The Apocalypse of John Among its Critics

Should Christians be embarrassed by the book of Revelation?
 The Revelation of John has long confused and disturbed readers.  The Apocalypse of John among Its Critics  confronts the book's difficulties. Leading experts in Revelation wrestle honestly with a question raised by critics: 

-  Should John's Apocalypse be in the canon? (Alan S. Bandy) 
-  Was John intentionally confusing? (Ian Paul) 
-  Was John a bully? (Alexander E. Stewart) 
-  Did John delight in violence? (Dana M. Harris) 
-  Was John a chauvinist? (Külli Tõniste) 
-  Was John intolerant to others? (Michael Naylor) 
-  Was John antisemitic? (Rob Dalrymple) 
-  Did John make things up about the future? (Dave Mathewson) 
-  Did John advocate political subversion? (Mark Wilson) 
-  Did John misuse the Old Testament? (G.K. Beale) 

 Engaging deeply with Revelation's difficulties helps the reader understand the book's message—and respond rightly. The book of Revelation does not need to be avoided or suppressed. It contains words of life.

Alexander E. Stewart is vice president for academic services and professor of New Testament at Gateway Seminary in Ontario, California.

Alan S. Bandy is Robert L. Hamblin Chair of New Testament Exposition and associate dean of research doctoral programs at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisiana.