Andrews University Seminary Studies, Summer 1987, Vol. 25, No. 2, 183-199. Copyright 1987 by Andrews University Press. @ THE ESCHATOLOGICAL THEOLOGY OF MARTIN LUTHER PART 11: LUTHER'S EXPOSITION OF DANIEL AND REVELATION WINFRIED VOGEL Marienhoehe Seminary D-6100 Darmstadt West Germany In my earlier article in this series,' I treated in a general way a number of aspects of Martin Luther's "eschatological theology," including the existential component in that theology, Luther's allegorical application of apocalyptic language and symbols, his attention to what he considered signs of the imminent advent of Christ, his desire for the "dear last day," his concept(s) of the antichrist, and others. The present essay explores a bit further the great Reformer's eschatological theology by focusing specifically on the attention he gave to the two Bible books that are generally considered as full-fledged apocalypses-the OT book of Daniel and the NT book of Revelation (the latter being also referred to as "the Apocalypse" ). 1. Luther's Developing Attention to the Books of Daniel and Revelation It would appear that in his early reformational career, Luther was not particularly interested in biblical apocalyptic. His negative attitude in particular to the book of Revelation may be seen in the appended position he gave that book (along with Hebrews, James, and Jude) in the first edition of his NT in 1522 and in the preface he also prepared for the same book in that NT edition. However, as Luther's eschatological concerns deepened, his interest in, and respect for, biblical apocalyptic grew. Factors in- volved in this were his practical-mindedness in seeing prophetic 'Winfried Vogel, "The Eschatological Theology of Martin Luther, Part I: Luther's Basic Concepts," A USS 24 (1986): 249-264. 184 WINFRIED VOGEL fulfillments in events and entities of his own day and his growing emphasis on the pope as the antichrist (or, as the main antichrist). By 1529, the advance of the Turkish forces under Suleiman to the very environs of Vienna (after their frightening earlier victories in Christian Europe, including the disastrous defeat of the Hungarian forces at Mohks in 1526) led Luther to hasten his translation of the book of Daniel, placing it ahead of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (which, in the order of biblical books, should obviously have been treated first). From that time on, Luther refers, in his interpretation of Dan 7, to the "little horn" as the Turk, who fights "against the saints of the Most High." We can imagine how convincing this sounded in view of the fact, just mentioned above, that the Turks besieged Vienna in 1529! Our awareness of this typical phenomenon of Luther's making specific applications of his Bible knowledge to his "here and now" in not very practical terms must not, however, obscure for us the fact that he was never totally carried away by those rather over- whelming political circumstances of his day. The spiritual sig- nificance always remained, even as he mentioned the Turk-not just as a political threat, but primarily as a God-permitted scourge on an ungodly Europe. Moreover, his concept of the Turk as antichrist always took second place to his interpretation of the papacy as the antichrist of Daniel and Revelation (and of Paul in 2 Thessalonians). That his main concern still focused on the papacy is clearly evident from various observations Luther made, as we shall see later. This concern appears to be inherent, as well, in his remark that just as body and soul belong together, so it is with regard to the antichrist: The spirit is the pope, and the flesh is the Turk! "The Pope is a liar, and the Turk is a murderer," Luther further declared; but if the two characteristics are combined, then both lying and murdering are found in the pope.* It should be pointed out that in his growing interest in identifying the pope as antichrist, Luther certainly was informed also by earlier expositions. Indeed, the uniqueness of Luther's teaching on the antichrist did not lie in his referring to the papacy thus, for this was an understanding he shared with others, notably 2Weimar Ausgabe of Luther's works, Tischreden 3: 158, no. 3055a. The Weimar Ausgabe will hereinafter be cited as WA, with additional abbreviations for the Briefwechsel (WA-Br), Deutsche Bibel (WA-DB), and Tischreden ( WA-Tr). the Hussites in Bohemia, as Paul Althaus has pointed out.3 How- ever, the Hussites' main concern was the unchristian life of the pope, whereas Luther focused on the church's tea~hingT.