Martin Luther On Revelation

[Jipsah]

Martin Luther's Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522)
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).

 

[Jonaitis]

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book..

I commend Luther. He showed that just because a book is accepted traditionally in the canon, it ought to be the duty of every Christian to examine their own convictions in it. The men who compiled the canon were men, and as men, are prone to error.

I personally have a problem with Esther. There is no mention of God, nor is there any clear reference, typology, or teaching that points to Christ. The theme is focused on Purim, which neither the Law or the Prophets discuss (obviously). It seems to be a supporting story for an unofficial Jewish holiday, which has a theme strikingly similar to Exodus. I should also mention that the characters are not historically established.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, it is a great story nonetheless.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Martin Luther's Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522)
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).

I tore Revelation out of my Bible a while back. Then I prayed and put it back in. I prayed for understanding. That understanding started with abandoning Dispensational Futurism. Then slowly the pages became clearer and clearer.
It's still a difficult book because we are a literal generation. We have difficulty understanding apocalyptic literature , its symbolism and its Jewishness.
Blessings.

 

[3 Resurrections]

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—

Perhaps if Luther had realized just exactly who the author "John" actually was, he would not have disparaged the book of Revelation or its author. John, the one which was called "the disciple whom Jesus loved" went by other names. The name of "Lazarus, namely the one whom Jesus loved, was only one of those names. A resurrected man cannot possibly make a mistake in writing a book that was given to him by inspiration of the Spirit. John had every right as a "fellowservant" and a fellow prophet (Rev. 22:9), just like the one showing him those things, to demand that the book's writing be believed and kept free from alterations of any kind whatever.

 

[DragonFox91]

"Christ is neither taught nor known in it." That line makes no sense. Had he even read it???? James, yeah, that mentions Christ just once or twice I believe & that's it, but saying that about Revelation is stretching it. & I like Luther.

It's my understanding Revelation was a late acceptance by churches, so he's not wrong in having questions about it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

"Christ is neither taught nor known in it." That line makes no sense. Had he even read it???? James, yeah, that mentions Christ just once or twice I believe & that's it, but saying that about Revelation is stretching it. & I like Luther.

It's my understanding Revelation was a late acceptance by churches, so he's not wrong in having questions about it.

It received high praise in the West from fairly early on, both St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus speak very highly of it. The Muratorian Fragment dated to sometime between the end of the 2nd century and somewhere to the early-mid 3rd century mentions it as one of the books disputed among the churches. Eusebius of Caesarea regards it as one of the disputed books known as Antilegomena. It was accepted as fully canonical by the regional councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo in the 4th century, but is excluded in the list of books from the council held at Laodicea. St. Athanasius holds it as canonical in his 39th Paschal Letter about what books are accepted in his diocese in Alexandria. While St. Cyril of Jersualem excludes it in his Catechetical Lectures. St. Augustine lists it as canonical in his work On Christian Doctrine, likewise in the Decree of Gelasius from the 6th century.

The general trend tends toward the Church in the West accepting it, while the Church in the East not accepting it; though this trend is not entirely consistent. And it appears that the biggest influence on the acceptance of the work in the East was due in large part to the effort and work of St. John of Damascus in the 8th century.

It is, by far, the most disputed book in the New Testament throughout the history of the Church.

-CryptoLutheran