WHY COULDN’T LUTHER AND ZWINGLI AGREE?
ONE BIBLE. ONE TABLE. TWO INTERPRETATIONS.
Martin Luther had challenged the authority of popes and councils.
His conscience, he said, was bound to the Word of God.
So perhaps the solution to Christian disagreement was simple:
GO BACK TO THE BIBLE.
But another problem soon appeared.
Ulrich Zwingli was also a Reformer.
He also rejected papal authority.
He also appealed to Scripture.
He also believed Christians should return to biblical teaching.
And yet Luther and Zwingli became sharply divided over something Jesus said at the Last Supper:
“Take, eat; this is my body.”
— Matthew 26:26, KJV
One Bible.
One sentence.
Two Reformers.
Two interpretations.
WHAT HAPPENED?
1. WHO WAS ULRICH ZWINGLI?
While Luther’s Reformation was developing in Germany, another reform movement was developing in Switzerland.
Its best-known early leader was Ulrich Zwingli.
Zwingli was a Catholic priest.
Like Luther, he became increasingly critical of teachings and practices within the medieval church.
He preached through Scripture.
He challenged church traditions.
He rejected papal authority.
He opposed various practices he believed lacked biblical support.
So Luther and Zwingli had much in common.
But agreement about the authority of Scripture did not guarantee agreement about its meaning.
2. THE DISAGREEMENT CENTERED ON THE LORD’S SUPPER
Jesus took bread and said:
“Take, eat; this is my body.”
— Matthew 26:26, KJV
Then He took the cup and said:
“For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
— Matthew 26:28, KJV
What did Jesus mean?
That became the issue.
Luther believed Christ’s body and blood were truly present in the Lord’s Supper.
Zwingli understood the bread and cup primarily as signs or memorials pointing believers to Christ’s body and blood.
Both believed Scripture supported their position.
3. LUTHER TOOK “THIS IS MY BODY” VERY SERIOUSLY
Luther’s argument began with Jesus’ words:
“THIS IS MY BODY.”
Not:
THIS REPRESENTS MY BODY.
Not:
THIS REMINDS YOU OF MY BODY.
But:
“THIS IS MY BODY.”
Luther believed Christians should accept Christ’s words rather than explain away His promise.
He therefore insisted upon the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Supper.
But Luther did not simply accept the Roman Catholic explanation of how the bread and wine relate to Christ’s body and blood.
That distinction matters.
4. WHAT ABOUT TRANSUBSTANTIATION?
Medieval Catholic theology had developed the doctrine commonly called:
TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
In simplified terms, the underlying substance of the bread and wine was understood to become Christ’s body and blood, while their outward appearances remained those of bread and wine.
Luther rejected the need for that philosophical explanation.
But he did not therefore conclude:
“IT IS ONLY BREAD AND WINE.”
He continued to insist that Christ’s body and blood were truly given with the bread and wine.
Lutheran teaching would later describe Christ’s body and blood as truly present and received in the sacramental union.
Luther rejected Rome’s explanation without rejecting Christ’s real presence.
5. ZWINGLI READ THE SAME WORDS DIFFERENTLY
Zwingli emphasized that Jesus frequently used figurative language.
Jesus said:
“I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.”
— John 10:9, KJV
But Jesus was not a wooden door.
He also said:
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.”
— John 15:1, KJV
But Jesus was not a grapevine.
Paul wrote:
“And that Rock was Christ.”
— 1 Corinthians 10:4, KJV
Paul was not saying that a literal rock had been transformed into Jesus.
So Zwingli argued that Jesus’ words:
“THIS IS MY BODY”
could mean:
“THIS SIGNIFIES MY BODY.”
For him, the bread directed believers to Christ’s body given for them.
He did not regard the Supper as meaningless. It was a Christian act of remembrance, thanksgiving, and public confession of faith.
But he rejected Luther’s understanding of Christ’s bodily presence in the bread and wine.
6. NOW WE HAVE AN EXEGETICAL PROBLEM
Notice what has happened.
Luther has a biblical argument.
Zwingli has a biblical argument.
Luther says:
TAKE CHRIST’S WORDS AS A PROMISE OF HIS REAL PRESENCE.
Zwingli says:
RECOGNIZE FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.
Which interpretation follows from the text?
The answer cannot simply be:
ALWAYS TAKE THE BIBLE LITERALLY.
The Bible contains figures of speech.
