Von dem Predigtamt (1525)

by Huldrych Zwingli

Historical and Theological Context

Zwingli wrote Von dem Predigtamt (“On the Office of Preaching”) in 1525 to define, defend, and institutionalize the role of the preacher within the emerging Reformed Church in Zurich, at a moment when both the theological identity of the Reformation and the stability of the Zurich church were under pressure. The work appeared at the end of June 1525, just over two months after the abolition of the mass and the introduction of the Reformed liturgy in the Grossmünster on Maundy Thursday.

The abolition of the Latin Mass and its replacement with the German language liturgy was a radical change that demanded a new understanding of the clergy’s role. Von dem Predigtamt served as a manual and justification for the newly emerging Reformed clergy, whose primary duty was now to teach, exhort, and explain Scripture—not to perform ritual acts. The treatise encouraged moral discipline, theological clarity, and a pastoral vocation among ministers.

Zwingli wrote Von dem Predigtamt to argue that preaching is the essential office of the Christian church. Unlike the Catholic priesthood, which centered on the Mass and sacramental mediation, Zwingli redefined the minister as a herald of the Word, grounded solely in Scripture. The preacher did not perform a sacrificial role at the altar, but was a teacher, prophet, and guardian of divine truth. This theological reorientation reflected Zwingli’s broader ecclesiology: the church is created by the Word, not by sacrament or institutional succession.

By 1525, Zwingli’s reform movement was splintering. Former allies like Konrad Grebel and Felix Manz had broken away over the issue of infant baptism and church authority, advocating for a believers’ church separate from the civic order. The Anabaptists also claimed the right to preach and baptize without public authorization. Zwingli saw this as chaotic and spiritually dangerous. In Von dem Predigtamt, he asserted that preaching must be properly authorized, tied to a visible congregation, and rooted in Scripture—not in private spiritual claims. He condemned self-appointed preachers as divisive and rebellious.

Zwingli viewed the city council of Zurich as a legitimate Christian authority. The Reformation in Zurich had proceeded with the support of the magistrates, and Zwingli argued that they had a duty to supervise the purity of doctrine and worship. In Von dem Predigtamt, he upheld a vision of the church as a civic and public institution, not a secretive sect. By insisting on order, appointment, and discipline, he defended the role of preaching within a Christian commonwealth and rejected anarchic religious individualism.

Zwingli’s theology placed ultimate authority in the Word of God, not in bishops, councils, or tradition. Von dem Predigtamt reinforced this principle by rooting the preacher’s authority in biblical example, especially in the role of the prophets and apostles. He emphasized that the Spirit works through the faithful proclamation of Scripture, and not through hierarchical mediation or mystical inspiration.

Von dem Predigtampt (On the Office of Preaching)

June 30, 1525

Contents

• Historical and Theological Context
• Von dem Predigtamt
• All Must Be Done in Peace
• Two Functions Within the Office of Prophet
• Suggested Reading

Von dem Predigtamt

A warning against self-appointed agitators who claim to be apostles but are not, and who, without the consent and authority of the church and its proper leaders, preach among God’s people in violation of His Word.

To the honorable and wise Council, and to the entire community of the County of Toggenburg—my most esteemed lords and fellow countrymen—Huldrych Zwingli sends greetings in the grace and peace of God.

I thank God, our heavenly Father, for enlightening you through the light of His Word and for leading you to a true understanding of the Gospel. You stand firm in His covenant—not because of your own wisdom, but because of His grace and mercy. To Him be all praise and honor forever! May He continue to protect you and help you grow in all goodness. Amen. Dear lords and brothers, the way you have diligently removed idolatry from your midst, and how you have justly dismissed priests who resist the Gospel, clearly shows your growth in divine knowledge and spiritual courage. But I urge you to remain vigilant, lest Satan secretly stir up dissension and lead you into errors worse than those you’ve already overcome [cf. Matthew 12:45]. We have seen this happen before—people declaring, “I belong to Christ” [cf. 1 Corinthians 1:12], but failing to live as true Christians and disturbing the peace. I have heard that something similar is beginning among you. Certain individuals, without the church’s permission, are taking it upon themselves to preach and perform rebaptisms. These actions confuse the truth and stir up rebellion. Let me be clear: rebaptism serves no spiritual purpose—it is used only as a cover for insubordination and secret plots against authority. (By authority I do not mean the papacy, which should not wield worldly power, as Christ Himself taught [cf. Matthew 20:25–27].)

Both of these acts—unauthorized preaching and rebaptism—are completely contrary to the teachings of Christ. First, because no one has the right to teach unless they are truly called and sent. Second, because rebaptism is not taught anywhere in Scripture—neither by command nor example—in either the Old or New Testaments. Circumcision was a one-time sign of the old covenant, just as baptism is the sign of the new. And the New Testament teaches one baptism, which Christ and the apostles never rejected or repeated. I’ve already written extensively on this subject elsewhere.

But if these godless men, who exalt themselves as apostles and preachers, insist on spreading even more discord through their preaching, I too will speak—on the office of preaching—so that people may recognize these foolish, arrogant agitators for what they are. And I will do so with clear testimony from the Word of God.

If we don’t guard against such individuals, new errors will arise daily—as we already see happening. If anyone were allowed to preach whatever they wished among the people of God, and if the church were not permitted to judge or reject false teaching, then crafty minds would invent new doctrines every day just to flaunt their supposed wisdom. This is no different from what happened in apostolic times. Some came from Jerusalem to places like Antioch [cf. Acts 15:1–24], Corinth [cf. 1 Corinthians 1:10ff; 2 Corinthians 10–11], Philippi [cf. Philippians 3:2], Crete [cf. Titus 1:5], and Galatia [cf. Galatians 1:7; 5:7–12], and took it upon themselves to teach. Their focus was mainly on external matters—especially circumcision. Because they were from Jerusalem and were Israelites, they were well received. They claimed to have learned the faith directly from those who heard Jesus in person; some may even have seen Him with their own eyes.

But their true aim was to discredit the apostle Paul. He resisted their false teaching and exposed them through the power of truth in his letters. They, in turn, tried to build their own following and cause division within the church, using new doctrines as a way to gain influence and profit.

When Paul recognized their deceit, he exposed it clearly—especially in Philippians 3, where he warns: “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilators of the flesh.” [Phil. 3:2]

He called them “mutilators” because they promoted circumcision and thereby divided the church. In the same way, if we today called the Anabaptists “drowners,” it would be fair, since their doctrines cause confusion and weaken the Gospel. Paul continues:

“We are the true circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who place no confidence in the flesh.” [Phil. 3:3]

And later he says:

“Brothers, follow my example and watch those who live according to the pattern we gave you. For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ, as I have often told you and now tell you again with tears. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, their glory is in their shame. Their minds are set on earthly things.” [Phil. 3:17–19]

Now compare those ancient troublemakers with the ones of our day. These modern “mutilators” left Zurich and quickly attached themselves to strangers, deceiving them into accepting rebaptism. But consider: was this just? Was it faithful?

First, they had been thoroughly refuted—both in public and private—so they had no right to take their teachings to other churches or spread their errors further. If people who have been proven wrong can still impose their false doctrines on others, then there will be more discord among Christians than among unbelievers. For Scripture says, “We were all baptized by one Spirit into one body” [1 Cor. 12:13].

Second, they hid from the simple and uneducated the solid biblical foundations for infant baptism, which had been openly taught in Zurich. Everyone knows that we in Zurich uphold infant baptism and reject rebaptism—with the full approval of the authorities and based on the Word of God.

And yet, these men act with shocking arrogance, mocking the honorable council and slandering the preachers—especially me—with outrageous insults. Anyone who fears God should be appalled by their behavior. They preach for profit, and in doing so, rob their listeners of understanding and true faith. They claim to be the only ones with the Spirit of God, condemning anyone who refuses to accept rebaptism or who opposes their teachings.

Why do they condemn others? Is it because they think others are unbaptized? Then they must believe themselves vastly superior to the rest. Or do they claim others lack true faith? Then they have convinced themselves that only they possess the Spirit and faith of God. Their actions speak for themselves: they scorn educated and godly men, ignore every warning, and override all sound judgment. Despite clear teaching from Scripture, they introduce rebaptism and claim apostolic authority. Wherever they go—even to churches with faithful pastors—they impose rebaptism without asking for approval or consent from the congregation.

Are these not the very “mutilators” Paul warned us about? Could there be any greater enemies of Christ’s cross—no matter how humble they appear on the surface? Every heretical sect that has ever arisen began with a false show of humility. Who ever looked more humble than the Carthusians?

