LUTHER’S GRIPE WITH
ZWINGLI
A look at history by
Gary Ray Branscome
“Those who know God accept what we [the
inspired writers of Scripture] say; those who are not of God will not
accept
what we say. That is how we can distinguish the spirit of truth from
the spirit
of error,” (1John 4:6).
In 1529, in the
In that documentary it was said that Zwingli
believed that
the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper represent Christ’s body
and blood,
while Luther believed that Christ’s body and blood had to be present in
some
way. And, that is true. However, that is a very shallow description of
their
disagreement, which totally misses the point as to why Luther believed
what he
believed and why he could not agree with Zwingli.
When Zwingli said that the bread (in the
Lord’s
Supper), “is not really Christ’s body, it just represents Christ’s
body,” Luther
did not object to the claim that the bread represented Christ’s body,
but to
the, words, “It is not really Christ’s body”. That was the real point
of
contention! Zwingli was contradicting Christ. In other words, Christ
said,
“This is My body” and Zwingli replied, “It is not really His body”.
That is
what Luther objected to, and that is why Luther simply quoted Christ’s
words
(“This is My body”) and made it clear that he was not going to budge
from what
they said.
Luther is often portrayed as being
hard-headed, but I
disagree. The reason Luther and Zwingli could not agree was not because
they each
had a different interpretation, but because Luther wanted to teach what
Christ
said, while Zwingli wanted to teach his own opinion. In other words,
Luther saw
it as man’s word verses God’s Word. Since Christ said, “This is My
body,”
Luther believed that we should teach, “This is Christ’s body”. Zwingli,
in
contrast, refused to accept what Christ said. Yet most people today
have a very
hard time understanding why Luther disagreed so strongly. From Luther’s
point
of view, he could not change what Christ said, so he had to teach,
“Take eat,
this is Christ’s body”. Zwingli, on the other hand, just brushed aside
what
Christ said with the words, “It isn’t really His body”.
At this point, let me address the
commonly held assumption that Luther could not agree with Zwingli
because Luther
did not believe that the bread and wine represent Christ’s body and
blood. A
look at what Luther actually said will reveal that that is not true.
Concerning baptism Luther said: “The
first thing in baptism to be considered is the divine promise,
which says: "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved… The
second
part of baptism is the sign, or sacrament, which is that immersion into
water
from this also it derives its name… signs are added to the divine
promises to
represent that which the words signify… so it is not baptism that
justifies or
benefits anyone, but it is faith in the word of promise, to which
baptism is
added. This faith justifies, and fulfils that which baptism signifies.”
(From “The Babylonian
Captivity of the Church,” by Martin Luther, 1520)
Some may wonder what a quote about baptism
has to with
the Lord’s Supper. However, in the words just quoted notice the phrase,
“the
sign or sacrament”. Now relate that phrase to the following quote. “In
every
promise of God two things are set before us, the word and the sign. The
word we
are to understand as being the testament, and the sign as being the
sacrament;
thus, in the Lord’s Supper, the word of Christ is the testament, the
bread and
wine are the sacrament [i.e. sign]. (From “The Babylonian Captivity of the
Church,” by
Martin Luther, 1520)
In both of those quotes Luther describes the
outward
ceremonies of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as signs. In other words,
Luther
believed that the bread and wine were signs. And, in both Baptism and
the
Lord’s Supper the ceremonies testify to God’s promise of forgiveness in
Christ.
Now, consider this quote from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:
"The promise of the New Testament is the
promise of the
forgiveness of sins, as the text says, “this is my body, which is given
for
you”; “this is the cup of the new testament with my blood, which is
poured out
for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Luke 22:19, Matt. 26:28)
Therefore the
Word offers forgiveness of sins, while the ceremony is a sort of
picture or
“seal,” as Paul calls it (Rom.
Those quotes make it clear that Luther
regarded the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper, as a picture,
seal or
sign of what is promised. Therefore, let us consider what is being
promised. Christ
said, of the bread, “This is my body which is given for you,” and said
of the
cup, this is… “My blood, which is shed for you” (Luke
Once that is understood, it should be
obvious that in the eyes of God there is no
difference between believing
that you are saved because you have received Christ’s death on the
cross as the
atonement for your sin; and believing
that you are saved because you have received the body and blood that
Christ gave/shed
on the cross as the atonement for your sin. That is the “good news”
that His
“Supper” was intended to proclaim. And, that is why it is important for
those
who come to the Lord's Supper believe the words that Christ spoke when
He
instituted it (1Cor. 11:29-30). That being understood, here is
something else
that Luther said:
"I have rightly said then, that the whole
virtue of the
Lord’s Supper consists in those words of Christ, in which He testifies
that
remission is granted to all who believe that His body is given and His
blood
shed for them." (From
“The Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” by Martin Luther, 1520)
That being understood, the real reason
why Luther could not agree with Zwingli was this: Christ’s Words, “This
is my
body which is given for you,” and “This is… My blood, which is shed for
you,” are a proclamation of the gospel. (1
Corinthians 11:24, Luke
22:19-20). And, by contradicting them Zwingli was making those words of
no effect (Mark
Of course some people think that is no
big deal. They think that those who need to hear the gospel will get it
from
many of the other passages that assure us of forgiveness in Christ.
