daniel timmerman-heinrich bullinger on prophecy and the prophetic offivce ( (1523-1538)

8/17/2019 Daniel Timmerman-Heinrich Bullinger on Prophecy and the Prophetic Offivce ( (1523-1538)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/daniel-timmerman-heinrich-bullinger-on-prophecy-and-the-prophetic-offivce- 1/26


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/daniel-timmerman-heinrich-bullinger-on-prophecy-and-the-prophetic-offivce- 2/26ISBN Print: 9783525550892 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550893

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen

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



Reformed Historical Theology

Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis

in co-operation withEmidio Campi, Irene Dingel, Elsie McKee,Richard Muller, Risto Saarinen, and Carl Trueman

Volume 33

ISBN Print: 9783525550892 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550893





Danil Timmerman

Heinrich Bullinger on Prophecy andthe Prophetic Office (1523–1538)

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht






The Scripture quotations contained in this books are from The Holy Bible, New International

Version NIV Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc. Used by permission. All rights

reserved worldwide.

And from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, Copyright 1989, Division of Christian

Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and are used by

permission. All rights reserved.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;

detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de.

ISBN 978-3-525-55089-2ISBN 978-3-647-55089-3 (E-Book)

2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen/

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A.

www.v-r.de

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form

or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information

storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Printing and binding: CPI buchbuecher.de GmbH, Birkach

Printed in Germany






Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.1 Bullinger as church minister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.2 Outline of this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.2.1 Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.2.2 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1.2.3 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

1.3 Survey of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2. Prophets and prophecy in the Christian tradition . . . . . . . . . . . 37

2.1 New Testament prophecy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

2.2 Prophets as heralds of eschatological change . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

2.2.1 Montanus and the New Prophecy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

2.2.2 Joachim and medieval monastic prophecy . . . . . . . . . . 43

2.2.3 Luther and Müntzer: Prophets in dispute . . . . . . . . . . . 46

2.3 Prophets as interpreters of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

2.3.1 Scripture and the cessation of prophecy . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

2.3.2 Prophecy and the sensus spiritualis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

2.3.3 Prophets as exegetes in the sixteenth century . . . . . . . . . 53

2.3.3.1 Erasmus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

2.3.3.2 Luther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

2.3.3.3 Bucer and the Strasburg milieu . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

2.3.4 Prophecy and liturgical chant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

2.4 Prophets as church officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

2.4.1 The prophet as bishop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

2.4.2 The prophet as teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712.5 Prophethood of believers in general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

2.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80






3. Prophets in the Zurich context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

3.1 Prophecy in the early Zurich reformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

3.1.1 Zwingli’s initial position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

3.1.2 Radical applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

3.1.2.1 The rise of Anabaptism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

3.1.2.2 Zwingli and Hubmaier on language study . . . . . . . 88

3.1.2.3 The Schleitheim articles (1527) . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

3.1.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

3.2 Zwingli’s restatement of the prophetic office . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

3.2.1 Von dem Predigtamt (1525) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

3.2.2 The prophet as guardian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

3.2.3 The prophet as interpreter of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

3.2.4 Later developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063.2.4.1 Prophetic revelation and divine inspiration . . . . . . 106

3.2.4.2 Prophets and kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

3.2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

3.3 The Zurich “Prophezei” up to 1531 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

3.3.1 Historical development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

3.3.2 Relation to Zwingli’s concept of prophecy . . . . . . . . . . 118

3.3.2.1 Terminological considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

3.3.2.2 Between education and liturgy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

3.3.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

3.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

4. De propheta libri duo (1525) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

4.1.1 On De propheta libri duo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

4.1.2 Defining the prophet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

4.2 Prophetic authority in dispute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

4.2.1 The “false prophets” of Catholicism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1354.2.2 The “self-commissioned messengers” of Anabaptism . . . . 142

4.3 Prophets as exegetes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

4.3.1 Prophecy and the sacred languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

4.3.2 Prophecy and rhetorical training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

4.3.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

4.4 Prophets as bishops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

4.4.1 Scholar or preaching minister? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

4.4.2 Consolation and admonition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

4.4.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1634.5 Weighing the prophet’s words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

4.5.1 The rule of the Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Contents6




http://www.v-r.de/de




4.5.2 Published prophecies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

4.5.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

4.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

5. De prophetae officio (1532) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

5.1.1 On De prophetae officio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175


5.2 Prophetic authority and confessional controversy . . . . . . . . . 179

5.2.1 The rule of faith and love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

5.2.2 Between Zwingli and Luther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

5.3 Prophets as exegetes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

5.3.1 Prophets and the covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1875.3.2 Love exceeds linguistic training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

5.3.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

5.4 Prophets as bishops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

5.4.1 Criticism and moderation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

5.4.2 Prophets and church discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

5.4.3 Prophets and the magistrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

5.4.3.1 Earliest ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

5.4.3.2 Discussions 1531–1532 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

5.4.3.3 Refined understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

5.4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

5.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

6. De episcoporum institutione et functione (1538) . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

6.1.1 On De episcoporum institutione et functione . . . . . . . . . 223


6.2 From prophetic to ministerial authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2276.2.1 Historical context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

6.2.2 Developments in the 1530s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

6.2.3 Central theme in 1538 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

6.2.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

6.3 Prophets in biblical-historical perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

6.3.1 Early works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

6.3.2 Dominant perspective in 1538 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

6.3.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

6.4 Prophetic imagery and church office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2536.4.1 Re-sacralization of the ministry? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

6.4.2 Prophets in relation to other New Testament functions . . . 257

Contents 7








6.4.2.1 Commentaries 1520s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

6.4.2.2 Commentaries 1530s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

6.4.2.3 Developments in 1538 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

6.4.3 Prophecy for the educated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

6.4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

6.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

7. Bullinger and the “Prophezei” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

7.1 Personal involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278

7.2 Schools in historical perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

7.3 Prophecy in the liturgy of the Zurich church . . . . . . . . . . . . 286

7.4 Prophecy and the daily office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

7.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

Works by Bullinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

Works co-authored by Bullinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314

Secondary literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

Contents8








Preface

This book serves as a doctoral dissertation and marks the completion of my

studies at the Apeldoorn University of Theology. At this point I wish to expressmy gratitude to all those who have helped and encouraged me in the preceding

years of studying and writing. Some of them will be called by name, while others

are silently included in my general words of thanks. All words of appreciation

flow from my gratitude to God, without whose help I could not have completed

this book and to whom I give all honor and praise.

