MAJT23 (2012): 131-137

J o h a n n e s O e c o l a m p a d iu s :
C hr isto lo gy and t h e S u p p e r

by Nicholas Piotrowski

It is s a id th at Johannes Oecolampadius had “a very substantial role

to play in the establishm ent of Calvinism,” but has “for the most part
[been] ignored‫ ״‬in Reformation studies.1 The author of these words,
together with the other contributors to the 348 page book in which
they are found, ironically ignore him.2 And though Oecolampadius
was the lead reformer of Basel, “the mother city of learning‫( ״‬by virtue
of its universities, printing presses,3 and the way it served as tempo-
rary harbor for scholars of every stripe from the Catholic-leaning De-
siderius Erasm us to the Reformer William Far el to the Anabaptist
Hans Denck), he does not even get his own chapter in David C.
Steinmetz’s book devoted to other Reformers who have historically
been eclipsed by the greater lights of th at age.4 It seems this neglect
has led to simplistic caricatures of Oecolampadius as Zwingli’s uno-
riginal disciple and Calvin’s simple promoter. Overlooked are
Oecolampadius,s contribution to the Eucharistic debates of the
1520s and his implicit Christology evinced thereby. He did not simply
follow Zwingli in his doctrine of the Supper, but deviated in a signifi-
cant way th at made him a forerunner to Calvin’s doctrine of the spir-
itual presence of Christ.5

1. Brian G. Armstrong, “Calvin and Calvinism,” in Reformation Europe: A Guide to

R esearch II (ed. William S. Maltby; vol. 3 of Reformation Guides to Research; St. Louis:
Center for Reformation Research, 1992), 79.
2. The perception is doubly ironic because Oecolampadius died before Calvin ever
left Paris, let alone wrote the Institutes or taught in his academy or sent out a m ission-
aiy. How then did he establish Calvinism? This article argues, in part, that more than
establish Calvinism, Oecolampadius helped to construct it.
3. Cf. Thomas A. Fudge, “Icarus of Basel? Oecolampadius and the Early Swiss
Reformation,” Journal o f Religious History 21 (1997): 271.
4. David C. Steinmetz, Reformers in the Wings: From Geiler von Kayersberg to Theo-
dore B eza (2d. ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). Fudge (“Icarus,” 269, 284)
wonders if Oecolampadius’s reputation was perminantly soiled in the eyes of subse-
quent generations by Luthers rants against him in the Eucharistic controversy. But
that cannot be a sufficient reason; who did Luther not castigate in some manner or
another?
5. F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, eds., “Oecolampadius, Johannes,” Oxford Die-
tionary o f the Christian Church, 3rd ed., rev. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005),
1182. Fudge (“Icharus,” 274) identifies Oecolampadius as an influence on Thomas
Cranmer as well.
132 Mid-America Journal of Theology

In this article I will briefly situate Oecolampadius’s life among the

frenetic events of the early sixteenth century, and then use his in-
volvement in the Eucharistie debate as a window into his Christology.

1. Reformer of Basel
Johannes Oecolampadius was born Johannes Huszgen in Weins-
berg in 1482.6 He excelled greatly in his early education and drew
the attention of such scholars as Philip Melanchthon, Johannes
Reuchlin, and Wolfgang Capito.7 By 1515 he had already become a
m aster of Greek, Hebrew and Latin, so m uch so th at he was the only
one suitable enough to help Erasm us with the notes of his seminal
Greek New Testam ent.8 Reuchlin and Melanchthon both attem pted to
persuade him to take a post teaching Hebrew at Wittenberg.9 Instead
he became the cathedral preacher and confessor at Augsburg.10 Dur-
ing the years th at followed, his love for the Fathers gave birth to
many translations of their works. Then suddenly in 1520, to every-
one’s surprise, Oecolampadius entered the Bridgettine Cloister at Al-
tom ünster, supposedly to avoid having to take a position on Luther’s
doctrines.11
In the monastery, this m an of great learning was a “pike among
minnows.12‫ ״‬He continued to study the Fathers and Luther, the latter
of which wrote to him th ere.13 He, however, reached out to Zwingli.14
By 1522, realizing th a t the monastic life was not for him, he asked
his “brothers” to expel him, which they gladly did.15 He returned to
Basel, and in 1524 his very-well-attended sermons on Isaiah were

