No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 September 2019
The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead at the end of time has often been the subject of speculation in the history of theology, seen especially in the influence of Augustine. The Reformers, seeking to avoid speculation here as elsewhere, turned to meditation on the risen Christ. This article expounds two Reformed accounts, those of Heinrich Bullinger (1504–75) and Francis Turretin (1623–87), which follow an anti-speculative rule formulated by Calvin: ‘we keep our eyes fixed upon Christ’. This rule, it is seen, also presses them to deny the Lutheran doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's humanity.
1 Marschler, Thomas, Auferstehung und Himmelfahrt Christi in der scholastischen Theologie bis zu Thomas von Aquin, 2 vols. (Münster: Aschendorff, 2003), vol. 1, pp. 498–543Google Scholar.
2 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 502.
3 Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 518–22, with reference to, inter alia, Bonaventure, Collationes in Hexaemeron 20.15 on Christ's passion and resurrection as figurae (p. 521 n. 86); Sermo 21, ‘In resurrectione Domini’ no. 6, on the resurrection of Christ the head being a monstruosa res without the resurrection of the members of his body.
4 Marschler, Auferstehung, vol. 1, p. 534, with reference to Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 3.56.1.2; see 3.56.1.1 for the fittingness of our conformity to Christ's suffering and death prior to our conformity to his resurrection.
5 Ludwig Ott with Erich Naab, Eschatologie in der Scholastik, vol. 4/7b of Schmaus, Michael, Grillmeier, Alois, Scheffczyk, Leo and Seybold, Michael (eds), Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte (Freiburg: Herder, 1990), p. 116Google Scholar. Richard also grounded it ‘positively’ in a saying of Boethius, and in Job 19:25–6 and Ezek 17:12. Cf. Perler, Dominik, ‘What is a Dead Body? Richard of Mediavilla and Dietrich of Freiburg on a Metaphysical Puzzle’, Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales 82/1 (2015), pp. 61–87Google Scholar.
6 Peter of Palude (d. 1342) denied Durand's argumentation (see Ott, Eschatologie in der Scholastik, pp. 131–2).
7 In the chapter on final resurrection, Calvin once uses the phrase perniciosis speculationibus (Institutio religionis christianae, vol. 2 of Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. G. Baum, E. Cunitz and E. Reuss, 59 vols. [= Corpus Reformatorum 29–87] (Brunswick: Schwetschke, 1863–1900), 3.25.10 (vol. 2, p. 742), hereafter CO). Among the four occurrences of ‘speculation’ in Beveridge's translation (Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1863), 3.25.8, 10, 11 [×2], vol. 2, pp. 271–5), one is the above-mentioned speculatio, two are philosophare (3.25.8) and excutere (3.25.11), and one is a mere insertion. Restraint from speculating beyond what scripture discloses is, however, everywhere in the final section of the chapter (3.25.8–11). For clarification of what Calvin means by ‘speculation’, see Muller, Richard A., ‘Scholasticism in Calvin: A Question of Relation and Disjunction’, in The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: OUP, 2000), pp. 39–61Google Scholar.
8 Lombard, Peter, Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, 3rd edn (Grottaferrata: Editiones Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas, 1971–81)Google Scholar, 4.43.1 (vol. 2, p. 511).
9 John Calvin, Christianae religionis institutio (Basel, 1536), p. 151. The second element is an emphasis that each receives carnem suam, that is, his or her ‘own flesh’ at the resurrection. What it means to receive one's ‘own flesh’ will be important for Bullinger's and Turretin's rejection of Lutheran ascriptions of ubiquity to Christ's risen body, as is shown below. It also shows that long before his encounter with Lelio Sozzini's suggestion that human beings are raised novis corporibus Calvin was committed to the traditional doctrine: see John Calvin, Ep. 1212 to Laelius Socinus, July 1549 (CO, vol. 13, p. 309).
10 John Calvin, Institution de la religion chrestienne (Geneva, 1541), pp. 293–4: ‘Icy nous auons le but et accomplissement de nostre beatitude [Latin, beatitudo]. Et pour le premier poinct, la resurrection de la chair nous est certifiée: par laquelle nous entrons en possession de la vie éternelle. … Laquelle chose est non seullement est difficille à croire: mais du tout incredible, si nous la voulons estimer selon la raison humaine [humano captu]. … Car, qui est ce qui se pourroit aduiser; que les corps que nous auons; dont aucuns pourissent en terre; autres sont mengez des verms; les autres des oiseaulx[, etc.] … doibuent vne fois estre remiz en leur entier? Toutefois le Seigneur a tresbien obuié à cette difficulté: non seulement en testifiant par certains parolles ceste resurrection future: mais en nous en donnant certitude visible [apertum … specimen] en Iesus Christ … Parquoy si nous voulons bien entendre quelle sera [qualis futura sit] ceste resurrection: il nous fault toujours regarder en Iesus Christ, qui en est le miroir [exemplar], & la substance’; cf. Institutio christianae religionis (Strasbourg: Wendelin Rihel, 1539), p. 153.
