The Disregarded Doctrine Of The Atonement In The Exposition Of Hebrews By John Oecolampadius (1482–1531)

By Jeff Fisher

[Jeff Fisher is a Ph.D. candidate in historical theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Ill., and an ordained minister of the Word in the Christian Reformed Church in North America. This article was originally presented at the Sixteenth Century Society and Conference, October 2011, in Fort Worth, Tex.]

I. Introduction

At the center of the Christian faith is the death of Christ. Yet there is significant disagreement about what was actually accomplished by the death of Christ. In recent theological scholarship, atonement theology has been the subject of intense criticism, heated debates, and widespread controversy. These arguments have primarily focused on what model or theory of the atonement is most appropriate for the Christian faith.[1] This dispute has compelled scholars to reassess the traditional understanding of the doctrine, to revisit what the biblical texts say, and to explore what the history of Christian witness reveals about the development of theological classifications.

This study seeks to correct an oversimplified portrayal of the teaching of the first-generation Reformer in Basel, John Oecolampadius (1482–1531) and the development of atonement theology in the early Reformed tradition coming out of Switzerland.[2] Correctly understanding his teaching is important because Oecolampadius was an influential reformer, who taught during a very significant transitional period in the history of theology. Oecolampadius is best known for assisting Erasmus with the first edition of the Novum Instrumentum in 1515 and standing alongside Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529. Yet he was regularly considered an important figure in his own right, frequently receiving praise from his contemporaries for his philological, exegetical, and theological abilities. Even one of his opponents, the papal nuncio Aleander, recognized Oecolampadius as “learned in three languages, and one of the outstanding scholars in the world of German scholarship.”[3] Hans Guggisberg summarizes the perception of Oecolampadius among his contemporaries as “undoubtedly a courageous man and the most knowledgeable theologian among the reformed preachers.”[4]

By the age of 21, Oecolampadius had earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in theology from the University of Heidelberg. He was ordained as a priest at some point prior to April 1510, when he began serving in his home town of Weinsberg. Over the next decade, he continued his study of theology and the biblical languages at the universities of Stuttgart, Tübingen, and Basel, earning his Doctorate of Divinity from the University of Basel in 1518. Oecolampadius became an expert in the biblical languages and the early church fathers. He was one of the rare preachers of the time who was “trilingual”—having acquired Greek, Hebrew, and Latin in order to explain the meaning of the Scriptures. By May 1519, while serving as the cathedral preacher at Augsburg, he had already begun to align himself with Luther sympathizers and to preach views that were more evangelical than traditional. Following his return to Basel near the end of 1522, he was appointed as the professor of Old Testament at the University of Basel in June 1523. His biblical lectures sometimes drew overflow crowds of over 400 people. These lectures and some of his sermon series were eventually published as seventeen different commentaries covering twenty-one books of the Bible.[5] Functioning in the dual role of preacher and professor, Oecolampadius led the way for the Reformation to be embraced in Basel, and played a significant role in the theological development of the Swiss Reformation.

II. Categorization Of Oecolampadius

In his influential volume on the development of the doctrine of justification, Iustitia Dei, Alister McGrath makes assertions about Oecolampadius that need to be corrected.[6] Critical readers have often identified the need for more in-depth study on some of the historical details in Iustitia Dei.[7] While the recent third edition addresses some of the concerns expressed about the earlier versions, McGrath himself notes “it is still an uncomfortable fact” that some of the work is based on older scholarship.[8] The portrayal of Oecolampadius’s theology is among the historical details that are based on outdated scholarship. McGrath asserts that Oecolampadius was an early humanist who held to “subjective” views on justification and the atonement.[9] His summary of the atonement theology of Oecolampadius is that “Christ’s death upon the cross exemplifies the divine love for man, which is intended to move man to moral excellence.”[10] In an article published prior to the original edition of Iustitia Dei, McGrath more specifically maintains,

[Oecolampadius] differs from Zwingli in developing a subjective theory of the Atonement, which could be seen as representing an even greater emphasis upon the ethical nature of justification. In contrast to Zwingli’s “Anselmian” theory of the Atonement, Oecolampadius develops an “Abailardian” theory.[11]

McGrath’s portrayal of Oecolampadius’s views is based on the conclusions of Henri Strohl’s book on the Reformation published in 1951.[12] McGrath reiterates the exact same conclusions that Strohl makes, and uses the same references to Oecolampadius’s writings as Strohl did. When Strohl’s work on Oecolampadius is considered, it also becomes apparent that he drew most of his conclusions from selected portions of the biography of Oecolampadius by Ernst Staehelin published in 1939.[13] With the exception of the sermons on 1 John, Strohl only interacts with the portions of Oecolampadius’s writings which are summarized in Staehelin. It was based on this selective study that Strohl concluded that Oecolampadius did not hold to the doctrine of Anselm. Strohl justified this conclusion from statements in Oecolampadius’s lectures on Hebrews where it seems that Oecolampadius taught that the sacrifice of Christ did not appease the anger of God since God does not change his feelings, but rather fluctuations in our faith makes it appear as if God were angry or appeased.[14] McGrath simply imports these conclusions by Strohl into his portrayal of the theological development in the early stages of the Reformation.[15] Since very few scholars have done much research on Oecolampadius in general, this portrayal by McGrath has essentially gone unchallenged. For example, Thomas Fudge observed, “For a man so highly regarded in the sixteenth century, it is a curiosity that he has faded so in Reformation historiography.”[16] Bruce Gordon and Amy Nelson Burnett have also noted that Oecolampadius has drawn little scholarly attention.[17] Yet a few authors have observed aspects of Oecolampadius’s writings that present a different picture than McGrath has given us.[18] When the writings of Oecolampadius are more fully explored, it becomes apparent that McGrath’s categorization of Oecolampadius needs to be revised.