In the first place, I express my sincere gratitude to the supervisor of my

dissertation, dr. Herman Selderhuis, for his friendly support and helpful advice

throughout the years. His profound knowledge of the history of the church and

great enthusiasm for Reformation research have greatly stimulated me to pursue

my own studies in this field.

Likewise, I am very much indebted to the learned and stimulating feedback of

the co-supervisor of this thesis, dr. Andreas Mühling, especially on the relation

between historical theology and general historiography. I also kindly thank the

members of the reading committee, dr. Erik de Boer, dr. Jaap Dekker, and dr.

Peter Opitz for their careful reading of the manuscript. In a similar vein I recall

the stimulating discussions in the joint research group for Early Modern Re-

formed Theology of the Kampen and Apeldoorn theological faculties. A specialword of thanks goes to dr. Jim West for his expert reading and correction of the

text.

Over the years, many have helped me in the process of retrieving the primary

sources and secondary literature for this study. I gratefully acknowledge the

friendly and helpful assistance of the staff of the Institut f ür Schweizerische

Reformationsgeschichte in Zurich, of the Handschriftenabteilung of the Zen-

tralbibliothek Z ürich, and of the Kantonsbibliothek Vadiana in St. Gall. In a

similar vein, I thank the staff of the Apeldoorn University of Theology, and

especially of the library department for their support. Further, I commemoratethe pleasant cooperation with the editors of the Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

publishing house in the process of preparing the manuscript for press.






The consistories of the Nederlands Gereformeerde kerken at Breukelen and

Eindhoven, and the board of the Nederlands Gereformeerde Predikanten-

opleiding, have kindly facilitated me with several extended study leaves. I thank

them not only for making available time and funds, but also for their recognition

of the relevance of studying theology for the church today.

My sincere thankfulness also goes out to all friends and colleagues who have

helped and encouraged me on the long road of writing this book. Their

friendship and support have been of inestimable value to me. I explicitly recall

the names of Davy Hoolwerf, Arnold Huijgen, Ben van Veen, and Arie Versluis

who, at different stages of my journey, have discussed or commented on parts of

my research.

More than words can express I am deeply grateful for the loving support and

encouragement of my wife, Hanneke Timmerman-van Rhee. I also thank theLord for the joy and strength he gives us through our children, Eline, Lourens,

Marije, and Joanne. I dedicate this book to the memory of my mother, Roelfke

Timmerman-Zondag, who wished me to join the “sons of the prophets,” and also

to my father, Daan Timmerman, of whose witness to the completion of my

studies I am deeply grateful.

Finally, I conclude this Preface with the prayer that was used inthe meetings of

the Zurich “Prophezei,”1 and still expresses the proper framework for theo-

logical studies:

May the almighty and merciful God,

whose word is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our paths,

open and illuminate our minds,

that we may purely and piously understand his revelation

and that, in accordance with our understanding, we may be transformed,

so that we would not displease his majesty in any way,

through Christ our Lord.

Eindhoven, December 2014 Danil Timmerman

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

Preface10








1. Introduction

1.1 Bullinger as church minister

The present study is devoted to Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) and his un-

derstanding of the preaching office in the church. This section presents a brief

biographical introduction to Bullinger, focusing on his personal involvement in

the ministry.1 From his earliest childhood, Heinrich2 Bullinger was familiar with

the pastoral practices of the late medieval church. He grew up in Bremgarten, a

small town in the Swiss countryside, as the son of the local priest, Heinrich

Bullinger Sr. (1469–1533), and Anna Wiederkehr (–1541). Despite the pro-

miscuous character of his parents’ relationship, the young Heinrich grew up as a

member of a respected Bremgarten family with a central position in the city’s

social and religious life.

At the age of twelve, Bullinger was sent to the Latin school in Emmerich,

which was renowned for its humanist education and rigid discipline in the spirit

of the Dutch devotio moderna.3 His subsequent matriculation at the artes faculty

of the University of Cologne in 1519 brought him into the vicinity of leading

scholars in the tradition of scholastic philosophy and theology and at the same

time opened doors to one of the main centers of German humanism. In this

1 The primary sources for a sketch of Bullinger’s life are his autobiographical notes, mainly inhis Diarium (HBD; composed by Bullinger from 1541 onwards) and also in the Reforma-tionsgeschichte (HBRG, completed 1567). The best introductions to Bullinger’s biography inGerman are the older works by Pestalozzi, Bullinger , and recently Büsser, Leben. For aconcise introduction in English, see Petersen, “Bullinger.” For a congenial, but not entirely up-to-date full biography in English, see Ella, Shepherd.

2 Dutch library catalogues generally refer to “Johann Heinrich Bullinger.” This is peculiar sinceBullinger himself exclusively used Heinrich as first name. E.g. in his Diarium he introduceshimself with “ego Heinrychus,” in contrast to his brothers to whom he refers with their

baptismal name Johann as well (HBD, 1). Moreover, Bullinger was matriculated in Cologne as“Henricus Poellinger de Breemgaerdt” (HBD, 4, n. 2; also 6, n. 1), whereas his older brotherJohannes Reinhart was enrolled as “Iohannes Bremgart” (HBD, 3, n. 2; cf. HBW 2.1, 114).