~h is new approach assured not only wider attention but also more revolu- tionary and long-lasting results. And it is, as well, a demonstration of Luther's holistic approach to theology-this interpretation being, to his mind, a concrete building-block within his overall theological concerns. With this brief background, we are now ready to take a quick overview of some of the specifics of the Reformer's interpretation in his dealing with the books of Daniel and Revelation. 2. Luther's Interpretation of the Book of Daniel It has recently been pointed out by W. Stanford Reid that although the book of Revelation was a perennial favorite for all kinds of interpretations and speculations in the time of Luther, the prophet Daniel was preferred by many theologians, including the Ref~rmer.I~t seems, however, that Luther had originally avoided comment on Daniel just as much as he had done with regard to Revelation, and apparently for the same reason-namely, because he did not want to participate in any of the speculative interpretation which was so rampant in his time, and whose originators he disparagingly called "superficial spirits" and "new quibble masters." In fact, it is of interest to note that it was in the very same year-1529-that he wrote his introductions to both Daniel and the Apocalypse (the latter introduction replacing his earlier negative preface to the book of Revelation prepared in 1521/22). It has been convincingly argued by Hans Volz that Luther's interest in the book of Daniel was spurred by Philip Melanchthon, who had related certain Daniel passages to the Turks before Luther did so (and that it was spurred also, of course, by the quick advance of the Turks to the gates of Vienna, mentioned earlier).7 Another 3In "Luthers Gedanken iiber die letzten Dinge," LJB 23 (1941): 30. 4WA 51: 598-600. 5W. Stanford Reid, "The Four Monarchies of Daniel in Reformation His- toriography," in Historical Reflections 8/1 (Spring 1981): 115-123. 6Cf. WA 23: 485. 7 WA-DB 1 1/2: xxvi and passim. 186 WINFRIED VOGEL inffuence might have been a pamphlet by the Wittenberg scholar Justus Jonas, who had translated the seventh chapter of Daniel, commented on it, and applied it to the Turks.* A1 though his Daniel Introduction of 1529 represents Luther's first extensive application of the prophecies of Daniel, he had as early as 1521 interpreted Dan 8:23-25 as pointing to the Pope as the antichrist, as well as applying the little horn in Dan 7 to the papa~yL.~ut her interpreted the prophecies on the antichrist and on the little horn in this general fashion, except that in Dan 8 he saw both the pope and the Turk represented. In one of the table-talks he is even quoted as bringing the pope, the Turk, and the antichrist together into a combined interpretation of Dan 7 and Rev 13.1° Among these entities, however, it was the pope who remained the chief object of Luther's attention. In addition, Luther, obviously basing his interpretation of Dan 8 mainly on the Maccabean Books, saw the little horn in that chapter of Daniel as reflecting Antiochus Epiphanes.ll This Seleu- cid king he considered as the foreshadowing of the great antichrist, described not only in Dan 8:23-25 but also in chap. 12 (a chapter whose discussion Luther actually begins with 1l :36). The Re- l2 former also viewed the Daniel material as a source for the Apostle Paul's portrayal in 2 Thess 2.l3 Luther's interpretation of the four kingdoms in Dan 2 and Dan 7 was along the traditional line-Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Presumably, Luther relied here, and in other ways, on Jerome's Daniel Commentary.14 However, in focusing on the contemporary political situation and seeing in the little horn of Dan 7 the manifestation of the Turkish power, Luther added a peculiar prophetic touch of his own. He derived comfort from the fact that three horns of the fourth beast-namely, Egypt, Asia, and Greece, in his view-had already been plucked out by the Turk. He concluded therefrom that no other horn-i.e., no other nation- 81bid.,p . xxx; see also n. 94. 9WA 7: 722 and passim; 7: 744. IOWA-Tr 3: 645,646, no. 3831. "WA-DB 11/2: 14. l*Ibid., p. 48. 'SIbid., p. 56. 141bid.,p . 