And it cannot simply be:
TAKE DIFFICULT LANGUAGE FIGURATIVELY.
That would allow us to explain away anything we dislike.
So we need something more careful.
CONTEXT MUST HELP DETERMINE MEANING.
7. JESUS OFTEN SPOKE FIGURATIVELY
This is beyond dispute.
Jesus said:
“I am the light of the world.”
— John 8:12, KJV
He said:
“I am the door.”
— John 10:9, KJV
He said:
“I am the good shepherd.”
— John 10:11, KJV
And:
“I am the true vine.”
— John 15:1, KJV
No one concludes that Jesus is literally a wooden door or a grapevine.
So the mere presence of the word:
“IS”
does not prove literal identity.
But notice something else.
The fact that Jesus sometimes spoke figuratively does not establish that every statement beginning with “I am” or “This is” must be figurative.
We must examine each statement in its own setting.
That gives Zwingli a legitimate exegetical question.
But it does not, by itself, prove his conclusion about the Lord’s Supper.
8. THE OTHER SIDE HAS A QUESTION TOO
Jesus did not merely say:
“THIS IS MY BODY.”
He commanded His disciples:
“Take, eat; this is my body.”
— Matthew 26:26, KJV
And concerning the cup:
“Drink ye all of it.”
— Matthew 26:27, KJV
Then Paul later treated the Lord’s Supper with extraordinary seriousness.
He wrote:
“Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”
— 1 Corinthians 11:27, KJV
Paul was not describing an ordinary meal.
But exactly what does his warning establish?
Does being guilty concerning Christ’s body and blood require Christ’s body and blood to be physically present in the elements?
Or could a person become guilty concerning Christ by treating a sacred remembrance of His death with contempt?
The seriousness of the warning must be acknowledged.
Its implications must still be examined.
9. THEN THERE IS 1 CORINTHIANS 10
Paul wrote:
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”
— 1 Corinthians 10:16, KJV
The word translated communion is important.
It carries the idea of sharing or participation.
Paul does not describe the Supper casually.
There is a genuine relationship between participation in the Supper and participation in Christ.
But exactly what kind?
Does this establish Luther’s understanding of Christ’s bodily presence?
Does it establish Rome’s transubstantiation?
Does it describe spiritual participation?
Can it be understood within a memorial interpretation?
The text must be studied rather than merely claimed by one side.
And we should continue reading.
In 1 Corinthians 10:18–21, Paul compares participation in the Lord’s table with participation in other religious meals.
His concern includes the spiritual significance of sharing in a meal associated with worship.
WHAT DOES THAT COMPARISON TELL US ABOUT THE LORD’S SUPPER?
That question belongs in our examination.
10. WHAT DID JESUS SAY ABOUT REMEMBERING?
Luke records Jesus saying:
“This do in remembrance of me.”
— Luke 22:19, KJV
Paul repeats:
“This do in remembrance of me.”
— 1 Corinthians 11:24, KJV
That clearly establishes:
REMEMBRANCE.
Zwingli was right to emphasize that remembrance belongs to the Lord’s Supper.
But notice the next step.
Does:
“REMEMBRANCE”
necessarily mean:
“NOTHING MORE THAN REMEMBRANCE”?
The passage does not say that.
This is an important lesson.
A passage may establish one feature of a practice without telling us that it is the only feature.
We must be careful about adding the word only when the text does not.
11. THE SAME WARNING APPLIES TO LUTHER
Jesus said:
“THIS IS MY BODY.”
That statement must be taken seriously.
But does it automatically establish every conclusion Luther drew about Christ’s presence?
No.
The statement must still be interpreted within the setting of the Last Supper.
Jesus was sharing a meal with His disciples before His death.
The meal was connected with Passover.
He spoke about His body and blood.
He spoke about the new covenant.
And Paul later explained the Supper to Christians at Corinth.
Neither side gets to stop studying merely because it has found a sentence that appears to support its position.
THE WHOLE PASSAGE MUST BE HEARD.
12. THEN ANOTHER PASSAGE ENTERED THE ARGUMENT
Jesus said after His resurrection:
“And, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.”
— Matthew 28:20, KJV
But Scripture also says Jesus ascended to heaven.
Peter preached:
“Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things.”
— Acts 3:21, KJV
That created another theological question.
How can Christ’s human body be in heaven and also be present at many communion tables?
Luther and Zwingli answered differently.