3 Berg, “Devotio moderna”; Rüetschi, “Bullinger and the Schools,” 216–17.






period the young student not only became deeply ingrained in the methodology

of biblical humanism,4 but also adopted a central christological motive in

Erasmus’s theology as the motto for his own life and work: “This is my Son,

whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” (Matt. 17:5).5 While he

left the university in 1522 as a magister artium, without having followed a formal

course in theology, his period in Cologne intensified Bullinger’s interest in re-

ligion, both on a personal and an academic level. Luther’s proposals for a ref-

ormation of the church were an existential and intellectual appeal for him to

search for religious truth. Although influenced by the writings of reformers like

Luther and Melanchthon, he arrived at a reformative position through an intense

and independent study of the sources of Christian thought – the church fathers

and especially the Greek New Testament.6 Still in Cologne, Bullinger abandoned

his intention to enter the Carthusian monastic order and developed a dislike for“papist doctrine.”7 He returned to his native Switzerland with the convictionthat

only Scripture is the source of true religion.

An opportunity to intensify and disseminate his new theological convictions

came in 1523 when Bullinger was offered a teaching position at the Cistercian

monastery of Kappel am Albis. He accepted the call under the condition that he

would not have to obey a monastic rule or participate in the religious life of the

conventuals. The position of monastic teacher enabled him to deepen his

knowledge of the New Testament and the church fathers, but also challenged him

to convey his ideas in the vernacular.

At the end of the same year, Bullinger met the Zurich reformer Huldrych

Zwingli (1484–1531), marking the beginning of eight years of theological co-

operation and personal friendship. During his years in Kappel, Bullinger became

an independent proponent of the reformation of the Zurich church. In his first

theological writings and through an ever-increasing network of correspondence,

Bullinger defended Zwingli’s reformation against adherents of the Roman pa-

pacy and against the Anabaptists. Under the influence of Bullinger’s teaching,

the monks of Kappel decided, in 1525, to abandon their monastic life and to placethe monastery under the authority of the Zurich magistrate. The convent was

4 Büsser, Leben, vol. 1, 16 : “Der Humanismus bildete […] ganz eindeutig einen integriertenund unverlierbaren Bestandteil von Bullingers Denken und Handeln überhaupt.”

5 For this motto, see Büsser, Leben, vol. 1, 19–20, and Staedtke, “Geschichte.” As a rule,citations from Scripture in the present study follow the NIV (2011). However, when a scrip-tural reference is part of a citation from Bullinger, the translation follows the reformer’s text

rather than a modern Englishversion. Diversions from this twofold principle are explicated inthe text.6 Staedtke, Theologie, 41: “Bullinger hat bei den Kirchenv ätern Theologie studiert.”7 HBD, 6.

Introduction12








subsequently reformed into an educational institute, which consolidated Bul-

linger’s position as teacher.

In these years, Bullinger’s career became more and more entwined with the

course of the Zurich reformation. Through his affiliation with Zwingli the

Kappel schoolteacher was present at the official colloquies with the Anabaptists

in 1525. In January 1528, he participated in the Zurich delegation to the Bern

Disputation, where he met the leading theologians of the Upper German Ref-

ormation. Finally, in April 1528, Bullinger took the oath before the first eccle-

siastical synod of the Zurich church, which marked his formal incorporation

into the city’s clerical body. Although he was now an official minister of the

church, he admits in his Diarium that he was reluctant to preach the Gospel. For

him, the transition from being a teacher of Scripture in a monastic setting to

preaching the Word in a public worship service was a considerable step. Still,Bullinger accepted a position as preacher in the nearby parish church of Hausen,

where he preached his first sermon in June 1528.8

In the same period, Bullinger became acquainted with the former nun Anna

Adlischwyler.9 They entered marriage in the summer of 1529 and seemed to have

had a good marriage, which lasted for more than 35 years until Anna’s death

during the 1564 plague. Eleven children were born from this marriage, eight of

which reached the age of maturity. The family life of the Bullingers, with their

central position in sixteenth-century urban social life, offers an early example of

the typically Protestant Pfarrhaus culture.10

Also in 1529, Heinrich Bullinger became a pastor in his native town of

Bremgarten, in succession to his father, who had to resign from office during the

turmoil over the introduction of Gospel preaching. At Pentecost he “preached

Christ to his fatherland for the first time.” His message immediately bore fruit,

because already on the following day the altars and statues were removed from

the churches.11 The vocation of Bullinger junior increased the pace of reform and

brought some rest within the ranks of the Bremgarten population. Yet, dark

clouds of war now loomed over the town. Being situated near the border with theCatholic territories, the religious tensions among the Confederates were pal-

pable. When a military conflict broke out, the Zurich forces met an inglorious

defeat at the battle of Kappel (October 1531). Many leading politicians and

preachers, including Zwingli, lost their lives. As Bremgarten was now in the

hands of the Catholic states, Bullinger was forced to retreat to Zurich.

Arriving in Zurich in November 1531, Bullinger found the city in a state of

8 HBD, 12, 128.

9 On Anna Adlischwyler, see Giselbrecht, “Anna.”10 Greiffenhagen, Pfarrhaus. On the family life of the Bullingers, see Büsser, Leben, vol. 1,69–80.

11 HBD, 17.

Bullinger as church minister 13








confusion and desolation. Many blamed the preachers, especially Zwingli and

his right-hand man Leo Jud, for having inflamed the bellicose strategy of the

city’s magistrate. Some voices even argued for a reversal of the religious reforms.

In such a critical situation, the magistrate was in need of a capable and tactful

leader of the church. The recently arrived refugee from Bremgarten, who was

well-known for his peaceable position before the Second Kappel war, was im-

mediately in view as a suitable candidate.12 Already on the third day after his

arrival in Zurich, Bullinger preached his first sermon in the Gro ß münster ,

leaving his hearers with the impression that a new Zwingli had arisen.13 On

December 9, the refugee was chosen by the canons of the Gro ß münster as a

member of the chapter and subsequently appointed by the city councils as the

new church minister in succession of Zwingli.14 There was no clearcut job de-

scription for the new antistes – as his position would later be called –, but theoffice included the position of senior preacher at the Gro ß münster and of ex-

ecutive chairman of the ecclesiastical synod.

