitled Christliche kurtze summa und erflerung der dreien Propheten.10 Selnecker explored themes in his work on the prophets similar to those found in Luther and Melanchthon, as well as Osiander. He emphasized the duty of prophets to preserve pure doctrine, particularly the right understandings of faith and works and Law and Gospel.11 In his book on Amos and Obadiah, he even exalted Luther as an example of a true prophet, for Luther “taught pure doctrine and preserved the purity of God’s Word.”12 Aegidius Hunnius (1550–​1603) was also a proud proponent of Lutheran views. He studied in Tübingen under Jacob Andreae and Jacob Heerbrand. He served as a pastor and professor at the University of Marburg from 1576 to 1592 and worked adamantly against the “crypto-​Calvinism” that was growing in the nearby region of Hesse. Elector Frederick of Saxony invited Hunnius

9.  For studies of Selnecker’s exegesis, see Kolb, “Pastoral Practice” and “The Doctrine of Christ”; Koch, “Die Bedeutung der Kirchenväter.” 10.  Selnecker, Der gantze Prophet Jeremias; Der Prophet unnd ernster Busprediger Amos; Die Propheten; and Christliche kurtze summa. 11. Selnecker, Der gantze Prophet Jeremias, Ciia–​b, Ciib–​Ciiia, Ciiib, Civa–​b; Der Prophet unnd ernster Busprediger Amos, Biiia–​b, Biva, Bivb, Siiib; and Christliche kurtze summa, Kiia, Liva, Livb, Oib. 12. Selnecker, Der Prophet unnd ernster Busprediger Amos, Ciib–​Ciiic.

182

The Reformation of Prophecy

to teach at Wittenberg in 1592, where he remained until the end of his life.13 While in Wittenberg, Hunnius wrote a 1595 commentary on the books of Daniel, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Haggai, and Malachi entitled Sechs Propheten. He echoed Melanchthon, Osiander, and Selnecker in furthering Luther’s depiction of prophets as defenders of doctrinal purity, particularly the right distinction between faith and works.14 Through his exegesis of texts such as Romans 12:6, Ephesians 4:11, I Thessalonians 5:20–​22, and I Corinthians 14, Hunnius emphasized the prophet’s duty to illuminate the central doctrines of the Christian faith through the interpretation of Scripture.15 Hunnius himself exemplified such commitment to the preservation of the purity of doctrine and the right interpretation of Scripture, for many of his leading works specifically condemned Calvin’s exegesis of Old Testament prophecy as disfiguring or obscuring the true teachings of Scripture.16 He specifically maintained against Calvin the necessity of interpreting Old Testament prophecy primarily as preaching Christ and the Gospel.17 He therefore sought the preservation of right doctrine and right interpretation of Scripture along distinctly Lutheran lines and became one of the chief champions of Lutheran confessional identity. From this evidence we see that the next generation of Lutheran scholars strongly maintained Luther’s distinctly doctrinal focus in their depiction of the key tasks of the prophet and engagement with biblical prophecy. Like Luther, they emphasized the prophet as the defender of right Christian doctrine, particularly the important doctrinal distinctions between faith and works and Law and Gospel and the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Melanchthon, Osiander, Selnecker, and Hunnius also furthered Luther’s depiction of the prophet as foremost a preacher of Christ and the Gospel,18 and they affirmed

13.  For a more in-​ depth study of Hunnius’s significant contributions to consolidating Lutheran theology, see Matthias, Theologie und Konfession. 14. Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 5, 9, 10, 19. 15. Hunnius, Epistolae divi Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos, 420, 423–​24 and Epistolae divi Apostoli Pauli ad Thessalonicenses, 159, 160. 16.  Hunnius wrote a number of polemical works against Calvin’s exegesis. See Calvinus Iudaizans and his response to David Pareus’s defense of Calvin’s exegesis in Antipareus. 17. Chapters 7 and 8 demonstrate this point in detail. 18. See Melanchthon, CR 13:1000, 1002, 1110; 15:1158; Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 513, 527, 543, 568, 569, 573, 608, 609, 722, 732, 745, 747, 751, 757, 792, 794, 807, 844, 849, 857, 869, 874, 880, 882–​83, 908–​909; Selnecker, Der gantze Prophet Jeremias, Biva–​b, Ttiiib; Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 5, 9, 10, 19.



The Prophet, Prophecy, and the Pastoral Office

183

the primary definition of the prophet as an interpreter of Scripture.19 In these dual affirmations, like Luther they viewed the true prophet as speaking only God’s Word and not a human word through the illumination of the Holy Spirit.20 Quoting 2 Peter 1:20, Hunnius asserted, “First of all you must know that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation because no prophecy ever came by human impulse but humans moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”21 He immediately clarified that though God no longer speaks so directly to present-​day pastors as God did to the biblical prophets, present-​day preachers “also speak God’s Word” when their preaching “is grounded on the same testimony of the scriptures of the prophets and apostles.” Therefore the text of I Peter 4:11 still applied to them, argued Hunnius, that “whoever speaks must do so as one speaking the very words of God.”22 The next generation of Lutheran leaders thus emphasized the prophet’s duties as defender of right doctrine, preacher of Christ and the Gospel, and interpreter of Scripture, and they applied these to define and strengthen Protestant clerical identity and authority; they grounded Protestant pastoral identity and authority upon the authority of Scripture. The next generation of Lutheran scholars also continued to employ biblical prophecy to promote a Lutheran vision of worship reform. Like Luther, their focus on right understandings of faith and works and Law and Gospel deeply shaped their depictions of true worship, for true worship begins with these right understandings. Melanchthon, Osiander, Selnecker, and Hunnius identified idolatry as a wrong trust in human works and ascertained this as the fatal flaw of Roman Catholic worship.23 Similar to Luther, Melanchthon

19.  Melanchthon, CR 15:1157; Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 607 and Epistolae S.  Pauli Apostoli Omnes, 321, 322, 328; Selnecker, Der gantze Prophet Jeremias, Ttiiib and Der Prophet unnd ernster Busprediger Amos unnd Obadias, Bivb; Hunnius, Epistolae divi Apostoli Pauli ad Thessalonicenses, 159, 167; Hunnius, Epistolae divi Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos, 419; Hunnius, Commentarius in Epistolam divi Pauli Apostoli ad Ephesios, 283; Hunnius, Epistolae Divi Apostoli Pauli ad Corinthios, 463, 464, 482. 20. Melanchthon wrote in his comment on Malachi, “Let us listen to the sermons of the prophets as to the voice of God” and cited Zechariah 7:12, which points to the sending of God’s Word through the work of the Holy Spirit (CR 13:1005; Commentarii in Epistolam Pauli, 288). Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 575, 607, 777, 779, 794, 866; Hunnius, Commentarius in Epistolam divi Pauli Apostoli ad Ephesios, 283 and Sechs Propheten, 8–​10. 21. Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 9. 22. Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 10; see 9–​10. 23. See Melanchthon, CR 13:995, 1001, 1014–​16; Selnecker, Der gantze Prophet Jeremias, Dia and Der Prophet unnd ernster Busprediger Amos, Eia, Siiib; Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 515–​16, 537, 651, 701, 705; Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 173–​75.

184

The Reformation of Prophecy

also maintained that repentance and conversion in one’s interior disposition was more important than external worship matters.24 Melanchthon, Osiander, Selnecker, and Hunnius defined true worship by its right adherence to the Word of God, while false worship departs from and opposes God’s Word—​a departure and opposition they also diagnosed in the Roman Catholic worship of their day.25 In sum, the next generation of Lutheran scholars maintained a focus on the prophet and biblical prophecy as evidenced in their exegetical work, and they furthered the distinctly Lutheran doctrinal accents upon properly distinguishing faith and works and Law and Gospel and promoting justification by faith alone in their readings of biblical prophecy.

Sustained Reformed Confessional Themes The next generation of Reformed exegetes also furthered their predecessors’ views of the prophet and biblical prophecy.26 Distinctive to Zwingli was his dual conception of the prophet as watchman of Christian society and interpreter of Scripture and his emphasis on the cooperative partnership between prophets and magistrates. Bullinger built upon these to present the prophet primarily as a teacher who interpreted Scripture in accordance with the rules of love and faith, inserting the prominent role of God’s covenant as a crucial key to Scripture’s perspicuity. Rudolf Gwalther (1519–​1586) served as Bullinger’s assistant when Bullinger was antistes in Zurich. Bullinger had adopted Gwalther into his own household after Gwalther’s father died when he was just nine years old. Gwalther married Zwingli’s daughter Regula in 1541. He studied at several of the top schools in the area (Basel, Strasbourg, Lausanne, and Marburg) and succeeded Leo Jud in 1542 as minister of the St. Peter Church in Zurich before becoming antistes of Zurich upon Bullinger’s death in 1575 and upon the recommendation of Bullinger himself. As his biography suggests, Gwalther intentionally fostered the legacies of Zwingli

24. He wrote, “There is also this that should be noted: no external work pleases God by the outward act, that is, without the inward movements of the true fear of God, true faith . . . and trust in the Son” (CR 15:1014). 25.  Melanchthon, CR 13:995, 1001, 1014–​15, 1015–​16; Selnecker, Der Prophet unnd ernster Busprediger Amos, Ciib–​ Ciiia; Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 530, 537, 540, 853–​ 55; Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 58, 173–​74. 26. I highlight distinctions between the Zurich and the Calvinist lines concerning their engagement with Old Testament prophecy in the next two chapters, which demonstrate significant variants in their understandings of sacred history and employment of Christological exegesis of Old Testament prophecy. For the purposes of this chapter, shared Reformed themes are more prominent than differences.



The Prophet, Prophecy, and the Pastoral Office

185

and Bullinger in his own work and furthered their teachings on the prophet and biblical prophecy.27 He preached a long sermon series on all the Minor Prophets around the early 1560s, which were reprinted several times,28 and preached homilies on Isaiah published in 1583 and again in 1595.29 In these works and in his exegesis of New Testament texts pertaining to prophecy, Gwalther affirmed the dual office of the prophet as watchman and interpreter of Scripture.30 In his sermons on the Minor Prophets and homily on I Corinthians 14, he presented the prophet as holding the office of teaching in a manner reminiscent of Bullinger.31 He maintained Zwingli’s focus on the cooperative relationship between the prophet and the magistrate, 32 in which he depicted the story of Jonah as a keen model of this collaborative relationship in calling the people to repentance.33 He also reiterated Bullinger’s emphases on the rule of faith and rule of love and the prophets’ teachings of the covenant.34 John Jacob Grynaeus (1540–​ 1617) was crucially important in shifting Basel back toward a solidly Reformed theology after the city had flirted with

27. For studies on Gwalther, see Bächtold et al., Vom Beten; Gordon, “Zurich and the Scottish Reformation”; Stotz, “Bibeldichtung als Bibel-​Verdichtung.” 28.  His sermons on Joel were first published in 1560 (and reprinted in 1562), and the sermons on all the Minor Prophets were published in 1563. The Minor Prophet sermons were reprinted in 1572, 1577, 1582, and 1592, and his sermons on Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Zephaniah were translated into English (Obadiah and Jonah in 1573, Zephaniah in 1580, and Joel in 1582). 29. Gwalther, Homiliarum in principem prophetarum Isaiam. 30.  Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 77r, 84r; Gwalther, In Epistolam D.  Pauli Apostoli ad Corinthios, 270r. 31.  For example, Gwalther frequently pointed to Joel’s “office of teaching.” See Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim qvos vocant Minores, 70v, 71r, 277v, 297r; The Homilies, “Epistle Dedicatory,” vii, x, 2r. See also Gwalther, The Sermons of Master Ralfe Gualter, 5r, 122r–​v; In Epistolam D. Pauli Apostoli ad Corinthios, 271r–​v; In Acta Apostolorum, 166r. 32. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim qvos vocant Minores, 70r, 79v, 149v, 157r, 159r, 159v, 278r, 286r; The Homilies, “Epistle Dedicatory,” 5; 50r–​v; Certaine godlie Homelies, 138–​40, 227, 251–​ 52, 256–​59; and The Sermons, 8r–​v, 57r–​v. 33.  Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim qvos vocant Minores, 157r; Certaine godlie Homelies, 226–​27. 34. In his comments on I Thessalonians 5:20–​22 (“do not despise the words of prophets”), Gwalther focused on the rule of love of God and love of neighbor and the rule of faith as a “compendium of doctrines” as the “Lydian stone” of all faithful exegesis (Archetypi homiliarum, 47v). He emphasized the rule of faith in his comments on Romans 12:6. See Gwalther, In D.  Pauli apostolic epistolam ad Romanos, 169v. Gwalther provided a long excursus on the centrality of God’s covenant in his second sermon on Obadiah (In Prophetas Dvodecim qvos vocant Minores, 140v; Certaine godlie Homelies, 25–​30).

186

The Reformation of Prophecy

certain elements of Lutheran theology under the leadership of Simon Sulzer.35 Grynaeus served as a professor of the Old Testament in Basel for about nine years starting in 1575, until he was forced to leave because of opposition from Sulzer. He then went to Heidelberg in 1584 to aid in the reorganization of the university there in a Reformed direction.36 Upon Sulzer’s death, Grynaeus returned to Basel, succeeded Sulzer as antistes in 1586, and attempted to get Basel to adopt Bullinger’s Second Helvetic Confession (indicating the importance and influence of Zurich upon his leadership). Though Grynaeus was ultimately unsuccessful in this attempt, he managed to return Basel to solidly Reformed theological foundations with the re-​adoption of the 1534 Basel Confession. As a professor of the Old Testament, Grynaeus lectured on the Psalms in the late 1570s and on several of the Old Testament prophets in the 1580s, including lectures on Jonah (1581), Haggai (1581), Habakkuk (1582), Malachi (1583), Obadiah (1584), and Daniel (1587).37 He affirmed the cooperative relationship between prophets and magistrates and directly applied this to the contemporary work of sixteenth-​century pastors;38 he also echoed a favorite text of Zwingli—​Jeremiah 1:9–​10—​to delineate the prophet as a watchman who “roots out evil and plants good.”39 Similar to Bullinger, Grynaeus emphasized the prophets’ teaching of the one, eternal covenant of God that constitutes the unity of the Old and New Testaments.40 Affirming the definition of prophecy as interpretation of Scripture, he presented the prophet first and foremost as

35. For example, Simon Sulzer affirmed the Lutheran Eucharistic doctrine of ubiquity and favored the Lutheran Formula of Concord over Bullinger’s Second Helvetic Confession. The recent work of Amy Nelson Burnett touches quite a bit on the life and work of John Jacob Grynaeus. See Burnett, Teaching the Reformation and “ ‘It Varies from Canton to Canton.’ ” 36. Upon the death of Elector Ludwig VI in 1583, Reformed influences rose in the Palatinate and Lutheran influences lost their foothold. The University of Heidelberg shifted from a Lutheran position to a Reformed position under the leadership of Reformed theologians such as David Pareus. 37. Grynaeus, Ionae Prophetae Liber; Haggaevs Propheta; Hypomnemata in Habacuci librum; Hypomnemata, in Malachiam prophetam; and In Obadiam Prophetam. 38. Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 22, 25–​26, 31, 36, 271–​72, 274; Haggevs the Prophet, 14–​15, 18–​19, 24, 31, 289, 291. 39. Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 31; Haggevs the Prophet, 24. 40. Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 36, 158–​62; Haggevs the Prophet, 30, 166–​70. At the conclusion of his commentary on Obadiah, Grynaeus provided an extensive treatise on the unity and eternity of God’s covenant (In Obadiam Prophetam, 201–​40).



The Prophet, Prophecy, and the Pastoral Office

187

a teacher.41 For example, he exactly paralleled prophets with teachers when he wrote, “Prophesying did not come in times past by the will of men but holy men of God spoke by being moved by the Holy Spirit. Thus we rightly conclude that no prophecy of the Scripture is a private movement. For this reason those who are teachers in the church must examine all things according to the proportion of faith.”42 Echoing Bullinger, Grynaeus aligned the prophetic duties of “instruction, correction, and consolation” (I Corinthians 14:3) with the central duties of pastors and teachers.43 Through his connections to Heidelberg (before it came under the Lutheran rule of Ludwig VI), Grynaeus also had close contacts with Reformed theology along Calvinist lines. Such influence may be evident in the echoes of Calvin’s emphasis on the prophet’s task to proclaim God’s will to the people and distinction between the “ordinary” and “extraordinary” functions of the prophet.44 In his explanations of how God’s Word comes to the prophet Haggai, Grynaeus appealed directly to Calvin to affirm the necessity of prophets as an example of God’s merciful accommodation to humanity by choosing to teach the church through human leaders.45 Beza, Pareus, and Daneau explicitly furthered the contrasts Calvin drew between ordinary and extraordinary functions and temporary and permanent offices. They echoed Calvin’s distinctive insistence that the prophet did not merely interpret Scripture but applied Scripture to contemporary circumstances. Theodore Beza (1519–​1605) was a professor of Greek at

41. Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 40–​41, 43, 201, 219–​20, 223, 227–​29; Haggevs the Prophet, 35–​36, 38, 213, 233, 237, 242–​44; Grynaeus, Exegesis epistolae beati Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos, 557. Grynaeus also presented the prophet as setting forth the Law (Haggaevs Propheta, 88, 91, 111–​12; Haggevs the Prophet, 89, 92, 115–​16). 42. Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 201; Haggevs the Prophet, 213. 43. Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 223; Haggevs the Prophet, 237. Grynaeus emphasized the prophet’s duties of edification and consolation throughout his commentaries on Obadiah, Jonah, and Habakkuk, as well. See In Obadiam Prophetam, 5, 12, 23, 25, 39, 101, 105, 202; Ionae Prophetae Liber, 38, 181; and Hypomnemata in Habacuci librum, 2, 3, 347. 44. Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 11–​12, 35, 29, 115, 142; Haggevs the Prophet, 3, 29, 33–​34, 119, 148. Grynaeus identified four kinds of prophets, though their duties overlap in a somewhat confusing manner: (1) those who exercise an ordinary function in the church but who are “raised up extraordinarily by God to purge heavenly doctrine,” (2) those who “foretell things to come and also specially apply Scripture to particular causes, places and times,” (3) those who expound Scripture with a “peculiar gift of understanding,” and (4) those lawfully called by the church to “expound the scriptures according to the proportion of faith,” whom he identified with teachers in the church (Haggaevs Propheta, 11–​12; Haggevs the Prophet, 3). 45. Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 43; Haggevs the Prophet, 38. He also appealed to a book by Lambert Daneau (Haggaevs Propheta, 233; Haggevs the Prophet, 248) and Theodore Beza’s interpretation of Haggai 2:21–​22 (Haggaevs Propheta, 264; Haggevs the Prophet, 281).

188

The Reformation of Prophecy

Lausanne starting in 1549, but in 1558 he accepted the chair in Greek at the Genevan Academy. As Calvin’s health declined, Beza and Calvin alternated duties, and upon Calvin’s death in 1564, Beza was the natural choice as his successor.46 Beza focused his exegetical energies on a translation of the Greek New Testament accompanied by his annotations, in which several of these pertaining to prophecy provide insight into his views of the prophet and prophecy. He affirmed the definition of prophecy as interpretation of Scripture and emphasized its teaching functions, aligning the prophet with the teacher.47 Commenting on Romans 12:6, he wrote that the prophet “encompasses all that pertains to the office of teaching.”48 Even more significant, he distinguished between the prophet’s temporary function of foretelling in contrast to the ongoing function of teaching.49 Lambert Daneau (1530–​1595) was a Frenchman with Protestant sympathies who studied law in Orléans. Upon the martyrdom of his teacher Anne du Bourg in Paris in 1559, Daneau went to Geneva in 1560 and quickly embraced Calvin’s teaching, turning from the law to a career as a Calvinist theologian. The Genevan Company of Pastors sent him to France in 1562 as a pastor in Gien, but after the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre (1572), he took refuge again in Geneva and was appointed pastor of a church in the surrounding area, as well as a professor of theology at the Genevan Academy and eventually a pastor in Geneva proper in 1574. Daneau served as Beza’s assistant during these years, but in 1579 the University of Leiden invited him to take a chair in theology, which he accepted in 1581, although it lasted only a year. He then served in positions in various places (pastor in Ghent, professor at the academy of Orthez, pastor in Castres) until his death in 1595. All the while Daneau was a strong advocate of Calvinist theology, often engaging in polemical exchanges with Lutheran opponents (particularly over the Lord’s Supper), such as Selnecker, Osiander, and Martin Chemnitz.50 Daneau published a massive commentary on the Minor Prophets in 1586 that was translated into English and published in England in 1594. This commentary of 1,031 folio

46. For recent studies on Beza, see Wright, Our Sovereign Refuge; Mallinson, Faith, Reason, and Revelation; Manetsch, Theodore Beza. 47. Beza, Theodori Bezae Annotationes majores, 131, 132, 370, 431, 228a. 48. Beza, Theodori Bezae Annotationes majores, 132. 49. Beza, Theodori Bezae Annotationes majores, 370. 50. For more on Daneau, see the earlier work of Fatio, Méthode et théologie and three more recent works by Strohm: Ethik im frühen Calvinismus, “Zur Eigenart der frühen calvinistischen Ethik,” and “Philosophical, Juridical, and Scientific Arguments.”



The Prophet, Prophecy, and the Pastoral Office

189

pages in Latin exemplifies the continuing significance of Old Testament prophecy for Calvinist reform efforts, opening as it does with twelve chapters devoted to defining prophets and prophecy and their significance. Like Calvin, Daneau described the task of biblical prophets as twofold: to foretell events by extraordinary revelation and to interpret God’s Word. He also repeated Calvin’s emphasis on the continuity of these two tasks across the Old and New Testaments.51 He distinguished the task of foretelling as the “extraordinary” office of the prophet that had now ceased, whereas prophecy as the exposition of Scripture constituted the ongoing public office of teaching in the church.52 He echoed Calvin’s (and Bullinger’s) emphases on teaching and the prophetic functions outlined in I  Corinthians 14:3 in his definition of prophecy:  “Prophecy is a sound speaking to men of the written word of God by one who is lawfully called to the office of teaching in the church; or it is an expounding of sound doctrine for the comfort, exhortation, and edification of the church.”53 He wrote that prophets “both expound the law of God and show that the Messiah was to come”; they foretell “things to come by the revelation of God” and serve as “interpreters, expositors, masters or teachers of the Law.”54 Daneau likened the ordinary Old Testament office of expounding the Law to the perpetual and ordinary office of teachers under the Gospel and emphasized their duty to declare God’s will.55 He repeated more thoroughly than any other of Calvin’s pupils Calvin’s use of Old Testament prophecy to establish true worship and cultivate godly piety,56 constantly

51.  Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:2, 6, 13–​15, 18, 19–​20, esp.  14–​15, 18; Daneau, A Fruitful Commentarie, 2, 6, 12, 13–​14, 16–​17, 18, 19, esp. 13–​14, 16–​17. Daneau wrote, “The double office of the old prophets as we have shown—​namely diligently and truly to expound the law of God written and delivered by Moses and to foretell things to come by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—​both of these significations of the word ‘prophecy’ . . . are found in the Old Testament as in the New” (A Fruitful Commentarie, 17). 52. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:16, 20–​21,47–​48, 467, 550–​51; A Fruitful Commentarie, 14, 19, 43, 537, 621–​22. 53. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:20–​21; A Fruitful Commentarie, 19. 54. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:15; A Fruitful Commentarie, 14. 55. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:9, 14, 16, 18, 504; 2:822; A Fruitful Commentarie, 8, 12, 14, 17, 575, 910. 56.  Daneau wrote that true, godly prophecy differs from pagan prophecy in the task of promoting the true worship of God, for it is the special aim of the prophets to “establish true godliness and the true worship of God” (Commentariorvm, 1:24–​25; A Fruitful Commentarie, 22–​23). Examples of how the Minor Prophets promote true worship appear continuously throughout Daneau’s commentary.

190

The Reformation of Prophecy

applying the teachings of the prophets to the sixteenth century,57 and, most notably, employing the prophets to promote a biblical vision of God’s providential care of the church across time.58 Describing the message of Joel, he wrote, “Wherefore this book, as with the writings of the other prophets, contains both the threats of God because of the sins of the people and also the free promises of Christ toward the elect.” When threats and adversities come, the prophet teaches the church to refer them to the “most orderly and just providence of God.”59 Similarly in Zechariah’s vision of the four chariots (Zechariah 6), Daneau found “a general description of the providence of God justly ordering and governing this whole world according to his wisdom.”60 David Pareus (1548–​1622) also reiterated the teaching of God’s providential care of the church across time in his lectures on Old Testament prophecy.61 Pareus studied at the Collegium Sapientiae in Heidelberg from 1566 to about 1571 under the Reformed theologians Zacharius Ursinus and Jerome Zanchi, both of whom were strong proponents of Calvin’s theology. During the years when the Palatinate returned to Lutheranism under the leadership of Elector Ludwig VI, Pareus found support from Prince John Casimir, brother of Ludwig VI and a Calvinist who governed the territories around Neustadt. John Casimir gathered the Reformed theologians from Heidelberg under his protection and formed the new university of Collegium Casimirianum in 1578 in Neustadt and, after Ludwig VI’s death, called Pareus back to teach at the Collegium Sapientiae in Heidelberg in 1584 and appointed him as its director in 1591. Pareus undertook the duties of professor of the Old Testament in 1598 and then professor of the New Testament starting in 1602 and continuing until his death.62 Many esteemed him for his gifts as a teacher and exegete. He wrote full commentaries on Genesis and Hosea and brief notes on Joel, Haggai,

57. These are too numerous to name in full. For examples, see Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:106, 140, 148, 153, 184–​85, 209, 256, 260, 416–​17, 518, 540, 601–​2, 704–​16, 723, 730, 733; 2:772–​80, 790–​91; A Fruitful Commentarie, 98, 203, 210–​11, 215, 233, 263, 314, 320, 486, 588, 610, 676–​77, 781–​92, 800–​801, 807–​8, 811, 848–​56, 870. 58. For examples, see Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:106, 267, 505, 669–​70; 2:784–​85, 828, 829–​30, 834, 861, 869, 871, 883–​84; A Fruitful Commentarie, 98, 329, 576, 744, 863, 918–​19, 924, 950, 958, 960–​61, 973–​74. 59. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:669–​70; A Fruitful Commentarie, 744. 60. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 2:884–​85; A Fruitful Commentarie, 974. 61. See, for examples, Pareus, Notae Breviores, 65, 67, 71, 76, 82, 83, 84–​85, 90, 112, 114. 62. For studies on Pareus, see Brinkmann, Das Irenicum des David Pareus; Hotson, “Irenicism and Dogmatism”; Benrath, “Irenik und Zweite Reformation”; Schurb, “Sixteenth-​Century Lutheran-​Calvinist Conflict.”



The Prophet, Prophecy, and the Pastoral Office

191

and Amos in the first two decades of the 1600s.63 His exegesis of biblical prophecy, as well as his engagement with New Testament texts on prophecy, demonstrates the continuing significance of the prophet and prophecy deeply informed by the thought of Calvin. He affirmed the definition of the prophet as one gifted in interpretation of Scripture, presented the Old Testament prophets as interpreters of Moses and the Law, and emphasized the prophets’ duty to teach God’s will and promote the true worship of God.64 In his preface to Hosea, he distinguished between the ordinary and extraordinary aspects of prophecy. After quoting Ephesians 4:11 (“some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists”), Pareus wrote, “Some of these were ordinary who had a special gift of prophecy . . . who explain the teachings of the prophets and are able to show how the oracles and types of the Old Testament are fulfilled in Christ and apply them for the church’s use.”65 He followed this with a reference to I Corinthians 14, adding that those who prophesy do so for “edification, exhortation and consolation.” He next distinguished this ordinary teaching and interpretive task from the extraordinary gift of foretelling.66 Pareus thus not only repeated Calvin’s distinction between the prophet’s ordinary tasks of teaching and interpretation and the extraordinary task of foretelling, but he also reiterated Calvin’s emphasis on contemporary application of Scripture and accentuated the teaching functions of prophecy. In his comments on Romans 12:6, he identified two kinds of prophets: “the office of teaching, who are properly called doctors, and the office of exhorting, who are properly called pastors of the church.”67 Such a twofold office of prophecy potentially echoed Zwingli’s twofold office, for Pareus described the tasks of the teacher-​prophet as interpreting Scripture and “explicating the heads of religion and forming the faith of the church” and the tasks of the pastor-​prophet as providing exhortation, consolation, rebuke, and correction toward piety.68 Though there are some confessional variances between Reformed thinkers more closely associated with Zwingli as opposed to those more

63. The bulk of his exegetical work appeared after taking the post in the New Testament. He wrote commentaries on Romans (1608), I Corinthians (1609), Galatians (1613), Hebrews (1613), and the Gospel of John (1618). 64. Pareus, Notae Breviores, 67; Hoseas Propheta Commentariis, 2, 5; In divinam ad Romanos, 949; In Divinam ad Corinthios, 943, 945. 65. Pareus, Hoseas Propheta Commentariis, 2. 66. Pareus, Hoseas Propheta Commentariis, 2. 67. Pareus, In divinam ad Romanos, 952; see also 948. 68. Pareus, In divinam ad Romanos, 952.

192

The Reformation of Prophecy

closely associated with Calvin, several prominent shared themes stand out. Reformed leaders affirmed and furthered a consensus of connecting the prophet to the teaching office, in which they distinguished the extraordinary task of foretelling (that ceased with the advent of Christ) from the ordinary and ongoing task of teaching. Reformed thinkers continued to employ biblical prophetic texts to clarify the prophetic duties of sixteenth-​century ministers to interpret Scripture and promote the true worship of God, as well as the pastoral duties of exhortation, consolation, and correction. Concerning teaching and the right interpretation of Scripture, the next generation of Reformed theologians were careful students of Bullinger’s and Calvin’s emphasis on the continuing significance and applications of prophetic texts for the sixteenth-​ century church. Echoing Bullinger’s accent on the prophet’s role in divulging the mysteries of Scripture for the edification of the church, Gwalther described the work of the prophet as “drawing forth the secrets of Scripture in order to apply them to the common instruction and consolation of all.”69 He frequently noted the ways in which the prophets’ teachings “serve for our instruction” or provide concrete warnings to the church of his day.70 In his epistolary dedication of his commentary on Haggai, Grynaeus named sixteen ways that the prophets serve the church’s edification and instruction, intentionally mapping these sixteen points onto the key teachings of the Apostle’s Creed. Grynaeus thereby exemplified the method of reading prophecy “according to the analogy of faith” (Romans 12:6) while simultaneously demonstrating prophecy’s true goal of edification.71 Grynaeus also directly echoed Bullinger’s appeal to Romans 15:4:  “Let us remember that the most sweet consolations of the prophets are also spoken to us and are written for our sakes so that contrition of heart, hatred of evil, love of that which is good and, in sum, the study of sanctification might be set before us. ‘For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope’ [Romans 15:4].”72 He exemplified

69. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim qvos vocant Minores, 84r; Certain godlie Homilies, 75v. 70.  Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim qvos vocant Minores, 71r, 71v, 73v, 75v, 76r, 86r, 87v, 143r, 143v, 147v–​148r, 158r, 277r, 278r, 288r, 290r–​v, 290v, 292v, 293v; The Homilies, 3r, 6r–​ v, 16r, 28r–​v, 30v–​31r, 31v–​32r, 86r–​v, 93r–​v, 94r; Certain godlie Homilies, 56–​57, 63, 114–​15, 237; The Sermons, 2r, 7v, 69r, 83r–​v, 85r, 97r, 102v–​103r. Gwalther exhorted his readers “to transfer these things” to themselves (In Prophetas Dvodecim qvos vocant Minores, 87r, 91r; The Homilies, 91v, 112v). 71. Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, iiiia–​xiib; Haggevs the Prophet, B3r–​C5v. 72. Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 117–​18; Haggevs the Prophet, 121. He also cited Romans 15:4 in the Prolegomena for his commentary on Obadiah (In Obadiam Prophetam, 4–​5).



The Prophet, Prophecy, and the Pastoral Office

193

this very exhortation in his exegesis of the Old Testament prophets: “It is not sufficient for us to know these things contemplatively, but we must also apply them to ourselves.”73 Pareus and Daneau similarly turned to contemporary applications of Old Testament prophecy that illuminated God’s providential activity and care of the church in every age.74 As for the use of prophetic texts to promote true worship, though concerns about right definitions of faith and works and Law and Gospel appeared in Reformed commentaries on biblical prophecy, more characteristic to their vision of true worship were strong statements against superstition, human innovation, the mixing of profane with sacred things, and false ceremonies.75 A classic Reformed refrain pertaining to the true worship of God was the call to worship “in spirit and in truth.”76 Likewise, though the anti-​Catholic polemic in their writings on biblical prophecy certainly condemned Catholic trust in outward, carnal things, Reformed theologians named this less as works righteousness and more as superstition, corruption through human innovations and accoutrements, and false ceremonies.77 Reformed and Lutheran theologians alike defined the true worship of God as that which 73. Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 71; Haggevs the Prophet, 70. For examples of his contemporary applications, see Haggaevs Propheta, 144, 149, 190–​98, 218, 241–​42; Haggevs the Prophet, 149–​50, 155–​56, 200–​209, 210, 231, 257; In Obadiam Prophetam, 79–​83, 113; Ionae Prophetae Liber, 193–​94; Hypomnemata in Habacuci librum, 90–​95. At the end of Haggai, Grynaeus reiterated, “Let us apply these things that we read in the scriptures to our use that they may serve for our instruction, consolation, correction, and admonition” (Haggaevs Propheta, 244; Haggevs the Prophet, 259). Notable is the echo of I Corinthians 14:3. 74. Pareus, Notae Breviores, 56, 65, 75, 97, 109; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:114, 140, 148, 153, 184–​85, 209, 505, 518, 540, 577, 601–​2, 703, 723, 728, 730, 733; 2:739, 871, 883–​85; A Fruitful Commentarie, 106, 203, 210–​11, 215, 233, 263, 576, 588, 610, 650, 676–​77, 778–​79, 800, 805, 807, 811, 814, 960–​61, 973–​74. 75.  Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim qvos vocant Minores, 74v, 74v–​75r, 78r, 80r, 87v, 88r, 90v, 142r, 146v, 155r, 155v, 156r, 277v, 278r, 279r, 279r–​v, 279v, 279v–​280r, 280v, 281v–​282r, 282r, 283r, 283r–​v, 284v, 285r, 288v–​289r, 291r, 292r; The Homilies, 22r, 24r–​v, 43v, 51v, 95r, 96r, 109v; Certaine godlie Homelies, 45, 100, 206, 210–​11, 216–​17; and The Sermons, 6v, 7r, 8r, 9r, 13v–​15r, 16r–​v, 17v, 18r–​v, 19r–​20r, 23v, 31v, 34r, 38r, 41v, 50r, 52v, 74v, 77r, 89r, 93v–​ 94r; Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 18, 36–​37, 225–​26, 226, 236; Haggevs the Prophet, 10, 31, 239–​40, 241, 251–​52; In Obadiam Prophetam, ii; Ionae Prophetae Liber, 14, 96–​103, 200–​201; Pareus, Notae Breviores, 73, 103–​4, 104, 106, 118; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:194–​95, 196, 215–​16, 217, 218, 298–​99; A Fruitful Commentarie, 244–​46, 247, 271, 272, 274, 362. 76.  Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim qvos vocant Minores, 155v, 284v, 285r; Certaine godlie Homelies, 212; The Sermons, 49r, 53r; Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 82; Haggevs the Prophet, 82; Pareus, Notae Breviores, 60. 77. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim qvos vocant Minores, 74r, 78r, 87v–​88r, 88r, 278v–​279r, 279v, 280v, 281v–​282r, 292r, 294v; The Homilies, 20v, 43v, 95r–​v, 96r; The Sermons, 13r–​v, 17r–​v, 23r–​v, 31v–​34r, 93v–​94r, 109r; Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 177–​78, 192; Haggevs the Prophet, 188, 204; In Obadiam Prophetam, ii; Ionae Prophetae Liber, 14, 96–​103, 200–​201;

194

The Reformation of Prophecy

adheres to the Word of God and false worship as that which forsakes God’s Word. They therefore both placed Scripture front and center in their reforms of worship.78 Through the Reformed teaching that a true prophet speaks only the Word of God and not their own words and the move to contemporary applications of Old Testament prophecy, the net effect was the elevation of the prophet as the supreme exemplar of the ministerial duties to proclaim and interpret Scripture.79 The example of the prophet served to illuminate the Word of God as the true source of pastoral authority and thereby strengthen clerical authority. Gwalther, Grynaeus, Beza, Daneau, and Pareus each emphasized the deep tie of prophecy to divine revelation, as well the role of the Holy Spirit in the ordinary functions of prophecy, and pointed to this as a key source of the prophet’s authority much like the views of Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin. For example, Beza argued that prophecy is according to the proportion of faith (Romans 12:6) and by the measure of the Spirit.80 Concerning the frequent refrain in the biblical prophets that the “word of the Lord came” to the prophet, Gwalther argued, “In these words he both vouchsafes [the prophet’s] calling and procures the authority of his teaching, lest they think he utters only the contents and dreams of his own mind.”81 Gwalther directly tied this to present-​day ministers when he employed God’s command to Jonah to proclaim God’s Word: “Here therefore are all ministers taught their duty, namely that freely and with open mouth they set forth this same word that

Pareus, Notae Breviores, 54, 108; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:291–​92, 298–​99, 323–​24, 366–​ 67, 405–​6, 406–​7; 2:958–​59; A Fruitful Commentarie, 355, 362, 388, 435, 475, 476, 1052. 78. Gwalther was the clearest on this point. See, for examples, In Prophetas Dvodecim qvos vocant Minores, 71v, 280r–​v, 280v, 285r; The Sermons, 22v, 23r, 52v, 53r; The Homilies, 4r, 5r, 6r–​v; Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 100–​101; Haggevs the Prophet, 103; Pareus, Notae Breviores, 104, 109. 79.  On speaking only the Word of God, see Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim qvos vocant Minores, 71r, 139r, 157v, 277r, 277v; The Homilies, 3v,, 8–​9, 232; The Sermons, 2v, 3r, 3v–​4r, 5r; Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 12, 14–​15, 19–​20, 32; Haggevs the Prophet, 4, 6, 12, 25; In Obadiam Prophetam, 16, 202, 206; Ionae Prophetae Liber, 2, 3, 10, 17, 23, 29; Hypomnemata in Habacuci librum, 6, 347; Pareus, Notae Breviores, 50, 67, 81, 115; Hoseas Propheta Commentariis, 2, 7; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:2, 6–​7, 20–​21, 504; 2:897; A Fruitful Commentarie, 2, 6, 19, 575, 986. 80. Beza, Theodori Bezae Annotationes majores, 132. 81.  Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim qvos vocant Minores, 71r; The Homilies, 3v. Gwalther commented on “the word of the Lord that came to Zephaniah” with this statement: “Therefore, he avows that he brings the Word of God that he gained by a peculiar or private revelation, lest anyone should think that he thrust upon the church his own dreams and inventions” (In Prophetas Dvodecim qvos vocant Minores, 277r; The Sermons, 2v).



The Prophet, Prophecy, and the Pastoral Office

195

they have received from God.”82 Grynaeus based the authority of Haggai on his calling from God, the presence of the Holy Spirit, and the content of his message: “Therefore, the Holy Spirit testifies that Haggai was both called of the Lord to the function of prophesying and also that he preached the Word of the Lord and not his own word.”83 He also directly tied the experience of the biblical prophet to present-​day ministers. Citing I  Thessalonians 2:13 (“When you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is—​God’s word”), Grynaeus argued that when ministers preach, honor should be given only to God (and not to the ministers); the ministers should be received as preaching God’s Word, which is the only true source of their authority.84 As Pareus simply stated, “The prophet brings to us the Word of God and as the Word of God it is to be received.”85 Daneau wrote similarly concerning Micah’s prophecy, “This prophecy of Micah is said to be both the Word of God and also extraordinarily revealed to him so that it is commended to us in a double respect with great authority.”86 Reformed theologians thus combined an emphasis on a proper call (clearly targeted against the Anabaptists and radicals) with authority centered in God’s Word. They continued to employ the prophet simultaneously to support scriptural and clerical authority, viewing these as inextricable.

82.  Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim qvos vocant Minores, 146r–​v; Certain godlie Homilies, 96–​97. Gwalther drew an analogy between the Old Testament prophets and present-​day ministers. Jonah served as an example to ministers not to measure the commandments of God according to reason (In Prophetas Dvodecim, 147v–​148r; Certain godlie Homelies, 114–​15). Jonah’s avoidance of his call was a warning for ministers not to avoid their vocation (In Prophetas Dvodecim, 148v; Certain godlie Homelies, 126–​27). 83. Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 19–​20; Haggevs the Prophet, 12. He added, “For inasmuch as holy men of God speak as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, we ought to receive their words as the words of God and not of men” (Haggaevs Propheta, 32; Haggevs the Prophet, 25). On Obadiah’s call, Grynaeus appealed to Isaiah 51:16: “I have put my words in your mouth” (In Obadiam Prophetam, 16). Grynaeus argued that Jonah’s prophecy came “not by the will of men, but holy men are driven to speak by the Holy Spirit” (Ionae Prophetae Liber, 3). 84. Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 40–​41; Haggevs the Prophet, 35–​36. 85. Pareus, Notae Breviores, 50. In his preface to Hosea, Pareus described prophets as those who are “specially instructed and inspired by God through the gift of the Holy Spirit” in order to assume their role as teachers as well as to guide kings and rulers (Hoseas Propheta Commentariis, 7). 86.  Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:504; A Fruitful Commentarie, 575. He commented on Zechariah, “It is the Word of the Lord and not the Prophet Zechariah’s own word” (A Fruitful Commentarie, 986). For further emphasis on the necessity of a true calling, see Commentariorvm, 1:38, 248–​49; 2:822; A Fruitful Commentarie, 34, 306–​7, 910.

196

The Reformation of Prophecy

Confessional Crossovers The confessional distinctions between Lutheran and Reformed engagements with the prophet and biblical prophecy in many ways boiled down to a key difference in how they identified the prime content of Old Testament prophecy and, as we will see more clearly in the next chapters, key differences in exegetical methodology. The Lutherans consistently maintained that certain crucial doctrines were the primary edifying content of biblical prophecy. Though the history contained in biblical prophecy mattered, for Lutherans the doctrinal content of biblical prophecy—​such as that pertaining to the difference between faith and works and Law and Gospel and the belief in justification by faith alone—​mattered more. Their attention to history located that history precisely in the prophecies of the advent of Christ and the Gospel—​the advent of salvation that can be rightly understood only as justification by faith alone. On the other hand, Reformed readers of biblical prophecy, particularly starting with Bullinger and Calvin, located the prophets’ histories as their prime content. They found in the prophets’ specific engagement and interpretation of their historical circumstances a profound depiction of the circumstances of the church in any age, as well as guidance in what to do and not do in order to navigate such circumstances faithfully. Though they certainly pointed to key doctrinal teachings—​most notably teachings of divine providence and God’s eternal covenant—​the manner in which they located these key teachings was precisely in the histories of the prophets and the prophets’ proclamations as they related to specific historical circumstances. To be clear, both Lutheran and Reformed theologians attended to both the doctrinal and the historical content of biblical prophecy, but they did so with a reversal of emphasis and differing definitions of biblical prophecy’s central historical content. One could argue that the Lutherans were equally interested in history; it is just that they defined this history primarily as the history of the advent of Christ and the Gospel. Reformed theologians, on the other hand, emphasized the historical circumstances of the prophets themselves and found these histories to be the prime site for meaning, especially historical analogies of God’s providence and covenant. Even the doctrinal content highlighted by Reformed interpreters was deeply embedded in the prophets’ historical circumstances.87 This key difference in the identification of the prime content of biblical prophecy translated into other, subsidiary differences. For example, both Lutheran and Reformed exegetes sought contemporary applications of biblical prophecy for the edification of the church. For Lutherans, however, 87. Chapters 6 and 7 analyze these matters in detail.



The Prophet, Prophecy, and the Pastoral Office

197

this consisted first and foremost in clarifying and buttressing the proper distinctions between faith and works and between Law and Gospel in order to protect against the works righteousness they viewed as running rampant in the sixteenth century. For Reformed thinkers, the move to contemporary applications meant aligning the experiences of the prophets with the experiences of the sixteenth-​century church, as well as the church across all ages, so that the prophet served as an exemplar of how to call the people to true godly reform, informed and guided by Scripture. The prophets therefore promoted a vision of God’s providential care of the church rooted in the historical stories of Israel and Judah. Their differing identifications of the prime content of biblical prophecy also affected the ways in which Lutheran and Reformed leaders employed biblical prophecy to promote a vision of true worship. While they both found biblical prophecy immensely useful in rebuking and dismantling what they viewed as idolatrous and false Roman Catholic worship practices, they proceeded along distinctly confessional lines in this endeavor. For Lutherans, the crucial problem of Roman Catholic idolatry was the works righteousness it promoted and thereby the fatally wrong teachings and practices concerning faith and works. For the Reformed, the main problem of Roman Catholic worship was the corruption of true worship through superstitions, human innovations, and the mixture of the sacred with the profane. Significant shared emphases in these Lutheran and Reformed theologians’ engagement with the prophet and biblical prophecy, however, should not be overlooked. The next generation continued to view the interpretation of biblical prophecy as worthy of their time and consideration—​not only worthy, but central, as they each devoted significant homiletical and exegetical energies to its interpretation. The next generation of Lutheran and Reformed leaders found the prophet and the prophetic scriptures immensely useful in promoting a biblical vision of the true worship of God. Though they differed in the precise emphases in their visions of true worship gleaned from biblical prophecy, Lutheran and Reformed exegetes agreed that true worship adheres to the Word of God, while false worship departs from and opposes God’s Word. They both also affirmed the considerable usefulness of the prophet to strengthen clerical identity and authority, mutually asserting a definition of prophecy as first and foremost interpretation of Scripture.88 Lutherans and Reformed alike 88. They both acknowledged the definition of prophecy as foretelling as secondary, in which the Reformed leaders were much clearer that this aspect of foretelling had ended. The next chapter picks up this point to indicate further differences between Lutheran and Reformed theologians particularly on their view of apocalyptic prophecy, which is directly connected to the question of whether there is any ongoing practice of foretelling.

198

The Reformation of Prophecy

emphasized that true prophets speak only the Word of God and not their own word, which served to buttress the authority of Scripture and ground clerical authority upon Scripture, provide exemplars for ministerial identity, and guide the key functions of pastors. Lutheran and Reformed exegetes each found the figure of the biblical prophet particularly useful in delineating the key tasks of the Protestant pastor and strengthening pastoral authority. They therefore maintained Luther’s, Zwingli’s, Bullinger’s, and Calvin’s uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy to (1) strengthen clerical identity and authority, (2) affirm the ongoing role of the prophet’s divine insight through identifying the pastor with the prophetic duty to speak only God’s Word, and thereby (3)  ground clerical authority firmly within the authority of Scripture, and thus (4)  ultimately identify the key prophetic duties of proclaiming the Word of God alone, interpreting Scripture for the church, and promoting a vision and program of true worship as the key duties of the Protestant pastor in the sixteenth century. In navigating the opposing pressures of Roman Catholicism on the one hand and Anabaptists and radicals on the other, the biblical prophet and biblical prophecy continued to be an effective tool for defining and strengthening Protestant pastoral identity and authority. The history of interpretation of I Corinthians 14 strongly demonstrates these points, while also revealing the ways in which Protestant reformers employed I Corinthians 14 to provide a biblical model that preserved both clerical authority and the priesthood of all believers.

Case Study of the History of Interpretation of I Corinthians 14 A study of the history of interpretation of I  Corinthians 14 based on the teachings of the early Protestant movement to the next generation of Lutheran and Reformed exegesis reveals several important developments concerning views and uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy that were shared across confessional lines. First, I Corinthians 14:3 emerged as prominent in underscoring the prophet’s key functions of edification, exhortation, and consolation in the commentaries on I Corinthians analyzed here. Second, Lutheran and Reformed leaders alike increasingly identified these prophetic functions with the teaching office, though the importance of preaching certainly persisted. Third, the next generation of Lutheran and Reformed leadership attempted to employ I  Corinthians 14 as a model not only for the interpretation of Scripture but, more specifically, for the discernment of right interpretation of Scripture, in which they placed this task of discernment



The Prophet, Prophecy, and the Pastoral Office

199

squarely in the hands of established Protestant ministers. The next generation sought, however, to retain aspects of the earlier uses of the prophet to encourage the priesthood of all believers, seeking to balance this with its use to buttress clerical authority. They explicitly carved out a path between the errors of Roman Catholicism’s “tyranny” over Scripture and Anabaptist “sedition” and “disorderliness.” In the end, however, the history of interpretation of I Corinthians 14 reveals an increasing eclipse of explicitly identifying the pastor with the office of the prophet. As signaled by Bullinger and Calvin (as well as Melanchthon), the next generations of both Lutheran and Reformed theologians even more so subsumed prophetic tasks under the more general terminologies of pastor, teacher, and minister. Luther and Zwingli dramatically reversed their readings of I Corinthians 14, from employing it to assert the priesthood of all believers in the early 1520s to arguing that prophet refers to the established minister (and not just any layperson) starting in 1524 and afterward. Henceforth the others who discern right interpretation (I Corinthians 14:29) are other prophets (i.e., established minsters) and not the people in the congregation.89 In his commentary on I Corinthians, Zwingli reiterated that those who are skilled in the biblical languages “should open the sense of the Scriptures before the church,” rather than just any person.90 He identified the prophet’s duties “to tear down and root out whatever was erected against God and to plant and build whatever pleases God” with the duties of the established church offices.91 He sought, however, to retain some role for the layperson by adding that a faithful prophet when in error should “voluntarily accept correction, even from the lowest person.”92 He also asserted an alternative definition of the prophet applicable to women: “The name of prophet belongs also to them who eagerly listen to the Word of God . . . as seen in I Corinthians 11 concerning the women praying and prophesying.”93 He argued that this application of prophecy to women does not support women publicly teaching in church, for such public practices

89. See WA 15:40–​43; LW 45:363–​66 and WA 30/​3:522–​25; LW 40:388–​92; Zwingli in CR 91:395; “Preaching Office,” 159. 90.  Zwingli, In Priorem ad Corinthios, Completa Editio Prima Scriptorum pars sexta, 177. Emphasizing the ultimate goal of edification, Zwingli underscored the important duty of those trained in the biblical languages to provide a reading for the instruction and strengthening of the church (177–​79). 91. Zwingli, In Priorem ad Corinthios, Completa Editio Prima Scriptorum pars sexta, 178. 92. Zwingli, In Priorem ad Corinthios, Completa Editio Prima Scriptorum pars sexta, 181. 93. Zwingli, In Priorem ad Corinthios, Completa Editio Prima Scriptorum pars sexta, 178.

200

The Reformation of Prophecy

belong only to the established male leadership.94 Consequently, while Zwingli increasingly identified the office of the prophet with established offices of ministry, he still sought to retain a definition of prophesying that accounted for the women prophets in I Corinthians 11 and allowed for some degree of the accountability of the pastor to laypersons—​particularly by insisting that it is the Spirit who discerns whether the Word of God has been truly preached or interpreted.95 If Zwingli left the door open to allow some participation of the laity to judge and discern right interpretation of Scripture, Bullinger sought to define the parameters of this much more narrowly. Bullinger wrote a commentary on I Corinthians in 1534, in which he highlighted the exhortations to maintain order. He elevated the procedures of the Zurich Prophezei as exemplary in following the process outlined in I  Corinthians 14, in which each day a group of teachers treat the books of the Old Testament and the New Testament writings in an orderly fashion. He asserted, “Nothing is done in a random or confused way. The sequence is observed with books and chapters; we do not begin another unless the prior is finished.”96 He described the work of the Hebrew-​and Greek-​language scholars, who provided grammatical comments and compared the different language versions of the text: After this comparison of the versions, then the office of prophecy is performed by those who have the function of interpretation. For they have read the Latin, Greek and Hebrew and recounted with every care the sum of faith, indicating how the present passage was treated by the ancient writers, what the Jewish interpreters thought of it, what the Catholics thought, what is the secret agreement of the words and the cohesive structure and force of the words, the majesty and propriety and elegance of the meaning, to what it refers and briefly the genuine sense, and also how this passage is useful and fruitful, and in what way faith, piety, holiness, justice, and constancy may be studied from it.97 Bullinger thereby placed the work of interpretation squarely in the hands of the established Protestant ministers in Zurich, and more specifically the teachers. He described a collaborative effort between the prophets (teachers) 94. Zwingli, In Priorem ad Corinthios, Completa Editio Prima Scriptorum pars sexta, 178, 181. 95. Zwingli, In Priorem ad Corinthios, Completa Editio Prima Scriptorum pars sexta, 181. 96. Bullinger, In Priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios, 181v. 97. Bullinger, In Priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios, 182v.



The Prophet, Prophecy, and the Pastoral Office

201

and bishops, whereby the prophets expounded a biblical text in the public meeting and the bishops explained it for the people, and concluded, “In this way sacred things are interpreted by the prophets and handled by the bishops. The whole church sits and everyone judges what is said, that is, silently among themselves, considering everything that is for their usefulness and fruitfulness.”98 Bullinger in effect retained a modified form of the call for the congregation to judge what they hear. In keeping with the strong exhortations to orderliness, he emphasized the public leadership of the teachers and bishops and instructed congregational discernment as a silent meditation. Bullinger also highlighted the text’s strong emphasis on the goal of edification and saw—​more than Luther or Zwingli—​this as pivotal to prophecy, for “those who prophesy speak to other people for their edification and encouragement and consolation” (I Corinthians 14:3). He viewed edification and orderliness as going hand in hand, for if order is not preserved, confusion, uncertainty, controversy, and ambiguity arise and the goal of edification gets derailed.99 When a prophet speaks, “every part of the church benefits from it.”100 The prophet “exhorts the people to study piety,” “consoles those with weak souls,” and “speaks in order to build up the community,” and does so primarily through exegesis, as “nothing is greater and more useful in the church than to have Christian teaching and interpretation of Scripture.”101 Bullinger wrote in his comments on verses 23 to 25 that “to prophesy is to teach, to console, to exhort, to accuse, and to correct the most corrupt behavior of men by the sacred letter.”102 By shifting the interpretation of I Corinthians 14 to edification, teaching, and the maintenance of godly order, Bullinger pointed to the Prophezei as exemplary of the biblical process in which the established ministers carried the public task of discerning right interpretation of Scripture. Bullinger directly contrasted Zurich’s proper observance of this biblical model with the wrongful tyranny of Roman Catholics and, especially, the disorderly sedition of Anabaptists. Since the Holy Spirit is the final arbiter so that there should be no confusion, sedition, disorder, or contention,103 Bullinger insisted that “if one is led well by the Spirit of God,” then the proffering of another

98. Bullinger, In Priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios, 182v–​183r. 99. Bullinger, In Priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios, 180v–​181v. 100. Bullinger, In Priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios, 172r. 101. Bullinger, In Priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios, 172r, 170v. 102. Bullinger, In Priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios, 179r. 103. Bullinger, In Priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios, 183v–​184r.

202

The Reformation of Prophecy

interpretation “should be received modestly without contention.”104 The persistent quarrelling and contention exhibited by the Anabaptists, however, indicates that they speak not “from the Spirit of God but from human impulse and influence.”105 Bullinger again employed I Corinthians 14 about a decade later to attack Anabaptists as preventing legitimate and orderly preaching, causing simple doctrines to be contentious, and “making the gathering bitter” so that they not only defied order, but they failed to attain the primary goal of edification.106 Bullinger profoundly shaped the subsequent interpretations of I  Corinthians 14 into the early seventeenth century, starting with Calvin, who wrote a commentary on this chapter in 1546 that was republished in 1551. He referred to I Corinthians 14 in his prior 1539 comments on Romans 12:6 (“prophecy in proportion to faith”), notably emphasizing edification and order.107 Strikingly similar to Bullinger’s 1534 comments, Calvin highlighted prophecy’s tasks of edification, exhortation, and consolation and framed them within the larger function of teaching.108 He saw in I Corinthians 14 a direct connection between edification and orderly process: “In the first place there must be room for every single gift, but in its turn and in due proportion. Further, the church must not be devoting itself to useless and futile practices, but whatever is done must be done for edification.”109 Paul’s phrase “one by one” therefore did not mean equal turns; that which is most edifying to the

104. Bullinger, In Priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios, 184r. 105. Bullinger, In Priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios, 184v. 106. Bullinger, H. Bullingeri Adversus Anabaptistas, 110r–​112r. 107. Calvin wrote, “Each individual ought to be so intent upon bestowing his own gifts for the edification of the church that no one may relinquish his own function and trespass on that of another. The safety of the church is preserved by this most excellent order and symmetry when every individual imparts to the common good what he has received from the Lord without preventing others from doing so” (CO 49:238; Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 268). 108. Calvin asserted, “For no man will ever be a good teacher if he does not show that he himself is teachable. . . . All should, therefore, carry out their duties as teachers in such a way as not to decline to take their turn as learners. . . . Other prophets may find fault in something in their teaching. . . . Nobody is exempt from the criticism of others, but that all must be given a hearing, with the stipulation that their teaching must, at the same time, be subjected to criticism” (CO 49:530–​31; Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 303–​ 4). See also CO 49:517, 52:176; Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 286 and The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 376–​77. Calvin repeatedly applied this text to teachers and teaching throughout his comments on I Corinthians 14:31–​32. 109. CO 49:528; Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 300.



The Prophet, Prophecy, and the Pastoral Office

203

congregation should guide the prophets in their proceedings.110 In his concern to protect against the misunderstanding that in this act of judging various interpretations God’s Word becomes subjected to human judgment, Calvin emphasized (like Bullinger) the guidance of the Holy Spirit,111 for it was right that “the prophets weigh what is said to see if it has come from the Spirit of God,” since if “the Spirit is the source of [the interpretation], there is no need for further perplexity.”112 Calvin invoked Romans 12:6 to provide another guideline to this orderly process of discernment: one should measure prophecy “according to the analogy of faith” or the “rule of faith,” which he previously defined in 1539 as the first principles of the Christian faith (i.e., the Apostle’s Creed).113 Ultimately God’s Word is the measure: “But as far as the actual judging is concerned, there is no doubt that it ought to be controlled by the Word and Spirit of God . . . that nothing is condemned except by means of God’s Word, and, in short, that God alone is in charge of the judgment and that men are simply God’s heralds.”114  However, Calvin seemed to allow an even smaller role for the congregation to judge what is said than did Bullinger, for he reserved for other prophets (i.e., established ministers) even the silent weighing of what is said: “Even when they have to keep quiet [when] they are weighing in their own minds what is said by others . . . Paul is pointing out that even by remaining silent the rest of the prophets will be rendering service to the church.”115 Also different from Bullinger, Calvin—​with his eye toward France—​was more concerned to refute Catholic than Anabaptist practices. He rebuked the practice of the laity praying Latin prayers as unedifying and akin to speaking in tongues.116 He reproved Catholic appeals to simplicity as supporting their withholding Scripture from the laity:  “Since it is easier to lead asses than men, the Pope, pleading the excuse of simplicity, directs that 110. Calvin wrote, “Further, [Paul] does not mean that they should all have equal turns, but that individuals should come forward to speak more or less often, depending on whether it is for people’s benefit” (CO 49:530; Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 303). 111. CO 49:529, 531; Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 302, 304. 112. CO 49:531; Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 304. Calvin had already clarified that those who judge or reprove what they hear are only those with the gift of prophecy and not just any person in the congregation (CO 49:527, 530; Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 299, 303). 113. CO 49:531; Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 304. 114. CO 49:531; Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 304–​5. 115. CO 49:529; Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 302. 116. CO 49:522, 523; Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 292, 293–​94.

204

The Reformation of Prophecy

all his people should remain in ignorance.”117 Calvin essentially seemed more concerned to promote lay understanding and edification than to preserve an active role of the laity in judging doctrine.118 Melanchthon published a commentary on I  Corinthians in 1551. Like Bullinger and Calvin, he emphasized prophecy’s goal of edification and employed I Corinthians 14:3 to enumerate the prophet’s key tasks of edification, exhortation, and consolation.119 In keeping with a Lutheran emphasis on the ministry of the Word that is less concerned with distinguishing offices, he identified prophecy with both teaching and preaching (with a notable preference for preaching) and applied the Pauline text to expound upon the three essential parts of a sermon and, more broadly, the three crucial tasks of the preaching office.120 First, he aligned edification with teaching, in which the preacher or sermon delivers “doctrines concerning the articles of faith and concerning the distinction between law and gospel and other chief parts of teaching,”121 thereby providing the framework of the Christian faith by distinguishing between righteousness and sin, law and promise, Law and Gospel, church and state, divine laws and human laws, eternal punishment and eternal rewards, and the Old and New Testaments.122 The second task is exhortation toward “penitence and good works.”123 The final task is consolation accomplished first and foremost through the proclamation of the promises of the gospel, which serve as the source of all true consolation.124 Melanchthon thus echoed Bullinger’s and Calvin’s emphasis on edification, exhortation, and teaching, but he did so in a distinctly Lutheran manner, with a focus on

117. CO 49:525; Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 296–​97. 118. Calvin also expressed a concern to strengthen lay consciences and preserve order. Aiming specifically to maintain a place for ecclesiastical law that avoided the tyranny of the Roman Catholics, he argued for the following reading of I Corinthians 14:40 (“Let all things be done decently and in order”): “Therefore when this passage is considered properly, it will reveal a difference between the tyrannical edicts of the Pope, which crush the consciences of men in a detestable form of slavery, and the godly laws of the church, which preserve its discipline and order” (CO 49:536; Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 310). 119.  Philip Melanchthon, Commentarius in Epistola Pauli ad Corinthios (1551) in CR 15:1157, 1161, 1164, 1169. Throughout his commentary on I Corinthians 14, Melanchthon frequently repeated the refrain “Everything should be for edification.” 120. CR 15:1157. 121. CR 15:1158. 122. CR 15:1159. 123. CR 15:1158. 124. CR 15:1158, 1159.