III. Definitions For Atonement

If labels and categories are going to be applied to historical figures, then it is essential that we understand what we are looking for in order to discern whether a certain person, like Oecolampadius, actually taught what a certain label or category includes. McGrath himself outlines various theories of the atonement in his Christian Theology. He acknowledges that while Peter Abelard did not teach that the cross was only a demonstration of the love of God without any sense of sacrifice, he identifies that Abelard’s emphasis upon the subjective impact of the cross is what makes his theory distinctive. And therefore, the category of an Abelardian moral influence theory is the teaching that Christ’s death was a public demonstration of the extent of God’s love intended to evoke a response of love from humanity.[19] In contrast to the subjective Abelardian theory, the objective view is the Anselmian satisfaction theory of atonement.[20] McGrath recounts that Anselm of Canterbury answered the question why God became man by reasoning that people had an obligation to offer an infinite satisfaction of honor to God because of their sin, and since only God could meet that obligation, the God-man came to pay this satisfaction in order to obtain forgiveness of sins.[21] Gwenfair Walters provides a useful summary in stating, “For Anselm the goal was to preserve God’s honor; for Abelard it was to propound God’s love. Anselm focused on the objective; Abelard on the subjective. Anselm emphasized the effects of the atonement on God, and Abelard the effects of the atonement on humanity.”[22] In addition to the satisfaction theory of atonement, a further objective theory of the atonement, known as penal substitution, began to emerge in the sixteenth century as the Reformers modified Anselm’s theory to focus less on the debt of sin in terms of honor, and more on the ideas of penalty and punishment in terms of justice.[23] This view of the atonement teaches that all humans are sinners and deserve the wrath, judgment, and punishment of God, but that Christ’s death appeased the wrath of God by paying the penalty of sin as a substitute on behalf of those who believe in him. As we consider the writings of Oecolampadius, these are the elements that will be used to categorize his teachings on the atonement.

IV. The Teachings Of Oecolampadius

To assess Oecolampadius’s views, we will primarily consider his exegesis from his commentary on Hebrews. The main reason for this selection is that it is the source that McGrath and Strohl cite to argue that Oecolampadius held to an Abelardian view of the atonement.[24] The Hebrews commentary comes from one of the last series of exegetical lectures by Oecolampadius, which he taught from the spring of 1529 to the fall of 1530.[25] His commentaries based on his earliest lectures and sermons will also be briefly incorporated in order to demonstrate that statements made in his later teaching on this subject do not differ greatly from his earlier teaching.[26] When these writings are considered, it will become very apparent that applying the label of Abelardian to Oecolampadius’s teaching on the atonement cannot be maintained. In saying this, there is no dispute that Oecolampadius emphasized right living, morality, ethics, love for God and others, and the new life in Christ based on our response to Christ’s love on the cross. Evidence for these elements abounds in his writings. For instance, Oecolampadius identified in the middle of these lectures on Hebrews that in his sacrifice, “Christ gave an example, whose footsteps you should desire to follow.”[27] The claim that is being challenged is that Oecolampadius’s ethical and moral emphasis demonstrates an exclusively moral influence theory of the atonement which rejected an objective satisfaction theory of the atonement.

The conclusion—made by Strohl and echoed by McGrath—that Oecolampadius rejected the satisfaction theory of atonement is mostly based on Oecolampadius’s comments on Heb 1:3.[28] In that passage Oecolampadius rhetorically presented possible objections, “If we are saved only by the mercy of God, why was the cross imposed on Christ? Is it possible that by this suffering of the Son, the Father has become mutable? And was he not able to make his righteousness sufficient, except by the blood of Christ?”[29] He then responded by applying the notion of impassibility in the tradition of Philo to say that God does not change his will or go from angry to gentle, even with regard to the suffering of the Son.[30] Strohl extracts the next statement from Oecolampadius’s line of reasoning to claim that Oecolampadius taught that it only appears as though God is sometimes angry and sometimes appeased, but that God’s anger was not actually appeased or his mind actually changed by the death of Christ. Oecolampadius stated, “Rather we experience variation from [God] in ourselves from which our sense of election (which strives toward God with a pure conscience) fades when the covenant of peace and life is violated by unbelief.”[31]

Unfortunately, Strohl’s conclusion was not based on the whole context of the passage, nor the rest of the commentary, nor the rest of Oecolampadius’s writings. Both the sentences immediately before and after the one that Strohl highlighted reveal that the context for Oecolampadius’s answers to these objections comes from the doctrine of election. Oecolampadius previously stated, “Not only did God never impute sin to the elect ones, but he always considers and considered them as elect ones.”[32] Oecolampadius then proceeded by contending that “to speak about predestination differently is not right.”[33] Oecolampadius’s response to these hypothetical objections is that from God’s perspective, God’s feeling or mind toward an elect person never changed, because that person was always considered elected. Rather, God always loved and delighted in those whom he always considered chosen. Oecolampadius is not rejecting the Anselmian satisfaction theory, but instead is answering how one can uphold both God’s immutability and the meaning of the suffering and death of Christ.

This passage, which Strohl cites as evidence that Oecolampadius rejected a satisfaction theory of the atonement, actually teaches that the death of Christ shows us God’s love because the satisfaction, which he does not demand from us, has been provided by the death of Christ.

