I’m not following you, quite, at this point:

The time it was written plays a large role in not keeping it reconciled, though, as some say it was possibly envisioned and penned after the Epistles.

Why does it make a difference whether Revelation was written after the other epistles? I’m not sure I caught your point here.

I think you’ve got a great point. I mentioned this in a different way to Tim in another conversation we were having: For a guy who’s so big on grace, Paul sure seems to give a lot of “orders” in many of his epistles. An idea I got from Sailhamer (The Meaning of the Pentateuch) was that even in the OT, “Law” was given after the people declined God’s invitation to come up to the mountain (Sinai) for direct fellowship with Him, and then again after the golden calf, etc. Seems to me the people of God in the NT get their own version of “Law” in the epistles only after they too “began to fall away in the ways Jesus describes…” as you so aptly put it.

“do you mean that the teaching of the epistles might be a departure from Jesus’ teaching, or do you mean the epistles might be written to counteract an early departure from Jesus’ teaching in the churches?”

I suppose I meant that both ways, as I’ve even considered methods of counteraction could have been documented error. At the moment, I can’t think of a specific teaching that led to this thought – admittedly it’s always fleeting. But, the thought does come up from time to time, typically in speculative teachings regarding inconsistencies. Now, I attempted to reconcile this with a good study of the first 3 chapters of Revelation, really looking at these warnings and the issues happening in the churches. The time it was written plays a large role in not keeping it reconciled, though, as some say it was possibly envisioned and penned after the Epistles.

I hope this is not too far off the topic – but in my mind it seems entirely apropos.

Like Vanhoozer, with his book “Is There A Meaning In This Text?”, and his premise that reading the Bible (to get right to the point) — and any reading of Lit. (whatever “Type”) — is a moral activity, and thus requires action based upon whatever is being told or proclaimed etc. In that sense, then, even “Stories” (Narrative-Gospel) necessitate a “response,” which if the subject of the Gospel’s proclamation is still present (and we understand the force of the story in the “perfect tense”); then the “Narrative-Gospel” still has universal force, and present conditions that require a response one way or the other. So I think the result, as with any Lit., must be tied to the expecatations that the implied author intends for his implied audience; and the task of the interpreter is to lay that bare for said audience (and thus participate in the proclamation).

You raise an interesting question. I’d like to pursue it a little. When you say, “the epistles might be documentation of how the churches began to fall away,” do you mean that the teaching of the epistles might be a departure from Jesus’ teaching, or do you mean the epistles might be written to counteract an early departure from Jesus’ teaching in the churches?

Yeah, that would have avoided one of his problems, at least. The problem he would then have to deal with is in what sense the narrative/gospel genre is authoritative and binding on Christians today. It’s intended to tell/proclaim with what result? With my conservative folk, we’re still in heart attack territory there.

(Not that I necessarily concede the type-genre model as you’re using it, but just to be talking about it…)