And, Luther
did not disagree with that. However, that is no justification for
making the
Word of God of no effect, for all
who make the Word of God of no effect
are in rebellion against God, and hinder the work of salvation (Mark
7:13). Here
is another quote from Luther:
"In the Lord’s Supper, the word of Christ is
the
testament, the bread and wine are the sacrament. And as there is
greater power
in the word than in the sign, so is there greater power in the
testament than
in the sacrament. A man can have and use the word or testament without
the sign
or sacrament. 'Believe,' says Augustine, 'and you have eaten;' but in
what do
we believe except in the word of Him who promises? Thus I can have the
Lord’s
Supper daily, nay hourly; since, as often as I will, I can set before
myself
the words of Christ, and nourish and strengthen my faith in them; and this is in very truth the spiritual eating
and drinking." (From “The
Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” by Martin Luther, 1520)
What Luther believed about the Lord’s Supper
is
complicated by the fact that some of Luther's statements sound like he
believed
that flesh was actually being eaten. However, the words just quoted
make it
clear that such was not the case. His statements about flesh being
present were
intended to defend Christ’s words, not explain them, and are more
representative of his polemical style than his serious
doctrinal
views.
The Fruits of Zwingli’s Rebellion
Luther’s real gripe with Zwingli had
to do with this question. Does God want us to teach all of those
doctrinal
truths that are clearly and explicitly stated in His Word, or does He
want us
to decide which ones are to be believed and which ones are to be
explained away?
The answer to that question is of key
importance, because every false prophet and cult leader will brush
aside and
explain away any explicit statements of Scripture that contradict their
own
opinions. They have no qualms about exalting man’s word over God’s
Word. However,
brushing aside the words of Scripture is not limited to cults.
The words, “He [Christ] is the
propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins
of the
whole world,” clearly state a doctrinal truth that God wants His church
to
believe and teach (1John 2:2). Nevertheless, those who believe in
“limited
atonement” simply brush the words of Scripture aside, just as Zwingli
did, oblivious
to the fact that by doing so they are rebelling against God and making
those
words of God of no effect (Mark 7:13).
The words, “Who are kept by the power
of God through faith unto salvation,” give us another doctrinal truth
that God
wants His church to believe and teach (1Peter 1:5). Nevertheless, those
who
believe that we must keep ourselves saved simply brush the words of
Scripture aside,
just as Zwingli did.
The words, “I keep under my body, and
bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached
to
others, I myself should be a castaway,” are a warning of the law
(1Corinthians
The words, “No one can say that Jesus
is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost,” give us another doctrinal truth
that God
wants His church to believe and teach (1Corinthians 12:3). Yet those
who claim
that the Holy Spirit will be withdrawn from the world prior to a time
of “great
tribulation,” brush those words of Scripture aside, teaching instead
that great
multitudes will come to faith after the Holy Spirit has departed.
[NOTE:
Without the work of the Holy Spirit persecution would destroy faith,
not create
it.]
The words, “Every one who looks to the
Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise
him up on
the last day,” give us another doctrinal truth that God wants His
church to
believe and teach (John
I once quoted the words, “In six days
the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and everything that is in
them,” to a
man, only to have him say, “There are different opinions as to what
those words
mean” (Exodus 20:11). However, I had not said a thing about what those
words
mean, I had simply quoted them. Those words do not need to be
interpreted; any
child can tell you what they mean. They are perfectly clear! The only
people who
think that they need to be interpreted are those who refuse to accept
what they
say. Nevertheless, those who have the same spirit
of error
that Zwingli had, simply brush the words of Scripture aside whenever
those words
do not agree with their own opinions. Like Zwingli they exalt
man’s word
over God’s Word, and explain away any statement of Scripture that does
fit with
their own opinions. Moreover, having rejected what the Bible says in
the first
eleven chapters of Genesis, they seem willing to contradict anything
else that
the Bible says, and even explain away the Bible’s condemnation of
murder
(abortion) and homosexuality.
Conclusion
The sum and substance of what I have
said has to do with one question. Does God want us to teach what He
said, or
what we think? Luther stood firmly on the Word of God, and if you are
one of
those who think that Zwingli was right, consider this: Everyone who
believes
that Christ’s body was given for them (on the cross), and that His
blood was
shed for them (on the cross) so that they could have forgiveness, truly
receives Christ’s body and blood, not as something physical but as the
atonement for their sin.
Branscome.org