The Prophet, Prophecy, and the Pastoral Office

205

doctrine—​specifically the proclamation of proper distinctions between Law and Gospel and righteousness and sin. Melanchthon also echoed Bullinger’s and Calvin’s concerns for proper order in the practice of prophecy, writing, “God wants there to be consensus of doctrine, faith, invocation, and petition in the church; he wants there to be a public and honest assembly, and he wants agreement of the pious . . . as is promised in Matthew 18: ‘If two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you.’ ”125 Like Bullinger and Calvin, Melanchthon affirmed that not just any person in the congregation was equipped to discern right doctrine; the task needed the judgment of established ministers, although, as Matthew 10:32 commands, it is the responsibility of all to understand and be able to articulate what they confess by faith.126 When it came to doctrinal and interpretive disputes, Melanchthon counseled that they should convene the congregation and hear from the learned doctors, invoking the example of Acts 15:6, in which the “apostles and elders met together to consider the matter.”127 Drawing upon historical examples of doctrinal disputes in the churches of Antioch and Alexandria, Melanchthon affirmed that judgments must be made in the church, especially against heresy, and he pointed to Paul’s overriding guideline for making such judgments:  the prohibitions against both tyranny and sedition.128 The prohibition against sedition refutes the fanatics and Anabaptists, for those rightly guided by the Holy Spirit will yield to the better interpretation and maintain an orderly process, while the prohibition against tyranny rebuked the Roman Catholics.129 Citing again the example of Acts 15, Melanchthon underscored the established ministers’ leadership, while pointing out that “in coming to a decision, not only the apostles and the elders had the power, but the whole church came to a consensus.”130 Melanchthon thus supplemented I Corinthians 14’s orderly process with examples from the early church of Acts to set forth a process in which the established ministers reach a decision that is then brought before the whole church for consensus. Melanchthon also clarified and strengthened Bullinger’s and Calvin’s assertion that ultimately humans do not judge God’s Word. Rather than 125. CR 15:1163. 126. CR 15:1157. 127. CR 15:1175. 128. CR 15:1176. 129. CR 15:1176–​77. 130. CR 15:1170. Acts 15:22 reads (NRSV), “Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church,” acted on the counsel of the apostles and elders.

206

The Reformation of Prophecy

pointing to the work of the Holy Spirit, however, he appealed to the chief doctrines of the Christian faith “passed down in Scripture by the prophets and the apostles and included in the Creed” as the norms that are the “highest judges.”131 All the necessary doctrines of the Christian faith are clearly and unambiguously set forth in Scripture and by the Creed so that “if anyone teaches a different gospel, it is anathema.”132 It is not tyranny, therefore, when the leaders of the church use these norms to judge what is right teaching from wrong, for “elders in their place spoke their views and if anyone wanted to add something modestly, it was granted according to the rule, ‘Do not quench the Spirit; test everything; hold fast to what is good’ ” (I Thessalonians 5:19, 21).133 Melanchthon thus echoed Bullinger’s and Calvin’s concern for a biblical, orderly process to handle discernment of right teaching and interpretation, in which the established leadership had a clear, authoritative role; through the example of the apostolic church (Acts 15:6), however, he aimed to carve out a clearer role of the congregation in pointing to the necessity of the church’s consensus. Bullinger’s, Calvin’s, and Melanchthon’s readings of I Corinthians 14 coalesce around a focus on edification, the alignment of the minister’s key tasks with the prophetic tasks of I  Corinthians 14:3 (edification, exhortation, and consolation), the use of I Corinthians 14 to provide a biblical model of ecclesial discernment, and a strong affirmation of clerical authority while retaining lay participation through a path that aimed to avoid both Roman Catholic tyranny and Anabaptist sedition. They ultimately shared more than they differed in their readings of I  Corinthians 14—​a sharing that continued to manifest prominently in the next generation of Lutheran and Reformed interpretations of this text. While confessional differences appeared quite prominently in Lutheran and Reformed applications of Old Testament prophetic texts (as subsequent chapters will show), the next generation of Lutheran and Reformed theologians alike employed their readings of I  Corinthians 14 to (1)  align the key duties of the prophet with the key duties of the Protestant minister, (2)  strengthen Protestant clerical authority, and (3)  provide a biblical model for discerning right doctrine and interpretation of Scripture that simultaneously preserved Protestant clerical authority and honored the priesthood

131. CR 15:1170. For an excellent account of Melanchthon putting this into practice, see Dingel, “Philip Melanchthon.” 132.  CR 15:1171, 1173, 1174. Melanchthon wrote, “Concerning necessary doctrine, nothing is ambiguous in the books of the prophets and apostles and in the Creed” (CR 15:1171). 133. CR 15:1174.



The Prophet, Prophecy, and the Pastoral Office

207

of all believers. Lutheran theologians such as Osiander and Hunnius defined prophecy as interpretation of Scripture and employed I  Corinthians 14:3 to demarcate the key tasks of the prophet. Hunnius wrote, “He who prophesies . . . sets forth the Word of God and interprets it, speaking to men for edification in life and consolation in adversity.”134 Osiander similarly stated, “Those who prophesy, that is, who rightly explain Scripture in the assembly of the church . . . instruct them in the Word of God for edification, exhortation, and consolation.”135 Whereas Melanchthon employed I Corinthians 14:3 to demarcate the key duties of the preacher, Osiander and Hunnius explicitly equated the prophet with the “order of doctors,” the teaching office. Osiander in particular applied I Corinthians 14 to “all sincere doctors, who rightly and for the edification of the church explain Holy Scripture.”136 He regularly replaced the terminology of prophet and prophecy in the text with teacher and teaching. Osiander wrote, for example, “Paul instructs the Corinthian teachers about how the gifts of the Holy Spirit ought to be ordered in the church so that there is no confusion but rather that the church may be edified.”137 He also described the process of discerning right interpretation of Scripture specifically in terms of teaching rather than prophecy per se: “It is enough if in one assembly of the church two or three teach in intervals.”138 Hunnius similarly opened his 1601 comments on I Corinthians 14 by identifying prophecy with the teaching office, stating, “Paul teaches which persons should bear the office of prophesying or teaching,” and he pointed to the capacity to teach as greater than tongues, rather than staying close to the terminology of prophecy in the text.139 Hunnius at times, however, interchangeably applied this text to both teachers and preachers—​to “ministers [who] preach the Word and explicate the Scriptures”—​which echoed the Lutheran penchant not to make stark distinctions between teaching and preaching but subsume them both under the broader office of the Word.140

134. Hunnius, Epistolae Divi Apostoli Pauli ad Corinthios, 464. 135. Osiander, Epistolae S. Pauli Apostoli Omnes, 322. 136. Osiander, Epistolae S. Pauli Apostoli Omnes, 321–​22. 137. Osiander, Epistolae S. Pauli Apostoli Omnes, 329. 138. Osiander, Epistolae S. Pauli Apostoli Omnes, 331; see also 329, 330, 332. 139. Hunnius, Epistolae Divi Apostoli Pauli ad Corinthios, 463. 140.  Hunnius, Epistolae Divi Apostoli Pauli ad Corinthios, 482. For example, in the “Loci Communes” section of his exegesis, Hunnius identified the “order of prophesying” with preaching (486).

208

The Reformation of Prophecy

The next generation’s Reformed readings of I  Corinthians 14 defined prophecy as interpretation of Scripture, identified it with the office of teaching, and employed I Corinthians 14:3 to demarcate the key duties of the Protestant minister. Both Beza and Gwalther likened the prophet to the doctors of the church. Gwalther argued that prophecy here refers not to foretelling but “to the treatment of the Scriptures and, thus, the ministry of teaching, which is publicly to explain the will of God for the amendment of others.”141 Beza wrote that the prophets in I Corinthians 14 are not those who foretell but are the “noted doctors, which is the office of gathering knowledge and perceptions from Scripture, in which the Word of God is clearly explained.”142 Gwalther and Pareus highlighted in this text the key prophetic tasks of the Protestant minister; it is the office of teachers to speak concerning “edification, exhortation, and consolation.”143 While Beza and Gwalther, in typical Reformed fashion, identified the prophet with the teaching office, Pareus sounded a lot like Melanchthon. Just as Melanchthon employed the key tasks of 1 Corinthians 14:3 as those of the Protestant preacher and the chief functions of the sermon, Pareus likewise pointed to edification, exhortation, and consolation as the “three marks” to which all the speeches of the Protestant preacher should be directed.144 Yet Pareus also associated the prophet with the office of teaching by adding teaching to the list of the prophet’s tasks in his explication of this verse.145 Gwalther and Pareus both frequently inserted teacher and teaching in place of the biblical text’s references to prophets and prophecy.146 Lutheran and Reformed readings of I  Corinthians 14 in the next generation consequently demonstrate significant confessional crossovers, in which the association of the prophet with the teaching office predominates and the key prophetic tasks of edification, exhortation, and consolation are incorporated into the work of the ordinary offices of the Protestant minister. The next generation of Lutheran and Reformed readers of I Corinthians 14 also deployed this text to buttress Protestant clerical authority and

141. Gwalther, In Epistolam D. Pauli Apostoli ad Corinthios, 270r. 142. Beza, Theodori Bezae Annotationes majores, 228a. 143. Gwalther, In Epistolam D. Pauli Apostoli ad Corinthios, 271r–​v. 144. Pareus, In Divinam ad Corinthios, 945–​47. Pareus’s emphasis on promoting true worship and godly piety reveals his Calvinist colors (946, 962). 145. Pareus, In Divinam ad Corinthios, 943. 146. Pareus, In Divinam ad Corinthios, 970, 972, 973; Gwalther, In Epistolam D. Pauli Apostoli ad Corinthios, 271r, 272r, 289v, 292r–​v. In his last sermon on I Corinthians 14, Gwalther often employed the term minister rather than prophet (297v and 298r).



The Prophet, Prophecy, and the Pastoral Office

209

provide a biblical model for discerning right doctrine and right interpretation of Scripture. The Lutherans Hunnius and Osiander (like Luther and Melanchthon earlier) specified that the “others” in I  Corinthians 14:29 (“let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said”) are not just any person in the congregation but others holding the office of teaching.147 Hunnius clarified that the “all” in I Corinthians 14:30 (“for you can all prophesy”) “does not pertain to all the hearers . . . but to the ordinary church ministers.”148 Reformed readers such as Beza, Gwalther, and Pareus likewise argued that the “two or three prophets” in I Corinthians 14:29 referred to those legitimately called by the church to perform the office of teaching. The “others” who weigh what is taught refers to others called to a legitimate office.149 Beza thus clearly contended concerning I Corinthians 14:29–​31 that “not everyone are prophets. . . . Therefore one is not able from this passage to infer that anyone from the assembly has the power to speak publicly.”150 Lutheran and Reformed exegetes alike strongly accentuated that prophets in I Corinthians 14 refers to legitimately called and ordained church leaders, and they furthered Bullinger’s and Calvin’s boundaries of lay participation in judging doctrine and discerning right interpretation of Scripture in the aim to maintain proper godly order. They equally emphasized, however, the proper parameters of ministerial offices—​ that godly ministers should be humble, teachable, and open to correction. Both Osiander and Hunnius echoed Melanchthon’s appeal to Acts to outline a process in which those with the gift of interpretation of Scripture should teach publicly, but with modesty and the willingness to yield to a better interpretation so as to avoid pride, confusion, and disorder.151 Osiander framed the process by, on the one hand, objecting to any view that affirmed the clergy’s unquestioned authority and unwillingness to yield to a better interpretation (i.e., against Roman Catholic tyranny) and, on the other hand, asserting the adherence to a right, biblical order to avoid confusion and promote the goal of edification (i.e., against Anabaptist

147. Osiander, Epistolae S. Pauli Apostoli Omnes, 330; Hunnius, Epistolae Divi Apostoli Pauli ad Corinthios, 482–​83. 148. Hunnius, Epistolae Divi Apostoli Pauli ad Corinthios, 483. 149. Beza, Theodori Bezae Annotationes majores, 232b–​233a; Gwalther, In Epistolam D. Pauli Apostoli ad Corinthios, 289r–​v; Pareus, In Divinam ad Corinthios, 968–​69. 150. Beza, Theodori Bezae Annotationes majores, 233a. 151. Osiander, Epistolae S. Pauli Apostoli Omnes, 330–​32; Hunnius, Epistolae Divi Apostoli Pauli ad Corinthios, 483, 478–​88.

210

The Reformation of Prophecy

sedition). Neither Osiander nor Hunnius, however, employed Melanchthon’s use of the apostolic church in Acts to emphasize the role of congregational consent. They instead followed his appeal to the “principal heads of doctrine,” the analogy of faith, and the consensus of Scripture as the true measure by which to gauge right doctrine and right biblical interpretation—​a measure firmly guided by the leadership of established ministers.152 Reformed readings of I  Corinthians 14 outline a similar process. Beza, Gwalther, and Pareus each appealed to the example of the church of Acts to supplement and clarify the I Corinthian 14 model for discerning right teaching, also without invoking congregational consent.153 They instead accentuated the proper order and disposition of the Protestant minister. Beza appealed to Acts 13:15 as an example of godly teachers’ willingness to be corrected by other teachers in an orderly process that avoided confusion or sedition.154 Gwalther stressed that right teaching is always directed toward the edification of the congregation and not personal ambition. Together I Corinthians 14 and Acts 13 therefore present a proper order for the church to discern right teaching led by legitimately called church leaders who are sober and willing to be corrected and do not use their gifts for pride.155 Pareus similarly affirmed that a good teacher is “teachable” and exhibits a “readiness to learn,” so that a godly minister is “glad to hear the judgment of others and to submit if something better is brought forth,” for the Holy Spirit “gives to each [only] a certain measure.”156 Like their Lutheran contemporaries, these Reformed theologians ultimately pointed to the analogy of faith—​the rule and consensus of Scripture—​to serve as the real arbiter of a teaching’s correctness. This placed the Protestant ministers’ authority in perspective. On the one hand, these Lutheran and Reformed exegetes situated the authority to judge squarely in the hands of legitimately called and ordained Protestant ministers. On the other hand, they argued that ultimately it is not the person who judges right doctrine but the “heads of doctrine,” the norms, “rule of faith,” or the “analogy of faith” expressed in

152. Osiander, Epistolae S. Pauli Apostoli Omnes, 323; Hunnius stated this most clearly in his comments on Romans 12:6 (Epistolae divi Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos, 424). 153. Notable here is that the appeal to the example of the church in Acts 13 was Melanchthon’s distinct contribution to the history of interpretation of I Corinthians 14; it is not found in Calvin’s or Bullinger’s commentaries on this text. 154. Beza, Theodori Bezae Annotationes majores, 233a. 155. Gwalther, In Epistolam D. Pauli Apostoli ad Corinthios, 289r, 291r, 297v. 156. Pareus, In Divinam ad Corinthios, 970, 971; see also 975.



The Prophet, Prophecy, and the Pastoral Office

211

the consensus of Scripture and the Apostle’s Creed.157 Pareus stated this most clearly: “Therefore the ordinary rule of judgment was the analogy of faith, to which Paul binds all prophecies in Romans 12:6. Then the Word of God alone is the ultimate, infallible resolution of faith.”158

Synopsis and Significance The prophet and biblical prophecy continued to occupy a notable conceptual and practical space in the next generation of Lutheran and Reformed leaders’ views of the pastoral office and church orderly proceedings. On the one hand, conceptions of the prophet furthered growing confessional distinctions, such as the Lutheran emphasis on the prophet’s duties to preserve the right doctrines of justification by faith alone and the distinctions between Law and Gospel in contrast to the Reformed emphasis on the prophet’s dual duties of watchman of Christian society and biblical interpreter, with the specific Calvinist emphasis on the application of Scripture to contemporary circumstances. On the other hand, Lutheran and Reformed leaders of the later sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries alike employed biblical prophetic texts to promote a biblical vision of true worship. Confessional distinctions nonetheless emerged in these visions of true worship. While Lutherans tended to emphasize that right worship begins with right understandings of the differing roles of faith and works and Law and Gospel, Reformed theologians tended to highlight the problems of superstition, the mixture of sacred and profane things, human innovation, and false ceremonies. Still, these later Lutheran and Reformed leaders shared the use of the prophet and biblical prophetic writings to accentuate the centrality of the Word of God and scriptural authority. They both maintained that true worship adheres to God’s Word alone, while false worship departs from and forsakes God’s Word. They both defined the true prophet of God as one who proclaims the Word of God alone as revealed in Scripture and not his own word, certainly not a human word. Despite these noted confessional distinctions, this chapter demonstrates that both Lutheran and Reformed leaders of the later sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries very similarly employed the figure of the prophet to buttress Protestant clerical authority and establish the authority of Scripture as primary, as seen particularly in the history of interpretation of I Corinthians 14. 157. For example, Gwalther (In Epistolam D. Pauli Apostoli ad Corinthios, 290r and In D. Pauli apostolic epistolam ad Romanos, 169v) and Pareus (In divinam ad Romanos, 949–​50) identified the analogy of faith with the principles of the Christian faith expressed in the Apostle’s Creed. 158. Pareus, In Divinam ad Corinthios, 971.

212

The Reformation of Prophecy

Lutheran and Reformed alike employed this text to articulate a biblical process for discerning right doctrine and biblical interpretation in which Scripture served as the ultimate arbiter. Even as Scripture is the true gauge, they both squarely placed the process in the hands of established, rightly called ministers, making clear that these ministers’ teachings are also equally subject to the measure of Scripture. The next generation also expanded upon the prior teachings of Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin to accentuate the right disposition of the godly pastor, even as they more squarely placed authority in his hands. A good pastor, a godly teacher, is teachable, humble, willing to submit to correction and to defer to a better teaching; all that he says should be for the church’s edification. All the while, they identified the key duties of the prophet with the duties of the rightly called, godly Protestant pastor—​the duties to edify, exhort, and console. These key prophetic tasks of I Corinthians 14:3 were subsumed under the work of the ordinary offices of the Protestant minister. Explicit prophetic terminology became increasingly eclipsed in their accounts. They not only incorporated prophetic tasks into the ordinary offices of the teacher and preacher—​something we saw foreshadowed in the work of Bullinger and Calvin—​but they often replaced the texts’ explicit references to the prophet with terms like minister, teacher, doctor, or pastor.159 The next generation thereby demonstrated an even greater eclipse of explicit prophetic terminology. Such signaled their reluctance to identify the prophet per se too closely with the Protestant pastor and their ultimate conclusion that the use of the prophet to elucidate the pastoral office brought as many problems as benefits. Even as the office of the prophet increasingly receded into the background, the exegesis of biblical prophetic writings continued to be vital to the work of the first and second generations of Reformed and Lutheran Protestants. Just as we saw Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin profoundly shift from a focus on the applications of the figure of the prophet (or prophetic office) to a focus on the exegesis of biblical prophecy, the next generation made this shift to exegesis much more immediately, as seen in the numerous commentaries on the Old Testament prophetic writings in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.160 The remainder of this book explores the significance 159.  See Osiander, Epistolae S.  Pauli Apostoli Omnes, 321–​22, 329, 330, 331, 332; Hunnius, Epistolae Divi Apostoli Pauli ad Corinthios, 463, 482, 486; Pareus, In Divinam ad Corinthios, 970, 972, 973; Gwalther, In Epistolam D. Pauli Apostoli ad Corinthios, 271r, 272r, 289v, 292r–​v. 160. Among the Protestant reformers studied in this chapter, Melanchthon and Beza were the only ones who did not make a profound turn to the exegesis of Old Testament prophecy, though this may simply be due to the fact that they both were professors of the New Testament and Greek. Osiander wrote commentaries on all the Old Testament prophets. Selnecker wrote commentaries on Jeremiah, Zephaniah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Micah,



The Prophet, Prophecy, and the Pastoral Office

213

of the exegesis of Old Testament prophecy as a growing site of confessional polemics. As Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist theologians continued to look to the Old Testament prophets for guidance concerning the key duties of Protestant ministers and insight into contemporary circumstances, they became increasingly aware of growing confessional differences among them. Even as they simultaneously employed prophecy to promote Scripture’s prime authority, they could not agree upon the perspicuous content of Old Testament prophecy. Differences between Lutheran and Reformed readings and applications of biblical prophecy were not simply matters of doctrinal difference, such as identifying the primary teachings of the prophets as justification by faith alone (Lutheran) versus God’s covenant (Swiss Reformed) versus divine providence (Calvinist). They pointed more deeply to differing conceptions of sacred history and differing methods of exegesis—​indeed to differing identifications of the clear content of Old Testament prophecy.

Amos, and Obadiah. Hunnius wrote a massive commentary on six of the Old Testament prophets (Daniel, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Haggai, and Malachi). Gwalther preached an extensive sermon series on all the Minor Prophets, as well as a series on Isaiah. Grynaeus published his lectures on Jonah, Haggai, Habakkuk, Malachi, Obadiah, and Daniel. Lambert Daneau wrote a massive commentary on the Minor Prophets, and David Pareus wrote commentaries on Hosea, Joel, Haggai, and Amos.

6

Old Testament Prophecy and Protestant Conceptions of Sacred History

Scholars of early-​modern history and theology have recognized the significant ways in which Protestant understandings of history played a crucial role in the formation of Protestant identities. Protestants renarrated the church’s history in order to demonstrate the times and places that the church departed from the pure teaching of God’s Word, as well as to set forth patterns of God’s interactions with the church that reveal and reinforce their calls for reform and renewal. William Naphy explores such reiterations and analyses of history in the early-​modern era: “Protestants must locate historical models to justify these sweeping changes, to prove themselves to be men and women cleansing, not sacking, the churches; revealing not rewriting the law.”1 The two-​volume collection of essays edited by Bruce Gordon (Protestant History and Identity in Sixteenth-​Century Europe), Irena Backus’s Historical Method and Confessional Identity, and John Headley’s Luther’s View of Church History—​for examples—​illuminate the function that conceptions of history and history writing played among Protestants in the consolidation of Protestant confessional identities. Typically such studies, however, either focus upon particular conceptions of history or the writings of Protestant histories themselves.2 Chapters 6, 7, and 8 rework and expand material from Pak, “Contributions of Commentaries.” 1. Naphy, “ ‘No History Can Satisfy Everyone,’ ” 37. 2. See also Wriedt, “Luther’s Concept of History”; Gottfried W. Locher, “Huldrych Zwingli’s Concept of History,” in Zwingli’s Thought, 95–​120; Moser, “Heinrich Bullinger’s Efforts”; Naphy, “ ‘No History Can Satisfy Everyone.’ ”



Old Testament Prophecy

215

Moreover, while they sometimes point to the significance of biblical models for Protestant conceptions and writings of history, they do not sufficiently distinguish between such terms as church history and sacred history and tend to use the terms world history, salvation history, and history almost interchangeably.3 Most significant for the concerns of this book, the considerable role biblical prophetic books played in Protestant conceptions of sacred history and the ways in which Protestants applied this history to read contemporary events deserve closer analysis. This chapter argues that an analysis of conceptions of sacred history as found in the Old Testament prophets in particular is an extremely helpful avenue for unearthing and demarcating Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Reformed confessional commitments around the intersections of history and Scripture. Such a focus on the sacred history of the biblical prophets—​by which I mean the concept of history that pertains to the actions and events between God and God’s people as they are revealed in the prophetic texts of Scripture—​provides an especially clear spotlight on the central role Scripture played in shaping Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Reformed historical imaginations and methodologies, as well as their differing eschatologies. Touching briefly upon some aspects of eschatology, I  focus on a study of nonapocalyptic Old Testament prophecy.4 This chapter illuminates many of the ways in which biblical commentaries and sermons on the Old Testament prophets set forth the differing visions of sacred history, methods of reading sacred history, and applications of sacred history in the works of Martin Luther, Johannes Oecolampadius, Huldrych Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, and John Calvin. Working with the underlying assumption that Scripture was the primary source that shaped the theology and practices of these Protestant leaders, I will demonstrate that the differences in their conceptions of sacred history were matters of both content and method that clearly contribute to deepening confessional distinctions.

3. See Gordon, “The Changing Face,” 4, 13, 22; Wriedt, “Luther’s Concept of History,” 34; Naphy, “ ‘No History Can Satisfy Everyone,’ ” 27; Locher, “Huldrych Zwingli’s Concept of History,” 102, 117–​18. 4.  The study focuses on Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, Calvin, and the next generations’ readings of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Minor Prophets. There have already been a number of excellent studies concerning interpretations of apocalyptic Old Testament prophecy, such as the books of Daniel and Ezekiel. See, for examples, Backus, “The Beast”; Timmerman, “ ‘The World Always Perishes’ ”; Petersen, Preaching in the Last Days, as well as studies of Protestant readings of the Book of Revelation, most notably Backus’s Reformation Readings of the Apocalypse.

216

The Reformation of Prophecy

Defining the Content of Sacred History in Old Testament Prophecy Though Luther, Oecolampadius, Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin share several elements in their understandings of the sacred history set forth by the Old Testament prophets, the differences between them are notable. They nonetheless each described the history of the Old Testament prophets as a history of threat and consolation, for this sacred history consists of the prophets’ threats against idolatry, vision of true worship, and consolations concerning God’s faithfulness to God’s covenantal promises to preserve and protect God’s people (the church), even in the midst of the seeming triumph of the church’s enemies.5 Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin located significant content in the Old Testament prophets to address and interpret their own experiences over and against Roman Catholicism in their aims to restore the church to purity of doctrine and worship.6 They all affirmed that ultimately the prophecies and history of the Old Testament prophets point to and culminate in Christ’s kingdom. For Luther, all the prophets point not only to Christ’s kingdom and the coming advent of Christ but also to Christ’s person and the saving events of his life.7 For Zwingli and Bullinger, the prophets point first and foremost to Christ’s work on the cross—​an event that took place once and for all, establishing that salvation is through Christ alone. Secondarily, but just as important, the Zurich reformers emphasized the ways biblical models of the past serve to guide the church of the present.8 For Calvin, all the prophets portray God’s providential care of the church in every age, in which Christ is central, while it was primarily Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and Daniel who

5. WA 13:2–​3, 99, 100–​101, 102, 158–​59, 173–​74, 178, 180, 192, 195, 241, 299, 317–​18, 371–​72, 424–​25, 492, 493, 534, 546–​47; 19:193, 355; 23:547–​48; LW 18:3, 95, 97, 98–​99, 127, 148, 154–​ 55, 158, 173, 177, 207, 237, 281, 282, 338, 339, 371; 19:3, 40, 108, 157; 20:3–​4, 210–​11; Zwingli, Complationis Ieremiae Prophetae, aiiir–​v; Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, aa4r–​v, 2r–​v, 4r, 16v, 23r, 30r, 33v, 46v, 49v, 51r; Ieremias Fidelissimus, 2r, 6r–​v, 55r; and Sermones Ieremiae, 9v, 18v, 38r, 39r, 84r, 85v, 92r; CO 42:256, 325, 498; 43:197–​98, 325, 339, 430, 460; 44:34–​35, 36–​37, 40, 59–​60, 62, 66, 305, 320, 321–​22, 339, 358, 402; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:122, 224, 485; 2:452; 3:250, 402, 456; 4:239–​40, 243, 250, 282–​83, 288, 293–​94; 5:312, 337, 340, 369, 401, 473. 6. See the discussions of Luther’s, Zwingli’s, Bullinger’s, and Calvin’s employment of the Old Testament prophetic books to rebuke Roman Catholic worship practices and promote a Protestant vision of worship at the end of ­chapters 3 and 4. 7. WA 13:5, 88, 495; 13:429, 351; WA 23:501, 502; LW 18:5, 79, 342; 19:116, 152; 20:158–​159. 8.  Zwingli, Complanationis Isaiae, Aiir and Complationis Ieremiae, aaiiiv; Bullinger, Isaias Excellentissimus, 1r, 2r, 3r; In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, aa4r–​aa5r, 70r; Ieremias Fidelissimus, 1r, 3v–​4r, 5v–​6v; In sermones et historicas expositiones, 16v, 17v, 25r, 58v; Decades 1:326.



Old Testament Prophecy

217

particularly prophesy the first advent of Christ.9 Gordon helpfully clarifies the key difference between Luther and the Swiss Reformed understandings of sacred history: For Zwinglians, the unifying link between past, present and eternity was the reality of the Word of God. The accounts of the Bible are not for the faithful merely pious stories, but events of their own history. They find their identity in the people who populate the pages of scripture. Thus Swiss reformers and humanists appropriated the deliverance language of the Old Testament as a means of portraying Swiss history. The whole thrust of Zwingli’s thought was backwards. In contrast to Luther, Zwingli’s faith was “fixed to the Christ of the past and not directed toward the Christ who is coming.”10 Luther’s understanding of sacred history accentuated the advent of Christ and the Gospel: the first advent of Christ and the Gospel proclaimed by the Old Testament prophets; the advent of Christ and the Gospel every time the Gospel is proclaimed in any age; and the future, eschatological, final advent of Christ. Thus, for Luther, the sacred history of the prophet always proclaims a Christ who is coming—​the one who comes today and the one who will come. Zwingli and Bullinger read the sacred history of the prophets with more of a focus on the history of the past; however—​to be clear—​it is a past history that informs and edifies the present and prefigures the future. Bullinger thus identified direct parallels between biblical history and human history so that he read the sacred history of the prophets as directly illuminating specific events in human—​even contemporary Swiss—​history. Calvin, on the other hand, unlike Luther, tended not to emphasize the Christ who is coming, nor, unlike the Swiss Reformed leaders, was he inclined to make direct correlations between biblical history and human history. He instead read sacred history for broader patterns of God’s providential actions with God’s people, the church. That is, rather than a one-​to-​one correspondence between biblical history and human history, Calvin viewed sacred history as illuminating God’s character (God’s 9. CO 44:79, 125; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 4:315–​16; 5:xiii–​xiv. See also CO 42:263, 43:168–​74, 176, 197–​98, 199–​200, 364–​71; 44:120–​21, 122–​24, 161, 176, 178–​ 79, 186, 188–​89, 212–​13, 213, 217, 269, 295, 333, 371, 490–​92; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:133; 2:403–​10, 413, 452, 454–​55; 3:292–​304; 4:384–​85, 387–​88; 5:72, 96, 100, 112, 117, 156–​57, 159, 163, 251, 295, 359, 423, 617–​20. 10. Gordon, “The Changing Face,” 18. Gordon quotes a line from Stephen Strehle’s article, “Fides aut Foedus,” 10. Strehle explores how Luther’s forward-​looking view and Zwingli’s backward-​looking view inform the differences in their Eucharistic theologies (8–​10).

218

The Reformation of Prophecy

beneficence toward the church) and the patterns of God’s actions (God’s providential care of the church).

Luther on the Content of Sacred History For Luther, the writings of the Old Testament prophets exhibit two discrete histories. On the one hand, the prophets set forth the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah; on the other hand, the prophets point to Christ and the kingdom of Christ. He viewed these as two separate histories, and it is the duty of the careful, faithful reader to distinguish between them. He therefore introduced Habakkuk in the following manner: But before beginning with the text, I must pave the way with a general introductory remark. This is necessary and useful for better understanding not only of this prophet but also of most of the others. For it has been most confusing in the past to hear the prophets speak of the Jewish kingdom and then to break off so abruptly and intersperse remarks about Christ. Everybody who is not familiar with their method regards that as an odd way of doing things, and he supposes that they observe no order but ramble along from one subject to another.  .  .  . Thus the Holy Spirit was accused of an inability to express himself properly. . . . But it is we who were at fault; we did not understand the speech, and we were not acquainted with the method of the prophets.11 Notable is Luther’s distinction between the Jewish kingdom and Christ’s kingdom as separate entities. Luther not only set forth two separate histories, but, as Headley has demonstrated, he set forth two separate kingdoms and two separate peoples—​an approach reminiscent of Augustine’s theology in the City of God.12 Luther therefore tended to read the threats against Israel and Judah as a consequence of their disobedience that had continued application to contemporary Jews, rather than identifying the (true) church with unfaithful Judah and Israel. When the prophet “broke off” to offer words of 11. LW 19:152; WA 19:350. 12. Headley argues that Luther envisioned the struggles of two churches and two peoples through history (Luther’s View, 233). He points to Luther’s debt to Augustine:  “Augustine had given to this understanding of history its definitive pattern, and from him Luther adopted some distinctive features. One of the most important was that of the idea of two communities or kingdoms differing in their origins, orientations, and ends and opposing each other throughout all time” (266). Headley also indicates areas of difference between Luther and Augustine (267).



Old Testament Prophecy

219

consolation, however, these words of promise belonged to the true church. Threats, then, befall only the wicked, for the righteous receive them rightly and are brought to repentance so that they no longer function as threats per se. Thus Luther viewed the prophets’ comforting words as spoken to the true church hidden among the unfaithful.13 Notable, as well, in the quote above is Luther’s exhortation that it was necessary for the reader to understand that Old Testament prophets write with these two separate histories in mind. As he frequently explained in other comments, the prophets “mix” or “intersperse” prophecies pertaining directly to their own historical time concerning Judah and/​or Israel with prophecies of Christ, and it was the task of the reader to separate these.14 Thus the prophecy of Joel 2:28 concerning the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the real prophecy (fulfilled at Pentecost) in distinction to the rest of Joel’s message: Here the real prophecy begins, which is clearly separated [separanda] from what has gone before. . . . First, we must speak about the transition [transitione] of the prophet. . . . You see, it is the custom of the prophets that when they have declared that prophecy for which they have been sent, they put aside what has taken place after the revelation of their prophecy and immediately go on to prophesy about Christ. Although all the prophets were sent to announce some temporal punishment, yet they would always connect something about Christ to it, too. Here the prophet Joel did the same thing. He quickly passes across [transit] from the Jews to the future people of Christ, and he meanwhile skips everything that took place after the declaration of the prophecy about the destruction of all Israel. So he clearly is beginning a new prophecy here.15

13.  Headley explores the function of Luther’s concept of the “hidden church” within his larger view of church history (Luther’s View, 40–​41). Luther wrote, “[God] orders the prophets to declare both destruction and salvation, but the former for the wicked and the latter for the devout” (LW 18:237). See also WA 13:101–​2, 178, 320, 339–​40, 371, 372; 23:604. LW 18:98–​99, 154, 240, 272, 281, 282; 20:276. Luther often clearly stated that the prophet’s promises and consolations are specifically for the true remnant. See WA 13:105, 174, 178, 180, 195, 480, 371–​ 72, 299–​300, 431, 546; LW 18:101, 148, 149, 154, 158, 177, 319, 281–​82, 207–​9; 19:119; 20:3. On a few occasions Luther used the Jews as a direct, albeit negative example to warn the current church. He wrote, “So what happened to the Jews when they despised the Word is undoubtedly going to happen also to us when we despise it” (LW 18:208). See also LW 18:209. 14.  WA 13:  186–​87, 380–​81; 19:350–​51; 13:555; 23:523–​24; LW 18:166–​67, 295; 19:152–​54; 20:13, 183. 15. LW 18:105–​6; WA 13:108.

220

The Reformation of Prophecy

Luther furthered this discrepancy between things pertaining to the prophet’s own time and those pertaining to Christ through his frequent distinctions between the temporal and spiritual kingdoms.16 For example, he ascertained a transition from the “temporal kingdom of Israel to the spiritual kingdom of Christ” in Hosea 5:8.17 He asserted concerning Micah 2:12, “In a sort of transition, he now passes from the kingdom of Israel to the external, spiritual kingdom of Christ. You see, it was the custom of all the prophets—​something we have seen earlier in those prophets whom we have interpreted—​to prophesy first about the destruction of the people and about the external kingdom and then to pass over [transit] to the spiritual and external kingdom of Christ.”18 Prominent throughout his exegesis of the biblical prophets was his terminology of separation and transition—​a terminology employed to distinguish the two histories contained in the writings of the prophets, as well as the two kingdoms and two peoples set forth by the prophets.19 Clearly for Luther, the primary edifying content was first and foremost these prophecies of Christ and Christ’s kingdom. Thus the true, edifying history in the prophets was more the history of Christ and the coming of the Gospel than the prophets’ own histories. Luther had already stated this up front when he frequently wrote that “all prophets direct their prophecies primarily toward

16. Such distinctions map onto his contrast of the Jewish kingdom and Christ’s kingdom. See WA 13:24, 27, 54, 64, 220, 299, 312, 319, 320, 320–​21, 324–​25, 342, 506, 622, 626–​27; 23:629; LW 18:28, 30, 61, 73, 200–​201, 207, 227, 238, 240, 241, 247–​49, 275, 359; 20:89, 94–​95, 306. Luther wrote in his preface to Micah concerning Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Isaiah, “Now all of them prophesied about the destruction of the old people and the bringing in of a new people, about the abolition of the external kingdom and the establishment of a new spiritual kingdom which would happen through Christ. You see, when the physical kingdom ended, the spiritual kingdom of Christ succeeded. It was impossible for the external kingdom of the flesh to stand along with the spiritual kingdom” (LW 18:207; WA 13:299). 17. WA 13:24; LW 18:28. 18. WA 13:312; LW 18:227. 19. Luther also identified such a transition in Micah 4: “But here again, with a sort of transition, the prophet moves from the destruction of the Judaic kingdom to the new and eternal kingdom of Christ” (LW 18:236; WA 13:317). Throughout Luther’s comments on Micah 4 and 5, he emphasized that certain elements in the text cannot apply to the external, physical kingdom, but only to the spiritual kingdom (LW 18:238–​41, 247–​54; WA 13:319–​21, 324–​29). Though Calvin made similar statements, he did not starkly separate the sacred histories of Judah/​Israel and the history of Christ’s kingdom, the church. For other citations where Luther used this language of “transition” or “separation,” see WA 13:186, 204–​5, 216, 312, 595, 615, 644; LW 18:166, 188–​90, 194, 227; 20:53, 82, 116. In this chapter my focus is on Luther’s conception of two separate histories rather than separate kingdoms or peoples.



Old Testament Prophecy

221

Christ.”20 This led to a pronounced Christological reading in Luther’s exegesis of Old Testament prophecy, which—​to be clear—​was congruent with the majority of inherited Christian exegetical traditions of these texts.21 Though many scholars have commented on the fact of Luther’s Christological focus, fewer have related it to its implications for the concrete building blocks of his concept of sacred history.22 Scholars have also noted Luther’s and later Lutherans’ identification of history with the “history of salvation.”23 The discrete elements of this history of salvation, however, need further elucidation, for one could say the same of Calvin, except that the specific building blocks of such a history differed. When Luther read Old Testament prophecy Christologically, he found literal prophecies of Christ’s birth, incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension, as well as prophecies of the two natures of Christ and Christ’s kingdom.24 The very content of salvation history (i.e., sacred history) for Luther, then, was the historical events of Christ’s life that enable human salvation (i.e., incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension), as well as more broadly the 20. WA 13:88, 19:351. LW 18:79, 19:152. 21. Many scholars have discussed this aspect of Luther’s exegesis. See Bornkamm, Luther und das Alte Testament, 82–​102; Preus, From Shadow to Promise; Lienhard, Martin Luthers christologiches Zeugnis; Headley, Luther’s View, 19–​25. See my discussion of the Christological character of Luther’s Psalms exegesis in The Judaizing Calvin, 31–​53. Siegfried Raeder, however, argues that Luther’s exegesis is “evangelio-​centric” rather than Christological (“The Exegetical and Hermeneutical Work,” 377). 22. Furthermore, as far as I know, prior scholarship has not highlighted Luther’s view of two separate histories in his conception of sacred history and has tended not to delineate clearly between “human history,” “church history,” and “sacred history.” See Wriedt, “Luther’s Concept of History”; Gordon, “The Changing Face.” Headley makes clearer distinctions, but his account of how Luther’s view of church history relates to his understanding of sacred history is muddied. Headley points explicitly to sacred history in his section “History and Scripture,” but he spends only a few pages on this topic and does not adequately illuminate the central role of sacred history for Luther’s conception of history and church history in particular (Luther’s View, 42–​55). 23. See Gordon, “The Changing Face,” 13; Wriedt, “Luther’s Concept of History,” 33. Headley also argues that the key events that make up church history for Luther are the saving events of Christ’s life—​the Incarnation, cross, and resurrection (Luther’s View, 12, 55, 139–​43). 24. WA 13:27, 28, 29, 51, 53, 54, 55, 59, 63–​64, 65, 115, 121, 199, 204–​5, 220, 221, 312, 313–​14, 317, 318–​19, 320, 324–​30, 342, 380–​81, 480, 495, 501, 503–​9, 539, 541, 695–​700, 700–​703; 13:248, 249, 257–​58; 19:186, 249–​51; 13:426–​27, 432, 437; 19:390–​93; 13: 566, 568, 575, 581–​83, 587–​ 88, 591–​83, 595, 607–​10, 617–​18, 621, 622–​43, 644, 645, 653–​62; 23: 522, 522–​23, 534–​37, 545–​56, 552, 553–​54, 554–​55, 586, 588, 608, 614–​15, 632, 639, 642, 653–​54, 655–​56; LW 18:31, 32, 34, 58, 60, 61, 62, 67, 71–​72, 74, 75–​76, 113, 121, 182, 188–​89, 200–​201, 202, 227, 229, 236, 238–​39, 241, 247–​56, 275, 295–​96, 319, 342, 352, 354–​55, 356, 358–​59, 362–​63, 379, 382, 410–​16, 417–​19; 19:14, 16, 31, 36, 102–​4, 111, 121, 129, 193–​95; 20:24, 25, 32, 38–​41, 45, 49–​50, 53, 69–​73, 84, 86–​87, 89–​115, 116, 118, 130–​42, 181, 182, 195–​98, 208–​9, 215, 217, 218, 219, 254–​55, 257, 282, 288–​89, 310, 318, 321–​22, 335, 337–​38.

222

The Reformation of Prophecy

revelation of Christ and the Gospel, which entailed the revelation of Christ’s two natures and a kingdom ruled by the Gospel. Luther defined sacred history in Old Testament prophecy as first and foremost a history of Christ rather than the historical events of the prophet’s own time and circumstances.25 Perhaps one of the most interesting effects of Luther’s use of the terminology of transition and separation to keep these histories distinct was the powerful impression of the coming of Christ and the Gospel as God’s supernatural “in-​breaking” into human history—​an “in-​breaking” possessed of apocalyptic features. For Luther, the first advent of Christ and the Gospel was a groundbreaking event that marks the dividing point in sacred history.26 The fact that Luther did not refer texts proclaiming the “Day of the Lord” to the end times, the Last Judgment, or the Second Advent of Christ—​though he sometimes conceded that such a reading is possible—​sheds light upon his view of the first advent of Christ as an apocalyptic event.27 He instead referred Old Testament prophecies of the “Day of the Lord” and the corresponding apocalyptic signs of darkness, gloom, heavenly portents, the darkening of the sun and the moon, and earthquakes to events occurring during the first advent of Christ.28 The portents in the heavens and the sun turning dark and the moon to blood mentioned in Joel 2:30–​31 were therefore signs that occurred on the day of Pentecost, for “that day was the day the Gospel was revealed.”29 Similarly, according to Luther, Zechariah 14 was not a prophecy of 25. Consistent with his focus on the history of Christ in Old Testament prophecy, Luther emphasized the foretelling capacity of the Old Testament prophets, particularly their activities in foretelling the first advent of Christ and the Gospel. See WA 13:5, 10, 13, 15, 28, 29, 88, 108, 109, 117, 117, 119, 119, 121, 122, 196, 197, 380, 495, 693, 702–​3; 19:354–​55, 390–​91; 13:603, 644; 23:579, 588–​89, 608, 614–​15, 636, 639, 643; LW 18:5, 11, 16, 17, 32, 34, 79, 105–​6, 107, 115, 116, 118, 119, 121, 122, 179, 180, 294, 342, 408, 419; 19:157, 193; 20:62, 116, 247, 258, 281, 289, 314, 318, 323. 26. Headley writes, “The final revelation in Jesus Christ constitutes for Church History the central event in the light of which everything before and after must be judged” (Luther’s View, 142). See also his larger discussion (139–​43). Headley also notes, “If by His immutable activity in time Christ creates the constant and continuing factor in redemptive history, He also introduces the essential division in the course of church history” (106). 27. WA 13:15, 95, 98, 112, 115, 489, 701–​2; 23:641–​42, 655, 656,657, 664; LW 18:18, 90, 94, 110, 114, 333–​34, 418; 20:320, 337, 338, 339, 347. Luther conceded that Joel 2:2 and 2:30 could be applied to the Last Judgment. On Amos 5:18 he argued that the “day of the Lord” is simply a time of affliction and did not identify it with Christ’s first advent (WA 13:185; LW 18:164). 28. WA 13:15, 112, 115, 701; WA 23: 641, 655, 656, 657, 664; LW 18:17–​18, 110, 114, 418; 20:320, 337, 338, 339, 347. 29.  WA 13:112; LW 18:110. Joel’s proclamation of a day of judgment in the first verses of ­chapter 3 refers not to the Last Judgment at the end of time but, rather, to the work of the Gospel after Christ’s first advent (WA 13:115; LW 18:114).



Old Testament Prophecy

223

the Antichrist or the Final Judgment Day; it was a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem just after the first advent of Christ and of the manner in which Christ “will go forth and by means of the Gospel to fight against those nations” that oppose him.30 By identifying the signs of darkness, gloom, heavenly portents, and earthquakes—​signs precisely viewed as signs of the Last Days—​ with the events of the first advent of Christ, Luther underscored Christ’s first advent as an apocalyptic event. Such an apocalyptic depiction informed his understanding of all history after Christ’s first advent as part of the final age of the church—​namely, the “end days.”31 That is, Luther identified the times in which he himself lived as the era of the Last Days. This effectually fostered a significant ongoing apocalyptic element in Lutheran conceptions of sacred history, as well as, more specifically, a tendency to view Germany’s current history through an apocalyptic lens.32

Oecolampadius, Zwingli, and Bullinger on the Content of Sacred History Zwingli’s engagement with Old Testament prophecy in many ways focused more on the rich uses of the figure of the prophet to serve as a model for the Protestant pastor than exegesis of biblical prophecy per se. He published translations of Isaiah and Jeremiah, accompanied by his annotations on these books that offered primarily linguistic analysis and historical context.33 He also commissioned and wrote the preface to the Alle Propheten or Prophetenbibel of 1529, which provided a German translation of the books of the Old Testament prophets.34 Zwingli’s colleague, Oecolampadius, had already written a number

30. WA 23:655–​56; LW 18:337–​338, there 338. Unfortunately, according to Luther, Zechariah 14 first and foremost prophesied against the Jews. He argued that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans marks the day when “the Lord’s death and torture were avenged on the Jews” (WA 23:655; LW 20:337). 31.  Wriedt highlights Luther’s understanding of his struggle with the Roman Catholic Church within the framework of Christ’s struggle against the Antichrist (“Luther’s Concept of History,” 34, 42). Gordon briefly indicates the ways in which “Luther looked for the hand of God in the final struggle with the Devil, which revealed the last times” (“The Changing Face,” 17; see also 13–​14). As Headley argues, though Luther sometimes differed on exactly when in history the time of the Antichrist began, he viewed himself as living in the time of the Antichrist (Luther’s View, 195–​265). 32. For a more thorough study of early Lutheran apocalypticism, see Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis. 33. Zwingli, Complanationis Isaiae; Complationis Ieremiae; Annotationes et Satisfactiones. 34. Zwingli, Alle Propheten, iib–​xb.

224

The Reformation of Prophecy

of substantial commentaries on the Old Testament prophets, including commentaries on Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Minor Prophets published in the 1520s, so that in many ways these served as the initial representatives of Swiss Protestant exegesis of the prophetic books of the Old Testament.35 Similar to Luther, Oecolampadius read many Old Testament prophecies as prophecies of the first advent of Christ and the Gospel.36 His Christological readings, however, had less emphasis on these specifically as literal prophecies of Christ’s incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, though such an affirmation may be viewed as implicit. For example, on Hosea 6:2 (“After two days he will revive us and on the third day, he will restore us”), the weight of Oecolampadius’s interpretation was not on this text as a literal prophecy of Christ’s resurrection (though he affirmed this). His exposition of the “three days” instead simultaneously focused on the historical and Christological elements of the text by aligning these as with the three captivities of the Jews, offering a reading in terms of “three times,” and aligning the third day of liberation with the liberation brought by Christ. He wrote, “We have three times:  the first when the Lord strikes the people; the second when God abandons the people; the third, the day of liberation.”37 He added, “The third day is when Christ comes, who on the third day was resurrected from the dead, sent the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and by the Spirit we now also are revived.”38 Oecolampadius then appended an exhortative and eschatological dimension, which he based upon believers’ membership in Christ’s body through the Head-​member analogy: “Just as in Christ our Head these things preceded for the confirmation of our faith, so by the Spirit of Christ we participate in him. . . . So as members of Christ, let us bear the cross of Christ. God in many ways exercises us. The first day is this life; the second day is a day of rest, as also we must rest until the general resurrection. So this third day is the future day . . . when we shall know God face to face.”39 One sees a similar affirmation of both the historical and Christological readings of a text in his exposition of Hosea 11:1 (“out of Egypt I called my son”), where he again set them in parallel: “Just as the people of Israel were called from Egypt as done by the will of God, so Christ was called by the will of the Father. . . . Just as 35. Oecolampadius, Ioannis Oecolampadius. 36. Oecolampadius, In Minores, 23–​24, 41, 44, 52, 54, 124–​26, 154, 163–​64, 190–​91, 202, 204, 209, 214, 216. 37. Oecolampadius, In Minores, 23. 38. Oecolampadius, In Minores,23. 39. Oecolampadius, In Minores, 24.



Old Testament Prophecy

225

the people were called to live no more in Egypt—​that is, in an alien land—​so Christ must return to Palestine and make known to the world the glory of God the Father.”40 Immediately afterward Oecolampadius again appealed to the Head-​member connection between Christ and his people to provide a reading for the church.41 Oecolampadius therefore read the sacred history of the text by simultaneously affirming the original historical circumstances of the text, the Christological fulfillment of the text, and the ecclesial-​ eschatological dimensions of the text. Unlike Luther, he did not draw a stark contrast between the prophet’s original history and the Christological applications of the text; unlike Calvin, as we will see, he highlighted the Christological prophecies therein much more explicitly.42 More significant, he exhibited a predisposition to identify the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies in clear, direct historical events—​that is, not just their fulfilment in Christ and the apostles but also in the experience of the church across time. Here (similar to Luther) the fulfillment of prophecy in Christ and the preaching of the apostles came to the forefront.43 Yet since Oecolampadius did not set up a stark divide between the prophet’s original history and prophecies of Christ, his readings lacked the apocalyptic flavor of Christ’s advent as a radical in-​breaking into human history that characterized Luther’s exegesis. As Daniel Bollinger describes it, Oecolampadius employed Isaiah’s figure of Jerusalem as a “typological model for the city church and for every godly church.”44 He affirmed the prophecies of Christ in the text and read the sacred history of biblical prophecy both Christologically and typologically for the church across time. Though Zwingli did not write full commentaries on the books of the Old Testament prophets, one can see hints of the manner in which he read Old Testament prophecy in the preface to the Zurich translation of the Old Testament prophetic books and his use of Old Testament prophetic texts in his Commentary on True and False Religion. In his 1529 preface to the Prophetenbibel,

40. Oecolampadius, In Minores, 41. 41. Oecolampadius, In Minores, 41. 42.  This is particularly clear in Oecolampadius’s readings of Micah 2:13, Haggai 2:7–​10, Zechariah 9:9, and Zechariah 13:7. On the other hand, Oecolampadius shared an emphasis on the Head-​member trope that we will see so prominently in Calvin’s exegesis of Old Testament prophecy. 43. For example, Oecolampadius interpreted Hosea 11:10 as a prophecy of Christ sending out the apostles to preach the Gospel to the world and the “lion” in the text (i.e., “he will roar like a lion”) as the resurrected Christ (In Minores, 44). Luther read this text very similarly (WA 13:55). 44. Bolliger, “Bullinger on Church Authority,” 169.

226

The Reformation of Prophecy

Zwingli clearly affirmed the fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies in Christ, such as Isaiah 7:14 and Hosea 11:1.45 He also affirmed Jerusalem and Zion as types of the church, thereby indicating the possibilities of an analogical reading of Old Testament prophecy.46 In his Commentary on True and False Religion, Zwingli asserted the supreme usefulness of the Old Testament prophetic books to teach about God’s eternal covenant and providence.47 He applied prophetic texts in several instances to read contemporary events, such as when he invoked the words of Amos 9:1 to draw parallels between the greed in Amos’s day with the greed rampant in his own.48 Not surprisingly he also likened the vices and idolatry of his time to those against which the Old Testament prophets preached.49 The relationship between the prophet and the magistrate expressed in sacred history additionally served as a biblical model for Zwingli for the relationship between pastors and magistrates in the sixteenth century.50 He invoked the words of Micah (3:1–​6 and 7:1–​3) to rebuke the princes and magistrates of his day, writing, “If the rulers would listen every day to this discourse of the prophet, they would show themselves somewhat milder to their sheep than some of them have done hitherto. And as to the second part, they would learn there clearly to recognize the frauds of the Romanists.”51 In several ways, then, Zwingli echoed Oecolampadius by affirming Christological readings of Old Testament prophecy and finding in the prophets’ own histories supreme models for the church’s imitation.52 As 45. Zwingli, Alle Propheten, Bixr–​v. 46. See Zwingli, Alle Propheten, Bviv–​Bviiv. 47. CR 90:651, 804. 48. CR 90:632–​33. 49.  CR 90:634, 723, 850–​51, 903. In his annotations on Isaiah and Jeremiah, Zwingli at times briefly applied a verse to the contemporary situation in sixteenth-​century Zurich, such as his applications of a verse concerning idolatry against the Roman Catholics or his refutation of Anabaptist uses of a particular biblical text. See Complanationis Isaiae, 644, 738, 776, 787, 789 and Annotationes et Satisfactiones, 92, 94, 115, 117, 121, 137, 138. 50.  For more on this topic, see W.  J. Torrance Kirby, “ ‘Cura Religionis’:  The Prophetical Office and the Civil Magistrate,” in The Zurich Connection, 25–​41. 51. Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 371; CR 9:887. 52. Gottfried Locher explores the connection between the Old Testament and Zwingli’s view of history:  “The message of the Old Testament is that God has a history with his people, and therefore with all peoples, and that he is leading this history to a goal. From the time of Moses onwards, the task of the people is to learn the lessons of God’s guiding in history, and to be true to it in their own historical decisions” (“Huldrych Zwingli’s Concept of History,” 98). Locher points to the significance of the prophet in this history: “Thus, the prophet is



Old Testament Prophecy

227

Robert Bast notes, Zwingli challenged the princes, people, and priests of his time by summoning numerous examples from the prophets.53 In Der Hirt (1524), he appealed specifically to the Old Testament prophets as exemplars: From this we learn that the pastor must do what no one else dares: to test and prove everyone without exception and oppose to their faces princes, people, and priests, not shrinking back on account of their greatness, their strength, their numbers, nor any other means of intimidation. The pastor must do this from the very hour that God calls him and not let up until they repent, as it says in Jeremiah 1:15, “They must turn to you and not you to them.”54 The recent book Following Zwingli:  Applying the Past in Reformation Zurich highlights some of these functions of biblical models in the Zurich Reformation, pointing to the influence of Erasmus on the Swiss Reformation so that the editors of the volume argue, “The people did not simply hear the Bible stories but were transformed to become the people about whom they heard.”55 Bullinger drew out the implications of these impulses of Oecolampadius and Zwingli concerning the content and applications of sacred history to a fuller extent and thereby shifted the conversation in some significant ways. He affirmed a strong Christological reading of Old Testament prophecy and the Christological center of the sacred history it set forth.56 Like Oecolampadius and Zwingli (but unlike Luther), he did not separate the Christological history from the history pertaining to the prophets’ original circumstances, but proffered a reading that simultaneously affirmed the histories pertaining to the prophets’ own time and the Christological content of the text, including seeing prophecies of Christ’s incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension in the text. Bullinger even more strongly stressed the unity of the sacred history set forth by the prophets; he asserted the profound unity between the more than a philosophic interpreter of events; he is himself a historical event, the mouth and finger of God” (98). 53. Bast, “Constructing Protestant Identity,” 352–​53. 54. ZW 3:35–​36 as translated by Bast, 353. 55. Baschera et al., Following Zwingli, 22; see also 7, 14–​15. 56.  Bullinger frequently pointed to Christ’s fulfillment of the prophecies of Jeremiah (In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, 39r, 48v, 53r, 59r, 66r, 72v, 74v, 75r, 76r, 82r, 140v; Sermones Ieremiae prophetae, 25r, 29r, 119v, 120v, 132r, 137v; and In sermones et historicas expositiones, 3r, 4v, 10r–​v, 24r, 58v, 60r).

228

The Reformation of Prophecy

Christological and historical elements of the prophets’ writings specifically in covenantal terms. In De Prophetae Officio (1532), Bullinger maintained that the true meaning of the covenant is Christ, who is the “eternal guarantor” of the covenant and to whom the prophets ultimately pointed.57 In the preface to his sermons on Jeremiah, he therefore strongly aligned the history of the prophets with the history of the Gospel, arguing that they are ultimately one and the same, for they both point to Christ.58 Bullinger expressed such arguments perhaps most clearly in his 1534 treatise on the one and eternal testament or covenant of God.59 He began with the clear affirmation that the books of the prophets and the writings of the apostles equally and together point to this one covenant of God.60 This covenant, he argued, is an eternal covenant confirmed by blood and made between God and the descendants of Abraham, in which God committed to be their God and in which the descendants of Abraham committed to follow the path of righteousness.61 Thus the “descendants of Abraham” have always been a spiritual people with spiritual (not carnal) promises.62 He argued that everything in the Law, Prophets, Gospels, and letters of the apostles “have been summed up in these few words: ‘You, however, shall keep my covenant, you shall walk before me, and you shall be complete or upright.’ ”63 He therefore concluded, “Compare, if you will, the law, the prophets, and the very epistles of the apostles with these main points of the covenant, and you will discover that all of them return to this center as if to a target.”64 Such a profound assertion of the unity of the covenant—​the unity of the Old and New Testaments—​had clear implications for Bullinger’s conception of sacred history, particularly his understanding of the history set forth by the Old Testament prophets. First, he proffered the histories of the prophets as “living paradigms of this covenant.”65

57. Bullinger, De Prophetae Officio, vir–​v. 58. Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, aa2r. 59. Bullinger, De testamento. McCoy and Baker provide an English translation of this treatise, “A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God,” in Fountainhead of Federalism, 99–​138. 60. Bullinger, De testamento, 2r. 61. Bullinger, De testamento, 5r–​6r. 62. Bullinger, De testamento, 9r–​11v. 63. Bullinger, “A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament,” 112; De testamento, 17r. 64. Bullinger, “A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament,” 112–​13; De testamento, 17v. 65. Bullinger, “A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament,” 115; De testamento, 20v.



Old Testament Prophecy

229

They presented the terms of the covenant, point to God’s nature, urge repentance to enable return to the covenant, and ultimately point to Christ as the seal and confirmation of the one, eternal covenant.66 Bullinger thus affirmed that the apostles “recognized the prophets as teachers and masters of the true faith” and as interpreters alongside them of the one, eternal covenant.67 By emphasizing the histories of the prophets as “living paradigms” of the covenant, Bullinger read the sacred history of the Old Testament prophets not only as offering immensely edifying models for sixteenth-​century Swiss churches but also as providing a road map to interpret Swiss history. The use of the prophets as examples that instruct the churches of his day saturated his 1560s sermons on Jeremiah and Isaiah. In the prefaces to the published books of both of these sermon series, Bullinger appealed to Romans 15:4 (“For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction”) to assert unequivocally that the writings of the Old Testament prophets most certainly “pertain to us.”68 This use of the prophets and their writings as models for the church across time, particularly the churches of the sixteenth century, was much along the lines of that set forth by Oecolampadius and Zwingli. Bullinger, however, took this a step further by applying Old Testament prophetic history as a guide to reading Swiss history. This move appeared most clearly in his 1525 work Anklag und ernstlichs ermanen Gottes. As Hans Ulrich Bächtold outlines in detail, Bullinger drew direct parallels between the history of Old Testament Israel and Swiss history up to and including his own time.69 Bächtold writes, “Bullinger spoke of the special calling of the Swiss in their history and how their history exhibited those signs which distinguished the people of Israel from the other nations.”70 He continues, “This prefiguring of the Swiss in Israelite history naturally fed the notion that the Confederates held a special place in God’s salvific plan.”71 Some might dismiss this bold treatise

66. Bullinger, De testamento, 20r–​24r. 67. Bullinger, “A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament,” 117; De testamento, 24v. Bullinger appealed to the testimony of Paul in Acts 26:22, that he said “nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would take place.” 68. Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, aa4r and Isaias Excellentissimus, 2r. Just an initial purview of his sermons on Jeremiah and Isaiah immediately confirms his constant move to apply the histories and teachings of Jeremiah and Isaiah to the sixteenth-​century Swiss context. 69.  Bächtold, “History, Ideology and Propaganda.” See Bullinger, Anklag und ernstlichs ermanen Gottes, especially Aii–​Avi. 70. Bächtold, “History, Ideology and Propaganda,” 49. 71. Bächtold, “History, Ideology and Propaganda,” 51.

230

The Reformation of Prophecy

as the “youthful confidence” of a not yet mature scholar, since Bullinger was just twenty-​one when he wrote it.72 This may be true to some extent, yet his inclination to identify events of the sacred history of the Old Testament directly with concrete events in past and present Swiss history extended beyond this early treatise. For example, in De hebdomadis (1530), he asserted that the prophecy of Daniel 9:27 had been fulfilled in the person and work of Zwingli.73 And in De Prophetae Officio (1532), he presented Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s efforts to instill true worship as prefiguring Zwingli’s ministry.74 Even as late as the Decades (1549–​52), Bullinger continued to appeal to Old Testament sacred history as a road map to reading human history and as providing concrete guidance and applications to sixteenth-​century Swiss churches.75 In sermon 1 of the first Decades, he pointed to the patriarchs’ history as a divine guide to living when he wrote, “The holy fathers handed down to their children and their descendants a calculation of the years from the beginning of the world; indeed, a true, useful and necessary history of things from the creation of the world up to their own age, so that their children would not be ignorant of the beginning and sequence of human affairs nor of the judgment of God nor of the example both of those living piously and impiously.”76 Notable in this quote was Bullinger’s affirmation that the sacred history of the biblical text serves as a guide to reading human history. This was even more clearly apparent in sermon 7 of the second Decades, which appeared in a part of the sermon series concerning the proper role of magistrates. Invoking the history of the prophets and Old Testament history more broadly, he argued that these biblical models concerning the relationship of princes and kings to the church still applied in his own day. For example, against those who maintain that the care of religion belongs only to the bishops and who also declare that Old Testament examples apply only to Jews and not to Christians, Bullinger staunchly contended: But we, on the other hand, will briefly show that those ancient princes of God’s people—​Joshua, David and the rest—​were Christians truly and indeed and that therefore the examples that are derived from them 72. This appears to be Bächtold’s appraisal (“History, Ideology and Propaganda,” 48–​49). 73. Bullinger, De hebdomadis, 25r–​v. 74. Bullinger, De Prophetae Officio, 23r–​v. 75. For an introduction to Bullinger’s Decades, see Opitz, “Bullinger’s Decades.” 76.  Bullinger, Decades, Dec. 1, sermon 1, 3a, as cited and translated by Archilla, “Truth in History,” 57.