And yet, these very Carthusians refuse to say why they fled from Ittingen, even though they supposedly had 12,000 guilders in their possession. Consider: they left behind no fields, no vineyards, no estates, no fisheries, no forests—nothing. What more might they be hiding? I say this simply as an example: false humility often ends in destruction. Paul also warned against being deceived by such people in Colossians 2 [cf. Col. 2:18], and indeed, “their god is their belly” [Phil. 3:19].

I know the secret motives of some of them. In Zurich, church benefices were no longer granted, except for local parishes. Some of these men opposed that, hoping to continue drawing income meant for the poor. Meanwhile, they falsely taught that anyone who held a benefice could not preach the Gospel. Why? So those pastors would be removed—and they could take their place. They loudly proclaimed, “I desire no benefice!” But who knows whether some of them have secretly taken one, just as the Barefoot Friars quietly collected money? In truth, they served their own bellies no less than those Paul condemned. Some even came to me personally and asked for help in obtaining benefices—something they cannot now deny if they speak the truth.

Their public reputation is entirely fleshly. Rebaptism is nothing more than an external ritual, like circumcision. These Anabaptists distinguish themselves outwardly, just as others have before them, speaking of God in lofty terms and presenting themselves as deeply pious—as if barely surviving some shipwreck of the soul.

The common people look on with awe and fear. But in the end, it always comes down to the same few points: rebaptism, rejecting infant baptism, denying government authority, claiming all property should be shared, and insisting that no one owes rent or tithes. I have already responded to all of these matters in other writings.

Yet they use deception here too. Publicly, they cry out, “Woe to those who collect rent or tithes!”—but not because they want people to stop paying. Privately, they whisper, “If you’ve paid rent for twenty years, you owe your landlord nothing more.”

Think carefully, dear friends—what will come of this? Even those who care nothing for the Gospel will jump on these ideas and use them for their own ends. You can already see people eagerly waiting for the moment when no one will pay anyone for anything. This is the true purpose behind their rebaptism and their self-appointed apostleship. While it’s true that even good things have been abused—especially among clergy—matters like this must be judged by the proper authority, which is the civil government. Anyone who, by force, withholds or takes what belongs to another is not a Christian, but a thief. And if authorities do nothing, God will judge. This is why government must exist—and why people must keep their word and fulfill their obligations. Otherwise, society is like a flock of sheep cast into the wilderness with no shepherd.

So, dear and faithful lords and brothers, I write to you out of deep concern—so that your simple and devout people are not led astray by these rebellious false teachers. You have always been my friends and allies. I will always consider myself one of you. You will see that no true reform can last where vanity and pride rule. But where there is the knowledge of God and a deep reverence for Him—and where everything is done for His glory—there no person, power, or opposition can prevail.

For this reason, I have written this short book for your benefit, to help you resist these wandering preachers who come without being sent and without preparing the ground beforehand. They do not build upon the truth—they seek to destroy it with outward rituals and empty words.

May God protect you and bring to completion the good work He has begun in you [cf. Philippians 1:6].

Written in Zurich.

In all ways I remain your humble and obedient servant.

I will not go into detail about what compelled me to write this little book. The reason is already well known: some individuals have become so presumptuous that, without the approval of any bishop or church congregation, they march into foreign parishes, ring the bells, preach whatever they please, and carry out rebaptisms—causing confusion and stirring up rebellion. Then, to justify themselves, they claim they are acting rightly and have been sent by God.

With this writing, I aim to show—through their very own actions—that they are not sent by God. What they do should not be allowed in any congregation unless it has the full, united approval of the entire church community.

Although this book is titled On the Office of Preaching, I will also—God willing—discuss the nature of teaching more broadly, especially as it was practiced in the time of the holy apostles.

To begin, let us reflect on Paul’s words in Ephesians 4:11–14:

“And He (Christ) gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God, becoming mature, attaining the full measure of the stature of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of doctrine—by the trickery of men, by their cunning in deceitful scheming.”

Paul’s meaning is clear: Christ Himself established these offices (each of which I will explain later) within His body—the Church—so that it might grow strong in unity and in the knowledge of the Son of God. The Church is meant to grow into maturity, to become a full, healthy, and complete body, just as Christ reached the full stature of manhood and offered Himself in the prime of His strength.

This also ensures that we are not easily misled or shaken by every new, empty teaching—doctrines born out of deceit and clever manipulation, meant to lead people astray and build up false movements.

Now hear this, all devout Christians! If Christ established these offices so that truth—not conflicting doctrines—might flourish, then it cannot be right for just anyone to declare themselves a public teacher. The more leaders who rise up without calling or oversight, the more divisions will emerge, and the more easily error will disguise itself. For falsehood is never presented plainly—it always wears a mask to appear good and godly. The Pope has long maintained his ranks of scholars, claiming to do so in order to protect the truth. And yet, even in our own time, we have seen these same ranks working against the truth and suppressing it. But does that mean anyone can step forward and claim the role of apostle, teacher, or evangelist? Absolutely not! That will become clearer as we continue.

Let us now turn specifically to the office of apostle, since each role in the Church has its own distinct purpose.

An “apostle” is, at its core, a messenger. In plain German, we would say there were twelve messengers. But of course, we don’t say “Peter the messenger” or “James the messenger.” Christ Himself gave them the title and the task.

Luke 6:13 tells us:

“Jesus called His disciples to Himself and chose twelve from among them, whom He also named apostles.”

That is sufficient to explain the title.

The apostles were charged with proclaiming the Gospel—that is, teaching the world to know both God and itself. When a person truly comes to know themselves, they become dissatisfied with their sinful nature. This leads to repentance and reform—but only if they also come to know God. That knowledge, however, often brings about a new kind of despair: they realize their deep sinfulness and inability to save themselves. Even as they strive to do better, they are constantly confronted by their flaws and failures, and they may begin to feel hopeless about drawing near to God.

At this point, the apostles reveal the heart of their message: the salvation that God has freely given through His Son. This is the highest and most important task they were given. The apostles were the first to proclaim this salvation, and their message spread throughout the world.

Christ first entrusted them with this task when He sent them out to preach, at first restricting their mission to the Jewish people, as recorded in Matthew 10:5–16: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any city of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Heal the sick, cleanse lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received; freely give. Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts—no bag for the journey, or extra shirt, or sandals, or staff—for the worker is worth his keep. Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. I am sending you out like sheep among wolves.” (Matthew 10:11–16) Here we see the nature of the apostles’ commission: they were not to enrich themselves but to trust that those who received their teaching would provide for their basic needs. Thus, all who truly preach the Gospel do not have a different office from the apostles in this respect.

Still, the apostles stand apart from prophets, evangelists, and teachers in this one regard: they were the first to bring the Gospel into an unbelieving and hostile world, and they carried the message on long and dangerous journeys—as we see especially in the life of the Apostle Paul.

God did not allow them any material support or comforts. These were later granted to those who succeeded them in the churches, which I will explain further on.

Christ repeated and expanded His commission after His resurrection, as we read in John 20:21–23: “As the Father has sent Me, so I am sending you.” And with that He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

We find the same commission in Mark 16:15–16:

“Preach the Gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

This is what it means to bind and loose: whoever believes is loosed (set free), and whoever does not believe is bound (still under judgment).

Luke 24:45–47 expresses it this way:

“Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them: ‘Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem.’”

Though this later commission was broader than the first—extending to all nations—Matthew 28:19–20 confirms it clearly:

“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you.” From this, we see that among those who serve the Word, there is no real distinction between the apostles and others in terms of the preaching itself—except that the apostles were specifically called to journey without earthly provision, relying fully on God’s care. That is why I often say: if those who claim to be apostles today—such as bishops and high church officials—truly followed the apostolic model, they too would go without purse or provisions. But what do they actually do? Even the devil himself could not be more deceptive. They do not preach at all, yet they insist on being called apostles. They travel with pomp and pageantry, as if they were rulers of the earth, not messengers of Christ. They cannot possibly be apostles or messengers of God, for they do not walk in the Word—they do not even carry it. And those who do preach the Word but remain stationary in one place—these we will speak of later.

Next, Paul says in Ephesians 4:11: “And some He appointed as prophets.” The word prophet is not Hebrew but Greek, derived from the term meaning “to speak before” or “to foretell.” It properly refers to someone who predicts or proclaims future events. In the Old Testament, prophets carried out this role, but in the New Testament era, their work is continued by evangelists, bishops, or pastors.

Prophets observed the sins of the people—either warning against them before they took hold, or confronting and uprooting them once they had. As God said to Jeremiah (Jer. 1:9–10):

“Behold, I have put My words in your mouth. I have appointed you this day over nations and kingdoms, to uproot and to tear down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.”

This, in essence, is the prophet’s task: to tear down everything that sets itself against God, and to build and plant what aligns with His will.

