The main issue for Zwingli, however, was not the irrationality or exegetical fallacy of Luther’s views. They smacked of cannibalism on the one hand and of the pagan mystery religions on the other. Even more absurdly, Christ’s body would have to be swallowed, digested, even eliminated through the bowels! Such thoughts were repulsive to Zwingli. As such, therefore, it must be the material of the supper.' Indeed, to press the literal meaning of the text even farther, it follows that Christ would have again to suffer pain, as his body was broken again-this time by the teeth of communicants.

It was given for us in grossly material form, subject to wounds, blows and death. 'For this is the meaning they carry: this bread is that body of mine which is given for you. Yet, Zwingli replied, if the words were taken in their literal sense, the body had to be eaten in the most grossly material way. 'Luther claimed that the body of Christ was not eaten in a gross, material way but rather in some mysterious way, which is beyond human understanding. The executive editor for Christianity Today magazine carefully detailed the two views that would forever divide the Lutheran and Reformed view of the Supper: Zwingli, who emphasized the distinction of the natures, believed that while Christ in his deity was omnipresent, Christ's human body could only be present in one place, that is, at the right hand of the Father. Luther emphasized the oneness of Christ's person. This was possible because the attributes of God infused Christ's human nature. Luther believed that the human body of Christ was ubiquitous (present in all places) and so present in the bread and wine. Underlying this disagreement was their theology of Christ. For Zwingli, though, sign and thing signified were separated by a distance-the width between heaven and earth.' For Luther, however, that which the bread signified, namely the body of Christ, was present 'in, with, and under' the sign itself. Both Luther and Zwingli agreed that the bread in the Supper was a sign. Timothy George, an author and professor of Church History, summarized the incompatible views, 'On this issue, they parted without having reached an agreement. The Marburg Colloquy, painter of August Noack.Īlthough the two prominent reformers, Luther and Zwingli, found a consensus on fourteen theological points, they could not find agreement on the fifteenth point pertaining to the Eucharist. Both Luther and Zwingli fell out over the sacrament of the Eucharist. If Philip wanted the meeting to be a symbol of Protestant unity he was disappointed. Besides Luther and Zwingli, the reformers Stephan Agricola, Johannes Brenz, Martin Bucer, Caspar Hedio, Justus Jonas, Philipp Melanchthon, Johannes Oecolampadius, Andreas Osiander, and Bernhard Rothmann participated in the meeting. Philip's primary motivation for this conference was political he wished to unite the Protestant states in political alliance, and to this end, religious harmony was an important consideration.Īfter the Diet of Speyer had confirmed the edict of Worms, Philip I felt the need to reconcile the diverging views of Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli in order to develop a unified Protestant theology. The leading Protestant reformers of the time attended at the behest of Philip I of Hessen. It took place between 1 October and 4 October 1529. The Marburg Colloquy was a meeting at Marburg Castle, Marburg, Hesse, Germany, which attempted to solve a disputation between Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli over the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Marburg colloquy full text