Accordingly, we think that [God is] now angry, now pacified, just as we ourselves would be affected—besides, it would not have been considered by our consciences and minds, which are thus terrified by sins, that they are not at all promised that God would be propitious to them without some satisfaction. Consequently, declaring that he loves us very much, God chose the most holy way by which we would be purified from unfaithfulness and we would not at all doubt that he is propitious to us—as he does not demand satisfaction from us, but so that we might recognize his highest love toward us, he did not spare his only begotten Son, but he handed over him who was made our brother to death on a cross, and so with him [he will give us] all things.[34] (emphasis mine)

Strohl is correct that Oecolampadius identified a result of recognizing the love shown to us in Christ’s death is that “we are influenced into newness of life every day.”[35] However, according to Oecolampadius, that is the result of the fact that the death of Christ enabled us to become partakers of the Spirit, by whom we are led into the newness of life. In another comment on this verse, Oecolampadius noted, “Moreover by his death, Christ cleansed our sins, and clearly made satisfaction, if indeed we truly believed” (emphasis mine).[36] He even went so far as to say:

And on that account those who teach satisfaction by our works, or in another sacrifice other than [Christ’s] alone, or who teach that there is enough suffering for us here, or some other way to please the Father, they reveal themselves to know neither God nor the mystery of salvation, and they wretchedly lead away from Christ and torture consciences.[37] (emphasis mine)

Oecolampadius is clearly not rejecting a satisfaction theory of atonement in his comments on Heb 1:3, and in fact is saying that anyone who teaches otherwise is wrong.

Throughout Oecolampadius’s teaching from Hebrews he articulated a satisfaction theory of the atonement.[38] In his explanation of how the Eucharist differed from the ceremonies in the OT, he pointed out that one of the major differences was “that Christ had not yet suffered at that time, nor made satisfaction on behalf of sins” (emphasis mine).[39] When he addressed the very question that led to Anslem’s theory of the atonement—why God became a man in Jesus—Oecolampadius contrasted Christ with sheep or bulls which were not able to satisfy God because they were of a different nature than humans.[40] He then drew the conclusion:

Therefore, it was necessary that a human make satisfaction on behalf of humans, but one of such kind who was willing and able; however, he would not have been able unless he was the son of God and of divine nature . . . [and] he would not have been able to die unless he was made human.[41]

Oecolampadius offered many other examples of an objective view of the atonement in his Hebrews lectures as well.[42]

Yet the satisfaction theory of atonement and the moral influence theory are not the only theories present in his lectures on Hebrews. Oecolampadius actually taught a rather all-encompassing theory of the atonement that weaves together several themes. For one, he identified that the death of Christ confirmed the covenant between God and man in a way that the Levitical sacrifices could not.[43] He taught what could anachronistically be called a “Christus Victor” theory of the atonement in highlighting that the death of Christ defeated the devil.[44] Oecolampadius specifically observed on Heb 2:14, “But it does not say: He might abolish death, but him who was holding the power of death, the devil, as the author of sin, so also of death. . . . And therefore because Christ was without any sin, he defeated the devil” (emphasis mine).[45] Oecolampadius repeated multiple times in his exposition of ch. 2 that Christ’s death defeated (vicit), deprived (exueret), and subdued (conficeret) the devil when he destroyed (aboleret) death.46 Most notably, in the same section where he addressed the reasons Christ became a man, Oecolampadius concluded:

By the death of Christ, death itself is removed, the devil decisively defeated, and hell is demolished for those who believe. Weigh carefully this, I beg you, how much you received the kindness in Christ, so that you may be pleasing to him and you may live innocent in all respects, you may hate sin, and you may pursue love towards all people.[47]

In the very same passage where he articulated that only by the death and resurrection of the God-man could satisfaction be made on behalf of humans, Oecolampadius also taught that the death of Christ defeated the devil and provided the proper motivation for living a morally upright life.[48] Similarly, in his exposition of Heb 9, Oecolampadius observed that the author finally reaches the point where he states how Christ redeemed us. In a way that admittedly sounds very similar to Abelard’s answer to that question four centuries earlier, Oecolampadius affirmed, “Truly, by this most perfect way of all he wished to cleanse us from sin, so that recognizing his kindness, we may continually present ourselves pleasing to him” (emphasis mine).[49] But in addition to upholding that the purpose of Christ’s death was that we would live rightly as a response to his kindness, Oecolampadius explained:

What was accomplished by his blood is summed up by one word, namely, redemption . . . λύτρωσις not only signifies propitiation or redemption, but the price of redemption from slavery and the penalty. We deserved the most extreme slavery and death, [but] Christ paid the price of his blood on behalf of we who are redeemed. . . . Moreover, he redeemed the elect in such a way that he bore not only the guilt, but also the entire penalty.[50]

This is quite explicitly the language of what today would be called a penal substitution theory of atonement. In his exposition of how Christ redeemed us, Oecolampadius specifically articulated that Christ took the guilt and the penalty by paying the price of death with his own blood for those who are redeemed.

These concepts are found in multiple contexts of his Hebrews lectures. In sections of his exposition where he seized the opportunity to attack the Catholic mass, he specifically condemned “the nonsenses of the Papists, who shamelessly say that Christ is still being sacrificed in their wicked Mass . . . [and] has not rather been completed by Christ enduring to the end the punishment of death” (emphasis mine).[51] In his discussion of the OT saints in ch. 11, Oecolampadius even questioned the traditional interpretation that Enoch never died, because then “Christ would not have paid the price of redemption” for him.[52] He also observed that even though Isaac, like all of us, was required to pay the penalty of death, “[y]et it is of divine kindness, that he wanted to save those who deserved eternal death, and to take up our sins by another sacrifice, namely by Christ, who was designated by the ram stuck in the thorn-bushes.”[53] Throughout his Hebrews lectures, Oecolampadius taught that the penalty and punishment which every person deserved was paid by Christ’s death for those who believe. If there is any sense in which Oecolampadius did not hold to an Anselmian satisfaction theory of the atonement, it would have to be because he emphasized that Christ’s death satisfied the payment of the penalty rather than the honor every person owes to God. It cannot be sustained that Oecolampadius rejected the Anselmian satisfaction theory of atonement in favor of an Abelardian theory of atonement. A moral influence theory is surely present in his lectures, but Oecolampadius also unmistakably offered a much more comprehensive account of what was accomplished by Christ’s suffering and death.

