Zwingli's Doctrines of Demons and the Church's Warring Madness

At the end of the LutheranSatire video "Whaddabout the Thief on the Cross," there is a bit at the end that I always heard as tongue-in-cheek which says "To my Sacramentarian friends, chill. I'm not seriously suggesting Zwingli is in hell...I'm boldly asserting it." The contempt for Zwingli from the Lutheran tradition is a very common meme, and even the Reformed (in my experience) are mostly embarrassed of him as a theologian. In this same vein, my understanding of the man mostly came from the Reformed-Lutheran debate over the Marburg colloquy, with the Reformed often complaining about Luther being schismatic and the Lutherans insisting on the importance of Christology and the supper in ecclesial matters like this. However, the more I learn about Zwingli, the more my contempt for him and concern over his soul grows; there is some truth to the meme.

A Doctrine of Demons

The Marburg Colloquy, which opened up greater concern about Zwingli’s harsh memorialist view of the sacrament, led him to receive much criticism. One argument really got to him in a way that he couldn’t shake: he couldn’t produce any example of a place in the scriptures where “is” clearly meant “represents” besides in parables, which would mean that for Zwingli’s position to be true, Christ would need to be speaking metaphorically in a way that was very out of character for him. The other and much more likely option, which also is

better attested to in church history, is that Christ wasn’t speaking metaphorically and actually communicated His flesh and blood under bread and wine. As a result of this concern, in one of his writings, the reformer wrote about a very perilous dream he had, which he was certain was from God and helped solve this conundrum. I will here reproduce Zwingli's account, as paraphrased by Pitassi, M., & Solfaroli's essay "Huldrych Zwingli's Dream of the Lord's Supper":

"In the dream Zwingli recounted he was first attacked by a secretary or scribe and routed in debate, left unable to speak. Then by means of a “theatrical staging device” an admonisher appeared, who rebuked the reformer, calling him a coward. Zwingli added that he did not know whether the person was in black or white...The force of the figure’s language was a rebuke to Zwingli, for the admonisher did not hesitate to insult the reformer, who was doing his best to contend with his opponent in debate...With Zwingli rendered mute in his confrontation with the adversary, only the dramatic appearance of the admonisher resolved the confrontation. The mysterious figure barked at Zwingli to respond to his opponent that in Exodus 12:11 it is written “Est enim Phase” (it is the Lord’s Passover)."

One thing that the essay noted is that Zwingli faced a great deal of “ridicule” for such an account. For one thing, he noted that his memory of this dream is very hazy. That is a strange thing, as one would expect a revelation from God to be crystal-clear and only mysterious in terms of content. In addition, we ought to analyze this figure of the admonisher (which could also be translated as warner or advisor). If you haven't already guessed, based on the title of this section, I am fairly certain that he was speaking to a demonic figure, but that will be much more clear as we go on.

Besides the obvious hilarity of him coming in on a theatrical machine, the first thing to point out is that the spirit is a very aggressive character, immediately calling Zwingli a coward. Notably, he was dressed in either white or black. Symbolically, that is immensely important, as black clothing would likely symbolize an evil figure, and white clothing a holy one. While we still would need to test his words in either case, it’s super interesting that the figure had either-or, as if he was trying to hide his true nature under the persona of an “angel of light” but couldn’t help showing his true colors, pun intended.

Once the admonisher finished breaking the bruised reed and quenching the smoldering wick, he then gave a very poor prooftext for Zwingli’s position. The argument is that Exodus 12:11, “this [the meal] is the Lord’s Passover,” uses “is” to mean "represents." Even if his claim were reasonable, which it isn't, he is clearly incorrect. Whoever it was that gave him this verse tore scripture from its context, which immediately refutes his claims:

“In this manner you shall eat it: with your belt fastened, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. And you shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord’s Passover. For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord.”

