Martin Luther Rejected Revelation Because of Verses 1:3 and 22:18?

Here's a comment I came across in an old commentary on Revelation from a reputable source:

The obscurity of the Revelation has been felt by scholars in all ages. Jerome complained that the Revelation contained as many riddles as it does words. Luther would have banished it from the pages of the New Testament. He cited Rev. 1:3 and 22:18 where threats are made against the man who breaks the commandments of this book, and promises to the man who keeps them, and demanded how any man could possibly keep the commandments of a book which no man has even been able to understand. 

I realize this title of this blog entry is somewhat misleading... because the erudite author of the words above, William Barclay, does not exactly say "Luther rejected Revelation" but rather wrote, "Luther would have banished" Revelation. Well... why would he have banished it? Let's take a closer look.

Documentation

William Barclay does not provide any documentation, however, it's easy to discover where he's pulling from. Luther's most famous statements about the book of Revelation come from his Prefaces to the New Testament. The exact statement Barclay is referring to is Luther's original 1522 preface (later deleted). It can be found in German at WA Db 7:404. It can be found in English at LW 35:398-399.

 Context

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 (LW 35:398-399).

Original text: Dazu dunckt mich das allzu viel seyn, das er so hartt solch seyn eygenbuch, mehr denn keyn ander heylige bucher thun, (da viel mehr angelegen ist)befilht, vnnd drewet, wer etwas davon thue, von dem werde Gott auch thun &c.Widderumb sollen selig seyn, die da halten, was drynnen stehet, so doch niemantweys was es ist, schweig das ers halten sollt, vnd eben so viel ist, als hettenwyrs nicht, Auch wol viel edler bucher fur handen sind, die zu hallten sind (WA Db 7:404).

Conclusion

Even though William Barclay quoted Martin Luther accurately from his 1522 Preface to Revelation, this does not necessarily mean Luther held a lifelong rejection of the canonicity of Revelation. He did not! Maybe in 1522 Luther thought to banish Revelation (though he did a poor job of banishment by translating Revelation and including it his German translation of the New Testament). Luther went on to do a complete positive rewrite of his Preface to Revelation in 1530. The revised rewrite is the one Luther wanted his readers to have as representative of his opinion. Why did William Barclay pigeonhole Luther's lifelong opinion on Revelation to something he deleted and then entirely revised? This is poor scholarship on Barclay's part. 

There is further proof of Luther's positive opinion of Revelation: see Luther's positive commendatory Preface to [Nicholas Hereford?] Commentary on the Apocalypse Published One Hundred Years Ago [CA. 1400] (LW 59:203-207), as well as Luther's Sermon on the Festival of St. Michael and All Angels (Rev. 12:7-12) 1544 (LW 58:171-186). Luther positively preached two other times on texts from Revelation "Sermons of September 29, 1534, WA 37:539–44; and September 28, 1537, WA 45:142–44" (LW 58:171, fn.2). There isn't a hint of skepticism toward Revelation in any of these texts. Why do scholars not take them into account when discussing Luther's view of Revelation? I see it as an example of poor scholarship, similar to Barclay.

For those of you wrestling in the mud online and someone brings up Martin Luther's rejection of Revelation, ask: why is it that not long after his original preface, he deleted it, then revised it completely, then adhered and promoted a positive opinion of Revelation to the end of his life? I suspect that if Luther's detractors come up with a reason, they'll still charge him with nefarious motivations. Shake the dust from your feet and move on. 

Addendum #1: Revelation 1:3; 22:18, Luther, and Jerome 

Barclay quoted Luther accurately. He was careful enough to link two verses together that the editors of Luther's Works did not:

Rev. 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book.

Rev. 1:3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

In the English version of LW 35, the text adds "Revelation 22" in brackets. This was not in the original text but added in by modern editors. It seems to me the editors should have also included Revelation 3, because those two passages seem to be what Luther was drawing from. 

Addendum #2: Jerome on Revelation

Interestingly, William Barclay may have taken his Jerome comment directly from Luther's Preface to Revelation. Luther goes on to write:

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 (LW 35:399).

Original text: Es haben auch viel der veter dis buch vorzeyten verworffen, vnnd obswol Sanct Hieronymus mit hohen wortten furet, vnd spricht, es sey vberalles lob, vnd so viel geheymnis drynnen, als wortter, so er doch des nichtsbeweysen kan, vnnd wol an mehr ortten seyns lobens zu milde ist (WA Db 7:404,).  