Old Testament Prophecy

231

and applied to Christian princes, both are and ought to be of force and effect among us at this day. . . . Even now also kings have in the church at this day the same office that those ancient kings had in that congregation that they call the Jewish church.77 He proceeded to demonstrate how certain figures of human history (e.g., Emperors Constantine, Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius) align with this biblical pattern, concluding, “The Christian emperors, following the example of the ancient times as of their fathers, with great care provided for the state of true religion in the church of Christ.”78 Bullinger effectively affirmed the history of Christ and the history of the prophets as noncompetitive, noncontradictory, and immensely instructive histories and asserted their unity in the one covenant that spans both testaments. They served as models for the church of his day—​so much so that he did not shy away from directly correlating the biblical history of Israel with the history of the church across time, particularly Swiss history.

Calvin on the Content of Sacred History How did Calvin’s conception of sacred history, particularly as set forth by the Old Testament prophets, compare with that of Luther and the Swiss Reformed leaders? Like his fellow Reformed exegetes (and different from Luther), Calvin read it as a single, unified history rather than two distinct histories that required separation. Even more, he insisted that the historical details, contexts, and circumstances of the prophets’ own immediate time were precisely the site of the primary meaning of these prophetic texts, rather than separating out the history of Christ as the primary site of meaning. He affirmed the history of the Old Testament prophets as a mirror for the church across time.79 Thus Calvin introduced Micah this way:

77. Bullinger, Decades 1:326, as cited by Kirby, The Zurich Connection, 942. The translation comes from the sixteenth-​century English translation entitled Fiftie Godlie and Learned Sermons, 180. 78. Bullinger, Fiftie Godlie and Learned Sermons, 182, see 180–​83. 79.  Scholars such as Peter Opitz and Barbara Pitkin point to the significance of analogy for Calvin. See Opitz, “The Exegetical and Hermeneutical Work,” 441–​42; Pitkin, “Calvin, Theology, and History,” 7 and “Prophecy and History,” 340, 344–​45. One could say that Luther also viewed the Old Testament as a mirror; however, the site for the mirror was more the biblical figures as exemplars of faith and less the history per se. Mickey Mattox examines Luther’s use of the figures in Genesis as exemplars of faith in “Defender of the Most Holy Matriarchs.” Headley points to the connection between Luther’s view of history, emphasis on doctrine, and focus on exemplars of faith in his exegesis by noting, “Histories are valuable,

232

The Reformation of Prophecy

For at this day his sermons would be useless, or at least frigid, except his time were known to us, and we thereby be enabled to compare what is alike and what is different in the men of his age and in those of our own. For when we understand that Micah condemned this or that vice, as we may also learn from the other prophets and from sacred history, we are able to apply more easily to ourselves what he then said, inasmuch as we can view our own life as it were in a mirror.80 The prophets’ history served as a mirror for times of both faithfulness and unfaithfulness of the church. Jonah presented a mirror to the church of “how miserable is the condition of all those who do not call on God in sure faith,” whereas Daniel was a “remarkable mirror of God’s providence.”81 The prophets also reflected warnings against avarice, tyranny, and idolatry and messages of consolation to strengthen the church in times of adversity, assure the church of the ultimate triumph over her enemies, and remind the church of God’s consistent acts of deliverance and protection across time.82 Calvin presented Zechariah as a particularly exceptional mirror for the church of his day, in which he discovered parallels of the challenges the Protestant reformers faced against the Roman Catholic Church.83 More explicitly than the Swiss reformers, Calvin rejected the act of separating the history of the prophets from the history of Christ and the Gospel. Seemingly writing against Luther’s method of reading, Calvin asserted, “Whenever, then, the prophets make known God’s favor in the deliverance of his people, they make a transition to Christ but include also the

for they teach by example everything which the Word previously communicated through doctrine” (Luther’s View, 46). He concludes that sacred history in particular “provides examples not of deeds but of faith” (55). Backus also confirms that history is a mirror for Luther, but a mirror of doctrine (Historical Method, 328). 80. CO 43:281; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:151. 81. CO 43:216, 44:79; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:41; 4:315. 82. CO 43:302, 471, 552, 569; 44:45–​46; 42:321–​22. Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:187, 475; 4:113–​14, 142, 259; 1:219. 83. CO 44:150, 178, 192; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:54–​55, 99, 123. Calvin wrote, “Indeed, the state of things in our time is nearly the same with that of his time” (5:123). One might say something similar about Luther, as Luther also saw the Old Testament prophets as extremely useful in critiquing Roman Catholicism. Yet, as I will argue in a later section of this chapter, the site for this usefulness is more in the arena of doctrine than history per se.



Old Testament Prophecy

233

whole intermediate time.”84 He thereby affirmed the Christological center while asserting that it is a continuous history in which all the historical elements of the prophets’ own time are significant and useful. Calvin also maintained one continuous kingdom and one continuous people. While acknowledging some differences between the temporal and spiritual kingdoms, he insisted that the temporal kingdom contains the same substance as the spiritual and serves as its visible sign.85 Likewise, though Calvin recognized that God’s people, the church, is a mixture of the “wheat and the tares,” he maintained the concept of a single people, a single church, across time.86 Rather than a terminology of separation or even transition, Calvin employed a terminology of extension, arguing that Old Testament prophecies extend across all ages of the church to assure the church of God’s faithfulness and providential care.87 84. CO 43:421; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:387, emphasis added. Given the history of the transmission of Luther’s lectures on the Minor Prophets and their inaccessibility for a number of years, however, it is highly unlikely that Calvin had direct access to these lectures. Calvin argued similarly on Zephaniah 3:16–​17 that the promised redemption does not refer simply to the “one or few years that are intended when the prophets speak,” but in fact begin with that time and include all the time from then until the final advent of Christ (CO 44:73–​74; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 4:305–​6). 85. CO 42:565, 571, 598; 43:43, 176, 232–​33, 242–​43, 253–​55, 259–​60; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:90–​91, 99, 139, 210, 413; 3:68–​69, 85, 103–​5, 113 and also Institutes 2.10.1–​23. Chapter 8 explores the significance of this language of “visible sign.” 86. Pete Wilcox rightly notes that Calvin applied the history of Israel as the history of the kingdom of Christ and that the continuity of the Old and New Testaments for Calvin is just as much historical as theological (“ ‘The Progress of the Kingdom of Christ,’ ” 371). Naphy comments that such an identification with Israel continues in the chroniclers of Geneva’s history in the sixteenth century (“ ‘No History Can Satisfy Everyone,’ ” 36). Perhaps the millenarianism that developed out of later Reformed thought as described by the work of Howard Hotson precisely retained this view of the unity of Old Testament Israel with the church in the New Testament. See Hotson, “Anti-​Semitism.” Calvin’s choice to address these questions in terms of the temporal and spiritual “kingdoms” further pointed to his inclination to identify the Christological content of Old Testament prophecy primarily with its royal elements (i.e., Christ as king, Christ’s kingdom) and much less as literal prophecies of Christ’s incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension. I have argued this in The Judaizing Calvin, 79–​82. 87. There are multiple examples, including his comments on Micah 4:11–​13: “But they have refined too much in allegories, who have thought that this prophecy ought to be confined to the time of Christ, for the prophet no doubt meant to extend consolation to the whole kingdom of Christ from the beginning to the end” (CO 43:362; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:289); on Micah 5:5: “This prophecy is not to be confined to that short time, for the prophet speaks generally of the preservation of the church before as well as after the coming of Christ” (CO 43:373; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:308); on Zechariah 1:16: “This doctrine ought also to be extended to the state of the church at all times” (CO 44:147; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:49); on Zechariah 3:10: “But as this promise is to be extended to the whole kingdom of Christ, what is said ought to be applied to that spiritual peace that we enjoy when we are fully persuaded that God is reconciled to us” (CO 44:180; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets,

234

The Reformation of Prophecy

The key content of sacred history was for him the very concrete histories and circumstances of the prophets because such histories reveal the faithful God who has covenanted to protect, care, and provide for God’s people. It was through this very history, then, that Calvin believed the church could trust, anticipate, and be assured of God’s providential care. By emphasizing the prophets’ concrete history as a lens through which the church might know God and trust in God’s faithful patterns of interaction, Calvin did not think that he was ignoring the Christological import of Old Testament prophecy. On the contrary, he argued that some of these prophecies extend to Christ’s kingdom (i.e., they are more fully fulfilled by Christ). He more frequently argued that the prophecies “extended to the whole body of the church.”88 In viewing the prophecies of the Old Testament prophets as applying to the church in every age, Calvin understood himself as reading them Christologically, for the church is the Body of Christ, thereby invoking the Head-​member trope. To read the text in reference to the church was to read it in reference to Christ. And to read the text in reference to Christ, for Calvin, was also to read it in reference to the church. Concerning the classic texts that Christian tradition (and Luther) viewed as literal prophecies of Christ’s incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension, Calvin repeatedly insisted that these texts should not be confined to Christ alone but extended to the whole church.89 He therefore did not necessarily reject the Christological reading per se, so much as he objected to the text being confined to merely the saving, historical events of Christ’s life. Such assertions, however, differentiated him from the Swiss Reformers, who had no problem simultaneously affirming the instructive content of Old Testament prophecy as both literal prophecies of the saving events of Christ’s life and the original histories of the prophets themselves. Different from the Swiss reformers, Calvin explicitly rejected certain interpretations of Old Testament prophecy as literal prophecies of

5:104); and on Zechariah 14:4: “It is fitting for us now to apply to ourselves what is here said, for Zechariah did not speak only for the men of his age or for those of the next generation, but he intended to furnish the church with confidence until the end of the world so that the faithful might not faint under trials” (CO 44:364; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:410). See also CO 43:186, 452, 574. 88. Calvin wrote on Zechariah 1:18–​21, “We now then see that this prophecy was not only useful in the age of Zechariah, but that it has been so in all ages, and that it ought not to be confined to the ancient people, but extended to the whole body of the church” (CO 44:151; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:56). 89. CO 42:321–​22, 323, 325, 432–​33, 492–​94; 43:98–​101, 159, 164, 524–​25, 550; 44:106–​8, 271, 275, 302, 354–​55; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:218–​19, 221, 224, 386–​ 87, 477–​79; 2:295–​30, 387, 396–​97; 4:66–​67, 109, 360–​63; 5:253–​54, 260, 308, 395–​96.



Old Testament Prophecy

235

Christ’s incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension or teachings of his two natures.90 Underneath the surface of this very real distinction (between Calvin and Luther) and more nuanced distinctions (between Calvin and the Swiss Reformed) were differing conceptions of the sacred history of the Old Testament prophets. One could say concerning all examined here—​Luther, Oecolampadius, Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin—​that the sacred history of the Old Testament is salvation history. For Luther, however, this specifically constituted the historical, saving events of Christ’s life (incarnation, passion, resurrection, ascension). The Swiss Reformed leaders, on the other hand, identified sacred history with the one, unified, eternal covenant of God, whereas for Calvin the providential shape of history came immediately to the forefront: sacred history is a concrete historical account of God’s providential care of the church across time, in which the saving historical events of Christ’s life are the crucial centerpiece but do not constitute the whole.91 Reformed exegetes (whether Swiss or Calvinist) therefore mutually affirmed the content of sacred history as pertaining to both the saving historical events of Christ’s life and God’s historical interactions with Old Testament Israel that ultimately also pointed to Christ. Calvin’s contrasts with Luther concerning the content of sacred history were strong and conspicuous. His differences with the Swiss Reformed were more subtle but not inconsequential. Calvin not only pointed to God’s providential care of the church across the ages as the core unifying content of the sacred history of the prophets (rather than the covenant per se); he was far more reluctant to draw one-​to-​one correspondences between events of biblical history and events of human history. He preferred to stay with larger biblical patterns and broad analogies. Only in a very broad, sweeping manner might one employ the histories and teachings of the Old Testament prophets to predict how God might act in a contemporary situation. More often than not, however, Calvin preferred to highlight general patterns of rebuke, repentance, and consolation, as well as patterns of punishment and restoration. This is not to say that Calvin did not appeal to the example of the prophets as a model for reform in his own day, for he did. He did not, however, read the history of

90.  I  address this aspect more fully in the next chapter. See also Pak, “Contributions of Commentaries,” 241–​47 and “Calvin on the ‘Shared Design.’ ” 91. The Swiss Reformed would likely say the same about Christ’s work as the centerpiece (but not the whole), except Bullinger stated this in terms of the covenant and not providence per se—​though providence was not absent from his account, just as covenant was not absent from Calvin’s account.

236

The Reformation of Prophecy

Geneva as a concrete fulfillment of biblical history, though he did employ biblical history to guide, rebuke, and console Geneva.92 It is one thing to employ biblical history to draw analogies and trace common patterns with contemporary events, and quite a different thing to identify one-​to-​one correspondences between these histories so as to employ biblical history as a road map to world history.

Methods of Reading the Sacred History of Old Testament Prophecy Luther, the Swiss Reformed, and Calvin differed not only in their identifications of the discrete building blocks of sacred history as expressed by the biblical prophets; they also varied in their methods of reading the Old Testament prophets. Already noted is the terminology of separation and transition (Luther), the prophets as a “living paradigm” of the single, unified covenant (Swiss Reformed), and a vocabulary of extension (Calvin). Such differences in terminology point to larger methodological dissimilarities, of which at least four rise to prominence. The first pertains to their divergent definitions of the literal or plain sense of the writings of the Old Testament prophets. Their differing accounts of the primary history of the text (i.e., history of Christ and/​ or the prophets’ own history) directly shaped their understandings of the text’s plain sense. To be clear, at times they all agreed upon identifying the historical meaning pertaining to the prophets’ own time and circumstances as the literal sense of the text.93 They parted ways, however, when it came to precisely those moments in the text where Luther insisted upon separating out the history of Christ from the prophets’ own contemporary circumstances. Luther asserted in those instances that the history of Christ contained therein was the literal sense—​thereby separating out literal prophecies of the historical saving events of Christ’s life (i.e., incarnation, passion, resurrection, ascension).94 Luther 92. Though some in Geneva did do so. See Naphy, “ ‘No History Can Satisfy Everyone.’ ” 93.  Luther, Oecolampadius, Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin spent a fair amount of time simply unpacking the historical background and events of the prophet’s own time. 94. WA 13:27, 313–​14, 320, 324–​30, 480, 503–​9; 13:566–​67, 567–​68, 574–​75, 580–​84 588, 592, 595, 607–​8, 617–​18, 621, 622–​43, 644, 645, 653–​62; 23:522, 522–​23, 534–​37, 545–​46, 552, 553, 554, 555, 585–​86, 588, 609, 614–​15, 632, 639, 642, 653–​54, 656; LW 18:31, 32, 34, 58, 60, 61, 62, 67, 71–​72, 74, 75–​76, 113, 121, 182, 188–​89, 200–​201, 202, 227, 229, 236, 238–​39, 241, 247–​56, 275, 295–​96, 319, 342, 352, 354–​55, 356, 358–​59, 362–​63, 379, 382, 410–​16, 417–​19; 19:14, 16, 31, 36, 102–​104, 111, 121, 129, 193–​95; 20:24, 25, 32, 38–​41, 45, 49–​50, 53, 69–​73, 84, 86–​87, 89–​115, 116, 118, 130–​42, 181, 182, 195–​98, 208–​9, 215, 217, 218, 219, 254–​55, 257, 282, 288–​89, 310, 318, 321–​22, 335, 337–​38.



Old Testament Prophecy

237

employed a methodology that echoed that of Jacques Lefèvre D’Étaples, where he identified the literal sense as either the literal-​historical sense or—​when (in his view) passages pertained to Christ—​as the literal-​prophetic sense.95 For Calvin, the plain sense of the text was the historical reading as it pertained to the prophets’ own time. He emphasized and unpacked the historical events, circumstances, and details of the text not only to give insight into the author’s original intention but also to use these as the launching point from which to find analogous meaning for the church in any age. The Swiss Reformed also in many ways emphasized the historical reading of the text in the prophets’ own time for analogical readings, except they were less concerned with the intention of the original author and more concerned about what this history conveyed about the single, eternal covenant of God. Christological and historical readings therefore mutually contributed to a larger vision of God’s eternal covenant (and so were not seen as competitive readings).96 Timmerman rightly points out that in De prophetae officio Bullinger connected prophecy and covenant “as part of a discussion of the clarity of Scripture.”97 In other words, for Bullinger the covenant was the perspicuous content of Scripture.98 Thus both the Christological and the historical readings of Old Testament prophecy are the plain sense that convey the perspicuous content of Scripture revealing the single eternal covenant of God. Second, these varying views of the plain, perspicuous content of Old Testament prophecy bore consequences for the ways in which Luther, the Swiss Reformed, and Calvin treated the metaphorical language frequently deployed by the Old Testament prophets. Luther, Oecolampadius, Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin pointed out that the prophets typically speak in metaphors and figures that enable them persuasively to set forth a “living image.”99 For Luther,

95.  See Hahn, “Faber Stapulensis und Luther”; McGrath, The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation, 157–​58. 96. Luther’s and Calvin’s approaches represent two kinds of “competitive” readings of the Christological history and the prophet’s history. Luther saw two histories that must be kept distinct; Calvin viewed certain kinds of Christological readings as undermining the plain sense of the text and the priority of authorial intention. Both views assume a form of competitive relation between the two readings. 97. Timmerman, Heinrich Bullinger on Prophecy, 187. 98. Such is evident in his language of the covenant as “the most certain target” to which all of Scripture points. See Bullinger, De testamento, 17v, 24v. 99. Describing Haggai’s prophecy about the kingdom of Christ, Luther wrote, “Here you see the prophet is describing the kingdom of Christ in such a way that it appears as if it were standing at the door” (WA 13:539; LW 18:379). Luther noted that it is the “custom of the prophets to use poetic figures and expressions,” adding, “Those whom we call the ‘minor’

238

The Reformation of Prophecy

the prophets’ metaphorical language can be an aid or a hindrance; it can enlighten or obscure.100 Since metaphors are ambiguous, they are not the site for clear meaning, argued Luther. He instead identified the clear content with the prophets’ literal prophecies of Christ (i.e., the history of Christ) or with the literal-​historical sense of the text pertaining to the prophets’ own time when the text did not render (in his view) such a history of Christ. For Calvin, on the other hand, the prophets’ metaphorical language was part of the accommodated character of the prophets’ speech that made it more accessible and in which they accommodated divine words and knowledge for a human audience.101 Accordingly, metaphors actually helped convey meaning; they served as a rich site for meaning that demanded the use of analogy.102 Bullinger, on the other hand, noted the complaint that the “sermons of the prophets are obscure,” and he acknowledged that the prophets employ a “peculiar way and rule of speech.”103 To deal with this issue, he instructed the reader to look to the perspicuous content of the prophets, which he had already identified with the covenant.104 So while Bullinger affirmed the obscurity of the prophets’ metaphors, he did not necessarily see them as accommodations to enhance knowledge, but instead pointed to the covenant as the perspicuous content of Old Testament prophecy (and Scripture more generally). Such differing treatments of Old Testament prophetic metaphors among Luther, Swiss Reformed leaders, and prophets generally use more figures of language than the major prophets” (WA 13:161; LW 18:131). Bullinger wrote concerning the language of Jeremiah, “There are many figures of this kind in Scripture, which are mixed . . . but with these figures that strike the eyes, they fervently move men and cling tenaciously to their minds” (Ieremias Fidelissimus, 5v). See also Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, 14r–​v, 79v, 149r and Sermones Ieremiae prophetae quatuor, 22v, 98v. Calvin used the descriptions “vivid picture” (hypotyposin) (CO 44:364; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:411), “painted picture” (pictam tabulam) (CO 42:204; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:45), and “living portrait” (viva pictora) (CO 42:204; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:45). In the Institutes, he viewed the prophets’ exhortations as a “living image of God” (4.1.5). 100. WA 13:118, 19:370; LW 18:117, 19:171–​72. 101. For example, Calvin wrote that Joel “accommodates his manner of speaking or his discourse to the comprehension of his people, for he knew whom he addressed” (CO 42:569; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:95). See also CO 44:364, 43:176; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:411, 412; 2:413. 102.  Calvin emphasized the use of metaphors to persuade. See CO 43:462, 464; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:459, 463–​64. 103. Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, aa3v. 104. Bullinger, In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, aa3v. Bullinger also noted that experience in reading the prophets helps one become more accustomed to the language. He counseled, “All the prophets will soon become clear . . . if they consult the middle part of the books of the prophets with diligence” (aa3v).



Old Testament Prophecy

239

Calvin had methodological consequences. Methodologically, interpreting metaphors as literally pointing to Christ undergirded Luther’s identification of the literal sense of the text with the history of Christ as the text’s central, meaningful content. On the other hand, metaphors reinforced Reformed—​ whether Swiss or Calvinist—​readings of Old Testament prophecy through the tool of analogy. Here the literal sense of the text was the historical sense, in which the historical details of the prophets’ own histories acted as signposts pointing to corresponding applications and meanings that were disciplined by the very nature and shape of the words of the text and the signs themselves. Through the reading of prophetic metaphors, Reformed theologians pointed to analogous contexts and also to analogous ethical and doctrinal teachings. Third, Luther, Swiss Reformed theologians, and Calvin not only varied in their definitions of the literal, plain sense of Old Testament prophecy; they disagreed when a metaphorical reading of the text was deemed necessary. When Calvin supported a Christological reading (among the texts Luther read as literal prophecies of Christ), he often argued for a metaphorical application to Christ rather than literal, of which his interpretation of Zechariah 9:9 is a classic example.105 Luther and much of prior and current Christian tradition read this text as a prophecy of Christ’s entry into Jerusalem, for it was cited as such in Matthew 21:5.106 Calvin rejected this as the literal reading of the text on several fronts. First, the actual words of the text state that the king is “just and saved,” which cannot refer to Christ directly, since Christ has no need of salvation.107 Second, the text should not be confined to the person of Christ alone; it refers instead to Christ’s kingdom, which includes the church.108 Calvin agreed that Christ fulfilled the passage, but he maintained that the promise of redemption that is at the heart of the passage applies more accurately to the whole church.109 Third, since this was not a literal prophecy 105.  Zechariah 9:9 (NRSV) reads, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; just and saved is he; humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” See also Calvin’s interpretations of Psalm 22 and Isaiah 40:3. 106. WA 13:625–​26; LW 20:94. See also Luther’s advent sermon on this text in WA 7:477–​79. 107. CO 44:271; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:254. 108. This is directly related to Calvin’s contention that “just and saved” does not apply to the person of Christ, but that it can apply to the church: “We then see that all controversy is at an end if we refer those two words to Christ’s kingdom, and it would be absurd to confine them to the person of one man, for the discourse is here concerning a royal person; yea, concerning the public condition of the church and the salvation of the whole body” (CO 44:271; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:254). 109. CO 44:272; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:256.

240

The Reformation of Prophecy

of Christ (since the literal words cannot be rightly applied to Christ) but, in fact, applied to Christ metaphorically, then the nature of the sign as metaphor should be maintained throughout. Calvin therefore argued that Zechariah 9:9 presents a visible symbol of Christ’s humility, in which the image of riding on the donkey was metaphorical rather than literal:  “We now then understand how well these things agree—​that the prophet speaks metaphorically of the humble appearance of Christ; and yet that the visible symbol is so suitable, that the most ignorant must acknowledge that no other Christ but he who has already appeared is to be expected.”110 In other words, the riding on a donkey was a metaphor for a humble condition, and even Christ’s actual riding on a donkey was done precisely to provide a visible symbol of his humble condition. The consistency of this reading with Calvin’s larger analogical reading of Old Testament prophecy is noteworthy. Such passages referred to Christ metaphorically because the Christological application to certain historical events in Christ’s life was one of several possible analogical (metaphorical) applications of the text, but, argued Calvin, it should not be limited to Christ alone so that the church might participate in the full edifying potential of the text. Luther, on the other hand, interpreted Zechariah 9:9 as a literal prophecy of Christ’s entry into Jerusalem and saw no need to go beyond this to give a reading that applied to the whole church. Calvin argued for a metaphorical reading to apply it to Christ, since he contended that parts of the text could not literally apply to Christ. What did a Swiss Protestant theologian do with this text? Oecolampadius glossed over the elements of the text Calvin viewed as problematic and merely applied it directly as a prophecy of Christ, describing Christ as “just” and as “savior” (rather than “saved”).111 He therefore affirmed the text as a literal prophecy of Christ’s entry into Jerusalem. Yet he also applied the text to the church, emphasizing the role of the “daughter of Zion” as an exhortation to the church to rejoice.112 Calvin’s comments on Hosea 13:14 reveal other aspects of his insistence that a metaphorical reading grounded in the historical sense provided a more solid, edifying reading of the text than Luther’s literal prophecies of Christ.113 Paul seemingly cited this verse from Hosea in I Corinthians 15:55 in reference 110. CO 44:272; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:257. 111. Oecolampadius, In Minores, 202. Zwingli and Bullinger did not write commentaries on the Minor Prophets. 112. Oecolampadius, In Minores, 202. 113. Calvin translated Hosea 13:14 as the following: “I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O death, I will be your plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction.” The NRSV reads, “Shall I ransom them from the power of the grave?



Old Testament Prophecy

241

to the promise of resurrection made possible through Christ. Luther therefore read this text as a prophecy of Christ’s resurrection and as words spoken by Christ.114 Calvin rejected this as a literal prophecy of Christ’s resurrection because such a reading was not in keeping with the original intention of the Old Testament prophet; he also questioned whether Paul actually quoted Hosea, since Paul’s citation was not accurate. The prophet’s intention in this text, argued Calvin, was to display God’s power over death and the grave, which in itself is a powerful comfort to the church—​a purpose that, in fact, brought Hosea’s and Paul’s intentions into harmony on a much more defensible ground.115 The simple, natural, historical sense therefore already supplied an edifying meaning that can be powerfully applied analogically to the church without the need to stretch the words to make it fit into a literal prophecy of Christ.116 When Oecolampadius approached Hosea 13:14, he acknowledged Paul’s problematic citation of the text and noted that Paul cited the passage according to the Septuagint rather than the Hebraica Veritas.117 In asking the question of how Paul’s application agreed with the text in Hosea, his answer again demonstrated the principle of holding the prophet’s history and the Christological application simultaneously. Implicitly acknowledging that the text in Hosea was about victory over death, Oecolampadius immediately pointed to Christ, whose righteousness gained that victory through the cross and resurrection. He thus concluded, “Consequently, Paul, glorying in the righteousness of Christ and knowing that salvation by Christ is made

Shall I redeem them from death? O death, where are your plagues? O grave, where is your destruction?” 114. WA 13:63; LW 18:71–​72. 115. CO 42:492, 494; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:476–​77, 479. 116. There are, of course, many passages where Calvin and Luther agreed that the prophet is speaking metaphorically. They both read God commanding Hosea to marry a prostitute as metaphorical (WA 13:3; LW 18:3–​416 and CO 42:204–​205; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:45) They both accentuate the metaphorical language of Amos in Amos 3:3–​ 8 (WA 13:172–​73; LW 18:144–​46 and CO 43:39–​42; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:203–​8). We will explore other occasions when the tables flip in the next chapter, in which Calvin’s disagreement with Luther and others’ readings involves criticizing their allegorical readings of certain prophetic texts in order to apply it to Christ. Calvin insisted in these instances that there is no need for an allegorical reading, which is “too refined” and not easily defensible, when a strong, edifying reading is immediately available in the simple, plain sense of the text. See, for example, Calvin’s exegesis of Zechariah 14:4 (CO 44:364–​65; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:412–​13). 117. Oecolampadius, In Minores, 52.

242

The Reformation of Prophecy

available to all the faithful, rightly insults death. He does not cite the words as the prophet has them, but he pursues the sense of the words.”118 The examples of Zechariah 9:9 and Hosea 13:14 illustrate several points. First, they exemplify the differing methodologies of Luther’s literal prophecies of Christ, Calvin’s rejection of these as literal Christological prophecies in favor of an analogical—​and specifically in these cases, metaphorical—​reading, and the Swiss inclination modeled by Oecolampadius to uphold the prophet’s history and the Christological application simultaneously. These examples also indicate the crucial, even determinative role that authorial intention played in Calvin’s readings of Old Testament prophecy. The original intention of the Old Testament author demarcated for Calvin the boundaries of the possible, true applications of the text.119 Luther and Oecolampadius, on the other hand, operated with the traditional priority of the New Testament as the clearer, fuller revelation of God—​yet with differing exegetical outcomes.120 Furthermore, at least in these cases, the role of philology, grammar, and literary and historical contexts played much more of a determinative role for Calvin in shaping the exegetical outcomes and possible meanings.121 Calvin’s method demanded that he attend to the historical circumstances, the prophet’s authorial intention, and the actual words themselves, since each and every one of these are the very sites from which the possible analogical readings proceed. On a slightly lower level, attention to philological concerns and historical context was significant in Oecolampadius’s readings. While such matters were also important to Luther, more determinative for him was bringing the prime content of Scripture—​Christ and the Gospel—​to the forefront of his readings,

118. Oecolampadius, In Minores, 52. 119. See Pak, “Calvin on the ‘Shared Design,’ ” 120.  Stephens notes that even as Zwingli held strongly to the unity of the testaments, he maintained the priority of the New Testament over the Old: “The old testament is to be read in the light of the new, indeed in the light of Christ, and not Christ and the new testament in the light of the old. This is the view Zwingli enunciated in rejecting the use of arguments from the old testament that the eucharist is a sacrifice” (The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, 72). 121. Just as Calvin’s reading of Hosea 13:14 attended to the wider literary context and purpose of the prophet’s words, so also Calvin appealed to the larger literary context of Micah 2:12–​13 to argue that these verses are not about Christ’s kingdom; they are instead part of the larger threat set forth by the prophet (CO 43:315, 316; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:210, 211). Calvin’s reading of Haggai 2:7 turned on a point of grammar that led him to reject the traditional translation of the text as “desire of nations” and its application to Christ. On the contrary, he argued that the word is a plural and thereby refers to the “riches” the nations bring. Calvin further pointed out that such an interpretation agrees with the wider context of the passage as found in verse 8: “The silver is mine, and the gold is mine” (CO 44:106; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 4:360).



Old Testament Prophecy

243

especially when the New Testament cites such passages in reference to Christ in the first place!122 Finally, another key methodological difference between Luther, Swiss Reformers, and Calvin was also equally a matter of content. For Luther, the key content of sacred history, and thus also the method by which one should read it, was doctrine: sacred history is rightly understood as a history of doctrine.123 More specifically, it is a history of the doctrine of justification by faith alone and its corollary teachings concerning proper understandings of faith, righteousness, Law, Gospel, and works.124 Such a view reinforced Luther’s identification of the saving events of Christ’s life as the building blocks of sacred history, for Christ’s incarnation, passion, death, resurrection, and ascension are the historical events by which God reveals the proper path of justification by faith alone. On the one hand, Luther’s site of meaning was still historical; it was the history of the saving events of Christ’s life. On the other hand, the momentum of Luther’s readings moved toward the goal of articulating the central doctrines that illuminate the in-​breaking of Christ and the Gospel as the decisive event in human history. Rather than identifying the site of meaning primarily in the doctrinal content of the Old Testament prophecies, Calvin and the Swiss Reformed theologians consistently began more squarely with the history of the text. Yet, for the Swiss reformers, such history could be both the history of Christ in the text and the historical circumstances of the prophets. Their attention to both the Christological and the historical facets of the text 122.  Luther referred much of Old Testament prophecy to the promise of Christ and the Gospel, whether or not it was cited by the New Testament as such. 123.  Several other scholars have noted Luther’s and Lutherans’ focus on doctrine in their understanding of history. Kolb, Backus, and Gordon point to the Centuries of Magdeburg as a prime example of the Lutheran equation of Christian history with the history of doctrine (Kolb, For All the Saints, 96–​97; Backus, Historical Method, 361; Gordon, “The Changing Face,” 13–​14). Kolb also sees a confluence of a focus on doctrine with the Lutheran loci method (“Teaching the Text,” 574, 577, 580). Headley concludes, “In respect to the Magdeburg Centuries of Flacius Illyricus, the influence of Luther produced a decisive shift in the understanding of church history. Flacius consciously broke with Eusebius and his school and made doctrine rather than the narration of persons and events the main theme of Church history” (Luther’s View, 269–​70). 124. WA 13:7–​8, 10–​11, 34–​35, 113, 122, 180–​81, 185, 303, 327–​28, 331–​32, 333, 342, 372, 372–​73, 543, 693, 696, 697; WA 13:244, 246, 247, 248, 249, 253, 253–​54, 254, 257; 19:194, 198–​200, 204–​5, 205–​7, 230–​31, 235–​40; 13:431, 434; 19:364–​65, 394–​95; 13:551, 612, 635–​36, 643, 648, 651; 23:507, 508, 569, 576, 576–​77, 593, 594, 613, 616, 616–​17, 617–​18, 619, 623–​25, 632, 639, 640; LW 18:9–​10, 12–​13, 39, 111, 123, 158–​59, 165, 213, 252, 259, 261, 276, 282, 284, 385, 409, 412, 413; 19:8, 11, 12–​13, 14, 16–​17, 23, 24, 25, 29, 41, 46–​48, 52, 53–​55, 80, 86–​89, 119, 123–​24, 166, 197; 20:9, 76, 105–​6, 115, 122, 126, 164, 166, 236, 243–​44, 244, 263–​64, 265, 287, 290, 291, 292, 294, 299–​300, 309, 317, 319. Backus also notes the central role of the doctrine of justification by faith alone (Historical Method, 361–​62).

244

The Reformation of Prophecy

focused on illuminating biblical models for the formation of a godly society.125 For Calvin, the primary site of meaning was more narrowly the historical circumstances of the prophets, for he contended that precisely within the historical details pertaining to the prophet and his time one obtained a mirror for the church across the ages and contemporary applications. These historical details—​and the author’s intention in particular—​acted as the signposts for meaning that grounded Calvin’s analogical method.126 This is not at all to say that Calvin or the Swiss did not emphasize doctrinal teachings in their expositions of these texts, for, in fact, the Swiss emphasized teachings of the divine covenant and Calvin frequently highlighted teachings of divine providence.127 Even in excavating these teachings of covenant and/​or divine providence, the actual history recounted by the prophets provided the evidence for such.

Sacred History and Differing Eschatologies Luther’s, the Swiss Reformed theologians’, and Calvin’s differing views of the content of sacred history and methods of reading it bear important implications for their eschatologies. I have argued that Luther’s conception of sacred history in the Old Testament prophets emphasized the in-​breaking of Christ and the Gospel in the first advent and the depiction of the Christ who comes and will come—​both of which express the apocalyptic tenor of Luther’s views. For Calvin, the coming of Christ and the Gospel was not so much a radical

125. See Gordon, “The Changing Face,” 19. 126. In Calvin’s exegesis of the prophets there is a constant concern for the prophet’s intention. In his lectures on Hosea alone, Calvin appealed to the prophet’s intention no less than 125 times. I will spare the reader from listing all the examples even in just his commentary on Hosea alone! This same concern for the prophet’s intention is present in all of Calvin’s lectures on the prophets. There are only a few occasions of explicit references to the prophet’s intention in Luther’s lectures on the Minor Prophets. See WA 13:52, 174, 387, 439; 19:396; LW 18:59, 149, 304–​5; 19:133, 199. 127. Bullinger, Ieremias Fidelissimus, 2v; In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem, 6v, 53r, 65r, 85v; In sermones et historicas expositiones Ieremiae Prophetae, 9v, 28r–​v, 29r–​v; De Prophetae Officio, vir–​v; and De testamento, 2r, 17v, 20v, 20r–​24r. CO 42:218, 255, 352, 475, 502–​3, 571, 598; 43:62, 91–​92, 194, 197, 275, 279, 344–​45, 368–​69, 376–​78, 379, 413–​15, 415, 415–​16, 425, 425–​ 26, 435, 436, 445, 445, 455–​56, 473, 491–​92, 509, 536, 572, 577–​79, 581; 44:22, 39, 42, 43, 70, 92–​93, 104, 120, 121, 122, 144, 149, 156, 169, 180, 203, 208–​9, 233, 260, 268, 302, 307, 356, 469–​70, 491–​92; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:66, 121–​22, 264, 450, 494–​95; 2: 99, 139, 238, 284–​85, 447, 451; 3:137, 143, 260, 300–​301, 313–​16, 318, 375–​78, 378, 378–​79, 394, 395, 413–​14, 414–​15, 431, 432, 448, 479, 506–​7; 4:42, 85, 147, 156–​59, 162–​63, 217, 248, 254, 256, 301, 338–​39, 358, 384, 385, 386; 5:44–​45, 53, 63, 84, 104, 141–​42, 150, 190, 234, 247–​48, 308, 315–​16, 397–​98, 583, 620–​21.



Old Testament Prophecy

245

in-​breaking of God into human history as an interaction consistent with and cumulative of God’s interactions with God’s people throughout time. Such a view has implications for his evaluation of apocalyptic sentiment and his eschatology more broadly. Calvin affirmed the clearer revelation of Christ and the Gospel and Christ’s fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies, but this did not entail for him the view of Christ’s first advent as a transition or separation from what came before or as an apocalyptic event that divided all sacred history.128 Instead he emphasized the ways in which the experience of God’s people as expressed in the Old Testament is in complete unity with the revelation of Christ and the Gospel.129 Unlike Luther, Calvin’s eschatology lacked an apocalyptic tenor; yet it accentuated the journey of the church across all stages of history toward the full eschatological realization of Christ’s kingdom outside of history. A sense of himself as living in the Last Days was neither clear in nor central to Calvin’s thought. Swiss theologians’ views concerning the relationship of Old Testament prophecy to eschatology and apocalyptic expectations were much more complicated, for they exhibited a “flourishing eschatology” in the sixteenth century.130 Scholars such as Timmerman argue that the Zurich theologians’ profound attention to the books of Daniel and Revelation are more rightly named eschatological rather than apocalyptic.131 But this depends on one’s definition of apocalyptic. If apocalyptic means a profound expectation of the Last Days, a sense of living in the Last Days, and a sense of the imminence of the end, then it seems Bullinger qualified as an apocalyptic theologian. If, however, it entails not only the certainty of living in the Last Days and imminent judgment but also the inclination to make predictions of the end based upon these convictions, then perhaps not. On the one hand, Bullinger exhibited a kind of timeless eschatology that pointed to recurrent cycles of persecution, oppression, consolation, and restoration across history toward an eschatological consummation. Thus, for example, Timmerman points out that in his readings of Daniel, “Bullinger’s historical approach rather seems to suggest that the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecies is taking place in a process lasting centuries.”132 While this hints at the tool of analogy

128. Calvin, Institutes 2.9.1–​2, 4; 2.11.10. 129. Calvin, Institutes 2.9.4; 2.10.1–​23. 130.  Jon Delmas Wood, “Bullinger’s Model for Collective Episcopacy:  Transformational Ministry in a Society Facing Final Judgment,” in Baschera et al., Following Zwingli, 81–​105, 93. See also Backus’s “The Beast” and Reformation Readings. 131. Timmerman, “ ‘The World Always Perishes,’ ” 91–​93. 132. Timmerman, “ ‘The World Always Perishes,’ ” 89–​90, 93.

246

The Reformation of Prophecy

that signals notable similarities between Calvin and the Swiss theologians, a key difference, as we will see, was Bullinger’s employment of biblical history as a road map to world history. Calvin viewed the Book of Daniel as simply a prophecy of Christ’s first advent.133 Bullinger affirmed this reading, but he also proceeded to apply the history of Daniel typologically to read past and present church history, in which one could align events of biblical history directly with events in human history.134 Luther, the Swiss theologians, and Calvin all viewed the experiences of the prophets as part of a larger repetitive cycle of sacred history, in which they understood themselves participating—​although they differed in the details. Headley rightly points out that Luther’s perception of church history centered upon “the movement of the Word in history.”135 He therefore discerned the cycle in sacred history as the following: increasing contempt of God and God’s Word that warranted the threat of punishment and/​or calamity, accompanied by God sending God’s Word to buttress the faithful and usher in an age of purification of doctrine and practices, as well as to invite the unfaithful to repentance.136 Such an emphasis on God’s Word as the prime agent in sacred history strongly corresponded with his Christocentric method and focus on doctrine in his readings of Old Testament prophecy. Luther then further identified this cycle of contempt for God’s Word and the sending of God’s Word (to invite repentance) with the times of (a) Noah and the flood, (b) Christ and the apostles, and (c) now in the reformers’ own efforts to proclaim the pure Gospel in contrast to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.137 Old Testament prophecies of the coming destruction of Jerusalem (because of Israel and the 133. Calvin viewed Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi as the prophets ordained especially with the task of foretelling the first advent of Christ. CO 44:79, 125, 418, 460–​61, 461; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 4:315–​16; 5:xiii, 498, 567, 568. 134.  In De Hebdomadis (10v–​11r), which was a commentary on Daniel 9:24–​27, Bullinger viewed the prophecies of Daniel as fulfilled in Christ’s advent. In the remainder of the treatise, nonetheless, he applied the history of Daniel to events in church history. As Timmerman remarks, according to Bullinger the “battle between Christ and the manifestation of the antichrist, between the Gospel and its enemies, unfolds itself in many times and eras of church history” (Heinrich Bullinger, 247). Timmerman’s article provides fuller details (“ ‘The World Always Perishes,’ ” 89–​94). See also Petersen, “Bullinger’s Prophets of the ‘Restitutio.’ ” 135. Headley, Luther’s View, 240. Earlier in his book Headley wrote, “Thus this activity of the Word which works in and through world history and in which God seeks to be recognized in faith produces a redemptive history that is nowhere cut off from the larger stream of history but rather gives unity and meaning to it” (17). 136.  WA 13:160, 199–​200, 301, 315, 686; 13:242, 253–​54; 19:243–​46; 13:546–​47, 547–​48; 23:506. LW 18:129, 183, 210, 232, 401–​2; 19:4, 24, 96; LW 20:3, 5, 163. 137. WA 42:320–​21, 288; WABr 10:309, 335, 370, 442–​43; Headley, Luther’s View, 264–​65.



Old Testament Prophecy

247

enemies’ contempt of God and God’s Word) and Old Testament prophecies of the first advent of Christ and the Gospel become part of this cycle. He argued that times of clearer revelation of the Gospel were always accompanied by times of increased sinfulness, with the effect that a history of decline (particularly rising moral decline) was prominent in Luther’s view of sacred history.138 He held to the words of Christ that the Last Days would be like the days of Noah (Luke 17:26). Understanding himself as living in the Last Days, Luther viewed his own age as a recurrence of the time of Noah—​a time characterized by contempt and neglect of God’s Word and general moral decline.139 Calvin also believed that sacred history followed a recurring cycle, in which he discerned cycles of threat and consolation in the biblical prophets and a larger pattern of God’s promises, the people’s disobedience, the sending of prophets and/​or teachers to threaten and call to repentance, and God’s mercy, faithfulness, protection, care, and preservation of the church.140 Instead of a history of decline, scholars have noted the theme of the progress of the church in Calvin’s sense of history. Pete Wilcox argues that Calvin “understands all church history after the Babylonian exile to be a single continuous act of redemption”141 and particularly highlights this theme of the church’s progress 138.  Scholars note this central element of decline in Luther’s conception of history. See Wriedt, “Luther’s Concept of History,” 41; Headley, Luther’s View, 123–​24, 154, 222, 228, 246, 264–​65; Backus, Historical Method, 363. Gerald Strauss observes an emphasis on decline in Johannes Sleidan’s view of history and its retention among Lutheran pastors (“The Mental World of a Saxon Pastor,” 168–​69). See also Kess, Johann Sleidan. Most significantly, Luther viewed the final period before Christ’s return as a time of decline. See WA 7:315; Headley, Luther’s View, 154. Headley points out, however, that in Luther’s exegesis of Daniel and II Peter, this is a time of both decline and expansion—​moral decline and the expansion of the Gospel (228). 139. Luke 17:26 (NRSV) reads, “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the Son of Man.” See WA 14:189, 24:173, 42:154, 288, 320–​21, 479; WABr 10:309, 335, 370, 442–​43. See also Headley’s discussion of the significance of the age of Noah for Luther (Luther’s View, 123–​24, 264–​65). Such sentiments are present in Luther’s exegesis of II Peter. See WA 7:315; Headley, Luther’s View, 154. 140. CO 42:571, 586, 587, 592, 598; 43:9, 62, 91–​92, 177, 194, 196, 197, 201, 205, 275, 279, 376–​78, 379, 413–​16, 425, 435, 436, 455–​56, 460, 473, 493, 509, 571, 572, 581; 44:1, 22, 39, 43, 70, 89, 99–​100, 122, 120, 144, 149, 260, 268, 326; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:99, 121, 123, 130, 139, 158, 238, 284–​85, 417–​18, 447, 450, 451; 3:xviii, 24–​25, 137, 143, 313–​16, 318, 375–​79, 395, 413, 414–​15, 448, 456, 479; 4:xiv, 42, 145, 147, 162–​63, 181, 217, 248, 256, 301, 332, 350–​51, 386, 384; 5:44–​45, 53, 234, 247–​48, 347–​48. 141. Wilcox, “Calvin as Commentator,” 127 and 121. Barnes also perceives a significant contrast between Luther and Calvin: “Indeed, the contrast between Luther and Calvin in this regard is striking. For Luther there was a clear pattern of degeneration in world history. . . . [Calvin’s] vision was suggestive of progressive growth rather than a sudden and drastic fulfillment of the scriptural prophecies of the end. . . . Rarely did Luther show anything like such confidence in the earthly advance of the Kingdom” (Prophecy and Gnosis, 32–​33).

248

The Reformation of Prophecy

in Calvin’s lectures on the Old Testament prophets, as well as in several of his letters.142 Calvin’s applications of Old Testament prophecy especially evidenced this vision of progress due to their prevailing goal to call the church to the cultivation of piety and purity of worship. Just as the prophets called the people to the cultivation of true piety, Calvin sought the renewal and strengthening of the church that would continue to make progress in preparation for the full realization of Christ’s kingdom.143 He wrote on Zechariah 14:21: When God, therefore, purposed to renew his church, he cleansed it from much filth, and still daily cleanses it, nor will he cease to do so, until, after all the defilements of the world having been removed, we shall be received into the celestial kingdom. Whenever, then, the prophets speak of perfection under the reign of Christ, we ought not to confine what they say to one day or to a short time, but we ought to include the whole time from the beginning to the end. Hence, when Christ appeared in the world, then began to shine the splendor of which Zechariah now speaks, but the Lord will go on until that shall be completed, which now makes continual progress.144 This sense of the church’s progress in history was first and foremost a belief in God’s progressive action, God’s continual movement of the church toward God’s intentions of renewal and holiness. For Calvin, the call of the church in the world was the call to be that people of God who daily grow in purity, holiness, and faithfulness as they journey toward the full, otherworldly realization of Christ’s kingdom. Calvin insisted that attention to such a journey of the church must include the whole span of time; such an attention should not

142.  Wilcox, “ ‘The Progress of the Kingdom of Christ,’ ” 321. See CO 15:424; 16:673; 17:9; 18:88, 439; 19:197, 263, 328. Wilcox maintains that prophecy has three referents for Calvin: an impending historical event, Christ, and “the whole course of history up until the Last Day” (“ ‘The Progress of the Kingdom of Christ,’ ” 317; “Calvin as Commentator,” 121). While I do not disagree, Wilcox has failed to note that all three referents are part of Calvin’s larger analogical reading of Old Testament prophecy; all three are outcomes of his employment of the tool of analogy, where the events and words of the prophet have multiple significations for the church across time. 143.  Naphy comments that Geneva’s conception of history contains an emphasis on the “cleansing, restoring work of Old Testament prophets” (“ ‘No History Can Satisfy Everyone,’ ” 38). Gordon argues that Zwingli’s vision of reform was of an “outward reforming of society, the creation of an all-​embracing visible church” (“The Changing Face,” 17). I would add that a very similar emphasis exists in Calvin’s vision of reform, though, as Gordon also observes, Calvin had a different conception of the role of the state in this reforming activity (21). 144. CO 44:39–​91. Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:454–​55.



Old Testament Prophecy

249

focus simply on the Last Days, for this calling toward greater piety, purity, and renewal has been and continues to be issued across time. Moral decline, however, was also part of Calvin’s understanding of the state of the world. Rather than a history of progress, some scholars have accentuated this element of decline in Calvin’s view of history. For example, Heiko Oberman argues that Calvin ultimately viewed the church as a community of refugees in a world in which “Christianity (christianismus) [was] tottering on the brink of disintegration.”145 Gordon also writes that Calvin “saw history as charting the moral degradation of human societies,” though Gordon immediately emphasizes that divine providence was the key to his vision of history.146 The question of decline versus progress was a matter of nuance and emphasis (and not an either/​or) for Luther and Calvin, for elements of decline and progress appeared in both of their conceptions and applications of sacred history. Though moral decline was part of his understanding of the state of the world, Calvin emphasized the church’s progressive journey through history—​a journey that was now more clearly illuminated after the first advent of Christ. Though Luther affirmed the expansion of Christ and the Gospel in the end times, he more profoundly accentuated these Last Days as a time of seismic decline.147 Even as this book focuses on nonapocalyptic Old Testament prophecy, a few words on the vital significance of texts such as the Book of Daniel for the Swiss Reformers—​and Bullinger in particular—​deserves some attention.148 Jon Delmas Wood and Daniël Timmerman disagree concerning the possible apocalyptic tenor of Bullinger’s writings on Daniel, as well as his sermons on the Book of Revelation. Wood emphasizes the role these writings and sermons played in Bullinger’s aim to instill a sense of urgency and watchfulness in order to foster and cultivate godliness and a Christian society. The conviction that one was living in the Last Days served to promote a larger eschatological mentality to urge the Christians of Zurich toward greater righteousness that was not without its apocalyptic spurs.149 Timmerman, on the 145. Oberman, “Europa afflicta,” 102; see 102–​3. 146.  Gordon, “The Changing Face,” 20. Again Oberman and Gordon speak generally of “history” or “world history” rather than specifically of Calvin’s vision of sacred history. By studying Calvin’s conception of history as revealed by Scripture (i.e., sacred history), it appears clear to me that Calvin’s vision is ultimately a vision of the progress of Christ’s kingdom through time. 147. Headley, Luther’s View, 228, 123–​24, 154, 222, 246. 148. For more on this, see Backus, Reformation Readings; Wood, 94. 149. Wood, 95–​99.

250

The Reformation of Prophecy

other hand, accentuates the prominent providential and consolatory features of Bullinger’s sermons on Daniel that he applied to the church across the ages.150 Timmerman therefore concludes, “Bullinger’s concentration on God’s providence and the vicissitude of the church’s fate throughout all ages leaves hardly any room for a pronounced or even apocalyptic concept of eschatology.”151 If Timmerman is right, one might expect Bullinger’s approach to Old Testament prophecy to parallel almost exactly that of Calvin, but such was not the case. Significant parallels certainly exist between their identification of biblical patterns, focus on providence, and goal of consolation of the faithful—​all of which encourage the tool of analogy in reading Old Testament prophecy. Yet Bullinger’s readings were not simply analogical. The possible genius of the Swiss theologian’s use of these biblical prophetic texts was that it was not an either/​or. Bullinger furthered certain kinds of apocalyptic expectations to accentuate the urgency of the need for the church to reform, pursue righteousness, and purify its worship, and he promoted a cyclical conception of biblical prophetic history of the experience of the church across the ages. That is, he both believed he lived in the Last Days and he affirmed that these biblical historical patterns span the whole of history. Due to the latter, one can never be certain whether or not the end is imminent; one can only point to the signs, be watchful, and be ready. The effect of holding these aspects together was that Bullinger simultaneously affirmed elements of decline and progress. A  crucial difference from Calvin was Bullinger’s willingness to draw direct correspondences between events described in the history of prophets with concrete events of past, present, and future church history.152 A  crucial difference from Luther was his focus on Old Testament prophetic history (and not just the prophecies of Christ in the Old Testament) as precisely the primary site for meaning because of the

150. Timmerman, “ ‘The World Always Perishes,’ ” 90, 95–​97. 151. Timmerman, “ ‘The World Always Perishes,’ ” 91. 152. For example, Bullinger drew a direct correspondence between the persecution described in Daniel, the persecution of the early church under the Roman emperors, and the persecution of the Protestant churches of his day. He argued that after such persecutions, Christian rulers arose enabling the church’s growth and strengthening. See Bullinger, Daniel sapientissimus dei propheta, 78r. Timmerman notes that in sermon 14 on Daniel, Bullinger directly paralleled the history of Nebuchadnezzar and Sennacherib with the papal persecution of John Wycliff (“ ‘The World Always Perishes,’ ” 90). In his two sermons on the end of the world, Bullinger narrated a history of the Antichrist, in which he identified papal manifestations of the Antichrist across the history of the church from the creation of the papal throne to his present day. See Bullinger, De sine seculi, 32–​42.



Old Testament Prophecy

251

unity of the covenant.153 Aurelio A. Garcia Archilla eloquently illuminates this by pinpointing the soteriological unity (or covenantal unity) of the testaments for Bullinger: This soteriological unity puts the church in strict parity with the people of the Old Testament, and makes the Old Testament for the church a primary text of the history of God’s dealings with his people. . . . This conception will open up for Bullinger the Old Testament as a primary locus for interpreting the nature of God’s post-​biblical dealings with his people, and an immediate source of ethical and societal ideas, which will be adapted to the understanding of the subsequent course of church history, with proper accounting for differences of time, place and circumstance.154 This signals the Swiss reformer’s inclination to look to the past for models, but such a movement to look backward was for the purpose of finding models to guide the church of all ages—​the church of the present and the future.155

Synopsis Luther, the Swiss Reformed theologians, and Calvin embraced different eschatologies, whose differences in several ways traced directly to their diverging conceptions of the sacred history of biblical prophecy. Stated simply, Luther’s eschatology was certainly not merely apocalyptic, but the apocalyptic element was central to it. He viewed Christ’s appearance in human time as the decisive event of sacred history that divides all that came before from what came after. Christ’s first advent was apocalyptic—​it was a radical in-​breaking of God into human history—​just as his second advent will be. Luther argued that subsequent to the first advent, one already enters the final stage of history,

153. Luther attended much more fully to the fruitful applications of Old Testament history to the Christian life in his later years, but this appeared more in his readings of Genesis than Old Testament prophecy. See, for example, Maxfield, Luther’s Lectures on Genesis; Mattox, “Defender of the Most Holy Matriarchs.” 154. Archilla, The Theology of History, 69. 155. Gordon rightly argues that Luther’s Christ was always the Christ who is coming, whereas the Swiss focused on the Christ of the past (“The Changing Face,” 18). But one cannot stop there. For Bullinger, one looks to the past for models that guide the present and the future; that is, one looks backward in order to look forward. This seems to describe Calvin as well, except that Calvin preferred to work with broad biblical patterns and desisted from drawing exact historical correspondences.

252

The Reformation of Prophecy

the “end days,” thereby understanding himself as living in the Last Days.156 Consequently, when Luther read the Old Testament prophets, his exegetical eye went straight for these prophecies of Christ’s first advent and the saving events of Christ’s life as the decisive events that shape all else that is to come and breaks history into two. Luther’s interpretations of the Old Testament prophets therefore included an emphasis on their foretelling activity, particularly their prophecies of Christ and the Gospel. This emphasis encompassed an accent on the doctrinal meaning and content of the events foretold. In other words, in the revelation of Christ and the Gospel, there was the revelation of justification by faith alone, the true nature of faith, a right understanding of the place of works, and proper distinctions between Law and Gospel. It comes as no surprise, then, that Luther’s applications of Old Testament prophecy entailed a strong emphasis on these precise doctrinal teachings. For Calvin, the apocalyptic element was virtually absent in his accent on sacred history as a picture of divine providence across the ages.157 In the view of sacred history as a continual march of progress toward the culmination of Christ’s kingdom, there was a clear eschatology at play, but not an apocalyptic one. Calvin viewed Christ’s kingdom as journeying throughout history from the beginning of time to the end. There is not a view of the first advent as an apocalyptic in-​breaking of Christ’s kingdom, though certainly it provided a significantly clearer revelation of Christ and the Gospel. Calvin’s applications of Old Testament prophecy were therefore less about the revelatory events of Christ and the Gospel per se and more about the visible historical signs the prophets provide of God’s providence and covenantal faithfulness to the church (the kingdom of Christ) across the ages, as well as the proper responses of the church in the cultivation of true worship and piety. Calvin’s applications of Old Testament prophecy centered around how their history served as a

156. Barnes provides a superb study of the enduring role of apocalyptic thought in Luther and early Lutheranism, though he focuses more on the end days and expectation of the second advent of Christ than also seeing the first advent as apocalyptic (Prophecy and Gnosis, esp. 60–​99). Gordon and Wriedt both point to the significant apocalyptic element in Luther’s conception of history. See Gordon, “The Changing Face,” 13–​14; Wriedt, “Luther’s Concept of History,” 34, 42. See also Headley, Luther’s View, 106–​7, 138, 144, 196 and “The Reformation as Crisis,” 20. 157. Pitkin and Backus observe the nearly complete absence of the apocalyptic element in Calvin’s treatment of biblical prophecy. Pitkin demonstrates that contrary to prior or current readings of Daniel, Calvin did not read these concerning the end times but as prophecies concerning Daniel’s immediate time and/​or prophecies of Christ’s first advent (“Prophecy and History,” esp. 343–​44). Backus perceives a similar situation in Calvin’s interpretations of Daniel 7 and Revelation 13, where Calvin is the outlier in insisting that these as prophecies concerning Christ’s first advent (“The Beast,” esp. 70, 77 and Reformation Readings).



Old Testament Prophecy

253

mirror for the church across time: the prophets provide vivid pictures of the ways in which God disciplines and consoles God’s people and the surety of God’s deliverance, for which the church should wait and trust with patience. The prophets exhort the church to faith, obedience, and trust in God in times of adversity. They call the church to repentance, self-​examination, confession, and the return to faithful practices of worship and rejection of idolatry. Calvin therefore repeatedly emphasized the profound teachings of God’s consistent, unfailing providential care of the church across all ages.158 The Swiss Reformed theologians’ principle of simultaneously affirming the original historical circumstances and the Christological fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy fostered possibilities of both an apocalyptic tenor, which created a posture of urgency and watchfulness and exhorted immediate reform, and a timeless eschatology that acknowledged cyclical patterns of God’s activity with the church that ultimately evaded any attempt to ascertain the Last Day precisely. With Luther, they affirmed that they lived in the Last Days. With Calvin, they affirmed the richness of the Old Testament prophets in offering models for imitation and an analogical account of God’s actions with God’s church. Sixteenth-​century Swiss Reformed theologians looked to the past in order to interpret the present and the future. They often did not shy away from identifying direct correspondences between events in biblical history and human history, particularly the history of the church on earth. Naphy rightly observe that for Protestants “the control of Scripture in interpreting contemporary events was crucial,” so that the use and control of history was “a problem which the Protestants must resolve.”159 This chapter has demonstrated the crucial role the writings of the Old Testament prophets played in various Protestant definitions of sacred history and the various ways such definitions shaped their views of their own histories and church history more broadly. Luther, Oecolampadius, Zwingli, Bullinger,

158. Such themes are constant throughout Calvin’s exegesis of the Old Testament prophets, which are too numerous to cite here. His opening descriptions of the purposes of each prophet are particularly useful here. See CO 42:197–​99, 586, 587, 592, 598; 43:9, 62, 91–​92, 194, 196, 197, 201, 205, 275, 279, 376–​79, 413–​16, 425, 435, 436, 445, 449–​50, 453, 455–​56, 460, 473, 509, 571, 572, 581; 44:1, 22, 39, 43, 70, 89, 99–​100, 101, 104, 104, 120, 122, 144, 149, 156, 169, 180, 203, 208–​9, 233, 260, 268, 326; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:36; 2:121, 123, 130, 139, 158, 238, 284–​85, 447, 450, 451; 3:xviii, 24–​25, 137, 143, 313–​ 18, 375–​79, 395, 413, 414–​15, 431, 438–​39, 444–​45, 448, 456, 479; 4:42, 145, 147, 162–​63, 181, 217, 248, 256, 301, 332, 350–​51, 352, 357, 358, 384, 386; 5:44–​45, 53, 63, 84, 104, 141–​42, 150, 190, 234, 247–​48, 347–​48. Luther certainly pointed to teachings in the prophets that touch upon the theme of providence, but he preferred to frame these as teachings of faith. See, for examples, WA 13:372, 338; 13:249; 19:192; LW 18:282, 270; 19:17, 39. 159. Naphy, “ ‘No History Can Satisfy Everyone,’ ” 37.

254

The Reformation of Prophecy

and Calvin each looked to biblical models above all to interpret their times, and biblical prophecy in particular served as a lens through which to discern, remember, and anticipate God’s actions with the church across time. The stark differences and sometimes simply the nuanced differences between Luther, Swiss Reformed theologians, and Calvin also point to the ways Protestant engagements with biblical history—​and with the sacred history of the prophets especially—​served as a powerful ideological tool, for the ways in which Protestants located their histories in the sacred histories of the biblical text directly shaped their identities and visions of the Christian life.160 The next chapter pursues the connection between visions of sacred history and Protestant confessional identities by tracing the receptions of Luther’s, Swiss Reformed theologians’, and Calvin’s views of the sacred history of the Old Testament prophets by their followers in the next generation.

