Comments on: Luther vs. Zwingli 5: Humanity and Omnipresence

By: Matthew Lipsey

Matthew Lipsey — Tue, 22 May 2012 00:35:11 +0000

Incidentally, I found your mention of Luther’s insistence that Zwingli read Latin or German quite interesting. This is, in part, because of what Alfred Edersheim wrote in “The Life & Times of Jesus The Messiah” regarding the Aramaic that Jesus was likely speaking. What are your thoughts?

“…None of these give us the very words of Christ, since these were spoken in Aramæan. In the renderings which we have of them one series may be described as the more rugged and literal, the other as the more free and para-phrastic. The differences between them are, of course, exceedingly minute; but they exist. As regards the text which underlies the rendering in our A.V., the difference suggested are not of any practical importance, with the exception of two points. First, the copula ‘is’ ['This is My Body,' 'This is My Blood'] was certainly not spoken by the Lord in the Aramaic…”

And:

“In the nature of it, such a truth could only be set forth by illustration. When Christ said: ‘I am the Vine, the true one, and My Father is the Husbandman;’ or again, ‘Ye are the branches’ – bearing in mind that, as He spake it in Aramaic, the copulas ‘am,’ ‘is,’ and ‘are,’ would be omitted…”

By: Matthew Lipsey

Matthew Lipsey — Tue, 22 May 2012 00:12:27 +0000

I am enjoying this series–a couple years after the fact!

However, you state that “is” is not in the Greek. Doesn’t “estin” mean “is”?

By: Luther Vs. Zwingli: Faith vs. Reason | The Church of Jesus Christ

Luther Vs. Zwingli: Faith vs. Reason | The Church of Jesus Christ — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:38:27 +0000

[...] 5. Humanity and Omnipresence [...]

By: blackhaw

blackhaw — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:24:49 +0000

Yes Christ is the prototype. But does that mean our bodies will be exactly like His after the ressurrection? I do not know. But our bodies will be like His. And I am not saying that Zwingli was wrong about Christ being in many different places as the church takes Mass. I just do not know if his argument holds water. But Luther might have the right idea. Chirst’s presence in the Eucharist is basically a mystery of the faith.

By: trevinwax

trevinwax — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:34:59 +0000

You’re right… It’s Eutychianism. I’ve fixed it in the text above.

If Christ’s humanity is deified, then it should be said that we will all be deified. We shall be like him. Christ’s resurrection body is the prototype for our future glorified bodies.

By: blackhaw

blackhaw — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:15:25 +0000

“According to Zwingli, Luther’s fusion of Christ’s divine and human natures was a dangerous flirtation with Nestorianism (the heresy that claimed Christ’s natures were fused together, creating a third kind of nature)”

Don’t you mean Eutychianism (sp?)? Nestorianism is the heresy of two sons or of the man and the Word. It is a splitting apart of the two natures in Christ.

Also I think the fathers of the Christological controversies would argue that Christ’s humanity is deified. Thus they were not arguing for a simple or unaffected humanity in Christ. Christ’s humanity was deified by his divinity. Thus it is not exactly like undefied humanity. Christ can appear and disappear, walk through walls, etc.. These types of things a normal human body cannot do. Thus I think the reformed (Zwinglian) argument really fails here because it does not take into account what the Fathers who participated in the councils actually thought.

Maybe a more nuanced argument against multiple (I do not know if it has to be omni) presence of Christ’s humanity could work along similiar lines. However it does not work Biblically, nor historically in the ways often described. (like here). It just does not take into account the deified humanity of Christ.