Both Luther and Barclay are referring to this comment from Jerome:

Apocalypsis Joannis tot habet sacramenta, quot verba. Parum dixi pro merito voluminis. Laus omnis inferior est: in verbis singulis raultiplices latent intelligentiae (Migne, Patrologia, Series Latina 22:548-549.

The apocalypse of John has as many mysteries as words. In saying this I have said less than the book deserves. All praise of it is inadequate; manifold meanings lie hidden in its every word NPNF (second series) 6:102.

This is not to infer Jerome rejected the canonicity of Revelation. In fact, Luther seems to inadvertently admit this (Jerome's "praise at numerous places is too generous").

Did Martin Luther Regret the Reformation?

The same arguments are regurgitated year after year, decade after decade, century after century. Case in point: I came upon a defender of Roman Catholicism presenting the Luther regretted the Reformation argument. He posted a few quotes (with poor references) and opines, 

"Later in his life he started questioning the results of the Reformation because of the division, confusion, and social chaos that followed. These aren’t opinions, they come from his own writings."

Then, a few quotes were presented to seal the deal. Let's go through them.   

1.“There are now as many beliefs as there are heads...”

This a popular Roman Catholic Martin Luther quote. Rome's defender states,  

"Luther complained that once Church authority was rejected, endless different doctrines appeared. In Against the Heavenly Prophets (1525) he wrote that “there are now as many beliefs as there are heads,” explaining that some rejected baptism, others denied the sacraments, and some even taught that Christ was not God. His point was that without a unified authority, everyone became their own interpreter and unity in Christianity collapsed. You can find this in Luther’s Works, Volume 40."

This is a quote that's been covered in-depth. “There are now as many beliefs as there are heads" is not a quote from "Against the Heavenly Prophets (1525)" or "Luther’s Works, Volume 40." It's from Sendschreiben an die Christen zu Antwerpen, [The Letter of Doctor Martin to the Christians of Antwerp] (April, [25?] 1525).  WA 18:547. This quote is describing Martin Luther's contempt over radical leaders misusing the Scriptures and misleading the people of Antwerp. He describes this as the devastating effect of the Devil, who, Luther says, was at peace in his papal fortress, but now with the Gospel being loudly proclaimed, must find a different way to keep men enslaved to sin and darkness. Luther writes, 

Saint Paul says: "There must be factions, so that those who are genuine may be revealed." When the Pope reigned, it was quiet of factions, for the strong one held his court in peace. But now that the stronger one has come and overcomes him and drives him out, as the Gospel says, he rages and rumbles so, and departs unwillingly (WA 18:548).

Original text: Sanct Paulus spricht: 'Es müssen rotten seyn, auff das offinbar werden, die so bewerd sind.' Da der Bapst regirte, war es stille von rotten, Denn der starcke hatte seynen hoff mit friden ynnen. Nu aber der stercker komen ist, und uberwindet yhn, und treybt yhn aus, wie das Euangelion sagt, so tobet und rumpelt er so, und feret ungerne aus  (WA 18:548).

 

2. “The people are now more unmerciful, more immodest, and in every way worse than they were under the papacy.” 

This is another popular Roman Catholic Martin Luther quote. Rome's defender states,

"He also said society became morally worse after the Reformation. In a sermon recorded in the Weimar Edition of Luther’s Works (Volume 51), he said, “The people are now more unmerciful, more immodest, and in every way worse than they were under the papacy.” He was basically admitting that the reform did not produce the moral renewal he expected."

Rome's defender directs a curious inquirier to "the Weimar Edition of Luther’s Works (Volume 51)" without a page number or treatise name. This volume is over seven hundred pages long! From cursory searches of the original German text, this quote does not appear to be in WA 51. Rather, this quote is from Luther's Hauspostille, WA 52:13. In context, the world grows worse because of the Gospel being preached. Those who accept the Gospel are transformed by the Gospel. Luther consistently held that the Gospel would find great opposition and would be attacked from all sides. The Gospel would be used by the world as a license to sin and all sorts of evil because of the devil. The Gospel would make those of the world worse while changing the lives of those who accept it. 

3. “If I had known what I know now, I would have kept silent."

Rome's defender states, 

"There is also a statement recorded in Luther’s Table Talk (No. 5517) where he says, “If I had known what I know now, I would have kept silent.” Historians debate the exact context, but it clearly shows regret about the results that followed."