In the time of the apostles, certain men were also called prophets—not because they foretold the future, but because they had a deep understanding of Scripture and explained it publicly in the church. At that time, the New Testament had not yet been written down, so the apostles taught orally. Later, the evangelists recorded in writing what had already been preached, believed, and received by divine revelation.

The apostolic letters (epistles) were written to confirm and strengthen a faith that had already been passed on through preaching. So it is clear that those who interpreted the Old Testament Scriptures in the churches were also called prophets in apostolic times. This is made especially clear in 1 Corinthians 14:26–33, where Paul writes:

“When you come together, each of you has a psalm, a teaching, a tongue, a revelation, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be only two or three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no interpreter, let each of them keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and be encouraged. And the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.”

This means: when the church gathers to hear the Psalms or the Scriptures, some will be trained and learned, others may know languages (especially Hebrew), others may have received insight from God, and some may be able to interpret—that is, to translate from Hebrew into Greek or the local language. These things should all be done in such a way that they build up the congregation.

For example, many Jews who converted to Christ lived among Gentiles who also came to faith. If someone among them knew Hebrew, they would read or recite the Scriptures aloud. Then someone else would interpret the reading for the people. Anyone who could not interpret or explain the meaning should remain silent during the teaching of the prophets and speak only quietly with themselves and with God. Even when the Scriptures were read in two languages, many still could not understand them. That is why prophets were necessary: to explain the meaning and to make God’s will known. This means prophets had to be well educated in languages, because all the other spiritual gifts were meant to lead to the highest gift: the ability to interpret and explain God’s Word.

As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:1: “Pursue spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.” That is, to interpret and explain the Holy Scriptures.

When prophets explained the Scriptures, the entire congregation was expected to evaluate what was said—to judge whether the interpretation was true.

Now someone might ask: How can the congregation judge something they are hearing for the first time? The answer is simple: through God, who dwells within them. When God is present in a person, that person can immediately sense whether something is spoken to the glory of God and for the peace and strengthening of His people—or not.

From this, we learn an essential truth: the pope and all his followers must be subject to the judgment of the church—that is, to those whom they preach to. The pope has no right to impose the Word on the people. Instead, the people must examine his teaching. If his message does not align with the truth of God’s Word, they are not obligated to accept it. See how deluded the papacy has become! They do not teach, yet they presume to dictate what others must believe.

Woe to those who blindly defend a corrupt papacy!

When prophets speak in turn, and another person in the congregation receives insight from God into the Scriptures, that person too should be allowed to speak. However, this must happen in an orderly and respectful manner. If someone else begins to speak, the first must yield. No one should interrupt. Each should speak one at a time, in their own congregation and in proper order, so that all may learn and be encouraged in the truth. Even though all believers in the church have the right to speak about the Scriptures, they should do so only after the prophets have spoken—and only when the prophet has not already explained the meaning of the passage.

Those who exalt themselves as apostles or prophets today do not follow the example set by the true apostles in their handling of Scripture. They do not remain within their own churches but instead intrude upon other congregations, speaking without the presence or oversight of recognized prophets. They insist on their right to interpret Scripture but refuse to allow others the same freedom.

Even when they grant others permission to speak, they are unwilling to be corrected themselves.

I could give many examples. Learned and faithful interpreters of Scripture have gone to hear their preaching and have read aloud from the New Testament. But when these true teachers asked for the opportunity to respond, they were told that only the self-proclaimed preachers had the right to speak. And when the true meaning of Scripture was explained, these Anabaptists would not accept it—even though the rest of the congregation did. They do not come to learn, but only to teach, and despite their empty words claiming humility, they refuse to be taught by anyone else.

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 14:30–33 that prophets should yield to one another when the truth is revealed—even to those who are seated. This is because “the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.” In other words, if they are truly prophets of God, they will humbly yield to those who rightly interpret Scripture.

All Must Be Done in Peace

All of this must happen peacefully, for God is not a God of confusion or conflict, but of peace.

This makes the true spirit of the Anabaptists unmistakably clear—no matter how humbly they present themselves. Their spirits are not subject to the order and discipline of God’s prophets. Rather, they immediately stir up division. Consider this example: A faithful and godly preacher once explained Paul’s words from 1 Corinthians 3:13–15 to his congregation, especially the phrase about “refining fire.” An Anabaptist who heard the explanation but didn’t understand it walked out of the church and called the preacher a liar.

That’s how “gracious” the spirit of these so-called prophets truly is!

If they really possess the same God who has now revealed His Gospel to us, then they would have the God of peace—not the god of division. But if they create disorder, then they clearly do not have the God of peace, the same God who first made the Gospel known through His prophets and evangelists. Among true believers—among those churches where the Gospel is rightly preached—there is no division. It is the Anabaptists who disturb that peace.

They do not go to unbelieving churches to share the Gospel. Instead, they bring confusion into believing congregations where there had previously been unity and peace in God. And they do all this over outward, earthly matters.

This proves they do not serve the God of peace, but the spirit of disorder and conflict. They are like those who came to Antioch saying, “Unless you are circumcised, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:5), thereby unsettling the Christian community. Similarly, the Anabaptists now say, “Unless you are rebaptized, you cannot be saved”—bringing the same kind of confusion.

Two Functions Within the Office of Prophet

From this, we can distinguish two primary roles within the prophetic office. First, the Old Testament, prophets opposed evil and promoted good. In the New Testament, pastors or “watchmen” do the same. In this sense, the offices of prophet, evangelist, and pastor are one and the same. Secondly, in larger churches, another aspect of the prophetic office emerges: public explanation of Scripture, especially of the Old Testament, when people gather to study the Word. This practice is not yet widespread, but if God wills, it will soon begin here in Zurich. Arrangements are already being made, as previously promised, through the reformation of the Grossmünster (Great Minster). Strictly speaking, one cannot hold this second office unless they are trained in the biblical languages and capable of interpreting Scripture.

Paul continues in Ephesians 4:11: “And some He appointed as evangelists.”

The office of evangelist is essentially the same as that of prophet, assuming the prophet also serves as a pastor—one who tears out evil and plants what is good. In that sense, the evangelist is no different from a bishop or pastor. This is confirmed by Paul in 2 Timothy 4:5, where he tells Timothy, “Do the work of an evangelist; fulfill your ministry.” And yet Timothy was a bishop. Therefore, the office of bishop and evangelist are one and the same. Paul affirms this again in 2 Timothy 4:2: “Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and encourage with all patience and instruction.”

What is that but the task of a bishop, prophet, or shepherd? In terms of teaching, their duties are no different than those of the apostles. The only difference is this: the apostles were travelers, while bishops are settled in a specific place, serving a particular congregation. Apostles were not to possess property, while it is entirely fitting for pastors to have a home and means of support—despite what some unruly factions might claim. Paul writes in Titus 1:5–9:

“For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might put what remained into order and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you—men who are blameless, the husband of one wife, with believing children who are not wild or disobedient. For a bishop must be blameless, a steward of God—not arrogant, not quick-tempered, not a drunkard, not violent, not greedy for gain—but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and to rebuke those who contradict it.”

These are well-known words among Christians, but I wish to highlight what is most relevant here.

First, there must have already been apostles in Crete who had preached the Gospel, but there were not yet appointed elders, bishops, or pastors. That’s why Paul says, “I left you in Crete to put things in order.” This shows that the apostolic office is broader than that of an evangelist.

Second, Paul specifies that a bishop must be a respectable man who manages his household well and has faithful children. This clearly refers to someone settled—someone with a household and a stable life.

So what should we make of those who say, “Your pastor should not own a house—he should live as a guest in others’ homes”? They argue, “If he owns a house, he can no longer speak the truth.” But Paul writes in 1 Timothy 3:4:

“He must manage his own household well, keeping his children respectful and obedient.”

And shortly after:

“For if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?”

This reveals the distinction between apostles and bishops, so we may clearly identify the spirit of those who promote rebellion.

One might add here that the very poor—those in utter need—are often less likely to govern a household well, whereas those with stability often govern well. But I will not dwell on that point, lest I be accused of defending greed.

What is clear is this: A bishop must have a household. That is, he must not be disorderly, quarrelsome, lazy, or neglectful. A bishop should be a dignified, respectful man, managing his household in such a way that no scandal arises. Where such order exists, there is every reason to believe he will also serve his church honorably—without exploiting or burdening others.

How would you act, you contentious men, if Titus had chosen, among the Cretans, a well-off and wealthy man for the office of bishop? Therefore, look more carefully to Scripture and set aside your quarrels. Paul here neither specifies rich nor poor, but says that a bishop should be a good household manager. This should not be understood as referring merely to financial bookkeeping, for he also says that the bishop must not be greedy for shameful gain. From this, the whole church has rightly learned not to appoint to the office of bishop those who are lavish, shameless profiteers, usurers, or tax-farmers.