160. Gordon argues something similar in “The Changing Face,” 21–​22.

7

Later Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Readings of Sacred History in the Old Testament Prophets

The divergences between Luther, the Swiss Protestant leaders, and Calvin in their understandings and applications of sacred history were received and on the whole adopted by their subsequent followers, as this chapter will demonstrate. Differing visions of sacred history consequently played a significant role in the formation of distinctive confessional identities.1 By mapping an analysis along the lines of the differences uncovered in ­chapter 6, this investigation illustrates specific ways in which views of sacred history contributed to confessional identity formation, particularly by exploring whether the next generation exhibited (1) differing terminologies (transition/​separation, extension, or covenant) in their accounts of the sacred history of the Old Testament prophets, (2) varying methodological preferences (literal prophecies of Christ, analogical readings, or both), and (3)  divergent identifications of the prime content of sacred history—​that is, a preference for doctrine (Luther) versus history (Reformed). Similar to ­chapter 5, this examination focuses on the work of Philip Melanchthon, Nikolaus Selnecker, Lucas Osiander, and Aegidius Hunnius as representatives of the next generation of Lutherans. Rudolf Gwalther, John Jacob Grynaeus, David Pareus, Lambert Daneau, Johannes Piscator, and Johannes Drusius serve as representatives of the next generation 1. Several scholars point to different approaches to history as an important element of distinctive confessional identities; however, such studies usually address Protestant history writing rather than sacred history per se. See Backus, Historical Method, 394 and Reformation Readings. See also Gordon, “The Changing Face,” 2, 6–​7, 21–​22; Wriedt, “Luther’s Concept of History,” 45; Naphy, “ ‘No History Can Satisfy Everyone,’ ” 26; Pak, “Contributions of Commentaries.”

256

The Reformation of Prophecy

of Reformed theologians, the first two specifically representing the Swiss Reformed camp. Such an analysis proceeds within a larger, principal contrast between Lutheran and Reformed positions, while also attending to the nuances within the Reformed traditions (i.e., between Swiss Reformed and Calvinist Reformed). The chapter concludes by tracing ongoing connections between the sacred history of the Old Testament prophets and eschatology and/​or apocalypticism in the next generation of Lutheran and Reformed leaders, particularly concerning emphases upon decline versus progress in their views of history. While areas of confessional crossovers continued to be evident, disparate understandings of sacred history very clearly contributed to the deepening solidification of separate confessional identities.

Transition, Extension, or Covenant Just as Luther identified two separate histories in the prophetic writings of the Old Testament and urged readers to maintain their proper distinction through a language of transition and separation, Melanchthon, Selnecker, Hunnius, and Osiander demonstrated similar emphases in their readings of Old Testament prophecy. In his comments on Zechariah, Melanchthon distinguished between the promises in the text that pertain to the prophet’s own time and the promises referring to Christ and the church. Melanchthon noted that Zechariah often mixed promises pertaining to the prophet’s immediate time with those that belong to the eternal church and implied that properly distinguishing between them enabled a more edifying reading of the text.2 Immediately evident in the works of Selnecker and Hunnius is the view that the history of Christ is the prime content of Old Testament prophecy. Selnecker wrote a number of works on the Old Testament prophets, including commentaries on Amos, Obadiah, Zephaniah, and all the Major Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel). He also commented on Hosea, Joel, and Micah in a work entitled Christliche kurtze summa und erflerung der dreien Propheten, whose principal focus was Christ’s fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.3 Selnecker strongly underscored the literal prophecies of Christ’s incarnation, passion, resurrection, ascension, and kingdom offered by these three prophets.4 His emphasis on the literal prophecies of Christ in the

2. CR 13:991, 992. 3. Selnecker, Christliche kurtze, Aii–​Aiv. 4. Selnecker, Christliche kurtze, Eiib, Liiia–​b, Liva–​b, Piib–​Pivb, Xiib–​Xiiib, Yiib–​Yiiib, kiib–​ kiva, oivb–​qiib, qiiib–​qiva.



Later Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Readings

257

Old Testament (and their fulfillment) remained central, even as his other works spent comparatively more time on the prophets’ own history and circumstances.5 In his work on the Major Prophets, Selnecker described their four prime tasks, the most important of which was to proclaim Christ and the kingdom of Christ.6 His commentaries exemplified his explicit aim to follow Luther’s example in expounding the Old Testament prophets, for he employed Luther’s prefaces to introduce each prophetic book and often referred to the sufficiency of Luther’s expositions.7 In Sechs Propheten H.  Schrifft—​a commentary on the books of Daniel, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Haggai, and Malachi—​Hunnius also prefaced his comments on the Old Testament prophets with Luther’s introductions to each prophet and guided his readers to seek Christ in the prophets first and foremost, particularly the promises and prophecies of Christ and the Gospel. He supported this exhortation with texts such as Acts 10:43, “To Christ all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name”—​identifying Christ and the teaching of salvation (justification by faith alone) as the prime content of Old Testament prophecy.8 Hunnius highlighted the history of the saving events of Christ’s life prophesied by the Old Testament prophets.9 Such concerns about the prime

5. See, for examples, Selnecker, Der gantze Prophet Jeremias, Aiva–​b, Biva, Ttiiib, Ttivb–​Ttva and Der Prophet unnd ernster Busprediger Amos, Diia. In “The Doctrine of Christ” Kolb reports similar findings in Selnecker’s readings of the Psalms. 6. Selnecker, Die Propheten. We will look at the other three duties more closely later in this chapter. In his preface to Die Propheten, Selnecker wrote, “Whoever wants to understand Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must have Christ” (iib). A similar account appears in his comments on Jeremiah and Zephaniah (Der gantze Prophet Jeremias, Biv–​Di). 7. Selnecker’s commentaries in Der gantze Prophet Jeremias, Die Propheten, and Christliche kurtze summa all begin with Luther’s preface on each prophet. Selnecker also began his exposition of Amos stating that “this prophet has been sufficiently and fully interpreted and explained by the holy Doctor Luther” (Der Prophet unnd ernster Busprediger Amos, Dia). 8.  Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 5.  Here he also cited Jesus’ response to the Jews in John 5:39: “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me.” 9. Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 5, 9, 30–​33, 41, 73, 155–​57, 189, 206–​8, 234–​35, 248–​49, 274–​ 75, 279–​83, 290–​91, 298–​300, 365–​66, 369–​70, 371–​73, 411, 414–​15, 441, 502, 505–​6, 541. See also Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 39–​40, 80–​81, 83–​84, 99–​101, 104–​5, 107–​8, 115–​21, 132–​34, 140–​45, 150–​151, 151–​52, 155–​57, 158–​59, 163–​65, 167–​68, 169–​70. For example, he cited Acts 3:18 in affirmation of a focus on the literal prophecies of Christ in the Old Testament prophets: “But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he thus fulfilled” (Sechs Propheten, 9). In Sechs Propheten, Hunnius gave significantly more attention to the original history of the prophet, with a focus on providing readings that “strengthen faith” and “awaken devotion” (9).

258

The Reformation of Prophecy

content of Old Testament prophecy figured prominently in Hunnius’s treatises against Calvin’s exegesis, for he rejected Calvin’s metaphorical readings of Old Testament prophecies, precisely contending that they are literal prophecies of Christ. He believed that Calvin completely missed the prime content of Old Testament prophecy seen in their prophecies of Christ’s incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension. Hunnius therefore concluded that Calvin undermined the exegetical foundations of Christian faith and doctrine.10 While Selnecker and Hunnius identified the prime content of the prophets with the history of Christ and implicitly separated it from the prophet’s own time and circumstances, Osiander even more explicitly employed a terminology of separation and transition. Osiander separated the history that pertained to Christ from the history relating to the prophet’s own time and thereby distinguished these as two discrete histories, ultimately emphasizing the literal prophecies of the saving events of Christ’s life. He wrote a commentary on Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Lamentations in 1578. A year later he composed a massive commentary on the rest of the Old Testament prophets (i.e., the Minor Prophets plus Ezekiel and Daniel) that appeared first in Latin and later in German.11 In his initial Latin commentary, Osiander frequently used the words transit and inserit to demarcate when the prophet transitioned from prophecies that belonged to the prophet’s own time to prophecies pertaining to Christ.12 He contended, for example, that after the prophecy of Christ’s resurrection in Hosea 6:2, the prophet transitions from the time of the New Testament back to his own time.13 He delineated a similar transition in the texts of Micah 4 and Nahum 1:15, seeing a shift from the threats the prophet issued for his own day to a prophecy of Christ and Christ’s kingdom.14 Osiander often employed inserit to indicate where the prophet broke off from speaking to the people of his own time to “insert” prophecies 10.  Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 4–​6, 34, 99–​101, 104–​5, 132–​34, 140–​45, 150–​51, 165–​66, 167–​68, 169–​70, 172, 181–​83, 185–​88. 11. Osiander, Isaias, Ieremias, et Threni Ieremiae. A year later he published Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, Ioel, Amos, Abdias, Ionas, Michæs, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggæs, Zacharias, & Malachias. The German translation is Die Propheten mit der Außlegung. 12. This is the very terminology Luther used to differentiate the two histories. 13. Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 544. The text reads, “Transit Propheta rursus à tempore Novi Testamenti ad suum seculum.” Osiander viewed Hosea 6:2 as a prophecy of Christ’s resurrection. 14. Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 721, 754. On Micah 4:1, Osiander wrote, “Transit Propheta à reprehensionibus & comminationibus ad consolandos electos: ut in spe adventus Meßiae & Regni eius aeterni, omnia huius vitae incommode patienter ferant” (721). See also 554, 608, 728–​32, 776, 823.



Later Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Readings

259

of Christ’s kingdom and the saving events of Christ’s life.15 The next generation of Lutheran leaders thereby retained Luther’s view of the sacred history in the Old Testament prophets as consisting of two distinct histories that the faithful interpreter should separate in order to bring to prominence the Old Testament prophecies of the saving events of the first advent of Christ and the Gospel. The next generation of Calvinist Reformed leaders retained Calvin’s emphasis on the histories of the prophets’ own time as the primary site of meaning, in which the prophet’s time and circumstances served as a mirror that reflected and illuminated God’s providential care of the church across all ages. Pareus wrote a commentary on Hosea, as well as “brief notes” on Joel, Haggai, and Amos, in which he frequently modeled the concept of extension. In answer to the objection that Joel’s prophecy of the locusts in ­chapter 1 pertained simply to Joel’s own time and had no contemporary relevance, he contended, “We believe the prophecies of the prophets because they are not to be empty prophecies for us.”16 This entailed for Pareus an analogical reading of Old Testament prophecy in which all the details of the text served as potential signs for further meaning, thus fully embracing the idea of extension. Pareus therefore viewed the prophecy of Joel 2:28–​32 as pertaining not simply to the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost but also to the sending of the Holy Spirit by God to the church at any point in history.17 He applied the restoration described in Joel 3:1 not solely to the tribe of Judah in its immediate context but extended it to all the tribes of Israel, to the restoration brought by Christ in New Testament times, and to the final restoration on the Last Day.18 Just as Calvin insisted that certain texts that Christian tradition had interpreted concerning Christ alone should be extended to the whole church, Pareus repeatedly affirmed this extensive reading. He also argued that the prophecy of the striking of the shepherd in Zechariah 13:7 extended to all pastors, and

15. At the end of a litany of condemnations against the wrongdoings of Judah in Micah 2, he wrote that the prophet then “inserts” the sweetest consolations concerning the kingdom of Christ, for Osiander viewed Micah 2:13 as a prophecy of Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension (Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 714). He wrote, “Post acrem impietis reprehensionem, Prophet a inserit (propiis) suavißimam consolationem de Regno Christi, eius que beneficiis, quae in membra Christi conferuntur.” See also 442, 645, 783, 825. Osiander sometimes also employed Luther’s term mixture. For example, on Zechariah 8:1, Osiander wrote, “Et admiscet aliquid, de Regno Christi & vocatione Gentium” (867). 16. Pareus, Notae Breviores, 51. 17. Pareus, Notae Breviores, 67. 18. Pareus, Notae Breviores, 69–​71.

260

The Reformation of Prophecy

the prophecy of resurrection in Hosea 6:2 belonged to the whole church and should not be confined to Christ’s person.19 Earlier in 1586 Daneau published a massive, two-​volume commentary on the Minor Prophets in which his employment of the tool of extension was just as all-​encompassing as that of Calvin. He repeatedly found in the details of the prophet’s history and circumstances a vivid depiction of the experiences of the church across time and a beautiful portrait of God’s providential care of the church. Similar to Calvin’s frequent invocation of the Head-​member trope, Daneau argued that just as Hosea 11:1 (“out of Egypt I called my son”) applied to Christ as the Head, so also it should be extended to the church, the members of Christ’s body.20 He proffered extensive readings of the prophecies of Hosea 1:10, 11:10, and 14:6, Micah 4:1, and Joel 2:28–​32 by applying them to the prophet’s own time, the time of Christ, and the Last Day.21 He argued that the prophecies depicting the deliverance and safety of the church, as seen in the prophecies of Micah 5:2 and 5:10, Joel 3:1, and Zechariah 4:1, especially extend to the church in every age.22 The works of Piscator and Drusius exhibited similar understandings of a unified vision of sacred history in which the historical details of the Old Testament prophets’ writings acted as signposts for extensive meaning for the church across the ages.23 Many of the texts that the Lutherans read as literal prophecies of Christ, Drusius and Piscator simply read (much like Calvin) in reference to the original history of the Old Testament prophets and its subsequent applications. For example, Drusius and Piscator read Hosea 6:2 simply as expressing God’s supreme power over death and made no mention of this 19. Pareus, Notae Breviores, 168, 294. 20. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:438. See also Daneau, A Fruitful Commentarie, 508. 21. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:286, 447–​48, 497–​98, 552–​53, 711–​13; A Fruitful Commentarie, 348–​49, 518, 567–​68, 624, 788–​89. On Joel 2:28–​32, Daneau wrote, “So everywhere in the prophets’ past times and times greatly distant from one another are joined together . . . because the whole space that passed from the time of the prophets until the incarnation of Christ is compared only to the first part of day. Indeed, in the verse following the prophet declares what shall be the state of the church and of the whole world until its consummation and end” (A Fruitful Commentarie, 790). 22. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:568, 577, 719–​20, 2:861; A Fruitful Commentarie, 641, 650, 796, 950. Daneau at times insisted that the history of the prophets not only applied to all ages of the church but also shed specific light on the situation of the Protestant churches at the end of the sixteenth century. See his readings of Amos 1, 7:12, and 9:11; Nahum 3:19; Joel 2:10, Habakkuk 1:6; and Zechariah 11:17, 13:2, and 13:4 (Commentariorvm, 1:156, 246–​47, 271, 666–​68, 692; 2:792, 971, 987–​89, 990–​91; A Fruitful Commentarie, 201, 303–​4, 332, 741, 767, 871–​72, 1065, 1083–​84, 1087). 23. Drusius, Commentarius, 461, 465–​66, 926; Piscator, Commentariorum, 413, 470.



Later Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Readings

261

text as a prophecy of Christ’s resurrection.24 And just as Calvin criticized the application of Zechariah 14:4 to Christ’s ascension, Drusius and Piscator also rejected this reading in favor of the text as a general and profound depiction of God’s power and promise to save the church from her enemies in any age.25 These Calvinist Reformed exegetes affirmed the original history of the prophets as the primary site of meaning for Old Testament prophecy that served as a mirror for the church across time. Grynaeus was a leading next-​generation Swiss reformer and chair of Old Testament studies in Basel from 1575 to 1584. He moved to Heidelberg in 1584 to help reestablish the university there. Gwalther was also a key next-​generation Swiss Reformer; he succeeded Bullinger as antistes in Zurich in 1575 and held that title until a year before his death in 1586. Grynaeus and Gwalther soundly exhibited the distinctive emphasis on the one, eternal covenant noted in Zwingli’s and Bullinger’s prior readings of Old Testament prophecy. For example, Grynaeus concluded his 1584 commentary on Obadiah with a treatise concerning the one and eternal testament—​closely echoing the title of Bullinger’s 1534 treatise on the same topic.26 In the opening pages of this treatise, Grynaeus affirmed that the Old and New Testaments are “plainly and truly one substance” because they depict the same eternal covenant of God, which is the central teaching of Scripture as seen in Hebrews 13:8 (“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever”), Romans 3:30 (“since God is one”), and Ephesians 4:4–​6 (“one body,” “one Spirit,” “one Lord, one faith, one baptism”).27 The text of Haggai 2:6 (“the word which I covenanted with you”) likewise evoked an excursus on God’s one eternal covenant, in which Grynaeus emphasized that though the Old and New Testaments operate with different signs or dispensations, they have the same substance.28 Though Gwalther did not dedicate a separate excursus to the one, eternal covenant or the unity of the testaments in his commentaries on the Old Testament prophets, he nevertheless clearly evidenced such convictions in the way he read these books. For example, in his comments on Joel 2:32, he affirmed that the substance of the promises and the covenant of the Old Testament saints

24. Drusius, Commentarius, 73–​74; Piscator, Commentariorum, 417–​18. 25.  Drusius, Commentarius, 1007; Piscator, 507. For Calvin’s comments, see CO 44:365; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:412. 26. Grynaeus, In Obadiam Prophetam, 201–​40. 27. Grynaeus, In Obadiam Prophetam, 202, 204–​5. 28. Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 158–​62; see also Haggevs the Prophet, 166–​70.

262

The Reformation of Prophecy

was the same as that of the church, for both pointed to Christ.29 Gwalther thus exclaimed, “God is evermore like himself, and as he has in times past defended the cause of his people, so also he will not neglect the same at this day.”30 Gwalther’s affirmation of the one eternal covenant that spans both testaments is best seen in his significant extensive understanding and analogical application of the sacred history depicted in the Old Testament prophets. Both Grynaeus and Gwalther held a unitary vision of sacred history in the Old Testament prophets, where the very history of the prophets served as a key site of meaning for the church across time. Grynaeus emphasized the parallels between the restoration of the Temple in Haggai and the Protestant reformers’ own current work in restoring the church. He maintained that the benefits God gave in the time of Haggai applied also to his own time and to all ages of the church.31 On nearly every page of his commentaries on the Minor Prophets, Gwalther read the prophets’ histories as providing examples and teachings directly applicable to the church across time.32 In the very historical details of Zephaniah, for instance, Gwalther detected concrete instruction for how Christians should act in their efforts for reform. He wrote, “We have spoken these things concerning the history of Zephaniah’s time and the argument of his sermons, more largely, because they provide not only the opening or understanding of the prophecies but also serve much for our instruction. For we are admonished by this example with what great faith and godliness the reformation of the church should be taken in hand and how some may be deceived in thinking they have acted sufficiently.”33 These Swiss Reformed theologians retained the terminological nuance of an emphasis on the one, eternal covenant of God distinctive to Zwingli’s and Bullinger’s readings of Old Testament prophecy. Equally important were the common elements these exegetes shared under the larger umbrella as Reformed exegetes in strongly affirming the unity of the two testaments and the prophet’s own history as representative of and parallel to the experience

29. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 85r. See also Gwalther, The Homilies, 80r–​v. 30. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 86v; The Homilies, 89r. 31. Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 146–​47, 61–​62, 71, 117–​18, 198–​99; Haggevs the Prophet, 153, 57–​58, 70, 121, 210. 32. For a few examples, see Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 67v, 78r, 84v, 86v, 88v, 89r, 90r, 277r, 278r, 289r, 290r, 290v. See also Gwalther, The Sermons, 2, 7v, 74v–​75r, 83r–​v, 85r; The Homilies, 41r, 77r, 89r, 101r, 108v. 33. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 278r; The Sermons, 8r–​v.



Later Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Readings

263

of the church across time, particularly the experience of God’s providential care.34

Literal Christological Prophecies, Analogy, or Both A second area of contrast that emerged in Luther’s, Oecolampadius’s, Zwingli’s, Bullinger’s, and Calvin’s readings of the sacred history of the Old Testament prophets pertained to the prime content of that history particularly as it related to Christological exegesis. Such differences also touched upon matters of method: namely, whether the key content of Old Testament prophecy is made up of literal prophecies of Christ’s incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension or is the prophet’s own history as a mirror for the church across time. Lutheran exegetes retained Luther’s identification of the prime history of Old Testament prophecy as the predictions of the historical events surrounding the advent of Christ and the Gospel, and they separated this from the history pertaining to the prophet’s own time.35 Reformed interpreters—​both Swiss Reformed and Calvinist—​consistently found in the very details of the prophets’ own histories a mirror for meanings, examples, and concrete instruction to guide the church in every age, particularly for the cultivation of true worship and godliness. While Calvinist interpreters of the next generation tended to follow Calvin in curbing certain practices of Christological exegesis of Old Testament prophecy, the next generation of Swiss interpreters replicated Oecolampadius’s, Zwingli’s, and Bullinger’s simultaneous affirmations of the history pertaining to Christ and the history pertaining to the prophet’s own time as noncompetitive sites for edifying readings. The Lutheran exegetes strongly affirmed literal prophecies of Christ’s incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension as the prime content of the writings of the Old Testament prophets, as well as their predictions of the first advent of Christ and the Gospel. For Melanchthon, Selnecker, Hunnius, and Osiander, Micah 5:2 (“But you, O Bethlehem”) prophesied Christ’s incarnation 34.  See Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, xia, 120, 263; In Obadiam Prophetam, 114; Ionae Prophetae Liber, a3r, 75, 371; Hypomnemata, 2, 4, 7, 20; Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 76r, 77v, 139r, 145r, 148r, 162v, 163v. Bullinger also emphasized God’s providence, viewing it as the sum of Jeremiah’s theology (Ieremias Fidelissimus, 2r). 35. To be clear, many of these were differences of emphasis. I am not arguing that Luther and Lutherans paid no attention to the original history of the prophet, nor am I arguing that the historical circumstances of the prophet held no importance for them. I am arguing that they prioritized the histories of Christ that they discerned in Old Testament prophecy and that they typically viewed the prophet’s own immediate history as separate from this.

264

The Reformation of Prophecy

and birth, and Zechariah 9:11 (“blood of my covenant”), 11:12 (thirty pieces of silver), 12:10 (“one whom they have pierced”), and 13:7 (“strike the shepherd that the sheep may be scattered”) prophesied events surrounding Christ’s passion. Passages such as Hosea 6:2 (“on the third day he will raise us up”) and 13:14 (“O, Death, where is your sting?”) and Micah 2:13 (“the one who breaks out will go before them”) prophesied Christ’s resurrection, and Zechariah 14:4 (“his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives”) prophesied Christ’s ascension.36 They also viewed other prophetic texts as teaching the two natures of Christ and Christ’s coeternity with God the Father.37 In reading these texts as literal prophecies of the historical events of Christ’s earthly life, these Lutheran interpreters understood themselves as simply following the New Testament’s use in applying them to Christ—​a belief that undergirded their profound and recurrent Christological exegesis of Old Testament prophecy.38 Most Reformed exegetes employed the tool of analogy to apply the Old Testament prophets’ histories and teachings to the church across time. This

36. CR 13: 986–​87, 996–​97, 998, 999–​1000, 1000, 1001, 1002; Selnecker, Christliche kurtze summa, Eiib–​Eiiia, Liiia–​b, Liva, Kiiib–​Kiva, Siia–​Siiib; Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 39–​40, 80–​81, 83–​84, 99–​101, 104–​5, 107–​8, 115–​21, 132–​34, 140–​45, 150–​151, 151–​52, 155–​57, 158–​59, 163–​65, 167–​68, 169–​70; Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 5, 9, 30–​33, 41, 73, 155–​57, 189, 206–​8, 234–​35, 248–​49, 274–​75, 279–​83, 290–​91, 298–​300, 365–​66, 369–​70, 371–​73, 411, 414–​15, 441, 502, 505–​6, 541; Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 543, 583–​84, 714–​15, 728–​29, 877–​79, 892, 899, 904–​5, 908. Lutherans also identified predictions of Christ’s kingdom, but they applied these to the first advent of Christ and the Gospel or the future coming of Christ’s kingdom in contrast to Reformed interpreters who applied these to the church across all ages. 37. For examples, Lutherans read Micah 5:2, Haggai 2:6, and Joel 2:28–​32 as teaching Christ’s divine and human natures and coeternity with God the Father. CR 13:  986; Selnecker, Christliche kurtze summa, Xiib–​Xiiib, quiva–​b, ria; Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 39–​40; Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 283–​84, 505–​6; Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 606, 609, 714–​ 15, 729, 814. 38.  Matthew 2:15 cites Hosea 11:1; I  Corinthians 15:54 cites Hosea 13:14; Acts 2:17–​21 cites Joel 2:28–​32; Matthew 2:6 cites Micah 5:2; Matthew 21:5 cites Zechariah 9:9; and Matthew 26:31 and Mark 14:27 cite Zechariah 13:7. One might note that Micah 2:13, Hosea 6:2, and Zechariah 9:11, 11:12, 12:10, and 14:4 are not actually explicitly cited in the New Testament, though many see an allusion there by the New Testament authors. Selnecker’s emphasis on Christ’s fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy in Christliche kurtze summa has already been noted. Hunnius’s treatise (Calvinus Iudaizans) precisely contended against Calvin’s metaphorical readings of texts that Hunnius viewed as literal prophecies of Christ. Selnecker’s commentary on Amos and Obadiah also illuminates his impulse to point to predictions of Christ and the Gospel (Der Prophet unnd ernster Busprediger Amos, Diia and Der gantze Prophet Jeremias, Aiva–​b, Biva, Ttiiib, Ttivb–​Ttva). Hunnius exhibited similar commitments in Sechs Propheten (see references in note 38). Osiander particularly emphasized prophecies concerning the advent of Christ and the Gospel. See Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 583, 678–​79, 527, 569, 721, 722–​23, 728–​32, 745–​49, 757–​58, 792–​93, 807, 825–​26, 840–​44, 849–​50, 851, 869, 874, 906, 922, 940–​41.



Later Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Readings

265

tool was pervasive in readings of Old Testament prophecy by Pareus, Daneau, Drusius, Piscator, Grynaeus, and Gwalther. They consistently discerned in the historical events of the Old Testament patterns of God’s activity with God’s people and models for the church across time—​for example, patterns of divine providence; patterns of judgment, repentance. and restoration; and models for true worship and piety. This tool of analogy demanded closer attention not only to the details of the prophet’s own history but also to considerations of grammar, philology, and literary context—​emphases particularly evident in the interpretations of Drusius and Piscator.39 Employing analogy, Reformed readers therefore frequently read the Old Testament prophets typologically.40 Such typological readings—​ particularly among Calvinist interpreters—​encouraged certain forms of Christological exegesis of Old Testament prophecy above others. For example, Reformed interpreters certainly discerned prophecies of Christ’s kingdom in Old Testament prophetic texts. Even these readings, though, centered upon applying the prophecies of Christ’s kingdom not merely to the first advent of Christ and the Gospel but to all eras of the church—​reaching back to the past, informing the present, and pointing the way forward to the future.41 Calvinists in particular were more apt to interpret Old Testament prophecy as depicting the kingdom of Christ (the church) and God’s benefits to the church that span past, present, and future rather than applying these solely to the person of Christ. Calvinist Reformed exegetes consequently downplayed or even rejected certain traditional readings of Old Testament prophecy that applied them singularly to the

39. Grammar and philology’s importance is evident on nearly every page of Drusius’s commentary and the scholia sections of Piscator’s commentary. See the prominence of linguistic debates in Drusius’s analysis of Hosea 6:2 and Micah 5:2 (Commentarius, 73–​74, 656–​57). 40.  This was particularly evident in the readings of Pareus and Daneau. Pareus, Notae Breviores, 76, 77, 81, 90, 91. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:271, 271–​72; 2:817, 837, 849–​50, 852, 893, 971–​74, 980; A Fruitful Commentarie, 332, 334–​36, 904, 927, 939–​40, 942, 982, 1066–​69, 1075. 41.  See Pareus, Notae Breviores, 51, 67, 69–​ 71, 76, 84–​ 85, 91, 168, 294; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:156, 246–​47, 271, 286, 299–​301, 447–​48, 497–​98, 552–​53, 568, 577, 603–​ 4, 666–​68, 692, 711–​13, 719–​20, 792, 2:819, 861, 968–​69, 971, 986–​87, 987–​89, 990–​91; A Fruitful Commentarie, 201, 303–​4, 332, 348–​49, 363–​64, 518, 567–​68, 624, 641, 650, 679, 741, 767, 788–​89, 796, 871–​72, 908, 950, 1062, 1065, 1082–​83, 1083–​84, 1087; Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 16–​17, 28–​29, 36–​37, 61–​62, 71, 88–​89, 94–​95, 117–​18, 146–​47, 150–​51, 198–​99; Haggevs the Prophet, 8–​9, 21–​22, 31, 57–​58, 70, 89–​90, 96, 97, 121, 153, 157, 210; In Obadiam Prophetam, 79; Ionae Prophetae Liber, 42; Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 71r, 74r, 75v, 78r, 84v, 86r, 86v, 87v, 88r, 88v, 89r, 90r, 146v, 158r, 160r, 164r, 277r, 278r, 288v–​289r, 290r, 290v; The Homilies, 3r, 18v–​19r, 20r, 28v, 41v, 77r–​v, 86r, 89r, 93r, 93v–​94r, 95v, 98v–​ 99r, 99v, 101r, 108v; Certain godlie Homelies, 98, 237–​38, 264–​65, 313; The Sermons, 2r, 7v, 74v, 83r–​v, 85r.

266

The Reformation of Prophecy

person of Christ or as literal prophecies of the saving events of Christ’s life. Such rejections were also often tied to these interpreters’ attention to matters of grammar, philology, and literary context. Broader issues of analogical reading played an important role in Pareus’s defense of Calvin’s exegesis against the accusations of the Lutheran Hunnius precisely on the disputed issue of proper Christological exegesis of Old Testament prophecy. Hunnius severely criticized Calvin for reading a number of Old Testament prophecies metaphorically rather than affirming them as literal prophecies of Christ’s incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension.42 Hunnius highlighted prophecies from the Minor Prophets and Psalms, as well as a few from Genesis and Isaiah, many of which New Testament authors cited in reference to Christ. He argued that Calvin undermined the exegetical foundations of key teachings of Christ in the Old Testament and ignored the instruction of New Testament authors thereby becoming an arrogant “self-​teacher” (αυτοδιδάκτω). For Hunnius, the New Testament authors, as supreme exemplars of proper exegesis, precisely model the reading of these Old Testament prophecies as literal prophecies of Christ, which any faithful reader should follow, yet Calvin did not.43 Pareus responded by arguing that in Hunnius’s insistence that these texts are “clear promises and predictions that should be read explicitly concerning the Messiah” and not figuratively or metaphorically, Hunnius allowed for only a very narrow understanding of how the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets—​that is, only through direct prediction or the form of the “simple type,” in which the words of the text can only literally apply to Christ alone.44 In contrast, Pareus contended that there are many kinds of figures, signs, and types in Scripture, and in the Old Testament writings in particular. There are not only simple types but also several forms of composite types, in which the figure has two or more applications. Some composite types are fulfilled literally in Christ and literally in the historical figure or event. Others are fulfilled metaphorically in Christ and metaphorically in the historical figure or event. A third type may be fulfilled literally in Christ but metaphorically in the historical figure or event. Then there is the composite type that is fulfilled metaphorically in Christ and literally in the historical figure or event.45

42. The next chapter addresses the content of Calvin’s metaphorical and analogical readings of these prophecies and Hunnius’s criticisms of Calvin’s use of metaphor in more detail. 43. Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 18, 22, 31–​34, 186–​88. 44. Pareus, Libro Duo, 103. 45. Pareus, Libro Duo, 93–​98.



Later Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Readings

267

Such an understanding of composite types decisively grounded Reformed analogical readings and their commitment to the historical details of the prophetic texts. It also grounded the Reformed vision of sacred history as equally including the historical events of the Old Testament people as God’s church within the larger unified history of the church (the kingdom of Christ) across time. The very preservation of sacred history in Scripture was therefore at stake for Pareus, for solely employing the mode of the simple type risked making the original historical details irrelevant. Rather, insisted Pareus, even the Old Testament passages that the New Testament authors apply to Christ are fitting to Christ precisely through the historical details of the type.46 Readings of Old Testament figures and types that attend to the original historical details of the text are thus far more solid and defensible than those that jump to an application of Christ “by no reason of the type.”47 The Reformed commitment to the sacred history of the text included, then, a commitment to the preservation of the historical details and the actual words of the text, since these are precisely the pathways of further meaning and analogical application. Pareus, Daneau, Drusius, and Piscator retained Calvin’s insistence that many of these Old Testament prophetic texts extend to the church and should not be limited solely to Christ’s person.48 Keen attention to grammar, philology, and literary context constituted further methodological priorities in Reformed exegesis—​something also seen in Pareus’s defense of Calvin’s exegesis of Old Testament prophecy against Hunnius’s attacks. For example, Pareus highlighted the importance of literary context in Calvin’s assertion that Hosea 13:14 simply expressed the sovereignty of God over death, rather than applying it as a prophecy of Christ’s passion and resurrection. Calvin and Pareus both argued that this was a more solid and defensible reading that attended more carefully to literary context.49 Pareus similarly contended that Calvin’s reading of Micah 2:13 as referring to a 46. Pareus, Libro Duo, 103–​4. 47. Pareus, Libro Duo, 103–​4, 106–​7, 194–​95, 195–​98, 206–​7. 48. Hunnius addressed readings of Hosea 6:2 and 13:14, Micah 2:13 and 5:2, Haggai 2:6–​ 8, and Zechariah 9:9, 9:11, 11:12, 13:7, and 14:4, as well as Psalms 2, 8, 22, 45, 72, and 110. See Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:357–​59, 484–​85, 538–​40, 567–​68; 2:817, 934–​35, 965–​66, 992–​94, 999–​1000; Drusius, Commentarius, 635–​36, 912, 1000–​1001, 1077, 1007, 236–​37; Piscator, 463–​64, 466–​67, 486, 501–​2, 506, 417–​418, 429–​30. Drusius, however, maintained a reading of Micah 5:2 concerning Christ’s coeternity (Commentarius, 656–​57) that Calvin rejected, and Piscator retained a reading of Zechariah 13:7 in reference to Christ alone rather than applying it to all pastors of the church (Commentariorum, 505). 49.  Pareus, Libro Duo, 176; CO 42:492–​93; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:476–​77.

268

The Reformation of Prophecy

people who are gathered for destruction was in better keeping with the wider literary context of judgment in Micah 2, rather than “passing over quickly to a contrary meaning” to apply it as a prophecy of Christ’s kingdom.50 This interpretation of Micah 2:13 is an excellent example of the Reformed refusal to pass over (“transit”) to prophecies of Christ or insert (“inserit”) prophecies of Christ where they were deemed not in harmony with the thrust of the literary context of the text. Both context and grammar in Haggai 2:6 also undergirded Calvin’s argument that this text refers to the nations who would bring their riches—​rather than translating it as the “desire of all nations” and referring it to Christ—​for the verb is plural (thus referring to “nations” rather than to a singular person such as Christ), and the larger context (“silver and gold” in verse 8)  confirms such a reading.51 Readings of Zechariah 9:9 exemplified Calvin’s (and later Calvinist Reformed proponents’) commitment to the specific words of the text. As Calvin had argued earlier, “just and saved is he” cannot properly apply to Christ; Pareus accordingly confirmed that this text should be read metaphorically of Christ rather than literally.52 This matter of Christological exegesis of Old Testament prophecy, however, was precisely the arena where many Swiss Reformed and Calvinist Reformed exegetes parted ways. With regard to the passages discussed above—​Zechariah 9:9, Haggai 2:6, and Micah 2:13—​in distinction from the Calvinists, Gwalther and Grynaeus unquestioningly affirmed these as literal prophecies of the saving events of Christ’s life. Similar to Oecolampadius, the phrase “just and saved was he” in Zechariah 9:9 did not deter Gwalther from applying this text as a literal prophecy of Christ as Savior and the font of all true righteousness.53 Concerns for the plural wording of Haggai 2:6 did not preclude Gwalther and Grynaeus from applying “desire of all nations” as a clear prophecy of Christ.54 And considerations of the larger literary context of Micah 2:13 did not dissuade Gwalther from applying this text as a prophecy of

50. Pareus, Libro Duo, 177. CO 43:315–​16; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:210, 211. “Passing quickly” to the promises of Christ and the Gospel agreed, on the other hand, with the Lutherans’ vision of two separate histories at play in this text. 51. Pareus, Libro Duo, 181–​82; CO 44:106; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 4:360–​61. 52.  Pareus, Libro Duo, 308; CO 44:271, 272–​73; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:254, 257. 53. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 352r. 54.  Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 306v; Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 173–​74; Haggevs the Prophet, 182–​83.



Later Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Readings

269

Christ’s resurrection that “broke the power of the adversary.”55 Grynaeus and Gwalther (similar to Oecolampadius, Zwingli, and Bullinger) did not merely affirm many Old Testament texts as prophecies of Christ; they simultaneously affirmed both the history pertaining to Christ and the history pertaining to the prophet’s own time as key sites for meaning. They retained many of the analogical, extensive readings of Old Testament prophecy (much like Calvinist exegetes) and they applied them as literal prophecies of the saving events of Christ or Christ’s two natures. For example, Grynaeus read verse 12 of Obadiah both in terms of its history concerning Judah and Edom (“you should not gloat over your brother”) and as a prophecy of Christ’s declaration from the cross, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”56 Gwalther echoed Oecolampadius’s simultaneous applications of Hosea 6:2 and 11:1 to Christ, to the prophet’s own time, and to the church more broadly. Hosea 6:2 in the prophet’s own time offers a message of consolation and the promise of liberation that serves as an example to the church across the ages; yet, continued Gwalther, the example of promised resurrection clearly points to the prophecy of Christ’s resurrection through whom this promise of liberation was fulfilled.57 Hosea 11:1 likewise serves as an example of God’s faithfulness to God’s people despite their sins; yet, argued Gwalther, Christ alone truly fulfills the prophecy of this text, so that just as it applies to Christ as Head, it also applies more broadly to the members of Christ’s Body, the church.58 At certain points Gwalther’s exegesis reproduced Bullinger’s conviction that the history of the Old Testament prophets served as a mirror for the history of the world, as well as a prophecy of Christ and the Last Days. For example, concerning the military images in Zechariah 9:13–​17, he argued: But this whole passage should be considered in two ways: First according to the literal sense, where we may examine the history of the world that takes place from [the time of ] Zechariah until the Incarnation of the Son of God, in which we will see how marvelously God saves the remnant of his church amidst horrible persecutions. [Second] by anagogy these things must be referred to Christ himself, who by spiritual armor subdued the whole earth through the Apostles. Many of the ancients,

55. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 177v. 56. Grynaeus, In Obadiam Prophetam, 83–​86. 57. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 27r–​28r. 58. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 52r. The reader may recall from ­chapter 6 that these were the same exegetical moves Oecolampadius made.

270

The Reformation of Prophecy

whom the moderns for the most part follow, only touch upon the latter part. But I think that the former must not be overlooked or concealed. When it is established that the prophets are foretellers of the kingdom of Christ, while also at the same time serving for his age, they did this through their types that ought to be completed in Christ. So all the more this passage serves us and shows the power of the Word of the Gospel, which alone is sufficient to destroy the devil’s kingdom.59 Immediately after this statement, Gwalther aligned this text with specific historical events occurring under Alexander the Great, the experience of the Jews under certain kings of Syria and Egypt, the work of Christ and the Apostles in Christ’s first advent, and the contemporary work of Swiss Protestants as “today we must fight the Antichrist” with similar weapons.60 He read Zechariah 14:4 (“his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives”) in reference to the prophet’s history, as a prophecy of Christ and the Apostles, and as a prophecy of the Last Day. He simultaneously affirmed a reading for the prophet’s own time and a Christological reading, stating, “It is necessary for us to compare first the history of the Jewish people with the prophecy, since truly these things transfer to Christ and his Church.”61 Gwalther also identified concrete historical events as fulfilling this text: first in the events under Antiochus, then in Christ and his command to the Apostles to preach the Gospel throughout the whole world, and finally in the same Christ who will come “with his holy angels to judge.”62 Such examples indicate the continued Swiss proclivity to identify events of the sacred history of the Old Testament directly with concrete events in past, present, and future human history.

Doctrinal versus Historical Reading Another notable difference of emphasis between Lutheran and Reformed exegesis of Old Testament prophecy was the Lutheran tendency to prioritize viewing the sacred history of Old Testament prophecy as a history of doctrine, whereas Reformed exegetes emphasized the historical events and proclamations of the prophets as providing models for social transformation—​ that is, for the formation of a godly society and, particularly, for the cultivation 59. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 353v–​354r. 60. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 354r–​355r, there 355r. 61. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 377v. 62. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 379r.



Later Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Readings

271

of true worship. A perhaps simplistic way to name this difference is with the age-​old question of which comes first to promote true change: right doctrine first or right ethics? The Lutherans’ emphasis on the initial necessity of pure doctrine often led them to read the sacred history of Old Testament prophecy as a history of doctrine—​a position Melanchthon adopted. It was precisely this history of doctrine that he affirmed as an “extensive” history, as seen in his introduction to Haggai:  “This history should be considered first in the prophets; in part of this history nevertheless every time of the church may be contemplated.”63 Yet Melanchthon specifically asserted that Haggai offered an assistance “in the study of necessary doctrines,” which should be contemplated by the church across the ages.64 Throughout the rest of his summary of Haggai, he highlighted doctrines pertaining to the two natures of Christ, the true nature of faith, and the promise of Christ and the Gospel, and presented Haggai as an example of the restoration of doctrine.65 The prime duties of Haggai, Zechariah, Ezra, and Nehemiah according to Melanchthon were to make known right doctrine and prophesy the coming of the Messiah.66 This theme of the preservation of pure doctrine was similarly prominent throughout his treatment of Zechariah.67 The commentaries of Selnecker, Osiander, and Hunnius also evidenced such a prioritizing of the history of doctrine. Lutherans found in these texts first and foremost teachings concerning the doctrines of justification by faith alone, the true nature of faith, rejection of works righteousness, and proper distinctions between Law and Gospel.68 They also highlighted teachings concerning the two natures of Christ—​especially the coeternity and divinity of

63. CR 13:984. 64. Melanchthon wrote that Haggai’s “sermon is very useful for the people to know . . . to assist in the study of necessary doctrines” (CR 13:985). The site for primary meaning is thus the prophet’s sermons rather than the history per se, which retains Luther’s emphasis on the proclamation of God’s Word. 65. CR 13:985–​88. Though the prophet’s history certainly plays some role, Melanchthon paid little attention to exact details of the history; he referred simply to a general history or to the Old Testament prophets’ example of the preservation of doctrine. 66.  CR 13:  984. Melanchthon argued that God raised up figures across the whole Old Testament to collect and preserve doctrine (CR 13:983). 67. CR 13:989, 994, 995, 996, 1000, 1001. 68. CR 13: 999–​1000, 1000, 1002, 1110; Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 515, 516, 723, 736, 757–​58, 778, 844, 845, 877, 890, 892–​93, 921, 923, 942–​43; Selnecker, Der gantze Prophet Jeremias, Ciia, Ciiib, Civa–​b; Der Prophet unnd ernster Busprediger Amos unnd Obadias, Biiia–​ b, Siiib; Christliche kurtze summa, Kiia, Liva–​b, Oib; Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 5, 9, 174, 318, 468–​69, 510.

272

The Reformation of Prophecy

Christ.69 Such doctrinal applications mapped smoothly onto their prioritization of the history of Christ in these texts, for the doctrinal building blocks of the history of the saving events of Christ and the advent of Christ and the Gospel were precisely those doctrines that reveal the right understanding of salvation and salvation history. Selnecker’s description of the four parts of Old Testament prophecy provides a helpful portrait of Lutheran priorities. The topmost duty of the prophets, argued Selnecker, was to proclaim Christ and his kingdom. Their second task was to provide examples of faith, thereby guiding the people in the right keeping of the first commandment. Third, the prophets taught the Law and Gospel by threatening the wicked and comforting the pious. Fourth, Selnecker pointed to their role in forbidding and punishing idolatry.70 All of these parts of Old Testament prophecy mapped directly onto the primary Lutheran goal to find in the prophets the history of salvation in Christ and the doctrinal building blocks of such—​teachings concerning Christ, faith, Law and Gospel, and rejection of works righteousness as consummate idolatry. Reformed interpreters also identified key doctrinal teachings in the Old Testament prophets. Similar to the Lutherans, they discerned teachings concerning the proper understandings of faith, works, Law, and Gospel.71 Such doctrinal teachings, however, were not the most frequent or primary applications of Reformed interpreters. If one highlighted a point of doctrine as primary in Reformed applications, it would be teachings concerning God’s one eternal covenant and/​or divine providence.72 Even in this emphasis on the prophets’ teachings of the divine covenant and providence, the texture of their 69.  CR 13:986, 1001; Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 609, 714–​15, 724–​25, 729, 745, 814, 843; Selnecker, Christliche kurtze summa, qiva–​qva, ria; Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 39–​40; Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 283–​84, 505–​6. 70. Selnecker, Der gantze Prophet Jeremias, Biv–​Di. 71.  Pareus, Notae Breviores, 54, 98, 104, 108; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:115, 120, 133–​34, 211–​12, 215–​16, 235, 305–​6, 311–​13, 313–​14, 433, 2:799; A Fruitful Commentarie, 178–​79, 182, 196–​97, 266, 271, 291, 369, 375, 377, 502, 879; Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 73–​74, 94, 100–​ 102, 107–​8, 109, 145–​47, 166–​67, 240–​43; Haggevs the Prophet, 73, 96, 103–​4, 110, 112, 151–​53, 175–​76, 256–​58; Ionae Prophetae Liber, 84, 166, 192, 211; Hypomnemata, 201–​4; Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 70v, 86r, 145v, 152v, 154r; The Homilies, ix, 85r; Certain godlie Homelies, 84, 177, 192; The Sermons, 114v. 72. Pareus, Notae Breviores, 65, 82, 83, 90, 91, 112, 114; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:106, 133–​34, 165, 267, 474, 505, 669–​70, 2:784–​85, 829–​30, 834, 861, 869, 871, 883–​84, 884, 934–​35; A Fruitful Commentarie, 98, 196, 211, 329, 543–​44, 576, 744, 863, 918–​19, 924, 950, 958, 960–​ 61, 973, 974, 1026; Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, xia, 36, 120, 263; Haggevs the Prophet, C3v, 30, 124, 280, 93–​94; In Obadiam Prophetam, 114; Ionae Prophetae, a3r, 75, 371; Hypomnemata, 2, 4, 7, 20; Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 76r, 77v, 78r, 85r, 139r, 140v, 145r, 146r, 148r, 154v, 162v–​163r, 163v, 278v, 296r; The Homilies, 31v, 40v, 41v, 81r; Certain godlie Homelies, 11,



Later Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Readings

273

readings was equally historical. That is, they did not so much view the prime content of the Old Testament prophets as a history of doctrine but, rather, prioritized the historical details of the prophets’ own histories in order to see a historical portrait of God’s covenant and providential care of the church. Their primary applications of Old Testament prophecy therefore were less intrinsically doctrinal and more about underscoring the prophet’s vivid pictures of true worship and piety.73 Daneau insisted two things should be “diligently observed” in the prophets: first the prophets’ history and second their method of writing.74 Describing the nature of true prophecy, Pareus and Daneau highlighted the prophet’s duty to paint a picture of true worship, alongside the duty to reveal God’s will.75 Reformed interpreters often asserted that external acts of piety and worship were extremely important, even if the external acts in and of themselves were not that which actually pleased God. Consequently, in his interpretation of Old Testament prophecy Pareus strongly upheld the external acts of fasting, weeping, mourning, and dressing in sackcloth, for he contended that these signify true repentance.76 These affirmations resonated with a larger methodology that viewed external signs in the Old Testament (such as a person, an event, or an action) as a visible manifestation of a deeper, spiritual reality.

25, 80–​83, 94, 116, 194, 295–​98, 308; The Sermons, 10v–​11r, 115v; Drusius, Commentarius, 461, 465–​66, 926; Piscator, Commentariorum, 413, 470. 73.  Pareus, Notae Breviores, 53, 53–​54, 54, 55, 60, 61–​62, 73, 95, 103–​4, 106, 188; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:25, 111–​12, 128, 138, 194–​95, 196, 203, 215–​16, 217, 217–​18, 278–​79, 291–​92, 292–​93, 293–​94, 294–​95, 355–​56, 357, 459–​60, 508–​9, 548–​49, 585, 612, 620, 695–​96, 700–​702, 2:803–​4, 804, 898–​906, 923, 943–​45, 960–​62 987, 1006; A Fruitful Commentarie, 22–​23, 103–​4, 190, 201, 244–​46, 247, 256–​57, 270–​71, 272, 273–​74, 341, 355, 355–​56, 357, 358, 423, 425, 529, 579, 619, 659, 688, 698, 771, 776–​78, 885–​86, 887, 988–​95, 1014, 1035–​37, 1054–​55, 1083, 1103; Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, xivr, 18, 28, 36–​37, 51, 82, 111, 207–​14, 225–​ 26, 226, 236–​37, 241–​42; Haggevs the Prophet, C8r, 10, 21, 31, 46, 82, 115, 219–​26, 239–​40, 241, 251–​52, 257; In Obadiam Prophetam, iiv; Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 70v, 71v, 72r, 73r–​v, 73v, 74v, 76v, 78r, 79r, 79v, 79r–​81r, 87v–​88r, 142r, 143v, 150r, 153r–​154r, 155r, 155v, 156r, 157r, 277v–​278r, 278r, 279r–​v, 279v–​280r, 280v, 281v, 283r, 283r–​v, 284v, 285r; The Homilies, ix, 4r, 7r–​8r, 15r–​v, 17r–​v, 22r, 24r, 33v, 41r, 43v, 45r, 46v, 49r–​v, 50r–​57v, 95r–​96r; Certain godlie Homelies, 45, 63, 85, 141, 180–​93, 206, 210–​14, 216, 226; The Sermons, 7r–​v, 8r, 9r, 13v–​18r, 19r–​20v, 25r, 31v, 38r, 38r–​42r, 50r–​v, 52v–​53r. 74. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 80; A Fruitful Commentarie, 69. 75.  Pareus, Hoseas Propheta, 5; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 25, 38; A Fruitful Commentarie, 22–​23, 34. 76. Pareus, Notae Breviores, 62. Similarly (and similar to Calvin) Daneau affirmed not just the spiritual comforts of the church found in the text but also the earthly comforts as visible signs of God’s providence. See Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:710; A Fruitful Commentarie, 786–​87.

274

The Reformation of Prophecy

Reformed interpreters constantly applied the prophets’ historical portraits of true and false worship to illuminate contemporary circumstances,77 noting, for example, the prophets’ threats against idolatry as threats against the church’s enemies, as threats specifically against Roman Catholic corruptions of worship, and as warnings to faithful Reformed churches to preserve pure worship.78 The prophets’ historical pictures also provided very concrete practices to follow. The story of Jonah taught ministers not to neglect their vocation and call, while the example of the mariners’ prayer in Jonah 1 exhorted all who act as judges to turn to prayer before passing judgment.79 The prophets’ proclamations of punishment against God’s people—​connected with promises of comfort—​taught about God’s discipline of the church for the sake of her repentance.80 Above all, the prophets exhorted the church to patience in adversity, spurring her to greater godliness and trust that her enemies would not always prevail.81 Such Reformed emphasis on these historical portraits of true worship tracked directly with the emphasis on the prophets’ depictions of true piety and the applications of the texts to exhort the church to social transformation and the cultivation of a godly society.82 77.  Daneau read parts of Amos as a mirror for the situation in France (Commentariorvm, 1:168–​69; A Fruitful Commentarie, 216). See also Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:111–​12, 113, 114, 140, 148, 153, 184–​85, 198, 209, 256, 260, 416–​17, 518, 540, 577, 601–​2, 703, 723, 724–​25, 728, 730, 732, 733, 739, 2:777–​78, 790–​91, 814–​15; A Fruitful Commentarie, 103–​4, 105, 106, 203, 210–​11, 215, 233, 251, 263, 314, 320, 486, 588, 610, 650, 676–​77, 778–​79, 800, 801, 805, 807, 808, 810, 811, 814, 854, 870, 899; Pareus, Notae Breviores, 55–​56, 65, 75, 83–​84, 93, 97, 104, 109, 110; Grynaeus, In Obadiam Prophetam, 79; Ionae Prophetae, 42; Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 71r, 73v, 78r, 81r, 84r, 87v, 884, 91r, 139v, 146r–​v, 147r–​148v, 158r, 290r–​v, 292v, 293v. 78.  Pareus applied the prophecies against Judah and Israel as warnings for present-​day Christians (Notae Breviores, 53–​54, 60–​62, 104, 106, 116). See also Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, xivr, 28, 36–​37, 82, 236–​37; In Obadiam Prophetam, iiv; Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 70v, 71v, 73r–​v, 74v, 78r, 87v, 88r, 142r, 143v, 155r, 155v, 156r, 278r, 279r–​v, 281v, 283r. 79. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 147r, 147v–​148r, 148v–​149r; Certain godlie Homelies, 106–​ 7, 114–​15, 126–​27; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:113; A Fruitful Commentarie, 105. 80. Pareus, Notae Breviores, 97; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:156–​65, 518, 601–​2; A Fruitful Commentarie, 201–​11, 588, 676–​77; Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 117–​18, 145; In Obadiam Prophetam, iir, 5, 23, 25, 105–​6, 202; Ionae Prophetae, 38, 181; Hypomnemata, 2–​3, 347; Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 71r, 78r, 81r, 82v, 84r, 85v, 143r. 81.  Pareus, Notae Breviores, 75, 97; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:148, 209; Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 82v, 87v–​88r, 143r. 82.  Pareus, Notae Breviores, 55–​ 56, 56, 65, 75, 83–​ 84, 93, 97, 104, 109, 110; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:111–​14, 129, 140, 148, 153, 184–​85, 198, 209, 256, 260, 416–​17, 518, 540, 577, 601–​4, 703, 710–​14, 723, 725–​26, 728, 730, 732, 733, 739, 2:764–​81, 790–​91, 814–​15; A Fruitful Commentarie, 103–​6, 192, 203, 210–​11, 215, 233, 251, 263, 314, 320, 486, 588, 610, 650, 676–​ 79, 778–​79, 787–​92, 800, 801, 805, 807, 808, 810, 811, 814, 840–​56, 870, 899; Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 52–​57, 63–​68, 71–​78, 90, 112–​13, 117–​18, 149, 197–​98, 217–​18, 241–​42, 260;



Later Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Readings

275

I have treated Swiss and Calvinist Reformed exegetes together thus far, for the prioritization of the historical details of the prophets’ own histories as providing historical portraits of God’s covenant and providence for the purposes of the cultivation of true worship and the transformation of society proved true as a Reformed identity marker. The next-​generation Swiss leaders, however, distinctively employed Old Testament prophets as illuminating the proper role of the civil magistrate in religious reform. Grynaeus and Gwalther strongly affirmed Zwingli’s and Bullinger’s vision of the civil magistrate as a necessary partner in the work of religious reform, whereas Calvin and his followers advocated a clearer separation of tasks between church leaders and civil leaders.83 In his introduction to Haggai, Grynaeus emphasized Haggai’s, Joshua’s, and Zerubbabel’s shared work of religious reform—​that is, the shared work of prophet, priest, and king. He asserted, “Therefore the domestic order, the ecclesiastical order, and the civil order are very necessary” so that one should “remember that they always work together.”84 A few pages later Grynaeus argued that Haggai exemplifies the proper process of reform, for Haggai gave the prophecy to the priest Joshua and to the magistrate Zerubbabel, thereby teaching that God employs both offices for the “rooting out of evil and the planting of the good.”85 Grynaeus therefore read the whole of Haggai’s account of the rebuilding of the Temple as a model for the way God rebuilds and restores the church—​a restoration led by the partnership of magistrates and ministers.86 Gwalther similarly applied Joel 1:13–​14 and 2:15–​ 17 as biblical models for the equal duty of priests, kings, and magistrates to call people to penitence and uphold true worship.87 He discerned comparable models in Jonah, where in 3:1–​10 the king of Nineveh and the magistrates

Haggevs the Prophet, 48–​53, 60–​66, 70–​77, 91–​92, 116, 121, 155–​56, 209, 230–​31, 257, 277; Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 71v, 72v, 73v, 76r, 78r, 81r, 82r, 82v, 86r, 87r, 87v, 90r, 90v, 91r, 141r, 143r. 143v, 147r, 174v–​148r, 148v, 149v, 150r, 152v, 157v, 158r, 161r–​162r, 162v, 285r, 286v, 292v, 294r–​v, 295v; The Homilies, 5v, 10r–​v, 16r–​v, 30v–​31r, 42v, 58v–​59r, 64v, 67v–​68r, 86r, 91v, 95r, 107v, 110v–​111r, 112r–​v; Certain godlie Homelies, 36, 56–​57, 60, 63, 106, 107, 114–​15, 126–​ 27, 134–​35, 144–​45, 177, 235, 241, 274–​85, 293–​94; The Sermons, 52v, 62r–​v, 97r, 107r, 114r–​v. 83.  See Baker, “Christian Discipline” and W.  J. Torrance Kirby, “ ‘Cura Religionis’:  The Prophetical Office and the Civil Magistrate,” in The Zurich Connection, 25–​41. 84. Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 21–​26, 26; Haggevs the Prophet, 14–​19, there 19. 85. Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 31; Haggevs the Prophet, 24. 86. Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 36–​37, 271–​72; Haggevs the Prophet, 31, 289. 87. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 74r, 79v; The Homilies, 18v–​19r, 50r–​51r.

276

The Reformation of Prophecy

exemplified their God-​given duty to call people to repentance and promote true religion.88 The next generation of Lutheran interpreters furthered the practice of emphasizing the sacred history of Old Testament prophecy as a history of doctrine, whereas Reformed exegetes focused on the details of the prophets’ histories as proffering models for the formation of a godly society and the cultivation of true worship. Lutherans certainly shared with Reformed interpreters the use of Old Testament prophecy to fight idolatry and promote true worship. Lutherans also employed Old Testament prophecy to advance a vision of true worship and to provide examples of true repentance or true fasting. Yet in comparison to Reformed readings at least two key differences emerged: first, the concern for true worship saturated Reformed commentaries, whereas it was one important theme among several for Lutherans; second, a Lutheran vision of true worship still centered on specific doctrines: the doctrinal teachings concerning true faith and the proper role of works.89 Furthermore, though Lutheran interpreters also aimed to shape the piety and ethics of their Lutheran audiences, two key differences from Reformed applications again surfaced.90 First, the site of many of these applications was still more intrinsically doctrinal teachings than the history per se.91 Second, when Lutherans identified contemporary applications in the historical details of these prophetic texts, such texts were often those that illuminated apocalyptic elements of living in the Last Days. This begs the question of the differing eschatologies that emerged from Lutheran and Reformed readings of Old Testament prophecy.

88. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 157r, 159r; Certain godlie Homelies, 227, 251–​52. Gwalther noted that in Jonah 1:13–​17 God appoints the magistrates to execute God’s judgments (In Prophetas Dvodecim, 152r; Certain godlie Homelies, 161). 89.  CR 13:999–​1000, 1000, 1002, 1110, 1014–​15, 1015–​16; Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 515, 516, 723, 736, 757–​58, 778, 844, 845, 877, 890, 892–​93, 921, 923, 942–​43; Selnecker, Christliche kurtze summa, Kiia, Liva–​b, Pivb, Oib; Selnecker, Der gantze Prophet Jeremias, Ciia, Ciiia, Ciiib, Civa–​b; Selnecker, Der Prophet unnd ernster Busprediger Amos, Biiia–​b, Siiib; Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 5, 9, 174, 318, 468–​69, 510. 90. Austra Reinis explores how Hunnius’s sermons promoted the formation of a distinctive Lutheran piety and identity (“ ‘Admitted to the Heavenly School’ ” and “Piety and Politics”). 91. Lutheran biblical commentaries often first provided a running commentary on a section of the text and then drew out “doctrines or loci communes.” See Hunnius’s commentary on I Corinthians, Epistolae Divi Apostoli Pauli ad Corinthios. He organized Sechs Propheten into sections titled “Interpretation or Exegesis” and “Teaching and Admonition,” in the latter of which he highlighted doctrinal teachings. Kolb discusses the prominent loci communes method in Lutheran biblical commentaries (“Teaching the Text,” 571–​85).



Later Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Readings

277

Lutheran and Reformed Eschatologies Two places where Lutherans attended more directly to the historical elements of Old Testament prophetic texts were in the predictions of the saving events of Christ’s life and in the prophets’ descriptions of apocalyptic events.92 Lutherans typically read the prophets’ descriptions of the latter as either fulfilled in the first advent of Christ or as historical descriptions of Christ’s future second coming and the final Judgment Day. For example, Melanchthon interpreted Zechariah 14 as containing prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem, the first advent of Christ and the Gospel, and Christ’s future advent of universal judgment.93 Osiander frequently applied passages about the “day of the Lord” to the Last Days or Final Judgment Day, in which the descriptions of darkness and the trembling of the earth and the dissolving of the elements were literal signs of the end.94 Hunnius viewed Micah 1:3–​4 as a description of Christ’s final judgment, and Selnecker interpreted Amos 5:18 as portraying the Last Days.95 In other words, these later Lutherans were more comfortable than Luther (who preferred to read these simply as prophecies of Christ’s first advent) in applying these passages as literal-​historical prophecies of the Final Judgment Day, thereby pointing to an increasingly apocalyptic worldview among late sixteenth-​century Lutherans.96 Reformed interpreters, on the other hand, treated these texts in one of three ways. Sometimes the prophets offered a description of a general day of God’s vengeance or judgment, which has meaning across time.97 Other times, Reformed leaders applied it to the Final Judgment Day, but they refused to 92.  Key Old Testament texts concerning the “day of the Lord” include Joel 1:15, 2:1–​2, 10, 30–​31; and 3:1–​3, 15; Amos 5:18 and 8:9; Zephaniah 1:14; Micah 1:3–​4 and 4:1–​4; Zechariah 14; and Malachi 4:1. 93. CR 13:1002. 94. Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 606, 608, 609–​10, 613–​14, 160, 802. Osiander sometimes brought in parallels with II Peter 3:10–​12 and Matthew 25:41 (613–​14). He viewed Joel 2:10 and Amos 8:9 as general descriptions of a time of sorrow and misery (600, 665). 95. Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 168. Hunnius also connected this text to II Peter 3:10–​12, as well as to Luke 23:30 and Revelation 20. Selnecker, Der Prophet unnd ernster Busprediger Amos, Xiiia–​b. 96. Barnes provides a compelling study of this phenomenon in his Prophecy and Gnosis and points to the connection between astrology and this increasingly apocalyptic worldview for Lutherans in “Astrology and the Confessions.” 97.  Pareus, Notae Breviores, 55–​56, 57; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:214. 682, 2:746–​47; A Fruitful Commentarie, 269, 756–​57, 823; Grynaeus, In Obadiam Prophetam, 36–​37; Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 75r–​v, 77r, 283v–​284r; The Homilies, 26v, 36v; The Sermons, 43v–​46v; Piscator, 98, 151, 280; Drusius, Commentarius, 88–​89, 133.