11 Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.25.1, trans. Beveridge (vol. 2, p. 260); CO, vol. 2, p. 729: Quum ita oculis in Christum defixis e coelo pendemus.
12 Ibid., 3.25.3 (vol. 2, pp. 261–3).
13 Or even his pre-resurrection humanity: see Elliott, Mark, ‘Christology in the Seventeenth Century’, in Murphy, Francesca Aran with Stefano, Troy A. (eds), Oxford Handbook of Christology (Oxford: OUP, 2015), pp. 297–311Google Scholar, 301–5.
14 In signing the Consensus Tigurinus, Calvin made certain concessions to Bullinger and the Zurich pastors. Nevertheless, these do not affect the matters under consideration here. See Campi, Emidio and Reich, Ruedi (eds), Consensus Tigurinus: Heinrich Bullinger und Johannes Calvin über das Abendmahl (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zurich, 2009)Google Scholar; and the special issue of Reformation and Renaissance Review 18/1 (2016).
15 Bullinger, Heinrich, In sacrosanctum Iesu Christi domini nostri Evangelium secundum Matthaeum commentariorum libri XII (Zurich: Christoffel Froschouer, 1542)Google Scholar. That Bullinger identifies resurrection as a locus communis worthy of extended, separate treatment appears immediately from his introduction: Hactenus paucissimis perstrinxi historiam Resurrectionis domini nostri Iesu Christi sicuti illam nobis breuibus contexuit S. Matth. quoniam nihil uero ab euangelistis, adde ab omnibus apostolic traditum est operosius ac diligentius Resurrectione Christi, statui iam de ea paulo prolixius disserere (267r). For more on the role of loci communes in early Reformation exegesis and theology, see Amos, N. Scott, ‘Exegesis and Theological Method’, in Kirby, Torrance, Campi, Emidio and James, Frank A. III (eds), A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli (Leiden: Brill, 2009), pp. 175–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, pp. 101–17; McKee, Elsie Anne, ‘Some Reflections on Relating Calvin's Exegesis and Theology’, in Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective: Studies in Honor of Karlfried Froehlich on his Sixtieth Birthday (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 215–26Google Scholar, esp. pp. 216–20.
16 Hoffnung der Gloubigen. Von der Uferstentnus und Himmelfahrt unsers Herrn Jesu Christi …, trans. Johansen Friesen (Zurich: Christoffel Froschouer, 1544); Resurrectio de gloriosa Domini nostri Iesu Christi, nostrorumque corporum resurrectione, & uita sanctorum perpetua, libellus [hereafter Resurrectio] (Zurich: Christoffel Froschouer, 1545). This explains why the German translation appeared before the original Latin treatise.
17 The chapter divisions originate with the editor of the separate Latin edition, Erb, Matthias: Heinrich Bullinger Bibliographie, vol. 1/1 of Heinrich Bullinger Werke, ed. Büsser, Fritz (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zurich, 1972), p. 73Google Scholar.
18 Bullinger, Resurrectio, p. 31r: Verum huic difficultati optime consulit dominus, qui primum apertum & manifestissimum in resurrectione Christi specimen futurae & certissimae resurrectionis ob oculos statuit, in quem ceu hypostasin exemplar ac resurgendi uirtutem perpetuo respicere debemus, quoties cogitamus qualis futura sit resurrectio mortuorum. The words closely echo Calvin's 1539 Institutio (see n. 20 below).
19 Ibid., p. 29r.
20 Calvin, Institutio christianae religionis (1539), p. 153: Proinde dum rite uolumus cogitare, qualis futura sit resurrectio, in Christum semper respiciendum est, illius Hypostasin & exemplar.
21 Bullinger, Resurrectio, p. 6v. The first chapter is titled, ‘That our Lord truly resurrected in his true body.’ Though this is an editorial addition (see n. 17 above), it pulls from the author's own text (fol. 11r–v; see n. 23).