If we consider briefly his earliest writings, we likewise find that in the same sermon or the same lecture Oecolampadius taught multiple aspects of the atonement which could be labeled with different theories.[54] For example, in his Romans lectures from 1524, he commented on Rom 4, “For as Christ was handed over on account of sins, so on account of Christ we ought to avoid sins. And as Christ rose again, so it will be right for us to walk in the newness of life.”[55] This is the language which Strohl and McGrath identify as evidencing a moral influence theory.[56] However, earlier in his exposition of this same chapter, Oecolampadius taught, “For however much pertains to the penalty, if we are converted to Christ, [then] he himself made satisfaction on behalf of all our sins.”[57] Oecolampadius also used language very similar to Abelard when he commented on Rom 6:

Behold, the son of God (that innocent and immaculate one) died on account of you, so that thereafter you yourself may abstain from sin. . . . It ought to be considered how excellent that sacrifice is, and how much love, and how much suffering, and how much innocence was offered, so that willingly you would leap to do good, moved by the love of Christ.[58]

There is certainly an ethical or moral emphasis on right living, but there is more than that. Oecolampadius also taught, “It is the glory of God that sins are freely dismissed by the merit of Christ without our satisfaction. Thus all people need the glory of God, because they all lack righteousness.”[59] Several times throughout his lectures on Romans, Oecolampadius referred to Christ’s death as a satisfaction for the wrath of God based on Christ’s merit or righteousness.[60]

Similarly, in his sermon series on 1 John from 1523, where Strohl identified several ways that Oecolampadius taught a moral influence theory of atonement, we see that there is more. Oecolampadius definitively rejected a mere “moral example” theory of atonement when he taught, “If he urged nothing more than an example of a life produced by teaching and by works . . . then let us also deify Socrates and call him savior.”[61] However, he further proclaimed, “There is indeed satisfaction and propitiation for us in Christ, more than sufficient in every way.”[62] Likewise, he stated,

Clearly before grace we bring nothing so holy that we do not deserve damnation, and do we still dare to claim anything in ourselves? Indeed Christ came, who appeased the Father, and reconciled us to him, whose righteousness is our righteousness, who as redeemer and priest made satisfaction for sins by his one sacrifice.[63]

In this sermon series as well, Oecolampadius included both a “subjective” moral influence and an “objective” satisfaction theory of the atonement.

Already in his first series of lectures in 1522, Oecolampadius explained from Isa 9 that in contrast to what the people in Isaiah’s day understood, “Now we know that by the blood of Christ he satisfied the Father on our behalf, and thousand of hells—the penalties owed for our sins—were dismissed according to the merit of Christ . . . so great is the merit of faith in Christ, that prior sins are not imputed since Christ made satisfaction on behalf of these.”[64] Likewise, in his explanation of Isa 53, Oecolampadius challenged Jewish interpretations when he asked, “How will this apply to the Jews? Where are those who died for others?” and declared, “It is not necessary to refute those who explain this saying to be about Moses. For he did not make satisfaction for the Gentiles or for the Jews, or even for himself.”[65] Instead, Oecolampadius emphasized that this passage referred to Christ, who died “not on account of his own sins, but on account of the sins of the people.”[66] He specifically argued that Christ “became sin, so that he might free us from sin. . . . For he himself is our righteousness and he carried iniquities on their behalf for satisfaction to be made. Where now are those who attribute righteousness to their works as if they made satisfaction by them?”[67] Not only did Oecolampadius identify Christ as the substitute for sins, he also affirmed that “the blood of Christ is the price that was paid on behalf of our sins.”[68] In these early sermons and lectures, even where there was a strong moral and ethical emphasis, Oecolampadius still upheld an objective satisfaction theory of the atonement which included the concept of Christ’s death paying the penalty and the price for sin on behalf of those who put their faith in him.

V. Conclusion

A survey of all these different writings reveals that Oecolampadius held to far more than a subjective moral influence theory of the atonement in the tradition of Peter Abelard. If forced to categorize his views on the atonement, Oecolampadius cannot rightly be called moralist or subjective, but rather his teaching embraced not only a satisfaction theory of the atonement, but it already conveyed the components of a penal substitution theory of the atonement. This theory may not have been expressed in Oecolampadius as often or as centrally as it was in someone like John Calvin, whose view is often considered the classic example of penal substitution, although Calvin also taught other aspects of the atonement in conjunction with penal substitution.[69] This study of Oecolampadius’s teaching on the atonement offers a necessary correction to McGrath’s portrayal of Oecolampadius and the early Swiss Reformation, and sheds further light on the timeframe for the decisive shift in the sixteenth century on teachings about the atonement.