Luther appealed to Christ’s divine-human person and rejected the idea that Christ’s bodily presence in the Supper was impossible because of His ascension.
Zwingli emphasized Christ’s bodily presence in heaven and understood His presence with believers differently.
Now notice what is happening.
We are no longer interpreting only:
“THIS IS MY BODY.”
We are bringing several passages together.
That may be necessary.
But it also increases the possibility of building a theological explanation that goes beyond what any one passage explicitly states.
13. THIS IS HOW THEOLOGY BECOMES COMPLICATED
One passage says:
THIS IS MY BODY.
Another says:
DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.
Another speaks of communion in Christ’s body and blood.
Another speaks about Christ being in heaven.
Another promises Christ’s continuing presence.
Now the interpreter tries to put all those statements together.
That is legitimate.
We should compare Scripture with Scripture.
But we must distinguish between:
WHAT THE TEXT EXPLICITLY SAYS
and:
THE EXPLANATION WE DEVELOP TO SHOW HOW THE PASSAGES FIT TOGETHER.
Our explanation may be correct.
But it must remain open to examination.
14. IN 1529, THEY TRIED TO SETTLE IT
The disagreement became serious enough that Protestant leaders attempted to bring Luther and Zwingli together.
They met at Marburg in October 1529.
The meeting is known as the:
MARBURG COLLOQUY.
Philip of Hesse organized the meeting in the hope of achieving greater unity among the Reformers.
There were religious and political reasons for seeking agreement.
The participants discussed a series of theological questions.
And remarkably:
THEY REACHED SUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT ON MANY OF THEM.
But one major disagreement remained.
The Lord’s Supper.
15. LUTHER WOULD NOT GIVE UP “THIS IS MY BODY”
According to traditional accounts of the meeting, Luther emphasized Jesus’ words:
“THIS IS MY BODY.”
He would not accept an interpretation that, in his view, denied Christ’s true bodily presence in the Supper.
Zwingli would not accept Luther’s understanding of that presence.
Neither man believed he was rejecting Scripture.
Quite the opposite.
BOTH BELIEVED THEY WERE DEFENDING SCRIPTURE.
That is what makes the disagreement so important for us.
16. THE MARBURG ARTICLES SHOW HOW CLOSE THEY CAME
At Marburg, the Reformers produced a series of articles describing their agreements.
They agreed on major teachings concerning God, Christ, His death and resurrection, original sin, justification, the Holy Spirit, baptism, and other matters.
But when they reached the Lord’s Supper, they could not fully agree about:
THE BODILY PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE BREAD AND WINE.
The final article acknowledged that they had not reached agreement on whether Christ’s true body and blood were bodily present in the bread and wine.
They nevertheless affirmed that both sides should show Christian love toward one another, insofar as conscience permitted.
So the meeting did not produce complete theological agreement.
Nor did it produce the full religious and political unity its organizers had hoped for.
One unresolved interpretation remained a serious obstacle.
17. THIS SHOULD MAKE US THINK
The Reformers had challenged Rome partly because they believed church tradition had acquired too much authority.
So they appealed to Scripture.
Then two leading Reformers read Scripture and disagreed.
What now?
Who decides?
There was no pope whose authority both recognized.
Both appealed to the Bible.
And both believed the Bible supported their positions.
This exposes a problem that remains with us:
SAYING “THE BIBLE IS OUR AUTHORITY” DOES NOT GUARANTEE AGREEMENT.
18. WHY NOT?
Because Scripture must be read and interpreted by people.
And people bring things to the text.
Language.
Education.
Culture.
Previous teaching.
Assumptions.
Philosophy.
Experiences.
Traditions.
And sometimes:
A CONCLUSION ALREADY FORMED.
That is why two people can sincerely say:
“I JUST BELIEVE THE BIBLE.”
And disagree.
The disagreement may concern how they are reading the text.
Or how they relate one passage to another.
Or what they believe a particular word or expression means.
We must examine the reasoning rather than simply repeat the claim that Scripture is our authority.
19. THIS IS WHERE “TEXT B4 TRADITION” BECOMES MORE THAN A SLOGAN
We cannot merely say:
READ THE BIBLE.
We need to ask:
What kind of literature am I reading?
Is the language literal or figurative?
What is the context?
What did the writer intend?
What would the original audience have understood?
How does this passage relate to parallel passages?
Am I distinguishing what the text says from the conclusions I draw from it?
Am I allowing another passage to clarify this one?