Before accepting his appointment as the successor of Zwingli, Bullinger had to

consider the stipulations of the city council. In the eyes of many Zurich citizens,

the preachers were the main agitators behind the internecine struggle between

the Swiss confederates. Especially the rural population, which had to bear the

larger part of the personal and material loss following the Zurich defeat, urged

that the preachers should restrict themselves to proclaiming the word of God

and ascertained the right of local communities to appoint and remove their

pastor. Following the demands of the rural areas, as they were laid down in the

so-called Meilen Articles, the city council ordered Bullinger and the other

preachers of Zurich to refrain from interference in worldly matters and political

affairs.15 In the meantime, Bullinger also received a call from Bern. The magis-

trates of this city tried to persuade their candidate by emphasizing that the

conditions of the Zurich council were unacceptable for a “prophet.”16

Nevertheless, Bullinger accepted the call to Zurich. In his answer to the

council he emphasized that he and his colleagues agreed to preach the gospel in apeaceful and modest way and would refrain from interference in political affairs.

However, he also reminded the council of the fact that the Word of God is

12 Bullinger himself suggests a relation between his admonitions for a peaceful solution of thereligious conflict and his appointment as Zwingli’s successor. See Reformationsgeschichte(1567). HBRG 3, 292.

13 See Pestallozi, Bullinger , 72, quoting a letter from Zwingli’s associate Oswald Myconius:“Doch am letzten Sonntage hat Bullinger eine solche Predigt herunter gedonnert, daß es

Vielen vorkam, Zwingli sei nicht todt, sondern er sei gleich dem Phönix wieder erstanden.”14 HBD, 21.15 Reformationsgeschichte (1567). HBRG 3, 287.16 HBW 2.1, 232 – 33. See also in the letter From Haller. HBW 2.1, 234.

Introduction14








ultimately about the struggle between good and evil, and that its message can be

harsh and controversial. Therefore Bullinger claimed the freedom for the

preachers to address sin and abuse and to confront the magistrates with the

message of Scripture. Alluding to 2 Tim. 2 :9, Bullinger replied, “the word of God

does not want to be restrained, nor should it be.” After a lengthy discussion, the

council accepted Bullinger’s proposal for the freedom of the preaching office,

presuming that the preachers would exercise this right in a moderate way.17 This

agreement revealed a mutual desire for stabilization of the precarious situation,

but did not give a clear-cut picture of how magistrate and clergy were to co-

operate in practice. As a further declaration of his intentions, Bullinger shortly

afterwards delivered an address to his fellow preachers on the issue of the

prophetic office. It was held on the occasion of the important civic feast of

Charlemagne (January 28, 1532) and was published under the title De prophetaeofficio.18

During his many years in office as antistes, Bullinger’s primary concern was

the pastoral care of the Zurich church. Traces of his pastoral activity are found in

many entries in his Diarium and throughout his correspondence.19 Bullinger

comforted believers who experienced illness, loss or persecution by pointing

them to God’s providential care and their union with Christ in life and death.

Many in Zurich and elsewhere sought his opinion in matters of faith and life,

such as marriage and divorce. In addition to his work as a counselor, Bullinger

showed a particular commitment to the poor and to the schools and their stu-

dents. He was convinced that the church should be involved in poor relief and

continuously reminded his colleagues and the magistrates of their responsibility

concerning the needy.

For Bullinger, his pastoral concern for the Zurich flock culminated in a life-

long commitment as the principle preacher of the city’s Gro ß münster. In his

Diarium the reformer frequently begins his account of the events in a certain

year with a statement of the progress of his series of sermons, indicating that he

considered preaching the most important dimension of his work. Fritz Bü

sserhas calculated that Bullinger delivered about 7000 to 7500 sermons during his

years in Zurich. In his lectio continua treatment of Scripture, the reformer

preached through most of the books of the Bible, and on many books even two or

more times.20

17 Reformationsgeschichte (1567). HBRG 3, 293 – 96, esp. 295: “Dann Gotswort will und soll nittgebunden sin. Sunder waz man darinn findt es sye waz es welle, oder wen es ioch antra

effe, soll

fry geredt wurden. (…) Dann daz wort gotts will ungebunden sin: und muoß man Gott mee

dann den menschen ghorsammen.”18 For this work and its context, see further chapter 5.19 Mühling, “Seelsorger”; Pestallozi, Bullinger , 348 –52; Zsindely, “Seelsorger.”20 Büsser, “Prediger”; Büsser, Leben, vol. 1, 166–68.

Bullinger as church minister 15








In addition to his roles as counselor and preacher, Bullinger also was a

competent and influential church leader. Within the Zurich church, he trans-

formed the clerical synod into an instrument for disciplining the clergy, ex-

panding the reform in the rural areas, and balancing church-state relations.21

Following the lines previously set out by Zwingli, Bullinger adhered to the

principle of magisterial sovereignty over church and state within the Christian

commonwealth.22 Therefore, he regarded highly the leading role of the Zurich

magistrate in church affairs. At the same time, Bullinger played an active role in

public debate.23 Moreover, due to a 1532 settlement between magistrate and

clergy, the ministers obtained the right of interpellation before the Zurich

council in order to voice objections against the city’s social and political course.

In these so-called F ürtr ä ge the clergy appear as prophetic watchmen over the

Zurich state.24

As the leader of an influential Protestant city-state, Bullinger also acted on the

stage of European church politics. Many contemporaries recognized Zurich as a

“city on a hill.” This was closely related to Bullinger’s personal authority and his

active involvement in the theological and political debates of the century. 25

Whereas the reformer’s weapons for exercising political influence in Zurich were

persuasiveness and perseverance,26 on an international scale he used the pen and

the printing press. Bullinger took up his quill to expand and maintain an

enormous network of correspondants which enabled him to stay informed about

affairs abroad and to exercise his influence all over Switzerland and Europe, and

across the confessional borders of the era.27 In addition, Bullinger used the

printing press as an instrument for church politics. The dedicatory epistles of

many of his publications served to promote the cause of Protestantism before the

European rulers of the era.28

The evening of Bullinger’s long and eventful life was characterized by sorrow

and conflict. Nevertheless, he remained in his post as antistes of the Zurich

church until his death in 1575. In his political testament, he assured the city’s

magistrates that, during his 43 years as pastor and minister ( pfarrer und diener )of the Gro ß münster , “I have served Christ first, and then you my lords and also

21 Büsser, “Institutionen”; Gordon, Clerical Discipline.22 For Bullinger’s political thought, see Campi, “Rechts- und Staatsdenken.”23 Büsser, Leben, vol. 1, 110–26.24 Büsser, Leben, vol. 1, 187; Bächtold, Bullinger vor dem Rat , esp. 348–59, counts a total

number of 133 F ürtr ä ge. Several of these have been edited in HBST.25 See Mühling, “Kirchenpolitiker”; Büsser, “Zürcher Reformation.”26 Bächtold, Bullinger vor dem Rat , 277.