Perhaps the most significant role that this analysis can play is to present a prominent and highly praised humanist theologian, who ardently stressed ethics and moral living, but also taught a penal substitution theory of the atonement. One of the most common complaints today about the penal substitution theory of atonement is that it leaves little room for the ethical behavior and exemplary love that Christ gave to us on the cross.[70] Oecolampadius provides us with an early Reformed example of one whose emphasis on moral living was grounded in a view of the atonement that included satisfaction and penal theories. He likewise is a noteworthy example of one who drew from a wide range of biblical imagery to advocate a broadly comprehensive theory of the atonement that incorporated many aspects of what Christ accomplished with his death. Correctly hearing the voice of Oecolampadius on the atonement provides us with a more accurate picture of how the theology of the atonement developed during an important time when doctrines were being reassessed and transformed and may even provide us with a little more clarity for the current controversies.

Notes

1. See, e.g., James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, eds., The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006); Mark D. Baker and Joel. B. Green, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: The Atonement in New Testament & Contemporary Contexts (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000); Derek Tidball, ed., The Atonement Debate: Papers from the London Symposium on the Theology of Atonement (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008).
2. For biographical information on Oecolampadius in English, see Diane Poythress, Reformer of Basel: The Life, Thought, and Influence of Johannes Oecolampadius (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011); E. Gordon Rupp, Patterns of Reformation (London: Epworth, 1969), 3-47. The most comprehensive biography is Ernst Staehelin, Das Theologische Lebenswerk Johannes Oekolampads (Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationgeschichte 21; Leipzig: Heinsius, 1939; repr., New York: Johnson, 1971). The letters and smaller works of Oecolampadius can be found in Ernst Staehelin, Briefe und Akten zum Leben Oekolampads (2 vols.; Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationgeschichte 10 and 19; Leipzig: Heinsius, 1927 and 1934; repr., New York: Johnson, 1971).
3. Staehelin, Briefe und Akten, 1:129 (no. 105).
4. Hans R. Guggisberg, Basel in the Sixteenth Century: Aspects of the City Republic Before, During, and After the Reformation (St. Louis: Center for Reformation Research, 1982), 31. Examples could be given from Wimpfeling, Froben, Erasmus, Zwingli, Luther, Bucer, Calvin, and Bullinger. See Staehelin, Briefe und Akten, 1:24, 129; 2:715; James Brashler, “Oecolampadius, Johannes (1482-1531),” in Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters (ed. Donald K. McKim; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007), 782; E. L. Miller, “Oecolampadius: The Unsung Hero of the Basel Reformation,” Iliff Review 39, no. 3 (1982): 6, 12.
5. His published commentaries were on 1 John (1524, 1525), Isaiah (1525, 1558), Romans (1525, 1526), Malachi (1526), Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (1527), Daniel (1530, 1553), Job (1532), Daniel and Job (1553, 1567), John (1533, 1535), Jeremiah (1533, 1558), Ezekiel (1534, 1558), Hebrews (1534), Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, and Jonah (1535, 1558), Psalms 73-77 (1544, 1554), Matthew (1536), Genesis (1536), and Colossians (1546). Ten of these commentaries were first published after his death and six were republished after his death, mostly in Geneva in the 1550s. All his previously published works on the prophets and Job were printed together as one work in 1558 and 1577. At least portions of four of the commentaries were translated into German, and two were translated into French.
6. Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). As an example of its influence, N.T. Wright states that Alister McGrath’s “remarkable two-volume history of the doctrine . . . is required reading for anyone who wants seriously to engage” with discussions about the doctrine of justification (N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision [Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009], 79-80, 83).
7. For example, Gerald Bray praised McGrath’s work for successfully bringing justification back to the center of theological discussion, but he also called for further engagement with the recent debates about justification and the need for more in-depth study on some of the details of the historical background (Gerald L. Bray, “Alister E. McGrath and Justification,” in Alister E. McGrath and Evangelical Theology [ed. Sung Wook Chung; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003], 24-32).
8. Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (3d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), x.
9. For a critical response to McGrath’s portrayal of Oecolampadius’s teaching on justification, see Jeff Fisher, “The Doctrine of Justification in the Teaching of John Oecolampadius (1482-1531),” in Since We Are Justified by Faith: Justification in Protestant Reformation Theologies (ed. Michael Parsons; Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2012), 44-57.
10. McGrath, Iustitia Dei (1986), 2:33-34. Note that the 3d edition of Iustitia Dei now has only one paragraph about Oecolampadius, but asserts the same conclusions with a more abridged line of reasoning than the previous editions. See McGrath, Iustitia Dei (2005), 251.
11. Alister E. McGrath, “Humanist Elements in the Early Reformed Doctrine of Justification,” ARG 73 (1982): 9-10.