6. would have the same fate as those three and that therefore Germany would be spared!15 The mention in Dan 7 of a judgment and of the new kingdom was to Luther clear evidence that the end was fast approaching, and for him the book of Daniel had thus become a source of comfort "in these last times"16-a book which he commended to all pious Christians to read." He says, in fact, that the book was written for the sake of "the miserable Christians" and had been saved for "this last time." la In interpreting the 2300 days of Dan 8:14, Luther again followed Jerome." He believed these days to be 6 1/4 years when Antiochus raged against the Jews. In the year 1530 Luther's attention to Daniel focused strongly on the 70 weeks of Dan 9:24-27 and on an historical interpretation of 11:Z-35. The 70 weeks were, in fact, treated quite extensively by the Reformer, and the result is indeed noteworthy. Acknowl- edging these 70 weeks as 490 literal years, Luther refers to Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra 6 for a clue as to their beginning. Relying apparently on royal genealogies by pseudo-Metasthenes and pseudo- Philo,lg Luther begins with Darius Hyastasapes as the very king who issued the decree for the rebuilding of Jerusalem. However, Luther seems hardly ever to state the exact year with which to begin the 70 weeks-at least, not in terms of the usual chronological reckoning. In his Supputatio annorum mundi of 1541 and 1545, in which he begins his chronology with Adam and paradise, he gives the year 3510 (after Creation) as the starting point for the 70 weeks-which, according to him, was the second year of Darius. In the same chronology, Jesus was born 450 years later-in the year 3960-and died exactly 33 1/2 years afterwards, in the middle of the 70th week.20W e should not fail to notice, however, that in 1523, when Luther for the first time tried to calculate the 70 weeks, 151bid.,p . 12. '"A-Br 5:242, line 11, to Nikolaus Hausmann on Feb. 25, 1530. 17WA-DB 11/2: 128. 'arbid., p. 383, in the dedicatory letter of his Daniel translation to Johann Friedrich, Duke of Saxony. lgThese are believed to be scholarly forgeries that were first published by the Italian Dominican Giovanni Nanni (Annius). See ibid., p. xliii. 20WA 53: 107, 124, 125. 188 WINFRIED VOGEL he reckoned backwards from the 30th year of Christ and arrived at the 20th year of Cambyses as the beginning of those 70 weeks or 490 years.2' In 1530 Luther mentioned this date again, alongside his new proposal for a dating from the reign of Darius, which he now seemed to favor. He observed that in trying to harmonize the two possible calculations, as well as in figuring out the first one, there is a time lapse of three years. But Luther was not the least embarrassed, and he justified the discrepancy by simply saying that in such grand time calculations it is difficult to pinpoint the exact day and hour, and that therefore one should be content with being so close to acc~racy.~L2a ter, however, in his Supputatio he applied a more mechanical approach, as mentioned above. While in his Daniel exposition Luther passes by chap. 10 rather quickly, he concentrates his attention on chap. 11 and supposes that he gives help here against confusion over so many names and persons apparently referred to in that chapter.Z3 Then, contrary to the usual tradition, Luther begins his treatment of chap. 12 with 11:36, as mentioned earlier. He sees at this point in chap. 11 the end of a mere description of historical events and the beginning of a prophecy of the last time. This also marks for him the transition point at which the pope becomes the real Antiochus. Interestingly enough, one of the first indications for Luther that the pope is meant here is the phrase in vs. 37 that the king shall not regard the lure of women-which Luther connects with the pope's forbidding of clerical marriage. But above all, Luther sees the "bright Gospel" shining through again.24I n the form of this concluding prophecy in Daniel, it is especially given for the last time. After voicing his desire that someone else should have taken care of chap. 12 in Daniel in order to "strengthen our faith and to awaken our hope for the blessed day of our salvation," Luther acknowledges the fact that no one else had done this, and so proceeds with his own interpretation.25 This discussion becomes, 2lWA 11: 334. 22WA-DB1 1/2: 22. *31bid.p, p. 32, 34. Z4Ibid., p. 48: "Darumb ist hie keine Historien mehr zu suchen, sondern, das helle Euangelion zeigt und sagt itzt einem jedern wol, wer der Rechte Antiochus sei. . . ." 