The references given is "Luther’s Table Talk (No. 5517)." Here is WA Tr 5:209 (No. 5517).

5517. (Math. L. 584 (217)) De oratione Doctoris. Ich hab noch alle tag an mir zu treiben, das ich könne beten, vnd laß mir genugen, das ich kunne, wann ich mich lege, die 10 praecepta beten¹⁵, das Vater vnser  vnd dar nach ein spruch oder zwen; in illorum meditatione schlaff ich also  ein.

Table Talk #5517 nowhere says, “If I had known what I know now, I would have kept silent.” I know of no instance in which Luther wished he would've been silent! I strongly suspect this is a fake quote, perhaps generated by A.I.

Conclusion

Many of the earlier pre-1930 Roman Catholic controversialists put forth the conclusion that the Reformation was a failure: it didn't produce any real fruit, and Martin Luther's own words and the state of Protestantism at the time prove it. They say Protestantism isn't a movement of the church. It is the result of heresy, and heresy never leads anyone to true holiness. Statements are typically brought forth from late in Luther's career, indicting him of regret for starting the Reformation. It's one thing to argue Luther suffered from depression or had a despondency over the state of things, it's quite another to use his words to prove he had a sense of failure and guilt over the preaching of the Gospel, or that he was in agony over the Gospel going forth into the world and the trouble he admitted and expected it would cause. 

Martin Luther wasn't postmillennial! For him, it was the end of the world. Things were going to get worse. The Gospel was going to be fought against by the Devil with all his might. The true church was a tiny flock in a battle against the world, the flesh, and the Devil. He hoped the people would improve with the preaching of the Gospel, he often admitted he knew things were going to get worse because of the Gospel.

Catholic Answers on Martin Luther's Scrupulosity

"Martin Luther probably had scrupulosity (religious OCD)." So claims one of the many online voices putting their opinion into cyberspace. When I congratulated this person on their ability to diagnose the mental state of someone living five hundred years ago, the response was: "I encourage you to do the research. (Hint: you will see this is a prominent theory)." True, it's been repeated enough that it is prominent, to the point that even Google spits it out haphazardly. But is it true? Those most willing to say "yes" are... defenders of Roman Catholicism.

Scrupulosity is used by Roman Catholics to point out Martin Luther had negative and debilitating psychological problems. When they use the term scrupulosity to describe Martin Luther, they are not intending to have pity on him or demonstrate mercy and kindness. They're saying that the entire Reformation was based on someone with a debilitating mental disorder; that the Gospel proclaimed by the early Reformers was primarily the result of one man's psychosis. Luther started the Reformation, subsequent generations of Protestants have followed the theological ravings of someone mentally unstable.

Consider the following hit piece from Catholic Answers: The Scruples of Luther and Thérèse, Only one of these two famous figures overcame scrupulosity and crippling fear of God in a healthy way:

In the Church’s long history, two figures stand out. Both were obsessed with their sins, terrified of divine justice, and doubtful that they could ever earn God’s love. But their paths diverged profoundly: one threw the Church into turmoil and brought devastation to the whole world, while the other attained eternal glory as one of the Church’s beloved and revered saints and Doctors.

According to Catholic Answers, Thérèse "prayerfully discerned with the help of her sisters and her spiritual director that she didn’t need to earn God’s love. Rather, God loved her already." 

According to Catholic Answers for Luther, "having a temptation was sinful. This anxiety is what Catholic moral theologians call scrupulosity and what psychologists call obsessive-compulsive disorder...  faith, and faith alone, was the way to achieve eternal life. Therefore, he did not need to continue with his sacrifices, fasts, and other rigorous works." 

Catholic Answers concludes,

What a stark difference there is between these two figures! Luther was dominated by fear, and he left the Faith. Thérèse wanted only to please her loving Father—and her gentle love and understanding of God ensured her a place of honor in heaven, the Church, and history.