12. See Henri Strohl, La pensée de la Réforme (Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1951), 106-8.
13. Strohl states that his conclusions are based on the themes found in Oecolampadius’s sermons on 1 John, Mark, and Colossians, the catechism authored by Oecolampadius, the new Reformation order, and the lectures on Hebrews. Cf. Strohl, La pensée de la Réforme, 107-8, with Staehelin, Das Theologische Lebenswerk, 463-64 on the church-visitation policy; 490-92 on Mark; 494 on Colossians; 221-32 on 1 John; 586-88 on the catechism. In every case, Strohl has adopted Staehelin’s quotation or description of “the new life” and identified this as the totality of Oecolampadius’s teaching.
14. Strohl, La pensée de la Réforme, 108. Strohl also finds this idea in Oecolampadius’s commentary on John where Oecolampadius taught that the essential reason for the death of Christ was that God decided to strengthen our hope (see ibid., 106-8.) Notably, Strohl does not cite the primary texts, but rather he cites Staehelin, Das Theologische Lebenswerk, 572, 578.
15. Compare McGrath, “Humanist Elements in the Early Reformed Doctrine of Justification,” 9-10; McGrath, Iustitia Dei (1986), 2:33-34; McGrath, The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987), 198; Strohl, La pensée de la Réforme, 106-8.
16. Thomas A. Fudge, “Icarus of Basel? Oecolampadius and the Early Swiss Reformation,” JRH 21 (1997): 268. On the occasion of Oecolampadius’s 500th birthday in 1982, Ed Miller could easily assert that Oecolampadius was almost absent in English-speaking treatments of the Reformation (Miller, “Unsung Hero,” 5). See also the much earlier comments by Schaff and Staehelin about the little work on Oecolampadius that had been done since the 1840s (Philip Schaff, “The Reformation in Basel: Oecolampadius,” in History of the Christian Church [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910; repr. of 3d ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972], 116; Staehelin, Briefe und Akten, 1:vii).
17. Bruce Gordon, The Swiss Reformation (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), 109; Amy Nelson Burnett, “Contributors to the Reformed Tradition,” in Reformation and Early Modern Europe: A Guide to Research (ed. David Whitford; Kirksville, Mo.: Truman State University Press, 2008), 35.
18. Akira Demura comments that Oecolampadius’s views on justification are reminiscent of Luther’s doctrine of justification, but not quite as “forensic” as Calvin’s and there is a “clear-cut statement on the imputation theory of justification” (Akira Demura, “Two Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans: Calvin and Oecolampadius,” in Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex [ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser and Brian G. Armstrong; Kirksville, Mo.: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1997], 169-70). Diane Poythress contends in her dissertation that Oecolampadius “held to a fully Reformed view” of the doctrine of justification, and comments in footnotes that McGrath “wishes to liberalize Oecolampadius’ teaching” and that Strohl’s synopsis of Oecolampadius’s teaching is “an exaggeration of one aspect of the Reformer’s writings” which would have been corrected by a broader reading of his writings beyond the French translation of the sermons on 1 John published in 1540 (Diane Poythress, “Johannes Oecolampadius’ Exposition of Isaiah, Chapters 36-37” (Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1992), 583, 584-85, 588, 589, esp. nn. 82, 99.)
19. Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (4th ed.; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2007), 343-44.
20. This distinction between “subjective” and “objective” is described in numerous sources about the atonement. An “objective” view is that something objectively happens apart from any appropriation or acceptance by the person, and a “subjective” view is that something happens when a person accepts and applies the lesson or example based on faith. See, e.g., Beilby and Eddy, The Nature of the Atonement, 14-20; Frank A. James III, “The Atonement in Church History,” in The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical and Practical Perspectives (ed. Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James III; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 209-19.
21. McGrath, Christian Theology, 325-28.
22. Gwenfair M. Walters, “The Atonement in Medieval Theology,” in The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical and Practical Perspectives, 245
23. James, “The Atonement in Church History,” 211.
24. See Strohl, La pensée de la Réforme, 107-8.
25. See Staehelin, Das Theologische Lebenswerk, 566-71. The commentary was published posthumously in August 1534 as In Epistolam ad Hebraeos Ioannis Oecolampadii, Explanationes, ut ex ore Praelegentis Exceptae, per quosdam ex Auditoribus Digestae Sunt (Strasbourg: Mathiam Apiarium, 1534). Two of Oecolampadius’s students assembled their notes to compile the commentary from v. 2:5 to the end. See also Staehelin, Das Theologische Lebenswerk, 571-72; Staehelin, Briefe und Akten, 2:756-58 (no. 976).
26. The commentaries are In Epistolam Ioannis Apostoli Catholicam Primam, Ioannis Oecolampadii Demegoriae, Hoc Est, Homiliae Una & Viginti (Nuremburg: Apud Iohann Petreium, 1524); In Epistolam B. Pauli Apost. ad Rhomanos Adnotationes à Ioanne Oecolampadio Basileae Praelectae (Basel: Andream Cratandrum, 1525); In Iesaiam Prophetam Hypomnematon, hoc est, Commentariorum, Ioannis Oecolampadii Libri VI (Basel: Cratander, 1525). For the historical background of the lectures on which these commentaries were based, see Staehelin, Das Theologische Lebenswerk, 190, 213, 219, 221, 231-32.
