James Jordan's Revelation Series (204 Lectures)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Carl Copsey

Carl Copsey

Puritan Board Freshman
Hi Everyone! !

Any opinions on James Jordans lecture series on the book of Revelation?

What are your thoughts?

Thanks!
 
I'm actually listening to it right now. Without noting Jordan's FV tendencies (which really don't come out), it is a partial preterist take on Revelation. He highlights the OT patterns within the book of Revelation.

it is available at wordmp3.com
 
I would avoid James Jordan at any level no matter the subject. There are better (and orthodox) resources out there for a partial preterist post mill view (I think of schwertley's audio series). I don't hold to a preterist view, but Jordan is someone to avoid.
 
ReformedReidian said:
I'm actually listening to it right now. Without noting Jordan's FV tendencies (which really don't come out), it is a partial preterist take on Revelation. He highlights the OT patterns within the book of Revelation.

it is available at wordmp3.com
Click to expand...
He is like Chilton in that regard. Both note some good allusions as well but after awhile it gets pretty wacky.
 
ReformedReidian said:
I'm actually listening to it right now. Without noting Jordan's FV tendencies (which really don't come out), it is a partial preterist take on Revelation. He highlights the OT patterns within the book of Revelation.

it is available at wordmp3.com
Click to expand...

What do you think so far and how far have u gotten through?
 
I would caution against listening or reading anything exegetical from James Jordan until you have studied his hermeneutical abuses. He is the founder of the school of interpretation known as Interpretive Maximalism. The key problem with IM is that, in the name of "using Scripture to interpret Scripture," they take the interpretation of a symbol in one part of Scripture, and apply that interpretation to the same symbol everywhere else it is used in Scripture, irrespective of context. In fact, they even do this when an item is not apparently being used symbolically in a given passage--they try to interpret the passage in light of the symbolic use of that item elsewhere in Scripture. The result is a bizarre twisting (and at times, allegorizing) of Scripture.

The danger is especially present when dealing with apocalyptic literature, as the principles for interpreting apocalyptic literature are not well understood by most Christians. Many will read Jordan, Leithart, Chilton, or Lusk on an apocalyptic passage and simply say, "he's showing how the passage borrows from symbols used elsewhere in Scripture." That may be true, in and of itself, but a symbol is never to be interpreted apart from its context.

I was infatuated with Interpretive Maximalism years ago, and even corresponded with Jordan about it. I have since become convinced against it.

Incidentally, please note that Jordan is a very dangerous teacher. He (and the other Tylerites out in Texas) developed everything that is now known as "Federal Vision" in the 1980s, and has become something of a godfather to the Federal Vision movement.
 
I forced myself to read Jordan's commentary on Daniel all the way through when I was preaching Daniel, and there was not one single thing in it that I could use in preaching. He believes that the Medieval quadriga should be reinstated, as well as numerical symbolisms. It bears a resemblance to rabbinic key-word exegesis, as well. There are absolutely no controls whatsoever on his interpretive paradigm. On Revelation, you need to read G.K. Beale, Vern Poythress, Dennis Johnson, Doug Kelly, and Colin Hemer on the seven letters.
 
greenbaggins said:
I forced myself to read Jordan's commentary on Daniel all the way through when I was preaching Daniel, and there was not one single thing in it that I could use in preaching. He believes that the Medieval quadriga should be reinstated, as well as numerical symbolisms. It bears a resemblance to rabbinic key-word exegesis, as well. There are absolutely no controls whatsoever on his interpretive paradigm. On Revelation, you need to read G.K. Beale, Vern Poythress, Dennis Johnson, Doug Kelly, and Colin Hemer on the seven letters.
Click to expand...

Yes. I think Jordan is for the serious-grown-up student of Scripture. I definitely love Chilton. But, I honestly prefer more of an Amyl perspective, though I am very sensitive to the Postmill position.

I also have Anthony Hoekema, Stephen Smalley, "The Revelation to John," Joel Beeke's commentary on Revelation, Poythress, William Cox, as well as many others including David Aune. (I'm looking forward to GK Beale.)

I have committed myself for the next two years of intensive study to Revelation and the Last Days Scripture text, such as Matthew 24-25, as well as Ezekiel and other books in the Old Testament. This has been a VERY awesome study for me indeed.

During this study I am also trying to get a better handle on other positions, especially Dispensationism. Which, in my view, the more I study here the further I want away from it. In fact, I would argue (may even write a book about it!) that Dispensationalism, who accuses other systems (Covenant Theology) of so called "Replacement Theology", that it is in fact Dispensationalism that is truly holding to Replacement Theology. But I guess that's another topic! LOL!!
 
This series is from 1994. Incidentally there is a very heavy anti Roman Catholic slant to it. Some good stuff in it. I like Chilton a bit more. Will comment more later
 
TylerRay said:
I would caution against listening or reading anything exegetical from James Jordan until you have studied his hermeneutical abuses. He is the founder of the school of interpretation known as Interpretive Maximalism. The key problem with IM is that, in the name of "using Scripture to interpret Scripture," they take the interpretation of a symbol in one part of Scripture, and apply that interpretation to the same symbol everywhere else it is used in Scripture, irrespective of context. In fact, they even do this when an item is not apparently being used symbolically in a given passage--they try to interpret the passage in light of the symbolic use of that item elsewhere in Scripture. The result is a bizarre twisting (and at times, allegorizing) of Scripture.

The danger is especially present when dealing with apocalyptic literature, as the principles for interpreting apocalyptic literature are not well understood by most Christians. Many will read Jordan, Leithart, Chilton, or Lusk on an apocalyptic passage and simply say, "he's showing how the passage borrows from symbols used elsewhere in Scripture." That may be true, in and of itself, but a symbol is never to be interpreted apart from its context.

I was infatuated with Interpretive Maximalism years ago, and even corresponded with Jordan about it. I have since become convinced against it.

Incidentally, please note that Jordan is a very dangerous teacher. He (and the other Tylerites out in Texas) developed everything that is now known as "Federal Vision" in the 1980s, and has become something of a godfather to the Federal Vision movement.
Click to expand...

I believe Bahnsen criticized Jordan's hermeneutics pretty heavily.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
Sermon Series on Revelation - Historicist/Postmillennial
Replies
4
Views
1K
Jeri Tanner
Jeri Tanner
Reformed Covenanter
  • Locked
Completed James Durham on Revelation
Replies
3
Views
806
NaphtaliPress
NaphtaliPress
JimmyH
  • Locked
D.A. Carson Lectures on the entire book of Revelation
Replies
13
Views
11K
RamistThomist
RamistThomist
Jerusalem Blade
Going to start a sermon series on Revelation
Replies
5
Views
456
MilitaryBrat2007
MilitaryBrat2007
JM
Two Sermons on Revelation 22:20 - James Durham
Replies
3
Views
501
NaphtaliPress
NaphtaliPress
Back
Top