Moreover, one can see from Paul’s diligence in outlining the bishop’s character how one should assist them, such that not only the rich are chosen. “For it is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven,” as Christ says in Luke 18:24. Yet still, they had to choose those who had nevertheless managed their household well. That is not easily done by beggars, for beggars have neither house nor household. Paul means by a “householder” a disciplined man who governs his household in such a way that no one is harmed, and who is decent, obedient, and strives for justice. Where such a household and householder exist, one can be confident that a modest living is maintained without burdening or exploiting others.

The entire point is this: bishops or evangelists should not be antichristian or papist simply because they possess houses or goods—so long as they are not greedily coveting temporal goods. That Paul says the bishop should be “hospitable” (cf. Titus 1:8)—that is, welcoming the poor and offering lodging—shows even more strongly that he must have a house to host guests, and likewise some means to feed those who come to him.

Here we reject the wicked slander that the gospel ministers are subjected to by contentious critics who say: “Whoever has a benefice cannot preach the truth, and therefore should not be considered a true pastor.” But Christ says in Luke 10:7: “The laborer is worthy of his wages,” and he says this directly to the apostles, so that they would have no doubt of conscience when they ate food from those to whom they preached.

If anyone should object: “Christ spoke this only to the apostles,” let him recall that the apostle Paul understood these words also to refer to the evangelists—that is, to prophets, pastors, watchmen, bishops, or whatever one calls them. For he says in 1 Corinthians 9:7–15: “Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its fruit? Who tends a flock and does not drink of its milk?” And again: “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain” (Deut. 25:4). Is God concerned about oxen, or does He speak for our sake? Certainly for our sake it was written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes should do so in hope of sharing the crop.

So if we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap your material things? If others share this rightful claim on you, do we not even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure all things so as not to put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ.

Do you not know, even from the ancient pagans, that those who prepare or offer sacrifices eat of the offering, and those who serve at the altar share in the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should live by the gospel.

But I have used none of these rights. I am not writing this so that it should be done for me; for I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of my reason for boasting.

These words of Paul are so clear that they require no further explanation, for he presses with all his might that those who proclaim God’s Word should receive support. And although he took nothing from the Corinthians, and little in other places, he says in Acts 20:34: “These hands”—showing his hands—“supplied my needs and those of my companions.” Yet he also affirms that those who serve the gospel should be supported by those to whom they minister, as he says in 1 Thessalonians 5:12–13: “We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.” And again in Hebrews 13:7: “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God.”

We are not here speaking of idle men who want to be pastors whether God wills it or not, but only of those who truly preach the gospel. Paul further says in 1 Timothy 5:17–18: “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says: ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages.’”

From these words of Paul, we hear plainly that he applies Christ’s words—“The laborer is worthy of his wages”—to all offices that serve the Word of God, for he says: “especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.” Concerning doctors or teachers, more will follow.

So, when it is so publicly evident that those who instruct and lead us in discipline should be supported by us, why do the impudent chatterers come and tell the simple Christians: “He who has a benefice cannot preach the gospel. And is it not a benefice from the pope, even if it is from God?”—unless you distinguish between double honor, reverence, and benefice, as if they were not all the same thing.

What does it matter whether you call the provision for ministers a wage (as Christ Himself calls it), double honor, reverence, or benefice—so long as it is the support of those appointed to teach?

They say: “There should be no established benefices, but only what one is freely given.” I answer: The arrangement of external matters belongs to the Christian community, as Philippians 3:16 states, that everything should serve peace and unity. Paul himself did this with the Lord’s Supper. The practice had been that the entire meal was eaten together, as Christ did. But when abuse began to grow, Paul corrected it in 1 Corinthians 11:22: “Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?” And finally in 1 Corinthians 11:34: “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home.”

Likewise with benefices: we may rightly judge that they arose when charitable giving became too burdensome and extensive. When benefices—that is, fixed support—were established, it was done so that alms could no longer suffice. Yet in the end, poor pastors had to return to begging, because the tithe-holders took the produce and left them with scraps.

Let me give an example: I have often been asked to relinquish my benefice, and surely a respectable council would at least have provided me with a hundred guilders. I would have received far more than otherwise. May God grant that the false accusations made against me by these lying troublemakers be disproven. Moreover, several citizens have made generous offers to me.

Dear friend, tell me: what was I to do? I saw clearly that if I had renounced my benefice, my income would have increased—for I know very well how the devout monk-preachers and indulgence-masters have profited. I was also promised well over a hundred guilders annually by certain individuals, and had the council added another hundred, and had I otherwise adjusted myself to the system of payments, I would certainly have fared far better than with a benefice. But what would have been the result? My successors would have followed the same path of profiteering, just as I had done, and all the zeal for true teaching would have been corrupted into mere flattery.

Since no one is too wise or too strong to be immune to such temptation—just as with other trials—and God tests us in many ways, I have been content with a modest prebend as canon. I am convinced it is far better that a pastor receive a fair and fixed provision each year. That way, no one needs to slip anything to him in secret. For one accustomed to living off offerings always presents himself as if he has nothing and takes whatever is given to him. But if he has a definite benefice, no one needs to pity him, for all know he has sufficient means. And thus the harmful system of “gift payments” is completely abolished.

The itinerant preachers should not be offended that I express this view so plainly—for I know well how they, having sent themselves on mission, have taken food and drink from the poor and simple, all the while carrying gold and money in their purses. Let me tell you how I have always acted whenever I preached in the countryside—I am no less holy than they. I paid for my food out of my own pocket. And whenever I was offered money or gifts, I refused them, though they were freely offered.

“Let your eye be single, and your whole body will be full of light”—so speaks Christ in Matthew 6:22, particularly warning against the danger of material possessions. If you are truly a servant of God, you will use your benefice to honor God. If you are not a servant of God, it will soon be evident—for you will pursue base gain and profit. As soon as that happens, you are salt that has lost its savor, good for nothing but to be thrown away (cf. Matt. 5:13).

There is greater hope for steadfastness in one who holds a benefice and rightly teaches, than in one who constantly fears being cast out. I care nothing for those boastful talkers who come around pretending they have no goods—yet watch them closely and you’ll see what they’re really after. I have sadly come to recognize them. At first they appear like spiritual men to the simple, but later it is clear what they truly are.

Moreover, I am especially troubled by preachers who will not preach unless paid large sums. I do not know whether they even deserve to be called preachers. We have few such men among us, and therefore I have no interest in defending them. People say much about how large our benefices are in Zurich—but let it be known that in the year 1524, I could not have come to sixty guilders had not the provost and chapter granted me sixteen portions of revenue. The others have barely more, even if they are said to have more. Yes, these are the “three hundred guilders” that lying slanderers falsely attribute to me—and these are supposedly the great benefices I have!

I speak before the God who raised and nourishes me: I am content. And if I ever lack, it is only because I cannot help the poor as generously as I once could when I had more. If I followed my flesh, I would much rather renounce all benefices on earth, so that I would not have to preach. But these times will not allow it, and the little talent God has entrusted to me (cf. Luke 19:13ff) I must not bury. Thus, I am forced by contentious preachers to speak of my affairs, though I do so most unwillingly.

As for my wife, Anna Reinhart, they spread gossip everywhere about how wealthy she is. But she does not have goods worth more than four hundred guilders—not counting her small jewelry and clothing. Since she married me, she has worn neither silk nor rings, but dresses like the wife of any ordinary tradesman. What little she has from her children—the Meyer family—she rightly needs for her own maintenance. She is over forty years old and often falls ill, which is why I married her. Yet they slander her for being rich and well-dressed, even though everyone knows this is untrue. But in slander there is always great liberty—and so the lies spread.

Not all of it is deceit and lies. Her children have an adequate inheritance. May God grant them to use it rightly! But from all that property, not even a single coin shall come to her—except for her clothes, jewelry, and her dowry, which is thirty guilders. I have also granted her the right to secure her morning gift from it, and I do not claim even a coin of her property for myself.

Paul often defended himself against slanderous accusations, because he saw how much harm they caused the gospel. In the same way, I would gladly do without any defense of myself if the lies being spread did not bring such damage to the gospel of Christ.

Now let us confirm from Scripture that even in the time of the apostles there were settled and established pastors who were called evangelists, prophets, or bishops. In Acts 20:17, we find clearly that Paul, from Miletus, sent for the elders—that is, the bishops, overseers, evangelists, or pastors of the church in Ephesus. He refers to all the faithful in Ephesus as a single church, although we should consider that there was likely more than one bishop there. For he does not say “to the bishop,” but “to the bishops” or elders. From this, we see either that more than one pastor had been appointed in Ephesus, or that there were many overseers, prophets, and teachers in the church who worked together in teaching and guiding the people.

