About this Book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.
First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.
Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly [Revelation 22]—indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important—and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.
Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.
Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1[:8], “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.
The 1522 “Preface to the Revelation of St. John” in Luther’s translation of the New Testament. Pages 398-399 in Luther’s Works Volume 35: Word and Sacrament I (ed. E. Theodore Bachmann; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1960).
22 comments:
So interesting. I wish I had read this couple of months back, when I was turned me down as a pastoral candidate based exclusively on my interpretation of Revelation 19. Luther aside, what's your view of the place of Revelation in the canon and its value for faith and doctrine?
I couldn't stop laughing. This was my favorite part:
they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it.
Dale, thanks for the comment, and my apologies for ignoring it so long. I attempted a reply here: http://gervatoshav.blogspot.com/2009/03/martin-luthers-hermeneutic-of-faith-and.html
If Genesis is canon then Revelations cannot be. After Noah and the flood god says to Noah that never again will he wipe man from the earth."No more will all flesh be cut off by waters of a deluge and no more will there occur a deluge to bring the earth to ruin." "This is the sign of the covenant that I am giving between me and you and every living soul that is with you, for the generation to time indefinite." Rev 9 11-12. Do you honestly think this meant he promised not water but never said anything about fire and brimstone-that would say god ahd a sick sense of humor.
Hello J.: My approach is to let the text be the text, bearing in mind, as Emerson said, that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." For my faith tradition, the "text" includes Revelation. It's a wonderful book, really.
The ESV bible makes this observation in its notes:
"the book of Revelation is one of the most sustained examples of symbolic reality in existence"
Wow.
Everyone is a fire breathing teacher. Cant we study a little more before we make bold proclamations.
Do you realize you just proclaimed God almighty has a sick sense of humor? Hold your tongue and think twice before you have the audacity to pick a fight with God.
Just a thought. Most people understand now that Luther thought too highly of himself as did Calvin. The pendulum swung way too far with these two, interpreting scripture through the idea that we have no free will. Revelation has stern warnings about behavior and works....I have no doubt that this is what drove him.
The fact that there were more prophets in the NT church at one time than all the OT combined seems to have escaped Luther. So again....bias distorts thinking.. You better have better evidence than his feelings to dare to eliminate a book from the Bible.
John Burger, I hope it is clear that my quoting Luther doesn't mean I agree with him.
Let's look as well to what the same Luther also wrote this about Revelation:
We can profit by this book and make good use of it. First, for comfort! We can rest assured that neither force nor lies, neither wisdom nor holiness, neither tribulation nor suffering shall suppress Christendom, but it will gain the victory and conquer at last. Second, for our warning, against the great, perilous, and manifold offense that inflicts itself upon Christendom.....
In a word, our holiness is in heaven, where Christ is; and not in the world, before men's eyes, like goods in the markent place. Therefore let there be offenses, divisions, heresies, and faults; let them do what they can! If only the word of the gospel remains pure among us, and we love and cherish it, we shall not doubt that Christ is with us, even when things are at their worst. As we see here in this book, that through and beyond all plagues, beasts and evil angels Christ is nonetheless with his waits, and wins the final victory. [AE 35:399-411]
Anonymous... Amen!
Another comment from Luther that is usually referenced in paraphrase is that he was the first to insist that much of what he wrote and said was not that important(!). He was prodigious in his writings as well as his pastoral proclamations from the pulpit. Apologies he proffered in defense of confessions were well-centered on truths to be found in the Word. However, he often also expressed severe diatribes against abuse of the church of the time, as well as addressing political and social ills, and oftentimes his vocabulary and bluntness could get the best of him. I imagine some from his time possibly passing out from the severity of his language. It could certainly have been compared to the apocryphal writings of St. John in its figurative, not necessarily literal, meanings.
God Bless you all!
How did Revelation get into our Bible? Was the voting unanimous, or were there those who thought it did not belong? A study of the canonicity of Revelation would be insightful. If there were those who thought it did not belong, and yet it makes it into the canon of scripture, who's to say they were right or wrong? That is, on what BASIS did Revelation become scripture?
Luther was both a genius and a revolutionary. He was a tough character, as was Calvin. God needs different personalities at different historical periods. I've never benefitted in reading Revelation. Many ministers and American christianity, as a whole, live in the world of predicting the future with this book, and remain passive.
"When will the end come, Master?"
Jesus replies, "Only my father in Heaven knows!" I'd say, that contradicts John's Book of Revelation.