6 . Robert C. Walton, “Oecolampadius, Johannes,” The Oxford Encyclopedia o f the

Reformation, ed., Hans J. Hillebrand, 4 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996),
3:139. K. R. Hagenbach (History o f the Reformation in Germany and Sw itzerland Chief-
ly [trans. Evelina Moore; 2 vols.; Clark’s Foreign Theological Library 59; Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1878], 1:275) states that his surname was Hausschein.
7. Walton, “Oecolampadius,” 3:169.
8 . Gordon Rupp, Patterns o f Reformation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 9.
9. Walton, “Oecolampadius,” 170. One can only speculate how the Reformation
might have developed differently if the mild-mannered Oecolampadius had joined the
rowdy Wittenbergers.
10. Cross and Livingstone, “Oecolampadius,” 1182; Walton, “Oecolampadius,” 170.
11. Cross and Livingstone, “Oecolampadius,” 1182. Perhaps Erasmus—whom he
greatly admired—had rubbed off on him such that he too wanted to stay neutral. Per-
haps he wanted to emulate the solitary contemplative life he observed in some of the
Fathers. Either way, no one who knew him foresaw this monastic retreat.
12. Rupp, Patterns, 16.
13. Fudge, “Icarus,” 271.
14. Ibid.
15. Rupp, Patterns, 17. The monks did not understand why he was there any more
than his scholarly colleagues did. He was critical of their practices, he got special al-
lowances, and they could not understand why he was studying Luther. They thought
him a heretic more suited for the dungeon than the monastery (Fudge, “Icarus,” 270).
Interestingly, Charles V’s confessor, Glapio, also met him at Bridgettine and accused
him at Worms of being a Lutheran (Hagenbach, History, 1:277)! He would later deny
such a charge before Johann Eck (Walton, Oecolampadius, 171).
 Johannes Oecolampadius: Christology and the Supper 133

accused of having “smelt of Lutheranism .16‫ ״‬On All Souls Sunday of

th at same year he replaced the Mass with the Lord’s Supper.17 Basel
was on its way to reform.
In late November of 1524 Zwingli and Oecolampadius met, where
they discovered th at they already shared strikingly similar views of
the Lord's Supper.18 The following year Oecolampadius wrote his
treatise on the Supper, De genuine verborum Domini: Hoc est corpus
meum,19 the contents of which I will consider below. Suffice it for now
to comment on its divisive results. The faculty of the University of
Paris condemned it; Erasm us wrote against it; the city council of
Basil forbade its printing and circulation.20 For his part Martin Bu-
cer, sensing how it could divide his reforming friends, wrote to Lu-
ther, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius concerning how they ought to re-
spond to each other vis-à-vis this m atter.21
By 1529 the dispute had so divided the Swiss from the Witten-
bergers th at few were hopeful of reconciliation. Philip of Hesse, how-
ever, earnestly wanting a “pan-Protestant” alliance, called for a
summit meeting at his castle in Marburg in October 1529.22 Fourteen
points of theology were agreed upon. Sadly, though, the issue of the
presence of Christ in the Supper was enough of a wedge between the
parties.
I am tempted to continue to narrate more intriguing details of
Oecolampadius ,s life—such as how he was a forerunner to Calvin in
the areas of church government and discipline, how he got the nick-
name “Joh n the Apostle of the Reformation‫ ״‬because of his love even
for the A nabaptists,23 and how he married Wibrandis Rosenblatt,
former wife of Martin Cellarius and subsequent wife of Wolfgang Cap-
ito and Martin Bucer.24 But this should be enough to introduce us to

16. Hagenbach, History, 1:334-35.

17. Walton, “Oecolampadius,” 170.
18. Rupp, Patterns, 24. Fudge (“Icarus,” 273) claims that Oecolampadius set forth
the idea of the localized body of Christ in one place before Zwingli did. Perhaps they
were both influenced by Cornelius Hoen, a D utch Reformer, who in the autum n of
1524 wrote Zwingli a letter which contained a symbolic interpretation of the Supper. It
is rumored that Oecolampadius read the same letter; it was no federal offence in the
16th century to read other people’s mail while it was en route, if only one could so
exert their influence on the currier (Rupp, Patterns, 23).
19. Hagenbach, History, 1:365.
20. Fudge, “Icarus,” 272.
21. Walton, “Oecolampadius,” 170; Rupp, Patterns, 25. To give a further sense of
ju st how scared people were of this new teaching, it is worth noting that Basel had
been the center of publication for Luther’s works (Walton, “Oecolampadius,” 170).
Suddenly, here was something more threatening than even Luther! It had to be pub-
lished in Straßburg instead (Hagenbach, History, 1:367).
22. Timothy George, Theology o f the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman & Holman,
1988), 150.
23. Fudge, “Icarus,” 282.
24. Rupp, Patterns, 8 . If behind every great man stands a greater woman, then this
Fräulein did quadruple-duty for the Reformation!
134 Mid-America Journal of Theology

the m an and his times, and orient us toward considering his Chris-
tology implicit in his doctrine of the Eucharist.

