Replies

Only until I have mastered the Sermon on the Mount will I have the maturity to speak on the Apocalypse.

Certainly all believers do well to CONCENTRATE on Loving God wholly; others as self and doing unto others . . .

However, any sufficiently thoughtful attempt at those Highest of God's priorities will, in fitting ways, to fitting degrees and at fitting times . . . include, in our era, studying, digesting and asking Holy Spirit's help in applying the truths God embedded in Daniel, Ezek, Isaiah, the shorter prophets, Mat 24 AND REVELATION.

Revelation was not included BY GOD in The Canon merely as an idle after-thought. And, there is a blessing assigned to those who read and study it.

Your aversion to it does not come across as remotely Biblical nor Christ-like.

I also have an aversion to it. But it has to do with my comfort and skill levels, nothing else. Christ clearly exhorted us to be aware, alert, prepared, understanding, expectant about end times events. Obedience TO HIM is still THE PRIORITY.

First, the phrase "remotely Biblical or Christ like..." is a very broad statement to make regarding a person you do not know.

Second, I have no "aversion" to the study of prophecy. Rather I believe that American Christians, particularly Evangelicals, can, at times, be easily swept up by "end times mania" and neglect the less dramatic but often more fruitful aspects of Christian faith. There are literally denominations formed in this country based in whole, or part, on eschatology and millionaires are made of "prophets" who seek to parse the future. I believe this is not a manifestation of health in the Church.

Now a little bit of history. It took several centuries following end of the "apostolic era" for the Christian Canon to be set. Specifically there were letters and church councils in the 300's and beyond that addressed these issues and there was debate about certain books. Certain writings, like the four Gospels, were easily adopted and others like Hebrews, 2nd Peter, Jude, and Revelation, were the subject of debate before their inclusion. Individual lists of approved books prior to this time varied (there were numbers of lists from various regions of the Church) and some books like the very mystical "Shepherd of Hermas" almost made it into the official Canon.

Until the time the Canon was set there were various collections of writings circulating throughout the Church and
their final "canonical" status was confirmed by the writings' continuity with the Holy Tradition of faith passed down from the Apostles. The process was very organic, if you will, the official designating of the Canon was an act of the Church but the value of those books had been proven by their use among the faithful for centuries before. There is probably no direct Protestant counterpart to this but Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican readers will understand this process is akin to that which develops in the canonization of a Saint, a "bottom up" movement of the faithful eventually recognized by the whole of the Church.

Regardless, you use the words BY GOD in capital letters to emphasize your point and certainly the Church would agree that those documents in the Canon were so inspired. But it was truly the Church (and please remember that the Church was an undivided entity until the 11th century) that struggled with the decision of seeking out, examining, discussing, and finally approving the various writings. That process, like all the councils of the Church (including the one in Acts), included prayer, discussion, debate, struggle, and compromise. Seeking God's will can sometimes look like making sausage!

The inclusion of Hebrews and Revelation, for example, was such a compromise as various regional lists of canonical books would include one or the other and so a decision was made to include both. That didn't end the argument. Martin Luther was one person, for example, who only grudgingly accepted the canonical status of Revelation (and James for that matter) and probably would have been happy if both of those books would not have made it.

And disagreements continue. Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians accept the Septuagint as a "baseline" OT with its inclusion of the "Deutero-Canonicals" or Apocrypha" based on their use by the Apostles. Most Protestants accept a later Jewish canon without the "Deutero-Canonicals" as their "baseline". Interestingly enough early King James Bibles included the "Apocrypha"! FWIW

Finally a couple points about the "blessing" related to reading the book of Revelation. Every book of the Bible blesses those who read it whether the author(s) make that statement or not. Frankly blessings and curses seals and signs are part of apocalyptic literature and so their inclusion in this book may not be so much a matter of a unique blessing as a matter of consistency with literary form. Regardless the first and most direct blessing of reading the book was for those to whom it was immediately addressed, namely the people of the seven churches in Asia Minor undergoing a grievous persecution. It is an argument from silence to assume that St.John, or any other NT author for that matter, envisioned a day when their writings would be gathered into something called a "New Testament" on par with the writings of those of the Old. So it would be risky to assume there is a blessing for reading Revelation that is above and beyond other Scriptures (although no one I have encountered in this forum has made that direct claim).

I appreciated your points but was disappointed about your assumptions regarding my character. I think you'd have a stronger argument without those asides about my "aversion" and its source.

That being said I wish you well and many blessings on your continued search of the Scripture.