25Ibid., p. 50. in fact, the climax of his whole commentary on Daniel, in which he devotes to Dan 12 more than double the space that he has given to the entire rest of the book! Also, he makes his exposition of this chapter one of his masterpieces on the subject of the papacy and its evil effects. But as was usual for him, the Reformer ends his treatise on a joyful note. He anticipates the "promised and certain" future return of our Savior Jesus Christ as a "blessed and glad salvation from this vale of misery and woe." 26 Although Luther's interpretation of Daniel was somewhat influenced by traditional views and could not always free itself from the interpretations of forebears and contemporaries, it still shows remarkable creativity and freshness of thought, especially when dealing with the central eschatological concern of the book of Daniel. Perhaps Luther's main innovation with regard to inter- pretation of Daniel was his incorporation of the Turks; but even here, his treatment clearly indicates that he successfully escaped the pitfall of a mere sensational approach that would take into account only the happenings in the present world. Indeed, there were some inconsistencies in Luther's interpretation of symbols, such as the little horn. Nevertheless, in light of his understanding of his own time and in view of his fervent desire for a soon-returning Christ, he still deserves commendation for not losing sight of the eschato- logical gospel contained in the book of Daniel, and for demon- strating an appreciation of the real spiritual dimensions of the controversy revealed in that book. 3. Luther's Interpretation of the Book of Revelation As we noted in the first section of this article, Luther's attitude towards the Apocalypse underwent a marked and rather drastic change during the time between 1522 and 1529/30. The first of these years saw the publication of a brief preface, in which Luther almost totally rejected the book of Revelation, because to him it did not reveal Christ. At that time he looked upon it as being neither apostolic nor prophetic (apostles, he felt, preach with simple and clear words!), and he also considered that there were "many of the fathers" who had dismissed the book? Indeed, the Reformer felt 190 WINFRIED VOGEL himself in darkness regarding John's visions and descriptions and could not interpret them. More over, he was apparently afraid of being classified with those who claimed all kinds of divergent and speculative meanings to be the correct interpretation of the book.28 It is even possible to conclude, as does H.-U. Hofmann, that Luther regarded the Apocalypse as ap0cryphal.2~ By 1529/30, however, Luther came to have a much more favor- able attitude toward the Apocalypse, as we have also noted. This new outlook toward the book of Revelation most probably origin- ated in Luther's concern over the same situation that led to his translation of, and comment on, the book of Daniel, prepared in the same year. By now Luther was willing to acknowledge the striking relationship between these two prophetic books-at least, insofar as they both seemed to him to deal with the papacy and were both for "comfort in this last time.'' And thus, it is interesting to take note of Luther's new approach to prophecy in this second introduction to Revelation. In it he distinguishes between certain types of prophecy: first, in clear words; second, in pictures and dreams with their interpretation: and third; as in the Apocalypse, only in pictures and symbols, without an accompanying interpreta- tion. As long as this last type of prophecy is not interpreted, it is, says Luther, "hidden" and "mute." Nevertheless, and in any case, it is "given by the Holy Spiritv-a statement that is in sharp contrast to Luther's first preface of 1522. Hofmann in his seminal work on Luther and the Apocalypse has recently pointed out that in order to gain a correct under- standing of the Reformer's relationship to the book of Revelation, it would be most helpful to have an overview of his use of this last book of the Bible in his entire work.31H ofmann has taken upon himself this painstaking task and consequently has come up with some quite interesting results, which are presented in statistical tables and their interpretation by the author. What concerns us most, in the context of this article, however, is simply to get a general idea of how Luther used the Apocalypse and how his 28Ibid., p. 408, lines 9-24. 29Hans-Ulrich Hofmann, Luther und die Johannes-Apokalypse (Tiibingen, 1982), p. 296. 3OWA-DB 7: 408, line 11. 