2. On the Supper
First we will look at Oecolampadius ,s doctrine of the Eucharist,
then three stimuli th at shaped it, and finally its roots in Patristic
Christology.
Oecolampadius ’s view is not synonymous with Zwingli’s, for
he advocated more than a symbolic view of the Supper. In his 1525
treatise, De genuine verborum Domini: Hoc est corpus meum,
Oecolampadius taught th at the broken bread does indeed direct be-
lievers to the body of Christ. It is not, however, the resurrected and
ascended body of Christ, but the broken body on the cross to which
thoughts are directed.25 Christ’s body is only in heaven. The bread
and the wine symbolize the body and the blood, yet Christ is indeed
present spiritually and believers eat of him by faith.26 Where he dif-
fers from Luther is obvious. He differs from Zwingli on two points.
First, Oecolampadius saw the trope not in the verb (est) but in the
predicate (corpus).27 The difference here is subtle. Where Zwingli in-
terpreted hoc est corpus meum to mean “This signifies my body,‫״‬
Oecolampadius interpreted it to mean “This is my body symbolized,
Secondly, Oecolampadius taught th at Christ truly was present spirit-
ually, through fa ith in the eating and drinking.28 Oecolampadius even
finds occasion to make this point when preaching on Isaiah 6 in
1525:

He touched the m outh of the prophet, by which sign he might

be cleansed, in which way also to u s Christ instituted sacred
σφραγίδας [seals] for strengthening the infirmity of our con-
science. But no one is touched or receives worthily, except by
faith.29

Oecolampadius came to his conclusion via three avenues. His

first concern was hermeneutical. As mentioned above, Oecolampadi-
us saw a trope in Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, and Luke 22:19, ju st
as he did in Jo h n 6:50-5530 which is promptly followed up with clari-

25. Summary of De genuine verborum Domini from Hagenbach, H istory, 1:365-67.

26. Walton, “Oecolampadius,” 170.
27. Fudge, “Icarus,” 272.
28. Ibid., 273-74.
29. Johannes Oecolampadius, In Iesaiam Prophetam HUPOMNEMATON, hoc est,
Commentañorum, Ioannis Oecolampadii L ibriV l (Basel: Andreas Cratander, 1525), 60
[trans. V em S. Poythress and Diane M. Poythress; cited 14 Februaiy 2008]. Online:
http :/ / www.frame-poythress .org/ 0 e 6 .html.
30. “This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and
not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this
bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is
 Johannes Oecolampadius: Christology and the Supper 135

fying words in Jo h n 6:63—“It is the spirit th at gives life, the flesh is

of no avail; the words th at I have spoken to you are spirit and life
(RSV).‫ ״‬Thus, to Oecolampadius, the accidents are inconsequential
without the Spirit. Had Christ m eant th at his body was in the bread,
he could have said a/n this bread is my body.31‫ ״‬At the Marburg Col-
loquy, Luther insisted th at the debate revolve around w hat the Bible
says.32 Oecolampadius was happy to oblige, saying:

The sixth chapter of Jo hn explains the other passage of

Scripture. Christ does not speak there of a local presence. He
says, The flesh profiteth nothing/ I do not want to appeal to
reason or geometry—I do not deny the power of God—bu t be-
cause I possess the sum total of faith I speak out of it. Christ
is risen and is sitting at the right hand of the Father; conse-
quently he is not in the bread. Our point of view is neither
new nor against God; it rests upon faith and Scripture. One
m ust proceed from a carnal eating to spiritual eating. The
holy Scriptures use figures of speech, metaphors, metony-
mies, and the like, where the words mean something else
than they say. Thus it is possible th at the words This is my
body‫ ״‬are figurative speech, as we find it in some other pas-
sages: ‘Joh n is Elias' (Matt. 11.14); Ί am the vine' (John
15.1); The rock is Christ (I Cor. 10.4); The seed is the Word
of God’ (Luke 8 .1 1).33

