I am not questioning the canonical status of the book of Revelation. I am merely stating a historic fact. The book was accepted into the canon but there were some who had misgivings about it precisely because within decades of its writing its passages were already obscure. To be blunt, that's utterly irrelevant. The book has apostolic authorship, as attested by those closest to the Apostle whose writings we have. There were many things the Church didn't understand about Scripture by the Second Century, in no small part due to the split that came between the Church and Israel.
Frankly, the only reason that I can see for you to bring it up is to question the value of studying Revelation.
And yes the end of history is part of the Faith but even the Apostles were told that precise information about this was not available to them (Acts 1:7)and the Church has wisely maintained a respect for the reality of Christ's return while avoiding dogmatic statements about one scheme or another.
The exact thing that the Apostles were told was, "And He said to them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has put in His own authority," in response to their question about when the Kingdom would be restored to Israel. This goes along with, "But of that day and hour no one knows, no, not the angels of Heaven, but only My Father" as forbidding date-setting, which I carefully avoid. That's not the same as forbidding study of eschatology.
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread and to date every person who has posited a scheme regarding the end times other than an affirmation that Christ will indeed return, judge, and rule have one thing in common. They are all wrong and many, like Adventists, the Watchtower, and others are down right dangerous.
The thing they were all wrong on in common is that they all tried to set the date of the Lord's return. I do not.
How many churches have been senselessly split by end times quarrels?
That's irrelevant. How many have been split over soteriology? How many have been split over leadership? How many have been split over choosing the color of the carpet in the sanctuary?
The fact that a Biblical subject is controversial by no means justifies ignoring it, for "all Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Simply put, if you are not studying prophecy in addition to--and not to the exclusion of--every other subject God puts to us in His Word (soteriology, holy living, spiritual warfare, worship, etc.), you are not learning or teaching the whole council of God, nor are you being fully equipped.
If that is your choice, then that is between you and God. But don't try to discourage others with pious-sounding but unBiblical chatter about "where angels fear to tread." If God did not want us to study and understand Revelation, He wouldn't have given it to us, especially not with the promise, "Blessed is the one who reads and hears the words of this prophecy, and the ones keeping the things written in it, for the time is near."
A few points.
Your claim that the Church did not understand many things in the second century because of the split between the Church and Israel betrays a very non-mainstream vision. The Church not only understood the Scriptures, they lived them, died for them, and canonized them. It, in fact, could be argued that because of Christ the early Church had a better understanding of the Scriptures than "Israel".
That the meanings of certain passages in Revelation were obscure even to those who lived a generation or more after the Apostle is the result of its apocalyptic style of writing with images and visions that were very important and legible to those who read it but increasingly less so as history moved on. Because of this the Church was very cautious about any schema for the interpretation of this book. That is all I am suggesting.
No where in my posts have I said that end times issues should never be studied. I have said that such things should be handled only by the spiritually and theologically mature and the history of "crazies" in this arena is proof enough of that. I have also never attempted to devalue the book of Revelation but rather put it in a proper context. It is canon, it is valuable, but especially in the present vast amounts of energy have been spent scouring this book because of its mysterious images and words and I believe that if that energy had been given to things more practical and less obscure the world would be very different and so would the Church.
You appear to have a deep personal interest in these topics and much of yourself invested in this. I suspect that its hard to hear someone say that its very possible Jesus would much prefer us to live and serve and worship without spending large amounts of time parsing words over that which we cannot and never will know for sure in detail. But I believe this to be true, and let me explain by what reasoning.
I grew up in the Plymouth Brethren, the folks who invented Dispensationalism, and lived with endless meetings on the topic. While they engaged our intellects and provided a forum for developing skills in debate I did not see the effort producing any kind of fruit. People were not led to the Lord, the things He asked us to do were not getting done any better or faster, and all we basically got out of it was a lot of meetings, endless speculation about the Anti-Christ, and no Rapture.
Over time I left the Plymouth Brethren, pastored churches in the Baptist and Anglican traditions and now am Eastern Orthodox. When I use the word "Church" is that of which I speak (our Antiochian Orthodox Church is literally the continuation of the church mentioned in Acts). The Church Fathers are very much alive within the life of Orthodoxy and what they have written and their thoughts are not merely curiosities or debating ammo but the very theological life of our Church.
They are the ones who both affirmed the canonical status of Revelation and chose to limit its public reading because of the potential for abuse. they are the ones who stated clearly in the Creed that Christ would come again to judge the living and the dead but also steadfastly refused to make dogma any of the possible interpretations of the eschaton. And while hundreds of sects and denominations have come and gone and many more will emerge, this thought, this vision, this truth lives within our community in an unbroken link to Christ Himself.
In a prior post it was stated that this is not an either / or question. That's correct, its a matter of emphasis. Within the Orthodox community there is very little emphasis placed on speculation about the end and much about prayer, worship, and service. In doing this we are not trying to avoid issues or shield our faithful from something but in fact are following the path laid down before us by those very Fathers whose thoughts and words still live in us and whose icons still call the faithful to their memory.
In the end I trust them much and most of the current crop of end times scholars very little. The fruit of the Fathers is a Church that has survived for millenia, the fruit of end times ruminators in this country is very suspect. When I face an Orthodox parish the choice will be very easy. I will tell them what the Church has always said. Christ will come again, we do not know when and have only broad outlines for the circumstances surrounding this wonderful event. Therefore we will work, pray, worship, and serve in such a manner so that we will be like the Wise Virgins (whose Sunday is a feast day in Orthodoxy) and be prepared to meet Him any time. Anything less is heresy, anything more is speculation.