278

The Reformation of Prophecy

apply it to this solely. They argued instead that the “day of the Lord” had many significations that spanned the whole history of the church and thus included the Final Day as just one of those significations.98 And yet other times, instead of viewing the descriptions of darkness, earthquakes, and the darkening of the sun and moon as literal-​historical descriptions, Reformed exegetes—​Calvinist exegetes in particular—​often read these metaphorically, as metaphors for sadness, anxiety, bitterness, and calamity.99 A  couple of things are notable here. First, Calvinist Reformed exegetes such as Pareus and Daneau were more willing than their predecessor to extend the reading of certain texts such as Joel 2:31 and Joel 3:2–​3 to their fullest extensive possibilities of narrating the experience of the church across time, including the time of the Last Days.100 Yet, on the whole, applications to the Last Day were more frequent among the Swiss Reformed exegetes, particularly in the readings of Gwalther. Gwalther applied Amos 8:9 first to the experience of Amos under the rule of Amaziah and then to the Last Day.101 He applied Zechariah 9:13–​17 extensively across the ages to the time of Zechariah, the time of Christ’s first advent, and the time of the Last Days, when the church must fight the Antichrist.102 Gwalther not only read the prophecy of Zechariah 14:4 (“the Mount of Olives shall be split in two”) as a prophecy of Christ’s first advent and commissioning of the Apostles to preach the Gospel throughout the world, but he read it in parallel with the Book of Revelation.103 He interpreted Joel 2:28–​31 alongside the Book of Revelation as well, arguing that Joel “comprehended the time from Christ’s manifestation in the flesh even to his last coming, in which [Christ] will accomplish his kingdom in his elect and punish his enemies with the pains of eternal death and damnation.”104

98.  Pareus, Notae Breviores, 70–​72; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:552–​53, 682, 692, 716–​17, 719–​20, 729, 2:996–​97; A Fruitful Commentarie, 624, 757, 767, 794, 796–​97, 806–​7, 1093–​ 94; Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 84v; The Homilies, 77r–​v. 99. Pareus, Notae Breviores, 68; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:258–​59, 692, 715–​16; A Fruitful Commentarie, 317–​18, 767, 792–​93; Piscator, Commentariorum, 114, 151, 171, 173, 278; Drusius, Commentarius, 88–​89, 133. Osiander a few times also viewed the language as metaphorical (Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 650, 665). 100. Pareus, Notae Breviores, 70–​72; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:716–​17, 719–​20; A Fruitful Commentarie, 794, 796–​ 97. Calvin specifically rejected applying Joel 3:1–​ 3 to the Last Judgment (Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:115). 101. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 129v–​130r. 102. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 353v–​355r. 103. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 379r. 104. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 84r; The Homilies, 77r.



Later Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Readings

279

Nonetheless, concerning matters of apocalyptic tone the Lutherans of the next generation stood head and shoulders above the rest. Lutherans not only more consistently and more profoundly viewed these texts of the “day of the Lord” as pertaining to the Last Days and the coming Final Judgment; they also employed the history of the Old Testament prophets to inform their own understanding of themselves as living in the era of the Last Days. They exhibited a tone of dire warning and envisioned the world—​and even the church—​on a terrifying path of decline. Both Selnecker and Osiander sometimes concluded interpretations of these texts on the “day of the Lord” with the following warning of the coming final judgment: “The axe is now at the tree!”105 Selnecker particularly perceived his time as the time of decline that precedes the final advent of Christ, and in his preface to his commentary on Amos and Obadiah, he evoked the following prayer of Luther: “May God grant that we believe in and commit ourselves to your Son Jesus Christ and that we be gathered to our fathers and die within twenty years, so that we may not see the terrible misery, both spiritual and temporal, of these end times.”106 Like Luther, Selnecker understood his generation as living in the “days of Noah,” and he portrayed this most creatively in his calculation of the year he wrote the commentary on Amos and Obadiah (1567) as numerically equivalent to the Latin word for flood (diluvium).107 Selnecker, among other Lutherans, saw the signs of the Last Days all around him:  local wars, revolt, abundant heresies, hypocrisy, rampant sin and immorality, papal corruption, and the threat of the Turk.108 He perceived warnings of God’s wrath “everywhere in the sky, air, water and earth through many strange and terrible signs,” including earthquakes.109 Hunnius similarly employed Micah 1:3–​4 as an opportunity to describe in moving detail the apocalyptic events on the Final Day and

105. Selnecker, Der Prophet unnd ernster Busprediger Amos, Eia, Ria; Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 597. 106. Selnecker, Der Prophet unnd ernster Busprediger Amos, Ciiia. 107. Selnecker, Der Prophet unnd ernster Busprediger Amos, Dia. Thus (D = 500) + (i = 1) + (L = 50) + (v = 5) + (v = 5) + (I = 1) + (v = 5) + (M = 1,000) = 1,567. Headley notes the significance of the events of the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Babylonian Captivity, the destruction of Jerusalem, the Sack of Rome, and now the destruction of Germany in Luther’s periodization of history (Luther’s View, 265). Selnecker repeats this same list (Der Prophet unnd ernster Busprediger Amos, Ciia–​b). 108.  Selnecker, Der Prophet unnd ernster Busprediger Amos, Ciiia–​ b. Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 13. 109. Selnecker, Der Prophet unnd ernster Busprediger Amos, Eia–​b. Selnecker then referred to a recent earthquake and discussed the historical significance of earthquakes.

280

The Reformation of Prophecy

exhort his listeners to prepare themselves.110 In his comments on Malachi 4, Osiander went so far as to identify Luther as the third Elijah, as did Hunnius in his closing comments in Sechs Propheten.111 In contrast to a Lutheran sense of their current age as primarily a time of decline, Reformed interpreters maintained a view of sacred history’s analogies to their own time that proffered a view of the continual progress of Christ’s kingdom across history. Reformed exegetes, of course, also understood in these texts warnings against sin, wickedness, corrupt worship, and impiety and the real possibilities of punishment and judgment; they affirmed that there were periods of decline that cycle with the ongoing progress of Christ’s kingdom across time. The crucial difference was that such themes often did not carry the apocalyptic flavor so evident in Lutheran readings. Nor did it carry a dire sense of constant decline or the view of their current age as primarily an era of decline. In emphasizing the prophets’ history as a mirror of God’s covenant and providential care of the church across all eras, the overriding messages of Reformed interpretations of Old Testament prophecy were exhortations to renew the church, prepare for the eschatological perfection of Christ’s kingdom, and convey consolation to bolster the church through times of hardship, persecution, and adversity.112 Such a tone of progress was true even among Swiss Reformed exegetes who also believed they were living in the Last Days and at times evoked images of the Last Day to create a sense of urgency.113 For example, Grynaeus emphasized Haggai’s hope of success at restoring the temple/​ church, reminding his readers that God always accomplishes God’s purposes, despite any adversities along the way.114 Gwalther viewed several of Obadiah’s

110. Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 168. 111. Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 944; Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 551. 112. Pareus, Notae Breviores, 71, 76–​77, 81, 87; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:311–​13, 313–​14, 447–​ 48, 497–​98, 601–​2, 662, 692, 719–​20, 724, 2:739, 777–​78; A Fruitful Commentarie, 375, 377, 518, 567–​58, 677, 737, 767, 796–​97, 801, 814, 853–​54; Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, xia, xiiia–​ b, 88–​89; Haggevs the Prophet, C3v–​C4r, C6r–​v, 90; Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 84r, 84v, 144r–​v, 144v, 288v–​289r; The Homilies, 74v–​75r, 77r, 77v–​78r; Certain godlie Homelies, 73–​ 74, 77–​78; The Sermons, 74r–​77r. Consolation was a particularly strong theme for Grynaeus and Gwalther. See Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, 117–​18, 145; Haggevs the Prophet, 121, 151; In Obadiam Prophetam, iir, 5, 23, 25, 105–​6, 202; Ionae Prophetae, 38, 181; Hypomnemata, 2–​3, 347; Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 71r, 78r, 81r, 84r, 85v, 143r; The Homilies, 2v, 42v, 58v, 75v, 84r; Certain godlie Homelies, 56, 60. 113. Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 114v, 355r, 378r. 114. Grynaeus, Haggaevs Propheta, xib, xib–​xiib, xiiia–​xiva; Haggevs the Prophet, C3v, C4r–​C5v, C6r–​C7r.



Later Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist Readings

281

prophecies as pointing to the advancement and enlargement of Christ’s kingdom: Let these things suffice that are spoken by the prophecy of Obadiah, which sets before our eyes  .  .  .  how dearly God loves his church, so that with so great severity [God] revenges the injuries done to his church. But above all this is full of consolation, that [God] does not forget his promises, although he allows his church now to be exercised and tried with all kinds of afflictions. He repairs the kingdom of his Christ . . . and augments it daily. . . . Wherefore, staying ourselves on this hope, let us overcome all adversities with a constant faith that in the time to come we may have the fruition of the eternal joy of his heavenly kingdom.115

Synopsis The next generation of Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist readers of Old Testament prophecy retained the distinctions of their predecessors. Lutherans furthered the conviction that the prime content of sacred history is the literal prophecies of the saving events of Christ’s life. They continued to distinguish between the history pertaining to the prophet and the history referring to Christ, and in doing so they prioritized Christological readings of Old Testament prophecy. They also prioritized doctrinal readings, thereby viewing the sacred history of Old Testament prophecy as a history of doctrine—​specifically the doctrines of salvation history, such as justification by faith alone, right understandings of faith and works, and right distinctions between Law and Gospel. The apocalyptic tenor evident in Luther’s readings became more pronounced in the next generation of Lutheran interpreters, as they applied texts not just to Christ’s first advent as an apocalyptic event in history but even more willingly as prophecies of the Last Days and Final Judgment. The next generation of Reformed interpreters, on the other hand, identified the prime content of sacred history with the prophets’ own histories. The Swiss Reformed theologians, however, simultaneously affirmed the content of sacred history as both the saving events of Christ’s life and the original histories of the prophets—​viewing these as complementary and noncompetitive. Nonetheless what distinguished Reformed and Lutheran readings of Old 115.  Gwalther, In Prophetas Dvodecim, 144v; Certain godlie Homelies, 77–​ 78. See also In Prophetas Dvodecim, 144r–​v, 2894; Certain godlie Homelies, 73–​74; The Sermons, 76v–​77r.

282

The Reformation of Prophecy

Testament prophecy were the Reformed theologians’ overwhelming identification of the prophets’ stories, histories, and teachings as models applicable to their own time, particularly in the work of Protestant churches to cultivate true worship and a godly society. Rather than doctrine, they accentuated the historical details as the site for meaning, in which they found vivid portraits of God’s eternal covenant for the consolation and imitation of the church across all time. A number of possible confessional crossovers emerged in this analysis. Though Lutherans continued to underscore the Christological history and meanings of Old Testament prophecy, exegetes such as Hunnius and Osiander demonstrated a deeper and broader attention to the histories of the Old Testament prophets as sites for edifying meanings and examples, even if those meanings and examples still tended to focus on characteristic Lutheran teachings concerning right understandings of faith, works, Law, and Gospel. The next generation of Calvinists (seen at different points in the works of Pareus, Daneau, Drusius, and Piscator) were a bit more willing to read certain texts Christologically that Calvin downplayed or even rejected. Certain Calvinists such as Pareus and Daneau were also more willing than Calvin to extend some texts to the Last Day—​perhaps echoing the greater willingness evident among contemporary Swiss Reformed exegetes. Finally, in his extensive readings of Old Testament prophecy, Daneau exhibited a greater penchant than Calvin to parallel the histories of Old Testament prophecy with specific, concrete events of church history across time, thereby expanding beyond Calvin’s preference for broad-​stroke patterns and coming closer to the greater specificity evident in contemporary Swiss Reformed practices.116

116.  Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:271–​72, 311–​13 447–​48, 552–​53, 603–​4, 692, 719–​20, 729, 790–​91, 2:987–​89, 990–​91; A Fruitful Commentarie, 332–​333, 375–​76, 518–​19, 624, 679, 767, 796–​97, 806–​7, 870, 1083–​84, 1087. Daneau pointed to prophecies’ fulfillment (a)  in the prophet’s time, (b) in the first advent of Christ, (c) in the sixteenth century, and (d) in the Last Days.

8

Christological Exegesis and the Interpretation of Metaphors in Old Testament Prophecy

In analyzing the differences in Luther’s and Calvin’s identifications of the primary content of the sacred history of Old Testament prophecy, practices of Christological exegesis emerged as a crucial point of disagreement. Luther’s identification of literal prophecies of the history of Christ and the Gospel as the primary content of the prophets’ sacred history undergirded his widespread Christological exegesis of Old Testament prophecy. Calvin’s emphasis on the original histories, words, and intentions of the Old Testament prophets as a mirror that empowered analogical readings to apply to the church across time were precisely the features that led him to curtail or revise certain forms of Christological exegesis of Old Testament prophecy. After providing a more in-​depth analysis of Luther’s and Calvin’s practices concerning Christological exegesis of Old Testament prophecy, this chapter focuses on their diverging views of Old Testament metaphors and their functions. The second half of the chapter traces the differences between Luther and Calvin into the next generation of Lutheran and Calvinist exegetes. I  demonstrate that debates over Christological exegesis of Old Testament prophecy and the proper interpretation of biblical metaphors fueled the consolidation of distinctive confessional identities in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. I  will not, however, address the position of the Swiss Reformed leaders, as I have already shown how they simultaneously affirmed the history of Christ and the prophet’s original history as noncompetitive sites for edifying readings of Old Testament prophecy. Debates concerning Christological exegesis and the

284

The Reformation of Prophecy

interpretation of metaphors in the Old Testament were particularly centered in Lutheran-​Calvinist polemical encounters.

Luther and Calvin on Christological Exegesis of Old Testament Prophecy Luther and Calvin agreed in principle that Old Testament prophecy points to Christ and Christ’s kingdom.1 They shared a strong affirmation of certain passages in Old Testament prophecy as pointing to and fulfilled in the kingdom of Christ, even as they disagreed concerning other forms of Christological exegesis of Old Testament prophecy, For example, both asserted that Obadiah (especially verses 17–​21), ­chapter 2 of Haggai, multiple chapters in Zechariah (2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14), and most of Malachi are full of prophecies of Christ’s kingdom.2 These texts converge primarily around the last three prophets that appeared just prior to the first advent of Christ: Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. This is because Calvin explicitly distinguished these as the three witnesses who heralded the first advent of Christ and announced the restoration of Christ’s kingdom.3 Luther, on the other hand, consistently identified prophecies of Christ’s kingdom across all the prophetic books of the Old Testament, operating with a much broader conception of the Christological content in Old Testament prophecy.4 Additionally, whereas Calvin often limited his Christological readings of Old Testament prophecy to prophecies of Christ’s kingdom, Luther emphasized prophecies not only regarding Christ’s kingdom but also of his two natures, incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension. 1.  WA 13:5, 88, 495; 13:429; 19:351; 23:501–​2; LW 18:5, 79, 342; 19:116, 152; 20:158–​59; CO 44:79, 125; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 4:315–​16; 5:xiii–​xiv. See also CO 42:263, 43:168–​74, 176, 197–​98, 199–​200, 364–​71; 44:120–​21, 122–​24, 161, 176, 178–​79, 186, 188–​89, 212–​13, 213, 217, 269, 295, 333, 371, 490–​92; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:133; 2:403–​10, 413, 452, 454–​55; 3:292–​304; 4:384–​85, 387–​88; 5:72, 96, 100, 112, 117, 156–​57, 159, 163, 251, 295, 359, 423, 617–​20. 2. WA 13:220–​22, 543–​44, 701–​3, 568–​75, 581–​84, 587–​93, 607–​10, 622–​35, 635–​43, 653–​62; 23:655–​56; LW 18:200–​202, 386–​87, 417–​19; 20:25–​33, 38–​41, 45–​50, 69–​73, 89–​104, 105–​15, 130–​42, 337–​38; CO 43:197–​200; 44:120–​24, 158–​59, 161–​63, 176, 178–​79, 186, 189, 212–​13, 214, 217, 269–​71, 295, 333, 338–​39, 371, 489–​92; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:452–​55; 4:384–​88; 5:68, 71–​75, 96, 100, 112, 117, 156–​57, 159, 163, 251–​53, 295, 359, 369, 423, 617–​20. 3. CO 44:79, 125, 126, 393–​94; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 4:315–​16; 5:xiii–​xiv, 15–​16, 459–​60. 4. Calvin included Daniel in this list with Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 4:315). See Pitkin, “Prophecy and History.”



Christological Exegesis

285

Luther frequently read prophecies in the Old Testament as literal prophecies of Christ’s person, the coming of Christ and the Gospel, and the saving events of Christ’s life.5 He read Micah 5:2 (“O Bethlehem . . . from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule Israel”) as a prophecy of Christ’s incarnation, Zechariah 9:9 (“Lo, your king comes to you . . . humble and riding on a donkey”) as a prophecy of Christ’s passion and entry into Jerusalem, Hosea 13:14 (“Death, where is your sting?”) as a prophecy of Christ’s resurrection, and Zechariah 14:4 (“his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives”) as a prophecy of Christ’s ascension, while perceiving much of Old Testament prophecy as saturated with general predictions and descriptions of the coming of Christ and the Gospel.6 Calvin, on the other hand, was less likely to read Old Testament prophecies as literal prophecies about Christ—​not even some that much of prior Christian tradition affirmed as being cited by New Testament authors in reference to Christ.7 Nor, as we shall see, did Calvin identify Christ and the Gospel as the primary referents of the Old Testament prophets’ metaphors. This does not mean that he altogether rejected a Christological reading of these texts. He typically treated the passages Luther and many prior Christian exegetes viewed as literal prophecies about Christ in one of three ways. First, occasionally, Calvin contended that the Old Testament text cannot properly apply to the person of Christ on the basis of the text’s grammar, literary context, and/​ or the prophet’s intention. Second, and more frequently, while Calvin applied the Old Testament text to Christ, he argued that it should not be confined to Christ’s person alone but extended to the whole church. Third, Calvin accentuated the metaphorical character of some passages that Luther 5.  This was especially prominent concerning Old Testament passages that he understood to be cited by New Testament authors in reference to Christ. Matthew 2:15 cites Hosea 11:1; I Corinthians 15:54 cites Hosea 13:14; Acts 2:17–​21 cites Joel 2:28–​32; Matthew 2:6 cites Micah 5:2; Matthew 21:5 cites Zechariah 9:9; and Matthew 26:31 and Mark 14:27 cite Zechariah 13:7. One might note that Micah 2:13, Hosea 6:2, and Zechariah 9:11, 11:12, 12:10, and 14:4 are not actually explicitly cited in the New Testament, though many see an allusion there by New Testament authors. For Luther’s interpretation of these as literal prophecies of Christ, see WA 13:27, 63–​64, 109, 312–​14, 324, 540–​42, 625–​30, 649, 660, 665–​68; 23:614–​17, 639–​40, 648, 653–​54, 656; LW 18:31, 71–​72, 107, 227–​29, 247, 381–​83; 20:94–​98, 123–​24, 140, 148–​50, 288–​91, 318, 328–​29, 334–​35, 338. 6. See his readings of Hosea 6:3 and 11:10, Joel 3:19–​20, Amos 9:13–​14, Obadiah 18–​19; Micah 4:2–​7, 5, and 7:14; Nahum 1:15; Zephaniah 3:8–​20; Haggai 2:23; Jonah 1:11, Habakkuk 1:5–​7 and 2:2; and Zechariah 2:1, 11–​3; 3:6–​9; 4:10; 6; 11; and 12. 7. See Pak, Judaizing Calvin, 13–​29, which establishes the early and medieval Christian tradition of reading Psalms cited in reference to Christ in the New Testament as clear, literal prophecies of Christ. A  quick perusal of prophecies from the Major and Minor Prophets cited by New Testament authors in reference to Christ demonstrates a similar pattern of reading in prior Christian tradition.

286

The Reformation of Prophecy

and the earlier Christian tradition viewed as literal prophecies of Christ; he emphasized their metaphorical character for the purposes of illuminating their extensive meaning for the church across the ages. Micah 2:12–​13 is a prime example of Calvin’s arguments that an Old Testament prophecy did not apply to Christ for reasons of the text’s grammar, literary context, and/​or the prophet’s original intention. He contended that one cannot apply this text to the restoration promised in Christ because the prophet’s intention and the passage’s larger literary context pointed instead to the threat of God’s vengeance upon the people.8 Unlike Luther, who believed the prophet typically broke off from giving threats directed at the people of his own day to insert prophecies of Christ’s restoration, Calvin wrote that he could not see “how the prophet could pass so suddenly” from a message of threat to two verses about the restoration promised by Christ.9 One must read these verses in accordance with the threats set forth earlier in the chapter and continued in ­chapter 3 that warned of God’s impending judgment.10 Thus “the one who breaks through” and the gathering of Jacob could not be Christological referents; instead they further indicated that the people and even their king would be taken away into exile.11

8. CO 43:315–​18; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:210–​14. Micah 2:12–​13 (NRSV) reads, “I will surely gather all of you, O Jacob, I will gather the survivors of Israel; I will set them together like sheep in a fold, like a flock in its pasture; it will resound with people. The one who breaks through will go up before them; they will break through and pass the gate, going out by it. Their king will pass on before them, the Lord at their head.” Calvin wrote, “The greater part of interpreters incline to this view that God here promises some alleviation to the Israelites, after having sharply reproved them and threatened them with utter ruin. They therefore apply this passage to the kingdom of Christ, as though God gave hope of a future restoration. But when I narrowly weigh everything, I am, on the contrary, forced to regard these two verses as a threat, that is, that the prophet here denounces God’s future vengeance on the people” (Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:210). 9. CO 43:316; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:211. 10. CO 43:316–​17; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:211–​12. Calvin pointed out that chapter divisions are later insertions: “[The prophet] now joins what I have lately referred to respecting the near judgment of God and proceeds, as we shall see, in the same strain to the end of the third chapter. But we know that the chapters were not divided by the prophets themselves. We have therefore a discourse continued by the prophet to the third chapter” (Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:211–​12). 11. CO 43:317; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:212–​13. Calvin wrote, “God declares that there will be a gathering of the people, but for what purpose? Not that being united together they might enjoy the blessings of God, but that they might be destroyed” (Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:212). As to the “one who breaks through” Calvin wrote, “That is, they shall be led in confusion, and the gate shall also be broken that they may go forth together . . . that they might pass through in great numbers



Christological Exegesis

287

Calvin similarly argued on the basis of literary context and the prophet’s intention that the primary meaning of Hosea 13:14 was not Christ’s resurrection as a victory over death and the grave but a broader teaching of God’s power and sovereignty:  “By these words the prophet more distinctly sets forth the power of God and magnificently extols it. . . . Though death should swallow up all men, though the grave should consume them, yet God is superior to both death and the grave, for he can slay death, for he can abolish the grave. We now perceive the real meaning of the prophet.”12 Calvin strongly objected to the reading modeled by Jerome that referred it to Christ as “baiting” death: But many interpreters, thinking this passage to be quoted by Paul, have explained what is said here of Christ and have in many respects erred. . . . They have then assumed that this is said of the person of Christ, “From the hand of the grave will I redeem them.” . . . And then into the words of the prophet, “I will be your excision, O hell,” they have introduced the word “bait” and have allegorically explained it of Christ—​that he was like a hook. For as a worm when fastened to the hook and swallowed by a fish becomes death to it, so also Christ, as they have said, when committed to the sepulcher became a fatal bait. For as the fish are taken by the hook, so death was taken by the bait of the death of Christ. And these vain subtleties have been received with great applause. . . . But yet let anyone narrowly examine the words of the prophet, and he will see that they have ignorantly and shamefully abused the testimony of the prophet. And we ought especially to take care that the meaning of Scripture should be preserved true and certain.13 The Christological application was therefore inconsistent with the intention of the prophet and the wider context of the passage, and it required the insertion of new words into the text in order to apply it to Christ. Calvin also contended that Paul did not actually quote Hosea 13:14; he instead alluded to Hosea’s

and in confusion. By these words the prophet intimates that all would be taken away into exile” (Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:213). 12.  CO 42:492; see 492–​93; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:476–​77; see 476–​79. Hosea 13:14 (NRSV) reads, “Shall I  ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from death? O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your destruction?” 13. CO 42:492–​93; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:477–​78.

288

The Reformation of Prophecy

words to invoke an image of the power of God.14 Calvin thereby brought Paul’s allusion to Hosea in line with Hosea’s original intention of setting forth the power and sovereignty of God. Calvin also appealed to grammar and literary context in his interpretation of Haggai 2:7–​8 to delimit the possible Christological applications of this text.15 The traditional Christian interpretation of these verses referred it to the advent of Christ, interpreting Christ as the “desire of the nations.” Calvin agreed that in a general manner this passage could refer to the promised coming of Christ; however, on the basis of the grammar and the context of the passage, he endorsed the translation of the plural Hebrew term as riches or treasures rather than desire. The simpler, more proper reading of this text was thus “Nations would come, bringing with them all their riches that they might offer themselves and all their possessions as a sacrifice to God.”16 The larger literary context confirms such a reading, he concluded, as seen in the mention of “silver and gold” in verse 8.17 A second approach used by Calvin was to apply Old Testament prophecies to Christ with the caveat that they should not be confined to Christ’s person alone—​the significatory power of the prophecies should also apply to the church. Here he made use of the Head-​member trope, so that any application to Christ, the Head, also automatically applied to Christ’s body, the church. Hosea 6:2 therefore was not solely a prophecy of Christ’s resurrection but also concerned God’s ability to save the church despite any obstacle.18 Calvin similarly objected to the restriction of the “vision” in Habakkuk 2:2–​3 to the coming of Christ and the application of the office of shepherd to Christ alone in Zechariah 11:4–​6 and 13:7, for both speak to God’s promise to preserve and

14. Calvin wrote, “But it is quite evident that in I Corinthians 15 Paul has not quoted the testimony of the prophet for the purpose of confirming the doctrine of which he speaks. . . . The simple object of Paul is by these striking words to extol the power of God, which is beyond the reach of human understanding. . . . We now then perceive how the real meaning of the prophet agrees with the subject handled by Paul” (CO 42:493–​94; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:478–​79). 15. Haggai 2:7–​8 (NRSV) reads, “I will shake the nations, so that the desire/​treasure of the nations shall come, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the Lord of hosts. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, says the Lord of hosts.” 16. CO 44:106; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 4:360. 17. CO 44:106; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 4:360–​61. 18. CO 42:320–​22; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:217–​19. Hosea 6:2 (NRSV) reads, “After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up that we may live before him.”



Christological Exegesis

289

care for the church across time.19 Zechariah 9:9 also should not be restricted to Christ; the text’s promises of righteousness and salvation belong to the whole church: “We then see that all controversy is at an end, if we refer those two words to Christ’s kingdom, and it would be absurd to confine them to the person of one man, for the discourse here is concerning . . . the public condition of the church and the salvation of the whole body.”20 Third, rather than simply viewing Old Testament prophecies as literal prophecies of Christ, in certain cases Calvin emphasized their metaphorical character in order to illuminate their figurative meanings for the church across the ages. Calvin stressed the metaphorical function of the image of the king as poor and riding on a donkey in Zechariah 9:9, even as he affirmed its literal fulfillment in Christ.21 When Christ literally performed this metaphor, Christ provided a visible symbol of the text that also served to shed further light on the text’s meaning in its original context: “Now we, who are fully persuaded and firmly maintain that the Christ promised has appeared and performed his work, see that it has not been said without reason that he would come poor and riding on a donkey. It was indeed designed that there should be a visible symbol of this very thing, for he mounted a donkey while ascending into Jerusalem a short time before his death.”22 In other words, Christ’s fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy served as a visible image that pointed back to Zechariah’s context to deepen its applications across time, including Zechariah’s own time.23 Though Calvin affirmed that Christ fulfilled certain Old Testament prophecies, he insisted that the metaphors of these texts applied extensively to the church for its edification, comfort, conviction, and strengthening. For

19.  CO 43:524–​25; 44:302, 354–​56; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 4:66–​68; 5:308, 395–​98. Calvin also objected to interpreting Micah 4:11–​13 and 7:16–​17 solely concerning Christ and applied it to the church across time (CO 43:362, 426–​27; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:289–​90, 396–​97). 20. CO 44:271; see 269–​71; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:254; see 251–​ 54. Head-​member Christological readings are strongly consistent with Calvin’s preference to read a text Christologically when it applies to Christ’s kingdom. 21. CO 44:272; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:256. 22. CO 44: 271–​72; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:256–​57, there 256, emphasis added. 23. CO 44:272; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:257. Calvin appealed to a similar use of metaphor in Psalm 22, arguing that the image of casting lots for David’s garments is a metaphorical image that Christ fulfilled to provide a visible symbol (CO 31:229; Calvin, Commentary on Psalms, 1:376).

290

The Reformation of Prophecy

example, he maintained that Christ not only fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah 11:12, but the thirty pieces of silver were also figurative: In substance, then, there is no doubt of the agreement between the words of Matthew and those of the prophet. But we must hold this principle: that Christ was the true Jehovah from the beginning. As then the Son of God is the same in essence with the Father and is with him the only true God, it is no wonder that what the prophet figuratively expressed as having been done under the law by the ancient people has been done to him literally in his own person. For, as they had given to God thirty pieces of silver—​a sordid price—​as a just reward, so he complained that the labor he undertook in ruling them was unjustly valued. When Christ was sold for thirty pieces of silver, it was a visible symbol of this prophecy exhibited in his own person.24 That Christ was actually sold for thirty pieces of silver by Judas Iscariot was a visible representation of the deep ingratitude the people showed for all that God had done for them—​both in the original context of Zechariah and in the person of Christ, together serving as a warning to the church in every age. Calvin thus emphasized the backward-​looking metaphorical application of the prophecy just as much as the forward direction of the prophecy as fulfilled in Christ. Such a methodological move reinforced his goals to attend to the Old Testament author’s original history and to provide analogical readings for the church across time.25 Calvin also emphasized a metaphorical reading of Zechariah 12:10 (“they look to me whom they have pierced”), even as he affirmed its literal fulfillment in Christ. Metaphorically the verse provides a picture of conversion and repentance that offers a broader teaching for the church about repentance: “They shall look to me whom they have pierced” is to be taken metaphorically, for the prophet expresses here what he had said 24. CO 44:314–​15; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:328–​29. 25. Calvin maintained that Zechariah 11:12’s literal fulfillment in Christ reaches backward to teach the Jews concerning the divinity of Christ (CO 44:314, 315; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:328, 329). He concluded, “But that it might be made evident that Christ was the true God who had from the beginning spoken by the prophet, God, by setting the thing before their eyes, intended that there should be a visible fact or transaction that he might, as it were, draw the attention of the Jews to what is here said” (Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:329).



Christological Exegesis

291

before—​that the Jews would some time return  .  .  .  when endued with a spirit of grace and commiserations. For it is a true conversion when men seriously acknowledge that they are at war with God and that he is their enemy until they are reconciled. For, except a sinner sets himself in a manner before God’s tribunal, he is never touched by a true feeling of repentance. . . . This is the real meaning of the Prophet here:  for the Jews after having in various ways and for a long time heedlessly provoked God would sometime be led to repentance.26 Calvin emphasized the Jews’ offense against God in order to invite readers of the church across time to see themselves in this same offense and understand the proper path of repentance. He also read the literal fulfillment of this prophecy by Christ as a visible symbol that illuminated the situation under Zechariah and revealed the divinity of Christ: “John says that this prophecy was fulfilled in Christ when his side was pierced by a spear, and this is most true. For it was necessary that the visible symbol should be exhibited in the person of Christ in order that the Jews might know that he was the God who had spoken by the prophets.”27 The literal fulfillment of the prophecy in Christ served a metaphorical function: it provided a visible image to illustrate the ways in which the Jews in Zechariah’s time grieved God, to teach a lesson of repentance more broadly to the church, and to reveal the divinity of Christ.28 Calvin therefore emphasized the metaphorical possibilities of texts that he also affirmed as fulfilled literally by Christ, for in them Christ provided a visible symbol of their extensive meaning for the prophet’s original historical circumstances and the experience of the church in any age. By exploring the disparities between Luther’s and Calvin’s methods of Christological exegesis of Old Testament prophecy, their divergent treatments of Old Testament metaphors emerge as a crucial feature.

26. CO 44:335; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:364. 27. CO 44:335–​36; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:364, emphasis added. 28.  CO 44:336–​37; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:364–​66. While affirming that Christ literally fulfilled Zechariah 12:10, Calvin applied its image of mourning as a vivid picture of repentance with figurative applications to instruct the church across time. It signaled the Jews’ eventual repentance:  “The prophet now explains his meaning more clearly by mentioning lamentation and grief—​that God would at length grant the Jews repentance for having crucified Christ” (Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:366).

292

The Reformation of Prophecy

Luther and Calvin on the Function of Metaphor in Old Testament Prophecy While Luther emphasized Christ’s literal fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies, Calvin insisted upon extensive readings of Old Testament prophecy, whether through the Head-​member trope or by galvanizing the text’s metaphorical possibilities toward its full potential to instruct the church in any age. Metaphor played a significant role in Calvin’s goals of enabling these extensive applications to the prophet’s original context and to the church across time. The significance of the role of metaphors in Calvin’s exegesis of Old Testament prophecy leads to further questions: Did Luther also identify metaphor as an important aspect of the Old Testament prophets’ language? If so, how did he interpret Old Testament metaphors? How did Luther’s and Calvin’s treatment of the metaphorical language in Old Testament prophecy compare or contrast?

Luther and Calvin on the Prophets’ Metaphorical Language Luther and Calvin both affirmed that the biblical prophets frequently employed metaphors, figures of speech, and a significative mode of speaking in their proclamations.29 Luther noted that the Minor Prophets in particular used more figures of speech than the other biblical prophets.30 They both viewed the Old Testament prophets as painting a picture with their words precisely through the tool of metaphor, for the prophets render “vivid pictures,” “living portraits,” “living representations,” or even a “parade of pictures” to depict their meaning more richly, provocatively, and persuasively.31 Luther saw prophets as amplifying their language in order to reach and rouse an uncooperative audience, as seen in Habakkuk, who “employs many words here. He portrays everything realistically and embellishes it with figures of speech. And it is necessary to do that when preaching to a hard and rude rabble; one must paint it for them, pound it into them, chew it for them, and resort to

29. WA 13:118, 161, 165–​66, 173–​74, 484; 19:370; LW 18:117, 130, 136, 148, 325; 19:171; CO 43:149, 176; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:372–​73, 413. 30. WA 13:161; LW 18:131. 31. WA 13:382, 443; 19:370; 23:567; LW 18:298; 19:139, 171–​72; 20:233; CO 42:204–​5; 43:569, 581; 44:18, 364, 379–​80; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:45; 4:142, 163, 211; 5:411, 436–​37.



Christological Exegesis

293

every means to see whether they can be moved.”32 Metaphors thus served to amplify the prophet’s words and resulted from the prophet’s abundance of the Holy Spirit; they were a means to exemplify the power and efficacy of the Gospel.33 Even as metaphors functioned to amplify, provoke, and persuade, Luther argued that they obscured as much as they revealed.34 He therefore counseled the need to move beyond the prophet’s obscure language and focus on the passages where the prophet spoke clearly.35 Calvin, on the other hand, not only accentuated the persuasive function of metaphors but pointed to their emphatic performance (through amplification or hyperbole) in order for the reader to better understand the prophet’s intention.36 Rather than obscuring meaning, metaphors clarified it. Calvin viewed the prophets’ figural language as an accommodation for human understanding.37 He described Haggai’s language as accommodated speech: “It was then necessary for Haggai to speak in a manner suitable to the comprehension of the people, as a skillful teacher who instructs children and those of a riper age in a different manner.”38 Invoking Hosea, he argued that the 32. WA 19:370; LW 19:171. 33. WA 13:118, 323, 328, 662; LW 18:117, 245, 253; 20:143. 34.  WA 13:118, 192, 304, 382, 633–​34, 638–​39, 644, 645; 23:485; LW 18:117, 173, 214, 298; 20:102, 108, 116, 118, 155. Luther wrote, “It is worthwhile observing this in the prophets, who are accustomed to use so many metaphors for this purpose, that they either obscure their prophecy or exercise their ingenuity” (WA 13:118; LW 18:117). 35.  On Zechariah 9:13, Luther wrote, “These points he made in clear words without any metaphors so that they could not be understood any other way. Therefore, to that earlier simplicity we must apply the present words as figurative” (WA 13:631; LW 20:99). He commented similarly on Zechariah 9:16, “Here, then the prophet speaks about Christ with many obscure metaphors and figures of speech because he has discussed the same matter earlier with clear and direct language” (WA 13:633–​34; LW 20:102) and Zechariah 10:3, “Those statements that are spoken obscurely and without figures we must apply and interpret in connection with those that are spoken simply and without figures and cannot be understood in any other way” (WA 13:638–​39; LW 20:108). Luther complained concerning Zechariah 11, “The prophet will discuss the same matter in this chapter. Here, however, he will do this with strangely obscure and involved language. You see, not only is the prophet himself quite obscure in this chapter, but the variety of interpretations also increases the obscurity. If we shall have disentangled ourselves from this chapter, I believe we shall have overcome whatever is obtuse and difficult to explain in this prophet” (LW 20:116). He wrote of Amos, “What up to this time he has prophesied and threatened with clear language, he here prophesies through enigmas and visions” (WA 13:192; LW 18:173). 36. CO 42:312, 318, 371–​72, 539, 568; 43:399, 462, 464; 44:18, 72–​74; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:206, 215, 293–​94; 2:51, 94; 3:351, 459, 463–​64; 4:211, 304–​6. 37.  CO 42:326, 569; 43:176, 522–​23; 44:72–​73, 118, 364–​65; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:225; 2:95, 413; 4:63, 304–​5, 381; 5:411–​12. 38. CO 44:118; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 4:381.

294

The Reformation of Prophecy

prophets accommodated their language for diverse audiences: “We now then see how varied is the mode of speaking adopted by the prophets, for they had to deal not with one class of men but with the children of God and also with the wicked.  .  .  . Hence then it was that they changed their language necessarily.”39 Zechariah thus also spoke metaphorically in 14:4 in order to enable a fuller comprehension of God’s power: [The prophet] indeed illustrates his discourse here by figurative expressions, as though he wished to bring the Jews to see the scene itself; for the object of the personification is no other but that the faithful might set God before them as it were in a visible form; and thus he confirms their faith, as indeed it was necessary; for as we are dull and entangled in earthly thoughts, our minds can hardly rise up to heaven, though the Lord with a clear voice invites us to himself. The prophet, then, in order to aid our weakness adds a vivid representation as though God stood before their eyes.40 The tools of metaphor, figure, hyperbole, personification, and amplification equipped the prophet to give living, visible form to his message and to invite his listeners to participate in its narrative by seeing their own reflection in the vivid portrait he painted before their eyes. In emphasizing how the prophets’ metaphorical language provided a “living portrait,” Calvin offered the prophets’ speech as a mirror for the church across time, as in the example of Micah: “When we understand that Micah condemned this or that vice . . . we are able to apply more easily to ourselves what he then said inasmuch as we can view our own life as it were in a mirror.”41 Old Testament prophecy provided mirrors that reflected the dangers of avarice, tyranny, and injustice.42 Its verbal mirrors also reflected God’s providential care of the church that could be used to exhort the faithful to persevere in times of adversity, trust in God’s protection, and hope in ultimate vindication.43 For Calvin, the prophets “set before us by the Lord as in a mirror the

39. CO 42:326; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:225. 40. CO 44:364; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:411. 41. CO 43:281; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:151. 42.  CO 43:302, 470, 552; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:187,475; 4:113–​14. 43.  CO 42:321–​22; 43:569; 44:45–​46, 183–​84, 291–​92; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:219; 4:142, 259; 5:108–​9, 289.



Christological Exegesis

295

real condition of the church at this day,” which especially shed light on the experiences of the Protestant reformers challenges against Roman Catholic worship and theology.44

The Role of Metaphors in Luther’s and Calvin’s Exegesis of Old Testament Prophecy Calvin’s attention to Old Testament metaphors directly fostered his analogical reading of Old Testament prophecy, for it was exactly the prophets’ metaphorical language that invites—​even necessitates—​the tool of analogy. The prophets employed metaphorical language precisely for the purposes of clarifying meaning so that readers might more deeply comprehend their applications to the experience of the church across time. Conversely, for Luther metaphors obscured as much as they revealed. Luther therefore focused on the clear prophecies of Christ in Old Testament prophecy—​indeed the literal prophecies of Christ—​and frequently interpreted Old Testament metaphors as simply fulfilled literally in Christ and the advent of the Gospel. He interpreted the “morning showers” (Hos 6:3), depiction of God as roaring like a lion (Hos 11:10), and the “fountain from the house of the Lord” (Joel 3:18) as images of the preaching of the Gospel, just as the images throughout the latter half of Joel 3 pertained to the proclamation of the Gospel.45 The images of dew, blossoms, and spreading shoots and vines in Hosea 14:5–​7 also signify the preaching and spread of the Gospel throughout the world, and the military metaphors in Micah 4:13 (threshing, iron horns, and bronze hoofs) and Zechariah 9:13–​16 (bows, arrows, warriors, and sling stones) portrayed the power and efficacy of the Gospel.46 Luther argued that the depiction of the plowman overtaking the reaper (Amos 9:13) signifies “the very swift course of the Word of the Gospel among the Gentiles,” just as “the house of Jacob shall be a fire” and the consumption of Edom by this fire were images of the apostles preaching the Gospel.47 Luther often identified

44. CO 44:150; see also 150–​51, 178, 183–​84, 192–​93, 356; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:54; see also 54–​55, 99, 108–​9, 123, 397. He wrote on Zechariah 4:11–​14, “Indeed the state of things in our time is nearly the same with that of his time” (CO 44:192; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:123). 45. WA 13:28, 53, 122; LW 18:32, 61, 122. For Luther, Joel 3:9–​16’s images of war; sickle, harvest, and wine press; and the roar of the lion depicted the wide proclamation of the Gospel (WA 13:118; LW 18:117–​18). 46. WA 13:63, 323, 631–​34; LW 18: 75–​76, 245–​46, 20:99–​102. 47. WA 13:205, 222; LW 18:189, 202.

296

The Reformation of Prophecy

one-​to-​one correspondences between the prophets’ images and their literal significations—​such as the shepherd and his staff (Micah 7:14) representing Christ and the Gospel, and the signet ring (Haggai 2:23), stone and branch (Zechariah 3:8–​9), and plummet (Zechariah 4:10) signifying Christ.48 Luther therefore effectively maintained Christ and the Gospel as the primary referents of Old Testament metaphors. For Luther, metaphor performed Scripture’s significatory power in a manner that must always ultimately point to Christ; that is, the conviction that “all Scripture points to Christ” functioned much more immediately for him than for Calvin. Luther focused the significatory power of Old Testament prophetic metaphors on the in-​breaking of Christ and the Gospel into human history, an emphasis that buttressed his view of the Word of God as the chief agent of reform and instrument in God’s interactions with humanity.49 His recurrent Christological exegesis of Old Testament prophecy and his preference of applying metaphors to further reveal Christ and the Gospel were thoroughly consistent with his clear and powerful conviction of the Christocentric character of Scripture. Since Luther argued that metaphors obscured more than they revealed, he directed the reader to look for the prophet’s clear teachings, which are exactly the clear teachings concerning Christ and the Gospel. For Calvin, metaphors revealed Scripture’s significatory power in a manner that compelled him toward the tool of analogy. The prophet’s figures and images galvanized his simultaneously forward-​and backward-​looking applications of the prophet’s message for the church across time so that they not only allowed but demanded analogical readings across time and audiences. Such careful consideration of the prophet’s language—​particularly his metaphorical language—​required precise attention to the literary properties of prophetic writings: attention to the prophet’s intention, grammar, literary context, and historical context. For Calvin, the prophets’ metaphors set forth in bold relief Scripture’s significatory properties so that words in Scripture functioned as signs to further meaning. Metaphors revealed most fully the sign character of Scripture and actively invited the church to enter into Scripture’s extensive meaning.

48. WA 13:341, 544, 582–​83, 592–​93; LW 18:274, 386: 20:40, 49–​50. Likewise the “dew” in Micah 5:7 is the Gospel, the “flying scroll” in Zechariah 5:11 is the office of preaching, the “four winds” in 6:6 are the apostles, and the jewels in 9:16’s crown are the apostles and heralds of the Gospel. WA 13:327; 23:566–​67, 579–​80; 13:633–​34; LW 18: 252; 20:233, 248, 102. 49.  See Headley’s account of the Word as God’s central instrument for interacting with humans and human history (Luther’s View, 17–​29).



Christological Exegesis

297

Methods of Reading Old Testament Metaphors The methods with which Luther and Calvin engaged Old Testament metaphors differed even beyond a sharp contrast between Luther’s literal applications to Christ and Calvin’s analogical applications via the prophet’s history to the experiences of the church across time.50 In his interpretations of Old Testament metaphors, Luther tended to identify what one might call one-​to-​one correspondences, in which he equated images from creation (e.g., morning showers, dew, blossoms, spreading shoots, and vines) and military metaphors (iron horns, bronze hoofs, bows, arrows, and sling stones) directly with Christ and the Gospel.51 In contrast, Calvin consistently interpreted these metaphors as descriptors that painted a broad-​stroke portrait of God’s providential care of the church. In the image of dew, Calvin saw a depiction of God’s provision of moisture on a barren land, just as the growing blossoms and vines served as visual portrayals of God’s promises of prosperity and blessing.52 The streambed and fountain (Joel 3:18) simply illustrated God’s abundance and blessing to the church.53 The same could be said of the military metaphors; rather than equating these with Christ and the Gospel, Calvin argued that they provided a “lively representation” of God’s defense of the church.54 Calvin specifically focused on the plain-​sense, historical properties of the metaphor in order to paint a broad visual portrait of God’s providential care.55 He emphasized the visual function of metaphor: “The lively representation we see here was intended for this end—​that the people, being led to view the whole event, might entertain hope of their future salvation. . . . The

50.  This is a statement of emphasis and tendencies. There are exceptions. For example, Luther at points employed the prophet’s history as a lesson for the church, and Calvin at points interpreted Old Testament metaphors in reference to Christ, particularly Christ’s kingdom. For example, in his preface to Micah, Luther employed the Jews as an example to the church of what happens if one despises God’s Word (WA 13:300; LW 18:208). 51. WA 13:28, 65, 323, 631–​34; LW 18:32, 75–​76, 245–​46, 20:99–​102. 52. CO 42:504–​507; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:496–​99. 53. WA 13:122; LW 18:122. CO 42:597–​98; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:138–​39. 54. WA 13:118, 631–​34; LW 18:117; 20:100–​102. CO 42:590, 591; 44:279–​80, 281–​82; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:127, 129; 5:267–​69, 272–​73, there 127. 55. Calvin typically refrained from such one-​to-​one correspondences. The one exception is that he agreed with Luther that some of the prophets’ metaphors correspond directly with Christ. In these cases, however, Calvin also insisted that they had an immediate correspondence to a figure in the prophet’s own context. See CO 44:176, 178–​79; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:96, 100; WA 13:582–​83; 23:553–​54; LW 20:40, 217–​18.

298

The Reformation of Prophecy

faithful, then, not only hearing by mere words that this would be, but also seeing—​as it were, with their eyes—​what the Lord sets forth by a figure and a lively representation, were more effectually impressed and felt more assured that God would become at length their deliverer.”56 These differing methodologies are evident in Luther’s and Calvin’s engagement with Old Testament metaphors even in cases where Luther did not refer them to Christ and the Gospel. Luther continued to identify one-​to-​one correspondences, while Calvin continued to focus on the visual properties of the metaphors in order to employ the prophet’s original circumstances as a visual mirror for the church across time. For example, Luther equated the “wings” in Hosea 4:19 with Israel’s priests and kings; Calvin, on the other hand, focused on the plain-​sense properties of the wind and wings as metaphors that paint a picture of the prophet’s meaning.57 Luther identified the plowshares, pruning hooks, spears, and swords in Joel 3:10 with the Word of God to argue for God’s Word as the proper weapon of spiritual battle. Calvin, pointing specifically to the metaphors’ visual properties, wrote, “The lively representation we see here was intended for this end: that the people, being led to view the whole event, might entertain hope of their future salvation.”58 Calvin’s emphasis on the visual properties of the prophets’ metaphors was consistent with his careful attention to the prophets’ histories as offering extensive representations of the experience of the church across time. Such prioritization of the prophets’ histories also explains several cases in which he did not read a text as containing metaphors that Luther affirmed as metaphorical, for here he viewed the prophet’s words as descriptions of actual, historical events that Luther read as metaphorical. For example, Luther interpreted “fire” and “flame” metaphorically in Joel 1:19, arguing that these represent total desolation, whereas Calvin viewed these as an actual fire that had burned the pastures.59 Luther viewed the four winds in Zechariah 6:6 and crown jewels in 9:16 as figures for the New Testament apostles, whereas Calvin simply took

56. CO 42:590; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:127. 57. Calvin wrote: “The meaning is that a sudden storm would sweep away the people and, thus, they would be ashamed of their sacrifices. . . . The Lord had already given them up to the wind that it might hold them tied in its wings” (WA 13:21; LW 18:25; CO 42:294–​95; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:180). 58. WA 13:118; LW 18:117–​18; CO 42:590; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:127. One recalls Calvin’s prior appeals to the function of metaphor as a “visible symbol,” as found in his reading of Zechariah 9:9, 11:12, and 12:10. 59. WA 13:93; LW 18:86; CO 42:531–​32; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:40–​41.



Christological Exegesis

299

the four winds as the four directions (north, south, east, and west) and argued that the stones were simply the sling stones by which the Jews would defeat their enemies.60 Luther and Calvin also differed quite significantly in their interpretation of the “bones of the king of Edom” in Amos 2:1, for Luther read this text metaphorically, arguing that these bones are not the bones of an actual body but signified princes, specifically the strong and the powerful.61 Calvin criticized Luther’s reading as an unnecessary “allegory” and contended that the Moabites actually burned the literal bones of the king—​an act that demonstrated their inhumanity and cruelty.62

Metaphor versus Allegory Accusations of allegorizing appeared frequently in Calvin’s criticisms of prior and contemporary Christian readings of Old Testament prophecy, for he viewed certain treatments of Old Testament metaphors as deteriorating into allegory, particularly readings that identified one-​to-​one correspondences. For instance, Calvin criticized the common Christian application of Hosea 6:2 as a prophecy of Christ’s resurrection:  “Yet this sense seems to me rather too refined. We must always keep this in mind that we fly not in the air. Subtle speculations please at first sight, but afterwards vanish. Let everyone, then, who desires to be proficient in the Scriptures always keep to this rule: to gather from the prophets and apostles only what is solid.”63 The more defensible reading of this text, Calvin insisted, must line up with the prophet’s intention and context as an exhortation to the church to endure God’s delay patiently and believe in God’s eventual restoration.64 He equally criticized Luther’s and others’ reading of Amos 5:24 (“Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an everflowing stream”) in reference to the Gospel and Christ’s true righteousness, contending that “this meaning seems not to harmonize with the prophet’s words and is, in my judgment, too refined.”65 Instead the 60. WA 23:580; 13:633–​34; LW 20:248, 102; CO 44:206, 281–​82; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:146, 272–​73. 61. WA 13:166; LW 18:138. 62. CO 43:18; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:172. 63. CO 42:320; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:217. 64. CO 42:320–​22; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 1:217–​19. Luther read Hosea 6:2 as a prophecy of Christ’s resurrection and insisted that it could not be applied to the temporal kingdom of Judah (WA 13:27; LW 18:31). 65.  WA 13:  186; LW 18:166; CO 43:96; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:290.

300

The Reformation of Prophecy

prophet simply exhorts the people to true worship that they might bear true fruits of righteousness.66 Such examples of Calvin’s rejection of allegory abound in his readings of the prophecies of Zechariah, particularly in contrast to Luther’s readings. Though he agreed that Zechariah more than others prophesied the first advent of Christ, Calvin still repeatedly cautioned against deteriorating into allegory. He therefore rejected the application of the military images of Zechariah 9:13–​17 to Christ’s commission of the apostles: All Christian expositors give us an allegorical explanation that God sent forth his armies when he sent forth apostles into all parts of the world, who pierced the hearts of men and slew with his sword the wicked. . . . All this is true, but a simpler meaning must in the first place be drawn from the words of the prophet, which is that God will render his church victorious.  .  .  . There is then no need to turn the prophet’s words to an allegorical meaning when the fact is evident that God’s church has been kept safe because God has ever blunted all the weapons of the enemies.67 The plain sense of the prophet sufficiently provided powerful teachings of consolation and God’s providential care of the church. Calvin likewise criticized the reading of Zechariah 14:4 as prophesying Christ’s ascension from the Mount of Olives and commission of the apostles—​a reading Luther and much of Christian tradition espoused. He contended instead: All these things, I  know, are explained allegorically—​ that Christ appeared on the Mount of Olives when he ascended into heaven and

66.  CO 43:96–​97; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:291–​92. Calvin reacted similarly to the application of Micah 4:13 to the first advent of Christ and the Gospel when he exclaimed, “But they have refined too much in allegories, who have thought that this prophecy ought to be confined to the time of Christ. For the prophet no doubt meant to extend consolation to the whole kingdom of Christ from the beginning to the end” (CO 43:362; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:289). See WA 13:323; LW 18:245–​ 46. Luther’s and Calvin’s interpretations of Micah 7:11–​16 offer a similar case. Luther read the whole passage as a prophecy of Christ and the Gospel (WA 13:340–​42; LW 18:273–​75), whereas Calvin viewed this reading as a “violent perversion” and applied it to the immediate historical situation of the prophet—​a reading Calvin argued aligned better with the prophet’s intention (CO 43:419; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:384). 67. CO 44:283; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:274. Luther read the images of Zechariah 9:13–​17 as images of the apostles and the preaching of the Gospel. WA 13:631–​34; 23:619–​22; LW 20:99–​103, 293–​97.



Christological Exegesis

301

also that the mount was divided that it might be passable and that the apostles might proceed into the various parts of the world in order that they might conquer the nations. But these are refinements that might please many but when anyone properly considers them, they are hardly solid. Therefore, I take a simpler view of what the prophet said—​ namely, that the hand of God is sufficiently conspicuous whenever he wanted to aid his miserable and afflicted church.68 Calvin consistently opted for a reading that he believed was in keeping with the prophet’s intention and historical circumstances, which also provided a portrait of God’s eternal providence.69 Through criticizing others’ readings as a wrong turn to allegory and setting forth a more plain-​sense reading, Calvin aimed to distinguish proper metaphorical reading from allegorical exegesis. Calvin affirmed that the prophets’ significations allowed—​ even demanded—​that literal readings of Old Testament prophecy were not the only way (or even the best way) to interpret these texts, as seen in his comments on Amos 8:9:  “Were anyone disposed to lay hold on what is literal and to cleave to it, his notions would be gross and insipid, not only with regard to the writings of the prophets but also with regard to all other writings, for there is no language that has not its figurative expressions. There is then in this passage a remarkably significative mode of speaking.”70 This affirmation did not entail for him, however, any kind of turn to allegory; it entailed a robust engagement with the prophet’s metaphors that was precisely rooted in the historical, plain-​sense, literary, and/​or visual properties of the text.71 At the

68. CO 44: 365; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:412. Luther read this text in very martial terms, writing, “The prophet wishes to say that the fight of the Gospel is to begin there at the Mount of Olives” (WA 23:656; LW 20:338). Balserak argues that Calvin employed his lectures on the Minor Prophets to launch a campaign in France with potentially militaristic overtones (John Calvin, 102–​78, esp. 172–​78). If this was so, the interpretations of Zechariah 9 and 14 in such military terms could go a long way in supporting this aim of Calvin; however, Calvin actually argued against such readings. 69.  Calvin also sometimes rejected an allegorical reading in favor of the simple, literal-​ historical sense. For example, Luther interpreted the images of rain in Zechariah 10:1–​2 as referring to the Gospel (WA 13:636–​37; 23:624; LW 20:105–​6, 299). Calvin argued that the prophet’s request for rain means simply that the Jews should ask for rain in their time of drought (CO 44:284–​85; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:277–​79; see also 281). 70. CO 43:149; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:372–​73. 71. Calvin immediately pointed to the prophet’s intention in Amos 8:9 as a parameter for the possible proper significations of the text. CO 43:149; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:373.

302

The Reformation of Prophecy

beginning of his lectures on Zechariah, Calvin delineated three basic rules for the proper interpretation of Old Testament metaphors:  “There is therefore nothing better than to attend to the design of the prophet and then to regard the circumstances of the time and, thirdly, to follow the analogy between the signs and things signified.”72 These three guiding principles served as boundaries for proper readings of Old Testament prophecy, particularly their metaphors.73 By prioritizing the prophet’s intention, historical circumstances, and the historical, plain-​sense properties of the prophet’s metaphors, Calvin made it crystal clear that figural reading is not ahistorical. It attends deeply to the historical properties of the text and therefore has nothing in common with allegory (which is ahistorical).74 To “follow the analogy between the signs and things signified” precisely requires such profound attention to the prophets’ intention and historical contexts—​particularly the visual properties of their metaphors—​as well as matters of grammar and literary context. These three principles worked jointly in Calvin’s method to fuse together the meaning for the prophet’s original circumstances and the extensive meanings for the church across time.

Calvin’s Possible Inconsistencies concerning Allegory Calvin strongly affirmed metaphorical readings deeply anchored in the historical and literary properties of the biblical text and strove to distinguish metaphor from allegory. Yet he did not always maintain a clear terminological line between “allegory and “metaphor,” as indicated in his conclusion to the Book of Amos:

72. CO 44:138; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:35. 73. I demonstrated earlier Calvin’s frequent appeal to authorial intention, literary context, and historical context in his readings of Hosea 13:14, Micah 2:12–​13, Hosea 13:14, and Haggai 2:7–​8. Calvin insisted that the prophet’s words do not skip over their meaning for the people in the prophet’s own time and jump immediately to the time of Christ. Calvin wrote on Micah 7:12, “Whenever, then, the prophets make known God’s favor in the deliverance of his people, they make a transition to Christ but include also the whole intermediate time” (CO 43:421; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:387, emphasis added). See also CO 43:426 and 44:73–​74; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 3:396 and 4:305–​6. 74.  David Puckett points to Calvin’s depiction of allegory as ahistorical:  “[Calvin] calls interpretations ‘allegorical’ if they disregard the historical context or if they interpret the details of a biblical text apart from a consideration of the immediate literary context. Allegorical exegesis is the antithesis of historical exegesis” (John Calvin’s Exegesis, 106).



Christological Exegesis

303

If anyone objects and says that the prophet does not speak here allegorically, the answer is ready at hand, even this—​that it is a manner of speaking everywhere found in Scripture that a happy state is painted as it were before our eyes by setting before us the conveniences of the present life and earthly blessings. This may especially be observed in the prophets, for they accommodated their style, as we have already stated, to the capacities of a rude and weak people.75 One might hope for consistency’s sake that Calvin would have employed the term metaphorically instead of allegorically, for also present here is the similar language of “painted as it were before our eyes” that he often evoked when describing the function of metaphors. He again positively employed the term allegorical in his comments on Isaiah 30:25: When the prophets describe the kingdom of Christ, they commonly draw similitudes from ordinary human life, for the true happiness of the children of God cannot be described in any other way than by holding out an image of those things that fall under our bodily senses. . . . But those expressions are allegorical and are accommodated by the prophet to our ignorance that we may know by means of those things that are perceived by our senses those blessings that have so great and surpassing excellence that our minds cannot comprehend them.76 David Puckett insightfully points out that in both of these cases in which he positively invoked allegory, Calvin specifically noted that these prophecies had no literal, historical fulfillment.77 Puckett thus argues, “Calvin’s principle for determining which Old Testament passages are allegories is this: if there has been no historical fulfilment of the promise, one should look for a fulfilment that is not literal.”78 Allegorical reading was possible for Calvin in a very limited scope—​namely, only when the text did not have a literal, historical fulfillment.

75. CO 43:176; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:413, emphasis added. 76. CO 36:524–​25; Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 375, emphasis added. 77. For example, on Amos 9:15, Calvin explicitly stated, “Now if we look on what afterwards happened, it may appear that this prophecy has never been fulfilled. . . . What is here said of the abundance of corn and wine must be explained with reference to the nature of Christ’s kingdom. As then the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, it is enough for us that it abounds in spiritual blessings” (Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:413, 413: CO 43:174, 176). 78. Puckett, 113; see 111–​13.

304

The Reformation of Prophecy

Other scholars, however, have argued that beyond these instances, Calvin sometimes offered what looked to be very much like allegorical readings of the Old Testament that did not precisely follow his own rules of attending to the historical and literary properties of the text. For example, Raymond Blacketer contends that Calvin reserved “a limited place for allegory” that extended beyond the examples highlighted by Puckett.79 Blacketer makes his case in an analysis of Calvin’s reading of Deuteronomy 10:1–​2, where God commanded Moses to chisel out a second set of stone tablets, and contends that Calvin allegorized this text in at least three ways. First, Calvin “allegorize[d]‌the two tablets and attribute[d] to them a spiritual meaning” when he likened it to the engraving of the Gospel on the hearts of believers.80 Second, Calvin specifically described the tablets as “smooth,” thereby adding an adjective that was not explicitly present in the text.81 Third, Calvin evoked the image of the blows of the hammer to illuminate the preparation necessary before God engraved the gospel on the hearts of believers.82 Blacketer rightly points out that neither the description of “smooth” nor the instrument of the “hammer” is explicitly present in the text, so that on these points Calvin certainly appeared to come close to transgressing his own principles. Yet Calvin’s evocation of the images of smoothness and the hammer could be viewed as in line with his penchant to draw out the visual-​historical details of the text (whether implicit or explicit) to illuminate the text’s meaning. Chisel arguably invokes an image of the hammer, and one might assume the stones needed to be smooth to write upon them. In these ways, admittedly arguably, Calvin could contend that he drew these teachings from the “natural sense” of the text.83 More specifically, though, Blacketer’s identification of Calvin’s alignment of the stone tablets with tablets of human hearts (II Corinthians 3:3), a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26), or writing on human hearts (Jeremiah 31:33) as allegorical readings seems misplaced. These are spiritual readings, but not necessarily allegorical ones, for even Blacketer affirms the historical connections between Deuteronomy 79. Blacketer, “Smooth Stones,” 41. This article also appears in altered form in Blacketer’s book The School of God, 201–​31. 80. Blacketer, “Smooth Stones,” 48. 81. Blacketer, “Smooth Stones,” 48–​50. 82. Blacketer, “Smooth Stones,” 50, 56. Blacketer argues that these serve as rhetorical devices to help accomplish Calvin’s pedagogical goals (56). 83. A possible important consideration is that Blacketer is working with Calvin’s sermons on Deuteronomy 10:1–​2. This begs the question of whether Calvin operated with more verbal flexibility in his sermons than in his commentaries.



