Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 82:2 (Fall 2020)
Article: What Sort Of Nachfolger Of Zwingli Was Bullinger?
Author: Joe Mock

WTJ 82:2 (Fall 2020) p. 301

What Sort Of Nachfolger Of Zwingli
Was Bullinger?

Joe Mock

Joe Mock ministers at Gracepoint Chinese Presbyterian Church at Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia.

The secondary literature on Zurich theology often takes as its starting point the dependence of Heinrich Bullinger on the thought of Huldrych Zwingli. This is because Bullinger is regarded as Zwingli’s successor or Nachfolger, who closely followed and echoed Zwingli’s teaching. Furthermore, “Zwinglianism” is often imprecisely equated with Zurich theology.

This article examines those sections of Bullinger’s commentary on 1 Corinthians (1534) that discuss the Lord’s Supper. Bullinger does cite Zwingli’s Concerning the Protests of Eck (1530) and An Exposition of the Faith (1531) but none of the other works of Zwingli on the Lord’s Supper. Of particular note is Bullinger’s use of Ratramnus’s treatise on the Lord’s Supper (early 840s), which had influenced Berengar of Tours (c. 999–1088). Although Zwingli did refer to the importance of 1 Cor 10:1–5 for understanding the Lord’s Supper it was Bullinger who, using Ratramnus’s treatise, made a more comprehensive study of this pericope to underscore feeding on Christ spiritually by the elect in the Lord’s Supper.

Both Bullinger and Zwingli were trained in humanism, rhetoric, and the use of the biblical languages. Since both placed the utmost priority on correctly interpreting Scripture through judicial use of the tools they were trained and skilled in, it is not surprising that, unfettered by the tradition of the medieval church, they came, independently, to similar views of the Lord’s Supper. There were, of course, nuanced differences between their respective understandings of the Lord’s Supper. With the passing of time Bullinger felt free to express his views in the context of defending Zurich theology as opposed to defending Zwinglian theology.

It used to be taken as virtually axiomatic by some scholars that, as Huldrych Zwingli’s (1484–1531) Nachfolger, Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) closely followed and echoed Zwingli’s teaching. An extreme extrapolation of this account would be to argue that Bullinger had little independent thought to

WTJ 82:2 (Fall 2020) p. 302

add to that of Zwingli’s. However, recent scholarship on Bullinger has actually highlighted the independence and genius of his thought.1

A case can be made that it was actually Bullinger who influenced Zwingli on key aspects of understanding the Lord’s Supper and of the covenant as a theme linking the message o...