After speaking at length, Paul says in verse 28: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [bishops], to shepherd the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood.” Observe here, dear Christians, how it was in the days of the apostles. The apostles went into the unbelieving world and preached the gospel. And where they planted the faith, they appointed watchmen to continue teaching and guarding what they had planted. These were chosen from among the faithful, settled people—or, if such were lacking, from those who had accompanied them—and they were ordained as bishops. The apostles then moved on to other places.

That is why Paul writes in Titus 1:5: “I left you in Crete for this reason, that you might set in order what was lacking.” Note how he left his disciple behind. Here in Acts 20, however, he calls to himself those bishops who had been appointed where he had first planted the faith—those who had been established by the Holy Spirit to shepherd the Christian people. From this, we see clearly the distinction between apostles and evangelists, and we see that the office of pastor, bishop, or overseer is ordained by God. For Paul says, “Over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers” (Acts 20:28). Read Paul’s entire speech from Acts 20:18–35, and you will see for yourself that what I say is true.

Furthermore, in Acts 21:8–9, we read: “We came to Caesarea, and entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. This man had four virgin daughters who prophesied.” We clearly hear that this Philip, the evangelist in Caesarea, was a settled overseer or bishop—not an apostle, though he was one of the seven chosen in Acts 6 to serve. It is also noteworthy that the name “apostle” often changed once they settled permanently in a place, due to age or duty, and were no longer traveling. They were then called “bishops.” For example, James, whom we call “the younger” (not “the lesser”—for minor here means “younger”), was bishop of Jerusalem. Jerome and the ancient fathers all call him this, because he was settled there. The apostles, who went out into other lands, left him—who had once also gone out to preach—as a watchman and leader of the Word in Jerusalem.

Likewise, John the Evangelist, after suffering much in his apostolic office, finally settled in Ephesus as a bishop and died there sixty-eight years after Christ’s ascension. So the apostles and evangelists differed not in doctrine, but in office.

We also learn from Philip that he had his own house, since Paul and his large company lodged there—which is entirely contrary to those restless preachers who, wherever they go, immediately claim they must strip the pastors or bishops of their authority and confuse the flock entrusted to them. They do this by citing Matthew 10, saying: “Look! They were told to stay in others’ homes and to own nothing. Therefore, parish priests or pulpit preachers” (as they call them) “cannot speak the truth, because they have benefices.” But the problem is that they fail to distinguish between apostles and evangelists or bishops. This is nothing but wicked ignorance. And when someone shows them plainly that Scripture teaches a difference between apostolic and episcopal offices, they shout: “God has spoken! (Matt. 11:25) He has hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes.” Therefore, they say, we should not listen to the learned. God has given His Spirit to the Germans just as much as to the Latins or Greeks. And they cry out, “Honest people! We have it in our hands—let no one take it from us!”

To such I would gladly give a sharp reply—just so their true spirit might be revealed. But you should answer them as befits your dignity, not as they deserve. Yes, indeed, God has revealed it only to the simple and sincere. But what does “simple” mean here? Does it mean foolish in understanding? Or does it mean sincere and upright of heart—not deceitful, not arrogant, not cunning?

If you are so “learned” that you can cite Scripture everywhere, and yet have learned only by reading without deeper understanding, why count yourself among the simple? If I began something wicked without grounding in Scripture, and someone pointed out the contradiction to me, would I defend my error by saying: “You are learned, I am unlearned—so I must be right”? Shall I then say whatever I please, and when refuted, claim the truth must be mine because I’m not educated?

Tell me honestly: should we believe the holy Scriptures in all things, or only when it suits your interests? I hope you’ll be ashamed to admit that we must believe the Scriptures only when they support your advantage. If we are to believe them always, then it follows that Scripture clearly teaches: evangelists ought to be well instructed, not recently begun in the faith, and able to instruct others. They may have their own homes and fixed provisions, just as the apostles were told to go out without staff or purse (cf. Matt. 10:6ff).

So why do you slander faithful evangelists? I am not speaking of papist priests, but of upright and trustworthy servants of the gospel. If you did not know the difference between apostles and evangelists, then you have flown too soon from the nest, and your spirit has not yet been properly nourished. Your slander is nothing but presumptuous ignorance. But if you did know the difference and deliberately kept silent, then your deceit is not without malice. You were not sent by God, but by a goddess called Eris—in German, Discord. Therefore, mark well, dear Christian: when Christ speaks in Matthew 11:25 of “little ones” or “the simple,” He does not mean the ignorant (otherwise, I would be a great doctor indeed!), but those whose faith is sincere—who are not children of this age (cf. Luke 16:8), whose eye of faith is single (cf. Matt. 6:22), who are not great in the world’s eyes, but who despise the greatness of worldly people and are able to lift their hearts before God.

For God has made even the most learned into His disciples: Nicodemus, Paul, Barnabas, Luke, Gamaliel, Ananias, Apollos, Agabus, Timothy, Titus, and many others. All these had to become small in their own eyes through their learning. They had to deny themselves, become like children, and not place their hope in their knowledge. They did not try to manipulate God’s Word according to their own ideas, nor did they elevate the mind of the flesh above the mind of the Spirit (cf. Gal. 5:17). They did not consider themselves great, but were humble and obedient instruments of God.

Christ’s meaning is that the wise of this world do not understand the matter of salvation. Rather, the farther one is removed from worldly wisdom—which is a kind of unfaithfulness—the more clearly one comes to know the will of God. But from this it does not follow that every fool who says something is therefore right, or that he is chosen by God to be an apostle. I would very much like to hear from you why your teachers—those who stand with you in support of child baptism and re-baptism—are so loudly praised everywhere. Yet all of them are pulpit preachers and hold benefices. How then can they speak the truth? You cannot excuse your unfaithfulness by claiming ignorance. God gives one ten talents (cf. Matt. 25:14–30; Luke 19:11–28), and is so gracious that He does not reject a man on account of great learning, but rather gives him authority over ten cities (cf. Luke 19:17), if he has served faithfully.

From all this you can see clearly that in the time of the apostles, the evangelists kept households and gave hospitality, as Paul indicates to Titus and Timothy. And it makes no difference what the confused zealots or haters say: If they were truly from God, they could defend everything they say with a solid foundation, and they would become all things to all people in order that we might win Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19–22).

But since they are so “pure” that no one may touch them and every word they speak must be pure Spirit, I see clearly that they must desire the same tyranny the Pope once held. I do not wish to defend the greedy and pompous preachers—though indeed, they have more of such men among their ranks in this land than anywhere else, as will become evident when they soon appear publicly with their doctrine of baptism, as they boast they will.

Furthermore, Acts 21:9 states: “Philip had four daughters who prophesied.” From these words we see even more clearly that this Philip kept a household and, following the order required for bishops, raised his daughters with discipline. I hear that some of these self-appointed apostles, who twist all things into absurdity, have begun to say: “It would be better if priests did not have wives”—and yet these are the very people who once shouted that priests must marry. What do you make of this? Is it not time to speak plainly when all people are being misled?

You harsh critics and mockers—when will you realize that your quarrels amount to nothing more than bitter and angry foolishness, not spiritual discernment? Yes, I do not doubt that it is more fitting for an apostle or missionary to travel for the gospel without a wife. But if he is not pure, he should have a wife and bring her with him, as Peter and others did, as Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 9:5.

Yet bishops are not to be without wives, in order to avoid scandal—about which enough has already been said. Scandal is dangerous, and the flesh is so untrustworthy that even one who now has well-raised children must, for the sake of propriety, be married, as the apostles required for bishops.

What, then, of these four daughters who prophesied? I would like to hear an answer from the well-instructed, self-appointed apostles—those who nonetheless admit that it is not proper for women to speak publicly in the church (cf. 1 Cor. 14:34–35). Therefore, we should understand that the word “prophesy” in Scripture sometimes simply means listening to or interpreting Scripture aloud in church, as is made clear in 1 Corinthians 11:5: “Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.” From Paul’s surrounding words, we can clearly see that he only means that if a woman prays in the assembly, she should be veiled—likewise when she sits to listen to the Word of God.

Sometimes “to prophesy” means to explain the sense of Scripture. As in 1 Corinthians 14:31: “You can all prophesy one by one.” That means, if the prophets, who first speak about the meaning of Scripture, have not explained it clearly, and God reveals the meaning to someone else in the congregation, then that person too may “prophesy”—that is, explain the meaning of the passage.

It has already been sufficiently shown that in those days, the Scriptures read publicly were from the Old Testament, as is evident in 1 Corinthians 14:26: “Each one has a psalm,” etc. At that time, the writings of the New Testament were more inscribed in hearts than written in books.

