The Gospel of John as a Preterist Prelude to Revelation

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

My Sunday School class is studying the Gospel of John. At the same time I am reading David Chilton’s preterist commentary on Revelation Days of Vengeance.



Chilton states that Revelation is a “divorce decree” to apostate Israel (among other things). As I am studying the Gospel of John, I am seeing things that make me think that John’s Gospel is a prelude or a foreshadowing of Revelation Maybe not intentionally but since both books are by the same author would it be out of the question that they have the same or similar theme. .(Now I am only on Chapter 7 of John so this may be a bit premature)



Has anyone other preterist heard of this or thought of this?



I will present one passage at a time, and if there is no discussion I will try to post a passage every day or two.



Please only preterist respond.





Thanks



Here is the first passage:



He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.



If my theory is true, then John starts early in his Gospel declaring that the 1st century Jews were for the most part apostate.

I hope to show that this them is repeated throughout John's Gospel.

[studyhound]

My Sunday School class is studying the Gospel of John. At the same time I am reading David Chilton’s preterist commentary on Revelation Days of Vengeance.



Chilton states that Revelation is a “divorce decree” to apostate Israel (among other things).
I disagree with the "divorce decree" because by that time the Church was already "engaged" and the apostate nation of Israel was put off. Individual Israelites were in the new Bride but no longer as any national body.



The events of 70 Ad were just the removal of the old covenant system, and the final judgment on the Jews of the generation that killed Christ (Matt. 27.25 and Luke 11.47-51)

As I am studying the Gospel of John, I am seeing things that make me think that John’s Gospel is a prelude or a foreshadowing of Revelation Maybe not intentionally but since both books are by the same author would it be out of the question that they have the same or similar theme. .(Now I am only on Chapter 7 of John so this may be a bit premature)
I agree in part, they are very similar, but only because they are written to the same churches and people with the same experiences.

The Gospel Of John was written in such a way that a person from Pergamum (the third church in Revelation) would see the supremacy of Christ over the local Greek god's.



For example Bacchus was a local god of wine, it is said he could turn water to wine.



Also Aesulapius or asclepios was a Greek god-ling who could heal with just a touch.



There were many Greek gods in Purgamum and many of their “miracles” were done by Christ. His supremacy was that not only could he do the individual miracle but he could do them all and more.





He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.



If my theory is true, then John starts early in his Gospel declaring that the 1st century Jews were for the most part apostate.

I hope to show that this them is repeated throughout John's Gospel.

Should be interesting! I have other thought but I will wait till more has come up.


:studyhound:

[dizzle]

Study, I don't think we can press the "divorce" analogy so far as to have your objections carry weight against it. I am in favour of that analogy because the imagery is so strong in Revelation and has the weight of the OT behind it.

[studyhound]

Study, I don't think we can press the "divorce" analogy so far as to have your objections carry weight against it. I am in favour of that analogy because the imagery is so strong in Revelation and has the weight of the OT behind it.



UH Oh!! dissention in the preterist ranks, its the end of the world!! :eek:





After I thought about it I did stretch it a little far but the NT does make the analogy that the church is the bride before Revelation, and I really see the day of Pentecost as a the real “writ of divorce” for national Israel or maybe the calling of the gentiles.



Funny I see the OT imagery as paralleling God’s “judgment” of Babylon and the like so its difficult for me to see the whole “divorce” analogy there. Plus the Jewish divorce theology does not let a man kill his divorced wife; I know you might think that is stretching the analogy again but I see it as consistent for God’s actions. When he uses imagery to explain his actions it is usually in the context of the Law (i.e. Christ sacrifice as the “lamb” he was presented to the leadership and found to be with out spot or blemish and was sacrificed for the sins of all.)



True it has been a while, since I read Chilton’s commentary, and I may end up agreeing with it more than I disagree, but from what I remember I disagree some what with it.



But hey that’s me!



:studyhound:

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

UH Oh!! dissention in the preterist ranks, its the end of the world!! :eek:





After I thought about it I did stretch it a little far but the NT does make the analogy that the church is the bride before Revelation, and I really see the day of Pentecost as a the real “writ of divorce” for national Israel or maybe the calling of the gentiles.



Funny I see the OT imagery as paralleling God’s “judgment” of Babylon and the like so its difficult for me to see the whole “divorce” analogy there. Plus the Jewish divorce theology does not let a man kill his divorced wife; I know you might think that is stretching the analogy again but I see it as consistent for God’s actions. When he uses imagery to explain his actions it is usually in the context of the Law (i.e. Christ sacrifice as the “lamb” he was presented to the leadership and found to be with out spot or blemish and was sacrificed for the sins of all.)