So declares the North American magisterium Catholic Answers, infallible interpreter of history (read: sarcasm). Their charge of scrupulosity / obsessive-compulsive disorder is a blatant attempt to denigrate Martin Luther and the Reformation. In their perspective, it simply couldn't be the case that the sixteenth century Roman Catholic Church was riddled with corruption, the allegedly infallible papacy was undeniably and ostensively fallible, and they squelched the Gospel by heaping a massive amount of unbiblical tradition upon it. In their thinking, there's no possible way the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ is biblically correct and is the only antidote to a deep realization of sin in light of a Holy God. There must be some other reason that the Reformation happened! Ah... it was because Martin Luther had mental problems! He abandoned doing the necessary works ("sacrifices, fasts, and other rigorous works") to overcome scrupulosity... like Thérèse did! She discovered a "loving father," while Luther "brought devastation to the whole world." 

No, that isn't it.  Consider what Catholic Answers is arguing: having a deep awareness of personal sin and the existence of a Holy God is abnormal behavior... a disorder for some people. Who decides the difference between Thérèse and Luther? Why... Catholic Answers does!

Ironically, they argue Luther had debilitating mental problems, but they also assume as normal their own history of such bizarre extreme practices under the mortification of the flesh. Many of their own clergy were so convicted by sin they inflicted intense pain on themselves... that's completely normal in Roman Catholicism (read: sarcasm)! One popular interpreter of Roman Catholicism even defended Pope John Paul II for whipping himself and wearing a hair shirt. Why... that's just normal positive spiritual behavior (read: sarcasm)! I suspect that if their own children were purposely hurting themselves, they would seek out psychological medical help. In fact, a simple Google search for "is harming oneself a psychological disorder?" provides a myriad of hits to the mental disorder of harming oneself. The point: If secular psychology is the standard Rome's defenders want to use on the Reformation, fairness and integrity demand they apply the same standard to their own worldview. It's fundamentally flawed to argue with a standard one will not apply to their own worldview.

Conclusion
If you come upon Roman Catholics using the Martin Luther-had-mental-problems argument:

First: Realize their underlying point is that the Reformation was primarily provoked by mental illness. You should find this insulting, to yourself, to the memory of Martin Luther, to the church (the body of Christ), and more importantly, to the Gospel; Rome's defenders are ultimately obnoxiously and maliciously denying the Gospel. 

Second: Ask Rome's defenders who defines the standards being used. Where in their infallible sources does the magisterium declare Luther had a mental illness?  The Roman magisterium has never made any such infallible declaration. Rome's defenders are using their own fallible private interpretation. The overwhelming majority of Rome's obnoxious online defenders have no actual authority in the Roman Catholic Church, nor are they credentialed psychologists.

Third: Ask them how it's possible to do a psychological evaluation on someone that's been dead for hundreds of years. Ask: why are you using secular methodology? Rome's defenders are unknowingly using the flawed secular model of psychohistory.  This model posits history can be understood by applying the science of psychology to a historical figure. This secular method holds that history is more than simply facts. ¾ are also the result of psychological forces that drive people to do what they do. The basic problem with this approach is that each psychohistorian discovers what one needs in order to validate his particular study. 

Explain to Rome's defenders they are also violating current secular psychological APA standards. Those standards now strongly say proper diagnosis is most beneficial from in-person contact (APA 9.01b). This article states:

Using a record as the sole basis for a diagnosis is a more static process. There may be limited ability to assess the quality of the data in the record and no opportunity to explore aspects of the record that are ambiguous or incomplete. If psychological testing is part of the record, there may be little evidence concerning whether the testing was done under standardized conditions and can be relied upon in making the diagnosis. A diagnostic process based solely on a record review thus potentially presents significant limitations.

While each clause in Standard 9.01 offers concrete guidance to psychologists making diagnoses from whatever source, clause (b), which addresses situations "in which an examination is not practical," speaks directly to the limitations inherent in record reviews. Under clause (b), psychologists clarify the probable impact of their limited information and appropriately limit their conclusions. Psychologists rendering diagnostic opinions solely on the basis of a record review therefore think through and make explicit how the absence of an examination affects their conclusions--and limit their diagnostic statements accordingly. Note how, through its limiting language, clause (b) emphasizes the centrality of an examination in the diagnostic process.

-snip-

The Ethics Code exhorts psychologists to use their influence to do good and to avoid harm. Standard 9.01, Bases for Assessments, gives specific guidance for psychologists rendering diagnostic opinions, an area of practice where our profession's influence is most keenly felt. Offering a diagnosis based solely on a record review raises special considerations and unique challenges with great ethical significance. The spirit of the Code, embodied in the language of Standard 9.01, focuses on the quality of the data and processes we use to render judgments that affect the lives of others.