From all this we learn that these four daughters did not prophesy in the manner of male prophets, nor like ordinary men in public worship, for women were not to speak in church (cf. 1 Cor. 14:34–35). Moreover, we do not read that they uttered new prophecies. Therefore, Luke must mean: Philip had four daughters who were educated in Holy Scripture, and praised God accordingly in psalms and songs. Such women could rightly use their gifts within their households. Among the Jews, it has long been the custom for women to study Scripture, understand it, and use it to praise God—especially with psalms.

Thus, it is clearly proven that these self-appointed, disorderly preachers act against faithful bishops and oppose God when they say such men may not keep a home or receive a fixed livelihood, and that if they do, they cannot preach the truth. I say this not for my own sake—for, as I have said, my flesh would gladly be free from the burden of preaching, and I would have no trouble securing provisions. For the One who created me would also provide for me. But He has not allowed me to abandon my calling. I have long pleaded for release, but the longer it goes on, the more He gives me to do in His Word. Praise be to Him!

Therefore, let no one begrudge the evangelists their office or stipends, even though the rest of the benefices may well need to be worked down in a spirit of peace and friendly agreement with their holders. For even if today the parochial stipends were abolished, tomorrow the priests would compel us to reestablish them. Let no one be led into thoughtless actions by the restless agitators.

For even if the parish benefices were abolished today, tomorrow the common priest would force us to restore them. Let no one be led by these restless agitators into rash decisions. Whatever occurs to them in their dreams, they present it as truth and claim that the Spirit of God has revealed it to them.

But I can speak with the holy Paul, as in 1 Corinthians 14:37: “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.”

Paul then continues in Ephesians 4:11: “He appointed some as pastors and teachers.” It is well known that by “pastors” he means those who watch over the flock. This office is almost always associated with the evangelists as well, for they are the true bishops and watchmen, to whom Christ says in Matthew 24:42, “Watch, for you do not know when the master of the house will come.” And to Peter, in John 21:15–17: “Do you love me? Then feed my sheep.” He also speaks of the shepherd’s office in John 10 (cf. John 10:11–30), and there it is clear that he means the office of bishop.

Likewise, Peter joins the shepherd and bishop together in 1 Peter 2:25: “You have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer (Bishop) of your souls,” meaning Jesus Christ our Lord. Enough has been said on that point.

But it may happen that, in large churches or parishes, the burden of preaching and watching over the flock in all dangers may be too much for a single person. In such cases, one may rightly be appointed to oversee spiritual dangers and open sin, and another to handle the ministry of the Word. For example, in our church, one or two, or even three, are sufficient for the task of watching. And although we divide the preaching among the three of us, we still have more than enough to do.

By “teachers,” we are not to understand those with red hats, gold rings, silk robes, and embroidered vestments. Rather, the term refers either to those who teach publicly (who are also called prophets, as shown above), or to those who instruct the people generally, and those who are being trained to teach others, especially in the languages. Or, the term may refer to all those who teach—apostles and evangelists alike.

Thus, Paul calls himself a teacher of the Gentiles in 1 Timothy 2:7—meaning an apostle to the Gentiles, as he also says in Galatians 2:2. But we can see from the order of his words that he primarily understands “teachers” to be those educated individuals who teach so that others may be instructed and equipped to teach in turn.

We see this clearly in Acts 13:1: “Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch), and Saul.” From this, we see that even in apostolic times, in some larger churches, there were many learned men who diligently instructed others in Scripture, so that the Word of God might not be misinterpreted. Paul makes this point in 1 Corinthians 14:5: “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy.”

Here, Paul wishes that all Christians could speak various languages—but for the purpose that they might prophesy, that is, explain and preach the Scriptures. He knows well that not all people are fluent in various languages, but he shows how beneficial it would be for Christians to know the languages in which God’s Word was written. That’s why he wishes it for everyone—not as an end in itself, but as a means of useful prophecy, that is, proper interpretation and proclamation of the Word.

Here the Anabaptists are greatly mistaken, for they disparage the study of languages and say, “We do not need them. We understand Scripture just as well as those who know many languages. What matters is the Spirit, not the skill.” But Paul did not make his wish in vain—he wanted everyone to know the languages.

Therefore, let it be noted: It is true and certain that the human heart is turned to God only by the drawing of God Himself. No matter how learned a person may be, the true understanding of Scripture must come from the One who gave it authority.

Now, there is no harm in using illustrations. Some can easily present themselves as spiritual. But when it becomes clear that their words do not conform to God’s Word, we see their claims for what they are—mere pretense. For the simple tend to treat everything as if it were God’s Word, even when they do not truly understand it.

But we must test the meaning to see if it is truly so. Then the faithful person will discern whether the true sense has been grasped or not. And this cannot be done in any better way than through the study of the languages. Just as the German language cannot defend itself when written, because we all understand German, so if we knew Hebrew as well as we know German, we could thoroughly grasp the Old Testament. Likewise, if we knew Greek as well as German, then nothing in the New Testament could remain hidden from us.

Therefore, all glosses and commentaries are worthless compared to knowing the original languages. We can see this in Paul’s own words, for he does not say, “I wish you all knew the glosses or rabbinic interpretations,” but “I wish you all knew the languages”—especially Hebrew.

But in these lands, the average person cannot learn them. That is why it is necessary that, in certain places, there be teachers who can instruct a few in the languages.

This is not some new scheme. We see it was already practiced in the apostolic age at Antioch and is also useful in our own lands. So may you and other lands, according to your circumstances and with God’s help, let the useless clergy die out, and use a portion of their goods for the poor, and another portion to train some learned men in the languages for the benefit and support of your nation.

For otherwise, there is great danger in the reading that is now so widespread. It is plain to see that far more people are puffed up and confused by their reading than are made godly and reverent. They parade every sort of foolishness as if it were Scripture, though it has no basis in the original languages or meaning. Such things can only be corrected through proper understanding.

We are not all meant to be preachers, as Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians 12:29: “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?”—as if to say, clearly, no. Therefore, it is an act of great arrogance when these self-appointed preachers assume for themselves every office and dismiss what they cannot understand or do.

Let me offer two examples to show how badly things could go if languages were disregarded. I could give many more, but why? Anyone who hears them can see how presumptuous they are.

There were many thousands of believers in Jerusalem, yet only twelve apostles. But here among us, everyone is an apostle! I even think there are more of them than of the people. Anyone who has attended a German school and can sound out the letters sets himself up and recites Scripture to the congregation. I am not speaking of gossip—I know of places where people tried to read Scripture and stumbled over the text so badly it was obvious they were just learning it.

One example: In a certain place (I will refrain from naming names), where there is a faithful and worthy evangelical pastor or bishop, a weaver took it upon himself, out of sheer arrogance, to take the pulpit on a Sunday. When the pastor arrived, the weaver declared, “I will preach.” The pastor yielded to avoid open conflict.

So the weaver began to read from 1 Timothy 4, a passage that the people had already heard many times from their faithful pastor. When he reached verse 2—“their consciences have been seared”—he said, “I don’t understand this.” Then the pastor offered, “Let me explain it to you.” But the people cried out, “Tell him to come down!” The pastor replied, “If I had told him to come down on my own authority, I might have seemed suspicious. But since you yourselves are calling for it, he should step down.” So at length, the weaver descended.

Now consider: First, he exalted himself above the entire congregation. Second, he presented himself as possessing a divine spirit—yet he couldn’t even read. But if the Spirit of God were truly present, He would also provide understanding of both meaning and doctrine. This reveals that it was not a divine calling, but mere letter-reading and puffed-up pride.

The second example: When they teach rebaptism, they take Matthew 3 as their proof text. That chapter includes John’s rebuke of the Pharisees and Sadducees: “You brood of vipers” (Matt. 3:7–12). Then some of them say to the simple-minded, “See how harshly John rebuked the Pharisees because they would not be baptized?” The poor listeners are left confused, not knowing what to think. But this is not the meaning of the passage. Rather, Matthew summarizes John’s fiery sermon, showing how he inwardly recognized that the Pharisees came to baptism with dishonest intentions. That is why he rebuked them—though, no doubt, with more words and teaching than are recorded.

Now, if such dangers can arise from those who know only the bare letter of Scripture, it is more necessary than ever that we have people capable of discerning and defending the true sense of the text. For if so many strange opinions arise at the outset, how will it be over time? When anyone can see that these people plainly err in their reading of Scripture, yet still present their interpretation as the work of the Spirit, we must ask: What kind of spirit is this? It is a spirit that will not listen to correction, that uses the multitude of rebaptized followers to free itself from all obedience and accountability.

I speak the truth. This is evident from their writings and sayings. But God, the true judge, will in time reveal all things.

