I am reading through all the prefaces that Luther included in his translation. The preface to the book of Revelation of St. John varied over time. The first one in 1522 was short, the one published in 1530 was much longer and explained what is now a fairly standard view among protestant interpretation of Revelation. Specifically how it is directed at the Church as the nexus of evil in the world and the the things that “True Christians” must fight against.
What I am curious to know is in the 8 years between his first preface and his second preface to Revelation did Luther come up with this interpretation of revelation himself ? Did he glean it from other contemporaries, or did it preexist in other heretical groups and he imported it from there ?
Anyone who has insight or sources which explain this I’d be happy to hear about it.
Thanks.
I’d first like to point out that Martin Luther threw it in the “Antilegomena” (disputed or uninspired) pile along with the Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, James, Jude and the Deuterocanons.
However, since his view on the NT “disputed” books was rather unpopular, he left them in his canon and translated them. And even translated the Deuterocanons (placing them between the OT and NT as the 1611 King James Bible does)
He admitted that St. James contradicted his theology of Sola Fide (Faith Alone) and his own interpretation of St. Paul’s words:
In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture
When it comes to Revelation, as you probably read, he argues with the words of St. Jerome stating:
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.
So as you can see, Martin Luther pretty much rejected this book by his own authority
According to John Drane’s book: “An Introduction to the Bible,” Martin Luther “found it an offensive piece of work.”
Now, to his interpretation of Revelation.
He was as Historicist but this interpretation does have its roots much earlier in history. It really developed in the medieval time period. For example, in the 10th century, Arnulf of Orleans was the first to apply the ‘man of sin’ prophecy in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9 to the papacy along with Joachim of Fiore in the 1200’s. Joachim was refuted by St. Thomas Aquinas in his book
Summa Theologica.
Since Luther disputed these book, he may not have really had an interpretation of Revelation at first since he consider it to be “neither apostolic nor prophetic” and stated that “Christ is neither taught nor known in it.”
Later on, once he more or less accepted these books, he adopted the Historicist view. Probably since it was anti-Catholic and identified the Church with the Whore of Babylon.