27 The sheer quantity of about 12.000 extant letters, of which 2.000 were written by Bullinger,gives his epistolography a special place in the sixteenth-century republica litteraria of Christian humanism. See Büsser, “Überlieferung.”

28 Büsser, “Zürcher Reformation,” 178– 81.

Introduction16








the entire Christian congregation, with full loyalty, to the extent of the grace God

has given me.”29

1.2 Outline of this study

1.2.1 Object

As the title of the present study indicates, the point of departure for the present

study is the prophetic office in the thought of Heinrich Bullinger. This thematic

focus is prompted by four motives. First, the main reason is the prominent role

of the concepts of prophets and prophecy in the works of Bullinger, especially in

the first decades of his career. Many instances are found where the churchminister is called a prophet, or scriptural interpretation is labeled a prophetic

activity. In this regard, it is revealing that Bullinger’s 1525 work on the inter-

pretation of Scripture was called De propheta libri duo, and that he published his

first address to the Zurich clergy under the title De prophetae officio (1532).

Therefore, a thematic concentration on the subject of prophets and prophecy is

prompted by Bullinger’s own writings.

Second, the focus on prophecy is enhanced by the results of research on the

Swiss Reformation in general, and of Bullinger’s theology in particular. Many

scholars have noted the prominent role of prophecy as scriptural interpretation

in Zwingli’s thought. Moreover, the inauguration of the letzgen or the so-called

“Prophezei” – an academic training centre for the study of the Old Testament – in

1525, is one of the best-known features of the Zurich Reformation. Research

literature frequently refers to Zwingli’s theological motivation for this form of

learned prophecy, rooting it in a particular understanding of New Testament

prophetism.30 However, little attention has been paid to the thought of Zwingli’s

contemporaries on the concept of prophecy, or to developments after his death

in 1531. The present study therefore aims to highlight Bullinger’s understandingof the Zurich “Prophezei.”

A third motive for investigating the prophetic office in Bullinger’s theology is

that it provides a window for understanding the rise and decline of the phe-

nomenon of prophetic interpretation of Scripture in other sixteenth-century

contexts.31 Not only in Zurich, but also in Reformed congregations in France,

29 HBST, 361. See also HBS 6, 545.30 Introductions to Zwingli and the office are found in Bauke, “Pfarramt”; Hauser, Prophet

und Bischof ; Scholl, “Pfarramt und Pfarrerbild.” See also chapter 3.31 See the observation by Büsser, “Prophet,” 117: “Wenn das Phänomen leider auch in keinerWeise – weder historisch noch theologisch-systematisch – untersucht worden ist, f ällt dochauf, daß Begriff und Wesen des Prophetischen gerade in den Sturm- und Drangjahren der

Outline of this study 17








England and Germany a form of congregational prophecy came into fashion. It

was characterized by the participation of lay church members in meetings de-

voted to the joint interpretation of Scripture, often in a semi-liturgical setting

and including a public discussion of the official preacher’s sermon. Yet, these

prophetic meetings appeared to be a potential source of conflict between con-

gregation and church leadership. Indeed, precisely because of the emergence of

conflicts the phenomenon of congregational prophecy gradually disappeared.32

An in-depth investigation of Bullinger’s approach to prophecy hopes to advance

research concerning this feature of early Reformed Protestantism.

Fourth and finally, the present investigation is devoted to Bullinger’s concept

of the prophetic office, that is, to a dimension of his theology of the ministry. A

comprehensive treatment of the reformer’s understanding of the ecclesiastical

office would require a broad overview of various aspects of his thought, in-cluding his position on Christology, Pneumatology, ecclesiology, preaching, the

sacraments, church order etc. By contrast, the present study approaches Bul-

linger’s theology of ministry from a specific and limited viewpoint. In the course

of studying the prophetic office, it also attempts to shed light on his teaching on

the ecclesiastical office in general.

Together, these four motives result in a number of questions that will guide

the present investigation. The first question concerns the relation between

prophethood and church office in Bullinger’s writings. Hence, several questions

suggest themselves: How did the reformer describe the nature of prophecy in

Israel and the New Testament? How did he characterize the officium prophetae in

the church? Which similarities and differences did he see between the biblical

prophethood and the contemporary preaching office? And did he acknowledge

prophets in the church of his days?

This leads, in the second place, to the question of chronological development,

or contextual diversification in Bullinger’s use of prophetic imagery in relation

to church ministry. How did he, in 1532, arrive at his understanding of the

preaching ministry as a prophetic office? And did it develop in any way after theturbulence of the early 1530s? Likewise, it must be asked whether Bullinger

developed his ideas of the prophetic office specifically for the Zurich context, or

that he also applied and adopted them to the situation of churches elsewhere.

In the third place, this study will address the issue of Bullinger’s motives. Was

his assumption of a relation between prophets and preachers prompted by the

Reformation, in der Zeit des Anbruchs und ‘Wildwuchses’der Reformation eine außer-

ordentlich große Rolle spielten.”32 See Denis, “La Prophtie”; Lieburg, Reformatorische profetie ; Kaufman, “ProphesyingAgain”; Becker, Gemeindeordnung , 92– 98, 296 – 98; De Boer, Genevan School of the Pro- phets, esp. 20 – 33, 217– 67.