No faithful Christian has ever taken any office upon himself, but only when called and sent by God or appointed by the Church or the apostles—which amounts to the same thing: a proper calling and commissioning.

This, we will demonstrate clearly with Christ our Lord, with John the Baptist, with the apostles, and with Scripture, both Old and New Testaments.

From the Old Testament, let us refer especially to one story in Numbers 16 (cf. Num. 16:1–50), although the broader evidence is clear: No one in the Old Testament presumed to be a prophet without God’s calling, signs, or fulfilled prophecy (see Deut. 13:1), nor to be a priest, for that office was assigned solely to the tribe of Levi.

The story is this: When Moses, at God’s command, appointed his brother Aaron as high priest, Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and On of the tribe of Reuben rebelled. They said, “Enough of this! The whole assembly is holy, and the Lord is with them. Why do you set yourselves above the Lord’s people?”

When Moses heard this, he instructed them: “Tomorrow the Lord will show who belongs to Him and who is holy. Each of you—Korah and your company—take your censers, put fire and incense in them, and present them before the Lord.” There were 250 of them. Aaron also brought his censer.

Then God performed a great wonder. He commanded the people to separate themselves from the rebels. The earth opened up and swallowed their tents and all they owned. They went down alive into the grave, and the earth closed over them. In this way, God punished those in the Old Testament who presumptuously and rebelliously seized the priesthood without God’s calling or Moses’ appointment—a role far less dangerous than that of teaching.

Our Redeemer Jesus Christ was proclaimed by the Father from heaven as the true Savior, sent to us, to whom we are to listen: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to Him” (Matt. 3:17; 17:5).

John the Baptist confirmed this publicly: “I saw the Spirit descend like a dove from heaven and remain on Him. I myself did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God” (John 1:32–34).

Paul too affirms this mission in Hebrews 5:4–5: “No one takes this honor upon himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was. So also Christ did not exalt Himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by the one who said, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’”

Christ Himself repeatedly affirms that He was sent by the Father (cf. John 6:57; 8:12–58; 17:18; 20:21; Gal. 4:4). From these testimonies, it is clear that no one may publicly preach unless he has been sent—just as Christ confirmed His own mission through many means.

John the Baptist’s commission was foretold by the prophet Malachi (Mal. 3:1; cf. Mark 1:2). John the Evangelist says, “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John” (John 1:6). And John himself testifies: “The one who sent me to baptize told me…” (John 1:33). Again, in John 3:27: “A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven.” And in verse 28: “You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before Him.’”

Regarding the apostles, we have two clear testimonies in John 17:18 and 20:21: “As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.” Jesus says in Matthew 10:16: “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves.” Again, in Matthew 28:19–20: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” And in Mark 16:15: “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel…”

All these are words of commissioning. Christ also illustrates this calling in the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14–30; Luke 19:12–28), where sending and entrusting are shown to be one and the same.

They held to this principle so firmly that no one was permitted to assume a role on their own authority. When Judas, by hanging himself, removed himself from both life and the fellowship of the apostles, no one presumed to elevate himself to his place. Instead, the entire community made the decision, as recorded in Acts 1:15–26.

Likewise, when there was a shortage of ministers, no one stood up independently and declared himself a servant, even though this might have been seen as commendable. Instead, the whole assembly chose the seven deacons, as described in Acts 6:1–6—and that was only for the purpose of handling bodily, material needs.

Similarly, when the apostles heard that Samaria had received the word of God through Philip’s preaching, not just anyone went to assist, but Peter and John were specifically sent (Acts 8:14). When self-appointed brothers came to Antioch and confused the faithful with teachings about circumcision (just as the Anabaptists do today), no one ran off on their own to Jerusalem. Rather, Paul and Barnabas were formally appointed, along with others, to go to Jerusalem (Acts 15:1–21). And when they returned, only those officially appointed went with them.

Paul so forcefully affirmed his own calling in every place that it is clear some looked down on him for supposedly lacking an official commission—treating him as though he had thrust himself forward. But Paul insists in Galatians 1:1: “Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ…”—indicating his divine calling, which is narrated in Acts 9:3–31, and retold by Paul in Acts 22:1–21 and Acts 26:9–18.

Again, in 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states, “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,” affirming his commission. In 1 Corinthians 9:1–2, he says: “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? Even if I am not an apostle to others, I certainly am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.” These words show that ceremonial preachers were attacking him, claiming he was not truly an apostle since he had not been sent in the same way as those who had been physically with Christ. Paul counters this in 2 Corinthians 12:11—“I am not in the least inferior to the ‘super-apostles’”—and in 1 Corinthians 15:10: “I worked harder than all of them.”

In Galatians 1–2, Paul does little else but defend his calling, demonstrating that, although he was not one of the original apostles, he was nonetheless sent by God. When those who seemed to be pillars of the Church recognized that God had entrusted him with preaching to the Gentiles, they extended to him and to Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.

Paul speaks about all preachers in Romans 10:15: “How are they to preach unless they are sent?” This verse makes it plain: no one should assume the office of preaching unless they are sent. In apostolic times, no one took the office upon themselves; and all who did were regarded as heretics—that is, schismatics.

Paul refers elsewhere to those who are appointed over others in the Word: 1 Thessalonians 5:12–13, Hebrews 13:17, and 1 Timothy 5:17, where he says that priests or bishops who govern well should be considered worthy of double honor—something we’ve already discussed.

From all these testimonies, it becomes clearer than daylight that no one may assume the office of bishop unless he is sent and appointed.

Therefore, we must speak of calling and appointment—matters that are easily learned from the aforementioned sources. According to the word of Christ in John 20:21—“As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you”—it is certain that all who wish to preach must be sent by God. Otherwise, they are the “evil workers” Paul warns about in Philippians 3:2.

Moreover, God’s true messengers are confirmed by external signs—either by miracles or by open election. For example, God not only called Paul in his heart, but also confirmed his apostolic calling through a miraculous conversion (Acts 9). Matthias, on the other hand, was appointed by casting lots from among the gathered community (Acts 1:26).

From the time of the apostles down to our own day, no one has rightly taken up the office of bishop without first being chosen. I speak only of legitimate, gospel-preaching bishops and pastors. I say nothing here about the tyrants—some of whom wage bloody conflicts over bishoprics—because they belong to an entirely different discussion.

Election to office has taken place in three ways:

1. By the whole community, as with Matthias (Acts 1).

2. By the apostles, but not the entire community, as in Acts 8, where Peter and John were sent to Samaria by the apostles.

3. By a single apostle, as when Paul appointed Titus to oversee the churches in Crete (Titus 1:5).

From this last example, it is clear how far the Roman system has strayed from biblical practice. The election of bishops has been turned into tyranny. High-ranking bishops, abbots, and lords have appointed pastors from among their own servants, cooks, or even pimps—regardless of the will of the congregation. Or, where the congregation has retained some voice, it has often appointed someone based on favoritism, not on the qualities and virtues prescribed by Paul.

Therefore, when it comes to appointment, nothing is more godly than for the entire congregation, with the counsel of devout and wise bishops or Christian leaders, to elect a pastor—just as we can observe Titus doing. Although Paul says [Titus 1:5], “that you should appoint,” he did not appoint alone, as the tyrannical bishops claim. Why? Because if the power to excommunicate and to teach belongs to the whole congregation, then far more should the selection of a teacher not be the prerogative of a distant bishop or abbot, but of the church itself, with the guidance of wise Christian prophets and evangelists. For we should not leave this solely to the uninstructed, simple congregation, as is clear from Paul’s teaching on the handling of the Word in 1 Corinthians 14, and from previous examples. There, the interpretation of Scripture is entrusted not to the unlearned community alone, but to the prophets, interpreters, and those skilled in languages—though the congregation is also allowed to speak.

We now turn to examine whether these self-sent apostles can truly be said to be sent by God—beginning with their inward calling.

Christ says [John 20:21], “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” If Christ had risen to seek earthly gain, then these men would be justified in rebelling over tithes and taxes. But since no such motive is found in Him, it is evident they are not sent by God.

God’s Word commands obedience to authority, whether the ruler is a believer or not [Romans 13:1]. Yet these people teach that no Christian may serve as a magistrate—even though this is clearly contradicted in 1 Timothy 6:2, 1 Peter 2:13–18, and Ephesians 6:5–9. Thus it is clear that their teaching, and their views on rebaptism, oppose both God and the peace of Christendom. And though they may swear a thousand oaths to the contrary, it soon becomes evident: as soon as their numbers grow large enough to think they can prevail, they turn against all authority and refuse to give what they owe to the emperor [cf. Matthew 22:21].