True it has been a while, since I read Chilton’s commentary, and I may end up agreeing with it more than I disagree, but from what I remember I disagree some what with it.



But hey that’s me!



:studyhound: I agree that the "divorce" action was at least started prior to the writing of Revelation, but I also agree with Dee Dee that that doesn't preclude Chilton's divorce analogy.

I don't think that you need to separate the "divorce" theme from the judgement theme. Becasue the judgement was part and parcel of the covenant curses for breaking the covenant i.e. divorce.

I also agree that I disagree with a lot of Chilton's comentary. Basically I think his "big picture" is right but some of his minutae is not only wrong, but wacky.

Just my :2cents:

[dizzle]

Study, you are thinking in an overly linear fashion, which is anachronistic to this issue IMHO. You are seeing the generation before 70AD as forty separate years, thus the action was started way before hand. I have learned in my studies that this is not the biblical paradigm, that the "generation" is one block of time. It is to be treated as one period of time. In that way you can see that the fact that the divorce was started earlier make no difference, it is a unified action. As Hitch here once said there is not a "moment in time" line in the sand drawn at AD70 that makes the transition of the ages. it is a generational line. That does nulllify that objection.

I agree with Faramir that Chilton does get very wacky, which can explain why (in addition to his end of life illness), despite his brilliance, he succumbed to heresy.

Plus the Jewish divorce theology does not let a man kill his divorced wife

What does the OT have to say about a woman that plays the harlot? What is the punishment for adultery?

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

OK time for the next installment.


Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. [24] But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people

Many people at the Passover Feast in Jerusalem (ie Jews) believed becasue they saw signs, but Jesus did not entrust himself to them.

Any thoughts on those verses in and of themselves?

Also, these verses stick out to me when comparing them to other verses later in John. I will elaborate more when I get to those verses.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

:cricketsmilie:

What no comments.

Actually I didn't expect many comments. As I stated in the previous thread, the last verse was put in for use later.

I will try to post my next "installment" today, if I can get to it by noon.

[dizzle]

I didn't get any more comments so don't feel bad.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

OK here is where it starts to get meatier.

Chapter 4 starts with the Woman at the well. I will post select verse for emphasis, but consider the entire passage.

The Samaritan woman said to him, "How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?" ( For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)

Now I had always thought that a Samaritan was just a sub-group of Jews. But it is obvious that John considered Samaritans and Jews as a seperate group.

Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. [22] You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. [23] But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.

Clearly a forshadowing of the end of Temple worship and the excusive covenental relationship with ethnic Jews. (Well it's clear to me any way :grin:)

Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me all that I ever did." [40] So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them, and he stayed there two days. [41] And many more believed because of his word. [42] They said to the woman, "It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world."

Note the only "miracle" mentioned here is that Jesus told the woman about her past. Compare that to the miracles mentioned in Chapter 2. Also note Jesus reaction to the Jews who saw the miracles in Chapter 2:23-24 (I told you I would get back to it).

Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. [24] But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people

In chapter 2 we have Jews believing becasue of the many signs. But Jesus did not entrust himself to them.

In chapter 4 we have Samaritans (non-Jews) believeing in Jesus becasuse of His words, not because of His signs. And when the Samaritans asked Jesus to stay with them....He did!

Discuss among yourselves.

[studyhound]

:gossip:Discuss among ourselves.

[spiritmech]

I also think it's interesting that in John he cleans the temple out much earlier than in the synoptic gospels.

The biggie in John (for me) oh shoot I can't find it right now. There's a scripture where basically Jesus says that disobedient sons can't stay in the house forever. I'll have to look it up when I get home.

[spiritmech]

John 8:35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever.

That one, when he's speaking to the Pharisees, is just a crushing blow.

[Starkman]

Dee Dee (or anyone),

I've heard a lot about Chilton having gone into heresy, but what exactly was the heresy to which he adhered?

Thanks,

Starkman

[spiritmech]

Chilton became a "full preterist/neo-Hymenae-ist" just before his death. In _Days of Vengeance_ he is still an orthodox postmil preterist.

[Starkman]

Chilton became a "full preterist/neo-Hymenae-ist" just before his death. In _Days of Vengeance_ he is still an orthodox postmil preterist.
Hey, thanks spiritmech. What's the date of his "conversion" to the dark side (I'll know what books NOT to get from that point on)?

Thanks very much,

Starkman

[spiritmech]

I think he spoke once at a convention, and let everyone know he went to the dark side. I think all books that were published are before that.

[Starkman]

I'm trying to get the date of his conversion.
Anyone know it?
Dee Dee, you know it, I'm sure.
Help!

Starkman