Christological Exegesis

305

10:1–​2 and the texts of Jeremiah 31:33, II Corinthians 3:3, and Ezekiel 36:26. The connections Calvin drew between these texts expressed his profound affirmation of the unity of the testaments that precisely undergirded his frequent analogical readings of Old Testament prophecy.84 It seems more accurate to affirm the conclusion of T. H. L. Parker, that “what Calvin was doing was admitting the spiritual sense in such a way as to safeguard the historicity of the text.”85 Zechariah’s vision of the four chariots in 6:1–​8 serves as a helpful last text case concerning the divergent ways Calvin and Luther identified allegory. Luther began by stating that Zechariah 6 is an obscure chapter that has prompted many interpretations, with the general consensus that the four chariots represent four empires:  Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman. Luther, however, disagreed with this reading, arguing that prophets foretell events and do not speak about things of the past.86 He also rejected identifying the horses and their colors with martyrs, virgins, confessors, and saints, naming all such interpretations as improper allegorical readings. He then proffered a guideline for proper allegorical exegesis: “After all, in every allegory one must show that it conforms to faith; that is, that it is related to faith or to the ministry of the Word. Those allegories that are related to works are worth nothing at all.”87 Luther maintained that this text proclaims the events of the first advent of Christ and the Gospel, in which false doctrine will be driven out and the Gospel will “bear fruit among all nations.”88 The four chariots therefore refer to aspects of the ministry of God’s Word, and the colors “square with the ministry of the Gospel.”89 The two mountains in the text signify the twofold church of the Jews and the Gentiles; the description of the mountains as bronze indicates their invincibility; and the colors of the horses represent the

84. Blacketer, “Smooth Stones,” 56–​57. 85.  Parker, Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries, 74. For another study of Calvin on allegory, see De Greef, Calvijn en het Oude Testament, 48–​52. See also Cummings, “Protestant Allegory.” 86. WA 13:603; LW 20:62. Applying one of the chariots to the Babylonian Empire requires the prophet Zechariah to speak about past history. 87.  WA 13:603; LW 20:62. For Luther’s view of allegory, see Maschke, “The Authority of Scripture”; Bielfeldt, “Luther, Metaphor, and Theological Language”; Steinmetz, Luther and Staupitz, 35–​67; Bornkamm, Luther and the Old Testament, translated by Eric W. Gritsch and Ruth C. Gritsch, 87–​96, 248–​60. 88. WA 13:604; LW 20:63. 89. WA 13:604–​5; LW 20:64–​65, there 65.

306

The Reformation of Prophecy

effects of the Gospel among various peoples.90 Luther therefore interpreted this text allegorically in reference to the first advent of Christ and the Gospel and defended his interpretation by demonstrating its adherence to his stated guideline for allegorical exegesis—​that it conformed to faith, built up faith, and preserved the centrality of God’s Word, the Gospel. Calvin initiated his exegesis of Zechariah 6:1–​8 with a clear rejection of allegory. Dismissing the readings that identify the four chariots with the four Gospels or with the four empires, he wrote, “I have elsewhere reminded you that we are to avoid these futile refinements, which of themselves vanish away. Allegories, I know, delight many; but we ought reverently and soberly to interpret the prophetic writings and not to fly in the clouds, but ever to fix our foot on solid ground.”91 Calvin instead interpreted the images of the text as visual representations of God’s providential care of the church and directly connected the images to historical events in the prophet’s own day as precisely the lens through which to view God’s providence. The mountains of bronze therefore are visual symbols of the immutable, eternal providence of God, and he described the chariots in these words: “Let us then know that all fortuitous events, as they are called by the unbelieving, are God’s chariots—​are his messengers—​who declare and proclaim what was before concealed from us. And there is not in this similitude or metaphor anything strained.”92 He similarly interpreted the colors of the horses in a twofold manner:  first for what they meant for the immediate historical circumstances of the prophet, and then more generally as indicating conditions that the church encounters across time.93 Calvin thereby brought together both the text’s immediate historical teaching and its broader, general teachings for the church in any era through a focus on the prophet’s intention:

90. WA 13: 605–​6; LW 20:66–​67. Luther argued that red represented the effect of the Gospel among unbelieving Jews, black among the guilty and condemned, and white among those who are justified and saved, while the “spotted” represented the preaching of the Gospel among many diverse nations. A year later, he added the interpretation of the four winds as representing the apostles and the colors of the horses as representing the apostles’ preaching to different regions or the different effects of their preaching. WA 23:581–​82; LW 20:249–​51. 91. CO 44:202; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:140. 92.  CO 44:203; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:142. Calvin read the text in relation to the Jews’ experiences under the Babylonians and Persians (CO 44:203–​5; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:142–​43). 93. Red denotes times when the church’s enemies seem to have triumphed; black indicates the wars and calamities carried out by enemies; and white signifies God’s deliverance of the church. CO 44:203–​5; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:142–​44.



Christological Exegesis

307

That we may more fully understand this, we must regard the design of the prophet. He meant here, no doubt, to bring some comfort to the Jews that they might not succumb under their evils, however sharply God might chastise them. And Zechariah sets before them here two things: first that no part of the earth or no country would be exempt from God’s judgments, for his chariots would pass through all the lands; and secondly, that though the chariots of God—​terrible in their appearance on account of the black and red color—​had visited Judea as well as the north, yet the time had already come in which God, having been pacified, would change the state of things. Therefore, in the third place, he sets before them another color. For God’s chariot had been sent forth through Judea and then God’s vengeance had visited Nineveh and afterwards Babylon. . . . For God had removed the darkness and brought sunshine to the Jews . . . inasmuch as the Persians who then possessed the empire had begun to treat the Jews with kindness.94 By attending to the prophet’s intention and the meaning of the text for the prophet’s original historical circumstances, Calvin believed he offered both a metaphorical and a historical reading that avoided the pitfalls of allegory. He employed the historical meaning to provide a picture of God’s activity with God’s church across time.

Christological Exegesis and Metaphor in Later Lutheran and Reformed Readings of Old Testament Prophecy Luther’s and Calvin’s differing practices of Christological exegesis of Old Testament prophecy were rooted in their differing identifications of the prime content of the sacred history of the prophets. These differences directly informed their divergent identifications, interpretations, and applications of Old Testament metaphors. Specifically, metaphors that for Luther referred to Christ and the Gospel, Calvin often read in light of the visual properties of the metaphor and/​or the prophet’s historical circumstances. They even disagreed at times on whether a term actually functioned as a metaphor. Most notable are the cases when Calvin affirmed an Old Testament prophecy as a literal prophecy of Christ, but insisted that Christ literally fulfilled the Old Testament metaphor, whereas Luther viewed this simply as a literal prophecy of Christ

94. CO 44:205; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:144–​45.

308

The Reformation of Prophecy

and argued that no metaphor was operative at all.95 It remains to be seen, however, whether the next generation of Lutheran and Calvinist exegetes retained these differences in their exegesis of Old Testament prophecy. Did the next generation of Reformed exegetes uphold Calvin’s exegetical principles of keen attentiveness to the prophet’s intention, grammar, and historical and literary contexts? Did Reformed interpreters continue to emphasize the metaphorical aspects of Old Testament prophecy, particularly those prophecies typically viewed by Luther as literal prophecies of Christ? What were later Lutheran readings of these texts and their reactions to Reformed readings? In exploring these questions, we will discover that the proper identification and interpretation of Old Testament prophetic metaphors became an important point of contention that demarcated distinctive Lutheran and Reformed confessional identities. Metaphor served as a tool with which Reformed leaders staunchly defended the significant role of signs and figures in Scripture to undergird analogical readings of Old Testament prophecy, whereas Lutheran interpreters insisted upon Christ and the Gospel as their primary referents. These divergent articulations of the proper methods of interpretation and applications of Old Testament metaphors directly translated into Lutheran-​Calvinist polemics concerning biblical exegesis and doctrines of the Lord’s Supper.

Christological Exegesis of Old Testament Prophecy in the Next Generation The next generation of Lutheran interpreters retained Luther’s reading of many Old Testament prophecies as literal prophecies of Christ. Philip Melanchthon, Lucas Osiander, and Aegidius Hunnius read Zechariah 9:9ff., 11:12, 12:10, and 13:7 as literal prophecies concerning the historical events surrounding the passion of Christ and Haggai 2:6–​8 as foretelling Christ’s first advent and indicating his two natures.96 Nikolaus Selnecker, Osiander, and Hunnius interpreted Hosea 6:2 and 13:14 as literal prophecies of Christ’s resurrection, Micah 2:13 as prophesying Christ’s passion and teaching Christ’s divinity, Joel 2:28ff. as foretelling Pentecost, Micah 5:2 as a prophecy of Christ’s incarnation and coeternity with God the Father, and Zechariah

95. I have in mind, for examples, Calvin’s readings of Zechariah 9:9, 11:12, and 12:10 discussed earlier in this chapter. 96.  Philip Melanchthon, Commentarius in Prophetam Zachariam in CR 13:996–​97, 998, 1000, 1001–​2, 986–​88; Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 877–​79, 892, 899, 904–​5, 908, 825–​ 26; Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 99–​101, 104–​21, 140–​45, 80–​84 and Sechs Propheten, 411–​16.



Christological Exegesis

309

14:4 as a literal prophecy of Christ’s ascension.97 By maintaining these as literal prophecies about Christ, the next generation of Lutheran interpreters saw no need to identify any of these passages as metaphorical or to extend their application beyond the person of Christ and the saving events of his life. The next generation of Calvinist Reformed interpreters equally maintained Calvin’s insistence not to confine these texts to Christ alone but extend them to the church. David Pareus, Lambert Daneau, Johannes Drusius, and Johannes Piscator therefore insisted that the promise of resurrection in Hosea 6:2, the promise of salvation in Zechariah 9:9, and the prophecy concerning the shepherds in Zechariah 13:7 applied to the whole church and not solely to Christ.98 With Calvin, they also rejected the Christological reading of certain Old Testament prophecies on the basis of grammar, authorial intention, and/​or literary context, as seen in the cases of Hosea 13:14, Micah 2:13, and Haggai 2:7.99 All four of these Reformed exegetes interpreted Zechariah 14:4 as a visual depiction of God’s power to save; Pareus and Piscator explicitly rejected the application of the text to Christ’s ascension, and Daneau and Drusius simply omitted any reference to Christ’s ascension.100 Hence, very similar to the guidelines set forth by Calvin, the next generation of Reformed interpreters used authorial intention, grammar, and literary context as guiding principles in their interpretations of Old Testament prophecy.

97. Selnecker, Christliche kurtze summa, Liiia–​b, Siia–​Siiib, Xiib–​Xiiib, kiiib–​kiva, qiiib–​qivb; Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 543, 583–​84, 606–​9, 714–​15, 728–​29, 908–​9; Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 203, 206–​8, 279–​83 and Calvinus Iudaizans, 39–​42, 151–​63, 167–​70; Melanchthon, CR 13:1002. Melanchthon wrote commentaries only on Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. 98. Pareus, Notae Breviores, 168, 308–​9, 294–​95; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:357–​59, 2:931–​ 33, 992–​94 and A Fruitful Commentarie, 424–​27, 1024, 1088–​90; Drusius, Commentarius, 73–​74, 1041, 1000–​1001; Piscator, Commentariorum, 417–​18, 498–​500. Drusius and Piscator did not apply Hosea 6:2 to Christ’s resurrection. On the other hand, Piscator was content to read Zechariah 13:7 simply in reference to Christ (Commentariorum, 505). 99.  The Reformed exegetes maintained Hosea 13:14 as a general teaching of God’s sovereignty over death rather than a prophecy of Christ’s resurrection on the grounds of attention to authorial intention and literary context. They also concurred with Calvin that the literary context of Micah 2:13 requires connecting this verse to the larger theme of punishment and threat rather than inserting a promise of Christ, and that the plural noun in Haggai 2:7 precludes a Christological reading. Pareus, Notae Breviores, 174, 176, 177, 179–​81; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1: 483–​85, 538–​40, 2:817; A Fruitful Commentarie, 555–​56, 609–​ 10, 904; Drusius, Commentarius, 236–​37, 635–​36, 912; Piscator, Commentariorum, 429–​30, 463–​64, 486. 100.  Pareus, Notae Breviores, 188–​90; Daneau, Commentariorvm, 2:999–​1000; A Fruitful Commentarie, 1096–​ 97; Drusius, Commentarius, 1007; Piscator, Commentariorum, 506. Pareus affirmed this reading as more in line with the prophet’s scope and the literary context of the passage (Notae Breviores, 188–​89).

310

The Reformation of Prophecy

This led them to reject or modify the Christological readings of certain passages that tradition had typically viewed as literal prophecies of Christ. They affirmed the Christological reading in other cases but insisted the Old Testament prophecy should not be confined to Christ alone but applied to the whole church across time.

Attention to Old Testament Prophetic Metaphors in the Next Generation As with Luther and Calvin, the differing emphases between Lutherans and Calvinists in their readings of Old Testament prophecy shaped their interpretations of Old Testament metaphors. Among the Lutherans here examined, only Osiander explicitly identified terms used by the prophet as metaphorical, though Melanchthon and Selnecker occasionally noted the significative character of the prophet’s language.101 Osiander also observed that the prophet often described a situation by likening it to a common experience, such as images from harvesting, vintage, or war.102 When they attended explicitly to words as metaphors, the next generation of Lutheran exegetes frequently interpreted them in reference to the first advent of Christ and the Gospel, particularly the preaching of the Gospel by the apostles. Such an emphasis echoed Luther’s affirmation that God interacts with God’s people first and foremost through God’s Word. Osiander and Selnecker identified the metaphors from creation (“morning showers,” “dew,” and the “roaring lion”) with the preaching of the Gospel and the metaphor of plowing as representing the gathering of the church through the Gospel of Christ.103 Micah 7:13’s description of the earth as desolate signified “those regions that do not yet have the Gospel of Christ.”104 The Lutheran exegetes further upheld Luther’s readings of the prophets’ martial metaphors (“arrows,” “trumpets,” “sling stones,” “iron horns,” and “bronze hoofs”) as depicting the commission of

101. Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 521, 568, 573, 578, 732, 740, 746, 783, 839, 876, 880; Melanchthon, CR 13:992, 993, 994, 997, 1007; Selnecker, Der gantze Prophet Jeremias, Ciiib. It will become clear later in this chapter why Hunnius especially refrained from identifying the prophets’ language as metaphorical, for Hunnius sharply criticized Calvin for doing so. 102. Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 568–​69, 598, 599, 727, 740, 839, 880. 103. Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 543, 568, 573–​74, 731–​32; Selnecker, Christliche kurtze summa, Liva, Qiia, Viib; Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 298–​99. 104. Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 746; Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 366.



Christological Exegesis

311

the apostles to go out and conquer the world through the preaching of the Gospel.105 Metaphors in Reformed exegesis provided a window to various significations of the text, in which precisely the prophet’s history illuminated these metaphors to reflect God’s care, correction, and protection of the church in every age. Very much in line with the readings of Calvin, Reformed interpreters emphasized the physical and visual properties of these metaphors to unpack their significations. For example, Daneau argued that just as Hosea 6:3 points to the rain that falls continually and in due season, so shall God’s benefits be continual and timely.106 Pareus illuminated the prophet’s metaphor of the dawn, writing, “For as the light of the dawn expels the shadows of darkness and renders everything conspicuous that had previously lain hidden, so to us will be the appearing of God.”107 They drew upon the moistening and fructifying properties of dew to illuminate the ways in which God’s blessings befall and regenerate God’s people.108 Like Calvin, Reformed interpreters applied the prophets’ military metaphors to the history of the Jews (i.e., the prophets’ own history) for the purposes of illuminating God’s protection of the church in every age.109 Reformed expositors therefore emphasized the visual properties of the prophet’s metaphors to paint a picture, as if placing the events right before the eyes of the reader, as Daneau so eloquently declared: “These metaphors lively paint out the exceeding great gladness of the godly and of the church when it is healed and helped by God.”110 Reformed exegetes demonstrated pronounced and explicit attention to the Old Testament prophets’ metaphorical language, for it often served as the fulcrum of their exegetical method. Similar to Calvin, such attention to the prophets’ 105.  Osiander, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, 727, 880; Selnecker, Christliche kurtze summa, qib; Hunnius, Sechs Propheten, 274–​75. The claim here is not that Lutheran exegetes identified all Old Testament prophetic metaphors with Christ and the preaching of the Gospel, for there were instances where they viewed the Old Testament prophet as employing metaphorical language to describe events pertaining to his own time. 106. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:359; A Fruitful Commentarie, 427. 107. Pareus, Hoseas Propheta, 122. 108. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:496–​97; A Fruitful Commentarie, 566–​67; Pareus, Hoseas Propheta, 276–​78; Piscator, Commentariorum, 34, 88, 91. 109. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:565, 2:936–​39; A Fruitful Commentarie, 637–​38, 1028–​32; Piscator, Commentariorum, 226, 228. 110. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:359–​60; A Fruitful Commentarie, 428. Daneau commented on Zechariah 9:13–​16, “So then in this place there is represented as if before one’s sight the state of God in the army of the Jews and the fight set forth by diverse similitudes” (Commentariorvm, 2:937; A Fruitful Commentarie, 1029).

312

The Reformation of Prophecy

metaphorical language entailed employing the physical or visual properties of the metaphors as the primary gateway to their significations. They were less apt to identify these metaphors in specific one-​to-​one correspondences (e.g., dew = the Gospel or the preaching of the Gospel). Yet there were also nuances among these Reformed interpreters. Daneau and Pareus exhibited more pronounced attention to the figural language of the Old Testament prophets, explicitly accentuating its visual properties and possible multiple significations, whereas Drusius’s and Piscator’s exegetical methods entailed much briefer comments on the possible significations. Piscator’s methodology divided his comments into “analysis,” “scholia,” and “observations,” and Drusius provided a running commentary with keen attention to the Hebrew and frequent references to Jewish exegesis. Especially in his scholia, in which he made brief explanatory comments with close attention to grammatical questions, Piscator frequently noted the prophets’ use of metaphor. For Piscator, attention to the prophet’s metaphors went hand in hand with a grammatical analysis of the text for the purposes of obtaining an accurate sense of the prophet’s meaning both for the original historical context (which he addressed in the “analysis” section) and for its analogical meaning for the church across the ages (which he addressed in the “observations” section).111 Drusius in particular provided a rather stark contrast to Lutheran exegesis of the Old Testament prophets, as he was the least prone to apply Old Testament prophecy (let alone its metaphors) directly to Christ and the Gospel. Drusius focused even more profoundly upon the original history of the text and issues of Hebrew terminology and grammar, and he often consulted Jewish exegesis as an aid.112 Drusius and Piscator demonstrated a sustained and even intensifying focus on grammar, historical context, and authorial intention.

Reformed Emphases on the Analogical Potential and Visual Properties of Old Testament Metaphors Daneau and Pareus particularly attended to the metaphorical language of the Old Testament prophets for the shared purposes of unpacking the history of the text, depicting the possible significations of this history for the church across time, and highlighting the visual properties of the prophets’

111. Piscator, Commentariorum, 33, 34, 66, 83, 84, 89, 90, 108, 110, 111, 114, 117, 118, 119, 172, 184, 187, 195, 231, 232, 268, 280, 355–​56, 366, 371, 372, 408, 409, 410. 112. Drusius engaged the Hebrew text on practically every page of his commentary. On Hosea alone, he consulted Jewish exegesis a number of times (Commentarius, 31, 62, 67, 75, 77, 81, 88, 99, 112, 114, 123, 133, 136, 140, 145, 155, 166, 176, 184).



Christological Exegesis

313

figurative language. Daneau wrote a lengthy preface to his commentary on the Minor Prophets, in which he defined prophecy, discussed the biblical understandings of prophecy in both testaments, distinguished between true and false prophets, and identified the various functions of biblical prophecy.113 He concluded this preface by asserting a general rule for interpreting Old Testament prophecy, maintaining that one must observe two things in the writings of the prophets:  the prophet’s history and the prophet’s method.114 Daneau viewed history and method as intimately related, for he argued that what the prophet sets forth is mostly history, but the prophet does so with the particular method of employing figures, through which he could express more than first meets the eye, since metaphors have multiple significations.115 Daneau therefore offered this important rule for the reading of Old Testament prophecy: “One should not take those things that have been said figuratively as if they have only been said simply.”116 The prophets’ words should “not be read only according to the letter  .  .  .  but are to be expounded mystically and . . . understood according to their signification.”117 This required two additional guidelines for reading the prophet’s metaphorical speech. First, one must observe that prophets often employ amplifications in order to provide a stark representation of human sinfulness and impending judgment in contrast to the benefits of God, often painting an animated scene of the human’s dire situation in order to awaken his audience from the dullness of sin and arouse them to practices of true piety.118 Second, prophets often change from speaking in first, second, or third person as part of their figurative method. They use a variety of figures, such as prosopopoeia, apostrophe, hypotyposi, epiphonemata, and hypophora, as part of their method of painting a live picture to spur their audience.119 Daneau, more than the other Reformed interpreter, particularly accentuated the ways in which the Old Testament prophets painted visual pictures with their words. For example, he often identified the prophet’s use of hypotyposis, which he defined as “a figure whereby we so lively express

113. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:1–​79; A Fruitful Commentarie, 1–​68. 114. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:80; A Fruitful Commentarie, 69. 115. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:81–​82; A Fruitful Commentarie, 70. 116. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:82; A Fruitful Commentarie, 71. 117. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:83; A Fruitful Commentarie, 71. 118. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:83; A Fruitful Commentarie, 71–​72. 119. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:84; A Fruitful Commentarie, 72–​73.

314

The Reformation of Prophecy

and exhibit the doing of a thing that it may rather be thought to be seen to be done than to be told.”120 He explicitly pointed in several instances to the importance of these visual properties through his emphases on the prophet “painting” or providing a “lively representation” (i.e., hypotyposis) and the prophet’s use of metaphor as a visible symbol, as evident in his comments on Hosea 6:3: “These metaphors lively paint out the exceeding great gladness of the godly and of the church when it is healed and helped by God.”121 Echoing Calvin, he argued that the metaphor of thirty pieces of silver in Zechariah 11:12 was a visible symbol of the people’s ingratitude toward God.122 He explained in his comments on Micah 3:6 that metaphors build upon the visual properties of earthly things so that one may see and understand the invisible things to which they point.123 Daneau accordingly affirmed that the earthly blessings set forth in the Old Testament should not be disregarded, for they are not empty signs but also point to the promised spiritual benefits.124 While such emphasis on the visual properties of the prophets’ metaphors echoed Calvin, Daneau was much more willing than Calvin to provide exact historical identifications for the figurations of the prophet’s metaphors. Where Calvin preferred to highlight the prophet’s original history to offer broad-​ stroke teachings of God’s providence and point to general ways in which God acts with God’s people across time, Daneau did not hesitate to identify specific historical manifestations of the history figured by the prophets. Unlike the Lutherans, however, the history Daneau saw signified was not simply the history of the advent of Christ and the apostles’ preaching of the Gospel; he identified significations fulfilled in multiple histories across time beginning with the prophet’s own history and forward to the Second Coming of Christ. For example, he argued that Habakkuk 1:6 points to times when God corrects the church through her enemies, applying this text to the experience of the 120. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:260; A Fruitful Commentarie, 320, emphasis added. 121.  Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:359–​60; A Fruitful Commentarie, 428. See also Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:260, 311, 347, 352, 359–​60, 515, 545, 593–​94, 645, 2:744, 782, 806, 824, 852, 860, 937, 965, 967–​68, 999; A Fruitful Commentarie, 320, 375, 414, 419, 428, 585, 616, 668–​69, 721, 820, 860, 889, 912, 942, 950, 1029, 1059, 1062, 1097. 122. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 2:965; A Fruitful Commentarie, 1059; CO 44:312–​14; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:323–​26. 123. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:545; A Fruitful Commentarie, 616. Daneau wrote, “Caeterum hace poena descripta est variis rerum metaphoris ac similitudinibus, quae à rebus corporalibus et ad res invisibiles et incorporeas traducuntur, propterea quod Prophetia dicitur visio passim in Sacra Scriptura.” 124.  Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:272–​74; A Fruitful Commentarie, 334–​336; Pareus, Novae Breviores, 68, 77; Calvin, Institutes 1.10.1–​23.



Christological Exegesis

315

Jews under the Chaldeans and then the Romans, as well as the experience of the church in Daneau’s time under the Turks.125 He viewed several Old Testament prophecies as fulfilled across the history of the immediate situation of the prophet, the history of the Maccabees, the history of Christ’s first advent, and the events of the Last Days.126 Pareus also emphasized the multiple significations of the prophets’ words and the visual function of their metaphors. He tended, however, to stay closer to Calvin’s method of providing general descriptions and was less apt than Daneau to identify Old Testament prophecy with specific historical events. Pareus wrote, “It is useful to understand the writings of the prophets and the speeches of the prophets metaphorically,” to which he immediately added, “The signs [of the prophets] are double—​heavenly and earthly.”127 Pareus commented that Joel 3:18 “takes the phrases from bodily things as if they are a sketch of spiritual things.”128 He affirmed the principle set forth by Calvin and repeated by Daneau that the prophets’ figurations should not merely be treated simply (i.e., literally), but that they have multiple significations and added to this his distinctive terminology of types. He argued that many of the metaphors of the prophets are composite types with multiple significations rather than merely simple types. A composite type that points to Christ could be (1) fulfilled literally in Christ and literally in the type; (2) fulfilled figurally in Christ and figurally in the type; (3) fulfilled literally in Christ and figurally in the type; and (4) fulfilled figurally in Christ and literally in the type.129 These options have additional layers when one recognizes that Christ also represents the corporate body of the Church—​that things said concerning the Head may also apply to the members (and vice versa).130 Pareus therefore affirmed, defended, and adhered to Calvin’s insistence that many Old Testament prophecies should

125. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:791–​92; A Fruitful Commentarie, 871–​72. 126.  Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:269–​71, 2:968–​69, 985–​89, 990–​91; A Fruitful Commentarie, 332–​33, 1062, 1065, 1082–​84, 1087. Daneau understood Zechariah as particularly prophesying historical events that occurred under the Maccabees. He referred prophecies from the other prophetic books to the immediate situation of the prophet, then in reference to Christ’s first advent, and finally concerning the Last Day (Commentariorvm, 1:447–​48, 497–​98, 552–​53, 603–​4, 666–​68, 692; A Fruitful Commentarie, 518, 567–​68, 624, 679, 741, 767). 127. Pareus, Novae Breviores, 68. 128. Pareus, Novae Breviores, 77. 129. Pareus, Libri Duo, 96–​98. 130. Pareus, Libri Duo, 108.

316

The Reformation of Prophecy

not be confined to Christ’s person but extended to the church across time.131 He also insisted that proper interpretation of the prophets’ types and figural expressions requires the preservation of the history pertaining to the type. Proper exegesis of Old Testament prophetic metaphors therefore demands careful attention to the original history of the prophet, for it is precisely this history that imparts the essential details that serve as a mirror for the possible, proper significations; when this history is ignored, the significations become lost to the reader.132 Unsurprisingly Pareus was at the forefront of defending Calvin against Lutheran criticisms on several fronts, supporting Calvin’s focus on the prophet’s own history as a mirror for applications for the church across time, his rejection of confining such prophecies to Christ’s person, and, most notably, his interpretation of Old Testament metaphors.

Contributions of Debates over Metaphor to the Consolidation of Confessional Identities The initial assumption of Luther and Lutheran exegetes was that first and foremost the Old Testament prophets literally prophesied the historical events of the first advent of Christ and the Gospel. Thus, taking acute issue with Calvin’s exegesis of Old Testament prophecy, Hunnius condemned it on a number of fronts in his 1593 treatise Calvinus Iudaizans. From a broad attack on Calvin’s lack of reading certain Old Testament prophecies as literal prophecies of Christ’s incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension he advanced to a sharp attack on his metaphorical readings. Hunnius contended that many of Calvin’s readings undermined the Christian tradition of scriptural evidence for the first advent of Christ and proofs of Christ’s divine and human natures. In addition to attacking Calvin’s reading of a certain set of Psalms,133 he attacked Calvin’s readings of Hosea 6:2 and 13:14 and Micah 2:13 for not interpreting these as literal prophecies of Christ’s resurrection;134 Jeremiah 31:22 for not applying it as a literal prophecy of Christ’s nativity;135 Micah 5:2 for not using this as a testimony of Christ’s coeternity with the Father;136 Haggai 2:6–​8 131. Pareus, Libri Duo, 168, 182–​83, 187, 188, 300 and Novae Breviores, 50, 77, 84–​85, 86–​87. 132. Pareus, Libri Duo, 103, 104. 133.  I  analyze Hunnius’s attacks on Calvin’s readings of these Psalms in Pak, Judaizing Calvin, 103–​24. 134. Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 151–​63. 135. Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 75–​80. 136. Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 39–​42.



Christological Exegesis

317

and Zechariah 9:9 for not interpreting these as purely literal prophecies of Christ’s first advent;137 Zechariah 9:11 and 11:12 for not interpreting these as literal prophecies of Christ’s passion;138 and Zechariah 14:4 for not applying this as a literal prophecy of Christ’s ascension.139 Hunnius also harshly criticized Calvin’s readings of Isaiah 43:24b (“you have burdened me with your sins”), 50:6 (“I offered my back to those who beat me”), and 63:1–​4 (“Who is coming from Edom with his garments stained crimson?”) because Calvin insisted that their application to Christ was a “violent distortion” and that they should only be read in reference to the prophet’s own historical circumstances.140 He contended that two key things led Calvin’s exegesis astray:  Calvin’s prioritization of the prophet’s history above the history of Christ and the principles with which he engaged Old Testament metaphors. Chapter 7 addressed the different identifications of the sacred history of prophecy between Lutheran and Reformed exegetes, particularly highlighting Hunnius’s criticisms and Pareus’s defense of Calvin on this matter. The focus falls here, then, on Hunnius’s sharp criticisms against Calvin’s use of metaphor in his readings of Old Testament prophecy. Suffice it to say that Hunnius’s disparagement of Calvin’s exegesis points strongly to disagreements over proper Christological exegesis of Old Testament prophecy as a flashpoint for distinctive confessional identities. At the top of the list of problematic engagements with Old Testament metaphors, Hunnius highlighted Calvin’s readings of Jeremiah 31:22 (“a woman shall compass a man”), Isaiah 40:3 (“a voice of one calling in the wilderness, prepare the way of the Lord”), Zechariah 9:9 (“Lo, your king comes to you . . . humble and riding on a donkey”), Zechariah 11:12 (thirty pieces of silver), and Psalm 22:18 (“they divide my clothing . . . and cast lots”). According to Hunnius, Jeremiah 31:22 is simply and clearly a prophecy of Christ’s birth, yet Calvin rejected this reading as rightfully scorned by Jews, interpreting it as a metaphor that compares men and women in order to explain the actions of the Israelites in the original context (of acting “like weak women”).141 He 137. Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 81–​84, 99–​101. 138. Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 107–​21, 140–​45. 139. Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 167–​70. 140. Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 121–​22, 135–​40. Hunnius also criticized Calvin’s readings of Isaiah 61:1–​2 (“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me”) and Zechariah 13:7b (“Strike the shepherd”) for arguing that these do not apply to Christ alone but apply to the whole church. See Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 96–​99, 104–​7. 141. Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 75; CO 38:680; Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, 4:114.

318

The Reformation of Prophecy

interpreted wilderness in Isaiah 40:3 metaphorically to depict the desolation in the prophet’s own time.142 Though Calvin affirmed the text as a prophecy of John the Baptist, he still maintained that wilderness operated metaphorically so that the ways in which the Babylonian Captivity functioned as a type for the church across time could be maintained more fully.143 Hunnius staunchly insisted that this text is simply a literal prophecy of John the Baptist, so that when Calvin read it metaphorically, he diverted the text to another meaning over and against the apostle’s authoritative application of it to John the Baptist!144 As to Zechariah 9:9, Calvin argued that though Christ literally fulfilled this verse, the description of the king riding on a donkey serves primarily as a visible symbol (i.e., metaphor) to depict the lowly estate of the king.145 Calvin also underscored the visible symbolic significance of the scanty thirty pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12) in the prophet’s own context to represent the depth of the people’s ingratitude, rather than its literal fulfillment in Judas’s betrayal of Christ.146 He even argued that David’s garments for which the enemies cast lots (Psalm 22:18) are first and foremost metaphorical to indicate David’s being despoiled by his enemies; only afterward did he affirm that Christ also fulfilled this passage—​again arguing that Christ’s fulfillment of this text served as a visible symbol.147 For Hunnius, these readings are scandalous; on the contrary, each text is simply and purely a literal prophecy of Christ’s passion, and Calvin’s metaphorical readings detracted from their pure, singular meaning.148 It is not sufficient, contended Hunnius, that Calvin eventually affirmed that Christ fulfilled these texts, for he presented the Christological readings as secondary. More than this, a metaphorical reading is in no way suitable since these are all literal prophecies of Christ. By employing this metaphorical exegesis and by underscoring the reading for the prophet’s 142. CO 37:7; Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 3:203. 143. CO 37:7–​8; Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 3:204–​5. Calvin wrote, “When the church arose out of her wretched and miserable condition, her mean appearance bore a stronger resemblance than the Babylonian captivity to a ‘wilderness’; but God wished that they should see plainly in the wilderness in which John taught the image and likeness of that miserably ruinous condition by which the whole beauty of the church was injured and almost destroyed. What is here described metaphorically by the prophet was at that time actually fulfilled” (Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 3:204–​5). 144. Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 90–​91. 145. CO 44:272; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:256–​57. 146. CO 44:315–​16; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:328–​29. 147. CO 31:229; Calvin, Commentary on Psalms, 376. 148. Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 99–​101, 111, 115–​17, 132–​34.



Christological Exegesis

319

original context, Hunnius insisted that Calvin employed a “judaizing” exegesis.149 More pointedly, Calvin failed to adhere to the New Testament’s uses of these texts, instead arrogantly asserting his own readings above and beyond the reading of the biblical authors themselves who affirmed these as literal prophecies of Christ.150 Hunnius therefore concluded, “If this is the genuine sense, which Calvin gathers from his preconceived metaphors, the apostles then would have to have strayed from the genuine sense.”151 Hunnius also criticized Calvin’s metaphorical exegesis of Isaiah 43:25 and Psalms 16:9 and 68:18, in which he again argued that these texts are literal prophecies of Christ and should not have a metaphorical reading at all.152 He censured Calvin’s reading of Psalm 16:9, wondering, “If he asks any of the Jews where in the prophets the predictions of the Messiah being raised from the dead appear, are we then able to proclaim them to happen in Christ? Then neither the testimony of Psalm 16, which the apostles took as primary, would be open to us as a refuge, so that Calvin himself is shown to be useless concerning the explanation of David and the grave and his bending the genuine sense through metaphor.”153 He wrote similarly concerning Calvin’s reading of Psalm 68:18: “Truly in this way Calvin weakens these citations from Psalm 68 with his wicked metaphors, and he sets forth their sense to be characteristic of the things and history encompassed under David. In that which follows, he states that Paul subtly bends the text.”154 The New Testament authors exactly affirm that the primary, if not singular, meaning of these Old Testament

149. Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 76, 79, 83, 115–​17, 131, 133, 134; see also 151, 164–​65. 150. Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 34, 39–​40, 75–​76, 81–​83, 90–​91, 97–​98, 99, 115–​16, 141–​42, 157, 163, 168. 151. Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 100. Hunnius similarly commented on Calvin’s readings of Psalm 22 and Zechariah 11:12 (133, 116–​17). He also criticized Calvin’s metaphorical exegesis of Isaiah 40:3 and 43:25 and Psalm 16:9 and 68:18 (88–​89, 139, 149–​51, 165). Criticizing Calvin’s reading of Psalm 16:9, he wrote, “If he asks any of the Jews where in the Prophets the predictions of the Messiah being raised from the dead appear, then are we able to proclaim them to happen in Christ? Then neither the testimony of Psalm 16, which the Apostles took as primary, would be open to us as a refuge, so that Calvin himself is shown to be useless concerning the explanation of David and the grave and his bending the genuine sense through metaphor” (164–​65). On Calvin’s reading of Psalm 68:18, Hunnius wrote, “Truly in this way Calvin weakens these citations from Psalm 68 with his wicked metaphors, and he sets forth their sense to be characteristic of the things and history encompassed under David. In that which follows, he states that Paul subtly bends the text” (166). 152. See Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 139, 149–​51, 164–​65, 166. 153. Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 164–​65. 154. Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 166.

320

The Reformation of Prophecy

prophetic passages are their literal fulfillment in Christ. Consequently, in Calvin’s failure to adhere to their readings, he set himself up as a self-​taught exegete.155 In these faulty interpretations, contended Hunnius, Calvin’s tool of metaphor is revealed as the precise culprit that leads his exegesis astray. The Reformed theologian Pareus defended the then deceased Calvin against Hunnius’s attacks in two volumes published in 1595, in which he endorsed Calvin’s metaphorical readings of Old Testament prophecy. Pareus offered five defenses of Calvin’s reading of Zechariah 9:9, which I take to be representative of his defense more broadly. First, he criticized Hunnius for misrepresenting Calvin by quoting only portions of Calvin’s commentary and omitting significant parts, for Hunnius had failed to acknowledge fully that Calvin clearly affirmed that Christ fulfilled Zechariah 9:9 literally, even as he believed one should retain the metaphorical significance of the image of riding on a donkey.156 Second, Pareus argued that if the metaphorical image is ignored, one misses a very important and necessary aspect of the passage—​ namely, without keen attention to the lowly nature of the image one could miss the very point that Christ appeared in a nature contrary to the usual appearance of kings. Just the literal sitting does not designate the full meaning of the passage; one must consider the metaphor to get the full significance of how this symbolizes Christ’s lowliness and humility.157 Third, Calvin must be understood as retaining both the metaphorical and the literal readings of the verse in service to a fuller and richer understanding of its fulfillment by Christ. It would be wrong to imply that Calvin leaves out the literal sense (as Hunnius has implied).158 Fourth, it was precisely Calvin’s metaphorical reading that stands firm against Jewish criticisms of Christian exegesis of this passage, for Jewish critics argued that it is contemptible to ride on a donkey; they therefore contended that it cannot be a prophecy of the Messiah. Yet, argued Pareus, Calvin’s metaphorical reading makes this image of contemptibility exactly the crucial point.159 Fifth, Calvin’s metaphorical reading is not contrary to the apostles’ exegesis, for the image of Christ’s lowliness was central to their purposes in employing this prophecy of Zechariah in reference to Christ.160

155. Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 34, 123, 126, 134, 150, 181, 188. 156. Pareus, Libri Duo, 312–​13. 157. Pareus, Libri Duo, 315. 158. Pareus, Libri Duo, 317–​18. 159. Pareus, Libri Duo, 313. 160. Pareus, Libri Duo, 317–​18.



Christological Exegesis

321

Pareus similarly argued that Calvin’s metaphorical reading of Isaiah 40:3 in order to apply it to the prophet’s own time was not at all contrary to the apostle’s application of this to John the Baptist; on the contrary, “it is certain that the consolation of this prophecy was not only given to the future church under the reign of Christ but also to the people now present” in the prophet’s own time.161 A metaphorical reading of wilderness anchored the application to John the Baptist within the broader figural possibilities of the text.162 Calvin’s reading of the thirty pieces of silver as a visible symbol likewise enabled richer and broader figurative applications, since it was “customary of the prophets” to “incite attention through types.”163 Concerning Calvin’s metaphorical reading of Psalm 22:18, Pareus criticized Hunnius for obscuring the fact that Calvin did in fact interpret this passage literally with regard to Christ.164 He affirmed that the metaphorical reading in reference to David is in “firm agreement” with the Gospels’ applications of Psalm 22. Attention to the history of David in the image of dividing the garments only deepens and provides texture to the ways in which the figure foreshadows Christ, for “that which was faintly shadowed in David is beheld in Christ with all the superior clarity that the truth ought to have when compared with the figurative representation of it.”165 Pareus then concluded by arguing that if one excludes the metaphorical sense, one loses the full signification, for it is precisely by reason of the history prefigured in the type that the passage points to and is fulfilled by Christ.166 Pareus not only defended Calvin’s exegesis of Old Testament metaphors; he went further to assert that Hunnius’s (and much of the Christian exegetical tradition’s) exegeses of these passages came far too close to allegory. He therefore furthered Calvin’s own arguments for demarcating proper metaphorical reading from improper allegorical interpretation. Hunnius had in fact taken constant issue with Calvin’s descriptions of others’ exegesis (including seemingly that of the apostles) as “too refined” or as “bending” the meaning away from the original intention of the Old Testament prophet. Hunnius responded by turning such descriptions on their head to point them back at Calvin’s own exegesis as bending, twisting, and distorting the true applications of these Old

161. Pareus, Libri Duo, 247. 162. Pareus, Libri Duo, 247–​53. 163. Pareus, Libri Duo, 334; see 334–​35. 164. Pareus, Libri Duo, 225, 227. Pareus accused Hunnius of calumny and sophistry. 165. Pareus, Libri Duo, 226–​27, there 227. 166. Pareus, Libri Duo, 103.

322

The Reformation of Prophecy

Testament prophecies.167 Pareus responded by reiterating Calvin’s concerns that certain Christian readings of these passages veer far too close to allegory, and he also lumped Hunnius’s interpretations with those of the Roman Catholics. Pareus pointed to such a case in Hunnius’s reading of “the one who breaks through” in Micah 2:13 in reference to Christ, even though such a reading is contrary to the wider literary context of a message of threat: Indeed, the adversary [Hunnius] beautifully demonstrates the Catholic sense, but he does not see that that which is partly refined and partly fable is thrust forth under the pretext of the church. Some, from the word “he ascended” set forth the ascension of Christ to heaven. This is pious enough, but is it solid? Jerome refers “the one who breaks” to the dividing wall or hedge—​that is, to the obscurity of ancient prophecies and to the opening of the sacraments of the Old Law. Will this allegory convince the Jews?168 Pareus likewise accused Hunnius of reading “like a papist” in sustaining the allegorical reading of Hosea 6:2 of Christ as a hook that baits death.169 He labeled the interpretation of Zechariah 14:4 in reference to Christ’s ascension and commission of the apostles as an allegorical interpretation, concluding, “Truly, the adversary explains everything allegorically,” whereas Calvin remained closer to the actual words of the text.170 When Hunnius and other Christian exegetes resort to such allegories, it is they who undermine the testimonies of Scripture and not Calvin, who, in fact, proffered more solid readings that preserved the prophet’s actual words and provided extensive meaning to the church—​Christ’s kingdom—​across time.171 In the end, contended Pareus, Calvin’s readings were more edifying and more exegetically sound. Pareus was not the only Reformed exegete who furthered these readings of Zechariah 9:9, 11:12, and 12:10 as metaphorical descriptions that Christ fulfilled literally over and against the Lutheran insistence that these are simply literal prophecies of Christ. Daneau and Piscator agreed that these texts properly 167. Hunnius, Calvinus Iudaizans, 90, 101, 136–​37, 139–​40, 145, 157, 187–​88. 168. Pareus, Libri Duo, 180. 169. Pareus, Libri Duo, 175–​76. 170. Pareus, Libri Duo, 192, 193. Pareus wrote in a marginal note, “The allegory of the adversary neither agrees with the scope nor the words of the prophet” (193). 171. Pareus, Libri Duo, 195.



Christological Exegesis

323

have both literal and metaphorical meanings, and specifically affirmed their metaphorical functions. Pareus and Piscator, however, simply maintained that the prophet’s descriptions were metaphors literally fulfilled by Christ. 172 They did not follow Calvin’s second exegetical move, which argued that Christ’s literal fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9, 11:12, and 12:10 served as a visible symbol to illuminate the metaphorical meaning of the text for the prophet’s original context. Only Daneau came close to retaining Calvin’s metaphorical backward-​ looking application of the literal fulfillment by Christ as a visible symbol, although he did not explicitly follow Calvin’s move of applying this visible symbol metaphorically to read its meaning back into the prophet’s own time; he simply asserted that the visible symbol illuminated meaning for the church across time.173 Nonetheless these Lutheran-​Reformed polemical exchanges, whether direct or indirect, focused precisely on the matter of correct interpretation of Old Testament metaphors, which touched immediately upon issues of Christological exegesis and disputed identifications of the key content of the sacred history of Old Testament prophecy. The debates between Hunnius and Pareus illustrate the fact that disagreements over the proper identity of the sacred history of Old Testament prophecy (the history of Christ or the history of the prophet), practices of Christological exegesis, and the identification and interpretation of metaphors became key markers of confessional identity. They served as markers not only because of these differences in and of themselves, but because these pointed to deeper confessional divides concerning divergent understandings of the unity of the two testaments and divergent identifications of the perspicuous content of Scripture. For Luther and the Lutherans, Christ, the Law and Gospel, and proper understandings of faith and works were the clear content of Scripture. For Calvin and the Reformed, the narrative of God’s providential working (or covenant) with the church across time centered in Christ was the perspicuous content of Scripture. Even as they equally and simultaneously appealed to the prime, if not sole, authority of Scripture, such deviating views of its content, let alone divergent methods of exegesis, deepened the growing chasm between Lutherans and Calvinists.

172. Pareus, Novae Breviores, 308–​13, 314, 317–​18; Piscator, Commentariorum, 356–​57, 363–​65, 372–​73. Drusius applied Zechariah 9:9 and 12:10 to Christ and to the prophet’s time with no mention of a metaphorical application. He read Zechariah 11:12 simply in reference to the prophet’s time (Commentarius, 1041–​42, 1077–​78, 1089–​90). 173.  Daneau, Commentariorvm, 2:931, 965, 980–​83; A Fruitful Commentarie, 1022, 1059, 1076–​78.

324

The Reformation of Prophecy

Synopsis and Significance Lutheran and Calvinist debates over the proper identification and interpretation of Old Testament metaphors point more broadly to debates concerning signs and their functions in Scripture. They point to different understandings of the sign character of Scripture itself, where Luther and Calvin and their followers identified different elements as the key content of such signs and employed different methodologies to extract their content. Even as they debated signs and their meanings, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Swiss Reformed theologians all contended that their primary mode of interpretation was to illuminate the plain (literal) sense of Scripture. They therefore did not view the affirmation of the sign character (i.e., metaphorical character) of Scripture as contrary to the primary goal of unearthing Scripture’s plain sense, even as Lutherans and Reformed differed sometimes drastically on the content of that metaphorical reading (i.e., Christ and/​or the prophet’s history as an analogy). My point here is that one of the things this chapter demonstrates is that metaphorical readings of Scripture were part of the possibilities of Protestants interpreting Scripture’s “literal sense.”174 The chapter offers multiple examples to complicate just what Lutheran and Reformed exegetes meant when they claimed to illuminate Scripture’s literal sense—​namely, it included the possibility of multiple significations and multilayered meanings. For the Reformed in particular, this claim included metaphorical readings distinguished from allegorical readings through keen attention to authorial intention and the texts’ historical and literary contexts. For Lutherans this claim affirmed the Word as a Christ-​event that presents itself again and again to the believer; it affirmed the Christ who comes and will come in the proclamation of the Word—​the Word that always ultimately signifies Christ. Indeed, Lutherans insisted, it not only signifies Christ; it makes Christ present for the one who believes. The parallels between Lutheran and Reformed leaders’ differing engagements with Old Testament metaphors and their different theologies of the Lord’s Supper are striking. Though perhaps this really should not be surprising, for, as I have argued, at the heart of the debate over metaphors is a debate about signs and their meanings. In an article about biblical interpretation in the age of Protestant Orthodoxy, Johann Anselm Steiger precisely points

174. Brian Cummings presents something like this in “The Problem of Protestant Culture.” Cummings argues that most have overlooked the importance of figurative meaning and readings in Protestant culture, and he aims to remedy the neglect. The article, however, does not go far enough or start early enough. A much stronger case can be made for the central role of metaphor in Calvin’s (and his followers’) readings of Scripture, which I have provided in this chapter.



Christological Exegesis

325

to the correspondences between Lutheran hermeneutics and a Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper when he asserts: To some extent, the Lutherans conferred the doctrine of the bodily ubiquity of Christ to their hermeneutics. Already Luther was of the opinion that everything in the Old Testament was to be interpreted towards Christ, the centre of Scripture. And if this were not possible prophetice, then it would have to happen typice or allegorice. A result of this is that exegesis aims at tracking down Christ, the viva vox evangelii, everywhere in the Old Testament.175 Though I am more hesitant to apply the doctrine of ubiquity per se to Lutheran hermeneutics (since it was not a doctrine Lutherans agreed upon), Steiger gestures toward a crucial point. Luther and the next generations of Lutheran exegetes consistently asserted that Scripture and its signs point directly to Christ—​indeed literally to Christ. That is, Scripture and its signs point to the true, literal presence of the Christ who comes, who is here, and who will come. Just as Christ is literally and bodily present in the bread and wine, so also Christ is literally present in the words and signs of Scripture. Even more precisely, the words and signs of the Old Testament point particularly to the bodily events of Christ’s life; they set forth literal prophecies of Christ’s incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension. One observes similar parallels between Calvin’s views of the sign character of Scripture, the function of biblical metaphors, and the signs of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper. Calvin and his closest followers asserted that most of the signs of Scripture—​particularly Old Testament metaphors—​are both literal and metaphorical. They further insisted that one must attend to the physical, visual properties of the biblical metaphor in order to understand the sign and its figurative possibilities properly. Calvin therefore cautioned against cleaving too tightly to the literal sense of Scripture and not giving adequate

175. Steiger, “The Development of the Reformation Legacy,” 718. While I find Steiger’s account of Lutheranism insightful, his account of Calvinism is highly questionable. I agree with his points about the significant unifying work of the Holy Spirit for Calvinist understandings of the unity of the Testaments (708, 719, 720); however, Steiger either ignores or is unaware of Reformed exegetes’ profound emphasis on the original history of the Old Testament author and the implications this has for their understandings of the unity of the testaments. He instead argues via Johannes Cocceius (who hardly seems the best representative of Reformed views) for a priority of the New Testament over the Old Testament among the Reformed (719, 721). I have argued for a profound unity and, at times, a seeming priority of the Old Testament author’s intention above that of the New Testament. See Pak, “Calvin on the ‘Shared Design.’ ”

326

The Reformation of Prophecy

recognition to Scripture’s “significative mode of speaking.”176 Daneau similarly maintained that Scripture’s signs should “not be read only according to the letter, but also read mystically [i.e., spiritually] and thereby understood according to their signification.”177 Pareus likewise affirmed that the signs of Scripture “are double—​heavenly and earthly.”178 He thus established that Scripture frequently took “phrases from bodily things as a sketch of spiritual things.”179 Calvin strikingly interpreted the signs of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper with both these literal and figurative senses, thereby insisting that they are not empty signs. He accentuated the physical, visual properties of bread and wine to illuminate the ways in which they signified Christ and Christ’s work. Precisely the physical properties of the earthly elements of bread and wine illuminate the spiritual realities conveyed in the Lord’s Supper. These points exactly undergird both Calvin’s assertion of Christ’s spiritual, real presence in the Lord’s Supper and his view that feeding and nourishment are its central properties. The elements literally feed the people, even as they also symbolically and spiritually feed the people with the Body of Christ. The elements of bread and wine serve precisely as a visible symbol of this true feeding.180 Just as the prophets’ metaphors visibly present their words to the people, so also the signs of bread and wine not only visibly represent Christ, but they visibly present him; “they accomplish what they signify.”181 Swiss Reformed leaders demonstrated these same kinds of parallels between their readings of Old Testament prophecy and their doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. In their both/​and approach to Old Testament prophecy, Swiss Reformed leaders affirmed reading Old Testament prophecy simultaneously in reference to Christ and the prophet’s history. This means that they viewed Christ as literally fulfilling much of Old Testament prophecy, and they also saw in the prophet’s own history edifying models that served analogically to instruct the church across time. Prominent scholars of the Swiss 176. CO 43:149; Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:372–​73. 177. Daneau, Commentariorvm, 1:83; A Fruitful Commentarie, 71. 178. Pareus, Novae Breviores, 68. 179. Pareus, Novae Breviores, 77. 180. Notable in Calvin’s Short Treatise on the Holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ is how frequently he appealed to the bread and wine as “visible signs” (edited by John Dillenberger in John Calvin: Selections from his Writings [New York: Anchor, 1975], §§14–​17). 181.  Calvin, Short Treatise, §§15–​ 16. Daneau’s definition of hypotyposis resonates here: “Hypotyposis is a figure whereby we so lively express and exhibit the doing of a thing that it may rather be thought to be seen to be done than to be told” (Commentariorvm, 1:260; A Fruitful Commentarie, 320, emphasis added).



Christological Exegesis

327

Reformation, such as Bruce Gordon, Luca Baschera, Christian Moser, and Stephen Strehle, point to the important role biblical models of the past served for the instruction and imitation of Swiss churches.182 Gordon and Strehle in particular emphasize the backward-​looking direction of Swiss Reformed engagement with Scripture. Gordon maintains, “The whole thrust of Zwingli’s thought was backwards. In contrast to Luther, Zwingli’s faith was ‘fixed to the Christ of the past and not directed toward the Christ who is coming.’ ”183 Strehle specifies the correspondences between Zwingli’s backward-​looking view of the Gospel and his theology of the Lord’s Supper; both served the purpose of remembering and memorializing the central, salvific, past event of Christ’s death on the cross.184 Signs in Scripture for Zwingli and many of the Swiss Reformed leaders therefore point backward to the past saving events of Christ—​most centrally, the cross. The signs of bread and wine likewise pointed to the past supper of Christ with his disciples and the past events of Christ’s passion. It would be insufficient, however, to stop here concerning the parallels between Swiss Reformed readings of Old Testament prophecy, understandings of the sign character of Scripture, and theology of the Lord’s Supper. Chapters 6 and 7 demonstrated that for the Swiss Reformed, remembrance of the past reminded one of a spiritual reality both present and future. That is, one looked backward in order to understand more fully the present and in order rightly to anticipate the future through the employment of the past as possessing analogical truths. For Zwingli, the signs in the Lord’s Supper pointed literally to the past salvific actions of Christ, and they functioned symbolically to declare the spiritual fruits of those actions:  the grace given spiritually and directly to the believer. They declared a present spiritual reality made possible by the cross, and they equally pointed to a future, eschatological banquet. Lee Palmer Wandel analyzes two woodcuts of images of the Last Supper that were published in Zurich in 1525–​26 in order to illuminate the analogical character of Swiss Reformed Eucharistic theology that has too often been overlooked. She argues that the woodcuts “envision what the interplay between the Last Supper, the historical event, and the Zwinglian communion, its reenactment, was to be.”185 She demonstrates that the Christ of these

182. See the introduction to Baschera et al., Following Zwingli, 1–​37, particularly 6–​7, 11–​6, 22. See also Gordon, “The Changing Face”; Strehle, “Fides aut Foedus.” 183. Gordon, “The Changing Face,” 1:18; Strehle, 10. 184. Strehle, 9–​10. 185. Wandel, “Envisioning God,” 36.

328

The Reformation of Prophecy

woodcuts is “historically located, presented in a specific moment in time”—​ specifically a past moment in time.186 Yet at the same time the aureole above Christ’s head points to Christ’s divinity and the spiritual realities at work.187 Wendel therefore concludes that the woodcuts give “physical dimension” to Christ’s words in Matthew 18:20, that “where two or three are gathered” in his name, Christ is there in their midst: Christ sits in the middle of those who share a meal with him. The aureole reminds the viewer that Christ’s presence at the meal was twofold: as a man, Christ was present for a moment defined in human time; as God, his presence extended over time. . . . The images suggest that the relation between historical event, finite in time, and its reenactment was richer, more vital. They offer a different way of conceiving Christ’s “presence” . . . as something Zwingli called “spirit.”188 While Wendel sought primarily to emphasize the ways in which Christ’s past bodily presence signified his present spiritual presence through an emphasis on Christ’s two natures, it is important to highlight the role of analogy operative here. Swiss Reformed theologians applied Christ’s past, bodily presence analogically to “his presence extended over time,” just as they read Old Testament prophecy as pertaining to past events of Christ and applied it extensively to the church across time. Swiss Reformed theologians simultaneously affirmed the past, present, and future dimensions of the Lord’s Supper rooted in a past event—​Christ’s historical last supper with his disciples—​that operated figurally to illuminate the ways this past event functioned as a sign that pointed to deeper spiritual realities. An analysis of Lutheran and Reformed debates over metaphors thereby elucidates a deeper space of contention: the debate over the character and function of signs. Such an analysis reveals that operating at the very heart of their disagreements over the interpretation of biblical metaphors and doctrines of the Lord’s Supper were distinctly different conceptions of the sign character of Scripture. Lutheran and Reformed polemical exchanges concerning Old Testament metaphors contributed to a deepening of confessional divides, exhibiting striking parallels with the lynchpin of their confessional conflicts: debates over the Lord’s Supper.