And perhaps most difficult:
WOULD I READ THIS PASSAGE THE SAME WAY IF I HAD NEVER BEEN TAUGHT MY PRESENT POSITION?
That is a hard question.
But it is an important one.
20. TRADITION DOES NOT DISAPPEAR WHEN WE REJECT SOMEONE ELSE’S TRADITION
Luther rejected important parts of Roman Catholic tradition.
But Luther developed interpretations that became:
LUTHERAN TRADITION.
Zwingli’s ideas influenced what became:
REFORMED TRADITION.
Later Christians inherited those interpretations.
Then their children inherited them.
Eventually, a person could read:
“THIS IS MY BODY”
already knowing what a Lutheran was supposed to hear.
Another could read the same words already knowing what a Reformed Christian was supposed to hear.
That is how tradition works.
It does not always announce itself.
Sometimes tradition sounds like:
“THAT’S JUST WHAT THE VERSE MEANS.”
21. AND WE ARE NOT EXEMPT
Suppose someone from Churches of Christ reads this page and says:
“OBVIOUSLY ZWINGLI WAS CLOSER. THE LORD’S SUPPER IS A MEMORIAL.”
Careful.
That is exactly when our method must become uncomfortable.
Why do we think that?
Because the text requires it?
Or because that is what we were taught?
Perhaps our conclusion is correct.
But inherited agreement does not prove it.
We have to do the same work we are asking Luther and Zwingli to do.
GO BACK TO THE TEXT.
22. MAYBE THE TEXT CONTAINS MORE THAN EITHER SIDE EMPHASIZED
Consider what the New Testament actually gives us.
The Lord’s Supper is:
REMEMBRANCE.
Read Luke 22:19.
It is:
PROCLAMATION.
Paul wrote:
“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.”
— 1 Corinthians 11:26, KJV
It is:
COMMUNION IN CHRIST’S BODY AND BLOOD.
Read 1 Corinthians 10:16.
It expresses:
UNITY.
Paul wrote:
“For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.”
— 1 Corinthians 10:17, KJV
And it is serious enough that abusing it brought judgment upon Christians at Corinth.
Read 1 Corinthians 11:27–32.
Perhaps our first responsibility is not to squeeze all of that immediately into a later theological label.
Perhaps we should first let:
ALL OF THE TEXT SPEAK.
23. THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TEXT AND A SYSTEM
A text says:
“THIS IS MY BODY.”
A theological system explains exactly how Christ is present.
A text says:
“THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.”
A theological system explains what role remembrance plays.
A text speaks of communion in Christ’s body and blood.
A theological system explains the nature of that communion.
Systems may be useful.
They can help us bring related passages together.
But:
THE SYSTEM IS NOT THE TEXT.
We must examine whether the system faithfully explains what the passages say.
That distinction will become increasingly important as the Reformation continues.
24. THE REFORMATION WAS ALREADY BECOMING REFORMATIONS
Luther challenged Rome.
Zwingli challenged Rome.
But Luther and Zwingli disagreed with each other.
Soon other Reformers would enter the story.
Different understandings would develop concerning baptism, the Lord’s Supper, church government, predestination, the relationship between church and state, worship, and who should belong to the church.
Western Christianity was not moving from:
ONE CHURCH TO ONE REFORMED CHURCH.
It was developing into several reform movements with important differences.
25. AND BAPTISM WOULD PRODUCE AN EVEN MORE RADICAL QUESTION
Luther and Zwingli both inherited infant baptism from the medieval church.
They continued practicing it.
But some people studying Scripture began asking:
WHERE DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT COMMAND THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS?
That question would create another movement.
Its opponents called its members:
ANABAPTISTS.
The name meant:
“RE-BAPTIZERS.”
Many Anabaptists rejected that description.
From their point of view, their first baptism had occurred when they were infants and could not personally believe or repent.
So they argued that their later baptism was not:
RE-BAPTISM.
It was:
BAPTISM.
And now the Reformation would face another question.
If Scripture is our authority, what should we do with a baptismal practice inherited from centuries of church tradition?
IF SCRIPTURE IS OUR AUTHORITY, WHY ARE WE STILL BAPTIZING INFANTS?
That is where we go next.
TEXT B4 TRADITION
Read First. Conclude Later.
RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?
NEXT STUDY: IF SCRIPTURE IS OUR AUTHORITY, WHY ARE WE STILL BAPTIZING INFANTS?