Introduction18








theological tradition, the current situation in the church, his own concept of

theology, or a combination of these factors?

With respect to this final cluster of questions, the relation between Bullinger

and Zwingli deserves special attention. Not infrequently, research has simply

subsumed the former’s statements on the prophetic office in a discussion of

Zwingli’s concept of the ecclesiastical office.33 In contrast to this harmonizing

picture of the relation between the two Zurich reformers, recent research tends

to stress the individuality of Bullinger’s thought and his independent develop-

ment before, during and after his partnership with Zwingli.34 Therefore, a

comparative analysis of Bullinger’s earliest understanding of prophecy and the

ideas of his predecessor is essential to grasp the nature of Bullinger’s “trans-

formation” of his predecessor’s reformative work.35

In order to answer these questions the field of research must be delineated inmore detail. Given the focus on the prophetic office, several aspects of Bullinger’s

understanding of the broader field of biblical prophecy are left unexplored. As a

rule, his treatment of the Old Testament prophecies of the coming Messiah is

only included in the discussion when he explicitly connects it with the duty of

contemporary preachers. Conversely, although the main focus of this enquiry is

on the prophetic office, Bullinger’s treatment of other biblical functions and

offices in the church also receives some attention. This will serve as a litmus test

for assessing the relative importance of prophetic imagery in Bullinger’s

thought.

The title of this study also indicates a chronological delimitation to the period

1523–1538. The terminus post quem is marked out by the commencement of

Bullinger’s work as schoolteacher in Kappel.36 In the subsequent fifteen years, he

wrote his three main works on the preaching ministry. First, from the Kappel

period there is a 1525 work entitled De propheta libri duo. Second, the most

important source for the current investigation is presented by Bullinger’s 1532

public speech on the prophetic task, De prophetae officio. Finally, in 1538 the

reformer published his most systematic discussion of the ecclesiastical office, his1538 De episcoporum institutione et functione(book two of De scripturae sanctae

authoritate). This final work also provides the terminus ad quem for the present

investigation. After 1538, Bullinger did not devote a seperate treatise or book to

either the preaching office in general, or to prophecy in particular. This chro-

33 E.g. recently by Bast, “Pastor as prophet,” 354, who maintained that Bullinger drew uponZwingli’s “prophetic model” for his entire life.

34 See Büsser, “Bullinger-Forschung,” 168 – 69; Campi, “Theologe,” 425– 26; Dowey,

“Theologian,” 36– 43; Strohm, “Der Epigone.”35 On Bullinger’s transformation of the Zurich reformation, see Opitz, “Prophetie,” 512–13.36 The fragmentary sourcesfrom before 1523 do not seem to be relevant for the present enquiry.

See the list of titles in Staedtke, Theologie, 263–66.









nological delimitation to the period 1523–1538 implies that a considerable

number of Bullinger’s works are not incorporated in the present investigation.37

Therefore, additional research will be necessary to ascertain whether Bullinger’s

understanding of prophecy and the prophetic office developed in any substantial

way after 1538.38

1.2.2 Method

It is the task of a historiographer to account for her or his treatment of the

sources and their subsequent interpretation. Moreover, a church historian is

challenged to reflect on the relation between historical research and the beliefs

and outlooks that are essential to Christiantheology. Therefore, this section aimsto elucidate the basic methodological assumptions guiding the present inves-

tigation.39

For a start, the present study does not depart from a single, overarching

concept of Reformation history. As Ulrich Muhlack has aptly formulated it in

view of general historiography, it is impossible to develop such a concept apart

from the actual process of researching the sources and writing the story of the

past. This also applies to the field of church history. Although church historians

work on the basis of certain theological beliefs and convictions concerning the

object of their study, they should not start their investigation from an a priori

understanding of the past, either confessional or historiographical. Of course,

this does not mean that research in (church) history could or should take place in

an intellectual void. On the contrary, following Muhlack, it is possible to identify

various historiographical paradigms, each presenting a specific outlook on the

way to approach and interpret the sources from the past.40 The present enquiry

draws from a number of these paradigms in the field of church history and

historical theology.

The first paradigm is presented by the so-called early modern approach to thereligious reforms of the sixteenth century. It acknowledges that these reforms

cannot be studied in isolation from long-term developments in late medieval and

37 HBBibl lists more than seventy unique titles for the period 1539–1575, many of whichcontain voluminous works. These later works include the sermons on the Apocalypse andtheOld Testament prophetic books (1557– 1567), and also the major summary statements of histheology, such as the Decades sermonum quinque (1551) and the Confessio Helvetica Post-erior (1566).

38 For preliminary studies of the later works, see Opitz, “Prophetie,” 508 – 10 (on the Decades

sermonum quinque); Timmerman, “Church and eschatology,” 97 – 100 (on the sermons onthe book of Daniel).39 A general introduction is presented by Bradley and Muller, Church History, 1 –32.40 Muhlack, “Theorie,” 20 – 25.

Introduction20








early modern religious, intellectual and socio-economic history.41 With respect

to the preaching office, this approach has elucidated the role of the clergy –

across the confessional borders – in re-shaping the religious and moral life in

sixteenth-century Europe, by means of the words they preached and the lives

they lived.42 It can be argued that Bullinger, as an influential pastor and church

leader, actively contributed to the restatement of the role of the clergy in early

modern society.43 The present study is more concerned with the concept of office

than with the way the ministry actually functioned in society. Nevertheless, it

does acknowledge the need for an integrated approach to the Reformation, with

an awareness of elements of both continuity and change compared to the pre-

ceding period.

In the second place, the present study assumes that the sixteenth-century

Reformation was, among other factors, the result of certain theological ideas andconvictions concerning God, mankind and the church.44 This does not suggest

that this movement pivoted around a single new idea brought about by a great

thinker (e. g. Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone). Yet, it does assume

that the ideas of the theological spokesmen of the century, which were broadly

disseminated through sermons, letters and the printing press, did in fact in-

fluence public opinion and church politics. The newness of their reformative

message was not so much occasioned by the introduction of entirely new ideas

and concepts, but rather by their innovative and transformative restatement of

elements from the Christian tradition.