186. Wandel, “Envisioning God,” 37. 187. Wandel, “Envisioning God,” 38. 188. Wandel, “Envisioning God,” 39.

Conclusion

Prophets and biblical prophecy were powerful tools in the hands of several leaders and groups during the early-​modern era, whether layperson or cleric, man or woman, radical or magisterial reformer. The prophet and biblical prophecy were particularly significant instruments to promote key aspects of the reforming work of leading Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist reformers precisely because of the ways these confessions tied the prophet and prophecy crucially and inextricably to God’s Word as revealed in Scripture. This book has provided a chronological and developmental analysis of the significance of the prophet and biblical prophecy across leading Protestant reformers. It presents an account of the reformation of prophecy in the early-​modern era, for, as we have seen, there were a number of shifts in the Protestant reformers’ uses of the prophet and the prophetic writings of Scripture. Across the multiple shifts in these uses, a core definition of the prophet and prophecy was operative and, for the most part, unchanging. Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist leaders each asserted the prime definition of the prophet as one who rightly proclaims and interprets God’s Word alone and not his or her own word or a human word. While early-​modern Protestant theologians retained the antecedent tradition’s dual definition of the prophet as foreteller and interpreter of Scripture, they moved the contemporary applications of this definition decisively in the direction of its tie to the interpretation of Scripture. The prophet and biblical prophecy were eminently useful to several of the key reforming goals of Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist leaders. First, the definition of the prophet as one who rightly proclaims and interprets Scripture alone served both to challenge Roman Catholic priestly authority and assert the priesthood of all believers. Building upon multiple biblical texts, particularly I Corinthians 14 and John 6:45 (“they shall all be taught by God”),

330 C onclusion

Luther and Zwingli argued that all believers by virtue of their baptism have access to the Holy Spirit and thereby have all that is necessary rightly to read and interpret Scripture, including the ability and call to judge all teaching by its accordance with Scripture. The prophet functioned in this way to promote lay access to Scripture. It also demarcated a particular biblical gift—​prophecy—​as the gift for discerning right interpretation of Scripture, which then supplied a Scriptural answer to a very Protestant problem. That is, the Protestant rejection of the magisterium as the arbiter of right interpretation of Scripture, alongside significant Protestant appeals to the authority of Scripture as above that of the church, generated the need for a biblical answer to how one discerns right interpretation of Scripture. Here Protestants turned particularly to I Corinthians 14—​thus to prophecy—​to provide such a biblical model. They negotiated this answer between the opposing pressures of the Roman Catholic emphasis on priestly and church authority and certain radicals’ appeals to the work of the Holy Spirit above and beyond Scripture. Anabaptist, Spiritualist, and other radicals’ alternative definitions and performances of prophecy generated the conditions that compelled a significant shift in Luther’s and Zwingli’s uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy, as well as those of subsequent generations of Protestant leaders. In this second stage, the prophet and biblical prophecy functioned to clarify, consolidate, and strengthen Protestant clerical identity and authority. Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist theologians increasingly located the task of discerning right interpretation of Scripture, as well as the precise task of interpreting difficult passages of Scripture in the context of disputations, squarely within the hands of established ministers—​particularly ministers and teachers trained in the biblical languages. Rather than any layperson potentially having the gift to discern right biblical interpretation, the prophets were first identified directly with those holding ministerial offices (i.e., Luther and Zwingli) and then with the key functions of these ministerial offices, particularly the teaching office (i.e., Bullinger and Calvin). The next generation of Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist leaders continued this negotiation of the use of the prophet and biblical prophecy between the opposing pressures of Roman Catholic “tyranny” and Anabaptist “sedition.” They did so by affirming and clarifying both clerical authority in public leadership and the appropriate spaces for lay input, grounding both soundly within the ultimate authority of Scripture. They therefore affirmed the necessity of a proper call and training for the public practices of church leadership so that not just any layperson could publicly preach or teach. A pastor, however, should be followed only insofar as he rightly proclaims Scripture alone; any proper authority that he possesses, in other words, ultimately is

Conclusion

331

the authority of Scripture; he has authority only insofar as he rightly executes Scripture’s authority. This, then, supplied the appropriate place for lay input: lay rebuke was possible if a public minister preached, taught, or operated contrary to Scripture’s teachings. Yet, as the history of interpretation of I Corinthians 14 demonstrated, such possibilities of rebuke were increasingly privatized in order to avoid any public rebuke that could potentially contribute to disorderly practices. Third, the prophet and biblical prophecy served as crucial tools for promoting distinctly Protestant visions of worship and its reform. This was true across both stages of their uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy—​ whether to buttress the priesthood of all believers or to strengthen Protestant clerical authority. Laypersons evoked prophetic texts in the 1520s to rebuke Roman Catholic employment of images and practices of penance and the Mass, often taking on the persona of an Old Testament prophet to do so. After 1524 such prophetic writings provided the crucial content of the Protestant pastor’s vision for the right worship of God and the very words with which the Protestant pastor could effectively rebuke Roman Catholic worship practices. Notably, then, the central definition of the true prophet as one who proclaims God’s Word alone was again operative. Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist leaders alike affirmed that true worship adheres to God’s Word alone, whereas false worship departs from and rebels against God’s Word. The answer to why the prophet and biblical prophecy were so central to the reforming work of many early Protestants is because these devices facilitated the grounding of key aspects of their reforming work—​whether to advance the priesthood of all believers, strengthen and clarify Protestant clerical authority, promote a biblical vision of true worship, or supply a biblical model for right discernment of Scripture—​under and within the authority of Scripture. The prophet and biblical prophecy enabled the Protestant reformers even more clearly to assert the authority of Scripture as the guiding principle of their reform efforts. For example, it allowed them to differentiate an affirmation of Protestant clerical authority from Roman Catholic affirmations of priestly authority—​for, according to Protestants, ministerial authority is not grounded in a sacramental conception of the priestly office and/​or its “indelible character”; it is instead rightly grounded in the authority of Scripture alone. That is, the pastoral office possesses no authority in and of itself, but functions correctly only insofar as it correctly expresses and adheres to Scripture’s authoritative content. Likewise, argued the Protestants, the authority of Scripture alone arbitrates any disputes over the right interpretation of Scripture. Scripture is its own interpreter; Scripture itself reveals its true interpretation. Yet both of these matters, as many will immediately recognize, rest upon a

332 C onclusion

crucial assumption of these early Protestants—​the assumption of Scripture’s perspicuity. This assumption of Scripture’s perspicuity operated in particular ways pertaining to Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist theologians’ views and uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy. First, entailed in the Protestant reformers’ affirmations of Scripture’s perspicuity was the belief in Scripture as a divine revelation ultimately authored by God through the working of the Holy Spirit in human authors. Thus, in relation to the prophet, when the reformers affirmed that every true believer—​whether lay or cleric—​has the Holy Spirit, they were in effect affirming that every true believer has access to the true author of Scripture (the Holy Spirit), who can affirm or deny any given interpretation of Scripture. When they tied the work of the prophet more stringently to the pastoral and/​or teaching offices, still their confidence in Scripture’s perspicuity resided in their confidence that the Holy Spirit continues to work in human persons and that the Holy Spirit will not contradict itself; the Holy Spirit will always confirm and conform to the words of Scripture, since the Holy Spirit is its very author. In other words, the Protestant reformers’ views of the prophet and prophecy strongly affirmed particular kinds of revelation and supernatural events. On the one hand, against certain Anabaptist, Spiritualist, and/​or radical views, Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, Calvin, and their followers insisted that there is no new revelation above and beyond Scripture. Scripture is the final, sufficient revelation of God. On the other hand, they all appealed to the necessary working of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of believers in order to rightly interpret Scripture and discern the right interpretation of others. It should not be overlooked that this entails an appeal to ongoing forms of supernatural working; that is, their optimism about the perspicuity of Scripture was inescapably attached to a belief that the Holy Spirit continues to reveal truth to human subjects in discernible ways. But it would be inadequate to stop there. We see, I  submit, another example of the complicated enchantment-​disenchantment question posed to the concepts and work of the Protestant reformers. In Enchanted Europe, Euan Cameron rightly criticizes Max Weber’s thesis that pointed to the Protestant reformers (and Puritan Protestantism more specifically) as producing the “disenchantment of the world.” However, he equally questions the “now conventional postulate that Protestantism was as ‘enchanted’ and devil-​ridden as its medieval predecessors.”1 Cameron essentially argues that it is not an either/​or; the Protestant reformers continued both to believe in an enchanted world and

1. Cameron, Enchanted Europe, 10–​11, 23, there 23.

Conclusion

333

to promote certain forms of demystification, particularly seeking to rid their churches of superstition.2 We see a similar case in the Protestant reformers’ conceptions and uses of the prophet and biblical prophecy. On the one hand, Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, Calvin, and their followers affirmed the ongoing, even revelatory work of the Holy Spirit in the prophet as an interpreter of Scripture to reveal the “hidden mysteries” of Scripture, to reveal the right meaning of Scripture in the midst of disputes, and ultimately to distinguish true Christian leaders from false ones. Their optimism about the perspicuity of Scripture was precisely founded in this supernatural working of the Holy Spirit. Yet even as they affirmed an ongoing, supernatural, revelatory work of the Holy Spirit in the functions of prophecy, they did so in very specific, even narrowed parameters. Scripture itself functioned for these Protestants as a disciplinary force to demarcate the proper practices and functions of prophecy. I  indeed contend that we see here a kind of “domestication” of prophecy.3 Namely, many of the Protestant reformers aimed to move understandings and practices of prophecy away from its ecstatic, visionary forms toward forms of prophecy necessarily and inextricably tied to Scripture as a final, sufficient revelation. Protestant leaders, in effect, tamed some (but not all) of the revolutionary potential of prophecy by anchoring it in the final and sufficient revelation of Scripture. More specifically, they ultimately employed prophecy to undergird an ordered ministry, in which the established male Protestant pastor becomes invested with all public authority insofar as he rightly proclaims God’s Word. Obvious here are the consequences for women and their available claims to the authority to teach and preach, as well as the laity more broadly. What the Protestant reformers gave with one hand (prophecy as affirming the priesthood of all believers), they took away with another (the public practice of prophecy belonging only to established ministers). However, it should be noted that both of these uses of prophecy reacted to particular external pressures. We cannot forget that the Protestant reformers’ imaginations around the prophet and prophecy—​and thus the subsequent uses of such—​were deeply

2.  Cameron, 12, 158–​59. Philip M.  Soergel presents a strong case of beliefs and uses of miracles, visions, signs, and portents particularly among early modern Lutheran theologians and leaders that also challenges the disenchantment thesis, in Miracles and the Protestant Imagination. 3.  To my knowledge, David Steinmetz first used this term in relation to prophecy. See Steinmetz, “The Domestication of Prophecy.” The article, however, does not focus much on the theme of domestication but on the ways Protestants identified with Christ’s prophetic office and thereby accentuated the work of the sermon, in contrast to medieval Catholic emphasis on the priestly office and its sacramental character.

334 C onclusion

shaped by those to whom they were responding, whether Roman Catholics or Anabaptists. The shared emphases of early Protestant Reformers, whether Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, or Calvinist, on prophecy as interpretation of Scripture and the prophet as one who rightly interprets and proclaims God’s Word alone generated a profound turn to the exegesis of the prophetic books of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament prophets. There was a plethora of commentaries on Old Testament prophetic books from the mid-​sixteenth into the late seventeenth century. Engagements with the figure of the prophet in the work of Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, Calvin, and their followers were each followed by a significant turn to the exegesis of biblical prophecy—​a turn that served the purposes of employing the biblical prophet and his teachings as a model for the Protestant pastor’s key tasks of edification, exhortation, and consolation (I Corinthians 14:3) and the reform of worship. This turn, however, evoked several crises of interpretation as Protestant exegetes increasingly discovered they identified the perspicuous content of Old Testament prophecy differently. First, they disagreed on the central content of the sacred history of Old Testament prophecy, which held immediate consequences for what it meant to read and apply the histories of such prophecy. Lutherans identified the history of Christ and the Gospel first and foremost, whereas Reformed interpreters employed the prophets’ histories analogically to provide historical portraits of God’s covenantal and providential activities with the church across time. The Swiss Reformed exegetes, as we have seen, held both of these histories together simultaneously and noncompetitively. Such divergent identifications of the prime sacred history of Old Testament prophecy were intricately tied to differing exegetical methods, particularly diverse practices of Christological exegesis of Old Testament prophecy. Hand in hand with their conflicting practices of Christological exegesis of Old Testament prophecy were Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist exegetes’ diverging identifications and interpretations of Old Testament metaphors. Identifying and interpreting metaphors differently was not just a dispute over exegetical method; it was, at a deeper level, a dispute over how to interpret and apply scriptural signs. It was a quarrel over the sign character of Scripture; it was a battle over how signs function in Scripture and how scriptural signs perform in the worship life of the church, particularly the sacraments. Therefore I  have argued that debates over how to identify and interpret Old Testament metaphors demonstrate direct parallels with the Eucharistic debates between the Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Calvinist confessions. The heart of the crisis of interpretation was ultimately a crisis concerning the assertion of Scripture’s perspicuity that immediately entailed a kind of

Conclusion

335

crisis of Scripture’s authority. If Scripture is clear, why did they not agree upon the clear content of Old Testament prophecy and its sacred history, let alone the methods of divulging it? Furthermore, if Protestant Christians cannot agree upon the perspicuous content of Scripture, how can Scripture (and its clear content) function as the ultimate arbiter of right doctrine and correct interpretation? Lutherans insisted that the clear content of Old Testament prophecy was its literal prophecies of Christ and the Gospel, as well as the corresponding doctrine of justification by faith alone and right distinctions between faith and works and Law and Gospel. The Swiss Reformed theologians asserted that the perspicuous content was the one, eternal covenant of God that spans both testaments. Calvin and his followers maintained that the perspicuous content of Old Testament prophecy was the vivid portraits of God’s providential care of the church. Protestants did not assume that all of Scripture is clear, only that enough of it is clear to guide the interpretation of Scripture’s obscure passages. Protestant affirmations of Scripture’s clarity did not assume that Scripture is clear because it is its innate nature to be clear. They assumed Scripture is clear by virtue of the working of the Holy Spirit; that is, if one has the Spirit, then with the aid of the Spirit through the gift of faith one will have the eyes to see its clear teachings. Disagreement concerning the perspicuous content of Scripture consequently pointed to the more serious question as to whether or not one has the true Spirit of God! This appeared perhaps most clearly in the Protestant reformers’ accusations against their opponents as false prophets. Yet such accusations became increasingly unsustainable, particularly as differing Protestant confessions consolidated, prospects for Protestant unity became increasingly improbable, and the acceptance of a plurality of Christianities became an increasingly necessary reality. There have been a number of excellent scholarly works concerning the development and consolidation of separate Protestant confessional identities. Most notable are the books and articles by Irene Dingel. Dingel superbly demonstrates many of the ways in which confessions and creeds contributed not only to efforts at Protestant unity but also to growing distinctions between various Protestant confessional identities. She illuminates several of the means by which Protestants defended their confessional identities through their claims to adherence to Scripture in their confessions.4 The confessions therefore functioned as a kind of analogia fidei (Romans 12:6). While strongly affirming Dingel’s findings, this book has proffered at least three more important claims for consideration:  (1) Early Protestants

4. Dingel, Concordia Controversa; “The Function and Historical Development of Reformation Confessions”; “The Preface of The Book of Concord”; “The Culture of Conflict”; and “Philip Melanchthon.”

336 C onclusion

employed the figure of the prophet and biblical prophecy precisely to discern this analogia fidei for adjudicating right interpretation of Scripture. (2) Biblical commentaries serve as an equally important source (alongside confessions and creeds) for mapping this journey of the consolidation of separate Protestant confessional identities. And (3)  the lines of confessional identity were not merely doctrinal lines; the lines were also drawn around issues of biblical exegesis—​most notably, differing methods of biblical interpretation—​ that directly shaped their differing exegetical outcomes. The sign character of Scripture and its very perspicuity and authority were ultimately at stake in the confessional debates and in the growing confessional divides.

Select Bibliography

P r im a ry Sour ce s Ambrosiaster. Commentarius in epistulas Paulinas, edited by H. J. Vogels. In Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vol. 81, no. 2. Verlag:  hpt Erscheinungsjahr: 1968. Beza, Theodore. Theodori Bezae Annotationes majores in Novum Dn. Nostri Jesu Christi Testamentum. In duas distinctae partes, quarum prior explicationem in quatuor Evangelistas et Acta Apostolorum: Posterior vero in Epistolas et Apocalypsin continent. Quibus etiam adiuncti sunt Indices Rerum ac Verborum locupletissimi. Genève, 1594. Bucer, Martin. Enarrationum in Evangelia Matthaei, Marci, & Lucae, libri duo Loci communes syncerioris Theologiae supra centum, ad simplicem scripturarum fidem, citra ullius insectionem aut criminationem excußi. Argentorati, 1527. —​—​—​. Tzephaniah quem Sophoniam vulgo vocant prophetarum epitomographus ad Ebraicam veritatem versus et commentario explanatus. Agentorati apud Ioannem Hervagium, 1528. —​—​—​. Metaphrases et Ennarrationes Perpetvae D. Pauli Apostoli. . . . Argentorati per Vvendelinvm, Rihelium, Mense Martio, 1536. —​—​—​. Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften. Edited by Robert Stupperich et  al. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 1960–​. Bullinger, Heinrich. De propheta Heilrijchi Bullingeri libri duo. In hisce duobus libros, quos prophetas titulo appellamus, veluti per transennam expoistum reperies, very prophetae offitium et quid eum promoveat, ut doceat aperte, ut stimulus adhibeat, atque consternatos animos sublevet consolando, cum alijs quisbusdam imprimis huc pernecessarijs . . . , 1525. —​—​—​. De hebdomadis, quae apud Danielem sunt, opuscum. Tiguri, 1530. —​—​—​. De Prophetae Officio, et quomodo digne administrari possit, oratio. Tygvri, 1532. —​—​—​. In Sanctissimam Pauli ad Romanos Epistolam, Heinrychi Bullingeri Commentarius. Tiguri apud Christoph Frosch. February 1533.

338

Select Bibliography

—​—​—​. In Priorem D.  Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam Commentarius. Tigvri apvd Christoph froscho mense ivn, 1534. —​—​—​. In Acta Apostolorum Heinrychi Bullingeri Commentariorum Libri VI. Tiguri apud Christophorum Froschoverum. Zurich, 1535. —​—​—​. In D.  Apostoli Paul ad Galatas, Ephesios, Philippen. et Collossenses epistolas Heinrychi Bullingeri Commentarii. Tiguri, mense Iulio 1535. —​—​—​. In D.  Apostoli Pauli ad Thessalonicenses, Timotheum, Titum et Philemonem epistolas, Heinrychi Bullingeri Commentarii. Tiguri apud Christ. Froschoverum, 1536. —​—​—​. Der alt gloub: Das der Christen gloub von anfang der walt gewart habe der recht waar alt unnd ungezwyflet gloub sye klare bewysung. Zurich, 1539. —​—​—​. De sine seculi & iudicio venture Domini nostri Iesu Christi, déq periculis nostril huius seculi corruptissimi gravissimis & qua ratione fiant innoxia piis, Orationes duae. Basileæ, 1557. —​—​—​. In Ieremiae Prophetae Sermonem vel Orationem primam, sex primis capitibus comprehensam, Heinrychi Bullingeri Conciones XXVI nunc primum aeditae. Tiguri, 1557. —​—​—​. Sermones Ieremiae prophetae quatuor, nempe secundus, tertius, quartus et quintus, comprehensi septem capitibus, a VII. videlicet ad XIII, usque caput, XXVI. Heinrychi Bullingeri concionibus expositi. Tiguri, 1558. —​—​—​. H. Bullingeri Adversus Anabaptistas Libri VI. Nunc Primum Germanico sermone in Latinum conversi per Iosiam Simlerum Tigurinum. Tiguri apud Christoph Froschoverum, 1560. —​—​—​. In sermones et historicas expositiones Ieremiae Prophetae, a capite XXX. usque ad finem operis, conciones Heinrychi Bullingeri LXXIIII. Tiguri, 1561. —​—​—​. Daniel sapientissimus dei propheta, quia vetustis polyhistor, id est, multiscius est dictus, expositus Homiliis LXVI quibus non tam sensus Prophetae redditur . . . Tiguri excudebat C. Froshoverus, 1565. —​—​—​. Isaias Excellentissimus Dei Propheta, cuius Testimoniis Christus ipse Dominus et eius Apostoli creberrimé usi leguntur, expositus Homiliis CXC. quibus non tam sensus Prophetae redditur, quàm usus et frutus eius in Ecclesia Christi, ostenditur, authore Heinrycho Bullingero. Tiguri excudebat Christophorus Froschoverus, 1567. —​—​—​. Ieremias Fidelissimus et Laboriosissimus Dei Propheta, expositus per Hienrychum Bullingerum, ministrum Ecclesiae Tigurinae, Concionibus CLXX. Quibus perspicue et vere docetur, quod hodie multis Comitijs et Consultationibus nondum inveniri potuit, Quomodo videlicet bellis compositis infelicibus, tranquillitas in orbe Christiano recuperari, et pax salusq; publica conservari possit. Mirifice enim pleraque huius Prophetae nostris temporibus hominibusque congruent. Tiguri excudebat Christophorus Froschoverus, 1575. —​—​—​. Fiftie Godlie and Learned Sermons, divided into five Decades, conteyning the chiefe and principall pointes of Christian Religion, written in three severall Tomes



Select Bibliography

339

or Sections by Henrie Bullinger minister of the Churche of Tigure in Swicerlande, translated by H. I. student of Divinitie. London: Ralphe Newberrie, 1577. —​—​—​. De testamento seu foedere Dei unico et aeterno Heinrychi Bullingeri brevis exposition. Tiguri in aedibus Christoph Frosch. Mense, 1584. —​—​—​. The Decades. Edited by Thomas Harding and translated by “H. I.” Cambridge: 9 Vols. The University Press, 1849–​52. —​—​—​. De episcoporum, qui verbi Dei ministri sunt, institutione et functione contra superstionis tyrrannidisque Romanae antistites ad serenissimum Angliae Regem Heinrychum VIII. Vol. 3, no. 4 of Heinrich Bullinger Theologische Schriften, edited by Emidio Campi and Philipp Wälchli, 105–​262. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009. Calvin, John. Commentary on the Book of Psalms. 5 Vols. Translated by James Anderson. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1847. —​—​—​. Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets. 5 Vols. Translated by John Owen. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1847. —​—​—​. Ioannis Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia. 59 vols. Corpus Reformatorum, vols. 29–​ 88. Edited by G. Baum, E. Cunitz, E. Reuss. Brunsvigae:  C.A. Schwetschke, 1863–​1900. —​—​—​. Commentaries on the First Twenty Chapters of the Prophet Ezekiel. Vol. 1. Translated by Thomas Myers. Grand Rapids: MI, William B. Eerdmans, 1948. —​—​—​. Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel. Translated by Thomas Myers. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1948. —​—​—​. Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony. Vol. 1. Translated by Charles William Bingham. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1950. —​—​—​. Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah and Lamentations. Vol. 1. Translated by John Owen. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1950. —​—​—​. Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. Translated by William Pringle. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1953. —​—​—​. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Edited by John T. McNeill. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960. —​—​—​. The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. Translated by John W. Fraser and edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1960. —​—​—​. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians. Translated by T. H. L. Parker and edited by David W. and Thomas F. Torrance, 121–​224. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1980. —​—​—​. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians. Translated by Ross Mackenzie and edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, 1–​328. Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster, 1995. Capito, Wolfgang. In Hoseam Prophetam V.  F. Capitonis Commentarius. Ex quo peculiaria Prophetis, & hactenus fortaßis nusquam sic tractate, si versam pagellam & indicem percurris, cognoscere potes. Argentorati apud Ioannem Hervagium, 1528.

340

Select Bibliography

Daneau, Lambert. Commentariorvm Lamberti Danaei in prophetas minors. 2 vols. Geneva: Apvd Evstathivm Vignon, 1586. —​—​—​. A Fruitful Commentarie upon the twelve Small Prophets, Briefe, Plaine, and Easie, Going over the same verse by verse and shewing every where the Method, points of doctrine, and figures of Rhetoricke, to the no small profit of all godly and well disposed Readers, with very necessarie fore-​notes for the understanding both of these, and also all other Prophets. Translated by John Stockwood. London, 1594. Denck, Hans. Confession for the Council of Nuremberg (1525). In The Spiritual Legacy of Hans Denck: Interpretation and Translation of Key Texts, edited and translated by Clarence Bauman, 54–​67. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991. —​—​—​. “He Who Truly Loves the Truth” (1526). In The Spiritual Legacy of Hans Denck:  Interpretation and Translation of Key Texts, edited and translated by Clarence Bauman, 162–​77. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991. Denck, Hans, and Ludwig Hätzer. Alle Propheten nach Hebraischer Sprach verteutscht. Worms: Peter Schoffer, 1527. Drusius, Johannes. Commentarius in Prophetas Minores XII. Quorum VIII antea editi, nunc auctiores; reliqui IV jam primum prodeunt. Eiusdem in Graecam Editionem LXX. Conjectanea. Sixtinus Amama. Amstelredami: Sumtibus Henrici Laurentii, 1627. Egli, Emil. Aktensammlung zur Geschichte der Zürcher Reformation. Zürich: Druck von J. Schabelitz, 1879. Eusebius of Caesarea. Historia ecclesiastica. Strasbourg: Heinrich Eggestein, 1475. Greiffenberger, Hans. Diß biechlin zaigt an dei falschen Propheten, vor den unß gewarnet hat Christus, Paulus und Petrus und findt darin was und wie wir uns Christen halten sollen yetz in diser geferlichen Zeyt; auff das kürtzest begriffen. Augsburg, 1523. —​—​—​. Die Weltt sagt, sy sehe kain Besserung von den, die sy Lutherisch nennet wz Besserung sey ein wenig hierinn beriffen. Augsburg, 1523. —​—​—​. Diss biechlin sagt von den falschen Kamesierern die sich auß thund vil guts mit fasten peeten meßlesen für anndre auff das jn der sack tasch vol werd achten nit wo die seelen hinfaren. München, 1523. —​—​—​. Ein christenliche Antwordt denen, die da sprechen das Evangelium hab sein krafft von der Kirchen. Bamberg, 1524. —​—​—​. Ein kurtzer begrif von gutten werckenn, dye got behagen, vnd der welt ain spotseynd, yetz ein grose klag, wye nyemant mer guts thu, vnd aller Gotdyenst undergee, wie sy gedunckt in jrem synn Eyn antwurtt wz gutte wreck seynd. Augsburg, 1524. —​—​—​. Ein trostliche Ermanung den angefochtnen im Gewissen von wegen gethoner Sünd wye wamitt sye getröst werdenn den Sathan sich nit erschrecken lassenn. Augsburg, 1524. Von Grumbach, Argula. Argula von Grumbach Schriften. Edited by Peter Matheson. Heidelberg: Gutersloher Verlagshaus, 2010. —​—​—​. Argula von Grumbach: A Woman’s Voice in the Reformation. Edited by Peter Matheson. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995.



Select Bibliography

341

Grynaeus, John Jacob. Haggaevs Propheta. In Quem Accssit Luculentißimus Commentarius ex publicis D. Ioannis Iacobi Grynæ, in Academia Baʃilienʃi Theologiæ profeʃʃoris, præ lectionibus collectus, & nunc primum ab eodem in lucem editus. Genevæ: Apud Evstathivm Vignon, 1581. —​—​—​. Ionae Prophetae Liber, cum Enarratione. Basileae: Oporinus, 1581. —​—​—​. Hypomnemata in Habacuci librum. Basileae, 1582. —​—​—​. Hypomnemata, in Malachiam prophetam: tradita in Basiliensi academia: quibus adjunctae sunt Theses analyticae, de epistola Pauli apostoli ad Galatas, de quibus in Scholis Theologorum disputatum fuit. Apud inclytam Germaniae Basileam: Typis Leonhardi Ostenii, 1583. —​—​—​. In Obadiam Prophetam. Commentaria: Vna cum Oratione de vno & æterno Dei Testamento. Basileæ: Ex Officina Leonardi Ostenii, 1584. —​—​—​. Haggevs the Prophet. Where-​vnto is added a most plentifull commentary, gathered out of the publique Lectures of D. Iohn Iames Gryneus, professor of Divinitie in the Universitie of Basill, and now first published. Translated by Christopher Fetherstone. London, 1586. —​—​—​. Exegesis epistolae beati Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos quae exemplar sanorum sermonum continent: tradita in. . . . Basel, 1591. Gwalther, Rudolph. In Prophetas Dvodecim qvos vocant Minores, Rodolphi Gualtheri Tigurini Homiliae. Tiguri excudebat Chri. Froschouerus, 1577. —​—​—​. Certain godlie Homelies or Sermons upon the Prophets Abdias and Ionas:  Conteyning a most fruitefull exposition of the same. Translated by Robert Norton. London, 1573. —​—​—​. In D. Pauli apostolic epistolam ad Romanos homiliae. Tiguri, 1580. —​—​—​. The Sermons of Master Ralf Gualter upon the Prophet Zephaniah written in Latin. Translated by Moses Wilton. London, 1580. —​—​—​. The Homilies or familiar Sermons of M. Rodolph Gualther Tigurine upon the Prophet Ioel. Translated by John Ludham. London, 1582. —​—​—​. In Acta Apostolorum per Diuum Lucam descripta, Homiliae CLXXV. Authore Rodolpho Gualthero Tigurino. Accesserunt operi Indices duo rerum et locorum scripturae. Zürich, 1586. —​—​—​. In Epistolam D.  Pauli Apostoli ad Corinthios Priorem D.  Rodolphi Gualtheri Pastoris Ecclesie Tigurinae Homiliarum archetypi. Tiguri in officina Froshoviana, 1590. —​—​—​. Homiliarum in principem prophetarum Isaiam archetypi cl. v.  Rodolphi Gualtheri, ecclesiae Tigurinae antistis /​ex eius autographo nunc primum editi, correcti . . . opera ac studio Caspari Waseri Tigurini; praemissum est hieroglyphicon doctrinae Christianae ad senatum populumque Vitoduranum, eodem Wasero authore. Tiguri in officina Wolphiana, 1607. —​—​—​. Archetypi homiliarum in Epistolas S. Pauli ad Thessalon. I. et II. Timoth. I. II. Titum. Philem. Hebraeos. Tiguri, 1609.

342

Select Bibliography

Goltschmit, Bastian. Ein underweisung etzlicher artickel, so bruder Matteiss, prior der prediger closters zu Worms, ungegründt in heiliger gschrifft, offentlich gepredigt hat. 1525. Harder, Leland, ed. The Sources of Swiss Anabaptism: The Grebel Letters and Related Documents. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1985. Hubmaier, Balthasar. “Axiomata.” In Balthasar Hubmaier Schriften, edited by Torsten Bergsten and Gunnar Westin, 87–​ 94. Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer IX. Gütersloh, Switzerland: G. Mohn, 1962. —​—​—​. “Von der christlichen Taufe der Gläubigen.” In Balthasar Hubmaier Schriften, edited by Torsten Bergsten and Gunnar Westin, 118–​64. Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer IX. Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1962. —​—​—​. “On the Christian Baptism of Believers.” In Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, translated and edited by H. Wayne Pipkin and John H. Yoder, 95–​149. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1989. —​—​—​. “Theses against Eck.” In Balthasar Hubmaier:  Theologian of Anabaptism, translated and edited by H. Wayne Pipkin and John H. Yoder, 51–​57. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1989. Hunnius, Aegidius. Epistolae divi Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos Expositio plana et perspicua cum Praefatione. Frankfurt/​Main, 1590. —​—​—​. Calvinus Iudiazans, hoc est: Iudaicae Glossae et Corruptelae, quibus Iohannes Calvinus illustrissima Scripturae sacrae Loca & Testamonia, de gloriosa Trinitate, Deitate Christi, & Spiritus Sancti, cum primis autem ascensione in caelos et sessione ad dextram Dei, detestandum in modum corrumpere no exhorruit. Addita est corruptelarum confutatio per Aegidium Hunnium. Wittennberg, 1593. —​—​—​. Commentarius in Epistolam divi Pauli Apostoli ad Ephesios, Scriptus ab Egidio Hunnio, S. Theologiae Doctore et Professore in Academia Marpugensi. In quo etiam pro necessaria defensione libellorum de persona Christi, suis distinctis locis (ut et in praefatione) solide respondetur ad maledicum et elumbe Scriptum Theologorum Bremensium, D.  Christofori Pezelii, et M.  Iosephi Grabii, quo Iesu Nazareni in Omnipotentia dextra sedentis et regnantis Maiestatem hostile quidem pectore, sed irrito conatu opppugnarunt. Francofurti ad Moenum, Excudebat Ioannes Spies, 1593. —​—​—​. Sechs Propheten H.  Schrifft/​Nemlich:  Daniel/​Obadias/​Jonas/​Micha/​Haggai/​ und Malachias/​gründtlich außgelegt/​und in unterschiedlichen Predigten erflaret/​und in Druck verfertiget. Johann Spies, 1595. —​—​—​. Epistolae divi Apostoli Pauli ad Thessalonicenses Prioris exposition plana et perspicua. Auctore Aegidio Hunnio, S. Theologiae Doctore et Professore in Academia. Franfurt/​Main, 1596. —​—​—​. Antipareus:  Hoc est:  Invictare futatio venentati scripti ad Davide Pareo, Heidelbergensi Theologo, editi in defensionem stropharum & corruptelarum, quibus Iohannes Calvinus illustrissima Scripturae Testimonia de mysterio Trinitatis, nec non oracular Prophetarum de Christo, de testandum in modum corrupit. Francofvrti, 1598.



Select Bibliography

343

—​—​—​. Epistolae Divi Apostoli Pauli ad Corinthios Prioris Expositio Plana et Perspicua. Witebergae, 1601. Ignatius. Epistle to the Philadephians. In The Apostolic Fathers, translated by Kirsopp Lake. Volume 1. New York: Macmillan, 1912–13. Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Ancient Christian Writers, no. 55. New York: Paulist, 1992. —​—​—. Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. Translated by Joseph P. Smith. Ancient Christian Writers, no. 16. Westminster, MD: Newman, 1952. Karlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein. Karlstadts Schriften aus den Jahren 1523–​25. Edited by Erich Hertzsch. Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1956–​57. —​—​—​. “Review of Some Chief Articles of Christian Doctrine” (1525). In Karlstadt’s Battle with Luther:  Documents in a Liberal-​Radical Debate, edited by Ronald J. Sider, 126–​38. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978. —​—​—​. “Whether One Should Proceed Slowly and Avoid Offending the Weak in Matters That Concern God’s Will” (1524). In Karlstadt’s Battle with Luther: Documents in a Liberal-​Radical Debate, edited by Ronald J. Sider, 49–​71. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978. Kessler, Johannes. “Sabbata.” In Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz, edited by Heinhold Fast, 2:590–​638. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1973. Klaassen, Walter, ed. Anabaptism in Outline:  Selected Primary Sources. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1981. Kleist, James A., trans. The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabus, The Epistles and the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, The Fragments of Papias, the Epistle to Diognetus. Ancient Christian Writers, no. 6. Westminster, MD: Newman, 1948. Lambert, François. In Primum Duodecim Prophetarum, nempe Oseam, Francisci Lamberti Auenionensis Commentarij. Eiusdem libellus de arbitrio hominis uere captiuo sub quartum caput. Petreius, 1525. Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kristische Gesamtausgabe. 72 vols. Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1883–​2007. —​—​—​. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kristische Gesamtausgabe: Deutsche Bibel, 12 vols. Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1906–​61. —​—​—​. D. Martin Luthers Werke:  Kritische Gesamtausgabe:  Breifwechsel, 18 vols. Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1930–​85. —​—​—​. Luther’s Works. Edited by Jaroslav Pellikan and Hulmut T. Lehmann. St. Louis, MO: Fortress, 1956–​. Lotzer, Sebastian. Ain christlicher sendbrief darinn angezaigt wirt, dz die layen macht und recht haben von dem hailigen wort gots reden, lern und schreiben.  .  .  . Augsburg, 1523. —​—​—​. Ain hailsame Ermanunge an die ynwoner zu horw das sy bestendig beleyben an dem hailigen wort Gottes. Augsburg, 1523.

344

Select Bibliography

—​—​—​. Ayn außlegung uber das Evangelium So man lyßt unn singt, nach brauch der kyrchen am zwayntzigisten Sontag nach der hayligen Trivaltigkait, Wöichs beschreibt Math. am XII. Capit. von ainem Künig So seinem Sun hochtzeyt zuberayt hett. Augsburg, 1524. —​—​—​. Ain vast haylssam trostlich christlich unüberwynndlich beschyrmbüchlin, Auff ainunddreyssig Artyckel, Auss götlicher hailiger geschrifft, des alten und newen Testaments gegründt, mit antzaigug der Capitel, un underschid, zu nutz trost un hail allen gelyebtten brüdern in Christo, auch zu widerstandt de vervolgern Götlichs worts. 1524. Marpeck, Pilgram. “A Clear and Useful Instruction” (1531). In The Writings of Pilgram Marpeck, translated and edited by William Klassen and Walter Klaassen, 69–​106. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1978. Marschalk, Haug. Durch betrachtung vnd Bekärung Der bößen gebreych in schweren sünden, Jst Gemacht Dyser spyegel Der Blinden V. H. Z. Jm jar 1522. Augsburg, 1522. —​—​—​Das hailig ewig wort gots was das in jm krafft, stercke tugendt, frid, fred, erleüchtung vnd leben, in aym rechten Cristen zu erwecken vermag. Zu gestalt dem edlen gestrengen Riter und Kaiserlichen Hauptman Herrn Jörgen von Fronsperg zu Mündelhein. Augspurg, 1523. —​—​—​. Ein Spiegel der blinden, zur erkantniß evangelischer warheit. Basel, 1523. —​—​—​. In rechter grüntlicher Brüderlicher vnd Christenlicher liebe Got den herren recht in der Ewgkayt recht zu erkennen  .  .  .  nach laut der göttlichen hayligen geschrifft. Augsburg, 1523. —​—​—​. Von dem weyt erschollen Namen Luther, wz er bedeut unnd wie er wirt miß braucht. Straßburg, 1523. —​—​—​. Die scharpff Metz wider die (die sich Evangelisch nennen) und doch dem Ewangelio entgegen seynd. S. I., 1525. Martyr, Justin. Dialogue with Trypho. Translated by Thomas B. Falls. Selections from the Fathers of the Church, Vol. 3. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Migne. Jacques Paul, ed. Patrologia Latina. 221 vols. Paris: Excudebat Migne, 1844–​55. Melanchthon, Philip. Commentarii in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos hoc anno M.  D. XL. recogniti et locu pletati. Straßburg, 1540. —​—​—​. Phlippi Melanthonis opera quae supersunt omnia. Edited by Karl Bretschneider and Heinrich Bindseil. Corpus Reformatorum. 28 vols. Halle: A. Schwetschke & Sons, 1834–​60. Müntzer, Thomas. The Collected Works of Thomas Müntzer. Edited and translated by Peter Matheson. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988. Oecolampadius, Johannes. Ioannis Oecolampadius viri piissimi & doctissimi commentariorum omnes in Prophetas. Apud Io. Crispinum, 1558. —​—​—​. In Minores, Quos Vocant. Prophetas:  Ioannis Oecolampadii, viri piissimi & eruditissimi lucubrationes quaecunque ab ipso editae, & post decessum ex ipsius praelectionibus colecte & publice factae extant. Genevae:  E Typographia Crispiniana, 1558.



Select Bibliography

345

Osiander, Lucas. Isaias, Ieremias, et Threni Ieremiae, iuxta veterem sev vulgatam translationem, ad Hebraeam Veritatem emendati et brevi ac perspicua explicatione illustrate: insertis etiam praecipuis Locis communibus, in lectione sacra observandis. Tubingae, 1578. —​—​—​. Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, Ioel, Amos, Abdias, Ionas, Michæs, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggæs, Zacharias, & Malachias:  Iuxta Veterem Seu Vulgatam Translationem ad Hebraeam Veritatem emndati & brevi ac perspicua Explicatione illustrati:  insertis etiam præcipuis Locis Communibus lectione sacra observandis. Tubingæ: Excudebat Georgius Gruppenbachius, 1579. —​—​—​. Epistolae S. Pauli Apostoli Omnes, Quotquot extand luxta Veterem seve Vulgatam translationem, ad Graecum Textum emendata et brevi ac perspicua explicatione illustrata: insertis etiam praecipuis Loci Communibus, in lectione sacra observandis. Tubingae: Excudebat Georgins Gruppenbachius, 1583. —​—​—​. Die Propheten mit der Außlegung:  Der ander Theil. In welchem als fünfften Theil der aufgelegten Bibel/​unnddes alten Testaments letzten Theil/​erstlich die zweilff kleine Propheten in der kürtze gründlich erfleret unnd außgelegt warden: Denen auch zugleich die Apocrypha und abgesonderte Schrifften des alten Testaments beygefügt sein. Stuttgardt, 1608. Pareus, David. Libro Duo: I. Calvinus Orthodoxus de Sacrosancto Trinitate: et de aeterna Christi Divinite. II. Solida Expositio XXXIIX. Difficilimorum Scripturae Locorum et Oraculorum: et de recta ratione applicandi Oracula Prophetica ad Christum. Oppositi Pseudocalvino Iudaizanti nuper a quodam emisso. Neustadt: Matthaeus Harnisch, 1595. —​—​—​. Hoseas Propheta Commentariis illustrates: cum translatione triplici: Latina Gemina, ex Hebraeo, ex Chaldaeo Thargum Ionathae; Nec non Graeca LXX. Heidelberg, 1605. —​—​—​. In Divinam ad Corinthios Priorem S. Pauli Apostoli Epistolam Commentarius. Frankcofurti, Impensis Ionae Rhodii, 1609. —​—​—​. In Divinam ad Romanos S. Pauli ap. Epistolam Commentarius. S.I., 1609. —​—​—​. Notae Breviores in Prophetiam Joelis, Haggai, et Amosi capita tria priora. Oxonii, 1631. Piscator, Johannes. Commentariorum in Omnes Libros Veteris Testamenti. Tomus Tertius. Herbornæ Nassoviorum, 1644. Plick, Simon. Verderbe und schade der Lande und leuthen am gut leybe, ehre und der selen seligkeit aus Lutherischen und seins anhangs lehre zugewant, durch Simonem Apt zu Begawe mit einhelliger seiner Bruder vorwilligug hirinnen Christlich angetzeigt und ausgedruckt. Leipzig, 1524. Roberts, Alexander, James Dobson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds. The Ante-​Nicene Fathers, 10 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1885–​96. Rothmann, Bernhard. Die Schriften Bernhard Rothmanns. Edited by Robert Stupperich. Münster: Aschendorffer Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1970. Rychsner, Utz. Ain Gesprechbüchlin von einem Weber und ainem Kramer über das Büchlin D. Matthiae Krets von der haimlichen Beycht. S. I., 1524.

346

Select Bibliography

—​—​—​. Ain hüpsch Gesprech biechlin, von ainem Pfaffen und ainem Weber  .  .  .  des Evangeliums vnd anderer sachen haben. Augsburg, 1524. —​—​—​. Ain schöne underweysung, wie wir Christo alle gebrüder und schwester seyen. S. I., 1524. —​—​—​. Ayn Ausszug auss der Cronicka d Bapst un iren gesatze wie gleych formig sy de gesatze gots un leer der apostel seyen zu vergleichen auff das kürtzest un ainfaltigest zusamengefugt. Augsburg, 1524. Sachs, Hans. Die Wittenbergisch Nachtigall Die man yetz höret uberall. Augsburg, 1523. —​—​—​. Ain Dialogus und Argument der Romanisten, wider das Christlich heuflein, den Geytz und ander offentlich laster betreffend. Augsburg, 1524. —​—​—​. Ain Gesprech aines Evangelischen Christen mit einem Lutherischen, darinn der Ergerlich wandel etlicher, die sich Lutherisch nennen, angezaigt und brüderlich gestrafft wirdt. Augsburg, 1524. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. Disputacion zwischen ainem Chorherren vnd Schuchmacher, darin das wort gottes vnd ein recht Christlich wesen verfochten wirtt. Augsburg, 1524. —​—​—​. Ein Dialogus, des inhalt, ein argument der Roemischen, wider das Christlich heüflein, den Geytz, auch ander offenlich laster. Nürnberg, 1524. —​—​—​. Underweysung der ungeschickten, vermeinten Lutherischen, so in eüsserlichen sachen zu ergernüß ires nechsten freuntlich handlen. Straßburg, 1524. Schwenckfeld, Caspar. Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum. 19 vols. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1907–​. —​ —​ —​ . “Vom waren und falschen geistlichen Stande:  Der XLIIII Sendbrieff geschriben an den hochwirdigen Fursten und Herzn Herzn Wolffgang Abt zu Kempten, etc.” (1546). In Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum, 10:100–​124. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1907–​. —​—​—​. “Von der Widergeburt und herkummen eines Christen Menschens” (1538). In Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum, 6:10–​36. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1907–​. —​—​—​. “Von graden der widergeburt und vom werckh gottes mit dem armen sunder, den er umb Christi willen zu gnaden annempt” (1529). In Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum, 3:571–​75. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1907–​. —​—​—​. “Of the Regeneration and Origin of a Christian.” In The Piety of Caspar Schwenckfeld, edited and translated by Edward J. Furcha, 25–​28. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1969. —​ —​ —​ . “On Spiritual Order.” In The Piety of Caspar Schwenckfeld, edited and translated by Edward J. Furcha, 61–​87. Pittsburgh, PA:  Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1969. —​—​—​. “The Steps of Regeneration.” In The Piety of Caspar Schwenckfeld, edited and translated by Edward J. Furcha, 15–​24. Pittsburgh, PA:  Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1969. Selnecker Nikolaus. Der gantze Prophet Jeremias/​Zu diesen schweren unnd gefehrlichen zeiten/​frommen Christen zum unterricht und Trost/​Ausgelegt. Item/​Der Prophet Sophonias/​Ausgelegt. Leipzig, 1566.



Select Bibliography

347

—​—​—​. Der Prophet unnd ernster Busprediger Amos unnd Obadias ausgelegt durch Nicolaum Selnecker. Leipzig: Jakob Bärwald, 1567. —​—​—​. Christliche kurtze summa und erflerung der dreie Propheten/​Osee/​Joels/​Michee. Jetziger zeit frommen Christen wol zulesen. Cum gratia & privilegio Illustriss. Electoris Saxoniae, 1578. —​—​—​. Die Propheten/​Allen frommen und einfeltigen Christen und haussuatern zum unterricht und trost in diesen sorglichen letzten zeiten/​mit kurtzer Summari/​ und Außlegung verfertiget. Cum gratia & Privilegio Electoris Saxionae. Leipzig, 1579. Snyder, C. Arnold, ed. Sources of South German/​Austrian Anabaptism. Translated by Walter Klaassen, Frank Friesen, and Werner Packull. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 2001. Snyder, Graydon F., ed. and trans. The Shepherd of Hermas. The Apostolic Fathers. Volume 6. Camden, NJ: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1968. Stadler, Ulrich. “Vom lebendigen wort und geschribnen.” In Glaubenszeugnisse oberdeutscher Taufgesinnter, edited by Lydia Müller, 1:212–​27. Leipzig: M. Hiensius Nachfolger, 1938. Staygmayer, Hans. Ain kurtze vnderrichtung von der waren Christlichen Bruderschaft allen christlichen Menschen ser nutzlich zu leesen. Augsburg, 1524. —​—​—​. Ain Schoner Dialogus oder Gesprech von aynem Münch und Becken, wölcher die Osterayer Samlen wollt. S.I., 1524. Treubel, Eckhard zum. Ein dermütige ermanung an ein gantze gemeine Christenheit . . . Man soll in der Kirchen nit mit gelt umbgen. Strassburg, 1522. —​—​—​. Ein Vetterliche, gedruge, gute zucht, lere und bericht Christlich zu leben und sterben an meine Kynder und alle frummen Christen. Strasbourg, 1528. Weyda, Ursula. Wyder das unchristliche schreyben vn Lesterbuch des Apts Simon Zu Pegaw vnd seyner Brüder. Durch Vrsula Weydin Schoesserin zu Eyssenbergk. Eyn gegrundt Christlich schrifft Gotlich word vnnd Ehe lich leben belangende. 1524. Yoder, John H., trans and ed. The Legacy of Michael Sattler. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1973. Zell, Katharina Schütz. The Writings:  A Critical Edition. Edited by Elsie McKee. Leiden: Brill, 1999. —​—​—​. Church Mother:  The Writings of a Protestant Reformer in Sixteenth-​Century Germany. Translated and edited by Elsie McKee. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. Zell, Matthew. Christeliche Verantwortung. Strasbourg, 1523. Ziegler, Clement. Ein kurtz Register und auszzug der Bibel in welchem man findet was abgötterey sey und wo man yedes suchen sol. Strassburg, 1524. —​—​—​. Von der waren nyessung beyd leibs und bluts Christi . . . Und von dem Tauff wie man den . . . handlen sol. Strassburg, 1524. —​—​—​. Ein fast schon büchlin in welchem yederman findet ein hellen und claren verstandt von dem leib und blut Christi. Strassburg, 1525. Zwingli, Huldrych. Anklag und ernstlichs ermanen Gottes allmächtigen zuo einer gmeinen Eydgnoschafft, das sy sich von jhren Sünden zuo jm keere. Zürich, 1528.

348

Select Bibliography

—​—​—​. Alle Propheten aufz Ebraischer sprach mit gůten truewen unnd hohem fleiß durch die Predicantenn zů Zürich inn Teutsch vertolmetschet. Getruckt zů Zürich bey Christoffel Froschouer, 1529. —​—​—​. Ad Carolum Rom. Imperatorem, fidei Huldrychi Zvinglij ratio. Eiusdem quoq; ad illustrißimos Germaniae Principes Augustae congregatos Epostola. Tiguri, 1530. —​—​—​. Exposition of the Faith. Vol. 4 of Huldreich Zwingli’s Werke. Zurich:  F. Schulthess, 1828–​42. —​—​—​. Zwingli im Nahmen der Prädikanten von Straßburg, Zurich, Bern und Basel an die V Orte der Eidgenoffenschaft in Huldrych Zwingli’s Werke 2/​3. Zurich: Schultheschen Buchhandlung, 1832. —​—​—​. Von göttlicher und menschlicher grechtigheit, wie die zemen sehind und standind. Ein predge Huldrych Zwinglis an s. Ioanns teuffers tag gethon im 1523, in Huldreich Zwinglis Sämtliche Werke, vol. 2. Leipzig: Heinsius, 1908. Corpus Reformatorum, 89:471–​525. —​—​—​. Complationis Isaiae Prophetae foetura prima cum Apologia cur quidque sic versum sit per Huldricum Zuinglium. Christophorus Froschouer, 1529. Vol. 5 of Huldrici Zuinglii Opera, 483–​788. Completa Editio Prima curantibus Melchiore Schulero and Io. Schulthessio. Turici ex Officina Schulthessiana, 1835. —​—​—​. Annotationes et Satisfactiones Complationis Huldrici Zuinglii in Ieremiam Prophetam, cur, Quidque, Quomodque Versum Sit. Tiguri, ex aedibus Christophori Froschover, 1531. Vol. 6 of Huldrici Zuinglii Opera, 77–​201. Completa Editio Prima curantibus Melchiore Schulero et Io. Schulthessio. Turici ex Officina Schultessiana, 1836. —​—​—​. Complationis Ieremiae Prophetae foetura prima cum apologia cur quidque sic versum sit per Huldricum Zuinglium. Christophori Froschouer, 1531. Vol. 6 of Huldrici Zuinglii Opera, 1–​ 76. Completa Editio Prima curantibus Melchiore Schulero et Io. Schulthessio. Turici ex Officina Schultessiana, 1836. —​—​—​. In Priorem ad Corinthios Annotationes. Completa Editio Prima curantibus Melchiore Schulero et Io. Schulthessio. Vol. 60. Part 2. Latinorum Scriptorum pars sexta. Exegetica Novi Testamenti Residua. Turici ex Officina Schulthessiana, 1838. —​—​—​. Huldreich Zwinglis Sämtliche Werke, 14  vols., Corpus Reformatorum, vols. 88–​ 101, edited by Emil Egli et  al. Berlin:  Verlag von M.  Heinsius Nachfolger, 1905–​. —​—​—​. Commentary on True and False Religion. Edited by Samuel Macauley Jackson and Clarence Nevin Heller. Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1981. —​—​—​. “The Preaching Office.” Translated and edited by Edward J. Furcha. In Huldrych Zwingli Writings, edited by H. Wayne Pipkin, 2:147–​ 85. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 1984. —​—​—​. Ulrich Zwingli: Early Writings. Edited by Samuel Macauley Jackson. Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1987.



Select Bibliography

349

S e c onda ry Sour ce s Achilla, Aurelio A. Garcia. “Truth in History: The Theology of History and Apologetic Historiography in Heinrich Bullinger.” PhD dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1989. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. The Theology of History and Apologetic Historiography in Heinrich Bullinger:  Truth in History. San Francisco:  Mellen Research University Press, 1992. Angel, Sivert. The Confessional Homiletics of Lucas Osiander (1534–​1604): A Study of a South-​German Lutheran Preacher in the Age of Confessionalization. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Ash, James L., Jr. “The Decline of Ecstatic Prophecy in the Early Church.” Theological Studies 37 (1976): 227–​52. Aston, Margaret. “Bullinger and Iconoclasm.” In Heinrich Bullinger:  Life-​ Thought-​Influence, edited by Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz, 2:625–​ 36. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007. Bächtold, Hans Ulrich. “History, Ideology and Propaganda in the Reformation: The Early Writing ‘Anklag und erstliches ermanen Gottes’ (1525) of Heinrich Bullinger.” In Protestant History and Identity in Sixteenth-​Century Europe, edited by Bruce Gordon, 46–​59. Aldershot, UK: Scolar, 1996. Bächtold, Hans Ulrich, Rainer Henrich, and Kurt Jakob Rüetschi, eds. Vom Beten, vom Verketzern, vom Predigen:  Beiträge zum Zeitalter Heinrich Bullingers und Rudolf Gwalthers. Zug, Switzerland: Achius, 1999. Backus, Irena. Reformation Readings of the Apocalypse: Geneva, Zurich, and Wittenberg. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “The Beast:  Interpretations of Daniel 7.2–​9 and Apocalypse 13:1–​4, 11–​ 12 in Lutheran, Zwinglian, and Calvinist Circles in the Late Sixteenth Century.” Reformation & Renaissance Review 3, no. 1 (2001): 59–​77. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation (1378–​1615). Leiden: Brill, 2003. Bailey, Richard. “The Sixteenth Century’s Apocalyptic Heritage and Thomas Müntzer.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 57, no. 1 (1983): 27–​44. Baker, J. Wayne. Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1980. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Christian Discipline and the Early Reformed Tradition:  Bullinger and Calvin.” In Calvin’s Ecclesiology:  Sacraments and Deacons, edited by Richard C. Gamble, 279–​91. New York: Garland, 1992. Balserak, Jon. “‘There Will Always Be Prophets’:  Deuteronomy 18:14–​ 22 and Calvin’s Prophetic Awareness.” In Calvin—​Saint or Sinner?, edited by Herman J. Selderhuis, 85–​112. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. Establishing the Remnant Church in France:  Calvin’s Lectures on the Minor Prophets, 1556–​1559. Leiden: Brill, 2011.

350

Select Bibliography

–​–​–​–​–​–​–​. John Calvin as Sixteenth-​ Century Prophet. Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2014. Baring, Georg. “Die ‘Wormser Propheten,’ eine vorlutherische evangelische Prophetenübersetzung aus dem Jahre 1527.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 31 (1934): 23–​41. Barnes, Robin Bruce. Prophecy and Gnosis: Apocalypticism in the Wake of the Lutheran Reformation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988. –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ . “Astrology and the Confessions in the Empire, c.  1550–​ 1620.” In Confessionalization in Europe, 1555–​1700:  Essays in Honor and Memory of Bodo Nischan, edited by John M. Headley, Hans J. Hillerbrand, and Anthony J. Papalas, 131–​53. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2004. Baschera, Luca, Bruce Gordon, and Christian Moser, eds. Following Zwingli: Applying the Past in Reformation Zurich. Surrey, UK: Ashgate, 2014. Bast, Robert. “Constructing Protestant Identity:  The Pastor as Prophet in Reformation Zurich.” In Frömmigkeit, Theologie, Frömmigkeitstheologie: Contribu tions to European Church History. Festschrift für Berndt Hamm zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Gudrun Litz, Heidrun Munzert, and Roland Liebenberg, 351–​ 62. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Bayer, Oswald. Martin Luther’s Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2008. Beck, James. “The Anabaptists and the Jews:  The Case of Hätzer, Denck, and the Worms Prophets.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 75, no. 4 (2001): 407–​27. Bender, Harold S. Conrad Grebel: The Founder of the Swiss Brethren Sometimes Called Anabaptists. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1950. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “The Zwickau Prophets, Thomas Müntzer and the Anabaptists.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 27 (1953): 3–​16. Benrath, Gustav Adolf. “Irenik und Zweite Reformation.” In Die reformierte Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland: Das Problem der “Zweiten Reformation,” 349–​ 58. Gütersloh, Switzerland: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1986. Bernet, Claus. “The Concept of the New Jerusalem among early Anabaptists in Münster 1534/​35:  An Interpretation of Political, Social, and Religious Rule.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 102 (2011): 175–​94. Bernhard, Erling. “The Priesthood of All Believers and Luther’s Translation of I Peter 2: 5, 9.” Lutheran Forum 33, no. 2 (1999): 20–​29. Bielfeldt, Dennis. “Luther, Metaphor, and Theological Language.” Modern Theology 6 (1990): 121–​35. Blacketer, Raymond. “Smooth Stones, Teachable Hearts:  Calvin’s Allegorical Interpretation of Deuteronomy 10:1–​ 2.” Calvin Theological Journal 34 (1999): 36–​63. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. The School of God:  Pedagogy and Rhetoric in Calvin’s Interpretation of Deuteronomy. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006.



Select Bibliography

351

Blanke, Fritz. Brüder in Christo: Die Geschichte der ältesten Täufergemeinde (Zollikon 1525). Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1955. De Boer, Erik. The Genevan School of the Prophets: The Congregations of the Company of Pastors and Their Influence in 16th Century Europe. Geneva: Librairie Droz, 2012. Bolliger, Daniel. “Bullinger on Church Authority:  The Transformation of the Prophetic Role in Christian Ministry.” In Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–​1575, edited by Emidio Campi and Bruce Gordon, 159–​77. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004. Bornkamm, Heinrich. Luther und das Alte Testament. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1948. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. Luther and the Old Testament, translated by Eric W. Gritsch and Ruth C. Gritsch. Mifflintown, PA: Sigler, 1997. Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther:  Shaping and Defining the Reformation, 1521–​1532. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994. Brinkmann, Günter. Das Irenicum des David Pareus in Theologiegeschichtlicher Sicht. Marburg: Universität, 1971. Brown, Peter. “Saint Augustine.” In Trends in Medieval Political Thought, edited by Beryl Smalley, Peter Robert, and Lamont Brown, 1–​21. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965. Burnett, Amy Nelson. Teaching the Reformation: Ministers and Their Message in Basel, 1529–​1629. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ . “‘It Varies from Canton to Canton’:  Zurich, Basel, and the Swiss Reformation.” Calvin Theological Journal 44 (2009): 251–​62. Burnett, Stephen. “Reassessing the ‘Basel-​ Wittenberg Conflict’:  Dimensions of the Reformation-​Era Discussion of Hebrew Scholarship.” In Hebraica Veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe, edited by Allison P. Coudert and Jeffrey S. Shoulson, 181–​201. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Büsser, Fritz. “Der Prophet—​Gedanken zu Zwinglis Theologie.” Zwingliana 13, no. 1 (1969): 7–​18. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. Huldrych Zwingli: Reformation als prophetischer Aufstrag. Göttingen: Muste rschmidtm, 1973. Cameron, Euan. Enchanted Europe:  Superstition, Reason, and Religion, 1250–​1750. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Campenhausen, Hans von. The Formation of the Christian Bible. Translated by J. A. Baker. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. Chrisman, Miriam U. Strasbourg and the Reform: A Study in the Process of Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1967. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Women and the Reformation in Strasbourg, 1490–​1530.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 63 (1972): 143–​68. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Lay Response to the Protestant Reformation in Germany, 1520–​1528.” In Reformation Principle and Practice:  Essays in Honour of Arthur Geoffrey Dickens, edited by Peter Brooks, 38–​49. London: Scolar, 1980.

352

Select Bibliography

–​–​–​–​–​–​–​. Conflicting Visions of Reform:  German Lay Propaganda Pamphlets, 1519–​ 1530. Atlantic Highland, NJ: Humanities, 1996. Clemen, Otto. “Die Schösserin von Eisenberg.” Mitteilungen des Geschichts-​und Alterthumsforshenden Vereins zu Eisenberg im Herzogtum Sachsen-​Altenberg 13 (1898): 73–​81. Corbellini, Sabrina. “Instructing the Soul, Feeding the Spirit and Awakening the Passion:  Holy Writ and Lay Readers in Late Medieval Europe.” In Library of the Written Word:  The Handpress World, edited by Andrew Pettegree, 20:15–​39. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Cummings, Brian. “Protestant Allegory.” In The Cambridge Companion to Allegory, edited by Rita Copeland and Peter T. Struck, 177–​90. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010. –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ . “The Problem of Protestant Culture:  Biblical Literalism and Literary Biblicism.” Reformation 17 (2012): 177–​98. Depperman, Klaus. Melchior Hoffman:  Social Unrest and Apocalyptic Visions in the Age of Reformation. Translated by Malcolm Wren. Edited by Benjamin Drewery. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987. Derksen, John. “The Schwenckfeldians in Strasbourg, 1533–​1562: A Prosopographical Survey.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 74 (2000): 257–​94. Diethelm, Roland. “Bullinger and Worship: ‘Thereby Does One Plant and Sow the True Faith’.” In Architect of Reformation:  An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–​1575, edited by Emidio Campi and Bruce Gordon, 135–​57. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004. Dingel, Irene. Concordia Controversa: Die öffentlichen Diskussionen um das lutherische Konkordienwerke am Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts. Gütersloh, Switzerland: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1996. —​—​—​. “The Preface of The Book of Concord as a Reflection of Sixteenth-​Century Confessional Development.” Lutheran Quarterly 15 (2001): 373–​95. —​ —​ —​ . “Philip Melanchthon and the Establishment of Confessional Norms.” Lutheran Quarterly 20 (2006): 146–​69. —​—​—​. “The Culture of Conflict in the Controversies Leading to the Formula of Concord (1548–​1580).” In Lutheran Ecclesiastical Culture, 1550–​1675, edited by Robert Kolb, 15–​64. Leiden: Brill, 2008. —​—​—​. “The Function and Historical Development of Reformation Confessions.” Lutheran Quarterly 26 (2012): 295–​321. Dipple, Geoffrey. “Pilgram Marpeck, the Spiritualizers and the Anabaptist View of Church History.” In Commoners and Community: Essays in Honour of Werner O. Packull, edited by C. Arnold Snyder, 217–​32. Kitchener, Ontario: Pandora, 2002. Edwards, Mark U. Luther and the False Brethren. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1975.



Select Bibliography

353

Eire, Carlos M. N. War against the Idols: The Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to Calvin. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Engammare, Max. “Calvin:  A Prophet without a Prophecy.” Church History 67 (1998): 643–​61. Fatio, Olivier. Méthode et théologie:  Lambert Daneau et des débuts de lat scolastique réformée. Genève: Droz, 1976. Friedman, Jerome. The Most Ancient Testimony: Sixteenth-​Century Christian-​Hebraica in the Age of Renaissance Nostalgia. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1983. Gäbler, Ulrich. Huldrych Zwingli: His Life and Work. Translated by Ruth C. L. Gritsch. Philadephia: Fortress, 1986. Ganoczy, Alexandre. Le Jeune Calvine: Genèse et évolution de sa vocation réformatrice. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1966. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Calvin avait-​il conscience de reformer d’Église?” Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 118 (1986): 172–​77. Garcia, Aurelio. “Bullinger’s Friendship with Calvin:  Loving One Another and Edifying Churches.” In Calvin and Spirituality:  Papers Presented at the 10th Colloquium of the Calvin Studies Society, edited by David Foxgrover, 199–​233. Grand Rapids, MI: CRC Product Services, 1998. Gordon, Bruce. “Zurich and the Scottish Reformation: Rudolf Gwalther’s Homilies on Galatians of 1576.” In Humanism and Reform: The Church in Europe, England, and Scotland, 1400–​1643: Essays in Honour of James K. Cameron, edited by James Kirk, 207–​19. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991. —​—​—​. “The Changing Face of Protestant History and Identity in the Sixteenth Century.” In Protestant History and Identity in Sixteenth-​Century Europe, edited by Bruce Gordon, 1:1–​22. Aldershot, UK: Scolar, 1996. —​—​—​, ed. Protestant History and Identity in Sixteenth-​ Century Europe. 2 vols. Aldershot, UK: Scolar, 1996. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. The Swiss Reformation. New York: Manchester University Press, 2002. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. Calvin. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009. Gow, Andrew. “Challenging the Protestant Paradigm:  Bible Reading in Lay and Urban Contexts of the Later Middle Ages.” In Scripture and Pluralism: Reading the Bible in the Religiously Plural Worlds of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, edited by Thomas E. Burman and Thomas J. Hefferman, 161–​91. Leiden: Brill, 2005. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “The Contested History of a Book: The German Bible of the Later Middle Ages and Reformation in Legend, Ideology, and Scholarship.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 9 (2009): 1–​37. De Greef, Wulfert. Calvijn en het Oude Testament. Amsterdam: ton Bolland, 1984. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Calvin on Prophecy.” In Ordenlich und fruchtbar:  Festschrift für Willem van’t Spijker, edited by Wilhem H. Neuser and Herman J. Selderhuis, 111–​28. Leiden: Groen en Zoon, 1997.