Thus, to the Basel Reformer his view of the Supper was the child
of his Renaissance learning. To the fountains. To the text. To cogent
hermeneutics.
Secondly, Oecolampadius saw this interpretation in the Fathers
he so loved and long translated, namely Tertullian and Augustine,
but also Irenaeus, A thanasius, and Chrysostom. 34 In them he saw
precedent for his herm eneutic.35

my flesh.” The Jews then disputed among them selves, saying, "How can this man give
u s his flesh to eat?” So Jesu s said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat
the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats
my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed (RSV).‫״‬
31. Hagenbach, History, 1:367.
32. Oecolampadius was really out-matched in temperament with Luther. Luther set
the agenda and asked all the questions. Oecolampadius was constantly on his heels,
answering questions and defending his answers. He never him self pressed Luther the
way Luther pressed him. A reconstruction of the debate can be found in Hans J.
Hillerbrand, The Reformation in its Own Words (London: SCM Press, 1964), 155-60.
33. Translated and printed in Hillerbrand, Reformation, 157.
34. Rupp, Patterns, 2, 42-43; Fudge, “Icarus,” 272. This link to the Fathers is also a
contribution beyond Zwingli’s.
35. Rupp, Patterns, 25; Fudge, “Icarus,” 273.
136 Mid-America Journal of Theology

Finally, Oecolampadius was concerned not to deify a part of crea-

tion, and instead taught th a t Christ is bodily in heaven.36

Of a bodily presence of Christ since His exaltation to heaven,

the Scripture say nothing; in fact, the contrary is affirmed.
Not until the last day will the Lord truly appear again in the
body [this creation]. Till then we m ust think of Him in heav-
en. Our faith is thus directed to Christ and His reconciling
passion, and not to a participation in His body in the Lord’s
Supper. He is Himself the true bread of our souls, feeding us
now with faith and hereafter with eternal glory.37

In a 1527 letter he wrote:

I believe the natural body of Christ to be in one place, namely

heaven: otherwise there would be no true body. I freely con-
fess the Body of Christ to be present in the bread in that
mode in which it is present in the Word itself, through which
the bread becomes a sacram ent and a visible word. Through
faith the Body of Christ which is absent as it can be is as
present as it can be to the soul.38

Herein, do we not see less of Zwingli’s student and more of Cal-

vin’s teacher? Christ is both absent physically and also present spir-
itually, apprehended not by touch or taste b u t by faith. Thus, the
“true body‫ ״‬is preserved.
To summarize, Oecolampadius arrived at a proto-Calvinistic un-
derstanding of the Supper as a result of three stimuli. One was his
hermeneutic, another his devotion to the Fathers, and a third to his
insistence that Christ’s natural body can only be in one place at one
time, namely in heaven, after the resurrection. It is this final consid-
eration th at invites further reflection.

3. Nicene and Chalcedonian Commitments

It appears to me th at Oecolampadius, in the Supper, did right not
only by Chalcedonian Christology, bu t also by Niceno-Constantino-
politan Trinitarianism. He indeed affirmed the presence of Christ in
the meal, but did so with respect for the full and very real hum anity

36. Hagenbach, History, 1:366-67.

37. Johannes Oecolampadius, De genuine verborum Domini: Hoc est corpus meum,
etc., ju xta uetustissim os auctores expositione liber (translated and printed in Ha-
genbach, History, 1:367).
38. Ernst Staehelin, ed., Briefe und Akten zum Leben Oekolampads: Zum
vierhundertjährigen Jubiläum der B asler Reformation II (Quellen und Forschungen zur
Reformationsgeschichte XI; New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1971), no. 470
(translated and printed in Rupp, History, 27).
 Johannes Oecolampadius: Christology and the Supper 137

of Christ and with recourse to the oneness of the Godhead. To have

Christ present does not necessitate a bodily presence. In fact, his
hum anity confines him to one spatial location. Whereas being homo-
ousios with the Father and Spirit, Christ can be present where the
Spirit is present. Thus Oecolampadius deftly navigates many myster-
ies yet has no need for obtuse Aristotelianism. Could it be th at Lu-
ther’s doctrine of the Supper was hindered because he did not see
any recourse to the presence of Christ in Trinitarian term s? In this
neglect, does Luther not make a slight Chalcedonian misstep, even in
his attem pt to aggressively defend the hum anity of Christ?39 Or
would he direct his rant against me as well for saying such things?
Perhaps my reader of a more cordial generation will be gentler in as-
sessing my argument.
On November 23, 1531 Johannes Oecolampadius “entered the
true presence,40‫ ״‬only weeks after Zwingli. Two years later Calvin fled
Paris and took up in Switzerland where Oecolampadius and Zwingli
left off. Of course, more could be said about the battles Oecolampa-
dius fought on many other Reformation fronts. He was the instru-
ment th at God was pleased to use to reform Basel, a very significant
16th century European city, in many ways the kindling of the blaze
th at would become Geneva.

39. That is, when Luther was challenged as to why he believed it necessary to have
Christ present in the Supper, he is alleged to have bellowed, “I know of no God except
the one who became man, and I want none other!” (George, Theology o f the Reformers,
155). But if he can be present eveiywhere, what kind of man is he?
40. Rupp, Patterns, 43.
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.