27. Oecolampadius, In Epistolam ad Hebraeos, 108a: Christ exemplum dedit, illius vestigia insequi cupias. (Translations, here and throughout, are my own.) See also ibid., 102a. Oecolampadius specifically taught that because the unique sacrifice of Christ was better than the former sacrifices, Christians ought to strive to imitate the true, heavenly example of Christ even more zealously than the ancients lived with reverence to God and holiness in life.
28. “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb 1:3 ESV).
29. Oecolampadius, In Epistolam ad Hebraeos, 10a: Diceret autem quis. Si per solam Dei misericordiā salvamur, quare crux imposita est Christo? Nunquid hac filii passione Deus pater mutabilis factus est? & non potuit iustitiae eius satis fieri, nisi per sanguinem Christi?
30. Ibid.: Respondemus, apud Deum plane nullam fuisse vel esse vicissitudinē voluntatis, ut in natura sua ex mansueto iratus fiat, vel ex irato mitescat, etiam patiente filio, utcūque humana infantilitas de Deo sit balbutiat. For Philo’s original argument see Philo, “On the Unchangeableness of God,” in The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged (trans. C. D. Yonge; rev. ed.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 158-73.
31. Oecolampadius, In Epistolam ad Hebraeos, 10a: Atqui nos in nobis variationem experimur ex eo quo electionis sensus qui syncera conscientia erga Deum nititur, evanescit, violato foedere pacis & vitae per incredulitatē. Strohl refers to this comment when he writes, “C’est selon les fluctuations de notre foi que Dieu nous apparaît parfois en colère et parfois apaisé” (Strohl, La pensée de la Réforme, 108).
32. Oecolampadius, In Epistolam ad Hebraeos, 10a: Electis quoque Deus nunquam imputavis peccatum, sed eos semper pro electis habet & habuit . . .
33. Ibid.: Adde quod de praedestinatione loqui aliter phas nō est . . .
34. Ibid., 10b: Itaque nunc illū iratū, nunc pacatū censemus, prout affecti fuerimus ipsi, praeterea cōscientiis & animabus nostris nō fuisset cōsultum quae peccatis sic terrentur, ut absque aliqua satisfactione, Deū sibi propitiū, nequaquam polliceantur. Igitur Deus declarans se nos maxime amare, elegit sanctissimam viam, qua purificaremur ab infidelitate, & ipsum nobis propitium, nequaquam dubitaremus, dum non poscit ex nobis satisfactionem, sed ut dilectionem ipsius erga nos summam cognosceremus, unigenito filio suo non pepercit, sed factum fratrem nostrum, in mortem crucis, pro nobis tradidit & ita cum illo omnia.
35. Ibid.: Hoc utique satis est . . . dum Spiritus eius participes efficimur, per quem in novitatem vitae, ut filii dei, quotidie inducimur. See Strohl, La pensée de la Réforme, 108.
36. Oecolampadius, In Epistolam ad Hebraeos, 13a: Morte autē Christus peccata nostra expurgavit, & plane satisfecit, siquidem vere crediderimus.
37. Ibid., 10b: Deus ab aeterno cognovit & prefiniuit. . . . Et idcirco qui satisfactionem nostris operibus vel alteri sacrificio, quam unico isti, vel qui satis passionem nobis hic vel alibi ad demerendum patrem docent, produnt se nec Deum, nec mysterium salutis nosse, misereque à Christo abducunt, & conscientias torquent.
38. For further examples not cited here see ibid., 33a-34b, 68b-69a, 84b, 96b, 103a, 104a, 108b. Oecolampadius particularly teaches a satisfaction theory of atonement in his discussion of Christ as priest and his comparison of the old covenant sacrifices to Christ in chs. 7-10.
39. Ibid., 106a: Respondet hic Paulus, veteris legis caeremonias accusationem peccatorum habuisse, & non puram gratiarū actionem, quemadmodum nos habemus in Eucharistia, ratio est, quod.
40. See ibid., 30a-b: Atqui arietes & tauri non potuerunt sanctificare homines, nedum Deo pro illis satisfacere, puta alienae ab hominibus naturae. Potuit ergo unus Christus homo factus, suo nos sanguine emudare ab omnibus peccatis, & quem admodum olim sacerdos eiusdem naturae esse debuit cum populo, pro quo apud Deum intercedebat, atque adeo passionum humanarum expertus, ut facile illi cōpati posset.
41. Ibid., 33b: Hominem ergo oportuit satisfacere pro hominibus, sed talem qui & vellet & posset, nō potuisset autem nisi filius Dei fuisset & divinae naturae. Quia Christus mortuus est & resurrexit, certi sumus mortem esse abolendam, non potuisset autem mori, nisi fuisset homo factus, neque resurgere & redimere, nisi fuisset innocens et Deus.
42. See, e.g., ibid., 36b: illū nobis placat & peccata populi sui suo sanguine expiat. See also ibid., 84b, 103a where he emphasizes the sufficiency and importance of Christ’s death in expiating sin.
43. See ibid., 100b, 110a.
44. The classic work on this theory of the atonement is Gustaf Aulén, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement (New York: Macmillan, 1931; repr., Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2003).
45. Oecolampadius, In Epistolam ad Hebraeos, 33b: Nō dicit autem: Aboleret mortem, sed eū qui mortis habebat imperium diabolum, ut autorem peccati, sic etiam mortis. . . . Christus itaque absque omni peccato quia erat, vicit diabolum.
46. See ibid., 33b-35a.
47. Ibid., 33a-b: Est causa, aut si mavis causae superioris expositio, cur hominem assūpserit, quasi diceret, nisi ita humiliatus, & patri obediens ad mortem usque fuisset, diabolus non fuisset victus, vel si victus, nostrae tamen cōscientiae admodum sauciae, eius non potuissent certo persuaderi & pacificari. Voluit ergo Christus per passionem atque adeo mortem suā, mortis & autorem & principem diabolum abolere, hoc est, potestate nocendi exuere. . . . Miserrimum est morti esse obnoxium sicut & mortis metu excruciari, atqui ab [note] utroque Christi beneficio liberati sumus. Christi em~ morte, mors ipsa sublata, diabolus devictus, & infernus credentibus est destructus. Perpende hic quaesó, quantum in Christo acceperis beneficium, ut illi gratus sis & per omnia innocens vivas, peccatum odias, charitatēque erga omnes secteris.