In other words, the present study works under the paradigm of historical

theology, which is a sub-specialty of the discipline of church history. Alister

McGrath has defined historical theology as “the branch of theological inquiry

which aims to explore the historical development of Christian doctrines, and

identify the factors which were influential in their formulation and adapta-

tion.”45 As a historical discipline it has many points of contact with the in-

tellectual history approach in general historiography, and its more specialized

41 For an in-depth treatment of the discussion, see Hamm, Moeller, and Wendebourg,

Reformationstheorien.42 See e.g. Moeller, Pfarrer als Bürger ; Schorn-Schütte, “The new clergies”; Taylor,

“Preachers and People.”43 See esp. Gordon, “Reform of the clergy.”44 See Hamm, “Einheit und Vielfalt.” The present study uses the traditional singular “Re-

formation” as a designation of the sixteenth-century religious reforms leading to the for-mation of Protestantism. Yet, it acknowledges that, in view of the great variety within theProtestant ranks and the parallel developments in Roman Catholicism, there is ample reasonto identify various “reformations.”

45 McGrath, Historical Theology, 8. The field of historical theology is closely related to the“history of theology” (Theologiegeschichte), which is a sub-discipline of systematic theology,with the assignment to define and develop the object of theological studies. See Nüssel,“Theologiegeschichte,” 221.









offshoots in the history of ideas and Begriffsgeschichte.46 For the present study

this implies a methodological focus on historical texts as the source of inves-

tigation. It aims at a close reading of these sources in view of the terms

“prophets” and “prophecy” and other words from the same semantic field.47

Further, it seeks to interpret Bullinger’s use of these terms against the back-

ground of the preceding theological tradition, yet without attempting to affirm

or negate his dependence on tradition in a historical-genetical sense. Finally, the

present study investigates the reformer’s use of prophecy terminology within the

context of his days and in the setting of sixteenth-century Protestant reflection

on the ministry.

Although historical research thrives on unbiased reconstruction of past

events, it should not lock itself in a reconstruction of history. By contrast, it

should rather contribute to present day existence by presenting a verifiableaccount of how and why things have become the way they are now.48 This applies

especially to historical theology as a theological discipline. With McGrath it can

be argued that it has both a pedagogic and a critical function within the theo-

logical faculty.49 Therefore, the present enquiry seeks to inform its readers about

Bullinger’s application of the notion of prophecy, and to elucidate what motived

him to do so in his own time and setting. At the same time, it intends to stimulate

contemporary reflection on the prophetic charisma by providing insight in the

various ways by which the Christian tradition has actualized and applied the

concepts of prophets and prophecy.

Finally, although the present study primarily aims at a historical-theological

investigation of the notion of prophecy in Bullinger’s thought, it also relates to

the paradigm of institutional church history, and specifically to the branch of the

history of the Swiss Reformation. On the one hand, it is greatly indebted to the

work previously done in this field, which provides the indispensible historical

and theological context for the interpretation of Bullinger’s works. On the other

hand, the present study also aims to contribute to the church historical debate.

The investigation of Bullinger’s concept of the preaching office seeks to elucidatethe interaction between the reformer’s theories and the church-political realities

in Zurich and other European territories. More specifically, the investigation of

Bullinger’s understanding of the “Prophezei” might clarify the nature of this

characteristic institution of the sixteenth-century Zurich church.

46 Richter, “History of Ideas.”

47 In this respect, it builds on the study of Ysebaert, Amtsterminologie, with its lexicogra-phical approach to the church office in early Christianity.48 See Muhlack, “Theorie,” 28 – 29.49 McGrath, Historical Theology, 11– 14.

Introduction22








1.2.3 Sources

On the basis of these methodological considerations, and following the thematic

and chronological delimitation set forth above, it is possible to define the source

material for the present enquiry.50 Bullinger was a prolific writer, mastering a

range of genres, varying from historiography to drama, from theology to letter

writing. Due to the contingencies of history, but also much furthered by the

efforts of the reformer and his reverent heirs to record and preserve his literary

output, much of his work has been handed down to posterity. Despite the efforts

of the scholars of the Zurich Institut f ür Schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte,

the majority of Bullinger’s work is not accessible in a modern critical edition.

This state of affairs challenges the present day researcher to mark out a reasoned

selection of the Zurich reformer’s literary legacy.First, the present enquiry takes all of Bullinger’s printed works, either in

sixteenth-century imprints or in modern editions, from the period 1523–1538

into consideration. Among these works two of the reformer’s main works on the

ecclesiastical office are found: De prophetae officio (1532) and De episcoporum

institutione et functione (1538). Another important source for the present in-

vestigation are the New Testament commentaries from 1532 – 1537. In addition,

all other printed works from the selected period are reviewed.

In the second place, with respect to the available manuscript material a se-

lection is made. The quantity of available documents in the Zurich Zentralbi-

bliothek precludes any full-scale investigation of all available handwritten works

by Bullinger.51 For the present study, an in-depth analysis of Bullinger’s 1525

manuscript treatise De propheta libri duo is indispensable. Because of the

paucity of printed material from the Kappel period, two additional handwritten

texts from the early years are taken into consideration (sc. the 1525– 1527 Kurtze

usslegung of the Pauline epistles and the 1527 treatise Von warer und falscher

leer ).

Third and finally, all entries of Bullinger’s extent correspondence over theyears 1523 – 1538 are inspected. Many of the reformer’s letters were intended for

a larger audience and present important aspects of the reformer’s theological

and church-political concerns.52 Fortunately, the more than 1200 letters from

this period have been edited as part of the Heinrich Bullinger Briefwechsel.53

50 References to Bullinger’s works are indicated in footnotes with the help of an abbreviatedform of the title and (in brackets) the year of completion. The resulting short titles are spelledout in the list of sources in the Bibliograhpy.