The third proof, and the clearest for any simple believer, is this: the content and effect of their teaching reveals they are not sent by God. Paul says [1 Corinthians 14:33], “God is not a God of disorder but of peace,” as is seen in all Christian churches. If their baptizing and preaching brings only discord, then they certainly do not have the God of peace. They respond by citing Christ’s words [Matthew 10:34], “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Answer: The sword Christ refers to is not to be found among the faithful, but between believers and unbelievers. These people, however, sow division among the faithful over outward things—just as others did in the days of the apostles.

We must now consider external signs. If they were sent by God, He would have confirmed their mission either by miracles or through clear election, which no one could dispute. But they perform no miracles, nor have they been properly elected by any church. Therefore, they lack the outward mark of the apostolic or episcopal office and are certainly not sent by God. This has already been sufficiently demonstrated.

Let us now look at the offices they claim and whether they carry them out according to their responsibilities. Again, we find that they are not sent by God.

If they were apostles, their task would be to go continually among unbelievers to convert them to the faith, as apostles did. Bishops, by contrast, remain settled among those already entrusted to them. But these people do not go among the unbelievers—they plant themselves among believers and bring confusion where there was once unity and peace. Therefore, they are clearly not apostles.

Nor are they bishops—for they have not been appointed by any church together with qualified, faithful bishops. Still less are they prophets or teachers. Thus it is evident that they are nothing but rebels.

They offer two objections.

First: they say Paul writes [1 Corinthians 14:31], “You can all prophesy one by one,” that is, speak from your understanding of Scripture before the church. Response: Such prophecy is still practiced in the churches, and we are now beginning to restore it. But even if someone may speak in that setting, it does not follow that he may on his own assume the apostolic or episcopal office. Nor does it mean he may begin speaking before the church uninvited. Rather, he may speak only after the prophets, interpreters, and those skilled in languages have spoken. Paul insists that everything be done in order. Therefore, no one should presume to claim the office of apostle or evangelist unless he is called and outwardly confirmed by God. A person does not become a bishop simply because he has explained Scripture publicly. Otherwise, Paul would not have needed to make such careful distinctions between offices, which he does not only in Ephesians 4:11, but also in 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Romans 12:7–8.

Second objection: they cite John 3:34: “He whom God has sent speaks the words of God.” They conclude that anyone who speaks God’s Word has been sent by God. Response: Every Christian should understand that not all who speak of God are born of the Spirit [cf. John 3:6]. First, this verse refers specifically to Christ. Yet they apply it to themselves. Even if the verse can refer more broadly to those whom God sends, it does not apply to those who are not sent. For there is a difference between speaking about God and being sent as an apostle or bishop.

We will explain this distinction more fully below. For now, it suffices to say that the statement—“He whom God sends speaks the words of God”—does not imply that all who speak the words of God have therefore been sent to the apostolic or episcopal office.

In short, we must not presumptuously exalt ourselves as masters [cf. Matt. 23:8–10]. Yet every church must have a watchman or overseer, so that arrogant and willful goats may be restrained—not by the watchman’s personal authority, but by the authority of the church. For if the office of watchman—that is, bishop or pastor—were so degraded and abandoned to the dogs that anyone could claim the bishopric at will, there would soon be great discord among those now stepping forward to preach. Just as they now present themselves as teachers or apostles, another faction would appear tomorrow, claiming the same right to teach as the current group, and then another after that. The result would be endless division, with each person gathering a faction around himself. Indeed: as many reckless heads, as many sects and disturbances.

Let me be clear: I speak here only of public preaching within the church. I fully recognize that every person has the right to speak of God with another, to meditate and recall His truth. But for anyone to rise up in a corner and teach whatever they wish, without the consent and discernment of the church—which must evaluate both the person and the doctrine—or for anyone to claim the office of teacher or pastor in a faithful church (by “faithful” I do not mean all who call themselves Christian, but those who truly believe the gospel and permit its free preaching), and to speak as he pleases from his own impulse—this I do not merely call presumptuous and wicked, but antichristian.

For this leads to no less error than if in a city every citizen claimed the office of mayor simply because he was a citizen. Nor should they defend themselves with 1 Peter 2 [cf. 1 Pet. 2:5, 9]: “We are all priests,” for I am not speaking here of spiritual dignity but of the teaching office. It is true that we are all equally priests in the sense that the New Testament speaks of offering spiritual sacrifices—namely, that each offers himself [cf. Rom. 12:1]. But we are not all apostles and bishops [cf. 1 Cor. 12:29].

Even if one is a bishop, he does not have the right to intrude into another’s congregation or diocese as he pleases. Paul says [Rom. 15:20], “I made it my aim to preach the gospel where Christ had not been named, so that I would not build on another man’s foundation.” So no one has the right to encroach on another’s flock. I now speak solely of pastors and evangelists who faithfully fulfill their divine office. Even they must not, without permission, move among other congregations or stir up agitation.

Therefore, for the sake of God and Christian peace, I earnestly admonish all who are so restless in their preaching to heed the words of James 3:1: “My brothers, not many of you should become teachers, for you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” See how the devout and holy apostle warns us not to take the teaching office lightly, as if we might rush into it untrained and unprepared. Yet many do so—either out of a desire for status or out of love or hatred toward provision—presenting themselves as teachers, though their work yields nothing but conflict and discord.

Ah, God! Do they think their spirit or motives are unknown, when every faithful, spiritual person discerns and judges all things [cf. 1 Cor. 2:15]? We do not wish to deny anyone the right to preach because of their background or status, provided they are truly called—whether appointed as a bishop or sent as an apostle. Such persons will labor among unbelievers and not sow confusion among believers. But this self-appointment and disturbance—this new beginning undertaken without the consent of the Christian community—can bear no good fruit; for it is not from God. The God of peace proceeds by gentler and more gracious means, not with the bitterness and discord now so visible in their teaching.

Indeed, their followers—the fruits of their preaching—are often quarrelsome, greedy, and worldly, while once they were peaceful, devout, and godly. This shows it is not the work of the Spirit but a temptation. And yet the devil comes so subtly, in such a seemingly holy form [cf. 2 Cor. 11:14], that the simple are deceived, thinking it is the Spirit. But anyone with discernment sees clearly that this is merely self-will. May God remove all fog and delusion from our eyes, so we may clearly learn and do His will.

Finally, I wish to solemnly exhort all who labor in the gospel of Christ with Paul’s words in Colossians 4:17: “Take heed to the ministry you have received in the Lord, that you fulfill it.” God has appointed you as watchmen and shepherds in the church. Be vigilant and diligent, so that the wolves do not tear apart the flock of Christ, nor discord arise among His sheep. There should be no discord among the faithful, though between believers and unbelievers, there is an eternal conflict.

As for the rebellious Anabaptists and their preachers who call you—and all who do not follow them—unbelievers, do not be troubled. Each of you knows how you trust in God. If they call someone godless who trusts in God without doubt, then it is evident that their spirit is of the father of lies [cf. John 8:44].

Do not be intimidated by the doctors they so loudly praise on their side. We know well what those people are capable of and what spirit they are of. Know this: rebaptism will never be anything other than a sect. And their presumptuous preaching will bring nothing but unrest, disorder, and division.

For the Anabaptists will never gain the approval of the faithful, peace-loving Christians—since they quickly reveal that their teaching undermines community and civil order. Therefore, it can only ever be a sect, one which God tolerates until the elect and steadfast are revealed.

So be watchful that your flock is pure from adultery, impurity, drunkenness, pride, slander, and all excess. Build them up in faith, in the fear of God, and in love of neighbor. Teach them that there is no greater service to God than to honor Him with purity of life.

Teaching that the eternal must not be forfeited for the sake of the temporal. You have open and solid foundations for this in Scripture. Do not grow weary in doing good [cf. Gal. 6:9]; for we have well learned through experience how much effort it takes to correct things when error is tolerated, as we ourselves have done. And yet they speak of us as if we have shown nothing but harshness.

If they had been rewarded according to their presumptuous and deceitful words—which they have already spread and continue to spread—there is no doubt that unrest would have broken out. Therefore, contend as faithful laborers, and do not abandon your post or your calling.

The Lord is coming soon [cf. Phil. 4:5]; He is near—may He not find us sleeping when He arrives [cf. Mark 13:35–36]. Therefore, be diligent and hopeful, and you will undoubtedly be victorious. May God grant His grace. Amen.

In the Book on Baptism, a single word has altered the entire meaning: in M. M., on the second leaf, in the first part, on the thirteenth line, it should read: “That these had not previously been baptized with water.”

I was previously unable to reread the little book carefully myself; others have pointed this out to me. There may well be many more such errors in it. Let each reader attend carefully to the sense.

Suggested Reading

• Christianae Fidei (1531)
• Fidei Ratio (1531)
• Preface to The Prophetenbibel (1529)