22 Ibid., p. 8r.
23 Ibid., p. 11r–v.
24 Ibid., pp. 8v–9r.
25 Ibid., pp. 24v–25r.
26 Ibid., p. 26r.
27 Letter 1967, Johannes Gast to Bullinger, Sept. 1544, in Heinrich Bullinger Werke, vol. 2/14, Briefe des Jahres 1544 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zurich, 2011), p. 354: ‘Germanico libello Lutherum exacerbabis’. See Heron, Alasdair, ‘“If Luther will accept us with our confession … ”: The Eucharistic Controversy in Calvin's Correspondence up to 1546’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 62/3 (2006), p. 879CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28 Bullinger, Resurrectio, pp. 38v–39r.
29 Ibid., p. 39v.
30 Ibid., p. 65r: Docuit autem superius, Coelum esse locum assumpti in gloriam corporis Christi: unde consequens est locum beatorum hoc ipsum esse coelum in quod uero suo corpore ascendit dominus.
31 Ibid., p. 28r.
32 Francis Turretin, Institutio theologiae elencticae, 4 vols. (Geneva: Samuel de Tournes, 1679–86), 20.1.10 (vol. 4, p. 631).
33 Ibid., 20.1.13 (vol. 4, p. 633).
34 Ibid., 20.1.3–4 (vol. 4, pp. 628–9).
35 Ibid., 20.1.5 (vol. 4, p. 629).
36 Ibid., 20.1.6–7 (vol. 4, p. 630).
37 Ibid., 20.1.8 (vol. 4, p. 630).
38 Ibid., 20.1.9–12 (vol. 4, pp. 631–3).
39 Marschler, Auferstehung und Himmelfahrt Christi, vol. 1, pp. 498–543.
40 Turretin, Institutio theologiae elencticae 20.1.13 (vol. 4, pp. 633–4).
41 Ibid., 20.1.24 (vol. 4, p. 638).
42 Caroline Walker Bynum, The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200–1336 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), esp. pp. 229–55.
43 Ibid., p. 235 and n. 21.
44 Incorruptioni respondet impassibilitas, gloriae claritas, virtuti agilitas, & spiritualitati subtilitas. Turretin, Institutio theologiae elencticae 20.9.3 (vol. 4, p. 692).
45 Ibid., 20.9.4 (vol. 4, p. 692).
46 Ibid., 20.9.5 (vol. 4, pp. 692–3).
47 Ibid., 20.9.7 (vol. 4, pp. 693–4).
48 Ibid., 20.9.8 (vol. 4, pp. 693–4).
49 Ibid., 20.9.9–10 (vol. 4, pp. 694–5).
50 Ibid., 20.9.11 (vol. 4, p. 695).
51 Augustine, De civitate Dei 22.29. Augustine stresses the speculative nature of his exercise: to understand the eschatological peace of seeing God is beyond not only human understanding but even that of the angels (cf. Phil 4:7). To be fair to Augustine, he acknowledges that not only the tongue but all the parts of the body will contribute to praise of God in the eschaton (22.30).
52 Turretin, Institutio theologiae elencticae 20.13.2–4 (vol. 4, pp. 711–12).
53 Ibid., 20.13.7 (vol. 4, p. 712). There is now some debate whether the Greek Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ in Acts 26 means Hebrew (so ESV, NASB, NRSV) or Aramaic (NIV, CEV). See e.g. Randall Buth and Chad Pierce, ‘Hebraisti in Ancient Texts: Does Ἑβραϊστί Ever Mean “Aramaic”?’, in Randall Buth and R. Steven Notley (eds), The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), pp. 66–109, at 97–8.
54 Turretin, Institutio theologiae elencticae 20.13.10 (vol. 4, p. 713).
55 Calvin, Institutio religionis christianae 3.25.3; CO, vol. 2, p. 731: Iam quoties de resurrectione agitur, occurrat Christi imago.
56 Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.17.26, trans. Beveridge (vol. 2, pp. 579–80).
57 Cf. van Inwagen, Peter, ‘The Possibility of Resurrection’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 9/2 (1978), p. 119CrossRefGoogle Scholar. As I have been arguing, these are the least important questions involved in the doctrine. For a healthier perspective from the same analytic philosophy of religion camp, see Davis, Stephen T., ‘Resurrection, Personal Identity and the Will of God’, in Gasser, Georg (ed.), Personal Identity and Resurrection: How Do We Survive our Death? (New York: Routledge, 2010), pp. 19–31Google Scholar.
58 Turretin, Institutio theologiae elencticae 20.9.11 (vol. 4, p. 695).
59 Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.17.29, trans. Beveridge (vol. 2, p. 584).
60 Calvin, Institutio religionis christianae (1559), 2.16.14 and 4.17.31–3.