The Concept of Alloiosis in Zwingli's Christology

 

The following passages give us a concrete definition of what Zwingli’s doctrine of alloiosis is and how it functions in the context of christology and the communicatio idiomatum:

“Alloiosis, which we have understood as a ‘jumping’ locution (named by Plutarch), is a trope in which the customary order or meaning (ratio) is changed, when there is a leap or alteration from one to the other, on account of some likeness of grammatical features.” (Ulrich Zwingli, Amica exegesis, in Corpus Reformatorum 92:679.6-10)

“Alloiosis is . . . that jump or change or, if you prefer, alteration by which, speaking of the one nature in him [viz. Christ], we use words pertaining to the other.” (Ulrich Zwingli, Amica exegesis, in CR 92:680.1-681.1)

“A rhetorical figure which permits reference to one thing or nature in terms of, or by means of, another thing or nature.” (Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1985], pg. 30)

Thus, Zwingli interpreted the words of Institution in a more figurative sense, in which “the intended subject of predication is distinct from the subject in the uttered locution.” (Richard Cross, Communicatio Idiomatum: Reformation Christological Debates [Oxford University Press, 2019], pg. 74)

However, alloiosis functions differently for Zwingli when the subject of the relevant predication is the person of Christ. In these cases, the sense and reference of the predicate is what changes, rather than the sense of the subject-term. For example, the phrase “the Son of Man is in heaven” would be interpreted as “Christ has a divine nature that is in heaven.”

“Zwingli is the direct inheritor of one very significant aspect of Alexandrian Christology—specifically, a version of the CN-semantics defended by Athanasius and Cyril. I am aware that this is not the usual interpretation of Zwingli. From Luther onwards (as we shall see in a moment), Zwingli was portrayed in Lutheran circles as tending in a Nestorian direction, following more broadly Antiochene traditions in Christology. This, it strikes me, is a complete misunderstanding of Zwingli’s position.” (Richard Cross, Communicatio Idiomatum: Reformation Christological Debates, pgs. 76-77)

Cross further argues that Duns Scotus had a view of vivification similar to alloiosis in his interpretation of John 5:21 (‘Christ gives life to whom He will’) in Ordinatio, IV, d. 48. q. 1). Thus, Zwingli is not entirely without precedent.

How did Luther argue against the Swiss reformer’s view of christological semantics? To this purpose, we turn our attention to his Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper:

“If Zwingli’s alloiosis stands, then Christ will have to be two persons, one a divine and the other a human person, since Zwingli applies all the texts concerning the passion only to the human nature and completely excludes them from the divine nature. But if the works are divided and separated, the person will also have to be separated, since all the doing and suffering are not ascribed to natures but to persons. It is the person who does and suffers everything, the one thing according to this nature, and the other thing according to the other nature, all of which the educated know perfectly well.” (Martin Luther, Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, in LW 37:212-13)

In other words, Luther thought that alloiosis divided the person in a Nestorianizing way. Luther misunderstood Zwingli’s two types of alloiosis (ones where the subject term functions as a trope, and ones when the predicate term is figurative trope) as being one and the same category of alloiosis. An example of Luther’s misrepresentation can be seen in the following text:

“He [viz. Zwingli] calls it alloiosis when something is said about the divinity of Christ which after all belongs to his humanity, or vice versa—for example, in Luke 24[:26], ‘Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer and so enter into his glory?’ Here he performs a sleight-of-hand trick and substitutes the human nature for Christ.” (Martin Luther, Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, in LW 37:210-211)

Basically, Luther thought that Zwingli would interpret Lk 24:26 as merely meaning that “the human nature suffers and enters into glory.” However, as Cross notes, this is not Zwingli’s view:

“Luther’s point, in other words, is that Zwingli would claim that there is no sense in which ‘Christ should suffer and so enter into his glory’ is true, and that the relevant true locution is ‘the human nature should suffer and so enter into [its] glory’. But this is not Zwingli’s view at all. As Zwingli deals with cases of type-two alloiosis, they are true of the grammatical subject, albeit under an appropriate interpretation of the predicate: it is true that the person of Christ ‘should suffer and so enter into his glory’, and it is true because Christ has a nature that does these things—just as in CN-semantics. So Luther has again been misled by Zwingli’s terminology into treating the two cases of alloiosis as the same kind of linguistic phenomenon, involving a subject-jump.” (Richard Cross, Communicatio Idiomatum: Reformation Christological Debates, pg. 81)