Historically, the book has led some Christians to shut their eyes to evil, such as the Holocaust. I can only say, "Never, never again!"
(A minor point: When God says he will never destroy mankind with water, again, it doesn't exclude fire as with Peter's gospel, which seems to describe modern nuclear war.)
Why does Revelation speak of a 1000 year reign of Christ between the resurrection of the saved and the lost while both Daniel and Jesus said both the lost and saved will be raised on the day Jesus returns?
What "Unknown" has declared is exactly what I drew from both the character of those two revolutionaries, and their necessity. There is not much to add. Luther pinpoints the similarity of the text to one of the apocrypha. Personally, I have never drawn any comfort or wisdom from it. Media ministers will use it to draw social security checks from grandmothers.
"1. Luther.
Under this period my illustrations of the history must commence of course with a brief sketch of the views of the great Father of the Reformation. In my Horae I have described the time and the manner in which the idea of the Popes being the Antichrist broke upon the mind; and how it was primarily from Daniel’s prophecies respecting the little horn that he drew this conclusion. It was also there intimated that in 1522, at the time of concluding the translation of the New Tes-tament, he had come to doubt of the genuineness of the Revelation as an Apostolic or inspired Book. But it would seem from a Latin Trea-tise of his, now in my hands, “De Antichristo,” dated by himself at its ending, Wittenberg, April 1, 1521, (the very day, I believe, before his setting out for Worms) that the doubt had not then fixed itself in his mind: for he not only alludes in more than one place to the Revela-tion, as an inspired prophetic book, but interprets the prophecy of the scorpion locusts in Rev. 9 In considerable detail. And other evi-dence appears to the same effect in the writings of the year 1520 just preceding. A few years later, 1528, he is stated to have found and republished an Apocalyptic Commentary, expounding the Beast to mean the Popedom; written some hundred years, or rather, as Pareus shows, some 150 years before Luther’s time: an evidence of his in-cline then again, as at first, to view the Revelation as inspired Scrip-ture. Finally, in 1534, he prefixed to the Revelation in his great Edition of the German Bible a brief explanatory sketch: from which, and from certain notices found elsewhere in his writings; I may give what fol-lows as in the main his views on the subject..."
From E.B. Elliots History of Apocalyptic Interpretation
http://www.lulu.com/shop/e-b-elliott/history-of-apocalyptic-interpretation/paperback/product-22919039.html
He did apparently change his mind in the course of time. I'm still looking for a copy of his “De Antichristo,” No luck yet.
Keep it simple...........................Martin Luther paraphrase. (And no, I'm not giving you any donations! Ha!)
Accepted as canonical in 413 AD, first recognized in 135 AD, this author John may not be John the Apostle. The Gospel of John and his 3 letters have a much different style than Revelation, i.e. the beginning, middle, and ending. Any professional writer can recognize that. A pastor in my town declared to his congregation a new revelation in the book of Revelation and I congratulated him that after 2000 yrs the Holy Spirit had provided that for him. Revelation is a mystery. No one is certain what the mystery means. I would be obligated to find me a 'Pharasee' to tell me what it means, and how it helps me in my walk with Christ. So, no thanks! 'Sola Scriptura', simply in English, and in harmony with all other scripture is my guideline. I agree with Martin Luther.
I want to thank the author for reprinting Luther's letter which is invaluable. It is liberating. Never have I drawn comfort from this 'mysterical' book. It is almost a description of the mysticism of The Roman church which I once grew up in. Now, I feel vindicated in my opinion. "Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough evil of its own."--Jesus
To me, there are three basic divisions in the New Testament. The four Gospels and Acts provide a semi-historical foundation for our faith. Then there are the epistles, most of which were written by Paul. Then there is Revelation. Nowhere in the Gospels, Acts or the epistles is Christ's return portrayed in the manner it is in Revelation. Why not??
Well, Bub, Martin Luther gives a dramatic diatribe concerning his doubts of Revelation. As a creative writer I can identify authorship by the style of writing, as with King David's psalms; all are identifiable by the adverbs, adjectives, self-deprecation, or humility of the author. The Gospel of John, and John 1,2,and 3 are very much the same style. Revelation is not. It may be another 'John', but it is not the same Gospel-writer, John, in it's style. It is harsh, aloof, and demanding.
Thank you for making this available. Luther fails to see the bitter irony, though, in his revised second preface in which he condemns Marcion, that great mutilator of scripture based on his own theological biases.
Post a Comment