51 See the entries in the relevant catalogues: Gagliardi and Forrer, Neuere Handschriften seit 1500; Scarpatetti, Gamper and Stähli, Die Handschriften der Bibliotheken St. Gallen- Z ürich.

52 Mühling, Kirchenpolitik.









1.3 Survey of research

At a 2004 Bullinger conference, Emidio Campi stated that the doctrine of the

pastoral office, as an integral part of Bullinger’s ecclesiology, has not yet been

treated sufficiently.54 This observation is enhanced by an overview of scholar-

ship on this subject.

An important landmark for modern scholarship of Heinrich Bullinger is

Joachim Staedtke’s seminal study on the theology of the young Bullinger

(1962).55 This work is still highly relevant for its well-considered overview of the

reformer’s earliest writings (up to 1528). The author surveyed all available

source material from Bullinger’s Kappel years, of which the majority was (and

still is) available in manuscript format only. Yet, Staedtke did not discuss the

reformer’s earliest ideas on the prophetic office.In the aftermath of the 400th anniversary of Bullinger’s Confessio Helvetica

Posterior (1966), several studies were devoted to the reformer’s mature position

on the church and its ministry. Simon van der Linde (1966)56 and Ernst Koch

(1968)57 presented insightful summaries of Bullinger’s teaching on the ecclesi-

astical office in article 18 of the confession. Both authors interpreted the re-

former’s concept of ministry from the background of his ecclesiology, in which

the catholicity and unity of the church are fundamental notions.58 Jean-Jacques

von Allmen (1968) investigated the same subject in more detail, with special

attention to the relation between Bullinger and other concepts of church min-

istry in the incipient Reformed tradition.59

From 1965 onwards, Bullinger research has been furthered in a substantial

way by the achievements of the Institut f ür Schweizerische Reformationsge-

schichte in Zurich. Its former director, Fritz Büsser, devoted two articles to

Bullinger’s evaluation of prophecy (1970, 1972).60 The author was the first to

53 HBW 2.1–2.8.

54 Campi, “Bullinger Research,” 22: “The importance of the pastoral office and church order inBullinger’s ecclesiology can hardly be exaggerated, yet there are no signs of major progressthat will yield significant results on these matters. Well-directed preliminary studies in theseareas in particular will be necessary and useful in order eventually to attempt newer syn-theses on a more broad and thorough basis.” See also Büsser, “Bullinger-Forschung,” 168–69.

55 Staedtke, Theologie. This work was completed in 1955, but only published in 1962.56 Van der Linde, “Die Lehre von der Kirche.”57 Koch, Confessio Helvetica Posterior.58 The main difference between these two contributions concerns the position of ecclesiology

within the entirety of Bullinger’s thought. Is the church part of humanity’s response to God’s

covenant (Koch), or could ecclesiology itself be the centre of Bullinger’s thought (Van derLinde)?59 Von Allmen, Le saint ministre. See also Von Allmen, “Ministry.”60 Büsser, “Gedenkrede”; Büsser, “Prophet.”

Introduction24








address the theme of the prophetic office in Bullinger’s thought. Moreover, he

introduced a comparative approach to the discussion by investigating possible

developments in the reformer’s treatment of the subject. Analyzing the 1532

address to the synod (De prophetae officio), Büsser concluded that Bullinger

consciously accommodated himself to Zwingli’s notion of prophecy, balancing

scriptural interpretation with prophetic criticism of socio-religious abuse.

Büsser contrasted this position with the reformer’s earlier statements in the 1525

work De propheta libri duo, in which he only sees the element of prophecy as

exegesis. Thus, compared to this preceding work, Bullinger’s 1532 publication

on the prophetic office would mark his development from a humanist scholar to

a reformer and church leader.61 A comparison of both documents is required to

ascertain whether such a development did take place. In fact, Büsser elsewhere

implicitly called his conclusion on Bullinger’s development into question. Dis-cussing the 1525 or 1526 Anklage und Mahnrede, he revealed how Bullinger,

already in the Kappel period, emulated Zwingli’s prophetic-eschatological

criticism of social and religious abuse. This seems to imply that there was a

rather large degree of continuity in Bullinger’s thought between 1525 and 1532.62

Therefore, although Büsser’s seminal work is still of great value, it did not resolve

the question of developments in Bullinger’s understanding of prophecy.

In the first half of the 1970s Susanna Hausammann highlighted the role of

rhetoric in Bullinger’s thought (1970, 1974).63 Her research focused on the re-

former’s 1525 exposition of Romans, but also elaborated his treatise De propheta

libri duo that was written in the same year. The author concluded that Bullinger,

following Melanchthon, positively applied the rhetorical method to the study of

Scripture. Yet, as his definition of the New Testament “prophet” or exegete

shows, the reformer permeated the rhetorical task with theological motives. In

accordance with Paul, Bullinger defined the prophetic task with the three ele-

ments of teaching or edifying, exhorting and comforting (1 Cor. 14:3). On the

one hand, this definition consciously related the prophetic task to the threefold

obligation of the classical orator (docere, delectare, movere). Hausammannemphasized at the same time that Bullinger “baptized” classical rhetoric in

service of the interpretation and proclamation of the Gospel. For the reformer

the essential task of a prophet was not to please his hearers, but to lead them to

Christ.64 Hausammann’s publications are especially important for the inter-

61 Büsser, “Gedenkrede, ” 66: “Während Bullinger 1532, wahrscheinlich im Blick auf diebesondere Ausrichtung auf Zwingli, die kritische Funktion des Propheten als mindestensgleichgewichtig neben die Funktion des Auslegers stellt, hat er 1525 eigentlich nur von der

richtigen Schriftauslegung und Verkündigung, von Exegese und Homiletik gehandelt.”62 Büsser, “Prophet,” 116–17.63 Hausammann, Römerbriefauslegung , esp. 161– 73; Hausammann, “Rhetorik.”64 Hausammann, “Rhetorik,” 312– 13.

Survey of research 25




daniel timmerman-heinrich bullinger on prophecy and the prophetic offivce ( (1523-1538)

Documents