354

Select Bibliography

Grieser, D. Jonathan. “Anabaptism, Anticlericalism, and the Creation of a Protestant Clergy.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 71 (1997): 515–​43. Gritsch, Eric W. “Thomas Müntzer and Luther:  A Tragedy of Errors.” In Radical Tendencies in the Reformation: Divergent Perspectives, edited by Hans J. Hillerbrand, 54–​83. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1988. Hahn, Fritz. “Faber Stapulensis und Luther.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 57 (1938): 356–​432. Halbach, Silke. Argula von Grumbach als Verfasserin reformatorischer Flugschriften. Europaische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XXIII, Theologie Bd. 468. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1992. Hällström, Gunnar af. Charismatic Succession: A Study on Origen’s Concept of Prophecy. Helsinki: Toimittanut Anne-​Marit Enroth, 1985. Harms, Frederick A. V. In God’s Custody: The Church, a History of Divine Protection: A Study of John Calvin’s Ecclesiology Based on His Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. Hauck, Robert John. The More Divine Proof: Prophecy and Inspiration in Celsus and Origen. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1989. Hauser, Martin. Prophet und Bischof:  Huldrych Zwinglis Amtsvertändnis im Rahmen der Zürcher Reformation. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1994. Headley, John. Luther’s View of Church History. New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press, 1963. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “The Reformation as Crisis in the Understanding of Tradition.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 78 (1987): 5–​22. Hendrix, Scott. Ecclesia in Via:  Ecclesiological Developments in the Medieval Psalms Exegesis and the Dictata Super Psalterium (1513–​ 1515) of Martin Luther. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974. —​—​—​. Recultivating the Vineyard:  The Reformation Agendas of Christianization. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004. Hillerbrand, Hans. The Reformation:  A Narrative History Related by Contemporary Observers and Participants. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Hobbs, R. Gerald. “Pluriformity of Early Reformation Scriptural Interpretation.” In Hebrew Bible/​Old Testament, the History of Its Interpretation, edited by Magne Sæbø, 2:452–​511. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996–​2015. Holl, Karl. “Martin Luther on Luther.” In Interpreters of Luther: Essays in Honor of Wilhelm Pauck, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan, 9–​34. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968. Honée, E. M.  V. M. “The Radical German Reformer Thomas Müntzer (c. 1489–​ 1525): The Impact of Mystical and Apocalyptical Traditions on His Theological Thought.” In Prophecy and Eschatology, edited by Michael Wilks, 65–​74. Studies in Church History 10. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1994. Hotson, Howard. “Irenicism and Dogmatism in the Confessional Age:  Pareus and Comenius in Heidelberg, 1614.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 46, no. 3 (1995): 432–​56.



Select Bibliography

355

—​—​—​. “Anti-​Semitism, Philo-​Semitism, Apocalypticism, and Millenarianism in Early Modern Europe:  A Case Study of Some Methodological Reflections.” In Seeing Things Their Way:  Intellectual History and the Return of Religion, edited by Alister Chapman, John Coffey, and Brad S. Gregory, 104–​18. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009. Izbicki, Thomas M., and Christopher M. Bellitto, eds. Reform and Renewal in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: Studies in Honor of Louis Pasceo, S.J. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Junhans, Helmar. Der junge Luther und die Humanisten. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Kane, Gregory. “The Exercise of Prophecy in the Early Reformation.” Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 33 (2013): 28–​41. Karant-​Nunn, Susan C. The Reformation of Ritual: An Interpretation of Early Modern Germany. New York: Routledge, 1997. Kess, Alexandra. Johann Sleidan and the Protestant Vision of History. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008. Kienzle, Beverly Mayne, and Pamela J. Walker, eds. Women Preachers and Prophets through Two Millennia of Christianity. Berkeley:  University of California Press, 1998. Kirby, W. J.  Torrance. The Zurich Connection and Tudor Political Theology. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Kiwiet, Jan J. “The Life of Hans Denck.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 31 (1957): 227–​59. Klaassen, Walter. Covenant and Community: The Life and Teachings of Pilgram Marpeck. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1968. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “The Limits of Political Authority as Seen by Pilgram Marpeck.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 56 (1982): 342–​64. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Eschatological Themes in Early Dutch Anabaptism.” In The Dutch Dissenters:  A Critical Companion to Their History and Ideas, edited by Irvin B. Horst, 18–​24. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986. Klug, Eugene F. “Luther on the Ministry.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 47, no. 4 (1983): 293–​303. Koch, Ernst. “Die Bedeutung der Kirchenväter für Nikolaus Selneckers Exegese von Genesis 1.” In Die Patristik der Bibelexegese des 16 Jahrhunderts, edited by David Steinmetz, 147–​53. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999. Kolb, Robert. For All the Saints: Changing Perceptions of Martyrdom and Sainthood in the Lutheran Reformation. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987. –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ . “Teaching the Text:  The Commonplace Method in Sixteenth Century Lutheran Biblical Commentary.” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 49 (1987): 574–​80. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “The Doctrine of Christ in Nikolaus Selnecker’s Interpretation of Psalms 8, 22, and 110.” In Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation:  Essays Presented to David C. Steinmetz in Honor of His Sixtieth Birthday, edited by Richard A. Muller and John L. Thompson, 313–​32. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.

356

Select Bibliography

–​–​–​–​–​–​–​. Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero: Images of the Reformer, 1520–​ 1620. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Called to Milk Cows and Govern Kingdoms: Martin Luther’s Teaching on the Christian’s Vocations.” Concordia Journal 39, no. 2 (2013): 133–​41. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Pastoral Practice in the Funeral Sermons of Nikolaus Selnecker (1530–​ 1592).” Lutheran Quarterly 28 (2014): 22–​48. Körsgen-​Wiedeburg, Andrea. “Das Bild Martin Luthers in den Flugschriften der frühen Reformationszeit.” In Festgabe für Ernst Walter Zeeden zum 60. Geburtstag am 14. Mai 1976, edited by Hansgeorg Molitor, Horst Rabe, and Hans-​Christoph Rublack, 153–​77. Münster: Aschendorff, 1976. Krahn, Henry G. “Martin Bucer’s Strategy against Sectarian Dissent in Strasbourg.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 50 (1976): 163–​80. Kuhr, Olaf. “The Zwickau Prophets, the Wittenberg Disturbances, and Polemical Historiography.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 70 (1996): 203–​14. Landi, Aldo. “Prophecy at the Time of the Council of Pisa (1511–​ 1513).” In Prophetic Rome in the High Renaissance Period, edited by Marjorie Reeves, 53–​61. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. Lerner, Robert. “Medieval Prophecy and Religious Dissent.” Past & Present 72 (1976): 3–​24. Lienhard, Marc. Martin Luthers christologiches Zeugnis, Entwicklung und Grundzüge seiner Christologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprehct, 1979. Locher, Gottfried. Zwingli’s Thought: New Perspectives. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981. MacCulloch, Diarmaid. “Heinrich Bullinger and the English-​Speaking World.” In Heinrich Bullinger:  Life-​Thought-​Influence, edited by Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz, 2:891–​934. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007. Mallinson, Jeffrey. Faith, Reason, and Revelation in Theodore Beza (1519–​ 1605). New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Manetsch, Scott. Theodore Beza and the Quest for Peace in France, 1572–​ 1598. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Maschke, Timothy H. “The Authority of Scripture: Luther’s Approach to Allegory in Galatians.” Logia 4 (1995): 25–​31. Matheson, Peter. Argula von Grumbach:  A Woman’s Voice in the Reformation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “A Reformation for Women? Sin, Grace and Gender in the Writings of Argula von Grumbach.” Scottish Journal of Theology 49 (1996): 39–​55. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Breaking the Silence:  Women, Censorship, and the Reformation.” Sixteenth Century Journal 27 (1996): 97–​109. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Martin Luther and Argula von Grumbach (1492–​1556/​7).” Lutheran Quarterly 22 (2008): 1–​15. Matthias, Markus. Theologie und Konfession: Der Beitrag von Ägidius Hunnius (1550–​ 1603) zur Enstehung einer lutherischen Religionskultur. Leipzig:  Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2004.



Select Bibliography

357

Mattox, Mickey. “Defender of the Most Holy Matriarchs”: Martin Luther’s Interpretation of the Women of Genesis in the Ennarrationes in Genesin, 1535–​45. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Maxfield, John A. Luther’s Lectures on Genesis and the Formation of Evangelical Identity. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2008. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Martin Luther and Idolatry.” In The Reformation as Christianization: Essays on Scott Hendrix’s Christianization Thesis, edited by Anna Marie Johnson and John A. Maxfield, 141–​68. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. McCoy, Charles S., and J. Wayne Baker. Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition. Louisville, KY: Westminster/​John Knox, 1991. McGinn, Bernard. “Prophetic Power in Early Medieval Christianity.” Cristianesimo nella storia 17, no. 2 (1996): 251–​69. —​—​—​. “Apocalypticism and Church Reform.” In The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, edited by John J. Collins, Bernard McGinn, and Stephen J. Stein. 2:74–​109. New York: Continuum, 1998. McGrath, Alister. The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987. McKee, Elsie. Elders and the Plural Ministries:  The Role of Exegetical History in Illuminating John Calvin’s Theology. Geneve: Librarie Droz, 1988. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. Katharina Schütz Zell:  Vol. I, The Life and Thought of a Sixteenth-​Century Reformer. Leiden: Brill, 1999. McLaughlin, R. Emmet. “The Politics of Dissent: Martin Bucer, Caspar Schwenckfeld, and the Schwenckfelders of Strasbourg.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 68 (1994): 59–​78. Midelfort, H. C.  Erik. “Madness and the Millennium at Münster, 1534–​1535.” In Fearful Hope:  Approaching the New Millennium, edited by Christopher Keinhenz and Fannie J. LeMoine, 115–​34. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1999. Millet, Olivier. Calvin et la dynamique de la parole:  Étude de rhétorique reformée. Paris: Champion, 1992. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Calvin’s Self-​Awareness as Author.” Translated by Susanna Gebhardt. In Calvin and His Influence, 1509–​2009, edited by Irena Backus and Philip Benedict, 84–​101. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Minnich, Nelson. “Prophecy and the Fifth Lateran Council (1512–​ 1517).” In Prophetic Rome in the High Renaissance Period, edited by Marjorie Reeves, 63–​87. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. Minnis, Alastair, and Rosalynn Voaden, eds. Medieval Holy Women in the Christian Tradition c. 1100–​c.1500. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2010. Moeller, Bernd. “What Was Preached in German Towns in the Early Reformation?” In The German Reformation: The Essential Readings, edited by C. Scott Dixon, 33–​ 52. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999. Morisi-​ Guerra, Anna. “The Apocalypsis Nova:  A Plan for Reform.” In Prophetic Rome in the High Renaissance Period, edited by Marjorie Reeves, 27–​ 50. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992.

358

Select Bibliography

Müller, Nikolaus, ed. Die Wittenberger Bewegung 1521 und 1522: Die vorgänge in und um Wittenberg währeon Luthers Wartburgaufenthalt. Leipzig: Heinsius, 1911. Müsing, Hans-​Werner. “The Anabaptist Movement in Strasbourg from Early 1526 to July 1527.” Translated by Elizabeth Bender. Mennonite Quarterly Review 51 (1977): 91–​126. Moser, Christian. “Heinrich Bullinger’s Efforts to Document the Zurich Reformation: History as Legacy.” In Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–​1575, edited by Emidio Campi and Bruce Gordon, 201–​ 14. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004. Nagel, Norman. “Luther and the Priesthood of All Believers.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 61, no. 4 (1997): 277–​98. Naphy, William. “‘No History Can Satisfy Everyone’:  Geneva’s Chroniclers and Emerging Religious Identities.” In Protestant History and Identity in Sixteenth-​Century Europe, edited by Bruce Gordon, 2:23–​ 38. Aldershot, UK: Scolar, 1996. Nasrallah, Laura Salah. An Ecstasy of Folly: Prophecy and Authority in Early Christianity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. Oberman, Heiko. “Martin Luther:  Vorläufer der Reformation.” In Verifikationen:  Festschrift für Gerhard Ebeling zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Eberhard Jüngel, Johannes Wallmann, and Wilfrid Werbeck, 91–​119. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1982. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. Die Reformation:  Von Wittenberg nach Genf. Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Europa afflicta:  The Reformation of the Refugees.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 83 (1992): 91–​111. O’Malley, John. Giles of Viterbo on Church and Reform. Leiden: Brill, 1968. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. Rome in the Renaissance:  Studies in Culture and Religion. London: Variorum, 1981. Opitz, Peter, ed. Calvin im Kontext der Schweizer Reformation:  Historische und theologische Beträge zur Calvinforschung. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2003. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Bullinger’s Decades:  Instruction in Faith and Conduct.” In Architect of Reformation:  An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–​ 1575, edited by Emidio Campi and Bruce Gordon, 101–​16. Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Academic, 2004. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Von prophetischer Existenz zur Prophetie als Pädagogik: Zu Bullingers Lehre von munus propheticum.” In Heinrich Bullinger:  Life-​Thought-​Influence, edited by Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz, 2:493–​513. Zürich:  Theologischer Verlag, 2007. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “The Authority of Scripture in the Early Zurich Reformation (1522–​1540).” Journal of Reformed Theology 5 (2011): 296–​309. –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ . “The Exegetical and Hermeneutical Work of John Oecolampadius, Huldrych Zwingli, and John Calvin.” In Hebrew Bible/​Old Testament: The History



Select Bibliography

359

of Its Interpretation, edited by Magne Sæbø, 2:407–​51. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996–​2015. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. Ulrich Zwingli:  Prophet, Ketzer, Pionier des Protestantismus. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2015. Oyer, John S. “Bucer Opposes the Anabaptists.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 68 (1994): 24–​50. Pak, G. Sujin. The Judaizing Calvin:  Sixteenth-​Century Debates over the Messianic Psalms. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Calvin on the ‘Shared Design’ of the Old and New Testament Authors: The Case of the Minor Prophets.” Westminster Theological Journal 73, no. 2 (2011): 255–​71. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Contributions of Commentaries on the Minor Prophets to the Formation of Distinctive Lutheran and Reformed Confessional Identities.” Church History and Religious Culture 92 (2012): 237–​60. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Rethinking Prophecy:  The Functions of Prophecy in the Writings of Argula von Grumbach and Martin Luther.” Reformation & Renaissance Review 14, no. 2 (2012): 151–​69. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Luther and Calvin on the Nature and Function of Prophecy: The Case of the Minor Prophets.” In Calvin and Luther: The Continuing Relationship, edited by R. Ward Holder, 13–​37. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Three Early Female Protestant Reformers’ Appropriation of Prophecy as Interpretation of Scripture.” Church History 84 (2015): 90–​123. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Scripture, the Priesthood of All Believers, and Applications of 1 Corinthians 14.” In The People’s Book: The Reformation and the Bible, edited by Jennifer Powell McNutt and David Lauber, 33–​51. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017. Parker, T. H.  L. Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries. Louisville, KY:  Westminster/​ John Knox, 1986. Peachey, Shem, and Paul Peachey. “Answer of Some Who Are Called Anabaptists—​ Why They Do Not Attend the Churches:  A Swiss Brethren Tract.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 45 (1971): 5–​32. Petersen, Rodney L. “Bullinger’s Prophets of the ‘Restitutio.’” In Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective: Studies in Honor of Karlfried Froehlich, edited by Mark S. Burrows and Paul Rorem, 250–​60. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. Preaching in the Last Days: The Theme of “Two Witnesses” in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Pitkin, Barbara. “Prophecy and History in Calvin’s Lectures on Daniel (1561).” In Die Geschichte der Daniel-​Auslegung in Judentum, Christentum und Islam: Studien zur Kommentierung des Danielbuches in Literatur und Kunst, edited by Katharina Bracht and David S. du Toit, 323–​47. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Calvin, Theology, and History.” Seminary Ridge Review 12 (2010): 1–​16. Preus, Hans. Martin Luther:  Der Prophet. Gütersloh, Switzerland:  Verlag C. Bertelsmann, 1933.

360

Select Bibliography

Preus, Herman A. “Luther on the Universal Priesthood and the Office of the Ministry.” Concordia Journal 5, no. 2 (1979): 55–​62. Preus, James. From Shadow to Promise: Old Testament Interpretation from Augustine to the Young Luther. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969. Puckett, David. John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. Raeder, Siegfried. Das Hebräische bei Luther, untersucht bis zum Ende der ersten Psalmenvorlesung. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1961. —​—​—​. “The Exegetical and Hermeneutical Work of Martin Luther.” In Hebrew Bible/​Old Testament:  The History of Its Interpretation, edited by Magne Sæbø, 2:363–​406. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996–​2015. Reeves, Marjorie. The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages:  A Study in Joachimism. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969. —​ —​ —​ . “Some Popular Prophecies from the Fourteenth to the Seventeenth Centuries.” Studies in Church History 4 (1971): 107–​34. —​—​—​. “History and Prophecy in Medieval Thought.” Medievalia et Humanistica 5 (1974): 51–​75. —​—​—​. “The Abbot Joachim’s Sense of History.” In 1274: Année charnière, mutations et continuités, Lyon Paris 30 septembre–​5 octobre 1974, 782–​95. Paris: CNRS, 1977. —​ —— ​ ​ . “The Development of Apocalyptic Thought:  Medieval Attitudes.” In The Apocalypse in English Renaissance Thought and Literature, edited by C. A. Patrides and J. Wittreich, 40–​72. Manchester, UK:  Manchester University Press, 1984. —​—​—​. “Cardinal Egidio of Viterbo:  A Prophetic Interpretation of History.” In Prophetic Rome in the High Renaissance Period, edited by Marjorie Reeves, 91–​109. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. —​—​—​. “Pattern and Purpose in History in the Later Medieval and Renaissance Periods.” In Apocalypse Theory and the Ends of the World, edited by Malcolm Bull, 90–​111. New York: Blackwell, 1995. —​—​—​. The Prophetic Sense of History in Medieval and Renaissance Europe. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 1999. Reinis, Austra. “‘Admitted to the Heavenly School’:  Consolation, Instruction and Admonition in Aegidius Hunnius’s Academic Funeral Sermons.” Sixteenth Century Journal 38 (2007): 995–​1012. —​—​—​. “Piety and Politics: Aegidius Hunnius’s Sermons on the Lutheran Catechism (1592).” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 102 (2011): 220–​42. Rittgers, Ronald K. “The Word-​Prophet Martin Luther.” Sixteenth-​Century Journal 48, no. 4 (2017): 371–​97. Russell, Paul. “‘Your Sons and Daughters Shall Prophesy . . .’ (Joel 2:28): Pamphlet Literature of Southwestern Germany to 1525.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 74 (1983): 122–​40.



Select Bibliography

361

–​–​–​–​–​–​–​. Lay Theology in the Reformation: Popular Pamphleteers in Southwest Germany, 1521–​1525. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Sargent, Benjamin. “Biblical Hermeneutics and the Zurich Reformation.” Evangelical Quarterly 86, no. 4 (2014): 325–​42. Schlosser, Marianne. Lucerna in caliginoso loco: Aspekte des Prophetie-​Begriffes in der scholastischen Theologie. Paderborn, Germany: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2000. Schmitt, Charles. “Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola and the Fifth Lateran Council.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 61, no. 2 (1970): 161–​78. Schurb, Ken. “Sixteenth-​Century Lutheran-​Calvinist Conflict on the Protevangelium.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 54 (1990): 25–​47. Scribner, Robert W. For the Sake of the Simple Folk: Popular Propaganda for the German Reformation. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Sider, Ronald J., ed. Karlstadt’s Battle with Luther:  Documents in a Liberal-​Radical Debate. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001. Snyder, C. Arnold. “The Birth and Evolution of Swiss Anabaptism (1520–​1530).” Mennonite Quarterly Review 80 (2006): 501–​645. Soergel, Philip M. Miracles and the Protestant Imagination:  The Evangelical Wonder Book in Reformation Germany. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Stafford, William S. Domesticating the Clergy:  The Inception of the Reformation in Strasbourg, 1522–​24. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1976. Stauffer, Richard. “Les Discours à la première personne dans les sermons de Calvin.” In Interprètes de la Bible:  Études sur les Reformateurs du XVIe siècle, 185–​93. Paris: Beauchesne, 1980. Stayer, James. “Three Phases of ‘Christianization’ (?) among Reformation Radicals.” In Reformation as Christianization: Essays on Scott Hendrix’s Christianization Thesis, edited by Anna Marie Johnson and John A. Maxfield, 101–​22. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Steiger, Johann Anselm. “The Development of the Reformation Legacy: Hermeneutics and Interpretation of the Sacred Scripture in the Age of Orthodoxy.” In Hebrew Bible/​Old Testament:  The History of Its Interpretation, edited by Magne Sæbø, 2:691–​757. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996–​2015. Steinmetz, David. Luther and Staupitz:  An Essay in the Intellectual Origins of the Protestant Reformation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1980. —​—​—​. “The Domestication of Prophecy in the Early Reformation.” In The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays, edited by J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb, 532–​42. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Stephens, W. P. The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “The Interpretation of the Bible in Bullinger’s Early Works.” Reformation & Renaissance Review 11, no. 3 (2009): 311–​33. Stjerna, Kirsi. Women and the Reformation. Chichester, UK: Wiley-​Blackwell, 2008.

362

Select Bibliography

Stotz, Peter. “Bibeldichtung als Bibel-​Verdichtung:  Rudolf Gwalther’s ‘Argumenta capitum’ in der Tradition biblischer Gebrauchspoesie.” In Bewegung und Beharrung; Aspekte des reformierten Protestantismus, 1520–​1650:  Festschrifft für Emidio Campi, edited by Christian Moser and Peter Opitz, 259–​82. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Strauss, Gerald. “The Mental World of a Saxon Pastor.” In Reformation Principle and Practice:  Essays in Honour of Arthur Geoffrey Dickens, edited by Peter Newman Brooks, 157–​70. London: Scolar, 1980. —​—​—​. “Ideas of Reformatio and Renovatio from the Middle Ages to the Reformation.” In Handbook of European History 1400–​1600:  Late Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation, vol. 2, Visions, Programs, and Outcomes, edited by Thomas A. Brady Jr., Heiko Oberman, and James D. Tracy, 1–​30. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Strehle, Stephen. “Fides aut Foedus:  Wittenberg and Zurich in Conflict over the Gospel.” Sixteenth Century Journal 23 (1992): 3–​20. Strohm, Christoph. Ethik im frühen Calvinismus: Humanistische Einflüsse, philosophische, juristische und theologische Argumentationen sowie mentalitätsgeschichtliche Aspekte am Beispiel des Calvin-​Schülers Lambertus Danaeus. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Zur Eigenart der frühen calvinistischen Ethik:  Beobachtungen am Beispiel des Calvin-​Schülers Lambert-​Daneau.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 90 (1999): 230–​54. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Philosophical, Juridical, and Scientific Arguments in Protestant Concepts of Law.” In Concepts of Law in the Sciences, Legal Studies, and Theology, edited by Michael Welker and Gregor Etzelmüller, 239–​49. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Strübind, Andrea. Eifriger als Zwingli:  Die frühe Täuferbewegung in der Schweiz. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2003. Stupperich, Robert. “Die Frau in der Publizistik der Reformation.” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 37 (1955): 204–​33. Tanneberger, Hans-​Georg. Die Vorstellung der Täufer von der Trechtfertigung des Menschen. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1999. Thompson, Mark D. “Biblical Interpretation in the Works of Martin Luther.” In A History of Biblical Interpretation:  The Medieval through the Reformation Periods, edited by Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson, 2:299–​318. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2009. Timmerman, Daniël. “‘The World Always Perishes, the Church Will Last Forever’: Church and Eschatology in Bullinger’s Sermons on the Book of Daniel (1565).” Zwingliana 36 (2009): 85–​101. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. Heinrich Bullinger on Prophecy and the Prophetic Office (1523–​ 1538). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Vauchez, André. “Female Prophets, Visionaries, and Mystics in Medieval Europe.” In The Laity in the Middle Ages: Religious Beliefs and Devotional Practices, edited



Select Bibliography

363

by Daniel E. Bornstein and translated by Margery J. Schneider, 219–​64. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993. Voaden, Rosalynn. God’s Words, Women’s Voices:  The Discernment of Spirits in the Writings of Late-​ Medieval Women Visionaries. Woodbridge, Suffolk:  York Medieval, 1999. Wandel, Lee Palmer. “Envisioning God: Image and Liturgy in Reformation Zurich.” Sixteenth Century Journal 24 (1993): 21–​40. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​.Voracious Idols and Violent Hands:  Iconoclasm in Reformation Zurich, Strasbourg, and Basel. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Watt, Dianne. Secretaries of God: Women Prophets in Late-​Medieval and Early Modern England. Woodbridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1997. —​—​—​. “Medieval Millenarianism and Prophecy.” In Christian Millenarianism: From the Early Church to Waco, edited by Stephen Hunt, 88–​97. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001. Wengert, Timothy J. “Martin Luther’s Movement toward an Apostolic Awareness as Reflected in His Early Letters.” Lutherjahrbuch 61 (1994): 71–​92. Wilcox, Pete. “‘The Progress of the Kingdom of Christ’ in Calvin’s Exposition of the Prophets.” In Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex: Calvin as Protector of the Purer Religion, edited by Brian G. Armstrong and Wilhelm H. Neuser, 315–​22. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1997. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Calvin as Commentator on the Prophets.” In Calvin and the Bible, edited by Donald K. McKim, 107–​30. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Williams, R. L. “Martin Cellarius and the Reformation in Strasbourg.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 32 (1981): 477–​97. Wriedt, Markus. “Luther’s Concept of History and the Formation of an Evangelical Identity.” In Protestant History and Identity in Sixteenth-​Century Europe, edited by Bruce Gordon, 1:31–​45. Aldershot, UK: Scolar, 1996. –​–​–​–​–​–​–​. “Luther on Call and Ordination:  A Look at Luther and the Ministry.” Concordia Journal 28, no. 3 (2002): 254–​69. Wright, Shawn. Our Sovereign Refuge: The Pastoral Theology of Theodore Beza. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2004.

Index

allegory/​allegorical, 15–​16, 118, 287, 299–​307, 305n85, 305n87, 321, 322, 324, 325 Amadeus of Portugal, 24, 26 Ambrosiaster, 5–​6, 8–​9, 15, 27 Anabaptists, 30, 33, 63, 64–​65, 73–​82, 83, 85, 86, 86n93, 88, 89, 89n101, 91, 94, 95–​96, 97, 102, 105, 106, 112, 118, 122, 132, 135, 145, 149, 176, 195, 198, 199, 201–​2, 203, 205, 206, 209, 330, 332, 334 analogy/​analogical, 32, 146, 150, 157, 171, 176, 196, 226, 231n79, 235–​36, 237, 238–​39, 240, 241, 242, 244, 245, 250, 253, 259, 262, 264–​67, 269, 280, 283, 290, 295, 296, 297, 302, 305, 308, 312, 326, 327–​28 analogy of faith (analogia fidei), 151, 152, 180, 192, 203, 210–​11, 211n157, 335–​36 anti-​Catholic/​anti-​papal polemic, 30, 33, 37, 38, 39–​40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50–​53, 54, 55, 59, 76–​77, 89, 97, 104, 105, 109, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 170, 171, 172–​73, 183–​84, 193, 197, 201, 203–​4, 209, 216, 232, 246, 274, 295, 329, 330, 331

apocalyptic/​apocalypticism, 17, 18–​19, 28–​29, 47–​48, 49, 53, 57, 58, 66, 71, 86, 215n4, 222–​23, 244–​45, 249–​50, 251–​53, 256, 276, 277, 279–​80, 281 Aquinas, Thomas, 11–​14, 25–​26, 27 Augustine of Hippo, 2, 5, 17–​18, 27, 218 Balaam’s donkey, 56 Balserak, Jon, 2, 6, 8, 11n43, 28, 102n155, 149–​50, 151n80, 154, 154n92, 159–​60, 164n134, 167n143 Beza, Theodore, 151, 179, 187–​88, 194, 208, 209, 210, 212n160 biblical languages, importance of, 16, 26, 89–​90, 91, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 112, 114, 122, 134, 145, 148, 200, 242, 312, 330 biblical models, 29, 33, 41, 43, 63, 80, 88, 94, 95, 98, 102, 108, 112, 122, 137, 138, 142, 146, 147, 150, 166, 167, 169, 174–​75, 176, 185, 198, 201, 206, 209, 210, 215, 216, 223, 226, 227, 229, 230, 231, 235, 244, 251, 253, 254, 265, 270, 275, 276, 282, 326–​27, 330, 331, 334 Blacketer, Raymond, 304

366 Bucer, Martin, 29, 30, 36, 40–​41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 55, 57, 62–​63, 64, 65, 82–​89, 84n81, 99–​101, 101n151, 155n98 Bullinger, Heinrich apocalyptic and/​or eschatological elements, 245–​46, 249–​50 appeal to rule of faith and rule of love, 136, 138n30, 139, 148, 168, 184 attack on Anabaptists concerning prophecy, 201–​2 comparison to Zwingli on prophecy, 133–​38 eclipse of prophecy, 132n2, 141–​42, 148n71, 149, 150 emphasis on covenant, 32, 136–​37, 148, 157, 176, 184, 228–​29, 231, 235n91, 237 covenant as Scripture’s clear content, 237 emphasis on I Corinthians 14:3, 134, 138, 139, 147, 149n74, 201, 206 emphasis on providence, 146, 169, 250, 263n34 on lay participation, 200–​202, 209 prophet as interpreter of Law, 137, 148, 176 prophet as interpreter of Scripture’s mysteries, 139, 140, 333 prophet and the office of bishop, 141–​42, 147, 149 prophet and the reform of worship, 170–​75, 176 prophet as specialized teacher, 139–​40, 142, 147–​48, 154, 176 on sacred history of the biblical prophets, 216–​17, 227–​31 shift from prophetic office to prophetic duties, 31, 106n15, 115, 131, 132–​49, 139, 149, 168, 175, 177, 178

Index unified view of OT and NT prophetic offices, 133–​34, 138, 150 use of biblical prophets to establish clerical identity and authority, 104n6, 132n1, 137, 142, 142–​47, 148, 168–​69, 175, 176, 198 use of biblical prophets to read contemporary history, 23n101, 148n73, 169, 217, 229–​31, 246, 250, 250n152, 269 Cajetan, 2, 25–​26, 27 call or commission, necessity of, 13, 91, 92, 94, 96, 104, 105, 106, 111, 112, 122, 128, 131, 145, 146, 165–​66, 194, 195, 209, 210, 330 Calvin, John on allegory, 299–​307, 322 analogical readings of prophet’s history, 158n111, 169, 176, 235, 237, 240, 242, 244, 248n142, 251n155, 252–​53, 283, 290, 294–​95, 295, 296, 297, 305 distinction between permanent/​ ordinary and temporary/​ exceptional offices, 152, 155, 155n98, 163–​68, 165n137, 168, 178, 187 eclipse of prophecy, 150 emphasis on I Corinthians 14:3, 159, 202, 204, 206 emphasis on prophet’s intention, 157, 157n105, 241, 242, 244n126, 285, 287, 288, 299, 301, 301n71, 307 emphasis on providence, 32, 157, 158n111, 216, 217, 233–​34, 235, 244, 252, 253, 297, 301, 335 eschatology, 245, 246 on lay participation, 101–​2, 203–​4, 204n118, 209 on OT prophets’ metaphors, 237–​38, 238n102, 240–​41, 241n116, 258,

Index 266, 285, 289, 290, 291, 292, 296, 297–​99, 302, 307, 317–​23, 319n151 prophet in his NT exegesis, 151–​55 prophet in his OT exegesis, 155–​63 prophet as interpreter of Law, 138n29, 150, 156, 159, 176 prophet and the reform of worship, 170–​75 prophet as revealing God’s will, 152, 153, 156, 162, 165, 167, 187 prophet as specially gifted to apply Scripture to contemporary circumstances, 102, 138n29, 153, 155, 156–​57, 162, 167, 174–​75, 177, 178, 187 prophet as teacher, 149–​68, 176, 178 prophetic office as ceased, 131, 155, 162–​63, 163, 166, 167, 168, 175–​76 prophetic self-​awareness, 102, 102n156, 149, 149n76, 150, 167 rejection of apocalyptic, 23n101, 252, 252n157 revelation and prophecy, 150, 151–​52, 153–​54, 155n97, 160–​62, 165, 168 on sacred history of the biblical prophets, 231–​36 as decline, 249 as progress, 247–​49, 249n146 shift from prophetic office to prophetic duties, 31, 106n15, 131, 175 terminology of extension, 233, 233n87, 236, 289, 291, 292, 296, 302 unified view of OT and NT prophetic offices, 149–​50, 155–​63 use of biblical prophets to establish clerical identity and authority, 102, 168–​70, 174–​75, 176, 198 use of visible symbol, 233, 240, 289, 291, 306, 318, 323

367

Capito, Wolfgang, 82, 85, 88, 99–​101 Cassiodorus, 7, 8, 27 Christological exegesis, 16, 31–​32, 34, 100, 221, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 233, 233n86, 237, 239, 240, 242, 243, 253, 263–​66, 268, 270, 281, 282, 283–​91, 296, 307, 317, 318, 323, 334 concern for exegesis not to be confined to Christ alone, 234–​35, 239, 240, 259, 260, 265–​66, 267, 284, 285, 288, 289, 309, 310 clerical identity and authority, 31, 33–​34, 65, 93, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 104, 105, 110, 112, 115, 122, 123, 128, 131, 133, 134, 142, 168, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 183, 194–​95, 197–​98, 199, 201, 205–​6, 208–​9, 210, 211–​12, 330, 331 comfort/​consolation, 7, 10, 33, 48, 50, 94, 110–​11, 115, 116, 119, 132, 133–​34, 137, 138, 139, 146, 147, 150, 153, 156, 158, 159, 160, 167, 168, 169, 175, 178, 187, 189, 190, 192, 198, 201, 202, 204, 206, 207, 208, 212, 216, 219, 235, 236, 241, 245, 247, 250, 253, 269, 272, 274, 280–​81, 282, 289, 300, 307, 321, 334 confessional identity, 29, 31–​32, 33, 34, 130, 182, 211, 214, 254, 255–​56, 283, 308, 316–​23, 324–​28, 335, 336 confessional polemics, 16, 29, 31, 34, 176, 179, 188, 213, 284, 308, 316–​24, 328, 336 congrégations, 101 I Corinthians 14, uses of, 4, 15, 16, 29–​30, 35–​41, 49, 62, 70–​71, 77, 80, 88, 89–​93, 94–​98, 101, 102, 106, 114–​17, 134, 138, 139, 145, 152, 155, 179, 180, 185, 191, 198–​211, 329, 330, 331

368

Index

I Corinthians 14, uses of (cont.) I Cor 14:3, significance of, 6, 7, 132–​33, 133n3, 134, 137, 138, 147–​48, 153, 154, 159, 168, 178, 187, 189, 191, 198, 201, 204, 206, 207, 208, 212, 334 as model for discerning right biblical interpretation, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 62, 80, 89, 90, 95, 102, 104, 115, 116, 117, 179, 182, 198–​99, 200, 201, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 212, 329, 330, 331 councils and prophecy, 23–​26 Conciliabilum of Pisa, 23–​24 Fifth Lateran Council, 23, 24–​26 covenant, 32, 50, 126, 136–​37, 136n17, 148, 157, 158, 159, 169, 176, 184, 185, 186, 196, 213, 216, 226, 228–​29, 231, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 244, 250–​51, 252, 255, 261–​62, 272–​73, 275, 280, 282, 323, 334, 335 Daneau, Lambert, 29, 179, 187, 188–​90, 188n50, 189n51, 189n56, 193, 194, 195, 213n160, 255, 260, 265, 267, 273, 278, 282, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 315n126, 322–​23, 326 Denck, Hans, 30, 73, 83–​85, 100, 118 Drusius, Johannes, 255, 260–​61, 265, 265n39, 267, 267n48, 282, 309, 309n98, 312, 312n112, 323n172 edification, as goal of prophecy, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 33, 64, 80, 99, 102, 114, 127, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 142, 145, 147, 148, 149, 150, 153, 154, 159, 160, 167, 168, 169, 178, 189, 191–​92, 196, 198, 201–​4, 206, 207, 208, 209, 212, 217, 220, 289, 322, 334 Egidio of Viterbo, 24, 26–​27, 28

Erasmus of Rotterdam, 2, 14, 15–​16, 27, 227 eschatology/​eschatological, 18, 78, 86, 215, 217, 224, 225, 244–​51, 252, 253, 256, 276, 277, 280, 327 Eucharist. See Lord’s Supper Eusebius, 4–​5 extension, 233, 234, 236, 255, 259–​60, 262, 267, 269, 271, 278, 282, 285, 286, 289, 291, 292, 296, 298, 302, 309, 316, 322, 328 faith, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 38, 40, 46, 54, 56, 68, 69, 84, 87, 90, 105, 109–​11, 112, 121–​22, 124, 125, 126, 129, 134, 135, 136, 139, 144, 147, 154, 158, 159, 170, 174, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 191, 193, 194, 196, 197, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 211, 213, 217, 224, 229, 232, 243, 252, 253, 257, 258, 261, 262, 271–​72, 276, 281, 282, 294, 305, 306, 323, 327, 335 flesh versus spirit, 81, 119–​20, 125 foretelling, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8–​9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 23, 27, 65, 85, 94, 95, 101, 108, 117, 122, 134, 137, 152, 153, 164, 166, 188, 189, 191, 192, 208, 252, 270, 305, 308, 329 Gordon, Bruce, 46, 73–​74, 79, 81, 214, 217, 249, 251n155, 327 Grebel, Conrad, 73–​77, 79 Gregory the Great, 2, 7–​8, 27 Grumbach, Argula von, 30, 50, 53–​61 apocalyptic themes, 57–​58, 57n119, 58n120 prophetic aspects, 57–​61 Grynaeus, John Jacob, 29, 133, 179, 185–​87, 187nn43–​45, 192–​93, 194, 195, 213n160, 255, 261–​62, 265, 268–​69, 275, 280

Index

369

Gwalther, Rudolf, 29, 133, 179, 184–​85, 192, 194–​95, 195n82, 208, 209, 210, 211n157, 213n160, 255, 261–​62, 265, 268–​70, 275, 278, 280–​81

Hunnius, Aegidius, 29, 103n3, 179, 181–​82, 183, 184, 207, 209, 210, 213n160, 256–​58, 263, 264n38, 266, 267, 271, 276n91, 277, 279, 280, 282, 308, 316–​23, 319n151

Haymo of Halberstadt, 8–​9 Headley, John, 109n27, 214, 218, 218n12, 219n13, 221nn22–​23, 222n26, 223n31, 231n79, 243n123, 246, 247nn138–​39, 279n107, 296n49 Herveus of Bourg-​Dieu, 2, 9–​10, 27 history, conceptions of, 17–​18 expectation of progress, 19, 27, 28, 247–​49, 252, 280–​81 optimistic view, 18, 19–​20, 26, 28 pessimistic view (decline), 18, 26, 28, 247, 249, 279, 280 relation to prophecy, 17, 19–​20, 27–​28, 34, 313 and role in confessional identity, 214–​15 use of prophetic scriptures to read (or predict) history, 22–​23, 26–​27, 28, 33, 42–​43, 59, 60–​61, 71, 146–​47, 148, 169, 215, 217, 229–​31, 245, 253, 270, 282, 314, 316 Hoffman, Melchior, 83, 84, 86, 86n92, 100 Holy Spirit, 30, 39, 44, 55, 62, 63, 64–​65, 66, 67, 72, 73, 78–​79, 83, 87, 88, 89, 90, 97–​98, 100, 108, 131, 162, 168, 224, 293, 330, 332, 335 age of, 19–​20, 21, 27, 28 role in prophecy, 7, 10, 12, 13, 17, 39, 40, 41, 49, 62, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 81–​82, 117, 121, 128, 183, 187, 194–​95, 201, 203, 205–​6, 207, 210, 218, 219, 259, 266, 293, 332, 333 Hubmaier, Balthasar, 30, 77, 80, 83, 96

idolatry, 42, 50, 51, 67, 122, 123–​27, 128, 129, 144, 146, 147, 169, 170–​71, 172, 173, 174, 183, 197, 216, 226, 232, 253, 272, 274, 276 images, 46, 47, 51, 64, 66, 67, 69, 74, 83, 123–​27, 129–​30, 170, 174, 331 Irenaeus, 4–​5 Jewish exegesis, 100, 200, 312, 320 Joachim of Fiore, 1, 2, 17, 19–​23, 24, 28 Jost, Lienhard and Ursula, 85–​86, 100 “judaizing” exegesis, 319 justification by faith alone, 46, 84, 109–​11, 121, 124, 129, 180, 182, 184, 196, 211, 213, 243, 252, 257, 271, 281, 335 Karlstadt, Andreas, 30, 65–​70, 67n10, 68n13, 72–​73, 83, 90–​91, 91n109, 92, 123n91 Lambert, François, 100 Last Day(s), 18, 19, 20, 22, 48, 58, 85–​86, 110, 162, 222, 223, 245, 247, 248–​49, 250, 252, 253, 259, 260, 269, 270, 276, 277–​80, 281, 282, 315 Last Emperor, prophecies of, 18, 21–​22 (Frederick), 28 Law and Gospel, 69, 109, 110, 111, 121, 129, 178, 180, 181, 182, 184, 193, 196, 197, 204–​5, 211, 243, 252, 271–​72, 281, 282, 323, 335 lay Bible studies, 46–​47, 64, 73, 74, 76n52, 76–​77, 80, 82

370

Index

lay iconoclasm, 46, 47, 73, 74 lay pamphleteers and pamphlets, 36, 44–​61, 64 apocalyptic aspects of, 47–​48, 49, 53, 57, 58 prophetic aspects of, 30, 47–​53 lay participation, 33, 37, 43, 77, 82, 98–​99, 179, 199–​200, 203–​4, 205–​6, 330, 331 restrictions on, 30, 89, 90, 91–​93, 94, 95, 96–​97, 98, 102, 104, 106, 200–​201, 203, 209, 330, 333 Lefèvre D’Étaples, Jacques, 14–​15, 23, 27, 237 Lombard, Peter, 2, 10–​11, 27 Lord’s Supper, 45, 64–​65, 66, 67, 84, 85, 188, 308, 324–​28, 334 love of neighbor, 40–​41, 45, 55 Luther, Martin on allegory, 305–​6 apocalyptic elements, 222–​23, 223n32, 244, 251, 252n156, 277, 281 Appeal to the German Nobility, 37, 42, 56 Concerning the Ministry, 38, 105, 112–​13 as contemporary Elijah, 1, 48, 103, 280 emphasis on literal prophecies of Christ in OT, 284–​85, 292, 297, 307–​8, 308, 316, 325 Infiltrating and Clandestine Preachers, 91–​92, 106 on lay participation, 30, 37–​39, 91–​93, 96–​97, 97–​98, 99, 102 Misuse of the Mass, 22, 37–​38, 42, 43, 53, 56 on OT prophets’ metaphors, 238–​39, 241n116, 292–​93, 295–​96, 297, 298–​99, 307, 307–​8 priesthood of all believers, 35–​36, 37–​38, 41, 42, 47, 57n119, 64, 65, 67, 88, 89, 96–​97, 98, 99, 104, 106, 131, 199

prophet as defender of doctrine, 109, 112, 129, 182 prophet and the pastoral office, 30, 31, 105–​12, 199 prophet as preacher (herald) of Christ, 107–​8, 147, 176, 178, 182 prophet and the reform of worship, 122–​25, 127 prophet as super-​exegete, 109 prophetic self-​awareness, 103–​4, 103n1, 108–​9, 112n44, 129–​30 on sacred history of the biblical prophets, 216–​17, 218–​23 as a history of decline, 246–​47, 247n138, 249 as a history of doctrine, 243, 243n123, 252 terminology of transition/​separation, 220, 220n19, 222, 236 true versus false prophets, 43, 43n35, 65, 68–​70, 72–​73, 90, 91, 104n6 two discrete histories, 31, 218, 219, 220, 221n22, 222, 236, 237n96, 256, 259 use of biblical prophets to establish clerical identity and authority, 65, 97, 99, 100, 102, 104, 110, 111–​12, 122, 129, 131, 176 use of biblical prophets to read contemporary history, 23n101, 42, 48, 110, 128 on women and prophecy, 53, 53n97, 54n101, 55, 56, 97–​98 Mantz, Felix, 73–​77 Marpeck, Pilgram, 83, 84, 86–​88, 100 Martyr, Justin, 3, 4 Maurus, Rabanus, 8–​9, 27 McGinn, Bernard, 5, 6n27, 18–​19, 20, 21–​22 McKee, Elsie, 5–​6, 9, 57n119, 101n151, 155n98

Index Melanchthon, Philip, 29, 66, 71, 99, 133, 179–​80, 181, 182–​83, 184, 199, 204–​7, 208, 209, 210, 212n160, 255, 256, 263, 271, 271nn64–​65, 277, 308, 310 metaphors/​metaphorical language, 22, 31, 32, 34, 237–​42, 258, 266, 268, 278, 283, 284, 285, 289–​91, 292–​302, 307, 308, 309, 310–​23, 324, 325, 328, 334 attention to visual properties of, 298, 301–​2, 304, 307, 311, 312, 312–​13, 314, 315, 325, 326 as conveying (clarifying) meaning, 238, 293–​94, 295, 296, 324 as living portrait or lively representation (hypotyposis), 237, 292, 294, 297, 298, 306, 311, 313, 313–​14, 334, 335 as obscure, 238, 293, 295, 296 method of biblical interpretation, 16, 34, 179, 196, 213, 215, 232, 236–​44, 246, 255, 263, 273, 291, 308, 311, 312, 313, 323, 324, 326, 334, 335, 336 attention to grammar, philology, and literary context, 242, 265, 266, 267, 268, 285, 286–​88, 296, 298, 299, 301, 302, 304, 308, 309, 312, 322, 324 attention to prophet’s intention, 157, 237, 241, 242, 244, 283, 285, 286–​88, 293, 296, 298, 299, 301, 302, 306–​7, 308, 309, 312, 321, 324 focus on analogical reading (see analogy/​analogical) focus on prophecy as literally fulfilled by Christ, 221, 224, 234, 236–​37, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 255, 256, 258, 260, 263–​64, 266, 268, 269, 277, 281, 283, 285,

371

286, 289, 290, 291, 292, 295, 297, 301, 307, 308–​9, 316–​20, 321, 322–​23, 325, 326, 335 mirror, 32, 43, 157, 231, 231n79, 232, 244, 253, 259, 261, 263, 269, 280, 283, 294, 298, 316 Müntzer, Thomas, 30, 66, 68, 70–​73, 79, 90–​91, 92 Oecolampadius, Johannes, 29, 31, 215, 216, 223–​25, 225nn42–​43, 226, 227, 229, 235, 237, 240, 241, 242, 253, 263, 268, 269 Old Testament prophetic books, contemporary applications of, 2, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27–​28, 33, 42, 52, 61, 143–​45, 145–​47, 150, 153, 157, 162, 171, 186, 190, 192–​93, 196–​97, 217, 218, 226, 235, 236, 244, 262, 263, 270, 274, 276, 282, 283, 294 Old Testament prophets as exemplars in applying Scripture to contemporary circumstances, 153–​54, 156, 158, 159–​60, 167, 169, 174–​75, 176, 177, 213 as “living paradigms” of the covenant, 136, 228, 229, 236 as lens to read contemporary history, 2, 22–​23, 26–​27, 28, 33, 42–​43, 59, 60–​61, 71, 146–​47, 148, 215, 217, 229–​31, 245, 253, 270, 274, 282 as model for establishing true worship, 42, 105, 122, 123, 124, 147, 170, 174–​75, 175, 176, 191, 230, 265, 270–​71, 273, 274, 275, 276, 282, 299–​300, 331 as model exegetes, 106, 109, 112–​21, 122, 140, 147, 150, 152, 169, 194, 201, 266 as preaching Christ and the Gospel, 107–​8, 110, 111, 118, 182

372

Index

Old Testament prophets (cont.) as teaching God’s providential care of the church, 146, 157–​58, 169, 176, 190, 193, 197, 216, 217–​18, 233, 252–​53, 259–​60, 263, 273, 280, 294, 297, 300, 306, 323, 335 order, concern for, 90–​91, 93, 94, 95, 106, 114, 131, 200–​202, 205, 210, 331, 333 ordinary versus exceptional offices, 163–​66, 178, 187, 189, 191–​92, 212 Origen of Alexandria, 3–​4 Osiander, Lucas, 29, 103n3, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 188, 207, 209, 210, 212n160, 256, 258–​59, 263, 271, 277, 279, 280, 282, 308, 310 parable of the talents, 56 Pareus, David, 29, 133, 179, 187, 190–​91, 190n62, 191n63, 193, 194, 195, 195n85, 208, 209, 210, 211, 213n160, 255, 259–​60, 265–​68, 273, 278, 282, 309, 311, 312, 315, 316, 317, 320–​23, 326 pastoral office, 29, 30, 31, 65, 103–​30, 104n6, 132, 149, 175, 209, 211, 212, 331, 332 necessity of humility, 148, 209, 210, 212 piety, 105, 120, 122, 128, 134, 138, 144, 169, 173, 176, 191, 200, 201, 248, 249, 252, 265, 273, 274, 276, 313 Piscator, Johannes, 255–​56, 260–​61, 265, 265n39, 267, 282, 309, 309n98, 312, 322–​23 priesthood of all believers, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35–​63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 73, 76, 82, 83, 88, 89, 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 104, 106, 112, 123, 128, 131, 175, 177, 178, 198, 199, 329, 331, 333 prophecy as ceased, 3–​4, 31, 70, 101, 131, 152, 155, 162, 163, 164–​65, 166, 167, 168, 176, 177, 178, 189, 192

as divine revelation, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 108–​9, 117, 140, 151–​52, 166, 194 eclipse of, 31, 101, 132, 132n2, 141–​42, 149, 150, 199, 212 as foretelling, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8–​9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 23, 27, 65, 95, 101, 108, 113, 117, 122, 134, 137, 152–​53, 160, 164, 166, 188, 189, 191–​92, 208, 252, 270, 305, 308, 329 as gift of applying Scripture to contemporary circumstances, 152–​53, 153, 153–​54, 155, 156, 158, 160, 166, 169, 177, 178, 187, 211 as illumination of the mind, 10, 13 as interpretation of Scripture, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8–​9, 10, 11, 13–​14, 15–​16, 17, 27, 31, 36, 39, 42, 49, 57, 58, 79, 88, 95, 114, 116, 118, 122, 133–​34, 151, 152, 166, 186, 188, 189, 197, 207, 334 as looking to Christ, 107–​8, 118, 182, 284, 296 as ongoing, 2, 4–​5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14–​15, 17, 23, 24, 25–​26, 27, 95, 114, 131, 151, 152, 155, 163, 165, 166, 167, 188, 189, 192, 198, 333 as providing framework for biblical interpretation, 29, 33, 34, 102, 179 as spiritual sight, 5 as supernatural knowledge, 6, 8, 11–​12, 13, 14, 17, 25, 27 as translation of Scripture, 117–​18 true versus false, 19, 25–​26, 33, 42, 43, 48–​49, 52–​53, 64, 66, 91, 313 as visionary/​ecstatic, 5, 30, 38, 47, 57, 58, 59, 65, 70, 71, 73, 78, 79, 82, 86, 88, 97, 333 prophet as defender of true doctrine, 109, 111–​12, 115, 128–​29, 178, 179–​83 as exemplar of certainty of God’s Word, 121, 129

Index as exemplar of faith, 121, 126, 129 false prophet, 4, 19, 30, 49, 61, 65, 69, 70, 71, 72, 87, 90–​91, 98, 114, 335 as herald of Christ and the Gospel, 107–​8, 111, 137, 142, 182, 284 as interpreter of the Law, 137–​38, 148, 150, 156, 159, 161, 176, 189, 191 as interpreter of Scripture, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8–​9, 10, 11, 13–​14, 15–​16, 17, 27, 31, 36, 39, 42, 49, 57, 58, 79, 88, 95, 114, 116, 118, 122, 133–​34, 136, 137–​39, 142, 147, 148, 151, 153, 169, 177, 178, 183, 184, 185, 191–​92, 194, 211, 329, 333, 334 in partnership with magistrates, 81–​82, 87, 119–​21, 129, 184, 185, 186, 226, 275–​76 as preacher, 105, 107, 109, 111, 112–​13, 128, 147, 176, 183, 204, 207 as proclaiming the will of God, 121, 146, 151, 152, 153, 156, 160, 165, 167, 187, 189, 191, 208, 273 as speaking the Word of God alone, 29, 30, 33, 62, 63, 105, 109–​10, 112, 122, 131, 160, 168, 176, 183, 194, 198, 211, 329, 331, 334 as specialized biblical scholar, 90, 106–​7, 116, 117, 140 as specialized exegete (super-​exegete), 106, 109, 122, 140, 152 as specialized teacher, 139–​40, 142, 148 task of comfort/​consolation (see comfort/​consolation) task of edification (see edification) task of rebuke or threat, 30, 33, 41, 50, 52, 58, 59, 61, 63, 76–​77, 79, 88, 94, 105, 111, 115, 116, 119, 123, 126, 127, 128, 129, 133, 144–​45, 146, 153, 156, 159, 167, 170, 190, 191, 197, 216, 218, 219, 226, 235–​36, 247, 258, 272, 274, 286, 322, 331

373

task of restoring true worship (see worship) as teacher, 131–​77, 178, 184, 185, 187, 188, 191–​92, 198, 207–​10 true prophet, 1, 29, 30, 42, 43, 63, 72, 90–​91, 109, 114, 121, 122, 134, 137, 176, 181, 183, 194, 197–​98, 211, 331 true versus false, 33, 42, 43, 49, 52–​53, 61, 64, 66, 72, 88, 91, 104n6, 114, 313, 333 as watchman/​guardian/​overseer, 115–​16, 117, 118–​19, 120, 121, 122, 128–​29, 133–​34, 138–​39, 142, 146–​47, 148, 178, 184, 185, 186, 211 work of unveiling hidden/​mystical sense, 7–​8, 15–​16, 139–​40, 146, 152, 333 prophetic duties/​functions, 31, 79–​80, 115, 121, 129, 131–​32, 134, 137, 144–​45, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 155, 163, 166, 167, 168, 175–​76, 177, 178, 179, 187, 189, 192, 198, 313, 330 prophetic office, 31, 112–​13 as ceased or temporary, 131, 151, 152, 155, 163, 164–​65, 166, 167, 168, 176, 177, 178, 189 New Testament office, 95, 114, 133 Old Testament office, 114, 133 OT and NT offices as unified, 114, 133, 137–​38, 147, 148, 149–​50, 159–​60, 189 Prophezei, 98–​99, 98n140, 101, 114, 127, 142, 177, 200, 201 providence, 9–​10, 26, 27, 28, 126, 146, 150, 169, 171, 190, 196, 213, 226, 232, 244, 249, 250, 252, 265, 272–​73, 275, 301, 306, 314, 323, 334, 335 Puckett, David, 303, 304 radicals/​radical reformers, 64–​102, 131 Rebstock, Barbara, 86, 100

374

Index

Reublin, Wilhelm, 74–​77, 83, 85, 86 revelation, 63, 66, 68, 69, 108, 122, 145, 150, 151–​52, 153–​54, 160–​62, 165, 167, 168, 174, 189, 219, 221–​22, 242, 245, 247, 252, 332, 333 as necessary to prophecy, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 17, 108–​9, 117, 140, 166, 194 possibility of new revelation, 18, 24, 25, 27, 30, 65, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 79, 82, 85, 86, 88, 109, 122, 131, 145, 151–​52, 154, 161, 168, 332 rule of faith, 135–​36, 139, 148, 152, 168, 184, 185, 185n34, 203, 210 rule of love, 135–​36, 139, 148, 168, 184, 185, 185n34 sacred history, 176, 213, 215–​54, 255–​82, 323, 334, 335 as backward-​looking, 216–​17, 251, 253, 290, 296, 323, 327, 328 definition of, 215 as forward-​looking, 216–​17, 290, 296 as history of threat and consolation, 216, 246, 247 key content as the covenant (unity of OT and NT), 227, 228–​29, 231, 235, 237, 245, 251, 261–​62 key content as doctrine, 243, 252, 270–​72, 276, 281, 305 key content as history of advent of Christ and the Gospel, 196, 217, 218, 220–​23, 224, 228, 235, 236, 242, 250, 252, 256–​59, 263, 272, 277, 281, 283, 305, 306, 308, 310, 316, 323, 334 key content as prophet’s own history, 196, 231–​32, 234, 237, 242, 244, 256–​57, 259–​61, 263, 265, 267, 270, 281, 282, 283, 291, 306–​7, 316, 317 key content as simultaneously the histories of the prophets and Christ, 224–​25, 226, 227–​28,

231, 235, 241–​42, 243, 253, 263, 269, 270, 281, 283, 334 role in confessional identity, 34, 214–​15, 235, 255, 256 as two discrete histories, 31, 218–​23, 236, 256, 258–​59, 281, 286 Sattler, Michael, 78–​79, 78n62, 79n64, 80, 80n71, 83, 85, 86 Savonarola, Girolamo, 24–​25 Schwenckfeld, Caspar, 30, 73, 83, 84–​85, 100 Scripture authority of, 1, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 43, 49, 54, 60, 62, 63, 73, 78, 79, 97, 104, 105, 122, 127, 128, 168–​69, 175, 183, 195, 198, 211, 213, 323, 330–​31, 331, 335 clarity or perspicuity of, 62–​63, 136, 137, 184, 237, 238, 296, 323, 332, 333, 334–​35, 336 literal sense, 16, 236–​37, 239, 263–​64, 266, 268, 269, 277, 289, 291, 295, 297, 301, 307, 308–​9, 316–​20, 322–​23, 324, 325, 335 plain sense, 236, 237, 239, 300–​301, 304, 324, 336 sign character of, 296, 324, 325–​26, 327, 328, 334, 336 sufficiency of, 63, 82, 85, 88, 145, 163, 168, 332, 333 use of prophetic scriptures to read (or predict) history, 2, 22–​23, 26–​27, 28, 33, 42–​43, 59, 60–​61, 71, 146–​47, 148, 215, 217, 229–​31, 245, 253, 270, 282 sedition, accusation of against Anabaptists, 90–​91, 190, 199, 201, 205, 206, 209–​10, 330 Selnecker, Nikolaus, 29, 179, 181, 182, 183, 184, 188, 212n160, 255, 256–​58, 263, 264n38, 271, 272, 277, 279, 308, 310

Index

375

sermon interruptions, 46, 47, 64, 73, 77n56, 104 Snyder, C. Arnold, 73, 77n55, 78 spirit versus flesh, 81, 119–​20, 125 Spiritual Franciscans, 21 Spiritualists, 30, 63, 64–​65, 73, 79, 84–​88, 89, 97, 100, 104, 330, 332 St. Gallen, 46–​47, 76, 77–​78, 79 Strasbourg, 30, 41, 44, 47, 53, 65, 68–​69, 82–​88, 99, 100, 101, 120, 184 Stumpf, Simon, 73–​75

women and prophecy, views of, 53, 53n97, 54n101, 55, 56, 97–​98, 199–200 Wittenberg, 30, 42, 44, 46, 48, 65–​73, 83, 88, 99, 102, 181–​82 worship, 29, 31, 33, 34, 42, 50, 52, 54, 64, 65, 66, 82, 105, 122–​28, 129, 147, 150, 154, 158, 170–​75, 173n167, 173n169, 176, 178–​79, 183–​84, 189, 191, 192, 193–​94, 197–​98, 211, 216, 216n6, 230, 248, 250, 252, 253, 263, 265, 271, 273, 274, 275, 276, 280, 282, 295, 300, 331, 334

teacher/​teaching office, 31, 115, 131–​77, 189, 192, 198, 207, 208, 330, 332 as distinct from prophets, 139–​40, 153 Timmerman, Daniël, 16, 28, 77n57, 78, 96, 101n151, 117, 132, 132n2, 134–​35, 134n9, 137, 140n37, 141–​42, 142nn47–​48, 148n71, 237, 245, 246n134, 249, 250 tithe, 46, 74, 75, 77, 80, 82, 88 tongues, interpretation of, as interpretation of biblical languages, 16–​17, 89, 95, 100 transition (or separation), 219–​20, 222, 232–​33, 236, 245, 255, 256, 258, 268 types/​typology, 19, 191, 226, 266, 267, 270, 315–​16, 318, 321, 325 composite type, 266, 267, 315 simple type, 266, 267, 315 tyranny, accusation of against Roman Catholics, 42, 89, 96, 128, 190, 199, 201, 205–​6, 209, 330

Zell, Katharina Schütz, 30, 53–​61, 85 prophetic aspects, 57–​61 Zell, Matthew, 20, 36, 40, 41, 42–​43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 62–​63, 64, 82, 83, 85, 88, 89 Zollikon Anabaptists, 77–​78, 79 Zurich, 30, 46, 65, 73–​82, 83, 88, 93–​94, 95, 98, 101, 102, 114, 115, 117, 118, 120, 127, 132, 135, 137, 141, 142, 145, 146, 149, 184, 186, 200, 201, 216, 225, 227, 245, 249, 261, 327 Zwickau prophets, 30, 66, 68, 70, 73 Zwilling, Gabriel, 30, 65–​66 Zwingli, Huldrych “Of the Clarity and Certainty of God’s Word,” 39, 63, 121n86 Commentary on True and False Religion, 126, 127, 225–​26 comparison to Bullinger on prophecy, 133–​38 on lay participation, 30, 62, 73, 95, 96, 96–​97, 98, 99, 102, 199–​200, 330 on OT prophets’ metaphors, 237 “On the Preaching Office,” 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 117 priesthood of all believers, 30, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 47, 62, 63, 65, 73, 76, 88, 89, 96, 98, 104, 112, 123, 131, 199

visible symbol or sign, 233, 240, 289, 291, 309, 314, 318, 321, 323, 326 Weyda, Ursula, 30, 53–​61 apocalyptic themes, 57–​58, 57n119 prophetic aspects, 57–​61

376

Index

Zwingli, Huldrych (cont.) as prophet, 1, 103–​4, 134–​35, 137, 230 prophet as exemplifying certainty in God’s Word, 121, 129 prophet as gifted exegete, 112–​21, 140, 199 prophet and the pastoral office, 30, 31, 112, 113, 115, 122 prophet and the reform of worship, 122, 123, 125–​27, 176 prophet as watchman/​guardian/​ overseer, 95, 112–​21, 129, 147, 178, 184, 186, 199 Prophetenbibel or Alle Propheten, 117–​18, 223, 225–​26 prophetic self-​awareness, 103–​4, 103n1, 121, 129–​30 “Reply to Emser,” 39–​40, 126

on the role of the magistrate, 74, 75, 76, 81, 93, 119–​21, 185, 226 on sacred history of the biblical prophets, 216, 217, 223, 225–​27 key content as simultaneously the histories of the prophets and Christ, 226–​27, 227, 263 true versus false prophets, 30, 43, 65 unified view of OT and NT prophetic offices, 114 use of biblical prophets to establish clerical identity and authority, 31, 65, 97, 98, 102, 104, 112, 115, 123, 129, 131, 176, 198, 199–​200, 330 use of biblical prophets to read contemporary history, 23n101, 126, 127, 128, 226 on women and prophecy, 97–​98, 199–​200