Zwingli and the admonisher treat this verse as if it is in isolation, in which case sure, the bread is not the Lord's passing over. However, the "it" which is the Lord's passover is not simply the bread only but it is the night, the same one in which they ate the meal and performed the rite. This is clear by the exact next sentence, in which God explains the reason for the rite and it’s name—the Lord will pass over the Egyptians that very same night. If the bread and lamb itself represented that to the Hebrews, that’d be a very poor image indeed, and he’s not yet talking about a later Passover meal, because only after this does God say that such a rite is to be repeated. In other words, this is nothing like Zwingli’s claim about the Lord’s Supper. In the reformer’s scheme, the Supper is merely an image that Christ uses to help us remember his passion. The original Passover, however, involved a literally passing over of God so that he wouldn’t kill the Israelites. How on earth could “is” not mean “is” in that context? What’s more, that means that Zwingli has a higher view of the original Passover than he does the original Supper, because at least the original Passover actually communicated the element (the Lord’s salvation of his people).

With all of this said, I think it’s self-evident that the spirit which aided Zwingli was diabolical in nature. Not only did he receive verbal chastisement for his weakness in arguing for error and lack the spiritual discernment to recognize the symbolic clothing (“either white or black”), but he was even taught to twist the Word of God—in a very paltry way, I might add. I am often very hesitant to claim my theological opponents as in league with demons, but I really see no other option here.

The Church’s Warring Madness

After Marburg and this constant argument with the Lutherans as well as Rome, Zwingli really fell into an even more bizarre error: semi-universalism. For clarity, I will reproduce a quotation from chapter 10 on Eternal Life in Zwingli’s work A Short Exposition of the Christian Faith, which he published shortly before he died:

“The good which we shall enjoy [in paradise] is infinite and the infinite cannot be exhausted; therefore no one can become surfeited with it, for it is ever now and yet the same. Then you may hope to see the whole company and assemblage of all the saints, the wise, the faithful, brave, and good who have lived since the world began. Here you will see the two Adams, the redeemed and the redeemer, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, Phineas, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, and the Virgin Mother of God of whom he prophesied, David, Hezekiah, Josiah, the Baptist, Peter, Paul; here too, Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides, Antigonus, Numa, Camillus, the Catos and Scipios; here Louis the Pious, and your predecessors, the Louis, Philips, Pepins, and all your ancestors who have gone hence in faith. In short there has not been a good man and will not be a holy heart or faithful soul from the beginning of the world to the end thereof that you will not see in heaven with God.”

It starts off fairly normal, describing the blisses of heaven, and he then describes biblical saints who we will see, wonderful but mundane stuff. Then he gives you theological whiplash and claims that Hercules, Socrates, Numa, and Scipio will all be in heaven. Hercules and Socrates were idolaters, and at least the former was demonically possessed, if not the latter as well. Numa was the author of Roman idolatry after the reign of Romulus, and Scipio was an Epicurean. If these are the folks in heaven, who could possibly be in hell? In any case, Zwingli’s position here is very strange, and according to Luther, even perilous.

Luther actually read and commented on this, and he pointed out that this confession mars our confession of baptism, the sacrament, Christ, and the Christian faith, since none of these are figures who had anything close to any of these. According to Luther’s diagnosis, Zwingl looks like he’s tending towards Pelagianism, as he is confessing that one needs none of these for his salvation if he does good works. This is, perhaps, the real problem with the modern semi-universalism, that it not only denies the God who bought us but also says that we can do His job ourselves. In any case, any cursory knowledge of most of these individuals is enough to say that Zwingli was simply off his rocker to believe anything like that. We pray that this was not his disposition upon his death, but only the Lord knows.

Atmittedly, this is a much less interesting point than the previous, but what it shows is the degredation that an extreme humanism creates for even those with noble intentions of leaving a problematic theological system. All of those who wish to leave their institution must be very careful that they are not doing so by falling to rationalism and that they keep their guard up, because when one is on their own and separation from the walls of an institution, they are vulnerable to a kind of bootstraps theology that honors reason and rejects the Word. When that happens, one strays toward the perilous territory that Zwingli himself already trod upon.