48. See ibid., 33b.
49. Ibid., 96b: Sanguis vitulorum & hircorum non potuit expiare peccata, sed Christi salvifici sacrificii, cuius sanguis ad expianda peccata totius mūdi abūde sufficit. Hoc sane omniū perfectissimo modo à peccatis nos emūdare voluit, ut illius beneficiū agnoscentes, gratos nos illi perpetuo exhibeamus.
50. Ibid., 97b: quidque suo sanguine effecerit, uno verbo complectitur, nēpe redemptionem . . .λύτρωσις non solum propitiationem seu redemptionem significat, sed & pretium redēptionis à servitute & poena. Nos extremam servitutem & mortem merebamur, Christus pretiū sanguinis sui pro nobis redimēdis dedit. . . . Redemit autem sic electos, ut non modo culpam, sed & poenam omnē auferat.
51. Ibid., 54a-b: esse nugas Papistarum, qui impudēter dicūt Christū adhuc sacrificādū in sua impia Missa, quasi vero in illa primū figurae cōpleātur, & nō potius impletae sint Christo suppliciū mortis perferēte. See also ibid., 82b, 104a.
52. Ibid., 125b: quanto tēpore Christus praecium redemptionis non persolvit . . .
53. Ibid., 134b: Quēadmodū Isaac ad poenā postulatus fuit, ita omnes nos postulamur, sumus enim filii mortis. Benignitatis tamē divinae est, aeternæ mortem meritos, voluisse servare, & alio sacrificio satisfactionem pro peccatis nostris sumere, nempe Christo, qui designatus fuit per arietē.
54. In Oecolampadius’s first published writing in 1512 when he was still a Catholic priest, we already discover in his sermon series on the last words of Christ that he emphasized the Christian duties that Christ was demonstrating on the cross, but he also depicted the death of Christ as a triumph over Satan and as the taking on of the endless eternal punishment that each person deserved. These sermons are far more allegorical and mystical than his later sermons, but already demonstrate a theory of the atonement with multiple aspects rather than simply being Abelardian. See Johann Oecolampadius, Declamationes Io. Oecolampadii de Passione et Ultimo Sermone, hoc est Sacrosanctis Septem Dictis Domini Nostri Iesu Christi in Cruce, sub Typo Concionatoris Migraturi (Strasbourg, 1512), esp. sermons 16 and 17.
55. Oecolampadius, In Epistolam ad Rhomanos, 46b: Nam sicut Christus traditus fuit propter peccata, ita propter Christum & nos abstinere debemus à peccatis. Et sicut Christus resurrexit, ita & nos in novitate vitae ambulare decebit. Benedicimur autem morte et resurrectione Christi, ut moriatur vetus Adam, & resurgat novus.
56. See Strohl, La pensée de la Réforme, 107-8; McGrath, “Humanist Elements in the Early Reformed Doctrine of Justification,” 9-10.
57. Oecolampadius, In Epistolam ad Rhomanos, 41a: Nam quantum ad poenam attinet, si convertamur ad Christum, ipse pro peccatis omnibus satisfecit. . . . Iam de quo dominus poenam sumit, illi adhuc peccatum imputat.
58. Ibid., 66b: Hic spectandum est, quale sit sacrificium illud, & quanta charitate, quantisque doloribus, & quantae innocentia sit oblatum, ut sponte prosilias ad benefaciendum proximo, Christi charitate motus.
59. Ibid., 35b-36a: Gloria dei est, quod gratis dimittuntur peccata per meritum Christi absque nostra satisfactione. Ita omnes egent gloria dei, quia iustitia carent.
60. For further examples of the satisfaction theory of atonement in his Romans lectures, see ibid., 36a-b, 64b-65a, 68a, 92b.
61. Oecolampadius, In Epistoalm Ioannis Primam, 18b-19a: Si nihil amplius egit, quàm exemplum vitae doctrina operibusque exhibuit, an non idipsum possent praestare, etiam hodie hypocritae? Deificemus igitur & Socratem, & salvatorem appellemus.
62. Ibid., 52b: Est enim nobis satisfactio in Christo, propiciatioque modis omnibus plus quàm sufficiens.
63. Oecolampadius, In Epistoalm Ioannis Primam, 76-77: Planè ante gratiam nihil tam sancte agimus, quod non mereatur damnationem, & adhuc arrogare nobis aliquid audemus? advenit enim Christus qui placuit patrem, & nos illi conciliavit, cuius iusticia, nostra est iusticia, qui redemptor & sacerdos uno sacrificio pro peccatis satisfecit. Further examples of the satisfaction theory of atonement in the 1 John sermons are easily apparent on pp. 18b, 23b, 48b.
64. Oecolampadius, In Iesaiam, 81b: Scimus nunc per sanguinem Christi patri pro nobis satisfactum, & mille infernorum poenas nostris peccatis debitas, in merito Christi dimissas . . . sed quod tantum est fidei in Christum meritum, ut priora peccata non imputentur: quandoquidem pro his satisfecit Christus.
65. Ibid., 264a: Quomodo hoc Iudaeis conveniet? ubi mortui sunt pro aliis? . . . Non opus est ut refellatur, quod quidam exponent de Mose hoc dictum. Neque enim ille satisfecit pro gentibus, vel pro Iudeis, vel etiam pro seipso.
66. Ibid.: hoc est, mortuus est, non propter sua peccata, sed propter peccata populi.
67. Ibid., 264b: Factus enim est peccatum, ut liberaret nos à peccato. . . . Ipse enim nostra iustitia est, & iniquitates portavit pro eis satisfaciendo. Ubi nunc sunt qui suis operibus iustitiam tribuunt tanquam illis satisfaciunt?
68. Ibid., 264a: Id est imposuit ei peccata nostra, sicut et supra. Mulctatus est, quod proprie ad pecuniam refertur. Christi vero sanguis precium est, quod pro peccatis nostris est dinumeratum.
69. See Henri Blocher, “The Atonement in John Calvin’s Theology,” in The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical & Practical Perspectives, 279-303. Blocher looks at Calvin’s sermons to show that he did not embrace a single view of the atonement but included penal substitution as a main component of his view.
70. Numerous examples could be given for this critique. See, as one example, Baker and Green, Recovering the Scandal, 31.