Catherine Feik’s book is an important and nuanced systematic survey of apocalyptic thought in the early years of the Protestant Reformation in German-speaking areas associated with the Lutheran (evangelical) movement and the radical reformation. Feik accomplishes this by expanding on the excellent works on apocalyptic thought during the Reformation by such scholars as Robin Barnes and Volker Leppin. Feik’s expansion of scholarly understanding of Reformation eschatology is related to her participation in a larger interdisciplinary project examining the broader genealogy of Western apocalyptic thought throughout history. This project itself is influenced by Jacques Derridas’ comprehensive approach to apocalyptic tones in philosophy and Hartmut Böhmes’ contribution to the same theme. Feik does make a convincing case that distinguishing apocalyptic tones helps illuminate the similarities and differences between the apocalyptic discourse employed in Lutheran and radical reformation movements and shades of difference within the respective movements. Feik primarily concentrates on exegetical distinctions found in the commentaries, biblical forewords, and sermons of Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Andreas Osiander, and Justus Jonas for the Lutheran circle and Thomas Müntzer, Melchior Hoffman, and Bernhard Rothmann for the radical reformers who splintered off from the Lutheran movement.

The first chapter of the book concentrates on the importance of apocalyptic thought shared by the Lutheran circle and the radical reformers. Both groups embraced a primal understanding of the Reformation as a need for church reform necessitated by the corrupting influence of the Antichrist embodied in the papacy. Concomitantly, the chapter notes differences among the groups in tone as well. For example, for understanding the events of the Last Days, Luther preferred the Book of Daniel and Hoffman preferred the Book of Revelation. The chapter also elaborates on the relationship between the Lutheran and radical apocalyptic discourse with late medieval antecedents.

The theme of the second chapter is the similarities and differences within the Lutheran circle on the role of Ottoman expansion in shaping their apocalyptic discourse by connecting Ottoman victories with divine punishment for sins. Luther, in particular, did not really stress militarily resisting the Turks until the Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1529. The attack within the Holy Roman Empire contributed to Luther’s change in tone to his earlier commentaries about Ottoman victories over the Hungarian army at Mohács in 1526. Not uncommon among both the Lutheran circle and the radical reformers was the association of the Ottoman Empire with events depicted in Daniel 7 and Ezekiel 38–39 as well as the Book of Revelation. Most reformers within the Lutheran movement believed that the Ottoman Empire could be equated with Gog and Magog found in Ezekiel 38–39 and the Book of Revelation 20: 7–10. Unfortunately, in this chapter, Feik does not adequately address the similarities and differences between the Lutheran circle’s apocalyptic views of the Ottoman Empire and those of the radical reformers. It seems like a missed opportunity for a comparative approach in an otherwise thoughtful chapter on the relationship between apocalyptic thought and Ottoman military advances.

In chapter three, Feik delves into the value Lutheran and radical reformers held for the discipline of history in their exegetical works on apocalyptic themes. She notes that Luther placed greater emphasis on the Book of Revelation for interpreting church history and relied more on the Book of Daniel for understanding global history. Likewise, Luther placed a lot of value on Greek, Roman, and Hebraic historical writings. On the other hand, Melanchthon especially emphasized the Renaissance’s legacy of underscoring the value of non-biblical histories to offer moral examples of individuals’ virtues to be emulated and vices to be shunned. Feik also describes how Melanchthon was also more open than Luther to the potentialities of wedding astrology with history as found in such works as those of Johannes Carion, the court astronomer for Elector Joachim I of Brandenburg. Likewise, she notes that both Melanchthon and Osiander as well as radical reformers such as Hoffman felt an obligation to be as precise as possible in prognosticating the end of the world. Feik also underscored how efforts at calculated prognostication permeated the beliefs of Hoffman, Rothmann, and other related Anabaptist radical reformers who embraced premillennial chiliastic enthusiasm for the “New Jerusalem” to be established in Strasbourg (according to Hoffman) and Münster (according to Rothmann).

The fourth and final chapter makes salient how epistemological differences regarding exegetical authority profoundly distinguished the apocalyptic tones of the Lutheran movement from that of the radical reformers. For instance, there was a fundamental difference over who could legitimately articulate apocalyptic moments. Whereas Luther emphasized textual authority, especially sola scriptura, the radical reformers stressed their ability to receive direct divine inspiration like biblical prophets. Müntzer emphasized how he was bound to the Holy Spirit rather than words of the text like Luther. Indeed, Müntzer argued that it was those claiming to be biblical scholars, along with other social elites, who were being deceived by the Devil. Müntzer insisted that he was among God’s elect whose righteous indignation culminated in the outbreak of the German Peasants’ War of 1524–1525. Likewise, Rothmann asserted that legitimate interpreters of the Bible were those who were granted this gift by the Holy Spirit as opposed to extensive learning.

In sum, Feik enhances our understanding of the similarities and differences of exegetical approaches to eschatology both within Lutheran circles as well those who broke away to promote radical reform. She accomplishes this by incorporating ideas of tonal approaches to apocalyptic thought first examined by Derridas and Böhmes. Thus, even though Feik’s general statements about reformers associating the papacy and the Ottomans with the Antichrist as part of the religious crises in this era are not a new discovery, her thoughtful elucidation of the complexities associated with the reformers’ varied responses to these crises is very valuable.