31Hofmann,p p. 9-10. understanding of it contributed to the eschatological nature of his theology. It is important to note that despite his new and more positive attitude towards the book of Revelation by 1529/30, Luther still did not see fit to offer his interpretation of it with the same conviction and certainty that he manifested with regard to the prophecies of Daniel. In dealing with Revelation, he saw his efforts merely as a proposal "to cause others . . . to think."32 Hofmann is certainly correct in his assertion that Luther eventually took upon himself the task of interpreting the Apocalypse because he now wanted to show those "irresponsible Spirits" with their "allegorical playing around" how it could and should be done.33 Thus, it seems that the situation in the church and in the world toward the end of 1529 was incentive enough for Luther to be motivated in to approaching this book because of the very reason that earlier had kept him from doing so. Luther's major hermeneutical principle applicable here, next to the one that asks for the Scripture text to interpret itself, is the one that takes into account the history of the church and the world and compares that history with the pictures that John describes- this in order to see what had been fulfilled already by Luther's time and what was still pending. Luther's main purpose in using this principle was to arrive at an "indisputable inter~retation."3~ Highlights of this interpretation include, first of all, Luther's preterist view of the seven churches of chaps. 2 and 3. Then, the fourth and fifth chapters, he felt, contain visions and pictures that depict Christendom-i.e., the church-here on earth.35I n order to give an impression of Luther's way of doing exegesis, it may be of interest to point out that in his interpretation of Rev 5:8 he saw the "playing with harps" as signifying "preaching."36 This kind of allegorizing is quite common with Luther, and it reveals his pre- occupation with certain ideas and his readiness to apply these ideas to the text. Thus, in a sense, he unwittingly fell into the very trap that he so desperately wanted to avoid. 32WA-DB 7: 408, lines 20-22. 33Hofmann,p . 410. 34WA-DB7 : 408, lines 22-30. 35Ibid., p. 43 1; cf. gloss to Rev 4:l. 361bid.,p . 410, lines 1-7. 192 WINFRIED VOGEL Chaps. 6 and 7 in the Apocalypse Luther interpreted as a picture of unfolding world history and then church history in particular. In this panorama angels play a rather important role: The evil angels are heretics, and good angels are the "holy fathers, like Spirido, Athanasius, Hilary, and the Council of Nicea." 37 In this vein, Luther also offers a very concrete application of the seven trumpets of chaps. 9 through 11. These trumpets, played by (apparently for Luther) evil angels, depict seven major heretics during the early period of church history. However, Luther does not intend to present them in chronological order, but rather has systematic aspects in mind. The first trumpet is Tatian, with his righteousness by works; the second must be Marcion, with his followers, such as now "Muentzer and the Schwermer"; the third angel is Origen, with his allegorical interpretations; the fourth is Novatus and later the Donatists;38 the fifth represents "Arius, the great heretic, and his companions"; and the sixth is "the evil Mahometh."39 After dealing thus with the first six trumpets in Rev 9, Luther proceeds to Rev 10 and sees the angel with the little book as being in the line of the preceding six trumpeting angels. This seventh angel, or heretic, is the pope, who spreads human teaching-in contrast to the angel with the pure Gospel in Rev 14%-7.40 The seventh trumpet, in Rev 11:15 (in Luther, 12:1), is, according to the Reformer, a repetition of the one in chap. 10, with the only difference being that the angel in chap. 10 is the spiritual pope, whereas the one in chap. 11 is the secular (or worldly) In chaps. 11 and 12 Luther sees two comforting pictures: the visions of the two witnesses and of the pregnant woman and the dragon. These "are to show that there are yet some pious teachers and Christians that remain."4* Luther says surprisingly little in interpreting chap. 12, although he uses pericopes from it in 37Ibid., lines 18-25. 38Ibid., lines 3 1-33. "Ibid., p. 443; cf. gloss to Rev 9:l and 9:13; see also ibid., p. 412, lines 10-11, 18, 19. 40Ibid., p. 445; cf. gloss to Rev 10:9; see also ibid., p. 412, lines 20-22. 4lIbid., p. 449; cf. gloss to Rev 12:l. **Ibid.,p . 412, lines 27-28.